Quotes of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on November 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
“The tall, frail Christoffersen stood in the center of the group. She appeared to be shaking during her prepared remarks which lasted about 3 minutes. Two young female family members flanked her to prevent her from fainting, according to a restaurant employee. At several points during her speech, Christoffersen simply became too emotional to continue.”
*
Watch CBS Videos Online
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
When they start throwing out the religious bigotry line, it says it all. Let’s say they win their argument in court, again, how long before they start requiring churches to marry them or forgo their tax exempt status or prosecute them for hate crimes?
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Aloha, pehea ‘oe!
They really don’t wanna know just how far this goes here.
Kini on November 14, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Slightly off topic – anyone else hear about this No Gays for a Day business?
Gays will stay home one day to show the world how wanted/needed they are.
You know, in my experience the people who think they are indispensable are usually the first ones who are let go.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Not maybe. Don’t take Bill Ayers as a template for American liberalism as a whole.
CherokeeJack on November 14, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Oddly, a lot of No on 8 folks seems quite happy with the election results.
Christien on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Hey, maybe you haven’t been keeping up on current events, but American liberalism is getting their @$$es kicked, pal, by a bunch of hateful, violent reprobates!
When I see Kos, HuffPo, San Fran Nan and Obama come out strongly against this, then I’ll take American liberalism a little more seriously.
Until then, their silence is tacit approval.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Please show me where in the US or CA Constitution that owning a car or a house is a right. Show me where going to church is a right. Show me where planting a tree in your back yard is a right.
The Constitutions do not list your rights. They list the roles and functions of the government. Rights are limitless. As long as you don’t infringe upon someone else’s right to life, liberty, and property, then you can claim it as a right.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM
The old church bell will peal with joy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
To welcome home our darling boy
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The village lads and lassies say
With roses they will strew the way,
And we’ll all feel gay
When Johnny comes marching home.
Tav on November 15, 2008 at 12:05 AM
The simple fact of the matter is that our government is set up so that a majority of people can strip rights from a minority. That’s democracy, and it happens all the time. It is part of what we consent to as citizens of this country. If the Proposition 8 No voters don’t like it, they’ll get another chance to convince people otherwise.
Trying to use judicial fiat to circumvent the will of the people that has been expressed by majorities twice now is frankly bullshit. I hope we see a counter-boycott on people who voted No for Proposition 8. I hope we see some of their lives ruined too.
Tabris on November 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Seems you’re already taking it a bit too seriously.
Technically, but that doesn’t mean that they actually want it to happen. Most of them are just humoring the extremists for their own benefit.
CherokeeJack on November 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Since I’m not burning books, attacking old ladies or disrupting church services because I think my ‘rights’ have been trampled…
…I don’t need to do any such thing.
I think you must have flunked civics class.
Rights are not limitless, in fact, they are very much limited.
Nonetheless, please educate us ignorant masses on how denying the label of ‘marriage’ is some kind of infringement on a homosexual’s right to ‘life, liberty and property’.
Especially considering that with civil unions, they have the same rights/benefits of a married couple.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Vivez! Mes amis je suis enchante
Simply to move through the sunlight
Open your eyes to this one bright moment embracing us!
Vivez! You have one life, let it be gay!
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No! Let the moment enfold you!
Grab up your one golden chance
Darlings life is such romance!
Give this world a sweeping glance,
Let it set your soul a-dancing night and day
PercyB on November 15, 2008 at 12:08 AM
And maybe you’re not taking it seriously ENOUGH.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:09 AM
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Going to church is a right, as is the right topeaceablyassemble. So when folks interrupt church services or block entrances, it is interfering with other’s rights.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I do take it seriously. I just don’t think it’s time to lower ourselves to their level of hyperbolic demonization just yet.
CherokeeJack on November 15, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Oh – and owning a car or a house or planting a tree – none of these are ‘rights’ – they are privileges NOT guaranteed by any constitution.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Would you rather wait until after they kill someone and burn down a couple of churches?
Or do you seriously do not see those things as the next logical progression for these
demonstratorsterrorists?Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Does anyone know if there is a counter to the boycott of businesses and people who voted yes on Prop 8. If homosexuals want to play this game then they better be ready to get as good as they are giving. Here in Ca we’ve voted 2 times that marriage is between a man and a woman. We have the most generous civil union laws. This is gettig to be too much now! I’m very willing to fight back! And yes, my husband and I donated to Prop 8.
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Molly McKay, spokesperson for “Marriage Equality USA, Inc., used the term “hate against hate.”
What a spin! What a distortion! What a lie!
Many who demonize Proposition 8 supporters do so by employing the term “hate,” and attaching the word “hate” to them. You see, if you want to support an amendment to the California State constitution that continues the real definition of the institution of marriage to include, at its very basic, foundational, first step definition, to be the union of a man and a woman, then somehow that makes you a hater, even though it doesn’t.
What does that make those who want to change the definition of marriage to include two men or two women, and they use force to do it? Would it follow that, if you who oppose perverting the institution of marriage by standing for its proper definition, including the inclusion of one man and one woman, are haters, then does that make those against Prop 8 “Lovers?”
By their behavior since Proposition 8 Passed this month, it appears that Proposition 8 opponents are neither lovers, nor are they tolerant.
In fact, they appear to be violent, intolerant, hate filled, deranged individuals who are forcing the rest of the populace to embrace, condone, and advocate their cause, and their deviant behavior, and sexual and identify disorder, or else!
In point of fact, supporters of Proposition 8, and supporters of preserving the definition of marriage as including only a man and a woman, are not haters, not bigoted, and not unjust. Calling them such names does not make it so. They love their spouses, love their families, and love their children, and it is right and just to preserve such a wonderful, important institution as marriage, and to protect children from the social experiement that is the corruption of the institution of marriage by perverting it and morphing it into homosexual marriage.
However, the homosexual, lesbian, and other members of the outraged who are rampaging, threatening, attacking, and engaged in mob rule, definitely exhibit hatred, bigotry, intolerance, close mindedness, and disrespect for the rule of law. Their behavior is more like rabid dogs than tolerant, respectful individuals with respect for the rule of law, for peaceful, harmonious society, and for the protection and best interest of children, rather than the corruption of the morals of children, which the coerced redifintion of marriage does.
Furthermore, they mis apply the term “civil right” and “civil rights” in this case. Marriage is something that everyone has the option to engage in. It involves a man and a woman at its base. If someone has a sexual identity disorder, and has urges to engage in deviant behavior, they need medical and psychological treatment. They don’t need to force normal people to buy into their perversion, their disorder, their sickness. If you have a member of the opposite sex you wish to marry, and they wish to marry you, then go ahead, and best to you.
Nevertheless, the press, Hollywood, and the powers that be in the loony left, liberal, pro-homosexual world will continue to claim that supporters of traditional marriage as including only a man and a women are haters, even though they are not, and they will paint pushers of this abhorrent intolerance that opponents of Prop 8 are as sweet, loving individuals, even as they vandalize, threaten, harass, and just wreak havoc.
I am still waiting for the opponents of Proposition 8, and similar programs, to attack blacks and Muslims for their support of man-woman marriage.
I’m still waiting.
Still waiting ……
Still waiting …….
Still waiting …….
Still waiting …….
William2006 on November 15, 2008 at 12:17 AM
And… a la Melissa Etheridge… My candidate lost so I don’t have equal rights… I guess… so maybe I too can get out of paying my taxes! Yippee a silver lining!
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 12:19 AM
It is not I who seems to have flunked civics or political philosophy class. Rights are limited only in that when your actions infringe upon someone else’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Please explain how you understand it to be different?
Does not the U.S. Constitution lay out the role of the three branches of the federal government? Does it not restrict what it can do in order to promote the general welfare? If that is not what the Constitution does, then please explain to me, what you believe it does.
When you got married, or your parents got married – who bestowed upon them the label of “Married?” Was it the church or the state or both? It most likely was both. So, if a gay couple can find a “church” to label them as married, then why are they not married? Who are you to say that they cannot be married? Why do they not have the same right to get married as you? As I posted earlier in this thread, because the government imposed itself into the definition of marriage for the purposes of doling money/benefits, then it becomes an issue of state recognition of marriage. Why should the state recognize man/women marriages and not man/man or woman/woman marriages? It certainly cannot be because that is what the majority of the people want because if that is your argument, then your argument would also have to be that if the majority of the population wanted slavery (which it arguably did at one point in its history), then there wouldn’t be anything wrong with it because it was the will of the people.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Wait and see please, I think many people voted for this the second time because the courts discounted the will of the people the first time. I think if this comes up in a few years it would pass and this behavior will either stiffen the backbones of those against or cower people into submission. The situation is already playing out, getting angry at like minded posters isn’t going to change anything.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:21 AM
You have a flawed understanding of what a right is and is not.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:22 AM
That was a good post…good perspective…
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 12:22 AM
You are correct. That was a bad example, as it is explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. However, my point was that the Constitution is NOT a laundry list of rights that we have as citizens as some people seem to believe.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Just a couple of quick examples:
Foreign citizens can not hold high public office.
Getting caught smoking marijuana may result (if convicted of a felony) of losing your freedom and your voting privileges.
I must get a license to hunt, fish or get married.
The government has the right to limit who can or can’t get licenses (for instance, you can’t get a hunting license without finishing a hunter safety class).
Since marriage is not a protected and unalienable right as spelled out in the constitution, the state has every right to put limitations on it.
But the state DOES recognize same sex civil unions. Same concept, same rights/benefits, different label.
What’s the big deal about the label.
BTW – comparing the refusal to give same-sex couples a particular label with slavery really, really makes you look like an idiot.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:27 AM
If you believe you have a right to plant a tree, please go ahead and plant one on your neighbor’s lawn.
Or, plant one in your own yard without the approval of your landlord.
Or, plant one in your own yard without the approval of your Home Owner’s Association.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:29 AM
If you believe you have a right to a home, go build one in an improperly zoned area.
Or build one out of specs (too tall, too long, etc.) with the local zoning board or home owner’s association.
Or try to buy one without the proper money, credit, background checks or without filing the proper paperwork with the government.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:32 AM
When one gets married in a church they are doing so to make a commitment to God, that they are committing to each other, in front of others. The State gets involved for contractual, health and safety reasons.
Why God? Because He defined what marriage is and only He gets to do that. Jesus reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, your fight is with God and not man who is being obedient to the Creator in rejecting homosexual marriage.
If you could bludgeon or bully passage of gay marraige it would still be pointless because those of us who obey God would still teach our children the truth and we would never accept the “marraige”. Lastly, why would I who an commanded by Jesus to “love my neighbor as myself” tell that neighbor it’s okay to engage in behavior that would lead to eternal condemnation just so they could supposedly have temporary joy? If you don’t believe in God then you don’t need to believe in marraige and civil unions should make you happy.
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 12:33 AM
This is California not Texas.
I don’t think too many people carry guns into church here.
Well….except for maybe South (Central) and East L.A.
Then again, perhaps I’ve been going to the wrong church.
The Ugly American on November 15, 2008 at 12:34 AM
If you believe you have a right to own a car, try to buy one without insurance…
…or without a valid driver’s license.
And of course DRIVING a car is not a right, either.
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:34 AM
First off, I’m neither encouraging nor condoning violence, and I CERTAINLY hope nothing like that happens.
But as a result of many other things going on in society, more and more churches are hiring security (some of it armed).
And with the increasing violence being done against churches in California, is it really that far fetched to believe that one or two not-really-stable people will start carrying?
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Or, try not paying your property taxes.
Private property my ass!
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 12:38 AM
My wife wanted to go to the play, “The Lion King” in Sacramento. Assuming it is put on by those same idiots that caused that director who contributed to “yes” on 8 to resign, I told her no. If they aren’t the same organization, then too bad, because they are probably gays too. And if they aren’t gay, then they probably donated money to defeat Prop. 8. Too bad, so sad.
TimothyJ on November 15, 2008 at 12:38 AM
No kidding – my former secretary had a cousin who was a mahu, hung out in Waipahu looking for like-mindedfriends…but still had a mustache. makes me laugh every time I think of it.
HawaiiLwyr on November 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM
Check out the newest cover of The Advocate.
Gay is the New Black
Gawd, how I would love to see these protesters march along Crenshaw Boulevard with this plastered to their signs.
The crowd reactions would be priceless.
The Ugly American on November 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM
I will quit arguing with you as you have been taught certain things and no amount of logic or reason will dislodge those beliefs in your head. I am sure that I look like an idiot. Only because I have argued with one and we all know what happens when you argue with an idiot. I will only leave you with a couple of points to try to think about:
If you knew how to actually read and comprehend – I was not comparing the denying of the right to marry to slavery. I was simply pointing out that the majority does not make anything right, as evidenced by the fact that the majority once condoned slavery.
As Jefferson once stated, “Force cannot change right.” Therefore, because the state dictates laws from powers not granted by the Constitution, it does not invalidate what is right. Example – Smoking marijuana. Just because the state has arbitrarily mandated that smoking marijuana is illegal, it does not invalidate my right as a free individual to smoke it. Yes, I know it is against the law. Try to think here. My point is that the law is immoral in that it violates my right to property, specifically my body. If I want to ingest, inject, or inhale something into my body, it is mine and I have a right to do so. If I do not have a right to my body and what I do with it, then who does? If you don’t think I do, then you should be okay with the state outlawing alcohol, fatty foods, boxing, skydiving because all of those things have a potential to harm your body and the state, since it has to pay for healthcare, has a stake in what happens to your body.
So, while you can list all of the things that are illegal according to the current mandate of the state, it does not and never will morally invalidate the rights of free people.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Noneya;
Aw, hell. Anybody can be part of an oppressed minority these days, if not for one reason, then for another, and they nearly all claim rights that are being taken away by their oppressors. My only other comment is that I see an insult and a threat to religious believers.
Confutus on November 15, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Religious_Zealot: Oh, I understood your point.
It’s just that, for me personally, carrying any kind of weapon into a church seems a bit odd and counterintuitive.
The Ugly American on November 15, 2008 at 12:48 AM
No problem. I have a several serious questions. Do you believe that if this were to come up for a vote in several years it would pass again? If gays indeed have churches that will marry them, would churches that won’t be free of harassment? What would you think if a significant number of us that did not vote for Mr. Obama were to take to the street in semi-violent to violent protest and boycott anyone’s business that supported his election? Would that appear rational to you?
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:50 AM
There is no denial of the right to marry.
Stop playing make believe.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 12:52 AM
I completely agree that marriage has been defined by and sanctioned by God. I wholeheartedly subscribe to that as well. However, I do not want to live in a theocracy and enact laws based on the Bible. I do not ask you to condone, celebrate, or recognize gay marriage. However, even though you may believe it to be against the teaching of Christ and the Bible, some “Christian” churches do recognize gay marriage and actually perform it. My only point is that why do you feel it is okay for you to impose your beliefs and will upon others? I understand that the homosexual community sticks it in your face and is very militant about it and that is sad and unfortunate. However, if some gay person wants to call themselves married, who am I to say that they cannot do it. My duty is to love them and pray for their salvation. I will never condone or sanction their behavior, but neither will I seek to impose my beliefs on them. The problem lies in the recognition by the state. In order for my libertarian view on gay marriage to be valid, the state would have to get out of the business of imposing its sanction on a purely religious ceremony.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 12:55 AM
At the rate things are going pretty soon we can put out signs saying
Conservatism is the NEW Black
Or would we have to be the NEW GAY? That being said, I do look forward to the “old” black folks reaction to those signs.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:55 AM
I fail to see why I have to know ANYTHING about ANYONE’S sexual orientation, thereby diminishing any possibility to either condone or condemn.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Why can’t anyone ever say, “This is The United States of America and I made a donation to a political cause that I support. I will not apologize for it.”
That’s a business owner that I would go out of my way to support.
Shaking a business down for $10,000 because the owner made a $100 donation with her own money is ridiculous. That these owners are all caving in is even more ridiculous.
No kidding! That’s what I was thinking when I read the part of the two 5K$ donations. For the sake of a hundred bucks!
Someone wrote about them burning themselves–I hope they do and I hope it happens quickly because California is starting to resemble some TWCs in the way people can’t handle the democratic process and have to rely on intimidation and violent tactics.
fireweednectar on November 15, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I don’t know. Maybe in California, but probably not.
I would certainly hope so, but sadly, I doubt it. The homosexual community has become quite militant and in your face. I would not attend any church that would teach anything but that homosexuality is a sin.
Good for you. Although I could not support the violence. Force is only moral when used in self defense.
What? The marching and violence? No, it would appear that you had become that which you despise.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 1:00 AM
There was an election by the people. The majority of the people said no to gay marriage. This will now become part of the constitution of the state of CA. So, go home and lick your wounds. That’s what I had to do when my candiate lost.
cjs1943 on November 15, 2008 at 1:03 AM
True in the sense that anyone can call themselves anything that they want to. However, I guess I should have said the denial of the recognition of the marriage by the state (who doles out money/benefits). The money and benefits are what this is really about. I think the state should get out of the benefit and money doling business altogether, but that will never happen. Until maybe the Free State succeeds in New Hampshire :)
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 1:04 AM
I’m sorry but you seem to have missed the point I thought I made…God defines marriage not me, not you, but God. If a Christian church performs a gay marraige it is not Christian same as any “Christian” who doesn’t follow the 10 commandments and the 2 Jesus gave us.
There are so many thngs I could talk myself into doing by trying to put God in a place where I thought I could avoid being accountable to Him but who would I be fooling? Myself? Don’t think so. So I take His positions even when they are unpopular because pleasing Him is more important and meaningful to me than pleasing a human.
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Actually, some Hollywood conservatives refer to themselves as the “New Gay”.
Tongue firmly planted in cheek, of course.
The Ugly American on November 15, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Thanks, great answers. You had already answered them in a previous post so I appreciate your time. I don’t want to protest our newly elected President. I love my country enough to hope he succeeds in keeping us safe but not turning us into a socialist experiment. As you noted, gays have become quite militant and will probably not allow for “separate but equal” churches but you still support the idea that “marriage” has to granted to them even though they have every protection under the law in the form of civil unions. That’s a lot to lose over a word from a God that most of these folks disdain.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:18 AM
It’s pretty accurate, it’s not like you can tell by looking at them. Well, not most of the time.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Upon reading my post I hope I don’t sound like someone who thinks swhe doesn’t sin…trust me I do…I just try so hard to do what my faith convicts me to… in the big issues I try to hold firm.
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 1:23 AM
No one is suggesting that you should be for or condone anything that is contrary to God’s Word. Take his positions, even when unpopular and don’t support gay marriage. My point was that the state should have nothing to do with it either. The state should not care who is or who isn’t married because it should not be in the retirement business, the healthcare business, the bailout business, etc. So you can keep God’s word and the state can be in the business of securing rights, not restricting them.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 1:24 AM
No worries. The big issues? The ONLY issue is the redeeming blood of Christ and accepting Him and His forgiveness and then allowing him to live through us. There are no other issues:)
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 1:27 AM
But to me you are arguing something that the gay demonstrators are not arguing…they want marraige exactly how a heterosexual couple has marriage in a church in front of God. They have the same civil remedy… but they want Churches to marry them. People more articulate than me have already stated why the State is involved.
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Obviously this is a libertarian argument for you, no offense but I can think of so many places the government could get out of our lives before going to the mat about this. As the old saying goes, it depends on who’s ox is being gored and I guess right now it is the gays. I am in Florida and we had a similar vote, ours required a 60% bench mark and it attained it. I am now wondering if I have missed reaction in my own state. Interesting.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:32 AM
Right now I’m watching Barbara Walters and a man, who was a woman, who turned herself into a man, just gave birth to a child and is now pregnanat again. How would you like to be those people’s kid? To me this is getting to be too much alredy. There will be affects on those kids…
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 1:34 AM
I meant “pregnant again”
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 1:35 AM
What do you mean?
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 1:36 AM
Never mind all these other considerations, the very idea of gay “marriage” is an assault on logic. Marriage is between men and women, that is what it is, not between men and men, just as water is H2O and not H2H.
semloh on November 15, 2008 at 1:39 AM
I have wasted a bunch to time in the blogshpere today and the shenanigans in California have been a big part of it. I have paid zero attention to local news. For all I know there could be a big demonstration here and I am unaware. It probably isn’t happening, a lot of this city is owned by a huge baptist church and the citizens here don’t seem to protest much of anything. Oh, by the way although all of your posts have been great, I thought the one at 12:23 was really lovely.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:45 AM
Hey, holmes spelled backwards, where the heck of you been? Excellent point.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Obviously that is where the heck have you been? Time to get off the computer.
Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:51 AM
I have been here all along in various disguises hiding from nostaw to see if he could recognize me.
semloh on November 15, 2008 at 1:57 AM
I enjoy your posts as well… Time for me to get off the computer too…
CCRWM on November 15, 2008 at 2:00 AM
…from what I understand, that person — for that’s what she is — has jacked up the hormones, but has left the whole reproductive system intact…I’m not sure if she’s added anything in addition to the tubes and womb, but still has those…so it isn’t such a stretch, in this case, that a “man” got pregnant….
…I was tempted to use neither a male nor a female pronoun in that last paragraph…but, she’s left herself open to being called an “it”, inasmuch as trampled on logic to the extent that she’s inbetween conventional pronouns, and the English language does not allow for more elevated reference….
…and if anyone takes umbrage to not calling her by her preferred gender, remember that you can call a bicycle a rocket ship, but you’ll not soon pedal to the moon….
…sometimes you just have to play the hand you’re dealt….
Puritan1648 on November 15, 2008 at 2:04 AM
…then again, there’re inheritance issues…joint custody and joint property issues…joint contracts and other liabilties…marriage is first and foremost a contract, and the government is and ought to be in the business of facilitating, legitimizing and adjudicating the disputes in contracts….
…one of the real movers and shakers in driving for a national constitution, when the Articles of Confederation were obviously not working, was Noah Webster…the dictionary guy, remember? He was tired of being stiffed on copyright issues, losing out big, and got his friends to join other friends and, Bob’s your uncle, the Constitution…simplification, but an historical underpinning….
…besides…homosexual marriage has little to do with marriage in any case…the whole effort is an Alinsky-esque attempt at a realignment of what we now know as society, as Alinskyites see opportunity in chaos…and a lot of the gaysters, with their “take no prisoners” mindset, want to rub what they see as their inevitable victory in the faces of those who oppose them….
…in this issue, I see little if any good intention or desire for social justice on the part of the homosexual lobby…they display little or none, so that’s why I don’t see it, I guess….
…it’s all well and good to want to see the other guy in a good light…but it can be unwise at times, as well…especially when the other guy proves himself to be a decidely obstinate, vicious, tone-deaf, relentless, totalitarian sort of guy….
Puritan1648 on November 15, 2008 at 2:13 AM
I’m pretty sure NONE of the supporters for gay marriage could possibly explain how opposing gay marriage is, in any way, a form of “hate.” You respect and want to uphold the simple definition of marriage that has existed since marriage began? Well, that, my friend, is hate.
Nonsense.
These idiots need to find a dictionary and look up the word. Someone disagrees with you? Well, they’re bigots, they’re “hate” groups, etc. Insanity.
TheBlueSite on November 15, 2008 at 2:44 AM
The subject is a moot point, Prop 8 is an Amendment to the California State Constitution now. Gays need to go home an have their Domestic Partnerships, which Heterosexuals cannot enter into until age 63, before they lose that. It’s pretty evident, Leftists don’t respect the vote unless they win. NO court should validly hear a lawsuit to overturn Prop 8 which is protected by the 10th Amendment. Gays, GET OVER IT.
nelsonknows on November 15, 2008 at 2:55 AM
Prop. 187 supporter……………. laughing my ass off…………..
So where is the “Hate Crime?”………….
Gays calling Blacks who voted for Proposition 8 ” the N word…”
Next come the “Latinos………….”
So where is the rule of law? Where is the ACLU? Where is La Raza? Where is the NAACP? They all get Billions of our tax dollars…………. and now, they are silent?
They don’t even know which way is North…… the sound I hear is………..”
“.
BBBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seven Percent Solution on November 15, 2008 at 2:57 AM
For me it is purely a matter of disease prevention. I’m against heterosexual promiscuity and prostitution as well, for the exact same reasons. For instance, 21% percent of all Hepatitis B cases in the 90′s were transmitted by 3% of the population. Guess which “class.” Google “MRSA USA300.” Even Canada banned sexually active homosexual men from donating organs.
I know I can’t make a homosexual read a Bible anymore than I could make a prostitute or necrophiliac, but I can hope our nation would attempt to protect the citizenry from the epidemics of disease caused by their deviance.
TMK on November 15, 2008 at 3:02 AM
Domestic Partnerships afford gays EVERY right that a STATE can afford a married couple. Gays fought to prevent the laws on Domestic Partnerships from allowing Heterosexuals from having the SAME rights as Gays and had done so since the California Supreme Court violated the State Constitution and overturned the vote of the people back in May.
It’s pretty evident, those on the left want rights for themselves that aren’t afforded others and it’s not likely to change.
I’m wondering why gays can march in L.A., without a permit and aren’t arrested, yet the Minutemen aren’t allowed their Constitutional right to protest and are REFUSED a permit and told they would be arrested if they rallied.
nelsonknows on November 15, 2008 at 3:04 AM
capitalist piglet on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Why does it have to be just LDS patrons? Every good citizen should stand out side of that restaurant and run the crazy blackmailers out of town.
Conservative Voice on November 15, 2008 at 3:12 AM
…………….. well, ……….Well………. WELL!
…….. this may explain the outrage, or this.
……… I’m still laughing my ass off, not at the violence, but the “blow back”……. get it….”Blow Back!”
BBBBWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seven Percent Solution on November 15, 2008 at 3:16 AM
I suspect the next thing the Marine command will want to do is eliminate the Marine’s Hymn since the phrase ‘to the shores of Tripoli’ celebrates the Marine victory over Islamic forces in the Barbary Coast War and the Battle of Derne.
MB4 on November 15, 2008 at 3:42 AM
That is my main concern as well. I am a pretty casual Catholic, but I’m a strict constructionist when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, and I have libertarian tendencies. Marriage is an institution that has traditionally had religious underpinnings. I feel like if we were to pass a same-sex marriage amendment that we would be treading awfully close to running afoul of the Establishment Clause. It’s a thorny issue, one that I think is best played out in the public discourse over the passage of time. As one of the libs upthread pointed out, there was a time slavery was considered perfectly acceptable in this country. Eventually, the people came to believe otherwise. It’s possible the same thing will happen with same-sex marriage — someday. But for now, the people have spoken, and that’s something that needs to be respected. Don’t these hypocrites remember how indignant they all were in 2000 that the Supreme Court “subverted” the will of the people by stealing the election from Al Gore? How would taking this matter to the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals be any different?
NoLeftTurn on November 15, 2008 at 3:45 AM
Sorry. You DON’T have a right to life period. Not while 1.3 million babies are aborted each year. YOU DON’T HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE IN AMERICA. Now pause and let that sink in.
Gay marriage is NOT in either the federal or CA state constitution, therefor it goes to the state legislatures or through amendment. In the case of CA that amendment was passed to not allow gay marriage.
Also, you don’t have the right to trash a church. That is private property and that IS protected in the Constitution.
Look, we have one of our first GAY TROLLS. Let’s enjoy him while we can.
Sapwolf on November 15, 2008 at 4:28 AM
I’m from the SF BAy Area. The gays are NOT satisfied with civil unions. They want all churches to OK gay marriage and the sodomy that goes with it. There are also other sins that go against God that they want OK’ed.
They are out to FORCE straights, all straights to their orthodoxy. Their vice they don’t want to fight. They want to wallow in it, and getting others to OK their sin gives them justification and rationalization in their minds.
Their goal is to force us to agree with them whole-heartedly, and they will use force to do it.
CA is a cesspool in many parts. A disaster that is getting worse financially too.
Sapwolf on November 15, 2008 at 4:42 AM
Y’know, I’m not so sure gay people are hated simply because they’re gay anymore. I think the strong negative reaction they draw these days has more to do with the way they come off increasingly like Nazis whenever they mobilize to combat some percieved slight.
Perhaps someone should tell them that thuggery isn’t acceptable behavior in a free and open society…
SuperCool on November 15, 2008 at 4:57 AM
Forgive me if I’m wrong, haven’t read all the posts, but I recall King of the Britons from days past as more of a Ron Paul troll than a gay troll.
Just sayin.’ May or may not be the case.
Gilda on November 15, 2008 at 5:02 AM
Excuse me, but that’s ridiculous. I’m taking the time to respond because you seem like a fairly rational person, but the idea that if the Government amends the Constitution and certain religions don’t agree with the Amendment then said Amendment is against the Establishment clause is crazy.
Nonfactor on November 15, 2008 at 5:56 AM
Terrorismlite. Appease them and they’ll want more.
Marriage is not strictly an issue of the church. It is a moral GOOD in society and biologically necessary for survival of the species and civilization. Yes, we can procreate without marriage, but, is it the best for well-formed, healthy children? Sociologists say no. Yes, there are men and women in marriages who cannot/will not procreate. This is a reality in a world with illness, disability, and death. Does this make marriage any less a necessary pillar of any sound society? A man and woman were made complimentary to one another for procreative ability, yes, love, and spiritual connection, according to most faiths. We cannot allow this debate to devolve any more into the civil rights territory. They are not going to be appeased with anything until marriage as an institution is completely redefined.
Homosexuality is an aberration of natural processes and thought one might participate in that activity, it makes it neither right, safe, nor equal to the RATIONAL, natural, LOGICAL, fundamental, basic, true, good, sheer makeup of our biology. It’s marvelous, it protects children from confusion and gives them a safe, sound harbor of trust and we must be brave and stand for the truth. Funny how that isn’t popular these days.
Mommypundit on November 15, 2008 at 6:42 AM
Why is it that when the gay marriage issue comes up, IQ’s drop?
This isn’t about the right to be married. It is about the hijacking of a word. Gays can join in civil unions that afford all the rights marrieds have. It simply denied them the word “marriage”.
Why is this a big deal you might ask? Do they need to use the word to feel better about themselves? Do they need the word to access equal rights as couples? The answers are no and no. I’m going to let you in on a secret…the real reason why they are so violent about changing the meaning of the word “marriage”.
It’s mostly about issues like insurance. Here is an example: If you are married, you get a certain rate for health, life and other insurance because it has been proven that married couples have better health etc. If gays get to hijack the word to include their lifestyle, then them must receive the same premium rates. The problem is that especially in the case of gay men, their life expectancy is shorter and their health is generally worse. This means the outlay of benefits by the insurance companies will exponentially increase verses their premium income.
OK, that is a fact, but why should we oppose it? Well, have any of you EVER heard of an insurance company absorbing losses? Bwahahahahahaha!!! Don’t make me laugh! So, what will be their solution? They simply have to raise the rates on ALL those who are “married”. That means you and I will have our premiums increased to subsidized the consequences that result from the lifestyle that gays voluntarily engage in.
So don’t buy into their 8ullshit! This is about, just like every other minority demand for special rights, the ability to avoid the consequences for their own actions. If gays had to call their unions exactly that, the insurance companies (and it doesn’t stop there) could create a rate that is commensurate with the risk inherent in the gay lifestyle. Then gays pay their own way. The healthy gays who CHOOSE to engage in a risky lifestyle get to subsidize the unhealthy gays who CHOOSE to engage in the same risky lifestyle, but are less healthy and require more benefit outlay by their insurance companies.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 7:03 AM
You know they act more and more like the ROP all the time, yet denounce religion at every opportunity.
Viper1 on November 15, 2008 at 7:07 AM
On the outside chance that you are not some liberal tool, you need to read my 7:03 am post for the real reason why the gays are pushing so hard. Maybe you’ll wise up.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 7:15 AM
csd, it’s more than just a word.
But let’s just say you’re perfectly correct…that it’s a denial of a word. Then, what’s the big problem with letting gay couples HAVE that word, if in fact that’s all there is to it?
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 7:15 AM
The onus of convincing people is not on the people who want the status quo but on the people who want the change.
And I have yet to see any valid legal, moral or ethical reasons to change the label of marriage.
Oh, and I’m STILL waiting for you to:
1) Produced any difference in the rights, responsibilities and privileges between couples in CA who are married and those joined by civil union. Of course, I don’t expect you too since there really aren’t any.
2) Explained how and why a woman silently holding a cross is ‘taunting’ and ‘inciting’ people. Until you can establish that, then it can only be deduced that you find the cross ITSELF to be a symbol of hatred and intolerance and, as such, needs to be destroyed by any means necessary (like the homosexual terrorists did.)
Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 7:23 AM
You seem to take an awful lot of interest in this topic, considering you believe it to be just about a “label”.
I’ve already answered those 2 questions, but let’s try it again for you:
1) Federal benefits is probably the biggest difference between “marriage” and “civil unions”. A “marriage” in one state must be recognized by all states. A “civil union” is only recognized in the state of origin.
Well over a thousand “rights and protections” are applied to married couples over civil union couples, this according to the GAO (Govt Acctg Office)
To quote:
Areas affected include Social Security benefits, veterans’ benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, and family leave.
No differences, huh?
2) How many times do I have to go over this? That woman had every intent of causing a ruckus by strolling through the crowd (not innocently standing silent, as you put it) and used the cross as a weapon of taunting. That is wrong. And yeah, sure, every Sunday at Mass, I just want to tear down that crucifix hanging over the altar. Grow up.
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 7:48 AM
I have read your argument and mostly agree with you. However, as with most libertarian issues on being a free person, in order for gays to be left alone to call gay marriage anything they want the state has to get out of the business of doing certain things. Here, in addition to getting out of the marriage business, it would also have to get out of the market and allow insurance companies to offer coverage to whomever the wish to offer coverage to and deny coverage to whomever they wish to deny coverage to. As insurance companies are not in the business of losing money, most would have to charge homosexual couples a much higher rate or not insure them at all due to risk.
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 7:55 AM
Save your sense and logic when trying to debate the Religious Zealot. He is exactly as his name implies – a zealot impervious to logical argument. Check out earlier in this thread between him and I for proof. You would be better off typing in all caps and just saying stuff like, “I know you are, but what am I.”
King of the Britons on November 15, 2008 at 7:59 AM
csdeven, got a source for that?
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:00 AM
Haha. I wish they would. Remember how well that worked out for the illegal aliens? They were going to stay home and bring the U.S. “to its knees” and show us all how indispensable they are. All they actually accomplished was showing us how much nicer our lives were when they stayed home. I suspect a “No Gays” day would have the same effect.
AZCoyote on November 15, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Oh yeah, I got into it with him as well in the other thread from yesterday. Like I said, he takes immense interest in a topic he claims to be nothing more than about a label.
If only they could get it in their heads, that “Gay marriage” isn’t about religion, it’s about simple equality under the law in a legal secular union.
JetBoy on November 15, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Nah. No way. Insurance companies have always been brutally discriminatory on the lifestyle front, and justifiably so from a statistical standpoint. They’ll just ask “are you married?” and if so, “to a person of the same gender?”
If you’re male and the answers are yes and yes, your premiums will reflect that. Lying on the application will invalidate whatever claim is made. Married gay men will pay much higher rates due to their higher expected mortality, same as single ones do now.
Actuarial tables will be the last place political-correctness will invade.
Gilda on November 15, 2008 at 8:06 AM
You can have the word; however, the state is under no obligation to legally recognize such fabrications.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Wrong.
It is about expecting the world to accept your notion that holy matrimony has no a viable and legal meaning at all.
Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Here is just one that came up.
But as a gay, you know as well that gays segregate themselves from society in many ways. One of those ways is that they are not open with private data concerning cause of death etc. These studies can only use gay obits to garner data and most gays do not use them. The other issue is that the data collected for all males include those self-cloistered gays who have a shorter life span.
Look, if you decent folks would get these militant in your face gays under control, you’d have less problems. But you know the vocal minority is ruining it for others. I get that too. Did you see the article from Hollywood where people that came to support a gay pride parade had their kids exposed to a phallic shaped float with some very provocative people dancing on it? Well, not dancing…more like cavorting.
This DOES NOT mirror the image of marriage that has been an icon of society for thousands of years.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Then why not include those questions now? Because the LAW will stop them from doing so. This is a money grab, plain and simple. It may not be for the rank and file militants, but the movers are certainly looking that far ahead.
csdeven on November 15, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »