The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way

Text Size

Poison for the American Way

By Mark Tooley on 2.17.10 @ 6:07AM

Norman Lear and friends are mighty upset with the Manhattan Declaration’s defense of marriage and the sanctity of life.

The Manhattan Declaration’s defense of marriage and sanctity of life was released by about 150 Christian leaders in November. Chiefly organized by Catholic ethicist Robert George of Princeton University and evangelical para-church leader Charles Colson, the declaration’s endorsers included at least 17 Roman Catholic archbishops, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Michael Novak, Dinesh D’Souza, Richard Land, numerous pastors, seminary presidents, and other prelates from Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and evangelical traditions. Over 400,000 others have also signed. Specifically the declaration warns against the threat to religious liberty posed by aggressive secularists hoping to silence religious traditionalists on marriage, abortion, and euthanasia.

Seemingly in a bid to confirm the signers’ worst fears, legendary liberal producer Norman Lear’s aggressively secularist People for the American Way (PFAW) has lashed out at the declaration as “old poison, new packaging.” PFAW discerned that the declaration was merely a rehash of “anti-gay and anti-abortion messages we’ve heard from Religious Right leaders for decades,” but this time “gussied up in pages of prose” from the brilliant Dr. George.

PFAW did not like the declaration’s unflattering referral to “those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged, and disabled.” And it certainly was displeased by the remembrance of early 20th century eugenicists and racists whose goals are now marketed in the language of “‘liberty,’ ‘autonomy,’ and ‘choice.’” Of course, PFAW really did not like the declaration’s warnings against not just legalized same-sex unions but also polyamory (networks of multiple sexual partners), an unwelcome reminder of the dissolution of traditional marriage’s potential consequences.

PFAW opined that the declaration is “updated for the Obama era to include the now-standard right-wing warnings that the administration and its congressional allies are leading the United States into an era of Nazi-like tyranny.” Lear founded PFAW in 1981 to counteract the potent Religious Right and specialized in portraying conservative religionists as aspiring theocrats conspiring to silence dissent. So PFAW naturally dislikes the declaration’s turn of the tables by promising resistance against secularist authoritarian impulses: “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.” Or as PFAW described it, the declaration highlights “dramatic and fictional claims of anti-Christian persecution run amok” so as to “preen as willing martyrs for the cause of religious liberty.” After all, PFAW and its secular allies are supposed to be the true defenders of religious liberty, or at least of the liberty to resist and decry traditional religion.

Disapprovingly, PFAW cited warnings from declaration signers James Dobson and Robert George. The former has warned that “it could get very costly to follow this Christ.” While the latter has warned that Christian “martyrs have [always] been called on to pay the ultimate price rather than to deny the Lord or to do what is evil in his sight.” These types of historical reminders upset groups like PFAW, which prefer the mythology that Christianity is oppressive and imperialistic, while secularists are noble dissenters. Of course, the secular mythology mostly has to rely on anecdotes from the Inquisition and Puritan rule of nearly half a millennium ago. Christian martyrdom has been a continuous reality globally for 2,000 years.

Contrary to PFAW’s exaggerated portrayal, the declaration does not anticipate a Stalinist persecution but instead warns of a potential “soft despotism” in the U.S. The declaration points out: “In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here.” Of course, PFAW lamented that the Obama Administration has not been more aggressive in seeking to suppress “discrimination” by traditional religionists.

The declaration signers, as “privileged and powerful public figures,” are “shameful” to claim they risk persecution for their “anti-gay and anti-abortion advocacy,” PFAW bemoaned. Instead, it is abortion clinic workers who have been paying the “ultimate price” for their dedication to “medical care,” thanks to “anti-choice” killers,” PFAW asserted. PFAW was especially troubled about the declaration’s concluding promise not to “comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.” Reiterating the traditional Christian limits to blind civil obedience, the declaration insisted: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.” According to a worried PFAW, these are “strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones.” PFAW counter-warned that “conservative Christian leaders are inflaming false fears of religious persecution in order to justify their own intransigence and unwillingness to abide by legal, political, and cultural changes that they don’t like.”

PFAW’s directors include actor Alec Baldwin, homosexual activist and former ambassador John Hormel, former U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Mary Frances Berry, and former civil rights activist Julian Bond, all of whom probably thought that “cultural changes” inevitably would sideline traditional religionists. Norman Lear’s saucy 1970s sit-coms, whose characters sought abortions and sexual liberation, were supposed to herald an irrevocable new era, after all. That PFAW must now begin a fourth decade of battle against the “poison” of conservative Christians in defense of the supposed “American way” must be deeply exasperating to Lear et al.

topics:
Manhattan Declaration, People for the American Way

About the Author

Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (248) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.17.10 @ 7:10AM

Oh dear, TheMan is still trying to spoil the fun of TheKids! They cannot accept the true meaning of tolerance, which is not the same as embracing the other guys POV and abandoning their own.

Increasing numbers of ads for Viagra and Cialis accompanying the petulant whine that Everybodys GottaRight to have sex day and night with anybody or anything and nobody can stop us nyah nyah tell the tale.

We will just keep saying No and wait the tantrums out. Sooner or later TheKids will realize that their drooping wee-wees are trying to tell them something.

Melvin| 2.17.10 @ 9:37AM

I tried this same, "Its my right" to the Misses, She replied with a hint of sarcasm, "Dear, have you taken your medication today?

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 4:49PM

All you will do is alienate gays.

They will affix "I'm gay and I vote" bumper stickers on their cars. You say you don't care?-- you will care when they vote.

And don't argue with me about it, argue with gays.

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 6:57PM

Bumper sticker:

"I'm Noisy, Self-Righteously Gay, And I Vote."

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 7:07PM

How dare we tell gays what to do? People ought to do whatever they want-- if their attorneys are sharp enough.

Bumper sticker:
"I'm Noisy, Conceitedly Gay, And I Vote"

caitmo| 2.17.10 @ 7:40AM

Unfortunately, this will never change. There will always be people who are nonbelievers of a higher power. They aren't all evil, though, they just want what they think is best for all people. Pro choice, same sex marriage,etc. are "rights" they think everyone should have. You can't change the minds of people who don't agree with you on the most fundamental point of these issues. You can't use a Biblical teaching as a source for your argument against someone who doesn't believe in it's truthfulness. Fortunately there are well educated individuals and groups with the gift of faith who will keep up the good fight against the humanists.

Copyelft| 2.17.10 @ 8:27AM

True, this fight will never go away. There will always be forces of ignorance and superstition fighting against every forward step of civilization, and groups like PFAW will always be needed to hold back their dark and savage influence.

People who believe blindly in a collection of fairy tales cannot be swayed with logic and reason; their minds are lost and cannot be changed. Fortunately, there are well educated individuals with the gift of communication who can offer hope to the NEXT generation, to reduce the influence of howling witch doctors and hellfire preachers and inch our society slowly toward a better future.

I relish the challenge, secure in the knowledge that reason will always defeat superstition in the end.

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 8:35AM

Is it superstitious to believe that life begins at conception, and that unborn children have rights?

Is it superstitious to believe that traditional marriage has worked better than every other family structure?

Is it superstitious to believe that faith is not necessarily blind?

Is it superstitious to believe that there are religious people who aren't "howling witch doctors and hellfire preachers?"

Is it superstitious to believe that without moral absolutes, there can be no morals?

Spencer| 2.17.10 @ 8:48AM

Copyleft. We are so fortunate to have such educated smart folks like yourself to help us open our eyes.

Stan H.| 2.17.10 @ 9:44AM

Well said, Copyleft. How right you are: "There will always be forces of ignorance and superstition fighting against every forward step of civilization . . ."
You can see the forces in their foaming-at-the-mouth fury on this comment page.

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 9:54AM

Who has advanced civilization more - Christians or atheists?

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 11:52PM

Why can't gays stop being so exhibitionistic?
Why does Ellen Degeneres have to make a big deal about having a girlfriend?
Why does Elton John have to make a big deal out of marrying his boyfriend?

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:16AM

Because people like you keep insisting they hide in a closet as if they were doing something wrong or shameful.

That's why the gay activists are "in your face"--to show you that they're not going to hide for your convenience.

Missy| 2.21.10 @ 11:10PM

And that explains gays' violence, too, right?

I don't believe gays should hide in the closet; if they feel that way, then obviously, GAYS feel like they're doing something wrong or shameful.

Andy_Krow| 2.17.10 @ 10:03AM

"I relish the challenge, secure in the knowledge that reason will always defeat superstition in the end."

Right..... That is unless an Islamist looney-toon gets to you first and "convinces" you otherwise.

Andy

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 12:04PM

Where will you wake up after you die, Leftist Reader?

You are basing your hard hearted unbelief on a lie that there is no eternity. What will you do when you find out you have been wrong and end up in Hell?

Drummermanpaul| 2.17.10 @ 1:06PM

Copyleft says : "People who believe blindly in a collection of fairy tales cannot be swayed with logic and reason; their minds are lost and cannot be changed." .... I guess s/he means man-made global warming ......

Mick| 2.17.10 @ 7:22PM

So government recognizing sodomy as good and naturally equivalent as a man and woman consummating marriage as progress? That's interesting how do two men consummate the marriage?
You can explain about the numerous health risks associated with homosexuality CDC data but they don't care, you can explain how your horse that God considers it an abomination for two men or two women to be together biblically but they don't care they don't want to believe in ultimate accountability, Christians here you're casting your pearls before swine.
If you want to really know what's going on research the book "After the Ball," it is there psychological blueprint formula for advancing the gay agenda and it's working, you should read it then you'll understand how they hustled us by playing the innocent nonthreatening victim using our own morality against us but never having to offer true facts and the very nature of what they're actually doing.

The Alfred Kinsey lie, "you are defined by what you do with your body parts." Do they think that God says it's a sin because he doesn't want them to have fun? No, it's because they will destroy themselves that's why, those of you who know your Bible will understand Romans words written that he will give them up to a reprobate mind, all you can do is pray for these people many have come out of the lifestyle the truth is it's a conscious choice no different than choosing to cheat on your wife or any other sin.

The ultimate question, are you a created being with the purpose or do you believe that you're a fluke of happenstance that slithered out of the primordial slime and have no ultimate accountability to anyone but your selfish self, if you believe the latter if you were intellectually honest how could you then claim inalienable rights as outlined in our Declaration of Independence as being granted by God alone, you see you can't have it both ways, then why would it be wrong for an adult to molest a child? If you knew where our laws ultimately come from you could answer that but that's right, you rejected it.

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 7:02PM

CopyLeftYou don't like it when people brag conceitedly about their sex lives, do you?
Why don't gays just have sex and shut up?

Bumper sticker:
"I'm Noisy, Self-Servingly Gay, And I Vote"

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 7:11PM

Copyelft| 2.17.10 @ 8:27AM

See, he is merely an 'elf'; no harm in him.
Just don't bend over if you drop a quarter on the sidewalk when he is walking by.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 10:52PM

yea! right on! worked well enough during the French Revolution!!!

Herb| 2.17.10 @ 9:25AM

"Copyelft", you really need to proofread before lecturing us rightwing Neanderthals. You're more entertaining than you'll ever know, in so many ways.

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 9:31AM

As a fiscal conservative, I am sick of the conservative attacks on same-sex marriage. There are gay people in this world; there always have been, and there always will be. What do you expect them to do? Do you want them to accept second class status and walk around with their head held down? Though heterosexual myself, I am all for same sex marriage! My brother is gay, and I want him to find a partner and live a happy life just as I am living--with a partner. Attention Readers of Spectator: Time to cut the hateful anti-gay rhetoric. Now!

Sheila Parker| 2.17.10 @ 9:35AM

Thanks, Joseph.

I'm conservative also, but the number of homophobic assholes on this site make me ashamed to admit it. The Republican party is failing because of Christian Right stupidity and bigotry.

Dr. Ronald Wilkes| 2.17.10 @ 9:40AM

Hear, hear, Sheila! How right (not in the nasty right wing sense) you are!

The conservatives cannot resist spewing intolerance and hatred with nearly every post, especially when it comes to gay equality. Mention the word "gay," and they bend over with the dry heaves. Hilarious!

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 9:53AM

Are we advocating making homosexuality a crime? Not at all. Neither are we advocating discrimination nor second-class status.

Is it "hatred" to simply call sin wrong?

joseph| 2.17.10 @ 10:14AM

Yes, Ryan, it is hateful to call "sin" wrong if you're talking about the "sin" of same-sex attraction. My brother is one of the finest, most generous men I know, and he happens to have been born gay. He is one year older than I, and we played with the same boys and had the same parents. Homosexuality is genetic in its formation. How else do you explain it?

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 10:45AM

It may be genetic - the jury is still out on that one - but that doesn't make it right. Maybe it's better classified as a genetic anomaly, given the fact that so few people are gay. In any case, genetic predisposition is generally not an excuse for bad behavior. We jail people whose criminal acts resulted from genetic anomalies.

Now don't go getting your underwear in a knot. I'm not calling for criminal sanctions against homosexuals. I'm simply pointing out the obvious, that a genetic trait does not absolve you from your behavior.

I am against gay marriage for many reasons, none of which have to do with any sort of hatred for your brother or other homosexuals. I'm not going to go into the reasons, as I suspect it will be a waste of my time.

The problem I have with the pro gay marriage movement is it's insistence that anyone opposed to gay marriage is bigoted. Further is the belief that this bigotry is somehow a product of our society. After all, bigotry is not genetic, but learned (at least in my opinion).

What is indisputable is the fact that every civilization in the history of mankind has come to the same conclusion, that marriage is between one man and one woman. You might cite certain countries that allow gay marriage, but they are few and far between. In addition, all the major religions reject gay marriage.

I know how challenging it can be sometimes to be open-minded, but I wonder if you ever give any thought to the possibility you've got it wrong. Perhaps you and other gay marriage proponents are the close minded regressives who simply fail to accept what is right before your eyes.

Sheila| 2.17.10 @ 11:04AM

Tonypal, you're not ready for the 21st century. You're still adhering to erroneous biblical bronze age ideas that are bereft of science and psychology. But no use telling you this.

Joseph, you are a good brother to support your gay sibling's sexual orientation. You are very kind to wish him the happiness that you and your wife have found. I want you to know that I hope your brother finds a partner, marries him, and lives a happy, productive life.

Anyone with any decency would wish the same.

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 12:06PM

So it's less about truth than about how "ready for the 21st century" one's stances are, and whether they carry the declasse stink of historical precedent. God preserve us from fashion victims, whether in couture or in moral philosophy.

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 12:07PM

Sheila, a few things. First, if it wasn't worthwhile telling me, then why did you bother to tell me? In fact, you don't want to "tell" me anything because I doubt you can make an intellectual argument to support your point of view. I'm sure you can make an emotional plea, but that doesn't cut it.

Second you didn't address a single point I made. I suppose that goes back to not wanting to tell me anything, but that approach is usually reserved for people who can't put together a coherent argument.

Here's a question for you, and as any open-minded woman of the 21st century, you ought to be able to bat it right out of the park: Why is yours the open-minded, progressive position? Very simple, so I await your response because, in spite of what you think you know about me (pretty close-minded to assume you know someone you've never met), I'm willing to be persuaded, but haven't been yet. It might come as a surprise to you that I have friends who are gay. That fact is incidental to the friendship.

Again, try to respond to what I said instead of making silly statements that reflect a fundamental lack of understanding.

Robert Pinkerton| 2.17.10 @ 2:05PM

Back in the late 1970s, I came to the conclusion that the future -- i.e.: right about now -- would look like a mixture of the pessimistic novels (Stand on Zanzibar, The Jagged Orbit, The Wrong End of Time, and The Sheep Look Up) of John Brunner and Philip Jose Farmer's Riders of the Purple Wage.

Sheila has just hit a Brunner bell, in particular of "... not ready for the 21st century..." Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar repeated the phrase, "... Celebrated Your Twenty-First..," meaning having adapted to the 21st century.

In all of Brunner's pessimistic novels, the President in the time-frame of the story, is an entirely inconsiderable dispenser of platitudes: "Prexy."

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 11:57PM

"Anyone with any decency would wish the same. "

Then tell gays to shut up, stop being exhibitionistic and pushy about being gay.

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 11:07AM

Here's a question - how was your family life growing up? Were your parents around? Did you have a present, involved father or father-figure who was not abusive?

With the divorce rate so high in the US, and the declining family structure, and doubt on the original "tests" that "proved" homosexual tendencies (they're a LOT less conclusive than the media and gay culture portrays).

I'm not saying it's definitive, and I'm not saying it's worse than other sins (hard-right Christians just consider it a bit less "socially acceptable" than their own of pride and greed). What I AM saying is that saying "God made him gay" isn't conclusive.

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 11:46AM

Do you think my brother CHOSE to be a member of the most despised minority? He struggled terribly with his sexual orientation when he was a teenager.
But I am wasting my breath. You and the other negative commenters are determined to believe that homosexuality is a "sick," morally reprehensible, chosen orientation.

This is my last comment on the impossible subject.

Hannah| 2.17.10 @ 11:51AM

Joseph, you're a good man for supporting your brother. He is fortunate to have a brother as open-minded and empathetic as you. I suspect that you are one of the true Christians commenting on this issue. Anyway, God bless.

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 12:15PM

Look, I didn't CHOOSE to be born an arrogant, condescending jerk by temperament. I'm wholly convinced that God made me this way. Still, that doesn't give me a blank check for being one. It doesn't relieve me of the obligation to struggle with and overcome the particular set of crosses my inborn nature has imposed upon me. If homosexuality is wrong, then nature has placed your brother in a particularly ugly & unfair spot and I wish him well, but its strongly fundamental place in his makeup is not prima facie evidence for its rightness.

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 12:58PM

I never said it was a "choice." And you didn't answer the question.

What I DID say was that there are other, external reasons for homosexuality that are not necessarily physical.

From my perspective, I know several gay people, and all had pretty screwed-up family situations that existed before they "realized" they were gay.

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 1:11PM

I'm not sure anyone here thinks your brother chose his orientation. The problem is that when you paint everyone here with a broad brush, you sound unhinged. For people such as myself, it's simply a different point of view. If it makes you feel better to believe that everyone who disagrees with you on this matter is full of hatred, that's your problem.

bob alou| 2.17.10 @ 4:20PM

You are to be admired for supporting your brother. The question is; would you rather that he wasn't homosexual? Saying that you accept and love him is not the same as saying that you are glad he is gay. If such is the case then would you want to be gay and why not?

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 7:10PM

I am a heterosexual with three children. I could not have sex with a member of my own sex. I could not possibly change my sexual orientation.

My brother is homosexual. He is attracted to males, and he could not possibly change his orientation. It is too deeply ingrained.

I do not wish my brother were straight. He has a great personality, a loving partner, and many interesting, accomplished gay friends. I love him just as he is, and since he is happy and successful, I must say, "Yes, I am glad he is gay." But I am sorry that he belongs to a despised minority.

The hateful letters on this post depress me and make me ashamed for being a conservative.

But I think I have a little insight into why gays are hated to such an unreasonable degree. Many people cannot deal with their extraordinary creative abilities, their superior intelligence (a general statement, but true nonetheless), and their tendency to be, on a whole, more successful than heterosexuals.

Like the Jews, homosexuals have contributed enormously to world culture and knowledge.

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 10:28PM

I don't know, Joseph ... even if you're right, Andrew Sullivan may have wrecked that particular curve.

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 10:37PM

Joseph, your latest post leads me to believe you are not who you say you are. You sound like a liberal, gay rights activist. Sorry, but that's the tenor of your post.

I am absolutely amazed that in a prior post you state "He struggled terribly with his sexual orientation when he was a teenager," then state in a later post "I do not wish my brother were straight." In other words, in spite of whatever suffering your brother has gone through, you would not have it all go away? Really? That's sick.

As for the last part of your most recent post, I am amused by your assertion that homosexuals have a "superior intelligence" and are more creative. This is nothing more than an assertion and a silly one at that. What is it about the homosexual mind that makes it superior to or more creative than the heterosexual mind. Absolutely nothing, unless of course the person making the assertion has an agenda.

True, homosexuals have contributed to civilization. But here's a shocker; they've contributed relatively little because they're a relatively small part of the population. So do us all a favor and get off your soapbox and stop the lecturing. There's nothing special about being homosexual. It's a hard lifestyle and the fact that you would be "happy" that anyone has to go through what your brother went through says more about you than you probably know.

Sheila| 2.17.10 @ 10:46PM

Joseph clearly states "But I am sorry that he belongs to a despised minority." Please try to be a more analytical reader.
Yes, homosexuals are a small minority and so are Jews. Yet check out the list of Nobel winners in science and see how disproportionate their representation is in view of their tiny population.

Joseph is supporting his brother. The tone of your comments is, as usual, hateful, bitter.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 12:00AM

"He struggled terribly with his sexual orientation when he was a teenager."

Oh poor thing. Poor little schnooky wookums. Your brother suffered tewwibly tewwibly bad.
Why, he almost broke down and cried his wittle eyes out. Boo hoo hoo.

Margie| 2.18.10 @ 7:05PM

"Schnooky wookums." LOL!

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:18PM

Hated minority? I don't hate anyone including gay people--I'm just not fond of anal sex. Sorry, if that's a buzzkill, but It's my opinion.

Hate the sin not the sinner. You liberals are confused, and just not about your sexuality.

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 3:42PM

So disagreeing on religious grounds about a gay political agenda makes one "Homophobic"? Interesting. Why exactly do gays require marriage? As opposed to civil union which give all the legal rights of marriage? Although, for societal reasons, marriage is civilly recognized, it is a base a religious institution. So why do gays want to use the power of the state to force their way into religion?

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 10:57PM

bingo.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:20PM

What do you think? Gay marriage is just another leftist attempt to destroy society. They are haters.

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 9:51AM

Here's the problem - marriage isn't strictly a civil definition. It's also a religious one.

Besides which, most same-sex union issues are legal in nature and need to be handled that way.

We are NOT advocating second-class status. We are simply advocating that they don't get to redefine marriage into something that it's not.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:22PM

Right on, Brother! The Gay marriage battle must be a hill we are willing to die on.

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 10:19AM

Joseph,
A lot of folks don't get it, and it sounds like you don't, either. Conservatives aren't interested in persecuting gays. (In fact, if you compare the treatment of gays from conservative Christians and the treatment of gays from other conservatives around the world [e.g., conservative Muslims], you will notice that, comparatively, gays are treated VERY well by Christians, even while Christians disagree with their lifestyle choices.)

Rather than a question of the persecution of gays, it is a much higher question of what a general society should emphasize and promote. If you study history, you'll note that there have been societies which have formed which have chosen NOT to reproduce. Early in this country's history, there was a Quaker (?) group in the New England area who all decided to be "celibate for the Lord." In a generation or so, this group saw its demise, as there was no progeny to carry on its idealistic values. Just last week, an article on AmSpec detailed another society in the Midwestern U.S. which decided to do the same, and it also soon changed its ways. The U.S. SHOULD favor traditional marriage, and allow for special privileges in the tax code for those in traditional heterosexual marriages, simply to spur on the continuance of U.S. society. At the same time, the U.S. should allow gays to quietly follow their lifestyles, as they have for many years. But, it makes no sense for the U.S. (or any society) to actively favor or promote homosexual unions, or to give them the same status of heterosexual marriages. It is fruitless to do so.
It is also unnecessary (and unChristian) to persecute gays in any way.

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 10:34AM

MikeBee, as I said in an above post that same-sex attration is genetically determined, I do not expect or want my brother to consider himself second class or inferior in any way. His sexual orientation IS NOT A SIN. I am also tired of this foolish, bronze age biblical argument.

Dean| 2.17.10 @ 10:46AM

"is NOT a sin". Who says?

Also, the Bible came long after the bronze age had concluded. If your going to try the route of ad hominem attack, at least get your history right.

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 11:05AM

Joseph,
????????????????????????????? Try reading my posts BEFORE you respond, thank you. You can't find the word "sin" in my post.

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 11:08AM

What is sin and who defines it?

ChuckD| 2.17.10 @ 1:41PM

Joseph, you a typical liberal. By fiat you magically declare something that has no scientific basis whatever to be a fact and then argue from this false premise. There is no scientific evidence, other than the fraudulent study conducted by two homosexual biologists during the nineties, that even suggest that what you are saying is true.

sangredulce| 2.17.10 @ 2:34PM

My brother likes to drink and drive. It is wrong, but I still love him. I don't 'accept' his lifestyle and couldt not defend it. If he was a pedophile, or murderer or into beastyiality, none could I accept or promote, even if it 'fulfills' him. I woudl still love him, but tell him he is wrong. That simple.

Luckily, he is not a c*cksucker, so I never have to go into that. But if he chose to be a butt pirate, I'd oppose that lifestyle too. As i would oppose anal assault in the military, wrecked rectums in elementary schools or fudge packers in Boy scouts.

Wrong is wrong, and we must oppose it.

Wilford Price| 2.17.10 @ 3:07PM

Sangredulce, your adolescent and vulgar ravings are rude and unacceptable.

You should have the maturity to adopt a civil tone, but all to often, alas, I see these vicious right wing unintelligent, out-of-control rants on nearly every conservative blog. As a fiscal conservative, I resent being associated with right wing haters.

Are there any conservatives out there capable of civilized discourse?

CanteraMan| 2.17.10 @ 6:42PM

Why, if one is opposed to immorailty, is it hate? I think most poeple, except NAMLBA members, would be opposed to pedaphilia, but we don't cal lthem pediaphobes. So why if one is opposed to homosex, why do you call a hater?

Also, as a fiscal conservative, you are opposed to profligacy, as any moral, sane person woud be. Yet, no one calls you a profliphobe. You hate the act of profligacy, but not the profligaant. Right?

Same thing. No one hates a homo here. Just their ramrodding the exit & their trying to normalize their sodomy.

I am sure you, Mssr. Fiscal Conservative, would not appreciate profligate spending in school, or unbound materialism pushed as a norm, or someone demanding that we go over our cedit limit endlessly.

Dean| 2.17.10 @ 11:09PM

"Are there any conservatives out there capable of civilized discourse? "

Absolutely, Wilford. And social conservatives who are capable of civilized discourse as well. We seem to be ignored however, as you focus entirely on the kooks.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 12:08AM

"Are there any conservatives out there capable of civilized discourse?"

So why blog at a rightist blog such as AS unless you want to agitate?
You are saying that we can't agitate back at you?

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 3:45PM

So it's all about your brother's self esteem? which means you can run roughshod over others religious beliefs?

Scot J| 2.17.10 @ 10:52AM

Very good comments Mike, All of which are being ignored in Josephs reply.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 11:33AM

Mike: Interesting approach, but if society should encourage "traditional marriage" for the sake of reproduction, why don't we require fertility tests along with blood tests? And why do we permit old people to marry, who are past childbearing age?'

Seems to me that "procreation" isn't the acknowledged purpose of marriage after all, given the way the U.S. handles it.

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 3:27PM

Copyleft,
This issue is the general approach a society should take. Societies that wish to continue to exist should promote heterosexual unions like marriage, most of which are productive. Of course, societies recognize that not all of its heterosexuals will be able to reproduce; but most WILL be able to. However, with homosexuals, NONE of them will be able to reproduce. Therefore, one reason NOT to promote homosexual unions, while still allowing them to occur.

But there are more reasons not to promote homosexual unions. First, if you talk with doctors and other health officials, they will tell you that the preponderance of various diseases (including venereal diseases) occurs at a much higher rate among active homosexuals than it is among the active heterosexual population. A society should desire to keep diseases in check; therefore, a secondary reason not to promote homosexual unions (this is also one of the reasons that prostitution is outlawed most everywhere). A third reason: sexual abuse of minors occurs at a much higher rate among homosexuals than it does among heterosexuals. The rate of pedophilia among heterosexuals is only at less than 5% of the hetero- population. But homosexuals practice ephebophilia (the sexual abuse of 11 - 15 year-old boys) at a much higher rate. What do you think the Catholic Church's recent priestly sexual abuse scandal was all about? Almost all of the cases in the U.S. were of homosexual priests practicing ephebophilia, sexually abusing 11 - 15 year-old boys. So, there are three solid reasons for a society to NOT promote homosexual unions, while only permitting them to occur. I'm sure that there are more reasons still, but others can fill these in. But don't get caught up in the details when considering what a society's GENERAL approach should be. The best approach is to promote heterosexual marriage, while allowing private homosexual unions to occur privately.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:22AM

So if "promoting families" is a good idea, what about adoption? Remember, gay couples can adopt and raise children just as well as straight couples can.

If the top priority were providing good homes for kids, then the U.S. would be making it easier for ANYONE to get married and support a family. But they're not... only the ones that fit the 'Traditional Model,' regardless of whether or not the actually procreate.

Isn't that interesting?

MikeBee| 2.18.10 @ 10:06AM

Copyleft,
Oh, you forgot!!!!! The Left in this country, which you purport to represent, doesn't want to push for adoption. They want abortion, instead. You're catching on to the conservative agenda, though. Because, you're right: adoption should be a strong option in society, promoting family life.

However, there are numerous other studies which show that a child loses out when it is not reared by both a male and a female. When a child is raised by only a male parent, or only a female parent, it loses out on important parts of its early personal development. Children of single moms, for example, tend to be poorer and less educated than children from families with both a male and a female role model. Though you might argue otherwise, David and Daniel can't give a child the female nurturing that a child requires, leaving the child's early development stagnated. No, when it comes to children, which the Left always seems to sound like they favor, the strongest possible chance at life and at human development should be fostered by societies. Too many studies say that children are best raised with both male and female role models. How about requiring gay males who wish to adopt to be living with gay females, rather than with male partners?

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 11:32AM

...thank you, MikeBee! Because that leads directly to Hypocrisy Problem #2: divorce.

If two-parent households are so essential, why does the U.S. make divorce trivially easy? and why have they never come up with a workable custody model in divorce situations?

Again, the WORDS suggest one thing, but the ACTIONS indicate something else.

MikeBee| 2.18.10 @ 2:59PM

CopyLeft,
AGAIN, you are sounding more and more conservative (perhaps you should call yourself CopyRight)....... Conservatives are not at all happy with the divorce rate in this country. In fact, the divorce rate is lowest among conservative churchgoers. It is not at all hypocritical to push for heterosexual two-parent families, while allowing people to obtain divorces. It is only due to conservative legal pressure (and to the statistics I've quoted above re: single parent families) that divorce courts now allow BOTH divorced parents to have custody of their child (shared custody situations), rather than ALWAYS giving custody only to the woman.

Additionally, if you have an issue with the divorce rate, consider that homosexual couples are far less faithful to each other than heterosexual couples are. Homosexual men and women are far more likely to pursue multiple sexual partners than are heterosexual men and women. Thank you for pointing out yet another reason NOT to allow for homosexual marriage: high rates of infidelity and, consequently, divorce, making a mockery of what marriage is all about.

Michael| 2.18.10 @ 9:55PM

Actually, for most of the twentieth century, 'progressives' promoted easing the way to divorce, as humane, etc. It was also alleged to be good for women, and to be better for kids to live in a single parent home than in one filled with conflict. Those of us old enough to remember that bit of 'progress' are unable to see homosexual 'marriage' without thinking of that part of our experience of history. So-called progressives were wrong about divorce, and we strongly suspect that they are wrong about homosexual 'marriage.' Certainly, we are not convinced, but rather the opposite, when you cite the prevalence of divorce in support of your position. Encouraging divorce was definitely not OUR idea.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:12PM

obfuscation.

the issue isn't about "how the US handles it." It is about how religious institutions seek to control their charter and faith. if the Catholic faith does not want to "sanction" gay marriage...provide one reason why it should. claiming discrimination is utter BS - it is this lazy sort of thinking that has led to the social mess we suffer today.

no....the real objection is the stigma attached to the notion that a religious institution refuses to recognize these unions based upon moral grounds. and that is what is at stake here: one group's assertion of moral equality against another's denial of the same. whether one agrees with a Church or not....I personally find it more offensive, and more threatening when groups chose to use the power of the government to force institutions to mollify their moral positions.

and I am not a religious person. never have been. am not threatened by gays. I am threatened by the overt and overweening intrusion of politics into all aspects of our lives.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:20AM

That would be relevant, if any of the gay-marriage initiatives had ANY impact on churches whatsoever... but they don't. The proposals are solely about CIVIL marriage laws. They have zero effect on what rituals churches choose to perform, or who they conduct them for.

Jeremiah| 2.21.10 @ 11:26PM

YOU LIE!! LibReader/CL. It's only a matter of time before our clergy are frog-marched off to jail for preaching the Bible.

AND YOU KNOW IT, ASSHOLE!!

Dean| 2.17.10 @ 10:41AM

"There are gay people in this world; there always have been, and there always will be."

Certainly, just as there have always been people who rape, murder, and have psychopathy or schizophrenia, yet are never elevated to a normative social status. Your point is?

"Do you want them to accept second class status and walk around with their head held down?"

A better question is, why do (some) homosexuals feel they must define their entire personhood by their genital urges? No, the only reason for gay "marriage" is to force homosexuality as a normative way of life down the collective American societal throat.

and homophobic? Hardly. I just see there is no reconciliation with those who wish inject society with the needle of "homonormativity".

T.R.| 2.17.10 @ 11:12AM

Good God! The vitriol that spews from these NeoNazi mouths! "Let's round up all the homos and gas 'em like we did the jews" says Mr. American Spectator reader.

Yes, dear reader, right wingers are closer to NeoNazi beliefs than any other political party, and it looks like Am. Spectator has lots of them as subscribers.

Big Leo| 2.17.10 @ 12:13PM

Since nobody made any of the comments you attribute to them, I can only surmise that you are delusional and as crazy as a rat in a coffee can.

Wilford Price| 2.17.10 @ 3:12PM

"Let's round up the homos and gas them . . ."

T.R., I'm sure you know that this is what the Nazis did to homosexuals during WW II. According to documents, around 7,000 were put to death because of their sexuality. Like the Jews and Gypsies, they were considered"different" undesirables.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:17PM

ummm...how do you know this wasn't seeded by an instigator to provoke someone exactly like you who also apparently thinks in straightjacketed ways?

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:30PM

Sorry, TR--atheists like you were responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of millions of innocent folks in the 20th century--including Hitler. Nice try, though.

Projection is a pillar of leftist thought.

Chuckd| 2.17.10 @ 1:43PM

"Do you want them to accept second class status and walk around with their head held down?"

No we want them to go about their business like the rest of us and quit making their sexual habits a public nuisance.

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 12:13AM

"No we want them to go about their business like the rest of us and quit making their sexual habits a public nuisance."

Let gays marry if they shut up about it; say, like, Elton John could have married his guy in secret
if he wanted to.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:23AM

That's the point--why should he HAVE to keep his relationship secret to satisfy ignorant bible-thumping bigots?

America's better than that.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:33PM

Secret? Are you kidding me, pervert Copyleft? Have you ever seen a Gay Pride Parade?

Most of the men are naked or partially naked and many mimic anal sex along the parade route.

Not for children or anyone decent.

Guy| 2.17.10 @ 12:46PM

There have always been alcoholics, people who have lust issues, selfishness, basically problems of every sort. Some of it genetic, some environmental and some influenced by both. I have plenty of natural whims everyday that can get me in trouble and hurt me personally as well as society at large. We can give in to our natural animalistic tendencies or we can aspire to something more for the benefit of all. You don't have to believe in "superstition" to make the choice for higher ideals.

ChuckD| 2.17.10 @ 1:34PM

caitmo,

As a former atheist and liberal, I must respectfully disagree, in part. I agree with your comment about using the Bible as a standard of truth to argue with atheist, but I don't agree that you can't change the minds of people who don't agree with you on the most fundamental points.

I was born and raised a Democrat, in the Johnson type. I believed that free spending, big government was the answer to all our problems. And that all our problems were caused by greedy capitalists. My Mom was a Christian only by tradition and never taught me the meaning of the Bible.

I was raised in a legalistic church and soon despaired of ever being "saved". So to escape the brutality of their judgment, I escaped into atheism. I think this happens a lot, especially to teenagers.

As painful as it must have been for my sister, she patiently prayed for me and sent me books. She listened to my one sided vindictive against God. How could there be a God and a Holocaust? was my hysterical complaint to her.

She would calmly reply that God did not belong to the Nazi Party and that man has free will. And more importantly, she would continue, since she herself was not God, she didn't really know the full answer to my question. No one does. That's why he's God and we're not.

I had a physics teacher at UM who artfully interspersed his highly technical lectures with gee whiz comments about the eternal.

In fact, once I was shown that there existed intellectuals and men of science who believed in God, my heart softened.

A friend of mine gave me a book by William F. Buckley called the "Jeweler's Eye" which changed me to a conservative.

Many liberal atheists are just ignorant. Be patient and keep at them. Don't let the vicious criticism of the Left shut you up! Fight the good the fight to the end.

caitmo| 2.17.10 @ 2:01PM

I'm a little late, but thanks. It's very difficult to explain to those who don't have the gift of faith, isn't it? Guess it's just part of God's plan. I'm glad to hear you're happy and that your sister was persistant in her prayers for you.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 3:11PM

Very inspirational story, Chuck.

I know that many right-wing bible-thumpers are just ignorant, but I'll be patient and keep at them. And I won't let their ignorant attacks shut me up, either! I'll fight the good fight till the end.

And I grant you the same courtesy. May the best ideas win.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:37PM

That's 'better ideas', CL/LibReader, and hands down--we win.

Your homosexual population will self-extinguish anyway. Sorry.

Hardcard| 2.17.10 @ 9:10AM

It's called "EVIL".

Stammon| 2.17.10 @ 9:28AM

It's must be nice to be so sure of yourself Copyleft. But reality is that you are god-deaf. Like a tone deaf person who can't enjoy music, you cannot hear the beautiful voice of God, and so you deem grace superstition and worship stupidity.
I know you won't like it, but I feel sorry for you.

5150| 2.17.10 @ 9:40AM

alec baldwin???? Thought he left the country because GWB got elected....that's what he said he would do..another liberal promise kept

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:38PM

Isn't Alec Baldwin the fat slob who called his little girl a pig? Figured he was a liberal.

Gerry| 2.17.10 @ 9:59AM

Mother Nature is God's handmaiden and subjects her Natural Law to His Divine Law, whether it is how the planets are aligned or how humanity should procreate. From time immemorial, humans have neither changed any of these laws one iota nor defied any without dire consequences. Sadly, the LGBT community subjects itself to Russian roulette with their health and very lives when they try.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 10:10AM

Gerry, by your argument, every social and technological advance humanity has made has had "dire consequences." Medicine, agriculture, communications, travel and transport... all of our achievements have "defied Natural Law." Sometimes with negative consequences, yes, but more often with overwhelming advantages, a price we've been more than willing to pay.

And don't forget--the Church was wrong in its understanding of "how the planets are aligned." It took science, and the courage to stand up to blind superstition, to uncover the truth. How do you know they're not wrong on this one as well?

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 10:24AM

How do you know they're not right?

Scot J| 2.17.10 @ 10:41AM

Galileo was not atheist my friend. He was actually very religious.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 10:58AM

"Galileo was very religious"

True... and yet, he was right when the Church was wrong. That's the benefit of reason over faith; it's a better guide to the truth.

Scott J| 2.17.10 @ 11:23AM

You are assuming he had no faith. To be religious is to have faith. You cant have one and not the other. The point is that while he did have faith he still was able to search for scientific truths. Some would say because of his faith he did. Einstein was the same way, he searched for scientific truth because of his faith.

Just because the church accepted the science of the day doesnt mean they were blinded by faith. Your argument is hollow.

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 10:47AM

Copyleft,
Once again, you show your ignorance of history and of science, and you display your religiously-held BELIEFS. We here at AmSpec really get a lot of chuckles reading your posts. In fact, it is the Christian Church which has upheld Science and the Arts throughout the centuries, often at odds with the general society, which has wanted to apply old wives' tales and strange ideologies as Truth, rather than to follow scientific method. During the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church single-handedly carried on the pursuits both of Science and of the Arts, while the general community chose to remain ignorant. In fact, today this is happening with the Global Warming crowd. GW folks want to force their "old wives' tales" onto the rest of society, while crucifying the scientific method in support of these tales.

Has the Christian Church always been correct? Of course not. The Christian Church is made up of humans, just like the Global Warming "church." But the Christian Church realizes this fact, and realizes that all of mankind has the potential to be sinful. Therefore, it applies all of its scientific findings to higher laws, those of the Natural Law and of God's laws. What the Christian Church has found through the years, is that findings which are in line both with the Natural Law and God's law have benefited society greatly, and findings which are NOT in line with these higher laws are eventually disproven.

Today, the perfect example of this is stem cell research. In violation of the Natural law and God's law, some folks want desperately for embryonic stem cell research to produce results which are good for mankind, but to no avail, as no good has been produced from this research. At the same time, however, adult stem cell research (which doesn't violate Natural Law or God's Law) has already produced many findings which are even now helping society.

Copyleft, before you make inane statements like that achievements in agriculture, communications, medicine, and travel and transport have defied Natural Law, I humbly suggest that you attempt to study Natural Law a bit. Pick up some books about Cosmology, and attempt to get an education........... In the meantime, we'll all enjoy the chuckles.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 11:00AM

So, let me get this straight:

Stem-cell research on adult stem cells is "good" because it DOES agree with "natural law".. and stem-cell research on embryos is "bad" because it DOESN'T agree with "natural law."

That's a very flexible definition of "natural law" you're using--it seems to be "whatever I personally benefit from and like, based on my religious views." How convenient! And how typically hypocritical.

Anyone who waves around the Natural Law banner without understanding it is very amusing!

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 12:16PM

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
Mt. 10:14-16.

ChuckD| 2.17.10 @ 1:45PM

You have no understanding of science whatever. All of our technical and scientific achievements are a result of our investigating and understanding "natural law".

And don't forget, Galileo was also wrong, the Sun was the not the center of the Universe.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 3:13PM

Including stem-cell research on embryos? Your fellow "natural-law" fan seems to think that somehow violates natural laws....

You may want to put your heads together and try to come up with a consistent use of the terms you're tossing around.

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 3:56PM

Copyleft.
Since embryonic stem cell research has neve shown even a glimmer of success, whereas adult stem cell research has; why is there such a push for embryonic stem cell research? Unless there is some ulterior motive behind this push. So what purpose could be supported by embryonic and not adult stem cell research?

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:26AM

So, research should be stopped before it uncovers any findings? That's an interesting view of science.

Answer the question, Mike: Does embryonic research violate "natural law" or not? Or have you decided on what "natural law" means yet?

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:18PM

I'll remember that next time I think about global warming.

Michael| 2.18.10 @ 10:12PM

Sigh! The Catholic Church, of which I am not now nor have ever been a member, appointed a commission of scientists to examine Galileo's hypothesis. They found his methods sloppy. It was only a few years later that the Church endorsed Keppler's work, largely because he had done better science, and, especially, math. This bilge about poor persecuted Galileo has been going around for centuries, much of it supported, I am sorry to say, by Protestants, to bludgeon their political opponents, the Catholics.

And, while I have your attention, the term "benefit of clergy" refers to the RIGHT to be tried by the Inquisition, which did not use torture, nor usually, the death penalty. King Henry had Thomas a Beckett murdered for his too-vigorous defense of the benefit. The Church got mad at Henry and refused to send priests into the civil courts to take testimony sworn on holy relics, so the courts started using petite juries, instead. Until them, there had been Grand Juries, but not petite juries, as triers of fact. It comes up all the time, and people who think themselves educated get it wrong, just as often as it comes up.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:40PM

How is anal sex an advancement, Copyleft? You're ridiculous.

Great post, Gerry.

Scott J| 2.17.10 @ 10:40AM

Its not second class citizenship people. Marriage is a religious practice after all. Government has just set up incentives to encourage the practice. I find it funny that anti religionist are fighting so hard to be included into a religious practice.

Gays dont need the title of marriage to be with someone. They can live with that person and in many states, receive similar tax breaks. If all the gays wanted was similar tax breaks and financial benefits of marriage people wouldnt have much of a complaint. But that isnt what they want. They want to rewrite the religious aspect of marriage to fit their world view not Gods. That is the line in the sand that conservatives make.

You can practice what ever life style you want as long as it doesnt interfere with my rights. We consider it a sin but you have the right to sin. But you dont have a right to marriage. Live civilly all you want, have meaningless fake marriage ceremonies all you want.

that isnt hateful or intolerant. What is really intolerant is not allowing the religious in this country to keep there religious practices such as marriage. Changing the rules of marriage is intolerant by the gay community and so called fiscal conservatives in the forum. Look in the mirror and you will find a hypocrite.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 1:26PM

ScottJ: If gays want to "rewrite the religious definition of marriage," how come all the same-sex marriage proposals are about CIVIL LAW, and would have ZERO impact on church rituals?

Answer: Because marriage is a civil matter; it's about rights and legal benefits, over 100 of which are unavailable to same-sex couples. Churches aren't a part of this picture, but many gay-haters keep trying to drag them in as if religion were relevant to the question of civil marriage. It isn't.

Scot J| 2.17.10 @ 2:34PM

That is entirely not true. In California they have civil marriage. The argument was over the marriage title.

This is ALL about the money. Gays are fighting for the government benefits of traditional marriage. In doing so they are trying to rewrite the religious aspect of it. gays have turned a sexual preference into a social issue.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 3:19PM

Yes, several states have same-sex civil unions and "domestic partnerships"... WTH DIFFERENT RIGHTS.

Look it up! Over 1100 federal rights, protections, and responsibilities are tied to the specific status of "marriage." Not civil union, not domestic partnership--"marriage."

http://www.now.org/issues/marr.....nions.html

As we already know, "separate but equal" doesn't work.

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 4:05PM

Copyleft:Yes, several states have same-sex civil unions and "domestic partnerships"... WTH DIFFERENT RIGHTS.

The basic idea of the state supporting marriage is that it provides a frame work, for the production and growth of children. You know - future taxpayers. Just as that is generally true about hetereosexual unions, it is not generally true about homosexual unions. Basically the state has no civil interest in homosexual marriage. Issues of inheritence, hospital visitation, death benefits, insurance, etc. ;issues that can be legally handled. So again - except for issues of self esteem - why marriage?

Roy| 2.17.10 @ 8:53PM

"Basically the state has no civil interest in homosexual marriage."

That really should be all anybody has to say, but the Left want to use the state to stick it to Christians.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:28AM

The state DOES have an interest in civil marriage, because the state is obligated to comply with the equal treatment clause of the 14th Amendment.

And until it can be proven that "separate but equal" somehow WORKS for the first time in U.S. history, this unequal treatment will continue to be an issue.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:43PM

Of course, you're right, Roy. Hateful atheists like Copyleft definitely want to use the state to stick it to Christians!

It's all about hate with copyleft and gay activists.

Dean from Ohio| 2.17.10 @ 9:47PM

Respectfully, it's NOT all about the money. It's more about the insistence on others' approval, and the desire to eliminate any reminder of what their own conscience is already saying. That's where the emotional power in this comes from, not from the money. J. Budziszewski called it the revenge of conscience: go to most any length to tilt the whole world to my inclination, rather than admit that there is a truth I refuse to accept.

Kindness, humility and concern, yes; approval, no.

http://www.firstthings.com/art.....science-38

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:44PM

Excellent!

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:20PM

exactly.

Richard| 2.17.10 @ 10:48AM

We as a society are not going to change a millenial old institution of marriage to accomodate a few homosexuals. How narcissistic, arrogant, and self-absorbed are you liberals? If they want to live an abnormal life style, so be it but don't expect the rest of us to go along.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:45PM

Right on, Brother! This must be the hill we choose to fight and die on--our civilization depends on it!

Dr. Ronal Wilkes| 2.17.10 @ 11:17AM

Copyleft,

Keep those articulate comments coming; you are a force of reason in this stagnant swamp of superstition and bitterness called American Spectator.

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 12:11PM

Yet here you are, swimming in the swamp. I suggest you spend your time with those bastions of love and tolerance, the Dailykos and the Huffington Post.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:46PM

Wilkes: You are a swamp thing.

Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 11:28AM

The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Norman Lear’s aggressively secularist People for the American Way (PFAW) has lashed out at the declaration as “old poison, new packaging. … Original post: The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way Posted in American | Tags: aggressively-secularist, confirm-the, declaration, for-the, has-lashed, legendary-liberal, new-packaging-, norman, old-poison, people, the-declaration,…

deadlyaim| 2.17.10 @ 12:10PM

I am amused and, at the same time, saddened by the left's comments and thoughts on the issue of same-sex/gay marriage. There are thoughtful posts about the historical and religious implications. Than the left responds with terms like "stagnant swamp" and accusations of bigotry, etc. Here is my simple take on this issue (full disclosure - I am for the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman). I start with thought that traditional marriage is a DEFINITION. It is defined as a legal and religious union/contract between a man and a woman. When a man or woman applies for a marriage license, there is no question regarding their sexual orientation, so it is not biased in that sense. It is similar to going to the Secretary of State's office to register your car. The registration does not ask for your sexual persuasion, but only allows you to register a CAR. You cannot register your boat as a car, as a boat does not meet the defintion outlined in the registration. You have to register your boat as a boat.

So, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, as that does not meet the definition. You leftists can scream bigoty and bias all you want, but it ain't so.

If you can't define your boat as a car, does that mean your boat is now a second class mode of transportation and that, somehow, it has been discrimated against? No, it means it does not fit the definition. You can still have a boat. You can still put the boat in the water. You can still go boating....you get the picture.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 1:28PM

Defined by whom? We decided to define corporations as "people," didn't we? We defined campaign contributions as "free speech."

Clearly, society can define "marriage" however we please. (And, in fact, societies have done so in numerous ways throughout human history.)

An argument-by-repetition isn't really an argument. Got anything else?

deadlyaim| 2.17.10 @ 1:39PM

"We decided to define corporations as "people"". You are kidding, right? Is that how you read the SCOTUS decision? I am not going to take the time to educate you on this subject. Do I have anything else??? Clearly, this is too much for you already.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 3:05PM

Get a clue, Deadly; the SCOTUS decision I'm referring to there was back in 1844, Louisville v Letson, not the recent campaign-finance ruling.

The definition of "people" was changed over a century ago to include corporations... and it's been redefined several times since then, to include international organizations, political parties, etc.

Clearly, definitions are more fluid than you thought. Too much for you?

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 4:19PM

Copyleft is right on corporations being "people". But that has more to do with limited liability, and the property owned by the entity, then any other reason. Unlike partnerships or ownership, the stockholder owns only a minuscule portion of the corporation for purposes of liquidation. Basically one portion per piece of stock held at the time of liquidation. That also applies to limited liability for debt. It's a legal fiction that allows for risky investment and business growth. You can invest, without facing the risk of being personally wiped out. The corporation (person) is liable, not any of the individual stockholders.

In any case the SCOTUS decision simply allows the corporation to spend money on issues of interest to it.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:30AM

Correct, Mike, but the larger point was that definitions change. "Freedom of the press" changed the meaning of "press" to include radio and TV as they were invented, and now the Internet as well.

Definitions change all the time, DeadlyAim. Arguing that this definition "shouldn't chage" needs something else to back it up... like a REASON.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:49PM

Don't change a definition when the result would be the destruction of civilization.

This is not a corporation--it is much more important.

ChuckD| 2.17.10 @ 2:01PM

Oh really copyleft, you are such a pinhead.

You sound like the Obama's energy czar, who when told that the process of gathering wind energy from a speeding car to propel the car was a violation of the law of conservation of energy, responded that "Oh, well, we'll have that law repealed."

It is a natural law that opposite sexes are attracted to each other and form families and traditions from which healthy societies are formed.

The civil law is a privilege granted to people who conform to this natural law by the state in order to promote a healthy and prosperous society.

For the state to grant this same privilege to homosexuals and other poor, confused, neurotics, would, in effect nullify the aforementioned privilege and lead to societal decline.

The normalization and mainstreaming of adultery -of which homosexuality is just one form-has already done much to destroy the fabric of the family and society.

Obviously you disagree, -society can define marriage however we please, blah, blah, blah-but that is because you are basically abnormal and need help. I will pray for you.

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 3:08PM

So you're trotting out the old "societal interest" argument to prop up anti-gay legislation? Fine. Then explain how opposite-sex couples are more beneficial to society than same-sex couples.

Wait, wait! I'll bet you're about to mention having kids, right? Sorry, no good. U.S. law makes no mention of procreation in any of its definitions or rules regarding marriage. If reproduction were the key to a legitimate marriage, fertility tests would be required, and old people would be forbidden to marry.

What else ya got?

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 4:25PM

Copyleft:Wait, wait! I'll bet you're about to mention having kids, right? Sorry, no good. U.S. law makes no mention of procreation in any of its definitions or rules regarding marriage."

There was no need to mention it, because until you and your ilk came along attempting to redefine it the meaning was understood. It's why wedding gifts were meant to help the couple set up a new home. A new home being a place to raise a new family.

And I ask again. If legally you have all the rights of a couple - that have nothing to do with raising children - why do gays require marriage?

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:15AM

Not a thing, Mike.. IF THAT WERE TRUE.

As already noted up the thread, it's not.

"Over 1100 federal rights, protections, and responsibilities are tied to the specific status of "marriage." Not civil union, not domestic partnership--"marriage."

http://www.now.org/issues/marr.....nions.html "

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:51PM

Sorry, Copyleft--gay marriage is voted down EVERY TIME it goes before the people. Not just conservatives.

It is the hill we will die on to defeat.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:30PM

man o man you like to twist things. clever...if obvious.

the "semantics" of social practices and activist judge's findings has nothing to do with the faith and moral prescriptions of a religion. that's what you are really trying to change. gays can be married. at least be honest AND QUIT LYING. the objective here is to silence the moral prescriptions of a group of institutions (one individuals can freely join or leave). you may find these atavistic or "non-progressive" - I don't really care. I do care when people like you...dangerous people like you.....generalize on "we" to justify employing the power of the government to enforce your moral attitudes.

you are infinitely more dangerous.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:33AM

Who's trying to change religion? Where do any of the same-sex marriage proposals even MENTION a requirement for churches to do, or not do, anything they disagree with?

I certainly hope I AM dangerous to anyone who promotes intolerance and unequal treatment. But this issue has nothing to do with "changing religion," except perhaps to show how some old prejudices no longer fit so well with a civilized society. AGAIN.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:52PM

You're trying to change religion and we know it.

The fact that you lie about it proves your true intent.

Big Leo| 2.17.10 @ 12:22PM

Whenever any question on the Christian church comes up, Galileo is dragged out sure as death and taxes. If you examine the real conflict between Galileo and the church, you will find that the chief problem was some of the political and religious conclusions he drew from his observations. Many ordained scientists were already considering the question, but they were considering it on a scientific basis without apparent sympathy to the anarchist ideals of another geocentric universe supporter, Giordano Bruno. Get the whole history, not the leftist condensed version that leaves out crucial facts.

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 12:33PM

For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; f by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment." 2 Peter 2:4-10.

You people who choose to reject God and His Truth are in for a BIG SURPRISE. When you wake up on the other side of eternity you are going to find out how wrong you were.

"For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the Light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." John 3:16-21.

John Meehan| 2.17.10 @ 3:26PM

Margie,
Obviously you are a right wing fundamentalist. The fundamentalists hate the gays and want to deny the equality just as they hated the "niggers" during the civil rights movement, which liberals supported.

The fundamentalists during the time of the civil rights struggle were staunch segregationists, bigots to the bone. Many fundamentalists actually carried out acts of violence against the blacks and “those nigger lovers” who were trying to help them achieve social justice. Their behavior during the civil rights movement was repugnant, and they have yet to apologize for their ugly positions on race. The more primitive fundamentalists talked about the “nigger problem,” while the slightly more refined fundamentalists in the mainstream denominations discussed “the colored problem.” Neither lifted a hand to assist the blacks in their efforts to achieve racial equality, just as none of them are lifting a hand to help gay people achieve equality.
Fundamentalist gay bashers, hear this: History will judge you harshly!

Tyrone| 2.17.10 @ 3:39PM

You told the truth, man!

The conservative right wingers were "segregationists to the bone." Let's see if any of these right wingers dispute your claims.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:55PM

Sorry, "Tyrone"--you democrats created slavery, lynching and Jim Crow laws. Nice try, though.

We Republicans had to beat you in the Civil War, remember? Lincoln was a republican, fool.

You have a lot to feel guilty about.

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 4:10PM

Why? Because I told the truth? Your issue isn't with the messenger. It is with what God says He will do to anyone who practices the lifestyle of Sin. The Bible, which I only quoted~ is WARNING those who do such things. It is what HE says. Not me.
Love means telling the truth, not coddling. Love means warning others where they will end up for Eternity if they reject His Truth.
LOVE is NOT pretending to a person that there are no consequences to their choices.
The God of the Bible commands me to preach the gospel, and this is part of it.
Your LIES hold no water.

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 4:31PM

"The fundamentalists during the time of the civil rights struggle were staunch segregationists, bigots to the bone. Many fundamentalists actually carried out acts of violence against the blacks and “those nigger lovers” who were trying to help them achieve social justice."

So. Why wouldn't the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King NOT be considered a "Fundie"? He was, after all a Christian minister as were many of the leaders of the Civil Rights movement. Not to mention the abolitionists and "conductors" on the Underground Railroad. How about all those soldiers who marched to war singing the Battle HYMN of the Republic?

John Meehan| 2.17.10 @ 6:34PM

Please be reasonable.

Dr. Martin Luther King would not be a fundamentalist in the sense of the White Citizens Council, a Christian organization that did all it could to halt integration.

But back to the hostility of the fundamentalists who tireless and vociferously attack gays who want to achive sexual eqaulity and acceptance in order to have decent lives. Simply put, Christian fundamentalists are incapable of dealing with complex moral issues.
Christian fundamentalists are anti-intellectual and regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Any scientific evidence that disputes Biblical claims is attacked and rejected. Their mantra is “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.” They endeavor to remain willfully ignorant.

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 8:28PM

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good." Ps. 14:1.

Roy| 2.17.10 @ 8:55PM

"Dr. Martin Luther King would not be a fundamentalist in the sense of the White Citizens Council, a Christian organization that did all it could to halt integration. "

Uh..no. He would be a fundamentalist in the sense of the Baptist Church, in which he was an ordained minister. What a goofily irrelevant non-sequitur.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:57PM

Christians fought for abolition of slavery and against the perversion of anal sex.

JimE| 2.17.10 @ 10:14PM

You must be talking about the liberals and democrats, they are the ones who can't speak two word without inserting something about race.
You are a moron, these same gays whine that they are no different than anyone else but yet demand special rights. The Gay BS isn't about equality it's about an agenda.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:34PM

here's the irony...history is also going to judge harshly the "progressive" fascists who want to use the power of the government to intrude political considerations into all relationships: personal, economic, spiritual, etc. it's the first recourse of those who can't win the argument by persuasion.

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 11:34AM

If there were such a thing as "progressive fascists" (honestly, the bizarre notions you come up with!), I'm sure they'd be worried.

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:58PM

You really hate being called a fascist, don't you, cl/lib reader? If it walks like a fascist duck.....

LOL!

La Realidad| 2.17.10 @ 12:38PM

PFAW opined that the declaration is "updated for the Obama era to include the now-standard right-wing warnings that the administration and its congressional allies are leading the United States into an era of Nazi-like tyranny."

That's funny its the forces they are promoting which will send the U.S. into an era of Nazi-like tyranny.

Beware liberals and atheists! I am a young, non-white, educated, God fearing, Catholic! The path to Christ is the only true way to freedom and liberation. As long as I am around, I will promote this lifestyle!

I've lived part of my life against Christ and all it brings is suffering and "death". Sin is sin and no moral relativistic whim of our times will change that. Its not comforting waking up everyday with mortal sin on your soul knowing that if you die eternal damnation will most like meet you around the corner. We have the free will to live our lives as we wish, but there are consequences in the hereafter. It is arrongant and foolish of us to ignore that as irrelevant or imaginary.

I'll leave with this phrase in Latin... "Nemo liber est qui corpori servit."

English meaning: "No one is free who is a slave to his body."

Even the godless, ancient Romans knew this before St. Paul and the other apostles saved them...

BTW... I'll keep having other sign this Declaration so it continues to go around.

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 1:00PM

I take great comfort in knowing that Norman Lear will die not seeing his "dream" come to fruition. He thought that we Christians would be extinct by now. Ha-ha! We're still here, and we're not going anywhere.

I also like to pray to God that He remove these purveyors of pagan perversion from our world.

First I pray that they would repent and turn to the Lord. But, if they have "harden their hearts", like Pharoh did, then please, Lord, make them not long for this world. Remove from us these sin promoters.

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 1:03PM

I think it's working.

See: The Swimmer Kennedy and The Crook Murtha.

Defender| 2.17.10 @ 1:05PM

One of the problems the left has with the defenders of traditional marriage is the inconsistency in their positions -- and I can't say that I blame the left for this. What inconsistencies? For example, I do not consider it sinful to be a homosexual -- no Christian who knows his faith does in fact. However, I _do_ consider it sinful to engage in homosexual activity. Then again, I consider any abuse of the sexual organs to be sinful. Masturbation? Contraception? Oral sex? Anal sex? Pre-marital sex? Extra-marital sex? All equally sinful. The man who cheats on his wife is just as guilty of sin as the active homosexual. The married couple who are faithful to each other but who abuse the marital embrace by using contraception is just as guilty of sin as the active homosexual. The boy who engages in pre-marital sex with a girl is just as guily of sin as the active homosexual. Any Christian, married or not, who engages in any of the aforementioned activities is guilty of sin! There is no escaping this fact -- it has been the constant teaching of Christianity for 2000 years.

When a married man lusts in his heart after another woman, he is guilty of sin. I am a married man. Our society constantly bombards me with temptations to cheat on my wife. But I resist them -- because such cheating is sinful. And so my marriage remains strong and healthy (as do I as an individual).

Homosexuals have an unique cross to bear -- there is no doubt about that. But they are called to bear it nonetheless. Did God make them that way? Perhaps -- but that is irrelevant. They are called to the same chastity that all single people are called to and that all married people are called to within marriage.

The bottom line is that heterosexual Christians can't have it both ways. If you are guilty of any of the aforementioned sexual sins, you have no moral ground from which to call homosexual sex sinful. The sooner we Christians (both heterosexual and homosexual) can rediscover the power and freedom in these time-tested and indisputable truths, the sooner we will reclaim this culture of ours from the gutter it now finds itself in.

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 1:33PM

Defender,

Your list of what constitutes a violation of the Sixth Commandment is spot-on.

You are wrong, however, on two points.

God does not "make" people inclined to sin. That is a consequence of original sin. People CHOOSE to engage in sexual relations. They also choose with whom.

Sin is always a choice. The inclination to sin comes from original sin. The only way to reject sin is through Jesus Christ. The farther you get from Christ, the more sin you embrace.

And, I can be "guilty" of "sexual sins" and also "call homosexual sex sinful."
I am guilty. Especially of lusting in my heart. That's an easy one commit these days. The difference is I don't say it's okay. I still call it a sin and admit my guilt. I don't try to sweep it under the rug.

Lust and sodomy are perversions of the marital act, along with all the other perversions you listed.

God Bless.

ChuckD| 2.17.10 @ 2:05PM

You've never opened up a Bible in your life.

scot J| 2.17.10 @ 2:43PM

You are working under the assumption that gays are born that way. Which isnt proven so we wont argue it. But lets say one is born inclined to be gay. Does God force them to participate in those sexual acts? No God has given you agency which is for you to act on. If you chose wrongly and sin then it is your fault. But God also gave us Jesus and repentance. Everyone can repent of all the things you mentioned and be completely forgiven. But you cant be forgiven if you continue to make that same sin.

So it isnt a sin to be homosexual, but it is a sin to participate in same sex and sex out of marriage. Even if you gave gays marriage it wouldnt be recognized by God so it would still be sin to have same sex.

All Christians can hate the sin but love the sinner. We as Christians are commanded to do so. We dont hate the people just the act itself. But at the same time in loving the sinner , we can not allow them to corrupt religious ceremonies.

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 4:40PM

Defender;
It's not the commission of the sin, it's refusing to repent of the sin and asking the Lord for forgiveness or continuing to practice it. And what of wanting it declared to "no longer be a sin"? We are all sinners. Does that mean we should turn a blind eye to it? Because we are called not to judge, does that mean on the other hand we should promote?

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 6:02PM

..and the verse says not to judge lest we be judged with the same pronouncement. If I am not practicing the sin myself I not being a hypocrite by telling someone else they are sinning. This verse is so often used to try and shut Christians up, wrongly so.
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Mt. 7:1&2.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:39PM

that's non-sense. the content of a moral assertion - they are universals after all - holds independent of the moral status of the individual making the assertion.

GregA| 2.17.10 @ 1:14PM

Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Revelation 22:12-13

Norman Conquest| 2.17.10 @ 1:56PM

People who believe blindly in a collection of fairy tales cannot be swayed with logic and reason; their minds are lost and cannot be changed.
Dear Copyleft,
Even someone with your obviously limited perspicacity should be able to see how your pompous and sanctimonious opinion can be applied to most everyone on the left, especially those taken in by the global warming, er, excuse me, climate change hoax.
Cordially,
Norman Conquest

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 3:23PM

But let me guess--you read Caitmo's post, which immediately preceded mine--and which contained the SAME condescending attitude and remarks--and you didn't find that pompous and arrogant at all, did you?

Sauce for the goose, buddy. You get back what you send out, and Caitmo was spewing self-satisfied arrogance that came back in spades.

Sheila| 2.17.10 @ 3:33PM

Copyleft, you are too clever for the Spectator ranters.
Your arguments trump theirs every time. Love your ferocious intelligence. Keep it coming; let 'em have it!

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 5:40PM

If by "clever" and "intelligence", you really mean "childish" and "stupidity", I totally agree.

JimE| 2.17.10 @ 10:15PM

You are easily impressed or a retard.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:41PM

clever? yes.

coherent? no.

disingenuous? yes.

Norman Conquest| 2.18.10 @ 10:32AM

Dear Copyleft,
My post and Caitmo's had nothing in common. I'm glad that you were able to comprehend both our points though, as reading for comprehension seems to be one your many inadequacies. By the way, I am in no way your "buddy".
Cordially,
NC

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 11:35AM

Correct, Norman. You're not guilty of condescension, just hypocrisy.

Keep up the good work, buddy!

Norman Conquest| 2.18.10 @ 2:20PM

Dear Copyleft,
Your incoherence is showing!
Cordially,
NC

Defender| 2.17.10 @ 2:07PM

Nick -- thank you for commenting on my post. I agree with what you've shared and I stand corrected.

The main problem, as I see it anyway, are those people who call themselves Christian and yet do not recognize the sinfulness of their own actions. We Christians have lost our sense of sin and have thus become a major part and, indeed -- a source, of the many problems that plague our society. The only way back, the only way to reclaiming our culture for Christ, is for Christians to rediscover the truths of our faith, to embrace them, to live them out heroically, and to share them with love and humility.

For you non-Christian (and formerly Christian) readers out there -- GK Chesterton once said "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried at all." There are many stories of people stuck in a sinful lifestyle who thought they knew what happiness was but then discovered the Christian life and the incredible happiness and joy that comes from living a life of grace. So, if you think you're happy in your contraceptive married life, your life of pornography consumption, your homosexual lifestyle, your life filled with care-free premarital or extra-marital sex, or what have you -- there is a better way, a much better way, and on behalf of Our Lord, I invite you to it. Is it difficult? Yes. Is it worth it? Definitely.

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 2:25PM

Defender,

You are welcome.

All we Christians can do (I'm a Roman Catholic, by the way), is let the Holy Spirit use us to change our own little spheres of influence. Our families, friends, and neighbors.

Christ said some of these people would reject us. I have experienced this first hand. But, only by living our Christian Faith by example, in Hope and Charity, will we change , through the Holy Spirit, our little corner of the world.

Sammy R| 2.17.10 @ 3:36PM

Defender, go read John Meehan's post. He spoke the truth, so deal with it.

Jeremiah| 2.22.10 @ 12:03AM

The truth? You leftists can't handle the truth.

The anus is an exit not an entrance. Sorry.

Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 2:20PM

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Mount Vernon Statement (mount vernon statem links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Science of Global Warming Peter Ferrara * * * * Job-Spotters Andrew B. Wilson * * * * Dawn, Go Away Ken Blackwell * * * * CPAC Catches the Tea Party Spirit Robert Stacy McCain * * * * Poison for the American Way Mark Tooley * * * * Acts of Forgiveness Jonathan Aitken * * * * AMSPEC NEWSLETTER Sign up to receive our hard-hitting and timely features every month! Name: Email: ADVERTISEMENT Home| About|…

Franklin| 2.17.10 @ 3:59PM

“You must not have sexual relations with a man as you would a woman. That is a hateful sin.” Leviticus 18:22

“…God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex and started having sex with other women.” Romans 1:26

Desires of this kind and the sexual activities that accompany them are signs of something gone wrong in God’s creation. Homosexuality results from people rebelling against God’s intentions for human beings.

This does not mean that homosexuality is an especially “bad” sin. All sins result from the rebellion of the human race against God. It also describes people who disobey God as those who are greedy, get drunk, rob others and lie. In fact, the Bible talks about selfish people, people who gossip, and children who disobey their parents as sinners in just the same way that women who have sex with other women or men who have sex with other men are sinners.

This is a reminder that God wants all of us to be faithful to him in every part of our lives, and that no kind of sin is worse than any other in God’s eyes.

God’s love and offer of forgiveness are not held back from any of those sins.

UPDATE: “no kind of sin is worse than any other in God’s eyes” – that doesn’t mean that sin has no consequences on this earth. Killing another is seen as worse than lying in our culture and carries a worse consequence. Homosexuality can cause worse consequences in the emotional and physical arena than say, gossiping or being greedy.

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 4:17PM

Franklin,

It is not "our culture" that demands a worse consequence.

It was God.
He laid out what the punishments should be for violating His Law. And not all of them were "an eye for an eye."

Like the punishment for adultery, including same-sex acts, was to be put to death.

Also, if you KNOWINGLY persist in sin, any sin, it puts you on the path to hell.

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 4:30PM

It's worth pointing out that the gay-marriage debate, which is what the original article actually concerns, is not a debate over the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality. I know people who have moral objections to it, but think gay marriage should be legal regardless. I know a CONSIDERABLE number of people who have zero moral issues over a person's sexual orientation, but are deadset against the legal implementation of gay marriage.

Of course, an awful lot of people are sincerely FOR both or AGAINST both, but this total inability among denser partisans of both sides to ever intellectually uncouple the two debates is depressing, and I wish someone could develop a vaccine.

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 4:33PM

And of course, the original article largely came about BECAUSE Norman Lear is a prototypical blockhead of the type I described above.

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 4:38PM

LeCraquere,
Easy to throw stones, isn't it?
Here is the perfect reasoning for you: God says it is wrong. Therefore I agree with Him.
Conclusion: No so-called "Gay" Marriage.

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 5:00PM

Dear Margie, sometimes it's far, FAR easier than ordinary! Many reasonable people agree with everything you just said; however, they understand that the last proposition doesn't FOLLOW from the first two. Someone who really thought the first two propositions a "perfect reasoning" for the third would be advertising his simultaneous incompetence in theology, epistemology, law, inductive reasoning, and politics. Same goes for someone who thought it WASN'T immoral or disapproved by God, and that gay marriage should be legal on the strength of that.

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 5:23PM

That depends on your definition of reasoning. then, doesn't it?

"Agree with God and be at peace; thereby good will come to you." Job 22:21.

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:47PM

and you are missing the entire logic of moral propositions and moral authority/sanction.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:06AM

How is that?

WAKE UP| 2.17.10 @ 5:17PM

And NORMAN LEAR produced "All In The Family"?! Do I detect latter-day apostasy here, a disconnect, or what? Was Norman trying to tell me something I didn't get all those years ago? I don't think so; everyone loved that family, warts, Archie and all. How confused we have become since then.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:07AM

Lear was always a pig, an ugly leftist to the core.

Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 7:04PM

The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way : Articles Online – Free Articl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…him to find a partner and live a happy life just as I am living–with a partner. Attention Readers of Spectator: Time to cut the hateful anti-gay …. See the rest here: The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way Filed under Featured · Tagged with all-for-, attention-readers, changed-its, partner-and, same, society, the-same, which-decided Speak Your Mind Tell us what you're thinking.…

Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 7:04PM

The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way : Articles Online – Free Articl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Readers of Spectator: Time to cut the hateful anti-gay …. Just last week, an article on AmSpec detailed another society in the Midwestern U.S. Read the original here: The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way Filed under Featured · Tagged with a-happy-life, a-partner-and, all-for-, and-allow, changed-its, cut-the, for-special, midwestern, partner-and, society, spectator, the,…

Roy| 2.17.10 @ 9:56PM

I should note, too, that while I don't really want to see "gay marriage", I am really sick of its being grouped with abortion and wish the "Manhattan Declaration" had not done so. One is just more PC blather at the expense of the truth, while the other is industrial scale mass murder. They aren't in the same category.

Sheila| 2.17.10 @ 10:54PM

I visited this site out of curiosity, but I never will again. Such poison! Some of the commenters on this page are toxic, embittered old curmudgeons, who wallow in ignorance and fear.

Fat-ass old men, sitting around pissing and moaning, Things ain't the same they used to be . . . the USA is goin' to hell."

Pathetic.

Nick| 2.17.10 @ 11:06PM

Don't let the virtual door hit your rather large can on the way out!

I'm assuming your backside is large, liberals always project.

Roy| 2.17.10 @ 11:55PM

Not to mention it's practically word for word what a prior commenter said.

Really wish TAS would put in some type of authentication..

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:50PM

well...I don't visit this place too often...but if it wards off virtuous and courageous anti-toxins like you...I'm going to have to visit more often!

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:09AM

Sheila's probably liberal reader--could have a fat butt, too.

Nic| 2.18.10 @ 9:23AM

It is interesting to see where America is today since the removal of a higher (than man) moral power has been removed from our institutions.

Nic| 2.18.10 @ 9:28AM

Well, that was poor English but you get the idea!

PDD| 2.18.10 @ 10:09AM

Poor old Norman Lear: has he begun drooling his oatmeal down the front of himself yet?

Richard Baker| 2.18.10 @ 10:11AM

Nick:
Find it amusing that Sheila is offended by this site. Have you seen the venom which pours out of the lefty web-sites and towards each other? The disagreements here are mild in comparison, I assure you. Liberals just can't stand it when anyone disagrees. Poor babies. I guess leaving Kindergarten was a traumatic experience.

Nick| 2.18.10 @ 7:20PM

Mr. Baker,

You are so right.

Although I try to avoid lefty sites like the plague, I have seen how vicious they can be.

Michelle Malkin likes to post the really nasty things that the "tolerant" and "compassionate" liberals call her.

The Reverend Billy C. Calhoun| 2.18.10 @ 11:36AM

Please open up your hearts and pray along with me this simple prayer:

Lord, I admit my heart is dark with sinful pride. I am intolerent and ignorant and mean spirited. Please help me open my mind and heart to progressive Christian ideas of social justice and inclusiveness. Let me be a little more loving to my brothers and sisters who I have, in the past, marginalized. Lord, take my heart, blackened with hatred and spite, and wash it whiter than snow.
This I ask in Christ's name, Amen.

Franklin| 2.18.10 @ 1:12PM

Rev,

"Progressive Christian ideas of social justice and inclusiveness" is not in the Bible.

Jesus crossed social boundries and held his hand out to bring the lowliest of the socially rejected to join him. He also offered this to anyone, but to be inclusive, they MUST join him.

Jesus offers any and all people to say yes to him and become a member of his family. That entails leaving your old nature behind and putting on his nature - love, forgiveness, purity, etc.

Jesus never accepted anyone to tra-la-la around with him if they did not change in their hearts. Look at the rich man that followed every law and wanted to join Jesus. Jesus told him to sell everything and follow him. That was this guys test and he failed, he walked away.

And also look at how he treated the Pharasees. He didn't hold hands and sing Koom-bay-ya, he smacked 'em down calling them vipers. He knew what was in their hearts and they rejected his call to join him, even tho they knew what his message was.

God does love everyone, and it hurts him to have any one reject him. When we rebel against God being Lord of our lives, he lets us have our way. That means that we are not incuded.

Please read the Bible and ask God to open your heart and mind to the truth. He will - if you mean it.

Margie| 2.18.10 @ 1:30PM

Speak for yourself!
Sounds like Rev. Wright more than a real Christian. Just who are you talking to in an underhanded way here? No thanks to your progressive lies. I am not a Socialist or Communist in my ways and never will be. I will never accept your way of thinking.
I will always proclaim God's truth according to His Word, not any man's.
If your heart is blackened with hate and spite it is your problem but don't try and insinuate it onto other Christians who refuse to go your "progressive" way, which is NOT according to the Truth!

Norman Conquest| 2.18.10 @ 10:12PM

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:11AM

I think the Rev. Billy must be talking about liberals.

Blackened heart, whiter than snow? Hmmm, Billy sounds like a bigot, too. Racist!

The Reverend Billy C. Calhoun| 2.18.10 @ 2:51PM

I leave you to ponder these first three lines from the Prayer of St. Francis.

"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, your pardon Lord . . ."

I sense, when reading the acidic comments on this page, a great deal of anger and barely-concealed spite. I sincerely hope and pray that The Am. Spectator's more vitriolic commenters will turn from their anger and bitterness and embrace a more peaceful and forgiving Christian philosophy.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God."

Please meditate on this beautiful verse from Matthew 5:9, and peace be with you.

MikeBee| 2.18.10 @ 6:36PM

"Rev.,"
Now that you have read some of the comments on AmSpec's page, I invite you to do two things:
1) read ALL of the comments here, not just what you consider to be vitriolic; then
2) go to www.dailykos.com and read the comments there.

I'm sure that you will get an education in vitriol.

Tony in Central PA| 2.18.10 @ 2:52PM

I always get a chuckle out of the Left's use of language engineering in their attempts to propagate social engineering. " People for the American Way " sounds like a real Mom and Apple Pie thing precisely because it most certainly isn't. This is the same mentality that gave us " reproductive rights " and " choice " as descriptors of abortion. A government takeover of health care becomes " health care reform ". Terrorism is now " man - caused disasters ". The list is endless because there are no limits to stupidity.

Hannah Morintz | 2.18.10 @ 3:03PM

Thank you, Reverend Calhoun, for injecting some soothing words into this streaming commentary of vulgarity and vileness.

I, too, am disturbed by the undercurrents of anger and hatred that are typical of too many of The Spectator's commenters.

As a frequent reader of TAS, I would appreciate a more civil tone, and fewer hateful opinions. I am thinking of the strident comments following Joseph's calmly-reasoned and sensitive considerations of his brother's sexual orientation.

There was no call for the wicked responses that Joseph's comment triggered.

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:14AM

Hannah: Projection is a pillar of leftist thought.

Think about it--the hatred and vileness are all yours.

Wicked? You sound like a bible-beater, Hannah. lol

Yosemeti Sam| 2.18.10 @ 4:34PM

OK - pseudo reverends:

What Biblical teachings are you 'faithful' to?

What are you teaching your flock(s)?

Consider the Old Testaments' Leviticus 18:22

" You shall not lie with a male as one lies
with a female; it is an abomination."

Doesn't work for you?

Try The New Testaments' Romans 1:27

" And likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lus
one toward another; men with men working
that which is unseemly, and receiving in
themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet."

Hello - AIDS?

According to Saul - later named Paul - who saw the Light on an road to Damascus; then spread the Gospel of that Light Jesus Christ as in the verse above.

You think Paul got the 'message' wrong
from his Master regarding - homosexual behavior?

Ya think GOD and Christ are wrong on this
issue?

Has some New New Testament been discovered
somewhere?

PFTAW - is anathema!

Salient example - 50 odd million souls give silent voice to their fostering moral deterioration in America.

Ronald D.| 2.18.10 @ 4:49PM

Hey, Yosemite Sam,

Here' s three more Leviticus verses:

Crippled people, dwarves, those with flat noses or damaged testicles must stay away from the altar. (Leviticus 21:18-20)

Thou shalt not wear clothes of mixed fibers. (Leviticus 19:19)

Thou shalt not eat pork, shrimp, lobster, or any shellfish. (Leviticus 11:7-12)

And just for fun, I'll throw in one from Exodus:

Thou shalt not eat pork, shrimp, lobster, or any shellfish. (Leviticus 11:7-12)

Lovely! And so reasonable! Good advice, don't you think?

Now, you go ahead and let it rip, you old lover of the Angry, Punishing God of the Olde Testament.

Ronald D.| 2.18.10 @ 4:52PM

Oops! In my hilarity I typed the Leviticus verse instead of the one from Exodus.

Thou shalt kill anyone who works on Sunday. (Exodus 35:2)

Now, you can let it rip, you old ripper you!

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:16AM

Chew on this, Ronny--the anus is an exit not an entrance. Can't argue with anatomy, old boy.

Richard Baker| 2.18.10 @ 9:42PM

Ronald D:
When you eventually stand before God, do make those same complaints in His presence. Ought to be interesting to watch the reaction.

Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 9:56AM

Telling People You Are A Witch (How To Deal With Intolerence) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…been practicing different forms of Witchcraft for over 27 years. For more information on wiccan begginers visit her site The Ask Rose Ariadne Witchcraft Site" Related blog posts The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way Witches and wiccans, if your classmates harassed and teased you ... irReligion.org » Religious Intolerance ? Part 42238843154 OLAGUNSOYE OYINLOLA: Captain of Infamy | OSUN DEFENDER…

Yosemeti Sam| 2.19.10 @ 1:45PM

Richard Baker :)

Amen!

And, our loving open-arms Savior Jesus Christ
of the New Testament will be standing right there
at the right hand of his casually blasphemed Father - GOD.

Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 4:39PM

Attention All Atheists You Will Be Sorry When You Die and Find Out the Truth links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…live, because we are all Americans and we are all on the same team. So lets consider this in 2006. Lance Winslow Related blog posts Duty Drum Throne | Yi Wup's Music Fantastic The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way An Atheist's Letter to God | Godless Girl An Atheist's Letter to God | Godless Girl » MSM Scoffs At 'Black Children…

Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 4:59PM

Unbound Bibles Can't Be Taken links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…membership website for Christians who wish to enjoy a deeper relationship with Christ. Subscribe for free daily email devotionals at http://www.meskills.com Related blog posts The American Spectator : Poison for the American Way Don't Panic: Advice to Democrats from Jonathan Chait « Prometheus ... Today's Atheist Parable (Refuted?): To What Shall We Liken an ... Illegal sources of the Portuguese

Nobama| 2.22.10 @ 12:17AM

Probably a gay site.

nbdfht| 4.14.10 @ 10:54PM

Zenith replica
designer knock offs

Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.12.11 @ 11:56PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|73 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|40 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|55 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|76 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|32 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|20 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 3:45PM

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

Among the Intellectualoids

Poison for the American Way

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (248) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.17.10 @ 7:10AM

Melvin| 2.17.10 @ 9:37AM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 4:49PM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 6:57PM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 7:07PM

caitmo| 2.17.10 @ 7:40AM

Copyelft| 2.17.10 @ 8:27AM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 8:35AM

Spencer| 2.17.10 @ 8:48AM

Stan H.| 2.17.10 @ 9:44AM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 9:54AM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 11:52PM

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:16AM

Missy| 2.21.10 @ 11:10PM

Andy_Krow| 2.17.10 @ 10:03AM

Margie| 2.17.10 @ 12:04PM

Drummermanpaul| 2.17.10 @ 1:06PM

Mick| 2.17.10 @ 7:22PM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 7:02PM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 7:11PM

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 10:52PM

Herb| 2.17.10 @ 9:25AM

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 9:31AM

Sheila Parker| 2.17.10 @ 9:35AM

Dr. Ronald Wilkes| 2.17.10 @ 9:40AM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 9:53AM

joseph| 2.17.10 @ 10:14AM

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 10:45AM

Sheila| 2.17.10 @ 11:04AM

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 12:06PM

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 12:07PM

Robert Pinkerton| 2.17.10 @ 2:05PM

Alan Brooks| 2.17.10 @ 11:57PM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 11:07AM

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 11:46AM

Hannah| 2.17.10 @ 11:51AM

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 12:15PM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 12:58PM

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 1:11PM

bob alou| 2.17.10 @ 4:20PM

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 7:10PM

Le Cracquere| 2.17.10 @ 10:28PM

tonypal| 2.17.10 @ 10:37PM

Sheila| 2.17.10 @ 10:46PM

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 12:00AM

Margie| 2.18.10 @ 7:05PM

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:18PM

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 3:42PM

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 10:57PM

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:20PM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 9:51AM

Nobama| 2.21.10 @ 11:22PM

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 10:19AM

Joseph| 2.17.10 @ 10:34AM

Dean| 2.17.10 @ 10:46AM

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 11:05AM

Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 11:08AM

ChuckD| 2.17.10 @ 1:41PM

sangredulce| 2.17.10 @ 2:34PM

Wilford Price| 2.17.10 @ 3:07PM

CanteraMan| 2.17.10 @ 6:42PM

Dean| 2.17.10 @ 11:09PM

Alan Brooks| 2.18.10 @ 12:08AM

Mike Giles| 2.17.10 @ 3:45PM

Scot J| 2.17.10 @ 10:52AM

Copyleft| 2.17.10 @ 11:33AM

MikeBee| 2.17.10 @ 3:27PM

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:22AM

MikeBee| 2.18.10 @ 10:06AM

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 11:32AM

MikeBee| 2.18.10 @ 2:59PM

Michael| 2.18.10 @ 9:55PM

carnot| 2.17.10 @ 11:12PM

Copyleft| 2.18.10 @ 8:20AM

Jeremiah| 2.21.10 @ 11:26PM