The Candidates
Just in case you’re expecting the gay marriage issue to motivate vast, outraged majorities of Americans to march to the polls in California and elsewhere this fall to vote Republican, your old pal DaveG has a big, fat lump of coal to put in your stocking. And it ain’t even Christmas!
According to the most recent Field Poll, 51% of registered voters in California now support same-sex marriage. Not civil unions. Not something like marriage for gay couples. Full-blown same-sex marriage. Only 42% are opposed, while 7% of California voters were too busy downloading the latest Britney Spears single to bother to answer the question.
I’m not going to argue the merits of the issue one way or the other, as someone very wise once said something about the beating of dead horses, but I do think that these numbers carry with them significant political ramifications. Cynical Republican politicians will no longer be able to beat up on gays to hide the fact that they have nothing else to run on. And that means that they’ll actually have to come up, you know, an agenda that addresses the concerns of the majority of Americans. Meanwhile, if this doesn’t prove once and for all that this ain’t 2004, then nothing will.
2004 is over. The race for 2008 is the electoral gateway into a brave new world.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The latest Britney Spears single.
Imagine Sarah Palin singing it to you all: “You wanna piece of me?”
Race42008’s drooling males: “Yes!”
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
#1: With that image in mind, I’ll sleep well tonight!
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
The 7% of the Californians downloading the single support gay marriage; they were simply downloading it — and Madonna, and Cher — to play it at the gay weddings.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
2 — Or will you?
Oh my, this is getting racy.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 pm
In Massachusetts the same phenomenon happened. The courts ruled and the mostly liberal voters went along with that.
It argues more for coastal voters being mindless sheep than for the voters having strong feelings one way or the other.
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Coastals are mindless sheep? I suppose that’s why we are the business and intellectual leaders of the nation.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Metro, untwist your panties. I wonder if you identify with liberal voters, given your defensive reaction.
New England and California have been bleeding entrepreneurs and businesses for years. Odd you decide that economically liberal states are business leaders.
The South (North Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, Tennessee, Texas) have been drawing businesses in.
I guess you think they should emulate California and promote Unions, high taxes and regulations.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Metro and econ grad stud, arguing over whose collective is superior.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 am
Alex, we’ve all got our faults. I’ve just noticed a tendency among coastal/liberal voters to see a court ruling as a reason to support something they previously opposed.
It happened in Massachusetts and in California. I personally don’t like that trait. Perhaps you do.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 am
I disagree with anti-business policies that drive businesses out, but that’s missing the point.
The point is about the type of individuals who live on the coasts. You maligned the individuals, not the political climate for business.
Between Silicon Valley and Wall Street alone, the coasts rule this country. Their inhabitants are not sheep.
I challenge you to pick up any Wall Street Journal, note all the business leaders written about or quoted, and then plot them on the map. You all know where most of the markers will be. On the coasts. This is where stuff happens, where standards are set, decisions are made. Not sheep.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 am
Metro, I’m not talking about the small group of your wealthy friends. You can feel as proud of your fellow elites as you want without any threat from me. I don’t begrudge any man’s provincialism.
Most voters on the coasts are just regular people. And they tend to be strongly influenced by their betters on the courts.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
Agreed Metro
We California also start legislative and media trends too.
The Gay marriage debate is rapidly becoming a non-issue out here.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:09 am
#11: It’s not a small group. It’s hundreds of thousands. The thing is, the other millions who inhabit the coasts are often employees, friends, etc, of those movers and shakers.
I’ve lived in every part of the country, including “flyover” country. The sheep are not here on the coasts, by and large.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 am
Ohs noes, Republicans will have to start running on real issues and stop using gays as scapegoats! The horror!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 am
The Republican base has three legs - social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and military/defense supporters.
Abandon the social conservatives and you’re going to fall off the stool.
We do not want marriage redefined by the latest craze. Marriage has meant one thing for all of recorded history. The nuclear family is the building block of a healthy society. Without it, children are not properly raised and grow up messed up.
That’s why we oppose easy divorce, fornication, adultery, polygamy, and gay “marriage.”
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 am
Anyone else really sick of this three-legged stool metaphor?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 am
I’m all for giving “equal rights” to those that identify themselves as homosexuals, but calling it “Marriage”? I see no justification for redefining a societal institution that has existed for thousands of years. I wonder what these “progressive” Californians would think of changing the legal recognition of marriage to polygynous/polyandrous groups. Don’t they deserve “equal rights” too? This whole thing is ridiculous. Leave marriage alone.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 am
Emtee,
I used to think that way too. But now I’m of the opinion, “What’s the difference”? If consensus is emerging that gay unions ought to have the same benefits as a marriage then who cares if they want to call it a marriage? Conservative christians are free to define marriage on their terms just as secularists that get married by a Justice Of The Peace are. Conservatives can’t say “leave marriage alone” if they support tax breaks for married couples, bereavement, etc. If marriage is to be a purely religious institution then the government needs to get out entirely. Put it this way - homosexual ex-marine John Smith wants to marry his neighbor from down the street. John Smith served in the military, pays taxes and contributes to society in a productive way. Why should he not be allowed to have the same rights as his hypothetical heterosexual deadbeat alcoholic brother Joe Smith?
I frankly don’t understand the so-con fetish over what gay unions are called.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 am
Why not allo polygnous groups? Isnt that what true freedom is all about? Not how you define it but how freedom is actually defined.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:54 am
Adam,
The only explanations that you’ll get don’t pass any sniff test.
#1 It’s Evil
I’m pretty sure that isn’t true.
#2 (even more embarrassing)It “cheapens” heterosexual marriage.
What a joke. Half of those end in divorce, and more still stay together to prove to their kids how dysfunctional “traditional” marriage can be.
#3 They won’t produce kids naturally
Obviously a lot of hetro couples won’t either. That’s okay. There are too many idiots out there anyway. To say nothing of the sexless hetro marriages that no socons decry as evil
FWIW I am a Midwestern Christian married heterosexual with happily married parents and in-laws. I have no dog in this fight, except my desire for America to be a nation of liberty for all.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
I’m opposed to gay marriage, but I can’t get myself terribly worked up about the issue. The Government cannot marry anyone in the eyes of God.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 am
Matthew,
That is exactly how I see it. Marriage is a religious ceremony and none of the Government’s business. If they want to call a financial contract between two people a marriage, so be it. It has nothing to do with what happens in church.
This issue is still probably a “winner” for us in many states, but not in the long term. And obviously not in California.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
While 51% of the people may be OK with it, that says nothing of will turnout. I am guessing the social conservatives will work double tme on this and probably have a little more fire in their belly than those who have changed their opinions in the last couple years.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
6. Metro you sound stupid when you make comments like that. You have a severe superiority complex.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am
While I support gay marriage, California just let the cat out of the bag, for they’ve basically legalized gay marriage nationwide. The full faith and credit clause is in the constitution, that supersedes DOMA.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
I think it is fantasic that California understands and supports personal liberty. It is about time a state is asking why the Federal Government is blocking states rights?
Who cares if two men or two women get married? Essentially, they have full legal benefits now, so how will a piece of peper change America?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 am
I think the religious groups who united a few years ago in California are doomed. They just don’t have the votes anymore and I think they need to look to the future.
If I were advising the church leaders who managed to force the last ballot initiative through, I would tell them to start looking for a compromise … accept the court’s ruling that gay marriage will be the law of the land in exchange for a written exemption that no religious organization will be forced to perform homosexual unions if they refuse to.
If the new legal interpretation will be that denying homosexual marriage is a violation of the equal protection clause, i think it is only a matter of time until a gay couple shows up at the doors of a Catholic church and demand that they be married. (it might take a few years, but it i believe it will happen).
What happens then? Do churches who refuse to honor civil liberties lose their tax exemption? What happens to religious universities? Do they risk losing federal aid? It’s going to be Bob Jones vs US all over again.
The time to do this is now … the churches should negotiate to remove the ballot initiative (that they’re going to lose anyway) in exchange for protective legislation. It’s over.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
“Cynical Republican politicians will no longer be able to beat up on gays to hide the fact that they have nothing else to run on. And that means that they’ll actually have to come up, you know, an agenda that addresses the concerns of the majority of Americans.”
Right on.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 am
G, I would hope Churches are more concerned with following God’s commands than getting protection from a morally bankrupt government.
It may be a good thing if the homosexual activists shut down most of the Churches and we end up meeting in homes like in China.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
California is much more liberal than other states on this issue. I think in Southern and many Midwestern states, gay marriage is still a winning issue for Republicans. However, whether it’s a winning issue or not, banning gay marriage is the right thing to do.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Anyway after reading this sort of bad news, I use a convenient stress reliever.
http://www.therightfoot.net/mystuff/whatever/swf/bubblewrap.swf
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
For the most part I am pro-life and oppose redefining marriage.
However it amazes me how much time, effort and resources both sides put into this issue as well as abortion. Imagine if we put these same resources into solving education, poverty, drug abuse, homelessness etc.
We are probably 20 years behind where we could have been, as a nation, if we simply addressed the issues that affect the majority of Americans. Let’s solve these issues first and then address gay marriage and abortion.
This goes for both sides.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
29 … follow God’s commands are exactly my concern. If you would like to see where this issue is going look at Sweden, where the current law criminalizes opposition of homosexuality to the point that a preacher in church on Sunday cannot say homosexuality is wrong. It’s a hate crime.
Churches don’t have to change their doctrine. What i’m suggesting is that churches drop their political opposition to a civil law and in exchange the churches are allowed to keep their view, rather than having it made illegal like it is in Sweden.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
If gays obtaining the same marriage rights as you is something that affects your life in any negative way, I think you need to look at what you should be doing to make your life better instead of worrying about other people so much
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Well said, #32
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
G,
Are you actually arguing that churches need to make trades and barters in order to keep their religious beliefs? Your post almost sounds like the government has the right to keep people from freely thinking if they push too hard on a civil law. That’s pretty scary.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
#30, That is actually a myth. California is not a Liberal state. It is an extreme centrist state.
Look at the Governors elected recently, P. Wilson, G. David, Arnie. All are centrist Governors. The last left wing Governor in that state was G. Brown and he was thrown out after one term.
Re: See Dan Schnur, professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley. There are actually very few Conservatives and very few Liberals in that state. That si why McCain is competing there.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:13 am
It may be a good thing if the homosexual activists shut down most of the Churches and we end up meeting in homes like in China.
And with this, egs has finally revealed himself, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to be a paranoid nut.
Clarence, another so-con hardliner, and I were speaking online recently and I made a joke about “recruiting him” to homosexuality and he thought I was serious.
These so-cons are just unbelievable sometimes.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
The sentiments expressed in the comments to DaveG’s posting reveal more about the future viability of “the gay issues” for the GOP than do the results of the Field Poll.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:27 am
#38, you are dead on. The so-cons do not understand peronal liberty, but I respect their Christian beliefs.
If the Government can restrict personal liberty/gay marriage, then they can go after churches. Remember what happened to the LDS church. The Government allowed mobs to murder their members all across the mid-west.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
The so-cons fear the gays, when they should fear the government. Exactly.
If people like me had my way, the church would be allowed to preach anything it wants, so long as it was using its own private property. Marriage would be outside the realm of the state.
But here are these people, paranoid about gays “assaulting marriage” and “destroying the family” and “shutting down churches” — I was unaware that I held such awesome power!
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
I married a French Canadian woman and moved to Toronto from NJ. Honestly, no one really cares about Gay marriage here. It has changed nothing, and no one talks about it anymore. At one point a majority of Canadians opposed it, but now, it is never mentioned, unless it is in American made movies and TV shows. In fact, it has been a huge boom for business.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
people like me had our way*
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
36 … jason. i’m not making this stuff up. Churches in Sweden can’t say the homosexuality is wrong.
The battle for gay marriage is over. Look at these numbers:
Age—Approval % for gay marriage:
18-29 68%
30-39 58%
40-49 51%
50-64 47%
65 or older 36%
Churches need to face the forthcoming legal reality in America.
I’m talking about 20 or 30 years down the line here … Churches can fight to the bitter end, lose the vote, lose the supreme court case, and 10 years after that end up like the Swedes who can’t say that homosexuality is wrong without breaking the law …
Or they can drop their opposition to a civil legal challenge … end up with the same legal result, and keep the ability to practice their private faith without losing their tax-exempt status.
It’s not a matter of trades or batters. It’s a matter of anticipating the legal and political climate of the country and ensuring legal protection to practice your beliefs as you see fit.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
All of the gay marriage opponents are gonna start dying off pretty soon.
Better hurry up and strike a compromise, so-cons, because your ignorance and bigotry are losing.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Among my peers, opposing gay marriage or thinking that homosexuality is wrong makes you some kind of asshole. It’s simply not socially acceptable to be truly homophobic. Gay jokes, whatever; homophobia, no way. The battle is indeed over, and the “gay activists” — so-cons’ codeword for “hardworking, everyday Americans who just so happen to be attracted to the same sex” — won.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
#44, Sweden is not a fair comparison.
They support Gay marriage, not because of individual liberty, but because of “Human Rights”. This use of “Human Rights”, as a legal mechanism to change culture is European socialism.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
I also don’t believe that Sweden offers the protection to religion that America guarantees. You’ll be able to preach gay-hate for as long as you want; it will just be to diminishing numbers and in an increasingly outcast bubble. Wait until Gen Xers are in charge. DaveG has it nailed. The fights of the boomers will be laughed at.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:10 am
I’d rather follow God than have safety.
If the homosexual activists try to shut down my Church we can always meet in our homes. If they lock us in prison we can always pray. The worst they can do to me is kill me.
All of this homosexual rights stuff will eventually be used to end religious freedom in America.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
econ,
You’re nuts. Really man, nuts.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
Adam, Christianity is foolishness to the lost. Insofar as I’m being Christian I will appear ‘nuts’ to you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
econ,
I’m a Christian too. I’m not worried about the gays abolishing the Church just because they want the same things heterosexuals want. You so-cons make sexuality a fetish. I don’t understand why.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Adam, what makes you think you’re a Christian?
God has said sodomy is an abomination. If I’m made to choose between his commands and the government’s orders to honor sodomy, of course I have to choose God’s commands.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
Whatever man. It’s people like you that make the entire party look like a collection of kooks.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Who says you have to honor anything? If you don’t agree with it then don’t do it. Lots of people don’t worship the way you do. Does the simple fact that you don’t like alternative means of worship mean that you think only your should be legal.
You’re a fucking ignoramous. And I’m not even gay.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 am
Adam if you don’t care about following God, you ought to consider being more honest and becoming an atheist or agnostic. Christ said you can’t follow him on your own terms. You either obey him or you’re not following him.
You may want to consider leaving your Church if Christ’s commands are a sick fetish to you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am
EGS,
I don’t believe your correct. If I thought you were i would gladly become an atheist.
I hope you wind up with gay children. And if heaven forbid you ever find yourself in a horrible accident and only a gay family member can rescue you with his or her blood donation I hope you have to struggle with shunning that family member for the rest of your life.
Unless of course you simply decide to stop being so hateful.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Adam, I teach a Sunday School class with a few lesbian members. I don’t shun homosexuals. The LCMS never has. That has nothing to do with shutting up if the government says my Church must marry same-sex couples in disobedience to Christ’s commands.
Opposing same-sex marriage doesn’t mean I think I’m any better than a homosexual. I’m not. I’m sure most homosexuals are superior to me in various ways.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
Oh ok. You just think your lifestyle is better. That’s all.
I’m going to laugh at all of these so-cons once the big bad boogey man of gay marriage is legalized.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
I’ll tell you what I’m worried about, and there’s signs this is already happening. Gays want to be considered a “protected class” like other minorities and therefore receive priority in hiring, contracts, university enrollment, and more. They are trying to relate themselves to the civil rights movement and want to follow the same path and be given the same legal status. The other problem I have is they want to be able to adopt children. The destruction of the traditional family as the most basic and fundamental element of society is the thing we should fear the most. Countless studies have shown that the best place for children to be raised is in a two-parent marriage. The government should not be encouraging or incentivizing anything that disrupts that basic system.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Emtee,
In the 1860’s legalized slavery was “disrupting the system”.
In the 1920’s, womens’ suffrage was “disrupting the system”.
In the 1950’s, allowing women to work was “disrupting the system”.
In the 1980’s, interracial marriage was “disrupting the system”.
You so-cons have demonstrated time after time that you’re just ignorant and wrong.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Adam, I don’t think my lifestyle is necessarily better. In the ways I follow Christ it is. In the ways that I haven’t followed Christ it isn’t.
I’m sure many homosexuals sin much less than I have. That’s got nothing to do with opposing same-sex marriage.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Re #49-58:
Honestly, I wish most Christians had the courage and consistency of econ grad stud — just like in medieval times.
Then Christianity would bury itself in no time flat.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
#60: Um, you’re a couple decades behind the times. Gays have been adopting for a long, long time.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Disrupting a system is sometimes justified if you’re doing the right thing. As Adam wrote it was worth the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans to end slavery. I think early feminists had a reason to disrupt the system to demand their equal rights.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Oh my God.
EGS,
You don’t have to “honor sodomy.” Because it’s legal does not mean “thou must honor kinky buttsex.” There’s just no legal basis by which the government should be able to outlaw it.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Tommy, if a homosexual couple sues my Church to demand a wedding that’s forcing my Church to honor sodomy.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
G,
It’s not that what you say about in Sweden isn’t true, those things are happening in Canada, it’s that you seem to think church’s should give up on a very important struggle for , as trade off for freedom of thought and expression. It seems to implicitly state that banning speech that condemns homosexuality as a sin is somehow acceptable if the church’s fight gay marriage enough.
EGS, isn’t quite of his rocker. The gay movement has reached a point where those who oppose it are intollerant and hateful and it’s illegal now in some places. Crazier things could happen then the US becoming like Canada or some of the European countries, and it’s funny to here Alex say EGS is paranoid than read a couple lines later that Metro hopes for the death of Christianity after claiming he is part of the words intellectual leadership. It’s not paranoia to, when you have people in our country who are activily working for the demise of our values, talk about what the end product could be. It’s a real possibility.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Adam, terrible argument. I’m against homosexuality, but I’m not going to advocate that government stop people from practicing it because we live in a free country and they should be allowed to make their own choice. Slavery deprived people of their freedom. I’m not saying that gays should be deprived of their ability to act out their heinous acts. I’m just saying that there’s no justification for renaming marriage. And what about my argument that gays are demanding “protected” class status?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Tommy,
Actually there is. It’s the legal notion that the people can represent any value or belief they want in the laws so long as it doesn’t infringe on constitutional rights. Scalia himself in the Texas sodomy case made the point that what you call “kinky butt sex” is not protected in the constitution.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
BTW, I’m absolutely opposed to the gov’t forcing churches or employers to honor or provide gay marriage or benefits.
Both gays and anti-gays should have freedom of association.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I should add to no. 70,
In Scalia’s opinion of the Texas Sodomy case he explicitly said he would vote against a law that outlaws sodomy (as I would too) but that there is no protected right to sodomy and that people can make their opinions heard in the legislatures.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
egs,
and I am totally against having the government have any say in the matter of the Church.
Jason,
If we have sodomy laws, who is going to enforce it? How does one catch someone committing the act of sodomy, unless they are doing it publicly? It’s a bad law. It’s not like there are sodomy dens like drug dens and any policeman who would willingly stake out a couple performing acts of sodomy in their home is more than likely a perv.
BTW, Good to see you around.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Jason,
#72. That makes it much clearer. That’s basically my point.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
So here you have an idea (marriage) that everyone understands and accepts to mean one thing, a unity of man and woman. Then you have another group that wants to get involved in an altogether different relationship but want everyone to accept it just like they would marriage. Equal rights apparently aren’t enough, they want to have a legal definition of marriage changed, which there is still a large number of people against. So when it gets changed they can say “see we’re just like you and the law says so”. Yeah, that’s not going to hurt marriage other than now people who are married in a traditional marriage and reject the notion of homosexual marriage are forced to redefine their word just to convey the original meaning. In a Church, they can no longer say a requirement of a good-standing member is to be legally married, now they need to say legally in a heterosexual marriage.
And will no one address the problem of homosexuals now demanding protected class status to have preferences given by the government?
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Yeah, it’s a terrible law, but it does have a foundation IMO.
We’re moving across country and I will be more likely to be active here again after that. It’s been crazy here since March and we should be settled by August.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Tommy, when I was high schooler I’d ride my bicycle about 4 miles to and from school. I could have ridden only 3 miles except there was a place off the road in the woods where homosexual men had sex. Right out in the open. I hope they didn’t get a dear tick in a sensitive place. I had to go out of the way to avoid that place.
In those days the cops tried to stop them. I returned home years later and now the cops wink and look the other way for fear of a lawsuit.
I wonder if that has occurred other places also.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Emtee,
In my opinion, gay marriage is not the real threat it’s the associative baggage of hate crimes, reverse discrimination and constitutional wrecking that seems to accompany it everywhere else.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
#77: Irrelevant. We don’t judge a whole class of people according to the behavior of a subset. That’s highly unjust.
#78: But it doesn’t have to come with all those things. I’m against all those things, as I posted just above. Punishing those who love one another because of Constitutional misunderstandings.. is highly unjust.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It has nothing to do with punishing. When the government performs gay marriages it’s on my dime, I pay taxes. The government represents the people. When Gays win gay marriage battles through the courts they are forcing it on a people who reject through unconstitutional means. I would better be able to swallow it were they to win it in the legislatures, but that is never the case. I have a tough time thinking it’s ok that large populations of people should be forced to accept anything that is morally repulsive to them.
Also, it shouldn’t have to, but it always seems to. Hate Crimes in the US are a great example. I oppose the gay agenda as it is being presented in other nations, the MSM and the courts. That is the reality. Not some hypothetical notion that gay marriage can exist in vacuum that doesn’t force the people to accept it and all the other strings that seem to be attached.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I understand. I’m in the process of moving myself.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
EGS,
Sex in public places should be outlawed. There are places like that here as well. However, I would hope that the cops would arrest straight couples in that same situation.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I meant I would hope that they would arrest straight and gay couples who are having sex in public places, where kids could stumble upon them.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Metro, I’m not judging anyone. I’m pointing out that giving special privileges to certain groups often leads to police avoiding them for fear of being charged with discrimination.
I’ve seen the same thing as an abused lesbian often won’t get a police response if she mentions its her girlfriend who is abusing her. The police just won’t show up.
The police avoid protected classes of people because the police can not properly do their job without fear of a lawsuit.
Tommy, you’re also moving?
I’m moving in July.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
yea. Nowhere of great distance, but it’s still a big stress.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I’m moving around 250 miles away. My wife is trying to get me to promise we won’t move again for a long time. The job I’ve accepted has a mobility contract so I could end up anywhere on Earth. I hate moving.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
yea, I’m extremely stressed about the whole thing. Getting my own house and all that. Gotta quit bumming around. It’s the same town where I grew up and have lived, but I am just not a mover. I like to stay in places.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Gay rights are going to win on the gay marriage issue, and pro-lifers are going to win on the abortion issue. Just a matter of time.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Josiah, are gays going to secure protected class status too and get priority on jobs, contracts, enrollment, etc.?
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Adam Said:
It’s a good thing Christians abolished slavery (yes it was Christians: think Free-soilers of Kansas).
It’s a good thing Christians helped end womens’ suffrage (think Theodore Roosevelt: the iconic Muscular Christian).
1950s: Women were already working just as much as men throughout this nation’s history. It’s just in the 60s when people started looking condescendingly on any kind of work that didn’t involve a paycheck, or a desk, and it’s more of a function of technological freedom. Without computers, dishwashers and dry cleaning, we would either have to give up having children, or women would proportionally have to work in the home.
What church’s banned interracial marrige in the 80s?
I suppose those who are so opposed to the Judeo-Christian religious influence in government should check out Arab (Muslim), African (Animist) or Chinese (secular) sociopolitical life (where things like slavery, coerced selective abortion of females, and tyranny of the minority still exist).
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
It all boils down to what is best for children. Children are better off with a Father and a Mother than with anything different, and the State should discriminate in favor of families where children are raised by a Mother and a Father (through tax incentives, marriage laws, adoption proceedings, etc). Some people think that either the father or the mother is dispensible, but I think the wealth of scientific evidence as well as the canon of western history affirms that fact.
It’s amazing how a little bit of technology and prosperity can inject society with such hubris resulting in the rejection of basic principles of good society.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Our church was sued for firing our organist after finding out he was a practicing homosexual. We have a right to our religion; we believe homosexual behavior is a sin; we don’t want homosexuals leading in the worship service. $100,000 and years of stress later, we won.
I can’t wait until homosexual marriage is made legal. Then any gays who want to rent our church for a wedding, and get turned away, can sue.
They will sue and sue and sue until even preaching against the practice of homosexuality will be considered a “hate crime,” just like in Canada. Already we have “hate crimes,” where the reason you commit your crime makes your crime somehow more evil.
Frankly, as Christian, I am the one who feels hated. To say anything about God’s standard for sexual behavior makes me a so-con people hater, even on conservative political forums like this one. I oppose fornication, adultery, and rape, too, and I believe sincerely that sexual activity is properly limited to one man and one woman, married. I will not apologize. God is not mocked.