Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Fred Phelps Can **** My ****

Fred Phelps Can **** My ****

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s not as if I find the extreme-Left, America-hating, anti-war loonies any less despicable than I always have. But, I think there’s someone who could just possibly be even worse. His name? Fred Phelps.

The fire-and-brimstone preacher, who laughably calls himself a reverend and claims he’s a Christian, is obsessed with homosexuals. He damns all to Hell who even dare to stick up for homosexuals. Like our troops for defending America — “fag nation” in “Rev.” Phelps’ eyes.

Phelps and his congregation at the Topeka, Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church have praised 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina as punishment for a nation that, according to him, enables gays. He delivered an obscenity-laced sermon to praise the fatal beating of gay teenager Matthew Sheppard. His supporters regularly attend the funerals of those killed in Iraq, mocking the dead and their families for fighting for America. According to Phelps, if America wants to bring its ideas of freedom and democracy to Iraq, then Iraq will turn into a “fag nation” as well.

It would be wrong to assume, as a knee-jerk liberal would, that Christians have embraced this toxic-brained lunatic. It is simply not true. Even Jerry Falwell has spoken against him.

In his earlier days, Phelps tried to convert Mormons, insulting them in the process. He lived in Canada for a while. After blessing the U.S. with his return, the former pugilist continued to advocate beating as a patriarch’s right. He once delivered a sermon at the Eastside Baptist Church in Topeka denouncing a female member of his congregation for being a whore when he learned that she was pregnant. While still in the employ of this same church, he punched his own infant son, Mark, several times in the face when he dared to squirm during one of his sermons. Now, as much as I hate the likes of al-Zarqawi or bin Laden, I doubt that even they are sub-human enough to beat up babies.

Phelps consumed large quantities of drugs and alcohol, terrorized his family, and may even have been involved in the death of a young woman. You get the point. He’s a dangerous bastard.

Reading about his guy’s past is painful. But even scarier than that is that this low-life is still around, still preaching, putting America down, insulting soldiers’ families, and advocating violence against gays.

Phelps’ hateful zealotry, masquerading as religious fervor, reminds me of another class of people: the Islamofascists. Phelps is definitely in their league. Ergo, shouldn’t this guy and his followers be considered potential terrorists, as such a comparison would merit?

The last I heard, Congress was considering federal legislation against Phelps and the Westboro Church. It can’t come fast enough. If we could hound the reclusive Branch Davidians — who never bothered nor hurt anyone but their own community — into killing themselves, then why leave the Westboro Baptist Church alone? If any cult in the country deserves to be surrounded by tanks and FBI agents, it’d be them. Hell, I’d even love it if the jackbooted boys of the ATF moved in on them; for once in my life, I’d cheer them on.

In the early 1990s, Congress expanded the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act to include hate crimes. So, why, damnit, is Phelps and his congregation not being targeted under this law’s statutes? If they are free to protest, then obviously nothing is going to bring them into line with the law.

Spare me the diatribe about the test of a democracy being how we tolerate the most odious, scummy people to shout whatever garbage they like. If that’s true, then why clamp down on fiery Islamic clerics as they have been doing in Britain? Exactly right, because their words lead to terror. And, God only knows when the 150-strong congregation of Westboro will turn their own hateful words into action. We are dealing with people who have lost all sense of reality. In my opinion, Phelps and his flock are capable of anything. Laughing at and hating them is not enough.

So here’s what I suggest: 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. It would look like an odd combination, sure. But I firmly believe that gay activists and conservatives should act together to cause as much trouble for Phelps as is possible. This would be the much-needed 1-2 sucker punch that the pugilist “pastor” needs.

Either that or throw the whackjob into a padded cell for life.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Christopher Soden

    “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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    “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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Thanks for underscoring my sad feeling, Mr. Manning.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward 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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

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

  • http://www.chantalstone.blogspot.com chantal stone

    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.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Anti-gay != anti gay marriage

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    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

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

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

    Discussion over.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

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

  • Baronius

    Phelps is a moron.

    Morons have First Amendment rights.

    Therefore, Phelps has First Amendment rights.

  • Alec

    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.

  • Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • Christopher Soden

    “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.

  • Joey

    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.

  • http://trueblueblog.wordpress.com Jeff

    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

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    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.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    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.

  • http://www.markbellinghaus.com Mark Bellinghaus

    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…)

  • http://www.markbellinghaus.com Mark Bellinghaus

    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.

  • Joey

    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.

  • Joey

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

    that’s the fact.

  • http://insiderealestatejournal.blogspot.com Mr. Real Estate

    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.

  • http://www.tresbleu/blogspot.com Sister Ray

    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.

  • Ryan

    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….

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

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

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://trueblueblog.wordpress.com/ Jeff

    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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

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

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    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?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Arch Conservative #34 You have my respect sir.

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

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

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    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.

  • rene

    #22 – Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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?!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Mark? When did I say that?

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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.

  • Tom

    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.

  • zingzing

    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.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    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.”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

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

  • zingzing

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

  • zingzing

    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.

  • Arch Conservative

    Yeah I took that test too.

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

  • zingzing

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

  • Arch Conservative

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

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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!

  • http://trueblueblog.wordpress.com Jeff

    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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR “Read what is on the page, damn it!” Davis

    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…

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    “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.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    Andy Marsh: “You can’t win around here Mark. No matter what you write…”

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

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

    ROFLMAO…

    Do you mean humans with a higher-than-average amount of melanin who were born in the US?

    Please. Story of my life, Mr. Manning. Reactions range from agreement to (from people who know nothing about me other than what my face looks like and the words I use) charges of being a brainwashed traitor to admonitions to run to church.

    Oh yeah – plenty of people you label (many, I am sure, erroneously) agree that the GLBT equality movement IS part of the civil-rights struggle and SHOULD be embraced by all who have fought for civil rights. One of those people was the late Coretta Scott King. Another is her daughter, Yolanda King, with whom I marched in support of GLBT equality five years ago. I suspect you would label them as being “black… excuse me, African-American,” right?

    You have no idea how hilarious that question of yours is…

    If you believe that you’re not a homophobe (something I haven’t called you, by the by; I just said that going to a Jim Crow ceremony doesn’t make you not one), fine. Look at all the internalized ‘phobes happy to settle for “marriage-lite” for themselves and their families (because they’re sure they’ll never really be equal under law). (NOTE: That does NOT describe every participant in a civil union by ANY means.)But I’m sorry: You stated clearly that GLBT people should be treated differently under law by virtue of the gender of the person to whom they want to commit themselves legally for life. I have no desire to get into a debate with you over issues of separating religious traditions and dictates and God-motivated punishment and disenfranchisement from what I believe is supposed to be secular law. Your beliefs may not make you a homophobe (and again, I never called you one), but it doesn’t make you a supporter of true equality under law either. It makes you a supporter of legal discrimination against a particular subset of humankind based on its members’ sexual orientations – a distinction the founders did not include next to the words “all men are equal.”

    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.

    You’re wrong that I wouldn’t be impressed if you sprouted wings, Mr. Manning. I would be. Quite. Fascinated too. And I’d definitely want to interview you. There are people I like despite their commitment to keep me unequal under law; we may not hang out much (too painful – each believes the other deluded and ultimately damned), but I still care about them. And I don’t have to agree with someone to give credit where it’s due. I met and spoke with Jerry Falwell and his wife several years ago and was amazed to learn how genuinely funny he is. The virulently anti-GLBT pastor and activist most assuredly is not a friend, but he does have a quick wit.

    Mr. Manning, here is a sincere suggestion from a complete stranger: You’ve already assumed that I believe you to be a homophobe, that I am a coward when it comes to defending my beliefs before a tough crowd, that I would oppose your right to free expression. You’ve also assumed that I am part and parcel of a Left that doesn’t care about equality. You’ve been wrong on each count. You really should stop making assumptions about people. Now, should I assume that you will dismiss the suggestion out of hand? I won’t. I’ll give you more credit than that.

  • http://blogcritics.org/author.php?author=Casey%20Lunkley Casey Lunkley

    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.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

  • rene

    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!

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • zingzing

    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.

  • Heckler

    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.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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???

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • zingzing

    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.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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.

  • zingzing

    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!?

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

    Between my melanin problem and the queer thing, I am sick to death of having to be sensitive to people willing to hurt me and mine – and who expect me to deal with it smilingly and willingly for THEIR BENEFIT. I am sick of having to fight you people all the time for EQUALITY. Fuck ’em. Fuck ’em ALL.

    We can’t be recognized the SAME WAY as the majority because they don’t consider our love as worthy as theirs. They tell us we can’t love – tradition and stereotypes say that my kind is incapable of real love, and again, we make many hets uncomfortable (our discomfort is OK, of course, because queers are inferior – the law says so and lack of equality proves it)… See how the word matters? If all citizens are equal and of equal importance, why a separate word for us? Why indeed, in a land where separate has been defined as being not equal by the highest court in the land? It’s about respect – not for homosexuality, because you don’t have to like it or approve of us, but for each American individual to live and love and pursue happiness as they choose. If it’s really about freedom and equality for all, I shouldn’t be treated differently or given a special designation because of whom I love.

    In other words, how come it is ok for US to be hurt and made to feel uncomfortable and unwelcome and exploited (the tax issue, etc.) by the country to which we’re supposed to be loyal and grateful (as if)? Does that make sense? Would any self-respecting human willingly accept such treatment? Would you, were you in my shoes?

    There is no compromise on the issue of equality. Either everyone is equal or equality does not exist. If people are opposed to equality, I just wish they had the stones to say it flat out and stop pussyfooting around the truth: You (general you) insist upon your supremacy. And if you are part of that general you… well, rest assured I can’t say what is going through my mind right now. But no, I can not endure any more of this shit quietly. Don’t like it? Make your country tell the truth and practice what it preaches. If discomfort is bad for you, imagine how misery and second-class status and the ongoing character assassination feel for your fellow citizens who happen to be gay or bisexual or transgender. Believe what you want, but the law shouldn’t be doing your gods’s job for him or her or it.

    Note to Ruvy: The benefits are definitely an issue for families nuked and diminished by the government and our bigoted and traditionalist fellow citizens. Our families – the one these people don’t consider worthy – pay the price for the lack of them every day in one fashion or another. Our children suffer – not because of us, but because of SOCIETY. So YES, my friend, the benefits are part of the issue. But to intimate that queer people don’t value love and commitment just like heterosexuals do and that the money issue would take precedence over that (just as that is the case for hets, it may for some gays, but it certainly does not for MOST of those I know who want to wed – but aren’t allowed to do so because of who they are, is way more than insulting.

    Whatever: Hets marry for love, greed, property, green cards, reality shows, whatever. Many marry for economic reasons, for health insurance and more than 1,000 governmental rights and responsibilities, to escape bad parents, or because they are bored or lonely or codependent. No one denies them equality even if they marry just because they drank too much in Vegas, even if they did so to avoid testifying. Hets can’t be denied civil marriage – even if the parties involved don’t love and cherish each other or are hardened criminals. Criminals can marry the person of their choice, but I can’t. How can I assume anything else but that this country sees me as less than? And how can I not be outraged and loud as a result?) So the reason hets marry doesn’t matter – why does it matter when the discussion is about marriage equality for my kind?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

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

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Told ya!

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/author.php?author=Casey%20Lunkley Casey Lunkley

    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.

  • http://blogcritics.org/author.php?author=Casey%20Lunkley Casey Lunkley

    “Would have been better if I hadn’t been, given all of this.”

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

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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?

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • Christopher Soden

    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

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    zing…apparently you have some strange views that don’t reflect much humanity too!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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….

  • Arch Conservative

    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.

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    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!

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    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 all “civil unions” the same legal benefits would.”

    I’ve advocated for that for years. If hets and queers could do civil unions and leave religious marriage to the churches, I would be fine with that.

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    Oh, and by the way, I love the way the truth about “tradition” eeks out as this thread progresses. First, tradition simply means one man, one woman in marriage. But then as the thread goes on, we see that it really means MEN as the strong, superior person in the relationship who wants his woman and all women to wear clothes and behave in ways that please THEM. Tradition isn’t really just polite nostalgia for days gone by. It’s a desire to return to certain power structures that women and minorities of all stripes have fought to dismantle over the past century.

    To any men who like to tell women how to dress and act to please THEM, I say a hearty fuck you.

    And if that’s not ladylike enough for you, then fuck you again.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    MS. Davis says I’ve advocated for that for years. If hets and queers could do civil unions and leave religious marriage to the churches, I would be fine with that.

    but then…you wouldn’t get the word! And we all know YOU MUST HAVE the word!

    Fuck me? You talking dirty to me?

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    If the words are different, then the “institutions” are different. They’re not equal. One would have a status conferred on it that the other did not, relegating one of the unions to second-class status. That’s the entire point of the “we want to keep our word” crowd’s argument. They want everyone to be able to distinguish between two types of unions by the words used to label them.

    Without the word AND the rights, you don’t have equality. You need both.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    so it’s all or nothing…either give us the word and the rights…or fuck it…don’t give us anything…as the cartoon characters on the Guiness commercials would say…BRILLIANT!

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    Why should gay couples accept less than full equality?

    Civil unions are a step in the right direction and many, many gay couples have obviously opted to join in such unions. But why should they stop fighting for full equality? Why should civil unions be good enough for them? Would you accept second-class citizenship for something you so strongly believed in? Or would you keep working at it until you had what you believed is your Constitutional right?

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    Er, make that “your Constitutional and human right?”

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    If the rights and responsibilities are the same how does not having the word lessen them any? I really don’t get it…and I believe I’m not alone! Does calling a lion a cat make him any less a lion?

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    If the rights and responsibilities are the same how does not having the word lessen them any?

    Because one is privileged over the other. If the rights and responsibilities are the same, why in the world would the names be different unless there was a desire to differentiate between two types of union, two groups of people.

    It is exactly like the water fountain scenario, even though you don’t like to see it that way.

    Does calling a lion a cat make him any less a lion?

    Yes. Lion conjures up all sorts of imagery and characteristics. King of the jungle and all that. Ask a kid to act like a lion. Then ask her to act like a cat. You’ll see two different reactions entirely.

    Here’s another analogy: It’s like being in the sports records book with an asterisk next to your name.

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    Oh crap, sorry about the italics!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    but does it make the lion any less a lion? I didn’t ask if it made a kid any less a lion or if it made your perception of the lion different…I asked if it changed the lion.

    As for the sports analogy…personally…I’d be happy to be in the book…period. The asterik doesn’t make it any less a record…take Maris for example. He hit 61 homers in a season…a season that had more games than one of the Babe’s seasons…it deserved an asterik…still a record…just different variables….civil union…still a marriage…just different variables.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Bing wrote,

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

    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?”

    Ms. Davis wrote,

    “Ruvy wrote: “But calling all ‘civil marriages’ ‘civil unions’ and granting all ‘civil unions’ the same legal benefits would.

    I’ve advocated for that for years. If hets and queers could do civil unions and leave religious marriage to the churches, I would be fine with that.

    Look at the bold print, you two. Do you see that you have written nearly the same thing here?

    Bing gave me the idea, and I just fleshed it out a bit – and I do mean just a bit.

    If you back off on the pyrotechnics, the name calling and the obscenity, you’ll see that the two of you can unite around a common cause – 1) getting American states and commonwealths to abandon the term “civïl marriage” and adopt the term “civil union”; 2) extend all the benefits that now apply to what is called “civil marriage” to “civil unions”; 3) allow “civil unions” to be entered into by two consenting adults.

    Religions then get to define marriage the way they want. If the Catholic Church doesn’t want to recognize a civil union without a church marriage, for example, fine. That is up to American Catholics to deal with. It is also up to them to deal with issues of separation and divorce. In Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman that cannot be undone. In Judaism, it is a contractual arrangement between a man and a woman that can be undone. In neither faith is there such a thing as marriage between same sex individuals.

    But if the state sanctioned “civil union” is what carries the economic and tax benefits, then the people who are called upon to practice their faith can do so – or not.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    BTW, Natalie, can you e-mail me and tell me how to get the color and size changes in the text of the comments?

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    No, Mr. Marsh. You don’t get it. If you have access to LEGAL marriage (or the word “marriage,” conferred by the government) – note this has nothing to do with churches or with RELIGIOUS or SACRAMENTAL marriage – then so should I. Only fair. Anything else would be unfair and unAmerican and insulting to those forced to use a separate designation that connotes less-than status. If we are equal under law and separate but equal is NOT equal (which I believe), there is NO justification for a separate word to cover queers.

    However, if the government calls all legal joinings of committed pairs “civil unions” without respect to any couple’s orientation, that’s perfectly cool. The issue isn’t the word, per se, it is equality – having the same rights and responsibilities and governmental designation for the relationship that is available to you. If “marriage” is only conferred by churches and in whatever manner those churches deem appropriate, that’s cool. In that sort of situation, hets can have a legal union and a religious marriage if they wish – and so can nonheterosexuals (many churches DO perform marriage rites for gay couples today; they just aren’t recognized as marriages by law anywhere but Massachusetts).

    And no, I don’t talk dirty to men. For me, that would be unnatural. But I do apologize profusely for the F-you aimed at you. As justifiably angry and hurt and depressed as I am by a lifetime of oppression and suffering, I shouldn’t take it out on you personally even if you support my oppression. (Note the IF.) I rarely tell people to fuck off – and I do mean it for mainstream society in general – so do know that if I utter such a thing, my very justifiable rage (frankly, I don’t comprehend having any other reaction if one is in my situation), I have had it. And I have HAD IT. In any case, I have asked for forgiveness in prayer. I hope you will be as gracious and merciful as my Creator.

    As far as churches, do members of an organized religion have the right to express their dismay over the church’s bigotry? Yes. Do people who may not be members of particular religions have the right to express an opinion about what they see as bigotry (such as the Catholic Church’s inhumane treatment of women and GLBT people)? Yes. But ultimately, the church makes its own rules and we have to deal with that. In my case, years of Catholic oppression forced me to flee the church of my birth. One of the healthiest things I have every done…

    In a related story, the Anglican Communion is very split over the notion of treating gays like equal children of God (verboten in the global denomination that includes the controversial US Episcopal Church, in which my now-grown daughter was baptized; the US church elevated an openly gay bishop in 2004 and the shit’s been hitting the Anglican fan ever since). I have advocated passionately that sometimes a denominational schism is for the best. Methodists split over the issue of slavery – that was for the GOOD. It may be best if the Anglican Communion disintegrates too: Either the pro-justice people or the discriminators should take a hike and establish a religious community that shares the group’s values. (Personally, I believe my side should split and leave the rotting hulk of bigotry to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his primates. “Men of God?” I doubt it highly. And if they are, I’ll gladly take the fires of Hell.)

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    the Catholic Church already requires couples to be married by a priest in order for the church to recognize the marriage. My parents had to have a ceremony in the church before the church would allow me to be baptized…of course, I’ve always thought it was a money thing…because a church marriage requires a “donation”

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Hey Ruvy, glad to help. Watch for email.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Natalie – Not that you need it, but, I forgive you. And you’re right…I really don’t get it. I can’t say I understand your frustration because I don’t.

    I’ve already stated on here that after reading Margarets’ comments I’m not even sure if I care about the word anymore…but I would think…if I was extremely thirsty and I asked for a glass of water…I wouldn’t turn down a glass that was only three quarters full…but that’s just me.

    I’ll also state that of all the arguments on this particular thread…the one that moved me more towards your position was the one that was the most civil…the ranting and the raving and the “your country” and all that other bullshit tends to move people away from your point of view, not towards it…it’s that old honey/vinegar thing…

    We do seem to agree on one thing Ms. Davis…I wonder about the “Men of God” also…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nice to see everyone finally coming around to the position I’ve been advocating on BC for a year now. Let’s abolish the state role in marriage alltogether and leave it up to the churches who they marry.

    Dave

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    I’d be happy to be in the book…period.

    That’s fine for an average nonathlete. But you *know* that if Barry Bonds gets in with an asterisk next to his home run total, he won’t be happy with just being in the book. He’s going to want an asterisk-free record in there.

    The asterik doesn’t make it any less a record

    It absolutely does if it illustrates that the record is somehow lesser than the others that don’t have asterisks. The asterisk, by definition, makes that particular record different. If the record keepers didn’t want to denote difference, they wouldn’t.

    Same goes for marriage vs. civil union. The people who don’t want to share “their” word are trying to keep a separation between themselves and gay couples. They’re trying to keep special status and exclusivity. If you’re gay, you can’t have what they have; you can something that looks a lot like it, but it’s not really it.

    The reality is, though, that it’s not the specific word “marriage” that’s the problem. It’s the acutal idea of heterosexuals having their relationships be no different in society from gay relationships. The word is just the tool being used to make the separation clear.

    That’s why, unfortunately, what Ruvy proposes will either never happen or won’t happen for a very long time. People who don’t want to share the word “marriage” would (almost?) never allow the separation into secular civil unions and religious marriages.

    The reason? Heterosexuals don’t want to be put in the same pool as gays. Decoupling civil unions from marriage would do that, by definition. And that’s what’s really being fought over, here: the separation.

    ArchC and Manning want their relationships to be given special status by the government and society. There’s no way they’d accept having their union be called the same thing as a gay union. They’ve proven that by clinging to the word “marriage.” There’s no way they see a gay couple as deserving of the exact same civil recognition as that which they get.

    So again, the word “marriage” isn’t really special. It’s just a mechanism for maintaining separation between gay and straight unions. If anti-gay marriage people were honest, they’d admit that no matter what you called their union, they don’t want the same word used for gay unions. They’d want some linguistic difference between the two to remain so that their special status was retained.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Yes, you have, Mr. Nalle, and kudos are due you. But you were never alone in advocating that. I have published writings since nearly 15 years ago that advocate the same thing. My position has never wavered – it’s not the word “marriage,” per se – it’s having the same designation that hets have. If you get “civil marriage,”
    ” I’m entitled to the same thing. If all the government will give you is a “civil union,” then union is good enough for me too. That is important. It’s equality. Getting government out of the marriage biz and into the union biz for everyone would go a long way toward solving this problem in such a way that everyone is equal under law. And thanks for proving that a person can be a libertarian or conservative or right winger and still promote equality for al.

    Mr. Marsh: “I’ll also state that of all the arguments on this particular thread…the one that moved me more towards your position was the one that was the most civil…the ranting and the raving and the “your country” and all that other bullshit tends to move people away from your point of view, not towards it…it’s that old honey/vinegar thing…”

    Why is it bullshit if it is what I honestly believe? Why do I have to cover my true beliefs to spare the feelings of a society that has done nothing positive for me> Why must I be the one to beg, plead, cajole and debase myself for your benefit? I’ve groveled and cried and all. I’ve parsed every syllable to be nice to those who see me as less than them. Enough. Fuck them. That is where I am and I am done playing by your country’s rules or acceding to its wish to keep me and mine down. I’m sorry if you don’t like it, but your country is not mine. I don’t wnat it. I don’t want to be here. I haven’t considered myself part of this society for a VERY long time. Why must I lie to make you happy? No matter how much you may want me to conform to the American role, integrity does not permit it. Sorry if you don’t like my antipathy for this place (or rather, for its government, culture and society – the land itself is gorgeous), but I don’t like your view either.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy: colours and font size changes are not currently part of BC protocol in the comments.

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    If all the government will give you is a “civil union,” then union is good enough for me too.

    That’s the litmus test right there. What say Mark Manning and ArchC to that? Would you guys agree to having the government sanction only civil unions, even for heterosexuals, and leave the marriage designation to religious organizations?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I won’t say it again…because I know the hate that will spew forth if I do…but hey…if you’re really that unhappy here…why ARE you here? I just can’t believe it’s for the scenery!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Lori writes,

    “What say Mark Manning and ArchC to that? Would you guys agree to having the government sanction only civil unions, even for heterosexuals, and leave the marriage designation to religious organizations?”

    Maybe we should wait for them to speak on their own before putting words in their mouths for them?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    to comment #113…then explain comment #85!

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    Ruvy, I asked them a question, which means I’m waiting for them to speak.

  • Arch Conservative

    Lori said……….

    “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.”

    Yeah but the whole religion bashing routine was started much sooner than post 91 so not so much progress from where I sit. Also that was more of an attempt at a humorous cheapshot at zingzing than a comparison of beastiality and homosexuality.

    Then she said…..

    “To any men who like to tell women how to dress and act to please THEM, I say a hearty fuck you.”

    Lori if you reading comprehension were perhaps a little better you would understand that I was not telling any women how she must behave or what she must wear but rather I was saying that if one observes today’s American culture, it is obvious that the traditional ideas/notions/expectations of masculinity and feminity are still valued by a majority of the American population.

    Lori also said:

    “ArchC and Manning want their relationships to be given special status by the government and society. There’s no way they’d accept having their union be called the same thing as a gay union. They’ve proven that by clinging to the word “marriage.” There’s no way they see a gay couple as deserving of the exact same civil recognition as that which they get.”

    You’re right. I consider the union between a man and a woman special. It is different from the union of a man a man or a woman and a women in many ways. First it is the way this nation has always defined marriage. Second, a man and a women can by themselves bring life into this world for the purpose of having a family. Third a one mom/one dad family environment provides the best environment for a child to grow up in provided that the mom and dad are caring, reasonable people of good moral charcter.

    So as I have repeatedly stated time and time again and oyu have conviently ignored because it doesn’t adhere to what you want, I have no problem with the state recognizing unions between homosexuals and providing legal benefits. However as this is not a marriage, it cannot be called such.

    I suggest you stop twisiting my words and thier meaning Lori. Maybe if you tried to curb inflated sense of victimization and self pity you’d be able to slow down while reading other’s posts and better understand them.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Alright, Bing, now that you seem to be back for a bit, could I direct your attention to comment #104? Before someone starts calling names all over again?

  • zingzing

    NR Davis, #80. your seperate but equal argument isn’t all that accurate. it isn’t separated by anything except a pronunciation. don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. your fighting an uphill battle against these people… this wouldn’t be a small step, in fact, it’s a huge one… but you’re letting vocabulary get in the way of it.

    NR Davis, #84. how dare you lump me in with those people. again, you need to pick your fights. you’re too militant. ever heard of diplomacy? really, i’m very fucking disappointed you want to throw up walls in front of the actual (not metaphorical) advancement of your own people. what? do you think one day that everyone will love everyone? when is that gonna happen? stop your wishful thinking and take what’s in front of you.

    andy marsh, #89. shove it up your ass. you’re just being mean. but, at least we agree in this case. “some.” that’s the word.

    arch, #91. it is a civil right. marriage/love/etc have nothing to do with america or the catholic church. what does it matter what “most” americans want? at one time, “most” americans didn’t want black people to be equal in the eyes of the law. it’s just that simple.

    NR Davis, #93. sigh. you realize that you’re being just as stubborn as they are, right? give a little, take a whole shit load, take the rest later. if you actually are equal, in the eyes of the law, maybe people will feel less like looking down on you. you’re asking for the whole damn thing, right now! when you could have everything you really need anyway. nothing is going to change the way people think, other than gradual change. you are offered a whole chunk of change and you deny it because you want them to say it nicer.

    Lori, #96. what’s wrong with equal rights? militancy is holding everything back… i dunno… i feel less like caring when the opportunity knocks and you (non-personal) don’t like what it fucking sounds like.

    Lori, #98. no one is staying stop fighting. have black people stopped fighting? NO! this is one battle in a big old war and you could win this one.

    my god… TAKE THE RIGHTS NOW. equal rights under the law is defacto equality, and that’s as close as you get in america. what you want is for everyone to love you and respect you for what you are… but, what do you care what some hobunk in new hampshire thinks about you? have equal rights under the law. the people who care about you and who you care about can love and respect you.

    i know that was repeditive. i’m just fucking sick of watching to idiots argue about the same thing, neither side willing to budge an inch over something that means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. take on of the “r”s out of marriage. mariage. there you go. sounds the same. even looks the same when read quick enough.

    this could be so simple if both sides didn’t want to complicate it with stupid things like bullshit vocabulary and bullshit tradition and bullshit non-issues.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Small steps, Ms. Davis. Rome was not built in one day, as they say. History has demonstrated time and time again that society does not accept change suddenly or quickly, and it likely never will.

    It needs time to adjust, to discuss its issues and get out its feelings in preparation for the inevitable because rights have always ultimately trumped tradition here, it’s an American tradition.

    Slavery was a tradition (it dates back to Biblical times), but the civil and human rights of the enslaved eventually won.

    Women as second-class citizens, disenfranchised and legally considered chattel was a tradition (there are numerous references in Scripture) until it was eschewed in favor of civil and human rights.

    Segregation was also a tradition, and it also went out of practice in favor of the recognition of civil and human rights.

    As recently as the early 1970s, homosexuality was traditionally a mental illness and a crime. “Practicing homosexuals” (a.k.a. consenting adults), were traditionally arrested and imprisoned for merely being homosexuals.

    After a long and painful time — during which society slowly became much more open to publicly discussing the traditionally “taboo” subject of homosexuality, which lead either directly or indirectly to a brand new tradition of legislation against anti-gay discrimination — that tradition finally died, once and for all, in 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas).

    As far as civil rights movements go, the gay rights movement has progressed — albeit unevenly throughout our 50 states — at lightening speed.

    At this point in time, only the one-percenters like Fred Phelps truly want to turn back the clock on all of that progress.

    The people promoting and/or voting for those DOMAs in the states are trying to stem the tide. Whether they will admit it or not, they know that there’s no going back to the “old days” and they know that all they can really do is try to stop further progress (but all they’ll really do is slow it down a little bit).

    Homosexuality will never again be legally considered a mental illness or a crime, the vast majority of the American people (regardless of their current views on same-sex marriage) think that anti-gay workplace discrimination is wrong and more and more people are willing to make a compromise with “civil unions” that confer the same material benefits as marriage.

    Yes, I know and agree that “civil unions” are Jim Crow-style “separate but equal” nonsense, but there was a very recent time when a large number of people would not concede even to that notion.

    It’s coming down to a matter of semantics now. The American people are slowly, but surely, realizing that it really is very unfair to deny gay and lesbian people the material benefits of civil marriage.

    Sure, they’re still apprehensive about that one little word, but they’re getting ideologically closer and closer to accepting the inevitable: civil and human rights must always trump tradition in a free country.

    It’s all part of the process — even the seemingly irrelevant talk about changing gender roles and how people dress and behave accordingly — and if you want to “win friends and influence people,” you have to try to understand where they’re coming from, and once you do, you have to let them know that you understand and even sympathize with their emotions, or else they’ll just close their minds and harden their hearts.

    This is how bridges of understanding are built. And building and maintaining those bridges is essential because compromise is always out of the question in matters concerning civil and human rights.

    They’re almost there! It really won’t be that big of a leap for them to also support the civil recognition of same-sex marriage, you just have to be gentle and give them adequate time to adjust.

    They’re sentimental about the “old traditions” with regard to marriage, but they’re also very sentimental about that old American tradition of “liberty and justice for all.”

    It’s not appeasement or compromise to take the hands of the people who are close to taking that leap and to offer them reassurance that they will not fall off the edge of that precipice and into the abyss.

    Passionate outrage is essential because it calls attention to injustice, but once you have the attention of the people, you have to start listening and trying to understand their fears, uncertainties and doubts so that reason and logic may be applied in addressing them.

    As lori notes in comment #92, it took until comment #91 for somebody to bring up the old specters of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. Reasonable people know when to stop beating a dead and rotting strawman. Only unskilled debaters and one-percenters use those “arguments” anymore.

    Now we’ve moved past that silliness and into the realm of gender roles and identities, which is a valid concern, even if the fear upon which it is based is unfounded.

    Arch Conservative should pick up a fashion magazine or two and maybe take a trip to his local shopping mall where he will see that femininity is still very much in style.

    Of course, there is more to his concerns than mere fashion. “Women wearing trousers” is an allegory of the toll that rapidly shifting gender roles has taken upon the folks who personally witnessed that part of our history and who were perhaps overwhelmed by its pace.

    All of this dates back and is tied to the beginning of the “Sexual Revolution,” which included, among many other rapid and radical changes with regard to human sexuality and gender identity, the birth of the modern gay rights movement.

    Indeed, some people really do need to get over themselves, but simply telling them so is counterproductive. Hearts and minds are not changed by force, but rather by friendly and gentle persuasion that lets them save face and take the credit for coming around all by themselves.

  • Heckler

    Well now, this has fermented nicely.

    Let me spew a bit for people to ponder. When you have whatever religious ceremony for ther joining of two non-related adults into a new family unit, what does it say on the secular license that EVERY town and state requires and gives out?

    That’s right, a “marriage license”.

    As long as the legal document recognizing said union is called a “marriage license” then the word itself has specific legal and purely secular meaning in the context of Rights for individual people.

    Now, as suggested above, if you change the name of that license, then you can call it what you like, cover any grouping of consenting adults and recognize it as a secular legal contract condoned and sanctioned by the law.

    However, unless you change the very name of said document, then “marriage” it is for everyone, if not, then some peoples rights are being trampled.

    Yes, the semantics ARE important, but like making flags out of fireproof material rather than an amendment against flag burning, changing the name of that document can stave off quite a bit of vitriol from both sides.

    Me? I have no problem with calling a legally recognized union of consenting adults as a “marriage”. If Arch’s 2000 year old church doesn’t like it, they don’t have to recognize it as such. Such is their perogative as an institution. Luckily we Americans have the choice to not recognize that church as anything but a tax exempt building as well.

    The ONLY real issue here, are the rights of individuals. Even if they are the minority, and the majority have stated in polls they don’t want them to be called “married” that remains immaterial and irrelevant. The majority does not get to decide the Rights of any minority, that’s why we are a republic and not subject to the tyranny of the majority.

    The example of the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movements are appropriate here. In both cases the “majority” didn’t want those minorities recognized and given their rights either.

  • Arch Conservative

    I must have had something fall on my head while I was sleeping last night because some of the things that zingaling just said made sense.

    The bottom line is that when we as a society try to say that morality and law are mutually exclusive concepts we are pretty much ensuring that there can be niether law nor morality.

    The fact is that it would seem today that morality has, thanks ot the efforts of many, become a nebulous, relative concept. However it is still necessarily intertwined with the law.

    Why is murder illegal? because it is a moral judgement that says killing another is wrong, which just so happens to be accepted as true by pretty much everyone in our society.

    When we come to questions such as gay marriage, abortion, polygamy, euthenasia etc…. it becomes more cloudy what is exactly right and wrong. Society as a whole is not in such agreement with different people having many different views on these issues.

    I don’t believe that it is ammoral for two adults, be they the same sex, to be together romantically/sexually in a relationship as long as they are not harming anyone else. I think I am more than reasonable and respectul of these individuals when I say that if they are sincere then their union should be recognized by t he state and all that that entails. However I do not believe these individuals are showing others liek myself any respect when they demand that they’re union be equated compltely with the union that I or any other man may have as a woman which is known as marriage. I do not believe that these individuals are respecting the desires of mainstream society in demanding this in spite of the fact that many people feel as I do.

  • Heckler

    Arch put forward ;”The bottom line is that when we as a society try to say that morality and law are mutually exclusive concepts we are pretty much ensuring that there can be niether law nor morality.”

    Well now, you do realize that you cannot legislate morality?

    You can legislate legality, hence the rule of law. You seem to conflate the two, when nothing can be further fron the truth.

    You are going to want examples of what I mean, ok.
    Let’s look at the Ten Commandments, pillars of Judeo-Christian morality by definition. Now how many of these are actual Laws here in America?

    Steal, Murder and Perjury…a whopping 3 out of 10. And you will find laws against all three of these in just abotu every civilization ever recorded.

    So, what about the other seven? Are they not bedrocks of “morality” according to the three Faiths spawned from the Old Testament? So why aren’t they Laws?

    Again, thesis; you cannot legislate morality, but you can define and codify ethics into laws.

    Learn the difference.

  • zingzing

    yes bing, but why should homosexuals respect the desires of mainstream society? mainstream society, as you would have it, doesn’t even respect homosexuals desires for basic rights (“most americans are against gay marriage”).

    respect is a concept based in mutuality. if you don’t show respect for them, they don’t have to show respect for you, and vice-versa. if you show them a little respect, it would be returned.

    giving up on keeping the word “marriage” would be one way of showing respect, no matter which side that came from.

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    ArchC said:

    Lori if you reading comprehension were perhaps a little better you would understand that I was not telling any women how she must behave or what she must wear…

    And, ArchC, if *your* reading comprehension were perhaps a little betteer, you’d have understood comment #86 by Mark Manning:

    All these otherwise attractive women wearing trousers? What a disgrace, I’d much rather see them in skirts.

    ArchC then says:

    You’re right. I consider the union between a man and a woman special.

    Thank you. But then you go on to accuse:

    So as I have repeatedly stated time and time again and oyu have conviently ignored because it doesn’t adhere to what you want, I have no problem with the state recognizing unions between homosexuals and providing legal benefits. However as this is not a marriage, it cannot be called such.

    That’s exactly what I said you said. I said that you wanted two separate institutions, one for gay couples and one for hetero couples. You need to reread my posts. All of them had to do with the separate classifications of unions that you espouse. I didn’t ignore that issue, I addressed it head on.

    I suggest you stop twisiting my words and thier meaning Lori.

    Please provide evidence of this.

    Maybe if you tried to curb inflated sense of victimization and self pity you’d be able to slow down while reading other’s posts and better understand them.

    I’m not victimized nor do I have self-pity. I exercised my marriage rights over a decade ago when I married my husband.

    You and zingzing seem to believe that someone who advocates for gay rights must be gay. Some of us just argue and fight for what we believe in, even if we’re not members of the affected group.

    Now, as to this:

    First it is the way this nation has always defined marriage.

    So what? The definition of an American voter didn’t include women for about 150 years. Precedent is not an excuse for discrimination.

    Second, a man and a women can by themselves bring life into this world for the purpose of having a family.

    So, then, I assume you believe that infertile couples or those who choose not to have children should not also be given the status of “married”?

    Third a one mom/one dad family environment provides the best environment for a child to grow up in provided that the mom and dad are caring, reasonable people of good moral charcter.

    This is your belief, but it’s certainly not fact. And once you add “provided that the mom and dad are caring, reasonable people of good moral character,” you open a WHOLE can of worms. Should uncaring, unreasonable heterosexuals of dubious moral character (oh, and who gets to define what that is, you?) be denied a marriage license? I don’t remember anyone giving my husband and me a morality, reasoning, or caring test before we got married or had children. It’s a false premise–with magically subjective criteria–on which to base your argument.

  • http://www.educateddoubt.com lori

    Why is murder illegal? because it is a moral judgement that says killing another is wrong,

    It’s also illegal because it infringes on another individual’s rights. That’s where the law should draw the line on personal matters: only where my actions infringe upon someone else’s rights.

  • zingzing

    lori: “You and zingzing seem to believe that someone who advocates for gay rights must be gay. Some of us just argue and fight for what we believe in, even if we’re not members of the affected group.”

    do you not see that i’m arguing for gay rights as well? did you miss the fact that i said “you (non personal)?” i get the fact that you aren’t gay. neither am i. i believe that equal rights is within gay america’s grasp. some are willing to take it. some are letting vocabulary bog down the debate so far that nothing can happen. change doesn’t happen overnight. it takes place gradually. and, like someone else said, within the gay rights arena, change is happening at an exceptional rate. why slow it down?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Well, Natalie, I tried:

    I can’t get Bing to even look at my ideas or at how your ideas and his converge…

    And everybody else is back to tearing each other apart as they were.

    It’s like you need to fire a gun into the air to get everyone quiet (pulled from War Between the Worlds).

  • http://samueljames.blogspot.com Samuel James

    Fred Phelps is a lunatic who DOES NOT speak for ANY Christian denomination or school of thought. He is simply a intellectual terrorist in love with being on Page 1.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, they have arrived at an impasse over a word. nothing could be more trivial. i can see the point lori and nr are trying to make. it is an honest point. and one that should be addressed. but… it’s still just a word. it’s not a different water fountain. it’s nothing physical, nothing real. language is used to describe things. two words can be used to describe the same exact thing. the same word can describe two completely different things. language is a tool, a means to an end. it is nothing more. what is the hebrew word for marriage? is the concept still the same? is it fundamentally better or worse than the anglo-american version?

    bing: “no, you can’t have it, because of the word.”
    NR: “no, we won’t take it, because of the word.”

    it’s all very self-defeating. you can have pride in who you are, but please don’t let that pride get in the way of what you can have.

  • Arch Conservative

    Lori…….. gay’s don’t have the right to get married there permitting them to get married is not infringing upon their rights.

    That’s right Ruvy you can’t. I’m not going to roll for Lori and let them ruin this country under the guise of compassion and understanding for all.

    “Tolerance is a virtue of a man with no convictions.”
    -Gilbert K. Chesterson

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Zing,

    The Hebrew word for ‘married’ is nisúi (or nisuyá for the feminine form). And this term refers only to marriage between men and women. But there is another word in Hebrew, ‘zúg’ that refers to a couple. This term need not refer to a pairing only between men and women, though it is usually used that way. ‘Ben zúg’ would be used here to mean the male member of the couple and ‘bat zúg’, the female member – but it need not be that way…

    This is all modern Hebrew, of course. Israel does tolerate homosexuals living together and is a lot less discriminatory than are the States.

    Nevertheless, different languages display different thought patterns. And different cultures. If this putz Phelps (a nod to Mark’s subject) had shown up at the military funeral of a kid who had been gay, after the funeral, his face would have been mashed into a pulp and his teeth buried with the gravestones. All this courtesy of the men in his unit.

    Which brings me to my final point. In Israel marriage does not get you any benefits, per se. Hell, you can’t even stay home and “pleasure the bride” for a year. You go straight off to the army unless you are sitting over a Talmud 7 hours a day and have a permit to do so.

    So there is no baloney over the right to get married. There is no money in it. And if there isn’t money to be had out of it, Israelis gernerally do not care about it. So this argument does not happen here.

    Of course, if the secularists can get civil marriage passed…

  • zingzing

    ruvy, what i am saying is that marriage is a similar concept no matter how you say it… whether it is said “nisúi,” “nisuyá” or “civil union.” what it means is that two people love each other and want people to know it. they are declaring and proving their love to the world and each other. also, in the us, it gets you some nice tax benefits, and some other, very basic, rights. it is a ritual that almost every human civilization and society follows. it is remarkably similar in intent the world over. yet, it is described using a multitude of words.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Zing, I erred. The word for married is “nasúi” or “n’suyá” for the feminine form. “Nisúi” means “experiment” and even though each marriage seems to be an experiment, the word is from an entirely different root altogether.

    My point was that Hebrew has a way to adequately describe a homosexual couple without everybody getting a heart attack over the issue.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Heckler…you missed one…#7…I believe adultery is still a crime in many parts of the US…it’s not enforced…but it’s still a crime…and #9…bearing false witness…something along the lines of filing a false police report…that kinda stuff…

    but I got your point…

    you sure type familiar…like maybe you used to use a different name???

    Margaret…YOU have such a great way of putting things…you make your points in such a nice way…no yelling, ranting, raving…none of that and still…you manage to sway people (me)…keep writing lady…you’re awesome!

  • Rene

    I wish there were more people like Lori, NR Davis and Margaret. Yes, it would make it a better world Arch.

  • Nancy

    Getting back to the subject, Fred Phelps, why on earth hasn’t he been prosecuted for child abuse, if as stated he punched his baby? As far as I’ve last heard, that’s a felony. It would seem to be easy to put him away, just on those charges. So why is he still running around loose?

    Just wondering….

  • Dave Nalle

    He punched a baby? For real? Got a source on that?

    Dave

  • http://indemnification.blogspot.com -E

    Congrats, this article was picked for one of this week’s Ed Picks. Keep up the good work.

  • Heckler

    Andy, I did say Perjury, which is “bearing false witness against your neighbor”

    The others may wind up occasionally as local laws, but Federally I do think it is only the three.

    And yeah, you know me.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    my bad…you did…now I just have to figure out who you REALLY are….I’ve narrowed it down…to two or three…probably only two…keep writing…maybe I’ll figure it out.

  • Heckler

    Oh Andy, nothing to lose sleep over, hit your rack and sleep it off.

    That’s all the clues for you, pilgrim.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    now…I read that…and it makes me believe it’s one of my most favorite BC contributors!

  • MCH

    Andy;

    We know we can rule-out Mac Diva…

  • Heckler

    It’s not supposed to be about “me” people. That is a big part of why this name rather than the one I’m more known for. I’m damn tired of discussion devolving into the personalities involved rather than the issues under consideration.

    Hence, the nomenclature I am currently utilizing for myself, and a bit of a different writing style.

    That all being said, and to drag this back to the original topic.

    So many of today’s current geopolitical problems are arising from fundamentalist elions and the intolerance those brands of faith have for each other.

    Any leader is responsible for how they lead and the examples they set. Mix that in with messianic worldviews, absolutist tenets of dogma, and faith based politics, and you get people at the throats of the “infidels/heretics” to the death.

    This makes glaringly apparent the wisdom of our Founders in keeping church and state seperate, and shows that the Turks at least “got it” in the Middle East when Attaturk (sp?) forced the country into secularism in the last century.

    Now, would that others followed those examples. Including the WH.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Fred Phelps picketed Randy Shilts funeral. That was in the late 80’s or early 90’s. He picketed Matthew Shepards funeral. He’s picketed dozens upon dozens of funerals of gay people over the decade.

    America did nothing.

    Then he pickets soldiers funerals and legislation is passed forbidding it, and people speak out against it.

    Among gay people, it doesn’t go unnoticed that it was the picketing of heterosexual funerals that got a reaction in this country. If he had just stuck with picketing gay funerals, he would have probably still had the blessing of the majority.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    SteveS – I’d say that’s something you have to blame on the MSM. I never heard of this guy until he started on the military funerals.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Dear god he’s Arch Conservative!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    There is a difference between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony, and there are a number of Christians who do not consider a couple really married if they were not married in a church and/or by a member of the clergy.

    The state confers the material benefits of marriage upon couples regardless of their religious affiliations because the civil marriage contract is nothing more than a legal document that outlines the couple’s obligations with regard to property, taxation, inheritance, healthcare, etc.

    It’s all very secular and businesslike and has nothing to do with faith or spirituality or even emotion and the only ethics that apply to it are those required to fulfill one’s contractual responsibilities because the state is a secular and businesslike institution.

    Objective Morality: don’t lie, cheat, steal or murder.

    I think I know who Heckler is, too. Why the transformation?

    And, finally, congratulations, Mr. Manning, it really was a well-written and thought provoking article.

  • zingzing

    “pilgrim.”

    yep.

    kind of a “the artist formerly known as” move… but now that everybody knows…

  • Arch Conservative

    Why does the post have to be steered back to gay marriage again and again?

    The topic of the post is what an ass Phelps is.

    You’d think people on BC would be happy to see people on all the different sides of the sociopolitical spectrum finally finding some degree of agreement and middle ground on one thing.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    AC – that’s why I made one of the first comments I made…I would have thought that would be good enough…everybody agrees that Phelps is a dickhead…but you and I have read these comments and it was quite obvious from the beginning that busting on Phelps wasn’t enough for some people.

  • Heckler

    Margaret, I’m fairly certain you would know. See my first paragraph in #147 for a partial “why”.

    Arch, it gets steered back to that topic because it is the basis around which many people have difficulty concerning Phelps and his ilk. Only natural that the sub-topic comes up.

    You do raise an excellent point, that we should be happy when we all agree, the question here is not just that we all think this guy is a dink…

    But WHY we think so, that is the crux of it, as well as the discussion on gay marriage rights. That argument is summed up eloquently by Margaret in #151.

    It doesn’t get better than that.

  • zingzing

    what do you two (bing and andy) want? 155 comments that all say “phelps can suck my dick” or “phelps can fuck my shit” or “phelps can shave my sack?” yes, we all despise the asshole.

    did you really expect everyone to go “finally! something we can all agree on!” without asking “wait, what are we agreeing on? shouldn’t we be arguing about something?”

    this is blogcritics.org. it’s stupid that way.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    zing – sometimes…just sometimes..i don’t want to argue with people…not even you! It’s like anti-pms!

    I guess on those days…I should stay away from BC?

  • zingzing

    probably. you know how it gets. there’s a post in the music section today where someone is listing off some of their favorite punk songs and dave nalle is questioning if they even know what punk is… and they made a point of pointing out that they aren’t going to be strict in their definitions at the beginning of the post… it’s ridiculous what people will argue about.

  • http://www.tresbleu/blogspot.com Sister Ray

    Everybody here knows what a big jerk Phelps is. The best way to do anything about him is to ignore him. Don’t give him the satisfaction of more Google hits.

    Pay him no heed unless he is in your town disrupting a funeral. Then go do something nonviolent to shield the funeral-goers from him. Think of it as a civic duty, like pulling over for an ambulance.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    when someone doesn’t want to argue, it’s because their viewpoint is on the losing side, right?

    😉

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    LOL

  • MAOZ

    Hey, ya want something else to argue about? How about DC Statehood? As in, “#104 Ruvy: You say the American public has demonstrated ‘in over 50 states…’ What the…?! Since when are there over 50 states in the US? Did somebody grant statehood to the District of Columbia while I was looking the other way?”

    Nah, never mind. Just chalk that up as petty nitpicking, not an actual attempt at topic derailment. ‘Night, all.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    MAOZ,

    I was quoting another fellow, who is not quite as conservative with his numbers as his moniker would lead you to believe. It is rather arch to imply that the US has more than 50 states. Good catch!

  • Nancy

    Statehood for DC? That’s a good one. Arguments against: people who choose to live in DC do so knowing there are no federal voting rights there ahead of time; bitching about it afterwards is like choosing to live next to an airport, and then complaining about the noise of the airplanes. The population thereby disenfranchised is of limited numbers. If they really want to vote, they can rent mailboxes in MD or VA as their “legal” residences, and vote via absentee ballot. Granting a city the same status as a state is insanity. If they want it that badly, then declare for voting purposes that DC is part of MD, and DC-ers vote as part of MD. At most that would give MD another seat in the house for added population; but to give a city the status of an entire state? Unreasonable. It would be more feasible to declare Los Angeles or NYC a state, in that event.

    What the Votes For DC club is after is the federal MONEY they can get if they are declared a state for voting purposes. DC is a recognized black hole of a money pit, and has been since good ol’ Marion Barry first took office. The ability of the DC government to waste monies due to fraud, abuse, and just plain incompetence is truly breathtaking. Those clowns STILL don’t even know how many students they have in their schools, years and years after this problem first surfaced! They claim their schools still don’t have decent books, etc. – so what do they do with their funds they do have? They write a sweetheart deal to end all sweetheart deals, giving the money in perpetuity to the Baseball Commission to snag a half-assed team which is NOT a necessity, in order to build (on DC’s dime) a brand new stadium, all proceeds of which also go to pro baseball – which imo is a dead sport, well past the time merciful persons should put a bullet thru it to end it’s ongoing boredom.

    No: people who waste money like this hardly need the ability to get their hands on more via the excuse of needing federal voting status.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    SteveS – have you read any of my comments on this thread? I’ve changed my ideas on this…and pretty much said so in comment #72…but you’re right if I’m on your side…I MUST be losing! I just don’t get it is all…I’ve read it on

    Like I said…it doesn’t matter what you write or say around here…

    think I’m gonna change my name too!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    andy, it was a little humor at your expense, that’s all.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    yeah yeah…I have feelings you know! Not sure where I put them…they’re around here somewhere!

  • zingzing

    i put them in your sock drawer. didn’t you put on socks this morning? by the way–porn in the sock drawer is so… typical. i put mine in the pants drawer.

  • http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=url&cid=375927 Jet in Columbus

    Hmmmm Let me check Andy’s photo again before I comment on 168 & 169…

  • Arch Conservative

    My feelings are all in my right foot and I like expressing them by sticking it up a liberal’s ass.

  • http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=url&cid=375927 Jet in Columbus

    Arch!!! If you’re going to quote Red Foreman at least give him credit!!! you kink devil!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Arch, is that so your foot’s feelings can say hello to your ideology?

  • Arch Conservative

    No it’s just that the liberal ideology in today’s society has become nothing but a vaccum of definitive morality under the guise of compassion and equality and it makes me sick.

  • http://blogcritics.org/mt/mt-comments.php?mode=url&cid=375927 Jet in Columbus

    Arch is that you mouth to god’s ear, or just your tongue in it?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Interesting, in that’s how I see ‘compassionate conservatism’ or conservatism in general. It’s morality, wrapped up in a warped Biblical interpretation that conservatives want people other than themselves to live by. It’s just dropped the guise of compassion and equality, that’s the only difference.

    I suppose the difference between you and I is that my response is not one of violence.

  • Arch Conservative

    It’s reality Jet. I mean what else can one be led to believe when you have the ACLU providing pro bono legal reprersentation for NAMBLA after one of it’s mambers, Charlers Jaynes raped and killed a 5 year old massachusetts boy all the while bashing everything christian.

    When lefties are more upset that terrorists are being tortured than by the fact that those terrorists want to kill AMerican civilians.

    As for you Steve….it seems like it is the secular progressives who want to make everyone live under thier particualr belief system as it seems to be their goal tro eradicate all expressions of christianity by private citizens in public.
    the first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    prohibiting the free exercise thereof means that congress nor anyone else shall be allowed to exercise their religion as a private citizen wether in public or private…..but don’t tell that to the christophobic aclu whose goal it is is to eradicate all signs of christianity from our culture through thier lawsuits and bullshit revisionist hertiage that would have us believe that we were not in fact founded by predominantly christians

  • Arch Conservative

    allowed to prohibit that should read

  • Arch Conservative

    Hmm I guess I will have to wait for all the hard working liberal BC posters to roll out of bed at the crack of noon before I get a flurry of bullshit responses.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    it seems like it is the secular progressives who want to make everyone live under thier particualr belief system

    you mentioned earlier, Arch, ‘why must this thread go back to gay marriage?’, well, since you talk about TRYING to make someone live under a particular belief system, I need to bring it back there one more time.

    My family is unfairly taxed, denied benefits, rights and privileges because I am ALREADY forced to live under another’s belief system. Guess paybacks a bitch, I dunno.

    as it seems to be their goal tro eradicate all expressions of christianity by private citizens in public.

    Sometimes it does seem odd, some of the battles that are chosen in court, however it’s equally odd to reject a full half of the political spectrum because of the actions of a few organizations or some instances that end up in the ‘odd’ files on the news.

    the first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    Well, if there’s anybody who’s totally urinated on the Constitution and all it stands for, it would be conservatives. So what’s your point?

    but don’t tell that to the christophobic aclu whose goal it is is to eradicate all signs of christianity from our culture

    The aclu seems to be the biggest beef with conservatives, who reject every aspect of liberal ideology. Yet these same conservatives will say that extremists like Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson do not represent all of the conservative spectrum, failing to see the hypocrisy.

    through thier lawsuits and bullshit revisionist hertiage that would have us believe that we were not in fact founded by predominantly christians

    a lot of conservatives continually go on about the religious beliefs of our forefathers. My own opinion is that it is moot. Just because one of our forefathers worshipped a particular way, I don’t think he would have intended for us all to do the same.

    And it’s not even 7 a.m.. Not everybody lives on your street corner. Try looking outside your little box for once.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Please don’t lump all of us conservatives into one stereotype as there are libertarian and authoritarian conservatives, and we don’t like being confused with one another any more than authoritarian, capitalist and socialist liberals like being lumped together into one classification.

    The media condenses all those complicated ideologies into two groups: red and blue, right and left, Republicans and Democrats, as if there are only two teams and everybody in America belongs to one or the other.

    (And nevermind us non-partisans, we don’t really count because we would add too many colors to all those neat little graphic presentations that are supposed to represent American diversity. They call the alternatives to the two major parties “third parties,” which is just as offensive as referring to the developing nations of the Earth as the “Third World.”)

    FWIW, I do not understand how people who support capitalism and the free market do not also support individual liberty and limiting the role of government to protecting and defending the rights of the people. (Nor do I understand the supposed liberals who wish to see our Second Amendment effectively repealed, but that’s another matter entirely.)

    Even if some conservatives are not swayed by the notion that “liberty and justice for all” includes equal recognition and protection under the law for gay and lesbian people, they ought to at least realize that denying homosexuals their right to civil marriage is a form of authoritarian socialism (rules for behavior that do not protect and defend the rights of the people, but are rather intended to serve the “good of the collective”) and therefore, anti-capitalist.

    BTW, those of us who have children are always up early, regardless of our politics. And we have to feed them and dress them and help them find something to do (they’re already out of school down here in the Sunshine State) before we can sit down to rant and rave on our computers.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Indeed. My kid is still in school, and I often volunteer there on Fridays, as was the case today. Plus, there are chores, vocational crap, family non-cleaning-related tasks (today, dealing with insurance claims for Spousal Unit’s recent illness; making a dentist appointment for the kid; trying to figure out how and if the rent will get paid by next Thursday). There are many tasks more important than ranting on a Web site, however great BC is. Perhaps we should be concerned that Mr. ArchConservative doesn’t have actually meaningful things to do with his early mornings.

    As to a response, Ms. Toigo covered much of what I wanted to say, so I’ll defer to her and thank her for her thoughts. I know most on the Right AND Left oppose my equality – why on earth would I want to be lumped in with any of them for any reason? And why categorize anyway? Many of us fall in different places on different issues. I used to be a Republican. Once was a Democrat. Neither suits me. Both parties are unsuitable for many people. What? We don’t count? (Rhetorical. I already know the answer and it’s why I need to expatriate.) We are expected to live our ives as dictated by a set of beliefs we don’t hold? Expect what you will, but you’ll be disappointed if you expect obedience, and if you demand loyalty or pleasantness for your ske, you leave me no choice but to laugh in your face. Individual liberty is supposed to be the thing respected, so long as we don’t violate the rights of others. So why is it OK to violate mine and those of millions based on the superstitions of others? (Again, rhetorical; I’ve heard your answers almost all my life and have no need for them to undergo the psychic abuse that comes with hearing/reading them again.) The why isn’t important so much as that this injustice is OK or tolerable to so many. For many, it isn’t and can not be. Expecting us to be nice about it is ludicrous. If you were in our shoes, you wouldn’t be unless taught to hate yourself.

  • Arch Conservative

    With regard to gay marriage. You have not been denied any rights Steve. You have the legal right toi get married to a woman just like every other american man. That’s what a marriage is and just because a person says they have a right to something does not mean you do otherwise I’d be saying i have the right to bang jessica simpson whenever the ,ood strikes me.

  • Arch Conservative

    an , isn’t an m

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Oh, that’s funny: The BS answer came from Mr. ArchConservative. Avoids the issue. If we are allowed to pursue happiness – and I can tell you from personal experience that a queer person who submits to marrying an opposite-sex person to suit society and/or denies himself of herself love will not be a happy person – then your view sets up that queers who want to marry and commit to the person OF THEIR CHOICE (a right YOU and HETEROSEXUALS have) are not permitted to pursue happiness under law. Those who follow their hearts will suffer from the inequality built into the system and if they attempt to cobble together their own tentative protections such as EXPENSIVE powers-of-attorneys and wills and such that can still be overturned by bigoted families and courts (’cause that’s all that’s available, even under Jim Crow, which is NOT equal to or the same as civil marriage). My family suffers every day. SteveS’s family suffers. Millions of FAMILIES suffer needlessly because of a mendacious country that claims equality for all but REFUSES to practice what it preaches (hell, most of your kind doesn’t even consider us to BE families). Which leads me to profane thoughts about your country for mandating such a vile, unforgivable legal inequity and for LYING and about you and those who support and defend such an unAmerican practice. Denying freedom? Denying equality? You call that equality or justice? I will keep my reply mild, but know it doesn’t express fully my feelings: Shame on you. Shame on your country.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    To Margaret, I do not usually lump all conservatives in with each other, however when someone like AC lumps all liberals together, I usually just respond in kind. I note that it’s always my response that gets called on the carpet though, but that’s neither here nor there.

    You have the legal right toi get married to a woman just like every other american man.

    For someone so adamant about preserving the sanctitiy of marriage, AC, you are certainly willing to throw the emotion of love out with the garbage.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    What’s love got to do with it? Couldn’t help it…as soon as I read that line…I could here Tina singing to me!!!

  • Arch Conservative

    When are you people going to get it through your thick skulls.

    Homosexuals do not have any right to get married.

    Nothing is being violated.

    You don’t get to make up rights and demand that society give these made up rights to you.

    I’ve had enough of this bullshit self-pityfest.

    If you don’t like it..too fuckign bad.

    Move to the Netherlands or Massachusetts and stay there and leave the rest of us the fuck alone because we’re sick of hearing you bitch.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    AC’s rigid interpretation of marriage may be one of the things which explains the high rate of divorce in America. For him it would apparently be better to be in a failed and destructive hetero marriage than a successful and loving gay one.

    That seems like a poor ly conceived approach to marriage for all involved, especially the kids.

    Dave

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Here we go: Truth.

    Mr. ARchConservative: “Homosexuals do not have any right to get married.”

    Which proves equality does not exist under law in the US. Thanks for finally telling the unvarnished truth, as I expected you would after my last comment.

    Until you write me a big fat check to finance my expatriation, I don’t care if you’re sick about me bitching about being unequal under law. I’m just as disgusted by the drivel you spew.

    How about this: It’s not enough that you support the denial of my equal protection and pursuit of happiness under law for what you see as a “greater good” (indeed a socialist concept). You want us to give up our freedom of expression for the comfort of discriminatory heterosexuals too? Fuck YOU.

    Ms. Toigo: I so understand the bridge-building stuff you talked about earlier and my published work over the past two decades demonstrates this. Common ground is important to discover. But sometimes, when it comes down to basics, it just is NOT possible. I want to see you happily defer to someone whose beliefs impact your life so negatively and so directly. My integrity is more important to me than their sensibilities. Obviously, they don’t give a hoot for protecting mine; hell, they’re happy to see my family suffer. If they are determined to have superior status under law, they should have no problem financing the escape of GLBT people and families to other shores. Hell, it will give them the country they want.

  • zingzing

    bing, no one is going to pay attention to that. because it’s stupid.

    homosexuality has been a reality since pre-history. it’s only religion that looks down on it. so, if a person is non-religious, or if a state is non-religious, then homosexual vs heterosexual love/marriage isn’t really a talking point. since when did religion have anything to do with marriage, in its legal definition?

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    You get offered everything but a word and somehow everyone is trampling all over your rights…what a crock of shit! Your all or nothing attitude is gonna get you exactly what your asking for…NOTHING!

    I’m done with this thread!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    The values that hold marriages and families together — trust, loyalty, respect, cooperation and fortitude — should mean a lot more to us than some “traditional” demographic model.

    Is biology more important than character? Is the composition of a marriage/family more important than the commitments that make it meaningful and worth preserving?

    Lawrence vs. Texas recognized that adults have an equal right to consensual fornication and promiscuity, regardless of their sexual orientation.

    And most people do not seem to have a problem with that — except for those authoritarian one-percenters who’d like the anti-sodomy and anti-fornication laws to be reinstated for everyone, regardless of orientation.

    Considering this, those folks who are so concerned about morality and family values shouldn’t have a problem recognizing that gay and lesbian people also have the right to civil marriage.

    Again, I must ask The Question: Whose rights will be violated/denied when we recognize homosexuals’ right to civil marriage?

    I’ve asked that question countless times and have yet to receive an answer because it is a trick question whose answer I already know: nobody’s rights will be violated because the right to have certain preferred traditions codified into our laws does not exist. The state is not obliged to uphold any tradition to the detriment of the rights of the people.

    There is no such thing as a right to tradition, only the right of individuals to practice their traditions, so long as they do not violate the rights of others in doing so.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Andy, offered everything but a word? Hardly. There are 1,700 federal and state benefits, rights and privileges of marriage. Except for Mass., the gay community is offered about 30 of those, at most.

    Your all or nothing attitude is gonna get you exactly what your asking for…NOTHING!

    How DARE we demand ALL our rights, instead of the meager ones you so graciously wish to throw at our feet! How DARE we!

  • zingzing

    i think andy has come around a bit and is saying that giving equal (marriage) rights to gay couples is fine. i don’t know if he likes using the word “marriage” for this… but, i don’t think he is against equal rights.

    that seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people (on both sides) of this argument. just the word. that’s what he’s saying: gay people want the rights and the word, (some) conservatives are okay with the rights, but not the word… and that’s where this thing is getting held up.

  • Arch Conservative

    The only thing it proves is that your view of equality is not consistent with reality NR.

    Semantics, semantics, semantics, there is no such thing as gay marriage. therefore your continued references to an illusionary conecpt are meaning less.

    the fact is that you and you’re ilk will not be allowed to force you will upon american society nr

    there are many many many many more people that feel like i do than you do and we’re not prepared to roll over so you can have your way….

    your constant bitching and whining about something that you feel you have a right to but you actually don’t has grown so old…..

    i’m so sick of hearing it and am at the poitn where i fell i might just start rubbing it in your face every day that you are not allowed to marry and you never will be……

    I can be an extremely spiteful person in the face of extremeyl self-centered, unreasonable, and obstiante idiocy such is the sum of your intellectual capacities

    FUCK ME? NO FUCK YOU!!!!!!

    I think I will do just that. I think I will have to seek out which posts you post on every day to remind you that you have no right to marriage and you never will and to laugh about it……..TO RUB IT IN YOUR FACE!!!!! TO MAKE YOU ANGRIER THAN YOU ALREADY ARE………….TO NEVER LET YOU FORGET IT………..NOTHING WOULD GIVE ME MORE SATISFACTION…………

    [Archie, it’s time for your medication – equal parts prozac and humble pie, isn’t it? Thank you. Comments Editor]

  • zingzing

    you’re on the wrong side of history bing. and don’t comment-stalk someone. i’m sure that’s against the rules.

    there are gay people on your street, there are gay people at your childrens’ schools, there are gay people at your work, there are gay people on this site. you are surrounded by people demanding tolerance, while the intolerant people you claim won’t roll over are disappearing.

    it’s going to be rubbed into your face, it’s going to make you angrier than you already are and it’s not going to let you forget. you aren’t going to be satisfied, you are going to be shamed.

  • Arch Conservative

    I am more than tolerant as I have stated I have no problem with civil unions and legal rights.

    It is the extremist homosexual activists with thier all or nothing mentality that are intolerant of our nation’s heritage, culture and of the desire of the majority of Americans to have marriage remain one man one woman.

    All or nothing….if that’s the way they want it…fuck’ em they get nothing!

  • zingzing

    dude, they’re going to get it all. it’s just a matter of time. i sincerely hope they take what they can get now, and then work towards everything else that they want. dinner’s on the table… don’t worry about desert yet.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    It’s not often I get to hurl a hearty “Bravo!!” to Dave Nalle, but his is one of them.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Mr. Zing, it’s not just the word. It’s equality. Similar isn’t equality. Civil union, which some people claim is the same thing under a different name (though it is not the same, when researched fully), it isn’t equality. If everyone gets unionized under law and married in church, that’s cool, but if one group has access to legal marriage and the other doesn’t, it is not equality. Even in Massachusetts, legally married gay couples are still unequal under federal law, which violates the Full Faith and Credit promised in the mendacious US Constitution. It isn’t equality.

    No, not “nothing,” Mr. Marsh. By not knuckling under, we get to keep our dignity and integrity. Unless anti-gay hets want to take that away from us too…

    If the word means nothing to you, how about the hets leaving “marriage” to churches and “union” to legal, non-religious courthouse ceremonies? You know they won’t do that. So point your laserlike focus on the Right and find a real justification for it, because the ones being tossed around – including tradition – are bogus.

    There is no legal right to tradition imposing traditions on an entire society. Forbid something if it violates other people’s rights, but because it’s always done that way? It’s unconscionable and inhumane and unjustifiable and immoral and wrong. It’s the reason I am not part of your country despite being born here, something I did not choose. How dare WE? Screw that: How dare anti-gay folks assume they can ruin people’s lives with impunity and in the worst way possible (I believe lack of legal equality a worse abuse and violence than murder)? And then they expect us to accept it? As if.

    Mr. Marsh (if you’re still reading and if you still care), please examine your devotion to having a legal word and status specially crafted to keep people like me separate from the rest of you. Just think about it.

  • Arch Conservative

    They’re going to get it all?

    Why do you say this? Based on what.

    In EVERY state in the nation in which a ballot initiative regarding gay marriage has been put forth to the voters..they have voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage, including some very liberal states like michigan and oregon

    The only state in the country which allows it, Mass, had to have liberal activists on the courts force it down the state’s throat despite the wishes of the people of that state. the pro gay marriage lobby in that state are trying like hell to keep it off the ballot as a voter referendum because they know they would lose……

    society as a whole ought to be able to determine what they consider to be thier norms and practices…a society shouldn’t be forced into going against what they desire to be these norms and practices bya very small but very vocal minority…

    based on the evidence so far this society has decided that they will not be bullied into allowing this to happen

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    You know when I was a kid I used to put lots of spaces in my homework to make it look bigger too!

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    202 Arch save you fantasies for somewhere else, even I’m not turned on!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    To play devil’s advocate for a moment, AC does have a point of sorts. Those in the gay community who will accept nothing short of gay marriage are ultimately doing themselves a disservice by rejecting equivalent but not identical status when it is offered. By overreaching they may well end up with nothing as AC suggests.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    nr–so if a person gets married in a church, they have more rights than someone who gets married at a courthouse? i did not know this. i will look it up. i don’t know where to look. could you point me in the right direction?

  • zingzing

    or are you saying that it’s the federal vs. state thing?

    i’m all for federal legislation creating equal treatment under the law (and i think it’s already there). i would hope they would still call it marriage (i don’t see any reason not to).

    hrm… my question is (and i think i know the answer), would you be satisfied with absolutely equal treatment under the law, even if the legal process was not referred to, legally (not personally), as “marriage?” keep in mind that every single thing, excepting the term, would be equal.

  • zingzing

    oh, and when i say “i think [the federal legislation] is already there,” i should add, “but it is being ignored.”

  • ARCH CONVERSATIVE IS A HEARTLESS, BRAINLESS IDIOT

    If that guy has a wife, I pity the poor woman. She ended up with less than a man.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    #204 & 205 – ROFLMAO!

    Mr. ArchConservative, I’ll thank you for this: Reminding me just how vile American society is. Until you write the check sending queer people to a more habitable place, your taunts mean less than nothing, save as a reason to laugh at you and how pathetic you sound. Relax: You’re top dog, just as you want it. Bully for the bully. I’ve been praying for you for a long time. Guess I’ll have to redouble my efforts on your behalf. Oh, and save your breath saying the tired, “Keep your prayers for yourself.” THIS you and your discriminatory laws cannot stop me from doing. I would love to see you try. LOL…

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    are ultimately doing themselves a disservice by rejecting equivalent but not identical status when it is offered.

    Separate but equal has been rejected by the Supreme Court in regards to water fountains. I think it would also apply in regards to benefits, rights and privileges.

    zing, that’s not what she’s saying. She’s saying the current civil unions offered to gay people are a mere fraction of the benefits, rights and privileges that go with marriage.

  • Arch Conservative

    Those in the gay community who will accept nothing short of gay marriage are ultimately doing themselves a disservice by rejecting equivalent but not identical status when it is offered.

    Yes even when it’s offered by a ..how did that guy just describe me? a class a asshole with a hetful attitude?

    I understand where NR is coming from. I’m think she thinks I’m the guy that dragged Matthew Shepard behind his pickup truck, but I’m not. There’s a world of difference between me and those guys and I think the only thing that NR and I may ever be able to agree on is that hose guys should rot in hell for eternity for what they did.

    But when you get right down to it what I said before is absoutley correct. the current state of affairs in America is that we have a very small minority trying to dictate against the wishes of the overwelming majority of our population, a definition of marriage. it is causing resentment toward the homosexual activists where there might not be any among conservatives like if this were not being done.

    I’m not some hateful person denigrating homosexuals as you can see from my posts but I will not accept anything that alter’s our traditional institutions and morals

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Mr. ArchConservative wrote: “I understand where NR is coming from. I’m think she thinks I’m the guy that dragged Matthew Shepard behind his pickup truck, but I’m not.”

    No, I don’t think that. As I already said earlier, I m sure most of you anti-GLBTers don’t want us beaten and killed. You just want us unequal under law and silent. And, as I said, that desire made tangible under the law of the land, though different from Matt Shepard’s killers, has the same effect. Worse, even: At least Matt is free from it now. Those of us still breathing have to live under it every day.

    In any case, talking with you is a waste of my time.

  • zingzing

    steves: “She’s saying the current civil unions offered to gay people are a mere fraction of the benefits, rights and privileges that go with marriage.”

    i know the facts of the matter. we aren’t talking about the current laws. at least i’m not. i’m talking about what could be had in the future. obviously, the current laws are not sufficient. would we be having this debate if they were?

    it seems some people (come on, bing is okay with it!) are willing to concede equal “marriage” rights under the law to gay couples. that’s a step forward. minds are changing.

    they just won’t budge on the word “marriage.” neither side seems to be able to. i think this debate is ridiculous to begin with, as it’s fairly obvious that, as human beings, gay people deserve all the rights that straight people do. but when the debate gets bogged down in a stupid word, it becomes comedy.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Currently, in America, it is not a crime to be gay. And gay people pay taxes. And with the sodomy rulings by the Supreme Court, that said that consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own homes, we now have the ONLY difference between gay and straight relationships a societal perception based on biblical mores. You can’t create a democratic society on that principle.

    Consenting adults are consenting adults, period.

    If you want marriage to remain between a man and a woman, then you need to have only churches do marriages. The government should give gay people AND straight people civil unions. Then you could do whatever you want with the word marriage.

    Okay? So consider this:

    As a LEGAL TAXPAYER just like AC, I am 100% entitled to everything he gets from the State. What is the basis for denying me everything he gets? Tradition?

    Personally, the government should have no business playing doting father and rewarding/punishing relationships between consenting adults. However, since people wish the government to be all wrapped up in relationships, then it’s got to be wrapped up in them all equally.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    Oh, one last thing: If you put arbitary traditions above the well-being and legal equality of individuals and families, you’re pushing a hateful proposition and supporting a hateful reality. You are an accessory to harming people who obviously mean nothing to you and over whom you claim some superior status allowable under a tradition that conveniently works for YOU. So if you yourself are not hateful, you’re certainly indifferent to the suffering of others – and THAT, sir, is hateful by definition.

  • Arch Conservative

    Ok Natalie let me lay out exactly how I feel about it.

    I am for cvivil unions between consenting adults of the sem sex which bestow All of the same legal benefits as marriage but are also subject to ALL of the same constraints. But in keeping with tradtion and respecting the wishes of most of AMerican society these unions should be recognized as anything you want to call it other than marriage. I do not believe homsosexuals shoudl be discriminated aginst in any way on the job, at school, or otherwise, I do not believe it is ok to harm someone physically, mentally, or emotionally soley based on thier sexual orientation.

    What exactly about what I just said makes me an evil, intolerant, hateful, bastard who does not respect the rights of homosexuals? What about what I just said is unacceptable to you?

    I am sorry for being such an ass with all the capitals and such. I realize what you might have to deal with from some people. Maybe they call you names, say you’re ammoral, tell you you
    re a bad person who’s going to hell, try to harm you etc….But that aint me and if you look at all my posts on this threads you can see that. I don’t hate you or anyone else because they are gay but I do feel that I am definitely being more resaonable on this particular issue than you.

    I have said me peace on this issue it is getting old. There are better things to talk about now like someone shotting up DC today. I’ll leave it to you guys to decide for yourself

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    The SCOTUS ruled years ago that separate but equal fosters an element of ostracization and exclusion which is an infringement upon the Pursuit of Happiness. I didn’t make that ruling, the SCOTUS did.

    If you want the word marriage, get it out of the government.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    “I do not believe it is ok to harm someone physically, mentally, or emotionally soley based on thier sexual orientation.”

    The denial of legal equality leads to physical, mental and emotional harm! It’s been said and described countless times. Why can’t you get THAT through YOUR thick skull? Separate but equal IS NOT EQUAL. The SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal is HARMFUL. That is what you support, however much you hate me or don’t. As I said, I don’t care if you love me or hate me or approve of me. I just want, for the first time in my life, to be equal under law. Fully equal. You don’t have to do without equality and in my shoes you wouldn’t accept it. WHY SHOULD I?

    Really. I am done with you now. Too painful.

  • youguysmakemyheadhurt

    Look people…my wife tells me that when they put two catsup bottles together at the end of the night they call it marrying catsups…so how about…I now pronounce you…Catsup and Ketchup…oh wait…that would be separate but egual…I wonder which Catsup/Ketchup will bitch about it first?

    Get this…not one person on this thread ever tried to deny anyone anything but the use of a word…they all seem to agree that any meaningful relationship deserves the same RIGHTS as any other…you sound like a bunch of children. It’s my word…no it’s mine!

    We all know the government is screwing you guys/girls/thems…but as long as you DEMAND that what you have be labled the same as what they have it will stay that way.

    Take what you can get, once the ball starts rolling it’s awful hard to slow it down…you take civil union…it goes to the supreme court…they say no separate but equal…then either everybody gets the word or they take it away from everybody…but if you insist on “taking it up the ass” for a word…well…all I can say is…you must like it!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    If history is any indication, Arch Conservative, they are eventually going to get it all. Bit by bit, piece by piece, the recognition of gay rights has been expanded continuously for over 30 years now.

    Right now, the people are hung up on the word, not the principle, thus the widening support for “civil unions” that confer similar, or even the very same, benefits as marriage.

    This point of contention over the word is a reflection of the people’s sentimentality for certain traditions being in conflict with their sense of justice and fair play.

    They want it both ways, but cannot have it both ways and they are dealing with their emotions about the inevitability of civil and human rights trumping tradition.

    Majorities are irrelevant to human and civil rights here. Desegregation was opposed by a large majority in the Southern states, but that “tradition” was struck down because upholding it was detrimental to civil and human rights.

    Sure, that civil rights struggle was a little different than this one, but the principle behind it is exactly the same: civil and human rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority.

    Our Founders, in their wisdom, created our three-branch system of government so that those who have been oppressed by the majority can seek and find remedy.

    Now, I know that we’re all educated people here and that most of us do not need a lesson in Civics 101, but I would like offer a warning to those who appear to have found comfort in majority opinion:

    It is a fickle beast that changes and evolves over time (every poll of Americans under the age of 35 shows 60-70 percent majority support for the recognition of same-sex marriage), and it is never legally relevant to matters concerning civil and human rights, anyway.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    everybody who says ‘take civil unions as completely equal to marriage just not the word’ need to realize they are just blogging sentences for nowhere legislatively is that a reality. All civil unions, even in Vermont, fall far short of all the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage. Nowhere is ‘separate but equal’ even a reality. There’s no comparison in the real world, it just seems to be an option in blogdom.

    And if I or any other blogger said okay, it doesn’t change history or the movement for full equality. It just gives you an excuse in your head to say ‘well I offered them something but they wouldn’t take it’.

    You aren’t in a position, as a blogger, to offer me anything and there’s no way for me to take it.

  • http://www.iwt.blogspot.com TheCO

    As much as i hate Phelps, unlike the Brits America’s Constitution specifically acknowledges the right to free speach. I find the KKK utterly disgusting, and i am a black man, but i would be appalled if they were disallowed to speak.

  • TA Dodger

    ‘take civil unions as completely equal to marriage just not the word’

    Not to mention… that “marriage” license is nothing but a license for a CIVIL UNION.

    The state is not a religious institution. It DOES NOT PERFORM SACRAMENTS.

    If you are married in the eyes of your religion then you have a marriage in the religious sense. What the state does has nothing to do with that.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    ArchConservative: “I think I will have to seek out which posts you post on every day to remind you that you have no right to marriage and you never will and to laugh about it……..TO RUB IT IN YOUR FACE!!!!! TO MAKE YOU ANGRIER THAN YOU ALREADY ARE………….TO NEVER LET YOU FORGET IT………..NOTHING WOULD GIVE ME MORE SATISFACTION…………”

    Arch, I think you’re great and have agreed with 99.9% of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is stepping over the line. This will get you nowhere. In fact, you’re only sinking to NR and her Extreme Left Ragtag Brigade’s level. Surely we conservatives can argue and then simply laugh them off for the militants that they are if we make no headway with them?

    Yes, NR, you want superiority for formerly oppressed people. So does everyone else in these empowerment-type movements: “Fuck equality, you straight white males are going down! It’s our turn now!”

    Lori, as for you, I never said that women couldn’t dress and act as they like. Of course they can. If they want to wear combat pants, drink till they drop and fight, then I say go for it. But they run the risk of attracting men who are thuggish as they are. But they will not ever be truly happy, because they are denying what they are supposed to be and going against the grain of nature. I reiterate, most normal men want feminine women who know how to and are not ashamed of acting like ladies. That includes me. Thankfully, my own wife is quite feminine – I constantly think how lucky I was to meet her. Not many like her left …

    And, men are forever being told how to look by women. Everything from our hair, to our clothes, our shoes, our height, every fucking thing about ourselves is mercilessly scrutinized by you females. So I will goddamned well certainly take the liberty of telling women what I think is attractive about them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.

  • Nancy

    Why did gay/lesbian rights get inserted into this discussion? I thought the point was Phelps & his goonies are disturbing funerals – anyone’s funerals. What does (putative) sexual orientation of the corpse have to do with that? I was under the impression that behaving badly at ANYBODY’S funeral was not only bad taste but bad, regardless. Doesn’t matter why he’s doing it, he’s a moral skank & he needs to be stopped simply because his behavior is inhumane & offensive to humanity at large.

  • http://gratefuldread.net NR Davis

    “NR, you want superiority for formerly oppressed people.”

    Again, you are wrong, Mr. Marsh. As was I to think there might be a heart and brain lurking deep within you that could get beyond your delusion that only you deserve the word “marriage” and that I should be happy to deal with the inequality for your side’s sake. After seeing your (deliberate? stupid?) mischaracterization of my views, I realized there is no benefit in reading your words.

    Peace.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Nancy asks, “Why did gay/lesbian rights get inserted into this discussion?”

    Everybody agreeing that protesting at soldiers’ funerals is in extremely poor taste and that Fred Phelps is “a moral skank” wouldn’t have been much of a discussion.

    There are over 200 comments here and, thus far, nobody has come to Fred Phelps’s defense (though some of us did defend his First Amendment rights), so there was no opportunity to engage in such a discussion and, even if such a discussion took place, I doubt very much that it would have been worth reading, anyway.

    Hardly anybody supports extremists or their causes, but these radical, one-percenters do serve a purpose — whether they want to or not — because they help the mainstream to find some sort of common ground on contentious issues such as gay rights.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    You know Fred Phelps actually picketed Mister Rogers’s funeral? Mister Rogers? The world’s most wholesome human being, perhaps the most beloved and effective family-values representative since the advent of the Mass Media?

    Forgive me if this seems naive, but there is simply no vestige of human decency in a person or group of people who would protest the funeral of Mister Rogers.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    This all gets a bit tiring.

    Let’s analyze the issue for just a bit – dispassionately.

    Two homosexuals living together can have almost the same relationship as a man and a woman. What is different? The two of them together cannot produce a child. They can adopt a child, they can raise one that is from a former heterosexual union, they can even use technology (if they are women) to bear a child – but no matter how much they dance and sing, a homosexual union, in and of itself, cannot produce a child.

    The point of marriage has been traditionally to produce children who, by the dint of the efforts of the two parents, would have enough to eat, and survive – to produce in their turn, more children. People have woven business, romance, friendship, relieving loneliness or even statecraft into the marital union, and use various extramarital means (religious or state authority) to legitimize it and give it more stability, but at bottom, the point of marriage was to produce children who would survive.

    Thus there can be no such thing as a homosexual “marriage”. Biology just doesn’t allow for it. This is not an issue of what one thinks of homosexual matings versus heterosexual matings or homosexual relationships versus heterosexual relationships. I’m not rendering judgment here. I’m simply rleating the facts of biology.

    Heterosexual unions produce (one should say “can produce”) children; homosexual unions can’t. This is the intrinsic difference between them.

    From the point of view of what goes into making a relationship work, this is a minor difference, alomst an irrelevant issue; from the point of view of continuing the race, it is all the difference in the world.

    I’d argue that societal interest in continuing the race is pretty strong, at least strong enough to guarantee that women have a replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children on average to maintain the population of whatever jursidiction we’re talking about. Societal interests usually get represented by the tribe, or its extension, the state, or by religion.

    The issue of whether homosexual unions should get “equality” with marriage balances two vectors. The happiness of individuals on the one hand, an the need to continue the race on the other.

    Notice that in this analysis, I have not mentioned right or wrong, fairness or unfairness or even good or evil. I have simply mentioned the survival of the race and the happiness of its members.

    Can a solution be reached that maximizes both?

    In the States, “marriage” has been bundled with benefits by the state to encourage people to marry and thus produce children. The continuance of the race has been put far above the happiness of the the members of the race.

    The solution I’ve suggested at comment #87 and comment #104 attempts a slightly different balance – one that puts the happiness of the members of the race a little higher than heretofore.

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Wrong Ruvy wrong wrong wrong

    A lesbian donates and egg, which is fertilized by donor sperm. the egg is then implanted in the OTHER lesbian, making them BOTH the mother!

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Quoting myself, Jet:

    “…they can even use technology (if they are women) to bear a child…”

    That is what you gave an example of. Donor sperm – donor egg – that’s technology. What’s wrong here?

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Relax I was just checking to see if you were awake.

    Two men can also do it using a donor egg, but having the egg’s DNA removed and replaced with half of one man’s and half of another effectivly making both men the fathers and the child wouldn’t be related to the birth mother.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    NR: “Again, you are wrong, Mr. Marsh …”

    NR “Read what is on the page, damn it!” Davis, Andy Marsh did not write comment #224. I did. Looks like you need to start taking your own advice about reading what’s on the page.

%d bloggers like this: