Gay Patriot Header Image

The Soft Bigotry of Log Cabin Republicans

On full display at Los Angeles Gay Pride.

How dare they label themselves as a Republican organization.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

101 Comments

  1. What? We’re “intolerant, hypocritical liberals run amok,” but we’re no longer “leftist nutjobs” like we you said we were on June 16? What changed your mind?

    Comment by WeHoB — June 21, 2010 @ 6:01 pm - June 21, 2010

  2. I really don’t see the difference. Semantics.

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 21, 2010 @ 6:09 pm - June 21, 2010

  3. Stupid…on so many levels.

    Hopefully the day will soon be here when everyone recoginizes that GOProud, not LCR, is the legitimate voice of gay conservatives, not just because of ideology but also classiness.

    Comment by chad — June 21, 2010 @ 6:13 pm - June 21, 2010

  4. Someone expalin to me again why, as a conservative Republican, I should’ve been upset that the LCR was PNG’d out of the ’04 and ’08 Republican conventions…

    Comment by DaveP. — June 21, 2010 @ 6:16 pm - June 21, 2010

  5. Here’s where I get off (of this particular topic). It looks like a little war brewing – in my view, a needless one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2010 @ 6:19 pm - June 21, 2010

  6. Thank you for opening my eyes to what’s going on at LCR. Over the weekend, I withdrew my support of LCR and moved it behind GOProud.

    Comment by COFlyerCLE — June 21, 2010 @ 7:19 pm - June 21, 2010

  7. ILC – I cannot in good conscience allow Log Cabin “Republicans” to deny that their biggest financial supporter is an anti-capitalist (Tim Gill) whose Gill Foundation is part of the George Soros orbit.

    Chips can fall as they may. Truth wins out.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 21, 2010 @ 7:27 pm - June 21, 2010

  8. Bruce – I am with you on that one. I.e., your criticisms of LCR National / Tim Gill.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2010 @ 7:29 pm - June 21, 2010

  9. (continuing the thought) I just thought that you were always careful to distinguish between National and the local clubs.

    And, as I said in the other thread, putting Palin up there with Pelosi and Brown on the teabagging thing is not something I liked or would have chosen… but… somebody explained it to me as something that made sense in context, i.e., it led to Republican registrations and other good conversations, in that contexzt.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2010 @ 7:31 pm - June 21, 2010

  10. (final thought) But I don’t want to defend it either. I have to get myself to shut up here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2010 @ 7:36 pm - June 21, 2010

  11. ., it led to Republican registrations and other good conversations, in that contexzt.

    It’s telling, in my opinion, that the conversation they want to start begins with, “Sarah Palin is teh st00pid, let’s teabag her!”

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — June 21, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - June 21, 2010

  12. DDGR – It was explained to me as a bait-and-switch on leftoids: http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=26988#comment-587365

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2010 @ 7:45 pm - June 21, 2010

  13. Why? Cuz it has Sarah Falin on it?

    I’ll grant you that it’s a stupid idea, but stop trying to prop Palin up like she’s some kind of God.

    Comment by Mitchell — June 21, 2010 @ 7:49 pm - June 21, 2010

  14. Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 21, 2010 @ 7:45 pm – June 21, 2010

    Perhaps I don’t fully appreciate the context then… I don’t really go to “pride” events (though my small-ish state capitol doesn’t really have them anyway haha).

    Comment by Mitchell — June 21, 2010 @ 7:49 pm – June 21, 2010

    I think it has less to do with Caribou Barbie and more to do with perpetuating and legitimizing the “teabagger” slur.

    Comment by DoDoGuRu — June 21, 2010 @ 7:59 pm - June 21, 2010

  15. Oh just let it go Patriots, its all just humor. What I also find humorous is that you “patriots” pounce on someone’s free expression, yet not a peep about the Texas GOP wanting to make same-sex ceremonies a felony crime. Something doesn’t fit right.

    Yet again, party loyalty supersedes common sense. Both gay dems and gay GOP “patriots.”

    [GP Ed. Note: “Something doesn’t fit right.” That’s what SHE said!]

    Comment by pepa — June 21, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - June 21, 2010

  16. #13 I have to agree with Mitchell. They’ve got the right idea. Palin really is a clown. Showing that they don’t side with her kind of rhetoric and crazy neocon religious anti-homo ideology shows that they are really in touch with the rest of the queer community.

    Comment by P — June 21, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - June 21, 2010

  17. Soft BIGOTRY?? How dare LCR call themselves Republican?? Then how dare you label yourself as a human! Do you have zero sense of humor? Are you REALLY that petty? You seem to have picked up your sense of over-sensationalizing from NOM when you both came out with Tom Campbell attack ads at the same time. I suspect that GOProud’s shelf life is running out and that is why y’all have stepped up the senseless rhetoric. No money and no purpose except self-promotion and bashing LCR.

    [GP Ed. Note: This past week, GOProud announced Grover Norquist & Margaret Hoover were joining the Advisory Council. There will be high profile events in San Diego & New York this summer and fall. We have increasing financial commitments from a variety of gay conservatives and allies across the USA. Unlike Log Cabin, GOProud’s finances are not solely dependent on Tim Gill — an avowed anti-capitalist — and George Soros. Keep trying….]

    Comment by Sonny — June 21, 2010 @ 8:43 pm - June 21, 2010

  18. # 16 — Please provide your EVIDENCE of Palin’s supposed “rhetoric and crazy neocon religious anti-homo ideology”.

    Thanks.

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 21, 2010 @ 8:59 pm - June 21, 2010

  19. The pompous grandstanding about conservatism coming from you and GOProud’s John Edwards/Planned Parenthood board chairman is really special. Talk about glass houses.

    Comment by Sonny — June 21, 2010 @ 10:31 pm - June 21, 2010

  20. This is all you have Sonny? Personal attacks? Puh-leeeeze.

    Move long, sonny, move along….

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 21, 2010 @ 10:35 pm - June 21, 2010

  21. Take a good long gander in the mirror, GP. All you’ve been slingin’ are lies and personal attacks.

    Comment by Sonny — June 21, 2010 @ 10:58 pm - June 21, 2010

  22. #19 Ha. Are you serious? She backs the manipulated Tea Party movement. Inciting fear among susceptible god-“fearing” conservatives. Her rhetoric involves revolution and firearm metaphors. Talk about coercion.

    Maybe I shouldn’t be reading this blog. It seems you’re not real conservatives, but rather crazy Republicans buying into the current populist movement like a chic religion.

    Comment by P — June 21, 2010 @ 11:05 pm - June 21, 2010

  23. I’m not going to fall for a Sarah Palin gloryhole for the 5th time!

    Comment by Nick — June 21, 2010 @ 11:12 pm - June 21, 2010

  24. UNICORNISTS ATTACK!

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 21, 2010 @ 11:35 pm - June 21, 2010

  25. How dare LCR folks call themselves Republicans? Oh, I don’t know. The same way you GP folks who want to eradicate traditional values and marginalize (or worse) those who believe in them dare to call yourselves conservatives.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — June 22, 2010 @ 12:12 am - June 22, 2010

  26. Wow, Seena Anna agreeing with the libtrolls, reality really does come in a full circle.

    I love how some of the insults are boiler plate. Mitchell’s attacks on Sarah Palin being name calling. (Hint Mitchell, lets see you do as much as she has when you reach her age) The ‘manipulated’ claim against Tea Party members (looked at the MoveOn talking points lately?) What makes her a ‘clown’ P? Her manner of speaking? The fact that she’s a successful mom and politician? Her bluntness? Her loyalty to friends?

    So much bluster, so few facts. That LCR a) can’t endorce the Republican running for President and b) feels they must attack a conservative in their display to be ‘fair’ annoys me.

    As to the ‘trying to take the slur out of the term’ defense; it reminds me of the joke “Remember when gay meant happy, queer meant strange, and a faggot was a burning piece of wood?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 22, 2010 @ 6:47 am - June 22, 2010

  27. #13 Mitchell:

    Why? Cuz it has Sarah Falin on it?

    Precisely.

    1.) Sarah Palin is a Republican.

    2.) Log Cabin Republicans claim to be Republicans

    3.) Log Cabin Republicans have devised a game which they can not explain to your average Sunday School group. Traditional bean bags do not carry the “baggage” that tea bags do.

    4.) Let the Log Cabin Republicans explain how “tea-bagging” Sarah Palin is an innocuous, good fun, well meaning tickle at her funny bone.

    And now, #13 Mitchell, perhaps you can explain your comment:

    Why? Cuz it has Sarah Falin on it?

    Any other Republican you would like to put up there? Romboid? Huckleberry? Wingedrich? Bletchmann? Pawplenty? Jugularani? Ron Fall? Desquint? Bobby Drindal? etc,. etc., etc.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 22, 2010 @ 9:48 am - June 22, 2010

  28. Let’s see… gain attention (and registrations) as a Republican group by teabagging a Republican? By equating Sarah Palin with Nancy Pelosi?

    I don’t want any Republicans who would only show an interest because someone is teabagging Sarah Palin.

    Gay Republicans are a minority-within-a-minority. When you claim to represent them, you should REPRESENT THEM. You should not sell yourself out to get cheap laughs, or donations at a pride festival.

    It wouldn’t be as big of a deal if it didn’t point to a HISTORY of doing exactly this.

    “Liberals don’t like Palin, so let’s add her so they don’t hate on us at Pride, and we can make money off them.”

    “Liberals don’t like Bush, so let’s not endorse him in 2004, and launch attack ads on Bush/Cheney via YouTube.”

    Seems like a perfect strategy for a Republican organization…

    NOT.

    Comment by Mark — June 22, 2010 @ 12:15 pm - June 22, 2010

  29. I don’t approve of celebrity exploitation or personally use it; yet I seem to be the only one here who understands the concept.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 22, 2010 @ 12:57 pm - June 22, 2010

  30. What I also find humorous is that you “patriots” pounce on someone’s free expression, yet not a peep about the Texas GOP wanting to make same-sex ceremonies a felony crime.

    Actually, it’s not making ceremonies a crime; it’s saying that it should be a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

    In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law. Or, bluntly put, establishing that it is illegal for those who are empowered by the state to use their position to break the law.

    You might want to read the platform before you comment upon it. Just a suggestion; that way you won’t look like the typical leftist fool who is easily manipulated and has no concept of the facts.

    You know, sort of like you do now.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2010 @ 2:03 pm - June 22, 2010

  31. Huh, another thing like the Young Turks or LGF I thought was OK back in the day turns out to be a stupid sack of wrong. I’ll just toss LCR into the bin with the rest of them. Thanks for the heads up.

    Comment by Bad Science — June 22, 2010 @ 3:38 pm - June 22, 2010

  32. Miss Rita Beads. . .NDT is this what you are talking about:

    The Republicans in Texas who wrote this platform truly to fear homos and hold deep animus towards you.

    STRENGTHENING FAMILIES, PROTECTING LIFE AND PROMOTING HEALTH
    CELEBRATING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

    Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

    Comment by rusty — June 22, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - June 22, 2010

  33. it’s saying that it should be a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such.

    The rest of the site you got that link from is hilarious. Texas is apparently along the same lines as Uganda-riiight. Let me know when Uganda’s largest city elects an openly lesbian mayor.

    Comment by NYAlly — June 22, 2010 @ 9:24 pm - June 22, 2010

  34. The Republicans in Texas who wrote this platform truly to fear homos and hold deep animus towards you.

    Gee, rusty, I don’t know why.

    It’s not as if you and your fellow gay-sex liberals have killed hundreds of thousands of people and infected millions more with your irresponsible, disease-spreading sex, all while screaming that it’s the fault of Republicans and Christians that you can’t keep your cock in your pants or wear a condom.

    It’s not as if you and your fellow gay-sex liberals are circulating petitions insisting that marriage is no better than any other relationship and should be stripped of any sort of benefit or privilege.

    It’s not as if you and your fellow gay-sex liberals are dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs as an “educational experience”, or your gay-sex liberal “safe schools” czar is bragging about telling an underage child that it’s OK to have sex with adults you meet in bus station restrooms.

    And it’s not as if your gay-sex marriage supporter liberals are bragging in the New York Times about how “men are pigs” and that it’s not “practical” to expect gay and lesbian people not to “play around”, or calling monogamy “harmful”.

    I lived perfectly fine in Texas in a smaller town, overwhelmingly Republican, block full of families, all churchgoing Baptists, right next door to the police station. Never once had a problem. Parents would send their kids over to play with my dog, I was invited to all the neighborhood parties, etc. Everyone there knew I was gay.

    In short, there wasn’t a lick of animus or fear towards me. So frankly, you’re rather full of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 22, 2010 @ 11:41 pm - June 22, 2010

  35. ND30: “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.”

    Really? The same penalty? You mean its a felony in Texas to issue a marriage license to people who aren’t allowed to marry? You have a reference for that? Are you just making stuff up?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 12:44 am - June 23, 2010

  36. Sorry NDT guess you get a pass since you’re a Texan or at least have the good folk you lived around that will give you their blessings. Kudos to you.

    Guess I should I had not directed the Texan GOP recent release of the updated platform directly toward you.

    Thanks for the update though, sorry for the interruption. You can go back to your beading.

    Comment by rusty — June 23, 2010 @ 1:14 am - June 23, 2010

  37. Rusty in #32 writes:

    The Republicans in Texas who wrote this platform truly to fear homos and hold deep animus towards you.

    He quotes a “platform” that says the following: “The practice of homosexuality: (1) tears at the fabric of society; (2)contributes to the breakdown of the family unit; (3) and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.”

    ‘Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.” ”

    “Homosexuality must not: (1) be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy; (2) nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.”

    “We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: (1) marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin); (2) custody of children by homosexuals; (3) homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.”

    “We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.”

    Nowhere in the above does the platform attack the person. It is entirely aimed at the behavior, acts and concept that the behavior warrants special civil rights.

    The homosexual is fully protected by the 14th Amendment. It is homosexual behavior that is not covered by the Constitution. In fact, I am unaware of any civil rights movement that is based on authorizing a minority behavior.

    I challenge Rusty to put on his best thinking helmet and demonstrate the fear of “homos” and deep animus toward homosexuals he finds in this “platform.”

    I see no rounding up of homosexuals for reeducation, lobotomies, castration, internment in homosexual camps, denial of any civil right or general castigation. In every instance mentioned, the homosexual is singled out only because of behavior.

    Now, granted, one may argue whether the behavior is learned or genetic. But choosing to be a gay activist and demanding homosexual behavior be given a civil right is, in fact the issue.

    So, Rusty, the people who wrote this “platform” fear what you choose to do to rip up the fabric of society. The also have a deep animus toward what you choose to do to rip up the fabric of society.

    Perhaps you can direct me to the history of civil rights where any behavior was given special privilege to be co-equal with the mainstream of societal behavior. Show me the society that incorporated infidelity in its structure as a desirable activity that promoted the sound functioning and increased strength of the society. Or choose another behavior, if you like, such as arson, messing with children, telling lies, tearing down religion, banning books, whatever.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2010 @ 9:27 am - June 23, 2010

  38. heliotrope–“He quotes a “platform” that says the following:

    http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

    Heliotrope just speaking for myself, I am past the point of ‘practicing’

    but let’s start with ‘tears at the fabric of society’ — so all those big corporate companies who recognize and support MO’s are aiding in the destruction of society. and folk like Laura Bush and other conservatives who support GLBT issues and even SSM marriage are on the Texas GOP hit list?

    and then ‘contributes to the breakdown of the family unit’ . . . why family after family disintegrates after a family member comes out and aims their ‘anti-family disintegrating ray-gun’ at their family and neighbors and church folk to cause the total disruption of the family unit.
    sidenote: I do like the family photos of the Cheney clan with Mary and Heather’s children.

    not sure if I can can direct you to the history of civil rights where any behavior was given special privilege to be co-equal with the mainstream of societal behavior.

    Comment by rusty — June 23, 2010 @ 10:21 am - June 23, 2010

  39. Heliotrope, that’s a fascinating analysis. Did you know that a few centuries ago the Catholic Church in Spain had no problem with the Jews as long as the Jews abandoned their religious behavior and replaced it with Christian behavior? And they persecuted the Jews who were unwilling to change their behavior.

    But I guess that would have been okay with you, because iit was about, you know, behavior.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 10:28 am - June 23, 2010

  40. “Perhaps you can direct me to the history of civil rights where any behavior was given special privilege to be co-equal with the mainstream of societal behavior.”

    Marrying outside one’s race is behavior.
    Practicing a non-mainstream religion is a behavior.

    Lord, Heliotrope, the whole concept of freedom means people have legal rights to do some things outside “the mainstream of societal behavior.” Anything else is a tyranny.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 10:31 am - June 23, 2010

  41. Oh, my.

    Rusty first: Corporations are free to do what they wish in terms of benefits to their employees. If your company offers insurance that includes your partner, good on them. That is not a legal mandate, it is a business decision. They are not offering the insurance because of your homosexual activities. They are offering the benefit to a valued employee.

    Supporting people who are gay is a personal choice, and, in my book a Christian duty. Supporting gay behavior is not a civil rights obligation. If I choose not to make use of a child care center because the two guys running it are gay lovers who kiss and fondle in front of the kiddies, I have made a choice based on behavior. (My children were in a super after school program run by a gay man who was almost part of our family. He kept his gay life to himself and I supported him as a fellow traveler on this earth in every way I could. That included giving him references to parents who had misgivings.)

    The “contributes to the breakdown of the family unit” theme is not argued by anecdote. Are you prepared to argue that dressing your kids in leather and acting out in gay parades is contributing to the cohesion of the family on a society-wide basis? Of course not.

    Gay behavior runs the gamut from chastity to flame-out obnoxious and toxic. But giving all gay behavior a civil right status is imbecilic and destructive. Shall we have open “Orgy in the Park” (hetero or homo) nights because sexual behavior (hetero or homo) is a “civil right?” Of course not.

    Liberal gays pushing a gay agenda just don’t get it. When civil unions are almost in reach, the flaming flamingoes on roller blades and in thongs show up to demand respect under any conceivable scenario.

    Tolerance is not just a 1970’s word that means “anything goes.” Tolerance is also an ancient understanding that your private life is your business. We, the united hetero homophobes of the Neanderthal right could not care less what you do with the shades pulled or how many you do it with or how often or why someone beat the snot out of you for infidelity. You make the bed you lie in. Just do not tell us that your biological dead end sexual antics is related to procreation and the fabric of the the family.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2010 @ 11:15 am - June 23, 2010

  42. Really? The same penalty? You mean its a felony in Texas to issue a marriage license to people who aren’t allowed to marry? You have a reference for that? Are you just making stuff up?

    Texas Family Code, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Subchapter C, Section 2.202, (4)(d):
    A person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law or of a person who by marrying commits an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree.

    Looks like you got caught lying again, Rob. You seem to have a problem with that. Gay-sex liberals like yourself seem to like to smear other people and claim they’re making things up when you yourself haven’t done any research. Of course, you blame your antisocial behavior like that on the fact that you’re gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 11:30 am - June 23, 2010

  43. Oh, my.

    Now Rob Tisinal. Only an amoral free spirit sees religion as a free will choice and behavior. When the Catholics of Spain acted like Muslims and did their religious superiority tap dance on the heads of the Jews, they were engaging in “might makes right.” The Reformation set the Catholics back on their heels and they were forced to think their thinking out again.

    To equate that period of battle between the Popes and the heads of states with homosexual behavior is too much of a stretch to consider.

    Marrying outside one’s race is a choice. If the choice is illegal, the person must pay the consequences. Marrying outside one’s race was illegal (black and white) in Virginia until fewer than 50 years ago. The 14th amendment forced the Commonwealth to revisit its ancient, Jim Crow law.

    You can not equate gay with the DNA driven condition of skin color. If marriage is not between one man and one woman, then the state must abandon it. Why? Because if it can not restrict marriage on such a fundamental basis, then it can not justify denying Sharia law, polygamy, child marriages, etc.

    Make your case for homosexual marriage. How will it strengthen the fabric of the family for society as a whole. Why will society be the better for permitting it?

    Lord, Heliotrope, the whole concept of freedom means people have legal rights to do some things outside “the mainstream of societal behavior.” Anything else is a tyranny.

    This is a joke, right? You mean that any restriction on license, or lascivious behavior or act of political correctness is tyranny? A man and his sheep should have a front row seat and get it on while the congregation assembles for communion, right?

    I note you did say “some” things, which I guess you use as a banana peel to slip out of your generalization about freedom. Ok, my friend, who determines the “some” in some things? The societal norms are always being tested. So, in that vein, please tell me how “some” gay behavior will be given a civil right while other gay behavior will be, well, not covered by gay civil rights?

    When “you people” make such sweeping proclamations, you only succeed in showing how really, really ignorant you are.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2010 @ 11:41 am - June 23, 2010

  44. Heliotrope, please be sensible. You asked for “any behavior was given special privilege to be co-equal with the mainstream of societal behavior.” I gave you two examples.

    And nothing in your response to my Spain/Jews history lesson does anything to negate my critique of your reasoning.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 1:29 pm - June 23, 2010

  45. ND30: I got caught lying again? Where. Please quote the lie.

    Also, the example you gave doesn’t establish your point. It has to do with minors, and thus is insufficient to establish “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.” — focus on your word “any.”

    More to the point, though, your example is not about issuing marriage licenses, so I’m still wondering whether you’re just making stuff up with your statement.

    You can address that if you like, but mostly I’d like you to point out the lie you claim I made.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 1:34 pm - June 23, 2010

  46. Seriously, do really disagree with the statement, “the whole concept of freedom means people have legal rights to do some things outside “the mainstream of societal behavior.” Anything else is a tyranny.”

    Are you implying that a country could be free even if its citizens have no right to do ANYTHING outside “the mainstream of societal behavior”? What’s your concept of freedom?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - June 23, 2010

  47. Also, the example you gave doesn’t establish your point. It has to do with minors, and thus is insufficient to establish “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.”

    I repeat the quotation:

    A person commits an offense if the person knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law or of a person who by marrying commits an offense under Section 25.01, Penal Code. An offense under this subsection is a felony of the third degree.

    And here is Section 25.01 of the Penal Code.

    So it does not just have to do with minors. You lied again.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - June 23, 2010

  48. And to Rob’s specific point:

    Gay sex is a behavior. As we see from the examples of Jim McGreevey, “Bishop” Gene Robinson, and all the countless other gay and lesbian people who only discovered their inability to have sex with and love a person of the opposite sex after courting, marrying, and producing children heterosexually, it is a matter of preference.

    Since gay and lesbian liberals are now arguing that it is wrong for people to be denied marriage because of whom or what they choose to have sex with, where, exactly, is the legal right to forbid bigamy, polygamy, child marriage, incestuous marriage, and so forth? AFter all, gays and lesbians like Rob have argued already that the only persons that could possibly be negatively affected by a relationship are those people in the relationship; then what, pray tell, is the negative societal impact that comes from any of those other marriages?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - June 23, 2010

  49. Ah, you’re right, it’s about minors and bigamists. You’re very quick to point out a mistake as a lie. Projecting much?

    You still have some troubles:

    The law only applies to people who knowingly marry minors and bigamists. This is not the same thing as “any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.” [emphasis added]

    Second, your example is about conducting marriage ceremonies, which STILL does not support your claim about what happens to officials who issue marriage licenses.

    Third, you still have to specify the lies you are referring to in your post #42.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 2:32 pm - June 23, 2010

  50. ND30: “gays and lesbians like Rob have argued already that the only persons that could possibly be negatively affected by a relationship are those people in the relationship”

    This is such a weaselly thing to say. What do you mean by “gays and lesbians like Rob”? Don’t hold me responsible for things I haven’t said.

    Also, do you really see no negative impact from child marriage? (to choose just one of your examples). Are you really incapable of making a case against child marriage that can stand on its own, apart from the same-sex marriage issue? Perhaps a case that would involve preventing exploitation of children by adults? Or a case that would involve the fact that we’ve long recognized that kids don’t have the capacity to enter into contracts on their own? Nothing about legalizing same-sex marriage would affect those arguments.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - June 23, 2010

  51. Heliotrope, I’m fascinated by something I missed in your post. Please explain how legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to Sharia law.

    I can’t wait to hear.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 2:58 pm - June 23, 2010

  52. You’re very quick to point out a mistake as a lie. Projecting much?

    A mistake, Rob?

    Certainly not. After all, gay-sex liberals like yourself are always saying how much smarter, how much better-informed, and how you always verify things before you say them. For you to make a mistake would be flying in the face of all of these things, and essentially admitting you shot off your mouth before doing basic research. Since you clearly never do that, it’s obvious that you made a deliberate choice to lie.

    Furthermore, I love how you then try to attack me and blame your failure on me. I did not have anything to do with your choice to lie. You did that on your own volition. You chose it, you own it.

    Perhaps a case that would involve preventing exploitation of children by adults?

    Except that the gay and lesbian community openly supports and endorses doing that as an “educational experience” and indicates that anyone who disagrees is “close minded”.

    And the gay and lesbian community is on record as actively opposing age-of-consent laws and insisting that children should be free to do whatever they want sexually.

    Or a case that would involve the fact that we’ve long recognized that kids don’t have the capacity to enter into contracts on their own?

    Funny, the abortion clinics that gays and lesbians like you are demanding be Federally funded FULLY support and endorse kids entering into contracts on their own — not surprising, since the gay and lesbian community overwhelmingly opposes parental notification laws.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - June 23, 2010

  53. After reading all the comments on this thread, I have to ask why you all allow wingnuts like ND30 and heliotrope to hijack your discussion. They are clearly irrational (more like mentally ill), and arguing with them simply wastes your time, and mine. Without them, you could go back to bashing other gay Republicans. Oh, that’s right, Log Cabin Republicans aren’t really Republicans because one chapter threw teabags at a photo of the half-term governor of Alaska.

    Comment by David Lampo — June 23, 2010 @ 3:44 pm - June 23, 2010

  54. Also, do you really see no negative impact from child marriage?

    Do I? Of course I do.

    But the problem is, Rob, that you and your fellow gay and lesbian people have stated that such observations are not valid, that the only thing a relationship affects are the people in it, and that everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they “love” — even if the majority of society disapproves of it.

    To Heliotrope’s point. You have undercut the right of society to determine what is and isn’t acceptable for marriage. What infantile gay and lesbian people like yourself fail to realize is that the ability to empower marriage for heterosexuals also implies the ability to empower marriage for homosexuals — IF you can persuade the voters to extend it as such. Since marriage is purely a privilege, the voters have the right to extend it as they see fit.

    But because you and your fellow failures cannot make a persuasive case for gay-sex marriage, you have gone to the courts, and thus created a problem. In order for the courts to give you gay-sex marriage, they have to create marriage as a constitutional fundamental right — and if they create marriage as a constitutional fundamental right, that means it cannot be denied under any circumstances. By getting completely-idiotic judges to insist that “love” is the basis for marriage, you have thrown out something very simple, straightforward, and easily defensible into creating a morass in which the public is forced to recognize whatever sexual coupling creates “love” in the minds of those practicing it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 3:46 pm - June 23, 2010

  55. Okay, let’s try this again ND30. And this time focus on what I say, rather than on what other people “like me” have said:

    The law you quote only applies to people who knowingly marry minors and bigamists. This is not the same thing as “any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.” [emphasis added]

    Second, your example is about conducting marriage ceremonies, which STILL does not support your claim about what happens to officials who issue marriage licenses.

    Third, you still have to specify the lies you are referring to in your post #42.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 3:51 pm - June 23, 2010

  56. ND30:

    “you and your fellow gay and lesbian people have stated that such observations are not valid, that the only thing a relationship affects are the people in it, and that everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they “love””

    I have stated these things? I have? Where? Point them out to me.

    Before, I was merely wondering whether you just make stuff up. Now I know it for a fact.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 3:54 pm - June 23, 2010

  57. By the way, everyone, David Lampo is the Vice President of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia and is also director of publications for the Cato Institute.

    So for starters, it’s nice to know that Log Cabin’s leadership and the Cato Institute both endorse and support calling people with whom they disagree “mentally ill”.

    Also, we should recognize the kind of language that David Lampo calls “wingnut” and insists is “wasting everyone’s time”.

    Supporting people who are gay is a personal choice, and, in my book a Christian duty. Supporting gay behavior is not a civil rights obligation. If I choose not to make use of a child care center because the two guys running it are gay lovers who kiss and fondle in front of the kiddies, I have made a choice based on behavior. (My children were in a super after school program run by a gay man who was almost part of our family. He kept his gay life to himself and I supported him as a fellow traveler on this earth in every way I could. That included giving him references to parents who had misgivings.)

    The “contributes to the breakdown of the family unit” theme is not argued by anecdote. Are you prepared to argue that dressing your kids in leather and acting out in gay parades is contributing to the cohesion of the family on a society-wide basis? Of course not.

    Gay behavior runs the gamut from chastity to flame-out obnoxious and toxic. But giving all gay behavior a civil right status is imbecilic and destructive. Shall we have open “Orgy in the Park” (hetero or homo) nights because sexual behavior (hetero or homo) is a “civil right?” Of course not.

    Liberal gays pushing a gay agenda just don’t get it. When civil unions are almost in reach, the flaming flamingoes on roller blades and in thongs show up to demand respect under any conceivable scenario.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 3:59 pm - June 23, 2010

  58. Okay, let’s try this again ND30.

    Yes, let’s.

    Really? The same penalty? You mean its a felony in Texas to issue a marriage license to people who aren’t allowed to marry? You have a reference for that? Are you just making stuff up?

    Slap.

    Also, the example you gave doesn’t establish your point. It has to do with minors, and thus is insufficient to establish “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.”

    Slap.

    Okay, let’s try this again ND30. And this time focus on what I say, rather than on what other people “like me” have said:

    And now the third slap; in every single one of those posts cited I quoted you directly and pointed out where you were wrong with references.

    So that’s now three times you’ve been caught lying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - June 23, 2010

  59. Nope, there are no lies in this: “Really? The same penalty? You mean its a felony in Texas to issue a marriage license to people who aren’t allowed to marry? You have a reference for that? Are you just making stuff up?”

    I asked you a series of questions. There are no lies in that.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 4:14 pm - June 23, 2010

  60. Okay, start with this: “Really? The same penalty? You mean its a felony in Texas to issue a marriage license to people who aren’t allowed to marry? You have a reference for that? Are you just making stuff up?”

    That’s a series of questions. There are no lies in them. Also, I might point out that you have YET to provide any evidence about felonies applying to people who issue marriage licenses.

    And now this: “Also, the example you gave doesn’t establish your point. It has to do with minors, and thus is insufficient to establish “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.”

    Actually, all of that is true. The example you gave is about conducting marriage ceremonies, not issuing marriage licenses, so it is in fact insufficient to establish your point. The example you gave is in fact about minors, so that’s not a lie either. Yes, I did miss the part about bigamy, but that’s a mistake freely admitted, not a lie, and in any case it does not change the fact that you haven’t provided evidence about people who issue marriage licenses.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 4:19 pm - June 23, 2010

  61. Finally, as I point out in message 56, you have directly lied about me and what I have said. Unless you want to concede it was mistake you made in an overzealous moment.

    So which was it: a lie or a mistake?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - June 23, 2010

  62. Finally, as I point out in message 56, you have directly lied about me and what I have said.

    Reminder:

    And now the third slap; in every single one of those posts cited I quoted you directly and pointed out where you were wrong with references.

    Four lies, four slaps.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 4:28 pm - June 23, 2010

  63. “the flaming flamingoes on roller blades and in thongs show up…”

    Sounds pretty wingnut to me.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 4:29 pm - June 23, 2010

  64. ND30:

    “you and your fellow gay and lesbian people have stated that such observations are not valid, that the only thing a relationship affects are the people in it, and that everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they “love””

    I have stated these things? I have? Where? Point them out to me.

    Before, I was merely wondering whether you just make stuff up. Now I know it for a fact.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - June 23, 2010

  65. So that’s going to do it for me.

    No sense in arguing with someone who doesn’t know the difference between issuing a marriage license (your statement that I challenged) and conducting a marriage ceremony (the evidence you provided).

    No point in arguing with someone who has a pathological need to insist you’re lying even after you freely admitted you made a mistake.

    No sense in arguing with someone who shouts “liar” at you because you asked whether they actually had supporting evidence.

    No sense in arguing with someone who attributes statements to you that you haven’t made (“you and your fellow gay and lesbian people have stated that such observations are not valid, that the only thing a relationship affects are the people in it, and that everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they “love””) — and then refuses to back up his accusation OR admit he’s made a mistake.

    No point in arguing with ND30.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 23, 2010 @ 4:37 pm - June 23, 2010

  66. Sounds pretty wingnut to me.

    Not really, Rob, when one looks at examples of what the gay and lesbian community endorses and supports.

    For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

    · Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

    · Single parent households

    So here we have the gay and lesbian community insisting that poly relationships and single people are absolutely equivalent and should be have identical legal benefits to married couples.

    Mhm. Yes, I can see a lot of people supporting that. Granted, you’re only carrying water for your puppet masters at the ACLU, but really, why do gay-sex marriage supporters so downgrade and degrade marriage?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 4:46 pm - June 23, 2010

  67. No point in arguing with ND30.

    Sour grapes. Hilarious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 4:53 pm - June 23, 2010

  68. Oh, and Rob, were you so silent on the examples of how gays and lesbians support children consenting to sex and in fact insist that sexual exploitation of children constitutes an “educational experience”…because you support and yourself sexually molest and exploit children?

    Just remember, it’s only asking a question, so it can’t be a lie or derogatory statement. You said so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 4:57 pm - June 23, 2010

  69. Rob asks about same sex marriage leading to Sharia. Fair enough. The Muslims have 100,000 times the “standing” in their belief system that the World Federation of Gays Seeking Societal Normalcy have. It stands to reason that if the tried and true Western restriction of one male and and one woman falls to gay pressure, it will be pretty hard to deny the long standing traditions of religious culture.

    Where am I being a wingnut on this?

    Speaking of wingnuts, the “the flaming flamingoes on roller blades and in thongs show up…” comment I made was to paint the extreme of gay behavior. My “of course not” clarification was a signal to intelligent people the tolerating gay behavior is not without limits.

    Have you any thoughts as to who, what, where, why, when and how society reigns in gay flamers who push civil rights based on gaydom to the extreme? Just asking.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2010 @ 7:41 pm - June 23, 2010

  70. Sad, nothing has changed after all the time I stayed away. ND30 hates gays totally, completely and passionately (and is too obsessed to see he is included in that category. Heliotrope runs a close second in that race but at least he doesn’t lie and viscously, personally attack all those who dare to disagree. Sarah Palin is still God and the teabagger joke that would have the “gay patriots” wetting themselves with glee had they first used it against the left wing is considered highly offensive. One can only hope that a few have grown beyond the sandbox represented here. Oh, and B. Daniel Blatt continues to be a rational voice in this sea of hateful juveniles. Keep it up, at least one person makes it worth stopping in

    Comment by Dave R — June 23, 2010 @ 8:16 pm - June 23, 2010

  71. #46 Rob plays games with his proclamation that:

    the whole concept of freedom means people have legal rights to do some things outside “the mainstream of societal behavior.” Anything else is a tyranny.

    Let’s break this stinker down, shall we?

    The entirety of freedom (the whole concept of freedom) gives people legal rights to do SOME “things” outside (of) the mainstream of societal behavior.

    Who decides what the SOME “things” are that are legal under the whole concept of freedom? Are we not tacitly saying that SOME “things” are NOT part of the the whole concept of freedom?

    But, then, the ruling made by Rob is that “anything else is tyranny.” Huh? Does that mean that the SOME “things” are NOT part of the the whole concept of freedom are, in fact, tyranny?

    This convoluted confusion of false premise and invalid conclusion only demonstrates that poor Rob is not ready to utilize the strictures of elementary logic.

    Then Rob insists some parallel between the Spanish Catholics clobbering Jews and my challenge:

    Perhaps you can direct me to the history of civil rights where any behavior was given special privilege to be co-equal with the mainstream of societal behavior.

    Scratch my head as I might, I see no connection between the “might makes right” crown of Spain pounding on Jews and my challenge.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 23, 2010 @ 8:29 pm - June 23, 2010

  72. ND30 hates gays totally, completely and passionately (and is too obsessed to see he is included in that category.

    Wrong, Dave.

    I have never once supported pedophilia, nor do I consider age-of-consent laws homophobic.

    I have repeatedly condemned gay and lesbian people who molest and sexualize children.

    I have time and again made my opposition to plural marriage and the like known, as well as making it clear that I consider opposite-sex marriage to be a special and worthwhile institution that the state SHOULD promote as being a higher value than others.

    The fact that you and your fellow gay-sex leftists — which apparently includes leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans, given David Lampo’s whiny words — consider that to be “hating gays” is more about the disgusting and antisocial behaviors that you and yours write off to your sexual orientation, much to the detriment of others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 23, 2010 @ 8:39 pm - June 23, 2010

  73. I have stated these things? I have? Where? Point them out to me.

    With pleasure.

    My personal favorite: where the gay-sex liberals make their ludicrous beliefs obvious.

    Let’s go through them again, shall we?

    you and your fellow gay and lesbian people have stated that such observations are not valid:

    And the evidence will show that each of the rationalizations for Proposition 8 invented by its Proponents is wholly without merit.

    that the only thing a relationship affects are the people in it:

    In fact, the evidence will demonstrate affirmatively that permitting loving, deeply committed, couples like the plaintiffs to marry has no impact whatsoever upon the marital relationships of others.

    and that everyone has the fundamental Constitutional right to marry whatever or whomever they “love”.

    And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

    So again, the gay-sex marriage supporters like Rob Tisinai have made three assertions, in court:

    — It is a constitutional right that everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love, the sexual companion of their choice.

    — No relationship affects any other.

    — Preventing anyone from marrying their preferred sexual companion causes needless pain, isolation, and humiliation, and is thus unconstitutional.

    Now, again, I am asking the gay-sex marriage supporters:

    If marriage is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be denied to anyone, what is your rationale for denying it to people whose sexual preferences of which you morally disapprove?

    If preventing people from marrying their preferred sexual partners “stigmatizes them, classifies them as outcasts, and causes needless pain, isolation, and humiliation”, and is therefore unconstitutional, what is your rationale for denying marriage to those whose sexual preferences you find morally distasteful?

    If the majority of voters have no right to limit sexual behavior in any way, shape, or form without it being “tyranny”, what is your rationale for limiting the sexual activity of children?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 12:32 am - June 24, 2010

  74. ND30, I ask you to show where I said something that you falsely attributed to me, and what do you do? You direct me to a statement from Ted Olson.

    I am not Ted Olson.

    You must be insane. There’s no other explanation.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 2:08 am - June 24, 2010

  75. ND30, I ask you to show where I said something that you falsely attributed to me, and what do you do? You direct me to a statement from Ted Olson.

    Yes indeed — the statement from Ted Olsen that you cited, praised, endorsed, and wholeheartedly supported yourself as an example of what you believe.

    If you haven’t read attorney Ted Olson’s opening argument against Prop 8, then you should. Right now. It explains the legal strategy, and is simply lovely to read.

    That reminds me of another thing. This morning, I passed one of those glorious anti-Proposition 8 bumper stickers about “We all deserve the freedom to marry.” And on your own website, Rob, was posted this quote from Evan Wolfson: “What counts is not family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household.”

    Now, Rob, what gives you the right to determine that incestuous, plural, or child marriages lack “the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household”, especially since you and yours have declared that it is “demeaning and insulting” to prevent someone from marrying the companion of their choice? Why do you say that “We ALL deserve the freedom to marry the one we love”, but then deny that freedom to others, hm?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 10:36 am - June 24, 2010

  76. ND30, I asked you to show me where I said that my statements in comment 50 are not valid. Nothing you’ve linked to in your posts has anything to do with child marriage, and if you insist on seeing a connection then it has something to do your general hatred of all gays except yourself (perhaps including yourself).

    Also, you STILL haven’t backed up this claim of yours in any way: “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.”

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 11:04 am - June 24, 2010

  77. Heliotrope, you’re confused because you’ve mixed up which of my comments is responding to which of your posts. You might need to create some sort of tracking system for yourself.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 11:05 am - June 24, 2010

  78. Nothing you’ve linked to in your posts has anything to do with child marriage, and if you insist on seeing a connection then it has something to do your general hatred of all gays except yourself (perhaps including yourself).

    Except for all the links in this post demonstrating how the gay and lesbian community claims sexualizing toddlers is an “educational experience”, that age-of-consent laws are homophobic and that children are capable of consenting, and that children are more than capable of making adult decisions.

    And again, Rob; how can you justify the denial of child marriage, when the gay and lesbian community has argued that children can consent, that marriage should be to whatever companion you want, that family structure does not matter, that it is wrong for society to vote on “moral” issues, that it is “demeaning and insulting” to prevent people from marrying the “companion” of their choice, and that, quote, “we ALL deserve the freedom to marry”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 11:30 am - June 24, 2010

  79. ND30:
    “the gay and lesbian community claims…”
    “the gay and lesbian community has argued…”

    Communities don’t claim or argue anything. You’ve posted links where you find a gay person who says one thing and other gays who disagree, and you jump to the conclusion that this is what “the gay and lesbian community” believes.

    It’s handy for you. Here’s what you repeatedly do:
    1. You read something I wrote.
    2. You find a disagreeing quote from a gay person.
    3. You claim, without substantiation, that this person’s opinion is the opinion of the gay and lesbian community at large.
    4. Since I’m gay, you attribute this person’s statement to me (“you and your fellow gay and lesbian people have stated…”)
    5. You then pretend that my original statement isn’t valid because “I” (i.e., some random gay person I’ve never met) have expressed a contradictory view.

    Yeah, it’s handy for you. It’s also dishonest. How can I argue with someone who holds me responsible for things I have never said?

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 11:48 am - June 24, 2010

  80. Or, more precisely, Rob:

    1. I find a statement that you personally endorsed and supported
    2. I post it and ask uncomfortable questions of you based on it
    3. You first deny that you ever associated yourself with the statement
    4. When confronted with the link to where you did in fact endorse and support the statement, you claim that I hate “all gays”.

    By “all gays”, you are grouping yourself with the child molesters and sexualizers. Furthermore, what you are making abundantly clear is that you are less concerned with attacking those who sexually molest children than you are in attacking those who point out gays and lesbians who sexually molest children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 12:04 pm - June 24, 2010

  81. Rob,

    I have no quarrel with someone pointing out that I might be confused. I am.

    In #39 and #40 you address my points directly. I respond in #43. You reply in #44. You add another response in #51. At #63, you elevate me to wingnut status.

    At #69 I respond to your #44, #51 and #63 posts. (I was away from the discussion for some time.)

    At #71, I ask you to expand on your fantastic proclamation that the “whole concept of freedom means that people have LEGAL rights to do SOME things ……”

    I posed the following questions to you and your cadre of superiority munchkins:

    Perhaps you can direct me to the history of civil rights where any behavior was given special privilege to be co-equal with the mainstream of societal behavior. Show me the society that incorporated infidelity in its structure as a desirable activity that promoted the sound functioning and increased strength of the society. Or choose another behavior, if you like, such as arson, messing with children, telling lies, tearing down religion, banning books, whatever. (From #37.)

    So, in that vein, please tell me how “some” gay behavior will be given a civil right while other gay behavior will be, well, not covered by gay civil rights? (From #43)

    Have you any thoughts as to who, what, where, why, when and how society reigns in gay flamers who push civil rights based on gaydom to the extreme? Just asking. (From #69.)

    I am confused, because I have taken your points and answered them and you have repeated your lame religion as behavior theme and ignored the rest except for you exceptionally inept construction about freedom granting “some” rights that are “legal” …blah, blah, blah.

    I am likely of different politics than you. I probably differ in skin tone. We probably have differing advanced degrees in number and subject. I suspect our ages vary greatly. I doubt we are sexually aroused by similar things. Our life experiences are possibly quite different. That said, there is no reason that I can detect why you can not be civil and defend yourself in an intelligent, logical manner. You choose, instead to fall into the company of Rusty (#32 and 38), David Lampo (#53) and David R (#70) and throw little snits, but dodge the issues.

    If you wish to debate whether gay marriage is worth upsetting the long standing tradition of marriage in Western society, I stand ready, willing and able to take you on. If you prefer to label me a befuddled wing nut on a mission and leave it at that, you just go ahead. That is the way nearly all liberals respond when their feel good superiority dance is not applauded by someone in the crowd.

    If the pen is mightier than the sword, you have everything at your disposal to make a compelling and logical case for gay marriage.

    How’s my tracking system working for you?

    Comment by heliotrope — June 24, 2010 @ 12:08 pm - June 24, 2010

  82. ND30: Interesting. You did link to a statement that I endorsed. But nothing in that statement did anything to suggest that people should be able to marry anyone they want. NOTHING. In fact, his point 3 in that statement suggests just the opposite by laying out a criteria by which to evaluate whether specific types of marriage should be allowed.

    “Furthermore, what you are making abundantly clear is that you are less concerned with attacking those who sexually molest children than you are in attacking those who point out gays and lesbians who sexually molest children.”

    That’s a lie. But I shouldn’t be surprised. You STILL haven’t substantiated this claim that started our whole interaction: “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law. Or, bluntly put, establishing that it is illegal for those who are empowered by the state to use their position to break the law.”

    I keep pointing that out. You keep ignoring it.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 12:19 pm - June 24, 2010

  83. You can call my “religion as behavior” claim lame, but you have to do better than that. Calling it lame doesn’t make it lame.

    As for these comments:

    “So, in that vein, please tell me how “some” gay behavior will be given a civil right while other gay behavior will be, well, not covered by gay civil rights?”
    “Have you any thoughts as to who, what, where, why, when and how society reigns in gay flamers who push civil rights based on gaydom to the extreme?”

    I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 12:23 pm - June 24, 2010

  84. Heliotrope:

    From statement 81: “That said, there is no reason that I can detect why you can not be civil and defend yourself in an intelligent, logical manner.”

    From statement 41: “the flaming flamingoes on roller blades and in thongs”

    From statement 69: “gay flamers”

    Such blindness.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 12:28 pm - June 24, 2010

  85. But nothing in that statement did anything to suggest that people should be able to marry anyone they want. NOTHING.

    Again, quote:

    Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

    Pedophiles love children and prefer children as the companion of their choice.

    They have been classified as degenerates, targeted by police, harassed in the workplace, censored, demonized, fired from government jobs, excluded from our armed forces, arrested for their private sexual conduct, and repeatedly stripped of their fundamental rights by popular vote.

    So have pedophiles and plural marriage practitioners.

    So again, Rob, let’s make you follow your own rules. Please lay out how allowing children, bestialists, incest practitioners, and plural marriage practitioners to marry whomever they want will negatively affect your relationship.

    And remember. You cannot use your own personal morals as a reference. You cannot deny people the right to marry because, quote, “we all have the freedom to marry” and even convicted criminals have the right to marry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 12:36 pm - June 24, 2010

  86. From statement 41: “the flaming flamingoes on roller blades and in thongs”

    From statement 69: “gay flamers”

    Such blindness.

    Why?

    It’s interesting, Rob, that when confronted with examples of this behavior, you backpedal and say that “not all gays approve”….but then you argue that referring to such behavior is in some way “antigay”.

    Either it is or it isn’t. Is the extreme flaming to which heliotrope refers a requirement of being gay or lesbian? If not, why do you consider confronting and dealing with it an attack on all gays and lesbians.

    Again, heliotrope has hit on the main point, Rob. Your entire argument is presenting that gay and lesbian people are reasonable and normal individuals not given to extreme behavior — but then you attack those who point out extreme behavior as “antigay”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 12:47 pm - June 24, 2010

  87. And that Evan Wolfson quote is really my favorite, because it exemplifies the mentality of the gay left and Rob Tisinai so well:

    What counts is not family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household.

    Then why should the government prevent incestuous marriage, plural marriage, child marriage, bestial marriage, and so forth, if one can arbitrarily demonstrate “dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love”?

    By the way, who are Rob Tisinai and gay-sex marriage advocates setting up to be the arbiters of such, especially since they insist that government has no right to judge “dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 1:15 pm - June 24, 2010

  88. sorry to butt in on this wonderful discussion (HOO RAH to Mr T.)

    but. . . Mary Cheney has commented publicly on the claims from the religious right that children raised by same-sex parents do not fare as well as their peers with heterosexual parents.

    Those claims are based on research into families headed by single mothers. Mary Cheney countered by citing research that focused on actual gay and lesbian families.

    “Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents,” Mary Cheney noted, adding, “What matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment.”

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - June 24, 2010

  89. Unfortunately, rusty, the gay community has insisted that Mary Cheney is not really gay, is self-loathing, and deserves to have death wished on her and her family.

    This is what makes bigots like you really funny. You attack her and other gay Republicans as self-loathing insane fools, and then you try to quote them as an argument?

    It would make more sense for you to quote gay and lesbian parents whose behavior is supported and endorsed by the gay community.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 1:53 pm - June 24, 2010

  90. That would be T for Tisiani. . .don’t know NDT’s real name but I heard he is an attractive soul (bear type) I believe. Rob is also a handsome fella. Of course, in addition to all those flamers and ‘objectionable stereotypical gay folk’ there is the wonder http://www.bearapalooza.com/

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2010 @ 1:54 pm - June 24, 2010

  91. NDT,
    Please find one comment here at GP or elsewhere that has me stating anything negative about Mary Cheney or Heather Poe.

    now go back to your beading ‘Miss Rita BEADS’.

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2010 @ 2:03 pm - June 24, 2010

  92. but NDT you didn’t comment on — Mary Cheney noted, adding, “What matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment.”

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2010 @ 2:09 pm - June 24, 2010

  93. Please find one comment here at GP or elsewhere that has me stating anything negative about Mary Cheney or Heather Poe.

    With pleasure.

    My favorite line in that:

    Not to label all my GR folk but there is a ‘thread’ of internalized homophobia in most of them and they often present a ‘common standard’ of DADT(don’t ask, don’t tell).

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - June 24, 2010

  94. […] couple of readers asked me for my thoughts on Bruce’s recent posts on Log Cabin.  I agree that the Log Cabin of LA “tea bag” stunt was in poor taste. […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Log Cabin/LA “Tea Bag” Stunt Serves to Reinforce Rank-and-File Republicans’ Doubt about organization’s purpose — June 24, 2010 @ 2:19 pm - June 24, 2010

  95. ND30, you have to stay on topic. Helio complained about my lack of civility. Calling people “flaming flamingoes” is uncivil. Ergo, Helios is being blind to his own behavior (or hypocritical).

    Also, you selectively quoted Olson’s statement. As I pointed out (and you selectively ignored) he also promised to establish that, “Third – Proposition 8 perpetrates this irreparable, immeasurable, discriminatory harm for no good reason.” By taking on this responsibility he is acknowledging that there can be good reason to discriminate against certain types of marriage. That completely tosses out your claim that I or Ted Olson have stated that everybody should be allowed to marry anyone they want, without restriction.

    Finally, I keep coming back to the issue that started this disagreement between you and me: Your comment, “In other words, the same penalty for any other civil official who issues a marriage license to individuals forbidden from marrying by state law.”

    You called me a liar for questioning whether you can substantiate this (a strange accusation to make). You have yet to substantiate it in any way. I keep asking you to, but you ignore that, too.

    rusty, thanks for the support. I’m going to try to bow out again, but I do have a weakness for this sort of thing.

    Take care, y’all.

    Comment by Rob Tisinai — June 24, 2010 @ 2:20 pm - June 24, 2010

  96. but NDT you didn’t comment on — Mary Cheney noted, adding, “What matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment.”

    Being raised in a stable, loving environment IS what matters.

    However, Mary Cheney is not making the logic leap of the gay left, which is that, if a plural family consisting of brothers and sisters having sex with each other can provide a “stable, loving environment”, they should be allowed to marry each other.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 2:24 pm - June 24, 2010

  97. By taking on this responsibility he is acknowledging that there can be good reason to discriminate against certain types of marriage. That completely tosses out your claim that I or Ted Olson have stated that everybody should be allowed to marry anyone they want, without restriction.

    But he didn’t SAY that there are good reasons to discriminate against certain types of marriage.

    What he did say was that it was “discriminatory” and “unconstitutional” for anyone to be told that they could not marry, quote, “the person they love, the companion of their choice”.

    Plaintiffs will describe the harm that they suffer every day because they are prevented from marrying. And they will describe how demeaning and insulting it can be to be told that they remain free to marry—as long, that is, that they marry someone of the opposite sex instead of the person they love, the companion of their choice.

    So what we have here is this: I am pointing out that you and Ted Olsen both are whining that people, without qualifications, are “harmed” when they cannot marry and that it is “demeaning and insulting” to tell people that they are free to marry within the constraints of existing law.

    Your problem here is that you are not able to explain why child marriage, bestial marriage, incestuous marriage, plural marriage, and every other possible combination should be banned without fundamentally contradicting your argument that family structure doesn’t matter, that marriage is a “fundamental constitutional right”, that people suffer grievous and unnecessary harm from being barred from marrying “the person they love, the companion of their choice”, and that your relationship does not affect or is affected by anyone else’s relationship.

    Again, Rob, put bluntly, does it affect your relationship when someone marries a child? Answer that basic question.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 2:36 pm - June 24, 2010

  98. thanks NDT. I forgot about that little topic over at BTB.

    it was fun reviewing those comments. I especially like Michigan-Matt’s closing remarks. . .

    As a gay GOPer, partnered, co-father to two boys living in uberLiberal Ann Arbor, I can tell you unequivocally that I’ve been subject to the same kind of intolerance and belligerency from gay liberals –and most liberals too– that Crutchley runs into now. And it goes almost to a level of seathing hatred… like the reaction Crutchley is getting in gay commerce.

    On the flipside of that, I’ve been a participant and delegate to local, state and federal GOP conventions and I have yet to meet one of those rabid, red-eyed violently anti-gay GOPers that most gay liberals think populate the GOP rank and file.

    Maybe it’s that the gay liberals have felt injured by the GOP that they dump such scorn on guys like Crutchley… and, as some here do, even Kirchick.

    I think, however, it has more to do with a general willingness on their part to push the boundaries of political conversation to an extreme parallel to themselves, an unwillingness or inability to accept others for their political beliefs and (mostly) a deep-seated antipathy toward political abnormality in our gay liberal norm community.

    Irrespective of the reasons, the simple unavoidable truth is that it will take moderating our community’s political voice to accomodate dissent gays in order to move gay civil rights forward and that’s why experiences like Crutchley’s and Kirchick’s and mine mean that we have a long, long way to go before we secure full civil rights… even within our community.

    Tolerance is a family value. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/08/26/2767#comment-15925

    Comment by rusty — June 24, 2010 @ 2:56 pm - June 24, 2010

  99. NDT, I just want to say that it was a pleasure reading this entire thread and seeing you decimate your interlocutors simply by holding them to their own rules. Simple and elegant. I hope to see more of your comments on the web.

    Comment by Raj — June 24, 2010 @ 7:40 pm - June 24, 2010

  100. Thank you, Raj, but I’m afraid I did little more than telegraph what the appeal will be for the Proposition 8 decision.

    Simply put, I doubt Vaughn Walker will think much farther than preserving his own well-being and coming up with some liberal feel-good pap about how everyone should be able to marry whatever they “love” — and have it decimated when it goes up before the Ninth Circuit by the Proposition 8 proponents doing exactly what I have and asking the justices how to reconcile the arguments.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 24, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - June 24, 2010

  101. Rob, no worries; I think we just found out what gay-sex marriage supporters believe in regard to sex with children.

    Students in Provincetown — from elementary school to high school — will be able to get free condoms at school under a recently approved policy that takes effect this fall. The rule also requires school officials to keep student requests secret, and ignore parents’ objections.

    “The intent is to protect kids,’’ said School Superintendent Beth Singer, who wrote the policy that the Cape Cod town’s School Committee unanimously passed two weeks ago. “We know that sexual experimentation is not limited to an age, so how does one put an age on it?’’

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 25, 2010 @ 12:00 am - June 25, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.