Intimidating those who disagree with you on a political issue by listing their names on a website and hurling insults at them in public? Disgusting.

Don't they know that's what blogs are for? ;)

You mean your real name is mantis?

First or Last?

I don't get it jpm. Did you read the article?

"One would think that such a place would be a wonderful place to showcase just what the gay community wants, let them display their vision of how they want our society to be. It would be filled with peace and love and tolerance, embracing all peoples of all orientations, all beliefs, all cultures."

Sort of like the peace loving Palestinian people if only they could have small corner of the world where they could rule themselves, free from Israeli occupiers. Then at least in that small corner of the world there would be peace. Jew and Muslim could sit down together in brotherly (or sisterly) brotherhood (or sisterhood) and calmly discuss any differences.

It is a dream to cherish...then reality sets in.

Jew and Muslim could sit down together in brotherly (or sisterly) brotherhood (or sisterhood) and calmly discuss any differences.

Ahhh, The Life of Brian.

"Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?"

"Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea"

It would be less of an issue if marriage went right back to the religious groups where it belongs. The only reason that gay groups want it besides some of the legal benefits in some states, is to gain legitimacy. They are willing to force religions to accept it through state-licensed marriage. By ending it as a private, contractual relationship between a man, a woman and a deity, they can make it legally impossible for a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (yes, many Eastern Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama are anti-homosexuality) or other religious person to say that they aren't married in the eyes of their business or organization. Thus, they can slowly force the institutions that form society to accept them and their lifestyle.

It would be less of an issue if marriage went right back to the religious groups where it belongs.

That would work. If this were a theocracy. We, though, have the option of doing this the religious way, or doing this the non-religious way.

The only reason that gay groups want it besides some of the legal benefits in some states, is to gain legitimacy.

...where "legitimacy" == "equal rights" to rom partnerships, presume inheritance and otherproperty rights, etc.

They are willing to force religions to accept it through state-licensed marriage.

There hasn't been any attempt to pass laws, or ask courts, to impose doctrinal changes to any religion.

I was wondering when the next gay bashing would take place on Wizbang - leave it to Jay to serve it up.

It would be less of an issue if marriage went right back to the religious groups where it belongs.

So all of the legalities surrounding marriage would what, disappear?

The only reason that gay groups want it besides some of the legal benefits in some states, is to gain legitimacy.

First of all, it's all states, not some. Second, you're right about legitimacy, but wrong about who they are seeking legitimacy from.

They are willing to force religions to accept it through state-licensed marriage.

This you're just pulling out of thin air. The push for gay marriage is entirely about the state, not about religion.

By ending it as a private, contractual relationship between a man, a woman and a deity, they can make it legally impossible for a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (yes, many Eastern Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama are anti-homosexuality) or other religious person to say that they aren't married in the eyes of their business or organization.

First of all, it is not a "relationship between a man, a woman and a deity," it is a legal partnership. Second, what the hell are you talking about? Even if gays had legal marriages, that would not require any religion to do a damn thing, besides for what reason would these religious peoples "businesses or organizations" want to deny the marriage of gay people? When would this even come up?

Thus, they can slowly force the institutions that form society to accept them and their lifestyle.

First of all, religious institutions do not "form society," they are merely a part of the fabric of society. Second, they could not be "forced" to do anything. If religious gays want their church to recognize gay marriage, that is a private issue contained entirely within that church. The law has nothing to do with it. Legal gay marriage is an entirely different issue.

I don't belong to any religion. Say I get married thru a Justice of the Peace, legally but not recognized in the eyes of any church. Am I "forcing" churches to accept me? No I am not, in fact we have nothing to do with each other at all.

Take your religious gay paranoia and shove it, MikeT. You're full of shit.

I was wondering when the next gay bashing would take place on Wizbang - leave it to Jay to serve it up.

Please identify the "gay bashing" here, if you can.

'If religious gays want their church to recognize gay marriage, that is a private issue contained entirely within that church.'

...except when they sue the church for not performing and/or reconizing their marriage.

"Bedfellows make for strange politics"

Brilliant headline.

Back on the subject...

What's the big deal here? Just a few gays (of course not representative of the whole group), typical of your left-wingers, showing they are completely capable of their own brand of discrimination. Tolerance for every freaky lifestyle except those they don't like.

Frankly, if some one called me a breeder on the street, I would have to laugh. Yes! Breeder pride! Power to the heteros!

"There hasn't been any attempt to pass laws, or ask courts, to impose doctrinal changes to any religion."

Yet, rwilymz. Yet. That's the word. The longer the fight over this whole "gay marriage" movement goes on, we can see that it isn't about 'tolerance' and 'civil rights.' It isn't about acceptance. It's about approval. But those of us who find this hijacking of the state judiciary by a shrill group of spoiled, well-heeled brats to be fraught with danger are the bad guys.

Are you willing - and you too, Mantis - to guarantee that no attention-seeking gay "Catholic" couple would demand they be married in the Church - and that, when the Church declines to do so, that they wouldn't press for the Archdiocese be brought up on discrimination charges? Are you willing to bet that will never happen? Because I'm not. You need only to look at Canada to see how quickly any expression that homosexuality is not the absolute source of all that is good and right can be branded "hate speech." You WILL approve - or the power of the State will force you to your knees.

Oh, and Lee - "gay bashing?" Thanks for proving my point. Love that tolerant left. Diversity, sure, but only in conformity, right?

Hmmmm.

Curious.

1. Calling someone a "faggot" is pretty much a hate crime.

2. Calling someone a "breeder" isn't a hate crime.

...

The issue I've long had with supposed "hate" crimes is that they divide America into various castes where some are very much more equal than others.

-and-

I've known any number of gay people. Some are nice, some are assholes. And personally, I call'em like I see'em.

...except when they sue the church for not performing and/or reconizing their marriage.

Um ... my first wife was a catholic girl. We got married in a United Methodist church. The Catholic church didn't "recognize" her marriage to me. This has happened millions upon millions of times in our nation.

Can someone point out one Catholic who sued the local bishop because his marriage wasn't being recognized?

Can't have a lawsuit unless you have a law that supports the claim. Can anyone find me a law that holds some sort of liability of a religious organization to recognize out-of-church marriages?

"Hey! they wouldn't let me take communion! I'm suing!!"

It don't work that way.

Yet, rwilymz. Yet. That's the word.

That's a word, yes. Paranoia is also a word. You think one applies, I think the other applies.

Legitimate difference of opinion, there, I think.

It isn't about acceptance. It's about approval.

For some activists, you're absolutely right. but you don't get points for being right; you get points for being pertinent.

You are presuming that there are no concurrent social forces moving in other directions, that there is a straight-line function forever extrapolated from current social dynamics that will inexoribly spiral into the "gay rights" movement. That is absurd. You only need to look at how the "do your own thing" sixties wound up being the "self-obsessed" seventies wound up being the "bottom-line" eighties to understand how foolish that is.

In fact this thing started out with the basic premise of "gay rights is fine, but they're just as self-righteous as anyone else". Sounds to me like a plateau is being reached.

...they wouldn't press for the Archdiocese be brought up on discrimination charges?

For...? Not recognizing a Methodist marriage? or a gay marriage?

You need only to look at Canada ...

Please. I just ate.

First, while Canada is similar to us, they are not identical to us, and certainly not interchangeable. They may serve as an object lesson in hyper-sensitivity, but the premise that "because Canuckia, therefore USofA" is weak.

Second, we already have our own "hate speech" shinola, so you're too late on that count.

Third, being rung up on rudeness charges isn't the same as forcing the Catholic church to recognize a Methodist marriage.

...except when they sue the church for not performing and/or reconizing their marriage.

Please, more delusional paranoia. On what grounds, exactly, could someone sue a church for not performing a marriage? Please provide a citation. As far as recognizing the marriage, for what purpose? Why would they need the church to recognize their marriage, and what form would that recognition take? Churches don't provide survivor benefits or handle social security, do they?

So, is this Lee's usual contrarian behaivor, or does this subject hit close to home?

cmd,

Ditto to what rwilymz said.

I'd also love it if someone could find case law where one church sued another for not "recognizing" its marriages.

Gay people can be just as intolerant as anybody else. I am a conservative gay man here in the Bay Area. I know gay people who will not speak to me because I am a Republican. There are gay people here who will call other gays "fascists" if disagree with anything put forth by one of the dozen or so liberal gay political clubs. If you don't support the PC candidate for office, you are a "racist" or a "fascist". If you disagree with the wrong people politically, you are "intolerant" or a "victim" of "internalized homophobia".

I had enough of it years ago. I moved to the suburbs. My partner of 17 years and I have more acceptance and tolerance from our suburban neighbors than we ever had in San Francisco.

All is not perfect here in Lefty World.

All is not perfect here in Lefty World.

Must be why Cartman hates it.

Please identify the "gay bashing" here, if you can.

First, you have to shovel through Jay's crap, where he declares that: "Instead, we find out that, as in many cases, those who howl loudest about "oppression" can be just as oppressive when given the reins of power."

Really? Who are "those" people with "the reins of power" Jay is referring to -- Gays who "howl the loudest.." are the ones who are oppressive? Those "in power" in Provincetown are the people behind the intolerance?

Is that just Jay's contention, or is he citing the article - does the article claim that Provincetown gay activists are behind this, or is that just Jay's conclusion?

Dig down to to the end of the linked article: (emphasis added)

It's not clear what percentage of the residents are gay. Some residents question whether a problem really exists between gays and straight people in Provincetown, suggesting that tourists are the ones bringing in hateful language.

Is it really a case where, as Jay wants us to believe, that "Instead, we find out that, as in many cases, those who howl loudest about "oppression" can be just as oppressive when given the reins of power." Where are the fascts to back up Jay's conclusion that those with the "reigns of power" are behind this?

Let's look at the article again for clues --

"Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called ``breeders" by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend."

and

``We have not had problems in a long time," police Staff Sergeant Warren Tobias said"

Are those gays who are "in power" in Provincetown behind the intolerance, as Jay tells us? No, there's no evidence that those with the "reins of power" are behind this at all. There isn't even any evidence that gays hold the "reigns of power" - period.

It's a "non-story" - tourists in for the Fourth of July weekend do not constitute "those in power" in the least...but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned conservative gay bashing.

Leave it to Wizbang's resident manure spreader troll to be hunting for a shovel. He has to keep one by the computer so he can find his keyboard...

cmd, MikeT, and LJD,

There is a freedom of religion in this country, you van't force or sue religions to recognize anything! your posts are embarassing.

and Lee isn't doing anythin new. same old tired ignorant retorts:
- against gay marriage (or anything gay in general) = homophobic gay-bashing
- against illegal immigration = racist
- and so on.

I'll grant that the phrase "reins of power" is misplaced. However, you're being very selective in your reading of the article. Some gay activists in that town posted a list of people who had signed a petition, and those signatories have been singled out for unprovoked verbal abuse. While I certainly don't agree with the opinions of those who sign the petition, they are exercising their civic rights and the actions of some of their opponents are despicable.

"Some gay activists in that town posted a list of people who had signed a petition, and those signatories have been singled out for unprovoked verbal abuse."

You say that "those signatories have been singled out for unprovoked verbal abuse"?

I checked the article again, and found this:

One St. Peter's parishioner, Yvonne Cabral, was verbally accosted last Friday by Provincetown Magazine publisher Rick Hines after Hines learned that Cabral signed the petition, according to police.

One petition signer was verbally abused. The article mentions another petition signer complained of feeling intimidated by a flier placed on her windshield.

One instance of verabl abuse hardly constitutes "oppression", even when coupled with the posting of the petition signers (whihc I suppose is a matter for public record) -- and there is still nothing that I saw to back up Jay's claim about gays with the "reigns of power" being oppressive.

Note the phrase Jay used in his link to the article:

[gays] "can be just as oppressive when given the reins of power."

There is nothing in the article that warrants that description.

One petition signer was verbally abused. The article mentions another petition signer complained of feeling intimidated by a flier placed on her windshield.

The article also mentions this:

Police say they logged numerous complaints of straight people being called ``breeders" by gays over the July Fourth holiday weekend. Jamaican workers reported being the target of racial slurs.

and this

Other people who signed the petition -- and subsequently had their names posted on the same website -- said manure has been spread on their properties in recent months, Meyer added.

When you add it all up, it is more than just one isolated incident. It seems there is a small group of people in Provincetown who think intimidating those that don't agree with them is the right way to advance their cause. Since you're trying to wave this away as insignificant, can we assume you agree with those kinds of tactics? You have not said either way.

Do I agree with those kinds of tactics? Not at all.

Does any of what's been described point to an abuse of power by gays? Not in the least.

Now be careful people when you say something about "gays" you might step old "pucker puss's (lee lee) toes.

Does any of what's been described point to an abuse of power by gays? Not in the least.

Ok, so it's hyperbolic. It's still not gay-bashing.

I disagree with Lee's suggestion that Jay Tea is being homophobic, but for a whole bunch of wingnuts to question his sexuality is hilarious. Ignorant bigots.

"Ok, so it's hyperbolic. It's still not gay-bashing."

I'm glad to hear that hyperbole is accepted on Wizbang! Maybe I'll give it a try is sometime... heh.

After I'm done putting the "me" back into sodomy

TM - The grade-school like behaviour of the trolls around here isn't surprising, given the grade-school level analysis one finds in some of these posts.

I don't understand. If the only difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual is the type of plumbing they like to use, then what's the problem with asking someone if he's a homosexual when he accuses someone of gay-bashing? Isn't that a fair question in the interest of full disclosure?

Or is it only a fair question if it's directed at a straight by a weenie-washing fudge packer?

I'm glad to hear that hyperbole is accepted on Wizbang!

Oh, the vapors! Quit acting like this is your first time reading a blog. Hyperbole makes up about 98% of political blog writing.