The Saturday “GOP is the Gay (marriage) Old Party” thread

posted at 8:31 am on March 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Sadly for all of us, the world failed to be utterly destroyed by either Sequestration Freaky Friday or any additional visits of world shattering comets. (At least on the first pass, that is.) So we may as well tempt fate and toss another stick of dynamite on the fire.

For a long time now, opposition to gay marriage has been one of the cornerstones of the conservative platform, libertarian circles aside. But with the sudden splash of cold water to the face that came with the last election, the drums in the deepest recesses of Moria have been growing louder. And some of the drumming is coming from Cato.

With the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cato Institute has joined the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) on an amicus brief that focuses on supporting marriage equality under the Equal Protection Clause. Our brief explains that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not exclusively to address the disparaged rights of former slaves but, as the historical record shows, was intended to be universal in its protection of “any person” within U.S. jurisdiction.

Bilbo’s old sword began to glow a bit more when George Scoville sat down at his keyboard.

Republican lawmakers stand athwart marriage equality at their peril

Craig Stowell always suspected his brother might be gay, and he made sure to let his brother know he would love him no matter what if his brother ever came out to the family. It was the right thing to do. But Stowell didn’t become involved in political fights for marriage equality until Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature introduced HB 437 in 2011 to repeal the Granite State’s 2010 law conferring the same state protections on same-sex marriages that traditional marriages enjoy. (The legislature had tried previously — and failed — to repeal New Hampshire’s 2006 law protecting civil unions between gay couples.) Gay marriage proponents defeated HB 437 in 2012.

“When I look at my brother,” the New Hampshire Republican politico and Iraq War veteran told me over the phone, “I can’t help but want him to have the same rights I have.” As support for marriage equality continues to grow across the country, Republican lawmakers should embrace the opportunity to become leaders on the issue.

Long time Hot Air favorite Liz Mair has weighed in as well.

There are plenty of bad reasons to support gay marriage running around today, depending on where your priorities settle out. Yes, I could point out the increasing demographic shift which shows that younger voters support the idea across party lines more than they oppose it. But if the only reason you have to support gay marriage is a fear of losing yet another election or five, that doesn’t come across as a very sincere, heartfelt position.

The “big tent” argument carries considerably more appeal, since there’s obviously nothing wrong with a party serving as a forum for diverse opinions to be vigorously debated. But again… when brought up as the only positive factor in favor of the idea, it still seems to carry with it a bit of hypocritical seasoning. Welcoming people you clearly oppose on one of their fundamental issues simply for the purpose of trying to talk them out of it is small “d” democratic in nature, but lacks a certain esprit de corps.

In the end, the only pitch I would make on this subject is the same one I’ve had for years. It’s not that I particularly give a hoot who gets married to whom, nor the spiritual implications of any given union. Those are matters for the individuals to wrestle to the ground between themselves and their higher power. No, in the end the only thing which moves the needle on this for me is the conviction that the government – pretty much at any level – has no license to be involved in the business of marriage. And yes, that includes the oft foisted compromise we hear of it being “a state level issue.” (This, in my opinion, is the last refuge of people who don’t want to oppose or support gay marriage openly for fear of electoral retribution, but want to hang on to credentials with the conservative base.)

If we don’t want the government expanding its reach into every aspect of our lives and restricting itself to its proper and necessary functions, leaving the private matters of the individual up to them, there seems to be little else to say. If Uncle Sam came to your door trying to tell you who you must marry, I’d be right there defending you against them. But they’re not in this case. And why is marriage locked into the tax code and so many other aspects of law to begin with, making it all the harder to extract? I can understand credits for raising the next generation of children – yes, even adopted ones – but why for a spouse? Why should I get some benefit on my taxes for having married my wife and sharing a house that two sisters who share a house to cut expenses can’t get?

It’s not an even deal for the citizens in the end. And if it turns out that accepting such a concept winds up stopping another drubbing at the polls, well that’s just a bonus. You may now commence breaking out the flamethrowers


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 2 3 4 8

In Canada…

Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada

The effects of same-sex civil marriage in Canada—restrictions on free speech rights, parental rights in education, and autonomy rights of religious institutions, along with a weakening of the marriage culture—provide lessons for the United States.

“The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.

A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext…

See, for example, the comments of Justice LaForme in Halpern v. Canada (AG), 2002 CanLII 49633 (On SC), paras. 242-43.

When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. See, for example, Saskatchewan: Marriage Commissioners Appointed Under the Marriage Act (Re), 2011 SKCA 3

At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations. Smith and Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus and others, 2005 BCHRT 544

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/#note-6758-2

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Are there any reasons left to be a Republican? Just asking!

Alabama Infidel on March 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

So based on what’s happened with ObamaCare and the legal battles over mandating religious-based medical institutions to provide medical care that goes against their beliefs, you really think it’s a ‘strawman’ to posit that sometime in the future the government wouldn’t get into a legal battle with religious institutions over demands that they adhere to federal laws on same-sex marriage?

The thought doesn’t even enter your mind that a liberal federal judge in a liberal circuit (lets say, hypothetically, the Ninth Circuit, though we all know they never, ever have handed down loopy liberal decisions before) would use a state or federal law to waylay a religious institution for not allowing same-sex marriages? You can just read the writings out there of some same-sex marriage advocates (gay or straight) and others out there — they don’t simply want to define the term marriage the way they see it; they want to grind the churches who disagree with their position into dust.

Based on the way things go in today’s litigious society, I’d say the odds of a legal challenge to churches balking at performing same-sex unions playing out are somewhere in the 90th percentile. And then we’re down to the same situation as with Roe or with ObamaCare last year — wondering, based on the make-up of the Supreme Court, whether it will hand down a decision ruling churches have to abide by the new laws on marriage or face possible loss of tax-exempt status or legal sanctions for their peripheral concerns, such as schools and hospitals.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I am and have been against marriage between like sexes for quite sometime now. I have a compromise that may work for all. The time has come to do away with marriage. It has truly become meaningless.

Bmore on March 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

That makes you a hypocrite.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

As opposed to you, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, but is campaigning to co-opt a sacred bond, proclaimed by God, to give the illusion of “normalcy” to a behavior practiced by 3% of the population.

cinder – log – eye.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I don’t approve of sexual pervert marriage, don’t plan to get one, and will NOT vote for any party that waves the white flag at the pink flag.

Let it burn. The sooner the better.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

What I see from the article you quote from is the danger of government control of religion, not necessarily about same-sex marriage. You do realize that the Bishop of Viborg quoted in that article is part of the Danish National Church, which is under state control? Denmark has nothing like our First Amendment and its parliament is free to legislate as it wishes over religion, especially when it comes to the very church that owes the state its allegiance. Methinks that this is a far bigger problem for religious freedom than whether same-sex couples can get married or not.

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Sorry Jazz, but if you follow the equal right to marriage argument you are automatically discriminating against the bi’s.

And what about the Q’s? If a Q decides on a homosexual union, society is not benefited in any way. If the same Q decides on a heterosexual union that produces children and grandchildren society is enhanced.

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Are there any reasons left to be a Republican? Just asking!

Alabama Infidel on March 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

No.

Kataklysmic on March 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM

As opposed to you, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, but is campaigning to co-opt a sacred bond, proclaimed by God, to give the illusion of “normalcy” to a behavior practiced by 3% of the population.

cinder – log – eye.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

cinder – log – eye…the irony is thick…

In one statement, you have the nerve to question my religious faith, infer I’m not “normal”, and that somehow I’m working to “co-opt” the sacrament of marriage within the Church.

Cripes. Talk about a log in the eye…

JB, out.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM

So…homosexuality is destructive behavior?

That’s another problem you don’t seem to see. Homosexuality is not a “behavior” at all…it’s an innate part of a person. Just because I’m gay, doesn’t mean I’m participating in any “destructive behavior”. Not to mention, heteros…many of my friends for example…have participated in some pretty questionable and possibly destructive sexual behavior…you seem to have blinders on when it comes to your accusations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

.
Oh, awright ….. (gee whiz, technicalities) ….. SODOMY is destructive behavior !
.
For the (I’ve lost count) time . . . . . . . .

Homo-sexuality will … N E V E R … be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of ‘normality’.

It is TEMPORARILY being used by the ‘political left/progressives’, as a tool to help take-over the U.S.
Once that is accomplished, their usefulness will be fulfilled, and the same ‘progressive leftists’ will TURN against homosexuals faster than light. They’ll be treated like Hitler treated the Jews (or worse?).

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM

The truth hurts.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 10:50 AM

As opposed to you, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, but is campaigning to co-opt a sacred bond, proclaimed by God, to give the illusion of “normalcy” to a behavior practiced by 3% of the population.

cinder – log – eye.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

He is a flat out liar and he knows it, but he doesn’t care, he wants what he wants and doesn’t care about anything else. The Catholic Chrurch as a policy of not condemning homosexuals as long as they abstain from homosexual activities. Jetboy is attempting to force God and the Catholic Church to change their doctrine, and proclaim homosexuality a normal acceptable godly practice. He is a militant homosexual claiming to be a Catholic for the purpose of changing the Catholic Churches stance on homosexuality.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

(2) For many of us, saying it’s a “state level issue” is a genuine respect for federalism. I sincerely believe the federal government has no authority to make marriage law. I don’t think I’m obligated to seek a federal solution to issues. As a New Yorker, if I oppose gay marriage, I need not make it be an impossibility in California. Believing in federalism is not a “compromise” of moral belief nor about fear of electoral consequences. While I don’t think there should be a federal solution, I respect those who believe marriage so fundamental to the order of society it should be implemented at the top. For me it’s sufficient to say that marriage serves purposes of social/family stability and that’s good enough to legislate. The 1st Amendment did not apply to the states until well into the 20th century, and that was okay too. I know we’ve moved from there, but I still think federalism is relevant. And if a state truly believes gay marriage furthers some policy goals, they should be able to go that route too. And I am free to oppose.

Crispian on March 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Since you believe that the “federal government has no authority to make marriage law”, does this mean that you side with the plaintiffs in the Windsor v. USA case now before the Supreme Court that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional?

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Are there any reasons left to be a Republican? Just asking!

Alabama Infidel on March 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

The snack table at the GOP convention “spin alley” are to die for…don’t miss Karl Rove’s rice crispy treats!

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

As opposed to you, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, but is campaigning to co-opt a sacred bond, proclaimed by God, to give the illusion of “normalcy” to a behavior practiced by 3% of the population.

What the Catholic Church in NY is contemplating is the issuance of “Certificate of Authentic Marriage” for sacrament marriages. When you buy a real Burberry pocketbook it comes with a certificate of authenticity which distinguishes it from the fake “Burberry” pocketbook that you buy in Chinatown.

It’s come to this. Sad.

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 10:53 AM

But don’t go forcing your own morals, based on religion or whatever, on others. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

That makes you a hypocrite.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Tell that to the gays forcing THEIR version of morals on US, you flipping idiot!

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

The GOP is so desperate for votes–and so despairing of the virtue that made this republic possible in the first place–that public toilet pervs like JetBoy actually have a voice in it.

Fine. Let the GOP cater to a tiny minority of a tiny minority and see how they lose more voters than they gain. At this point, none of the politicians we elect care about anything except getting power and then keeping it by redirecting tax dollars from other states to the people who voted for them. And we are both asking for this and allowing it to happen.

Let it burn. The sooner the better.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

But don’t go forcing your own morals, based on religion or whatever, on others. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

That makes you a hypocrite.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Tell that to the gays forcing THEIR version of morals on US, you flipping idiot!

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

He doesn’t have to tel it t them, he is one of them.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

What I see from the article you quote from is the danger of government control of religion, not necessarily about same-sex marriage. You do realize that the Bishop of Viborg quoted in that article is part of the Danish National Church, which is under state control? Denmark has nothing like our First Amendment and its parliament is free to legislate as it wishes over religion, especially when it comes to the very church that owes the state its allegiance. Methinks that this is a far bigger problem for religious freedom than whether same-sex couples can get married or not.

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Same Sex Marriage is a Fascist mechanism…just as Abortion on the HHS mandate is.

Our Constitution currently protects Religions from coercion of the State.

I have posted the European and Canadian examples to expose the outcome of legislation that initially promised religious protection but these protections were waved through social pressure of a minority on politicians with complicit apparatus of academia and the media.

In short every conservative concern whether they were religious or secular has been realized by this legislation.

Americans who assume it won’t happen here are in denial of how Moral Relativism is used by Fascists as a political weapon to undercut social stability and increase the power of the State.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:57 AM

It’s about forcing people to call the immoral moral.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Jeebus!

Not you or anyone else has to approve of anything gay whatsoever, including gay marriage, much less call it “moral” or anything else. Go burn rainbow flags for all I give a rat’s *ss. But don’t go forcing your own morals, based on religion or whatever, on others. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

That makes you a hypocrite.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Thanks 10.

Morality is a valid reason for law-making. But I don’t think morality can be the sole basis of law-making (contrary Scalia in Lawrence v Texas). And in the case of marriage, there is more to it than moral approval. It’s not about burning a gay flag, it’s about not being compelled to raise it.

Crispian on March 2, 2013 at 10:59 AM

One last thing…

He doesn’t have to tel it t them, he is one of them.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Tell that to the gays forcing THEIR version of morals on US, you flipping idiot!

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Jetboy is attempting to force God and the Catholic Church to change their doctrine, and proclaim homosexuality a normal acceptable godly practice.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

The GOP is so desperate for votes–and so despairing of the virtue that made this republic possible in the first place–that public toilet pervs like JetBoy actually have a voice in it.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Some real keepers right there.

Real nice.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

In other news, gay gay gay gay gay gay, gay gay gay gay gay gay. Gay, gay gay, gay gay gay gay.

And now, the weather.

/HotAir’s future

KingGold on March 1, 2013 at 7:25 PM

KingGold on March 2, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Some real keepers right there.

Real nice.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

If I can hold it against people like you, JetBoy, I will do so and gladly. I stand by what I wrote.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

By the way, didn’t you say “JetBoy out” a while ago? Not so much.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Listens2glenn,

You need to go to a college campus. I live near the University of Pittsburgh. When boys joke about gays, it’s kind joking–not the hateful joking you’d want to hear. One twenty one year old gay boy told me that he had never heard in person a single word of anti-gay bigotry. The hatreds you so desperately cling to are dying.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

I’ve said it, before – in fact, I said it a couple of days ago – and I’ll say it, again – the GOP has only to do nominate Rachel Maddow for President, rubber stamp everything that he believes in, and the GOP will have moved sufficiently Left so as to win an election … maybe.

There ya go, GOP … a game plan for victory! ["Victory," meaning that an "R" has been elected].

I have no Party.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

More frequently, the majority of Americans are being trumped by a small, well-organized minority. You see in everything from transgendered use of restrooms in Massaachusetts to gay marriage to the Keystone Pipeline and drilling in ANWR.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Since you believe that the “federal government has no authority to make marriage law”, does this mean that you side with the plaintiffs in the Windsor v. USA case now before the Supreme Court that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional?

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Yes. The argument that it’s the expenditure of federal funds may be seductive to conservatives but it’s the same exact rationale employed by liberals for every manner of expansion of federal authority – including for example Obamacare.

Crispian on March 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I’ve said it, before – in fact, I said it a couple of days ago – and I’ll say it, again – the GOP has only to do nominate Rachel Maddow for President, rubber stamp everything that he believes in, and the GOP will have moved sufficiently Left so as to win an election … maybe.

There ya go, GOP … a game plan for victory! ["Victory," meaning that an "R" has been elected].

I have no Party.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Word.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 11:05 AM

He doesn’t have to tel it t them, he is one of them.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I used to think he and thuja were conservatives who were just hopelessly dense on this issue, but the last two days have proven me wrong.

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 11:06 AM

One last thing…

He doesn’t have to tel it t them, he is one of them.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Tell that to the gays forcing THEIR version of morals on US, you flipping idiot!

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Jetboy is attempting to force God and the Catholic Church to change their doctrine, and proclaim homosexuality a normal acceptable godly practice.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:51 AM

The GOP is so desperate for votes–and so despairing of the virtue that made this republic possible in the first place–that public toilet pervs like JetBoy actually have a voice in it.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Some real keepers right there.

Real nice.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

.
HEY … you forgot me !

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM

You know, I remember when people kept their sexual orientation to themselves, didn’t proclaim it from the mountaintops, and the sun still rose in the east.

KingGold on March 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM

“Tier 1: The Academy Failed to Inform Us on Same-Sex Parenting

Everything starts with the universities. K-12 teachers are educated at universities, and it is among university faculty that ideological homogeneity has reached crisis levels.

Traditionalists have to start investing in journals, endowed chairs, and even their own colleges. There are large pools of unemployed Ph.D.s who want jobs. Look for the unemployed ones who support a traditionalist worldview, and employ them.

For twenty years — in fact, up until the articles published by Loren Marks and Mark Regnerus in 2012 — research into same-sex families was conducted under duress. A central principle of research is that studies cannot be trusted if it is clear that certain findings would result in reprisals against the researchers. After Social Science Research posted the Marks and Regnerus articles, a witch-hunt ensued by crackpot bloggers who managed to open an investigation at the University of Texas at Austin and force the publication of hundreds of pages of my e-mails (I defended Regnerus in Public Discourse).

What Marks and Regnerus found was not necessarily as significant as what the fallout revealed. We know now that all the studies conducted prior to 2012 were carried out by researchers who knew that if they found non-LGBT-affirming data, they would face professional ostracism and possibly lose their livelihood. The whole bank of scholarship we have is hence tainted and worthless…”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/four_tiers_of_failure_how_the_lgbt_lobby_dominates.html#ixzz2MOnOFFW

Scewing Scientific Data to achieve a Fascist agenda to undermine our Constitution…

Where have we seen this before…Hmmmm…

Oh Yeah…

Eugenics
Global Warming
UN Agenda 21
Population Control

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Listens2glenn,

You need to go to a college campus. I live near the University of Pittsburgh. When boys joke about gays, it’s kind joking–not the hateful joking you’d want to hear. One twenty one year old gay boy told me that he had never heard in person a single word of anti-gay bigotry. The hatreds you so desperately cling to are dying.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 11:02 AM

.
College kids (and Profs) approve of EVERYTHING, except ‘disapproval’.

Disapproval/non-acceptance of homo-sexuality doesn’t constitute “hate”.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 11:10 AM

If the gay marriage folks care more about this issue than the financial health of this country they will get their wish. A large segment of GOP voters will let it burn rather than vote against their religious freedom. So it would appear that the GOP will force social conservatives out of the party for what, gay marriage? Really?

Rose on March 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Some real keepers right there.

Real nice.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM

You are what you are, don’t like it tough shit. You know what the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is, yet you still push for legalization of SSM. You know, despite claiming otherwise, the the second SSM becomes legal in all 50 States the first time a Catholic Church refuses to perform a SSM, they will be sued, and sued again and again and again until to surrender and perform SSM ceremonies.

You have convinced yourself that once the State makes SSM legal, that you will be allowed by the Catholic Church to engage in homosexual activity without being condemned because it would be illegal for the Church to condemn that behavior.

God’s laws are not mans laws and mans laws do not trump God’s laws. Homosexuality will ALWAYS be an abomination and a sin before God it will not matter to God one single bit that the State as said that it is a normal and acceptable practice. Sodom and Gomorrah made homosexuality legal and acceptable, God still passed his judgement on Sodom and Gomorrah, just as he will on your and your homosexual friends.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Interesting article at American Thinker…

Four Tiers of Failure: How the LGBT Lobby Dominates

Excerpt:

“Tier 2: The Fourth Estate Failed to Report on Same-Sex Parenting

Few readers of American Thinker would dispute that the press has failed to report honestly on same-sex parenting. While Mark Regnerus found copious evidence that children raised by gay parents contend with unique difficulties, for years, publications like the Los Angeles Times churned out puff pieces about lesbian moms and gay dads. What authors of such articles never asked is more crucial than what they did ask. They asked, “Don’t these kids look happy?” rather than, “Where is the father? Where is the mother? Did you divorce someone to get this kid? Does your kid like knowing that his dad is a sperm donor? Does you kid like knowing that her mom rented her womb in a foreign country so you could have her?”

Some of the press’s failure to report on same-sex parenting can be blamed on the academy, which was pumping out bogus research and therefore gave them no legitimate scholarship on the topic. But a mix of intellectual laziness and inflated ideological self-importance has led to attitudes like this one, expressed by a Washington Post writer: “Of course I have a bias. I have a bias toward fairness.”

Reporters on both left and right are comfortable farming out their jobs to a vague court of consensus. If their colleagues all seem to be quoting people who say the same thing, then that must be the only thing worth reporting. People who say anything else are crazy and not newsworthy.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/four_tiers_of_failure_how_the_lgbt_lobby_dominates.html#ixzz2MOpaRpa

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:15 AM

We just want to be able to live and not be beaten into the closet. Just stop beating us up and we will be happy.
Slippery slope?
Now we demand that you subvert your own beliefs and grant us PRIVILEGE.

But no no, no way will we want anything more and demand it.

Personally, I prefer the old days when gays were afraid to be outed for fear of pain and agony. At least that was for the good of society, now the thugs are the gays in pursuit of degeneracy.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 11:15 AM

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Well stated KJ.

hawkdriver on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

I have posted the European and Canadian examples to expose the outcome of legislation that initially promised religious protection but these protections were waved through social pressure of a minority on politicians with complicit apparatus of academia and the media.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Yet the examples you have given are not very comparable to the USA. Take for example the cases you mention from Canada. I’ll accept for the moment that everything you posted about them is 100% accurate. Yet the problem with citing these cases isn’t same-sex marriage, but the huge difference between Canada and the United States when it comes to how rights are viewed and protected in both countries. For free speech and religious freedom we have the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s pretty clear and unambiguous, even though we get bogged down in some details over its application now and then.

In Canada? Well, they have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 2 appears to be very similar to our First Amendment:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Pretty clear and unambiguous, right? But wait, if this is Section 2 then what is in Section 1? Let’s see:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (bolding mine)

Uh-oh. That’s a big enough loophole for government that one can drive a Mack truck through and from our American perspective allows a great deal of mischief in violating rights.

Because of this enormous loophole in Canadian guarantees for civil rights comparing their system with our is absurd. What you view as being violations of civil rights with these cases really are not under their system since Section 1 of their Charter gives the government a heckuva lot of wiggle room.

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

And why is marriage locked into the tax code and so many other aspects of law to begin with, making it all the harder to extract? I can understand credits for raising the next generation of children – yes, even adopted ones – but why for a spouse? Why should I get some benefit on my taxes for having married my wife and sharing a house that two sisters who share a house to cut expenses can’t get?

Well, because a spouse is often a *dependent*, Jazz, just like children. And there are alot of tax penalties built into the law when you get married, Jazz. Those two sisters get to file taxes seperately — enjoying the benefits of living together and sharing expenses while filing with the government as if they were living on their own. Not so for husband and wife. D.GOOCH

DGOOCH on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

More frequently, the majority of Americans are being trumped by a small, well-organized minority. You see in everything from transgendered use of restrooms in Massaachusetts to gay marriage to the Keystone Pipeline and drilling in ANWR.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Progressives approach their causes with a religious zeal that dwarfs what they condemn on the religious right. Many are childless which frees up time and resources that can be expended to further their jihad.

Kataklysmic on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

the the second SSM becomes legal in all 50 States the first time a Catholic Church refuses to perform a SSM, they will be sued, and sued again and again and again until to surrender and perform SSM ceremonies.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Just like Catholic organizations are being forced to pay for contraceptives and abortions. The problem we have is that judges keep moving to the left. Imagine what they will be like after eight years of Obama appointees.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Many are childless which frees up time and resources that can be expended to further their jihad.

Kataklysmic on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Children do not matter to them, many have children that they just ignore the needs of in order to further their jihad.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Excerpt from the Amercian Thinker Article:
Tier 3: The Two-Party System Has Built a Bridge on the Backs of Children

Over eighty Republicans signed an amicus brief supporting gay marriage. Children are lost in the two-party system, because they cannot vote and have no money of their own. They are natural prisoners of their parents’ agendas. The gay people who have enough money to buy children are the gay people both parties want. The Democrats want them to agree to pay higher taxes on their income to support social spending. The Republicans want them to sway their corporate connections and friends in high places to the capitalist policies they think represent the party’s only chance against Democratic hegemony.

In a time of (supposed) partisan rancor between left and right, gay parenting is the perfect grounds for a two-party truce. Democrats keep the wealthiest of their donors happy, and Republicans get to shed one of their most troublesome stigmas (homophobes!). The people who lose out on this truce are children, who will be silenced by their same-sex parents and made to feel guilty if they resent their loss of a mother or father. By the time they are adults, anyway, their only choice will be between the two parties who united to deprive them. It’s a match made in heaven.

Same-sex couples of high economic class are a tiny fraction of the country, but on the gay parenting issue they have come to wield incredible power over the two-party political class. The only way to counteract this is, I believe, to withdraw from the two-party divide when it comes to children’s rights. When I was in Minnesota speaking out on children’s rights, I met with Democrats and sought to persuade them based on their commitment to social justice. I met with Republicans and sought to persuade them based on their traditional values.

The only way out of the two-party stalemate is to get out of the two-party system altogether. When it comes to children, we must be non-partisan or bipartisan — anything but lockstep “Republicans.” The Republicans are ready to sell kids downriver. Let’s face it.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/four_tiers_of_failure_how_the_lgbt_lobby_dominates.html#ixzz2MOrBHRb

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

hawkdriver on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Thank you, brother.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Many are childless which frees up time and resources that can be expended to further their jihad.

Kataklysmic on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Because they are childless, they also have more discretionary income to donate to their causes. Their causes are also helped by the Ford Foundation, TIDES, etc.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

If the gay marriage folks care more about this issue than the financial health of this country they will get their wish. A large segment of GOP voters will let it burn rather than vote against their religious freedom. So it would appear that the GOP will force social conservatives out of the party for what, gay marriage? Really?

Rose on March 2, 2013 at 11:11 AM

The State, at the behest of the radical militant Homosexual Community will sue any and everyone who refuses to say that Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Dr. Neal Clark Warren can tell you all abut it as can the Boy Scouts, who despite winning their case that they were constitutionally protected because of their religious affiliation, have continued to be sued over their policy of refusing to allow homosexuals into the Boy Scouts.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Personally, I prefer the old days when gays were afraid to be outed for fear of pain and agony. At least that was for the good of society, now the thugs are the gays in pursuit of degeneracy.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 11:15 AM

When we became too wimpified to hang criminals on main street, issue floggings for minor-to-moderate crimes, allow honor duels, and spank disobedient children we were inevitably headed for trouble.

Physical pain is an amazingly good correction. Be the recipient a young “can’t-nobody-tell-me-nuthin” punk, a pouty child, or a liberal slandermonkey who can’t be sued.

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Yes. The argument that it’s the expenditure of federal funds may be seductive to conservatives but it’s the same exact rationale employed by liberals for every manner of expansion of federal authority – including for example Obamacare.

Crispian on March 2, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Interesting. I give you props for consistency and agree completely with what you wrote here.

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM

MelonCollie on March 2, 2013 at 11:22 AM

That is the second biggest strike against libertarians’ arguments. They demand that the virtuous be stripped of the powers they wielded in the past when there were few laws to restrict the degenerates.

The biggest strike against libertarians’ arguments is that we are not a free country any more. It is not about the laws of restriction that keep us unfree but the “rights” people have accumulated that the libertarians are happy to keep.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Jeebus!

Not you or anyone else has to approve of anything gay whatsoever, including gay marriage, much less call it “moral” or anything else. Go burn rainbow flags for all I give a rat’s *ss. But don’t go forcing your own morals, based on religion or whatever, on others. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

That makes you a hypocrite.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Same Sex Marriage is absolutely nothing but a demand for the approval of the gay lifestyle. Everything else, from inheritance to taxes to hospital visits, is just so much smoke and mirrors.
How ironic is it that an atheist has to point out to a Catholic that he is attempting to use a secular government as a moral authority over his own church?

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Uh-oh. That’s a big enough loophole for government that one can drive a Mack truck through and from our American perspective allows a great deal of mischief in violating rights.

Because of this enormous loophole in Canadian guarantees for civil rights comparing their system with our is absurd. What you view as being violations of civil rights with these cases really are not under their system since Section 1 of their Charter gives the government a heckuva lot of wiggle room.

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Really?

The President of the United States has decided Religious Practice is confined to the four walls of a church on sundays.

This is his rational for justifying State Coercion of Constitutionally protected Religions through the backdoor of Religious Affiliations of Episcopate Institutions…Charities, Hospitals & Parochial Schools.

President Obama has decided to redefine 2000 years of traditional religious practice (Missionary Work) for Catholics by confining it to 4 walls inside a church…

President Obama has decided that religious Americans must act against their religious convictions in their private business affairs and in their schools as these curriculum changes contradict parental choice and undermine parental autonomy & parental authority.

Try looking past the trees to see the forest.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Last excerpt from The American Thinker Article:

:Tier #4: The Courts Have Nowhere to Go

The judicial system will be given the Herculean task of cleaning up the mess created by same-sex marriage. Family court, divorce court, surrogate court — you name it. Whether it is the Florida court who issued a birth certificate with three parents listed, or the Kansas Supreme Court ruling that a biological mother had to cede partial custody to her lesbian ex-partner who wasn’t even related to the child, we are seeing the courts dragged into more and more imbroglios because of the unsoundness of same-sex parenting schemes. Whereas you can conceive a child with a spouse of the opposite sex and then raise the child without much judicial interference, if you want exclusive custody of a child with a same-sex spouse, you will have to rely upon lawyers, judges, social workers, and deputies to enforce contractual rights.

The courts cannot be entirely blamed. Academia offers a dearth of qualified expert witnesses. The press has filled LGBT minds with unrealistic hopes for parenthood.

Democrats and Republicans have joined forces to pass destructive laws in the hope of “keeping government out of the bedrooms” of LGBT couples.

The end result is, tragically, that the courts will be in their kitchens, living rooms, and kids’ heads, forced to juggle competing claims from exiled biological parents, sperm donors, surrogate mothers, and of course, the children, the children, the children — the ones lost in the whole unseemly fiasco.

My sense is that future efforts cannot focus on courts or lawyers. By the time we’re arguing in front of judges, it is too late. Our due diligence must happen at Tiers 1-3, and we have to start a countermovement now, to stop the hemorrhaging and help as many kids as we can live life with a mom and a dad.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/four_tiers_of_failure_how_the_lgbt_lobby_dominates.html#ixzz2MOvhPff

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the USA.

tom daschle concerned on March 2, 2013 at 11:38 AM

The GOP’s position should be that they would consider “gay marriage” rights when sexual orientation is a box that can be checked off on a birth certificate, like gender and race.

If sexual orientation is something that can be known before birth, it will be the Pro-life GOP that will be defending the Gays very existence.

The discrimination gays feel occurs when they self-identify by sexual orientation instead of by gender. It’s self-inflicted. Is a gay male a male or not?

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Gene replacement therapy!

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Many are childless which frees up time and resources that can be expended to further their jihad.

Kataklysmic on March 2, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Children do not matter to them, many have children that they just ignore the needs of in order to further their jihad.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 11:21 AM

There is also the fear of being elderly and Gay.

Without children many fear growing old alone makes them vulnerable.

Many of these Homosexuals want and are building segregated elderly gated communities that are subsidized by the taxpayer…An alternative strategy is a sort of social insurance to produce children to fill the traditional filial obligation.

It doesn’t matter a bit to these people how their actions effect children or justice.

Children are not tools.

Recently hundreds of thousands of French Citizens in France protested for this very reason stating that every child in France deserves both Mother and Father as an issue of social justice…This was a protest against the State redefining Family.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Marriage is merely the current cause. The problem is an attempt to normalize unnatural behavior. I have always been offended by the term straight. I am not straight I am normal. Nor do I hold a grudge against homosexuals. I pity their lifestyle. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone but it is their choice.

CW20 on March 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM

The GOP’s position should be that they would consider “gay marriage” rights when sexual orientation is a box that can be checked off on a birth certificate, like gender and race.

If sexual orientation is something that can be known before birth, it will be the Pro-life GOP that will be defending the Gays very existence.

The discrimination gays feel occurs when they self-identify by sexual orientation instead of by gender. It’s self-inflicted. Is a gay male a male or not?

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

These folks are trying to redefine Gender as well.

Social Engineering…It’s what Fascists have for Breakfast

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:59 AM

HA pushing gay faction politics again.

Somebody find the relevancy knob and turn it up.

Socratease on March 2, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Go marry a goat. I’m out of the GOP.

Mason on March 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

The discrimination gays feel occurs when they self-identify by sexual orientation instead of by gender. It’s self-inflicted. Is a gay male a male or not?

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Younger gay men these days are more masculine and normal these days and unlike whatever decade you formed your opinion of them. It’s not surprising that when aren’t subject to the hateful abuse you desire them to be treated with, they turn out ok.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

@workingclass artist

Thank you for the article link. I updated my SCRIBD “official” position as well as my statement on my blog using the article. Thanks again.

papa_giorgio on March 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The government should get OUT of marriage altogether. It is a civil economic contract between people.

John the Libertarian on March 2, 2013 at 12:04 PM

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Sure they do, sure they do…
The steroids they take damage their immune systems, the ripped intestines promote disease, they end up not working and in the hospital spending millions of dollars on AIDs treatments. 77 times the rate for the rest of population, and likely most of the rest of the population is infected by bisexual active gays.
So awesome an outcome!

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM

As opposed to you, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, but is campaigning to co-opt a sacred bond, proclaimed by God, to give the illusion of “normalcy” to a behavior practiced by 3% of the population.

marriage was proclaimed by god? just as he made the new role of “pope emeritus”? I mean if that doesn’t show you the catholic church is a sham and just making things up as they go along i don’t know what will

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Are there any reasons left to be a Republican? Just asking!

Alabama Infidel on March 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

only if you are in top 1% otherwise no

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Go marry a goat. I’m out of the GOP.

Mason on March 2, 2013 at 12:01 PM

What good does it do to make a bigger tent if you only have half as many people in it?

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Is a gay male a male or not?

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM

this is conservative intellectualism

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

@workingclass artist

Thank you for the article link. I updated my SCRIBD “official” position as well as my statement on my blog using the article. Thanks again.

papa_giorgio on March 2, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Keep Fighting the Good Fight Brother…The US Constitution is at stake.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:12 PM

As opposed to you, who claims to be a practicing Catholic, but is campaigning to co-opt a sacred bond, proclaimed by God, to give the illusion of “normalcy” to a behavior practiced by 3% of the population.

marriage was proclaimed by god? just as he made the new role of “pope emeritus”? I mean if that doesn’t show you the catholic church is a sham and just making things up as they go along i don’t know what will

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Wrong Again!

The abdication of a Pope has historical precedent and is concurrent with Canon Law.

But do entertain the rest of the class with your fallacious distractions…

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:16 PM

If three people really love one another, why can’t they marry?

Or four?

Or seventeen?

Or a mother and her son[s] or father and his daughter[s]?

Love is all that matters, right?

Grand Old Polygamy.

profitsbeard on March 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Sodomites one and all.

Mr. Arrogant on March 2, 2013 at 12:20 PM

this is conservative intellectualism

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Just what the devil is that supposed to mean, in the context of you trying to be insulting and dismissive of thoughts you disdain?

My take on your nothingness: You can’t defeat the argument, and so resort to two-bit words strung together by happenstance to make a coherent sentence understandable in common English.

Other than that miniscule ‘success’, you have nothing else going for you.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM

“Equality Under the Law”

A propaganda slogan if there ever was one. There doesn’t seem to be one blogger at HA who understands what marriage is and will vigorously defend it.

Try 1 + 1 = 1 That’s marriage math.

The Left is always quick to say it acts for the children, but the reality is that it acts against children. Through abortion the Left rejects the worth and dignity of each child, through progressive schooling the Left replaces indoctrination for the education of each child, and through the current drive to redefine marriage the Left would sever the parental ties providing love and security for each child.

A primary goal of the Left has always been to replace the family with the state, because, as Mark Levin wrote in Ameritopia, the individual’s “first duty must be to the state—not family, community, and faith, all of which challenge the authority of the state.” Abortion, progressive schooling, and the redefining of marriage are tools of the Left that destroy these “little platoons” to which we each belong, and in which we each first find our identity. Some of those platoons are pretty bad and have done some of us harm, but that should motivate us to improve them, not destroy the model.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Sure they do, sure they do…
The steroids they take damage their immune systems, the ripped intestines promote disease, they end up not working and in the hospital spending millions of dollars on AIDs treatments. 77 times the rate for the rest of population, and likely most of the rest of the population is infected by bisexual active gays.
So awesome an outcome!

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 12:06 PM

If you actually went and met some younger gay men, you see how normal they are. But if you promoting hatred is your thing, keep up this rhetoric. It will make everything that much clearer to everyone else.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Hot Air bloggers are fighting with the Left on this. I would think that would give them pause to actually do some thinking outside their box.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I can’t believe I finally agree with KingGold!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I’m over the gay $hit!

Every day, gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay.

The country is going off a cliff and this is HotAir’s concern?

Nobody gives a $hit and nobody will ever be forced to accept this if they don’t want to. The government has no right to get involved in your private life.

Move on already!

Who cares where you put your thing?

Jayrae on March 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Wrong Again!

The abdication of a Pope has historical precedent and is concurrent with Canon Law.

But do entertain the rest of the class with your fallacious distractions…

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:16 PM

precendent in the bible? tell me where there is talk about the pope in the bible…..

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:26 PM

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:07 PM

You were created by God, also.

I don’t know why. Perhaps for comic relief.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

No.

Say it with me…

No.

ConservativeLA on March 2, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Hey, DBear, here’s some Bible for you:

Romans 1
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Read more: http://www.ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz2MP9QX4Lz

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Marriage 1 + 1 = 1

One man and one woman become one physically, emotionally and spiritually. Each one life is created by one man and one woman. Those new lives are called children.

Prior to the last few decades, marriage has always 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 March 2, 2013 at 12:31 PM

this is conservative intellectualism

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Just what the devil is that supposed to mean, in the context of you trying to be insulting and dismissive of thoughts you disdain?

My take on your nothingness: You can’t defeat the argument, and so resort to two-bit words strung together by happenstance to make a coherent sentence understandable in common English.

Other than that miniscule ‘success’, you have nothing else going for you.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:21 PM

In fairness to DBear, he’s probably a kid, and doesn’t know two decades ago, the only gays many people knew about were the freak show cases. He doesn’t realize he is talking in the museum of ancient hatreds.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

“Equality Under the Law”

This is, in fact, the silliest of reasons, because if this is your justification for redefining marriage, then you really have opened Pandora’s Box.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:35 PM

You may now commence breaking out the flamethrowers

Jazz, you forgot the most significant part, the period.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Move on already!

Who cares where you put your thing?

Jayrae on March 2, 2013 at 12:25 PM

In private, no one cares.

But when things are made public, expect people to weigh in. It’s letting strangers in the life of of the one getting out there.

If people don’t want others making comment–advertising themselves–they should have kept all their things private.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Marriage is merely the current cause. The problem is an attempt to normalize unnatural behavior. I have always been offended by the term straight. I am not straight I am normal. Nor do I hold a grudge against homosexuals. I pity their lifestyle. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone but it is their choice.

CW20 on March 2, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I see that as a symptom of the more dangerous agenda.

The agenda is to undermine the US Constitution because this is one of many obstacles to Fascism.

The goal of the agenda is to transform America into a Fascist State patterned after the EU.

The mechanisms are to create economic,social,legislative upheaval that forces enlargement in both scope and power of a centralized federal government.

To do this history shows certain obstacles must be undermined or eliminated.

These obstacles are Traditional Family Unity and Autonomy, so that allegiance to the State replaces traditional filial bonds.

The structures that support Traditional Families like Traditional Religions that bind diverse ethnic communities must be coerced into submission or eliminated as opposition to the State.

The State develops a secular replacement to fill the void to bind diverse ethnicities that were formally bonded by religions, such as the manipulation of Nationalism to insure stability through control.

The State silences dissent, first by defining approved dissent and then through social pressure isolating those dissenters who don’t conform to approved language…this is the danger of PC.

Afterwards the State enforces the persecution of dissenting groups until the cultural memory is eradicated through generational indoctrination. This has happened repeatedly in Totalitarian Regimes.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

this is conservative intellectualism

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:09 PM

You should never, ever, use words that begin with “intellect”.

On topic, the gov’t should not be involved in any marriages.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Most children being raised by a homosexual couple are products of a previous heterosexual relationship.

Mormontheman on March 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Are there any reasons left to be a Republican? Just asking!

Alabama Infidel on March 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

only if you are in top 1% otherwise no

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Not so much. The GOP agreed not long ago to raise taxes on the 1% in the fiscal cliff deal. After the GOP is defeated again in 2016 they will drop the pro life language from their platform as well. At that point they will be Democrats in all but name yet will continue to be mercilessly mocked in the media and pop culture. So no, there are no remaining reasons to be a Republican.

Kataklysmic on March 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

So, thuja is the Bible a repository of ancient hatreds?

You and your kind cannot escape the voice of your consciences. And with the truth available to anyone with a computer you can’t escape it.

So you demand that others join their voices with yours in a vain attempt to shout down the voice of your conscience.

You may indeed win a temporary victory. But if you persist in your ways, your end will be one of shame and everlasting contempt.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Good INC, that ship has sailed and it ain’t gon’ be back. Rome lasted longer.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

In fairness to DBear, he’s probably a kid, and doesn’t know two decades ago, the only gays many people knew about were the freak show cases. He doesn’t realize he is talking in the museum of ancient hatreds.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:32 PM

No–no ‘fairness’. I don’t care the age. If someone indulges place to comment for himself, then all signals are off. If he’s kids learning of the adult world, then he’s welcome to all the good things of it as well as the bad. He may enjoy speaking as if an adult, but he’s also going to have to deal with that other side: Counter-arguments.

Youth does not excuse everything.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Most children being raised by a homosexual couple are products of a previous heterosexual relationship.

Mormontheman on March 2, 2013 at 12:39 PM

All children require a man and a woman for their creation. All children deserve a mother and a father.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

only if you are in top 1% otherwise no

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:08 PM

You’re such a fool. The 1%rs in the majority brought/kept Obama. He is one of them, paid by them, manipulated/owned by them, will always be them.

If stupidity and hypocrisy would hurt you’d yell incessantly, always.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

The President of the United States has decided Religious Practice is confined to the four walls of a church on sundays.

Bully for him, I suppose. He certainly isn’t the first president to make a constitutionally dubious claim like this. If you question this I have no problem going through a few with presidents from both ends of political spectrum.

Try looking past the trees to see the forest.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Politicians make absurd claims all the time. I’m well aware of that “forest”.

Now, what again does this have to do with the fundamental difference between Canada’s system and ours? Or Denmark’s state church?

JohnAGJ on March 2, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Well, if it has then things really will crash and burn because the family is the little platoon of society. When the state doesn’t support it, but instead destroys it, then it destroys itself.

Whether or not that ship has sailed, I won’t stop the fight. Nor will others.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8