That wasn't you with the gun? Dang.

what's particularly interesting to me is that i'm not convinced that all of these acts were perpetrated by the same subsection of the population. after all, isn't it conservatives who are more into the book-bashing, while liberals are into the bible-bashing? maybe i'm wrong on this...don't know all the facts. still, gay marriage and banning west side story are apples and oranges. one is right, one is wrong.

You missed the point, zach. The point was a few activists forcing their will on a majority. homo marriage is a perfect example of that, but not the focus of the conversation.

Zach,

Nope, all of it smells of liberalism. When is the last time you heard a conservative complain that West Side Story was racist but the Vagina Monologues are okay?

Apparantly, secularism means everything but christianity. It is my opinion that if all things christian must be banned, then all of it must go.

No picking and choosing. We either support religious freedom and expression or we don't.

He's only now mad? Man.. I heard about this story weeks ago.

Someone needs to watch more of the "O'Reilly Factor."

He's only now mad? Man.. I heard about this story weeks ago.

Someone needs to watch more of the "O'Reilly Factor."

He isn't just mad about this story. It is the culmination of many events.

All with the same theme, the few imposing on the many.

Time for Gulliver to roll over.

"Minority Activists" piss me off.

"The majority has a different opinion than us. Tyrrany of the Majority! Tyrrany of the Majority! Our Rights Are Being Trampled!!!! Bigotry! Racism! It's All About The Oil!!!!!!!!!!"

And no, I'm not talking only about Gay Marriage, or even mostly about Gay Marriage... that's just a small part of the "If I'm not the Majority, then my Opinion is Better than the Majority and I must do whatever it takes to Force the Majority to not only Condone, but Encourage my Opinion" Activism that annoys me.

Hm, maybe I should blog on this :P

Getting back to the important stuff....tell us more about that awesome rack.

It is a culture war, make no mistake. It has gotten so bad, they are going after the boy scouts these days. THE FREAKING BOY SCOUTS! I'm all for gays getting equal rights and getting laws for civil unions and all that but they are getting greedy. That isn't good enough for them. Now they want to redefine marriage and the courts don't seem interested in stopping them. We are talking about redefining the social and legal meaning of words. If people don't see the danger of that, I think they have their head in the sand. Reality is, all these SF type shams are going to cause a serious backlash. I think the constitutional amendment defining marriage is the first in a long line of defensive moves to put a stop to all this. Religious bigotry is rampant in this country and these relativist, leftist socialists are having a field day. This is war, make no mistake.

Would Thomas Jefferson recognize such people as liberals? Would Lord Acton recognize these people as such?

They keep children from reading West Side Story, because they, the decision-making Guardians, have decided that it would not be good for the peons under them to approve of the story. It is a bad influence on them that they would not be able to resist on their own.

However, all sexual expression is good, so the idea of not letting them see faked orgasms on stage might give the peons the wrong message, such as some people might actually not approve of all lifestyle choices, and they are not all white hood wearing, cross-burners from Mississippi.

They do not believe in the free market place of ideas. They only have a more modern idea of what evils children need to be protected from, and what goods they must be indoctrinated in. Left wing, yes; liberal, no. That is the real problem.

What Mark Adams said. ;-)

Boobs please.

hmm...i thought i was agreeing with you all? i believe that west side story should be taught (or if it's not going to be taught, it shouldn't be for a reason like "it's racist."), gays should get married if they want, people can put on plays like the vagina monologues if they want, and teachers can wear crosses if they want.

not putting up displays about a bible-study club is a grey area, however. my guess is that that particular club is not school-funded (as it would be a violation of separation of church and state), and thus, it has no business taking up school space with its displays. or rather, if the school decides it needs the space for other things, it is well within its rights to deny the bible-club that space. and also, teaching about kwanzaa and whatnot is a far cry from installing a nativity scene. one can be defended as an academic exercise, the other cannot. unless the nativity scene was simply used as a prop during a lesson on christian theology.

my two cents?

Zach, bible-study clubs are not school-funded, but they (like many other clubs) are allowed to use school space after hours. Most clubs which exist in the schools do not receive school monies- parents of students all know how much time is spent in fundraisers of all kinds! So the funding issue is pretty moot.

Your well-considered viewpoint regarding placing a nativity scene beside other religious displays as a purely educational theme has already been denied in New York. This also extends to city government, e.g.Palm Beach, where citizens could not erect a nativity scene next to a menorah on public property. The city said a Nativity scene is religous, while a menorah is not!

So, while we may believe fair's fair, some government entities have taken separation of church and state to mean "No Christianity".

I'm sorry Ralph. The gay population is getting "greedy" by desiring equal rights? And just before that, you say, "I'm all for gays getting equal rights"!

That's hypocrisy at it's finest.

The social and legal meaning of words change all the time, especially marraige. Socially, interracial marraige was considered immoral and, in most areas of the US, illegal not but fifty years ago. That changed. This is exactly the same thing. Homosexuals want the same rights, and for some reason, people are getting huffy about it.

I just don't understand it.

Homosexuals have the same rights.

bah, forget i said that. I'm not entering this debate in yet another place.

Boobies please.

Rosemary:
I'm with Geoffrey, Paul and Mark- we are all from Missouri- the "Show Me" state. Your comment seems to suggest that you did NOT post the promised pics over the weekend, if you are just now going to have Dean take pics of your "awesome rack"- or WAS that you with the weapon? Inquiring minds want to know- just for the sake of accuracy in blogging.

Geoffrey,

I emailed you a PG13 version of my boobs. I'm running out to the store - if you don't have when I get back I'll try again...

I didn't get it! GRRRRR, my week is SUCKING!

Boo!! Boo!! Here's vote #4 in favor of the "awesome rack", not some private email to Geoffrey!!!

Okay, Dean did not like how my self pic turned out. He said he would do it when we get back..

Will post on site in an hour. It will not be totally nude - I may want to run for office someday...

G-fry,
Gays can get married just like heteros. No one is stopping a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex. This isn't about rights. It is about forcing people to redefine words and institutions in order to destroy those institutions.

This country provides mechanisms for changing laws and government. Gay people would be wise to lobby for changes which prevent discrimination based on sexual preference. It does not give them the right to redefine institutions and words. Gay marriage makes as much sense as pregnant men.

mmmmmm, boobs.

You guys seem to think when Rosemary says "rack" she means boobs. You're dealing with the people who gave us a link to a nice-tits.org. I'm expecting a picture of Rosemary's spice rack. Or maybe her towel rack.

Coat rack?

The point was a few activists forcing their will on a majority. homo marriage is a perfect example of that...

Oh please, people...this isn't a democracy we live in, remember? It's a constitionally limited republic; the Constitution is designed to limit the powers of the government, even when the majority wills something.

And please spare me the bloviating about activist judges, OK?

Grow up.

We all have inalienable rights. The Constitution is designed to protect those, majority-will notwithstanding.

Sorry to rain on your Pride Parade, Ara, but who decides what the "constitutional limits" are going to be in this Republic?

i'm never sure how much impact anything i say has on people who already have their minds made up, and this is off-topic to the post, BUT:

Ralph, your argument about this not being about rights because gays can marry people of the opposite sex MAKES NO SENSE. think about it! people want visitation rights, custody rights, financial benefits AND responsibilities that straight couples get. but if they got married to someone of the opposite sex, they would get visitation rights to their married partner, NOT their life partner! so where is the benefit? they'd still be denied the rights with respect to the person they love. first you think. then you post.

and about wanting to destroy institutions? do you think gays just get together and plot the destruction of western civilization? they want to redefine a civil term so that they can get the same rights granted to others under law. and...correct me if i'm wrong, but you advise gays to lobby for the protection of their rights (or in this case, establishment thereof), then you forbid them from changing the words in the laws that discriminate against them? maybe you're just a bigot, and want to use some phoney moral "high ground" to shield your own intolerance.

Zach - just because someone does not agree with you , doesnt mean it is OK to call the person a bigot. Gays are not discriminated against - unless you consider that the norms that have governed human societies over millenia are 'wrong and discriminatory", just because some GLBT activists say so. Folks are indeed trying to force social changes without going through the proper route - i.e. changing the laws at the State and then at the Federal level - a minority of gay activists are trying to force t he issue using clever manipulations of laws preventing discrimination. And like you did, anyone who expresses an opinion that doesnot offer a total endorsement of whatever gays and lesbians want to do, is called a bigot by folks like you.

Maybe he is. There's nothing in the law that says you can't be a bigot.

Not queer and not interested in the rack (sorry, Rosemary). Geoffrey, Ralph, and co. -- you rock!

We do have Constitutional rights protected. How they are discovered? By looking at the very texts, for starters, looking at their background and trying to find out what are the underlying principles of the texts we are looking at.

Much of this will result in matters most would agree are protected, and there will always be a grey area, which is arguable one way or another. After all, we are applying principles laid down over 200 years ago to today's world. However, there is quite a bit out there that has no Constitutional answer, unless you are talking about the Feds taking authority they were not granted.

The states do have authority to do many stupid things. Problems arise because people insist that there is an absolute Constitutional answer to issues where there is no such answer. They appear to be afraid of the idea that one could rationally reach a different conclusion. Just because something is Constitutional does not make it wise or good or desirable!

There are plenty of activist judges out there. Judicial restraint means deciding only the issues before you, and limiting the scope of the ruling to what is necessary to decide a case. It also means sticking to legal matters, not public policy questions.

O'Connor is an activist judge, and I am not referring to Bush v. Bore, though her storming out on election night did not look good. So 25 years from now affirmative action might not be needed? Is its need something for them to decide? Does the policy violate state or federal law? Does it violate some Constitutional provision? These are the questions to be answered, not its need! Wisdom and Constitutionality are not the same. Activist judges are the ones that don't get that.

>>Ralph, your argument about this not being about rights because gays can marry people of the opposite sex MAKES NO SENSE.

How do you figure? Homos and heteros can get married.

>>think about it! people want visitation rights, custody rights, financial benefits AND responsibilities that straight couples get. but if they got married to someone of the opposite sex, they would get visitation rights to their married partner, NOT their life partner! so where is the benefit? they'd still be denied the rights with respect to the person they love. first you think. then you post.

Please explain in more detail. I can't make heads or tails of this.

>>and about wanting to destroy institutions? do you think gays just get together and plot the destruction of western civilization? they want to redefine a civil term so that they can get the same rights granted to others under law. and...correct me if i'm wrong, but you advise gays to lobby for the protection of their rights (or in this case, establishment thereof), then you forbid them from changing the words in the laws that discriminate against them?

Redefining words does change laws. Yes, leftist, relativist socialists do wish to change society in this manner. It is an underhanded scheme. See the Soviet Union and Stalin if you don't doubt me. The religion being pimped is the godless secular altar of government. I reject it in its entirety. This isn't about seperation of church and state, it is about religious persecution. I can cite countless examples of this occuring everyday in this country.

>>maybe you're just a bigot, and want to use some phoney moral "high ground" to shield your own intolerance.

I took no high ground. You don't have the right to redefine words and institutions at your leisure.

Geoffrey:

Sorry to rain on your Pride Parade, Ara, but who decides what the "constitutional limits" are going to be in this Republic?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You got a problem with that?

Cause if you do, you can damn well move to Europe or Canada or Red freaking China for all I care, pal.

I do not understand the comment about religious persecution.

I thought the whole problem was about people either not honoring rule of law (SF and NY) or people not going through the democratic process because they do not believe the people are wise enough to see that their position is the correct one, as well as judges who insist that constitutionality corresponds exactly with their idea of wise law?

Maybe people of your faith are persecuted. I do not know. If so, I would like to see how it is connected to this issue. Bigot now only seems to mean that the person accused of bigotry disagrees with the accuser. Socialism deals with economics. What does that have to do with SSM?

Lastly, marriage has been declining for decades. I have read sermons from the late 1800's talking of the trouble marriage was in then. Well, it has gotten worse since. Unless the attitudes of many people change, it is going to continue to decline, no matter what one thinks of SSM.

>>I do not understand the comment about religious persecution.

Talk to the Boy Scouts. Denied access to public places because of their commitment to God and rejection of homosexual values. Talk to the Catholic judge denied the federal bench solely because he was a Catholic. Talk to the Bible study group denied a display space next to the homosexual club at the high school. The list is endless and scary. The persecution is very real.

>>I thought the whole problem was about people either not honoring rule of law (SF and NY) or people not going through the democratic process because they do not believe the people are wise enough to see that their position is the correct one, as well as judges who insist that constitutionality corresponds exactly with their idea of wise law?

The initial post is about the culture war that is going on in America. Gay marriage is but one aspect of it. Redine words and institutions. When the government balks, break the law and do as you please. That is what transpired, was it not?

>>Maybe people of your faith are persecuted. I do not know. If so, I would like to see how it is connected to this issue. Bigot now only seems to mean that the person accused of bigotry disagrees with the accuser. Socialism deals with economics. What does that have to do with SSM?

What do I say to my daughter when the government precludes her from being a federal judge solely on the basis of her Catholic upbringing? This is freedom in your eyes?

>>Lastly, marriage has been declining for decades. I have read sermons from the late 1800's talking of the trouble marriage was in then. Well, it has gotten worse since. Unless the attitudes of many people change, it is going to continue to decline, no matter what one thinks of SSM.

Classic lefty deconstructionist agenda. It isn't perfect, we need to tear it down. Marriage, Christmas, church, everything. All of this needs to be replaced by the perfect socialist utopia. Let us all pray at the altar of big nanny goat government.

Ara:

The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You got a problem with that?

Cause if you do, you can damn well move to Europe or Canada or Red freaking China for all I care, pal.

That's odd. I could have sworn that the COTUS gave the power of the content of the Constitution to the People. If you don't like THAT, then it's a short trip to Cuba.

Cause if you do, you can damn well move to Europe or Canada or Red freaking China for all I care, pal.

Why should I bother to move there? People like you are doing everything within your power to make the US exactly those bastions of socialism, beginning with using single-issue judges to undermine the rule of law with the ruling of a judge willing to ignore our law (go check the comments of your avatar Ruth Bader Ginsberg regarding US Law being interpreted according to European legal standards).

Geoffrey, you thought wrong. For a more in depth anaylsis of why, I suggest you audit any constitutional law class at the higher educational institution of your choice.

I've got a better idea, Mark. Why don't you just explain to me how Article 5, covering the Amendment process, is not applicable.

Geoffrey:

I could have sworn that the COTUS gave the power of the content of the Constitution to the People.

I'd comment, but I have no idea what you're even talking about.

"Power of the content of the Constitution...?"

What does that mean?

Ah. Geoffrey, I get it. You're referring to the check that the Legislative branch has over the Judicial branch, insofar as they can amend the constitution and force the Supremes to rule on law via the now-amended version.

OK, you have a point.

But, really, now. What are you talking about? Gay marriage? Because amendments like that, i.e., prohibition, have a snowball's chance in hell of getting out of the Congress in the first place.

Which is how it should be.

Bottom line? I like the way our system works, "activist judges" notwithstanding; sure it sucks at times, but you know, I wouldn't trade it for anything else.

So I'll ask you again -- You got a problem with that?

Actually, you aren't asking "again". The first time, you asked if I had a problem with the Supreme Court deciding what the Constitutional limits are withing the Republic. THAT I would have a problem with. Fortunately, you were incorrect in that statement.

NOW, you are asking if I have a problem with the way our system works, activist judges aside. THAT I don't have a problem with at all. In fact, I'm quite pleased with it.

Ralph Stefan,

I believe I must not have been clear in the points I was making. Actually, I did not know you were a fellow RC. I was not sure. I prefer not to assume.

Part of the decline of our civilization I believe is the lack of respect for rule of law. The more this spreads, the more civilization retreats, and barbarism advances. That is what I thought was going on specifically in the SF and NY town cases.

Second, I saw such terms as bigot and socialist thrown around too much, meaning nothing in the end. Bigot to refer to people opposed to SSM on non-bigoted grounds or without any evidence of such, and socialist to refer to non-economic issues. Both are cases of redefining words to mean that the accuser does not like what the accused is saying.

Third, I am merely pointing out how far marriage has gone down, and how long that has been. Cardinal Gibbons listed divorce as one of the four largest problems facing society during his time. The NY Times had an article about serial relationships, and the idea of many leaving a relationship when they don't get enough out of it. Is this not at least part of the problem, this self-centered, me-first attitude being the basis of many relationships? This cultural decline has been going quite some time.

I do not see how this is "classic lefty deconstructionist agenda". I never said anything about tearing down "marriage, Christmas, church", etc., or marriage having to be perfect to defend it. Your last paragraph seems a little odd to be addressing to someone who is neither a socialist nor a utopian, and happens to be a church-going RC himself.

Finally, I take it you are referring to the Pryor case. Both sides seem to be determined to tell people such as myself what political positions 'real' Catholics must hold. Both sides claim certain positions I must hold, and on all other issues, for the sake of unity, I must agree with the allies I have on the former issues.

The truth is that there is a political divide in the Church more based on who individual Catholics want as political allies more than anything else. Pryor is on one side, the four Catholic Dems on the committee on the other. This has more to do with conflicts within denominations.

I will concede that there is a great deal of effort on the part of some to remove traditional moral influences from public life, to the point of discrimination in some cases, such as the Boy Scouts and the display stands. I will grant you that I doubt if Hillary Clinton would vote to place me on the court, but neither would Rick Santorum.

There are many people whose values reflect a great deal of the traditional ones found in their own communities, but really have no political home today. I do not know if I would call it persecution, though.

Ralph:

>>Gays can get married just like heteros. No one is stopping a gay person from marrying someone of the opposite sex.

That's absurd. You're saying that as long as the choice is yours and not theirs, they can do whatever they please. How quaint.

>>This isn't about rights. It is about forcing people to redefine words and institutions in order to destroy those institutions.

Yes, it is about rights. It's about a gay person's right to marry whom they please. Straight people enjoy this right. Whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, indians, native americans, and every other class of people I can think of enjoy this right. So why not homosexuals? Who is it going to hurt?

Oh, and I still don't understand how gay marraige will destroy any institution. Please, would someone explain to me how allowing people to marry other people will destroy an institution? And I'm talking a straight out, lay-your-hand-on-the-table explanation. This question gets sidestepped every freakin' time I bring it up. Please. Someone explain to the stupid kid how this works.

>>This country provides mechanisms for changing laws and government. Gay people would be wise to lobby for changes which prevent discrimination based on sexual preference.

They are. They're doing everything in their power to stop the passage of a discriminatory law. They're also trying to get institutions, such as the government, to recognize that they are being discriminated against by people that don't recognize them as people, thereby shorting them their rights that should be given to them unquestionably through the Constitution.

>>It does not give them the right to redefine institutions and words. Gay marriage makes as much sense as pregnant men.

Like I said before, words get redefined. They always will be. And not just by gay people, either. Hell, gay meant happy a few years ago. Marraige meant forever a couple decades back. Now, homosexuals will break the already crumbling back of marraige by including themselves into it? I still don't get it.

I don't understand how gay marraige and male pregnancy equates. Please explain.

>>> I still don't get it.

And you probably never will. Most people have just grown tired of trying to explain it.

That's just another way of attempting to sidestep the question. This is also the one question you didn't answer over at my place, Geoff. If no one can explain it, then no one should be using it as an argument.

Actually, G, I answered that question several times at your place, hence being sick of answering it. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't invalidate it and give you an open invitation to keep asking. Well, it doesn't require me to keep answering.

I'm sorry, I never understood it. I remember you saying stuff like the country's morality was going to pot, but I still don't see how allowing all citizens equal rights will further disrupt the "moral bankruptcy" we're experiencing.

I'm not sure who's quotes those are, but I'm sure someone on the internet has used those words before, so we'll go with it...

Ara,
Do you accept that it doesn't matter who gets appointed to the SCOTUS?
If not, than you don't really accept that the SCOTUS decides everything on the matter.

Regarding the fathers of the country, I think Ben Franklin might have liked seeing orgasms on stage.

G-Fry,
Spam is not an institution. Words take on different meanings. Marriage has been around a good while. It represents a core institution of our society.

By redefining the word marriage, you cheapen and water down its meaning. I want my children to meet a life partner of the opposite sex, get married and raise a family. I would be extremely dissappointed if they took up a homosexual relationship. Why? It is a sin. It is bad. That said, we are all sinners including myself. I don't go around touting my sins as normal behavior. I don't claim my bad behavior is good. I don't attempt to redefine words so that my sins sound like normal behavior. I don't think it is the government's place to punish sins which are victimless in nature. If a homosexual wants to continue his aberrant behavior, that is his/her business.

To a relativist, good and bad are relative. Redefining words is part of that game. What you have to realize is that there are many people who don't want to play your game. Marriage has true value and meaning to us. It doesn't matter whether you think homosexual behavior is good or bad. Redefining institutions to suit the needs of particular groups of people is dangerous at best. If you doubt me, read some Orwell.

Libertarian,
I have to run. I'd like to spend more time on a response. Words have meanings. Bigotry against religion is common these days. Cradle to grave socialism is currently being pimped by our politicians. Religious persecution is fairly common in today's society. It is done under the guise of "seperation of church and state" and it is being done by organizations like the ACLU.

G-Fry,

If you'd like to randomly collect quotes around the internet and attribute them to me, feel free. I'm assuming you weren't expecting a reply to your baseless rant.

Geoffrey: I was just tossing in a little (albeit, not very good) humor. I wasn't attributing it to you. That's why I said, "I'm not sure who's quotes those are". My "baseless rant" (I think I know where I found that one...) was just trying to get you to apparently repeat how homosexual marraige will destroy the institution.

Ralph: I understand your religious viewpoint. However, when discussing the issue as a national one, religion doesn't tie in. It can't. At least, not here in the US.

And again, marraige has been redefined before. If you mean that allowing homosexual marraige to occur will water it down in religious terms, that, again, should have no basis in the legality of it. In government eyes, marriage gives a couple certain rights, like spousal privelage in court, being with him/her in a hospital room, etc. Allowing a wider range of people to enjoy those privelages won't water down the institution, but will bolster it by allowing others to enjoy the same privelages.

Slavery used to be an institution. It's been redefined to be something bad. It was done for for a particular group of people.

Not every change is an evil one.

G-Fry,
Reproduction of the human race isn't important? This truly transcends religion. Current negative birth rates in Europe will result in the extinction of the white Europeans in roughly 400 years.

As I said, I'm all for homosexuals having the rights they are due. They can call their unions anything they want. They should not attempt to redefine existing words. Study the Soviet Union and the techniques they used to redefine words and destroy societal institutions.

If you could present a rational case for changing this most important word in our society, I'm all ears. Of course you are unable to present that case. In your world, you might as well refer to homosexuals as heterosexuals. End of problem. To those of us who don't worship at the altar of relativist liberalism, it doesn't work.

Homosexuality is not the leading cause of the declining birth rate in Europe. Homosexuality will never be the reason behind any declining birth rate. It doesn't occur often enough. Besides, homosexuals have children: women can now do artificial insemination, and men can take one (or more) of the thousands of unwanted children.

But that's a different topic.

I appreciate your views and the reasons behind them, but I can't support them. By denying homosexuals the term "marraige", you are basically taking away what it is, and opening a door that could allow for future persecution by not actually equating marraige to whatever new term is coined.

Separate but equal is only the former.