Open season on Mormons in California?

posted at 8:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4 5 6 7

Matthew 5 says, “blessed are the meek,” not “blessed are the zealots.”

hicsuget on November 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Are you sure you want to quote Matthew?
Like the person you responded to, it is always funny when a non-believer tries to use the bible to make their point…they always screw it up, and it is rather funny, if not pathetic.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Being LDS and living in Utah currently, I actually would be rather scared to go to SLC and say to any random person on the street that I’m LDS. SLC is liberal compared to the rest of the state and there has been rampant vandalism of our churches, burning of our Books of Mormon, etc down here. It’s very scary. The gays talk about discrimination, but at least we weren’t destroying their homes or showing violence towards them. We were merely participating in the democratic process. They may see that as discrimination, but I don’t. We support civil unions, equal rights, etc, but not gay marriages. I don’t see why that’s such a big deal to them.

I do have to say that if we do open the doors for gay marriages, I don’t see how we could deny polygamous or incestuous marriages, etc. People in polygamous marriages love each other too and want to take care of each other’s children and see each other in hospitals, etc. I don’t see how we could not be discriminatory by allowing gays to marry but not polygamous couples. There is no line if we start allowing anyone to get married. Marriage is between a man and a woman and no other combination, or there is no point in even having marriages. There has to be a line somewhere.

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

As for keeping gays out of bathrooms and locker rooms, I guess that I can relieve myself in the street and change clothes when I need to out in the hall? You’re hyperventilating.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM

If you think that gay men should be in locker rooms with heterosexual men, then you must also think that heterosexual men should be in locker rooms with heterosexual women, since locker rooms are split by sexual attraction. That is plain, ole logic. You do understand why heterosexual men have seperate locker rooms from heterosexual women, don’t you?

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM

I expect a rather large upheaval. Particularly tomorrow–when the gaystapo strikes hard against the LDS church and a few others. I expect some people to be hurt, pretty badly. I also expect increasing attacks on LDS property and people–and if it doesn’t calm down soon, I also expect to see LDS churches burned down by the end of the month. I also expect a tragedy where some SSM advocate goes berserk and kills someone, probably by the end of the year. Perhaps a little old lady who doesn’t have the right, per Jetboy, to protest against the gay rights movement in a public square. More likely, though, it will be a random event.

Buckle up for the gay jihad, folks. Since not one governmental group has condemned any violence so far, I expect it to get worse.

Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Seriously. Have you heard about the windows/doors of church buildings in Utah being broken and the Book of Mormon burning on the doorsteps of one church building? That is so ridiculous! I cannot believe that this is happening in this day and age. This is so not fair that I just want to scream.

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM

You clearly looked past and accepted all of the hateful words being used earlier.

Your magical powers which allow you see through monitors and into my brain are on the fritz, hon.

I didn’t come for a fight.

Stop “fighting” then. We’re having a debate.

I came to defend my brother, my uncle, and all of the other homosexuals in my life.

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM

No one is hurting them. Some people just don’t believe what they (and you) believe. Sorry about that.

As long as you, your brother, your uncle and the like minded don’t come over to my neighborhood and disrupt every day life here, we’ll peacefully disagree.

BTW, don’t you think it’s a little silly to argue then whine about about being argued with? If not, forget I asked.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Its my belief no one can be indoctrinated into being gay.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM

(Cough, cough) Lindsay Lohan (cough, cough)

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 1:30 PM

Buckle up for the gay jihad, folks. Since not one governmental group has condemned any violence so far, I expect it to get worse.

Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM

It is getting real bad in the town next to us. Yesterday I had to redo my route. It is a bummer. There were hundreds marching and blocking a man street. There were more churches in San Luis, that were vandalized big time. Threatening notes were left. A bomb scare at City Hall. Yes, it is going to get crazy.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 1:30 PM

oops typo! Main street! am upset. Many friends of mine lost their homes last night in the fire. excuse my typo and bad grammar.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Excellent point, and that’s just it…a majority vote CAN’T amend the state constitution, much the way no vote could amend the US constitution.
Go back to civics class because a majority vote in CA CAN amend the CA state constitution.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:19 PM

LOL
all that person has to do is READ. Scroll up there jr ,
here ya go

Yup. California Constitution, Art. 18, Sections 3 and 4:

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.
Seems pretty straightforward to me…

unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM

ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM

I do have to say that if we do open the doors for gay marriages, I don’t see how we could deny polygamous or incestuous marriages, etc.

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Prepare yourself to be ignored on this point by those here advocating SSM. There is no logic that can be applied to argue it. In the outside world they would just stick their fingers in their ears and shout, “homophobe, homophobe, homophobe, homophobe, homophobe.” That won’t work here, so they ignore it.

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

It’s very interesting to note that, so far, the stated opposition to Prop 8 here on this thread boils down to 2 things:
- belief that marriage is a right that has more benefits than a civil union
- the CA state constitution can’t be amended by a vote

Since both of these are totally erroneous, can we deduce, then, that they don’t really have ANY valid, legal reasons to oppose it?

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Yup. California Constitution, Art. 18, Sections 3 and 4:

SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.
Seems pretty straightforward to me…

unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM

ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM

hmmmmmm… there is a group that will place a citizens arrest on any one that tries to do that. I researched it. They can do just that. Then, more trouble ahead. I hope we sell our home and fast. CA. here we go! Out of here once and for all!

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Yeah, yeah…i know…my bad…

And my apologies…

Rephrasing: The state constitution shouldn’t be able to be changed by vote. IMHO, it should be done legislatively through that branch.

But that’s just me.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

btw, no one seems to have mentioned, unless I missed it, that Connecticut (where I live) recently upheld gay marriage, and I haven’t seen a single protest here.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Progressiveoverpeace, I have no other place to relieve myself or change my clothes. The rules of the bathroom are that men don’t really talk to one another in a public bathroom. I follow that rule. Now if I were to walk into a woman’s bathroom you would hear no end to the out-roar from women.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Rephrasing: The state constitution shouldn’t be able to be changed by vote. IMHO, it should be done legislatively through that branch.

But that’s just me.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Considering that Prop 8 wouldn’t have been necessary if the legislative branch had done their job (propose and pass legislation)…

…I think the power to change the constitution should remain in the hands of the people it governs.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM

BTW, don’t you think it’s a little silly to argue then whine about about being argued with? If not, forget I asked.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Why do I think that is one of the funniest posts ever written?…forget I asked. ROFL

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

I’m LDS in Santa Monica, CA and haven’t run into any trouble with people I know. I don’t have any reason to tell people I don’t know what church I attend, so, I’ve been safe there too.

We did have a ward temple night on Wednesday. The only guidance we were given was to leave earlier than we normally would since protesters were causing huge traffic delays. I don’t have a temple recommend though so I didn’t go…not sure how bad it is there in person. To be honest, if the protesters spend too much more time disrupting traffic on the west side, they are going to piss off a whole lot of people that don’t really have an opinion about the issue. Traffic is bad enough without people deciding to behave like children and make it even worse.

These protesters have no clue about LDS psychology if they think these protests are going to have any effect on member’s views against redefining marriage. Not only do Mormon’s have the standard Christian sense that followers of Christ will suffer for following Him. They have the added historical memory of recent persecutions and the ‘pioneer spirit’. They won’t fight back, but they are going to become a lot more determined and entrenched in their position as protesters give them a sense of what early church members had to go through.

The best tactic with LDS is to be their friends and convince them to ‘live and let live’. Heck, half the people in my ward weren’t going to vote on prop 8 one way or another because they had bought into the argument of ‘not forcing your views on others’. That feeling has largely disappeared in the past few weeks.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM

btw, no one seems to have mentioned, unless I missed it, that Connecticut (where I live) recently upheld gay marriage, and I haven’t seen a single protest here.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM

But if there WAS protests here or in Connecticut…

…and some lone homosexual quietly walked into a crowd of protesters armed only with a rainbow flag…

…and that person got beat up and spit on…

…then you would have said that that person got what they deserved, right?

And should we note the obvious?
When the right loses, we deal with it and try to figure out how to fix the problem.

When the left loses, they take to the streets and whine and cry like spoiled brats.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman and no other combination, or there is no point in even having marriages. There has to be a line somewhere.

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

Well said Christina. Gays are throwing a temper tantrum that is going to get people hurt or worse. The only thing to do is defend yourself, your beliefs and hope you aren’t in the crossfire. You and the LDS church are in the right. That’s all there is to it.
As for myself, being that I am the only person in my family who is not active, I would love to catch one of these people burning books, damaging a church, or whatever because I have no problem at all getting right into it with these people. Turning the other cheek is not something I am accustomed to.

Geronimo on November 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM

There’s an easy way to fix this and I’m certainly not the first to suggest it.

Remove the word ‘marriage’ from the law book entirely and call it a ‘civil union,’that is man-woman, woman-woman, man-man. However, make marriage, that is, the religiously-based union between a man and a woman the province of the church/synagogue/mosque, etc. alone.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM

Progressiveoverpeace, I have no other place to relieve myself or change my clothes. The rules of the bathroom are that men don’t really talk to one another in a public bathroom. I follow that rule. Now if I were to walk into a woman’s bathroom you would hear no end to the out-roar from women.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM

When I lived in Santa Barbara, there is this coffee shop. They have Coed bathrooms. Never bothered me. They had it cordoned off, you didn’t see anything and was pretty private. Never seen hanky panky in there. In the night clubs was a different story though. Wasn’t the Gays, was the straight people, doing lines of coke, having sex in stalls. Why I quit the club scene way back.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

You are wrong, they (many gays) have already stated that if any two people are in love they should be able to marry…so a father and a son, or step-son, or a man and two women (that is one woman loves the man, and the other loves the man)…the slippery slope has already been defined, and acknowledged.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM

You’re avoiding my question, which was quite simple and direct. I’m not saying that gays should be thrown out of heterosexual locker rooms (since it would be impossible to know if someone is gay or not, to begin with) but I am saying that in your march to turn society upside down for the sake of a tiny minority, you are refusing to follow the logical conseuences of your naive thoughts on “Equal Protection”. Gays are only lucky that our courts are filled with morons who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.

And you have never addressed my other simple and obvious point that polygamy has a rich history in most cultures, while gay marriage has none, and yet gays are anti-polygamy. How do you square that? Not with logic, that’s for sure.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Waiting for the Prop-8 opponents to light a Koran on fire and place it on the steps of a mosque.

Waiting…

waiting…

….zzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………….

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Yomomma, do you have a cold? Does Lohan say that she was indoctrinated? I think we can both agree that Lohan is a currently a mess.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:44 PM

It’s very interesting to note that, so far, the stated opposition to Prop 8 here on this thread boils down to 2 things:
- belief that marriage is a right that has more benefits than a civil union
- the CA state constitution can’t be amended by a vote

Since both of these are totally erroneous, can we deduce, then, that they don’t really have ANY valid, legal reasons to oppose it?

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Don’t forget the hurt feelings.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Heh. Why do any of us come to HA except to argue or “fight” (as if any online disagreement can be termed such)?

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 1:45 PM

Waiting for the Prop-8 opponents to disrupt an inner-city black-liberation theology church.

Waiting…

waiting…

…zzzzzzzzzzzz…………………….

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:46 PM

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:46 PM

That’s hot!

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Progressoverpeace, if you would like to begin a movement to make polygamy legal in this country, go right ahead. All I can do is say that I am gay. I am gay whether or not I am celibate.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Waiting for the Prop-8 opponents to march down the inner-city streets in LA that are ‘owned’ by the Crips and the Blood.

Waiting…

waiting…

…zzzzzzzzzzzz……………………….

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM

Thus, can you really call yourself a “protest warrior” when you pick on old ladies, march on one of the most peace-loving, pacifist churches in the land (LDS), and march in the downtown areas of cities that were widely supportive of your cause?

What’s next, going into daycares and stealing the kid’s juice cups?

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM

But if there WAS protests here or in Connecticut…

…and some lone homosexual quietly walked into a crowd of protesters armed only with a rainbow flag…

…and that person got beat up and spit on…

…then you would have said that that person got what they deserved, right?

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM

That lady got “beat up”? I missed that…

And you (and many, many others) seem to continue to misinterpret what I said about this “little old lady”…sho only “got what she deserved” because I do believe she full well went into that protest with exactly that intention…to incite.

*sigh* And yet for the umpteenth time let me again state that I do not, nor have I ever, condoned her so much as being touched.

btw Righties do protest as well…and I’ve been right there with ‘em. They’ve protested Roe v. Wade in DC, for one…

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Are you sure you want to quote Matthew?
Like the person you responded to, it is always funny when a non-believer tries to use the bible to make their point…they always screw it up, and it is rather funny, if not pathetic.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM

C’mon now, give the poor guy a break.

It’s not easy to google anti-Christian sites to find pre-packaged propaganda.

What’s next, actually expecting people like him to actually READ the Bible??!!!

/sarc

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:53 PM

There are nuts on both sides of this issue:

In July, 2008, a 50+ year old man with a 12-gauge shotgun entered the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, on a Sunday morning, killing two people and wounding at least seven others. He was upset that the Church had recently changed its signs to say that it was gay-friendly.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM

That lady got “beat up”? I missed that…

I don’t doubt at all that you missed it.

I seem to being going pretty far out to paint her as the one who did wrong.

BTW – you never DID answer me on how simply holding a cross is the same thing as TAUNTING.

BBTW – every time you add a “BUT” to your statements, you ARE condoning her being touched, pushed down, slapped and spit on.

If you REALLY opposed what occurred to her, you would simply stop at “it was wrong for them to touch her.”

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Is anyone else besides me interested in seeing who would win in an epic battle between gays and Mormons?

In a style fight, it’s hands down going to gay people – unless button down white dress shirts are suddenly high fashion.

In a street fight, I’m not sure – Mormons tend to be healthy and athletic but don’t really have a culture of fisticuffs though they’ve definitely got more Boy Scouts and soldiers in their ranks than the other side….though, they gay side would have the ‘club kids’ in their ranks and I’ve learned that you should never underestimate the sheer vicious fightiness of an angry club kid.

In a legal fight, I’m going with the gays – they are much savvier and have far more experience when it comes to navigating courts than Mormons.

In a fight to the finish, going with the Mormons – they’re prone to having a whole lot more children than gay people…it’s a numbers game.

/tongue in cheek

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM

I understand that, but the discussion is about Prop 8, the definition of marriage and ‘Equal Protection’. You were advocating for gay marriage and the questions I asked go to the core of what your arguments must address. Just because your concern goes no further than securing special rights for your group (which kills any “Equal Protection” argument, from the get-go) doesn’t mean that you are allowed to ignore all of the logical consequences of your own position or the obvious arguments to refuting it. If you cannot answer my questions then you should really reexamine your own argument and either step back from it or change it.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Religious_Zealot, on the clip on Fox News last night, I didn’t see anyone touch her. I only saw someone grabbing her cross.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:55 PM

True.

But there’s a big difference between a lone nut and an organized group.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:58 PM

I don’t know, Jade. Won’t Mormons melt if you throw cold coffee at them? (just kidding).

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:58 PM

BTW, don’t you think it’s a little silly to argue then whine about about being argued with? If not, forget I asked.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM

I was never trying to argue. I was merely making a point, expressing my opinion.

Still trying to figure out how anything I said could be interpreted as whining…

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Religious_Zealot, on the clip on Fox News last night, I didn’t see anyone touch her. I only saw someone grabbing her cross.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM

Most of the news reports I’ve read stated that she was pushed and grabbed.

It’s quite possible that this occurred before or after what the video captured.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM

From Wikipedia:

In the United States, the FBI reported that 15.6% of hate crimes reported to police in 2004 were founded on perceived sexual orientation. 61% of these attacks were against gay men, 14% against lesbians, 2% against heterosexuals and 1% against bisexuals, while attacks against GLBT people at large made up 20%.[3] Violence based on perceived gender identity was not recorded in the report.

In the United States, the FBI reported that for 2006, hate crimes against gays increased to 16%, from 14% in 2005, as percentages of total documented hate crimes across the US.[4] The 2006 annual report, released on November 19, 2007, also said that hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the third most common type, behind race and religion.
—————————
So at what point does violence become “organized”, RZ?

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:01 PM

Most of the news reports I’ve read stated that she was pushed and grabbed.

It’s quite possible that this occurred before or after what the video captured.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM

You believe everything you read?

Didn’t look per the video she had so much as a make-up smudge…

But to answer your question, that woman was not just innocently standing around with a homemade cross…she purposefully used that cross to incite with. And that, my friend, was wrong.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM

In a street fight, I’m not sure – Mormons tend to be healthy and athletic but don’t really have a culture of fisticuffs.
JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM

I have to correct you here Jade. Mormons kick a$$ for the Lord

Geronimo on November 14, 2008 at 2:04 PM

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/11/pro-gay-marriage-crowd-assaults-old.html.

Here’s a link to the video. It’s not clear whether she was pushed or stumbled, at least the way I’m seeing it.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM

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.

Ed, the Brits are already losing ground on polygamy. Bestiality may be “nutty,” but I think polygamy is a logical downstream consequences that changing the definition of marriage would produce.

Muslim husbands with more than one wife to get extra benefits as ministers recognise polygamy
By JAMES SLACK
Last updated at 11:22 04 February 2008

Husbands living in a “harem” with multiple wives have been cleared to claim state benefits for all their different partners.

As I recall, extending benefits to same-sex couples was the first step on our own country’s path to gay marriage.

If state-sanctioned marriage is an inherent human right, then surely people whose religious beliefs encourage polygamy should be allowed to marry. In fact, I would say that their Constitutional argument is much stronger.

And, if marriage is redefined to eliminate the “one man, one woman” tradition in this country (which I think most would agree has its origins in procreation and child-rearing) and gays are given marriage rights, then why can’t two lesbians who are closely related blood relatives marry?

And if blood relatives of same-sex couples can marry, why can’t a brother and sister marry in a country where birth control, genetic testing, and abortion on demand are widely available?

If marriage becomes some sort of right, I really think that all of these scenarios are valid.

Why aren’t domestic partnerships and legal contracts sufficient for gay couples to have the protections they need to build stable families? I really have not heard an explanation of why marriage is needed.

Y-not on November 14, 2008 at 2:05 PM

You are wrong, they (many gays) have already stated that if any two people are in love they should be able to marry…so a father and a son, or step-son, or a man and two women (that is one woman loves the man, and the other loves the man)…the slippery slope has already been defined, and acknowledged.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM

I believe you, but my reasoning for that line of argument isn’t that the gay community wouldn’t want it (they likely would as it accomplishes their goal of weakening traditional marriage). My argument is that they will argue it because while the public is 48-52 (at least in CA), the numbers are closer to 80-20 against polygamy or adult incest.

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Waiting for the Prop-8 opponents to light a Koran on fire and place it on the steps of a mosque.

Waiting…

waiting…

….zzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………….

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Keep snoozing there.
I dont see them in COMPTON or WATTS protesting, I wonder why?

ColdWarrior57 on November 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM

Progressoverpeace, I have said that I am against the marches/protests and the gay leaders that are calling for them. Personally, I don’t care if gay marriage is recognized by the state or federal government. However, it does confound me that the majority vote of a state can take away the rights of a minority, after a state supreme court has determined that there is a right. There seems to me to a great contradiction with the entire issue and what a constitution is supposed to accomplish.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM

I believe you, but my reasoning for that line of argument isn’t that the gay community wouldn’t want it…

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 2:06 PM

By actually saying the “gay community” is represented by the loud and vocal gay protesting wing is like saying the Aryan Brotherhood speaks for all white people.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM

However, it does confound me that the majority vote of a state can take away the rights of a minority, after a state supreme court has determined invented that there is a right. There seems to me to a great contradiction with the entire issue and what a constitution is supposed to accomplish.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM

FIFY

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM

However, it does confound me that the majority vote of a state can take away the rights of a minority, after a state supreme court has determined that there is a right. There seems to me to a great contradiction with the entire issue and what a constitution is supposed to accomplish.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Actually, on this part everything is clear. The state supreme court works within the bounds of the state constitution (not the federal constitution). Those justices are bound by whatever is in the state constitution. The people have the right to make their state constitution say whatever they want and the state supreme court must follow it. If there is a clash with the US Constitution, then that is not a matter for their state supreme court, but for the federal courts. That’s the process and it all makes perfect sense.

The weak links, of course, are the state justices that like to rule by fiat and arbitrary whim and don’t really care what their state constitution says (which is why the EXPLICIT rule had to be put in the state constitution – though they’ll probably just ignore that, too).

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM

I was never trying to argue.

Madam. You’re here at Hot Air. It’s like going to a bakery not looking for baked goods.

I was merely making a point, expressing my opinion.

Then you shouldn’t have a problem when others express their opinion and make a point about your opinion.

Still trying to figure out how anything I said could be interpreted as whining…

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM

This was whining:

Bracing for the attack…

So was this:

You clearly looked past and accepted all of the hateful words being used earlier.

Hope that helps.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM

By actually saying the “gay community” is represented by the loud and vocal gay protesting wing is like saying the Aryan Brotherhood speaks for all white people.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM

That’s soooooooo wrong it’s laughable. does the “gay community” share the same goals as these violent protesters while having different ideals of conduct?
Any honest person would answer yes.

Do “white people” in general share any goals in common with the Aryan Brotherhood?
Any honest person would answer no.

That’s your difference.

yomomma on November 14, 2008 at 2:13 PM

If you followed Lindsy, then you would haven noticed that a few times before she met Sam. She had stated that as a child and growing up. She always felt attracted to women. She was torn at the norm. So she ignored her feelings for a long time. She wasn’t indoctrinated at all. Sounds like as she put it. She is finally happy and comfortable to be herself.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Madam. You’re here at Hot Air. It’s like going to a bakery not looking for baked goods.

What if I just wanted coffee?

Then you shouldn’t have a problem when others express their opinion and make a point about your opinion.

I don’t.

This was whining:

Sarcasm

So was this:

Words like “f*g” and “b*tt pirate” are acceptable in civilized conversation?

Hope that helps.

Nah, but I really don’t care anymore.

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

I still want to know why I have to be privy to ANYONE’S sexual orientation. How can I discriminate against gays if I don’t know they are gay? Make whatever legal contracts you need to make to be financially and institutionally bound to protect each other, it’s fine. This is not about discrimination it is about setting the gay community up as a beleaguered political minority thereby being given special treatment that will escalate into more “thought” control laws. No one wants to hurt gays, but they won’t be happy until we are not only forced to accept but glorify their life and I shouldn’t even know about their lives. Gays or straight, what happened to manners and privacy?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:01 PM

The percentages could be hiding the real story. Is this 16% of 20 crimes or 200,000? Additionally, did the percent increase because the number of ‘hate crimes’ against gays increased or because the number against some other group decreased? Additionally, it’s more likely that a crime against a gay person will be labeled as a hate crime (regardless of the actual intent of the crime) than that a crime against a straight person will be labeled a hate crime which could also skew those numbers.

Also, just from the snippet that you quoted, it said that crime increased from 14% in 2005 to 16% in 2006. However, your same snippet says that in 2004 it was at 15.6%. So, you could just as easily make the story the fact that there was a drop in sexually oriented hate crimes from 2004-2005. An increase of 15.6% in 2004 to 16% in 2006 is hardly an alarming trend. It’s actually statistical noise. And, as I said before, this means very little if we’re talking about a jump from 14 crimes to 16 crimes nationwide. With these sorts of things, the actual numbers are important and not just the percentages.

I’d also be interested to know what counts as a hate crime for the FBI. Are we talking about physical violence or someone calling someone names? Also, are these reported crimes or crimes that included a conviction?

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM

The Bible doesn’t say that gays aren’t allowed to marry; it says that nobody should marry (I Cor. 7:8).

Oh please! 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Further, it also says that gays “shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13).

You need to understand the Bible a little better before throwing quotes out there. Or are you doing it simply to try to deceive?
The same chapter of Leviticus which you quoted, starts out saying, “1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”
Molech was an pagan idol whom the Israelites were forbidden by God to not worship. This worship often consisted of sacrificial burning of children.
This was life for some back then, and this was WAY back then in the Old Testament. And back then, God used simple commands because that is what people understood, and He needed His chosen people, the Israelites, to understand Him completely. Same goes for His other statutes in Lev.
Sound harsh? Well, life was harsh back then, for everybody. Simple, and harsh.

God also accepted animal sacrifice back then, as atonement for sins. That practice was no longer needed because God’s son, Jesus, died for ALL people’s sins.

So now, as in the New Testament, whether people want to thank Jesus for what He did for us or not, is up to them. You choose.
No stonings needed.

Hopefully that clears things up a little for you.
I’ll admit, I am no Biblical scholar either, but I am trying.

Sterling Holobyte on November 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

No one wants to hurt gays, but they won’t be happy until we are not only forced to accept but glorify their life and I shouldn’t even know about their lives. Gays or straight, what happened to manners and privacy?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Perfect Cindy! Backwards is how my son told me he felt. That warmed my heart too. A lot of his friends feel same way as what you said. They are not running around and causing havoc. There needs to be consequences for what they are doing. Seems that we the ones that are not out there doing vandalism and violence. But it is ok for what they are doing now.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM

Using pro-Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transexual reasoning, a Bi-sexual person is born that way.

We should question some of the notions here. I’m a gay man, but I oppose “bi” rights, because there is little difference between the gay movement promoting “bi” rights and the animal rights movement promoting unicorn rights. “Bi” is just some trendy label used by those who seek attention for being different and not something that actually occurs in the human condition.

Also, I’m not so fond of transsexual rights. I do think that people shouldn’t be fired for being transsexual and perhaps there should be thus be some legal protection for their jobs. However, any medical procedure relative to being transsexual should be treated identically to tattooing. Transsexuals should pay for their tacky body modifications themselves.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Jade, I don’t know. It also might be that more are being reported. I’ll leave it to you to do the research.

Cindy, the Texas laws apparently would allow a family member of someone who is known by them to be gay to have a court invalidate a power of attorney given by someone gay to his/her partner. Is that right?

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM

I’d also be interested to know what counts as a hate crime for the FBI. Are we talking about physical violence or someone calling someone names? Also, are these reported crimes or crimes that included a conviction?
JadeNYU

Exactly, remember those little old grandmothers who were arrested and charged with “hate crimes” for being on a public sidewalk handing out leaflets during a homosexual “pride” parade in Philly?! Marriage is not the only thing homosexuals want to redefine. They already are redefining what constitutes a “crime”.

Sterling Holobyte on November 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM

Gays or straight, what happened to manners and privacy?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Agreed!

I’m incredibly tired of ‘bedroom behavior’ and related information being brought out for public consumption. There’s nothing more fun that eating at a restaurant at a table that’s right next to a table with a couple engaged in a full-on make out session.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Further, it also says that gays “shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13).

This is exactly why, I made a choice to turn away from religion. One can go to church, open the Bible and learn all they want. When it comes to real life and living. I have never seen anyone whip their Bible out and start quoting. I have had family out right hurt my son with their Bible persecution! I told them from the time my son was 2 years old. That there was something different. I knew when he was four, that he was gay. But, then some have the nerve to act like a Scientist and say It is a Choice! Bulls**t! It is a gene that is the cause. Why would God create a precious life, then damn that life at the end? Especially when they were born that way? So many are out of touch. And yet, they pop out children left and right. Why? because they can HAVE them. Shouldn’t it not be, They Wanted children? I do believe in the Bible. And my son always asks me why they have hateful writings about gays. I don’t know what to say. I don’t want my son being raised that he is better than all. But, I believe that the ones that god did make that way. Will not be damned. The ones that went astray and turned gay…..I don’t know. That is not my call. That is not anyone’s call. Except the Creator himself. I would stand up and fight like hell for my son. But, I will also stand up for right or wrong for my son. Until it is Proven with out a doubt. Then don’t cast that stone.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Words like “f*g” and “b*tt pirate” are acceptable in civilized conversation?

You’re doing it again: thinking that you automatically know a person’s rational when she ignores such things. I ignore them because they are not worth the time to address any more than those who accuse republicans and conservatives of being full of hate (those are fun to taunt, though) or the whack jobs of all stripes who yell “f*ck you” in all caps when they don’t have the brain power to formulate an argument.

Nah, but I really don’t care anymore.

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

Well have a nice day then. Come back if you want to have a actual exchange of ideas. Or argue.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM

We should question some of the notions here. I’m a gay man, but I oppose “bi” rights, because there is little difference between the gay movement promoting “bi” rights and the animal rights movement promoting unicorn rights. “Bi” is just some trendy label used by those who seek attention for being different and not something that actually occurs in the human condition.

Whoa! I guess ambidextrous people don’t exist, either? Any arguments for gays must be applied to self-proclaimed bisexuals, too. I don’t know where you come up with this ‘human condition’ thing, either.

Also, I’m not so fond of transsexual rights. I do think that people shouldn’t be fired for being transsexual and perhaps there should be thus be some legal protection for their jobs. However, any medical procedure relative to being transsexual should be treated identically to tattooing. Transsexuals should pay for their tacky body modifications themselves.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM

That sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, I don’t think any courts would agree. They would have to listen to arguments from trans-sexuals and quack psychiatrists that explain how the surgery is not elective – the people have no real choice …

The foot needs to be put down, somewhere, and gay marriage is where that should be. Otherwise, everything falls apart – which is really what many do want.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM

The Old Testament has some weird stuff in it (as I understand the Koran and other religious books do). I wouldn’t write off Christianity based on the Old Testament.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Is anyone else besides me interested in seeing who would win in an epic battle between gays and Mormons?
In a style fight, it’s hands down going to gay people – unless button down white dress shirts are suddenly high fashion.
In a street fight, I’m not sure – Mormons tend to be healthy and athletic but don’t really have a culture of fisticuffs though they’ve definitely got more Boy Scouts and soldiers in their ranks than the other side….though, they gay side would have the ‘club kids’ in their ranks and I’ve learned that you should never underestimate the sheer vicious fightiness of an angry club kid.

I think you might be unaware of the large Samoan and Tongan Mormon population that lives in Inglewood and Lawndale…these guys are 6+ feet and over 300lbs of muscle, tatoos and a mean look (just a look, on the inside they’re very cool).

In a legal fight, I’m going with the gays – they are much savvier and have far more experience when it comes to navigating courts than Mormons.

Again, I think you are unaware of the fact that most professional Mormons are lawyers…Most of their Apostles have been lawyers…and many have even argued before the Supreme Court.

In a fight to the finish, going with the Mormons – they’re prone to having a whole lot more children than gay people…it’s a numbers game

.

Lastly, the numbers game you might want to consider is how well armed the Mormons are…so if this gets down to the ‘revolution’ level that the Gaystapo is screaming about, they have no chance.

Truly, what is happening is the Mormons will go to their temples and their churches, they will be threatened, yelled at and even accosted…but they will night fight back. They will appear as calm as the morning and the rage, hate filled lunatics will expose themselves for what they are…fascists.

And your right, Mormons have been through this before, they know how to act, they know what works.

The media silence is deafening however!

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:38 PM

I read your earlier post. At face value, not being a lawyer, I think that is pretty strict. If someone has a family member would provide “proof” of homosexuality in court to hijack someone’s financial agreements there are bigger problems to be discussed. And if the homosexual family member has any money they might want to employee a food taster. I wonder what the “proof” would be require. I think this just strengthens my point that we don’t need to know about a person’s personal life or certainly should not hinder legal contracts on speculation of said personal life.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM

The Old Testament has some weird stuff in it (as I understand the Koran and other religious books do). I wouldn’t write off Christianity based on the Old Testament.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM

You are a sweetheart, I don’t write off Christianity. I just don’t go to church. The Bible is at my fingertips. God is in my heart and my soul. I pray all the time. I would never forget The Bible. Old Testament is weird. Don’t have that anymore. But, I cannot argue with truth also. I know that. But here we are. People of all different back grounds, Faiths, sexual orientations. This could be positive and maybe outline a possible solution. Is what HA is for. Who ever threw that quote, was being very hateful and disrespectful. I have admiration to ones that can be honest. And can feel free to respond. But thanks for you words. :)

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM

The Old Testament has some weird stuff in it

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Not really. But I can understand how you would look to mock a book that has served as the foundation for one of the most successful groups in all history, a group that has managed to establish itself and survive for thousands and thousands of years through some of the worst persecution ever visited upon any group, right up until today, contributing hugely disproportional amounts to the world the whole time. That’s pretty smart of you.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Remember after 9/11/01 when several church groups banded together to “protect” muslim mosques to see that they weren’t threatened or vandalised?

Where are these church groups now?

Security Mom on November 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM

You’re leading every parents life. I could never be estranged from my child because he or she were homosexual. But I wouldn’t encourage my child to expect to be treated with anything other than respect. I don’t look at two people together regardless of gender and wonder if they are a couple because it’s none of my business.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I’ve noticed that Jetboy and thuja and the rest haven’t condemned this act (the powder sent to LDS places) by likely their fellow gays. I would assume that Jetboy, having seen him be reasonable before, would condemn it. But I really don’t know. After all, the LDS church “interfered” and “provoked” this violence, so the poor innocent gay people just can’t help but to react violently, I guess. That’s the message I’m getting from Jetboy so far.

If it came down to an all out war, with gays trying to kill Mormons any chance they get–I’d put my money on the LDS church. We faced down the US Army in the 1800′s and pretty much forced them to a standstill; I doubt we’d have many problems with a bunch of rabid gays who can’t even get along with themselves very well. After all, the LDS church is one of the most organized, efficient groups around, to the point that in natural disasters in a heavily LDS area, FEMA usually doesn’t have much to do, since by the time they get here most things are taken care of.

Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Further, it also says that gays “shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13).
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM

I don’t wish to discourage you from turning away from religion, but these words prove nothing. Christians have no business quoting them unless they willing to following the other rules in the Torah (first five books of the Bible). Christians don’t follow those rules.
Judaism is a little different. Only Orthodox and Conservative Jews make a serious attempt to follow the Mitzvot (or rules) in the Torah. The Conservative Jews have gone on to interpret this as a probition against male-male anal sex and morally equivalent to the probition on eating pork. That is, to say that Conservative Judaism has in place a process to make this rule of the Bible say something far less homophobic and has become gay friendly. I fully expect to the see the Modern Orthodox adopt the Conservative position over time. Thus, really the only group of people who could seriously advance this Bible verse against gay people are the Hasidim (ultra-Orthodox), but they dress funny and no listens to them but in Israel.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 3:02 PM

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

I know the Samoans and Tongans. They’re a bunch of softies unless church softball or basketball is involved. ;)

Utah Mormons are well armed because of the hunting culture, but, outside of Utah, I don’t know many church members with guns (though my mom has 3 guns she inherited from her Air Force father and I plan to get 1 myself before Obama is sworn in).

As for being calm and cool, that’s definitely true of most of the LDS. Though, there are folks like me that have angry streaks that need to be worked on. It’s very hard for me not to get angry when I see the protesters and I have a strong urge to counter protest (I won’t though, of course).

That’s the problem with violent/angry protests – it just raises the hackles of the other side and gets them more entrenched in their positions. It does very little to win hearts and minds. It also seems like a tactical error. If they spend all this time and energy focusing on a small group that was, at best, 4% of that 52% vote (assuming that every LDS member on the rolls active and non-active both voted and voted for Prop 8 which is not likely), they are missing the other 48% of the people that voted against redefining marriage.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

But, then some have the nerve to act like a Scientist and say It is a Choice! Bulls**t! It is a gene that is the cause. Why would God create a precious life, then damn that life at the end? Especially when they were born that way? So many are out of touch.

Some higher ups in my church have said that they do believe that people are born with that sexual attraction, but similarly to other sins, alcohol, adultery, etc, it should not be acted upon.

If you read this story: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction , you might see what exactly the LDS church believes about same gender attraction and how it should be handled.

I personally have had two ex-boyfriends “come out” as gay and I’m still good friends with one (the other kind of really screwed me over in other ways). Loving the sinner but not the sin is certainly a doctrine that I believe in. People who are homosexual are not damned, as long as they can control their feelings. Even if they do succumb, they can always repent and return to the fold.

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I’ve noticed that Jetboy and thuja and the rest haven’t condemned this act (the powder sent to LDS places) by likely their fellow gays. I would assume that Jetboy, having seen him be reasonable before, would condemn it. But I really don’t know. After all, the LDS church “interfered” and “provoked” this violence, so the poor innocent gay people just can’t help but to react violently, I guess. That’s the message I’m getting from Jetboy so far.

Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Sorry…suppose I should have gone on the record…thought it was a given tho…but here ’tis:

Yes, I most certainly condemn sending white powder…no matter what it is…to anyone. I notice you added it was sent “likely by their fellow gays”…Sorry, but “likely” to whom? You don’t know that…Just like Richard Jewell “likely” set the bomb in Atlanta, and Dr. Hatfill (sp?) “likely” sent the original anthrax letters…

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM

You’re leading every parents life. I could never be estranged from my child because he or she were homosexual. But I wouldn’t encourage my child to expect to be treated with anything other than respect. I don’t look at two people together regardless of gender and wonder if they are a couple because it’s none of my business.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM

Thank you, when I realized my son was gay. I was more determined to impose the importance of Respect. I thought we were real close. So when prop 8 came up. I was going to vote no for him. So when I told him, he hugged me real tight. Looked at me in my eyes, and said No don’t do that. That is not what I want. That is forcing you, and others. And that is what you taught me. Don’t force things on others, to get what you want. I am a lucky Mom.

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM

“I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means…” – Ed Morissey

Fine. Then stop calling yourself a Catholic. You’ve criticized others for exactly this sort of dichotomy. Marriage is just as foundational an issue as abortion for Catholics. Either get it right, or get out.

Gaunilon on November 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Gaunilon on November 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Strange thing…some of us are actually capable of keeping our personal religious views out of politics. Amazing…

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Texas laws apparently would allow a family member of someone who is known by them to be gay to have a court invalidate a power of attorney given by someone gay to his/her partner. Is that right?

If I may interject. I think the same scenarios happen all the time to heterosexual couples. “Blood is thicker than water” is a common principle in the courts.

Y-not on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM

I’ve noticed that Jetboy and thuja and the rest haven’t condemned this act (the powder sent to LDS places) by likely their fellow gays. I would assume that Jetboy, having seen him be reasonable before, would condemn it. But I really don’t know. After all, the LDS church “interfered” and “provoked” this violence, so the poor innocent gay people just can’t help but to react violently, I guess. That’s the message I’m getting from Jetboy so far.

Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM

I intensely dislike this blackmail game where I’m supposed to say something in just the exact way that Vanceone demands or I someway support an action. However, in this particular case, I have already stated my disapproval of any violence relative to Proposition 8. I said that I wanted to get my local anti-Proposition 8 rally in Pittsburgh to state their opposition to violence. I still have clue why we are having such a rally in Pittsburgh.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM

Sounds like you raised a nice young man, be proud.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM

BallisticBob on November 14, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Is there a heterosexual lifestyle day?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM

Christina D on November 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

I bookmarked the link. I have to prepare my run sheet, and go slave for 2 1/2 hours. LOL. But thanks for the info, and your words. I respect all opinions. Even against. I just feel the Bible quotes are not right. I can’t deny that when I read Death to all homosexuals, it gets me mad. Knowing love and loving is what makes us all Flourish. Then again, Love can be blind too. So many different sides huh?

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 3:15 PM

I intensely dislike this blackmail game where I’m supposed to say something in just the exact way that Vanceone demands or I someway support an action.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Though I’m on the other side of this issue, I heartily agree with you here. Individualism anyone?

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 3:23 PM

We already are on the “slippery slope” and it is not about marriage it is about normalizing and accepting deviant behavior. While I do not discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation I really don’t even want to know with whom or how they have sex (and yes that is the definition of homosexuality: not love but sex). Once this deviant behavior is considered normal then we move towards to normalizing other deviant sexual behavior. Why is it wrong to want to “love” a dead person, a tree or my dog?
We need to make a stand for this now and not let us be bullied by a loud minority. Unless you only know about three verses from the bible (one of them b/p Pulp Fiction) it is very clear what the stand on homosexuality is, and you can not declare yourself a Christian and at the same time accept the sin. You must however accept the sinner.

dpierson on November 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM

Those who want to skip the legal immigration lines should do so only by joining our military and fighting for our country….

Wileygrl3 on November 14, 2008 at 11:56 AM

I agree.

The book was better. I thought the idea was lame in the movie, but much better rationalized in the novel.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 12:11 PM

Someone said that before, and I meant to take their word and read the book. Now I think I have to since I’m not

reading anything else right now.

Again, the mob didn’t come to her, she went to the mob. I only question her choice of venue.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Jet, both sides were there for their own protests. It wasn’t just her by herself.

Either it’s o.k. to restrict which adult relationships the government defines as a marriage or it’s not.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 1:07 PM

I 100% agree with you, but I feel like we’re in the minority here.

Its my belief no one can be indoctrinated into being gay.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM

So what about people like Ellen’s old girlfriend who go back?

“Bi” is just some trendy label used by those who seek attention for being different and not something that actually occurs in the human condition.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I hope you realize the irony here, as people say the same exact thing about homosexuals.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

All right. Good for Jetboy and Thuja. So why don’t more gay communities, leaders, people, etc. do the same? Why do we have to push even the conservative gays to state this is out of bounds? Seriously–is anyone in the gay community at all upset enough by these stories?

The same can be said of the old ACT-UP protests, etc. I don’t really see any signs that the gay community in general really disapproves of these violent acts. It’s like the “moderate Muslims.” I’m sure there are some–where? They never speak up. Outside of you two, where are the moderate gay groups? They sure as heck ain’t speaking up, are they?

So who is more representative? The violent types who are getting all the attention? Or the in-theory massively larger group which doesn’t condone violence? Because right now, all I see is the gay community as a whole condoning violence either explicitly or by silence.

Vanceone on November 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM

“Bi” is just some trendy label used by those who seek attention for being different and not something that actually occurs in the human condition.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I hope you realize the irony here, as people say the same exact thing about homosexuals.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Well, there are rhetorical positions plucked from the air, and there are empirical facts about the human condition.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Hey all, have to log off and go to work. Will be back in a few hours.

Thank you Michelle, Ed and Al!

sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Not mocking, progressoverpeace; just saying there’s some weird stuff in it.
——————————-
Exodus 20:5

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Exodus 21
1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:

17 “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Exodus 22

2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed. [d]

22 “Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.

Leviticus 11

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

Leviticus 13

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [a] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons [b] who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, [c] it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 8 The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease.

45 “The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, [d] cover the lower part of his face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

Leviticus 19

1 The LORD said to Moses,

9 ” ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

19 ” ‘Keep my decrees.
” ‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
” ‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

26 ” ‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

27 ” ‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

28 ” ‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM

Yeah, but Y-not, in Texas they can automatically invalidate it if they’re gay and if it’s considered to be equivalent to civil union rights.

In hetrosexual situations, it takes grounds which are usually more difficult to prove.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7