Hugh Hewitt asked Ted Cruz the most important question to the American news media. Not, how would you handle the $20 Trillion dollars in debt Obama is leaving? Not, how would you handle the nuclear-armed Iran Obama is leaving? Not, how would you deal with the chaos in the Middle East Obama is leaving? Not, how would you restore the devastated economy Obama is leaving? Or, how would you restore the rule of law after Obama’s lawless regime?
No, Hugh Hewitt asked the really important question. “Would you attend a gay wedding?” And this is the meat of his answer.
Well, I will tell you, I haven’t faced that circumstance. I have not had a loved one go to a, have a gay wedding.
I’m a Constitutionalist. And under the Constitution, from the beginning of this country, marriage has been a question for the states. It has been a question for elected legislatures in each of the 50 states. And what we’ve seen in recent years from the left is the federal government and unelected federal judges imposing their own policy preferences to tear down the marriage laws of the states.”
And so if someone is running for public office, it is perfectly legitimate to ask them their views on whether they’re willing to defend the Constitution, which leaves marriage to the states, or whether they want to impose their own extreme policy views like so many on the left are doing, like Barack Obama does, like Hillary Clinton does. That’s what we would be doing.
People sexing dolphins? Why not?
A man who had sex with a performing dolphin at an amusement park in the 1970s has claimed the encounter took place because the animal seduced him.
Malcolm Brenner, 63, claims that he fell for Dolly, a bottlenose dolphin who lived at the now-defunct Floridaland theme park in Sarasota, after her amorous advances.
Brenner told the story of their year-long affair relationship again in Dolphin Love, a new film which premiered last week at the Slamdance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
Slamdance, which takes place at the same time as the more famous Sundance film festival, is seen as its edgier alternative and hosts more niche films.
Question: Is it really enough to just tolerate people having sex with animals, or to really be inclusive, do we need to support full inter-species marriage rights? Because, you know, if somewhere a teenager gets caught getting intimate with a sheep or a calf or something, and then they commit suicide because of society’s intolerance… then isn’t their blood on the hands of everyone who opposes inter-species marriage?
In New York, an eighteen year old woman is planning on getting married to her biological father, who is also the man she lost her virginity to.
We stopped and said that we didn’t know what was going on but admitted that we had strong feelings for each other. We discussed whether it was wrong and then we kissed. And then we made out, and then we made love for the first time. That was when I lost my virginity.
I seem to recall gay marriage activists claiming that the idea that something like this would happen was ludicrous right-wing scaremongering.
Now that it’s actually happening, they’ll shrug it off as “no big deal.”
Indiana has become the latest state to produce legislation protecting Christian bakers, photographers, florists and others with legitimate moral objections from being forced to participate in gay marriages. Sadly, the Gay Progressive Left (Wedding Cake Fascists) have forced this legislation to become necessary because of gay couples who decided their “Special Day” just wasn’t complete unless they could force unsupportive Christians (but curiously, never Mohammedans) to participate.
The Progressive Fascist Left is claiming that this type of legislation will lead to firemen and EMT’s refusing to provide treatment to gay people, (speaking as the father of an EMT, this is boolsheet). But then, these are the same people who swore that Christians would not be forced to participate in gay weddings, so why should we believe a single damn world that comes out of their lying pie-holes?’
Democrats opposed to the bill claim that legislators should focus on more important things, like condemning the Washington Redskins as racist.
Some of us have been intellectually honest and consistent in our opposition to the usurpation of power by the president and the loss of individual liberty. But as [Weird Dave] at AoS HQ points out. if you were okay with gay marriage being imposed by judicial fiat, you have forfeited your right to complain about Amnesty imposed by Executive fiat.
When you bitched and ranted about presidential usurpation of legislative prerogatives, however, I find it hard to take you seriously. It’s not that you’re wrong, gods no, it’s just that I remember you crowing about judicial usurpation of legislative authority on the issue of gay marriage. “We’ve got 35 states now!” you said triumphantly a few weeks back when the latest ruling was issued.
It’s all about the loss of liberty; which a lot of people are okay with so long as the Oligarchy is imposing those things that they want to see imposed. The bad news is, once you have summoned this demon, you won’t be able to control it.
If blind pursuit of short term goals achieves them at the cost of destroying the larger societal structure, and we fall into totalitarianism, what then? Can you name one totalitarian regime in history that has been kind to minorities or homosexuals? I can’t think of any. Can you?
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana Tennessee, and Kentucky… embracing the radical, extremist view that the people and their democratically-elected legislators have the right to define social institutions such as marriage.
Yesterday, a three judge panel upheld same sex marriage bans in four states. The judges writing for the majority banked their opinion not on the merits of same sex marriage, but whether or not the decision to allow same sex marriage should be left to the states and the people, or to judges applying the Constitution generally.
It now goes to the Supreme Court (most likely), where the persistence of liberty will depend on … how much John Roberts wants to be loved by the NY Times editorial page.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is endorsing far left Democrat Scott Peters over gay center-left Republican Carl deMaio, because Gay Marriage.
NOM, the Family Research Council (FRC) and CITIZENLink had released a letter that put Republican leadership on notice of their “active opposition” to DeMaio, as well as two other candidates up for election in 2014. However, the first letter stopped short of supporting Peters. The new letter echoes calls from some local Tea Party and conservative leaders to support Peters.
If this were, as NOM is portraying it, a stand on principle, then simply withholding support from deMaio would make sense. Actively supporting his opponent – a left-wing Democrat whose positions are very far out of NOM’s swim lane – is not a stand on principle.
My guess is the tactical reasoning behind this is to warn other Republicans not to jump on the gay marriage bandwagon. NOM can’t accept that – much as it may suck, the battle to preserve traditional marriage is lost. Traditional marriage has been slipping away since 1969 when Ronald Reagan signed California’s “No Fault” divorce law and began the transformation of marriage from a committed Covenant to a non-binding legal contract to stay together for a while and get some bennies. Gay marriage is one of the last nails in that coffin, but it is not the coffin traditional marriage is being buried in. That casket was built by heterosexuals over a period of decades.
On a related note, a court in the state of New York legalized Uncle-Niece/Aunt-Nephew/Uncle-Nephew/Aunt-Niece incest this week; apparently because Uncle-Niece arrangements are common among immigrants, and we are obligated to respect other cultures more than they are obligated to respect our laws.
HT: Peter H.
After the gay fascist left used the power of the state to destroy a Christian Bakery for the unforgivable offense of hurting a lesbian couple’s feelings, another gay person is trying to set things right, or at least, less wrong.
Matt Stolhandske, a board member of Evangelicals for Marriage Equality, a coalition of Christians who support same-sex marriage, recently launched an online campaign to raise money for the Klein family, despite his opposition to their views.
Stolhandske said he’s planning to send whatever money he raises in a crowdfunding campaign to the bakers in an effort to keep them from going bankrupt and to show them good faith and love.
Nice gesture, but, his motivations seem to be a bit mixed. Instead of a gesture of charity, he seems to be treating it as an opportunity to lecture the bakers on how wrong they are.
He said he’s also hoping his gesture will encourage others like the Klein family to “stop using the name of Jesus to explain to the LGBT community why we don’t deserve access to the civil rights afforded to heterosexuals through the legal institution of marriage.”
“I can’t understand why Klein or any other Christians twist the words of Jesus Christ to justify this behavior. To me, it’s a deeply harmful and embarrassing bastardization of our faith.”
Like Jesus said (not) to Mary Magdalene, “I’m gonna pay to bail you out to prove how awesome I am, but you’re still a filthy whore.”
Hat Tip: The Real GayPatriot (who may not entirely agree with my take).
A pair of ministers in Coeur d’Alene Idaho have been ordered by the Government to perform same-sex weddings, under threat of jail.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Something else the left lied about.
Will Churches Be Forced To Conduct Gay Weddings? Not a chance. That’s just the scare tactic conservative groups use to frighten voters.
The Human Rights Commission of Lexington KY justifies the gay fascist bullying campaign against Christian businesses who don’t wish to participate in gay weddings and other events by saying Christians should only be allowed to practice religion within their homes and churches.
The Human Rights Commission in Lexington, Kentucky has a chilling message for Christian business owners who refuse service to LGBT organizations: leave your religion at home.
“It would be safe to do so, yes,” Executive Director Raymond Sexton told me. “Or in this case you can find yourself two years down the road and you’re still involved in a legal battle because you did not do so.”
Under Obama, the First Amendment has been amended by an activist judiciary. Anyone who opens a business forfeits his Constitutional rights, and the right to the free exercise of religion is conditioned upon no special LGBTQWRXYZ snowflakes get their feelings hurt.
Lawyers for a privately owned Christian business who are appealing a fine assessed by the People’s Republic of New York for not allowing their private residence to be used for a lesbian wedding ceremony make it crystal clear what the issue is and what is at stake.
“The commission demonstrated stunning disregard for the Giffords’ First Amendment rights, which were never considered at the hearing,” James Trainor, an allied attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement. “The commissioner’s order in essence gives an ultimatum: host same-sex marriage ceremonies or none at all.”
So, on the one side… Constitutional Rights to Free Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion; the basic human rights our country was founded upon.
On the other side, the hurt feelings of special lesbian snowflakes.
“No one should have the happiest time of their life marred by discrimination,” McCarthy, who was represented alongside her wife by the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement, according to the New York Law Journal. “We hope this decision will protect all New Yorkers from having to go through the hurt that we experienced.”
To the left, the hurt feelings of special snowflakes trump everyone else’s Constitutional Rights.
A lesbian judge in Dallas id refusing to perform marriages for heterosexual people because it violates her belief system.
“I don’t perform marriage ceremonies because we are in a state that does not have marriage equality, and until it does, I am not going to partially apply the law to one group of people that doesn’t apply to another group of people.’
And, strangely enough, groups are not organizing to destroy her livelihood and threaten her family. And this is not a private business but a representative of the people’s Government using her position to enforce her bigoted views. Unlike Christian businesspeople, apparently, lesbian activist judges do not give up their First Amendment rights because of their choice of profession.
Reader Steve has found a story that suggests criminal gangs have latched onto gay marriage as a way of getting around immigration laws.
Criminal gangs were offering to arrange sham gay weddings for people wanting to bypass immigration controls within weeks of same sex marriages being made legal in March, a report said.
An investigation by the BBC programme Inside Out discovered that one gang organises sham gay marriages for a £10,000 fee.
Peter and Ricardo, the gang’s leaders, told undercover reporters they had “fixed” weddings “lots of times”.
They offered two potential fake Romanian brides to the reporter, both of whom explicitly stated they were not lesbians but were willing to pretend to be gay and marry anyone for cash.
Gee gosh, it’s almost like they are treating marriage as nothing more than a way of having legal legitimacy so as to access social benefits. Where did they ever get the idea that *that* is what marriage is all about?
Ricardo said he had never had any problems with the police or immigration officers.
He said: “You say ‘I am gay’. No more questions for you. Easy for gay.”
Authorities reluctant to enforce the law because of political correctness? Where have we heard that before?
I wonder if the gangs file lawsuits against caterers who don’t want to participate in the ceremonies.
So, this creep has been molesting this kid and tried to argue that it was all okay because they were gay-married. Not even a lefty, Obama-appointed NYC judge was buying that argument …
A convicted pedophile facing trial for molesting a 15-year-old boy can’t claim at his trial that he and the victim were married under Jewish law, a Brooklyn judge ruled Friday…
“It was a de facto marriage,” Goodman said in Brooklyn Federal Court. “If you go into a room where you’re secluded and two people are witnesses, in essence, you’re married.” …
Goodman was previously convicted in state court of molesting the victim and his younger brother starting when they were 12 and 13. But a judge sentenced him to only two years in prison as part of a plea deal that was vigorously opposed by the Brooklyn district attorney’s office. At the state sentencing, Goodman professed his love for the boy whom he had molested on more than 100 occasions.
Hey, “Love is Love,” right?
Hat Tip: Steve
Reader Steve passes on this totally awesome story about gay activists in New Zealand clutching their pearls and breaking out the fainting couches because two guys are getting married.
See, the activists are all upset because the two guys are straight and are only doing it to win a radio contest. And that’s wrong, according to the same gay leftists who argued that Britney Spears’s 72-hour marriage meant that marriage had become so meaningless that of course gays had the right to marry.
And… of course… teh ghey activists suggested that letting these two straight guys get married might lead to… wait for it… teen ghey suicides!
The co-chairman of a local group called LegaliseLove ironically echoed the words of groups who originally opposed same-sex marriage when he said the competition “attacked the legitimacy of gay marriage”. Despite that, he took a more philosophical view on the long term implications, saying: “Maybe on the day that statistics around mental health for LGBTI (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex) people are better, when high schools are safe places for LGBTI youth, we can look back on all this and laugh”.
Please, gay left, you’ve already spent that nickel. Find a new canard.
The judge in this case applied the “what is best for children and society” standard instead of the usual “gay people’s feelings and access to benefits” standard and came to a different conclusion than other courts. (Via Legal Insurrection)
“Defendants rejoin that the laws serve a central state interest of linking children to an intact family formed by their biological parents. Of even more consequence, in this Court’s judgment, defendants assert a legitimate state interest in safeguarding that fundamental social change, in this instance, is better cultivated through democratic consensus. This Court agrees.”
Of course, the Gay Activist Left will summarize this analysis as “Redneck Judge hates gay people.”
Once again giving lie to gay activists’ claims that those with religious objections to gay marriage would not be forced to violate their beliefs, a family farm in New York state has been fined $13,000 for declining to host a wedding for a politically active lesbian couple.
Owners of a family farm in Schaghticoke, New York, are being fined $13,000 for refusing to allow a gay wedding ceremony to take place on their property in 2012, just one year after the state legalized same-sex nuptials.
Cynthia and Robert Gifford, owners of Liberty Ridge Farm, a family-friendly farm and special events venue, told Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple from Newark, New Jersey, that they were welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual wedding ceremony, according to Religion News Service.
Liberty is dead.
Seems a couple of lesbians got their feelers hurt because a maker of wedding dresses declined to make dresses for them. Rather than do what sane and reasonable people would do (i.e. take their business somewhere where their money was welcome), they decided to attack and destroy the dressmaker for refusing to celebrate their lifestyle; because it has now become the social entitlement of all gay people to have their lifestyles and relationships praised and celebrated by everyone, with severe punishments for those who decline to cheer or even fail to clap loudly enough.
And in Florida, a clergyman is under attack by the Human Rights Campaign (it must be fundraising time again) for refusing to preside at the funeral of a gay man, which he says would be at odds with his religious beliefs. But, of course, gay people’s self-esteem and hurt feelings must trump anyone’s spiritual beliefs, right?
In the Conservatarian view, everyone should have the right to shop wherever they want. BUT, shopkeepers (business owners) should have an equal right to choose not to do business with those they don’t want to do business with. Some customers will be disappointed, but that situation is preferable to tyranny; and there will always be other businesses for them to patronize.
The liberal/left/progressive view is this: “You will do what we tell you to do or we will use the power of the State to ruin your business and destroy you personally.”
I strongly feel the clergyman (if the story is accurate and there’s no guarantee it is) is wrong to refuse to perform the service, and I would think it would go against whatever vows or covenants he may have made. But as an individual, I respect his right to refuse to be in servitude to someone else against his will. Because I love freedom that much.
Hat Tip: Steve on the Bridezilla Lesbians
The Obama State Department recently honored Masha Gessen, a lesbian activist who had this to say on the topic of gay marriage:
I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.