Prop 8 Meltdown
Proposition 8 in California passed Tuesday, a ballot measure in defense of the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Michelle Malkin has been following the backlash from supporters of gay marriage, some of which are threatening arson and murder against churches and minorities in what we can hope is merely online venting, even though there is at least one man in jail who assaulted and elderly couple over their signs supporting the ballot initiative.
I can empathize with gays who want to marry their partners, but do they really think that threatening to burn churches—or worse, actually carrying out that threat—is going to do anything but hurt them in the long run? And do the dolts at the Huffington Post really think that an attempt to attack the Mormon Church over this issue is really accomplish anything other than further marginalizing gay marriage proponents? I'm generally agnostic on gay marriage, and suspect my willingness to vote on a proposition for or against it would be swayed by how the two side of the debate handled themselves. Agree with them or not, the Catholics and Mormons that supported Prop 8 did so (as best I can tell) as we hope citizens will, raising money, holding rallies, etc. What have the California gay marriage proponents offered in return? Threats against the churches. Racist epithets. Bullying tactics meant to intimidate and terrorize those that financially backed Prop 8. All else being equal, my gut reaction is to empathize with those being attacked by angry mobs. I suspect others feel that way as well. Gay marriage supporters may have legitimate arguments, but nobody is going to hear them over calls for violent and repeated shouts of "n*gger!" Not content with losing the battle for public opinion, they now seem intent on forfeiting the war.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:05 PM
Comments
1
The problem is that the people voted to entrench the traditional definition of marriage in response to judicial tyranny. If the Gay community is angry, they should direct that anger to the courts who usurped the will of the people.
Society defines what marriage looks like -- we place age restrictions on marriage, for example. In the end, civil debate and discourse is what we should be engaged in, not violence and vandalism, as witnessed by this angry mob of degenerates.
Society defines what marriage looks like -- we place age restrictions on marriage, for example. In the end, civil debate and discourse is what we should be engaged in, not violence and vandalism, as witnessed by this angry mob of degenerates.
Posted by: Richard Romano at November 07, 2008 11:48 PM (kycO9)
2
Society has the right to set limits.We have anti-bigamy laws that say a man can have only one wife at a time.In some societies a man can legally have more than one wife at a time.
Forty-one states now have statutes saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
Forty-one states now have statutes saying marriage is between one man and one woman.
Posted by: Frank at November 08, 2008 01:03 AM (4gHqM)
3
Why is it that we are supposed to accept the decision of the people, but they gays can't? Are they above the system when it doesn't go their way?
Posted by: joe at November 08, 2008 01:10 AM (K4XlS)
4
We've already had this exercise out here on the left coast. Because of judicial tyranny fomented by the left this is exercise #2.
Same sex marriage is all part the the agenda to wreck Western Civilization. The result will be a Socialist Superstate where government will supplant individual identity. The advance of civilization will be arrested as individual initiative will be subsumed to the will of the collective.
Personal pleasure will be the one guiding principle. That will be fostered by the states encouragement of wanton sex and drug use. Life will be cheapened through abortion and assisted suicide. Behavior will be modified in schools and "training facilities". Financial wealth will be subsumed to political wealth.
In short, it will suck to be you. And.You.Will.Embrace.Your.Slavery.
Same sex marriage is all part the the agenda to wreck Western Civilization. The result will be a Socialist Superstate where government will supplant individual identity. The advance of civilization will be arrested as individual initiative will be subsumed to the will of the collective.
Personal pleasure will be the one guiding principle. That will be fostered by the states encouragement of wanton sex and drug use. Life will be cheapened through abortion and assisted suicide. Behavior will be modified in schools and "training facilities". Financial wealth will be subsumed to political wealth.
In short, it will suck to be you. And.You.Will.Embrace.Your.Slavery.
Posted by: torabora at November 08, 2008 01:20 AM (f+xTz)
5
Gays, atheists and many other anti-God movements in America are all part of the same effort by Satan to change the world the only way he can. Think about it. America and the world and our entire value system has gone south with the advent of radio, TV and accelerated by the internet. Why are all these happening at the same time. No meer coincidence for sure. Obama's ascendency as the internet president is obviously part of the equation. Believe it or not.The world is headed to the end.
Posted by: jimmy at November 08, 2008 02:45 AM (RuxnF)
6
Please name your "legitimate" arguments CY. I would like to hear them.
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 08, 2008 03:53 AM (VEDDm)
7
Ya know what's really funny? In California, Proposition 8 would have failed if it was just up to the white voters, who opposed it 51-49.
Black voters, however, supported it by something like 70%.
A similar thing happened in Florida with Proposition 2.
In short, Barack Progressive Obama's own supporters nixed this bill.
Food for thought.
Black voters, however, supported it by something like 70%.
A similar thing happened in Florida with Proposition 2.
In short, Barack Progressive Obama's own supporters nixed this bill.
Food for thought.
Posted by: C-C-G at November 08, 2008 09:17 AM (PnuiE)
8
more food for thought
Hispanics also voted for the bill, another sector of the Obama Nation.
My SIL and I propose that Obama in fact did not "carry all of the minority vote", otherwise he would have won TX, AR, LA, AL, and MS where the "minortiy vote" would have far outnumbered the "white vote"
I personaly view the failures of these kinds bills in the face of a win for Dems in Washington as both a gleaming sliver of hope for conservatives over progressives, and a wake-up call for the GOP to make us see where we need to perk up our public appeal.
Hispanics also voted for the bill, another sector of the Obama Nation.
My SIL and I propose that Obama in fact did not "carry all of the minority vote", otherwise he would have won TX, AR, LA, AL, and MS where the "minortiy vote" would have far outnumbered the "white vote"
I personaly view the failures of these kinds bills in the face of a win for Dems in Washington as both a gleaming sliver of hope for conservatives over progressives, and a wake-up call for the GOP to make us see where we need to perk up our public appeal.
Posted by: Vin at November 08, 2008 09:49 AM (4GWtm)
9
CY it's simple for you to throw out " supporters may have legitimate arguments" but what, may I ask do you consider legitimate???
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 08, 2008 10:32 AM (9cTu/)
10
What do I consider a legitimate argument?
There is the pragmatic argument that marriages can be performed as a civil and/or religious service, and that blocking civil ceremonies because of cultural sensitivities essentially based upon Christian religious beliefs is wrong if we allow these same people to have spousal rights as "partners."
This shouldn't be a matter of degree. Either all gay relationships and rights should be forbidden under the eyes of the law, or none should.
I also have a hard time as a Christian picturing Jesus condemning a gay couple to Hell for loving each other. There are far worse sins we see every day in conventional relationships. Unless you're Fred Phelps insane, of course.
Those are my thoughts. You mileage, of course, may vary.
There is the pragmatic argument that marriages can be performed as a civil and/or religious service, and that blocking civil ceremonies because of cultural sensitivities essentially based upon Christian religious beliefs is wrong if we allow these same people to have spousal rights as "partners."
This shouldn't be a matter of degree. Either all gay relationships and rights should be forbidden under the eyes of the law, or none should.
I also have a hard time as a Christian picturing Jesus condemning a gay couple to Hell for loving each other. There are far worse sins we see every day in conventional relationships. Unless you're Fred Phelps insane, of course.
Those are my thoughts. You mileage, of course, may vary.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 08, 2008 11:09 AM (HcgFD)
11
Homosexuality is sexual behavior, not genetic code. To many people homosexual behavior is not acceptable, just as prostitution - another sexual behavior - is not acceptable. Scientists are furiously working hard to make it a human condition, and thereby make it a human RIGHT.
Sexual behavior is not a right. By choosing to have abnormal sex (and I mean that in the sense that gays are a very small percentage of the population, so thusly "normal" sex is in the majority. Abnormal being the opposite of normal for want of a better term)a person does not automatically become entitled to a new set of "rights".
The claim being made that proponents of 8 are descriminating against gay human rights is absurd, they have EVERY right afforded married couples in domestic partnership laws.
Marriage is a "UNION" between a man and a woman. That also means a sexual "UNION" for pro-creation purposes. Gays in no way, shape, or form can fulfill that "UNION" without scientific intervention.
Marriage is an institution that was created for and belongs to one man and one woman. Gays will not become normal by subverting the traditional practice of marriage to validate their sexual behavior of choice.
Sexual behavior is not a right. By choosing to have abnormal sex (and I mean that in the sense that gays are a very small percentage of the population, so thusly "normal" sex is in the majority. Abnormal being the opposite of normal for want of a better term)a person does not automatically become entitled to a new set of "rights".
The claim being made that proponents of 8 are descriminating against gay human rights is absurd, they have EVERY right afforded married couples in domestic partnership laws.
Marriage is a "UNION" between a man and a woman. That also means a sexual "UNION" for pro-creation purposes. Gays in no way, shape, or form can fulfill that "UNION" without scientific intervention.
Marriage is an institution that was created for and belongs to one man and one woman. Gays will not become normal by subverting the traditional practice of marriage to validate their sexual behavior of choice.
Posted by: Enlightened at November 08, 2008 12:34 PM (8Clmq)
12
When they claimed this issue was one of 'rights' and ran to the courts seeking what they couldn't otherwise accomplish they lost any sympathies I may have had.
Live by the Constitution die by the Constitution.
Live by the Constitution die by the Constitution.
Posted by: ThomasD at November 08, 2008 04:12 PM (UK5R1)
13
I would be curious to find out the percentage of homosexuals who do not support the initiatives of the militant fringe, and just want to live their lives without assailing traditional values as "bigoted" and "hateful". If gay is your way, that's o.k., I just don't see what is to be gained by a continued assault on normalcy. This is all about legitimizing an aberrant behavior by giving it state sanction.
Posted by: J-dog at November 08, 2008 04:46 PM (8Xolk)
14
It's actions like these, the riots in CA, the blantant use of name-calling and, to put it bluntly, whining, that illustrate the immaturity of those who can't differentiate between a person and their actions in the first place. The whole reason we are faced with this dilemma to begin with is because too many people believe that our choices are subject entirely to our temptations. They aren't even as mature as Forrest Gump- instead of stupid is as stupid does, they've regressed to stupid is as stupid feels. What kind of society would this be if everyone expected everyone else to "tolerate" their indecent behavior? The fact that they go so far as to object to the workings of democracy, simply because it worked against them, is an ominous manifestation of actions they believe are justified.
I have respect for a person with feelings that deviate from the "norm." I have even more respect for that person who admits they have a problem, and lives an upright life anyway. None of us are strangers to problems. And none of us are perfect. I don't expect everyone dealing with homosexual tendencies to deal with it perfectly. But I DO expect the people of this nation to be able to voice their opinion and for that opinion to be respected.
I have respect for a person with feelings that deviate from the "norm." I have even more respect for that person who admits they have a problem, and lives an upright life anyway. None of us are strangers to problems. And none of us are perfect. I don't expect everyone dealing with homosexual tendencies to deal with it perfectly. But I DO expect the people of this nation to be able to voice their opinion and for that opinion to be respected.
Posted by: Summer at November 08, 2008 08:21 PM (7X1xm)
15
CY, thank you for replying. Fallen mankind wars against God. We are all sinners and have fallen short of His glory. So your reply that there are far worse sins is correct but sexual perversion is still sin. Politically those who practice homosexuality are trying to create themselves as a gender. There are males, females then gays, lesbians then bisexuals and transgenders and therefore they are absolutely normal and natural. This is a lie though for marching at the tail end of a parade of these people were the pedophiles. Sexual Orientation should be defined not as gender but as to what you lust after and practice engaging in sexual acts with morally or immorally. The depths of mankind's perverted behavior does not end with the LGBT's list it goes on with pedophiles with no age limit, beastiality, ect. God defines what is moral and that is a sexual relationship between one man and one woman in holy matrimony till death do they part. With that said it doesn't leave any of us without guilt does it but please let us not further rebel by erasing the lines and boundaries of this institution given by God called marriage and justify every "sexual orientation" under the sun. With such laws putting wind in their sails they set off into our schools and churches no different than storming our streets.
They are trying to teach our children in our schools to indulge in these behaviors and be misled that it is normal. They are trying to sexually "educate" our children at kindergarten level. They are trying do away with free speech and of religion and silence the churches from speaking against immorality and uplifting morality making it a hate crime to do so. Like I said fallen mankind wars against God.
They are trying to teach our children in our schools to indulge in these behaviors and be misled that it is normal. They are trying to sexually "educate" our children at kindergarten level. They are trying do away with free speech and of religion and silence the churches from speaking against immorality and uplifting morality making it a hate crime to do so. Like I said fallen mankind wars against God.
Posted by: TonyUSA at November 09, 2008 12:01 AM (9cTu/)
16
As long as the GLBA community sells itself out exclusively to the progressive left, it will be a "safe token" constituency that will be given table scraps just like the rest. There's no market of ideas and no competition for their votes. They're a safe voting block that can be ignored, counted to vote for whatever Democrat is thrown up in the election.
I'm as anti-progressive as they come, living in a flyover state in a rural county, making enough to be on Obama's target list, possessing an advanced education in a quantitative field, attending church regularly and believing in small town, conservative values. But you'll also find many like me to be libertarian oriented and seeing my second amendment rights on the same level as appreciating the rights of gay couples to have the same tax and civil liberties recognition.
Now, if you misappropriate the term marriage and try to obtain those rights under that approach, you're screwed. A few thousand years of an incompatible definition really works against you. But tell me we're going to make marriage a religious recognition, and in the eyes of the law, call all domestic partnerships just that, and you've got my vote.
So it comes down to this: the longer the GLBA community pisses on the swing voters and continues to be a safe progressive voting block, the longer they'll keep wearing the chains. It's no different than the fate poor welfare plantation blacks face. Sharecropping will never set you free.
I'm as anti-progressive as they come, living in a flyover state in a rural county, making enough to be on Obama's target list, possessing an advanced education in a quantitative field, attending church regularly and believing in small town, conservative values. But you'll also find many like me to be libertarian oriented and seeing my second amendment rights on the same level as appreciating the rights of gay couples to have the same tax and civil liberties recognition.
Now, if you misappropriate the term marriage and try to obtain those rights under that approach, you're screwed. A few thousand years of an incompatible definition really works against you. But tell me we're going to make marriage a religious recognition, and in the eyes of the law, call all domestic partnerships just that, and you've got my vote.
So it comes down to this: the longer the GLBA community pisses on the swing voters and continues to be a safe progressive voting block, the longer they'll keep wearing the chains. It's no different than the fate poor welfare plantation blacks face. Sharecropping will never set you free.
Posted by: redherkey at November 09, 2008 12:19 PM (kjqFg)
17
Now, if you misappropriate the term marriage and try to obtain those rights under that approach, you're screwed. A few thousand years of an incompatible definition really works against you. But tell me we're going to make marriage a religious recognition, and in the eyes of the law, call all domestic partnerships just that, and you've got my vote.
I'll agree to that.
There is no major religion--even the "religion of peace," Islam--that recognizes marriage between people of the same gender.
Not to mention that human civilization has gotten to this point--which, despite what you'd like to see in the future, is far far superior to the stone age--using the formula of "one man and one woman" for marriage.
In short, I ain't sure the concept of marriage is "broken," so I am highly skeptical of the attempts to "fix" it.
However, civil unions are just that: civil. They don't mess with the definition of marriage, don't step on any religious toes, and if the laws are written right, give all civil and legal benefits conferred by marriage.
The fact that the lefty homosexuals (as opposed to those homosexuals who are conservative or in the middle) want to co-opt the term "marriage" says a lot about their true goal.
I'll agree to that.
There is no major religion--even the "religion of peace," Islam--that recognizes marriage between people of the same gender.
Not to mention that human civilization has gotten to this point--which, despite what you'd like to see in the future, is far far superior to the stone age--using the formula of "one man and one woman" for marriage.
In short, I ain't sure the concept of marriage is "broken," so I am highly skeptical of the attempts to "fix" it.
However, civil unions are just that: civil. They don't mess with the definition of marriage, don't step on any religious toes, and if the laws are written right, give all civil and legal benefits conferred by marriage.
The fact that the lefty homosexuals (as opposed to those homosexuals who are conservative or in the middle) want to co-opt the term "marriage" says a lot about their true goal.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 09, 2008 01:14 PM (PnuiE)
18
Maybe it was an oversight that you did not include a link to justify your assertion "but nobody is going to hear them over calls for violent and repeated shouts of "n*gger!"
Perhaps you were overcome by the moment in which the video of this took place. I can understand.
Is this appalling action available on youtube?
Please link your source that we may share your outrage based on..oh...fact.
By the way..if it is a direct quote..the word "nigger" should not be censored. Just as George Calin should ever be censored for his use of the word "fuck".
Why aren't there any great GOP comedians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
Perhaps you were overcome by the moment in which the video of this took place. I can understand.
Is this appalling action available on youtube?
Please link your source that we may share your outrage based on..oh...fact.
By the way..if it is a direct quote..the word "nigger" should not be censored. Just as George Calin should ever be censored for his use of the word "fuck".
Why aren't there any great GOP comedians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
Posted by: nogomore at November 09, 2008 03:36 PM (JL9w0)
19
This "but nobody is going to hear them over the calls for violent and repeated shouts of n*gger!"
I am sure it is just a slip..you forgot to link to youtube or other video verifying your claim.
I give to you this.(Name 3 significant comedians that were Republicans)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
I am sure it is just a slip..you forgot to link to youtube or other video verifying your claim.
I give to you this.(Name 3 significant comedians that were Republicans)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU
Posted by: nogomore at November 09, 2008 03:42 PM (JL9w0)
20
FL passed a similar state constitution amendment on the 4th that passed by a WIDE margin.
Posted by: PA at November 09, 2008 07:08 PM (OqXyp)
21
WTF CY?
"I also have a hard time as a Christian picturing Jesus condemning a gay couple to Hell for loving each other. There are far worse sins we see every day in conventional relationships. Unless you're Fred Phelps insane, of course."
Who is condemning gays with Prop 8?
We are only trying to define "Marriage".
You should be MUCH MORE CAREFUL what you post.
I am big fan CY, and I agree with the beginning part of your quote. But to suggest those that want "Marriage" defined as between One man and One woman are condemning gays is preposterous...
"I also have a hard time as a Christian picturing Jesus condemning a gay couple to Hell for loving each other. There are far worse sins we see every day in conventional relationships. Unless you're Fred Phelps insane, of course."
Who is condemning gays with Prop 8?
We are only trying to define "Marriage".
You should be MUCH MORE CAREFUL what you post.
I am big fan CY, and I agree with the beginning part of your quote. But to suggest those that want "Marriage" defined as between One man and One woman are condemning gays is preposterous...
Posted by: babj615 at November 09, 2008 08:20 PM (q3zNO)
22
I believe everyone is ignoring the real pragmatic reason why people are opposed to gay marriage. After going though all the work and pain and trouble and effort of raising children, most people look forward to having grandchildren. Homosexual children do not provide grandchildren. Although some homosexuals seem to be that way from an early age, others learn to be homosexual. This should not be encouraged and every parent who has raised children has the right to be opposed to those who would encourage their children to become homosexual.
The attacks by the gay activists against the boy scouts, where parents work hard to see their children brought up, has made me forever opposed to the gay "community" and their political machinations. The more news that gets around of black people being cursed and churches attacked the more dislike people will have of something that they already instinctively oppose. Parents want grandchildren.
The attacks by the gay activists against the boy scouts, where parents work hard to see their children brought up, has made me forever opposed to the gay "community" and their political machinations. The more news that gets around of black people being cursed and churches attacked the more dislike people will have of something that they already instinctively oppose. Parents want grandchildren.
Posted by: snookered at November 09, 2008 08:23 PM (h3PdB)
23
The real deal is money. Declaring gay marriage as "legal" is about insurance eligibility and tax exemptions. The rest is pure horse puckey. A "Commitment" is not dependent on a piece of paper. It's about the money. Spare me the lies!
Posted by: Tonto (USA) at November 09, 2008 11:59 PM (Qv1xF)
24
"Agree with them or not, the Catholics and Mormons that supported Prop 8 did so (as best I can tell) as we hope citizens will, raising money, holding rallies, etc. What have the California gay marriage proponents offered in return? Threats against the churches. Racist epithets. Bullying tactics meant to intimidate and terrorize those that financially backed Prop 8."
I'm sad to say, that whenever I was out rallying against 8 I would have cars drive by and yell "faggots" and other profane homophobic comments. Funny thing is, a large portion of the people at these rallies, including myself, were straight.
If that isn't ignorant, discriminatory, and completely unacceptable, I don't know what is. The homosexuals have a right to be angry because they are being stripped of their fundamental rights. I would be angry too. It's a personal attack, regardless of what "non"-homophobic spin these biggots try to put on it.
Last time I checked America wasn't a theocracy. I'm Christian, but I am sick of them trying to implement their personal beliefs into the law.
I'm sad to say, that whenever I was out rallying against 8 I would have cars drive by and yell "faggots" and other profane homophobic comments. Funny thing is, a large portion of the people at these rallies, including myself, were straight.
If that isn't ignorant, discriminatory, and completely unacceptable, I don't know what is. The homosexuals have a right to be angry because they are being stripped of their fundamental rights. I would be angry too. It's a personal attack, regardless of what "non"-homophobic spin these biggots try to put on it.
Last time I checked America wasn't a theocracy. I'm Christian, but I am sick of them trying to implement their personal beliefs into the law.
Posted by: James at November 10, 2008 07:29 PM (p3j2/)
25
"I'm generally agnostic on gay marriage, and suspect my willingness to vote on a proposition for or against it would be swayed by how the two side of the debate handled themselves."
The problem with your statement is that you should not have a vote on this. This issue should not be up for a vote. No one is voting on straight marriages. No one is voting on whether you decide to marry a person outside your race. How dare you presume to base your vote on whether you like one party's tactics over the other. This is people's lives we are talking about.
The problem with your statement is that you should not have a vote on this. This issue should not be up for a vote. No one is voting on straight marriages. No one is voting on whether you decide to marry a person outside your race. How dare you presume to base your vote on whether you like one party's tactics over the other. This is people's lives we are talking about.
Posted by: Kyle at November 10, 2008 09:06 PM (3ieu3)
26
This is people's lives we are talking about.
Well, no. It isn't. Tell me, how is life for gay couples in California substantively different today than it was this time last week? Are they less committed to each other today? Have they been torn away from each other? Are there things they could do a week ago that they can't do today, other than have the state label their relationships "marriage"?
How are we talking about people's lives? We're talking about their level of satisfaction. We're talking about equating their relationships with hetero relationships. We're not talking about peoples' lives any more than we are when we talk about Card Check. Perhaps less so.
Well, no. It isn't. Tell me, how is life for gay couples in California substantively different today than it was this time last week? Are they less committed to each other today? Have they been torn away from each other? Are there things they could do a week ago that they can't do today, other than have the state label their relationships "marriage"?
How are we talking about people's lives? We're talking about their level of satisfaction. We're talking about equating their relationships with hetero relationships. We're not talking about peoples' lives any more than we are when we talk about Card Check. Perhaps less so.
Posted by: Pablo at November 10, 2008 10:19 PM (yTndK)
27
com Leave a guestbook entry or perhaps email me & we can exchange updates, small buffalo chicken wing dip recipe, =-PPP, jps coffee holland, =[[[,
Posted by: Thecla at November 14, 2008 05:32 AM (sHAGK)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0108 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0084 seconds, 35 records returned.
Page size 27 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.