A “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-A tomorrow?

posted at 11:36 am on August 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

One day after having the best sales day in its history, Chick-fil-A will have to prepare itself for a counter-protest to yesterday’s “appreciation day” by those outraged over threats made by mayors and city council members in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York (Mayor Michael Bloomberg did not join his colleagues in the other cities).  Supporters of same-sex marriage will stage “kiss-ins” at Chick-fil-A locations tomorrow, if a Facebook-organized protest succeeds:

Yesterday’s banner turnout at Chick-fil-A restaurants for free speech rights — with thousands of people nationwide and hundreds in the Bay State’s two locations lining up to buy chicken sandwiches — has turned up the heat on gay rights activists who hope to draw similar crowds for tomorrow’s kiss-in protest at the suddenly controversial fast-food chain.

“We planned an action a few years ago and we only expected 50 people but 500 showed. We’re crossing our fingers for that kind of support again,” said Ian Struthers of grassroots group Join the Impact Massachusetts, who plans to pucker up tomorrow at the Burlington Mall Chick-fil-A for national Same-Sex Kiss Day.

Gay rights advocates are using Facebook to organize the kiss-in in protest of Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage and the millions of dollars they say the company has donated to anti-gay groups.

The Bay State group plans to hand out fake coupons to customers for a “free side of bigotry” during the Friday night protest.

Well, good luck with that — and I’m not being entirely flippant, either.  This protest has been rumored since at least last week, before supporters loosely organized the “appreciation day” yesterday, but seem to be having difficulty coordinating it. Even if it does get off the ground tomorrow, it’s very unlikely to approach the level of support shown by fans of Chick-fil-A and/or free speech and free exercise of religious expression yesterday.  A weak showing tomorrow would be worse than skipping the protest entirely, as we saw with the failed Occupy movements, whose spring offensive never materialized after being mostly ignored after the first couple of weeks of protesting last fall.

However, there is nothing wrong with protesting over Chick-fil-A’s political connections or ownership’s political views, as long as protestors obey the law in doing so.  That is a perfectly acceptable free-speech, free-market approach to disagreement within commerce.  I’d rather see kiss-ins than lawsuits, for instance, and certainly more than seeing politicians extort businessmen to support their political agendas, as is exactly what Thomas Menino and Rahm Emanuel attempted to do in Boston and Chicago, respectively.  Protests that don’t block customers from accessing the business or act violently are a good release valve for a free society.  Pro-life activists have picketed abortion mills for decades — and often had to fight courts for that same right.  LGBT activists have just as much right to protest Chick-fil-A.

Mike Huckabee, who helped promote yesterday’s appreciation day, agrees:

Huckabee said he sees nothing wrong with “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick Fil A,” although he is skeptical of the strategy.

“Probably I won’t be there for that,” Huckabee said. “But so what? That’s America. As long as they’re orderly, as long as they don’t disrupt the flow of customers and traffic — if they believe that will help their cause, to put people of the same sex kissing each other in a public place in front of families, if they believe that will encourage people to be more sympathetic, then, you know, more power to them.

“In America, I believe people have a right to do things that I might not agree with,” he continued. “What I don’t want to do is shut down the voices of Christians because they don’t like those voices.”

In America, we used to take that for granted.  Unfortunately, the cities of Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco elected politicians who forgot that America doesn’t require an oath to support The Party as a condition of engaging in commerce.  In my new column for The Fiscal Times, I point out that this is an essential ingredient in America’s success from the start by guaranteeing equal treatment and regulation regardless of religious belief or political temperament, and that we risk a lot more than a missed chicken filet sandwich if we forget that:

Until now, we have welcomed people of all faiths and creeds into the marketplace as long as they observed rational and reasonable regulation intended to prevent fraud, theft, and abuse, but without trampling on their ability to abide by their beliefs.  In return, a large number of people bring their capital and talent to our markets and generate wealth, jobs, stability, infrastructure, and an increased tax base to our communities.  If we force these people to take their capital and exit these markets, it will result in seriously degraded economies, restriction on choice, fewer jobs, less demand, and a lower standard of living – not to mention keep some of the most talented people from addressing the difficult issues that we face.

Our founders understood that explicitly. They saw the disruptions and damage done by religious tests not just for office but also for commerce, and acted to ensure that our governments would not impose such systems on Americans.  For more than two hundred years, that freedom transformed us into the most powerful nation in the world, economically, militarily, and politically.  Imposing a test for political correctness that excludes tens of millions of faithful Americans cannot help but undermine all that progress as well as our natural rights as citizens.

If government has grown so powerful as to be able to impose and prosecute such tests, then that may be the clearest indication yet that government has grown too large and intrusive to the detriment of all.

Instapundit wrote today that he’s less worried about the impact on our economic health than on the First Amendment — and I agree.  But it’s worth considering the kind of damage that the demand for political and religious orthodoxy as a condition of doing business will have on us in the long run.

Meanwhile, at Patheos, Fr. Dwight Longenecker marvels at the success of yesterday’s protest — and then decides it wasn’t really a protest as much as a rally as an expression of “ordinary” Americanism:

The Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day yesterday was historic. It  was historic because it marks a new method of mass protest. I even hesitate to use the word ‘protest’ because it wasn’t a protest. There wasn’t any anger. There wasn’t any hate. There wasn’t any bullying. There were no unwashed crowds of unhappy people holding a sit in and causing other people stress, inconvenience and expense. There were no protest signs, no marches, no noise makers and attention grabbers. There were no revolutionary slogans, no clenched fists, no class warfare, no sullen adolescents in a stroppy mood.

The classic signs of a protest movement were absent. If they were not actually violent revolutions, the great protest movements in history have often had violent undertones. Subtle threats were made. Bullying tactics, financial and political pressure was exerted. Guns were wielded. Behind the scenes in smoke filled rooms men did deals and crossed swords to determine the future of millions. In the great revolutions hoards of unhappy people filled the streets, rioting and on the rampage they took what they wanted, killed who they wanted and in misplaced zeal for justice overturned an established order. …

Yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was the sort of ‘revolt’ this country needs, but it was even better than the non violent revolutions and peaceful protests which have changed the world because it was so ordinary. It was just plain, ordinary Americans getting in their cars and doing a plain, ordinary American thing: going out for lunch to a fast food joint. It was just plain, ordinary Americans doing something plain and ordinary, but positive and joyful and good. In buying an ordinary tasty chicken sandwich at their corner fast food emporium ordinary Americans were expressing the wish to be left alone to be ordinary Americans.

After two weeks of highly anti-American behavior by elected officials who should know better, it’s good to see Americans acting like Americans — especially in large numbers.  That’s true even of the kiss-in, to whatever extent it succeeds.  Let’s debate politics and religious values, while allowing everyone to come to market and make their own choices about who and what to engage there.  That is what liberty is all about.


Related Posts:

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 3 4 5 6

Jetboy makes an interesting argument, and one that actually is incorrect as federally sexual orienatation is not a protected client – therefore since gays are not told they cannot marry a person of the opposite sex, never mind the fact they have no desire to do that, they are not being disadvantaged. The equal protection clause which is the basis for lawsuits on gay marriage is getting to the point that it tries to overturn legislative action for almost anything – what you should ask your congress critter is to begin looking at refusing to accept the ruling of the SC – constitutionally, the SC is not the only arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. There is a process for doing so and it needs to be used, or else the 14th amendment needs amending itself.

But more importantly – jetboy references the benefits bestowed by the govt and the desire for gays to access the benefits given to married couples – benefits given to married couples because they typically are responsible for raising the next generation of Americans whereas gays who are married do no such thing – they provide no benefit to the state at all. Of course this also suggests that maybe we need to roll back the state as a provider of benefits – no benefits, no need for gay marriage at all.

Zomcon JEM on August 2, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Marriage is already defined legally, and everyone has exactly the same access to it. Everyone has the right to marry one member of the opposite sex. No one has the right to marry a member of the same sex, or to marry more than one person. There is no equal protection issue.

As for the civil benefits, virtually all can be addressed by proper legal arrangements including civil unions, health care power of attorneys, designating heirs in wills, etc.

It is clear from the rejection of civil unions by so many gay activists that their goal isn’t effective legal equivalence. They want the marriage status as a badge of legitimacy. The legitimacy they seek is not to be gained by strong-arming and demonizing those who disagree, instead it hardens hearts.

If the LGBT community would actually come out and take on the Islamists’ REAL bigotry, surely some would pay a price. But they would gain more respect than they will ever gain by staging “Kiss-ins” in family restaurants.

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 3:45 PM

There’s quite a lot going on there with these two comments…I can appreciate the intellectual honesty, but the idea that gays have the same opportunity as heteros to access civil marriage benefits…by marrying a member of the opposite sex…works fine, if you see marriage as simply a means to an end.

But we all know that marriage is much more than that. Every time I hear the argument that hetero marriage benefits society since they raise kids in a stable home…shows me the reasoning behind those who laud “traditional marriage”…seeing both as some Norman Rockwell illustration of wholesome goodness.

In reality, many “traditional marriages” don’t have children, nor are they required to for marriage benefits. Many families out there with hetero parents are anything but “stable” and “beneficial”. Then you have a 50% divorce rate, and straight couples making a mockery of “traditional marriage” by, oh, say…getting drunk and visiting an all-night chapel in Vegas.

Family life isn’t a 1950′s sitcom.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The Sleeping Giant has awakened…and some folks are scared out of their minds.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 4:10 PM

You can say that over and over again, but that is NOT what this is about or what fueled this controversy.
verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Sorry, but issue **IS** different for everyone. Many people are defending FREE SPEECH, not necessarily CFA’s president’s views on gay marriage. Being from the Boston area, I’m ticked off at the Mayor.

Boston’s Mayor “sold” $2 million worth of city property to the Islamic Society of Boston’ for $175,000, despite their well-documented links to Muslim extremism. The mosque teaches a form of Islam that condemns homosexuals to DEATH.

However, Menino won’t let a guy spend his own money opening a restaurant (privately owned chain), because he doesn’t support same-sex marriage?

Why should a business be denied a permit based on a personal opinion of a Mayor? CFA is a privately owned business/chain; they can donate to whatever cause they want.

Do you EVEN SEE the hypocrisy here??

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Family life isn’t a 1950′s sitcom.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Is it Folsom street?

tom daschle concerned on August 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM

The kiss-in is not about free-speech; it’s about the militant, homo-agenda to destroy western culture. It’s textbook communist manifesto.

Rusty Allen on August 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM

To me, we won’t see true equality on this issue until we remove the government from the role of approving or rejecting certain relationships.

And so long as we allow the government to do this, I don’t see how we can harp on citizens for doing the same.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Nice to see ya, Est :)

I agree with you completely…there’s something to be said for getting government out of marriage…but as things stand now, they do offer benefits to married couples, which makes it an issue of it’s own.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM

In reality, many “traditional marriages” don’t have children, nor are they required to for marriage benefits.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

As a childless wife, I would actually be fine with changing that if we were to decide children are the only reason our government should have any input into family lives.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Not to mention, the majority of our forefathers were Deists, not Christians.
JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:56 PM

No.

M.E. Bradford in his book Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution has an excellent chapter titled, “Religion and the Framers: The Biographical Evidence”.

On Bradford’s credentials, Russell Kirk (that’s the Russell Kirk) said this in his foreword to another book of Bradford’s Founding Fathers: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution:

Bradford’s national reputation is founded upon his painstaking and accurate scholarship—and upon his rhetorical skill as well…In general, American historians have been daunted by the tremendous task of fighting their way through antique printed collections of politicians’ letters and through thousands of holograph letters, uncollected, in dusty archives and private hands, but Mel Bradford was possessed of fortitude and a desire to write real history. He knew that there is no better way to ascertain the much-debated “original intent” of the Framers than to pass beyond the somewhat meager journals of the Convention, and beyond The Federalist Papers, to the labyrinthine treasury of letters the Framers wrote home or to one another.

…More fully than most commentators upon those Framers, Bradford has carefully examined their several religious persuasions or affiliations, discovering few Deists or unchurched.

Kirk also writes that he and Bradford were frequent correspondents and met at least once a year. From the foreword it is quite evident that he had the highest esteem for Bradford.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM

However, Menino won’t let a guy spend his own money opening a restaurant (privately owned chain), because he doesn’t support same-sex marriage?

Why should a business be denied a permit based on a personal opinion of a Mayor? CFA is a privately owned business/chain; they can donate to whatever cause they want.

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 4:13 PM

But but but…
Menino can stupidly think that for a second…a minute…and hour…forever.
It doesn’t mean he can do any of that. He can’t.
As everyone – including probably his own family and his dog – told him.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

There’s quite a lot going on there with these two comments…I can appreciate the intellectual honesty, but the idea that gays have the same opportunity as heteros to access civil marriage benefits…by marrying a member of the opposite sex…works fine, if you see marriage as simply a means to an end.

But we all know that marriage is much more than that.

STATE marriage is nothing more than that. It is a means to the end. The more you are talking about is the SPIRITUAL connection between mates and has NOTHING to do with the state. The state could care less if you loooove your partner.

In reality, many “traditional marriages” don’t have children, nor are they required to for marriage benefits. Many families out there with hetero parents are anything but “stable” and “beneficial”. Then you have a 50% divorce rate, and straight couples making a mockery of “traditional marriage” by, oh, say…getting drunk and visiting an all-night chapel in Vegas.

Family life isn’t a 1950′s sitcom.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

A very small minority do not have children. And the divorce rate is brought to you by the same progressive force that is pushing gay marriage.. Sterilty diagnoses are notoriously unreliable and if there is an ability/possibility those unions produce a child then the state has an interest in recognizing them.

I’ll let Baker v. Nelson say it for me:

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that “abstract symmetry” is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Bradford writes in Original Intentions:

Part of the confusion that so often leads us to a misunderstanding of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights is the special status to which a selected group of early American leaders have been elevated as the quintessence of what the Founders had in mind in accomplishing our national independence and then channeling the impetus generated with the Revolution into the creation of a new form of government, one that is “part national” and part federal.” These few are forced to serve as heralds of a “golden moment” of “perfect toleration” and public enlightenment, the embodiments of reason, and are put forward as windows on the American soul, on the collective spirit from which, as a people and polity, we most legitimately derive. The difficulty with this tendentious interpretive strategy is that the student of early American history who goes to the trouble to learn about the private lives of a reasonable number of important public figures in the original thirteen states can discredit it with ease. The selective, disingenuous past visible when filtered through such a list is one well-calculated to foster a partisan misuse of the Constitution in rearranging the present. With the moderns and impenitent futurists who invoke this authority with reference to religion, the names thus collected are a constant: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin along with such lesser figures as Benjamin Rush and James Wilson. To this set it is conventional to add that part of Madison which seems to have a natural place in such company. Apart from Madison, none of these heroes is a recognizable Christian. And even about Madison there are certain doubts. The point is that by emphasizing as “representative men” the members of this elite group of deists and secularists, modern interpreters of the First Amendment are thereby released to ignore the distance between the very English/Whig/prescriptive world of the Framers and the favorite political nostrums and simplifications of the contemporary intellectual community. To describe the Framers out a larger body of evidence taken from the entire generation to which they belong—of the 150 to 200 principal Founders of the Republic—is to acquire another view of their composite character, especially with reference to the original American tradition concerning liberty, the state, and religion.

As I have come to know through my own work, the concept of the Framers as ordinary Christians, as members in good standing of the various Christian communions found in early America, is supported by the recorded patterns of their lives. What I propose in the way of a collective portrait draws upon evidence from the usually ignored 95 percent of that group—ignored because they are not precursors of the present dispensation in law, ethics, and public policy. The assumption that this majority was likely to agree to totally secular institutional arrangements in the very structure of American politics contradicts almost everything we know about human nature, as well as the most self-evident components of Christian teaching concerning the relation of the magistrate to the ultimate source of his authority in God.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:20 PM

I think gay men should tell people why homosexuals have an unusually high rate of hepatitis infection.

aloysiusmiller on August 2, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Because President Reagan was insensitive and didn’t care?

Because medical researchers feel gays are expendable?

Because they engage in unhealthy “lifestyles” that also make heterosexuals ill?

I dunno…tough one./

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

In Original Intentions Bradford goes on to quote from various primary source documents to make his case.

….But before going further let us examine the biographical evidence and only then ask what we may infer from it concerning religion and the origins of the Republic.
Of course, the most unmistakable Christian evidence of orthodoxy comes in references made by the Framers to Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Son of God. These are commonplace in their private papers, correspondence, and public remarks—and in the early records of their lives…And not all of this evidence is relegated to wills or very private documents…
Other varieties of unmistakable proof of Christian commitment appear in the acts and languages of Framers who do not always speak directly of their Redeemer but who nonetheless behave as no deist would: who in some fashion to the vigor of their orthodoxy, most impressively in decisions that they make without undue calculation. Expressions of Christian hope are commonplace in the papers of the Framers…
The variety of surviving Christian witness in the papers and sayings of the Framers is indeed astonishing.

Bradford cites writings and activities of (this is not an exhaustive list) Patrick Henry, John Jay, George Mason, General William Livingston, Edmund Pendleton, Elias Boudinot, Roger Sherman, Richard Bassett, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Abraham Baldwin, Luther Martin, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, David Brearly, William Samuel Johnson, John Witherspoon and William Few.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM

No worries…

Thanks! :-)

Same-sex marriage on it’s own isn’t a part of the constitution…nor is any marriage…gay or straight.

Right — in fact, so far as I can tell, no interpersonal relationships of any kind are mentioned in the Constitution. Even the 14th Amendment, which made slavery illegal, didn’t mention either slavery as an institution or the relationship of slaves to their masters, their local government, etc. So far I’m following you.

The constitutional conflict in denying same-sex marriage is found in the 14th amendment with the equal protection clause.

Marriage is a civil…and religious as well…institution that includes a whole plethora of government-sponsored benefits. By excluding same-sex couples, there’s no access to those civil benefits.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Okay, here’s where I think we may be going wrong: the 14th Amendment, as you and I both agree, first declared that all persons born in this country are citizens, and then guaranteed equal protection under the law. (More of this in a second.)

Under the current state of affairs, what are opposite-sex married couples being protected from that same-sex couples are not? Getting vs. not getting a benefit isn’t the same as being protected from something harmful. Marriage bennies aren’t anywhere in the Constitution, and in fact a really good conservative case can be made that government bennies for marriage shouldn’t exist at all. (Neither should government penalties, but that’s a different discussion.)

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment provides protection for private contracts, so a good case can be made that civil unions of any sort (same-sex, opposite-sex, no-sex, sex-irrelevant) are protected by the 14th Amendment.

[sidebar]
I haven’t researched the history of marriage in this country, but I do know that in medieval England and Europe, marriage was a private contract, between a man and a woman (and sometimes their families, if we’re talking nobility or royalty), which was then solemnized by the Church. Contracts could be drawn up years in advance of the solemnization of the marriage.
[/sidebar]

Thanks for your patience! I just cut out a bunch of my post so your and other folks’ eyes wouldn’t glaze over. :-)

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Nice to see ya, Est :)

You too, Jet. :)

I agree with you completely…there’s something to be said for getting government out of marriage…but as things stand now, they do offer benefits to married couples, which makes it an issue of it’s own.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Just so I’m clear, what benefits are we talking about here? Is this hospital visitation issues or tax deductions?

Regardless, these days, I want as little government as possible, especially with all this Chick-Fil-A stuff, so I’m in the mindset right now where I’d argue for getting rid of all but the demonstrably necessary benefits anyway.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:25 PM

A very small minority do not have children.

Source?

And the divorce rate is brought to you by the same progressive force that is pushing gay marriage

So, only progressive liberals get divorces?

.. Sterilty diagnoses are notoriously unreliable and if there is an ability/possibility those unions produce a child then the state has an interest in recognizing them.

Do you even hear what you’re saying? Sheesh. Having kids is in no way a requirement for married couples. They don’t take civil benefits away if you don’t have kids. And quite a few gay couples adopt kids and raise a family like anyone else.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

JetBoy & Esthier,

I recommend to both of you, Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 34 (Winter, 2010): 245-287.

You can download it and print it here, or read it here online.

At some point I’m going to go to the trouble to summarize each section to use in the comments because they consider and give their answers to many of the questions discussed here. For now, these are the sections:

I. …Part I provides the core or essence of our argument, what could reasonably be taken as a stand‐alone defense of our position…

A. Equality, Justice, and the Heart of the Debate
B. Real Marriage Is – And Is Only – The Union of Husband and Wife
1. Comprehensive Union
2. Special Link to Children
3. Marital Norms

C. How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?
1. Weakening Marriage
2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex Parenting As an Ideal
3. Threatening Moral and Religious Freedom

D. If Not Same‐Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?
1. Still Real Marriages
2. Still in the Public Interest

E. Challenges for Revisionists
1. The State Has an Interest in Regulating Some Relationships?
2. Only if They Are Romantic?
3. Only if They Are Monogamous?

F. Isn’t Marriage Just Whatever We Say It Is?

II . …Part II considers all of the serious concerns that are not treated earlier…

A. Why Not Spread Traditional Norms to the Gay Community?
B. What About Partners’ Concrete Needs?
C. Doesn’t the Conjugal Conception of Marriage Sacrifice Some People’s Fulfillment for Others’?
D. Isn’t It Only Natural?
E. Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?

Conclusion

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM

I can feel the love already.

JohnD13 on August 2, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Wear safety glasses and old clothes. A helmet would be good, and some earplugs.

Do you have any body armor?

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 4:30 PM

What do you think they were talking about?
And that they were absolutely free to talk about.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I was there, strictly in support of the 1st Amendment. Period.

I talked about it. The ‘interviewers’ from schools, and such, popped the statements/questions about “gay marriage” into some unwitting mothers, with 2-3 tots around them…why?

It’s all about the 1st Amendment and I don’t care if it was talked about or not. It should have been.

However, the media foremost are not interested in reporting the truth. Thus, it isn’t. There are fools all around, thus the confusion.

Schadenfreude on August 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Thanks for your patience! I just cut out a bunch of my post so your and other folks’ eyes wouldn’t glaze over. :-)

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I’ve been there, but usually end up making my post even longer with something else.

I like your sidebar.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Maybe all the protesters should be considered ANTI-JOB CREATORS.

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

As a childless wife, I would actually be fine with changing that if we were to decide children are the only reason our government should have any input into family lives.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Yeah, I can hang with that, too. IMHO, it isn’t being married per se that makes the extra support the bennies provide so desirable — it’s having dependents, whether those dependents be young children, elderly parents, or family members with an illness or disability.

However, the problem with that line of thinking is that it leads to the vexing question of how to protect families with dependents without subsidizing irresponsibility and illegitimacy. (I would say “bastardy”, but really, it’s not the poor kids’ fault. None of us gets to pick where and how we’re born.)

IMHO, the progressive tax system is really the root of the problem. Get rid of that, and persons supporting dependents won’t need extra gummint bennies.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I don’t care if you want to marry a goat.

I love me some Chick-Fil-A.

So go marry whatever the hell the voices in your noggin’ tell you to marry….and mazel tov….just stay away from my chicken deluxe with provelone.

Tim_CA on August 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

But but but…
Menino can stupidly think that for a second…a minute…and hour…forever.
It doesn’t mean he can do any of that. He can’t.
As everyone – including probably his own family and his dog – told him.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

the fact that these “big city progressive/Facist” elected officials think they can approve or disapprove a private company’s right to do business in a city by whether the company’s “values” match those of the mayor’s is frightening to many Americans…
Btw, “Hustler Magazine” has store locations in Chicago…I guess they have “Chicago Values” because their pervert owner supports “gay marriage”

Strike Hornet on August 2, 2012 at 4:37 PM

In reality, many “traditional marriages” don’t have children, nor are they required to for marriage benefits.

Which is fine. Marriage exists so that IF they have children, which happens quite often with heterosexual sex, those children are born into and have a legal structure in place to care for them, represent them, and support their welfare.

Gay couples are presumably adults, which have their own legal identities, capabilities, and earning potential. Therefore, they do not need welfare benefits designed to support the raising of children, since homosexual sex has zero chance of producing a child.

Many families out there with hetero parents are anything but “stable” and “beneficial”.

And many gay and lesbian couples are anything but “stable” and “beneficial”.

Argument negated.

Furthermore, if your concern is stable families and the welfare of children, you would do better to focus on, support, and encourage that among the people who are making children in the first place.

Instability in a gay and lesbian couple is irrelevant. Their activities will never produce a child; thus, their instability and non-benefice will never be in the position to harm a child.

Then you have a 50% divorce rate, and straight couples making a mockery of “traditional marriage” by, oh, say…getting drunk and visiting an all-night chapel in Vegas.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Show us the breakup rate of gay couples.

Show us an organization devoted to gay-sex marriage that opposes divorce and opposes quickie marriages.

Show us an organization devoted to gay-sex marriage that condemns adultery, promotes fidelity, and states that gays should be responsible in choosing a life partner.

You can scream and point fingers at heterosexuals all you want, JetBoy, but as my father once told me, a salesman whose only pitch is to tear down and tell you how awful someone else’s product is has nothing good to say about his own.

You haven’t demonstrated that your gay-sex marriages will be any better. Therefore, why should society waste welfare benefits on you instead of focusing its time and energy in making heterosexual marriages better?

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM

And quite a few gay couples adopt kids and raise a family like anyone else.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Except they don’t raise a family like anyone else. To say that is to run roughshod over child development, sexual identity, and the irreplaceable contribution of both mother and father to the growth of a child.

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Oh goody I finally found that elusive chicken thread. I’m a little late to the party. Remind me again WTH does chicken have to do with Gay marriage?

Bmore on August 2, 2012 at 4:42 PM

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

You did not address any of my points directly, so I presume no argument.

Your criticisms of the institution of marriage are both irrelevant and would apply at least as much to gay marriage. Some of the issues you raise are not a result of the institution of marriage, but rather of the weakening of the institution, in part by the phenomena of no-fault divorce.

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 4:43 PM

INC on August 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM

If I get time, I may be able to read through all of that, but my main issue just goes back to what I already said, which is that if/when (latter more likely) gay marriage is the law in all our lands, it’ll be because society is already OK with homosexuality, which is the actual cause of those affects to traditional marriage, not specifically government intervention.

Thing is, federally recognized or not, gays are still cohabitating and raising children together. Children are already growing up, learning that’s it’s wrong to discriminate against Johnny cause he has two mommies. Federally recognized marriages won’t change that.

Now, I would buy the argument that federal recognition might speed up the process, but anything outside of that sounds like hyperbole to me.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

I’ve been there, but usually end up making my post even longer with something else.

Hee hee! :-)

I like your sidebar.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Thanks! Marriage contracts of the Middle Ages and Renaissance can be a real hoot to read. They were often as customized and specific as a will. (Sadly my Google-fu is weak today, and I can’t find any examples online.)

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Do you even hear what you’re saying? Sheesh. Having kids is in no way a requirement for married couples. They don’t take civil benefits away if you don’t have kids.

Nope.

That’s because no one has any clue in the vast majority of cases when or if a married couple will have children; however, if and when they ever did, those children would need that protection.

And quite a few gay couples adopt kids and raise a family like anyone else.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Adopt kids? If gay-sex couples are exactly the same, they wouldn’t need to adopt; their normal sexual activity would produce children.

There’s something that you Loving supporters never seem to be able to explain, JetBoy; you insist that interracial marriage is exactly the same as gay-sex marriage, but ignore the fact that interracial couples can reproduce just as easily as same-racial couples — whereas you are absolutely incapable in any circumstance of reproducing.

This is why the same Supreme Court that reviewed Loving made a clear differentiation in Baker. They knew the difference.

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I hope the lines at CFA restaurants are as long as they were yesterday, and everyone brings water balloons to throw at the ‘kissers’.

Liam on August 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM

IMHO, the progressive tax system is really the root of the problem. Get rid of that, and persons supporting dependents won’t need extra gummint bennies.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Full agreement on the rest of your comment, so I’m interested in your elaboration on this part. What would this mean and entail exactly?

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

northdallasthirty, you rock.

chelie on August 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

So, only progressive liberals get divorces?

No progressive liberals instituted no-fault divorce and the “me” generation crap that cause people to find something better. They have tried to kill the family because an independent family doesn’t need the state.

you even hear what you’re saying? Sheesh. Having kids is in no way a requirement for married couples. They don’t take civil benefits away if you don’t have kids. And quite a few gay couples adopt kids and raise a family like anyone else.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Yeah I hear what I am saying. BIOLOGICAL children with a mother and a father are in the state interest hence the reason the unions of a procreating able couple is sanctioned.

And quite a few gay couples adopt kids and raise a family like anyone else.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM

And since an adopting couple already requires state involvement there is no state interest to give them additional contracts..

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

meant in the best way possible, northdallasthirty. forgot to add that!

chelie on August 2, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Then you have a 50% divorce rate, and straight couples making a mockery of “traditional marriage” by, oh, say…getting drunk and visiting an all-night chapel in Vegas.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I almost never agree with JetBoy, but I do on this snippet. No fault divorce has caused people to enter into marriage far to recklessly, and released them from their commitment far too easily.

RegularJoe on August 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

But but but…
Menino can stupidly think that for a second…a minute…and hour…forever.
It doesn’t mean he can do any of that. He can’t.
As everyone – including probably his own family and his dog – told him.

verbaluce on August 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM

the fact that these “big city progressive/Facist” elected officials think they can approve or disapprove a private company’s right to do business in a city by whether the company’s “values” match those of the mayor’s is frightening to many Americans…
Btw, “Hustler Magazine” has store locations in Chicago…I guess they have “Chicago Values” because their pervert owner supports “gay marriage”

Strike Hornet on August 2, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Funny how so many people cannot see this far into the situation. They are making this all about gay marriage.

Anyone see the unemployment numbers???
Guess people DON’T CARE about those without jobs??
Or people that want to start a business but are denied?? Even though the business might be a restaurant with a proven success rate?
Keep those people on govt assistance as long as you can. That’s right!

A–MAZING.

pastselldate on August 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Get a great chicken sandwich and see a bunch of freaks on display? Sounds like CFA is going to have another great sales day.

Patton531 on August 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I almost never agree with JetBoy, but I do on this snippet. No fault divorce has caused people to enter into marriage far to recklessly, and released them from their commitment far too easily.

RegularJoe on August 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Exactly — no fault divorce laws were instituted by the same liberal idiots who say that marriage can’t be defined.

The fact remains that many of us do live our values though. Married 21 years with two children -faithfully.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Does anyone else think the “dumbing down” of divorce laws (no-fault divorce and other new laws that make divorce easier, faster and without accountability or blame) has hurt the institution of “marriage” in the United States”? So, now, when you say the words “in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, til death do us part” what you REALLY mean is “til I find some I like better than you” or “til I think this isn’t working for me anymore” or “until I don’t want this commitment I promised I’d keep before God, family and friends”…
So, yes, sometimes “evolving” doesn’t always mean for the better…

Strike Hornet on August 2, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Instability in a gay and lesbian couple is irrelevant. Their activities will never produce a child; thus, their instability and non-benefice will never be in the position to harm a child.

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Not quite true. A number of gay people come out later in life, sometimes after they’ve married and had children. (I know of two, one gay man and one lesbian. He did not bring his children into his new relationship — poor little kids, I felt very sorry for them! She did, though hers were older.)

And there’s nothing to stop lesbians from using a sperm donor, or, as JetBoy pointed out above, gay couples of either sex from adopting. I agree that a child needs a mother and a father — but I also think that being adopted by any loving person willing to learn the skills to be a good parent is much better than not being adopted at all and growing up in The System.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I almost never agree with JetBoy, but I do on this snippet. No fault divorce has caused people to enter into marriage far to recklessly, and released them from their commitment far too easily.

RegularJoe on August 2, 2012 at 4:52 PM

You’re both right, and moreover, Hollywood ain’t helpin’.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:57 PM

but I also think that being adopted by any loving person willing to learn the skills to be a good parent is much better than not being adopted at all and growing up in The System.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Definitely. I’d even prefer two dads/moms to one mother or father.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM

There is nothing inevitable about homosexual “marriage” in this society–if this society in a collective sense decides that it is not going to allow itself to surrender to decadence at the behest of a minority of self-serving fools, as I believe it has. The Chick-fil-A event is an indicator of where the people stand and what they believe, just like the many referenda on this issue. And people are doing this virtually spontaneously, without any political leadership whatever. Wait till November 6.

American society is not “okay” with homosexuality. The vast majority of people recognize it as unnatural and perverted behavior, and it is so proscribed in the moral tradition of our Judeo-Christian tradition. Although persecution or oppression of homosexuals is desired, a consensus has been reached that the nonsense has got to stop and it’s about time we put a stop to it.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Although no persecution…Sorry for the typo.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM

OT: Pew had Obama +10…only problem. It has an 18% GOP sample!

wargamer6 on August 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Sarah Palin and Huckabee has weighed in on this ILLEGAL effort pushed by the Democrat Party to put Chick-fil-A out of business, but someone seems to be missing from the ebate … again!

Where is Romney? Does he even know what is happening inside America today, and if so does he care?

Mitt munching on a Chick-fil-A sandwich … the right thing to do, and politically smart, too. And tasty.

Is it too much to hope for?

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Oh teh noes, two men kissing?!?! I believe that’ll give me a wicked case of the vapors!

Good Solid B-Plus on August 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

That’s what I asked today.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I’m one Republican who supports gay marriage completely.. I don’t see how you support liberty, voluntary transactions, etc. and don’t support it.

Craig Nelson on August 2, 2012 at 1:25 PM
That’s because you’re a Republican first.

I’m a Christian first, conservative second and Republican a distant third.

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Like Milton Friedman, I’m not a conservative, I’m a limited government, pro-human libertarian. The Hasids used to say when it came to God, Torah and the people, if there was ever a conflict, they sided with the people against the other two.

I love all humans, including gay people. If they want to solemnize their commitment before friends, family and the community, and get the same benefits a married couple has for health coverage, survivior rights, etc. then FINE WITH ME!! I celebrate their freedom to do so…

Craig Nelson on August 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Too bad Christians can’t practice their religion, like the Muslims can in this country.
-
Can you imagine making Gitmo prisoners eat pork?
Not allowed to pray 5X a day, and there’d be an outcry all the way to Mecca and back.
Muslims exempt from Obamacare.
-
Muslim terrorists who have killed and maimed Americans, are granted more religious rights than us law abiding Christians.
-
“We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Typicalwhitewoman on August 2, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Full agreement on the rest of your comment, so I’m interested in your elaboration on this part. What would this mean and entail exactly?

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Well, as I see it — and please bear in mind that I am by no means a tax expert! — if it were not for progressive tax rates, there would be no “marriage penalty”. If we had a flat tax system, or at least a flatter tax system, a person’s marital status would have no bearing on the rate of income tax they would have to pay.

It used to be there was a “marriage penalty” — remember that? Tax rates increased the more money you made, so married couples filing jointly would pay more income tax than if they were not married. (Filing separately didn’t solve that problem, IIRC.)

The Bush tax cuts, if I understand correctly, attempted to compensate for the “marriage penalty”, not by changing the progressive nature of the tax system so much as by rejiggering the deductions to offset the penalty. This resulted in married couples paying less tax on their income than a single person making the same dollar amount would pay.

I think it was at about this time that same-sex marriage really started showing up on the public radar. Before that, I have the impression (and that’s all it is, I have no links to cite) that most gay public figures, the ones who spoke for the movement, either had no interest in marriage, or were openly contemptuous of the institution and the “breeders” who practiced it.

So what this would entail is a complete overhaul of the income tax system. I can dream about repealing the 16th Amendment — can’t we all? — but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime, as it will cut off the gravy train for too many bureaucrats. Cutting taxes and flattening out the tax brackets as much as possible seems more achievable.

As I have said before on these pages: I have no intention of voting for Ron Paul for President, but I would dearly love to see him as U.S. Treasury Secretary!

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin

Who do you think is going to fight and lead on an issue like this?

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

“spoke” s/b “claimed to speak” — sorry!

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I don’t get why gays want marriage over civil union…they get exactly the same legal things they want, but they don’t get the status of being “married”. That is, with civil unions they are unable to normalize their relationship in the eyes of broader society.

But to attack heterosexual marriage because it is indeed not perfect then turn around and want the same thing makes no sense.

It’s simply about gays attempting to convince (force) society (to accept) that their relationships are as normal and therefore as valid as heterosexual relationships.

And if they aren’t seeking normalcy, then they would pursue marriage for themselves and the adoption of children in an attempt to mimic traditional families? So, they must feel abnormal…but they don’t think that they are abnormal?

As far as I’m concerned, they can do whatever they want except to be “married”…to me that’s only between one man and one woman.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Although persecution or oppression of homosexuals is desired,…

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You might want to fix that…

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

There is nothing inevitable about homosexual “marriage” in this society–if this society in a collective sense decides that it is not going to allow itself to surrender to decadence at the behest of a minority of self-serving fools, as I believe it has.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Uhhh, coming from someone who’s apart of Gen Y, about 70% of those in my generation support gay marriage. I know you’re probably from the generation that still mutters about ‘them colored people’ at the grocery store, but please try to not embarrass yourself too much on the way to the retirement home.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Who do you think is going to fight and lead on an issue like this?

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

You are being silly, right?

I have yet to see Romney lead on ANY issue. Maybe I missed something?

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Don’t believe everything you see on MTV.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

You might want to fix that…

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

did in the very next post

DanMan on August 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

That’s what I asked today.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

So you did! well done.

Are you counted as another 0bama enabeler by the hate filled
RomBots here too?

I’ll BBL. I’m off to again man the TEA Party booth at our local county fair. Again I’m doing the work the LAZY Romney supporters refuse to do. There should be a tax on them to pay me for my efforts.

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Uhhh, coming from someone who’s apart of Gen Y, about 70% of those in my generation support gay marriage. I know you’re probably from the generation that still mutters about ‘them colored people’ at the grocery store, but please try to not embarrass yourself too much on the way to the retirement home.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Young, dumb, and easily indoctrinated young people have a way of becoming mature, experienced, and hard to fool.

I’m younger than the Dear Leader, Dad.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM

A right to speak is not a right to be heard or to loiter to impede normal business especially if trespassing on private property is involved.

If any militant troublemakers get into customer’s faces they should be treated the same as loud drunks creating a nuisance with a quick bum’s rush onto the street otherwise just ignore them.

viking01 on August 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yep. Unfortunately, he’s all we have left. But, I did Tweet my Blog to the Senate Republicans, who follow me.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM

DannoJyd on August 2, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Will it really change that many minds one way or the other?

It’s not *always* a good idea to jump into every “culture war” battleground everywhere…that’s what the Base is for.

It’s better for Romney to concentrate on the fiscal issues…Keep hitting the Administration on Unemployment and the weak dollar.

That’s as important as a weak attempt for OWS wanna-bes trying to stifle a private company POV on religion.

The economy is Issue #1 with the country.

BlaxPac on August 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Don’t believe everything you see on MTV.

kingsjester on August 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I am too young for MTV heyday. That would have been for those who were born in the 1970s and 80s. By the time I got around to it, MTV had already begun its decline and was not showing music videos anymore.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Not quite true. A number of gay people come out later in life, sometimes after they’ve married and had children. (I know of two, one gay man and one lesbian. He did not bring his children into his new relationship — poor little kids, I felt very sorry for them! She did, though hers were older.)

Oh, I’m sorry. Gay and lesbian people say that they’re genetically and biologically incapable of ever having sex with someone of the opposite sex.

The thing that amuses me about this is how, had these people dumped their spouses for a younger/prettier one that they liked better sexually, they’d be cads. But if they claim “gay”, they get a free pass.

And there’s nothing to stop lesbians from using a sperm donor, or, as JetBoy pointed out above, gay couples of either sex from adopting.

Go for it. And just as you don’t need children to be married, children don’t automatically entitle you to marital benefits.

I agree that a child needs a mother and a father — but I also think that being adopted by any loving person willing to learn the skills to be a good parent is much better than not being adopted at all and growing up in The System.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM

And having your own parents raise and take care of you is head and shoulders above that option, as well.

So why is society wasting money on a less-worse solution when it could be spending money on the best one instead?

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

It is aways about the dollars…I have a cousin that is counting on gay marriage being legalized so he can get in to those sweet bennies his tenured professor partner has. His previous partner ran off with a 19 year old when he was about 40 so he made sure he hooked up with a much older and more financially stable man this time around.

DanMan on August 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Young, dumb, and easily indoctrinated young people have a way of becoming mature, experienced, and hard to fool.

I’m younger than the Dear Leader, Dad.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Last time I checked, age doesn’t make people close-minded. The Silent Generation has gone from supporting gay marriage from 21% in 2001 to 33% in 2012. Baby Boomers from 32% to 41%. Exactly opposite of what you seem to believe.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Tolerance.

Bmore on August 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Yeah, they’re going to come out pretty hard on Friday.

A preview: ‘MSNBC Hacks Attack ‘Hate Groups’ Who Turned Out for Nationwide Chick-fil-A Buycott’. That’s gold!

Donald Douglas on August 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM

One word: Ewwwwwww!

Libturds are low-grade slush.

MisterElephant on August 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Last time I checked, age doesn’t make people close-minded. The Silent Generation has gone from supporting gay marriage from 21% in 2001 to 33% in 2012. Baby Boomers from 32% to 41%. Exactly opposite of what you seem to believe.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Religious belief was going away in the Eighties, too, given how all the “young people” of that era were supposedly beyond such ancient claptrap.

And now we have a resurgence.

The problem is, ZachV, that people are starting to see the problem: gay-sex marriage is just the excuse that bigot gays like you use for antireligious bigotry, ageism, and a fascist desire to use the government to revenge yourself on those who are more productive and successful than you are.

The little stunt you gay-sex marriage supporters pulled in making it clear that you would use the law to ban Chick-Fil-A from operating and to expel them from the cities you control made your ulterior motives clear.

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Tolerance.

Bmore on August 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM

your basic “anti-bulling” bully…these people are so full of ****…

Strike Hornet on August 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM

It used to be there was a “marriage penalty” — remember that? Tax rates increased the more money you made, so married couples filing jointly would pay more income tax than if they were not married. (Filing separately didn’t solve that problem, IIRC.)

I do, which is why I’m always a little thrown when we talk about marriage benefits.

As I have said before on these pages: I have no intention of voting for Ron Paul for President, but I would dearly love to see him as U.S. Treasury Secretary!

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM

We seem to be on similar pages. I don’t think I could ever vote for him, but I am glad he’s in the GOP, and I was glad that he was in the primary debates.

Getting rid of the 16th would be radical, but I can’t help but think that it would do away with a lot of rampant corruption and tax cheats. We wouldn’t have people decrying off shore bank accounts or hidden assets, so we’d even have more transparency from those in positions of power.

Some days I just wish we could start over from scratch.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

There is nothing gayer than a man in sandals who hung out with twelve guys all the time (kissing them regularly), had no significant love interest, and always got dolled up in perfume with his lady friends. Yet you bigots worship him.

I hope you all have gay kids. First for the sheer looks of horror on your face when he grows up singing showtunes, second so the chances of your genes passing on to future generations greatl diminish.

As for Chick Fil A, eventhough the owner is a loon, if KFC burns down, there is police tape in front of the Popeyes, if the Churches gets closed for failing health inspection, bulletproof chinese is chasing cats out back with a knife, and Wendy’s line is too long, I’d still go to Chick fila for my chicken, nothing has changed.

LevStrauss on August 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

And having your own parents raise and take care of you is head and shoulders above that option, as well.

So why is society wasting money on a less-worse solution when it could be spending money on the best one instead?

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

What? When you’re talking about kids who are in The System, you’re already talking about kids whose parents are for some reason unable or unwilling to take care of them. So that option is… well not an option.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Last time I checked, age doesn’t make people close-minded….

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

What justifies the conclusion that support for traditional marriage means that a person is close-minded?

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Last time I checked, age doesn’t make people close-minded. The Silent Generation has gone from supporting gay marriage from 21% in 2001 to 33% in 2012. Baby Boomers from 32% to 41%. Exactly opposite of what you seem to believe.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Gullible youth does, however, tend to believe the propaganda du jour presented by their teachers. And teachers tend to be liberal Democrats, like the people who do the polls.

In 2008 one of the most liberal states in the Union, California, voted down homosexual marriage 52%-48% with 13 million people casting a ballot, more than the total number of people polled in the US over the last hundred years (probably).

You will see another unbiased poll on November 6.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. Just to be clear, I wasn’t making a judgment call. The writing on the wall just seems really legible to me.

Esthier on August 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Uhhh, coming from someone who’s apart of Gen Y, about 70% of those in my generation support gay marriage. I know you’re probably from the generation that still mutters about ‘them colored people’ at the grocery store, but please try to not embarrass yourself too much on the way to the retirement home.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Yeah and when I was in my early 20′s I supported gay marriage before it was even en vogue to do so.. Of course this was before I was old enough to realize that gay marriage really has nothing to do with marriage and is more akin to fascism dressed up in a rainbow colored chap set.

melle1228 on August 2, 2012 at 5:49 PM

LevStrauss on August 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Typical hate-filled leftist intolerant of others’ religion.

Go back into your rathole.

MisterElephant on August 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

But if they claim “gay”, they get a free pass.

No, they don’t. The gay man in my earlier example was our music teacher. We students were privately appalled that he would leave his wife and young children for another man — well, for anyone — but inasmuch as our opinions didn’t count for anything and we would have been rude to express them anyway, none of us said anything to his face.

Go for it. And just as you don’t need children to be married, children don’t automatically entitle you to marital benefits.

I agree with you. I don’t think any competent adult is “entitled” to benefits they didn’t earn.

And having your own parents raise and take care of you is head and shoulders above that option, as well.

I absolutely agree with you — but that’s not always an available option. To use a fictional example, “Little Orphan Annie” in the 1930s was surrendered to an orphanage because her parents, a loving, traditionally married couple, simply didn’t have the resources to take care of her. Most real-life kids in The System nowadays are there because their parents were absent, on drugs, violent, or worse. (The issue of Child Protective Services effectively “kidnapping” kids on trumped-up charges is a real one, but so far as I know, rare and not relevant to this argument.)

So why is society wasting money on a less-worse solution when it could be spending money on the best one instead?

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I think you and I probably agree more than disagree on this topic – but what I don’t get is why government (not the same as society) should be spending money on marriage, or marriage alternatives, at all. IMHO, simply not penalizing marriage is enough.

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Religious belief was going away in the Eighties, too, given how all the “young people” of that era were supposedly beyond such ancient claptrap.

And now we have a resurgence.

Of religion? … Those unaffiliated with religion: 8% Silent, 13% Boomer, 20% Gen X and 26% Millennial. Source.

In the 80s, those who stated ‘none’ for religion ranged between 7-9%. It now sits at 13%. Source.

… and what’s even more surprising is that mainline Protestantism is endorsing gay marriage and the election of gay clergy. Episcopalians, UCC, ELCA Lutherans, Anglicans, some Methodists, and even the Catholic laity have all come around to either supporting or beginning to bless and perform same-sex marriage in the last decade.

The problem is, ZachV, that people are starting to see the problem: gay-sex marriage is just the excuse that bigot gays like you use for antireligious bigotry, ageism, and a fascist desire to use the government to revenge yourself on those who are more productive and successful than you are.

The little stunt you gay-sex marriage supporters pulled in making it clear that you would use the law to ban Chick-Fil-A from operating and to expel them from the cities you control made your ulterior motives clear.

northdallasthirty on August 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM

So a bunch of people went out and bought Chicken sandwiches.

Meanwhile, both the President and the Democratic Party are endorsing gay marriage; NY has legalized it; so has the legislatures in WA, MD and RI has promised to do so next year; DADT gone; DOMA and Prop 8 are now both in front of the Supremes; gay marriage has near record support; and it looks like OH will have an amendment legalizing gay marriage in front of them in 2013.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I hope you all have gay kids. First for the sheer looks of horror on your face when he grows up singing showtunes, …

LevStrauss on August 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Shame on you for stereotyping. I suppose you think all lesbians weigh 250 pounds and wear flannel shirts, too?

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Then you have a 50% divorce rate, and straight couples making a mockery of “traditional marriage” by, oh, say…getting drunk and visiting an all-night chapel in Vegas.

JetBoy on August 2, 2012 at 4:09 PM

So… then does that mean that you support pro-family organizations like the owner of Chick-fil-a? After all, we see those issues too and those organizations are trying to fix that.

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 5:58 PM

What justifies the conclusion that support for traditional marriage means that a person is close-minded?

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Which? The Biblical polygamy, or the arranged marriages that were the standard in the late 19th, early 20th Century?

Perhaps even the white-white, black-black marriages?

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

LevStrauss on August 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I think if I basked in your HATE long enough, I could probably get a tan.

Oh, and THANKS for helping galvanize support for Christian values! A lot of Christians had fallen asleep, and its good to get them woken up in time for the election! Even my wife (who hates politics) was fired up… those against CFA have done more than I ever could at home. THANK YOU!

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Just because the Bible documented it does not mean that is God’s plan. Lots of sinful, and destructive acts are documented in the Bible along with the outcome. For example, Solomon was undone because his many wives turned him from God.

But the only time that Jesus mentions marriage, it is always one man and one woman. That is the plan.

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM

What justifies the conclusion that support for traditional marriage means that a person is close-minded?

novaculus on August 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Which? The Biblical polygamy, or the arranged marriages that were the standard in the late 19th, early 20th Century?

Perhaps even the white-white, black-black marriages?

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Can I help? I speak Liberal.

“Closed-minded” means you disagree with him;
“Intolerant” means you strongly disagree with him;
“Hateful” means you are winning the debate.

When your designation changes from an adjective to a noun (e.g., “Homophobe” or “Bigot”) that means you are recognized as an enemy and the discussion is over.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Some subnormal loser is actually suggesting that Truett and Dan Cathy are “loons”?

Let’s see. If you own and run a company which has over 1,600 locations with a dozen or more new locations opening every month, your product is widely respected for its consistent high quality, friendly employees and an employee scholarship program which is notable not only for its generosity but also for those employee participants whom after getting their college degrees return to that company’s management program…. then maybe there needs to be a “loon” line forming to embrace similarly triumphal free enterprise and accelerate the nations recovery out of the pit Obamanomics of big gummint has created.

viking01 on August 2, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Good get as many photos as possible so we can ID these ‘kissers’.
You know what to do just don’t get kissed! Ewwwwwwww!!!1

sonnyspats1 on August 2, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Just because the Bible documented it does not mean that is God’s plan. Lots of sinful, and destructive acts are documented in the Bible along with the outcome. For example, Solomon was undone because his many wives turned him from God.

But the only time that Jesus mentions marriage, it is always one man and one woman. That is the plan.

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Here’s a Bible-buster.

Take an XXY person (Klinefelter’s), for example, who has both male and female parts. Or a genetically male XY person, who has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and thus looks physically female.

Neither of these people are male OR female. So, exactly who can an XXY person marry? Do we flip a coin: heads makes marrying ‘males’ and sin, tails makes marry ‘females’ a sin?

Or, I guess we could cover our eyes and start screaming ‘one man, one woman’ over and over until any conflicting evidence in the natural world magically vanishes.

But really. I’d like to know where you categorize inter-sex people in that ‘one male, one female’ world view of yours.

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Oh, and THANKS for helping galvanize support for Christian values! A lot of Christians had fallen asleep, and its good to get them woken up in time for the election! Even my wife (who hates politics) was fired up… those against CFA have done more than I ever could at home. THANK YOU!

dominigan on August 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

You are welcome, I understand morale has been down since you were forced to let black people use bathrooms in the south and eat from the same tables.

LevStrauss on August 2, 2012 at 6:36 PM

When somebody has to cite genetic mutation to justify their point it’s a clear indication just how much of a plaintive struggle making their point has become.

viking01 on August 2, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Shame on you for stereotyping. I suppose you think all lesbians weigh 250 pounds and wear flannel shirts, too?

Mary in LA on August 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I’ll stereotype if I like.

At least the examples of my stereotypes exist, unlike the object of some supernatural cannabalistic cult.

LevStrauss on August 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Here’s a Bible-buster…

ZachV on August 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Yeah. There’s an anti-Christian animus here, and underlying this affair in general.

spiritof61 on August 2, 2012 at 6:40 PM

It is aways about the dollars…I have a cousin that is counting on gay marriage being legalized so he can get in to those sweet bennies his tenured professor partner has. His previous partner ran off with a 19 year old when he was about 40 so he made sure he hooked up with a much older and more financially stable man this time around.

DanMan on August 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Yep. I wonder if the stat types have looked at what gay marriage will do to Social Security via survivor benefits. That’s all SS needs, another burden.

slickwillie2001 on August 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6