In the weeks before the election, I noticed a growing number of my fellow citizens wearing Obama’s face on their t-shirts, usually in the spirit of socialist realism art. There’s not a politician alive who I admire enough to the point of worshipful adoration that I’d sport his likeness on my clothing or plaster it all over the wordsmobile (I do, however, wear my FA t-shirts with pride and enthusiastically tell people it’s a right-wing website when asked).

The only pro-McCain t-shirt I have seen in person was worn by a lone demonstrator in front of the house where an effigy of Sarah Palin was hung, supposedly in the spirit of Halloween. And even his didn’t sport McCain’s face on it.

I know that even in blue state California, here in the Los Angeles area, there were more than just a handful of McCain-Palin supporters. Yard signs and bumperstickers were more common; just not the t-shirts. And I’m sure a big part of that has to do with the intimidation factor.

There seem to be more loud activists on the left than on the right. Conservatives seem to not want to make a nuisance of themselves; but many liberals have no problem wearing their politics on their sleeves, on their t-shirts, on their cars. It’s apparently an automatic given that the whole world hates Bush; that’s why, in open public and broad daylight, they can say something derogatory about President Bush and feel safe in not getting called on it. Even amongst strangers.

The sad fact is, liberals, through the education system and through media and Hollywood pop culture, have been “allowed” to define and characterize conservatism. The Republican Party has been branded as the party of the rich; warmongers and war profiteers; racists and bigots. If you don’t believe in the alarmism of global warming, you are a “denier” and don’t care about the planet; if you believe in closing the borders, assimilation, and controlling immigration, then you’re against diversity and appreciation for the beauty of other cultures as well as anti-Mexican. And on and on, it goes…

I did not see one- NOT ONE!- “yes” on Prop 8 sign or button or bumpersticker. But I saw the “No” on Prop 8 placards around, perhaps even more than Obama signs. I thought it might pass, given that California voters had already “been there, done that” with Prop 22. What truly makes me livid about the issue, is how liberal activists once again are the ones who get to frame the debate. They’ve painted it as “the next good fight” in the struggle for civil rights and equality; and anyone who stands in the way is a bigot and a hatemonger, with backward religious beliefs and narrow-minded intolerance. Frankly, as someone rather agnostic on the issue, the bigotry and intolerance that I see is all coming from the self-righteous activists who won’t take “yes” for an answer and allow the majority rule to decide.

If you walk around with a “Yes” on Prop 8 sign the stigma is that you are a homophobic bigot and religious nut. You are the radical. Not the other way around. It’s also amusingly not funny to me that these activist bullies targeted the Mormon Church but not black churches when 70% of blacks voted “yes” on Prop 8. Ah, but I digress….

My post is actually about 14 year-old Catherine Vogt and her t-shirt experiment.

As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we’re all united now, let’s consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching “inclusion,” and she decided to see how included she could be.

So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:

“McCain Girl.”

“I was just really curious how they’d react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters,” Catherine told us. “I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be.”

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain’s name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

“One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed,” Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

But students weren’t the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.

“In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain,” Catherine said.

If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.

“Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said,” Catherine said.

How often do you suppose this happens in the classroom? Often, I believe. I work with a lot of kids and it sounds like liberal indoctrination is all too common. Outing oneself as belonging to a conservative Republican family, and the child is subjected to ridicule from the herd mentality of children who have been told Democrats are “the good guys” and Republicans are basically “evil and selfish”.

Scott’s own daughter experienced abuse by Obama bullies.

One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.

“He said, ‘You should be crucifixed.’ It was kind of funny because, I was like, don’t you mean ‘crucified?’ ” Catherine said.

Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be “burned with her shirt on” for “being a filthy-rich Republican.”

Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.

I’ve heard some deranged liberals accuse McCain of being a racist. Absolutely laughable, given one of the most under-reported items regarding Senator McCain is that he and Cindy have a Bangladesh daughter, Bridget, adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage. McCain did not politicize the touching story of how this daughter came into their lives, nor make an issue of his two sons currently serving.

And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn’t want to jeopardize her experiment.

“I couldn’t show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing,” she said.

Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, “I really like your shirt.”

Whispered “out of earshot”…..

It’s time for conservatives to be more “activist” and to start fighting back more vocally and vociferously against the misperceptions and decades of slander against the Republican Party and conservative ideology. More importantly, we need to stem the tide of liberal indoctrination in our schools, when we turn on the tv, when we open up the newspaper, when we go out to see movies. If we don’t we will lose the culture war and we will lose the half of America that we believe represents the best part of America.

Hat tip: American Power for the story of Catherine Vogt.

Here’s the follow-up story.

Republican supporter Brian Hagmeier listens as Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks during a campaign stop in Burlington, December 29, 2007.
REUTERS/Keith Bedford

  • Share/Bookmark
Print This Post Print This Post
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 16th, 2008 at 3:44 pm and is filed under ACLU, Academic Intolerance, American Exceptionalism, Barack Obama, Culture, Education, John McCain, Moonbats, Personal, Politics, Racism, Sarah Palin, Social Studies, msm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Trackbacks

  1. The Intolerance of Liberal Activists and a T-Shirt Experiment
  2. Intolerant Democrats « Colbert U R Dead 2 Me
  3. Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Liberal McCarthy Era Begins With Prop 8
  4. The Baltimore Reporter
  5. Democrats Livid Over ‘Manufactured Outrage’; Those Evil Republicans Are Stealing OUR Tactic « Start Thinking Right

68 comments so far

Wordsmith
 1Reply to this comment  

The follow up is interesting, too:

One student whispered—perhaps like Winston Smith in “1984″—”I really like your shirt.” But she said it quietly so no one else would hear and denounce her.

And when Catherine wore the Obama shirt? Her brains grew back and she was smart again and welcomed into polite society.

Since many liberal journalists live in Oak Park, I expect to receive many snarky reviews. My crime? I dared to illustrate, through the actions of a brave 8th-grade girl, that even high-minded liberal communities can be intolerant, no matter how many times parents gush on about “diversity” at their cocktail parties.

So much for the audacity of hope.

But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well.

All such outrage is predictable. Whether red or blue or right or left, many adults don’t get it. But Catherine Vogt sure gets it: Children learn their politics from their parents.

A kid doesn’t learn to love Democrats or hate Republicans or vice versa by reading editorials. You can’t blame this one on bloggers or “Grand Theft Auto.” You can’t even blame Fitty Cent or however he incorrectly spells his own stage name.

Many parents in Oak Park and elsewhere want their kids to figure out things for themselves.

Problem here is, the liberal message is more “in your face” prevalent in much of our society, today. Turn on the tv, go to the movies, go sit in a classroom and open up your Howard Zinn textbook.

Others only want a mirror for their own tribalism. Parents, Catherine told me, “are actually a pretty big influence on kids. They take a lot of what’s home to school.”

At school Thursday in Ms. Cassin-Pountney’s class, they discussed Catherine’s experiment and my column.

“The students were mostly shocked because when they read it they kind of figured it out. They were like, ‘Oh, I actually said that thing to her and now—I’m not mentioned—but I’m actually in the paper for saying something mean?’ ”

She said her classmates tried to determine whether she cracked and gave up their names to me, but because she’s not a Chicago machine politician under federal indictment, she didn’t have to name names.

“They were all like, ‘So who did you mention and what did you say?’ But I didn’t give out any names,” she said.

There were some rough patches on Thursday. The phone rang off the hook at home. She had her big tests and that tryout. And her parents—liberal Democratic mom and conservative Republican dad—had to run down to school to stave off an impromptu imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.

“Some parents were upset that one teacher remarked about her shirt. And other parents were upset that the experiment was conducted in the first place, and didn’t go through ‘proper channels,’ ” said Catherine’s mom, Pamela Webster.

“So we rushed down to school to say we were backing the principal and all the teachers and not to make a big thing of it,” she said. “It was just crazy. There was no crime committed here.”

Not even a thought crime?

“No,” she said. “We support the principal and the school. Let this be a way for students and teachers to discuss the issue. That’s what we want in our home, not indoctrination but discussion.”

Catherine still won’t say whether she’s a Democrat or a Republican.

“I still have four years to pick a guy or a woman,” she said of the presidential election in 2012, which will be her first. “I’ve still got four more years. Then I can decide.”

Catherine says she doesn’t want to become a lawyer, but perhaps a surgeon. Either way, this week, she was a great teacher.

Thank you, Catherine.

November 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
the struggler
 2Reply to this comment  

Do you have a return policy on the Flopping Aces Thong?Mine has been riding up on me.

November 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Wordsmith
 3Reply to this comment  

Try wearing it backwards. Problem solved.

November 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
luva the scissors
 4Reply to this comment  

i was told to burn in hell for supporting mccain, i live in a rural pretty conservative area too. i was told that i would get what was coming to “people like you”, and i was curious as to what that was. maybe i get into heaven faster than the obama freaks, whatcha think? i saw and heard so much intolerance that i was sickened by it. so much for enlightenment, they really mean, just like us. poor child to have heard the things she did, i hope that cahnged the lib parents mind about their beliefs.

November 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
 5Reply to this comment  

But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction.

He says this as though it’s fact. And he knows this… how…?

Ugh!

November 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Richard
 6Reply to this comment  

I blame the PUBLIC (socialist) school system in America, which Obama created in 2008.

November 16th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
scriptamanent
 7Reply to this comment  

I work in a public High School in LA. 85% of the students are African-American. Most teachers supported Obama in my school. Sometimes they asked me about my political position: “I cannot vote, but if I could, I would never vote for Obama”. The reaction was always the same: my answer was unexpected, as if it was inconceivable.
Well, I had two students that came to class one day with a T-Shirt of McCain-Palin. They are 16 years old and they have guts! 38 students in the class, most of them African-American, most of them Obama supporters, and they came to school with their white t-shirts supporting McCain & Palin.
One of them joined a group of Obama supporters that were protesting in the streets, and got a picture taken with his arm over one Obama supporter. The guy, an African-American, was holding a sign that read: “Like Bush’s economy? Hire McCain”. And he appears smiling, with his arm over this guy’s shoulder, with his McCain & Palin t-shirt. Now that one is his picture in his Facebook profile.
These boys are amazing! America need many of those.

November 16th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Rocky_B
 8Reply to this comment  

SkyePuppy:
Yeah I flashed on the irony of that statement as well. In a story where Kass presents how intolerant and assumptive the Obama supporters were, he then drops to that same level by assuming that the opposite, yet same would occur had the experiment been conducted in a “Red” state with absolutely no basis for his assumption.

Kass’ states he accepts student were conditioned by their parents, yet he fails to note the conditioning within our school system at large, as pointed out by Wordsmith with the link to the FA “election-day-in-an-asheville-nc-classroom” thread. NC was a typical Red state prior to this election. The media and celebrities also bear a lot of responsibility in attempting to use their positions to condition and indoctrinate viewers through propaganda to embrace their philosophies and to be intolerant to ideologies of Conservatives, Judeau-Christianity, patriotism/national pride, military support, and morality in general.

November 17th, 2008 at 3:59 am
 9Reply to this comment  

Oh please, lol.

I live in one of the most liberal cities on earth, and get plenty of laughs when I wear my “Sarah Palin’s Intern” T-shirt (I’m female, so it probably gets twice the laughs a guy would, given that conservatives are such rampant, public gay-haters.)

Conservatives are perps, not victims. They shouldn’t act like they are oppressed because of reactions to t-shirts.

November 17th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Hard Right
 10Reply to this comment  

#8, suuuure you do. Way to demonstrate liberal “tolerance” hypocrite.

November 17th, 2008 at 5:53 am
 11Reply to this comment  

From the follow up link:

But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction. And certainly some Republican children would outrage their grammar/lit teachers by wanting her crucifixed as well

I can’t speak for what school children today would do, but I can tell you that I never saw anyone behave that way towards Democrat kids when I was in school. But then, politics wasn’t that big a part of school life. We had mock elections in High School and did reports on campaigns, including debates but they were never nasty or ugly in the way this story describes on either side.

When I went to college the only overt comment directed at Republicans was made in my presence (yes, they knew who I was back then. I was the GOP leader on campus) by a Michael Moore type, he was that fat, political science professor who said to another student loud enough for me to hear “all Republicans are buffoons.”

P.S Over here in South Carolina, conservatives outnumber liberals and yet the libs still drive around with their cars plastered with idiot slogans and Obama stickers. No one bothers them at all. But people with McCain stickers have made reports of their cars getting keyed in parking lots.

November 17th, 2008 at 7:43 am
sillyaud
 12Reply to this comment  

@OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin:

I guess I’m a little confused by your reaction here. You think conservatives are perpetrators of what? Crimes?

Are you laughing at the story itself? The one John Kass wrote on young Catherine? Or are you laughing at the reactions and comments?

Maybe you see what you want to see when you wear that shirt or maybe you are lucky in not experiencing so many of the things that others have. I have been attacked verbally when I speak out about my conservative beliefs. I live in the reddest county in the country and still watch what I say around people I dont know. I have lost friends due to this election because we couldnt have real conversations. It was attack talk and I was the idiot and close minded.

So once again, whats so funny and what are conservatives accused of being perpetrators of?

November 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
 13Reply to this comment  

Wordsmith, I really do agree with a lot of what you say here. There is really are many misconceptions the left have about the right, as you state, and we’d really solve a lot of problems if we just talked and got to know each other. And while I did wear my Obama t-shirt in support of my candidate, I could never wear his any other person’s face on my attire (well, except for Batman…)

Where I do disagree with you is on your position regarding Proposition 8. Why don’t we vote on people’s right to own guns? Or write dissent opinions on government policies? Because they are rights already protected by the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Furthermore, the California Supreme Court already ruled that this applied to couples wishing to be binded in marriage, regardless of gender. So why was this even put to a vote? It is my prediction that this will return to the courts, where the previous ruling will be upheld, and ultimately go the same route that interracial marriage did not too long ago.

As for the Mormon church, the argument is not against their religious freedom or free speech, it’s that they put their money towards a political cause, and should have their tax-exempt status removed. Personally, I think that this is an overall issue that needs to be looked at, as it is not unique to this church or this issue.

The subject of Homosexuality is a tough one, tied to people’s understanding, emotions, and religious beliefs. However, I don’t think that all those who oppose gay marriage see themselves as intolerant or homophobic, but many rather support civil unions. I think this will all work itself in time.

For instance, scriptamanent’s wonderful post shows that it’s the younger generation who are becoming more and more tolerant in every respect. So, we’re definitely headed in the right direction!

November 17th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Wordsmith
 14Reply to this comment  

@Cary:

Where I do disagree with you is on your position regarding Proposition 8. Why don’t we vote on people’s right to own guns? Or write dissent opinions on government policies? Because they are rights already protected by the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

They have the same rights that I do: I can marry one woman, and so can they. Women can marry one man. Equal rights. :)

Furthermore, the California Supreme Court already ruled that this applied to couples wishing to be binded in marriage, regardless of gender.

Isn’t this an example of activist judges legislating? By stretching their interpretation to redefine marriage to mean something other than what it is?

Regardless of gender? Do we stop there? What about regardless of species? What if someone wants to marry her brother? Discrimination against age?

California’s voted twice on this now. Do we do this every few years, until liberal judges and loud activists have their way, despite how the majority feel? Until liberal indoctrination from Hollywood and the NEA finally produces enough “progressive” voters?

The vote percentage is about the same as that of the presidential election. No crybabies over here.

So why was this even put to a vote? It is my prediction that this will return to the courts, where the previous ruling will be upheld, and ultimately go the same route that interracial marriage did not too long ago.

This is where I disagree. I just don’t see how this is a civil rights issue. Even some blacks who are against gay marriage, take offense to the comparison.

Genetically, there is little difference between a black, an Asian, a Latino, a Caucasian. There’s a world of biological differences between men and women.

As for the Mormon church, the argument is not against their religious freedom or free speech, it’s that they put their money towards a political cause, and should have their tax-exempt status removed. Personally, I think that this is an overall issue that needs to be looked at, as it is not unique to this church or this issue.

Point taken and noted.

I listened to one radio caller describe how he donated as a private citizen, his information was splashed on the Huffington Post, and now his business is being harrassed by callers and picketers.

I think that’s taking it to an extreme of political intimidation.

The subject of Homosexuality is a tough one, tied to people’s understanding, emotions, and religious beliefs. However, I don’t think that all those who oppose gay marriage see themselves as intolerant or homophobic, but many rather support civil unions. I think this will all work itself in time.

I think what would be helpful to the cause of those who are for gay marriage, is to at least respect the position of some who oppose them and seek to understand where and why they are opposed, rather than simplifying and caricaturizing the opposition as mere homophobia and bigotry.

I think Elton John has his head “screwed on straight“:

In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, “We’re not married. Let’s get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.”

John and Furnish, and their two cocker spaniels, Marilyn and Arthur, were in town for Tuesday’s annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,” John says. “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.

“You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.

I think the argument shouldn’t be framed that there is an attempt to “ban gay marriage” but an attempt to protect the traditional definition of marriage as being that of one man and one woman. At least, that’s the conservative perspective.

For instance, scriptamanent’s wonderful post shows that it’s the younger generation who are becoming more and more tolerant in every respect. So, we’re definitely headed in the right direction!

Which is why I’m actually rather agnostic (but sympathetic to the conservative view) on this. But “we’re definitely headed in the right direction?” I don’t see scritamanent or my views as evidence of this. It could just be latent liberal indoctrination I’ve been hammered with in my college years and MTV-viewing. How do you know it’s progression in the right direction and not ultimately harmful to the fabric of society and family?

In the end, whether or not we call it “civil union” or “marriage”, is it really that big of a deal, one way or the other? These things only are as important as the weight we give them.

November 17th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Wordsmith
 15Reply to this comment  

Michael Medved:

First, Proposition 8 “outlawed” nothing — it “banned” nothing. The Proposition, echoing a prior decision of the voters of the state in Proposition 22 eight years ago, added 14 simple, unequivocal words to the state Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

The “previously legal same sex ceremonies” (authorized by four justices of the state supreme court in a divided decision a mere five months ago) have not been “outlawed.” Contrary to the tenor of the report, no jack-booted state troopers will come crashing down doors to bust-up the tender and loving commitment ceremonies of same sex couples. Even before the court decision, civil unions were available with identical rights to marriage, and those civil unions are still available after Proposition 8. The voters cast their ballots to eliminate confusion in the Constitution (confusion introduced by meddling jurists), not to interfere with private behavior of any kind. It’s absurd and dishonest to suggest that the proposition “outlawed” anyone’s relationship or expressions of love.

Moreover, the Times report that California voters “narrowly passed” the ballot measure also happens to be false. The margin of victory for Proposition 8 amounted to 511,000 votes – hardly a squeaker. In fact, the proposition got 52.2% of the statewide vote — very similar Barack Obama’s 52.7% of the national vote.

Would anyone claim that Obama “narrowly defeated” McCain? The New York Times never used such language – despite the striking resemblance between Obama’s winning coalition and the nature of the vote that passed Proposition 8.

Obama lost white voters decisively (by more than 12% to John McCain) but made up for that loss with a strong showing in the Hispanic community and overwhelming support (94%) from his fellow African-Americans.

Similarly, Prop 8 lost (by a small margin) among white voters, while earning a majority of Hispanic support and drawing overwhelming backing (70%) from African-Americans.

The frequently repeated charge that the vote represents a triumph of bigotry amounts to one of the most insipid distortions in recent press history, fomenting rage in the gay community that will only serve to alienate activists even further from the voters in the American mainstream.

November 17th, 2008 at 11:33 am
voter
 16Reply to this comment  

@Wordsmith: I agree with you for the most part. I do not agree with gay marriage, but that is because of my faith. We are supposed to be a country that has freedom of religion. So how can I tell someone that they can’t get married, because of my faith, when they may not share in the same faith? And it is not a big deal to you, or me, but to the couple that love each other with every ounce of their being, and can’t get married, it means a whole hell of a lot.

Now that being said, I do not condone the gay life style, but then again, I will not judge and teach my children to not judge those who live that life style. I also find it hard to believe that God would not accept someone who loved them and accepted Jesus into their heart, as their Lord and Savior, because they are gay. I know the bible says it is an abomination on man. But Jesus died for our sins, ALL of them.

I think that what someone else does in the privacy of their home, and if it doesn’t affect my life, I don’t care what they do, they are not hurting anyone. This issue gives me a headache, because it is not so black and white, and I can see valid points on both sides.

November 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Wordsmith
 17Reply to this comment  

@voter:

I agree with you for the most part. I do not agree with gay marriage, but that is because of my faith. We are supposed to be a country that has freedom of religion.

Explain that distinction to the ACLU.

So how can I tell someone that they can’t get married, because of my faith, when they may not share in the same faith?

Easy: Regardless of where your beliefs come from, secular or religious in origin, they are beliefs.

Have I brought my religious beliefs into the equation? No. Yet I’ve been able to articulate a position on why the institution of marriage should not be redefined, since the voters of California have spoken…..twice.

Oh, yeah: btw, I’m not a religious conservative.

And it is not a big deal to you, or me, but to the couple that love each other with every ounce of their being, and can’t get married, it means a whole hell of a lot.

And they should have compassion, respect, and empathy, even in disagreement. Intimidation, tantrums, narcissistic demands don’t win any sympathies or win arguments, though.

I recall hearing from the left, such mantra as “let the people decide”, “let the people decide”. Well, the people decided. And still, they won’t take “no” for the answer. If they don’t want to accept the will of the majority in the society, then maybe it’s time to leave the society? You either work within it, or you don’t.

I think that what someone else does in the privacy of their home, and if it doesn’t affect my life, I don’t care what they do, they are not hurting anyone.

That’s not the issue. Many center-right conservatives don’t care what goes on behind closed doors; nor opposed to civil unions and the legal rights that come with that. What we don’t want to see happen is a whole institution redefined for the sake of the narcissistic attitudes of a few.

November 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
voter
 18Reply to this comment  

@Wordsmith: I’m just stating my beliefs in this. I think that for the most part, you and I see eye to eye on this issue. We both do not believe in gay marriage. But I can sympathize with those who are for gay marriage. I do believe that the right decision was made, we’ll see what happens in the next few years, when it comes up again.

November 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Wordsmith
 19Reply to this comment  

We both do not believe in gay marriage.

I’m sympathetic to the conservative view and I think since it was put up for a vote, the decision of the voters should stand.

But I still consider myself rather agnostic on this, although leaning over the right side of the fence. I could still be swayed to the left.

I think Elton John’s comment is a healthy one. He’s happy and those who believe in the institution of traditional marriage are happy.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Wordsmith
 20Reply to this comment  

I see Larry’s comment was extracted out, as well as my response, and his reader’s post, posted.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
 21Reply to this comment  

Erika (aka “voter”), you miss the point. The LGBT community is not fighting for equal rights and benefits, they are fighting the entire concept of “marriage” as it is government defined.

Frankly I, and most conservatives I know, don’t have a problem with same sex union benefits. However there are some things that do *not* need to happen to accomplish this. They do not need to reinvent the wheel to accomplish what they supposedly say they want.

1: Definition of marriage stays man-woman. Marriage is not a creation of government, but a union devised of religion. Govt got into the act for the financial aspect… shared assets, taxes, etc. Marriage should stay a product of religion, and govt should continue to do what they do for whatever. But marriage was, and is, a religious rite first and foremost. It should stay that way.

2: Civil unions: If they want the same govt benefits, then civil unions is the answer. However the problem is they don’t want civil unions. They want to call it “marriage”. If the LGBT community was merely after benefits, they would be conceding on this. They aren’t. And that’s because they want to change mindsets as to what is “marriage” in the norm. Retraining in schools, advertising, etal. You think the Muslim world doesn’t like us now? Wait until same sex marriage becomes legal…..

Again… see my #1. Marriage is for a man and woman, born of a religious rite. My suggestion to the LGBT? Take the civil union, or forever hold your piece.

3: Conservatism is alive and well, and aptly demonstrated this past election. They voted for a guy who lied thru his teeth and promised tax cuts (very conservative issue). They also voted enmasse for NO to same sex unions (another very conservative issue). Amazing, eh? And they say conservatism is dead. Nope….. it’s just being hijacked by very efficient liars.

And you voted for him.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
 22Reply to this comment  

Wordsmith, there was a lot I was prepared to respond to, but voter covered most of it. Only thing really left is this:

“Regardless of gender? Do we stop there? What about regardless of species? What if someone wants to marry her brother? Discrimination against age?”

When it comes to animals, incest, or pedophilia, these things differ from same sex mutual relationships in that they are almost always, if not absolutely always, indicative of some sort of abuse.

What encourages me is that we are even able to have this discussion. 20 years ago, it would be unheard of to even consider this. For a public servant to even mention anything that affected the gay community would have been political suicide. But your point is taken on my wording that “we are headed in in the right direction” – as right is subjective to one’s point of view. Therefore I will reword my phrase and say that I’m pleased that we are heading in the direction I prefer.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
 23Reply to this comment  

Mata,

Yes, the term “marriage” is born out of a religious definition. Yet, the Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Unitarian churches all approve and support same sex marriages. So, if it’s just a religious issue, perhaps we should just get the government out of the marriage business entirely and offer Civil Unions to everyone, gay and straight. Then the churches can bless those unions with the title of marriage to whomever they deem appropriate. I think that’s a fair option, albeit a much more difficult one to achieve.

I believe strongly in the power of language, which is why I think that it’s more than a semantical issue. If we pass a “separate but equal” clause, subsequent laws are opened to be passed which apply to one but not the other. Hardly equal.

There’s not much more I can say about this, only that I think it will indeed be worked out in time, so I’m not really too concerned.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
voter
 24Reply to this comment  

@MataHarley: Mata, I am not saying that I think that same sex marriage is the way to go. I am simply saying, I can understand the other side’s argument. I am kind of imagining myself in their shoes, I would want to have the right to be “married” to the person I so dearly love. But in my core I just can’t agree with the non natural union, on paper, as I’m sure most people feel the same way. Like I said this issue gives me a headache, because it has so many significant meanings, and the morality of it doesn’t sit well with me. I think of myself as someone who can relate to all walks of life, without judgement, and yet sometimes I have to put myself in check with this particular issue. I teach my children to not judge someone else’s life style, and yet at times I struggle with it. At the end of the day, my senses kick in, and I remind myself we have the freedom of choice and it is not my place to concern myself with how others live their lives. I’m just glad it’s not up to me to make the decision. I choose not to vote for that particular issue when I’ve seen it on the ballot.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
voter
 25Reply to this comment  

@Wordsmith: I agree, but mostly because Elton John and his partner, are happy with it. It’s a win win.

November 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
 26Reply to this comment  

Cary said:

Yes, the term “marriage” is born out of a religious definition. Yet, the Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Unitarian churches all approve and support same sex marriages. So, if it’s just a religious issue, perhaps we should just get the government out of the marriage business entirely and offer Civil Unions to everyone, gay and straight. Then the churches can bless those unions with the title of marriage to whomever they deem appropriate. I think that’s a fair option, albeit a much more difficult one to achieve.

Cary, tho you make a valid point, religions are a business as well as a faith. The right paperwork, and the govt recognizes you as a church. Where shall that end?

I’m not saying those you mentioned in your statement above are those fly by night financial enterprises, but the traditions of marriage still remain man-woman in the bond of marriage for any of those that still use the Bible as their guide for principles That these particular sects choose to morph their history to suit today’s mentality is not the issue for me. That is their choice. And were I a member of their congregation, I’d be history.

I, personally, will not alter my stance on this just to blend with today’s concept of sexual freedom. Marriage is, and will always remain, a union between a man and a woman. It is only by the two, combined, that a child is borne of natural (not petrie dish) conception… a natural order to procreation. Just as animals will not continue to exist without the natural order of procreation, neither will man. I do not want my granddaughter taught anything different.

If same sex unions needs to be “blessed” by govt in order to achieve their benefits, that is their choice. There is no reason to muddy the waters by the govt redefining what is not theirs to define. The meddling in the traditional rite of marriage is unconcionable. Civil unions… fine. Marriage? An insult to the rite…. and to it’s traditional history.

~~~

Erika, I understand we are actually on the same side of an issue here. But you said:

I am simply saying, I can understand the other side’s argument. I am kind of imagining myself in their shoes, I would want to have the right to be “married” to the person I so dearly love.

If I choose to be married… whether “in the eyes of God”, or perhaps just a vow spoken between myself and another on a remote beach somewhere… the vow and intent bind me in a way far more powerful than a govt contract. Marriage was not created to be a govt contract, but a very personal vow between a man and a woman before God… or the powers they believe exist.

So my question to you would be… why does the govt have to sanction it as “marriage” for your “right” to be recognized?

I cannot, and will not, put govt on a par with God – enabling them to define a religious (and intensely personal) rite on this issue. The govt does not grant us rights. They pre’exist and usurp govt power.

Again, you still miss the true agenda. This is not about govt benefits for the LGBT community. It is about reeducating the public as to what is “marriage” in order to tear down traditional rites. Otherwise, they’d go for the civil unions.

November 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
 27Reply to this comment  

Mata,

I would never ask you to compromise your opinions or your spiritual faith. Only to recognize that our laws are not based on the Christian Bible, but allow for different interpretations and adherence to such, as well as other Holy books and even the absence of religious beliefs. Your other questions have already been addressed in my previous comments. So I will likewise ask you how what any couple have between them affects what you have with your spouse or partner in any way. I hardly think that, in the context of your own spirituality, that God would look down on you differently in your own life because of whatever is happening around you.

November 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
voter
 28Reply to this comment  

@MataHarley: Yes, but what the gay community wants is to be recognized as a married couple. A badge of honor that comes with the commitment of marriage. Not to mention the legal rights, a surviving spouse would have a right to inherit. Or to be on one anothers health insurance, etc. All in addition to having a LEGAL ceremony before God. That’s what I see as the major issue with the governments involvement.

The question is… Should the government have so much say so into our lives, and the way we choose to live them?

November 17th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Craig
 29Reply to this comment  

What is it that the gays does not understand in the word “NO”? Is it the “N” or the “O”?

November 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
voter
 30Reply to this comment  

@MataHarley: This is off subject, but with your awesome powers :) as an author, can you please look on the rape mutilation murder post and do a check if Barbara, and Amy are the same people? They seem to be trying to prove a point using two names. When I changed my name, I did not hide it, nor did I try to make my point as one “personality” more valid, using another personality. I just simply had never been on a forum before, didn’t realize that I didn’t want my real name used.

November 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
voter
 31Reply to this comment  

Why is my comment 30 in moderation, for so long? Is it lost in limbo?

November 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
 32Reply to this comment  

Craig… good to see you’re still here.

Erika, I’ve told you twice, you even repeat it (in some odd form) and it still ends up in some mental void you possess. The LBGT community is *not* about the benefits with this marriage bit. They insist it must be called marriage… which you apparently recognize with your statement:

…what the gay community wants is to be recognized as a married couple. A badge of honor that comes with the commitment of marriage.

Now why do they want so badly to be “recognized” as a married couple if not to change societal behavior to accept this as the norm? And how do you think they will accomplish that societal behavioral change but to take this even more aggressively into the classroom?

Because… again… this is not about benefits. It’s about forcibly changing the American culture.

INRE the inheritance, this is easily accomplished via deed, and has been done for decades that I know of… most likely long before my time on this planet. You can leave your belongings to a dog via legal contract. You honestly think that a LGBT couple can’t figure out a way to legally share their assets?

You will find that states like Oregon and California have laws for domestic partners that already offer these benefits… including the hospital visits, etal. Yet that doesn’t deter their assault on the rite of marriage. They have not achieved their goal. And the US population is very conservative on this still… marriage is for a man and a woman. Civil unions are for same sex couples.

Now if they have any beef, it’s that civil unions are per state, and they are not recognized as they cross borders. Meaning if they have a civil union in a state with appropriate domestic partner laws, and relocate, they may have to accommodate with legal documents for their shared assets.

Then again, a concealed carry in Oregon isn’t recognized outside the state…. The difference between state and federal laws.

~~~

Cary, INRE your comment:

I would never ask you to compromise your opinions or your spiritual faith. Only to recognize that our laws are not based on the Christian Bible, but allow for different interpretations and adherence to such, as well as other Holy books and even the absence of religious beliefs. Your other questions have already been addressed in my previous comments.

First of all, I didn’t ask any questions. But thank you if you felt you answered them. This is not a new issue to me, and your arguments are as common as raindrops in Oregon. My bank of friends and acquaintances thruout my years has included diverse culture, as well as sexual preferences. I have no particular bias on a lifestyle choice for any individual other than myself.

But will I agree to reeducation of a culture to appease their desires? In a word, no.

You contradict yourself when you say our laws are not based on the Christian Bible and then insist that the govt involve itself with mandates on what is a ritual born of religion. Again, I say to you as I do to Erika… if benefits is the issue, make the benefits available. However the LGBT community refuses anything but “marriage”. I know their agenda. They begrudgingly accept a civil union, but only as the first step to making it full fledged “marriage”, as defined in the Christian religion, on the next step.

As for your comment:

So I will likewise ask you how what any couple have between them affects what you have with your spouse or partner in any way.

You ask this because you still refuse to accept the genuine agenda of altering perception of traditional family and marriage in this country. For a same sex couple… hang, a dog and a person – several people – why not?… to have legal benefits? I have no problems. But when you start educational agendas that now contradict the traditional family of a mom, dad and children they conceive, bear and raise being the norm, you most certainly “affect” my life, and that of my family and posterity.

A marriage between a man and a woman follows natural laws of conception and procreation. It is the way our world evolves and grows. Were any animal species of this inclination to any serious degree, it becomes extinct.

I can easily agree with the 50-60% of the population that feels civil unions gives same sex partners legal benefits that are enjoyed by married couples. But marriage and civil unions are not “equal” in the laws of nature… unless you think premature extinction from the lack of ability to conceive is “natural”. They should be equivalent in benefits, but in no way considered equal as a traditional family.

Come talk to me when your kids or grandkids come home and tell you what they’ve learned about the new “traditional” family in America… then ask yourself, did altering our culture from the traditional family concept affect your life?

November 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
voter
 33Reply to this comment  

@MataHarley: This isn’t a subject that I really care about to terribly much, but to the argument that they are trying to forcibly change the American culture. Only thing that comes to mind is, we forcibly changed American culture, with the civil war. That is the only way things get changed, is forcibly. Other wise everything remains status quo. Some agree with the change and some do not, same as in the past with other issues. We will find another issue that will challenge the status quo, and the cycle will repeat.

November 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
voter
 34Reply to this comment  

Also, since I am not gay, I don’t know exactly what they want. I can just speculate.

November 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
 35Reply to this comment  

“You contradict yourself when you say our laws are not based on the Christian Bible and then insist that the govt involve itself with mandates on what is a ritual born of religion.”

Actually, as you’ve read, I proposed eliminating government from this process all together.

As for my “common” arguments, I feel likewise about yours. But this is a new discussion, so I don’t know what you’ve heard before, and sound arguments remain sound.

As for children, I must ask another common question: What is your stance on infertile heterosexual couples or those who chose not to have children?

As far as my own kids… well, I don’t have any. As a struggling actor who has to be prepared for taking jobs out of town at a moment’s notice, or enduring long periods of time without work, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to rear a child alone. And with three support jobs, along with auditions and classes, I just don’t have time to even date anyone. This is why I particularly admire single moms and dads, I know I could never do it. But my sister does have children, and she has explained to her kids that sometimes men can love other men and women can love other women very much the same way that mom and dad love each other. This doesn’t change the definition of “traditional”, it just adds the word “alternative”. My nephew is now 16, displays a mature tolerance beyond his years, seems to have a different girlfriend every week, and always treats women with the highest respect. So, I hardly think that teaching him tolerance and diversity has tainted him in any way but positive.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
 36Reply to this comment  

Erika, when you “forcibly” change a religious rite, you also create unintended consequences and repercussions.

SueK put it very well on the other thread. Just what happens when the US govt declares same sex marriage as legal, and churches are forced to change their beliefs to perform this “legal” marriage?

What happens when a church going family, or even occasional… hang, even a never attending traditional family has a child that comes home and tells them that churches and God are bad because the govt says same sex marriage is as normal as apple pie, and the church believes that man and woman were made as companions to procreate and evolve the human race?

I’ve always been annoyed that govt dabbled in the marriage bit. I understand that it was to provide (or refuse) benefits because of an IRS filing status. But when the govt starts defining what is meant by a religious rite, we are all in deep do doo.

And know that you are aware that the talking points of the LGBT community may not be articulating what it is they “want” (badge of honor, hell…. LOL), you might start processing the issue a bit differently. Because I’m not sure your want your schools indoctrinating your kids to a new view of a traditional family. They are already in there in some ways…. but they are having to sneak in thru the back door to battle the irate parents on this.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
voter
 37Reply to this comment  

@MataHarley: I agree with you, you have made a good point, I do not want my children learning ANYTHING about the gay lifestyle, except for what I teach them. Just as I don’t want the schools teaching my children about political issues, I believe that is MY job. If they can’t teach the bible, and leave that up to the parents, they should not be able to teach about lifestyles, or anything else that does not have to do with the traditional subjects.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
 38Reply to this comment  

Cary #35… you took a huge leap there, guy. Who was talking about “tolerance”, as you put it? All children should be taught not to abhor someone who is different. That’s quite the left turn on your part. Feh to you.

I have lost most of my gay friends now to AIDS. Spending time with them in the hospital until they drew their last breath of air was heartbreaking. This is so not about “tolerance”.

This is talking about teaching children that same sex marriage is the traditional and natural order of life. If that were not true, the human race could procreate because we were unisex.

I’m happy your sister’s kids are “untainted”, as you say. But that’s rather presumptuous of you to assume that all parents want their children taught something that they, or their church, teaches otherwise. You and your sister do not speak for the nation.

Nor do I want to see churches that a great percentage of the US population frequents having to alter their doctrine, or their performed rites, at the risk of losing their non profit status because the govt dabbled in religious rites to appease a loud minority.

That you use the word “tainted” in this conversation shows you have a hard time conceiving of separate but equal vs A and B must be the same to make it right… ala “marriage”.

As for your “infertile” question… has no bearing on the unintended consequences of going this route via federal law. But since you ask, I have always believed adoption is fabulous.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
voter
 39Reply to this comment  

@Cary: That’s great that your sister can have that kind of relationship with her child, but it was HER decision. I think alot of parents choose to not go into detail about the subject, I know I do. It should be the parents decision when and how it is explained to them. My children have asked me questions, and I try my hardest to answer with as little info as possible, (I believe in keeping the innocence as long as possible, heck my 10 and 8 year old still believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny). But I also make sure they know not to judge ANYONE, for anything, including how they live their life, as well as their religion. My children are the ones who stick up for the Muslim kids in school when the others call the “terrorists”.

Being a parent is hard, even with a two parent household. There are so many things to factor in when dealing with these kinds of issues.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
 40Reply to this comment  

Mata,

I don’t know what “feh” means, so I’ll not respond to it.

Again, you bring up a point which I have already addressed in this thread. This time it’s my stance on “separate but equal”.

I agree that adoption is a great option. It gives children a loving home for those who cannot otherwise have them, and more adoptions could do well to dramatically lower the abortion rate. It’s a win- win.

I’m sorry you’ve lost so many friends to AIDS, I know what it’s like, having lost quite enough myself. Trust me, knowing that you worked in the entertainment industry, I am well aware that you’re not ignorant to the plight and contributions of those who identify themselves as homosexual. I’m also confident that you have first hand knowledge of the bond that gay couples can have towards each other, and the difficulty they endure at the hands of society. I’m sure that you loved every single one of them, and that your political stance is non reflective of that.

In the end, I think that a close examination of our views, as presented here, will show that we agree on much more than we disagree. As I said, it’s a topic that brings up a lot of emotion for both sides. So, I think we’ll just have to accept that where were at right now is good enough, for now.

Thanks for an open, honest, and intelligent discussion.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
 41Reply to this comment  

@voter: You sound like a great mom, and I mean that!

November 17th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
 42Reply to this comment  

You’re welcome for the open, honest discussion, Cary. Now can you alter your own opinion that those of us who favor civil unions and not same sex marriages are not “intolerant” bigots?

BTW, feh is a yiddish expression of disgust or “yuck”, so to speak.

November 17th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
voter
 43Reply to this comment  

@Cary: Well thank you very much. I wish you all the luck in your acting, and when you make it big, come back and let us know when to watch. :)

November 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
 44Reply to this comment  

Mata, I’m afraid you are mistaken as to my rhetoric. Perhaps I didn’t write it clearly enough, but I never stated that anyone here who disagrees me in this thread is a bigot. In fact, I wrote quite the contrary in comment #13 here. Bigotry is indeed prevalent in our society, but I’ve not seen it here. I DO NOT perceive those who favor Civil Unions to Marriage as bigots, and thought I was careful to say so. My apologies if that was somehow unclear.

November 17th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
 45Reply to this comment  

Thank you for the clarification, altho I see nowhere in your comment #13 that stated clearly that you did not judge those who did not support same sex marriage.

What you said was:

The subject of Homosexuality is a tough one, tied to people’s understanding, emotions, and religious beliefs. However, I don’t think that all those who oppose gay marriage see themselves as intolerant or homophobic, but many rather support civil unions. I think this will all work itself in time.

You were discussing the way we view ourselves, followed by this “will all work itself in time”. But I’ll take you at your word that this doesn’t mean you consider us uneducated bigots. LOL

Now, since you brought it up before, you really need a refresher course in civics, Cary.

Where I do disagree with you is on your position regarding Proposition 8. Why don’t we vote on people’s right to own guns? Or write dissent opinions on government policies? Because they are rights already protected by the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.

The LGBT community *has* equal protections for Constitutional rights. Same sex marriage – even hetro marriage – is not a “right”, it’s a “rite”. The govt has taken upon itself to recognize some forms of unions in order to dispense govt benefits.

Government benefits are also not “rights”.

But if same sex marriage is okay, why not polygamy? Beastiality? Pandora’s box of govt bennies….

Your base error is believing that a religious rite of marriage is a “right” controlled by the government. It is not. They only control the ensuing benefits. Do not confuse the two.

November 17th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
 46Reply to this comment  

Mata,

Now I can see why you confused my stance. I’ll try to improve my rhetoric in the future.

The 14th Amendment is commonly held to be an extension of the Constitution’s premise that all men are created equal (I take the word men to refer to “mankind” and thus includes women), and prohibits states from overriding its protections. Thus, I hold that equality in a civil contract, including in name, without gender based discrimination, is a “Right” – as opposed to a religious “Rite”.

Now Mata, I mean you no disrespect – from what I’ve read, you seem like a person I’d really like. But your arguments are continuously repetitive, even when I’ve addressed them. So I’m very sorry, but I need to bow out of this now. I look forward to another discussion on another topic in the near future. For now, have a good night.

November 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Rocky_B
 47Reply to this comment  

Hard Right;
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/16/the-intolerance-of-liberal-activists-and-a-t-shirt-experiment/#comment-131943
I was a little confused by your response;

#8, suuuure you do. Way to demonstrate liberal “tolerance” hypocrite.

Was that directed to me? Or perhaps another post that was later deleted? Or just sarcasm? All I pointed out was error of logic in the writer’s message, so I fail to see why that makes me intolerant or a hypocrite.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin;
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/16/the-intolerance-of-liberal-activists-and-a-t-shirt-experiment/#comment-131942;
You stereotype all Conservative as;

rampant, public gay-haters

I do have several acquaintances amongst local Las Vegas entertainers/performers who are homosexual. I do not hate them for their sexual persuasion and have talked to them concerning the nuances of gay marriage and civil unions. They are appreciative of my acceptance of civil union partnerships as unions that should be afforded the same rights and privileges of marriage in lieu of accepting the implications of the religious term “marriage”. Several of them are atheists and actually prefer having their partnerships defined as a secular union rather than one with parochial connotations so long as they enjoy the same benefits and rights. In this regard, they agree with Elton John’s views on marriage and civil unions. In my discussions with them, they pointed out that the primary proponents within their own cultural cross-section who wish marriage to be redefined as opposed to accepting civil unions are radicals who wish it be that way, based solely on their desires to culturally piss off the “breeders”; Judeau-Christians and Islamics who hold so firmly to their convictions.

It’s much like the difference between “true” feminists who would accept Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and our newest 4-star general (See; http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/16/breaking-the-brass-ceiling/) as strong women and role models for their gender and those radical feminists who refuse to accept the later two examples as “feminists”. And there are many lesbian feminists who would fall under both of these radical elements. I personally only know one individual who would be indicative of this extreme and nobody can talk any sense to her. She is a very stubborn individual and a chronic “male-basher”, who even gets in the homosexual males faces with her vile contempt. Needless to say, she doesn’t have many friends in the theatrical community.

There is no justification in our free society to change our laws to ignore the vast majority, merely to pander to a “one-thousandth of a percentile” cross-section of our populous. To do so would be treading into dangerous territory. After all, we wouldn’t want our majority rule laws defined on the narrow beliefs of so-called skinheads would you? Or KKK members, as was attempted in the 1960’s by Southern Democrats with segregation as an answer to civil unrest.

Cary;
Your position that religion has no bearing on law is unfounded. Historically many laws have their roots in religious laws which stemmed barbarianism and hatred by dictating civilization be controlled via tenets of moral standards. The founding fathers used religious laws as a starting point to outline how this country would be legislated. They established “God given rights” for the people. The 10 Commandments were just one of these sources. Do you have a problem with these ones; “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”, and “Thou shalt not covet”. The rest of the commandments were additional laws intended for the faithful to adhere to, not the “gentiles”. Deuteronomy established legal guidance for fair judgments amongst the Hebrew communities and later with Israel, and made specific exceptions and conciliations for dealing with to those member of the communities who did not know of or understand their laws. Granted, some fundamentalists throughout the ages have abused those laws for the oppression of others. But by and large these initial steps toward civilization is what instrumented mankind’s ascent from anarchy.

By the way, Obama’s wealth redistribution plan breaks the; “Thou shalt not covet” covenant. That was why our founding fathers did not incorporate entitlement programs into our laws and why socialist programs our counter to their intentions.

November 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
 48Reply to this comment  

Why do I allow myself to get pulled back in when I say I’m done? This site is like Crack!

Rocky, I do not dispute that many of the founding fathers were deeply spiritual and religious, with a morality which was produced through their faith. But they also recognized, even within their own body, that these views would differ among them and our citizens, and provided for that.

I call your attention to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

“The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the “separationist” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferentialist” or “accommodationist” interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.”

Now please see comment #23, and that will definitely be my final word. Thank you.

November 17th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
 49Reply to this comment  

You stereotype all Conservative as

Oh wait…please tell us how YOU’RE so different [rolleyes]

BTW, “feminists” don’t need any assistence from self-proclaimed conservatives in determining who “feminists” should and must support. There are “feminists” like me who can appreciate Palin in some ways, perhaps even see her as an empowered person, but also maintain a critique of her whackadoodle politcs, dunno, that might be too much cognitive dissonance for a conservative, since they so legendarily like simplicity and black-and-white thinking.

There are “feminists” who defend Palin from the rampant sexism of the conservative males trying to get in her pants and saying all manner of weird crap about what they’re gonna do to her. I’m also having a great time watching conservative males suddenly discover “sexism”, when what they thought was going to be their new damsel in distress needed rescuing from a so-called “liberal” press that didn’t treat her with “deference” LOL as if Miss Wasilla actually earned any “deference”.

You may enjoy a special section I have just for them at my site, called “Angry Conservative Male Commentary on ‘Women’”. As if those people knew jack about “women” besides what’s in their porn stacks.

There is no justification in our free society to change our laws to ignore the vast majority, merely to pander to a “one-thousandth of a percentile” cross-section of our populous. To do so would be treading into dangerous territory. After all, we wouldn’t want our majority rule laws defined on the narrow beliefs of so-called skinheads would you? Or KKK members, as was attempted in the 1960’s by Southern Democrats with segregation as an answer to civil unrest.

LOL, uh-huh so this mythical “one thousandth of a percentile” would be whom, exactly?

Since when did your mythical “one thousandth of a percentile” ever force ANYONE to backs of buses for not sleeping with same sex, or force heterosexuals into inferior schools and neighborhoods on the basis of who they slept with?

Illogical, ahistorical comparison, though predictable and typical coming from a self-admitted conservative.

BTW, those Southern Dixiecrats are called “Republicans” now. Southern Strategy/Nixon/Silent Majority, honey. Now known as Real America/Pro America/etc. Sarah Palin tried to rile them up this year. Didn’t work, because normalcy prevailed. For once.

November 18th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Rocky_B
 50Reply to this comment  

The point I was making was that religion has influenced our laws and that is supported by the statement in the exclusionary clause Cary cites which prohibits:

support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.

This left open the argument that although some of our secular laws originated in religious laws, as they held bearings on secular purposes, they could be deemed acceptable. The Constitutionality of the exclusionary clause was never even examined by the Supreme Court until 1947.

Marriage is a protected religious rite as Mata attests, Civil Unions are not and may be used as an acceptable secular solution in lieu of religious rites of marriage.

Establishment of religion
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine, certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994), Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion”.

Free exercise of religion
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Warren Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to this clause, holding that a state must show a compelling interest in restricting religion-related activities. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court retreated from this standard, permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religion. The Congress attempted to restore this standard by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court held that such an attempt was unconstitutional regarding state and local government actions (though permissible regarding federal actions).

Marriage since time immemorial, was a religious practice and rite based on parochial beliefs, not at the whim of the legal system. Changing the definition of marriage preferentially is not a neutral government action. It would redefine religious standards and transform it from a religious, to an irreligious institution, therefore to do so is unconstitutional under both the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

Compelling Interest
In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that “unduly burdens the practice of religion” without a compelling interest, even though it might be “neutral on its face,” would be unconstitutional.

The “compelling interest” doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the free exercise clause.

Also See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbert_Test#The_Sherbert_Test

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual’s right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:

For the individual, the court must determine
* whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
* whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
* that it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and
* that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

The conduction of marriages as a religious sanctity practice places a burden on the clergy to perform them. Each religion has it’s own traditional marriage rituals. Civil Unions being offered in lieu of marriages in front of a justice of the peace or a ship’s captain, places no burden on the clergy and does not require a ritual. In this regard, the ability for non-clergy to perform marriages may in itself be unconstitutional. In the same regard, forcing churches to conduct same sex-marriages by law would also be unconstitutional. Just as legally forcing parochial hospitals to conduct abortions against the tenets of that institution’s faith would be similarly unconstitutional. Their doctors would be justifiably allowed to refuse to perform such actions.

November 18th, 2008 at 12:39 am
WWJDFAKB
 51Reply to this comment  

What Prop 8 did, in my estimation- is to escalate the decision -making process to a state level ( as purported by Catholics and Mormon activists, who by their actions opened up a can of IRS worms) rather than allow churches/temples the leeway to say yes/no to marriages. The church of LDS needs to cough up some back taxes, imho for doing just that. Regardless of how the Constitution was framed, there still is a separation of church/state to weed out these theocratic gerrymandering maneuvers.

Personally, I think glbt’s should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk. if people cite the “rules” of marriage as laid out in a dust y archment some 2000+years ago, they also need to call into account ALL the reference arcane and obscure around that school of thought. Yeah, get me some of that goat sacrifice and maid-servents pdq! cherry picking ad-hoc, confirmationally-biased arguments fail. It’s really not my business who they shack up with as it is equally not theirs for me. Busybodies only get their own noses cut off in the end. MYOB.

November 18th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Rocky_B
 52Reply to this comment  

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Oh wait…please tell us how YOU’RE so different [rolleyes]

As you wish, I will. I am more than tolerant when it comes to homosexuality.

I have two nephews who have gay Godparents and we get along great. I do not get in their faces, shouting slurs or chastising them for what they are while pounding on a Bible for emphasis. You will note that I made no blanket statements that all gays are to blame for this issue. I know from personal experience they indeed are not. In fact, of the hundreds I have known, as I pointed out, I have only found one single individual who was a proponent for gay marriage and that person was viscious, mean and nasty to anyone who didn’t see things her way, regardless of their sexual persuasion.

For almost 3 decades I’ve been very involved with community theater/entertainment activities. I was once asked to calculate it up and found I put in an average of 16 hours every week,annually engaged in support of the theater arts. This even with the demands on my time my military career required. I helped organize, did lighting/sound techwork, and performed for numerous fund-raising benefits. Including Aid For Aids Of Nevada; which featured Kenny Kerr and several other cast members from Boylesque, as well as, many local area performers and comedians from the Las Vegas gay community.

Despite my hetero preferences, my choice of ‘extra-curricular activities’, placed me in a position to work very closely with gays of both genders. So I daresay I have a bit more insight into this area than the average ‘Conservative’ and feel that it’s wrong for anyone to stereotype others based on their own political opinions, which they use to profess their own immunity from any such criticism. That my dear, is why I took umbridge of your comment.

“one thousandth of a percentile” would be whom, exactly?

That would be the radical LBGT activist extremist element and in this scenario I was refering specificly to that fraction of gays who are militants, in comparison to our entire population. Based on a fair polling sample. These individuals, certainly do not speak for the vast majority of the gay community. From what I’ve garnered talking to the homosexuals I’ve come to know, the majority of the gay community does not like being caught up in the middle of this and would rather not be embroiled in such a heated issue. Particularly when they already have an inherent mistrust of Judeau-Christian fundamentalist and evangelical elements. They fear it unnecessarily breeds further contempt for them and might result in mindless reactive violence upon them from equally radical ultra-far right ’skinheads’ or similar factions. They are perfectly fine with the civil union alternative, just want to be left alone, and would prefer the radicals would just drop it. They don’t want ignorant bleeding heart would-be crusaders fighting this particular cause for them. Their votes on proposition 8 and the previous legislation was a clear message. Yet, the radicals still refuse to listen to those they presume to help and insist on pushing this issue ‘on their behalf’.

Neither am I a Johnny-come-lately, new-feminist male who has risen to Palin’s aid because I want to get “in her pants”. We examined and discussed the N.W.P. E.R.A. proposals way back when I was in high-school during a government class which was taught by a female. Going in I was for it, living as I was in a single-parent home at the time, on the heals of our mother’s divorce from our abusive father. Yet, I was surprised with every single female in our class, when after reading and considering it, they agreed en’ mass they neither liked the proposed amendment, nor would they support it. Why? Because it removed many of the protections women enjoyed:

1) They would’ve been eligible for the draft and could be forced to serve in front-line combat missions,
2) It would’ve eliminated laws designed to specifically protect women on a basis of constitutionality.
3) As written it was not abortion neutral,
4) It would’ve have removed advantages in child custody battles and alimony negotiations.
5) It would’ve have eliminated same sex athletic teams; requiring women to compete physically with men to earn their places on teams.
6) Women’s only organizations could be considered unconstitutional
7) (And one of the lamest suggestions that came up during the discussions, but got a big laugh from all and a frown from the teacher) It would do away with “Ladies’ Nights” at restaurants and taverns.

This was THE benchmark being endorsed by national feminist movements since 1923. Yet just like the gays I’ve talked with; women across the country respond to radical activists, “Thanks, but no thanks. We don’t want THAT kind of help.”

BTW, those Southern Dixiecrats are called “Republicans” now.

I know Dems love to cite the fringe element Dixiecrats to distance themselves from their own party’s roots while shifting the blame to Republicans. But it is simply not true they are the heart of conservatism. Nor does it gel with the basic ideological differences the two parties are founded on. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were both Dixiecrat supported candidates and they drew those votes in their wins. Yet, your implication doesn’t wash when the vast majority of Conservative Republicans (48%-1976, 38%-1992, 41%-1996 of the popular vote) either remained true to their ideological base or shifted to Independent (1992-19% & 1996-9% Reform party vote). I usually now vote Independent, yet my family were staunch Republicans going back at least several generations and Lincoln was one of my distant relatives.

As for your suggestion that Real America Movement or Pro-Americans, are also one in the same as Dixiecrats, the Southern Strategy, & Silent Majority I submit:

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorials/162
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2008/10/29/real-vs-unreal-americans/

What is being labeled as Real/Pro-America is nothing more than what was formerly referred to as the America-First/Buy American movements. It has nothing to do with Southern Dixiecrats, and more to do with job markets/economy and degrading moral standards.

“Real Americans” are rural and small town non-urbanites, who believe work ethic, moral values, and a common sense approach is what built America and is lacking in today’s politics. They were against NAFTA as they knew it would be just another way to eliminate badly needed jobs and close factories. They are the honest, hard workers, who make by with what they have, and do not want handouts or charity they didn’t earn. They are the heart and soul of what used to be America. They have a live and let live philosophy and are not the racists Dems love to paint them as. If you move into their neighborhood, they don’t treat you differently due to your skin color or ask about your heritage. But they might offer to lend you a hand moving in or show up with some items from their gardens. They want our borders secure against would-be terrorists and illegal aliens (the latter not due to prejudice as Dems would like people to believe, but because hiring illegals deflates their job market, since they’ll work for far less than minimum wage and under the table. It may be different in California, yet those jobs would have gone to their teenagers and the poor in their communities. The notion that illegals only take jobs nobody else wants not true in the rural sector.)

November 19th, 2008 at 3:53 am
 53Reply to this comment  

Rocky,

Your comment is well written, thought out and objective. It also defies the common stereotype of a Conservative, so kudos to you. My only contention is that the common sentiment of the gay community which surrounds you is very different from that which surrounds me. I would not consider these people radicals either, simply humans beings who wish to be treated equally in every respect, including in language (whatever the particular choice of words may be) and wish to be accepted as such. From everything I gather about you, I’m sure you understand that.

Your previous point about marriage being a religious rite supports my contention that Civil Unions should be what is issued by the government across the board, for heterosexual couples, as well as homosexual. Your comparison of Catholic hospitals being forced into medical procedures ignores the Hippocratic Oath taken by individual doctors. A fairer comparison is that churches are not forced to perform other religious rites, such as communion and baptism, therefore a similar assumption can be made for marriage.

(on a side note, I have a cousin who is actively involved in the theatre in Vegas, the likelihood that you know each other and that you and I would be just a couple “degrees” apart is extremely interesting. I may even be planning a trip in the near future.)

November 19th, 2008 at 7:32 am
 54Reply to this comment  

Your previous point about marriage being a religious rite supports my contention that Civil Unions should be what are issued by the government across the board, for heterosexual couples as well as homosexual. Your comparison of Catholic hospitals being forced into medical procedures which are against the institutions beliefs ignores the Hippocratic Oath taken by individual doctors, although I agree that they should have choice as well. A fairer comparison is that churches are not forced to perform other religious rites, such as communion and baptism, therefore a similar assumption can be made for marriage.

November 19th, 2008 at 7:45 am
 55Reply to this comment  

OhCrapIHaveACrush said: BTW, those Southern Dixiecrats are called “Republicans” now.

Really? Someone may want to alert Robert Byrd that he’s now in the GOP….

~~~

Cary, I’m repetative? Read my comments: #21, 26, 32, 36, 38, 42, 45. No clue what you’re talking about, unless you are reading my comments on the other thread and mixing up the two conversations. And I am tapping into FA from afar… vacationing/family visit. So while I was absolutely not repetative in this thread, I may be so in the future for not fully catching up…

Now, can we say the same for you? (i.e. comments 53 and 54)…. jus’ a joke son, just a joke.

In one way, what you suggest is actually not a bad deal… but still leaves the same quandary. You say leave marriages and ceremonies for the religious rites, and just have the government issue “couples” (I assume…) some “we actually be two” card for all the govt bennies and tax filings.

Okay. But then, how is that “we be two” determined? Can it just be two people who decided to be permanent roommates, and perhaps purchased real estate together as tenants in common? Could it be business partners that want to share IRS and other govt bennies? How about your live in adult kids? Your animals?

Question is, with your idea of just issuing a blanket “civil union” to everyone to denote some “relationship”, what is the criteria of that “civil union”? And does that include a finite number?

And still slim to no one seems to care to address why the LGBT community will not accept anything but the moniker of “marriage”. Not a curious bone in anyone’s body? My my…

November 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
 56Reply to this comment  

Mata, I mean repetitive by the fact that you bring up arguments that I have already responded to and all you need do is scroll up to find them. Given that you find this all important enough to let it take away from what I’m sure is a hard earned vacation, and the fact that this discussion seems to be divided between two threads, I can certainly understand how you’d miss a few things. Still, I just don’t want to type my same point over and over.

As far as how to determine who gets a Civil Union – well, aren’t you arguing that it’s the same thing as Marriage, only without the religious aspect? If that’s the case, I suppose you’d determine it the same way. I mean, how exactly do you determine that a man and a woman aren’t entering into marriage simply for a tax credit or citizenship rights? And, if we’re already offering to extend Civil Unions to homosexuals, don’t you think your questions would come up anyway?

Perhaps what you’re really saying that that what should be “good enough for them” isn’t good enough for you. I hope you’re not, because that would belie your stance on equality, which is what I propose the LGBT community are more than willing to accept. I’ll close by referring you to comment #23.

November 20th, 2008 at 6:34 am
 57Reply to this comment  

Oh, and sorry about 53 and 54 – I went back and edited the first, and thought it didn’t go through, so I typed it in as a separate comment – they both ended up in spam, I guess. Haha!

November 20th, 2008 at 6:40 am
 58Reply to this comment  

From Cary:

Perhaps what you’re really saying that that what should be “good enough for them” isn’t good enough for you. I hope you’re not, because that would belie your stance on equality, which is what I propose the LGBT community are more than willing to accept. I’ll close by referring you to comment #23.

First of all, do not presume what I am “really” saying. Frankly, you’re new here, and you don’t know me well enough to slam some bigot tag via assumptions on me. So let me make this really simple for you.

You don’t support “separate but equal and/or equivalent”. I do. Because the relationships *are* separate but equal and/or equivalent. Men and women are, in legal theory, separate but equal/equivalent. Shall we just get rid of man/woman and call everyone a non-gender name?

This is what you are arguing for, so to speak… a “non gender” status. Since the LGBT community will settle for no less than “*not* separate and equal”, your answer, like theirs, is to strip the other side of identity in order to grant them what they want.

And that is what I have *repeatedly* been telling you is the real agenda. A re’education of culture to make marriage – a religious rite of tradition – “non-gender”… muddying the waters between parental authority, church influence, and school interference in the home.

It’s as simple as this. I oppose that re’education. You don’t. Done. Period. History. As far as I’m concerned, end of this discussion with you. So you can rest easy on “repetitive” stuff coming your way now… apparently the gist of the argument, and your flawed “cure” still doesn’t sink in.

November 20th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Rocky_B
 59Reply to this comment  

Cary;
No, I know what you mean. ‘Radical’ is subjective, sort of in the eye of the beholder. For the last couple of decades, the only real taste of ‘radical protests’ LV has known was with the Culinary Union (As I’m sure your cousin can confirm). Even with the “Sin City” moniker, long-term Nevada resident sentiments run more towards a ‘laid-back’ Conservatism than that found in California. So it’s not surprising for that to be reflected in general public opinion. I should note, for the last twenty years there has been quite a lot of influx of people relocating there from the Oakland/LA areas including, unfortunately, a large contingent of gangstas’. The former ’standards’ are being diluted/transformed which has resulted in it’s recent shift towards becoming a ‘Blue State’. It’s a much different environment there than it was in the early 1980’s when I first arrived. The city has doubled or tripled in size.

Actually I wasn’t intentionally ignoring the Hippocratic Oath, yet after reviewing and rendering due consideration, I find that abortion, which was one of the concerns of other posters, is counter to the Hippocratic Oath, I refer you to line five of either translation (Source Follows). And as mentioned in the preface, not all physicians are required to adhere to it’s tenets (Precedes line five translations) and they may refer patients to other ’specialists’ for procedures not covered by the oath or that they are uncomfortable with performing (See; Modern Relevance section). Therefore a parochial doctor is protected by the oath in electing not to perform procedures counter to his/her beliefs and moralities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.
——————————————————————————————–
Line five translation from original Greek to English;
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
——-T————————————————————————————-
Line five Nova translation;
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

It appears that we are in agreement that the only reasonable solution to the marriage/civil union quandary is to make marriage ‘a church only function’, taking it out of the government’s hands as falling under separations of church and state, and civil unions the government version of such bonds. While offering both the same protections, benefits, and age of consent prohibitions to both under the laws of the state.

I haven’t been able to do much in the Las Vegas local community theater for the last few years as family crises following my retirement required my presence cross-country. Yet if your cousin has been active there for some time, I’m sure it’s highly likely we may have been run in similar circles or have mutual acquaintances. It seems everybody there either knows somebody, or knows somebody that knows them, I’m sure you know what I mean. My twin is still out there ‘holding down the fort’ (taking care of my other house) and involved with many of the same organizations. He has lowered his involvement recently to take classes and now does most of his work with LVLT.

As Mata points out; what next need be resolved, would be for the state to further define the one or more levels/stages of civil unions. I think it would behoove the state to have separate versions of civil unions for protected sexual relations (such as same sex marriages) and protective family/fraternal/parental mutually supportive bonds (non-sexual relationships). These would be designed to protect rights such as access to the individuals, property, and in making decisions in the event the other party is incapacitated, a form of advanced term P.O.A.. Yet in the later case would disallow, read as ‘not sanction’, incestuous or pedophilia to protect common moralities.

I don’t see that a third form of civil union between humans and other species should exist. No matter how smart an animal is, it remains an animal, and unable to understand nor commit to a human relationship beyond that of a faithful companion. The state should not be seen as possibly condoning bestiality.

Mata;
I think I already mentioned that IMO the only reason for California LGBT’ers to insist on marriage as opposed to the acceptance of civil unions is to anger and frustrate those who view marriage as a religious institution. IMO that is the sole driving force. To use the government to transform what others view as sacred. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these amongst those same individuals who demand the ten commandments be removed from courthouses, “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, refuse to cite the pledge, refuse to pay proper respect to the flag, etceteras. Those who “Real Americans” see the “Anti-American” faction.

November 20th, 2008 at 7:57 am
 60Reply to this comment  

Well Mata, you’re getting rather riled up, aren’t you? If you actually read my wording, I’m careful not to assume anything for sure, but suggested there might be a double standard in your view, but that I hoped not – having already stated that I don’t think your position doesn’t go as far as bigotry.

I am not arguing a “non-gender” status, I am arguing against discrimination because of gender.

Let me clarify that I never accused anyone here of being intolerant. I take everyone at their word here, while I’m sure we all acknowledge and denounce that bigotry is a factor with this issue. Now, what I’m reading is that, in spite of their own tolerance, there are those who struggle with how to teach it to their kids. I do not trivialize that struggle at all, I know it must be quite difficult. I simply offered up an example as to how someone close to me, who has kids, dealt with the issue effectively. OF COURSE it is up for individual parents to decide as to how they impart anything to their kids. This doesn’t mean the law should tiptoe around people’s human rights. As voter very astutely pointed out, our culture has continuously been “re-educated” on many issues – usually for the better.

So you are correct, I completely disagree with you on a “separate but equal” clause. History has shown that it hasn’t worked in other cases, for reasons I have already cited.

As for the “real agenda” – well, look how angry you got when I suggested what yours might be. So yeah, I don’t know you, but what I’m reading is a double standard. I’m sure that’s not reflective of you as a person, just this particular view.

But if you really look at what we’re both saying, there’s a lot more that we do agree on than what we don’t. So although, at least for now, neither of us is willing to bend on what we don’t agree on, I’m still rather encouraged. So again, I thank you and am glad we’re finally done with this debate.

November 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
WWJDFAKB
 61Reply to this comment  

@Wordsmith:

From Mirriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
mar·riage
Pronunciation:
\ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross

those are only three- there is also the use of the word “marry” to co-join parts together as a whole, non specific of gender.
to be “married” to an idea..

November 20th, 2008 at 8:48 am
 62Reply to this comment  

@Rocky_B: I won’t get too much into the abortion topic, as it is another issue altogether, only to say that as someone who holds “pro-choice” position politically (which does not reflect on the personal advice I’d give if a woman saw fit to ask me for it), I agree that the choice should also be extended to physicians.

I think your solution to the Civil Union question is sound. Why shouldn’t individuals sharing a long term financial responsibility also reap the benefits? Of course, it would need to separate heath proxy, next of kin, and other “spousal” rights. I will say again – incest is almost always indicative of abuse or control, while bestiality and pedophilia are, by definition, absolutely always indicative of abuse. None of these should be considered as viable paths.

And finally, I do agree that there are a certain faction of gays who use their sexuality as a weapon toward those they feel have oppressed them. However, I do not feel that they reflect the majority who are simply looking for what everyone else has.

November 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Ms. Know
 63Reply to this comment  

Who would want to where a shirt that represented the socialist illuminati? They may only get to wear it momentarily before someone takes it off, and let’s another person where it, because they have to share according to the liberals.

December 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 am

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment

If your comments get caught in spam a lot please log into your registered account before trying to comment again. You can email me if your comment is caught in spam

 

Identity Verification: If you wish to verify your commenter identity, so no one can steal it, click the below button: