Gay “Marriage” is a Legal Fiction…

whose primary function will be to create a legal basis for punishing people who refuse to hail homosex as a virtue and continue to think it a sin. Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve. Or you will be subjected to draconian punishments by the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance.

  • Let_Y_be_any_other_man

    a) The case had nothing to do with Gay Marriage, but the photographing of a commitment ceremony;
    b) The legal basis was provided by non-discrimination regulations, not anything related to gay marriage;
    c) The only “draconian punishments” mentioned in your link is the $6600-something attorney’s fee after the first court defeat. Hardly draconian given that they also lost the two appeals, which they voluntarily went into.

    But then again, you are a Catholic blogger writing about marriage equality. One cannot expect other than hyperbole, truth-bending and contempt in a blogpost, right?

    • Terry Lynn Madeleine Dillon

      Nay. Opposing Gay “marriage” on the grounds that it redefines the institution from the nuptial meaning of the human body, male and female to the American Day Care meaning of “everybody gets the same,” has resulted in the most AMAZING lambastes not to mention whole gangs of “Stop Dr Laura” demagoguery. Businesses are shut down for it and careers destroyed. Please do not call “hyperbole and truth-bending” on this charge, my dear man!

      • Daniel Lee Fee

        Even within the current ranges of USA faith communities, we find disagreement and widespread variations. Some religious people are more or less equivalent in their manners towards opposite sex and same sex couples. A similar set of descriptives and applications and ethical guidelines apply to all couples who pledge to marry in that regard. The catch is, if I take your post correctly, such views do not categorically require law and public policy to deliberately entrench themselves as instruments of democracy/self-governance in nothing but the existing body of Catholic doctrine with apologetics. Indeed, contemplating this catch is a bit startling. Has USA law and/or public policy ever, ever, ever confined itself to Catholic doctrine with apologetics? My mind goes blank. I can’t recall a single instance.

        What does come to mind easily is that, previously, a greater degree of harmony existed between the negative cultural or social apprehensions of what it was, to be a same sex attracted person in our society, and what Catholic doctrine and apologetics mostly said about such people. That concordance has been changing for decades now, if not longer. Parts of that change seem clear so far. Some people just don’t feel much affected, one way or another, by a same sex couple in Massachusetts (say) getting married. They take a ‘live and let live’ approach. Such people feel as little affected by another person/couple’s married life, or even by divorcing, or even by never marrying in the first place. Some people feel positive or affirmative. Those people usually know queer folks in their daily lives. Family members, coworkers, best friends from back when, classmates, sports team mates, … the point for this group of people is that queer folks for real are part of daily life, and by and large members of this USA group are happy to hear that a beloved gay man or lesbian person has made the kind of deep, growthful connection that suggests proposals of marriage.

        Besides these groups, we have an incredible range of doubtful and/or negative citizens, too. Many people who just don’t cotton to what we today understand and mean when someone is known honestly as gay or lesbian in a contemporary, empirically based sense of the terms. Those terms, after all, were previously very loaded words, and up until very recently as the turn of centuries go, those terms could mean nothing good, not a whit. The terms seem awkward, foreign, perhaps. The real daily life of such a person seems distant, possibly ‘dirty’, possibly ‘damaged’, and even possibly ‘dangerous.’ For many in this range of different people, it is still a puzzle why we stopped criminalizing and sentencing such gay men or lesbian women to do time or otherwise. It may still be quite a puzzle why or how we stopped diagnosing such people as mentally ill, or ‘disordered’ in basic personality.

        We come to a current challenge. How can a believer who carries existing negative Catholic doctrine and apologetics express and apply such a detailed body of allegiance, while democratic law and public policy no longer punish such people for ‘being criminals and deviants who perpetrate goodness knows what upon others and upon society in general”?

        Not only have we stopped criminalizing being same sex oriented, we have made major change steps towards embodying in law and policy what the existing current consensus of empirical knowledge (most of it published since the 1950’s) suggests to us: non-straight people are different from straight people in some ways, but basically everybody is still quite human with similar pathways of lifelong human development, and with similar hopes of the embodied human heart for intimacy and for love.

        How shall such a believer embody, express, and apply the entirely negative Catholic doctrines, when being an ‘out’ gay man or lesbian woman at work, in community life, or in extended family life is no longer an automatic scandal overflowing with regret, bewilderment, and shame?

        Although some gay men and lesbian women inside Catholic faith communities have begun to explore new angles and new approaches that have not been mentioned before, even while staying inside the confines of existing Catholic doctrine, the fact is that their ‘outness’ is new, and sometimes a bit startling. The reticence, shame, silence, and invisibility that could previously be taken for granted as parameters for being gay or lesbian in everyday life and in everyday church life are quickly fading away, if not already actually gone.

        All these law/policy/culture changes add up to a powerful absence. Conformed Catholic believers no longer have concordance with law or policy, in addition to doctrine and apologetics. Such a shift is huge, and although it is understandable why we would want to turn the clocks back, it is probably not possible. Few USA citizens who have ‘out’ gay or lesbian family members or friends as a beloved part of daily life (and church life?) are at all willing for those good people to be imprisoned, flogged, fined, or put on probation supervision, just because they are same sex oriented in a contemporary sense. Few will wish for their family members or friends to endure electroshock treatments, experiments in hormone flooding, mistaken or misleading ‘cures’ for what is not a psychiatric disturbance, or anything we previously did when medicine/psychiatry tried to turn same sex orientated people into opposite sex oriented people. The only people that ever seem to change were the people who were to some extent bisexual, so the true outcome was that same sex dimensions of romance and pairbonding are avoided and repressed while a bisexual person concentrates on the opposite sex sides of romance/pairbonding.
        The distances between empirically grounded or informed law and public policy in a pluralistic democracy and strictly determined religious doctrine and apologetics is wide and will grow wider, so long as empirical knowledge disconfirms that gay men and lesbian women are reducible to a limited set of behaviors which are presumed by faith to definitively be ‘dirt’, ‘damage’, and ‘danger’.

        A sharp difference is still not yet resolved, let alone bridged. Catholic believers still dutifully, faithfully lump not being straight with the legacy negatives. Having a ready capacity inside, to fall in love sensuously and form a major couple bond with another man or another woman “belongs” with being a drunkard, murderer, thief, fraudster, psychopathic or sociopathic person who is fundamentally out to manipulate and abuse other people. Yet law and public policy often no longer proceed in this legacy set of negative/corrective directions. The bind in all that is keen edged. Indeed. drdanfee

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    What will separate us from the love of Christ? Will anguish, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or the sword?

    As it is written: “For your sake we are being slain all the day; we are looked upon as sheep to be slaughtered.”

    No, in all these things we conquer overwhelmingly through him who loved us.

    For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers,

    nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:36-39)

    Let those whom the wicked have punished, deprived of their livelihood, or driven out into the darkness, take heart, for the Lord is mindful of those who are faithful to His Name. Let those who suffer for His Name’s sake recall the holy prophets and martyrs of old, who shed their blood rather than to deny God. The apostles rejoiced for that they were found worthy to be tortured for Christ.

  • Luke James

    And what is it you will be subject to ? making cakes , taking photos renting out halls ?( no Pastor will ever be forced to do a same sex wedding ) I thought that was what people did any way ? O some people want to be able to belittle and wag there finger at the evil homo’s , well I’m sorry but that is discrimination and it is illegal in most places . How would you feel if people were able to fire Christian’s or kick them out of there homes because they found them immoral ? Christian’s are not victim’s of any kind , this is very dishonest when homosexual’s are being murdered all the time and you complain at some one having to make a cake .Are you for real ?

    • SteveP

      I think it is you who are spending “civil rights” currency on cakes and videos. Have at it – you are just showing what jerks homosexualists can be.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        Heterophobes like Brad Avakian are showing their true colors now.

      • aislander

        Well you so called Christians that are spending your currency, playing the victim trying to convince people that it is YOUR rights being violated are being much bigger jerks.

        The law is on the side of equal treatment under the law for gays. No one is being requiring you to stop personally being anti-gay, you just can’t use your religious beliefs to violate civil law.

        Get a clue…that’s why your side is losing in case after case after case. Maybe you should focus on problems that should REALLY concern Christians, like the hungry and needy, or how heterosexuals have already destroyed the slightest semblance of the “sanctity” of marriage.

        Fun fact: those states with the longest experience with legal same sex marriage have the lowest divorce rates. Those with the highest resistance to marriage equality have the highest divorce rates.

        • SteveP

          Which paragraph/amendment in either the US Constitution of the state’s constitution reveals the right to a wedding cake?

          • aislander

            Oh, Zing! LOL Now THERE’S an argument. What a joke. The wedding cake is not a constitutional issue, the bakery’s refusal of service is a violation of Oregon civil anti-discrimination law. And even Justice Scalia, undoubtedly your best friend on the U.S. Supreme court regarding gay marriage issues, has ruled unequivocally that one may not use religious beliefs to violate the law.

            • SteveP

              “Gayism” is a belief as it is self-identified. And now the State is establishing it . . .

              • aislander

                Yeah, tell that to a judge. LOL

    • Jared Clark

      It’s not discrimination. They didn’t want to take part in a ceremony that goes against their religion, and their business was all but destroyed because of this. Not that legal recognition of same sex marriage could EVER affect anyone else, right?

      • Irksome1

        It seems to me that what’s at issue here is an act of discrimination, it’s just nothing like what I would call unjust discrimination. I think this points to the ham-handed way in which current discrimination law is justified and enforced rather than to gay marriage. Put simply: take away this gay couple’s ability to legally blackmail Christian businesses and individuals over “discrimination” and Mark would be hard pressed to draw a connection between gay marriage and the persecution of the Church.

        • CS

          You might be right about that. I was just thinking about whether there are ways to ensure that nobody would lose access to such non-essential (but nice) things like wedding photographers and cake decorators but businesses would be free to decide to take any, all, or no customers based on whatever criteria they saw fit. So, a racist bastard refuses to sell you a flower arrangement? Fine, spend your money elsewhere. Make it public as a spending/boycotting campaign, but not a legal thing. That would protect even the most unsavory folks, all the way back to normal people who just can’t bring themselves to celebrate something they think is sinful.
          If services are essential (doctors, and other life/death categories, etc.) then it is illegal to refuse service. If there is not more than one option in town then there are federal funds available to help small business owners start their own, non-gay-opposed flower shop. Or whatever.
          Why wouldn’t that be a better protection for all involved? That way, GNC could refuse me service because I am fat, but I could still go to Target for my vitamins?

          • kenofken

            There’s a couple of problems with that idea, though I can see why you would offer it. Where do we draw the line on what an “essential” service is? How do we explain to service providers that they have a right of conscience to discriminate, but that it hinges upon the state’s arbitrary definition of whether their business is essential to someone?

            The second problem is that civil rights laws are not, primarily, about physical scarcity of services. Even in Jim Crow South, blacks were not angry about lunch counters and hotel accomodations because they were starving and sleeping in the street. They had options. MLK and his guys had plenty of people to take them in, and they arguably ate better than the rednecks they confronted. Riding in the back of the bus still got you to your destination.

            The issue was, and is dignity. We figured that the founding ideals of the country, the costs of slaughter in the Civil War and fighting fascism should buy something better for Americans than having to shop around for a business that will serve “your kind.”

            • Marion (Mael Muire)

              Most Christian business proprietors are happy to serve homosexual individuals and even same-sex couples . . . in all that does not offend the Lord.

              Faithful Christians must do good and avoid evil. Even in their business; they must run their businesses in ways that serve God and holiness, and that do not offend God or promote sin and evil.

              It is neither sinful nor evil to provide and sell to any person – homosexual or heterosexual – a “Happy Birthday” cake, nor three dozen cupcakes for a housewarming party.

              But the sexual union of two men or of two women is forbidden by God; Christians are enjoined even from speaking of such actions (“Let no immorality even be mentioned among you.” Ephesians) except in cases of grave necessity. A Christian should put his hands over his or her ears to cover them, when such things are mentioned, even if he or she runs a bakery.

              Let no one ask of a Christian business proprietor that he or she do that which offends his conscience.

        • Jared Clark

          Yes, if Christians were not legally persecuted over this issue, it would be difficult to argue that Christians are being legally persecuted over this issue.

      • aislander

        The cake business is NOT “participating” in the ceremony. They are providing a commodity for the reception for pity’s sake! Besides, seems awfully hypocritical that they don’t deny business to adulterers and previously divorced heteros. They have singled out gays to refuse their publicly offered services to.

        • Roki

          I agree that this is a strange hill to take a stand on; but if the bakers (or florists or photographers) consider it to be participation, then their perspective should at least be given a hearing.

          • aislander

            They are being given every opportunity to defend their position. Problem is, it is indefensible. They’ve basically proven their violation of the law by their own public admissions.
            Their appearance on Fox and Friends was a BAD idea. Didn’t do them any favors. You know when even the Fox hosts can’t help you out on an issue like this, you’re in trouble.

        • Jared Clark

          Do you know for a fact that someone did this? Did a man come into the store, saying he was divorced and wanted a cake for a marriage reception to another woman?

    • CS

      Here is something I can’t understand, and I mean that sincerely: If declining to bake a cake or photograph a wedding due to sexual orientation is the same thing as racial discrimination — which is a powerful and compelling argument — then why *shouldn’t* a pastor be forced to perform a same-sex wedding?

      • kenofken

        Because a pastor is not a businessman offering a good or service to the general public. On many different levels, the laws and courts recognize a fundamental difference between what goes on in public commerce versus the internal matters of religious organizations. Courts have refused to get involved in mediating leadership or doctrine disputes and churches are completely immune from anti-discrimination laws in hiring their own personnel, etc.

        Businesses are not held to enjoy the same near-absolute freedom of expression. They are subject to many more regulations, including civil rights law. The premise of civil rights law is that once you open a door to public commerce, you can’t then pick and choose certain categories of people and say “we don’t serve your kind here.” Those who favor a right of discrimination, whether racial, ethnic, religious or anything else, have always argued that the motivation of THEIR discrimination is really deeply held and a matter of “conscience” and therefore must grant them immunity to the law.

        • TheOathoftheTennisCourt

          His post didn’t require a reply. It is a genuinely worthless question.

          • kenofken

            It’s worth engaging for the reason that persecution narratives, like the one surrounding gay marriage and Christianity, are dangerous. They are designed to stoke fear and resentment and anger by convincing a social group, usually a majority, that they are being targeted for destruction by a sinister outside force.

            They are not free themselves unless their power to oppress is restored to them. It’s a victimhood narrative that is used to weld group identity, usually under a very reactionary leadership. Not all persecution narratives lead to extreme actions, but all vigilante movements and pogroms are rooted in persecution narratives.

            Persecution narratives work because they rely on the historical ignorance of much of the population. So they repeat the narrative often and loudly, and if it goes unchallenged, it becomes conventional wisdom. “Everybody knows” that gays are evil and are just out to drive all Christians from society.

            • SteveP

              Indeed. We hear you shouting “If I’m not getting a check from the Treasury, I’m a second-class citizen.” Hence Mark’s Visigoth equation: you’ll lay siege to the treasury until your appetite for wealth is sated.

              • kenofken

                I’m still not sure marrying within one’s own gender is quite the gold mine of government money you say it is. If I were to work a scam against the people, I’d start with a proven winner, like Medicare fraud….

                • SteveP

                  Edith Windsor disagrees with you as she sued to get approximately 1% of her wealth back out of the Treasury. What percentage is 6.5K of Elane Photography’s net worth?

                  • aislander

                    I believe it was far more than 1%. Or are you alleging that Edith is worth more than $36.3 MILLION?

                    • SteveP

                      You are correct that I dropped an exponent – 10%. So a 10% loss pauperizes a lesbian but is an acceptable loss for a sole proprietorship?

                    • aislander

                      Your argument is ludicrous. Edith Windsor violated no law. She was found by SCOTUS to have been unconstitutionally denied spousal recognition. Elane Photography was found to have violated State law by the NM Supreme Court. HUGE difference.

                    • SteveP

                      The Vice President said one ought to feel patriotic upon paying taxes. Why didn’t SCOTUS tell Windsor the property transfer was actually income to her and she ought to feel patriotic about the 300K?

                    • aislander

                      Don’t be obtuse. It was no more “income” to her than it would be to a heterosexual married widow or widower under the law. SCOTUS simply required treating her lawful same sex marriage exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage.

                    • SteveP

                      Again you are proving the Visigoth nature of homosexualists: the responsibilities and rights regarding marriage accrued by legal precedent because men and women are founders of families. A “gay marriage” is far more akin to a business partnership than marriage. Stop coveting – it is bad for community.

                    • aislander

                      Your ignorance, animus and intolerance are bad for the community. Do stop!

                    • SteveP

                      Gayists do not comprehend the connotation or denotative meaning of the word “marriage” thus we can safely assume their grasp of other words is tenuous at best; barbarians are aptly named such as they cannot speak the language of civilization.

                    • aislander

                      SteveP: The factions against gay marriage, including the best lawyers and legal experts they can muster have not been able to articulate one legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil marriage law. That’s why you guys babble about anything except an actually admissible sustainable argument…so what’s yours? You have one? Thought not. That’s why you are losing case after case after case, and in fact will lose the whole enchilada sooner than you think.

                    • SteveP

                      Perhaps a dip into recent history will inform your opinion: my understanding is that the mid-to-late 1970s was a very lucrative time for politicians to take a stance “on the right side of history” for feminism. Yet in less than 10 years the campaign donations dried up as did legislative advocacy. I suspect you are on the same path but cannot see.

                    • aislander

                      Again, you avoid my question. Until you can actually produce a legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil marriage law, your cause is doomed to failure.

                      By the way, you might review the transcripts of the Prop 8 case. The anti-gay’s lead expert had to admit under oath that individuals, families and society as a whole WILL be better off with marriage equality the law of the land. Shows you how non-existent your case is.

                    • SteveP

                      As you celebrate what you consider the timeless and infallible truth propounded by California’s court system, recall the very same State, some 80 years early – I’m sure with equal sober deliberation based in empirical observation – legalized the sterilization of the enfeebled. California became so effective at the task, some representatives from a Northern European country came to observe “best practices.”
                      .
                      And while you’re thinking, think of a set of attributes that makes a “gay marriage” any different than two businessmen seeking tax exemption to increase their working capital.

                    • aislander

                      That’s the best you’ve got? What a joke! See, yet again you prove beyond any doubt that you have absolutely NO legally sustainable argument to deny equal treatment of gay U.S. Citizens under civil marriage law. . None. Zero. Zip. This is a matter of civil law. You lose.

                    • SteveP

                      Alaric won the day and won the Treasury. Who now occupies Vatican Hill?

                      And what differentiates a “gay marriage” from a business?

                    • aislander

                      That’s it, keep up with the crazy Chicken Little paranoid delusions, since you’ve already proven you have no legally sustainable argument in this matter of civil law, you pathetic loser. Frankly, you have no credibility anyway. Speaking of the Vatican, I bet you’d be much happier living there. I was just there myself; the weather is really nice this time of year.

                    • SteveP

                      I compliment your skill at inarticulate rejoinders. You must have studied deeply to achieve such mastery. As you’ve been unable to state even a single word on the difference between a business and a “gay marriage,” I’ll take my lantern and move along.

                    • kenofken

                      What differentiates a large number of straight marriages from a business? Every last royal marriage ever arranged in history was primarily, if not purely, a business arrangement.

                      That is still very much the case with people in the upper income brackets, those aspiring to national political office, whose with formal or informal caste systems, women (and increasingly men) looking to marry into a higher standard of living, people who marry foreign tourists for visas. I’ve personally seen one or two cases of marriages done between platonic friends to enable one to get health benefits.

                      I cannot tell you how many weathly people I’ve known – Fortune 500 types, whose marriage is a platonic business partnership. They get along alright and present well as a couple, but they live in separate rooms, sometimes houses, have their own separate love interests etc. You can walk into a county clerks office and judge’s chambers and tell them flat out you’re doing the whole thing as a financial strategy, and you’ll get the license.

                      Marriage as a business contract is not new, and it is certainly not unique to gays. We’ve never attempted to police the motivations of couples seeking civil marriage before, and we’ve never made marriage conditional on procreation. Many hetero couples marry with no intention of having children, including many young, reproductively able people who have themselves sterilized. Conversely, many hundreds of thousands of gay couples DO have children, through IVF, adoption etc. In the case of IVF, they are bringing children into the world who otherwise would not have been born. The genetic basis of male homesexuality also tends to make their mothers and sisters more fertile than average too, but that’s a separate scientific debate.

                      Believe it or not, couples who are childless for one reason or another do marry for love and enjoy the legal protections civil marriage affords them.

                      Why is it, for the centuries that Christians held a total hegemony over the law and culture did they never have the guts or foresight to probe the personal motivations of those seeking civil marriage? Why is enforcing natural law with state power reasonable only now, when enforcement will fall on 2% of the population? Why would you trust a government most of you consider evil to enmesh itself into the child-bearing activities of families?

                    • kenofken

                      Because SCOTUS deals in law and questions of serious consequence. Vice presidents deal in political bloviation.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              Brad Avakian has proven to me that gays and civil rights in general is just a method for minorities to attack the majority and that Oregon is now a police state.

          • CS

            Why is it worthless? I am trying to think this through.

        • erin

          So you think the loss of one’s business is an appropriate punishment for refusing to participate in an un-virtuous situation? Seems like you’re making Mark’s point.

          • kenofken

            I’m not sure what you mean by “loss of one’s business.” I don’t think the state should seize a company wholecloth as punishment for ordinary civil law violations like discrimination. If, however, an owner knows the law, deliberately flouts it and incurs costs that puts him out of business, that’s on him. I also believe that licensed medical professionals who abuse their position of trust to discriminate should face potential suspension or revocation of their licensing.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              They are in Oregon.

              • aislander

                Oregon has a law similar to Washington’s prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. It is Oregon which is investigating the alleged violation of law in the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Thanks, yes, I should have explained. Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the P-Club, and now Broadway Cab are all being put out of business by Brad’s Brownshirts of BOLI.

                  • aislander

                    No they are being put out of business by their own choice to violate well established Oregon law. They are free to relocate their business to a jurisdiction which does not prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, but those jurisdictions are shrinking in number. Rural Texas, Mississippi and Arkansas come to mind as likely areas that would probably welcome their discriminatory ways, at least for the time being.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      2007 is not “Well established”, it is in fact relatively new, and nothing in that law gives Brad Avakian dictatorship rights.

                    • aislander

                      The law was passed in 1953. Just because sexual orientation was later added as a protected class does not mean the law is not well established. You’re free to file a constitutional challenge, although you best be an aggrieved party for for standing issues. Good luck with that. Oh, and Brad wasn’t even appointed (and then subsequently elected) when sexual orientation was added to the law…

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      The law Brad keeps quoting was passed in 2007. His *actions* are what I’m talking about though- complete harassment of anybody who disagrees with him on his heterophobia, and using the full force of the law to punish anybody who dares to disagree. NO Boli administrator ever did that before. Nobody tried to put the lunch counters out of business for trying to be segregated, in fact, putting people out of business is kind of antithetical to the entire idea of non-discrimination.

                      But I don’t expect any relief from the courts or anybody else in this corrupt, illegitimate governmental system. I expect the beatings to continue until complaints about the beatings stop.

                    • aislander

                      The law Brad is quoting was passed in 1953. Sexual orientation was added to that law as a protected class in 2007. And these people are putting themselves out of business by refusing to obey the law. Just as a lunch counter would if it insisted on continuing to refuse service to blacks. A business cannot simply say I disagree with the law, therefore I will violate it with impunity. You might as well hang a sign on your car that says “I reserve the right to disobey all speed limits”…see where that will get you.

                      You’re being absolutely silly.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      And thus, the original law did not contain gay rights, did it?

                    • aislander

                      And your point is?

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      The law has nothing to do with the actions of Brad’s Brownshirts in reality. They’re just being bullies for the sake of creating a police state.

                    • aislander

                      Says the man in the heavy duty tin foil hat.

                      Again, you are being absolutely ridiculous.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      Then why was the P-Club fined $400,000 and shut down?

                      This is the new normal- brownshirt nazis like you supporting the status quo.

                    • TheodoreSeeber

                      No, that’s what makes a government illegitimate- and worthy of rebellion.

        • CS

          If a pastor refused to marry a white and a black couple, would that be legal? Would they have a legal recourse for going to a different pastor and then suing the first one? Or a different priest?

          • CS

            BTW, so as not to be disingenuous, I am aware of the legal difference between commerce and religious institutions, but I am trying to figure out how far the comparison between race and sexual orientation really holds up.

            • Daniel Kane

              Homosexual behavior is always a choice, although the temptation is not. Skin color is never a choice. Homosexuality has “progressed” from what one does (an act) to what one “is”; defining the person by their temptations, inclinations and actions. Even the most literate adherents to homosexual behaviors (Oscar Wilde or Walt Whitman) always considered their behaviors what they did, not what they are.

              Those opposed to inter-racial marriage were completely wrong in their opposition but they opposed inter-racial marriage because they understood the purpose of marriage – children – through reproductive-like acts even if children are not possible because of age, illness or injury. The act is still iconic of reproduction.

              Homosexual marriage is a mutual, committed friendship predicated on a certain level of affection and mutually agreeable sexual play. It is not a reproductive-like act at all. It is in fact, counter to reproduction. If we do not “celebrate” it, we will be “reeducated” as one OR regulator put it.

              • aislander

                Any gay person will tell you it is most certainly NOT a choice, but regardless, the “choice” test doesn’t work. The public accommodations law also protect a person from refusal of service because they are, say, jewish, or christian.
                Religion is MOST CERTAINLY a choice.

                • Dave P.

                  Any gay person will tell you it is most certainly NOT a choice,

                  Then please explain to me Anne Hecht, Julie Cypher, and Jon Moss.

                  • aislander

                    There ARE people who are bisexual. However, as I point out, the “choice” issue is irrelevant.

                    • Dave P.

                      Then there are people who can choose. I remember the gay-rights movement loudly stating, “we CHOOSE to be gay!” Personally, I think the answer to the question of “inborn or choice?” is “Yes”. Some people may very well be born with SSA. For others, it may be upbringing or conditioning. In other cases (and there are a number of them that I’ve known of), it’s “Hey! Let’s see if this gets my rocks off!”

                    • aislander

                      The issue of choice is still debated, although the vast, vast majority of relevant professionals agree it is not a choice. I’ve been around a very long time and I don’t ever recall the gay rights movement using that phrase.

                      Regardless, whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant to the law, and as I also pointed out, religion affiliation is undeniably a choice, yet is protected by the law as well. The cake business could not have refused a catholic couple because they were catholic.

                    • Dave P.

                      Actually, if a business owner has a problem with the Catholic idea of marriage or the Catholic church in general, that’s his prerogative. He couldn’t deny me services merely because I was Catholic, but he has a say about the occasion and the venue, Would it be bad for business? Probably, although I can think of some people who would patronize him precisely for that reason.

                      Here’s another example. Ms Sophia Lavender Bear , militant feminist and owner of Sophia’s Collective Bookstore, Bakery, and cafe, has an unlikely patron – Catholic seminarian John. John comes in on because he enjoys the food, and Ms. Lavender Bear has no problem taking his money. One day, John approaches Ms. Lavender Bear and asks if she could bake the cake for his ordination. Must she accept, or may she refuse to support such an egregious expression of sexist, homophobic patriarchy?

                    • aislander

                      In a nutshell, she must accept if he asks for a cake and she accepts orders for cake from the public.

                    • Dave P.

                      I disagree. I defend her right to refuse supporting an event which goes against her core beliefs. I’d also think John was out of line for asking her, knowing her opinion of Catholicism.

                      Again, that’s the difference. John, as an individual, has the right to ask for service from Ms. Lavender Bear’s bakery. He has no right to ask her to provide for an event which goes against everything she believes in,

                    • aislander

                      It’s a cake for goodness sake, she’s not being required to officiate nor even attend the service. She is providing a commodity. All these gymnastics to justify her intolerance are silly. Would you excuse the farmers that grew the flowers?

              • Daniel Lee Fee

                Hi DK, two of your points strike me as vitally sincere yet not entirely true, in subtle and/or not so subtle ways.

                Point one I read as: “Homosexual behavior is always a choice …Homosexuality has “progressed” from what one does (an act) to what one “is”; defining the person by their temptations, inclinations and actions.” I am agree with you in recognizing the change, i.e., something important or key appears to have shifted. What you leave out is the empirical how/’why of that shift. Your implications so far as I can hesitantly infer them, seem to suggest even less accurate characterizations of both the ‘shift’ and the queer folks to whom the ‘shift’ most strongly applies in daily life and community life among us.

                Fact is, the empirical information dynamics of the shift are not negligible; nor irrelevant to understanding the change.

                As same sex oriented people were more carefully studied to test this or that hypothesis (negative) about being so oriented, the seemingly intangible but enduring vitality of a non-straight orientation was construed very differently than our cultural or faith legacy had to that point told us do. We found out, by asking and by getting honest personal responses, that a very large number of non-straight people still felt themselves to be deeply vulnerable and open to other men or other women, regardless of whether any overt sexual activity ever took place.

                As with opposite sex oriented people, one can ‘fall in love’ and even significantly pairbond with another man or another woman even if nobody involved ever gets around to having what other people would recognize as ‘sex’ with him or her. The shift then, empirically speaking, has been from viewing non-straight people as ‘disturbed straight people’ who are ‘behaving badly’ to viewing straight to bisexual to homosexual people as equivalently human on a coherent continuum of varied orientation. You are quite clear on seeing the shift, though you quickly reduce it to behaviors, thus confusing and/or refusing the changed view, though it is largely supported by empirical studies of personality, life adjustment, and embodiment, as well as by the personal life stories of innumerable witnesses. If both the research (quantitative plus qualitative) plus the life stories of variant people inform us that a deep, enduring aspect of the person involves ‘orientation’ … then a strict habit of reducing ‘orientation’ to overt sexual activity and essentially to that limited set of behaviors is at best wrong because it emphasizes behaviors overt motives of the embodied ‘human heart’ … and at worst, doggedly misleading because we are surely referring as much to a pair-bond readiness that meets common sense qualities of positive intimacy, as much as it does or does not meet common sense actions involving human genitals.

                If or when we so reduce and restrict the vitality and core meaning of same sex orientations, to a limited set of specific sex acts, are we thus infringing – subtly or not so subtly? – on the worth and dignity of the person we are reducing to those sex acts? In many cases, forcefully repeating the reductive legacy is not the same as coping and working through what has shifted, and how, and why.

                Point two, as I read it is: “Homosexual marriage is a mutual, committed friendship predicated on a certain level of affection and mutually agreeable sexual play. It is not a reproductive-like act at all. It is in fact, counter to reproduction.”

                Some of your descriptives ring bells, truly. Words like ‘mutual’, ‘committed’, ‘affection’, and ‘play’ do resonate with the known research as well as with the known life stories of pair-bonded same sex couples that we may already know and love, as our family, our friends, our coworkers, our classmates, and even our brothers or sisters in a faith community.

                The overall tone and direction of your remarks do not ring bells, however.

                Presuming you are exclusively heterosexual for purposes of this post reply, it would strike me and others as quite odd that you could not actually tell the real world differences between yourself being true friends with another straight man, and the overt and qualitative markers lived out by the same sex married couple down the street or across town.

                Put into everyday language, you are probably ‘not in love’ with your best man friend if you both are exclusively heterosexual.

                The married same sex couple, however, are very likely to ‘be in love’ with each other and to do things which couples in love spontaneously and distinctively do. A look, a tone of voice, a passing touch, a flow of years full of bonded moments has a quite different shape and pace and flow to it for that same sex oriented and pairbonded couple, compared to two straight men being the best of friends. Are there not many such straight best friends who would take angry umbrage at being thought to be pairbonded just like the same sex couple – with or without overt sex?

                So, we come to the same question. Is our habitual failure – to perceive, respect, acknowledge, and at least allow civic and personal space to the pairbonded love couple – a subtle or not so subtle habit of diminishing that same sex married couple’s human dignity and basic worth in our local community? drdanfee

              • Neil Cameron

                Homosexual behavior is always a choice just as heterosexual behavior is always a choice.
                The homosexuality or the heterosexuality is not the choice, but acting on the inherent nature of the person is choice.
                The choice should never be denied to one group because members of the other group wouldn’t choose to do it.

                The choice is about choosing to act on your inner sexuality. If heterosexuals are given that choice, and can freely expect to be given the opportunity to act on their inner sexuality then there is no justification to deny the excercising of that choice to homosexuals.

                The inner sexuality is God given.
                To categorize some who choose to act on it (appropriately) as inherently good and then to categorize others who choose to act on it (appropriately) as bad creates paradox in doctrine.

                The paradox only exists in the way faith deals with homosexuality. Correct the wrong and the paradox disappears.
                Eradicate or cast out the homosexuals and more will be born to challenge the paradox.
                The problem is not the homosexuals acting on their inner truth, the problem is on the refusal of the church to acknowledge that that action is as good and appropriate and acceptable as a heterosexual person acting on their inner truth.

          • kenofken

            I believe it would be legal, and I remember reading of several cases in the last couple of years where a pastor did in fact refuse such marriages. So far as I know, none have faced legal action as a result (though they did get a nasty national reputation as bigots).

            • Dave P.

              A question I asked someone in a previous thread: if a neo-Nazi goose-stepped into a kosher deli and demand that the owner cater a meal for a Hitler’s Birthday celebration, is the owner compelled to do it?

              • kenofken

                I don’t know that political affiliation is a protected class. On the other hand, if the deli owner happened to hate Muslims and one came in, he’d have to serve them.

                • Dave P.

                  How about a militant Muslim demanding that the owner cater an anti-Israel rally?

                  The difference is this: Billy Joe Jim Bob may have to serve a black man in his establishment, but he shouldn’t have to cater to a Black Panther Rally. Mr. Jones’ Down Home Barbecue can’t deny service to Billy Joe Jim Bob for being a redneck, but Mr. Jones can tell the KKK what to do with their proposal that he provide the food for their cross-burning session. Hans Affenkopf can buy a knish from Goldstein’s deli if he so desires, but he has no right to demand that the deli put out noshes for AryanFest. And lastly, Jodi has every right to buy a cupcake from Pat’s Bakery, but it is not her right to make Pat bake the cake for her wedding to Shelly.

                  • kenofken

                    The difference is the act targeted for discrimination in the gay couple arises from a core and inborn and inescapable part of their identity and who they are. Refusing gay wedding business affects exactly one class of people – gays. Expressions of racial extremism are not an inherent part of being white or black or anything else. So far as I can tell, a baker could refuse to decorate a gay couples cake with some political slogan if they did the same for others.

                    • Dave P.

                      The difference is the act targeted for discrimination in the gay couple
                      arises from a core and inborn and inescapable part of their identity and
                      who they are.

                      No, the issue is with their conduct, which the NM photographer could not in good conscience support. The photographer also has the right to deny services to divorced and remarried couples if he holds strong views on what marriage should be, Or take baby pictures of a child born out of wedlock, for that matter. Personally, I wouldn’t patronize a photographer whose policy included the last item, but I would simply take my business elsewhere, just as that gay couple should have.

                    • kenofken

                      These photographers and bakers have no idea of the couple’s conduct. They could be celibate for all they know, and no well adult person should make it their business to pry into that. Nor have I ever heard of any case where these supposedly principled busieness owners refused business to straight adulterers, out of wedlock situations, Catholics remarrying without benefit of annulment etc. They’re not interested or ambitious enough to police anyone’s “conduct.” They’re targeting queers for being queer.

                    • kmk1916

                      WHen you are asked to put 2 women dressed as brides on the cake, that is not celebrating celibacy, right?

                    • kenofken

                      Are the two women in question fornicating in our scenario?

                    • http://www.facebook.com/psiphiorg David Henderson-Rinehart

                      When you put a bride and a groom on the cake, that’s not celebrating a sexual act. It’s celebrating the joining of two lives into a new union. It’s inappropriate to pry into their sexual plans and goals.

                    • kenofken

                      Yes, but the religious right has a lurid imagination and a positive obsession with what other people are doing in their bedrooms and the mechanics of how everybody uses their parts A and B. They devote a lot of thought to homoerotic imagery in particular, I guess because it’s so, you know…unthinkable!

                    • Dave P.

                      So why should the government be involved with that at all, except for providing the means for a civil partnership? And that available to any two consenting adults?

                      If the State is not interested in sanctioning marriage as traditionally understood, why does it have to sanction any sexual relationship at all?

                    • Neil Cameron

                      It has to because there are rights that come with marriage that cannot be allocated to some, but not others.
                      The alternative is to remove marriage from the law books altogether and rescind ALL rights that went with those marriages. You want to see outcry over the desecration of marriage? That is the path to it!
                      The state cannot discriminate any more than a commercial enterprise can.

              • Neil Cameron

                No they are not. The neo-NAZI is disturbing the peace and scaring away the other clients (infringing the rights of the business owner to engage in business unhindered) as well as damaging the furniture and displays with all their goose stepping.

            • aislander

              No church in the USA has ever been required to perform any marriage that it does not wish to.

          • http://www.facebook.com/psiphiorg David Henderson-Rinehart

            It is legal. Last year, a church in Mississippi refused to allow their pastor to conduct an interracial marriage ceremony at their church. The church was well within their rights to do so. (The pastor married the couple at a nearby church.)

          • Neil Cameron

            it is as legal as a Catholic priest refusing to officiate over a Hindu marriage.

          • aislander

            It would be perfectly legal. In the United States, no clergy and no church ever has been nor ever will be required by law to marry ANY couple that they choose not to for any reason. Those decisions are left completely up to each church’s own policy.

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Then the key is to remove your business from public commerce.

          • kenofken

            That is definitely one way to do it. One could cater exclusively to, say, Catholic weddings. Likewise, one could drop a line of wedding business altogether. They can’t make you offer a service you don’t offer. They can only compel equal access to business you offer.

            • TheodoreSeeber

              I have no doubt that loophole will be rescinded once Brad’s Brownshirts learn about it.

            • aislander

              The catholic only rule would not fly, as the law does not allow refusal of service based upon religious affiliation either. Reportedly, however, the cake business is going to attempt to get around the law by operating out of their home, apparently as a private club.

            • Neil Cameron

              Surely catering exclusively to Catholic weddings just adds to the list of people you are discriminating against?
              Now its the gays AND the anglicans, buddhists, hindus, jews, shintoists, atheists, 7th day adventists, muslims and mormons being discriminated against.
              The only way to serve exclusively Catholic weddings would be to sign an exclusive contract with one client. The church would have to be the one and only client. But the church would have to then manage every order for every catholic marriage, as well as face the dilemma of choosing which bakery should get the contract.
              Now the burden is placed on the church, and church resources are being channeled into managing all of the commercial contracts, rules, regulations etc pertaining to marriages, instead of being chanelled into the usual good works of the church. The church would effectively take over the ‘commercial legislation’ of those contracts, becoming insular and not reaching out in its ministry.

              The church would be reduced to a closed community cult.

      • mstahl302

        Non-discrimination laws in Washington State say you cannot discriminate against gay people in “public accommodations”. Selling a cake is a business, which the law considers a public accommodation. Officiating at a religious wedding ceremony is considered “religious activity”, and not a public accommodation. That’s the difference.

        The court has upheld (many times) that non-discrimination in public accommodation is constitutional. It strikes a good balance between the states desire for equality for all it’s citizens and an individual’s freedom of religion. Most non-discrimination statues specifically exempt religious activity. If a law tried to force pastors to marry same sex couples, the court would very likely find that to be unconstitutional.

        • Roki

          Does anyone know whether non-discrimination laws distinguish between discrimination based on persons and discrimination based on actions?

          For example, it is illegal to refuse goods or services to someone because they are black/Jewish/female/etc. But it is not illegal (at least in some circumstances) to refuse goods or services to someone because they are smoking/drinking alcohol/dressed a certain way/etc.

          Where is the line drawn? Is there a difference, legally speaking, between being gay and having a gay wedding? To use a (hopefully) parallel example, is there a difference between being Catholic and having a Eucharistic Procession? Could a fervent Protestant who considers the Eucharist to be idolatrous be fined for refusing to provide flowers or candles or banners for a Eucharistic Procession?

          • kenofken

            The issue, as I understand it, is whether the actions you discriminate against targeted against only one class of people by design or nature. That was one of the games played by Jim Crow voting laws like the “grandfather clause” which said your ancestors must have been eligible to vote for you to vote. Technically, they weren’t barring blacks from voting on the grounds that they were black, but they drew up an arbitrary rule they knew would realistically only affect them. There is no way in which refusing gay wedding business will impact anyone besides gays. It is clearly targeted to gays. If, on the other hand, you only took wedding business from Catholic Church ceremonies, the discrimination falls not only on gays, but lots of disparate people.

            • Roki

              I’m not sure about the Arizona case mentioned in the original post, but the case pending in Washington State regards a business that happily served gay clients, including the very clients who are the subject of the suit. They counted many gay people and couples among their friends. They only refused to participate in the specific event of the wedding ceremony.

              This is clearly not targeting gays. It is targeting a particular behavior or action.

              Your point is that this is an action that is only engaged in by gay people, so targeting the action targets gay people.

              I return to the Catholic Eucharistic Procession. If someone who firmly believed that such an act is idolatrous refused to provide me goods or services to engage in it – knowing that this is a distinctively Catholic act, and not refusing me everyday services or goods, but only refusing to participate in this act which is contrary to their conscience – is this targeting me as a Catholic in a legally actionable way?

              If I understand your reasoning, the answer would be “yes.” Am I properly understanding you?

              • kenofken

                I would tend to agree with your analysis, and I’d rather err on allowing less discrimination than more. I think a Catholic wedding would be more comparable in circumstances to a gay wedding than a Eucharistic Procession, but the principles seem similar. Of course, I’m just one guy with his own ideas about the law and civil rights theory. I’m not a lawyer much less a judge or expert in Oregon law etc.

                • Roki

                  I’m no legal expert either. And I think I would disagree with your druthers. In cases such as this, where the only harm is inconvenience, I’d rather see conscience rights protected than purchaser’s rights to get whatever they want on their own terms. I would have to see a pretty significant level of harm before I would be willing to let the law override someone’s conscience.

                  The other area where this comes up is pharmaceuticals. I don’t have an easy answer to whether and how pharmacists can refuse to dispense contraceptive or abortifacient medications; but I put the burden of proof on the purchaser to show that there is real harm that comes from not receiving these drugs – to say nothing of the mere inconvenience of going to a different pharmacy to pick up the drugs.

                  But that’s why we have freedom of speech: so you and I can talk through our principles and discover whether and where we disagree.

                  Then, God willing, we’ll understand what’s at stake for each other when we write and enforce laws. Maybe we’ll even find solutions that serve the common good, rather than serving some ideology or other.

                  • mstahl302

                    The law does not recognize “minor inconvenience” as an exception to discrimination law.

                    For example, if a restaurant refused to serve a muslim because of their “conscience”, the restaurant would not be able to defend their actions by pointing out that there is a restaurant a few blocks (or miles) away that will serve them, and that they’ve only imposed a “minor inconvenience” on them.

                    If a person wishes to act *only* in accordance with their religious dictates, they must retreat from the public sphere into the religious one. They could, say, open the business as part of their church, and refuse to serve anyone who isn’t a member of their faith.

                    To participate in civil society is to be bound by civil society’s rules, and one such rule is that all citizens are equal, and that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against members of protected classes.

                    • Roki

                      What I understand of the law – which is precious little – leads me to agree with your understanding of what the law allows and prohibits.

                      But I think the law is wrong to be written this way.

                      If all citizens are equal, then all equally deserve protection from the law. There should be no “protected classes.”

                      I understand that, historically, there are injustices to correct. But they cannot be corrected by inventing new injustices.

                    • kenofken

                      So you’d be ok with looking for a job or housing and seeing signs saying “Catholics need not apply.”?

                    • Roki

                      Well, a job as a Rabbi might reasonably have such a sign, and I’d raise no objection.

                      Generally speaking, work and housing are common goods. That is, they are goods universally for all, and are therefore the subject of natural rights. So it is wrong to deny anyone the ability to gain work or housing.

                      That said, there is no moral requirement that someone hire this person or that, or give this individual an apartment, so long as that person is not denied altogether the ability to work or shelter.

                      What I am saying is that anti-discrimination laws are a particular solution to a historical problem: systemic unjust discrimination primarily against black Americans and immigrants. They are not fundamental moral principals, and in some cases may themselves be unjust.

                    • Neil Cameron

                      The question at hand really is “has a new injustice been invented?”.
                      Are Christians truly being discriminated against because they themselves cant discriminate?
                      Is the discrimination that WAS being done (legitimately at the time), integral to the Christian faith?
                      Is the historical discrimination against gays in line with or in contravention of the faith?
                      Has it only become an issue now that the law no longer has a parallel discrimination of its own?

                      Is it a sin to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple engaging in a same sex wedding?
                      I have seen very little on the subject from religious leaders (other than the vehement & dubious ones who inflate their own importance).
                      I am not convinced that it is a sin.

                      Christ never advocated not doing business with the money changers. He simply cleared them out of the temple to engage their activities in the street. The others in the temple were free to continue to engage in commerce with them, so long as it was not in the temple.

                    • Roki

                      Let me add that I strongly disagree with this:
                      If a person wishes to act *only* in accordance with their religious dictates, they must retreat from the public sphere into the religious one.

                      This is exactly unjust discrimination: restricting someone’s participation in society because they do not share a particular ideology.

                    • mstahl302

                      I think you miss the point. The bulk of anti-discrimination law was developed around racial discrimination. Let us note that such discrimination was often a sincerely held and at times religiously justified by a believe in the inequality of the races.

                      Imagine such a society, where people can discriminate based on conscious. Well, we don’t have to imagine. The south in the Jim Crow era was just a society. Blacks were discriminated against in every aspect of life, despite on paper having “equal protection under the law”. The result was an underclass, and the world was most definitely not equal, at least not if you were a black man in the south. There was real harm caused by discrimination. .

                      But this is a different situation, so let’s examine the harm.

                      Consider the state of the world prior to the non-discrimination law (not so long ago). You’ve overlooked the fact that that a gay person could be (and often was) turned away from any business at any time. Imagine a world where, say 50% of the businesses in your neighborhood would refuse to serve you, claiming only a minor inconvenience. Not just cake shops, but book stores, mechanics, private schools, doctors, hospitals. At any time. For any reason. If you’d like to talk about unjust discrimination, look at a society where unlimited private discrimination is allowed, and then compare that with the definition of justice. While some Christian businessmen are happy with the situation (along with anyone who’s a bigot), the harm to the gay people was real, material, and pervasive.

                      Now examine the nature of the harm under a non-discrimination statute, as it is today. The gay people are happier, that’s for certain, and some christian business owners are not. But what harm do they suffer? They are getting paid for their cake. They’re not getting turned away at any neighborhood businesses (at least not based on their religious affiliation). They’re not being stopped from practicing their religion. They’re not forbidden from speaking out about their dislike of gay marriage. They can rest secure in the knowledge that no gay weddings will be performed in their church. The MOST they can claim is that the knowledge their cake was served at a same-sex wedding offends their “christian sensibilities”. They’re offended that the thing they sold was used for something that, while perfectly legal, they REALLY don’t approve of.

                      This is hardly a case of symmetric harm.

                      This is not about ideology. The cake owners are allowed to believe anything they want. They’re just not allowed to DO anything they want. If they want to participate in public commercial society, they have to offer their services equally to all citizens, even those they don’t personally agree with. The alternative is just Jim Crow for gay people. And *that’s* unjust discrimination.

                    • Roki

                      No, the harm is that a person is coerced into participating in an act which that person considers immoral. It’s not that someone is prevented from doing what they want; it’s that someone is forced to do something they do not want, and that they consider unjust.

                    • aislander

                      They are not “participating” in the wedding. That’s just nonsense. They are providing a commodity for the reception. In this case, a commodity that they provide for any heterosexual wedding reception. They cannot deny this wedding cake commodity that their business provides to the public because the couple is gay, that is a condition of doing business in Oregon.

                    • Roki

                      As I said above, I agree that this is a strange, maybe even petty, hill to take a stand on.

                      That said, the bakers/photographers/florists who are objecting are objecting because they see their action as a participation in an immoral act. That is a perspective that at least deserves a hearing, not simply to be dismissed out of hand.

                    • aislander

                      They are certainly entitled to every appropriate legal channel to offer their defense. Problem is, it is rather indefensible…they’ve already as much admitted to violating the law in their public statements.

                    • Roki

                      I’m more concerned about whether the law is just than whether they broke it.

                    • kenofken

                      They had, and utilized, every appropriate legal channel available. They argued their case first at the New Mexico Human Rights Comission, then at district court, then appellate, then state supreme court. From all appearances, the photography business had excellent representation at all stages, which made very thorough arguments on at least six different legal grounds. They lost, at each stage, and by unanimous decision at the high court level. Their perspective had its day in court.

                    • Neil Cameron

                      If baking cakes is immoral, then they shouldn’t have been baking cakes in the first place.
                      If baking cakes is not immoral, then you cannot refuse to bake the cake because it is immoral.
                      It is either immoral or it is moral. It cannot be both.

                • mstahl302

                  (IANAL!) You can also use race as a proxy example, since both discrimination against race and sexual orientation are both covered under the same non-discrimination statute.

                  Consider a bakery that sold cakes to african american’s for, say, birthdays, but refused to sell a cake to an inter-racial wedding on the grouds of a religious objection to mixing of the races. The court would likely conclude that the the action violates the non-discrimination law, even though the baker only refused to provide a cake for a specific “action”. The two are inseparable. It is the race of the clients that *makes* the wedding an inter-racial event, and so, refusal to provide services only for inter-racial weddings would be interpreted by the court as illegal racial-based discrimination.

                  In the cake case in Washington, it is the sexual orientation of the participants that defines it as a same-sex wedding. Clearly the wedding is legal, and the cake shop serves all *other* weddings. As a public accommodation, the cake shop can’t use the sexual orientation of the participants to discriminate.

                  • Roki

                    I’m wary of using race as a proxy example. Race is different from homosexuality in at least a couple important respects:

                    1) Race (in American discrimination situations) is generally equated to skin color or other immediately discernible physical features: it is an external characteristic which is difficult or impossible not to present publicly – even if someone wanted to keep it “private”; meanwhile, I cannot know whether or not someone was homosexual (or Catholic or Libertarian or vegetarian, etc.) just by looking at them, unless that person chooses to reveal this fact in some public way.

                    2) Race does not define behavior in any way; one can be of any race without being bound or restricted from any particular kind of activity. Homosexuality is defined by a desire for (and, according to some definitions, a participation in) certain acts. It might be compared to predispositions like alcoholism, which seems similarly based in both biology and the choice to engage the predisposition; or it might be compared to religion, which has certain behavioral expectations which are given, while participation in those behaviors is freely chosen. But it is not really comparable to race, which does not involve behavior at all.

                    This is why I use religion (which is usually both given and chosen) or sometimes a biological predisposition like alcoholism (anyone have a better example with less negative baggage?) as closer analogues.

              • Neil Cameron

                It does target gays.
                Generally Arlene’s Flowers does not discriminate. But when it comes to wedding flowers, which is one of the services offered by her business, Ms Stutzman provides wedding flowers for every marriage except gay ones.
                She does discriminate in that particular service, which is a service she does offer with specific marketing materials targeted at that market.

                She is effectively denying a group of clients on the basis of their sexuality, access to a portion of the services all other clients are given access to.
                She has effectively demarcated a ‘straights only’ area of the shop. It is the equivalent of having a whites only area in a restaurant, non whites are allowed, but…..

          • kmk1916

            I can’t imagine that Catholics buying stuff for a Eucharistic Procession would make a big fuss. They would say, OK, understood” and find someone else. (I guess they would look in the back of the bulletin and find a business there, first…) : ) )

            • Roki

              Agreed: I don’t think anyone would make a fuss. My question is, legally, would they have a basis to make a fuss?

              • aislander

                Yes, assuming this candle or whatever business is for profit and open to the public, then they cannot refuse service on the basis of religion. It’s that simple.

      • Neil Cameron

        Because a pastor is not engaged in a commercial activity. The pastor is engaging in a religious ceremony.

        Commercial floristry, baking and photography are not religious rights, religious ceremonies or religious in any way, they are commercial.

        The state has no say (beyond acknowledging the existence of the faith) in how religious ceremony is carried out or in the beliefs of that religion. The power to define & direct the religion is firmly planted on the religions side of the separation of church and state.

        The state IS the determiner of commercial law. The power to define & direct commerce is firmly planted on the states side of the separation of church and state.

        The pastor is in the church. The baker & photographer are merchants out in the street.
        Any attempt to assimilate the commercial activities into the realm of the church is effectively an act of setting up shop in the church.
        Christ cleansed the temple of merchants due to them turning the temple into a den of thieves through their commercial activities.

        Religious authority in the church. Commercial authority out on the street.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      Christians are and will be increasingly subject to fines if they act according to their conscience concerning the sanctity of marriage. Same-sex relationship activists have already conducted boycotts against vendors to a faithful Christian-owned business, to punish them for acting according to their consciences in this matter; this business has closed its doors forever. Faithful Christians already know that it is forbidden to express the views of their conscience concerning marriage in the workplace; if they do, they face discipline or dismissal. Christians will lose family and friends; son will be against father; mother-in-law will be against daughter-in-law.

      Faithful ones, when reading about the punishments being visited upon Christians who are faithful to their conscience, do you not long to join them? To share in their witness to Jesus Christ? As we learn from the martyrs of Apostolic times, however, it is not prudent to go forth to seek martyrdom head-on; this was frowned upon by the early Fathers. Instead, it is proper to wait upon God’s Providence; He will send opportunities to suffer for His Name’s sake at a time of His own good pleasure. We are to wait, instead, rejoicing, and giving encouragement and praise to those of our brothers and sisters who are even now facing the punishments being visited on them by the wicked.

      We can support those facing these trials with our prayers, fastings, and sacrifices, offering these to the Lord on their behalf, while we wait with steadfast love our own turn to be punished by the Culture of Death.

      • TheOathoftheTennisCourt

        Who appointed you to advocate on behalf of Christians?

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Who appointed a heterophobic bigot like you to advocate on behalf of gays?

    • Dave P.

      Homosexuals being murdered all the time? I haven’t heard of that being a frequent thing here in the USA. Now in Islamic countries, OTOH…

    • TheodoreSeeber

      ” no Pastor will ever be forced to do a same sex wedding”

      Bullshit- that is exactly the end game.

      • Stu

        Exactly. Luke is either a liar or incredibly naive.

        • aislander

          And Theodore and Stu, you are nothing more than Chicken Little fear mongerers. No church in the USA ever has nor ever will be required to perform ANY wedding it chooses not to. Nice try (not really) but the problem is you guys to to such gymnastics to play the victim card, it’s pathetic.

          • Stu

            And 25 years ago no one would have thought society would attempt to redefine marriage. But they have.

            I don’t consider myself a victim. Sometimes you are called upon to stand up and resist such things. I have no doubt that the homosexualist movement will move to coerce churches to accept the homo-heresy. That’s because the movement isn’t about tolerance. The overwhelming majority are already such. This effort is about acceptance; acceptance by society as means to reinforce the notion that homosexual behavior is normal.

            • aislander

              As I said, NO church in the USA has EVER been nor ever will be required to perform ANY wedding they chose to decline. Until such time as one is, your pontificating is nothing more than disingenuous slippery-slope Chicken Little fear mongering with absolutely no basis in fact.

              • SteveP

                “NO church in the USA has EVER been nor ever be required to perform ANY wedding they chose to decline.” Except in The Episcopalian Church were a Bishop will remove you from a pastorate if you are unwilling to perform a “same-sex blessing.”

                • aislander

                  Well that is the church’s decision, isn’t it? Just as the church could decide that no same sex weddings shall be performed. The church is not being forced to do or not do anything. It’s church’s own decision.

                  • TheodoreSeeber

                    Until, of course, your hero Der Furher Brad decides differently.

              • Stu

                And until recently no state had attempted redefine marriage. But here we are.

                It won’t stop there. Only the foolish think that. Only the disingenuous deny it.

                • aislander

                  Given the US Constitution and absolutely NO examples of a U.S. Church EVER being required to perform ANY wedding it chooses not to, only a disingenuous, dishonest or paranoid individual would use such a ridiculous argument.

                  But then that’s right, isn’t it, you have absolutely NO legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay U.S. citizens their Constitutionally guaranteed right of equal treatment under civil law, in this case, the contract of civil marriage, so all your side can do is stoop to fear, distortions, and outright lies.

                  • Stu

                    The US Constitution said nothing about alcohol either yet we still had prohibition. It is the homosexualist who want to deny the rights of society to maintain the real definition of marriage in order to give them a sense of affirmation.

                    • Dave P.

                      Actually. to be fair, the Eighteenth Amendment addressed that. And even then, there were legally recognized exceptions. Alcoholic wine could still be used in Christian communion rituals and the Passover Seder and Shabbas meal.

                      The way “tolerance” is defined now – if it were Prohibition instead of gay marriage, the Prohibitionists wouldn’t allow even those exceptions.

                    • Stu

                      I meant before the 18th Amendment.

                    • aislander

                      Nice try. Do you even have a clue how the amendment process works? Or are you really that stupid?

                      And if you really feel same sex marriage should be outlawed, perhaps you should channel all your energy into getting an Amendment to the Constitution passed to achieve your bigoted agenda, because frankly, without it, you are sunk.

                      Good luck with that. Loser.

                    • Stu

                      Yes, junior I am well aware of how the Constitution works. That’s the point I was making given your bringing it up. The Constitution can be changed. Class dismissed.

                    • aislander

                      Well from your ridiculous previous post, one certainly wouldn’t know it. I suggest you get the Constitution changed to guarantee equal treatment under the law to all citizens except gays. Oh, and good luck with that. LOL

              • kenofken

                Fear sells.

                • aislander

                  Yes, but fortunately anti-gay bigotry is selling less and less well these days. Particularly as its promoters constantly reveal themselves to be such sanctimonious holier than thou hypocrites.

            • Luke James

              Wrong the young people of the U.K. and the west in general have all ready decided to welcome homos as God made them and celebrate there love and relationship’s , the Bishop of the Church of England calls anti homo hate evil like racism , the beloved Bishop Tutu is all so pro homo . Each day new more confused ideas come out of the Vatican .This is not the work of some homosexualist movement , it is the work of millions of people who have homosexual friends , family and workmates . These homo friends are doing away with the false anti homosexual teaching of some Christians exposing all the vile lies told and all the junk science used by the anti homo agenda . If homo marriage is a new thing why did the pope Theodious order the death of all Romans in same sex marriages in the 4th century a.d. ? You are not called on to stop other people having human rights = that is not standing up for any thing worth while at all , only more hatred and bigotry .

              • Stu

                Theodosius was an emperor, not a Pope. His code stated:

                All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man’s body, acting the part of a woman’s to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people.

                It says nothing about redefining marriage.

                The rest of your reasoning is similarly flawed and relies on fallacious reasoning. Human rights has nothing to do with redefining marriage.

                • Luke James

                  Human right’s often require the redefinition of thing’s that are no longer socially excepted . Such is the case with marriage , from Chinese ghost wedding’s – African tribal same sex female marriage ( parts of Kenya ) – to the homosexual marriage in Pagan Rome ( Nero – Elagabalus to name 2 famous examples ) marriage is there to suit the need’s of the community concerned . Our modern western society has decided that it is a basic human right to marry and that this needs to include homos too . This is why marriage has been changed just like it has been changed in other ways at other times . All marriage’s with legal backing are far from fiction = they are reality despite what some mean spirited people may think .The Christian anti homo crusade was started in the 4th century , used as a scapegoat for the troubles that had befallen the empire through it’s abandonment of the traditional religion of the Roman Ancestor’s ( Paganism ) , the Christian’s enacted a string of anti homo laws ( all included the death penalty ) and blamed all the empires problems on homosexuality . This is were the false claim that homosexuality destroy’s societies.comes from ( it was actually Christianity that was the problem ) . It is way past time for those with anti homo agenda’s stop using Jesus name to spread hate . Many of us find this very offensive to say the very least .

      • Neil Cameron

        Are you claiming to know what others are motivated by, what their goals are and what “games” they play?
        Or are you claiming to be able to see into the future?

        Just because that is what YOU think does not make it fact or truth.

  • TheOathoftheTennisCourt

    I wish I could inflict punishment on violent, bible thumping lunatics like the OP. I would begin by delivering an honest, and well deserved punch in the face to him. The punch would transcend all of the sexist vitriol that was inflicted upon me by these pious, institutional forces. Unfortunately I can’t. My unreleased anger corrodes my sperm. Instead, I must live my life, equally protected under the law. I don’t give a damn if a dumb bigot doesn’t like it. I don’t need their tolerance. It’s powerless.

    • TheodoreSeeber

      It is exactly this sort of hateful, bigoted attitude that made me turn against homosexuals- permanently. Good job spreading homophobia.

      • kenofken

        You didn’t exactly have the warm and fuzzies for gays before “Oath” came along…..

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Oath and his like have been in my area since March 2004. Before that, I spent a decade giving to AIDS Charities, supporting AIDS hospice, and arguing for civil unions as a form of separation of Church and State (ok, originally because of divorce and contraception and not wanting the government in my Church, only later due to gays, but same difference). Still do- but now I’m a bigot crying for an end to government intrusion into marriage.

          • Lee Johnson

            Funny, Theodore. I had similar experiences with the gay community in Newark, NJ, and Philadelphia. I was a volunteer on an AIDS ward and was a member of a Center City parish that was being devastated by AIDS among its gay parishioners. I also assisted in a house that was mostly made of gay men trying to recover from addictions.

            In all that time, I never considered any of them more of a sexual sinner than I was. I still don’t. We’re all sinners in need of salvation, and my sexual sins are this that and the other thing.

            But now I’m a bigot because I think that you need one groom and at least one bride for a marriage.

    • Lee Johnson

      You want to punch him and he’s violent? Mkay.

  • TheodoreSeeber

    Say goodbye to the iconic Broadway Cab in Portland, OR as well; apparently firing the cab driver and the $1000 fine wasn’t enough, they’re now being sued under Oregon’s non-discrimination law. The cake shop in Gresham, OR is closing down too.

    • JeffreyRO55

      The Oregon bakery is closing down for loss of business. When they were asked to serve as a test case for the anti-discrimination law, there were told by their religionist sponsors that they would get more business than they lost. Didn’t turn out that way!

      • kenofken

        The take away from that might be for locals everywhere to be wary of staking their livelihoods on the empty promises of carpetbagger advocacy groups who want to walk you into a fight for their own ends but have no ultimate stake in your well-being.

        • JeffreyRO55

          Agreed! The ADF, NOM and other hate groups have zero scruples or conscience when it comes to trying to stop the “gay menace.” They’ll say anything to anybody, and use any tactic. It’s really a take-no-prisoners approach, from what I can tell. They’ll happily throw one of their own under the bus if that’s what it takes.

          • aislander

            Absolutely — these groups are total slime. But they’ll keep up with their campaigns of fear, division, distortion and outright lies as long as they can keep fleecing their contributors to pay 6 and 7 figure salaries to career opportunists like Brian Brown, Maggie Gallagher and Frank Schubert. Since most of their funding comes from just a very few (but deep pocket) contributors, and with mounting loss after loss after loss on the anti-gay side, you’d think these contributors would seriously start questioning their return on investment these days.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        I’d buy from them.

        • Neil Cameron

          Google ‘sweet cakes’ and ‘racist’ before you do buy from them. You may find the search results reveal other groups that this “nice Christian couple” are opposed to. You may also enjoy the expletives they make use of in communicating their opinions.

          • aislander

            Wow!! Thanks for the tip, Neil…that diatribe Sweet Cakes by Melissa posted on their Facebook page is so over the top racist, sexist and disgusting I can’t imagine even the most virulent anti-gay people commenting here could possibly think of supporting them. The general press has been far too kind to these baker bigots!

            • TheodoreSeeber

              The only reference I saw to their facebook page, was an atheist website, and we know how those people will say anything, lie about anything, to make a point.

              • Neil Cameron

                How? Their facebook page was removed before I even posted above.

                • TheodoreSeeber

                  Like I said, the only reference is on an atheist website. Do try to gain some reading comprehension, it will help you later in life.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            I would buy from them to support them regardless. I hate political correctness far more than I hate garden variety racism.

        • to_tell_the_truth

          Seems you can order an “out-of-wedlock children cake” from them. And a “human stem cell research cake” too.
          Sounds dee-lish.

          • TheodoreSeeber

            yep. So what? Are you, as a moral relativist, telling somebody else what their religion is?

            • to_tell_the_truth

              No. That seems to be the job of the cake-seller.

              • TheodoreSeeber

                Anybody for gay marriage is a moral relativist.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  I’m for marriage. Period. That’s what it says on my Marriage Certificate. Not “gay marriage”.
                  Have a nice lifestyle.

      • Neil Cameron

        Agreed. Apparently support from other opponents of gay rights only lasts as long as the anti-gay story is running in the headlines. Drop out of the headlines and that huge upturn in sales evaporates and leaves the anti-gay business staring down the barrel of bankruptcy.
        The only way to avoid the bankruptcy is to then turn to relying on the public at large, who have since grown weary of the controversy associated with the product and give the business a wide berth.

        Putting Christianity first and foremost in your commercial enterprise leaves you with a client base made up solely of Christians who will support you for only as long as your demonstration of your faith is deemed loud enough for them.

    • to_tell_the_truth

      To test out which religious convictions would cause the shop to refuse business, Willamette Week called up the shop and asked them to make cakes for divorce, out-of-wedlock children, human stem cell research and a pagan solstice (with a pentacle design requested for the cake). All requests were responded to positively, with price quotes.

      • TheodoreSeeber

        So they learned their lesson, too late.

  • Stu

    Eventually there will be some turnabout on this. I can see someone targeting a homosexualist printer with a request to print up a bunch of anti-homosexualist posters, bills, etc.

    Watch the fur fly then.

    • kenofken

      If the case turns on comparable anti-discrimination law, I’ll be the first one to sign onto a friend of the court brief for the ADF. And I am, (I’m told), a “homosexualist.”

      • Stu

        I say diffuse the situation. In things that aren’t the necessities of life (food, medicine, shelter, etc) let’s simply allow people to associate how they choose instead of getting Big Government involved in every aspect our lives.

        • kenofken

          Would you be ok with gay business owners refusing Catholic business? How many microseconds would pass before the ADF pounced on that?

          • Dave P.

            Their prerogative, and their loss.

          • Stu

            I would be okay with that. I would simply commend them for being honest and go elsewhere. My self-esteem wouldn’t suffer and I don’t need government sponsored affirmation via forced compliance. I’d tell my friends as well so that they could avoid that business.

            Too easy. Requires that you be comfortable with who you are.

            • aislander

              Actually, what really galls you is that gays these days ARE comfortable with who they are. I certainly am. And I have absolutely zero need for approval from a person like you. You have every right to disapprove of me.

              I do however, in this country of equals, as a law-abiding tax-paying gay US citizen, have every right to demand my Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal treatment under civil marriage law. Get used to it.

              • Stu

                No you aren’t. If you were, you wouldn’t feel the need to be on the attack so much. Your being here shows your desire for approval and so does your obsession with changing the society norm of marriage. And you are so focused on changing it, you never stopped to ponder it’s purpose to begin with because it’s all about you and your needs.

                I’m quite used to seeing such.

              • Eric Lytle

                You can’t actually have children, so you will never be equal to normal couples. I don’t care if it becomes legal nationwide, I will always put gay “marriage” in quotes because it is not a marriage by a long shot.

                • aislander

                  And of course there are countless heterosexual couples that can’t have children. So your point is?

                  But if you want to make children the issue, consider the FACT that hundreds of thousands of innocent children ARE being raised in loving homes by same sex couples in the USA. How do you justify denying those children the rights, responsibilities, security and simple dignity that can only come from allowing their same sex parents civil marriage?

                  • Tucker

                    How do you justify denying those children the rights, responsibilities,
                    security and simple dignity that can only come from allowing their same
                    sex parents civil marriage?

                    As above: those children should never have been adopted in the first place. A second wrong is not the solution to the first wrong.

                    • aislander

                      Tucker, I responded elsewhere to your similar post. But first realize that many of these children are NOT adopted, many are the product of previous relationships or say, surrogacy. But for those adopted, you would instead relegate them to the public institutional system? How very kind of you! Very few people would agree that institutionalization is preferable to being raised in a loving and nurturing same sex household.

                      By the way, EVERY respected relevant professional organization reports that these children thrive at LEAST as well in same sex households as in heterosexual households, despite the fact that same sex households adopt a very significantly higher percentage of at-risk and special needs children than hetero households do. Some data even seem to show that same sex households have BETTER outcomes statistically, although to be fair, this may be due to the fact that same sex couples typically become parents intentionally, not by accident.

                      Regardless, denying these children’s parents equal treatment under civil marriage law demonstrably harms these innocent children. Allowing marriage equality demonstrably harms absolutely no one.

                  • Emmet

                    “the rights, responsibilities, security and simple dignity that can only come from allowing their same sex parents civil marriage?” These can only come from redefining marriage? Or could they come from re-working the legislation covering these things?

                    Of course they could, so your argument falls over, and this shows clearly that the desire to redefine marriage is about adults wanting approval, not about kids and their rights.

                    • aislander

                      Emmet:

                      I am glad that you acknowledge the clear disadvantages the current situation subjects these hundreds of thousands of innocent children to. However, it appears that you are proposing a “separate but equal” solution.

                      It has been well established and proven legal principle for over half a century that separate is NEVER equal. And your argument is over ownership of a single word? That somehow only heterosexuals are worthy of the term “marriage”? That same sex couples should only be entitled to some sort of second class status? Should they also have separate drinking fountains? Have to ride at the back of the bus?

                      And how is it you presume that same sex couples want to marry for reasons other than the very same reasons that heterosexual couples do? What nefarious reasons are you suggesting? I certainly cannot think of any reasons that do not apply to heterosexual couples.

                      Your argument about “approval” simply suggests that you feel society SHOULD express disapproval of same sex relationships by creating some second and separate tier of legislation; that marriage should be some sort of private club that only heterosexuals can join. The majority of Americans now disagree.

                      You see, civil marriage is NOT a private club. It is a contract between two consenting adults under civil law, and our Constitution expressly provides that all Citizens are guaranteed equal treatment under civil law.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  Having children isn’t a requirement of marriage. For anyone.
                  You’re free to add smarm quotes to the word marriage. It just reveals your true nature.
                  Gay people are getting legally married, so it is marriage. Learn to deal with it.

        • to_tell_the_truth

          Re: “let’s simply allow people to associate how they choose”
          You don’t really mean that. Gay people would choose to associate in the form of legal marriage. And you’re dead set against that association.

          • Stu

            If two men want to live together and call themselves “married”, then have at it. I don’t care. It’s when they want society to completely change for them and redefine marriage for their own selfish reasons that I take issue. Especially when it is evident that they haven’t take one instant to think about marriage and role it plays for the greater society. Why is that? Because they don’t care.

    • JeffreyRO55

      You really don’t have a clue, do you? A “homosexualist” printer can easily turn down a job based on an unsavory, hateful, xtian message. So can a “heterosexualist” printer. Hate-based xtian messages are not protected under the law!

      • Stu

        All are equal under the law. Some more equal than others. Homosexualists aren’t about tolerant, they are about forcing acceptance of something down deep that they don’t even accept.

        • JeffreyRO55

          No one is being forced to be, say or do anything. You don’t have to accept anything. You do, however, have to follow the law. And if the law says that a business may not discriminate against Jews, blacks or (gasp!) gays, they you can’t discriminate. Or you can pay a fine. Or move to someplace that lets you discriminate.

          • Stu

            “No one in being forced to be, say or do anything…You do, however have to follow the law.”
            ———-
            You have contradicted yourself. Yes, we know what the law is. We are commenting that it is ridiculous and another step towards forcing acceptance of the homosexualist agenda. Slavery was once “legal” too. Didn’t make it legitimate. Same applies for so-called homosexual “marriage”. Legal but not real.

            • JeffreyRO55

              Well if you think the law is ridiculous, then work to get it changed. I don’t understand this feigned shock that a law makes discrimination illegal, as if that’s something new and different. Of that it never applied to religionists until this year. Instead of all the vitriol aimed at gay people (who are hardly the only group protected by anti-discrimination laws, by the way), start contacting your Congressman and insist that s/he submit a bill allowing any business to discrimination against blacks or Jews or gays or xtians, as that business sees fit. Hey, we can build an entire Balkanized society, based on tribal hates! I can’t wait!

              If same-sex marriage isn’t real, does that mean divorce isn’t real either, since Christ forbids it? Do you like to have pretend tea parties with your imaginary friends, too?

              • Stu

                Now you just really are going all non-sensical.

                Shocked? No, Not feigned or real. I’m not shocked about anything the homosexualists say or do anymore. Their extremism is fairly predictable. Vitriol against so called “gay people”? No. I have no issue with those who are challenged by SSA. It’s their business and they should be treated with the same dignity as any other person created in the image and likeness of God but with a fallen nature. But that’s a different group than the homosexualists who aim to force acceptance of their lifestyle on society by whatever means necessary. They are a hateful (self hate as well) and vindictive bunch hell bent on destruction. And all in the name of tolerance.

                • JeffreyRO55

                  It’s mostly decent, fair-minded straight people that are promoting equal legal treatment of gay people. You’ve created some bizarre image of a vicious gay man or woman, a fiction. The champions of gay rights are mostly straight, especially on the basis of who has the power to do anything about it.

                  No one will ever force you to have gay sex, I promise you. That you might be aware of gay people, that I can’t help you with. Gay people are certainly forced to be aware of straight people, with their sex-obsessed lives, their adultery, their abortions, their vanity and superficial pursuits.

                  • Stu

                    Actually, its the courts that are pushing it. What you can’t win with the public, you do with lawyers.

                    And your fixation on sex is kind of revealing.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      Courts, with straight people in them. Blacks also used the courts to win legal rights. Were they wrong to do that? What are our courts for, in your mind, if not protecting minorities when necessary?

                      The public IS being persuaded that it’s the right thing to do, giving gays and lesbians the same legal rights straight have. Most people support same-sex marriage now.

                      I am no more fixated on sex than you are, probably. You’re attacking me personally now, which I assume means your talking points turned out to be less effective than you thought they’d be.

                    • Stu

                      The “most people” support/believe/do argument is wholly unconvincing. History shows that huge segments of a population at times throughout history have supported all man of wrongheaded thinking and abomination.

                      I’m more interested in the truth and a reasoned approach instead of plebiscite by emotion.

                      I suppose that fact the you opened with personal attacks means you never had anything to begin with. But go with your strengths.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      The very job of e courts is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. When Congress passes un-Constitutional laws, they will be overturned.
                      Much to your all-too-evident chagrin.

                    • Stu

                      Yes, the Supreme Court once ruled that black people were property too.

                      Much to your chagrin.

                      Stop putting your faith in men.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      And that injustice got fixed.

            • aislander

              Discrimination against gays was once “legal” too, Didn’t make it legitimate. Just bigotry. And in 13 states, same sex marriage is certainly legal and absolutely real. In fact, according to the IRS it is now actually very real in all 50 states, as they will recognize any legally executed same sex marriage. Hide your head in the sand all you want and try to deny there is no such thing as same sex marriage. Doesn’t make it true.

              You anti-gay folks sure have the lamest arguments ever. But then we all knew that from your attempts in court to date, which have been abysmal failures. And the more the issue proceeds, the more bigoted, unfair, contemptible, un-christian and downright stupid you prove yourselves to be.

              • Stu

                Two men can’t marry anymore than a square can be round. And that is what bothers you the most. That’s why having the government affirm you is the desire. Because down deep, you know it isn’t real.

                I applaud laws the would bar discrimination against those who are challenged with SSA. But that doesn’t equate into supporting the homosexualist agenda to redefine society in their own image because of the need for affirmation. That’s just plain nihilistic.

                • Neil Cameron

                  You know what is ‘down deep’ in aislander? how? you dont know that person any more than I do.

                  What you claim is down deep within aislander is what YOU THINK is there. It is not necessarily what IS there. Putting labels on others is simple judgment.

                  Just because you think it does not make it so.

                  • Stu

                    Yes, I do know because people like him are transparent to the core. The only ones who don’t see it, are themselves. But some are more transparent than others.

                    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2013/08/im-still-not-getting-what-i-want.html

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      You obviously DON’T “know” anything but what your religion has taught you to assume about others.
                      Christ knows all our hearts – and He gets to judge. YOU aren’t qualified.

                    • Stu

                      I judge what people do; their actions. It’s clear what motivates them. So it’s not an assumption. It’s obvious. What I don’t judge is the state of their soul or culpability.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  Re: “Two men can’t marry”
                  That has not been a true statement for close to a decade now. And THAT is what bothers YOU the most.
                  Once again, the “agenda” is equal treatment under the secular law – as promised in the Constitution.
                  Isn’t bearing false witness a sin in the Catholic Church anymore?

                  • Stu

                    It bothers me that our Nation is so short sighted. But two men claiming to be married doesn’t bother me. They aren’t. It’s impossible. You think because Uncle Sam tells you that two men are married that they are?

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      They are married – legally – in the eyes of the State. When the (your?) Church gets to be in charge of the effects that flow from marriage, then what they have to say about it may matter to me.
                      No religious ritual makes anyone legally married.

                    • Stu

                      Again, showing your ignorance on why there is marriage to begin with because you keep bringing up the Church. To you, its all about the contractual arrangement between you and your friend.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      This IS a “Conversation of Faith” website, so of course “The Church (TM, all rights reserved) is going to be brought up, despite the fact that NO religious ritual creates a legal marriage. I think clergy should be DE-’vested by the State’ from the authority to perform marriages.

                      Re: “why there is marriage in the first place”

                      Well, as I’ve frequently pointed out, it was only a business arrangement between two men “in the first place”, since women were “chattel” (from the same root as “cattle”) that could be bought and sold and traded at whim. (“A pig and two goats for your daughter, Sir?”)

                    • Stu

                      Your knowledge base is demonstrably shallower and shallower; like powerpoint deep.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Every word I typed is true, Stu. Women WERE chattel. They COULD be bought and sold.
                      Refute it if you can. That will always be better than mere insults.

                    • aislander

                      Stu is the person here who consistently reveals either a complete lack of a knowledge base, or a totally dishonest disavowal of it.

                    • SteveP

                      Men, boys, and girls could be bought and sold too. In fact they still are but usually as “sex workers” in those libertine countries where pelvic issues are paramount to progress.
                      .
                      Confusing bride price or dowry with the sale of humans does not help your arguments.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      IOW, neither can YOU refute that women were “chattel” that could be bought and sold into “marriage”.
                      Thanks.

                    • Stu

                      Oh, please. I’m not going to refute nonsense. It’s like wrestling with a pig.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      IOW, you can’t refute the facts I posted. Thanks for proving it.

                    • Stu

                      Calling something a fact, does not make it factual. Thanks for trying, though.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Since you’ve not bothered to post any actual facts, you wouldn’t know.

                    • Stu

                      Righhtttt. I can say factually, that you humor me.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Glad that I’ve been of help to you then.

            • to_tell_the_truth

              Better the “homosexualist agenda” (which is equality before the secular law) than the religionist agenda – which seems to want to put fellow religionists ABOVE the law.

              • Stu

                The homosexualist agenda is an attempt to distort the law.

        • to_tell_the_truth

          The florist/baker doesn’t have to “accept” … anything. But, they do have to obey the secular law.
          Whatever happened to rendering unto Caesar and all that?

          • Stu

            It stops when Caesar mandates you do something against your conscience. You do have one of those, don’t you? Would you ever fight against a law that compelled you to do something against your moral conscience?

            • to_tell_the_truth

              Um, selling cakes and flowers is their business. It’s how they make their living. And now you’re telling us it’s against their conscience to sell cakes and flowers???

              • Stu

                Don’t be so daft. You know what is against their conscience. If you want to continue to play the dumbass, then I will treat you even more like one.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  Is their business NOT selling cakes or flowers?
                  I truly would like your help in understanding what business is it of a proprietor the purpose to which their goods get put post-sale?
                  I would also love to hear why you believe a merchant should be able to require a customer to abide by the tenets of the merchant’s faith as a condition of doing business?
                  For example: Should an airline ticket agent be allowed to refuse to sell seat on an aircraft if the customers are going to a same-sex wedding? Should a rental car agent be allowed to refuse to rent a car to someone going to a same-sex wedding?
                  Maybe it would help if you could give us the complete list of goods and services that “Christian” folk should be allowed to refuse to gay people and/or their families, friends and neighbors? That would save us a lot of time in discussing things.

                  • Stu

                    Quite a difference between selling someone a ticket and employing them to take part in the mockery of a wedding. Maybe folks like you shouldn’t be so sensitive when someone just doesn’t want to associate with you. You really good stand to gain some tolerance for the beliefs of others.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Selling cakes vs. selling tickets – both are secular business transactions.
                      You know NOTHING of tolerance, Stu. Or you wouldn’t call other people’s perfectly legal marriages a “mockery”.
                      You ‘betterosexuals’ are a laff-riot.

                    • Stu

                      Tolerance is not forcing all of society to change the a foundation institution for your own affirmation. Tolerance is not throwing a legal hissy fit because someone doesn’t want to take your picture or bake you a cake. It’s insecurity.

                    • aislander

                      No one is requiring anyone to personally associate nor approve of anyone. Nor are they “taking part” in the wedding. They are being contracted to provide a commodity. The cake to be served at the reception. A commodity they offer for sale to the public. They don’t have to attend the service, nor approve of any marriage. But it is a condition of doing business that the business not violate existing anti-discrimination law, and as even Justice Scalia, (undoubtedly your best anti-gay friend on the SCOTUS bench) has unequivocally ruled, one cannot use religious beliefs to violate the law.

                    • Stu

                      Some laws are higher than others even when it does bring repercussions. That’s why we applaud those who take a stand to do the right thing even in the face of adversity. You want to bring down the full force of the law on a photographer and baker just because they don’t want to be involved with what they see as a mockery of marriage. Really? You really want to go “nuclear” on such trivial things. I can understand medical care or housing or some essential in life, but your really want to force compliance on such little things. That’s not tolerance. That’s pushing for acceptance. And that is exactly what you want.

    • Neil Cameron

      Providing the service of publishing hate speech for a client is as unacceptable to the law as providing the coca leaves needed to make cocaine.

      • Stu

        Your’s is exactly the attitude that will eventually justify sending people to gulags.

        Well, done tovarich.

  • Daniel Lee Fee

    Of course legacy Catholic doctrines continue to ignore the ever-accumulating empirical vidence that might connect with these matters.

    What evidence? We have six or seven decades of widening and deepening empirical hypothesis testing and other best methods designed studies, few or none of which so far do much to confirm major doctrine assumptions plus conclusions or applications. A quick overview easily suggests that we are not unlikely to be having another sea change, this time focusing on human nature and sex and pairbonding. If so, we inhabit an ongoing ‘flat earth’ change moment, scientifically speaking apart from religion and revelation.

    For starters, sexual orientation variance is spontaneous in human gestation and person development. Thus, this variance is, ‘natural’ as data and hypothesis testing apply the term stemming from what is, “Nature’. Sexual orientation variance is a fairly stable minority non-straight percentage of large human populations, and many animal species as well. Although it is obvious that same sex pairbonded couples (people, animals) do not spontaneously reproduce, we have solid evidence that sufficiently good parenting is not negatively affected by not having biologically gestated and born the animal or human offspring involved. In specific instances, same sex couples do as well or far better than specific opposite sex couples, again in animal species and in humans, when it comes to raising thriving offspring. Finally, sexual orientation variance does not in itself exist as a disorder, either tested as a dependent variable orf tested as an independent variable.

    Each one of these well-established empirical findings have truly challenged nearly every one of us who bothers to think or concern ourselves with matters of human nature, ‘healthy’ variations compared to ‘unhealthy’ variations in person and behavior (not to forget, social life and productive work), and of course, sexuality. What is still not very clear is how this solid, growing body of duly peer reviewed empirical knowledge about these matters, which are mainly framed and understood in negative ways per our received cultural and religious legacies, squares or reconciles any or all of our legacy negatives with the empirical disconfirmations (which are actually empirical positives in an increasing number of studies).

    These empirical positives which simply do not accord with the legacy negative narratives already exist in key areas, like:
    1. not being heterosexual is not a mental or psychological disorder, either as a disorder caused by other ‘factors’ or ‘influences’ or as a disturbed ’cause’ of additional detriments.
    2. research has shifted from trying to confirm negatives to empirical comparisons and tests of general human positives, i.e., overall human adaptation, competency, and life functioning. So far , we are strongly encouraged to occupy an empirical position in which sexual orientation functions quite similarly in personality, behavior, and relationships for people all along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to bisexual to exclusively homosexual. All that human variance is, empirically speaking, at least ethically or morally neutral, and in given instances of competent to excellent human living can vigorously strike us as good in a common sense, vital way.
    3. when our legacy negatives are repeated and applied in some ways to some non-straight neighbors in some situations of civic and personal or family life, people will be increasingly noted to have ‘slipped’ into sheer flat earth prejudice and unfair discrimination. In this regard, we might note that religious bans on ‘gay priests, clergy, deacons, teachers, leaders’ and ‘gay lay believers’ are difficult to accurately weigh and parse, both inside and outside of given faith communities.

    One problem is that sometimes when push comes to shove, the negative faith foundation we have duly received and decided it is best to carry and preserve, readily escalates or demonstratively emphasizes its profound negativity in ways which seem harsh, or cruel, or caught up short by how we really know and live with exactly that same person who is being defined negatively and weighed short, outside of the faith-sacral settings as such. We can even gain access to some of this widespread dilemma by juxtaposing religious guidance which asks us to value the human rights and innate dignity of non-straight people (guessing this works out to be complete fairness in housing, general community life, health care, employment, and freedom from criminal sanctions that are not equally aimed at every one of us in life, all along the variance continuum?); and the categorically negative faith narratives which often sound like a familiar triad of knowledge that not being exclusively heterosexual is innately ‘dirty’, ‘damaged’, and ‘dangerous’. It is far from clear or simple, how to maintain neutrality and fairness, say, in a work, housing, health care, or other community life setting when we at the same time deeply understand that someone’s ‘dirty’… or, ‘damaged’ … or ‘dangerous’ ?

    So. Here we are. Faced with cultural and religious negatives which have asserted themselves and been passed on and received among us as deep and as deeply true; while a much more recent but significant (and unavoidable, in the long run?) body of empirical knowledge has tested much of our heavy negatives, only to disconfirm particulars that were taken to be deep and deeply true of people who are not straight. A very large shift it is, that anatomical sex no longer collapses simply and neatly into inwardly and outwardly perceived gender (now more two empirical continuums than two utterly distinct categories); and none of both simply and neatly collapses into being nothing but opposite sex attracted.

    Goodness only knows how it will all work out in the long run of these vivid changes. I will surely be dead and buried by then. The dilemma is wrenching, once we let the empirical body of knowledge about non-straight people, into our discernment mixes. drdanfee

    • kmk1916

      Just this paragraph:

      “We can even gain access to some of this widespread dilemma by juxtaposing religious guidance which asks us to value the human rights and innate dignity of non-straight people (guessing this works out to be complete fairness in housing, general community life, health care, employment, and freedom from criminal sanctions that are not equally aimed at every one of us in life, all along the variance continuum?); and the categorically negative faith narratives which often sound like a familiar triad of knowledge that not being exclusively heterosexual is innately ‘dirty’, ‘damaged’, and ‘dangerous’. It is far from clear or simple, how to maintain neutrality and fairness, say, in a work, housing, health care, or other community life setting when we at the same time deeply understand that someone’s ‘dirty’… or, ‘damaged’ … or ‘dangerous’ ?”

      The Catholic Church values the innate dignity and rights of the individual because we are all created in the image and likeness of God, and we are ALL damaged (and can often be dangerous) due to Original Sin into which we all (apart from of course Christ and His Blessed Mother) were conceived, and concupiscence, with which we all struggle until the day we die.

      “Male and female He created them.” Two complimentary genders, that’s it. Honestly, the man who wrote to Mark yesterday (day before?) really discussed that at length very clearly.

      The Church exists to bring each and every one of us to the Lord, and to propose the Truth, for He loves us all and desires us to be with Him forever.

      The fundamental problem is all of us not loving each other the way Christ is calling us to–”agape” love, love for the good of the other. Sometimes that involves presenting the truth, but without “bruising the reed,” so to speak, and recognizing our own failings or struggles against our own harmful or wrong desires. For those nasty middle-school days when I allowed or participated in cruel teasing, Mea Culpa, with all sincerity.

    • Lee Johnson

      Are we supposed to be impressed with this turgid, pompous and ultimately vacuous post? Sheesh.

    • Neil Cameron

      too many words. peanut sized bites please.

    • S. Murphy

      Yep, we now know things that require a different pastoral approach than the one that seemed reasonable during the 1850 or so years in which the Church thought hetero- & homosexual temptations were more or less possible for everybody, & everybody was equally obligated to avoid the homosexual ones, & most were called to harness the hetero desires within marriage.

  • vox borealis

    I wonder if it would have been ok or illegal if, hypothetically, the bakers refused to bake a cake for a KKK get-together, because they didn’t agree with what the event stood for? Or to bake a cake in celebration of bombing Syria, or for a anti-war rally, depending on the convictions of the bakers? Or in for a “We a love George Bush” party, or conversely for a “We love Obama” party. And so on.

    Are we really marching down the road where a business owner, especially a small business owner, can never say “sorry buddy, I’m not taking that job because my conscience won’t allow it.”

    • OldWorldSwine

      You have to be on the list of Super Special Protected Classes of People.

      No joke. We’re allowed to discriminate against anyone not given special protected status by the government. So, I could refuse to bake cakes for Hipsters, because Hipsterism is not a religion or a race or a gender.

      So we can’t discriminate except in certain government approved areas.

      • aislander

        Yes, a business can not refuse service because a person is white, or because they are christian or because they are heterosexual either.

      • to_tell_the_truth

        Who would Jesus not sell a cake to?
        ;{O)
        These ‘business’ owners want to force customers to not only ‘believe’ what the business owners believe, but they must also abide by the tenets of a faith they don’t belong to – as a condition of doing (secular) business.
        That’s NOT freedom of religious beliefs – for the CUSTOMERS. It infringes on theirs.

        • OldWorldSwine

          Except that you’re completely 180 degrees wrong, of course. The business owner doesn’t care what you believe, or don’t believe, and has no interest at all in preventing you doing whatever you like. Knock yourself out. They just don’t want to be *forced* to participate in your rituals and celebrations, just like you would not want to be forced to make a cake for a KKK rally, even if you do business with individual racists all the time.

          • to_tell_the_truth

            I already knew that “The business owner doesn’t care what you believe, or don’t believe”. They make that amply evident. All they care about is THEIR beliefs, so much so that they will refuse to do their secular business with anyone who does not abide by THEIR beliefs.

            What their customers wanted to “do” was buy a cake at the asking price, and yet the beliefs of the merchant prohibited them from doing precisely that, thus proving your statement, “The business owner … has no interest at all in preventing you doing whatever you like” to be demonstrably, observably FALSE.

            Selling a cake to someone isn’t ‘participating’ in any ritual; it’s commerce.

            Speaking of cakes for other purposes,
            “To test out which religious convictions would cause the shop to refuse business, Willamette Week called up the shop and asked them to make cakes for divorce, out-of-wedlock children, human stem cell research and a pagan solstice (with a pentacle design requested for the cake). All requests were responded to positively, with price quotes.”
            You make it so easy to disprove your ‘theories’.

            • OldWorldSwine

              The same patrons bought other cakes, which disproves your assertion that they were prevented from simply “buying a cake at the asking price”: They want to force a craftsperson to create a design celebrating something that offends their conscience.

              Making cakes celebrating human stem cell research and divorce don’t offend their conscience? So what? That’s their own business, not mine. Or yours. I would not be shocked or surprised to be turned away by a Jewish baker who refused to make a cake celebrating Hitler. That’s their prerogative.

              Next year, I should labor to find a gay-owned bakery to make the cakes for the Defend Traditional Marriage rally.

              • aislander

                Why wait until next year? If they make cakes for other rallies, I’m sure they’ll make one for yours.

              • to_tell_the_truth

                Re: “They want to force a craftsperson to create a design celebrating something that offends their conscience.”

                Odd, then, that they would willingly make cakes for “divorce, out-of-wedlock children, human stem cell research and a pagan solstice (with a pentacle design requested for the cake).”
                Sounds like they’ve got a very selective “conscience”.

                • OldWorldSwine

                  As do you. But it’s their conscience, not mine or yours, which is the point. I wouldn’t make a divorce cake, but again… so what?

                  • to_tell_the_truth

                    The “so what?” is simply us pointing out their hypocrisy.
                    “Good Christians” baking a cake for a divorce or for out-of-wedlock children just highlights how selective they are in their fundamentalism.

    • to_tell_the_truth

      First off, selling cakes is NOT a religious exercise.

      Secondly, to test out which religious convictions would cause the shop to refuse business, Willamette Week called up the shop and asked them to make cakes for divorce, out-of-wedlock children, human stem cell research and a pagan solstice (with a pentacle design requested for the cake). All requests were responded to positively, with price quotes.
      Think I’ll have me a slice o’ human stem cell research cake. Corner piece, with extra icing. Sounds YUMMY.
      This just one more example of selective fundamentalism at its worst.

  • JeffreyRO55

    Legal same-sex marriage doesn’t seem to have dampened the Westboro Baptist Church’s ability to speak publicly and frankly about homosexuality. So why would other hate groups, such as other christian groups, be concerned?

    Is it really that important to your religion to hate gay people, enough to deny them important legal rights? What a dumb religion!

    • Lee Johnson

      Well, the point was to make Christianity into a hate group for opposing same-sex marriage. Golly, what will Satan tell you to do next?

      • JeffreyRO55

        I don’t xtianity started out hating, it just evolved to that.
        Remember when christies hated on Jews, much as they’re doing now to gays? And they said how god wanted them to own slaves, so they hated on blacks?

        • Dave P.

          And they said how god wanted them to own slaves, so they hated on blacks?

          Which group? The one which has Benedict the Moor, Moses the Abbot, Martin de Porres, Charles Lwanga, and Josephine Bakhita all declared saints? The one which canonized Peter Claver for his ministry to slaves and Katherine Drexel for opening up educational opportunities to minorities? The one which proposes to elevate PierreToussaint and Augustus Tolton to sainthood?

          Which xians, again?

          • JeffreyRO55

            Like, southern ones. Where they owned slaves and said that God wanted them to own slaves. Baptists, probably.

            • Dave P.

              Right. And then there were the Christians (Baptists among them) who helped run the Underground Railroad. And a hundred years later, the Southeastern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference helped put an end to Jim Crow. In 1965, the Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated a number of people because they refused to accept a black auxiliary bishop.

              A number of African-Americans will be more than happy to explain to you why the classic Civil Rights movement has nothing to do with the current gay rights movement. Trust me on that.

              • JeffreyRO55

                Well, they didn’t own slaves but Mormons didn’t accept black members until, like 1978. I’m not saying all christies are haters but they have a habit of using their religion to channel their personal prejudices. Not much is scummier than using Jesus Christ as a front man for your personal hates!

                Blacks are just worried about losing their prominence as America’s premier maligned minority when they try to withhold civil rights status for gays and lesbians. Martin Luther King seems to have been supportive of gay civil rights, according to his widow. That’s good enough for me.

                • Benjamin 2.0

                  “Well, they didn’t own slaves but Mormons didn’t accept black members until, like 1978. I’m not saying all christies are haters but they have a habit of using their religion to channel their personal prejudices. Not much is scummier than using Jesus Christ as a front man for your personal hates!”
                  The sum of this exchange seems to indicate that your characterization of Christianity is itself a personal prejudice fueled by a number of highly-publicized cherry-picked examples.

                  • JeffreyRO55

                    Yeah but there are so many examples of christies doing these horrible kinds of things. Look at the catholic church hiding child molesters, a decision to do so made at the very top of the church hierarchy! No non-religious group would get away with such heinous crimes. I’m just saying there is a long history of christianity being used as a weapon against people, or to get away with doing bad stuff. We must remain vigilant and on the defense, as xtians turn their sites on gay and lesbian citizens for second-class treatment.

                    • Benjamin2.0

                      “Look at the catholic church hiding child molesters, a decision to do so made at the very top of the church hierarchy!”

                      Umm… What? Unless you mean a small number of now disgraced bishops, you seem to be getting your information from New York Times headlines (as opposed to the text – which could never back up the claims).

                      “No non-religious group would get away with such heinous crimes.”

                      Public schools come to mind.

                      “I’m just saying there is a long history of [C]hristianity being used as a weapon against people, or to get away with doing bad stuff.”

                      … and a longer and more complete history of the opposite – as has already been demonstrated. This isn’t too surprising given that the former is an inversion of Chritianity’s stated principles, and the latter is the very application thereof.

                      “We must remain vigilant and on the defense, as [Chris]tians turn their sites on gay and lesbian citizens for second-class treatment.”
                      This is an equivocation. Because you can’t assail the logic of the actual countercase, you’ve merely dismissed it by equating it to something it isn’t. Your civil rights association is utter balderdash – as has already been demonstrated. Contra factum non argumentum est, though that won’t stop some from trying.

                    • JeffreyRO55

                      I’m referring, in part, to internal documents, some from as long ago as 1962, where the top levels of the church in Rome made it official policy to simply move molesting priests to a different parish, rather than turn them in to the police.

                      What public school system has official policy to move molesting teachers to different schools. Um….what?

                      Christians aren’t victims here. They are perpetrators. Understand the difference.

    • Namyriah

      You’re bitter because you are lonely, yet you are trying to force people to think this lifestyle is healthy. If they read your comments, it is clear that it does not make you happy.

  • http://www.lisagraas.com Lisa Graas

    Mark, I noticed you put marriage in quotes instead of “gay.” Backwards. Marriage is the reality we need to promote here. It’s not a fiction.

    • Neil Cameron

      The reality of marriage is that it is a legal union between two people. If anyone seeks to exclude a group of people from access to the right to obtain marriage, then they are effectively excluding themselves from the reality of human community working together in an environment of harmony, balance, fairness towards a future in which all people are regarded and treated with dignity and love.
      Join with humanity or your faith is reduced to an isolationist cult with an arrogant superiority delusion.

      • Stu

        What is the purpose of marriage?

        • Neil Cameron

          That would be up to the two people getting married. What is it to you & your spouse is far more important than what it is to the pair of turkeys down the road.

          I know what mine is for. Do you know what purpose yours serves?

          • Emmet

            What is the purpose of the State getting involved in marriage?

            • Neil Cameron

              Because it is the state that deals with the disputes that marriage throws up. It is the state that bears the cost of those disputes.

              No two faiths have the same definition. The state deals with the rights of people. If people of each faith within the state have a different set of rights unique to their faith, then the state is forced into a discriminatory apartheid framework, with laws and a massive bureaucracy set up to handle the rights and obligations of individuals in each of those faiths. One bureacracy would not be enough!
              And what happens in a multifaith marriage? An endlessly complex problem emerges, how is THAT marriage defined? How are those rights and obligations allocated? Who has to field that dispute?

              With the religions defining their own marriage, atheists and the excommunicated / shunned are left without marriage at all. Their children are left without legislated protection & status. A new class of illegitimates emerges, with the need for a bureacracy to manage their situation.The state carries another burden.

              You see, the state serves ALL in the society, not just people of one faith. The alternative is apartheid constructed along faith lines.

              We have been there before. The state definition of marriage was a response to the chaos and the expense that ensued.

              Throw divorce into the situation and it gets even messier, ever more costly and the extent of dispute becomes terrifying.
              Without a single codified allocation of rights and obligations, divorces drag anybody and everybody into the dispute. It gets even worse with a divorce in a multifaith marriage: that ends up pitting two entire religions against each other. Holy war. Over a marital tiff!
              And who has to pick up the tab? Who has to send in the troops to defend the nation? Is it the churches who created the conflicting marriage definitions? No! It is the state.

              Henry VIII and Catherine of Arragon. The entire global distribution of power shifted and changed the world forever over that marital dispute. How expensive was that?

              The state has to manage the state. Mitigating damage is a top priority. Reducing the burden on the state has to be the focus or the state would be bankrupt into perpetuity over marital disputes.

              Why legalize same sex marriage? Because of the cost to the state is becoming a significant enough burden to warrant it, just as was the case with straight marriage. Without it, every relationship break down, every death, every tax return, every medical aid claim becomes a costly burden on the state and to the economy.

              Gay couples without same sex marriage are forced to squander huge sums on accountants and lawyers and trust fees every year simply to protect their wealth and their income and their children from blood relatives who oppose or disapprove. That money is wealth that could be put to use productively in the economy. Every one of those contracts risks a dispute. The state fields the cost of those disputes.
              Those disputes are unnecessary in a state which already has the legal framework to mitigate the costs: we call that legal framework CIVIL MARRIAGE, and it has a single codified definition of marriage and the allocation of rights and obligations within it.
              That is what law is for, to create a structured framework for dealing with the complexities of life in a diverse society

              That is why the state MUST be involved.

              • SteveP

                “Gay couples without same sex marriage are forced to squander huge sums on accountants and lawyers and trust fees every year simply to protect their wealth and their income and their children from blood relatives who oppose or disapprove.”
                .
                I’d say this is a facile misdirect. Edith Winsdor sued the local, state, and federal governments rather than her relatives. Further, the instances where a lover was denied a promised inheritance was usually because the older lover “came out” in mid-life and neglected, for one reason or another, to divorce his spouse. The younger lover, after the elder passed, thinks “he would have married me if only it were legal!”
                More accurately put: “gay marriage” makes those who have been lied to feel better about their past.
                .
                P.S. St. Augustine has some choice words about the Roman civil law preventing females from inheriting.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  Ms Windsor’s relatives didn’t confiscate her inheritance. The State did.
                  They were legally married, not merely “lovers”.
                  St. Augustine can go hang himself. We no longer live in the Bronze Age.

                  • SteveP

                    I’m sure St. Augustine was aware he did not live in the Bronze Age – though he’d probably have called it Antiquity. He would probably also recognize your desire for a puppet oligarchy (rather than a representative republic) to be typical of a barbarous worldview.

                • Neil Cameron

                  There is no mention in my statement that gay people are solely challenged financially against by their families. I did however suggest that the cost of setting up carefully crafted financial structures to protect against ones own blood relatives in the event of your death are extreme in comparison to the cost of protecting a married heterosexuals wealth base. For gays it is not an automatic granting of rights.

                  There are isolated incidents of gay people coming out later and causing distress and ruin within their families. I have never denied that. We are not an army of identical clones.
                  But that is not common, and it is far from the norm in gay people.
                  You are using isolated tales as broad sweeping generalizations.
                  Tom Bridegroom did not come out later and leave a devastated mess. His parasitic family swooped in after his death. Do some research.

                  FACT: Every gay person must work to defend and protect what should automatically be protected through existing legal structures.

                  Just because you believe gay marriage is an act of self appeasement does not make it so.

                  This is the problem with every Christian homophobe I have interacted with. You do not state fact. You take rumour and opinion of gay marriage and homosexuality as base fact.
                  Not being gay you are incapable of knowing the truth of anothers life or being. So why do you insist on telling the gays how you feel they are as though it is how they actually are?
                  You are not the authority on their truth. Any label, any statement of your feeling about the gays is no more than JUDGMENTAL statement of hate.

                  Do you honestly believe that your scorn denigration and hate makes your faith attractive?
                  From where I sit, I can honestly say that if that level of hatred is what makes a Christian a good and true Christian, then there is something horribly wrong with Christians and their belief structure.
                  The scorn, denigration and vilification that emanates from Christianity does not make the faith appealing.

                  • SteveP

                    This I have never yet heard: one cannot comprehend “gay” unless one self-identifies as “gay.” This truly amazing. Not too long ago Mark also posted a quote from C.S. Lewis: “I have mentioned humility because male homos. . . .are rather apt, the moment they find you don’t treat them with horror and contempt, to rush to the opposite pole and start implying that they are somehow superior to the normal type.” (http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/interesting-letter-from-c.s.-lewis-on-homosexuality)

            • to_tell_the_truth

              Like it or not, the government governs society. It passes and administers the secular law. The Church does not do this. Nor should it.

          • Stu

            The institution is more than just you. It has a purpose for society as a whole and society recognizing it is for society, not Neil’s personal needs. You are unfortunately another in a long line of marriage redefinition proponents who haven’t thought this out one bit past your own self.

            • Neil Cameron

              The institution is “to the exclusion of ALL others”. The institution is strictly just the two participating members.

              • Stu

                No, it’s not. If it is just the “two participating members” then you don’t need to get the state involved in your “friendship”.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  The kinship that marriage establishes is the basis for the 1,138 “effects that flow from marriage”.
                  The do not flow from ‘friendship’.

                  • Stu

                    It’s a friendship in your eyes. Pure and simple under your paradigm. It’s not like the state checks to see if two people are in love. The state doesn’t care. Again, you are looking at marriage from the perspective of “me, me, me.” You need to go deeper in your thought.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      I didn’t mention love. But it sure is nice when it is the basis of a couple’s marriage (ours sure is), regardless of the fact that the State has no vested interest in it.
                      Since you don’t know me, I wonder how you ‘concluded’ that my marriage is merely “a friendship in [my] eyes”.
                      Project much?

                    • Stu

                      In the eyes of the state it is a friendship. They don’t care if you love someone. Again, it points to the question of why they do care. And those reason have nothing to do with homosexuality.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      The State doesn’t give a TOSS if married couples are “friends” with each other or not, or if they love each other or not. All the State concerns itself with is if the couple abide by the terms of the marriage contract.

                    • Stu

                      Now you are getting closer to the answer. There is a spark in you yet. But you aren’t quite there yet. Keep thinking about it.

                    • aislander

                      More to the point why do YOU care if gays marry? Why should you be so virulently opposed to two loving people legally committing to supporting and accepting responsibility for each other physically, financially and emotionally for the rest of their lives? Society is clearly better off when they do, and it certainly doesn’t harm heterosexuals nor their marriages one whit.

                    • Stu

                      If two homosexuals want to live together and call themselves married. I don’t care. In fact, I had neighbors in Maine like that. That’s their business. I care when they want to redefine all of society to fit that behavior. Marriage isn’t about you or me or individual perks and benefits. It has a much greater purpose for society and it isn’t about the man and woman getting married. And in that regard, changing the definition does affect me. That’s your hint for starting to look at this differently.

                    • Tucker

                      it certainly doesn’t harm heterosexuals

                      It harms heterosexuals who object to being forced to agree with homosexuality. See the OP. The “it doesn’t harm anyone” argument cannot be taken seriously in 2013.

                    • aislander

                      Tucker, no one is forcing anyone to personally agree with nor approve of gays. They are free to their personal opinions. They can personally disagree with homosexuality all they want. But when conducting a business for profit and open to the public in Oregon, Washington, or New Mexico, it is a condition of doing business in those jurisdictions (and others) that the business must offer their services equally to gays and to heterosexuals. And likewise, the Constitution requires equal protection of civil law (such as marriage law) for ALL citizens.

                      Remember that similar arguments were used to attempt to justify denying service and equal protection under the law to blacks and Jewish people too. One cannot use their religious beliefs to violate the law. It’s that simple.

                • Neil Cameron

                  Correct, but then neither do heterosexuals.
                  Unfortunately for your argument, the state got itself involved in heterosexual marriage due to the complex nature of the multitude of different faiths each with a distinct defintion of marriage. The state got involved to facilitate social cohesion.
                  The states involvement comes with rights and obligations. You cannot deny gays those rights because they are gay. You cannot exclude gays from carrying their fair share of the burden of the obligations just because they are gay.

                  Inclusive society is inclusive.
                  All or none.
                  Choose & stick with it. It cannot be some, it must be all.

                  • Stu

                    No, it had nothing to do with faith. In fact, you can go back to Hammurabi to see why a society promotes marriage. You are getting closer with “cohesion” but you still miss the mark. Society doesn’t care or benefit for two homosexual friends living together because it doesn’t promote society itself. Thee has been one word that has been noticeably absent from the mouth of any homosexual here in this debate and understandably so given their perspective.

                    • Neil Cameron

                      You seem quite insistent about defining friendship as a deep loving and sexual relationship between two people of the same gender.

                    • SteveP

                      Check your science: in order for there to be a sexual relationship, the gametes must differ – that’s how sexual reproduction works. Two men or two women do not have a sexual relationship despite the self-induced fantasy.

                    • Neil Cameron

                      reproduction can be achieved without any sexual contact whatsoever. Check your science.
                      Just because the majority of reproduction results from sexual contact does not mean sex is solely for reproduction.

                      Just because you feel the need to define sex as strictly heterosexual in nature does not mean that everybody else does.
                      You are not the arbiter of law, definer of language or the policer of the naked shenanigans between people.

                      You are free to live a heterosexual life and engage in heterosexual sex, just as I am free to live a homosexual life and engage in homosexual SEX.

        • to_tell_the_truth

          Well, Stu, in the eyes of the law the only purpose of marriage is to establish legal kinship where none existed previously. Everything else is personal.
          I know this will garner myriad ‘down arrows’ but it is the truth.

          • Stu

            Uh, no it’s not. It’s much deeper than that. Think much more strategic and lofty. Get off the ground and come up to the 50,000 foot level.

  • Silly Interloper
    • Neil Cameron

      A ‘solution’ for as long as ex-gay ‘therapy’ is not legislated into the same category as voodoo magic.
      There are already parts of the world where those activities are criminalized as hate crimes.

      • Silly Interloper

        Wishful thinking is not problematic for the solution; there are numerous other options for donations that would be repugnant to the sodomites; and it holds that this may be a good solution *now* for anyone being pushed around by these thugs.

        • Neil Cameron

          and what impact would your solution have on the minds of those participating in ex-gay “therapy”?
          To see that it is funded by the proceeds of services rendered to gay marriages?
          Would that imbibe them with faith in the ‘program’?

          “well it MUST be successful if its funded by all the gay weddings” is not the reaction that comes to mind. All those homosexuals would run out the door and get themselves a same sex partner as quick as they could.

          So by all means do so, you’d be saving them a whole lot of torment and strife at the hands of the psychological torturers.
          Unless of course you planned on hiding the source of funding. Although that would be fraud and would get the authorities rather tetchy.

          • Silly Interloper

            I have absolutely no interest in engaging you in some entangled and warped debate about virtues and effectiveness of specific tactical choices, particularly in ways they operate that are ancillary to my objective. Nor would I find it profitable to argue with someone who seems to have a habit of appealing to wishful thinking regarding their effects in feeble attempts to score points. (Two posts in a row now.)

            My sole purpose here is to present a solution for those who do not want to be forced by thugs to engage in supporting their sodomy. A solution that if openly presented to those who attempt to obtain immoral services will repulse them and send them on their way, not by the owner’s refusal to render services, but by the sodomites’ own volition.

            I couldn’t care less about your contorted ratiocinations regarding the virtue of particular tactical choices. Whatever repulses the homosexual tyrants will do.

            • aislander

              And yet you vividly prove otherwise.

              • Silly Interloper

                Oh, yeah. That makes sense. Game, set, and match. (End sarcasm.)

    • Stu

      This ultimately is the answer. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

      As a photographer or baker in theses situations, I would also be very upfront with a homosexual couple that while under compulsion of the law I will take their pics or bake their care, my heart will not be in it and the work will probably not be my best. I’d even put in writing and make them sign the contract. We’d see how much they want to push it then.

      • aislander

        LOL. Yes, you undoubtedly would be stupid enough to tell them that and EVEN reduce it to writing. Talk about convicting yourself of discrimination! You clearly know nothing of discrimination law.

        • Stu

          It’s not discrimination to tell someone that you aren’t the best suited for the job. It’s honesty. And any homosexual that was secure with themselves would appreciate it. Others would cry for government intervention.

          • Dave

            Clearly, Stu, “rehabilitation” would be needed in that case. It is the thought that gay marriage is wrong that needs to be changed.

            I do like the idea of these businesses putting up signs saying “All Proceeds from Gay Marriage sales will be donated to NARTH”, or something like that…of course, they’d probably find a way to get Big Brother to prohibit that as well.

      • Silly Interloper

        I wouldn’t complicate it. Just let them know where the money is going, and watch them bolt.

  • Fran Brunson

    Great C. S. Lewis quote, from The Screwtape Letters:

    “No man who says ‘I’m just as good as you’ believes it.”

    Can’t argue with that.

    • kenofken

      And yet these supposedly insecure men, a tiny minority of the population, under constant threat of personal injury, arrest, loss of livelihood and a deadly plague, took you all on and won, in one generation’s time.

      They won the battle for hearts and minds of the general public and the culture. They won in the courts and more recently in elective politics. Where is the religious right in its key objectives today versus 40 years ago?

      If their failing is insecurity, yours is hubris. You figured your historical demographic hegemonic control of the culture was a birthright, and that ordinary people would never look past the ugly stereotype of gays you had fashioned for them.

      You thought that your positions were so self-evident that only fools and evil men would not agree with them. Even now, none of you can seem to own any responsibility for the outcome of the cultural debate. It wasn’t that your ideas failed to persuade, or that you failed to advocate them well. It was a conspiracy by some “homosexualist” mafia and the media, and the police state government.

      I’d rather have an army of insecure men at my back. They have everything to fight for, little to lose, and something to prove to themselves….

      • Benjamin2.0

        “You figured … that ordinary people would never look past the ugly stereotype of gays you had fashioned for them.”

        It stymies me how people persist in calling things what they aren’t (Westboro Baptist Church = Catholic Church) manage to persuade majorities in the public sphere. If your entire case rests on an equivocation, then the people who support it are, flatly, irrational.

        “You thought that your positions were so self-evident that only fools and evil men would not agree with them.”
        That things are what they are as opposed to what we would have them be at times is a position called sanity. That a majority has lost this is a firm indictment of public education.

      • Stu

        What did you win?

        • kenofken

          In a word, justice. We also proved that the core promise of civil rights and equal treatment embedded in our founding ideals still holds good even in these most cynical times, and that Americans, for all of our faults, still have a deep instinct of decency and fairness. We also won a definitive affirmation of separation of church and state.

          • Stu

            Justice? For what? That you can go have the government “bless” you marriage. You needed the affirmation? And with little or no thought (as evidenced here in this very thread to include that you think this about separation between church and state) on how it affects the real purpose of a society recognizing marriage. Equal treatment is indeed a good thing but only when things are actually equal.

            • kenofken

              The affirmation of which I speak is the affirmation that the government is not in the blessing business and religion is not in charge of civil and contract law.

              • Stu

                No one doubted that. And if you think that is the issue, you haven’t thought this through completely on why society sanctions marriage (real marriage).

                • kenofken

                  The entire premise of the anti-SSM movement is that sacramental and civil marriage are, or should be, equivalent, and that their religion should govern civil marriage for all.

                  • Stu

                    Negative. You haven’t done your due diligence on this topic.

                    But hey, what could it possibly hurt.

                    • kenofken

                      I’ve read everything there is to read on this topic since the early 1990s. I’ve heard and dissected all of the arguments offered. No one in the anti-SSM movement has ever produced an evidence based or even plausible argument how gay civil marriage is going to harm society. Courts and legislatures have given them hundreds of chances to do so.

                    • Stu

                      Bovine Scatology.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Thus proving ken’s premise: “No one in the anti-SSM movement has ever produced an evidence based or even plausible argument how gay civil marriage is going to harm society.”
                      Even you after all this time have only snark (“B.S.”) and no non-faith-based arguments against equal civil marriage.

                    • SteveP

                      The non-faith based argument has always been: show that a male body, one that intellectually self-identifies and acts upon a same-sex attraction, does not have the processes of mitosis and subsequent gametogenesis one who does not self-identify as such. Also show that the same body, when engaged in pseudo-coitus, has a differing hormonal release pattern and volume (beyond expected variance) when compared to a male body engaged in coitus.
                      .
                      Men and women are different in primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Marriage is a way to ensure a woman’s nutritional needs are met during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Likewise, marriage publicly declares who are the parents of and responsible for children.
                      .
                      You do not reflect well on the contemporary system of education.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Nor does this addled post of yours.

                    • Neil Cameron

                      You imply that marriage is nothing but a licence to bonk and procreate.
                      Very shallow idea of marriage. It is so much more.
                      And FYI: you dont need a licence to bonk, and you dont need a licence to procreate.

                    • SteveP

                      Huh? Read it again: specifically concentrate on “widow,” “orphan,” and “scant resource.”

                    • aislander

                      Whaaat? LOL Thanks for the laugh, that’s the most hilarious stuff I’ve heard in ages. Would you like fries with that steaming pile of manure?

                    • SteveP

                      What a surprise! A barbarian not to know what mitosis entails but is fully conversant in dung.

                    • aislander

                      I certainly know what mitosis is. And I also know a steaming pile of manure like that when I see it as well.

                    • SteveP

                      Your answer by omission is: there is no difference between “heterosexual” and “homosexual” other than the preference of triggers that start a breeding response.

                    • aislander

                      Your answer by omission is that there is absolutely NO legally sustainable reason to deny gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil marriage law, as has been now well proven in multiple court cases. Your procreative arguments have been well proven legally unsustainable in this matter of civil law.

                    • Stu

                      I’m not going to put forth those points here for two reasons. First, you won’t engage on them and second, what I want to demonstrate is that you never did your homework. For Ken to say that much higher philosophical arguments were never put forth is absurd and show his lack (and yours) of understanding of the big picture.

                      Instead, its all about you.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Actually, it’s all about the unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And equal protections of the law.

                    • Stu

                      You can pursue it all you want. The problem is that you think the government recognizing marriage is for your benefit. It’s not. It’s for the benefit of society.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Um, I hate/love to point this out to you, but gay people are MEMBERS of society. And as such are promised equal protections of the law.
                      So all of those 1,138 Federal “effects that flow from marriage” should flow equally to all legally married couples.
                      Thanx 4 playing.

                    • Stu

                      Equal protection for things that are equal. Homosexual “marriage’ isn’t equal.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      It is where I live. And it will soon be right across America.
                      You just don’t like it, that’s all.
                      Meh.

                    • aislander

                      So you admit that the government recognizing gay marriage benefits society? Congratulations. If so, you are agreeing with the anti-marriage equaity side’s lead expert in the Prop 8 case. He had to admit, since he was under oath, that gay marriage being the law of the land would benefit individuals, families and society as a whole.

                    • Stu

                      No.

                    • aislander

                      What a ridiculous construct. ‘I have legally sustainable arguments against same sex marriage, but I’m not going to tell you what they are.’ The transparent last refuge of a liar. The fact remains, he has no “points” because if he did the anti-gay lawyers and experts produced in open court would have articulated them many court cases ago.

                      “You wouldn’t engage on them” and “What I want to demonstrate is that you never did your homework.” What a load of manure. They’re not even honest enough to try to support their argument to deny marriage equality, because they know their “points” will not withstand scrutiny.

                      Stu, you are clearly running around town being an emperor with no clothes making a laughing stock of you and yours who would deny equal treatment of gays under civil law.

                      Frankly, I have far more respect for those who are honest enough to state their opposition to marriage equality is simply because of their animus toward gays or that they are insisting on imposing their religious beliefs upon everyone else.

                    • kenofken

                      They got nothing. They know they got nothing, and they know we know they got nothing. More importantly, the courts know they got nothing. They’ve got smoke and noise and snark and a nasty persecution narrative and nothing else.

                    • Stu

                      Pearls before swine. I’ll share my thoughts with those who clearly are up for it. You didn’t make the cut.

                      I’m not going to tell you the reasons. I’m going to challenge you to go looking for them as you should have done. There are plenty of arguments out there against redefining marriage that have no religious context. In fact, it’s always your side that brings God up first (odd).

                      Harp on that all you want. Call me a liar, etc. Big whoop.

                    • aislander

                      Stu, you clearly lie. You know darn well you have absolutely not one iota of legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay U.S, Citizens equal treatment under civil marriage law. This is, after all, a matter of civil law. You have none because there are none, and certainly none to “look up”, or you’d be more than eagerly listing them.

                      So you resort to a subterfuge, attempting to claim that you have plenty of sustainable reasons, but just won’t share them because we are unworthy. How infantile. That wouldn’t even pass muster in the elementary school yard.

                      As I said, your deceit is embarrassingly transparent for all to see. There are plenty of people who would LIKE to find a reason to support denying gays marriage equality, including all the lawyers and experts who have been representing the anti-gays in court. Like the anti-gay’s lead expert in the Prop 8 case who wound up testifying under oath that individuals, families and society as a whole WILL be better off with marriage equality the law of the land!

                      Seeing as how the best lawyers and experts you anti-gays have been able to muster have produced absolutely no sustainable argument, we can be sure that you certainly don’t have the slightest shred of one either. You’re just a plain baldfaced liar.

                    • Stu

                      Sigh…

                      Again, you see marriage as being all about you. Your whole approach to this is skewed. It’s about the purpose of marriage in society and what society gets from it. I don’t “eagerly list” all of that line of thought because it would be DOA for you given you can’t even break free from that paradigm. Do you think I care about winning some commbox argument? Do you think I need to trot out the rationale for the regular people who frequent this blog? I don’t. They know it. You clearly don’t and it bothers you that I won’t give you the answer. Thus you get all huffy.

                      Go enlighten yourself for once.

                    • aislander

                      I’m not asking you to trot out your irrelevant “rationale”…I’m sure I’ve heard all of them by now. In my challenge to produce a single legally admissible and sustainable argument to deny law-abiding, tax-paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil marriage law, you claimed that you had such arguments but then, clearly lying, you transparently refuse to produce them.

                      The fact is not that you choose to not produce them, the fact is that you CAN’T produce them because they simply do NOT exist. You know it, (and, as someone else pointed out, much more importantly, the courts know it too).

                      So you resort to outright lying. Not that lying seems to bother you in the least, but it is somewhat surprising that you would let all of the “traditional” marriage supporters here see you reveal yourself for a liar so clearly.

                    • SteveP

                      Your thinking of equal protection is magical thinking. For example, a single person (PersonA) cannot appoint another arbitrary person (PersonB) as being in a privileged position in that they cannot be compelled to testify against PersonA. This is discriminatory against a group of persons; as you claim non-compulsion to testify is a civil right, how do you plan on challenging the State’s position such that there is “equal protection.” Of course understanding why that privilege was extended to wife and husband would conflict with your worldview so I suspect you will ignore it or assert yet more excremental knowledge.

                    • aislander

                      I never extended any argument about spousal testimony.

                      Regardless, you’re being obtuse. ANY lawfully married same sex OR opposite sex couple are subject to exactly the same rules of compulsory testimony. Thus equal protection under the law for lawfully married same sex couples who are entitled to exactly the same exemption as lawfully married opposite sex couples.. Denying same sex couples the opportunity to marry obviously denies them any such exemption. So what is your apparently non-existent point?

                    • Stu

                      I’m not asking you to trot out your irrelevant “rationale”
                      ————–
                      And you wonder why I won’t take the time to share specifics for you.

                      You aren’t the first homosexual that I have had this discussion with, so by now I can usually fairly measure how much to invest in a person. If the individual I am engaging is thoughtful, I return in kind. But if the audience that is watching the exchange will benefit by mean illuminating the purpose of marriage in society, then I will also invest my time. You aren’t thoughtful and truthfully Mark’s audience doesn’t need the enlightenment.

                      Sorry to disappoint you. So, can continue to insult me all you want but it won’t change my mind. In fact, it only reinforces my conclusion. I suppose you could file suit to force to me talk to you if it makes you feel better.

                    • aislander

                      Having read your posts before first responding, I was never under any illusions about changing your mind. I simply challenged your complete lack of any legally sustainable basis to deny law-abiding, tax-paying gay U.S. Citizens equal treatment under civil marriage law, as this is undeniably a matter of civil law. You claim to have such basis, an outright lie as it is well established that there is none.

                      I merely exposed you as the liar you so obviously are for all to see.

                    • Stu

                      (Yawn)

                    • SteveP

                      It is really very simple: to care for widows and orphans one must know who is a widow and who is an orphan. Thus the rise of birth, death, and marriage certificates – the scant resource of the public pursue must be spent on the needy. Self-identifying as needy is rife for abuse; specifically a 23 year old man who loses his beloved “husband” on a patrol is hardly the same as a 23-year old wife, with two children, who loses her husband on the same patrol.
                      .
                      “Gay marriage” is open animosity toward women and children.
                      .
                      I assure you it has been a thin slice.

                    • Neil Cameron

                      Oh the widows and orphans.
                      Does same sex marriage impinge on the benefits due to the surviving wives and children of deceased heterosexual men?

                      Consider that same sex marriage has a very profound impact on the surviving wives and children of deceased lesbian soldiers. It has a profound impact on the surviving husbands and children of deceased gay soldiers.

                      You are berating same sex marriage because of the widows and orphans, despite not actually taking into consideration the widows and orphans.

                    • kenofken

                      He’s very hung up on the notion that gays and lesbians are all wealthy, and all getting married for the sole purpose of working a scam on Social Security survivor benefits and estate tax breaks, and in so doing are taking food out of the mouths of “real” ie hetero families and children.

                      He claims this is the case, but his numbers are nowhere to be found. Perhaps they are locked away in the same classified files as Stu’s master argument and the secret scientific data which would back natural law arguments against all of the available science of the last 200 years.

                      Maybe all of this stuff is locked away on one of Ed Snowden’s thumb drives in Russia…..

                    • aislander

                      And the inconvenient fact that you and your ilk constantly ignore is that there ARE hundreds of thousands of innocent children being raised in loving same sex households in this country. How do you justify severely disadvantaging those hundreds of thousands of children by denying them the protections, benefits, responsibilities, respect and simple human dignity that can only flow from allowing their same sex parents to marry under civil law? Hypocrite much?

                    • Tucker

                      How do you justify severely disadvantaging those hundreds of thousands of children

                      The “disdvantaging” was done by the homosexual couples who adopted the children in the first place. The solution to a wrong is not to commit a second wrong.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      No, the “disadvantaging” was done by the heterosexual parents who gave those children UP in the first place.

                    • aislander

                      Tucker, firstly, many of those children are not adopted. Many are from previous relationships or say, surrogacy. But for those adopted, you would instead relegate them to the public institutional system? How very kind of you! Very few people would agree that institutionalization is preferable to being raised in a loving and nurturing same sex household.

                      By the way, EVERY respected relevant professional organization reports that these children thrive at LEAST as well in same sex households as in heterosexual households, despite the fact that same sex households adopt a very significantly higher percentage of at-risk and special needs children than hetero households do. Some data even seem to show that same sex households have BETTER outcomes statistically, although to be fair,this may be due to the fact that same sex couples typically become parents intentionally, not by accident.

                    • Emmet

                      You’re right – those children need to be not disadvantaged – so change the laws that govern protections, benefits etc for children in such situations – do that instead of redefining marriage. Surely that makes more sense? Obviously the desire for “gay marriage” is about something other than what you’ve listed in your post.

                      The “something other” is what the OP is talking about.

                    • aislander

                      Emmet:
                      I am glad that you acknowledge the clear disadvantages the current situation subjects these hundreds of thousands of innocent children to. However, it appears that you are proposing a “separate but equal” solution.

                      It has been well established and proven legal principle for over half a century that separate is NEVER equal. And your argument is over ownership of a single word? That somehow only heterosexuals are worthy of the term “marriage”? That same sex couples should only be entitled to some sort of second class status? Should they also have separate drinking fountains? Have to ride at the back of the bus?

                      And how is it you presume that same sex couples want to marry for reasons other than the very same reasons that heterosexual couples do? What nefarious reasons are you suggesting? I certainly cannot think of any reasons that do not apply to heterosexual couples.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      And the inconvenient fact that you and your ilk constantly ignore is
                      that there ARE hundreds of thousands of innocent children being raised
                      in same sex households in this country who can care less about the fundamental rights of children to a father and a mother and to parents who have a healthy heterosexual mind. How do you justify
                      severely disadvantaging those hundreds of thousands of children by
                      denying them the protections, benefits, responsibilities, respect and
                      simple human dignity that can only flow from allowing them to have their real parents (their father and their mother) married and to be raised by them? How monstrous it is to purposefully deny a child their right to their parents simply because LGBTs refuse to take responsibility for their profound psychological problems in the area of sexuality? Hypocrite much?

                    • aislander

                      What an ignorant disgusting bigot you are. You act like gays are stealing children from their loving homes. You know darn well that is a total lie. And would you prefer that these unwanted children languish in the child welfare system, perhaps imprisoned in orphanages? Oh wait, yes you would, wouldn’t you? You are beneath contempt.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      What an ignorant disgusting bigot you are. You act like gays weren’t purposefully forcing children not to have their real mother and father, because gays are too much of a slime to go deal with their psychological problems with heterosexuality and have children like nature intended humans to do. I would prefer children have their own loving father and mother to raise them – a right that you obviously hate for children to have. If not, they should have people who don’t have dysfunctional and perverted sexualities like LGBTs.

                      and for kids like the ones adopted by Frank Lombard, homosexual monster who only adopted kids to rape them, yes, it would have been a lot better if the kids had been cared for in an orphanage. You are beneath contempt.

                    • Hoggoth

                      Surely you mean people like this?

                      Jonathan and Sarah Adleta’s children were doomed to a life of perverse cruelty before they were even born.

                      Jonathan Adleta, a former Marine officer, dreamed of the day he could have “daddy-daughter sex.” After Sarah Adleta became pregnant with a daughter, he said he would marry her only if she agreed to let him carry out that desire. When the couple had a son, Sarah Adleta was expected to have sexual encounters with him.
                      http://touch.sun-sentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77381945/

                      Trying to use exceptions to prove the rule never fools anyone.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      Why shouldn’t I mean that kids adopted by homosexuals who mistreated them would have been better off at the orphanage?

                      is that what you like these homosexuals to do?

                      Trying to insert heterosexual examples in order to lie about the fact that most LGBT people who abuse and mistreat kids do it with impunity is disgusting. Surely you love to empower such homosexuals by changing the focus to heterosexual abuse!

                    • Hoggoth

                      I can’t tell if you are just trying to be humorous or you actually think anyone thinks that everything you say about gays isn’t also true for straights.

                      You can’t convince anyone by the arguments you use so the question is what is your point?

                    • Tucker

                      an evidence based… argument how gay civil marriage is going to harm society.

                      *shakes head*

                      It looks like you didn’t even read the link in the OP. The photographers have certainly been “harmed”.

                • Neil Cameron

                  Does it make you feel better about yourself to describe your marriage as a real one and others as fakes?
                  Does it help society for you to do this?
                  Does it aid in your church’s mission to spread the message of Christ (who actually said bugger all about gay marriage or even homosexuality)?
                  Does it do anything other than provide you with another feeble straw to clutch onto as you come to the realization that the fantasy kingdom you were told is the world, is in fact nothing but a fable of some long dead Utopian dream?

                  • Stu

                    Apparently it makes you feel better to make all of society change the definition of marriage, without any thought of its impact. My position is that marriage can only exist between a man and woman. Two men or two women (or three men and one woman or any other combination) won’t work.

                    Question is, why does my opinion bother you so much?

                    • Neil Cameron

                      Your opinion doesnt bother me. What bothers me is the constant attempt to maintain legislation based on your opinion.
                      Your opinion favours heterosexual marriage. So get one, live by it, nurture it and protect it. Nothing can or will stop you doing that. Not even gender neutral wording in the legal definition within civil law of marriage.
                      The alteration in teh defionition of CIVIL marriage does not affect your marriage or your favoured form of marriage in any way at all.
                      My opinion favours homosexual marriage. I have one and I will keep it and nurture it and protect it.
                      Christianity campaigning to deny me that right is Christianity seeking to force me to live by that brand of Christian lifestyle. I am not, should not and cannot be compelled to comply with your interpretation of the faith. They are YOUR interpretations, not mine.

                      Nothing in the altered definition of marriage denies you the right to live by your heterosexual ideal, or to continue to live it your way. NOTHING.
                      So what is the motivation for campaigning to prevent the minor alteration toward gender neutral language? You are in no way harmed.

                    • Stu

                      The alteration affects all of society. And to think otherwise is a bit arrogant.

                      You keep bringing Christianity and God into the discussion. That is not the basis for society establishing marriage. Once you understand that, then you can begin to understand why changing it is detrimental to society in the long term.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Re: “You keep bringing Christianity and God into the discussion. That is not the basis for society establishing marriage.”
                      You might want to tell that to the myriad religionists who insist that it is that and ONLY that. You know … the “true marriage” folk, the “God’s plan” folk. They’re not hard to find. Many of them post on this very website.

                    • Stu

                      You might want to tell yourself that because you keep bringing it up to me when I haven’t mentioned any of those things.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Stu, religious supremacy is the very PREMISE of the article we are responding to.

                      Note in the very first sentence, it refers to people who “continue to think [equal marriage] a SIN” (emphasis mine).
                      IOW, the entire opposition to equal marriage is religion-based.
                      I have yet – in 15+ years of advocacy – to hear of ONE reasoned, rational, SECULAR argument against it. And YOU don’t even bother trying to put one forward. All you’ve given us so far is your opinion. Your anti-gay animus is more than amply evident and well-known by now. And we simply do not see any rational arguments to support it.

                    • SteveP

                      Religious supremacy: the belief that there is such a state as “homosexual.” You cannot offer one shred of biological evidence that “homosexual” exists. Thus you want the State to establish a religion, a religion of sterility.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Steve,
                      I am the evidence that I exist.
                      P.S. Gay people are not “sterile”.

                    • SteveP

                      Review the “Stolen Valor” act. You are advocating that a person who pins a medal on her chest and self-identifies as a veteran ought to get pension payments from the Treasury. Thus is it with the religion of sterility: you want the legal rights accrued to marriage without actually participating.

                    • kenofken

                      We already extend the legal rights of marriage to sterile couples. Millions of them.

                    • Stu

                      Really? You haven’t heard one secular argument? Really?

                      Where have you been? Really.

                      I have heard your arguments. I could even switch sides, for rhetorical purposes, and make a better case than you can for your cause.

                      Stop harping on me to do the homework you should have done (and clearly haven’t). Don’t waste your time on a blog with me. Go find education.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Re: “Really? You haven’t heard one secular argument? Really?”
                      Yes. Really. Nor has the Supreme Court. Which is why it ruled as it did.

                    • Stu

                      Now you are talking silly talk.

                      In fact, the Prop 8 ruling didn’t even hit on the subject itself. It was all about standing in a ruling that should upset everyone given how it sets precedent that citizen of a state have no standing when the state government simply decides to overrule a referendum.

                    • kenofken

                      There is no significant segment of the anti-SSM movement which is secular in any way. It is at least 99% comprised of conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons. Your concepts of the purpose and nature of marriage are entirely those of secular Christianity. Your campaign to have this enforced in civil law binding on all of society is no different than Muslims who institute Sharia-based legislation in their countries. They too, will sometimes insist that it’s all secular, not religious because it’s not labeled Koranic. It’s just “the way things are.”

                    • Stu

                      Oh, BS.

                    • kenofken

                      Ah yes, the secular advocates, like their arguments, are part of the fabric of the new clothes you weaved for the emperor. Only the very wise can see them…

                    • Stu

                      Only the blind deny the sun.

                    • aislander

                      Only the blind deny Stu the emperor has no clothes.

                    • Stu

                      Emperor, I haven’t denied anything about you. You definitely have no clothes.

              • to_tell_the_truth

                You said it better than I did. Thanks.

            • to_tell_the_truth

              The corollary to this is, ‘Justice? For what? That you can go have the Church “bless” your marriage. You needed the affirmation?’
              Like I said, it’s the government with whom are contracts are interwoven, not the church.
              Thanks be to Zeus.

              • Stu

                My marriage is affirmed by my wife and I, natural law, the Church and the state for reasons that benefit the state because marriage serves a purpose for the state and society as a whole. Two men pretending to play house, no matter how many pieces of legal paper they have, will never meet that criteria. You are looking for something that simply will never exist.

                • to_tell_the_truth

                  So-called “natural law” is an invention of men, specifically the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
                  As my grandmother used to say, ‘You go to your church and I’ll go to mine.’

                  • Stu

                    An “invention of men” that you rely upon for good order in society. Funny thing is, if your rights come from men, then you really have no room to complain when men take them away.

                    • aislander

                      We have every right to complain. Read the U.S. Constitution you dolt.

                    • Stu

                      What men give you, they can take away.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      “you dolt”?

                      more proof that LGBTs can’t comment without demonstrating what jerks they are.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      It’s only men like YOU that are trying to do that in the first place, Stu.
                      Meanwhile, back at the Equal Protections Clause…

                    • Stu

                      I can’t take what I didn’t give. Indeed, you will have legal recognition of your friendship. But it will never be marriage.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      As usual, you type in the wrong tense. We already HAVE legal recognition of our marriage. And, that’s what it says on the top of our Marriage Certificate.
                      Hint: the government doesn’t issue “Friendship Certificates”, nor does it govern any “effects that flow from friendship” – because there aren’t any such things.
                      IOW, it already IS marriage. Legally.
                      That it “will never be marriage” in YOUR ‘mind’ is quite irrelevant.

                    • Stu

                      So “irrelevant” that you can’t stop telling me about it or suing photographers and bakers to affirm it.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Until merchants stop their unlawful discrimination, they will continue to have their unlawful activities challenged. That’s what the law is for.

                    • Stu

                      Yes, we must crush the bakers out there who don’t affirm homosexuality. In the name of tolerance, they must be run out of business.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      I care not if a baker “affirms” or despises homosexuality.
                      I care deeply that a business that is open to sell its goods to the public do just that.

                    • Stu

                      Really? We have to go after a baker as if he is the only one providing food to the masses?

                      This is all about forcing others to affirm your lifestyle. Why you need their affirmation is the real question.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Once AGAIN, we don’t need (or even seek) their “affirmation”.
                      We seek equal treatment under the secular laws.
                      Sorry you don’t seem to get that.

                    • Stu

                      No, you do. Thus you don’t brush off a lowly baker not wanting to bake a cake for you. A more secure person would just go somewhere else.

                    • kenofken

                      That’s what they told black Americans who used to get refused service in schools, restaurants and real estate offices. It’s what they used to tell Irish Catholics who wanted a job or an apartment. The only reason this country isn’t still a backwards hell hole is because of the courage and tenacity of its “insecure” people.

                    • Stu

                      Yeah, housing and school equates to having a cake baked for you.

                      Lighten up.

                    • kenofken

                      Where, exactly, do you place the line between a mild insult to human dignity in bigotry-based discrimination and a severe one? Were blacks being “insecure” by demanding service at lunch counters? They could have gone somewhere else or fixed themselves a sandwich. Worst case scenario, they had the option many exercised of riding a train north for more options. Surely in your analysis Rosa Parks should have just “lightened up.” She wasn’t even being denied service, right? The back seat passengers get to their destination as well as the front seat ones.

                      If your yardstick of civil rights measurement determines that all gay rights are just PC nonsense, the device ought to be good enough to measure other historical struggles. Where in the black civil rights history does it tell you that blacks had “enough rights” to get by for survival and at which point they should have just shut up and gotten on with life? After the merest basics of work, shelter and physical safety, wasn’t the whole civil rights struggle just about “forced acceptance” vs tolerance?

                    • Stu

                      “Where, exactly, do you place the line between a mild insult to human dignity in bigotry-based discrimination and a severe one?”

                      —————–
                      Now you are onto the right way of thinking. Where is that line. How do we balance the basic needs of every human being against the conscience of those who provide those needs. We can certain agree that medicine, food for sustenance, housing, water all meet the threshold of being basic requirements of life. I don’t put eating cake or getting you picture taken into that category. I look for balance, not some extreme measure whereby we crush anyone who won’t submit to providing luxuries for everyone who asks for them.

                    • kenofken

                      A system which is allowed to arbitrarily designate other’s rights as “luxuries” can, and sooner or later will, do the same for yours.

                    • Stu

                      Anyone who thinks a cake and pictures is a necessity needs to be a bit worldly in their outlook.

                    • SteveP

                      Another looming justice issue for you to nip in the bud: if Chelsea Manning is impregnated by her lover, the Federal Government cannot force her to abort as it is her right to choose.

                    • kenofken

                      That issue isn’t looming. It was settled 40 years ago with Roe. If pregnancy becomes an issue for transgendered women (it might, given advances in bio-science), Ms. Manning would presumably be covered by the same law of the land as natural born women.

                    • SteveP

                      The LA Times reports a month or two ago that California was
                      up to its old tricks of sterilizing inmates involuntarily. So, yeah, it’s looming.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      People of conscience DON’T refuse to provide their wares to SOME people. Because people of conscience aren’t prejudiced.
                      I doubt you’d put lunch counters and bus seats and drinking fountains “into that category” either.
                      So, it would help if you gave us the complete list of goods and services that merchants should be able to refuse to sell – and to which segments of the public. That would help.
                      Gee, accepting the asking price for your merchandise – SOOO “crushing”. Not.

                    • Stu

                      Well, I do think the treatment of a broken arm falls into a different category than making a cake. But I will admit that I do not a specific line in mind to make such distinctions as of yet. I can identify the extremes but the middle ground is indeed always the toughest. But in the name of tolerance for EVERYONE, I think that is the way go. We should balance the ability of people to obtain the necessities of life with the concerns of others having to take part in supporting activities that go against their conscience. And yes, for some that would include material support for something they see as a mockery of their beliefs.

                      I would no more want to support with material goods a celebration of homosexuality anymore than I would want to support with material goods a KKK rally advocating violence against homosexuals. You apparently would support both. Some things aren’t worth money in my mind.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Once again, Stu, you have amply shown that you are not interested in “tolerance for EVERYONE”.
                      Your posts ARE violence against homosexuals. It is their very essence.

                    • Stu

                      Such drama.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Not unlike the title of this ‘article’.
                      But I guess you’re right. Crapping on SOME people’s Constitutional rights is pretty dramatic. My advice for you is to simply stop doing it.

                    • Stu

                      You first.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      I’m already married. Have been for close to 10 years now. Not sure how that affects you (or even concerns you).
                      It’s YOUR side that is doing all the discriminating.

                    • Stu

                      What you personally do is of little concern to me except when it impacts the long-term health of society or you attempt to create a government to force acceptance of your beliefs. And all in the name of tolerance.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      And yet YOU would have a government force acceptance of YOUR beliefs, all in the name of intolerance.
                      My marriage has not, does not and will not have any negative impact on the health of society. No one’s marriage does. We let convicted murderers and child-rapists get married – so long as it’s heterosexually. Some ‘tolerance’!

                    • Stu

                      The practice of redefining marriage does impact society. To deny that is rather short-sighted. Again, you don’t seem to grasp the purpose of marriage for society outside of tax breaks, wedding photos and good cake for you.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Though you don’t delineate that “purpose”, I’d bet dollars to donuts that you think it’s makin’ baybeez.
                      If not, do tell us.

                    • Stu

                      Closer but not quite there. And you “baybeez” comment could make one think you are anti-children.

                    • kenofken

                      Even if we all conceded that marriage is primarily, or wholly about societal rather than individual benefits, you’ve already lost the debate in that arena. Courts have, time and again asked anti-SSM advocates to show them the evidence. Not just on gay marriage but on issues of adoption, gay parental custody, foster care, IVF etc. Show us the evidence that recognition of gay rights will hurt families or kids.

                      Over decades, you’ve had innumerable opportunities to present such data, and in jurisdictions all over the U.S., including some in conservative states and courts which were quite sympathetic to your cause. You never produced any credible science on the point. The overwhelming body of science on the matter shows that A)Sexual orientation has no bearing on the well being of kids. B)Legal marriage does contribute to stable family structures and C)The obvious- there are lots and lots of gay parents around.

                      You have never shown any evidence that heterosexuals will be less likely to marry or to produce children as a result of gay marriage, nor that straight guys will suddendly turn gay, incentivized by legal marriage (actually had one or two wingnuts suggest it over the years).

                      The “marriage is all about stable families and kids, not you” argument is not your friend. It is a primary reason gay marriage advocates won the culture, and increasingly, the legal battle.

                    • SteveP

                      Ah, yes, losing the debate. Like the NYS senator who changed his vote from “no” to affirmative because his nephew would not speak to him . . . I suppose you are going to assert that coercion and bullying is the same thing as a representative republic.

                    • kenofken

                      If you are going to tell me that all of the societal and legal shift is due to bullying, then you’re saying that some fraction of 2% of the population is pushing the whole country against its will. If that’s true, we’re mopes who aren’t up to running ourselves with democracy.

                    • aislander

                      But Ken, there you go again letting FACTS get in the way of Stu’s vague “rationales” that he never states. Of course he never states them, he knows they would be utterly laughable in any legal context. Why is it that these anti-gay people pretend to have no clue that their personal beliefs and biases have absolutely no meaning in these issues of civil law? In their attempt to push religious belief into civil law hey wish to impose exactly the kind of religious persecution that so many of our country’s ancestors came here to escape.

                      As we’ve pointed out, when it comes providing a legal basis to support their fervent desire to deny equal treatment under civil law to gays, they have nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. So they to the most ridiculous distortions and gymnastics to try to claim they have some sort of case without ever making the case.

                      Many of them can’t even be honest enough to admit to others or themselves that they simply are so intolerant of gays to the extent that they wish to deny gays their constitutionally guaranteed equality under civil law; instead they construct a fiction (such as the ridiculous and completely disprovable assertion that there is no such thing as gay marriage…lol) that somehow excuses their intolerance in their prejudiced mind.

                      And now, as they lose battle after battle, case after case, vote after vote, we’re seeing the latest wave of this intolerance, where they try in vain to play the victim…that somehow businesses have a religion based right to discriminate against gays in the conduct of businesses open to the public and they are shocked and outraged when they realize that such discrimination is prohibited.

                      How many times in this thread and others have we challenged them to produce one shred of legally sustainable argument to deny gay people equal treatment under civil law…and yet they have NOTHING.

                    • Stu

                      “We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and twenty times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

                      -President Barack Obama

                      Children, who have no say into coming into existence, need a voice in this. A voice that narcissistic adults, who view marriage as nothing more than tax break or a chance to have a pretty cake and photographer at their wedding completely ignore. And before you claim that men and women get married for shallow reasons too, don’t. I agree. They abuse marriage too. But from their abuse, the notion of homosexual marriage completely mocks and distorts the purpose of marriage beyond all recognition. And all for affirmation for two adults.

                      Children have a right to know their biological parents. That’s why society has marriage. Again, it’s not about you you. Never was about you or me for that matter except in our experience as children. So we can trade studies all day and night about how the parents lifestyle CHOICES do or don’t affect the children and how the redefinition of marriage has indeed lowered the rate of overall marriage in countries that have adopted such a practice. Common sense and reality over the years shows that children who are not raised in a home with a mother and father are more likely to run into problems down the road in their life. (And that probably includes succumbing to homosexuality in some instances as well).

                      Your side likes to make the claim that gender just doesn’t matter when it comes to raising kids; that two “loving adults” can do just a fine job. Well, real statistics don’t bear that out (see above) and even you don’t believe that “gender doesn’t matter” when it comes to yourself. Because if you are a homosexual, then you certainly think being with and having sex with the same gender matters otherwise you would have married a member of the opposite sex. Well having both parents matters to children too, but you have to care about them first to realize that.

                      The court case rarely touched on this. In fact, the initial ruling in California by the homosexual judge didn’t even mention children in his opinion. Kids have not voice in this and that’s just the way many people want it in a society that is increasingly anti-child. Homosexual marriage fits right in.

                    • kenofken

                      You’re confusing and conflating two totally different and unrelated phenomenon: gay marriage and single parenting involving abandonment or estrangement by the father.

                    • Stu

                      No. Lesbian don’t provide fathers. Homosexual men don’t provide mothers. Gender matters, even for you.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      And that’s when they aren’t severely abusing the children (Frank Lombard, Mark Newton, James Rennie…).

                      Even when we aren’t talking about such serious abuse cases, there are these:

                      a poignant testimony of a French man (Jean-Dominique Bunel) raised by two women with a homosexual problem – in Le Figaro:

                      He was asked how he suffered by having two women with a homosexual problem as “parents.”

                      Jean-Dominique: “It was the indifference of adults in
                      regard to the intimate sufferings of children, starting with mine. In a world where their rights are discussed every day, in fact, it is always those adults who prevail. I also suffered from the lack of a father, and having his daily presence, a proper masculine character and behavior, an alterity in relation to my mother and her partner. I became aware of all of this
                      very early in life. I experienced this absence of a father as an
                      amputation. ” To which he adds, ” I offer you a testimony, this has no value as a political poll”

                      And, lastly, he declares, “If the two women who raised me had legally married after the adoption of such a bill (homosexual marriage), I would have launched myself in this fight and I would have filed a complaint against the French government in the the European Court of Human Rights for violation of my right to have a father and a mother. “

                      Well said, Jean-Dominique. And well done for breaking your silence.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      More on this:

                      Germany example – homosexuals turn
                      conception into weird baby factories where not a single child is a product of love of its mother and father.

                      http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/germany-example-homosexuals-turn-conception-into-weird-baby-factories-where-not-a-single-child-is-a-product-of-love-of-its-mother-and-father/

                    • newenglandsun

                      That’s really just begging the question. The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to unfairly discriminating people. Hence why it is advisable to take a libertarian view. If that is what they want to call a “marriage”, it ain’t going to fly because they’ve simply called a civil union and given it the title marriage in a desperate attempt to compete.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      The problem starts with trying to normalize homosexuality – which causes tremendous harm in society.

                      http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/homosexuality-page/

                    • SteveP

                      Good grief. Asking for legislation to reflect biological reality is hardly intolerance. Legislating make-believe is juvenile.

                    • kenofken

                      Go draw up and pass some legislation that outlaws civil marriage for infertile hetero couples, those two injured or disabled to reproduce etc., then come talk to us about “biological reality.”

                    • SteveP

                      Thus your not-so-repressed desire to be in everyone’s bedroom; if privacy is sacrosanct, what do you care if an individual male and female do not reproduce? It is male and female that do reproduce, but I’m finding your voyeuristic tendency to be quite creepy.

                    • kenofken

                      It’s the anti-SSM crowd which believes civil marriage should only accrue to people based on their inherent breeding capacity. If its something as important as religion/natural law, and that needs to be enforced by the government, why is it unreasonable to expect some consistency.?

                    • SteveP

                      Hmmm . . . I think I relayed earlier that birth, death, and marriage certificates were to track how to spend the public purse on the needy – the widows and the orphans. I think my example was a 23-year old man who loses his “husband” in combat versus a 23-year old woman, with children, who loses her husband in the same action. You want the law and subsequent privileges to be algorithmic – certificate in, cash out – but have been unable to make the case that the two 23-year old persons are equally needy of public assistance.

                    • kenofken

                      What if we just did public assistance by good old-fashioned means testing? Decide the theory and structure of your survival benefits program and what it’s designed to do. Is it to replace the earnings lost by the decedent to the surviving family, based on some percentage of their salary or rank?

                      Is it calculated to provide money on a sliding scale to maintain a minimum standard of living for them? Is it conditioned on the net worth or earnings or potential earning power of the surviving spouse? Is it adjusted according to the children or other dependents surviving? Do the math and the apples to apples comparisons, and it shouldn’t matter whether the surviving beneficiaries are gay or straight or whatever gender. It’s not rocket science or some weird branch of combinatorics that requires phd level thinking. It’s arithmetic.

                      We should also be careful not to equate “public assistance” and survivor benefits too closely. Many of these systems are systems which we pay into over years on the understanding that they’ll be there for us if we, or or families need it. They’re not welfare largesse being bestowed upon anyone.

                      In the case of police, fire and military, those survivor benefits are inducements to service to give some peace of mind to those serving in jobs where they run a real risk of not coming home after each shift. These folks and their families make big sacrifices for us in the best of times and I have a real hard time begrudging them survivor benefits or assuming that survivors are somehow parasites on society or working the system. There’s nothing complicated about this. If you promise x dollars to be paid out in x circumstances, honor it.

                      If you’re saying that the surviving spouse of a gay service member is inherently less deserving than their hetero counterparts of like circumstance (ie kids, no kids), let’s be real clear about what you’re really saying. You’re saying that the service and sacrifice of the gay soldier are worth less (if not worthless). A nation that really believes that deserves no protection from its enemies and has nothing worth fighting for.

                    • SteveP

                      “You’re saying that the service and sacrifice of the gay soldier are worth less (if not worthless).”
                      .
                      Not only are you a barbarian, you are a bigoted, cowbird barbarian with lying lips and a crooked walk. You are right – you are not worth fighting for.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Actually, it’s the anti-SSM crowd which SELECTIVELY believes civil marriage should only accrue to people based on their inherent breeding capacity, since they let non-procreating heterosexuals marry with nary a blink of ‘concern’.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      I guess we ‘care’ if an individual male and female do not reproduce because the frightwing insist that reproduction is the only purpose of marriage. Those 2 heterosexuals not reproducing proves that it is not.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      I assure you that my marriage is not only perfectly real, it’s also perfectly legal.
                      Are gay people not biological realities in your mind?
                      What the freligious frightwing want is legislation outlawing perfectly legal marriages of perfectly real people. And yes, that IS intolerance.

                    • chezami

                      It’s legal. But it’s not real. A body of lawyers can pass a law that pi equals 4. It doesn’t become real thereby. And it’s the refusal of people to pretend that gay “marriage” is real that the law are designed to punish. It’s the last gasp of the frustrated narcissist’s attempt to *make* people pretend that what they want is so.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      The laws don’t “punish” people who don’t break them. These merchants did.
                      Apologist.

                    • chezami

                      Correct. I’m an apologist for the idea that there is no such thing as gay “marriage”. It doesn’t exist. And no human law will make it exist. All human law can do is try to force people who know it does not exist to pretend tthat it does so that narcissists like you can lie to yourself that shutting mouths and locking up bodies is changing hearts.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      Wrong, you let homosexuals adopt or care for children so they can rape them endlessly (Frank Lombard, Mark Newton, James Rennie…). Some civil rights! And all in the name of progress, of course!

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      If your delusions weren’t so vicious, they’d be funny.

                    • Oshtur

                      Stu, this was about a public accommodation marketing to the public then using a religious litmus test to reject some of that public which had passed laws explicitly saying they couldn’t do that.

                      The business was in the wrong, their right to religious freedom is no more important than the customers and there is no right to religious discrimination in the public sphere or commerce.

                      The business is basically a cheat – they want to market to the public but then violate the constitution and laws that regulate how they must deal with that same public.

                      They want to only market to a private group become a private club and only take photos for members, but market to the general public have the decency to obey the laws and constitutional principles that regulate such commerce.

                    • Stu

                      Oh, please. Society can easily find a balance between public accommodation for the TRUE necessities in life (think medical, food for sustenance, etc) and optional items. As I said before, I would no more want to print a bunch of flyers that supported the homosexual redefinition of marriage than I would want to do the same for a KKK rally against homosexuals. There needs to be place within society to allow people to conscientiously object for whatever reason. Instead, we continue to give the “contract law” mindset pride of place.

                      At the end of the day, the suggest of simply hanging a sign in your business letting everyone know that all proceeds for some activity you find objectionable will be donated to a charity that you don’t like will probably do the trick. We’ll see how much people want to push their agendas then.

                    • Oshtur

                      And your ‘trick’ is exactly what people do with groups like the Westbro Baptist Church and probably is the best solution since one person’s necessity is the others’ optional.

                      Allowing religious discrimination in the public square will only lead to trouble, “for every silver lining…”

                      Just say no to religious litmus tests.

                    • skydivejunkie

                      No, believing and living your life and running your business by your religious beliefs will not lead to trouble. Especially when your beliefs are moral and those forcing everyone to accept their own persion is immoral.
                      Just say no to having to adhere to special rights!

                    • Oshtur

                      Everyone has a sex orientation, and every single case has been about an unconstitutional religious litmus test by the business anyway.

                      Every customer of a public accommodation has a right to their own religious freedom and a right to also do business anyway.

                    • Greg Paley

                      You seem to enjoy using the phrase “litmus test,” perhaps you’re under the delusion that it makes you sound like a deep thinker. From what you’ve said, if a guy started attending my church, but we ran a criminal background check on him and found he had several sexual crimes on his record, we would be guilty of a “litmus test” and discriminating against the poor fellow.

                    • Oshtur

                      As you know, or should, churches are considered ‘private clubs’ and you can kick anyone out for any reason you want, wrong colored shoelaces, wrong colored skin, whatever.

                      But in regards to public accommodations they have chosen to run a business that markets to the public and so it has obligations to that public. The SCOTUS has already ruled on a case where a place that sold goats for slaughter wouldn’t sell one for a ritual sacrifice. The court ruled that was unconstitutional, not merely illegal, because the customer’s right to religious freedom trumps attempts at religious discrimination.

                      So I use the term ‘litmus test’ because people get so wrapped up with talking about the businesses liberties they for get the customer has just as much liberty and applying a religious test to them to be a customer ignores that the customer has a constitutional right to not share someone else’s religion, values, and act according to their own beliefs, just like the goat sacrifices.

                    • Stu

                      You folks keep bringing religion into the discussion. I’m against homosexuals redefining marriage because it is bad for society. End of story.

                    • Oshtur

                      Yeah, my state passed marriage equality by 56% of the voters so its a bit more than the ‘homosexuals’. But then here the civil contract of marriage as always been just a civil contract (since the founding of the territory in 1854) with a single contractual promise – that the two cosigners take each other exclusively as spouses. Since we had already let citizens do that, letting all citizens do what some could already do was an easy decision.

                      And refusing service because of sexual orientation in the public market place was also a majority vote decision so the real question is:

                      Do you want to live in a democratic republic or not?

                    • Stu

                      You know, some really unsavory leaders have been elected by popular vote. And at one time slavery was certainly supported by a majority of people too. Thankfully we don’t measure the truth by plebiscite.

                    • Oshtur

                      And that is the issue isn’t it – you don’t believe in the founding fathers vision of a republican democracy. You are all for things in your favor and not for things that aren’t. You have no confidence in allowing the ‘Grand Experiment’ a chance.
                      As a hypothesis lets see: what’s more important? That 1% of marriages are a form you don’t like or that all bastard child’s are now legally their fathers sons, or that 20% of married women don’t bear children?

                      Questions? What really changed marriage more?

                      Conclusion? Why aren’t you more worried about things that changed marriage more?

                    • Stu

                      To answer your first question, I am not a believer in American Exceptionalism. We have flaws like any other nation of men. I realize a certain segment of our population has made the founding of this nation into a “secular religious experience”, but I am not one of them. However, I did wear the cloth of this country for 20 years and took an oath to support and defend the Constitution form all enemies foreign and domestic. So in that regard, I don’t think I have anything to prove.

                      As to what is more important? I will openly concede that the use of contraception and divorce have done more damage in redefining marriage than the current onslaught by the homosexualists who are simply taking the destruction one step further. Next on that trajectory will by the polygamists with the final attack being the age of consent. So my concern is there but that is not what this thread was about.

                      As to my objections, they are based both upon my beliefs in God as well as practical objections based upon time tested observations on what strengthens families and ultimately society (as well as common sense). The family is the basic building block of society and marriage is the public institution with attaches parents to their children and each other. It builds upon our evolution as complementary sexes to ensure that children are brought up on the most ideal way. Again, the benefits of this are undeniable. Ignored by those who see marriage as simply a means to get tax breaks and affirmation by society but ultimately undeniable.

                      And If I were for things just in my favor, then I would be just as guilty as those who selfishly attempt to redefine marriage at the expense of all society. I’m for what is good for society.

                    • Oshtur

                      I agree, the civil contract of marriage that establishes a spousal familial link between two people previously unrelated is a great thing, for the couple, their families, and society. What we obviously disagree on is I think that is true regardless of the particular sexes of the individuals.

                      I highly recommend the book, it points out the factors in the late 19th century that really changed marriage from then until now with pundits back then predicting all that has happened since.

                      Personally I don’t see 1 out of 50 marriage contracts licensed will in reality change much of anything, but you seem to think it will. All I ask is that you keep in mind the constitutional right of everyone to think differently and still have the equal protections of government that exist solely to serve its people.

                    • Stu

                      Of course the sex matter because it is only with the union of a man and woman that you get a child. It’a about the child, not the adults. A child deserves and needs to have a mother and father as he/she did not make the choice to come into this World. When we distort this relationship for the selfish motivation of adults, we harm children. And gender does matter in this as a child gets different things from their mother or father. It’s part of our design.

                    • Oshtur

                      And since we are talking about raising children, not breeding them, it doesn’t make much different. Almost 50% of children are now being raised by other than their two genetic contributors so again, the focusing on this tiny minority seems a bit more rationalization rather than supporting the assertion.

                      And there is no legal right to a mother and a father, if there were all aspects of family law would be very different. There is no specific difference between their roles in a family, most studies show there is far more variation between the members of each group then there are the groups themselves, in most discussions that pretty much ends any insistence that the groups are significantly different, but it doesn’t in this one. AGain, I suspect because it it more a rationalization for a pre assumed answer than the reason for it.

                      And no, I can’t think of a thing you can only learn from one sex and not the other.

                    • Stu

                      You are taking the destruction of the family to it’s natural end given your pretext. To you, it a contractual arrangement that the state has final say. That simply runs counter to evolution, experience and even the views of UNICEF.

                      And as of 2012, about 60% of all children still live with both of their biological parents. Is that ideal? Certainly not. But it’s better than the alternative. But studies have shown overwhelmingly that children who live with both of their biological parents are better off in terms of physical and mental health. By design, a mother and a father complement each other and given children different gifts and security. In fact, the biggest risk factor in a child suffering abuse is living in a home with a non-biological adult. Again, this is undeniable. Overlooked by those with an agenda but undeniable. Go down to a prison and ask how many of the men incarcerated knew their fathers? Or do you really need to do that to know what the results would be?

                      if you care about children, then you will not support changes in society that is destructive to them even in the wake of other destructive changes. Redefining marriage isn’t about protecting our children, it’s about the selfish needs of some adults.

                    • Hoggoth

                      UNICEF fully supports same sex parents

                    • Stu

                      Cognizant dissonance on their part. The homosexualist agenda came after they already put a stake in the ground for children.

                    • skydivejunkie

                      If it does not make a diffence you are saying that 2 gay men are just as good as man and wife, or that 2 lesbians are as good as man and wife. So then which does a child NOT need, a mom or a dad? One of them is not needed if we can live with the other options. Tell me which is it? Does a child not need a mom for the best optimal care or not need a dad for the best optimal care. This sick perversion is telling the world that a child does not need a a mom and a dad, again which is it that the child does not need?

                    • calduncan

                      True. They forget that Hitler was VOTED into office. They also forget that Californians VOTED to ban gay “marriage,” so this side has zero respect for democracy.

                    • Stu

                      Great point on the Prop 8 referendum which was overturned by a single, homosexual judge. Further, the grounds used by the Supreme Court to dismiss the challenge to this ruling was that the people of the state of California had no legal standing to challenge it in court which now applies to all referendums.

                      So much for democracy.

                    • skydivejunkie

                      It is bad and we shall see in the near future just how bad it gets. First though their agenda is to force their beliefs as being accepted on all of us.

                    • Valerie Hurst

                      LOL
                      You do a lot of cutting and pasting, don’t you?
                      What website do you get this stuff from?

                    • Oshtur

                      Cutting and pasting? You are mistaken – each word is mine.

                    • calduncan

                      He hits every Christian website there is, same stupid lies over and over, word for word.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      You’re just busy working to destroy our most fundamental rights to freedom of conscience, religion, freedom, and equality before the law, that’s all.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Insaner and insaner.

                    • Greg Paley

                      “Married”? To a man?
                      Nope. You’re delusional.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Nope. Legally married for close to 10 years now. Says so on my marriage certificate. Sorry you don’t like it, but facts is facts.

                    • Greg Paley

                      “Violence” eh?
                      Got some serious word inflation going on there, nellie.
                      “Hate”
                      “Violence”
                      “Fascists”

                      When you use a word inaccurately, that makes you a liar.

                      If the “violence” on the site frightens you, don’t read it.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Spiritual violence permeates all of Stu’s posts, Nellie.
                      But then again, consider the source …

                    • SteveP

                      As you are adamant in stamping out discrimination, I’d point out the WIC program does not recognize pregnant, post-partum, or breastfeeding males. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title7-vol4/xml/CFR-2013-title7-vol4-part246.xml#seqnum246.8)
                      .
                      When, o! when will you turn this nation from the hellhole it is?

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      It’s certainly what liberals tell social conservatives who apply for jobs in the social sciences today! Go elsewhere, you’re not welcome! If we (disgusting self-serving liberals) are in power, you’ll have no such job. Just like racists told blacks.

                    • Valerie Hurst

                      Play that race card, lefty….

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Like blacks could just go to another lunch counter.
                      It’s ONLY lunch.
                      It’s ONLY a seat on the bus.
                      It’s ONLY a water fountain.
                      It’s ONLY a waiting room.
                      It’s ONLY a cake.
                      Excuses, excuses.

                    • kenofken

                      Other people’s rights are always trivial. If someone refused to sell at Catholic so much as a broken shoe lace, the ADF and USCCB would be screaming like it was a Civil War field amputation.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      And, of course, no one IS refusing to sell … anything … to Catholics.

                    • Stu

                      Yes, your cake and pictures seem very important to you.

                      Dude, expand your horizons. You aren’t the only one int he world who has been refused service because of who they are. I have. I simply walked away. No lawsuit. No need for the government to stroke my self-esteem. I just warned others not to go there.

                      You can do the same things. Just takes some confidence in yourself.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      Blacks don’t have a dysfunctional and perverted sexual psychology like LGBTs. They aren’t pushing for a noxious homosexuality agenda like you are. There is no reason to discriminate based on different races, there’s every reason to discriminate based on pushing a harmful sexuality agenda – which is your case.

                    • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                      There is no equal treatment with unequal “special protection” categories of different treatment for perverted LGBTs.
                      If you wanted equal treatment, you’d be arguing for being discriminated equally like any other person with a destructive political agenda – which is what you have.

                    • Oshtur

                      Since the customers could have won on a religious liberty claim your whine is only that.

                      All members of the public have a right to their own legal religious beliefs as well as to do business with a public accommodation. There is a right to religious liberty, not religious discrimination, in the public arena.

                      It a business doesn’t want to market to the public they can choose to be a private organization with members and only do business within that membership. Take advantage of marketing to the public then they have to do so as regulated by that same public.

                      Constitution doesn’t allow religious discrimination between citizens with equal rights to religious freedom – it would be impossible to even pass a law to allow it without amending the constitution.

                    • Greg Paley

                      We don’t get it because you prove by your actions that you are insecure about yourselves and know that your lives are sleazy and vulgar.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      So being married = “sleazy and vulgar” in your ‘mind’. Got it.

                  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

                    As my grandmother used to say, ‘You go to your church and I’ll go to mine.’

                    And like my grandmother says: the two stupid lesbians can go a photographer that will photograph their farcical and deformed ceremony, and decent people can to go Elane’s!

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Snicker.

                  • Valerie Hurst

                    Moron, the internal combustion engine was also invented by men. So, do you refuse to ride in a car for that reason? If something is true, it doesn’t matter who invented it. You are warped.

                    • to_tell_the_truth

                      Riding in a car doesn’t fringe on anyone else’s unalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

                      (Not to mention that the internal combustion engine is responsible for much of the pollution we breathe today.)

                      Nice job with the insults. Is that a Catholic thing?

                  • Oshtur

                    Yeah, they are talking about Natural Law, a rationalization for catholic doctrine. natural law says it is completely normal for adults to be attracted to other adults, and we know from fetal neurological development and sexual dimorphism stages its natural law that some of both sexes end up being attracted to both sexes.

                    Natural law is the reason for marriage equality.

                • Neil Cameron

                  What you call natural law is no more than observed behavior, recorded and then described from the human perspective of the day. It is anthropomorphic to the point of the absurd.

                  The degree to which homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom has been brushed under the rug, hidden or expressly forbidden from being published is so severe that the entirety of 200 years worth of science around animal behavior has been brought into question and branded inherently flawed, biased and effectively constructed around the avoidance of taboo due to religious influence.
                  Only now is the churches corruption of science finally being addressed to allow scientists to actually do science and actually describe in truth what Natural Law actually is.

                  If Natural law is the order of the day, then the giraffe is living in wonderland. Giraffes are scientifically proven to engage in more homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. A majority of giraffes are as gay as…. well giraffes!
                  I think I like the natural law.

                  • Stu

                    Appeals to animals is what is absurd. I had a dog once that would eat it’s own feces. Surely you aren’t gong to imply that is healthy. Further, your bringing animal behavior into this shows that you don’t understand Natural Law.

                    • aislander

                      And you clearly don’t understand that your pseudo “natural law” has absolutely no meaning legally in this secular country.

                    • Stu

                      Appeals to legality. That’s all you have. Remember, our legal system approved of chattel slavery even when natural law did not.

                  • SteveP

                    Utter tripe: homosexuality is a self-identified state. An animal cannot self-identify as gay. Your science is pseudo.

                    • Valerie Hurst

                      Never underestimate the stupidity of the left. They will probably try to convince us there are gay atoms.

          • SteveP

            Justice? Ha! Had you been interesting in equality estate tax would have been eliminated – you know all citizens would have been treated equally. You just obtained special treatment for your tribe, treatment that had been built up to deliver justice. I do not see your behavior any different than that of a cowbird.

            • kenofken

              Estate tax is a different policy question altogether, and one which we can still address as a society anytime we want. I’m not sure who you think “my tribe” is. I’m a hetero guy married to a woman, and no one in my family is at any risk of having a net worth where estate tax becomes an issue for us.

          • Greg Paley

            You’re a fool. “Justice” isn’t even on the radar screen. The goal is to flip the middle finger to Christians, as a way of saying, “Ha, we showed you!” The aim is not equal rights, and certainly the aim isn’t monogamy, it’s all aimed at making Christians look bad. That’s hardly something that is going to bond people together and make for a happy “marriage.”

        • Valerie Hurst

          Infections.

      • Valerie Hurst

        Doofus, normal people don’t walk around all day thinking about “dominance” and “hegemony,” we just live our lives. It’s neurotics like you who wallow in your paranoia, “Oh, dear me, we are so oppressed, we must be special people to be so persecuted.” You people are so pathetic.

      • Greg Paley

        It’s probably all about their lack of acceptance by other boys, also deep insecurity about their bodies, hitting puberty very late, not developing to normal size. That explains their obsession with porn, they want to see in video someone who looks more male than they do themselves, as if they could absorb the maleness by watching it. the fact that this doesn’t occur explains the rampant promiscuity.

  • http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/ Alessandra

    I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from
    a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service
    because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda.
    These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked
    to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event or a porn shoot and
    refusing.There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race
    (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate
    it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent
    concept at its very root. This is just one more case that evidences that
    every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual
    orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped. Lastly, and the most important
    point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for
    whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.

    Thus, everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on
    sexual ideology and behavior. The right to total discrimination against
    others pushing pornography onto you is a fundamental human right. The
    right to total discrimination against prostitution, sexualization of
    kids, S&M, etc., is a fundamental human right. And so it is with
    people pushing a noxious and ignorant homosexuality agenda that
    normalizes homosexuality instead of trying to resolve it. Everyone who
    has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating their
    underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional
    sexual psychologies.

    Lastly, given the zeitgeist then, it was a nice surprise to see that a
    poll taken recently says 85% of those asked are in support of Elaine! A
    wonderful turn of events for the stupid lesbians using the State to
    harass this wonderful couple. With Kennedy and the lipstick-on-a-pig
    Kagan though, I’m not hopeful at all about the Supremes.

    I have been blogging on how the liberal homosexuality agenda is incompatible with democracy for awhile. here’s one post:
    http://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/the-road-to-tyranny-normalizing-homosexuality-is-a-tiranical-cultural-process/

    • Oshtur

      And the obvious answer that you can’t understand is everyone has a sexual orientation, thus everyone is being treated equally.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X