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 5 8

The PC stance on this issue is ludicrous. On this issue, the gheys want to ignore Science. Prog scientists have been trying to find a ghey gene for a looong time. They never found one. Which in turn means that gheyness is a preference. You’ve been brainwashed to believe that you were born that way. Ain’t true. But saying this out loud is akin to blasphemy. I have 2 friends who were committed gheys, for over 20 years. They too believed that they were born that way. But now, they’ve turned over a new leaf, and are committed heterosexuals. Its a choice, thats what it is. And no, society doesn’t have to accept your choices, or give it legal sanction. Whats prevalent right now is heterophobia. Think about it. And yeah, the truth hurts.

tommy71 on March 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM

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

The R/Ds have destroyed the families for generations now.

Indeed, on the fight, but the ship is out, gone.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:44 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

Yes, we get it, you are a product of the “New Improved Progressive Morality” all of the rest of us hold to the Old Archaic Outdated Dusty Moral Values.

Yes, that does make you a Progressive Liberal Marxist Fool.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 12:45 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

I am in my mid 30′s and was raised catholic so I know all about ancient hatreds

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Feminists like gay men because they expect men to be better than a woman at feminine jobs like hairdressing and decorating.

Mormontheman on March 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Yes, that does make you a Progressive Liberal Marxist Fool.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 12:45 PM

thuja has generally been R/C, as a declared gay.

Marxists didn’t allow gays to out themselves.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Here ya go, Romney special

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM

These gay marriage posts are almost as annoying as the Townhall free t-shirt pop up ads. Almost.

sbvft contributor on March 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM

If you actually went and met some younger gay men, you see how normal they are.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Could you please explain how putting a penis in another man’s mouth, or up his anus, is “normal”?

Is it “normal,” for the perpetuation of the species?

Is it “normal,” from a Biblical perspective?

Can you locate any verse in the Bible, Old Testament or New, which heralds the righteousness of the homosexual act, or lifestyle?

Can you explain the “normalcy” of homosexual marriage, when Jesus Christ specifically set forth that marriage was between a man and a woman?

Matthew 19:4 – And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

[5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

[6] Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Could you please explain, “normalcy,” from the following Biblical passages?

Romans 1:26 – For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, … [31] …, without natural affection, …

Jude 7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, … going after strange flesh,…

Genesis 19:5 – And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. … [7] And [Lot] said, I pray you, … do not so wickedly. … [8] … only unto these men do nothing; …

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

I am in my mid 30′s and was raised catholic so I know all about ancient hatreds

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Then you know what disordered affections are, too.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 12:50 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

The context for interpreting the meaning of the passage is set in the confession of Peter.

Mt 16:13-17
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

Christ then gives Simon son of Jonah a new name and a commission.

Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome…The First Pope.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

“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?”

Because the state has a strong interest in promoting, protecting, and incentivizing marriage and not roomate relationships.

SarahW on March 2, 2013 at 12:51 PM

I am in my mid 30′s and was raised catholic so I know all about ancient hatreds

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 12:46 PM

That says nothing; it’s an excuse for your core nature.

Reading you, according to your own posts, you are full of ‘modern’ hatreds.

If you think that makes you somehow morally superior, it’s a singular claim.

Really–you’re not much of what could be called a ‘nice’ person. There’s a lot of fury in you. Yet, you dare presume to come here and lecture us?

Who the hell do you think you are; how are YOU so self-presuming over and above those of us here?

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:51 PM

There is a compelling reason to prefer married couples of opposite sex in the law. It has nothing to do with sisters.

This is the confusion. These arguements for gay marriage reduced it to shared addresses and domestic arrangements. The reason that marriage is preferred at law seems to be lost. Can you guess what it is?

Could it be that men and women in a state of nature have some sort of connection and tendency that requires controlling for society and in particular our Wester ordered liberty, to exist?

SarahW on March 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Yes, that does make you a Progressive Liberal Marxist Fool.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 12:45 PM

thuja has generally been R/C, as a declared gay.

Marxists didn’t allow gays to out themselves.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:47 PM

The Marxists started the Modern Homosexual Rights Movement. The Founders of the Fabian Society (1884) who were Marxists began the Modern Homosexual Rights Movement.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:44 PM

I don’t know about that. I think various areas struggle, such as the elite Northeast. A great deal of the problem is the continuous drumbeat of propaganda exuding from the elitists.

I live in a more conservative part of the country. I have a son getting married in May. I think across the nation a majority of the people support marriage.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

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

That’s strange because I hear young men and women insult all kinds of people. How strange that on campus you NEVER hear ANY bad words directed at gays. How about anti Christian bigotry? – is that also banned on campus. I bet not. How about conservatives? – do they ever get insulted on campus?

So, Gays have special “can not insult” status on campus, eh?

BoxHead1 on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

The Marxists started the Modern Homosexual Rights Movement. The Founders of the Fabian Society (1884) who were Marxists began the Modern Homosexual Rights Movement.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Odd, don’t you think?

In the old USSR and Germany under Hitler, homosexuality was a crime.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

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

Do you realize that posting this could be a crime in the near future?

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Here ya go, Romney special

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Ha ha. That’s no surprise. Romney opened the Pandora’s Box on redefining marriage.

May 17, 2004

The Missing Governor

By Hadley Arkes

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:00 PM

DBear, your pathetic poor reprobate sodomite mind…

tom daschle concerned on March 2, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Mt 16:13-17
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”

Christ then gives Simon son of Jonah a new name and a commission.

Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome…The First Pope.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

ok, so a lot of vagueness there i still don’t see anything about the creation and role of the pope or the vatican or why the pope lives in such opulence (why not give that $ to the poor?) sooooo like I said

they make it up as they go along, and are capable of change as we have seen these past few weeks if only it wasn’t for those “ancient hatreds”

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Do you realize that posting this could be a crime in the near future?

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Oh, yes. The conflict over religious liberty is here: on abortion via Obamacare and on marriage via ongoing attempts to redefine it.

The attempt by those antagonistic to marriage to redefine the institution must, by the very logic of their purpose, also include in the cross hairs, not only the destruction of the definition of the legally recognized marriage relationship, but also the destruction of those who defend the marriage relationship. This is not only about gaining approval of a lifestyle, but about making it illegal for those who believe that lifestyle is immoral to voice their beliefs, and to live according to their beliefs. The Left’s march against marriage seeks to destroy family, faith, and by extension, community.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

How about anti Christian bigotry? – is that also banned on campus. I bet not. How about conservatives? – do they ever get insulted on campus?

So, Gays have special “can not insult” status on campus, eh?

BoxHead1 on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

being christian and conservative are lifestyle choices you are not born that way- don’t ram your lifestyle choices down our throats!!!!

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Christ then gives Simon son of Jonah a new name and a commission.

Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome…The First Pope.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

That is the interpretation of those who founded the Catholic Church some 400 years after the event. Their are other interpretations of the scripture in question. Jesus said to Simon who do YOU say that I am, and Simon relied, You are the Christ, Jesus, relied, and upon that I will build my Church.

The implication being that it was the belief that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, that Jesus Christ would build his Church, not on Simon, called Peter, that he would build his Church.

No, I do not object to the Catholic Church, no I do not believe that they are heretics, or that they are not Christians. I think that the people who make up the Catholic Church are Christians, but more importantly, that they are imperfect human beings, and that on occasion they got things wrong, but by and large they have gotten more right than wrong and for the vast majority of their existence have been one of the most powerful forces for good in human history.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

“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.”

Gay “marriage” is not a fight for “marriage equality” or “equal rights.” It’s a wholesale redefinition of marriage.

Gay men already have the right to marry women, just as straight men do. That’s what marriage is.

But not many Americans would be on board for changing the definition of marriage. So leftists and RINOs choose the route of arguing for “rights” and “equality” to push same-sex “marriage.”

They know from the experience of blacks and women that therein lies the path to success.

Whenever a leftist or RINO makes the claim for “equal rights,” the response ought to be “You don’t want equality; you want a redefinition of marriage.”

That’s the essence of the gay “marriage” project, and the push wouldn’t make much progress if its essence were known.

tommy shanks on March 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM

You could not be more wrong. I don’t know anyone who hates gays in any way. For me personally shortly after AID’s began killing people I watched an NPR program on AID’s which was an interview with a gay who was in the last stages of dying. He went over his life in SF from a young man on. He was talking about diseases I had never heard of. As I was good friends with medical personal I asked if it was true. All of it was and then some. They said they were dealing with two cases of AID’s one of which was near death. This was in a small town where homosexuality was relatively rare. I would not wish this on anyone.

CW20 on March 2, 2013 at 1:07 PM

they liberals make it up as they go along, and are capable of change as we have seen these past few weeks if only it wasn’t for those “ancient hatreds”

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Accuracy in liberal propaganda/lies/bullshit

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:08 PM

The words marriage and marry ultimately derive from the concept of a man being provided with a wife:

marry (v.)
c.1300, “to give (offspring) in marriage,” from Old French marier “to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage,” from Latin maritare “to wed, marry, give in marriage” (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) “married man, husband,” of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from “provided with a *mari,” a young woman, from PIE root *mari- “young wife, young woman,” akin to *meryo- “young man” (cf. Sanskrit marya- “young man, suitor”).

The word matrimony has its origins in the concept of a young woman preparing herself motherhood (i.e., within the context of marriage):

matrimony (n.)
c.1300, from Old French matremoine “matrimony, marriage” and directly from Latin matrimonium “wedlock, marriage,” from matrem (nominative mater) “mother” (see mother (n.1)) + -monium, suffix signifying “action, state, condition.”

steebo77 on March 2, 2013 at 1:10 PM

being christian and conservative are lifestyle choices you are not born that way- don’t ram your lifestyle choices down our throats!!!!

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

You’re pretty silly, aren’t you?

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 1:10 PM

But let’s just ignore thousands of years of usage and completely redefine whatever words we want to redefine!

steebo77 on March 2, 2013 at 1:10 PM

The Marxists started the Modern Homosexual Rights Movement. The Founders of the Fabian Society (1884) who were Marxists began the Modern Homosexual Rights Movement.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Odd, don’t you think?

In the old USSR and Germany under Hitler, homosexuality was a crime.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Marxist have had a odd relationship with Homosexuality.

Early history

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said very little on the subject in their published works.

The Communist Manifesto does not address the issue of sexual orientation or gender identity. Later Communist leaders and intellectuals took many different positions on LGBT-rights issues.

The German Communist Party, during the Weimar Republic, joined with the Social Democrats in support of efforts to legalize private homosexual relations between consenting adults. Yet, the situation for LGBT rights in the first Communist government in Russia were something of a mixed bag.

The Communist Party abolished all Czarist laws and its subsequent criminal code in the 1920s, did not criminalize non-commercial same-sex sexuality between consenting adults in private. It also provided for no-fault divorce and legalized abortion.[9] However, homosexuality remained a criminal offense in certain “uncivilized” Soviet Union states in the 1920s as part of an effort against “uncivilized” cultural practices.

In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993.[10][11]
Homosexuals and communist membership

Homosexuals were sometimes denied membership or expelled from communist parties[12] across the globe during the 20th Century, as most communist parties followed the social precedents set by the USSR. Today, however, nearly all communist parties accept homosexuals and support the LGBT rights movement.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

ok, so a lot of vagueness there i still don’t see anything about the creation and role of the pope or the vatican or why the pope lives in such opulence (why not give that $ to the poor?)

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:05 PM

John 12
1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz’arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
2 There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz’arus was one of those at table with him.
3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.
4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said,
5 “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”
6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

Read more: http://www.ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz2MPJrJ4iK

Man, this ancient hatred stuff is kicking your butt, ain’t it DBear?

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I think across the nation a majority of the people support marriage.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

No doubt. My comment was in regards to society, state, family, the intentional deterioration/destruction.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2013 at 1:14 PM

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

Do you realize that posting this could be a crime in the near future?

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Yes.

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square….His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.” – Cardinal George

We can either stop the Puscht of Fascism under it’s new moniker Liberal Progressivism…or live with the consequences of Totalitarianism.

The US Constitution that protects Freedoms is at stake.

In her long history The Church has seen many Neros.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM

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

Without getting too graphic, certain sexual behaviors are destructive regardless of who they are performed on. Certain sex acts, one in particularly common among gay men, is very destructive. It used to be common knowledge. But like so many other things today, the truth is forbidden to be spoken. Political correctness rules the day. In other words, lies and deception have replaced common sense and the truth. And a society that builds on lies and deceptions will fall. Just a matter of time. And we are not far from it.

I know someone personally who suffered from that deception. They were a part of my family, but they fell for the lie. They died in surgery from a bowel obstruction from a lifestyle that was celebrated as “safe, wonderful and normal.”

The whole freaking nation is being fed lies and deception on everything. We attack and assault the truth. Whether it’s about our economy or about abortion or about a hundred other things! We love lies as a nation! We embrace them! But the truth has a hard way of catching up to you. And we are seeing and living it now in the nation! Perpetual crisis. A melting economy! The destruction of the family and millions and millions of innocent children aborted!

All because of a lie. That we can be free by rejecting God. That we are lord’s of our own lives. It would all be a joke.. if it wasn’t so sad.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I’m semi-surprised at Cato officially signing up to redefine marriage.

I know it’s libertarian, but it’s also the place where they do studies, look at results, etc. It’s surrendered reason on this one.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM

How about anti Christian bigotry? – is that also banned on campus. I bet not. How about conservatives? – do they ever get insulted on campus?

So, Gays have special “can not insult” status on campus, eh?

BoxHead1 on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

being christian and conservative are lifestyle choices you are not born that way- don’t ram your lifestyle choices down our throats!!!!

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

That made no sense. But I like the !!! at the end.

And right back at you – don’t ram GM down my throat!!!! (ewwww)

BoxHead1 on March 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

After the intelligensia, counter-revolutionaries, and the most-fervent revolutionaries are killed off, who is the next group to be wiped out, except those deemed to be perverted and unnatural to the betterment of Man?

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

All because of a lie. That we can be free by rejecting God. That we are lord’s of our own lives. It would all be a joke.. if it wasn’t so sad.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 1:15 PM

And so it is as was prophesied, they will say that day is night and evil is good.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Get back to me when a private business can’t be sued for turning down business on a equal basis. I’m sick of the favored minority status given to all these folks wanting to be equal.

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Isn’t that the truth!!

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Man, this ancient hatred stuff is kicking your butt, ain’t it DBear?

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 1:12 PM

yup still not seeing it, but by all means keep posting vague passages of your fairy tale book (which is not our constitution btw)

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

IMO the goal was to destroy the family. Homosexuality was used at will by statists according to whether or not it was helpful at the moment.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

And so it is as was prophesied, they will say that day is night and evil is good.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Revelation predicted all this. I’m not surprised at all, but I continue the fight.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

After the intelligensia, counter-revolutionaries, and the most-fervent revolutionaries are killed off, who is the next group to be wiped out, except those deemed to be perverted and unnatural to the betterment of Man?

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

The one common denominator with Marxism, is that it has killed more people since it’s creation in 1840 than all the wars pestilences and diseases in human history. Last count is somewhere just shy of 500 million people in the last 100 years. Yes, Marxism and it’s children Communism and Socialism are pure unadulterated EVIL.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM

IMO the goal was to destroy the family. Homosexuality was used at will by statists according to whether or not it was helpful at the moment.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

In my experience, putting aside all concept of Faith and politics, there are people out there who are destroyers.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM

yup still not seeing it, but by all means keep posting vague passages of your fairy tale book (which is not our constitution btw)

DBear on March 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The Bible passage in question calls into question your criticism of the Pope for not disposing of material goods as you think he should.

The real “fairy” tale (Dr. Freud, call your lawyer!) is told by those who deny human nature, and that liberty and personal virtue are mutually exclusive.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM
Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

IMO the goal was to destroy the family. Homosexuality was used at will by statists according to whether or not it was helpful at the moment.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Indeed, the theory was destroy the Family, Religion and economy of any country and that country would fall to Marxism.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

The one common denominator with Marxism, is that it has killed more people since it’s creation in 1840 than all the wars pestilences and diseases in human history. Last count is somewhere just shy of 500 million people in the last 100 years. Yes, Marxism and it’s children Communism and Socialism are pure unadulterated EVIL.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM

I agree in full; you are totally correct.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Christ then gives Simon son of Jonah a new name and a commission.

Mt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are “Rock”, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome…The First Pope.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 12:50 PM

That is the interpretation of those who founded the Catholic Church some 400 years after the event. Their are other interpretations of the scripture in question. Jesus said to Simon who do YOU say that I am, and Simon relied, You are the Christ, Jesus, relied, and upon that I will build my Church.

The implication being that it was the belief that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, that Jesus Christ would build his Church, not on Simon, called Peter, that he would build his Church.

No, I do not object to the Catholic Church, no I do not believe that they are heretics, or that they are not Christians. I think that the people who make up the Catholic Church are Christians, but more importantly, that they are imperfect human beings, and that on occasion they got things wrong, but by and large they have gotten more right than wrong and for the vast majority of their existence have been one of the most powerful forces for good in human history.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:06 PM

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

It does not change the facts of Catholic History.

St. Peter was the First Bishop of Rome.

He established his bishopric in Rome and was martyred and buried where now stands St. Peter’s Basilica on Vatican Hill in Rome.

The Pope (Pontiff) is the Bishop of Rome…Just as the Patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox Churches are Bishops of their dioceses.

The most ancient of these were founded by Apostles.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:20 PM

In my experience, putting aside all concept of Faith and politics, there are people out there who are destroyers.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Yes, those who are unable to create and are small, petty and selfish destroy, because it makes them feel powerful and important.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

If you listen to just the first question and answer, you would not believe this Pastor passed away in 1988 and this is a taped message. It’s about 5 minutes in length.

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-questions-and-answers/listen/questions-answers-324669.html

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Revelation predicted all this. I’m not surprised at all, but I continue the fight.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM

It is not that Revelation predicted any of this, it is that we are seeing a repetition of the conditions in which the work was written. From an atheist’s point of view, prohibitions against homosexual behavior were written into various religious works because the authors had witnessed the ruling class degenerate into ineffective and dangerous tyrannies in association with that kind of behavior.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM

After the intelligensia, counter-revolutionaries, and the most-fervent revolutionaries are killed off, who is the next group to be wiped out, except those deemed to be perverted and unnatural to the betterment of Man?

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Eugenic policies of State Approved Utilitarian Valuation of Human Life.

The valuation of any human life based on the usefulness of that life in service to the State.

Old Story…Such is Paganism.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If the GOP is going to embrace gay marriage they may as well go all the way and embrace baby murder too. Leave No Doubt GOP.

Kjeil on March 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Yes, those who are unable to create and are small, petty and selfish destroy, because it makes them feel powerful and important.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Not to correct you, but only to add…

There are many successful and rich people who are also out to destroy. I offer Mayor Bloomberg as the premier example.

A will to destruction is the mindset of such individuals, one becoming all too common. I mean, when you’re a billionaire like Bloomberg, why do you feel need to keep going?

It’s not money that corrupts a man. It’s dead heart and a sick mind. Worse, to me, are those who think Bloomberg is all kinds of fine and dandy.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

It is not that Revelation predicted any of this, it is that we are seeing a repetition of the conditions in which the work was written. From an atheist’s point of view, prohibitions against homosexual behavior were written into various religious works because the authors had witnessed the ruling class degenerate into ineffective and dangerous tyrannies in association with that kind of behavior.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Well done, sir.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

It’s not money that corrupts a man. It’s dead heart and a sick mind. Worse, to me, are those who think Bloomberg is all kinds of fine and dandy.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Word.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 1:37 PM

In the old USSR and Germany under Hitler, homosexuality was a crime.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Hitler’s early Nazi partner (don’t have his name and don’t feel like looking it up) who headed up the Brown Shirts was a homosexual. The Brown Shirts often brought him little boys. Hitler turned on him and had him assassinated during the night of the long knives. Then they turned on homosexuals in Germany.

At some point, just my gut feeling, but at some point the Democrat party is going to fear the Muslim vote and Hispanic vote more than they fear the homosexual activists, and then it’s going to turn. That isn’t going to be a comfort to Christians, though, because by then it’ll be really real bad for everyone.

Obama and Democrats use groups to get what they want. They don’t care about any needs of a particular group. It’s about power and the destruction of a free, Christian America. The Marxists have always known that the strength of America has been in her religion and family. Destroy that and the rest is easy. Demoralize the nation is just a step away from chaos and ultimately Fascist/communist “liberation.”

Again, something that was once common knowledge. I remember this formula being taught in my school. Now it sounds extremist.

The homosexual community, just like so many other groups and organizations, are being used to destroy the foundation and to demoralize. At some point, they will no longer be needed. Why so called “conservative homosexuals” can’t see this is beyond me. They seem fine with living even in a police state regime.. as long as their sexual preferences are embraced by government and society.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

It is not that Revelation predicted any of this, it is that we are seeing a repetition of the conditions in which the work was written. From an atheist’s point of view, prohibitions against homosexual behavior were written into various religious works because the authors had witnessed the ruling class degenerate into ineffective and dangerous tyrannies in association with that kind of behavior.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Actually, from a religious standpoint, Revelation does.

With religion out of it, and going by history, no culture that openly embraced same sex relation has survived.

If we can use the Catholic Church as a culture of itself, the Church remains despite 2000years of pagan and secular war against it.

Some ideas, from a man who isn’t Catholic.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I submitted a post regarding the “normalcy” of homosexuality, including a description of what the homosexuals call, “normal,” and Biblical references, Old and New Testament, discounting the “normalcy” of same …

which post was censored and not approved by Jazz Shaw.

To the say the least, I’m very disappointed, inasmuch as my post could not have been more descriptive and appropriate, concerning the matter of “normalcy and homosexuality.”

I guess it’s time for HotAir members to just shut up, bow-down, worship and accept our inferiority, when it comes to the righteous indignation of the homosexuals.

The truth is irrelevant, or, at least, not appropriate for publishing.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

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

My opinion of gays is that we should support their right to life…not some right to redefine marriage. Many gays are coming around to this way of thinking…that marriage is a uniquely heterosexual institution. Most gays are even the result of a heterosexual union./

My point is that most gays view themselves through the prism of their sexuality. They identify as a “gay man” and not just a “man”. Jim McGreevy was a “gay American” and not just an American. I think it is bad when we divide ourselves into these groups. Your point that younger gay males are now more “masculine and normal” means that they used to be feminine and abnormal? So normal means heterosexual? Wow, way to show the gays some respect.

FYI, I left Wall Street early on and spent years as an executive in the fashion industry…definitely the obvious career path of a conservative intellectual MBA homophobe. This is why I base all my posts on the status symbol of the “marriage” brand and nothing to do with religion. The gays need to come up with their own brand and customs. They are a creative bunch. I think they can do it without redefining marriage.

monalisa on March 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

The GOP is *really* begging me to never vote for them again, I see.

And Jazz, go join the Democrats.

Czar of Defenestration on March 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Yes, because the most important factor in identifying as a Republican is YOU MUST HATE TEH GHEYYYSS!!!!!!!

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

That was Erst Rohm, and there’s no evidence Hitler did anything with him.

However, from reports, Hitler was more interested in his niece Geli Rabaul. He later had her killed, to hide his masochism; e once begged her to kick him for his pleasure.

Details aside…My view is that when liberals and other tyrants kill off their public enemies, they need to create new others. If there is no endless threat, then there is no reason to sustain a dictator when liberty is the natural desire and course of Man.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I guess it’s time for HotAir members to just shut up, bow-down, worship and accept our inferiority, when it comes to the righteous indignation of the homosexuals.

The truth is irrelevant, or, at least, not appropriate for publishing.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I’m trusting you were being flippant and sarcastic there. ~S~

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Yeah. Morality and conscience realllly restrict you, don’t they?

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Revelation predicted all this. I’m not surprised at all, but I continue the fight.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:21 PM

It is not that Revelation predicted any of this, it is that we are seeing a repetition of the conditions in which the work was written. From an atheist’s point of view, prohibitions against homosexual behavior were written into various religious works because the authors had witnessed the ruling class degenerate into ineffective and dangerous tyrannies in association with that kind of behavior.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Your atheist point of view does not account for ethical development of Monotheism in response to Pagan practices…of which Homosexual proclivity is one of many Pagan practices.

The Jews rebelled against State imposition of Pagan practices that contradicted their religion and their moral and legal structures.

The Christians did the same but since their religion was not centered on a singular Temple as was Temple Period Judaism.

Judaism was thrown into disarray after the destruction of the Temple and this upheaval dominated Jews in the Roman Empire until Rabbinical Judaism in the diaspora could take root so that as a people they could survive.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

You use hyperbole like a Donk. Obviously you must “hate” because you disagree.

What they want isn’t marriage. Civil unions to protect each other. Fine. It’s not marriage. It never will be marriage. No more than my 13th birthday was a Bar Mitzvah because I love Jewish food.

hawkdriver on March 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Yes! An ‘outdated’ view from my generation: Black Americans have equal right rights according to the Constitution just like an average old white guy like me.

Pffft!

If you’re going to play liberal games, at least get educated in liberalism.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Keep in mind, Ezra watched the fall of Babylon as he was putting together the Old Testament. Odds are, he was seeing the same degenerate behavior there.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Try substituting symbols for some of the letters such as a ! for an l or @ for an a. Make sure you don’t have more than 3 links, because that sends your comment into moderation.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

How many gays actually want to marry?

How many percent gays in pop?

Is this not yet another manufactured problem for the left to agitate?

It is a trivial issue distracting us from the fight for liberty against a bloated fed government.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Poor, poor bear, tough night at the bathouse or is it the bathsalts?

Bmore on March 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

The one common denominator with Marxism, is that it has killed more people since it’s creation in 1840 than all the wars pestilences and diseases in human history. Last count is somewhere just shy of 500 million people in the last 100 years. Yes, Marxism and it’s children Communism and Socialism are pure unadulterated EVIL.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Good or Evil, that has been man’s choice since Adam and Eve. I heard long ago, that God has a vote for a person’s soul and Satan has a vote. Man chooses, since he’s been given free will.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

There’s nothing new under the sun.

I went to college with Leftists when they were busy rioting on campuses. You think I don’t know who they are?

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Why don’t you publish your most vivid, meaningful and up-to-date homosexual experience, as a bona fide, of course.

Take it as my request for your current “views” on the subject.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Jeebus…there really are some rather dense commenters who can’t grasp reality, and only parroting the same bs. You all are a lost cause on this issue of gay marriage. Totally a collective lost cause. You can’t fix stoopit.

If anyone would like a civil, adult, and intellectually honest discussion on this topic of gay marriage, I’ll check in now and then.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Yes, because the most important factor in identifying as a Republican is YOU MUST HATE TEH GHEYYYSS!!!!!!!

I see the people who comment on HA before noon are all old people with outdated views, go figure.

rndmusrnm on March 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I haven’t really seen any expressions of hate toward homosexuals on this thread.
Ironically, I can point to the above as a clear expression of hatred toward those who disprove of homosexual behavior.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Good or Evil, that has been man’s choice since Adam and Eve. I heard long ago, that God has a vote for a person’s soul and Satan has a vote. Man chooses, since he’s been given free will.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Logically, then, Man alone is the only one who has the vote.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 1:39 PM

That was Erst Rohm, and there’s no evidence Hitler did anything with him.

However, from reports, Hitler was more interested in his niece Geli Rabaul. He later had her killed, to hide his masochism; e once begged her to kick him for his pleasure.

Details aside…My view is that when liberals and other tyrants kill off their public enemies, they need to create new others. If there is no endless threat, then there is no reason to sustain a dictator when liberty is the natural desire and course of Man.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

You may be right….Maybe Herr Hitler was Bisexual?

Hitler’s doctor admitted his opinion that Hitler was a frustrated homosexual and that he was injecting him with female hormones in addition to other drugs.

Doesn’t change the general consensus that he was successful in forcing his depravity on the entire world and is responsible for millions of deaths of those who opposed his totalitarian depravity.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:58 PM

If anyone would like a civil, adult, and intellectually honest discussion on this topic of gay marriage, I’ll check in now and then.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

In other words, if no one would call you to account for your hypocrisy, you would be alright, huh?

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

How many gays actually want to marry?

How many percent gays in pop?

Is this not yet another manufactured problem for the left to agitate?

It is a trivial issue distracting us from the fight for liberty against a bloated fed government.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

It isn’t a distraction, it’s a whole avenue of attack. State Promotion of homosexual behavior is part of the current big government push.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Good or Evil, that has been man’s choice since Adam and Eve. I heard long ago, that God has a vote for a person’s soul and Satan has a vote. Man chooses, since he’s been given free will.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Haven’t you heard? Good and Evil are old outdated beliefs, get with the new progressive beliefs dude… ;p

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

It is a trivial issue distracting us from the fight for liberty against a bloated fed government.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Exactly. Just like the sequester and Woodward and Christie was used to distract from that horrific Violence Against Women Ace was passed by the Senate and the House. And I’m sure other behind the scenes/doors policies are being planned against the American People.

I don’t know the stats on Male to Male/Female to Female relationships, but recalling hearing 3% or so.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Try substituting symbols for some of the letters such as a ! for an l or @ for an a. Make sure you don’t have more than 3 links, because that sends your comment into moderation.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I used the accepted vernacular for the homosexual act – of giving and receiving.

There was nothing inappropriate.

It’s simply proof of how some moderators on HotAir now FEAR the homosexual lobby.

Which is precisely what the homosexual lobby demands.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I somewhat understand the GOP pander to Hispanics on amnesty, given the potential for them to grow as a percentage of the electorate over time, but trying win over gay voters with support for gay “marriage” makes no sense from a numbers perspective.

They may be fruit-ful, but they do not multiply.

steebo77 on March 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Here’s the pertinent part of the 2012 Republican Party Platform. There’s a reason why some people really are officially RINOs.

Defending Marriage Against An Activist Judiciary

A serious threat to our country’s constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government. A blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals. It is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.

A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage

That is why Congressional Republicans took the lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of States and the federal government not to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other jurisdictions. The current Administration’s open defiance of this constitutional principle—in its handling of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits, in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base, and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts—makes a mockery of the President’s inaugural oath. We commend the United States House of Representatives and State Attorneys General who have defended these laws when they have been attacked in the courts. We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. We applaud the citizens of the majority of States which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns underway in several other States to do so.

The problem is that too many GOP leaders ignore the platform.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Keep in mind, Ezra watched the fall of Babylon as he was putting together the Old Testament. Odds are, he was seeing the same degenerate behavior there.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Agreed.

Both Testaments in the Bible are historical records…Secularists hate that.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Jeebus…there really are some rather dense commenters who can’t grasp reality, and only parroting the same bs. You all are a lost cause on this issue of gay marriage. Totally a collective lost cause. You can’t fix stoopit.

If anyone would like a civil, adult, and intellectually honest discussion on this topic of gay marriage, I’ll check in now and then.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I’m up, knowing you and have no fight with you.

I’ll start: Because of my personal religious reasons, I oppose the concept of gay marriage. That said, I’m of the firm view the states decide, either by popular vote or through their respective legislatures.

Here in NY, SSM is legal despite my views. It was done right, proper, and legal. End of story, far as I conclude.

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Jeebus…there really are some rather dense commenters who can’t grasp reality, and only parroting the same bs. You all are a lost cause on this issue of gay marriage. Totally a collective lost cause. You can’t fix stoopit.
JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Irony is indignant.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

You mean sodomy?

INC on March 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Haven’t you heard? Good and Evil are old outdated beliefs, get with the new progressive beliefs dude… ;p

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Yes, I’ve not only heard that but have seen it. Do you know who God is most angry at, no they have stirred Him to wrath?

Pastors that are in the Pulpit and Teachers in the House of God, that have perverted His Word.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Jeebus…there really are some rather dense commenters who can’t grasp reality, and only parroting the same bs. You all are a lost cause on this issue of gay marriage. Totally a collective lost cause. You can’t fix stoopit.

If anyone would like a civil, adult, and intellectually honest discussion on this topic of gay marriage, I’ll check in now and then.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Thus speaketh the homosexual pretending to be a Catholic, who admits that the Catholic Church condemns homosexual activity, while not condemning the non practicing homosexual, so he want’s to make homosexual marriage legal so he can force the Catholic Church to bless and accept his chosen homosexual lifestyle.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

You mean sodomy?

INC on March 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

In a more descriptive form, using proper, medical terminology.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Jeebus…there really are some rather dense commenters who can’t grasp reality, and only parroting the same bs. You all are a lost cause on this issue of gay marriage. Totally a collective lost cause. You can’t fix stoopit.

If anyone would like a civil, adult, and intellectually honest discussion on this topic of gay marriage, I’ll check in now and then.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

This comment reeks of arrogance, self-superiority, anti-intellectual dismissiveness, a fair amount of hypocrisy, and a fear of actual debate.

steebo77 on March 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

It is a trivial issue distracting us from the fight for liberty against a bloated fed government.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Exactly. Just like the sequester and Woodward and Christie was used to distract from that horrific Violence Against Women Ace was passed by the Senate and the House. And I’m sure other behind the scenes/doors policies are being planned against the American People.

I don’t know the stats on Male to Male/Female to Female relationships, but recalling hearing 3% or so.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

One component of which is defunding the Governmental office that tracks Human Trafficking and de-criminalizing child prostitution.

So now kids can be prostitutes legally?

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

It is a trivial issue distracting us from the fight for liberty against a bloated fed government.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 1:55 PM

It’s not a trivial issue. It’s another wedge that the left has successfully used to divide those who would call themselves Republicans. The logic, to vie for a fraction of a fraction of the most liberally minded people in our country is crazy. You’ll make the Republican Party zero percent more powerful or desireable to gays by supporting gay marriage.

That there is no compromise is telling.

hawkdriver on March 2, 2013 at 2:06 PM

The way things are nowadays, the worst thing we can say to a militant gay is, “I don’t care that you’re gay.”

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Agreed.

Both Testaments in the Bible are historical records…Secularists hate that.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Eh. They have a place in the historical record, but they mostly aren’t history. The Old Testament is a collection of stories set down in writing, with the intent of forming a basis for governance after the Jewish elite were put back in power by the Persians. The New Testament is mostly a collection of advocacy letters written by church leaders.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

I would concur that that is probably the case.

In a more descriptive form, using proper, medical terminology.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

If symbols won’t get through as substitutions for letters then you are being censored. I used to have to write C!v!l War for that phrase to get through the filter.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 8