The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

Speak Now, Or Forever Hold Your Peace

By from the July - Aug 2012 issue

The gay marriage debate nears its conclusion.

(Page 3 of 3)

The courts are already gutting the Defense of Marriage Act. At the end of the month when Obama made his gay marriage announcement, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the law discriminated against same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits. The judges ruled that “it prevents same-sex married couples from filing joint federal tax returns, which can lessen tax burdens” and “prevents the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage from collecting Social Security survivor benefits.” They continue: “DOMA also leaves federal employees unable to share their health insurance and certain other medical benefits with same-sex spouses.”

The weight of elite opinion doesn’t just make the enactment of same-sex marriage more likely. It makes the reality of same-sex marriage, as it becomes law in various jurisdictions, more problematic for social conservatives. By the numbers, allowing gay people to call their unions marriages and file joint tax returns shouldn’t impact the institution of marriage all that much. According to the Census Bureau, only 150,000 same-sex couples are considered married. Based on the experience of countries and states with gay marriage, marriage is likely to remain an overwhelmingly heterosexual practice even if the laws change.

Same-sex marriage could become like married priests in the Catholic Church: an exception to the rule for people living in a unique set of circumstances, which doesn’t affect the character of the larger institution. That might be the most desirable outcome for everyone involved. But if the idea is to stamp out traditionalist concepts of sex and marriage, making them as marginal as racism is today, the rules will be rewritten for everybody. It will be hard for marriage to do the things society needs it to do — make parents responsible for the children that their sexual intercourse inevitably creates, make fathers responsible for the mothers they impregnate, and connect successive generations to one another — if that is the case. The ideal will be gone, and so will the way back.

IN MANY RESPECTS, the problem with gay marriage isn’t gay marriage — that is, the act of gays and lesbians holding wedding ceremonies and receiving marriage licenses from the state. The larger problem is the belief that the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman is hateful, that it is indistinct from prohibitions on interracial marriage.

Obama, Hillary Clinton, and that noted defender of marriage John Edwards all said they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

The problem with gay marriage isn’t gay marriage. The larger problem is the belief that the tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman is hateful and indistinct from prohbition on interracial marriage.

Page:   1 23

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (253) |

Von Mises Jr| 7.31.12 @ 7:26AM

The problem is that we have devolved from a Representative Republic with a Constitution of Enumerated Powers to an "Omnipotent Government." Nowhere in Article I Section 8 does the Constitution grant power to the Congress or the President to dictate on the religious and social construct of marriage.
States have traditionally ruled on dispersing of assets and future financial commitments in the case of divorce. But totalitarians wish to meddle in every aspect of our lives. If this is not government in our bedrooms, I don't know what else is. Authoritarians such as the current regime wish to tell us who can enter into a marriage contract, which will pay for their contraceptives and their abortions.

The quote from the cover of Von Mises "Omnipotent Government” states the following: "The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says “state” means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deified arms and prisons. The worship of the state is the worship of force.”

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 9:29AM

Jr:
Thanks for reminding us that many thoughtful, wise men warned us of this degeneration, this decadence, years ago. That we failed to heed their warning or act on it is to our everlasting shame.

Jack in Wi| 7.31.12 @ 9:52AM

I remember a better country where such perversions were kept in the closet and not talked about by sane people. The vast majority of homosexuals do not want to marry. They don't do it in large numbers when they have a chance. This is all about forcing the rest of us to think that this abominaton is normal and healthy. If this is the future of the country, then the Muslims are right and we are the great satan.

Fredx| 7.31.12 @ 10:03AM

Of course, it's all about rubbing our noses in some perceived, media-enhanced wrong. They don't care about getting married. They just want to piss off as many people as they can. Just a few years ago, gay sex was an Olympic event. Probably still is. And children? Give me a break. We seem to be headed in a direction that everything is OK as long as someone thinks it's OK. Well, I got news for them. Everything is NOT OK; even THEY do not approve of certain things. Let's try making THEM squeal. All this, despite the fact that I'm GAY myself. But if we don't back off a little, we are all doomed.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 11:22AM

Have YOU actually done a poll among the Gay community as to how many of us wish to get married??(I doubt it.....)
AND..

While I am as far as possible from EVER considering marriage, myself--(I have seen far too many "straight" marriages fall apart( including my own parents) , who are WE to deny thaat RIGHT to others to whom it IS an important ritual...?

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:06PM

Okay Palleas, then I hope you will be consistent and NOT DENY THE RIGHT of any number of consenting adults in any combination whatsoever to marry. I hope you will not DENY THE RIGHT of mothers and sons, and fathers and daughters, and brothers and sisters to marry.

Will you object to that? Or do you say they have the RIGHT as all other consenting adults do?

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 1:24PM

Such UTTER CRAZY BULLSHIT, on your part--David!!

Who the FUCK is advocating for ANY of your made-up insane demands, huh?

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 2:31PM

So, are you admitting if there were a demand for polygamy or marrying your sister you would be on board?

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 3:26PM

Well-- since it has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven that there is a good reason NOT to marry an immediate relative, due to genetic problems that often ensue --NO-- I do NOT call for such unions...

Then again---this is a red herring statement, uttered by fool right-wingers...

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 4:12PM

Wait a minute. You want to use a good scientific reason for immediate relatives not to get married (I'm assuming you mean the whole birth defects/mental defects issue) but you are for two people getting married that it is scientifically impossible for them to even procreate? Really?

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:32PM

No, he's saying that Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughter, Brothers and Sisters, and 10 People wanting to get Married, is "UTTER CRAZY BULLSHIT" as opposed to Two Men or Two Women.

Which, according to UTTER CRAZY BULLSHIT Pelleas, is Perfectly Normal.

HYPOCRITE, thy name is Pelleas!

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 4:13PM

Hypocrite...how EXACTLY, TLP??

BTW-- I'd rather be a "hypocrite" ( even though in your methed up cracker-brain, ya probably don't know what the word even means, ya old fool..) then a racist/misogynist/xenophobic/crack-pot nut--inother words...everything YOU are!

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:27PM

"HYPOCRITE, thy name is Pelleas!"

"Vanity, thy name is Woman."

Paul Kotik| 8.10.12 @ 4:37PM

Uh, American Muslims, for one.

http://www.meforum.org/3214/gay-marriage-polygamy

Aristocat| 7.31.12 @ 10:30AM

Please read your Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah and look up "sodomy" in the dictionary.
Then read about AIDS on the internet. Then look in the Mosaic law about what God intended to be done about sodomites. (Hint: It involved stoning.)
Why did God order sodomites to be stoned? Because he wanted to prevent this perversion from spreading into the general population of Israelites.

SeymourGlass| 7.31.12 @ 11:03AM

You need to understand, Aristocrat, that the act of forcing one's genitals into the anus of another man is... an act of love.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:34PM

And, if you don't believe SeymourGlass?

Go to any Elementary School in Amerika.

Preferably, the 3rd Grade

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:42PM

Well, then, if they want to do that, they should get married, eh?

RCV| 7.31.12 @ 11:19AM

You should move to Mali, Aristocat. They just had one of the those God-ordered stonings for fornication. It would suit your B.C. mindset just fine.

Derek Leaberry| 7.31.12 @ 12:27PM

Non-Christian Thomas Jefferson saw homosexuals as dishonorable and hinted that they deserved execution. Should the Jefferson Memorial be leveled? Should Jefferson be sandblasted off Mount Rushmore? Should Monticello be razed?

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:33PM

"Should the Jefferson Memorial be leveled? Should Jefferson be sandblasted off Mount Rushmore? Should Monticello be razed?"

Yes.

Derek Leaberry| 7.31.12 @ 3:23PM

Thank you for your honest reply. But just as I've realized for a couple decades. The Left hates practically everything to do with American history pre-1960. And that is one of the major reasons I despise the Left.

RCV| 7.31.12 @ 2:24PM

Hardly. He was a great, great man, and one of the most brilliant political thinkers of all time. He also lived in the 18th century and owned slaves. We don't have to insist on human perfection to admire people for the good and noble things they do do.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:37PM

You might want to look up the definition of Perversion, Sodomy, or UNNATURAL ACT.

Not, that I think that you have any Standards.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:38PM

I feel sorry for any Cucumbers, Bananas, or Baseball Bats, that you might have in your house.

For obvious reasons.

RCV| 8.1.12 @ 12:17PM

TLP, you get more demented as time goes on. It's been fun watching the deterioration, though, as your panic about November increases.

Aristocat| 8.1.12 @ 3:34AM

Sorry, wrong religion...The people in Mali are Muslims, not Israelites...They worship a false god called Allah, and a false prophet named Mohammed.

RCV| 8.1.12 @ 12:16PM

They worship the same God of Abraham as you do, and believe in the same divine draconian punishments for sexual "deviancy" as you. You're just two peas in a pod, Aristocat, though you'd like to pretend otherwise.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 11:25AM

AID is NO LONGER ( NOR HAS IT BEEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME) A "Gay" issue-- the number of Gay people being diagnosed with it , this days is actually far lower then the general population , at large ( BECAUSE WE rose to the occassion of the epidemic , and protected ourselves....)

John Navratil| 7.31.12 @ 12:37PM

Pelleas,

Read http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/...../basic.htm to find out that you are quite wrong unless you define male-to-male sexual contact not "gay". Heterosexual transmission is half the rate and described as "contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection."

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:41PM

There's a reason that you're not supposed to GO IN, through the OUT DOOR.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 4:15PM

Don't worry, TLP.. no one would even dream of going anywhere near your crap -encrusted chute...!

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 11:26AM

Jack:
Occasionally we land on the same page. Shari'a has something to say about homosexual behavior. Do we want to impose that?

Doctor Right| 7.31.12 @ 11:51AM

Scary, but I actually agree with Jack.

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 12:45PM

Doctor:
Even a stopped clock...

kbs55| 7.31.12 @ 2:40PM

Edward Bernays the modern father of Propaganda would be proud of the way his techniques have been used to steer the "stupid slobs" to stay on the right course of accepting a deviant lifestyle as mainstream. The only real problem is when the culture is destroyed and the next organized group will put in Sharia Law. Then the homosexual community will become the group demonized and exterminated.

Paul Kotik| 8.10.12 @ 4:39PM

Amen to that, Jack.

I wish the queers would just shut up, go back into the bushes, do whatever they do, and let you Nazis and us Zionists beat the crap out of each other in peace.

KyMouse| 7.31.12 @ 2:32PM

Many thoughtful, wise men warned us of this degeneration, this decadence, much further back than that -- around 1440 B.C., when Leviticus was written, followed by Romans, I Cornithinans, I Timothy, Jude...

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 3:45PM

True KyMouse, very true. Even societies which accepted homosexual relations held it under strictures and never perported to hold it as legitimate. Just as an aside, the Quran also speaks to the matter and Shari'a has ways of dealing with it which, I suggest, we would not wish to implement.

Fast and Curious| 7.31.12 @ 9:41AM

Great example of the power of language. Von M really understood the true threats to liberty. Armed men at your door. That's the final common pathway.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 11:12AM

Excellent quote. There is a talk show host I listen to locally who sometimes used to sub for Rush named Jason Lewis. He is always talking about "The Force" behind the State. He must have gotten it from reading Von Mises. I will commit that to memory: The worship of the state is the worship of force."

That buffoon in NYC, Bloomberg, is a perfect example of Do-good legislation gone mad. He is the ultimate elitist; he thinks he knows what is best for us, but his benevolence is nothing but force.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:27PM

You can't pick on blacks anymore, so now you pick on gays.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 3:11PM

What is anyone being "forced" to do against their will? Treat people as human beings? You have to be forced to do that? Seriously? Are you ill?
This is NOT a Democracy and majority doesn't rule. The Founders did not want mob rule - That is exactly why we have a Representative Government, a Republic. The Constitution provides the framework for the government, but it also provides protection of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
However, today the majority isn't really against recognizing gay rights... Why are you?
Religion is not the issue for human rights.

canuckistani| 8.1.12 @ 9:53AM

Don't bother trying to inject reason here.

If someone proposed making Marriage strictly a religious ceremonial observance, I would be for it. However, having certain rights made available to one class of citizens is not what the founders had in mind.....or did they?

Last time I checked Washington was elected by 39,000 white men, likely land owners, likely non Catholic or Jewish. And then the founding class went on to nearly 100 years of purposefully keeping people out of the civic square. It took a war to finally shove some newness into the founders' rhetoric.
Perhaps that is what "taking my country back" really means?

Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 8.9.12 @ 3:46PM

And watch Mittens flip-flop on gay issues:

"I support the right of gays not to not get married unless Civil Unions are preferable or, er, uh, um, that is to say, hmmm, that is... I mean..."

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 7:48AM

So, basically, we've got ourselves ANOTHER Lying Black Democrat Politician, who will Say, and Do, whatever he thinks will get him some Votes.

"Stop the Presses!"

Frankly, I don't get the problem.

If these Freaks wanna get Married? Who cares? I don't care. I think that Queers, like Brooksieblacknegrohomo and that Jackass from London, should get married. As long as The Church can't be Forced to perform the Service, what does it matter to me?

A Christian Marriage is still between a Man and a Woman.

Let the Freaks play Dress Up.

That's what they do best, anyway.

PJ| 7.31.12 @ 9:35AM

One of the problems to standardize same-sex marriage is that these couples will have the same rights to adopt children & in some states may even have 1st priority over the heteosexual couples. Credible research is coming out stating that children being raised by s-s couples have an increase in all sorts of social deviancy. Do you want these children who will grow up to be part of the voting population? Do you as a taxpayer want to pay for their psychotherapy bills through Medicare, Medicaid, & Obamacare(if that is not repealed) ?

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 10:02AM

They ALREADY can Adopt.

They've been Adopting for years.

Where ya been?

PJ| 7.31.12 @ 10:27AM

Not in all the states or they have not been given priority over heteosexual couples. I've been reading the information; you obviously haven't!

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:46PM

I never said that they were given Priority to Adopt.

The FACT is, they've been Adopting for YEARS.

I didn't say that I liked it.

I just stated a Fact.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:25PM

Why should they be given priority over anybody, heterosexual couples or whatever else?

canuckistani| 8.1.12 @ 9:55AM

There is not a priority. Just more voodoo from the presevers of the America that never existed.

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 10:13AM

Ah, that clarifies everything...

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 11:29AM

WHAT bizarre "research" can YOU possibly provide that "proves" that children of same-sex relationships are at a higher risk for "social deviancy"--what ever the fuck that phrase means??

PJ| 7.31.12 @ 12:17PM

Since you are either a complete idiot or the school system just failed you, then I guess I have to spoonfeed the information to you.

"Social deviance is defined as any behavior that violates the social norms within a culture or greater community. This behavior can be criminal but does not necessarily need to violate a law to qualify. Criminal acts such as theft or assault are common types of social deviance, but so are incidental behaviors like lying, excessive drinking or nose picking."

Here's a very easy article to read given your low comprehension level. I picked it so that you may not have to use the dictionary. http://tsminteractive.com/chil.....-couples/.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 1:27PM

fukkin jackass...there---how do YOU LIKE BEING CALLED NAMES, WITHOUT ANY PROVOCATION?

THAT IS all you ass-hole crazy right-wingers seem to know how to respond--so---tit for tat...

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:48PM

Since they can't Procreate.

They need to Indoctrinate.

That's the problem, sweetheart.

Paul Kotik| 8.10.12 @ 4:40PM

Complete idiot, sure, but more to the point he's a flaming fag! It's amazing, his written language here evokes a complete picture of a Central Casting queer in a hissy fit.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 3:28PM

If anyone has precedence in adopting, it probably has more to do with income and stability - and same sex male couples make more income than heterosexual or female homosexual couples. Otherwise, that simply doesn't make sense.
"Credible Research" ? Link please, references - your say so isn't credible. Were you sexually abused as a child? Sounds like you harbor ill feelings towards those you don't even know.
Millions of people are gay - they vote, they pay taxes and many are in the 1%. So what is your real problem?

canuckistani| 8.1.12 @ 9:59AM

Willard suggested the Jews possessed a cultural superiority that contributed to their financial success. Maybe he can attribute the same thing to Gays?

One thing we do know about Jewry in the last 500 years - they learned early on to not trust the smiling white man and not be anyone's servant. Gays have had had the same experience so it tends to imbue one's work ethic for the positive.

Maybe the cracker slackers and lazy hillbillie's can learn something from the Jews and Gays after all?

Paul Kotik| 8.10.12 @ 4:41PM

Bullshit. It's that homos don't spend the average $750,000 it takes to raise a child to 18 years old.

Traditional Republican| 7.31.12 @ 12:02PM

"ANOTHER Lying Black Democrat . . ."

TLP, your statement is racist, and you are making fiscal conservatives look like bigoted goons.

If you cannot post intelligently and civilly, then do not post.

Ed White| 7.31.12 @ 12:05PM

Traditional Republican,

It's commenters like TLP that make AmSpec seem like its readership is idiotic. And there are other posters just as crude as TLP.

Go to National Review, a more civilized conservative blog.

Quartermaster| 7.31.12 @ 12:24PM

Actually TLP is right in this case. Frankly, if you truly think what he posted is racist then you're a concern troll. There was nothing racist about his post. If you want to see racism demonstrated on a regular basis just go anywhere in the Democrat owned media, which almost the entire traditional media. Those people are racist to their core.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:31PM

"and you are making fiscal conservatives look like bigoted goons."

Fiscal conservatism doesn't exist anymore- it ended on 9-11.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:54PM

There is NOBODY MORE RACIST, than Black America. Just go to CSpan, and listen to their BILE, WHEN TALKING ABOUT Whites, and Jews, and Whoever.

They hate Whites, Hispanics, Gays, Asians, and every other Ethic Group, and all of those Groups Hate them in return.

They are the ONLY GROUP in this Country, that doesn't get along with ANYBODY.

That's not Racist.

It's a FACT!

So GFYourself.

RCV| 8.1.12 @ 1:02PM

TLP, you give bigots a bad name.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.31.12 @ 12:28PM

"I think that Queers, like Brooksieblacknegrohomo and that Jackass from London, should get married."

TLP,
you can't get a date, so you vent your frustration on us.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:59PM

I don't need a date.

I'm happily Married TO A WOMAN.

I don't wake up in a Gay Bar's Mens Room, with my dress pulled over my head, my lipstick smeared all over my face, and my Ass feeling like it's on fire, like YOU do.

Comprende?

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 4:21PM

...Then, it wasn't you I saw on the interstate rest-stop floor servicing every trucker that came in?--funny, I was sure that dude had TLP branded on his butt...!

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 4:38PM

Are you sure SHE is happily married? Where has she been lately?

Houdini| 7.31.12 @ 1:17PM

Maybe Jackie Mason had it right when he said "why shouldn't they get married and be as miserable as the rest of us".

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 3:59PM

Exactly.

madmiller57| 7.31.12 @ 8:07AM

Sorry WJA III, I disagree. I do not see viewing marriage as being between a man and a woman as hateful. It is a belief based on what many Christian feel is an accurate interpretation of scripture. We have gay couples in our church and though I do not feel homosexuality is what God intended, I do not hate these couples. I am not homophobic, I just believe what I believe.

Shiori| 7.31.12 @ 8:39AM

Marriage is the union of man and woman outside of Christianity as well. It predates Christianity and the State. To make the debate about Christian precepts is a losing argument, as not all people are Christian, or even religious. Atheist men and women marrying is as much a marriage as Jewish or Christian men and women. Marriage isn't only a religious thing - it is the word that describes the consummation of the two halves of humanity. In effect, there is no such thing as 'gay marriage' - it's a contradiction in terms. There are far greater implications to redefinition than many people realize. It's wholly Orwellian to alter terms in order to appease a political ideology. But because no politician has had the guts to make the proper intellectual arguments, we will continue to sprint toward an Orwellian existence with constant redefinitions. The words Mother and Father will be next to be made 'unisex'. And on and on it will proceed. This is not about gay folks, this about Leftism imposing itself on everyone else.

BobNY| 7.31.12 @ 9:16AM

Marriage my predate Christianity (the New Testament) but it does not predate Judism. IT was crerated by religion, without religion there would be no marriage. And there is no religion that accepts homosexuals as other than needing to be saved (or in the case of Islam-killing). To now allow something that is against religion to now be part is to go against their tenets. I believe that civil unions are the way gays should be 'married' and all the same rules should apply (marriage tax, benefits, etc) but to allow marriage is counter to all religion.

Quartermaster| 7.31.12 @ 12:26PM

It does preadte Judaism. By a lot. Judaism was not created until Moses delivered the law at Mt. Sinai. Marriage, OTOH, predates that by about 2000 years when God created Eve from Adam's rib.

Shiori| 7.31.12 @ 2:07PM

Of course it predates Judaism, because humans predate religion. Marriage is not only a religious thing. That argument is a primary argument of the Left. If marriage is only religious, then we cannot impose religion. But marriage is not only a religious tenant - it is the natural inclination of the two sexes, and only a man and a woman can join in bodily union.

Fredx| 7.31.12 @ 10:17AM

Very thoughtful comment. Chilling. Your last line "This is not about gay folks, this is about Leftism imposting itself on everyone else." Of course, you nailed it right there. It dons many disguises, but Leftism (and I hesitate to capitalize it) is at the root of all this superficial nonsense to which we attach too much importance, while they are merely symptoms. Leftism has no substance of its own, but is merely a vacuum, a black hole that sucks away all that is good and positive in the world, leaving behind a landscape that none of us will recognize. The short definition of Leftism is Evil. It is an incurable disease that can only be overcome with the raw strength of numbers. Let's hope there are enough of us.

darcy| 7.31.12 @ 2:50PM

I agree with you, Fredx, that the clamor for homosexual marriage is a symptom of leftism, which itself is evil as you describe. Liberalism is its milder form, employing existing institutions to undermine and corrupt our once-shared culture.

How many "conservatives" understand that the stated -- and determined -- goal of the left, using the club of homosexual marriage, is to first cripple and then utterly abolish our First Amendment Rights?

Obama appointed EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum makes this clear: "belief" freedom and "identity" freedom exist on a "spectrum" of rights; where they clash, "identity" freedom must rule at the expense of "belief" freedom -- read that religious freedom.

The homosexual marriage issue is a tool of our cultural Marxists to disinherit Americans from our most basic and fundamental rights of freedom of conscience, religion, and speech.

See more about Chai Feldblum here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015394.html :

NOMINEE FOR EEOC OPENLY ARGUES FOR RULE OF HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS OVER CHRISTIANITY

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 11:23AM

I agree. I have always said, "gay marriage is the ultimate oxymoron."

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 11:26AM

Good point. "This is not about gay folks, this about Leftism imposing itself on everyone else." No kidding. How else can you explain how 2% of the population can make the other 98% curl up in a ball? Peer pressure is powerful stuff. Watch companies like General Mills, etc. all line up to be the first ones to say, "we are NOT haters!"

Shiori| 7.31.12 @ 2:25PM

The Left uses puppy-dog faces and later, force, to impose it's worldview on all of humanity. They don't care about gays, or blacks, or anyone. They simply need to use special interest groups to emotionally blackmail the people.

No one is asking what children need, or what is a child's nature. Whether in schools or families, we have moved toward an adult centered society that forces children to accept that which goes against their own nature & needs. Children naturally desire a mother and a father - but the Left has us focused on the needs of adults, i.e., in the case of gays, their 'born this way' circumstances. In the case of feminism, the welfare state & divorce, it's all about making kids deal with our ineptitude & self-centeredness. The Left wouldn't have dared promote same-sex marriage if marriage were strong. But we allowed leftist values to creep into our homes, which then ate away at the foundation of the family. Without strong families focused on turning boys into men, society will ultimately crumble. This is not intended by gays, single mothers or divorcees - but it is intended by the Left. The only way to beat the Left at their game is to simply not play. We must return to truth in our own lives. Blacks must restore fathers to their homes and we all must reject teacher-centered education. It's on us people. Gays are just another pawn - and they will be used and discarded like the rest of us.

MK48| 7.31.12 @ 10:07AM

57...........what church would condone homosexuality ???

Show me in the bible where God blesses this act. 57 I am not knocking your church but if you are to be one with God you have to follow and practice his scripture.

Quote me a passage please...............

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 11:34AM

Who the FUCK cares what some imaginary supernatural "god" says, in a CIVIL/SECULAR society??--- this is NOT a theocracy, if you haven't noticed..and not ALL of us are "Christian"-- or even believers in ANY organized hocus-pocus belief system...

SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE, ---remember that one...??

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 11:50AM

"Who the FUCK cares what some imaginary supernatural "god" says, in a CIVIL/SECULAR society??"

Yep, that will convince others of your point of view. Great Job!!

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 12:02PM

It is as convincing as you neanderthals pushing your ridiculous myth-based beliefs down the throats of those who have serious doubts about the legitimacy of such fairy tales..

I don't give a rat's ass about trying to convince you of anything , BTW... that is an impossible task, which doesn't warrant the effort to even try..

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 12:27PM

Not realy. You see unlike you I live tolerance. Never said I hated Homosexuals, or talked trash about them. Served with several Homosexual men/women who were damn fine workers and Sailor/Marines. Simple said, Civil Unions are not enough to satsify the "Gay Agenda". See first it started off wanting the same legal rights/tax breaks. No problem, seveal states including my own granted Civil Unions those benifits but that was not enough. It had to be termed Same Sex Marriage.

Riddle me this though. Marriage implies a religous union before God and as you obviously disdain religion why would you want to use that term?

John Navratil| 7.31.12 @ 12:45PM

Drunken Sailor,

One would think, as a hallmark of the left is to rename things for political reasons, that they could just call "civil unions" a marriage and be done with it. But, as has been observed, that is not the point. Deconstruction is the point so that society can be remade as a purely secular one with the "right people" in charge.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 1:34PM

ACTUALLY--

Marriage-- in the eyes of The State--and THAT ius the only thing I am concerned with-- provides finacial rights and responsibilities-( such as tax credits/responsibilties for each other's debts-to a limited way- and other perks and demands granted only to those "officially " wedded..the word/concept of "marriage" per-se, actually has NOTHING to do with "religion" --AT ALL---unless you think that those who marry at the County Clerk's office, without the semblance of any religious ceremony are not "really wed???

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 1:43PM

I notice you totally skipped the point I made about Civil unions providing the benifits you claim to want but still insist on the word marriage.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 3:30PM

Civil Unions DO NOT provide ALL OF the complete benefits that State-sanctioned Marriage does...

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 12:47PM

Then why waste your time posting?

Boar Hunter| 7.31.12 @ 1:05PM

We are not the ones forcing our views on anyone.

Unlike the Muslims, who the homo's oddly never mention, we don't force Christianity to be taught in public school, but the glorious merits of homosexuality is now part of the curriculum in California.

We voted against homosexual marriage in California before a gay judge, who was totally unbiased in the case, reversed it and overruled the vote of the people.

The homosexuals already possess extraordinary protection under the law in the form of "Hate Crime" legislation and further possess all the same rights as domestic partners or partners in a civil union. The homo's fight is not for equality, which they already posses. Their fight is to force Christians to deny the will of God and accept their perversion of the institution of marriage which was ordained by God. In other words, they demand Christians abandon their faith and chose the acceptance of Homosexuality over the will of God.

"Who the FUCK cares what some imaginary supernatural "god" says, in a CIVIL/SECULAR society??" I contend that you will someday Pelleas. On that day their will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.

TLP| 7.31.12 @ 4:01PM

Indeed.

Fredx| 7.31.12 @ 5:09PM

You need something else down your throat.

Paul Kotik| 8.10.12 @ 4:42PM

And up his....

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 11:54AM

"SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE, ---remember that one...??"

No, I don't, foul-mouth jerk. Do you know why?
Because IT'S NOT in the constitution, Einstein!

cowgirl| 7.31.12 @ 2:11PM

No such thing as "Separation of Church and State" . This is a hocus-pocus, liberalism is a mental illness, wishful thinking left wing fairy tale taught in the public school system.

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

SSG Baker| 7.31.12 @ 2:40PM

Not in the Constitution, anywhere.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:33PM

It may not be in the Constitution, but it's the formulation that the Supreme Court uses, so it's not completely illegitimate.

The good news is that anytime the Supreme Court decides to apply some other standard, they can do so as long as they can articulate a good reason for changing the standard.

cowgirl| 8.1.12 @ 11:18AM

It was taken out of context (from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Ministers at the time of his election as President of the United States) by a Supreme Court Judge by the name of Hugo L. Black - a former member of the Klu Klux Klan appointed to the supreme court by none other than FDR. The case was Everson Vs. Board of Education and had to do with Catholic school kids riding public school buses to private Catholic School. The racists Hugo Black - remember the Klan did not only disklike blacks and Jews, but Catholics were on their list also - could not find much to support his dissention that some how or another this constituted the state of New Jersey imposing religious views on the state. So the racist Black decided to pull the phrase "separation fo church and state" from Jefferson's letter and make it a de facto standard. What the racist Black (also a Democrat) did was completely misintrepret Jefferson's letter and Jeffersons beliefs. But what can one say more than the fact that Black was a Democrat.

MK48| 7.31.12 @ 6:54PM

Pelleas..............here is something to think about.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't.

Than live my life as if there isn't, and find out there is.

Anyway you'll be on my prayer list.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 9:43PM

Hey, MK48.
I did finally respond to your reply, from yesterday's thread Romney in the Launch Position. In case you missed it.
God Bless!

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 9:55AM

Pascal's Wager.

Reggie Love| 7.31.12 @ 8:33AM

The polls may say one thing,but the votes say another. Look at California,where people even oppose it. I gurantee if a vote on gay marriage were to occur in Chicago,it would fail too.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 11:36AM

The author has a good point--the numbers are rapidly changing. Prop 8 barely passed. The young people are all on board. Gay marriage is as inevitable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning. How ironic is it that gay marriage is even an issue, while conventional marriage acc. to Charles Murray is now merely an option as 40% of all kids are born out of wedlock.

John Navratil| 7.31.12 @ 12:46PM

scotchieguy,

Which is what Moynihan warned almost fifty years ago.

Stephanie| 7.31.12 @ 8:37AM

The Presbyterian church at their bi-annual gathering this year, barely squeaked by the ruling that they will still see marriage in the traditional way. I bet in 2 years, that ruling will be history and that is when I leave the church.
Why aren't civil unions enough for these people? Why not just go be gay, live your lives and quit whining about it, for God's sake!!!!
Don't forget to eat at Chick-Fil-A tomorrow to show support for Mr. Cathy's right to say what he and his family believe!
I did hear that gays are planning on swarming some of the eateries and have a "kiss-in". Now, that's a way to change folks mind, eah?

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 9:52AM

"Why aren't civil unions enough for these people?"

Simple, it is in your face aggresion. It never stops. As soon as you give them what they want, they push for the next envelope. Didn't even take a year for Gays to be openly allowed in the military before gay service members were allowed by the DOD to wear their uniforms in gay pride parades.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-0.....e-members.

Long gone are the days when sexuality period were not even discussed in the military because it has nothing to do with the job.

It's all about the agenda of special treatment, not equal treatment.

Boar Hunter| 7.31.12 @ 6:40PM

As I said above, since the homo's are already treated as superior under the law, their fight is not for equality, their fight is to force Christians to deny the will of God and accept their perversion as equal to the institution of marriage which was ordained by God. In other words, they demand Christians abandon their faith and accept their depravity over the will of God.

Derek Leaberry| 7.31.12 @ 8:46AM

The Democratic Party's full-throated roar of support for homosexual "marriage" is to be expected. They are the party of deviants and evil people. But expect the Republican Party to meekly accept homosexual "marriage". Slaves to big business, the Republican Party could care less about moral issues and defending Western Civilization and Christianity. Already, Dick Cheney and several Bush women have come out for homosexual "marriage." They are the enemy within the Republican Party.

Homosexual "marriage" will be the law of the land in ten years. But what will be left of the United States as its decline escalates. There is no future for a degenerate republic.

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 9:35AM

As you note, there are many within the GOP who betray every day. This has been the condition of the party since the birth of the Conservative Movement. Many within the mainline GOP opposed the Movement and we continue to follow those who do.

The issue here is not one of "rights" or tolerance or even liberty. It is whether there is, in this world, such a thing as moral absolutes or whether instead all is relative and all behavior simply a matter of choice or opinion. It is one thing to tolerate aberrant behavior and quite another to legitimize it and give it the sanction of the state.

Derek Leaberry| 7.31.12 @ 9:48AM

Your post is not only wise, it is eloquent.

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 11:30AM

D L:
Thank you for your kind comment. There is a discussion on the Jefferson thread today as well which deals with the national culture at the time of the founding. There existed a recognition of the Christian culture at that time. It is likely we have seen a collapse of a cultural consensus and a descent to a relativistic, situational ethic, in which all behavior is acceptable. Even that tolerance however is a far cry from state sanction of deviance. That is what we guard against. Are we to be ruled by our "betters" or is this still a self-governing nation?

KyMouse| 7.31.12 @ 9:14AM

Although it's been said many times, many ways, I'll say it again -- once we throw away what the Bible says about marriage being between one man and one woman (e.g. Matthew 19:4-6), and what Western civilization has found to be the best arrangement (especially for the wife and children), the door is open to any combination of people being married. Any number of them, either or both sexes, and perhaps younger and younger spouses.

I have yet to hear why polygamy (and perhaps polyandry) aren't next. The former is more likely than the latter; however, polygamy makes women settle for a marriage that is all fractions (because she must share her husband and everything else in their marriage with other women), and it makes it very difficult for poorer, younger men to find mates.

Even ancient societies did not put same-sex marriage on a par with heterosexual marriage. What did they know that we have yet to find out?

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.31.12 @ 9:40AM

"the problem with gay marriage isn't gay marriage -- that is, the act of gays and lesbians holding wedding ceremonies and receiving marriage licenses from the state"

Huh? Uh, yes, that is precisely the problem: government sanctioning perverted relationships. KyMouse is spot on. Morality is the presupposition of marriage and when you take morality away from it, all other perverted relationships are on a par with traditional marriage. None of the gay marriage advocates want to deal with this reductio of their position.

Anthony| 7.31.12 @ 9:44AM

Quite true. Polygamy has a much stronger claim for legitimacy than homosexual marriage, as it has roots in major world religions.
Once Pandora's Box is open, all sorts of constructs are possible and permissible. Once gay marriage is accepted, it is impossible to deny any form of hetrosexual coombination units.
Of course, the elite left have attempted to portray polygamy as unacceptable red-neck deviancy, as opposed to the more "hip, refined" gay marriage.
It's not just leftism's deviancy I can't stand, it's their classism as well.

Fredx| 7.31.12 @ 10:32AM

"...it is impossible to deny any form of heterosexual combination units."

That, Anthony, is one of the most neglected outcomes of "gay marriage," because "gay marriage" is not "gay marriage" at all, but same-sex marriage. Why are there no news stories or commentaries about this Pandora's Box that will be flung wide open if/when "gay marriage" becomes the law of the land? Think of the legal, financial, citizenship, inheritance implications! We might as well just rip up the law books.

Anthony| 7.31.12 @ 10:47AM

Fredx, I think you know the reason as well as the rest of us do. The MSM do not wish to focus on the consequences of their elitist agenda.
The resulting demise of our culture, as a result of an opened Pandora's Box, will be ignored or disclaimed by the MSM, because, as is the wont of leftists, they take no responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

PJ| 7.31.12 @ 9:46AM

You hit the nail right on the head when you stated that heteosexual marriage is the best arrangement for women & esp children. It is in the state's interest to promote those institutions that safeguard it's future population. By far one has a better chance of being a productive, law-abiding citizen after being raised by a heteosexual, married couple than in any other situation.

Von Mises Jr| 7.31.12 @ 10:18AM

Spot on KyMouse and fine comments. If one considers the larger issue, it is not just a gross moral failing, but one of "Rule of Law” and Civil Society. The "slippery slope" argument is based on the fact that once the norm is destroyed to make virtually everything an exception, you have no "Rule of Law," but a rule of men.
How will women and children be protected when every legal disposition of assets and financial support become a protracted legal battle? We already witness mistresses claiming rights to inheritance. Will the gang at the gay bath get to move in with the wife and kids of the bi-sexual when he dies? If a man dies without a will after multiple marriages, gay lovers and a mistress will his estate prorated on the duration of the relationship and frequency of sex?
With totalitarians there is only one rule: "there are no rules."

THKrupp| 7.31.12 @ 10:36AM

Usually people that have mulitple marriages, mistresses etc etc do not leave much in the way of inheritences....all of that activity is pretty expensive lol

CJW| 7.31.12 @ 11:19AM

Aside from the Bible, if a state government cannot legislate that marriage is between one woman and one man, then logically it follows that it cannot legislate that the marriage be limited to two persons. The next question will be that it is a denial of rights to limit marriage to two persons.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 11:48AM

It's already in the courts, W.
Read about here:
http://www.deseretnews.com/art.....court.html

CJW| 7.31.12 @ 12:27PM

Thanks, Nick.
Jonathan Turley is a highly regarded constitutional law professor at GW law school.
This is part of the effort to destroy the family as we know it. What has not been destroyed by the Great Society welfare programs will be destroyed by the eventual court rulings that a state cannot legislate in this area, so that it is all a private matter about who and how many you marry.

This will make divorce law, child support, custody, alimony, and division of assets interesting and expensive. Imagine a marriage of four persons, and one wants out. You have to sue the three remaining partners, and then divide assets, and work out a child visitation and support. This will create jobs for attorneys, court clerks, and shrinks who have to deal with the poor children in these arrangements.

Von Mises Jr| 7.31.12 @ 12:59PM

I read "The Origins of Totalitarianism" during my vacation. Arendt talks about "atomizing" the masses to condition out individuality. She talked of isolation, loneliness and terror to be NECCESARY for autocratic, dictatorial and totalitarian rule.
The terror must not be punishment, but arbitrary and capricious. Groups became targets simply due to their identity.
This is what Obama's fascination with "collective salvation" is all about. And this is the reason for divisive talk and defying the "Rule of Law."

CJW| 7.31.12 @ 1:07PM

Von
He did not lie when he said he wanted to transform the USA.
Will have to read Arendt.
Sounds like you had a good vacation. Well read and ready for combat!

darcy| 7.31.12 @ 6:51PM

The left has a vested interest in promoting -- in the quaint-sounding terms of "equality" and "tolerance" (once understood as a live-and-let-live attitude, now meaning RESPECT for any and all deviant lifestyles) -- any societal change that undermines the cultural presuppositions of our Founders and that still exist in our people today. The writings of John Locke, the Magna Carta, English Common Law, and the Judeo-Christian ethos of the 18th Century -- which shaped the political philosophy upon which our government is founded -- are considered only so much detritus, fit only for the ash-heap, ideological and constitutional barriers, if you will, to the "beautiful" new world the left seeks to IMPOSE on Americans.

Homosexual marriage supporters, blindly following the "spirit of this age," do not understand the evil they release into our culture nor its destructive power to undo anything that is still good about our country. These people call evil good and good evil; Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 1:00PM

You're welcome, W.

Yes, I remember Professor Turley from the Bubba "The Rapist" Clinton impeachment days, of which he was on the correct side. But, he is still a liberal.
He was also part of a lawsuit to find out what was going on at Area 51. I'm not joking, look it up.
I'm not surprised that he has taken up the pro-polygamy cause.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 11:43AM

The strongest opponents of polygamy are the gay marriage freaks. They know that once marriage can mean anything, their premise of changing marriage to include gays falls like a house of cards.

OP4| 7.31.12 @ 9:28AM

This may be the only issue that Obama and I are in complete agreement - complete indifference. Nothing should be done at the Federal level, the states are welcome to do whatever they want.

Unlike Obama, I haven't flip-flopped and pandered on every side of the issue.

Willie Bates Antle| 7.31.12 @ 9:51AM

W. James Antle, III,

I believe I may be your cousin. Are you by chance related to the Antles from Clinton, South Carolina? When I saw your face in that photo, I said to myself, "That man's got South Carolina Antles written all over his face." I called my wife in and she said, Willie he's a Antle from Clinton, there's no doubt in my mind.

In fact I am pure positive just by your looks you are a Antle from SC. The Antle men even comb their hair in the wavy style you are sportin up there in that photo.

You bear a strong resemblance to grandpa Antle, who ran the cold storage here in Clinton for over fifty years. The farmers from all around would kill hogs and grandpa Antle would store the meat in his giant freezer all year long. He also had a snack bar and sold the best hamburgers this side of heaven. I wish I could wrap my lips around one of them hamburgers right now. I could eat them for breakfast, and I used to get up of a morning, head over to the cold storage and have me a hamburger and a Pepsi for breakfast. You talk about good eating! Lord, my mouth is watering up just thinking about it.

Your grandmother would have been Mattie Blair Antle, and she was a character! The Antles here in Clinton have mostly been Pentecostal Holiness, but grandma Mattie Blair quit the church because of a falling out with the womens dinner-on-the-grounds committee bickering over plans for a harvest home celebration, and she left the church and became a Jehovah's Witness!

Willie Bates Antle| 7.31.12 @ 9:52AM

If you descend from the Antles of Clinton, SC, let us know because we're planning a family reunion on August 22 at the Baptised in the Fire Pentecostal Holiness Church of the Risen Savior in our fellowship hall at 12 noon on the 22nd, and we'd love to have you join us.

And do you sing bass. The Antle men down here in Clinton sing deep bass, and when we have a all-night gospel sing, the women go crazy. If you sing bass, you're a Clinton Antle. come on down, cousin.

Willie Bates Antle| 7.31.12 @ 9:59AM

Us Antle men are full of testoterone and we have anywhere from seven to eleven children per family. If there's a gay in the Antles of Clinton, nobody knows it thats for sure.
We're all men--masculine all the way. So there won't be any gays to pester you at the reunion. come on down.

Edna Glenn Brisson Antle| 7.31.12 @ 10:08AM

Mr. Antle

I don't know if you're married or not, but you've got that rugged virle SC Antle look.

We got plenty of young girls--all virgins--who would love to marry a man of your good looks. We marry cousins--second cousins-- down here, so being kin don't matter in this case

Come on down to the reunion on the 22nd and I'll intruduce you to some young women who wear no makeup and never cut their hair and are bonafied virgins for the Lord. You'll have your pick!

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 12:32PM

I don't know what this is, but it's DEFIANTLY sick and deviant.

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 9:56AM

You Antles aren't Citadel men by any chance, are you?

PJ| 7.31.12 @ 10:06AM

If you disagree with the essay at least state your reasons rationally instead of showing the world how much of a buffoon you are.

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 10:14AM

PJ, Don't you know, that is all they got.

tminus1| 7.31.12 @ 10:18AM

There's another consequence not mentioned in the article or the comments so far, and that is that marriage no longer remains an institution, but becomes simply a contract between X and Y.

X and Y are not limited to pairs of persons, but can be logically extended to pairs of groups. It took the polyamorists in Canada just five years after "gay" marriage was legitimated to press their suit in court for their now defensible "rights." (Type "polyamorist" and "canada" in your search engine and stand back...)

And, of course, there will be the litigious few who will insist their undying love for their horse and dog entitles them to the same right. How are they to be denied? Marriage is just a contract, after all.

No. Marriage is the bedrock of civilization. Whatever weaknesses we've introduced through divorce, etc., the institution must be defended against all assaults, even from those friends and family members who constitute only 3% of the population.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 11:36AM

Very good point, tminus1.

Marriage has always been a covenant, not a contract. The differences, as defined by Old Testament theology, are fascinating. And, unfortunately, they have not been taught to most Americans for many decades.

The concept that marriage is "only a contract" probably made it's strongest appeal after the scourge of "no-fault divorce" swept the nation. But, as far as when it precisely began, I do not know. I suppose a case could be made that it began in 1215, with Magna Carta, when the state tried to define what property a widow was entitled to vis-à-vis the first-born son.

Also, the polygamists are already in court trying to get bigamy laws struck down, thanks to the same-gender counterfeit marriage laws already passed in several states. So, how long before the incest lobby starts to get litigious?

This is the argument I always use against those who are in favor of counterfeit marriage. It cuts straight to the point of why marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and why it is the foundation of civilization.

If this debate is truly just about "equal rights" for consenting adults who "love each other," as the homosexuals falsely claim, then the promoters of counterfeit marriage MUST be in favor of polygamy and incestuous "marriage." If they are to be intellectually honest.

Very few will try to defend bigamy and incest being codified into law, however. They don't want to have that debate.

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 11:49AM

You're talking about christian religious marriage. Why should I care? If I want to get a civil marriage, why do you think you have the right to force me to conform to religious beliefs that I don't share?

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 12:01PM

Because, DRed, this is what living in a constitutional republic, based on Christian and Judaic ethics, is all about.
Just ask the Mormons what they had to do to get Utah admitted into the Union.

This is the biggest problem with you liberals. You can't get what you want through persuasion, debate, and the ballot-box, so, you use the illegitimate power of the courts to impose your beliefs on the whole country.
It's called the tyranny of the minority.

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 12:05PM

Wait-what? Living in America is all about having Christian morality imposed on you?

I live in NY, as you may remember. Tell me, which court imposed gay marriage on the unwilling here?

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 12:44PM

"Wait-what? Living in America is all about having Christian morality imposed on you?"

Are you not aware that our system of law is based on the English common law tradition, DRed? Please, do your homework next time.

"Tell me, which court imposed gay marriage on the unwilling here?"

I was referring to the first two states, MA and VT. And, CA, where even when the people pass an amendment to the STATE constitution to codify authentic marriage, an activist FEDERAL court says the amendment is unconstitutional.
Just how does that work, DRed? How can an amendment to a constitution be unconstitutional? Only a liberal brain can invent such things!

It is you bleeding heart liberals who impose your beliefs on the majority.

Al Adab| 7.31.12 @ 12:49PM

The question you raise my friends is whether there exists a moral absolute which government is expected to maintain or conversly whether all morality is relative and government must impose legitimacy on all forms. If immorality is to be protected and legitimized, is there no line which one may not cross?

darcy| 7.31.12 @ 7:07PM

That indeed is the central point, Al Adab. There ARE moral absolutes, all the whining of sophists to the contrary. Our elected leaders will be held accountable for their actions, for how well they align their policies with moral absolutes, and for how faithfully they discharge their sacred duty -- under the law -- to act in God's stead. Shifting the ground upon which our nation was built, built as it was with constant reference to our Creator, will bring about its collapse, heaps upon heaps of human misery, and biggest misery of all -- for them --, an angry God who does not suffer tyrants lightly.

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 2:09PM

Yes, I know it's based on English common law. That doesn't mean it is meant to impose a particular religious ideology. The constitution was written by Christians, but it doesn't set up an explicitly Christian government.

The amendment at question in California was an amendment to the state constitution. That amendment was found to violate the federal constitution.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 3:16PM

"That doesn't mean it is meant to impose a particular religious ideology."

Straw man. I never mentioned "ideology" or theology (there is no such thing as "religious ideology").
And, do you know from where English common law was derived? Apparently, you need a little primer, DRed.

English common law, along with the rest of Europe, was developed from the Christianization of the ancient Roman law. The Justinian Code, to be precise, along with Canon Law. Statutes were often based on specific verses of the Bible.
This system was imported to the 13 colonies. Most of the Founders were trained in this system. They founded a federal system of government, which left most legal decisions to the state and local government. Decisions which were based on the Scriptures.

This is a vast oversimplification, of course. You will have to study on your own time. Sorry.

You are correct. The 9th Circuit wrongly nullified Prop 8 citing the Equal Protection clause. I was thinking of when the CA S.C. struck down Prop 22. But, still, if the majority of the people of CA amend their constitution, how does that violate the E.P. or Due Process clause? Amending their constitution IS due process, is it not, DRed?

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 4:08PM

The English system of common law was distinct from continental civil law systems precisely because it was not developed primarily from Roman law.

No, amending a state constitution to deny a federally protected constitutional right is not due process.

Finally, it doesn't matter that the founders were Christian. They were Christians who formed a secular government. The fact that they were Christian doesn't give you the right to impose your particular theology on me or any other American.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 4:49PM

Don't get your history from wiki, DRed. How sad.
I never used the word "primarily," by the way.

"No, amending a state constitution to deny a federally protected constitutional right is not due process."

Umm, there is no "federally protected constitutional right" to marriage. Sorry, you lose, again.

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that the Founders were Christian? I haven't. The system of government they invented was based of God's Natural Law and ancient Roman law. The nation's citizens based their statutes on the Bible, like it or not.

This is why some counties in the U.S. still prohibit alcohol sales, i.e., dry counties. Or, why many towns still have "blue" laws and force businesses to remain closed on Sundays.

Perhaps you missed my comment to Rlranger907? Any time you pass a law, you are imposing you view of morality on society. That's what a law is. If I want to base a law on my religious worldview, and convince enough people to pass that law, there is nothing wrong with that. This is how the country ran for most of its history.

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 5:56PM

According to the Supreme Court, there certainly is a constitutionally protected right to marry. That's why California can't deny gay people equal protection of the law through a state constitutional amendment. Your legal knowledge seems about as shaky as your grasp of the history of the development of the common law.

Our system of law derives from the English common law, not roman law and God's Natural Law. I keep mentioning the founders Christianity to contrast it with the secular government they set up. They didn't create a Christian government-they were Christians (and frankly, pretty much only a few types of Protestants) who, while they were certainly influenced by their religious beliefs, set up a government that was not based on any particular religion. Marriage in America has only ever been a secular business. This is why it's irrelevant what Jesus thought about gay marriage. You and your church can define marriage any way you see fit-I don't care. But what I find odious is that you want to impose your religious beliefs on me. I don't believe in God. Why should I be prohibited from marrying a man because you claim a being I don't believe exists would be offended?

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:46PM

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down an anti-miscegenation law prohibiting marriage between a black and a white (man and woman), stating that such marriage were indeed a civil right (and therefore constitutional); they didn't extend that ruling to same-sex marriages, though, so the issue of same-sex marriage as a civil right remains unresolved.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 9:10PM

"According to the Supreme Court [...]."
Sorry, I go by the actual Constitution, DRed. And, "marriage" is not mentioned once. You lose, again.

"That's why California can't deny gay people equal protection [...]."
Umm, the Prop 8 case hasn't gone to SCOTUS, yet. So, there hasn't been a decision. You really shouldn't comment on these issues if you are this ignorant, DRed.

"Our system of law derives from the English common law, not roman law and God's Natural Law."
The ECL derives from Roman law and God's Natural Law. Haven't you been paying attention. Seriously, quit going to wiki.

What would a Christian government look like, by the way? (Christianity is not a religion, either.)

"Marriage in America has only ever been a secular business."
Where do you come-up with this stuff? Your ignorance knows no bounds, DRed! So, churches had no say in marriage in a America? Did you read that in wiki too? Or, did you get that from Howard Zinn?

"But what I find odious is that you want to impose your religious beliefs on me."
So, do you also want to get rid of laws against murder, stealing, and perjury?

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 11:39PM

The Supreme Court stated in Maynard v. Hill marriage "has always been subject to the control of the legislature". Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary?

Where do you get the idea that the common law was derived from roman law and god's natural law?

Nick| 8.1.12 @ 1:12AM

Pulling ten words out of a SCOTUS decision (probably out of context) is not very impressive. Nor, does it refute the fact that the churches in this country have always had a say in the institution of marriage.

"Where do you get the idea that the common law was derived from roman law and god's natural law?"

Umm, because it does. It's called history. Where do you get the idea that it doesn't, DRed? Oh, that's right, from wiki!

DRed| 8.1.12 @ 11:14AM

Oh look, Nick can't back up what he's been saying again. No sources for your garbage history. Ignoring evidence I show you. If you think that statement is out of context, why don't you look it up, chump? I told you what case it's from.

Nick| 8.1.12 @ 8:43PM

I back-up everything that I write. Unlike yourself, DRed.
You seem to be losing it, a little bit. Take a deep breath, and calm down. Then start doing your homework on English common law.
And stay away from wiki, okay?

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 4:50PM

I guess in LiberalLand the United States has always, from her inception, violated the rights of homosexuals because it refused to impose same-gender counterfeit marriage on the several states, correct?

If so, then the same goes for polygamists and those who have no problem with incest, right? As long as they are "consenting adults" and are "in love"?
Let's see you defend polygamy and incestuous "marriage," DRed, if you are intellectually honest.

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 6:06PM

Well technically it would have been unconstitutional after the passage of the 14th amendment. The basic idea is that the government needs reasons to discriminate against certain groups in order to not run afoul of the equal protection clause. If you want a consideration of the harms of polygamy there's a recent Canadian case that exhaustively discusses them.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jd.....SC1588.htm

There you go.

Incestuous marriage is legal in a variety of forms in a number of states. You're going to have to be more specific.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 9:23PM

The 14th Article of Amendment to U.S. Constitution had nothing to do with marriage, either, DRed. This is getting tedious.

The institution of marriage has always been discriminatory, and there is no injustice in that. And, why do you libs always want to go to a foreign country's laws to make your points?

"You're going to have to be more specific."
I hope you are playing dumb, but, I'm not sure.

By what reasoning do you deny the equal right of marriage (in liberal-speak) between a mother and her son/daughter? Or, a father and his daughter/son? Or, between a brother and sister? If they are consenting adults and in love?
And don't respond with child deformities. Or, are you now Pro-Life and against contraception?

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 9:57PM

You're right Nick! The 14th Amendment doesn't have to do with marriage! It does, however, have to do with state governments denying their people the equal protection of the law. Oh, silly me to think that mattered. I'll just leave the legal analysis to you from now on. Maybe in the meantime I'll write an amicus brief to inform the Supreme Court that the word marriage isn't in the constitution, and therefore nobody in America has any right to get married.

Nick| 8.1.12 @ 1:22AM

What a terrible attempt at deflection, DRed. You didn't even really try to answer the questions.
Oh, that's because you can't answer them and remain logical.

Therefore, the liberal contention that same-sex counterfeit marriage is about equal rights for consenting adults who love each other has been proven, by ME, to be completely BOGUS!
Thanks for playing. Buh-bye, now.

DRed| 8.1.12 @ 11:21AM

I'm making fun of you because your argument is ridiculously stupid. Logically, the 14th Amendment would have something to do with an equal protection claim. Saying 'it has nothing to do with marriage' is totally irrelevant. No shit it has nothing to do with marriage.

Nick| 8.1.12 @ 8:39PM

You are the only one who looks ridiculous in this conversation, DRed.
And, you are still deflecting. Defend polygamy and incestuous "marriage," or, admit that you're a hypocrite. Or, a liar.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 9:29PM

p.s. There is no way that someone like you, DRed, who goes to wiki all the time, actually read that case from British Columbia!
Why did you link to it? Or, did you also get that from wiki?

Anyway, nice try...NOT! Why don't you try answering, in your own words, why groups of people don't have the right to marriage, in the same way that homosexuals are supposed to have this right?

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 12:56PM

Were are talking about what the Govt. does here, NO one says you PERSONALLY have to like it, I am sure gay people couldn't care less about your personal views, this is about what Govt. does.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.31.12 @ 2:07PM

So, then marriages been old men and young girls are okay? Why or why not? This is a real problem down here in Arizona where we have some splinter Mormon sects who see nothing wrong with such things.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:22PM

How old? How young? There's no legal impediment unless the girl is underage, but there might be a social revulsion to that kind of thing.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.31.12 @ 10:04PM

You're missing the point. Why couldn't it be any age? Given the logic of gay marriage -- where behavior is equated with race -- there is no non-arbitrary way of stopping marriages between 40 year old men and 9 year old girls.

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 9:59AM

Yes, there is. Nine-year-old girls are considered to be biologically and physically not ready for the act of consummation of a marriage, and by virtue of that fact, there is a non-arbitrary way of stopping marriages between 40-year-old men and 9-year-old girls.

rlranger907| 7.31.12 @ 10:54AM

Thank you for a balanced and sober article, Mr. Antle. He is correct. The change in public opinion is happening. Yes, the votes taken in the past few years might suggest otherwise, but the path ahead will lead to some sort of societal acceptance or acknowledgement of same sex partnerships. The emergence of Americans with same sex leanings from the darker corners of alienation is not going to be reversed. Consider: one of the four ringleaders of the heroic passenger take-down of Flight 93 was gay. We've probably already had our first gay president.

As someone who has supervised gay employees, had a dotted-line relationship to a gay manager, who has members of my extended family who are gay, and who has lived in a city (Long Beach CA) with a vibrant and entrepreneurial gay community, I'm here to tell you, this is not as big a deal as it is made out to be. My marriage of 34 years is unaffected by the existence of gay relationships elsewhere. It is possible - and even enjoyable - to treat and be treated by gay fellow citizens as good neighbors. I agree with Mr. Antle that we may have passed the point - at least for the time being - where a balanced solution of legal recognition of civil partnerships could have provided the compromise to resolve the question, and that the intransigence of many on the Right contributed to that outcome.

JP| 7.31.12 @ 3:09PM

Homosexuals derived their tolerance from Christian charity. Ours in the only society that openly accepts gays for their humanity. But, remove Christianity from society, and society will eventually revert back to its more naturual and base instincts. Or worse, something else will fill the void left by the decline of Christianity - most probably it will be Islam. And Islam and homosexuality do not mix.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 11:01AM

No, Mr. Antle, the problem with gay "marriage" is calling it marriage in the first place. It is not. It is more accurately referred to as counterfeit marriage, because it is a fraud.

It also doesn't help the conservative cause for marriage when I constantly hear the phrase, "Not that there's anything wrong with that," belched from the mouths of reputed conservatives in the media. The attempt to sound hip by quoting these insipid words from a sit-com that went off the air in 1998, is grating.

I've heard this particular idiom, coined by the "sage" of the 1990s, emanate from such luminaries as Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Hugh Hewitt, and Michael Medved, to name just a few.

Allow me to let you in on something: There IS something wrong with that!
It perverts the marital-act. It is not natural. It destroys the soul.

This aversion that many conservatives seem to have to calling homosexual acts what they in fact are, disordered and dangerous, boggles the mind. Heaven forbid, that we actually speak the truth about same-gender counterfeit marriage. We might be called a homophobe.

rlranger907| 7.31.12 @ 11:20AM

Absent methods of law enforcement and social control that will be impossible to achieve in this society, you cannot coerce a vision of morality through the power of the state. Not in the absence of far broader consensus than now exists on the question of societal acceptance of people with same sex inclinations.

For those whose personal moral codes or interpretation of scripture lead to the conclusion that no expansion of legal privileges of gay Americans can be countenanced, I respect your reasoning. I worship with many who believe as you do. But in the domain of principled ethical debate about the extent to which society's laws concerning marriage (and the social norms that undergird them) should follow the continuity of tradition, the horse left the barn last century with the broad acceptance within the Christian (and Jewish) communities of contraception. The protestations of some to the contrary, that is a cultural consensus that is not likely to be reversed in the time scale of American political life.

So what to do? Well, certainly, speak truth as you see it, but understand that your power to compel acceptance of truth through the coercive power of the state or through the machinery of the culture no longer exists. Given that circumstance, try living the truth. Which for Christians is not simply proclaiming Romans 1:26-27, but perhaps beginning with the more challenging lessons of Matthew Chapters 5 through 7, and moving back and forth from there.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 12:31PM

Rlranger907,

"Absent methods of law enforcement and social control that will be impossible to achieve in this society, you cannot coerce a vision of morality through the power of the state."

Complete claptrap. Haven't you heard of thou shalt not kill, steal, and bear false witness against thy neighbor? (Thou shalt not commit adultery use to be in there, too.) Any time a law is passed it is imposing someone's idea of morality on society. This argument is really getting old.

Your report of the death of the marriage debate is greatly exaggerated, I'm afraid. Which side keeps winning at the ballot-box?

Also, Romans 1:26-27 are not the only verses of Scripture that proclaim the immorality of homosexual acts. Nor, are they only verses that speak to the normality of authentic marriage. The most important coming from Christ Himself:
"Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh." (Mt. 19:4-6f)

If Christ had been for same-gender counterfeit marriage, this would have been a good place to mention it, don't you think? The Sacred Scriptures need to be read as whole.

DRed| 7.31.12 @ 2:17PM

While Jesus's thoughts on divorce are interesting, I still don't understand why his opinion is supposed to be binding on me as an American.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 3:19PM

If you read carefully, DRed, you will see that I was addressing a specific point raised by Rlranger907. Not your's.

Andersonh1| 7.31.12 @ 11:25AM

I'm sorry to see a nominally conservative website like American Spectator throw in the towel on the same sex "marriage" issue. Surrendering to cultural depravity is certainly one way to ensure said depravity becomes the norm.

Sjccoach| 7.31.12 @ 12:03PM

Why should you be surprised that an inside the beltway CINO publication surrenders. If he doesn't surrender Mr. Antle doesn't get invited to the in parties in Georgetown, Potomac and McLean. The mainstream media will pat him on the head for growing. CINOs don't fight for what is right. They want to go along and get along.

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:10PM

Palleas, then I hope you will be consistent and NOT DENY THE RIGHT of any number of consenting adults in any combination whatsoever to marry. I hope you will not DENY THE RIGHT of mothers and sons, and fathers and daughters, and brothers and sisters to marry.

Will you object to that? Or do you say they have the RIGHT as all other consenting adults do?

Seymour, you said "dick in ass is an act of love".
Then why the f_ck will any gastroenterologist (who is not homo himself) tell us that our assholes are not made for sex? Why is the average life expectancy of a homo about 50 years of age?

Boar Hunter| 7.31.12 @ 12:25PM

40

Drunken Sailor| 7.31.12 @ 12:33PM

Relax Dave, Seymour was being sarcastic. We really need that font.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 4:28PM

David:

YOU are complete and utter MORON-- the " what next, marrying one's own children" bullshit line is so stupid, it is almost laughable

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 5:05PM

That's not an argument, Pelleas.

Explain why it is okay to deprive "consenting adults" who are "in love" of basic "equal rights" just because there are more than two of them, or, because they are related to each other?
Why are you such a hater, Pelleas?

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:21PM

Since when is a sanctified marriage, or even a state-sponsored one, a matter of civil rights when it comes to same-sex marriage? Because homosexuals claim that it is and use people loving each other as the justification? Brothers and sisters love each other but they can't get married.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 9:40PM

Is this addressed to me, Bill8472?

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 10:00AM

I don't remember, sorry.

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:21PM

The simplest thing all people with a moral compass can do is to stop allowing the left to redefine words and terms. Stop referring to them as gay and start calling them homosexuals and lesbians.

Next thing this sick perverts will do is to demand that child molesters are called children's physical therapists. Or that rapists are people whose sexual orientation is inclined to prefer rough sex.

Stop letting the evil left call themselves pro-choice when they are pro-abortion. Stop calling ourselves pro-life when we are anti-abortion. Keep the focus on ABORTION. Keep the focus on HOMOSEXUALITY.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 12:58PM

Pro-choice is the most disingenuous term ever invented. It is as stupid as saying someone who is in favor of the death penalty is "pro-choice" because he favors judicial discretion in when to administer it. No, he is in favor of lawfully killing others for committing certain heinous crimes.

Slacker| 7.31.12 @ 12:25PM

Conservatives screwed up by focusing on gay marriage when they should have been hostile to the entire gay pride movement. The singular purpose of gay marriage is to boost homosexual self-esteem. Forget the traditional marriage implications…this can’t possibly work out well for homosexuals.

Pride is one of the more dangerous and destructive human emotions. Our depraved society celebrates it. This is the real problem.

Gays will only damage themselves by chasing after a negative aspect of human nature. They would do a lot better to seek gay modesty. I suppose saying so is hateful.

scotchieguy| 7.31.12 @ 1:00PM

Gay Pride parades are nothing more than athletes taunting their opponents after scoring. It is childish and bush-league.

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 12:26PM

I am too young to raise my voice in support of Civil Rights for Blacks, but I will be damned if I don't support perfectly decent Gay, Lesbians and Transgender people that I personally know. How many of those young FOOLS 50 years ago who PROUDLY fought for segregation, if interviewed TODAY would STILL hold former views, How many would be ASHAMED they ever felt that way? Don't be a Hater and embarrass your descendants.

Slacker| 7.31.12 @ 1:39PM

The civil rights fight is over. Sorry you missed it.

It is fun to make believe we are all enlightened egalitarians fighting for a righteous world but, the kind of struggle you seek isn’t here.

Acknowledging pretend marriagse doesn’t mean shit. Neither does fighting a chicken sandwich restaurant chain. Find a real cause. This one’s counterfeit

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.31.12 @ 2:15PM

Again, Kingofthenet, you are equating race with behavior. Forgetaboutit. If behavior is the same as race, then why aren't you out marching for NAMBLA?

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:27PM

rlranger, I don't think anyone on this site gives a sh_t about what homos and lesbians do in their bedrooms.

What we do give a shit about is being forced to say that what they do is okay. What we do care about is not having our children and grandchildren told that what they do is okay in public school classrooms. What we do care about is dragging their sexual behavior into the streets and other public places. I will never say what they do is okay. I will tolerate them PROVIDED they stay out of my and my family's faces.

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 12:33PM

I am sure inter-racial couples make you uncomfortable too.

KyMouse| 7.31.12 @ 2:51PM

On what basis are you sure? What proof of David's bigotry can you present?

By the way, it is false to equate being against homosexuality with being against inter-racial marriage.

The Bible clearly warns against homosexual acts, but in Acts 17:26, we are reminded that God "has made of one blood all nations of men."

JP| 7.31.12 @ 3:03PM

Nice strawman. Early Christians had no problem with inter-racial marriage (see the history of North African Christians - many races lived there during the later stages of the Roman Empire). But, Christians always had problems with sodomy.

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:32PM

And "PROVIDED they stay out of our faces" means with their militant homo bullshit. I don't mean I don't want them as co-workers or whatever else. But keep the f_ck out of my face with your flaming BS and insistence that I ACCEPT you as a NORMAL person who simply has a sexual orientation.

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 12:35PM

So you tolerate them as a Deviant? That's mighty 'Christian' of you.

Pelleas| 7.31.12 @ 1:40PM

I say the same TO YOU, DAVID-ASSHOLE...

I DON'T want you as a co-worker of mine/neighbor/ or anything---just keep your bigoted bullshit outta my face , as well--OK?--- and then, perhaps, I might consider YOU as a "normal" person--although THAT is HIGHLY doubtful....

Fredx| 7.31.12 @ 5:16PM

I'm trying my best to care less about you and your poison, but I just can't do it.

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:43PM

Yes, KofNet. Just like a druggy or someone who smokes (as I do). I don't want druggies or smokers telling my children or grandchildren that what they do or WHAT I DO is okay. I don't expect anyone to say what I do is acceptable, natural, or is my orientation and that I was born that way.

David| 7.31.12 @ 12:45PM

KofNet, I have two half-black grandchildren. That said, why the f_ck you do bring up race when we are talking about abnormal sexual behavior and homos demands that we all say what they do is okay?

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 1:05PM

Nobody is saying that you have to think it's OK to be gay, but alot of us believe it's a similar thing to being Black, your born that way. I know this Lesbian women who wears T-shirts and Jeans, with the sleeves cut off, she drives a BIG Pick-Up Truck and 'likes to 'Powerslide' into parking spots with it. I am CONVINCED she should have been born a man, she thinks like one, acts like one, dresses like one, alright she looks like a young Joan Jett, and is a Rocker like her. She is DISGUSTED with even the thought of doing a guy, like you or me would be.She just wants what you or I have from our Govt., she can NEVER be straight, it would be Unnatural for her

KyMouse| 7.31.12 @ 3:09PM

Your observation of that woman, Kingofthenet, reminds me of a recent TAS article in which the author pointed out that "transgender" people tend to take on the sex-role stereotypes of the sex to which they would like to belong. Those stereotypes are often taken to an exaggerated degree. Chaz Bono was mentioned in particular.

I believe the author noted that (for example) while feminists want to distance themselves from over-the-top stereotypes of feminine women, transgender men adopt those traits in a way that looks like parody.

And, in the case of your lesbian acquaintance, she isn't content merely to act like a man one wouldn't notice in a crowd, but she drives "a BIG Pick-Up Truck and 'likes to Powerslide' into parking spots with it.'"

In other words, she doesn't merely look like a man, she looks (and thinks and acts) like a MAN. Cultural stereotypes to the max.

Interesting. I'd love to find that TAS article again.

KyMouse| 7.31.12 @ 3:37PM

I just found it -- TAS May 2012 edition, "America in Transition," by Stephanie Gutmann.

http://spectator.org/people/st.....rticle.xml

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 11:57PM

I REALLY don't think this particular women is SMART enough to be phoney or to 'Pretend' ...she IS what she is...

David| 7.31.12 @ 1:13PM

"She just wants what heteros have".........???...... Really.

In our military now we just had a homo celebration. Homos get to bunk and shower with the people to whom they are attracted.

Is there a hetero celebration in the military? Do heteros get to bunk and shower with the ones who turn on them?

Seems to me that homos and lesbians want special treatment - not equal treatment.

And I have known several lesbos and homos who changed their ways. Believe me. One lesbo, who I had sex with after years of her being a lesbo, eventually fell head over heels in love with a man - not me. If you do not engage in that behavior, then how can you say things like they can NEVER change, etc.

David| 7.31.12 @ 1:15PM

And, it is not similar to being black. Being black is being born that way - being homo is a behavior. Everyone has his/her sexual preferences.

Again, are you willing to allow any number of consenting adults in any combination whatsoever to also have what the homos demand for themselves?

Kwan| 7.31.12 @ 1:18PM

The corrupt scumbags in the Democrat Party would support bestiality and pedophilia if they thought it would garner them a couple of votes. Gay marriage is a joke that attempts to promote the illusion that something that is abnormal is actually normal. This is all part of the left's attempt to attack the pillars upon which the republic is based, marriage being one of those pillars. The question is are we discriminating against those citizens who would like to have multiple wives or child-brides, as long as we are in the process of redefining what marriage is or isn't.

Kingofthenet| 7.31.12 @ 1:27PM

Ok, NOW the TRUTH is flowing, I can't really criticize you for your feelings, your entitled to them. I just wish you people who believe being gay is like Bestiality or Pedophilia were honest and stated that case publicly, instead of hiding behind what's in the Bible. Just get out there and make the case that 'Homo's' are sick degenerate people who should be scorned.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 1:54PM

You wouldn't be so confused, KooK, if you knew what Christians actually believed. We are not hiding behind what's in the Bible.

Any act that perverts the marital act is immoral and sinful. This includes homosexual acts. It also includes adultery. And fornication, i.e., pre-marital and promiscuous sexual acts. And, pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polygamy, and masturbation.

These are all offenses against the Sixth Commandment. Some violate the intended, natural use of the reproductive organs, some do not. But, all violate God's Natural Law.
Is this clear now?

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 4:52PM

When's the last time anyone was castigated for adultery or fornication.
Those without sin, cast the first stone.
To err is human, to forgive is divine. No one here is divine apparently.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 4:59PM

What? You couldn't think of any more cliches, Perp?
You know about as much about the Sacred Scriptures as you do about the U.S. Constitution, or, history. I.e., absolutely nothing.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 5:13PM

Yap Yap Yap ... anyone who disagrees with knows more than you, pal.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 5:20PM

I know you are, but, what am I?
(Just wanted to come down to your intellectual, and emotional, level, Perp. Are you capable of even attempting to make an argument?)

David| 7.31.12 @ 1:48PM

No one mentioned beastiality or pedophilia except you. The question to you and supporters of homo marriage is:

Are you willing to allow any number of consenting adults in any combination whatsoever to also have what the homos demand for themselves?

Joe D.| 7.31.12 @ 2:00PM

Gallop polls mean nothing. The 32 states by wide margins mean more. Marriage is not to be tamper with. Sin is still sin. This stupidity will not change God's mind. So all you are doing is hurting the homosexuals who will be in hell some day for not yelting to God vs there sexual temtations. You are also hurting those who are trying to help these people, including 10s of thousands who are former homosexuals.

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 5:21PM

Can you show me where in the Bible DIVORCE is allowed?
Are you not committing adultery if you are married that second time?
The holier than thou crowd that crows about the presumed sanctity of marriage ought to consider that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce. Unless these people are celibate the rest of their lives, they have broken their vow to God and are sinners forever. Wouldn't you prefer forgiveness to Damnation?

kbs55| 7.31.12 @ 2:33PM

The progressive’s homosexual agenda continues to undermine the meaning of family and morality. “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these areas, America will collapse from within” Joseph Stalin

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 5:22PM

Oh, what a wonderful resource - "Joseph Stalin" ... now there's some credible insight.

SPF| 7.31.12 @ 2:39PM

Will kingothenet or pelleas answer the question posed to them regarding whether they accept and approve of any form of consensual relationship?

cowgirl| 7.31.12 @ 2:49PM

In 1973 when Roe V Wade was shoved down America's throat (there is nothing about privacy or abortion in the Constitution and the case should have been remanded back to the state of Texas) liberals danced around saying that abortion would remain safe, legal and rare. Right. Here we are in 2012 with approximately 53 million abortions performed - a disproportionate of them done on poor minority women (which was Margaret Sanger's ultimate goal) . Abortion can now take place at the time or birth and we are looking down the throat of sex-selection abortions. We have slaughtered more babies since 1973 than Hitler genocided during WWII, more than the Japanese slaughtered the Chinese and more than people in Russia who were killed by Stalin's gulags.

We were told in the 1990's by Liberals that legalizing homosexuality would not destroy traditional marriage and that the gays would be satisfied with "civil unions". Here were are 15 years later and people who own businesses that don't agree with gay marriage are being verbally flogged by mayors and governors.

The next big thing for Liberals. Your guns. First assault weapons and then nothing.

Liberals are liars. Period. End of Discussion.

JP| 7.31.12 @ 3:01PM

The Christian institution is unique amongst the other major religions -especially when compared against the pagan religions of the Roman Empire period.

The Christians received much from the Jewish Institution and infused it into the Christian Sacramental life. For Catholics, it is known as the Sacament of Holy Matrimony (the making of mothers). Theologically, marriage is a sign of Christ's love for His Church. Christ gave 100% of Himself to his Church, and the self-giving of Man and Wife to eachother mirrors the Love Christ has for us. The Marriage Act serves 2 purposes, it joins Husband and Wife physically, and it invites them into Christ's creativity. The end result of this self- giving is children.

It took the Church a millenium to infuse Europe with this new concept. Men were expected to stay celebate within marriage. To commit adultery, like other mortal sins, risks the sinner's soul. But, families were granted rights under the Church -especially protections against unscrupulous Kings, Lords, and artistocrats. The kidnapping of virgins ran rampant in Europe circa 500-900. It took nearly 500 years to instill the rulers of Europe to reform the men (especially the upper and ruling classes). Men had to care, protect, and serve their families in the same way they served themselves and their property. While, it was not a perfect arrangement from a perspective of Justice. It did begin the long road to empacipation, Human Rights, and Liberty.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 3:24PM

Well stated, JP. As usual.
God Bless!

Purp| 7.31.12 @ 4:42PM

Nothing you have said here precludes God's love or Jesus' love for the same sex couple. It is the fallibility of man, and his prejudices and bigotry, that causes all the ruckus. Thankfully, the younger generations are smarter than the older farts and this issue will melt away when the older ones wither and die.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:18PM

Well, unless the younger generation is politically more conservative than those dying-out oldsters, which may be the case.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:29PM

Or, more receptive to fundamentalist Christian beliefs, which may also be the case.

Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 12:02AM

You may be RIGHT, did you know MOST Muslims in the 50's-60's-EVEN 70's the OLD Farts were pretty Secular? Now the Young rebel against that? Is that a good thing? for them? For Christianity?

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 10:08AM

In my view, it's neither good nor bad. I don't even know if it's happening in reality, or just something that appears to be true. Even if I knew, I'm at an age where I'm not very likely to be around when the young people today get into power, so I won't see it; that makes it easy for me to say it's just a historical trend whose outcome remains theoretical and moot at this point.

I see worrisome trends toward the loss of liberty and the substitution of lesser values for the Western values that have ruled our world for 200 or 300 years, but who knows what will happen? Twenty years ago, at the time of Tienanmen Square, who would have thought that the world would steer a course toward less liberty and popular rule being used to vote in tyrannical governments as it has in Russia and in the Arab world?

Does the world really tend toward authoritarianism? Was the millenia-long struggle for greater and greater freedom just a waste of effort, a historical anomaly, and the true course of human history just a spiral of more and more refined authoritarianism?

kbs55| 8.1.12 @ 6:35PM

Edward Bernays the modern father of Propaganda would be proud of the way his techniques have been used to steer the "stupid slobs" to stay on the right course of accepting a deviant lifestyle as mainstream. The only real problem is when the culture is destroyed and the next organized group will put in Sharia Law. Then the homosexual community will become the group demonized and exterminated.

rlranger907| 7.31.12 @ 5:34PM

"Any time a law is passed it is imposing someone's idea of morality on society. This argument is really getting old."

You're right, Nick. And with the force of law imposing someone's idea of morality come sanctions, and penalties for sanctioned conduct. So what are those sanctions, and by what exercise of the police power are they enforced, and what penalties are imposed?

JP above is correct that the level of tolerance shown by our society derives generally from Christian roots - and from a peculiar post-Reformation/Enlightenment reading of those Christian principles that fitfully and imperfectly has seen fit to expand the boundaries of tolerance(and the latitude for the private sphere of cunduct) on a case-bay-case basis, and to narrow the boundaries of state enforcement when such an approach has been seen to serve social peace and to extend liberty. Yes, it's trial and error. But I'm happy that we live in a society that no longer stones adulterers, or condemns unwed mothers to serve as chattel in convent-run laundries. And, yes, I'm happy not to live in an Islamic state.

The law does not make us moral. It derives from the consent of the governed, and it buys a measure of peace.

Nick| 7.31.12 @ 9:39PM

Rlranger907,

Several states had laws against homosexual activity until the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) decision. For most of U.S. history there were laws against homosexual acts. This was not an injustice.
The only thing that changed was the immorality of the people as a whole.

"But I'm happy that we live in a society that no longer stones adulterers, or condemns unwed mothers to serve as chattel in convent-run laundries."

Straw men. These things never happened in this country.

"The law does not make us moral."

Another straw man. I never asserted any such thing. A law imposes someone's morality on someone else, whether it's a king's morality, or, a legislature's. This is what a law does.

rlranger907| 7.31.12 @ 5:35PM

Conduct. Sorry.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:15PM

The latest Obama lie that I've noticed is in a new TV election propaganda spot, in which the figure on the screen bemoans the damage to women because the Republicans oppose contraception for women.

Since when do the Republicans oppose that? They oppose a regulation that requires Catholic institutions to fund health care insurance that covers contraception for First Amendment reasons, that much is true. But "opposing contraception for women?" I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Just another piece of the Obama Big Lie.

Stick| 8.1.12 @ 3:05PM

Obviously, you have taken Obama's words out of context. I know this because he has an ad telling me this. He spends a lot of money correcting his own words.

Paul McGrath| 7.31.12 @ 6:42PM

In the classic, traditional marriage ceremony, a man and woman stand in front of their mothers and fathers; aunts and uncles; brothers and sisters; nieces and nephews; and close friends and mentors.

They then make vows to one another, the most important of which is that they will stay together under any circumstances, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, etc.

Why does society--in this case strictly defined as those above--care that they do this? It is because they might, just might, have children. And society wants them to stay together to care for the child. Society does not want to care for or raise the child. Society does not want to pay for the upbringing of the child. Society believes that it is in the child's best interest to be brought up by the natural parents. So society strongly encourages them to stay together--and makes them vow to do so in front of everybody--and in return bestows upon them the increasingly paltry benefits of "marriage."

Somebody explain to me what possible interest society should have in gay marriage, knowing that the union of two gay people can not possibly result in children? If they stay together, who cares? If they split up, who cares? Their union is of absolutely no benefit--and perhaps no detriment-- to society.

But why should anybody give a damn, and why in the world should anybody expect society to sanction these unions? They are never going to PRODUCE ANYTHING.

Bill8472| 7.31.12 @ 6:54PM

Because same-sex marriage creates a new group of people who will become "spouses" or "dependents" who will, by virtue of that status, have a claim to taxpayer money in the form of social benefits of various kinds. So we, as taxpayers, have a say in what kinds of marriage we will recognize as a matter of law, and what kinds we will not legitimize.

Sanctified marriages, conducted in a church, before God, are a private matter for the particular church. The remedy for people who do not agree with sanctifying same-sex marriage is to go to another church that persists in holding to the earlier standard and definition of marriage.

JF| 8.10.12 @ 12:50PM

Good point about tax status! But the law should be fair. If we provide automatic benefits to people who are married (like inheritance rights), then gay people who are not allowed to get married should not have to pay taxes.

Or, we could treat all citizens equally and have marriage liberty for all.

Butch| 7.31.12 @ 8:21PM

Well, interesting stuff, ladies and gentlemen. Some of you continue to assert that homosexuality is genetic, despite all evidence to the contrary. (Use Google Scholastic to ask whether homosexuality is genetic; the first article you will get is the traditional "summary of the literature," which will confirm for you that there is no evidence that it is.)

By accepting homosexual marriage as legitimate, we are also legitimizing the whole litany of homosexual practices, including fisting, gerbiling, golden showers, golden enemas, and so on and so forth ad nasueum as normal. Do we really advance society by treating an obviously profound mental illness as equivalent to the oldest institution of human civililzation?

Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 12:07AM

Straight People have been shoving things up their Asses and Pussies for Centuries.They also LOVE Golden Showers, Scat, Baseball Bats, Champagne Bottles, Horse Cock and EVERYTHING else you could imagine in ALL Holes...

Bill8472| 8.1.12 @ 5:57PM

Very tastefully put. The equivalence is what makes it OK to have even more of that sort of thing, I gather.

Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 4:14PM

Mitt Romney signed Gay Marriage into law as Governor. The right forfeits by proxy.

Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 4:28PM

Gays in America have been sold something that can never be delivered, much like everything else today. The left promised them that humanity would stop it's automatic gag reflex if only there were a law preventing it. So the gays now look to the left to supply their very happiness, the pipe dream of equality.

Gays need to be told, (along with countless thousands of marxist workers & welfare recipients) that the government can not supply their happiness by law.

Family values, what our founders & framers knew was the foundation of free society in America get zero mention. All of the attention goes to the marxist dominant topic, gay marriage.

The right will fail in it's bid to win this battle because it can't keep it's head out of the bible for two seconds, or long enough to win.

The right is a professional victim more than anything else today. It has no will of its own.

kbs55| 8.1.12 @ 6:30PM

The progressive’s homosexual agenda continues to undermine the meaning of family and morality. “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these areas, America will collapse from within” Joseph Stalin

RCV| 8.2.12 @ 4:56PM

The quote is completely made up, and there is no credible evidence that Stalin ever said anything remotely like that, beast that he was. But the right wing blogosphere is full of ridiculous made up quotes.

leslie | 8.10.12 @ 4:23AM

I think people should give more space to those gays. In this new world, same sex marriage wasn't that unacceptable like before. My best friend has a relationship with his gay boyfriend for 7 years. And I know how much pressure they have.

JF| 8.10.12 @ 12:47PM

For centuries heterosexuals have debased the “traditional” meaning of marriages (whatever that is: Marry your rapist? Force a man and woman (or women) to marry for political and dynastic concerns? Have a starter marriage and then break up when a relationship turns out to be hard work? Kids or no kids? You’re still married in the eyes of the law), but now that another group of couples wants in all of a sudden it’s a special right that needs to be protected?

The short answer is that marriage means so many things to so many male-female relationships that to claim the status cannot be extended to other willing couples IS irrational. Modern society would be far better if we made meaningful, stable marriage the desirable goal for all relationships & ended this patchwork of civil unions, domestic partnerships, municipal registries, etc. We can only start to do that, however, by making marriage the default relationship goal for all committed couples.

gray man| 8.13.12 @ 11:02PM

i guess by your comment you just want to debase it further.

More Articles by W. James Antle, III

More Articles From Feature

Hannah and Her Friends

May 14, 2013 | Matthew Walther

Calvin Coolidge: His Times Are Our Times

April 26, 2013 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

Black Sea Changes

April 25, 2013 | Matthew Omolesky

The D Team

April 12, 2013 | Matt Purple

Margaret the Magnificent

April 12, 2013 | Maurice Cranston

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/31/speak-now-or-forever-hold-your

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|99 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|117 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|59 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.