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 comments176 - Arch Conservative
It's reality Jet. I mean what else can one be led to believe when you have the ACLU providing pro bono legal reprersentation for NAMBLA after one of it's mambers, Charlers Jaynes raped and killed a 5 year old massachusetts boy all the while bashing everything christian.
When lefties are more upset that terrorists are being tortured than by the fact that those terrorists want to kill AMerican civilians.
As for you Steve....it seems like it is the secular progressives who want to make everyone live under thier particualr belief system as it seems to be their goal tro eradicate all expressions of christianity by private citizens in public.
the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
prohibiting the free exercise thereof means that congress nor anyone else shall be allowed to exercise their religion as a private citizen wether in public or private.....but don't tell that to the christophobic aclu whose goal it is is to eradicate all signs of christianity from our culture through thier lawsuits and bullshit revisionist hertiage that would have us believe that we were not in fact founded by predominantly christians
177 - Arch Conservative
allowed to prohibit that should read
178 - Arch Conservative
Hmm I guess I will have to wait for all the hard working liberal BC posters to roll out of bed at the crack of noon before I get a flurry of bullshit responses.
179 - SteveS
it seems like it is the secular progressives who want to make everyone live under thier particualr belief system
you mentioned earlier, Arch, 'why must this thread go back to gay marriage?', well, since you talk about TRYING to make someone live under a particular belief system, I need to bring it back there one more time.
My family is unfairly taxed, denied benefits, rights and privileges because I am ALREADY forced to live under another's belief system. Guess paybacks a bitch, I dunno.
as it seems to be their goal tro eradicate all expressions of christianity by private citizens in public.
Sometimes it does seem odd, some of the battles that are chosen in court, however it's equally odd to reject a full half of the political spectrum because of the actions of a few organizations or some instances that end up in the 'odd' files on the news.
the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Well, if there's anybody who's totally urinated on the Constitution and all it stands for, it would be conservatives. So what's your point?
but don't tell that to the christophobic aclu whose goal it is is to eradicate all signs of christianity from our culture
The aclu seems to be the biggest beef with conservatives, who reject every aspect of liberal ideology. Yet these same conservatives will say that extremists like Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson do not represent all of the conservative spectrum, failing to see the hypocrisy.
through thier lawsuits and bullshit revisionist hertiage that would have us believe that we were not in fact founded by predominantly christians
a lot of conservatives continually go on about the religious beliefs of our forefathers. My own opinion is that it is moot. Just because one of our forefathers worshipped a particular way, I don't think he would have intended for us all to do the same.
And it's not even 7 a.m.. Not everybody lives on your street corner. Try looking outside your little box for once.
180 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Please don't lump all of us conservatives into one stereotype as there are libertarian and authoritarian conservatives, and we don't like being confused with one another any more than authoritarian, capitalist and socialist liberals like being lumped together into one classification.
The media condenses all those complicated ideologies into two groups: red and blue, right and left, Republicans and Democrats, as if there are only two teams and everybody in America belongs to one or the other.
(And nevermind us non-partisans, we don't really count because we would add too many colors to all those neat little graphic presentations that are supposed to represent American diversity. They call the alternatives to the two major parties "third parties," which is just as offensive as referring to the developing nations of the Earth as the "Third World.")
FWIW, I do not understand how people who support capitalism and the free market do not also support individual liberty and limiting the role of government to protecting and defending the rights of the people. (Nor do I understand the supposed liberals who wish to see our Second Amendment effectively repealed, but that's another matter entirely.)
Even if some conservatives are not swayed by the notion that "liberty and justice for all" includes equal recognition and protection under the law for gay and lesbian people, they ought to at least realize that denying homosexuals their right to civil marriage is a form of authoritarian socialism (rules for behavior that do not protect and defend the rights of the people, but are rather intended to serve the "good of the collective") and therefore, anti-capitalist.
BTW, those of us who have children are always up early, regardless of our politics. And we have to feed them and dress them and help them find something to do (they're already out of school down here in the Sunshine State) before we can sit down to rant and rave on our computers.
181 - NR Davis
Indeed. My kid is still in school, and I often volunteer there on Fridays, as was the case today. Plus, there are chores, vocational crap, family non-cleaning-related tasks (today, dealing with insurance claims for Spousal Unit's recent illness; making a dentist appointment for the kid; trying to figure out how and if the rent will get paid by next Thursday). There are many tasks more important than ranting on a Web site, however great BC is. Perhaps we should be concerned that Mr. ArchConservative doesn't have actually meaningful things to do with his early mornings.
As to a response, Ms. Toigo covered much of what I wanted to say, so I'll defer to her and thank her for her thoughts. I know most on the Right AND Left oppose my equality - why on earth would I want to be lumped in with any of them for any reason? And why categorize anyway? Many of us fall in different places on different issues. I used to be a Republican. Once was a Democrat. Neither suits me. Both parties are unsuitable for many people. What? We don't count? (Rhetorical. I already know the answer and it's why I need to expatriate.) We are expected to live our ives as dictated by a set of beliefs we don't hold? Expect what you will, but you'll be disappointed if you expect obedience, and if you demand loyalty or pleasantness for your ske, you leave me no choice but to laugh in your face. Individual liberty is supposed to be the thing respected, so long as we don't violate the rights of others. So why is it OK to violate mine and those of millions based on the superstitions of others? (Again, rhetorical; I've heard your answers almost all my life and have no need for them to undergo the psychic abuse that comes with hearing/reading them again.) The why isn't important so much as that this injustice is OK or tolerable to so many. For many, it isn't and can not be. Expecting us to be nice about it is ludicrous. If you were in our shoes, you wouldn't be unless taught to hate yourself.
182 - Arch Conservative
With regard to gay marriage. You have not been denied any rights Steve. You have the legal right toi get married to a woman just like every other american man. That's what a marriage is and just because a person says they have a right to something does not mean you do otherwise I'd be saying i have the right to bang jessica simpson whenever the ,ood strikes me.
183 - Arch Conservative
an , isn't an m
184 - NR Davis
Oh, that's funny: The BS answer came from Mr. ArchConservative. Avoids the issue. If we are allowed to pursue happiness - and I can tell you from personal experience that a queer person who submits to marrying an opposite-sex person to suit society and/or denies himself of herself love will not be a happy person - then your view sets up that queers who want to marry and commit to the person OF THEIR CHOICE (a right YOU and HETEROSEXUALS have) are not permitted to pursue happiness under law. Those who follow their hearts will suffer from the inequality built into the system and if they attempt to cobble together their own tentative protections such as EXPENSIVE powers-of-attorneys and wills and such that can still be overturned by bigoted families and courts ('cause that's all that's available, even under Jim Crow, which is NOT equal to or the same as civil marriage). My family suffers every day. SteveS's family suffers. Millions of FAMILIES suffer needlessly because of a mendacious country that claims equality for all but REFUSES to practice what it preaches (hell, most of your kind doesn't even consider us to BE families). Which leads me to profane thoughts about your country for mandating such a vile, unforgivable legal inequity and for LYING and about you and those who support and defend such an unAmerican practice. Denying freedom? Denying equality? You call that equality or justice? I will keep my reply mild, but know it doesn't express fully my feelings: Shame on you. Shame on your country.
185 - SteveS
To Margaret, I do not usually lump all conservatives in with each other, however when someone like AC lumps all liberals together, I usually just respond in kind. I note that it's always my response that gets called on the carpet though, but that's neither here nor there.
You have the legal right toi get married to a woman just like every other american man.
For someone so adamant about preserving the sanctitiy of marriage, AC, you are certainly willing to throw the emotion of love out with the garbage.
186 - Andy Marsh
What's love got to do with it? Couldn't help it...as soon as I read that line...I could here Tina singing to me!!!
187 - Arch Conservative
When are you people going to get it through your thick skulls.
Homosexuals do not have any right to get married.
Nothing is being violated.
You don't get to make up rights and demand that society give these made up rights to you.
I've had enough of this bullshit self-pityfest.
If you don't like it..too fuckign bad.
Move to the Netherlands or Massachusetts and stay there and leave the rest of us the fuck alone because we're sick of hearing you bitch.
188 - Dave Nalle
AC's rigid interpretation of marriage may be one of the things which explains the high rate of divorce in America. For him it would apparently be better to be in a failed and destructive hetero marriage than a successful and loving gay one.
That seems like a poor ly conceived approach to marriage for all involved, especially the kids.
Dave
189 - NR Davis
Here we go: Truth.
Mr. ARchConservative: "Homosexuals do not have any right to get married."
Which proves equality does not exist under law in the US. Thanks for finally telling the unvarnished truth, as I expected you would after my last comment.
Until you write me a big fat check to finance my expatriation, I don't care if you're sick about me bitching about being unequal under law. I'm just as disgusted by the drivel you spew.
How about this: It's not enough that you support the denial of my equal protection and pursuit of happiness under law for what you see as a "greater good" (indeed a socialist concept). You want us to give up our freedom of expression for the comfort of discriminatory heterosexuals too? Fuck YOU.
Ms. Toigo: I so understand the bridge-building stuff you talked about earlier and my published work over the past two decades demonstrates this. Common ground is important to discover. But sometimes, when it comes down to basics, it just is NOT possible. I want to see you happily defer to someone whose beliefs impact your life so negatively and so directly. My integrity is more important to me than their sensibilities. Obviously, they don't give a hoot for protecting mine; hell, they're happy to see my family suffer. If they are determined to have superior status under law, they should have no problem financing the escape of GLBT people and families to other shores. Hell, it will give them the country they want.
190 - zingzing
bing, no one is going to pay attention to that. because it's stupid.
homosexuality has been a reality since pre-history. it's only religion that looks down on it. so, if a person is non-religious, or if a state is non-religious, then homosexual vs heterosexual love/marriage isn't really a talking point. since when did religion have anything to do with marriage, in its legal definition?
191 - Andy Marsh
You get offered everything but a word and somehow everyone is trampling all over your rights...what a crock of shit! Your all or nothing attitude is gonna get you exactly what your asking for...NOTHING!
I'm done with this thread!
192 - Margaret Romao Toigo
The values that hold marriages and families together -- trust, loyalty, respect, cooperation and fortitude -- should mean a lot more to us than some "traditional" demographic model.
Is biology more important than character? Is the composition of a marriage/family more important than the commitments that make it meaningful and worth preserving?
Lawrence vs. Texas recognized that adults have an equal right to consensual fornication and promiscuity, regardless of their sexual orientation.
And most people do not seem to have a problem with that -- except for those authoritarian one-percenters who'd like the anti-sodomy and anti-fornication laws to be reinstated for everyone, regardless of orientation.
Considering this, those folks who are so concerned about morality and family values shouldn't have a problem recognizing that gay and lesbian people also have the right to civil marriage.
Again, I must ask The Question: Whose rights will be violated/denied when we recognize homosexuals' right to civil marriage?
I've asked that question countless times and have yet to receive an answer because it is a trick question whose answer I already know: nobody's rights will be violated because the right to have certain preferred traditions codified into our laws does not exist. The state is not obliged to uphold any tradition to the detriment of the rights of the people.
There is no such thing as a right to tradition, only the right of individuals to practice their traditions, so long as they do not violate the rights of others in doing so.
193 - SteveS
Andy, offered everything but a word? Hardly. There are 1,700 federal and state benefits, rights and privileges of marriage. Except for Mass., the gay community is offered about 30 of those, at most.
Your all or nothing attitude is gonna get you exactly what your asking for...NOTHING!
How DARE we demand ALL our rights, instead of the meager ones you so graciously wish to throw at our feet! How DARE we!
194 - zingzing
i think andy has come around a bit and is saying that giving equal (marriage) rights to gay couples is fine. i don't know if he likes using the word "marriage" for this... but, i don't think he is against equal rights.
that seems to be the sticking point for a lot of people (on both sides) of this argument. just the word. that's what he's saying: gay people want the rights and the word, (some) conservatives are okay with the rights, but not the word... and that's where this thing is getting held up.
195 - Arch Conservative
The only thing it proves is that your view of equality is not consistent with reality NR.
Semantics, semantics, semantics, there is no such thing as gay marriage. therefore your continued references to an illusionary conecpt are meaning less.
the fact is that you and you're ilk will not be allowed to force you will upon american society nr
there are many many many many more people that feel like i do than you do and we're not prepared to roll over so you can have your way....
your constant bitching and whining about something that you feel you have a right to but you actually don't has grown so old.....
i'm so sick of hearing it and am at the poitn where i fell i might just start rubbing it in your face every day that you are not allowed to marry and you never will be......
I can be an extremely spiteful person in the face of extremeyl self-centered, unreasonable, and obstiante idiocy such is the sum of your intellectual capacities
FUCK ME? NO FUCK YOU!!!!!!
I think I will do just that. I think I will have to seek out which posts you post on every day to remind you that you have no right to marriage and you never will and to laugh about it........TO RUB IT IN YOUR FACE!!!!! TO MAKE YOU ANGRIER THAN YOU ALREADY ARE.............TO NEVER LET YOU FORGET IT...........NOTHING WOULD GIVE ME MORE SATISFACTION............
[Archie, it's time for your medication - equal parts prozac and humble pie, isn't it? Thank you. Comments Editor]
196 - zingzing
you're on the wrong side of history bing. and don't comment-stalk someone. i'm sure that's against the rules.
there are gay people on your street, there are gay people at your childrens' schools, there are gay people at your work, there are gay people on this site. you are surrounded by people demanding tolerance, while the intolerant people you claim won't roll over are disappearing.
it's going to be rubbed into your face, it's going to make you angrier than you already are and it's not going to let you forget. you aren't going to be satisfied, you are going to be shamed.
197 - Arch Conservative
I am more than tolerant as I have stated I have no problem with civil unions and legal rights.
It is the extremist homosexual activists with thier all or nothing mentality that are intolerant of our nation's heritage, culture and of the desire of the majority of Americans to have marriage remain one man one woman.
All or nothing....if that's the way they want it...fuck' em they get nothing!
198 - zingzing
dude, they're going to get it all. it's just a matter of time. i sincerely hope they take what they can get now, and then work towards everything else that they want. dinner's on the table... don't worry about desert yet.
199 - Jet in Columbus
It's not often I get to hurl a hearty "Bravo!!" to Dave Nalle, but his is one of them.
200 - NR Davis
Mr. Zing, it's not just the word. It's equality. Similar isn't equality. Civil union, which some people claim is the same thing under a different name (though it is not the same, when researched fully), it isn't equality. If everyone gets unionized under law and married in church, that's cool, but if one group has access to legal marriage and the other doesn't, it is not equality. Even in Massachusetts, legally married gay couples are still unequal under federal law, which violates the Full Faith and Credit promised in the mendacious US Constitution. It isn't equality.
No, not "nothing," Mr. Marsh. By not knuckling under, we get to keep our dignity and integrity. Unless anti-gay hets want to take that away from us too...
If the word means nothing to you, how about the hets leaving "marriage" to churches and "union" to legal, non-religious courthouse ceremonies? You know they won't do that. So point your laserlike focus on the Right and find a real justification for it, because the ones being tossed around - including tradition - are bogus.
There is no legal right to tradition imposing traditions on an entire society. Forbid something if it violates other people's rights, but because it's always done that way? It's unconscionable and inhumane and unjustifiable and immoral and wrong. It's the reason I am not part of your country despite being born here, something I did not choose. How dare WE? Screw that: How dare anti-gay folks assume they can ruin people's lives with impunity and in the worst way possible (I believe lack of legal equality a worse abuse and violence than murder)? And then they expect us to accept it? As if.
Mr. Marsh (if you're still reading and if you still care), please examine your devotion to having a legal word and status specially crafted to keep people like me separate from the rest of you. Just think about it.
201 - Arch Conservative
They're going to get it all?
Why do you say this? Based on what.
In EVERY state in the nation in which a ballot initiative regarding gay marriage has been put forth to the voters..they have voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage, including some very liberal states like michigan and oregon
The only state in the country which allows it, Mass, had to have liberal activists on the courts force it down the state's throat despite the wishes of the people of that state. the pro gay marriage lobby in that state are trying like hell to keep it off the ballot as a voter referendum because they know they would lose......
society as a whole ought to be able to determine what they consider to be thier norms and practices...a society shouldn't be forced into going against what they desire to be these norms and practices bya very small but very vocal minority...
based on the evidence so far this society has decided that they will not be bullied into allowing this to happen
202 - Jet in Columbus
You know when I was a kid I used to put lots of spaces in my homework to make it look bigger too!
203 - Jet in Columbus
202 Arch save you fantasies for somewhere else, even I'm not turned on!
204 - Dave Nalle
To play devil's advocate for a moment, AC does have a point of sorts. Those in the gay community who will accept nothing short of gay marriage are ultimately doing themselves a disservice by rejecting equivalent but not identical status when it is offered. By overreaching they may well end up with nothing as AC suggests.
Dave
205 - zingzing
nr--so if a person gets married in a church, they have more rights than someone who gets married at a courthouse? i did not know this. i will look it up. i don't know where to look. could you point me in the right direction?
206 - zingzing
or are you saying that it's the federal vs. state thing?
i'm all for federal legislation creating equal treatment under the law (and i think it's already there). i would hope they would still call it marriage (i don't see any reason not to).
hrm... my question is (and i think i know the answer), would you be satisfied with absolutely equal treatment under the law, even if the legal process was not referred to, legally (not personally), as "marriage?" keep in mind that every single thing, excepting the term, would be equal.
207 - zingzing
oh, and when i say "i think [the federal legislation] is already there," i should add, "but it is being ignored."
208 - ARCH CONVERSATIVE IS A HEARTLESS, BRAINLESS IDIOT
If that guy has a wife, I pity the poor woman. She ended up with less than a man.
209 - NR Davis
#204 & 205 - ROFLMAO!
Mr. ArchConservative, I'll thank you for this: Reminding me just how vile American society is. Until you write the check sending queer people to a more habitable place, your taunts mean less than nothing, save as a reason to laugh at you and how pathetic you sound. Relax: You're top dog, just as you want it. Bully for the bully. I've been praying for you for a long time. Guess I'll have to redouble my efforts on your behalf. Oh, and save your breath saying the tired, "Keep your prayers for yourself." THIS you and your discriminatory laws cannot stop me from doing. I would love to see you try. LOL...
210 - SteveS
are ultimately doing themselves a disservice by rejecting equivalent but not identical status when it is offered.
Separate but equal has been rejected by the Supreme Court in regards to water fountains. I think it would also apply in regards to benefits, rights and privileges.
zing, that's not what she's saying. She's saying the current civil unions offered to gay people are a mere fraction of the benefits, rights and privileges that go with marriage.
211 - Arch Conservative
Those in the gay community who will accept nothing short of gay marriage are ultimately doing themselves a disservice by rejecting equivalent but not identical status when it is offered.
Yes even when it's offered by a ..how did that guy just describe me? a class a asshole with a hetful attitude?
I understand where NR is coming from. I'm think she thinks I'm the guy that dragged Matthew Shepard behind his pickup truck, but I'm not. There's a world of difference between me and those guys and I think the only thing that NR and I may ever be able to agree on is that hose guys should rot in hell for eternity for what they did.
But when you get right down to it what I said before is absoutley correct. the current state of affairs in America is that we have a very small minority trying to dictate against the wishes of the overwelming majority of our population, a definition of marriage. it is causing resentment toward the homosexual activists where there might not be any among conservatives like if this were not being done.
I'm not some hateful person denigrating homosexuals as you can see from my posts but I will not accept anything that alter's our traditional institutions and morals
212 - NR Davis
Mr. ArchConservative wrote: "I understand where NR is coming from. I'm think she thinks I'm the guy that dragged Matthew Shepard behind his pickup truck, but I'm not."
No, I don't think that. As I already said earlier, I m sure most of you anti-GLBTers don't want us beaten and killed. You just want us unequal under law and silent. And, as I said, that desire made tangible under the law of the land, though different from Matt Shepard's killers, has the same effect. Worse, even: At least Matt is free from it now. Those of us still breathing have to live under it every day.
In any case, talking with you is a waste of my time.
213 - zingzing
steves: "She's saying the current civil unions offered to gay people are a mere fraction of the benefits, rights and privileges that go with marriage."
i know the facts of the matter. we aren't talking about the current laws. at least i'm not. i'm talking about what could be had in the future. obviously, the current laws are not sufficient. would we be having this debate if they were?
it seems some people (come on, bing is okay with it!) are willing to concede equal "marriage" rights under the law to gay couples. that's a step forward. minds are changing.
they just won't budge on the word "marriage." neither side seems to be able to. i think this debate is ridiculous to begin with, as it's fairly obvious that, as human beings, gay people deserve all the rights that straight people do. but when the debate gets bogged down in a stupid word, it becomes comedy.
214 - SteveS
Currently, in America, it is not a crime to be gay. And gay people pay taxes. And with the sodomy rulings by the Supreme Court, that said that consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own homes, we now have the ONLY difference between gay and straight relationships a societal perception based on biblical mores. You can't create a democratic society on that principle.
Consenting adults are consenting adults, period.
If you want marriage to remain between a man and a woman, then you need to have only churches do marriages. The government should give gay people AND straight people civil unions. Then you could do whatever you want with the word marriage.
Okay? So consider this:
As a LEGAL TAXPAYER just like AC, I am 100% entitled to everything he gets from the State. What is the basis for denying me everything he gets? Tradition?
Personally, the government should have no business playing doting father and rewarding/punishing relationships between consenting adults. However, since people wish the government to be all wrapped up in relationships, then it's got to be wrapped up in them all equally.
215 - NR Davis
Oh, one last thing: If you put arbitary traditions above the well-being and legal equality of individuals and families, you're pushing a hateful proposition and supporting a hateful reality. You are an accessory to harming people who obviously mean nothing to you and over whom you claim some superior status allowable under a tradition that conveniently works for YOU. So if you yourself are not hateful, you're certainly indifferent to the suffering of others - and THAT, sir, is hateful by definition.
216 - Arch Conservative
Ok Natalie let me lay out exactly how I feel about it.
I am for cvivil unions between consenting adults of the sem sex which bestow All of the same legal benefits as marriage but are also subject to ALL of the same constraints. But in keeping with tradtion and respecting the wishes of most of AMerican society these unions should be recognized as anything you want to call it other than marriage. I do not believe homsosexuals shoudl be discriminated aginst in any way on the job, at school, or otherwise, I do not believe it is ok to harm someone physically, mentally, or emotionally soley based on thier sexual orientation.
What exactly about what I just said makes me an evil, intolerant, hateful, bastard who does not respect the rights of homosexuals? What about what I just said is unacceptable to you?
I am sorry for being such an ass with all the capitals and such. I realize what you might have to deal with from some people. Maybe they call you names, say you're ammoral, tell you you
re a bad person who's going to hell, try to harm you etc....But that aint me and if you look at all my posts on this threads you can see that. I don't hate you or anyone else because they are gay but I do feel that I am definitely being more resaonable on this particular issue than you.
I have said me peace on this issue it is getting old. There are better things to talk about now like someone shotting up DC today. I'll leave it to you guys to decide for yourself
217 - SteveS
The SCOTUS ruled years ago that separate but equal fosters an element of ostracization and exclusion which is an infringement upon the Pursuit of Happiness. I didn't make that ruling, the SCOTUS did.
If you want the word marriage, get it out of the government.
218 - NR Davis
"I do not believe it is ok to harm someone physically, mentally, or emotionally soley based on thier sexual orientation."
The denial of legal equality leads to physical, mental and emotional harm! It's been said and described countless times. Why can't you get THAT through YOUR thick skull? Separate but equal IS NOT EQUAL. The SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal is HARMFUL. That is what you support, however much you hate me or don't. As I said, I don't care if you love me or hate me or approve of me. I just want, for the first time in my life, to be equal under law. Fully equal. You don't have to do without equality and in my shoes you wouldn't accept it. WHY SHOULD I?
Really. I am done with you now. Too painful.
219 - youguysmakemyheadhurt
Look people...my wife tells me that when they put two catsup bottles together at the end of the night they call it marrying catsups...so how about...I now pronounce you...Catsup and Ketchup...oh wait...that would be separate but egual...I wonder which Catsup/Ketchup will bitch about it first?
Get this...not one person on this thread ever tried to deny anyone anything but the use of a word...they all seem to agree that any meaningful relationship deserves the same RIGHTS as any other...you sound like a bunch of children. It's my word...no it's mine!
We all know the government is screwing you guys/girls/thems...but as long as you DEMAND that what you have be labled the same as what they have it will stay that way.
Take what you can get, once the ball starts rolling it's awful hard to slow it down...you take civil union...it goes to the supreme court...they say no separate but equal...then either everybody gets the word or they take it away from everybody...but if you insist on "taking it up the ass" for a word...well...all I can say is...you must like it!
220 - Margaret Romao Toigo
If history is any indication, Arch Conservative, they are eventually going to get it all. Bit by bit, piece by piece, the recognition of gay rights has been expanded continuously for over 30 years now.
Right now, the people are hung up on the word, not the principle, thus the widening support for "civil unions" that confer similar, or even the very same, benefits as marriage.
This point of contention over the word is a reflection of the people's sentimentality for certain traditions being in conflict with their sense of justice and fair play.
They want it both ways, but cannot have it both ways and they are dealing with their emotions about the inevitability of civil and human rights trumping tradition.
Majorities are irrelevant to human and civil rights here. Desegregation was opposed by a large majority in the Southern states, but that "tradition" was struck down because upholding it was detrimental to civil and human rights.
Sure, that civil rights struggle was a little different than this one, but the principle behind it is exactly the same: civil and human rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority.
Our Founders, in their wisdom, created our three-branch system of government so that those who have been oppressed by the majority can seek and find remedy.
Now, I know that we're all educated people here and that most of us do not need a lesson in Civics 101, but I would like offer a warning to those who appear to have found comfort in majority opinion:
It is a fickle beast that changes and evolves over time (every poll of Americans under the age of 35 shows 60-70 percent majority support for the recognition of same-sex marriage), and it is never legally relevant to matters concerning civil and human rights, anyway.
221 - SteveS
everybody who says 'take civil unions as completely equal to marriage just not the word' need to realize they are just blogging sentences for nowhere legislatively is that a reality. All civil unions, even in Vermont, fall far short of all the benefits, rights and privileges of marriage. Nowhere is 'separate but equal' even a reality. There's no comparison in the real world, it just seems to be an option in blogdom.
And if I or any other blogger said okay, it doesn't change history or the movement for full equality. It just gives you an excuse in your head to say 'well I offered them something but they wouldn't take it'.
You aren't in a position, as a blogger, to offer me anything and there's no way for me to take it.
222 - TheCO
As much as i hate Phelps, unlike the Brits America's Constitution specifically acknowledges the right to free speach. I find the KKK utterly disgusting, and i am a black man, but i would be appalled if they were disallowed to speak.
223 - TA Dodger
'take civil unions as completely equal to marriage just not the word'
Not to mention... that "marriage" license is nothing but a license for a CIVIL UNION.
The state is not a religious institution. It DOES NOT PERFORM SACRAMENTS.
If you are married in the eyes of your religion then you have a marriage in the religious sense. What the state does has nothing to do with that.
224 - Mark Edward Manning
ArchConservative: "I think I will have to seek out which posts you post on every day to remind you that you have no right to marriage and you never will and to laugh about it........TO RUB IT IN YOUR FACE!!!!! TO MAKE YOU ANGRIER THAN YOU ALREADY ARE.............TO NEVER LET YOU FORGET IT...........NOTHING WOULD GIVE ME MORE SATISFACTION............"
Arch, I think you're great and have agreed with 99.9% of what you've said in this thread, but this is stepping over the line. This will get you nowhere. In fact, you're only sinking to NR and her Extreme Left Ragtag Brigade's level. Surely we conservatives can argue and then simply laugh them off for the militants that they are if we make no headway with them?
Yes, NR, you want superiority for formerly oppressed people. So does everyone else in these empowerment-type movements: "Fuck equality, you straight white males are going down! It's our turn now!"
Lori, as for you, I never said that women couldn't dress and act as they like. Of course they can. If they want to wear combat pants, drink till they drop and fight, then I say go for it. But they run the risk of attracting men who are thuggish as they are. But they will not ever be truly happy, because they are denying what they are supposed to be and going against the grain of nature. I reiterate, most normal men want feminine women who know how to and are not ashamed of acting like ladies. That includes me. Thankfully, my own wife is quite feminine - I constantly think how lucky I was to meet her. Not many like her left ...
And, men are forever being told how to look by women. Everything from our hair, to our clothes, our shoes, our height, every fucking thing about ourselves is mercilessly scrutinized by you females. So I will goddamned well certainly take the liberty of telling women what I think is attractive about them. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.
225 - Nancy
Why did gay/lesbian rights get inserted into this discussion? I thought the point was Phelps & his goonies are disturbing funerals - anyone's funerals. What does (putative) sexual orientation of the corpse have to do with that? I was under the impression that behaving badly at ANYBODY'S funeral was not only bad taste but bad, regardless. Doesn't matter why he's doing it, he's a moral skank & he needs to be stopped simply because his behavior is inhumane & offensive to humanity at large.