Gay Patriot Header Image

Our pathetic debate on gay marriage

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:18 pm - March 27, 2013.
Filed under: Civil Discourse,Gay Marriage,Random Thoughts

A post (and the ensuing comment thread) my friend David Boaz linked today on Facebook reminded me why I have been so reluctant in recent days to re-enter the gay marriage fray.

For many years, particularly when I was in college and law school and working in Washington, D.C.’s public policy sector, I read widely about a great variety of issues, including social issues like marriage and child-rearing.  Conservative organizations presented much solid research on the social benefits of traditional marriage and the damaging effects of divorce.

I had always wondered why so few advocates of gay marriage looked at that research on traditional marriage in order to suggest that it could be applied to same-sex unions as well.  I am only aware of one group which has done so and blogged about it here.

In the current debate, instead of acknowledging the social conservatives’ broader point, all too many advocates merely repeat their slogans about “fairness” and “equality” while badmouthing anyone who would dare disagree with them, calling them “haters” –even going so far as to label hateful those who, like James Taranto, believe the Supreme Court should uphold “Proposition 8 and leave . . . the matter for the states to decide.

And whereas the gay left have engaged in name-calling (if you don’t believe me, just check your Facebook feed), the social conservative opponents of gay marriage have been little better.  Which brings me to David’s link, leading to his own post where he takes aim at “Jim DeMint, former senator and future president of the Heritage Foundation” for attempting in a USA Today op-ed to link “family breakdown” and “welfare spending” to state recognition of gay marriage.

Yes, there is considerable evidence that welfare spending undermines the family unit  — and is bad for children.  And there is also considerable evidence that divorce is bad for children.  But, Mr. DeMint, like many social conservatives making similar arguments, fails to show how state recognition of gay marriage is bad for children.  Or for society.  The former Senator, as David puts it, just makes his case “with a sleight of hand.”

Like those gay marriage advocates who slur their adversaries as “haters”, Mr. DeMint dodges the real issues by conflating social concerns that are only tangentially related to same-sex marriage.  Despite his crazy logical leap, maybe we should at least credit him with refusing to engage in name-calling.

Even though he is more civil than some of his counterparts on the gay left, his commentary serves a similar end, dodging a serious debate on the social importance of state-sanctioned marriage and the merits of extending those benefits to same-sex couples.

NB:  Tweaked the post a little.

Share

245 Comments

  1. Funny how the poster puts it on the gay marriage camp to dissect the “finer” points of heterosexual child rearing, yet doesn’t have the balls to make the argument for heterosexual child rearing. Surely having “read widely about a great variety of issues, including social issues like marriage and child-rearing,” the poster could make an argument. Or, maybe he’s afraid to? Or can’t.

    And maybe, just maybe, Dr. DeMint can’t. But, hey, folks, he doesn’t engage in NAME-CALLING, so he’s good in my book. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and wait for the gay marriage camp to examine the finer points of heterosexual child-rearing, because, you know, like, it’s on THEM to address an argument THAT ISN’T EVEN BEING MADE.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - March 27, 2013

  2. Vince, I never said Mr. DeMint was good. Not once.

    Did you read the part in the post where I referred to his logic as “crazy”?

    Do wonder at your decision to attack me personally rather than address the points I raised.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 27, 2013 @ 12:51 pm - March 27, 2013

  3. On my blog I generally bring up gay folks’ net positive impact on society, in many ways, and how what is good for us is good for them. I point to Tony Perkins, Maggie Gallagher, et al, saying we are above average even in so many ways.

    Of course, I also point to the logical absurdity that heterosexuals made us, one way or the other (thanks to all our moms and dads) — which they all admit is true — and then they blame us for them having something or other done or not done to us — they are not sure. And yet many are sure that we should fix their problem.

    The debate over marriage is about our existence, for heaven’s sake. We are being discussed like a sack of potatoes, and a bad one at that. And when one is attacked unmercifully as a threat to everything — than I dare say the best defense is a good offense. They are not phobic, they are like Patton, and they think we are the Nazis.

    All is fair in love and war, after all.

    Comment by Jim Hlavac — March 27, 2013 @ 12:53 pm - March 27, 2013

  4. In the current debate, instead of acknowledging the social conservatives’ broader point, all too many advocates merely repeat their slogans about “fairness” and “equality”

    And “rights”. The concept of “rights” has been mangled out of recognition.

    I hate to keep repeating myself on this, but I think it’s important.

    – A fundamental right is: A moral principle giving you (the individual) freedom of action in some area. Your right to life says that you are right to keep on living. Your right to free speech says that you are right to speak out… although you may still be wrong/mistaken, on your content. Your right to property X says that you are right to dispose of it as you wish. And so on.

    – Thus, fundamental rights belong to individuals. (By the way, they also precede government, logically and morally. Government does not create them, it merely recognizes them. Or not, in the case of a tyranny.)

    – Committing to somebody is your right. But having third parties change their behavior for you, in recognition of your commitment, is NOT your right. It is a privilege that government may give you, through a licensing process known as a “marriage license”.

    – All licensing processes exist precisely to CREATE discrimination, for public policy reasons. Example: A driver’s license says that Mary can drive, while John can’t. A license to practice medicine says that John can, while Mary can’t. That’s intentional discrimination, created for public policy reasons.

    – Thus, obtaining a State marriage license is NOT a fundamental right. It is, rather, a public policy issue. (Before you try to bring up the _Loving_ decision in response, just remember that it was decided because miscegenation laws run afoul of the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of racial, repeat ***racial***, discrimination.)

    – I support gay marriage – and with the continued exclusion of polygamists, the incestuous, etc. – because I think that would be the best public policy. Others disagree with me. That’s why we have democracy. Pro or con, I accept the democratic outcome on it (while still keeping my personal opinion, of course; my own view of how things should be).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 1:00 pm - March 27, 2013

  5. The debate over marriage is about our existence, for heaven’s sake

    Sorry, JH, no it isn’t.

    The debate about sodomy laws, was a debate about our existence. But sodomy laws went down in 2003 (and I say, good riddance).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 1:02 pm - March 27, 2013

  6. Dan, You leveling the playing field being the crux of your “observation” in your post says it all. DeMint doesn’t make the argument you ask of him, because he can’t. You can’t. No one can. And the fact that you entertain the possibility that the “crazy” argument can be made is laughable.

    And, you don’t get that the joke is on you.

    So, that just brings us back full circle to the second word in the title of your post. Indeed.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 1:03 pm - March 27, 2013

  7. DeMint said at a church rally Friday that openly gay people and unmarried women who are sleeping with a boyfriend shouldn’t be in the classroom, according to the Spartanburg Herald Journal.. . .

    “Jim DeMint’s comments can only be described as outrageous and bizarre,” GOProud’s Christopher R. Barron added in a statement. “The idea that someone who says they believe in limited government would support the government weeding out gay teachers and unmarried sexually active female teachers simply defies logic.”

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 1:09 pm - March 27, 2013

  8. Vince, what? What joke is on me?

    Seems your commentary resembles Mr. DeMint’s crazy logical leap–a means to dodge debate.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 27, 2013 @ 1:09 pm - March 27, 2013

  9. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018607-503544.html

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 1:11 pm - March 27, 2013

  10. Glad you’re back to writing, Dan. What you’ve written here really resonates with me.

    Comment by Chad — March 27, 2013 @ 1:26 pm - March 27, 2013

  11. Well, you’re free to think that, Dan. But that you throw out sentences like “Conservative organizations presented much solid research on the social benefits of traditional marriage” and then run away. What was that “solid research” presented regarding heterosexual marriage? Care to elaborate on what those good-moraled people dug up? Or, are you just giving them the benefit of the doubt, because you’re an apologist and they deserve the free pass?

    It’s a tactic that suggests one believes in [gay marriage], but don’t you dare put them next to most of the others who believe in [gay marriage].

    Perhaps you should examine why you even wrote that sentence with no intent of backing it up with substance.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 1:32 pm - March 27, 2013

  12. Vince, I am trying to figure out your point beyond attacking me. In this post, I link a post where I praised one group of gay marriage advocates for referencing studies on the social benefits of traditional marriage in their own defense of gay marriage.

    In other words, I am suggesting that gay marriage has social benefits.

    Please read the post again and consider the comments you quote in context of the link I offer in the 3rd ¶,

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — March 27, 2013 @ 1:45 pm - March 27, 2013

  13. And, by the way, you did write “traditional marriage” and not “two-parent households.”

    And, you do realize that most reasonable adults would agree that having two parents verses one is the more desirable situation. Right?

    And, you do realize that by muddling the matter in this way, you give unearned credence to the conservative organizations you cite, while honoring DeMint and his ilk for conducted themselves “civilly.”

    You do realize you can criticize the militant gay left without unnecessarily lifting up the opposition. Right?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 1:52 pm - March 27, 2013

  14. Yeah, Dan, I get it. You’re for gay marriage. But, the way you got about expressing your beliefs while distancing yourself from virtually everyone who fights for those beliefs is disconcerting.

    So, why did you write “Conservative organizations presented much solid research on the social benefits of traditional marriage” and then not back it up?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - March 27, 2013

  15. All in all, the social right has a pretty good track record at predicting the consequences of social policy.

    The social right warned that loosening divorce laws and one-parent families would have negative social consequences. The left ridiculed them, but in the end, the social right was proven right.

    The social right warned that expansion of welfare programs would lead to dependency
    on Government and an unsustainable cost burden. The left ridiculed them, but in the end, the social right was proven right.

    The social right even warned that violent and sexual imagery in media would lead to episodes of violence and sexual assault as people became desensitized. The left ridiculed them, but in the end, the social right was proven right.

    The social right said that easing gun laws and allowing more people to carry guns would lead to reduced crime. The left ridiculed them, but in the end, the social right was proven right.

    The social right warned that Obamacare would raise health care costs, add trillions to the deficit, and lead to rationing of health care (death panels). Again, the left ridiculed them, but now even the left is admitting that all of these things will happen.

    Given the track record, on most issues, I trust the right to predict the consequences correctly more often than the left.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 2:02 pm - March 27, 2013

  16. As someone that has run for office, is gay and conservative I will simply state that when government at any level ‘recognizes’ a Right it should do so through the established channels of our system of government.

    Rights exist outside government recognition. They come from God and nature. To suggest that any individual does not have the same Rights (recognized or otherwise) before God diminishes and demeans all of us.

    Our system is far from perfect but it is the recognition that we are not that sets the bar much higher for us in this country than it has for others. We strive to improve both ourselves and our system of governing ourselves. The struggle between more government and less is eternal. The conservative soul understands that when you or I are allowed to figure out our own path in life, we stand the BEST chance of finding happiness. My happiness cannot and will not be anyone else’s but mine. Just as yours is for you and you alone to decide. Relying on some government official sitting in some windowless office making determinations for the rest of us about anything cannot and will not make anyone of us happy.

    Whether I have a male or female partner in finding my happiness is for me do determine. There are fundamental truths that have stood the test of time. The funny thing is we can each point to exceptions to everyone of those time tested standards be they about marriage or otherwise. For every broken child born out of wedlock that spends a lifetime in poverty and self imposed prison we can find the child that succeeded beyond anyone’s imagination.

    Whether you agree or disagree with me because I’m a republican, a conservative, gay or otherwise I will still place my trust in you to determine how best to live your life. I ask the same consideration in return. Together I would simply ask that the government concern itself with the protection of our individual rights, protection against our enemies and to keep the treasury in sound financial order. The rest is best left for each of us to decide on our own. Everything I’ve read from Locke and Burke to Buckley and Reagan leads me to believe they would all agree.

    Comment by Cactus Bill — March 27, 2013 @ 2:03 pm - March 27, 2013

  17. “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” Bill O’Reilly said Tuesday on his Fox program, The O’Reilly Factor, in a discussion of the Supreme Court cases on marriage equality. “That’s where the compelling argument is. ‘We’re Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 2:24 pm - March 27, 2013

  18. The debate is pathetic because it centers on emotions rather than reason. This is because big-government statists on both sides of the issue control the debate. If you want Those Who Know Better to be able to take your money to use in running your life, you must do it by motivating people to feel, feel, feel, like five-year-olds, instead of using reason.

    The social right also should have been able to predict — as libertarians did — that being able to vote themselves other people’s money would prove, for the citizenry, a highly corruptive force. The social right got a yen to get their hands into other people’s pockets, so they were too corrupted, themselves, to see the truth about this.

    A heterosexual friend of mine, recently single again after many years of marriage, just saw her income tax shoot up two hundred dollars per paycheck. For you folks in Rio Linda, that is four hundred a month. Those Who Know Better have decided that all single people — gay and straight — should be hooked up to the treadmill and forced to work many more days out of each year to bribe hetero couples to stay together. Which is, we are all assured, “protecting the family.”

    Baloney spumoni. It is theft. It is servitude.

    Next time some latter-day Pharisee thumps the Bible at me, I’m going to open it to “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and see if they retain even enough of a glimmer of decency to acknowledge what that means.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 27, 2013 @ 2:49 pm - March 27, 2013

  19. A lot of this seems like a waste of time to me.

    If they left the matter of rights completely out of their argument, and ONLY fought for the right to form a civil contract, wouldn’t contract law take over from there? It couldn’t be opposed on the same grounds as marriage……not without endangering a few hundred years of contract law precedent.

    A person can make a binding contract with whomever they like, right? If it’s a simple arrangement between two parties, a third party would have no input on the details.

    The left keeps telling the right that “It’s just a label”, but maybe the left should take it’s own advise. Everything they claim as damages is a matter of the marriage contract, not the marriage institution.

    It just seems like a tactical mistake to do things they way they have chosen to do them.

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 27, 2013 @ 3:04 pm - March 27, 2013

  20. Please note all of the former societies throughout history that have been inhanced after accepting this as normal life style. History repeats if one does not learn from the mistakes they made. It is easy to list the notable ones Greece and Rome that accepted this life style. And any attempt to.twist and say this is different is folly. Be careful what you wish for cause you may not like the outcome.

    Comment by Brian Valentine Dani — March 27, 2013 @ 4:08 pm - March 27, 2013

  21. I still think embracing homosexuality is a symptom of a culture in decline, not a cause.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 4:28 pm - March 27, 2013

  22. I still think embracing homosexuality is a symptom of a culture in decline, not a cause.

    I’m going to have to use this for my match.com headline.

    Please note all of the former societies throughout history that have been inhanced after accepting this as normal life style

    Please note all of the existing societies since the Greeks and Romans that refused to accept this as normal [life style].

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - March 27, 2013

  23. V, the Greeks, and later the Romans, embraced-or-at-least-tolerated it during their rise and their great period. Intolerance of homosexuality was more associated with the time of their decline.

    Just a counter-example, to explain why I assert no conclusions, in either direction.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2013 @ 4:40 pm - March 27, 2013

  24. Embracing the looting of one’s fellow citizens, and cooking up pretty lies to “justify” it, is a clearer indication of the decline of civilization than anything else.

    There is no indication that classical Greece, Rome or any of the other decadent cultures ever cited as “proof” of societal decline and fall ever attempted to bring homosexually-oriented people into a stablizing social compact that would protect their families. What they did was, in general, throw all stability to the wind by permitting absolutely anything and everything.

    And of course, all heterosexuals responsibly abstained from such shenanigans, right? Right?

    That 95% of our population will deny themselves absolutely nothing — including other people’s money, and can’t even keep their hands off of their own kids, cannot POSSIBLY be seen as the problem. But gay people who want to get married are.

    And please, please, please again tell me how “ALL” gays just want to get married for the goodies. Only have the gumption to tell me that to my face. Though keep in mind that when you do, you are showing what a phony you are to call yourself a conservative. You are merely proving you lack any understanding of human individuality. Without which individual morality would indeed be impossible.

    Comedy gold. Threads about gay marriage, on this blog, always are.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 27, 2013 @ 4:45 pm - March 27, 2013

  25. What happens now if the Supreme Court finds that marriage is nothing more than a civil contract?

    By what right do married couples get a better tax bracket than single people if their arrangement is nothing more than a private contract? By what right can government favor any class; white/black, male/female, single/married? Can any private group or organization simply ‘contract’ its way to entitlements, and would that again violate the Equal Protection Clause?

    I could see this having all sorts of unintended consequences from divorce settlements, to paternity suits, and even to cases of inheritance. There would be no legitimate right to anything that wasn’t specifically mentioned in the original contract.

    It’s just a contract after all.

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 27, 2013 @ 5:10 pm - March 27, 2013

  26. And, you do realize that most reasonable adults would agree that having two parents verses one is the more desirable situation. Right?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 1:52 pm – March 27, 2013

    Wrong.

    Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

    · Single parent households

    Indeed, it is regularly screamed by Obama supporters and gay-sex marriage supporters that the number of parents and marital status are irrelevant.

    So why do LGBT bigots suddenly scream that two parents are necessary, when they in fact have stated for years a) the exact opposite and b) that it was discrimination against single and unmarried people, who were just as good?

    Answer: Because they are desperate and trying to say anything they can to get power..

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 5:13 pm - March 27, 2013

  27. I tried to wade through the comments but found I couldn’t. I just want to say “a pox on all your houses.” The Gay Left screams bloody murder and calls everyone haters. The Anti-Gay Right screams bloody murder and demands to be allowed to stick their noses into other people’s family units. Both sides can go to hell, as far as I’m concerned.

    Why do we allow the State to determine who is and is not “married?” Where did the State get the authority to decide what is a valid relationship?

    It’s time to end the State’s power to issue marriage licenses.

    When we were faced with North Carolina’s Prop 8, the marriage amendment, I told everyone what I thought.

    http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/05/02/why-you-are-wrong-on-amendment-1-the-gay-marriage-amendment-language-warning/

    Mind the naughty words.

    Comment by Sean D Sorrentino — March 27, 2013 @ 5:23 pm - March 27, 2013

  28. It is worse than that. Two of my female conservative friends who are for equal marriage were called lesbians in the last 24 hours (And in nastier terminology.) by anti-equal marriage types. What happened to debate and avoiding the nasty rhetoric of the “left”? Every time someone who is making their mind up about this issue sees that type of language you deliver them to our side.

    Comment by Andrew Ian Dodge — March 27, 2013 @ 5:55 pm - March 27, 2013

  29. Obsessing over gay marriage while the economy collapses and the Government is bankrupt is like arguing about the kitchen curtains when your house is on fire.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 6:40 pm - March 27, 2013

  30. The same big-government, nanny-statist argument is basically used for why no gays should be legally permitted to marry as the one employed to “prove” why law-abiding citizens should be banned from owning guns.

    The hypocrisy of the Right, in refusing to acknowledge this, is spectacular. The social Right and the socialist Left are Tweedledee and Tweedledum — twins under the skin.

    SOME gay people (we can quibble about how many) will not take marriage seriously because they just want the benefits. Therefore NONE should be able to legally marry. Just as SOME gun owners will do stupid things like leave their loaded guns out where kids can get them, and tragedy will result. Therefore ALL law-abiding citizens “must” be prohibited from owning firearms.

    Same argument, people. Same logic. Same arrogant, We-Know-Better mentality. Same one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter way of dealing with people, annhiliating individual responsibility in the name of…you guessed it…”individual responsibility.”

    Statists refuse to see human beings as individuals because as groups, they are far easier to shove around. This is just as prevalent an attitude on the social Right as it is on the socialist Left. But only by dealing with human beings as individuals is it even possible to inculcate the sort of individual moral agency social conservatives claim they desire to encourage.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 27, 2013 @ 6:44 pm - March 27, 2013

  31. Vine said:

    Well, you’re free to think that, Dan. But that you throw out sentences like “Conservative organizations presented much solid research on the social benefits of traditional marriage” and then run away. What was that “solid research” presented regarding heterosexual marriage?

    Yep. It’s always better to provide a link to that research and give examples. “Conservative organizations presented much solid research on the social benefits of traditional marriage” OK. Lets assume that there is evidence that supports this. Fine. Of course, the problem arises with the premise that allowing same sex couples to marry actually hurts traditional marriage and destroys the traditional family unit. It doesn’t at all. It doesn’t affect traditional marriage as an institution at all.

    As far as scientific literature goes, there just isn’t any that is supportive of the notion that same sex marriage would interfere or hurt “traditional” marriage in any way. Among the strongest the typical rabid opponents of SSM have touted, they’ve gotten a pretty thorough debunking, including the one that used to be cited by Stanley Kurtz, and the newest one by Mark Regnerus, which an auditor from the publishing journal has called “bullshit” (ILC – his words, not mine).

    An opponent of same sex marriage stated this recently on Ann Althouses blog:

    “Government support of heterosexual marriage is aimed, however badly, at helping the nuclear family, which seems to support the community and the government itself.”

    My response:

    “How does allowing a sub-set of the 3% gay population, maybe 30 or 40% of gays who will actually marry, interfere with “helping the nuclear family, which seems to support the community and the government itself.”

    I mean really. The only thing that changes is that maybe .7% of the population in the US will be able to marry if same sex marriage would become the law of the land. That is a far far less amount of people than the number of married people who stray outside of their marriage and produce children out of wedlock. If you’re really serious about wanting to protect marriage and the nuclear family, why not throw those who do this marital destructive thing in jail for ten to twenty?

    PS. NDT… I’m only kidding about that last part. If you want to advocate for that law… Fine. But I would love to see you defend the big government that would have to be created to enforce that statute.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 7:21 pm - March 27, 2013

  32. Here is the Althouse thread:

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=1315080141494508220

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 7:26 pm - March 27, 2013

  33. You know what I want to know is, what about those same-sex couples who don’t want to get married. If people are going to fight for”rights” on be half of a group of people shouldn’t you take into consideration everybody’s situation? A marriage license only helps those same-sex couples who obtain it, those who don’t (for whatever reason) will still be discriminated against. What happens if there was a situation where a same-sex couple decided to not get a marriage license and one of them became ill or died? Are the less worthy of the benefits giving to couples with a marriage license?

    Comment by MV — March 27, 2013 @ 7:34 pm - March 27, 2013

  34. I had always wondered why so few advocates of gay marriage look at that research on traditional marriage, speculating that it could be applied to same-sex unions as well.

    I hate to point this out, but the Godfather for the legalization of same sex marriage, Andrew Sullivan, has been doing that from day one.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 7:38 pm - March 27, 2013

  35. From Twitter chris barron
    RT @JazzShaw: I am in a traditional marriage, but by some miracle, @ChrisRBarron marrying @ShawnRGardner hasn’t managed to destroy mine yet.

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 7:50 pm - March 27, 2013

  36. The debate on both sides is pretty sorry. The left – the same left that has been preaching for years that marriage is an obsolete social construct meant to oppress womyn – now labels anyone with an incorrect opinion as a knuckle-dragging hater.

    A bunch on the right tells us that allowing SSM will magically make heterosexual couples split the blanket and put the kids on the street – or something. Ann Coulter is no supporter of SSM but has, correctly, observed that single-motherhood is an enormous burden on society but you won’t see Jim DeMint saying that to anyone.

    The bottom line here is that SCOTUS needs to stay out of it.. punt. The current favors SSM and it should be left to the states and voters. It’s ridiculous that matters of some import wind up decided by Anthony Kennedy. It seems dangerous to me to repeatedly tell voters that their votes don’t carry any weight.

    Rush pointed out that J. Sotomayor (the Wise Latina) asked some good questions as to how, if marriage were declared a fundamental right, it could be denied to polygamist, etc.

    Comment by KCRob — March 27, 2013 @ 8:18 pm - March 27, 2013

  37. It just occurred to me that if FEDERAL marriage benefits are at stake here, the Supreme Court has a very narrow path to tread indeed. Who’s bright idea was it to hand out ‘federal’ benefits based on a ‘state’ determination?

    – If the court is concerned about respecting the 10th amendment, then how can they ask the taxpayers of the other 49 states to pay for the benefits of a marriage that is only respected in one state?

    – If the court is concerned about respecting the 10th amendment, how could they make any determination of what is and what is not a ‘marriage’?

    – If all civil rights are individual rights, how can a private contract bestow a special and entitled status on anyone? Isn’t every American a member of the same class? There have been no Lord and Serf classes recognized in this country since 1776.

    – And if marriage is something more than a contract (above), what SOCIAL ARRANGEMENT gives them special access to rights and privileges at the expense of others? Why do I have to help pay the bill for a marriage that I don’t participate in?

    (I think I heard that the future of up to 1,100 federal rights and privileges, for married couples, could be extended to this new class.)

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 27, 2013 @ 8:20 pm - March 27, 2013

  38. Doesn’t seem many realize the DOMA case is about a woman who wants her tax money back. Death Tax money at that. If paying your taxes is patriotic, isn’t this treason?

    Comment by TGC — March 27, 2013 @ 8:26 pm - March 27, 2013

  39. The debate on both sides is pretty sorry. The left – the same left that has been preaching for years that marriage is an obsolete social construct meant to oppress womyn – now labels anyone with an incorrect opinion as a knuckle-dragging hater.

    Someone was listening to Rush today. This is a spurious factoid, because most on the left never embraced that, and it does not add anything to the argument against allowing same sex marriage.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 8:32 pm - March 27, 2013

  40. Citing Andrew Sullivan as an authority should get you laughed out of any serious discussion.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 8:34 pm - March 27, 2013

  41. V… I know you don’t like Sullivan. I’m not his greatest fan either. But there is no disputing that he has done exactly what Dan suggested, using positive data from traditional marriage to advocate for same sex marriage. Sullivan has been doing that for 25 plus years. All of your contempt for the man does not change that fact.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 8:51 pm - March 27, 2013

  42. What [the ancient Greeks and Romans] did was, in general, throw all stability to the wind by permitting absolutely anything and everything.

    Well, not quite anything and everything. The wikipedia article on hubris notes that this word had an actual, practical meaning in the Greek legal system — one quite different from bragging that you’re prettier than Aphrodite and have a nicer chariot than Apollo’s, etc., which is how we often understand hubris in the mythological sense. From the article:

    Violations of the law against hubris included what might today be termed assault and battery; sexual crimes ranging from rape of women or children to consensual but improper activity, in particular anal sex with a free man or with an unconsenting and/or under-aged boy … [I]n Aeschines “Against Timarchus” … the defendant, Timarchus, is accused of breaking the law of hubris by submitting himself to prostitution and anal intercourse. Aeschines brought this suit against Timarchus to bar him from the rights of political office and his case succeeded

    So, even the “homo-tolerant” Greeks and Romans recognized such as thing as “homosexuality that went beyond the bounds of decency.”

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 27, 2013 @ 8:54 pm - March 27, 2013

  43. Citing Andrew Sullivan as an authority should get you laughed out of any serious discussion.

    Only by people who don’t want to have a serious discussion in the first place. BTW, nice use of the Ad-hom there.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 8:56 pm - March 27, 2013

  44. Gay marriage didn’t get pushed to the front-burner because people sat back and did nothing. From 1989:

    http://www.towleroad.com/2013/03/actup3.html#more

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 8:59 pm - March 27, 2013

  45. Vince… That doesn’t count… Towler Road are a bunch of pansy libtards.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:02 pm - March 27, 2013

  46. Did Inspector Sullivan ever solve The Mystery of the Magic Uterus?

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 9:22 pm - March 27, 2013

  47. Ok then …

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1C-4LhpakAM

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 9:34 pm - March 27, 2013

  48. More ad-homs… No wonder your side is losing, which adds weight to Dan’s main point.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:35 pm - March 27, 2013

  49. I’d rather be right than popular; it’s a personality flaw, I know.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 9:36 pm - March 27, 2013

  50. Vince… You forgot the smiley face! 🙂

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:36 pm - March 27, 2013

  51. I’d rather be this guy than all the drones standing around him.

    His side was losing, too.

    Comment by V the K — March 27, 2013 @ 9:42 pm - March 27, 2013

  52. You’re not that guy. Not even close.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:49 pm - March 27, 2013

  53. If it will give you some solace, I’m not that guy either.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:50 pm - March 27, 2013

  54. RE: VTK’s picture in #52

    My grandfather helped smuggle Jews out of Germany.

    Who cares about your aspiration to be the guy who didn’t salute Hitler. Actions speak louder than words. I’d rather have been my grandfather.

    (Right in mind and heart.)

    🙂

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 9:53 pm - March 27, 2013

  55. If you’re really serious about wanting to protect marriage and the nuclear family, why not throw those who do this marital destructive thing in jail for ten to twenty?

    PS. NDT… I’m only kidding about that last part. If you want to advocate for that law… Fine. But I would love to see you defend the big government that would have to be created to enforce that statute.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 7:21 pm – March 27, 2013

    Actually, back in the days of yore, people were publicly shunned and had their families shamed for committing adultery. The government invariably had to do very little other than to a) prosecute people who were caught and b) adjudicate laws that essentially gave every last dime to the cuckolded spouse.

    Of course, then along came liberals, who screamed and cried that it was wrong to punish people for adultery, that it was wrong to shame adultery, that divorce should be “no fault” even in cases of adultery, etc.

    And amazingly, we suddenly ended up with a lot more adultery and a lot more divorce.

    Which now means we are treated to the hilarity of liberals shrieking that the adultery they wanted promoted, the promiscuity they wanted pushed, and the divorce they wanted instantly and with no questions asked means we don’t want to protect marriage and the nuclear family.

    You want to bring up Britney Spears? Back in the decades of which you and your fellow “enlightened” liberals make fun, her 55-hour marriage would not only have been nearly legally impossible, her career would have been destroyed because of it.

    Who made her behavior possible, Sonic? YOU did. YOU and your fellow gay-sex liberals pushed for quickie divorces. YOU pushed for promiscuous stupidity and drug use. YOU screamed and ranted that no one should ever be penalized for stupid and idiotic behavior.

    Conservatives had nothing to do with this. We and our parents in particular were raising families, going to church, sticking together, and promoting monogamy, faithfulness, and the idea that “’til death do us part” meant something.

    You were doing the exact opposite. And now that you’ve sh*t all over marriage and done everything you can to destroy it, at IMMENSE social cost which you deny every time you and your fellow public-school teachers step into a classroom, you are whining that we aren’t doing enough to protect it.

    You are a child, Sonic. Liberalism breeds childish and stupid behavior, and you are exhibit A. No taking responsibility, no understanding of right and wrong, just screaming how the people who actually work, save, and follow the law are being mean to people like you who won’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 9:55 pm - March 27, 2013

  56. Who made her behavior possible, Sonic? YOU did.

    I think i waas 2 when “no fault became law in Ca… So, not likely.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:59 pm - March 27, 2013

  57. My grandfather helped smuggle Jews out of Germany.

    Who cares about your aspiration to be the guy who didn’t salute Hitler. Actions speak louder than words. I’d rather have been my grandfather.

    (Right in mind and heart.)

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 9:53 pm – March 27, 2013

    Of course; most Jews were smuggled out of Germany and into the concentration camps.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 10:00 pm - March 27, 2013

  58. Someone was listening to Rush today. This is a spurious factoid, because most on the left never embraced that, and it does not add anything to the argument against allowing same sex marriage.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 8:32 pm – March 27, 2013

    Yeah, uh huh.

    To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

    · Senior citizens living together, serving as each other’s caregivers, partners, and/or constructed families

    · Adult children living with and caring for their parents

    · Grandparents and other family members raising their children’s (and/or a relative’s) children

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

    · Blended families

    · Single parent households

    · Extended families (especially in particular immigrant populations) living under one roof, whose members care for one another

    · Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households

    · Close friends and siblings who live together in long-term, committed, non-conjugal relationships, serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

    · Care-giving and partnership relationships that have been developed to provide support systems to those living with HIV/AIDS

    Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 10:09 pm - March 27, 2013

  59. I think i waas 2 when “no fault became law in Ca… So, not likely.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 27, 2013 @ 9:59 pm – March 27, 2013

    Oh no you don’t.

    You were bitching and screaming and crying about no-fault divorce being bad for marriage and how, if you REALLY cared about marriage, you would oppose it.

    So start opposing it.

    Again: When do you liberals who have sh*t all over marriage, glorified promiscuity and adultery, and pissed your pants if ANYONE dared criticize your Lena Dunham tramping around town, actually take responsibility for the damage that YOUR behavior, YOUR values, and YOUR idiotic laws have created?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 10:19 pm - March 27, 2013

  60. Somebody has been watching HBO GO and visting gossip blogs.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 10:27 pm - March 27, 2013

  61. If that someone has Netflix, he should watch We Were Here and How to Survive a Plague.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 10:28 pm - March 27, 2013

  62. Divorce in the United States
    Probably the most well-known no-fault law was enacted in the state of California, and signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, coming into effect on January 1, 1970

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 10:35 pm - March 27, 2013

  63. Probably the most well-known no-fault law was enacted in the state of California, and signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, coming into effect on January 1, 1970

    Comment by rusty — March 27, 2013 @ 10:35 pm – March 27, 2013

    One longtime veteran of gay politics, Frank Kameny, said he would “advise fellow gays to lie” if the local blood bank officials proceeded with screening.

    In New York, the National Gay Task Force rounded up virtually every gay leader in Manhattan to stand on the steps of teh New york Blood Center for a press conference denouncing efforts to screen donors. As he scanned the group, Michael Callen, a leader in the newly formed New York chapter of People With AIDS, relished the irony of the press conference. He knew that virtually every gay man there had had hepatitis B and that most had engaged in the kind of sexual activites that put them at high risk for AIDS. Not one of them could in good conscience donate blood, Callen thought, and here they were, exuding self-righteous indignation at the thought that someone would suggest they did not have the right to make such donations.

    I’ll take Reagan signing a no-fault divorce law — which he was absolutely wrong to support or endorse — over deliberately poisoning the blood supply on which millions of peoples’ health depended with HIV.

    But that’s what makes me better, rusty. You don’t have the balls to say your fellow gays were wrong to poison the blood supply. You don’t have the moral or mental capability to say that it was wrong and that gays never should have done it. That would make you a bad person, because your entire mental state depends on your sexual orientation, not on your character.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 11:18 pm - March 27, 2013

  64. ND30, You didn’t respond to my comment in the previous post, so I’ll repeat myself, as you’ve just made it applicable yet again …

    Question: Did they ever donate blood? Or do we only get to crucify them for the threat? Because, you know, SAYING something is so much worse than actually DOING it, especially when you’re taking a stand on being part of group that is being ostracized by society, regardless of how you CONDUCT yourself. Perhaps they were self-righteously indignant, but they were standing up for myself and others who couldn’t. I remember donating blood as a teenager and how proud I felt that I was participating in a small way in the social process of giving. And, I also recall going back to doing that as an adult and realizing that I couldn’t do the same thing without lying, regardless of how responsibly and safely I conducted myself.

    And, I received sex education classes in 1986/7, which included the use of condoms reduced the spread of HIV/AIDS. But, according to ND30′s previous uninformed personal comments about me on this site, I have rampant unprotected sex. He should know. Right, ND30?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 27, 2013 @ 11:31 pm - March 27, 2013

  65. Wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2013 @ 11:32 pm - March 27, 2013

  66. Well, how about that. We both posted at 11:31 PM. Me: this thread. You: the other. Looks like you have another opportunity to respond.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 1:04 am - March 28, 2013

  67. spam filter

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 1:29 am - March 28, 2013

  68. In case my reply didn’t go through.

    NDT…. Pertaining to your comment #60…. As per usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about. It was V and someone calling himself Matt Damon who made that argument. I was the one who showed that the divorce rate settled back down after the first few years of “no fault” divorce being the law of the land. So it made no difference.

    Here is the thread if you want to revisit it… Or you can just look silly as usual and recycle one of your typical ad-nausium regurgitated pointless links you love to do, since that kind of thing seems to make you happy.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 1:41 am - March 28, 2013

  69. spam filter

    sf… Whom, exactly, do you picture there to take care of it? Do you depend on that person’s virtue and goodwill to provide you a platform for your inane trolling? What if, one afternoon, they happened to not feel like it? Or what if, say, you violated the GP Community Terms more than usual in your comment, which put them in a position of having to edit it – and they decided it was too much work?

    (ILC – his words

    I see that you’re playing(??) dumb about what happened the other day, sf. I’ll spell something out for you. Crude language doesn’t offend me. Not personally, I mean. And even someone’s vicious attitudes – like, say, the de-humanization of certain women – can slide by me. Until the person goes on to defend their viciousness, like it somehow wasn’t reprehensible. Defending it like it was justified, is morally like re-perpetrating it. At that point, and if I’m around, I may intervene. See that you learn the lesson.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 28, 2013 @ 2:07 am - March 28, 2013

  70. Kind of funny that one of the plaintiff’s in the SCOTUS cases is b-tching because she had to pay extra inheritance taxes because she wasn’t married to her partner. Leaving aside the issue that proper estate planning could have mitigated the tax issue, I thought leftists thought people who complained about taxes were unpatriotic; that this old … well, I guess we know what anatomical reference SF would have used… this old munt should have shut up and paid her fair share.

    But I guess she gets exempted because, you know, victim group status and all that. God forbid her last name was “Romney.”

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 7:20 am - March 28, 2013

  71. … well, I guess we know what anatomical reference SF would have used

    It’s also a word that you separately recognized posters Metalgarth, Chronus the Wonder Pig, and Spineless Vertebra for using on YOUR blog during the month of February. I believe you cited them for “best of” or “thread winner” for employing the word in demeaning ways towards women, one instance even involving a child. You’re no stranger to it and don’t need a GP commenter’s help, VTK.

    Or, have you turned over a new leaf in March?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 10:16 am - March 28, 2013

  72. sf… Whom, exactly, do you picture there to take care of it?

    Dan. He’s always been a good blog administrator and good about those things.

    [Jeff says: Agree about Dan being a fine person, but bad assumption, as to him always handling certain duties.]

    [Remainder of comment deleted, as it was pure trolling for reaction.]

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 11:00 am - March 28, 2013

  73. well, I guess we know what anatomical reference SF would have used… this old munt should have shut up and paid her fair share.

    If it’s what you feel say it.

    But that is not where I would have gone. Not being familiar with the specifics of their shared estate, I have no idea if there were any write-offs that could have prevented the govt from taking the extra taxes… And neither do you.

    But I do love the implications of your comment. She is stupid and didn’t do her estate planning in the right way, so she deserves to be taxed more! And here I though Conservatives were for lowering taxes for everyone.

    Oh, and aren’t you for the Govt getting out of the marriage business all together? Which of course means that no one would get special tax benefits from getting married? I think NDT might get angry at that prospect.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 11:12 am - March 28, 2013

  74. @Sonic

    Consevatives are big about accpeting the consequences of our actions. My partner and I didn’t jump through all the hoops either, and I suffered financially as well as emotionally with her death.

    Who’s fault is that? Mine. I’m not going to cry to the government about it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2013 @ 11:25 am - March 28, 2013

  75. OMG…. Did you just delete my direct response to your post # 70, where i am the specific topic of the post, under the guise that I was “trolling”?????????

    [Jeff says: Not quite. You can see that I left the comment. Although I did delete the part where you just descended into trolling for more reaction, as also done here.]

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 11:29 am - March 28, 2013

  76. So you are free to say anything you want about me, and I can’t respond in kind?

    [Jeff says: Nothing of the kind. In point of fact, my #70 says nothing about you except that you seemed to be playing dumb about what happened the other day. The comment mostly talks about me. Some portions excised from your comment #73 were you also just talking about me, like picking a fight. That would have distracted from other matters in this thread.]

    There was nothing “trolling” in my response.

    [Jeff says: I disagree. Enough said. Let the thread return to other matters, already.]

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 11:43 am - March 28, 2013

  77. But I do love the implications of your comment. She is stupid and didn’t do her estate planning in the right way, so she deserves to be taxed more! And here I though Conservatives were for lowering taxes for everyone.

    They are.

    And, had conservatives gotten their way, there would be no death/estate tax regardless of whether you were married or not, so she wouldn’t have been “injured” regardless of marital status AND taxes would have been lowered for everyone.

    But the LGBT community and the Obama Party screamed and ranted that death/estate taxes had to be imposed to punish the rich and redistribute wealth.

    So now we have the fiasco of this woman who screamed and ranted for estate/death taxes having an absolute legal meltdown because she actually has to pay them.

    Again, liberals never think through the consequences of their behavior, and they blame conservatives for it biting them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 11:51 am - March 28, 2013

  78. […] Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Till Death Or Lawyers Do Us Part Edition’ — March 28, 2013 @ 11:52 am - March 28, 2013

  79. It’s also a word that you separately recognized posters Metalgarth, Chronus the Wonder Pig, and Spineless Vertebra for using on YOUR blog during the month of February. I believe you cited them for “best of” or “thread winner” for employing the word in demeaning ways towards women, one instance even involving a child. You’re no stranger to it and don’t need a GP commenter’s help, VTK.

    Or, have you turned over a new leaf in March?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 10:16 am – March 28, 2013

    Better question, Cinesnatch: since you’re bashing V the K for using it, why don’t you similarly bash Sonicfrog?

    Answer: Because you don’t care about referring to women that way; you only care about shutting up conservatives.

    This is why liberals play tu quoque; it is a deliberate attempt to exploit conservatives’ actual moral sense. When one recognizes that the disgusting pig Cinesnatch in fact endorses his fellow liberals calling women c*nts, then their screeching and whining and crying about it can be seen as the hypocritical power play that it is.

    And the only way liberals will behave is if conservatives teach them there are consequences for not doing so. They don’t get this, which is why we see Sonic throwing his hissy fit about ILC daring to impose on him the same comment bans and deletions that Sonic has screamed be applied to other posters and who Sonic has concern-trolled negatively affect the “image” of the blog when they’re not.

    Liberals are all about power. Once you realize that and recognize that liberals like Sonic and Cinesnatch are malicious bigots who will literally say and do anything to get their way, you start treating them accordingly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 12:02 pm - March 28, 2013

  80. ND30, Speaking of malicious, perhaps you should try answering questions that are asked of you, before you go asking your own.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:07 pm - March 28, 2013

  81. Wrong again, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 12:16 pm - March 28, 2013

  82. Actually, I was correct for a good seven minutes.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 12:30 pm - March 28, 2013

  83. Shorter Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 11:12 am – March 28, 2013 – “I know you are but what am I?”

    Such is the schoolyard.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 12:56 pm - March 28, 2013

  84. […] Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Till Death Or Lawyers Do Us Part Edition | askmarion — March 28, 2013 @ 1:27 pm - March 28, 2013

  85. V – I’d love to respond to that, but I’m honoring Jeff’s request to move to other things.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 1:40 pm - March 28, 2013

  86. Thank you, sf.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 28, 2013 @ 1:45 pm - March 28, 2013

  87. Getting back to point… Why is the right losing this argument?

    I reiterate my comments at # 30. In my opinion, it boils down to the fact that no one can show any real damage to society if the small subset of people who are gay and want to get married are allowed to do so.

    Yes, some on the left have been all over the place on this issue, but that does not negate the fact that no one can demonstrate any damage to society. It’s like those who tried to tie hurricane Sandy to Global Warming:

    They say: “The severity and amount of cost that was inflicted by the storm is due to Global Warming!!!”

    I say: “Prove it,”

    “______________ (insert hand-waiving here)”

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 2:04 pm - March 28, 2013

  88. […] Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Till Death Or Lawyers Do Us Part Edition » Virginia Right! — March 28, 2013 @ 2:16 pm - March 28, 2013

  89. Senator De Mint is entitled to his opinion under the First Amendment. But his words are falling on ears of a shrinking audience. I would think that those of Senator Portman, in his support of gay marriage, will do more to convince the fence sitters to support it. The problem I have with the debate is not gay marriage but gay divorce. A couple of years ago on another blog I wrote that as a comment and a Canadian responded to mine, with that it was a good point. He gave an example of a couple that married in Canada, where it was legal, and a year after the wedding they filed for divorce and the court was beside itself apspects of marriage and didn´t know how to proceed. Inthis whole debate it seems that it is being viewed with rose colored glasses. What makes the gay community think that once married they will live happily ever after? Can we do better than straight marriages, where at least one in every two is doomed to to divorce? Justice Anthony brought up an important point, that how many children in California are being raised by same sex parents. More than alimony, child custody is the big sticking point in straight couple divorce, where, particularly in lesbians, although in some cases gay couples, one of the partners is the biological parent. Then in either case, what about adopted children? Alimony will also have to be considered. in my lifetime I have known very few couples who had long term relationships. Once, I attended a twentyfifth anniversary party. Also, I knew a couple who had eighteen years together. How much longer they stayed together I don´t know having left the east coast for the west years ago. At that time I had hopes of a long term monogamous relationship; it was not to be. The longes lasted six years, and if I had married all of my lovers, and I had about as many as Micky Rooney, and we divorced, alimony would have forced me into bankruptcy.

    Comment by Roberto — March 28, 2013 @ 2:23 pm - March 28, 2013

  90. I reiterate my comments at # 30. In my opinion, it boils down to the fact that no one can show any real damage to society if the small subset of people who are gay and want to get married are allowed to do so.

    Mhm, just as no one could show how allowing the small subset of people who are married and wanted no-fault divorce, or stopping the shaming of adulterers, or promoting out-of-wedlock births would damage society.

    And yet, as we see after the fact, it most certainly did.

    The reason is very simple, Sonic. Marriage is public policy. It is a demand that society recognize and subsidize certain relationships, which means that society – all of us — takes a legal and financial hit to do so.

    The reason society has overwhelmingly chosen to recognize and subsidize male-female relationships is because these relationships invariably produce children which have to be taken care of, and it is infinitely better/faster/cheaper/more productive to have children cared for by the people that produced them, and cared-for children grow up to replace and replenish the workforce and the tax base.

    The better question: why should society take the legal and financial hit to do the same for same-sex couples?

    And now I shall flip your arguments back on you. You have insisted that marriage does NOT lower promiscuity, does NOT increase commitment, does NOT result in less abuse, and does NOT result in better care of children.

    Therefore, there is zero reason to recognize same-sex relationships. By your own logic, allowing gay couples to marry adds nothing to society, does nothing to solve problems in the gay community, and only opens the door to lawsuit after lawsuit by bigoted and intolerant gay liberals who are out to destroy churches and businesses.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 2:26 pm - March 28, 2013

  91. It doesn’t matter if the Right is losing the argument at the present time; in the long run, reality always wins. Since gay marriage is being used by the ruling class of corrupt politicians and corporate cronies to distract low information voters from the fact that they are destroying the economy and bankrupting the country, it really doesn’t matter so much. The left may get its trophy to put on the mantle, but the house will burn down around it.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 2:50 pm - March 28, 2013

  92. […] Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – ‘Till Death or Lawyers Do Us Part Edition | therightplanet.com — March 28, 2013 @ 3:00 pm - March 28, 2013

  93. […] Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — March 28, 2013 @ 3:01 pm - March 28, 2013

  94. I’ve been many places and been out for years, and it’s not a leap to say that most of us as gay people are NOT finding relationships that are leading to marriage someday, if at all. While I do want to see marriage legalized for those few couples who’ve reached this level of relationship success, I guess I’m getting tired of feeling irrelevant to even being gay these days – if you’re single and don’t have any money to donate – forget it – these gay groups/magazines etc have nothing to say to you. Kind of a nice little ‘fuck you’ after all the years we’ve donated to human rights/gay rights groups for them to go and spend ALL of it on their own selfish causes. Meanwhile lots of gay singles are dying from addictions, mental health issues, homelessness; because they are often alone and without the money to live in big gay affluent cities, can’t get any help (single adults with no kids are last on the list to get Section 8 housing or food stamps)…all I can say is after this I will NEVER again donate any of my money to gay rights advocacy since they pissed every cent of it into marriage equality and have done NOTHING for the rest of us. Many of my clients are gay and ALONE in every sense of the word. As a community based RN I have paid for my clients to eat, have clean clothes since these shelters are full of bedbugs, sometimes I’ve paid for one way bus tickets…and I ask nothing in return. Because I believe in helping those in the gay community who have nobody. Those centered in the marriage equality generally have affluence, education and have a significant other – while there is a huge component o the gay community who are suffering alone in towns nobody’s ever heard of, and those on the big affluent coastal cities don’t care about.

    At times I hope this marriage thing fails just to teach these people a lesson. But I’m bigger than that and I hope these people get all the happiness that’s coming to them. They’re not the problem. These groups that claim to be advocates for gay people are – they gladly take our money and then use it for their own issues that make us look good rather than face what’s REALLY going on in the gay world – marriage makes us look great, young, pretty, stable. Nobody wants to hear about the suicides or the drugs or the guy who has nowhere to sleep. And I think that’s what sets gay people apart from any other minority group. We really only care when it has to do with our individual interests & who gives a fuck what happens to the rest of the community. Great group of GLBT folks we’ve got.

    Comment by JL — March 28, 2013 @ 3:06 pm - March 28, 2013

  95. I was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Fourteen years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I forcefully debated the issue at length online (at a time when online debate was a brand new thing).
    Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state’s vote to authorize same-sex marriage — a vote that probably signals that most of “blue” states will follow within the next 10 years.

    I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm — if not outright approval — to New York’s dramatic decision.

    Why?

    The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

    Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

    David Frum

    Comment by rusty — March 28, 2013 @ 3:24 pm - March 28, 2013

  96. This entire royal, ungodly mess was caused by government sticking itself in where it didn’t belong in the first place.

    But-but-but…more government intervention, or continued meddling in the ways now undertaken…will SURELY remedy the situation. IF Those Who Know Better (according to the soc-cons) are allowed to continue running everybody’s life and taking our money to do it.

    This commentary thread is absolutely insane. Just take a step back, breathe in and out, and look at yourselves.

    We got into this mess because government continues to insinuate itself into our lives to ever more intrusive degrees. So the answer is…even more of it?

    I realize that the gay marriage debate is what it is because straights refuse to disengage themselves from the sugar-titty. And I refuse to make excuses for them. But those who carry water for these fools continue shouting past the elephant in the room to argue that the craziness must continue — as long as the “good guys” control it.

    Mass insanity is an odd phenomenon, indeed.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 28, 2013 @ 3:26 pm - March 28, 2013

  97. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxpd3Ye0zA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Sophia nails it

    Comment by rusty — March 28, 2013 @ 4:03 pm - March 28, 2013

  98. It doesn’t matter if the Right is losing the argument at the present time; in the long run, reality always wins. Since gay marriage is being used by the ruling class of corrupt politicians and corporate cronies to distract low information voters from the fact that they are destroying the economy and bankrupting the country, it really doesn’t matter so much.

    So the argument goes from “we shouldn’t do this because (insert reason here)” to “we shouldn’t resolve this issue because ________ is happening”. Isn’t it better to get this out of the way so that it can’t be a distraction anymore?

    The left may get its trophy to put on the mantle, but the house will burn down around it.

    This is exactly what I mean. You don’t have any proof that allowing another .7 to 1 percent of the US citizenry to marry will cause “the house to burn down”. This is the same kind of argument that was tried to keep DADT in place. Since it’s demise, there have been few if any problems noted. There is little reason expect that to change.

    This entire royal, ungodly mess was caused by government sticking itself in where it didn’t belong in the first place.

    Do you mean that government should stop recognizing marriage in the first place? Good luck selling that to any of the married folk out there.

    For argument sake, lets say that the government does “get out of the marriage business”. I take it that means no more issuing of marriage licensees, and no more ability to get married by the Justice Of The Peace. That would mean that people who were married in a court house and not married in a church, they would possibly no longer be married, as the only authority that could recognize marriage, the church, would not recognize marriages not performed by their religion.

    This idea opens a whole can of worms that I’m not sure many proponents have thought out. It often seems more like a gut reaction along the lines of “well, we can’t stand that gays might be able to marry each other… I know we’ll take away the states ability to regulate marriage in the first place!”.

    That said, if you really want to advocate for this, you’re going to have to build a very solid case for this change because, unlike the same sex marriage issue, this is going to affect a hell of a lot of people. You’d better be able to sell the benefits of it, and show it would be clearly better than what we have now. After all, as we see in the same sex marriage debate… People don’t like change.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 4:29 pm - March 28, 2013

  99. #99 — I understand what you’re saying. We have come to believe that (A) our relationships aren’t real unless the government says they are and that (B) we deserve to be able to help ourselves to other people’s money to “protect” our real relationships.

    Straight couples have bought into it hook, line and sinker. So why shouldn’t we?

    The government exists, legitimately, to protect its citizens from force or fraud. Therefore civil contracts between consenting adults must be enforced, or the State is operating illegitimately. If you enter into a contract with another party, and that party defrauds you, you should have recourse to State authority to redress that wrong. Nor should your sexual orientation, or the gender of the person with whom you’ve entered the contract, determine whether the State should perform its obligation to protect you from force or fraud.

    Statists don’t understand that, either on the Left or on the Right. Again, this explains the mess we’re in.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 28, 2013 @ 4:48 pm - March 28, 2013

  100. Notice the lack of response to comment on #95… the one absolutely indisputable comment on this entire thread. Got a website quote for that one, Rusty? Is JL lying, Vince? Hey, Sonic, what’s your take on that?

    Comment by Douglas — March 28, 2013 @ 5:01 pm - March 28, 2013

  101. I understand what you’re saying. We have come to believe that (A) our relationships aren’t real unless the government says they are and that (B) we deserve to be able to help ourselves to other people’s money to “protect” our real relationships.

    Straight couples have bought into it hook, line and sinker. So why shouldn’t we?

    No. Having the government regulate marriage has been around since at least the 1830’s, and is based in English common law from the 1700’s. So you’re not just talking about some recent change. This has been with us for close to 200 years. Again, if you are serious about this position, you’d better be able to give positive reasons why this would be better that the current policy.

    Either that, or it is just a “if i can’t have my way and exclude same sex marriage, then I’m taking my marbles and going home” type thing. I’m not accusing you of that, but it will be what it looks like.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 5:19 pm - March 28, 2013

  102. Douglas, I live in LA, which can be a bit of a bubble. Here, there are outlets for gays who are suffering with health and/or addiction problems like the LA gay and lesbian center as well as AHF, while also offering programs for gay and lesbian youth. It’s not always that way in the rest of the country. I don’t work in the healthcare field, so I don’t have the firsthand experience that JL does. Like with a lot of special interest groups, big money contributes to fallible organizations. It’s not an excuse. I’m not sure how such groups can be effectively held accountable for greater self-reflection. Do you have any ideas?

    Speaking as a single person who has become more social as he has aged, I have become more aware of just how small of a percentage of gay men are actually coupled up. And, to answer your question, yes, given the choice, I would rather g&l groups spent more money on helping the gay populace develop more positive perceptions of themselves in order to attract healthier relationships, rather than assist an even less percentage already in relationships attain a piece of paper denoting certain equal rights. But that is more out of selfish reasoning. As it stands, my three very best gay male friends are all in great and aspirational longterm relationships (loving, balanced, exciting and monogamous). And part of me would like to see them get married if they ever choose to do so. And, perhaps if I ever reach that point, I would like the same opportunity.

    And, once unconstitutional DOMA (the republican who wrote it mow campaigns againat it) is struck down, it would be nice to see resources channeled as JL might suggest.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 5:25 pm - March 28, 2013

  103. So the argument goes from “we shouldn’t do this because (insert reason here)” to “we shouldn’t resolve this issue because ________ is happening”. Isn’t it better to get this out of the way so that it can’t be a distraction anymore?

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 4:29 pm – March 28, 2013

    LOL.

    Is that statement made out of stupidity or malice, Sonic?

    Because we are aware that gays like you — and more specifically, Obama liberals like you — are using this to distract from reality.

    We just went through a campaign where you and your fellow Obama liberals went from dogs to contraception to binders to allegations of murder to lies about taxes to “what about your gaaaaafes” to Candy Crawley diving in to protect her Obama to gay concentration camps to tampon bans — which each time your whine being “resolve this and we can focus on the real issues”.

    So what that makes obvious is that, when you get this, all you’re going to do is pick up another distraction.

    The reality is this: you couldn’t focus on a real issue if your life depended on it, and you and your fellow liberals are not going to stop lying. Ever.

    Why? Because it’s about power, and you and your fellow liars will say and do anything to hold on to power.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2013 @ 5:36 pm - March 28, 2013

  104. Notice the lack of response to comment on #95… the one absolutely indisputable comment on this entire thread.

    What is there to say? “I will no longer give my money to gay groups???” I never have.

    JL experiences are his. Being neither in “the gay community” and not being an RN, I haven’t had the same experiences. I’m glad JL shared shared what he’s seen. .

    These groups that claim to be advocates for gay people are – they gladly take our money and then use it for their own issues that make us look good rather than face what’s REALLY going on in the gay world – marriage makes us look great, young, pretty, stable. Nobody wants to hear about the suicides or the drugs or the guy who has nowhere to sleep.

    This isn’t a “gay community” problem… This is a societal problem. We throw away things that we deem useless, human beings included. This is where churches and other organizations do some fine work. And then there are stories like this, but this guy was only “saved” from poverty because someone, a lot of someones actually, found him to be useful. For every one guy who people reach out to help, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are damaged or just down on their luck who will never be given a second chance or a hand up.

    BTW… It ain’t much, but at least once a year, my band plays a benefit concert for the Boys and Girls Club. Wonderful organization.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 5:37 pm - March 28, 2013

  105. NDT… Shhh. The adults are talking.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 5:44 pm - March 28, 2013

  106. You want to know what the hell happened with Prop 8 being passed? Contrary to the gospel of Dan Savage, it was NOT the organized religion. It was the voters, Vince, and what they knew about you. They don’t need a CNN or an Advocate to hide the self-destructive path the LGBT community in that and other major metropolitan areas veers towards… with your ilk’s approval, by the way. Many of them were firsthand witnesses to the damage they brought upon THEMSELVES; Reagan couldn’t have done that sitting in D.C. They remembered the AIDS-ravaged bodies, and the excuses made for them. And so the same day the predominantly progressive Californians united to elect the so-called “first Black President”, they also united to not trust you.
    Vince, if/when same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, your dramatic excusing of the things in your own house while trying to tear down somebody else’s will backfire, and you’ll be more ostracized more than ever. How do I know that? Since you activists love making Civil Rights analogies, look at the Black community today.

    Comment by Douglas — March 28, 2013 @ 6:02 pm - March 28, 2013

  107. NDT, that seems to be a typical reaction from the left when I point out the absurdity of obsessing over Ghey Marriage given the scope of our current problems. “Oh, so I guess you’re saying we should ignore this annoying hangnail until after we treat the Fourth Stage Cancer.”

    Yeah, that is pretty much what I am saying.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 6:07 pm - March 28, 2013

  108. V… Here is the flaw in your reasoning. If same sex marriage was indeed taken off the table, the focus would be put on global warming again or something else. The Monsanto immunity bill is making the rounds on the SN sites right now. If not for the same sex marriage thing that would be the issue du-juor. They won’t turn to budget issues because it’s just too damned hard.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 6:31 pm - March 28, 2013

  109. #102 — Sonic, I’m well aware that government meddling goes back a long way. But in the new spirit of “libertarianism” we’re seeing on the Right, we should be able to get them to understand some concepts they previously found it convenient to ignore.

    People are tired of paying for other people’s crap. Period. We’ve now reached a point at which the government is actually on the verge of collapse because of it. We can either go on making some people pay for others’ crap — which at some point they will refuse to do — or we can bribe them a little longer by bringing them on board the gravy train (as gay-marriage advocates want, for example).

    Sooner or later, the system will collapse into rubble. It is doomed because it is — to use of the the Lefties’ favorite terms — unsustainable.

    The fact it’s been sustained for as long as it has is go guarantee that it can be for much longer.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 28, 2013 @ 6:34 pm - March 28, 2013

  110. #110 — In final sentence, should be “is NO guarantee. I HATE getting old and trying to proofread micro-type!

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 28, 2013 @ 6:36 pm - March 28, 2013

  111. Douglas, You wanted me to respond to JL, so I did. It sounds like you disapproved of what I shared. Yeah, there are plenty of things messed up in this country, gay and otherwise. I don’t hold the solutions on how to fix everything, or even one thing. Does that preclude me from speaking out for gay marriage?

    But, yes, voters, especially minorities, passed Prop 8. in 2008, while putting another minority in the White House (yes, I see the irony). Today, if put to a vote, it would probably get shot down. As it has always been, the younger generations are more and more open-minded and eventually dictate which way the country goes. And, yes, major metro-areas, especially within blue states, help guide the change. And, yes, I live in one of those areas. And, yes, initially, gay men contributed to the rapid spread of AIDS/HIV in the US. Was I one of them? No. Would/could I have been one of them? Based on my sexual history, I doubt it. But, AIDS was not simply going to go away. It was here and there was no cure. And it was the gay community by and large who campaigned and worked towards managing this disease and getting closer to a cure. In an ideal world, everyone would have safe, monogamous sex, with few partners in their lifetime (I guess). Is this reality? Not for a lot of people. What am I supposed to do about it? Well, I try to lead by example. Am I not doing enough?

    I’m not sure what you mean by excusing things in my house that I “tear down in others.” And you say I’m going to be ostracized more than ever. Great. Thanks for the doomsday prediction. Do you have any good news? Or do you at least have a point to make? I’ve never interacted with you on GP (as far as I can tell); I’m not sure why you are being so combative.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 6:51 pm - March 28, 2013

  112. V… One more point to ponder. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but judging from the lack of comments in the comments sections of the various posts, even here at GP, people don’t seem to have too much of a pressing interest concerning economic issues either.

    Lets take a quick look.

    The Obama Economy: Rearranging the Deck Chairs – 1 comment.

    Cyprus in our hearts – 9

    Sluggish Ecconomies – 10

    This is your stock market, on drugs – 9

    Now look at the number of comment on other topics. They range from 35 to over 100. Even here, we seem to care more about the immediate things that we know are going to change, vs the things that, unfortunately, we know won’t be dealt with for years down the road.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 6:52 pm - March 28, 2013

  113. In the absence of more content from Bruce/Dan these past few weeks, Kurt (somewhat) and I (maybe too much) have been beating on the economic topics. That could have something to do with it.

    However, I’ll concede the point that gay marriage is more emotional for people and draws in a broader audience. For now… until the SRHTF 😉

    Comment by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) — March 28, 2013 @ 6:59 pm - March 28, 2013

  114. Yup, let’s not go to that mean oncologist who wants us to do all those tough things. Let’s go dish with that gossipy manicurist.

    This is why we’re boned.

    And being part of it is not a thing to be proud of.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 7:46 pm - March 28, 2013

  115. I like some of the posts. The Cyprus one was excellent IMO. But, to answer my own point, blogs and the comments are typically fueled by an emotional attachment to the goings on in the world. Right now, there is no action in Congress to get anything done with the budget and the deficit. They know it.. We know it. Meanwhile there is other stuff happening in the hear and now, and all the waiving to get attention to the problem isn’t going to do a damned thing.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 28, 2013 @ 7:56 pm - March 28, 2013

  116. The people who are busily assuring us that there will be no adverse social consequences — indeed, positive outcomes — from gay marriage are the same people who mocked those who thought loosening mortgage standards so financially irresponsible people could buy houses was a bad idea.

    “Homeownership will make the poor more responsible, and better stewards of their communities,” we were assured by the social engineers. “Your economic theories are outdated and discriminatory.”

    And, for a time, they would point to their success, at how many poor people were able to buy homes, and how the real estate market was surging. “See, you silly conservatives. You said this was a bad idea, but everything worked out great.”

    And then, 2008 happened.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2013 @ 7:57 pm - March 28, 2013

  117. I didn’t mean to be combative, Vince. I see your point. After all, those men are/were not wrong for continuing to spread AIDS knowing they were sick. Bless their hearts, they couldn’t help themselves. It wasn’t like there were that many of them doing it, anyhow. I understand, Vince. And thank you for setting an example.

    Comment by Douglas — March 28, 2013 @ 8:31 pm - March 28, 2013

  118. And it was the gay community by and large who campaigned and worked towards managing this disease and getting closer to a cure.

    Really? My impression is that the gay male community began to abandon the short-lived taboo against anal barebacking just as soon as the anti-viral regimens (financially subsidized by the non-gay majority!) were proving to be really effective at “managing” the infection.

    Which is to say that the gay male community embraced the widespread Western/American fantasy that “we don’t need to permanantly change our own habits; if we throw enough [of other people’s] money at the problem, some sort of ingenious though expensive technological ‘fix’ will be developed.”

    And, indeed, there are quite a few gay men who live by the faith that even if they were idiotic enough to become infected with HIV in this day and age, there is an ingenious though expensive technological fix that will keep their “viral load” at “undetectable levels,” meaning that they probably don’t have to worry too much about passing the infection to someone else.

    And the band plays on…

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 28, 2013 @ 8:47 pm - March 28, 2013

  119. P.S. Before anyone says anything about “low self-esteem” or “people make bad choices when they’re high on drugs,” let me just make this one assertion: Gay male culture has NEVER totally stopped glamorizing bareback anal sex, during the entire run of an epidemic infection that has seldom spread from male to male by any means OTHER than bareback anal sex.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — March 28, 2013 @ 8:54 pm - March 28, 2013

  120. I still cant get over the reasoning for person who originally challenged this law.

    If the Supreme Court finds that a marriage contract is nothing more than an ordinary business arrangement, this woman will be claiming that the American people owe her $60,000 in the extra taxes she paid simply because she entered into a PRIVATE contract with another party.

    What is the justification for the existence of federal marriage benefits again?

    Is there some way of writing a contract so that I could become eligible for Affirmative Action programs? Could I petition the US government to change my status to ‘black’, to ‘woman’, or to ‘1/32 Native American’?

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 28, 2013 @ 9:07 pm - March 28, 2013

  121. Douglas, I don’t know how to read the tone of #118. You start and end sounding sincere, but in the middle you come across as sarcastic. Forgive me if I’m mistaken. If it’s of any consequence, I volunteered for AHF in 2010 and that included picketing the Porn Awards in Hollywood for not taking a firm stand against hetero and homo films promoting unprotected sex. In the grander scheme of things, it wasn’t a whole lot. But, I’m tired of being judged by many on this blog for the irresponsible behaviors of others just by the mere fact that I don’t judge them for the choices they make in life. Do I agree with those who engage in promiscuous, unprotected sex? No. (Well, according to ND30, I do, so it’s up to you who you want to believe.) Am I going to judge them? No. (And, that includes someone I’ve met recently who is, da, da, da … a self-identified REPUBLICAN!) Why should I? Where does that get me? How does that advance the human race? Like I said, all I can do is set an example and allow my actions to speak for me.

    Throbert McGee > There is plenty of gay porn out there where condoms are used and protected sex is promoted. So, while there is a portion of gay male culture that glamorizes bareback sex, and there is a good portion that doesn’t and even criticizes it.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 28, 2013 @ 10:09 pm - March 28, 2013

  122. Where does judging get you, Vince? Through the day. Now, you could spend a full 24 hours telling anybody how much wrong conservatives are doing, and quoting Matthew 7:1 when your allies do the same, if not worse. But what has that “non-judgementalism” produced? Well, it’s produced a whole lot of money for different things. It’s also allowed a third world love-bug to infest an industrialized nation through a small group of people, with the inner cities not far behind. And they are the only two groups of people with an outbreak of this type. Do conservatives miss the mark? Oh, yes. But at least they have a mark to miss… and more times than not, make. In your world, Vince, anything goes. It sounds good, but the reality seldom matches the sound.

    Comment by Douglas — March 28, 2013 @ 11:37 pm - March 28, 2013

  123. So, what happens when gay activists win the marriage trophy and realize they are still bitter, miserable, and unfulfilled?

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 8:28 am - March 29, 2013

  124. @VtheK
    They go for the next target. It’s easier to make yourself feel better by tearing down another than by finding your own contentment.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 29, 2013 @ 9:19 am - March 29, 2013

  125. The GOP Establishment and the Consultant class remind me of middle-aged men who are preening and trying to get the attention of some hot young thing (swing voters), and in doing so, they’re neglecting the wife (the base) and she is getting pissed.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 10:08 am - March 29, 2013

  126. […] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 03/29/13 — March 29, 2013 @ 10:41 am - March 29, 2013

  127. […] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results » Virginia Right! — March 29, 2013 @ 11:37 am - March 29, 2013

  128. Does the hot young thing look anything like this?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 11:52 am - March 29, 2013

  129. Ah, the morning Cinesnatch morality example.

    1) Posting pictures on the Web of women in bikinis is morally wrong, evil, awful, and bad.

    2) Having promiscuous bareback sex with multiple strangers <a href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=59031#comment-746492is "liberating" and "standing up for others who couldn't".

    But as always, such is the pattern with abusers like Cinesnatch. Their power over people involves preying on the fundamental decency of others and the willingness of others to alter their behavior.

    None of which are traits they possess.

    Once you realize that an abuser does nothing out of altruism and everything out of selfishness, as we see with Cinesnatch, their power is broken. You recognize that they are trying to shame you into changing your behavior, not out of any objective parameter that they honor, but out of sheer lust for power and control.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 12:38 pm - March 29, 2013

  130. I’m not trying to shame VtheK into anything. But, those pictures of the twinks he sometimes post look barely legal. Whatever floats your boat. Anyway …

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 12:52 pm - March 29, 2013

  131. So, what happens when gay activists win the marriage trophy and realize they are still bitter, miserable, and unfulfilled?

    Same thing that happens with everyone else who can’t evey be happy. They’ll find something else to complain about.

    But why do you care so much how they feel? Yeah, some will get married, then find they rushed into it, or the person they married changed, they can’t reconcile the differences, and get divorced…. OK. And there will be the majority who stay happily, or semi-happily married for the rest of their lives, just like everyone else. In the several states that permit same sex marriage, the divorce rate hasn’t increased. Why does something you can’t possibly have any control over, something you shouldn’t have any control over, tie you in such emotional knots?

    Honestly – Over the years, you’ve come across as being much more ” bitter, miserable, and unfulfilled” than they ever do. Why not spend more time on things that actually makes you happy, instead of fretting over the emotional conditions of others?

    Trust me. It works wonders.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 1:06 pm - March 29, 2013

  132. I need psychoanalysis from a troll to validate my state of contentment about as much as I need a piece of paper from the Government to validate my personnel relationships.

    It’s interesting that as people move left, their attacks become more personal, more emotional, and less rational.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 1:36 pm - March 29, 2013

  133. #130 — Because that’s what statists do. Left or Right, the experience of dealing with one “team” is remarkably similar to dealing with another.

    Most of the comments, on a hot-button thread like this, are about how morally superior, more emotionally healthy, etc. they are than those stinky liberals. Go to any Leftie blog, and you will see the same sort of rah-rah about their team.

    There is one crucial difference, which is that the Left usually allows either no dissent at all (they would have banned us both long ago), or else they have one or two token trolls they allow to come back just to serve as pinatas.

    We are also permitted to ask tough questions — even when they get no answers. Lefty blogs are sure to ban those who ask really challenging questions. I’ve even seen comments, bristling with high indignation, basically demanding to know why this sort of thing has slipped through.

    I know a lot of nice liberals, but few who comment on blogs. They seem to recruit their commenters from the sewer. Or from the insane asylum. A lot of the people here — even those with whom we disagree — are very decent human beings.

    I hope the next thread can be a happier experience. I shudder to think what people new to this blog think when they read one like this.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 29, 2013 @ 1:37 pm - March 29, 2013

  134. It’s not psychoanalysis. I’m just wondering. Why are you so concerned / convinced that everyone is going to be miserable?

    PS. As predicted, Rush today started to advocate the new favorite position of “True Conservatives” that federal marriage benefits, benefits he’s enjoyed over the decades and never noticed that he was draining the coffers of the government, should go away because it’s big government. Because, if Conservatives can’t have them all to themselves, and dictate who can get them… Well, Then no one should have them.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 3:00 pm - March 29, 2013

  135. Easy answer, Sonic.

    Because you and your fellow liberals have a track record of your stupid, inane, childish tantrums making other people miserable.

    Moreover, we’re aware that you and your fellow gay-sex marriage bigots have zero intention of leaving other people alone once you get your way.

    So Sonic, why is your relationship so crappy that you need the government to validate it, and why are you so frightened of public criticism that you need the government to punish people for making it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 3:11 pm - March 29, 2013

  136. NDt… Hush. The adults are talking.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 3:13 pm - March 29, 2013

  137. Honestly – Over the years, you’ve come across as being much more ” bitter, miserable, and unfulfilled” than they ever do.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 1:06 pm – March 29, 2013

    That’s because bigots like Sonicfrog don’t think there’s anything abnormal about this behavior or this behavior.

    Frankly, I would think a community that needed to vandalize buildings and attack people for their religious faith and public statements, even to the point of attempting murder as did the LGBT-hero FRC shooter, would qualify as the “bitter, miserable, and unfulfilled” one. But I guess that’s because I’m looking at this objectively instead of following the LGBT rule of your sexual orientation making whatever you do right.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - March 29, 2013

  138. I never stop loving how ND30 actually takes the time to code links that just about nobody clicks on anymore. I used to back when I didn’t know any better.

    I wish that ND30 had a sense of humor enough to make one of those links lead to a picture of an In and Out Burger.

    I wish the ND30 on The Match Game will make a comeback soon. I really like him!

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 3:30 pm - March 29, 2013

  139. Better question, Sonic: How is V the K, despite not being married and having no desire to be, avoiding the desperate bitterness, misery and feeling of being unfulfilled that you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters claim makes you unable to function normally in society?

    And even more entertainingly: why do you insist that V the K is wrong for NOT being bitter, miserable, and unfulfilled?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 3:31 pm - March 29, 2013

  140. My firm belief is that misery is a choice; and the most miserable people are those who think “If I only had x, I’d be happy.” Then, they get x, and are happy for a brief period, but x does not fulfill them, and then they are pursuing z, in the belief that “If I only had z, I’d be happy.”

    Happiness comes not from what you get (much less take away from others), it comes from what you give.

    Just my observation.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 3:35 pm - March 29, 2013

  141. A lot of people who support marriage equality don’t have any plans to get gay married themselves (whether because they’re single, don’t plan on it, or are a straight ally). So it’s not always a matter of “if I only had X” in this instance … For millions.

    Just my observation.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 4:18 pm - March 29, 2013

  142. NDT… That’s almost an interesting question. But, since you’ve twisted the premise completely backwards from what I said – hello mr. strawman – I can’t answer you. But i appreciate that you kind of attempted… something. Keep it up. Maybe one day you will be able to converse with the adults.

    My firm belief is that misery is a choice; and the most miserable people are those who think “If I only had x, I’d be happy.” Then, they get x, and are happy for a brief period, but x does not fulfill them, and then they are pursuing z, in the belief that “If I only had z, I’d be happy.”

    My mom can be like that. For much of my life, where ever she’s moved, even when it was someplace she wanted to go, in time she would grow to dislike that location.

    Me? I’d be lying if I said Fresno is the first choice for a place to live. I love the coast, and would love to live near the water. But, for reasons that are too long to list, this is my home, and I’m fine with it. I’ve got the Mate, his (our) family, my music, and some interesting stuff in life.

    That said, you seem to be assuming that anyone / everyone who is gay and wants to be able to marry their partner automatically fit into this category. Is that true in your life? Because it’s not in mine. I’m happy with life. Would I be “happier” if I had the opportunity to marry Greg. I have no idea. This “fight”, if you want to call it that, isn’t merely about “happiness”, it’s about as much as anything doing what is right. In the end, there is no reason that a same sex couple should not have the opportunity to marry…. Even if it is, as you put it, a way to try to achieve happiness.

    Happiness comes not from what you get (much less take away from others), it comes from what you give.

    Just my observation.

    We absolutely agree here.

    Jeff, that might be a good subject for a post. Getting away from politics, what do we do in our lives that makes us happy, fills our souls, or eases the stresses of the conflicts we encounter in life.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 4:25 pm - March 29, 2013

  143. x in this case = “If only we had the gratification of taking traditional marriage away from the Christians (whom we hate) and rubbing their faces in our vulgar display of political power, we’d be happy.”

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 4:42 pm - March 29, 2013

  144. Wow … Wow … Wow …

    Well, if that’s the case, it’s buried deep in the subconscious of those who are for marriage equality. And I guess the Christian churches who are for marriage equality must be included.

    Or maybe I just don’t run in the same circles as you, VTK. You must be exposed to a level of power in society that I’ll never be privy to.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 4:49 pm - March 29, 2013

  145. #143 — Sonic, your post idea is a good one. It would make heads explode, however, if any acknowledgment were made — in the course of it — that some gays are actually Christians who disagree with the biblical interpretation of those often dishonestly portrayed, by other commenters as the only Christians who exist.

    We may find happiness and meaning in our faith, to the same degree that Christians who disagree with us on this issue do theirs. As a much larger number of conservative and libertarian gays are people of faith, I don’t know why this should be surprising.

    It would certainly puncture the fiction that *ALL* Christians (whom V informs us we supposedly hate) think the same way.

    What of those of us for whom freedom of religion means living according to the dictates of our own consciences, instead of someone else’s? Quite a concept, that. I’d like to see it honestly stated here.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 29, 2013 @ 4:54 pm - March 29, 2013

  146. x in this case = “If only we had the gratification of taking traditional marriage away from the Christians …

    That is a stunning admission. How is letting the fraction of the US population, gays who would marry would be about .7 to 1 percent of the US populous, to get married, ” taking traditional marriage away from the Christians”. Does this mean that everyone will now have to marry gay people instead of straight people? Or they won’t be able to marry anymore? There will of course be no such restriction.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 4:58 pm - March 29, 2013

  147. And again, you wonder why your side is losing in the court of public opinion.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 4:59 pm - March 29, 2013

  148. Because, Sonic, you and your fell

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 5:32 pm - March 29, 2013

  149. Short and sweet. Love it.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 5:36 pm - March 29, 2013

  150. My conclusion is based on the statements and behavior of gay activists, their hatred toward Christians (see Mark above), the general leftist worship of political power (100,000 comments taunting “we won” “your side is losing”) and spiteful way leftists behave toward those designated as enemies.

    Also, gay activists categorically reject civil unions even when they provide identical benefits. This reminds me of the behavior of two year olds. “I don’t want this toy, I want *his* toy.”

    All this adds up to is, a lot of gay marriage activists perceive their fight as an opportunity to defeat Christians and conservatives; and that is the fuel feeds the fire.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 5:41 pm - March 29, 2013

  151. Oh, that’s easy, Sonic and Cinesnatch.

    It’s because marriage has value and meaning to Christians, and gays and lesbians are overwhelmingly bigots whose only concern is attacking and mocking Christians.

    You look at marriage like a spoiled child looks at another kid’s toy — something you want. As we see from your leader Dan Savage, you don’t understand the first thing about monogamy or commitment; you just want the toy and to attack Christians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 5:41 pm - March 29, 2013

  152. I think that there is one basic thing to learn from the debate. We need to treat one another with respect. I am for gay marriage, and I think that those who are against it are entitled to that opinion. Everyone just needs to be a little nicer when talking about passionate topics. The following represents how I feel in a greater detail.
    http://thegenerationxconservative.blogspot.com/2013/03/same-sex-marriage-makes-it-to-supreme.html

    Comment by Jay Mallock — March 29, 2013 @ 5:45 pm - March 29, 2013

  153. I have been saying from the beginning that heterosexuals long ago mortally wounded marriage by detaching its responsibilities — fidelity and commitment — from its societal rewards. Gays, by and large, would want no part of an institution that required fidelity and commitment as a condition of membership. But, once marriage became a pinata of social benefits without responsibilities.

    A lot of Christians still believe that marriage is about commitment, fidelity, and raising a family. Once marriage includes gays — who don’t even pretend to be about commitment and fidelity — the things that makes marriage precious to Christians are irretrievably removed from the institution.

    You want to know how gays want to take marriage away from Christians? That’s how. By removing the very aspects of marriage that make it socially valuable.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 5:46 pm - March 29, 2013

  154. You’re right, V the K.

    Cinesnatch and Sonic can’t tell us the benefits of gay-sex marriage; indeed, they openly try to tear down the benefits of marriage.

    And indeed, Sonic ram away when I pointed out how lesbian bigot Christine Quinn was using her government position to punish people and businesses for speaking out against gay-sex marriage.

    This is about power and hate. Gay bigots want to destroy religious belief, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech because they hate Christians and other believers for daring to shame and criticize them and their promiscuous and stupid behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 5:47 pm - March 29, 2013

  155. Again it must be asked why only leftist gay activists who hate Christianity are to be considered, while the decent and God-fearing gays (for whom such people do not speak) are consistently ignored.

    On a blog like this, that they are ignored this way is especially inconsistent — even bizarre.

    Anyone who lumps me in with people hostile to my faith is a liar. Period. If they believe in sin, then they are sinning grievously in misrepresenting me like that. I’m getting sick of this. I think it may be time to simply take a break from this blog.

    It’s getting more extreme all the time. My views are simply not represented here. It isn’t only disrespect, which would be bad enough in itself. it is dishonesty.

    I thought this was supposed to be a gay conservative blog. I’m no longer sure what it is.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 29, 2013 @ 5:54 pm - March 29, 2013

  156. Right on again, V the K.

    It is telling that gays and lesbians blabber on about commitment and fidelity and responsibility — yet attack the churches and religious believers that emphasize exactly that, and idolize the promiscuous and irresponsible liberals like Bill Clinton that do the opposite.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 5:54 pm - March 29, 2013

  157. I’m f@cking tired of hearing how gays don’t value fidelity and commitment. My three very best gay male friends are in longterm monagomous committed relationships.

    Again, VTK and I run in different circles.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 5:55 pm - March 29, 2013

  158. NDT, years ago, when I saw gay people saying things like “Britney Spears got married for a weekend, why can’t I do that” and “70% of marriages end in divorce [not quite true, btw]” I wondered to myself, “Why is that where they go to justify their desire for marriage.”

    If people really respected fidelity and commitment, wouldn’t they be saying things like, “My grandma and grandpa were together for 70 years. That’s what *I* want?”

    Hardly ever hear any of them say that, tho’

    Much, much, more often, it’s things like “Monogamy is unnatural.” And, “Men are pigs.”

    And I look at the kind of people who champion gay marriage: Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage. You know, not exactly exemplars of fidelity and commitment.

    And isn’t it curious how all the left-wing academics who previously denounced marriage as an oppressive, patriarchal, outdated institution are suddenly all in favor of it… for gheys?

    A thinking man notices and ponders such evidence.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 6:02 pm - March 29, 2013

  159. Not really, Cinesnatch; you just lie to yourself.

    And given how you idolized as “heroes” people who were engaging in promiscuous and irresponsible sex with multiple partners, no one seriously believes your pretending to support in any way monogamy, fidelity, or commitment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 6:03 pm - March 29, 2013

  160. It is telling that gays and lesbians blabber on about commitment and fidelity and responsibility — yet attack the churches and religious believers that emphasize exactly that

    Yes. Actions do indeed speak louder than blog comments.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 6:05 pm - March 29, 2013

  161. I feel blessed to have the friends I have. Better to have them then pulling my opinions of people from what I read on the Internet.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 29, 2013 @ 6:08 pm - March 29, 2013

  162. Exactly, V.

    And that is what I would volley back to Lori; why do you attack the people who see marriage as a valuable and meaningful commitment to lifelong fidelity, monogamy, and responsibility, and not the ones who advocate anti religious hate, promiscuity, and irresponsibility?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 6:11 pm - March 29, 2013

  163. #163 — Where, NDT, are you getting the notion that I don’t challenge people who advocate anti-religious hate, promiscuity and irresponsibility?

    I find that an extraordinarily odd accusation for you to make. You know I’m a writer for the gay Christian community, and that I address those topics often. You also know I have often been attacked by those people — sometimes savagely. I have even gotten death threats from them, which is exactly why I own guns and advocate so strongly for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    I don’t believe that it’s necessary to acknowledge only “the people who see marriage as a valuable and meaningful commitment” in the sense that you interpret that, while ignoring the many who also see marriage that way but believe it means government should behave differently toward us than it does. If telling the truth that the people you view as the ONLY Christians are NOT, in fact, the only Christians is “attacking” them, then Lord help us.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 29, 2013 @ 6:39 pm - March 29, 2013

  164. I thought I’d seen the limits of ND30’s need to demonize anyone whom he deems outside his tribe, but today I read a post from him minimizing the heroism of people who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany.

    ND30, your twitter description says you seek wisdom. This ought to be a wake-up call for you.

    Comment by RT — March 29, 2013 @ 7:07 pm - March 29, 2013

  165. […] Fourth place *t* with 2/3 vote – Gay Patriot-Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for March 29, 2013 — March 29, 2013 @ 7:09 pm - March 29, 2013

  166. Where, NDT, are you getting the notion that I don’t challenge people who advocate anti-religious hate, promiscuity and irresponsibility?

    I find that an extraordinarily odd accusation for you to make. You know I’m a writer for the gay Christian community…

    Lori… You should know by now that’s not good enough. if you don’t support their exact position, you’re not the right kind of Christian or Conservative. You are the enemy.

    You really should correspond with him if you want meaningful conversation. Believe me… I’ve tried. But this is what you’ll get:

    Actually, back in the days of yore, people were publicly shunned and had their families shamed for committing adultery. The government invariably had to do very little other than to a) prosecute people who were caught and b) adjudicate laws that essentially gave every last dime to the cuckolded spouse.

    Of course, then along came liberals, who screamed and cried that it was wrong to punish people for adultery, that it was wrong to shame adultery, that divorce should be “no fault” even in cases of adultery, etc.

    And amazingly, we suddenly ended up with a lot more adultery and a lot more divorce.

    Which now means we are treated to the hilarity of liberals shrieking that the adultery they wanted promoted, the promiscuity they wanted pushed, and the divorce they wanted instantly and with no questions asked means we don’t want to protect marriage and the nuclear family.

    You want to bring up Britney Spears? Back in the decades of which you and your fellow “enlightened” liberals make fun, her 55-hour marriage would not only have been nearly legally impossible, her career would have been destroyed because of it.

    Who made her behavior possible, Sonic? YOU did. YOU and your fellow gay-sex liberals pushed for quickie divorces. YOU pushed for promiscuous stupidity and drug use. YOU screamed and ranted that no one should ever be penalized for stupid and idiotic behavior.

    Because I control what Britteny Spears does; was, oh, about 2 or 3 years old when “no fault divorce” entered the scene and had incredible political sway for my age, and wasn’t even born yet when liberals started using drugs, but my mom’s egg and my dad’s sperm (which wasn’t even produced yet) magically advocated for the Beatniks and Hippies to do all that.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 7:16 pm - March 29, 2013

  167. V the K: “A thinking man notices and ponders such evidence.”

    Unfortunately, V the K notices and ponders such evidence as suits his preconceived notions. Anything else? Not so much.

    Comment by RT — March 29, 2013 @ 7:43 pm - March 29, 2013

  168. Let examine this. My original question was this:

    How is letting the fraction of the US population, gays who would marry would be about .7 to 1 percent of the US populous, to get married, ” taking traditional marriage away from the Christians”.

    V answered. OK. Let’s see:

    My conclusion is based on the statements and behavior of gay activists,…

    What about the statements from non-activist gays? Myself included. What about non-gay non-activists, who also support same sex marriage? Somehow, they don’t count?

    Logical fallacy… You’re excluding the middle.

    …their hatred toward Christians (see Mark above),

    Some might “hate” Christians, but many who support same sex marriage don’t. Some, like Lori, and my little brother, and many others I know who are on the pro SSM side, are Christians. I’m not a Christian, but i don’t hate Christians either. I’ll call them out if i think they are wrong, just like I do with liberals, or my side, the libertarians.

    Still excluding the middle.

    the general leftist worship of political power (100,000 comments taunting “we won” “your side is losing”)

    Both parties worship political power, which is why through the Federal Election Committee, both parties have made it almost impossible for any other party to participate in the electoral process. And this is a strawman, as it has nothing to do with anyone actually ” ” taking traditional marriage away from the Christians””.

    and spiteful way leftists behave toward those designated as enemies.

    Because Conservatives aren’t just as spiteful…. And it’s another strawman.

    Also, gay activists categorically reject civil unions even when they provide identical benefits.

    Of all the things you’ve presented, this is the only one that has some substance. Yet, because it’s been shown that civil unions have in practice not been treated the same (don’t have time to find links, but will if requested nicely) but that doesn’t show that anyone is ” taking traditional marriage away from the Christians”.

    All this adds up to is, a lot of gay marriage activists perceive their fight as an opportunity to defeat Christians and conservatives; and that is the fuel feeds the fire.

    OK. That may be… But it STILL doesn’t show that anyone is ” taking traditional marriage away from the Christians”.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 8:07 pm - March 29, 2013

  169. And the aspect that does not get discussed much is “What next?” The left is never magnanimous in victory, and I strongly doubt they will extend any sort of olive branch to people they have been demonizing as h8rs and bigots for so long. Reconciliation will not be on the table. If history is any guide (hint: it is), they will be unable to resist the impulse to drive the wedge in further.

    This is not going to get better.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 8:16 pm - March 29, 2013

  170. Further, lets look at the definition of the term “take away” – to deduct; subtract.

    In order to ” take traditional marriage away from the Christians”, someone would have to write into law that Christians can no longer be married. If you want to get even further in the definitions of the terms you are using, lets use the term “traditional marriage” as you describe it, that between a man and a woman. Is anyone actually “taking away” the ability of Christian men and women to marry each other, one man to one woman?

    Of course not.

    One more thing. If you’re going to be pissed at someone for saying you’re losing the debate and the fight, you might as well be pissed at Dan Blatt, as that is the premise of his post we are all commenting on.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 8:16 pm - March 29, 2013

  171. Never said I was pissed off. That was entirely projection on someone else’s part. I have just made a more sober assessment of thee entire situation than people who are emotionally invested in it are capable of making.

    Not angry. Sad because I can see where this is going, and most people are willingly blind to it.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2013 @ 8:33 pm - March 29, 2013

  172. And the aspect that does not get discussed much is “What next?”

    OK… What is next? I can’t think of anything off the top of my head, except one. A few might petition that churches must also recognize SSM. That is possible. But it’s a different fight, and the argument against that is much stronger, as that would become an issue of church and state. As a rule, churches do better in that political arena.

    The left is never magnanimous in victory, and I strongly doubt they will extend any sort of olive branch to people they have been demonizing as h8rs and bigots for so long.

    Of course they won’t… So. The more vocal ones will be little bitches no matter what. No skin off my back.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 29, 2013 @ 8:54 pm - March 29, 2013

  173. #163 — Where, NDT, are you getting the notion that I don’t challenge people who advocate anti-religious hate, promiscuity and irresponsibility?

    I find that an extraordinarily odd accusation for you to make. You know I’m a writer for the gay Christian community, and that I address those topics often. You also know I have often been attacked by those people — sometimes savagely. I have even gotten death threats from them, which is exactly why I own guns and advocate so strongly for our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 29, 2013 @ 6:39 pm – March 29, 2013

    And yet, peculiarly enough, you seem to be under the impression that these same people who are making death threats against you for expressing your faith and holding them accountable for their violations of such are trying to force through gay-sex marriage for all the right reasons.

    I’d say if they’re already making death threats against supporters of gay-sex marriage like you for daring to disagree with them, one can only imagine what happens when they start weaponizing gay-sex marriage to punish religious beliefs using governmental power.

    Oh, that’s right, we don’t have to imagine; they already are doing it.

    Gay-sex marriage supporters are violent bigots who are already rationalizing killing people for their religious beliefs. You yourself acknowledge getting death threats from gay-sex marriage supporters. What this translates to is many more FRC shooters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 9:49 pm - March 29, 2013

  174. I thought I’d seen the limits of ND30′s need to demonize anyone whom he deems outside his tribe, but today I read a post from him minimizing the heroism of people who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany.

    Comment by RT — March 29, 2013 @ 7:07 pm – March 29, 2013

    No, you didn’t. You read this post, and then you chose to lie about it.

    But again, I am wasting effort by showing you facts. “Progressives” and liberals like Cinesnatch, like you, and others are blind, brainwashed cultists. They don’t have the mental or moral capacity to do anything other than blame Republicans, attack Republicans, and justify every single move their precious Obama Party makes.

    Facts are wasted on you. Power is your only objective, and you don’t care what lies you have to tell, what reputations you have to destroy, and who you have to hurt or kill to get what they want.

    Once one realizes that “progressives” like you have no intention of objectively applying rules or standards of conduct, you become that much easier to mock and out as hypocrites and abusers. As we saw during the campaign, the “moral standards” of Obama bigots like yourself involved falsely accusing Romney of murder and tax fraud — which demonstrates nicely that, despite all your moral posturing and preening, you are nothing more than disgusting, fetid pigs.

    Indeed, I would point out that what Obama bigot gays like you call “heroism” involves bareback sex in bathhouses and lying so that you can donate contaminated blood that ends up killing hemophiliacs and other innocent victims.

    So bring it. I’m more than able to nuke you with facts and make your hypocrisy utterly and completely obvious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 10:04 pm - March 29, 2013

  175. What about the statements from non-activist gays? Myself included. What about non-gay non-activists, who also support same sex marriage? Somehow, they don’t count?

    No, they don’t, Sonic.

    Because, as I showed above, you run away when you’re confronted with clear examples of how your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are already using governmental power to discriminate against and punish people and businesses.

    So yes, gay-sex marriage is already damaging society, Sonic. Those are facts, real occurrences.

    And perhaps you should have noticed when you were picking up Lori’s response that your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters are making death threats against her for daring to assert her religious beliefs and criticize their behavior.

    But no, you don’t care about that, just like you don’t care about how gay-sex marriage supporters are already using governmental power to punish people and businesses.

    It is as V the K said. You are willfully blind because you want that gay-sex marriage certificate to validate you and your life. And you don’t care how many people get hurt or killed, or how many businesses get vandalized, or whatever, because you want it to happen.

    And we already know the excuses you’re going to make, just like you did above…..you wanted no-fault divorce, you wanted promiscuity to be socially acceptable, you wanted to cheapen marriage, and now you’re blathering on about how it’s not your fault, you’re not accountable for the behavior of others, blah blah blah.

    V and I are realists. We have seen history, we have seen the behavior of the gay and lesbian community, and we have seen how “good Germans” like yourself will rationalize the worst happening if you’re emotionally invested in it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2013 @ 10:13 pm - March 29, 2013

  176. Chris Barron Tweet about he and Shawn

    If your marriage is threatened by my marriage you need counseling or therapy.
    10:18am – 26 Mar 13

    Comment by rusty — March 29, 2013 @ 11:57 pm - March 29, 2013

  177. Funny, given that rusty calls Chris Barron a meth addict and house f*ggot who’s only out to hurt other gays.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2013 @ 12:40 am - March 30, 2013

  178. I thought I’d seen the limits of ND30′s need to demonize anyone whom he deems outside his tribe, but today I read a post from him minimizing the heroism of people who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany.

    ND30, your twitter description says you seek wisdom. This ought to be a wake-up call for you.

    Comment by RT — March 30, 2013 @ 1:01 am - March 30, 2013

  179. #174 — “And yet, peculiarly enough, you seem to be under the impression that these same people who are making death threats against you for expressing your faith and holding them accountable for their violations of such are trying to force through gay-sex marriage for all the right reasons.”

    NDT, I’ll tell you what’s so “peculiar” about it. It isn’t what I believe, and it is never what I said. There are so many things wrong with what you’re claiming that it’s difficult to know where to begin.

    It’s Good Friday, and I have better things to do than repeat things I’ve said before, in other threads, on this blog. But here are just a few quick points:

    (A) I don’t believe that everyone who supports same-sex marriage has threatened me with bodily harm. As human beings are individuals (I’m not sure what species you’re talking about), there is no amorphous, undifferentiated mass of beings floating around out there who all think the same things, for the same reasons, and behave exactly the same way toward others.

    (B) I support getting government out of marriage. If you can stretch that to being support for SSM (and of course you can — you’re very stretchy) then of course nobody can stop you from portraying me any way you choose. If I must continue to subsidize heterosexual marriages with my tax money, then I should have the same access to protections under the law. But again, my preference would be derailing the gravy train and sending Santa back to the North Pole. Christmas can come once a year for married heteros, just like it does for everybody else.

    (C) I find it difficult to relate to the way you obviously view people. You seem to lack any concept of the individual. As individual responsibility is impossible without individual identity, such a view reduces thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition to utter gibberish. If this is now what passes for “conservatism,” then the term really has been stripped of all its meaning.

    Again, it is Good Friday, so I’m off again. I’ll simply have to let the insanity on this thread roll merrily on without me.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 1:20 am - March 30, 2013


  180. I grew up in the projects. And every ghetto in America has what people call the “smart kid”. He made good grades, played sports, volunteered, dressed properly, on and on. He actually lived in the White suburbs, but he was such a regular in the hood, it seemed nobody noticed. Yet when somebody was raided, he somehow always seemed to be across the street. But he never got arrested. And that’s because he never knew the police followed him to find some action. By the time his usefulness was up, the police had enough to drop the hammer on his *ss.
    Now Sonic, you, Rusty, and Vince smart kids if ever there were any. You dress it up like you aren’t “with “them”. But all somebody has to do is follow your trail on this site. And once the novelty of same-sex marriage wears off, the soccer moms and evangelical allies will see you as you are. They won’t call you names and such, but they’ll drop the hammer on you the worst possible way: they’ll just ignore you. If you think your feelings are hurt now…

    Comment by Douglas — March 30, 2013 @ 1:37 am - March 30, 2013

  181. And to be honest, Lori, if it wasn’t for the money, yeah, people would get the government out of marriage. Very few things happen in politics without money or ideology at the center of them nowadays.

    Comment by Douglas — March 30, 2013 @ 1:51 am - March 30, 2013

  182. OMG Douglas what are you smoking and please pass some in my direction thanks.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — March 30, 2013 @ 3:29 am - March 30, 2013

  183. Vince, you are just another predatory White liberal to me. You have about as many redeeming qualities as a drug dealer, so that reference seems to be right on point coming from you.

    Comment by Douglas — March 30, 2013 @ 4:17 am - March 30, 2013

  184. … and I’d like to apologize for bringing “White” into that last comment. Not everybody White is a predatory liberal, as this site has clearly shown. Again, my apologies.

    Comment by Douglas — March 30, 2013 @ 8:09 am - March 30, 2013

  185. Douglas, your “smart kid” observation is the freshest one I have seen in these comments in a very long time; a nice contrast to the stale talking points of the statists. Bravo.

    NDT: You can’t reason with people who can’t reason. All they care about is the shiny; a dying economy, a Government that grows larger and more oppressive by the day means nothing to them, as long as they get the shiny.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 10:46 am - March 30, 2013

  186. That is a stunning admission. How is letting the fraction of the US population, gays who would marry would be about .7 to 1 percent of the US populous, to get married, ” taking traditional marriage away from the Christians”. Does this mean that everyone will now have to marry gay people instead of straight people? Or they won’t be able to marry anymore? There will of course be no such restriction.

    Taking traditional marriage away from the Christians isn’t about making them marry gays but taking away the significance of the institution.

    Traditional marriage to a Christian isn’t about the goodies government provides in the recognition of their relationships. It is about the promises, the commitment and strength of the family.

    In general the gay marriage debate is framed by gays as fairness and the fact that they don’t get government recognized goodies. This framing leads traditionalists to think that gays don’t care about the institution and don’t want it, but instead want tax breaks and a pat on the back.

    I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I think if gays wanted to get more traditional Christians to agree with them they should start framing the debate from the perspective of wanting the institution and what it means.

    If the government decided tomorrow that they were no longer going to recognize marriage of any kind, my husband and I wouldn’t all the sudden think we aren’t married. What makes me married to my husband isn’t the government’s piece of paper saying we are, but the promises we made before the God we believe in, friend, family and the commitment we have had for the last 22 years to each other and our children.

    Marriage-the institution isn’t about taxes and rights.

    Marriage the institution is about the promise and commitment.

    Comment by Just Me — March 30, 2013 @ 11:32 am - March 30, 2013

  187. #186 — One of the most hypocritical remarks I’ve seen on this blog, made by one of the most intellectually dishonest people with whom I’ve ever had the misfortune of trying to converse.

    Try again, V. The mud isn’t sticking. And I’m going to come back, again and again, and show how foolish your arguments really are.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 11:33 am - March 30, 2013

  188. #187 — If all these married straights were really so wrought-up with concern about “the institution,” they would not be using marriage law to rig the tax code in a manner that permitted them to loot single people (gay and straight) blind and $h*tless.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 11:35 am - March 30, 2013

  189. Lori-I am all for a simple, flat tax. No rigging involved.

    And once again marriage isn’t about taxes or tax breaks.

    Marriage is an institution-and it has meaning and that meaning has nothing to do with tax filing.

    Comment by Just Me — March 30, 2013 @ 11:39 am - March 30, 2013

  190. Just Me, the people who determine the “meaning” of marriage are those who enter into it. Not merely those who appoint themselves the arbiters of All That Is Holy.

    To say that only those who would abuse it give it whatever meaning an entire group might give it is not only unjust but illogical. And as I pointed out in a (much) earlier comment on this thread, it is exactly the same argument made by the Left when it attempts to grab guns by capitalizing on shooting tragedies involving children.

    Both sides use it. It is not a liberal thing, but a big-government, nanny-statist thing.

    I will leave it for individual readers of these commentary threads to determine whether my argument makes sense or whether it doesn’t. People who lazily claim that they can’t reason with me because I’m unreasonable need to fill their hands and prove their case.

    They need to bring it, because I certainly will.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 12:02 pm - March 30, 2013

  191. Traditional marriage to a Christian isn’t about the goodies government provides in the recognition of their relationships. It is about the promises, the commitment and strength of the family.

    Exactly right. And that’s what people like SF are utterly clueless about.

    They say, “Oh, but how does my gay marriage affect your straight marriage.” You could use the exact same “logic” to justify a pederast marrying his catamite, a Mohammedan marrying several dozen wives, or a resident of Enumclaw marrying a horse. Why not make these things legal on the rationale that they would have no effect on any particular good, Christian marriage?

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 12:04 pm - March 30, 2013

  192. #192 — “To a Christian.” And therein you have the deception. If you’re a “Christian,” you MUST be opposed to same-sex marriage because it “must” lead to marrying your dining-room set or digging up dead people and taking them to the little white wedding chapel in Vegas.

    Certain bigots get to define who is Christian and who isn’t. It’s who they say is Christian. Christians who disagree with them on same-sex marriage are “not” Christian.

    Why not? Because they say so. A perfect circular argument.

    It’s becoming apparent, by now, to thinking people who read this blog how the game works. Lump everybody you don’t like together into one messy, smelly, sticky Blob and mindlessly condemn them all.

    Don’t see human beings as individuals. Preach endlessly, and vacuously, about “individual responsibility” — while totally ignoring that if people are not individuals, individual responsibility is not possible.

    No, nanny-statists must herd us like cattle. This also means that reasonable arguments must be drowned out by being (deliberately) misrepresented as saying something other than they are. Anyone who opposes their trail drive must, for example, be a typical Leftist.

    Wow, they really are on the run. They’re losing, and they’re behaving exactly the way losers can be expected to behave.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 12:16 pm - March 30, 2013

  193. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “The sting in any rebuke is the truth.” I think that’s why NDT gets under people’s skin. I get my share of attacks in these comments and I shrug off most of them, but I think NDT really hits a nerve not because his assertions can be easily rebutted, but because they can’t be.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 12:28 pm - March 30, 2013

  194. Lori-not really sure at all what you are arguing there.

    To reiterate-I am not opposed to gay marriage, I am just not a fan of the debate focusing on “Gimme, it’s not FAIRRRRRR!” whines.

    There is a case for gay marriage to be made, and it comes from desiring and respecting the institution.

    The liberals of the 70’s were all about the destruction of the marriage institution-degrading it to being “just a piece of paper” and as easy to get as a quick trip to Vegas and as easy to end with the same.

    Marriage as an institution is a foundation of a strong society. I don’t think it has to be exclusive to heterosexuals, but I do think those who demand marriage should be aware of their motivations. Do they want the goodies or the institution? Because if all they want is the goodies-then start making the case for civil unions. If they want the institution-they start the debate from a position of “We respect and desire the institution and want it for our relationships because . . .”

    Sometimes I feel like the debate is about marriage because the gay side of the debate is stomping their feet in a toddlerish fit because their brother got an extra chocolate chip in their cookie.

    I guess I just want to see the debate to be about making the institution better not demanding you want something because somebody said you couldn’t have it.

    My position is the focus of the debate needs to be changed from government goodies, rights and fairness to why the institution of marriage is good for society and why gays want the same thing.

    Comment by Just Me — March 30, 2013 @ 12:31 pm - March 30, 2013

  195. #194 — No, NDT “gets under people’s skin” because he slanders them and misrepresents what they’re saying. As do you.

    #195 — JM, what I am arguing here is that our money belongs to us, not to the government. We got into the financial soup we’re in largely because it keeps taking our money from us and doling it out to others in various forms, including tax breaks that rob Peter to pay Paul so the government can rig society to work according to certain nanny-state busybodies’ manipulations.

    To misrepresent this as being “gimme goodies” — as if those “goodies” rightly belong not to the people who earned them, but to the State — is absurd. It is worse than absurd, it is obscene.

    V the K and NDT are trying to argue that our rightful earnings are the “rightful” takings of the State — as long as they like the people doing the taking. That we should all just sit still and let ourselves get royally hosed — as long as the people doing the hosing are “moral” and “Christian.”

    You may think it’s righteous. I think it’s obscene. And I’m going to go on saying so.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 12:42 pm - March 30, 2013

  196. V the K and NDT are trying to argue that our rightful earnings are the “rightful” takings of the State — as long as they like the people doing the taking.

    Can you cite a comment of mine that proves this, or is this a slander and misrepresentation on your part?

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 1:23 pm - March 30, 2013

  197. Because, you know, if NDT accused me of holding such an opinion, *he* would have the good form and honesty to link back to one of my comments where I actually said that everyone’s earning’s were the rightful “takings” of the state as long as they were redistributed to Christians.

    Or, are you, Lori, incapable of matching NDT’s standard for honest debate.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 1:28 pm - March 30, 2013

  198. #197-198 — Try answering my direct question from several threads ago, V the K. Man up.

    What is the “socially responsible conservative” philosophy of government? And try to do something besides (A) argue for statism — therefore revealing that philosophy without directly answering me and (B) clutching at your pearls about how rude I am for suggesting that soc-cons expect to be pandered to and then, immediately, arguing that they need to be pandered to — without using the word “pandering,” of course (which to you, evidently makes it magically into something else).

    NDT has specifically argued that straight married couples should get tax breaks for the good of society. Therefore he has shilled for the rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul notion of government intervention into marriage, because he likes the people doing the intervening.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 1:50 pm - March 30, 2013

  199. Apparently, V, you haven’t followed enough of NDT’s links to know his links very, very RARELY lead to a statement made by the person he’s attributing the statement to. Surely you must know this.

    Comment by RT — March 30, 2013 @ 1:59 pm - March 30, 2013

  200. In other words, Lori can’t point to anything I have said that justifies her attack, and so changes the subject.

    Game. Set. Match.

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 2:11 pm - March 30, 2013

  201. It’s been 224+ years since our founders constructed a government around what they believed to be our ‘Natural’ rights. They struggled to enumerate those beliefs just a few years later in the Bill of Rights. (‘Self-determination means something different to each and every person.) If they were too precise in their words, they could alienate their fellow citizens and actually limit freedom instead of protecting it.

    Fast forward to the Obama administration; In the span of only 6 years we stand on the verge of the second “fundamental right” that was created DURING the short history of our nation. ObamaCare was the first. Now unless the more liberal members of our Supreme Court get nervous about the unintended consequences of the change they want to make, and fear for their own legacy as a Justice on the highest court, Gay Marriage will become the latest addition to our unwritten list of fundamental rights.

    Yup, in over 200 years the American government has NEVER manufactured a new right. One thing is for sure, if government can now manufacture fundamental rights, they can certainly take them away as well.

    Comment by gastorgrab — March 30, 2013 @ 2:15 pm - March 30, 2013

  202. #201 — So you’re going to lie and say you didn’t refuse to answer my direct question? And that NDT never defended tax breaks for heterosexual married couples?

    You are a coward, V the K, and a liar as well.

    Go ahead and use cutesy-pie sports terms, in the hope that people will believe your crapola. You are utterly beneath contempt.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 2:16 pm - March 30, 2013

  203. #202 — How about the fundamental right for those who earn their own money to keep their own money?

    I don’t believe gay marriage should be instituted by government. I have said that before, and I will say it again.

    But of course that will be lied about in future comments on this blog. And when it is, honest readers will know exactly what they’re dealing with.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 2:18 pm - March 30, 2013

  204. This is how it works. I will continue to expose which shell the pea is under.

    Scramble up and deliberately confuse one argument with another, so you can blur the individual opinions of people with whom you disagree. Scramble arguments against government involvement in marriage (including selective, social-engineering, income-redistributing taxation) with arguments for gay marriage mandated by government — either by legislatures or the courts.

    Now watch while the shells are artfully rearranged yet again. And know that you are dealing with liars.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 2:21 pm - March 30, 2013

  205. If all these married straights were really so wrought-up with concern about “the institution,” they would not be using marriage law to rig the tax code in a manner that permitted them to loot single people (gay and straight) blind and $h*tless.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 11:35 am – March 30, 2013

    So change the tax code.

    I am completely open to the idea in this day and age that there need no longer be the various twists and lacunae in the tax code that were ostensibly put in place to encourage “proper” social behavior. Indeed, those of you who know my history know I did lobby (successfully) for changes in the tax code that allowed retirement accounts and benefits to be transferred to non-spousal beneficiaries without tax penalty (which passed with overwhelming Republican support). I am totally in favor of Just Me’s flat tax idea, if we must indeed have an income tax, and am in fact far MORE in favor of following Texas’s model of taxation on consumption rather than on income, which completely removes marital status from the picture.

    Changing the tax code is a piece of cake legally, shrinks the size of government, reduces the influence of government on peoples’ lives and relationship arrangements, has overwhelming Republican and conservative support, and doesn’t compel churches to do anything.

    Which is, I suspect, why it has never come up in discussion — and instead, the debate has focused on forcing gay-sex marriage through, whose sole benefit appears to be creating a basis for government and bigoted LGBTs to use the legal system to punish Christians.

    Just Me, you make an excellent point. The issue here is that marriage does carry significant societal and cultural worth to Christians and religious believers by itself; the other point I would add, coming from V the K and I, is that it is clear that those who are pushing gay-sex marriage are only interested in doing so to punish Christians.

    My take is very simple. I want to change the tax code. But the gay-sex marriage supporters are screaming that they will accept nothing but forcing gay-sex marriage onto society AND, that once it’s there, they will start using it to sue, harass, and punish Christians and those who disagree with them out of existence.

    That makes the calculus simple. If my only options are current statism versus expanded statism PLUS antireligious bigotry being codified into law and practiced using governmental power, I will take current statism and defend it.

    When sanity returns to the gay-sex marriage supporters, which I believe will take the form of a Supreme Court decision establishing that marriage is NOT a constitutional right and that the government is well within its powers to regulate and define it, then we can talk about next steps. In my opinion, that is making several changes to tax law, probate, contract law (i.e. around real estate transactions), and powers of attorney — and pointing out to the young people who support gay marriage how Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, and the like are openly antireligious bigots who want to hurt and kill religious believers because of their faith and political affiliations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2013 @ 2:48 pm - March 30, 2013

  206. I don’t believe that everyone who supports same-sex marriage has threatened me with bodily harm.

    And yet, Lori, the fact that gay-sex marriage supporters HAVE threatened you with bodily harm for expressing your religious beliefs and criticizing their behavior, and that that actionis not condemned, but indeed supported by, the gay-sex marriage community, is quite telling.

    Marriage is but the latest power play by the tantrum-throwing gay-sex liberal antireligious left. No one seriously believes that promiscuous liars like Dan Savage, like Michelangelo Signorile, and the right hold any value whatsoever for marriage than as a trophy, a means of attacking and punishing Christians.

    We already see how their insane bigoted supporters are already attacking people and businesses using gay-sex marriage law. Indeed, the lesbian bigot Christine Quinn is doing so without repercussion in a state whose gay-sex marriage law allegedly HAS protections for religious beliefs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 30, 2013 @ 3:05 pm - March 30, 2013

  207. One out of every two heterosexual marriages end in divorce. I repeat my comment # 90, what makes us think that we in the LGBT do better.

    Comment by Roberto — March 30, 2013 @ 3:15 pm - March 30, 2013

  208. There are beginning to be some rumbles on the Right about the possibility of changing the tax code. If this is done in a way that halts the redistribution of wealth (no matter which politically-statist side wants to do it, or for what purpose), then I am all for it.

    Too many social conservatives, in finding pretty fictions to support looting single people (gay and straight), seem to think that the right to private property is yet another of those “special rights” to which gays are not entitled. Much as the statist Left thinks that defending ourselves against violent crime is a “special right” if a handgun is used.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 3:46 pm - March 30, 2013

  209. I would like to add that if libertarians were, indeed, on the same side as the statist Left, then statist Leftists would LOVE us. They’d be coming over to the Libertarian Party in droves.

    And this is happening…right? Right?

    They hate us. They absolutely cannot stand us. I have yet to read an article, or see a news report, from a Left-tilting media outlet that does anything but slander us and bald-facedly lie about what we stand for.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 3:50 pm - March 30, 2013

  210. Christians > Gay Marriage Activists

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2013/03/chick-fil-a-tries-to-bury-the-hatchet-by-giving-away-free-food-to-same-sex-marriage-supporters.php

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2013 @ 4:00 pm - March 30, 2013

  211. #207 — Roberto, is there a contest I haven’t heard about? You sound like V the K. (We haven’t heard “touchdown” or “home run” yet. I’m still waiting.)

    We can’t afford to give more classes of people the sort of fat entitlements straight married couples get. We’ve bankrupted ourselves giving goodies to the people with the best lobbyists.

    That “free” stuff isn’t really free. Everybody else pays for it.

    Remember that on April 15. And especially remember it next November — and every November thereafter, for as long as it takes to take out the trash.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 4:06 pm - March 30, 2013

  212. #210 — As I don’t support government endorsement of ANY marriage — gay or straight — I doubt Chick-fil-A is ever going to give me any “free” food.

    Which isn’t really free, either, of course. They’ll have to hike their prices for everybody else to pay for it. Funny, these basic principles apply to business and government alike.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 4:11 pm - March 30, 2013

  213. #207 — I guess I misunderstood Roberto’s remark. The gist of which seems actually to be that gays can’t do better than straights at marriage, so straights deserve the fat entitlements the rest of America pays for.

    And the skyrocketing heterosexual divorce rate has SO been arrested by all those fat entitlements. Right…right?

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 30, 2013 @ 4:52 pm - March 30, 2013

  214. […] has been yet another kerfuffle over at Gay Patriot about — what else? — gay marriage. And the usual suspects were smack […]

    Pingback by Who’s Risen?! | Born on 9-11 — March 30, 2013 @ 11:45 pm - March 30, 2013

  215. […] GOT SHOWN ABOUT TWENTY POSTS ON GAY MARRIAGE, BUT FRANKLY, THE WHOLE DEBATE: Is Pathetic.  It’s also a really great distraction, a way to turn people against each other and perhaps […]

    Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » I GOT SHOWN ABOUT TWENTY POSTS ON GAY MARRIAGE, BUT FRANKLY, THE WHOLE DEBATE: Is Pathetic.  It’s a… — March 31, 2013 @ 1:21 am - March 31, 2013

  216. I’m a straight white male. I’ve been married and divorced twice. I’m in no position to tell anyone they can’t get married because it undermines the sanctity of marriage. We straights are doing a pretty damn good job of doing that all on our own.

    Comment by Ogre — March 31, 2013 @ 3:00 am - March 31, 2013

  217. In the UK, gay people had partnership with all the rights that marriage brings.

    Still, they then went ahead and demanded ‘marriage’ to be able to bully their way into churches and force the Christians to ‘accept’ them in their churches and conduct marriages for them.

    So don’t think that once gay marriage is law, the cost and harm to society is at an end — gay activists will ensure that all forms will have to be reprinted to be ‘inclusive’ and that religious businesses will have to accommodate them (or get sued into oblivion), and that is before I count the endless lawsuits over discrimination and what-have-you.

    Funniest part of all? Marriage has been bust as a concept ever since divorce was introduced anyway, it’s a trap for people to spend money on the wedding finery and later on, on lawyers; and most heterosexuals avoid it like the plague anyway. It would be simpler to abolish the meaningless circus for everyone and ban marriage outside of churches.

    Comment by Someone — March 31, 2013 @ 5:29 am - March 31, 2013

  218. “but you won’t see Jim DeMint saying that to anyone.”

    Wrong, KCRob. Ten seconds with Google would have found this:

    Marriage is our best anti-poverty program. As the Heritage Foundation’s welfare expert Robert Rector has pointed out, marriage reduces the probability a child will be poor by 80%, dramatically diminishing the odds of ending up on welfare.

    But hey, facts schmacts.

    Comment by SDN — March 31, 2013 @ 6:40 am - March 31, 2013

  219. Well, of course, Ogre, like everything else deconstructed by the Left. And since we’ve allowed this much (damage / out of control spending / whatever) we shouldn’t ever try to not do more.

    Comment by SDN — March 31, 2013 @ 6:42 am - March 31, 2013

  220. Homosexual lesbian marriage, or the pretense to the same is used to alienate children from their real fathers.

    I am opposed to that, based on my personal experience.

    Rather than be in the marriage business, the government should legislatively pass laws tying benefits only to civil unions. In that way the government would recognize freedom of association without compromising or implying religious recognition. Marriage would consist of a civil union plus religious recognition. Religions would be responsible for making their own decisions on who to recognize, but their recognition would not be associated with any government benefits.

    Comment by DonM — March 31, 2013 @ 6:51 am - March 31, 2013

  221. I appreciated the clarity with which you dealt with Moral rights. Thank you for that and best wishes to you… Happy Easter

    “And “rights”. The concept of “rights” has been mangled out of recognition.

    I hate to keep repeating myself on this, but I think it’s important.

    – A fundamental right is: A moral principle giving you (the individual) freedom of action in some area. Your right to life says that you are right to keep on living. Your right to free speech says that you are right to speak out… although you may still be wrong/mistaken, on your content. Your right to property X says that you are right to dispose of it as you wish. And so on.

    – Thus, fundamental rights belong to individuals. (By the way, they also precede government, logically and morally. Government does not create them, it merely recognizes them. Or not, in the case of a tyranny.)

    – Committing to somebody is your right. But having third parties change their behavior for you, in recognition of your commitment, is NOT your right. It is a privilege that government may give you, through a licensing process known as a “marriage license”.

    – All licensing processes exist precisely to CREATE discrimination, for public policy reasons. Example: A driver’s license says that Mary can drive, while John can’t. A license to practice medicine says that John can, while Mary can’t. That’s intentional discrimination, created for public policy reasons.

    – Thus, obtaining a State marriage license is NOT a fundamental right. It is, rather, a public policy issue. (Before you try to bring up the _Loving_ decision in response, just remember that it was decided because miscegenation laws run afoul of the 14th Amendment’s prohibition of racial, repeat ***racial***, discrimination.)

    – I support gay marriage – and with the continued exclusion of polygamists, the incestuous, etc. – because I think that would be the best public policy. Others disagree with me. That’s why we have democracy. Pro or con, I accept the democratic outcome on it (while still keeping my personal opinion, of course; my own view of how things should be).”

    Comment by Lowen — March 31, 2013 @ 7:34 am - March 31, 2013

  222. #215 – The exact statement on Instapundit.com is, “I GOT SHOWN ABOUT TWENTY POSTS ON GAY MARRIAGE, BUT FRANKLY, THE WHOLE DEBATE: Is Pathetic. It’s also a really great distraction, a way to turn people against each other and perhaps a way to give the federal government yet more power. Which is what we all want, right?” – Posted at 1:20 am by Sarah Hoyt

    I agree, this entire thread is rather pathetic. It is about time for about everyone that has made a remark on this thread to take the day off. Happy Easter to all.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — March 31, 2013 @ 7:38 am - March 31, 2013

  223. Those Who Know Better have decided that all single people — gay and straight — should be hooked up to the treadmill and forced to work many more days out of each year to bribe hetero couples to stay together.

    Yup. “Gay marriage” is not about “equality” at all–it’s about wanting to open the privileged class to homosexual couples. Unmarried gays will remain with me and other unmarried straight people in the inferior class.

    Married people call me all sorts of vile names–yesterday my uncoupled status was equated to child molestation, FFS–for pointing this out. People do hate the untermenschen getting all uppity.

    Comment by HeatherRadish — March 31, 2013 @ 7:47 am - March 31, 2013

  224. Yep so we establish marriage as an institution, gays decide they want to emulate that institution, so instead of establishing their own institution, they are going to force me to accept that they are a part of this established institution.

    So they are no better than us. America was established with individual liberty in mind, not forcing others to your will.

    Which in the end is all the left wants anyway.

    In the end gays will prevail and what have they achieved? Not marriage equality but instead power over other peoples lives to force them to their will.

    As said brilliantly by others, that’s how liberty dies, to thunderous applause.

    Comment by Nan231 — March 31, 2013 @ 10:27 am - March 31, 2013

  225. […] B. Daniel Blatt over at GayPatriot1writes: […]

    Pingback by Marriage | The Atrocity complex — March 31, 2013 @ 10:31 am - March 31, 2013

  226. As a heterosexual person sympathetic to the cause of SSM (but not completely won over), I must add that the current deluge of stories about gay issues in the media is getting a bit irritating. I listen to NPR for one or two hours every day, and I hear almost nothing related to my personal experience in life, since I am not gay, not black, and not a gay black poet / songwriter.

    Ever hear of “compassion fatigue”? If SSM proponents claim to want a dialog, where the hell is it supposed to occur? The whole world is telling me I am a hater for having reservations, and nobody seems to give a damn what they are or that they might have any legitimacy. If they want to make an opponent out of me, they are going about it just the right way.

    Comment by Ray Van Dune — March 31, 2013 @ 11:17 am - March 31, 2013

  227. […] Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Magnanimity in the marriage wars — March 31, 2013 @ 12:18 pm - March 31, 2013

  228. It’s not the slippery slope argument as many would like us to think, it is about imposing your will on me, just as I am being accused of imposing my will on you. So who wins, the noisy wheel gets the grease, the propagandist, or the institution that was established by a religion and coopted by the government.

    And in the end when the gays prevail, what have they won? Marriage equality or imposing their will on the majority.

    Comment by Nan231 — March 31, 2013 @ 12:27 pm - March 31, 2013

  229. Get the government out of the business of marriage.

    Problem solved.

    That’s probably too simple for either side of this debate to understand…

    Both sides think that freedom and liberty gives them the freedom to control other Americans, and the liberty to use the power of government to control other Americans.

    You kinda got it backwards, kids. Freedom isn’t control, and liberty isn’t chaos.

    Comment by Warren Bonesteel — March 31, 2013 @ 1:10 pm - March 31, 2013

  230. Hear, hear Bonesteel. You only forgot one thing, it’s not about either side allowing it, the lawyers would never allow it.

    Comment by Nan231 — March 31, 2013 @ 1:44 pm - March 31, 2013

  231. Lorie Heine

    Your response to my comment #207 tells me you didn´t read # 89. If you had read it you would know that I wasn´t defend entitlements for anybody. My observation about the debate is that the possibility of gay divorce. I have known very few gay and lesbian relationships that endured ¨until death do us part. ¨ Now the case of the lesbian survivor is not about an entitlement. It is about how the tax code treats the inheritence. Marriage or civil union would treat a gay/lesbian couple with the same tax code as to a survivor in a straight marriage. My poinht is that when a gay divorce occurs, how will the estate be divided? Also, if there is a child or childre, I imagine in the case of a lesbians, and some gays, the natural parent, will have custody of them. But what about a couple who has adopted a child? This is what Justive Stevens was alluding to in his comment re: Prop 8 hearing.

    This is a reality that should be dealt with now. The impression the general public must have about this debate is that gay and lesbian couples once ¨married¨ will live happily ever after. I wish it were so in my long lifetime I have known very, very, few couple who have had a long and possibly lasting relationship (#89). Most of those whom I have known, like myself, had committed ourselfves to a relationship with the intention that it would a lasting and. hopefully, monogamous one; only to to have it come to an end.

    Comment by Roberto — March 31, 2013 @ 3:47 pm - March 31, 2013

  232. #231 — Why is it your business, or mine, to predict who’s going to be happy and who isn’t? Thanks so much for caring, but you attend to your happiness and I’ll attend to mine.

    That’s what freedom means. It is, furthermore, the liberty to pursue happiness — not a guarantee any of us is going to get it.

    Sorry to be a sexist, but a large part of this problem is that gay men want to be — as usual — the arbiters of all experience for gays and lesbians. If you can’t find a boyfriend who’ll marry you, why should I and my girlfriend be able to marry and pursue happiness in a way that’s meaningful to us?

    The utter daffiness of the argument that many won’t try, and some will fail — so that means that NOBODY should be given the opportunity to succeed — seems lost on all too many on this thread.

    This is exactly why the government should simply get out of the marriage definition-and-regulation business altogether and go back to protecting its citizens from force and fraud — which are its only legitimate functions. The most powerful mob will otherwise go on determining — for everybody — whose vision of happiness should be forced on us all.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 31, 2013 @ 4:05 pm - March 31, 2013

  233. […] Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Random Thoughts on Gay Marriage — March 31, 2013 @ 6:18 pm - March 31, 2013

  234. Lori Heine

    Where do you get the idea that I am predicting who will be happy and who won´t? We´re free , that is true to a point. But, like it or not, government has been involved in marriage. When and if you say, ¨I do,¨it can be a spiritual event, it is certainly a social event, and it becomes a legal event, because marriage is a contract. It is both verbal and written as evidenced by a marriage certificate issued by the spiritual entity, or the civil entity and recorded with the country recorder. It is a legal and binding contract unless one or both parties have undisclosed impeditments, such as being married to another person and not divorcing, which is called bigamy. Because breaking up is messy, many straight couples start the legal process before marriage, with a legal document called a pre-nuptual agreement. You might want to call it a mutual protection document, which couples hope they will never have to resort to. Keep dreaming, Cinderella, and when your prince or princess enters your life I hope that reality never hits you in the face. Reality is also an element in freedom.

    Comment by Roberto — March 31, 2013 @ 7:14 pm - March 31, 2013

  235. Roberto, you sound as if you think government’s involvement in marriage is simply a phenomenon of nature, like sunspots or Hurricane Katrina. We, the People determine how much our government will be involved in such things.

    I’m fifty years old, and well aware of the existence of bigamy, prenuptial agreements, divorce and all the rest of it. I’m not sure why I deserve to be called “Cinderella” because I think same-sex couples whose unions might succeed should have a chance at it without being robbed by the State.

    Reality includes citizen responsibility for changing or eliminating bad laws. Along with a growing number of other Americans, I intend to march to the polls and take out the garbage every election year until the house is clean.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 31, 2013 @ 8:29 pm - March 31, 2013

  236. Lori Heine

    What is it about marriage that you don´t understand? We the people got government involved in marriage. Among all the things that marriage is it is a CONTRACT! When one or both of the partners want out the first place they go to is not the church, but to a DIVORCE Attorney. One of the parties wants to get all that he or she can from the other, while the other is paying to see that she gets as little as possible. During the stone ag ending a relationship was probably a lot simpler, hit the other in the head or throw him or her out of the cave. Maybe they drummed out of the tribe, if one of the parties violated tribal customs. Over the ages the people have evolved except for muslims., and maybe their custom is to your liking. As I remember Muhammed Ali a.k.a Cassius Clay, said it is very simple; you say three times I marry you. then you are married. When you want out, the man tells the woman,, three times, I divorce you.

    As amtter of curiosity, which laws about marriage do you want changed? How many people share you opinion about the laws you want changed? Where do you think you will find candidates who will articulate your view, or will you enter the race yourself?

    Comment by Roberto — March 31, 2013 @ 10:00 pm - March 31, 2013

  237. Roberto, I am a libertarian. I want civil unions for everybody, gay and straight. I want no difference in the way gays, straights, marrieds or singles are taxed. I find candidates who support those principles in the Libertarian Party.

    Government does not stick its nose into any aspect of our lives because it wants us to be freer. I understand plenty about marriage, Roberto. I also understand a few things about human nature. Those who seek office, in a large, powerful and intrusive government, do not generally tend to do so because they want to serve the people. They do so because they want to rule over them.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 31, 2013 @ 10:05 pm - March 31, 2013

  238. Dan, You leveling the playing field being the crux of your “observation” in your post says it all. DeMint doesn’t make the argument you ask of him, because he can’t.

    Vince keeps saying that DeMint made a bad argument. It seems he agrees with Dan. Don’t know why he’s arguing.

    Comment by Mitch — April 1, 2013 @ 12:37 am - April 1, 2013

  239. […] Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Personal Interactions matter more than arguments in shifting consensus on gay marriage — April 1, 2013 @ 2:37 am - April 1, 2013

  240. Lori Heine

    I am a conservative, hence, I agree with civil unions or everybody and a tax reform that treats everybody equally. On most Libertarian principle I can agree. I support Senator Rand Paul on all that he stands for, so far. I didn´t always agree with his his father, Ron. Certainly we should downsize our government, but we do need a bit of government to avoid chaos.

    As for government in marriage, it is the Roman Catholic and evangelical christians who are fueling the debate and want government to define marriage on one side and the LGBT community on the other side wanting to redefine marriage. If they can accept civil unions with all the rights of heterosexual marriage that should satisfy both sides if that is the intent. If the left in the LGBT community is aguing for marriage to marginalize christians, then their intention is based in an anti-christian bias.

    On of my biggest complaints about postings, is how far afield from the original theme of the thread with extraneous points that are tangential at best, i.e. barebacking, insults, left and right. I am going to do the same thing and say, I stand by my comment #89 on gay divorce. It´s not that I´m predicting; it´s being prepared for an eventuality that we could hope never happens. Here goes, it´s like George Washington´s Farewell Address, the best means of preserving the peace is to be prepared for war.

    Comment by Roberto — April 1, 2013 @ 2:37 pm - April 1, 2013

  241. #241 — Roberto, I get what you’re saying and agree with much of it. But I do want to point out one thing you said. I keep hearing people say it here, and I have this objection to it.

    You said: “If the left in the LGBT community is aguing for marriage to marginalize christians, then their intention is based in an anti-christian bias.”

    We are all consumed with preoccupation about who intends to do what. We ridicule the statist Left for its obsession over how people feel, without seeming to realize that this is but a variation of the same thing.

    Principles before personalities, as we say in Twelve-Step. Conducting psychoanalysis on people to find out what they feel — to the point where we’re squabbling over how famous dead people might have felt about this or that issue (and just short of holding seances to find out) — is neurotic. It is also a waste of time.

    People can want right things for the wrong reasons. I don’t care why the gay Left (some elements of it anyway) want civil unions. It’s the right thing, so it should happen.

    I don’t care if Rick Santorum, or John McCain, or President Obama love us or hate us. Children obsess over crap like that. Instead of expecting a standing ovation every time they do something they think is right, grownups go ahead and do it — just because it is right. That’s called integrity.

    Our obsession with feelings and intentions and egos — with who wants to do what, and why — is juvenile. It is unworthy of a free and self-governing people.

    Comment by Lori Heine — April 1, 2013 @ 2:58 pm - April 1, 2013

  242. I would further point out that Christians who do not agree with the social cons on marriage issues are being marginalized even by other Christians. It’s hard for me to boo-hoo too hard about how they’re being treated when they’re treating other Christians the same way.

    What soc-cons are really after is the supplanting of religious freedom for all for majoritarianism. They assume their position is the most common, therefore they want to protect it at the expense of the religious freedom of everybody who disagrees with them.

    This is so short-sighted and potentially self-destructive that I can only shake my head. What will they do if their own majoritarian system survives, and real freedom of religion in this country ever is defeated? They are setting their own children and grandchildren up for potential future persecution — and I mean REAL persecution, of a sort they themselves can scarcely imagine.

    More-liberal Christians are beginning to take notice of the silly crap anti-Christian liberals are saying. It’s starting to grate on us, too. Perhaps because we’re beginning to realize that we’d be marched off to the same gulag as the soc-cons if the anti-Christians ever got their way.

    Comment by Lori Heine — April 1, 2013 @ 3:50 pm - April 1, 2013

  243. […] Gay Patriot – Our pathetic debate on gay marriage […]

    Pingback by Late Late Late Show | — April 1, 2013 @ 11:11 pm - April 1, 2013

  244. Douglas #183, you should reread what you wrote and ask yourself if they’re the words of someone under the influence.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — April 2, 2013 @ 2:06 pm - April 2, 2013

  245. Hardly, Vince. They’re coming from someone who’s seen your kind’s handiwork in the inner cities firsthand. Want examples? I’ve got all day, Vince.

    Comment by Douglas — April 2, 2013 @ 2:30 pm - April 2, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.