I agree

In short, a vicious attack by a small petty man who happens to be homosexual has set the pro-gay marriage movement back years if not idefinitely combined with the judicial tyranny in Iowa and two other states of the four total I believe.

Indeed Vermont is the only state with valid constitutionally passed gay marriage – it was passed by the legislature / governor and not the judiciary as the US Constitution demands. I may disapprove but Vermont does have the right to make that experiment. Federalism (enshrined in the US Constitution) is how social & moral policies are supposed to be carried out by the 50 state gov’t. That ensures a slow measured change in policy, debate and competing policies that can be measured against each other as far as positive / negative effect.

The vile diatribe by your stereotypical homosexual activist (going on for decades now) is why I went from anti-gay marriage / pro-civil union to my current position of pretty much opposing the whole “Gay Gestapo” agenda.

To the leftists who posted some less then insightful comments:

Remember the judge who says “Poof I see gay marriage” in the US Constitution

is the same who says “Poof the 5th ammendment doesn’t exist the gov’t can seize your house/property to give to another private entity”

or says “Poof the 2nd Amendment doesn’t give you the right to bear arms and protect yourself from say a genuine homophobe”

or says “Poof the 1st Amendment doesn’t guarrantee free political speech” (Illegal and unconstitutional campaign finance reform)

And so forth.

When you are willing to give up Natural Law (US Constitution and all of the Founding Documents) in favor of Positivism (ie arbitrary law – the result matters) you have already forged the chains of enslavement for you and the next generation.

It saddens me to see so many Americans willing to give up the fundamental pre-existing rights acknowledged in the US Constitution for that which is hardly a safe replacement – be it gay marriage, “hate speech” codes, “free” healthcare etc.

The relevant section of the US Constitution does not mention sexual behavior or marriage thereby under the not yet repealed tenth amendment leaving it to the 50 states:

Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is no law prohibiting homosexuals from marrying – the legal definition is and always has been that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Comparisions between laws prohibiting interracial marriage etc are invalid since the 14th was passed in 1868 and all such laws are thus null and void (kept alive in the past for a time by *gasp* judicial tyranny)

I would strongly advise anyone who is pro-gay marriage or gay civil union to keep on going down this road – the darkest moments of U.S. history usually have had a complicit judiciary who ignored the intent of the US Constitution and legislated from the bench.

The problem is if they are willing to do it on one issue they will most likely do that on many.

Here is where the arguments that claim that one side is more hateful than the other come from as well. You always we have people who spiral into hate and insult filled diatribes against their opposition. Neither left or right has a monopoly on hate or irrationality. One can debate whether one side tends towards it more than the other. Without question, it is destructive to sanction or engage in such behavior.

Respect those worthy of respect and work for something real. Carrie Prejean gave an honest defensible answer and was treated like the worst kind of person in the world. It was merely a microcosm of what too much of our debate in this great nation has become.

we have differences of opinion yet we can agree on these very salient points.

Yes, if you are secure in your belief of atheism that is fine by me and my Christian beliefs. Yes you have it right about voter disenfranchisement, and I salute your comments . You do get it

Even though I am an atheist, I dont mind if someone is very vocal about their Christian beliefs. I dont believe in hocus pocus so I am not threatened by Christian evangelism.

If such people want to debate with me over religion, I have no problem discussing the issue rationally without resorting to insults. In addition I try not to take facts out of context just to support my argument. If you really are secure in your beliefs then there is no reason for nastiness or high school debate team practices of juvenile disinformation. Of course if the person I am debating is not respecting me then I have the option of ending the conversation or returning the favor.

When people such as “keyboard jockey” justifies voter disenfranchisement because he or she doesn’t like another voter’s Christian beliefs, you really have to question that person’s commitment to the ideals our democratic republic.

Perhaps you should consider reading something besides right wing propaganda. In the real world we know that gay leftists are quite aware of what is going on and speak against it. I would agree that the major groups who claim to represent gay thought in the US are disgustingly silent on the issue. To judge all on the gay left by these groups is ignorant.

Tom in Lazybrook obviously has strong opinions about Card. In two posts, he states that Card favors “… throwing all Gays in prision [sic.]”

I’m no expert on Card. It certainly is true that he wrote an article where he stated that he believed that laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books and should, in some cases, be enforced.

However, he did state that such laws should not be enforced indiscriminately. He specifically condemned violence against gay people.

Card states clearly that he regards homosexual behavior as a sin. He goes on to say that sinners should be treated kindly, and he adds that even “hypocritical homosexuals” (by which Card means gay people who don’t regard being gay as wrong) should be treated with compassion.

Interested persons may read a long statement of Card’s views at http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html.

I invite readers to judge for themselves whether or not political debate would be more civil if Orson Scott Card were the model for argumentation, instead of Perez Hilton, Michael Musto, Keith Olberman, and Tom in Lazybrook.

I would start the lesson by looking at ancient history because in those times the rulers e.g. the Pharaoh of Egypt and Caesar were considered to be gods. They were worshipped as living gods. Anyone who did not toe the line was executed because it was considered as treason. This is the reason that the early Christians were thrown to the lions – they refused to worship Caesar and make sacrifices to him as a god.

This persecution of Christians ended for a time under Constantine when he made Christianity the state religion. However, the persecution did not disappear. Fast forward to the time of Henry VIII and following when you have all sorts of turmoil in England and in Europe. Henry decided to make himself the head of the Church in England. There was a civil war and Charles 1 was beheaded. The Roundheads became the rulers. Eventually they were defeated and the monarchy was restored but the turmoil did not cease. At the same time there was more turmoil in Europe and things were changing with the Catholic Church having less of a say in the affairs of state.

This is the period in which the first people sailed to the Americas. I am leaving out a lot of the history to make the point about how in that time period there was an official state religion – the Church of England. Your founding fathers did not want an official state religion. This is precisely the meaning of separation of church and state.

Now move ahead to the 20th century and the emperor of Japan at the time of the second world war. He was also seen as a divine person. Shinto was the state religion. It had an impact upon the way in which the Japanese fought during the second world war. The present emperor worked hard to separate church and state.

It is so very wrong to state that it is an issue relating to how Christians think and vote. That is not separation of Church and state. Most of what is thrust on people these days is not the separation of Church and state. It is just atheists (a religion) trying to hold sway over everyone.

What most atheists do not realize is that they are playing into the hands of the most dangerous of theocrats – Islam. In Islam there is no separation of Church and state.

Gays have successfully moved themselves backs years, if not a good decade, in the eyes of many regular folks.

I myself went from ambivalence on the issue to sending money to groups opposing gay marriage.

It’s hard to imagine that was the intent.

Gays went from an odd curiousity to a special interest group of vile, vile people.

I can’t wait till Ms. Prejean gets her own TV show so I can watch it to spite the homo-fascists.

I have yet to see any gay leftists admit this.

Well, considering that Phelps is a life-long Democrat, hopefully he will take the time to thank Hilton for his assistance when they run into each other at a DNC fundraiser.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1999/03/man-who-loves-hate