Video: Michelle on the “insane rage” of the anti-Prop 8 mobs
posted at 6:01 pm on November 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A video companion to her column this morning, soon to be rendered irrelevant by judicial decree. The California Supreme Court decided within the past hour to hear the constitutional challenge to Prop 8; doubtless the referendum will be struck down, thus restoring Californians to a blissful, undemocratic, mob-free existence and sparing Anthony Kennedy the unpleasant task of Doing What Must Be Done.
Exit question: Is Cali prepared for the inevitable backlash among rampaging Mormon hordes?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I’m wary of slippery slope arguments. All law making takes place upon a slippery slope.
I support churches refusing to perform inter-faith marriages–which some do. If they choose not to perform gay marriages I support that as well.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 11:45 AM
You understand that I’m actually trying to HELP you, right?
If you bring up adultery as a point you will LOSE the argument for the reasons I stated above.
And as I said earlier, the Biblical reasoning against gay marriage is NOT that homosexuality is a sin (which it is).
It’s that God defined marriage as one man one woman.
And as far as THAT argument goes, adultery doesn’t really come into the picture (because even adultery doesn’t change God’s fundamental definition).
Again, bring up adultery and the conversation will go something like this:
Pro-same-sex marriage person (PSSMP): “You’re a bunch of hypocrites. If you’re against same-sex marriage because of sin then why aren’t you against adultery? Huh? Huh? Huh?”
Anti-same-sex marriage person (ASSMP): “You’re absolutely right – adultery should be made illegal, too. We’ll get that done right after we’re finished with the same-sex marriage issue.”
PSSMP: “…”
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM
What? Where did anyone say that? Aren’t you a human being, a fully formed personality–who just happens to be gay?
I thought the gay thing was regular sin–you know, like being a potty-mouth or avoiding taxes?
The “worstest” involves child abuse.
Really bad is blasphemy–which I had to research to get a handle on because it isn’t as simple as most suppose.
I’m not a Catholic, so the whole “venal sin” thing always throws me.
A good, and in my opinion “godly”, man I knew died horribly of AIDS. I don’t blame God; I blame the man’s promiscuity. He made some bad choices. He was a flawed but excellent human being I was blessed to know. The man was not “punished” by disease–he was exposed to it by his behavior. Disease and ill health happen; all you can do is try to improve the odds in your favor. I hope a cure is found.
If I make it to heaven, I’m pretty sure I’ll find him there.
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Thanks for the help. Here are the issues:
1.) I didn’t advance the argument as a rationale for SSM.
2.) I’m responding to an earlier assertion that our marriage laws can be reconciled with Bible teaching–we’ve gotten away from that under our current rule of law.
It does according the the words of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew, when he said about marriage: “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM
1) The topic of adultery doesn’t further the argument either for OR against SSM. It’s a non-starter.
2) This I agree with – although I would still like to see adultery made illegal.
1) Adultery still doesn’t change God’s fundamental definition of marriage. It violates it, but doesn’t change it.
2) And it simply reinforces why Christians should be against SSM (it’s not God’s will)
Again, it’s a non-starter of an argument and can and will only backfire for those bringing it up in a conversation about SSM.
But since I’m against SSM I’ll just end this discussion by saying:
Please, PLEASE keep bringing up adultery in this conversation.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I want Michelle in stocking for Christmas.
Drools.
dinkyjackson on November 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM
I hear that. This whole argument is a big slippery slope. We’re standing on the downward slope at the intersection of religion and politics trying to decide which policy might send us tumbling to the bottom. The slippery slope arguments are inevitable, I guess.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM
And I believe you. The problem is that when I debated and conversed with many people in the forums (and in the “real” world,) I found that those who did much of the organization of the protests and were encouraging uncivil behavior don’t feel as you do.
Many people (who happen to be gay) don’t have a problem with the use of the phrase ‘Civil Union’. They could care less about the words; their emphasis was about: insurance, privacy, spousal rights, survivor’s benefits, and the legal sanctity of a last Will and Testament. The concerns which they have are legitimate. I agree, and have fought for those things. Scumbag family shouldn’t interfere with any gender of family or inheritance; period. (I personally don’t know anyone who disagrees with those things.)
The word marriage, however, I will fight you. You attempt to change doctrine and I will fight you to the last drop of blood. There is no debate, there are no words to make it all better. Ram it down my throat, and I will remember–I will not stop fighting, I will just be subversive. I will not stop. Ever.
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Certainly the ’slippery slope’ argument is overused.
But that doesn’t mean in certain cases it isn’t valid.
Considering the violence against churches…
Considering the silly suit against e-harmony…
Considering that many members and leaders in the pro-homosexual lobby are on record as stating they want to force churches to marry homosexuals and to prosecute anyone who says the homosexuality is wrong/a sin…
…is it really ‘crazy’ to think that this is not the end, but just one step in a longer ‘journey’?
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM
The proposition that violating God’s laws is somehow less of a concern than interpreting what words mean in a 21st century context seems untenable.
People may differ on what the definition of murder is, but violating the commandment against murder is gravely wrong.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
The suit against e-harmony was wrong, but e-harmony also declined to fight it. I think they made a business decision they would’ve made eventually anyway, the lawsuit just gave them cover from their religious clients who may have objected to the change in policy.
To the extent that we’re all trying to predict the future effects of marriage policy, we all end up making some kind of slippery slope argument. Some of them are just more implausible than others. One thing I know for certain: we can’t put gays back in the closet. They’re here, etc…, and they want to get married.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I’m not hung up on the word marriage and I’m married. The state certificate is not relevant to the considerable daily challenges of making a household operate with bills to pay and with children to attend to.
My wife keeps her last name. Does everyone in our community know that we are married? Don’t know or care. The important thing (at least to me) is that both of us are recognized as the providers for our children. If a lesbian couple wanted the same recognition from me regarding their commitment to care for their children, I’d feel obligated to acknowledge it. Are they married or unioned? That seems less important to me than their commitment to each other and their children.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Could you give me a couple of links to prove your point?
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Are you sure you typed what you meant?
Because I’m not making the argument that a discussion over “21st century” words is more of a concern that violating God’s laws.
And neither am I arguing that either SSM or adultery is any better or worse sin against God – they’re equal.
And neither am I arguing that it is good and right that adultery is not a crime.
But I’m certainly enjoying how you continue to link adultery and SSM.
You’re doing a really, really good job arguing against SSM!
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I’m not really interested in putting them back in the closet.
Of course, neither am I interested in giving them societal approval – but that’s another conversation.
And they can already get “married” – it’s just that it’s called by a different name.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM
You raised the distinction between changing & violating. I didn’t introduce that. Perhaps you can explain how the difference is material.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Look, you’ve been given reasonable answers to all your arguments and questions -
Here:
Here:
And here:
And recently by ReligiousZealot here:
I know you don’t like the answers, but obfuscating the issues does not help your case. The same goes for other defenders of homosexual “marriage” and other liberal causes. Even when the argument has been proven fallacious and wrong-headed, liberals just back up and make the same argument, but use different words. Your position (as all liberal positions) cannot stand against the scrutiny of reasoned argumentation and common sense, much less biblical doctrine.
You’ve shot and missed, now give it a rest. With all that is happening in our world today, homosexual activists’ whining about their “right” to marry is far down the list of issues we should be concerned about.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM
You know, I’ve thought that we’ve had a pretty decent, non-heated semi-intellectual discussion with some good back-and-forth going on.
However, if you are going to sit there and feign ignorance between the difference of changing something and violating it…
…then I guess we’re done with having a decent conversation.
But, just in case you’re actually confused, let me make it clear:
It’s a sin (goes against the will of God) to attempt to change God’s definition of anything.
It’s ALSO a sin (goes against the will of God) to violate – to BREAK God’s law.
Thus, from a religious viewpoint – SSM and adultery are on equal footings as sins.
Thus the error in judgment to bring up adultery in a conversation about SSM.
It just reinforces the wrongness – the sinfulness – of SSM.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
So this whole thing is just an argument over semantics? I’ll meet you halfway. Gays might actually be better off with a separate institution that can evolve to meet the unique challenges a homosexual relationship might pose. Let’s call the separate institution “civil unions.” Ok, gays already have this institution. So let’s change just make one minor adjustment, let’s change the name of this institution from “civil unions” to “marriage.” It’s a more descriptive word, it’s closer to describing the relationship of the people using the institution. Everywhere where the word “civil unions” appears in legal documents, we change it to the appropriate conjugation of the word “marriage.” We still have two separate institutions, which is probably best for everybody. Is this an acceptable compromise?
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
If you have a specific point that I haven’t responded to, let me know. Obviously we disagree on both the big picture and the detail.
Do you often make suggestions to people you’ve never met about “giving it a rest”? Seems an odd thing to do.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
s
If some Gays or Lesbians could find a church to “marry” them should they be prosecuted for calling it a marriage, since the state won’t issue them a license?
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Due to the historic religious overtones and underpinnings of “marriage”…
…I can’t in good faith accept that compromise.
What I would counter with is to remove the word ‘marriage’ from all governmental control – give that solely to the churches – and use some different descriptor for the governmental approval and giving of rights to unions (maybe “legal unions”).
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I have to say, it’s kind of ironic to say, “Well, the only difference between civil unions and marriage is semantics,” when you obviously really believe that marriage – the word itself – has some special significance, or you wouldn’t be so zealous about safeguarding its definition. Has there ever been so much controversy over the semantic question of, “how is this word defined?” There’s something more to it, and we all know it, and it’s that something more that gays are fighting for.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 1:01 PM
IMO – no.
In fact, nothing is stopping gays right now from calling their relationships “marriages.”
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Not feigning. Asking the materiality of the difference with regard to law and morals.
We agree that the Bible treats adultery and sodomy similarly as sins, and that is reasonable for U.S. law to recognize that the Bible has broadly influenced the cultural morals but that specific laws may be at variance with what was written in the Bible.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I couldn’t agree more.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Put it on the table. Start an initiative. I don’t think you personally are being disingenuous about this argument, but can I ask if you really see this ever happening? It would have my support, but the legitimacy of the offer has to rest a little on the plausibility of it actually happening.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM
As stated, there is no real material difference between the sin of SSM and the sin of homosexuality.
There IS a theological difference, but that doesn’t affect the “bottom line.”
I don’t think we’ve ever disagreed on this point.
My point for you is just that bringing up adultery in this context is a losing argument for SSM.
In fact, ANY argument about SSM that is made on religious terms is a losing argument.
The better arguments are secular and civil.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Ah, but you insisted in every other entry upon using the word Marriage. The State Certificate is irrelevant. For religious purposes it means absolutely nothing. The NAME of the certificate means nothing.
However, a Church Wedding is a MARRIAGE CEREMONY. Fine. Still, one is for the purpose of the State–the marriage license or certificate–the other is dictated by the BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH (and Congregation) HOLDING THE CEREMONY.
The shooting will start when you force a Mormon Church to HOST AND PRESIDE over a SSM.
There has been a split in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches over just that–as well as the other applicable issues. When the Conservative and doctrinally correct Church reaches my area, I will attend services once again.
I will not support a heretical church with attendance or money.
I will not be forced to engage in heresy under any circumstances. Period. It is not a popularity contest. You will find the same attitude in many of the churches these days.
People are trying right now to lay a foundation for a reverse legally based INQUISITION–to sue and financially destroy those who have “unpopular” beliefs.
Gee Whiz, no wonder it is a bit of a tough sell.
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 1:06 PM
I really, really don’t know if this will ever happen.
If you had asked me ten years ago if same-sex marriage would ever be considered legal I would have laughed at you.
I DO know that the more the issue becomes about this specific word (’marriage’) and not about rights and privileges (which they already have in civil unions)…
…the more the church will fight back.
That said, I really don’t see the pro-homosexual lobby buying into it.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM
And they will be stopped at some point. Perhaps here. Perhaps further along. Civil Rights brought a lot of unfortunate baggage that increased the size and role of the federal government, but at some point the country began to accept “equality” and then push back on “quotas”.
Likely if some states hadn’t been so determined to support unfair racial laws, the country could have achieved a fair environment without the Courts mandating it and the federal government increasing its cost and role.
The general consensus in these threads is that gays should be able to live their lives together and freely but that the rest of us shouldn’t be forced to say being gay is OK.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I’m not familiar with the Mormon church. My guess, though, is that a male/female atheist couple couldn’t force the Mormon Church to perform their wedding. However, when that couple is welcome at City Hall it doesn’t create an imperative for the Mormon church to recognize their union. If the couple were former Catholics on their third marriage each, the Vatican would only see their first marriages as valid, regardless of what the state printed on the marriage license.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 1:17 PM
What’s biblical doctrine got to do with it? Do you really have that little faith in your fellow Christians that you think the church can’t survive without the state enforcing “biblical doctrine?” The Mormons are doing it in the libertarian utopia of Nevada, I’m pretty sure the rest of Christianity can do it, too.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Because if the definition of marriage is expanded it has to be taught in public schools, and enforced in social laws
In Boston, the Archdiocese has lost the license to operate a 200 year old adoption agency because they refused to adopt to gay married couples.
In England, Foster parents must by law teach young charges that gay marriage is equal and normal, and must send young charges to classes on the subject. A Christian couple who refused has lost their foster children and their license to foster
At the point gay marriage is legalized, a public school teacher can put a photo of their gay partner on their desk and tell the kids it is their spouse. The teacher can teach the kids about the goodness of two mommies, and they can do projects writing about, making pictures or re-enacting happy two mommy or two daddy families. A parent’s only recourse is to remove the child, which is not always possible financially
Once something is institutionalized it can be taught in public venues and people who object can be villified by the teachers.
The teacher will be able to say that mommy and ddady’s values are bad to the hapless kindergartner
It is a technique to isolate religions that interfere with the gay agenda which goes beyond gay marriage into amoral multiple partnerships, and the lowering of the age of consent. In Canada the logical progresseion of gay rights has meant diminishing the rights of anyone to speak against gay rights, so preachers can now be arrested for quoting the Bible to argue against gay marriage.
A lawyer for a major Canadian gay rights group stated there can be gay rights or religious rights but not both.
By codifying gay partnering as ‘marriage, it has been defined as part of the public good. The definition of ‘good’ has been put into the hands of a minority which will act to spread the good by litigating those who stand in the way of public good, and then will act to expand the definition of ‘ggod’ to the area of age of consent etc
entagor on November 20, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Here you go -
Businesses are forced –
Private adoption agencies are forced –
And finally this:
This is only the tip of the iceberg, there is literally reams of evidence both here in the U.S., and in Canada, that the homosexual agenda is bound and determined to undermine the traditional moral foundations of this society.
Sticking your head in the sand won’t make this go away.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Another thought on the “slipper slope”:
Eight years ago four members of the SCOTUS thought that the ‘right’ of a homosexual to be part of the BSA overrode the BSA’s constitutional right of Freedom of Association. (It also should be noted that ALL of the members of the NJ SC voted the same way).
And while the subject of federal support/funding of the BSA came up, some of the dissenting 4 admitted that this point (organizations that accept federal funds have to obey federal anti-discrimination laws) didn’t pertain to the BSA.
This decision SHOULD have been a no-brainer. They are a private group and have the right to decide who can and can’t be a member.
Yet the SCOTUS came within one vote of saying that the issue of homosexuality is more important then the fundamental right of freedom of association.
So it’s not just paranoia about the ’slippery slope.’
There’s some real issues going on here.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:31 PM
No, the consensus of the different places I have been is that you can have a Civil Union–or what every you choose to call it, but you can not have it LEGALLY defined as a proper use of the word MARRIAGE.
I don’t care if your church holds a wedding ceremony and calls it a marriage.
What I do care about is if you declare that it is a legally binding to all churches and all faiths as a definition of the word ‘marriage’ despite the beliefs of the respective Congregations and the Doctrine of their beliefs.
When you legally define a word, you make it legally actionable. You can then set a church up to sue the snot out of them.
The courts are not trusted, nor are they trustworthy.
Do not even attempt to use any kind of “common sense” argument about the issue. To do so is to ignore the past and to be truly disingenuous. (Did I say that right? I’m trying to keep it clean–I already inferred that I am a potty-mouth.)
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I know you’re not familiar with the Mormon church, neither are you familiar with the evidence that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples. Your whole argument is based on ignorance and hearsay, you bring nothing to the table except more ignorance. That’s why I told you to “give it a rest,” your only making a fool out of yourself.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I’m not being disingenuous. The point of contention appears to whether “marriage” forces an acceptance of gay behavior upon society as a whole. Some feel marriage is primarily a private matter that doesn’t have a large ripple-effect. Others think it does. Fair enough.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
You simultaneously participate in a debate and contribute meta-commentary as judge. Not really relevant.
Feel free to make a substantive and specific point. Characterizations are merely subjective.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Did anyone hear that History was made at the SUPREME COURT today? The Obama camp is soiling themselves now. Justice CLARENCE THOMAS has scheduled a “Full Conference Hearing of ALL 9 justices on a lawsuit that may THROW OUT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS.
.
Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey – US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407
.
Check it yourself. THEN SPREAD THE WORD & CROSS YOUR FINGERS. There is something to be VERY THANKFUL FOR next Thursday!
NightmareOnKStreet on November 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM
US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 has made it all the way to the Supreme Court WITHOUT GETTING DISMISSED FOR “LACK OF STANDING” like all the other cases. This one’s GOT LEGS.
.
In a nutshell: the suit says since Obama has admitted and maintained that he had DUAL CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH because his father was a Kenyan national. This is true. And this suit doesn’t depend on Obama being born outside the USA. Being a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requires more than being born on U.S. soil. It means being born WITHOUT ANY OTHER INHERENT ALLEGIANCES. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he was STILL UNDER THE JURISTDICTION OF KENYA because his father’s citizenship automatically transfered to Obama.
NightmareOnKStreet on November 20, 2008 at 1:45 PM
The streets will run red with scrap-booking supplies and homemade Christmas cookies.
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 6:26 PM
You forgot green jello, and funeral potatoes.
Marriage = 1 man, 1 woman period.
Bambi on November 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Bambi on November 20, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Ha. I was actually thinking about adding funeral potatoes in there. (but they’re not red!)
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 1:51 PM
It probably got all the way to the SCOTUS so that they could make a final, definitive ruling quickly.
Personally, as much as I think Obama is a mistake as president…
…I don’t want to see an election decided by the courts.
(And, no, the 2000 election wasn’t decided by the courts – they simply ruled that Florida couldn’t keep recounting the vote until doomsday.)
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:51 PM
OK, hows this?
You don’t know what you are talking about. You are ignorant concerning the various issues involved, and the overall seriousness of this subject on all our liberties.
How’s that for being on point?
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Is this point really up for contention?
Don’t both sides agree that applying and approving a governmental label is the same thing as governmental approval?
Which, in turn, ‘forces’ the acceptance upon the society as a whole?
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Ad hominem and unsupported beyond bold typeface.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Please don’t go there. Please. Please.
Biden scares me much more than Pres. elect Obama.
Really he does.
Ever see the movie: “Being There”?
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I agree, but this is not a case of that at all. This is a case of one of the most important, and explicit, Constitutional provisions being followed. The only problem with this case is that all should have been handled a year or two ago. It’s not as if nobody knew that this was a potential problem. We all knew, and many of us got berated by everyone for even bringing it up. But, since so many others thought that asking for actual proof of being a ‘natural-born citizen’ was wrong and petty (’trufer’ is what I was constantly called) we are now in this situation.
I think that it is clear that the SCOTUS must demand proof that BHO is a natural-born citizen, since if he is not then there is no way, whatsoever, that he can be allowed to take the Presidency, and ignoring such an explicit (and important) part of the Constitution would destroy it and the basis of our government. This is that important, and the proof asked for is that easy to produce.
Now we get to see if we are really a nation of laws.
progressoverpeace on November 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM
That is a key point. Having the right to engage in a behavior isn’t equivalent to the government endorsing it. If we were only allowed to engage in what the state endorsed that would be at odds with most concepts of liberty.
The government grants copyright protection to pornographic material, and courts will enforce it. I hope that isn’t an endorsement of the values in those films.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 2:04 PM
If Obama is deemed to be ineligible does that mean that we get McCain or Biden? Obama is not sworn in, yet. All this is just plain Hotair.
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 2:06 PM
But 5 justices upheld the law. I’m not familiar with the dissenting opinion in that case (nobody reads the dissenting opinion), so I’m skeptical that they were really out to strike down freedom of association. Wild guess – it probably had something to do with the BSA’s tax-exempt status. Which brings up another issue – if churches really want to operate outside the long arm of law (which they should), they should reject tax-exemption privileges.
OT – What part of the constitution guarantees freedom of association, anyway? I’m happy to accept that it’s in there, but I bet it’s a derived right, like freedom of privacy.
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM
But, if the government decided that pornographic material was to be labeled ‘literature’ and forced all libraries that have ‘literature’ sections to carry pornographic material in those sections, then we would be in the situation we are talking about with gay marriage (in terms of government endorsement).
progressoverpeace on November 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Calling you “ignorant” is not ad hominem, it is a statement of fact based upon the vapidness of your prior postings. Like this, “My guess, though, is that a male/female atheist couple couldn’t force the Mormon Church to perform their wedding.” That was a clear statement of ignorance, which could have been easily alleviated by doing a little research on the issue, rather than your unsubstantiated guessing.
As I pointed out above – from substantiated credible information and research – the forcing of the “gay” agenda is already underway in Massachusetts.
Joe Pyne on November 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM
As I specifically disclaimed I’m not familiar with the Mormon church. I do know that the Catholic church frequently declines to perform the weddings for couples who don’t meet their criteria.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Back to the subject:
Too many people have been sidetracked by the “semantics” (or so they say,) and have been ignoring or avoiding any of the consequences; unintended or not.
To anticipate the future, all we have to go by is the past. The past does not bode well (so to speak.)
The past is why there is such vehemence in our arguments against the redefinition of the word ‘marriage’.
Legal system as lottery–or if you prefer “spreading the wealth”–is a fact, not some sort of airy fairy fear from la-la-land. One can be sure that the lawsuits will not be aimed at Islam, nor will they be brought against the “black Churches”. It will be WASP, Catholic, and then Conservative Jewish Temples.
The courts will be used as a hammer to try to wipe out all of those superstitious fanatics out there. Also, it will be used as a means to restrict or outlaw home schooling.
Teaching children religious belief will be a form of “child abuse”.
And so it goes.
Except for one little problem.
Religion, God, and Guns
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Good luck up there on Ruby Ridge, cowboy.
Grow Fins on November 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Me? I don’t have guns, nor do I have children.
What about the 50,000,000 who DO have children and DO have guns?
Have you any idea how many are being home-schooled right now? Have you any idea as to WHY they are being home-schooled? It isn’t religion, except in a fairly small number of cases. The people are tired of indoctrination as a substitute for education.
There are those who are seething over the number of unindoctrinated minds out there–and if this issue can be used to outlaw home-schooling, it will be.
6% of the population (admittedly a POA number) are gay–of those only a small loud group want to hijack the word marriage. Yet, they are being allowed to tear the country apart?
Probably not. But things are really kind of scary right now. I think that it would be a good idea to ease up on things a bit. Slow things up; us frogs are noticing the fact that the pot is getting a bit warm, you know?
You all might want to let us cling to those things which comfort us awhile longer, before trying to take those things away. Capiche?
Eqwatz on November 20, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Another extremely short segment with Michelle.
She needs her own show.
Christine on November 20, 2008 at 3:01 PM
.
That doesn’t mean Biden is president. If this is decided against Obama before the Dec 15 Electoral College meets, they can put anyone they want in office. All it would take would be a couple of scared or burned former Obama electors to go with the Republicans and we could be looking at a President John McCain. I’m not all that well versed on this (although I have devoted most of my waking hours since the election pursuing it) Please go to Leo Donofrios website for a full explaination & all pertinent docs. Just reading what some forces have done to try & sabatage his case makes a good thriller.
NightmareOnKStreet on November 20, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Gays are not by nature violent people. But when they are manipulated and given false promises they make a formidable vanguard to advance the goals of their puppetmasters that have been organising and manipulating their movement for decades.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n2_mth1.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n4_mth.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n6_mth.html
http://sillielizziesrock.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-socialist-in-democrats-clothing.html
raybojabo on November 20, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I wonder how many of those homosexual “couples,” at that rally in San Francisco, that ZombieTime photographed are in “loving, monogamous relationships.”
That behavior isn’t love…it’s LUST. Trying to blur the lines between lust and loving marriages is exactly the goal of these homosexual “activists.” They demand tolerance while denying it to others…but tolerance is not their goal. Full acceptance and approval is their goal.
If they can convince enough FOOLS that their “relationships” are about LOVE then they can make their inroads into normalizing their behavior and making it equal to heterosexuality. That is there goal because they know, deep down, that they are ABNORMAL, but they can’t admit that.
And the law does address adultery. Adultery is grounds for divorce in most states. Marrying two heterosexuals does not endorse the behavior of adultery. Marrying two gays DOES endorse homosexual behavior. Vast difference between the two.
JannyMae on November 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
This guy has to be blind, deaf, dumb, and head-injured.
The ENTIRE NATION is facing demonstrations, bullying and intimidation by GAYS demanding that we CHANGE THE LAWS TO ACCOMMODATE THEM.
And this MENTALLY RETARDED TOOL is asking whether this issue forces an acceptance of gay behavior on society as a whole?????????
WHAT THE HELL DOES HE THINK THE DEMONSTRATIONS ARE???????
Delalus, THE ENTIRE ISSUE is about forcing the nation to accept gay as normal. That is the ONLY issue. There are no “rights” at stake. There are practically no gays who want to be married. Here in Mass, just 3 years after gay “marriage” was jammed down the state’s throat by a tyrannical court, the annual number of marriage license applications by gay couples does not even reach 3 digits.
The reason for gay “marriage” — the ENTIRE reason, the ONLY reason — is that malignantly narcissistic people with severe sexual issues and personality malformations want the entire nation to shout “You’re NORMAL!” in their ears, to counteract the anxiety in their own psyches that says to them that they’re not normal. They want the name “marriage” because that says to them that the entire nation agrees that they’re normal.
They won’t be satisfied with being able to marry. The entire point of the movement is to force everybody to tell them how normal they are. They will not rest until they have the full force of law to make the last individual who disagrees bow down and acknowledge their normalcy.
And you’re wondering whether this forces an acceptance of gay behavior on the nation.
I have nothing more to say. You win the Deliberately Obtuse Aware of the Decade.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
That’s Deliberately Obtuse AWARD of the Decade. Sheesh.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 3:42 PM
This does not square with my experience, nor with statistics taken from the gay community. Domestic violence is extremely common among gays.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 3:43 PM
The definition of “gay” is questionable, but even so, I’ve not seen any responsible research that places the number above 3% of the nation, and it’s probably closer to 2%.
philwynk on November 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I did read them and several of them saw the BSA’s right to associate as not being as important as the right of gays to be in their group.
In other words, the BSA had the right to associate (or not associate) with anyone they chose – except for homosexuals who they HAD to associate with.
The dissenting opinions were truly frightening to read.
It has traditionally be derived from the freedom of expression.
A google search on ‘freedom of association’ will bring up lots of information.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 3:46 PM
.
I was in agreement with you right up until the part about his birth certificate etc. THIS SUIT MAKES HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE IRRELEVANT.
.
By his own words he has admitted having DUAL CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND HAVING DUAL CITIZENSHIP ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. OBAMA’S DONE.
.
The framers made this very clear by making themselves an exception because they were born under British rule. They wanted to MAKE SURE THAT this country would never be ruled by someone who had DIVIDED LOYALTIES- ESPECIALLY WITH ENGLAND. Ironically, Kenya was part of the dwindling British Empire in 1961- the Year of
of Our Dear Leader’sObama’s birth. So Obama was a British subject- EXACTLY WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS ENVISIONED. And he was still under the juristdiction of The British Crown AT HIS BIRTH. Doesn’t matter where or THAT HIS MOTHER WAS A U.S. CITIZEN..
NOTHING can undo his DUAL CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH. NOTHING.
.
AND NOTHING COULD KILL HIS ELIGIBILITY LIKE NOT BEING BORN INTO “SOLE” CITIZENSHIP (”SOLE” BEING DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO “DUAL” CITIZENSHIP). HE IS DONE.
.
He KNEW IT COULD COME TO THIS that’s why he hasn’t made any attempt to stop the speculation. All he could do was wait & hope. But his BUDDY, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS (THE JUSTICE OBAMA TOLD RICK WARREN AT THE SADDLEBACK “DEBATE” HE WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED AGAINST NOMINATING FOR THE SUPREME COURT) HAS SEEN THESE TRUTHS…
.
Obama & his propaganda site, Annenburg FactCheck.org have proven to be “too cute by half” as my Dad used to say. They outsmarted themselves by “OUTING” his secret:
.
Pop the popcorn, crack a beer, clean your guns, put your feet up and enjoy the COMING ATTRACTIONS… “America- a Nation of Laws” rated “E” for Everyone. /strong>
.
I’m going to go back and watch that YouTube clip of Obama insulting Justice Thomas’ intelligence of the law, etc. OVER & OVER till I fall asleep tonight. LOL!!
.
P.S. In case anyone is interested I sent this news to Allah, Ed & Michelle early this morning. WHERE THE THREAD ABOUT IT? It’s not such a big newsday. THIS DESERVES ITS OWN THREAD, NOT “BURIED” IN THE HEADLINES AGAIN!
.
STEP UP GUYS! HOTAIR READERS, TAKE A PAGE FROM FOX. DON’T DECIDE IF WE SHOULD KNOW. YOU REPORT, WE DECIDE.
NightmareOnKStreet on November 20, 2008 at 4:10 PM
It just makes laugh out loud to hear someone say the gay agenda. Also, the freedom of association is derived from the first amendment of the United States Constitution, remember the freedom of assembly?
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 4:18 PM
The BC is part of the whole case and his resistance to produce it has been the main factor indicating a problem that allowed this legitimate questioning to reach the SCOTUS. Don’t forget that Souter already rejected this case before it was resubmitted to Thomas. I have brought up the dual-citizenship question many times on threads here when BHO’s eligibility was rightfully questioned but no one ever seemed to care about it – except those who saw fit to fling some names my way.
I think BHO’s ineligibility for POTUS is still considered truferism around here.
progressoverpeace on November 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Does name calling generally help you persuade people?
Your arguments also carry the burden of superlatives, which can be shown invalid by a single exception. The assertion that there is an “only” or “entire” reason a large population of people do something is often questionable. Many gay people are interested in living their own lives together and are relatively indifferent to changing the opinions of religious groups.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM
That’s an interesting image.
“Hordes” of Mormons running around SF yelling “OOGEDY BOOGEDY!”
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Churches will find protection in the Courts and legislative bodies that have upheld the right of “free exercise”, even providing exemptions in the past to compliance with some civil rights laws, relief from many federal laws under the 1993 RFRA, and some protection from DEA enforcement in the SCOTUS “Gonzales v. UDV” decision.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Before the BSA case I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly.
Now, though?
Not so much.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 5:18 PM
Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm, from the BIOLOGICAL norm….
This FACT is indisputable ….I don’t understand the fever for it.
ANYONE who practices these acts is not normal…period.
Shut up, get help and let the rest of us protect you from the islamo’s ….
jerrytbg on November 20, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Gay terrorism..what is the world coming to.
SaintOlaf on November 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Hey Saint,
Gee I was too late to the party…oh well…
jerrytbg on November 20, 2008 at 7:04 PM
When wealth is lost, nothing is lost.
When health is lost, something is lost.
When character is lost, all is lost.
John The Baptist on November 20, 2008 at 7:06 PM
This is a very timely message,,,
Abraham Lincoln
September, 1862
JellyToast on November 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
The decision in the BSA v Dale case in 2000 and its focus on “expressive association” is a positive precedent for organizations that want to exclude homosexuals, or at least avoid officially condoning homosexual relationships. A religious organization would have an even stronger case than the BSA for excluding gays or performing gay marriages.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM
If they were going to strike it down, they would have issued an injunction against it going into effect.
I think at least one of the four scum who voted to create a right to SSM has at least some sense of shame, and won’t vote to overturn the Amendment.
Greg Q on November 20, 2008 at 8:12 PM
I realize that the SCOTUS ruled FOR the BSA.
My concern comes from the fact that 4 justices ruled against the BSA.
Which means if Obama gets to replace any of the 5 who voted FOR the BSA…
…then we might have a court that puts the ‘rights’ of homosexuals ABOVE the constitutionally protected rights of others.
And you KNOW there will be lawsuits against churches for refusing to marry homosexuals, along with potential “hate crime” charges being brought against pastors who preach that homosexuality is a sin.
In a more sane world I wouldn’t worry about these things knowing that the courts will do the right thing.
But I simply can’t trust in the courts anymore.
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 8:21 PM
I see your point. I’d rather leave the issue to the ballots than have it decided in the courts.
Even the dessenting opinion by Stevens (the most likely to be replaced by Obama) doesn’t discount the “free association” right. A religious institution would have the “free exercise” right in addition to “free association”, and unlike the Scouts the rulebook for Christianity is very clear on gay sex being a no no.
A potential “gay couple v Catholic Church” where the gay couple was suing to be married in a Church ceremony would probably have even Ruth Bader Ginsberg voting against the gay couple.
dedalus on November 20, 2008 at 8:37 PM
You are absolutely correct.
Remember that video of the 69 year-old woman was roughed up? A gay website has had told the rest of the story. It is interesting. Here is a link to the website:
http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I’m sorry, but do you really expect us to take seriously a report from a web site called “holy bullies…”??
I mean, with a name like that they HAVE to be honest and not self-serving, right??
/sarc & eyeroll
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM
LOL!
jerrytbg on November 20, 2008 at 9:19 PM
You don’t think that there are holy bullies on the issue of gay rights? ……. to use your phrase /sacr & eyeroll. Go to the website and read, what’s to lose? If the site doesn’t give enough substantiation to his position for you, so be it.
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 9:45 PM
“Holy” bullies? Sounds either like an oxymoron or a drama-queen assessment.
And look – I’m willing to meet you half way in a conversation…
…but directing me to a gay website called “holy bullies” in order to glean “the other side of the story” is pushing it way too far.
If you’re actually interested in making a valid point – post links to sites that are a little less likely to “mold” the story to a preconceived point of view.
I mean, seriously, what’s next – being pointed to the opposing viewpoint at godhatesf*gs?
/shakes head and rolls eyes
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 9:52 PM
OK, here is the beginning of the article, which is rather lengthy.
Not attacking that 69-year-old woman but there is more to the story
As for the rest of the story/article (as Paul Harvey says) and links you can go to http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/
SC.Charlie on November 20, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Seriously, SC Charlie, you’re being an idiot.
What’s next, posting corroborative testimony from damnchristianbreedres.com?
Look, no one who has even the least little bit of interest in fairness is going to take seriously anything from that website.
I mean, do you seriously think that there isn’t the least little bit of possible self-serving (or even out and out lying) in posting anti-Christian information from a site called “holy bullies”?
I guess I should start posting information from homosexualswillrotinhell.org?
(And no, I have no idea whether that domain exists or not – I hope not.)
Religious_Zealot on November 20, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Malkin jumped the shark a long time ago. Not that bright and certainly not nearly as attractive as some of you stalkers think she is. Sort of a female version of Sam Cassell if you want to know the truth. Lightweight.
dakine on November 21, 2008 at 1:45 AM
DC GAMER:
I applaud your views, but I sense you missed my point. I am not a novice in the issue. I have a gay sister and brother and am the product of growing up in 60’s and as one of the original ‘hippies’ before the label chosen by the media.
The issue of “same sex marriage” is another means of the gay community to force others to accept their lifestyle and to ‘give’ them the same standing as a heterosexual union, which they already have when you closely examine the issue with a big picture perspective.
First, I do not see anything a gay couple is not entitled to that the a married couple are afforded. If there is one it is an issue for the couple to overcome with the person, or organization that is not affording them. Second, is the fact that the gay community feel that their lifestyle must be accepted but do not understand that you cannot legislate morality.
MSGTAS on November 21, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Homosexuality among humans is biologically abnormal. We cannot procreate without heterosexuality. (yet, and subject to change.)
That said, homosexuality is a fact among humans and also to some degree among higher primates at least. So teaching acceptance is ok, but teaching homosexuality as “normal” is very wrong. Particulary to pre-pubescents. I can find no compelling arguement in teaching a seven year old that two men having anal sex, or two women using phallic objects on each other is “normal” for the species.
We can teach tolerance, we can teach acceptance of outside the norm fellow humans, we should not teach that all behaviors or proclivities are “normal”.
My Down’s Syndrome brother-in-law is certainly not a “normal” person. He was born that way, can’t help what he is. Apparently, some homosexuals are also “born that way” and can’t help being a biological dead end. (Science is fast changing this.)
My point, again, is tolerance and acceptence, but I see no reason to confuse children about how babies are made prior to the childs hormonal awakening. If, upon puberty, my child were to exhibit homosexual tendencies, I would hope that I am big enough to support my child and could help to explain both physical and biological sexuality.
I would rather not have the State teaching homosexuality as a potentially optional lifestyle, but as a “normal abnormality” of a percentage of our population.
Back on topic, no to homo marriage (no such thing), yes to equal legal rights for homo couples as pertains to property, POA’s, wills, etc.
riverrat10k on November 21, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Gay Marriage is an oxymoron
whyme on November 21, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Which is what they really want; forget all the “marriage” and “equality” talk.
They need that approval because if they can get enough people to believe that their behavior is “natural and normal”, they just might start believing it themselves.
Sterling Holobyte on November 21, 2008 at 1:24 PM
How about teaching acceptance and tolerance in general terms?! That’s what we teach our child. An 8-year old doesn’t need to know the lurid details, regardless of what some activist groups think.
There is no scientific evidence to back that up, btw.
Sterling Holobyte on November 21, 2008 at 1:31 PM
What does your opinion about Michelle Malkin’s intelligence and appearance have to do with this thread?
Y-not on November 21, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »