Why on earth is Fred Phelps and his twisted congregation free to protest the funerals of soldiers and homosexuals?
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Joey
and... it was the German code of 1871 which outlawed Homosexuality in Germany.
that's the fact.
27 - 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.
28 - 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.
29 - 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....
30 - Jet in Columbus
OR you might enjoy the views expressed right here at this very site, just click on this URL:
31 - 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.
32 - 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.
33 - Jet in Columbus
Mr. Manning, he knew what you meant, he was just being a smart ass.
34 - 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.
35 - 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?
36 - Jet in Columbus
Arch Conservative #34 You have my respect sir.
37 - 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.
38 - Jet in Columbus
That's no far Arch, you can respect a man without respecting his political views.
39 - 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.
40 - rene
#22 - Couldn't have said it better myself.
41 - 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.
42 - 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?!
43 - Jet in Columbus
Mark? When did I say that?
44 - 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.
45 - 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.
46 - 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.
47 - 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.
48 - 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."
49 - Andy Marsh
strange views that don't reflect much humanity...from you I'll take that as a compliment.
50 - 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.
51 - 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.
52 - Arch Conservative
Yeah I took that test too.
It told me I was the illegitimate lovechild of Pat Buchanan and Phyliss Schafly.
53 - zingzing
i'm sorry they didn't love you either.
54 - Arch Conservative
They didn't love me but they gave me some damn good genes!
55 - 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!
56 - 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.
57 - 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...
58 - 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.
59 - 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.
60 - 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.
61 - 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.
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.
62 - 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.
63 - 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
64 - 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.
65 - 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.
66 - 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!
67 - 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.
68 - 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.
69 - 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.
70 - 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.
71 - 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...
72 - 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???
73 - 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.
74 - 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.
75 - 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.