Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

It seems the activists are ready to exhibit their worst tomorrow even if they win a partial victory.

DAY OF DECISION ACTIONS TUESDAY NIGHT!!

We have just learned that the California Supreme Court will announce its decision on Proposition 8 Tuesday, May 26th. If it follows past practice, the court will make its announcement at about 10 AM Pacific Time (1 PM, Eastern / 12 noon Central).

Depending on what the court decides, we will either PROTEST or CELEBRATE

We will PROTEST if:

-- The court upholds Prop 8, and invalidates the 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses that California already issued;

-- The court upholds Prop 8, but upholds the 18,000 same-sex marriages already performed, which would be a cruel, but pyrrhic victory for equality.

We will CELEBRATE if:

-- The court rejects Proposition 8 and says that same-sex couples are entitled to the marriage rights that heterosexual couples already have. So call, email, Facebook, Twitter your friends – DAY OF DECISION actions are TUESDAY NIGHT!

Robin Tyler
Andy Thayer
Co-founders

Stay classy radicals.

TRACK KMC 24/7:

Because I'm a small business owner, attempting with all my might to resist the recession that President Obama seems intent upon keeping crammed down on us for as long as is humanly possible, it has begun to take me a while to get around to posting my thoughts on the events of the headlines, but also those in my own life these days.

Such is the case with the debate I was invited to participate in last night in New York's Hudson Valley Debate series. (Actually their final debate for the spring...)

Patrick McGrath should be congratulated for his desire to bring about civil and important discussion to the legislative issues of the time and thus his establishment of the series.



As he pointed out on his site, the attendance last night broke records. Previously they had averaged somewhere in the 30-40 range of attendees that voted. Last night with the issue being the loaded hot potato that I knew it would be the turnout was much larger. Most of it from the activist community that supports those who engage in homosexual activity.

When we were saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" at the beginning of the night the activists could not contain themselves and went for the jugular at the end of the pledge, 'with liberty and justice for S O M E!"

It's lame, it's dishonest, but it makes the irrational folks that make up that activist community feel more justified in their stew to have these little gadgets, catch phrases, and one-liners as many of them were thrown out in the course of the evening.

The debate was set up to be conducted in Oxford formatting so the same number of presenters are given an equal amount of time to make the case and then a vote is taken on the measure that is before the debate audience.

The tally of those who participated in the voting was registered before the debate and after the debate.

To no one's surprise, with the loaded jury, the activists bussed in a guaranteed win right?

Sort of...

When the vote was taken at the beginning of the night the numbers were 39 in favor of the marriage "equality" (sham) bill, and 18 against.



I was arguing the "against" position and I followed a family life activist, and a family life legal council from the New York Diocese. Batting clean up and know the other side was going to easily win I wondered exactly to myself why I had agreed to spend a lovely evening away from my Lovely Bride's side.

Both sides featured an attorney, both sides featured a woman. And both sides featured a personality who had some relationship to the other side of the debate.

The first presenter for those who wish to fundamentally redefine marriage stood up and announced that he was a practicing Jew who was married to his wife of some years and that he was here to fight for the "rights" of all. It was interesting to me in fact that two thirds of the debate team for the other side were married heterosexuals. Evidently the activist homosexual community understands at least in public how irrational, illogical, and passionately out of control they come off.

As Evidenced by the fact that the only presenter who espoused homosexual behavior for the other team made absurd statements asserting that homosexuals were the primary care givers to "crack babies" and other unwanted "cast off" children in America.

I looked him dead in the eye when I dealt with his assertion in the midst of my ten minutes.


All that being said I was grateful that both sides WERE able to have a fundamental discussion about genuine fairness, equality, sameness, gender distinction, and how all of that relates to the inherent definition of what marriage is. In addition when the voters were polled after the debate the tally was 47 to 29.

Fundamentally homosexual unions are not the equivalent to marriage because *gasp* heterosexual unions are superior by nature. Heterosexual unions are superior in what they have the capability to produce, how they physically work together, and in the DNA, chemical, and chromosome balance they bring to a family unit. (Before you blow a gasket... I admit that is a generalization. But generalizations are "generally" true for a reason.)

The debate will not be stopped anytime soon. But I for one am glad the discussion is now rolling because at least the substance of it can be examined more carefully.

And in doing so perhaps we can assuage some of the damage the activist homosexual "activist" community (not normal homosexuals) seems hellbent on visiting upon the free world.

I'm sure that Perez Hilton was unable to contain the proper excretory functions of bodily fluids today, as Maine became the next state to legally change their definition of what marriage is.

The Maine Senate voted 21-13, with one absent, for a bill that authorizes marriage between any two people rather than between one man and one woman, as state law currently allows. The House had passed the bill Tuesday. 

Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who hadn't previously indicated how he would handle the bill, signed it shortly afterward. In the past, he said he opposed gay marriage but supported civil unions, which provide many benefits of marriage.

My 180-billion dollar bet would be Barack Obama would do exactly the same thing if given the chance.

Let's face it its hard for Baldacci to show any true spine or backbone when he envisions that the entirety of New England is in fact falling down the sinkhole of become Europe Part Deux.

But in the past I've consistently made the point that when a state has chosen to redefine the institution of marriage they have often done so unconstitutionally (through the courts) and what Maine did this morning can not be seen that way.

The elected representatives of the people, passed a law, changed the definition of the word, and sent it to the executive whose signature made it the law in their state.

Whether or not the people will be allowed to vote on it directly depends on the laws of each state, but in all honesty I don't see the liberal northeast changing their tune on this number anytime soon.

What this does, along with the judicial activists instances in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Iowa and the executive branch's overreach in New York, is now firmly set up the battle between state's rights and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
(An act Obama pledged to overturn...)

With the three or four states that now have a legal definition that differs from the definition of other states there will be a test of who has the right to define marriage. Does ONE state have more of a right than other states? If the federal government decides to overturn DOMA, and the courts uphold it, the answer will be yes.

If DOMA holds however, look for the radical-activist-panzys to move to states where the definition is different and attempt to through first litigation, and then through massive political efforts to overturn the will of the people in those states.

In California the feces-throwing-tree-dwelling monkeys that lost Prop8 took to physical assault and all out riots in places because their 2% of the popultion disagreed with the majority of Californians.

So... point number 1 - the next big development in this fight is federal, and it won't be focused on the rights of the individuals, but on the rights for states to self-determine... and this is an important fight to have.

Point number 2, gaining the "same rights" as married heterosexuals was never what was at stake here. Single persons in American culture have more freedoms than married persons do. Cohabitation is less intrusive legally speaking into the life of a household than being married. In fact until George W. Bush came along married people paid a higher rate of tax as a married couple than did singles. But we all know how much those people who dip the pen into the ink of homosexuality LOVE to pay taxes...

I digress...

The real purpose of all of this push is that the bat-bitten-rabid-crazy-out-of-their-brain activists in the "gay" movement don't care about equal treatment, they want preferred treatment. It's not enough to say someone is equal in the eyes of the law, they have to be "special" to everyone up and down the block, and under no circumstances can you be allowed to disagree with them.

The real purpose of all this push to redefine culture, society, and the family unit is to say "you're not allowed to believe anything negative about the behavior that I engage in."

The haters of all that is straight insist upon pushing Hate Crimes legislation through. Not beause they are an especially persecuted class of people. They're not. They're not genetically, biologically, or humanly different as a group of people. In fact the only thing that separates them in any way is what they do after they close the door to go to "bed."

The real issue is they want:
1. Clergy to be lawfully bound from being able to teach on passages of scripture that do not approve of their behavior...
2. No one to be allowed to disagree with what they do...
3. Complete access to the next generation to indoctrinate them against the nature God puts within them...

The Constitutional battle is warming up with states being now mildly divided on the issue. But even when that is settled the issue of sanction and or sanctity of behavior will still be the primary target of all those who preach tolerance.

In reality they just are the most intolerant of those who disagree with them of any single group who's ever walked the planet...

And I'm referring to the hatemongering activists directly. I still believe that scripture makes a case against the average person participating in homosexuality, but I can live with my homosexual neighbor in peace. It's the feces-throwing-monkeys in California that cause all the problems...

BREAKING NEWS: The Iowa State Supreme Court has violated the separation of powers in their state and mandated that marriage be redefined, citing that "couples" now have rights.

And evidently they have the right to redefine words.

Iowa's Supreme Court is dishonest, no man nor woman in the state of Iowa has ever been refused the opportunity to marry.

Whatever sexual unions you desire to engage in - they are not all the same, nor should they all go by the same name.

Marriage has been, throughout history - the union of a man and a woman.

No man nor woman in the United States has ever been denied that right... EVER!

*Parting question*

If you say that only couples have rights to label their sexual unions as marriage, aren't you discriminating against people who prefer to live in trios or foursomes? By redefining marriage to mean something else - but yet limiting it to only one group haven't you opened up discrimination?

For the dense-headed blocks of wood sitting on the Iowa Surpeme Court, this is why the constitution gives us individual rights. Individual responsibility and individual rights were what the founder's based everything upon...

From today's AP:

BOSTON (AP) - A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

I have wondered for some time in the back of my mind if there should be another consideration on whether we want to establish equity in a variety of other sexual unions and labeling them marriage.

What if they don't last?

Even when heterosexual unions begin to experience troubles there are some natural restraints that at least initially present some incentive as to why the parties involved SHOULD try to work it out. Like the fact that society is dependent upon the raising of children.

Homosexual unions will never produce children... thus one normal restraining force against personal selfishness (the cause of every divorce ever experienced) is absent from the very beginning of the union.

A major reason many heterosexual unions do not last is not much different than why most homosexual unions do... people are selfish.

The fact that the majority of those engaged in homosexual practices, proudly exist in those "relationships" in a non-exclusive or "open" status--where outside sex partners are engaged with members of a "committed" relationship adds to the doubt that some sort of fidelity is a reasonable expectation in a sexual union that has less natural incentives to move its members towards the idea of personal sacrifice.

The losers in the hotly contested issue of changing the historic definition of marriage to suddenly include all kinds of various definitions in California evidently do not understand the authority of Constitutional rule.

The Supreme Court of a State can not override specificity in the document that they themselves are organized by.

The ruling the California Supreme Court only months ago passed was that the state legislative measure passed a few years ago defining marriage along historic lines was not protected in the language of the state's constitution specifically.

The voters despite being outspent nearly 17 to 1 in terms of financial, celebrity, and media influenced resources decided against all of those elites and decided that the Constitution would be amended to define marriage as it has always been defined... a union of one man and one woman.

They even did this despite the fact that the homosexual advocates on the other side sent hit squads to the homes of major donors to the Prop 8 measure to intimidate, assault, and manipulate into submission on the issue.

The Constitution is accountable to the will of the people, the Supreme Court is accountable to the Constitution, the legislature is sometimes accountable to the Supreme Court, and certainly the people are subject to the legislature.

Those that have now lost (AGAIN) to the will of the people of California are attempting to rewrite the entirety of the accountability in the state's code.

They will lose - because the people have the right to define marriage as it has always been defined.

And its NOT discrimination to do so...

He might have been a little slow off the mark on this, but it is the best thing for him to do. He CLEARLY supports the people of California, Obama clearly embraces the judicial tyrants in black robes:

My friends at Protect Marriage received this yesterday:

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

DISTINCTION is what McCain needs in this election - not conformity, and this gives him one more night stick to beat Obama over the head with.