Regarding DOMA And Other “Assurances.”

OK– I’ll open the floodgates–time for a ramble….

Marriage is a word used to describe a societal institution, and it means something–or at least it has, that something being a relatively permanent, committed union between a man and a woman. Yes, I know that people have historically taken their own marriages too lightly and the Hollywood left and others have treated their marriages in much the same manner as middle-school kids treat crushes; but the essential accepted definition of the term, “MARRIAGE” has nonetheless remained intact for the better part of 2000 years.

Now, however, we are being told that we, in a new ‘enlightened’ era, must arbitrarily re-define the longstanding societal institution of marriage, for better or worse, to include same sex couples, and that it should be so under the 14th Amendment, and upheld between States under the “Full Faith and Credit” clause.

Fine and dandy, I guess…BUT–

We’re also told that that’s as far as it will go– and if we (those who are against gay marriage and/or those who are on the fence) think that it is the beginning of a slippery slope ‘anything goes’ redefinition of the institution of marriage, we’re just paranoid neanderthals.. 10 or 15 years ago, we were also told that there was no need to pass a defense of marriage amendment to the Constitution, because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) protected that traditional definition.

Fine and dandy, as well, I guess;

However, up to this point, no one has been able to adequately explain how, if the SCOTUS decision tilts the “gay marriage” way, that polygamists, incestuous couples, etc., will not also want equal protection under the 14th Amendment, and sue for the right to marry, and that the term ‘marriage’ will have so many meanings so as to render what has been a veritable societal institution meaningless.

In other words, what is to prevent the slippery slope we’re being assured will not happen?

Personally, I’m of the mind that it’s a State issue, and that ALL unions should be civil unions. But should the term “Marriage” be so malleable so as to become meaningless?

Are people really thinking things through on this issue? Or are many merely living in the zeitgiest of the moment,  inconsiderate of and/or oblivious to the ramifications?

I’ve been thinking long and hard the past few days, and I can’t see any assurances that my worst nightmare regarding the institution of marriage, that it essentially becomes meaningless, will not come to fruition.

While many marriages have failed since time imemoriam, the institution of marriage on balance has unarguably been a net-positive as a building block for literally thousands of years into our civilization.

I guess all I’m saying is that we may be taking this issue a bit too cavalierly; jumping in the clouded pool without regard as to its depth and/or its potential consequences.

I await to be educated to the contrary.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan – Mark Steyn nails it:

…It came up at dinner Down Under this time last year, and the prominent Aussie politician on my right said matter-of-factly, “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.” That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right…

The thing about liberals is that, at bottom, they are just downright nasty – doesn’t matter what the issue is, they will always take the worst possible position and if it contradicts their previous position its no matter…as long as hatred the destruction of our civilization proceed, they’re just pleased as punch.

Advertisements

100 thoughts on “Regarding DOMA And Other “Assurances.”

  1. cyberactor March 28, 2013 / 11:52 pm

    First, I’d love a definition of the phrase “relatively permanent,” but I suppose that can wait for another day. Essentially, the question is this:

    What rationale, beyond what COULD happen in the future, do you have for denying same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples? That, I’m afraid, is the ONLY question. Because unless you can prove that giving gay couples the right to marry is a direct threat to, for example, your marriage, then your argument is moot.

    This is a favorite argument of the right. It’s not about what we’re doing now, it’s what it could lead to. So you deny a basic human right to people because…what? You fear the inevitable man-on-dog Santorum scenario? Sorry. The American public has examined this issue and come to an overwhelming conclusion:

    Same sex marriage is coming. It is time. And it is the future. Just like gays in the military, gays in the schools…there is nothing to fear. They’re just like the rest of us. Put the bigotry to rest and move onto more important matters.

    Because I’ll tell you: Cling to this one, and kiss another generation of elections good-bye.

    • Retired Spook March 29, 2013 / 8:12 am

      First, I’d love a definition of the phrase “relatively permanent,”

      Cybie,

      I think that refers to marriages like mine: 47 years in August to my first and only wife, to whom I have never been unfaithful, resulting in 2 daughters and 3 grandchildren, the oldest of which is heading to College this fall to major in speech therapy, while the oldest grandson will become an Eagle Scout this year. That’s what a “relatively permanent” marriage is and what it contributes to the survival of our civilization.

      I agree with Leo to the extent that I think we’ve (collective we) taken the institution of marriage way to cavalierly for the better part of a half century. I don’t agree that all marriages should be civil unions, but that marriage should be reserved for those truly committed to the words “for better or worse, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others till death do us part.”

      • 02casper March 29, 2013 / 10:04 am

        Spook,
        Just curious. Have you ever had a conversation with your daughters or grandchildren about how they feel about gay marriage? I know my own children were for gay marriage years before I was.

      • Retired Spook March 29, 2013 / 1:39 pm

        Spook, Just curious. Have you ever had a conversation with your daughters or grandchildren about how they feel about gay marriage?

        Casper,

        My oldest daughter and her husband are outspoken proponents of gay marriage. Just as an aside, they both get their news from NBC’s Today Show and Comedy Central and believe that Romney wanted to ban contraceptives, so I sort of discount their opinion on anything of substance. I can’t recall ever discussing gay marriage with my youngest daughter.

      • 02casper March 29, 2013 / 3:20 pm

        Spook,
        “My oldest daughter and her husband are outspoken proponents of gay marriage.”

        I’m not surprised. In my experience, the younger generation is much more open to the idea of gay marriage. My own children were fine with the idea from junior high on. In fact, they used to give me a bad time about being homophobic.
        My own views have changed over time. Thirty years ago, I would have been firmly on your side. In fact, I doubt I would have even considered civil unions as ok. Twenty years ago, I would have been ok with civil unions but against gay marriage. Ten years ago I would have been ok with gay marriage, but I wouldn’t have advocated for it. What has changed me, is the number of gay people I’ve gotten to know over the years. What made me an advocate was watching what happened a few years ago when one of my students came out. The abuse the young lady received from other students and in some cases teachers, convinced me that no one would ever chose to be gay.
        That said, I am very aware of the statistics on the suicide rate for gay teens. I’ve had students and friends commit suicide. It’s one of the worst things that can happen. Kids are killing themselves because to are told they are deviants and they are put down because they are deviants and because they are deviants they aren’t allowed the same privileges and opportunities as the rest of us. One of the biggest reasons I advocate for gay rights is because I want to keep my students alive.

      • M. Noonan March 29, 2013 / 3:40 pm

        Casper,

        Your statement is nonsensical – if the young are all open and tolerating of homosexuals, how could it be remotely possible that one of your young students suffered abuse from her peers when she came out?

        Also, who in heck is calling homosexuals deviants in any forum which would reach more than a tiny audience? The whole of popular culture is essentially a propaganda outfit telling all and sundry that gay people – every last one of them – are super-hip, very nice, triple-smart and just the sweetest and most good natured people in the whole, wide world. A person practically gets a medal for coming out these days…

        Another thing – the kids are supposed to learn from adults, not the other way around. For crying out loud, what does a 20-something college kid know about the world? Jack ****, as we used to say…when we collectively had a pair and acted like adults.

      • 02casper March 29, 2013 / 4:00 pm

        M. Noonan March 29, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

        “Your statement is nonsensical – if the young are all open and tolerating of homosexuals, how could it be remotely possible that one of your young students suffered abuse from her peers when she came out?”

        I didn’t say all of the young are open and tolerate homosexuality. I also mentioned that it happened several years ago. Things have changed since then. We have had several students “come out” in the last couple of years who didn’t didn’t get near the abuse.

        “Also, who in heck is calling homosexuals deviants in any forum which would reach more than a tiny audience?”

        Start with this blog. They also hear it from other kids (as I said, not all of the young are tolerant), family members, their churches, some teachers, etc.

        “The whole of popular culture is essentially a propaganda outfit telling all and sundry that gay people – every last one of them – are super-hip, very nice, triple-smart and just the sweetest and most good natured people in the whole, wide world. A person practically gets a medal for coming out these days…”

        And then there is the real world, where kids are still getting teased and beat up for being different.

        “Another thing – the kids are supposed to learn from adults, not the other way around. For crying out loud, what does a 20-something college kid know about the world? Jack ****, as we used to say…when we collectively had a pair and acted like adults.”

        My students do learn a lot from me and their other teachers. That doesn’t mean we can’t learn from them. You can learn from anybody if you are willing to listen.

      • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 8:29 pm

        casper, I don’t doubt that your students learn a lot from you. That is the problem. Unless you have enough self-awareness to realize that the ideas that nourish you personally are also wrong, and toxic, and contrary to fact, you are teaching children things they should not be taught.

        I happen to know that at least some parents with students in your classes, now or in the past, have been careful to tell their children you are a moron and full of, as you say, s**t, and that what you say has to be carefully examined for lunacy. Sadly, not all are this savvy or aware.

        While you preen about how much your students “love” you and want you to sit with them at lunch (not knowing what they really say when you barge in on them and try to act all buddy-buddy with them) and about how much they “love” you because you play silly video lip-syncing games with them, the fact is you are a joke at your school. You are tolerated.

        Which is more than I can say about this blog, but then you are more candid about your odd beliefs and ideas here, and therefore less likely to be treated with polite yet distant forms of required courtesy.

      • 02casper March 30, 2013 / 1:19 am

        Amazona,
        Thanks for the wonderful post. It gave me a good laugh and I hope to share it with others. It proves once again how much you are disconnected you are from reality.

        I am however curious as to what things I’m teaching children that you think they shouldn’t be taught. Should I not be saying the pledge with them each morning? Perhaps I shouldn’t be telling them how they can start taking college classes for free. Am I wrong in expecting proper spelling and grammar on their assignments? Do you object to my asking students to respect themselves and others? Then again, do you even know what I teach?

      • Amazona March 31, 2013 / 11:14 am

        casper, as I am not in your classroom, why don’t you tell us what you teach?

        Do you teach things you do not believe, or do you teach what you truly do think is the truth? If it is the former, then good for you, for the self-awareness that your own personal beliefs are contrary to reality. If it is the latter, then you are teaching falsehoods.

        And I can point out two huge areas in which your stated beliefs are so wrong, and so contrary to fact, that teaching them would amount in my opinion to malpractice, if that is applicable to your profession.

        One is your oft-repeated claim that anyone who believes that the Constitution is the law of the land, and that it must be followed as it is written and not as it is interpreted by five unelected political appointees, is support of a return to slavery and the denial of the vote to women. You have argued these beliefs of yours several times on this blog. Do you teach what you believe?

        One is your bizarre claim that the use of a single WORD to identify the legal union of gay people is actually a matter of “civil rights”. Again, do you believe this to be true, or is it just an argument you make because you think it makes you sound serious and “fair”? If you do believe it, do you tell this to your students?

        Why are you dragging in spelling and grammar and free college courses? Are these germane to our discussions here? Of course not. But they are safe areas, so you scurry over there to avoid discussing the serious allegations you have made here.

        Glad to have contributed to your amusement. I see you just make this comment without backing it up with examples of how or why what I say gives you a little giggle.

    • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:13 am

      Ha ha ha

      the cyber “actor” resurrects his pink tights to bless the eeevil conservatives on B4V how to win future elections THEY intend to win.

      ” Put the bigotry to rest and move onto more important matters.
      Because I’ll tell you: Cling to this one, and kiss another generation of elections good-bye.

      ROTFLMAO… he-she has managed to insert the accusations of bigotry, and threats of losing future elections all in one sentence.
      The economy must really be bad in chi cago…they are now resurrecting old worn out trolls and agent provocateurs to attack, with the same worn out lines….het CA you forgot raaaacist.

      Glad to see you are still a lover of sodomy and buggery, fitting (no pun) for those pink tights actor boy.

    • Bob1 March 29, 2013 / 5:00 pm

      “Marriage” is not just a legal term that defines “rights”; it also defines responsibilities. It defines who is the “provider” and basically who is responsible for the care of all dependents in the relationship, particularly the children but also the female. I think that basically the courts and our culture recognize that the man is the responsible “provider” in a “marriage”. There is a lot to “fear” when these legal concepts get drastically distorted or destroyed.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) March 29, 2013 / 8:13 pm

      Because I’ll tell you: Cling to this one, and kiss another generation of elections good-bye.

      Your concern for our winning elections is really touching.

  2. Leo Pusateri March 29, 2013 / 12:05 am

    Now that I’m thinking about it, when it comes down to brass tacks, it’s not even an issue of whether a re-definition of marriage will or won’t result in ‘hurting someone’ per se, as it is the issue of re-defining things to the point where nothing has a definition anymore. Nothing is certain, everything is off balance. When your opponent is unsure, is off balance, that is when you can have your way. The more I think about this issue, the more I really don’t think this is really about marriage at all. I think it’s an attempt to de-stabilize society, so that it is more malleable to be torn down and re-formed into some bastardized shadow of its former self.

    • GMB March 29, 2013 / 2:39 am

      “as it is the issue of re-defining things to the point where nothing has a definition anymore.”

      That is the ultimate goal of the proggie movement. That way the various cults that make up the donkrat party and their dear leader can tell everyone what the definition of anything is at any given moment.

      One hundred years of going along to get along, of moderating positions, of compromising, and adjusting to the needs of the proggies has got us here.

      In my opinion this society is too far gone to go back without that dirty word, bloodshed.

      Grand plans will accomplish nothing for those who want it all and have gotten 99% percent of it.

      The right to keep and bear arms will soon also be gone. So, choose your side.

      • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:15 am

        GMB

        I fear a day of reckoning may be as near as the next four years in America.
        Either way it wont be pretty. If obammy gets an oswald things will go south very fast.

    • Retired Spook March 29, 2013 / 8:19 am

      it’s not even an issue of whether a re-definition of marriage will or won’t result in ‘hurting someone’ per se, as it is the issue of re-defining things to the point where nothing has a definition anymore.

      BINGO!!! That is, and has been, the MO of the Progressive movement. Can’t convince the general public to go along with your agenda: change the definition of the words that appear to be impediments. History not on your side: re-write it.

      Because I’ll tell you: Cling to this one, and kiss another generation of elections good-bye.

      And that’s what it really is all about, Cybie; isn’t it? Sad — really sad that my grandkids and great grandkids will have to grow up in such a world. With any luck I’ll be taking the dirt nap before it all collapses.

      • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:47 am

        Spook

        the scary thing is the rats know they have less than four years to tear down more than 299 years of law, tradition, morality etc and they are on a full court press to accomplish as much irreversible harm as they can domestically.

        meanwhile zerO has the entire middle east in flame of hatred, rage and war, we are losing in afghanistan, while a little fat POS from a piss ant county NK threatens to nuke our bases and citys…..Ochimpy and the mooch go on ANOTHER lavish country while an aircraft battle group sits dock side with no fuel….but joe bite me has .5M hotel bills and limo rides.

        WHEN are the people or the military going to say ENOUGH and rid our selves of this illegal despot, and the (now) illegal SCOTUS?

        Lord help us.

      • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:48 am

        (typo) 200 years

      • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:49 am

        .Ochimpy and the mooch go on ANOTHER lavish ***VACATION***

    • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 10:56 am

      Leo, thanks for putting this so clearly.

      You are right—it is about standing up, not just for this word in this context, but for the idea that there ARE definitions for words.

      This whole manufactured hysteria about the use of the WORD “marriage” to describe something that has never, in all of history, in any religion, in any culture, been known or thought of as marriage, is just another arrow in the quiver of the Left, as they work to destabilize our culture and make it so formless and malleable that it can be reshaped (fundamentally transformed) into anything that fits their needs at the moment.

      They are fighting to destabilize our Constitution, trying to make it not a clear and concise set of rules for how to govern the nation but just a collection of “suggestions” for how we might govern the nation, if it is convenient and if it doesn’t get in the way of any agendas.

      They have already not just destabilized but completely undermined one of the most basic concepts of all mammalian life—-that of maternal protection of the young—-by carefully and callously substituting the belief that our young can be destroyed by their own mothers if they are inconvenient. This is also the camel’s nose under the tent, regarding the basic right to life itself, as once this concept is altered to be dependent upon the benefit or profit of someone else, it becomes infinitely flexible.

      The basic building block of society is the family unit and the Left has been working hard to erode that, as well. Children are told to report their parents to the State for various “offenses” including even mild corporal punishment, children are told that they should go representatives of the State (school counselors) with serious issues such as pregnancy and that the State will “solve” these problems without the parents’ knowledge or involvement, and the State has taken over areas of education that have traditionally been the responsibility of the family.

      Another foundation of society has always been religion, which of course is under attack in any Leftist assault on a nation in pursuit of power. We started to see public ridicule of religion, and of people of faith, become common in entertainment, and therefore move into society in general. Then we started to see attacks on the freedom of worship, as in the recent government mandates that churches and people of faith must legally do things that go against their faith. Most recently we have seen efforts to make churches and people of faith comply with legal authorities regarding whether or not homosexual unions must be considered “marriage”.

      No, the real issue is not whether a few people pretending to be married because a court gave them access to word will undermine real marriages, though this would contribute to erosion of the meaning of the word. It is about the general trend to undefine terms and institutions, to make our overall culture as formless and squishy as possible, and as vulnerable to “fundamental transformation” as possible.

      • Cluster March 29, 2013 / 11:04 am

        Well said Amazona:

        ….It is about the general trend to undefine terms and institutions, to make our overall culture as formless and squishy as possible, and as vulnerable to “fundamental transformation” as possible.

        When you stand for nothing. You will fall for anything.

  3. cyberactor March 29, 2013 / 12:15 am

    Leo:

    That is utterly paranoid. Nobody in favor of this issue is looking to tear down society.

    Listen, I have two friends, Tony and Bob. They’ve been together for over 20 years. They had a civil ceremony back in 1995. They’ll be together until the day they day. And they’d like to be married. They’d like to call what they have, their relationship, their long-term, loving commitment to each other, a marriage. That’s it. That’s all. That is what is at issue here.

    Not an apocalyptic vision of destroying America and refashioning it into some nightmare dystopian society. Tony and Bob, and millions like them, want to get married. End of story.

    Got a problem with that? Then you have a problem with gay people. You think it’s icky that men sleep with men. You think it is against your religion. You think it is immoral, maybe. That’s fine. Think all you like. That is your prerogative.

    But the rest of us are happy for Tony and Bob and we’re going to give them what they want. Whether you like it or not.

    Get on board or get left behind. That’s your choice.

    • watsonthethird March 29, 2013 / 12:35 am

      “That is utterly paranoid. Nobody in favor of this issue is looking to tear down society.”

      Not only that, but Leo failed to answer your question, which was “What rationale, beyond what COULD happen in the future, do you have for denying same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples?”

      If I was tiredoflibbs, I’d call Leo pathetic for dodging the question. But then I’m not.

      But now the issue, according to Leo, is that those crafty liberals, or gay people, or whomever, have knocked their opponents off balance, simply so they can have their own way. Which of course is to tear down society and turn it into “a bastardized shadow of its former self.” I’m trying to stifle the laughter.

      They just want to get married and live a lifetime together like other married couples, Leo. What difference does it make to you? How will it affect your marriage any way, shape or form? (I’m assuming you’re married.) Is it really that hard to understand without imagining grand conspiracies to destroy people like you?

      • cyberactor March 29, 2013 / 1:01 am

        Oh, they can’t answer that question, Watson. Because there is no answer. The lawyer arguing to keep Prop 8 in California can’t even come up with a decent response. Because there isn’t one.

        “What’s the harm to your marriage if gay people can marry?”

        They’ve tried: “It redefines what it means to be married!”

        “Even if that were true, and it isn’t, how does that negatively impact your marriage?”

        It just bothers them. They don’t like gay people or, if they pretend to, they still want to place them outside the mainstream. “Hey, I like gays, but why should they make such a big deal about getting married? Why is the word so important?”

        Which, come to think of it, is a really good question.

        Another thought: It isn’t the left that has shifted so drastically on homosexuality over the years. It’s the right.

        Once upon a time, being gay was illegal. Then it was just immoral. Then it was “tolerated” but not the same as a “normal” relationship. Now, it’s perfectly fine (“We love gays!”) but they’re just getting too demanding, asking for all those Constitutional rights and stuff.

        There has been a sea change on the right when it comes to gay people. And it will only continue. Because they’ve come to realize that their kids are sometimes gay. As are their relatives. And their doctors. Sometimes even their clergymen. And…occasionally their spouses.

        Scary, huh?

      • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:27 am

        waspstooge

        that has been explained to you about 3000 times here, yet you spew forth the same vomit post after post.

        Peter 2:22
        proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.”

        ...”when the blind lead the blind, BOTH fall into the ditch”.

        YOU trolls are obviously blind, mentally, educationally, historically, and spiritually.

        so keep ranting FOR buggery, hate, sodomy,and socialism. It makes our case for conservatism for all to see.

      • watsonthethird March 29, 2013 / 10:57 am

        Clown, you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to quote the Bible. You dismiss the gospel of Matthew as childish.

      • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 12:17 pm

        actor, why is it so important for you people to demonize opposition?

        It’s never enough for you to simply acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion. No, you have to assign a malignant motive to explain that difference. You just did, when you claimed “They don’t like gay people or, if they pretend to, they still want to place them outside the mainstream.”

        We recently saw casper, an inept “teacher”, show that he doesn’t understand the concept of “projection” so maybe he can learn from this.

        In this case, one could speculate that you assign malignant motives to others because you, yourselves, are driven by malignancy and therefore see it in others. (Note to cappy: THIS is “projection”.)

        Liking or not liking gay people is irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, one of the things we here tend to question about the Liberal form of discourse is the determination to lump people into demographic categories, thereby ignoring differences among individuals. We hear, from you, all sorts of rhetoric about “gay people” and “blacks” and “women” and “Latinos” and “minorities” and “conservatives”, as if once you can be identified you lose individuality and become part of a whole.

        I have really liked a lot of gay people. I have loved a couple, in a platonic way but loved nonetheless. I have disliked a lot, and had contempt for some. But then I see people as people, first, and then see various differences among them later.

        I suggest that if you could force yourself to step away from the hysteria that seems to drive your commentary, and simply look at arguments for and against certain issues from a dispassionate perspective, you would have more credibility. Once you start assigning malignant motives to others you blend in with the rest of the irrational haters.

      • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 12:21 pm

        watson, why are you here?

        What do you hope to accomplish by posting here?

        We already know you have no interest in dispassionate discourse on matters of politics, as you not only fail to engage in this but you veer away from it when it is offered.

        What is it about you and your pathology that drives you to seek out a conservative-oriented blog site for the sole purpose of attacking, insulting, sneering, and generally treating it like a litter box for your mental droppings?

        You contribute NOTHING. All you do is try to undermine, or attack, anything anyone else says. Is this the way you are in the rest of your life, too? Someone whose only goal is to try to suck the life out of something, because you simply have nothing positive to offer and are offended or challenged by those who do?

      • 02casper March 29, 2013 / 12:44 pm

        “In this case, one could speculate that you assign malignant motives to others because you, yourselves, are driven by malignancy and therefore see it in others. (Note to cappy: THIS is “projection”.)”

        Which is why your earlier statement is an example of projection.

        “They are fighting to destabilize our Constitution, trying to make it not a clear and concise set of rules for how to govern the nation but just a collection of “suggestions” for how we might govern the nation, if it is convenient and if it doesn’t get in the way of any agendas.”

        Once again you provide some of the best entertainment on the Internet.

      • Leo Pusateri March 29, 2013 / 1:28 pm

        BTW– I don’t have any problem with people living as couples–whatever– knock yourselves out. But if you’re not a man and a woman in a marital relationship, don’t call it marriage; because that’s what marriage is!

      • watsonthethird March 29, 2013 / 4:56 pm

        Amazona asks:

        actor, why is it so important for you people to demonize opposition?

        It’s never enough for you to simply acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion.

        In her very next post she then goes on the demonize me and question my motives for even being here. I mean, Amazona, seriously… do you not see any irony in that?

      • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 5:42 pm

        casper, the state of your mental confusion is so pronounced it may even be approaching the state of a mental health emergency. Are you truly as befuddled by simple definitions as you appear to be?

        Do try to keep up, OK?

        I did not project upon the actor the claim or perception that he had assigned a malignant motive to objections to gay marriage. I QUOTED the malignant motive he had assigned to people who object to gay marriage. Actually, I quoted two of them.

        This is not projection. It is a quote. Dislike of gay people is a malignant motive, attributed by the actor to other people. Wanting to keep people out of the mainstream of American life because of their sexual orientation is a malignant motive, attributed by the actor to other people.

        Even you, in your constant state of befuddlement and fretfulness, ought to be able to understand that.

        What I did—-are you still with me here, or still hung up on some big word like “malignant”?——was point out that a characteristic of projection as it is understood by most people, if not by middle school Liberal teachers in Wind City, is that a person has a feeling and then assumes that other people share it.

        Therefore, as the claim that objection to gay marriage is based upon dislike of gay people and a desire to keep them out of the mainstream has been made with absolutely no foundation except the opinion of the person making the statement, it is logical to think that this might be projection on the part of this person, or in this case projection that any position is based upon a malignant motive.

        My noting that the person attributed malignant motives to others is not projection, but merely an observation of an objective fact.

        I did catch a faint high-pitched titter on a wind blowing down from up Casper way, and wondered if you were being “entertained” .

        What, exactly, tickled your funny bone in my comment on the efforts to destabilize the Constitution? “Destabilize” made you think of ponies and you find them amusing?

        Are you truly unaware that there is a big push on the Left to redefine the Constitution as not something that should be “slavishly” followed (to quote one troll who posts here) but just as a “guide”? You yourself have exhibited bafflement about the Constitution, being all tangled up in radical Leftist rhetoric about what one means by the written Constitution as opposed to the interpreted Constitution, so you might have also been attracted to the idea that it is a “living document” and must change to adapt to the times.

        You seem pretty comfortable with the recent efforts to infringe upon the right to bear arms, as well as the impositions of restrictions on the right of religious freedom. Do you or do you not feel that these are efforts to destabilize (tee hee) the Constitution by making it “….not a clear and concise set of rules for how to govern the nation but just a collection of “suggestions” for how we might govern the nation, if it is convenient and if it doesn’t get in the way of any agendas.”” ? Is it making the Constitution flexible enough to change with the times that you object to, or the word “destabilize”?

        Or do you have a clue?

      • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 5:53 pm

        wattle, I merely commented on what I observed, and asked a question or two.

        My, what a fragile flower of sensitivity you are!

        But how clever of you to suss out that when I asked you why you are here, I was questioning your motives for being here. Worked that out all by yourself, did you?

        Did I “demonize” you by asking if you to “…seek out a conservative-oriented blog site for the sole purpose of attacking, insulting, sneering, and generally treating it like a litter box for your mental droppings?” Or did I just comment on the obvious?

      • watsonthethird March 29, 2013 / 6:30 pm

        Little Amy, I was just commenting on what I observed, too. But goodness, you really got me this time. I better go reassess my motives and positions because Little Amy finds them offensive. And if Little Amy finds something offensive, she will spend lots of time telling us so. Truly, Amy dear, if you don’t like what I post, then ignore it. I’ve suggested that to you time after time, but you just don’t take the hint.

      • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 8:19 pm

        wattle, do you really think that your babbling is going to disguise the fact that you have, again, refused to tell us why you come here? That it will somehow bury in nonsensical words the fact that you cannot lay claim to any motive related to actual political discourse?

        Your unbroken record of offering us nothing but petty carping at what any conservative may have said or done stands for itself, as an indictment of your motives. And trying to flood us with chatter does nothing to change that.

        If you deny this, then tell us—why do you come here?

        I come here because it is a conservatively oriented blog site in which conservatives, when not trying to avoid the speed bumps of blog vandals like you, can actually discuss politics and current events, exchange ideas, and in general participate in discourse.

        As you do none of these things, what is YOUR motive? Did I describe it incorrectly?

      • watsonthethird March 30, 2013 / 12:35 am

        Little Amy, I come here to understand what conservatives think about current events. I sometimes participate in the threads, especially if I see someone post something that is untrue. An example would be when dbschmidt posted the other day that “Gay, or otherwise, marriage has been rejected every time it has become an issue that can be voted on by the people of the US.” Or cluster claiming “those attitudes [referring to acceptance of gay marriage] are not yet reflected in the voting booth.” Or when neocon lectures me that Matthew 7:12 “is but a childish way of circumventing his word.”

        No matter how gently I point out that a purported fact is false, the correction is met with ridicule and hostility. It seems to me, at least, that actual facts should be the foundation of discussions.

        The record here shows that conservatives such as yourself resort to overt hostility as soon as anyone expresses a point of view different from yours. The lone exception is Mark Noonan.

        I’m happy to have civil, polite conversations, but I need to be met halfway. On the other hand, if you call me names, I’ll call you names. If you’re hostile to me, I’ll be hostile to you. It seems that what many here hate the most is when their own nasty behavior is thrown back at them.

      • Amazona March 30, 2013 / 6:56 pm

        Yet not a word you say indicates the slightest awareness of what conservatives really think, and as for you pointing out , you seem to be quite delusional regarding the stridency of your nonstop attacks, as you say “…..No matter how gently I point out that a purported fact is false…”

        Gently!! Ha!

        No, you do not come here to “understand” anything, because no matter how often you are told what conservatives think on various topics you just ignore the facts and stubbornly regurgitate your hate-driven talking points.

        You piously state “I’m happy to have civil, polite conversations, but I need to be met halfway” yet you never enter into conversations but merely hurl insults and attacks.

        A conversation is a two way street, yet you never offer an opinion on, for example, the best way to govern the nation, and then enter into a conversation about that. You just slink around waiting for someone to say something and then you pounce upon it, with your silly radical Left-wing talking points, and hammer them mercilessly over and over and over again, deaf to what you are told and intent on nothing but screaming your own point of view in our faces.

        After a while this is clearly stupid, or rude, or whatever, so don’t whimper when you are called stupid or rude or whatever. You are a hypocrite of the first magnitude, steadfastly refusing to actually enter into a discussion yet mouthing the plaintive whine that this is all you really want to do.

        No, what you really want to do is shown clearly by what you do do, and that is be annoying and offensive as much as moderators will let you, never actually participating in a conversation but just hurling snot-nuggets. Perhaps this is what passes for conversation in your world. Perhaps your personal relationships are as distorted as your online relationships are. Perhaps no one will tolerate this approach to discourse in real life, forcing you online. I don’t know and I don’t care.

        I just find you annoying and offensive and have never seen a single thing posted by you which I thought made even the slightest contribution to any discussion. Based on what I have seen of you, your goal is to be the blog equivalent of a pebble in a shoe—inconsequential yet obnoxious.

      • watsonthethird March 30, 2013 / 7:15 pm

        If you don’t like my comments here, then just. Go. Away. Is that clear enough for you?

        Enough. You are not discussing, you are haranguing. You are not in a position to tell anyone else to go away. You come here only to attack conservatives and if anyone will go away it will be you. Moderators can see your email address and it is a good indicator of your attitude toward this blog. //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs March 30, 2013 / 8:52 pm

        Ama, wattyfailurethethird, has proven the FACT “you can’t fix stupid”.

        He just doesn’t realize that he is in over his head.

      • Amazona March 31, 2013 / 11:28 am

        Interesting. The wattle does not just want to take over the blog by flooding it with Leftist nonsense and hyperbole, now he wants to be the Blog Police and decide who can and who can not post.

        I have been here since 2005, and I regularly contribute ideas and participate in actual political discourse. Lately I have been wasting a lot of time addressing blog vandals and wannabe blog speed bumps, because leaving nonsense and lies standing here unaddressed could be seen as a de facto admission that they are valid. This is why some of us engage in off-blog discussions, because trolls like you make this very difficult on the blog—-which is what you want, I think.

        Clearly you do not come here to participate in discourse, so the only reasons I can come up with are a pathological need to spew hatred, a pathological need to fight with people, or a desire to interrupt political discourse on the Right.

        I have to say, after wading through your mental excrement here, I find all three of these to be equally persuasive as explanations for your obsession with this blog.

        What I do not find is anything that would let you think you can just tell people to leave. Except your overweening ego, of course.

    • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:35 am

      psycho”actor”

      ” Whether you like it or not.

      Get on board or get left behind. That’s your choice”.

      veiled threats and pink tights dont match girlyman.
      remember we cling to out “guns and bibles” both of which you fear and will one day attempt to forcibly take ( at your own peril.) but hey that’s your choice.

    • Amazona March 29, 2013 / 11:23 am

      “Nobody in favor of this issue is looking to tear down society.”

      Well, not really. What you do not understand is that while most of the people arguing for the ability to redefine the word “marriage” have no interest at all in tearing down society, the leaders of the Left see this as just another way to destabilize our culture and our society.

      As I just said in another post, there is a pattern of destabilization, which is presented as nothing more than an effort to “modernize” our society, which allows the movement to demonize opponents as dinosaurs, bigots, etc.

      But the first step in a bloodless takeover of a society by the Left is the erosion of the foundations of that society, and the most important of those foundations are the family unit and religion. Both are alternative authorities to the State, which must be the only authority, and therefore both must be weakened and eventually destroyed.

      The two main components of the family unit are marriage and the authority of parents, both of which have been under attack for quite a while now.

      We could very easily accommodate a parallel form of union, among homosexuals, which provides the same legal and even cultural identities, without undermining the basic concept of the family. But once the definition of “marriage” is stretched and distorted till it loses its traditional cultural and religious meaning, it becomes meaningless.

      I am sure that your friends would like to be able to apply a traditional word to their relationship. I understand this, and I sympathize with it. But their wistful yearning to have a socially accepted definition applied to their relationship simply does not give them the right to be insensitive to the feelings and beliefs of millions who have, to put it simply, followed the rules and therefore earned the right to use the word.

      The rules have been “one man, one woman” and they have been applied and enforced, at least in this culture, for centuries. When some wanted to have the word “marriage” applied to relationships outside this definition, they were denied, and polygamous relationships cannot be called “marriage”.

      I too have had close friends who were gay, and we have talked about the sadness inherent in realizing that some aspects of our culture, that most of us look forward to, such as marriage, would never be available to them. I’ve been part of these discussions, and I understand, as well as anyone not experiencing it, the feeling of loss.

      But you know what? Things happen. I yearned, with a feeling so strong and deep and primal it surpassed any desire to be able to use a single word, to have children. I can guarantee you, the loss of that dream was far more significant than any inability to apply a certain word to a relationship. But it is just the way life is. You don’t always get what you want. A very close friend had dreams of being a professional athlete, dreams which defined his entire childhood, dreams which seemed quite reasonable, but an injury shattered them.

      The fact is, gay couples can have commitment ceremonies which can include the same rituals and pomp and circumstance of even the most elaborate wedding ceremony. They can, increasingly and with very little objection, in nearly every state in the union, have the same protections and privileges and responsibilities of marriage. They can have parallel and equal relationships. But no matter how much they want it to be, they simply cannot make what they have the SAME as marriage, simply by hijacking a word and slapping it onto something different.

      • cyberactor March 30, 2013 / 12:00 am

        Coupla things:

        >i/ii/ii/i< hysterical. Have you listened to your "end of the world" friends lately?

  4. cyberactor March 29, 2013 / 12:17 am

    Ugh. *day they die, obviously. Hmph. Hate typos.

    • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:19 am

      scary huh?

      not at all, simply DADT and quietly live you life. simple.

      However shove a radical agenda down our throats and force the 99% to capitulate to a radical 1% deceived group with a sexual pathology and mental illness will not end well.

    • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 8:30 am

      psycho”actor”

      *day they die

      when we do (die) we know our journey, and yours. Too bad you dont.

  5. Cluster March 29, 2013 / 9:02 am

    What rationale, beyond what COULD happen in the future, do you have for denying same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples? That, I’m afraid, is the ONLY question. – cyberactor

    You claim there is no answer???? There are many answers and easy ones at that. THEY CAN HAVE THEIR RIGHTS!! No problem. Currently through wills, living wills and POA’s, there are virtually no rights they can’t have. And with some work on IRS legislation, those rights can be forth coming too. But it will however require liberals like you and Watson to stop hyper ventilating, calm down the noises in your head and civilly work on civil union arrangements, to automatically afford them their rights. And that can all be done without the need to hijack a time honored, rich, culturally universal tradition of the word “marriage”.

    Is that so difficult?

    • neocon01 March 29, 2013 / 9:19 am

      Cluster

      the left have stolen and bastardized the term of “rights” and “civil rights” and gotten away with it.This leftist push has NOTHING to do with rights, civil or not.
      It is all about the tearing down the Christo/judeo traditions, laws, norms that made us the greatest nation that has ever existed on the face of the earth, and turn us into detroit, south central, liberty city and every other leftist hell hole inner city in the US.

      • Leo Pusateri March 29, 2013 / 10:48 am

        “…people want freedom not control…”–MY but ain’t it a caution how those who constantly browbeat the population, take away property rights of landowners, hellbent on taking away everyone’s choice on gun ownership and where they wish to educate their children, taking away their ability to decide for themselves regarding their health care, my GOD–taking away the very choice of what kind of light bulb they want to screw in their lamps– are all of a sudden champions of “freedom.”

        Heh.

      • Leo Pusateri March 29, 2013 / 11:02 am

        Diane– don’t even use the word freedom– your agenda is anything but. I won’t be lectured regarding ‘freedom’ from someone who is the ideological soulmate of Vladimir Lenin.

        You have no standing, so get off of it.

  6. Doug Quinby March 29, 2013 / 1:12 pm

    Hasn’t marriage has been in the tax code for quite sometime with the federal government showing they have jurisdiction over regulating it through the tax code. The four liberals and Robert upheld Obamacare in the same fashion – it’s in the taxcode, hence according to the liberal Supreme Court justices, the fed’s can regulate it. DOMA must be upheld by the same mindboggling reasoning that they upheld Obamacare.

  7. Jeremiah March 29, 2013 / 1:28 pm

    I think it’s an attempt to de-stabilize society, so that it is more malleable to be torn down and re-formed into some bastardized shadow of its former self.

    Hammer meets nail!

    You nailed it, bro!

    That is the desire of the communists in control of our government, and those who have been trained by them in our schools around the country. And you see, this presents a great dilemma for the country … as long as communists are in control of our schools, there will be no freedom of thought, and the institutions of learning will continue to pump out vast numbers of good little communists every year. It would be nice if we could get control of our schools back into the right hands, but I don’t foresee it happening.

  8. M. Noonan March 29, 2013 / 3:29 pm

    Pondering it more and more, I realize that we lost the debate over marriage quite a long time ago – when we allowed State licensing of marriages (essentially, allowing a secular official to preside over a marriage) and then when allowed divorce (naturally, because a marriage stripped of its sacramental character is just a contract and may be broke at will by the interested parties). As this debate rolled around this past couple weeks, a passage from Chesterton came to mind:

    …As in that one matter of modesty, or the mere externals of sex, so in all the deeper matters of sex, the modern will has been amazingly weak and wavering. And I suppose it is because the Church has known from the first this weakness which we have all discovered at last, that about certain sexual matters She has been very decisive and dogmatic; as many good people have quite honestly thought, too decisive and dogmatic. Now a Catholic is a person who has plucked up courage to face the incredible and inconceivable idea that something else may be wiser than he is. And the most striking and outstanding illustration is perhaps to be found in the Catholic view of marriage as compared with the modern theory of divorce; not, it must be noted, the very modern theory of divorce, which is the mere negation of marriage; but even more the slightly less modern and more moderate theory of divorce, which was generally accepted even when I was a boy. This is the very vital point or test of the question; for it explains the Church’s rejection of the moderate as well as the immoderate theory. It illustrates the very fact I am pointing out, that Divorce has already turned into something totally different from what was intended, even by those who first proposed it. Already we must think ourselves back into a different world of thought, in order to understand how anybody ever thought it was compatible with Victorian virtue; and many very virtuous Victorians did. But they only tolerated this social solution as an exception; and many other modern social solutions they would not have tolerated at all. My own parents were not even orthodox Puritans or High Church people; they were Universalists more akin to Unitarians. But they would have regarded Birth-Prevention exactly as they would have regarded Infanticide. Yet about Divorce such liberal Protestants did hold an intermediate view, which was substantially this. They thought the normal necessity and duty of all married people was to remain faithful to their marriage; that this could be demanded of them, like common honesty or any other virtue. But they thought that in some very extreme and extraordinary cases a divorce was allowable. Now, putting aside our own mystical and sacramental doctrine, this was not, on the face of it, an unreasonable position. It certainly was not meant to be an anarchical position. But the Catholic Church, standing almost alone, declared that it would in fact lead to an anarchical position; and the Catholic Church was right.

    Any man with eyes in his head, whatever the ideas in his head, who looks at the world as it is to-day, must know that the whole social substance of marriage has changed; just as the whole social substance of Christianity changed with the divorce of Henry VIII. As in the other case, the externals remained for a time and some of them remain still. Some divorced persons, who can be married quite legally by a registrar, go on complaining bitterly that they cannot be married by a priest. They regard a church as a peculiarly suitable place in which to make and break the same vow at the same moment. And the Bishop of London, who was supposed to sympathise with the more sacramental party, recently submitted to such a demand on the ground that it was a very special case. As if every human being’s case were not a special case. That decision was one of the occasions on which I should have done a bolt, if I had delayed it so long. But the general social atmosphere is much the most important matter. Numbers of normal people are getting married, thinking already that they may be divorced. The instant that idea enters, the whole conception of the old Protestant compromise vanishes. The sincere and innocent Victorian would never have married a woman reflecting that he could divorce her. He would as soon have married a woman reflecting that he could murder her. These things were not supposed to be among the daydreams of the honeymoon. The psychological substance of the whole thing has altered; the marble has turned to ice; and the ice has melted with most amazing rapidity. The Church was right to refuse even the exception. The world has admitted the exception; and the exception has become the rule… – G. K. Chesteron, “The Well and the Shallows”

    The left will get their gay marriage – I’m pretty sure that by hook or by crook, a 6-3 majority in the Court will cook up a “right” to marriage (even though such a right cannot exist in any rational definition of “human rights”) and will further rule that since it is a right, it cannot be denied to same sex couples…and this without for a moment considering the polygamy and other follow-on effects (gay rights advocates rise these days in fury whenever anyone points out these likely follow-on effects…they have to: they must not be part of the debate…people must be kept as mindlessly in favor of the meaningless phrase “marriage equality” as possible so that it can be done before a majority thinks the whole matter through). But just like ObamaCare wasn’t the end of limited government (Social Security was), so gay marriage won’t be the end of marriage because civil ceremonies and divorce already were.

    I think our best response to this is to separate marriage and State – to terminate the secular marriage license aspect of it; get religious bodies to be insistent upon living trusts and wills to cover property, etc being executed at the time the religious service is conducted, but get the State out of it, entirely. As far as the government is concerned, no one is married – this will free us from having to worry about lawsuits against the Church for refusing to extend the sacrament of marriage to a mockery like same-sex unions and it will also stymie leftist efforts to change what marriage means as part of their broader assault on the very concept of family.

    We have to get back to the old way – marriage is for life and it is something that God controls. We can’t get that, however, as long as the State is involved…until this whole, rotten system collapses (and the collapse is coming) we simply won’t be able to muster the strength to end divorce, so lets just work on our own relationships with our spouses and God and let the liberals play in their mud pile to their heart’s content.

    • pelirrojito March 29, 2013 / 4:27 pm

      Oddly Mark, I agree with you 100%.

      Of course, there does need to be some kind of legal union for various reasons. But the easiest solution is to remove the word marriage (perhaps replace it with civil union?) and allow the churches (and mosques etc) to do their marriage thing.

      • M. Noonan March 30, 2013 / 12:49 am

        Pel,

        I’d say, no, on that – the only reason there is a legal union is because the State was recognizing the moral excellence of the Christian concept of marriage…now that some propose the State recognize a mockery as being the same thing as Christian marriage, I really want nothing more to do with the State vis a vis marriage…I refuse, that is, to lend the dignity and respect of Christian marriage to something as absurd as a man marrying a man. Of course, I’m also acknowledging that long before someone thought up gay marriage, the concept of divorce had already greatly undermined the Christian conception of marriage. So, let’s go back to basics (a true conservative principal) and revive Christian marriage – which was something created long before any western State recognized it. Once the social sewer the left has created in this nation has collapsed upon itself, then Christians will be the people rebuilding society and we can once again enshrine in secular law what is pure under religious doctrine – but this time, remembering our lesson, setting up the definition of it in law from the get go.

      • pelirrojito March 30, 2013 / 1:00 am

        Its necessary to have some kind of legal contract between people who want to spend their lives together. yes most of the benefits could be obtained via a private contract but that simply creates hassle for something which is extremely common. A simplier solutiion would be to implement civil unions and allow any 2 people to enter into it.

        And marriage is far from a christian concept. There have been marriages of various kinds for a long time, and of course theres jewish, islamic etc.

        I am curious about your views on divorce though. How exactly would removing no fault make society better? You would end up with couples who don’t want anything to do with each other and who are un able to get a divorce (which again has legal issues, such as who gets to take care of the children).

      • M. Noonan March 30, 2013 / 1:18 am

        Pel,

        For the most part, the only reason you need a legal contract is so that you can get out of it at need – secular marriage implies secular divorce. If I promise to stay with a person to the end of my life then there’s really not much which needs to be defined – I’d only need the sort of will and durable power of attorney you can download off the internet, just to tidy up things for when I do die, and that is only to keep the State off the widow’s back.

        I think what you’re missing here is that marriage – and family – pre-date the State. The State in its best aspects was only ratifying what was already existing. As for their being marriages prior to Christianity, that is true – but only Christian marriages are for life. This is because God – Jesus – commanded it so. All other religious traditions (including Judaism) allow for some means of divorce…and it should also be noted that only in Christianity was the legal concept of woman changed from a species of property to the status of a moral and legal equal (not all at once, to be sure…but slowly, over time…and this, I believe, stems from the fact that in Christian marriage there must be free consent to the act by both parties…in other words, two moral equals promising God and each other that they would stay together). I want nothing to do with a situation which asserts that the absurdity of a man marrying a man is the same was what happens when a Christian man and a Christian woman pledge unending devotion to each other.

  9. willbaskerville March 29, 2013 / 11:20 pm

    Hey there. Long time reader, first time commenter. Couple thoughts.

    Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government doesn’t do baptisms or bar mitzvahs. If we’re uncomfortable with government defining marriage, it shouldn’t be the government’s to define in the first place. The legal practice should all be civil unions, and then churches can do as they please, with no force at law. It’s the mingling of a religious ceremony with a secular/legal one that’s causing the headaches.

    As for redefining marriage, marriage has been undergoing a slow redefinition for centuries. It was joined to government a thousand years ago as a way of legally passing and protecting property, thus taking it outside a religious realm into a secular one. Henry VIII created a whole new church so that he might redefine marriage as it suited him. Inter-racial marriages redefined marriage just in the last century. It’s interesting that it’s when the interests of love meet the interests of property (and in the case before the Supreme Court this week, the Estate Tax) is when there is a change to marriage.

    So – is marriage about love? Is it about taxes? Is it about religion? Is it about property? I got married for love, and if Adam and Steve get married for love as well, it damages my love and my marriage not a whit. And if it’s about taxes or property, that’s no skin off my nose either. It’s only when we talk about marriage as a religious concept that we grind to a halt. And demanding the country adhere to a particular religious point of view is actually unconstitutional.

    As for the slippery-slope, I don’t see it. In 1971 a group of men started lobbying for marriage licenses for gay couples. So, 42 years later, they got their two hours before the Supreme Court. That’s hardly a rush. But then, the gays had their sexual revolution 20 years after the rest of the country. While the rest of the country was going wild in the 60s, the LGBT community waited until the 80s. If anything, they’re late to the party.

    My two cents.

    • Cluster March 30, 2013 / 9:14 am

      Well said Will. I agree with nearly everything you said, but remember it’s only one cent after taxes.

      I will only add this – marriage, as defined as one man, one woman is universally accepted in every culture and has been since the beginning of time. The union between one and one woman is also a fundamental building block of society. Obviously, it is the only union that can naturally procreate, and the physical and psychological make ups of the male and female species are in my opinion, irreplaceable as the best combination to raise children. Men simply can not replace a woman in terms of nurturing a child, and women simply can’t replace a man in the manner in which a child reacts with the father. Therefore, the union between a man and a woman is different, but that fact shouldn’t prohibit same sex couples from having the same legal protections and benefits, therefore maybe all unions should first be a secular civil union in nature, and those traditional unions who choose to take it to the “next level”, can be married in a religious ceremony.

      Just my two cents. One cent after taxes.

    • tiredoflibbs March 30, 2013 / 9:58 am

      This whole issue of “gay marriage” is not about LOVE as the mindless drone proggies regurgitate – IT IS ABOUT MONEY, PERIOD.

      The legal battle going on is about one person having to pay inheritance taxes (another proggy intrusion and theft). It is about money, period.

      • tiredoflibbs March 30, 2013 / 2:29 pm

        Ah, the forker echo chamber has returned.

        Here we go again with more anti-religious screed (government redefining a religious institution), racial crap (interracial marriage laws – thanks to Democrats) and other nonsense.

        Majority of Americans? Hardly…. I think your fellow forker spoke of 9 of 50 states….. 9 out of 50…. 9 of the most purple to blue states is hardly a majority. Proggies love to redefine words, terms and situations to further their agenda. Here we have a group of proggies who do not even live in this country trying to force their beliefs on us. Typical.

        Perch? Hmmmmm…. more accurate than you realize! As I said, the forker echo chamber….. perch – a place for a bird… a parrot definitely.

  10. willbaskerville March 29, 2013 / 11:37 pm

    Oh, and for whoever it was bashing the convenient straw men of “Hollywood” and “liberals” as being the source and cause of divorces: Not to let the facts interfere with a good story, but….

    Oklahoma has the highest overall divorce rate at 13.45. Thirty-two percent of Oklahoma adults who have ever been married have been divorced.

    Arkansas has the second highest rate of divorce in the country at 13.15. The divorce rate for men in Arkansas is the highest in the country at 13.5.

    Alaska’s divorce rate of 13.05 is the third highest. Alaska has the highest divorce rate for women in the country at 16.2.

    And before you say that Hollywood culture is creating a permissiveness that makes more people want to get divorced (I could feel you going there) – are you then suggesting that citizens of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Alaska are more susceptible to influence than others in the country? Are they more easily swayed than a resident of Maine or Texas or Wisconsin? Or is it possible that there is another factor (or combination of factors) that leads to a higher divorce rate? That it might not be “Hollywood liberalism”?

    • neocon01 March 30, 2013 / 10:03 am

      willbaskethead

      So – is marriage about love? Is it about taxes? Is it about religion? Is it about property? I got married for love, and if Adam and Steve get married for love as well, it damages my love and my marriage not a whit. And if it’s about taxes or property, that’s no skin off my nose either. It’s only when we talk about marriage as a religious concept that we grind to a halt. And demanding the country adhere to a particular religious point of view is actually unconstitutional.

      BULLLLLLLLLL SHIITE

      it is ALL the homosexual AGENDA to destroy our constitution and Christianity.

      • willbaskerville March 30, 2013 / 12:43 pm

        Name-calling reduces your argument off the bat. Just poor form, and says you’re not interested in constructive debate. So does a statement without facts to back it up. You and I haven’t met, haven’t talked. Assume I know nothing of the “homosexual AGENDA” of which you speak. As far as I can see, the homosexual agenda, as of this week, is not to pay estate-taxes. Is that the means by which they’re undermining the constitution and Christianity? Does the “Death Tax” ensure the Constitution and Christianity?

        Christ talked a great deal about poverty and income inequality. He said nothing about homosexuality. Which do you think was more important to him?

        As for Leviticus, the passage condemning homosexuality is followed by a passage condemning shellfish. I like lobster and shrimp, so I try to take the whole of Leviticus with a grain of salt.

      • neocon01 March 31, 2013 / 2:46 pm

        wildobasketcase

        it appears you do not understand the OT or the NT, let alone the gospels.
        sodomy is considered to be a sin, Christ DIRECTED……..“GO and SIN NO MORE!! capice?

  11. 02casper March 30, 2013 / 11:39 pm

    Mark,
    “It’s not about expanding marriage, it’s about destroying marriage.”

    How does expanding marriage destroy it? I’ve been married for almost 38 years and I don’t see anyway gay marriage will hurt my marriage.

    That would be the most obvious explanation as to why the same societal groups who assured us in the Seventies that marriage was either (a) a “meaningless piece of paper” or (b) institutionalized rape are now insisting it’s a universal human right…

    Which groups are you talking about? I mean we are talking about 40 years ago.

    “The thing about liberals is that, at bottom, they are just downright nasty – doesn’t matter what the issue is, they will always take the worst possible position and if it contradicts their previous position its no matter…as long as hatred the destruction of our civilization proceed, they’re just pleased as punch.”

    I don’t know of any liberals that are advocating the destruction of our civilization. Why would they? Personally, I would consider gay marriage an advancement of our civilization.

    • M. Noonan March 31, 2013 / 1:08 am

      Casper,

      That is because you labor under your two, usual difficulties as regards this issue:

      1. You don’t think things all the way through.

      2. You think only of yourself.

      I’ve offered, over and over again, just what is wrong with the concept of gay marriage – bottom line, it isn’t a marriage but a negation of marriage, a lie about marriage…and if people are adhering to a lie, they are being destructive.

      I concede in this matter that marriage has already been wrecked – ages ago when allegedly Christian people claimed that Matthew 19:1-12 no longer applies. Christians – if they are really Christian – marry for life, period. For better or worse – what God has joined together let no man separate…even if the person trying to do the separating is a wife or husband. You don’t get out of it unless the marriage was never lawful to begin with (such as, for instance, if one party to the marriage turned out to have been lying about forsaking all others…not that adultery is grounds for divorce, but if one of the two can be shown to have gone in to the union with, say, a girlfriend on the side, then his vow was never valid – the marriage never took place). But because we Christians have wrecked it doesn’t work out to any requirement on the part of a Christian to destroy the tattered threads which still remain – and gay marriage is just that: the nail in the coffin of Christian marriage…a complete mockery of what Christian marriage is all about. And, so, nothing to do with it – if the State chooses to allow a man to “marry” a man, that is the State’s business…I want us Christians to stay completely away from that, and the best means to ensure we can is to terminate State licensing of marriages (and you just watch your fellow liberals shriek with anger when that is proposed – for two reasons: less revenue for the State but, also, the proof of the moral worthlessness of “gay marriage”…it immediately gets shown up for mockery it is).

      We can fix this society and we will fix it – but I believe a bit more liberal ruination will be necessary before we get to the point where even the most obtuse see that revolution is necessary. But until then I see no reason to pollute ourselves any more than is necessary.

Comments are closed.