"It would be wrong to assume, as a knee-jerk liberal would, that Christians have embraced this toxic-brained lunatic." The REASON we assume it is because there are SO FEW Right-Wing, Christian-Fundamentalist Republicans who do and will stick up for us. Sadly there are very few Christians who will, period.

I don't believe it is possible to build bridges of cooperation with people who would consider people "despicable" for believing in equality for all and peace or consider us even possibly being as horrible as a human being whose only job is to spread hatred. We "despicable" people don't want to silence you or take your legal rights away or cast you as a second-class citizen in any way. And most of us don't equate mainstream Christians with Phelps - hell, many of us ARE Christians.

You find us despicable, Mr. Manning? That's a shame, considering we apparently have points of agreement. Even if I find many of your views repugnant, I certainly would *never* label you thusly.

Given your opening position, and if the only choices available are working alongside you or putting Fred into a padded cell, I'd have to vote for the latter. Please take this statement respectfully, because my statement is made with no lack of respect toward you.

NR Davis

"if the only choices available are working alongside you or putting Fred into a padded cell, I'd have to vote for the latter"

I'm crushed, Natalie.

Thanks for underscoring my sad feeling, Mr. Manning.

Christopher, I think I've made it absolutely clear, speaking as a conservative myself, how much I despise Phelps, as much as a Leftie like yourself does. I'm am far from the only one. Every single conservative blog I've ever read - and there's been a lot of them - have trashed that moronic simpleton.

The problem, as I see it, is you refuse to grant others the right to believe as they wish. I've no religious affiliation myself, but if Christians see homosexuality as a sin, they are not exactly saying "Kill the homosexual." They are saying, "Love the person, condemn the sin." I don't believe it's a sin myself, in fact I heartily endorse the view that people are born homosexual, it is a product of nature not nurture. But I also support giving Christians the right to air their views and they are not simply toned-down versions of Phelps' ilk. Trying to get the entire world to agree with everything on the gay agenda is simply another form of fascism. Sorry, but it is.

Which is why, admittedly, my scenario at the end of this piece is a tad silly. I meant it as a joke, I'm not totally delusional. But hey, I maintain that I'd love to see it happen.

Mr. Manning, there are some who insist you embrace them and agree with them and approve of them ("oh please, oh please love us; we'll even accept a modified equality that isn't equality at all"); you aren't wrong about that. Fact is, though, many of us don't care what society thinks. Despise me all you want - sure, it hurts, but so what? The only *important* thing is how society treats us, our kids, and our families under *law*. Just as all Christians aren't like Phelps, all leftists aren't saying "Agree with us or else." Even though I can't abide much of what it says, I don't care if the antigay right wing expresses itself. So long as I can too, and I am equal under a law that separates church [a quite different thing from a religious citizen with a political viewpoint, who certainly is and should be free to speak his or her piece] from state, we have no problem.

Oh - and I don't despise Phelps at all. Or you.

NR Davis

Maybe it's me, but I have a hard time taking a post seriously when the first line includes an immediate reference to "the extreme-Left, America-hating, anti-war loonies"--regardless of what you say about them, or how you attempt to balance that with dislike from someone to the opposite extreme.

It weakens the strength of the concerns you express regarding the person about whom you're writing the article.

Mr. Manning you've obviously never walked out of a resturant to be confronted by a sign that reads "KILL A QUEER FOR CHRIST!"

re. comment #1 "The REASON we assume it is because there are SO FEW Right-Wing, Christian-Fundamentalist Republicans who do and will stick up for us. Sadly there are very few Christians who will, period."

Christopher, believe me when I say that there ARE many Christians who are NOT like our right-wing counterparts. There are those of us who support gay-rights, and equality under the law for ALL people regardless of sexual orientation. There are many of us who do NOT view homosexuality as a sin, but rather as just another beautiful variation of the diverse human race.

And as Ms. Davis points out: many gay people are Christian.

It hurts me every time I hear "Christianity" in the same sentence as "anti-gay". I'm sorry my faith is so full of so many ignorant bigots, but trust me when I say, we're not all like that.

Anti-gay != anti gay marriage

As Hitler did before them, People like Frist, Bush and Falwell know that the only way to consolidate their power over the people is to distract them from their woes and find them a common enemy to hate. Before it was the Jews, now it's gays.

It was just as irrational to hate Jews then as it is to hate Gays now. What do they have in common?

Both are invisible. You don't know a Jew is a Jew unless he tells you, and unlike what some preach, you can't tell a gay is a gay unless he tells you.

We all don't swish and lisp you know.



Solus mei sententia
Jet

Bush, Frist and Falwell were responsible for the extermination of six million Jews?

Discussion over.

Matthew where the hell did I write that? and what is this vendetta you seem to have against me?

Phelps is a moron.

Morons have First Amendment rights.

Therefore, Phelps has First Amendment rights.

I agree that Phelps can be distinguished from the political apparatus that is the religious right in this country...to a point. After all, behind the rhetoric of "love the sinner and hate the sin" is the stark political and legal reality: an entire movement dedicated to the elimination of homosexuality and discourse concerning homosexuality. It will not succeed, it never has before, but that does not change what it is, at a fundamental level. Further, this movement shares with Phelps some common assumptions: homosexuals are diseased, homosexuals undermine the family unit, homosexuals are child molestors, homosexuals blah blah blah. Basically, homosexuals are to Evangelical America what Jews were to Europe, before they were eliminated. It is not a difficult analogy.
That being said, I am all for free speech (a vision I wished the extremes of the left and right shared), but you cannot cloak opposition to gay rights under the shield of "free speech." Ultimately, we are talking about freedom of association, of speech, of family life and equal treatment and privacy. When it comes to gays, the Christian right has an exception to the general rule. While they are currently focused on family law, do not forget that they also supported sodomy laws, were opposed to laws that would have included gays in anti-discrimination statutory protections and any extension of hate crime legislation to cover gays. I note that libertarians are, generally, opposed to anti-discrimination and hate crime legislation, but the Christian right (publicly) is not opposed, only opposed to extending those protections to gays, as opposed to racial or religous groups (the latter, ironically, being a behavioral choice). Again, this is the "gay exception" they so steadfastly adhere to. Note, too, that one of the arguments advanced by Christian right organizations was that sodomy laws were invalid *only with respect to heterosexual sodomy*, a position that is unsupported by both religious/historical tradition and the historical legislative record. So yes, free speech for all the Christian extremists, but do not expect us to believe that they would, or do, reciprocate.

Why on earth is Fred Phelps and his twisted congregation free to protest the funerals of soldiers and homosexuals?

As long as they keep it on public property what are we supposed to do about it? Class it as a 'hate crime' and use that as a bogus pretext to shred their first amendment rights?

Before it was the Jews, now it's gays.

Actually, Hitler had it in for the gays too.

Dave

Natalie: As long as you don't classify me as being in the same mold as Phleps - as long as you are actually able to see me in a different light than him - unlike a lot of the other posters here, then I'll give you credit where credit's due.

I won't bother to explain myself further - I've already provided an in-depth explanation of my thought process in #5.

You see, Natalie, I'm such an unforgivable homophobe, that's why I was invited to a gay civil union partnership ceremony later this summer! (My wife's cousin is the lucky guy.) I'm telling you the truth, I honestly was - and I'll be in attendance. He and his partner are going to have the exact same rights as my wife and I have - they just aren't going to call it a "marriage." I am fine with that. So are they. Hell, I'm so frightened at the thought of being among all those gay men that I plan on wearing a kilt at the occasion. Yes, I'm really repressed.

And furthermore, I find it entirely laughable that the Left doesn't "want to silence conservatives or take their legal rights away or cast conservatives as a second-class citizens in any way." Isn't that what political correctness is all about, rewriting the rules of free speech to suit YOU? (Note: I approve of statutes to deal with the likes of dangerous men like Phelps, but not being able to call "insurgents" what they are - TERRORISTS - is just one small example of the lunacy of political correctness that you people brought about.)

Maybe you personally wouldn't jump at the chance to declare me a second-class citizen with no speaking power, but the overwhelming majority of your comrades would. In a fucking instant.

"Trying to get the entire world to agree with everything on the gay agenda is simply another form of fascism. Sorry, but it is."

Matthew, man, First: Please don't use the expression: "gay agenda". Is it part of the "breeder agenda" to simply have a shot at finding a job, a place to live, a legally recognized marriage and the right to adopt children? Second: What I was trying to address is this: Just once when some fanatical religious leader makes an outrageous, unconscionable remark that could very possibly lead to yet MORE hate crimes ("....I would kill him and tell Jesus it was an accident" or words to that effect) I wish another religious leader or coalition of religious leaders would stand up and say: "This man does not speak for all Christians." It's one thing to say it on the sidelines and another to speak it in the forum.

Phelps misunderstands scripture. Satan is the one who comes to seek, kill, and destroy. Once he gets over the "God is gonna take America to the woodshed" syndrome he will see the truth. Sadly this is not uncommon groupthink for the Baptist community. God doesn't hate the sinner, he hates the sin. And sin comes from where?

God doesn't tempt anyone, oh sure, misapplied I guess you could say He tempted Abraham into sacrificing his son. But God was checking Abraham's faith, not tempting him into human sacrifice.

Booze tempts, Drugs, Love of money, and a host of other things. Basically anything that replaces God as your primary thought and guides you elsewhere is not correct application of faith.

Manning, I'm glad you straightened out the fact that you have gay friends are are now bonofiably (sp) not a gaybashing friend of God. Unfortunately to hate someone, to take offense, to not forgive interrupts your faith, and is also a sin. That said, if you release those feelings and fogive, you don't have to invite them over for dinner. Releasing those feelings frees you up to worship and to praise freely, deeply, not hypocritically.

Who provides? Who enables? Who gives you the authority to counter the raging lion (i.e. Satan). Who? God does, He doesn't do it for you like waving a magic wand over your head, he gives you the authority. Just like Jesus had the authority and annointing of the Holy Spirit when He walked on earth.

Eric, we really need a Religion tab.

Quote:
"As long as you don't classify me as being in the same mold as Phleps - as long as you are actually able to see me in a different light than him - unlike a lot of the other posters here, then I'll give you credit where credit's due."

As much as I despise Phelps, I have to give him due credit for something he has that you don't Mark: he's got enough courage not to veneer his convictions with privisos and distractions so that people can find easy ways to accept his his hate-mongering and stereotyping as legitimate.

While I agree with you that Phelps is a violent, dangerous criminal that should be prosecuted, I reached that conclusion through a very narrow interpretation of the laws he's violated that have nothing to do with his political and/or religious views. He has committed assault and battery, crimes for which he can and should be investigated and prosecuted. Period.

Although you mention this, the bulk of your post seems to be directed against Phelps personal beliefs and his Constitutionally protected right to free speech. So he puts America down - that's his right. So he insults the memory of our honored war dead to make a completely unrelated political point and whore for the press - in America, that's his right, too. And if any consenting adult wants to sit in his congregation and be verbally assaulted - well, stupidity and the Bill of Rights cover a multitude of sins in the good old US of A.

The rest of youryour recent (American) history and (American) hate crimes laws.

You take Phelps to task for physically assaulting his infant son in his church, but go on to imply that the U.S. government's moves against the Branch Dividians - "who never bothered nor hurt anyone but their own community" - was somehow out of line. FYI, Mark: David Koresh was a pedophile and a polygamist - two crimes that are still crimes, even if they're only perpetrated against members of one's "own community." Phelps assault on his son is just as reprehensible and criminal as what went on in David Koresh's cult, not more so. Also, Mr. Koresh and his followers were, in fact, violating what few gun laws there are in the United States AND Texas at the time:

cultnews.com/archives/000491.html
crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/koresh/1.html

Hate crime legislation does not include Constitutionally-protected speech in the United States. By all means, please invite Mr. Phelps to the UK and prosecute him under your country's hate speech laws, but please stop confusing the bredth and depth of your country's hate crimes laws with ours. And while you're at it, invite along any firey American mullahs you can find, too. Their words, like Phelps' words, are also protected here - and have yet to "lead to terror" as you assert:

aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=193

On the other hand, incidents of anti-Arab anti-Islamic violence in the United States are on the upswing here, and Islam-bashing occurs in the highest levels of our government with little or no consequence:

unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=485
questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000665590
cnn.com/2003/US/10/16/rumsfeld.boykin.ap/

If you really want to see gays and conservatives (two completely seperate species in your world, I'm sure) work together against Phelps, how about you using your bully pulpit to take a stand for gay rights? Not "special rights," but the real so-called "gay agenda" - the right for two committed people to enter into a legal marriage, the right for two committed people to have and/or adopt and raise children in a loving, violence-free home, the right for a person not to be fired for simply being gay, the right for gay students to attend school unmolested, and the right for two committed people to bequeath property to one another and have hospital visitation rights:

hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Index.htm

Or, for more tongue-in-cheek takes on the topic:

sfgate.com
annoy.com/features/doc.html?DocumentID=100722

Re: 16. You're right Dave. Young gay men were singled out for having more physical and mental endurance than "normal" people, and so the Nazis gathered them up, branded them with Pink triangles and experimented with new methods of interogation using untried drugs and torture on them to see how effective they'd be on Allied POWs.

Medical and surgical experiments were also done to see if they could be altered to become "Normal". Also chemical warfare and torture methods were used on them specifically to see how long a man could endure before dying. It was when they finished with each young man that their serious experiences turned into sadistical perverted fun. Those that lived through the ordeal were shipped to outlying German Concentration camps where soldier were instructed to entertain themselves with the half dead and helpless men.

Exerpts from The Washington Post and other sources reveal the following examples...

Heinrich Himmler, director of Nazi Germany's secret police and network of concentration camps, declared that homosexuals should be eradicated.
On May 3, 1941, when Mr. Seel was 18, he was arrested by the Gestapo and tortured for 10 days. He was "tortured, beaten, sodomized and raped." He was forced to build crematoriums and to stand as the camp staff tossed syringes at him as if he were a dartboard.
The worst experience, he wrote, came when German troops marched a prisoner into the center of the yard, stripped him naked and placed a bucket over the man's head. Mr. Seel recognized him as his 18-year-old friend and lover. German shepherd dogs were unleashed on his friend, tearing him apart and devouring him before hundreds of witnesses.

From the University of florida's website...
Between 5,000 and 15,000 of those convicted were sent to concentration camps. Guards at the Sachsenhausen Camp deliberately took the pink-triangle prisoners to a secluded building, tied them up and shoved a hose down their throats, turning the water on full blast until they drowned, Giles said. Then they turned the corpses upside down so the water drained out, making it difficult to establish the cause of death, he said.


The Nazis had a place called "the singing forest." Young men arrested under the Nazi's anti-gay laws were incarcerated in a camp where homosexuals were slowy tortured in a forest clearing. Before their own deaths, they had to endure the distant screams of homosexuals hoisted alive onto hooks in the woods. "The howling and the screaming were inhuman."
Though everyone knows about the Nazi persecution of Jews, few are familiar with the suffering of almost 100,000 men arrested under Paragraph 175, the Reich's anti-gay statute, and held in prisons. While the 10,000 to 15,000 homosexuals who landed in concentration camps were not slated for the gas chambers, they endured slave labor to see how long it'd take them to died of exhaustion or starvation, live castration to see how long they could stand the pain before passing out of having their genitals romoved and then were timed to see how long it took them to bleed to death, and surgical experiments to "further the world of science" since most gay men were in top physical condition, thus were prime candidates.

The line between free speech and inciting violence is often very fine, indeed. But there is a far broader line between acting under coercion and/or duress and being responsible for one's own choices and actions.

Fred Phelps and his supporters demonstrate at soldiers' funerals to protest our military's "don't ask, don't tell [if one is homosexual]" policy, a policy which, ironically enough, is also protested by gay rights supporters -- albeit in a far different fashion and for the opposite reason.

However, Fred Phelps does serve his purposes by saying out loud, without regard for common decency or the sensibilities of those who read or hear him, what a number of those who want gay rights limited are actually thinking and feeling, but have the prudence to sugarcoat.

Of course, most of the folks who oppose gay rights would never so much as conscience acts of violence against gay and lesbian people, and many of them even oppose workplace discrimination against homosexuals -- the old "love the sinner, hate the sin" routine (as if us mortal beings made of mere flesh are fit to judge one another's sins) -- but most do not want gay and lesbian people to serve in our military or to be able to adopt children, and they certainly do not want to recognize homosexuals' right to civil marriage. I can understand why such people hate Fred Phelps.

Fred Phelps is a fully-cocked bigot, whereas they are only half-cocked bigots who live in perpetual horror of their bigotry being recognized through the facade of the "politically correct" veneer they so generously slather upon their anti-gay rhetoric.

And Fred Phelps threatens expose them merely because he is on their side. They own him just as the mainstream of other movements, parties, organizations and groups own their respective extremist elements. (The gay rights movement owns its radicals -- and those who oppose gay rights work very hard at making sure of that.)

Rights are rights and there are no compromises with regard to civil and human rights. There are no half-measures available for those people who have only halfway gotten over their discomfort over the fact that some people are homosexual.

Fred Phelps is certainly contemptible, but he's honest about his agenda. He doesn't speak pretty words about oppressing homosexuals, he simply says: "God hates fags."

Those who speak of "protecting and defending cherished traditions" might as well say the same thing, because their whitewash and polished talking points mean the exact same thing to those of us who think the injustices suffered by gay and lesbian Americans are far more contemptible than Fred Phelps exercising his First Amendment rights.

To #21Jet: You really stroke some important and absolutely realistic points, Jet. Growing up in Germany I learned about the Holocaust and always felt ashamed to even be a German. That is tough shit, I tell you that. But we never learned about paragraph 175 and it took over 50 years until Germany even aknowledged that almost ALL homosexuals that were transported into a concentration camp actually never got out of there alive.
But I do not agree that gays are hated these days here in America. I am sorry but almost every TV show, movie and theater play is about gay themes. People seriously are talking behind their hands about a "gay maffia" that is so powerful in Hollywood these days. No, I am not talking about the gay church "Scientology".
That is just my personal opinion of course, and please do not attack me again for just thinking a bit different. Okay?
You got amazing knowlege about everything, but you gotta let others, like myself believe what we read and learened.
Why is everyone so angy at Phelps? I thought he did good at the last Olympics! Didn't he bring back enough gold for the USA? lol
(I know I know it is another Phelps...)

Hey Mark Ed: I am trying to find out the **** and what they are standing for in the headline. Can you email me what it really stand for?
Maybe something like: "Fred Phelps Can Mown My Lawn"? Or something like that? I really need to know, please. Thank you.

Interestingly, Ernst Julius Röhm (also known as Ernst Roehm in English) who led the SA (Brown shirts) which was responsibile for not only protecting Hilter, but carried out the early dirty work that caused rise to the movement, was a renowned Homosexual. He was later assassinated during a power struggle within the party. Luftwaffen Marshall Goering was reported to have had affairs with both women and boys... The Nazi's were renown drug users, brawlers, drunkards... a less than civilized lot to begin with.

Himmler probably had the dirt on everyone, and used it when necessary to coerce and manipulate.

William Shirer's definative work on the Third Reich lays it all out.

and... it was the German code of 1871 which outlawed Homosexuality in Germany.

that's the fact.

Fred sounds more like a judge than a follower of Christ. Jesus would not go around throwing stones at anyone simply because he disagres with their lifestyle.

If Fred understood faith he would realize that man's faith and belief in events can actually determine their outcome.

Angst and hate create more instability in the world than anything else.

Fred Phelps is obviously mentally ill and unfortunately using his First Amendment right to inflict his mental illness on others. I salute the people who volunteer to shield funeral-goers from him and his followers/family (who should know better). When he dies, his "movement" will die with him. Good riddance.

McCain is a putz, He says whatever will get him votes, one day Fatso Falwel is an Agent of Intolerance,the next day he's McCains Pal.

This sums up how I feel about McCain perfectly....

OR you might enjoy the views expressed right here at this very site, just click on this URL:

Mark Bellinghaus: I would have thought it was pretty obvious.

But, to give you a hint, the first **** beings with "s" and the second **** beings with "d."

Does that clear things up for you?

I'm amazed at how the usual (Lefite) suspects here are determined to make me out to be even worse than Phelps. Again, it only highlights what I wrote at the beginning about the intolerance of the Left. It's been verified a thousand times over. Good work, people.

What's amazing is how perfectly you play your ("rightie") role by making broad, derogatory, and inaccurate generalizations about people raising some legitimate points rather than addressing or even acknowledging them.

I don't see anyone implying that you're worse than Phelps. After a quick scan of all the posts, I am pretty confident that the harshest thing said about you is that you couch a lot of the same homophobic sentiment that Phelps is up front about.

Mr. Manning, he knew what you meant, he was just being a smart ass.

I think I get accused of being a right wing nutjob, facists and all that other bullshit on BC.

But even I have to say that this Phelps guy is a world class douchebag.

I don't think god hates anyone but I do think god would be more upset by the scenes that Phelps creates at funerals than the fact that a gay soldier is being mourned.

It seems as if Phelps and his gang are gleeful when soldiers die. I think the world would be a much better place if it had been Phelps and his followers who had died instead of the soldiers.

Mr. Manning, you direct your outrage toward Fred Phelps's violent and hateful demonstrations of intolerance. Good for you. People ought to speak out against such hatemongering, regardless of their motivations for doing so.

But where's your outrage over the injustices suffered by gay and lesbian people? Why didn't you also condemn that while chastising Fred Phelps for the distasteful manner in which he exercises his First Amendment rights?

Arch Conservative #34 You have my respect sir.

Well I guess I will have to enjoy ti while it lasts Jet because i am sure it won't last very long if this post strays from the topic as Margaret Romao seems to be doing.

That's no far Arch, you can respect a man without respecting his political views.

I haven't strayed from the topic of Fred Phelps. I am very curious about why people who do not support gay rights are so outraged by him.

Sure, just about any civilized person can get behind that whole "stop the hate" thing, but it is puzzling to read condemnations of Fred Phelps that are not followed by outrage at the injustices suffered by gay and lesbian people.

FWIW, there are some radical folks in the gay rights movement, too. When we are reminded of these persons, we usually just groan, roll our eyes and re-direct focus toward the injustices suffered by gay and lesbian people.

#22 - Couldn't have said it better myself.

Margaret,

You wrote,

"I am very curious about why people who do not support gay rights are so outraged by him."

It's not ALL about gay rights, Margaret. It's also about appropriateness. Pick up a Bible and turn to the Book of Eclesiastes. "There is a time to throw stones and a time to gather stones together", etc.

It is simply not appropriate to spit at the memory of a soldier who has given his life for his country because of his sexual preferences - particularly at his funeral!

This Phelps character goes way beyond what is appropriate in his behavior - regardless of his views.

I have a hard time not understanding that simple concept - appropriateness. You know, civility, good manners. There is a way to express one's views that is appropriate, and a way that is inappropiate, and this is not tied to the views held, but to a sense of civility and good manners, a sense of respect for the other person.

What is the difference bstweeen exprssing oneself in a way that indicates respect and a way that doesn't? It could well save your life or your reputation.

Arch Conservative - Thanks for piping in, your input was desperately needed.

Margaret, I think I do have a sense of what gay and lesbian people go through. I am bisexual! But they can be blindly radical too, as you've even admitted (to the point where bi's like me are even scorned). Ask yourself, why the hell would I have mentioned Phelps' history of gay-bashing, or even write an article about it at all, if it didn't offend me?!

Yet, people like Jet, Jeff and many others think that I "couch a lot of the same homophobic sentiment that Phelps is up front about." Amazing! Again, I hate gays so much, it's why I'm going attending a civil union ceremony in August, decked out in a kilt. I'm so evil and repressed.

You know, the extreme Left can be as angry, irrational and threatening as they like, and that's never seen as extremism. That's what's driving me crazy. Blindly radical people come from both the Right and the Left! Is this really so hard to understand?!

Mark? When did I say that?

Yes you can respect someone who has different political views than yourself Jet.

However there are time when I find the views of others so abhorent that I cannot respect them. Example: I am pro-life and I can usually respect someone who is pro-choice but recognizes that abortion is a tragic event that takes a life. However I cannot respect the fine folks at Planned Parenthood who will do anything they can to make money off of abortion including covering up statutory rape.

With regards to gays which Jet and Margaret and other posters on here seem to be especially conerned with...

I doi not hate gay people because they are gay.......however I do believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman..it's unique...

I have no problem with two consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship. I have no problem with the state rtecognizing this relationship as a civil union and conferring benefits similiar to marriage....

I think that anyone who dies in the service of our nations military should be honored and thier family and loved one allowed ot mourn them in peace regardless of their race, creed, color, or sexual orientation

I don't think god hates gays.....I don't think god hates period.....I don't wish any harm to a person based on thier sexual orientation

But then I also don't think a person who doesn't "celebrate the gay lifestlye and culture" or isn't gung ho for promoting the gay lifestyle among young school children, or fall all over themself with praise for brokeback mountain is necessarily a homophobe.

Phels is an asshole, no doubt. But I know I'm not a homophobe and I don't really care what any of you think.

MEM - I couldn't read all the comments...they were killing me...but this is pretty typical here at BC...people will pick out one line of what you write and try to tear you apart with it...forget EVERYTHING else in the post...ALL Mark said was he despised you all!

You can't win around here Mark. No matter what you write...one side or the other will rip it apart...and usually for the wrong reasons. You see, you ripped on Phelps...but that's not enough...and no matter what...it never will be.

You assholes always talk about guys like Nalle and Arch and me chasing people away from BC...well you...to use a phrase from MEM's post...knee jerk liberals...are just as bad...if not worse.

Wow, after reading all the comments, I'm not sure who's on which side, other than everyone thinks Phelps and his group are a bunch of idiots. Wouldn't it be better if we just agree on that one point and stop pointng fingers at each other for agreeing with the point for different reasons?

Although Phelps's cause is anti-gay, I think his protests at soldiers' funerals would be just as despicable if he were protesting that Mass wasn't said in Latin anymore, or that cattle farts are causing global warming.

The bottom line is that civilization has always recognized the sanctity of funerals, and these protesters, no matter what their cause, should be ashamed.

nah, you're worse. nyah. *thumbs tooth*

nalle is a bit arrogant/confused (in his opinions). bing is an immovable ass, too thick to change. you have strange views that don't reflect much humanity.

notice that a lot of us didn't attack the author. although his anti-war = anti-america line is pure bullshit. i think he had plenty of good things to say in here. and if his last bit is somewhat fantastical, at least here is something that both the conservatives and the homosexuals (and liberals) can get behind: let's go poop on phelps' parade.

It's easy to criticize Fred Phelps. Just about anybody can do it sincerely, regardless of his or her position with regard to gay rights.

But when people condemn Fred Phelps and just leave it at that, it seems disingenuous to me. Are they really outraged over the hatred being expressed or are they simply afraid that the court of public opinion will rule them guilty by association?

Fred Phelps is a one-percenter, so outrageous and so far out of the mainstream as to be unworthy of notice. But he does get noticed -- more often by those who oppose rather than support gay rights -- because his rhetoric is so shocking and his manner so uncivil and disrespectful.

Fred Phelps is like a message board troll. His attention getting rhetoric and behavior are certainly beneath contempt, but compared to the injustice of oppression, his rudeness is but a minor offense.

Some guy carrying a sign that reads, "God hates fags" is clearly offensive to the sensibilities of civilized people regardless of their politics, but the indignities of second-class citizenship arbitrarily imposed for amorphous reasons that have something to do with some ambiguous "tradition" is an affront to humanity.

BTW, Fred Phelps shows up at those funerals to spit upon the memories of soldiers regardless of their orientations because he objects to our military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, believing that it has helped to make America into a "fag nation."

strange views that don't reflect much humanity...from you I'll take that as a compliment.

yeah. okay andy. and from you, i'll take that as a compliment. glad to pat each other's back! i said "back," andy.

not to pat my own back (any more than a good liberal already does), but i just took a political quiz (politicalcompass.org) that was fairly complex... if vaguely worded at times, and came up in the same spot as the mother-fuckin dalai lama! i went to read up on him, just to see if it was accurate at all, and the current dalai lama seems like a nice guy. most of his views (political and social) mirror my own, with a few exceptions. not saying he's the greatest humanitarian ever...

but he is the FUCKIN DALAI LAMA!

noticing your chart, andy, from the other site (the one on your blog from april ["see, told you i'm a libertarian!",] where i scored similarly, to the left, at the upper corner of centrist) you're so far libertarian, you could fall right over the edge.

Yeah I took that test too.

It told me I was the illegitimate lovechild of Pat Buchanan and Phyliss Schafly.

i'm sorry they didn't love you either.

They didn't love me but they gave me some damn good genes!

zing...somehow, that's a bad thing to you? I think the government should stay out of my business...and yours...I also think that if you or some other group wants to help someone then you should...without MY money.

and thanks for visiting my site!

I stand by what I said about Mark in my original post. His post leaves no doubt in my mind that his real with Phelps is more about the man's disrespect for war veterans than his stand on homosexuality and gay rights. And regardless of who Mark sleeps with, he's got some pretty stereotypical views about gay people, especially for a man who claims that he is bisexual himself.

But don't take my word for it: "A flamboyant Mardi Gras-style gay pride parade should roll past the church headquarters in Topeka, followed by a patriotic "Proud to be American float," complete with military brass bands."

So the homos can saunter past the church in chaps and feather boas while the straight veterans follow behind, marching in formation. And never the twain shall meet, right?

Give me a break.

MARK EDWARD MANNING WROTE: Natalie: (EMPHASIS HIS) As long as you don't classify me as being in the same mold as Phleps - as long as you are actually able to see me in a different light than him - unlike a lot of the other posters here, then I'll give you credit where credit's due.

Thank you oh so much, Mr. Manning. Now, about parity: If you can call me whatever you want regardless of how I feel about it, am I entitled to the same freedom? Given that the use of my given name, which is not provided on this page, by a complete stranger (who IS wielding in attack mode; be a man and admit it) constitutes, to me, a personal attack using profanity, may I refer to you in a manner you find offensive and hurtful? It's only fair. I have several choices in mind.

MR. MANNING CONTINUES: You see, Natalie, I'm such an unforgivable homophobe, that's why I was invited to a gay civil union partnership ceremony later this summer!

So? This is supposed to impress me? What - next you'll tell me that some of your best friends are [INSERT NAME OF REVILED SOCIETAL CATEGORIZATION HERE]? I mean, it's great that you were invited to a Jim Crow ceremony, but is this news intended to make us think you're some great, tolerant guy? You may not be Fred Phelps, but neither are you Hugh Jackman or Eric McCormack. [Both are het actors who embrace all people and speak up for equality for all people.]

And [INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE], the following is patently bullshit: He and his partner are going to have the exact same rights as my wife and I have - they just aren't going to call it a "marriage." I am fine with that. So are they.

Many people cooperate with their own oppression. Some even welcome it. That can happen when a society conditions people to believe themselves less worthy of true equality (and NO reputable person will tell you that marriage equals civil union). Thanks for sharing that item; I'll pray for your friends - and wish them a long, happy life together.

[INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE] continues, And furthermore, I find it entirely laughable that the Left doesn't "want to silence conservatives or take their legal rights away or cast conservatives as a second-class citizens in any way." Isn't that what political correctness is all about, rewriting the rules of free speech to suit YOU?

Not embracing the PC concept, I don't see what this has to do with me. Also, I am not speaking for the Left, I'm speaking for me. I'll call a terrorist a terrorist, whether it's al Zarqawi or Bush, bin Laden or bin Cheney - or Bill Clinton. Ask anyone who's read my stuff over the last decade or so. You have a beef with certain people on the Left? Take it up with them, [INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE]. I stand alone.

[INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE]: Note: I approve of statutes to deal with the likes of dangerous men like Phelps, but not being able to call "insurgents" what they are - TERRORISTS - is just one small example of the lunacy of political correctness that you people brought about.)

I know Fred. He's a lot of things and his rhetoric can cause lots of harm. But as Mr. Baronius says, Phelps has rights too. I don't want to hear what you have to say, but I would not want the law to stop you from saying it.

"You people"? Oooooh.....

Maybe you personally wouldn't jump at the chance to declare me a second-class citizen with no speaking power,

Definitely I wouldn't, [INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE]. I know the pain of being unequal under law. I wouldn't want anyone - including my worst enemy, if I had one - to undergo this kind of soul-killing misery.


[INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE]: ...but the overwhelming majority of your comrades would. In a fucking instant.

Again, [INSERT TIT-FOR-TAT PROFANE APPELLATION HERE], what does that have to do with ME? You don't want to be judged alongside Fred Phelps? Then don't lump me in with anyone else. What's good for the goose and all...

"The bottom line is that civilization has always recognized the sanctity of funerals, and these protesters, no matter what their cause, should be ashamed."

Spot on. Not that something necessarily is good because civilization has always recognized it, but I suspect most reasonable people would agree with your statement wholeheartedly.

Andy Marsh: "You can't win around here Mark. No matter what you write..."

Yes, Andy. I've discovered this in a big way.

NR Davis: "I wouldn't want anyone - including my worst enemy, if I had one ..."

Little Miss Holier-Than-Thou, I'll contact the Vatican on your behalf regarding your chances for sainthood if you like ...

I know your name, Ms NR, because you used to be Natalie Davis on BC before you changed it. I remember you from those times. I don't tend to forget people who are ... well, let's just say unique. So, I'll just call you NR from now on. It may seem funny, but then, so are you.

"I mean, it's great that you were invited to a Jim Crow ceremony"

Wow! NR, do you have the werewithal to stand in front of a black ... er, excuse me, African-American, audience and tell them that no gay marriage = their struggle for civil rights. I know you believe that, but would you actually tell an audience of black ... er, African-American, people from all walks of life this? I'd love to know the reaction you'd get.

Arch Conservative: "I do not hate gay people because they are gay, however I do believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman..it's unique... I have no problem with two consenting adults of the same sex having a relationship. I have no problem with the state rtecognizing this relationship as a civil union and conferring benefits similiar to marriage ... I don't think god hates gays, I don't think god hates period, I don't wish any harm to a person based on thier sexual orientation. But then I also don't think a person who doesn't 'celebrate the gay lifestlye and culture' or isn't gung ho for promoting the gay lifestyle among young school children, or fall all over themself with praise for brokeback mountain is necessarily a homophobe ... But I know I'm not a homophobe and I don't really care what any of you think."

Absolutely correct. Exactly how I feel. Just because I want to protect a bit of tradition doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Apparently, no matter what I do or say, people will always act otherwise. I shouldn't care, and I don't. I could grow wings and fly to Australia and folks like Natalie still wouldn't be impressed. All I'd hear from her/them is: "You didn't grow those wings yourself, Manning. You're a fake, blah blah blah," even if it was proven by the world's top doctors that I did indeed sprout my own wings. So hell with 'em, I know what I am and what I believe. And no-one is going to tell me otherwise.

Believe me, Mr. Manning, I am no saint and am totally devoid of holiness. I'm a sinner doing my best, just like everyone else. But it's true - I have no enemies. Lots of people don't. It's not that big a deal. And I fled the Catholic Church eons ago; Vatican pronouncements are routinely laughable in my opinion.

I don't care what you read before; you don't know me. AAMOF, I changed the name specifically for the purpose of having people refer to me as presented on that page. "NR" means nothing to me, so I have no gripe if strangers call me that.

By the way, you're assuming that I am that other person. You happen to be correct in this one instance, but I initially used the name because it is the name under which I write professionally. I ultimately learned to protect myself from everyone else, hence the moniker change for comments. If I hadn't said specficially that that less-insulated and -protected person was me, how would you know that you weren't speaking to Nancy Rose or Nellie Ruth? Loads of people (including one Christian pro-equality pacifist I know and another journalist with whom I am acquainted; it's a small world after all) have the same first and last name as mine.

Fact is, you have the right to call me whatever you want. I can't stop you from doing what you will, however callous, however cruel. But you're not a dumb guy: You must know that I have the same right to express any response I have, whether it is one of glee, agreement, disagreement, outrage, suffering or disgust.

"I mean, it's great that you were invited to a Jim Crow ceremony"

Wow! NR, do you have the werewithal to stand in front of a black ... er, excuse me, African-American, audience and tell them that no gay marriage = their struggle for civil rights.

I'd personally have more respect for conservatives regarding the Fred Phelps deal if they weren't only complaining about disrespect towards 9/11 victims and soldiers. It's more than that. The reason Fred Phelps and his little army of idiots are marching and protesting outside of funerals is because they dislike gay people. They want them to burn in hell. I'd agree with you that Phelps is an idiotic lunatic with absolutely no common decency, but you bashing liberals when we should be screaming in unison isn't doing anyone any good.

You shouldn't simply care that Phelps and his crew are screaming at soldiers and 9/11 victims. You should also care about their complete and utter bigotry towards homosexuals, whether you believe in gay marriage or not.

Casey, I believe that several conservatives on this thread have objected just as strongly to his harassment of gays as they have about his harassment of military families. Both are offensive, but I the latter gets more attention because it's so completely insane. His harassment of gays at least makes sense given his religious beliefs, even if most of us don't agree at all. His harassment of the families of soldiers is just vicious and crazy with no rationale behind it.

Dave

For the record, Mr. Manning, I know that you and Arch Conservative are nothing like Fred Phelps. I know that you aren't haters, "gay bashers," and homophobes, you just want "to protect a bit of tradition," in a non-violent, peaceful and respectful manner.

I know that it hurts to be painted with a broad brush (I am a gay rights advocate, after all), and I can understand how terribly frustrating it must be when people will not acknowledge the numerous and obvious differences between a raging, homophobic nutcase like Fred Phelps and those folks who simply oppose the civil recognition of same-sex marriage.

After all, Fred Phelps presumes to speak for the Lord, disrespects our fallen soldiers and advocates violence against homosexuals. You don't endorse any of that, you just want "to protect a bit of tradition."

And this is the source of frustration for those of us who fully and completely support gay rights, not people like Fred Phelps who are beyond hope, but rather people like yourselves who submit that you do not hate homosexuals, you are against anti-gay workplace discrimination, you have no problem with consenting adults having same-sex relationships, and you are in favor of "civil unions" that confer benefits similar to those of marriage.

You're almost there! It really isn't that big of a leap to also support the civil recognition of same-sex marriage, but I imagine that it is nonetheless frightening to contemplate taking it, not because you're "homophobic," but because you are sentimental about that "bit of tradition" and fear the consequences of altering it.

The trouble with "protecting tradition," however, is that doing so denies equal protection under the law to gay and lesbian people. It is as simple as that, because in a free society, civil and human rights trump tradition.

While you consider the possible negative ramifications of the civil recognition of same-sex marriages, please try to also contemplate the positive ones and consider this: if we officially recognize civil same-sex marriage, it will cause Fred Phelps unimaginable pain.

For proof that Phelps is out there, here's a funny story: years ago, he and I had a long chat about Jerry Falwell. Turns out the two went to the same divinity school. Fred said that Falwell was a great preacher in the old days but now, he considers Falwell a "fag appeaser." Falwell? Fag appeaser? Find me one sane gay person who thinks Falwell is remotely conciliatory toward us. I saw Falwell attempt to appear conciliatory - and he failed royally at it. Falwell's rhetoric is just as hateful and potentially harmful as Phelps' - the televangelist/real-estate magnate just doesn't say the words "fag" or "hate," and whatever his publicized inanities, he doesn't recoil at the sight of gays. Fred, in contrast, wouldn't talk to me until I convinced him that the paper for which I worked was not a "homosexual paper." That was easy enough to do ('cause that was the truth), and once assured I worked for a publication he considered reputable (SUCKER!), he exhaled and talked easily and comfortably - and even smiled.

I wanted to weigh in but after reading NR Davis and Margert's posts, I feel so unworthy as they've illustrated my feelings much better that I could ever have. Kudos to you both!

Wow, thanks. The eloquent Ms. Toigo makes a great point: When it comes down to it, who is more dangerous to GLBT Americans and their supporters? A hint: It ain't Fred. Look to the center, folks.

Wow Margaret..........


I never thought I'd see so much reason and sense coming from someone ont he left.

You hit the nail on the head. It's not that people like me have some deep seated hatred for gays it's just that we have such a stong desire to preserve traditional American values. For over 200 years of American culture...marriage has been a unique instituion wherby one man and woman pledge themselves to each other for eternity.

The mom and dad nuclear family is also an American tradition that I would like to see perserved.

There are also the stereotypes of men as the protectors and defenders...the chivalrous guardians of all that is in the charge, ie family..... while women are supposed to be the fairer sex, less agressive, more emoting etc...

This is not to sday that I believe such inane things as women must be stuck int he home to spit out and raise babies with no hope of having a career.. it does not mean that woman can't do thingssuch as change the oil in a car or use a hammer in the correct way...it does not mean that men aren't allowed to be emotional at times and express themselves...that they cannot show compassion..... they cannot cook.. do laundry etcc....

It simply means, and I think the majority of the AMerican population agrees with me...that sometimes we all wish these antiquted ideals of masculinity and feminism were practiced a little more often.....

I believe that most AMerican men today still value traditional femine qualities in a mate, dressing feminine, behaving in "ladylike" manners, softness, maternal instincts....and conversly most american women today value traditional masculine traits.....agressiveness, pride, the willingness to fight for oneself and one's loves one if need be, protective instincts etc....

I have no desire or right ot tell other adults who they can or cannot love. I see nothing wrong with two consenting adults of the same sex being together romantically as long as they are sincere.......but I also see nothing wrong with those two adults respecting the wishes of the vast majority of the american citizenry today and calling thier union something other than marriage......

I also don't believe that our young childrten should be taught about gay or heterosexual lifetyles in graphic detail at such a young age. I don't think that the "celebration" of the homosexual lifestyle should be taught in our public schools. Tolerance when the issues arises? yes? but promotion? no

I also don't think it's right for individual to tell the Catholic Church, a 2000 year old instituion that it must change it's traditions and beliefs to meet thier needs. If this isn't the acme of self-centeredness I don't know what is. It is all the rage for atheists and homosexual activist groups to attack the church as if the only thing that mattered today is how people view gays and homosexuals. They don't consider all the good that the church does through thier charities.

I know there are many who will still throw all kinds of invectives my way but I don't care. I think if Margaret and I are capable of understanding where each other are coming form than the rest of you can too.

jesus christ. bing? i read the whole thing expecting something... bingish. never got there.

while i think marriage is just a word, and that this isn't about the church, it's about the state, there isn't anything in your comment that... makes me angry.

except this:

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DO TO BING?! YOU BORING... gentle soul.

bah.

Arch, first..Margarat is a libertarian style real deal conservative. Think Goldwater and Buckley rolled up with a Jesuit.

Next, I understand all the points you are raising about "traditional" this and that, but seriously guy...

Who the fuck does it hurt, I mean really hurt, or even diminish, to give EVERYbody equal rights as human beings?

Until you can answer that one, take yer "traditional" stuff and lay it next to the English flag that used to be "traditional" around here.

In America, we get to say "fuck tradition" whenever we wqant to, remember?

I think they call it , Liberty, or something like that.

I would suggest that there is one issue thqat you are all ignoring. In the States, marriage confers considerable material benefits upon a couple. Therefore the "right to marry" is really the right to access these material benefits. Remove the material benefits from marriage and the "right to marry" suddenly drops in importance...

I have a question...I keep reading where people say...rights similar to that of a hetero marriage...other than the word marriage...what doesn't a civil union give you that a traditional marriage does?

Personally...I'm all for two people in a civil union getting the same rights and responsibilities that those in a marriage have...and honestly...after reading Margarets' last comment I'm not really sure I care if they even get the word...but that's the whole thing. I think the majority of Americans have no problem with civil unions or those same unions providing you with the same things a marriage provides...I just think a lot of people have a problem with the word.

Is not giving up a word really the same as separate but equal, as separate drinking fountains???

Who would it hurt if they called it civil union and recieved the same benefits as heterosexual married couples Heckler?

The American public has demonstrated through numerous polls and ballot referendum votes in over 50 states that they wish "marriage" to remain a union between a man and a woman. I suspect that many of these people agree with me that while although marriage should remain one man and one woman, there is nothing wrong with civil unions with all the benfits of marriage between adults of the same sex.



If this were to be the case, marriage and civil unions being legal...how does that hurt anyone?

I know you can't understand how I view the uniqueness of marriage and it's tradition as a heterosexual instituion but that's not my problem. I think I am more than fair in my attitude toward those that are different from me unlike some who are different than me who demand that a 2000 year old church change to meet thier demands.

If you wanna see the old bing just start talking about how great the dems are or abortion zing.

we've gone over this before. you can call it "elephant poop" for all anyone cares. it's the rights that people are talking about. sheesh. the word isn't an issue, and never should have been.

but that's just it zing...it is the word...I can find it a million times right here on BC! Ok, maybe not a million...but I promise you...it's here...and it's here often.

sticks and stones.

it's a fucking word.

everyone knows that prince, the artist, is not the prince of wales. nor is marmaduke a duke or a marm. the rose bowl is a stadium. when a british lady asks you if you'd "like to have a shag," you don't expect a pack of tobacco. we can understand the difference between things without changing the word. "i want a fuck." "you are a fuck." totally different.

why are you so hung up on a word? that's the real question. but who really cares?

i don't think a single gay person would really, truly give up the benefits of marriage if it were to be called a civil union. so get it done. let it pass. give them the rights.

no problem, right?

SO WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM!?

That's right, Mr. Marsh. Most insightful. If you have the word, I have the right to it too, according to your founders. But your law says something different. Indeed, SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ISN'T EQUAL. If marriage is a religious tradition - GET THE GOVERNMENT THE HELL OUT OF IT. It isn't right for the law to arbitrarily punish a group for being itself because of religious beliefs or calls for "tradition." It isn't fair or humane to expect us to go along with it - and to help finance our legal diminishment and a lifelong place under the boots of heterosupremaci. Yes, some will go along to get along. Many of us simply cannot. I can deal with you hating me. Can't go along with hating myself.

Mr. Arch Conservative: "I also see nothing wrong with those two adults respecting the wishes of the vast majority of the american citizenry today and calling thier union something other than marriage."

Of course you don't, sir. It works for YOU. It doesn't for me, because I see everything wrong with it. And that the majority doesn't get that it is hurting individuals, families and children beyond reason... well, that's my problem, isn't it? But don't expect loyalty from me. That expectation is more than unreasonable. It is cruel and inhumane and unacceptable on every level. I have to pay the taxes so I don't end up in your country's jails, but know I resent it more than you can imagine. And I have every reason to resent it. If you were in my shoes, and you didn't kneel to society's insistence that you hate yourself, you would too.

So. I am expected to accept diminishment and inequality for the majority society's comfort sake. Sorry, but fuck the majority society. Nearly 50 years years I have been told to conform in certain ways that have nothing to do with criminality for OTHER people's comfort: Wear makeup and dresses. Be soft and docile. Marry a man who will protect you or remain celibate because we don't want you to be happy. Pay taxes and if you want a relationship or a civil union, be prepared to pay MORE, MUCH MORE to get a tentative, partial parity with heterosexuals THAT CAN BE OVERTURNED by bigoted and/or traditional families that DEFINE WHETHER THEY CONSIDER MY FAMILY LEGITIMATE. (Meanwhile, the marriages of criminals and reality-show contestants need to be defended from the likes of me. Imagine that. Why am I supposed to love your land?) OH - and though we get far fewer benefits than married hets (including hets who get married for reasons that don't have anything to do with "sanctity"), we queers must pay THE SAME taxes as everyone else - including taxes to fund schools that in many areas won't protect my kids from bullying and prejudice and abuse or talk about families that resemble ours. Inheritance rights - often are NOT PERMITTED for unionized queers in some areas. Is that fair? Does that fit your definition of justice? Can you understand why people would not - and why they will fight you and your vile society and laws tooth and nail until they create change, drop dead or find the ability to flee to a safer locale.

CIVIL UNION IS NOT EQUAL TO MARRIAGE. PERIOD.

How about that? We pay and pay, but because we are queer, we can't have equality AND YOU EXPECT US TO GO ALONG WILLINGLY WITH IT.

We may be fags and dykes and wrong or disordered or anti-traditional in your eyes, but we all are NOT dupes willing to accept this.

Great life for us rainbow children, eh? So good to live in the land of the free (for YOU), a land that claims to respect and offer but does not practice equality under CIVIL law for ALL. I must forego equality for your sake because it would make you uncomfortable to have me be fully equal. Fuck that, sir. Fuck that.

YES. THE WORD MATTERS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY HAVING EVERYONE EQUAL UNDER LAW.

Sorry. I've been fighting this fight for way too long and I am SICK of this country, this fight, this society and this life. You try a mile in my shoes and then tell me how you feel watching the law coddle the bigots and traditionalists at your expense. You would be pissed off (and that's an understatement) too. Well, unless you're one of the too many of us who bow to an oppressive society and learn to hate themselves. I'm SO over that shit and over your belief (the source of suffering) and your society and your religion and your tradition and your US.

Mr. Marsh, you brought up the water fountain. I ask you to re-read something I wrote earlier to Mr. Manning:

Similar is not the same. Similar is not equal. The water in the different fountains came from the same source and likely was the same, but somehow - and I have experienced this - the water that bubbles up from the one labeled "colored" tastes differently from the one reserved for the majority, the legally superior, the legally protected. And not in a good way. As the SCOTUS ruled famously in Brown v. Board of Education, SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS NOT EQUAL. So, in the view of this brown-colored queer independent expatriate-in-waiting, you may not be a homophobe, but as your views are part of those that keep me mired in second-class citizenship in your country, you may as well be. The effect is the same.

What if in the 1940s a black man marrying a white woman was not permitted to be called a marriage?

Told ya!

You sure did, Mr. Marsh. Now convince me that I am wrong and the vile mainstream society is right on this. Never mind: You can't.

And Mr. Zing, can you see my point at all? Because I can't abide yours - WHY should I be forced to endure and accept separate but equal (which, again, the SCOTUS ruled was UNequal by definition; Jim Crow is anathema to me and people with self-esteem; which is an insult to oppressed people with brains (another understatement)?

I ask you to reread what I wrote above about drinking fountains. I have experienced that particular brand of separate but equal. Is that OK with you too? Why or why not? And what, if you see one, is the difference between what was done to me because of my skin color and what was done to me because of my orientation - two things over which I have NO control?

Another question, Mr. Zing: Do you understand the notion of being true to ones beliefs and principles? Dr. King said those not willing to stand or die for what they believe, for their deeply held principles, have no right to live. If I accept your second-class status (which is what it is - a special designation for gays? how dark ages is that?) for the sake of expediency, I have lost more than I have won. Meaning, I HAVE LOST and I AM LOST. I am not equal under law in your country (which is why it isn't my country), but at least I have remained a person of integrity by Dr. King's definition. Character counts, and people with character don't and won't suffer insults, even from the mainstream. We certainly won't bow down to our oppressors - even if the oppressors are made up of the government and our fellow "citizens." You don't have to give up your humanity to be acknowledged as equal by the law. Why should I? How does it benefit me to give up my soul to get something you get just because you were born het (IF you were born het). And if you are queer, hoo boy... I will keep my opinion to myself on that matter, but know I am shaking my head and filling with despair at the very thought of it.

Mr. Jet, back in the day, those couples would go to jail. A couple of my relatives did for following their hearts and giving a well-deserved middle finger to the mainstream and your terrible country. Others fled to northern states and Canada. Wish they had taken me... but of course I had not yet been born. Would have been better if I hadn't been, given all of this.

The funny thing about conservatives who oppose gay marriage for reasons of "religious" and "moral" values is that people don't have to be religious nor moral to get married. Atheists get married legally. Anna Nicole Smith gets married legally. Yet you don't see any protests in California or Massachusetts about them. For some reason, people who oppose gay marriage hate the thought that they'll have to share a common bond (and/or a tax break) with gay people.

Polls have nothing to do with this argument. Most people want the Iraqi conflict to stop within a year. Warhawks sure don't care about THOSE polls nor do they defend polls that say Bush should be punished for whatever they think he should be punished for. Don't be selective.

"Would have been better if I hadn't been, given all of this."

Aw, NR, don't say that! You're great! :)

Not according to your country's law. Not according to those people who say I need to compromise and accept second-class citizenship. Not according to Messrs. Phelps, Falwell, Manning, Archconservative and Zing. If you believe that most Americans are opposed to my equality, then not according to the US mainstream either. Can you see why I find this place a hell on earth, why I would prefer to be dead than here?

Margaret Ramao Toigo wrote of the anti-equality crew: you just want "to protect a bit of tradition," in a non-violent, peaceful and respectful manner.

Just saw this again and had to respond, Ms. Toigo.

A person who fights to keep another human unequal under law and/or insists that said human accept the inequity):

1. DOES VIOLENCE TO THE PERSON TO WHOM THEY DENY EQUALITY There is nothing nonviolent about it! They crush spirits and kill souls. And people do die - either by violent bashers or, when motivated by the "talking bashers" who would deny us equality, sometimes by our own hand. There is physical violence, but there are also emotional violence and spiritual violence. The harm the anti-equality crowd causes through their particular brands of "nonviolent" violence is infinite.
2. KEEPS GLBT LIVES ANYTHING BUT PEACEFUL There is nothing peaceful about what they insist we endure! Certainly, we are left with little or no peace of mind - we can't trust our "neighbors." And, as always, without justice... get up... stand up... until the philosophy which holds one group superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is WAR...
3. IS ALL ABOUT DISRESPECT FOR THOSE THEY HARM. If they respect an old, disgusting tradition more than they respect their own Constitution and their own fellow humans, how respectful are they, really? And what is their respect worth? NOTHING.
   
   I know you want to be nice and polite to these people, but please don't blow smoke up their skirts to appease them. Appeasement causes a lot of this mess. That those who oppose EQUALITY are nonviolent, peaceful or respectful is patently FALSE. They probably mean well, but you know about that road to hell.

Arch Conservative: "I believe that most AMerican men today still value traditional femine qualities in a mate, dressing feminine, behaving in "ladylike" manners, softness ..."

So do I, AC. Unfortunately, and here's the real twist, women want equality while acting like men, dressing like them, etc. All these otherwise attractive women wearing trousers? What a disgrace, I'd much rather see them in skirts. Also, a poll here in Britain recently revealed that more girls get in fights than boys these days. They are also drinking heavier than men. I thought women wanted to be respected for what they are supposed to be - feminine? Yet, women just keep acting tougher and more unfeminine with every passing day.

(Note: Admittedly, I couldn't care less about a mothering instinct as I do not want children and am not particularly fond of them at all.)

Ms. Davis, Bing,

I'll ask you to consider two things which are coloring your viewpoint on all of this.

One is that a married couple gets a whole hunk of benefits under American law, so the 'right to marry' is the access to the benefits given. Ms. Davis, this you have addressed.

The second is that in the United states, you have an institution called "civil marriage." And civil marriage is all that really counts. In a wedding performed by a rabbi, for instance, there is a wedding contract and witnesses and a canopy, and the groom recites a formula over the ring he gives his bride, (all that is required by Jewish law is the recitation of the formula over the ring), but the rabbi in the States is required to say, in addition to all this, "by the power conferred upon me by the State of New York (or whatever jurisdiction), I pronounce you man and wife".

In other words, in th eyes of a judge, the canopy, witnesses, contract, and recitation of the formula is just so much piffle. In the States, the power conferred upon the rabbi or other religious official BY THE STATE is what makes the marriage legal.

In this atmosphere, a "civil union" is definitely different from a civil marriage. And in a country where the phrase "separate but equal" was a code phrase for "keeping the blacks down," "different but equal" just doesn't wash.

Because I live a third of a world away, under a different legal system, I can see this without getting angry. I probably would have plenty of problems with the legal system I live under, but that is not relevant to this article.

IMHO, because you have civil marriages - ceremonies performed by a judge with a watered down version of a Protestant service - you have a problem. Abandoning civil marriages in the States would not be a workable solution. But calling all "civil marriages" "civil unions" and granting all "civil unions" the same legal benefits would. That way, the issue of whether the union is a marriage or not is left to the preachers to argue over and the legalities of erasing inequality are dealt with. Civil union would be between two consenting adults - the rabbis (or whomever) would still pronounce the couples in front of them man and wife.

Try the idea on for size.

1. NR: my respect and admiration for you knows no bounds. Keep fighting the good fight.

2. What right has anyone got to be telling someone else what amounts to appropriate "masculine" or "feminine" behavior? It's not your domain, boys. If you find girls in trousers so distasteful, leave them the fuck alone. I never thought I'd live to see the day when men were actually complaining about a non-issue like women in pants. Jesus, MAYBE you should try and fit them with chastity belts.

3. There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. Culture, maybe. It's not a lifestyle it's who we are. And as for "promotion", well there's a fucking joke for you. Ask any gay person about the ubiquitous presence of breeder "promotion." It's EVERYWHERE you look. TV, movies, songs, billboards, magazines, books, plays. Finally, we're getting some degree of representation. But it doesn't begin to approach the presumptuous attitude of the millions of straight people that the world exists only for THEM. Promotion? PROMOTION? Thousands of years of BREEDER promotion hasn't affected everyone, Thank fucking God. Do you know the definition of chutspah? Do you honestly believe straight boys in high school (beyond random experimentation)are saying, "Gee, heterosexuality really bites, it's a lifetime of dick-sucking for me!"

4. Who the hell told you that marriage is the exclusive venue of straight people or Americans? Marriage existed long, long, before America existed and separation of Church and State should preclude the government from interfering anyway, as there's no true legal justification for forbidding same-gender marriage. And what would possess you to raise the issue of tradition? Depending on whose traditions you're looking at, tradition can include such praxctices as: wife-beating, clitorectomy, slavery, incest, lynching, cannibalism....

5. Here's a quarter buy a clue.


Cheers,


Christopher

zing...apparently you have some strange views that don't reflect much humanity too!

Ms Davis - If you read the comments you'll see that I asked a question, then I was told, incorrectly, according to you, that it's not about the word, it's about the rights. That's exactly what I think the argument SHOULD be about. THE RIGHTS! But somehow, according to you, giving you all the rights of a married hetero couple without the word isn't worth shit in a handbag! And to me...that's just stupid! But I have strange views that don't reflect much humanity, so what the fuck do I know???


And are you as vile with the people you deal with on an everyday basis as you are with the people on BC? If you are...bet you have lots and lots of friends. Just an observation....

If it were about the rights and not the word you'd have no issue with me at all if your read what I wrote NR Davis.

But you don't want equality you want special treatment. Since America's inception marriage has always been between one mand and one woman. Many traditionalists such as myself have no problem with civil unions that bestow the benefits of marriage. That's not good enough for you though.

You claim you want rights but when they are offered to you in theory we see that's not what you really want at all. You don't merely want the gay lifestyle accepted...you want it glorified by all and damn everyone else's personal beliefs because NR Davis has a cause so look out. If you're not on the NR Davis train your a homophobe.

Also for you Christopher. American culture and 200 plus years of history has told me that marriage is a heterosexual institution.


Never mind the fact that most Americans don't want gay marriage to be legal. Never mind the fact that in just about every civilization since the dawn of time marriage has beene defined as one man and one woman. Never mind the fact that the Christian faith which was founded thousands of years ago does not view marriage as a homesexual union....damn it the church must change it beliefs so that they can accomodate the desires of a few right NR?

One of the most basic traditional institutions of American culture must be changed because something like 3% of the population want it changed while the rest do not right NR?

Stop bitching about civil rights...........gay marriage is not a civil right...every man and woman in this country has a civil right to get married...to someone of the opposite sex.... as marriage has been defiened by Americans since the founding of this nation and that is the way msot AMericans wish it to remain.... and if you don't like it that's too damn bad....

You say something's a right so it is right Natalie? That's how you moral relativists work. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry? Do adults have the right to marry children? Does zingzing have the right to marry his cocker spaniel after years of a loving relationship that dare not speak it's name?

You don't want equality NR... you want everyone else's beliefs to be subservient to your's and to force them to bend to your will even when they offer you what you want but just don't put the bow on top.

Natalie and Christopher are the most self centered, narrow minded, bafoons that do nothing but use semantics all day long in an attempt to push forward all that they want despite anything that anyone else values.

Why don't you climb down from your high horse and stop feeling sorry for yourself NR.

You say something's a right so it is right Natalie? That's how you moral relativists work. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry? Do adults have the right to marry children? Does zingzing have the right to marry his cocker spaniel after years of a loving relationship that dare not speak it's name?

Hey, I see progress here at BC! It took until comment 91 (instead of starting with comment 1) for someone to bring up beastiality and pedophilia in the gay marriage debate.

Bravo, BC!

Hey, Mr. Marsh, I may be vile (which I don't see, but you're entitled to your opinion; I'm just an oppressed person expressing myself), but I'm not about denying equality to people.

And you misunderstand me, Mr. Marsh. It is about rights AND it is about the word, because, sir, it's about equality. A separate word connotes inequality - not acceptable. And equal rights should go without saying. Moot point, anyway, because NO American in a civil union has all of the rights of civil marriage. Not one. So that argument of yours is specious and cruel at best.

Yes, cruel. I'm unequal and expected to be sunny and pleasant about it. Fuck you. I apologize for saying that, truly I do, but Jesus... You people and your unfair, unrealistic demands of those you legally marginalize are just too much for me to bear. Far too much. Yes, it's inhumane. That;s how it feels on this end. But you're more concerned about manners. Most times I do try civility. Today, after reading all this, I can't muster it. Sorry. You ask too much.

Mr. ArchConservative: "Feminine"? Who defines that? Why should I wear dresses if I don't like them? Who decides? I want to be ME, not what You deem I, as a woman, ought to be. Being a woman has nothing to do with softness or dresses or makeup or docility - unless those characteristics fit the particular woman. And if a man is about softness or dresses or makeup or docility, then in his case, those are masculine qualities. Why do you all insist we conform who we are to what YOU insist we be?

Ruvy wrote: "But calling all "civil marriages" "civil unions" and granting