Segue, Genesis: Maggie again pits our civil equality against personal prayer

March 2, 2011 at 3:00 pm 144 comments

Her arguments keep getting more and more absurd -Adam

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

Maggie Gallagher writes to USA Today:

Commentary writer Tom Krattenmaker sees the issue as “On gay rights, keep fighting or adapt?” But for those of us who are Christian, a better headline would be: “Genesis: continue fighting for it or adapt?” (On Religion, The Forum, Feb. 14).

The idea that God made us male and female, and that men and women are called to come together to make and raise the next generation (i.e. “marriage”) is not an exclusively Christian idea. But to abandon it is to abandon any credible claim that Christianity is true.

This is not some subtle “interpretation”; it is at the core of Christian teaching on life, sex and marriage.

Marriage core teaching [USA Today]

Okay, so you probably think our big beef is with Maggie yet again positioning her personal religious belief above civil equality. And yes, that’s a huge problem. A prevailing problem for the thoroughly Catholic-entrenched National Organization For Marriage.

But actually, the bigger problem here is Maggie’s “abandon” claim. Her idea that in order to support the idea that men and women are part of God’s spectrum means rejecting the idea that LGBT people made the cut as well. WHY?! By what logic? Isn’t there enough compelling real world evidence suggesting that reproduction is a sustainable plan, even with the gay and lesbian people who have existed throughout time? How can Maggie seriously say that simply giving CIVIL recognition to the kinds of people who do exist, always have existed, and always will exist somehow threatens the heterosexual’s role in society?

Nobody is asking anyone to “abandon” his or her personal interpretation of Genesis. Nobody is stopping heterosexual couples, Christian or otherwise, from going full-on Duggar with their 201103021327personal breeding choices. The marriage equality fight is not about the core of Christian teaching in Genesis or any other book: It’s about the core of the Constitution in regards to Equal Protection and Due Process, here in a supposedly church/state-separated nation.

Maggie does everyone a disservice by stating the stakes in the way she does. If more people would take the time to challenge them, then perhaps her lines would not be fruitful and multiply in the way that they do.

Entry filed under: Right-wing.

T. Perkins, as unswayed by teen movie law as he is Equal Protection, thinks cocky is path to happy ending Prop8TrialTracker needs your help

144 Comments Add your own

  • 1. be[4]marriage  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    YAY! I’m first!

    Reply
  • 2. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    Subbing to read in detail later.

    Reply
  • 3. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    For those who get notices from the 9th Circuit in the Perry case, the most recent document that arrived is “a courtesy copy of the California Supreme Court’s order denying Plaintiffs’ Application to Shorten Time, Dkt. 305, entered yesterday in the California Supreme Court.”

    The order from the CA Supreme Court is uploaded here. Note that it is a simple order, with no comment.

    Reply
    • 4. Ed Cortes  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm

      4th

      Reply
    • 5. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:27 am

      Good Morning Kathleen! Thank you for posting this “simple order”….I appreciate and read EVERYTHING you post : )

      Reply
      • 6. Kathleen  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:37 am

        You’re welcome.

        Reply
  • 7. NetAmigo  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    Maggie and the religious right push a mythology of human sexuality. They repudiate the science of human sexuality because it frequently contradicts their mythology. In the past, most people believed the mythology. However, most people today are dropping the mythology as they become educated about the science. Thus, the religious right now must try to make their mythology law to force everyone to continue to live by their myths.

    Reply
    • 8. Rev. Will Fisher  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:27 pm

      The religious right and Maggie’s assertion rests on some very dubious scriptural grounds. Anyone surprised?

      Reply
      • 9. Doug  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:48 pm

        Thank you, Rev. Fisher.

        I’m a Ph.D. student in the Old Testament, and what infuriates me the most about Maggie’s latest rant is her twisted reading of Genesis. She should confine her discussion to her personal religious views of morality, not to the Bible, because I don’t think the two have much in common.

        Reply
      • 10. libra_rising  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:37 pm

        Indeed they are.

        Reply
      • 11. Lawrence Graham  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:54 am

        “Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to destroy what it cannot convert. It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic and is suspicious of ‘the other,’ in whatever form that ‘other’ might appear. To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define
        ‘the other’ as deviant,” – Peter Gomes

        Reply
    • 12. JonT  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:12 pm

      However, most people today are dropping the mythology as they become educated about the science.

      Yes. Exactly why they are so opposed to non-religious education and science in general.

      Reply
  • 13. nightshayde  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    If I agree to reject Christianity, may I please embrace the idea of marriage equality, Mags?

    How about we just extend marriage equality to all those who don’t believe “Christian Doctrine According to Maggie?” Those who believe that marriage should only be intergender & for breeding purposes may only marry those whom Maggie’s faith deems appropriate.

    Oh. Wait. Isn’t that what we’ve been asking for all along?

    Reply
    • 14. Steve  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:00 pm

      But it’s a Christian nation and its laws need to be based on millennia old texts written for goat herders!

      Reply
  • 15. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    The. United. States. Is. Not. A. Theocracy.

    Reply
    • 16. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 6:30 pm

      Seriously. I find it extremely telling that these are generally the same people who squawk about Obama bring Sharia law to the US. It’s simple projection.

      Reply
  • 17. Skemono  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    This is not some subtle “interpretation”; it is at the core of Christian teaching on life, sex and marriage.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure the core Christian teaching on sex and marriage is “don’t do either” (but if you have to do the former, do it after the latter). Funny how people ignore that and go on to pretend that marriage is somehow “sacred” to Christianity. Jesus kept telling people to abandon their families in favor of him.

    Reply
    • 18. Bennett  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:49 pm

      It is good for a man not to touch a woman, but . . .

      that is to say . . .

      It is good for one “great half of humanity” not to touch another “great half of humanity” but . . .

      That’s Paul talking by the way (or maybe God, no time to look it up) . (From the Bible)

      Reply
    • 19. Chris B  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:44 pm

      Luke 14:25-26

      Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple

      Reply
  • 20. Josh  |  March 2, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    Yep, again with the lies, Maggie. Who is suggesting that we abandon male+female marriages? No one, but she and nom and the rest of the angry team always twist the facts like that to make their case sound so dire. Oh, if gay people can get married that means man+woman is not allowed, it’s abandoned. God won’t be happy with all your lies, Maggie.

    Reply
  • 21. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    UPDATE: Perry

    Letter from amicus curiae California Faith for Equality in support of lifting the stay.

    Reply
    • 22. Ann S.  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:29 pm

      I love that you’ve posted the Faith for Equality link in the post where Maggie presumes to lecture us about the true meaning of (her) religion.

      Reply
    • 24. Bob  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm

      yup great timing,,, let’s here from those of faith who’s liberties are curtailed,,,,, they need to have a stronger voice,,,would love to see them go head to head with Maggie,,, and take up her time, so they could duke it out and leave ordinary civilians at peace…

      Reply
  • 25. Michael Adrian  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    “Men and women are called to come together and raise the next generation.”

    All fine and dandy. Gay and lesbian couples are trying to HELP YOU DO THAT. Why reject our offer of community in such an important and difficult mission?

    Dan Savage wrote today “How does denying marriage rights to the same-sex couple down the street make the single mother up the street any more likely to marry the father of her children? How does discriminating against gay people make straight people more responsible? How does that work?” QFT

    Reply
  • 26. Ronnie  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    “But for those of us who are Christian,”

    No Maggie, you mean for those of you who are anti-gay Christian…NOT ALL Christians believe the same bull you spout out….read the 1st amendment, Maggie & look at ALL of the religious leaders, congregations & what have you who have spoken out to support Marriage Equality.

    “The idea that God made us male and female, and that men and women are called to come together to make and raise the next generation (i.e. “marriage”) is not an exclusively Christian idea. But to abandon it is to abandon any credible claim that Christianity is true.”

    1st) Which “God”?
    2nd) & Prove it?!
    3rd) Not all heterosexual men & women can or want to come together to make the next generation…. therefore MOOT!!!
    4th) There is NO law that says men & women have to make babies. That is a personal choice & quite frankly none of your god damn business….therefore MOOT!!!
    5th) Nobody is abandoning anything. Heterosexuals who can & choose to have children can & will still have children. Marriage is NOT a legal requirement to do so. Marriage is a personal choice. The notion that “marriage is between a man & woman” is NOT any religious notion. It is a selfish fascist anti-gay, heterosexest, supremacist notion to deem some people superior to others while taxing those they deem inferior equally or in some cases more & disrespecting them because the former has a repugnant superiority complex. Anti-gay Christians will still be able to practie their religious tenets amongst themselves & those who wish to join them; however, you Maggie, & your followers are denying & violating the religious freedom & liberty of LGBT & Straight Christians as well as other religious followers & non-religious who are pro-Equality. It is not that “Christianity isn’t true”, what is being said is that your version of Christianity & any & ALL religion is irrelevant because NO religion is the law in this country, America, a secular society NOT a theocracy. GET OVER IT!!!!!
    6th) However, there is NO credible claim that Christianity or any religion for that matter is true or fact. They are all folklore, ALL mythology, ALL a fairytale. ALL of it is speculation, hearsay & open to interpretation. None of it is logical & none of it is rational. Hence the 1st amendment. The world is older then ALL established & more prominent religions & ALL of humanity. There are still primitive aboriginal tribes all over this planet with NO knowledge of your “God”, Maggie, or your holy book & religion.

    “This is not some subtle “interpretation”; it is at the core of Christian teaching on life, sex and marriage.”

    Nope, it is your interpretation. Which Christian teaching? Pro-Equality Christian teaching or anti-Equality Christian teaching? What about non-religious teaching? Again read the 1st amendment, unless you are advocating that the 1st amendment applies to Christians who only fall lock-in-step & bow down to you….I mean your version of Christianity.

    I don’t care what Genesis says. I don’t care what your holy book says. I don’t care what your religion says. I don’t care what you like & dislike. I don’t care what you want in reference to my personal life because it is ALL irrelevant. I DO NOT have to bow down to what you or your “God” demands. That is the law in America. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

    I will do as I please, whether you like it or not. As long as I don’t physically attack anybody, steal, cheat, or lie (which the last 3 are exactly what you, Maggie, & NOM do on a daily basis), how I live my life is NONE of your business. Who I marry, is NONE of your business. How I form my family is NONE of your business. You are not “God”.You are not my boss. I don’t need your permission. I am not your slave, I am not your child, I am not your property. I am an openly gay adult, law abiding, tax paying, 7TH GENERATION American citizen & I will NOT be treated as inferior or 2nd class to you & denied my Constitutional right to call my relationship what I want to call it because you, Maggie, & people like you have a selfish issue with it. Get over yourself!

    The point is, Maggie Gallagher, that there is NO LAW that says ALL Americans have to adhere to your version of Genesis….but there is a law that says we don’t….The good old 1st amendment….DEAL WITH IT!!!

    <3…Ronnie

    Reply
    • 27. nightshayde  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:44 pm

      *standing and applauding*

      That was AWESOME, Ronnie!

      Reply
    • 28. Chris in Lathrop  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:58 pm

      Beautiful Ronnie!

      Reply
    • 29. JonT  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:20 pm

      ‘Standing O’ from me too Ronnie :)

      Reply
    • 30. Ronnie  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:39 pm

      Thank you…(does a curtsey, then bows)…..<3….Ronnie

      Reply
      • 31. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:29 am

        : D !!

        Reply
    • 32. Larry Little  |  March 5, 2011 at 9:29 am

      Superb!……..blame most discrimination against the gay population coming from Republicans………John Boehner has created a panel of 5 Republican lawyers to constitutionalize blatant unconstitutional discrimination. John Boehner can take credit for creating five jobs.

      Reply
  • 33. Cat  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:40 pm

    So according to Maggie:

    Allowing same-sex couples to marry
    equals
    Changing the marriage of opposite-sex couples
    equals
    Abolishing the marriage of opposite-sex couples
    equals
    Global human extinction

    I’m both very sad and very angry by this “logic”. It breaks at the very first link.

    Reply
    • 34. Chris B  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:50 pm

      Yes, I really hate how they (disingenuously) frame it as:

      –Choose between either straight marriage or gay marriage.

      –Choose between every couple reproducing or no couple reproducing.

      But why can’t these all exist? Allowing one does not eliminate the other.

      The Bible does talk about a man and woman marrying, but there are also many polygamous marriages by great patriarchs in the Bible too. So while God allowed one-man-one-woman marriages, He apparently allowed other types of marriage too.

      Reply
  • 35. Tasty Salamanders  |  March 2, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/02/951921/-Ohio-Republicans-balance-budget-by-banning-legal-protections-for-gay-couples
    Wow, good job GOP on your budget balancing and job creation, everyone knows it is teh gays that are ruining the economy.

    (P.S. Moving to the Moon, anyone want to come?)

    Reply
    • 36. Michelle Evans  |  March 2, 2011 at 11:01 pm

      Would love to join you. Been trying to get off this rock for many years. :-)

      Reply
  • 37. Richard W. Fitch  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    “going full-on Duggar” LOL!! Yes, as long as there are the likes of the Duggars in this world, Maggie need not worry about “homosexual marriage” being the death knell of the human race. Did I see somewhere that the oldest Duggar son is now married four years with three children? Will he and his wife try to out do the parents? Somehow we manage to have a gajillion different religious bodies bodies in the US, each with their own interpretation of marriage and family but we are unable to add one more which is based on our Federal Constitution which is so revered by the Right.

    Reply
    • 38. Steve  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:07 pm

      You should do some reading on the Quiverfull movement. It’s beyond scary. It’s nothing but a deeply patriarchal cult. For the daughters especially it’s nothing pure child abuse. Both mentally and physically.

      http://nolongerquivering.com/

      There is a story there of a woman raised by two lesbians who somehow still fell for it. Fortunately, after 25 years she got a happy ending.

      Reply
    • 39. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:43 pm

      Ahem.

      Reply
  • 40. Larry Little  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? DOMA is 110% CHURCH. So was DADT. Within six miles from my house there are ten churches with parking lots as big as Yankee stadium and on Sunday the parking spaces are filled and over flowing. There two extreme polarizing issues: abortion and same sex marriage: we are on one side and the church is on the other. All the extreme and bitter hatred directed toward the gay population and those women who want to make their own reproductive choices.
    There are three political parties in the United States: Republicans, Democrats and THE CHURCH. The Church rakes in tens and tens of millions of TAX FREE dollars selling gay hatred and pregnant teen age sluts.
    The Church has taken over our educational systems and are teaching creationism, abstinence, being gay is a disease and don’t have to worry about Gov.cott Walker’s budget slashing.
    In the Dark Ages, religion was king. There were no Protestants yet and if you weren’t Catholic you were burned at the stake, beheaded, slowly stretched until you fully separate your bottom from the top were some of the favorite Catholic conversion technigues used during the Spanish Inquisition. Women accused of witchery were routinely burned at the stake under the command of the local bishop and even kings kissed their asses for fear of being sent to Hell. Just the stare alone from a priest terrified everyone who were fearful of torture or being denied Heaven for some imaginary sin.
    Its not much different today. Religion has so much money they can buy any political seat it wants in any office and get laws passed that border on insanity but that is the Church for you.
    With our country crippled by economic proplems everyone running for office was to stop the spend and reduce the deficit.
    The Church bought so many Republican seats the only thing they are writing legislation for are ones written by the morality police.
    The Republican Congress has introduced so many bills attacking women they have successfully made it impossible to get an abortion even to save your own life. Nebraska has written a law that says it is justifiable homicide if you kill someone if it protects the fetus, and Bobby Franklin from Georgia has introduced a bill that requires used condom inspection to make sure an abortion didn’t take place.
    A dumb detective could connect the dots between the language used in these legislative and your average Sunday lecture and they become indistinguishable.
    The Church is right now as we speak spending millions of tax free dollars to repeal same sex marriage where it is legal and to go to other states to try and prevent it.
    Tax the Church: erase the deficit in one week.
    Use the balance to give the teachers in Wisconsin a raise.

    Reply
    • 41. Ray in MA  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:29 pm

      Good content and composition Larry!!!

      Reply
    • 42. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:53 pm

      Very nicely done Larry :-)

      Reply
    • 43. Lawrence Graham  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:05 am

      Last Sunday, several babies were Christened at my parish church (All Saints’/Atlanta). Among them were two children whose parents are same-sex couples. We see nothing unusual in this, nor should we. We have a lot of LGBT families among our 3,000 members. We serve openly and proudly on the vestry, in the choir, as lay ministers, ushers, and Sunday school teachers. There are openly gay and lesbian deacons, priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church – people like +Gene Robinson. ++Desmond TuTu, the former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town speaks out for us.
      So, by “Church” I do hope you mean only those narrow, fundamental, evangelical groups that cannot believe in God’s love for all humans, just as He created them.
      There are Churches, including the Episcopal Church, that embrace “all sorts and conditions” of people, knowing all of us to be equal before the throne of God.
      Please don’t tar all of us with the same brush.

      Reply
      • 44. Richard W. Fitch  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:42 pm

        Another repetition of my perpetual refrain: “The Christian Community” is no more monolithic than “The Gay Community”. There is such a wide diversity within each that the labels can only be applied in the broadest of terms. The Episcopal parish with which I have been affiliated has a long history of rectors in committed same-sex relationship and a disproportionate percentage of LGBT members for a conservative area.

        Reply
      • 45. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm

        I don’t believe anyone meant to do so. I know we have plenty of religious folk here. I think they were talking about the “wall of separation between church and state” espoused by more than one of the Founders. That is, any law that has no rational secular basis – like banning SSM – has no place in our secular society. All anti-equality arguments originate in religion. Not all religions are anti-equality.

        Reply
      • 46. Larry Little  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:22 pm

        Lawrence Graham,
        I hate to burst your bubble, but religion is the primary enemy of the gay community and the fact that you welcome “others” doesn’t exempt you. You began defending your work and suggested the other religions are the bad ones. During the dark ages The Pope issued orders to burn anyone at the stake who wasn’t Catholic or slowly pull them apart on a stretcher machine or simply beheaded them.
        Along came Martin Luther who created the first Protestant religion which “protested” against Catholicism which called them Protestants who were all going to Hell like the striking workers in Wisconsin. From that first Protestant religion developed hundreds of off shoot different named Christian religions condemning all other religions, just like you did reverend.
        I expected you would defend yourself but sanctimonious bullshit smells no different from the cow pasture variety.
        There is no God to hate fags. No God. Prayers are never answered and there is no life after death or miracle cures. Medical science finds miracle cures but it takes a priest with no medical knowledge to refuse help for women who need an abortion to save their life as the church places more value on an unborn zygote than they do for the mother or the husband.
        I happen to be a gay supporter although not gay myself. I also am well educated and took many “ology” courses in college all the way through graduate school and there is plenty of evidence that evolution is a fact whether you believe it or not and elementary evolution proves there is no evidence to support the existence of a supreme being. Adam wasn’t created from a hand full of dirt and the earth is more than 6000 years old. As sincere as you might be reverend: no sale.

        Reply
        • 47. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:42 pm

          Actually evolution doesn’t prove anything about God. It doesn’t address the question of abiogenesis at all. It is the theory that describes the mechanism by which creatures adapt. Whether that started with a big bang or God’s word isn’t relevant. Evolution is about how the bicycle goes not who built it.

          Science in general isn’t concerned with the supernatural. It is concerned only with repeatable, verifiable phenomena in the natural world. God, ghosts, miracles, and angels are all super-natural and therefore not under the perview of science.

          If you were referring to Stephen Hawking’s comments about God, you misquoted him. He said that, as far as he can extrapolate based on what we know about the natural world, a God is not necessary. That doesn’t mean God or gods or faeries or flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist. It just means they aren’t necessary as far as we know. That’s also not science. That’s an inductive leap based on what we know of science.

          The only thing that has been categorically disproved by science is a literal reading of Genesis. That’s not necessary to be a Christian.

          The point here is that you and Lawrence are, in the end, on the same side. You are both on the right side of history.

          Reply
          • 48. Larry Little  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:24 pm

            Evolution comes with evidence….Although I am familiar with Stephen Hawkings, I am using mt own words and I haven’t read anything he has written. I’m saying God doesn’t exist. It makes no difference what you believe, if there is no evidence God exists, God doesn’t exist. hundres of millions of religious people (Muslims, Hindu, Catholics pray every day, and I will give you all my possessions including my bank account if you will provide evidence that one prayer has been answered by a supreme being. Pat Robertson has told his audience God spoke to him………..Do you believe it? Religion ruins people’s lives. Yoy can ask 150 million American women who have their medical options such as abortions eliminated by right wing extremist legislators who are not pro-life but want to punish women who participate in horizontal refreshment without the churches blessing. You cannot sell me religion. It is a complete waste of time expecting a payoff for your investment because the preacher just bought a Cadillac with the help of your donations.
            I am not on the same side of history as Lawrence. I’m a confirmed atheist: you and he obviously are not. There are two billion of us wondering when we are going to be free from religious discrimination.

          • 49. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm

            Actually, Larry, it’s not at all obvious what I do or do not believe based on this thread. I am merely pointing out the logical holes in your arguments and correcting your misconceptions. As a side thought, your argument would be easier to understand if you used standard punctuation and paragraph breaks.

            Yes, evolution is established science. The scope of which you badly misunderstand if you think evolution disproves God.

            All the rest of what you have said is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn’t matter if a person comes to a compassionate place from a belief in God or not: the ultimate end is the same. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if a person comes to an evil place through religion or lack of it. One is not worse or better than the other.

        • 50. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:44 pm

          That was totally uncalled for Larry Little…..you have the right to hold your opinion and personal truths. Please allow those of us with faith in God the same rights.

          I for one happen to believe in both….I have never seen why evolution and creation aren’t both embraced more often.
          I believe God placed the ability to adapt and evolve into his creations. Just my personal opinion.

          Reply
          • 51. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:50 pm

            Hey Mark

            You are absolutely correct. The so called war between creation and evolution stems from a misunderstanding of one or both. The only thing science is incompatible with is a literal reading of Genesis, in more than one way. But from what I can tell that reading isn’t necessary to believe in the Christian God. In fact up until really recently it was taken for granted that all or most of Genesis wasn’t meant to be read literally.

            Evolution is the theory that describes the mechanism of adaptation over time by a creature or creatures. Where those creatures ultimately came from is completely irrelevant.

            Short answer: there is absolutely no conflict in being a person of faith and accepting science.

            I know I am repeating myself, but I get really annoyed when I see people misusing science and the scientific method for their own purposes.

          • 52. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:57 pm

            It is indeed frustrating. And it’s equally harsh on both sides, evolutionist, and creationist alike seem to need to be ‘right’. Very odd and well, frustrating LOL

          • 53. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:00 pm

            I know! Evolution is established science. It is NOT a threat to faith at all. And yet… .

          • 54. Larry Little  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:08 pm

            If I have the right to my opinion, why is it totally uncalled for?
            I didn’t interfere with your right to declare your belief in God, I just felt it was necessary to shine a little light on the enemies of the gay population. There is a reason evolution and creationism can’t exist on the same page: ALL religion is based on faith which allows you to accept what can’t possibly true. Evolution is an indisputable fact backed up by evidence and the overwhelming scientific majority.
            Creationism is creationism and their Supreme Being was created entirely by man’s need to pass the collectin plate.

          • 55. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:12 pm

            The hostile way in which you present your opinion is what is uncalled for Larry.
            I am done discussing this with you as I see you are not able to debate this issue. I will not debate with anger.

          • 56. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:20 pm

            In fact, for me, a knowledge of evolution actually INCREASED my faith in G-d as I understand G-d. And I myself have evolved in different ways over the years, as we all do. I have even seen a form of evolution in the trees, flowers, grass and other plants in our yard and in my mother-in-law’s yard, and other places. And it has actually caused me to say “Baruch HaShem quite often, sometimes as fast as I can repeatedly get the words out of my mouth.

          • 57. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:29 pm

            Richard – what does baruch Hashem mean?

            And that’s so awesome that you see evolution as god’s handiwork. I am currently studying forensic anthropology as a path becoming a coroner. Evolutionary theory is the basis of biology. Biology is the basis of pretty much all life science, including anatomy and physiology.

          • 58. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:01 pm

            @Rhie: Baruch HaShem means “Thank The Name” (Thank G-d). You see, as Jews, we are not to say the revered Name, and that is why we say Elohim or HaShem. And yes, part of my evolution has been in my religion, as well as in my attitudes about myself and life in general. This in addition to an evolution in my physical appearance and my stylistic choices. Even my taste in music has evolved over my lifetime. So, I do not see any contradiction between creation and evolution, nor do I see any conflict. Creation is the start, evolution is what has happened in the time since the start.

          • 59. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:58 pm

            Richard,

            Thanks! Creation is the beginning and evolution is what happens after is just beautiful. I think I knew that about Jews not speaking the name of God. That makes sense to me as a way to show reverence. The natural world is pretty awesome isn’t it? :)

        • 60. Lawrence Graham  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm

          Dear Larry Little,
          1) Any organization that fights for the full equality of LGBT persons in both secular society, and in the Church, cannot possibly be the enemy of gays.
          2) You are correct. I have very little respect for any organization, religious or otherwise, that chooses to denigrate any of my fellow human beings.
          3) I am not a member of the clergy and have no title other than “mister.”
          4) The existence of the Divine can be neither proved nor disproved by any means at humanity’s disposal. I have my beliefs and you have yours. Attacking my faith is no more acceptable than for me to attack you for choosing to have none.
          5) And, finally, you appear to assume in your statement about the creation of Adam that I read the Bible literally. I don’t. I read it seriously. While I believe the various writers and editors to have been inspired, I also work to understand the various writings within the context of their history, who probably wrote them, when, why, and to who they were originally addressed.
          6) I’m not peddling anything. I merely point out that not all Christians are the enemy. Many, many of us are supporters and friends.
          7) I”m gay, out, proud, old, and have been fighting for equality for years.

          Reply
          • 61. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:13 pm

            Oh, can I use your line about reading the Bible seriously an not literally? That’s brilliant.

          • 62. Larry Little  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:45 pm

            I don’t disrespect your sexuality or your religion. You undoubtedly are well intentioned, but let me pose a question and hope it does disturb your sleep.
            according to some religious sermons, every thing on the planet was on Noah’s ark.
            How did the get a leopard seal and a dingo get on a ship with no mechanical power from a pilot who thinks the world is Flat?
            Mary was in the company of three wise men and she became pregnant without having intercourse?
            Is it possible that DNA testing could challenge virgin birth declared by Mary and all the Popes since producing a baby requires the chromosomes of both parents in order for conception to take place?
            Finally, if Methusaleh lived 900+ years,
            did he ever have to use Viagra to produce his many many children?
            Perhaps my questions may wake you to realize these separate religion supported circumstances could not possibly be duplicated today and is rejected by two billion atheists, why should religion be free to escape responding to ordinary challenges?

          • 63. Bob  |  March 5, 2011 at 8:22 pm

            Larry, you make a great point,,, your arguments based on literal reading, of ancient stories,,,,,

            does it takes as much belief and faith to be an atheist as it does to be a chirstian?,,, look at all the effort you are going through to prove your point…

            I didn’t realize an atheist would spend that much time trying to debunk the bible,,,, what difference does it make,,,, I’m curious, were you raised as an atheist, or is that a response to spiritual abuse by a religious community..

            but I like the point you make,,,, organized religion,,, could be held more accountable,,, that concept is different though than individual responses and relationships to that information .

            organized religion is the culprit in terms of telling people what to think, real faith based spirituality including many that you mention, do not place resticitons on how individuals reconcile themselves with the stories or myths., but allow individuals to arrive at their own understanding of God, and their relationship to him,,,

            one arrives at a place where it does not matter, you as an atheist and I as a Christian, will arrive at the same place, if we have awareness when we die,, we both make the transition knowing that what happens next is an unkown,,, we both can agree that all that matters is what we do in this present moment…….

            rendered to the basics, we are equal,

            yes science may lend more support to atheism than christianity , but in a backwards kind of way,, someone had to first just go out on a limb with some idea or belief, which was later proved by science,,, it’s that going out on a limb without assurance that keeps me in awe, and has moved humanity forward,,, (setting sail, while being warned that the earth was flat,,, that takes courage/faith, and that faith was in science)

            I love the atheists I have met, who don’t give a hoot about the bible, and never give it a thought about who’s right or wrong about wether or not there is a God,,,

            I envy those friends that weren’t encumbered by religious doctrine,,, and seem so free to live their lives, in a way that they just naturally seem to be good friends and neighbours, not because they were told to , they are happy people I love being around,,,, they set good examples,,,,

            when you think of it, like you say millions of atheists face discrimination from religion,,, that self rightieous religion that wants to control our thoughts and beliefs,, or make people have beliefs if they don’t,,,,,

            Atheists make good allies, against misguided religion,,,, all that energy spent on trying to prove something is misguided, a waste,,, what does it matter,,, live your life and find peace go out on a limb, dare to accept the part that we don’t know,,,,,,

  • 64. Sagesse  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    “Genesis: continue fighting for it or adapt?”

    Genesis is under attack? They’re going to repeal it? Wipe it out? If that happens, it will be the end of life as we know it. Well, the end of the beginning of life as we know it. But then…. we’d all be not here? There’s a rip in the space-time continuum.

    Or whatever.

    Reply
    • 65. Rhie  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm

      I know right? No one is attacking Genesis, sheesh.

      Reply
  • 66. Ronnie  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    So What was it that Maggie Gallagher, etc etc. keep saying about “Christianity being under attack” or something of the sort?

    Pro-Equality Church Attacked Again
    http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/pro-equality-church-attacked-again

    Hmmmmmm…. : I …..ronnie

    Reply
    • 67. Ronnie  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm

      click “shift” & “R”….. : I …..Ronnie

      Reply
  • 68. Michael  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Strident anti-gay activist Gallagher reviles millions of pro-equality Americans with her desperate nonsense that equality = “abandoning” Genesis…or any other part of Scripture! The real question is why has she abandoned the parts which state the revilers are going to hell? As a Christian gay man, I rebuke her in the name of Jesus!

    Reply
  • 69. Steve  |  March 2, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    People who take religion that seriously already abandoned any logic, reason or evidence. Faith is believing in something despite evidence that it isn’t true.

    So demanding such standards is just crazy talk. Some people are simply so brainwashed and deluded that no amount of logic and arguments will change their opinions.

    Reply
    • 70. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 6:51 pm

      Actually, faith is believing something with no evidence that it is true, not despite evidence that it is not true. Those are two very different things.

      Reply
      • 71. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 4, 2011 at 6:59 pm

        Well stated Rhie :-)

        Reply
  • 72. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    Gay Binational Couples to File Lawsuit Challenging DOMA
    http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/03/gay_binational_couples_lawsuit_doma.php

    Reply
  • 74. Sheryl Carver  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    I’m originally from a small town in Maine, & occasionally pop in to read a couple of the local news sites. The Bangor Daily News reported today that NOM is appealing the Feb. ruling by a federal judge that upheld Maine’s Campaign Finance Law. (I know, surprise, surprise.)

    While reading the article, the light bulb went on:
    NOM stands for National Organization for MONEY!!!

    Reply
    • 75. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 2, 2011 at 9:34 pm

      +1,000

      Reply
      • 76. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:31 am

        !

        Reply
  • 77. Bob  |  March 2, 2011 at 6:58 pm

    Gay Binational Couplesto File Lawsuit,,,,, when I read about this I think of Gregory,,,, this one’s for you bud,,, it’s coming,, hope this helps end your day on a happier note,,,,

    Reply
    • 78. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:53 pm

      And our own Felyx & Kirille.

      Reply
    • 79. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:37 am

      Thanks Bob…and love & hope to all the bi-national couples! Yesterday was a particularly difficult day for me and a few words of encouragement from others here helped me feel better.

      Reply
      • 80. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:28 am

        Morning, Gregory, hope that you are having a better day to day. I know all to well that feeling of just pulling the covers over your head and letting life pass you by. This lack of a full time job and the financial stress of not enough money to pay all of the bills gives me many of those day.

        Sheryl, Mormon Mother

        Reply
        • 81. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:49 am

          xoxo Sheryl

          Reply
  • 82. Chris B  |  March 2, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    The Bible was also used to support slavery, to oppose divorce, and to oppose interracial marriage too.

    Reply
    • 83. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm

      And yet the marriage of Moses and Zipporah was an interracial marriage!

      Reply
    • 84. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 7:32 pm

      And oppose all women’s rights including voting, abortion, and owning instead of being property.

      Reply
  • 85. Sagesse  |  March 2, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    From the Baltimore Sun

    Holding up gay marriage bill helps no one
    Our view: Yes, other issues are important, but this is no way to advance them

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed-poll0302,0,2957279,post.poll

    Reply
  • 87. New  |  March 2, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    “But to abandon it is to abandon any credible claim that Christianity is true.”
    What disturbs me is that this lady uses the word “credible” in a strategic way to validate her incredible claim that Christianity is true. There is no such thing as credible religious claims when many simply doesn’t believe in religion(s).
    Let’s look again without the word “credible”, shall we?
    But to abandon it is to abandon any claim that Christianity is true. Now it sounds just like she is trying to say: If you are not against same sex marriages, you’re not a truly Christian. It sounds very bigoted and she can’t afford to be called a bigot anymore. I find MG to be a disgusting strategist, and it is disturbing that she thinks she can get away with manipulating people’s intellect that way.

    Reply
  • 88. Sagesse  |  March 2, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    You were asking for a pro-equality Christian voice…

    Activist: Many Maryland Catholics support same-sex marriage, extending legal protections to all families

    http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/03/activist_many_maryland_catholics_support_same-sex_marriage_extending_legal_protections_to_all_famili.html

    Reply
  • 89. Maggie  |  March 2, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    The plaintiffs’ motion is objectively frivolous, but given the fact that Judge Stephen Reinhardt sits on the merits panel that will rule on the motion, that fact doesn’t guarantee that the motion will be denied. (I think, though, that it ought to be very difficult for Judge Michael Hawkins, who is on the merits panel with Reinhardt and was on the motions panel that issued the stay, to reverse course.)

    As for chances of success in dropping the stay? Don’t bet on it. The 9th Circuit is treading carefully on this one –as evidenced by asking the CA Supreme Court to weigh in on a central question of legal standing. Prop. 8 backers would appeal lifting of the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court in a New York minute. The Supremes practically make a hobby out of reversing the Ninth … so it’s unlikely they’ll test them on this. Besides — if the stay is lifted, more couples get married and Prop. 8 is ulimately upheld, those couples would then be “unmarried” again. Talk about emotional roller coasters!

    Reply
    • 90. Kathleen  |  March 2, 2011 at 9:23 pm

      Is this Scott Shafer or a bit of plagiarism by someone using the name Maggie?
      http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/03/01/scott-shafers-analysis-on-harris-prop-8-request/

      Reply
      • 91. Sheryl Carver  |  March 2, 2011 at 9:32 pm

        Wow! Great catch, Kathleen!

        Had circumstances been different, you would have been an awesome trial attorney. As it is, we are very, very lucky to have you here & on the right side of history.

        Thank you for all you do for us, every single day.

        Reply
        • 92. Sagesse  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:35 am

          What Sheryl Carver said… Great catch Kathleen!

          Reply
          • 93. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:44 am

            !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • 94. JonT  |  March 2, 2011 at 9:35 pm

        Intriguing… Inquiring minds want to know!

        :)

        Reply
      • 95. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:15 am

        ROFL..(face in palms)….I <3 Kathleen….great catch indeed…. ; ) ….Ronnie

        Reply
      • 96. Ann S.  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:18 am

        Great catch, and I’m just skeptical enough to wonder if that is really Scott Shafer, despite being on the KQED website, or something that the pictured blog editor cobbled together. It strikes me as a bit too casual and speculative for Scott’s usual style.

        Reply
    • 97. Steve  |  March 2, 2011 at 10:48 pm

      “if the stay is lifted, more couples get married and Prop. 8 is ulimately upheld, those couples would then be “unmarried” again.”

      There are 18,000+ married same-sex couples in CA right now. Marriages that are legally entered can’t be annulled. Lifting the stay would just add to that number.

      Reply
    • 98. Kathleen  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

      Turns out it’s a cobbled version of the work of two people. First part is from Ed Whelan at National Review.
      http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/261110/prop-8-plaintiffs-frivolous-motion-vacate-stay-pending-appeal-ed-whelan

      But really it’s just a cut and post from the NOM site, but with the attributions omitted:
      http://nomblog.com/5681/

      Reply
      • 99. Kathleen  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

        “cut and paste”

        Reply
      • 100. Ann S.  |  March 3, 2011 at 10:22 am

        Curiouser and curiouser. I tend to agree that the motion will not be granted, unfortunately, but it’s odd to have a posting purporting to be from “Maggie” that’s a copy and paste from the NOM blog. Hmmmm……

        Reply
        • 101. AnonyGrl  |  March 3, 2011 at 10:37 am

          Do you think she is lost? Maybe Maggie was over here, catching up on the news (Hi Maggie!) and just forgot where she was and posted here?

          Perhaps we should alert Brian and Louis (Hi Brian! Hi Louis!) so they can swing by and pick her up and take her back home?

          Reply
  • 102. Canadian JAG Officer  |  March 2, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    Bill banning out of state same sex marriages in Wyoming just voted down in senate!
    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/03/bill-banning-recognition-of-gay-unions-rejected-in-wyoming-senate/

    Nice to some senators that want the equality state to live upto its name

    Reply
    • 103. Sagesse  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:42 am

      Strike one more state off BB’s list of backward progress :).

      Reply
    • 104. JonT  |  March 3, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      An unexpected surprise…

      Reply
  • 105. James Tuttle  |  March 2, 2011 at 11:05 pm

    Other than that excellent news, does anyone keep hoping they will go to sleep and the next morning be awakened by a text alert that says something along the lines of “Gay marriages to resume immediately in CA says 9th Circuit Court”

    Reply
    • 106. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:52 am

      every day!

      Reply
    • 107. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:16 am

      We do! And we live in North Carolina!

      Reply
    • 108. AnonyGrl  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:18 am

      Yes. Ferverently.

      Reply
    • 109. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:24 am

      Yawn, and I didn’t receive the text message again this morning…but there is all day!

      Reply
  • 110. Lawrence Graham  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Maggie is wrong. The traditional teaching about the purpose and character of marriage is not a core belief in Christianity. It’s just a teaching, and teachings can change.

    I am proud that my church (Episcopal) supports civil equality for all persons and should soon come to terms with marriage equality as a religious rite.

    Reply
    • 111. Kate  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:25 am

      Also, Maggie appears to be saying here that marriage somehow causes reproduction. Silly Mags — doesn’t she know yet that sexual intercourse, not marriage, is what makes babies? (At least until scientificl processes came along, of course.)

      Reply
      • 112. nightshayde  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:59 am

        Considering that she allegedly made a baby without having gotten married first, she should certainly know. Maybe she’s just blocked it out…

        Reply
      • 113. Steve  |  March 3, 2011 at 2:50 pm

        Given what passes for sex education among Christians, one can indeed doubt it

        Reply
    • 114. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:27 am

      I agree with you, Lawrence. And I want to ask your opinion on something. Now that the Episcopals have an openly gay man and and open lesbian, both in long-term, committed, marital relationships, do you think we will see the ordination of bisexual priests in the the Episcopal church, and transgender priests? I would love to see that, as well as to see a bisexual and a transgender rise through the ranks based on the merits of their service. Do you see that as happening, and what possible timeline to you see for that?

      Reply
      • 115. Lawrence Graham  |  March 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm

        “No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination or election is hereby established” – Canon III, Section 2

        I think the Canon pretty well covers the answer to your question, so far as the intention of the Church is concerned. It will be important to also consider that Christian virtue requires marriages (and “unions”) to be monogamous and life-long. Short of that, clergy are still expected to be celibate.

        I know there is at least one transgender priest already serving.

        Reply
        • 116. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 1:38 pm

          Thanks, Lawrence. I am so glad to see that there is at least one instance where our transgender brothers and sisters are not thrown under the bus!

          Reply
  • 117. Rick  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:05 am

    Incest: A Genesis Nemesis?

    God created Adam and Eve. They had two children. For the rest of us to be here, incest was the only option.

    Reply
    • 118. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:11 am

      & adultery….don’t forget that…what a sordid life the characters of the Bible led…just saying… ; ) ….Ronnie

      Reply
    • 119. Kate  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:11 am

      I always wondered how the Christianists explained this. Probably just another celibate miracle happened, eh?

      Reply
    • 120. JonT  |  March 3, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      I’ve mentioned this many times.

      I never get an answer. :)

      Reply
      • 121. Richard W. Fitch  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:18 pm

        So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. (Gen. 4:16,17)
        Cain kills Abel and is banished from Eden; then all of a sudden he has a wife in the land of Nod. Ok, so where is Nod and how did this woman appear and become his wife?? As with the earlier stories (plural) of the Creation, there are mysteries that seem to contradict logic – which they do. However, keep in mind that this is the etiological mythos of the Hebrew tribes. It is not historical chronicles as we expect them to be written and as the Fundamentalists insist them to be. Take also that the Ten Commandants clearly state: “Thou shalt not kill”, yet as soon as the tribes reach the Promised Land they are commanded to kill all the natives of the land. {Setting an example for our colonial founders as they met the Native Americans.} Again this is a story of a specific group of people. Any thing that happened out side these tribes was not relevant unless it directly impinged on them. The Bible can only be taken to be self-contradictory when it is taken to be literal.

        Reply
  • 122. Mackenzie  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:06 am

    Another MD delegate has gone rouge. Sam Arora, emails headed his way!

    Sam.Arora@house.state.md.us

    Reply
  • 123. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 3, 2011 at 6:15 am

    So I have to believe in Maggie’s GOD, follow HER interpretation (and cherry picked portions) of her bible – or I am not worthy?

    Nope Maggie – not going to work. I matter and I am not sitting down and shutting up!

    Reply
  • 124. chris from co  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:19 am

    God made man, women, and hermaphordites, things are not as clear cut as she believes. Im not on but I met a few. She need’s to understand that every thing is not so always what she wants them to be. There is more variables than she would like to see. I do believe that if a person can be born with both sexes, it is not such a far leap that a person can be attracted to the same sex. Lets start by droping that god only made a man and a women.

    Reply
  • 125. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:38 am

    LGBT Students at Harding University Cry Out for Help in Web Zine; School Immediately Blocks Access
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/03/lgbt-students-at-harding-university-cry-out-for-help-in-web-zine-school-immediately-blocks-access.html

    This is the first page of “The State of the Gay at Harding University”, a web zine published by LGBT students at Christian conservative Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas. Students have written anonymously about the oppression they encounter at the university, where “conversion therapy” is demanded over the threat of expulsion.

    (me) Hmmmmm ….. : I ….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 127. James A Tuttle  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:45 am

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=270077

    I know this is a long article and don’t expect you to read it all but just to get the gist.

    My question is why why why when everyone keeps saying Obama is not fulfilling his outh of office to uphold US law, does no one ever bring up the fact that previous presidents have done the same thing? Is there somethin I’m missing? Is it simply because it involves gay people or because it is a law passed by congress or… What possible significant difference between those events and this one?

    Reply
    • 128. Steve  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:04 am

      Because the far right are stupid and liars. Most of them know they are lying. They lie about everything else too

      Reply
    • 129. AnonyGrl  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:05 am

      Because they are twits, basically.

      Partisan politics runs that way. For instance, Bush was the originator of the bail out plan, Obama put it into action and was vilified for it.

      Part of it is that this is a volitile issue, and there is some mileage to be gained from making a fuss about it, but mostly it is just that the political parties have the unforntunate tendancy towards us verses them on everything as a default position.

      I do want to occasionally take them by the lapels and shake them, hard. Mostly because I fear too many of them would enjoy it if I suggested they all deserved spankings.

      Reply
      • 130. AnonyGrl  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:07 am

        And I have an UNFORTUNATE TENDENCY towards goofy spelling when I type too quickly.

        Reply
    • 131. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 9:06 am

      James, the biggest difference, even though you will NEVER get the ones who are doing the biggest amount of bitching about this to admit it, is the fact that Obama is our first biracial president, and they have been after him since he first announced he was running!

      Reply
    • 132. Lawrence Graham  |  March 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm

      They fail to make the distinction between administering the law and defending it. His constitutional obligation is to administer it which he will continue to carry out. He has no constitutional obligation to defend it.

      Reply
      • 133. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm

        In fact, if the president feels that a law is unconstitutional, or if the federal courts render a ruling that a law is unconstitutional, doesn’t the President have an obligation to stop defending it if he or she is to defend the Constitution?

        Reply
      • 134. Larry Little  |  March 5, 2011 at 9:43 pm

        We have contrasting view points. Any man treating women like our current Republican leadership (making it legally impossible get an abortion or other vital health care services by defunding Planned Parenthood) has the stench of extreme, radical, reprehensible, right wing religious fanatics behind every letter.
        They aren’t pro-life: They just want to severely punish women who dare respond to their natural sexuality outside religion’s tyrannical restrictive guidelines and get an unwanted pregnancy. They want to finger point and humiliate the unwed mother for nine months and after the birth of her child, they want to adopt them and put them in a Catholic orphanage to be brainwashed and molested by a priest or four. A women’s sexuality is religion’s target: my way or the highway.
        The religious Reich is also “man’s” biggest enemy and again the church using their influence and the many millions of tax free donations are able to legislate gay hatred and purchase political seats. I use Proposition 8 from California as my witness. The church wants to control the sexual behavior of the entire population and their only sexual experience is molesting altar boys or knocking up nuns.
        Normal sexual maturity shows up for mankind at between ages 10 to 13. If man was a piece of fruit, he would be dead ripe at this age and fully capable of reproducing. Religion wants you to clamp your legs together for Jesus.
        The church is a powerful political force on the verge of replacing the state and if they can write all the sexual behavior rules you’ll need to prove you are a virgin and of opposite sex to get a marriage license. Wake up! The entire anti-gay and anti-abortion language comes from religion through John Boehner and his Republicans

        Reply
        • 135. Bob  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:58 pm

          Larry, right on tell it like it is ,,,,, I mean like it really is,,,,, why are Americans unwilliing to accept who owns them,,,

          they argue instead that you paint all people of faith with one brush,,, please don’t forget Larry,, that some people of faith are on our side,,,, so rather than ousting the religious right,, they put time into defending those who are not…..

          Americans are determined to believe they live in the land of the free and home of the brave,,, while they take their marching orders, and accept the class they find themselves in as defined by the amount of money they have…… only the top two percent or whatever the number is,,who are the wealthy can really claim equality,,,, and those with the wealth have the power, and that structure is dependant on breaking down the majority into the working middle class (which the repuclicans presently are working at taking rights away from) so they become the working poor, without the right of assembly and bargaininng power,,, and that class will be satisfied because of course they are a step above the real poor,who eke out an existance day to day just to keep their homes ,or fear a health cisis, lest they fall into that class dependant on soup kitchens and homeless shelters,,, but hey don’t worry about them cause they have the same equal right to get a job , create a business, and make money,,,, so real equality depends on everyones ability to value money, and make that the goal and ideal, replacing the goal to achieve equality simply because we are all human and exist,,,,

          in order to reinforce this class structure they deploy the relligious right,,, to further oppress the people, by doing the unspeakable things you suggest above between the two they reinforce the notion that suffering for your country is an honorable thing,,, after all look at what a grreat country America is and all the good they do for the oppressed in other countries, without human rights…

          oh yes and just to show they are equal don’t forget we all have the same rights when it comes to free speech, and owning guns which can fire multiple rounds of ammunition,,,, every American lives in the land of the free and the brave….. they can say what they want and shoot anyone who threatens them,,,, what could be better than that……… Ummmm I think, I hope, I pray,,, the democrats are about to show them,,,, HUMAN RIGHTS NOW, FREEDOM FOR ALL,,,, the wealthy can’t be complacent when as long as anyone’s belly is raw from the hunger for FREEDOM

          Reply
  • 136. Russell Manaois  |  March 3, 2011 at 8:58 am

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110302/us_nm/us_religion_bible

    Transitive nature of the Bible…

    Reply
  • 137. Russell Manaois  |  March 3, 2011 at 10:47 am

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/03/maggie-gallagher-should-be-championing-religious-expression-ruling-but-instead.html

    Maggie talking out of both sides of her mouth…

    Reply
    • 138. Sagesse  |  March 3, 2011 at 5:58 pm

      This isn’t so surprising. Remember on the bus tour, they always got permits for the public spaces and tried to keep ‘others’ behind the barrier, if the authorities would co-operate. They got very upset if counterprotesters interrupted or drowned out their message.

      To them, free speech is a broadcast right. Religious freedom is the right to practice your religion, anywhere, anytime, in anybody’s face. Religious freedom is something you have, and no one else has in your presence. Protecting the privacy of a funeral is consistent with that.

      Warped, and while I have a LOT of sympathy for the Snyder family, I refuse to think I might agree with Maggie on anything.

      Reply
  • 139. Russell Manaois  |  March 3, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    Wow…political capital ($$$) used to oust Iowa judges

    http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/03/iowa-for-out-of-state-atms-gop-prez-hopeful-bankrolled-judge-ousting.html

    Reply
  • 140. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Totally OT in terms of LGBT Rights…but it does have to do with Human rights & this needs to be known…..

    WATCH: TEABAGGERS ATTACK MUSLIM-AMERICANS IN ORANGE COUNTY
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/03/watch-teabaggers-attack-muslim-americans-in-orange-county.html

    (me) Tea Party members bombarded (with disrespectful & derogatory hate speech & offensive epithets) an Organization that was holding a charity event to raise money for a women’s shelter & services for the homeless in Southern California simply because they were Muslim. They were saying this stuff in front of & to American Muslim families & children.

    Salon’s Glenn Greenwald writes, of the video:
    “Tea Party members and other protesters bombarded (the) charity event…and the families of American Muslims entering the event — with the most foul, hateful, threatening messages possible, while various politicians, including a member of Congress, praised the protesters.”

    Think Progress has more on the video.

    Greenwald adds: “I think what was most striking about that video is that the presence of small children didn’t give these anti-Muslim protesters even momentary pause; they just continued screeching their ugly invective while staring at 4-year-olds walking with their parents. People like that are so overflowing with hatred and resentments that the place where their humanity — their soul — is supposed to be has been drowned. ”

    (me) This is what America is turning into…. Is this what Sarah Palin stands for?..Attacking people who are trying to raise money for the homeless because they are Muslim?…Calling baby’s ‘terrorists” because they are muslim?…good job, *NOT REALLY*…I’m going to throw up all over the Tea Baggers….I mean Tea Poisons…no I mean Tea Punks….erm, I mean Tea Pukes……Party?

    There is a video. not posting it here but….Warning: strong language……. .:-& ……Ronnie:

    Reply
  • 141. Ronnie  |  March 3, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    Posting this without the link to The New Civil Rights Movement site because it will not post with the link…..

    Maggie Gallagher has crossed the line to full on pathological liar………..

    Maggie Gallagher Accuses Maryland Gays Of Racism Against Arora
    by DAVID BADASH on MARCH 3, 2011
    in BIGOTRY WATCH,MARRIAGE,NEWS

    “Secondly, as someone married to an Indian-American, I find it interesting that the gay marriage machine appears to be re-focusing its attacks from Black Democrats who oppose gay marriage to an easier target: Indian-Americans.” ~ Maggie Gallagher on the nom blog

    (me)The article she references does not say anything about race or skin color. In fact the article is written by a Black-American…..Shame on you Maggie, if you are going to play the race card, at least be honest…OMGet the frik out, what am I talking about? Maggie honest?….doink…..

    As an openly gay African-American I am 100% offended by this pathetic excuse for a female human. This fallacious propaganda coming from the head of a Fascist anti-gay organization that held the most offensive tour last year stereotyping Latin-Americans in California is inexcusable. The arrogance, bigotry & ignorance from her is so potent it makes a garbage dump smell like a bed of roses.

    Maggie Gallagher has not one once of morals or ethics what-so-ever & not one decent human quality….The parents who raised this odious & contemptible female neanderthal should be ashamed of themselves

    > I ….Ronnie

    Reply
  • 142. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:04 am

    Enough with the italics already–hope this works

    Reply
  • 144. Elizabeth Oakes  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:05 am

    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)

  • 4,585,297 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...