The American Spectator

Bob| 4.4.09 @ 1:14PM

RSM, the natural extension of your logic is that those who are discriminated against should be strong enough to withstand those efforts, the rights of the majority should supercede the rights of the minority, and societal progress should be stopped.

It wasn't long ago that slavery existed and women did not have a number of rights. The Constitution did not ban slavery and counted blacks as 3/5ths of a white. Furthermore, the sociological differences between men and women have been narrowing for years in terms of education, voting rights, job training, salaries, etc. We now have the largest number of stay-at-home dads in our history. Is that role for a man wrong?

Societal relationships change over time. There are a number of religions -- some Christian -- that now recognize gay relationships and welcome them. Are they wrong as well? It seems that you would approve of discrimination against homosexuals.

By the way, your "intelligence" would have also been insulted 60 years ago with the civil rights movement.

While you are tired of having your "intelligence" insulted by those "arrogant bullies", don't you think they are tired of having their "morality" insulted by you "arrogant bullies"? Realistically, I'd say the latter is much more common than the former.

Other than religious dogma, I can't see why you would object to gay marriage. As far as I can determine, there is no sociological evidence that gay marriage hurts society and heterosexual marriage now fails over 50% of the time. I have yet to see statistical evidence that children of homosexual parents are more prone to disrupt society than parents of heterosexual couples.

So what is your non-theological argument? That there is a biological "fit" between men and women? That only a man and woman can procreate? Neither of these is an argument for a marriage between one man and one woman as many men can "fit" many women at the same time and proffer children.

As for me, I would never enter a same sex relationship because I happen to like the opposite sex -- a lot. Because of the biological "fit" issue, I suspect that this will remain true for the vast majority of people for a very long time. So why do you care if gay people get married? Are you that insecure in your own beliefs that you must control others?

FlexSF| 4.4.09 @ 1:29PM

The name "anonymous liberal" shows that he is an infiltrator. He attempts to confuse his readers by calling himself liberal. This is a common behavior performed religious zealots. They turn logic on it's head so that it doesn't make any sense.

We had a president during the civil rights era who hired infiltrators to turn the blacks against the whites, and it worked. Eventually, black leaders believed that the white supporters of the black equality movement were there to stimulate their ego's and rebel against their oppressive upbringing. The leaders turned everyone away who wasn't black.

So, beware of religious zealot infiltrators!

MT| 4.4.09 @ 2:00PM

And fascist liberal zealot infiltrators!

Interested Conservative| 4.4.09 @ 3:26PM

Bob - interesting reply to RSM, but aside from all that, which RSM can reply to as he sees fit, you almost get to the first issue - namely why is there marriage?

I've always been fascinated by the "me-too" aspect of the gay rights movement. Do gays only want to marry because of forced respect from all others? Why else do they want to "marry".

I could never get past the seeming contradiction of the desire for "normality" while respecting the differences. Is there something wrong with a different normal, which wouldn't include the right to "marry"?

Pete| 4.4.09 @ 3:37PM

So, in order to continue to treat gay people as being so hopelessly "different" that they aren't entitled to equal treatment under the law, you want to deny them a means to be more integrated with "mainstream" living? Seriously, there isn't a single scintilla of evidence that straight marriages are affected in any way, shape, or form by gay couples. None.

What's funny is that literally none of the so-called "defenders of marriage" can come up with a single objection to gay marriage that isn't based on their interpretation of their religious texts. Before you start quoting Leviticus at me, I'll avoid the shellfish retort by pointing out that Jesus never said word one about homosexuality in any of the four gospels.

When gay marriage becomes legal, no one is going to force a single church to marry any gay couple in a religious ceremony. As a Catholic, I wasn't permitted to marry in my church because my wife would not convert, nor would she agree to to promise to make our kids Catholic. So, we got married somewhere else, and the Catholic church was free to deny marriage for another day.

The Conservative movement would really do itself a ton of good if it stopped neurotically obsessing about consenting adults having sex and maybe focused on things that this country really needed focusing on.

Bob| 4.4.09 @ 3:39PM

IC -- I couldn't give a hoot whether you call it "marriage" or "civil unions". From a secular perspective they are the same. For me, as long as gays had contractually the same rights from a civil perspective, there is no discrimination.

I can't answer why gays might prefer "marriage" over civil unions, because I see them as the same. My guess would be that they see something in "marriage" that goes beyond civil unions that speaks to commitment and love beyond a physical contract. For those gays that are religious, I'm sure they don't want to be denied the blessings of their faith.

I just don't see why you would care if there are no proven threats to society. It would just show me that you are insecure about your beliefs.

Interested Conservative| 4.4.09 @ 5:24PM

Bob - we might agree more than disagree. I think the issue is the split between the civil and religious, and the problem is the state's recognition of the church's right to conduct marriages (the whole "by the power of the State of . . . .").

From the civil, secular, of purely "rights" aspect, I wonder if both sides actually agree. Another noted blogger often cites his ideal neighbors as a nice lesbian couple with closets full of weapons as allowed by the second amendment.

My concern then boils down to who determines the extent to which the state grants power to religious authorities to conduct marriages, and why the gay lobby so focuses on this issue.

What are the proven benefits for and against gay marriage? I'll plead ignorant of both, though millenia of human history show us plenty of evidence of the latter, and scant instances of the former.

Why should we change? What do gays gain from enforced respect, if all other issues can be resolved otherwise (i.e. civil unions, legal rights and so on?).

Finally, don't the slippery slope analogies apply here as well as to the other civil liberties protections? Does simply changing marriage devalue marriage?

Again, just questions.
couldn't agree more that this is of no concern to the sp

Willey| 4.4.09 @ 6:54PM

Fascist liberals are on the march. No 'tolerance' for these democrat thugs; who cares what the majority wants?

Daphne| 4.4.09 @ 7:01PM

Pete, how do you know that churches won't be forced to marry gays? Of course they'll be forced by the state. Team Obama is trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. You liberal losers lie to get what you want.

Paul McGrath| 4.4.09 @ 7:14PM

Bob,

There is a very good secular argument for being against gay marriage. It is, quite simply, that the union of two gay people can not result in children. If your union is incapable of producing children, and the responsibility that goes along with it, then you should not be entitled to the benefit of marriage.

I know how you're going to counter this: please do. I welcome the exchange.

Paul

Alan Brooks| 4.4.09 @ 8:13PM

gay marriage doesn't bother me, it is the attitude of "here's your right to marry if you're gay; and if you are a straight woman you can get an abortion... now get the Hell away from me!"

MT| 4.4.09 @ 8:27PM

Liberals are fascists; it's all about coercion with them. Legalize abortion--force Catholic hospitals to perform them. Legalize gay marriage--force churches to perform them. There's a trend here, people--it's called tyranny. Even worse, if gay marriage is legalized, Sunday sermons could be considered hate speech. We could see our clergy being frog marched to jail. All of this evil has transpired before in totalitarian regimes. We're gettin' there.

Willey| 4.4.09 @ 9:54PM

No not progressive--fascist liberals are inherently coercive power-mongers. You just want to take away freedom of religion, like all atheists. Liberal fascists lie, and your real goal is always power. There's nothing tolerant about you--you are tyranny personified. You're gonna get a fight, loser.

MT| 4.4.09 @ 10:01PM

Atheists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro are the true haters. Atheism is a killer--just ask the many millions who were their victims in the 20th century. Tyrants like the liberal fascists of today who are trying to destroy freedom of religion. You may try to hide behind 'progressive policies', but we know you are just power hungry fascist/marxist thugs.

Willey| 4.4.09 @ 10:05PM

nmGOP, you are a liar. Team Obama is already trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and the clergy have been indicted for hate speech in Canada. Cram your lies of irrational fears, this garbage is already happening.

Interested Conservative| 4.4.09 @ 10:23PM

nmGOP - I probably agree with your policy views more often than not, but your latest post doesn't do much to advance your arguments.

Among others, the idea that "society is inherently progressive" is pretty much trashed by any survey of history over two centuries or so.

Finally, rights to gay marriage may be "progressive" as defined by the MSM, but it is neither progressive nor regressive historically, rather it's essentially different, regardless of whether one considers it good or bad.

Ran| 4.4.09 @ 11:15PM

RSM: Thanks for the post!

"Seriously, there isn't a single scintilla of evidence that straight marriages are affected in any way, shape, or form by gay couples. None." - Pete

I can agree somewhat with Pete - but that isn't the issue, is it?

For thousands of years, the Bar Mitzvah has been the rite of passage of a Jewish male into adulthood. Likewise, the First Communion is the Catholic child's rite into the Roman Catholic Faith. Marriage, the rite of unity of an adult female and an adult male in a committed monogamous relationship.

The point I'm making is that Marriage, like Bar Mitzvah and Holy Communion has always had a specific social meaning. That can't stand! There is an active, deliberate attempt by postmodern "progressives" to alter the very meanings of our fundamental societal lexicon. "Gay" "Marriage" is merely one of those double-think bastardizations.

Do we think of theft as contrary to justice? Yet we are pummeled regularly with nonsense terms such as "social justice" in the context of forced taking of property and resources from those who "have" to be distributed (by those who take) to others, decided by the takers, to those who "need." This is justice"!?

Look, the new leftist term "straight marriage" is a redundancy. "Gay marriage", an oxymoron. Jews are denied Holy Communion; Catholics can't have a Bar Mitzvah, and Marriage by definition ain't homosexual. Life's tough sometimes, yeah?

It's about coercive appropriation with the "progressive" Left. Cancer, like every other parasitical disease, eats away progressively. They are out to destroy the fundamental tenets of the Judeo-Christian achievement from within. I'm staring open-eyed at the best the Left has given is in the last Century and I'll be damned if I can find anything of substantive value returned for the hundreds of millions of human lives they've taken in pogroms, purges, wars and abortion.

MT - I'm with ya, gal. Atheism has a lot to explain.

Gardener| 4.4.09 @ 11:56PM

Would Matthew Shepard or his heartbroken mother consider his beating death to be "mere disapproval"?
As for Daisies comment about it being all about power and force - who practiced that with Matthew's murder - the dead gay man or the straight murderer?

Ran| 4.5.09 @ 12:17AM

Shepard's murderers were a bunch of sickos, Gardner. But don't you come around here morally equating sicko murder with disapproval or disapproval with commitment to traditional values. Damn, but that was about the stupidest, most duplicitous comment made here in weeks.

You know, gays have - it's a fact - committed rape-murder of straights. Sicko, weird subset of an otherwise healthy group. Just like the Shepard murder. That fact has nothing to do with the issue of "gay" marriage. Try another angle.

Sickos are sickos, Gardner, straight or gay, and troll comments presuming moral equivalence are troll comments.

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 12:40AM

Ran, can you give me a non-emotional response?

I don't know of any rape-murders caused by gay individuals. Can you give me a source because I goggled "rape and murder of straights caused by gays" and came up with zilch.

The main premise is that gay people are complaining about the "mere disapproval" of their lifestyle. My comment is intended to demonstrate that gay persons deal with situations far more substantive than "mere disapproval". The fact that some many people who consider themselves to be god-fearing and respectful are so willing to vocalize really abhorrent opinions about gay people allows the more unrestrained among us to indulge in aberrant behavior like the murder of Matthew Shepard.

MT| 4.5.09 @ 12:53AM

Tell me, Gardener, what does gay marriage have to do with Matthew Shepard's murder anyway? You cite one example of murder by a demented individual: I've cited the slaughter of millions at the hand of coercive government--and your point is? It's the hatred of people like you that will lead to tyranny in our country; your payback mentality that makes any persecution you advocate, okay. You and your ilk are a terrible threat to many innocent Americans who've never done a damn thing to you.

MT| 4.5.09 @ 1:03AM

Blind to your own stupidity. Many Catholic hospitals are considering closure rather than government forced abortions. Are you stupid or deliberately pretending ignorance? Yes, I know, you liberals are all excited about your 51 million abortions. Gets you up in the morning, doesn't it? Abortion is your 'christian value'.

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 1:14AM

You are absolutely correct: The hatred of people like me WILL lead to tyranny. People with the ability to hate someone just because they have a different viewpoint are very scary individuals. I've said nothing here which should cause anyone to hate me. Disagree with my opinion, perhaps, but not hate me.

I don't advocate persecuting anyone. Quite the contrary; I am advocating for the cessation of the persecution of gay people.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with Matthew Shepard's murder. The rationalization of intolerance and hatred of gay people as nothing more than "mere disapproval" does.

This topic is about the premise that Gay people are complaining about "mere disapproval" in their lifestyle. Please stay on topic.

What significant connection is there between gay people and abortion? I suspect that gay people are not involved in abortion in any significant way.

Willey| 4.5.09 @ 1:29AM

Since when is marriage a right? It's a privilege, and MOST MINORITIES in California voted against gay marriage, right? It's a fake issue anyway--you're just trying to destroy freedom of religion.

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 1:31AM

Why are you calling me names? What payback mentality? I just don't think it is moral, ethical or Christian to hate people because they are gay. That has nothing to do with abortion. Do YOU think it is ok to persecute gay people?

Do you believe gay people are getting pregnant and having abortions?

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 1:39AM

Willey - When I got married, I had to do only two things legally: get a marriage license from the state and find a licensed individual who could marry me and my spouse. We chose a clergyman because we chose to get married according to the norms of our religion.

People who chose to get married by a JP are no less legally married than I am. They are also not married in the eyes of my religion. The fact that some people are married in a church and some are married by a JP does not invalidate or destroy religion.

So what difference does it make who the people are getting a state issued marriage license?

MT| 4.5.09 @ 1:44AM

What would you think if I stated that all homosexuals are pedophiles? Would you LIKE it, or would you take exception? It's crappy to be judged by someone who doesn't even know me. YOU are judgmental--not me. How's that for liberal hypocrisy?

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 1:44AM

Willey - nobody - not the government, not even angry people who like to call other people names rather than have a discussion and exchange ideas can ever, ever force you to change your views. Only you have the power to decide what you want to think.

MT| 4.5.09 @ 1:50AM

Stretch! Government involvement brings the possibility of tyranny: Especially a fascist liberal administration like Obama's.

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 1:52AM

If you stated that all homosexuals were pedophiles, I would think that you are entitled to your opinion and that I disagree with you. Some homosexuals are pedophiles. And some are not. Just like some heterosexuals are pedophiles and some are not.

I like exploring various points of view and I do not harbor ill will toward people that disagree with me.

I am not judging you. I am just wondering why
you won't respond to my questions on the topic and instead call me names.

MT| 4.5.09 @ 1:55AM

You don't want a discussion and you don't want to exchange views; you've already accused us of being bigots and haters. You judged us long ago--and now you want revenge. Admit it--the truth will set you free.

Garderner| 4.5.09 @ 2:14AM

I don't like people labeling me either, and I am not nmGOP. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek and forgive, forgive, forgive. Christianity is alive and well in all its forms and iterations. Even all the religions that fall under the Christianity umbrella don't agree with one another; is it any surprise that people who do not subscribe to a Christan faith have differences of opinion?

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 2:17AM

I'll pray for you, MT Good night.

MT| 4.5.09 @ 2:21AM

Likewise, Gardener--but mine will actually count.

nomoreGOP| 4.5.09 @ 7:37AM

MT -

Stating facts of your racism and ignorance, as well as calling you out on the fact that you STILL have yet to provide a single example or fact for anything you have argued here.. My posts have nothing to do with hatred or anger.. I feel neither for you or people that share your same ignorance...

Moving on.. you claim I "lecture" you about feeling guilty, and ask about my lack of guilt for some astronomical (made up) number of "murdered" babies? Well first, Im not lecturing anybody.. I was just wondering if you have any REAL idea of how a true practicing christian actually acts... Thank you for my answer..

Next.. I guess we would have to define "baby." Obviously, for this argument you are going to try and tell me that a combination of cells at the 4-10 or 12-week stage of development somehow resembles a baby.. which is plain ridiculous. But the best part about all of this is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE THINK. Period. If a woman wants to have this procedure, it is her body, her right.

You are so out of touch with reality and common sense it really truly does scare me.

Ran| 4.5.09 @ 8:10AM

"Ran, can you give me a non-emotional response?"

Can you give an honest comment? Can you respond to argument?

Passion, oh beloved fool, is not the enemy of reason. Your failure to do basic homework is no proof of the absence of facts, dear lazy one.

I repeat the point: Don't you come around here morally equating sicko murder with disapproval or disapproval with commitment to traditional values.

Gardener| 4.5.09 @ 8:58AM

This is a tangent but seems to be where this thread is going so I'll suggest the following:

Since the underlying premise is the fear that "traditional/Christian" values are being attacked how about we change our laws so that:

In the instance whereby a marriage is created according to the rites of a religion, no Judicial Process shall declare that marriage dissolved until it has certified that the marriage was first dissolved in accordance to and by the laws of the religion that first created it.

In other words, if you get married in a church, only the church can grant a divorce.

Rev Donald Spitz| 4.5.09 @ 9:16AM

Whatever you think, you will not be able to change God's Word and will one day have to pay the price for not believing what God has written.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:22-27

V22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, V23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

V24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

V25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.

V26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

V27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 9:28AM

Rev Spitz -- I am not a Christian and could care less about your Bible. Why are you trying to force your religion on me? If you are right, I'm going directly to hell. If I am right, then you will go there. Man has free will. Why not let gays burn in hell if they so desire. It just makes more room in heaven for people biased like you.

This is why the founding fathers separated church and state. Don't you believe in the Constitution?

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 9:57AM

nomoreGop,
I dont mind if gays marry, it is their "look at me I'm queer" attitude. If they dont want others to make a big deal about their gayness, then why do they themselves make a big deal about it?
ten years ago when Matthew shepherd was killed (perhaps it was a drug deal gone bad, though maybe not) I called a talkradio program to say "all my gay acquiantances are all of a sudden pro- capital punishment"
Awhile later a guy calls up to reply, "you tell Alan we gays are no pushovers"

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 10:02AM

Could be the spelling was Shephard.

the point is, someone is a liberal anti-capital punishment gay until one of HIS people are killed and then he is law and order. not surprising, though.

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 10:11AM

Alan -- is that the same as "look at me I'm a real Christian" attitude you see here? All interest groups want to be recognized by definition. The question you need to answer is why that attitude bothers your and the Christian ones don't. I'm not bothered by either. All partisan groups do this -- and that is their right! Free speech, you know...

Now I am bothered when any partisan group tries to take over a political party -- on the left or on the right.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 10:51AM

but, Bob, this is a conservative/rightwing forum, we're supposed to be intolerant here, just as libs are supposed to be squishy.
now, i'm not saying you are lib, Bob; as you wrote last year people are "base", that means you understand it all-- you are no libfool (and not all libs are fools, naturally: Galbraith and Ted Kennedy are different) but you've got to affirm the need to rein in citizens' appetites-- that is exactly what makes me a conservative with less 'faith' in human nature than rightwingers at AS and elsewhere. I've seen it all; when my older libfamily was alive they told me pedophilia was 'okay' or at least tolerable. Now that they are all dead I see that such behavior has to be reined in; even the thinking. No, not instituting thought-crimes, but, rather, distinguishing wrong from right as much as the market will bear so to speak.
I was completely brought up-- since nineteen sixty five or six-- with the notion that gays should be allowed to do anything anything they want, including marry; so though I now draw the line at pedophilia, I do not oppose gay marriage: I was far too marinatd in the pot of pro-gay marriage inculcation to turn against gay marriage today.

But I do wish gays would go back in the closet. I have a hard time telling Aesthetics from morality; so call it-- as James Bowman might-- the conservative taste... subjectively it is more pleasing to have gays not speaketh their name and be charmingly ensconced in the closet of golden silence and MODESTY.
After all, modesty is a not a dirty word, at least not yet. When I hung out with my older family members (they are almost all dead now) I kept my mouth shut and didn't say "it's alright to look at photos of naked children", because even then I knew the "love' (i.e. fornicating) that dare not speaketh its name takes many forms and is ultimately no shocking, disgusting, titillating... just boring. Yesterdays anarchist is tomorrow's boring old f*rt.

Again, unlike most commenters here, I've seen it all. Perhaps to some, some mystery still exists, but not to me. Again, I dont mind if gays marry-- just wish they would shut up about it and go get married and do their thing. Who cares about their little genitals and their little marriages and civil unions?
Now, maybe it isn't exactly old hat, it is, rather, merely boring hat.

But it (subjectively, of course) irksome that extremists such as Communists and libertopians want gay marriage.
Communists want to kill rich people, which would mean many gays, gays generally being well off, would die in the Purges; libertopians want to virtually abolish the state so what would state-sanctioned marriage mean-- even as a temporary palliative-- to libertarians? just a statement?

Pete| 4.5.09 @ 11:22AM

Hm. So one poster tries to dodge using religious documents as a justification for banning gay marriage by trotting out the "marriage is to propogate the species" canard.

Ok. You do realize thanks to artificial insemination, a lesbian couple can in fact have biological children, don't you?

However, you said "I know what response I'll get", so I'll go ahead and say it. If a heterosexual couple is either infertile or decides to never have children, should they also be denied the right to get married? Should a post-menapausal woman be denied the right to get married because she is biologically unable to have children (like my own mother, who was widowed in her early 60's). Of course, it's been fairly clear that one doesn't have to be married in order to have a kid (hello, Bristol Palin).

This begs the question. Why is it that the "children" threshhold that you have established as a reason to deny gay people the right to marry also not applied to heterosexual couples as well?

I second, third, and fourth the other posters who are fretting about their precious religious beliefs being marginalized by gay marriage. If you actually bother to READ the Iowa SC decision, you'll see that they take great pains to point out that no religious denomination would be forced to marry any couple they didn't want to.

Big J| 4.5.09 @ 11:41AM

Looks like I missed quite a discussion while I was sleeping, although it doesn't look like I missed much. A lot of name-calling (neo-something or other, hatemongers, liberal fascist, etc.). I love passion, I just hate when it comes to, well, hate speech.

One of the greatest things about this country is the freedom it furnishes (albeit fading). I love that you won't go to jail for reading a Bible and talking about it any more than if it were the Quran (sp?). I will say this, however:

The founders of this great Country and of the Constitution firmly believed that our system would not apply to an immoral people. In fact, they clearly stated that our rights were unalienable, and provided by our Creator, not man. It is sad to see in the name of "progressiveness", morality is going the way of the pet rock or chia pet. Our society (contrary to what almost any liberal will tell you) is for the most part, very tolerant. While I am a Christian, I truly do not care if you are not. Sure, there are radicals out there on both sides, but that is not the general rule. There are people that hate others, regardless of the proposed reason, simply to channel their self-hatred elsewhere. It is sad to me, but certainly not the majority.

The bottom line for me is this: America was founded on Christian values. This cannot be argued. Read the Declaration of Independance, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, or whatever, but that cannot be logically denied. Same-sex marriage is not moral, therefore should not be recognized. If a state chooses to, they can have a vote (which they have twice in the state of California, and it has failed both times), and follow the will of the people. I don't have a problem with that. Personally, I would move. Just as taxation without representation is wrong (the basis of the Revolution), disregarding the will of the people is wrong. I have very close friends that are gay (including my sister-in-law), and I just don't have a problem with it. I don't even notice it, honestly. I do have a problem with the constant assault on Christian values. Lawsuits over a display of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse, prayer in schools, Nativity Scenes, etc. have become very popular. I hate it. Slowly (almost unnoticably), the values system that this great Country was founded on is being torn apart. Where goes our values sytem, so goes our freedom. As the founders said, our governance does not apply to the immoral.

To quote my Congressman (truly one of the few "good guys" in Washington): "And that's just the way it is".

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 11:53AM

Bristol Palin, yes; I brought up her case in a 'discussion' with a libertopian. I said "if Bristol had a girlfriend and one of then were artificially impregnated They would be on, all expenses paid, the Oprah and Degeneres Shows (a couple months later Degeneres gets the begged nod to do Oprah's Show, natch-- 'tis all too predictable).
Then a book by the fictitious lesbian teenage Palin couple would automatically be published.

The libertopian (a transgendered female) predictably went ballistic at my inference of lesbian hypocrisy.

Progress Marches On, but ironically, or perhaps ely, real social progress is ending or ended.

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 4:01PM

BigJ -- If we really are a Christian country, then why not ban the practice of all other religions -- and atheists -- just like Islamic countries? If we can have the Ten Commandments in public, then we can also have Satanic displays? I thought that religious freedom was the basis for our country -- my bad....

By the way, the Constitution says nothing about a "creator" -- and that was on purpose. Limbaugh made that same mistake at CPAC -- mixing up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Social Conservatives often make that error. The founding documents also supported slavery and you could say that we shouldn't have abolished that, either. You do know who Thomas Jefferson was -- right? Here are some quotes by him:

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.

-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind.

-Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 4:04PM

what I dont get most of all is if it is acceptable to read 'Heather Has Two Mommies' in class, then why is it then necessarily wrong to introduce conservative material in classes? one approach uses alternative family-interest; the other attempts the traditional.
If they are both attempts at pushing an agenda, what makes the latter worse than the former?

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 4:35PM

science, Bob?
Jefferson wrote long before (well over a century) the misapplications of tech-- derived through science-- cast doubt. and what of meaning, purpose? biotech?

the doubt continues.

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 4:42PM

Alan, I have no problem with conservative viewpoints being discussed in school as long as it is in the proper context. For example, intelligent design is NOT science -- it is a belief. Evolution is science and NOT a belief. ID should not be taught in a science class as there can be no positive proof of its existence -- you would have to prove the existence of God first. Discussing abstinence is fine as long as it is also discussed with contraception. What else did you have in mind?

Bob| 4.5.09 @ 4:46PM

Alan, anything in life can be misused. Guns can be misused. Contracts can be misused. Science is not different in that respect. Science, in and of itself, is not bad. You are talking about ethics, not science.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 7:46PM

exactly, ethics.

let me digress. it's not what people say it is what they don't say. what totally soured me on libertarianism is how they say freedom is very important to them and it is-- however power is more important to them. So not only do people have to have their animal (base as you appropriately call them) appetites reined in but also their power-grasping.
Now, in schools it goes without saying in search of power, factions will push their agendas. My only disagreement w/ you is your writing that ID is necessarily more unsupportable than say social evolution (remember were all just hanging straw men on poles to knock them down in illustrating our points). My beef is with applied science/tech. Teaching progressive thinking in schools is pushing not only ethics but also science/tech; you are telling impressionable youths biotech can let infertile-- just for instance-- lesbian couples have children; i.e. my previous ludicrous example of a hypothetical Bristol Palin gay pregnancy.
But there you have it: social engineering buttressed by the burgeoning biosciences is being stealth-pushed. You naturally don't want ID taught to kids, but the brave new world of genetically modified reproduction affecting societies CAN be taught, even though the outcome is dicey. Sure, I'm alluding to ethics but ethics connected directly or indirectly to the attempted altering of societies often using science/tech.
Social engineering hides in plain sight in the foreground, but slow progress in bioscience waits in the wings.
At any rate,the question is who plays God in the classroom?
Religion and science both try to play God. So sure ethics is THE biggie, no doubt about it, you'll never get anywhere in discussing how life originated, let alone the Cosmos.

See, I do not accept that there exists any neutral evolutionary theory. Evolution, at least microevolution is entirely demonstrable. But where do you go from there? what about evolutionary psychology, biopsychology? What about burgeoning biotech? How far do teachers go in pushing (which they DO) their version of societal evolution?
There's too many loose ends. And since everyone is secretly grinding an ax in or out of the classroom, it doesn't look good.

To sum it up:
if you dont teach ID then dont teach anything progressive (social engineering) either.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.09 @ 8:13PM

Pete already brought up most of my points.
Progressives DO want to play God.

And where do they take it? how far do they want to take social engineering and at what pace?

Aaron| 4.5.09 @ 9:29PM

So we have Bob here stating that evolution is an actual science, even though there is no more proof of its existence than there is of creation. So are we to assume that because at some point in time life just POOF began it belongs to the evolutionists? I'll stick with God.

This whole discussion comes down to one conclusion: man and woman were created by God and fags just happened, POOF at some point in time... evolution from -pick your animal.

Big J| 4.5.09 @ 10:32PM

Bob,

Please read my post. I did not say that the Founders referred to the Creator in the Constitution. Maybe I should have been more clear. Obviously anyone that carries (and regularly reads) a copy of each in his work-truck knows that The Creator was referred to in The Declaration of Independance. The Framers of The Constitution were very careful not to mention God in the document.

I believe the mistake that Rush made was not based on his lack of knowledge of either document. He was using note cards, not a teleprompter.

Thank you for the extensive list of Thomas Jefferson quotes. Usually, one would have to "google" to get all of those and others, but you have listed enough to last me for quite a while.

The reason (although you are sharp enough to know) that The United States does not ban all religion is that we are a free country, free to practice religion, speak, earn our way, and generally speaking, do as we please. It would be against everything that we hold dear to ban any religion (yes, including satan-worshiping, if that's truly a religion).

As a general rule, a "satanic display", as you put it would not only offend, but damage the majority. That is why (hopefully) an office of the city, state, or federal government would never allow such a display. If you feel that allowing this is the ultimate answer to a truly free society, then I am sorry, I think you have wandered far from the point and the original intent. I wouldn't allow it, nor would most of the people that I know, with good reason. If you cannot see the reason, I have no chance of explaining it in terms that you can understand.

Bob, I hope you have faith in a power greater than yourself. I hope that it is not satan, but if it is, so be it. Please allow the rest of us (the majority of Americans) to believe in what we choose to believe in, and stop trying to negate our morality. Chalking it up to "religious right-wing zealots" that have no tolerance has gotten us into quite a pickle these days.

We had a spirited debate regarding EFCA a couple of weeks ago. I know you are a reasonable man, and actually research many things, in order to form your opinions. This is a very different issue. There is no proof that one is right over the other, no concrete evidence. We are talking about belief here. I will not be swayed, however on the basis of this Country's founding, as that cannot be disputed. I hate to see our freedoms being slowly torn away by the "progressives".

I am a simple man, Bob. A construction worker, put simply. Probably one of those angry, bitter Americans clinging to my guns and religion. But that is not all. I cling to my business, free speech, gas guzzling pick-up truck (which helps make my business possible), my voting rights, my family before me, and mostly, my wife (especially when it's cold - she's like a portable heater!). I truly believe we all want the same thing deep down (unless you want to go back to the stone ages - no electricity, horse-and-buggy, no indoor plumbing etc.).

That said, if you want to change the historical meaning of marriage to include a "man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", I do not identify with you, nor do the majority of AMERICANS (my bad).

Not from hate, Bob, just basic belief.

Again, thank you for all the Jefferson quotes. I will be busy for a while reading them!

Frosty| 4.5.09 @ 11:50PM

The atheists : Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. have tortured and murdered many, many millions of people in the 20th century alone. What recommends these monsters to you, Bob? Is this your alternative to Christianity?

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 8:38AM

Frosty -- you need to do a bit of research. Hitler was a Christian. Here are two of his quotes:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

Do you care to revise and extend your remarks?

Big J -- my point was that the historical meaning of marriage has changed from early biblical times, to when it became a sacrament in the 16th century, to now. Thus using "tradition" as a rationale makes little sense. A religious definition is inconsistent with our Constitution which protects the right for you to believe as you wish. There is no social evidence that gay marriage hurts society, i.e., there is more crime, children of gay parents are not successful, etc. The argument of homosexuality being a part of failing societies seems to forget that it was about sexual promiscuity -- both homo and hetero -- not just homosexual activity. You have no argument except religion -- please just admit it.

Alan, there are loads of data points that point to evolution as the only theory that connects them. With the advances in genomic research, the theory is proven even stronger. If you think that this is not as strong as, let's say, the theory of gravity, you need to learn something about scientific method. People who don't think that evolution is a proven scientific theory, are the same people who thought the world was flat. ID cannot be a scientific theory because it is based upon an unprovable assumption -- that God exists. For it to be a scientific theory, it must be provable. Didn't you take science in college? Study mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology as I did and you will understand the composition of scientific theory.

Crusader| 4.6.09 @ 11:01AM

Gay people have the same ability to marry anyone of the opposite gender as I, a straight person, does. On the other hand I do not have the ability to marry someone of the same gender as I am, just like gay people. What's the problem?

Crusader| 4.6.09 @ 11:05AM

Umm, I would expect someone edumacated at Haaaah-vaaaahd to say something a little more intelligent than,

"evolution is a proven scientific theory."

Ummm, if it is proven, it's not a theory anymore, right? Wouldn't it be a fact then? I dunno, I'm just a dumb guy without an Ivy League edumacation.

Wait, wait, I figured it out. Evolution is a theory, and it is proven to be a theory, so our resident rags-to-riches know-it-all is technically correct. Evolution is a theory, and its proven to be only a theory.

Bob| 4.6.09 @ 12:03PM

Crusader, your lack of an education is showing. A theory is an explanation of a series of analytical observations. You then apply proofs to that theory. It is a scientific proof if there is positive data supporting that theory. In the case of evolution, we have fossils, genomic research, timelines, etc. ID cannot be proven as a scientific theory because it is base on belief -- not data.

Regarding marriage, if you were gay, you would not have the ability to marry the person you love, would you? Therefore it is not the same. That's the problem.

Perhaps you need to go back to school.

nomoreGOP| 4.6.09 @ 1:16PM

THIS BLOG IS A JOKE! NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING BUT PROMOTING HATE AND RELIGIOUS FALSITIES. ROBERT STACY MCCAIN IS PATHETIC!

A Parent| 4.6.09 @ 1:31PM

Rev. (sic) Spitz's opinions on the beliefs or behaviors of others should carry no weight whatsoever. He uses his own website to try to make heroes out of murdering terrorists like Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, John Salvi, and James Kopp. He is so delusional that he thinks that he was ordained by the International Gospel Crusade, a denomination that only exists in his imagination.

Daphne| 4.6.09 @ 2:37PM

nmGOP--the only HATE on this blog is coming from YOU!! You are just projecting your intolerance of others who disagree with you. You need anger-management education.

Pete| 4.6.09 @ 3:08PM

So, if gay couples are allowed the civic right of marriage, how *exactly* is that getting distorted into conservatives' statements that "freedoms are being taken away"? No one is taking anything away from you in regards to marriage, yet you still insist on painting yourselves as being the real victims?

Bob, good points about evolution v. ID. Again, conservatives utterly fail to understand that microevolutionary processes have been demonstrably proven through the observation and study of fossil records. The neo-Darwinists like the late Stephen Jay Gould wrote extensively about "clusters" of evolutionary activity. The ID crowd makes the fundamental mistake when they portray Darwin's macroevolutionary theories as being literally the only point of discussion.

Of course, ID isn't science, it's philosophy. Given that most high schools don't really have fully functioning philosophy departments, it's incredibly unreasonable to demand that philosophy be taught in science class.

MT| 4.6.09 @ 3:17PM

Pete, re-read the posts--once government gets involved, it'll throw it's weight against the religious. This is already happening in Canada. The clergy are being prosecuted for hate speech if they preach from the Old Testament. People can't extrapolate anymore.

Pete| 4.6.09 @ 6:49PM

MT, with all due respect, no one is taking religious people's rights away if gay people are allowed to get married. Last time I checked, there hasn't been a single church prosecuted in THIS country for being racist, bigoted, obnoxious, etc.

You know, back in the Civil Rights days, MANY churches cherry-picked Bible verses in order to justify the continuation of Jim Crow laws. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, were preachers put in jail for preaching racial hatred? What? They weren't? Oh, that's right, the racist Southern churches simply became more marginalized over time.

Here's what will happen when gay marriage is legalized in the US. The diehard evangelicals that continue to cherry-pick Leviticus in order to stir up division/hatred/discord will continue to do so. But they just won't be taken seriously. Doubling down on the notion that hatred of homosexuals is the formula for keeping your pews full is a foolish tact to take.

Seriously, with all of the social injustice in this world, why have some of you decided to define Christianity exclusively through the prism of keeping gays in the closet?

MT| 4.6.09 @ 8:18PM

You talk about hatred a lot, Pete--that reflects on you not me. You don't know me--you have no right to judge me. Clergy are being prosecuted for hate speech in Canada--it's not rocket science to see it could happen here. Either you are a dim bulb or a BS artist; I don't know which.

Cookie| 4.6.09 @ 8:23PM

Not only could churches be prosecuted for hate speech; all schools--K-12 will be required to teach about the gay life style. And regardless of your beliefs, it will be mandatory that your children attend. This was already happening in the California schools before Prop 8.

Pete| 4.6.09 @ 11:16PM

MT, bringing up Canada has nothing to do with nothing. In America, the First Amendment protects churches from being controlled by the state, and in theory is supposed to protect the state from being controlled by the church. Could you please point out the loophole in the First Amendment that somehow will result in clergy being prosecuted for being bigots? Hell, Fred Phelps gets to operate with impunity.

Cookie, it might surprise you that most younger people today don't have the pathological fear of homosexuality that older conservatives do. I'm sure in the 1960's you and yours were fretting that schools were going to require kids to learn about the "black lifestyle".

Seriously, your life won't change in any way shape or form after gay marriage is legalized. The only change is that you're not going to be able to hate in public without having people think you're a tool.

MT| 4.6.09 @ 11:33PM

You mention fear and hate a lot, Pete. Both must consume you. I pity you. Regardless of what you say, the State would try to repress religious expression. We already know this because we know you libs well--that's why we will fight to save marriage. And, trust me, we will fight.

Cookie| 4.6.09 @ 11:34PM

Pete, you're the tool. You are owned by the looney, debauched left. Go back to NAMBLA where you belong.

Daphne| 4.6.09 @ 11:36PM

Pete, you're the bigot. You stereotyped me without even knowing me. Liberal loser.

Pete| 4.7.09 @ 8:21AM

Daphne, this might surprise you, but conservatives aren't a race of people. One cannot be "bigoted" against a person because of self-identified politics.

Cookie, who said anything about NAMBLA. Here's a hint for you. You are going to have a difficult time insisting that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with personal hatred when you characterize your opponents as being child molesters.

MT, for the last time, YOUR marriage is perfectly safe. NOTHING about heterosexual marriage changes if gay people are also allowed to get married.

I'm sure you'll fight, but people in the 50's and 60's also fought to maintain segregation. They lost. So will you. Don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 11:28AM

Nice try, Pete. The hatred and rage are all yours, and it's so obvious, too--you protest too much. You've falsely characterized me as a hateful bigot, so I returned the favor--how do you like it? Leftists always use the courts to get their way, you don't care what the 'people' want. You should stop your whining and your perceived slights and get on with your life. Do some volunteer work, it'd be good for you to stop focusing on just yourself. Be happy! I will pray for you, so that you're not so knotted up with rage---it's not good for you.

Pete| 4.7.09 @ 1:23PM

Who's filled with rage? Not me, bub. Did you see that Vermont's legislature also legalized gay marriage as well? That's a cause for celebration, not rage. The tide is turning in this, guys.

Perhaps instead of fretting about an imaginary future where clergy members are locked up by the government, some of you ought to calm down, stop whining about perceived slights, and get on with your lives. Hopefully, one day soon, you'll realize that all of this hand-wringing about gay marriage was an incredible waste of your time and energy.

Say "yes" to equality.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 4:39PM

Go take a sedative, Pete--or better yet, get a job. Say 'yes' to get a life. Loser.

seekeronos| 4.7.09 @ 4:43PM

I see your "Matthew Shepard" and raise you one Jesse Dirkising:

http://www.newsnet14.com/2003/12/jesse-dirkhising/

Pete| 4.7.09 @ 4:44PM

Awww, MT...what a nice thing to say. Hey, it might be a fair thing to say that a person who actually gets upset that gay people might get married possibly, just possibly, might in fact be the real loser.

By the by, you did see that the Vermont Legislature voted to legalize gay marriage, no? Two states in two weeks. I'm sorry, but gay marriage is going to be legalized in the entire United States in the next few years. And then you know what will happen? Oh, that's right, absolutely nothing will. You won't see a single change in your own life.

You right wingers seriously need to lighten the hell up and stop putting yourself on the cross so much.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 5:45PM

Why do you feel the need to keep saying that gay marriage won't change my life? Is this what you're instructed to say as part of your propaganda? How do you know? You don't--and it's bizarre that you keep mindlessly repeating, "Gay marriage won't change your life, gay marriage won't..." Robot, think for yourself--you're obviously owned by the gay agenda. Get a life beyond your sexuality--there's more to believe in than just your genitals. Fool.

Pete| 4.7.09 @ 6:10PM

Well, gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for several years, and I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a scintilla of evidence that straight marriages have been adversely affected by that decision. In fact, the spectre of clergymen being muzzled or jailed by the state authorities simply hasn't occurred there.

I would suggest that you actually take some time to READ the Iowa decision, that took great pains to point out that religious organizations weren't affected by this decision, given that marriage is actually a secular, civil institution.

For instance, as a Catholic, I couldn't get married in their church because my wife wasn't going to convert. If we had had a civil ceremony instead of the Episcopal one we did, would that mean that our marriage was invalid or not legal?

By the way, MT, when a person disagrees with you in a discussion on this topic, that doesn't mean that they are "filled with rage", engaging in "propoganda", or owned by the "gay agenda".

My hope is that when gay marriage is legalized nationally (which it will be eventually), you'll see that in fact your own personal life literally isn't fundamentally changed for the worse. REAL conservatives should want the federal government to stay out of our bedrooms anyway.

MT| 4.7.09 @ 9:16PM

Is that where gays want to be married--in their bedroom?

MT| 4.7.09 @ 9:17PM

Let the people decide--that's the American way. Iowa is just more tyranny of the courts.

Pete| 4.8.09 @ 8:27AM

MT, do you really think that civil rights should be decided by an up or down vote? By that logic was Brown v. Board of Education "tyranny of the courts"? Or Loving v. Virginia?

MT| 4.8.09 @ 10:20AM

What have you got against 'the people'? You fear us, don't you? This is a Republic--let the people speak through their elected representatives. Fascist.

Pete| 4.8.09 @ 11:07AM

MT, well, in Vermont, elected representatives voted overwhelmingly to legalize gay marriage. Or is that "fascist" to have done that?

MT| 4.8.09 @ 3:28PM

If that vote reflects the will of the people of Vermont, it's legit. Iowa's Supreme Court over-ruling the will of the people--isn't. It's judicial tyranny.

Brendan| 4.29.09 @ 3:41PM

"What is asserted here is that homosexuals are so inherently weak that they cannot survive mere disapproval of their preferences. Anonymous Liberal has witlessly dispelled all the legalistic nonsense about "equal protection" and confessed the real purpose of the crusade for same-sex marriage, which might fairly be summarized thus: "
-The problem with your logic, sir, is that you feel that what "Anonymous Liberal" is talking about is "mere disapproval." As a gay man (and a staunch conservative, I might add) I can tell you that if the worst I had experienced in my life was mere disapproval, then I wouldn't feel any need to ask for any legal protections beyond that. But that is not the case. In high school, I routinely had objects hurled at me, I have been physically threatened and attacked by straight men in school, in bars, on the street, and numerous other places.

I also identify as a Christian, and openly so on my markedly non-Christian campus. In all honesty, I can identify with much of what Dreher says about it getting difficult to be a public Christian, because that is indeed true. However, I have never been as bitterly or harshly attacked, even in the verbal sense, for my belief in one true God as I have been for my sexuality. So you can say what you will about the public intolerance that Anonymous Liberal speaks of, equating it to mere disapproval, but I can tell you from personal experience that what he speaks of extends far beyond that, and this is coming from someone living in the supposedly super-liberal state of New York.