Quick Thoughts On Gay Marriage

I make it a point to watch the likes of MSNBC just to get an idea of where the enemy’s thoughts are.  It seems much of this past week’s coverage on both MSNBC and CNN was devoted to the issue of gay marriage and the Supreme Court.  These information outlets, with the support of their sycophantic fans and guests, like to present themselves as valid, neutral news organisations, proffering their definitions of facts, pretending to disguise editorial content as news.

I know..  What else is new..

This issue of gay marriage, currently and embarrassingly being heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, unabashedly puts this agenda-driven purpose on full display for all to witness.

At any given time, when reflecting on this issue, someone, whether invited to or from these stations, is demonizing those who do not agree with gay marriage. Maybe a group of protestors, religious organizations, politicians, a CEO of a fast-food chicken company:  Whatever it may be. They make it sound as if there is this overwhelming, all-consuming anti-gay tide, whose sole purpose is to keep drowning Adam and Steve from reaching the shore of living the American dream.

(Actually, the best thing that could happen to gays is for the U.S. economy to kick into high gear.)

Yet, who really focuses on the subject?  Who makes it the emotional issue that it has become?  Who paints this issue as some poor, misunderstood gay David against a mean, unrelenting ‘homophobic’ Goliath?

The left wing media does.

Listening to their ‘reporting’ of the issue, one cannot help but be struck by just how absolutely obsessed they are with homosexuals and the gay agenda.  To them, homosexual marriage and the lifestyle ought to be accepted as something normal, and anyone who has a difference of opinion is ‘outed’ as homophobic.

And the ‘homophobes,’ according to these propagandists, are ALWAYS ‘right-wingers,’ most especially Christian Republicans.

Since the election, so much of what has been said about the Republican party by liberal politicians and pundits (and many band-wagon Conservatives), has been how the party, if it wants to be relevant and have a chance at winning elections, needs to change their ‘message.’  That message, as per this discussion, revolves around the acceptance of homosexual marriage.

Of course, one’s religious beliefs be damned.

So, what is going to happen if that actually occurs?  What will happen if, regardless of a person’s religious or moral beliefs, legalization of gay marriage actually becomes law of the land?  What if  marriage equality is legally granted?  Will homosexuals and Democratic cheerleaders celebrate this?  Will it make them happy?  Will it finally nullify the personal beliefs of every Politian who, though they may not agree with it, have taken an oath to abide by and enforce the law?   Will Republicans, like Obama has, be accepted if their views on the subject ‘evolve?’   Will that change be recognized as sincere, or will it just be brushed aside as a political calculation, one that gets Republicans ‘off the hook’ per the subject.  Will ‘evolved’ republicans be welcomed as defenders of the laws of the country, or will they simply continue to be painted as homophobic neanderthals, reluctantly abiding the law?

The left already has an answer to these questions.  They are claiming that Republicans ‘secretly’ want the court to give its OK toward gay marriage.  In that sense, personal feelings toward it will not matter, and the issue will then be taken away from liberals, Democrats, and gays.  If gay marriage becomes the law, no-one has a choice but to adhere to it.  That’s a HUGE loss for liberals in the realm of politics.

My own thoughts about homosexuality aside, there’s just something unsettling about the fact that the rest of the world needs to bend and modify the etymology of a word which has been synonymous with the union between a man and woman since it’s inception.

However, if the court rules in favor of gay marriage, then that becomes a moot point.

It just seems to me that this is not a battle for us to fight.  If you really believe it is wrong, and goes against the word of God, then these people will have to answer for their actions, and they will be judged accordingly.  Judged by a power a hell of alot more benevolent than any of us.  I don’t think this issue is one which God need us to fight for him.

I’m pretty sure he is capable of doing that for himself, in his own way, at his own time.

So let the babies have their bottles on this one.   Just let them get hitched.

But shut up about it already.

I just don’t care.

On Easter, Google Doodle Celebrates Union Leader Cesar Chavez
Twitter Agrees to Allow Vladimir Putin to Censor Russian Content
  • jim_m

    I would be fine if this were just about people being able to live together, HIPAA rights, taxes and inheritance, but it’s not.

    What it really is about is forcing others to give approval to a way of life they find religiously abhorrent. It’s about raising a lifestyle to the level of a constitutional right. It is about raising sexuality to a protected class.

    Charles Krauthammer makes a salient point when he claims that religious institutions will be sued all over the country. The problem this creates is that for the first time it creates two constitutional rights that are in conflict. If my rights as a married person are in conflict with your religious expression which wins? The left will say it is the gays who win. The left has always hated religion and this will be used as a weapon against all religions starting with Christianity.

    Apologists will be quick to claim “So what?” people can sue but those suits will be thrown out. This is BS. People will sue and religious institutions and people of faith will be forced to finance a defense. The purpose of the suits that will follow is not to win in court but to financially destroy people of faith and churches that are unwilling to change 1000′s of years of religious teaching to accommodate the fascist left and their lack of morals.

    That is why the best result in the case heard by SCOTUS would be for the court to dismiss the case for lack of standing and therefore vacate the 9th circuit’s ruling. What the left wants is another Roe v Wade that will divide the country. I hope the court is wise enough not to give it to them. This needs to be settled through open debate and laws passed by a majority of the people and/or their elected representatives not by 5 people in DC.

    Same sex marriage will eventually find its way into law. Forcing the issue only ensures a bitter divide in this country for another 50+ years. That last part is what the left wants more than the legalization of same sex marriage.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Ayup.

      California had the strongest domestic partnership laws on the books. The perpetually petulant community found that unsatisfactory, and sued in state court. They eventually won there, prompting Proposition 8, which was a state Constitutional Amendment which did nothing to weaken domestic partnership while defining marriage as between one man and one worman. It won, in 2008, on the same ballot that elected 0bama.

      99% is never good enough, it seems.

    • Brucehenry

      I don’t know if it’s still the case, but it used to be that if you were Catholic and married, went to civil court, got a divorce, and then got remarried at a JP, the Catholic Church didn’t recognize any of that. You were still married to your first spouse, in the eyes of Father O’Malley and Sister Eugenia. And you were committing adultery with the second spouse.

      Do I have that right? Is that still the case today?

      So why didn’t Catholics and other churches who believed the same way raise holy hell about no-fault divorce laws? If they did kick up a fuss, why weren’t they listened to and sympathized with as standing up for religious freedom? Why weren’t proponents of no-fault divorce laws demonized as enemies of religion? And why weren’t divorce laws kept as strict, and divorces as difficult to obtain, as before?

      Answer: Because mainstream Christians and self-styled patriots found it inconvenient to listen to these moral scolds when it was THEIR moral behavior that was being scolded. But when it is icky queers demanding the right to marry, all of a sudden it’s a slippery slope on the road to bestiality and incest. Ppppfffftttt.

      All this talk of defending religious liberty is just that — talk, an excuse. We in America don’t make laws that conform to this church’s or that church’s dogma — even if it’s the church that’s in the majority. That’s why you can buy Maxwell House in Salt Lake City and Budweiser in Birmingham.

      Every one who wants to belong to a church that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage is free to continue to belong to one. No church will be forced to recognize these unions. No one who is married will be affected in any way; their marriages will still be as valid and as happy (or unhappy) as ever.

      As for the lawsuits, well, after Brown v Board, yes, lawsuits occurred to force this organization or that to abide by the decision. If folks don’t want to abide by the law of the land, they might be sued. If you don’t want to live in a country where people have their day in court, move to Iran.

      • jim_m

        I see you ignore the question of having 2 constitutional rights that conflict with each other. Well done that.

        • Brucehenry

          They DON’T conflict, unless you think your religion gives you the right to dictate — by law — another’s moral and sexual behavior. Practice your religion all you want. Just don’t try to force your neighbor to lve by your religious rules.

          • jim_m

            OK, so my Catholic university must give accommodations in the married dorms to same sex partners despite the fact that homosexuality is against the religious beliefs of the university?

            Yes or no? Who wins the constitutional battle? Or do you merely see it as that there is no place for religion in society outside the doors of the church?

          • Brucehenry

            First, YOU are not a Catholic university. So spare me the butthurt. Second, that’s a question that can be made moot by carefully written legislation. If that fails, then yes, it must be settled by the courts.

            That’s how we do in America, Jim.

            We don’t live in a theocracy where the holier-than-thou get to make all the rules, rules that can never be changed, because they don’t – sniff sniff – approve of this behavior or that. Rule of law. You’ve heard of it.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Its carefully written legislation that is forcing the catholic church to pay for peoples birth control now aint it?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, many would say that their insurance coverage is part of employee compensation, so technically, employers AREN’T paying for it. The government is mandating that insurers include that coverage at no additional charge to the employer or employee.

            So if you buy that argument, then no, it ain’t.

          • jim_m

            Sigh. If the employer is paying for insurance coverage then employers are paying for contraception. There is no way around it. That argument is tired and ignorant of reality. Frankly I thought you were better than that.

          • Brucehenry

            The argument goes that the employer is getting the discount for bringing a group of insureds to the insurer, but what the employer pays is part of employee compensation. Arguably, if some of that compensation wasn’t sent to the insurer it would go to the employee, who would then try to find an individual policy.

            I’m sure you find many arguments tiring, Jim. That’s what comes of having to be told the same thing over and over.

          • jim_m

            So you believe that the insurer really is going to either pay for additional benefits hat the employer is not contributing to or that other customers of the insurer will pay for that service? You really are a fool.

            Yes, being old the same stupid lie over and over again is tiring. My son eventually learned, but apparently leftists don’t. That gets back to the idea of leftism as religion. Your beliefs have nothing to do with reality but you believe them none the less and you refuse to be educated.

          • LiberalNightmare

            >>I’m sure you find many arguments tiring, Jim. That’s what comes of having to be told the same thing over and over.

            I guess if you keep repeating the same lies over and over, you eventually come to believe them

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            That’s known as the big lie…

          • LiberalNightmare

            So, the employers aren’t paying for the employees compensation package? And the Insurers are providing coverage at no cost?

            Sounds like the basis for some really well written legislation right there.

          • jim_m

            So your answer is that it isn’t my rights being trampled so I should STFU? Nice.

            No we live in a democracy where up until your lord and savior obama was elected we respected people’s religious beliefs., Now the only religion you and your co-religionists will tolerate is big government worship.

            You show you religious intolerance with your assumption that people are making up rules that cannot be changed. Those rules are believed to come through revelation from God, a God that is unchanging and has not changed on this issue. So your answer is essentially that my religious belief is no longer protected by the 1st amendment because some constitutional rights are more important than others that the way YOU choose to decide that is by who your friends are and their rights are more important than mine.

          • Brucehenry

            Is anyone going to force you to gay marry somebody, Jim? Anyone gonna force you to attend a gay wedding, or kiss the bride?

            How is it religious intolerance to NOT live by the rules some religious guy tries to force on one by law? If I think it’s immoral to drink alcohol or coffee, and I am in the majority in a jurisdiction, can I force everyone in the jurisdiction to abstain from coffee and alcohol? If I think divorce is immoral, can I prevent you from getting one?

            I will respect your religious beliefs to the same degree you will respect my right NOT to have religious beliefs. If you won’t respect that, why should I respect yours? I’m not preventing you, or advocating you should be kept in any way, from practicing what you call your “sincerely held religious beliefs.” But if your sincerely held religious beliefs interfere with the freedom or rights of your fellow citizens, then screw your sincerely held religious beliefs.

          • jim_m

            Is anyone going to force you to gay marry somebody,

            Just a matter of time before we see that lawsuit. You can live in another place. If you are attending a religious university you should have to abide by its rules. But I will point out that you haven’t made that point. You think that the church should obey your rules, that religion should bend to the dictates of the popular culture.

            No one is telling you how to live. The problem posed here is that gay people are choosing a way to live and then deliberately placing themselves in the way of religious people who disagree with their lifestyle and demanding that the religious people are in the wrong.

          • Brucehenry

            And what does it mean that religious people “disagree with their lifestyle?” I have neighbors who I think drink too much and neglect their juvenile-delinquent kids. I disagree with their lifestyle. WHAT THE FUCK CAN I DO ABOUT IT?

            Nothing, that’s what. Know why? ‘Cause this is America, Jim. I don’t get to tell these yahoos how to live.

            I don’t see how, if a gay couple gets married, it places them “in the way of religious people.” Religious people are free to turn up their blue noses and sniff their disapproval as they used to do with divorcees or drunks.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Your comparison is flawed -
            An apt comparison would be the govt forcing you to pay for the kids booze.

          • Brucehenry

            Let’s talk about birth control another time. OK?

          • jim_m

            That’s right. We will give you time to look up some better talking points since your current ones SUCK.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Brucehenry LiberalNightmare • a minute ago

            Let’s talk about birth control another time. OK?

            Why? Do you think it will go better for you later?

          • Brucehenry

            Because you and Jim seem to be conflating one issue with another, and this thread’s supposed to be about gay marriage. I understand the logic of making the comparison, but I’ve addressed that now. Move on, please.

          • jim_m

            I didn’t bring up contraception. I responded to your BS.

          • Brucehenry

            No, LN did.

          • Vagabond661

            Is this a fair analogy for how religious people feel about gay marriage?

            it’s time to tell PETA we redefined what vegetarianism is to include meat (especially bacon!). We should not be dictated to by a bunch of meatophobes who are out of touch with what the majority of the people love.

          • LiberalNightmare

            I understand the logic of making the comparison, but I’ve addressed that now. Move on, please.

            If that’s the best you can do – I can see why you want to move on.

          • LiberalNightmare

            We aren’t conflating the issues.

            The point where the two issues intersect is obviously the carefully crafted legislation that currently forces the catholic church to violate its beliefs in regards to birth control, and the carefully crafted legislation that will soon force the catholic church to violate its beliefs once again.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Birth Control? I thought we were talking about religious tolerance?

          • jim_m

            You are correct. You don’t have to approve of their lifestyle, but then they aren’t asking you to subsidize it are they?

          • Brucehenry

            And if gay people get married are they asking you to subsidize their lifestyle?

          • jim_m

            Not unless they demand it from a church that doesn’t believe in that. And they are when they demand it as a constitutional right. Then you do have a circumstance where a constitutional right to get married collides with a constitutional right to freedom of religious expression.

            But perhaps you don’t want to consider that issue because you know that it is a problem and that when it arises yhou will come down on the side of the aggrieved homosexuals and against people who have sincerely held religious beliefs that you disagree with. (of course you will never come out against such with the muslims because you are too afraid (and with just cause) that they will cut off your head)

          • Brucehenry

            The first two sentences of your reply are the problem, Jim. While there may be an isolated case, there will not be a wave of lesbians applying for marriage banns from Our Lady of Perpetual Sorrows. Again, your overblown conservative-paranoia-fear complex is kicking in.

            And we shouldn’t deny the right to marry to a class of citizens because allowing them that right conflicts with someone else’s religious dogma. Any more than we should refuse to pass no-fault divorce because Catholics don’t like it or ban whiskey because Southern Baptists don’t like it or ban coffee because Mormons don’t like it.

          • jim_m

            In case you missed my many previous posts on this subject my position is that I have no problem with a civil union that is the legal equivalent to marriage. I object to calling it a marriage and I object to the notion that marriage is a constitutional right.

            You still have not addressed who wins the legal battle of which constitutional right prevails, the church’s 1st amendment rights or the gay couple’s marriage rights. I believe you avoid the issue because I am right that you will come down against religious expression.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL with the Nazi stuff. You just can’t help yourself can you?

            YOU may have no problem with a civil union that is the legal equivalent of marriage, but many of your fellow anti-SSM partisans do, as they proved in NC. And while we’re talking about slippery slopes, rest assured many oppose civil unions as slippery slopes leading to gay marriage which leads to all the other boogabears they’re afraid of.

            Allowing civil unions, unless they are mandated for ALL couples, gay and straight, those currently married and those to be married henceforth, would still entail the problem of the creation of a class of second-tier citizens, those who are allowed to marry and those who must settle for something less.

            I never denied there would be lawsuits. I have said, repeatedly, that there may indeed be lawsuits but 1. they will fail, and 2. that’s the price we pay for living in a country that allows citizens to petition for redress of grievances. You’re FOR that, right?

            If gay marriage is allowed, the Church and everyone else will still have the same First Amendment rights they currently enjoy. And despite the fact that you “object to the notion that marriage is a constitutional right,” the Supreme Court has already ruled that it IS, indeed. The question now is whether that right will be extended to gay couples as well as straight ones.

            So I’m not avoiding the issue. It is you who have failed to show how the Church or anyone else will be harmed by allowing gays to marry, at least any more than the Church is harmed by Catholics obtaining legal civil divorces.

            Please, Jim, address that. We do NOT prohibit Catholics from seeking a legal divorce, even though Catholics prohibit divorce as a religious matter. How is that justified in Jim-world?

          • jim_m

            The pooint wasn’t the Nazi’s. The point was the idiotic appeasement and ignorance of the people who opposed them and in reality were only being enablers of them. You sit here and say “Oh, no one is ever going to sue a church over this” but you don’t know that and if experience is any judge there will almost certainly be lawsuits.

            And now you say “Oh, those suits will fail”, but you ignore my original statement that the purpose of the suits is not to win but to bleed the churches financially.

            And don’t go telling me what other people are saying about preventing same sex marriage. that is not even at issue any more. I suppose your excuse is that any excesses on your side are justified by the excesses of people who fought against same sex marriage. Sorry but civil rights don’t work that way. Just because someone else was wrong doesn’t strip me of my rights.

            But what you have done is demonstrate the truth of my statements. There will be lawsuits, the suits are meant to fail, meaning that they are really meant to financially ruin their targets.

            And I have demonstrated how people will be harmed by demonstrating that you have created a competing set of constitutional rights and someone’s rights will always have to lose. You never addressed my example of university housing. You avoided that from the start.

            Time for you to run off for new talking points again.

          • Brucehenry

            Want me to address the housing thing? Here’s how: If the university allows married couples, and if ANY of them have one partner who has been divorced and then remarried and are allowed to live in the dorm, then yes, same-sex couples should be allowed. Because the university has demonstrated that it’s not serious about enforcing all its dogma, only that which it finds particularly icky.

            But if the Church enforces all its sexual-behavior rules equitably on everyone, then no, it shouldn’t have to allow same-sex couples to live there.

            It’s hilarious that you think a gay-couple lawsuit here and a lesbian lawsuit there will “ruin” the Roman Catholic Church.

            Again, and for the umpteenth time this weekend, we shouldn’t deny a right to a whole class of people because we fear it may encourage frivolous lawsuits. We didn’t do that with Brown v Board or the CRA of 1964 and we shouldn’t do it now.

          • jim_m

            The university does not know whether someone has been divorced, but it is pretty obvious if you are in a same sex marriage.

            Try again.

            I’m not just talking Catholic churches. I am talking about smaller protestant churches that cannot rely upon a large national organization. Those churches will be sued into insolvency. I think your indifference is sickening. I also think it revealing that you think that this is a Catholic only issue or that you think that it is OK to sue the Catholic church because they have deep pockets.

            Your excuse is that frivolous lawsuits are OK as long as the target is wealthy and can afford to fight off multiple lawsuits by aggressive ideological opponents who will likely get their legal counsel for free.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            He’s never heard of Sandra Fuck Fluke?

          • Brucehenry

            It can ask. And it can check. Does it?

          • jim_m

            Bruce, there are many protestant run colleges that are OK with divorce but not with gay marriage. What about them?

            You are trying very hard to avoid the issue of whose constitutional rights win. But the answer is obvious. You believe that the religious rights should lose.

          • jim_m

            I did not say that we should deny them rights. At what point is having all the same rights via a civil union law denying gays their rights?

            This gets to the heart of he issue, which is that the left really doesn’t give a damn about equal rights at all, it is nothing less than an assault on religion that is the aim.

          • Brucehenry

            Do you have a problem with ALL marriages being redefined as civil unions? Because if you do, we have the issue of First Class citizens who can marry, and Second Class citizens who must settle for lesser status.

          • jim_m

            Gee, Bruce, if you had anything like reading comprehension you would know the answer to that question is no, I would not have a problem with that.

            Shows how much attention you pay to the discussion.

          • Vagabond661

            “Because the university has demonstrated that it’s not serious about enforcing all its dogma, only that which it finds particularly icky.”

            Not to change the subject but Obama does this a lot. ask Arizona.

          • jim_m

            Not to put too fine a point on it but the constitution does not demand that you are consistent with your beliefs. One can choose to believe in divorce but not contraception and vice versa.

            SCOTUS has upheld over and over that religious beliefs are defined by the person and not by the government. I know that you want to change that. But until you and your lefty friends succeed in stripping this nation of religious freedom that will be the case.

          • jim_m

            We don’t prohibit Catholics from getting a divorce because you don’t get a divorce from the church you get it from the government. You can get an annulment from the church but then it doesn’t count legally as far as I am aware. So your example is irrelevant.

          • Brucehenry

            But the church can’t issue a marriage license, as you well know. If a priest marries a couple without one, that marriage is not recognized by the state.

          • jim_m

            Thank you for pointing out that your previous statement was irrelevant. I am glad we can agree on this.

          • Brucehenry

            What are you, Drummond? Declaring victory lol.

            The point is the government decides who can get married and who can’t via the issuance of marriage licenses. Not the Church. The Church can set its own rules for which marriages they will recognize. They are free to continue to do that even if gay marriage is allowed.

          • jim_m

            So now you are back to saying that there will be no lawsuits against churches. Make up your mind or at least have your masters make it up for you.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Nothing new about him talking out of both sides of his neck. I fail to understand why to continue to engage such a disingenuous shill.

          • Brucehenry

            Never once have I said there will be no lawsuits. I said there would be no ultimately successful ones. Don’t like the rule of law? Move to a theocracy.

          • jim_m

            My point is that the left will use the lawsuits to bleed religious organizations and make having a church impossible due to their legal harassment.

          • Vagabond661

            This is true. No matter what the outcome, the expense is the same.

          • SteveCrickmore075
          • jim_m

            And how is it that you know beyond any doubt that there will be no gays suing the Catholic Church? Just like there has been no antipathy from the left over the Roman Catholic Church’s stand on contraception and abortion right?

            Your lies don’t stand even the smallest amount of scrutiny. “Don’t worry, once we take away this little bit of freedom from you we won’t take any more…”

            That reminds me of “Once we have the Sudeten we will have no further need for further lands.”, What’s next? “Peace in our time”? Famous last words….

          • LiberalNightmare

            Thats the problem with liberals, the honus for tolerance is always on the other guy. “Do it my way, or screw your beliefs”

            Reality –
            Liberals are forcing catholics to pay for birth control.

            Fiction-
            We arent forcing anybody to pay for birth control because a team of keebler elves is actually writing the checks to pay for the coverage that the insurance company isnt even charging for. Unicorns for everyone!

          • Brucehenry

            Onus.

            Reality: Employees of the Church itself don’t get birth control paid for. Employees of businesses owned by the church, or by devout Catholics who claim to be exempt, do, if their businesses cater to the general public, and employ non-Catholics.

          • jim_m

            Honest, Mr District Attorney. I didn’t murder Bruce, I paid someone else to do it.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Brucehenry LiberalNightmare • 7 minutes ago

            Reality: Employees of the Church itself don’t get birth control paid for. Employees of businesses owned by the church, or by devout Catholics who claim to be exempt, do, if their businesses cater to the general public, and employ non-Catholics.

            Reality
            hoo is paying for it?

          • Razorgirl53

            So, is my minister, who doesn’t support gay marriage due to religious belief, going to be forced by law to marry a gay couple? If Hobby Lobby is going to be forced by Obamacare to cover abortions with their insurance, why wouldn’t ministers be forced to marry gays if the Supreme Court changes the definition of marriage? So isn’t another’s morals being dictated in that case? The door swings both ways Brucie.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Typical that.

  • Wild_Willie

    It is not me that called homsexuals an abomination. It is God. Take it up with him.
    The SCOTUS seem very reluctant to have marraige decided federally when it is clearly a state issue. I also admire the proponents of homosexual marraige that drilled down in how the state governments got involved in the issue to begin with. To track a man and woman and the kids that come with the union for legal, financial and tax reasons. ww

    • SteveCrickmore075

      If you really believe it is wrong, and goes against the word of God or It is not me that called homosexuals an abomination. It is God. Take it up with him.
      As always with conservatives, even in 2013, it is an appeal to the ultimate authority, in this case, one in which there is no earthly, scientific or rational evidence that exists in the first place, quite the contrary , as anything other than a product of the exclusively male imagination of some desert nomads of the bronze age who believed in a flat earth and dragons at the ends of earth and permanent patriarchy because there were born with penises unlike the distaff half of the rest of the population, who had to be relegated as a temptation, subjugated and coerced. Have conservatives ever tried thinking for themselves even in the 21st century? No wonder intelligence has never been considered a virtue by the Bible or christians but their only duty is obey unflinchly and unthinkly ‘the word of God’ which only certain charlatans or priests are privy to. I wonder why?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        …tell the rambler the gambler the backbiter

        Nah. Let it come as a surprise.

      • jim_m

        As always with consevatives, even in 2013, it is an appeal to the ultimate authority,

        So you are OK with people who are not typical conservatives who believe the same way? 70% of blacks voted in favor of Prop 8 in California Are 70% of blacks conservative? You think they voted that way because they were fooled by the conservatives you constantly ridicule as stupid? Most blacks who voted in favor of Prop 8 did so for religious reasons.

        our comment is typically bigoted and ignorant. Just what I expect from a bigoted and ignorant lefty like yourself.

        No wonder intelligence has never been considered a virtue by the Bible or christians

        Perhaps you want to walk back your racist statement that black people are stupid.

        • SteveCrickmore075

          jim I’m not as solidly behind gay marriage as i was behind letting in gay soldiers, But really if they want to get marrried, let them, is my attitude?

          • jim_m

            You’re still a bigot and you aren’t backing off your bigoted statements. FUCK YOU

          • SteveCrickmore075

            i’m not sure what bigoted statements I made. I wan’t talking about black people at all. But as you mentioned it. yes ethnically ‘blacks’ are probably more homophobic than white people as a general race on sociological percentages (highlighted by the rappers’ songs) and certainly in many parts of Africa,(look at the problems in the Angican Church and Uganda) but that is well known!

          • jim_m

            Like I said.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            i could never understand the conservative antipathy to gayness..there but the grace of God in the metaphorical sense ..and if everyone was 100% hetrosexual it wouldn’t be as interesting to be hetrosexual. or .blah blah i’m viscerally a liberal in this regard!

          • jim_m

            Then you don’t understand that it isn’t the sinner we object to but the sin. You don’t understand that we don’t care to facilitate that sin either.

            You just cram your atheist amorality down our throats and call it tolerance. You call people of faith stupid as use it as a cover for your racism and your own ignorance.

        • SteveCrickmore075

          I try to be very moral and when the word of God – According to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), when God called forth his people out of slavery in Egypt and back to the land of their forefathers, he directed them to kill all the Canaanite clans who were living in the land (Deut. 7.1-2; 20.16-18). The destruction was to be complete: every man, woman, and child was to be killed. The book of Joshua tells the story of Israel’s carrying out God’s command in city after city throughout Canaan.

          You may call that moral because it was the word or command of God. and are happy with it. I am revulsed and call it an abomination or genocide.

          • jim_m

            SInce you are taking the Bible as litteral truth here I find your claim that if the all knowing, all powerful, creator of the universe came down out of Heaven and told you to go kill someone that you would not do it.

            I would love to hear you explaining to God almighty how much more intelligent, merciful and morally superior you are to Him.

            Once more you only display your bigotry and ignorance.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            he is all knowing all powerful all world, according to whom..What kind of accent has he when he speaks?

          • jim_m

            That is the premise of the God of the Bible. If you are going to judge the people of Deuteronomy then you had better judge then based on the circumstances they are presented in. Otherwise you only demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            So God was moral relativist too. Since as there are no biblical injunctions against slavery, I guess he was o’kay with that, given the time and circumstances..blah blah He can be anything we want him to be…maybe because he doesn’t exist?

          • jim_m

            There is no place in the Bible where God says ,”Thou shalt own slaves”. Keep it up Mr Bigot.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” from (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) or in the New Testament if you prefer “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT) As always it is obey the word of God, except the emperor has no clothes, in the twenty first century — except for people like Jim.

  • jim_m

    The problem is that the left does not think through the logical consequences of their ideas. I find it disconcerting to think that Justice Sotomayor, in a fashion totally unlike her fellow travelers, actually has bothered to think about the issue

    Sonia Sotomayor, questioning Ted Olson in the Prop. 8 case:

    Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting the a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?

    Indeed. “If marriage is a fundamental right what state restrictions could ever exist?” The answer, as she has apparently seen, is none. The problem is that the left is perfectly OK with that.

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      jim, in your above comment, you actually point out something that I had overlooked during the debate about same-sex marriage. Thanks.

  • fustian24

    Society has an interest in straight couples since it is important to create a next generation and to raise them to be responsible, able citizens. This is, frankly, a matter of survival.

    Society has no interest in gay couples. I mean that both ways. We really have no dog in that fight. They look like roommates to us, and more power to them.

    I think it’s clear that society has no vested interest in the stability or the financial wherewithal of gay couples (unless we know them personally).

    Marriage is about creating a stable family in which to create and raise children. The benefits society offers opposite sex couples have nothing to do with gay couples. Their relationship is simply a personal matter between them. Stay together or break up. Unless we know you personally, it doesn’t really matter to society at large.

    As to the argument that a gay marriage doesn’t hurt mine, that is true in a limited sense. The issue is not whether my marriage is directly affected, the issue is that when the general population begins to lose the connection between committed relationships and the bearing of children, we, as a civilization, are in deep trouble. When young people think of marriage and go “whatever”, you’re looking at the dying out of your people.

    The more sophisticated a society is about sex, the more they use it for everything except it’s intended purpose: creating children.

    And the future belongs to those that show up.

    • jim_m

      Society has an interest in straight couples since it is important to
      create a next generation and to raise them to be responsible, able
      citizens. This is, frankly, a matter of survival.

      Ah! But from a leftist perspective, mankind is a plague upon the earth, a destructive force that needs to be reduced, by force if necessary. Reproduction is therefore unwanted as it perpetuates man’s destructive influence upon nature. So from a leftist perspective heterosexual couples are evil and should be discouraged.

      By the same token, economic growth (which increasing population supports) is evil. 1) it is part of the rape of the natural world and 2) it perpetuates an evil capitalist system that needs to be eradicated.

      And finally, people reproducing in the US will tend to perpetuate western culture, which is by definition evil, so reproducing couples are unwanted as they will tend to preserve a culture which the left has declared evil and unwanted.

      Survival is the very last thing the left wants for our culture and our nation.

    • jim_m

      Society has an interest in straight couples since it is important to
      create a next generation and to raise them to be responsible, able
      citizens. This is, frankly, a matter of survival.

      Ah! But from a leftist perspective, mankind is a plague upon the earth, a destructive force that needs to be reduced, by force if necessary. Reproduction is therefore unwanted as it perpetuates man’s destructive influence upon nature. So from a leftist perspective heterosexual couples are evil and should be discouraged.

      By the same token, economic growth (which increasing population supports) is evil. 1) it is part of the rape of the natural world and 2) it perpetuates an evil capitalist system that needs to be eradicated.

      And finally, people reproducing in the US will tend to perpetuate western culture, which is by definition evil, so reproducing couples are unwanted as they will tend to preserve a culture which the left has declared evil and unwanted.

      Survival is the very last thing the left wants for our culture and our nation.

    • ImaginaryVisionary

      By your logic people who are infertile have less value in society, and should not be looked at the same from the perspective of marriage. Do you know how it feels to know you cannot reproduce and fear that you will not be good enough for any man? Do you know how it feels to read nonsense like you just wrote and wonder if you’re worthless to humanity because you can’t reproduce? So what should we do with men and women who have not had children, who are straight, who can reproduce, but do not find a suitable partner by the time they hit menopause? Should we not allow them to marry, take away their civil liberties and access to health insurance?

      To top this incredibly flawed argument off…gay people CAN reproduce. They’re not infertile. They can be artificially inseminated and can adopt, and while I know it freaks a lot of people out to think of homosexuals raising children (including myself) there are millions of children all over the world who are given up for adoption, or even worse, abandoned and there aren’t enough willing adoptive parents to take care of them all. Even though its not ideal any parent is better than no parent. Studies have not shown being raised by homosexual parents to negatively affect children in any ways and while its arguably not biblical…there is an awful lot of scripture about carrying for orphans and taking care of the least of thee.

      Society would have an interest in same sex couples because it would allow them to be more active members of the society instead of people being pushed on the fringe who are fighting against discrimination and being denied civil rights that could in the long run allow them to be even more intricate and productive members of our society. I live in the south and I can tell you with confidence that same sex couples would be more productive and provide more for this country, and even make the institution of marriage look better than half the people that live where I live who treat your precious notion of reproduction as just another check from the gov, and make a mockery of marriage every time they’re in public.

      As a society its not our sophistication about sex that’s the problem, its our naivety and lack of sophistication.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Imagine visualizing NO.

        • ImaginaryVisionary

          That’s your reply? A bad pun on my screen name? No actual thoughts rattling around in your head that could counter my arguments against someone elses clearly flawed argument that does little but make your own stance look bad.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ayup.

  • Jack Zimms

    What seems to be mostly ignored is that most people insurance will go up. Marriage people receive benefits. All those benefit programs cost will go up so someone will have to cover the increases. Social Security and other benefit programs that have issues will increase. And the slippery slope argument is relevant. If we don’t have the right to prevent two people of the same sex to be legally married then we don’t have the right to prevent someone from marrying multiple people. Just think of the increase of marriage benefits cost in those situation. If it were simply a matter of two people or
    even a dozen people exchanges vows then I wouldn’t care but being legally married
    goes way beyond that.

  • Jack Zimms

    What seems to be mostly ignored is that most people insurance will go up. Marriage people receive benefits. All those benefit programs cost will go up so someone will have to cover the increases. Social Security and other benefit programs that have issues will increase. And the slippery slope argument is relevant. If we don’t have the right to prevent two people of the same sex to be legally married then we don’t have the right to prevent someone from marrying multiple people. Just think of the increase of marriage benefits cost in those situation. If it were simply a matter of two people or
    even a dozen people exchanges vows then I wouldn’t care but being legally married
    goes way beyond that.

    • ImaginaryVisionary

      Homosexuals make up such a small percentage of the population that it wouldn’t make a difference in insurance costs so you can put that fear to bed. As far as the slippery slope I don’t think you need to worry about that either. Making a sexual distinction is significantly different than making a numerical distinction in marriage laws. That’s a completely different fight. That’s like going into a store with a buy 1 get 1 sale and saying I’m going to buy 1 and take 4 because if you’re going to give me 1 then I have the right to as many I want.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Imagine, even visualize, NO.

  • BT

    Marriage should be a religious issue for those who believe in God, let the church you belong to decide. When it comes to government it should be a legal rights issue. We have plenty of laws that deal with legal rights, and we usually use different words to describe different situation. Why shouldn’t a gay union be recognized by the government if it is a truly sincere relationship. Just give them the same legal rights, just don’t call it marriage. After all a man and a woman can join together in marriage. We accept that… I’m not saying I have the best word to explain the differences, but lets just change the first letter of marriage for men and men then women and women. Lets call men marrying “garriage” and women marrying larriage. They still get the same legal rights, but when you meet someone and they say I’m married, you would know exactly what they were saying. I’m “married” or I’m “garried” or I’m “larried”. You still have the same legal rights, you are still involved in a permeant relationship, we just know what the hell your talking about. Its about that simple!!! Equal rights for different situations….

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE