Gay Marriage Still Doesn’t Exist, No Matter What The Supreme Court Says

Loading

Matt Walsh:

The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s pretty simple. They’re wrong. They’ve been wrong many times in the past, and seem to be wrong with an increasing regularity these days.

They were wrong yesterday when they announced that the federal government can offer Obamacare subsidies even though the law expressly gives that power to the states. They were wrong two years ago when they decided that the federal government has the right to force American citizens to buy a product from an insurance company. They were wrong forty years ago when they said mothers have a constitutional right to murder their children. And they were wrong today when they took out their magical magnifying glass and found, perhaps transcribed in microscopic code on the fibers of the Constitution, a mysterious entitlement to homosexual marriage.

They were wrong, but our culture doesn’t care because it long ago stopped asking its leaders to be right. And it certainly doesn’t care about the law, which is why liberals have been able to make the Constitution into an indecipherable mystic scroll that morphs to accommodate the fashionable ideologies of the day. As such, it is dead. It might as well not exist.

So, despite the fact that neither marriage nor homosexuals are explicitly or implicitly or actually or metaphorically or literally mentioned in the Constitution, our nation will now celebrate as a few con artists in black robes pretend all that stuff is in there anyway. Then again, they hardly even pretended this time. The majority opinion legalizing gay marriage across the country and undoing the will of the people and their elected representatives in 14 states reads like a lengthy Facebook post written by a 17-year-old. It says a lot of happy, bubbly, hollow things about how gay people love each other and so on, but it barely attempts to offer anything resembling a constitutional defense or a coherent thought.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that gay marriage allows two homosexuals to “find a life they could not find alone.” Then he broke out his acoustic guitar and sang a rousing rendition of “I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing.”

This is an embarrassment. Our nation’s highest court has just upended the institution of marriage, dismantled the rule of law, undermined the will of the people, and canceled out the legislative process entirely, and did so based on the reasoning that gay people want to find a life together. Maybe they do, but what in the hell does that have to do with the Constitution? And how was anyone being denied a “life together” simply because marriage has a definition?

Kennedy went further by bemoaning the fact that traditional marriage condemns gay people to “loneliness.” Is this man a Supreme Court Justice or Barney the dinosaur? If he’s concerned about lonely people, he can, by all means, go and be their friends. But the Constitution was not written to ensure that people aren’t lonely. Indeed, the loneliness or unloneliness of an individual is not a legal issue, and it’s incredibly nauseating that I even have to explain that.

The majority opinion even cites a couple’s need for “intimacy and spirituality” as a reasoning to decree gay marriage across the land. But since when is intimacy and spirituality a judicial matter? Liberals constantly drone on about wanting to “get the government out of their bedroom,” yet here they are, weeping tears of joy as five old people in black robes make legal decisions based on a human’s need for romance. How far does this go? Next will they find that my wife has a constitutional right to a bouquet of roses and a spontaneous slow dance on the beach at sunset?

It’s laughable. It’s disgraceful. It makes no sense at all, and barely tries to.

Yet liberals gloat because, though shameful and incomprehensible, the Supreme Court’s ruling at least delivers them a victory they can brag about on Twitter.

But whatever the Supreme Court says, the Truth remains the same: There is no right to gay marriage. There is no gay marriage. It’s not real. It’s not possible.

It’s make believe. It means nothing.

You might say it doesn’t matter now because the Supreme Beings have spoken, but I happen to think that Truth always matters. Despite what any judge says; despite the prevailing opinion; despite the surveys and polls and consensuses; the Truth still matters. If it doesn’t, then nothing matters and life is pointless. Your existence has no meaning if the Truth is irrelevant. There is no reason for you to be on this planet if there is no Truth worth fighting for.

And the Truth is that, due to the fundamental nature of human rights, marriage, and homosexuality, a union between two homosexuals is not, has never been, and will never be a legitimate marriage.

What is a Right?

We throw this term around like confetti these days, but I doubt the average liberal can define it. He thinks a right is some sort of cosmic force that guarantees him access to whatever he happens to want. He wants a phone, therefore he has a right to it. He wants a college education, therefore he has a right to it. He wants $15 an hour to sprinkle salt on fries at Wendy’s, therefore he has a right to it. He wants to have his romantic relationship with another man officially recognized by the State as a “marriage,” therefore he has a right to it. And so on.

This is all childish nonsense, of course. It’s a conception of human rights about as mature and intelligent as a toddler throwing a tantrum in the supermarket because his mommy won’t let him have any Skittles.

If our Founding Fathers meant only to establish a nation on these kinds of “rights” when they revolted against the king, they should have been spanked and sent to bed without any supper and that should have been the end of it. You can’t build a country on the idea that people have a right to whatever they want simply because they want it. That might be the core principles motivating kindergartners and the Democrat Party, but these are not the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Constitutional rights are the kind endowed in us by the Creator. Rights inherent in our humanity by virtue of the fact that we are created by the Divine Force. God bestows in us a certain dignity, and no man should attempt to deprive us of it. Those are human rights.

You can’t seriously argue that “traditional” marriage deprives a gay man of his dignity. Marriage is an institution. As such, it has certain parameters and lines of distinction. The existence of those lines does not constitute an imposition on, or persecution of, those outside of it. It merely distinguishes one thing from another, that’s all.

The union between two men is one thing, the union between a man and a woman is another. This is not tyranny; it’s just common sense. Besides, with this new version of marriage, lines of distinction are still drawn. Still, two siblings cannot marry, two dogs cannot marry, a man and a tree cannot marry, a man and a child cannot marry, a man and an omelet cannot marry. Despite our spectacularly progressive attitudes, we still claim that marriage is something, and as long as we say that it is something, we say that it is not something else. What gives us the right to exclude the people who continue to fall outside of the new definition?

Or might we say that to destroy the definition of marriage ultimately excludes the whole world of it, and this is, in the end, the greatest indignity of all?

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

#50:

And the hubris of the right is believing that they are always correct and that the left is always wrong.
The hubris of the right is believing that every Democrat is a radical socialist bent on destroying America.
If such was the case, Republicans would be in a world of $hit, because with our semi-democratic form of government, a majority coalition of radical socialists could take this country to a place from which there would be no return.
But that isn’t going to happen.
Democrats AREN’T the “hive-mentality drones” you wing-nuts insist we are.
We are every bit as conflicted as the GOP, divided over nearly every issue save for a few sacred cows. (We BOTH have them, remember?)

“The US is not, and never has been a theocracy.”

Of course it isn’t. That was my point. John Adams et.al. may have been persons of faith who enjoyed expressing their devotion, but they DID NOT design a theocracy. While they may have worshiped their deity, they did not put that deity in charge of America. They left our governance to us, and bequeathed to us a constitution that provided for its own amendment. This was indeed wise.

You really don’t need to lecture me about how the sword of change is double-edged. Pocket calculators have left us unable to do arithmetic in our heads, and this has produced an over-all decline in our ability to assess situations logically. My point was that there is NEVER any guarantee that everything will get better as time passes. Species go extinct. Mountains erode. We learn new science and make bombs with it. And so it goes.
But I prefer to remain hopeful that in the balance, just maybe things will net a slight improvement over time, and so make all of the effort along the way worth the trouble. I will readily admit that there is precious little evidence that things will work out this way, but that’s the beauty of faith. It doesn’t need proof.

@George Wells:

I happily gave the HRC money that I hoped would be used in the battle for marriage equality. I also gave the ACLU money for the same reason. You might say that I “put my money where my mouth was.”

So, as long as you get your phony “right” validated, drumming someone out of their job, threatening businesses out of existence with violence or harassing businesses to go against personal and religious principles (THEIR rights) is acceptable? When is threatening innocent people acceptable?

I imagine it is because they have been persecuted – let me check the calendar… Oh yes – FOREVER.

Oh, thanks. Now I’m crying all over myself. Give me a break. Now, as shown above, you feel it is OK to persecute others. For no reason. For no wrong. Simply because they dare disagree with YOUR desires.

Apparently, the left (every individual, radical faction of it) thinks they can trample the rights of others in order to create rights they THINK they ought to have.

@Bill #52:

You must of missed the whole series of my posts that disagreed with what happened to that Mozilla CEO.
And you must have also missed my numerous posts supporting Religious Freedom and corresponding exemptions from the provisions of anti-discrimination laws.
Or are you simply ignoring the fact that my often-stated positions on those issues doesn’t agree with your assessment that all Democrats support exactly the same radical agenda.

I funded the HRC and the ACLU because it was the only way to accomplish my goal. The GOP certainly wasn’t going to do it, was it? For that matter, the Democratic Party – for all of its recent rhetorical support – didn’t have the courage to fight for gay rights until the public got there first, and by that time, the Democrats didn’t have the votes in congress to do anything about it anyway. I never bothered to fund the party you oppose for that reason, and because anything I might have given them would have been so diluted by their many other “projects” (chief among them being their own reelection) that my contribution would have been a meaningless gesture.

“When is threatening innocent people acceptable?”

Define “innocent.”
The individuals I know of that have been pressured because of their positions on gay rights issues don’t exactly qualify as “innocent”. You have a right to say whatever you please, either with your voice or with your wallet, but once you make that statement and it gets heard, you can and often ARE held accountable. Anything you say can be used against you – both in a court of Law and in the court of public opinion.
You want to remain “innocent,” stay out of politics.

I gave you a reasonable answer to your question about “why gay power” and you mocked it. Have you got a better one? I doubt it. Your distain for your political opponents is so profound that you cannot accept that any of their motivations could be anything other than manifestations of mental illness.

@George Wells: Ah, so you feed money to these despots only for the goodness and niceness they do, not to fund the efforts to vilify someone for an opinion, costing them their jobs or fomenting those who threaten to blow up someone’s business.

The individuals I know of that have been pressured because of their positions on gay rights issues don’t exactly qualify as “innocent”.

Eich donated to a group that defended traditional marriage (aka, “marriage”). That was his sin. He did not mistreat employees for their orientation or beliefs. I guess your concept of innocence and mine are contrasting. Holding people “accountable” for what they “say” (i.e., protesting loudly on their lawns, forcing them out of their jobs, threatening to blow up their businesses, etc), when they do no harm to no one, is pretty fascist. Sounds like you aren’t very confident in the inherent righteousness of your position.

I believe you have mentioned how you feel it wrong to persecute someone that is gay for their views. However, not only do you obviously believe it is just fine to persecute someone else for their differing views (and nothing more), but you are willing to pay them to do it. You say you “don’t like it”, yet as long as you get what you want, well, I guess they had it coming for daring to disagree with you. Or, do I have that wrong?

So, I guess it is acceptable to donate money to the KKK so they can use it for their widows and orphans fund? After all, not everything hateful, racist bigots in hoods do is ALL bad, is it?

@Bill #53:

“However, not only do you obviously believe it is just fine to persecute someone else for their differing views (and nothing more), but you are willing to pay them to do it. You say you “don’t like it”, yet as long as you get what you want, well, I guess they had it coming for daring to disagree with you. Or, do I have that wrong?”

Yeah, you have it wrong.
But you don’t ever get it right, do you?
You can’t for one minute believe that someone… ANYONE, could be so single minded as to support the HRC and the ACLU solely because they were working on the ONE issue that you place above all others. Well, I did. I’m just that simple. I can’t see that you have any reason to believe that my “agenda” is any more complicated than that. Before same-sex marriage was a hot issue, I NEVER contributed to anything. Not the HRC, not the Democratic Party, not the ACLU. Nobody even ASKED me for money… except the occasional pair of Mormons on bicycles who came to visit, and they high-tailed it as soon as I explained that I am gay, and wanted to know why their Church was so upset about it. If I had bought into all of those “radical left” issues and agendas you keep trying to pin on me, wouldn’t I have been INVOLVED some how? Oh, I voted regularly, but otherwise I was a very detached citizen, never writing to my paper’s editor or anything like that. Strictly IN THE CLOSET.

Well, I’m now married and officially OUT of the closet, but I have better things to do than fight every battle that comes down the pike.
I’m sorry that there are some gay activists – radicals, if you want to call them that – that want to end the institution of marriage (yes, there are some that do.)
And I’m sorry that some of the same people think that it is an appropriate strategy to terrorize heterogamists into stifling their objections to whatever. But there are already laws that give those people the right to say what they want, and laws to protect their victims when they go too far. Use them. Those activists are not my responsibility. I don’t do a background search on the guys who empty my garbage cans to make sure none of them are communists, do you? And where were YOU when gays were being persecuted?
You worry about yours, and I’ll worry about mine.

@George Wells:

You can’t for one minute believe that someone… ANYONE, could be so single minded as to support the HRC and the ACLU solely because they were working on the ONE issue that you place above all others. Well, I did. I’m just that simple.

Perhaps that’s what you THOUGHT (or convinced yourself) you did, but what you actually did was join right along with the other jackals and participate in the bullying of anyone that disagrees with your version of reality.

Planned Parenthood likes to take taxpayer money and provide abortions. Since it is illegal to use taxpayer money for abortions, PP makes the simple excuse that, “oh, we don’t use THAT money for abortions; that’s what we pay for happy, nice stuff with.” I don’t think that washes. Likewise, though you might not care for the strong-arm tactics some radical groups might use to achieve a goal parallel to your own, when you fund them, you buy into that. Take that sanctimonious position that you never intended for anyone to lose their job, or businesses to shut down due to threats, but that, too, doesn’t quite pass the smell test.

Like it or not, when Obama does something stupid on the world stage, he is representing ME (actually, I DON’T like it). He is the representative of the nation and he is the current face of the nation. Likewise, you are represented by what HRC does, because you PAID them to do it. If you don’t like their tactics, you don’t have to pay them, but you want the benefits, so you approve the tactics (since you paid for them).

Throwing in with the left is a dirty business and you are likely going to get dirty entertaining it. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. If their tactics disgust you, pick another team. Otherwise, man up to what you have wrought.

And where were YOU when gays were being persecuted?

I have never in my life persecuted or even SEEN a gay persecuted. I don’t doubt it happens, but everyone suffers persecution at one time or another; just some to demand a “right” be fashioned explicitly for it. Of course, I have never persecuted or even treated unfairly a black person, yet I am, in the eyes of the left, a racist. Go figure.

@Bill #56:

“If their tactics disgust you, pick another team. Otherwise, man up to what you have wrought.”

I picked the lesser of two evils.
It’s what we all do.
As you said, it isn’t a perfect world.

If there was a better option for me to contribute toward gay rights with, what would that be?

But really? “everyone suffers persecution at one time or another”? That’s your defense? It works for you but not for me?
Gee…

@George Wells: You claim persecution and you picked (and funded) persecution as an offensive weapon. Not too honorable, but it seems to satisfy you.

But really? “everyone suffers persecution at one time or another”? That’s your defense? It works for you but not for me?
Gee…

A demonstrable fact is not necessarily a “defense”, which I don’t need anyway. The point is, bad things happen to others besides gays and it is not necessary to redefine the world to make it all better.

@George Wells:

For months, you have denied that you supported the actions of the gay mafia, even going so far as to reiterate it again today:

You must of missed the whole series of my posts that disagreed with what happened to that Mozilla CEO.
And you must have also missed my numerous posts supporting Religious Freedom and corresponding exemptions from the provisions of anti-discrimination laws.

Not once, NEVER, did you also admit that not only did you subscribe to the radical gay mafia’s website so that you would receive emails from them, but you also backed them financially. You were dishonest by omission. But that is nothing new with you.

Now you say:

I funded the HRC and the ACLU because it was the only way to accomplish my goal.

Your goal trumped your honor and your honesty.

What you need to know is that, as with all 501(c) groups, that money was fungible. You funded the founder of HRC, and his pedophilic rape of a 15 year old boy. You funded the attacks on those who simply exercised their First Amendment right to freedom of religion and religious beliefs. People who never harmed another, especially not a gay person, but were persecuted all in the name of “equality.”

You go on so far as to claim these people were not “innocent.” They were, in your sick mind, guilty of holding a different view than you do, and so by the mere fact that they did not agree with you, and your queer peers, they deserved to be hounded out of their jobs and be subjected to threatening phone calls and threats against their children, much as the radical gays did to the psychiatrists who disagreed with removing homosexuality from the DSM.

You can’t for one minute believe that someone… ANYONE, could be so single minded as to support the HRC and the ACLU solely because they were working on the ONE issue that you place above all others.

No, I don’t believe you are that simple minded, especially when HRC was blasting out emails to those like you asking them to persecute others for their religious beliefs. And don’t insult my intelligence claiming you have never seen those emails when they are all over the internet:

http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/assets/resources/HRC_Export-of-Hate-final.pdf

And then we have those like Perez Hilton, who literally persecuted Carrie Prejean because he asked her a loaded question and she answered it honestly. Perez Hilton has made a life outing homosexuals who did not want to be outed. What was their crime? They wanted to do what many homosexuals want to do; keep their private lives private. They did not inject their personal lives into “politics”, yet they were hounded by the likes of you and Perez.

I guess now you’re going to tell us that if I outed you to your unsuspecting neighbors, you would think that was fair game because you have waded off into the “politics” of homosexuality on this website. If I protested in front of your home, demanded that your bank cancel your account, publically released the names of your siblings and made threatening phone calls to you, and your family, you would say “Oh, well, I’m not innocent because I waded off into politics?”

Congratulations, George; you, and the funding you provided to the HRC, have managed to make sexual deviancy legal. Now on to the next goal, persecution of the Christian faith. It should bring you great joy. You’re all about paybacks anyway.

But what have you really accomplished except to institute the goals and philosophy of the Marxists? You must be so proud. And how proud you must be of those that spit on Fr. Jonathan Morris yesterday. A good man who tries nothing more than to share his faith with others, spit on by two queers for no other reason than he is a Catholic priest.

The institution of marriage is now dead. Next in line, marriages of multiples and marriage between siblings. Justice Kennedy’s own words opened that door:

“A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.”

Got that? Marriage is simply based on the concept of individual autonomy. So if someone’s personal choice and individual autonomy is based on the fact that they require more than one partner, or a relationship with a sheep, or being married to a sibling, Justice Kennedy just opened that door.

In ancient Rome, homosexuality and pedophilia was not legal. But it was ignored and even though we now understand that ancient Rome was one of the most decadent societies ever know to man (until ISIS) even ancient Rome did not legalize same-sex marriage.

There are those who say we are now Rome. I say we have now surpassed Rome, and the ultimate end will be the same fate as befell Rome. Enjoy what you have wrought, George. All you leaver for future generations are ashes.

You are a person deserving of nothing but loathing. You are a self centered person who makes excuses for your activism and hold no tolerance for those who hold religious views on traditional marriage that have been the standard for millenniums. For you, it’s a one way street; no respect for those that disagree with you or their First Amendment rights. Instead, Christians will now be persecuted and spit upon, just like Father Morris. And to claim that you supported a radical gay group that went so far as to persecute not just heterosexuals, but gays and bisexuals, as well, who did not support their actions, only because they had ONE goal that agreed with you is just as hypocritical as someone who would claim they didn’t believe in abortion but donated to Planned Parenthood because of their policy of handing out free condoms. IOW, you’re are, and remain, a liar.

And the sad part? The whole “quality in marriage” crusade was based on lies, from the lies about Lawrence vs. Texas to the lies about the real reason Matthew Shepard was murdered.

@Bill #58:

If YOUR party hadn’t waged cultural war against homosexuals, I’d have never given a dime to any of your despised “radical” groups. I didn’t contribute when the battle over Texas’ anti sodomy laws went to the SCOTUS and Scalia dissented, insisting that Texas had a right to criminalize gay sex. I only BEGAN to research gay rights advocacy when George Bush started pushing for a constitutional amendment FORBIDDING states like Massachusetts from legalizing same-sex marriage. Don’t you find it ironic that your side in the Obergefell case essentially sued for the same states’ rights that Bush sought to take away? And they LOST!

What is that strategy called – “Too little, too late? Isn’t that the SAME strategy that the GOP used in the civil-unions-versus-gay-marriage battle? You fought tooth-and-nail against civil unions right up until it became painfully obvious that gay MARRIAGE was going national. Again, too little, too late.

And finally, with the American public solidly supporting same-sex marriage by a 2-to-1 margin, and with a Supreme Court decision overturning ALL state laws forbidding such marriages, various Republican politicians are preparing to mount a full-blown assault on this done deal. Maddeningly, predictably, too little, too late.

@George Wells:

Name one successful program the left has imposed on us as a country.

Those of us on the right don’t believe that EVERY deomocrat is a corrupt, leftist totalitarian. That characterization is reserved for the deceitful leaders of the democrats. The other division of the left are all the ill-informed democrat voters who believe things like National SOCIALISTS were right wing; the idiotic Keynesian belief that you can spend your way out of debt; that CO2 is a poison; that adding layers upon layers of government bureaucracy on the medical system could ever result in lowering the cost of health care; and the insane underlying belief that reality gives a damn about good intentions over practicality of goals. When I hear morons speak about “free” health care, or espouse incredibly stupid talking points about arbitrary mandates for raising the minimum wage having no negative effects on employment or the cost of goods and services, I cringe over the fact that such uneducated people, ruled by feelings, are encouraged to vote.

@George Wells:

If YOUR party hadn’t waged cultural war against homosexuals

Uh…. I thought it was YOUR party, “usually conservative George”. This is confusing, yet enlightening.

Let us enlighten further. Apparently you are not aware of the power wielded by Democrats, particularly in the south, where much of your “anti-sodomy” laws (sodomy, on the “whole”, being a not so nice thing) existed. “MY” party? No, YOUR party. Further, it was YOUR party that enacted the Defense of Marriage Act. Remember that, Conservative George? Bill? Hillary? Ardent supporters of traditional marriage (and setting such a fine example of their own as well, I might add)?

You confuse supporting and defending the law, tradition and moral and religious rights with “attack” and pandering, usury, lying, patronizing and corrupting with “support”. All you care about is some sort of phony validation of your lifestyle, which others DON’T need, and the false equivalency between a gay lifestyle and a normal lifestyle. Homosexuality may be natural in nature, but it is not normal. That does not mean it should not be tolerated, if that is what someone wants in their private life, but when it is thrust upon the public as a way to force people to accept it as normal and equal, it needs to be fought against. You may not be aware of the fact, nor care, but OTHER people have some rights and dignity as well.

You latest argument robs you of every bit of credibility you may have thought you had here. Blame the Democrats, not Republicans, for you imaginary “persecution”.

#59:

“you have denied that you supported the actions of the gay mafia.”

Do you really believe that just because you call a group a “mafia” that it really IS one?

I could call Fox News a right-wing purveyor of bigoted sensationalism, but that wouldn’t make it so. And you certainly wouldn’t characterize it the same way I would, now would you?

“especially when HRC was blasting out emails to those like you asking them to persecute others for their religious beliefs.”

I never once received an email from HRC until AFTER I sent them money. They didn’t know me from Adam. Just as an aside, I don’t receive solicitations from the March of Dimes, Save the Whales, or ANY of the thousands (millions?) of so-called charities that make a living by begging… and occasionally doing something worth-while. Evidently, the HRC never sold my info to anyone else, something my Mom’s charities can’t say. I NOW get plenty of those “blasts,” but I don’t bother to open them. I got what I paid for. The contract is satisfied.

“You go on so far as to claim these people were not “innocent.””

I child who takes a stray bullet through the brain is innocent. It was a random accident. That doesn’t make firearms “fungible.” That doesn’t provide a reasonable excuse to ban guns. The bullet manufacturer who made money selling the bullet that killed the child isn’t responsible for the death. If every use and abuse of donations resulted in donors being held responsible, the prisons would be bursting with accessories and accomplices. That isn’t so, and never will be. Your argument is a fantasy. In the REAL world, I fairly got what I fairly paid for.

“In ancient Rome…”

Since when did ancient Rome become the standard for American society?
The “founding fathers” said and wrote many things that inform us today, but they don’t shackle us to 18th-century customs. Similarly, archaic Roman history teaches us many things, but we are not nailed to the cultural crosses that they were so fond of erecting and… decorating.

“(You) hold no tolerance for those who hold religious views on traditional marriage that have been the standard for millenniums.”

I guess that you AGAIN forgot my support for religious freedom exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. You should have that problem checked…

You have every right to hold religious views different from mine, and you have every right to tell anyone who will listen just how upset you are about gay weddings.
You have every right to refuse to marry a gay person.
You have every right to refuse to attend a gay wedding.
You have every right to refuse to conduct a gay wedding, to provide services to that wedding, to condone it or accept it or in any other way do anything that your faith suggests you should not do regarding that wedding.
What you do NOT have a right to do – in my opinion and in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States – is to impose YOUR view of the matter on ME.

#61:

“Name one successful program the left has imposed on us as a country.”

Really, Pete, that’s too broad a question.
This thread is about gay marriage, not a distillation of EVERY FA subject that ever drew a comment. The right hates the left, the left hates the right – is that your point?
I’m REASONABLY happy with a number of Democratic programs – and have benefited from some of them – and I’m REASONABLY happy with a number of Republican initiatives. NONE OF THEM ARE PERFECT!
But I don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
I don’t try to overturn a piece of legislation BEFORE I come up with something better.
That’s one of the things that the Republican party does that I have a problem with. Their strategy $ucks.

But let’s stay on topic, shall we?

@Bill #62:

“Homosexuality may be natural in nature, but it is not normal.”

FINALLY, someone here got this right.

And I apologize if I have confused you into believing that I am unaware of the history of the persecution of Homosexuals in the United States. Yes, decades ago EVERYONE persecuted homosexuals. Nobody was stepping forward to embrace gay rights. NOBODY. I’m not wasting time trying to split hairs over the question of which party BACK THEN persecuted gays more that the other. The way I see it, that question is moot. Where the distinction becomes relevant is the point in time when one party or the other began to loosen its death grip on the gay jugular. As it happened, whether intentionally or by accident, the first political party that mitigated its historic opposition to gay rights was the Democratic party. I don’t give a $hit how hard you try to make the case that the Democratic party was what held back the march to gay rights, it wasn’t. It was the GOP. The Republican Party fought gays all along, and you know it.
NOW, the Democratic Party supports gay rights, and that’s what counts… NOW.

@George Wells:

Do you really believe that just because you call a group a “mafia” that it really IS one?

I understand that the reference is quite appropriate when it is a group that uses intimidation and blackmail to achieve its goals, which is what HRC does.

I could call Fox News a right-wing purveyor of bigoted sensationalism, but that wouldn’t make it so.

Why not? In your mind you think that if you call a tail a leg, the dog now has five legs. And what part of this discussion does Fox News play except for your attempt to drag them into it?

I never once received an email from HRC until AFTER I sent them money. They didn’t know me from Adam.

They still don’t know you from Adam. But when you donated you had to do one of two things: provide them, in writing, your email address or check the box on the internet site that puts you are their email list. So, unless you donated to the HRC only recently, you donated to a group whose founder is a pedophile. How many people do you think would donate to any group with a founder that is a pedophile?

Just as an aside, I don’t receive solicitations from the March of Dimes, Save the Whales, or ANY of the thousands (millions?) of so-called charities that make a living by begging… and occasionally doing something worth-while. Evidently, the HRC never sold my info to anyone else, something my Mom’s charities can’t say. I NOW get plenty of those “blasts,” but I don’t bother to open them.

Moot. HRC is not a charity. As a matter of fact, charity is the farthest thing from what they practice.

I got what I paid for. The contract is satisfied.

So Justice Kennedy is on your payroll?

Since when did ancient Rome become the standard for American society?
The “founding fathers” said and wrote many things that inform us today, but they don’t shackle us to 18th-century customs

Ah, poor George, ever the benchmark of example of those who are truly historically illiterate.

. Similarly, archaic Roman history teaches us many things, but we are not nailed to the cultural crosses that they were so fond of erecting and… decorating.

Actually, we are nailed to the cultural crosses of the ancient Romans as we continue to make mistakes that brought about ancient Rome’s destruction and downfall. As a matter of fact, we have gone even deeper into the depths of depravity than Rome did. And like Rome, that destruction will be wrought by a select few.

You have every right to hold religious views different from mine, and you have every right to tell anyone who will listen just how upset you are about gay weddings.
You have every right to refuse to marry a gay person.
You have every right to refuse to attend a gay wedding.
You have every right to refuse to conduct a gay wedding, to provide services to that wedding, to condone it or accept it or in any other way do anything that your faith suggests you should not do regarding that wedding.
What you do NOT have a right to do – in my opinion and in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States – is to impose YOUR view of the matter on ME.

No, George, I do not have the right to refused to participate in a queer wedding, even if my faith prohibits it as the queers have shown, and the courts have upheld, when they penalize those who tried to; like bakers, florists, inn owners, et al.

Nor do I have a right to refuse to support a government that allows you to abuse it simply because you were too damn cheap to purchase your own health insurance. Or have you forgotten how you bragged about your gold investments, could afford health insurance, but didn’t think you should have to because Paul has a job with the federal government and you could leech off the taxpayers? I’m sure that has conveniently left your memory banks, or you will just lie about saying that.

As to the prisons being full, they should be full of queers who knowingly gave another person HIV/AIDS. And you cannot honestly tell me that has not happened. You want to talk about children killed by a stray bullet. How about the 100’s of thousands killed by queers who did not care if they gave another human being an incurable disease? There is your example, George. How about the thousands of lives destroyed because many gay men have a May-December fixation and abused underage boys, like the founder of HRC and his May-December former lover? Or Harvey Milk, who seemed to just love underage boys? Let’s talk about the real history of homosexuality, shall we?

You are a despicable human being, not worth the oxygen required to sustain you. You are a user of, not a contributor to, society. A mentally ill man with a sexual disorder. And you should be shunned by the rest of society.

#666:

Oops! My typo!

Wow, you sound angry today.

@George Wells:

NOW, the Democratic Party supports gay rights

I agree with much of what you said, but one thing I disagree with is your belief that Dimocrats support queer rights. They support the voters voting for them and sucking up to them is their way of ensuring they keep their votes.
I don’t expect you to agree with that.

#68:

“I agree with much of what you said, but one thing I disagree with is your belief that Dimocrats support queer rights. They support the voters voting for them and sucking up to them is their way of ensuring they keep their votes.
I don’t expect you to agree with that.”

I’m not seeing that what you said and what I said are all that different, save for your nasty little habit of tossing in a few insults because you’re not happy.
Democrats let gays in the military – finally. It wasn’t the Republicans who did that. And the four SCOTUS justices who were solidly behind “marriage equality” were nominated by Democrats, though without Kennedy – the champion of gay rights – and who was nominated by Reagan – it wouldn’t have prevailed. AND, it had the support of the Democrat President (not always, but when it counted) and the Democrat Vice president… AND the Democrat Attorney General… AND the lion’s share of congressional Democrats, and on and on. Save for Portman and a single handful of Republicans holding elected offices (that hand missing a few fingers, come to think of it) there isn’t anything comparable to the Democrats’ support for gay rights coming from your side of the isle. I may not have had much to choose from, but I made the right choice.

I am happy to take support for my causes from wherever I can get it. As your… “friend” likes to put it: It’s a cultural war. Winning isn’t everything, but it holds the #1 spot, and what’s in the #2 spot is FAR behind it.

Let’s look at this part again:
“They support the voters voting for them”
Don’t you think that the same can be said of Republican politicians?
Politicians don’t keep their jobs for long if they don’t deliver what their constituents want, do they?

@George Wells: Hey George, I heard a good one todMaay. With the legalization of Gay Marriage, the legalization of Marijuana makes more sense, Threre is a verse in the bible that says: If a man should lie with a man, they should be stoned. Yep, makes sense.

@George Wells:

Democrats let gays in the military – finally. It wasn’t the Republicans who did that.

There have always been gays in the military.

I’m not seeing that what you said and what I said are all that different, save for your nasty little habit of tossing in a few insults because you’re not happy.

direct me to an example. I don’t believe that’s true.

#70:
That IS funny.

Did you see the photo of a dog with the caption: “Caitlyn Jenner’s cat”?

BTW, I’m not answering any more argumentative questions. Nor intentionally nasty posts. They’re not worth the bother, the hate thing has gotten tiresome, and I’ve got better things to do. Sorry.

@George Wells: Ok, I’ll try to not ask you any ‘argumentative ‘ questions. I don’t write ‘nasty’ posts.

@George Wells:

Did you see the photo of a dog with the caption: “Caitlyn Jenner’s cat”?

And that’s funny.

@Redteam:

Just remember, George considers any truth about homosexuality to be “hate” speech.

Just wanted to remind you of his standards.

@George Wells:

For you to say that one has a right not to provide services to a gay wedding flies in the face of the persecution of the Washington florist, the Oregon bakers, the New Mexican wedding photographers, and the Idahoan wedding chapel owners. All of those folks were hit with lawsuits and government harassment precisely because they refused to provide services to gay “marriages” – and all before the SCOTUS redefinition of marriage. So pardon us for giving no credence whatsoever to your claims that our 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion are not endangered by this ruling.

My query as to what leftist programs have worked as proclaimed is absolutely in response to one of your postings about things being better in this country.

Income tax – with the IRS becoming politicized as it has under Obama being bad enough – the fact that we have had continued deficits despite increased tax revenue, to the point that Obama has almost doubled the national deficit in under 7 years, clearly shows it isn’t working for the benefit of the nation.

Social.Security – this is the only pyramid scam the federal government allows, since economically literate people understand such schemes eventually collapse. We are on the precipice within the next 30 years, if you believe CBO numbers, of SS collapse.

Welfare – we have spent $22 trillion since the in eption of this socialist nightmare, yet have seen no change in the percentage of people defined as living in poverty.

Food.stamps – when Obama took office, taxpayers were paying for roughly 26 to 28 million people to get food stamps. Now, we have between 46-48 million on foodstamps. How can anyone believe leftist economics are making things better economically?

Obamacare – how many state exchanges have failed? It is laughably called the “affordable” care act, yet 80% of people enrolled have to get 70-ish% of premiums paid by taxpayers.

Homagamy – the forcing of this issue on people out of a penumbra-based interpretation of the 14th Amendment cannot help but set up a huge conflict with the clearly worded 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religious faith. Leftists seem to think that freedom of religious expression is fine – so long as you limit said exercise to the confines of the church building and comply with government regulations while doing so. Despite your protestations that religion will no be attacked, it wasn’t even 48 hours before the NYT opined that churches should be stripped of their tax exempt status for refusing to abide by the SCOTUS ruling. Religious adoption agencies were forced to cease adoption services for declining to place adoptees with homosexuals when the state decided to impose that ruling. So pardon me for disbeliving that pro-homogamists will respect the religious right not to participate in gay marriages.

@George Wells: You have YET to provide any examples of Republicans “persecuting” poor, innocent gays (wiping away a tear). What, not redefining every aspect of life to suit the gay lifestyle? I should hope that NEVER happens.

You don’t get to define new “rights” and have them etched in stone just because you’re gay.

Sorry.

#76:

“All of those folks were hit with lawsuits and government harassment.”

None of which came from me.

Did y’all forget that I’m insane?
Y’all are arguing with someone you’ve already labeled a lunatic.
How sane does that make YOU?
Y’all need to get a life.
Don’t you THINK?