The American Spectator : Witch Hunt in the Golden State

Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Witch Hunt in the Golden State

By David N. Bass on 12.7.09 @ 6:09AM

Opponents of California's Proposition 8 don't like the faithful -- or free speech.

Infuriated by a stinging loss in California last year, same-sex marriage advocates are resorting to a favorite tactic of political despots -- the witch hunt.

Two homosexual couples have asked the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to force religious and conservative groups to cough up private, internal communications from a successful campaign last year to protect marriage in the Golden State.

The activists' goal is to show that California's marriage amendment, known as Proposition 8 and passed by 52 percent of voters in November 2008, was designed to create "discriminatory animus" toward homosexuals, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Times reports that one attorney for the homosexual couples said that getting a hold of the internal communications "was essential to show how the initiative's supporters plotted to 'push the buttons' activating voter fears that gay marriage could imperil society and their own families."

Attorneys for Proposition 8 backers, in contrast, say such a course of action would chill free speech and political discourse.

No kidding. Since when is campaign rhetoric on either side of the ideological divide a legal offense? Politics is politics. Whether it's homosexual marriage, abortion, the bailouts, or troop levels in Afganistan, advocates on both sides give impassioned pleas that, not surprisingly, offend the other side. It's business as usual.

More to the point, it's part and parcel of an open society. Leftists don't like it because in the free market of ideas, the conservative message on marriage resonated with voters last election, even in an overwhelmingly Democratic year. No doubt the outrage would be non-existent had they won. It's sour grapes.

This latest move by homosexual activists, however, is especially disingenuous for one reason: the animus and hatred during the campaign wasn't from religious organizations, but from the left. That makes the current effort to unearth communication from conservatives odiously hypocritical.

During the campaign last fall, liberals' advocacy efforts routinely bridged the gap between the civil and the despicable, once even stepping into the blasphemous when Jack Black portrayed Jesus in an anti-Proposition 8 musical, something that millions of Christians no doubt found offensive.

Leftist activists routinely cast supporters of traditional marriage as backward, racist, religious zealots. The state's wide swath of liberal activists took it upon themselves to target specific donors on the other side.

For instance, a blog post last October on the Daily Kos encouraged readers to "find us some ammo" on Mormon donors to the Proposition 8 campaign, and promised "there will be hell to pay."

Bloggers threatened to burn down churches and Mormon temples, and one swore that he was angry enough to murder people "with his bare hands." One ad depicted two Mormon missionaries breaking into the home of a lesbian couple and tearing up their marriage license.

Aside from the hypocrisy angle, this latest push for a legal backlash against conservatives in California is even more fallacious because the sentiment expressed by backers of Proposition 8 is no secret. It can clearly be seen from their ads and published materials.

Two of the three judges on the 9th Circuit panel considering the case made that point, suggesting that there "probably was voluminous information illuminating the campaign strategy available online and from public pronouncements such as the flurry of television ads that ran in advance of the vote," according to the Times.

That, more than anything, shows that the left is trying to bully via court intervention. That's not a bad strategy. With few exceptions, the judiciary is the only avenue where they've met success, and then mainly in the liberal northeast.

Page: 1 2 >

topics:
Proposition 8, Gay Marriage

About the Author

David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 12.7.09 @ 6:17AM

Is there any state in which the matter was put to a referendum and the people voted Yes to SSM?

Son Of Sam| 12.7.09 @ 11:44AM

Short answer: NO

My cat can shit in a wrapper, but that doesn't make it a tootsie roll. Likewise, gay marriage advocates can claim that two men can be married but that doesn't make it true either.

The plain simple fact of the matter is that THE PEOPLE have spoken loud and clear on this issue, and the people stand for real marriage, not some phony nonsense masquerading as such.

Tell ya what my fellow Americans who are gay: stop trying to impose your values on us, and the rest of us won't give a damn what you do in your own home. How's that for tolerance? No? Didn't think so. I guess for your kind, "tolerance" means the majority gets to shut the hell up and be told what to feel and think and believe by the likes of you.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

Arsebase| 12.7.09 @ 6:42AM

Peoples Republic of Vermont?

Darin| 12.7.09 @ 6:55AM

I believe 38 states have actually voted on it, and zero have passed it. There are a few states where it has been imposed by the legislature and/or courts, but everywhere it has been put to a vote, it has lost. The current battleground is Washington DC where once again liberals are attempting to force it on the public while specifically denying the peoples right to vote on it. Indeed, "tolerance" has been redefined to mean forced acceptance and celebration of what liberals tell you to do.

Richard Baker| 12.7.09 @ 7:19AM

Poor whining homosexuals. Yes, there will be Hell to pay when all eventually face God. What a bunch of babies. Mama, I don't get my cookie! Waaaaah!

Seer| 2.20.10 @ 5:11AM

Poor whining bigots and haters. So your names are published for contributing to hatred and discrimination... boohoo! You can paint yourselves as the victim all you want, but your false victimhood doesn't come close to the 10,000 cases of violent hate crime against gay people that are reported each year (not to mention the many times more that are not) and the many murders and tortures perpetrated against gay people by unbalanced individuals egged on by your hatred.

There simply is no place for your hatred in this society.

Ret. Marine| 12.7.09 @ 7:31AM

What ever it takes attitude. Why is it that throughout time the definition of marriage is defined as an arrangement, through God, between a man and a woman. It is not the very reason for adding to the mass's that God told human being to " go and multiply." It is dis-heartening to know how easy it is for the liberal mindset to find something in the Constitution that dictates the right to kill their offspring, now we must contend upon the idea that a man on man relationship is to do what? go and multiply, I think not, a woman on woman will result in what? go and multiply, again no logic in this issue.
People are born with the right to choose, they can choose to live alone, with a partner, or whatever float their boat as far as I am concerned, but do not dictate to me the definition of marriage, it's between a man and a woman as well stablished norms within any society. I'm not forcing them to understand this issue and demand they reconize it for what it is, they have no right to force onto me their preverted ideology. God has told us of the consequences of a immoral society making this fight essential for the well being of all of mankind. This has left me to the conclusion that they do not wish to be part of mankind, and so, what use are they anyway?

Melvin| 12.7.09 @ 8:19AM

On my wife's side there was a relative who at the time I didn't realize was gay. He acted just like anyone else.
My wife told me that, "Do you know that Seenin was gay." I shrugged my shoulders because I didn't really give it much thought, because it wasn't like he was trying to date me or anything.
During the course of family interaction the topic eventually came up during a conversation that Seenin and I were having about homosexuals. Seenin made a comment to me that Asian homosexuals severely dislike American
homosexuals.
Reason being he said, "American homosexuals are too in your face about their homosexuality."
This man was an attorney so his comments were well thought out and articulated because at the time I was active duty US Marine and he stereotypically figured I was going to pummel him to death.
Seenin's views were that the American homosexual movement was doing more harm than good by constantly browbeating heterosexuals and forcing them to accept homosexuality whether the heterosexuals
accepted it or not.
Seenin further added, "I am comfortable with who I am and I feel no need to put my lifestyle on parade for all to see, and to force my personal views on people who do not want to share it." Jokingly he added, "Your not going to beat me up are you?"
I said, "Nah, I not going to beat you up because your a homosexual, but I will beat you up because your a lawyer."

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.7.09 @ 9:45AM

Melvin,
Thanks. I needed a laugh this morning.
I'm pretty much on the same page.

Albert Constantine, Jr.| 12.7.09 @ 6:09PM

Actually, a referendum that would prohibit lawyers from marrying, or at least reproducing, would have an even greater chance of enjoying majority support in all 50 states.

Radegunda| 12.7.09 @ 9:01PM

Melvin, I like your relative. And I've long wondered, if gay activists (as distinct from gay people generally) are so comfortable with their sexuality, why are they trying so hard to mimic heterosexuals in areas where they cannot be the same (as distinct from the workplace etc.)? Why the "weddings" with one woman dressed as the groom and the other as the bride? Why do they disregard the obvious fact that their relationships never produce children except with some artificial intervention? Why not just be happy gay partners, which most of the public will accept.

Many of the promoters of the gay "marriage" agenda are the same people who not long ago were saying that marriage is a retrograde institution that's inconsequential at best, and there's no reason to have that silly piece of paper when your commitment is all that counts.

So what changed?

Sean Parnell| 12.7.09 @ 8:34AM

Thank you for bringing this to the attention of more people. The threat to First Amendment rights posed by this lawsuit is breathtaking - apparently in these activists' minds it isn't enough to simply try to persuade voters one way or another on any given issue, now if you win you must "prove" that your motives are "pure" and "decent" to the courts. Disgraceful.

Is the ACLU involved in defending the Prop 8 proponents? They're usually pretty good on this sort of attack on the First Amendment.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

Anthony| 12.7.09 @ 9:43AM

This is no shock at all. Since the vote in Maine, there have been death threats against Christian leaders, including a representative of Stand for Marriage Maine (supporting traditional marriage), demonstrations at Catholic churches, threats to remove their tax exempt status and an attempt to remove a guidance counselor who was in a Stand for Marriage ad.

If you want to see hatred, check out the comments in the Portland Press Herald when there is an article on gay marriage or Catholicism. It's mind-boggling.

In St. Louis, there are demonstrations through Advent (at least) at the Catholic cathedral because the bishop there donated $10K to Maine's Stand for Marriage. (the group demonstrating during this sacred season is, ironically, called Show Me No Hate).

The only reason more of this hasn't been seen in Maine is that, while many people are secular in orientation, they cannot abide abroachment of freedom (at least traditional Mainers, not the many transplants in Portland, who think their fellow Mainers to the north are "rednecks").

In our country, I find the level of anti Christianity on constant rise--any difference of opinion is "religious bigotry." It's frightening--but on the other hand, it makes one conscious of what is really important.

Doctor Right| 12.7.09 @ 10:05AM

This lawsuit, if successful, will open a HUGE can of worms for the left that they most definitely DON'T want.

Wise counsel on that side of the political aisle will realize this, and advise those who support it to back-off.

Otherwise, we have set a precedent that will allow Conservative groups to subpoena the private e-mails of organizations like...Oh, I dunno...ACORN, La Raza, DailyKOS, Code Pink, etc, etc...The sky's the limit!!

So go ahead, you poor, angry gays...Keep it up!

By the way...There's NO such thing as "Gay Marriage". It doesn't exist.

Son Of Sam| 12.7.09 @ 11:43AM

My cat can shit in a wrapper, but that doesn't make it a tootsie roll. Likewise, gay marriage advocates can claim that two men can be married but that doesn't make it true either.

The plain simple fact of the matter is that THE PEOPLE have spoken loud and clear on this issue, and the people stand for real marriage, not some phony nonsense masquerading as such.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/

Bill| 12.8.09 @ 1:30PM

Then how is it that I have a valid marriage license from the state of California?

Thomas Aquinas| 12.7.09 @ 11:39AM

That's not a witch. That's warlock in drag.

Tom Anderson| 12.7.09 @ 12:26PM

Son writes: "Tell ya what my fellow Americans who are gay: stop trying to impose your values on us, and the rest of us won't give a damn what you do in your own home. How's that for tolerance?"

That's fine for you to say and if you follow through on your words peace among men is possible.

However, there are no gays of which I am aware that attempt to "impose" homosexuality on you. Gays simply want (ill-advisedly, I would argue) to exercise the right to make legal unions without intervention from Christians and others religious types who seem to think gays want to interfere with Christian ceremony and the meaning of marriage.

What Christians do in their churches is up to Christians, not gay atheists. But gay Americans have equal rights, and that means moral right to make contracts with each other, and a legal union is one such contract. One should not have to believe as Christians do in order to exercise an individual right.

Gays will continue working through the court system since that seems to be the best avenue to get their rights recognized and protected. If your rights were being abridged through popular vote, I am certain you would also seek redress in the courts.

ChuckD| 12.7.09 @ 1:24PM

"However, there are no gays of which I am aware that attempt to "impose" homosexuality on you."

Really? Tell that to the heterosexual men raped in prisons each year. Tell that to the soldiers who will have to bivouac with gays if Obama succeeds in allowing openly gay gays in the Military. Tell that to the parents of children in public school who bring home books that explain why Jimmy has two daddies. Tell that to Christian Pastor who will be forced to hire a "gay" Youth Minister or be charged with unfair hiring practices. Tell that to the Boy scouts who think it might be a bad idea for a homosexual man to be camping in the wilderness all alone with a group of young men. Tell that to the Pastor who will soon be liable for a hate crime if he tells his flock that the gay lifestyle is sinful.
Homosexuals impose their homosexuality on children by telling them that homosexual behavior is genetically derived -which is false.
Homosexuals impose their homosexuality on children by telling them the gay marriage is all about love and just as normal as heterosexual marriage-which it is not.
The right to marry comes from God, not the government.
Homosexual are not having their rights abridged. Homosexuals are seeking to have extra rights, special rights, beyond the norm. A homosexual man has the same right to marry a woman as I do.
Homosexuals seek to have extra penalties imposed on criminals who commit crimes against them, as if they are more valuable than the rest of us.
Homosexuals attack Christian values and seek to prevent them from classifying their behavior as abnormal, adulterous, and damaging to the family, and to society in general- which it is.

canuckistani| 12.7.09 @ 2:11PM

"The right to marry comes from God, not the government." Who's god?
A billion muslims - following the god of abraham, like you, ChuckD - believe they can marry up to 4 women, if they have the means. Mormons the same. Again, who's god are you speaking about? The same god that you enjoy protections of the constitution to even mention, much less worship?
What about tax free status for churches? Time for them to go if they cannot show their revenues are used exclusively for the workings of their churches. All political activities should be taxed. Start there.

ChuckD| 12.7.09 @ 4:04PM

Okay pinhead atheist, I'll restate my claim in Diderot fashion: The right of marriage comes from nature, or mother gaia, or whatever you want to call a power higher than the state.

Oh that's right atheist don't believe there is a power higher than the state, so they worship the state. And we all experienced the peace and joy the atheist religion brought us last century vis a vis the nazis and communists. Atheism has been recognized by the supreme court for many years as a religion. Everyone is religious, it is an innate property of being human. At least it is a property of humans unlike yourself who choose not to be a beast and recognize that they didn't come into existence by random nothingness. From nothing, nothing comes.

What about tax free status for churches? what's that got to do with anything? You don't make any sense.

Churches have tax free status because the founding fathers knew that the power to tax was the power to destroy. It is a safeguard against theocracy.

If pastors during the revolutionary period had stayed out of politice you'd be bowing to the queen and probably liking it as well.

canuckistani| 12.8.09 @ 9:02AM

There's tax free status all over the western world, and the arab world. It's funny, I actually believe in the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, but my protected right to that opinion does not supercede another's right to exercise their choice of who to marry or even how many in civil law, if properly applied. The current role of marriage was a construct of the response to how men treated their women, and forcing them to accept the legitimacy of their children, that's it, nothing else - in civil law. Up until the last century, women were less than a man civilly, and married women even lower. Divorce was illegal in many states, and the marriage law had to evolve because us guys did not evolve as we expected. Our ilk has blown it over the centuries, and we have the gall to pronounce our will on another person seeking to join with another with consent and a clear heart? What would Jesus do if he witnessed this spectacle? Render unto Caesar.....

Ray| 12.8.09 @ 10:49AM

Marriage is not a "right," as you keep claiming.. Marriage is a privilege, just like driving. That's why you need a license to get married. Stop acting as if the gays are being refused something, for that something that doesn't exist.

KyMouse| 12.8.09 @ 2:12PM

Canuckistani, the tax-free status for churches is more than made up for in the care and services that they offer to the needy in their neighborhoods and cities. Those services are paid for by donations, not by taxpayer funding. My own church, for example, has a free food-and-furniture-and-more center for the poor; pays for specialized surgery for children who can't otherwise get it (some who are flown in from third-world countries); supports a pregnancy-resource center; and much, much more. Such services are paid for through generous gifts, not through taxation. I think that most people, when they stop to think about it, are glad that it's that way.

douglas uhlinger| 12.9.09 @ 5:21PM

You poor, fearful man. Why are you threatened by people who believe differently than you claim your God does. Is your God so weak that He needs your protection? Have you read the Constitution recently (or ever)? You admit that your views on gay marriage are Biblically based. You have gone a long way toward proving that you want to violate our constitutional separation of church and state. Please, sir, believe all the nonsense you want to in your home and church and Kleagle, but don't try to get the government to force your religious views down the throats of others.

GuessWho| 12.8.09 @ 6:33PM

I consider myself fairly common and average regarding education and respect for history. To that end, the only problem with gay marriage is that "marriage" in it's historical context has always been between a man and a woman. I have no problems with homosexuality. This is America and I believe everyone has the right to their own pursuit of happiness, provided it doesn't infringe on another's AND provided it shows the proper deference to historical institutions. Keeping all that in mind, I have no problem allows gays to be given the right to a legal civil union. The government can recognize it as such via legislation ensuring it will be recognized from state to state. The only caveat here would be that if ANY liberal "Church" -- and I am making a generalization that it would have to be a liberl church here -- decided to end-run the historical context of marriage, it would not be recognized nor legal.
Everybody gets what they want and life goes on. There is no need to force one's lifestyle choice on others in an effort to revise history. That is essentially what gay marriage is about. -- forcing others to accept historical revisionism.

chiMaxx| 12.7.09 @ 12:41PM

Dsvid ass is an investigative journalist? Not a very good one, it seems. He refers to "Prop 8: The Musical" with Jack Black as Jesus as having been performed "During the campaign last fall." But it was after Prop 8 passed as a reaction to its passing. Such blatant and obvious factual errors undermine this author's credibility.

chiMaxx| 12.7.09 @ 12:44PM

David Bass is an investigative journalist? Not a very good one, it seems. He refers to "Prop 8: The Musical" with Jack Black as Jesus as having been performed "During the campaign last fall." But it was written after Prop 8 passed, as a reaction to the bill's passage. Such blatant and obvious factual errors undermine this author's credibility.

Albert Constantine, Jr.| 12.7.09 @ 6:12PM

Until you pointed out this discrepancy, I might have thought that the Hollywood community had been silent on Proposition 8 prior to its passage.

DatsunMark| 12.7.09 @ 1:32PM

I can solve this whole debate on Gay marriage: let them marry but one of them must legally declare (him or herself) the *Husband* and the other the *wife*. When they get divorced, the *husband* will pay the *wife* 80% of his take home pay and lose posession of half his assets. (I bet they never get passed the argument of whom shall be the husband?).
Another note: all you liberals who attack Christians as intolerent why don't you take a swipe at Muslims? Muslims aren't fancy about Gay marriage. What's a matter....chicken?

The Majority| 12.7.09 @ 4:52PM

Or how about protesting in front of the Black Panthers building? No, faggots like to attack those who will not smash them into the ground.

Tom Anderson| 12.7.09 @ 1:39PM

Chuck D. writes: "Homosexuals impose their homosexuality on children by telling them that homosexual behavior is genetically derived -which is false.

"Homosexuals impose their homosexuality on children by telling them the gay marriage is all about love and just as normal as heterosexual marriage-which it is not."

These are matters of opinion. If you dislike what goes on in public schools, why not abolish public schools? Why not take your child out of the public schools? Parents should be in control of the curriculum in any case.

But your use of the word "impose" is an abuse of words. Offering an opinion is different from "imposing" anything.

"Tell that to the heterosexual men raped in prisons each year. "

Heterosexual men are raped by other heterosexual men deprived of a sexual outlet. Rape is always wrong.

If school-age children are going to be taught about families then gay families necessarily must be included. Gays exist and you'll have to deal with them just as they must deal with you and people like you.

Big Leo| 12.7.09 @ 6:29PM

Children must be taught about them because they exist? Very well, then. Let's teach the whole truth about homosexuality. Let's teach that it is a form of emotional immaturity, that it is associated with a whole constellation of STDs, that it leads to a shorter life span, and that society has disapproved of the practice for most of history. Let's teach the truth, not the politically correct lies so popular today.

Joe Dude| 12.7.09 @ 1:47PM

Tell ya the truth, until fags started trying to force me to accept their behaviour, I did not care what they did. Now I hope that all get AIDS and croak, hahahaha.

canuckistani| 12.7.09 @ 2:04PM

Easy dude. What about blacks and women and Jews and Catholics? Wanna go back to them being in their place? Not too long ago that list was either unable to vote, buy land, or hold top offices in biz or gov in the land of the free. Have the balls to say it if you thunk it, hayseed. It's douches like you that make America the greatest....in producing ignorant idiots. It took the holy jihad of northern aggression to put y'all stooges in yer place.

canukistani| 12.7.09 @ 1:54PM

Ok, how about this, let's remove the state from marriage altogether. Property, testifying in court, alimony, divorce, next of kin etc etc should be wiped off the books. All matters should be managed under common tort law and not have any preference in court. Why is the state in the marriage game anyway? If Sanford and Edwards and Ensign and Gingrich and Bauchus and Giuliani and Clinton and Kennedy can openly break their civil marriage vows without civil reprimand, it should be between their spouse and them alone, leave the state out of it. How much do we pay as taxpayers for divorce court and justices of the peace to even exist? Scrap it. If someone wants a covenant marriage in church, go get it. Civilly, it should carry no more weight than a simple business partnership. Child protection laws excluded.

Tom Anderson| 12.7.09 @ 2:31PM

canukistani writes: "Why is the state in the marriage game anyway?"

Didn't the states got involved in marriage in order to prevent interracial marriage and, in general, to impose control on people's behavior?

States should provide opportunities for legal unions, but such unions should not be called "marriages", as "marriage" is a religious concept and should be kept within the church.

Legal unions now called "marriage" are essentially just legal mechanisms to address custody issues and property allocation. It's anyone's guess why men would be willing to get married, whether straight or gay. Bad deal for men no matter how you look at marriage.

canuckistani| 12.8.09 @ 9:10AM

Yup.
Marriage was the only way to unlock the chastity belt in days gone by. Not sure how we blew it and did not come up with a better con. How did we go from being the masters of our domain to having a ring that has become a yoke on our manhood? Maybe women are smarter than us? Hmmm.

ShowMeNoHate| 12.7.09 @ 7:21PM

"In St. Louis, there are demonstrations through Advent (at least) at the Catholic cathedral because the bishop there donated $10K to Maine's Stand for Marriage. (the group demonstrating during this sacred season is, ironically, called Show Me No Hate). "

Anthony, when white slave owners fought hard to maintain their majority rule in the owning of black slaves, Missourians rejected those white slave owners views.

"Show Me No Hate" doesn't mean we cannot hate homophobia, sexism and ignorance. We most certainly can "hate" narrow mindedness, religious intolerance, apathy and most recently the rise of Catholic tyranny directed our nation's greatest bedrock of freedoms: the Constitution of the United States. History shows us that the majority almost never gets it right when it comes to civil rights of a minority. And history also shows us that the courts have almost always played a vital role in protecting the victims from an angry mob. Just read your comments and you can see who makes up the angry mob in our country. (What's ironic is when you call yourselves Christians.)

The events in St. Louis are attended by more Catholics than gays and lesbians. Last Sunday December 6th, we had over 75 protesters of which more than half were straight Catholics. The 4-week long protests are co-sponsored by the Catholic Action Network and The Holy Families Committee, both well respected Catholic social justice organizations in the Gateway City. Not to mention the support from sisters, brothers, Catholic priests and parishes including: St. Stan, St. Cronin, Sts. Peter and Paul and St. Margaret of Scotland.

Finally, please remember we're protesting Archbishop Carlson's spending of $10,000 on an issue that didn't affect Missouri Catholics other than taking local money away from helping the poor, sick and homeless. Jesus never once used his resources for political reasons. He spent every penny feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.

What Would Jesus Do with $10,000?
www.ShowMeNoHate.com

Anthony| 12.8.09 @ 10:19AM

You certainly, in your conformity, viciousness and arrogance, echo Pilate. Perhaps you may recall what he replied to Christ: "What is truth?"

Anthony| 12.8.09 @ 10:26AM

Just once, I'd like to see a poster in the gay rights movement apologize for their own behavior--death threats, violating the civil rights of others, forcing people out of jobs etc. I urge posters to spread the word about this group's activities, so other states know what they are in for.

VinnieCCT| 12.7.09 @ 7:49PM

Homosexuality is a sin. period.
So, does that mean these "unions" will be included in Obama's new "sin" taxes?

Richard Baker| 12.7.09 @ 8:06PM

ShowMeNoHate:
Homosexuality is an abomination. Perversion is. 38 states and counting.

Eddie Kovacs| 12.7.09 @ 8:37PM

I'm in favor of privatizing marriage and abolishing the public schools. The gaystapo, headed up by the likes of 0's favorite gaystapo bully Kevin Jennings is in favor of mainstreaming pederasty and outlawing private schools and home schools and forbidding parents even to remove their children from "sex-ed" brainwashing sessions. The gaystapo are the oppressors and the rest of us are the oppressed. Anyone who says these gaystapo thugs are the ones being oppressed is a liar, hypocrite, and a traitor.

Tom Anderson, we know you're a liar, hypocrite, and traitor because we've seen the kiddie porn you thugs want to show our children. In a saner time and place, we'd have had you kiddy fiddling sodomites all sent to the electric chair for trying to peddle this crap to them:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthin.....#more-9326

As it is, the gaystapo's oppressive activities will leave you sodomites no excuse when you stand before God. Your lying gay-crime-concealing media hacks won't be there to spin your lies for you. When your whole life is reviewed, all your oppression against Christians and all other dissent will testify loud and long against your evil agenda, leaving absolutely nobody any doubt that you and all the rest of the sodomites have earned your damnation in full.

Voice of Reason| 12.7.09 @ 10:00PM

wow

i need to smoke whatever you guys are smoking

that's some lame shizz you're subscribing to

Voice of Reason| 12.7.09 @ 10:00PM

wow

i need to smoke whatever you guys are smoking

that's some lame shizz you're subscribing to

ShowMeNoHate| 12.8.09 @ 2:26AM

If homosexuality is a sin (or as my Fundamental Christian's would say "abomination," a word that doesn't even exist in the Hebrew or Aramaic languages) how about the other sins that are included in the Old and New Testaments that good ole American Catholics like to forget? (I didn't add the Other Testament, the Book of Mormon hang on to your magical underwear!)

All of these are so called abominations or sins: eating or touching pork, shrimp, shell fish, crab, lobster, touching a woman when she's menstruating, touching the dead, cutting your hair, mixing your fabrics, plowing the edges of your fields, banning guests from your property, not giving to the poor, not paying off your debts, interest or making money off lending money, working on the sabbath, disrespecting your parents or any parents, stealing, masturbating, wet dreams, oral sex, hand jobs, basically anything outside of vaginal sex, working (if you have a vagina), crippled people, dwarves, those with flat noses, having damaged testicles, mixing of meat and dairy (no lasagna folks), outspoken women, unruly children, pride, greed, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, sloth, sons of Amalek, idolatry, cheating on your wife, bestiality (even sleeping with dogs) to name just a few.

But the bible do suggest:
rape your house slaves, rape your enemies house slaves, marry as many women as you want, declare war on your enemy even without reason, stone the rebellious child, cut off the hands of people who steal, poke the eyes of those men who stare at your wife, rape the daughters of your enemy, offer your daughter's virginity to strangers, defile (shit inside) the temples of your enemies, stone a hooker (but not the John) and burn the homes, wives, and children of your enemies just to name only a few.

You get my point... so what year is this again?

canuckistani| 12.8.09 @ 9:25AM

Exactly, and the best one..."those without sin throw the first stone..."
If you are a true American patriot, love the constitution, and defend it. Not selectively. One's right to worship a treestump is as protected as one's right to worship a dead guy on a wooden cross or nothing at all. "Founding father"-types fail to recognize the rights of blacks had to be enshrined in the constitution because our Christian hearts had no room to evolve collectively without the constitutional hammer in government's hands. Popular vote means nothing when it comes to the big events of human history. Sheep can be herded in any direction the powerful choose. It takes real paddling upstream to drag us into real change. There's a black in the presidential palace aka the whitehouse....before the constitutional hammer, and the holy war of northern aggression, he'd be strung up for being an uppity slave and his father murdered for "touching" a poor defenseless white woman. Is that the "founding" principle we want to imbue on this debate?

Ray| 12.8.09 @ 10:55AM

Actually, the "best one" is "Honor thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee."

I don't see anything in the Bibkle that says "Honor Thy Father and Thy Father" or "Honor Thy Mother and Thy Mother," do you?

VinnieCCT| 12.8.09 @ 11:45AM

It seems that people are suggesting that homosexuality is somehow part of man's evolution. How can self destruction promote man's survival? Sorry, but two women can never reproduce and two men can never reproduce. Just not going to happen.

canuckistani| 12.8.09 @ 1:37PM

Our willingness to evolve our treatment of those not part of the "mainstream", not whether homosexuality is "evolutionary". The fact is homosexuals are here. They are in every walk of life, just like Jews, Catholics, Blacks and women previously were excluded. Should procreation be the litmus test of civil marriage? Women over 45 not allowed to marry? What about barren couples? In-vitro now taboo and now defaults conditions for civil marriage? We have enabled minority rights many times over the years, why reserve civil benefits to just child-bearing mixed couples? You've opened the door and your logic fails again. You can tell your widowed mothers don't bother getting remarried. Empty wombs need not apply. Civil benefits are not for them. Besides, all they need is their loving sons to look after them. Another man for them to share their life is just unnecessary, isn't it. Good luck with that.
The bible also has no instructions for the emancipation of slaves.....now what? Do you wipe with the right or the left? How can you decide without divine intervention? Reason is also God's gift.

Mike| 12.9.09 @ 3:31AM

"Civil benefits are not for them."

Ahhh, so it ISN'T about love. It's about the perks...

Three kinds of laws| 12.8.09 @ 2:34PM

When I see such lists as the one ShowMeNoHate presents, I am reminded that the Bible contains laws that fall into three general categories: religious laws that pertained to Jews when the Temple was still standing; civil laws, for people living in ancient Israel; and moral laws, which pertain to all people at all times. The latter include prohibitions against murder, theft, any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman, etc. It's helpful to determine whether something in the New Testament supercedes something in the Old: There is no indication that Jesus ever disagreed with His Father and the Holy Spirit about any topic, including homosexuality. God's warning against it in the Old Testament is not changed in the New, either directly by Him or by the disciples and apostles writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The prohibition against homosexuality is still there, no matter how much some might wish it were not.

Richard Baker| 12.8.09 @ 7:26AM

Can't change it. Homosexuality is a perversion. Just because society won't let you have your cookie is just too damn bad. Grow up. Oh, by the way the human digestive tract is not a sex organ. It's for eliminating waste and isn't a repository for gerbils or anything else. Poor whining babies.

canuckistani| 12.8.09 @ 1:53PM

I know you are over 40 and live in your mother's basement, but what about lesbians? Or is it just men banging men that offend you? Lesbians are not apt to shove gerbils into their digestive tracts, so marriage for them is ok?
What about a black guy hitting on your daughter? Perverse?

Dr. McFigglesworthenstein JR.| 12.8.09 @ 12:03PM

I think that Obamination should go into a hole and die because he is a gay and very dirty Muslim

lalala| 12.8.09 @ 12:03PM

speedo>pants

Frazenamo Kintopoproano| 12.8.09 @ 12:05PM

Don't say that Obama maybe a dirty Muslim but i think he is just bisexual and that sir is besides the point!!!

Prez Obama| 12.8.09 @ 12:12PM

You can't say that bout me G. I'm the mutha f'in president son, and i get poon alls the time b****. i mean come on n***** please i'll shoot hoops all round yo white a**

Richard Baker| 12.8.09 @ 4:56PM

canuckistani:
Homosexuality under any condition is perversion. I know that offends your sensibilities but who cares? By the way, your crack about black men and girls is typical of you liberals. Insult everyone to make an irrelevant point. I note what your idea of black men seems to be about. Seems to bother you waaay more than you must be willing to admit. Take two aspirin and lay down until the thinking pains subside.

www.huntingnikedunks.com| 4.2.10 @ 9:04PM

hello

www.us-bapeoutlet.com| 4.2.10 @ 10:29PM

www.us-bapeoutlet.com

www.juicyihandbag.com| 4.3.10 @ 7:05AM

Juicy couture handbags are among the brands which have gained a great repute over a longer period of time.The quality and material used for their manufacturing is up to the mark and has no match. The most attractive thing of JC purses are their reasonable prices, which makes www.juicyihandbag.com them liked by people belonging to all classes. These are easy to be purchased from online retail stores. You have the advantage to check the available variety on internet and then buy the item of your choice through the credit card. It would be good to make a phone call at the company number before making the transaction, in order to confirm the authentication of selected retailer.

www.in-watch.com| 4.3.10 @ 7:12AM

Being a proud owner of a watch is a wondrous thing that many take for granted. No one remembers back when things were simple and they had to call "time and temperature" to get an accurate time . Now certain devices run on their own with no batteries what so ever and some get updates from satellites so that the time is always perfect.Looking back on all of the famous inventors or the wrist watch, it makes you happy to know that the item located on your wrist is truly a miracle and wonder of the world. From the first watch with its round face to the tiny ring watches that sit delicately on your finger, they are truly a piece of history.Dating back to the 1800s up until now, watches have constantly have been moving forward and keeping us in time with the rest of the world. If you are looking to find out more about the history of the watch www.in-watch.com then you will want to look to the founder's of this wondrous invention. It is amazing to see how the watch has evolved and the parts get smaller with each new watch on the market. There is a watch for every lifestyle and wardrobe so you can be stylish or simple anytime of the day or night.

werwer| 5.5.10 @ 3:31AM

Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
yuuuu

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 12:49AM

he countenance of North Face Jackets Perdana Menteri pGFP saudara, dan teknologi inovatif While greater than the North Face the Dalaia tersusun jubah Outdoor kasut sepasang Dan, Polartec, LLC pemaju of Dan, Dan, North Face UK Akan pengeluar Polartec pemasar laid to my charge to be North Face mens given to Hari untuk mengetahui pengaruh Parfum: North Face Jacket Kishtwar ufti of Dan Tahun pada North Face Clothing.