GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/02/08/why-marriage-matters/trackback/

  1. I think if marriage were still an institutional with an expectation of commitment and exclusivity, whose responsibilities were commensurate with its benefits… I don’t think we would be having this discussion because the vast majority of gheys would want no part of it. It’s only because marriage has become a pinata of benefits with few if any real responsibilities that it’s attractive to people who, otherwise, would be content with catting around and open relationships.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 10:01 am - February 8, 2012

  2. Interesting concept V. I have often held the view that marriage is now all rights and no responsibilities. Perhaps that is, or would have been, the best way to ‘protect’ marriage. It is also why all the ‘arguments’ for denying same-sex marriage are on dangerous ground at best. Alas, both liberals and conservatives must shoulder the blame.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 10:47 am - February 8, 2012

  3. If civil marriage doesn’t balance benefits with responsibilities, it is useless to society and should be disbanded as a function of Government.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 11:28 am - February 8, 2012

  4. Prop 8 Victory in California. The result?

    Gingrich: thrice-married and yet angry that LGBT couples will be allowed to marry again in California.

    Romney: furious at the Prop 8 ruling. Wants to “protect traditional marriage”

    Santorum: insists the prop 8 ruling “stripped 7 million Californians of their rights”…huh? what rights? their “rights” to ….deny LGBT couples to freedom to marry, simply because they happen to be bigoted against LGBT people?

    The three leading candidates for the GOP nomination. All furious about a ruling in favor of Equality, Fairness and Truth.

    Yup. What brilliant choices to choose from, for a gay republican!

    You can choose the anti-gay Mormon, the anti-gay Catholic, or the anti-gay hypocrite who’s been married three times already.

    It speaks volumes that you self-hating unloved resentful homosexuals think that “vast majority of gays”…dont’ want, marriage. or, are content to be “catting around in open relationships.”

    it speaks volumes about how little you respect yourselves. Your father hates calling you son, your mother is ashamed of you – and they both talk about “promiscuous gays who have open relationships” – and you’re their son, and they hate that you’re gay, so you agree with them and say “yeah! those gays are so disgusting! i’m not like them! i’m not, i swear! will you love me, then?”

    No. They won’t.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 11:48 am - February 8, 2012

  5. isn’t it depressing how the leading GOP candidates are using the Prop 8 victory to remind the GOP base that Voting Republican is a good way to stop “the gay agenda” from …uh….”taking away the right of Christians to enforce their religious beliefs on non-Christians in America?”

    galling, eh?

    A victory for Equality in America – and the GOP’s leaders are using it to promote anti-gay bias, to win over more voters, because the GOP counts on anti-gay bigots for votes.

    and you boys sit there and join in.

    reminder: this is why your own families are ashamed of you. you don’t have the balls to stand up for yourselves and command respect.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - February 8, 2012

  6. Little_Kiwi,

    While I have no doubt your post will be the perfect fuel for a certain other posters reply, let me first just state.

    A) My conservative Christian missionary parents neither hate me nor are they ashamed of me. In fact they are quite supportive of me and my partner BECAUSE of their faith not despite it.
    B) Neither of them would be happy to see me be a ‘promiscuous gay with an open relationship’ any more then they would be to see me be a promiscuous str8 with an open relationship.

    And while V the K states that ‘gheys’ would run for the hills rather then get married if marriage held its practitioners to any standards as it should. I would go further to say a large swath of the general population (and one presidential hopeful) would do the same.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - February 8, 2012

  7. Santorum: insists the prop 8 ruling “stripped 7 million Californians of their rights”…huh? what rights?

    The right to govern themselves. The right to pass laws by vote of the people. The right to define social institutions by popular consensus and not judicial fiat.

    I know it’s like trying to explain brain surgery to a kindergarten, but the question was asked.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - February 8, 2012

  8. But V, this is where I ‘check out’. Prop 8 was not a vote of how the populace would govern ‘themselves’; rather it was how a majority felt a minority should be governed. If same-sex civil marriage somehow outlawed civil heterosexual marriage. Then a vote on a bill such as Prop 8 would be required. But same-sex civil marriage would have zero effect on civil heterosexual marriage. Especially since it’s now just a glorified crackerjack prize.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 1:04 pm - February 8, 2012

  9. It was a vote of the people to define a social institution. Same sex couples had access to the same ‘crackerjack prize’ via civil unions, so they weren’t being denied anything tangible. And since everyone has the right to marry one non-related adult of the opposite sex, it can’t really be said to be discrimination. If people want an arrangement other than to be joined to one adult human of the opposite sex, no one was stopping them from doing it; just stopping them from legally calling that arrangement a “marriage.”

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - February 8, 2012

  10. V,

    I agree, if civil unions truly offer the same benefits (a.k.a. crackerjack prize) then it should have been sufficient. But then we are arguing over semantics, which is trivial at best and it’s also a double edged sword. Talk about majoring in minor matters. If calling one Lamborghini a sports car and another Lamborghini a luxury car, somehow allows sports car ‘aficionados’ to feel as if the have protected the sports car institution what does that say about the sports car fans?

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - February 8, 2012

  11. The definition of the word marriage sets a standard of one man and one woman. That is the only discrimination it makes. I’m sorry if the LGBT community doesn’t fit the standard but there is no hate, no standard of morality, no standard of religion implied in that definition, only a qualification of biology. LGBT community arguments may garner our sympathy but they are irrelevant as concerns redefining the word marriage.

    Comment by Richard Bell — February 8, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - February 8, 2012

  12. Richard,

    I can appreciate your argument, though I don’t agree with it. At the end of the day, I think the GLBT community would do well to take fully measured civil unions and run with it. They/we can call it marriage, as no amount of referendums can stop us from doing so. And dollars to donuts our grand children will wonder what the heck a ‘civil union’ is.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - February 8, 2012

  13. if you let bigots with no intelligent arguments tell you what WORDS you can use then you can forget calling your country the “land of the free and the home of the brave” – it’s the land of the wimps who can’t stand up to the bullies.

    you gay conservatives are such cowards, it’s hilariously sad.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - February 8, 2012

  14. Little_Kiwi,

    If you had actually read my last comment instead of foaming at the mouth you would understand that I am giving NO ONE power over what words I use. If anything the ‘bigots’ as you refer to them, are deciding what words THEY will use. And trust me, more then a few conservatives have stated it doesn’t matter what the government calls our unions, they will never consider us married, and they are free to believe as much. As long as the governing body that takes my hard earned money in taxes understands that for legal purposes there is no difference, I will call it whatever I desire. And the English language, forever notorious for ‘keeping it simple’, will make quick work of the term ‘civil union’.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - February 8, 2012

  15. Sandhorse – I don’t support it but you’re probably right about civil unions. Speaking from my own experience in this metropolis of progressivism, civil union would have gotten overwhelming support. As it is now, the majority of the population feels they had something forced on them and have a lingering resentment about it. Also, there is a case still moving through our court system to repeal “gay marriage” that would not have happened if the LGBT activist class has gone for civil union.

    Comment by Richard Bell — February 8, 2012 @ 2:13 pm - February 8, 2012

  16. Marriage is two things – a religious or creedal institution and a civil legal framework.

    The religious aspects are the conventions of voluntary associations. The law, appropriately, has little to say concerning this aspect.

    The body of marriage law primarily concerns itself with the protections of the rights of minor children. They become, in effect, wards of the court when the parents are at loggerheads. These laws have little relevance for same sex couples.

    Thus I, along with many others, view the controversy as a very irritating “much ado about nothing”. In other words, why don’t you all go back off in your own jackyard.

    Comment by Roy Lofquist — February 8, 2012 @ 2:13 pm - February 8, 2012

  17. Roy Lofquist – “In other words, why don’t you all go back off in your own jackyard.”

    Why was that comment necessary?

    Comment by Richard Bell — February 8, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - February 8, 2012

  18. I am struck by the insistence of so many liberals that “religion” be divorced from the marriage debate. Apparently, marriage should just be another form of state regulated dog license or privilege to keep a baboon.

    Registering a partner as a spouse in the bureaucratic, statist sense is an essentially meaningless act. It is a morally irrelevant act, as well.

    Childless singles and couples, homosexual or heterosexual, can sign up for a child and acquire one through the state bureaucracy and become state authorized parents.

    What is missing from this whole perfunctory bureaucratic coupling under the law is any sense that society respects the union as anything more remarkable than leasing a condo.

    I will restrain myself from arguing the validity of keeping the flame of Judeo-Christian morality alive in the institution of marriage. It isn’t necessary. Those of us who place a deeper meaning in the institution will naturally separate from those who just sign up for a state issued certificate.

    Will I look down my nose at the people who go the state certificate route? It depends entirely upon the character of the persons involved. The license will mean nothing to me.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 8, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - February 8, 2012

  19. Rights are not subject to popular vote. Hey folks, gays getting married neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg. Note that the panel did not even question ANY of the judge’s findings of fact. Those facts include the defendant intervenor’s star witness agreeing under oath that marriage equality would be good for everyone

    If you’re against it on religious grounds then fine but remember that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” Laws can not be based on religious matters. If you’re against it for any other reason you should recognize that you just want to treat gays as second class citizens, unworthy of the same rights as straights. If you’re a homo who thinks that, go get some pofessional help, stop hating yourself.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 8, 2012 @ 2:46 pm - February 8, 2012

  20. Heliotrope,

    I am unsure what comment(s) above imply marriage should be divorced from religion? I think it is safe to say that any couple that follows a religious tenant will very much marry their faith with their union regardless of any government recognition. That’s as it should be. And no amount of government recognition will sanctify a particular union. And THAT, is as it should be. But in matters of civil issues the government is only required to be blind to the specific religious practices of its constituents; neither favoring one, nor putting another at a disadvantage.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 2:47 pm - February 8, 2012

  21. @Richard Bell,

    It wasn’t necessary, granted. It was meant to convey a sentiment that’s worthy of an essay that is both long and complex – something which I’ve not much inclination to attempt.

    Essentially, a pissing contest between two relatively minor groups has been escalated to the point where major resources are being diverted from more pressing matters. The issues here can only be resolved, if ever, by a generational change in society. Trying to force the matter by involving the courts is neither prudent nor wise.

    Comment by Roy Lofquist — February 8, 2012 @ 2:51 pm - February 8, 2012

  22. Sandhorse,

    I think the Lamborghini argument is flawed. This isn’t calling a Lambo something else, this is calling a Honda Insight a Lamborghini. As was elegantly stated above, this is removing the right of the people to self govern. Using the court’s ‘logic’ no law can be changed if it restricts a previous freedom. So, for example, all the hate crimes laws and anti-discrimination laws in California need to be thrown out, as they restrict previously granted freedoms.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 8, 2012 @ 3:12 pm - February 8, 2012

  23. Note to self
    Changing e-mail addresses hurts, stuck in moderation.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 8, 2012 @ 3:13 pm - February 8, 2012

  24. And no amount of government recognition will sanctify a particular union. And THAT, is as it should be.</block

    Comment by PeeJ — February 8, 2012 @ 3:16 pm - February 8, 2012

  25. “Laws cannot be based on religious matters.”

    So PeeJ believes that murder, theft, and perjury should be legal? Got it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 8, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - February 8, 2012

  26. Oh crap.

    1. Marriage licenses are issued only by the state. Clerics can not issue a license to marry. In other words, NO ONE can get married except by the state’s consent.

    2. Clerics are empowered only to solemnize a marriage. That’s why they things like “by the power invested in me by the state of.”

    3. People can and do get married with zero religious involvement. The local Justice of the Peace can do the job and God is never mentioned.

    4. No cleric can dissolve a marriage – they can only be dissolved through civil proceedings.

    Add it up and what do you get? Marriage is purely a civil matter save that the state allows clerics to perform the ritual.

    Comment by PeeJ — February 8, 2012 @ 3:22 pm - February 8, 2012

  27. Dishonest Things Gay Republicans Say:
    “Obama’s stance is the same as the GOP’s, on LGBT Issues”

    patently false. you can look really hard, but you will not find ANY quotes from President Obama wherein he denigrates the LGBT community, uses anti-gay rhetoric, or condones prejudice.

    Romney? Gingrich? Bachmann? Santorum?

    You will find a world of extremely ugly, bigoted anti-gay statements. Words that do nothing but vilify the LGBT community. Bigoted, prejudicial and deeply ignorant negative comments about gay couples, and gay people.

    President Obama hasn’t a single anti-gay quote for you people to hang your hat on.

    That you refuse to see this only proves me right. It proves that you can’t discern. O course you can’t – the ability to discern and understand nuance would lead you to realize your families ARE ashamed of you.

    You think when your parents say “Don’t worry, honey. We’re voting for a man that hates gays, but that doesn’t mean that we agree with him” that they’re saying “we support you”

    they’re not. they’re saying that they don’t care about you. they don’t care that the man they vote for hates you being gay and thinks you’re a lesser person. they don’t care that their chosen candidate thinks you’re a vile sinner. because they don’t really respect you, either.

    that’s your life! .us liberals? ha, our families love us. for real :D

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 4:28 pm - February 8, 2012

  28. Now that has been changing. And as that definition evolves, we can’t lose sight — as have all too many in this debate — of the institution’s purpose.

    The debate is only possible because people have forgotten the institution’s purpose: to get mom’s and dad’s tied in legal knots before procreation happens, so that kids are raised by their biological parents in as many cases as possible. An equation that couples of the same sex cannot, by definition, fit into.

    Nor does the gay community have any intent of even trying. Indeed, Dan Savage, one of the most public proponents of Gay Marriage freely admits that they “enjoy” an “open marriage” having sex with other people, a practice he encourages more people to engage in. I have no doubt Andrew Sullivan does the same in his ‘marriage’.

    Lastly, contrary to your hopes, there is no evidence of gay marriage anywhere on Earth strengthening the institution, precisely because it is inextricably tied to the liberalization of the institution.

    The idea that gay marriage can strengthen the institution is simply not supported by any evidence, anywhere.

    Not that evidence matters to the proponents of gay marriage. This is and has always been about silencing their lambs.

    Comment by AmericanElephant — February 8, 2012 @ 4:31 pm - February 8, 2012

  29. AmericanElephant,

    And if the government doesn’t penalize the couples who have children before they are “tied in legal knots”, then a marriage ‘license’ is superfluous. Rules without consequences are just good advise.

    And Dan Savage and Andrew Sullivan are no more representative of the gay community as a whole then are Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh of the heterosexual community. As such marriage equality, as a movement, must be seen to be determined by its center, not by its outermost boundary.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 4:47 pm - February 8, 2012

  30. If marriage was about procreation then there would be mandatory fertility tests given to all couples applying for marriage licenses.

    marriages for those who are fertile, civil unions for those who are not.

    AmericanElephant’s post proves me right – yet again. Bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, and gay republican wimps who agree with it in hopes that they won’t get bullied by their fellow Republitards.

    As long as straight people can marry without procreating, divorce, remarry, cheat, swing, and make up their own arrangements it’s preposterous to say “gays shouldn’t marry because they’re not moral enough”

    8yawn*

    enjoy your place on the losing end of history, you feeble-minded cowards.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - February 8, 2012

  31. Little Kiwi, your responses are an interesting — and revealing — window into the liberal worldview. You don’t address (or even acknowledge) the actual arguments gay conservatives are making while continually repeating the same prejudiced assumptions you harbor about us.

    Our anecdotes about our lives mean nothing to you. Amazing. Just amazing.

    You attach your comments to a blog post without even addressing the points raised. You don’t see the world as it is — but as you imagine it to be. You don’t see people as they are, but as representations of your own ideology.

    And you accuse us of being blind to the world.

    Please address our points. We welcome criticism here, but found your antics most amusing — to say the least.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — February 8, 2012 @ 4:50 pm - February 8, 2012

  32. This decision does render the word, marriage, as meaningless. I suppose it makes gay couples more happy, as if they can get gayer. These things will continue to fester and divide the population. People won’t get over it. It hasn’t happened with “abortion.” Do you think it will happen with everything else. We still have racists. People are largely colorblind, but the liberals don’t let you forget you’re a racist if you’re conservative. I’m sure the Liberals will continue to let you know you’re anti-gay as we move on from this issue.

    I suppose there are a few places to get relief. More religiously inclined people will feel the need to register with churches to have records of their true marriages. Thus creating a new social construct. This is continue the culture wars.

    In other states especially the redder states, they know what they need to do. Here’s what NOT to do. No more civil unions legislation. You’ve been warned.

    Comment by anon23532 — February 8, 2012 @ 4:50 pm - February 8, 2012

  33. of course you found my “antics” amusing. you also think your parents love you.

    your delusional world is understandable – if i was born into the families you guys were born into, i’d likely need to delude myself to keep from offing myself, too.

    :)

    Here’s a truth – the GOP’s leading candidates all promote anti-gay bigotry. not just ‘anti-gay policy- but are ON RECORD with making bigoted, prejudicial anti-gay statements.

    President Obama? You can look real hard, but you won’t find any.

    you refuse to see this. i know why. heaven forbid a liberal black man do what your white conservative family never would – demand that you deserve dignity and respect.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 4:54 pm - February 8, 2012

  34. and posted over at GOPROUD. . .Bernie Goldberg commenting on bigotry in some corners of the Conservative collective.

    http://www.goproud.org/bernie-goldberg-im-immensely-uncomfortable-with-the-bigotry-on-the-right/#ooid=liaWlnMzpZw5sJIE6b_12KEZEIbbFK_w

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 4:54 pm - February 8, 2012

  35. #29 And no, a marriage license isnt superfluous, the marriage will benefit that child after the fact, and the couple may still have non-bastard children. (bastard a criticism of the parents, not the child)

    #30. False. Non-sequitur. Marriage doesnt exist to force people to have children, but to get as many men & women tied up as possible. If every man & woman were married, every child would be born into wedlock. Gender is the only test necessary.

    Besides. MILLIONS of couples who have been told by doctors they are infertile have had children anyway.

    You have proved nothing except that you are highly emotional about the issue, which tells us this is about your feelings and mental issues for you, not about facts.

    Comment by AmericanElephant — February 8, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - February 8, 2012

  36. murder and theft aren’t “illegal” because the bible says they’re “bad”, livewire.

    maybe your homeschooled ass wasn’t aware that rape, theft, murder, were all considered ‘wrong’ in every culture all over the world, including those with no connection to the judeo-Christian bible.

    Murder isn’t illegal “because the bible says it’s wrong to kill” – murder is illegal because intelligent, rational discerning minds can intellectually back up why it’s wrong to kill someone else.

    you keep proving me right and you don’t even realize it.

    if you can’t tell Right from Wrong without the bible telling you, then yuo’re a braindead sociopath who should be ignored. or a republican. same thing.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 5:00 pm - February 8, 2012

  37. “MILLIONS of couples who have been told by doctors they are infertile have had children anyway.”
    And MILLIONS of same-sex couples who have had children anyway. Are those children any less deserving of the protections having their parents ‘tied up as possible’ provides?

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 5:06 pm - February 8, 2012

  38. transcript of goldber with oreilly:

    GOLDBERG: There’s something that needs to be said, no matter how uncomfortable it makes some people listening to us. There is a strain of bigotry — and that’s the word I want to use — running through conservative America.

    It doesn’t mean all conservatives are bigots or even that most conservatives are bigots. That’s not what I’m saying. But there is a strain of bigotry, and it goes against gay people, for instance.

    Ellen DeGeneres did nothing wrong. She’s gay. Right? There is — reasonable people may disagree on gay marriage. That’s fine. But to, but to call on somebody’s dismissal to be fired, to lose her job because she’s gay is bigotry. And I don’t care how many people listening to us right now don’t like that.

    O’REILLY: Well, I mean, the argument though—

    GOLDBERG: Let me say — let me say one other thing briefly, Bill. In the middle of the last century, in the 1950s and 1960s, there was another strain of bigotry on the right, and it was against black people. That has to leave the conservative movement.

    I used to be a liberal. I became a conservative because liberals were a little too crazy for me. A lot too crazy for me, actually. But you know what? I am immensely uncomfortable with the bigotry on the right, and I don’t care how many people don’t like it. I am sick of it.

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 5:21 pm - February 8, 2012

  39. banning LGBT couples from marrying will not stop LGBT people from having children. it will only mean that the children of LGBT couples are put at a disadvantage.

    the GOP ignores this. why? they’d rather harness the voting-power of the bigoted scum of america than be intellectually honest.

    atheists can marry. straight couples can marry, divorce, and remarry as many times as they like. infertile couples can marry. couples of mixed-religious backgrounds can marry.

    and yet…gays cannot. why? because bigots don’t like the idea of it. that’s it, thats’ all.

    there has yet to be even ONE intellectually-valid argument against LGBT Marriage Equality.

    Dear America, look North to Canada. You know, the country that’s figured out social issues decades before you for more than a century.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - February 8, 2012

  40. rusty: Goldberg is quoted as saying “doesn’t mean all conservatives are bigots” and “a strain of bigotry”. One thing you must recognize is everyone has an opinion. Conservatives cannot police themselves anymore than anyone else. I’m neither apologizing nor do I care. I really don’t.

    Goldberg is wrong with his concern. Not because he isn’t truthful. Actually, he is telling the truth. But he follows it up with “But to, but to call on somebody’s dismissal to be fired, to lose her job because she’s gay is bigotry.”

    Hmmm, didn’t someone resign her job because of an political abortion fiasco at Komen?

    We can scream all we want. That’s the way it works with freedom of speech, but it seems like the liberals get their head on the stick so to speak.

    Comment by anon23532 — February 8, 2012 @ 6:01 pm - February 8, 2012

  41. remember when the people who screamed that the dixie chicks were “unpatriotic” because of Natalie Maines’ comment about Bush? Amazingly, these people can’t shut up about how much they hate Obama.

    werk.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 6:04 pm - February 8, 2012

  42. well anon oreilly also went with this:

    In a surprising move for the conventional Fox News pundit, Bill O’Reilly came to the rescue of Ellen DeGeneres, who is currently facing heat from conservative groups over her recent partnership with J.C. Penney.
    On a segment on last night’s The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly took issue with One Million Moms, the group organizing a boycott against the retailer in an effort to force DeGeneres to step down as spokeswoman. Fox News contributor and One Million Moms supporter Sandy Rios explained, “It isn’t about Ellen DeGeneres, but it’s about mainstreaming something that is not acceptable to Christian and traditional family people.”
    “But it is about Ellen DeGeneres, and this is where we run into a problem,” said O’Reilly, coming to the defense of the openly gay talk show host, who has responded to the controversy herself. “If you remember with the McCarthy era of the 1950s, they were trying to hunt down communist sympathizers and not let them work and put them on a blacklist… What is the difference between the McCarthy era communist blacklist in the ‘50s and the Million Moms saying, ‘Hey, J.C. Penney and all you other stores, don’t you hire any gay people. Don’t you dare.’ What is the difference?”
    Rios asserted that the problem lies with DeGeneres’ personal choice to “act out her lesbian lifestyle and marry her partner, and what that represents.”

    O’Reilly, an unlikely champion for DeGeneres, responded, “The essential question is that a conservative group in this country is asking a private company to fire an American citizen based upon her lifestyle. I don’t think that’s correct.”
    He added: “I don’t have any problem with you, Sandy, or any of the Million Moms not shopping at J.C. Penney. You don’t want to shop there because you don’t believe the message that they’re sending by hiring Ellen is a good message, more power to you. That is your decision and your right as an American. But to come out and demand the woman be fired, that’s wrong.”
    While Rios countered with her right to express an opinion, O’Reilly drew a comparison to his own precarious position, referring to liberal Fox News viewers who constantly demand he relinquish his job because of his differing values: “They have a right, but they’re wrong to do it.”
    O’Reilly concluded that despite the right to opinion and choice in where Americans want to take their business, the demand that J.C. Penney “fire a spokesperson who has done nothing legally wrong” was against the “spirit of America.”
    “This J.C. Penney thing is a witchhunt and it shouldn’t happen.”

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:08 pm - February 8, 2012

  43. Prop 8 was not a vote of how the populace would govern ‘themselves’; rather it was how a majority felt a minority should be governed.

    Which is what all laws restricting marriage are.

    Will you now state for the record that laws restricting marriage are always wrong because they are a reflection of how a majority felt a minority should be governed?

    And that leads us to this:

    But same-sex civil marriage would have zero effect on civil heterosexual marriage. Especially since it’s now just a glorified crackerjack prize.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 1:04 pm – February 8, 2012

    And the same can be said for incestuous marriage, plural marriage, child marriage, animal marriage, and anything else. As your fellow gay-sex marriage supporter PeeJ puts it, all of these “neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg”.

    What you are fundamentally not getting, Sandhorse, is very simple: you don’t think marriage has any value, so you can’t see why you’re not allowed to do it.

    Those of us here recognize and realize the value of marriage to society. We are also honest enough to recognize that it doesn’t fit our needs, desires, and situations.

    So instead of cheapening marriage into a one-size-fits-all ceremony as you advocate, we emphasize keeping it in its rightful, elevated place, holding those who would practice it to a higher level of responsibility, and charting our own paths.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:11 pm - February 8, 2012

  44. And MILLIONS of same-sex couples who have had children anyway. Are those children any less deserving of the protections having their parents ‘tied up as possible’ provides?

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 5:06 pm – February 8, 2012

    Really, Sandhorse?

    Can you point us to one example of an accidental pregnancy for a same-sex couple?

    Can you even point us to an example – just one — of a same-sex couple producing a child that is genetically of both members of the relationship, something that even the lowliest of heterosexuals can do?

    Meanwhile, you seem to be stating that unmarried gay and lesbian “parents” are harmful to children. If that’s the case, gays and lesbians should be banned from adopting. It’s very simple.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:19 pm - February 8, 2012

  45. maybe your homeschooled ass wasn’t aware that rape, theft, murder, were all considered ‘wrong’ in every culture all over the world, including those with no connection to the judeo-Christian bible.

    Actually gays and lesbians like yourself, Little Kiwi, fully endorse and support rape.

    And we already know that gays and lesbians like you support murder.

    Plus gays and lesbians like you believe in theft to support your lifestyles.

    So clearly gay and lesbian culture supports and endorses murder, theft, and rape, and doesn’t feel that any of these things are wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:25 pm - February 8, 2012

  46. I like this statement by anon23532:

    Conservatives (and the gheys) cannot police themselves anymore than anyone else. I’m neither apologizing nor do I care. I really don’t.

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - February 8, 2012

  47. patently false. you can look really hard, but you will not find ANY quotes from President Obama wherein he denigrates the LGBT community, uses anti-gay rhetoric, or condones prejudice

    Sure we can.

    We can show how Obama and the leadership of the Obama Party endorse and support discrimination against and harassment, including abuse, of gays very easily.

    And as we found last night, Little Kiwi, you don’t have the courage to repudiate Barack Obama or his Barack Obama Party leaders for doing such things.

    Which makes your ranting completely hypocritical. But hilarious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - February 8, 2012

  48. I like this statement by anon23532:

    Conservatives (and the gheys) cannot police themselves anymore than anyone else. I’m neither apologizing nor do I care. I really don’t.

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:29 pm – February 8, 2012

    You like it, rusty, but you don’t follow it.

    So what I’m doing is forcing you to follow it. If you want to quote conservatives left and right and demand that we respond, I will throw your fellow gays and lesbians back in your face and demand you do the same thing.

    You can’t and you won’t. Hence the problem — and why you are so desperate to avoid ever having to do so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:31 pm - February 8, 2012

  49. I also like what BDB said. . .a few posts back.

    Let his rebuke serve as a reminder to all of our readers — not just our critics tp address the arguments we raise on this blog and the points y’all make in the comments.

    When you make insinuations about the personal lives of others, you don’t so much cast aspersion on them as you raise questions about yourself.

    Note to NDT. . .seems like you doubled up on your links. Not quite sure any of those links actually link Obama himself stating / commenting that would be considered disparaging of the lgbt community.

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:37 pm - February 8, 2012

  50. Obama making statements or comments that disparage the LGBT community. sorry

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:39 pm - February 8, 2012

  51. oh boy oh boy

    Washington United for Marriage
    WE WON! The House voted 55-43 for marriage equality and the bill goes on to the governor, who has indicated that she’ll sign it.

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:41 pm - February 8, 2012

  52. 49.I also like what BDB said. . .a few posts back.

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:37 pm – February 8, 2012

    And again, rusty, you like it, but you don’t follow it.

    Nor have you ever seen fit to apply it to your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters like PeeJ and Little Kiwi.

    So basically, what you want is for the rest of us to play by rules that you won’t follow, nor will your confederates follow.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - February 8, 2012

  53. NDT,

    As a matter of fact I think marriage has a LOT of value. In a perfect world it binds a couple together and makes seperation an undesireable choice. When a couple is held to their marriage vows this encourages them to ‘stick it out’ when the emotional attachment is lacking. These are the ‘tied up as possible’ legal knots to which AE refers. However, no fault divorce has basically rendered this obligation mute. Thus civil marriage, as V the K and I have pointed out, has become all sugar and no substance.

    As far as children are concerned, regardless as to whether it happens accidentally or not, same sex couples can and do have children. If the goal of marriage is to protect children from their parents fickle emotional attachments as AE pointed out, then the children of gay couples deserve that protection as well as those of straight couples. And if yours and AE’s remarks about the tenuous nature of ‘gay-sex’ marriage is true. Then we as a society should WANT to hold gay couples to as many legal strictures as they are possibly willing to submit to.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 8, 2012 @ 6:47 pm - February 8, 2012

  54. NDT

    this is me. . .happy dance

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/yellowstone.jpg

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:50 pm - February 8, 2012

  55. Ah, and little fruit sets it up beautifully. Yes little fruit if you could stop parroting the desperate lies your father gave you, you’d realize that all those cultures based their morality on something. So thank you for proving my point. That a culture can make moral judgments based on something. Shame you can’t.

    See, as NDT points out you have a history of inciting hatred and making wild baseless accusations. If you choose to say that a culture can’t enforce their moral code, then you admit that you support murder, theft and rape.

    So, given that you support murder, theft and rape, what makes you think you’re worth listening to?

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 8, 2012 @ 6:55 pm - February 8, 2012

  56. As a matter of fact I think marriage has a LOT of value. In a perfect world it binds a couple together and makes seperation an undesireable choice. When a couple is held to their marriage vows this encourages them to ‘stick it out’ when the emotional attachment is lacking. These are the ‘tied up as possible’ legal knots to which AE refers. However, no fault divorce has basically rendered this obligation mute. Thus civil marriage, as V the K and I have pointed out, has become all sugar and no substance.

    Then the logical choice would be to restore the substance, rather than further diluting it with even more empty calories.

    As far as children are concerned, regardless as to whether it happens accidentally or not, same sex couples can and do have children. If the goal of marriage is to protect children from their parents fickle emotional attachments as AE pointed out, then the children of gay couples deserve that protection as well as those of straight couples.

    Ah, but you see, Sandhorse, that never has to be a problem with same-sex couples, because their natural interactions and behaviors will never under any circumstances produce children.

    As AE correctly pointed out, the fact that heterosexual sex makes babies is why marriage exists in the first place – to manage and direct that fact in a positive direction. Since homosexual sex cannot and will never make babies, there is no need for homosexuality to be managed and directed via marriage.

    And if yours and AE’s remarks about the tenuous nature of ‘gay-sex’ marriage is true. Then we as a society should WANT to hold gay couples to as many legal strictures as they are possibly willing to submit to.

    Gays and lesbians are among the loudest and most strident advocates of no-fault divorce.

    Since you have acknowledged that no-fault divorce is what guts and makes marriage meaningless, why would we suddenly want to extend it to people whose behavior will overwhelmingly worsen and cheapen it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - February 8, 2012

  57. @rusty

    Congratulations on the ‘win’ in Washington. While I’ve stated my preferences, unlike rape endorsing crybabies like little fruit, I’m willing to accept the will of the majority.

    I can’t speak for BOR, but I heard Glenn Beck lambasting the Ellen Boycott on Monday. I think he made some valid points. She was hired for being an entertainer. Ironically it is the effect of the categorizing you see so much from the left. Her hiring is questioned because she’s gay.

    Personally I didn’t find her funny when she was younger, but she seems to have matured and become more comfortable with herself.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 8, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - February 8, 2012

  58. ty LW

    Comment by rusty — February 8, 2012 @ 7:04 pm - February 8, 2012

  59. how do i support murder, rape and theft? the opposition to murder, rape, and theft have nothing whatsoever to do with the judeo-christian bible.

    incidentally, where were “Christian Values” during Americas centuries of slavery? Was this a “Christian Nation” when it was Segregated?

    Don’t think so. Murder isn’t wrong because “the bible says it is” and anyone who thinks that is a complete and utter idiot.
    Or was homeschooled.

    likely both.

    it speaks volumes that you guys can’t post your faces. keep living in fear, treating the internet like your own little burqa.

    you’re on the losing side of history. just like your grandparents were when they opposed Integration.

    congrats, America! you’re number one! (in gun violence, childhood obesity, and illiteracy!)

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 7:43 pm - February 8, 2012

  60. LGBT citizens have been able to serve openly in the Canadian military since 1992.

    Canada had its first legal same-sex marriage in 2001, and it was legalized across the country in 2005.

    LGBT people have complete and full protections and rights in Canada. Adoption rights, housing and workplace discrimination protections.

    the GOP continues to promote, support and condone anti-gay discriminatory laws and policies.

    and you wimps suck it up. you deserve to be the embarrrassment to your families that you all are.

    Comment by Little_Kiwi — February 8, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - February 8, 2012

  61. It also sort of blows my mind that people obsess over gay marriage when there are so many real challenges in the world. It’s like California’s Assembly, instead of dealing with their massive debt, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, or hostile business climate… their first priority was mandating that LGBT history be taught in schools.

    So, when the economy is completely collapsed, when one or more American cities has been nuked by terrorists, when the whole damn thing starts collapsing all around you… I am sure that piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat that was so bloody important to your worth as a human being will be of great comfort.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - February 8, 2012

  62. And the rapist supporter continues to dig itself deeper.

    Quick Kiwi, find one example that isn’t based in religion?

    V the K,

    I think it’s bread and circuses. Tossing sycophants like little fruit things to make them feel good for conforming to the herd, while hoping they don’t notice the barn is on fire.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 8, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - February 8, 2012

  63. Yeah, I totally get that gay marriage is one of the emotional issues politicians and the media use to distract attention away from the corruption and depravity of our ruling class. I just stand all amazed at how easily people fall for it.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 9:03 pm - February 8, 2012

  64. It was a vote of the people to define a social institution. Same sex couples had access to the same ‘crackerjack prize’ via civil unions, so they weren’t being denied anything tangible. And since everyone has the right to marry one non-related adult of the opposite sex, it can’t really be said to be discrimination. If people want an arrangement other than to be joined to one adult human of the opposite sex, no one was stopping them from doing it; just stopping them from legally calling that arrangement a “marriage.”

    The court says that preventing them from calling it marriage is something tangible. They make a good point about Jumbotrons – ‘Steve, will you register a domestic partnership with me? – Adam’ doesn’t have nearly the same ring as ‘Steve, will you marry me? – Adam.’ Marriage is an identifiable, established institution that children fantasize about even before they begin developing their sexuality, and there’s simply no good reason to deny gay couples the word.

    And that is the court’s argument – there’s simply no good reason to deny them the word marriage, and by doing so, the group is inherently marginalized and diminished, because they’re prohibited from participating in what is a nearly universal cultural touchstone in this country. It would be like arbitrarily telling Lutherans that they weren’t allowed to play football – oh they can play other sports so they’re not being discriminated against!

    That this issue is still anything that anyone talks about is so disheartening, I mean what could be easier? I will admit to having never been indoctrinated into any kind of religion, but how is it physically possible for grown human beings to give a shit about whether or not two people of the same sex get married? We’ll never be able to solve the big picture problems if you have huge swaths of the electorate running around playing word police on the gay couple next door; “Yes officer, the one woman introduced her registered civic partner as her wife, and even though this offended my extremely important religious sensibilities, I chose to turn the other cheek. But then she started talking about when they got married and went on a honeymoon and I just couldn’t take it, I’d like to press charges!!! Society was built to cater to me and my fundie prejudices!!! Off with their heads!”

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2012 @ 10:18 pm - February 8, 2012

  65. The court says that preventing them from calling it marriage is something tangible.

    And courts are always right. Like with Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 10:39 pm - February 8, 2012

  66. how do i support murder, rape and theft? the opposition to murder, rape, and theft have nothing whatsoever to do with the judeo-christian bible.

    But you don’t oppose murder, rape, and theft, Little Kiwi; as I clearly linked, gays and lesbians like yourself and gay and lesbian culture openly endorse and support it.

    incidentally, where were “Christian Values” during Americas centuries of slavery? Was this a “Christian Nation” when it was Segregated?

    But you support and endorse slavery, Little Kiwi. Indeed, liberals like yourself blabber and scream how slavery is perfectly appropriate when it’s practiced among the Palestinians, Iranians, Taliban, and other groups you support.

    Why are you such a racist that you think people with different skin colors than you should be enslaved and tortured, Little Kiwi?

    it speaks volumes that you guys can’t post your faces. keep living in fear, treating the internet like your own little burqa.

    It speaks volumes that even without our faces, we can make intelligent arguments that put you to shame and demonstrate the moral rot that fills you.

    Your calls for us to kill ourselves are just even greater icing on the cake. You and your so-called “enlightened” liberals are such hateful, desperate people that you want anyone who thinks or believes differently than you do dead.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 11:03 pm - February 8, 2012

  67. I will admit to having never been indoctrinated into any kind of religion, but how is it physically possible for grown human beings to give a shit about whether or not two people of the same sex get married?

    We have to understand that Levi makes these sort of statements because he genuinely believes that people should be able to marry whatever to which they’re sexually attracted. Children, siblings, multiple people, animals — Levi seriously sees no reason why anyone “gives a shit” about these getting married.

    So that’s the first problem.

    The second thing is that Levi and his liberal ilk don’t believe in responsibility or commitment. To them, the only value of marriage is to collect fatter welfare checks; it certainly is not going to mean they limit their sexual partners, or actually support each other, or do any of the things that society would expect, because those are all based on religious views that they disdain. To Levi, marriage is simply a way to game the system, with no more permanence or meaning than a mayfly.

    So that’s problem two.

    The third thing is that Levi and his fellow liberals execute children so they can fit into their prom clothes.

    Marriage exists because heterosexual sex produces children, and society has through thousands of years of trial and error figured out that it’s a good thing for society to reinforce those heterosexuals sticking together to raise the children they produce.

    And therein we have the problem. There are an entire generation of children like Levi who do not understand the what, the how, or the why of marriage. They see it solely as a means of increasing the size of their welfare checks, and think nothing of long term, or responsibility, or commitment.

    Amazing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2012 @ 11:16 pm - February 8, 2012

  68. Levi also apparently believe that religious faith is a result of indoctrination and not the result of, you know, like, a rational, intellectual assessment that 5,000 years of wisdom might have something to offer, philosophically? Or simple empirical observation that people who live faithful lives are healthier, happier, and on the whole more prosperous than those who don’t have a belief in a higher power.

    He certainly has been indoctrinated into a dogma, although he is too blind to see it.

    Comment by V the K — February 8, 2012 @ 11:20 pm - February 8, 2012

  69. Hey, did anyone here hear that Kody Brown, y’know, the polygamist of “Sister Wives” fame, won a small victory when his and his wives’ lawsuit against Utah’s bigamy law was allowed to go forward by a federal judge? Brown and his wives filed suit against the law in July of 2011, claiming it violated their 1st and 14th Amendment rights. Hmmmmm. The slippery slope wasn’t supposed to happen, was it? Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples wasn’t supposed to set a precedent for other unconventional arrangements, was it? Well, it’s happening, and I defy supporters of SSM or “relationship recognition” to explain how they can oppose Kody Brown without being guilty of the same bigotry, intolerance, extremism, and prejudice they claim SSM opponents HAVE to be guilty of.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — February 8, 2012 @ 11:50 pm - February 8, 2012

  70. SA – In the American spirit of fair play, my response to that would be: Everyone gets a free government recognized bite of the first apple. However, if you want a whole peck of apples; be sure you can afford them on your own.

    Comment by Sandhorse — February 9, 2012 @ 12:49 am - February 9, 2012

  71. Amusing to see Little_Kiwi and North Dallas Thirty trying to out-troll each other in this thread. I have to give this round to North Dallas Thirty though. Gay and lesbian culture fully endorses theft, rape, and murder? No one can beat ND30, he is just the champion. Which makes it kind of sad that The_Livewire seems to have taken him seriously.

    Comment by Serenity — February 9, 2012 @ 5:58 am - February 9, 2012

  72. And courts are always right. Like with Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson.

    In this instance, they are absolutely right. And you need to be careful – arguing that calling it marriage isn’t something tangible undercuts the anti-gay marriage argument that marriage is one of the most special things ever and it needs to be protected from the filthy gays. But when has desperate hypocrisy ever stopped conservatism before?

    Comment by Levi — February 9, 2012 @ 7:12 am - February 9, 2012

  73. In this instance, they are absolutely right.

    Shorter Levi. “Courts are the absoute final word. When I agree with them.

    I’d have to point out, that under this ruling, 10 years olds can engage in consentual sex in California.

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2012 @ 8:08 am - February 9, 2012

  74. Nicely done, Livewire and V the K. It’s funny watching Levi contradict himself over the wisdom of judges, flip-flop on the importance of marriage, and desperately flail about trying to rationalize and cover up his spoiled-brat, childish bleating.

    And as for Pomposity, it proved my point nicely; instead of repudiating the clearly-linked examples of gay and lesbian culture, it whined and screamed and made excuses. You would think it would reject such behavior, and especially the perpetrators using their sexual orientation as an excuse — if, that is, Pomposity didn’t believe that rape, murder, and theft is perfectly acceptable to get what it wants.

    But as we see from OWS and the UK riots, it does believe that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2012 @ 8:59 am - February 9, 2012

  75. NDT, Levi… like any other emotionally stunted adolescent… believes the adults are right when they agree with him, and wrong when they disagree with him. That is his sole criterion.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 9:08 am - February 9, 2012

  76. I need to revise my statement slightly.

    Under the logic of the court decision, 10 year olds can have consentual sex in CA. Since the court argued that Prop 8 denied a pre-existing ‘right’, and is unconstitutional, when California raised the age of consent laws from 10 to 14, they denied those kids the ‘right’ to consent.

    Other fun things to consider.

    The BAC for drunk driving will need to be raised back at least to .10, since it restricted the ‘rights’ of people to drive from .79 to .99

    Any gun law California ever passed should now be null and void, as it restricts the previously existing freedoms of the second amendment.

    Smoking bans need to be lifted.

    Anyone else want to have fun with what could be done in California now?

    Comment by The Livewire — February 9, 2012 @ 9:31 am - February 9, 2012

  77. What a thread!

    The Three Horsemen of the Impotency have ridden in on old Fleabag and scattered their chaff of wit and wisdom. Levi, Serenity and Little Kiwi all dressed for battle in their crocheted thongs and pasties and fully armed with stalks of wilted celery. It is to cower in awe.

    Comment by Heliotrope — February 9, 2012 @ 2:13 pm - February 9, 2012

  78. Frankly, I don’t have much hope for having a serious discussion with people who think throwing glitter is the height of intellectual debate.

    Comment by V the K — February 9, 2012 @ 2:34 pm - February 9, 2012

  79. @ND30: Refuting your claims would give them the oxygen of legitimacy, which is something I refuse to do.

    @Heliotrope: I only just got here. Geez.

    Comment by Serenity — February 9, 2012 @ 4:15 pm - February 9, 2012

  80. Actually, Pomposity, refuting claims renders them null.

    Your Achilles heel is the fact that you support and endorse rape, theft, murder, and even child molestation when gays and lesbians are doing it.

    You are mentally incapable of holding to a principle other than rationalization of any behavior based on sexual orientation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 9, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - February 9, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.277 Powered by Wordpress