Open season on Mormons in California?
posted at 8:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Mormons have been under attack in California since the passage of Proposition 8. The LDS church backed the winning measure that restored the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage to the state constitution after the state Supreme Court overturned it as a statute. From profane billboards to violent protests, the anti-8 demonstrators have focused their ire on Mormons, and now two envelopes of white powder have turned up in the mail at the Mormon Temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City:
The FBI says a letter containing a suspicious white powder sent to a Mormon temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was not hazardous.
The temple was evacuated Thursday while a hazardous materials crew tested the substance and determined it was non-toxic.
A temple in downtown Salt Lake City received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk’s hand. The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. A spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department says the clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour.
It was depressingly predictable that the fringe of the protestors would eventually move towards terrorism. They’ve assaulted old ladies and threatened more violence, all because they lost on a ballot proposition. In fact, they lost by over 500,000 votes and almost five percentage points, 52.2% to 47.7%. Of California’s 58 counties, only 16 of them carried a majority of voters opposing it. It wasn’t just the old ladies and Mormons who opposed Proposition 8.
I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means — either through referendum or legislative action. California voters have now twice stated by referendum that they do not want to grant government recognition of marriage to same-sex couples. That’s a pretty clear message that the people of California do not want a public policy that gives official recognition to same-sex couples, outside of partnership contracts.
This fortnight-long temper tantrum certainly won’t help the anti-8 cause when the inevitable referendum appears to reverse the constitutional amendment Californians added in this election. I’d expect to see that on the ballot every two years from now on, but if its backers keep acting like lunatics, they can expect to lose by greater margins in the future.
Update: I should address a few points in the comments. First, the reason I support the legitimate process of referendum or legislative action is because they won’t produce nutty results like polygamy or “interspecies marriage”, as someone accuses me of tacitly endorsing. How many people would vote to allow polygamy or adult incest? 5%? Judicial fiat, on the other hand, can produce some very strange results.
Also, recognition of marriage is already public policy. No one has proposed any laws barring two consenting non-related adults from cohabitating, nor should they. This isn’t a federal question, but a question of what types of relationships will get state recognition, and that’s an issue legitimately resting with the electorate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »
You guys better get with the program.
This is the Civilian National Security Force we were promised.
faraway on November 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I don’t care about de gay. There are more important issues to address. What I do care about is that de gay want marriage to be considered the same thing across the board. This is even though only a tiny percentage of de gay actually want to get married. If I laugh at them they will want me to be arrested. When they do get their way, the next thing to go are the words “husband” and “wife”. They will be considered “gayist” and will be attacked as politically incorrect, then outlawed. This is all about mind control…
yubley on November 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Just in: the pro-homosexual marriage terrorist issued an anonymous statement saying “I wish I had done more.”
But President-Elect Obama is reported as saying he “we’re distorting the gentleman’s words.”
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:21 AM
You’re not supposed to say that on Hot Air.
The left is NOT considering violence as a political tool.
That was in the olden days, like the French Revolution, and the October Revolution, and uh, the Fascist days, and of course Rwanda, and uh, okay that was the olden days, we have no evidence that Obama supports violence. He clearly condemns it with all the vigor he can muster.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM
The folks on the left are probably sitting with those “moderate” muslims who sit silent while Islamic extremists continue to terrorize..no difference. Oh wait, there is, the lefties are actually RESORTING to terrorism by mailing out little “thank you” evelopes of white powder to various Morman temples. Dispicable.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Gay activists have always depended on violence to get their ideas across.
Threats of self-violence (”If you don’t do this, gay people will commit suicide, and it will all be your fault!”) are by far the most common, and these are not the realm of the fringe but of the mainstream.
Threats of violence to others are more on the fringe, but honestly, what does one expect from these activists? What else do they have?
ChePibe on November 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM
If anyone wants a Living Will, anyone can have one. Everyone should have one along with a Power of Attorney should you be rendered incompetent via an accident–specify in your Living Will if you want to elaborate.
–Fully agree with this. You can print out forms on line if you wish, and don’t even need to see a lawyer if you understand what the forms say. (BTW, hospitals won’t admit people anymore without asking them if they want to sign at least a power of attorney).
————————————
Cindy, it may be 10 or 12, not 8, but the point is that it is a very small fraction of a percent that’s being violent. And intimidation only works if you let it.
————————————-
I’m not in support of gay marriage, but amy very much in support of civil unions. I have several gay friends and relatives, and, frankly, most of them are just fine with civil unions because of the inflamatory nature of the word “marriage”. But you all seem to be fighting a long-term losing battle: Most of the people under 30% fairly stongly support gay marriage–even among Evangelicals–and the support doesn’t seem to lessen as they grow older.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Stupid is as stupid does.
CHILDREN always get dragged through marriage. Don’t scape goat children and innocence. It took the wrath of God to stamp out the heinous lifestyles exploited in Sodom, and true to form, the Gays of Sodom attacked widows and orphans for target practice. Why would any power directly intervene as a last resort if Gay culture self exterminates? Gays have always been a part of our population. For the past three generations, track whether they’ve advanced in number and power or regressed into oblivion.
Cynicism is no smart excuse, regardless of personal hurt feelings. If you have virtue, then don’t bury it. “Let your light so shine” and protect innocence or else pay the consequence, i.e., nothing matters.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 10:26 AM
We Catholics put a great store in an informed conscience, and what you are claiming is patently false — after all, there were plenty of Catholics who voted for Mr. Obama, even given his position on abortion. They obviously thought something on the other side of the scales outweighed Obama’s pro-abortion stance.
Our informed conscience is indeed built partly by looking at how the Church interprets scripture — since we are people of God, and the Church is the human representation of God’s will on earth. We cannot ignore what the Church has to say on any topic and remain Catholic.
So, in that sense you are right — we identify with our faith, and we have to listen carefully to what the leaders of our faith (the clergy and the Doctors of the Church) have to say, and factor that into our moral compass.
One can go to Leviticus and find what God thinks of homosexuality, and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for how the Church interprets that prohibition:
I think that denying them marriage is not unjust discrimination. I voted my conscience.
unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I don’t agree with the 50% thing at all.
There is a reason why the US isn’t a pure democracy - mob rule. Minority rights are usually whitewashed in referendums like this.
A Axe on November 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM
And this bothers me, a lot.
The whole issue of gay marriage is supposedly that people should be able to marry the person they choose, that morality is not the state’s business in any way shape or form.
If that’s the case, then why just homosexual marriage? Why not all consensual adults? What’s the argument for the government deciding that more than two people cannot get married? And adult incest, I know it creeps people out and that there are increased risks for diseases, but the government has never gotten involved with deciding who can and who cannot have children based on genetic disorders.
Many have argued that the government should get out of peoples’ bedrooms, but legalizing gay marriage doesn’t do that. It only adds one group while denying many others.
If people aren’t willing to also grant marriage rights to other consensual adults whose relationships are more taboo than homosexuals’, then the issue isn’t about freedom of choice but about elevating the status of homosexuals.
If that’s what the people decide they want, that’s fine with me. I personally want an all or nothing policy and would rather government was out of this altogether.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Don’t be a sucker.
Terrorism is a two-fisted attack. There’s the actual assault, and then there’s the tacit approval wherein the aggreived group supports the vermin who did it in the easiest way possible: simply by saying nothing.
Anyway, the whole POINT of terrorism is that it’s efficient and economical. One person, by committing an unthinkable act, can sway public opinion.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM
yubley on November 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM
+1
chalk it up to experience
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I don’t where you get off calling polygamy ‘nutty’ when say that you are in favor of gay marriage. Take a look at history, just about every culture has a history of pokygamy at one point or another, but there is not a single major culture that has any historical examples of ‘gay marriage’ (or anything even close). So, why would you consider ‘gay marriage’ to be sane and ‘polygamy’ to be nutty? That makes no sense, at all, and belies a fundamental problem with all supporters of gay marriage.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Pretty tacky assumption Thacker. I’m a Catholic and believe because of what I’ve studied. Priests to me are seen as teachers…some good some not so good..we don’t worship them. Quit with the Bill Mayer analysis of the Catholic faith….
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 10:32 AM
That’s true and is good advise, but that’s not even the issue here. In California gay couples already have those rights guaranteed.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Your opinion of Catholic culture is a parody, but I don’t think it’s intentional.
Which makes it comical.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Very true…what about incest? And no jokes about Arkansas.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM
It’s not just powder sent to LDS temples. And we all know about the old woman in the howling mob.
I’m not talking about semi-peaceful protests, either. Police had to come to a book burning at an LDS chapel. Several hispanic women (presumably not LDS) were beaten in front of an LDS temple in California when they tried to remove a gay marriage sign on the temple walls–they probably would have been killed if police hadn’t immediately jumped in. That one is worse than the old woman story, but I don’t believe it was caught on tape.
Now this terrorist attack. Can it be proven to be gays? No, not yet…. but gee, who ELSE would it be? Even the standard evangelical protester types are now coming out in support of the LDS church.
Gays forced out a theatre director in San Francisco because he donated to support Prop 8. He was LDS, and they basically howled until he was forced out.
I saw one editorial cautioning “restraint.” It’s open season on Mormons, and Drywall is loving every minute of it. If he was involved in those protests, I’m sure he’d be cheering it on.
Still, it’s not yet government sanctioned like it used to be. That’ll take a few weeks–probably after Obama gets in.
Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Marriage is NOT a ‘right.’
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Well now you’ve left me with no response.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM
You’ll notice those assholes aren’t protesting at Black churches. 70 of Blacks voted for Prop 8. Probably afraid they’ll get their intolerant asses kicked.
For a group that supports “diversity” and “tolerance”, they sure don’t practice what they preach. But that’s been their way all along.
They’ll keep up their antics until people starting punching in some faces. “In your face” politics doesn’t work when you have a broken nose and split lip.
GarandFan on November 14, 2008 at 10:37 AM
“Gays forced out a theatre director in San Francisco because he donated to support Prop 8. He was LDS, and they basically howled until he was forced out. ”
That’s no different than telling your very conservative boss that you’re voting for Obama and getting fired (which would be legal in many states).
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Wow. Ok, so the rights of a minority (McCain voters) were trampled because Obama got elected? So what do you then propose, co-presidency so that minority rights are respected?
I think you may want to brush up a bit on how “democracy” works. Unless, of course, you didn’t mean to say what your remarks actually mean, in which case you may wish to brush up a little on English so you don’t continue to post things that are unintelligible.
mr.blacksheep on November 14, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Never has been and nowhere in the Constitution is it mentioned. I’m really amazed at the fact that it was the black vote that pushed this Prop through yet you notice the gays don’t dare attack the black population…except for the article I believe was in the Free Republic, no backlash. If I were black I’d be pissed at how the gay activists keep comparing their need to marry the same sex to the need (and right) of the black man to live free…saying it’s civil rights all over again…
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 10:42 AM
You might want to brush up on what our Founders thought about democracy and why they structured the US NOT to be a democracy.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM
If you have children, you know this is a critical moment in the cycle of misbehavior.
When a child does something stupid like opens a bottle of poison, the grown up must immediately intervene. Take away the poison, and warn him to stay away from that part of the house.
If the adult doesn’t step in firmly, the child will only escalate.
Our problem? No grown-ups in the USA with the gonads to speak up. It’s all about celebrity. Colin Powell goes Obama-chic cuz it’s cool.
Kiss our once-great culture good bye.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM
With all due respect, there is much more to this than simply losing a ballot proposition. And it’s even harder, since this was a “take back”, a reversal of something that was already given. And this “assaulted little old lady” stuff is too much…she went into the den of wolves with a single purpose and a homemade cross weapon of taunt. Again, I don’t agree with the tactics used against her, but she knew full well what she was getting into.
JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Mississippi? West Virginia?
Bobbertsan on November 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM
It isn’t benign.
Drill a quarter inch hole in the face of Hoover Dam and pretty soon Loflin, Nevada would be relocated to northern Mexico.
Where do minority rights end? Killing grandma because she shakes?
Social conservatism is at the edge of a cliff not a slippery slope.
Limerick on November 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM
You are among a dying breed of public citizen intellectuals who understand the significance of our form of government.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Since some may wonder what the LDS church’s response will be, I shall predict it, but of course even though I am a member of the LDS church, I can’t offer official positions.
We’ll not respond in kind. Why would we? We do, after all, follow Christ. That’s not to say we will change our mind, either. We tolerate gays and other sins, but that doesn’t mean we accept them. Tolerance does not equal acceptance, and we will continue to work against SSM and we will continue to excommunicate unrepentant gays (though probably the vast majority of them will leave on their own). Several thousand “cultural Mormons” will also leave–the ones who desire acceptance of their peers more than they want to live their religion.
But no worries: the LDS church is pacifist up to a point. Yes, we are peaceable people. But we also have a fairly strong culture of peace through strength. We’ll let things go–but only so far. And indeed, we have been known to fight for our rights. We can revert back to the “church militant” if we absolutely have to.
Sadly, I expect we will have to at some point in the future. Probably not in the next few years, but after that? Who knows?
Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM
The canary in the coal mine is Amsterdam.
Good news, they’re talking about killing Down’s Syndrome children, being spun as an act of compassion.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:47 AM
And what if everyone who voted for McCain/Palin took to the streets b/c our candidate lost?
ocbrat on November 14, 2008 at 10:48 AM
The states need to call in the National Guard and open fire on these terrorists posing as protesters.
dinkyjackson on November 14, 2008 at 10:48 AM
wow, if these actions were targeted against blacks, jews or moslems, the anti prop 8 people would be hauled in on hate crimes. but i guess it’s just the mormons so who cares right?
anna on November 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Technically correct. However, in practice, and with respect to the points that are salient in this discussion, a republic with democratic institutions isn’t, in my opinion at least, particularly distinguishable from a democracy.
Now, I’ve actually never been accused of saying that I think “democracy” is a particularly good form of government. At least not until people are able to respect the rule of law and respect public institutions (e.g. the courts and elections), which, at this particular time, seems to be something of a problem.
mr.blacksheep on November 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM
You’re not supposed to notice that. Erase those neurons immediately. You’re supposed to lie down and close your eyes for the shearing.
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM
It’s not even that, Ed. Gay realtionships already have recognition. This is about what that recognition should be called, that’s all.
Bobbertsan on November 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Liberals are not what people think they are. The are intolerant, dishonest and in some cases violent. I am sorry but that is true and if only we have a balanced media I am sure a lot of people will have realized what was in stake in this election. I am afraid the damage is going to be hard to overturn and it has emboldened the hardliners like Marxists. I really cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel.
mariloubaker on November 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Ohhhhh…we’re in trouble now…lol..I’m trying to think if I have any relatives out thar yonder…
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 10:51 AM
A Constitutional Republic (which is what we are) is a form of democracy.
It isn’t direct democracy, which is probably what our Founders meant when they used the word, but we are still a democracy.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM
I note Jetboy is here. He’s still defending the mob action against the old lady as “she asked for it.” Tell me, Jetboy–did those Hispanic women beaten by the gay mobs in front of the LDS Temple “ask for it” too? They “should have known better,” after all. Trying to protect an LDS temple–they deserved what they got! How about the couples getting married tomorrow inside those temples, that the gay groups are planning on specifically targeting–are they asking for it because they should know better than to get married when gay people are “understandably hurting and are upset?” After all, they are getting married in a place where the howling mob is going to be–it’s a clear provocation! A Heterosexual couple getting married right where the gay groups are protesting their ability to not get married–when they are assaulted, it will be entirely their fault, right? Just like that old lady went into their with her cross–she deserved what she got!! The Temple should shut down indefinitely, or until the riots stop, right? Gay Rights Über Alles!
Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Who ganked my handle?
Anna on November 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM
This is the second time the California has voted on this, not to worry, it won’t hold up. The court is mightier than the people. Which is probably really why this vote got a majority. But let me ask you a serious question about minorities. First, why would who you live/have sex with constitute a voting minority? And second why would the average person walking down the street know who you live/have sex with? I want to openly yawn in the face of any person who gives me that kind of information, I don’t care. But now I have to not only care but give them minority citizen “rights”. I want special rights on the basis that I have three kids, thereby adding to the future of Social Security “trust fund” and people with more kids need more privileges. I understand that there is discrimination, but this is the kind where must be obtained, it isn’t visible to the eye. My white bread youngest child is occasionally discriminated against because has his hair down to his waist. Too bad, his choice and visible to all.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Say, as long as we’re re-defining stuff, how about we re-define the UAW contract at GM?
It helps everyone. Why so selfish, leftists? How does it hurt you if we change the terms and meaning of the UAW contract?
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Exactly. The concern is to maintain the literal meaning of the word. “Just Say No” to revisionism worked in Nancy Reagan’s California. Well wishes, btw.
Living on means more modest than his, I bought my sadistic brother and his life companion their gold bands, and have no problem with people finding their best friend for life to live with SO LONG AS dependent children are not a factor in their gay relationship.
Make no error in trusting malevolence, however, as Gays are their own civilization with their own selfish twisted agenda. WE are merely pawns in their hands, in their way, targets to be assaulted. Friend or biological family never pre-empts a gay in the gay community his allegiance to gays. Homosexuality’s “ur-cell” problem in nature is its innate aggressively abusive selfishness. Enabled with power and opportunity, those qualities tend to amplify a population, not dissolve a population.
As per fighting a losing battle, its the younger generations’ world that will suffer, and if they don’t care, that’s their tough luck. Don’t blame me; I will have done my best to provide and preserve what is best imho according to historical reference in modern application.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I just don’t get why some advocates of gay marriage would resort to jihad. In California, gay marriage got 48% of the vote this year. A decade ago, it probably would have got 24% of the vote. In four years, I’m pretty confident, it’s going to get over 50% of the vote. At the very least, circumstances should be a little more dire before playing the jihad card.
thuja on November 14, 2008 at 10:54 AM
1) Something that was given OUTSIDE of the proper way of governing. It was by judicial fiat, not through proper legislative channels. In other words, it was not GIVEN, it was STOLEN.
2) And nothing of any real value or substance was “taken” away. Gays still have the same legal rights as married couples. The only thing “taken” away is a label.
She had every right to expect NOT to be assaulted.
BTW - interesting that you called them “a den of wolves”, although I think that’s kind of insulting to wolves.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I’d take it a step further. By getting legal recognition from the State the gay activists would then take that legal recognition and use it against any and all organizations who don’t approve of gay marriage…the churches. They would demand that churches marry them (which hell would have to freeze over first for most churches) and if their demands were not meet they’d slap the churches with discrimination lawsuits and get their tax-exempt status removed. They’d also try and shut the doors of these churches…basically trying to secularize this nation.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Kentucky, Tennessee, parts of the Carolinas and Georgia also come to mind. “Deliverance” was set in Georgia and filmed in Georgia and the Carolinas.
——————————
Good point on the “hate” crime law: Didn’t the religious conservatives oppose any expansion of “hate crime” laws at the federal level this year because they were concerned it could restrict anti-gay speech? Ya gotta wonder if they now wish they hadn’t done that……..
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM
This is bs, Jet. Seriously, you may as well be saying, that girl knew exactly what she was doing when she taunted the men with that short skirt of hers.
The old lady was silently holding a cross at a protest that was attended by both sides of the debate, as is our right as Americans.
This is where you lose me in all honesty. What have been taken back? From what I’ve heard, those who were married aren’t losing that. And I’ve yet to hear of any rights or privileges that gays gained under marriage that they didn’t have already in California.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM
If someone at the church shot one of the gay bomb throwers in self defense, would the church member charged with a “hate crime”?
faraway on November 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM
faraway on November 14, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Short answer-probably.
theotherKate on November 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I saw the clip with the old lady last night on Fox and don’t think she was “assaulted” to the degree you’re describing. Someone knocked down her cross when she was already taking it down. I didn’t see anyone shoving her, but think she might have stumbled a bit after that happened.
(I may have missed something, so please correct me).
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Bush’s quotes, reiterated again in his recent news conference to enable all people with the God given right to liberty via DEMOCRACY made me wish he’d said, “democratic Republic” all along.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 10:59 AM
You’d think, and you’re right. Even though they lost, they didn’t lose by much, and there will be another vote. They have every reason to be hopeful here.
I’ve often called out right4life as being nuts when he says things like this (though he generally takes it a few steps further than you did here), but considering some of these activists are actually doing that right now through force, it certainly lends credence to this argument.
I’m still not convinced they’ll be successful, but these tactics will likely convince others.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Well … speaking about the federal level, now, the Founders decided to open only 1/2 of 1/3 of the federal government to installation by democratic processes (the House of Representatives). No other positions were filled by democratic procedures and the Founders were 100% against universal suffrage.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Jim M,
If your best argument is “they ONLY slapped the cross out of her hands”, I don’t think that’s a very good argument.
Besides, that is not the ONLY case of violence that has been perpetrated by these terrorists.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Last time I looked people aren’t “a den of wolves”…there is never an excuse for violent behavior like this. Saying what you said is like saying the girl who got raped because she wore a short skirt in a bar with men was asking for it. Please. You did a major “butt-monkey” with saying you “don’t agree with the tactics BUT”…basically means you do agree with the tactics.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I believe that Ed or Allah posted some stuff here a while ago that quoted some pro-homosexual group as stating that their long-term goal would be to criminalize and penalize anyone and any organization that dared to believe that homosexuality was sinful or wrong.
These people aren’t just looking for acceptance…
…they are looking for dominance.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Oh, yes–one more event. Not against the LDS church, this time. “Bash Back” in some midwest state–MIchigan or Minnesota, I think–invaded a church service over the past weekend. They literally invaded it and were screaming at people, and I think they started trashing the place–then ran before cops could get there.
The parishoners sat there and prayed for them. Very Christlike. The gay group? They are quite proud. So tell me once again gays don’t want to shut down churches. A SIZEABLE minority does. Not just one or two radicals.
Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM
It’s a little more than that, but it’s too early in my day for me to be arguing specifics on our government.
Suffice it to say that people who call us a democracy are technically correct though they are being somewhat simplistic.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:07 AM
When you take instances such as these one at a time they may seem harmless in the overall scheme of things. Yet when you start looking at how the beliefs of people of Faith are slowly being chipped away at by Hollywood, activist judges, politicians wanting to Europeanize (not a word) the US..Europe being secular..it starts to build momentum in a scary manner. I’ve always said the tide downward started with the removal of prayer from school.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Obama’s Pillsbury white middle aged dough boy attacked a little white lady in NYC with her own McCain sign, for standing there with her sign as “offense” meriting his vengeance. He was abusing the same self-absorbed premise motivating militant Gays who attack devout Christians.
DEFY DOMESTIC TERRORIST THREATS. “Do not dare antagonize neo-liberals or you bring upon yourself their wrath, their stinking righteous wind behind Obama.” Stand up properly for your civil rights or continue witnessing their dissolution, disposed by authoritarian rule.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Sorry, Esthier. The Senate was to be filled by appointments from State legislatures. The Presidency was to be filled by the choice of electors (sent by State legislatures). The Judiciary was never open to democratic processes for installing people. That leaves only the House of Representatives, 1/2 of the 1/3 arm of Congress. That’s it.
The 14th amendment is what changed us, and then universal suffrage that was tacked on much later (and is the cause of our slide into oblivion, as Madison feared).
The Founders found that freedom was more intimately attached to the right of private property than anything else.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I’m going to go to my local anti-prop 8 protest here in Pittsburgh, PA. I’m not sure why we having one in Pittsburgh, but it seems to be popular thing nationally. I’m going to see if we can get some condemnation of violence at our local protest. Maybe, if more people would do take this step, we could stop these distressing acts of violence.
thuja on November 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Bring a video camera! Good luck!
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM
This is precisely why the path to power runs through social conservative views which are a huge majority across the country even if that majority isn’t as huge in California.
Using pro-Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transexual reasoning, a Bi-sexual person is born that way.
So naturally if that person has NO choice in the matter, how could it be wrong for another gay person of the same sex and another heterosexual of the opposite sex to want to have a collective marriage with this 3rd individual who was BORN BI-SEXUAL.
Why would anyone object to the love of three consenting adults being given the equality of marriage? Why only someone filled will paranoia, homophobia, rage and hate would object to the love of these three consenting adults being validated by the state where they pay taxes and support the government, etc. etc.
jack_in_the_box on November 14, 2008 at 11:16 AM
JianxiDad made a previous point regarding taxpayers only voting. I expressed a concern that at some point, if that were the legal premise for suffrage, that the elitists would define “how much” or in which high percentile tax bracket would be allowed the vote. Then I looked into “Scott Free” and found that traditionally, that expression reminded everyone to contribute to the community kettle to provide for the poor, and was based upon the traditional concept of a tax upon one’s property (one’s lot in life) to provide some welfare for destitute widows and orphans. POINT: only those who contributed that tax could vote.
Interesting validation for JiangxiDad (apologies if misspelled).
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 11:19 AM
They have to protest something, they’re fascists and their foot has to remain on our throat lest we stand up and regroup.
thomasaur on November 14, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The current definition of a fiscal conservative is someone claiming they won’t tax and spend us into oblivion AS FAST as another group would.
jack_in_the_box on November 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM
PDS (Prop 8 Derangement Symptom) Alert.
The No on 8 loonies will be having a march and rally in San Diego tomorrow starting in Hillcrest and ending at the County Building on Harbor Dr.
I plan to show up at the end to experience the tolerance of the losers and hope anyone else in the area will join me.
ic1redeye on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’d say it started with Adam.
Do you mean the right to own property, as in, the right to not have your property taken from you, or the right to property, as in, everyone deserves property?
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’ve been calling for something similar for many years. My call is “No taxation without commensurate representation”, which would give those who pay higher percentages more votes and those who don’t pay no votes. Same basic idea, but my idea makes legislators think twice before making taxes more progressive. One who doesn’t help fund the government has no business saying how it’s run. Everyone knows that this is fair, which is why this idea scares the heck out of liberals.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Get your head outta’ that Minnesota snowbank Ed. Don’t you know that your brain needs air?
My collie says:
Taunts aside, that is precisely the kind of inane argument that was used back in the 1970’s when gays destroyed Anita Bryant and her family. I guess I can’t expect you to know that, since you’re not old enough to remember. (How many people would vote for gay marriage? 5%? circa 1977) I am disappointed. I thought you were smarter than that.
This much I can tell you for CERTAIN. If gays attain their goal, and gay marriage is the law of the land, the net result will be THERE WON’T BE ANY MARRIAGE. PERIOD.
Washington state came within one vote on their Supreme Court a couple of years ago of ramming this down the people’s throat. I got married in July 2007. If gay marriage had been the law of land in 2007, I absolutely GUARANTEE you that I would NOT have accepted a marriage certificate from Washington state. I would have gone overseas, or I would have gone to international waters in order to get married. I REFUSE to accept a marriage certificate from a state government that offers the same piece of paper to gay couples. If I accepted it, in my eyes (and most likely, in the eyes of God) I would NOT be married, and I would be “living in sin.” There are a gazillion people out here that think just like me. Gay marriage means the end of marriage in the United States.
My collies says:
CyberCipher on November 14, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Oh you’re such a purist…lol :)
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Supposedly we’re having on in Dallas too, which is really stupid.
They’re protesting Prop 8 over here, but gay marriage isn’t even legal here anyway. It just makes no sense whatsoever.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
The former, obviously … which our SCOTUS killed in Kelo. Happy days!
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I agree. Though I’d make an exception for those who choose to serve in the military and their families.
Nah, just a smart alec.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Well, it should be obvious.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Me too - not the whole family and not the whole military, though, just those who served in combat units. I also left out competency tests that all voters should have to pass (basic civics so that they know something about what they’re voting for).
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Absolutely. But … that’s where we are, these days.
progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Esthier, wasn’t the protest down here in Dallas about the “Why Gay is not OK” sermon at the First Baptist Church?
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Well, if you believe that, then you must also believe that Matthew Shepherd “knew full well what he was getting into.”
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Why don’t we let everyone have civil unions?
If you want the title of “marriage,” get it from your church. The state has no business handing out religious titles like “marriage” anyway.
Ludwig on November 14, 2008 at 11:43 AM
California ALREADY has civil unions.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Can you show me where the word “marriage” is exclusively a religious word?
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Sounds like you live in one of my fav cities..my little bro lives there. I love Grapevine….one of these days.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The govt is not minding anyone’s personal business when they say no to gay marriage, no to incest marriage, etc..
This only means that the govt will not publicly support such actions.
There are no laws preventing anyone from having a baby with your brother or leaving your property to your gay lover.
But the govt has a vested interest in supporting the traditional marriage union of man & woman bcs it’s the backbone of society, a healthy society. If you wanna be gay & have babies with sperm donors etc.. or have sex with dead animals etc.. no one is stopping you.
But you will never be able to get society to accept things they find morally repugnant. Homosexuals are po’d bcs society at large is not welcoming their repugnant choices with open arms.
They are spoiled little children who can’t get attention.
Badger40 on November 14, 2008 at 11:49 AM
There’s more than one.
I’d disagree with you on that then. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who serves has earned a vote. In fact, I kinda like the idea of service for citizenship from that cheesy Starship Trooper movie.
A basic civics test has its own merits. Maybe one similar to what immigrants take when becoming citizens.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:49 AM
The reason they want to go after the word “marriage” is because that is the word used and recognized by the churches. If they can legally change the meaning of marriage as it’s ALWAYS been recognized by the churches, they would then have the ability to legally attack the churches via discrimination lawsuits, etc…
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Both these votes on same sex marriage should be questioned. The first one was clearly at odds with the state constitution and I think this second one is as well. I don’t think the constitution should be altered by a simple majority of the voting public. In fact the constitution itself spells out the proper method to change the constitution. I also think that there is something wrong with votes specifically limiting equality and freedom. Gay marriage is not for me but if that is what they want I see no reason for them not to have it.
The protests are getting a little ugly but there are 18000 couples whose marriages are under threat and for some of them this is the second time around. Imagine if your marriage went to a vote and it was turned down. I’d be knocking old ladies down too.
lexhamfox on November 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
JetBoy, I like you, but the statement “homemade cross weapon of taunt”, is that like all of those signs “taunting” the people who they disagree with?
And funny you call the gay activists, animals (den of wolves), that is what many of the other side call gay behavior, animalistic. Is that what you want to do? Confirm that gay men can’t control their emotions?
There is no excuse for this behavior of the gays…they have civil unions, their only beef, the only one is that they don’t get to co-opt the word “marriage”, they don’t get to re-define a word that for thousands of years meant one thing.
Really, imagine attacking people because “marriage” does not fit their new definition…unbelievable, maybe they are just animals as you called them.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I’m actually in Arlington, just a couple minutes away from Grapevine. It really is a nice place. When my parents came up from Houston because of Hurricane Ike, I took them to Grape Fest.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
BTW, the ENTIRE Matthew Shepard “case” is nothing more than urban legend. An expose (the truth about what happened) was broadcast several years ago by 20/20 (if I remember correctly). Matthew Shepard was NOT killed because he was gay. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and two scumbag repeat offender types looking for drug money killed him in an effort to supplant their habits. The crime had NOTHING to do with Shepard’s sexual orientation.
Go ahead. Tell me that I don’t know what I talking about. I graduated from UW in Laramie, Wyoming. I have a brother that graduated there back in 1974 who still lives in Laramie. He works every single day DIRECTLY with the Wyoming State Highway Patrol.
CyberCipher on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM
They have civil unions, what is their beef?
Answer this question, and you will have the answer to the marriage definition quandary.
How many legs does your dog have?
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Those who want to skip the legal immigration lines should do so only by joining our military and fighting for our country…. You would think we wouldn’t have the need for a basic civics test if someone 18yrs old and older were voting..you’d assume they had a highschool education..oh wait, that class must’ve been skipped for diversity classes. Duh.
Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »