CPAC and the Gays

February 18, 2010 at 8:28 pm 215 comments

By Julia Rosen

The far right is holding their annual conference called CPAC. They are perhaps best known for their straw poll of presidential contenders to get a sense of how the conservative base feels at the moment. The event is packed with speeches and vendors. And yes, the homos have been a topic of conversation.

HRC managed to grab this video of a press conference about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

It’s hard to pick the most ourageous moment of that press conference. Is it Elaine Donnelly saying Admiral Mullen let down the troops? No, though I do love that she is wearing a rainbow pin. What about Tom Minnery from Focus on the Family calling the potential repeal of DADT a “social engineering debacle” and claiming that it will result in a bunch of “severely disappointed gay men”. To which I say: what about the lesbians? Or Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council who said this was not an issue of “two men or two women holding hands in camouflage”. Huh?

An even bigger head-scratcher was David Keene from the American Conservative Union to tried to draw analogy to health care reform and wall street reform, claiming that people who don’t know anything about the military are “telling us how it ought to be run.” This comes of course from a guy who has absolutely no military experience himself and has been a political hack nearly his whole life. Penny Nance of the Concerned Women of American thinks that repealing DADT means Obama is not serious about the War on Terror!!!

Last but not least is Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (ret.) who incredibly starts talking about 19th century history, claiming that there were so many gays in the military that mothers tried to keep their sons out of the service “rampant” he says, just “rampant”. That’s not something I ever learned in history class. My favorite part is when he starts comparing gays to “drug pushers”. Yes, really.

But this video is not all of the fun to be had at CPAC, when it comes to the gays. A new group GOProud (get it, they are Republicans who haven’t let their fellow party members make them hate themselves) signed up for a table, causing the Liberty Council (Jerry Falwell’s group) to throw a hissy fit and threaten to pull out. CPAC called their bluff. GOProud came and so did the Liberty Council. Mother Jones has the full story, but this was my favorite bit.

GOProud already sports 2,000 members and is apparently growing. Its CPAC booth, separated by a single table from the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay marriage group, drew some curious looks from conference attendees, but LaSalvia says people had been friendly.

I wonder if Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown’s heads exploded, when they saw their neighbors.

Entry filed under: Right-wing. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

On What Politics Could Be Oh, the Lengths They Will Go

215 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    It is so very obvious that none of these people have been to war recently, if ever, and if they HAVE been to war, they have forgotten what barracks life is like, and what the battlefield is like. It is also very patently obvious that none of them have been on tour with Admiral Mullen as he has gone around to our troops to guage their reactions. Otherwise thy would definitely change their minds. Oops! I forgot–you cannot change what you do not posess.

    Reply
  • 2. waxr  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Daily Bible Passage

    2 Kings 2:23-24
    He (Elisha) went up from there to Bethel. As he was traveling up the road, some young boys came out of the city and made fun of him, saying, “Go on up, baldy! Go on up, baldy!” When he turned around and saw them, he called God’s judgment down on them. Two female bears came out of the woods and ripped forty-two of the boys to pieces.

    Reply
    • 3. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:41 pm

      Why 42?…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 4. Vaati  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:34 am

        Probably because they were going to stop at 40, but one of the bears sat on an extra boy by accident and the other bear needed to even it up by killing one more.. what I don’t understand was where the hell were their parents with the pointy sticks? This story is made of fail on many levels. Keep posting those, waxr! They are very amusing.

        Reply
      • 5. Dave T  |  February 19, 2010 at 6:14 am

        Because 42 is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

        Reply
      • 6. JimiG  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:55 am

        42 by many is consider to be the family line and number of descendants leading up to Jesus.

        This verse was completely random and I think this person is just taking verses off his morning devotion with no idea why or what it means.

        Reply
      • 7. waxr  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:15 pm

        JimiG: “42 by many is consider to be the family line and number of descendants leading up to Jesus.”

        JimiG is obviously referring to Matthew 1

        Matthew 1:17
        So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to Christ, fourteen generations.

        That would total up to 42 generations. However, if we count the generations actually listed by the author from Matt 1:2-16, we find that there are only 41:

        Matt 1:2-6 From Abraham to David:
        Abraham
        Isaac
        Jacob
        Judah
        Perez
        Hezron
        Ram
        Amminadab
        Nahshon
        Salmon
        Boaz
        Obed
        Jesse
        David
        Fourteen names

        Matt 7-11From David to the deportation
        Solomon
        Rehoboam,
        Abijah,
        Asa,
        Jehoshaphat,
        Joram,
        Uzziah
        Jotham
        Ahaz
        Hezekiah
        Manasseh
        Amon
        Josiah
        Jeconiah
        Fourteen names

        Matt 12-16 From the deportation to Jesus
        Jeconiah
        Shealtiel,
        Zerubbabel
        Abiud
        Eliakim
        Azor
        Zadok
        Achim
        Eliud
        Eleazar
        Matthan
        Jacob
        Joseph
        Jesus
        Fourteen names, however, that is only by counting Jeconiah, who was already counted at the end of the previous list.

        Therefore there are only 41 generations given.

        Reply
      • 8. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:17 pm

        An inconsistency in the Bible? *gasp*

        Reply
      • 9. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:26 pm

        I mentioned this before, but if Joseph had nothing to do with Mary’s pregnancy, then Jesus is not a descendant of David! Blankenhorn wouldn’t call Joseph his “biological parent.”

        Reply
      • 10. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 20, 2010 at 7:27 pm

        And actually, there are two genealogies of Yeshua ben Yosef given, the one in Matthew is the lineage through Yosef, and the one in Luke is the one through Miriam (Mary in Greek). And in both lines he was descended from David. Remember that the Jews were ritually required to marry within their wn tribe, and preferably within the household lineage. Thus a man from the tribe of Judah would marry within the tribe of Judah, and try to stay within the house of David, if that were his ancestral house.

        Reply
    • 11. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:34 am

      why do you post daily bible verses?

      Reply
      • 12. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:36 am

        I have the impression that it’s to show that not all acts in the Bible are good — and that we don’t follow Biblical law anymore, despite what the Prop 8 supporters want to believe.

        I could be wrong, of course, but I think that’s why waxr is doing it.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 13. JimiG  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:52 am

      Hello waxr,
      As a pastor and teacher you appear to be misinformed and misusing God’s word for it intended purpose. Please go back and read the story. Did you just pick up you daily bible calendar and just post a random thought? It is also bad form to just throw out random verses, without content or meaning they have no impact or lesson.

      Reply
      • 14. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:59 am

        JimiG…waxr has been doing for a few days now…I’m guessing to point out what the far religious reich does….They pick in choose and and though out meaningless Bible bibble babble doobey doda which most oftenly(spelling) is irrelevant…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 15. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:05 am

        Wouldn’t it be better to tell us the context and explain why it’s wrong, rather than just say it’s wrong? I’ve personally seen that verse on a number of atheist sites, and have never actually seen a rebuttal, so if there is one, I’d be glad to hear it.

        Reply
      • 16. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm

        I’ve read the passage in its entirety before, but I looked over it again. Just to make sure I got it right: they blow up a river (twice), Elijah goes to Heaven in style, Elisha fixes the river, then when he’s going somewhere else, some kids make fun of his baldness, so he has God kill them with bears. That’s basically the entire chapter as I understand it. Am I missing something? Do I need more context to make the child-mauling reasonable? Because I’m not seeing it.

        Reply
      • 17. waxr  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:46 pm

        I am happy to see that you understand the intended purpose of “God’s word”. Maybe you can explain it to those Christians who use it to justify hate.

        I am not just referring to those who quote obscure passages from the Bible to justify their hatred of gays and lesbians, I am also referring to those who use the Bible to justify their bigotry towards Jews, Catholics, or Muslims.

        The Bible has been used to justify wars, slavery, and tyranny. Perhaps the worse use of the Bible has been to keep women subservient to men. Or perhaps that is how you feel it should be.

        Reply
      • 18. Andrea  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:56 pm

        Doesn’t the Bible also say something about Satan being a great deceiver, and many people will be fooled into believing that he is actually Christ?

        Reply
      • 19. Joe  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:00 am

        What? I always thought God faxed down the Bible from Heaven???!?

        Reply
    • 20. Frijondi  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:29 pm

      Why is there no religiously motivated campaign against toupees? Or Propecia? God’s word on is very clear.

      Reply
    • 21. Linda  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:58 pm

      Alan–You’re right!

      So….God allowed his only son to be raised by a foster father. Hmm……sort of pokes holes in that whole ‘biological parents’ theory, doesn’t it?

      Reply
      • 22. Joe  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:02 am

        Jesus had two dads.

        Reply
      • 23. JQ  |  February 21, 2010 at 10:15 pm

        “Jesus had two dads.”

        Can that be on a t-shirt?!

        Reply
  • 24. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    I haven’t seen any of the clips but I hear that Rachel Maddow had a field day reporting about this ‘event’.

    Reply
    • 25. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Well, you know how Rachel Maddow is. When she gets a chance to rip into hypocrites and expose their hypocrisy and stupidity, she finds all the facts she can and uses them well–viciously at times, but well! And can you imagine if Keith Olberman had also covered this?

      Reply
  • 26. Warner  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    I think if they could get the cheneys and the NoM’rs out of the picture, conservatives would find broader support.

    I love that rachel maddow went and had a feild day. it seems everyone but one douche was friendly and socialable to her.

    Reply
    • 27. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:23 pm

      And actually, Cheey has now said it is time to eliminate DADT.

      Reply
      • 28. Joe  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:07 am

        And Colin Powell.

        Reply
  • 29. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    “Penny Nance of the Concerned Women of American thinks that repealing DADT means Obama is not serious about the War on Terror!!!”

    1.) What the hell does she know about the “War on Terror”

    2.) There is no war on terror…you can’t fight terror…all it takes is one person so commit a “terror” attack….case in point the guy who purposely flew a plane into an IRS building in Texas…TODAY!!!!….she’s a FOOL!!!!!

    3.) It has already been proven that there is an enlisting problem…meaning ummm…next to nobody is enlisting?!…and yet you won’t Obama to turn people who willingly want to risk their lives for country that treats them like nothings…Nice way to treat somebody who is willing to give his.her life to keep you “Free” (so to speak)

    4.) Ummm…Lesbians are woman also who are concerned for America…. Penny YOU”RE A FOOL!!!!

    5.) Umm you’re a fool?

    6.) YOU”RE A FOOL!!!!

    <3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 30. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:49 pm

      Another thing for someone who is so concerned with homosexuals in the armed forces that sure is a nice display of botox she’s(Penny) got going on there…<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 31. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:31 am

      Yes, Ronnie, I agree. There is no war on terror, since as you point-out, “all it takes is one person to commit a ‘terror’ attack.” The delusions of the CPAC and at least some of the radical end of the GOP would be laughable, except some of these people hold very powerful positions in the US Government. Perhaps, I shouldn’t bring this up, but I will any way. Prior to the war in Iraq, when ‘Bush was making assertions around the nation that Sadaam Hussein had WMD’s – I said to my mother and others (mostly my mother’s friends) from the evidence presented, I could fly a plane through the loopholes and I am not even a pilot! At the time, they all laughed at me, yet how many WMD’s were found in Iraq – ZERO, ZILCH, NADA. My point is this, before we spend billions of dollars, I want substantiation of claims before sending in the Marines!

      Reply
  • 32. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    And then this Tom Minery…guy….Hello….Hello…anybody in there?…HELLO!!!!…

    1.) There already are Gay men and Lesbians in the armed forces…so this sexual tension you speak off already exists whether you have DADT or not……FOOL!!!!……

    2.) Umm they are Tax paying Americans…so it is their right…FOOL!!!….and

    3.) ummm they are Americans…every American has the right to serve…FOOL!!!

    4.) Who is forcing Gay men & women to serve?

    5.) Umm….you’re a fool?

    6.) YOU”RE A FOOL!!!!!

    <3…Ronnie

    Reply
  • 33. tim  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    Wow … I didn’t realize that man on man sex was rampant in the navy in the late 1900s… Wow … the more you know!

    (good lord … these people are delusional)

    Reply
  • 34. Chuck S  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    I want to know what all the flowcharts say behind the speakers.

    Reply
    • 35. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:26 am

      Ditto

      Reply
      • 36. Lynn Elwood  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:51 am

        I think they say “You might be a redneck if….”

        Reply
      • 37. PDXAndrew  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:03 am

        Naa, Lynn… That would be an insult to rednecks.
        I think the flow charts may be “how to pave a road with bad intentions”… An attempt to see if the corollary of the old axiom is true.
        Love, Andrew

        Reply
      • 38. Joe  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:12 am

        If you feel terrorized, then the terrorists have won.

        Reply
    • 39. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm

      One of the flowcharts was titled ” ‘Civil Rights’ Status for Sexual Minorities.’ ” Good lord, they’re recognising us now as a groupo of minorities yet they STILL do not want us to have equal rights and equal protection under the laws! Instead, they want us subject to their toleration, which they can withdraw at any time. And we all know their end design is to get rid of us, completely.

      George Washington on toleration (to the Touro Synagogue in Newport RI, ca. 1790):

      “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

      We deserve no less. Enough of toleration! RESTORE OUR ALIENATED RIGHTS!

      Reply
  • 40. Bolt  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Bigot perverts need to get a life!

    Reply
  • 41. Sheryl Carver  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    My favorite line from the Mother Jones article was regarding the dilemma the evangelicals faced when their threat to boycott CPAC over GOProud’s participation didn’t work:

    “As it turned out, politics trumped God.”

    Reply
    • 42. Joe  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:22 am

      A strange voice inside their head said we’re people (and Americans) too!

      Reply
  • 43. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    I noticed at least one of the speakers, called us “Homosexuals”, rather than the currently accepted term, Gay or Lesbian. I also agree with Julia’s article in the sense we have been serving in the military for years. In the small community in California, where I live, there is a Naval Air Weapons station, where they make bombs and develop weapons to be used in war. About 3 years ago, I met a man, who is now retired from Navy intelligence, who lives here. He is also gay. We had two dates, but I ended it, when he abruptly told me, he felt like everyone was staring at us because of the way I was dressed, when we would have lunch at a local restaurant. He had a long and distinguished career in the Navy and served the entire time living in the closet. To believe we are not in the military does a grave disservice to all gays and lesbians, who have served in the military. <3 David

    Reply
  • 44. Michelle Evans  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:38 am

    And don’t forget all us transgender people who also served. Seven years in the US Air Force on nuclear missiles. By the reasoning of these idiots about us LGBT folks being a danger to America, I guess I should have tried to light one of those puppies off instead of doing my job!

    Reply
  • 45. Msgr Scott West  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Actually I think God trumped politics… there is nothing Christian about bigotry or lying- both of these are required in order to hold up the right wing agenda; it has nothing to do with God.

    I would like to say that when I was in the barracks with 48 other men in basic training, I only thought of my sore feet, when the next meal would be, and how much sleep that I would get.

    Reply
    • 46. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:05 am

      On a related note, did you see the uproar over GOProud at the bottom of the article? Apparently, politics instead trumps God.

      Several of the right-wing religious fanatic groups were threatening to pull out of CPAC because GOProud was a co-sponsor. CPAC called their bluff, and the religious groups stayed in. Glad to see the religious right can stick to their morals…

      On an even funnier note, I love how NOM’s booth was only 1 away from GOProud’s booth. I bet ‘ol Mags was wringing her hands the entire time.

      Reply
    • 47. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 20, 2010 at 7:33 pm

      Hello, Msgr West. I for one have missed you! glad to see that you are alright and still with us. And when I was in USN basic training in a barracks with 79 other men, other than those things you mentioned above, all I could think about was the next cup of coffee–and we all know how strong boot camp coffee is. Well, no, there was one other thing–how to balance getting my studies done and still have time to write home.

      Reply
  • 48. Michelle Evans  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:01 am

    One clarification about the remarks by the retired Admiral. He was not talking about the 19th century (1800s) but said “in the late 1900s” which means 15-20 years ago (1990s).

    It’s funny how he talks about having the Navy clean up its act (in relation to gays) but neglects to talk about all those hetero sailors running around gang raping women at Navy functions like Tailhook!

    Reply
    • 49. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:47 am

      Or the stereotype of “naval shore leave”….

      Those guys who go out, have sex with random women from port to port, get diseases from said women, and spread them to others in other ports. The diseases and “rampant” sex are deteriorating their effectiveness as soldiers.

      Reply
      • 50. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:53 am

        Not that much of a stereotype. The “Three Rivers Rule” was well known to those of us who traveled on business for the DoD. (“If there are three rivers between me and my wife, I’m not cheating …”)

        Love,
        Fiona (who dated a sailor or two in her day … and was even engaged to a couple, but not at the same time)

        Reply
  • 51. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:13 am

    http://www.inlookout.com/2010/01/28/anti-gay-cartoon-triggers-protest-by-notre-dame-students-faculty/

    Wow, how did this one slip by my radar? Anti-glbt comic in the school newspaper? Well, I wonder what one of America’s most prestigious universities would print in their paper that so many found offensive…

    “What is the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?”
    “No idea.”
    “A baseball bat.”

    Pardon my french, but that’s just !@#$ing classy.

    Reply
    • 52. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:20 am

      http://monster-blue.blogspot.com/2010/01/stand-against-bashing.html

      Here’s the original comic the students wanted to put in the paper.

      Sickening.

      Reply
      • 53. Marlene Bomer  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:06 am

        Updating that debacle, the cartoonist was fired, and the cartoon page editor resigned.

        The paper received numerous responses, in protest. But coming from Notre Dame University, it’s typical seeing the head of the church IS a tyrant and a dictator who is complicit in hiding accused pedophiles.

        Reply
      • 54. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:29 am

        Great, I am happy to hear that Notre Dame is making progress albeit slow. Still change does not happen at the speed of light in most of the world. That said, I am wondering how the cartoon passed a review to make its way into the publication in the first place.

        Reply
    • 55. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:44 am

      The original joke was to read as follows:

      “What is the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?”
      “No idea.”
      “AIDS.”

      That’s true, by the way. You can look it up. The original ‘punch line’ was AIDS.

      But they thought THAT was in bad taste.

      This is why heterosexuals assuming moral superiority makes me want to vomit in their face. Who on this planet is more immoral than heterosexuals??? Who???

      Reply
      • 56. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:50 am

        Who on this planet is more immoral than haterosexulas??? Who???

        Ummmm…..Clowns?…..I don’t know why….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 57. PDXAndrew  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:08 am

        Eeek! What about… Wait for it… Shudder in terror…

        HATEROSEXUAL CLOWNS!!!!!!

        Reply
      • 58. Joe  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:17 am

        And that’s why AIDS is predominately a HETEROSEXUAL disease, because they assume it’s who you have sex with, not the fact you’re having unprotected sec, right?

        Reply
  • 59. Mike  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:04 am

    I decided to verify the statement by a retired Admiral that homosexuality was “rampant in the 19th century Navy”….

    After opening hundreds of Googled links…The ONLY evidence I found was this:

    http://www.boat-links.com/Old-Navy/oldnavy-04.html

    A pair of sailors in front of a sewing machine making clothing.

    This is “true” evidence of rampant homosexuality in our Navy !!!

    Our young boys subjected to “sewing” and “making garmets”….Thanks God-All-Mighty…..that our Country’s Navy was able to rid itself of this plague of homosexuals…all those “Project Runway Heidi Klun-wanna-bes” !!!! (….yeah right !…..bunch of bullshit from an old-fart)

    Reply
  • 60. Mike  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:07 am

    Among all those Google links….I found this image:

    It made me pause, reflect, and cry.

    Is this CPAC’s objective ?

    Reply
    • 61. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:18 am

      Thanks, Mike for the link. I don’t know what CPAC’s objective is, however from my perspective they are so outside the box, when it comes to reality they would need a lighthouse just to find their base.

      Reply
    • 62. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:45 am

      CPAC’s objective is much more sinister.

      Reply
  • 63. dieter  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:21 am

    Sing along for today:

    Reply
    • 64. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:06 am

      As my husand the rabbi says–Leave it to the Jews to call the radical goyim on their BS, And Shelly and her group do a wonderful job of that! Bravo, dieter!♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

      Reply
    • 65. Chief's Pea  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:15 am

      THAT was AWESOME!!! I will definitely forward this video on to sme friends!

      Reply
  • 66. Linda  |  February 19, 2010 at 6:47 am

    Brilliant!!!
    http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93399?fp=1

    Reply
    • 67. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:53 am

      Haha Google’s competitor has a “Buzz” section.

      Reply
  • 68. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Federal appeals court orders state to put both gay parents’ names on birth certificate

    “In 2006, Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith adopted their child in New York, where unmarried couples can legally adopt. The child was born in Louisiana, and the state refused to issue a birth certificate naming both fathers. The appeals court held that Louisiana is required to give full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree, upholding the judgment of the district court.”

    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/02/federal-appeals-court-orders-state-to.php

    Reply
    • 69. Linda  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:36 am

      Good news! Thanks for posting!

      Reply
    • 70. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:55 am

      Yes, thanx for posting this – it is indeed good news. <3 David

      Reply
    • 71. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:17 am

      That is really good news…a birth certificate is one of the most important things for a persons identity…Its a really long story so I won’t go into it…but when my half-sister found out that her step mother wasn’t her mother and the she and her father(my mothers first opposite gender procreator) kidnapped her and out brother…she spiraled out of control….and that result was that it is next to impossible for her to have children…I am happy that these Fathers can finally have some peace….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
  • 72. David from Sandy UT  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Real conservatives believe in limited government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. The ONLY purpose of government is to make sure that every citizen has an opportunity to achieve her or his own form of happiness, whatever that may be, so long as they do no harm to other individuals.

    The horse-excrement-spewing idiots who call themselves political conservatives are in fact the exact opposite. These scum-sucking bigots do not care about individual liberty. All they care about is political power, forcing their religionist bigotry on the rest of society, and obtaining and maintaining control of the sheeple (people who act like a flock of sheep) by using illogical, irrational, fear-mongering lies.

    The late Senator Goldwater spins in his grave every time one of these scum suckers goes on camera. No real conservative can listed to their c.r.a.p. without wanting to PUKE.

    Reply
    • 73. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:53 am

      Oh, but David from Sandy UT, as we all know the ruling reich from Utardia has an agenda, too, lest we forget their involvement in PropH8. <3 David

      Reply
    • 74. Andrea  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:22 am

      *clap* *clap* *clap*
      Bravo, Dave from Sandy!

      Real conservatives believe in limited government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. ….
      The horse-excrement-spewing idiots who call themselves political conservatives are in fact the exact opposite.

      CPAC == Commies Posing As Conservatives

      Reply
      • 75. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:32 am

        bwaaaaa…..CPAC= Commies Posing As Conservatives……….hehehehe…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 76. PDXAndrew  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:13 am

        Ahh… I’ve been trying to figure out what CPAC stood for… I mean the letters… We know what the organization stands for.
        I thought it was Corrupt Politicians Against Change

        Reply
      • 77. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:15 am

        Thanx, I need the laugh this morning! <3 David

        Reply
      • 78. Andrea  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:52 am

        @PDXAndrew:

        Oh, these “Conservatives” are all about Change.
        The “Change” is a “Cultural Revolution” by Stalinist methodology.

        For proof, what did Proposition 8 do? It took a private personal right (our most cherished form of wealth), and transferred that private wealth to state ownership, to be doled it back out as a privilege to a politically favored class. That is straight-up Marxism right there.

        Reply
      • 79. Linda  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:02 am

        Andrea–I love your take on things!
        CPAC=Christians Posing As Compassionate

        I see the Republican party as having been taken over by Neo-Fascists, who firmly believe that America is a Christian nation, and therefore our Constitution should be rewritten to impose Christian doctrine on everyone. This is ‘God’s work’, and if they don’t succeed….well, God’s going to destroy America! They see this as a holy war, and this excites them! They LOVE having a justifiable reason to hate someone; it gives them an outlet for all their pent-up emotion.

        And, quite frankly, if you’re NOT a Christian (according to them) then you’re not really American. AND…they will allow you the privilege of having your own opinions, but you’re going to live according to their doctrine! They want a republic for them, but a democracy for everyone who doesn’t agree with them. That way they can have their individual freedoms while controlling ours.

        It’s Fascism, which is one step away from Naziism.

        Love,
        Linda

        Reply
      • 80. Andrea  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:53 am

        Thanks, Linda!

        Interesting that you mention Fascism, because Fascism and Communism are functionally identical. Both ways, you end up with the government and industry insider class ruling by fiat, privatizing the profit for themselves and socializing the losses. For everyone else inside the affected country, those who do the work and pay the taxes to cover the losses, it scarcely matters which technically “owns” which on paper. It’s just two whiskey bottles with different labels, both empty.

        Love, Andrea

        Reply
      • 81. David from Sandy UT  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:43 am

        Linda wrote (February 19, 2010 at 10:02 am)
        I see the Republican party as having been taken over by Neo-Fascists, who firmly believe that America is a Christian nation, and therefore our Constitution should be rewritten to impose Christian doctrine on everyone.

        – – – – – – –

        To be fair, there are many, many Christians who do not want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society. The ones you describe may call themselves Christians but the correct collective, descriptive name for these individuals would be ‘bigots’

        Real Christians do not “bear false witness.” The religionist bigots you describe use illogical, irrational fear-mongering LIES to push their agenda.

        Real Christians believe in and actually follow The Golden Rule. Religionist bigots cause real, substantial, serious emotional and financial harm to our fellow citizens by imposing unnecessary restrictions on personal freedoms or by denying others the benefits and protections that they themselves enjoy.

        Religionist bigots do not really care about religious beliefs. They may pay lip service to these beliefs, but in the end, religion is just an excuse to dominate and control the people who are not exactly like themselves. These individuals are so insecure that any visible difference or assumed difference makes them crawl-up-a-wall uncomfortable. They absolutely do not care about families or children. When it comes to LGBTQ issues, religionist bigots ONLY care about where a man sticks his penis.

        Reply
      • 82. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:54 am

        David from Sandy, while I agree with a lot of your points, you’re starting to get into No True Scotsman territory with your “real Christians” idea. Whatever your personal beliefs, those bigots represent a significant portion of the religion (most Christians oppose gay marriage at least on a personal level, and the ones that actively work against it are still a sizable minority). They are not isolated incidents, and clearly use faith as their motivation. You may not think they are real Christians, but a lot of people do.

        Reply
      • 83. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:17 pm

        CPAC == Charlatans Posing As Christians

        These liars, bigots and hatemongers conveniently forget that the two greatest commandments deal with LOVE. All the rest is commentary.

        Reply
  • 84. Kalibra  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:01 am

    First off, let me just say i’m not a “libra” as many people assume…its just a nickname. I’m a 32 yr old guy partnered with a wonderful guy going on for four years. Every morning i wake up to check all news that is gay related, and frequently hit NOM’s website as well. what i find interesting is that there have been no new updates on their site, not even mentioning magpie’s (i think that’s Ronnie’s pet name for her) debate at the CATO institute. Why the omission? She can spout it, but decline to let her minions know what she’s up to? Anyway, long time reader, first time poster. take care everyone.
    Ed

    Reply
    • 85. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:08 am

      I call her Haggie……lol……but anyway yeah they don’t want their minions to know what they are up too….like this whole I have Gay people working for me c@p…..Ok I going to admit that there are some LGBTQQI people who maybe don’t want to get married or don’t believe in marriage(not a Gay thing just something that all types of people believe)……But realistically speaking there is not one openly LGBTQQI person that woould work with somebody who talks about LGBTQQI people the way Haggie does…Just another lie that the Bigots use to gain sympathy….it never works…and is always debunked…….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 86. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:19 am

      For anyone who missed it, last night, Rachel Maddow had an excellent story on the CPAC institute and opined considerably about GOP and their agenda – it is extremely funny.
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35470993
      <3 David

      Reply
      • 87. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:29 am

        Thanks David,

        That was eye opening :o

        Reply
      • 88. David Kimble  |  February 20, 2010 at 9:40 am

        You are welcome, Billy! <3 David

        Reply
    • 89. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:34 am

      Welcome, Ed!

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 90. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:11 am

      Actually, Kalibra, I am the one who started calling her Magpie. That is because she spouts what she hears without bverification of factuality and veracity, just like a magpie bird. The first time I called her that, my husband lost two-thirds of his Coca-Cola all over the window, because he just spewed with laughter.

      Reply
      • 91. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:20 am

        Maybe Haggie is a distant evolutionary relative of the sitta pygmaya?…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
  • 92. Alyssa  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:12 am

    My favorite statement from that press conference is when Tony Perkins states that the approx 60% of Americans who favor allowing homosexuals to serve in the military don’t know what they’re talking about. But of course those who voted prop 8 into law know absolutely everything about the situation, enough to change the states constitution.

    These people sicken me with their double standards.

    Reply
    • 93. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:10 pm

      Tony Perkins is the same dude who talked about his days in the military. Showering with 80 different men.

      I would point out to Tony that his anus, as far as he has disclosed, was not raped during any of his 80-men showers wherein, statistically, 5 to 8 gay men were showering with him.

      But I guess math and statistics and reality would be lost on him.

      However, I encourage everyone to do a bit of research on Tony Perkins. He is an important bigot to be aware of. I believe I read somewhere that he has 2 gay siblings, too.

      What a gentle, loving, Christ-like citizen, that Tony Perkins, huh????

      Reply
      • 94. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:35 pm

        I wonder about Tony Perkins’ feelings of security in his own sexuality. And no, he’s not gay in the least or that’s what my gaydar says.

        Reply
  • 95. Marlene Bomer  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:15 am

    C-SPAN of course is dutifully covering the conference, but I just can’t stomach listening to a bunch of conservatives spew that America’s better off with little regulation, knowing Bush’s near-libertarian acts nearly bankrupted the country and put us into another great depression!

    Reply
    • 96. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:35 am

      I have absolutely no use for big-l Libertarians or Randian “Objectivists” anymore. Small-l libertarians get that there are real people on the other side of Galt’s Gulch who could be hurt, and make efforts not to do so.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 97. Kalibra  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:18 am

    or “haggie” saying that she’s got gay people working for her, but she wont out them as it would limit their dates, or dating potential, she doesn’t want to “out” them….So its like saying….see? i have the facts but i’m not going to show u the facts….these people intrigue and infuriate me at the same time.
    btw, have any of u guys ever listened to irvin baxter’s religious talk show “politics and religion”? its a riot….(caution….u will get aggravated) talk about preeching to the sheeple…..(people are sheep)
    Ed

    Reply
    • 98. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:22 am

      In in that satement she is saying that she want them to be ably to date…..so what is it Haggie do you support LGBTQQI people or not?……She’s a FOOL!!!!…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 99. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:37 pm

        She’s probably one of those women who think that if same-sex marriage were legal, all men would turn gay!

        Reply
  • 100. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:29 am

    It is simply despicable that these bigots are allowed to say the things they say about us publicly.

    They look like the fools the undoubtedly are.

    But still, that these folks stand there and slander us, degrade us, and outright publicly lie about us, and that our fellow citizens ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN makes me want to puke.

    and do not forget…

    SILENCE = CONSENT.

    Reply
  • 101. Kalibra  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:42 am

    oh but don’t u see? haggie’s not a bigot….she said she wasn’t, so u know its true. she says we are intolerant of her, making her out to be the evil one, and that’s totally unfounded.
    woe is me…woe is me…

    Reply
    • 102. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:48 am

      I am playing the worlds smallest violin for her….hehehe….lol….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 103. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:21 am

      Oh, puh-leeze, Mary Louise! Magpie can claim she is not a bigot all she damn well pleases, it will not change the facts. Somebody once said that just because you call a kitten a biscuit does not mean that you put the kitten in the oven, and this applies to Magpie. Just because she says with her mouth that she is not a bigot, her actions are screaming so loudly that she is that I can’t hear anything else she is saying!

      Reply
  • 104. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 8:54 am

    I wanted everybody’s O.P…..I want to put a video together with some of the pics from the “No H8” campaign….I was thinking of using the cast of “Glee” version of “No Air”….what do you think?…or do you have any suggestions?……<3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 105. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:10 am

      Sounds like it would be a hoot! Go for it! <3 David

      Reply
  • 106. Kalibra  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:06 am

    this all kind of reminds me of something that happened in either 1990 or 91, I think in Minnesota. (one of the northern M states). This lady was appalled by the show “married with children” that her children were watching. she caused so much fanfare and publicity for the show through her pursuit to get it canceled that the shows ratings skyrocketed. easier solution? change the freakin channel.
    easy solution with Haggie and gay marriage? dont get one.
    why are the best solutions the easiest and most obvious ones? Of course, after gay marriage is legal (and we all know it will be, one day) whatever will she do for an income? (Don’t know if I’m right in this, but it kind of seems that deep down she knows what she is doing is wrong, but she is too far involved to be able to pull herself out).
    Ed

    Reply
  • 107. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Ironic statement of the day:

    David Keene @1:25
    “Folks who don’t know much about the economy are telling us how to rearrange the economy. Folks who don’t know much about medical care are telling us how we ought to reorder the health care industry in this country. And folks who don’t know very much about the way the military operates or what is good or bad for it are telling us how the military ought to be run.”

    Isn’t this exactly what Republicans and Faux News is doing to the conservative base too?

    Reply
    • 108. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:45 am

      How about Folks who don’t know much about being LGBTQQIA are telling us how we live our lives. Folks who don’t know much about coming out are telling us how we chose to be discriminated against, bashed, and in some cases murdered. And Folks who don’t know much about how the universe, Earth, life, and the unknown works and came to be or what is good or bad for the planet and everything that makes it beautiful telling people they know what is good or bad and how everything is suppose to work..yeah because they were there when the beginning of life began….They are FOOLS!!!!….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
    • 109. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm

      Yeah, ’cause Admiral Mullen, JCS, doesn’t know jack about how the military ought to be run …

      /sarcasm

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 110. B&E  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:43 am

    I am always amazed at how ignorant the h8rs are. Check out this logical disertation as to why this is not a civil rights issue from this genius.

    http://tinyurl.com/yjabtlq

    The writer is asking for better arguments for gay marriage. I’d say there are enough smart people here to come up with just a few.

    Much Love!
    E

    Reply
    • 111. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:53 am

      I stopped reading after response 1…the writer basically says that LGBTQQI people are not Human(not in those exact words)….but yeah…..Keyboard meet head…..BOAW!!!…..BOAW!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 112. Michelle Evans  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:25 am

        The author of this site is actually trying to send the message that he is, in fact, gay himself! This is obvious from the background color used on the site of purple. We all know that purple is the color of the gay Teletubbie… :-)

        Reply
      • 113. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:36 am

        As one of my cousins oldest son said when he was 5…”Tinky Winky’s not Gay, it’s his magical bag…..you’re a homophone”….5………5!!!!….he was 5 and he knew about being gay….hehehe….He is 14 now…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 114. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:05 pm

        I tried reading his refutations and could not make sense of them and got a brain cramp trying. Unless he’s trying to conserve his intellect, this “intellectual conservatism” is neither intellectual nor conservative.

        Reply
    • 115. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:08 am

      When he tried to make the point that a majority of the arguments against SSM are “neither here nor there,” as if it doesn’t matter, then he’s not taking into account that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

      Reply
      • 116. David from Sandy UT  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:05 pm

        Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah) the sheeple absolutely cannot understand First Amendment freedoms.

        First Amendment Freedom of Religion does not include Freedom From Criticism when your religious organization engages in political activity that hurts our fellow citizens.

        First Amendment Freedom of Religion does not mean that individuals can impose their narrow-minded religious values on the rest of society even when they comprise a majority of voters. They say, “We have the right and the moral duty to use a political process to stand up for what we believe.” Horse excrement! These bigots are reall, really stooopid: NO religious belief justifies hurting other people.

        Here in Utardia, Freedom of Religion is a big fluffy deal, except that the religionist bigots do not have the intellectual capacity to understand that political activity like Utah Amendment 3 and Calif. Prop. 8 are a DE FACTO Establishment of Religion (technically, the Establishment of one narrow-minded religious doctrine) preventing the free exercise of religion by other individuals.

        The late Mr. Rogers would ask, “Can you say ‘hypocrite’? Yes, I know you can!”

        David

        Reply
    • 117. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:18 am

      I know I can come up with many arguments in favor of marriage equality without batting an eye. In fact, lie most of the folks on this site, I could probably come up with them in my sleep. Who wants to come and take notes? Sorry to ask that, but unfortunately, my multitasking abilities do not extend to writing while I am talking in my sleep. LOL

      Reply
    • 118. PDXAndrew  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:33 am

      Look at the title of his website…Isn’t “intellectual conservative” an onymoron? Or just a moron?

      Love, Andrew

      Reply
    • 119. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:59 am

      His college degree is in religious studies.

      ’nuff said.

      Reply
    • 120. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:39 am

      I’m not even wasting my time on this trash. Let him wallow in his own “intellectual conservative” (oxymoron) filth.

      Reply
    • 121. Chief's Pea  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:20 pm

      The page comes up a big lavender blank!!! “Is it justme, or was the site diabled?

      *
      <3 Pea

      Reply
      • 122. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:22 pm

        Works fine for me. Try reloading the page, clearing the cache, all the standard troubleshooting steps.

        Reply
    • 123. Dave T  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:52 pm

      I got through about half of it. He’s dressing up the standard arguments in big words.

      For example, his response to argument 1 boils down to “LGBT people claim they have the right to marry. The right to marry is restricted by law to (among other things) people of opposite genders. Therefore LGBT people have to prove they have the right to marry.” He’s mixing up rights and legal limits to those rights. You have the right to free speech, but there are legal limits to that right (ie. libel & slander laws, copyright & trademark law).

      Maybe I’ll go through the rest later. I’m at work now & probably shouldn’t devote much time to this crap.

      Reply
  • 124. Bolt  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Religious opponents of gay equality are perverts! They sexualize everything. They will say and do anything to keep their deliberate hate alive!

    Reply
  • 125. Michelle Evans  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:28 am

    After Brian Brown of NOM blamed the LGBT community for the Catholic adoption agency pulling out of Washington DC over gay marriage, I decided to drop him a note. I know he’ll probably never even read it, but I couldn’t resist. The note I sent to him is below:

    Mr. Brown,

    I understand that you are upset concerning the decision of the Catholic adoption agency to shut down its work in Washington, D.C. over the decision to grant gay marriage rights in the district.

    One thing that must be remembered here is that it is the Catholics who made the decision to stop offering their services. They are the ones who pulled out. They could have remained doing the business of helping children, but instead have chosen to make these children pay because of their hatred of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. You cannot blame, as they cannot blame, these people for the decision of the Catholics. The Catholics did it themselves. The LGBT people are simply trying to do what they have to do to be considered as human beings and full citizens of this country. If some religious groups are intolerant and use that as an excuse to no longer do their good work, they have no one to blame but themselves.

    Their reaction is similar to a man holding a gun on someone and threatening to kill them if a third party does not do something the gunman wants. If the gunman then shoots the person and kills them the gunman uses the excuse of “you made me do it,” when in fact it is not the third person’s fault, it is instead the sole responsibility of the gunman that he is the one who pulled the trigger.

    Those in the LGBT community want to live at peace with everyone else. They are not foisting their viewpoint on anyone who does not want it, anymore than people in other religions are forcing you to accept theirs. They have the religious freedom granted everyone in this country, as do you, and as do everyone in the LGBT community. Why would you feel it is right to deny a segment of our population their basic civil rights, and then to blame them for your lack of tolerance?

    Take care,

    Michelle Evans

    Reply
    • 126. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:39 am

      I have one thing to add to that Michelle….How Catholic and god like of them….I thought religion is suppose to be about doing good in gods name….these poor kids…they are nothing pawns caught in the middle of a 21st century holy war…..<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 127. Michelle Evans  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:53 am

        This was sort of like the idea used by Hussein in Iraq of the Human Shields. Put some innocent person between you and the gun instead of facing what must be faced head on, then blame the other person if someone gets hurt.

        All of us in the LGBT community are used daily as the pawns of the religious right as they trot us out to be an example of what “sin” is all about. Frankly, I can’t imagine a better example of real and true sin than those in the church who spout their hatred toward us every day.

        Reply
      • 128. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:19 pm

        As I said in another post, Michelle, these ‘Christians’ fail to see that the only person treated as badly as LGTB citizens was Jesus Christ himself.

        Reply
  • 129. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:36 am

    This opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson is really worth reading:
    “Indecent Proposal: There will be legal hell to pay if the court does not strike down Prop 8”

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/2/10/marriage-court-v-8/

    Reply
    • 130. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:48 am

      The writer hit it right on the nose….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
  • 131. JimiG  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Bible verse,
    As a Pastor with an MDIV from on of the nations leading Seminaries I have a few comments.
    First, never except someones idea of what scripture says without reading the full story. By itself one verse can be used to point out the wrong thing and easily misleading and often misused. Second, using old testaments to make a statement especially just one verse is very difficult and shows a lack of educational training and biblical knowledge. Third an argument can always be make that Jesus shows us that the most important of all is Love. Anytime anyone refuses to support a claim or statement using old testament and can’t support the same thought with new testament or fully understanding Jesus message they most likely are missing the point.

    Last point the verse itself holds little support with out the story surrounding it today’s 2 Kings 23-25, for the life of me I have no idea why this person would even post this verse.

    Side note I have always found the number 42 fascinating, one because I am a fan of Douglas Adams and second it is the number (old count) of decedents leading up to Jesus.

    For my bible buddy please start with Matthew 6:5, please read the whole thing but since you just like to throw around verse start with Matt 6:5

    Reply
    • 132. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:40 pm

      Descendants of David through Joseph, because if God did it, then he doesn’t have the DNA from Joseph and David.

      Reply
  • 133. Rightthingtodo TX  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:03 am

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/02/19/the-failed-case-for-gay-marriage/

    Does anyone want to tackle this? I started crying, yelling and otherwise popping blood vessels reading it. Plus I’m not nearly as smart as fiona64, etc.

    Reply
    • 134. Andrea  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:41 am

      They admit that marriage equality is the existing status quo every time they threaten to change the constitution to take it away. QED

      And how can they drown government in a bathtub when the government is in the bedroom? There’s no bathtub there!

      Love, Andrea

      Reply
      • 135. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:43 am

        Maybe they have a waterbed?….hehehe……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 136. PDXAndrew  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        Lol, Ronnie. I can always count on you to make me laugh :) thanks!
        Live,
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 137. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:43 pm

        no problem….lol….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
    • 138. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:21 pm

      I really love how these ‘conservative’ web sites always look like the were designed by a blind 9 year old.

      Reply
    • 139. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:45 pm

      I could only take so much “stupid” at a time.

      The excellent Olsen/Boies “Conservative Argument for Gay Marriage” article, and this one: http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=35 need to be sent to the author of the blog. I am not able to do so at this time.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 140. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      Oh, quelle surprise. I can’t comment because there is no option to do so.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 141. David from Sandy UT  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:29 pm

      My response (which may or may not be accepted for posting by the blog moderator):

      I cannot comprehend how a so-called intellectual conservative could advocate for government control over such an important and deeply personal decision making process. Do you want the government to tell you which bread you can buy? What automobile you can drive? What TV programs or movies you can see? No? Then what makes you think that anyone wants the government to decide who we can or cannot marry?

      First, let’s firmly establish that there are two distinct definitions for the word ‘marriage.’ Some individuals believe that a ‘marriage’ is a religious ceremony with significant religious meaning. Individuals are welcome to this belief. The word ‘marriage’ has religious significance only for those specific individuals who want there to be a connection between the common, English-language word ‘marriage’ and their religion. Other individuals, especially those with no particular religious belief, may have strong opinions about marriage, but these opinions may or may not have any connection to a specific religious practice, ceremony, doctrine, or belief.

      In a completely separate context, we use the word ‘marriage’ as the collective term for specific, secular, government-granted benefits, protections, and responsibilities. We do not live in a theocracy. These benefits and protections (as defined by modern legal practice) are completely independent of any religious doctrine or belief.

      Religious individuals and organizations are welcome to perform religious ceremonies for anyone or to exclude individuals from their religious ceremonies as they prefer. My comment has nothing to do with religious freedoms.

      On the other hand, equal protection before the law is an ethical and constitutional issue.

      In the Old Segregationist South, marriage laws could be summarized as follows:

      1. Be at or above the appropriate age.
      2. Be able to understand the responsibilities of marriage.
      3. Be in love with someone of your own race.

      Interracial marriage was prohibited because of religious beliefs concerning race and an immoral philosophy called eugenics, specifically that intermarriage of the “dark and loathsome” races with the “white and delightsome” race would harm the superior, white race. (Ask a Mormon about the significance of these specific terms.)

      Many people were happy with this law. The law did not impact their choice. For these individuals, the same-race requirement was moot. The impact of the law was significant only for the minority of people who wanted to marry a person of a different race.

      Even though the law was the same for all couples, the impact was not the same. Not all individuals were treated equally because the impact of the law was not exactly the same for all couples.

      Can you see where we are headed?

      Here in Utardia—The Pretty Hate State (a.k.a. Utah), current marriage laws can be summarized as follows:

      1. Be at or above the appropriate age.
      2. Be able to understand the responsibilities of marriage.
      3. Be in love with someone with a different gender.

      Same-gender marriage is prohibited because of an immoral philosophy called, “My religious leaders say that society will go to Hell in a hand basket if we allow ‘the gays’ the same secular benefits that many of us now enjoy.” (Or other reasons that are illogical, fear-mongering, or just plain stooopid.)

      Many people are happy with this law. The law does not impact their choice. For these individuals, the different-gender requirement is moot. The impact of the law is significant only for the minority of people who want to marry a same-gender person.

      Back to my original question. Do you want to government to decide who you can or cannot love?

      Are you willing to allow the government to decide who you can marry based on the belief that some people are inferior because of the color of their skin?

      Except for a few slime-sucking racists, every intelligent adult recognizes that the government has no business deciding which marriages are “appropriate” based on skin pigmentation.

      Why then do so-called conservatives believe that government should decide which marriages are “appropriate” based on gender?

      The answer has nothing to do with children. The government grants the secular benefits of ‘marriage’ to individuals regardless of their ability or intent to have children.

      The answer has nothing to do with tradition. people who state that heterosexual marriage is a long-established tradition fail to realize that slavery and the subjugation of women and children were long-established traditions for most of the same period of time. Women no longer are treated as personal property. Some people see the breaking of long-established tradition as absolutely necessary when our inner sense of right and wrong tell us to do so.

      Many of us, religious and not-particularly-religious alike, follow The Golden Rule—Treat other people the way you want to be treated. Every major world religion and every major world culture includes some form of The Golden Rule in its teachings. Can you go to a local government office, fill our a brief form, pay a small fee, participate in a simple ceremony (or a really elaborate and expensive one if you prefer—which may or may not be performed in a religious context, again depending only on the preferences of the individuals involved), and receive a secular, government-issued piece of paper that instantly grants emotional and financial benefits to the person you love? Why do you deny your neighbor the same opportunity?

      David
      Sandy UT

      Reply
      • 142. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm

        Regarding your point about most people not caring because it doesn’t affect them:

        H8ers like to point out that the majority of people in California voted for Prop H8. They, of course, fail to take into account the sizable portion of the electorate that didn’t vote either way. The fact that they didn’t vote against it can mostly be attributed to their lack of any stake in the issue, but the fact that they didn’t vote for it means that they didn’t fear the status quo. So what the numbers really say is that the majority of Californians are not worried enough about gay marriage to institutionalize discrimination. A lot of people only vote for issues that concern them, and in this case they realized that other people’s relationships don’t concern them.

        Reply
    • 143. Chief's Pea  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:33 pm

      I tackled it…… I thouht I did pretty good, considering the anger, frustration, tears and shaking….
      **pats meself upon me widdle head**

      Deb M

      Reply
  • 144. Deborah  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    I’m late to this thread and pushed for time today, but had to offer my two cents on the CPAC acronym:

    Christians Panicking About Change
    Cro-Magnon Policies Against Compassion
    Crass People Assuming Chaos
    Conservatives Playing Another Congame

    C’mon, everybody play!

    Reply
  • 145. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    Can Penis/Anus Copulate?

    Reply
  • 146. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    I’ve gor a few……<3…Ronnie:

    Common Organisms Practicing Communism
    Conservatives Oppressing People Comfortably
    Controlling Other Peoples Children

    Reply
    • 147. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      hehehe…..wait wrong letters..still works though…but here are the good ones…<3…Ronnie

      Common People Accepting Communism
      Conservative Pods Alienating Children.

      Thats all I got for now

      Reply
    • 149. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:09 pm

      I love the sidebar: “The Catholic Medical Association Refutes the Myth that Homosexuality is Genetic.” No chance of bias there, eh? Also, “If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions.” Apparently they’ve never heard of nature vs. nurture. There’s a little thing called epigenetics throwing a wrench into that reasoning.

      Reply
      • 150. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm

        “Also, during wartime, men are in continual contact with each other’s blood. Therefore, the well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be perceived as a risk rather than an asset to unit survival.

        This increased disease rate should not be underestimated…”

        Are they suggesting that closeted gays are less likely to spread STDs than open ones? Because that’s what it sounds like to me.

        Reply
      • 151. PDXAndrew  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:24 pm

        No, John. They’re explicity saying that AIDS is a gay-only disease. Apparently haterosexuals are immune.

        Reply
      • 152. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:25 pm

        No, the impression I got was “if gays are open, they’ll give everyone AIDS.”

        Reply
      • 153. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:47 pm

        And their argument for why Canada and England somehow don’t count seems tautological to me. It boils down to “they treat gays better because they treat gays better.”

        Reply
      • 154. Bill  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:56 pm

        Heterosexuals comprise 80% of all HIV/AIDS cases worldwide.

        It stands to reason that HETEROSEXUALITY is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than is ‘teh gay.’

        Reply
      • 155. David from Sandy UT  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:05 pm

        Why do stooopid people assume that human sexuality can be explained by something as simple and easy to understand as human genetics? [smirk] Identical heterosexual twins do not always have identical preferences. One twin might prefer. . . well, let’s not discuss the details. Even though there is a proven genetic component to Type I diabetes, both individuals in a set of identical twins do not always express the gene and develop the disease.

        If there was NO biological component to explain the difference, identical twins would NEVER develop different preferences (because too many stooopid parents treat identical twins as if they were, well, identical and dress them in the same clothes, feed them the same food, give them the same toys, make them watch the same TV programs, take them to the same family activities, etc., etc., etc.) [double smirk]

        On the other hand, a group of unrelated horny frat boys each have an identical physiological response to watching porn. Clearly there must be a genetic component to their sexual preferences going back many, many, many generations because they have an identical response when watching the same movie.

        No one makes a BIG FLUFFY DEAL about when, where, or how guys and gals choose to be heterosexual. Why do religious bigots get their underwear in a knot if some individuals are just a tiny bit different?

        Reply
      • 156. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm

        Actually I know of a pair of Identical Twins who are gay…..Jacob & Joshua Millier….a.k.a…..Nemesis Rising….really good singers…and HOTTTT!!!! too…lol……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 157. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:11 pm

        Thats suppose to be Miller…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 158. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:31 pm

        Plus, something like 70% of twins where one is gay, the other is gay too. That’s a significant amount.

        Reply
      • 159. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 9:25 pm

        There is also the fact that if they are saying that, they are going againt the Catechism, which teaches taht being born homosexual is not a sin, but acting upon it is, and therefore, all homosexual members of the Church are called of God to remain celibate. How does a man who is in the process of conversion to reclaim his Jewish heritage know this? I was raised Protestant, converted to Catholic, and was a 3rd Degree Knigh of Columbus (please don’t hold that against me) and left the church after Prop 8, becuase ZI really could not stand to see how those who called me their “brother” were fighting to keep me from having the same rights they have. Then there was this Nazi who is pope, and his decision to venerate the pope who collaborated with the Nazis by his very silence.

        Reply
    • 160. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:40 pm

      That article isn’t taking into account that the religious pandering that has been going on in the armed forces is being cracked down on. Not everyone follows [generic] your specific view of religion, and proselytizing to other members and especially the foreign populations is a big No No today. See the Rifle sight bible-quoting as one example.

      Reply
    • 161. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:41 pm

      He also makes a great case for not having women as superiors:
      “No one can trust a leader nor can a leader trust a subordinate if he thinks there are sexual feelings just underneath the surface. It makes no difference if the individual is suppressing those feelings. It makes trust virtually impossible.”

      Reply
      • 162. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:45 pm

        The logical conclusion of this is that all professions need to be composed entirely of either one sex or asexuals. Obviously that’s completely impractical. So why make an exception for gays? (rhetorical question)

        Reply
      • 163. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:45 pm

        “For example: 36,513 enlisted personnel were removed during the same time period for having gained too much weight, 26,446 were removed for becoming pregnant”

        Again, another case he makes that could be used against women.

        Reply
      • 164. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:02 pm

        You know, it’s just another version of “OMG, I’m a man and a gay man will automatically want me because I have a stack and swivel.” Talk about an overinflated ego …

        Love,
        Fiona (who assumes that these types always believe that they are the gods’ gift to women as well …)

        Reply
      • 165. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        fiona, dear, the guys who think all the gays want them just because they are male have what I call PBS–Pretty boy Syndrome. They think EVERYBODY wants them because they think they are all that and a bag of cips, when in reality you would have more if you were holding the empty potato chip bag. They are so insecure about themselves that they have to invent an image of themselves that is irresistable. In the process, they simply make themselves repugnant.

        Reply
      • 166. Kathleen  |  February 21, 2010 at 9:37 pm

        I’m bi. So are we to assume that I find every adult I encounter irresistible? It’s absurd.

        Reply
    • 167. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:47 pm

      “In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual…We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.”

      Gag me with a fork please.

      Reply
      • 168. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:54 pm

        “in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law.”

        A blatantly obvious statement that they are trying to establish and force America into a one single (Christian, while using the others to push their agenda then go after them) national religion which is in FACT illegal…..debunked….PWND……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 169. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:56 pm

        WOW!!!! “In writing this statement we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone.” So are we to believe that all of the defamatory and disparaging comments that follow are not intentional?????

        Reply
      • 170. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:58 pm

        Traditional Christian morality also says that slavery is acceptable, arguably even praiseworthy. I do not accept Christian morality. Every good thing in it can be found in countless other societies throughout history (it doesn’t take a genius to realize that killing is bad, for example). In other words, I don’t give a damn.

        I suppose it’s ok, though. As long as they keep praying instead of actually doing anything productive, we have an advantage.

        Reply
      • 171. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:03 pm

        Kathleen, it’s like when my mother says “I’m not trying to tell you what to do, but …” where “but” is followed by her trying to tell me what to do. Or, “No offense, but …” followed by something offensive. It’s the “Hey, I said ‘ no offense’ …” defense, which allows for even more victim-blaming.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 172. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:06 pm

        I just can’t get over statement…….”in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law.”…..Why can’t the other religions see that they are being used….notice they do not mention Jewish morality, or Mormon, Buddhists, Hindu, Evangelical, Episcopalian, Islamic, Baptist, ect. ect. ect……enough said……<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 173. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:06 pm

        Other religions don’t matter, because this is a Christian nation! (never mind that it isn’t)

        Reply
      • 174. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:10 pm

        Well then somebody should let the incestuous Quakers know that the Reich is trying to take over the country…no doubt that they are on their list…<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 175. Andrea  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:10 pm

        these individuals …. who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole

        Sounds like the Vatican, Southern Baptists, and LDS to me.

        Pro-jec-tion…

        Reply
  • 176. RAY in MA  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    To David from Sandy UT,

    Christians who do not want to impose their beliefs on the rest of society…should distance themselves from Christians who DO WANT to impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

    Could it be that they lack the intelligence to do so? … it would be of great benefit to the survival of their religion if they did. By not doing so, they are an accomplice.

    Compassion for religion that overrides compassion for their fellow beings does not make Christian sense.

    Reply
    • 177. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:15 pm

      I’ve made this point before, actually (don’t remember if it was on here, though). Even if you do not support it, you are part of a system that does, and you support that system with your time and money. So, indirectly, you are still at fault. The only way to avoid this is to either change the system (like Martin Luther, but with less homophobia) or leave the system.

      Reply
    • 178. David from Sandy UT  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:38 pm

      Silence implies agreement.

      Your comment makes sense for compassionate Christians who follow their hearts rather than the doctrines of one specific organization.

      Here in Utardia, a large number of people believe that there is only One True Church. Every aspect of their life revolves around their participation in that organization. Any deviation from the norm results in severe emotional (and sometimes financial) punishment from friends and family even if there is no official action from the organization’s leaders. Criticism of the so-called prophet is considered a sure sign (and is almost the definition) of apostacy.

      Members of the Locally Dominant Sect who actually believe that their religious organization should follow Christian teachings like The Golden Rule have a choice: Remain silent—or—speak out and risk destroying important relationships with your spouse (yes, it happens), parents, children, friends, neighbors, co-workers, employer (yes, it happens), and every other individual with whom you have regular contact.

      Some Mormons in California were told that they could (emotionally and politically) support their LGBTQ children or follow the teachings of the Prophet, but there was no way to do both. No real Christian would dare suggest that parents make that choice.

      Surprisingly, there are LGBTQ Mormons. They are treated like excrement, but many feel strongly that they want to maintain their connection to the LDS organization. I don’t understand, but then it’s really none of my business.

      Reply
      • 179. RAY in MA  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:00 pm

        Sandy,

        I love your reference to your state (Utardia!) I, too, have a ‘rename’ for my state: ‘Massivetwotits’ (not political, just silly).

        I had a chance to move to SL City (buisiness) but I declined (didn’t even bother to ask my husband and pussy… cat, that is)

        Us ‘New Englanders’ tend to stay put…almost everyone I know who moved to CA eventually moved back… and I told them so!

        It would seem really strange to me to live place dominated by ‘those poeple’. I consider them sick and dillusional, and glad they are way over there, far away, but (regretably) in reality, they do have an impact on my daily personal life…proliferating a hurtful bias in all 50 states!

        Nice to chat with you.

        Reply
      • 180. RAY in MA  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:03 pm

        OOOPs!! That’s ‘DAVID’ instead Sandy … I ususally pay closer attention, but the subject matter here seems to overpower things a bit in here.

        Nice to meet you DAVID.

        Reply
  • 181. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    I just figured out that there were 477,330 people in California who voted in the presidential election that didn’t even vote for Prop 8. We lost Prop 8 by 561,644 votes. There were 3,742,191 registered voters (out of 17,304,091) who didn’t vote in the presidential election, which means there were 4,219,521 registered voters who didn’t even vote for or against Prop 8. They won with only 39.5% of the population of registered voters, and we had 36.1%, a difference of 3.4 points rather than 4.6 points. This translates to an actual difference of 1.7 compared to 2.3 if one of their votes. So the Prop H8ers convinced only 1.7% more of the population to vote against us, which certainly doesn’t say much compared to the difference for Prop 22.

    For Prop 22 in 2000, there were 15,707,307 registered voters, and 7,528,043 voted in that election for or against Prop 22. 4,618,673 For and 2,909,370 Against, a difference of 22.8 percentage points, which is really only a swing of 11.8 points. In reality, only 29.4% of possible voters were for and 18.5% of possible voters were against, a difference of 10.9 points, or convinced 5.5% more to vote For rather than Against.

    What does this mean? Well Prop H8ers convinced a smaller portion of possible voters to vote Yes rather than No in Prop 8 than for Prop 22 (5.5% compared to 1.7%). Prop 8 convinced 51.6% more people to vote Yes in 2008, where No on 8 convinced 120% more people to vote No in 2008. No on 8 increased our tallies by 1 and a half times more people than Prop H8.

    Sorry for all the stats, but I love numbers. The numbers don’t lie, and it certainly wasn’t the majority will of the people in this state that passed Prop 8, just a very small majority of the actual voters.

    Reply
    • 182. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:35 pm

      No need to apologize. I’m nerding out a bit over all of that too.

      So at the rate we’re going, we’ll get this by 2012 no problem. Maybe even sooner, if we can mobilize that apathetic middle group.

      Reply
      • 183. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm

        I just hope that the flow of numbers follows well. I have had a habit of vomiting out all of the stats and hoping the flow. There were just so many numbers and comparisons that I had to do some of the math a few times to make sure I got it right.

        Reply
    • 184. Michelle Evans  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:44 pm

      And yet the Prop 8 proponents always say that over 7 million people voted in their favor during the November 2008 election. Wow, another lie, who would of thought!

      Reply
      • 185. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:59 pm

        It was 7,001,084 Yes and 6,401,482 No. I forgot to put those in there. There were just over 7 million that voted yes, so they are correct with that number.

        Reply
    • 186. Alan E.  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:48 pm

      All of these numbers are taken from official public records, too.

      Reply
  • 187. HalfMooner  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    The issue of ending the hypocritcal DADT policy was being ridden hard by these far-right types in a most bigoted and scare-mongering way.

    What I found interesting was that they exposed their reactionary GOP Teabagger agenda by bringing in all sorts of unrelated (but FOX-GOP talking point) issues.

    Reply
  • 188. dieter  |  February 19, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley says a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman interferes with her state’s right to regulate the institution.

    Coakley’s office filed a lawsuit in July challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In papers filed late Thursday, Coakley asks a judge to deem the law unconstitutional without holding a trial on the lawsuit.

    Reply
    • 189. RAY in MA  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:16 pm

      AS in CA, (in relation to Alan’s comment above),very possibly the ‘Gay Oppressive Party’ (under the covers) influenced Scott Browneye’s victory with a denigration of Martha C relating to this legal action? (but is this just one of those unbeleivable ‘conspiracy theroies’??? the things that the GLBT oppresors say/do are often unbeleivable!)

      Reply
  • 190. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Hey, facebook folks, we need more than 93 members for this group:
    http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid=495874810500&ref=ts

    Reply
    • 191. LoriH  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:13 pm

      joined up! But why 93 more members? (not wise in the workings of facebook)

      Reply
    • 192. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:21 pm

      I was just saying that we need more than 93 members – I’d like to see thousands, tens of thousands. We seem to be having trouble breaking 100!

      Reply
  • 193. dieter  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    To anyone here who is proclaiming the bible to be the unchangeable word of God. Please explain the following for me:

    Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
    (a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
    (b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

    In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
    (a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
    (b) One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

    How many fighting men were found in Judah?
    (a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
    (b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

    God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
    (a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
    (b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

    How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
    (a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
    (b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

    How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
    (a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
    (b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

    How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
    (a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
    (b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

    The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
    (a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
    (b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

    When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?
    (a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
    (b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

    How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
    (a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
    (b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

    When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
    (a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
    (b) Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)

    How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
    (a) Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
    (b) Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)

    Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
    (a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
    (b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

    Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?
    (a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
    (b) No (Joshua 15:63)

    ) Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?
    (a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
    (b) Hell (Luke 3:23)

    Jesus descended from which son of David?
    (a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
    (b) Nathan(Luke3:31)

    How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?
    (a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
    (b) But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

    Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?
    (a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
    (b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David’s throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

    SEEMS TO ME GOD WAS PRETTY FORGETFUL
    WHILE WRITING HIS BIBLE.

    I have about 148 more contradictions that I found so far.

    Reply
    • 194. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:56 pm

      Are you just counting factual errors? Because there’s also those little things like how a loving god could send people to an eternity of torture, or why there was such a radical personality shift by God between the testaments, or basically everything in Genesis.

      Reply
    • 195. jimig  |  February 20, 2010 at 9:28 am

      I have often been asked this question, I have a very week response and it shows that humans are flawed.

      So here it goes much of the Bible is based on testimony or at least the parts that really should be considered, even the quotes of Jesus are all based on testimony. When we forget this we forget this then people become fixated or even worse they forget to think for themselves. One of the reason so many chruchs split from the Catolic Church was they wanted to tell people what the bible said they were afraid what would happen if we think for ourselves. Most of these churches and faiths that use scripture as a means to oppress others would rather we not think for ourselves.

      Want to measure a Pastors faith? If he/she tells you they know the answer don’t trust them. If they tell you that asking hard questions is what shapes one faith just maybe they can be trusted. If they preach in absolutes don’t trust them, if they preach in confrontation don’t trust them. If they speak in a way that ask you to think for yourself well just maybe.

      My favorate time of year is lint, the true concept is to take something on, but who want to do that it is easier to give up chocloate. Ask them why they give things up instead of taking things on must have no idea it’s what they have been told to do someone else is teaching them and they are blindly following.

      My other favorate is to ask them Catolic / evangelicals why only members can take communion, it kind of defeats the purpose. But they blindly follow and have had such intense fight that it has cause division and hatred toward each other (how both funny and sad).

      If we (12 of us) sit down and watch the sun set we can only agree on a few things, we watched the sun set. We will most likely all have or some of us have different times on our watches, we will all have noticed different colors at different times, in fact the expecience will be different in one way or another to each of us. If we turn our heads and then look back we will see something new. So yes we all experinced the same event but our eye witness.

      note: my piont is not to show faith or talk about religion my point has been to show that many people of faith support SS marriage and the LGBT community.

      Reply
      • 196. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 9:42 am

        Thanks, Jimi. The pastor at our local MCC is the only reason I walked back into a Christian church again after nearly 20 years away. He said things that made sense — including using your own mind to examine what you hear or read. If your experience and gut doesn’t match up with what you’re told about things religious (I am paraphrasing here), then listen to your experience and gut.

        He also is taking things on for Lent, much as you describe. And, he believes that everyone is welcome, LGBTQIA, not only in church but at Jesus’ table for communion.

        I just wish he wasn’t stepping down as pastor in a few months.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 197. Linda  |  February 19, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    Frankly, I’m sick and tired of hearing ‘God’, ‘Bible’, ‘Sin’, ‘Christian’–I don’t give a d*** what anyone’s religion teaches. It doesn’t apply to me. That’s what those folks can’t seem to get through their thick heads. THEIR RELIGION DOES NOT DICTATE MY LIFE! And we are expressly protected from that very thing in our Constitution.

    The far right radical religionists are polarizing our country. They are actively rewriting our Constitution to legislate their view of Christianity. They have money; they have power; and they cloak all their hateful actions with ‘the work of God’ mantra. They view themselves as superior. They are above the law. Their deceit and lies are excused because of the ‘nobleness’ of their cause.

    They are the Nazi’s of the 21st century.

    They need to be stopped!

    Reply
    • 198. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 6:56 pm

      I SOOOOOO agree.

      Reply
  • 199. Billy  |  February 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Gays_gay_marriage_foes_spar_at_CPAC.html?showall

    I love it! Maggie Gallagher drama!

    Reply
  • […] shindig, CPAC, over the last few days. From the right-wing leadership, you get garbage like their crazy statements about don’t ask don’t tell that imply that American troops are less professional than many Europeans.  And then, of course, […]

    Reply
  • 201. Larry Little  |  February 21, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    I have been reading all these Bible quotes and I confess to being ignorant. wxer seems confident in his personal observations and interpretations and seems to be the person I could ask.
    How did Noah get a polar bear, a kangaroo and a Galapagos turtle on his ark?

    Reply
    • 202. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 7:49 pm

      And Larry, when I get there, I have a question for Noah: Why didn’t you jus kill the flies, gnats, and mosquitos? LOL

      Reply
    • 203. Ronnie  |  February 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm

      I had a Q about that too….If God flooded the whole world and only the animals and Noah’s family and his sons wives were the only ones who survived…How was the world repopulated?…….<3…Ronnie

      Reply
      • 204. Felyx  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm

        As the saying goes…

        From East to West Incest is Best! Hehehehe!

        (Lots of that in the Bible you know….so much that Moses had to make a Law!!! One dubious law for Homosexuals but over 400 for Heterosexuals you know!!!)

        Reply
      • 205. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm

        No, Felyx, incest is not best. I know you meant no harm, but part of why it took my so long to accept myself for who I was born to be was my adoptive “father” committing incest against me after he found out I am gay. He was doing it to “turn me straight.”

        Reply
      • 206. Ronnie  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:20 pm

        wait so…i mean I don’t want to get into it….but WHAT?…. so a man sleeping with a boy makes him straight?…. I confused…..anywho….what I was getting at is that the Hateros constantly say that legalizing marriage equality would lead to legalizing incest…the same people who swear that Adam & Eve populated the world….but how?….They only had two sons…one killed the other….but still no other girls…so how?……..Hi mommy!!!!!….shut up I’m trying to picture Lilith(spelling)….hehehehe….Ok, back to one…. I am really sorry that you went though that dopty-daddy, if I haven’t already said that…but you turned out to be a really good man….<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 207. Felyx  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:23 pm

        Richard,

        Don’t confuse incest with rape. Violent rape like that is just plain far worse than what was described in the Bible.

        I was joking about incest….I think you took it too far.

        Felyx

        Reply
      • 208. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:33 pm

        It’s okay, Felyx. I realize that you meant no harm. No offense taken, as there was none meant.

        And Ronnie, I think that part of what has made me the man I am today is all the struggles I have gone through. You see, those experiences have given me empathy for others who are currently going through those same struggles. As for the argument that legallizing marriage equality would lead to leglaizing incest, they have it wrong. In many states you can marry your first cousin, which is, of course, incest. they are trying to limit incest to meaning the immediate family, and yet, incest actually involves any family members engaging in sexual activity. And my adoptive “father” was a very sick individual. He was also an alcoholic, and a control freak. He had a very low self-esteem and felt powerless, so of course the only way he could feel as if he had any power was to prey on those whom he saw as being weaker than he was himself in his own mind. And before anyone says he was a repressed homosexual, he was actually a pedohile/pederast, and had victims of both genders. I have had some mental and emotional health issues, including PTSD and dissociative disorder, but having found out what exactly ws going on with me, I have been able to develop some very positive and helpful coping mechanisms and intervention techniques which help me divert any dissociative episodes and also have helped me to not be quite so jumpy as in the past, even though I still prefer to sit with my back to the wall when in public. And I definitely get out of Dodge when I am around people who give off vibes that make me feel uncomfortable.

        Reply
      • 209. Ronnie  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:50 pm

        Still from I have learned from you and about you….you have become a really good person….that could have gone in a completely opposite way…and you didn’t let it….thats real strength….and I respect you all the more knowing what you have had to overcome…..<3…Ronnie

        Reply
      • 210. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 9:37 pm

        Thank you, dopty-son. And you see, that is part of my mission. As a result of what I have been through, I am to be available to others who are wading through the water I ahve already left behind. I am also called to educate those who do not know how prevalent this problem is, or wo want to push it under the rug and say that it does not exist at all. I have to keep telling my story so that others know there is a way out of the darkness and terror. I have to keep going and keep telling my story so that other have hope. I gues in that respect, I am like Harvey Milk. I believe that no one can live without hope, no matter how well-off they are financially or in any other respect. I also feel that we all have to work together as a team, and I feel that I have one hell of a solid team surrounding me on this trial tracker. I love all of you.

        Reply
      • 211. Ed-M  |  February 22, 2010 at 2:52 am

        Richard, I am so glad for and so proud of you that you have been able to regather your strength! OMG to have to go through all that humiliation, incest AND “corrective rape” at the hands of your own step-dad I think would be more than I can bear if I had to endure it myself. :( I wouldn’t even THINK of wishing that on my worst enemy.

        Reply
      • 212. Felyx  |  February 22, 2010 at 3:28 am

        Got news for ya…did ya ever think you worst enemy is that way for a reason?

        Maggie’s out of wedlock child….I sense a story there! I bet that woman’s wrath towards gay people is born out of need to be seen as reformed religious. But instead of finding the best of Christianity she has chosen the worst. She was targeted and despised and now she does the same to others…humans are generous creatures….we share our joy and our wealth…..but we also share our pain and our misery….sometimes by force!!!

        With heavy heart,
        Felyx

        Reply
  • 213. Bob  |  February 21, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    dieter, good work, re questioning the inerrancy of scripture, we need this type of dialogue, those of us who are Christian need to take up the challenge, it is happening in Churches everywhere, that is the newest form of the reformation, challenging the inerrancy of Scripture.

    Linda, you are so right, about being sick of this religious babble, and how it should have nothing to do with government influence in our lives, I’m sorry you have to listen to this, but the truth is the only opposition to gay rights is the religious right. If you are not religious you should not have to take that on. But it’s good for those of us who were raised that way or had it forced on us, to take up the dialogue, ask the questions, and confront the right, to expose the truth, this is a good thing for us to confront and challenge religious beliefs.

    Reply
    • 214. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 21, 2010 at 7:56 pm

      And, Bob, what you say about not having to put up with the radical right who are posing as “religious” people also has another aspect to it. What aboutthose of us who feel OUR religious freedom is being trmpled on by these peopl who ae trying to shove their view of the bible and other texts, tents, and dogmas on us instead of allowing us to worship the way we feel led to do, including deciding for ourselves and our congregation that we will allow same gender marriages to be recognized and celebrated within ourchurches, synagogues and mosques? My husband (in all but LEGAL standing) is the rabbi for te LGBTQQIA community that is looksely scattered across NC and SC and for them to say that there is no place for any religious view but theirs tramples on his right to perform a religious ceremony for any LGBTQQI Jews ho may come to him for that. It also tramples on the religious freedom of the rabbi who will perform our Jewish ceremony once we return from Connecticut after being LEGALLY married. But, unlike you, they seem to conveniently forget about that part of the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, don’t they?

      Reply
  • 215. erasure25  |  February 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    I always love it when people complain that “civilians” shouldn’t be telling the military what to do. They suggest that the military should call the shots.

    Sorry, but the civilian government should always tell the military what to do. That’s how a free a democratic system works. There are other countries with governments that allow their military to determine policy – they are known as military dictatorships.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...