What's Hot | Search |

Get Your Personal
On-Air Report Here

blog advertisingis good for you
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 2:26 PM

symbol of a lie

There are actually a good number of lies the radical activists who choose to engage in personal homosexual behavior have been telling people for a while.

And I separate the activists from the average person minding their own business (but who still chooses to engage in the same behavior), because I think the difference between the two groups is notable.

I know a number of strongly decent individuals who have made the choice to engage in the behavior but who have REJECTED the rampant, animalistic, absurdity that we've seen in California since the election. But the goons and thugs on television news screens are just shameful.

They are also dishonest.

They preach "tolerance" for people who are different "than you." But they don't really desire that. Tolerance means that we can live on the same block and agree to disagree, but treat each other with respect. The animals at the protests in California are not capable of either agreeing to disagree, nor or they capable of treating those who are DIFFERENT than them with any modicum of respect.

But they are dishonest in other ways as well, especially in the messaging of what they are about. They continue to insist that they will not be given "equal rights" until they are allowed to "get married."

This is a patently gross lie on two counts.

1. They are as "equally" capable of getting married as every other person on the planet. Marriage is the sanctified sexual union of a man and a woman. If they chose to find a man (if they were a woman) or a woman (if they were a man) they would be free to enter into marriage with said individual. The law makes no distinction against them because they choose to enjoy sex with someone like themselves. They are still free to, permitted, and welcomed to marry. Remember: Marriage IS the sanctified union of a man and a woman.

2. The other part of their great lie is that they are being denied any sort of fundamental rights. First off marriage is not a right, it is a responsibility, and one that is limited by government for its own health. Although the sex radicals of our day would like there not to be limits on it, the U.S. does regulate it--mostly for the purpose of producing healthy offspring and thus further the existence of the nation by giving birth to the next generation. But aside from marriage not being a "right" they are still dishonest on being "DENIED" anything. They are with the power of any attorney and the will of two individuals enter into ANY contractual agreement their minds can produce. They can dictate hospital visitation, inheritance, living arrangements, financial responsibility, terms of the relationship, etc. They can even in such a contract get really funky and allow third or fourth party members to be added, dictate the rotation of who sleeps with who, who feeds dog, who does the cooking, and who pays the bills. In short - the construction of a contract is already allowable and is limited only by the "imagination" of the two parties involved.

This group went on a rampage in a church in Michigan on Sunday, interrupting the service, saying stupid things, and generally making a huge nuisance of themselves. The church members were kind and did not even press charges. Yet the hate-filled intolerance of the people who choose to engage in homosexuality that had infiltrated the service with the direct purpose of disrupting the proceedings were completely INTOLERANT of those who eventually showed them kindness in NOT exercising their rights to arrest and prosecute the trouble makers.

The Anti-Prop 8 haters across the nation are demonstrating the biggest LACK of tolerance they could possibly show. And the goons in Michigan that carried upside down pink crosses demonstrated that the Christians they chose to attack tolerate far more from the acidic portions of society than they demonstrate.


View in ascending order View in descending order
Jill writes: Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 2:54 PM
All you musical theatre fans...
Here's another example of "inclusiveness" and "tolerance" in the gay community: Scott Eckern, a nationally known and acclaimed theatre producer in California, was obliged to resign from his job after his name was published on http://www.antigayblacklist.com , a list of voters who donated money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign.

Google "Scott Eckern resigns" to read some "open-minded" comments by the gay community. A sample can be found here:

http://clydefitch.blogspot.com/2008/11/scott-eckern-enemy- of-freedom-lover-of.html


Scott Eckern's very thoughtful statement of resignation can be found here:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Scott-Eckern-Releases -Statement-Announces/story.aspx?guid=%7B05F4A0A1-84FA-496A- 92EF-2B418ADB1CC2%7D
U.R. writes: Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 7:12 PM
kill the attitude
I do not disagree with the content of you post but have a problem with your presentation.

You say "The animals at the protests in California" and "the goons in Michigan"

and say they are "not capable of either agreeing to disagree, nor or they capable of treating those who are DIFFERENT than them with any modicum of respect."

You need to practice what you preach. You call them animals in same sentence you say they don't treat people with respect. No wonder non christians call christians hypocritical.

You are setting a terrible example.
Baby Karl writes: Wednesday, November, 12, 2008 11:41 PM
U.R. I have this feeling...
That you are the same e-mailer who contacted me last weekend under the name of Rob.

If so - stop hiding be a man for goodness sake.

Secondly... The behavior of those in California and in Michigan IS animalistic, it is thuggish, it is goonish...

It is not being disrespectful to observe what the behavior is and call those performing it what they are.

They are the ones ACTING that way.

You don't see straight people getting up in the middle of Pride parades knocking things out of the hands of little old ladies.

Please... save the pretend outrage. You don't agree with my observations from the post and you only criticize the "attitude" because the content is indisputable...

Psalm 9:17 writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:37 AM
Will of the People versus MOB RULES
Protesting is how the homosexual agenda has been advanced since the 1970s, when the American Psychiatry Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses due to protesting at APA conventions -- NOT because of research or study of homosexuality. As a result, the APA of 2008 is thoroughly sodomized, rampant with homosexual members, and promoting sodomy for the rest of us.

Homosexual marriage is no longer just about two homosexuals getting married. It is a MAJOR beach head in the culture wars, because wherever homosexual marriage is legal, homosexuality is promoted heavily in the public school system, with great eagerness.

These angry mobs are just like in the Bible's story in Genesis 19, when the sodomites want to sodomize the angels of God, proving that the city is wicked. An angry mob of sodomites demanding sodomy. This is indecent. The right thing to do is to not appease wickedness.

Keep fighting the good fight, do not tire of doing good, and keep the sodomites from sodomizing the culture.
DVangura writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:38 AM
U.R.
Did you read the article? What is the sentiment of the first two paragraph? Did you ever learn critical thinking in English and/or science classes?

The first point the author makes is that there is a difference among the people he is talking about. There is one group that engages in homosexual behavior which IS tolerated by groups who condemn the behavior. They are not the subject of the article. The second group is homosexual militants, who scream "TOLERANCE" while having no intention to practice it. In fact, the don't even mean "tolerance." They use a tactic commonly used by the Left. Their true goal is beyond acceptance, it is out right promotion of the homosexual lifestyle to a point where it is dominant in the society. "Tolerance" is the last thing they want.
bobcatsmoosh writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:43 AM
UR
Since when does stating the factual truth about someone or group constitute disrespect?

The author would have been on shaky ground if he had written that they were animals and then said they were respectful. On the other hand the disrespectfulness of their actions is part and parcel of their animal behavior.

The truth is not disrespectful, the truth is not hateful, the truth is not a slur. Sorry, thats just the way it is.

Swampfox writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:48 AM
The Same old KMC
I am a gay conservative who thinks these marches are a political mistake. I don't think that McCullough understands that I am gay regardless of any sexual acts that I engage. I can't pray the gay away any more than I can change my skin color.

I would suggest that McCullough spend his time worrying about Obama's policies be about our economy, armed services, taxation, energy and the war against Islamic-Fascism.

I did not vote for Obama. The Cult of Obama actually scares me.
bobcatsmoosh writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:52 AM
Robert
Got some serious hate problems there boy. Need to get a handle on it or it will get you in trouble. Listen, Bozo, there are a lot of folks who will not agree with you and your idea that they are somehow inferior to you because of it is sub-moronic. I believe that kind of thing is called intolerance.

Nevertheless, continue to post your vile hate anonymously here on the net, because I know you are not brave or even foolish enough to do it to someones face. If you ever do get brave/foolish enough to do it will you continue to post from the hospital?
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:27 AM
Swampfox
Swampfox wrote: "I am a gay conservative who thinks these marches are a political mistake. I don't think that McCullough understands that I am gay regardless of any sexual acts that I engage. I can't pray the gay away any more than I can change my skin color."

You see, this is where you're right. People like McCullough, and almost all of the people who come to TH believe that you'r wrong. They think it's a choice...and they also think that if you just CHOOSE not to act on your basic instincts, then you can be saved.... *sigh*

You also said: "I would suggest that McCullough spend his time worrying about Obama's policies be about our economy, armed services, taxation, energy and the war against Islamic-Fascism."

In fact those are the exact policies that Obama has stated will be his top priorities.

You also said: "I did not vote for Obama. The Cult of Obama actually scares me."

Everyone is free to vote for whom they wish. I couldn't vote for McCain because his principles changed so much from 2000. I seriously wish he had gotten the 2000 nod over Bush. I think a lot of things would have turned out differently. But Obama shouldn't scare you. This talk of a "cult" is just people who are hungry for something different than what we've had. And Obama will clearly deliver that, at the least. His "cult" isn't in office...he is.
yoshi writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:33 AM
This article is a lie
Your first point: Marriage is not a "sanctified sexual union". It is a civil contract between two individuals.

Your second point: Per the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia - Marriage is a right in the US.

Sorry - you are going to have to try better than that.
ybnormal writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:34 AM
Simple Question
What ever happened to majority rule?
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:37 AM
DVangura
You wrote: "Their true goal is beyond acceptance, it is out right promotion of the homosexual lifestyle to a point where it is dominant in the society. "Tolerance" is the last thing they want."

You see, this is where your beliefs fail you. If you look back in history, this is one of the same exact arguments that was used against the civil rights movement: "The black don't want equality...they want superiority", etc... Those arguments were false then, and they're false now.

This is a basic civil right, and those kinds of things should never be decided by a popular vote. Think about it: When the courts ruled that desegregation of schools was unconstitutional -- that seperate but equal was unconstitutional. Do you think these decisions would have won a popular vote at the time??? Not a chance!!! And the "will of the people" would have stopped basic civil rights. THIS is why the courts stepped in, and it's why the courts are SUPPOSED to step in.

The courts did the correct thing 6 months ago when they ruled that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional...it never should have been allowed to get to Prop 8 in the 1st place.

And here's just a mathematical fact, which I know you won't like. It's not the black vote that did in Prop 8, it's the elderly vote...these people will eventually die off. The new generation that truly sees that everyone should have the equal chance to get married will eventually win out for good. And that's a good thing -- it's the right thing. (And no, I'm not gay...I just belive in basic human equality)
purplegraze writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:42 AM
This article...
is so stupid, poorly written, and full of incorrect information, how on earth did TH.com let it go through?

Marriage is the sanctified sexual union of a man and a woman - ummm, where did you get that definition because that is incorrect.

I am not in favor of gay marriage but this article is just totally assonine.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:43 AM
KMC
Even in the civil rights movement there were groups that "went too far". They got violent and made the movement itself look bad....but here's the thing: Those people are merely the ones who let their anger over being treated unfairly boil over. Those actions are wrong...but they don't tanrish the entire movement. The cause is still legitimate.

Sadly, you think that because some people are angry about Prop 8 and act immaturely, that it somehow "proves" that Prop 8 was correct.

If you read one of my other posts, basic civil rights are NOT supposed to be decided by a popular vote. If they were, the civil rights movement would still be struggling to overturn separate but equal....thaty'd still be fighting against desegregation, because those things would never have won a popular vote at the time. This is why the courts are necessary to go against what is most "popular", and rule in favor of human civil equality.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:47 AM
floridaindependent
You wrote: "What ever happened to majority rule?"

Ok, as I've stated a few times before, if we left it to simple majority rule, then do you really think that school desegregation would have ever passed a majority vote?

No. Of course not. This is why the courts are needed to rule in favor of basic civil rights, rather than with the side of the "majority".

PLUS, if you truly believed that it should be "majority rule" then there would also be no Pro-Life movement because Pro-Choice also won out on every ballot it was on Nov 4th... but you're not going to see the Pro-Life movement just give up are you? Of course not...
jtb-in-texas writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:54 AM
Wow. The hate-filled posts against the
author seem to prove his point far beyond his eloquence or lack thereof...
Standshisground writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:13 AM
On the incident in Michigan
When I first heard about the incident at that Assembly of God church in Michigan on Sunday, my first thought was, "Well, I sure hope that the MEN of the church who were there in the service got up and engaged in their OWN re-enactment of the "Jesus expelling the moneychangers from the Temple" incident with these gay disrupters!" I'd sure hope that's what the men in MY church would do if faced with such an incident. And I'd be one of the first volunteers to help in the "expulsion".

I heard there was a gay protest demonstration outside a New York-area Mormon church the other day, apparently to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which the Mormon church heavily bankrolled, I understand. I wondered why gays were picking on Mormons in NEW YORK. It wasn't THEM, after all, who cast votes in favor of Prop. 8 in California.

But incidents like this are becoming much more than isolated. Quite clearly, the gay movement has grown much more militant and aggressive in the last few years - and they'll continue to all the more until decent people finally decided "enough is enought" and give them a reason to cease and desist.
Leslie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:25 AM
They Are Galloping Heterophobes
When the sodomites decided to use the universities, the public square, and the courts to foist their perverted behavior onto our unsuspecting American society, they chose to label those who would disagree with them to be mentally unstable - the victims of a mental illness called "homophobia." They seized definitive authority over the majority resisting society; and with the help of their friends in the universities, the media, and Hollywood they have successfully launched an offensive game plan to bring down American culture. Their strategy was/is "the best defense is a strong offense." They first had to have their behavior declared to be no longer a form of mental illness. Then they turned the tables and have been trying to force society to accept their demands to redefine our cultural existence. We must remember that "they" are the mentally ill, and can be rightly identified as "heterophobes/heterophobics" who not only irrationally hate those who don't support their vicious campaigns, but also hate the God of the people who resist them. They are galloping heterphobes who should be resisted with every ounce of strength that the "normal people" can muster. They are neither "civil" nor are they due any "rights" based on their filthy behavior.
Matthew writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:28 AM
Standshisground
Good post. I just have one minor correction.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) did not contribute any money to passing Prop 8. The presidency of the church did send a letter to the California congregations which was read at the beginning of a church service. The letter asked members in California to support the measure by donating both time and money. The $20 million attributed to the Mormon church was therefore all donated directly by members, and not through the church.

I know it's a minor correction, and I don't mean to be nitpicky, but it has tax exemption significance, which the Gay lobby is now trying to revoke.

I agree with you that it's ridiculous to be protesting Mormon congregations in NY or Utah, when they were not involved in the California vote. Also, it is clear that the LARGE margin of black voters who voted for this (by a 70-30 margin) probably are the group most responsible for passage of this amendment. yet, we haven't seen the Gays protesting the black churches. Why?
R.D. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:33 AM
It's the same Constitution
that the liberals dismiss and say was written by old dead white men with dark and oppressive past that they attempt to utilize to exercise their "rights" purportedly "deeply rooted" in the very document as a means to normalize their conduct. The matter is that of policy to be determined over time by the people. The gay agenda did not exercise their rights to put their verson of prop 22 or prop 8 on a ballot because they know they would have lost. Hence, they attempt to make constitutional arguments in the courts. This is blatant inconsistency and an obvious contradiction. Liberal judges pay lip service to the document to protect the rule of law, yet impose their liberal policy choices. Here's the kicker, liberals use this methodology in order to give the appearance that they have sought support from an objective source of "morality" and law. The idea is then they can impose thier policy choices on the masses supposedly (they think) with a scintilla of intellectual honesty. Remove the cloak of objectivity and presto (ignore the little man behind the curtain) they are trying to compel society to adhere to their own personal preferences. LIKE IT OR NOT! Here's your one question homework assignment. What always has been the purpose behind (that led to) the "Equal Protection" clause? - Hint: for bonus points What minority needed it and why?
DVangura writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:40 AM
Shoes
You are incorrect. There are still groups in the black community that do not want equality and continue to push the agenda of the Black Panthers. There were also groups in the black community that called for segregation. You can look up and read about "black separatist."

Therefore, you do not discount my point that the author is addressing his remarks to a group in the gay community that is militant and has no desire for equality, similar to, not the same as, black separatist.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:54 AM
Religious bigotry
It's clear that the Christians who claim that marriage is a sacred Christian union between a man and a woman are bearing false witness. Also known as lying. Christians willingly permit atheists, Pagans, devil worshipers, Muslims, Buddhists, voodoo practitioners, Wiccans, etc. are all free to engage in marriage. Just so they appear as a different sex couple. No Christians object. How is this possible if the first of the Ten Commandments instructs Christians to worship no God but the God of the Bible? Shouldn't Proposition 8 have read, "Marriage is between one Christian man and one Christian woman"?
DIAMOND Z writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:10 AM
prop 8 is right on ! 8888888888888888888
the radical dudes that wear a up-side down pink cross are the kim-jung ils of our time!read romans chapter one!
Jim the Calvinist writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:10 AM
Dear Jeffrey
According to the Bible, marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. It predates Christianity. What part of "a man and a woman" is confusing you? And how about "a man shall not lay with another man as he would with a woman" Seems pretty clear to me.
Standshisground writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:13 AM
Matthew
Thanks for correcting my misinformation on the source of the money provided by Mormons supporting Proposition 8. You're right, had the money come directly from the church governing body rather than individual members, there could be a tax-exemption issue. But since the money came from individual members, I don't see how gays can use this to try to get the Mormon church's tax-exempt status revoked - although, heavens knows, they'll try.

I've asked the same question myself on this site as you: why aren't gays protesting outside BLACK churches in Southern California - like, say, the Faithdome, or West Angeles Church of God in Christ - as they are WHITE churches like Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, given that 70% of the black vote in California was FOR Prop. 8, and that the black vote provided the margin of victory for Prop. 8?

In fact, the other night, Bill O'Reilly asked that very same question to a guest on his show, liberal black Philadelphia professor Marc Lamont Hill (I'm assuming he's probably an African-American studies professor, or his field is another one of the liberal arts) - who initially tried to dodge the question by giving a non-answer answer. When O'Reilly refused to let Hill put him off and again demanded a direct answer, Hill finally answered directly. His answer was that even though gays are unhappy with African-Americans on the Prop. 8 vote in California, they are reluctant to openly antagonize blacks by protesting in front of their churches and therefore risk losing black support for issues and causes gays are pushing, especially now with a black president in the White House.

Shows you what the liberal world has come to. When one liberal stabs a fellow liberal in the back, the violated liberal is apparently expected to still smile and make nice-nice as though nothing happened.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:16 AM
Dvangura...
No, I'm not incorrect. I acknowledged your point that militant groups like the Black Panthers, as well as some people outraged by the passing of Prop 8 are a black eye on their causes. These people go above and beyond what their causes promote and want. We agree on that. 100%.

But the fact remains that these people do not minimalize the ultimate message. The civil rights movement was not stopped because of groups like the Black Panthers. The basic search for equality was the cause...and the cause was just.

The same is true of the basic cause of the homosexual community. They want to get married. They understand that a civil union may provide themselves with the same rights under the law as married couples, but the fact remains that it comes back to "separate but equal"...and that's not right. They simply want to marry the person that they love.
DIAMOND Z writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:17 AM
good article,it shined on the radicals
america needs the truth and the light!
DVangura writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:17 AM
Shoes
I've read the other post you made and discovered that an argumentative discussion with you will probable be futile. Your perceived notion of history is flawed.

"PLUS, if you truly believed that it should be "majority rule" then there would also be no Pro-Life movement because Pro-Choice also won out on every ballot it was on Nov 4th... "

REALLY!!???!!! Nowhere in the USA has a pro-abortion policy been approved through the legislative process. That is why the SCOTUS had to create a right to force this view upon the citizens of the US. Since Roe v. Wade, pro-life legislation has time and time again been passed through the legislative process only to be usurped by the courts imposing their personal opinions.

Do you agree with this statement? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:24 AM
Standshisground...
You said: "I've asked the same question myself on this site as you: why aren't gays protesting outside BLACK churches in Southern California"

The reason is pretty simple: predominantly black churches didn't unilaterally support Prop 8. They didn't encourage their members to vote that way. They didn't raise money in support of Prop 8, and publically announce their support for it. It wasn't a combined & organized effort by the black community.

The protesters are going to the sources that actually did those things...that is why.

Now, whether or not you agree with Prop 8, you should at least be able to understand that if you're going to protest, you do it by the people who organized their efforts agaisnt you.

While I don't agree with some of the things that the protestors are doing, it doesn't take away from the fact that the basic cause is still just.
U.R. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:25 AM
KMC
Kevin, I am not this Rob you speak of. I don't know who he is or what you are even referring to.

Like I said, I do not disagree with your content. you didn't even read my post because I clearly said that. I am a christian, and I think you are setting a bad example for the rest of us.

In this sentence you are doing exactly what you accuse them of. You are not treating someone that is different with any modicum of respect.


"The animals at the protests in California are not capable of either agreeing to disagree, nor or they capable of treating those who are DIFFERENT than them with any modicum of respect."

"Speak the truth in love" Ephesies 4:15.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:28 AM
Jim the Calvinist
And what part of "Worship no other God before me" is unclear to you? If marriage is a sacred Christian rite, which is the theological basis for why many Christians supported Prop 8, how on earth can it be extended to non-Christians? Proposition 8 should have read, "Marriage is a union between one Christian man and one Christian woman." Otherwise, marriage is NOT a sacred ritual owned and operated by Christians, as Christians keep claiming. Christians fully welcome devil-worshippers to participate; there's no ballot proposal to stop them. Very foolish, Christians fiddling with man's laws.
David writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:37 AM
I'll make a deal to the Prop 8 haters
I'll accept the results of the presidential election, if you anti-Proposition 8 die-hards in California accept the results of that vote.
R.D. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:40 AM
J
you seem to have it backwards -- mans laws are derived from God's laws. Yes, we have legislated morality. Otherwise ALL would be Legal or ok to do, no? And, I'd rather adhere to God's laws over mans.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Dvangura...Part I
So let's see. I disagree with you and suddenly a helathy debate is not able to be had?? Trust me, I expect this from most people on TH, because that's been my experience, save for a few people.

But here are the ballot initiatives from just 9 days ago:

*SD (a state that went red) rejected measure 11 which would have prohibited abortion except in cases where the mother's life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, or in cases of reported rape & incenst.

*CO rejected Amendment 48 which would defined "person" as any human being from the moment of fertilization.

*CA rejected Prop 4 which would have required a 48-hour waiting period after parental notification before allowing a minor to terminate a pregnancy.

Here's the thing: I actually like CA's Prop 4. I think in the case of a minor they should weigh their options with their parents. But I still think they should have the right to choose....

And the people have decided this on the ballots, as shown. You agree with this statement, right??

Standshisground writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Shoes
While predominantly black churches or their leadership may not have OPENLY supported Proposition 8, it still doesn't change the fact that their CONGREGATIONS clearly overwhelmingly voted in favor of it - enough to spell the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, given the fact that blacks voted on Proposition 8 the way they did UNPROMPTED, as you seem to be arguing, gay activists ought to wonder if "homophobia" is as supposedly entrenched in the black community as "racism" is supposedly entrenched in the white community.

By the way, what do gays expect to gain by trying to make trouble for Mormon churches? They're forgetting that the Mormon church has had an awful lot of practice over a lot of years in standing on its beliefs even in the face of massive opposition by the society around it in general. While I'm not a Mormon myself and certainly don't ascribe to its tenets, I applaud its stance on Proposition 8.

There's also something else: how many Mormons are even IN California in the first place? I doubt the Mormon vote in California was much more than a drop in the bucket. I lived in Southern California myself for 15 years until 8 years ago - and met very few Mormons there in all that time (had I still been living there on Election Day, I MYSELF would have voted for Prop. 8). Mormons may have helped provide the FINANCING to pass Prop. 8 - but in the final analysis, the difference between passage and rejection came from BLACKS, NOT Mormons. And no amount of gay protests or spinning changes this reality.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:57 AM
If only, R.D.!
If only Christians would adhere to God's law! Reread the Ten Commandments, most of which are not incorporated into man's laws, and ask yourself how well we're doing! Rampant adultery and divorce! Both legal, and I guess that means it's ok for Christians, whose divorce rate is higher than for non-Christians. Wow.

These experiments by Christians to fiddle with man's laws can come to no good end, I'm certain. Already the Mormons have backtracked and are now endorsing homosexuality. Astonishing.
Don't Touch That writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:57 AM
Jeffrey
Jeffrey, there you go again with the Christian thing.

Christianity, per say, didn’t come into existence until 33AD.
Marriage between a man and a woman was an institution from the day God put the two together. There were no courts, no laws, and no governments, no documents.

Government didn’t come into existence until after the flood of Noah’s day.

I’m not a historian, so I’m not sure when the first legal document was constructed.

The point is, what’s allowing pagans, atheists, devil worshippers, etc marrying got to do with Christians view of homosexuality. Marriage has been in effect far longer than Christianity, and more people of varied ideologies support marriage between a man and a woman than just Christians.

With the sentiment in this nation toward Christians, you can’t be serious as to believe that your efforts in these states were defeated because of what Christians think.

Many voted against gay marriages that have never set foot in a church. I know atheists that are against gay marriage.

You’re just going to work yourself into a world of frustration over this issue.

Even if you get laws changed, your lifestyle still isn’t going to gain acceptance. The nation already tolerates homosexuality. If you are looking for bigotry to go away, you’re going to be waiting till the end of time.

One of the greatest recipients of bigotry in this nation today is Christians.

If it weren’t the gay issue with you it would be something else that you would find fault with Christians over.
I don’t hate you for that.

Oh well, I wander what you are going to do with your life when you have no one to persecute you.

Do you think you’re really going to be happy?
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 11:58 AM
Dvangura...part II
As for your quoting of the Declaration of Independence, of course I agree with that. But apparently you don't really understand what those words really mean...and I don't say that in a combative way. I'm just saying... because those words were NOT stating that every initiative or law would be a majority rule. This has NEVER been the case in this country.

Look at the actual words being used in context: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Right!! Their powers will come from being chosen by the consent of the majority. Their "just powers" will be to ensure the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. How hard is this to understand? One simple course in gov't high school teaches this.

In no way whatsoever did the Declaration of Independence say that every law should be passed by the majority of the people. Our laws weren't passed by a majority vote...They never have been and they never should be. But the courts are there to determine whether or not the laws are constitutional... And they determined that it is unconstitutional to deny any person the right to marriage with another person.

No one's asking for polygamy. No one's asking to marry their sister or dog... They're simply asking for the right of equality, which was endowed by our Creator, to pursue happiness.
Kevin writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:00 PM
Another Lie
The idea that gays want equal rights is a preposterous lie. Since marriage is the union of a man and a woman, what they want is not marriage. They want something outside of marriage to be called marriage. This would not establish equal rights, but special rights. Furthermore, they rely on the idea that there is some fundamental right to "marry the person I love." The idea of marrying for love is not fundamental; it is especially modern. Historically, most marriages were arranged and had little or nothing to do with romantic love. It had to do with responsibility. Duty to family and spouse. Ideals that were often more enduring than romantic love which is often superficial and fleeting. Furthermore, giving the government the power to recognize marriage between any two people who love each other, also bestows upon government the right to refuse marriage to any couple who do not love each other sufficiently. Do we really want to put government in the love business? Ridiculous. But the application of logic to a societal problem is beyond the ken of these hysterical narcissists.
chloe writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:01 PM
Jeffrey
“Religious bigotry
It's clear that the Christians who claim that marriage is a sacred Christian union between a man and a woman are bearing false witness. Also known as lying. Christians willingly permit atheists, Pagans, devil worshipers, Muslims, Buddhists, voodoo practitioners, Wiccans, etc. are all free to engage in marriage. Just so they appear as a different sex couple. No Christians object. How is this possible if the first of the Ten Commandments instructs Christians to worship no God but the God of the Bible? Shouldn't Proposition 8 have read, "Marriage is between one Christian man and one Christian woman"?”




You’re confusing apples with water buffalo’s. Marriage receives it’s legal recognition by sanction of the ***STATE***- not churches. State sanction of marriage is used (prominently) to protect the rights of children. Developmentally, a child is best served when raised by a mother and father- not same sex couples. What’s more, a Christian church is under no obligation to marry acknowledged atheist’s, Pagan’s, Muslim’s, or devil worshippers. That doesn't also mean that non-Christians are unable to marry.

Basically, the ‘equal rights’ argument is a ruse. What it really gets down to is that some homosexuals want to be legally recognized as ‘normal’. The law shouldn’t be used to salve the homosexual community’s self-esteem.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:08 PM
Standshisground...
You said: "Mormons may have helped provide the FINANCING to pass Prop. 8 - but in the final analysis, the difference between passage and rejection came from BLACKS, NOT Mormons. And no amount of gay protests or spinning changes this reality."

And here's where this argument falls apart. Those who belive this also say that Obama bought the election because of how much he outspent McCain. But wasn't it the voters themselves who overwhelmingly voted for Obama?? It had nothing to do with the money spent right??

Here's the truth: the money spent for these things goes a long way towards getting your version of the message out there. When the message being sent is scaring people of a "slippery slope" so they need to be afraid of not passing Prop 8, then yes, the money being spent affected the vote.

Same with Obama. While most of his ads were positive on his own plans, there certainly were negative ones that didn't portray McCain's plans accurately...and McCain's did the same.

And there certainly is something to be said for the fact that the majority of blacks in CA voted for Prop 8. It's not right...but there's no single church that promoted it. It's not like "Oh let's go there because they rallied for Prop 8". The protestors are going where the people openly campaigned for Prop 8. You can't just randomly pick a black church....they didn't just randomly pick the church they went to.
derekr44 writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:09 PM
yoshi...
You need to reread the declaration by the Supreme Court again.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Since when is homosexuality considered a race? The proposing and passing of these state constitutional propositions is fully legal because it is not based on race. If the Supreme Court had included sexual orientation in that statement, then it would be a different story. But they didn't, and so by passing these laws in states such as California no rights are being taken away because they didn't exist in the first place.

But that's besides the author's point. His point is that a group that is calling for tolerance cannot tolerate the will of the people who have spoken by a 52% to 47% majority vote. The Democratic process has been utilized and the people of the State of California have spoken.
R.D. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:10 PM
Jeffrey:
The marriage ceremony has been solemnized (celebrted or performed) by officiants eons before, the USA, and our constitution as well as the existance of California and its county clerks. Comparatively speaking, the state began "regulating" this long-standing man-woman institution not too many years ago. Those who wanted to be married by a justice of the peace or a non-religious person did so (and do so today too). In some of those cases there was no sectarian ceremony, rather it was secular. But you should stand corrected that "Christians fully welcome devil-worshippers to participate" because that oversimplification is simply untrue and incorfect. Stated differently, in a Christian wedding (which from the begining was instituted by God) we have a religious ceremony that is solemnized by a minister/officiant who in turn substantiates for the state that a legit wedding occurred. The "State" has a public policy interest in the regulation of weddings. So the question how can a wedding be extended to non Christians, begs the at least one answer - tolerance.
R.D. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:16 PM
The Bottom Line
is: what they want is to be included AND (simultaneously) to CHANGE the long standing man/woman definition. There I said it!
HANGTOWNHONEY writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:18 PM
Why I voted for 8
There is only one issue regarding 8 that caused me to vote for it-Judicial Interference. The judges overruled the will of the people. If they found this so horrendous, they should have referred this back to Democratic legislature to sort it out. Now, because of their ruling, this is in our Constitution, as are abortion rights.

I will never support legislation from the bench. I know too many judges to have any faith in their judgement.
Hitchhiker writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:22 PM
Jeffrey
writes, "Already the Mormons have backtracked and are now endorsing homosexuality. Astonishing."

Incredibly astonishing. So astonishing, in fact, that absent a shred of evidence, I believe you might be bearing false witness. Can you provide the quote from the church president?
R.D. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:25 PM
Shoes Are You Sure?
Long ago in our country, when a group of people voted (which did NOT include African Americans or women and probably others) and a law passed or a senator, representative, or president was elected, tell me who did the voting -- the minority?

BTW there was not prop to 'ban gay marriage.' I'm cognizant of a prop 22 (and 8) that wanted to keep the long-standing man-woman definition of marriage. The jurists illegally attempted to do the re-defining.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:34 PM
Hangtownhoney...
While I understand your reasoning, I think you're missing the point of what the courts are there for in the first place.

Laws are not passed by a majority vote. They never have been. We don't have civil laws or tax laws or murder laws, etc., because of majority votes. We have them because they were written by legislators and passed. It is up to the courts to determine whether or not they are constitutional.

Think back to desegregation of schools. The courts determined that for the good of all people, the basic civil rights should not be infringed upon by "separate but equal". If this had been put up to a vote, the majority of people would have voted to keep the schools segregated. But the courts ruled that unconstitutional. It was the right decision.

The courts are there for cases just like this one, where Prop 8 should not be put up for a majority vote. Basic civil rights to not treat people as "separate but equal" should never be voted on.
Standshisground writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Shoes
I've never been one who's been sold on the idea that money in itself buys wins in the political realm. No matter how much money is spent on something, no amount of money spent in the political realm, however overwhelming, will buy victory for an issue or candidate that's unpalatable to a vast majority of the populace. Just ask President Ross Perot about THAT. And in the same way regarding Proposition 8: it doesn't matter how much money was spent or not spent on it, if this was an issue that did not have popular resonance, it wouldn't have passed even with a monetary expenditure large enough to buy all the tea in China.

I also don't attribute Obama's victory over McCain simply to the difference in spending between the two campaigns. Again, if pure financial wherewithal alone could ensure victory, while have we never been able to say PRESIDENT Ross Perot? Or PRESIDENT Michael Blumberg? For whatever reason, Obama's campaign had sufficient popular resonance: I attribute a good share of his support more to disgust with George Bush than pure affection for Barack Obama. But if Obama had openly campaigned as a doctrinnaire communist and had openly stated his intention to turn the U.S., if he was elected, into a communist totalitarian state, all the money in the world wouldn't have bought him the White House.

By the way, as the poster David proposed: since liberals tell us we have to accept the results of the presidential election and therefore receive Obama as OUR president, whether we like it or not, shouldn't gays in California also have to accept the clearly expressed popular will of the voters in California just as surely?
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:44 PM
My response to others' posts
Chloe, you err in your thinking. The state makes no requirement for the bearing of children; the state is indifferent as to whether couples bear or raise kids or not. Yes, Christian churches are under no obligation to marry devil-worshipers. But the state certainly can. And Christians are now on record as refusing to let the state marry same sex loving Christian homosexual, but permitting different sex devil-worshipers to marry. This is a big problem for Christians!

R.D., I’m not talking about church weddings, where devil-worshipers are clearly excluded. I’m talking about legal marriage, the kind offered by the state, that Christians believe should exclude loving same sex Christian couples, but oddly should allow devil worshipers.

Hitchhiker: yesterday CNN.com reported that the Mormon church endorsed states’ giving same sex couples civil unions equal to the rights sacred Christian marriage grants. Read it and weep:

From CNN.com:

“SALT LAKE CITY – Gay-rights activists see opportunities for their cause in Utah thanks to Mormon church officials, who strongly supported California's proposition denying same-sex couples the right to marry but said they did not object to granting those couples certain other rights.”
DIAMOND Z writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:45 PM
a pillar of salt,sounds good!
right on prop8!
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:46 PM
R.D.
you wrote: "Shoes Are You Sure?"

Yes. I'm assuming you wrote this because you were unsure... And your najority/minority thing doens't make sense in the context you use.

Yes, the majority vote is used to decide who will govern. We choose our legislators & executive branch thru the majority rule... In fact, we even pick our juducial branch by majority except for the Supreme Court, which is by appointment.

The legislators draft our laws, vote on them amongst themselves (not the majority of citizen's votes) and pass them. It is then up to the courts to determine if the law is constitutional.

This is why laws, amendments and such are not supposed to be determined by the majority rule, but rather by those we elected via the majority. It's the way our country has always worked. Do you want to change that? Is the Constitution that our forefathers drafted not accurate in explaining our beliefs?
DIAMOND Z writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:52 PM
shoes and jeffery are wearing highheals!
they only talk chaos!purplegraze this is the best article!prop8stays!
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 12:57 PM
Standshisground...
You wrote: "since liberals tell us we have to accept the results of the presidential election and therefore receive Obama as OUR president, whether we like it or not, shouldn't gays in California also have to accept the clearly expressed popular will of the voters in California just as surely?"

Here's the thing...please see my post below to R.D. We are supposed to elect our governing force by a majority vote (or the crappy electoral college), and we do. This is why Obama will be the next President.

However, passing laws and amendments is not something that is supposed to be left up to a majority vote. I say again: if desegregation was left up to a majority vote it never would have passed. It is the courts responsibility and purpose to determine whether the laws we have are constitutional or not.

And as for your assertments that Obama is a Communist...well, I'll see you in the bread line, because I'm sure they'll start forming around the block soon. You may not like his policies, but to spread the lies that his policies represent communism, Marxism, Socialism, etc...that's just beneath common decency and repsectability. And the people who believe them are the uneducated sort who won't do any research for themselves, but rather believe forwarded emails that say as much.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:04 PM
Diamond Z...
you said... oh forget it. It's truly not worth repeating what you said. Your one-line insults have no substance. They possess no sense of debate, let alone thought. Your posts are worthless, meaningless and simply clog the actual healthy debate that can be had on a site like this.
Laura writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:12 PM
No argument beats the bible which says
the following, and remember this THESE WERE THE FIRST WORDS on the subject.

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)

How clear is that that homosexuality is wrong? all the arguments ever had or ever will be had can not erase the fact that God forbade it as a sin punishable by death. Toady of course we d onot put people to death for it, but to condone it as being acceptable and right is..........WRONG,PERIOD.
Don't Touch That writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:14 PM
Jeffrey
Jeffrey, do you have any idea how long you have been posting this view, and how long people have been debating with you.

Have you seen anyone respond with; ah ha! Now I see your point.

You are not going to change people’s mind.
At best you will get some states to change there laws. Then what, do you feel that you will have won in the arena of public opinion.
Winning means nothing. You are persuaded that this is a religious issue because Christians are involved. You seem to think that you will finally get to throw this issue in the face of Christians.
People have been attacking Christian values for centuries. This is nothing new.

Christians have been recipients of bigotry for centuries. You don’t see us running down to congress to institute laws to stop people from calling us names, mocking our beliefs.
All the Constitution does now is keeping people from legally killing those who practice differ beliefs.
Every religion in this world is tolerated but Christianity. Why do you think that is? They all promote there beliefs.

You seem to be stuck on homosexual talking points. Do you attend meeting somewhere or are you on some organizations mailing list.

Why can’t you see the point some of these posters are making.

I’ve read many of them and they seem to present a much better argument than I have ever made.
Many of them have not made there argument from a religious stand point either.

I’m beginning to wander who is narrow minded.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:26 PM
So tell me Laura
Do you advocate putting homosexuals to death? If not, why not?
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:29 PM
Replying
Shoes is absolutely correct. The protesters who chose to act disrespectfully does not mean the issue is any less wrong or right. Along Shoes's points, should we assume that the pro-life movement should be discredited because a select few of it's followers decided to bomb abortion clinics?

Marriage is not just meant to propagate the species and the population. Lets face it, the species is doing just fine at this point and we are in absolutely no danger of becoming extinct, as a species or as a country, due to low numbers or low birthrates. Times change and things evolve and whatever purpose the author has subjectively attached to marriage are not really vital any longer.

Marriage has spiritual, personal, social, and legal properties and they are different for everyone. While you argue that people can enter into any contract they want, they must do so with a lawyer and pay the associated legal fee's. Even with that, they are still denied rights given to heterosexual married couples such as tax benefits, and many of the rights automatically given to married couples without the need for a separate contract like next of kin rights, inheritance, hospital visitation, custody of any children, and power of attorney.

You could argue that homosexual couples are already able to enter into domestic partnerships in California and civil unions in a few New England states. If civil unions and domestic partnerships were indentical to marriage in the rights and benefits they give, I would probably be okay with that although it sounds a little bit too much like separate-but-equal for my taste. As younger and younger generations start voting, you're going to see things like this become less and less of an issue. The younger generations who grow up with homosexual people not being castigated as much are going to see that homosexuality is not the threat to society that their parents made it out to be and are going to wonder why their parents where so up-in-arms about it.
dnha14 writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:31 PM
Prop 8 Hate
The Beatles said it best:
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
Standshisground writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:32 PM
Shoes
You said, "And the people who believe them are the uneducated sort...."

What level of education did YOU attain, anyway? Do you even understand the English language? Where in the post of mine that you responded did I say that Barack Obama IS a doctrinnaire communist? I said, "IF he had openly campaigned AS a doctrinnaire communist...." If I had said, "If Obama had openly campaigned as the doctrinnaire communist that he is...", THEN you could assume I would be saying that Obama is in fact a communist. But I did NOT use those words "that he is" in my sentence - and in any case, you'd have to go all the way to the conclusion of my sentence to understand the context. So how do you draw your conclusion from my sentence that Obama is a doctrinnaire communist? You sound like the prototypical product of the recent American public educational system.

You said "passing laws and amendments is not something that is supposed to be left up to a majority vote". HAVE YOU EVER READ THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?! That's PRECISELY how an amendment to the U.S. constitution gets made: by a majority vote (and a very overwhelming one at that is required for this, by both houses of Congresses and then the individual states). While I don't know offhand the procedure for amending the California STATE constitution, I somehow doubt that this constitution allows the decision of judges to be the sole mechanism.

And I'll say it again: if gays think the Mormon church is going to be intimidated by them, then they've been smoking something funny. Mormons have fought far greater foes in the last 175 years than gays - and still endured. And if gays want to go beyond mere protest to more violent physical protest against Mormons, I hope the Mormon church remembers two words: MOUNTAIN MEADOWS!
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:36 PM
Firefox
Firefox, this isn’t about throwing anything in Christians’ faces. And I hope you’re wrong, I hope I can persuade people that passing these amendments against same sex marriage is wrong. Because for the reasons I’ve stated, Christians, who claim marriage is sacred, are put in the awkward position of endorsing permissible state marriage for devil-worshipers and pagans and heathens.

It bothers me more, though, that these kinds of legal machinations may be driven more my hatred than love.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:46 PM
Jeffery, The LDS Church never endorsed
anything that involves homosexuality. CNN.com is WRONG. They have stated the LDS Church's stance on homosexuality VERY incorrectly.
Give me a reference that is credible.
Stan writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:51 PM
It's all about Acceptance...
The radical homosexual crowd does not want the right to become "married". It's not a matter of legal advantages of "marriage" over "civil unions" - if it were then they would simply be working on defining a "civil union". It's not a matter of work place discrimination - we already have a ton of labor laws that deal with this. It's not all the other issues that they try to bring up to hide the real agenda.

It is a matter of societal acceptance. They don't want equal rights - they want our acceptance. To that end, regardless of what laws they pass, what judgements are made by the courts, how many of them there are... or any other factor - they will never attain my acceptance or the acceptance of a majority of America.

The plain fact is that a homosexual couple is not equivalent to a heterosexual couple - physically or socially. If you are honest with history, a majority of societies who have accepted homosexuality as a legitimate part of the societal structure have seen decline and demise.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:52 PM
Jeffrey, your hatred is your choice.
Kind of like homosexuality. Supporters of Prop 8 don't hate the LGBT groups. We may hate the behavior, but we don't hate the individual. While there may be a few people that take a hateful stance, they do not reflect 99% of rational people.
However, when I see 10,000 Prop 8 opponents marching through the streets with hateful signs, yelling hateful things, lying about equality, your percentage of rational people is much, much lower.
Ind Observer writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:57 PM
CA Constitution
Being a resident of CA, I can share what I have read on the subject of amending the state constitution. There are two ways it can be amended, by a two-thirds vote of the legislature or by a majority vote of citizens( re Prop 8) One of the legal arguments the NO on 8 crowd is now trying to use is that Prop 8 is not an amendment but a revision to the constitution. This same argument was made in a lawsuit trying to remove Prop 8 from the ballot. The judges ruled against the No on 8 crowd then, and I assume they will do the same again. But, this is CA so you never know. I have read that the 9th circuit is the circuit most overturned by the US Supreme court.
billh writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 1:59 PM
10 questions
1) Can a gay man marry a woman? Answer: YES

2) Can a lesiban woman marry a man? Answer: YES

3) Is anyone stopping questions 1 and 2 from happening?: Answer NO

4) What is marriage? Answer: Common Law (laymans terms) Def. 1: A union between man and woman created by law, or recgonized by law. Common Religion (laymans terms) Def. 2: A covenant union between Man, Woman and God, which surpasses all human made law and is bound by heavenly rule.

5) Can two gay men have a common law union? Answer YES, get a lawyer and draw it up, it can be done.

6) Can two gay women have a common law union? Answer: Yes, get a lawyer and draw it up, it can be done.

7) Can two gay men, or two gay women be married based on religious dictates? Answer: NO. The bible clearly states that homosexuality is against the rule of God, therefore, the covenant cannot be created between God and two same sex people.

8) Can Gay men and women marry in a Catholic Church? Answer: NO, see number seven.

9) Can Gay men and women create a partnership in a courthouse, lawyers office, park, or other non church/religios area? Answer: Yes.

10) Can man overrule the rule of GOD and demand that marriage be between two gay men or two gay women and therefore allow the couples to be married in a Catholic church? Answer: NO, despite what we do here with man made laws, we cannot change the rule of God. However, the gay/lesiban agenda will succede and eventually, there will be two gay men who will want to get married in a Catholic church...the church will say NO, the couple will take the church to court. An activitist judge will rule against the rule of God.

This is what we are facing...scary isnt it?
R.D. writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:00 PM
Shoes Are You Sure?
In CA we are one of the juridictions that has an initiative process. So, think real hard about what that means, majority or not!
Swampfox writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:01 PM
firefox22
To say that "Christians have been recipients of bigotry for centuries. You don’t see us running down to congress to institute laws to stop people from calling us names, mocking our beliefs." Just what kind of tree did you fall from? There are churches everywhere. And, if you would like to get a list of their lobbying efforts........... you can get list of them on the Internet as easy as myself. Oh, I am a gay Christian that votes Republican.
Marco writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:04 PM
Missing the point on the US Constitution
A number of posters have commented that a majority vote, rather than a vote by elected officials, is at variance with the US Constitution. Simply put, this is wrong. The US Constitution is silent in reference to Prop 8 in California. The US Constituion is a document for the Federal government. It only addresses the states as follows: 1 - to declare the states sovereign; 2 - to prevent the states from treating each other as foreign nations; 3 - disallows the states from creating laws that are in conflict with the Federal laws; 4 - grants all actions not reserved to the Federal government to the states. There is no provision for a referendum in the US Constitution. We can only create Federal laws through our elected officials (abuses of that system not withstanding). The states can enact laws however they wish. They could hold zebra lassoing contests if they wanted. Prop 8 was purely a state function subject only to the laws of the State of California. Therefore, any reference to the US Constitution in regards to the process of Prop 8 is pointless. Now, as to the results of enacting Prop 8, one could talk about the 4TH, 9TH, 10th, and 14th Ammendments of the US Constitution; but that is a completely different discussion.
SkorpioG writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:05 PM
TO Laura
Interesting interpretations of that Leviticus verse. Here's a website that offers various points of view on that verse, including varying levels of translation, transliteration, and interpretation by several different religious scholars.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:05 PM
Standshisground...
I only went off of your quote: "But if Obama had openly campaigned as a doctrinnaire communist and had openly stated his intention to turn the U.S., if he was elected, into a communist totalitarian state, all the money in the world wouldn't have bought him the White House."

If I misunderstood this as simply conjecture, then I apologize. But around here on TH, you've got got give me the benefit of the doubt that when people mention communism & Obama, it's usually because they agree that he is. So when you said "If" I took that to mean that you meant "If he only ran on what he truly believes", which is common belief around here. Again, if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

But you even said in your last post that the MAJORITY of votes needed to pass these Amendments are majorities in the House of Reps & the Senate...not the majority of public opinion. That's the way our gov't was set up.

This is why Prop 8 should never have been put to a popular vote...and people keep saying that it overwhelmingly passed and the people have spoken. I can agree with you to a point. But 52-48% on something that couldn't get 20% just 20 years ago shows a lot of progress being made. It is the elderly vote that passed this Prop 8...as they pass on, the younger generations will become the majority...and the courts as well as popular vote will pass this. That's just math.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:12 PM
Trampling
Why do you hate the sin of homosexuality so strongly, but don't hate the sin of adultery enough to work to make it illegal? How do you prioritize the sins? Adultery is one of the Ten Commandments.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:14 PM
Kudos to Skorpio!
Religioustolerance.org is one of my favorite faith websites (ok, probably the only one LOL) that I like to visit. I wish I had thought to bring it up in here. Thank you for doing so!
1910 liberal writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:20 PM
fundamentals
I think that the fundamentals are being dismissed here. We need to ask ourselves why marriage is important and to what purpose does it serve our society. This is not about a certain religion as, since Sumeria, every society has recognized a need for some contract that binds individuals as a family. The argument that it is solely to ensure that a species does not become extinct does not hold because all that is required for this condition is sex and millions of one parent households can attest to this. I would propose that a much more cogent reason for the establishment of contractual marriage is to ensure that the lessons and values of one generation are passed on to the next so that society does not regress. To this end anything that results in the weakening of this purpose inflicts harm on a society. While much is done to weaken this purpose within families, a society that seeks to redefine the intentions of this contract will certainly regress and we have and are.
SkorpioG writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:22 PM
To Jeffrey
You're welcome. Most opposition to homosexuality originates from the Bible, specifically Leviticus 18:22 and 18:24. Supporters then feel that Paul's letters are an echo of those two original verses.

I strongly suggest people check out the interpretation by both conservative and liberal religious scholars and make up their own minds. I find the Jewish rabbi's comments interesting, especially the part about the Torah only applying to Jews. Again, food for thought, but I doubt many people will be swayed either way.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:24 PM
Jeffrey, you assume much.
I think homosexuality and adultery are both sins. I think your going to hell for both. However, you miss the point. No one is denying you the right to do what you want in private.

It isn't about making one thing illegal and the other thing legal. It is about the forward thinking agenda of the LGBT crowd that want to take this WAY beyond equality and force this behavior as normal and destroy the basic family.

I do think it is funny to argue about equality and behavior, when homosexuals readily admit they engage in a deviant behavior. You know it is an abnormal behavior, yet you continue to push the rationale. I guess it must make you feel better. I don't hate you for it. I just feel bad that you don't find the opposite sex attractive. It's much more simple.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:29 PM
Billh is right, sorta
Bill h says:

…”despite what we do here with man made laws, we cannot change the rule of God. However, the gay/lesiban agenda will succede and eventually, there will be two gay men who will want to get married in a Catholic church...the church will say NO, the couple will take the church to court. An activitist judge will rule against the rule of God.”

So true! We cannot change the rule of God, even by changing secular law! So who cares what secular law says (please obey all secular laws, thank you in advance LOL!)? Christians have their marching orders from Christ. I don’t believe Churches will be in much danger of being forced to do anything they don’t want to do. Well, unless they want to start stoning people again, or holding slaves. But otherwise, if a same sex couple approaches a church and demands a religious ceremony, the church can say no on theological grounds: we only marry people of our faith and/or who haven’t sinned. It’s a weak argument, since Churches routinely marry people who sin, and it’s odd to want to call out homosexuality as some “special” sin that needs to be given special treatment.
Ind Observer writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:31 PM
Adultery
Numerous studies about divorce have shown that adultery was the number one cause. In others adultery took second place to financial issues. Less divorce and less adultery would certainly benefit society as a whole. So, Jeffrey, if you want to push for laws banning adultery, go for it.
Swampfox writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:32 PM
To trampling
Trampling writes, "homosexuals readily admit that they engage in deviant behavior." Friend, let me burst your bubble, heterosexuals engage in the same kind of behavior that homosexuals engage in.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:34 PM
A bit presumptuous
Trampling, what makes you think I'm a homosexual? I'm just looking at the theological arguments of Christianity, as best as a lay person can, and wonder why homosexuality gets a Sarah Palin-style "shout out" while other sins, even those that violate any of the Ten Commandments, get the silent treatment.

If same sex couples agree not to have sex, can they get married? You still ok with God-hating devil worshipers enjoying the blessed God-given sacrament of marriage?
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:38 PM
Marco
You said: "We can only create Federal laws through our elected officials (abuses of that system not withstanding). The states can enact laws however they wish. They could hold zebra lassoing contests if they wanted. Prop 8 was purely a state function subject only to the laws of the State of California. Therefore, any reference to the US Constitution in regards to the process of Prop 8 is pointless."

Agreed. You're 100% correct. But this is indeed why the Supreme Court was necessary in desegregation...because they never would have passed if left to the majority vote of each state.

I guess we're just not far enough along in this battle yet. But in the end, it will get there, of that there is no doubt. CA will, in time, repeal Prop 8. And other states will continue to do what MA & CT have done...and as more states do it, it will eventually head to the Surpeme Court and they'll decide (most likely) in allowing same sex marriages.

Of course this is just my opinion, but in cases of civil rights, the rights of the people who are being denied tend to be upheld.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:45 PM
Swampfox, what is your point?
I made that statement to point out the fact that homosexuality is abnormal and homosexuals KNOW it is abnormal. Same for abnormal heterosexual behavior. I don't hear heterosexuals engaging in abnormal sexual behavior shoving their agenda into normal context. It's all wrong.

No bubble bursted here.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:50 PM
Prop 8 opposition acting like children.
What does a child to when he/she doesn't get their way? They fall on the ground and kick and scream.

YOU LOST! Get over it. Start your own initiative and pass it. Until then, quiet, the adults are trying to work.


Another thing, do the No on Prop 8 crowd have jobs? I don't have time to march at 2pm on a weekday. Or do they all wait tables at night?
SueDi writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:51 PM
Intolerable...
Why do these protestors act like babies and spoiled brats? Because they are! They force themselves onto us for the sole purpose of being in control. They want to rule. They want to say what is correct. Tell them, no you can't have that, and they throw a fit! Call it something else. Call it a same sex union. No, no! We want it to be called Marriage.

They want their small group to change our beliefs. Churches should be able to decide whether they want to marry same sex couples, but that right will be lost. Their beliefs must be our beliefs. Their lifestyle must be accepted totally, without question, with government enforcement.

Once again, the minority tries to rule the majority. And, they will probably succeed.

Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:53 PM
Jeffrey...
How do you not know this by now? On the TH website, if you happen to agree with the rights of homsexuals, people here will assume that you are. It's a stupid assumption, but [most] people here simply cannot fathom standing up for what is right, even if it doesn't benefit you, yourself. I'm not going to go so far to say that this represents most Conservative's thinking, but it certainly represents most of those who comment on the TH message boards.

So of course you and I (and others) will be assumed to be homosexuals by them. I'm happily married with my first child due in May. But typing that out on the message board won't change people's opinions here...they'll simply never believe that anyone fighting for gay rights isn't gay. And that's a big part of their problem.
Swampfox writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 2:58 PM
To trampling
OK, I will be stupid and ask, just what do consider "abnormal" sexual behavior between heterosexual couples?
Mustang Freddy writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:03 PM
Barf
Please. The first comment I read was about segregation. How is gay marriage like segregation? Gays have distinct water fountains, bathrooms, seats on the bus, schools?

Stop the irrelevant BS and debate the issue intellectually if you can. BTW, the author's comments about the hate and intolerance of the protestors is spot on.

Why do people want same sex marriage? Acceptance. Guess what, you'll never get acceptance of an abnormal, unnatural sexual lifestyle from the manistream. Most of us accept you as people, as our friends and neighbors. We accept your lifestyle but do not approve of it, therefore we will not sanction the religious sanctification of your actions. Homosexuality may not be a choice, but engaging in homosexual sex is. This issue will never be resolved, regardless of elections and court decisions, because it's almost purely emotional. Marriage is not a right provided for in the US constitution therefore article 10 allows the states to make these decisions as long as they don't violate the US constitution. Prop 8 lost, get over it, regroup, and maybe try a more subtle approach than beating up old women and disrupting the church services of the people whose support you seek.

Rant complete.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:03 PM
1910 liberal
You say that we as a society are regressing, but I ask you, what are we regressing to? Gay marriage in no way threatens heterosexual marriages or families and I have yet to hear an argument that consists of more than just conjecture and theory about this.
When our society has moved forward to the point when same sex marriage is allowed and part of the social fabric, then marriage will be doing exactly what you say in that it is passing on the value's and lessons of one generation to the next. This already happens anyway and the value's and lessons that are passed on are those of the parents themselves and not necessarily in line with society as a whole. If two parents are open-minded and do not teach their children that same-sex marriage is wrong, they are passing on their value's and marriage is doing exactly what you say it's purpose is. The value's and lessons passed on just aren't in line with your own.

Trampling Out The Vintage,

You put forth the claim that homosexual marriage will destroy families. Please provide some basis and evidence for this claim. I realize that you're going to say that marriage is between a man and a woman but this is not proof that homosexual marriage will destroy families, just proof that it does not mix with your morals and thus, not really proof of anything. It's a rather large claim made by a great many opponents of gay marriage and it's never explained, just put forth as an unquestionable reason whose validity seems to be based only on the act of saying it.
Jeffrey writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:04 PM
Ind Observer
Indy Observer, what I really want is for people who claim to be Christians to “love your neighbor as yourself,” and maybe even be a little less hypocritical about their Christianity. Why target same sex marriage? Why not go after infidel marriage, skinhead marriage, Muslim marriage, devil worshiper marriage? For economy of words, to eliminate these and other groups from enjoying a heaping helping of Christian marriage, shouldn’t Proposition 8 have read: “Marriage is between one Christian man and one Christian woman”?
Standshisground writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:05 PM
Shoes
Apology accepted. And if I was rather harsh on you in your having misunderstood me, as I was, then I apologize.

Regarding what prompted Proposition 8 in the first place: it's the same thing that has prompted initiatives over a lot of social issues in a lot of states over the years. Mainly, that people are sick of JUDGES trying to dictate to them.

If there REALLY is such a sufficient groundswell for same-sex marriage in this country to make it a practice: well then, let the people vote on it and demonstrate that groundswell. I feel the same on abortion. I oppose abortion, but if there's really enough of a national popular groundswell to prove that a majority of the nation wants it, then I say, let the people vote on it. And if their votes say that the preponderance of the American people want to keep abortion legal, I may not be happy with that vote, but I'll live with it.

But the political left, which operates under the name of the DEMOCRATIC Party, in fact is trying to take the matter of deciding issues OUT of the realm of democratic resolution as much as possible and putting it into the hands of unelected judges. It's done so with abortion, and it's trying to do so now with same-sex marriage.

Margaret Hoover, a sometime guest on Bill O'Reilly's show and a supporter of same-sex marriage (odd for a direct descendant of Republican president Herbert Hoover), feels the same way YOU do: that as the older generation dies off and the younger generation, more accepting of some things that the older generation isn't, gains the balance of power, THAT'S when we will have same-sex marriage.
Shoes writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:05 PM
trampling out the vintage...
So by your rationale, will the pro-choice movement just give up as well?? Since they had 3 ballot initiatives on Nov 4th (in SD, CO, and CA) and they were all rejected by a majority vote...

So, it's over, right? Abortion is legal, and there's no more point arguing it from a pro-life standpoint, right??
Mustang Freddy writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:08 PM
oops
Sorry, ranted a bit too quickly. Of course I meant to say prop 8 'passed'.

My bad.
Mustang Freddy writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:12 PM
nate
"When our society has moved forward to the point when same sex marriage is allowed and part of the social fabric, then marriage will be doing exactly what you say in that it is passing on the value's and lessons of one generation to the next."
-----

We have moved forward to accept homosexuals and their relationships. Twenty years ago this entire debate would endanger the lives of same-sex marriage supporters. We've come a long way in the acceptance of homosexuality. What's the harm if it takes another twenty years to get same sex marraige accepted as mainstream, as long as you have the same legal RIGHTS as everyone else?? We are talking about peoples beliefs, morals, values...which should not be dismissed simply because you disagree with them.
AmericanWoman writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:23 PM
No more science, no more dictionary...
two men are not the same as a man and a woman, look it up in your science books or the dictionary, or do we have to throw them all in the trash, along with reality, to fulfill someone else's fantasy, now? That's not fair to ask, it's mental. Civil Unions would have given them the same rights, so obviously, this is not about rights. Don't expect so many kids going to rotten California schools to figure anything out on their own, they can't even pass a test. Activists know this, they are diabolical and deliberately exploit their ignorance for gain. Well, it didn't work, so tough luck. Try New England. ;)

Jabba the Rush writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:24 PM
Gays and Guns
I'm sure most of you would be protesting and rioting the same if there was a public vote that passed and then the government came in to take away your guns.

Just sayin'
AmericanWoman writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:25 PM
We are regressing in
BRAIN POWER.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:41 PM
Mustang Freddy
There's nothing wrong with that. Social change is rarely a revolution. And you're right that twenty years ago this would be a different conversation and that progress has been made.

I also agree that nobodies morals, values, and beliefs should be dismissed. That's actually the heart of the debate because the morals, values, and beliefs of homosexuals ARE being dismissed. They are being demonized as being the downfall of society as we know it.

My support of same-sex marriage goes as far as local, state, and federal governments making same-sex marriage completely identical to hetero marriage in the way those institutions treat it. An earlier poster referred to a hypothetical situation in the future where a same-sex couple sues a catholic church for the right to be married and recognized by the catholic church. Once we stray into that territory, my support ends. The government has no right to legislate religious law and I will oppose any measures by the government, should they ever come to pass, that tries to force religious institutions to allow same-sex marriage. Religion and government need to be completely separate and stay out of each other's business.

I am a proponent of choice and equality in almost all situations and I will use my voice and my vote to always fight in favor of it.

On a related note, the Fairness Doctrine is absolutely stupid and I have already written my Democratic congressmen to voice my feelings on that.
Ind Observer writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:43 PM
Jeffrey
Why all the animosity towards Christians? Christians are not the only ones who voted for Prop 8. If you think marriage should only be allowed between a Christian couple, then by all means do whatever you can to get that law passed. (Good luck with that, by the way) Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, and not all Christians oppose same sex marriage.

More than half of the states have defined marriage as between one man and one woman in their constitutions. The Federal Government only recognizes marriage between a man and a woma. Whether you disagree or not, it's the law of the land. If someday, the majority of people want same sex marriage, I'm sure laws will change. Someday people may want four brothers, three sisters and their pet dog to all marry each other but that's not the case right now.

Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:50 PM
AmericanWoman
Education has nothing to do with being for or against same-sex marriage. You are absolutely right that two men are not the same as a man and a woman and no one is asking to throw away science textbooks. Yes, boys and girls have different no-no parts but that really only affects reproduction. There are plenty of hetero couples who do not have children and marriage is much more than a vehicle to be used for reproduction.

The tone of your post gives me the impression that you think there is some vicious hidden agenda that the supporters of same-sex marriage are trying to perpetrate on American society. If that is the case, please elaborate on what you think that is. If it isn't, I apologize for getting the wrong impression.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 3:56 PM
Ind Observer
You're absolutely right, it is the law of the land in some states. That's what those of us who support same-sex marriage are trying to change. An argument could be made that equal rights are due everyone, regardless of majority opinion, and they usually cite the civil rights movement.

You're also correct that not all Christians oppose same sex marriage. Opposition to same-sex marriages are not confined to religious people.
The Pet Goat writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 4:56 PM
The more I read...
on the defintion of tax exempt status, the more I am convinced that the Mormons' should be seriously investigated.

I, for one, will be burnig all my Donnie and Marie LPs.
Screwtape writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 5:21 PM
Teflon Don
Comparing gay marriage and the right to bare arms is infantile. Just sayin...
Screwtape writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 5:22 PM
The Pet Goat
So you are saying that if a member of a said church is involved in political activity the said church should lose it's tax expempt status? HAH!
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 5:33 PM
Screwtape
He wasn't comparing them. He was making an example about what someone would do if a majority vote got rid of the 2nd amendment.

His point was that you probably wouldn't sit back and do nothing if that happened. You would go out and protest. But by the logic and arguments of some of the posters here, if you did so, you would be wrong and should just accept it.

Something to consider. Are you all sure the founders weren't avid taxidermists and really meant that everyone had the right to BEAR arms. :)
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Swampfox, I'm not going there.
I will say normal would be two consenting, married adults of the opposite sex.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:08 PM
Shoes, dumb analogy
I am truly saddened by the failure of those ballot initiatives. However, other initiatives can be presented and voted on.

All I am saying is that stamping your feet on the steps of Town Hall isn't accomplishing anything except making themselves look foolish. Californians voted. Prop 8 passed. Bashing Mormons for financially backing the Prop isn't going to change anything.
Trampling out the vintage writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:22 PM
Nate, you need proof?
If you can't readily admit that a child having a male parent and a female parent in the home is better that a homosexual couple, I can't help you.

Why did blacks and hispanics vote overwhelmingly to support Prop 8? Why are the Gays not rioting in east LA?

If you continue to ask stupid questions, so will I.

Laura writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:40 PM
Jeffrey - I said today we do not
put people to death for that sin. The reason is we practice what the bibles syas: Thou shalt not kill. And remebmer, the Lord said, Vengeance is mine. Just because we do not like something or someone does not mean we can kill them for it, but at the same time we don't have to accept it as being all right when the bible says it is not.
and you can tell me if you think two males or two males could reproduce. Yu and I know they can not. and did the Lord not say go forth and replwnish the earth? Well same sex partners wouldn't have done a very good job at that would they? Plus which, the method used for male/male sex is disgusting beyond imagination.
Laura writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:42 PM
Jeez the mistakes I made in
that last post are atrocious. Sorry, the subject puts me in a bad frame of mind.
eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:46 PM
Defiant same-sex sodomites are treated

exactly as are heterosexuals in the arena of government sanctioned marriage.

To say otherwise is to deliberately lie or to be deluded and denied the use of reason because of their mental or emotional illness.

I say, stand up to their lies. Do not stand silently while they say these total falsehoods about being the victimes of discrimination. Challenge their irrational utterances at every opportunity. The truth will win out.
eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 6:47 PM
Laura,

disgusting and perverted I might add.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:07 PM
Trampling Out The Vintage
I didn't ask you for help, I asked you a question that you ducked instead of answering. Want to try again?

To answer your other two questions, I don't know why blacks and hispanics voted in favor of prop 8. I'm missing the point as to why that's relevant. Also, I don't know why homosexuals in East L.A. are not rioting. Again though, I'm missing the relevance. Please explain.
Gunlock Bill writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:08 PM
Nate
"Please provide some basis and evidence for this claim."

Based on history, can you show me a single society that long (or short) survived after embracing homosexuality?

I am just sayin!
LLR writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:10 PM
Pet Goat
Says:on the defintion of tax exempt status, the more I am convinced that the Mormons' should be seriously investigated.


You better check into your Messiahs Church don't you think? Politics from the Church Pew?

Would Obammi be offended by you Goat?

Shame on you Goat, going against everything your Messiahs Rev Does?
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:14 PM
Eddie
Homosexuals are not treated the same way in government sanctioned marriage. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I believe only 4 states allow some sort of domestic partnership or civil union(I may be wrong on this number so I apologize in advance, there may be one or two that I possibly missed). The other 46 states, give or take, have either banned same-sex marriage outright or have no laws on their books that allow it.

This will change in the future as younger generations vote but for now, it's safe to say that same-sex marriage is anything but sanctioned the same as heterosexual marriage in government.

I am happy to report that, contrary to your post, I am free of mental defects and illnesses. As for most of your final paragraph, minus 6 words, quoted below:

"I say, stand up to their lies. Do not stand silently while they say these total falsehoods..(deleted). Challenge their irrational utterances at every opportunity. The truth will win out."

I couldn't agree more and I will wholeheartedly take your advice. Thanks for the inspiration.
eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:14 PM
Same-sex sodomites have lost all

use of reason. Now in CA they are blacklisting businesses whose owners donated to Yes on Prop 8.

What do they think will happen to the businesses of same-sex sodomites or those who contributed to defeating Prop 8?

Do they really think they can win a blacklisting battle? Just more evidence that the defiant practioners of same-sex sodomy have lost their use of reason.

Trust me, I will be first in line to blacklist or boycott businesses supportive of the approval of same-sex sodomy if that is the direction the defiant same-sex sodomites want to take this dispute.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:19 PM
Gunlock Bill
Well that's a good point. But I could just as easily argue that there hasn't been a society that embraced it and failed. I'm not sure that there's been a society that has embraced it at all. Still, an interesting point.
eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:22 PM
Nate,

try reading with comprehension, your defiant same-sex lifestyle is affecting your use of reason and you do not even know it.

Heterosexual males are prohibited from marrying other heterosexual males and heterosexual females face the same restrictions.

This has nothing to do with your habit of same-sex sodomy. If it did, the prohibition would be applied only to those who proclaim their addiction to same-sex sodomy. The prohibition applies to all humans whether they practice same-sex sodomy or heterosexual coitus. Both are treated the same. There is no discrimination when everyone is treated the same.

Or is your argument that same-sex couples should receive the benefits of opposite-sex couple regardless of their sexual orientation or practices. That would be a cool way for everyone to job the system. In that case however, what does the number of people in the relationship matter or the degree of hereditary closeness?

Trying living a chaste and pure life and maybe your use of reason will begin to function again.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:23 PM
Eddie
Interesting point. I don't think that I can because I don't think there have been any societies that have really embraced it. A point worth doing some research on though.

At the same time, I could just as easily argue that there has not been a society that has embraced it and failed.

Just sayin :)
Gunlock Bill writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:27 PM
Nate
Well there was Sodom.

And there was Pompey.

And who know how many others. It isn't like Homosexuality is something new.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:36 PM
Eddie
I am not gay. I live with my fiance, her two young sons from a previous marriage, and our beautiful daughter. They are 5, 3 1/2, and 2 1/2. Since I've given absolutely no details at all about my personal life, how did you come to the conclusion that I was gay and living an impure lifestyle? Perhaps it is not my reasoning skills that are not functioning.

I am well aware that same-sex couples can't get married. That's kind of, you know, the whole point of this conversation.

Yes, that is exactly my argument though. Same-sex couples should receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

For now, lets stick with marriage between two people since polygamy is a whole other issue that not even heterosexual couples are allowed to engage in.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:43 PM
Gunlock Bill
Sodom was a story from the bible. There is no evidence other than the bible to say that the city suffered from embracing homosexuality. In any case, both of your examples are over 2000 years old.
eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 7:44 PM
Nate,

we know what you think. We are looking for a reason that justifies your position. Repeating something over and over, like same-sex couples should be allowed to get married is meaningless if there is not reason for believing such a proposition.

Why should same-sex couples be allowed to get married?

For example, a reason would be that marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It is not a very good reason or a valid reason, but at least it is a reason.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:11 PM
Eddie
If you read some of my posts in this comment section from earlier in the day, I've given my reasons on why I think same-sex couples should not be barred from marriage.

Anyway, to save you some time. I believe same-sex marriages should be legal only so far as the government is concerned. Religion is entirely different and I've already said I don't support the government forcing religious institutions to recognize marriage or perform marriages in their respective places of worship.

Marriage is about commitment, love, honesty, trust, and family. It's about making a pact with someone that you feel you want to unite your life with. Marriages between a man and a woman or two men or two women are all the same except for one thing and that's reproduction. But reproduction isn't really necessary anymore, there are 6 billion people in the world. If there a few same-sex marriages that don't produce offspring, the world is not going to be worse off for it. They can always adopt because there are plenty of children without parents in state institutions and orphanages who need a loving family. I realize that you would never agree with that but what children need above all else is guidance, love, encouragement, education, and discipline. These are not things that only a heterosexual couple can give. You can huff and puff all you'd like, you can tell me how much that would outrage you, how it's a sin, and every other subjective reason you can come up with and it won't make it any less true.

Most of all though, there’s just no valid reason why they shouldn’t, other than that it would offend the sensibilities of people. It doesn’t present a threat to society because there is nothing threatening about two people who love each other. They’re not asking for special treatment like an extra tax break or interest-free loans. They are simply asking for the same rights granted to homosexual couples, rights that if they had, would not affect anyone but themselves.
eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:39 PM
Nate,

I disagree that equating same-sex sodomy with natural heterosexual intercourse does not harm anyone.

The two acts are intrinsically different. Saying they are the same and should be treated the same is false. When society makes its laws based on false premises, everyone suffers.

You yourself said same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are intrinsically different in the aspect that one can produce offspring and the other cannot. Then you say that does not matter to you. However, procreation has always been a part of marriage.

You want to eliminate marriage for the reason that children can thrive equally well with two dads or two mothers as they can with a mother and a father. You state this as though it is a fact when in fact all studies disprove you.

Currently, all men and women are treated the same when it comes to the institution of marriage. Their sexual orientation is irrelevant to how they are treated. You want same-sex couples to be included in marriage, but you would deny that to brothers, or sisters, or fathers and sons or mothers and daughters. When you develop a consistent position, I would be interested in hearing it.

Let me summarize, 1) it is irrational for the government to declare that two intrinsically different acts are the same; 2) procreation has always been part of marriage, if you change that than traditional marriage no longer exists; 3) children thrive best when raised by a mother and a father, your opinions do not negate the studies that have been performed; 4) your position is the discriminatory position because it is inconsistent and denies the very thing you support to brothers or sisters or mothers and daughters or uncles and nephews.
Swampfox writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:54 PM
To Trampling
So anything that goes on between a married heterosexual couple is normal ......... but, the same act(s) between a homosexual couple is(are) abnormal. That is about what you say. Thanks for confirming it.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 8:57 PM
Eddie
The government does not have to declare anything at all about the differences in sexual intercourse that occur between a man and a woman or two men or two women. Why would you think that the government is even concerned, or should be, with what kind of sex people are having? Whose right is it to dictate policy based on the type of intercourse someone has?

Your claim that without procreation, traditional marriage no longer exists is baseless. If they legalized same-sex marriages, do you honestly believe that people would not bother to get married anymore because they don’t see the point? Would people start divorcing all over the place because all of a sudden their marriage is meaningless? What about the married couples who can not or choose not to have children? Should they have even bothered getting married? You act like procreation is the ONLY point of marriage and it’s simply not. Marriage can be about whatever the people getting married want it to be about because in the eyes of the government, a marriage is a marriage regardless of the reasons for it.

I’d really like to see the results of ALL the studies you claim prove that children raised in homosexual homes do worse cause I've seen or read of none. Who were these studies done by and funded by? It might even interest you to know that conservative icon Bill O’Reily himself has said that he is not against homosexual adoption because studies have shown that children raised by same sex couples are no different than children raised by hetero couples.

And honestly, I have no idea what you’re even trying to say when you’re talking about mothers, fathers, sisters, and daughters and uncles. Are you saying it’s not fair that they can’t get married and that I should also be advocating incestual marriage? If so, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard that line of reasoning and there’s probably a reason for that.
Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:16 PM
Eddie
Here is one study that refutes your claim. The study showed that children of same sex couples are no different than children of hetero sex couples and in fact, did better than children in single parent hetero homes in some cases.

An excerpt:

"Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress."

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same -sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids?page=1

eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:20 PM
Nate,

you sound like you are saying that marriage would have two meanings, the traditional one and your new meaning which is any relationship that you find acceptable.

That is not the use of reason.

You oppose a father and a son. Their are no procreation issues. They are two men. You just apparently find it objectionable for some reason that you cannot or will not explain.

Currently, marriage is between a man and a woman. That allows for natural human intercourse. You say that facet of marrriage is irrelevant to the issue, even though it has always been the requirement.

You are the first person I have ever read argue that sexual activities have nothing to do with government sanctioned marriage. On what do you base that conclusion? Particularly, when not consummating a marriage renders it invalid.

eddie writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 9:26 PM
Nate,

let me make it simple, one question.

Why do you want the government to replace traditional marriage with relationships that meet only your standards?

One question, one answer, that should be simple enough.

Nate writes: Thursday, November, 13, 2008 10:46 PM
Eddie
I don't want the government to replace marriage with anything. Marriage between a man and a woman would not be any different than it is now if same-sex marriages were made legal. I'm not even sure why you think it would. If marriage was no longer limited to a man and a woman, would that change the reasons that people get married?

Also, not cosummating a marriage does not render it invalid automatically, but only if and when one of the parties involved seeks an annulment. Even with that, same-sex couples would have no problem consummating a marriage as the definition requires only that sexual intercourse take place. It does not specify what kind of intercourse. It also does not require that a marriage produce children.

I never said that sex had nothing to do with government and marriage as obviously adultery is grounds for a divorce. What I said was, the government doesn't care what KIND of sex you're having whether it be anal, oral, vaginal, or in the ear.

I don't even care if you call it marriage or not, I just use the term because it's the most common to describe what I'm talking about. I've stated since the beginning that I only care about same sex marriage from a legal sense in that I don't want my government discriminating against homosexuals. You can call it whatever you want, as long as it consists of every single legal right given to a heterosexual married couple.

As far as this incest thing you keep pushing, is there a national movement to legalize incestual marriage? I can honestly say I have not really put much thought into that issue but you know what, right after we get same-sex marriages legalized, I'll look into it for you. Baby steps. I will say that with the amount of incestual marriages that would actually happen, it would affect an even less percentage of people than same-sex marriages.

It's getting late and I am going to bed. We can continue this discussion tomorrow.
eddie too writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 11:02 AM
Nate,

under your system marriage would not be between a man and a woman. It would be between what ever social relationships have enough political power.

Just because a man and a woman choose to enter into this new definition does not mean the new definition of marriage is the same as the definition of traditional marriage.

Traditional marriage is what marriage is now. You want to eliminate it.

What two people do in their hearts have nothing to do with the government.

You talk about love and commitment and sacrifice as being part of government sanctioned marriage. Surely you are not serious. To get a marriage license does not require any of those things.
eddie too writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 12:54 PM
Nate,

explain how the government is currently discriminating (illegally) against homosexuals.
Nate writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 2:01 PM
Eddie Too
I never said the government is discriminating illegally against homosexuals. They are not because the law does not grant the right of marriage to people of the same sex. Illegality is not a prerequisite for discrimination i.e. separate-but-equal, jim crow, school segregation, etc.

I also did not imply that love and commitment are legal requirements of marriage. Obviously they are not. What I said was, everyone's reason for marrying is different and is not at all limited to procreation.

You and I are in total agreement that what people have in their hearts is no business of the government.

But you keep saying that traditional marriage will be destroyed. Is the only thing that makes marriage as it is now special and worth doing is that it's between a man and a woman? This is the question that never seems to get an answer. Why don't we take a poll of heterosexual married couples across the country. In it, we'll present a situation where same-sex marriages were legalized. We'll ask them two questions.

Question 1: Is your marriage now devoid of meaning and rendered pointless now that marriage is no longer limited to a man and a woman?
Question 2: Do you plan to seek an annulment or a divorce on the grounds that your marriage is no longer sacred and meaningful?

What do you think the results of that poll would be?

Do you think young boys and girls dreaming of their futures are thinking to themselves:

"Gosh, I can't wait to get married so I can procreate. My marriage is going to be so special because it's between one man and one woman."
OR
Do you think they're dreaming of this:

"I hope someday I meet that special someone that wants to spend their life with me, inspires me, is honest with me, stands up for me, wants to start a family with me, treats me like I'm the most special thing in their life, and loves me more than anything else."
Laura writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 2:26 PM
Deny the bible, you deny the truth

The bible says that homosexuality is a sin in several places, try Leviticus 20:13 for starters. So if it is a sin and the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

I would ask any of you: HOW CAN IT NOT BE A SIN FOR TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO MARRY given the information above??

Background
Gen. 2:18, 21-24
Nate writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 3:18 PM
Laura
With all due respect to your beliefs, you cannot use the bible to make secular law. I realize that some of our laws are based on the same principles taught by Christ and others in biblical times but you cannot make modern law around biblical text.

It's especially not fair to those of us who are not christian. I realize that this nation was founded by Christians but our Constitution was not written that way and does not define our country as a Christian nation. The first amendment which guarantee's freedom of religion also guarantees freedom from religion. That is why state and church are separate and must stay that way.

I realize that for you personally, the bible is the source of your beliefs and is very sacred to you. I mean no disrespect to your faith when I say that you cannot apply the laws of your faith to the rest of us. I am an agnostic and I do not believe the bible to be anything more than a book of stories.

Homosexuality may be a sin according to the bible, but, that is irrelevant to the legal process. We do not live in a theocracy and nobody is required to obey religious laws in this country. I know there are places where our laws and the laws in the bible overlap such as murder, theft, etc, but those are also things that you do not need a religion to tell you are wrong.

Again, I mean no disrespect to you or Christians in general, you just can't use the bible to govern people, only to govern your own beliefs and shape your own opinions.
roy writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 3:36 PM
get your own word
okay nate how about nature? gay marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman. it's bad enough that the word "gay' has already been perverted and redefined but now they want want marriage redefined? make up your own word and define it as the union between a man and man or a woman and woman; or make a word for each. quit trying to redefine something just to make yourself feel good.

roy
SkorpioG writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 3:41 PM
Hi Laura
Did you bother to take a look at the website URL I posted yesterday? The Bible verses you claim declaring homosexuality immoral have been the subject of argument by Biblical scholars for years. It all comes down to the obscure Ancient Hebrew words that were translated into Ancient Greek, then translated into Latin, then Old English, and then into Modern English. Along the way, something appears to be lost in translation.

Modern scholars aren't in agreement with what the exact meaning of ancient words were, how they were used, or what context they were meant to be used. There is considerable debate about the word choice, because other more commonly used words to describe homosexuality and the concept of abomination, were not used. Instead obscure ones were used, that don't appear to convey what the current Bible appears to say.

Leviticus has 611 pronouncements that oblige all Jews to obey. Many of them proscribe death as the punishment, such has gathering firewood on the Sabbath, or enagaging in "unclean" acts.

I'm not suggesting you alter your beliefs, but expand your horizons and make up your own mind.
roy writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 3:41 PM
edit: get your own word
okay nate how about nature? marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman. it's bad enough that the word "gay' has already been perverted and redefined but now they want marriage redefined? make up your own word and define it as the union between a man and man or a woman and woman; or make a word for each. quit trying to redefine something just to make yourself feel good.

roy
Nate writes: Friday, November, 14, 2008 7:24 PM
Roy
So your problem is that they want to call it gay "marriage"?
Luis writes: Saturday, November, 15, 2008 12:41 AM
Demoralized soceity & don't even know it
Laura is right on. It doesn't matter if you believe or don't believe in God's laws. Myself, you and the rest of humanity will be standing before him one day and have to give an account for what we chose to do with his truths. He didn't come and walk this earth for nothing. Yes, keep using your own "Understanding" to reason and justify what is wrong and immoral. Our abilities are limited ( we're merely human )He after all is the one who designed us. He left laws and rules to keep us from harm..because indeed he knew that we couldn't EVER be capable of figuring it out for ourselves!!
eddie writes: Saturday, November, 15, 2008 2:54 PM
Nate,

I think you have it backwards. You are the one who wants to change the definition. You must have a reason. Wanting to keep the definition the same does not need to be defended unless those wanting to change the definition can come up with a sound and acceptable reason why change is needed.

You are good at attacking an institution, but woefully weak for coming up with a sound reason for changing it.

If you have an argument for changing it besides, "I do not like your reasons for resisting the change", let us read it.

In a debate, the burden of proof is on those seeking a change.

So far, you have not made one sound argument for wanting to eliminate the traditional definition of marriage.
Nate writes: Monday, November, 17, 2008 9:43 AM
Luis & Eddie
We have a fundamental disagreement here. You may believe that we will all answer to a God when we die or when the rapture occurs, but I do not share your beliefs. Others do not as well. It's very important to remember, and with all due respect here, your beliefs are just that, beliefs. They are not laws in a legal sense and cannot be treated as such. If you feel that the laws set forth in the bible should be the laws of our country, write your congresspeople, protest, and use your vote to that end. Until this country becomes a theocracy, you simply cannot force people to follow your Christian laws.

Eddie, you have not presented any real reason for marriage only being between a man and a woman that doesn't involve some variation of "because that's the way it is and has always been". That's not an argument. I've made it quite clear by now that my reasons for believing that gay marriage should be legal come down to this; the government has no right to discriminate against a group of people simply because a few people might get upset about it. My reason is because the pledge of allegiance I recited everyday in elementary and high school says this; "with liberty and justice for ALL." That's the America I believe in and the America I will fight to protect and promote. There will be no harm to people's income, reputation, family life, property, and even day-to-day lives. I realize this is an uphill battle for me, as most social change is, but if you can show me real proof that gay marriage will be harmful to our society, I'll consider it. Homosexuality is finally being recognized as a sexual orientation and not a disease or a mental illness and our laws are slowly changing to reflect that. In 5, 10, maybe 15 years, same-sex marriage will be even more prevalent and I will sleep better knowing that my country's laws are not aiding those who wish to oppress people for simply wanting to be treated equally.
eddie too writes: Monday, November, 17, 2008 9:57 AM
Nate,

Same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying whether they are gay or straight.

All same-sex couples. You keep making it an issue of homosexual orientation. The facts do not support you.

The prohibition is unrelated to homosexual orientation. Until you prove otherwise you do not have a leg to stand on, unless you decide that all same-sex couples, regardless of sexual orientation, should be allowed to marry. Otherwise, you arguments are hollow and demonstrate a great lack of coherency. If you refuse to include all same-sex couples in your desire for same-sex marriage, regardless of sexual orientation, you are just advocating special preferences for people because of their sexual orientation.
Nate writes: Monday, November, 17, 2008 10:36 AM
Eddie
I never said I wanted to limit the law to apply only to homosexuals. If two same-sex people that are not homosexuals want to marry, go for it. I use homosexuals because they would probably make up 95% of the people who have a same-sex marriage and are pretty much the only ones fighting for that right. Stop making this an argument of semantics.

If you've got real evidence that same-sex marriage would be detrimental to society and break down the social structure and make all heterosexual marriages worthless, please, present it. As is to be expected with an issue like this, it is just as much an argument of personal feelings, opinions, and religion as it is about legality.

And as I've said before, if you want to make some other solution that includes all the rights of a heterosexual marriage but under a different name, I'm for that and would consider that a fair compromise as would most others. It's too much like separate-but-equal for me to be really comfortable with it but it would preserve traditional marriage while making same-sex couples equal in the eyes of the law which is my main goal.


eddie too writes: Monday, November, 17, 2008 10:53 AM
Nate,

I am glad you agree that this is not about discrimination against homosexuals. Now just quit saying that is what it is.
Nate writes: Monday, November, 17, 2008 11:50 AM
Eddie Too
Okay, I see where this is going. Do you honestly think that the laws set up for marriage and the marriage amendments passed by states in the last 10 years are not designed to keep homosexual marriages from occurring? Are you honestly saying that the law is not set up to discriminate? That's like saying separate-but-equal laws were not set up to discriminate against African Americans because it included ALL of them. Or that racial profiling by police officers is not discriminatory because it it includes ALL minorities. Yes, all same-sex marriages are prohibited according to the law,

Some states whose laws did not specifically define marriage as a man and a woman had judges rule that under their current law, the state could not prohibit same-sex marriage. Most, if not all, of the lawsuits that brought about the ruling were by homosexual couples who wanted to marry. You act like this issue is not about homosexuality, like there is a huge movement of heterosexual people out there who want to have a same-sex marriage for themselves and that's why the laws were created and/or have been ammended recently. If it was just a bunch of heterosexual people who wanted to have a civil union or a marriage, I guarantee it would a whole other argument and you would not see the moral outrage or the motivation to change the laws to prevent it. Don't pretend like the law isn't set up to create de facto discrimination against homosexual marriage.
eddie too writes: Monday, November, 17, 2008 12:06 PM
Nate,

Until about 15 years ago, no one considered the possibility that marriage should apply to same-sex couples.

The point is that the current laws treat everyone the same whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Why you want the laws to change because homosexuals want to be an exception to the current law is what puzzles me.

However, if the law should ever change, rest assured many single men and women will get these pseudo-marriage licenses so they can also share in SS survivors benefits and in company health care plans, etc.

In addition, the prohibition against incest is related to the genetics issues of regressive genes. With same-sex couples, this issue is irrelevant. That is why brothers or sisters or mothers and daughters, and uncles and nephews should be allowed to form these same-sex union. In their cases, the prohibition against incest is irrational. A mother and a daughter cannot enter into a relationship to procreate.

The above issues are real and the fact that you have not faced them or considered them reveals how shallow the reasons you have for changing the definition of marriage.

Also, the arguments about polygamy have not even been considered in your arguments.

In conclusion, current laws in no way single out homosexuals. Your position is not well thought out and has not considered a myriad of related issues and consequences if your heartfelt (though irrational) position were to succeed.
Sign Up to Post Your Comments Sign Up to Post Your Comments
Please take a few seconds to sign up, then you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, create your own blog and more! If you are already registered, click here.
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
 

 

blog advertising is good for you
Archives
Blog Search:




Blogroll
PREMIUM BLOGS
Andrew Sullivan
BatesLine
Ben Shapiro
Beyond The News
Blogs For Bush
BlueStateConservatives
Broken Masterpieces
Captain's Quarters
Cheese and Crackers
Communists For Kerry
The Corner (NRO)
Daou Report
David Limbaugh
Dawn Patrol
EasonGate
Filling Up Space
Fire Ant Gazette
Front Page Magazine
GOP Bloggers
Happy Husband
HillaryWatch
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
John Huang
Kaus Files
Kevin McCullough
Kerry Spot
LaShawn Barber's Corner
Lileks
Little Green Footballs
MarriageWatch
Michelle Malkin
Northshore Politics
Obama Factor
Pardon My English
Powerline
Rabes Ramblings
Radio Blogger
Ramblings Journal
Ray Pritchard
Real Clear Politics
Red State
Saint Kansas
Scrappleface
Sexless In The City
SlantPoint
Townhall C-Log
Volokh Conspiracy
Vox Popoli
Weintraub
WizBANG
Worldthreats
Zorn's Notebook

CPAC BLOGS
Ace of Spades HQ
Alarming News
Ankle Biting Pundits
GOP Bloggers
HughHewitt.com
JunkYardBlog
Kevin McCullough
La Shawn Barber's Corner
Miscellaneous Objections
Outside The Beltway
Politics from Left to Right
Redstate
Terrorism Unveiled
The American Mind
The National Debate
TheAgitator.com
Townhall.com
Winds of Change.NET
Wizbang
Wonkette


GODBLOGGERS
Adrian Warnock
Al Mohler
Better Living
Ethos
Evangelical Outpost
It Takes A Church
John Mark Reynolds
La Shawn Barber
Mark D. Roberts
Normal Rockstar
Ray Pritchard
Rhett Smith
Roman Catholic Blog
Stand to Reason
Steve Camp
Stones Cry Out
Summa Aesthetica
The Anchoress

MILBLOGGERS
Argghhh!
Austin Bay
Belmont Club
Black Five
Centcom
Counterterrorism Blog
Froggy Ruminations
Hooah
Howdy
Hurl
Law and Ordnance
Major K
Mudville Gazette
Smash
Training for Eternity