Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast gay right wing conspiracy.
Representing the millions of patriotic gays and lesbians across the USA by standing up for freedom, fairness, free speech, privacy and true American values.
GayPatriot is the internet home for American gay conservatives and hailed as "the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet."
"Terrific blog" -- Michael Barone, principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics.
GayPatriot
Promote Your Page Too
FOLLOW GAY PATRIOT ON TWITTER!
Bruce Carroll Jr.(GayPatriot)
- Email: bruce -at- gaypatriot.org
B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest)
- Email: GayPatriotWest -at- aol.com
Sarjex Muller
- Email: Sarjex -at- gmail.com
Nick (ColoradoPatriot)
- Email: ColoradoPatriot -at- gmail.com
Great Steve Crowder stuff! It is a classic.
He’s hilarious. Not much I can add.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
CROWDER is Hilarious!
not quite sure, but I think most churches can say ‘NO’ to anyone seeking to be married. . .some have little things, rules here and there about who can get married
but in the state of california . . .for example. . .
Follow these guidelines if you want to get married during your visit to California.
Go to any County Clerk’s office to get a marriage license. You can apply online in some counties, but you will still have to go to the office to pick up your license.
You do not need to be a California or United States resident.
You must be at least 18 years old. People younger than 18 need written consent of at least one parent (or legal guardian) and permission from a California superior court judge.
Blood tests are not required for the marriage license.
Both partners must appear together when filing application and issuing license. Bring photo I. D. such as a passport or driver’s license.
As of January, 2009, both parties can choose and list on the marriage license the name they will use after marriage. Discuss this before you go to avoid delays.
If you are divorced, you will need to know the exact date your divorce was finalized. If it was within the last 90 days, bring your divorce decree with you.
A marriage license is immediately valid and remains valid for 90 days anywhere in the state.
The license fee varies by county and can be paid in cash, pre-printed check with a California address or a money order written out to the County Clerk.
You can be married by a judge, county clerk, priest, minister or rabbi of any religious denomination who is 18 years old or over. Active and retired judges can also perform the ceremony. You also need one witness.
Larger cities perform marriage ceremonies by appointment at City Hall. There is an extra fee for the ceremony ($35 to $70).
People usually seeking to get married in a church or religious setting must have permission. . .and usually have a relationship with the minister, priest or rabbi. Not much fun having a celebrant officiating a ceremony who is ambivalent or not in favor of the ceremony
But Crowder. He will be someone I will follow He is just as fun as
Ms Information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Yq4Xnytos
Comment by rusty — September 4, 2009 @ 5:39 pm - September 4, 2009
Crowder is cute. As a gay marriage supporter I disagree with him, but I don’t hold it against him… and don’t mind watching him.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2009 @ 5:49 pm - September 4, 2009
(P.S. And even if he weren’t cute: his views, while still wrong, would be nothing worthy of the label ‘homophobic’.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 4, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - September 4, 2009
1) he looks kinda fat.
2) his little argument about churches having to marry people is misguided. the fight over gay marriage is about civil marriages. marriage is a religious thing for many people, and that’s great. but religion is not a necessary part of marriage for everyone, and certainly what a church thinks should not determine what rights the government confers upon its citizens. ultimately, what it comes down to is the fact that the church ceremony doesn’t confer any legal rights upon couples, and that’s what the majority of gay marriage supporters are after: the civil right to marry.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — September 4, 2009 @ 6:13 pm - September 4, 2009
Crowder is indeed cute and hilarious in many of his videos, but I disagree with him here.
1. He is wrong about churches and SSM. The Catholic Church has never permitted divorced persons to remarry in their churches, yet hasn’t even come close to losing it’s tax-exempt status because of this. Catholics are denied the Eucharist or even excommunicated for other things considered to be a “right” like abortion, yet again their tax-exempt status isn’t in jeopardy. His argument essentially seems to be that SSM must remain illegal because it is marriage is not a right and enacting SSM will put into jeopardy something he doesn’t even acknowledge truly isn’t a right: tax exemption. And no, I’m not arguing for stripping anti-SSM churches of their tax-exempt status. Such would give Big Brother too much sway over churches IMO.
2. He seems to deflect charges of homophobia by showing polls indicating that a majority of the public is opposed to SSM while supporting civil unions/domestic partnerships. Yet what he fails to address is that 19 of the 30 states that have marriage amendments also ban such other arrangements. So the logical question to Crowder would be: is banning even civil unions/domestic partnerships even though majorities support them homophobic? A related question would be: is prejudice determined solely by what the majority deems it to be?
As for the charge of homophobia itself, besides being a particularly stupid term, in my more objective moments I would agree with him to a point. An individual opposed to SSM isn’t necessarily “homophobic” depending upon their reasons, the motives behind their reasons and their intent. I liken it to how the charge of racism is so blithely tossed around, many times for political or personal gain.
3. He is probably spot on in his criticism of the excesses in some Gay Pride parades, but I personally wouldn’t know since I’ve never attended one nor do I have plans on doing so.
Comment by John — September 4, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - September 4, 2009
::: laughing ::: I am just going to … you know … laugh and move on.
Comment by Randy — September 4, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - September 4, 2009
He is exactly right on those nasty, stenchy, vulgar “PRIDE” parades.
Comment by EDinTampa — September 4, 2009 @ 9:43 pm - September 4, 2009
Crowder is right, and he’s a hottie. In fact, he sounds a lot like me. Wonder if hes a homo.
Comment by American Elephant — September 4, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - September 4, 2009
but I personally wouldn’t know since I’ve never attended one nor do I have plans on doing so.
It’s the same feeling you get after watching The Beast Within. You just keep repeating “What the hell was that about?”.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 4, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - September 4, 2009
Hey AE, since you and I live in the Emerald City, ever wanna get coffee?
Comment by rusty — September 4, 2009 @ 11:43 pm - September 4, 2009
I had no idea you were in Seattle. Sure. Contact me through my blog. Is there anyone else in Seattle on here?
Comment by American Elephant — September 5, 2009 @ 4:34 am - September 5, 2009
Emerald City, ever wanna get coffee?
I wanna cliche too!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 5, 2009 @ 5:09 am - September 5, 2009
Hmm, youre in Florida? What do they do in Florida? hit the buffet at the retirement home?
Comment by American Elephant — September 5, 2009 @ 6:33 am - September 5, 2009
Shuffleboard!
Comment by American Elephant — September 5, 2009 @ 6:34 am - September 5, 2009
Totally nailed it, especially the Pride parade. When’s the last time you saw anything to be proud of at one of those?
Comment by Dark Eden — September 5, 2009 @ 9:44 am - September 5, 2009
I’m in Seattle too.
Comment by Conservative Guy — September 5, 2009 @ 12:11 pm - September 5, 2009
Churches have the right to marry anyone they want. That is because they do a religious ceremony that is also later registered as a civil marriage. Churches have always had the right to deny religiously marrying anybody. Jews, Catholics and Mormons are very picky as to whom they marry and nobody has a problem with that. The SSM argument is a red herring. As if there aren’t a huge number of religious ministers who DO marry us. Cute video, but flawed.
Comment by Vegas Tea Room — September 5, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - September 5, 2009
It’s not about love……..it’s about normalizing neurotic behavior and it’s associated paraphilias to children and the uneducated masses. Knowingly promoting borderline caretaker environments for children, regardless of the gender or socioeconomic status of the caretaker environment, is no less than unethical if not antisocial behavior by neurotic legal and medical professionals. The U S steps ever closer to normalizing sadomasochistic behavior and transgenderism by ignoring long term empirical studies for the freaks within the LGBT community engaging in behavior indicative of adolescent suicidal ideation and mutilating one’s genitals which does not cure GID. That’s not homophobia,………that’s antisocial behavior as described by the DSM.
Comment by RJLigier — September 5, 2009 @ 1:56 pm - September 5, 2009
Well I see that this post has attracted a professional “ex-gay” along with an apparent nutjob. Lovely.
Comment by John — September 5, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - September 5, 2009
diversity!
Comment by rusty — September 5, 2009 @ 4:50 pm - September 5, 2009
Conservative Guy, would love to meet up with you for coffee.
Comment by rusty — September 5, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - September 5, 2009
Hmm, youre in Florida? What do they do in Florida? hit the buffet at the retirement home?
Not at the retirement home. The Snowbirds from up North go to a all you can eat buffet, one person gets the food and splits it. Then they dump what they can in her purse, stiff the wait staff and leave driving over the parking brick with their left turn signal on. Later they wax, amongst their friends, about the good deal they got and how they screwed the restaurant.
Otherwise, we do have oranges. Some folks ’round here love gator, but I’ve yet to have it. They’ll swerve to run over the gator, whack it’s tail off and head off down the road.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 5, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - September 5, 2009
Why don’t y’all go for the 12 egg omelette at Beth’s?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 5, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - September 5, 2009
Well, no one here in Massachusetts forces, say, the Catholics to marry Hindus or the Mormons to marry Democrats. The Hets don’t have a civil right to get married in whatever religious establishment they want, so I don’t understand this straw-man argument he’s making.
Also, you don’t want a raunchy pride-parade with leatherdaddy has-beens parading down your street? You want family-values-type fully mainstreamed boring gay couples instead? Want to move gays out of the Castro and into Mayberry? Gay marriage is the best way there.
I know ’cause I’m in one. You’d think conservatives would want that.
Comment by Sven — September 5, 2009 @ 7:18 pm - September 5, 2009
Sure, Rusty. How do I get in touch with you?
Comment by Conservative Guy — September 5, 2009 @ 8:34 pm - September 5, 2009
“The Catholic Church has never permitted divorced persons to remarry in their churches, yet hasn’t even come close to losing it’s tax-exempt status because of this.”
Comment by John — September 4, 2009 @ 7:10 pm – September 4, 2009
As someone who has twice been married in a Catholic Church (to two different people), I have to disagree with you on that point. One must first go through a lengthy annulment process by providing a written explanation about their marriage and divorce, as well as testimony from several witnesses before the annulment is approved by the diocese. Then they can be married by the Catholic Church again.
I don’t think churches would lose their tax-exempt status by disallowing re-marriage in their church since there aren’t specific laws allowing divorced people to remarry (that I’m aware of), but I can definitely see churches losing tax exempt status or being subject to crippling legal fees in the future if they don’t abide by same sex marriage laws.
However, I think gays should have the same opportunity to marry, divorce and remarry as often as us heteros do!
Comment by Annie — September 5, 2009 @ 8:38 pm - September 5, 2009
Crowder does sure like to take his clothes off… As he has moved in to the more fit version of himself, he has gotten a little bolder in his clothing optional choices….
Living in the San Fransisco bay area I am all to aware of the Gay pride parades (there are 3 near my home in the course of a month) and other events like The Folsom street fair and “up your alley”. And I have to agree there is not so much “pride” going on, as there is gratuitous sex and a “if you don’t like it, tough” attitude every where.
My argument to my friends has always been that if the overall gay community wants acceptance they need to stop showing how different it is and start showing how similar it is to the rest of the country. I was in San Fran a few years ago during Halloween, I saw two very large, very hairy gentlemen in black southern belle type out fits twirling through a crosswalk. Funny, yes. Good way to get people to side with you? Not so much.
I would prefer gay marriage were legal, however I think as long as there is no protection for churches from prosecution if they choose not to perform a same sex marriage, then civil partnerships should be the alternative.
Comment by Stone K — September 5, 2009 @ 9:38 pm - September 5, 2009
#19: Ok, that made me laugh…
Indeed. Yet a Catholic obtaining solely a civil divorce without also a grant of annulment by the clergy would not be allowed to remarry in the Church.
Thanks to Roe v. Wade abortion is considered to be a fundamental right, ditto for marriage via Loving v. Virginia. Considering the Catholic Church’s views on both, the penalties it imposes upon its members for transgressing its views on them and how inflexible it is towards those who wish to partake in its sacraments without also abiding by said views, when has the Church been in danger of losing its tax-exempt status because of all this? No. They rightly hold that “pesky” First Amendment up as a shield against outside interference. There is nothing to suggest that a refusal to allow SSM being performed in its churches would not likewise treated the same.
Comment by John — September 5, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - September 5, 2009
Oddly enough I never heard of FSF until photos were spread around online. Pretty disgusting it would appear and I do not understand how it is considered legally permissable. A similiar event indoors might be protected, but in public?
There is: the First Amendment. To job folks’ memories and make things clear, I have no problems restaing such in the legislation like a couple of New England states did when they legalized SSM.
Comment by John — September 5, 2009 @ 10:25 pm - September 5, 2009
#21 lol. do they really do that? how cheap!
Comment by American Elephant — September 5, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - September 5, 2009
John: If you never been to SF you would not understand. The FSF is in an “enclosed” area, in theory you can only do that stuff inside the confines of that area, in fact it spills out to the surrounding area, it can be quite disturbing. The SFPD is told not to punish or prosecute.
Did you see the pics at Zombietime?
Also,I agree, however unless the law specifies the protection directly, it makes churches vulnerable. Yes the law may be on it’s side, but the fact is litigation would cost the churches millions. Like any entity that deals with finances, litigation for frivolous lawsuits drains its coffers and limits available funds for other things, for most religious organizations that would be charities.
Comment by Stone K — September 6, 2009 @ 1:12 am - September 6, 2009
I went to the Chicago parade a few years ago, fully expecting to be embarrassed by displays like those in the clip. Instead I saw a rather tedious four display dominated by the gay cops, gay accountants and gay people who work for this or that company ambling along in their everyday clothes. It was not exactly material for Action News at Six because broadcasting isolated examples to perpetuate stereotypes is much better for ratings that showing normal people walking down the street.
Comment by Banzel — September 6, 2009 @ 1:12 am - September 6, 2009
Most of the video was full of straw man arguments that didn’t address gay marriage but addressed potential gay rights issues like churches marrying gay dudes.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — September 6, 2009 @ 6:16 am - September 6, 2009
And let’s see, church not follow their own doctrine? /// No one is to deny anyone the right to believe any “doctrine”–even those of racism–but the government isn’t to support anyone’s “doctrine.”
Tax exempt status being dropped=infringing on church’s rights? /// Tax exempt statuses are priveledges. By that definition, the government has infringed on the big corporation’s rights.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — September 6, 2009 @ 6:19 am - September 6, 2009
And he mentions racism too often. There’s a few idiots who should be ignored who think that everything is racist, but let’s reply to the libs who say that healthcare is a right or the libs who actually have a substantive argument about how this reform might cut costs. The libs who cry racism are just annoying idiots, and it’s too easy to respond to them, and it always follows the same cut and paste reply: Oh, I have a reason that Obama is wrong. — Oh, this liberal thinks I’m racist. — Oh, he’s a racist race-baiting piece of shit and he represents all liberals. — Oh, now how can we have a debate if they keep ruining the debate with their media bias.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — September 6, 2009 @ 6:21 am - September 6, 2009
The last part about the parades was good.
Comment by Mitchell Blatt — September 6, 2009 @ 6:23 am - September 6, 2009
True enough. But give him time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — September 6, 2009 @ 10:16 am - September 6, 2009
1)If his church argument were correct, straight people would have just as much right to sue churches to marry them than gay people. Churches aren’t currently required to marry anyone, they are protected under religious freedom laws.
2)I’m sorry, without a tax exempt status a church would CEASE TO EXIST??? Last I checked we have had thousands of years of churches existing, and continue to exist around the globe without tax exempt status. Is he serious???
3)I don’t want to see gay pride? C’mon, I don’t like see heterosexuals making out, fondling, fucking, kissing everywhere I go, every movie I see, every TV program, but I don’t go around deciding all heterosexuals are indicative of a handful that are portrayed loudly by the media because of their outlandishness. The majority of those parades involve nothing like those pictures, and a media that selectively shows only those images, an idiot like Crowder who can’t do any more research into the purpose or actual displays are both accountable for their ignorance of such.
I’m not sure why this was even posted, does the original author of the blog agree with this?
Comment by Tim — September 7, 2009 @ 3:28 pm - September 7, 2009
@ThatGayConservative
no gator? its delicious!
but i never hear of gator eating in north/central florida, you in northwest, or south?
be fair though, we dont just have oranges, we make a mighty fine carambola fruit
Comment by Maybe — September 7, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - September 7, 2009
hmmm…. “Why are you racist if you if oppose interracial marriage?”
Give me a break. “A church would cease to exist if it didn’t have a tax exempt status”? Huh? Well, I guess all the major religions in the world wouldn’t exist because we know all of them have had tax exempt status throughout human history.
The guy in the video uses the same flawed logic that politicians use (yes, including democrats) who play the whole semantic game with “marriage” and “civil partnerships”. the only difference between them is that civil partnerships would give couples the same legal rights as hetero couples.
Give you a perfect example that’s similar: When Sarah Palin was questioned about her knowledge and qualifications (leadership, etc) for office, those were completely legitimate and valid issues to bring up. When a big deal was made about her clothing expenses, yes that was sexist and invalid (no one has ever questioned male candidates about their clothing expenses).
I’m disappointed the gentleman in the video didn’t go to the old “men marrying goats” argument. Of course we all know if gays are allowed to march in St. Pats parade (excuse me, people willing to identify themselves as gay in the St. Pats parade), then of course they will naturally be showing their packages, bare behinds, bare breasts, etc. As a non-drinking irishman whose attended plenty of these events, I know that this behaviour is saved for after the parade at the local pubs, where it belongs.
Comment by Kevin — September 7, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - September 7, 2009