Video: Prop 8, the musical

posted at 12:50 pm on December 3, 2008 by Allahpundit

Noteworthy mainly for the A-list (well, B- and C-list) cast. And the lack of any scenes involving blacklists or old ladies being bullied.

Believe it or not, this isn’t the first time Jack Black’s played Jesus.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM

…figuring out why you guys cherry-pick the rules you wanna follow and use the bible to make laws against us when it isn’t even clear in there not to mention when we have the separation of church and state in this country.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM

…figuring out why you guys cherry-pick the rules you wanna follow and use the bible to make laws against us when it isn’t even clear in there not to mention when we have the separation of church and state in this country.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Except that:

1. You already knew that.

2. This isn’t a church and state issue (and you’re quoting a non legally-binding letter every time you use those words anyway, not the Constitution.)

3. But hey, you actually said the Bible this time instead of fairy tale. I’m floored.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 4:04 PM

This isn’t a church and state issue (and you’re quoting a non legally-binding letter every time you use those words anyway, not the Constitution.)

well heck i guess it’s a-ok w/ you if a court decides to enforce sharia law here, good to know!

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM

I think these guys say it best:

….in the New Testament, Jesus established the New Covenant, which stated that the old Mosaic laws about unclean things were invalid (Jesus in his own person said nothing specifically against homosexuality, although Paul later attributed some remarks to him).

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM

Actually, Jesus said it best:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. (Matt 5:17, NASB)

We could quarrel about just why Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality (or, at least, why no one recorded his words). Considering the Old Testament prohibition against homosexual behavior, absence of mention would tend to indicate no change in God’s view of it; but you may draw your own conclusions.

For those of us who believe it is sin, and wonder how we should react to it, Jesus gave us a model:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”
They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him {be the} first to throw a stone at her.”
Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
When they heard it, they {began} to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”
She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” (John 8:3-11 NASB)

So someone else may in fact have to change their gay conduct to be within God’s will; that’s between him (or her) and God. His command to me is to love my neighbor as myself, and not to throw stones at others; yet to stand firm for the principle that sin and righteousness are both real, and that one is better than the other. Not to force righteousness on anyone, just as Jesus didn’t; but to stand strongly for it, whether it’s popular (as it often is) or not (which it also often is).

That’s a tough standard, and at times a tightrope that’s difficult to stay on; but for those on the outside trying to figure Christians out this is what most of us are earnestly trying to do.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM

well heck i guess it’s a-ok w/ you if a court decides to enforce sharia law here, good to know!

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:32 PM

That would be establishing a specific religion in the US. The Constitution does cover that. Surely this isn’t news to you.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM

That would be establishing a specific religion in the US. The Constitution does cover that. Surely this isn’t news to you.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Isn’t the gay marriage ban you base on the bible the same thing?

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:40 PM

For those of us who believe it is sin, and wonder how we should react to it, Jesus gave us a model

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Not everyone believes it is a sin, and no religion has the right to impugn upon my rights as a non-believer in a free country.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Feel free to stop calling me a whore. It really does nothing for your reputation as a supposed Christian.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM

We’re all guilty of committing sexual sins in our lives, I’m just sick and tired of having yours shoved in my face all the time. Whether it’s having to read how uninhabited your vagina is, or how well you’d please men other than your husband in bed, or how much you turned a guy on by pretending that you were a lesbian — and then to watch as you cause weak Christian men and other men, to LUST after you because of the sexually suggestive things you say — I’ll stop calling you a whore when you stop acting like one. How’s that? The point is this: You are posing as something that you are not in this forum — a Christian. And when you do that, I have to speak up. Your pride and disrespect for God is just too much for me to keep silent. Include all your swearing in the forum, and bragging about how much you like to drink and get “DRUNK”. Who can doubt that the devil’s hand is coordinating this disgrace? “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully…” (Jeremiah 48:10).

apacalyps on December 4, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Geez, Allah–can you close this thread already? Calling Esthier a Whore is way beyond the pale. And Noneya is still in the deluded belief that Christianity should be forcefully eradicated, and after 500 posts hasn’t changed his mind, so I’d say this thread is stale.

Vanceone on December 4, 2008 at 5:09 PM

Not everyone believes it is a sin, and no religion has the right to impugn upon my rights as a non-believer in a free country.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Regular marriage isn’t even a right – now gay marriage is?

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM

For those of us who believe it is sin, and wonder how we should react to it, Jesus gave us a model

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Not everyone believes it is a sin, and no religion has the right to impugn upon my rights as a non-believer in a free country.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM

So you want war, and will beat people over the head with any olive branch they offer?

I clearly said “for those who believe it is a sin” — which clearly and unambiguously implies that there are those who do not so believe. I also said we shouldn’t try to force others to behave righteously, as we understand the term. You have a right — and I’m GLAD you have the right — to do what you want, and to call it what you want, whatever I may think of it. I’m glad, because the same freedom gives ME the right to hold ANY opinion whatsoever of those actions, whether informed by the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or the Sunday funnies — and to voice those opinions. I will stand against anyone who threatens your rights, just as I would against those who threaten the exercise of free speech.

But words mean things, and by nature those meanings have limits. If you want to take a pole with a string on it, tie a lure to the string, and drop it in the water to catch a trout, you can call that “hunting” if you like — but you’d better have a fishing license if you want to do it, because to the rest of us that’s “fishing”. That doesn’t make “hunting” better than “fishing”, or vice versa; they are just not the same thing. Similarly, “Marriage” means something, and not just to religious people. At least, for now; language changes, and (with decent PR, which is sure not happening right now) your side may someday swing people to broadening that definition. (hint: stomping old ladies’ crosses is NOT good PR).

A couple of weeks ago, I was prepared to give on the whole ‘what is marriage thing’, just to keep peace, and took some considerable heat on this forum for saying so. But I see now that people like you and the anti-8 protesters aren’t interested in peaceful coexistence. You will not be satisfied until I praise gay sex as righteous and pleasing to God — which, no matter what society does, AIN’T gonna happen with me.

The irony is thick. While I defend your right to DO what you want, you seek to deny my right to THINK what I want!

They say churches are full of hypocrites. Maybe. But gay bars must surely have the most.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 5:29 PM

We’re all guilty of committing sexual sins in our lives, I’m just sick and tired of having yours shoved in my face all the time. Whether it’s having to read how uninhabited your vagina is, or how well you’d please men other than your husband in bed, or how much you turned a guy on by pretending that you were a lesbian — and then to watch as you cause weak Christian men and other men, to LUST after you because of the sexually suggestive things you say — I’ll stop calling you a whore when you stop acting like one. How’s that? The point is this: You are posing as something that you are not in this forum — a Christian. And when you do that, I have to speak up. Your pride and disrespect for God is just too much for me to keep silent. Include all your swearing in the forum, and bragging about how much you like to drink and get “DRUNK”. Who can doubt that the devil’s hand is coordinating this disgrace? “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully…” (Jeremiah 48:10).

apacalyps on December 4, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Your comments lack any indication of the fruit of the spirit. It’s not Esthier’s salvation that’s in question here: it’s yours. By their fruits you will know them, and the putrefied garbage you’ve been spewing here under the imprimatur of my faith sickens me.

For calling a commenter here a whore and being verbally abusive you should be banned, and I will notify AllahPundit of this exchange.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Wow. Well said sir.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:38 PM

Regular marriage isn’t even a right – now gay marriage is?

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM

SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right in several decisions. They require the states to apply a high level of scrutiny when enacting any laws that might restrict a person from exercising the right to marrying.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Your comments lack any indication of the fruit of the spirit. It’s not Esthier’s salvation that’s in question here: it’s yours.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

None of us would be harmed to read Romans 14, starting… oh, say around v. 10 (I’m looking mostly in apacalyps’ direction, with a careful eye in the mirror as well).

It’s sad that when we’re clothed in the breastplate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, our loins girded with truth, holding in our hands the sword of the spirit — that some of us can’t help fighting our own brothers & sisters in the faith.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Isn’t the gay marriage ban you base on the bible the same thing?

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 4:40 PM

I didn’t base any ban on anything. I’m not even from California.

Vanceone on December 4, 2008 at 5:09 PM
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Thank you, very much, both of you. I was about to defend myself but am glad it doesn’t seem necessary.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 5:48 PM

If they had not, I was going to. But, it’s great to see a couple of well-spoken Brothers in Christ on this thread.

Having that one single word sure is important to the Gay representatives on this thread. Is it for acceptance or power?

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 5:52 PM

Having that one single word sure is important to the Gay representatives on this thread. Is it for acceptance or power?

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 5:52 PM

When I was a lad, the bullies would try to make me say “uncle”.

Today, they want me to say “married”.

I didn’t give in to bullies then, and I won’t now.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 5:55 PM

SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right in several decisions. They require the states to apply a high level of scrutiny when enacting any laws that might restrict a person from exercising the right to marrying.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM

to expand on your point, for those who say it is not a right, tell that to those 18,000 gay couples who did marry in CA this year. they had the right to be happily joined in matrimony, as sanctioned by the CA Supreme Court, stripped away by this hateful measure.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM

they had the right to be happily joined in matrimony, as sanctioned by the CA Supreme Court, stripped away by this hateful measure.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Now, again, I won’t question your intellect the way you have done to Christians here, but last I heard, this wasn’t going to be applied retroactively to people who were already married.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM

The irony is thick. While I defend your right to DO what you want, you seek to deny my right to THINK what I want!

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 5:29 PM

You can think whatever you want, people can even call us fags like TheMightyQuinn did at 1:48PM, I personally don’t care and can take those shots and worse, what I cannot stand for is people using their religion to butt into my life and judge me, then deem it acceptable to strip away our right to marry that the CA Supreme Court gave us in May.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:05 PM

they had the right to be happily joined in matrimony, as sanctioned by the CA Supreme Court, stripped away by this hateful measure.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM

The issue isn’t whether they had a right to marry; the issue is what marriage means.

They didn’t have anything more “taken away” than a couple who learns that the minister who married them was not really a minister — less, even. Neither civil nor moral nor religious implications, for good or ill, were changed by the ruling. Only a semantic one, and (as you consider the Bible, which is the basis for the western concept of Holy Matrimony, a ‘fairy tale’, I can’t see why you would care).

And “hateful”? Look who’s talkin’….

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Now, again, I won’t question your intellect the way you have done to Christians here, but last I heard, this wasn’t going to be applied retroactively to people who were already married.

Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 6:03 PM

Not for now, but don’t think the Prop. 8 supporters aren’t trying to do just that. What about the rights of the folks turned away from marrying once the Proposition passed? That sounds like they were stripped of those rights to me.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:09 PM

The majority of people in the state of California did not believe that this was a right. The overwhelming majority of people in this country have voted against it when it was on a ballot. 85% of Americans believe there is a God. Less than 5% of Americans practice Homosexuality. So, how does this give you a Bully Pulpit to insult Christians and Heterosexuals into allowing you the use of this word? This was not a hatelful measure. The people decided. To quote you earlier, “oh whhhaa”

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:13 PM

The issue isn’t whether they had a right to marry; the issue is what marriage means.

And “hateful”? Look who’s talkin’….

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 6:07 PM

What Prop. 8 means is that we can no longer marry just as straight couples do, i think it’s you dealing w/ just semantics here. and you would be angry too if your marriage or those of your friends were dissolved as this passed measure seeks to do.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:16 PM

The majority of people in the state of California did not believe that this was a right. The overwhelming majority of people in this country have voted against it when it was on a ballot. 85% of Americans believe there is a God. Less than 5% of Americans practice Homosexuality. So, how does this give you a Bully Pulpit to insult Christians and Heterosexuals into allowing you the use of this word? This was not a hatelful measure. The people decided. To quote you earlier, “oh whhhaa”

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:13 PM

Well the CA Supreme Court did rule that it was a right, and the churches who can’t even rid themselves of polygamy and pedophiles, of cover-ups and lies, decided to take the law in their own bigoted hands. Well this “inconsequential minority” as you call us will not stand for this discrimination and will fight for full civil rights even if the bigots like you don’t deem us worthy.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:20 PM

SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right in several decisions. They require the states to apply a high level of scrutiny when enacting any laws that might restrict a person from exercising the right to marrying.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Neither the first, nor the last time I’ll disagree with the SCOTUS on something. They’re under the impression that they make laws, after all. Manufacturing rights out of whole cloth doesn’t seem a stretch.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 6:23 PM

using their religion to butt into my life and judge me

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:05 PM

And there it is. Wouldn’t want anyone to judge, now would we? Absolutely we should MAKE people refrain from passing judgment on you at the point of a gun. Wouldn’t want any of those hateful, hurtful, bigoted disapproving looks, now would we?

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 6:26 PM

I did not call you inconsequential. You were made by the Creator, the same as I. You just choose to ignore Him. And you’re no more a minority than I am if I walk through downtown Detroit or Memphis. Yours is an issue of sexual orientation. Your “struggle” does not equate to the Civil Rights struggle of the Black population in this country. If the Ca Supreme Court gets involved and rules against Pro. 8, they will be usurping the will of the people of California.

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Neither the first, nor the last time I’ll disagree with the SCOTUS on something. They’re under the impression that they make laws, after all. Manufacturing rights out of whole cloth doesn’t seem a stretch.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 6:23 PM

Sure. That is fair and the level of scrutiny SCOTUS applies to laws restricting marriage has varied. However, if someone believes that they have a fundamental right to marry they have at least 40 years of SCOTUS precedent on their side–at least if they are straight.

I’m not sure how the current SCOTUS would rule on a gay marriage case. I hope they avoid it for a while and let the states work it out. My guess is that eventually more states will legislate to allow gay marriage. Some gay people will have successful lasting marriages and others won’t while straight people find that they still have the same challenges and rewards in raising a family as they did before.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Well the CA Supreme Court did rule that it was a right, and the churches who can’t even rid themselves of polygamy and pedophiles, of cover-ups and lies, decided to take the law in their own bigoted hands. Well this “inconsequential minority” as you call us will not stand for this discrimination and will fight for full civil rights even if the bigots like you don’t deem us worthy.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:20 PM

You must be scared knowing that there are people of faith that will never give into your bulling, they are stronger than you are and don’t step away from their beliefs when questioned. Regardless what the courts do the people have already spoken (In CA and 29 other states): no homosexual marriage.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Your “struggle” does not equate to the Civil Rights struggle of the Black population in this country. If the Ca Supreme Court gets involved and rules against Pro. 8, they will be usurping the will of the people of California.

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:28 PM

That’s what courts do–overturn the will of the majority to protect a minority’s rights. Sometimes they do it well, other times not.

In the case of the Civil Rights Movement, right or not, the courts were on the opposite side of the will of the majority in many instances.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 6:35 PM

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 6:35 PM

The problem is: Who determines what the “Rights” of a minority are.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Your “struggle” does not equate to the Civil Rights struggle of the Black population in this country. If the Ca Supreme Court gets involved and rules against Pro. 8, they will be usurping the will of the people of California.

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:28 PM

how so? Separate but Equal was shot down for the blacks just as it should be for us, since the majority in this case also wants to deem us second-class citizens and unworthy of marriage equality, adoption, etc.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Apologies for length. I got a bit wound up.

The irony is thick. While I defend your right to DO what you want, you seek to deny my right to THINK what I want!

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 5:29 PM

You can think whatever you want, people can even call us fags like TheMightyQuinn did at 1:48PM, I personally don’t care and can take those shots and worse, what I cannot stand for is people using their religion to butt into my life and judge me, then deem it acceptable to strip away our right to marry that the CA Supreme Court gave us in May.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:05 PM

I hope it is plain that I wouldn’t call you any derogatory name, and have a low opinion of those who would; but of course you’re correct that it is their right to do so.

As for butting into your life, I (a) don’t even know you, and (b) was “here” (this forum) first. I’m perfectly happy to have you here, please understand; but it is hardly apt to say that *I* have *butted into* *your* life.

As for judging you, I don’t judge people. I do judge my own behavior. I read the scripture, and (as commanded by Christ and as permitted by our Constitution, and in appropriate forums) “…teach whatsoever things [Jesus has] commanded”. If you are “judged”, then it is by the Word of God, not by me. Would that you knew some of my gay friends — I have a few — who could tell you that whatever my beliefs about God and sin, I treat them with nothing but compassion and respect.

Now, to the real point of your post: taking away a “right to marry that the CA Supreme Court gave [you] in May”. We’re not going to agree on this, I just know, but here goes nothing: while our constitution clearly prohibits establishment of any official religious belief, and yields to each the right to practice or not practice religion according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, another of our foundational documents — the Declaration of Independence, no less — tells us that we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights”. Thus, it is foundational to our republic that our rights — whatever they may be — are endowed by our creator, NOT by any court and NOT by the constitution. Those are institutions of men, whose primary purpose is to prevent government from taking away those creator-given rights.

Since we disagree about a creator, it is natural that we would disagree about what those rights may be. Government, then, must allow each of us to do as we will, so long as we don’t interfere with the rights of others. On the important matters — my right to believe and act as I choose, and your right to believe and act (quite differently) as you choose, we have much to celebrate, as we have freedom unparalleled in the history of earth. Where we butt heads is a word: “Marriage”. You want to make me use it (or, at a minimum, to ascent to the government that represents me using it); I refuse. In such a case, when neither of us is denied a fundamental right; when all that is at stake is the meaning of a word; and when the proper meaning of a word is whatever people mean when they use it — a very democratic process, to be sure — this is rightly NOT a case for judicial activism, but rather for the public to decide. Convince 50%+ 1 of your fellow citizens, and I’ll come around on the WORD, though it will never seem right to me, because language does change over time.

But if you expect me to “come around” on my beliefs, you should know that it will never happen.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 6:38 PM

The problem is: Who determines what the “Rights” of a minority are.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:36 PM

Elections matter. Probably more for court appointments than anything else.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 6:39 PM

how do you justify cherry-picking which “rules” to follow from the bible and which not to?

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM

It isn’t cherry picking at all. Some Chrisians don’t know much about the Old Testament and so have difficulty explaining it.

In the Old Testament God gave ALL of the laws. In fact He gave 3 kinds of laws. The first is the moral law. That is the 10 commandments and includes issues that have to do with morality-which sexuality is part of. All Christians, for all time, are to follow and obey the moral laws.

The second kind of law is the civil law. It was given by God and the Israelites were judged directly by God. That is where you get the “cherry picking” misinformation. God stated what His civil laws were AND THE PUNISHMENT for breaking them. Because of the time, and what God was accomplishing some of His consequences were severe. Additionally some of them–like the food laws were given because of poor sanititation and preservation of food. God was protecting them from illness and death. Christians today do not need to follow the civil laws in the bible. We are to follow the laws of our own country as long as they do not contradict God’s moral laws.

The last type of law was the ceremonial law. This was how they were to worship God. It did involve animal sacrifices ordained by God to cover their sin. When Jesus was crucified He took God’s wrath for our sin. He was the sacrifice-needed only one time since He was perfect and sinless. Because of this we are not to practice the ceremonial laws. Jesus, and the work He did when He was on earth replaced the ceremonial law.

It isn’t a matter of cherry picking which laws I want to obey and which laws I do not want to obey. It is simply knowing the three types of laws God gave and the reason He gave them-as well as basic Christian beliefs.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:38 PM

Have you been denied employment because of the way you look? Have you been refused housing? Have you had to drink out of a separate water fountain? Have you been beaten? Have you been falsely imprisioned? Have you been hung in your front yard? Have you been castrated? Have you had your proerty burned down? That is what the Black population went through. Your “struggle” does not compare.

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:45 PM

It isn’t cherry picking at all….

sues on December 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Well done. I considered trying to explain this, but I’m so long-winded it’d have taken a book.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 6:46 PM

You must be scared knowing that there are people of faith that will never give into your bulling, they are stronger than you are and don’t step away from their beliefs when questioned. Regardless what the courts do the people have already spoken (In CA and 29 other states): no homosexual marriage.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:34 PM

yes, they are stronger than we are, that’s why they won this round, albeit with far weaker support than the last ban had. oh, and that ban was thrown out by the CA Supreme Court, and they will have the final say here as well. i’m not scared, i’m angry, and my people are emboldened now and flexing our muscles, and won’t stop until we have full equality. The mormon and catholic churches need to clean their own houses of polygamy and pedophilia before they think they can tell California how to keep theirs, and we won’t let them forget it.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM

proerty=property. I have to go to Cell Group now. That a group of Christians meeting weekly at someone’s house to share His love and study His word. Back later.

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM

It isn’t a matter of cherry picking which laws I want to obey and which laws I do not want to obey. It is simply knowing the three types of laws God gave and the reason He gave them-as well as basic Christian beliefs.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM

I don’t recognize your god and his “word” is not the rule of this land, the Constitution is. The judges in the CA Supreme Court applied the law accordingly in May, and will again.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:47 PM

You are right, I saw them flexing their muscles pushing around an old lady with a cross and running into churches like some teenage flasher. I am pretty impressed at that display of strength.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:51 PM

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:45 PM

tell that to harvey milk and matthew shepard, oh wait….

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:51 PM

I don’t recognize your god and his “word” is not the rule of this land, the Constitution is. The judges in the CA Supreme Court applied the law accordingly in May, and will again.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:50 PM

You are still missing the main point. The Constitution can be amended by popular vote (as in Prop. 8) and then becomes the law of the land. The voters have the final say not the courts.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:52 PM

It isn’t a matter of cherry picking which laws I want to obey and which laws I do not want to obey. It is simply knowing the three types of laws God gave and the reason He gave them-as well as basic Christian beliefs.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM

I don’t recognize your god and his “word” is not the rule of this land, the Constitution is. The judges in the CA Supreme Court applied the law accordingly in May, and will again.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Huh?? The question was about CHRISTIANS cherry-picking what Biblical rules WE follow. This has no bearing on non-Christians.

Actually, my Troll detector just went off. No one, not even someone as dense as Noneya, could fail to realize how goofy that last post was.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM

tell that to harvey milk and matthew shepard, oh wait….
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:51 PM

While regrettable the murder of 2 or even 100 people does not equate with the struggle of a people that were originally brought here as slaves and killed in the 10s of thousands just on the journey across the ocean, who later were bought and sold like cattle, treated less than human, made to work for no wages, beaten and torn away from their families.
You should focus on the entire struggle for equal rights and not just the last portion. Once you do that you will see that there is no equivalency between the two, regardless how many you repeat the claim.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:02 PM

ou are still missing the main point. The Constitution can be amended by popular vote (as in Prop. 8) and then becomes the law of the land. The voters have the final say not the courts.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 6:52 PM

uhh, no. the legal case against Prop. 8 is headed back to the CA Supreme Court in a few months, and hopefully will be overturned as Prop. 22 was. The court, not the voters, had the final say on Prop. 22.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Huh?? The question was about CHRISTIANS cherry-picking what Biblical rules WE follow. This has no bearing on non-Christians.

Actually, my Troll detector just went off. No one, not even someone as dense as Noneya, could fail to realize how goofy that last post was.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Isn’t the case against gay marriage a religious one? isn’t that why the churches are involved? The actions of the Mormons and the Vatican helped impose this measure on gay non-christians and fellow christians as well.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM

From the life of brian;

“i want to be a woman….it will be a symbol of our struggle against oppression.”

“it’ll be a symbol of his struggle against reality.”

TexasDan on December 4, 2008 at 7:09 PM

uhh, no. the legal case against Prop. 8 is headed back to the CA Supreme Court in a few months, and hopefully will be overturned as Prop. 22 was. The court, not the voters, had the final say on Prop. 22.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:04 PM

Wow you are thick. Prop 22 was not an amendment to the constitution only Prop 8 is. The same arguments used by the court to strike down the initiative cannot be used to strike down Prop 8. The question becomes then whether an amendment to the constitution can even be declared unconstitutional.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:10 PM

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Here we go, trading grievances. ok well, do you know what group was targeted and slayed in the thousands alongside the Jews in the Holocaust? Hint: they weren’t black.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:10 PM

so we agree then the court will have the final say?

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:15 PM

Isn’t the case against gay marriage a religious one? isn’t that why the churches are involved? The actions of the Mormons and the Vatican helped impose this measure on gay non-christians and fellow christians as well.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Not at all: I am against gay marriage because I think that it begins to undermine the foundation of a well functioning society. The institution of marriage should primarily be used by society to ensure a stable environment for the raising of children without which a society necessarily perishes. For it to be seen as something to strive for it needs to be held in high esteem by society and not cheapened by including everyone who wants to take advantage of that esteem.
I perceive the entire gay marriage push to be an attempt by homosexuals to force society to give them respect and acceptance. I’ll give you acceptance because as a Christian that’s what I do, but respect has to be earned and cannot be demanded.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:16 PM

What a crappy musical!

Av8tor on December 4, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Not at all: I am against gay marriage because I think that it begins to undermine the foundation of a well functioning society. The institution of marriage should primarily be used by society to ensure a stable environment for the raising of children without which a society necessarily perishes. For it to be seen as something to strive for it needs to be held in high esteem by society and not cheapened by including everyone who wants to take advantage of that esteem.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:16 PM

So you must also want to ban divorce and marriage between infertile and/or older men and women?

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:20 PM

kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 6:45 PM

tell that to harvey milk and matthew shepard, oh wait….

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:51 PM

Shepard was the victim of a crime. The criminals will both spend the rest of their lives in prison. It is terrible what happened to him, but it is far different than the Klan having routinely gotten away with murder and mayhem.

Harvey Milk was a victim exactly to the same degree as Mayor Moscone, who was shot first. The murder had nothing to do with Milk being gay, but rather resulted from a disproportionate response (ahem) to a mental health group home being located in Dan White’s district. The trial outcome was indeed an outrage (the twinkie defense? PLEASE!!), but I’m aware of no reason attribute the light sentence to Milk’s homosexuality. I can name many equally bad (or worse) miscarriages of justice involving straight people (Nicole Brown Simpson springs to mind).

As for my opinion of gay-bashing: let me help you out by giving you a much better case to make your point: Judge Jack Hampton

But it’s 20 years old, and I’ve observed massive improvement in this sort of thing. I believe you can call THIS battle ‘won’ now. Today gay bashing is both rare and (as it should be) VIGOROUSLY prosecuted.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 7:22 PM

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 7:22 PM

can we please stop playing the grievance game? marriage equality is a civil right for us whether you acknowledge that or not.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM

I perceive the entire gay marriage push to be an attempt by homosexuals to force society to give them respect and acceptance. I’ll give you acceptance because as a Christian that’s what I do, but respect has to be earned and cannot be demanded.

dpierson on December 4, 2008 at 7:16 PM

What if gay families become more prevalent? When I’m dealing with children who have parents that are a gay couple, I have a difficult time not referring to them as married. I don’t know their legal status but know that they function as a child’s parents and it seems appropriate to me to treat them in the same manner I treat the parents of any other child.

I agree with you that marriage shouldn’t be cheapened by couples that use the institution for their own ego-gratification or self-fulfillment or to send a message. Maybe gays, in aggregate, are more likely to do this but I’m bothered when straight people do it too, and hear about someone on their third marriage before they turn 40.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM

Huh?? The question was about CHRISTIANS cherry-picking what Biblical rules WE follow. This has no bearing on non-Christians.

Actually, my Troll detector just went off. No one, not even someone as dense as Noneya, could fail to realize how goofy that last post was.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Isn’t the case against gay marriage a religious one? isn’t that why the churches are involved? The actions of the Mormons and the Vatican helped impose this measure on gay non-christians and fellow christians as well.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Perhaps; but that wasn’t what THAT PARTICULAR POST was about.

Really, the ‘gay marriage’ issue is about a word. The majority think it perverse to lump what they see — I said “they”, now, referring to the majority, not everyone — to lump what they see as an UNHOLY union under a title reserved for a HOLY one. For some the reasons are religious; for others they are more about tradition. For still others, it merely offends their sensibility — “gay marriage” goes together like “chainsaw sandwich” or “hand me that piano”.

I’ll tell you what, though: I *WILL* acknowledge that there are people — in my experience including, but not predominately, people active in Christian churches — who revile gay people, and would be just fine with putting them on an island somewhere so they wouldn’t have to deal with them. Revulsion at the THOUGHT of gay male sex (it’s not fair; I can’t help that) is strong in straight men, and it has nothing to do with “fearing that we might be gay ourselves” — well, at least it doesn’t in me. First time a friend came out of the closet to me, I had to come to grips with the revulsion thing. It still sounds disgusting to me, but freedom means some people will do things that I wouldn’t.

I’ve gone down a side trail — back to the main road. I know people who genuinely revile gay people. But they are a minority, and (like people prejudiced against racial minorities) a shrinking and aging group.

Noneya, I’ve stayed two hours after work to participate in this discussion, because I care about people like you. I don’t really expect you to accept my Jesus — though you could never make a better decision, and I really hope you’ll prove me wrong. But I do hope to help you understand that we can disagree, live very different lives, look at one another wondering why “that guy” (guessing gender) is so strange — without interfering with “that guy”‘s right to be just as strange as he wants to be. You can, and probably will, think I’m a self-righteous Bible-thumper; I can, and assuredly will, think you’re a sadly misguided person, who is torn between a desire to participate in a gay relationship and the desire to have approval of others. And that’s all okay.

I’m going home now. I’ll probably log back on briefly in a few hours, if you want to ask me any sort of question. Otherwise, you may have (so far as the two of us are concerned) the last word.

God bless you. Really.

RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 7:43 PM

I agree with you that marriage shouldn’t be cheapened by couples that use the institution for their own ego-gratification or self-fulfillment or to send a message. Maybe gays, in aggregate, are more likely to do this but I’m bothered when straight people do it too, and hear about someone on their third marriage before they turn 40.

dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM

An excellent point.

(not a response to you, just a thought):

If we decided to ban second marriages, you can bet that divorcees would claim their civil rights were being violated. And they’d be absolutely right.

RightOFLeft on December 4, 2008 at 8:56 PM

so we agree then the court will have the final say?

Noneya on December 4

What’s final? The court can rule whatever it wants. Will men stop living? Will the ages suddenly come to an end once the court rules something big for the homosexuals?
When the court ruled slavery legal,, was that the final say?
Has Roe V Wade settled forever the abortion issue or do Christians still fight for the unborn??
Does the homosexual movement really believe that Christians will just go away if they win something big from the courts or the congress??
Homosexuals have made some gains in the last 15 years or so,, but what is their 15 or 20 or more years of gain compared to overall history?
One side fights to engage in more sex, while the other side fights for a major religious belief, for the God of the Bible,, a God that parted the sea and shook mountains, died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the grave.
Christians have built nations, given their lives to share the Gospel with strangers, they have endured persecution, started revolutions and altered the course of history for their faith. A faith that they consider marriage to be a holy and central part of.
You do not have to believe in the God of the Bible to know that, in the long run, the homosexuals are hopelessly outmatched.

JellyToast on December 4, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Believe it or not, this isn’t the first time Jack Black’s played Jesus.

“NO!!! I was on the eigh-teeeenth hoooole…”

Great bit from Mr. Show.

Can’t say this new bit of Strawman Theater has much to offer except, perhaps, a glimpse of delusional self-parody, along the lines of “Lil’ Bush”.

RD on December 4, 2008 at 11:17 PM

Isn’t the case against gay marriage a religious one? isn’t that why the churches are involved? The actions of the Mormons and the Vatican helped impose this measure on gay non-christians and fellow christians as well.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Each individual and group has the freedom and even the responsibility to advocate for what is important to them. In the case of Christians and the church, abortion and same sex marriage are important issues to them.

And there is nothing wrong with that. We have just as much right to our opinion and beliefs as you do, and we have just as much right to advocate for our beliefs-sacredness of the unborn, sexual immorality, and preservation of God’s definition of “family” and “marriage”.

Notice I didn’t say that you have to agree or become a Christian. There are many who advocate those positions who are not Christians. Where I get my motivation and beliefs from are immaterial.

You, and many liberal non Christians act as though just because my values come from my faith and belief in God that I should have no say in our laws and culture.

It doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you want it to be so.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM

It isn’t a matter of cherry picking which laws I want to obey and which laws I do not want to obey. It is simply knowing the three types of laws God gave and the reason He gave them-as well as basic Christian beliefs.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM

I don’t recognize your god and his “word” is not the rule of this land, the Constitution is. The judges in the CA Supreme Court applied the law accordingly in May, and will again.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:50 PM

I never said that you have to recognize my God, nor did I say that His word is the rule of this land.

I simply answered your mocking contention that as Christians we “cherry pick” which laws and rules in the bible we adhere to.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 11:37 PM

Your comments lack any indication of the fruit of the spirit. It’s not Esthier’s salvation that’s in question here: it’s yours. By their fruits you will know them, and the putrefied garbage you’ve been spewing here under the imprimatur of my faith sickens me. For calling a commenter here a whore and being verbally abusive you should be banned, and I will notify AllahPundit of this exchange.

TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Don’t lecture me on being a good Christian, Mr. Unrepentant (great name for a believer by the way – eyeroll). Aren’t you the same guy/Christian who doesn’t care if two men marry each other? Last time I checked that wasn’t in the Bible. In fact, homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. Hmm. No wonder you’re defending Esthier’s lewdness. Look, I stand by my comments about this woman being a phony Christian and can back up everything I’ve said. This is not about honest sinners. This is about people posing as something that they are not on a political forum. If Esthier insists on saying she is a Christian yet makes comments that a believer will not make, then you must know that those who understand Christian doctrine are going to call her on it. She is doing a great deal of damage with statements like “I’m a Christian.” The people she influences can be lulled into a false sense of security thinking he/she has eternal life when the nowhere in the Bible does it support the idea that a true Christian can remain carnal for an entire lifetime. I’m sorry. I’d much rather be commenting on something else. But, her disrespect for Christians and God is just too much for me to keep silent.

apacalyps on December 5, 2008 at 12:17 AM

You, and many liberal non Christians act as though just because my values come from my faith and belief in God that I should have no say in our laws and culture.

It doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you want it to be so.

sues on December 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM

actually we have the separation of church and state in this country, so you go ahead and base your life around a fairy tale written 2000 years ago, but you have no right to legislate my life based on your religious ideals.

Noneya on December 5, 2008 at 1:06 AM

One side fights to engage in more sex, while the other side fights for a major religious belief, for the God of the Bible,, a God that parted the sea and shook mountains, died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose from the grave.Christians have built nations, given their lives to share the Gospel with strangers, they have endured persecution, started revolutions and altered the course of history for their faith. A faith that they consider marriage to be a holy and central part of.
You do not have to believe in the God of the Bible to know that, in the long run, the homosexuals are hopelessly outmatched.

JellyToast on December 4, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Christians have also killed millions in the name of God, conquered and wiped out entire civilizations, discriminated against your fellow man based on bigoted religious views, etc. face it, you are on the wrong side of history as your side often is.

Noneya on December 5, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Christians have also killed millions in the name of God, conquered and wiped out entire civilizations, discriminated against your fellow man based on bigoted religious views, etc. face it, you are on the wrong side of history as your side often is.

Noneya on December 5, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Gosh I get tired of this silly argument.

It would be easy enough to simply remind you of the many millions killed JUST IN THE LAST CENTURY in the name of atheistic and anti-Christian dogmas; but that’s not much more fair than your claim. Ultimately, people who want power will cloak themselves with whatever legitimizing camouflage they can find, then do whatever they want.

Whether because of non-believers posing, or believers going off the rails (the truth is ‘some of both’, IMHO), the institution of the Church did, in fact, go through some very dark days, in which some very bad things were done in its name. But with the Reformation, and subsequently the Great Enlightenment, the church has returned to its scriptural roots (o/t thought: consider the role of market forces in reforming the Roman Catholic church as protestant sects began to compete).

Since we’re concerned here with the Church’s role in current events, let’s consider what the Church has done in the last couple hundred years.

The Christian Church, more than any other institution, was responsible for the abolition of slavery. It was also Christians who pushed for public schools and child labor laws. Christians have also built the lions share of the hospitals, orphanages, soup kitchens, and other services for people in need, both in the U.S. and around the world. Whatever Charlemagne or Sigurd I may have done, it is undeniable that for the last 200+ years the Christian Church around the world has been overwhelmingly a force for good — occasional misdeeds of individuals notwithstanding.

None of which obligates anyone to become a Christian or follow Biblical teaching. But it does make the argument about how EEEEEVIL the modern Church is sound pretty silly.

RegularJoe on December 5, 2008 at 8:14 AM

Strike “Great Enlightenment”; insert “Great Awakening”.

Sorry, that’s what happens when I write before the caffeine kicks in.

RegularJoe on December 5, 2008 at 8:46 AM

apacalyps on December 5, 2008 at 12:17 AM

How about you just leave me alone?

I don’t care that you think I’m a whore. Jesus was prepared for death by one, even has he reject the pious, the ones who had him killed. From you, this must be some kind of complement.

What Prop. 8 means is that we can no longer marry just as straight couples do, i think it’s you dealing w/ just semantics here. and you would be angry too if your marriage or those of your friends were dissolved as this passed measure seeks to do.

Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 6:16 PM

Semantics is what this is all about and nothing more. Gays have the same rights in California as any other couple. All you’re missing is one word. That’s what the pushing little old ladies around and black listing Mormons is all about, one word.

The courts have decided that marriage is a right, but have they decided that all unions have the right to the word marriage? Or does the word marriage mean, what the supporters of Prop 8 believe it means, a union between one man and one woman. If it does mean that, then you’re asking for a recognition that goes against reality.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Semantics is what this is all about and nothing more. Gays have the same rights in California as any other couple. All you’re missing is one word.

This simply isn’t true. It’s true that civil unions provide all of the same state rights as marriages, but it denies couples a lot of federal rights, because the federal government only recognizes marriages. So it denies Gay couples rights that pertain to:

* Social Security survivor and pension benefits
* Inheritance rights
* End-of-life decisions (burial)
* Family leave under the federal “Family Medical Leave Act” (FMLA)

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 10:23 AM

* Social Security survivor and pension benefits
* Inheritance rights
* End-of-life decisions (burial)
* Family leave under the federal “Family Medical Leave Act” (FMLA)

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 10:23 AM

The last one I understand, but the other three are better settled with a will than a marriage license anyway.

And even for the last one, the only condition that homosexual unions would not get is the 12 week time period off is when it comes to caring for their “spouse” with a serious health condition. All the others would still apply with or without a marriage.

So then the whole thing comes down to either the word marriage or the ability to take off 12 weeks unpaid from a job in order to care for a spouse.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM

The last one I understand, but the other three are better settled with a will than a marriage license anyway.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Not quite. If you’re married, you don’t have to pay taxes on inheritance or property transferred in a will. But you have to pony up the dough to Uncle Sam if you just have a civil union. And you can’t transfer social security benefits in a will at all.

The fact remains that you can’t claim that a “civil union” and “marriage” grant equal rights.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 12:05 PM

The fact remains that you can’t claim that a “civil union” and “marriage” grant equal rights.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Fair enough, but we’re still talking about relatively minor issues. Considering the controversy stirred up over changing what the word marriage means to most in this country, if equality is the only aim, why not simply strive to change unions instead? I would think it would be easier to add those benefits to a union than it would be to change marriage.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 12:11 PM

actually we have the separation of church and state in this country, so you go ahead and base your life around a fairy tale written 2000 years ago, but you have no right to legislate my life based on your religious ideals.

Of course I have that right as long as it (whatever law or “right” you are talking about) is in the constitution or the majority agrees with.

Your saying that I don’t is just as stupid as saying that you don’t have the right to legislate my life based on you secular immoral ideals.

Seperation of church and state simply means that the federal govenment does not have the right to establish an official US religion. It DOES NOT mean that I cannot advocate and even push legislation for values that I get from my faith. I have just as many rights as you do, not less because I happen to be a Christian.

sues on December 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Christians have also killed millions in the name of God, conquered and wiped out entire civilizations, discriminated against your fellow man based on bigoted religious views, etc. face it, you are on the wrong side of history as your side often is.

Noneya on December 5, 2008

Darwin has been responsible for the shedding of more innocent blood in the last 100 years than all the so called wars you claim were committed in the name of God! One and a half million babies are aborted each year in this nation and it is not done in the name of Jesus! That’s roughly 55 million innocent lives killed in this nation alone!
Here are a few other statistics for you:
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Some people try to understand history,, others like to read bumper stickers.

JellyToast on December 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Fair enough, but we’re still talking about relatively minor issues.

I know we aren’t talking about Jim Crow stuff here, but it’s obviously pretty easy to dismiss other people’s denied rights as “minor.”

I would think it would be easier to add those benefits to a union than it would be to change marriage.

No, it’s not easier to change laws on the federal level than it is to grant marriage on the state level. The higher you go, the longer things take and the money and effort is required. You actually think reworking inheritance law, social security law, and the FMLA will be shorter and easier than just granting marriage?

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM

It DOES NOT mean that I cannot advocate and even push legislation for values that I get from my faith. I have just as many rights as you do, not less because I happen to be a Christian.

sues on December 5, 2008 at 12:29 PM

You have the right to vote based on your religious beliefs, but are unlikely to convince others outside your religion due solely to the doctrines of your church.

Practicing a faith to become closer to God and find strength and meaning in life is admirable. When faith is used to deny rights to others who don’t practice your faith then that raises another set of issues.

dedalus on December 5, 2008 at 12:56 PM

I know we aren’t talking about Jim Crow stuff here, but it’s obviously pretty easy to dismiss other people’s denied rights as “minor.”

I’ve always been under the impression that “rights” granted to married couples were actually benefits, so please pardon my different way of seeing this. I’m just not under the impression that a government must grant these to marriages in the first place.

These “rights” are so unattractive that many heterosexual couples decide it isn’t worth even getting the piece of paper.

Social Security is a complete joke that will bankrupt itself soon enough anyway, and inheritance taxes shouldn’t be there in the first place. The government shouldn’t be able to tax the same thing multiple times.

You actually think reworking inheritance law, social security law, and the FMLA will be shorter and easier than just granting marriage?

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Yes, I do. All that would be required is to change the word spouse or to allow the word to have different meanings that are not associated specifically with marriage.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM

actually we have the separation of church and state in this country, so you go ahead and base your life around a fairy tale written 2000 years ago, but you have no right to legislate my life based on your religious ideals.

I think this is a simple cause and effect confusion. Religious people have faith and congregate with likeminded people at church (and other places). They don’t go to church devoid of any ideas and then get their head filled with church doctrine. You seem to assume the latter, thus your hate towards churches and organized religion. But the beliefs I hold are deeply personal and are not spoon-feed to me by whatever church I attend.
You are making the same mistake most non-religious people do by not understanding the origins and meaning of faith. That’s why religious people are always presented in the MSM as simple minded sheep following some higher power.

dpierson on December 5, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Social Security is a complete joke that will bankrupt itself soon enough anyway, and inheritance taxes shouldn’t be there in the first place. The government shouldn’t be able to tax the same thing multiple times.

This has nothing to do with the health of social security or the morality of taxation, so I’m not quite sure why you brought it up. It has to as whether or not social security and taxation affects you in the same manner as the couple down the street.

Yes, I do. All that would be required is to change the word spouse or to allow the word to have different meanings that are not associated specifically with marriage.

You overestimate the efficiency of our bureaucracy.

As of the moment, gay couples in CT have the same rights (or equal benefits if that’s the terminology you prefer to use)as straight couples. Honestly, which is more efficient and practical? To let them keep their benefits as it currently stands? Or to remove those benefits, convince some senator or representative to introduce an amendment to all of laws that affects have those bills sent to the appropriate comittees, have them each individualy debated, tweaked, and voted on in the house and Senate, before it is finally sent to the president for signing, so that eventually, some time in the future, they can get those benefits?

Usually changes to current law, even minor changes, is an agonizing process, especially on the federal level.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 1:16 PM

… change the word spouse …

You overestimate the efficiency of our bureaucracy.

Actually, this is a very good idea. Not going through every criminal code, tax code, policy handbook, etc. ad nauseum, but passing a simple amendment to the existing civil union laws, stating that civil partners shall be considered in every way the equivalent of marriage partners. Maybe thirty words tops, a good clean compromise.

RegularJoe on December 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Honestly, which is more efficient and practical? To let them keep their benefits as it currently stands? Or to remove those benefits, convince some senator or representative to introduce an amendment to all of laws that affects have those bills sent to the appropriate comittees, have them each individualy debated, tweaked, and voted on in the house and Senate, before it is finally sent to the president for signing, so that eventually, some time in the future, they can get those benefits?

None. Just as I said, changing the word spouse. Why would there be a need to debate each specific benefit?

I know our government can be insanely ridiculous and stupid, but that’s beyond the pale.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I know our government can be insanely ridiculous and stupid, but that’s beyond the pale.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM

I agree. If you want to lose faith in Democracy, watch C-SPAN.

But like I said, with zero words, zero laws, and zero effort, the people of CT can have equal benefits, right now. Because they already do, right now. All that work is totally unnecessary.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM

All that work is totally unnecessary.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM

I guess my argument is that it’s a lot of work either way. This is still highly controversial, even in a state as blue as California.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM

I guess my argument is that it’s a lot of work either way. This is still highly controversial, even in a state as blue as California.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM

I’m talking about Connecticut right now, where gay marriage is, as of this very moment (along with Mass), legal. It will take zero work to allow them to keep their benefits.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

I’m talking about Connecticut right now, where gay marriage is, as of this very moment (along with Mass), legal. It will take zero work to allow them to keep their benefits.

justfinethanks on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM

Why are you talking about Connecticut? Were we discussing a federal ban? I’m not sure why another state is relevant to the discussion.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 2:55 PM

How about you just leave me alone? I don’t care that you think I’m a whore. Jesus was prepared for death by one, even has he reject the pious, the ones who had him killed. From you, this must be some kind of complement.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 10:01 AM

I say the same thing. Why don’t you leave me alone? Stop torturing me with your lies! Believe me, I take no pleasure in having to rebuke you. It hurts me greatly. My heart literally aches. But, if you insist on decieving the followers of Christ by allowing darkness (lies) to mix with the light (truth) then you must know that somebody is going to challenge you on it. “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (refute) them” (Ephesians 5:11). The Bible says we should discern and rebuke false brethren who are encouraging others to sin. If that bothers you, either become a Christian, or stop posing as one in this forum!

apacalyps on December 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM

apacalyps on December 5, 2008 at 4:42 PM

I am a Christian whether that bothers you or not. I really can’t even force myself to care one bit what you think of me. Calling me a whore won’t change that.

Though it is the height of arrogance to assume I’m bothering you by posting here.

But hey, calling people whores and being prideful, that’s all very Christian in your eyes.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 4:50 PM

I am a Christian whether that bothers you or not.

Esthier on December 5, 2008 at 4:50 PM

You’re absolutely deceiving yourself Esthier! Christians don’t swear and use dirty language on a regular basis. They don’t brag of drinking and getting DRUNK on a regular basis. They don’t post sexually suggestive messages on a regular basis. They don’t tempt others to sin on a regular basis. Those are not the works of a truly converted person. A person who has truly believed in Jesus will have a progressively changed life. With true salvation comes repentance and a desire not to sin anymore. I’m not lying to you, okay. Believe it or not, I’m trying to help you. It might not seem like it, but I am. Those who continue to walk according to the flesh are not believers. You are what is known as a carnal Christian. You think you’re a Christian, but you’re not. That is why Paul said to “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5). A “reprobate” is one who has failed a proof test. Listen to me carefully. The 2nd Commandment says you should not make for yourself a graven image. You should not make an idol with either your hand or your mind. You are creating idols, images of God. There is ONE God and that commandment says you should not make any graven image of any likeness whether it is on earth, hell, under the sea, or on the land (Exodus 20:4). What you’ve done is conveniently made a god to suit yourself. I did it! For many years I did it! You see, you think, ah, my god is a god of love. My god would never send me to hell. I’m not doing anything wrong. And you’d be right. Your god would never send you to hell because he couldn’t. He doesn’t exist. He’s a figment of your imagination. You’ve shaped a god to suite your sin! There is ONE God! He said, “I am the LORD, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). He’s Perfect, Holy, Pure, Righteous! Esthier… this is serious business. Listen to me. Salvation is certainly free, but at the same time, it costs us everything. We are to die to ourselves as we become more and more changed into the likeness of Christ. My prayer is that you heed these words and make a full commitment to the good Lord Jesus and live according to what He teaches before it’s too late and you don’t have that opportunity anymore. You can do it. I know you can. Trust God. Ask Him to give you the strength and courage and He will. May the Lord bless you and use you for His glory.

apacalyps on December 6, 2008 at 3:05 AM

apacalyps on December 6, 2008 at 3:05 AM

Jiminy Christmas…
I am just glad it aint this guy judging me for all eternity.
beams and motes just don’t seem to matter with this guy.
I guess he’s soooo Holy hes gotta tie himself to the ground to not get taken up into heaven by a whirlwind.

shakes head sadly….

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on December 8, 2008 at 1:15 AM

I guess he’s soooo Holy hes gotta tie himself to the ground to not get taken up into heaven by a whirlwind.

WastelandMan on December 8, 2008 at 1:15 AM

Am I a good person, WastelandMan? No! Jesus said, “there is none good but one, that is, God” (Mark 10:18). I am a wicked vile sinner, and have committed sins just like everybody else. I am no different than any of you, okay. So many people posting messages here have been lulled into a false sense of security thinking they have eternal life when nowhere in the Bible does it support the idea that a true Christian can remain carnal for an entire lifetime. It is sad to see you overlook the intended message here, which is the danger of easy believism.

apacalyps on December 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Dude… what the hell kind of word is “believism”?

I had to Google “believism”. Apparently invoking the term is all the rage these days. Here’s what one preacher had to say about it, on his blog:

http://expreacherman.wordpress.com/2007/01/05/easy-believism/

Sure, we should do good works after we have believed in Christ just as the Bible says — this is not for our salvation but because he saved us and now we do His works to show our love for our Savior. [Ephesians 2:10]

Now, if that is called “easy believism,” I plead guilty.

I refuse to believe that the God of the Universe would promote and offer a “Hard Believism” requiring anything other than our one time decision to simply trust Jesus Christ for what He is — The Savior, His Gift to mankind.

“Believe it or not, I’m trying to help you. It might not seem like it, but I am…”

RD on December 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Dude… what the hell kind of word is “believism”?

RD on December 13, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Thank you, for your question. Read “What is easy believism?” It should help you. James asked, “wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20). Of course, salvation is of grace, accepted by faith, since no one can earn it, and only God can know the heart and the reality of a professed faith. What James is saying is the reality of that faith can only be demonstrated to others by good works (that is, the things you do and say – your lifestyle). If you’re having premarital sex and getting drunk, and swearing, all the time, etc, and not thinking twice about it, there’s a very good chance that you are not a saved Christian. Unfortunately, this is the case with millions of people all over the world. They think they are saved and going to heaven because they believe God exists, but they are not doing what God says. They are not following Christ. It’s called “easy believism”. That’s why the apostle Paul encouraged us to, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Corinthians 13:5). A “reprobate” is one who has failed a proof test. Any Christian who is doubting and disobeying God’s Word should carefully examine the reality of their professed conversion to Christ. Watch this brief video for more. Thank you.

apacalyps on December 14, 2008 at 3:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6