Video: Noted gay-marriage opponent sounding oddly supportive of gay marriage

posted at 5:36 pm on June 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, a video garnish to Ed’s earlier post from today’s presser. Watch for the part at around 2:45 where he endorses the core argument of gay-marriage supporters — “[gays] have got to be treated like every other American” — while steadfastly refusing to call himself a gay-marriage supporter. Has there been any moment like this in recent U.S. history, where it’s so obvious that the president is lying about his true position on a given issue that he feels free to argue that position at White House press conferences? We’re all in on the joke by now, I guess he figures, so why keep up anything more than the barest pretense? The next time he claims his feelings about this are still “evolving,” he might as well grin, wink, and elbow the person next to him. In fact, he’s already basically doing that: Check out the last 20 seconds or so here, where he ends up joking with reporters about the fact that his position on this will, at some point, certainly change. It’s not a matter of if, but when. Just … not today.

Be sure to watch the whole clip, too, to see how his dissembling leads him into legal incoherence. His comments about New York make it sound like he’s a federalist on this issue, preferring to let states vote it out. Does anyone believe, though, that The One would object to a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that gay marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause? That would have the effect of legalizing SSM in all 50 states, precisely the opposite of O’s supposedly favored outcome, and yet somehow I can’t imagine him being broken up about it. And a bonus irony: His refusal to defend DOMA in the courts is predicated on that very idea — that gays are a minority that deserve greater protection under the EPC by having courts apply “heightened scrutiny” to laws that target them. If Obama’s (and Holder’s) view of equal protection prevailed, New Yorkers never would have had a chance to vote. So he’s lying about this too. Even on an issue where I agree with him, he’s embarrassing.

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

The White House has an impressive ventriloquist on staff, or is this another “gut feeling?”

RDE2010 on June 29, 2011 at 5:39 PM

How long until we ‘progress’ to defining ‘equality’ to mean Incest, Polygamy, pedophiles….your pet goat?

Moral Egalitarianism, the logical fallacy that it is, will destroy us.

jp on June 29, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Even on an issue where I agree with him, he’s embarrassing.

But that’s easy, because on this issue Obama agrees with everybody!

Abby Adams on June 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

-Mr. President, you’re getting some heat from the LGBT crowd about your hesitance to endorse gay marriage.

“Is that so? Crap…ok, write me a speech where I completely reverse myself and embrace whatever they want me to.”

Bishop on June 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

jp on June 29, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Allahpundit to jp: You’re goatophobic bigotry has no place on a forward looking conservative blog like HotAir. John Stewart would not approve. No more warnings, next incident’s a banning.

abobo on June 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM

It’s not a matter of if, but when. Just … not today.

A month before 2012 elections?

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM

C’mon Zero! Embrace your inner gay! Trade the 20% for the 2%. You know you wanna!

stvnscott on June 29, 2011 at 5:47 PM

jp on June 29, 2011 at 5:41 PM
abobo on June 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Damn. That’s gotta be a record time for asshattery.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Even on an issue where I agree with him, he’s embarrassing.

Jeebus, AP, he is always embarrassing!

ladyingray on June 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Valerie Jarret is channelling her outer lesbian through him.

Roy Rogers on June 29, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Bishop on June 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

C’mon, Bish. That’s off-the-cuff flip-flopping Obama’s laying down. Pro style.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

I’m still struggling with that “greater equality”comment.

Is that like darker black, or fairer justice, or safer abortions, or….?

Don L on June 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

I haven’t listened to his video…..sorry, not interested in more of his lies. One question though: what’s with the gold tapestries and where the he!! is the American Flag????
Is that a silly question?

sicoit on June 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

At this point I don’t know why he continues the act.

I can understand during the campaign but it’s so clear what he thinks that his coyness is absurd.

I support changing the legal definition to include same sex couples but I have to admit that it’s likely to be (note the qualifiers) more significant change than folks on my side care to admit.

A man-and-a-man or a woman-and-a-woman – whatever their sexual orientation is – is fundamentally different than a man and a woman. It just is.

And the evidence is clear that children – especially males – raised in homes without a father and a mother tend to cause more problems later in life.

It’s a risk but I’ll take it.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Oooops, hit submit instead of preview. Anywho, as I was asking,,,,since this was from the WH, where is the flag? In the last few videos of hisself belching out his cr@p, I have not seen an American flag. Wazzup wit dat? Hmmmmmmmmm

sicoit on June 29, 2011 at 5:58 PM

“Is that so? Crap…ok, write me a speech where I completely reverse myself and embrace whatever they want me to.”

Bishop on June 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

He’s more astute than they are. He leads from behind.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2011 at 5:58 PM

By what Standard is should Marriage be defined arbitrarily by Humans and throwing out the Biblical definition of Marriage Western Civilization was built on?

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I watched that presser live this morning. I would rather have a root canal than watch it again.

Knucklehead on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

By re-election time he will be swearing he supported gay marriage the whole time.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

By what Standard is should Marriage be defined arbitrarily by Humans and throwing out the Biblical definition of Marriage Western Civilization was built on?

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

It’s a risk but I’ll take it.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM

My gosh, that’s almost word for word what Pontius Pilate said…

Don L on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

By what Standard is should Marriage be defined arbitrarily by Humans and throwing out the Biblical definition of Marriage Western Civilization was built on?

The standard is set by our Constitution and laws which are secular.

It’s called self-government.

As Churchill, the worst form of government created but better than anything else we can come up with.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM

It is time for the community organizer to go back to the communities he helped organize. That is if they’ll have him back.

csdeven on June 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM

One question though: what’s with the gold tapestries
sicoit on June 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM

Leftover’s from one of Mooshelles dresses?

Knucklehead on June 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM

My gosh, that’s almost word for word what Pontius Pilate said

He didn’t say anything remotely comparable to that. He said he’d wash his hands of the matter and leave it to others to decide what to do.

I’m taking responsibility for my views/thoughts.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Seriously? Two posts on this almost back-to-back?

Connie on June 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM

The only question left is whether there is anything Obama didn’t lie about during the 2008 campaign.

ProfessorMiao on June 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Has there been any moment like this in recent U.S. history, where it’s so obvious that the president is lying about his true position on a given issue that he feels free to argue that position at White House press conferences?

He makes Muenchhausen and Pinocchio very indignant.

to see how his dissembling leads him into legal incoherence.

Some of you find him smart. He’s just a malicious cunning/sly thug, out for his own power and destruction.

He can’t be for gay marriage because he needs all the people he hates, those from W. VA and VA, the bible-thumping, cousin-humping, gun-toting, toothless hicks…

Mark my words, by the summer/fall of 2012 he’ll flaunt his white half.

Schadenfreude on June 29, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Was he winking at Chucky T of NBC..?

d1carter on June 29, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Blah, thanks Townhall for entitling this video “Legalizing Homosexual Marriage.” Such annoying terminology.

It's Vintage, Duh on June 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM

The only question left is whether there is anything Obama didn’t lie about during the 2008 campaign.

ProfessorMiao on June 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Oooooooooooo oooooooooooo *waves hand frantically in the air* I know the answer: Ummmmm *clears throat* …… NO! Do I get a prize?

sicoit on June 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM

“… stick your nose in…”

“… same sex …”

“… gays, lesbians, transgender…”

“… file briefs …” – Obowma

Yup…

… you know what’s on his mind.

(smells like prison sex)

Seven Percent Solution on June 29, 2011 at 6:08 PM

It’s not a matter of if, but when. Just … not today.
A month before 2012 elections?

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Um, no. A month after the 2012 elections. He has the gay vote…

ladyingray on June 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM

So annoying. We all know he’s for gay marriage. Stop treating us like we are a bunch of dummies.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM

My gosh, that’s almost word for word what Pontius Pilate said

He didn’t say anything remotely comparable to that. He said he’d wash his hands of the matter and leave it to others to decide what to do.

I’m taking responsibility for my views/thoughts.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:04 PM

My point was that he turned his back on God, but you missed it by taking it literally. Oh well.

Don L on June 29, 2011 at 6:11 PM

And to be honest it doesn’t matter what Obama thinks. We all know he’s going to nominate judges that are going to make gay marriage a civil right. So he can wink and grin all he wants. I’m not stupid.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:11 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Can’t argue with this…

ladyingray on June 29, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Pfffft, coming from mr. floppy wrists/mom jeans wearing/throws a baseball like a girl/loves to “manhandle” good looking guys/rides a chick bike/need I go on? Yeah…..riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

sicoit on June 29, 2011 at 6:13 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Good point but useless. How long has government been in involved in marriage in the United States? It’s not going 2 change.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:13 PM

“I think we’re moving in a direction of greater equality.”

Oh, you mean we’re FINALLY going to eliminate the test they give you at the courthouse when you apply for a marriage license? The one where they make you swear an oath that you’re heterosexual? That test that prevents gay people from getting married to someone of the opposite sex? You mean we’re finally going to end THAT bit of discrimination?

greggriffith on June 29, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Careful, MadCon. You sound like you’re arguing that gov’t should stay out of all issues that involve standards of behavior covered in the Bible.

OhioCoastie on June 29, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Where’s the Rudy Giuliani story? He used to rent a home or something from 2 gay friends and apparently told them “If New York ever passes gay marriage, I’ll be there at yours!” and now that it’s happened and Rudy is eyeing at least a VP shot, the couple is in the press saying they took him up on his offer and he’s not “Oh, no! No no no!”.

Have to smile.

Marcus on June 29, 2011 at 6:15 PM

he’s now “Oh, no!….”

Marcus on June 29, 2011 at 6:17 PM

This is going to cost him the African-American vote.

Christien on June 29, 2011 at 6:17 PM

My point was that he turned his back on God, but you missed it by taking it literally. Oh well

Whose God?

Our laws have to be based on secular sources. No religious doctrines can be the basis for them.

Because to do so means that the Buddhist or the Muslim or the Hindu or the Zoroastrian or whatever religion can use the state to impose their own religious views on others.

And the Framers said that wouldn’t be permitted.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Damn. That’s gotta be a record time for asshattery.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Not even close.

Jaibones on June 29, 2011 at 6:19 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

If?

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM

This is going to cost him the African-American vote.

Christien on June 29, 2011 at 6:17 PM

No it won’t.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM

And the Framers said that wouldn’t be permitted.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. That’s a total misapplication of the first amendment.

And a total lack of understanding of who the Framers were and their own world view.

INC on June 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

because God instututed 3 Governments, the Family, Church and Civil and there is a practical component for why the Civil Magistrate must be involved. Ann Coulter recently pointed out some of the most obvious.

Western Civilization was built on laws derived from Judeo-Christian values based on the oldest, most published book in the world, the Bible.

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:19 PM

and the Govt. Schools have done their job well, evangelizing their own religion by lying about basic history

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:25 PM

My point was that he turned his back on God,

Not to belabor this, I don’t think Pilate turned his back on his Roman pagan Gods.

Nor did the Sanhedrin theirs.

If you catch my drift.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Of course, he’s lying. He’s been lying. All you have to do is look at his actions and you know he’s lying.

By what Standard is should Marriage be defined arbitrarily by Humans and throwing out the Biblical definition of Marriage Western Civilization was built on?

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Because government has a vested interest (or should) in the future of society.

Noticed jp used the word Civilization.

Prior to the last few decades, marriage has been defined and recognized across time and across cultures as a relationship between a man and a woman. What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society, and which societies and countries have protected through legal means because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.

INC on June 29, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. That’s a total misapplication of the first amendment.

And a total lack of understanding of who the Framers were and their own world view

Sorry, I’m absolutely correct that the Framers were adamant that we would not have a state religion.

One thousand percent correct. No religious requirements for office and no establishment of an official religion.

We cannot base on laws on any religious doctrine. To do so invites religions to ask that their own religious views be enacted into law.

That’s what happened in Europe during the religious wars.

No state religion. Period.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM

…the core argument of gay-marriage supporters — “[gays] have got to be treated like every other American”…

Not really. Allowing gays to be treated like every other American would mean that a gay woman and gay man could marry each other. Of course that has always been the case.

Allowing gays of the same sex to marry is creating an entire alternate definition of marriage.

If the courts allow ‘gay’ marriage, then by little Bammie’s definition, all other Americans would also have that option. Two men or two women would be able to marry simply for the income tax advantage, to allow survivor pension or SS benefits, or estate benefits, or to confer eligibility for American permanent residency on an alien. If the law truly will only allow ‘gay’ marriage between same-sexes, then who is to come up with the test of who is truly gay?

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Government must be neutral and not hostile to religions.

But it must not – the Framers insisted - be used to promote one religion over another.

Neutrality not hostility. But no state endorsement of any religious doctrine.

To argue otherwise is to argee that Shari’a law can be enforced in America.

No it can’t.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM

My concern about gay marriage is what implications it will have on religious freedom. If a pastor/priest refuses to marry a gay couple can the government punish them for “discrimination”?

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:33 PM

A debating foe of Allah’s favorite, Christian Hitchens wrote a book discussing the Civil Magistrates role, Biblically and practically

The civil magistrate also has a role when people attempt to marry within bounds prohibited by Scripture. In such situations, the magistrate has the responsibility to intervene – e.g., in a godly society, the current attempts to solemnize sodomite unions would be broken up by the police. The legitimate role of the civil magistrate is one of witnessing familial vows which necessarily have civil ramifications.

So the civil magistrate does have a legitimate, scriptural role at the formation of a marriage, although not the role that it currently thinks it has. If a property dispute broke out between two neighbors, the civil magistrate is competent to deal with that. However, the civil magistrate is not the owner of all property, and therefore the dispenser of it, but rather the umpire of disputes between owners of property. In our statist society, we often think the civil government has more authority than the Bible teaches. But the state should be the umpire in certain areas. Because marriage involves issues like property, inheritance, and heirs, the civil magistrate must be formally notified of the marriage before he can be an impartial referee if and when necessary. This means he must have some representative or deputy present when a marriage covenant is made.

- Paster Douglas Wilson, “Her Hand in Marriage”

The civil magistrate also has a legitimate and necessary role in weddings. A covenant is being made – a binding covenant – and it is a covenant that involves the property, inheritance, and the custody of children. When a quarrel erupts between citizens over such things, biblically the civil magistrate has the arbitrating position. The situation is not altered if the disputants happen to be married. Suppose a man deserts his wife, and in doing so, he steals her endowment. <b. Clearly, the magistrate must be involved in the resolution of the dispute. But if the magistrate has no knowledge of the covenant that was made, then he is required to arbitrate a dispute which he cannot arbitrate. This means that the magistrate must have a representative at the wedding also, who then records the results of the wedding in a way that the magistrate can recognize.

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:33 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

That’s like saying the prohibition on murder is based on a religious text.

Removing government protection of marriage would be more damaging to the institution, and thus to our civilization, than allowing gay marriages.

pedestrian on June 29, 2011 at 6:33 PM

edit: Christopher Hitchens….freudian slip

Though Christopher’s name is derived from Christ himself.

jp on June 29, 2011 at 6:34 PM

At 1:05 in the clip O says that they have said that DOMA is unconstitutional. But, at 2:23 in the clip O says we filed briefs with the SC that state that any discrimination against gays….. is subject to higher scrutiny and we don’t think DOMA is unconstitutional. So which is it?!?

Is this O’s way of having it both ways? I can’t stand the way he lie’s in plain sight of the American public!

glennbo on June 29, 2011 at 6:37 PM

My concern about gay marriage is what implications it will have on religious freedom. If a pastor/priest refuses to marry a gay couple can the government punish them for “discrimination”?

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Not now, but as we all know the radical gay lobby won’t stop even if global gay marriage is instituted.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 6:37 PM

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 6:21 PM

*face2thapalm*

Christien on June 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Western Civilization was built on laws derived from Judeo-Christian values based on the oldest, most published book in the world, the Bible.

Yeah well guess what, you’re wrong on both fronts.

Western Civilization was based on Classical Greek civilization. That’s 480 years before Jesus died on a cross.

That’s a fact.

Here’s another fact. The Treaty of Tripoli. Submitted to the senate by John Adams, ratified unanimously.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The Bible, officially, has no place in american politics. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the founding fathers.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM

None of your fears about gay activism will come true. Oh wait a minute………

Conservative dating site eHarmony will launch an offshoot dating service catered to gays called Compatible Partners, the company announced today.

According to the settlement of a New Jersey discrimination lawsuit, the site must launch by March 31 of next year and be marketed in gay and lesbian media outlets. In addition to a large dose of pride from gay supporters, the man who filed the suit, Eric Mckinley, will receive $5,000 in damages. He filed a formal discrimination complaint against the site in 2005; a similar case against the company is underway in California. Whether or not the New Jersey ruling will affect the California suit is still to be determined.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM

PS: The Bible is by no means the oldest book in the world. It is probably the most well known “old” book, but it’s not the oldest, not by a longshot.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:43 PM

I can see all the lawsuits and protests against mosques and AA churches now.

Christien on June 29, 2011 at 6:44 PM

If?

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Well, the thing is, I’ve had some people tell me that marriage is nothing to do with religion, but is an institution of governments, so it’s perfectly fine for the government to handle marriage. Then when I propose the government only handling civil unions and leaving marriage to the church, they dispute my point based on that logic.

Yet others claim marriage is a sacrament, a holy and spiritual union, and a product of the church. If that’s the case, shouldn’t the actual parameters be left up to the individual church, and the government should only handle civil unions? I would think that would be most amenable because then the word “marriage” would be left up to the religion you belong to, and you wouldn’t have to worry about gay unions redefining that. If one church wants to marry a gay couple, they can…if another doesn’t want to, they don’t.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:46 PM

The Bible, officially, has no place in american politics. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the founding fathers.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Right, that’s why we swear on a Bible.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 6:47 PM

How long until we ‘progress’ to defining ‘equality’ to mean Incest, Polygamy, pedophiles….your pet goat?

And you seriously wonder why people call you a bigot, I bet..

Probably because you can’t tell the difference between a gay person and a pedophile. Or a gay person and a goat. You literally think it’s the same idea.

50 years ago someone like you said the same thing about interracial marriage.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Private company in a state with no gay marriage.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM

And they probably compared it to marrying an “ape”, for an idea of how silly you sound right now.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM

That’s like saying the prohibition on murder is based on a religious text.

pedestrian on June 29, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Not at all. Ever heard these secular words?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Triple -also from John Adams:

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved [sic] Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite . . . . And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

You are quite simplistic that is clear.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Right, that’s why we swear on a Bible.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 6:47 PM

That’s right. We swear on it, and we put it away. We don’t make law based on an ancient tome, because that’s how america rolls.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:50 PM

” Even on an issue where I agree with him, he’s embarrassing.”

Which of Owebama’s two faces do you agree with?

rbendana on June 29, 2011 at 6:50 PM

probably
triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Heh

1. The Holy Bible – Various Authors
Book Sales: 2,500,000,000+
Year Published: 100 BC – 100 AD
Original Language: Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic
Many copies of The Holy Bible have been freely given away during missionary work.
2. Quotations from Chairman Mao – Authored by Mao Zedong
Book Sales: 800,000,000+
Year Published: 1966
Original Language: Chinese
It was mandatory for all people living in China to carry a copy of Quotations from Chairman Mao.

3. The Qur’an – Authored by the Islamic prophet Muhammad
Book Sales: 800,000,000
Year Published: 600 AD – 750 AD
Original Language: Arabic
Traditional views consider The Qu’ran to be a Revelation by Allah, through Gabriel, to the prophet Muhammad.

4. Xinhua Dictionary – Edited by Wei Jiangong
Book Sales: 400,000,000
Year Published: 1957
Original Language: Chinese
The best selling pocket-sized Xinhua Dictionary is used mostly by students in China.

5. Chairman Mao’s Poems – Authored by Mao Zedong
Book Sales: 400,000,000
Year Published: 1966
Original Language: Chinese
Chairman Mao, considered a romantic poet, was educated in Chinese classical literature.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Private company in a state with no gay marriage.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 6:48 PM

What is your point?

They should not be forced to have a gay dating service and nor should a gay dating service be forced to cater to straights.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:52 PM

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:51 PM

There’s something incredibly f**ked up about two of Mao’s books being in the top five.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:53 PM

New Yorkers never would have had a chance to vote.

New Yorkers never di have a chance to vote. NY politicians did. I wonder why?

Rocks on June 29, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Instructions of Shuruppak – 3000BC
Epic of Etana – 2600BC
Pyramid Texts – 2400BC
Code of Urukagina – 2380BC
The Wisdom of Ptah-Hotep – 2600BC+

Protip: Writing was invented in like 3500BC. The Bible is not the oldest book we’ve discovered. That’s a ridiculous assertion only blind faith could make.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:56 PM

triple never read the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, or Gettysburg Address.

Roy Rogers on June 29, 2011 at 6:56 PM

That’s right. We swear on it, and we put it away. We don’t make law based on an ancient tome, because that’s how america rolls.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Dude, laws have been made based on it, and probably will continue to be made on it. Not directly of course, but it’s concepts and teachings.

People who express such hatred and disgust for the bible usually have no understanding of the founding of this country.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Neutrality not hostility. But no state endorsement of any religious doctrine.

To argue otherwise is to argee that Shari’a law can be enforced in America.

No it can’t.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Agreed.

ladyingray on June 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

maybe you could point out where in the constitution it says we’re a christian nation? ill wait.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:59 PM

They should not be forced to have a gay dating service and nor should a gay dating service be forced to cater to straights.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Agreed though unrelated to gay marriage. The company likely would have won in court. Unfortunately they settled.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:00 PM

There’s something incredibly f**ked up about two of Mao’s books being in the top five.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:53 PM

No doubt but he had a large group of prospective buyers and likely many were forced to buy them. These days I would not doubt that Hollywood,Berkeley, etc does not buy their fair share.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:01 PM

The company likely would have won in court.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:00 PM

You think? Have you been awake the last few years?

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:02 PM

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:00 PM

You do understand why they settled right? They know you never know for sure what the courts will do and based on what has occurred in the courts I cannot hardly blame them though I wish they would have stuck it out.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:03 PM

People who express such hatred and disgust for the bible usually have no understanding of the founding of this country.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Did you notice how triple complete ignored the other Adams’ quote. I did.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Adams referred to God once! Wow what a great point. That totally means we’re a Christian nation!

Nevermind the treaty, ratified unanimously, which explicitly states we are NOT a christian nation by ANY MEANS.

Oh yeah, the one drafted by Adams..

That’s not a quote – which you took from a letter to Jefferson – that’s a treaty, which is US LAW.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Stated US Policy as drafted by a founding father and sitting president, and ratified by the US Senate

vs.

A letter to jefferson

hmmmmmm which side do i pick..

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:07 PM

John Hancock

“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”

Hmmm

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:07 PM

This sort of thing is going to get more common in an political environment with no middle ground. The only way to stake out a moderate position is to lie about agreeing with both extremes.

RightOFLeft on June 29, 2011 at 7:08 PM

which you took from a letter to Jefferson –
triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM

And?

Oh and you don’t think that he would not play politics in a treaty.

Why so much anger btw? You come off as a hater.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM

The Bible, officially, has no place in american politics. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the founding fathers.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Most of are laws are derived from the moral code in the bible. To say otherwise is just plain ignorant. Ever heard of the ten commandments?

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Thomas Jefferson

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Most of are laws are derived from the moral code in the bible. To say otherwise is just plain ignorant. Ever heard of the ten commandments?

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Shhh. You are making him angry.

CW on June 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Why so much anger btw? You come off as a hater.

What, and the people who compare gay people to goats don’t?

I have gay friends. Yeah, I’m pissed.

(PS: I voted for bush twice. This kind of crap pushed me to the left. You’re losing people like me EVERY DAY.)

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM

I have gay friends. Yeah, I’m pissed.

Well the way you reasonable want the Bible left out of government maybe you should leave your personal friendships out of a policy discussion of gay marriage.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2