The American Spectator : The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding the Evidence

Text Size

Special Report

The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding the Evidence

Closing arguments are to begin soon in a trial that has been less civics lesson than cautionary tale.

The evidence portion of the trial of Proposition 8 in California ended on January 27 and the closing arguments of attorneys will begin soon.

In the days before it began, the court hearing over the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 was set to be a show trial in many ways. With its planned dissemination on YouTube, some boosters were forecasting a second Scopes Trial. It was not hard to guess the casting — superlawyers Ted Olson and David Boies representing the forces of progress and reason versus the Proposition 8 defenders standing in for narrow religious bigotry. Judge Vaughn Walker argued that broadcasting would provide an important civics lesson.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s order to halt the show (at least the televised portion), citing unseemly shortcuts in the approval process and the threat of witness intimidation, deflated much of the expectation for this unedifying spectacle. The show trial had to go on, though, and for two weeks in January it did. Those following the trial have had to rely mostly on second-hand accounts. This hasn’t prevented a civics lesson of sorts. What we’ve learned, however, is less likely to inspire confidence than cynicism and distress about our legal system.

The constitutionality of marriage has been litigated in more than a dozen state and federal courts, but only once before (Hawaii in 1996) has a formal trial been thought necessary. With the near unanimous conclusion of the courts that the constitutional question is a legal one rather than a dispute over facts, why has the Proposition 8 case required a trial? It is probably driven by the ultimate goal of the case — a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Since appellate courts typically defer to the conclusions of the trial court on factual matters, holding a trial theoretically gives the lower court a chance to influence later court proceedings. For instance, if the trial judge says that the amendment campaign was motivated simply by animus towards gays and lesbians, as a factual matter, the hope is that higher courts would accept that finding since they weren’t at the trial to weigh the evidence in the same way the trial judge was. (This is not to say the finding would be binding, only that it would carry more weight.)

Understanding the evidence presented in this case requires understanding just what it is the plaintiffs are trying to prove and what “facts” they would like to have established for later court review. They are not likely to be able to prove that the U.S. Constitution contains an unwritten and heretofore undiscovered fundamental right to one’s own definition of marriage. Doing so would require demonstrating that such a right is rooted in the history and tradition of the nation. That is not a likely scenario, to say the least.

The plaintiffs, instead, are trying to show that California’s marriage law (and the laws of all but five states) denies gays and lesbians of the equal protection of the laws. Specifically, to show that Proposition 8 can only be explained as a manifestation of hatred towards homosexuals. Thus, plaintiffs are trying to provide evidence that the marriage law harms gay people, because of their sexual orientation, and that there is no rational justification for the law.

One obstacle to the showing of harm is that while same-sex couples cannot marry in California, they are able to contract domestic partnerships that give them access to all of the tangible consequences of marriage the state provides. Thus, the thrust of much of the testimony is to demonstrate psychic harms flowing to same-sex couples from the mere existence of Proposition 8. This is the point, such as it is, of including first-hand accounts from the plaintiffs and others about their distress over the passage of the amendment and the some of the experts’ speculation about emotional distress to which gay people are subject, purportedly because of the marriage law. This is admittedly wholly subjective and slippery “evidence” that has no promise of being representative or rigorous but it’s really all the plaintiffs have.

While three state courts have decided that gays and lesbians are a “suspect class,” the idea has gotten no traction in the federal courts. The Proposition 8 plaintiffs are trying to change that by showing (1) a history of discrimination, (2) based on an innate and immutable characteristic (the analogy being race or sex), and (3) political powerlessness that makes the affected group unable to fend for itself in the normal political process. This, in turn, would justify special judicial protection. So, one of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, a historian, testified that gays have long been stereotyped. Another witness, a young man from Colorado, told his experience of being forced by his parents to meet with a therapist to unsuccessfully lessen his feelings of same-sex attraction. Yet another expert witness described a survey he had conducted that reported 88% of gay men and 68% of lesbians do not believe they chose their orientation.

Showing political powerlessness has been, if possible, even more difficult than showing historical discrimination and an innate and immutable class. Both the governor and attorney general of California opposed Proposition 8 and have refused to defend it in court. It’s unlikely that any statewide office holder openly expressed support for the measure, the campaign against the amendment garnered more than $64 million in contributions, and 48% of the electorate voted against it. Add to this California’s domestic partnership status for same-sex couples, statewide anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, full joint parenting recognition for same-sex couples, etc. The only evidence of political powerlessness seems to be the inability to defeat Proposition 8. It seems a stretch to claim that losing an election should trigger special judicial scrutiny.

Plaintiffs’ efforts to show that Proposition 8 is without rational justification have been particularly unimpressive but also deeply troubling. They have an Ivy League professor who said marriage is now about nothing more than adult desires (so why exclude anyone?). Another academic said being gay doesn’t necessarily make a person a bad parent. One proponent of Proposition 8 was brought on to presumably represent the attitudes of all voters who supported the measure. Mostly, though, there was a persistent suggestion that the only reason anyone voted for Proposition 8 was religious belief. This, in turn, the plaintiffs assume, means that the only motivation was bigotry. The plaintiffs’ simple equation of religious belief with bigotry was never explained, the innuendo seeming to suffice for their purposes.

Even this attempt to explain the motivation for the evidence offered at the trial doesn’t explain many of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. For instance, the mayor of San Diego who told how he changed his opinion about marriage because his daughter had a same-sex partner or the economists who said the state could get more tax revenue if marriage was legally redefined to include same-sex couples.

With the extreme subjectivity and irrelevance of nearly all of the plaintiffs’ evidence, it is fair to ask what illumination this show trial has provided. This “civics lesson” is beginning to look more like a cautionary tale about the dangers of legal hubris. Certainly our fundamental social institution deserves better.

topics:
Proposition 8, Gay Marriage

About the Author

William C. Duncan is the director of the Marriage Law Foundation.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (162) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 8:19AM

Same-Sex Couples Expected to Pack DC Courthouse to Apply for Marriage Licenses, Murp links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…OMA. Read more Biased policies put lesbian and gays at risk of psychiatric disorders. Read more William Duncan of American Spectator does a piece on the Prop 8 trial and understanding the evidence. Read more This story was last updated on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 8:19 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.…

John| 3.3.10 @ 8:26AM

Typo alert: "One obstacle to the showing of ham" -- "ham" should be "harm" -- unless Olson's arguments also extend to delicatessens...

basur | 10.27.10 @ 9:20AM

Copyleft, are you ready to give the same rights to those who participate in polygamous or incestuos marriages?

John| 3.3.10 @ 8:36AM

Typo alert #2: "Another academic sad being gay" -- "sad" should be "said" -- although it kinda makes sense as is...

mt| 3.3.10 @ 10:00AM

why isn't this suit precluded by the rulings in the earlier cases challenging this statute in state court?

Oldefarte| 3.3.10 @ 2:20PM

They should simply GO BACK INTO THE CLOSET [while enjoying the current available laws that protect them] !!!!!!

Albert Frevele| 3.3.10 @ 3:22PM

The legal issue is simple. Marriage is and has always been a function of Law. The US Constitution recognizes no "right" to marriage, and no power to regulate marriage is delegated to Congress. Therefore, each State may set its own laws defining and controlling marriage, pursuant to the 10th Amendment. The Prop 8 suit attempting to "federalize" this issue is constitutionally groundless and should have been dismissed out of hand on this basis. That the US court system would even hear this case is disturbing. The US Government has no authority to intervene in California's Prop. 8 and has no authority to overturn it. Which is why I think that is exactly what they will do.

Copyleft| 3.3.10 @ 4:09PM

Correct, Albert: the legal issue here IS very simple.

Marriage is a civil contract, and no governmental agency, at ANY level (federal, state, or local) is permitted to exercise unequal treatment in arranging such contracts among American citizens.

The Due Process clause means that state and local governments are powerless to violate the equal-treatment doctrine, thanks to the 14th Amendment.

Ryan| 3.3.10 @ 4:42PM

What does "well-regulated" mean in the 2nd amendment? You never answered.

Copyleftr| 3.4.10 @ 8:37AM

It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. Are you trying for some kind of "gotcha!" routine, Ryan? Because you'll need something better than this.

Albert Frevele| 3.3.10 @ 11:14PM

Marriage is defined by Law. State Law. Any man can marry any woman within certain restrictions (incest, etc...) There is nothing unequal about this. To claim "inequality" on the basis of homosexuality is absurd. And the "due process" clause means only that no person may be fined, imprisoned, or executed without a court trial. It is a separate issue from "equal protection." And defining marriage as between a man and a woman denies no one equal protection.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 8:38AM

That would be true... if marriage were so defined. But the terms "man" and "woman" aren't in the law, are they? (Except the 19th amendment.)

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 9:00AM

The 19th Amendment is part of the US Constitution. Prop 8, which so defines marriage, is a CALIFORNIA Constitutional Amendment and is therefore California State Law. So, marriage IS so defined in Law. State Law. That's what is before the Federal Court.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 9:05AM

Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. There is no federal-level definition of marriage that specifies "man" and "woman." The 19th Amendment (which obviously is part of the Constitution) mentions gender, but only with regard to voting.

And the point is, state law doesn't count for SQUAT when it comes to equal protections. State law cannot be used to violate the equal-protection clause, period.

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 10:34AM

State Law is NOT being used to violate "equal protection." Equal protection is not violated by defining marriage. The absence of a federal (that is, constitutional) definition of marriage leaves that power to the States, per the 10th Amendment. Marriage is not a "right" and never has been. It has always been defined by Law, and the power of legislation rests ultimately with "We the People", not the Federal Court system.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 3:51PM

Consider this hypothetical, Albert:

Suppose my state wanted to define "contract" as "an agreement between two white men." Would that be a violation of equal protection? Would the courts have a right to intercede?

(Hint: The answer to both questions is "Yes.")

Nexialist| 3.5.10 @ 10:13PM

I agree. Bigamists can make a more compelling argument than homosexuals. It certainly would lead to a birth rate beyond population maintenance, something that would not now be the case were it not for immigration.

David| 3.3.10 @ 3:45PM

Albert, do you feel the same way about the abortion issue?

As I have posted on this site before, if society and the government were to recognize homosexual marriage, then any marriage among any consenting adults would have to be recognized. That would be the only fair outcome for everyone.

Mulitiple woman and men would be allowed marry. How could anyone deny 3, 4, 5, or any number of men and women to marry if they claim they love each other and that is their choice?

Mothers and sons would be allowed to marry, brothers and sisters, etc. That would be good news for the mother and son in Michigan who are currently in prison for living together as man and wife.

Albert Frevele| 3.3.10 @ 10:59PM

As for abortion, since the US constitution does not delegate power to the US government to regulate the practice of medicine, and since abortion is not mentioned in any form, including as a "right", then the States are free to ban or allow abortion as they see fit. That is, unless the US Supreme Court is willing to declare that an unborn child is under law a "person" and therefore entitled to Constitutional Rights. The Supremes refused to make such a declaration either way in Roe vs. Wade. But as a practical matter, an unborn child must be by definition NOT a human (under Roe vs. Wade, that is) in order for a mother to have the power to give it a right to life or to deny it such a right, which is how they ruled (and why R v W is legally incoherent). Legally, the States have the power to regulate abortion, not the US Government., and certainly NOT the US Supreme Court. Personally, I assert that an abortion is the willful taking of a human life. We the People need to take this matter to the State governments and demand that State Law recognize as much. According to the US Constitution, the States are superior to the US Government, not the other way around.

Albert Frevele| 3.3.10 @ 11:08PM

What I am saying is the States have the power to legislate the definition and regulation of marriage. NOT the Feds. Therefore, Federal Courts have no authority to overturn California State Law. Prop 8 is a California Constitutional Amendment, and outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts, since the US Constitution does not delegate any authority to the Feds to define or regulate marriage, nor does it prohibit such power to the States. California, need I remind anyone, defines marriage as ONLY a union between a man and a woman. It prohibits incestual marriages, homosexual marriages (an oxymoron if there ever was one), and bestial marriages. This is as it should be. If we want to protect this, then we need to elect more trustworthy representatives in State governments. Stop electing narcissistic idiots who think they can re-shape human society by fiat, like the fools in Sacramento think they can do.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 8:39AM

Doesn't work, Albert. The right to privacy is a Constitutional right as well (as the Court has noted), and therefore no state or local government can pass laws that violate it either.

If it's a right, the states can't touch it any more than the federal level can. That's what makes the 14th Amendment so fantastic at stamping out local bigotry and ignorance.

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 9:02AM

You need to actually READ the US Constitution. The 4th Amendment protects against invasions of privacy but also allows for warranted search and seizure. "Privacy" can not be used to define what is legal and what is not legal. The notion is absurd.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 9:10AM

Of course it can, and has been done so many times in many cases. The right to privacy has been cited to protect medical and financial records, copyrights and intellectual property, to prosecute trespassing (physical or nonphysical) and libel, and many other things. Look up the precedents.

You may not see it that way, but it's the Court's opinion that counts. And privacy is absolutely a recognized right that has a bearing on whether something is legal or illegal.

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 10:45AM

Really? So, what you are saying is that anything that is done privately is, by definition, legal, regardless of what it is. That means if one conceals evidence of a crime, or commits what would otherwise be a statute crime, but does it privately, then by "right of privacy" that act becomes no longer a crime. This is an absurdity of record proportions. Protecting private records is based on the 4th Amendment which prohibits unwarranted search and siezure. If a court issues a warrant based on probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly naming the records to be seized, then your records are no longer private. Where is the "right to privacy" now? Whether something is done privately or not can not be the determining factor in whether it is legal or not. If it were, then anything can be justified as legal based on its being done in private. This is a logical nullity and the Supreme Court used this "logic" solely to justify Roe vs. Wade. And by the way, the Court is NOT the supreme authority. We the People are.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 11:17AM

Sigh... no, Albert, I'm not saying the right to privacy is absolute. NO right is absolute. But it does exist, and it's been cited numerous times in numerous court cases as a relevant factor to determining the legitimacy of various actions, ranging from photos taken in public places to disclosure of tax records.

Look at the court cases--privacy IS a recognized right, and like all rights, it's frequently in competition with others such as national security, property rights, free speech/press, and so on.

If you want to challenge the right-to-privacy argument in a given case, you'll need to point to more compelling rights or interests that outweigh it. But the right DOES exist.

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 11:31AM

Not absolute. OK. Some things are protected as rights because of privacy, and other things are not. Who makes these decisions? Such things are defined in law and the power of legislation rests with the people and is exercised through their representatives in the Congress and State Legislatures. Courts have no power of legislation, at least not legally, and all the citations you provide are essentially court legislation, which has no legitimacy whatsoever. I never said there was no right to privacy. I said that privacy alone can not determine what is a criminal act or not. That's why we elect legislatures. To decide such things. Courts have no such authority.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 1:29PM

And here we come to the old "legislating from the bench" routine--which is always defined any "any court ruling I personally disagree with."

The way the anti-judicial activists define it, ANY time a court makes a ruling it's illegitimate. Sorry, but that definition simply won't fly.

You may be angry that tons of court cases have been decided that you disagree with, but it doesn't change their legitimacy. What's illegitimate is your assumption that courts have no function apart from agreeing with your personal interpretation of the law.

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 3:28PM

Please don't put words in my mouth. Judicial "activism" is a euphemism for judicial legislation. Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Constitution says that "All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Note: ALL Legislative Power. Courts have no legislative authority. What the courts have done (obviously with your blessing) is usurped legislative authority for a variety of issues that leftists simply can not pass through any legislature. What really amazes me is how some rights which are clearly expressed in the Constitution are "not really rights" and are thus disparaged, while issues never mentioned or implied in the Constitution are "fundamental Constitutional Rights," found deep in the hidden recesses of arcane language, discoverable only by leftist elitists. If you really want the feds to define marriage, or to make marriage a "right" subject to federal protection, why don't you propose a Constitutional Amendment? I'm not angry about decisions that don't necessarily go my way, and I live with them. You are angry that the People refuse to legislate YOUR way, so you usurp the legitimate legislative process and impose "change" by judicial fiat. The courts adjudicate disputes UNDER the Law. They can not change the Law either by decree or "interpretation." If you want to change the MEANING of the Law, you must change the TEXT of the Law. That is the legitimate process prescribed in the Supreme Law of the Land.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 3:47PM

Then you're hair-splitting, Albert. What do you mean by "legislating," if not "applying the law in a way you disagree with"?

And applying the law--interpreting how it works in specific situations--IS the function of the courts. For some odd reason, you persist in calling that "legislating," which it clearly isn't, in an attempt to invalidate it.

If the Court decides that "freedom of the press" also applies to broadcast media and electronic media (which they've done), are they "legislating"? Or are they "interpreting"? Either way, the law is used (and applied, and interpreted) in a way that it wasn't before--so what do you mean by "legislating"?

Albert Frevele| 3.4.10 @ 6:11PM

There is a profound difference between "the interpretation and application of law," and legislating, and clearly I do not mix the two up. The example you give (press) is a red herring. Electronic media is easily seen as an obvious extension of print media. And if the courts did not rule that way, the solution is simple: ratify a consitutional amendment including electronic media. (This is the process you evidently abhor.) But in other cases, the courts have "interpreted" that the "free exercise" of religion REALLY means "no public displays" of religion, and that taking private property for "public use" includes decidely non-public, profit generating uses benefiting private parties. This is not the application of law. It is changing the law by redefining words. The truth is, you and I will never agree on this. You believe in using the courts to achieve political ends that are unattainable legislatively. I do not.

Skinner| 3.4.10 @ 9:47PM

Albert,
Are you, by any chance, a constitutional scholar? The reason I ask is you've taken apart every so-called argument CL has tried.
You use the Constitutional restraints (States rights over Federal) on the judicial branch, and he/she/it keeps arguing for ways around them.

Albert Frevele| 3.5.10 @ 3:02PM

Thanks, Skinner. I'm not really a constitutional scholar per se, but I have a BA in History and have studied the constitution for several decades. It really does not take much to understand the Constitution. Just read it! It is not written in obscure language. It is plain to read and understand, and maybe a little knowledge of 18th century English will help. All the "penumbras, emanations, extrapolations" and such that the Court has relied on, are really unnecessary if you just want to understand and apply the law. These tactics are useful only if one wishes to subvert the legitimate legislative process and impose judicial pronouncements in the place of legally legislated law. I would also recommend reading Robert Bork's book "The Tempting of America, the Political Seduction of the Law." It is difficult to read sometimes, but contains sound constitutional arguments.

Theresa| 3.5.10 @ 1:29PM

The simple fact is that the states aren't the only ones who have laws affecting marriage. If it was just up to the states individually then I could go to a state where it's legal, live there, and sponsor my girlfriend for immigration when we decide to marry. But I can't, because immigration is a federal benefit of marriage, just like the tax breaks and other benefits of marriage given by the federal government. So what am I to do? If I let my state define it, I still can't have my girl here, just because she's a girl. For no other reason. It IS federally regulated already, in that way it doesn't matter what my state says. I don't care what other people do. I don't care who knows about my relationship or not, I just want to be able to be with the person I love, and be left alone about it. If that person were a man I would have to prove that I met him just once and I could sponsor him for immigration. But since it's a "her" and not a "him", I can't. And that's nothing but a federal issue.

Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 5:28PM

Oct 31, 2009 – Budapest, Hungary Travel Blog | Hungary Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…See more here: Oct 31, 2009 – Budapest, Hungary Travel Blog Related Blogs on Read The Story The Nets will do anything for you to come to their games | Cheap … The American Spectator : The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding … Related posts: Oct 31, 2009 – Budapest, Hungary Travel Blog May 25, 2006 – Budapest, Hungary Travel Blog May 25, 2006 – Budapest, Hungary Travel Blog…

Martin Pal| 3.3.10 @ 7:13PM

David, have all the other countries (and states) that have legalized gay marriage seen this slippery slope happen that you are so afraid of? What about the slippery slope of gay people marrying straight partners? Much of your arguments can be dismissed because you are talking about behaviors and not orientation.

But back to Mr. Duncan's dismissive article. People like him can use smoke and mirrors all they want in trying to justify their attitudes against gay people being married, but his moral authority wavered in all of the people the Pro Prop. 8 called to the the stand in this case.

Besides all the legal mumbo jumbo and razzle dazzle people write about concerning this topic, I'll just give you a personal slant. I am gay. I came from a loving and supportive conservative family. There is nothing wrong with me. If you don't think saying that I, personally, cannot live under the same marriage principles that you aspire to, then am I to think you are not discriminating against me? What do you want me to do? What do you think I should aspire to? When I see convicted murderers like the Menendez brothers being allowed to marry in prison, or convicted murderers being allowed to marry like the Hillside strangler, Richard Ramirez, because if they are not allowed to the law says it is cruel and unusual punishment, how am I supposed to feel about that? They are allowed to marry. I am not. Hmmm...but I am not being discriminated against. I am subjected to being played with like a yo-yo -- a court saying I can legally wed and then people campaigning against me saying I cannot and then a court saying that those already married can stay that way, but those who aren't yet, well tough. You know what? YES!
You are discriminating against me wanting to marry. Who are you to judge me? And yet you do. Unless you rail about prison murderers and felons who are allowed to get married with no hope of procreation, then I will never see how your feelings are not based in any animus.

Contrary to Mr. Duncan's dismissive notion that there IS no animus, he can vote against my right to marry someone of the same sex and go on with his puny notions, but I live with his notions every day after that. Thanks for making my life so much easier to navigate. There's nothing so blind as people who hide behind the "I don't hate you" meme and then do everything to justify your notion that they really do. I'd like to see Mr. Duncan refute "psychic harm" if I made him live under the same provisions he wants me to live under.

Perhaps we can set up a meeting.

Pingback| 3.3.10 @ 8:20PM

Adventure and Iguazu Falls! – Iguazu Falls, Argentina Travel Blog | Argentina Traveli links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Falls! – Iguazu Falls, Argentina Travel Blog Related Blogs on Read The Story The American Spectator : ACORN Housing Boom The American Spectator : Party Bashing The American Spectator : The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding … Related posts: Adventure and Iguazu Falls! – Iguazu Falls, Argentina Travel Blog Waterfalls – Iguazu Falls, Argentina Travel Blog Can you waddle like a…

Dean from Ohio| 3.3.10 @ 9:37PM

At some point one of these states is going to say to the federal courts, "Don't tread on me" and explicitly and completely ignore an activist decision. I don't know if California is the state to do it, but one of them will eventually. The federal courts will have only themselves to blame.

Theresa| 3.5.10 @ 1:43PM

If it's only up to the states, then should I be able to move to a state that legalized gay marriage and sponsor my girlfriend for immigration? I'm willing to do that. If it's only up to the states, then wouldn't that do away with any and all federal benefits to marriage?

Pingback| 3.4.10 @ 10:11AM

Gavel Grab » Thursday Media Summary links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…TIONS KY3/AP: Missouri Bar seeks public comments about Missouri judges on ballot this year 3/2/2010 PROP 8 CHALLENGE American Spectator: The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding the Evidence William C. Duncan – 3/3/2010 REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS/COURTS The Oklahoman: Top Oklahoma court rejects abortion bill JULIE BISBEE – 3/4/2010 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM FOX Business: The Case for Medical Malpractice…

Yosemeti Sam| 3.4.10 @ 10:25AM

" ... It was not hard to guess the casting -- superlawyers Ted Olson and David Boies representing the forces of progress ...."

Progress?

Another name for seeking a perverted government imprimatur of - SODOMY!

David| 3.4.10 @ 12:56PM

Martin Pal, what other nations have LEGALIZED homosexual marriage? Within the past two years even liberal France's equivalent of the Supreme Court denied homosexuals the right to marry. Please name the countries or societies where it is legal and accepted as normal behavior.

So, are you going to tell me that your love for any partner you choose, is stronger and should be respected over those who choose mulitiple partners? Or that your wishes should be respected over a brother and sister who truly love each other and want to marry?

Are you telling the readers here that you would deny those folks the right to marry? How is that fair? How could that be legal? How could courts uphold your demand to be accepted by society and deny it to others? You make a very emotional case, yet you would deny consenting adults the right to marry however many and whomever they choose?

What you want is acceptance. You want society to say that what you do is okay. Please go back to the days when all homosexuals wanted was for people to stay out of their bedrooms. But no, you and others want to drag what you do into the streets and into our public schools. The vast majority of us don't want it, and we are not going to say to our children and grandchildren that what you do is a lifestyle choice.

It has nothing to do with "orientation". It is called your preference for a-holes. It is the same as a breast man, or a leg man, etc. Your's is a preference, and an unnatural one to most of us.

And, if you can't understand the phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner", I am sorry for you.

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 1:31PM

If this truly were a campaign for "social acceptance," it would be doomed, as you point out.

Fortunately, it's a campaign for civil rights... and that's 100% unrelated to popularity. No matter HOW small the minority, no matter HOW unpopular they may be, they still have equal rights--and there's not a thing the majority can do about it. That's what makes America great!

Brian B| 3.4.10 @ 2:27PM

--It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.--

And there we have the left's absurd and absolute deference to state power at its clearest.

Margie| 3.4.10 @ 7:41PM

And sadly, these people vote.

David| 3.4.10 @ 2:37PM

Copyleft, are you ready to give the same rights to those who participate in polygamous or incestuos marriages?

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 3:49PM

Me personally? Wouldn't bother me a bit; what other people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business, as long as they're treated equally under the law.

Now, if the polygamists want to make THEIR case before the courts, they're free to. But a slippery-slope argument is invalid in an attempt to undermine the same-sex marriage currently before us... just as it was when someone said interracial marriage would lead to "a man marrying a donkey."

Copyleft| 3.4.10 @ 3:50PM

Sorry, "the same-sex marriage ISSUE currently before us."

Martin Pal| 3.4.10 @ 4:49PM

David, you don't have to feel sorry for me about anything because I am just dandy. It is you who seems to have the hang up. I understand the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" just fine, but guess what? Being gay the way God made me is not a sin. Certainly not because you say so. If you think being gay is about "a preference for a-holes" then perhaps it is you I should feel sorry for. (Does this apply to gay women? How do you define being straight?)

David asks: " Please name the countries or societies where it [marriage] is legal and accepted as normal behavior."

To answer your query David, if you find yourself a male partner, you could legally get married in The Netherlands, or Holland if you prefer, as of 2001. Since then, same-sex marriages have been recognized legally by Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden and just this year--Portugal.

Same-sex marriages are also recognized in five U.S. states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. Same-sex marriage is not recognized by the U.S. federal government, yet, but is recognized by its federal district, the District of Columbia (2010). For a time they were legal in Maine and California. The marriages that were performed in California during the time they were legal are still valid and recognized by the state of California.

Same-sex marriage is also recognized in Mexico City; the law will become effective this month, March 2010.

England has civil partnerships, but not full marriage equality.

As for the "normal behavior" part of your question, well, are you suggesting that normal behavior has to be the predominant behavior? After all, it is normal for a certain percentage of any population to be left-handed, although it is not the predominant behavior.

It is amusing to me that those on the right only think a court is being "activist" when they disagree with it's opinions. It is not "activist" if they agree.

And to those of you using politics in terms of being gay--get over it. There are just as many Republican and conservative gay people as there are liberal or democratic. It's just that those who are conservative have a harder time dealing with it because of people with opinions like those I've read here.

David, you said that what I (gay people) want is acceptance. But what you think is acceptance is all about sex acts. And that's the way a large percentage of people view gay people only--that it's a movement based on having sexual rights or freedom. That is misguided. Gay rights is based on being defined by people like you as being "more" than sexual. Getting past that. You don't define your own life like that, I would guess, so why do you define mine that way? See beyond what is your hangup. That is why the most vehement opposition to gay people say "homosexual" instead of "gay."

David, you wrote: "you and others want to drag what you do into the streets and into our public schools. The vast majority of us don't want it, and we are not going to say to our children and grandchildren that what you do is a lifestyle choice."

The only thing people like you do with opinions like that is to make your children or grandchildren have much harder lives to lead if they have a gay orientation. And it happens all the time, it's just that someone like you would probably never know it, may not even want to know it, because your child or grandchild wouldn't share their lives with someone with such negative views. No one is trying to force anything sexual on children. To believe that is really mis-guided. Or fearful. Or both.

David, or any of you reading/posting--do you actually know any gay people? I have no idea what age you are, but it seems incredible that you don't. You, at least, know of famous gay people don't you? Does it really bother you that Ellen DeGeneres or George
Takei are married to same-sex partners? How does that impact your own ilfe? I haven't travelled extensively, but there are gay people everywhere I've been. There's probably gay people right under your nose, in your own families. I met and talked to, Dave Pallone, an MLB umpire and there are many gay baseball players in the closet. How would that
threaten you if they came out and/or got married?

I ask, because gay people are now always going to resist efforts to be "less than." We are always going to try to be more than people with negative opinions of us would have us be. We know the truth about ourselves and the truth will set you free, too, if you allow it to. What you resist persists, you know. And you will become aware of more and more gay people each and every day, so you will have to become, if you wish to, more and more upset about it. I wouldn’t think that a sane choice.

Also, David, you bring up the issue of multiple marriages or incestuous relationships so much I have to wonder if this is something that's affecting you? It's certainly a red herring or maguffin, if you will, in this discussion about same-sex marriages.

Pingback| 3.5.10 @ 2:23AM

Brussels by Belgians – Brussels, Belgium Travel Blog | Belgium Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Belgians – Brussels, Belgium Travel Blog Related Blogs on Read The Story The American Spectator : The West and the 10th The American Spectator : ACORN Housing Boom The American Spectator : The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding … Related posts: Brussels by Belgians – Brussels, Belgium Travel Blog Valentines in Brugge – Brugge, Belgium Travel Blog belgian waffles – Brussels,…

Pingback| 3.5.10 @ 5:50AM

Pra-ha – Prague, Czech Republic Travel Blog | Czech Republic Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…– Prague, Czech Republic Travel Blog Related Blogs on Read The Story The American Spectator : The West and the 10th The American Spectator : ACORN Housing Boom The American Spectator : The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding … Related posts: Pra-ha – Prague, Czech Republic Travel Blog Comments (0) No Comments » No comments yet. RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

David | 3.5.10 @ 3:50PM

Martin Pal, first let me be clear (as Obama would say, I have no animus toward homosexuals. That is, until they demand that they be allowed to become Scout Masters, or demand to be in leadership positions in churches, and demand that children be taught about their "lifestyle" in the schools. If the homosexuals are NOT looking for acceptance, why do they attempt to force clubs and organizations to hange what they believe? It is the same as what the atheists do. Start your own darn clubs and churches and stop trying to force us to accept what you do and what you believe. If you can't appreciate that position, too bad.

As to the preference for a-hole comment, I think you know that I mean you are simply attracted to males. That is your "preference". I happen to like nice legs and as_. And for whatver reason I seem to have always been with women who are brunette or reddish-haired rather than blonde.

I use the terms homosexual and lesbian because that is what you are. Gay means happy. It has nothing to do with bad feelings toward you. Liberals are always trying to rewrite the meanings of words. I don't use the word "affair" to describe "adultery". I don't use pro-choice or pro-life, but pro or anti-abortion, etc.

I spent many years in the restaurant business in Houston and know many homos (to shorten the term) and lesbians. I have partied with them after work..............in my place. I have liked all except one. I find they are generally intelligent, funny, witty, and likable.

Again, it is no red herring. Would you deny people the right to engage in polygamous or incestuos marriages? How could you?

And do you really think any child is proud to tell his friends and classmates that he has two moms or two dads? That is why you want to change attitudes, try to force yourselves into organizations that don't believe the way you do, and yearn to be accepted, so there is no stigma or embarrassment.

Ed| 3.6.10 @ 10:19AM

Video from PBS Bill Moyers GREAT video

http://video.pbs.org/video/1425834175/

Martin Pal| 3.6.10 @ 4:30PM

I was in the Boy Scouts--why shouldn't I be a scoutmaster if I wanted to be? What is it that you'd think would be different if I were a scoutmaster? If I should not be a scoutmaster, should I also not have been in the Boy Scouts? That's a slippery slope, too.

All of your arguments against gay people doing anything seem to come from some sexual point of view. As I previously posted, gay people would really like you to get over that, as we have, and let us lead the same kind of lives you do--free from the social, religious and governmental restrictions you are always wanting to impose on us. That's what equality means. Or is your definition different?

Children already know there are gay people--on TV programs, in politics, in the news, on the internet, in school. Youngsters are more accepting of anyone until people teach them they shouldn't be. There's that old song "You Have to Be Carefully Taught" that says it all.

Do you NOT see any irony in your post that says you LIKE some gay people yet you don't think they should be in scouting positions or church positions or -- do you have a list for me?

If I said that you should not be allowed to be in scouting or church positions because you are heterosexual and studies have confirmed heterosexuals are much more likely to molest their patients or students (see recent events in Delaware) would you not be offended? If you would not, you are not being realistic.

Let's be clear about this, whether you want to acknowledge it or not--if you do not think I would be capable of holding any particular postion in a church or scouting or anywhere that YOU think "you" should be allowed to hold, then you are discriminating against me. You can defend your choice of using the word homosexual because you have some odd notions that being gay is a bad thing, but guess what? It is not. Just because there are many people who try to make us seem like bad people, we are not bad people. You should look at what you believe and wonder why you think we are, but you don't even acknowledge that you think that way. You have some notion that we do not have an orientation, that we just choose behaviors out of nowhere. That would mean that you must have had an occasion to choose a homosexual behavior that you chose not to? Not likely. To have a choice means that both choices are options and that realistically you would want to option either choice. Do you want the option to be gay? No, because you are not oriented that way.

Yes, I think any child "should" be proud to tell anyone he has two moms or two dads. Why would "you" deny a child to be proud of his/her parents?

By the way, I don't "yearn" to be accepted. I accept myself and my self worth does not depend on anyone else's opinion of me. What you think of me is none of my business. What "is" my business is when you try to impose any political, personal or religious belief that you have on to "me." You use the word "homos" in your post above and then in parenthesis justify that by writing (to shorten the term) but that is not what you're doing. It would've been shorter to just write homosexual, wouldn't it have? You obviously have an animosity toward gay people that you don't even realize.

Also: "Liberals are always trying to rewrite the meanings of words." Really? You are assuming there are no gay conservatives? In issues of gay politics there are just as many conservative gays as there are liberal gays. Gay does not equal liberal. It's only that liberals see us differently. Gay people are of every stripe--do you not know this? There are gay people in every religion, state, political party, country, business, school, whatever... Do you not see that you could have a child that is gay? And if that happens I really sympathize for the child. You are born to be who you are and that means conservatives have gay children as well as anyone else. It's just that you would make it harder for them to live their lives. Would you not want your child to be a scoutmaster? Participate in the church? Marry someone they want to? Conservatives always say they want to keep unnecessary government out of the lives of citizens, but you seem to want to regulate every aspect of my life--"you cannot be a scoutmaster, you cannot be in a church position, you cannot be yourself in schools, you cannot be in the military unless we don't know you are there, you have to marry the opposite sex because that's what I say."

Gay people are no longer going to allow others to define us. You say that all gay groups are trying to do is to be accepted, as though acceptance is a "bad" thing! Why do you think gay people being accepted is a bad thing unless you think gay people are bad?

I keep asking people with opinions such as you post, what exactly do you think will happen if suddenly everything you are against became a reality? I think there is some fear that your lives would be different. If so, in what way?

And I have seen you keep posting on other articles about gay marriage leading to polygamous or incestuous marriages being legal. Besides the fact that those are different subjects, there have been dozens of posters who have answered your posts about that, but you apparently refuse to accept what they have to say. You continue to be the voice of Chicken Little--the sky is falling, despite the fact that in all of those countries I noted to you above, the sky is not falling.

It seems to me that I am at peace with myself. I wish you peace, too, because you spend a lot of time, as someone I know puts it, "proclaiming the sky should not be blue."

Pingback| 3.6.10 @ 7:36PM

The Residential Real Estate Crash Index Message Board – Msg: 26365963 | Educational S links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…that global warming is .. View original post here: The Residential Real Estate Crash Index Message Board – Msg: 26365963 Related Blogs on The Proposition The American Spectator : The Proposition 8 Trial: Understanding … Auto Insurance Views » Blog Archive » Lawsuits fly over insurance … Is Arbitration better suited to get corporate disputes resolved … Related Posts Contexto…

David | 3.8.10 @ 4:51PM

Let me try to narrow this. You earlier argued that you were not looking to be accepted and respected.

Then why do you think it is okay for homosexuals to insist that organizations and clubs change their rules and accept them as members and/or put them in leadership positions?

We have a right to association in this country. Start your own clubs with your own rules. Or join a liberal church, but don't demand that a fundamentalist Christian church change what it believes because you don't FEEL EQUAL. There is no RIGHT to feel equal.

The fact is people are discriminated against ALL of the time for MANY different reasons and in MANY different situations. The military discriminate against many people for many different physical, psychological, and/or moral reasons. People in the military cannot be deadbeats who don't pay their financial obligations - they can be demoted in rank. Neither they nor you have any RIGHT to serve in the military.

Your demands are no different than the atheists who demand that the Scouts remove God from their oath. Start your own flippin' group and take whatever oath you like.

Homosexuals and atheists are the intolerant ones - not people like me. We don't demand via government fiat that you change............we just don't want you imposing your views on us........but you use the government at every opportunity in an attempt to change what we believe.

You have no right to change the rules of any club or organization I choose to join. By trying to, you only antagonize people who are not like you.

I didn't say I would "deny" a child the right to be proud of having 2 moms or dads. What I said is, how many children do you think are proud to say it?

The only thing that makes one a homosexual is engaging in homosexual activity. Why do you expect society to tell our children that that activity is acceptable or respectable? I still insist it is a preference. Some people can't get off unless they rape someone or have sex with little children, or let's say and adult male having sex with a consenting 15 and 16 years olds. That is what he likes and that it the only way he is excited. He may say he was born that way and there is some merit to that. That is his preference. But, I don't think you would say that society should say his behavior is acceptable. He would probably go to jail for his, but you would not.

And the many people who are denied a place in the military for any number of reasons are out, but you are in as long as you keep private matters private.

Just WHO IS getting the special treatment?

Years ago you just wanted to be tolerated. Well, if you haven't noticed, in the year 2010, they are tolerated - and that's the best that most of us can say. We simply cannot lie to ourselves and say being homosexual is acceptable or respectable.

Do you think I should be what they call it in the Girl Scouts and take young girls camping? In your line of reasoning, yes. Do you think I should be able to join an atheist group and constantly refer to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? And, expect to be able to serve in leadership positions. With your logic, yes.

Oh sh_t, you just keep bringing up the same old crap. I wrote "homos" to shorten it. Just as often I write "heteros". If I had animus toward you there are certainly much more hateful descriptions that I could have used and I'm sure you are well aware of them.

BUT NO, NO, NO, what you are truly upset about is that I refuse to accede to your demand and refer to you as "gay".

Ya'll are the intolerant ones.

Martin Pal| 3.8.10 @ 6:48PM

David, in your reply above you got to the heart of your problem with gay people. You wrote: "We simply cannot lie to ourselves and say being homosexual is acceptable or respectable."

Who is telling the lie? I guess you have to ask yourself why you think being gay is not acceptable or respectable? Where did you learn that? (You have to be carefully taught as I posted above.) I'd discuss your reasoning if you want to post it.

In your eyes, I am not acceptable or respectable. Someone you don't even know. And yet you also wrote you have no animus toward gay people. If you don't think that is not animus, then you are the victim of incorrect thinking! I would be offended if it weren't so amusing. You are simply practicing the politics of disgust. You think you come from a stand of some moral authority you've been taught and that if you don't rigidly adhere to it some catastrophe will occur.

I wrote above, which you did not answer: "I keep asking people with opinions such as you post, what exactly do you think will happen if suddenly everything you are against became a reality? I think there is some fear that your lives would be different. If so, in what way?"

Can you answer these questions?

You wrote that I argued I was not looking to be accepted and respected. What I said was that my self worth does not depend on anyone else's opinion (acceptance or respect) of me. I know the truth of myself even if others wish to remain blind. And as I've written above, everyone would like acceptance and respect, that is not a bad thing for anyone, including gay people. Including you or me.

But you have some fearful notions of gay people that you do not wish to change. Do you not wish to enlighten yourself, or remain in your cocoon of prejudices?

You said that I am upset because you refuse to accede to my demand and refer to me as "gay." Do you care to cite where I demanded anything of the sort?

This is what I wrote: "David, you said that what I (gay people) want is acceptance. But what you think is acceptance is all about sex acts. And that's the way a large percentage of people view gay people only--that it's a movement based on having sexual rights or freedom. That is misguided. Gay rights is based on being defined by people like you as being "more" than sexual. Getting past that. You don't define your own life like that, I would guess, so why do you define mine that way? See beyond what is your hangup. That is why the most vehement opposition to gay people say "homosexual" instead of "gay."

(see next post--continued)

Martin Pal| 3.8.10 @ 6:54PM

David, I am going to answer the questions you pose:

David writes: Then why do you think it is okay for homosexuals to insist that organizations and clubs change their rules and accept them as members and/or put them in leadership positions?

I say: To answer the question from your perspective, I have to ask the reverse question—why is it okay to discriminate against me because I am gay? What is it about me that warrants exclusion from your clubs and organizations? Why don’t you want me there? I would need to know that before satisfactorily answering that. Just saying you have a rule against me doesn’t tell me why I should not?

David writes: "You have no right to change the rules of any club or organization I choose to join. By trying to, you only antagonize people who are not like you."

I say: I do have the right if you are only saying I cannot join because I am gay. Again, why would I be antagonizing you simply for being gay, for being who I am? I could choose to hide in the closet and join these clubs and organizations even with a no gays allowed policy, but gay people are not going to stay in these closets any more just to make you feel comfortable. It goes back to that question I’ve been asking: What is that you think will happen if gay people were allowed to be who they are? And I am more like you than you are willing or want to believe.

David writes: "I didn't say I would "deny" a child the right to be proud of having 2 moms or dads. What I said is, how many children do you think are proud to say it?"

I say: There’s a difference about being proud to say it and cautious about it. If I lived around a large population with mindsets like you seem to have, I’d be very cautious. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t be proud of my parents. Your very question, though, belies the fact you do not think kids would be proud to say it.

David says: "The only thing that makes one a homosexual is engaging in homosexual activity. Why do you expect society to tell our children that that activity is acceptable or respectable? I still insist it is a preference."

I say: To use your analogy—why do gay people engage in homosexual activity then? Duh! Because they were born that way. That is their orientation. Gay people’s orientation is not the same as your orientation. Preference is based on your orientation. If you are straight, you’ll have one preference. If you are gay you will have another. If you were not born with certain orientations you would logically not know what you preferred unless you actually tried something and I am assuming you know what you preferred long before you did anything about it, or did you try both gay and straight preferences? I sincerely doubt you did.

David says: "Some people can't get off unless they rape someone or have sex with little children, or let's say and adult male having sex with a consenting 15 and 16 years olds. That is what he likes and that it the only way he is excited. He may say he was born that way and there is some merit to that. That is his preference. But, I don't think you would say that society should say his behavior is acceptable. He would probably go to jail for his, but you would not."

I say: Thanks for equating me with rapists, pedophiles and the like. Again you are only equating gay people with a preferential sex act, as though there are absolutely no emotional feelings or ties or humanity involved. The people you cite would go to jail because rape is illegal and not consensual, if it was consensual it would not be rape, nor is sex with children who cannot consent. (Nor animals or robots or any of the other slippery slope arguments.)

David says: "And the many people who are denied a place in the military for any number of reasons are out, but you are in as long as you keep private matters private. Just WHO IS getting the special treatment?"

I say: Are you implying that if gay people were allowed to simply say who they are that something would be different? What does "as long as you keep matters private" mean? Are you fearful that gay people will suddenly be different? That’s not the nature of a military mindset, and there are rules of conduct all military are to abide by. That’s an insult to the gay military members already serving under DADT and an insult to those other soldiers that you think cannot handle it. If straight soldiers cannot handle the fact another soldier is gay, then they shouldn’t be in the military anyway. I would fear there’d be any number of other things they couldn’t handle as well.

David says: "Do you think I should be what they call it in the Girl Scouts and take young girls camping? In your line of reasoning, yes. Do you think I should be able to join an atheist group and constantly refer to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? And, expect to be able to serve in leadership positions. With your logic, yes."

I say: Why would you want to join groups that you obviously wouldn’t be interested in? With your logic, my Cub Scout troop should have been headed by a straight male and not by Den Mothers, who, by the way, took us camping! I mean, really. Logic indeed.

David says: "If I had animus toward you there are certainly much more hateful descriptions that I could have used and I'm sure you are well aware of them."

I say: No, enlighten me. Are you assuming that I live in a place where hateful descriptions or epithets are hurled at me all the time? By the way, "Much more hateful descriptions" – so you are agreeing the term you did write is hateful and you were aware of that?

David says: "Ya'll are the intolerant ones."

I say: "Peace to you, David."

Gary| 3.9.10 @ 3:02PM

Martin Pal, I want to thank you for your postings and your thorough discourse with David. When you ask the questions that you have posed to folks like David, it certainly shines a light on what is really behind their unfounded fears. Sometimes our best defense is their own words, and letting them speak for themselves (as David has done). I hope many Americans (especially Californians) see and read this thread. Through open conversations such as this, fair-minded good people are able to make better informed decisions. Bravo, Martin and thank you from our hearts for being there and expressing this so well.

I will close with something a good friend said to me when trying to honestly communicate with people such as David: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. First, you won't succeed. Second, you'll only annoy the pig." (And no David, I wasn't referring to you as pig.) :)

David| 3.9.10 @ 11:49AM

I will let your comments stand. The only thing I want to say is, why do you have to demand and force people via governmental fiat to accept and respect you? Like I have repeatedly said, start your own groups and clubs and make any rules you determine are right for your club. And how is it that many thousands of previous homosexuals are now happily heteros. Have a nice life. May you come to know that Jesus is the way of salvation, and that no one comes to God the Father except through Jesus.

David| 3.9.10 @ 12:20PM

Oh, when I used the "much more hateful" comment, I was speaking from YOUR misguided perspective.

David| 3.9.10 @ 5:18PM

By "keep private matters private" I am referring to DADT. As long as you abide by that YOU get to serve, while many others for various reasons, some of which are moral and ethical, don't get to serve.

Martin Pal| 3.9.10 @ 6:03PM

Thank you Gary, I wanted to quote something you said: "When you ask the questions that you have posed to folks like David, it certainly shines a light on what is really behind their unfounded fears."

I say: I ask these questions because I truly want to know what people have to say, but the questions are rarely answered. There seems to be a certain stoicism--that if they actually discussed the issues that they could be proven wrong. I don't think they want to be confronted with that. It is hard to give up a feeling of moral superiority. David has not answered the questions, he only brings up other diversionary questions, like this new one: "And how is it that many thousands of previous homosexuals are now happily heteros."

To answer that question, David, I'd first have to have you cite the source(s) of your statement, otherwise, I am really skeptical of it on face value.
I could cite you mountains of evidence to the contrary, but what would your next question be after that? To give your question a personal and narrative answer, I suggest you watch the film "Prayers for Bobby." It's a true story about a young man who grew up in a Christian household that would appear to have the same mindset, values and opinions about being gay that you do. The film shows how those values destroy the life of a human being of worth. This film shows the tragic effect of your thinking on other human beings in this world.

David says: " The only thing I want to say is, why do you have to demand and force people via governmental fiat to accept and respect you?"

I say: I really don't see why having the same civil rights as you do is considered a governmental fiat designed to make you accept and respect me? Is that the kind of question that black people were asked during the 60's? Imagine being black AND gay, like the architect of Martin Luther King's march for equaity was, Bayard Rustin. Besides, David, I don't know why you wouldn't want to accept and respect me! I am worth it! What is it about me or other gay people that is not worth accepting and respecting? Please answer.

David says: " Have a nice life."

I say: "Thank you, David. Would my life be better if you were a part of it? I think the reverse would be true."

David says: "Oh, when I used the "much more hateful" comment, I was speaking from YOUR misguided perspective."

I say: I don't know what this means. (?)

David says: " May you come to know that Jesus is the way of salvation, and that no one comes to God the Father except through Jesus."

I say: For one thing, by feeling the need to say that, you are assuming that I don't already know that, for one thing. You are also assuming that gay people are not religious or are not spiritual and that your ideas about us are somehow superior. (Moral superiority.) If you are really interested in a practical look at how Jesus's religious teachings would apply to accepting ALL people the way they are, see a production of the play Corpus Christi.

Thank you David and Gary.

David| 3.10.10 @ 1:40PM

I have been respectful to you. I simply don't have to accept and respect your behavior.

Explanation: You accused me of using the term "homo" in a derogatory/hateful manner. You imputed improper motives to me as to why I used the term. I told you it was to shorten it. So, I was letting you know in my response that if I were using it the manner you suggest, I would have used much stronger/hateful terms. Why do libs always have to attribute bad motives to conservatives?

I do not claim to be morally superior. I have plenty of faults, including lust for women. However, I don't expect anyone to accept or respect my bad behavior in that regard, and I would not encourage others to engage in what I have done. I would never insist that what I had done is okay. I would never expect society to accept it.

Yes, Jesus will take us as we are and forgive our sins; but, he also expects repentance from sinful behavior. Period.

I tried to respond to your questions in the best manner I knew how. As to not answering questions, why don't you address why you would want to join any organization and then insist that they change the rules to suit you? As repeatedly asked, if you don't like the rules, why not start your own organizations, clubs, churches, etc? Again, you, like atheists (both very small minorities) demand that the vast majority of people change to suit you instead of you tolerating existing institutions.

Anyway, aside from constantly accusing me of bad motives or intentions toward you, I think you have been civil in our discussion. I think I have been, too. Unfortunately, in order to make my points I have to say some things that you FEEL are disrespectful or intolerant, but are true nonetheless.

Allow me to relay this about my personal life. Several years ago I was having lots of trouble with my stomach and bowels. I went to a gastroenterologist. The very first question he asked me was if I had been engaging in anal sex. I told him no. He said he had to ask that. I think any gastro (there is that shortening again) would say that our a-holes are not made for sex. It causes health problems.

I am curious: have you ever been to the gay pride parade in San Franciso. I have seen it a couple of times on C-SPAN, not the major networks. The majors only show the first part of the parade with all the nice people with signs peacefully marching. Then comes the end of the parade with all of the floats and props and half naked people with dildos and other objects simulating sex acts with each other while going down the street. That is why I said early on that homosexuals want to drag what they do into the streets - of course not all of them.

So you know, the homosexuals and lesbians that I used to party with when in the restaurant business occurred more than 25 years ago, when society did not have the same tolerance for them that it has today. A black waiter who was homo waited on my wife and I in a Friday's, and we got to talking. He is the one responsible for getting me a job at that very same Friday's. He was super guy. About 2 years later, he was driving through Montrose with a waitress from work and someone shot him in the head and killed him. The one homo I didn't like that I referred to earlier, was suspected and investigated for killing him. He was also a waiter at the Friday's.

You can respond however you like. I am finished. I do wish you well. I also wish you would stop attributing bad motives to people who disagree with you on this matter.

Martin Pal| 3.10.10 @ 6:58PM

Hi, David,

You say: "I have been respectful to you. I simply don't have to accept and respect your behavior."

I say: What behavior are you really talking about? And why is it that is all you seem to talk about? What if I told you I don’t even do any of the behaviors you talk about, and I am still a gay man?

What if all GLBT people did not accept and respect your heterosexual behavior? What if I kept you out of churches, government, military, schools, scouting, whatever, simply because of those heterosexual behaviors that you exhibit.
What if I told you because of these behaviors you cannot be married. You cannot adopt children. I think if this was reversed you would see how ludicrous it really all is.

You write: "Explanation: You accused me of using the term "homo" in a derogatory/hateful manner. You imputed improper motives to me as to why I used the term. I told you it was to shorten it. So, I was letting you know in my response that if I were using it the manner you suggest, I would have used much stronger/hateful terms. Why do libs always have to attribute bad motives to conservatives?"

I say: First, why do you always think gay=liberal? Tell that to the conservative California State Senator Roy Ashburn who is gay and was forced to admit it this week, but kept in the closet and voted against his own humanity for years. That’s what happens when people have ideas like yours. People try to conform to your notions and lose their integrity and humanity. Second, I did not accuse you of using the word "homo" in a derogatory/hateful manner. What I said was that people who use that word, instead of gay, are ones you will find who are more anti-gay people because they like to attribute GLBT with sex-acts, so they use the term homosexual to describe us. (Behaviors is the word you prefer.) Your defense of saying that it is just shorter is disingenuous. If you want to use an even shorter word, use "gay." But you said gay means happy only. You are painting yourself into a corner.

You write: "I have plenty of faults, including lust for women. However, I don't expect anyone to accept or respect my bad behavior in that regard, and I would not encourage others to engage in what I have done. I would never insist that what I had done is okay. I would never expect society to accept it."

I say: The statement you have written does not indicate why gay people should have any less rights than you have, regardless of your orientation and whether or not your behaviors are frowned upon. You are saying you would never expect society to accept your bad behavior, but you feel just being gay is bad behavior in itself. And yet, you would not be in favor of marriage for gay people which would help alleviate the bad behaviors you ascribe to us.

David says: "Yes, Jesus will take us as we are and forgive our sins; but, he also expects repentance from sinful behavior. Period."

Behavior, yes. Orientation, no. You refuse to acknowledge gay people have an orientation different from yours which means you think any behavior one has in that regard is sinful. And that’s where your idea breaks down.

David says: "As to not answering questions, why don't you address why you would want to join any organization and then insist that they change the rules to suit you? As repeatedly asked, if you don't like the rules, why not start your own organizations, clubs, churches, etc? Again, you, like atheists (both very small minorities) demand that the vast majority of people change to suit you instead of you tolerating existing institutions."

I say again: Let’s take one example. Boy Scouts don’t accept gays. If one is gay, one is expelled. Now why would I, a boy, not want to be a boy scout? I like doing all of the activities a boy scout does. I like everything about it. But I am gay, so I should forget about it? What is the good reason to be excluded here? You cannot tell me that you think black people should be excluded from sitting in the front of the bus or required to sit in the balconies of theatres or a separate lunch counter, can you? Why should I be excluded from things on the simple basis that you have some bias towards me, that is unfounded. Many religions like to say their current rules are the way it’s always been, but if you look at the history of religion, you will find that religions have always changed things over the years. When’s the last time a Catholic could only eat fish on Fridays? Popes used to be able to marry.

I was just wondering if this were back in the 1920’s if I would be sitting here writing why women should or should not be allowed to vote. Or be lawyers or doctors or even just have a job. What’s all the fuss?

You write: "A-holes are not made for sex."

I say: Then you should be fully embracing the lesbians. Seriously, I mentioned to you before a survey that concludes a majority of gay men do not have anal intercourse. That means most of your fears about gay men having anal intercourse are unfounded. And this is what is always bothering some people, as though straight men and women do not also have anal intercourse.

You ask: "Have you ever been to the gay pride parade in San Francisco."

No, I have not, but I have been to others.

You write: "Then comes the end of the parade with all of the floats and props and half naked people with dildos and other objects simulating sex acts with each other while going down the street. That is why I said early on that homosexuals want to drag what they do into the streets - of course not all of them."

I say: "You can say the same things about the New Orleans Mardi Gras parades and celebrations. Isn’t that where they get most of the Girls Gone Wild video footage? I understand Rio de Janiero or Sydney’s Mardi Gras celebrations are just as filled with the same sorts of bacchanalia. So, heterosecuals also want to drag what they do into the streets – of course not all of them."

By the way, have you seen photos of the Navy Crossing the Equator ceremonies? Talk about lewd and lascivious conduct! With straight navy men! A Congressman was just showing Glen Beck pictures of these ceremonies, which Glen decided were too hot for airing.

I do not know why you related the story of one gay man investigated for killing a black gay man unless you were implying he was racist. That same sentiment, without a murder, was evident in the film Far From Heaven, which you might want to see sometime.

David closes: "You can respond however you like. I am finished. I do wish you well. I also wish you would stop attributing bad motives to people who disagree with you on this matter."

I say: I think the reason you think I am attributing bad motives to you is that the questions I have been posing are showing that what you state are "people who disagree with me on this matter," is that the disagreement is based mostly on animus towards gay people. It’s not based on real life situations that put people into the same arenas, that’s for sure. I can see that by your continued use of "homo" and disingenuously justifying it. You say that you wouldn’t say "gay" instead because that;s not the definition of the word. Also disingenuous. Most people don’t want to be thought of as bad people, so I can see why people who have been taught all of these things wouldn’t want to be thought of that way, and resist it. But I still pose the question that no one has answered:

"I keep asking people with opinions such as you post, what exactly do you think will happen if suddenly everything you are against became a reality? I think there is some fear that your lives would be different. If so, in what way?"

David| 3.11.10 @ 4:24PM

What will happen to me individually, I don't know. The simplest way to explain it is that I do believe society as a whole will be worse off. In much the same manner that I would not want polygamous marrigages legalized, incestuos marriages legalized, prostitution legalized, drug use legalized. I think it is a bad idea for states to have the lottery. I think all of those things would make soceity worse off.

Why do feel you believe same sex couples should be able to adopt children? There have been countless credible studies that show the ideal situation is for children to be reared with both a mother and father in the home. Please don't attempt to argue with that because it will indicate just how far off the deep end you are. If that is the ideal, and with thousands of hetero couples waiting to adopt, why should society and the children settle for anything less than the ideal? Just to satisfy your wants and wishes? I think that exhibits extreme selfishness on your part.

Back to the scouts: Why don't parents of homosexuals and lesbians start their own boy and girl scout groups? Or why don't you and your friends start a boy scout troop with your rules, any rules you like, and invite the boys to join your troop. I am sure NAMBLA would be willing to help with such an effort. Again, we have the right to association in this country, and society constantly discriminates in so many ways.

Should an atheist insist that he can join or lead the scouts and that he should be allowed to do so without taking the oath to God? It is utterly ridiculous. Start your own organizations.

I know what has been said recently by a couple of the top military brass about possibly changing DADT. I also know that hundreds of active generals who are currently leading our troops sent a letter to those few to say allowing homos to openly serve would be disastrous, and would certainly cut down recruitment of our all volunteer force. Are there enough homos willing to serve in order to protect this nation? Now, why should heteros not join the military just to satisfy your wants and wishes. If they are uncomfortable living and working in close quarters with homos, it is their right to FEEL such a way. I don't think you understand military culture at all. It is not a social club. Ya'll constantly press on. Until Clinton instituted DADT, which was very unpopular, homos were kicked out of the military. Now you can serve, but you have to keep your preference for males private. But that doesn't satisfy you. You ache for acceptance. I am sorry that you can't understand the heteros soldiers' wants and wishes.

Why don't ya'll work to amend the U. S. Constitution to include your sexual preference in the things we are not allowed to discriminate against: race, religion, and ethnicity. Please stop invoking the plight of blacks. They were a protected class from the beginning and we wronged them. We can, however, discriminate based on many other reasons.

I was only relating a personal experience about my black homo friend. It had no real point other than to point out that the ONE homo that I did not like for other reasons could very well have been the one who killed him, but the police could never prove it. It broke my heart when I learned he had been killed. He was a great guy.

Martin: "Behavior, yes. Orientation, no. You refuse to acknowledge gay people have an orientation different from yours which means you think any behavior one has in that regard is sinful. And that’s where your idea breaks down."

No, that is where your argument breaks down. It is your preference, not your orientation. Would I say my orientation is for brunettes and not blondes? Would I say my orientation is for women with nice asses and legs rather than big breasts? Absolutely not, I would say my preference is for ... . In the final analysis, whatever you or I want to call it, and final authority on it is God and the Bible tells us it is sin. It is no different than some of the things I have done when I acted on my lust. It wasn't illegal, but it was wrong and it was sin. Now, if you did tell me that you don't engage in those behaviors and you still have a preference for males, well, I would say "great", you are controlling your lustful urges.

Your constant emotional argument about how would I feel if I were excluded from the scouts, government, military, schools, scouting, etc., in my opinion is pretty weak and does not reflect reality. As long as you play by the rules, such as DADT, you can belong to any of the above that you mentioned. You can attend a fundamentalist Christian church if you want. You can tell the congregation you're homosexual. They will likely pray for you and invite you to sit in the pew and attend worship service. What they WILL NOT do and what you should NOT EXPECT them to do is put you in a position of leadership. Why? Because you are not playing by the rules. It would be no different for an alcoholic or serial adulterer, or thief, or whatever.

David| 3.11.10 @ 4:41PM

That said, why don't you join a liberal church such as the Episcopalians who would welcome you no matter what your behavior - and you be in leadership positions in their churches.

The problem with homosexuals starts when you demand that a fundamentalist church put you in a leadership position.

All of the institutions you mentioned above have been in existence since before we were born - and so have their rules for entry and requirements for leadership positions. Again, the problem starts when you expect them to change to suit your wants and wishes.

And I don't believe you are discriminated against in schools, the government, or the workplace, or anywhere in the public sector. It probably does happen in the private sector, but then again, that is private, and we have the right of association.

Martin Pal| 3.11.10 @ 9:00PM

Hello, David,

David says: What will happen to me individually, I don't know. The simplest way to explain it is that I do believe society as a whole will be worse off. In much the same manner that I would not want polygamous marriages legalized, incestuos marriages legalized, prostitution legalized, drug use legalized. I think it is a bad idea for states to have the lottery. I think all of those things would make soceity worse off.

David, why do you keep comparing me with polygamists, incest, prostitutes, drug users etc.? Why are same-sex marriages in that category for you? Straight people are not polygamists, incestuous, prostitutes or drug users, either? Why should straight people get married? None of that is a part of my life or the lives of other gay people that I know, any more than it is a part of your life, unless you’re trying to tell me something. So, again, society is going to be worse off how?

David says: "Why do feel you believe same sex couples should be able to adopt children? There have been countless credible studies that show the ideal situation is for children to be reared with both a mother and father in the home. Please don't attempt to argue with that because it will indicate just how far off the deep end you are. If that is the ideal, and with thousands of hetero couples waiting to adopt, why should society and the children settle for anything less than the ideal? Just to satisfy your wants and wishes? I think that exhibits extreme selfishness on your part."

Okay, let’s accept the premise that you state. Since 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, then how many "ideal families" are left? Should we ban divorce? Should children be taken away from families without two parents of opposite sex involved? Adoption agencies are always stating that there are many more children that need homes than there are families willing to take them. If this world were "ideal" then you would accept gay people and not feel them unworthy to be included. I think there’s a selfishness on your part that you don’t even recognize. To say that gay couples are being selfish because they might want to adopt a child is to cast aspersions on those who have successfully done so and the children who are proof of it. I have to lead a life that is diminished by people with opinions like yourself. Why don’t we change those opinions while we’re at it?

David says: "Back to the scouts: Why don't parents of homosexuals and lesbians start their own boy and girl scout groups? Or why don't you and your friends start a boy scout troop with your rules, any rules you like, and invite the boys to join your troop. I am sure NAMBLA would be willing to help with such an effort. Again, we have the right to association in this country, and society constantly discriminates in so many ways."

Again, thanks for equating me with something like NAMBLA and stating that you believe in discrimination. Now we’re getting somewhere! Do you really believe gay people approve of NAMBLA? Do you believe I do? Why do parents have to have separate boy scout troops for gay children? What rules would be different? Is NO GAYS ALLOWED simply enough? You can’t keep saying I shouldn’t be allowed to do things unless you’ve got a good reason. The only reason you keep coming up with is that it could lead to something else. Or sinister allusions of sexual misconduct. Isn’t any kind of misconduct not allowed in most organizations. You have an animus toward gay people that you still haven’t recognized.

David says: "Should an atheist insist that he can join or lead the scouts and that he should be allowed to do so without taking the oath to God? It is utterly ridiculous. Start your own organizations."

Again, you are convoluting the issue. Being religious and/or believing in God is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. There is no reason I should not be in scouting simply because I am gay. The only reasons you bring up are some unformed fears of gay people. I don’t get what you think the difference between a straight Scout troop, a gay scout troop or a mixed scout troop would be. Care to expound on that?

David says: "I also know that hundreds of active generals who are currently leading our troops sent a letter to those few to say allowing homos to openly serve would be disastrous, and would certainly cut down recruitment of our all volunteer force. Are there enough homos willing to serve in order to protect this nation? Now, why should heteros not join the military just to satisfy your wants and wishes."

You are just being ludicrous now, David, I’m sorry. Really, hundreds? Has this fear of disaster happened in any of the countries where gay men and women are allowed to openly serve? No it has not. Gay men and women serve in nearly all law enforcement capacities in the U.S. right now. Is this a disaster? A gay man prevented the assassination of Gerald Ford during a campaign stop in 1976. Are you telling me that a man with the mentality of wanting to be a soldier is going to be afraid to join the armed forces because gay people are in it? Of all the horrors that might befall a service member, knowing a gay person is the line in the sand? Why would allowing gay men and women (who already do and always have served) why does the term "openly serve" scare you? What exactly do you think will happen? It hasn’t happened in the countries gays and lesbians are now serving openly in: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

On this issue, the U.S. is currently on the side of those countries that do not allow gays and lesbians to serve openly: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, Jamaica, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, and Yemen.

David writes: "If they are uncomfortable living and working in close quarters with homos, it is their right to FEEL such a way."

David, you wrote in an above post that I am now quoting: "but don't demand that a fundamentalist Christian church change what it believes because you don't FEEL EQUAL. There is no RIGHT to feel equal."

David if you don’t feel equal to me that is a pity, but on matters of law the Supreme Court has consistently upheld that separate is not equal. You cannot separate yourself from me because I make you uncomfortable, whether it’s your religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or anything else that makes you uncomfortable. You can feel anyway you want to about something, but you don’t have the right to deny people their rights out of unfounded animus. Animusses? Animi? Lol…

David says: "I don't think you understand military culture at all. It is not a social club."

You think gay men and women think the military is a social club? You have that low an opinion of those gay men and women serving our country? You only support the straight troops, is that it? Sad.

David says: "Ya'll constantly press on."

To quote a phrase: "We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it." LOL!

David writes: "Until Clinton instituted DADT, which was very unpopular, homos were kicked out of the military."

They still are kicked out in case you haven’t noticed. All you have to do is tell someone you’re gay and you’re out. Wasting our tax dollars.

David says: "Now you can serve, but you have to keep your preference for males private. But that doesn't satisfy you. You ache for acceptance. I am sorry that you can't understand the heteros soldiers' wants and wishes."

Is this what you’re afraid of, that if the policy changes that straight soldiers are going to be hit on or something? I have a bit of news for you that you might find shocking—gay men like other gay men, they don’t want you. Get over yourselves. And it doesn’t mean any group can flount any other codes of conduct the military has.

David writes: "Why don't ya'll work to amend the U. S. Constitution to include your sexual preference in the things we are not allowed to discriminate against: race, religion, and ethnicity."

Working on it, I’d like to recruit you in these efforts.

David writes: "Please stop invoking the plight of blacks. They were a protected class from the beginning and we wronged them. We can, however, discriminate based on many other reasons."

Why, because civil rights are different? Slaves were a protected class? Can I invoke the plight of gay blacks? Glad to know you are still in favor of "discrimination based on many other reasons."

David writes: "No, that is where your argument breaks down. It is your preference, not your orientation."

As I have said before and you either are ignoring it or not comprehending it—if sexual orientation is not a choice, that means, and let’s just talk about "you"--David--that means both options are valid for you and that you would also not know what you preferred until you had actually experienced both choices. Did you grow up thinking either was an available choice for you? Was there a time in your life you had sexual experiences with both men and women and then chose one or the other? If you were not oriented to be with either men or women, how did you know this unless you experienced the options?

How smug is it for straight people, who have no orientation toward being gay, to think that gay people are just choosing not to be the way they are. It’s the height of hypocritical unacceptance.

David writes: "Would I say my orientation is for brunettes and not blondes? Would I say my orientation is for women with nice asses and legs rather than big breasts? Absolutely not, I would say my preference is for ... ."

If it was an option for you (choice) why isn’t your preference for "men or women" with nice asses and legs rather than big breasts? Could it be because your orientation is not gay? David, please, do not be so blind.

David writes: "In the final analysis, whatever you or I want to call it, and final authority on it is God and the Bible tells us it is sin."

David, do not get into a Bible quoting contest. People have used the bible to subjugate different groups of people ever since it was written, by quoting it out of context; using it to mean various interpretations. Look at what Christian fundamentalist ministers have done in Uganda. The report I saw on ABC last night was truly appalling. Supposedly religious men from the United States are whipping the public up into a false frenzy and telling lies about gay people that are so appalling I was upset half the night. Things that you are in favor of, judging by the posts you’ve made. These ministers are using the bible and God to justify laws supporting the killing of gay people in Uganda. Standing in churches and showing gay pornography to people and shouting for them to be harmed. Gay people are putting bags on their heads if they want to talk to anyone about these things. They can’t believe that supposedly Christian religious men have come from the United States to make their lives worse. (This is Christianity?) It was like watching a modern version of The Crucible.

These are extreme, but it is what the views you are holding in your head lead to in the extremity. The ministers have the audacity to say they are not against homosexuals (because of course they would not say gay people) and yet their ministering is leading to killing. Tolerance indeed.

David writes: "It would be no different for an alcoholic or serial adulterer, or thief, or whatever."

Again David, I am now going to ask that you STOP comparing me to alcoholics, serial adulterers, thieves, or whatever else you falsely equate gay people with. To me it is slanderous. It is not me.

David writes: "Again, the problem starts when you expect them to change to suit your wants and wishes."

You are asking "me" to change (not be gay) to suit YOUR wants and wishes. Fortunately we have a separation of church and state and churches cannot make laws against people. Because your religious teachings are based on a lot of animus toward gay people (despite the protestations) and not founded on much more than that, we have a constitutional democracy that upholds the laws for us all even over the tyranny of the majority. Gay people, as I’ve said before, are no longer going to accept the lies and distortions put forth about us. We know the truth of our lives.

David writes: "And I don't believe you are discriminated against in schools, the government, or the workplace, or anywhere in the public sector. It probably does happen in the private sector, but then again, that is private, and we have the right of association."

I don’t see why you keep admitting that you are for discrimination today.

As for not believing we are discriminated against—

In schools: "Ask the young gay boy who was shot in California last year by a classmate, solely because he was gay. That’s the worst form of discrimination. Tell the girl in Jackson, Mississippi this week who petitioned the school to let her bring her dame sex date to the prom and rather than do that simple thing, the school just decided to not have a prom.

The Government: "What about serving openly in the military with dignity? Do we force others to LIE about themselves? What about being counted in the current census underway? Do we not even exist? What about healthcare for partners or spouses?"

The workplace: "I just read a survey that said 28% of respondents, of whatever sexual orientation, had witnessed some form of gay bashing. If that’s not discrimination, I’d hate to think what is. Just google workplace discrimination if you want the info."

Public sector: "Google ‘gay bashing’ for starters."

These are your homework assignments…heh!

David| 3.12.10 @ 12:39PM

Yes, over 200 hundred generals is what I heard read in a couple of articles - probably in the Spectator.

I'm done. If you stop trying to force yourselves into every nook and cranny of society, you would find your life would be much easier.

And you don't want to get in a Bible quoting contest. There is nothing taken out of context - the Bible - the Word of God - is unequivocal that same sex acts are sin.

You take care.

Martin Pal| 3.12.10 @ 1:56PM

Do you agree with this discrimination David:

"Johnny Weir Deemed 'Not Family Friendly' Enough to Perform in Stars on Ice Tour"

"Sponsors of the Stars on Ice Tour, which include Smuckers and IMG Entertainment, have refused to allow 3-time US National Champion and 2-time Olympian Johnny Weir to participate because they claim that he is 'not family friendly.' To say that Weir is “not family friendly” is a clear jab at his perceived sexual orientation. Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working. Weir’s dedication to his family can be clearly documented in the Sundance series, Be Good Johnny Weir, which follows him and his family and friends through his life and career as a championship skater."

Martin Pal| 3.12.10 @ 1:57PM

David, after all of the things I asked you to discuss in the post above, all you come back with is "Yes, I read it somewhere" and "the Bible says so"?

Well, the two things you did mention I will reply to.

First, I found a website which I will link below if that is allowed.

It is from Media Matters and details the myths that you are promoting about GLBT’s in the military and DADT and debunks them. Some of the topics covered are:

MYTH: Don't Ask, Don't Tell is working

MYTH: Repeal would undermine morale and unit cohesion

MYTH: Military experts oppose the repeal of DADT

MYTH: The public does not support repeal of DADT

MYTH: Right-wing attacks on DADT repeal are not anti-gay

MYTH: DADT repeal would adversely affect retention

MYTH: Experience of other nations aren't relevant because "nobody counts on" their armies

MYTH: Only progressives support the repeal of DADT

MYTH: DADT repeal would expose servicemembers to greater HIV risk

http://mediamatters.org/press/.....1002240015

As for the Bible says so, try this site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

I really don’t think you are interested in learning anything new about these subjects, David, so I don’t expect you will. I cannot learn much from you because you do not answer the questions I pose to you. It is sad that many people have to spend their time analyzing and refuting the inaccuracies lodged against the GLBT community by religious conservative organizations and individuals. After all, lies in the name of God are still lies.

In closing, today, I will pose the same thing to you that you posed to me in your above post: "If you stop trying to keep GLBT people out of every nook and cranny of society, you would find your life would be much easier."

David| 3.12.10 @ 3:47PM

You responded early today.

I was going to ignore some of the comments you made yesterday, but after thinking about it, I do want to say that you are very unfair in your criticisms.

When I point out that Bible-believing churches would not put gays in leadership positions, and state that the same would be true of alcoholics, habitual adulterers, thieves, or whatever, you made a huge leap to claim that I was comparing you to them. If you were fair and not just making ad hominem attacks, there is no way you can make that claim from what I said.

The same goes for the NAMBLA statement.

I don't know anything about what is going on in Africa. It is very hard for me to believe that Christian ministers are encouraging the killing of homosexuals - or are you blaming them for the deaths simply because they speak out against homosexual practice? They are not going change the Word of God to be politcally correct.

As for todays comments: Who is Media Matters, and how did you determine they are credible and accurate in their opinions? I heard the story from the horses' mouths. Secretary Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs spoke about the "possibility" of repealing DADT. Of course they are appointed by the prez and no doubt there was some nudging in the direction they took. Then the heads of the 4 branches of the armed services came out against what Gates and the Chairman's opinions. Then more than 200 active generals sent a letter to the Chairman warning of such a move. Now, if you were fair, and not living your entire based on your homosexuality, common sense dictates that the military leaders and not Media Matters has the correct position on the matter.
Respectfully, I don't need to link to a site to tell me what the Bible says - I read it for myself - it is clear about the subject of same sex acts. I suppose that you also find in the Bible a right to kill unborn children in the name of women's rights.

You are correct: I am not interested in learning anything new about the subject. The subject has been around for thousands of years. Because you claim there is something new and improved about it does not make it so.

The real reason I came back to post was to say this. If you have been sharing our discussion with any of your friends or family, I hope you have been honest enough NOT to have edited my comments. Because some of the friends who believe the way you do may not read my comments as hateful and derogatory, and may even be able to see some of my comments from the my point-of-view.

Again, take care.

David| 3.12.10 @ 3:50PM

I wasn't completely clear: The 4 heads of the armed services who went against the Chairman are also Joint Chiefs. You probably knew that, but just in case.

Martin Pal| 3.12.10 @ 7:10PM

David says: "I do want to say that you are very unfair in your criticisms.
When I point out that Bible-believing churches would not put gays in leadership positions, and state that the same would be true of alcoholics, habitual adulterers, thieves, or whatever, you made a huge leap to claim that I was comparing you to them. If you were fair and not just making ad hominem attacks, there is no way you can make that claim from what I said. The same goes for the NAMBLA statement."

But David, you "are" comparing me to them. Why do you use all those negative things as examples to prove your points if you are not? And if you are not, what "are" you comparing gay people to? What I’m getting at here is that if you take an animus toward gay people out of the equation, then there doesn’t seem to be any reason to argue your points.

A lot of the religious things you bring up are based on sexual practices. Gay or straight sexual "practices" and not sexual orientation, but, as you said, you want to believe what you want to believe. You are distrustful of any information I gave you as references. I don’t suppose it’s because you might find out something contrary to what you believe. Or because you wouldn’t believe it anyway?

And if you refuse to see we are born the way we are, that we have an orientation different than yours, then we need talk no longer. The more you post, the more I see how you have been taught and come to believe things that simply aren’t true, and want to remain unenlightened about them. I suppose it is easier for you not to. Reminds me of that quote: ""People have a hard time letting go of their memes. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer thinking that is familiar."

There have been many things in religion and politics that "have" changed over the millennia. According to surveys I’ve read, the current young generation has no problem with gay people. Someday the things you write will be looked back on as the things people wrote about black people during slavery, armed forces integration and civil rights legislation, or like the things written about women and the belief they should not have voting equality.

David says: "It is very hard for me to believe that Christian ministers are encouraging the killing of homosexuals."

It is sad you have no idea that the hateful rhetoric spouted by these fundamentalist Christian ministers leads toward violence against gay people. But you don’t want to see things in a different light, so you condone it by your beliefs.

David writes: "They are not going change the Word of God to be politically correct."

Ah, but people distort the word of God to suit themselves all the time. There’s a minister, associated with Pastor Rick Warren, in Uganda who shows how evil gay people are by showing film and photos of sex practices and whipping them up into a frenzy and then lies about gay people, their intentions, their dignity and humanity. All in the name of God and the Bible. Nice, huh? It reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials.

As for DADT, there is always going to be some fearful opposition to abolishing DADT, just as there was when Truman integrated the military and yet, some racists still exist in the military.

David writes: "Now, if you were fair, and not living your entire based on your homosexuality, common sense dictates that the military leaders and not Media Matters has the correct position on the matter."

In that case, the armed services would not have been integrated by Truman because there was the same biases from military people toward blacks. You see no historical parallels?

David says: "Respectfully, I don't need to link to a site to tell me what the Bible says - I read it for myself"

Well, I guess we don’t need preachers, rabbis, ministers—clergymen of any sort then, because YOU know.

David continued: " - it is clear about the subject of same sex acts."

If you cared to see the site I linked you will see it is not so clear at all.

David throws in another topic: "I suppose that you also find in the Bible a right to kill unborn children in the name of women's rights."

I, personally, don’t believe in abortion, but I do not think I have any right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do concerning that. It is not my body, it is hers. You can be pro-choice and against abortions at the same time. I would never presume that I should be the one to decide that for anyone.

David admits: "I am not interested in learning anything new about the subject. The subject has been around for thousands of years. Because you claim there is something new and improved about it does not make it so."

My claim is that gay people HAVE been around for thousands of years, there is even a new study about it being a natural effect that enhances and strengthens the family unit. True! Indians even have a name for those born this way; they call them two-spirit people and they are accepted as unique parts of their societies. (Probably until the Christian white man came to tell them how wrong they were.) If this were something so unusual, why are gay people born every day? Must have something to do with God’s plan.

David says: "The real reason I came back to post was to say this. If you have been sharing our discussion with any of your friends or family, I hope you have been honest enough NOT to have edited my comments. Because some of the friends who believe the way you do may not read my comments as hateful and derogatory, and may even be able to see some of my comments from the my point-of-view."

David, I have never said your comments themselves were hateful or derogatory, but they do lend themselves in that direction when your examples against GLBT equality are framed with the likes of alcoholics, child molesters, drug addicts and similar kinds of animus. It makes me think Gary might be right.

David writes: "Again, take care."

"You, too, David."

Trackback| 5.15.10 @ 8:29PM

Public Sector Tenders, on Public Sector Tenders, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

I wish I was able to do the same

ipad to itunes transfer | 11.21.10 @ 12:15AM

iPad to iTunes Transfer ia an all-in-one ipad transfer tool. United four tools into one, this iPad to iTunes Transfer can be considerred as the best assistant when dealing with iPad stuffs. As an iPad uer, you can use iPad to iTunes Transfer as a iPad to Computer Transfer, Computer to iPad Transfer, iPad Converter, DVD to iPad Transfer, even it can be used as a hard drive to manage iPad files in good order.

wow| 10.17.11 @ 12:33PM

Nice post, i`m looking forward for new ones, keep up the great work.
actos lawsuit

結婚したい | 5.27.11 @ 2:47AM

How do the marriage circumstances of America turn out?

yanyan | 10.10.11 @ 11:44AM

Thank you for such a fantastic blog. Where else could anyone get that kind of information written in such a perfect way? I have a presentation that I am presently working on, and I have been on the look out for such informationmesothelioma attorney

yaz class action | 10.22.11 @ 2:19PM

I LOVE THIS BLOG SO VERY INFORMATIONAL. THIS TOPIC DISCUSS ABOUT EVIDENCE. WELL, EVIDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT DURING COURT TRIAL TO PROVE THE GUILTY PERSON.

malibu real estate | 10.11.11 @ 1:59AM

Sources like the one you talked about right here will probably be very useful to me! I will submit a link to this web page on my blog.

L Tod Schlosser | 11.4.11 @ 12:28PM

Many thanks for the exciting blog posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you are a brilliant writer. I actually added your blog to my favorites and will look forward for more updates. Great Job,Keep it up..
L Tod Schlosser

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 1:09PM

what do you mean mr disa?your speaking korean right?thats awesome :Dmas200

yanyan| 10.11.11 @ 2:32PM

I choose this article very much. So lots of thanks for this post.I am very interested for this post. Its really give me lots of pleasure.zoloft lawsuit

balcuizar62| 10.12.11 @ 8:42PM

Wow, nicely done.. playing it I kept moving my head around as the view changed, little dose of virtual reality?
Yaz lawyer

ruth| 10.17.11 @ 10:03AM

thanks and i finally know whats the big different keep it up.

silver spot price

fiance visa| 10.17.11 @ 8:54PM

Good job! The blog contains as much news on the topic as one could expect. It’s quite impressive. You seem to spend plenty of time behind this. This is first time here. I would make regular visits.
fiance visa

creamer| 10.19.11 @ 8:22PM

Basically good post. We're expecting some different idea from a side.
actos lawsuit

love| 10.20.11 @ 5:39AM

niceYou can use online translators such as BabelFish. However, these arent precise all the time and errors might still exist.
Actos side effects

accident attorney dallas| 10.20.11 @ 1:59PM

Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful!I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post thanks!

accident attorney dallas

choy| 10.21.11 @ 11:26AM

thanks for sharing this blog

dallas injury lawyers

devourment| 11.4.11 @ 1:05PM

this is the best blog i ever read and useful i ever know thanks

L Tod Schlosser

PIERCE| 11.8.11 @ 2:51AM

Your article really fascinates the core of my interest.
filipina girls

chester| 11.11.11 @ 1:25AM

Sweet article, many thanks. I’ve been intending on submitting a post along these lines for some time, do you mind if I quote you? I’ll link back to you of course.

zoloft lawsuit

Perfect !!!| 11.14.11 @ 3:53AM

Good post. This is a very nice blog that I will definitively come back to more times this year! Thanks for informative post.

mesothelioma lawyer

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|21 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|11 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|13 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|26 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|3 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|9 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|7 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: “Why I Am a Republican”

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

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?