Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Spirituality » Musings on Religion in Politics, Immigration, and Gay Marriage

Musings on Religion in Politics, Immigration, and Gay Marriage

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From the windmills of my mind…

How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today, when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

It seems incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to align their electoral choices with their values. This is probably the result of more education and information as well as increasingly feeling that fundamental values are under attack (such as with issues like marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, et cetera). The greater the perception of attacks on their values, the greater their political awareness, and then the more rapid their political realignment becomes.

When did “illegal aliens” become “illegal immigrants”, then morph into “undocumented workers”, then “guest workers” or just plain old “immigrants?” When did the nomenclature change in this debate? And who sent out the memo?

As with most issues, we are lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut. Sort of like the way the pro-abortion crowd refuses to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.

How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their “rights,” much less that we are actually considering their demands.

For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of “amnesty” is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people).

The key elements of the Republican electoral coalition are religion, money, and testosterone. For the Democrats it is secularism, other people’s money, and estrogen.

People who complain about political parties as being either too extreme or not representative enough are those least likely to either have been and/or get involved in politics, thus becoming prophets. They are also the people most likely to complain.

American consumers have benefited from one deregulation after another, such as with telephone service, airlines, and the banking industry. In light of no evidence to suggest otherwise, what logic do opponents of choice in education rely on to support their claims that deregulation -– or at least de-monopolization -– of public education would prove less beneficial?

The current debate over the legal definition of marriage did not come about as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist judges.

The ultimate strategy of “gay marriage” advocates is to use the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter. They intentionally use sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.

It is interesting to note that the laws being proclaimed as not specific enough as to what defines a marriage lack such specificity primarily due to the fact that, when they were written, everyone was quite sure they knew what a marriage was. Just goes to show that it pays to be specific.

Powered by

About Drew McKissick

Drew McKissick is a political consultant with over twenty-five years of experience specializing in political strategy, planning and organization as well as the development of grassroots related political action programs. He has worked as a political activist at the local, state and national levels, and has served in elected and appointed positions at all levels of the Republican Party, including serving as a member of the Republican National Committee. He also writes a regular column providing analysis and commentary on current events.
  • zingzing

    ugh. mhmm. you forgot such things as: christian does not equal american; whatever you call them, immigrants have rights and are humans; it’s not “pro-abortion,” it’s “pro-choice” and there’s a woman involved too; and that you have no right to deny anybody the same rights you enjoy.

    oh yeah, and you forgot that not everyone agrees with you.

  • zingzing

    and that ann coulter is a fucking lunatic.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    Zing, agreed about Coulter.

    Interesting topic–many progressives are becoming familiar with George Lakoff who is a noted speaker about linguistics and framing–something the right wing has excelled at of late, while the left has been slow to learn. I’d suggest message crafting and disinformation are more responsible for the Rise of the Zealots we’ve been watching than ‘more education and information.’

    For example, I don’t feel like my ‘fundamental values’ are being attacked, despite that Hannity says I should. I also do not agree that ‘American consumers have benefited from one de-regulation after another, such as with telephone service, airlines and the banking industry.’ I notice that you did not include the Energy industry, where it was the executives at Enron who benefited at the expense of the American consumers in California and elsewhere. Maybe your sentence should read “The key elements of the Republican electoral coalition are religion, GREED and testosterone.”

    Full privitization and deregulation sometimes leads to chaos. I use the immigration example when it comes to deregulation, as it’s failure to enforce existing employment regulations that allows so many illegal aliens to be employed here. That’s a supply-side problem, and no wall is going to be tall enough to keep them out if they can still find jobs on this side.

    Funny how you observe re: the marriage issue the role of “sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.” Yet, you don’t bring up the role of what I might call “sympathetic lawmakers in far right states as a vehicle” for challenging abortion rights, as was put into action at practically the moment Alito’s confirmation went through.

    Everyone plays their strongest hand–it isn’t just liberals or “sympathetic courts in liberal states.”

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

    How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today,

    It doesn’t. Nobody ever said it did. It’s INSTITUTIONALIZED prayer in public schools that constitutes a violation of the Establishment clause. If you want to pray quietly to yourselves, or a group of you want to pray together in a self-contained group, feel free.

    when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

    Which ones? In fact, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was bitterly and very loudly opposed to the practice and wrote several letters and articles DENOUNCING the idea of hiring a Congressional Chaplain. Why? Because it “represented an ‘establishment of religion.'”

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    Actually, less of a diatribe than I expected, and I agree with you that nomenclature change is a dangerous practice. But to blame the donkeys without including the elephants is disingenuous. Both sides–hell, everyone does it, which doesn’t make it right.

    Which, ironically, leads me to your statement:

    The current debate over the legal definition of marriage did not come about as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist judges.

    Remember “Brown Vs. The Board of Education?” One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the judiciary with real power was to protect Americans against “the tyranny of the majority.”

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Bliffle

    “The key elements of the Republican electoral coalition are religion, money and testosterone. For the Democrats it is secularism, other people’s money and estrogen.”

    The implied gender disparagement here is quite sexist. Does your wife know what you say when she’s not looking?

  • Bliffle

    ” ann coulter is a fucking lunatic.”

    Well, sometimes a lunatic fucker is fun! But not when you get older.

  • Bliffle

    And what’s with that ‘come hither’ look on the cover of the book? I’m definitely getting mixed messages.

  • zingzing

    lunatic or not, i might have sex with her. does she like being beaten (i mean during sex, as, you know… a turn on)? maybe i’ll gag her, tie her down, then just… forget about her…

  • Bliffle

    And then there’s the plain announcement on the book cover: “Godless”!

  • http://jeliel3.blogspot.com JELIEL³

    Is the picture of an anorectic suppose to make me want to buy a book? Ann needs a few cheeseburgers.

    I hope the CBC interviews her again and takes her to school again… Canadians in Viet-Nam… snicker snicker.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Marriage bestows 1,000 federal benefits, rights and privileges and 700 state benefits, rights and privileges. It is not open to a vote as to who gets these benefits. The government has no business rewarding your relationship and condemning mine. Your church can be free to do so, but not the government.

    It is not a crime to be gay. And I am a taxpayer. It is inequality to give you and your family all these benefits but deny them to gay and lesbian families and their children.

    Equality is not supposed to be open for a vote, I’m not sure when you conservatives decided to rewrite democracy to make it mob rule, but that doesn’t follow the principles of liberty.

  • http://jeliel3.blogspot.com JELIEL³

    Amen SteveS. Absolute Equality for all. That’s freedom.

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

    The ultimate strategy of “gay marriage” advocates is to use the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter.

    Watch this. With just a few word changes this will sound awfully close to Jim Crow apologetics, ca. 1957:

    The ultimate strategy of “civil rights” advocates is to use the “full faith and credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of citizenship and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Regarding the comments of ‘God/Godless’ and Ann Coulter’s picture:

    You will never see a liberal woman use her sex to promote her ideological agenda. Has anybody seen the two selling points Republican Katherine Harris is trying to use to get elected? The way she stuck them out on a Fox interview is legendary for it’s hysterics. Notice that there are very little comments here on Ann’s ideological agenda, but quite a few comments on her potential as a bedpartner. Is that what conservatives are reduced to, to get you to see things their way? Whoring out their ideological agenda?

    It’s very fitting that the word ‘Godless’ is emblazoned underneath her.

    There is a website called Faith in America, who’s primary objective is to show people how religion has been misused in this country. It was used to discriminate against women, against different races, against different religions and is being used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It adheres to the principles of Jesus far more than the Right does.

    Jesus was against the hoarding of wealth. Conservatives are all about corporatism and the hoarding of wealth at the expense of the common man. Like the moneychanger, Jesus would have probably thrown them out of his temple too.

    Jesus was about tolerance and compassion, and hung out with lepers, prostitutes and all sorts of social undesirables. You don’t have to look far to see what conservatives think of people who don’t fit their rigid mold.

    Jesus would have been against the Iraq war. Jesus is against the taking of innocent life, of life in general. Ann Coulter is advocating poisoning Supreme Court Justices and Pat Robertson is praying for their demise on national tv.

    There should be no way to tell which side of the political spectrum is Godless. And that title is right where it needs to be, plastered across Ann Coulter.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    last paragraph should read, ‘there should be no mistaking which side…’

    my mistake!

  • Arch Conservative

    Jesus would also not be for abortion. Jesus would not be for homoisexuality. Jesus would not be for the promiscuous and sexually degenerate lifestyles that many liberals advocate.

    As for godless……..well most people that claim to go to church or believe in Jesus tend to be conservative and/or republican.

    Most people that claim to be atheist or tend to attack religion tend to be liberal and/or democrat.

    That’s the way it is in America today.

    So who is really using Jesus as a political football here?

    The only time most liberals want to talk about Jesus is when they are feeling extra uppity and want ot lecture church going conservatives on his teachings.

    It would be more offensive if it weren’t so damn funny….. watching liberals pull out of their asses the one or two cliched bible quotes that they know only because they have found thier way into pop culture in an attempt to castigate conservatives.

    It’s ok for John Kerry and Bill Clinton to campaign in churches while running for president but if Bush or Frist or anyone right of center does this or even mentions religion they are labelled as “intolerant religous right nutjobs” by liberals.

    As usual the left’s approch to religion, as every other issue of the day is accompanied by a heaping helpful of hypocrisy.

    Ann Coulter is not a lunatic but Howard Dean is.

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

    Jesus taught love, tolerance, and acceptance… with no exception. Show me in the Bible where Jesus said anything against any of this.

    Jesus doesn’t care if you are gay or straight or asexual. All Jesus wanted was for people to love one another, without pretense or judgement.

    Conservatives are the ones using, manipulating, and misinterpreting the Bible to fit their own agendas.

    Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

  • Josh

    SteveS:
    Jesus was against the hoarding of wealth. Conservatives are all about corporatism and the hoarding of wealth at the expense of the common man. Like the moneychanger, Jesus would have probably thrown them out of his temple too.

    That is true, except for one thing — the American government is a business, not a charity. It’s neither its duty nor its responsibility to cater to anyone. This socialist aspect of our government only came about as a temporary solution to the Great Depression under FDR. It was never intended to be permanent, as we can see from the imminent collapse of social security.

    Jesus was about tolerance and compassion, and hung out with lepers, prostitutes and all sorts of social undesirables. You don’t have to look far to see what conservatives think of people who don’t fit their rigid mold.

    Liberals always leave out that one little sentence that Jesus said when he was hanging out with them. . . . “Go and sin no more!”. Jesus knew that people needed compassion for their rehabilitation. It was not as though he were accepting their lifestyles as either healthy or legitimate.

    Jesus would have been against the Iraq war. Jesus is against the taking of innocent life, of life in general. Ann Coulter is advocating poisoning Supreme Court Justices and Pat Robertson is praying for their demise on national tv

    You are absolutely right. Jesus was probably 100% against war and violence.

    Edited: There should no mistaking which side of the political spectrum is Godless. And that title is right where it needs to be, plastered across Ann Coulter

    As long as Democrats are advocating completely unrestricted abortion, then you’re right. We know who’s godless.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    As for godless……..well most people that claim to go to church or believe in Jesus tend to be conservative and/or republican.

    Most people that claim to be atheist or tend to attack religion tend to be liberal and/or democrat.

    So who is really using Jesus as a political football here?

    The conservatives. Liberals do not put Jesus on their political banner and go foward with ideological agendas under his name. They never claimed that abortion is what Jesus would advocate. Liberals understand the separation of church and state. Conservatives misuse the principles of Jesus to promote unChristian agendas.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    That is true, except for one thing — the American government is a business, not a charity. It’s neither its duty nor its responsibility to cater to anyone.

    well, as you can see, Josh. I said ‘conservatives’ and ‘corporatism’. I wasn’t referring to the government but to multi-millionaires like Pat Robertson, Falwell, and mega-evangelists who discriminate while hoarding wealth.

    Liberals always leave out that one little sentence that Jesus said when he was hanging out with them. . . . “Go and sin no more!”.

    Add that sentence in, it doesn’t matter. Because, in my inability to get married, gay people and our children are being unduly punished for simply being gay. You have no idea if I am sinning or if I am celibate. You don’t care. You simply want to discriminate based on who I am.

    As long as Democrats are advocating completely unrestricted abortion, then you’re right. We know who’s godless.

    For the mainstream conservative (not the powermongers), it always comes back to this. They have completely sold out their ideological agenda, and have given power, in the name of Jesus, to people who further anti-Christian principles, simply on ONE ideological belief system. I agree with you, that this is the thorn in the Democrats side.

    Of course, what the mainstream conservative doesn’t realize is that the Republican party has NO intention of EVER undoing abortion. As long as it is in place, they have a guaranteed political cash cow to generate votes and resources in order to accomplish other objectives. Once abortion is overturned, then conservatives don’t have the one guaranteed thing that draws people to their side. Neither side will ever get rid of abortion, that’s guaranteed.

  • Josh

    SteveS:
    If you’re referring to men such as Robertson, then you’re right — they are hypocrites.

    Truthfully, as to homosexuality, I don’t know if it’s right or wrong. On a legal basis, by all means gain equality; it could only benefit the children. What I was responding to was your incomplete account of what Jesus said and did. It was really only a half-truth.

    Look at South Dakota. That’s an example of a Republican “objective” being accomplished. It’s not that there are no attempts to put an end to abortion, it’s that such attempts are met with ferocious, vehement opposition from the Left.

    They have completely sold out their ideological agenda, and have given power, in the name of Jesus, to people who further anti-Christian principles. It sounds like you imply that Democratic policies (outside of the very un-Christian abortion) are more like Jesus’ teachings, and you’re right. However, like I said before, a government — a business — cannot be run like a charity. Leave charity to the private sector.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Look at South Dakota. That’s an example of a Republican “objective” being accomplished. It’s not that there are no attempts to put an end to abortion,

    From what I have read, the Republicans have said themselves, they don’t stand a chance with this law. The intent here is to put it before the Supreme Court and overturn Roe v. Wade. Mainstream conservatives want to outlaw all abortion and take away a woman’s right of self-determination in regards to her own body. But I have to say that I believe it will never happen. As long as abortion is on the books, there are people who will flock to the anti-abortion party and allow it to accomplish any ideological agenda. Once it’s overturned, then these people might actually start thinking about other things like the economy, foreign policy or whatnot. So I think the conservatives in power will never overturn abortion, they will shoot themselves in the foot by doing so. Much better to milk that political cash cow for as long as possible and get the funding to accomplish all sorts of other things that the mainstream conservative doesn’t necessarily agree with, like the bloating of the government, etc.

    It sounds like you imply that Democratic policies are more like Jesus’ teachings, and you’re right.

    That was my point. Not all policies, but the basic principle of good samaritism and as a general rule, the Democratic party is much closer aligned with the principles of Jesus than conservatism is.

    However, like I said before, a government — a business — cannot be run like a charity. Leave charity to the private sector.

    I agree, I don’t want a government run like a charity, that’s not what I’m talking about.

    Government is too big as is, certainly the Bush administration has made it bloated beyond belief.

    My comment here isn’t to push FOR a political party, as much as it is to point out that the one who claims to operate under God’s banner is actually the one farther from God.

  • Arch Conservative

    Liberals understand the separation of church and state?

    Since when?

    Liberals purposely misinterpret the establishment cause and completely ignore the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

    That’s what you call understanding?

    With regard to Jesus telling us to love everyone this is true. But he did not teach that we should love everyone’s behaviors. Jesus believed in right and wrong and we don’t have to love every behavior to love the person. As a aconservative I don’t love the homosexaual lifestyle but I don’t hate homosexuals either.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Liberals purposely misinterpret the establishment cause and completely ignore the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

    In what context, AC? In regards to gay marriage, for example, should I be given equality from my government, that in no way prevents you from believing that homosexuality is wrong. It doesn’t affect your faith in any way. Since we are both legal taxpayers, it does give me my civil liberties though.

    As a aconservative I don’t love the homosexaual lifestyle but I don’t hate homosexuals either.

    That’s right, you don’t have to love the homosexual lifestyle. I’m a homosexual and my lifestyle is raising kids, cooking, laundry, family values and all that apple pie stuff. You can hate it to your hearts content, I don’t care. However, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to equality from the government, and the government should not be advocating YOUR religious values of discriminating against other legal taxpayers. Nobody is seeking to make you warm up to homosexuality in the confines of your own home. YOU are not the government.

  • gonzo marx

    Josh in #22 sez…
    *However, like I said before, a government — a business — cannot be run like a charity.*

    and this is the factually inaccurate Postulate many suffer from

    our Government, the Republic itself…is NOT a “business” in ANY way, shape or form…

    “promote the general Welfare…”

    sound familiar to anyone? part of our founding Principles, ain’t it?

    can anyone show me where “turning a profit” is? isn’t that the cause and reasoning behind a business?

    so, upon looking at comment #19 again, we see the fallacies of a false Postulate as a baseline axiom in an Argument…

    sticking #19 we get…
    “Go and sin no more!”. Jesus knew that people needed compassion for their rehabilitation.*

    now..this assumes the Christ was talking to the woman about to be stoned, rather than the crowd about to do the stoning…from a Teacher who preached “turn the other cheek”…which makes more sense for him to admonish? either way…the commenter shows hubris to the extreme to pretend to know utterly the motivations of another person…much less this Teacher when he assumes to profess what “Jesus knew”

    and this strikes to the very heart of much in this silly debacle of a debate…

    on one hand you have folks trying to live and hold onto basic human rights and dignity….on another hand you have folks who think their Interpertation of dogma is the be all and end all, and thus should be the Law…then on the gripping hand…you have the Majority who don’t understand the fuss and merely want the letter and Spirit of the American Covenant (the very secular Constitution and the Bill of Rights) to be adhered to

    most of it boils down to a simple test….

    how does granting the recognition of these Rights to citizens (marriage, choice…the entire gamut here)…cuase hurt or harm to anyone merely by Recognizing said Rights?

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • zingzing

    when was the last time a liberal tried to stop you from being a christian? or punish you for being so? or deny you any government rights because you are? or kick you head in at a gay rally? or tie you to a fence in the middle of nowhere and beat you until you are dead?

    oh. yeah… never. you can be christian all you want as long as you keep out of my face. as a liberal, i don’t love the christian lifestyle, but i don’t hate christians either.

    (christianity is stupid, communism is good!)

  • zingzing

    that was for a.c.

    gonzo–your last paragraph says it all. they just want to deny rights to others that they enjoy themselves. it’s evil, wrong, etc. um… and unchristian. disgusting.

  • gonzo marx

    a.c. ??

    you man Ann Coulter?

    well, i have a Rule…”if Coulter is the link, the Poster’s likely a dink”

    and why might i say such, you ask?

    Canadian TV last year…she spent 10 minutes of live TV time arguing with the interviewer that Canada was with the U.S. in Viet Nam…wide eyed and hostile telling him he should “check his facts”

    also last year on C-SPAN…a taped speech from her, in the Q&A afterwards, she was asked about the genocide of the Native Americans…she stated “well, there were only 100,000 of them…and they weren’t really using the country or resources anyway”

    both clips are on the net…i have cited them before…and someone here at BC even dug up links to the videos

    i can’t make this shit up kiddies

    Excelsior!

  • zingzing

    a.c. is bing. but anne coulter, should she actually be able to read, can read whatever she likes into that. i recently ran across a washington monthly article called “the wisdom of anne coulter” or something like that… it was fucking hilarious. just google the name of the article.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    gonzo, in regards to the two slips you point out in comment 26, I am completely shamed that I missed those. I was too focused on the other aspects. My eternal indebtedness to you for pointing them out.

    Arch Conservative, I have a question for you. I want to see how fundamental you will go. In all honesty, please answer this question:

    I completely believe in an individuals right to follow their religious belief. When that religious belief infringes upon another person’s civil liberties, which must be curtailed?

    Note that the government recognizing my family in no way infringes upon the individuals religious belief.

  • zingzing

    oh steves… you know that bing doesn’t answer questions… bing, prove me wrong. let’s see this.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    The lack of an answer is an answer in and of itself.

  • zingzing

    yeah, but it’s frustrating. i think he’s a coward (egging you on, bing, egging you on).

  • Arch Conservative

    Steve allowing gays to marry diminishes marriage. Marriage is a unique bond between a man and a woman and just because you don’t believe so doesn’t mean your civil rights are being violated. Just because you say somethign is a civil right does not make it a civil right Steve. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry?

    Leftists misinterpret the first amendment in the context that they view any expression of Christianity by a private citizen in publkic as the state endoring religion. This is njust not so. Leftists also ignore the fact that the free exercise was explicitly written to allow this. Any citizen may may express thier religion, regardless of what it is, in public as long as they are not a member of the state while doing it.
    But secularist liberals don’t want this. They want to ban all expressions of Christianity from AMerican culture.

    Zing……..every time a Chrsitian thought is expressed in public by a private citizen liberalsd are telling them to shut up or suing them.

  • Arch Conservative

    Steve allowing gays to marry diminishes marriage. Marriage is a unique bond between a man and a woman and just because you don’t believe so doesn’t mean your civil rights are being violated. Just because you say something is a civil right does not make it a civil right Steve. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry?

    Leftists misinterpret the first amendment in the context that they view any expression of Christianity by a private citizen in public as the state endoring religion. This is just not so. Leftists also ignore the fact that the free exercise clause was explicitly written to allow this. Any citizen may express thier religion, regardless of what it is, in public as long as they are not a member of the state while doing it.
    But secularist liberals don’t want this. They want to ban all expressions of Christianity from American culture.

    Zing……..every time a Chrsitian thought is expressed in public by a private citizen liberalsdare telling them to shut up or sue them.

    I don’t understand why it is reasonable to say having religious based morals is not acceptable but having atheist/secularist based morals is.

  • gonzo marx

    Bing sez…
    *Steve allowing gays to marry diminishes marriage.*

    how does it diminish it? just because you say so? a poor marriage indeed if it is diminished by other folks getting married

    i still don’t see it, coudl you clarify

    you also have once again dodged the direct Question

    how does recognizing this for others harm an Individual?

    Excelsior!

  • gonzo marx

    oh yes…how did i miss this one?

    Bing sez…
    *Zing……..every time a Chrsitian thought is expressed in public by a private citizen liberalsdare telling them to shut up or sue them.*

    another blatant over generalization and a Lie

    proof is right here in this Thread, and here on BC just about every day

    Excelsior!

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

    Archie: I’m trying to follow your argument but please clarify something for me: what exactly is it that is unique about the bond of marriage between a man and a woman?

    If I could understand that, I would have a certain sympathy for your point, but so far it eludes me.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Steve allowing gays to marry diminishes marriage.

    that is subjective opinion. Convicted murderers can marry from behind prison bars. Britney spears can marry for a few hours in a las vegas drive thru. THOSE diminish marriage, not a couple who have been together for decades who are raising children on a home foundation built on love.

    Marriage is a unique bond between a man and a woman

    The definition of “marriage” has never been static in any case, and at any given moment, different people already have different ideas of what it means. In some cultures marriages are still arranged. In the past, marriages have been used to end wars or seal treaties. It was once expected that the father of a bride would be paid a dowry for the privilege of marrying her. In the early 20th century it was unheard of to have two working parents, but by the end of the 20th century it was common. Definitions and ideas change over time.

    The atomic unit of a society is the individual.

    and just because you don’t believe so doesn’t mean your civil rights are being violated.

    never said that was how my civil rights are being violated. You and your partner pay social security tax, me and my partner do too, what we get out of it is significantly less than what you do, that is a violation of my civil rights. Upon death, there is automatic transfer of ownership of many things to your surviving spouse. Gay couples must expend thousands of extra dollars to ensure that which you take for granted. That is a violation of my civil rights. There are 1,700 more examples I could give, but you prefer to say that marriage itself is the violation. You refuse to see the bigger picture and that is that you define marriage biblically, and then enfuse marriage into the State.

    Just because you say something is a civil right does not make it a civil right Steve. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry?

    In Biblical times, it was common for a man to have many wives. Even in the relatively-recent past, polygamy was practiced in the United States by certain religions and accepted by certain states.

    Our society ostensibly supports freedom, liberty, and equality under the law for everybody, which our great Constitution eloquently outlines. It is this equality which same-sex couples seek to secure in their efforts to legalize same-sex marriages.

    Leftists misinterpret the first amendment in the context that they view any expression of Christianity by a private citizen in public as the state endoring religion. This is just not so. Leftists also ignore the fact that the free exercise clause was explicitly written to allow this. Any citizen may express thier religion, regardless of what it is, in public as long as they are not a member of the state while doing it.

    Any citizen may may express thier religion, regardless of what it is, in public as long as they are not a member of the state while doing it.

    that has nothing to do with me getting my equality from the state. I never said, YOU, Arch conservative had to applaud my marriage. I don’t even want you to attend. The government treating my family equally in no way forbids you from expressing your religion, so I don’t understand this straw man tactic here. Your right to express your opinion is not being jeopardized.

    Or is it that perhaps there are a few leftists who don’t care for your Christianity so you want to take it out on gay families?

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

    Zing……..every time a Chrsitian thought is expressed in public by a private citizen liberalsdare telling them to shut up or sue them.

    I just went down to the busy lobby of my office building, announced “I love Jesus!” and not a single person told me to shut up or that they were going to press charges.

    One person grinned and said, “Right on, my man!” A few people stared with quizzical looks. Most just ignored me.

    Which is what I suspect happens in most cases when a Christian thought is expressed in public by a private citizen.

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

    Rush Limbaugh has been married and divorced three times. This makes a mockery of the wedding vows of “for better or for worse,” “as long as you both shall live,” and “till death do you part.”

    There is nothing that gay people can do to marriage that diminishes it more than that.

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

    Michael, try starting every meeting at your company with a demand that everyone there agree that they love jesus and see how people react.

    As for Limbaugh’s divorces, most Americans have been divorced at least once, including plenty of democrat spokespeople. Limbaugh has never held himself up as some sort of example of personal perfection and with good reason.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    bing–“Any citizen may may express thier religion, regardless of what it is, in public as long as they are not a member of the state while doing it.”

    that is exactly how i feel about things. if you don’t recognize that, you haven’t ever read my comments on it. i’m sure you’ve been around for it. go look it up. we’ve fucking argued on this point many times and you’ve seen me write just what you said, you might as well be quoting me, so don’t give me that shit.

  • zingzing

    dave–what the fuck are you talking about? “Michael, try starting every meeting at your company with a demand that everyone there agree that they love jesus and see how people react.”

    that’s got nothing to do with anything. do liberals start a meeting by saying that everyone agree that jesus is a joke? no…

    so what are you talking about?

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Dave, are you being sarcastic? Proclaiming your faith in public is a far cry from ‘demanding that everyone agree’.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    As for Limbaugh’s divorces, most Americans have been divorced at least once, including plenty of democrat spokespeople. Limbaugh has never held himself up as some sort of example of personal perfection and with good reason.

    this was provided in the context that gay people diminish marriage, so by your logic, Dave, most Americans have no voice to say that same-sex marriages diminish marriage, as most Americans have already diminished it themselves.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Arch Conservative, under federal law, legally married employees do not pay taxes on their own or their employers’ contribution for health insurance benefits, but lesbian and gay employees do. Our families need tax fairness, too.

    That is a violation of my civil rights, that denial of marriage causes, not just because I say so.

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

    Michael, try starting every meeting at your company with a demand that everyone there agree that they love jesus and see how people react.

    Dave, is that supposed to be an example of something that should be perfectly acceptable behavior on my part?

    As for Limbaugh’s divorces, most Americans have been divorced at least once, including plenty of democrat spokespeople.

    I certainly don’t disagree with that. I merely suggest that those divorces are a much more immediate and dangerous threat to marriage than gays are…and yet it’s the gays that are attacked as “diminishing marriage.”

    Limbaugh has never held himself up as some sort of example of personal perfection and with good reason.

    No, but Limbaugh is one of those who frequently insists that gay marriage somehow undermines the institution of marriage. His divorces, though, could reasonably be held up as evidence that he’s not really all that concerned about the sanctity of marriage.

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

    #46 the two are indistinguishable from the perspective of the religiously extreme.

    #47 yes, exactly, Steve. We shouldn’t judge Limbaugh for his actions which are legal when he doesn’t raise his own life as a moral example. And as I’ve said many a time before, marriage is a private contract and the government should have no say or involvement in it. The idea of ‘diminishing’ marriage is utterly meaningless.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    i am going to start my meeting today by asking that everyone agree that dave nalle is… oh fuck it…

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

    Dave,

    the two are indistinguishable from the perspective of the religiously extreme.

    We seem to be in agreement on the fallacy here.

    We shouldn’t judge Limbaugh for his actions which are legal when he doesn’t raise his own life as a moral example.

    My issue is not the legality of Limbaugh’s marriage, or his use of them (or lack thereof) as an example. It’s only that he makes the argument, as Bing does, that “gay marriage diminishes marriage.” I use his actions to point out that either (1) his concept of the diminution of marriage (and that of many other divorced critics of gay marriage in this country) is faulty, or (2) he doesn’t genuinely give a damn whether marriage is diminished or not.

    If I was in the right mood, I might extend it so far as to say that ANYONE who is in favor of legalized divorce is on very shaky ground when criticizing legal gay marriage as “diminishing marriage.”

    If I was in the right mood.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    oh, I get it. Sorry Dave. I completely agree with you.

    When a fundamentalist cannot stand up and demand that everybody agree on Jesus, then he says his individual rights to public expression are under attack.

    Yes, I concur.

    the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays war is a good example of this. If we all don’t say Merry CHristmas, then the Christian’s personal religious expression is under attack. Moderate Christians know better, but yes, that’s how the fundies operate.

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

    From what I’ve heard Limbaugh doesn’t attend church and is essentially an atheist/agnostic. His position against gay marriage is on purely social/political grounds.

    I bet if you got through to him and asked him he’d agree that divorce diminishes marriage as much as gay marriage does.

    But if you ask me the thing which diminishes marriage is having it sanctioned by the state.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    There seems to be a lto fo question as to the definition of marriage?

    Liberals would have everyone believe that it is subjective as they would have us believe evrything is. There is not black and white……only gray. Therefore nothing can ever be right or wrong.

    Marriage to most of the American culture has always been defined as the bond between one man and one woman who have decided to be exclusively in matters of intimate sexual, personal, romantic, and familural relationsis and usually cohabitate. This is how American society has defined marriage sinces it’s beginning and this is how the vast majority of today’s American society feels it should remain. Allowing gays to marry would cause this bond which most Americans value and seek to keep the way it is, to lose all meaning. Given there is no material, physical, financial, or individual harm done by allowing gays to marry there is still harm in that it would undermine a valued American tradition. I know you enlightened, tolerant, accepting, compassionate, progressives, nuanced, gravitas possessing, open-minded, (ddi I miss any?) liberals don’t get it. But then what you guys don’t get could fill the library of Congress.

    I agree that homosexuals who desire to enter into a state recognized union in which some level of emotional and mental commitment to another consenting adult should have the right. I am all for civil unions bestowing all the rights that marriages do upon homosexuals as long as they are also subject to the same constraints and scrutiny.

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

    Arch, did you just read my new article on vocabulary? It looks like you did! Bravo. I’m shocked you didn’t make comment yet?

    feeling ignored
    Jet

  • Arch Conservative

    In response to # 41……

    Obviously there were no ACLU members int he lobby or a lawsuit aginst you would have already been files and you would have been served papers.

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

    Arch, tradition is not the business of government.

    Dave

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

    His position against gay marriage is on purely social/political grounds.

    I have heard him make the “undermines the sanctity of marriage” argument, but perhaps he is merely pandering to his audience.

    I bet if you got through to him and asked him he’d agree that divorce diminishes marriage as much as gay marriage does.

    Maybe. But again, we have to assume in that case that he is not being honest when he makes the “undermines the sanctity of marriage” argument. Is that the assumption on the table, Dave?

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

    Allowing gays to marry would cause this bond which most Americans value and seek to keep the way it is, to lose all meaning.

    How would it do that? You’re right, Bing, I don’t get it.

  • MCH

    “Limbaugh has never held himself up as some sort of example of personal perfection and with good reason.”
    – Dave Nalle

    This falsehood just proves that everything Nalle says is suspect.**

    **borrowed from “Dave Nalle’s Handbook of Logic”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Given there is no material, physical, financial, or individual harm done by allowing gays to marry there is still harm in that it would undermine a valued American tradition.

    you want to deny me my civil liberties because it’s an American tradition?

    I imagine there were a few who were against doing away with slavery because that was a tradition too.

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

    Michael, I think you can NEVER go wrong by starting from the assumption that Rush Limbaugh is not being honest. He’s an entertainer and propagandist, not some sort of messiah.

    Dave

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

    Given there is no material, physical, financial, or individual harm done by allowing gays to marry there is still harm in that it would undermine a valued American tradition.

    The point of making laws is to prevent material, physical, financial, or individual harm from being done.

    We do not make laws in order to uphold as abstract and malleable a thing as tradition.

    And we sure as HELL do not make Constitutional Amendments for the sole purpose of protecting traditions.

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

    Then I think we’ve resolved that discussion, too, Dave. :-)

  • zingzing

    i don’t think gay people give a fuck what you call gay marriage. call it donkey droppings. give them their rights.

    gay man: “i’m going to be “fried chickened” today!”
    observer: “congrats!”
    woman: “oh, it’s the best day of someone’s life today. tee-hee.”
    straight man: “don’t do it! your life is over!”

    conservatives dodge the entire argument by saying that it’s all about FUCKING VOCABULARY. it’s not. it’s about RIGHTS. jesus christ. “marriage is defined as…” SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET BACK TO THE QUESTION!

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

    Obviously there were no ACLU members int he lobby or a lawsuit aginst you would have already been files and you would have been served papers.

    That’s such a ridiculous statement that I can’t even believe I’m wasting my time writing this much of a response.

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

    Zingzing’s right. If you don’t want to call it marriage, fine. Call it civil unions. That keeps your tradition intact. Just make sure that the “civil unions” include every single one of the legal and financial benefits that marriage includes.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    while on a personal level, I have no problem with the terminology of calling it a civil union, it has been determined in a court of law that separate but equal is still separate and continues to foster an aura of stigmatization and ‘outsidedness’.

    With the state, it will have to be equal. In the church, it can be whatever the hell you want. If you cannot call it a marriage, then you need to get the state to call ALL relationships (male/male, female/female or male/female) civil unions and take the word marriage back into the church.

    Separate but equal and Jim Crow laws are proven to violate the right to the pursuit of happiness among other things.

  • Arch Conservative

    But….it’s not your civili liberty Steve.

    Michael…….I have no problem with that. As I have stated numerous times on BC…. I am all for civil unions for homsexuals which give them the same benfits as marriage under the law but are also subject to the same limitations.

    Would Steve agree to this?

    I would think you liberals that live in the politically correct world where words mean so much would understand how I feel about marriage.

    But then I realize that liberals only want what they want regardless of hwo others feel or believe and will accept nothing short of this.

  • Arch Conservative

    Oh and Nalle….

    Tradition is the business of society and culture and government is alo the business of society and culture so the two are necessarily intertwined.

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

    But then I realize that liberals only want what they want regardless of hwo others feel or believe and will accept nothing short of this.

    Glass houses, Bing.

  • zingzing

    more like mirror houses, mike.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Would Steve agree to this?

    I agree with the government making no distinction between the relationship I have with my spouse and the relationship you have with yours. If you want to call it Coco Puffs, that’s fine with me.

    But….it’s not your civili liberty Steve.

    What is not? Equal treatment? That most certainly is.

    But then I realize that liberals only want what they want regardless of hwo others feel or believe and will accept nothing short of this.

    To the extent that I want my equality regardless of how you feel about it, yes, I’ll concede that.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Arch Conservative says:

    I am all for civil unions for homsexuals which give them the same benfits as marriage under the law but are also subject to the same limitations.

    So you are okay with me having 100% of the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage (and yes, the same limitations too), but you don’t want me to call it a marriage and you say liberals are the ones having a problem with the wording.

  • Josh

    Short point, I don’t have much time right now. In response to Gonzo’s “it’s assuming that Jesus was speaking to the woman when he said ‘Go and sin no more'”. Please. Please. Actually read the Bible before you pretend to have any clue about it. You could’ve been right, had it not said, specifically, “after the crowd dispersed he addressed the woman”, or something to those ends.

  • gonzo marx

    well now Josh…i stand corrected as far as John 8:11 goes…mea culpa, my senility sometimes causes me to sometimes forget which scripture i am referencing…

    i will try and be more careful

    you are literally absolutely correct in this instance (John 8:11) but seem to miss the overall point

    you also miss the point, that in RC and KJ bibles, this phrase is used very often by the Teacher to folks he heals, or speaks parables to

    in context, it appears to be a “be good” type of thing…and i’ll do a bit of hunting around this weekend to examine the difference between the aramaic, greek and english to try and show a bit better why “sin” might be a questionable translation even amongst accepted texts

    fair enough?

    Excelsior!

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    regarding Jesus and telling the woman to go and sin no more….

    it’s moot. I should not be subjected to Christian interpretation of the Bible. I am a taxpayer. I am a legal citizen, not a criminal. The state cannot punish me for your interpretation of what sin is.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    regarding marriage and recognition of the state, quoting bible or biblical belief is moot. It’s off track. It has nothing to do with the state recognition of marriage which is a secular institution, not a biblical one.

  • Josh

    Fair enough, Gonzo. But as for missing the overall point. . . It seems that there really is no definitive, underlying “point”. Everyone interprets is differently, in the end it doesn’t really matter. But I’m always willing to learn something new. Especially Greek.

    SteveS, on a legal basis, you are absolutely correct. Whether the government of the United States awards full recognition to homosexual marriage should have nothing to do with religion, at all.

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

    I have to imagine that if there was a legal guarantee, or better yet a constitutional guarantee, that marriage and civil unions would be different IN NAME ONLY, that neither SteveS nor anybody else who was in favor of gay marriage would possibly turn it down.

    There just couldn’t be any fear of any repercussions from conversations like the following.

    Adam&Eve: I took a big hit on my taxes this year.

    Adam&Steve: I actually did okay this year, since I was able to file jointly.

    Adam&Eve: WHAT? But you’re not married!!!!

    Adam&Steve: No, but I’m civil-unioned. So I get the same tax benefits as marriage.

    Adam&Eve: But civil unions and marriage aren’t supposed to be the same thing! That’s OUTRAGEOUS, that you get the same tax benefits as a married person! Why that completely cheapens the value of being married! I’m going to write to my Congressman RIGHT NOW to make sure that gay people in civil unions DO NOT get to file their taxes jointly the same way married people do!

    If there’s absolutely no way that things like changing the tax code so civil unions have different tax benefits from married couples, or similar changes, then (admittedly, speaking as a straight man) I can’t imagine what the problem would be.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    Personally, Michael, I would take it, although I do agree with the sentiment of many that separate but equal would still exist and you will still have people fighting for full equality. I certainly wouldn’t stand in their way and would probably assist if asked. However, I would take what is given as it is my due, yes.

    Some places like the YMCA offer family discounts. Will those apply to married couples only? Will hospitals treat civil unions as marriages in terms of visitation?

    There are family leave acts for businesses, there is time off for grieving for a spouse, etc. are these also to be automatic for civil unions or will all of these have to be worked into the system via lawsuits, court challenges, millions of dollars, etc?

    We can either include a group of people who are prohibited from marriage, into marriage and all move forward, everything said and done or we can spend untold millions or billions bickering over exactly what a civil union is, and who gets to be included and what public institutions will acknowledge it.

    What if a straight couple doesn’t want to be married but be in a civil union? Do they get that choice? If yes, then why do they get a choice and not me?

    The best answer, is to keep marriage in the church. The straight couple can get married in the church. They can tell their friends, we are married, and people will know what that means and their relationship will be strong, not now or ever under attack by anything.
    And when they fill out government forms, they can check that they are in a union. Same as same-sex couples who got married in a gay church or at city hall.

    And the religious folks can continue to put their relationships on a pedestal to their hearts content.

    We can also go with another route and ask why the government needs to know if we are in a union with another individual at all. It’s really none of their business. They can either not acknowledge relationships, or acknowledge all relationships between legal consenting adults equally.

    Having two names for the exact same thing is going to be very expensive. The cost of redoing all government paperwork alone will cost the taxpayer millions. But if it makes someone feel closer to God, they can call what they have ice cream and call what I have a frozen dairy product, as long as it’s the same ice cream.

  • Bliffle

    “How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today,…?”

    I’d venture a guess that it’s the irrelevance. A prayer is irrelevant to a political event and it’s an irritation, even an affront, to many people that a religious observation gets dragged into a political context. Thus lending some luster to a particular religion. Kinda like those ;earmarks’ we’ve been hearing about lately, where a Bridge To Nowhere is tagged onto an important funding bill.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com SteveS

    How is it that prayer in public schools or at any government function constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today, when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

    it should be pointed out that our founders, while maybe having prayer in their House, also were slaveowners. What’s good for people who believed in stockades in the public square and scarlet letters might not be good for us today.

    An individual should be able to close his/her eyes and pray to the Lord if that’s his wish. I don’t know of any instance where that is forbidden.

    I’m not sure why conservatives need school microphones to pray, I don’t think that’s necessary for God to hear you. And that’s what prayer is supposed to be about, isn’t it? Your conversation with God?

    But that’s not what it’s about, now, is it? It’s about requiring others to hear you. And in a setting like school, peer pressure is very great to conform. It creates an aura of ostracization for those who have to sit silently by while 90% of the class does their ‘praise Jesus’. It’s intimidating, but not being on the outside, you wouldn’t see that.

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

    Tradition is the business of society and culture and government is alo the business of society and culture so the two are necessarily intertwined.

    I bet we can fix that if we try hard enough, AC.

    Dave

  • Jeff

    Arch Conservative thinks he’s Jesus.

    That’s the problem with conservatives.

  • Geo

    Having scanned the literary achievments of this particular subject, I have (very quickly) observed 2 statements, and will just as quickly provide 2 comments.

    1. Jesus hated the sin, but loved the sinner. Yes he did hate, and he did admonish (witness the money changers), and he stated that you should protect yourself, as you would be hated.

    2. Rush Limbaugh can, under talmudic (Babylonian) law, which is the “traditions of the elders” (traditions of man) identified by Jesus, and other NT writers… do anything he wants to gentile women, or gentile men for that matter, as they do not count. Jesus wasn’t too thrilled about that either.

    Any good library worth its salt with have the entire talmud (17 or so volumns) and you can research it for yourselves.

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

    I think of him more as the holy ghost…

    from an episode of Scooby Doo

  • Geo

    According to some Hebrew scholars that I am familiar with the term Hell, renders to something like: A wasteland. Desolate and howling.

    Perhaps some peoples souls (or conscience) are all ready there and they know it.

  • http://jpsgoddamnblog.blogspot.com JP

    AC, “The only time most liberals want to talk about Jesus is when they are feeling extra uppity and want ot lecture church going conservatives on his teachings.” — So the Republicans are a better party because they talk about Jesus all the time? Don’t be afraid of faith, but you don’t have to overdo it either.

    “Ann Coulter is not a lunatic but Howard Dean is.” You just lost all credibility there–Coulter is a psychopath who can’t even convincingly argue she’s anti-murder. I am astonished anyone listens to her.

  • Roscoe Collins

    the liberals of this country have no moral values. Abortions, gay marriages,ect. Tahts the reason John Kerry lost thew election because all the christian doubted the liberals moral values.

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

    John Kerry lost thew election because all the christian doubted the liberals moral values.

    Of course, most Democrats are Christians, too….

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Steve says: while on a personal level, I have no problem with the terminology of calling it a civil union, it has been determined in a court of law that separate but equal is still separate and continues to foster an aura of stigmatization and ‘outsidedness’.

    Yet earlier he said: I never said, YOU, Arch conservative had to applaud my marriage. I don’t even want you to attend.

    i.e. that he WANTS to be “separated” – he wants to be on the “outside”.

    The result of the “civil rights” movement was FORCED integration. That can only be compared with the current push for linguistic corruption of the word “marriage”, if one advocates that private institutions like churches should be FORCED by government power to conduct gay “marriages”.

  • Clavos

    Hell, let the gays marry. Why should they be happier than the rest of us?