Posted by Tina
I have little desire to discuss gay marriage but given the inexcusably bigoted wording included in the majority opinion in the DOMA case I think it might be of interest to review some of the ugliness and bigotry that surrounds the gay agenda and the never ending lawsuits, protests, and activists policy makers that control the Democrat Party. It is their intention to eliminate Christian religious influence in society and in politics and they don’t mind creating an atmosphere of intimidation, bigotry and hate to achieve that goal. Sadly a media that should be neutral and interested in factual reporting gives them cover.
One of the most egregious examples of intimidation and hate is the treatment Mormons were subjected to in California and Utah for Mormon support of Proposition 8. The Mormons won the political contest and the measure passed with support coming across racial and party lines. Gay extremists refused to accept the will of the people in California even though the measure got the vote of the people twice! Because they gave money and voice to a differing view the Mormons became a target for scorn and ridicule. Protests were loud and well covered by the media. Protests signs screamed epithets like “Mormon Scum” and contained messages suggesting Joseph Smith was a “pedophile”. Clearly, at least some of those seeking gay marriage under protest that they are being treated as “lesser,” have no problem at all treating other groups as “lesser” or “stigmatizing” people for their religious beliefs. Other examples of this hypocrisy include defacing the walls of a Mormon Temple. Evangelicals were similarly targeted and demeaned simply because of a strongly held religious conviction that placed them in support of traditional marriage. Protest became a public circus with demeaning comments and jokes delivered with scornful alacrity on late night talk shows and throughout the popular culture. It has also made it’s way into the public schools where debate about gay marriage has often become an excuse to ridicule Christians with differing views and beliefs.
Who can forget the way Chic-Fil-A was singled out and targeted, not because gays had been mistreated or turned away at the stores, but because the owner holds a personal religious conviction about traditional marriage? In addition to a call for nationwide boycott, individual restaurants were defaced with graffiti and liberal mayors in cities like Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco suggested they would try to deny business permits if Chic-Fil-A attempted to expand in their cities. If this is not an example of the bigotry of the old racist South I don’t know what is!
Anti-Bullying activist and speaker Dan Savage was asked to speak at the National High School Journalism Conference. His subject was bullying, a subject that concerns many teens. Instead of informing and educating the students his talk became a hostile rant against the Bible and Christians. His vulgar hateful speech caused some students to leave after which he declared, “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible.” Perhaps Mr. Savage has experienced ill treatment in the past from a Bible quoting person but the students who attended this conference certainly did not deserve to be the target for his angry outbursts. His agenda was all that mattered. Mr. Savage received obligatory condemnation of the mild and disingenuous sort that is commonly dished out for progressives who bully and make public displays of bigotry.
Another group of Americans have been targeted for bigoted discrimination, Christian members of the US military.
Breitbart reports:
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.
The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.
(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians–including chaplains–sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)
Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.
According to Wikipedia Michael L. Weinstein “is an attorney, businessman, and former Air Force officer. He is the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation…which describe(s) his fight against alleged coercive Christian Fundamentalist practices by some members of the military. You can read about his views here.
Mr. Weinstein has a right to his opinions, but why has he been given so much authority to define military rules? Just how much will the influence of this anti-Christian zealot affect religious expression in the military? Why is his extremism courted much less tolerated? Although there are denials that Weinstein had influence over military generals to make policy regarding restrictions of religious expression the House of Representatives did feel compelled to pass the following amendment:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – By voice vote this afternoon, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the amendment of Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of FY2014. This amendment will require the Department of Defense (DoD) to inform Congress whenever its employees meet with outside individuals regarding military policy related to religious liberty.
The objective is to at least expose, and possibly deter, future meetings between Pentagon officials and Mikey Weinstein, the founder and president of the inaptly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation. In April, The Washington Post published the shocking revelation that several Generals and Pentagon officials actually consulted Mr. Weinstein for assistance in formulating Air Force policies concerning “religious tolerance.”
In January a Christian pastor, Luis Giglio, was dismissed from the Presidents second inaugural because of objections over “a two-decades-old sermon” in which he preached…
“…a biblically-based message that homosexuality, like other sins, required repentance — and that, as with other sins, the power of Jesus Christ offered both healing and restoration, grace and mercy to the repentant.”
The article then quoted theologian Al Mohler from his blog,
“Mr. Giglio’s ministry is based on ‘undiluted biblical truth,’ and his preaching on homosexuality has been ‘the consensus of the Church for more than 2,000 years, and is the firm belief held by the vast majority of Christians around the world today.'”
I am aware of those who are comfortable diluting Biblical truth when it gets in the way of their personal desires, predilections and goals…often they are known as sinners and aren’t we all? But the inauguration would not be a forum for discussion of such matters and the polite dismissal was the result of a politically driven act of protest and intolerance. (There are brief moments when I feel empathy for the President. I’m sure Pastor Giglio was invited in all sincerity.
It would appear, however, that the administration is bent on denying religious expression whenever and wherever it can based on the views of Americans who insist on imposing their will even to the extent of demanding the heavy hand of government engage in “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion and “abridging freedom of speech.”
This is an ugly form of tyranny unworthy of free people.
Others commented on Giglio’s dismissal:
Russell D. Moore from “Moore to the Point” described the situation in a pithy summary: “Notice that the problem is not that this evangelical wants to ‘impose his religion’ on the rest of society. The problem is not that he wants to exclude homosexuals or others from the public square or of their civil rights. The problem is that he won’t say that they can go to heaven without repentance. That’s not a civil issue, but a religious test of orthodoxy.”
By asking Mr. Giglio to step down, the inaugural committee has, in effect, apologized to the nation for inviting an evangelical who believes foundational Christian truth. In their official statement about Mr. Giglio’s withdrawal, officials wrote that the replacement person’s beliefs will “reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.” Except, of course, those who disagree with the administration’s narrow view of “inclusion” and “acceptance of all Americans.” As Mr. Moore noted, we now have a “de facto established state church” that requires everyone to embrace “sexual liberation in all its forms” in order to enter the public square or participate in the public debate on these issues.
I have to agree. The thing that makes this incident ridiculous is that the Pastor would not have made references to Biblical teachings regarding homosexuality at an inaugural event. There was nothing to fear. This bending to gay pressure, even in an unrelated setting, was clearly a deeply intolerant act that is becoming, all too often, an accepted state of affairs in America.
As I was researching to write this article I discovered a statistic that frankly shocked me. Back in February Evelyn Gordon, Commentary Magazine wrote:
In recent months, a new consensus has emerged: For the first time in millennia, Judaism has lost its title as the world’s most persecuted religion; today, that dubious honor goes to Christianity. “Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers,” wrote Rupert Shortt in a 54-page report for the London-based Civitas institute in December, which meticulously documented their persecution on a country-by-country basis. Even politicians have begun grasping this fact: German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly deemed Christianity “the most persecuted religion in the world” in November. In short, as one commentator put it last week, Christians have become the new Jews.
Most of the persecution that Christians around the world suffer is happening in other countries around the globe, often in the extreme and often at the hands of Muslim extremists. But it disturbs this American greatly that radical gay Americans, with the apparent blessing of certain members of the Supreme Court and in conjunction with this administration, and the media, can be counted among those who willingly, even gleefully, engage in demeaning Christians and suppressing their right of expression.
Tolerance, respect, cooperation, adjustment, accommodation, and inclusion are words that all Americans must learn to live by if we are ever to experience again the blessings and greatness that freedom bestowed upon us. The LGBT community lost my support and respect when they embraced intolerance and bigotry as a means in their cause.
According to our founders, a majority who were men of faith, a nation without morals is doomed to fail. Morality can’t be legislated, it must be taught from an early age. Intolerance is also wrong no matter which side of the issue one is on.
James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice,
“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.”
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation,
“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.”
Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House,
“Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary stated,
“The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”
More quotes available here in this article:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0021.html
As long as we have amoral and immoral individuals as leaders of our state who refuse to enforce laws passed by a majority of the people of our state we will be live in a state ruled by the elite minority.
As long as we have leaders in DC and justice on the Supreme Court who refuse to uphold our Constitution and rule by executive orders, and succumb to pressure we will live an a nation ruled by elites who will succeed in transforming our republic to a socialist system.
Tina and Peggy, you have framed all the points and done it so well it might as well have been coming from one mind.
If gay marriage prevails so be it, but it should not come at the cost of denigrating Christians and those Christian morals that founded this nation. The far left has always had in for Christians and no doubt some of the hate rhetoric from the gay marriage side comes from this camp. The far left would like to abandon almost all sexual morals in favor of if it feels good it kind of thing. Our society is weak enough, look at all the people who need prison to keep their lives in order! Families are besieged, and secularism has become a religion in itself This push by lefties to make a mockery of Christians who believe in traditional marriage is in a word…dangerous. We can take a lot of abuse in the name of freedom of speech, but there are limits. We better pay attention to those traditional values that have brought us through so much and how far we want to go to make a new value the law. I would hate to think what kind of country we would have without deferring to a higher power than man for our morals.
I’m just surprised, no I’m shocked, that as a Christian I’m being attacked for my beliefs and called a bigot when I say everyone has the right to believe what they want but denied that same right.
Here is a poll showing I am not alone and just how fast this change has taken place just since 2012.
Poll shows a double standard on religious liberty:
WASHINGTON (RNS) Half of Americans worry that religious freedom in the U.S. is at risk, and many say activist groups — particularly gays and lesbians — are trying to remove “traditional Christian values” from the public square.
The poll of 1,008 adults showed that 29 percent of respondents were “very” concerned that religious liberties are under threat, and 22 percent “somewhat” concerned.
Evangelicals were the religious group most likely to be concerned, at 71 percent.
Asked for their opinion as to why religious freedom is threatened, 97 percent of evangelicals agreed that “some groups have actively tried to move society away from traditional Christian values.”
And 72 percent of evangelicals also agreed that gays and lesbians were the group “most active in trying to remove Christian values from the country.” That compares to 31 percent of all adults who held this belief.
The results are somewhat at odds with a March 2012 poll sponsored by Religion News Service and the Public Religion Research Institute, which found that a majority of Americans – 56 percent – did not feel that religious freedom was under attack in this nation.
But results between the two polls align in that the PRRI survey concluded that white evangelical Protestants were the most worried about religious liberty. It found them to be the only religious group in which a majority (61 percent) considered it under threat.
Full article and chart here:
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/01/23/poll-shows-a-double-standard-on-religious-liberty/
As I’ve said before I believe this issue is a civil right. My rights should not trump anyone else’s and neither should theirs trump mine, “as long as they don’t break my leg or pick my pocket.
Yep…makes perfect sense to me, but then I’m not a liberal.
Tina: “I have little desire to discuss gay marriage but given the inexcusably bigoted wording included in the majority opinion in the DOMA case”
Again, there was no “bigoted wording” in the majority opinion. Your one example of alleged “bigotry” from Kennedy was this:
“This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”
That’s not “bigotry.” Kennedy is stating facts about the avowed purpose of those who strongly supported DOMA. In their own words from the House Report, supporters said that the law was intended to demonstrate “moral disapproval” of homosexuality. Kennedy accurately stated the intentions behind the law’s creation, and correctly noted that the government has no place enshrining moral disapproval of a class of people into law.
It was the supporters of DOMA who were promoting bigotry and enshrining it into law, not the Court.
You have never really had to deal with bigotry before, so to you any criticism of your position looks like persecution. That is an aspect of privilege.
“One of the most egregious examples of intimidation and hate is the treatment Mormons were subjected to in California and Utah for Mormon support of Proposition 8.”
Gay rights supporters did not advocate taking away Mormons’ right to marry one another, so it’s absurd to say that Mormons were subjected to more “intimidation and hate” than gays. Gays were not arguing that Mormons have their civil rights violated. Mormons were arguing that gays have their civil rights violated. Acting as if Mormons were the primary targets in this case, or that they received more bigotry than they dished out, is like arguing that white segregationists were the primary targets of intimidation and hate during the civil rights era.
(And, it should be noted, that’s exactly how white segregationists FELT. Privileged people who hold bigoted attitudes toward others ALWAYS feel personally attacked and persecuted when those others gain the same rights as them, because they erroneously see equality as a shadowy threat to their own rights.)
“Gay extremists refused to accept the will of the people in California even though the measure got the vote of the people twice!”
As you know, the “will of the people” does not overrule the Constitution, nor does it give the majority the legitimate power to deny rights to a minority.
When the court struck down laws against interracial marriage, only 20% of Americans supported their decision. I am sure many people also believed they were wrong to violate the “will of the people,” and saw blacks who took the case to court as “extremists.” But those people were wrong, and so are you. I
Today, a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. The court is actually behind the times on this decision, as opposed to the civil rights era where they were ahead of the curve. Such a decision can hardly be called “extreme.”
“Because they gave money and voice to a differing view the Mormons became a target for scorn and ridicule.”
Well…yes? What they were supporting was scornful and ridiculous, so naturally. I don’t understand why you think your side is entitled to support violating the actual rights of others, while keeping your imaginary right to be free from scorn and ridicule intact. No one has the right to not be criticized, and freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The Mormons who argued in favor of Prop 8 had every right to do so, even though it was clearly an unconstitutional law. But by the same token, others had the right to call them a bunch of dicks for doing so.
“Protests were loud and well covered by the media. Protests signs screamed epithets like “Mormon Scum” and contained messages suggesting Joseph Smith was a “pedophile”.”
I agree that that is absolutely wrong (although I’d note that you can find faaaar more examples of protests and comments from conservatives saying similar things about Muslims and Mohammed). The gay individuals who did these things were wrong to do so. You cannot fight hatred with more hatred. Promoting understanding between the Mormon community and the gay community would be much more constructive. (And I realize I kind of jeopardize that by calling them a bunch of dicks earlier, but that’s only reserved for the *individuals* who aggressively fought for Prop 8. It’s a criticism of their individual behavior, not their religious identities [which, unlike people’s sexual orientations, are freely chosen, and can be changed]).
“Clearly, at least some of those seeking gay marriage under protest that they are being treated as “lesser,” have no problem at all treating other groups as “lesser” or “stigmatizing” people for their religious beliefs.”
Yes, obviously gay people don’t have a gene that makes them immune from feeling hatred and bigotry. No marginalized group ever has. But that doesn’t tell us much, if anything, about what rights they are entitled to, anything more than the existence of the radical Black Panthers tells us anything about what rights black people are entitled to.
I certainly don’t believe anyone should be stigmatized or treated as a lesser human for their religion, but I also think that if you feel compelled by your religious beliefs to treat others that way, you’ve kind of lost the moral high ground. And in that case, your beliefs are subject to be criticized fairly. (Of course, not all critiques WILL be fair–some will be motivated by anger, or even hatred. No group has a monopoly on that.)
“Other examples of this hypocrisy include defacing the walls of a Mormon Temple.”
That’s disgusting! I wholeheartedly condemn it. But statistically, I doubt this happened more than, say, beatings and murders against gay people. That doesn’t make it any less wrong. It just makes it less worthy of note. You don’t write very much here about the persecution that gay people go through, even though it is arguably a much more widespread and serious problem than anti-Mormon bigotry. You’d rather take advantage of the relatively few instances of anti-religious bigotry by gays and their supporters. It comes across as cherry-picking to suit your narrative. And it’s quite callous to those whom you do not see as part of your “group.” Bigotry against Mormons and Christians by gays, while more rare than anti-gay bigotry by the former, is more important to you because you see yourself more in the former group than the latter. It’s a failure of empathy.
“Evangelicals were similarly targeted and demeaned simply because of a strongly held religious conviction that placed them in support of traditional marriage.”
I find the “support of traditional marriage” line disingenous on so many levels. First of all because “traditional marriage” is a meaningless term; most people when they say traditional marriage mean “the type that has existed since roughly the 1950s” but THINK they mean “marriage as it has existed since the beginning of time.” Since the latter includes things like polygamy, ownership of wives, arranged marriage, and adult-minor marriage, the term “traditional marriage” doesn’t stand up to any kind of critical analysis. It’s a buzz word meant to obscure the fact that marriage has changed drastically throughout time, and that modern marriage is an extremely recent invention. That way people don’t look at the idea of gay marriage in the context of all those other changes, but in a make-believe context where there has always been one type of marriage until the gays decided to change everything! The term is a red flag that the person using it is either uneducated or just not using their critical thinking skills.
The second reason I hate this wording is because it implies “traditional marriage” (meaning man-woman marriage) is somehow threatened by gay marriage, and the two cannot simultaneously exist. That is, of course, nonsense. I support man-woman marriage, AND I support gay marriage. So does pretty much every gay marriage supporter. So when someone claims that they are being demeaned because they “support traditional marriage,” what they are saying just isn’t true, on any level. Gay rights supporters also support man-woman marriage. We just also support man-man marriage and man-woman marriage. We believe everyone in American should be able to choose what kind of marriage, out of those options, best fits them.
That’s not a radical position. The radical gay marriage position would bans straight marriage. The radical “traditional marriage” position bans gay marriage. Supporting both is the moderate position, and it’s the position of nearly all gay marriage supporters. It is those who want gay marriage banned that have the radical position.
“Protest became a public circus with demeaning comments and jokes delivered with scornful alacrity on late night talk shows and throughout the popular culture.”
Again, if that’s what you think persecution is, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. I admit that some jokes have gone too far, but for the most part the jokes about same-sex marriage opponents have been funny and well-deserved. When you advocate denying rights to a group of people for no rational basis, you’re gonna get jokes made about you. And here’s the thing: *You’re still getting the better end of the deal.* Being denied the right to marry the consenting adult you love > John Stewart saying mean things about you.
“It has also made it’s way into the public schools where debate about gay marriage has often become an excuse to ridicule Christians with differing views and beliefs.”
Care to give an example? If that’s happened the individuals responsible clearly do not know how to use healthy, respectful debate in the classroom. IMO the teacher should go as far as never making their own opinion on a politically charged subject known to their students, even if that means playing “devil’s advocate” and giving students the best arguments of a side the teacher doesn’t agree with.
“Who can forget the way Chic-Fil-A was singled out and targeted, not because gays had been mistreated or turned away at the stores, but because the owner holds a personal religious conviction about traditional marriage?”
It was about more than personal religious conviction, it was about what causes the business gave money to. Clearly some of the protesters went over the top–on both sides–but boycotting businesses who oppose equality, and give money to anti-equality causes, is a completely legitimate tool of protest, and was used to great effect in the Civil Rights era.
“In addition to a call for nationwide boycott, individual restaurants were defaced with graffiti and liberal mayors in cities like Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco suggested they would try to deny business permits if Chic-Fil-A attempted to expand in their cities.”
Now that was absolutely wrong, and I said so here at the time. Those mayors were abusing their power at that point. But again…what is your point? That gay rights activists have done things like this more than other groups? That this is a reason we shouldn’t grant them the right to marry? Neither of those conclusions follow.
“If this is not an example of the bigotry of the old racist South I don’t know what is!”
How about the actual lynching of gay people, Tina? Again, with your hyping of these incidents and your silence on the much more extreme bigotry gay people have face, you’re acting as if gay marriage opponents have been the primary victims of the culture war. That’s just not factually true, and it shows a certain callousness towards gays who have actually been persecuted and had their rights taken away. Whose private lives were criminalized until Lawrence v. Texas. Who have been beaten, killed and pushed out of their homes and onto the streets for being gay. Who have been the victims of fraudulant therapy programs and abusive camps intended to “cure” them. Christians have seen none of these affronts…I was a Christian for 18 years, and never faced anything like this, nor had any reason to fear that I would.
“Anti-Bullying activist and speaker Dan Savage was asked to speak at the National High School Journalism Conference. His subject was bullying, a subject that concerns many teens. Instead of informing and educating the students his talk became a hostile rant against the Bible and Christians. His vulgar hateful speech caused some students to leave after which he declared, “You can tell the Bible guys in the hall they can come back now because I’m done beating up the Bible.” Perhaps Mr. Savage has experienced ill treatment in the past from a Bible quoting person but the students who attended this conference certainly did not deserve to be the target for his angry outbursts. His agenda was all that mattered. Mr. Savage received obligatory condemnation of the mild and disingenuous sort that is commonly dished out for progressives who bully and make public displays of bigotry.”
I can’t stand Dan Savage, but I wouldn’t agree that what he did was bullying. He called some of the Bible “bullshit,” but that’s not necessarily bullying (nor is saying the same thing about the Koran. If you ask me, they ALL contain a healthy dose of bullshit along with the beautiful and wonderful messages about love and redemption). His talk wasn’t appropriate for the audience and he should have been more compassionate, but this isn’t a very good example of anti-Christian bullying.
That’s not to say Christians are never bullied for being Christian, but it’s rare and the severity is nothing close to what gay people experience. There’s a reason “faggot” is such a common playground slur and “Jesus-lover” isn’t. There’s a reason no one at my school protested the existence of a Bible club (which I was a member of) yet many protested the existence of the Gay Straight Alliance (which, as a naive teenager eager to go with the crowd, I made demeaning jokes about while still signing the petititon to allow it, and being too embarassed to actually join even though I agreed with their cause).
“Another group of Americans have been targeted for bigoted discrimination, Christian members of the US military.”
There’s no evidence of that in the Breitbart piece you cited. It’s always been a violation of rules to proselytize.
I don’t know much about Weinsten but he sounds extreme and I don’t think I am comfortable with him being a representative of the LGBT community and it’s allies. I also somewhat agree that the pastor you mentioned should not have been dismissed from the inaugural address, but that’s hardly an example of “tyranny.”
Ultimately, I agree with you that tolerance and respectful dialogue need to be promoted more on both sides. But it is unreasonable to expect the side whose rights are being violated to never get angry.
Chris: “Kennedy is stating facts about the avowed purpose of those who strongly supported DOMA.”
Kennedy is stating a bigoted/biased personal opinion (or reading of the report?).
The House Report covers a lot of territory and has been grossly misrepresented by your one example of its contents.
As I looked for information I found a reference to Elana Kagan quoting from the report in the Atlantic”:
Reflect and honor “of”? Huh? What exactly is she quoting? Has something been left out? What is the context? Is the report more “reflective” of DOMA than the actual wording that made it into the bill whose purpose is also in the House Report:
I don’t see anything in this official purpose that reflects what might have been discussed by representatives or Justice Kagan or you. That would classify as personal or constituent opinion rather than the official, recognized purpose.
I found other language in this report that shows all kinds of opinions, attitudes, and intentions were noted in the report:
DOMA came about (written by a Democrat controlled Congress and signed by Bill Clinton) following a lawsuit in the state of Hawaii after which it was found that the courts had, as they later did in California, overturned the will of the people:
Sadly, the temperature is climbing in my home (energy is so needlessly high we refuse to use the air unless we get sick)…and out of fear that my computer will crash…I will end this for now and continue in word, to be posted later.
Tina: “Kennedy is stating a bigoted/biased personal opinion (or reading of the report?).”
Explain to me how. Don’t just keep asserting the same claim over and over without justifying it. Again, allow me to quote the one portion of the decision you cited to justify your “bigotry” accusation:
“This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”
I don’t see how any rational person could read the above passage and conclude that Kennedy is somehow “bigoted” against supporters of DOMA. Again: the House Report EXPLICITLY SAYS that one of the purposes of the law is to express “disapproval” of homosexuality. That is a fact, not an “opinion.”
Yet even if the House Report did not explicitly say that, it would still be absurd to call Kennedy’s statement bigoted, unless your definition of “bigoted” is “any statement that criticizes conservatives.” At no point in the above paragraph did Kennedy call supporters of DOMA names, say that their rights should be limited, accuse them of being less moral or less worthy of anybody else. He did not make unfair generalizations about any class of people. The statement you cited merely criticizes DOMA supporters’ ARGUMENTS. That’s it.
That’s not bigotry. You don’t know what bigotry is.
And it’s funny that conservatives so often criticize liberals for over-using the “bigotry” card. And to some extent, they have a point. Many liberals have unfairly accused all Tea Party members and conservatives of not only holding bigoted attitudes, but of *being* “bigots,” as if that’s an immutable characteristic of them as people. That’s wrong.
But it’s hypocritical for those same conservatives to then turn around and say that those who criticize them are the “REAL bigots,” just because they don’t treat their opinions and beliefs as if they are beyond reproach.
“The House Report covers a lot of territory and has been grossly misrepresented by your one example of its contents.”
“Grossly misrepresented?” How? I think you’re misusing words you don’t understand again.
“Reflect and honor “of”? Huh? What exactly is she quoting? Has something been left out? What is the context?”
I guess we’ll never know. Alas, if only the article you cited from the Atlantic had continued past that one sentence, and cited the portion of the House Report that Kagan was referring to!
Oh wait, it totally did that. If you read the Atlantic article you linked to the whole way through (it’s very short), you’ll see a larger portion of the House Report containing the passage Kagan was referring to, which says:
“Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality. As Representative Henry Hyde, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated during the Subcommittee markup of H.R. 3396: ”[S]ame-sex marriage, if sanctified by the law, if approved by the law, legitimates a public union, a legal status that most people…feel ought to be illegitimate…. And in so doing it trivializes the legitimate status of marriage and demeans it by putting a stamp of approval…on a union that many people…think is immoral.””
Either Kagan erred by accidentally replacing the word “a” with “of,” or it was a simple type. Either way, it’s not a “misrepresentation,” it’s an obvious error.
“I don’t see anything in this official purpose that reflects what might have been discussed by representatives or Justice Kagan or you.”
Yeah, because you obviously didn’t read the entire thing. You didn’t even read the entirety of the short Atlantic article, which makes it very clear what part of the report Kagan is referring to. Go read it, or if that’s too inconvenient, simply scroll up to where I quoted it for you. If you look objectively you will see that nothing was taken out of context, and that the House Report clearly explains that an important reason for DOMA’s passage is to express “moral disapproval of homosexuality,” and to enshrine the moral beliefs of the majority into law. Kennedy, as well as Kagan, correctly noted that it is not the government’s place to do this. As the Atlantic article shows, even the lawyer defending DOMA conceded that this was an “improper motive,” before arguing that it doesn’t invalidate the other reasons for the law.
“Is the report more “reflective” of DOMA than the actual wording that made it into the bill whose purpose is also in the House Report:”
No, but it’s more reflective of the *intentions* of those who passed it. You called Kennedy’s remarks about the intent of DOMA “bigoted,” but that argument doesn’t make sense if he accurately stated the representatives’ stated intentions. Now you’re trying to downplay the importance of the report, which is an official government document expressing the intentions of many who passed the law. Your arguments are invalid.
“DOMA came about (written by a Democrat controlled Congress and signed by Bill Clinton) following a lawsuit in the state of Hawaii after which it was found that the courts had, as they later did in California, overturned the will of the people:”
You really have to stop with this “will of the people” argument, because it makes you look totally ignorant of the Constitution and basic history. The judicial branch is the one branch of government that is not supposed to be beholden to the will of the people. That’s a feature, not a bug. That’s how Jim Crow laws were overturned.
And what is your point about Clinton and the Democrats passin the law? Do you think I believe that Democrats are incapable of holding bigoted attitudes? I would think you’d know me better by now.
Stay cool today, Tina.
Ralph Reed and Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press this morning.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/30/was-obama-a-bigot-14-months-ago-ralph-reed-schools-rachel-maddow-rips-liberal-hypocrisy-over-who-is-labeled-anti-gay/
Peggy, that about sums up the counter-productive way we talk about race in this country. Why do we feel the need to divide people into the simplistic categories of “bigoted” and “non-bigoted?” That’s just not how bigotry works. Bigotry is a systemic issue, not just a personal one. It’s perfectly possible for good, decent people to hold bigoted beliefs. Do we really think that everyone who believed in segregation in the 1960s was a mean, terrible, evil person? No. Some of those people were our grandparents. We recognize that they were products of their times.
My mother is strongly against same-sex marriage. She finds it disgusting. She has some gay friends and family members who she loves and treats well, and she enjoys “Modern Family” a lot, but when it comes down to it her religious background informs her beliefs more than anything else. I don’t consider her a “bigot,” because she doesn’t go around constantly denigrating others. But she does hold bigoted beliefs. Everyone does, including myself. We all live in a society that historically has treated gay people horribly. It would be a miracle if any of us somehow were untainted by that.
It’s like the Paula Deen thing–the entire discussion was ridiculous. Matt Lauer straight-up asked her “Are you a racist?” As if anyone would answer that question with a yes! The discussion became all about who she is as a person, instead of her actions and words. That’s not constructive. I don’t care who Paula Deen is “in her heart.” That is completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t personally know Paula Deen. But she was pilloried by everyone so that we could all feign moral superiority–WE are not as bad as HER, so we don’t have to consider systemic racism or our own beliefs. All we have to do is punish the right people, and we’ll gain a false sense of comfort.
That’s not how bigotry works. The world is not divided into racists and non-racists, homophobes and non-homophobes. I have no doubt President Obama has held bigoted attitudes about gay people in the past. That doesn’t surprise me. However, he has spent basically his entire presidency fighting for gay rights of one sort or another. He seems to have recognized that his previous beliefs were wrong, and has worked to help gays since. You can’t say the same for those who still support DOMA and Prop 8.
While we’re on the subject of bigotry, Peggy, here are some excerpts from the first 12 comments on the Blaze article you linked to.
CalebJim:
“Maddow needs a woman because she is too plain for a man looking for a nice looking woman. I saw her companion and I agree they need each other in a bad way. I am not in favor or same sex marriage. It is about as silly as Obama called president.
However, I do get tired of hearing and reading about an abnormal lifestyle every day. The TV is covered with it. If you have a habit, do it on your own time. I am sick of the crap.”
M13:
“Are you telling me Ralph Macchio can’t get a woman? I find that hard to believe, because she is such a nice looking young lad.”
SDNW:
“Nobody is stopping anyone from living a perverted lifestyle with of age partners. But a government shouldn’t be openly endorsing that type of behavior.”
Rangerskippy:
“there are byproducts to wicked behavior.
We live in a nation taken over by wicked people, and the nation as a whole is going to pay a very painful price.”
1776_OPT_OUT_OF_TYRANNY_VIA_AU_AG_PB:
“Is the homosexual death penalty just? Duh!
“… both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” -Lev 20:13, Holy Bible
Stop *****-footing around, America. FÂGGÔTS are NOT nice people. They are NOT cute nor funny nor pitiful. They are AN ABOMINATION so great that they must receive THE DEATH PENALTY for the sake of society at large. And if YOU REFUSE to do it, America, then GOD WILL DO IT .. to them .. AND to you for siding with them — AS THE FOUNDERS OF AMERICA SO KNEW”
Lefty5005:
“I saw this show this morning and the gray haired guy, who was the host is no doubt a **** pirate and pole muncher. There are so many of them around now you can pick them out in a crowd.”
It distresses me that something as simple as Kennedy’s accurate description of DOMA supporters own arguments can be called “bigoted,” while extreme anti-gay comments such as the above, which are common in right-wing discussions of gay marriage, are tolerated.
“You have never really had to deal with bigotry before, so to you any criticism of your position looks like persecution. That is an aspect of privilege.”
Is that right! Well let’s consider this assertion: I am a woman and according to the PC crowd, and every male and female that supports women’s rights, I have been subjected to the mass bigotry of the chauvinistic, powerful, privileged white men (beasts) that rule the world.!
So much for that theory! But in addition I reject the “white is a privileged race” routine that is so common among some groups of minorities (and guilt driven whites). These groups, for whatever reason, seem to prefer to spend their energy organizing protests and blaming others, rather than working, saving, and being creative to improve lives. This is what white Europeans have done. In recent times a considerable number people of color have also done it! Oprah Winfrey is certainly no slouch in this area. We could make quite a list of prominent people of color that have gained in influence, power, and wealth just since 1965. We could also make lists of poor white people, not born to privilege, that became influential and wealthy as well. Hint…it isn’t color or accident of birth…it is attitude and freedom.
The gay community represents one of the wealthiest groups in America. They didn’t get that way because white Americans of privilege reject them and were unwilling to appreciate their talents and abilities. The lifestyle they once claimed to choose is an acknowledged “alternative”…their words! America has been extremely inclusive and tolerant of this choice…at least we were until they decided to destroy the centuries old, widely embraced traditional definition of marriage and chose to do it not through our representatives in government but through the courts! DOMA was a response to this legalistic approach and attack on marriage. (The same approach the radical left used to get abortion “rights”)
“Gay rights supporters did not advocate taking away Mormons’ right to marry one another…”
That would defeat their own aims, silly. No, they were too busy destroying marriage (and religion) through the courts, against the will of the people by making Mormons the target of extreme ridicule. A desperate and ugly act.
“…people who hold bigoted attitudes toward others ALWAYS feel personally attacked and persecuted when those others gain the same rights as them…”
Nice try. Marriage has never been considered a right and the attack I see is not personal. The attack isn’t about my marriage but the standard of marriage in our society. Love seems to be the standard gays prefer; a weak standard not easily defended against those who will come later.
As I have discussed, and the court seems to agree, it isn’t the institution that is desirable (except perhaps on an emotional level) as much as it is the privileges of entitlement embedded in our tax and inheritance laws that are the prize. I don’t dispute this imbalance of equality and I’m in favor of ending the complex tax and inheritance laws that make such inequality inevitable…after all there are a lot of single men with ex-wives and children they are required to support even though they often cannot take advantage of these government laws.
I prefer to hold marriage as between one man and one woman as a matter of public standard to encourage procreation and intact families. I also support the idea of creating social norms (through peer pressure) that reject easy divorce and promiscuity. I think all of these things lead to stronger, healthier societies and a stronger foundations for America’s future adults. Standards always have exceptions. The alternate lifestyle embraced by the gay community is just such an exception.
“When the court struck down laws against interracial marriage, only 20% of Americans supported their decision.”
I repeat, marriage is not a right. It is an obligation, a contract. The laws against interracial marriage were struck down because blacks were being discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin (inferior race…don’t want to “pollute” the white “superior” race). It wasn’t an issue of marriage…it was an issue of race…and humanity. Of course it was wrong to exclude black men and women from marrying a person of the opposite sex who was of another race (specifically the white race). Marriage, defined as one man one woman, remains a standard that applies to all people without discrimination.
“But that doesn’t tell us much, if anything, about what rights they are entitled to…”
Ahhh, glad you reminded me and my apologies for veering off course.
Gays are “entitled” to be treated as equals, which they are under the one man/one woman definition of marriage, because they can choose to marry a person of the opposite sex like everyone else…and many of them have and do. Their choice to adopt a different lifestyle does not entitle their relationships to be described as marriage. At the same time, it should not exclude them from making contracts defined as civil unions, or from recognition of family structure, or from general respect in the community…and we should all be relieved of the discriminatory nature of our tax and inheritance laws!
But the subject of this post is not intended to renew the debate about gay marriage but to highlight the bullying bigotry that is often displayed by activists as they attempt to force gay marriage through the courts. It’s about media duplicity and the level of tolerance the gay community is afforded despite egregiously bad behavior and tactics. I will do my best to respond only to the remainder of your comments related to this purpose.
“You cannot fight hatred with more hatred.”
I don’t advocate for hatred and I have not suggested hatred is a positive response for either side. In fact hatred is part of my objection…hatred aimed at Mormons and Christians as a political tactic to silence and marginalize them.
“And I realize I kind of jeopardize that by calling them a bunch of dicks earlier, but that’s only reserved for the *individuals* who aggressively fought for Prop 8.”
Because as Americans they don’t have the right to fight as aggressively as the gay community? This is America Chris…if we lose that line of equality, as individuals or groups…if groups like gays can intimidate any opposing speech and be tolerated…we have lost what has been precious about America. You are arguing for “might makes right”…the might of one special interest, the media, and those in power…to SILENCE through intimidation (and apparently now the IRS) all opposing views. That’s very dangerous grounds you’re standing on. It represents tyranny…not equality and justice.
“…which, unlike people’s sexual orientations, are freely chosen, and can be changed.”
Chris…you assume that, for these people, the Bible is a book of suggestions.
“That’s disgusting! I wholeheartedly condemn it. But statistically, I doubt this happened more than, say, beatings and murders against gay people.”
So that’s what wholehearted condemnation looks like…it has a big “but” at the end! I doubt very seriously that the Mormons/Christians involved in the Prop 8 protests ever had anything to do with gay beatings or murders.
“Bigotry against Mormons and Christians by gays, while more rare than anti-gay bigotry by the former, is more important to you because you see yourself more in the former group than the latter.”
Keep it up…the justifications just keep rolling out. I suggest you are actually willing to tolerate bullying and hatred expressed by gays against Mormons and Christians and I find the condemnation you’ve expressed disingenuous…a token to make you appear even handed.
My point is that the gay community will not tolerate a different opinion being expressed or acknowledged, not in public or in writing. MLK didn’t protest in this manner. (And empathy is a two way street. You think of marriage as a prize to be won…those who fight to preserve its original, God centered, purpose think of it quite differently)
“ I admit that some jokes have gone too far…”
Tell me Chris, she said rhetorically, what is funny about a sign reading, “Morman scum”? I don’t get the joke or the lighthearted disagreement in that. The defacing of Mormon temple walls with graffiti also is not something I find humorous. It is an intimidation tactic…some might even suggest a terror element…in fact, I believe you would think so were the shoe on the other foot.
“When you advocate denying rights to a group of people for no rational basis…”
You are an arrogant person Chris.
I will not go into detail but my reference to Christian students being treated badly in school is based on what I’ve been told by students. I brought it up to point out that this is an attitude born of the societal agreement that it is okay to be intolerant of Christians who defend God centered traditional marriage, among other things.
“It was about more than personal religious conviction, it was about what causes the business gave money to.”
Once again…because the person who owns Chic-Fil-A has no right of expression?
Why must the gay movement bully and silence to win? Is it perhaps because the radicals running the movement are bullies? (Contrast Occupy and the big Tea Party rally in DC and you will see the difference between honest, respectful protest and debate and the destructive, disrespectful, targeting and bullying practices of the radical left in protest mode)
“…what is your point? That gay rights activists have done things like this more than other groups? That this is a reason we shouldn’t grant them the right to marry? Neither of those conclusions follow. ”
This isn’t a piece about gay marriage! The point is that when special interest groups enjoy the advantage of media support and bias and politicians or judges abusing their power to further their agenda we are very close to losing the basic freedoms and equality that make choosing to live alternatively possible!!!!!
The gay community and its supporters don’t have respect for basic rights of speech. The media has been in the left’s pocket for decades. We move ever closer to the tyranny where might makes right. This issue affords an example. Throughout history those who resort to “might makes right” end up defeated…most times not in a happy way.
“How about the actual lynching of gay people, Tina?”
That is not the subject of this post. You are free to write an article about the large group of Christians that regularly lynch gay people and are covered by radical judges and joined by the media and late night comics and talk shows in finding it great fodder for jokes. I’ll bet you have thousands of examples. Be my guest.
“…But it is unreasonable to expect the side whose rights are being violated to never get angry.”
First of all I want to be clear that I’m not talking about anger or even the expression of anger. I am talking about radicals that want to eliminate all religious thought from the public square and that are willing to use the law, the media, abuse of political power, education, and degrading tactics to stifle religious expression. I am saying that tolerance of this behavior is a dangerous path that America seems to be walking. Secondly it is your own bias that doesn’t allow you to see that the rights of others are being violated daily by progressives that don’t respect the republican form of government we were given and by media types, politicians, bureaucrats and judges who have no respect for themselves or their professions.
I notice you have ignored the references to Christians being the new Jews in terms of violence and bigotry around the world. It may be that in the next twenty to thirty years of your life you will witness the result of the pass the left is giving to the bullies who stifle speech and marginalize those with whom they disagree (The Bible even foretells of this happening):
I see this as a warning light, one of many, that is putting our republic in danger.
Thank you Peggy. Reed is right on point.
Notice how Maddow can’t bring herself to say the Democrats that have “changed their minds” were not bigots before and then claims nobody is calling anyone a bigot for holding a different view. But that is exactly what they are doing and they do it in living color every chance they get. Religious people are wrong because they are hateful and homophobic (bigoted) not because they want marriage to be continue to be defined as a one man one woman contract.
its about time they were called on their intolerance and anti-American methods.This country has a long history of the fair contest. I’d like to restore and preserve that honorable tradition in our daily lives and politics!
Chris: ““Grossly misrepresented?” How?”
I explained this to you. You gave the impression that the report reflected only the bigoted attitudes of those who oppose gay marriage and cite it as the purpose of DOMA. I showed you that the report contains information on a lot of opinions, including but not limited to what you assert is bigotry, and the law was not passed to affirm the so called bigotry but for another purpose as stated in the LAW:
From the report:
The law:
I cannot be clearer than that and I will not repeat it.
Articles of interest from around the world:
The American Thinker
The Moscow Times
Chris: “He seems to have recognized that his previous beliefs were wrong, and has worked to help gays since. You can’t say the same for those who still support DOMA and Prop 8.”
He may seemed to have changed from his previous beliefs to you, but to me he always was in support of same sex marriages. He just led us to believe he wasn’t as a candidate because he knew it was not popular at the time and needed to mislead us to gain the votes. In other words Chris he just may have lied just as he did with the abortion issue where he was for late term abortion when he was an Illinois senator.
Therefore, you can’t say it’s not the same for those who still do support DOMA and Prop 8. You are painting everyone the same with a broad brush and you have no idea what is going in in the hearts and minds of every individual.
The below article from Fact Check really is informative about Obama’s infanticide history.
Obama and ‘Infanticide’:
The facts about Obama’s votes against ‘Born Alive’ bills in Illinois.
http://factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
Now, back to the subject of, “Tolerated Bigotry.” Since the Mormon religion has been brought into the discussion let’s look at how the Mormons responded to having their faith appear as a satirical play on Broadway with the “Book of Mormons.”
On Google other than references to obtaining tickets to the play and a 100 year old play called “Polygamy” I can find no articles about Mormons protesting this play. They appeared to have let those who believe differently have the right to practice free speech without physical violence or even verbal protest. I can find, however, several articles attacking Romney for being a Mormon when he was running for president.
The only article I could find that even included the word “controversy” ended up being more of a review than a story about any protest.
“The Book of Mormon” opens to controversy:
The play “The Book of Mormon,” which opened on Broadway Thursday night, has stirred up some controversy over its satirical approach to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Written by the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, “The Book of Mormon” examines blind belief in religion through a constant back-and-forth between fantasy and reality.
Robert Lopez, who is best known for writing the Broadway hit “Avenue Q,” worked with Stone and Parker to create “The House of Mormon.”
The two main protagonists, played by Josh Gad and Andrew Rannells, begin to question their faith when they are faced with an almost incomprehensible series of unfortunate events.
Despite controversy surrounding the arguably blasphemous content of the musical, Lopez asserts to CNN, “What’s powerful is not a magical mythical corporeal thing called God,” he said. “It’s the power of these ideas, and the power of the trust, and the power of the musical. That’s where the true miracle is. And the result of the miracle is that people are good to each other.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20047218-10391698.html
On the other hand there’s the whole mess that was bogusly created when Obama, Clinton, et al blamed the killing of four Americans in Benghazi on a “hateful video” which portrayed a non-flattering view of the Muslim faith. But, according to Hicks the video was a “non-issue” in Libya. It, therefore, seems this administration attempted to use bigotry and intolerance against the Muslims as a cover up for what was really going on at the CIA and annex complexes.
While I condemn bigotry I abhor individuals who use it for their personal gains. Purposely creating a false narrative in an attempt to rile people up to protest is beyond the scope of acceptable behavior. Clinton even made a public service video apologizing for the “offending“ “non-issue“ video. (That poor film producer is still behind bars somewhere denied contact, except for approved phone calls.)
Based on everything that has taken place one can only find that bigotry and intolerance is by the most part practiced by the left-wing progressives to gain political advantages, while right-wing people of faith treat others by the “golden rule” and acceptance.
If Romney had only won, we would be experiencing a completely different and tolerant nation. Obama’s promise to “transform” America is on the road to success by destroying us from within. “Divide and concur.”
Tina: “The gay community represents one of the wealthiest groups in America.”
This stereotype is factually incorrect. LGBT people are actually poorer than the general population.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx
One study shows that about 40% of homeless youth are LGBT (which makes sense given that they are often kicked out of their homes by their families):
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/94-of-homeless-youth-service-providers-report-serving-lgbt-youth/
Another shows that same-sex couples raising children tend to be poorer than opposite-sex couples raising children (which makes sense given that they do not get the federal economic advantages of marriage):
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf
“America has been extremely inclusive and tolerant of this choice…”
Tina, until ten years ago gays could legally be *arrested* in some states if it was determined that they had been intimate behind closed doors. Last year, one of the Republican presidential candidates said that this was perfectly constitutional, and that states had the right to arrest gay people for their private, consensual sex lives, if those states so choosed. You supported those comments. And you’re going to tell me all about the wonderful amount of tolerance the country has shown for gay people? I guess to you, they’re lucky we’re not killing ’em in the streets? (Oh wait, that’s happened too.) You simply have no clue what you’re talking about.
“at least we were until they decided to destroy the centuries old, widely embraced traditional definition of marriage”
Did you miss the part where I clearly demonstrated how fundamentally dishonest this argument is? Let me make this as simple as possible for you, since you apparently still don’t get it:
1) Recognizing same-sex marriage alongside opposite-sex marriage does not “destroy” opposite-sex marriage, and to imply that it does is a goddamn lie.
2) The type of man-woman marriage we practice in the U.S. today is not, in any way, shape, or form, a “centuries old, widely embraced traditional definition of marriage.” In the centuries old traditional definition of marriage, you would be the legal property of your husband, who would have purchased you from your father, and who would have been legally able to marry as many other wives as he could purchase, as well as legally able to rape you whenever he saw fit. That’s the “centuries-old,” “traditional” definition of marriage. You know this already, both because you are not a completely uneducated person, and because I’ve pointed it out to you several times before in our discussions. You are being willfully dishonest by continuing to claim that you are in support of any “centuries-old” definition of marriage. You know this isn’t true, and yet you continue to say it anyway. That’s called lying.
3) Even if your statement that you support the “centuries-old,” “traditional” definition of marriage were true (which it’s clearly not), it would still be a terrible argument. Quoting myself from another iteration of this argument:
“Enough with the appeals to tradition. That shit wouldn’t fly with the founding fathers. The traditionalists, in their day, were those who wanted the colonies to remain loyal to the British Empire. The Founders were not traditionalists, they were forward thinkers. We have barely begun putting their radical notion that all people are entitled to equal rights into practice. Jim Crow laws weren’t repealed until nearly 200 years after they wrote the Constitution. That’s how ahead of their time these guys were! So enough of this “for centuries” BS. That’s not an argument for why we should keep doing something.” – See more at: http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2013/03/18/opinion-marriage-law-discriminate-tax-healthcare-laws/#sthash.v0PDkwL7.dpuf
“and chose to do it not through our representatives in government but through the courts! DOMA was a response to this legalistic approach and attack on marriage. (The same approach the radical left used to get abortion “rights”)””
You just keep using the same terrible, anti-constitutional arguments over and over again…it’s exhausting having to keep explaining to a grown adult who claims to love the constitution that the entire PURPOSE of the Supreme Court is to defend constitutional rights when our representatives in government won’t. There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage advocates going to the courts with their concerns when they feel their constitutional rights are being violated. That is what the courts are freaking THERE for.
And it’s convenient that you mention that this is how Roe was passed, but totally ignore the fact that it’s also how integration and interracial marriage were passed, *even though I have already mentioned that here several times in this discussion.* Do you also believe that it was wrong for civil rights activists to take those issues to court? If not, stop acting as if this is somehow an illegitimate or un-American tactic. You’re embarassing yourself with your constitutional and historical ignorance. And it’s WILLFUL ignorance, because you know all of these facts already, you just choose to block them out of your mind because they cause you such cognitive dissonance. You do not change your opinion with new information. You twist the information to suit your preferences. As the saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t reasoned themselves into.
“Nice try. Marriage has never been considered a right”
Stop lying. You know this isn’t true. You know that the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a right in Loving v. Virgina. And yet you say that marriage has “never” been considered a right. You are proving yourself to be a liar. Why do you do this? What kind of person do you think that makes you? Do you think the God you worship would approve? The Bible says a lot more about bearing false witness than it does about gays.
“Love seems to be the standard gays prefer; a weak standard not easily defended against those who will come later.”
But love is the standard that most STRAIGHTS prefer too. Straight people marry primarily for love every single day in this country. As long as that gets to be the standard for straights, why should there be another standard for gays?
Not to mention you haven’t even made it clear why your standard makes any sense. Your standard isn’t procreative ability, since there are lots of straight couples who can’t procreate who you agree should be able to marry. Your only standard seems to be “one man, one woman,” which is nothing but arbitrary sex discrimination, which is unconstitutional. “Love” may not be the best standard of marriage–there’s also stability, family, commitment, security, and other standards involved for most couples (both gay and straight)–but it’s at least a far better standard than “one owner of a penis, one owner of a vagina.” Your “standard” is arbitrary. It’s not a position that can be defended rationally, which is why you never do, and why you are losing so freaking hard.
“I prefer to hold marriage as between one man and one woman as a matter of public standard to encourage procreation and intact families.”
This is a completely irrational argument, and here’s why:
1) No one in their right mind thinks that procreation is something that needs to be “encouraged” in order for humans to do it. They are already doing it, and doing it, and doing it well. Marriage does not so much encourage procreation as it creates a stable environment for children. But that *in no way implies* that those who cannot procreate should not be able to marry. There are many other purposes of marriage as well. Restricting gay couples from marriage on the grounds they cannot procreate is not only a double standard given all the other non-procreating couples, it only makes sense if you believe that procreation is the ONLY purpose of marriage.
2) Keeping marriage between only a man and a woman, and restricting gays from the institution, does absolutely nothing to preserve intact families. No one in their right mind would consider gay marriage as a factor in deciding whether or not to divorce or abandon their kids. All that recognizing gay marriage does is ensure that children already being raised by gay couples get the same stability and advantages (or at least as close as possible) as children being raised by straight couples.
There is nothing “pro-family” about your arguments. You are doing real harm to real families in order to guard against an imaginary threat to more conventional families which does not actually exist. Again, gay marriage does not threaten “intact families,” and it’s ridiculous to believe it could. If anything, gay marriage helps blended families stay together.
“I repeat, marriage is not a right.”
I repeat, it doesn’t matter whether you say it is a right, the Supreme Court says it is, and their argument is better than yours.
“The laws against interracial marriage were struck down because blacks were being discriminated against on the basis of the color of their skin (inferior race…don’t want to “pollute” the white “superior” race). It wasn’t an issue of marriage…it was an issue of race…and humanity.”
I’ve already shown you in other discussions how many of your arguments against same-sex marriage are logically identical to arguments against interracial marriage. Opponents claimed they weren’t discriminated, because whites and blacks both had the right to marry someone of their same race, just as you argue that straight and gays both have the right to marry someone of a different sex.
“Of course it was wrong to exclude black men and women from marrying a person of the opposite sex who was of another race (specifically the white race).”
Well, yes, “of course!” It’s obvious to you now, because you have the gift of hindsight. It wasn’t obvious to many good, decent people back then.
In 50 years, people will say “Of course it was wrong to exclude gay men and women from marrying a person of the same sex.” That’s already obvious to most of the younger generation. It’s not obvious to you because it’s new, and you fear change. That’s natural and understandable. I really do understand! But it’s wrong.
“Marriage, defined as one man one woman, remains a standard that applies to all people without discrimination.”
It IS arbitrary sex discrimination, though, because it discriminates by gender for no rational public purrpose. I’m not going to repeat the points of that argument again…this libertarian site has a better argument than I could make anyway:
http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/07/same-sex-marriage-bans-and-sex-discrimination/
“Gays are “entitled” to be treated as equals, which they are under the one man/one woman definition of marriage, because they can choose to marry a person of the opposite sex like everyone else…”
See above, re: arguments of interracial marriage opponents. That argument is logically IDENTICAL to the argument that blacks are treated as equals because they can choose to marry a person of the same race like everyone else. The right to marry someone of the same race is meaningless to a black man in love with a white woman, just as the right the marry someone of a different sex is meaningless to two gay men or two gay women in love.
If anything, it could be argued that the latter situation is even MORE discriminatory, since homosexuality is an orientation; most gay people will never fall in love with someone of a different sex, just as most straight people will never fall in love with someone of the same sex. But, as far as we know at this point, there is no orienation that causes anyone to only fall in love/be sexually attracted to people of another race.
“and many of them have and do.”
Are you actually advocating that gay people should marry people of the opposite sex?
I thought you were concerned about intact families? You do realize marrying someone you have no sexual attraction to and are not in love with, while at the same time having lustful feelings for an entirely different sex, is a recipe for heartbreak and divorce, right?
“At the same time, it should not exclude them from making contracts defined as civil unions, or from recognition of family structure, or from general respect in the community…”
That’s nice, but it’s still adheres to the logic of “separate but equal.”
“I don’t advocate for hatred and I have not suggested hatred is a positive response for either side.”
I wasn’t saying you were, Tina; I was talking about gay rights activists who have fought bigotry with more bigotry (such as the “Mormon scum” protesters or graffiti artists).
“In fact hatred is part of my objection…hatred aimed at Mormons and Christians as a political tactic to silence and marginalize them.”
I agree, and I said that was wrong.
“Because as Americans they don’t have the right to fight as aggressively as the gay community?”
I think I’ve been clear about this: Of course they have the RIGHT to do that. But by the same token, gays and their allies have the right to call them dicks. What about this is so complicated? Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences.
“You are arguing for “might makes right”…the might of one special interest, the media, and those in power…to SILENCE through intimidation (and apparently now the IRS) all opposing views.”
No.
I am arguing that gays and their allies simply have the better argument. Your side isn’t being “silenced.” Your arguments are being rejected, after a *lot* of airtime and privilege given to them. It isn’t like the idea that gay people should be excluded from marriage has never been tried in America before! That was the official position of virtually everyone as recently as thirty years ago. But we know things now that we didn’t then. We’ve analyze those arguments and found them lacking.
You see the fact that you’re losing as evidence that the other side is cheating. But that’s simply not the case. Your arguments just don’t stand up to reason. There’s nothing tyrannical about a majority of Americans steadily realizing that.
“Chris…you assume that, for these people, the Bible is a book of suggestions.”
No, my position is a great deal more complicated than that. One can choose whether to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. But even if one does, there is nothing in there commanding Christians to use the power of the government to impose their religious beliefs on the masses.
“So that’s what wholehearted condemnation looks like…it has a big “but” at the end! I doubt very seriously that the Mormons/Christians involved in the Prop 8 protests ever had anything to do with gay beatings or murders.”
My point, Tina, was that you ignore much more serious and threatening examples of bigotry when the targets are gays. This site gives a lot of attention to instances where whites, Christians or conservatives are allegedly victims of bigotry…and sometimes, you are right. But where are the stories here of bigotry against those who are far more vulnerable? If one only got their news from conservative media, one would assume that the majority cultures in America are the only true victims of bigotry, and everyone else is just lying…that’s just not the case.
“Keep it up…the justifications just keep rolling out.”
I am not justifying anything…I am pointing out a startling trend in the conservative media.
“I suggest you are actually willing to tolerate bullying and hatred expressed by gays against Mormons and Christians and I find the condemnation you’ve expressed disingenuous…a token to make you appear even handed.”
You would be wrong.
“My point is that the gay community will not tolerate a different opinion being expressed or acknowledged, not in public or in writing. MLK didn’t protest in this manner.”
You forget that the black community during the Civil Rights movement contained voices much more radical and angry than MLK. Just as the gay community contains many moderate, articulate, and patient voices along with those who express more anger. But you get most of your information about the gay community from conservative sources, so how would you even know whether these voices existed? How can you trust what you think you know about the gay community when all of your information is filtered through people automatically biased against them?
And how can you expect people who are treated as second-class citizens to never express anger toward those who want to keep them that way?
“(And empathy is a two way street. You think of marriage as a prize to be won…those who fight to preserve its original, God centered, purpose think of it quite differently)”
OK, but…the thing is, legalizing gay marriage doesn’t cause those people any demonstrable harm. They may not like it, they may strongly disagree with it…but it has absolutely no measurable effect on their lives, or their ability to be happy. It causes them no real pain.
It is a mistake to think that empathy means giving equal moral weight to the concerns of “I can’t marry the person I love” and “I can’t have my political/religious opinions expressly validated by the government.”
“Tell me Chris, she said rhetorically, what is funny about a sign reading, “Morman scum”?”
Nothing. I already said so. That wasn’t a joke, that was straight up bigotry. It crosses the line from criticizing Mormon people’s *beliefs* and *actions* to criticizing their *identities* and their *worth as human beings.* One is justified criticism. The other is bigotry. No one should be put down simply for *being* a Mormon (or a Christian, or a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Wiccan). These are crucial aspects of people’s identities. But so is sexual orientation. And I hear a LOT from certain Christians about how simply *being* gay is a sin. They simply don’t believe gay people should exist. I know these Christians don’t think they are being bigoted. They think they are being compassionate. But true compassion means examining the real-world effects of your actions on other human beings. I understand that many Christians believe that gays are doomed to hell if they do not repent. But that’s an irrational belief, and one they can change at any time, while still remaining Christians. (There are many Christians who believe all are saved.) Gays, on the other hand, cannot change their orientation. And if Christians want to show true compassion, they need to look at the effects on gays their policies are having in the here and now, not in another realm that may or may not exist. When they do so, they often see that the effects are harmful, and change their beliefs.
“I don’t get the joke or the lighthearted disagreement in that. The defacing of Mormon temple walls with graffiti also is not something I find humorous. It is an intimidation tactic…some might even suggest a terror element…in fact, I believe you would think so were the shoe on the other foot.”
But the shoe HAS been on the other foot, Tina. In the 60s, police frequently led raids against gay bars, arresting and even beating gays simply for who they were. That’s what I’m trying to get you to see. I have conceded several times that this kind of treatment of Mormons and Christians is wrong. But I don’t see you showing any similar acknowledgment of the crimes committed against gays.
“Once again…because the person who owns Chic-Fil-A has no right of expression?”
No. Again: he has the right of expression. Just like the protesters had the right of expression. Why do you constantly imply that the right of free speech means the right not to be criticized if you are a conservative?
“That is not the subject of this post. You are free to write an article about the large group of Christians that regularly lynch gay people and are covered by radical judges and joined by the media and late night comics and talk shows in finding it great fodder for jokes. I’ll bet you have thousands of examples. Be my guest.”
I don’t understand this statement at all. Are you implying that “radical judges” the media, and late night talk show hosts have ever covered for or made jokes about the beatings and murders of Christians for being Christian? Or are you saying that being mocked in the media is equivalent to being beaten and murdered?
“First of all I want to be clear that I’m not talking about anger or even the expression of anger. I am talking about radicals that want to eliminate all religious thought from the public square”
Ah, so you’re talking about strawman. That’s fun!
“I notice you have ignored the references to Christians being the new Jews in terms of violence and bigotry around the world.”
Yeah, because that’s too stupid to even engage.
Tina: “I explained this to you. You gave the impression that the report reflected only the bigoted attitudes of those who oppose gay marriage and cite it as the purpose of DOMA…”
Tina, I never asserted or implied that the House Report “only” reflected the intention of “moral disapproval” by DOMA supporters. I already acknowledged that there were other intentions as well, as does the Atlantic piece that you cited. So I do not agree that the report has been “grossly misrepresented” by either of us. In order for that to be so, someone would have had to claim that moral disapproval was the ONLY stated intention of the supporters. But no one appears to have done that. Kennedy certainly didn’t.
Peggy: “He may seemed to have changed from his previous beliefs to you, but to me he always was in support of same sex marriages. He just led us to believe he wasn’t as a candidate because he knew it was not popular at the time and needed to mislead us to gain the votes. In other words Chris he just may have lied…”
That may well be the case.
I can’t comment much on “The Book of Mormon” since I haven’t seen it, but from what I hear it is supposed to be satire. It’s not meant to put people down. There have been many satirical plays made using gay stereotypes that have become beloved on Broadway, and have not resulted in protests from the gay community…so what’s the difference?
You’re simply wrong about Benghazi. The full released e-mails show that every agency which dealt with the talking points felt that the anti-Islam video should be mentioned as a possible motive. Given the protests against this video in many parts of the Muslim world that same day, and claims by many on the ground in Benghazi that the protesters were motivated by the video, this makes perfect sense. It was not a “false narrative” constructed by the White House for political reasons. It was a possibility supported by evidence and agreed upon by every agency involved. The terrorist connections were obscured for some time, but that was because of concerns about tipping off the enemy.
“(That poor film producer is still behind bars somewhere denied contact, except for approved phone calls.)”
That “poor film producer” is in jail because he violated his parole, which he was on because he committed bank fraud!
“If Romney had only won, we would be experiencing a completely different and tolerant nation.”
You are referring to the fellow who called half the country a bunch of lazy, irresponsible moochers, right?
Chris: “So I do not agree that the report has been “grossly misrepresented” by either of us.”
But in your original comment you wrote”
Tina: “You did not qualify the assertion by suggesting that “some” or “several” of those who strongly supported. In my mind this implies that anyone who supported DOMA did so for the (Kennedy) “avowed purpose” was to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma””
We will have to agree to disagree here. At the very least, DOMA supporters did and still do intend there to be a “separate status” for same-sex couples; that much they all admit. Whether they view this as a stigma or disadvantage may vary from person to person, but note that Kennedy did not only say “avowed purpose,” he also said “practical effect;” and it’s true that the practical effect of DOMA does create stigma and disadvantage for same-sex couples, whether DOMA supporters intend for that to happen or not.
“After I showed you the actual “avowed purpose”,”
You did not show me the “actual” avowed purpose, you showed me *another* avowed purpose.
“you still insisted that Kennedy was right in accusing the Congress of passing DOMA to “impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma”.”
He was right, and we have a lot more than the House Report to base that on. Many Republicans were clear about the stigma they wished to impose on gay people during the original debate over DOMA in 1996.
Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma: “My district says it is time to say that homosexuality should not be sanctioned on an equal level with heterosexuality. And all you have to do is look at the number of partners on average that we see with homosexuality. And there are studies that say that over 43% of all people who profess homosexuality have greater than 500 partners!”
Rep. David Funderburk (R-North Carolina): “As the Family Research Council has pointed out, homosexuality has been discouraged in all cultures because it is inherently wrong and harmful to individuals, families, and societies.”
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgwy0nd3FPw
Coburn and Funderburk are clear that their motives are to enshrine moral disapproval of gays into law, and to create a seperate status for homosexuals. Both of them contain faulty information (there are no reputable studies demonstrating Coburn’s “500 partners” claim, and it’s not true that “every culture” has discouraged homosexuality).
And these comments are tame compared to other comments by Republicans throughout the years, as well as by extreme anti-gay lobbying organizations such as the FRC which influenced Republicans then and continue to influence them now. I’d list more but I’d be here all day.
Of course not all supporters of DOMA intended to impose a disadvantage or separate status on gay people. But it would be absurd to argue that bigotry against gays was not, or is not, a huge factor among opposition to gay marriage.
Kennedy’s statement which you quoted began, “This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class…”
He was right. That evidence exists, and it is strong. His opinion was not “emotional,” it was factually accurate.
“Clearly he was opinionated rather than judicial and quite possibly too emotionally tied to the gay position to make a clear constitutional judgement.”
People said the same thing about the judges in Brown v. Board. They were wrong, and so are you. Judges who make landmark civil rights rulings are always accused of being “emotional” and abusing their power.
“I just spotted your “shoe on the other foot” response and you once again address me as if I was born yesterday with a little lecture about how gays have been treated in the past.”
That’s because that is how you present yourself. You brought up the “shoe on the other foot scenario” as if you actually thought it was a hypothetical. As if you didn’t know that gays had been subject to similar, and even worse, treatment as bigoted signs and defaced buildings. If you act as if you are extremely uninformed, that is how you will be treated. Don’t pretend not to know things you already know. It’s a waste of our time here.
“Peggy you are right about how different the country would look had Romney been elected. We would not have high unemployment and poverty and our growth rate would be closer to 4%-6% or possibly higher in some quarters.”
After only four months in office! See, this would be an example of you presenting yourself as a Pollyanna for no real reason other than to make yourself feel good. Your projections are totally unrealistic.
‘Tis a strange thing, that a woman would wish to be thought stupider than she were.
“Romney’s words may have sounded inappropriate but it was based on polling data so they were also accurate…the half of the country that was dedicated to Obama was NOT going to vote or donate to Romney they had already made their choice…both campaigns knew that from the polling data.”
Tina, he didn’t stop at saying that 47% of the country was going to vote for Obama no matter what. He said that 47% of the country would do so because they are “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
That’s not an “accurate” statement based on “polling data.” That’s an insult to nearly half the country.
“The lefts turning this statement of fact into a denegrating and demeaning position held by Romney”
You’re a riot! You can’t look at his actual statements and see anything denigrating or demeaning there? That is willful blindness.
“was a lie concocted for the political hay it naturally received.”
Ridiculous. His comments were reported accurately.
“Romney should have fought back. the gentleman’s weakness and vulnerability.”
LOL! Yes, what a gentleman: one of the richest men in the world accusing the 47% of the country who are too poor to pay income taxes of being lazy, entitled, and irresponsible. Why such gentlemanly behavior is so magnetic, I think I may have the vapors!
“On the other hand, the position articulated by Obama, embraced by his fellow travelers, and assumed correct (out of ignorance) by blind followers, that US citizens “didn’t build” their own businesses was indeed insulting, demeaning and flat out wrong!”
Look, you can’t accuse people of lying when they accurately report someone’s statemets just because you like that person, and THEN lie about someone else’s statements just because you dislike them. Reality has no duty to conform to your political preferences.
Obama did NOT say that US citizens didn’t build their own businesses. He said that they didn’t buiild the INFRASTRUCTURE for those businesses by themselves. You know this,` and yet you pretend not to, because it is politically inconvenient for you to acknowledge the truth.
http://factcheck.org/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-uncut-and-unedited/
http://www.tennessean.com/viewart/20120911/NEWS02/309110036/Fact-Check-You-didn-t-build-
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019022685_factcheck30.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/
You have got to stop spinning everything to fit your narrative. You have got to stop hearing only what you want to hear. You have got to stop bending yourself into a pretzel to make arguments that aren’t worth making. It’s undignified.
Chris: After only four months in office! See, this would be an example of you presenting yourself as a Pollyanna for no real reason other than to make yourself feel good. Your projections are totally unrealistic.
‘Tis a strange thing, that a woman would wish to be thought stupider than she were.”
Chris, The very day Ronald Reagan was being inaugurated Iran had the hostages on the plan headed for US soil after Jimmy Carter failed to obtain their release and lost his bid to win his second term. So, yes Chris Romney or anyone replacing this Carter-like failure of a president could have accomplished as much in the last five months going on six. Guess, you need to recount those fingers.
My projections are realistic because they’re based on historical facts on what a real leader can accomplish. Your god-like worshiping of a lowly community organizer who thinks he can walk on water is getting boring and soooooo pathetic
Peggy, are you ACTUALLY giving credit to Reagan for the hostages being released the day of his inauguration? Do you really think that the Iranians were simply so afraid of the newly elected president that they decided to release the hostages rather than face his wrath?
Because that’s not even remotely in accordance with any historical facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
This was in no way an accomplishment of leadership by Reagan, who wasn’t even officially president when the decision was made.
It’s funny that you used this as an example to counter my “Pollyanna” remark toward Tina, because this just proves my point. Giving credit to Reagan for the release of the hostages is even more ignorant and foolish than Tina’s earlier economic projections.
And then you follow up by baselessly claiming I have a “god-like worshiping” of Obama? You’re the one who just gave Reagan credit for a decision that was technically made before he was even president! I may defend the current president from the barrage of false charges made against him here, but I have also offered plenty of criticism, especially regarding his intrusive national security policies. I’ve never attributed magic powers to the man, as you’ve just done for Reagan and Romney.