-
It’s Not About Abortion—Except It Is
April 15, 2013 | 148 comments
-
A Think Tank With Action
April 6, 2013 | 0 comments
-
I Know Victoria’s Secrets
March 29, 2013 | 17 comments
-
The New Feminism
March 25, 2013 | 49 comments
-
Rand’s Band of Brothers
March 8, 2013 | 41 comments
Political Hay
Minnesota for Marriage
One of Michele Bachmann’s prized bills passes in Minnesota House — eight years after she introduced it.
One of Michele Bachmann’s political goals might be close to realization. No, not election to the presidency (yet). Recently the Minnesota House passed a bill that will allow voters to cast their ballot for an amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage in Minnesota. The legislation was first proposed by Bachmann as a state senator in 2003. It now stands as a major test for both social conservatives and gay rights activists in the debate over same-sex marriage.
For decades, the state of Minnesota has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The state supreme court has even upheld this traditional definition. But supporters of the proposed amendment say an explicit prohibition of same-sex marriage needs to be written into the constitution to prevent it from being imposed by either judges or lawmakers down the road.
Predictably, the bill has sparked a heated political confrontation. After a nearly six-hour debate, two DFL (Democrat) legislators voted for the bill and four Republicans voted against the bill, which will appear as a referendum on the November 2012 ballot. Though the bill passed 70-62, a May 13 Minneapolis Star Tribune poll asked people if they “would favor or oppose… amending the Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.” Fifty-five percent answered “oppose.” Conservative Star Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten blames the outcome of the poll on the negative language; the actual ballot language uses more positive terms: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”
Already, several groups like OutFront Minnesota and Minnesotans United For All Families are gearing up for an 18-month long campaign to ensure the Minnesotans vote “no” on the amendment. Local and national organizations are predicting millions of dollars will be spent to sway voters either way. Tom Pritchard of the Minnesota Family Council believes organizations like his will have to roll up their sleeves to guarantee the amendment passes, but he’s optimistic it will.
While lawmakers hope for a civil debate among Minnesotans for the next several months, that might already be wishful thinking. Bradlee Dean, a local radio-show host and preacher who has made anti-gay comments in the past, opened the day before the vote’s session in prayer in the house chamber and questioned President Obama’s faith. That comment, coupled with his previous statements regarding gays, incited an immediate uproar. The speaker of the house, Kurt Zellers, expunged Dean’s prayer from the record and released a statement apologizing for Dean’s presence.
Though Bachmann has represented Minnesota in Congress since 2006, she didn’t hesitate to show excitement over the bill’s pending passage. Before it passed in the house, she Tweeted: “As a MN state senator I introduced a constitutional marriage amendment; 8 years later it’s finally coming up for a vote.” Bachmann’s involvement was no doubt critical in its initiation, but the passage of the bill is due largely to the new Republican majority in the legislature.
Still, not every Republican was on board. One of the two Republicans to break with his party and oppose the marriage bill was Rep. John Kriesel, an Iraq war veteran, young lawmaker, and family man. In his five-minute speech declaring why he would “Press the hell no button, if there was one,” Kriesel said equality took precedence over party. He told the story of a fellow veteran who died this year in Afghanistan and who was gay. He couldn’t fathom telling this person’s family their loved one was good enough to fight for his country but wasn’t “good enough to marry the person [he] loved.” Stories like that are at the root of the gay marriage debate. No doubt they will abound as the vote draws near.
Indeed, the outcome of the vote could serve as a temperature gauge for the country’s opinion on social issues. Though fiscal issues will probably trump debate over social ones next fall, the nation still remains divided on gay marriage. A recent Gallup poll found 53% — the first time the majority of Americans — support gay marriage. Yet 31 states (including California) have amendments to their constitution like the one Minnesotans will vote on next cycle. While legal in five states (including Iowa), gay marriage has never been approved by popular vote. (Or has been rejected by the voters everywhere it has been put on the ballot.)
Time will tell how Minnesotans feel about a constitutional amendment over such a controversial issue. For now, credit is due to Bachmann, but to especially the Republican (and few Democrat) legislators responsible for giving the people of Minnesota the chance to voice their opinion on the matter once and for all.
About the Author
Nicole Russell writes from Northern Virginia.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (109) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Nicole Russell
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/02/minnesota-for-marriage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Jiff363| 6.2.11 @ 7:26AM
Sad in this day and age. It really does not matter what the people vote for in the end all these types of hate laws will be wash away just like segregation, no marriage outside your race, slavery and so many other historical embarrassments. The young do not share the old hate, thank God!
Rich D| 6.2.11 @ 7:38AM
There never was marriage outside your race. Are suggesting sanctioned bestiality?
Bob B| 6.2.11 @ 8:06AM
Rich, if you can get that animal to consent to and sign all the necessary documents, then why not?
Oh, what a minute, you were playing another round of "slippery slop," the argument brought up when you have nothing intelligent to debate.
SonOfSam| 6.2.11 @ 10:49AM
Hey Bob, here's a "slippery slope" for you:
if an adult son and his mom can "consent to and sign all the necessary documents, then why not?" Or is that just wishful thinking on your part, since then you and yo momma could come out of your closet?
Either way, nice try you godforsaken Norman Bates wannabe.
Look around you fool: EVERY time this question is put to the voters, We The People emphatically say yes, marriage is between one man and one woman, just as it has been throughout Western civilization. Go peddle your babbling disconnected nonsense somewhere else
Occam's Tool| 6.2.11 @ 1:54PM
From The Telegraph, 2008:
"Spain's socialists monkeying with human rights
By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: June 30th, 2008
16 Comments Comment on this article
The decision by the Spanish parliament’s environmental committee to extend human rights to apes – the latest excess by the Zapatero socialist government – provides further evidence that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Human rights are to be extended to four classes of simians to ensure Spain’s compliance with the international Great Ape Project (GAP).
GAP’s mission statement says: “We demand the extension of the community of equals to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans.” By insultingly classifying human beings as apes, GAP seeks to reverse the Judaeo-Christian concept of man as being endowed with a unique dignity as the possessor of a soul.
This is hardly surprising since one of GAP’s co-founders was Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor and guru of the animal rights movement, who not only supports abortion but also infanticide of disabled infants up to 28 days after birth. Though fiercely defensive of apes, he has said that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.”
Against that background, the extension of human rights to apes by the Spanish Left can be seen as not simply a sentimental aberration but as the latest initiative in its assault on Christianity. In 2003 the government legalised embryo experimentation; in 2005 it legislated for homosexual “marriage”; in 2006 the terms “father” and “mother” in Spanish birth registrations were replaced by “Parent A” and “Parent B” to remove any connotations of heterosexual family life, though lesbian groups protested because the word “progenitor” in Spanish is a masculine noun. Abortion is now the single largest cause of death in Spain.
Commenting on the extension of human rights to apes, Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of GAP, said: “This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defence of our evolutionary comrades (sic), which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity.” When the proposal was first introduced into parliament one member, Francisco Garrido, claimed that the Spanish Socialists were acting as the voice of the great apes. They are well qualified to do so: Spain was ruled by apes from 1931 to 1939, during the nightmare ascendancy of the obscenity that was the Second Republic.
The logical extension of this measure would be to grant voting rights to apes. If such a move were also adopted in Gibraltar, where there is a large simian constituency, it might materially affect the outcome of any future referendum on integration into Spain. On the other hand, if rights carry reciprocal responsibilities, the 25 Gibraltarian apes who rioted earlier this year might find themselves appearing in court charged with public order offences."
Assume Lawyers will ALWAYS do the idiotic thing. It's called "legal theory" folks.
David C| 6.2.11 @ 11:23PM
Jiff363 didn't mean marriage outside the human race, and you know it, Rich.
Must you be an ass?
Melvin| 6.2.11 @ 7:50AM
Please spare us the sanctimonious, "The young do not share the old hate, thank God!" This whole hate thing has just gotten a little bit old. Every single little group that has an ax to grind with white heterosexuals always bring us, "your just being hateful."
From minorities to homosexuals have had legislation that has turned them into a protected class. And for those who do not share those particular groups views they are descended upon like hounds of hell and torn asunder.
Another thing, "The young do not share the old hate, thank God!" And why is that?Because Gays and Lesbians have installed curriculum in our government run education system that indoctrinates these young fertile minds. Unfortunately heterosexuals don't receive equal time in the classroom because they're message is been deemed, "Hateful."
InLineFour| 6.4.11 @ 1:53PM
You've touched on something here, Mel. Let's start by taking our language back. Gay can mean 'happy' again, and we henceforth ALWAYS use the proper term 'homosexuals' for anyone who engages in homosexual behavior.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.2.11 @ 8:49AM
Those that make asinine and sophomoric statements like, "The young do not share the old hate, thank God!" are the same people who drive around with bumper stickers saying "Hate isn't a Family Value" but boy you don't agree with their pet "sin" or ideology and you'll feel their hate toot sweet.
Defending the traditional family isn't about hate it is about protecting what is good and right in our society and traditions. What is next to legitimize polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality – where does being open minded and tolerant stop and just being immoral and depraved start?
Occam's Tool| 6.2.11 @ 1:42PM
The attack on traditional marriage when we are being outbred by our enemies is ridiculous.
It's always easy for me: I just vote Republican and Conservative. Kriesel is not my state rep.
Derek Leaberry| 6.2.11 @ 5:02PM
You are morally degraded.
cowgirl| 6.2.11 @ 10:40PM
The God you just thanked views homosexuality as a sin you might want to rethink that statement
David C| 6.2.11 @ 11:26PM
It took 16 hours and 32 minutes for religious dogma to raise its ugly head.
But then it just wouldn't be the Spectator's comment boards without the religious dogma, now would it?
cowgirl| 6.3.11 @ 10:50AM
No religious dogma sir - just the facts. God hates homosexuality - that is not religious dogma or opinion, it is a fact that neither you or I can do much about.
David C| 6.4.11 @ 5:31AM
Just the facts, eh?
So you know for a fact, do you Cowgirl, that God hates homosexuality, in spite of his making a great many creators that enjoy indulging in it. Just how do you know this. Told you, did he, face to face?
You only prove my point, Cowgirl.
You have no facts to present. You have no reasoned arguments to present. Only beliefs you hold simply because you believe them, ie. dogma.
utopia| 6.4.11 @ 11:59AM
Try to understand it before you knock it Godspeed:)
http://www.amazon.com/Good-New.....064&sr=1-3
David C| 6.6.11 @ 5:14AM
Utopia,
Just how a book on Catholic teachings regarding human sexuality relates to this discussion is murky at best.
I objected to Cowgirl's dogmatic religious assertions in the middle of discussion on law and public policy. Catholic teachings on sex, and what I think of them, are irrelevant here. (And you shouldn't assume my ignorance of the Church's teachings.)
cowgirl| 6.4.11 @ 9:57PM
Yes I do know that He hates homosexuality. There is right and wrong in this world and homosexuality is wrong. Period. You are trying to justify something that is wrong and against nature. But you are entitled to not only your opinion, but practice or do what you choose (much like abortion). The problem you will run into will involve your death and the judgement thereafter. You are free to do what you want, but you must pay the price. I really don't care what you do - it is not my problem.
David C| 6.6.11 @ 5:10AM
No, Cowgirl, you do not know that God hates homosexuality. You BELIEVE it. Belief and knowledge are not the same. (Not by a long shot.)
So once again you continue with the religious dogma on homosexuality -- and then compound it with more religious dogma on judgment after death.
Religious dogma does not impress me, Cowgirl. Not in the slightest. And I think adults should be able to discuss matters of public policy without resorting to, or having to be confronted with, assertions grounded solely in religious beliefs.
There was a man in ancient India -- a contemporary of the Buddha -- who taught that people became good or evil for no reasons whatsoever. They simply attained to salvation authomatically after a set number of reincarnations on earth. If I spouted off on how I firmly believed this and how important it was to political affairs in the US today, would you be impressed?
cowgirl| 6.6.11 @ 6:52PM
Oh yes and you know that God loves homosexuality. Of course because you are a liberal and liberals hate God because they want to be God. Buddahism is a man-made flawed religion - much like belief in evolution, humanism, and the sexual revolution (Kinsey, Mailer, Money, Mead, Sanger, etc). All man-made religons have proven to be huge failures - Just look at the places that practice those man-made religions - China, India, and of course the City near by me - San Francisco - city of bottom feeders and losers. The bright shining city of man-made religions - an angry, heartless brutal place mired in man-made religions - visit it sometime. Stop I take that back - you would find it appealing. God hates homosexuality. You will find that out some day soon.
David C| 6.7.11 @ 3:01AM
"Oh yes and you know that God loves homosexuality"
Claimed that, did I? Strange, but I think an examination of my comments will reveal I did not.
I do not make claims about the power that creates the universe hating or loving anything. I do not project human emotional responses onto non-human realities, you see.
Now lumping Buddhism, humanism, biological evolution, and the sexual revolution together is really a bit much, Cowgirl, as they all have nothing to do with each other.
I can grant you this: It's true that a school of thought like humanism can function like a religion; it's also true that science has become a religion for many. But I don't see how the sexual revolution fits here, unless you are suggesting that hedonsim has become a religion for some, which is an arguable point.
It is true, of course, that Buddhism is a man-made religion. So are all religions, including Christianity. If you think otherwise, you are just further making my point about how you think dogmatically about religion. (And it would be interesting to discover just what form of Christianity you think isn't man-made: Roman Catholicsm, the Orthodox Catholicism of the east, Anglicanism, or the many Lutheran sects.)
Of course, I don't know why you even bring-up your bigotry against Buddhism at all. I said the Indian fellow I had in mind was a contemporary of the Buddha. The Buddha himself thought the man's teachings were the most dangerous religious doctrine ever. (But then I am delighted at how you show your ignorance of anything but your own narrow religious beliefs.)
"All man-made religons have proven to be huge failures - Just look at the places that practice those man-made religions"
Indeed. Because the Europe that fought the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants, and the United States that tore itself apart over black-chattel slavery were stirling examples of Christianity's success.
"God hates homosexuality. You will find that out some day soon."
I will find that out never. Because the God you believe in is a figment of your fevered imagination. Whether or not you ever realize this, however, is not my problem.
cowgirl| 6.7.11 @ 12:09PM
Where is my bigotry againast Buddahism? Where did I say that? I said Buddahism is a man-made religion - you agreed so therefore you are a bigot also. Be careful how you label people. Buddahism, evolution, the sexual revolution etc are all religions with religious dogma created by man. They are all faith-based as none of them have any solid facts to back them up. They are figments of man's wishful thinking. Christianity is not a man-made religion. Jesus Christ existed and walked the face of this earth. You and James Cameron cannot prove otherwise. Prophecies in the Bible have come true - no other man, faith or book can claim any of their claims - i.e. one's faith in evolution - the goo-man theory - a bubble explosed and man was created. Fairy Tale.
Keep in mind - atheists like you believe in God - You need to believe there is a God in order to believe there isn't one. Also God does not hate the sinner - he hates the sin. God does hate. He also gives us free will to believe what we want to believe - which means when we choose to believe something and follow it - we pay the consequences good or bad.
I on the other do not delight in your ignorance as the consequences of your ignorance will not be pretty.
David C| 6.7.11 @ 9:08PM
Cowgirl,
The name of the religion in question is BUDDHISM -- not Buddhaism. As I said before, it is enjoyable to see you display your ignorance, you should at least show Buddhists the proper respect by spelling the name of their religion properly.
Admitting a religion is man-made is not bigotry. Bigotry is blaming someone else's religion for all of another culture's sins and woes, while giving your religion a pass on your own culture's transgressions. And that fault was displayed by you, not I.
Now you may think that Christianity is superior to Buddhism because Jesus "existed and walked the face of this earth," but Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) existed and walked the earth as well. In fact we can be much more certain of this than we can be of Jesus' existence. (I would add 'and you cannot prove otherwise,' but proving a negative is usually impossible and you were silly to act otherwise.)
That Jesus and Siddhartha actually lived doesn't alter the man-made nature of Christianity and Buddhism one iota.
"Prophecies in the Bible have come true..."
Really? What you mean is that Christians like yourself read self-servingly read parts of the Bible to justify your own Christianity. Jews and Muslims, of course, disagree. (Say what you will about the Muslims, but since Jesus was a Jew you're on slippery ground going after them.)
I challenge you, Cowgirl, for doing nothing but spout religious dogma, and your only response is to spout more Christian dogma about Christianity's superiority. A scholar a very much respect once said that the greatest of fools is the one who thinks 'there is no God but mine.' You are such a fool.
Your belief that Christianity (although you won't say which form of it) is the one and only true religion is the result of your own wishful thinking.
As for evolution being a religion, while I granted that science has become a religion for many, biological evolution is per se a known fact. And a fairly obvious one to anyone who has paid any attention to the world of living things. In fact, realizing the reality of evolution has led to quite a few more accurate predictions than any Biblical verses. It even helped scientists recognize the movement of the continents.
Tell us, Cowgirl, just how much education have you had? You sound as if the only schooling you ever got was religious ed from a fundamentalist Sunday school.
"You need to believe there is a God in order to believe there isn't one."
WOW! What a stupendous display of logic! Next you'll announce that one must believe the earth is flat in order to believe it's round.
"atheists like you ..."
I don't consider myself an atheist. I don't consider myself a theist, either. Theism and atheism are rather in the eye of the beholder, as the word "God" has meant so many different things to different people.
"God does not hate the sinner - he hates the sin."
There you go again projecting human emotions beyond there proper sphere. As for separating hatreds, let me say this:
I do not hate you, Cowgirl, nor care about you at all one way or the other. But I do hate your irrationality, bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity. I also hate being a member of the same species with fools like yourself, but sadly I cannot change that.
It is the consequence of ignorance like yours that have not been and never will be pretty, Cowgirl.
cowgirl| 6.8.11 @ 10:49AM
When you have no facts attack the spelling and grammar and of course personal attacks. You are very good at that and very bad at facts.
You talk about ignorance and spout off about evolution - a theory created by a drunk who flunked out of medical school, rode on a boat aimlessly for 5 years, practice witchcraft, married his first cousin and produced 10 mutated children - three who died in childhood. If Darwin's goo-man theory was correct, then his children should have evolved into something spectular. Well sugar that did not happen. Goo-man theory has no fossils to prove that evolution took place - a fairy tale that you support obviously. On top of that if you read the forward in the Origin of Species Darwin admits he has no facts to back up some of his theories. Get past the forward and you find more man-made lies about the growth of a human fetus being the same of a dog's fetus. Of course we all know - except you I am sure - that Haeckel's dog/human fetus pictures were nothing but a fraud. You support fraud - goo-man theory. By the way Haeckel ventured off to a University in Germany and became a strong support of Hitler. Imagine that? Tell me David C how much education have you had? Fairy Tales.
Your anger against God, the Bible, and Jesus is amazing yet so very sad. But remember God does love you. You are his child. God Bless and you are in my prayers.
David C| 6.8.11 @ 6:36PM
Well, Cowgirl, I really didn't want to engage you further, but you've said a few things I just can't let stand...
For one thing, I didn't attack your grammar. Saying I did is out and out false. I didn't think Christians were supposed to bear false witness.
Second, when you consistently write "Buddhaism" instead of "Buddhism" it appears -- and so I took it -- that you think that's the actual name of the religion. Out of respect for Buddhism I decided to correct you.
Third, I never said that any of Darwin's ideas about biological evolution were correct. (And yes I knew about the embryo studies.) I simply said that biological evolution was a real phenomenon, and one that was fairly obvious to anyone who studied the living world.
As for your assertion that evolution was first thought up by Charles Darwin, that is false. Biological evolution was written about for generations before Charles Darwin wrote about it. For someone who likes to accuse me of being ignorant, you display quite a lot of ignorance yourself.
"Your anger against God, the Bible, and Jesus is amazing ..."
This is perhaps the most preposterous comment you've made the whole time we've been conversing. Anger at a book? How absurd is that?
And we haven't been discussing God. We've been discussing your foolish religious concepts. So if I'm angry I'm angry at the latter, not the former.
You don't worship God, Cowgirl, if by God we mean the power that actually created the world. You worship youself: a projection of your own prejudices. So you needn't bother praying for me.
David C| 6.6.11 @ 5:17AM
"I really don't care what you do - it is not my problem."
I will take you at your word here, Cowgirl.
Of course, you haven't the slightest notion of what I do, but if you don't care about it then I see know reason why you have so much trouble sparing us your religous dogma on other people's behavior.
cowgirl| 6.6.11 @ 6:53PM
Of course I know what you do - the writing is on the wall. You are too easy to figure out.
David C| 6.7.11 @ 3:09AM
Oh, am I?
"Of course because you are a liberal..."
I should hope I am a liberal -- a classical liberal -- since it is that philosophy that supported the American Revolution. But of course you took me for a leftist. While you "discovered" this about me, did you also discover that I'm a fan of Ann Coulter?
The notion that only leftists oppose having consevative christian dogma forced on them is the arrogant presumption of the Christian Right.
As for being easy to read, that honor falls to you, Cowgirl. You're a reactionary religious fanatic.
Had you been born in a muslim country you'd be cheering for Al Qaeda, if not an actual member.
cowgirl| 6.7.11 @ 12:14PM
And you are a reactionary Atheist who needs to believe in God in order to disbelieve in God. But first you must submit, which you will not do because you believe that you are better than God.
Islam is also a man-made religion - Mohammend converted by the sword. Jesus Christ converted by love, truth, grace and redemption- He loves the sinner and hates the sin.
I am so sorry for you.
utopia| 6.7.11 @ 3:25PM
Basic
Instruction
Before
Leaving
Earth
The human manual was given for our own good! Your choice: biblical vs secular lifestyle.
Cowgirl, there's more of us than them:)
God Bless America!
cowgirl| 6.7.11 @ 4:23PM
God bless you and the ones you love and care for as well as those you may find hard to understand. Shalom.
David C| 6.7.11 @ 9:29PM
This interjection, Utopia, is no more successful than your last.
I can sum up your four sentences thusly:
1. Silly, self-serving religious dogma
2. A bigoted and false choice
3. An attempt to puff youself and Cowgirl up with an argument by authority from strength of numbers.
4. A little religion-flavored jingoism.
End result: Not impressive.
David C| 6.7.11 @ 9:23PM
As you are convinced, rather wrongly, that I am an atheist, I'd have thought you would want to describe as a radical, not as a reactionary. But perhaps you don't know the difference...
"Islam is also a man-made religion"
Big, freaking deal. I already admitted that ALL religions are man-made. That, and the differences between Mohammed and Jesus, are entirely beside the point.
My point was -- and should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain -- is that you've been exposed to Christian dogma and believed it because you're from a Christian culture. Had you been raised in a Muslim culture, it is Islamic dogma that would have found its way into your heart and mind. And you'd believe it as fervently as you believe your Christianity.
Your nature is to receive and accept religious dogma uncritically. The accident of where you were born determined what dogma you would so receive.
"I am so sorry for you"
Don't be. Better to feel sorry for yourself: You're the one who tell reality from a hole in the ground.
I think we can end our little dialogue here. You are not capable of understanding me, and I find your narrow-minded foolishness to be beneath contempt.
utopia| 6.7.11 @ 9:56PM
This IS still America.
We are a Judeo-Christian nation.
May God continue to bless America!
http://www.dennisprager.com/co.....nd_liberty
cowgirl| 6.8.11 @ 10:51AM
Jesus and Mohammend equal. Roll on the floor laugh out loud. You know nothing of Christian "dogma" as you so call it. You might do yourself well as to not preach about something you know very little about. I am so sorry for you. But God loves you. God Bless you and you are in my prayers dear lost soul.
David C| 6.8.11 @ 6:43PM
Here, Cowgirl, you display just why I'm calling our dialogue to a halt.
You seldom respond to what I actually say, choosing instead to put words into my mouth -- or keyboard, if you will.
I never drew any equivalence between Mohammed and Jesus. I never made any comparison of them at all. I simply said the differences between them didn't matter to the point I had made.
I know NOTHING of Christian dogma? That would be impossible for anyone living in the West, I think. In any event, we have been discussing YOUR dogma, which you've made evident right here on this page.
"You might do yourself well as to not preach about something you know very little about."
If this isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.
"you are in my prayers dear lost soul."
Huh. The lost soul is you, Cowgirl, and prayers to the devil won't do me any good.
David C| 6.2.11 @ 11:21PM
"The young do not share the old hate..."
Don't be so sure, Jiff 363. Young people are just as good at hating as older folk.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.2.11 @ 7:27AM
Knowing Minnesota, I am guessing that this is going to be one of those things that will go down as, "Be careful what you wish for."
SamVaughn| 6.2.11 @ 7:41AM
There was a time when we were simply asked to understand and tolerate the "plight" as they put it of being gay. They were born that way, creating the premise they don't have a choice. That's all well and good Tolerance of differences and humanity meant that we all signed up for tolerance, despite our own personal abhorrence and moral mis-givings. We are better for it. But something else is afoot when we turn the matter into a lifestyle choice. Older men and now free from guilt when they "turn" a vulnerable younger man/boy. We've gone from tolerance to anever expanding "bubble" of acceptance with no sense of moral courage to shield our vulnerable children. Instead liberals now tell us that we should give condoms to 13 year olds "they are gonna do it anyhow" is the excuse.
Tolerance is one thing. Turning the family unit into multiple interpretations of abherration is where I draw line. The family unit at it's best exists to shield, nuture and grow successful, confident, morally grounded adults. Otherwise, we've become a society cruelty and mental violence against the most vulnerable among us merely to advance shameful political power.
David C| 6.2.11 @ 11:34PM
Only 1 hour and 33 minutes for rank homophobia to show up in the comments. Can't say I'm surprised.
"Older men and now free from guilt when they "turn" a vulnerable younger man/boy. "
Honestly, SV. Since when have such older men -- whether into younger males or females (or both) ever felt any guilt?
Ken in Tyler| 6.2.11 @ 8:38AM
Sin a monster of such awful mien,
That to be hated needs once to be seen.
But seen too oft, familiar of face,
First hated, then pitied, then embraced.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.2.11 @ 8:38AM
"Still, not every Republican was on board. . . Rep. John Kriesel, an Iraq war veteran, young lawmaker, and family man. In his five-minute speech declaring why he would 'Press the hell no button, if there was one,' Kriesel said equality took precedence over party. He told the story of a fellow veteran who died this year in Afghanistan and who was gay. He couldn't fathom telling this person's family their loved one was good enough to fight for his country but wasn't 'good enough to marry the person [he] loved.'"
I can assure Rep. Kriesel it is probable at least one pedophile has died in the GWOT. Does that mean society should now embrace NAMBLA (I’m sure Obama would welcome that embrace)? Gang members have died in OEF and OIF does that mean MS13 gets a pass the next time they brutally murder an innocent old man who gets in their way? There have been dead beat dads die in the sandbox. Does that mean we should allow every "swinging Anthony Weiner" to abandon their parental duties?
I say to Kriesel HELL F****ING NO to your inability to know the difference between patriotic duty and morality!!!!!! They are not one in the same and that’s why military morale is now in the crapper and Staff NCOs are turning in their papers and heading for the beach and young men with a couple of combat tours under their belts are looking for early outs. Obviously, you learned nothing about Good Order and Discipline.
This is why Obama and Democrats forced through the repeal of DADT. To legitimize and shame decent Americans into accepting their corrupt “Man Love Thursday” lifestyle crap. Wait for the lawsuits folks they’re acomin’
maximumrandb| 6.2.11 @ 9:25AM
"Good order and discipline." You've got it exactly right, Mr. Tomlinson. And while I expect a lack of discipline in society at large, what with all the petty grievances and cries of victimhood, I would hope that we'd maintain higher standards in our military.
David C| 6.2.11 @ 11:40PM
Well, Micheal,
You've got a case against Rep. Kriesel in there somewhere, as service in the armed forces and same-sex marriage really have nothing to do with one another.
However, you earn points off for implicitly comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, gang bangers, and dead-beat dads.
cowgirl| 6.3.11 @ 10:58AM
There is a book out you might find interesting. It is called "Liberalism is a Mental Illness" by Michael Savage. You might find it enlightening.
Peppermint Tea| 6.2.11 @ 9:07AM
Wow MT, don't hold back. Say what you really think.
I anticipate the military will lose a lot of good men due to the DADT and Afghanistan and Libya fiascos. I know my son in law is about to leave Afghanistan and says nobody in his company thinks their tour was a good idea.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 10:57AM
I'm sorry about that, Peppermint Tea. I'm sure the "Rules of Engagement" helped a lot with that.
PCC| 6.2.11 @ 9:16AM
I really don't understand this debate at all.
Isn't marriage a religious thing? What "rights" or benefits are conferred on gay partnerships being recognized by the state that would not otherwise be valid in a civil contract?
Likewise the conservative argument against. What harm is there? How does it affect negatively heterosexual marriages, apart from the cultural argument?
I ask these questions in all sincerity. My lesbian sister was unable to answer for the liberal side, and I welcome a reasoned explanation from the other side.
Jack Olson| 6.2.11 @ 5:18PM
To answer your question, PCC, no, marriage is not a religious thing. My wife and I got our marriage license from a government office. It was signed by the clergyman who officiated at the wedding but it would have been equally valid if signed by a judge. As a married couple in a community property state, we own property in a form of ownership which two unmarried people cannot. We have marriage and family laws because we have to decide who is related to whom, and how, and who inherits what. A family court judge can explain the purpose of marriage laws more fully. For example, why there is such a thing as common law marriage.
The harm homosexual marriage does to heterosexual marriage is to blur and define down its meaning. That meaning is so important to married couples that they refuse to let the homosexuals define it for them or make it vague instead of definite. That's why they have voted against homosexual marriage by large margins whenever their rulers have risked a democratic decision on it.
You cannot make an argument in favor of homosexual marriage which is not also an argument for bigamy and polygamy. For that matter, contraception or infertility would remove the "for the children" argument against incestuous marriage, too. We prohibit bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous marriage, and bestiality, too, not because they are inherently harmful but simply because they appall most people. What the proponents of homosexual marriage ought to do is lobby for a domestic partnership law which gives them the legal rights they say they want but doesn't claim the cultural meaning of marriage.
da monk| 6.2.11 @ 5:34PM
Jack: I am perplexed, you and your now wife before you were married loved each other so much you decided you wanted to make a legal commitement to each other, and get married, but you chose not to have a religious ceremony and opted for a civil ceremony. Now you are legally married and enjoy all the legalities of a married couple. Why then are you opposed to two men or two women, who are in love and want to make a legal commitment to each other. How does it effect you, or anyone else? Strike me as illogical. Please explain without discussing why a domestic partnership relationship is a valid as marriage. Thank you
Jack Olson| 6.2.11 @ 8:34PM
Not only are you illogical, Monk, you don't read very closely. You said my wife and I chose a civil ceremony after I explicitly wrote that a clergyman officiated at our wedding. A domestic partnership could confer legal rights but it can never have the cultural meaning of marriage by the simple fact that it is homosexual. Heterosexual love unites the two halves of the human race, the male and the female half, in microcosm. Heterosexual people can have sex through sodomy, but homosexual people cannot have sex except by some form of sodomy. Heterosexual people may not be able to produce children with each other, but homosexual people can never produce children with each other. For these reasons, homosexual relationships are less valid and less valuable to society than heterosexual relationships and therefore do not deserve the legal privileges or legal liabilities of marriage.
Fin| 6.2.11 @ 9:22PM
There is a thing called Lesbians who can have sex much like heterosexuals. Also, there is this thing called frotting. No sodomy involved. As a society that likes to separate religion from law, I think it is illogical to then to base marriage on what is obviously religious beliefs.
David C| 6.3.11 @ 12:28AM
I'm sorry, Fin, but this is a foolish comment.
A woman can no more engage in the reproductive act with another woman than a man can with another man.
And since sodomy usually means any non-reproductive sex act, frottage would be included in the definition.
David C| 6.3.11 @ 12:21AM
"Heterosexual love unites the two halves of the human race, the male and the female half, in microcosm. "
Yes, Jack, it does do that. And that is why so many people oppose same-sex marriage.
However, you earlier said marriage isn't a religious matter. What your statement here reveals is that it is very much a mythic or mythological matter: it is the symbolism of the uniting of the two sexes which so concerns people.
"For these reasons, homosexual relationships are less valid and less valuable to society than heterosexual relationships and therefore do not deserve the legal privileges or legal liabilities of marriage."
The differences you mention can certainly lessen a society's interest in controlling or being involved in homosexual relationships. But that doesn't make homosexual relationships automatically less valuable to a society. And certainly being of interest or value to society has nothing to do with the "validity" of a relationship. (For you to say that it does is extraordinarily group-focused and anti-individualistic.)
David C| 6.3.11 @ 12:24AM
Also, Jack,
In your first comment you wrote that those who want spousal recognition for homosexual couples should work for "a domestic partnership law which gives them the legal rights they say they want but doesn't claim the cultural meaning of marriage."
Yet in your second comment you claim homosexual relationships don't deserve these legal privileges. What gives?
David C| 6.3.11 @ 12:15AM
Now we are getting some interesting debate.
However, Jack, I think you failed to answer PCC's question. He wanted a non-cultural argument on how same-sex marriage harms traditional marriage. You gave him nothing but cultural arguments.
"As a married couple in a community property state, we own property in a form of ownership which two unmarried people cannot."
This is an intersting point, although one that applies only in community property jurisdictions. But why should spouses by able to own property together in a way that people related in other ways cannot?
"We have marriage and family laws because we have to decide who is related to whom, and how, and who inherits what."
This is just plain wrong. We can perfectly well figure out who is related to whom -- and how -- without having laws. Family laws only matter after we've done that.
"You cannot make an argument in favor of homosexual marriage which is not also an argument for bigamy and polygamy."
I doubt that very much. That the Gay Left and their allies spend their time making arguments that could equally apply to these other actions says more about the left than it does about homosexuality or same-sex "marriage."
"We prohibit bigamous, polygamous, or incestuous marriage, and bestiality, too, not because they are inherently harmful but simply because they appall most people."
I certainly hope that our laws are based on more than matters of taste -- something being appalling or not to most people. As for the things you mention, I'd gladly argue against your point.
Jack Olson| 6.3.11 @ 9:52AM
Some of our laws, especially those related to sexuality, really are based on matters of taste. Indecent exposure and public lewdness are illegal. Child pornography is illegal even when it consists of drawings, paintings or computer generated images of children who don't exist. Pornography involving animals is illegal, too, though it is hard to see what harm this does. We use lethal injection as a means of execution instead of a guillotine not because the former is more lethal or swifter than the latter but because a guillotine is bloodier. Taste considerations are also the reason executions are no longer public. Deer hunting is just as lethal to the deer as bullfighting is to the bull, but we permit the one and prohibit the other even though a bull who dies in the ring is as dead as one who dies in a slaughterhouse. Many of our laws really are based on matters of taste.
David C| 6.4.11 @ 5:44AM
Jack,
Just what in hell must I do to get a straight answer from you?
When I write "I certainly hope that our laws are based on more than matters of taste " I am not denying that emotional reactions cannot affect lawmakers. I'm dismissing such matters as the proper basis for lawmaking. So the fact that we can judge "Some of our laws, especially those related to sexuality, really are based on matters of taste," is beside the point.
More bluntly: such laws are bullshit and you cannot impress me by citing such things as holding up any case you make. (And again I disagree with your assessment regarding most of the examples you cite.)
Now, Jack, will you please let us know why you gave PCC a load of cultural arguments when he asked for the opposite, and why you offer civil partnerships to homosexual couples as a means to secure spousal rights in one comment and then say such relationships do not deserve the legal rights of marriage in another?
Occam's Tool| 6.3.11 @ 12:38AM
OK, I'll try. There will be minimal psychobabble here, but follow along. (For PCC)
Heterosexual marriage is the greatest force for sublimating men's aggressive urges and using them in civilization expanding and child-friendly ways that has ever been devised. It is under ferocious attack in Western Countries (not just through the gay marriage controversy), and, as a result, only Israel has an above replacement birth rate.
Our enemies, the sharia advocates, have birth rates per woman in the high 2s to 4s.
We do not need any more damage to our best source of healthy children in a very child unfriendly (and therefore potentially doomed) West.
Civil contracts can provide all of the legal benefits of marriage for gay couples without impairing the sacrament and institution of marriage further. Marriage in the US is ONLY healthy among the upper middle and upper class right now---it is very imperiled among the middle and lower class, with subsequent fracturing of the necessities to raise healthy kids.
This is not a racial thing, except in the fact that this fracturing hits Blacks worst, just like ease of abortion hits Blacks worst. In fact, all Liberal "improvements" damage Black and Native American families and children worst.
Marriage, as noted by Mr. Olson below, is also a fantastic wealth generator, which also ghelps with the rearing and education of kids.
PCC| 6.3.11 @ 12:59AM
That was a good discussion. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
C Smith| 6.2.11 @ 9:46AM
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" Romans 1:19 -27).
Chuck Anziulewicz | 6.2.11 @ 10:59AM
Ultimately it's not going to matter which states write discrimination against law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples into their constitutions, nor will it matter which states grant marriage equality to those same couples, because it is the FEDERAL government that bestows most of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married couples receive. This is an issue that the Supreme Court of the United States will eventually have to tackle, and I'm confident that they will decided that there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
The main sticking point is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by President Bill Clinton. DOMA is transparently unconstitutional, since it establishes differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples in the United States. It would be preferable if Congress would simply repeal DOMA, but as cowardly as most of our elected officials seem to be, it will probably be up to the Supreme Court to declare DOMA unconstitutional.
WHY is DOMA unconstitutional? Consider: A Straight couple legally married in Iowa is automatically entitled to 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Many of those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance rights, child custody, and so on. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa is still unrecognized by the federal government for those benefits.
Consider, also, the "Full Faith & Credit" clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.
The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion; it is the FEDERAL government which, through its own actions, has made this a federal issue.
Larry| 6.2.11 @ 11:45AM
Homosexuals have already misapporirated the word "gay". Does anyone else here remember a time when "gay" meant "happy". A person could be called "gay" and no one would give a second thought. For the last 40 something years though "gay" has come to define what a certain very small, but very loud-mouthed part of the population does with their genitals, their number one obsession in life.
The word and the concept of "marriage" should not go the same way as "gay".
DRed| 6.2.11 @ 12:02PM
And you can't even ask someone to toss another faggot on the fire without being accused of a hate crime. Those dastardly gays! What word will they come for next?
Larry| 6.2.11 @ 12:17PM
It's pathetic to most people, not to you though Red that there's such a thing as "hate crimes", the implication of which is that there are "love crimes" which of course there aren't.
Kindly give me your sick rationalization for having a different punishment for the same crime simply because of what the victim does with his or her genitals, or because of the color of their skin, or any other stupid politically correct, politically protected victim classes.
DRed| 6.2.11 @ 12:27PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you about hate crime legislation, Larry. Sorry to disappoint.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 6.2.11 @ 12:07PM
DEAR LARRY:
American slang and colloquialisms have always evolved and always will. No one hijacked the word "gay," it has simply been evolving into a different context over the better part of a century. Sorry if that upsets you.
As for your fears about marriage, let me reassure you: Marriage equality for Gay couples will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage.
Instead you should ask yourself why law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples enjoy, when we are unable to take advantage of those same incentives to marry? And since when do voters get to decide that therights that they enjoy should NOT apply to minorities?
Why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
Larry| 6.2.11 @ 12:15PM
When words and terms can mean anything, they mean nothing. That's apparently ok with you. Judging from your point of view, that's not surprising.
Sorry if it upsets you that I'm not afraid to point out when the meanings of words have been changed and not for the better.
You can now go back to your obsession.
DRed| 6.2.11 @ 12:50PM
What does the word 'bow' mean, Larry? And how do you pronounce it?
SCM| 6.2.11 @ 12:48PM
Uhhh Chuck............ Refer to C. Smith's post above: "Professing themselves wise, they became fools...."
You can't see the error of your arguments, since you profess yourself wise.
fmm| 6.2.11 @ 12:01PM
Rep Kriesel is an example of a "legislator" who is not conversant with either the meaning of marriage or the law. He and others like him need to do their homework.
Alky| 6.2.11 @ 12:04PM
Why is there such a fuss being made about the need for gays to be "married", what's wrong with a form of legal union with all the rights of marriage?
Chuck Anziulewicz | 6.2.11 @ 12:14PM
DEAR ALKY:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Supreme Court ruled that there was no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted, but that those benefits and responsibilities could be granted to Gay couples under a different term ... such as "civil unions." The rights under tax law, Social Security, etc. would be EXACTLY the same for Gay and Straight couples; only the terminology would be different. Opposite-sex couples would be allowed the option to "marry," and same-sex couples would be allowed the option to enter into "civil unions." Social conservatives could keep the term “marriage” for themselves, and Gay couples would be granted equal protection as specified by the 14th Amendment.
Frankly, I could live with that. How about YOU? Would that be a good compromise?
I wish it could be as easy as all that. Unfortunately, in EVERY instance in which "civil unions" have been suggested as a legal alternative, it's always been viciously opposed by the usual "family values" organizations. Even something has innocuous as hospital visitation and inheritance rights for Gay couples has been attacked as nothing less than an attempt to "chip away at the sanctity of marriage."
I'm glad that you don't have any problem with giving Gay couples legal rights, but organizations like the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the National Organization for Marriage will take issue with you, trust me.
Seek| 6.2.11 @ 12:37PM
If buttstabbing marriages can be made legal, as Stanley Kurtz has argued, it would create a slippery slope for other arrangements that legally could obtain marital status as well, such as polyamory, polygamy, child marriage and incestuous marriage. Rep. Bachmann is on target here. We have to draw the line.
Chuck Anziulewicz | 6.2.11 @ 12:52PM
Yes, the old "slippery slope" arguments sure are convenient, aren't they?
How about this one: If you allow a man to marry ONE woman, there's no legal reason not to let him marry as many women as he wants, RIGHT?
Well, of course not. Marriage for Gay couples has nothing more to do with polygamy or incest than marriage for Straight couples. It's a red herring.
RWinks| 6.2.11 @ 2:12PM
The sole reason offered for this perversion of marriage is that they "love" someone. If "love" is the sole determinate factor, why isn't polygamy, incest, bestiality to be allowed?
A society has every right to establish the legal and moral climate they believe will best promote prosperity and happiness. No unelected Homosexual judge has the right to push their perverted agenda upon a society.
Derek Leaberry| 6.2.11 @ 5:04PM
You are a liberal degenerate. Why post here?
David C| 6.2.11 @ 11:51PM
"If buttstabbing marriages can be made legal..."
If? IF?
I'm not aware, Seek, that the ability of the state to define what act or acts consumate a marriage has ever been doubted.
In any event, there are already plenty of "buttstabbing marriages" if by that one means marriages where the spouses engage in anal sex.
Occam's Tool| 6.2.11 @ 1:45PM
Dear Chuck:
my understanding is that once the traditional mold is broken, as you are attempting to do, then other atypical forms of marriage between individuals of the age of consent will be allowed.
I have no problems with Civil Unions for Gay couples. But we need to encourage kids.
DRed| 6.2.11 @ 2:24PM
Gay couples have kids. Legalizing gay marriage would probably lead to even more kids.
Occam's Tool| 6.3.11 @ 12:41AM
DRed: not their own physical children. And, may I point out, marriage overseas in the West is under enormous attack (it took me a while to learn that men and women referring to their "partners" were referring to unmarried heterosexual boy/girlfriends, and not the Gay connotations that it has in the US), and only among American Elite classes is it healthy. Were I more paranoid, I would suspect that it is a plot by rich Liberals to destroy the poor further and make them more dependent on the Welfare state.
RWinks| 6.2.11 @ 1:59PM
Regarding that homosexual service member who, "was good enough to serve his country but not marry the one he loved", suppose the one he loved was his sister. . .or his brother. Should he get to marry them? Should he be able to marry two sisters? How about his pet goat?
A few simple questions reveal the lack of reason or logic in the preposterous arguments of the pervert's lobby.
Derek Leaberry| 6.2.11 @ 5:05PM
Exactly!
Derek Leaberry| 6.2.11 @ 5:01PM
If the Republican party can't prevent the absurdity of homosexual "marriage", what is the point in supporting the Republicans? And if the United States is to have homosexual "marriage" as law, is there any reason to defend such a decadent country?
canuckistani| 6.2.11 @ 5:34PM
Easy answer - get government out of the marriage game altogether.
What is a marriage between an infertile man and woman from the state POV? A civil contract, period.
Think about it. Not long ago is was against the law to marry another race. There were likely "rational" arguments supporting that one as well.
Let churches decide who they will bless in religious marriage, but get the g out of the equation. The gays have a point and us debating it and taking valuable legislative time away from jobs and growth is a crime of omission as well.
Do adults have the right to select a life partner or not? Does the state have a right to select who gets certain rights and privileges - independent of religion or "culture" - or not?
If you believe yes to the latter, then you are willing to accept the state into more aspects of life that you want to admit.
Derek Leaberry| 6.3.11 @ 3:19PM
The state has always made many decisions in world history. To theorize a stateless society is foolish and not conservative. A stateless society is a libertarian fantasyland.
David C| 6.6.11 @ 5:24AM
Spending some time in "libertarian fantasylands" might do many conservatives a world of good, as so many of them are as full of the desire to control others as are leftists.
As for a "stateless government" -- Canuckistani was suggesting no such thing. He was merely suggesting the government remove itself from marriage.
"The state has always made many decisions in world history."
And just what sort of stupid statement is that. So governments have made many important decisions in the course of human affairs. So what? That isn't a response to anything in particular.
Occam's Tool| 7.12.11 @ 11:01AM
Again, please name a country that has legalized gay marriage that has a replacement birthrate.
Check out the dismal future of Scandinavia.
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:23PM
You cannot "protect" marriage by banning it for some. It is intellectual dishonest - You, you heteros, do what you do, we don't care. Leave us gay men alone. Michelle Bachmann is comporting with Bradlee Dean of "You can run, you can't hide" -- a 501(c)4 "educational" group which thinks Muslims have the right idea -- kill gays. Kill American citizens for your political gain? This you think is rational? Despicable.
And Mr. Dean did speak to the house of representatives there, to unbridled scorn.
When will people wake up to the fact that we gays are not responsible for you licentious ways. It is outrageous that we are blamed for your heathenism.
And Mr. Tyrrell, just the other day you asked for my money - -and I told you no -- and here's another example.
Clean up your own house before you denigrate mine. We gays have nothing to do with what you heteros do -- you are the destroyers of your marriages -- how dare you blame us! You are the cretins who beat your wives, divorce, kill your kids in abortion or afterwards.
You all are hypocrites of astounding proportions;. It infuriates me as I seek to bring my gay brethren to solve the deficit problem that you are still obsessing about sissy smooching.
What do you know about yourselves that I don't? That you will all turn gay in a fortnight if our civil unions are recognized in family law rather than the business law we are already using? Are you that wussy in your degree of whom you are? I know whom I am -- a gay American -- for lower taxes and less government -- not a police state come to get me in the middle of the night.
And you call yourselves Americans? You're like the Communists who busted down the gay pride march in Moscow.
Disgusting. Just Disgusting.
john dubose| 6.2.11 @ 10:26PM
"It is but thy name that is my enemy." ( Juliette of Shakespear fame ). Civil unions can be 90% of a marriage contract. The other 10% is mostly not applicable. That should be enough. If two gay people want a ceremony and wish to mis-label their union as a marriage, That's cool. But in the end, they will have to convnce "god" that it was really OK. ( not us sinners )
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:34PM
Here you go, gentlemen -- I posted my comments at my blog http://thedailymush.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/1707/
You all are hypocrites. Don't ever blame gay people for what you all have done to marriage. It's unholy. And Intellectually dishonest. There isn't even a "my husband is gay" escape clause from your holy vows which you denigrate and discard with wild abandon.
You want to make me and "ex gay" and marry you sister Mr Tyrrell? But a gun to my head. Do it already. I'm tired of the crap. Just tired.
What a bunch of socialists. Trying to make a "new man" out of me -- I'm sorry, I thought you were for liberty. Instead I find you for North Korean type mind games upon me.
The hell with it. Shoot me already - -as "You can run but you can't hide" calls for -- with the support of Michelle Bachmann.
Disgusting. And dangerous. And enraging.
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:37PM
And for this attitude I pay taxes? Friggin' unbelievable!
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:38PM
I got a better long form birth certificate than Obama -- and this is what I deserve from you people? Unbridled hate and disdain? Disgusting.
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:39PM
And who the hell is out there demanding that divorce in Minnesota be outlawed, or adultery, or out of wedlock children, or abandoning fathers -- or spouse beaters, children killers, abortionists --
we gays are the lynch pin of it all? Delusional.
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:41PM
Boy, am I'm glad I'm gay -- for your logic indicates that without stomping on me -- your marriages might never happen. I regret that I have only one life to live for your marriage and my country.
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:44PM
5% or less of the population we are -- and you are afraid of us? And we're the sissies? What are you going to do when the socialists really take over? Stick your head in the sand?
Don't worry - us gay guys will protect you -- for we know liberty more than you do.
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:51PM
So fearful, that you won't even let a gay guy contest your contentions and address your fears, you are. Amazing. Frightening.
And you dare to insist I follow your religious beliefs - -like we're a theocracy? Egad. What a country.
You shall imprison us perhaps -- I can't wait -- you will call it punishment, and we shall call it the weirdest Club Med ever devised by the folly of man.
Let's deny which exists and have at the police state! Viva la degradacion! And you call yourselves a good bunch. HA!
And afraid of sissies- - why, I never heard of such a thing. Who the hell can be afraid of sissies? No wonder why we're losing everything -- you people are sissy obsessed and the rest goes to hell.
Absurd. Ridiculous. And don't you see this? What will it take? You complain that liberals think in "group think" then you lump us all together as some unGodly threat to your lives -- of which only your own fears exist. I do nothing to your life -- but you dare to tell me how to live. In America. Amazing. Disgusting.
OK, I'm pissed, you know it. I got things to do, a life. More than picking on people I don't like, for my own glorification for I think they might make me less than whom I am. You are sissy fearful. Bizarre. Utterly Bizarre
Jim Hlavac | 6.2.11 @ 10:54PM
OMG watch out! Sissies put on little theater in small town Minnesota -- oh the horrors -- families divorced, children raped; the end of the world!
What a bunch of ninnies.
Tuco| 6.3.11 @ 6:38AM
Take a chill pill, buttercup.
(just didn't want you wake up this morning and see zero replies to all of your inane prattling...)
cowgirl| 6.3.11 @ 11:10AM
Can you say anger management?
dee see| 6.2.11 @ 11:48PM
ISN'T anyone going to wake up to the FACT
that 'GAY' lib, like feminism, like the destruction
of chastity as a virtue, the infiltration, corruption
and destruction of genuine Christianity, the
systematic extermination of the unborn, the
unfit and the old ---------represent one and the
same agenda ---Social Darwinism turned against
the self.
Human depravity is TOTAL, ever present and
a FACT of life for fallen mankind.
Just because the 'hidden masters' , the REAL
monsters, have deemed that, as society is to
be brought down, these aspects should be
'catered to' -----doesn't change the divinely
ordered meaning and TRUTH of things.
"If we defeat the Globalists, people
will look back at this period as the greatest
covert genocide history has ever seen---"
-ALEX JONES
-------------WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE
HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012 ---tell everyone!
replica handbags&wallet; | 6.3.11 @ 4:45AM
It is good to see this information in your post.
replica handbags&wallet; | 6.3.11 @ 4:46AM
www.shop-bag.net
utopia| 6.3.11 @ 9:47AM
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
Mistral| 6.4.11 @ 11:33AM
What a lack of reasonable intelligence people have today - all these schools and universities have led to greater stupidity and mental dumbness. Only one man and one woman in a marriage makes sense. Natural law demands this for the healthy procreation of the human species. We can abuse this by medical science intervention and government dictat but we will pay for it in the long run. China is paying for this already in a net loss of social cohesion and a dearth of women. And like the other civilisations that enshrined sodomy in their cultural norms and values, the very sterlity of this lifestyle and its obsession with unnatural sexual behaviour will lead to our demise. We can see this already in western society as white people once so prolific become rapidly fewer in proportion to those such as Mahomatens who continue to reproduce normally and who slowly but inexorably are assuming an increasing numerical and societal significance here. Poor, stupid liberals & libertines - your liberalism is a psychological disorder based on unnatural and irrational fantasies that induce socio-cultural & demographic calamity. Abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, sterilisation and their like are part and parcel of a self-destructive and suicidal mentality.
Man cannot become more stupid than that.
Oldefarte| 6.4.11 @ 3:24PM
It's a truly sad day when moral certainty has to be proclamated in laws, but that is how its always been. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER resulted in man's laws against murder, etc. Homosexuality is immoral depravity, BUT man/humans were endowed with what's known as FREE WILL, meaning they can basically do what in the hades they wish to. In life, one doing thus risks [if their actions are contrary to man's laws] going to jail; while in the afterlife [or at death], one risks the ultimate judgement of the Almighty. Humans can practice homosexuality if they so choose, but the sacrament of marriage is not [nor will it ever be] truly available to them. This sacrament was given by the Almighty to humans of the opposite sex in order to join together for the primary purpose of producing children. Homosexuals mostly desire the state marriage status for its legal ramafications [group employment-medical benefits etc], and successfully doing so will result in increased cost-expense of employment benefits by corporation and increased product prices [all of which will be detrimental to the economy]. It's simply all a hoax, folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David C| 6.6.11 @ 5:31AM
All right, Oldefarte,
You've told us that "Homosexuality is immoral depravity." Now would you care to justify that assertion. One could just as easily say 'dancing is immorarl depravity,' but no one could expect everyone to just accept that as the truth.
"...one risks the ultimate judgement of the Almighty."
"This sacrament was given by the Almighty to humans ..."
Yet more religious dogma. Please see my comments above to Cowgirl.
David C| 6.6.11 @ 5:47AM
Oldefarte wrote:
"Homosexuals mostly desire the state marriage status for its legal ramafications [group employment-medical benefits etc], and successfully doing so will result in increased cost-expense of employment benefits by corporation and increased product prices"
Now this is all wrong.
Homosexuals started agitating for cultural, social legitimacy quite some time ago. In the process of trying to achieve their desired level of acceptance, many have become obsessed with the notion of eliminating all social distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality. The same-sex marriage push is a manifestation of this; it is not merely some materialistic grab for financial benefits.
As for the economic ramifications of all of the spousal benefits businesses give, that can easily be dealt with if the ramifications are negative: businesses can stop giving them. It makes no sense to worry about the costs of certain goods to a small minority while paying no mind to the costs of them to the large majority, now does it?
anon| 6.11.11 @ 10:00PM
http://espace.wheaton.edu/cace.....uality.mp3