CBS’ ‘Big Bang Theory’ End Credits Push Gay Marriage

The Big Bang Theory ends each episode, after the credits, with what is called a “vanity card.” They are often a few funny paragraphs that differ with each episode, but this week’s vanity card again pushed gay marriage on the audience.

Chuck Lorre, the creator of the CBS hit comedy, has become famous for creating a new vanity card to end each episode of his sitcoms. Along with Big Bang, Lorre has indulged this practice at the end of such series as Cybil, Mike & Molly, and Two and a Half Men. Often times they are humorous. He’s been doing it since 1995, so with over 400 of them under his belt it was a lock that politics would sneak in among the “funny” ones from time to time.

In the past, Lorre has claimed that his end cards are not to be taken seriously. “The jokes are taken way too seriously and the stories all have to have a secret meaning… Don’t get me wrong. There’s a part of me that loves to exploit this silliness,” he wrote in 2011.

But that isn’t always the case. Take the end card of the April 25 episode of The Big Bang Theory which went political with Lorre pushing gay marriage. It is a partial re-peat, if you will, of a past card. This week’s vanity card reads:

CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #413
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

The vanity card seen below was written a couple of years ago, but I think it deserves another look. It is my hope that you can see past its rimshot pessimism to the fundamental truth imbedded within. Perhaps it might even speed up your deliberations, grease the wheels, if you will. Speaking of which, a wise man once said, “When sitting on the horns of a dilemma, ask the dilemma to use a lubricant.”

Sincerely,

Chuck Lorre

CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #231

I believe that inherent within the God-given right to the pursuit of happiness, is the equally God-given right to the pursuit of unhappiness. That is why I support gay marriage.

Ba-dump-bump!

Not much of a joke, indeed.

Of course, don’t get me wrong, I love the show. It is very funny and intelligently written. The characters are just quirky enough to be lovable and distinctive, yet still oddly believable.

Anyway, this is just another example of Hollywoodites pushing their left-wing ideology on the audience.

Salafi Jihadism and U.S. Grand Strategy - Part I
3D-Printed Guns Can't Be Stopped
  • hyhybt

    So what’s the problem?

  • GarandFan

    Libs are all about ‘letting the people vote’, until the vote does not turn in their favor. Twice, the voters of California said NO. And you see where we are today. Gays are free to call it whatever they wait, a plurality said it wasn’t “marriage”.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Funny how the numbers only matter when they work out in the lefts favor.

      • erickoszyk

        So you must be ok with marriage equality being legal in ME, MD and WA, huh? And with marijuana being legal in CO and WA?

    • erickoszyk

      Can I vote on your marriage?

      • GarandFan

        Nice dodge. Can I vote on your breathing?

        • erickoszyk

          No, actually you cannot. And you shouldn’t have the right to be able to vote on other people’s marriages, either.

          • GarandFan

            We’re not. We’re essentially arguing on what they want to call it. And it doesn’t stop there. Here in the People’s Repubik of Kalifornia, “Marriage” certificates no longer say “Husband” and “Wife”. It’s Partner #1 and Partner #2.

            What’s next? Abolition of the terms “Father” and “Mother”? When do we stop the PC bullshit?

          • erickoszyk

            Gays and lesbians should have the right to marry whomever they want, just like you have the same right. Also, there are over 1,000 federal benefits that go along with marriage that are not included in civil unions or domestic partnerships.

            Equality under the law for everyone.

          • GarandFan

            “Equality”? So when are they planning on suing Mother Nature?

            And I have no problem with their getting benefits. I have a problem with their word usage.

            We’re constantly told how creative gays are. So let them create their own word for what they have.

            It isn’t “Marriage”.

          • erickoszyk

            How’s your civil union going with your partner #2?

            Or are you a multiple time divorcee? Sounds like it.

          • GarandFan

            Another know-it-all that is great on assumptions.

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

            Must be a BS BH sock puppet.

          • Vagabond661

            So again your beef is with the government. The government needs to make civil unions the same as marriage. Once that is done there is no need for gays to marry in church. They can live happily ever after with all the legalities.

          • hyhybt

            Marriage from the government for all; none of this separate-but-equal nonsense. Your church, if they don’t understand how adjectives work and just can’t stand sharing terminology, can find something else to call it. Churches are already not allowed to dictate that couples they don’t approve of (remarriage after divorce, for example) are not allowed to marry elsewhere, and there is absolutely no reason this should be treated any differently. Nor to go around claiming that it will, unless, again, you can be bothered to provide EVIDENCE, at least in the form of logically necessary steps rather than vague scaremongering.

          • herddog505

            hyhybtYour church, if they don’t understand how adjectives work and just can’t stand sharing terminology, can find something else to call it.

            If you wanted to confirm the fears of the pro-traditional marriage people that gays are about dictating to churches, I cannot imagine how you might have done it better.

            Well done: you’ve firmly established that you, at least, care not a fig for freedom of religion. Those nasty ol’ churches are in your way, and they gotta be told what’s what! They gotta get with the program!

            Or else… what? You’ll sue? Sic the EEOC on them? Get SPLC to label them as “hate groups”?

          • hyhybt

            Look again. I didn’t say churches *had* to find something else to call it, or to perform gay weddings, or to do anything else. Only that they don’t have exclusive right to the term MARRIAGE, and that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to settle for “separate but equal” from the government.
            I said that IF they just cannot stand to use the same word as everyone else, it’s on them to find a new one.

          • herddog505

            Again: churches are expected to get with the new program.

            Nice.

            You’re really, really making the anti-gay marriage case for those on that side. Good work.

          • hyhybt

            Again, that’s very obviously neither what I said nor what I meant. Why do you respond to what you *want* me to have said rather than what I actually did say?

          • herddog505

            Sorry; when you write “Your church, if they don’t understand how adjectives work and just can’t stand sharing terminology, can find something else to call it”, it seems to me that you are telling the churches how they must behave.

            The churches call it and have called it “marriage” for centuries. Now, it’s big of you to say that they CAN call it something else if they don’t want to call it what you want, but I’m pretty sure that they don’t want to nor should they have to.

          • hyhybt

            And churches can continue to call it marriage if they like. I VERY PLAINLY have not said they *must* call it something else. Only that what they want to call marriage has no business dictating limits on what the *government* will include in that category. IF they don’t want to share the same term, they can come up with a new one. Do you know what “if” means? It means it’s their choice, which is the opposite of forcing anything on them.

          • herddog505

            And by the way: I don’t see this as a case of “seperate but equal”, as if gays who are married somehow get something different than straight people who are married. Unless I’ve been grossly misinformed, the compromise of civil unions – which have all the benefits and legal status of a tradition marriage such as hospital visitation, status of children, insurance, inheritance, etc. – has been offered. This isn’t “seperate but equal” in the sense of “you get to use the little bathroom” or “you get to ride in the uncomfortable carriage”.

            I understand why gay people don’t want to be made to feel seperate or different; I get it. But to demand that churches who don’t (for religious reasons that are of VERY long standing) go along should just change what THEY do… no.

          • hyhybt

            Separate is inherently unequal. If everything else is legally the same, there is no remaining purpose for a separate term other than to say “no matter what rights you have, you’re still not as good as the rest of us.” And coming from the government, that’s unacceptable.
            Would you mind explaining why *the government* should call it something else when it’s between people of the same sex? Churches, as I’ve repeatedly said, are free to call anything whatever they like.

          • herddog505

            Well, let’s see:

            1. Because people have voted that way?

            2. Because, for hundreds if not thousands of years, western society has defined it in that manner?

            But since you’re on the “separate but equal kick, try seeing it from the churches’ standpoint. When you say, “Hey, call it whatever you want just so long as you aren’t messing with OUR definition”, aren’t you engaging in EXACTLY the same sort of discrimination as you decry? Are you not telling the churches who refuse to toe the line that THEY are the different ones, the “other”, the “not as good as the rest of us”?

            At any rate, what difference is it to you what a church does or doesn’t call it? One hasn’t got to go to church to be married (my parents were not, for example). So long as the .gov gives you the rights you want, what difference does it make to YOU what it’s called?

          • hyhybt

            Not at all. Because civil law applies to EVERYBODY while church doctrine applies only within the church.
            As you can readily see from my previous posts, I’m NOT concerned with what churches call anything. I simply expect the GOVERNMENT to issue CIVIL marriage licenses in a non-discriminatory manner.

          • herddog505

            hyhybt I simply expect the GOVERNMENT to issue CIVIL marriage licenses in a non-discriminatory manner.

            Fine with me.

          • hyhybt

            Oh. In that case, why were you so insistent that the government call them civil unions instead of marriages?

          • herddog505

            Because I don’t get too hung up on splitting those kinds of legalistic hairs. If I’ve got the full rights to drive a car, for example, it doesn’t matter to me whether the card in my wallet is called a drivers license or an oskold snigglefritz: it means the same thing.

            More importantly, if the right to gay “marriage” is hung up on whether it’s called marriage or something else, then I say to hell with the terminology and call it whatever is required to get it done.

            Further, by insisting that it be called “marriage” (which almost always means dragging the church into it), the pro-gay marriage crowd unneccesarily irritates the pro-traditional folks, who are generally willing to compromise on “civil unions” but NOT on the term “marriage”. Quite aside from being a (to me) ridiculous stumbling block, it leads both sides to start casting insults and being generally hateful. Nobody wins from that.

            Finally, the irritation felt by pro-traditional marriage people is magnified many times when gays sue (!) churches or businesses owned by traditional religious people in an attempt – often perceived as a spiteful attempt – to FORCE them to recognize what they don’t want to recognize, to give tacit approval to something they don’t want to approve. If you don’t want people to dictate to you, then fairness requires that you not attempt to dictate to them.

            So, if all you really want is the full rights and privileges of marriage, then take civil unions and enjoy the victory. My guess is that, in ten or twenty more years, people will no more care about it than now care about whether a black person sits at the front of a public bus.

          • hyhybt

            The “pro-traditional folks,” as you call them, only say civil unions would be OK so long as it’s full marriage, including the name, on the table. Notice that when the issue at hand *is* civil unions, they reverse themselves and say we can’t have those either.
            And I didn’t bring church into it. Church and state are separate matters. While I am a Christian and firmly believe the majority church position on gay marriage (and gay anything, really) is wrong, that’s a matter for discussion within the individual church, not something to be imposed on them. That’s freedom for *everybody.*
            “Pro-traditional,” by the way, is a dishonest term. It deliberately (not necessarily deliberately on your part, but on those who get such terms into circulation in the first place) and falsely implies that those who believe marriage between people of the same sex should be legal are somehow *against* marriages of the type that already exists. Nothing could be further from the truth.

          • herddog505

            hyhybtSeparate is inherently unequal.

            It is? So, when I go into the men’s room, it’s inherently unequal to going into the women’s room? If I play on the men’s soccer team, it’s inherently unequal to playing on the women’s soccer team? If I am married by a Baptist preacher (as I was), is it inherently unequal to being married by a Catholic priest or a JP?

            Let’s cut to the chase: what exactly is it that you want? Do you want to simply have the benefits of marriage? Or do you want the benefits as well as the the official term? Or do you want everybody else to recognize that, even if their own faith / morals reject it (though you are decent enough to allow THEM to call it something different)?

          • hyhybt

            What I want… well, of course, there are degrees. I *want* next week’s winning Megamillions ticket. I *want* to be built like… well, you get the idea.
            But as far as marriage goes, I want churches to be free to do whatever they like so long as it applies only to their members, and I want the government to treat gay people, including our relationships, FULLY on par with straight people and relationships including all associated rights and terminology without exception. I wish people would quit pretending those are unreasonable and/or mutually exclusive.

          • herddog505

            Then why the kvetching about “marriage” vs. “civil union”? Why the complaining that, if it isn’t called “marriage”, we’re looking at Plessy v. Ferguson v2.0? Indeed, why bring churches into it at all? In the final analysis, marriage is a civil institution. For example, if I didn’t have a marriage certificate issued by the State of No. Carolina then legally I would not be legally married (our state does not recognize common law marriage). Whether marriage is consecrated by a clergyman is not really germane except in the minds of the couple. So, do your side a favor: leave the churches out of it.

          • hyhybt

            First, why the INSISTENCE on a separate term? (Never mind the nonsensical accusations that I’m the one wanting one.)

          • herddog505

            It’s called bowing to reality: gay marriage proponents can continue to insist on “NO! IT’S MARRIAGE!!!!” and lose the support of those people who are OK with civil unions, or they can accept “civil unions” with all the rights and priviledges of marriage and get essentially everything that they want. *I* think it’s silly to have two different terms, but I don’t (shall we say?) make the rules.

          • hyhybt

            In this conversation, you are though. YOU, not a vague “those people,” are insisting on special, separate terminology for gay relationships. YOU are insisting that those be the rules. As a stepping stone, lesser arrangements are better than nothing, but why should they be acceptable *permanently?*

          • herddog505

            I don’t say that they should. Elsewhere on this thread, I state my belief that, in a couple of decades at most, this will no more be an issue in our society than making black people ride in the back of the bus.

            For now, however, I suggest that the smarter play is to take “civil unions” and, bluntly, shut up about it. Yes, it stinks to be treated, in even the smallest way, as some sort of second-class citizen. However, reality is what it is, and if the country is as hot-to-trot to legalize gay marriage as its supporters make out (actual votes to the contrary), this situation won’t last very long.

            As I see it, there are three basic (if I may use the term) camps:

            — Pro-gay marriage. Whether because they are personally vested in it, see it as a civil right, or (like me) take a libertarian view that people ought to pretty much be left to live their lives as they see fit, they support the right to gay marriage. I think that this is a minority in the country, though a growing one.

            — Indifferent. I don’t know whether this is the majority or not. I suspect a strong minority. Either way, these folks simply don’t care either way.

            — Pro-traditional marriage. Whether due to religious views, concerns about the impact on our society of redefining marriage, concern about children being raised by gay couples, or just plain resistance to being bullied into acceptance (which is part of the point of the original post, I think), they aren’t keen on legalizing gay marriage. Many – perhaps most – are willing to compromise on “civil unions”.

            Whether the pro-camp likes it or not, they have hurdles to overcome to convince people to accept gay marriage. Suing churches or florists who refuse to service a gay marriage, picketting restaurants, denigrating religion in general, and calling their opponents names is not, in my opinion, the best way to go about this.

            So, for now, I say that taking the compromise is a good strategy.

          • hyhybt

            A couple things: first, “pro-traditional marriage” is still a dishonest term. Why do you persist in using it?

            Second, suing churches and florists are two vastly different issues. The latter is simply a vendor, neither more nor less. Their job is to sell flowers, not even to ask, much less agree, on what they will be used for, and there is no excuse for refusing any more than there is to refuse to do business with them on any other grounds such as renting an apartment or selling them, say, a microwave oven. Were it my wedding, I’d far rather spend my money with a florist who would celebrate the occasion (if there is one in the area; the fact that sometimes there isn’t is precisely why we have public accommodation laws in the first place.) But selling flowers for a wedding doesn’t mean approving of the marriage any more than selling flowers for a funeral means approving of the death.

          • hyhybt

            Oh, yes, and third: “shut up about it” is the problem there. Shutting up means the end. Saying we should accept something *for now* and saying that once we have that we should shut up are logically exclusive.

          • herddog505

            1. I use the term “pro-traditional marriage” because it is accurate (they don’t want to change anything);

            2. So why sue the vendor? I can tell you how it’s perceived: because the plaintiff wants to be a jerk. I’ve found that being a jerk to people doesn’t win them over to my side (though, of course, it doesn’t stop me BEING a jerk).

            [EDIT] I should add that I’ve come to despise “public accommodation” laws; a business owner is a free citizen and ought therefore to be able to serve – or not – whomever he chooses, for whatever reason seems to him to be good. If he wants to put up a sign such as “no shoes, no shirt, no service” or “no concealed weapons” or “no gays”, that’s his business; [EDIT]

            3. Yes, I had some qualms about “shut up”: it smacks of knuckling under, of being a “good one”, of accepting something that is not acceptable. I can understand why anybody with spirit WOULDN’T want to just shut up. However, there’s a time to stand on pride and not be still, and a time to take the partial victory now, confident that the rest will come. This, I think is one of those times.

          • hyhybt

            “Taking the partial victory now,” though, does not in any way involve shutting up, nor is the partial victory you imagine seriously being offered in most places.
            Notice, too, that these days when civil unions *are* offered, they’re pretty quickly converted to marriage anyway. Things are far enough along now that the stopgap is hardly worth bothering with anymore.
            “Traditional marriage” is usually code for marriage between a man and a woman. BOTH sides generally agree that marriages between a man and a woman are a good thing. BOTH sides are pro-traditional marriage. The defining point of difference is what those who label themselves as “pro-traditional” are AGAINST.
            That you choose to misperceive a lawsuit is not the fault of those who filed it. The point of framing arguments is to convince people your side is right. That’s not what lawsuits are for, and that’s not what they’re being used for. In the state of Washington, it is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate in business transactions based on sexual orientation. Why should violating that law go unpunished? Why do people falsely depict breaking anti-discrimination law as protected speech? Why shouldn’t those discriminated against seek payment? “Because it gives me an excuse to call them jerks” is no answer.

          • herddog505

            If my neighbor strolls across the corner of my lawn, should I sue or call the cops with a complaint of trespass? Only if I want to be a jerk.

            If somebody refuses to do business with me, should I sue, or simply take my business elsewhere? If I sue, ESPECIALLY if I could have easily taken my business elsewhere, then it’s not unreasonable to see ME as the jerk, not him. There’s something to be said for the Woolworth Lunch Counter approach, but there’s also something to be said against it.

            You complain that the law is stopping gays doing what they believe that they have a right to do. In the case of the florist, the law is FORCING somebody to do something that he has a right NOT to do. What’s the difference?

          • hyhybt

            Except he doesn’t currently have that right. Also: why are you presenting any of this as if it were a reason not to allow *MARRIAGE* when it’s instead a matter of anti-discrimination law. Which has been around for several decades now. If it’s the whole concept you don’t like, you sure waited a long time to complain about it; if it’s the inclusion of sexual orientation in addition to religion, race, etc., then why?

          • herddog505

            It’s a funny thing about people (or, at least, me): their attitudes change. Until a few weeks ago, I think it fair to say that I was pretty firmly anti-gay marriage. For one thing, I don’t swing that way. At all. For another, I resent being bullied, harassed, conned, browbeaten and otherwise railroaded into supporting a thing (such as by having propaganda messages inserted into sitcom credits). Further, I am a Christian and “marriage” to me means “man and woman”, not “man and man” or “woman and woman” or whatever other combination people claim that they have a right to.

            However, in the course of discussions on this blog, especially with the commenter JWH, I realized that the libertarian view is the right one: I don’t have to want gay marriage for myself, I don’t even have to like it, but I don’t see why the law should forbid people engaging in such a contract so long as they aren’t injuring somebody else.

            So, I’m not ardent in support of it, but I have come to see the logic of supporting it. I suppose that I am no different from people a half-century ago who hadn’t thought much about Jim Crow, who casually used word like “nigger” and “spook”, but who came to realize that discrimination based on race was ugly and anti-American. They may not have been ready to become Freedom Riders or march on Selma, but at least they weren’t ready to vote against pro-civil rights politicians, leaving them free to pass such things as the Civil Rights Act.

            Now, let’s talk about “rights” and anti-discrimination laws. You use the phrase “he doesn’t currently have that right”. I assume – please correct me if I’m wrong – that you are referring to the florist: that he hasn’t got the LEGAL “right” to refuse service to gays.

            First of all, this confuses a “right” (more exactly, a natural right) with a LEGAL power or responsibility. I agree, based on what you have said, that he hasn’t got the legal power to refuse service, and he should have to face the legal consequences for that decision. However, I point out that, in the same vein, a gay couple hasn’t got the legal power to marry here in North Carolina (as in many states).

            I say that a business owner has the natural right to refuse service to anybody he chooses, just as gay people have the natural right to marry whomever they choose. You support one right, but not the other, then complain that other people… are doing the same thing. It also seems to me that you (as I’ve seen other people do in various cases) hide behind the law: “Well, it’s ILLEGAL for that person to do such-and-such!” as though legality makes a thing also “right”.

            Newsflash: in many (most?) places around the country, it’s illegal for two men to go into the appropriate government office and demand a marriage license. Does this make it “wrong” for them to do so, or to want to do so? Of course not.

            I also say that this argument speaks the role that churches play in this debate. You have written that you don’t want to see churches coerced. Good; too bad that some other gay people don’t seem to agree. But WHY shouldn’t they be coerced? I say that, at bottom, it is a question of freedom of conscience: we should be VERY cautious about ordering people to behave in ways that violate whatever principles (religious or otherwise) they have.

          • Vagabond661

            That’s the thing for me…being forced. It makes no logical sense to me for gay marriage proponents to force people to accept their behavior any more that I would for a vegetarian to eat meat.

            It’s like cultural rape.

          • herddog505

            I dislike being browbeaten, and every time my wife watches “Glee” or “The New Normal” or “Modern Family” or even “Grey’s Anatomy”, I feel that I’m being browbeaten.

          • hyhybt

            Depends on what you mean by “accept their behavior.” If you mean that marriage between people of the same sex should be prohibited for everybody because some don’t want to accept it, that’s far more a matter of forcing from *your* side.

          • Vagabond661

            “Their behavior” is not accepted for religious reasons by the churches. It would be like forcing Jews to eat meat that isn’t kosher. Or for the Amish to install electricity.

          • hyhybt

            What churches accept among their own is their business. You will notice I’ve never argued otherwise.
            Just the opposite: I’ve repeatedly had to argue in favor of their freedom to you, because you insist on pretending that I’m saying the opposite.

          • Vagabond661

            geez I was splainin’ “accept their behavior” Loosy. Marriage is defined and has been defined between a man and a woman. Why change that definition for 3% of the population when all they say they really want is for their union to be legal? It can be legal without attaching the term “marriage”.

            And if the government made civil unions the same legal status as marriage (and by the way why couldn’t they come up with THEIR own term for it?), how many gay couples right now would jump at that chance? I would venture to say most of them. It’s the fringe activists and the government keeping this issue alive.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Yet you are in favor of vendors being forced to sell their services against their will?

          • hyhybt

            I appreciate your position as stated here; what I don’t understand is why you seem to want to tie anti-discrimination laws to marriage, as if the latter were somehow the cause of the former even though the former have been around for several decades longer (even if they didn’t yet include LGBT protection.)

            Anti-discrimination laws are far from ideal, exactly because they place a limit on the right to choose who you do business with. But rights, again, are not unlimited in this country; whether a particular limitation is allowed depends largely on need. If very few people *wanted* to discriminate based on race, orientation, religion, and so on, the laws would be superfluous and the right to refuse service would override. But the more such people there are, especially in any one place or field, the more that shifts from simply doing business with equally good alternatives that *want* your business to having only inferior options or none at all.

            Forget the flowers for a moment. How many hotels can refuse to let black people in before the burden on the people refused, who now have nowhere to stay for no reason other than sheer bigotry on the part of hotel owners, becomes more important than protecting the hotel owners’ right to keep them out? How many landlords who hate, say, Muslims can there be in an area before the burden on people of that religion having to live only in certain areas, if any, is more important? How many employers can refuse to hire gay or trans people and, if they discover they have hired any by mistake, fire them and give them bad references, before relieving that completely unreasonable burden on us is more important than protecting employer’s choices?

          • herddog505

            Are we a nation of men, or of children? Are we a nation of decent people, or of villains? Do we have to have the government dictate to us how to treat each other?

            We’ll never know, of course, but I wonder if slavery would have collapsed on its own and, if so, whether there would have been the century of hatred and Jim Crow in the wake of that hypothetical event.

            Did the klan die out in the South because Uncle Sugar drove it out of business, or because the vast majority of Southerners (eventually) saw it for the ugly, hateful, revolting group that it was?* Are there damned few attacks on Muslims in our country even after 9-11 and Boston because Uncle Sugar says so, or because the vast majority of Americans can and due distinguish between peaceful Muslims and terrorists? If gay marriage becomes law – as I believe that it will – will it be because Uncle Sugar FORCED everybody to accept it, or because people collectively made up their minds to accept it after years of persuasion?

            Finally, I think that having Uncle Sugar basically enforce laws against Thoughtcrime are doubleplus ungood; this is not a power that we ought to give to the government, no matter how altruistic our intent.

            ====

            (*) I know, I know: the klan is still around. Occasionally, that pack of dullards stages some march or rally or another, get a few minutes coverage in the news, make a lot of decent Southerners sick, and give the SPLC fodder for another fundraising letter.

          • Vagabond661

            Oh for Pete’s sake.You and chuckles post various claims (“Churches are already not allowed to dictate that couples they don’t approve of”) about what the churches are doing so either you are just parroting stuff or you have done your research. If you
            have done your research. If you have done your research, you obviously know how to research. If not here is a helpful tool. Just google “lawsuits against
            churches by gays”. It’s a pretty easy tool to use. Cut and paste what I provided or type in what you want to research and hit enter. Or you can keep
            your fingers in your ears and yell “LALALALALALALALALALALALA!”

            I don’t go to church but I don’t think churches should have to redefine what they call something to
            please other people. I think they should have freedom of religion (hey! Let’s
            make that a right!). An analogy (you can google that word too, just add
            “definition”) is me telling PETA that they need to include meat in their diets
            and if they don’t well, by golly, they are a bunch of meatophobes.

          • hyhybt

            1) Anyone can sue anyone else over anything whatsoever. That doesn’t mean the suit has merit, nor that they will win, nor that it’s reasonable to use that to claim anything whatsoever. Meanwhile, yes, there are lists on the internet. Generally they’re compiled by people with an axe to grind and are unreliable and exaggerated. Even the vanishingly few real cases are deliberately and grossly misrepresented. The usual short list, for example, is composed mainly of events that happened where same-sex marriage *isn’t even legal,* or wasn’t at the time. Therefore it is irrational to claim that those cases are the result of gay marriage. (And the Ocean Grove one is a particular mess. Sign up, not for a religious tax exemption, but for one conditioned on the promise that the facility will be available to all, break that promise, and then whine about losing that exemption?)
            2) Speaking of misrepresentation, what you quoted out of my post, as seems to be usual with you for some reason, wasn’t even about that at all, as you can easily see if you look again. Churches are allowed to refuse to marry anyone they wish for any reason or no reason at all. They are not allowed to set those reasons in civil law: Catholics and others cannot, for instance, force states not to issue licenses to people who have been divorced. They remain free not to conduct the weddings or to believe them to be valid spiritually, but so far as I can tell must still recognize them for legal purposes such as employment benefits. Setting aside gay issues for the moment, do you really deny this or believe it’s not the way things ought to be?
            3) AGAIN, I didn’t say “churches should have to redefine what they call something.” They can call anything they want whatever they want. I said that IF they don’t want to share the word “marriage” with a government that defines it differently than they do (which, again, they already do and have been doing for a long time) THEN it’s their decision not to use the same word, and therefore they who should come up with something else. They already have “holy matrimony,” so they could use that.

          • Vagabond661

            Or the government could just elevate civil unions to the same as marriage and there would be no issue at all. Why do you think that’s not done?

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

            Gays and Lesbians have the exact same right as anyone else: to marry the opposite gendered person who is not too closely related to them.

          • hyhybt

            Which, again, can be called equality only on a deliberately and dishonestly superficial level, rather than in substance. A gay man with a woman or a lesbian with a man is not similarly situated, relationship-wise, to a straight man and woman. Two gay men or two lesbians are.

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

            Marriage is not about the “relationship” of two people, it’s about providing a legal environment conducive to procreation [edit: and raising the children of those procreative activities to be stable and productive members of society].

          • JWH

            “Yeah, let’s do it for our country, the red, white, and the blue.It’s Uncle Sam who’s asking, so your mother will approve. ”

            “Let’s Do It for Our Country”
            Grease 2

          • hyhybt

            …except it’s fairly obvious that it not only ISN’T, but actually hinders procreation itself. An institution “about providing a legal environment conducive to procreation” would encourage as much sex as possible with as many different people as possible.
            The nearest you can rationally claim is that marriage is about providing a stable environment for raising any children that do arise from a relationship. Even at that, not only does marriage serve that purpose regardless of whether the children are biologically related to both parents, it’s also a totally optional component of marriage, arising only if and when there actually are any children. A childless couple is no less married than one that’s adopted, which is no less married than one that’s had a dozen “the old fashioned way.” The defining point of marriage is the legal relationship it creates, which in turn is a recognition of the relationship that already exists whether recognized or not.
            Given all that, how is marriage improved by EXCLUDING gay couples? None of it relies on one party being a man and the other a woman.

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

            How has the practical application of what you propose alude to above (in the black communities) worked out?

          • hyhybt

            Why do you falsely claim I’m *proposing* anything whatsoever? Read that again.

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

            So badly you don’t wan’t to talk about it, aye.

          • hyhybt

            So now you’ve shifted from what marriage is to… what, exactly? You seem to be talking total nonsense. I have not proposed anything whatsoever. All I did in the post you responded to in such a bizarre manner was explain that marriage is very clearly NOT designed to encourage reproduction. If you want an answer, explain yourself. While keeping to the topic at hand; I hate being made to guess at what people are trying so hard to imply without saying, but if, in this case, you’re aiming to swerve this discussion away from gay marriage (or, more specific to this branch, what marriage is about) into things like welfare then that’s completely a different topic and has no place whatsoever in this conversation…. except, of course, as a diversion to hide your not having anything ON topic to say.

          • ldfrmc

            Try dealing with facts. Wording on marriage applications varies among the 58 counties in California. Most now ask for names of “Person 1″ and “Person 2.” Below that designation, you can choose “Bride,” “Groom,” “Other (fill in).”

            A bride and groom are words that describe a person for one day – the day of a marriage ceremony.

            For the rest of their lives together, a couple are “married.” A man’s is the husband to his spouse. A woman’s a “wife” to her spouse.

            You are all hung up on what other people are saying about each other. Maybe you’re hurt they are not saying anything about you. Who cares!?

          • GarandFan

            Try dealing with reality.

    • ldfrmc

      7 out of 38 million Californians in 2008 is 18% of some people, telling other people who they can marry.

      “You see where we are today?”

      Most people think you ask the person you want to marry – then do. You don’t go around asking total strangers who to marry, or what a word means to you.

      Mind your own business.

      • GarandFan

        That response makes no sense.

  • 914

    Ish..

  • http://www.facebook.com/jordiesen Jordan Petersen

    There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Grow up.

    • 914

      That’s an opinion not a fact.

      • ldfrmc

        With about 50% of straight married couples, “marriage” is only a fact for about 7 years. They don’t even have to act like “husband” or “wife,” or live together. Those are the facts you have to face.

        You call whatever you have whatever you want. Check with your spouse, first.

        The rest of us? We don’t care what you “have” or what you think you should “call” it.

        Other people? – that’s your “opinion.”

        • warnertoddhuston

          It is a lie that “50%” of heteros get divorced.

          • ldfrmc

            The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
            The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
            The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

            Choose your own “lie.”

          • hyhybt

            It seems to me that, all things considered, 50%’s not so bad. Whatever the current rate really is, it’s going to be higher than it was, say, a century ago. But is that such a bad thing? People choose their own spouses, and are necessarily inexperienced in doing so. People live longer, and so have more time to get sick of each other. And people who are miserable together aren’t expected to waste the rest of their lives in that misery, but instead are allowed to go their separate ways. All of those, it seems to me, are good things.

        • Rdmurphy42
          • hyhybt

            That’s exactly why we *can’t* get rid of the 50% figure. It’s convenient and there’s no accurate one to replace it.
            But not only is the real proportion of successful marriages going to be higher, even if it were only half, that’s still pretty good when you think about it.
            Just as no-fault divorce is an improvement over being stuck with someone you can’t stand.

    • Vagabond661

      There is nothing wrong with Miracle Whip. Grow up……makes about as much sense.

      • hyhybt

        As with gay marriage, if you don’t like Miracle Whip, you are free not to partake. It’s not your place to tell others they can’t have it either.

        • GarandFan

          Okay. Black is really white. Red is really orange. Why? Because I WANT IT THAT WAY!

          As I said earlier, call it what you want, it’s not “marriage”.

        • Vagabond661

          There is Miracle Whip. The point is you can’t make Miracle Whip into mayo. You can’t tell Miracle Whip lovers they have to be mayo….and vice versa.

          • jim_m

            Well done. You sucked in the lefty and nailed him on his twisting the meaning of words to mean something they don’t. Somehow I will still bet that he misses the point..

        • herddog505

          Yes and no.

          I agree that legalizing gay marriage doesn’t somehow denigrate traditional marriage: if gay marriage became legal here in No. Carolina, I would still be married to my wife.

          However, it IS our (the people’s) place to tell others what they can and can’t have. We don’t always use this power wisely (no Big Gulps? Really???), but we have got it. And, until the past decade or so, marriage was limited to one adult man and one adult women: not two men, not a man and a child, not a woman and her dog, etc.

          People who are for gay marriage make a (to me) compelling libertarian argument: people ought to be free to live their lives as they see fit so long as they aren’t harming anybody else, and I don’t see how letting homosexuals marry DOES harm anybody else.

          However, I understand the position of people who are opposed to legalizing gay marriage: marriage and the traditional family are cornerstones of our society, and introducing a new form of marriage not only weakens these cornerstones but also opens the door to other damage. Shall we next allow polyamorous marriage? And what about age limits? Are we not violating the natural rights of ten year olds to marry?

          • erickoszyk

            If you want to save marriage, then shouldn’t divorce be illegal? Why are people allowed to marry who can’t reproduce?

          • Vagabond661

            Marriages are performed in churches. The reason militant gays are hell bent on marriage and not civil unions is :1) they believe by calling it marriage they can be more universally accepted 2) they want to sue churches for not performing gay marriages.

            The sad part of this is I think most gays and straights are fine with civil unions. However, gays are worried about the legality of civil unions. Unfortunately career politicians are more interested in a wedge issue and playing politics and militant gays will join them to push that wedge.

            The real culprit here is not conservatives or religion. It’s the government who doesn’t want to elevate civil unions to the same status as marriage. You have to got to go the court house to obtain a marriage license, right? So why doesn’t the GOVERNMENT recognize gays who want to obtain a marriage license?

          • hyhybt

            Correction: SOME marriages are performed in churches. What grounds do you have for claiming forcing churches to perform gay weddings would ever happen, much less that it’s the reason for gay people wanting to be able to marry? Any answer must include consideration of the fact that churches in the US are NEVER forced to perform any other weddings whatsoever.

          • erickoszyk

            and many (and a growing number of) churches want to marry their gay and lesbian members

          • hyhybt

            Exactly.

            And the same with chaplains: people, even in Congress where supposedly they’re better informed on such things, pretending that allowing chaplains to choose whether to perform gay weddings or not was a violation of their freedom of religion, while prohibiting them from doing them even if they want to was protecting it.

          • jim_m

            The denominations that want to do so are already in a well documented and steep decline. While they think this will help it will not stem the decline.

          • jim_m

            What grounds do you have for claiming forcing churches to perform gay weddings would ever happen

            From the simple fact that many of those protesting have also been protesting discriminatory religious beliefs held by denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church. Just as obama has tried to ram paying for contraception and abortion down the throats of the RCC they will do this as well.

          • hyhybt

            I don’t quite follow. Would you mind elaborating on that, please, and also sticking to the topic?

          • jim_m

            You asked that question. I supplied an answer. To the extent that it digresses from the subject, you are primarily at fault. If you are incapable of understanding the simple language in which I responded I suggest taking remedial English courses.

          • hyhybt

            How is your wandering off the topic of the question I asked, and also giving only a vague non-answer and pretending it was a real answer, my fault?
            Why does nobody who spouts the blatant nonsense about churches being forced to marry anyone whatsoever EVER have the decency to back the claim up with logic, rather than either ignoring the question, meandering vaguely about Obama, etc?

          • Vagabond661

            I can see you need help with research. Maybe this will help:

            “What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say ‘No, we’re not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they’re a bad example?” Stern asks.

            Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups.

            A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.

            A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court.”

            The article goes on. You can access it here.

            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

            So when I hear people telling me churches won’t get sued, I laugh and shake my head. They obviously either don’t know or are lying thru their teeth. I will assume you don’t know.

          • herddog505

            Well, their fallback is that the cases NATURALLY will be decided in favor of the churches and religious organizations. Never mind that, even if that rosy prediction is proved, the churches will be out thousands (perhaps millions) of dollars in legal fees, not to mention the negative publicity they’ll get for their “hate”.

          • hyhybt

            And how is that different than anything else? Again, anyone can sue anyone else for anything whatsoever. For example, doctors can do everything humanly possible for a patient and still have to defend themselves against lawsuits by the patent’s family when he dies anyway. And, again, most of the cases people list off aren’t even about marriage and don’t have churches as defendants.
            In the specific case of a church (an actual church) being sued for not *performing a wedding*, there is no rational reason to assume the case would go anywhere. It’s the sort of thing that (at worst after a few similar cases are heard just because) would get thrown out as frivolous and quite possibly with fines against the plaintiffs. That churches are free to decide their own rites and who may receive them is about as well established a principle as you’re going to find.
            But if you have any such cases, I’d very much like to hear them. Actual CHURCHES, in the United States (any of the areas where gay marriage is recognized) being sued FOR NOT PERFORMING THE WEDDING. Surely, if this is a real threat, there will have been some by now.

          • herddog505

            As I write elsewhere on this thread, suing churches does the gay marriage camp no damned good at all. You (we?) are in the minority in many if not most states. SUING people – suing churches, for pity’s sake – to FORCE them to conduct a wedding against their creed is spiteful, stupid, and self-destructive whether the case goes anywhere or not.

            I would also say that even a passing acquaintance with our legal system would inform a person that, depending on the location, judge, lawyers, etc., a case may well “go somewhere”. And, again, even if it doesn’t, it costs the targetted church a good bit of money to lawyer up.

            Finally, it seems to me that if the gay marriage camp wants to really, truly, thoroughly, utterly f*ck itself, let them win such a case. There are plenty of Americans who are willing to live and let live with regards to gay marriage, willing to compromise on civil unions. When they find that churches CAN BE FORCED to perform a gay marriage… the sleeping giant will awake.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            The thing I’d really like for the gay marriage crowd to understand is that indifference or disagreement with their position doesn’t equal hatred of them as people. (If it did, I’d have hated my sister in law for quite a while now, lol. We don’t agree on political things.)

            But it seems like they believe they’ve got to go to the nuclear option early in order to get the things they want – and I’ll confess I really don’t see how that gets them the ‘tolerance’ they crave, unless it’s the sort of tolerance a bully gets from his victim when he extorts lunch money in the schoolyard.

            This doesn’t engender good feelings in the long run – they might win a battle, but they’re screwing themselves over in the long run.

            “spiteful, stupid, and self-destructive” – that pretty well sums up a lot of the people pushing this. Spiteful in that they’re thinking “Well, they HATE me, so I’m justified in suing them!” Stupid in that it’s unnecessary – if they weren’t in a flaming hurry (so to speak) they’d get the acceptance through slow persuasion, and self-destructive in that if they DO get what they want, they’ll be alienating themselves from a lot of folks who simply didn’t care – until they were forced to.

          • hyhybt

            A gross exaggeration and over-generalization.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            (Shrug.)

            Your reply proving me in error was so detailed, fact-filled and eloquent that it’s simply impossible to rebut.

            See, the problem is… I don’t CARE about the subject overmuch. Where a person’s plumbing points (or their heart) doesn’t disturb me. How people act is what I judge them on, and I don’t automatically apply labels. Folks have to earn them.

            If, for example, someone sues a bakery or photographer because they were refused, I look at the scenario.

            How will suing the photographer get you good pictures? How will suing the baker get you a wedding cake? Are they raising a stink in the hopes of getting something free as a settlement? (And would you WANT a cake or photography by someone forced to make it?)

            I’m observing, and commenting on what I observe. If you’re seeing something different, then that’s your point of view.

            (Edited. Sorry about that…)

          • hyhybt

            What do you have to show logically that your post was even remotely a fair characterization?

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You’re the one objecting. Show it isn’t.

          • hyhybt

            (WARNING: THIS POST IS PROBABLY TOO LONG TO ALL SHOW IN EMAIL.)

            Interesting. I notice, going back to the site itself to see what exactly the source comment was to begin with, that you went back and edited your originally one-sentence post (“Your reply proving me in error was so detailed, fact-filled, and eloquent that it’s simply impossible to rebut”) into something far more substantial. It’s not just that it was too long and got cut off; that one sentence, plus a “(shrug)” at the beginning, is all there was. Going first on the original version, since that’s all you could reasonably expect me to have read until now: As before, attributing to “the gay marriage crowd” as a whole the “they hate me” routine is a gross oversimplification and overgeneralization. To the point that I find it hard to believe it to be anything other than deliberate dishonesty on your part, though if you believe otherwise I’d very much appreciate your explaining. (Actual explaining, mind, not just repeating yourself in different words which is not at all the same thing.) Overgeneralization, because most gay people (or, rather, most people on the side of allowing gay marriage whether gay themselves or not) don’t take that approach at all, and oversimplification or exaggeration because most of the time, arguments people on the anti-marriage side of things hear and then go screaming “they hate us!” aren’t, to any rational reader, that simple or extreme.
            Now, to be clear, SOME people on both sides definitely *are* hateful of the other. And if you dig deeply enough, most if not all of the opposition to treating gay people *necessarily including relationships* like everyone else is rooted at least in the notion that we’re somehow inferior. But that’s not the same thing as calling those motivated by that haters.
            And no. Very clearly, “you hate me” is not grounds for a lawsuit. Nobody, or at least no significant number of people (for again, every conceivable position is held by *somebody* and if I don’t point that out someone will call me a liar for using “nobody” in the ordinary rather than the absolute sense) is claiming hatred as grounds for a lawsuit. People can *feel* any way they like. They can express whatever opinions they like. All they cannot do is run their businesses in an illegally discriminatory manner. Why do you mischaracterize that? ESPECIALLY given that what you edited into that other post includes the claim that “How people act is what I judge them on?”
            Along the same lines… remember the Chick-fil-A mess last summer? Basically, the guy running the company said some things, and it came out that they also spent some of their profits a certain way. Freedom of expression, no problem. People who disagreed with his position expressed disagreement *with that position* and some of them said it made them less likely to want to buy their products. Freedom of expression; no problem… except that the latter were then painted by people agreeing with the company as if they were violating his right to free speech, merely by exercising their own. It’s not quite the same thing, but it’s very similar in principle to altering “A sued B for refusing to conduct a business transaction” to “A sued B for hating A.”
            Moving onwards, I’ll quote: “How will suing the photographer get you good pictures? How will suing the baker get you a wedding cake? Are they raising a stink in the hopes of getting something free as a settlement? (And would you WANT a cake or photography by someone forced to make it?)”
            —First two questions: it won’t. That’s not generally what lawsuits are for. Similarly, if a surgeon amputates your healthy leg instead of your damaged one, suing won’t restore it. It does, though, have useful effects: compensating you (to the degree that money can) for harm, discouraging them from doing the same again, and serving as an example to others in their field. Third question: hardly seems possible. Suing someone is expensive, and as I understand it the amount sued for is not all that large.

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

            TL&SDR

          • hyhybt

            What’s SDR? As for TL, notice he did specifically ask for it.

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

            Are you referring to yourself in the third person?

          • hyhybt

            Of course not. Read the thread branch you’re adding to.

          • hyhybt

            It’s more than a little troubling that you keep referring to “the gay marriage camp” as if anything one of us might do can reasonably be attributed to all.

          • herddog505

            Oh, come now. It’s perfectly normal usage to refer to a group of people with similar political aims as a “camp”, “movement”, “faction” or “wing”.

          • hyhybt

            Not my point at all, and again, you have no excuse not to see that.

            It’s the notion that anything any one person anywhere does means all of us support it that I object to, as if gay people or advocates as a whole should be held responsible for every fringe nutcase, or should be penalized just because somebody, somewhere will act unreasonably.
            Which is also the whole thrust of your “but churches might get sued” argument.

          • herddog505

            Whatever. If you want to take offense where none is intended, that’s your business.

          • hyhybt

            Offense has nothing to do with it. Why do you first misrepresent what I’ve said and then dismiss my correcting your error with “whatever?”

          • hyhybt

            All right. So then, as I believe I’ve said before, your problem is not with marriage law, but with anti-discrimination law. Churches are already not allowed to discriminate in employment for non-religious positions. Universities are not churches, even if they are affiliated with one. Again, that someone has been sued doesn’t mean the case has merit, BUT “allegedly lesbian” sets off red flags in my head anyway: it means there’s more to the case than you’re saying, and almost certainly more than is publicly available, enough so to make it worthless for determining anything until that comes out. Catholic Charities, likewise, is not a church. It’s an organization run by a church, but is not one itself. Moreover, *they* didn’t decide to stop doing adoptions. They wanted to continue to place children in new families, but the church hierarchy found it more politically expedient to shut them down so they could make themselves look like victims.
            A psychologist is not a church. A psychology practice is a business, and therefore subject to public accommodation laws. If you don’t like those laws, argue against THOSE LAWS, not marriage. Notice, as I pointed out even before you began your list, that’s a state that doesn’t even allow gay marriage in the first place.
            The IVF doctor, likewise, is not a church. Not only that, in my opinion that’s a case of outright fraud. Basically, the doctor, *knowing* the woman to be half of a lesbian couple, did treatments (hormones, I think) for something like a year, then balked at actually starting a pregnancy. The delay this caused in finding a new doctor that could take the patient’s insurance plan meant having to start the whole process over again. Do you really consider that reasonable behavior on the doctor’s part? Because, again, it looks like fraud to me.
            Again, I won’t say churches won’t get sued. Anyone can be sued for anything. But you’ve got NOTHING even to suggest that a suit against a church (an actual church, not a business) for not performing a wedding would go anywhere.

          • Vagabond661

            No my problem is with whiny elitists who feel the world needs to revolve around them.

            I defer to herddog with the legal stuff. If you want to say on anyone can sue anyone for anything then pretend that it won’t happen to churches who refuse to perform gay marriages that’s fine…Just don’t expect credibility.

          • hyhybt

            I’m not saying they won’t get sued, once in a while. How is that possibility a reason not to do anything, *given the fact that anyone can be sued for anything*?

          • Vagabond661

            Again, herddog knows the legal stuff. and again a solution is elevate civil union to marriage status. everyone wins. Why push it any other way?

          • hyhybt

            Why the insistence on a separate term? Those who are opposed to gay marriage are almost universally, if you dig deep enough, opposed to gay relations in general. No matter what’s currently on the table, they pretend that the problem is that we’re just asking for a *bit* too much, that if only we wanted a little less that would have been OK. It’s a ruse, and a transparent one at that.
            Likewise, the vanishingly few people who would even *want* a church that didn’t approve of their wedding to perform it, much less sue to force them to do so, would likewise insist the same if the license were retitled “civil union.” The separate term does NOTHING WHATSOEVER except to mark those who have to use it as lesser.
            It is not possible to have all the rights of marriage under a different name because the name itself IS one of the rights. And not even the least of them.

          • Vagabond661

            But all you guys INSIST it’s all about the legality. Are you now admitting it’s just a smokescreen? And why change a name for 3% of the population when there is another easier solution?

            By the way, it is possible. They do it in France. Look it up.

            You can’t get people to like mayo over Miracle Whip. You can’t force people to watch Dr. Phil. You can’t mandate that people accept Diet Pepsi over Diet Coke. You want acceptance about gay marriage? Stop operating like pushy used car salesmen.

          • hyhybt

            The “oh, but you said it’s ONLY about…” line is inherently dishonest. Marriage isn’t ONLY about anything one thing, any more than it is for straight people. And it’s only opponents who pretend that it is, or that it’s generally being argued for as such.
            And yes, do look at France. The separate, weaker setup created as an excuse not to treat gay people (necessarily including our relationships) as fully equal wound up WEAKENING heterosexual marriage by giving straight folks a lukewarm alternative… and now they’re getting real marriage for same-sex couples anyway.
            As for your bizarre and incoherent rambling about competing products: if you don’t like marriage between people of the same sex, marry someone of the opposite sex or remain single. That’s no basis whatsoever for denying it to those of us who disagree. That’s not a flippant answer, though it’s certainly been offered as one. It’s the basic truth.

          • Vagabond661

            No actually it’s about how dishonest you guys are with your argument. You posture legality when it’s not about legality because there are legal ways to obtain your objective. You don’t want to pursue that. You want acceptance for an act between two males that most people don’t even want to think about. THAT was my analogy about diet pepsi and diet coke. Sorry it went over your head.

            You can’t make someone like something that they don’t like. If you don’t like green beans, someone forcing green beans down your throat ain’t going to make you like them. Now if you see people you admire eating green beans, it may change your mind over a period of time. It’s advertising 101 and you guys missed the boat.

            There are gay role models, some good, some bad. Bad gay role models can set back all the work that good gAY role models do. Denounce the bad gay role models. Support the good gay role models. Being pushy about this issue does not help your cause. It just turns people off.

          • hyhybt

            So, then: you really are comparing having both mayo and Miracle Whip available for anyone to take whichever they like to *prohibiting one option for everybody*? It’s not that I didn’t get it, it’s that there’s nothing sensible there TO get. That you don’t like something is not a reason to take it off the shelf; it’s simply a reason for you not to put it in your own shopping cart.
            It *is* about legality. It’s just not ONLY about legality. Surely, surely you understand the difference? And no, there isn’t a legal way around this. (Civil unions are not available in most of the country or federally either.)

          • Vagabond661

            So instead of pursuing the legal way (and there ways to do it legally. you just choose to ignore them) of same sex unions, you prefer going against the grain and doing it the hard way? Makes no sense but hey if that’s the way you want to do it, if you want to force yourself and your culture on us, have at it. On top of everything, you want us to be quiet while you are having your way with us.

            It’s funny we hear liberals bitch about the US pushing democracy on the world or pushing our religion on people but THIS is a-ok. Hypocritical, yes? Typical? oh hell yeah.

          • hyhybt

            What “legal way” are you talking about, specifically?

            By the way, the last line of your first paragraph is a lie, pure and simple. It doesn’t even rise to the level of possible error.

          • Vagabond661

            I have said it before, many times. Your beef is with the GOVERNMENT. Get them to elevate civil unions to marriage status. That’s the legal way. You could try getting gay marriage voted on by the masses but that hasn’t worked out to well for gays in the past.

          • hyhybt

            If that’s all you meant, then what purpose does it serve to call that the “legal way” as opposed to getting the same government simply to expand the existing marriage to include gay couples? Both are essentially the same process; both involve changing the law; and so forth and so on. How is your preferred way, leading to inferior results, more “legal” than going for the real thing?

          • Vagabond661

            I can’t answer to your false assumptions on results. You get a marriage license in a court house. Why could you not also get married there? If it’s legality you want, THAT”S LEGAL! If you want to force your way into someone else’s religion, try the Muslims first, then work your way down.

            We seem to be repeating. Post whatever you want. I am done.

          • hyhybt

            Indeed, we are repeating. I have repeatedly said it’s LEGAL rights I want and churches should do whatever they like. And you have repeatedly reacted as if I’d said the opposite. Would you at least have the decency to say WHY you insist on misrepresenting my position?

          • hyhybt

            Oh, by the way, about “being pushy”: That accusation is very consistently thrown at gay people for having the gall to want to be treated decently. It’s the same lie as people whining about “shoving your sex life in our face” or similar wording just for doing the same sorts of things straight people do without anyone even thinking about it, and avoiding the charge ultimately requires pretending not to have either a relationship or the desire for one at all.

          • erickoszyk

            And a lot of churches wish to marry their gay and lesbian members. The Unitarian Universalists, the United Church of Christ, Quakers and many denominations of Reform Jews and Methodists.

            How dare you tell them that they cannot marry their members as they want to!

            PS No church will ever be forced to marry gays and lesbians just like they have never been forced to marry anyone.

            I recently married a woman of Jewish heritage; we are both Agnostic. If we went to a Catholic Church and asked them to marry us, would they have to? Of course not. The same thing is true of churches in regards to gays and lesbians.

            All of your arguments are red herrings.

          • Vagabond661

            “How dare you tell them that they cannot marry their members as they want to!”

            I don’t recall me saying that at all. I said take it up with their GOVERNMENT.

            “PS No church will ever be forced to marry gays and lesbians just like they have never been forced to marry anyone.”

            This is a pure BS. Religious places are already being targeted for lawsuits. Hey heard the one about birth control?

          • hyhybt

            Insurance coverage has nothing to do with rites.

          • 914

            The same reason that people reproduce that are not married. Biology

          • herddog505

            I’m not arguing about “saving” marriage. I am simply pointing out the fact that, because we live in a republic, we most assuredly do have the right to tell people who the can and cannot marry.

            But since you bring up divorce, what do you make of the laws regarding it? That it used to be much more difficult to get a divorce than it generally is now? Did people have a “right” to tell others that they had to STAY married? Do they have a “right” to tell people how long they have to wait and under what circumstances they may end their marriage?

            If you want to convince people that gay marriage ought to be allowed, then you’re really going to have to do better than thunder that we, the people, haven’t got the power to forbid it, because it’s pretty obvious that we have.

          • JWH

            Shall we next allow polyamorous marriage? And what about age limits? Are we not violating the natural rights of ten year olds to marry?

            And this is why I prefer the battle be fought in legislatures rather than courts. If somebody wants recognition for polyamorous marriages … then let them lobby for it in the state legislatures.

            As far as the 10-year-olds, I recognize you’re being hyperbolic. But I should point out that even from a libertarian standpoint, letting a 10-year-old marry is a no go; as a juvenile, a 10-year-old is considered incapable of entering a contract.

          • herddog505

            The only problem with doing it in the legislatures is the issue of one state not recognizing what another state has done. I don’t know what the law is on that.

            As for the ten year-old, I have somewhere in my pile of junk a newspaper cutting given to me by my amateur historian great aunt about a ten year-old getting married. Now, it WAS many years ago (the ’30s, as I recall), but clearly this sort of thing was legal. Those NAMBLA creeps are out to legalize their perversion, as well. Not that I think that there’s much chance of them succeeding any time soon, but the point is that what is an isn’t legal with regard to marriage (as with many other things) depends on what enough people will vote for.

          • JWH

            Hmm … any idea what the customs on child marriage were? My interest is a little bit piqued. Today, marriage is considered a contract entered into by two consenting adults. At that time and location, was marriage a situation where the arrangement was actually made by two families?

          • herddog505

            I don’t believe so. I’ll have to try to scare up the article (heavens only knows where I put it), but my recollection was that the girl was given permission by her folks. It was western No. Carolina during the Depression; they may have been glad to marry their daughter off to a man (farmer) who could provide for her.

            If you want a stomach-turning history of marriage (concubinage, really), try Wild Swans by Jung Chang. Two anecdotes stuck in my mind:

            — Chang’s grandmother was made a concubine to a warlord at the age of fifteen… so HER father could get a promotion. Her grandmother’s parents also practiced foot binding with their daughter. The really sick thing about this loathsome practice is that girls whose parents DIDN’T do it would curse their parents: “Why didn’t you do that for me? Because you were weak, my chances of marriage – of LIFE – have been ruined.”

            — During the chaos and famine right after the defeat of the Japanese, Chang’s mother saw a woman begging in the street. Next to her was a little girl with a sign around her neck: “Daughter for sale: 20kg of rice.”

            Some things are beyond my comprehension. Thank God.

    • herddog505

      Whether one thinks gay marriage is right or wrong, ought there to be a line between entertainment and propaganda?

      Consider: many Asians find Charlie Chan movies to be offensive. Many black people found Amos and Andy to be offensive. Why? Because stereotypes were being pounded into them and other people by these “harmless” entertainments. It was part of the ubiquitous culture that told everybody that Chinese or black people behaved in certain ways that were different, alien, cartoonish.

      “The Big Bang Theory” isn’t “Gentleman’s Agreement” or “In the Heat of the Night”: it’s intended to be mindless humor, not make a social / political statement.

      I wonder if you (or I, for that matter) would feel the same if the vanity card had been AGAINST gay marriage.

      • JWH

        Entertainment is low art, but it’s still art, which often comments on the day’s issues … and where’s the line between propaganda and commentary?

        Many years ago, Everwood did a very special episode about abortion … and it kind of turned things on its head. I highly recommend watching the episode if you can find it. Rather than take on abortion as a political issue, the episode focused on the emotional toll on people involved.

        That said, I don’t care for very special episodes, heavy-handed didactics, or exploitive TV. I prefer that controversial issues grown naturally from themes, characters, or ongoing plotlines.

        • hyhybt

          “Heavy-handed” is a judgment call, but surely a block of small text that’s onscreen maybe two seconds doesn’t qualify.

          • JWH

            Heavy-handed? Don’t know.

            But I’ve seen it argued (and rather persuasively) that Will & Grace did more for gay rights in its entire run than a whole raft of “very special episodes” about the topic over the years.

          • hyhybt

            It may well have. But timing is everything; Will & Grace wouldn’t have worked in the 80′s.

    • 914

      You are right. It’s a symbol of perfection. That’s why it has been an institution for thousands of years, insuring ongoing future generations of the human race.. Oh, wait., maybe not that so much.

    • 914

      Well, enjoy your gay marriage then and good luck!~

  • jim_m

    Two comments:

    1) We are supposed to give a damn about what Hollywood leftists think? Why? My cat has better informed opinions about current affairs.

    2) You watch that show? ugh.

  • James

    Left wing? Equality’s left wing?

  • JPeron

    Silly, silly boy. You apparently think that equality of rights is a Left-wing view. I am not a Progressive, a Democrat or what is called liberalism today. But, given attitudes like this among some conservatives I’m not one of them either. It is a pro-liberty position. Conservatives, like the Left-wing they love to bash, want to be pro-liberty in a very selective manner.

    • herddog505

      Don’t we all?

    • Vagabond661

      Big difference between equal rights and equal outcomes. Plus there is a lot of differing opinions about what is considered a “right”. There are those who claim a right that isn’t there.

  • Par4Course

    The best show on TV is Tom Selleck’s Blue Bloods, which promotes law, ethics and family in the context of interesting criminal cases and personal situations. But the funniest TV show is The Big Bang Theory, mainly because of the character Sheldon Cooper created by Emmy-winner Jim Parsons. In May 2012, Parsons “came out,” confirming the previous rumors and 2010 National Enquirer article reporting he was gay. This may be one reason Chuck Lorre “pushed” gay marriage through a “misery loves company” end-of-show vanity card.

  • erickoszyk

    So, two adult citizens being allowed to legally marry the person they love is “left wing ideology”?

    Good! Thank god I’m a leftist and not one of you big government conservatives!

    Keep your religion out of my government!

  • erickoszyk

    I have gay and lesbian friends who have been in committed relationships with their partners for over 20 years, and yet they are not allowed to marry in the states they reside in.

    And yet, I can literally fly to Las Vegas today, meet a woman in a bar tonight and legally marry her tomorrow and it’s 100% legal. Not only would our marriage be legal in Nevada it would also be considered legal in all 50 states and also by the federal government.

    If you think that is ok then you have some serious mental problems.

    • hyhybt

      Isn’t it odd, by the way, that a state that allows not only quickie weddings and even quickie divorces, but prostitution as well, got worked up enough over the prospect of gay marriage to ban it?

      • erickoszyk

        True, although there is a very good chance that Nevada will legalize same sex marriage at the ballot box in 2016.

        http://www.policymic.com/articles/37213/nevada-gay-marriage-bill-could-this-where-the-u-s-gay-marriage-wave-starts

        • jim_m

          I’ll just note that you had no problem with prostitution being legal. It is interesting that you equate legalization of gay marriage with something that is illegal in the other 49 states and use that as an argument for why gay marriage should be legal

          • hyhybt

            It’s precisely the difference that’s significant. Marriage: committing to one other person no matter what, is considered worse under Nevada law than paying for sex with a stranger.

          • jim_m

            There is a school of thought that would claim that there is some substance to the argument that marriage is indeed worse than paying for sex with a stranger. With prostitution the worst that could happen is an incurable, fatal illness. I could accept an argument that it may be preferable to marriage.

          • hyhybt

            So don’t marry, then. But that’s no reason it shouldn’t be available.

          • jim_m

            Where were you in 1992?

          • hyhybt

            Why do you ask?

          • erickoszyk

            I said no such thing; I never mentioned prostitution.

      • Vagabond661

        If marriage is all that bad it makes you wonder why gays would want to get involved with such a corrupt institution as marriage.

        • jim_m

          Nobody claimed they were smart.

        • hyhybt

          Who said marriage is bad?

          • Vagabond661

            So you are painting marriages in a good light when you talk about quickie weddings and divorces?

          • hyhybt

            Go back and read the whole sentence instead of picking out a couple words here and there.

          • Vagabond661

            “And yet, I can literally fly to Las Vegas today, meet a woman in a bar tonight and legally marry her tomorrow and it’s 100% legal. Not only would our marriage be legal in Nevada it would also be considered legal in all 50 states and also by the federal government.”

            Pardon me, it was the dude above you. However I have heard people badmouth marriage and laugh about the quickie divorces then turn around and demand that they be a part of the institution they were tearing down.

  • Paul Hooson

    It probably has a lot to do with the show’s breakout star, Jim Parsons. Parsons is well known to have a male partner, as well as having won the show several TV awards. Parsons was a struggling actor for a few years, but his oddball Sheldon character has helped to make this show a major hit on both network TV as well as syndication.

    • jim_m

      Parsons was a deservedly struggling actor for a few years…

      FIFY

      • Paul Hooson

        His oddball personality certainly had to find the right script to work with. He’s annoying in a funny way, and not everyone’s idea of a character who puts them at ease. He creates enough conflict in the series to prove to be a vital component in the show’s success.

        • Vagabond661

          It would be interesting to see him in a different role. I saw him briefly in the Muppet Movie before I even watched BBT.

          • Paul Hooson

            He’s probably thinking seriously of doing a movie very soon, and could even find himself taking his success here for granted, which is one potential career danger for both himself as well as the series.

          • hyhybt

            I don’t remember any child characters in The Muppet Movie, and checking dates, he was only six when it was released.

          • Vagabond661

            the recent muppet movie….try IMDB

          • hyhybt

            Ah. You’d capitalized “Movie,” making it part of the title.

          • Vagabond661

            To be honest, I saw the movie but couldn’t remember the title.

          • hyhybt

            That’s Disney’s fault. They called it “The Muppets,” an unsatisfyingly generic title. (“The Muppet Movie” would have been, too, if it hadn’t been the only one at the time, but “The Muppets” is far worse.)
            I was surprised to find out Jim Parsons is 40. He doesn’t look it, to me, though the childish qualities of his BBT character may influence that. (While I saw that movie, I don’t remember his being in it; but then, I don’t think I’d watched the show yet at the time.)

  • nol west

    Wow, the Big Bang Theory’s still on?

    This is off-topic, I realize, and I want to apologize to the
    author of the piece for that. I’m trying to inject some conservative humor into
    the debate with a new blog I’ve got and some other ideas I have in mind. We
    need to get on-the-fence types laughing with us and not at us. Conservatives
    are so often a punchline in the media and my problem with that is this:
    liberals and their view of the world are far easier targets for comedy, but
    nobody’s really doing it. I’m not even real sure that I’m the guy for the job
    but I’m gonna be out here giving it a shot until it either works out or reveals
    itself to be completely pointless – you all will decide that. It’s my firm
    belief that as a group we’re the more thoughtful, serious people by a country
    mile, but it has to be clear by now that we’re losing the battle on that particular front. All of that said, thanks for reading this and check out my site if you’ve got
    some time after you’ve read this one. Nol

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE