You really don’t seem to understand the issues here. People like myself, who sincerely believe in equality and the Bill of Rights, will defend your right to say whatever the hell you like in your pulpit just as we think gay people have a right to be treated the same as the rest of us. It’s the American way.

lexhamfox on December 23, 2008 at 1:45 AM

You forget the slippery slope. Once a “right” becomes a right, then those who would deny the right become unlawful.

This is not an “inalienable right” — this is a “right” which is conferred by the people, and can be denied by them too — just like a right to murder or a right to rape.

County clerks must issue the paperwork, regardless of their personal feelings in the matter. Personally, the feelings of a single recalcitrant county clerk trumps those who want the clerk to “marry” them.

Unlike Warren, I view pedophilia and homosexuality as related diseases after witnessing what happened in my own Church; we were overwhelmed by homosexual pedophilia — and bamboozled by psychologists who claimed that it was curable. I furthermore view the practice as unhealthy: the gays fought for over a year to prevent the closure of the gay bathhouses in San Francisco, after those had been proven to be AIDs transmittal facilities. Their complaints centered around their “rights” to consensual sex — a right which killed my favorite cousin. I say they have no such rights, including the right to marry.

There are billboards up all over West Hollywood declaiming the gay chrystal meth culture.

I voted my conscience here in California. ‘Nuf said.

The left and gays(is there a difference?) just don’t get it. Christians historically have withstood far more persecution than getting called names like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe.’ If they think that Christians are going to throw out the parts of the bible modern society doesn’t like, they’ve got another thing coming.

TTheoLogan on December 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM

Yep. They will have to be ‘tolerant’ of Christians. But, based on my experience of the left over 30 years, they will not be tolerant. They rarely are of people who have a different opinion.

Reason and Faith go together so well that when they attack Faith, they always end up throwing Reason out too.

If gays only knew how much Christians do love them, they might be able to stop hating on Prop 8 and start thinking about what they are doing.

The hate of gays, just like the hate of others is NOT going to convince people that same sex relationships are a “Covenant” or that they are within natural law or that they are right. Violence is not gonna work. Gays taking a page from militant Islam does not provide any more moral justification to redefine marriage for same sex.

dedalus on December 23, 2008 at 6:31 PM

Okay. Thanks for the measured answer. I must say that I’m rather indignant when I read you’re posting on your firms time. I would never blow off work for even a moment. When I post through the day, it’s always on scheduled…

Haaaaah, I almost got it out.

jinx

Serious question. Are you a volunteer with an organization assigned to stay here and try to guide this discussion? You answers are almost exactly the same as prepared talking points a liberal friend of mine had gotten and shared with me.

If not, what is your dedication to this particular subject?

hawkdriver on December 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Actually, I just got back from some Christmas shopping. I’m in front of my screen much of the day since I’m usually dealing with the financial markets. When I’m following a thread I tend to have an auto refresh on and keep that window open on one of my screens. I tend not to follow more than one thread at a time due to screen real estate and if someone responds to one of my comments I find it is more interesting to get back to them quickly.

If my answers correlate to someone else’s I can’t account for it since most of my reading is related to economics and financial history, though I do find the time-to-time contention between church and state an interesting topic. Also, most of my answers are off the top of my head since I’m usually just blowing off “real” work for a moment.

Are you talking about the fact that most men in America today have been NEUTERED by the wuss-i-fication of the male populace, the metro sexual farts, the mamby-pamby Feminist boot lickers?

Mark Garnett on December 23, 2008 at 2:16 PM

You’ve just described every date I had back when I was a misguided liberal.
As a woman, the best thing about crossing over to conservative circles after life as a liberal is the you leave beta males behind. And good riddance.

dedalus on December 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM

I have been checking HA all day here at work. I have noticed you haven’t left. At all.

Serious question. Are you a volunteer with an organization assigned to stay here and try to guide this discussion? You answers are almost exactly the same as prepared talking points a liberal friend of mine had gotten and shared with me.

If not, what is your dedication to this particular subject?

If they think that Christians are going to throw out the parts of the bible modern society doesn’t like, they’ve got another thing coming.

TTheoLogan on December 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM

The state recognizing gay marriages doesn’t throw out the Bible any more than the state recognizing divorced individuals remarrying does. The state could enact laws against fornication or sodomy to legally enforce Christian teaching, but it doesn’t.

The left and gays(is there a difference?) just don’t get it. Christians historically have withstood far more persecution than getting called names like ‘bigot’ and ‘homophobe.’ If they think that Christians are going to throw out the parts of the bible modern society doesn’t like, they’ve got another thing coming.

I would like to tell you how I appreciate your well-thought and reasonable way of approaching these questions. I am weary of how quickly some of these discussions escalate into “shouting” matches and name-calling. You are lovely to talk with.

DrMagnolias on December 23, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Likewise. Have a Merry Christmas.

I don’t have a problem with redefining marriage at a point when a majority of society deems it necessary. I do have a problem when a small minority attempts to force such a change on the rest of us.

BohicaTwentyTwo on December 23, 2008 at 4:19 PM

If the courts stay out of it, I think it will happen in the coming years given the way that opinion breaks down by age group.

If the courts see it as an equal protection issue, as the state courts recently have, then it won’t be a function of what the majority thinks. I’m hoping SCOTUS avoids the issue for a few years, as they may since they often consider “ripeness” before taking a case.

he loves everyone (atheists too?)

Yes, AllahPundit, atheists too. I suppose if “he who is forgiven little, loves little,” then he who is forgiven much (i.e. a Christian), loves much.

Maybe gay marriage is a bad idea, but modifying the institution of marriage by extending it to another group of people doesn’t seem ipso facto to make it a bad idea. Did outlawing polygamy change the the definition of marriage for some groups? Perhaps it was a change for the better.

dedalus on December 23, 2008 at 3:09 PM

I don’t have a problem with redefining marriage at a point when a majority of society deems it necessary. I do have a problem when a small minority attempts to force such a change on the rest of us.

dedalus on December 23, 2008 at 3:44 PM

I would like to tell you how I appreciate your well-thought and reasonable way of approaching these questions. I am weary of how quickly some of these discussions escalate into “shouting” matches and name-calling. You are lovely to talk with.

Even with polygamy, however, marriage has been a man married to a woman (or a number of women)–no same sex relationship has ever been defined as a marriage.

DrMagnolias on December 23, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Yes, to the best of my knowledge. The definition of marriage has changed over the millenia, but not in a way that has included same-sex couples.

dedalus on December 23, 2008 at 3:09 PM

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe polygamy has ever been legally recognized in Western countries. I don’t mean it hasn’t been practiced–we know it has been in the U.S.–but my understanding is that it was practiced within a religious context, rather than with legal sanction. Even with polygamy, however, marriage has been a man married to a woman (or a number of women)–no same sex relationship has ever been defined as a marriage.

Perhaps I’m not understanding what you are saying–although expectations of behavior in marriage (individual roles, etc.) have changed, the definition of marriage remains man and woman.

DrMagnolias on December 23, 2008 at 2:07 PM

In the U.S. the legal rights of individuals within marriage have changed dramatically. Restrictions on who can marry have changed significantly.

Historically, outside the U.S. one-man-one-woman has defined marriage except where one-man-many-women has also defined it.

Maybe gay marriage is a bad idea, but modifying the institution of marriage by extending it to another group of people doesn’t seem ipso facto to make it a bad idea. Did outlawing polygamy change the the definition of marriage for some groups? Perhaps it was a change for the better.

Are you talking about the fact that most men in America today have been NEUTERED by the wuss-i-fication of the male populace, the metro sexual farts, the mamby-pamby Feminist boot lickers?

Mark Garnett on December 23, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Something like that. A man used to be the boss of the family. Legally, he got to make decisions, own all the property, have sex whenever he wanted and the wife couldn’t legally disagree. Now, his wife can divorce him whenever she wants, for no reason, and get half his wealth. Those seem to be some pretty big changes for straight people, much more material than whatever gay couples do.