« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

SAME SEX MARRIAGE, A BLASPHEMOUS DECISION

By: longtimeconservative (Diary)  |  May 10th, 2012 at 11:08 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

While the President has now flip-flopped by supporting gay marriage, most believe gay sex and marriage conflict with traditional Judeo-Christian values. That’s why supporters, who claim 60% approval, are wrong, know it and always oppose public referendums on the issue.

Because gay sex remains the primary cause of HIV/Aids in the United States and World-wide, advocates also refuse to discuss corresponding health implications. Sadly, sexually transmitted disease is responsible for death and millions in health care costs each year. Encouraging same sex relationship will only exacerbate the problem.

If two men or two women want to live together its strictly their own business. Why must the majority be required by law to sanction it as normal or comparable to traditional marriage? This is exactly why 30 States have already declared true marriage is between one man and one woman.

While we must strictly enforce all laws against discrimination, compelling the majority to condone and accept abnormal and perverted lifestyles as worthy of endorsement or acceptance violates their freedom of expression. Gov. Christie is absolutely right. New Jersey should conduct a State-wide referendum asking whether marriage should be defined in our State’s Constitution as a union between one man and one woman.

Hopefully, religious organizations, enlightened politicians, those of all political persuasions, local media and our Fourth Estate can all support a public ballot on this issue. It would express our free expression of conscience and morality on this important social question.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Jack_Savage

    Consider this language and reasoning contained in an overture to the 2012 General Assembly of the PC (USA) from the Presbytery of Baltimore re-defining marriage:

    2012-1 On Marriage Overture to the 220th General Assembly of the PC (U.S.A.) on approving an Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000, re: Marriage

    THAT, the Presbytery of Baltimore hereby OVERTURES the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 2012 to adopt the following Authoritative Interpretation of W-4.9000:
    The Constitution of the PCUSA refers to marriage as involving

    • Jack_Savage

      Lest you think that the mainline denominations are not becoming leftist political organizations, consider the other overtures besides the one I mentioned above:

      http://www.baltimorepresbytery.org/index.php/presbytery-administration/shared-witness/general-assembly/ga-overtures

      LOVE the one supporting the EPA. Very Christ-like.

  • Pingback: Lovetta Weymouth

  • Pingback: Scottie Coursey

  • Pingback: aci Sarault

  • Pingback: Hisako Willes

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: Mining

  • Pingback: portal randkowy

  • Pingback: μονώσεις ταρατσών

  • Pingback: home brewing supplies

  • Pingback: milosc w warszawie

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: distilling moonshine

  • Pingback: my blog

  • Pingback: corporate events in italy

  • Pingback: Upgrade

  • Pingback: Look At These Guys

  • Pingback: learn more

  • Pingback: breastactive cream

  • Pingback: skachat igru karos

  • Pingback: property in mumbai

  • Pingback: madamelux

  • Pingback: working from home jobs uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Hosea Magness

  • Pingback: Bret Sharperson

  • Pingback: Ruben Vossen

  • Pingback: Flooring Installers

  • Pingback: Weston Divers

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Jesse Trigueiro

  • Pingback: Theron Mifflin

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: กล้องวงจรปิด

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: phone number locator

  • Pingback: distilled definition

  • Pingback: California outsourcing

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: bmx bikes

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: odszukaj milosc swego zycia

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and you are making some hefty claims, would you care to add some credible citations that points to the corresponding health issues. By the way society has not banned many things that cause health issues.

    When liberals talk of forcing us into being healthy (Obamacare) we take it to the Supreme Courts because its unconstitutional. You against the marriage is compelling people to except a lifestyle that isn’t normal, that is also what many probably thought when government forced them to free their slaves. When government decided it was against the law to discriminate, those who did not belong to the majority had the right to not be discriminated against. Now its prudent to discuss what is normal. There have been homosexuals for at least thousands of years. That’s why there was religious leaders who wrote against it thousands of years ago. It have been prevalent enough to worry about.

    Interestingly, I was under the impression the whole concept people coming to north America was to get away from an all powerful government that tells you what to believe.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    you’ve just given moral prevelance to the Decalogue. I guess my aversion to my cul-de-sac becoming a drug-infested free-fire zone makes me some sort of ignorant Christianist Hick.

  • streiff

    as an idiot and in this offering you add still more luster to it.

    1. Obamacare is not about “forcing us into being healthy.” Read the law.

    2. Slaves were freed via 1) Emancipation Proclamation, 2) military action, 3) Reconstruction, and 4) by amending the constitution. Please note #4.

    3. Lots of behaviors have been around for thousands of years and no one would claim they are normal. Surviving over time is not the same as normal.

    4. You need to take a course on American history. That isn’t why people came to America.

  • Bill S

    …and vainly trying to convince us he’s not talking out his a**.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    but try arguing against the points I make, instead of blanket declarations that I am wrong.

    1. Are you saying liberals do not believe that Obamacare is designed to make the people healthier. That is not why the justified the law, because that is not what I hear from them.. I am not agreeing with them, my point was that this is a two sided sword. When someone claims that gay marriage is a health risk, as the writer of this post did, then my point is valid.

    2. My point was the government compelled people in the south to act in a way they did not feel was normal, anyone care to argue against that.

    3. Number three was a response to this statement “Why must the majority be required by law to sanction it as normal or comparable to traditional marriage?”

    What a person defines as normal is often subjective. What a Christian says is normal behavior for a society, may or may not be normal for other people. My point was that the majority is not being asked to sanction anything, just tolerate that others do not agree with them, and worry about them selfs.

    4. Oh, you mean people did not come to america to get away from a English King who tried to force them into practicing religion the way he wanted. They did not come here to find the freedom to believe what they want. What exactly was the first amendment all about again.

  • streiff

    what we have here is a very bad diary and an arguably worse comment. What I am proposing is that the author of this diary and center77 have at it. Each one gets three comments. Then we vote on banning one or the other based on the insightfulness and humor value of those comments.

  • westcoastpatriette

    however, I doubt we could get center77 to cooperate. He’s is too busy composing his next nearly indecipherable commentary.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ~^~^~

  • Tbone

    to arguments concerning homosexual behavior?

    Are there rules, rounds, quarters, halves, running time or like wrestling riding time?

  • westcoastpatriette

    delete the word “is” in second sentence, please.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    only using lame humor to strong arm others into complacence. Never an effective form in debate. And if Red State bans people for alternate views, that is something that would be very fascist like. You do not have to except others viewpoints, but at least argue against what they are saying, or you can go the Bill S. method and just insult people, because that shows intellectual heft.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    but gay marriage, I see no clear moral argument outside of the fact the God supposedly says it is bad. For those who do not believe in God – at least not the Christian God – they should not be forced into following laws of the church. No none claimed anyone one was a ignorant Christian Hick, in fact, I am a believer myself, just not a believer in forcing my beliefs on those who think differently.

  • trimulchio

    Civil law, however, is less based on religious teachings, especially in Common Law countries.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    You will always enforce a moral imperative on people any time you enjoin thier behaivior via the passage of any statute of laws. If you don’t accept Chritianity, than you obviously believe someone else’s code is better. It’s really one of the harder choices any society has to make. If they fail to decide, anarchy reigns. Once they do decide, people feel excluded. It’s just tough cookies.

  • streiff

    and a video camera

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    my belief is Christianity, but I also believe that the government should not ban gay marriage just because I think it is not the right choice. Gambling, that has harmful effects as well, but I also believe the government should allow people to make that choice. Certain things seem to me to have a clear harmful effect, so the government has to pass statutes of laws to try to limit the amount of this action. I just do not see the clear adverse effect that comes from allowing gay people to marry. I suspect people are going to be together regardless.

  • streiff

    1. I don’t care what they believe. The law is not focused on general health outcomes it is focused on providing universal insurance coverage.

    2. The point is that slavery was ended via Constitutional amendment. Much like how the marriage issue was settled in NC.

    3. If so it was a non sequitur. Very few deviant behaviors are new but that doesn’t make them less deviant.

    4. No. They didn’t in general. You are equating the colonization of America with only a few areas. Most of America was Anglican and the Anglican Church was established. Even in areas like Massachusetts, you were required to practice the predominant religion. Quakers were expelled and hanged if they returned. Rhode Island was formed by dissenters from the dissenters in Mass. Again, don’t practice history without a license. The First Amendment only forbade the establishment of a national religion and religious tests for national office. It didn’t apply to the states.

  • APA Guy

    Obamacare is designed to anchor the American public to government-funded health care…just like the national health care that is bankrupting Europe. If they had any regard for making health care more affordable, they would be first in line for tort reform. These idiots put the profits of lawyers ahead of affordable health care.

    But even worse, they championed a law that will, by design, make it more expensive to do business in this country while simultaneously pulling demand out of the rest of the economy. People who have no desire to consume within the health care industry now will be FORCED TO.

    That you would defend their POV speaks volumes about your nature…I’m sorry, but it does.

  • aesthete
  • westcoastpatriette

    with your commentary, would you please study the difference between “except” and “accept?” Your continual misuse of the the word “except” is making me craaazzzy!

  • texasref

    for management to invite who they want and disinvite who they don’t want–it would be fascist if the government took AWAY their private property rights in this regard.

    Dissent is tolerated here, but I try to make sure my mainstream conservative posts far outweigh my contrarian posts, which I limit to LGBT issues. And most importantly, I try to give respect whether I am respected or disrespected, dish it back to folks I know who can take it without going all nuclear, and ignore the rest.

    Center77, you’re a good person, and I appreciate your support, but step away from the keyboard for 72 hours and come back strong.

  • Bill S

    I’m trying to bug the crap out of you.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Fair enough. But what happens when you live in a society where a majority of people disagree with what causes a harmful effect? Quite simple. They pass laws that ban those behaviors whether you like it or not. At that point you either like it or lump it.

    As for the marraige laws, I see a lot of deleterious effects. Marriage was formed as an institution to enhance the nurturing and generation of strong familial bonds. Letting marriage be defined on a basis of convenience or a way of spreading around goodies defeats the entire original purpose of the institution.

    A marriage, quite bluntly, is an obligation. It is not a vehicle to hand out candy to people. So yes, quite frankly, perverting the institution of marriage from a moral obligation to another excuse to have the welfare state play Santa Claus further destroys the moral fabric that undergirds any succesful society.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    1 I agree with, even if it was not the point I was making. I was making the point that liberal makes the same argument the person that had written this post was making.

    2. I agree, going thought the process of laws is the right way to do it. I suspect that there will be a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage some day. But I do not remember ever arguing the form this comes in, only the need for.

    3. I agree, but I do not agree that gay is deviant. Nor do I agree that the church should get to decide the issue, only the people.

    4. You are talking about what happen once they got here, I am talking about what happened in England to make them want to come here. At least in the case of the Pilgrims they came her because they thought the church of England was to much like Catholics. At the time, protestants and other non-catholics were persecuted, and they wanted freedom to practice what they wanted to practice. The comment about the first amendment, was to through in that our founding father felt it was important to separate church and state.

    Thomas Jefferson has said in the Virginia Statute for Religious liberties that:

    “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

    The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    What I question is, how can there be a ban on gay marriage, if the definition of this ban is based on a religious viewpoint. That is not the same as establishing a religion, but it is not exactly living what to Jeffersons ideals either.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    do you really have nothing better to do, Debate the points, not word use. When you decide to start teaching a English Class, maybe I will sign up. Do you want to have a real conversation about the issue, or nit pick over word use.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I was pointing out that the poster of this diary used the same augment that liberals make when they defend Obamacare, which means I was not defending Obamacare, only saying that their argument is flawed, and so is this diaries.

  • civil truth

    Bum fight at RedState
    morituri salutant
    Come get your tickets

  • APA Guy

    Point is, I don’t believe for a moment that a significant proportion of liberals believe that Obamacare will make people healthier. You seemed to object to that…and I’d honestly like to know the basis for that disagreement.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and it is one that I cannot argue against, not on its merits. I guess it would then become an debate on whether this is right or not. I cannot say either way. I look at it as a pure issue where one group does not have the same rights as other. Do you see any other forms of institutional perversion in society, and would those be banned to. I question whether it is governments place to choose which things pervert the institution. I guess that is not something I can say. Because I do not see any clear perversions, but I will admit, that I have no experience in the matter. This forces me to admit that desire to see fairness may cloud the issue for me. I have a gay sister who I love dearly, and it is hard more me to look at her family, and think, that it somehow perverts the whole institution.

  • littlehouse18

    is because normally sexual relations could result in children, especially if a man and woman ‘shack up.’ The institution of marriage was meant to ensure that these children would be provided for and grow up in a stable environment.

    When I was born, people were still expected to wait until marriage, and I still believe that the majority did, or at least ‘did the right thing’ if a girl became pregnant. That rapidly deteriorated as the sexual revolution gained steam to the point that by the 80s waiting until marriage became unusual or even seen as ‘weird’. When morality is lost it is lost quickly. And we’ve reaped the whirlwind with rampant STDs like herpes and children growing up in unstable situations.

  • streiff

    And elementary knowledge of human biology demonstrates conclusively that the behavior is deviant. If you can’t accept I can only conclude you’ve decided to lapse, again, into gibberish.

    Your understanding of American history remains flawed. Protestants were not persecuted in England. England was a Protestant country. The Toleration Act of 1689 permitted dissenters to worship as they wished provided they gave an oath of loyalty to the Crown. This applied in the colonies as well as in the UK.

    Most immigrants came for economic reasons or because they were transported felons. Jefferson is talking specifically about the role the Anglican Church played in government.

    There is no ban on gay marriage. Rather marriage has now been defined in 31 states as existing between one man and one woman. As there is no “right” to marriage and the state has to grant a “marriage license” before you can get married, this is well within the traditional authority of the state to regulate.

    Jefferson did not take a postion on gay marriage but during the time he was alive, including when he was governor of Virginia, buggery was as a capital crime, not a sacrament.

  • davenj1

    that possibly transcends the religious prohibition on homosexuality and, by extension, gay marriage. Marriage is an institution that is designed to strengthen the “nuclear family” and provide stability for the upbringing of children. That is the anthropological purpose. Starting at the beginning (because adoption was not an option to a great degree as it is now), it takes a man and a woman to create offspring. Been that way forever- you need a sperm and an egg. Hence, how does homosexual sex further that?

  • Viet71

    On the issue of gay marriage, should the question be left to the legislature, the courts, or the people?

    I go with the people, at the state level.

    Putting aside Obama’s foolish appearance of punting the issue to the states, I also believe the federal courts — and ultimately the Supreme Court — should make the call.

    Reason: There’s plenty of case law in the ballpark; the U.S. Constitution is robust enough to embrace the issue; and I happen to trust the Supreme Court.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Fair question, but if government doesn’t ask these questions, and you don’t want the church asking them, and you probably would prefer the local school system didn’t forcibly indoctrinate the children on these issues than who asks? What if it’s Bubba The Bigot’s private militia? Someone will always ask these questions. Whether either of us like it or not, they are going to be asked. No human society would survive and endure if these questions were not constantly posed and consistently resolved in a manner that lead subsequent prosperity.

    I would personnally prefer to see them asked by an institution that is forced to accept certain checks and balances and that has a vested interest in the continued commonweal. This requires a rigorous and sometimes unforgiving concept of justice.

    This brings us to the essential problem of fairness. It involves giving everyone what they want on a basis of emotional appeal. It’s about making us all feel good about the outcome. Meth will make you feel good about the outcome (at least for the first few hits).

  • PowerToThePeople

    who claims to be the student and had it in your sig line yet can not write worth a damn or even figure out the difference between except and accept. I do think to myself I smell a neck tattoo liar.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    If advocates can’t win at the voting booths it will end up in a courtroom.

  • davenj1

    I believe the DOMA case out of 2nd Circuit is headed o Supreme Court, possibly in upcoming term depending upon timing. Prop 8 case out of California/9th Circuit possibly way later, if at all.
    Once before were they tangentially presented with the issue and the cert petition was denied for lack of a federal question (I believe the case was out of Minnesota regarding a same sex couple).

    I would like to posit an interesting question. The Court has said there is a right to travel. In an instance where, for example, MA recognizes and performs SSM and a couple thus married wish to move to GA because of a job opportunity or to move near a sick relative (whatever the reason), could GA’s prohibition against recognizing SSM be viewed as a restriction on that “right to travel?” That is where DOMA runs into some problems in my opinion.

    PS- despite my occasional serious disagreements with the Court, in the overall sense, I too trust the Supreme Court.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    I have heard many liberals claim that Obamcare is good because it will make our nation healthier. One form they say is that those with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage, there for getting all the treatment they need.

    Here this quote is from Barakobama.com “Women and Health Reform
    20.4 million women with private insurance now can soon get free preventive care. That means they can get life-saving cancer screenings like mammograms and can have their contraception covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. They

  • APA Guy

    Holy smokes…you’re even more clueless than I thought.

  • APA Guy

    Make Americans healthier my butt..it sure sounds like you have taken Obama’s bait…hook, line and sinker.

    I also noticed that you skimmed right over the tort reform aspect of making Americans healthier by, you know, making medicine more AFFORDABLE by virtue of cutting costs for providers. You remain focused on trying to justify liberal support of it via a false narrative i.e. that liberals just wanted to “make people healthier”.

    Like I said, telling…

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    ….those hippie pilgrims believed the Man had nothing to teach them, so they turned their backs on “bourgeois” morality, a category of knowledge that included this thing called “hygiene.” So they enjoyed communal toothbrushes, communal sheets, communal sex, communal bathwater and communal, like, whatever. Living like Rousseau’s noble savages brought back the twitch, the thrush and the rot because it was a grand lie that savagery was ever noble in the first place…

    http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2006/11/24/why_its_foolish_to_turn_your_back_on_tradition

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    but I am not hearing anyone arguing that should not of been changed.

    He, lets ask world book network why they left England.

    Here, they tend to agree with you.

  • littlehouse18

    Nature couldn’t be more obvious about what is normal. Sexual interactions in nature are primarily for procreation and for maintaining the relationships that support offspring. I know many people don’t want to hear that, and it’s awkward to state the obvious, it’s just reality. That’s not to condone being uncivil to homosexuals or anyone else who has an abnormality (which they may have no control over), for they are human brethren first and foremost. And if homosexuality is indeed a ‘sin’, it is but one of many, and none are free of sin. Still, as you say, there is no ‘right’ to marriage; like a ‘right’ to healthcare, that would logically require the possibility of coercing another to enter into marriage against his will, negating his own rights to free will. Taken to the absurd, a human does not have the right to become a horse. A horse is a horse (of course of course :) ), and marriage is marriage, ie the uniting of a man and woman in a supposedly binding commitment.

    Center, no one is trying to ban gays from having relationships and making their own domestic arrangements. And most would endorse rules making sure that homosexuals can control their property and relationships with consenting adults as they see fit as long as that does not harm others’ rights. We are just asserting the natural definition of marriage which has never in human history and across cultures been different from the standpoint of being the union of male and female. Our culture places a further restriction that it be monogamous, believing that to be the proper and beneficial form.

  • trimulchio

    persecuted during the reign of “Bloody” Mary (see, e.g., Foxe’s Book of Martyrs), Further, her father, Henry VIII, persecuted Protestants before his break with Rome and continued to persecute people from the Calvinist/Anabaptist aspect of Protestantism (see, e.g., Anne Askew, tortured and burned at the stake in 1546.)

    Pilgrims came to Massachusetts Bay; Quakers to Pennsylvania and Catholics to Maryland (and, after the English Civil War, Anglecans to Virginia) to avoid persecution, but economics played a vast part as well.

  • texasref

    will have a good idea how next year’s marriage case will be decided; the only question is how sweeping the scope.

    These referenda are fund-raising ploys giving false hope to those who oppose SSM. Not everything is majority rule in a tripartite constitutional republic.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and I am not defending Obamacare! I am am saying that person who wrote this diary used the same logic liberals used as reason we need Obamacare.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    you know I’ve said over and over again, that I am not in agreement with Obamacare. You simple seem to thinking pointing out their reasoning, makes you in agreement with them. I’m done talking to someone who is not even listening. You already have decided what I believe for me, so have at it.

  • APA Guy

    Maybe you just needed to frame your argument better, because it sure seems as though you are defending liberals here.

  • littlehouse18

    then consistence would suggest you cannot consider marriage a right.

  • APA Guy

    And in the future, don’t EVER quote from Obama’s website to defend what you believe to be true about liberals without expecting severe scrutiny. The man is a proven liar and enemy to this country’s future.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    not that Red State has done that. I am not disrespecting anyone, only standing up to their strong arm tactics of trying to insult anyone who thinking differently than they do. This is not even a Red State Issues. I’ve been getting emails from people who have told me they are glad I am speaking up, but that they did not want to deal with the the hostility these views bring.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    The poster claimed that Christianity shouldn’t inform legal practice. I refuted his claim. I would also claim that a fundamental desire to codify the golden rule underlies the entire concept of either a Weregild or a Legal Tort.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    ltc vs.
    center77
    ‘neath Truth’s searing blast.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    odds not in favor
    centre really did not hold
    nothing more to see

  • acat

    I’m looking forward to the libs’ cognitive dissonance if they have to concurrently defend stare decisis in Roe v. Wade but decry it in the case of Dept.HHS v Florida* and the inevitable gay marriage case….

    Hmmm. Thinking I should call my broker and invest more in popcorn.

    Mew

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    This is a question that I have wondered a lot about. I knew people felt strongly about their side. I knew that people would not agree with me. I do not think I understood the full scope of intolerance for others views. Its like if you have a view, you must be a bad person, or even a liberal, which is likely worse.

    Some people do not seem to want to even debate the issue, they want to debate my grasp on history, or sentence structure. Repair man Jack being the exception to this rule. Steriff has some valid points as well, even if I do not agree with them. But the vast majority of people are putting words in my mouth while trying to insult me into agreeing with them.. Honestly, it only makes me ignore their points. If they cannot argue things on their merit, it is pointless to debate them.. I think it would be more effective to have a civil conversation about the issue, and then let each side battle it out in the courts, the ballot box, or any other legal means.

  • acat
  • lineholder

    This will get interesting, to say the least.

    All I can say is that the gay community may find themselves in for some major opposition from the black community on this one.

    I’d absolutely LOVE to get my hands on the demographics about the vote on Tuesday night, acat. The black community here has started taking a proactive approach to finding a way to resolve their own problems rather than just sitting around waiting for government to solve it for them. And unless I’m badly mistaken, part of their approach includes placing a significant amount of emphasis on the restoration of the nuclear family in the black community, i.e. mommy, daddy and offspring. I think this may be why the turnout in a lot of black communities across NC voting in favor of Amendment 1 was so strong.

    I think I’ll go do so snooping around, see if I can find any data on this.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    and spent the next two hours preaching that all gays will buuuuuuuurrrnnn!!!! than you have to listen to him or else you are a fascist?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • acat

    and hiding the body.

    Mew

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Vote Obama and you can dial in any liberal result on a social policy you feel fit to see take place. Vote GOP and it becomes a crap-shoot that go either way. It depends upon whether the justices so empaneled see themselves as protectors of Constitutional Order or architects of a brave new world.

  • Viet71

    Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, which is fairly lucid, provides an answer, I believe, as to your question as to the bans.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Besides I’m Right-Wing and get called fascist all the frikkin’ time…

  • Jack_Savage

    I know good places and have a tarp.

  • littlehouse18

    nt

  • streiff

    being an idiot, I suppose, comes with being a journalism major.

    Did you look at the title of the video you linked to? Notice the “Pilgrims” part?

  • aesthete

  • putnwaste

    And it is no wonder that Neal (the Nelly Queen) Stevens is the one to drop the blam stick. Neal you are a fat jerk.

    Why is is that the Social Conservatives (SoCons) are always the ones to cause problems here?

    Why is it that the SoCons here are the most hate-filled, disrespectful sub-group of us conservatives?

    Why do we rarely hear this tripe coming from the fiscals and military wings?

    Why is it that the SoCons are the sub-group that always screws up the nomination?

    Come to think of it —- you all DO need saving!

  • westcoastpatriette

    he was crapping all over the site.

  • acat

    Cats that look like Hitler dot com

    It’s sort of my equivalent to your Awkward Family Photos…

    Mew

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Do you feel jealous? Or perhaps unwanted?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Thanks!

    Blam.

    Moe Lane

    PS: I’m the fat jerk, thank you very much.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I dropped 30 pounds last year.

  • Bill S

    …the social conservatives hadn’t said “boo” about this until the NC amendment got voted down. And there was no football spiking, etc. It was the libertines here who decided that they needed to start blathering about how wonderful homosexual marriage is, in response to their defeat. The social conservatives who oppose it were simply responding to those posts. It’s the more vocal of the former group who started raising a ruckus here. The rest of us just responded.

  • Jack_Savage

    They say it all the time. I just don’t get it.

  • trimulchio

    may have existed in Germanic Law before contact with the Abrahamic religions (or perhaps not, Arian Christain missionaries were active among the Germans very early on).

  • westcoastpatriette

    There must be gnashing of teeth from those two right now. Hahaha.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    People came to the new world because they were sick of the old one or were totally unable to pass muster there. These things occurred for a multitude of different reasons.

  • streiff

    Plymouth Colony 1620

    They were after Mary Tudor.

    Catholics were energetically persecuted in Maryland after it was outlawed in 1650.

    The religious freedom angle is largely myth.

    The Toleration Act stopped persecution of all sects except Catholics.

  • trimulchio

    although exclusive homosexuality is not. Nature is, indeed, “oblivious.”

  • westcoastpatriette

    Not to satisfy that rude jerk, just to show off your new look. :)

  • westcoastpatriette

    she can’t figure out if she’s male or female…humps my pillow every night at about 6:00 like clockwork. Lasts about five minutes then she returns to normal. Bisexual, maybe?

  • expanding_man

    Terrible and unprecedented reasoning in the majority’s opinion. I agree that any decision on the constitutionality of a gay marrage ban will discuss Lawrence v. Texas extensively. However, it is not clear to me what the Supreme Court will eventually decide.

  • Viet71

    But it does say the state may ban:

    Homosexual activity with minors; and in public.

  • expanding_man

    The prevention of criminal activity is a legitimate state interest. There is no fundamental right to criminal activity. Court’s have not decided the issue with respect to gay marriage which is a different matter.

  • Viet71

    For example, in 1962, the Illinois government repealed sodomy laws.

    I grew up in Illinois and became a conservative.

    Turns out I wasn’t hurt by gay marriage or by gays.

  • aesthete

    That kind of circular law makes any law Constitutional.

  • aesthete

    were very religiously free, and most of the states after independence followed Virginia’s lead in dismantling state support of their religious institutions (though a few broad requirements for officeholders were kept in place until sometime after the Civil War). The trend was definitely towards religious freedom: by the time that the Constitution was ratified, most of the US was much more religiously tolerant than most of the European nations — certainly, less blood would be spilt over religious differences here than in the Old World.

    Perhaps ironically (considering the stereotypes), the Southern colonies were in most ways more religiously free than the northern states. Having lived in the northeast, I don’t see it as ironic at all: it’s perfectly fitting that a Puritan theocracy would evolve into a bastion of socially progressive “thought”.

  • zachv

    They objected to the religious freedoms that England afforded. Once in America the Puritans banished those that had differing religious views or advocated religious freedom like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. They even hanged four Quakers (one was Mary Dyer) in 1660 just for being Quakers.

  • trimulchio

    years AFTER Jamestown, Plymouth and the English Civil War, so I’m not sure I see your point.

  • acat

    Someone has to have done exit polling … but if it doesn’t meet the narrative, and I’d bet it doesn’t, then it’ll be buried as deeply as possible.

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/10/black-voters-in-nc-supported-amendment-one-by-2-1-margin/

    You won’t find much more than that. Doesn’t fit the meme.

  • lineholder

    then somebody has buried it so deep it might never see the light of day.

    What I’ve got so far is random information like this:

    Map of the voting outcomes in Mecklenburg County (around Charlotte, NC)

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/09/3228455/unofficial-results-marriage-amendment.html

    Map of voting outcomes statewide (which breaks voting totals down into counties):

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/09/3228349/unofficial-results-marriage-amendment.html

    Specifics mentioned in Charlotte Observer article:

    “In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the strongest support came from the predominantly white suburban areas of Mint Hill and Matthews. Across town, voters in the African-American neighborhoods of Coulwood and Paw Creek voted almost 2 to 1 in favor. The margin was the same in predominantly black precinct 79 near Charlotte Douglas International Airport.”

    Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/05/08/3227863/amendment-one-nc-voters-approve.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

    And there was a comment made today in response to an earlier diary by Moe that includes reference to some demographics.

    http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2012/05/10/politicos-arresting-completely-unsupported-claim-about-african-american-voters/#comment-6625

    I’m not sure where that person got their information from or how valid it might be. From the looks of it, the data this person provided is incomplete. What they have provided could be accurate, but it is merely a subset of the data and that is all.

    There is data available by precinct at the NC State Board of Elections website. It’s possible that it could be broken down by precinct, the demographics for that precinct can be defined, and a direct correlation (which may or may not be totally accurate) could be established. But when it comes to data sources, that is the highest degree of specificity that I’ve been able to find so far. Except for bits and pieces of information such as the data mentioned in the article referenced above.

    The data exists. I can pretty well tell that much because of the new electronic voting system format. It just isn’t being made public.

  • Jack_Savage

    “Turns out I wasn

  • Jack_Savage

    “Here was buried
    Thomas Jefferson
    Author of the Declaration of American Independence
    of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
    Father of the University of Virginia”

    I still get chills when I go up there and read it.

  • acat

    Another trip to the barnyard?

    Seriously, whether or not there is harm *is* germane to the issue.

    Most of the morals-based laws on the books have to do with harm to others, stuff like murder, rape, etc.

    Being gay doesn’t seem to rise to this standard.

    “Turns out I wasn’t hurt” … well, then who was hurt?

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    Those left to ponder
    The glory that might have been
    So hard to except

    err….I mean…never mind.

  • Jack_Savage

    I am switching to martinis only, thank you very much.

    But I include that comment in the category of “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one!” It is a pet peeve, but “snarky excuse” may possibly be a little harsh.

    But let’s look at it another way. Let’s say you went to Harvard, studied hard and did well. Actually, screw that. Let’s say you went to UVA, studied hard and did well. You earn your degree and use it to get a good job at a marketing firm, which requires a degree from UVA.

    Let’s say that ten years later, UVA says “You know what? Centre77 didn’t get in, he’s not happy, and that’s not right. Let’s let him in, even though he does not meet the qualifications, give him his degree, even though he doesn’t study, and make sure everyone treats him with all the rights and privileges thereunto appertaining.”

    Centre77 receives his degree, and gets a good job at your marketing firm. The exact same job, as a matter of fact, with the exact same pay, because now he meets the qualification. As a matter of fact, everyone can get a degree from UVA now.

    Is your degree from UVA now worth more, the same, or less? And what effect does that have on your marketing firm?

  • acat

    they’d know I’m worth twice my weight in gold, and my UVA certification would be all but forgotten.

    I am not harmed by the drop in standards at UVA as my UVA degree is no longer what I’m listing as the strong point on my resume, eh?

    Let’s try a different example. Your buddy from high school builds a bowling alley. He decides to only let people who went to your high school into the bowling alley. He further decides, since he majored in business in college, to offer group health insurance to regulars.

    One of the league teams wants to bring in a new guy. He didn’t go to the high school, just moved to town, but loves bowling and has a case full of trophies. Your buddy agrees to let him play, but he can’t buy the health insurance.

    Fair?

    Mew

  • aesthete

    to “shotgun weddings”, elopements, Vegas weddings, and bad marriages in general. Don’t Newt’s three marriages, “The Bachelor”-style pairings, and JLo reflect at least as badly on the institution as gays? For the sake of consistency, I think we’d need to restrict marriage beyond anyone who has the right port and connector, so to speak. The type of “harm” you’re talking about is not harm at all: it’s a change in privately-held opinions in response to actions by consenting adults. You were never guaranteed that your certifications would be ironclad for eternity, and in fact changing market conditions are part and parcel of the free market. You cannot sue a company that reduces the price of its hamburgers, even if that makes other people less likely to buy your hamburgers. I can’t sue the University of Arizona for racking up debt such that economics profs leave, reducing the prestige of my degree. It may be disadvantageous to you, but it’s not a harm of the legally actionable sort (and for good reason).

  • aesthete

    Not my favorite Founder (and not a particularly good President), but his heart was in the right place.

  • Jack_Savage

    Not your job after 10 years, your exact entry level position.

    And as for your bowling alley? Yep, its fair. If the owner has found that throughout the ages, guys from this high school have generally helped society, and that health insurance assists them in that task, he has a duty to others to help them in any way he can.

    And when the guy from out of town gets to play, it seems like even though he is really great fun to be around and everyone really likes him, all his trophies are from duck pin bowling contests. Not really the same, after all, and no matter how hard he tries, he just can’t physically do what the vast majority of his buddies can.

  • acat

    Find out how long your marriage is in Kardashians!

    Seems to this cat that crap like the Kardashian/Humphries fauxtrimony does more harm – far more harm – than a long-term relationship between two people with the same plumbing.

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    But outside the religious component, if society wants to restrict the benefits of marriage even further due to people abusing the privilege, I have no problem at all with that. And of course the examples you give reflect poorly on the institution of marriage, but would gay marriage help the problem, or further cheapen the institution?

    And as far as your criticism of the example I provided – maybe you’re right for the most part, but that doesn’t answer the question. Is the degree worth more or less due to the lowering of standards and changing the qualifications by the administration of UVA?

  • acat

    and letting the government play with the rules for “civil unions” seems like a good compromise.

    Does this idea harm you in some way?

    Mew

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Since I’m not required–in real life–to operate only extra-scripturally I’m glad to cede to those who can do it well–as I am convinced it can and must be with any civic issue. As a Schaefferian, with an individual and unlimited time, I would actually pursue ramifications of harm inherent in terminological equivocation–but others have to apply that culturally in realtime. To you and aesthete I would urge an exploitation of the bug/feature distinction, e.g. does the existence of failed 1m/1f marriages validate 1x/1x “marriages”, or does the ability to even recognize a failure instance of the former rather point to a universally-shared understanding of what it is supposed to be?

  • Jack_Savage

    He is definitely one of my favorites, I must say.

    Funny story told by a tour guide at Ash Lawn, James Monroe’s home. Jefferson designed a small addition for Monroe which included a doorway. The doorway turned out to be almost imperceptibly small in height, which required Monroe to stoop ever so slightly when he went through it. It turns out that it was facing Monticello, so Monroe was essentially bowing to Jefferson whenever he went out the door.

    Jefferson was later quoted as saying, “That right there is funny, I don’t care who you are.”

  • Jack_Savage

    But that is definitely not where gay activists, both outside and within the Church, want to leave it. Therefore I am forced to adopt the “stomp the nose of the camel” position, because the people I am bargaining with are not trustworthy.

  • texasref

    I trust you, but I want to verify you.

    Provide the link where gay activists “definitely” want to storm the churches and shove gay marriage down the Baptists’ throats. Or whatever other example you can provide along those lines.

  • Bill S

    but the list here is pretty accurate, from my recollection:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

  • Jack_Savage

    http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6106:overtures-on-same-sex-marriage-other-issues-submitted-for-pcusa-ga-consideration-&catid=50:churches&Itemid=133

    In case you haven’t heard, this issue is tearing denominations apart. Congratulations.

    And I guess the long and the short of it is that gay activists have no problem tearing families, churches and this country to pieces if it advances their agenda. Because they believe they are “doing justice”, there simply will be no end to this. Maybe that’s why a lot of people around here are a little sensitive to this issue.

  • acat

    It’s just not going to be put together by the media because it doesn’t follow their narrative….

    We can hope that there’s someone who has access who will leak, I suppose. I wonder just how much of an effort and value doing a precinct-demographic-to-precinct-results analysis would be…

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    BTW, have you read “Bad Religion”, a recent book by Ross Douthat? I am interested in doing so, if only for the subject matter. Take a look at the review of it in National Review if you can get to it.

  • acat

    and, for Wikipedia, I think it’s accurate, why does it make more sense to continue to pour time and treasure in to stiffening the government to defend a sacrament that can be better defended by pacing it beyond the control of the government?

    A simple “Okay, civil unions for all”, and use the resources to make a church marriage something special, something to be aspired to…

    Can the courts force a Catholic church to give communion to a non-Catholic, or force a synagogue to Mitzvah a goy?

    Once marriage is, again, a sacrament of the church *first*, its’ defense becomes clearly a first amendment issue…

    Mew

  • Bill S

    The institution of marriage is so deeply ingrained in society that it would be ludicrous to think we could de-couple it from governmental (or even non-governmental … e.g. healthcare) influence. I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment that marriage should be left to the church. Problem is, it’s a whole lot easier said than done. Consideration of marital status is ingrained in virtually every corner of our culture.

    Just ain’t gonna happen.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Just to point out that–with no reference to merits–that route is going to be saturated with terminological landmines due to the Catholic/Protestant split on whether marriage itself is a sacrament, both sides having significant doctrines quite firmly tied to the issue.

  • Jack_Savage

    Here is why – Please see below…

  • lineholder

    It was in the last poll that PPP conducted just prior to the vote.

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NC_506.pdf

    It’s does show demographics based on race. Pretty interesting. In the question “should same sex marriage be legal versus illegal, for “illegal” it shows 56% white, 63% African American, and 53% other. That 63% isn’t that far off from what was reported as being seen down in Mecklenburg County.

    There’s some other really interesting information included in that poll as well. If you look at Q1, Q7 and Q9, the numbers don’t quite jive, especially between Q7 and Q9. If the data provided in Q7 holds true across the population as a whole, then there has been more of shift to the right in this state than I expected.

  • acat

    for a more similar application, about slavery and mixed-race marriages. I’m quite obviously not in a position to give your religion any advice. Therefore, I won’t .. I’ll just point out that times change.

    Of my nieces, at least two are engaged to men their great-grandfather would have shot before he’d let ‘em date his kin….

    Times change.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    I’d rather we find a way to guard our own if we possibly can than to leave ourselves wide open to the whimsy of government.

    Yeah, it might mean trying to come up with a new process, so to speak. But it puts us one step ahead of what’s expected of us if we do.

    Is there absolutely no possible legal way to do this? None whatsoever?

  • Bill S

    My first priority is to maintain traditional marriage as-is, although I would be much in favor of making it a lot harder to divorce (e.g. elimination of no-fault laws) I am sympathetic to the thought of leaving marriage to the church and allowing states to handle the legal aspects in some way…but as I stated, the linkage between public and private sector policy and marital status are so strong as to be virtually inseparable…and I’m not sure the societal impact is any less by passing the buck to the state (thus my dislike for the concept of “civil unions”).

  • lineholder

    Sometimes, I think we’re so predictable that we make things really easy for the left. This particular situation is complex, and I do realize that. I just would rather take it out of the hands of government in what ways we could.

    Chalk it up to wishful thinking on my part.

  • acat

    a 10 year gap in your example.

    If it were a shorter gap, or if I weren’t such an outstanding employee, the devaluation of the certification might be cause for concern *IF* I needed to use the UVA certification for something else.

    And yes, the bowling alley owner is fair, whether the guy’s trophies are from duck pin or he used to be a pro.

    The insurance part is what the church offers on top of the right to play – the right to bowl is what the government grants to all citizens.

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    Don’t get caught up in the weeds on that point – I was using that as the arbitrary time frame that UVA changed their standards. Let’s say from now on that the change was one week from the time you got your new job.

    But more to the point – why do you think men who graduated from VMI prior to women being admitted sometimes wear T-shirts that say “Old Guard”? It is because they do not want their “certification” to be diluted by the change in standards.

    That is the point I am trying to make, and that is what those who would suggest that the change in marriage standards does not affect anyone who is currently married need to address. None have done so satisfactorily to this point, but I knew if anyone could, it would be you.

    Wait a minute – am I arguing with a Libertarian? Is this some kind of sinister plot? Are kyle8 and funwithknives involved? Is there some of Libertarian mafia / conspiracy, designed to drive me insane?

    Best
    JS

  • acat

    Does this devalue their Americanism?

    Seriously, if the word “marriage” goes back to the “church”, then if you were married in a church, you will remain married. You will also have a civil union.

    If you were married by a justice of the peace, or otherwise in a non-religious ceremony, you will have only a civil union. If this matters to you, then you can talk to your religious leader.

    The counter to your argument is Kim Kardashian – the value of “marriage” is significantly more diluted by her ilk. It’s past time, if the “church” actually values this sacrament/institution, to work to change the definition socially, not through government.

    Mew

  • acat

    I put “church” in quotes because I’m using the term generically – Catholic, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Presbyterian .. but also mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., i.e. any religious ceremony of binding husband and wife is a “marriage”, any non-religious recording of a union is a “civil union”, period.

    If you recall, Jack Savage, there was a time when a marriage performed by a justice of the peace was seen as “less than”…

    Mew

  • Jack_Savage

    My argument is one of dilution – if basic standards change for a “certification”, do the holders of that certification pre-change find it diluted?

    As far as your points go, do churches have a duty, if we take this sacrament seriously, to do all it can to improve the institution? Absolutely. That is why you find more and more churches incorporating marriage ministries into their programs as a result of this debate – probably the only good thing that has come of it.

    Your Kardashian argument is a great one for me, actually. Her marriage devalues mine. An argument against her, however, can’t be an argument FOR gay marriage. Dilution is dilution, and should be fought wherever it is found.

  • acat

    but you’re fighting a couple drops and ignoring a bucket.

    This is the problem with the argument, y’see – 50% divorce rate, both inside and outside the church* comes across as y’all aren’t serious about fighting *for* marriage, you’re just fighting *against* gays.

    Mew

    * with caveat that, as kipling and aesthete and I think one other mentioned, “church-goers” self-identify in this statistic so it might be lower …

  • Jack_Savage

    So the argument that expanding marriage to include gays dilutes the institution and harms those who are married. Also, faux marriages a la Kardashian and multiple marriages a la Larry King do the same.

    Regardless of the exact number, divorce among Christians is too high. And without addressing this problem, we could rightly be seen as just fighting gays. This issue is being addressed, however, with a strong and growing emphasis on premarital counseling and ongoing support for families and marriages, both in Sunday Schools and in programs outside of “normal” church hours.

    Bill S has noted that the cat is out of the bag (so to speak) with the interrelation between government and marriage. It simply cannot be untangled and as a result is here to stay. Christians have needed to fight the war on two fronts.

    Check my answer to you below this thread (“Answer to acat”) concerning the use of government policies and definitions to justify changes in the definition of marriage in the PC (USA). I am interested in your take on this.

  • acat

    And Bill’s assertion that it’s too complex. I disagree.

    We’ve made larger changes, as a country. We’ve made larger changes as a culture. Yes, it’s large, but .. it’s not impossible…. and demographically, within a generation, change is coming to either the nature of churches or the nature of marriage.

    Pick one.

    Mew