Democratic gay-marriage pool update: Tim Johnson “evolves,” endorses SSM

posted at 3:21 pm on April 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

And then there were three.

U.S. Senator Tim Johnson today announced that he has decided to support marriage equality legislation. Johnson’s statement is below.

“After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation. This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.”

So rote has this sort of thing become that staffers can’t even be bothered to look for synonyms for “evolve” anymore. The DNC might as well print up a form letter — “if you’ve ‘evolved,’ check this box” — and let Democratic holdouts do it that way. In Johnson’s case, the switch is both significant and not: He’s retiring next year so he had zero personally to lose, but his son Brendan’s a contender to replace him and will now have to manage this minor headache. Safe to disagree with dad? It’d be weird for a pol from a younger generation to be less “evolved” than his old man is. Either way, it’s amazing that not even South Dakota politics is immune from this issue anymore.

Only three anti-SSM Dems left in the caucus now: Manchin, Pryor, and Landrieu. Pryor’s been tap-dancing around the subject, assuring liberals that all his gay friends tell him that their orientation isn’t a choice but insisting nonetheless that he’s against SSM. (After a local news outlet reported that he was undecided, he moved quickly to correct them. That’s what a tough reelection campaign in Arkansas will do.) With Johnson now out of the pool, media scrutiny of his position will be even more intense. I’ll bet he flips by the end of summer. As for Landrieu, are we sure she still qualifies as opposed to gay marriage? Watch the short but revealing local-news clip below. Sounds to me like she’s saying yep, she’s “evolved”™ too but that she’s compelled to vote against SSM in order to reflect the view of a majority of Louisianans. Does that principle apply to things like ObamaCare, I wonder, or is it a special rule she’s created purely to avoid a political headache on this issue? And even if it is, why have her views evolved, exactly? If she’s concluded that it’s discriminatory as a matter of equal protection to forbid gays from marrying each other but endorses it anyway in the name of majority rule, i.e. protecting her own career, then arguably she’s in violation of her oath of office. Someone needs to ask a follow-up question, if only for the comic value.

KNOE 8 News; KNOE-TV; KNOE.com |


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

What about Reid? I’m genuinely curious here, since nominally he is Mormon, and it’s not exactly like that faith is all in on SSM.

My guess is that he’s in the “I’m personally opposed to it but…” camp. If so, is he about the only Democrat still personally opposed to SMM? What about Matheson and a few other house dems?

Vanceone on April 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I was right on about Johnson and Landrieu.

IR-MN on April 8, 2013 at 3:25 PM

This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.

And government will harass religious groups that refuse to marry same-sex couples, hire them, provide insurance for them, or a plethora of other potential conscience cases.

Ask pro-life religious groups about government harassment.

itsnotaboutme on April 8, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Assuming the power to redefine marriage and the family is at least as tyrannical as the gun grabbers are. It would disrupt our society in ways most people haven’t dreamed of, or are in denial about.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.

Oh, really?

OK, polygamists, incestuous couples, man-boy couples, man-animal couples, & man-inanimate object couples. Line up at the justice of the peace’s office.

Or you can line up at the church. If they refuse to marry you, government harassment is coming.

itsnotaboutme on April 8, 2013 at 3:28 PM

It won’t be long before SSM has 60 votes in the Senate.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM

It would disrupt our society in ways most people haven’t dreamed of, or are in denial about.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Indeed.

Of the 50% or so of US that favor distorting the meaning of marriage, probably about 50% of them “haven’t dreamed of” & 50% of them “are in denial about.”

itsnotaboutme on April 8, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I’m betting that very few of the voters from that conservative stronghold of California, who voted against SSM in a referendum, have “evolved”.

listens2glenn on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Assuming the power to redefine marriage and the family is at least as tyrannical as the gun grabbers are. It would disrupt our society in ways most people haven’t dreamed of, or are in denial about.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Your position bizarrely miscontrues what is happening. Gay people using their own freedom are having weddings, calling their relationships marriages, and asking that the government respect their choices. It’s about freedom, not tyrrany. The issue is that you are bigot who doesn’t respect gay people’s choices.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Another anti-christian bigot emerges.

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Renew some vows

Speakup on April 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Someone needs to tell these idiots that “evolving” is the way a species propagates itself in new ways to meet a changing environment.

Homosexuality is the literal opposite of evolution. They have it exactly backwards.

HotAirian on April 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM

This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.”

LOL. Ask the priest at George Washington who’s getting persecuted by student activists for opposing pre-marital sex–which includes homosexuality.

Let’s not forget, homosexuality is about nothing more than unsafe sex involving fecal matter and foreign objects. Got any doctor friends who have done residencies in large cities? Ask them whether they’ve participated in a gerbil removal.

And this is what we’ll be required to teach to kids in kindergarten as normal?

BuckeyeSam on April 8, 2013 at 3:35 PM

There were days when “SSM” stood for “same species marriage”…

Archivarix on April 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM

This position doesn’t require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets

This is so silly. Of course the left will go after religious institutions … they’re leftists, they never stop. Plus they hate religion with the burning passion of a trillion stars.

One of the main goals of the left is to stamp out religious influence once and for all … whatever the means.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM

I’d like to ask a question of the pro SSM people in this thread. Military chaplains, who are officers and paid employees of the United States. Will they be forced to marry two guys? Provide religious services including communion (for those faiths who practice it) to two guys? Can they excommunicate two homosexuals who refuse to repent?

Or will they be fired for “intolerance” and suchlike, as a governmental employee? Because, see, I could EASILY see the Catholic, LDS and other communities refusing to certify chaplains, thus depriving military members of their right to worship while on duty.

Vanceone on April 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Repeat after me…

Prop-a-ganda

Also google bandwagon advertising.

Would that the Republicans take a page and have each of their party members come out with”evolved” views about revoking gun control legislation…

Perhaps we’d see daily stories about that on Hotair…

Skywise on April 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I said that Landrieu should be discounted in the last pool thread but I love the idea of pressing her on the wealth of holes in her qualified “evolution.” Pryor and Manchin would welcome the respite should the press decide to focus on Landrieu. My prediction though, would be for Manchin and/or Pryor to join Landrieu in her gymnastics and hope the press decides to have a little mercy given the high degree of technical difficulty in the routine. The MSM is just as committed to seeing Harry Reid in control of the Senate so they’ll concentrate on getting GOPers to dare to go as far as Landrieu,Manchin and Pryor.

msmveritas on April 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Well since you called bigot I guess I lose.

Except for the part where you can’t debate me.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

The Destruction of the Meaning of Marriage Gang.

Evolving to entropy.

profitsbeard on April 8, 2013 at 3:42 PM

There were days when “SSM” stood for “same species marriage”…

Archivarix on April 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM

And others when it stood for surface-to-surface missile. I guess that can now take on a whole new meaning, too.

I can’t imagine any politician, especially a Democrat, ‘evolving’ on homosexual ‘marriage’. The whole subject can be finessed for political advantage, with the only question being about when to time the announcement for maximum benefit.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM

One of the main goals of the left is to stamp out religious influence once and for all … whatever the means.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Indeed. It’s the same reason why they list Catholics, evangelicals, & others of strong religious faith alongside terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Anyone who believes in a power higher than government is a direct threat to the progressive agenda.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM

that Landrieu gal has a puffy face doesn’t she?

DanMan on April 8, 2013 at 3:44 PM

That pic; looks like he got something he didn’t really want in his mouf.

Midas on April 8, 2013 at 3:47 PM

The issue is that you are bigot who doesn’t respect gay people’s choices.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

That’s pretty funny. Let’s see how well the militant gays respect the choices of religious institutions in the near future.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Pryor’s been tap-dancing around the subject, assuring liberals that all his gay friends tell him that their orientation isn’t a choice but insisting nonetheless that he’s against SSM.

Did you really want to use tap-dancing for this thread?

***

The issue is that you are bigot who doesn’t respect gay people’s choices.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Hold on, Nellie. I thought homosexuality wasn’t a choice. Are you saying that homosexuals have a choice to engage in the unsafe, unhealthy sexual conduct that they wish? Fine, have it. But to enshrine it as public policy and to require that we worship at the altar of homosexuality is absurd.

Say, if and when Manchin finally evolves, will he get invited on a canoe trip this summer by some West Viriginians to reprise Ned Beatty’s role in Deliverance?

BuckeyeSam on April 8, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Indeed. It’s the same reason why they list Catholics, evangelicals, & others of strong religious faith alongside terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Anyone who believes in a power higher than government is a direct threat to the progressive agenda.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I truly wish people would understand that the stated goals of the left are never their true goals.

Gays are being used just like the left uses women, children and minorities.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Why are y’all surprised? These are the demonrat tenets of their religion, gays, abortion, racism, etc, etc, etc.

johnny reb on April 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Assuming the power to redefine marriage and the family is at least as tyrannical as the gun grabbers are. It would disrupt our society in ways most people haven’t dreamed of, or are in denial about.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:27 PM

“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM

“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.”
chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM

“One dog barks at something, another dog barks at the bark.”

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

That’s pretty funny. Let’s see how well the militant gays respect the choices of religious institutions in the near future.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 3:50 PM

The pro-SSM crowd is starting to admit they know this is going to happen (after years of denying it) and they are fine with it. Their justification is that after thousands of years of gays suffering at the hands of religion, now its our turn.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 3:52 PM

This isn’t a caravan, Skippy. It’s a Gay Pride Parade in front of the Mormon Tabernacle.

kingsjester on April 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM

“One dog barks at something, another dog barks at the bark.”

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

And yet the caravan moves on.

Bark, yelp, or whimper, you and those who think like you are receeding into the distance as society moves on without you.

But shake your fist harder, if you think it will help.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Just like when Christianity moved on and decadent Rome is no more.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM

From Brietbart News, GOP’s Same-Sex Marriage Supporters Silent on Religious Liberty:

Breitbart News sent the following questions on non-discrimination ordinances to these Republicans and have yet to receive a response from their offices.:

Should business within the wedding/marriage industry be protected from lawsuits resulting from a refusal to service same-sex couples at wedding halls, photography services, catering, etc..?

Should Catholic adoption agencies be forced to include same sex couples when a baby is up for adoption?

Should Christian marriage therapists lose their jobs or licenses b/c they refuse to see same sex couples?

Should children in public schools be mandated to learn about homosexuality, when the parents do not think it is appropriate to be taught?

Where does the member stand on the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA)?

INC on April 8, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Bark, yelp, or whimper, you and those who think like you are receeding into the distance as society moves on without you.

But shake your fist harder, if you think it will help.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:01 PM

You really don’t get it do you? You really think this is about gays? Society isn’t “moving on”, it’s being nudged and engineered. Free speech as well as other inalienable rights are slowly being crushed.

It’ll dawn on you one day what’s happening. Be sure to have plenty of self medications on hand when it does because you’ll suddenly realize how screwed you are.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Just like when Christianity moved on and decadent Rome is no more.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Rome was shrewed enough to co-opt Christianity. I don’t think that was what Jesus had in mind.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

“shrewd”.

How do you know what Jesus thought? You’ve never read the Bible.

Imbecile.

kingsjester on April 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Rome was shrewed enough to co-opt Christianity. I don’t think that was what Jesus had in mind.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Constantine was shrewd enough to co-opt Christianity and Rome at the same time.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM

It won’t be long before SSM has 60 votes in the Senate.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM

So is marriage suddenly a federal issue? I mean wasn’t that the whole issue with those that are pi$$ed at DOMA is that is WASN’T a federal issue.. Funny how that somehow changes when the votes is on the side you like.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM

In one of those serendipity discoveries, I found this article on last night.

From November 3, 2008:

Obama’s Coming War on Historic Christianity over Homosexual Practice and Abortion

It’s written by a seminary professor who read enough of Obama to be able to read the handwriting on the wall.

If Obama is elected President this Tuesday he will make it a priority of his administration to pass legislation that will make war against Christians and persons of other religious convictions who believe that homosexual practice and abortion are immoral acts….

Persons who express the view that homosexual practice is immoral will be particular targets of persecution. They will be likened to virulent racists and their civil liberties will be attenuated accordingly….

INC on April 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Rome was shrewed enough to co-opt Christianity. I don’t think that was what Jesus had in mind. chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Huh, and here I thought Constantine was converted to Christ, when in fact it was the opposite. Who knew!

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Archivarix on April 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Careful there, friend. Telling the plain unvarnished truth is always barely tolerated on GayAir.com

platypus on April 8, 2013 at 4:14 PM

George Harasz and Douglas Wirth must be thrilled.

OxyCon on April 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM

People it’s not evolution, it’s contrary to evolution and unnatural.

Nutstuyu on April 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM

You really don’t get it do you? You really think this is about gays? Society isn’t “moving on”, it’s being nudged and engineered. Free speech as well as other inalienable rights are slowly being crushed.

It’ll dawn on you one day what’s happening. Be sure to have plenty of self medications on hand when it does because you’ll suddenly realize how screwed you are.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Yeah, I think it’s about how members of our society are treated.

When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Thank goodness. I was getting worried that we hadn’t had a “gay marriage” thread today.

Shump on April 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

AIDS, and rampant STD’s, and reduced life expectancy are a bitch too eh?

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 4:18 PM

When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

If you think sodomy is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” then you ought to engage in a bit of introspection. That is quite a confession. Really.

tom daschle concerned on April 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM

From MIT’s The Tech online:

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage by Adam Kolasinski, a doctoral student in financial economics.

I thought it was very interesting to see this in an MIT publication.

INC on April 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM

When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

It’s nice to see your abortion position has evolved to the pro-life side. Welcome aboard! Tell us, what changed your mind? Was it all that amateur gynecological experience you gained during your Trig Trutherism jihad?

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Yeah, I think it’s about how members of our society are treated.

When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

You have no idea where I stand on this issue. My entire point has been this is a manufactured issue. If gay marriage becomes a non-issue, the left will use gays for something else … namely going after religious institutions and the Bill of Rights which are their real targets.

When and if the left ever achieves enough control and power gays will be tossed to the roadside along with everyone they used to get it.

darwin on April 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM

Good grief, but the leftards are out en masse and in rare idiotic splendor today.

The remaining speck of compassion I have for them is dissipating at an accelerated rate.

Midas on April 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM

The issue is that you are bigot who doesn’t respect gay people’s choices.

thuja on April 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

And the issue is that you deny science and are a bigot who doesn’t respect religious people’s choices.

Nutstuyu on April 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Good grief, but the leftards are out en masse and in rare idiotic splendor today.

The remaining speck of compassion I have for them is dissipating at an accelerated rate.

Midas on April 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM

They’re avoiding this thread and need somewhere to cool their heels.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 4:31 PM

The pro-SSM crowd is starting to admit they know this is going to happen (after years of denying it) and they are fine with it. Their justification is that after thousands of years of gays suffering at the hands of religion, now its our turn.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Why would the pro-SSM crowd admit to something that’s not going to happen?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM

When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

.
The abnormality of homosexuality IS “self-evident”.

The negative impact upon a society for acceptance of openly practiced homosexuality IS “self-evident”.

listens2glenn on April 8, 2013 at 4:34 PM

So opposition to SSM is bigotry is it?

Look, in June, I will have been married to my one and only wife 16 years, my marriage is my life along with our children, there isn’t a day that goes by that I do not try and make my wife happy as best I can. Not a day I love her any less, and gay marriage offends me on that level.. not because of what a pastor said.. but because something Holy and sacred to me, to us, is being distorted to please the tiniest fraction of the population who have decided they want what someone else has, and will rip it away because it makes them feel smug, their petty nastiness in bashing us for holding true to a sacred bond, is the snot nosed spoiled child ever looking to smear excrement on something good and true.

I quite literally would die for my wife.. how many supposed married gays would do the same? I doubt many.. because this entire Gay marriage thing is little more than a bald faced attempt to steal something they have no right to.

Have your civil unions, I don’t care much, because unless you’re taking from us, we don’t think about gay at all. Even the gays I’ve known the issue never came up, because when you absolutely HAVE to rub your Gayness in peoples faces, it’s only natural to deeply resent it. “From a purely heterosexual viewpoint”… sound stupid?.. yes, as it does from a “gay” viewpoint.. people can figure out your gay easily enough.. why do you need to attack what we have only to force the country at the point of a government boot to stamp that kind of false approval?

Because even if you win in court, it means nothing if the people do not agree, you will have changed no one’s mind, just forced a people at gunpoint to surrender something you want.

which makes you different from a statist thug.. how?

if they were really winning the argument,.. they would not need the courts, clearly they’re not getting the votes they want.. so it’s off to the federal courts and shopping for a sympathetic justice. If even deep blue California said no.. they aren’t really changing that many minds. Politicians don’t count, not when they follow the money as they usually do.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 4:34 PM

After the SCOTUS decides, this will die down to meaning very little; gays are generally very selfish people by nature and wouldn’t want to marry because they don’t want to share upon a likely divorce.

Tater Salad on April 8, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Oops, I just went back there. They’re there; defending Castro.

Akzed on April 8, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Johnson: “it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom.”

Wonderful!

Now three adult brothers can marry each other! Or Mom can marry Sis and her wife! Grandson and Grandpa can tie the knot too!

Great newz fer our Muslim friends – it’ll be OK to get them four fiances down to the Hitchin Rail at the mosque! And their a hootin’ and hollerin’ hooray in them closeted mountain compounds out in Utah, southern Idieho and down Nevada way!

And don’t ferget the good folks in the polyamory community living in triads and quad-rads and quint-rads! Wedding bells soon a ring-ding dinging!

It’s all about love once that pesky guvmit can’t discriminate about who can marry who, right there, Timmy?

Glad your so much smarter than all the haters on this thread!

Bruno Strozek on April 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Their justification is that after thousands of years of gays suffering at the hands of religion, now its our turn.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Interesting that this is put into context specifically and intentionally contra ‘religion’, when in fact, religious and secular civilization has uniformly held that homosexuality was aberrant behavior. Of course, some secular areas of civilization departed from this, and we could ask them how that worked out for them if, you know, they were still a civilization, I suppose.

Asking too much that humans learn from history, I suppose. Explains why f*ckwits keep thinking redistribution/socialism is a good idea, despite it being ruinous *every* time it’s implemented. Some dumbsh1ts just can’t help putting not only their own hand, but everyone else’s hand on the hot stove, apparently.

Midas on April 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I saw this quote from Margaret Thatcher today.

“To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say: You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” -To the Conservative conference in 1980

What a contrast! Johnson and these other politicians are spinning tops going to and fro according to what they think is politically expedient.

INC on April 8, 2013 at 4:42 PM

When people like you decide that certain other people are not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you need only look in the mirror to discern who is doing the crushing.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

No one is entitled to hijack marriage and force everyone else to buy into the bastardization of it. You’re infringing on MY rights, now.

Marriage = union of one man and one woman. Gays can call their union whatever they want but they are not married and will never be married

LetsBfrank on April 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Why would the pro-SSM crowd admit to something that’s not going to happen?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Within a few years one of us will be vindicated. I hope it’s you.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM

It’s a GAYVOLUTION!

Going GAY, for fun and profit, has never been more popular.

Pork-Chop on April 8, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Is this off topic?

platypus on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Within a few years one of us will be vindicated. I hope it’s you.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 4:46 PM

If this is really truly what you’re worried about then I think I’ve got history on my side. After the Loving decision legalized interracial marriages there were no churches (at least that I’m aware of) who were ever compelled to perform such a ceremony if they held it was against their teachings, nor did any ever have their tax exempt status threatened. We’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts (a land of liberal judges if there ever was one) for almost a decade and so far there haven’t been any churches compelled to perform gay marriages or who’ve had their tax exempt status threatened over a refusal to do so. Obviously a negative cannot be proven but at least so far there isn’t any evidence despite ample opportunity that any church will be compelled to do anything it doesn’t want to do.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

No one is entitled to hijack marriage and force everyone else to buy into the bastardization of it. You’re infringing on MY rights, now.

Marriage = union of one man and one woman. Gays can call their union whatever they want but they are not married and will never be married

LetsBfrank on April 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM

No your rights are not being infringed upon just because you don’t like SSM. The marriage of two people of the same sex (a valid concept) has no effect on anyone else’s marriage.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Eh. The gay lobby is nothing if not smart. They realize it would be extremely counterproductive to their endgame to began suing religious institutions unless and until scotus deems SSM the law of the land on a 14th amendment basis.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Eh. The gay lobby is nothing if not smart. They realize it would be extremely counterproductive to their endgame to began suing religious institutions unless and until scotus deems SSM the law of the land on a 14th amendment basis.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Would such a lawsuit change the 14th Amendment basis at all?

And just to be clear you’re taking a position for which there is no evidence and supporting it with a conspiracy theory.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

No your rights are not being infringed upon just because you don’t like SSM. The marriage of two people of the same sex (a valid concept) has no effect on anyone else’s marriage.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Your belief that same sex “marriage” is valid does not make it so. Same sex marriage is not logically possible.

LetsBfrank on April 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Would such a lawsuit change the 14th Amendment basis at all?

And just to be clear you’re taking a position for which there is no evidence and supporting it with a conspiracy theory.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Well, I guess you can look forward to feeling quite smug when me and my ilk are proven so desperately wrong.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Eh. The gay lobby is nothing if not smart. They realize it would be extremely counterproductive to their endgame to began suing religious institutions unless and until scotus deems SSM the law of the land on a 14th amendment basis.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:00 PM

A SCOTUS ruling in their favor will be their final validation. Then the next steps in the agenda can be advanced, likely on multiple fronts. Any pro-homosexual marriage people who say otherwise are either ignorant of the issue, or flat-out lying.

Liam on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

The pro-SSM crowd is starting to admit they know this is going to happen (after years of denying it) and they are fine with it. Their justification is that after thousands of years of gays suffering at the hands of religion, now its our turn.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Why would the pro-SSM crowd admit to something that’s not going to happen?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 4:32 PM

so……………

after Prop 8 passed, gangs of militant gays didn’t storm church pews screaming and cursing the congregations?.. didn’t make shrill screeching use of racist names when denouncing the black Californians for voting against them on the street?.. haven’t made plain they will go to churches which will not marry gays, then demand the DOJ persecute them for a civil rights violation?

all of that has happened.. you either are ignorant of that, or highly selective in your memories.. because a lot of that was posted here, when pro-SSM activists went crazy with rage.

and really, hasn’t ACTUP been invading pews for years?

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Well, I guess you can look forward to feeling quite smug when me and my ilk are proven so desperately wrong.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

You can’t be “proven” wrong because that would be a negative. And even if you could I wouldn’t feel all that smug about it.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Is this off topic?

platypus on April 8, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Don’t know why it would be. Should be right in the wheelhouse,…… so to speak.

a capella on April 8, 2013 at 5:19 PM

so……………

after Prop 8 passed, gangs of militant gays didn’t storm church pews screaming and cursing the congregations?.. didn’t make shrill screeching use of racist names when denouncing the black Californians for voting against them on the street?.. haven’t made plain they will go to churches which will not marry gays, then demand the DOJ persecute them for a civil rights violation?

all of that has happened.. you either are ignorant of that, or highly selective in your memories.. because a lot of that was posted here, when pro-SSM activists went crazy with rage.

and really, hasn’t ACTUP been invading pews for years?

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

What does any of that have to do with churches being legally compelled by the government to perform a gay marriage ceremony?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

No one is entitled to hijack marriage and force everyone else to buy into the bastardization of it. You’re infringing on MY rights, now.

Marriage = union of one man and one woman. Gays can call their union whatever they want but they are not married and will never be married

LetsBfrank on April 8, 2013 at 4:44 PM

No your rights are not being infringed upon just because you don’t like SSM. The marriage of two people of the same sex (a valid concept) has no effect on anyone else’s marriage.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

When you distort a sacred bond, and make it’s meaning a joke subject to whatever some leftist hack judge wants it to mean..

Then you have stolen something from us..

We will be married still.. gays will simply mimic that, but it will not be marriage. Not even close.. Nobody gives a damn you you want to love, and not a soul is stopping you. You simply covet something that has never been, so hey.. what’s a little cultural destruction as long as a tiny minority can may the same gender right?

and the flood gates you open will be used to justify bigamy,.. any number of multiples marriages.. because my simplistic friend..

“No your rights are not being infringed upon just because you don’t like (three way marriage). The marriage of two (three or more people) of the same sex, (or not) (a valid concept.. ) has no effect on anyone else’s marriage.”

only to make it a bad joke as an institution..

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

To be clear they can go to the DOJ and demand anything they want, it doesn’t mean they’re going to win. They haven’t in any state that has legalized gay marriage yet.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

after Prop 8 passed, gangs of militant gays didn’t storm church pews screaming and cursing the congregations?.. didn’t make shrill screeching use of racist names when denouncing the black Californians for voting against them on the street?.. haven’t made plain they will go to churches which will not marry gays, then demand the DOJ persecute them for a civil rights violation?

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Let’s remember one other thing. In the end, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a homosexual judge who stayed in the closet until after he issued one of the most biased hate-filled “rulings” I’ve ever read. Only after retiring did we learn the bastard is a direct beneficiary of Prop 8. The whole case should have been bounced on this judges lies alone.

Happy Nomad on April 8, 2013 at 5:25 PM

You can’t be “proven” wrong because that would be a negative. And even if you could I wouldn’t feel all that smug about it.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:18 PM

I can’t be proven wrong in my assumption that militant gays will proceed to sue religious institutions if SSM is made the law of the land?

I bet you’re a blast at parties.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I can’t be proven wrong in my assumption that militant gays will proceed to sue religious institutions if SSM is made the law of the land?

I bet you’re a blast at parties.

Kataklysmic on April 8, 2013 at 5:30 PM

I am a blast at parties!

Militant gays might sue but they won’t win.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

To be clear they can go to the DOJ and demand anything they want, it doesn’t mean they’re going to win. They haven’t in any state that has legalized gay marriage yet.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

It won’t be as clear cut as that. They will say it is for the “kids.” They will cite gay kids suicide and societal pressure that causes said suicide and make a link to religious teaching against homosexuality. Laws will be made against said teaching for “the safety of the children’s wellbeing.” It will be the only way the state can be sure that “parents” aren’t “indoctrinated” by the church “to hate their gay kids by religion.”

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM

What does any of that have to do with churches being legally compelled by the government to perform a gay marriage ceremony?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:20 PM

It matters, because that is exactly what the more militant are saying, then and now. So we’re supposed to believe they will not demand the democrat party bow and scrape a little lower for that campaign cash and go after churches which will not marry gays?

That they will not take the next step after a national win on gay marriage?

They denied that was the goal for a decade or more, but not now, now they are some saying exactly that.

They are already lining up to distort marriage even further, something SSM advocates have flatly denied.

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

from the ever SSM friendly Wapo

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

doing the crushing.

chumpTesticles on April 8, 2013

…no need to crush them chump…just chew on them!

KOOLAID2 on April 8, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Your belief that same sex “marriage” is valid does not make it so.
Same sex marriage is not logically possible.

LetsBfrank on April 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Tell that to the people of CT, MA, NY, et al, in which people of the same sex ARE getting perfectly legal and valid marriages.

It’s been nearly 10 years in MA, and the doomsayers who predicted the collape of society are wrong.

Keep barking. Maybe the caravan will turn around because you’re unhappy that it’s leaving.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Evidence?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

To be clear they can go to the DOJ and demand anything they want, it doesn’t mean they’re going to win. They haven’t in any state that has legalized gay marriage yet.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM

that may be true, but that does not mean they never will, because the long game is denying any negative consequences isn’t it?.. as you have..

You may have no ill will yourself, I grant you that, but the entire movement?

A Bush or Romney DOJ would not allow that without saying.. an Obama Holder DOJ?.. after he has no need to worry about another election?

are you THAT sure?

we aren’t.

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Tell that to the people of CT, MA, NY, et al, in which people of the same sex ARE getting perfectly legal and valid marriages.

It’s been nearly 10 years in MA, and the doomsayers who predicted the collape of society are wrong.

Keep barking. Maybe the caravan will turn around because you’re unhappy that it’s leaving.

chumpThreads on April 8, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Yeppers Massachusetts is a bastion of freedom and sanity and doesn’t suffer from any delusions because of the GLBTQQQCCCC rights..:

The document said whether a student identifies as a boy or girl is up to the student or, in the case of younger students, the parents.

In all cases, ‘‘the student may access the restroom, locker room, and changing facility that corresponds to the student’s gender identity,’’ it said.

The guidance said some students may feel uncomfortable sharing those facilities with a transgender student but this ‘‘discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.’’ It urges administrators to resolve issues on a case-by-case basis, and recommends sufficient sex-neutral restrooms and changing areas.

The guidance also addresses what to do if other students consistently and intentionally refuse to refer to a transgendered student by the name or sex they identify as: ‘‘It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/02/15/mass-dept-issues-rules-transgender-pupils/L0rr4AYIwCKH33z0hxcGTL/story.html

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:43 PM

It matters, because that is exactly what the more militant are saying, then and now. So we’re supposed to believe they will not demand the democrat party bow and scrape a little lower for that campaign cash and go after churches which will not marry gays?

That they will not take the next step after a national win on gay marriage?

They denied that was the goal for a decade or more, but not now, now they are some saying exactly that.

They can sue all they want, it doesn’t mean they’ll win. The First Amendment has always been a strong protection for the churches. Speaking of which, are you still Googling looking for an example of a church in a state where gay marriage has been legalized being forced to perform a ceremony or are you conceding my point?

They are already lining up to distort marriage even further, something SSM advocates have flatly denied.

from the ever SSM friendly Wapo

mark81150 on April 8, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Who is “they” and what does this have to do with SSM? Same sex-marriage and polygamy are totally separate issues.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Democraps are hilarious.

Jaibones on April 8, 2013 at 5:46 PM

If this is really truly what you’re worried about then I think I’ve got history on my side. After the Loving decision legalized interracial marriages there were no churches (at least that I’m aware of) who were ever compelled to perform such a ceremony if they held it was against their teachings, nor did any ever have their tax exempt status threatened. We’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts (a land of liberal judges if there ever was one) for almost a decade and so far there haven’t been any churches compelled to perform gay marriages or who’ve had their tax exempt status threatened over a refusal to do so. Obviously a negative cannot be proven but at least so far there isn’t any evidence despite ample opportunity that any church will be compelled to do anything it doesn’t want to do.

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Odd that you would mention Massachusetts. As I recall that is where Catholic Social Service’s Adoption agency was forced to close for refusing to place children with homosexual couples contrary to their religious tenets. But then again, they weren’t forced to do anything they didn’t want to do they were merely put out of business. A fine distinction that.

Mason on April 8, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Evidence?

alchemist19 on April 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Gun control, Obamacare HHS Mandate.. And Dem program that has bled into individual rights has been for the children.

How about the law in California that restricts parents from taking their children to counselors that want to cure homosexuality. Clearly stepping on parental right to have their children’s decision on medical care for their “child’s wellbeing.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-bill-ban-conversion-therapy-make-gays-lesbians/story?id=16310813

Parents in Massachusetts were told they couldn’t opt out of their 6 year old learning that homosexual marriage was normal by a court in the name of diversity..

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/07/no-opt-out-of-homosexual-indoctrination-in-class-for-massachusetts-parents/

It’s clearly been happening in other areas where people feel the child’s best interest is PRO HOMOSEXUALITY. To say that religion is safe is naive at best.

melle1228 on April 8, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2