Gay Patriot Header Image

Rhode Island recognizes gay marriages the right way

After several tries, the Ocean State will start recognizing same-sex marriages on August 1.   Both houses of the legislature voted in favor of such recognition and the elected governor signed the bill into law.

And this legislation, like that in New Hampshire, addresses the concerns of those who contend such recognition would force churches (and other religious institutions) to perform weddings at odd with their faith’s doctrine.  According to the Associated Press’s David Klepper:

The bill that passed the House stated that religious institutions may set their own rules regarding who is eligible to marry within the faith and specifies that no religious leader is obligated to officiate at any marriage ceremony. The Senate added language to ensure that groups like the Knights of Columbus aren’t legally obligated to provide facilities for same-sex weddings.

With such provisions, the Ocean State not only recognizes same-sex marriages, but also protects religious freedom.

Kudos.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Jayne contends that “union of 2 males or 2 females is, biologically, historically and culturally so vastly different from the union between a male and female that to define it with the same term renders the definition meaningless.”

I would agree that same-sex unions are different from different-sex ones merely because of the differences between men and women, but is she right, are they “vastly different”? (Emphasis added.)

Share

89 Comments

  1. Considering the given that Words have meaning: “Same Sex Marriage” is an oxymoron.
    I have for years now tying to get the gay community to stop using “marriage”. Recognizing the legality of civil unions would be the way to go. That way there are no religious or moral etc. obstacles to deal with. But the “In your face radicals” much rather push buttons than get along.

    Comment by Mike — May 3, 2013 @ 5:24 am - May 3, 2013

  2. Unh-huh. So, can photographers and caterers still be sued and punished for refusing to participate in gay weddings?

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 8:41 am - May 3, 2013

  3. This is not the “right way”

    The “right way” is not to call them marriages all.

    “gay marriage” is nothing but Cultural Marxism. thousands of years of homosexual history rejected the idea of “gay marriage” it only came up recently because of the Marxist implications (no religious freedom, freedom of speech reduced, government gets bigger…. Even in places that celebrated homosexuality like ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and other places rejected “gay marriage” because it was not part of the homosexual subculture.

    When I was in college, the gay activists had a huge negative opinion about what was going on in Denmark legalizing gay marriage. “They’re playing hetero” or “trying to act like breeders” is what they were saying.

    But let’s ignore the fact that this is Cultural Marxism. Shhhhh….even some right wingers have bought this hook line and stinker.

    Comment by BeeKay — May 3, 2013 @ 9:17 am - May 3, 2013

  4. Congratulations to all the gay Christians, Jews, etc, out there from Rhode Island!

    Comment by VS — May 3, 2013 @ 9:32 am - May 3, 2013

  5. Comments 1,2, and 3 are right on. The union of 2 males or 2 females is, biologically, historically and culturally so vastly different from the union between a male and female that to define it with the same term renders the definition meaningless.

    Comment by Jayne — May 3, 2013 @ 9:47 am - May 3, 2013

  6. Agreed, Jayne, but we live in an Emotion-Driven, Low Information Voter Idiocracy; “feelings” are valued more than reason. It will be the downfall of our culture. Gay marriage is just one symptom of this syndrome.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 10:09 am - May 3, 2013

  7. Good grief, this responses to this event on this thread makes me a bit bewildered. Should I send out appology notes to all the socical conservatives who are going to be offended if the term marriage is going to used? Whether legislatures use the term Civil Union or Marriage some people are going to be offended. I will add many conservatives will say the term “conservative gay” is an oxymoron.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 11:56 am - May 3, 2013

  8. ding ding ding..we HAVE A WINNER @3. Beekay has it exactly right. This is just the latest steaming pile of Cultural Marxism. Google “Frankfurt School” or “history of political correctness.” There’s NO SUCH THING as a gay “marriage.” My dog could have puppies in the oven, but that wouldn’t make them biscuits, and you can do all the pretending in the world and play dress up and have a reception but it still WON’T BE A MARRIAGE.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 3, 2013 @ 12:39 pm - May 3, 2013

  9. ding, ding, ding …………………….. and a gay conservative is an oxymoron? Should I begin to write apology notes to everyone because I happen to be gay? Perhaps we all need to go back in the closet and/or begin reparative therapy. It was only 40 years ago that the APA took homosexuality off the list of mental disorders. It was only about 10 years ago that the Supreme Court struck down the sodomy laws in this country.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 1:22 pm - May 3, 2013

  10. My only point is it doesn’t matter. The country decided gay marriage was more important than economic growth or fiscal responsibility. Without economic growth or fiscal responsibility, we’re boned as a country. So, it really doesn’t matter.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 1:23 pm - May 3, 2013

  11. Economic growth or fiscal responsibility? You mean they opted against being stolen from by a rigged taxation system that punished them for being gay?

    My, the dishonesty is getting thick here.

    People in a relationship will define that relationship. They are the only ones who can. Government has no power to define relationships between its citizens. It has the power to steal from them, seize their property or commit violence against them. That is it.

    Social reaction is not conservatism. It is nothing but a mental wank.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - May 3, 2013

  12. Well, if a gay conservative is an oxymoron, then what political party could a White person join and it be an oxymoron?

    Comment by Douglas — May 3, 2013 @ 2:15 pm - May 3, 2013

  13. The Black Panthers.

    Comment by JMR — May 3, 2013 @ 2:26 pm - May 3, 2013

  14. Is it vastly different? Perhaps so, if you believe that the only purpose of marriage, even in a civil context, is for child-rearing. I respect that belief, even though I disagree. For me, I wouldn’t say it is vastly different, but rather incrementally different as marriage has always evolved in one way or another in western societies.

    Also, Lori @ #11 – I think my new favorite phrase is “mental wank”. :)

    Comment by Neptune — May 3, 2013 @ 3:39 pm - May 3, 2013

  15. …but rather incrementally different as marriage has always evolved in one way or another in western societies.

    Wrong.

    The ‘number of spouses’ has changed.
    The minimum age has changed.

    But, the gender of each of the persons entering into it has NEVER changed.

    It’s important to note how this is often framed as an issue of ‘equal rights’.
    Throughout much, indeed most of human history, there have been people who spoke out and worked to end the practice of slavery, for instance.
    These were stalwart and highly moral men and women who, often at great personal risk, were committed to their belief that this abhorrent institution be abolished.
    Yet not one of them, indeed, not any of the great moral thinkers/actors/abolitonists/emancipators throughout history believed that defining marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman represented such an outrageous and inhuman practice that they advocated for ‘same sex marriage’.
    NOT A SINGLE ONE.

    Only in the last 10-15 years did it finally dawn on anyone that one of the strongest institutions in any civil society throughout history was, in fact, nothing more than discriminatory segregation and as a great a stain on humankind as the practice of slavery.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 3, 2013 @ 4:20 pm - May 3, 2013

  16. If anything, the Gay Movement is a political social movement, a social reaction against injustice upon a segment of our society. And, such a movement is protected in our constitution. According to the first amendment to the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 4:27 pm - May 3, 2013

  17. http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/03/meet-the-billionaire-hedge-fund-manager-quietly-shaping-the-gop-gay-marriage-debate/

    Comment by rusty — May 3, 2013 @ 4:31 pm - May 3, 2013

  18. “gay marriage” is nothing but Cultural Marxism

    Excellent post, BeeKay.

    And there’s one more goal for some of the people who are banging the drums for this: the obliteration of any distinction between men and women.

    Anyone who says “men are women are really the same; it’s only ‘social constructs’ that make them seem different” has taken the brainwashing they received at college (and graduate school) where they took classes in such rigorous ‘disciplines’ as ‘Womyn’s studies’ and ‘Race theory’.

    It turns out that a lot of the ‘low information voters’ have ‘earned’ degrees (pardon me while I puke) from many of the fine institutions of higher learning that teach indoctrinate this garbage.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 3, 2013 @ 4:39 pm - May 3, 2013

  19. We are actually talking about two different things, yet conflating them into one. We are talking about (A) What people say about things and (B) Governmental policies about those things.

    Statism has indeed deluded the citizenry if it’s gotten to the point that it can no longer distinguish between those two.

    The most effective argument for libertarian truth is simply to wind up the “conservative” commenters here and let ‘em go.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 4:49 pm - May 3, 2013

  20. The most effective argument for libertarian truth is simply to wind up the “conservative” commenters here and let ‘em go.

    Lori:

    Are you saying that there doesn’t exist a single principled objection to ‘gay marriage’?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 3, 2013 @ 4:54 pm - May 3, 2013

  21. #19 — Jman, I’m saying the issue will sort itself out without meddlesome big-government intervention. Any legitimate objection will present itself without self-serving political careerists’ help. And any real problem can be dealt with better if We, the People work through it ourselves.

    The truth cannot be served by government intervention. All that serves is raw power and glorified violence against a free people. Those who truly believe their argument is right can only undermine the credibility of their own argument by trying to harness government force to slam-dunk it on everyone else.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 5:40 pm - May 3, 2013

  22. “Any legitimate objection will present itself without self-serving political careerists’ help. And any real problem can be dealt with better if We, the People work through it ourselves.” – Lori Heine

    I thought the government is us, not the other way around. Granted, I don’t really trust Democrats or Republicans………. and, the smaller goverment is the better off we are. But we are stuck with the system we have, however, flawed it might be.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 6:40 pm - May 3, 2013

  23. Swampfox, that’s a typical “progressive” argument: The government is US!

    That does not justify using an entity with a monopoly on force — one that sometimes literally has a license to kill — on our fellow citizens. The problem is that though the government is SUPPOSED to be us, it really isn’t. It has been appropriated by people who are willing to make war on us whenever we don’t buckle under and do whatever they want or give them anything they demand.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 7:13 pm - May 3, 2013

  24. “Swampfox, that’s a typical “progressive” argument: The government is US!” – Lori Heine

    To which I say, baloney. Our form of goverment is formed to protect the rights of the individual or a minority from the tyranny of the majority. In my opinion, that is about as darn conservative as you can get.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 7:35 pm - May 3, 2013

  25. Swampfox, our government was indeed “formed” to protect the rights of the individual or a minority from tyranny by the majority.

    It does not, however, as a matter of fact, do so.

    You are confusing what it’s supposed to do with what it actually does.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 7:58 pm - May 3, 2013

  26. “But we are stuck with the system we have, however, flawed it might be.”

    I would further note that this assertion, which you made in #22, contradicts your claim that the government does exactly what it’s supposed to do.

    It also contradicts the notion that the government is us. If we are “stuck with the system, however flawed it might be,” then the government cannot logically be said to be “us.” Then it is something altogether apart from us.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 8:00 pm - May 3, 2013

  27. Lori, as I also said at #22 ” …. I don’t trust Democrats or Republicans, ………. and, the smaller goverment is the better off we are.” Our government, indeed, is somewhat broken. And, it is up to us to fix our imperfect government and get it back on the right track. Got any ideas?

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 8:34 pm - May 3, 2013

  28. I would agree that same-sex unions are different from different-sex ones merely because of the differences between men and women, but is she right, are they “vastly different”? (Emphasis added.)

    Yes. Different sex unions essentially exist to create stable families and stable environments for the raising of children. They aren’t about the two people in the relationship; marriage evolved as a structure to keep men bound to their families, because stable families are necessary for healthy societies.

    Same-sex unions are about nothing but the two people in the union, and in particular, about them getting social benefits for themselves.

    Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 8:42 pm - May 3, 2013

  29. #27 — “Got any ideas?”

    ANY ideas? That’s funny. Are you new here?

    I have proposed many libertarian solutions, and I will go right on proposing them. Stay tuned.

    Pertinent to this post, government needs to stop regulating marriage to give some people goodies at the expense of others. It is not government’s business to tell its citizens how to live. Its only legitimate role is to protect us from force and fraud.

    Using government to redistribute wealth and engage in social engineering, via the tax code, is an illegitimate use of its power.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 3, 2013 @ 8:53 pm - May 3, 2013

  30. “Yes. Different sex unions essentially exist to create stable families and stable environments for the raising of children. They aren’t about the two people in the relationship; marriage evolved as a structure to keep men bound to their families, because stable families are necessary for healthy societies.

    Same-sex unions are about nothing but the two people in the union, and in particular, about them getting social benefits for themselves. – Comment by V the K — May 3, 2013 @ 8:42 pm – May 3, 2013″

    Well, you could not have said it better than any other Social Conservative ………. that is not a compliment. There are gay and lesbian couples with children and who is not for more stable relationships within our community.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 3, 2013 @ 10:16 pm - May 3, 2013

  31. #30 — I agree. What people who argue that only hetero couples can raise kids are really saying is that the government should take same-sex couples’ kids away from them. They won’t come right out and say that, of course, but as they think government should see to absolutely every detail of our lives from cradle to grave, that’s pretty much where their logic is headed.

    The only thing government can do that citizens can’t, in any other capacity, it use legalized force against us. That’s the dirty little secret all the pretty lies are an attempt to hide.

    You’re right, Swampfox, that We the People should see to the basic business of our own lives (at least, that’s what I think you’re saying). But as it stands today, the Almight State refuses to let us.

    That is NOT, however, simply the way it needs to be. We the People can stand up and change that any time we decide. We just need to stop believing the pretty lies.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 4, 2013 @ 12:00 am - May 4, 2013

  32. I do view heterosexual marriages (incl. my own) as being quite different from same-sex marriages. I’m a big believer in the old-fashioned ideas that people should wait until marriage to have sex and that, when married, they should be faithful to each other for life. Not only do I believe that traditional marriage is best for husband and wife, but I also believe that children will be most secure and successful when raised by a father and mother joined in a stable, loving marriage.

    What I don’t believe, however, is that my marriage would be somehow threatened if government were to recognize same-sex marriages. And when I think of young straight singles who are traditional-minded enough to want to get married, I just don’t see them being somehow less interested in marriage just because gay and lesbian couples also could, and once married, I don’t see them taking their own marriages less seriously just because government expands its definition of marriage. Those of us who are conservative rightfully downplay the role government should have in our lives, but then we find it very important that government recognize our marriages as special. Our view of government reminds me of high school, when people wanted to be admired by the popular kids, even though we really didn’t respect the popular kids. Government, with all its inherent stupidity and mediocrity, doesn’t deserve our respect any more than the popular crowd in high school. Just as someone’s value as a teen doesn’t come from being loved by the jocks and cheerleaders but rather comes from merely being human, the value of a marriage doesn’t come from governmental recognition but rather from its own character—the love that each spouse has for the other and the ways in which the couple interacts with the small world around them. When we think the marriage rises and falls based on what government thinks, we give government way too much credit.

    As for what’s best for kids, yes, I believe that a mother and a father, preferably both biological, is best. But the most common reasons why kids grow up without both a mother and a father have nothing to do with gay marriage or gay anything. Rather, it’s due to the failure of heterosexuals to get married or stay married. And in many cases, it’s due to no one’s personal shortcomings but rather due to the tragic death of a parent. Government recognition of SSM won’t change the fact that the vast majority of single-parent families are the result of problems in heterosexual culture. As for gay parentage, even if people agree, as I do, that children will do best with both a mother and a father, I don’t think its our place to try to keep gay and lesbian persons from becoming parents one way or another, and I think we need to recognize that gay and lesbian persons can be and are great fathers and mothers.

    Traditional marriage and families are beautiful and highly important things. But I think it’s a problem when those of us who support these things are identified more for what we’re against than what we’re for. Churches are also beautiful and highly important, but we’ve allowed our churches to become more identified for what we’re against than what we’re for, and that too is something that should concern those of us who love God and the people He made. As someone who had a much more conservative position on these issues not so long ago, I respect those who see things in a more traditional way than I do. But I worry that those of us who are traditional Christians are prone to get so caught up in culture wars that we forget to show love to those who may be different than us.

    Comment by Chad — May 4, 2013 @ 12:50 am - May 4, 2013

  33. Same-sex unions are about nothing but the two people in the union, and in particular, about them getting social benefits for themselves.

    VtheK, I would say, rather, that “Same-sex unions aren’t necessarily about anything but the two people in the union, [etc.]”

    Which is to say that a same-sex couple can freely choose to make their union about something greater than themselves. Becoming adoptive parents is one way to do this, but not the only way. A couple could also order their union towards the purpose of making both of them more admirable and upstanding uncles or aunts to their siblings’ kids, for example. Or they could tithe their pooled income (two can live as cheaply as one!) to their church instead of using that money to chase after consumer gratification.

    The late Rabbi Simchah Roth (same guy I mentioned on that IGF thread, Lori) noted somewhere towards the bottom of this loooooong essay:

    Family and children are important in Jewish society but one who does not have these need not feel that he is not a fully-fledged member of the community. The verse in Isaiah 56:3-6, which is read by Jews all over the world on every public fast-day, is addressed to the homosexual:

    Let not the saris [who is physically unable to have children] say ‘I am a dried up tree.’ For so saith G-d to the sarisim who keep my Sabbath, who choose what I desire, and who keep my covenant: I shall make them in My house and within My walls a monument, a shrine, superior to sons and daughters. I shall render their [lit., his] name everlasting, one which will never be forgotten…

    Because he does not have a family, a homosexual can make serious contributions to Judaism which others cannot. For example, bringing Judaism to smaller communities where there are no facilities for raising a Jewish family.

    Activities involving much travel, such as fundraising, a vital aspect of Jewish survival, is best accomplished by someone who is not tied down to a family. I know of a homosexual who helped establish several important institutions through his fundraising and is grateful for the sexual orientation which freed him to make this contribution.

    Suffice to say that this wise approach can be generalized to non-Jews!

    Or, rather, it could be generalized, but it goes against the “gimme-gimme-gimme the same 10,357 benefits that heterosexual couples have” mindset of the Marriage Equality evangelists.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 4, 2013 @ 12:14 pm - May 4, 2013

  34. Should I send out apology notes to all the social conservatives who are going to be offended if the term marriage is going to used?

    No, you should send apology notes to all the homosexual teenagers who are going to be confused because you’re encouraging them to model their male/male or female/female relationships after a distinctively heterosexual institution that’s organized around procreation and child-rearing, instead of respecting and honoring the unique qualities of a homosexual relationship.

    Sheesh, whatever happened to good ol’ homo-separatism?

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 4, 2013 @ 12:31 pm - May 4, 2013

  35. Incidentally, that guest post by LJ Regine motivated me to dig out my own copy of Androphilia. I don’t agree with Mr. Donovan on everything, but by gum he hits it out of the park in the closing chapter, where he argues that just because two homosexual men care deeply about each other and want to spend their lives together doesn’t mean that they should necessarily conceptualize their relationship as a “marriage.” Yes, it resembles a marriage in certain ways, but it is also different from a marriage in certain ways, and perhaps they should acknowledge these differences by using a different name.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 4, 2013 @ 12:40 pm - May 4, 2013

  36. Throbert, I need your help with Latin again. I am trying to translate “Cash Up Front” Nest I have come up with is “Premum Pecunia.”

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 1:51 pm - May 4, 2013

  37. V the K: Hmmmm. I would suggest maybe Primo date pecuniam — “First, give money.”

    I’m sure there’s a more grammatically elegant way to construct it, but it’s been way too long since I studied the language.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 4, 2013 @ 2:56 pm - May 4, 2013

  38. The whole “Evil Gay Invaders From Outer Space” meme is harming the cause of religious freedom. Those (like a few of the phonies who infest FOX) who promote that meme are actually harming the cause of religious freedom.

    No same-sex couple has any legitimate reason to sue a conservative church for refusing to marry them. Those who kick up a ruckus about these churches’ bigotry are merely out to make money.

    Gay Christians are obviously going to want to have their unions — whatever they choose to call them — blessed in church. They don’t do this as part of Plan Nine from Outer Space, but because they are (duh!) Christians. If they didn’t care about getting the blessing of a church, they could always go to the Chapel of the Pink Elvis, or Madame Starshine’s New Age Cathedral, or some such place.

    Promoting the lie-by-omission that implies there are no gay Christians actually makes the argument of those concerned about religious freedom for anti-gay churches less effective. There are actually many very nice and reasonable people — like some of the straight Christians who comment on this blog — who don’t seem to know that there are gay Christians.

    Whether they would agree that gays CAN be Christians or not is an altogether different question. Those who don’t like the fact that there are gays going to church are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

    The Isaiah passage about the “dry tree” is very familiar to gay Christians. As a writer for gay Christians, I’ve referenced it numerous times. We don’t cherry-pick a half-dozen snippets out of context to condemn ourselves, but that does not give straight conservatives (or gay liberals who hate Christianity, and are just as prone to do this) license to lie about the existence of gay Christians.

    This has nothing to do, either, with whether gay Christians are “traditional” Christians. We don’t believe six snippets should be cherry-picked out of Scripture and used in a way inconsistent with their proper context. That has nothing to do with how traditional our faith may or may not be.

    Acknowledging that there are now plenty of churches that will bless same-sex unions would actually help those churches that don’t want to bless them. Those now lying by omission by not admitting this are actually contributing to the ignorance of those who scream that ALL churches must be made to perform such ceremonies.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 4, 2013 @ 5:26 pm - May 4, 2013

  39. I think the best thing on the marriage issue is if the state got out of the marriage business and simply enforced private domestic contracts. We have them now, but simply create a law that would give such contracts the same rights currently enjoyed by marriage under the law. This would be a private contract civil union type system but would not require any government license. What really is the big deal with RI here anyway. They had civil unions in place, now its called a marriage. Both are licenses and both give the same rights, so its all the same thing with a different name on your license. Its a symbolic victory I suppose. I do favor equality bottom line though, call your relationship what you like marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, etc.

    Comment by Jay — May 4, 2013 @ 6:04 pm - May 4, 2013

  40. “Evil Gay Invaders From Outer Space”

    I think I’ve dated a few of them in the past!

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 4, 2013 @ 9:03 pm - May 4, 2013

  41. So, question, does anyone believe that the gay left isn’t going to push churches and religious institutions to perform and facilitate gay weddings? They see no problem with forcing religious institutions to pay for abortions. They see no problem with forcing the Boy Scouts to accommodate them. Does anyone really think they’re going to back off and leave churches and religious institutions alone?

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 9:15 pm - May 4, 2013

  42. …does anyone believe that the gay left isn’t going to push churches and religious institutions to perform and facilitate gay weddings?

    Of course they will, although they’ll lie through their collective teeth and deny it, just as they did 10-15 years ago when achieving partnership recognition through civil unions was the issue, and they insisted that they had absolutely no intention of pushing for ‘gay marriage’.
    The coercion has already started: wedding photographers being sued for declining to create portraits of the happy couple at a ‘gay wedding’, and B&B owners being sued for declining to reserve the ‘honeymoon suite’ for a newly ‘married’ gay couple.

    The churches and religious institutions aren’t far behind.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 4, 2013 @ 9:40 pm - May 4, 2013

  43. #41 & 42 — And the remedy is…what? To deny religious liberty to those who interpret Scripture differently?

    The only remedy is religious freedom for ALL. There is no way to parcel it out, doling it generously to some and withholding it from others. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.

    The powers of social con denial truly are amazing. The social right is as culpable in the pick-and-choose method of rights protection we have today as is the secular left. Our modern, statist society is a monster they created together.

    So the answer is…”Waaaah! We’re going to see people getting sued!”

    You guys sound like eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.

    Get government out of the marriage-regulation business, stop holding basic rights like hospital vistation hostage to hetero straights and pricey lawyers, stop using the tax code as a tool for social engineering.

    Nobody cares what you call other people’s marriages. You probably wouldn’t like what we would call yours.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 4, 2013 @ 10:23 pm - May 4, 2013

  44. You guys sound like eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.

    Says the person whose every comment read likes a RonPaulian on a bad acid trip.

    (Yeah, I usually ignore her rants, but that personal attack warranted a pot-meet-kettle.)

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2013 @ 10:28 pm - May 4, 2013

  45. Oh, but we dare not ignore the textbook social-right statist propaganda of V the K. It never disappoints.

    Again — as always — leftist statism is used as an excuse for…wait for it…more right-wing statism. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

    My every comment reads like a RonPaulian on a bad acid trip? I suppose that’s why a coward refuses to answer the most basic questions about his own philosophy.

    Stay tuned. We’ll find out what the soc-cons are calling themselves this week. And maybe get a preview of the euphemism for the next…

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 4, 2013 @ 10:58 pm - May 4, 2013

  46. You guys sound like eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.

    And you say this because…….why exactly?

    Is it because you’re not universally recognized as the purveyor of all that is right and good as the GP preacher of the received wisdom of “Libertarian Truth”?

    I’ve made my position clear to you previously in this thread: partnership registry – OK, no more tax favors for married couples – OK.
    And I’ve further stated that marriage and it’s definition should be left to the churches because most of them WILL NOT recognize the charade of ‘gay marriage’, to which I say “Thank God!”.
    And I don’t give a ‘flying f**k’ if you think that the word is so malleable as to be used to define a same sex union. Both secular AND religious history and tradition say that you’re wrong.

    You’ve posted elsewhere that you were (and may still be) a Catholic, so you as much as anyone around here would know that marriage is a sacrament (the very first one, as I understand it) given by God to man.
    And as such, all the shading, dissembling, torturing and tormenting of the word won’t change that.

    So I’ve made myself clear, again.

    So the answer is…”Waaaah! We’re going to see people getting sued!”

    The only one having tantrums when the ‘gay marriage’ fiction rears its ugly head here at GP, other than the usual lefties, is YOU, Lori.

    Are you saying that people being sued (coerced) to recognize and give their individual blessing to another’s ‘gay marriage’ isn’t a serious issue?
    Are you suggesting that these examples I gave are untrue?
    If not, are you saying that these occurrences are simply examples of, as you’ve posted previously “We, the People work(ing) through it ourselves.”?

    I can’t and won’t speak for VtheK.
    I’ve answered your questions.
    Actually, I’ve responded to your erroneous assertions.
    Now answer my questions, if you’d be so kind.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 4, 2013 @ 11:41 pm - May 4, 2013

  47. JMan, I find it interesting that you’ve ignored my comment (#38) suggesting that simply telling the truth about the existence of gay Christians would help anti-gay churches fend off frivolous lawsuits.

    Would “the gay left” stop trying such crap? Of course not. Which does NOT explain why the anti-gay social right benefits itself by continuing to lie by omission and ignore churches that bless same-sex unions. Contenting themselves with their own opinions — instead of their own “facts” — would better arm anti-gay churches against cries from “the gay left” that they were unfair. They could accurately point out that plenty of other churches will do what they won’t.

    It it a “serious issue” that frivolous “gay left” lawsuits will occur? It would certainly be less serious — and less likely — if soc-cons simply told the truth about the fact that alternatives exist to forcing anti-gay churches to perform same-sex ceremonies. It would show how hollow the “gay left’s” protests actually are.

    The statist left and right are the Yin and Yang. Neither could continue to exist without the other. Which is why they must shout past everybody else and pretend no other option but yet another heavy-handed statist one exists.

    If these assertions are, indeed, so “erroneous,” you have done absolutely zero to show how or why.

    I am an Anglo-Catholic, an Episcopalian. So bludgeoning me over the head with the Pope probably isn’t going to work. I don’t agree with you about the sacrament of marriage requiring that same-sex couples cannot have a blessing ceremony of our own. My Church does not agree with you either.

    The Episcopal Church does not call its blessing of same-sex unions marriage. I am fine with that, because I, too, am skeptical that they are exactly the same thing. Which does not mean they do not deserve to be blessed by the Church. An earlier post, by a guest blogger, explored the very interesting possibility that a different understanding might emerge about how same-sex unions might be understood.

    To suggest they could not be holy in any sense is to denigrate the human beings involved in them. An attitude that a growing number of Christians do not regard as very Christ-like.

    I also find it interesting that asking direct questions is characterized as “having tantrums.” Especially by those who refuse to answer them.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 12:43 am - May 5, 2013

  48. I find it interesting that you’ve ignored my comment (#38)

    I didn’t ignore it; I saw it hours ago.
    In light of your posts @ #43 and #45, I decided to ask again.

    …would help anti-gay churches fend off frivolous lawsuits.

    …explain why the anti-gay social right

    …would better arm anti-gay churches against cries from “the gay left”…

    …forcing anti-gay churches to perform same-sex ceremonies..

    So, the use of ‘anti-gay’ four times in your comment: are you saying that being opposed to ‘gay marriage’, per se, means that a person or institution is ‘anti-gay’ (against gay people)?
    Or is that simply rhetorical ‘shorthand?

    If these assertions are, indeed, so “erroneous,” you have done absolutely zero to show how or why.

    The erroneous assertions I referred to were your characterizations of me, and my positions (see #15, #18, #42) at your #43 & #45. Did I not make that clear enough?

    So bludgeoning me over the head with the Pope probably isn’t going to work.

    Mistakenly thinking that you were Catholic amounts to “bludgeoning (you)…with the Pope”?
    What this IS, is an overreaction on YOUR part. I never mentioned the Pope. YOU did.

    Which does not mean they do not deserve to be blessed by the Church.

    I agree. I’ve stated that the matter should be left to the churches, and that most churches won’t entertain it.

    To suggest they could not be holy in any sense is to denigrate the human beings involved in them.

    This introduces a new topic.

    I’ve never offered a suggestion anywhere, at anytime on the ‘holiness’ of a union of two consenting adults.
    Therefore your statement doesn’t apply to me.

    I also find it interesting that asking direct questions is characterized as “having tantrums.”

    No, Lori, I was referring to two comments of yours that I highlighted:

    You guys sound like eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.

    So the answer is…”Waaaah! We’re going to see people getting sued!”

    So, I’ll retract ‘tantrum’ and insert ‘low level tirade’.
    And those comments, as they relate to me, are wrong, unless you think that what I’ve posted here since my 9:40P entry is something that your run-of-the-mill 80 year old, trailer park dwelling drunk would write. ;)

    Especially by those who refuse to answer them.

    If you are saying that this comment applies to me, you’re wrong again.

    Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, Lori.
    I’ll check back later to see if there are any updates.

    Good night!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 1:44 am - May 5, 2013

  49. JMan, I do appreciate that — despite what you now downgrade to my “low-level tirades” — you continue to engage in a real debate.

    I do believe that anti-gay churches can adequately defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits by reminding their antagonists that plenty of other churches do perform same-sex unions. By now, I believe I’ve made that clear. You may not agree, but that certainly makes specious any argument (by anybody, not necessarily just you) that I favor frivilous lawsuits against churches that won’t perform same-sex unions. If I did, I’d hardly advise how they might avoid or successfully combat them.

    And I stand by my use of the term “anti-gay” churches. I knew full well when I used it that somebody would jump on it.

    I believe that to refuse any means of honoring same-sex couples’ commitment, such churches are, indeed anti-gay. I don’t believe that the government, or the legal apparatus, should do anything to stop them from choosing to be this way. But it is a free country, and I have every right to express my opinion. To insinuate that I do not would be an attack on my religious freedom.

    I don’t have to agree with other people in order to respect their right to believe whatever they choose. I’m not the one using the law to try to muscle everyone else into compliance with what they want. And I have made abundantly clear that I don’t believe those who agree with me should use the law that way, either.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 2:14 am - May 5, 2013

  50. I couldn’t resist checking one more time before I hit the rack:

    …you continue to engage in a real debate.

    Thank you!

    …but that certainly makes specious any argument (by anybody, not necessarily just you) that I favor frivilous lawsuits…

    Lori, here’s the deal:

    I’d sure like it if you would stop doing what you’ve done here (because you’ve done it several times tonight): I have NEVER said, implied, intimated, suggested, insinuated or gave so much as the most minute impression that you favor frivolous lawsuits.
    It’s pissing me off (as opposed to “hoorting my fee-wings” – which is something I’d never say) because you’re clearly too intelligent to make this same error repeatedly.
    It’s why I use the ‘blockquote’ so much: I can’t be accused of getting another poster’s words wrong. I merely highlight what others write.
    Try to be a little more precise, OK?

    …I’d hardly advise how they might avoid or successfully combat them.

    I’m saying that we shouldn’t create opportunities for any a-holes (and their attorneys) to exploit so that these institutions even HAVE TO defend themselves.
    They don’t have to now, but on the road we’re currently travelling they will, and in short order, too.

    I believe that to refuse any means of honoring same-sex couples’ commitment, such churches are, indeed anti-gay.

    So to your mind, there’s no possibility that a person or institution can be against ‘gay marriage’ and NOT be ‘anti-gay’, as opposed to ‘PRO traditional marriage’, for instance.
    Noted. Thank you.
    Extrapolating from that, it would be fair to say that those who are ‘pro gay marriage’ must therefore be ‘anti-straight’, seeing as how the straight folks got to it first and have been jealously and zealously and bigotedly denying anyone else access to it for all these centuries, and naturally gays (and polygamists, etc.) are justifiably resentful of this selfish and discriminatory behavior on the part of straight people.
    No wonder they hate straight people are ‘anti-straight’.

    To insinuate that I do not would be an attack on my religious freedom.

    You won’t get an argument from me on this.
    But…..doesn’t this make YOU ‘anti-pro traditional marriage’ people and institutions? How about ‘anti-anti-gay’?

    Which gives rise to another conundrum:

    As to the centuries old cultures that had a good deal of homosexual conduct within them, but that also DID NOT countenance ‘gay marriage’ (as BeeKay pointed out correctly @ #3): this, by your reasoning, would make them both ‘pro-gay’ and ‘anti-gay’ simultaneously.

    It’s all very confusing…….

    I’m not the one using the law to try to muscle everyone else into compliance with what they want.

    I’m not the one, either.

    Yet, you’re steadfast in throwing ‘anti-gay’ at institutions (and therefore the people who make up those institutions) that disagree with your position on ‘gay marriage’.
    It doesn’t help to paint those whose views differ with yours as hateful and evil, either.
    That’s a peculiarly leftist smear for such a staunch libertarian to employ.

    I’ll say this: you may, in general terms, espouse a ‘live and let live’ philosophy’ regarding this subject (and most others, being a libertarian), but when I add up your responses to those who don’t agree with you, I come away with the very strong belief that you are as ardent a supporter of ‘gay marriage’ as any gay leftist extant.

    Thanks again for your response.
    I really do appreciate it. :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 3:41 am - May 5, 2013

  51. Okay, Jman, here’s the deal…

    Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Religious beliefs are less-negotiable. I think treating other human beings as less than fully human is incompatible with Christian faith, and I will freely say so.

    I also believe one can be pro hetero marriage and still believe the Church may bless same-sex unions. I find very insulting any insinuation that I — the product of a heterosexual marriage — must be anti-traditional marriage simply because I believe God calls upon His children to respect and honor my life-partnership as much as they did my parents’. That they may be different in some ways does not, according to my convictions, make them inferior.

    I don’t believe the two need to be in competition with one another. God, I believe, is bigger than we are. These little quibbles are put upon some people by others, not upon God by us.

    You will go right on believing whatever you want about my religious beliefs. That is your privilege. It is a matter of complete indifference to me, as it doesn’t change my convictions one iota.

    Soc-cons expect us to simply sit there, with smiles on our faces, and be polite about it when they tell us God hates us and that we’re condemned to Hell. As I disagree with them, that makes no difference to me. I happen to believe they are in danger of damnation when they treat us cruelly and contemptuously. If they expect me to think it’s godly and kind for them to warn me they think I’m damned, I don’t think it’s too unsporting of me to expect they can be big enough to take what they dish out.

    You’re a good egg. A confused one about some things, but all right nonetheless. I don’t know how to get emoticons to show up here, so I can’t do a smiley. 8) — I guess that’s it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 5:16 am - May 5, 2013

  52. Correction: Should be “not by God upon us.” It is late, and old people have difficulty with tiny type.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 5:17 am - May 5, 2013

  53. Lori I will add one comment to your post at #51? …….. Amen.

    Comment by SC.Swampfox — May 5, 2013 @ 10:02 am - May 5, 2013

  54. Same-sex marriage couples selfishly demand “Marriage Equality”, yet, in return, they offer LESS-THAN-EQUAL protection of the child’s happiness than can be afforded through the presence of both biological parents. In the name of “Marriage Equality”, same-sex marriage leaves the child fully aware that his family is, in all truth, not at all “equal”, natural, nor complete. The use of the term “Marriage Equality” by same-sex marriage proponents selfishly ignores the child’s perspective of “equality”.

    Comment by Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui — May 5, 2013 @ 10:23 am - May 5, 2013

  55. Good morning, Lori.

    You asked this question earlier (@ #43):

    And the remedy is…what? To deny religious liberty to those who interpret Scripture differently?

    And you followed with your answer:

    The only remedy is religious freedom for ALL.

    And then you said:

    There is no way to parcel it out, doling it generously to some and withholding it from others. That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.

    What this condenses to is:

    1. You claim that EVERYONE should have religious freedom.
    2. You deny the integrity of those whose practice of that same religious freedom leads them to different conclusions than yours on the subject of ‘gay marriage’.

    You defend this by saying:

    Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Religious beliefs are less-negotiable.

    “…less-negotiable”.
    Isn’t that convenient?
    I guess this means that its “TOTAL religious freedom for some (the ones who agree with YOUR interpretations of Scripture); FEWER religious freedoms for others (all those who don’t agree with any number of your interpretations of Scripture)”.
    That’s a handy little belief. Yessiree!

    If this is the case (and it certainly has all the earmarks), then it is your views which are clanging against each other.

    You can’t proclaim “religious freedom FOR ALL” on one hand, and then summarily deny it on the other when those of other faiths come to different conclusions based on different interpretations of Scripture, which “religious freedom FOR ALL” must certainly make allowances for.

    That’s a contradiction; you’ve contradicted yourself.

    You will go right on believing whatever you want about my religious beliefs. That is your privilege. It is a matter of complete indifference to me, as it doesn’t change my convictions one iota.

    Ahhh, intellectual freedom!
    I had no doubt that you championed this concept, just as I do. Your beliefs in individual liberty, personal freedom and freedom of worship would be in question if you didn’t.

    Soc-cons expect us to simply sit there, with smiles on our faces, and be polite about it when they tell us God hates us and that we’re condemned to Hell.

    Couple things here:

    1. Unlucky for you that EVERY ‘soc-con’ you’ve encountered has done this. But I’ll say this categorically: most people of faith who see homosexuality as a sin DO NOT invoke the “God hates fags” meme. I’ve met (and still know) quite a few myself and not one of them has ever uncorked the slogan of the Westboro Baptist Church (real repugnant a-holes, IMO) when discussing gay people or ‘gay marriage’. Not a single one of them. Not once, not ever.

    2. The fact that you admit that they’re polite means that there must be a possibility that they aren’t, in fact, ‘anti-gay (people)’, which possibility you steadfastly deny.

    I think you’re smearing good and decent people….again.

    You’re a good egg.

    Thank you!
    So are you. :)

    A confused one about some things……

    I’ll borrow from you for my response:

    If (some of) these assertions my positions are, indeed, so “erroneous,” “confused”, you have done absolutely zero to show how or why.

    To be clear, I had a chuckle when I read this. Not being a ‘fee-wings’ person, I don’t see it as an insult.

    The occasional confusion comes from you, Lori.

    I’m not the one trumpeting religious freedom and then summarily revoking it because other folks (good and honest ones) don’t come to roost on the same branch of the tree that I’m nesting in.
    To assert otherwise, which you done repeatedly, is self-contradictory and not a little bit hypocritical.

    Sorry, Lori, but when it comes to ‘gay marriage’, you sound much less a libertarian and a lot more ‘gay left’.
    Or do all libertarians who believe in ‘gay marriage’ call those who don’t believe in it ‘anti-gay’ (read: bigoted, hateful, evil, etc.)?
    The only ones I hear (or read) doing that are on the left.

    Thanks for your response.
    Hope you slept well.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 11:02 am - May 5, 2013

  56. Jman, props for the effort. I don’t think it will do much good. I am told LH isn’t quite so shrill in real life, but in this forum, she comes across, unfortunately, as quite shrill and intolerant of other people’s opinions.

    I mean, seriously, me? A statist? ROFL.

    Comment by V the K — May 5, 2013 @ 11:50 am - May 5, 2013

  57. Shrill and intolerant? You believe what you believe.

    The exact, accurate theological implications of what those who put our deepest and most profound relationships in scare quotes — and even congratulate themselves as saints for condemning them — believe is that they think we’re so abhorrent to God that even loving us is sinful.

    This is not a religious blog, it is a political blog. If politics ain’t beanbag, religion is something more serious still. One of the byproducts of the statist compulsion to politicize absolutely every area of human life — leaving nothing sacred, not even religion — is that people like JMan and V the K drag people’s theology into the mix. When the result of that is just what any reasonable person would expect it to be, they scream foul.

    Religious tolerance means being content to coexist, in a free society, with people whose religious beliefs differ from your own. I do not advocate any civil or criminal punishments for those with whom I disagree. I simply disagree with them — as I have every right to do.

    JMan and V the K believe I must do more than that. That I am somehow obligated to change my religious beliefs so as not to offend them. And they have such a warped view of freedom that they actually believe “religious tolerance” demands it.

    Expressing religious beliefs in a political forum does have consequences. Our soc-cons come here day after day, week after week, and blithely blast their mouths off about how abhorrent God must find us (again, the unmistakable implication, theologically, of all the scare-quotes about gay relationships). Never once have I suggested that “religious tolerance” means they must stop saying such things.

    Either we’re going to discuss religion and theology on this blog, or it is indeed a political blog and we are not. No one needs temper or censor their religious views to suit the demands of others. I don’t, any more than anyone else does.

    Religious freedom includes the freedom to criticize beliefs one finds reprehensible and disgusting, or it means nothing at all. Put on the big-boy pants and deal with it. When you started commenting on people’s profoundest beliefs — and especially when you started tossing scare-quotes around — you went there.

    So did I. Which makes me — boo hoo! — shrill and intolerant.

    Nonsense.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 12:08 pm - May 5, 2013

  58. Jman, props for the effort.

    Thank you, V the K.
    That’s nice of you to say, and I’m flattered. :)

    I don’t think it will do much good.

    Maybe so.
    But it’s been, for the most part, polite.

    Hey, V! Shuffle up to the bar and I’ll buy you a drink.
    You know, we 80 year old trailer park dwellers shouldn’t get drunk by ourselves! ;)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 12:08 pm - May 5, 2013

  59. Yes, J & V. You have discovered that other people besides soc-cons actually take their religious beliefs seriously. And that we hold beliefs on profound subjects as deeply and uncompromisingly as they do.

    You also discover that as it is impossible to express deep theological beliefs on a political forum and not encounter others who disagree with you, that means people like me will be rude — rude! — by ruffling feathers.

    Evidently you think only soc-cons have the right to express their beliefs here. Others, who have consistently sat by and said nothing while they did this — always conceding them the right to say whatever they choose on the subject — are “intolerant” when they make the mistake of thinking the commenters here truly do believe in quaint old notions like religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

    So by all means, go get drunk. If I believed that only some people deserved freedom and others didn’t, I would, too.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 12:29 pm - May 5, 2013

  60. …is that people like JMan and V the K drag people’s theology into the mix.

    I only said that marriage should be left to the churches.
    YOU were the one who started the characterizations, no, SMEARS against religious people who disagree with you.

    Verdict: you’re full of sh*t.

    I do not advocate any civil or criminal punishments for those with whom I disagree. I simply disagree with them — as I have every right to do.

    Yeah you have that right, and you also have the right to SMEAR those people as hateful, bigoted, intolerant and evil because they disagree with you.
    And you also have the right to get pissy and defensive when I call you on it, using YOUR OWN WORDS to point it out.

    Verdict: you’re full of sh*t.

    JMan and V the K believe I must do more than that. That I am somehow obligated to change my religious beliefs so as not to offend them. And they have such a warped view of freedom that they actually believe “religious tolerance” demands it.

    Get this through your head, Lori:

    I have not said what you claimed (above) ANYWHERE, at ANYTIME.
    And if you still insist I have, then I call on YOU to find those words and POST them so that EVERYONE can read them and verify the veracity of your claim.
    My advice: don’t waste your time.

    Verdict: you’re full of sh*t and that’s a despicable lie.

    Our soc-cons come here day after day, week after week, and blithely blast their mouths off about how abhorrent God must find us (again, the unmistakable implication, theologically, of all the scare-quotes about gay relationships).

    Not scare quotes….ridicule quotes:

    If my Dad had tits he’d be my Mom..
    But he DOESN’T…..
    So he ISN’T.

    If that gay ‘married’ couple had one less guy and one more woman in it, it’d be a MARRIAGE….
    But it DOESN’T….
    So it ISN’T.

    No rancor or hate directed at the two individuals making up the couple. Just pointing out that it ain’t a MARRIAGE’.
    And I’ve NEVER said that “God hates ANYONE”.
    Yet you keep repeating this cheap SMEAR.

    Verdict: you’re full of sh*t AND a despicable liar.

    Religious freedom includes the freedom to criticize beliefs one finds reprehensible and disgusting, or it means nothing at all.

    You mean the way YOU show how much YOU respect the right of others to criticize YOUR beliefs?

    Put on the big-boy pants and deal with it.

    My big-boy pants have been on since well before my first encounter with you.
    How’s about you put on your ‘big-girl dress’ for once (or is that a sexist suggestion?).
    If so, then put on your ‘big-girl’ bib overalls (farmer jeans).
    Is that better?

    When you started commenting on people’s profoundest beliefs — and especially when you started tossing scare-quotes around — you went there.

    Of course, because you haven’t uttered a peep about other people’s profoundest beliefs, except to SMEAR them as being ‘anti-gay’.

    What chafes your ass is that I’ve taken your arguments and proclamations and pronouncements apart, and you can’t answer for your contradictions, nor your hypocrisy, so you start your lying and bomb throwing.
    You’re guilty of the VERY SAME THING that I’ve seen you, time and again, accuse V the K of doing: not answering questions and not accounting for the obvious inconsistencies of YOUR positions.
    Good show, Ms. Libertarian Truth.
    I’m impressed.

    You’ve also shown that you’re not really as TOUGH as you like to claim that you are.
    Drop the ‘butch d*ke’ routine, and show us how tough you REALLY are: answer the questions DIRECTLY…explain the contradictions.

    And if you don’t, then drop the ‘rhetorical boxer’ shtick and know THIS:

    I’ve logically and soundly whipped your ass and you’re on the canvas for a ten count.
    You’d better hurry up: the ref’s at eight, and you’re about to be counted out.

    And V the K is absolutely right, you ARE shrill and intolerant.

    Check yourself, oh Grand High Priestess of Anglo-Catholic/ Episcopalian and Libertarian Universal Truth and Wisdom.

    Verdict on All Counts: You’re Full of Sh*t.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 12:57 pm - May 5, 2013

  61. Of course, JMan, you do not realize what you’ve just done. You vehemently denied what I asserted — then went right on to prove me right.

    You evidently view religious beliefs as so unserious, so trivial, that you don’t understand other people may deeply hold them. Therefore, you clutter up your comment with nasty cracks about bib overalls. I’m surprised you didn’t do what so many soc-cons do, and drag our private parts into it. Though you’ll probably get around to doing that, too.

    It may surprise you to learn that some people actually hold serious religious views. That tolerance of others’ views demands not that we give up or compromise our own views, but that when we sit here, day in and day out, reading views we find abhorrent, revolting, even blasphemous, and say nothing about them (except to — gasp! — imply that they might be anti-gay), we ARE expressing tolerance.

    Tolerance does not mean holding no views. Nor does it mean agreeing with other views. You are getting a glimpse, here, into what it really means.

    It is not a contradiction that I hold beliefs that differ from those of people who think our deepest relationships are such a joke they merit only scare quotes. Deal with it.

    Nice to know that my relationship with God can be dismissed so blithely. What you’ve really revealed about yourself is that you respect neither other human beings nor God.

    It will evidently come as a surprise to you to learn that many libertarian and — yes — even politically-conservative gay and lesbian people are people of deep religious faith. That they probably find a lot of what is said here about them hurtful, even sickening. That many don’t even comment here because they know people like you would jump all over them and crap on them for daring to express their beliefs.

    They may have risked their relationships, even gone through rocky times with their families, to come out and live honestly as who they are. They may have left their churches and found others. They may have lost friends to suicide. Nice to know they’d better shut up and let the soc-cons be the only ones who can indulge in religious freedom.

    Conservative gays are actually more likely to find many of the things said here offensive than are the dastardly, secular liberal gays you ignorantly dismiss anyone you disagree with as being.

    Verdict on all counts: you have no respect for anyone’s faith. Not even that of the people you think you’re defending.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 1:20 pm - May 5, 2013

  62. You evidently view religious beliefs as so unserious, so trivial, that you don’t understand other people may deeply hold them.

    You’re LYING.
    I’ve stated the opposite….several times.
    Where’s your PROOF?

    It may surprise you to learn that some people actually hold serious religious views.

    You’re LYING.
    I’ve stated the opposite….several times.
    Where’s your PROOF?

    Tolerance does not mean holding no views. Nor does it mean agreeing with other views. You are getting a glimpse, here, into what it really means.

    I know what it means.
    Maybe YOU need a refresher on it.

    It is not a contradiction that I hold beliefs that differ from those of people who think our deepest relationships are such a joke they merit only scare quotes. Deal with it.

    Can you fu**ing READ?
    I don’t think it’s a ‘joke’.
    I don’t BELIEVE that it’s marriage, and I won’t call it one.
    That’s OK with you, as your own words attest (@ #43):

    Nobody cares what you call other people’s marriages

    .
    It sure sounds like you care.
    So it’s another contradiction, Lori.
    Do you care or not?
    Which one is the LIE?
    You’d better ‘deal with it’, tough monkey.

    Nice to know that my relationship with God can be dismissed so blithely.

    You’re LYING.
    I’ve never dismissed your (nor anyone else’s) relationship with God.
    Where’s your PROOF?

    I honor your relationship with God.
    It’s YOU that ‘blithely dismisses’ other’s relationships with God because they believe that God, as they understand Him, does NOT approve of ‘gay marriage’ and they won’t kiss your ass and concede that point.

    It will evidently come as a surprise to you to learn that many libertarian and — yes — even politically-conservative gay and lesbian people are people of deep religious faith.

    The only thing that has surprised me here is how long you’ve successfully conned others into believing that you’re a sober libertarian when, in reality, you’re a shrieking leftist bull d*ke.

    Now, don’t get in a snit and be all hurt and insulted, Lori. This is the equivalent of your tossing “…eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.” at me and V the K.
    “If you can’t stand the heat…….”
    Or, as you constantly put it: Deal with it!
    You can handle it, can’t you, Tough Guy?

    Nice to know they’d better shut up and let the soc-cons be the only ones who can indulge in religious freedom.

    You’re LYING.
    I’ve stated the opposite….several times.
    Where’s your PROOF?

    Verdict on all counts: YOU have no respect for anyone’s faith, unless it agrees with YOURS on this subject, a subject over which you clearly get extremely exercised.

    It’s pathetic that you have so little self regard that you need everyone else to pat you on the back, kiss your ass and tell you how wonderful you and your partner are (and how marvelous your mutual relationship is), or you start up the SMEARS (‘anti-gay’) and the LIES (which I’ve fully cited, and which YOU have not offered ONE SINGLE SHRED of evidence for).

    Looks like you’re the one who needs to get bombed.
    To paraphrase you, yet again:

    So by all means, go get drunk. If I believed that only some people deserved (the) freedom to state their position on ‘gay marriage’ (when they were foursquare behind it) and others didn’t (when they didn’t support ‘gay marriage’), I would, too.

    As an early response to the fact-starved, contradictory and LIE-strewn horsesh*t that you will, no doubt, post in response to this (where I’ve taken you apart for the UMPTEENTH time in this thread), but where you will NOT provide ANY proof of your charges, nor defenses of your SMEARS:

    You’re dishonest.
    You’re a child (who WILL NOT concede that others, IN GOOD FAITH, can have views at odds with yours regarding ‘gay marriage’).
    You’re a leftist masquerading as a libertarian (more dishonesty).
    You’re a religious BIGOT masquerading as a Christian (thus the blanket condemnations for those who disagree with you).

    So fire away, love.
    I’m not wasting any more time on you.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 2:14 pm - May 5, 2013

  63. And it doesn’t matter anyway, Lori.
    The referee reached ’10′.

    You’ve been counted out.

    You may remain in the ring and throw punches at your shadow, however.
    Whatever turns you on, kid.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 2:19 pm - May 5, 2013

  64. Throbert disagrees with me on ghey marriage and thinks my religion is a joke; but he is never shrill and only occasionally has been a dick about it.

    Comment by V the K — May 5, 2013 @ 2:41 pm - May 5, 2013

  65. JMan, now that your infantile and profanity-laced tirade is over, I will say something more.

    You amply demonstrate that you do not know the difference between differing with someone else’s views — strongly — and trying to stop them from expressing them. I have not lied in pointing this out, I have merely said things you don’t like.

    Once we get into religion on this blog, we have moved into a realm some people consider sacred. And some of us do hold strong views about the subject. Some people believe, for example, that gay marriage is blasphemy. Others — like myself — believe that using scare-quotes around the term blasphemes against God.

    You still think it’s all a big game, and a big joke. That it’s about bib overalls and crude sexual caricatures and profanity. I do not, and you don’t know how to handle that.

    You don’t even show respect for the faith of people who disapprove of gays. You show no respect for anything, except saving your pathetic face and “winning the game.”

    My point, throughout this thread, has been that there are churches — and Christian believers — on BOTH sides of the gay marriage and gay-rights divide. And that their beliefs are serious matters to them. This was why, if you’ll take a deep breath and go back and read the thread again, you’ll recall I said that if anti-gay churches had the honesty to acknowledge that churches exist that disagree with them on gay issues, it would actually help them fight those who’d sue them for not performing same-sex marriages.

    What I’ve been trying to get at is that churches should hash this out between themselves, without the government getting involved. There is nothing non-libertarian about that opinion; it is libertarian to its very core.

    What that does NOT mean is that (A) BOTH sides — not just the one opposed to treating gays as fully human — hold equally strong views about this subject, and that (B) they do so for profoundly religious reasons. It is not a game, or a joke, to either side, and should not be treated as one.

    This has nothing to do with dragging in government, or the courts, to stop the other side from expressing its views. You keep trying to imply that I am somehow opposed to the freedom of speech of those who disagree with me, but you will find nothing I’ve said here that even implies that.

    You are, again, assuming that if I disagree with other Christians on religious grounds, I must be demanding that somebody shut them up. I have, as a matter of fact, done no such thing. I believe in countering them on their own turf. Which — as a fellow Christian — I have every right to do.

    If you insist on going on being hysterical, go to it. Your own words bear testimony against you. I shake the dust from my feet.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 4:07 pm - May 5, 2013

  66. [...] Sabbath day, another brouhaha over at Gay Patriot. This time, I have done the unthinkable: I have candidly stated that there are Christians who are [...]

    Pingback by Social Conservatism — No Opposition Allowed! | Born on 9-11 — May 5, 2013 @ 4:36 pm - May 5, 2013

  67. You don’t even show respect for the faith of people who disapprove of gays. You show no respect for anything, except saving your pathetic face and “winning the game.”

    And naturally, you DO respect all faiths, except for…….the ones that refuse to sanctify your ‘gay marriage’.
    Quelle Horreur!!
    Check the nearest mirror, Lying Lori.
    To be sure, you’ve just described yourself.
    Congratulations!

    BOTH sides — not just the one opposed to treating gays as fully human

    Ha ha ha!’
    And you did it again!

    Some one who approves of ‘gay marriage’ is on the side of the angels; someone who isn’t is treating gays no better than if they were…….what? Dogs?

    You keep trying to imply that I am somehow opposed to the freedom of speech of those who disagree with me, but you will find nothing I’ve said here that even implies that.

    Wrrrong again, Joan of Arc.

    I don’t ‘imply’ anything; if I care to say it, I’ll say it directly.
    Feel free to say anything you like.
    Stop getting your knickers in a twist when it’s thrown back at you.
    Deal with it, as you’re so fond of saying.

    You are, again, assuming that if I disagree with other Christians on religious grounds, I must be demanding that somebody shut them up.

    But no direct quote from anything I’ve written that suggests this.
    Isn’t that strange since I’ve provided so many examples that there exists a gold mine (so you say), in this thread alone, but NOT ONE nugget picked up and put on display by you.
    How strange.
    Another lie repeated for the Nth time, but not ONE citation of MY WORDS to back it up.

    What I’ve been trying to get at is that churches should hash this out between themselves

    Horsesh*t.

    What you’ve been saying all along but don’t have the balls (that’s true; females wouldn’t, would they?) to own up to is this:

    “Tell I’m great and good BECAUSE I’m a lesbian. Say that your god blesses my same sex union, all the while telling me what a wonderful ‘marriage’ it is, and just as good and holy and valuable to the society as a REAL marriage between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, or I’ll have a fit and call you names (see SEVERAL places above) and say that you’re bigoted, hateful, evil, and that you treat me with no more (less, perhaps?) dignity than you do a stray cat!”

    And YOU call ME ‘hysterical’.
    Too *(&^) funny!! ;)

    I believe in countering them…… Which — as a fellow Christian — I have every right to do.

    All fine by me.
    ‘Counter’ all you want, although your habit of doing it WITHOUT ANY citations of other’s actual words (which gives you just the cover you’re looking for and exactly the ‘opponent’ that you’re up to the challenge of: Mr. Straw Man) I find repugnant.

    And I like your “Hey, come and look at what I did, Scooter!” pingback from your own blog, where I see there are two new items posted regarding your imaginary Sunday ‘victory’ over the ‘Evil So-Con Forces’.
    How much more childish and self referential can a poor ‘gay marriage’ supporter get?
    I’m bettin’ that you can sink even deeper than that, dear.
    But first, check the pedigree of the person who wrote those glowing reviews; her integrity is in question.
    In fact, the mote in HER eye (which she’s happy to let stand) could be used to build the biggest log cabin in the world.

    How’s that for a biblical reference, Lori?
    Ya like that one?

    Oh, one last thing (for now), Lori Heine: when are you going to start offering solid supporting evidence of your claims, in this thread and elsewhere, re: other people here at GP?
    You know, by actually citing the words they’ve written so as to clearly and convincingly back up your stated claims?
    Because the next time you do it will be the very first time you’ve ever done it .
    We’re still waiting……………..

    ‘We who don’t agree with you’ have just as compelling a right to state our cases (which, unlike you, WE back up and don’t merely assert) as YOU do, and if all this chafes your bum, causes you consternation, gets you hot under your well starched (preacher’s) collar, or otherwise finds you with a permanent hair across your ass, I have only these suggestions:

    1. TFB
    2. Deal with it. Hmmm, where have I read that one before? ;)

    Your turn again, Ste. Heine.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 6:53 pm - May 5, 2013

  68. A request of the administrators of this fine blog:

    Please hold open some space below this so that Ste. Heine of Righteousness (alias ‘The Gay Leftist in Libertarian Drag’) can spew forth on another one of her now hilarious (though scurrilous) rants.

    We don’t want to be accused of trying to “shut her up”.
    Oh, no, not that!

    Thank you in advance for your kind consideration.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 7:15 pm - May 5, 2013

  69. Deal with it. Hmmm, where have I read that one before?

    Hey, I resemble that remark!

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) :-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 5, 2013 @ 8:12 pm - May 5, 2013

  70. Peter:

    She likes to use it when she has her ‘butch’ up.
    But she never adheres to it; she just likes to sling it at others.
    You know, to sound ‘tough’.

    I have to admit that, here at GP, you were the first person I read who used it regularly.
    “Credit where credit is due”….and all that.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 8:18 pm - May 5, 2013

  71. JMan, I need to wait ’til your latest torrent of keyboard diarrhea is over before I can respond. I no longer even bother to read it, so unless you really are simply showboating for the peanut gallery you’re sure are going to agree with you, you might as well not bother.

    For more rational minds, who do not make the mistake of believing one cannot respect a person’s religious beliefs (i.e., presumably, their right to express them without censorship), I will make another attempt at reason.

    Gays who try to crash churches hostile to gay marriage, and to force their ceremonies to be performed there, are not gay Christians. How do we know this? Because if they were, they’d be getting hitched at their own church.

    What are they, then, doing? They are trying to make trouble, so they can sue. Sort of like those parents who stick their little kids’ legs out into traffic so they’ll be run over and bring on a lawsuit.

    Why are so many able to be gulled by the gays who pull their trick on churches that won’t hitch them? Because of the general level of public ignorance about the very existence of gay Christians.

    If churches that don’t want to perform same-sex ceremonies were more honest about admitting that there are gay Christians — must be, because there are churches that will perform those ceremonies — then the level of public awareness would rise. Thus making it less likely that hucksters could get away with suing these churches.

    I’m sure this will only trigger another bout of hysteria about bib overalls, butchness, feverishly lurid sex or who-knows-what-else. It’s immensely entertaining. All it’s accomplishing is that I now think JMan is a colossal horse’s a$$. He isn’t going to stop until he’s convinced everybody else of that, too.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 10:00 pm - May 5, 2013

  72. #71 — Should be “do not make the mistake of believing one cannot respect a person’s religious beliefs (incl. parenthesized remark) without having to agree with every detail of those beliefs.”

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 10:04 pm - May 5, 2013

  73. Incidentally, Jboy, why all the fear-fantasies about toughness and butch? Are you really that afraid somebody won’t think you’re tough?

    If you’re that nelly, I can do nothing about that. Calling in a woman to help you doesn’t make you look too macho.

    I am thoroughly enjoying this. It is most amusing. Pray continue.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 5, 2013 @ 10:07 pm - May 5, 2013

  74. …so unless you really are simply showboating for the peanut gallery you’re sure are going to agree with you…

    That’s a kneeslapper, from the same insecure child that shot the pingback’ to this thread, from HER OWN BLOG, because she’s grandstanding for her 6 faithful readers.

    I’m sure this will only trigger another bout of hysteria about bib overalls, butchness, feverishly lurid sex

    That ‘bib overall’ thing really put a bug up your ass, didn’t it? Why is that? It’s the third time that you’ve mentioned it; I only said it once.
    Hmmm, let me take a stab at it: I figured you correctly, you wear them all the time, and this has caused your fragile ego to fracture even further, because you have some idea that you’re inscrutable.

    “…feverishly lurid sex…”
    Never mentioned it. Why is it on YOUR mind?

    For more rational minds, who do not make the mistake of believing one cannot respect a person’s religious beliefs (i.e., presumably, their right to express them without censorship)

    Never accused you of attempting censorship; simply pointed out your cheap SMEARS against other people who don’t agree with you.
    You know, things like “80 year old drunks…“, “anti-gay” and “…the one(s) opposed to treating gays as fully human.” Because these, and other bombs that you’ve thrown around here, they just show how sweet, understanding, compassionate and religiously tolerant you really are.
    Who knew?

    I no longer even bother to read it

    This could be a lie (you’ve revealed yourself to be an habitual one), or, like any good leftist, it could mean that you DO read my posts, but if they don’t say what you want them to you’ll pretend the passages that you don’t like aren’t even there, ir you’ll LIE and say that I wrote something that you, for some strange reason, can’t cite so everyone else can see it.

    All it’s you’re accomplishing is that I now think JMan know Lori Heine is a colossal horse’s a$$poseur and prevaricator. (S)He isn’t going to stop until (s)he’s convinced everybody else of that, too.

    Cleaned it up a bit, Ms. Heine.
    Now it ‘reads’ correctly.

    And, once again, the issue you refuse to deal with directly:

    When are you going to start offering solid supporting evidence of your claims, in this thread and elsewhere, re: other people here at GP?
    You know, by actually citing the words they’ve written so as to clearly and convincingly back up your stated claims?
    Because the next time you do it will be the very first time you’ve ever done it.
    We’re still waiting……………..

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 10:45 pm - May 5, 2013

  75. why all the fear-fantasies about toughness and butch?

    No fear here, dear.

    Just pointing out that no matter how big of a bull d*ke you are (my guess is you’ve munched a lot of carpet in your time), don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that it makes YOU a man (doubtless something that you’ve pined for all your life, and the role you’ve assumed with your ‘conga line’ of partners).

    Remember that old one that I harkened to earlier?

    If Lori Heine had a d**k, she’d be a MAN….
    But she DOESN’T……
    So she ISN’T.

    Sorry to spoil your fantasy.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 10:53 pm - May 5, 2013

  76. #75 Nice Jman, really showing your compassion and intellect. nice

    Comment by rusty — May 5, 2013 @ 11:37 pm - May 5, 2013

  77. Get lost, Rusty (aka Ms. Cut and Paste)

    If I want any sh*t from you I’ll squeeze your head.

    You can go back to watching RuPaul’s Drag Queen Extravaganza, or whatever the hell that trash is called.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 5, 2013 @ 11:41 pm - May 5, 2013

  78. Smooches Jman
    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/smooch.jpg

    Comment by rusty — May 5, 2013 @ 11:55 pm - May 5, 2013

  79. Rusty, I don’t see why you waste your time with Jboy.

    At this point, I simply skim over his rantings. I am talking past him. Those who will hear, will hear. Those who won’t, won’t. Which works out fine both ways.

    The neat little racket the secular Left and social Right have worked out does however, show up clearly in the dynamic I have pointed out. Both actually depend upon the same meme: that “there are no gay Christians, so gays must sue churches to get them to perform same-sex ceremonies.”

    That works out very well for both of them. Far from sincerely being rivals, they are partners in the scam.

    And insecure little dupes like Jboy eat it up. When they hear an unfamiliar way of looking at the matter, they leap into flying-monkey mode and pelt the person airing the idea with poop.

    I find it especially amusing that Jboy keeps trying to say I want gay marriage, when I said, earlier in this thread, that I approved of the fact that the Episcopal Church does not call its same-sex blessings marriages because I, too, question whether they are exactly the same as heterosexual marriages.

    That was certainly, and very conveniently, forgotten quickly enough.

    Flying monkeys don’t comprehend things very well. Too busy screeching and pelting.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 6, 2013 @ 12:48 am - May 6, 2013

  80. Lori, you lying bull d*ke:

    When are you going to start offering solid supporting evidence of your claims, in this thread and elsewhere, re: other people here at GP?
    You know, by actually citing the words they’ve written so as to clearly and convincingly back up your stated claims?
    Because the next time you do it will be the very first time you’ve ever done it.
    We’re still waiting……………..

    But you just keep on posting your little delusional rants.
    I’ll be right here to greet you.

    And if you’re down to having Rusty as one of your allies….you’re screwed.

    Goodnight, BD.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 6, 2013 @ 1:48 am - May 6, 2013

  81. “We’re” still waiting?

    This must be the royal we, I presume. You are indeed, Jboy, turning out to be a nasty, pissy little queen.

    If I cared, I might try to recall exactly what flew into your bonnet in the first place to get you like that, but I don’t particularly care. So I won’t bother.

    There’s no logic to your screeching. Just an irritating drone that loops around and around and around. You can’t argue the issue, and made a total fool of yourself getting hysterical about it, so now you want to keep it going.

    Come back when you’ve got something substantive to say. I don’t expect that will be soon.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 6, 2013 @ 2:37 am - May 6, 2013

  82. Still doing your imitation of the ‘chattering teeth’, you lying bull d*ke?

    When are you going to start offering solid supporting evidence of your claims, in this thread and elsewhere, re: other people here at GP?
    You know, by actually citing the words they’ve written so as to clearly and convincingly back up your stated claims?
    Because the next time you do it will be the very first time you’ve ever done it.
    We’re still waiting……………..

    Keep comin’ back, carpet muncher.
    You’re a riot. :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 6, 2013 @ 3:17 am - May 6, 2013

  83. BTW, the comment I made on the Savage antics applies in this situation as well. Just saying.

    Comment by Douglas — May 6, 2013 @ 1:53 pm - May 6, 2013

  84. I just noticed the “1961″ by this freak’s little nickname. I’m hoping that’s not his birth year. This clown is 52 years old?

    I was under the impression he was maybe 15 or 16. To find out he’s some sort of stunted adult makes perhaps a bit more sense. GP should raise the age limit for commenters, and the problem would be solved.

    But they won’t, so we’ll get more smiley-faces, and ignorant sexual crassness, and the rest of it. Not surprising, as there is virtually never any housekeeping anymore on this blog.

    I’m done with the thread. You’ll probably see fifteen more posts from this boy, or girl, or whatever the hell it is who keeps commenting here. It won’t go away. I will turn to threads where actual ideas are being discussed, by actual adults.

    One more word about this thing who keeps posting here. (Who knows its age? Who can tell its gender? Given its fascination with lesbian sexual practices, who the hell knows anything about it?) It shows what happens to minds spellbound by social conservatism.

    Ugh. Who needs PR when you’ve got…that?

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 6, 2013 @ 1:58 pm - May 6, 2013

  85. Not surprising, as there is virtually never any housekeeping anymore on this blog.

    If there were (housekeeping) you’d be in the first wave of leftists to be kicked off the premises, you wretched shrieking harpy.

    If you really want a sterile blog, stay with your own. You know, the one that has one or two visitors every week to 10 days. That’s gotta help keep it ‘clean’.

    I’m done with the thread.

    You were ‘done’ in this thread around the time you posted your third or fourth comment in it, Chopper.

    I will turn to threads where actual ideas are being discussed, by actual adults.

    Yup, and when you get there, the adult quotient will drop accordingly.
    Thanks for warning us, though.
    We’ll keep an eye out for your future infestations.

    Ugh. Who needs PR the usual leftists when you’ve we’ve got…Ste. Bulld*ke of Righteousness (alias ‘The Gay Leftist in Libertarian Drag’)?

    There. That’s better.

    Off your meds yet again, you lying bull d*ke?

    When are you going to start offering solid supporting evidence of your claims, in this thread and elsewhere, re: other people here at GP?
    You know, by actually citing the words they’ve written so as to clearly and convincingly back up your stated claims?
    Because the next time you do it will be the very first time you’ve ever done it.
    We’re still waiting……………..

    Keep comin’ back, Ste. Butchy of the Bib Overalls.
    You’re a caricature of….yourself. :)

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 6, 2013 @ 2:45 pm - May 6, 2013

  86. J-thing, you’re an old man (or an old whatever you are). Evidently you’re unaware of a nifty little feature called “Stats,” which measures activity on a blog. Comments alone tell little about how many people read someone’s blog.

    That, and the fact that I do keep house on my blog, and do not permit feral children to come in and defecate all over the place.

    The buzz about GP, elsewhere in the blogosphere, is “What the hell has happened to this blog? Why all the whackos?” Sane people persist in trying to comment here, but they’re getting frustrated.

    But someone like J-thing definitely demonstrates the direction big-government statism is headed. This is it, folks…this is your future. Your reactionary politics attract people like this.

    Enjoy.

    Comment by Lori Heine — May 6, 2013 @ 2:57 pm - May 6, 2013

  87. Not surprising, as there is virtually never any housekeeping anymore on this blog.

    Translation:

    Waaaahhhh! I wanna blog where I get MY free speech, but any hateyhatinghater that disagrees or challenges me in any way should get kicked out! Waaaaahhhhh!

    This from the big (I’ll bet!) pseudo-libertarian supporter of “free speech for everyone”………..NOT!

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 6, 2013 @ 3:01 pm - May 6, 2013

  88. …..reactionary politics attract people like this.

    You mean, ‘reactionary politics’ like these:

    “The most effective argument for libertarian truth is simply to wind up the “conservative” commenters here and let ‘em go.”

    “You guys sound like eighty-year-old drunks in some trailer park someplace.”

    “And I stand by my use of the term “anti-gay” churches” (where Ste. Fat Ass defends her slander of people of other faiths who won’t kiss her derriere on the ‘gay marriage’ issue)

    “Soc-cons expect us to simply sit there, with smiles on our faces, and be polite about it when they tell us God hates us and that we’re condemned to Hell.” (where the sainted Lori again slanders everyone on the other side of the political divide because someone (sniff!) hurt her widdle fee-wings at some point in her sorry life)

    but then, when she has her ‘butch’ up again:

    “that means people like me will be rude — rude! — by ruffling feathers.” (See? OK when she does it; a ‘high crime’ when she gets some of it thrown back at her)

    Poor Lori: so put upon, so denigrated, so insulted, so oppressed and treated as something ‘less than human’.

    Boo frickin hoo!

    Stop dishing it out if you can take it, Tough Guy.

    Oh, and one more thing:

    When are you going to start offering solid supporting evidence of your claims, in this thread and elsewhere, re: other people here at GP?
    You know, by actually citing the words they’ve written so as to clearly and convincingly back up your stated claims?
    Because the next time you do it will be the very first time you’ve ever done it.
    We’re still waiting……………..

    Keep comin’ back, Ste. Butchy of the Bib Overalls.
    You’re a sad and sorry joke.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 6, 2013 @ 3:19 pm - May 6, 2013

  89. I’m done with the thread.

    Comment by Lori Heine The Thing That Wouldn’t Leave — May 6, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

    Whatsamatta, Lori?
    You’re really desperate to get the last word, aren’t you?
    Oh, you poor, frail thing.
    Have I “ruffled your feathers”?

    Tough!
    And as you like to say when you’re in your “Brawny Tough Guy” garb:

    Deal with it.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 6, 2013 @ 3:26 pm - May 6, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.