Quotes of the day

posted at 8:30 pm on June 26, 2011 by Allahpundit

“‘Now that we’ve made it here, we’ll make it everywhere,’ said prominent activist Evan Wolfson, who took up the cause of marriage equality as a law student three decades ago…

“The work — as envisioned by leading activists — is a three-pronged strategy unfolding at the state level, in dealings with Congress and the Obama administration, and in the courts where several challenges to the federal ban on gay marriage are pending…

“Brian Brown, president of the conservative National Organization for Marriage, vowed to seek defeat of the New York Republicans who helped the marriage bill pass. He also predicted victory for the amendment to ban gay marriage next year in Minnesota, and said this would belie the claims that the same-sex marriage campaign would inevitably prevail nationwide.

“‘We’ve won every free, fair vote of the people,’ Brown said Saturday. “Backroom deals in Albany are not an indication of what people in this country think about marriage.’”

***
“‘The more that other states recognize the fairness and the importance of passing equal marriage rights, the more likely it is to pass here,’ said Patrick Wojahn, the chairman of the board of the Equality Maryland Foundation, which fought this year’s marriage battle in Annapolis. ‘It’s a matter of it becoming a normal thing. People see it and realize the sky isn’t about to fall.’…

“‘I think you’re going to see an evolution toward this position on all levels,’ Cuomo said in a possible reference to the White House’s contention that President Barack Obama’s own views on gay marriage — he opposes it but favors civil unions — are evolving. ‘I think you’re going to see an evolution, and I think you’re going to see a rapid evolution.’…

“Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said, ‘Rarely have you seen political advocates pushing for this like they did in New York. To me, what’s amazing is that (defenders of traditional marriage) held out as long as they did. Support for traditional marriage is still extremely strong.’…

“‘I think this increases the pressure on Washington and Republicans in particular to defend the Defense of Marriage Act,’ Perkins said Saturday. ‘Without that, the … states that have taken a stand for (traditional) marriage could potentially have that wiped away.’”

***
“Obama’s reluctance to come out for gay marriage seems hugely and willfully inconsistent with what we know about his progressive worldview. And it is odd that the first black president is letting Andrew Cuomo, who pushed through a gay-marriage bill in Albany on Friday night, go down in history as the leader on the front lines of the civil rights issue of our time.

“But for the president, ‘the fierce urgency of now’ applies only to getting checks from the gay community, not getting up to speed with all the Americans who think it’s time for gay marriage.

“As with ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’ Obama is not leading the public, he’s following. And worse, the young, hip black president who was swept in on a gust of change, audacity and hope is lagging behind a couple of old, white conservatives — Dick Cheney and Ted Olson.”

***
“Without even bothering to look it up, I know that some people opposing gay marriage argued at some point that gay marriage in some states would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws in the several states, and that gay marriage should be resisted on these grounds. Without looking it up, I know that gay marriage proponents cried hogwash to this concern, and claimed that the states should serve as laboratories of democracy (even court-imposed non-democracy) and certainly the idea of ‘uniformity’ was a trivial and silly matter that should not be used as a basis of argumentation.

However, I know this: Now that a small but nontrivial minority of states have implemented gay marriage, the gay marriage lobby will begin to argue that ‘uniformity of marriage laws’ is a paramount consideration, and that we surely cannot tolerate a chaotic patchwork of differing marriage laws in the several states, and of course that means we must have nationwide all-50-states gay marriage…

“It becomes harder and harder to believe anything gay marriage proponents claim about their future agenda when every past claim about their next moves has been false (and false from the moment of utterance).

“The claim is being made that ‘Of course we will not impose gay marriage on religious institutions.’

“Um, yeah. Because you’ve been so upfront and candid with me in the past.”

***
“It seems very quick to you folks in the media but for me it’s been a long struggle – and [now] a great sense of elation and joy. I think it’s the right thing to do, the majority of New Yorkers think it’s the right thing to do and it’s about time that we treat gay and lesbian couples the same way we treat everyone else.

“The first time I debated this bill on the floor I pointed out that two drunk people can get on a plane, fly to Las Vegas, stand in front of an Elvis impersonator and they get to have something that I cannot get from my government. This is not about a seat in your synagogue, it’s not about a pew in your church – this is about a document that the state issues to people, and it issues it every day. And many of my straight colleagues in state government have had this license two or three times. It’s about time that I have the right to have it once.”

***
Via Mediaite.

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 2 3 4

There’s nothing bad about it at all, unless you happen to disapprove of gay people, in which case no one cares what you think anyway.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM

Marriage has got nothing to do with gay people at all. Just like it has nothing to do with me as a single person. There’s nothing wrong if two men or two women want to have a loving relationship, that’s nobodies business, but it’s not marriage. Marriage is serves the purpose of biology; the perpetuation of our species. If it isn’t rooted in that then it isn’t rooted in anything. There is no reason to deny gay couples some of the same rights as married people but it’s not equivalent. If you don’t like it, take your complaints to nature.

FloatingRock on June 27, 2011 at 1:40 AM

That location caught my eye as well. I lived in the Chicago area years and years ago–I don’t know the Walgreens, but I knew the Magnificent Mile.

INC on June 27, 2011 at 1:35 AM

It’s directly south of WTP.
Because the thugs know that Illinois citizens are unarmed-they do what they want w/impunity. There’s also no DP in Illinois-thanks quinn you worthless piece of excrement-so…
Yeah-I live in TX now-but my mother and mother-in-law don’t.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:41 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Thanks, I’ve been to WTP and that locates it for me.

Good choice of TX.

INC on June 27, 2011 at 1:43 AM

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 1:39 AM

That shows the force of a tornado..Scary!..Glad I wasn’t there!..

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 1:45 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:34 AM

That shows the awesome power of a tornado!..I’m in awe of it..

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Thanks, I’ve been to WTP and that locates it for me.

Good choice of TX.

INC on June 27, 2011 at 1:43 AM

We got here April 9th.
My MIL and mom are both South Suburbanites.
I’m trying to convince Ma to move here-she doesn’t like the heat…or the bugs-or maybe move to Valpo w/ my brother and SIL.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Heres another story,thats been under the radar!
================================================

NAACP Leader Accuses US Airways Of Racism For Making Black Passenger Pull Up His Pants…
June 25, 2011, at 11:05 pm
***************************
***************************

SAN FRANCISCO — The leader of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP said Friday that US Airways engaged in discriminatory conduct by requiring an African American passenger to pull up his pants before boarding a plane, but allowing a white man to board another flight wearing little but women’s undergarments.

The Rev. Amos Brown said the group’s national leaders would contact airline officials to suggest sensitivity training for executives and ask them to “atone, repent and show their wrongness is understood.”

“The NAACP, in no uncertain terms, contends that this young man was profiled,” Brown said in reference to Deshon Marman, the 20-year-old passenger who was asked to lift up his pants by an employee before he boarded a June 15 flight at San Francisco International Airport. “He’s been a victim of racial injustice, and US Air owes to him and his mother an apology.”

Marman’s mother, Donna Doyle, said she did not condone the sagging pants fashion, but was appalled when she learned that the airline had allowed a man to fly in an outfit that exposed his midsection and thighs.
===================================

Of course, because white kids never wear their pants hanging off their ass.

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/25/naacp-leader-accuses-us-airways-of-racism-for-making-black-passenger-pull-up-his-pants/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

College Football Player Booted From Plane for ‘Saggy Pants’
Added: 7 days ago Occurred On: Jun-15-2011
******************************************
Video(3:05)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5bc_1308509637

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 1:52 AM

That shows the awesome power of a tornado!..I’m in awe of it..

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 1:48 AM

Went to the local I-Max last week and saw ‘Tornado Alley’.
Since Lubbock is technically in Tornado Alley it was kind of a weird watch.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:53 AM

have writeups on black mobs.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 1:24 AM

If it makes you feel any better there will probably be some white flash mob robberies at some point too. Just because there’s a recent phenomenon of black mobs in Chicago doesn’t mean that if it springs up somewhere else it won’t be more multicultural. Then maybe things will be more to your suiting, Ernesto.

FloatingRock on June 27, 2011 at 1:54 AM

Another ‘conservative militia’ site for ernesto to avoid

HalJordan on June 27, 2011 at 1:51 AM

The Chicago Southland( far So. Suburbs) are starting to become absorbed by the south side of Chicago.
It’s one of the many reasons when we moved.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:56 AM

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 1:39 AM
======================================

That shows the force of a tornado..Scary!..Glad I wasn’t there!..

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Dire Straits:You ain’t kidding!:)

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 1:57 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 1:53 AM

I bet that was pretty weird watching that..:)

PS..Be careful and have a plan..:)

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 1:59 AM

Otay,its gitt’n a bit late,I`m off,
nite everyone———————–:)

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 2:02 AM

FloatingRock on June 27, 2011 at 1:54 AM

I’m hitting Tiffanys next week.

katy the mean old lady on June 27, 2011 at 2:03 AM

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 2:02 AM

Later Friend!..Enjoyed it as always!..:)

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 2:03 AM

Dire Straits:You ain’t kidding!:)

canopfor on June 27, 2011 at 1:57 AM

I agree!..:)

Dire Straits on June 27, 2011 at 2:04 AM

FloatingRock: Perhaps this ‘flashmob’ might be more to Ernesto’s liking.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 2:04 AM

I’m hitting Tiffanys next week.

katy the mean old lady on June 27, 2011 at 2:03 AM

if you remember could you grab me a lamp?

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 2:06 AM

if you remember could you grab me a lamp?

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 2:06 AM

I’ll try, but they don’t have those great stained glass ones anymore.

katy the mean old lady on June 27, 2011 at 2:10 AM

katy the mean old lady on June 27, 2011 at 2:03 AM

You might want to include Newt on your flash list or whatever they call it. :)

FloatingRock on June 27, 2011 at 2:14 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on June 27, 2011 at 2:04 AM

Yes, back in the day the UK had this problem too, mobs of vicious grannies roaming the streets of London looking for trouble…. history always repeats itself. :)

FloatingRock on June 27, 2011 at 2:24 AM

“Without even bothering to look it up, I know that some people opposing gay marriage argued at some point that gay marriage in some states would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws in the several states, and that gay marriage should be resisted on these grounds.

I’ve never heard a single person make that argument in the last five years or so since this became an issue. I’m sure one person somewhere on the internet has tried it, but c’mon. One thing I’ve noticed during this debate (the post “Atlas Revived” in the green room is the best example yet): gay marriage opponents aren’t afraid to invent facts when it’s convenient.

RightOFLeft on June 27, 2011 at 2:26 AM

More thunderstorms headed our way…

OmahaConservative on June 27, 2011 at 5:00 AM

Allah,

Your bias on this subject is shining through when you characterize the issue as “the cause of marriage equality.”. There is no equivalent to be made between traditional marriage and gay “marriage”. There is equality in marriage already: anyone is free to marry anyone they choose of the opposite sex. No one is prevented from dong so.

seanrobins on June 27, 2011 at 6:55 AM

Uncle Leroy has a favorite Opossum he calls “Wifey”.

And he ain’t never had no kids, any chance if they visited New York that they could get married? I mean he’s got sum money and he’d like ta make shure she’s taken care of and all.

Ya think them Progressives up there would be otay with that?

PappyD61 on June 27, 2011 at 7:02 AM

…..and now that I thinks abouts it Miss Lurleen…

….who lives down by Hooter Hollow has a doorknob she says is just like her dead husband Jesse Ray. She’s a Widow lady but she’s got quite a bit of land down there. If she made a trip up to Albany ya think she could get that Cuuoomoh guy to marry her and “Dusty” her doorknob?

I mean Hells Bells……she loves that doorknob and takes it everywhere with her.

What she loves might not be what you love but how can we tells her her love is wrong? Seeing we ain’t got no rules anymore right Progressives?

PappyD61 on June 27, 2011 at 7:13 AM

OmahaConservative on June 27, 2011 at 5:00 AM

stay safe

cmsinaz on June 27, 2011 at 7:25 AM

“However, I know this: Now that a small but nontrivial minority of states have implemented gay marriage, the gay marriage lobby will begin to argue that ‘uniformity of marriage laws’ is a paramount consideration, and that we surely cannot tolerate a chaotic patchwork of differing marriage laws in the several states, and of course that means we must have nationwide all-50-states gay marriage…

i feel another roe v wade coming on…

cmsinaz on June 27, 2011 at 7:31 AM

Whoahhhh……Christie tearing Obama a new one on Morning Joe. Mika not liking! I’ll hand it to Ann Coulter, when Christie is on a roll he’s on a roll.

On topic: gay marriage is about as interesting to me as hockey.

Marcus on June 27, 2011 at 7:36 AM

Well, Christie’s gone off Morning Joe. Back to F & F. They’ve done a great job with the TSA and the 95 year old. AND the douche from New York who checks into airports wearing Army fatigues so he can go into the 1st Class Lounge and get upgrades. They said the idiot was busted when someone asked him his rank and he had no clue. He’s charged with impersonating a Marine.

Marcus on June 27, 2011 at 7:40 AM

“In your face” sexuality is offensive in public, no matter.

Everyone is as “special” as everyone else, unless of course our revisionist judicial branch disregards “equality under the law” as current judicial (in-)justice mandates illegitimately.

Gays already have legal rights to civil unions and to create their Last Will and Testament according to their own preference.

Check out the Drudge link to the preschool today denying any gender identity as being prejudicial. No gender pronouns permitted. The “meaning” of marriage matters as much as the meaning of male or female. If you’re that confused as to not get it, regardless of your sexual preference, you’re just not being honest. Because even in the gay community, gender matters!

maverick muse on June 27, 2011 at 7:50 AM

OmahaConservative on June 27, 2011 at 5:00 AM

In more ways than one.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on June 27, 2011 at 7:52 AM

Marcus on June 27, 2011 at 7:36 AM

saw that interview as well…joe trying to ding christie with obama not being a leader…

cmsinaz on June 27, 2011 at 7:59 AM

This continues to be an issue that should be == must be == determined by the voters in this nation.

Every time state populations are asked to vote on such a thing as “‘gay’ marriage,” the vote is by high numbers against such an idea, and in affirmation of marriage as being defined by one man and one woman, and not in any multiples simultaneously.

The only way this fiasco (and that’s what I think the issue of “‘gay’ marriage” is) ever gets past the voters is when lone figures among the Judiciary intervene or in the case of NY, the Governor (Cuomo) does, by some lone dictate, altering and overriding what the state’s population has made clear they don’t want and don’t approve of.

We really must reassert in this nation that us voters and all citizens are empowered to self-determine. What we determine for our nation is what our nation is to be and no individual can or should ever intercede to force alternatives on us that we’ve already expressed refusal or rejection of.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:01 AM

The “concept” of “‘gay’ marriage” is an invented construct that, when examined closely, makes no sense. It’s based on misleading, false generalizations that homosexual behaviors somehow transforms any human being into a third gender, or, extra/new race, or some new species recently discovered on the planet.

Homosexuality is behavioral. A person of one of the two genders opts to engage in behaviors with others of their same gender and suddenly bursts forth a new race or new species, so they claim.

No one is “born” with homosexual behaviors, nor sexual behaviors at all. The entire idea that homosexual behaviors are innate is the lie that has been forced into human consciousness (or into some) and upon that, the formation of another victim-class-for-special-rights, rights that don’t exist when more closely examined.

So the counter to this mess has to return to addressing that issue of “special class” of “other” as to people who engage in homosexual behaviors insisting they’re a new race or new species of “other” among the human race.

They’re males or they’re females and they’ve made decisions to engage in behaviors of intimate acts with people of their own gender. It does not make them a third gender, a new species, a newly discovered race due to any innate aspect as to why they’re engaging in behaviors that among the human population are generally deemed offensive.

Offensive or not, most of us adapt to the “live and let live” standard, BUT, when this offensiveness starts twisting even the language societies use and forcing the twist on the general public, then it’s a case of the general population asserting sense and reason over the distortions.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Iowans want to vote on “one man one woman” for some reason the gay lobby does not want it to come to a vote. I am willing to accept “gay marriage” IF the majority on Iowans want it. I do not accept the IA SC decision.

IowaWoman on June 26, 2011 at 8:55 PM

That says it all.

And this:

“Iowans want to vote on “one man one woman” for some reason the gay lobby does not want it to come to a vote.”

…is there ANY surprise at that? The ONLY means by which this mess called “‘gay’ marriage” is ever instigated is by overriding voter decisions among state populations. So of course ‘gays’ don’t want the voters’ decisions involved.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:12 AM

The civil rights act would never have passed via referendum in most states either, just sayin’. For a supposed defender of the constitution (and republicanism), you come close to advocating the mob rule of “true democracy”.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:19 AM

It’s only a matter of time before polygamy is legal, now that “marriage” can be redefined by current political populism. HBO has helped with “Big Love”. Now help is needed from Hollywood on network broadcasts.

olesparkie on June 27, 2011 at 8:20 AM

olesparkie on June 27, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Cry some more, why don’t you? If you don’t like the idea of gays getting married, or two men marrying one woman, don’t do it. Why don’t you just leave those of us who see no problem with it alone? Live and let live, you know?

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:26 AM

Reading, writing, math, basic sciences, chemistry, the rest is my problem.

Bishop on June 26, 2011 at 10:07 PM

+ One Trillion.

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2011 at 10:15 PM

++ Trillion more.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:30 AM

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:12 AM

The civil rights act would never have passed via referendum in most states either, just sayin’. For a supposed defender of the constitution (and republicanism), you come close to advocating the mob rule of “true democracy”.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:19 AM

When issues are voted on by the population repeatedly, particularly, the decision by the population who is allegedly endowed with the right to self=determination should stand.

Or at least have some means by which lone attempts to undo what the voters determine can be challenged beyond incorporating more “lone attempts” by other lone individuals sharing in the same activist professions.

I don’t agree with the Civil Rights Act, either. It has obviously led to massive corruption of societal decisions. Society isn’t “bad” because it’s decisive on social issues, it’s only deemed “bad” when it’s decisions are not to certain wants.

Take a look at how the current Administration is using the Civil Rights Act to DENY “civil rights” to citizens, for example of the corruption of that concept.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Why don’t you just leave those of us who see no problem with it alone? Live and let live, you know?

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:26 AM

Why must you attack society (millions upon millions of people) who disagree with what you want. 2% of the population (people engaging in homosexual behaviors) should never have any ability to ruin the decisions determined by the general population.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:36 AM

“It becomes harder and harder to believe anything gay marriage proponents claim about their future agenda when every past claim about their next moves has been false (and false from the moment of utterance).

Take note, that’s exactly how Islamists work.

paul1149 on June 27, 2011 at 8:38 AM

The civil rights act would never have passed via referendum in most states either, just sayin’. For a supposed defender of the constitution (and republicanism), you come close to advocating the mob rule of “true democracy”.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:19 AM

In the case of NY and CA states, there was not even a Republic rendition of democracy. They clearly were/are not representing the population, those in public office (CA Judiciary and the NY Governor, and in case of Iowa, the IA Judiciary) are not hired on to cast aside the voters’ decisions. Cuomo pretty well behaved with this decision like a paid dictator — money pruchased his views and his actions that followed and he would have no basis to claim he didn’t know he was going against the wishes of NY voters, not after 31 or 33 decisions on this issue determined already in the negative by the NY voters.

There’s nothing Constitutional or democratic (nor is it a reflection of a Republic such as we are supposed to have) when a few individuals deem voter decisions as trash and “enact” or “rule” to the contrary.

In the case of NY, I think Cuomo’s committed a violation of the office he holds, because he’s clearly just tossed aside the will of the people. and apparently responded, instead, to private financial incentives to do so.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:41 AM

Why must you attack society (millions upon millions of people) who disagree with what you want. 2% of the population (people engaging in homosexual behaviors) should never have any ability to ruin the decisions determined by the general population.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Again, the same things were said pre civil rights act. Desegregation attacked a largely disagreeing society, and for good reason. The same goes for gays. No straight person will ever be effected by gay marriage, outside of being forced to hold back their rage when they see a gay couple walking down the street wearing wedding bands. The general population should not be making decisions that effect such a small minority in such an insignificant way. They should simply let those people be. Why not just let these people be?

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:57 AM

This is just a boon for divorce lawyers. And if gays want to play house, let them. We’ve got real problems that need dealing with.

teacherman on June 26, 2011 at 9:53 PM

I know a lesbian couple that was married in some state, broke up, and now they can’t get divorced.

Paul-Cincy on June 27, 2011 at 12:09 AM

A similar story (or, perhaps, the one to which you refer) was in the headlines after the first dictatorial passage in San Francisco of “‘gay’ marriage” after the voters had already disproved of it in the state, then the city of S.F. cavalierly passed it anyway, something like that.

Anyway, after it was “deemed” to exist in S.F., the city, two women got “married” there and immediately then filed for divorce there.

Then they started handing out business cards (nearly immediately after the “marriage” with the quick “divorce” action filed right after) to their law office, where they claimed they specialized in divorces for “‘gay’ people”.

So, yes, it’s a scheme by Liberal attorneys, same as the bailouts were, same as the election of Obama was.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 8:59 AM

God told Moses that homosexuality is a sin. There may be some so called churches that will conduct a marriage for them, but it won’t be recognized by God as such. It is a sin, just as any spousal unfaithfulness, murder, lying, or robbing would be. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. He gave us our free will and is waiting for us to do better.

Kissmygrits on June 27, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Why not just let these people be?

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Why not let society be? Seems to be the agitation method to trip someone, then cry, “hey, I’m the victim here.”

That’s what the homosexual lobby does, that’s what the Civil Rights Act has degenerated into.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Why not let society be?

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 9:01 AM

Because society won’t let them get married, and for no particularly good reason. You’d think this much would be obvious. Either way, you do realize that you have to change nothing about your life in the event that gays in your state start getting married, right? This issue has no effect on you or your family.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:04 AM

“‘Now that we’ve made it here, we’ll make it everywhere,’ said prominent activist Evan Wolfson…”

Not in my neck of the woods you won’t, bunky!

pilamaye on June 27, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Kissmygrits on June 27, 2011 at 9:00 AM

So what? What does that have to do with gay people? God told you to hate gayness. So what? Why does that give you the right to punish gay people?

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Not in my neck of the woods you won’t, bunky!

pilamaye on June 27, 2011 at 9:06 AM

To be fair, I think gays appreciate indoor plumbing a bit too much to come by your neck of the woods.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:07 AM

God told Moses that homosexuality is a sin. There may be some so called churches that will conduct a marriage for them, but it won’t be recognized by God as such. It is a sin, just as any spousal unfaithfulness, murder, lying, or robbing would be. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. He gave us our free will and is waiting for us to do better.

Kissmygrits on June 27, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Moses had his concept of God. Americans today are free to pursue their own beliefs.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM

To be fair, I think gays appreciate indoor plumbing a bit too much to come by your neck of the woods.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:07 AM

ernesto can’t help but show his disgust and hate for people that don’t agree with every word he says.

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:27 AM

Moses had his concept of God. Americans today are free to pursue their own beliefs.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM

And if their beliefs are the same as Moses then they shouldn’t be free to pursue them right? Isn’t that what you’re saying?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Marriage has got nothing to do with gay people at all. Just like it has nothing to do with me as a single person. There’s nothing wrong if two men or two women want to have a loving relationship, that’s nobodies business, but it’s not marriage. Marriage is serves the purpose of biology; the perpetuation of our species. If it isn’t rooted in that then it isn’t rooted in anything. There is no reason to deny gay couples some of the same rights as married people but it’s not equivalent. If you don’t like it, take your complaints to nature.

What about heterosexual couples that can’t have kids? Should married couples not use condoms? Vasectomies should be banned as well? As far as your nature argument goes, homosexuality, not to mention sex fluidity, occurs in nature.

underceij on June 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM

And if their beliefs are the same as Moses then they shouldn’t be free to pursue them right? Isn’t that what you’re saying?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Not if pursuing them means punishing people for no reason. If you insist that god hates gayness, that still doesn’t then translate into a right to punish gay people. Keep your prejudices to yourself, or at least keep them away from policy.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Not if pursuing them means punishing people for no reason. If you insist that god hates gayness, that still doesn’t then translate into a right to punish gay people. Keep your prejudices to yourself, or at least keep them away from policy.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:34 AM

I’m just asking the question hater. On one hand you accuse religion of oppressing gays, then on the other hand have no problem with oppressing religion.

Should we ban Muslims from entering the US? Islam condones the killing of gays.

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:43 AM

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Christians are free to do what they wish. Gays, on the other hand, are not. Don’t talk to me about oppressing religion when you and I both know only one of those two groups is being punished by society for no particularly good reason.

If pursuing your beliefs means punishing others for no reason, then you aren’t going to be pursuing your beliefs for very long. And again, you’re free to feel as disgusting and disapproving of gays as you wish, but you are not entitled to punish them.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Should we ban Muslims from entering the US? Islam condones the killing of gays.

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Of course not, precisely because they are not entitled to punish gays here in the US. Christians seem to feel that they are so entitled, but in fact they are not.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:51 AM

If pursuing your beliefs means punishing others for no reason, then you aren’t going to be pursuing your beliefs for very long. And again, you’re free to feel as disgusting and disapproving of gays as you wish, but you are not entitled to punish them.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:47 AM

So voicing ones beliefs, if not in agreement with your will be met by some kind of violence or a campaign of eradication? Your implied threat doesn’t go unnoticed.

Aren’t you as bad or worse than the religious people you hold in such contempt?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Of course not, precisely because they are not entitled to punish gays here in the US. Christians seem to feel that they are so entitled, but in fact they are not.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Oh … so Muslims who view homosexuality negatively are ok, but the Christians who view homosexuality negatively are not?

What about atheists who view homosexuality negatively? Are they cool? Jews?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:56 AM

My whole point ernesto … since it seems to escape you, is in your zeal to secure whatever it is you want secured, you can easily become as bad or worse than the people you hate.

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:58 AM

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:56 AM

I don’t think anyone who views homosexuality negatively is OK, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Where I draw the line is punishing others when you have to right to do so. Christians can view gayness negatively all they want. They just cannot punish gay people just for being gay. No one should be allowed to do that.

And so I ask you, why do you feel entitled to tell any gay person what they can and cannot do? Why is it so important that you be allowed to say, “GAYS, you shall not marry!”?

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Why, I cannot find one actual news source for these black mobs, only conservative militia blogs.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 1:13 AM

There’ve been numerous local newssites reporting various black-dominated or black-exclusive riots, mobs, etc., now, for a while.

In Miami, in Philadelphia, in Chicago, in Peooria, IL for just a few.

Not reported on any “sites” other than newssites in the respective cities where these events are occurring or have occurred.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 10:07 AM

It was smart of you to drop the gay subject. You were losing.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 10:07 AM

It was smart of you to drop the gay subject. You were losing.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 10:11 AM

I commented as I read previous comments. Your obsession with “the gay thing,” though, does not lend you any winning characteristics.

You were arguing that you only read comments about “black mobs” on what you allege are “white supremacist blogs” and since I don’t read any “white supremacist blogs” but I DO read newssites that address many ongoing “black mobs” rioting and engaged in coordinated (mob) crimes — many with a decidedly anti-White (or, racism by Blacks engaged in preplanned criminal deeds against mostly White people), I mentioned that to you.

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 10:07 AM

It was smart of you to drop the gay subject. You were losing.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 10:11 AM

Be specific: losing what?

Lourdes on June 27, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Tying this in with the school that wants to eliminate gender identification, why can’t homosexuals just marry someone of the opposite sex? I mean, if being male or female makes no difference, what’s the diff?

TugboatPhil on June 27, 2011 at 11:16 AM

It’s only a matter of time before polygamy is legal, now that “marriage” can be redefined by current political populism. HBO has helped with “Big Love”. Now help is needed from Hollywood on network broadcasts.

olesparkie on June 27, 2011 at 8:20 AM

If you accept that homosexuality is a part of a person’s nature from birth as the homosexual lobby wants us to believe, then you also have to believe the same about bisexuality. Why shouldn’t a bisexual be able to marry both a man and a woman? Who are we to deny them their fulfillment?

slickwillie2001 on June 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM

And if their beliefs are the same as Moses then they shouldn’t be free to pursue them right? Isn’t that what you’re saying?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Yes, just not on another taxpayer’s dime.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Yes, just not on another taxpayer’s dime.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 1:08 PM

What? They shouldn’t be free to pursue their beliefs?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 1:23 PM

What? They shouldn’t be free to pursue their beliefs?

darwin on June 27, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Freedom to worship yes, compelling others to live by those beliefs no.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Not if pursuing them means punishing people for no reason. If you insist that god hates gayness, that still doesn’t then translate into a right to punish gay people. Keep your prejudices to yourself, or at least keep them away from policy.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:34 AM

God hates homosexuality, just the same as adultery and beastiality:

22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. — Leviticus 18:22

Note that this verse is cited from a chapter that lists a whole slew of sinful sexual acts. Homosexuality is not singled out. In fact, it is one of many, and in this chapter is listed between burning children alive as sacrifices to another god, and having sex with beasts.

You have the exact same right that I have… to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage. How is defending traditional marriage, a cultural foundation that has stood for thousands of years, “punishing gays homosexuals”?

Keep your prejudices to yourself, or at least keep them away from policy.

Funny… I was thinking the same of you.

dominigan on June 27, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Good who cares, I’m tired of hearing about it. Hope they take a day off and give it a rest before flitting about their next cause du jour but I doubt it. Now they’re free to set their sites on the Boy Scouts fulltime. Superduper!

Buttercup on June 27, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Christians are free to do what they wish. Gays, on the other hand, are not. Don’t talk to me about oppressing religion when you and I both know only one of those two groups is being punished by society for no particularly good reason.

ernesto on June 27, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Its so cute when advocates spout words without understanding their context.

Christians know exactly what is being advocated since we have an illustrative examples described in the Old Testament. Please go and read about the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for an illustration of how culture changes when homosexuality is embraced as a “norm”.

You think you are fighting for a new cultural identity, when in reality you are advocating for a morally corrupt culture thousands of years old.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

dominigan on June 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Why? You’re allowed to compel others to live by your beliefs.

blink on June 27, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I haven’t found that to be the case. With others who share my religious beliefs no compelling is necessary, for those who don’t arguments based on something other than the supernatural work best.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Then you aren’t looking. Every time you pull a voting lever you are compelling others to live by your beliefs.

blink on June 27, 2011 at 4:00 PM

The losing votes don’t do much compelling. Winning votes that translate into legislation have varying levels of impact on other individuals and varying levels of reliance on belief.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 4:11 PM

And you contribute to winning votes frequently. Why are you trying to deny this?

blink on June 27, 2011 at 4:50 PM

How frequently, perhaps 55%? It was a response to the “every time” assertion. While every vote might be seen as an expression of “belief” regarding the role of government, not all votes are rooted in an attempt to have government apply religious “belief” to the behavior of others.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Why should it matter if the beliefs you force on others are based on religion or not! You attempt to force your societal beliefs on others when you vote. Period.

blink on June 27, 2011 at 5:46 PM

From a legal standpoint in the United States it can matter if laws are enacted which enforce a religious belief w/o a sufficient secular rationale.

dedalus on June 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4