Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Above the Hate
by Maggie Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


(NOTE: Maggie Gallagher is the president of the National Organization for Marriage, which is sponsoring an AbovetheHate.com campaign.)

Take this column with a grain of salt.

I've been an opinion journalist for 20 years, but when it comes to marriage I'm an activist for a cause I passionately believe in.

This November, in the middle of a great blue Obama tide, Americans in three states spoke up clearly to agree: Marriage is the union of husband and wife.

That's an ideal which most Americans, whether they are black or white, Democrat or Republican, evangelical or Mormon, cherish. The majority of people, and the majority of courts, recognize that same-sex marriage is not a civil right. Unions of husband and wife really are unique and deserve their unique status in law, culture and society.

By a clear margin of 53 percent to 47 percent, California voters rejected same-sex marriage as a civil right. The results have been horrifying -- and I don't mean for California same-sex couples, who remain protected by domestic partnerships that provide exactly the same legal rights and benefits as marriage.

In the last few weeks, the same-sex marriage movement has visibly morphed from a movement advocating for tolerance into a political tsunami which will brook no dissent and openly seeks to punish Americans who disagree with its new dogmas.

Since California passed Proposition 8, extraordinary attacks have been unleashed -- livelihoods threatened, artists blacklisted, property defaced, worship services blocked, and even some physical attacks directed at ordinary people simply because they say marriage means a man and a woman.

Religious minorities (Mormons and members of black churches) are bearing the brunt and too few voices are being raised to say this is wrong. No Americans, especially no minorities, should be afraid because they peacefully exercised core civil rights to vote or donate in support of an idea such as "marriage means a husband and wife."

On the last day of the election, anti-Prop 8 forces ran a "home invasion" ad depicting two young Mormon missionaries ransacking homes. The ad further accuses Mormons in California of trying to take over the government because, as citizens, they participated in the political process by voting and donating to a cause they believed in. A week after the election The Los Angeles Times editorial board opined that No on Prop 8 forces should run more "hard-hitting" ads like "home invasion," along with more "in-your-face radicalism."

On the "Dr. Phil" show last week I sat next to a powerful politician -- Mayor Gavin Newsom -- who ritually rejected violence but refused to decry these extraordinary threats to ordinary voters' livelihoods. I also sat next to Joe Solmonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign, when a young Mormon in the audience asked him, "Why are you singling out my faith when so many other people supported Prop 8?" Did Joe, an amiable guy, take a moment to call his troops to back off from religious bigotry, to refocus on the larger problem -- 7 million Californians disagree with his organization's gay marriage civil rights dogma?

No. I sat silent, dumbfounded, next to Joe when he pointed at the young man and cried, "We are going to go after your church every day for the next two years unless and until Prop 8 is overturned."

My mouth dropped. This was Joe's response just a few days after white powder was sent to LDS temples in Utah and California.

But no one else seemed to notice.

If any political movement had aired ads attacking Jews for taking over the government because Jewish citizens donated "too much" money to a cause they believed in --everyone right and left would recognize that something very wrong was happening.

But right now, judging from their unwillingless to speak out, leaders of the gay marriage movement (including powerful politicians like Mayor Newsom) apparently believe that the new politics of payback works for them.

Something new and very ugly has entered American politics.

Right now, the politics of hate may be centered on marriage, but if these tactics are permitted to work uncriticized, I promise you one thing: They won't end there.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Ms. Gallagher
Great article and observations.

The only statement I disagree comes toward the end of your article, "Something new and very ugly has entered American politics."

There is nothing new, in my opinion, about what is happening relative to the attacks on the Mormons, etc. Anytime a small, morally bankrupt group does not get its way, they will resort to bullying. This same group will be the first to cry when they are challanged.

Thank you again for a thoughtful article and have a great Thanksgiving!

ATTACK ON MARRIAGE UNITE THE MASSES
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT UNITE THAT OFTEN ESPECIALLY ON ELECTION DAY. BUT WHEN THE GAY COALITION TRIED TO PRESENT THEIR OBSESSION WITH MARRIAGE THE SAME AS THE STRUGGLE OF BLACKS DURING THE FIRST JIM CROW ERA.

America is suffering
America is suffering unlawful deception from the Alinsky group.
Group u$urp$ power on January 20th—the constitution violated.
The United States Supreme Court alone can relieve this outrage.

example: Bogus Selective Service System FOIA Registration?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_d id_n.html

Don't look in the mirror
Don't look in the mirror, right-wingers. Proposition 8 is as good an example of the politics of hate as anything done by gay activists. The very idea that human rights can be taken away by majority rule ought to scare conservatives--indeed, it used to scare them--but now conservatives are flushed with the satisfaction of winning by majority rule that they've forgotten their principles.

There is absolutely no argument against gay marriage that could not, with just a few modifications, be used against interracial marriage. Just in case you folks have forgotten, laws banning interracial marriage were justified in 3 main ways. (1) The Bible, which conservative racists read as prohibiting interracial marriage, just like now they read as..well, we all know (2) Nature. Conservative racists believed that species don't interbreed and that differences between blacks and whites were analogous to differences among animal species. Plenty of examples of conservative use of 'arguments from nature' against gays can be found. and (3) Tradition. If it wasn't part of tradition and custom to allow interracial marriage, then that was good enough for conservative racists. This argument is still made against gay marriage.

Why am I calling the racists "conservatives?" Well, racism, its practice, and justification were long parts of American tradition, and conservatives are people who defend tradition, desiring to maintain traditional values. So you figure it out.

Great article
This was a fantastic article. It scares me to think of what the future of the American Republic has in store if we allow this kind of radicalism to become main-stream.
We have elections for a purpose. We have the process to allow the defense of all people. We are a REPUBLIC to protect and defend minorities. This is scary. Really scary.

We would if we could but we can't
There was a time when the people would not have tolerated such "in your face" intimidation from any group. The law in the past few decades however, has become increasingly favorable to these dissident types and any push back to their pushy ways is labeled a hate crime.

The anarchy being displayed by the gay activists and pro gay marriage thugs must not be allowed to go unchallenged. It is not a hate crime to defend personal belief, liberty and freedom. Such anarchy must not be allowed to exist with impunity.

I expect things to get much worse
Right up front... I DO NOT TRUST OUR INCOMING PRESIDENT! However, he has been good for one particular industry...
http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/this-years-ch ristmas-gift-guns/

Liar!
Maggie Gallagher is a liar. She has been lied to the American people time and again, hiding behind her claim to be a "journalist" while all the time being a paid mouthpiece for the failed Bush administration.

Now she skims money from her non-for-profit hate center into prop 8.

Here are a few facts:


National Organization for Marriage, Princeton, NJ
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242, Princeton, NJ 08542 • Tel: 609.688.0450 • Web: http://www.nomcalifornia.org and http://www.nationformarriage.org

$1,041,134.80*
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) gave: $225,000 on 1/22/08, $38,132.50 on 2/1/08, $47,402.25 on 2/18/08, $172,500 on 2/21/08, $108,000 on 2/22/08, $105,000 on 3/7/08, $50,000 on 4/14/08, $25,000 on 4/18/08, $25,000 on 4/18/08, $100,100 on 4/24/08, $25,000 on 4/25/08, $20,000 on 7/30/08 and $100,000 on 10/21/08.



Why don't you
go back to SHAGGING your pet goat and leave the normal folk alone?

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

WratWrangler
that is so crude. i have been perusing this website for a couple of days in the hopes of understanding of how conservatives think. when i see stuff like this it makes me think that you people are base and ill-informed. what is with you people? Wrat, i've seen some of your postings and they are not that vile. what is up with you tonight?

right on maggie gallagher ! good article
conservatives know marrige =one man and one woman!anyone who doesnt know read romans chapter one!

Tabitha
What Ray said was no more un-natural or crude than what gays normally do.

He has the problem.
It's a goat fixation. My problem is with libtard trolls who breeze in, insult every conservative on the board and then expect US to grovel at THEIR feet in abject self-flagellation for our benighted errors.


-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria

Not the gays?
You are sadly mistaken. I grew up in San Francisco, and the gays have gotten more and more militant and violent over the years in "expressing" their sexual choices. But now they have crossed the line. If they honestly want a war and keep pushing, THEY WILL GET A WAR. It will be a war that they will lose. You really want blood in the streets? Be careful what you wish for.

The behavior of
people since the election in regard to this issue has been disgusting. I think that it has been made clear that gay "activists" want more than civility and tolerance (things they are apparently incapable of) they want religions to change their doctrines to celebrate homosexuality. Can you imagine if they went after Muslims (yeah I jnow they are too cowardly). The left wouldn't no what to do there would be two groups they love to call victims and prop up at odds with one another. Although judging by the unbelievable racism exhibited by the gay "activists" towards black Americans and the lack of comment from the left or their official mouthpieces in the mainstream media - I think it's now clear that gay trumps black in liberal identity politics.

I'm disgusted. As someone who never supported gay marriage but was sympathetic to gays, I am shocked by what their actions show them to be and no longer have sympathy to any of their claims as I have witnessed their intolerance and hate towards blacks and Mormons.


Mormons are an easy target
It is acceptable to bash Mormons and Gays know that - remember Larry O'Donnels rant about Mormons on MSNBC?. They aren't going to take on Blacks who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.

It's too bad other Christian groups don't put aside their theological differences with Mormons and team up with them politically just as was done in Calif on prop 8. Mormons are very conservative and hold most of the same family values as Catholics, Baptists and other Christians. Utah has an excellent economy even under these circumstances due in part to common sense management and honest hard working people.

fanatics on all sides...
...are the problem. these gay activist crazies who threaten Mormons are identical to the pro-life crazies who stand outside Planned Parenthood clinics and threaten pregnant women.

we live in a democracy; we don't all believe in the same religion and nobody can force someone else to believe in their religion.

I personally think gay marriage is silly--the word marriage DOES happen to mean that it involves a man and a woman, and I don't see how it is a "human right that has been taken away" as one poster said. I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution does it say that two men have the RIGHT to get married? we are promised the "pursuit" of happiness, after all; nobody ever said we'd get everything we want.

but I also think the argument that gay marriage somehow weakens traditional marriage is equally silly. I mean seriously, who is a better role model: two lesbians in a committed, stable 20-year-long relationship, or Britney Spears? (or you could name just about anybody else in Hollywood.)


ruths rant part 2
having blathered on about the subject of this thread, tho, I feel I need to point out that our country is in the throes of one of the worst crises in our history.

the very future of America as we knew it and loved it is in doubt. our economic systems have come crashing down, our jobs are disappearing, our houses are being foreclosed on, we can't afford our health care, and in my state of Michigan we are facing total disaster if the Big Three go out of business.

overseas, Chavez just welcomed Russian ships to Venezuela, Iran and Israel are considering nuking each other, and our quest for Bin Laden is nowhere nearer completion than it was on September 12, 2001 or any of the days in between.

so the point is...gay marriage is just about the most frivolous issue we have on the table right now.

I didn't vote for Obama the candidate...but I will support PRESIDENT Obama the best I can, as he is president of all the people. maybe when we each personally understand the challenges facing us we can all come together as AMERICANS and face the foe. and maybe if we can succeed in that, we'll realize that issues like gay marriage are the relatively unimportant things they are.


How would a vote go on Civil Rights
for Blacks in the 1950's?Thats why we have a 3rd branch of government.The minority gets to have it's rights protected from the "tyranny of the majority".Just like the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia in 1967 that states can't make it a crime for blacks and whites to marry.The same thing will happen for gays.Get used to it.And this is from a married straight person.

Mark
"You really want blood in the streets?"

What are you talking about? Who brought that up besides you? Is that an insight into your mind?

The fact is when the question of sexual orientation leads to blood in the streets, it's the blood of gays spilled by straights, not the other way around.

Lulu
"[gays] want religions to change their doctrines to celebrate homosexuality."

That's a terrible distortion. We are objecting because the official leadership of the Mormon Church conducted an organized political effort to take away basic human rights.

We're Americans; real Americans stand up for themselves when their rights are challenged. Would you do otherwise?

Who are the violent haters?

Violence
Someone on this thread and on another one the other day opined on how the gaystapo is quickly eroding any tolerance that was showed to the homosexual community and violence may well end up knocking at their door. We have all had to bite our tongues for so many years while flaming fruitflies paraded their perversity in our streets, fornicated in our public parks and rest stops, and have infiltrated our schools with a pro pervert agenda. While I do not condone violence, the in your face confrontational policy the q*eer eyes for the brown eye advocate will certainly lead to someone getting hurt.

BenjaminBarker
Keep posting, Benjamin, and you'll show everyone where the hate REALLY lies.

Robbie..buttercup
Every normal person on this site knows where the hate lies...with you sp*rm burpers...you hate yourselves,Christians,us so called breeders,and anyone who exposes the sillyness,futility, and danger of your perversity. I dont hate you sweetie, I would have to give a damn about you to hate you. What I hate is an agenda to force me to accept the unacceptable. Period.

rights vs. wrongs
So long as the sanctity of marriage is held in the devoted heart of a husband and wife, the institution will not be weakened if the government mandates allowance of a new variation.
However, marriage is and always has been a union of man and woman. I don't know when the government decided they were in charge of defining words, but they chose a whopper for their first attempt. No matter how much gay couples love each other, no matter how devoted they are to each other, what they have is not marriage.
That said, the situation presents a conflict to the protection of equal rights. It can be legitimately argued that gays have every right of straight people, as it is perfectly legal for gays to marry someone of the opposite sex. This line of thought, while technically correct, is not only insensitive but demeaning. It may be equal rights, but it is by no means equal protection. Gay couples should be able to recognize their relationships in a way that would grant all of the protections, benefits, and penalties that come along with marriage. All states should allow civil unions, and they should be legally recognized as equal to marriages. They don't even have to be called "civil unions," they can make up a new word (gayrriage?).
So long as the government doesn't butt in to church business by forcing religious acceptance of homosexuality, legalizing gay marriage should not cause many problems. Sadly, I fear that such an intrusion is just what some are hoping for.






Nate
Most States do allow civil unions between same sex folks and no one including myself has a problem with that,but the gaystapo apparently does. It all really comes down to homosexuals wanting to force everyone to accept their perversity as normal.

Mostly, I agree with Maggie and LuLu
I am sick and tired of having 'the gay lifestyle' shoved in my face. I am tired of hearing about your sex lives which, by the way, I do NOT hear about from straight/heterosexuals.

I, too, fear Mark is correct. There will be bloodshed before this is over. While I hope I, and Mark, are wrong - I will prepare. It will be the shortest 'civil war' ever. Because I imagine your 'supporters' or enablers will not do any fighting for you.

Just keep doing what you are doing, it won't be long.

Or stop being a bunch of pansy a$$ whiners and accept the hand you got. You got civil unions. Maybe it isn't called "marriage" - but so what? Get over it and move on.

Robert
Yo Buddy,
Who brought up blood in the streets? The poofters who knocked down the elderly lady and who assault any straights that have the misfortune to find themselves in Castro, honey. The happy rainbows that screamed their hatred as they bloodied up two elderly folks who supported Prop 8 with a yard sign. THAT's who brought it up. Their deeds will be visited back on them tenfold.

A reply to Ms. Gallagher:
This Thursday, we'll give thanks that we don't think like Maggie Gallagher
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/11/this-thursday- w.html#more

A PERVERSION OF NATURE

.....GESTELLE* ...

.....All butt jockeys and deep seat muff divers have the right to Civil Unions ...to call these unions "Marriage" would be to pervert the meaning of marriage ...

.....The biological purpose of life is to procreate ...homo-sexuals have no biological purpose ...therefore no right to marriage .....COLOSSUS

also
Gallagher left out the most horrific consequence, the likely forcible divorcing of 18,000 marriages by edict of the state. oh wait she favors that but is trying to pretend that anything similar has happened to her side.

How clownish the conservative response to their victory has become.

It is not an easy thing being on the wrong side of history, as opponents of same sex marriage clearly are. And conservatives have a history of having to go through this. They did with interracial marriage as well. But fortunately for them nothing serious is likely to happen to them personally like the forcible ending of their marriages. But that won't stop them from whining louder than the people actually affected.

texaschuck TX - 1950's voting?

How would a civil rights vote go in the 1950's?

Well some states would vote for, support, and approve equal civil rights for everyone and some states would not.

Over time, the states that afforded most equal rights and protections would grow and flourish and the states that did not would end up with a labor shortage.

The states originally opposed to equal rights would then re-evaluate the path they choosen and make corrections if needed.

As intended by the founding fathers, the people would control their own destiny for good or bad. Not 9 old guys in black robes.

Mark
"Their deeds will be visited back on them tenfold."

That's a pretty empty threat, because for every gay-on-straight attack there are a thousand attacks on gays.

Violence is deplorable, no matter which way it goes. But straights have much much more to answer for (and I'd love to see your stats and sources for attacks in the Castro)

reply to baseballdoc
Your capacity for argument just knocks me out! I mean, you are clearly the reincarnation of Bill Buckley. I love your careful attention to the points I made so you can refute them. Your polemic is finely reasoned....oops, I must have confused you with someone else.

www.abovethehate.com
Sign it if you feel the pendulum has swung too far to the left. I did yesterday.

No person should be punished for his vote.

His name should not be drug through the mud, his business should not be targeted,
his church should not be vandalized,
his car should not be keyed,
his children should not be humiliated at school by teachers or peers,
his life should not be threatened,
his right to worship should not be compromised,
his job should remain secure,
his children should not have "white powder" sent to their religious instruction seminary building or to his temples,
his temples should not be shut down,
his neighbor's churches should not be "infiltrated" with worshipers who disrupt and vandalize,
his Knights of Columbus printing center should not receive "white powder,"
etc., etc.

Bullies are only brave in groups because they are really cowards inside.

Do you want to be next? Best to stand up to bullies and help each other defend families and traditional marriage.

Gay people have legal rights and protection. No one is lobbying to diminish their rights. And there is no backlash to punish them for their excess zeal which has an aggressive side against the Black and LDS voters who supported Prop. 8.

Robert
In CA

One side DOES have such a history; you're right.
Maybe we can get Ahmadinejad to step down.

wise woman?
"No one is lobbying to diminish their rights."

That's simply untrue. I don't know whether you're wise, but you're certainly uninformed.

Find a new word

I can not imagine why those idiots with a birth defect that they are so proud of, want to have any association with normal people.

With their help, it is impossible to create a sentence in polite society that contains the words “Qu*er, and “Ga-y”. Now they want to put the word Marriage in the same pot hole.

I would think they would like their own word, one that is immediately recognized for what it describes. How about Garriage? tells tell exactly what is being talked about, and does not ruin another good word in the language.

With the 26 letters in the alphabet, along with spaces and dashes, billions of words can be formed, and it would have a specific meaning.

When you see the word hippomatus, or alligator, you know exactly what it means, just like Garriage would let you know the subject is idiotic.

============

If the marriage is good, there is
nothing better.
_____________________________
If the marriage is bad there is
nothing worse.
_____________________________
That last comment is a rumor I have heard, in 55 years I did not experience that for even a moment.

For wise woman's edification
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Unmarried_Co uple_Adoption_Ban_(2008)

"No one is lobbying to diminish their rights." Please research your statements before uttering them with such certainty.


Jim
"I can not imagine why those idiots with a birth defect..."

Nope. No hate here.

Lon
I would think a 'grandfather clause' would apply to actions made at a time when that action was legal. there are relatively few instances where such cases were not 'grandfathered'.
You know, I personally don't care if two guys or two women want to have a gay relationship; I just don't. Marry each other if you want. Marry a zucchini if you want. Settle down, sow a few seedlings, and have a couple of baby squash, whatever. I think what many conservatives are concerned about in the case of the institution of marriage, and prop 8 in CA is twofold. First, marriage in this society is an institution with its foundations in the Judeo-Christian beliefs of those Europeans who first settled in North America. True, other cultures define this differently and those foundations have a different origin, but we're talking about Anglo-American culture in this case. The departure from the traditional Judeo-Christian origin of the institution of marriage to be a contradiction to the wishes of those first settlers' vision, and the resultant anti-Christian backlash constitutes, for many, a violation of first amendment rights.
Second is that the 'will of the people' decided by ballot, could be overturned by the threat of violence of a few.
Valid concerns, I would think.

:)
I see that in titling her column, Maggie has predicted both its physical placement above the comments section and the type of comments her fellow traditional marriage supporters would make.

Gestell, et al

civil rights are determined by super-majority rule under the constitution.

There is no governmental discrimination against homosexuals in the U.S.A.

Aside from the political issues, Jesus also said that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Aside from the political and religious positions, there is nothing reasonable about encouraging same-sex sodomy.

Gingrich
From Candace's letter to her brother Newt:

"This is a movement of the people that you most fear. It's a movement of progress -- and your words on FOX News only show how truly desperate you are to maintain control of a world that is changing before your very eyes.

Then again, we've seen these tactics before. We know how much the right likes to play political and cultural hardball, and then turn around and accuse us of lashing out first. You give a pass to a religious group -- one that looks down upon minorities and women -- when they use their money and membership roles to roll back the rights of others, and then you label us "fascists" when we fight back. You belittle the relationships of gay and lesbian couples, and yet somehow neglect to explain who anointed you the protector of "traditional" marriage. And, of course, you've also mastered taking the foolish actions of a few people and then indicting an entire population based on those mistakes. I fail to see how any of these patterns coincide with the values of "historic Christianity" you claim to champion."

Full text at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/candace-gingrich/a-letter-to -my-brother-ne_b_145739.html

Fact
There is nothing at all "gay" about being sexually perverted.

Haters targeting schools now
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. (AP) - An upstate college is investigating a possible hate crime after anti-gay sentiments and other vulgarities were written outside the school's Center for Sex and Gender Relations. Skidmore students say the vandalism is the latest in a series of similar incidents at the private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs. School spokeswoman Andrea Wise says someone apparently broke into the center over the weekend.

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=6505750&nav=4QcSZl2X

gay rights.
35 states ban gay marriage.

19 states ban civil unions.

9 states ban gay adoptions.

Gays are not protected by federal laws involving discrimination and hate crimes.

Most hate crimes are committed against gays and lesbians (even Lou Dobbs admits this).

What hate?
What are we exactly talking about? Why is it that religious people always want the regulate the behavior of others? Don't like gays? Great, avoid them! You're a dude and you don't believe in marrying your male neighbor? Great, don't! Leave the rest of us alone. If you can wear your magic underwear, then allow others to be gay and get married. Everybody happy!

WHY don't they try it in a mosque?
WHY don't they knock a Koran out of some old man's hands and stomp on it? PLEASE Lavender Mafia, please try it!! Just let me get my camcorder.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Maggie
Maggie is such a hypocrite. How come she has never called out Right Wing groups like the American Family Association (AFA) that regularly boycotts pro-gay businesses and have even gotten people fired before?




Wrat Wrangler
You're just dying to see gays get beat up, aren't you? In fact, you want to record it so you can watch it again and again.

Oh, I forgot: when the crowd was going to stone that woman, Jesus told them, "STOP! Until I get my camcorder."

GESTELLE*

.....You made points? ...I must have missed them because I was concentrating on the composition of my polemic .....COLOSSUS

They brag about it

Robert Location: CA
Reply # 13
Date: Nov 26, 2008 - 12:41 PM EST
Subject: Jim
"I can not imagine why those idiots with a birth defect..."

========

Hey they are the ones who say they were born that way.


jim
Do things only make sense to you when viewed through the lens of your hate?

No onions!!!
THAT'S why they target a little old lady with a styrofoam cross and NOT an old man in a mosque. SOME of those "old men" would give the rioters a lesson in remedial manners if nothing else.

It's like PeTA with the red paint. It was made clear a long time ago that PeTA "converts" (idiots) donate their furs to the "cause". The same furs are worn by volunteers who try to pass as upper crust "Cruella de Villes" and get red paint thrown on them. VERY few red paint incidents involved random victims because somebody might get hurt or the cops might be called.

If these twerps had any cojones why don't they go down to the East Village and throw red paint on the Hell's Angels? After all, fur is just leather with the hair left on and nothing more. So to be intellectually honest they HAVE to heave paint on a bike gang too.

What? They might bend your legs backwards and stuff them in your pockets? So? Aren't you a "brave and committed" counterculture warrior?

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Google Pink Pistols you twit!!!!
We NRA guys helped ORGANIZE and TRAIN them. They were San Fran gays and lesbians who were actually getting physically BASHED as opposed to disagreed with.

They were buying guns to defend themselves at home since San Fran doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment so carriage is out of the legal question.

Concerned that these new gun owners were too unfamiliar with basic safety the NRA sent safety instructors to help them avoid shooting themselves or their domestic partners. My! How homophobic.

Then a weird thing happened. They started to LIKE shooting for sport and began to practice and form shooting leagues!! Now they have chapters all over the country. NOBODY wants to see "gays beaten up", but we tire very quickly of old ladies and elderly couples getting a beat down because you people won't go where the REAL opposition is out of fear.

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

christian bullies
Radical christians and christians in general have discriminated against gays and targeted gays for centuries.

These christians are typical bullies. They can dish it out but they can't take it.

Good for the gays who were protesting and taking to the streets. They have the right and they have a voice.

Their voices should be heard.

Good for the gays who are fighting back through boycotts.

Why should gays fund their own persecution? Why should they spend their hard earned money on business' that fund hate or discrimination ?

The Christians love to boycott and target individuals and business' look at the AFA, but when the gays do it they are "anarchists" or "fascists".

Give me a break!

Christians can bully other groups all day long but if anyone has the nerve to counter them then they start whining and crying.

Hey look I'm a christian but I believe in equal rights and marriage equality.

This is one topic where I will break from my core repub values.

I wish conservatives could send the so called social conservatives to the curb. you guys are ruining our country.




Not hate, just facts

Robert Location: CA
Reply # 3
Date: Nov 26, 2008 - 5:20 PM EST
Subject: jim
Do things only make sense to you when viewed through the lens of your hate?
=====

Not hate just facts. "They" are the ones who brag about their birth defect.

culture war
Some of you keep acting like you aren't haters but you frequently put down gays in your posts. You call them perverted or defective. You keep exposing yourselves for the haters you are.

I have seen the most disgusting things posted about gays on this website. Some of you have went far to demonstrate your level of intolerance, hate, and disgust at your fellow Americans.

I think the fact that you wage so called Culture Wars against your fellow Americans is a statement of how much you hate gays and their struggle for equality.

And to think we have brave gay men and women who serve in our military along with other brave soldiers to defend our country, to die for our country, and then you think about how some of you would deny rights to even those amongst us that fight and sacrifice all for our country.


reply to baseballdoc
Do you or don't you see why opposition to gay marriage parallels opposition to interracial marriage? Oh, I know you're really just a font of sophisticated analysis, but you exceed yourself.

Yes, by all means
Stop the hate. I don't want to see churches threatened. I don't want to see women threatened, or men assaulted, or - MURDERED - for declaring and living their beliefs.

So where were you, Maggie, when Gwen Araujo was raped and killed? That was 2003, way before Prop 8. Gwen was killed for being a transsexual. Is that not a hate crime as well?

No, that does not justify Prop 8 supporters threatening, intimidating, or harassing anyone. But start with your own house before you point fingers at the Other Side.

Mormons and elections
Surely Mormons have a right, just like the rest of us, to vote their consciences on gay marriage or any other issue. But when they mix in elections at the official church level, they deserve to lose their tax exempt status. If the, further, fail to report their contributions to such an effort, as has been accused in California, they deserve to be fined. The Mormons are no different than any other church in that regard, in spite of what they may think.

Let's see what the California election officials come up with.

How many?
How many documented church invasions have occured? Not just protests outside churches, but people actually entering a church to disrupt a service?

I'm asking this as a straightforward question because I really want to know.

How many?
How many documented church invasions have occured? Not just protests outside churches, but people actually entering a church to disrupt a service?

I'm asking this as a straightforward question because I really want to know.

GARRYG says:
Reply # 63
Surely Mormons have a right, just like the rest of us, to vote their consciences on gay marriage or any other issue. But when they mix in elections at the official church level, they deserve to lose their tax exempt status. If the, further, fail to report their contributions to such an effort, as has been accused in California, they deserve to be fined. The Mormons are no different than any other church in that regard, in spite of what they may think.


Tenore Reply:
This will fall on deaf ears. The issue with the LDS Church and those who do not understand the teachings of the Church confuse moral issues with political issues. The LDS Church considers gay marriage to be a moral issue. The Church and its members have the right to express their opposition to any issue that is of a moral nature.

When someone denies any church the right to express their ideas under threat of punishment there will be no issue that the church (any church) can voice an opinion. They will be controlled by the current political powers.

Now you may argue that the LDS Church was the only group that opposed gay marriage. Patently false. By this reasoning every church or non-governmental group can be forced to admit non-believers to participate in rites that are considered sacred to the church, again, any church.

Individual members of any group may contribute to any cause. If I, a Mormon, decide to send money to the Republican Party is my Church required to report this contribution?

If I contribute to the effort to oppose gay marriage I have every right to do so. My church, or any church, cannot be punished for actions taken by its members. That should be self-evident.


Shortsightedness on homosexual mischief
Seen in a broader context the mischief the anti-Prop 8 demonstrators are engaging in, and threatening more of, makes perfect sense.

By "broader contest" I mean: not taken as an isolated phenomena unrelated to other cultural or societal developments.

What does it portend that a growing portion of the populace now feel emboldened and entitled to deny basic civil and political liberties from those who disagree with their positions by the use of force, threats, and intimidation rather than through legitimate political means?

And what does it portend that the motivation for such activities arise from a desire to celebrate and normalize what has been heretofore recognized as a deviant and dysfunctional form of sexuality?

There's something more going on here than just the issue of "gay marriage".


Chuck
"What does it portend that a growing portion of the populace now feel emboldened and entitled to deny basic civil and political liberties from those who disagree with their positions by the use of force, threats, and intimidation rather than through legitimate political means?"

If you add "deception" to the list, it perfectly describe the opponents of gay marriage.

Robert
It's not marriage. It's a counterfeit. It cannot give you what you seek.

The peace you are looking for is not available through sin but through repentance.

RE: Ken
Ken wrote: Subject: texaschuck TX - 1950's voting?

How would a civil rights vote go in the 1950's?

Well some states would vote for, support, and approve equal civil rights for everyone and some states would not.

Over time, the states that afforded most equal rights and protections would grow and flourish and the states that did not would end up with a labor shortage.

The states originally opposed to equal rights would then re-evaluate the path they choosen and make corrections if needed.

As intended by the founding fathers, the people would control their own destiny for good or bad. Not 9 old guys in black robes



Ken, sorry but i have to disagree. We had this in history: Southern Jim-Crow law states that provably had higher poverty rates as opposed to the integrated northern states. Yet, despite this glaring difference, southern states did not willingly integrate themselves, they needed federal law do to so.

Also, your argument is morally repugnant. Are you saying black American citizens should have had to wait for equal treatment until their white "masters" started to take a beating in the wallet, and decide on their own time and selfish dime it was time to treat blacks as equals? Not to mention, racial discrimination in the south went far beyond simple economic matters, it was embedded in the g**damn judicial system, schools, and about every other facet of life.

This kind of argument really is what will put conservative republicans in the permanent minority: intentional or just plain ignorant bigotry.

Matthew
You ask, "Why should the gays fund their own persecution?"

They are totally right to boycott companies and organizations that have messages they disagree with. So are Christians, and so are Mormons. Much like abortion, it is one thing to allow people to participate in gay marriage, but quite another to force its acceptance. If gay marriage is legalized, like abortion, it will be dictated as perfectly normal and acceptable in public schools. As a product of public schools and private colleges, I can assure you such issues are not open for debate in these arenas. Unfortunately, any opposition will be called hatred or bigotry. I have no problem with people debating these issues, or holding their own beliefs about them. Sadly, as with abortion, Christians will be forced by the government to pay for things against their religious beliefs. I will take your word that you are a Christian yourself; therefore I find it odd you seem to have no problem funding your own persecution.

Robert
Did you mean the PROPONENTS of "gay marriage"?

Conservatives should be honest
One of the great things about TH is that it gives conservativse a chance to be honest. In particular, it gives conservatives a place where they can be up front about their hatreds and loathings, including their view of gays. Fortunately, a number of TH readers are honest and I conclude from their comments that one of the things conservatives should try to do is to get their candidates for the next presidential election to include an anti-gay plank in the Republican platform.

Unfortunately, a few conservatives who post try to make nice by saying that gays already have rights to civil unions, etc. This is all just a smoke screen. The real conservatives declare their hatreds openly, and I must acknowledge that their honest is refreshing.

hmmm...
I was reading in the LATimes about a successful woman in Omaha, who met an inmate incarcerated in San Quentin.
They were married after he was in prison and had joined one of the most vicious gangs, the Aryan Brotherhood.

However marginal this man's ability to be a husband, he's married in the yes of the law and the prison chaplain who performed the ceremony. This couple has been married for 25 years.

For any one of us to believe in the affirmation of marriage, it's stabilizing effect is something that even children understand and are right to aspire to.

To believe that a gay couple's motive to marry has sinister implications is to believe a fallacy and conjecture. Not facts.
But facts don't matter to a majority here.
Just a firm belief that 'the other' is inferior.
And that in itself is myth and fantasy.
Just as white people might believe that their skin color magically and with God given and enforced belief that gay them moral authority, power and virtue...the same weirdness is evident here in those who believe the same of heterosexuality.
Regardless that reality doesn't bear it out.

It's the VOWS of marriage, the seriousness in which couples pursue those vows that matter. It's the happiness in knowing someone WILL marry you that makes life easier and kinder.
Gay couples have no more motive to marry than to avow their love for who marries them and has shown they care enough to. Even in a world where no one else will.
If incarcerated murdering gang members are given that right...then why NOT a gay couple?

There is nothing moral or especially logical about treating gay couples with less to offer marriage than someone in jail who has killed someone.

So is this about marriage, or who is fit to marry and give it the weight it deserves?
All things considered...ALL things, denying gay couples that option makes no sense in Gallagher's article or those who agree with her.

Proposition 4
All but two of the ballot intiatives were fiscal. Prop. 8 and Prop. 4 were regarding serious family and personal issues. Prop. 4, if any of you remember, was about parental notification if a minor girl was seeking an abortion.

Gay equality and abortion are often conflated in TH because of the moral outrage for both of them.
However extremely different one is from the other. If there is no moral difference, there is no moral equivalence it's ALL the same.

Except, the people involved in such personal matters are NOT treated the same, because they can't be.

Now that we know how much money and time and political influence different religious entities had on Prop 8.
Apparently Prop. 4 held no such interest. Prop. 4 was OVERWHELMINGLY defeated.
The interests in a young pregnant girl and her unborn...carry not enough motive to intervene as keeping married gay couples married.
I didn't see a single ad that was against Prop. 4

Apparently virtually not nearly as much money was donated to pass Prop. 4 and now thousands of gay couples are divorced and minor girls WILL have abortions without telling their parents.

Way to go folks. You're really cooking on getting a lot of good done.
All that money could have gone to doing a lot more than directly interfering in the lives of gay couples who were hurting no one.

And now that you've done it....now what?

Society relies on strong families
Stable government depends on strong families. What other institution is better at providing for educational needs, social needs, and financial needs? What better place to learn responsibility and honesty? If people only obeyed laws because they were afraid of being caught by the police, the system would break down because the police cannot be everywhere at once. The welfare system would be overwhelmed if everyone turned first to government assistance instead of turning first to his family. Society has a vested interest in promoting strong families and must do everything it can to encourage strong marriages, even offering financial and legal benefits for families. Legally recognizing marriage as being only between a man and a woman gives that relationship an elevated status above all other types of relationship. The purpose of this elevated status is not to make others feel excluded who choose not to enter into this type of relationship. If it were a question of inclusion, perhaps single people should campaign for a new definition of marriage that includes them. Of course that would be nonsense. The purpose of legally recognizing traditional marriage is to give every ounce of encouragement possible to the strong families upon which society depends for its existence.

Morality in Law and Government
Ideas like this come from Robert P. George, who has written about the need for morality in government.

hi Jonathan
I agree, strong families are essential. And the marriage of gay couples no more affects the INTENTION of those traditions, than barring an elderly couple or disabled couple from the option would. Gay couples can be very strong, and so can their children.
And anyone who says not, is either a liar or ignorant of the facts and reality.
Marriage itself has a role, not just the couples involved. And we ARE talking about couples.

And gay couples don't take away anything from the idealized version you espouse, but most people are hard pressed to attain.

Young gay people are often FORCED outside of the stabilty and affirmation of their families of origin, and by the vitriol expressed here...are expected to be outside of ANY relationships that are healthy, affirming and committed.
Marriage permits a status of trust, maturity and social expectations.
And as has been expressed, no one really WANTS gay people to be seen as having those qualities. And that they do, isn't believed or acknowledged.
Which is different from not actually having those qualities at all.

There have been no problems worth mentioning anyone can attribute to gay couples marrying.

It has been unmarried status that has allowed those hostile to gay people to do them harm. It's also that status that will most separate gay men and women, where the color or gender bar cannot.

Let's be honest Jonathan. An already unpopular minority like gay people being subject to a popular vote would have had an obvious outcome.
Therefore, Prop 8 was THE most unDemocratic process. Asserting that a majority was against it was salting a wound.
Where's the courage in that?

Constantly redefining as it has NEVER existed, is what frustrates this conversation.
Restrictions that exist now, are based on status...not the attributes the adults involved have.

And that is why, anything people try to come up with to rationalize exclusion for gay couples rings so hollow.

also
There aren't any restrictions on heterosexuals to marry, regardless of how many times or in what way they ABUSE their priviledge or right to marry.

It's argued here whether marriage is a right or priviledge, that it's religious based and sanctified so therefore justified as restricted against gay people and that it's ONLY for the intention or ability of procreation.

None of that is true, nor is the state all that interested in the private, day to day realities of how couples manage their marriages.

So your 'moral principle' isn't established as a requirement or qualification to marry.
Heterosexuals are allowed to marry another heterosexual. And gender isn't rigid. Especially not in nature, so legislating the ROLE of gender in a marriage makes no sense and is impossible.

That's why the courts could reasonably find that discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation wasn't rational, given REAL FACTS. Not just fantasies and conjecture and speculation.

Which pretty much is all anyone here argues with in the first place.

du- poo- doo as usual
Wasington State court of Appeals:

Singer vs Hara 1971 and I quote:

Homosexuals are not denied license to marry because of sex, but because of the nature of marriage.

Jones vs Hallahan 1973 Kentucky Federal Court:

The nature of marriage is what prohibits homosexuals from marriage.

Newy York Apelate Court in 1990 In the matter of Estate of Cooper stated and I quote:


"Persons of the same sex have no constitutional right to enter into marriage with each other."

1974 Ohio court: Thornton vs Timmons:
'
Marriage must be between members of different sex.

And on and on. NO right exists as to homosexual marriage. Period. Never has. Under any figment of any imagination. du is so far off base his posts become non sensical.

du is one of the cowards who harassed and intimidated a restaurant owner who supported proposition 8. He preened and gloated about how the owner cried.

du claims to work for the LAPD, and a museum. du also claims to access certain Police data bases that us public types do not see.

How would du like it if I filed an internal affairs complaint over his actions, and picketed, and harassed the museum he works at, as well as the places of employment of all of his crony homosexual militants? Perhaps that is what should happen.

people like du need their own tactics turned on them, see how they like a taste of their own brand of tolerance.

Does anyone think those employers would be happy about that? du would be fired for accessing data bases for personal reasons. That is a crime. And he admitted so here on several threads.

wrong on all counts anderson
How many times do I have to tell you I'm not a man.
I never harassed, nor gloated, nor did anything in anyway to the restaurant owner.
I simply was turned off by her histrionics and sympathy ploy.

Further, I have never used my access to LAPD databases for anyone's personal information, nor have I used it.
I have accessesed statistical data to fact check YOUR inaccurate and bloated information on gay people in particular in comparison to what heterosexuals do.

You assumed all of that, the same way you keep assuming I'm a man when I've told you otherwise.

This all proves that facts don't matter to you. You will lie and make up whatever suits you to libel.
Ridicule and libel are your stock in trade.
Anything you say about homosexuals is not EXCLUSIVE to that group.
So your rationalization for how gay people deserve to be treated in your mind isn't legal towards any other citizen for the same reason.

We've never had a black President before now. Just because something hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it shouldn't.

as if
"People like du need their own tactics turned on them, see how they like a taste of their own medicine."

The fact that you're serious begs questioning your ignorance and sanity.
I belong, as do gay people, to a traditionally isolated and maligned and much misunderstood minority.

A minority that has endured institutionalized bigotry, discrimination, programs of violence and isolation for incarceration and physical assault.

Brand of tolerance?
Whose? As long as you're reminding this thread of how miniscule and insignificant a minority gay people are.

It's also a minority that never did nor could have control of the very media, political processes or judicial actions that kept them in such a poverty of freedom and human rights.

And any changes in that, have been resented. And accusations made that such changes came under duress or some other unfair means.
What do YOU know about it? You never had to be in our club, and know you NEVER will, even now.

It didn't take any courage for the majority of voters to maintain that tradition of isolating gay people for discrimination.
It doesn't take morals to be a majority.

Hard to say if it's crazy, stupid or dangerous when part of the public can't tell and won't acknowledge when gay people ARE trying to get along with them.

BEFORE the amendment passed, anderson...what was the excuse THEN?
You barely will talk to me or the gay members of the thread like adults.

You're the one who hasn't got the skin WE do. You haven't needed it.

Government Out of the Marriage Business
Excerpted from my email to Maggie Gallagher:
You want 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman? Start advocating for the government to get out of the marriage business. Work to transfer the institution of 'marriage' to religious institutions where it belongs. Churches and other private institutions are allowed to discriminate. The government is not....
In this column, you talk about extraordinary attacks against Prop 8 supporters. GLBTI people have been subject to attacks like these FOREVER. It's an ongoing problem that is underreported for fear of reprisals, community experience with local law enforcement, and a hateful society. That these attacks are happening to the oppressors do not make them right. I bring it up to point out that what you consider extraordinary are common, every day events for GLBTI folks. They are common because there is social, cultural and government sanctioned discrimination that gives dimwits permission' to beat up a fa*g or rape a lesbian. The marriage issues is the most vocal face of that discrimination right now.
Payback? GLBTI folks have been on the receiving end of payback since the beginning.
--
Give churches marriage. Let the government come up with the new word. Let existing government 'marriages' be grandfathered in. Let's get on to more pressing matters.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.