Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

We (c) Maggie's (a) & (b), raise a (p.s.)

Right-wing

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

I was struck by this comment that Maggie posted to the National Organization For Marriage’s blog:

 

Screen Shot 2011-02-04 At 3.02.31 Pm

And while I would let my six-year-old nephew take on the Swiss cheese logic at play, unfortunately he’s at school. So you’ll have to deal with me.

Obviously, the problem here is that Maggie has, yet again, falsely defined the terms. Namely: The terms that say (a) her work regarding the union of husband of wife constitutes nothing more than defense, and (b) that to defend heterosexual marriage means to not defend same-sex unions. Maggie is acting as if Sophie must make her choice: Stand with Tom & Sue as they dance the horah, or stand with Scott & Joe as they toast their good fortune to live in an increasingly enlightened world. Maggie know this B.S. Or at least she should.

And then there’s the secondary element of “having the moral view” but supposedly not being able to defend it. Well no, Maggie: Every single person is entitled to hold a personal religious view on certain subjects. The issue is the extension of that personal moral view into the public policy realm. Abstaining from eating a cheeseburger because of the mix of meat and dairy is one thing. Lobbying the shared civil government to codify that kosher dietary choice is another thing entirely. So too, *civil* marriage equality.

Look, I am someone who absolutely believes that marriage is the union of a husband and wife, and would fight to defend any of the wonderful heterosexual unions in which I have direct concern/involvement. But I also know, firsthand — as in live, love, and bake brownies in one on a daily basis — that marriage is ALSO sometimes the union of a husband and husband or wife and wife. And this is not anecdotal: This is the legal reality of life within many of our United States and a host of other countries.

The problem is that Maggie’s position — just like her career work on this issue — is defined by limitation. Limitation that she masks by turning discrimination into “defense” and faith-based desires on a civil subject into a no-brainer “moral view.” But limitation, nonetheless.

Maggie has gotten much mileage out of this way of thinking. Within her hour, there is certainly a tchotchke or two that was bought and paid for by gay marriage cash. But I honestly do not believe that these same old tired lines have much breath left in the lungs. Because fewer and fewer people are seeing the world and its people as in need of retaliatory defense, but rather to simply realize the overlooked and/or denied strength whose infrastructure is already in place. I truly believe that the majority wants a world where bully clubs, moral pedestals, talking points sheets, and “culture war” scorecards are all lowered. I have to believe that a majority of my heterosexual peeps don’t define their own ability to maritally thrive on the basis of how fully they can futz with my own family.

458 Comments

  • 1. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:12 am

    Maggie is also forgetting about all the BenZions and Beryls who have danced the horah at their chasunahs, just like BZ and I did after our wedding in November!
    What's the matter, Adam, did I surprise you with the fact that I am LEGALLY the rebbitizen now? Yes, I am the Beryl referenced in the first statement. But then, I guess Maggie wants to remain willfully ignorant of the fact that there are openly gay rabbis who are legally married in this day and age!

  • 2. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:14 am

  • 3. Ed Cortes  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:18 am

    I wonder what nom will do with the bus once they go under?

  • 4. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:19 am

    ♂♂

  • 5. Sarah  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:21 am

    I like the notion of the "defense" of man/woman marriage brought to light here. If it really were under attack in some tangible way, Maggie would potentially be justified. But it is not.

    Though as I sit here thinking, I can't help but try to recognize that she may actually believe that it IS under attack. This logic does not make sense to me, but I am hopeful that she does believe this because otherwise her work really has no merit.

    You must admit, we will all look silly on that day when men and women stop getting married because gay people are allowed to. I mean, come one, who wouldn't choose to be gay if it was an option? 😉 Yepper, that gay marriage sounds so much better than the straight one… sign me up! haha, makes me think of all my straight, married family and friends and picture them saying this. HA! Not gonna happen. Maggie, I would like to take a trip into your world…

  • 6. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:23 am

    Brian and Louis will move into the bus and live in it.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:35 am

    Maggie always makes marriage seem like a duty and burden that is borne by opposite sex couples.

  • 8. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:38 am

    It's people like NOM that are attacking my heterosexual marriage, and I need to defend it *against* people like Maggie. (my wife didn't always have an "F" on her birth certificate) Never mind that we don't plan on bringing kids into the world, so we fail at procreating, THE essential point of marriage in her eyes.

    That's what defense is about: When someone challenges your human rights, you DEFEND yourself or the institution you're part of. There's no need to "defend" when you aren't at risk of losing your own rights. No, Maggie, you mean to use the word "ATTACK". I'll help and give you a sample sentence:

    "Because I [Maggie] believe in only heterosexual marriage (according to my own definition of 'heterosexual'), I will vigorously ATTACK all other marriages and the people who wish to achieve the legal rights I have achieved."

    Maybe I'll go X-post this over at her page. I'm sure it'll get put right up.

  • 9. Ed Cortes  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Now, that's just scary! We must protect the children from them!!

  • 10. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:38 am

    Maggie my darling clueless shoeless one…..
    IT IS wrong, hateful, bigoted to commit time, resources and energy to defend something that DOES NOT NEED DEFENDING.
    Hetro marriage is NOT under attack my dearest Mags.
    All we are asking for is the right to marry the one we love and enter into a CIVIL contract with this other person.
    Keep your religious beliefs in tact….but please please please keep those beliefs out of MY constitution.

    Bless Your Heart Maggie
    Mark and Husband

  • 11. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:39 am

    There are definitely some people who would be a burden and unfortunate obligation if you ended up in marriage with them. It's sad they take their twisted views of relationships out on the rest of us, though.

  • 12. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:41 am

    Jeremy says: "And while I would let my six-year-old nephew take on the Swiss cheese logic at play, unfortunately he’s at school. So you’ll have to deal with me."

    Jason responds: "Jeremy, you are my hero!"
    **School-girl blush and giggle**

  • 13. Ann S.  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:43 am

  • 14. TexasJoe  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:44 am

    They might be "legally" married, but that does not make them married in God's eyes.

  • 15. Ed Cortes  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Why do you ASSume that is important to everyone?

  • 16. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Who are you to say WHAT godd(ess) sees, knows, adhears to, likes, dislikes, etc.???

  • 17. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:55 am

    I don't know what God you worship, but I worship Jesus Christ. I have no doubt they are married in His eyes.

  • 18. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Whose God Joe?
    I would just as soon have my marriage be viewed as legal by the government….the other is between my God and me

  • 19. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:06 am

    *facepalm*

  • 20. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:06 am

    "shoeless one" LOL!!!

    Will we ever know?

    Did Judge Walker 'smell' that something was wrong? or did he 'see' that something was wrong?!!!!

  • 21. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:09 am

    I believe that these posts from 'her' are carefully and strategically crafted … from this side of history, we can catch her on these… however, they subliminally slip into the minds of the wrong side.

  • 22. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Time to head over to NOM again today and have my say about Maggie's post. From how I take it, if I believe that marriage is between a man and woman, then I can't also believe that marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is OK. Got news for her, one has nothing to do with the other.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 23. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Monitoring Zach Wahl YouTube…

    20 hours: 51,515 views

    1 Day: 130,598

    2 days: 563,762

    3 days: 1,025,247

  • 24. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:19 am

    I'm a straight, married, Church-going woman.

    Guess what? These couples are absolutely married in the eyes of God.

    Guess what else? My God is not a hater. Why is yours?

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 25. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:26 am

    1) Some people don't find that at all important
    2) Some people don't have the same narrow and bigoted view of God as you do.

  • 26. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:26 am

    I hope I'm not intruding on Zach's privacy, but I believe there is a very proud biological father standing behind him in the video… the resemblance is uncanny.

  • 27. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:28 am

    PS, I've never watched a YouTube video multiple times (4x!)… this one is incredible!

  • 28. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:36 am

    In the dark recesses of the past, I was in a cabaret show called "Around the World in 80 Measures." I am ever so glad that there are no photographs of me in a baseball uniform, although I wore won when we sang "Shoeless Joe from Hannibal, MO" (from "Damn Yankees").

    This one's for you, Maggie (hi, Maggie):

    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo Lyrics

    [GLORIA]
    Who came along in a puff of smoke

    [ALL]
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.

    [GLORIA]
    Strong as the heart of a mighty Oak

    [ALL]
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.
    Lucky are we to be having him

    [GLORIA]
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.

    [ALL]
    Just when the future was lookin' grim

    [GLORIA]
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.

    [ALL]
    Came a long long way to be
    With us today

    [GLORIA]
    With arms of steel like Hercules

    [BOYS]
    Yeow!

    [GLORIA]
    Feet as fleet as Mercury's

    [BOYS]
    Yeah!

    [GLORIA]
    He'll fight
    For us, do right for us

    [ALL]
    He'll be a beacon light for us
    He's Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.
    Go, go, go, go, go, go

    [GLORIA]
    Go like a bat out-a you know where

    [ALL]
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.

    Strike at the foe, let 'em know you're there

    [ALL]
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo!
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo!
    Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo!

    [GLORIA]
    Came upon the scene

    [ALL]
    As fresh as Listerine

    [GLORIA]
    He sneezed and blew away a calf
    His laughter ripped a barn in half

    [ALL]
    Go, go, go, go, Joe

    [GLORIA]
    Like sevens come, elevens come

    [ALL]
    Like manna from the heavens come!
    It's Shoeless Joe From Hannibal Mo.
    Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go,
    Go like a bat out-a you know where

    [GLORIA]
    Shoeless Joe From M.O.
    Strike at the foe
    Let 'em know you're there

    [ALL]
    Shoeless Joe from M.O.
    Look out, look out, look out, look out for Shoeless Joe

    [JOE]
    The barefoot boy
    From Hannibal Moe!

    [BOYS]
    Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe!

  • 29. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Posting of these lyrics should in no way be perceived as approving of Maggie's disgraceful remarks … or the places where she opts to remove her shoes.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 30. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:40 am

    LOL
    Poor Judge Walker
    LOL

  • 31. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:41 am

    That's great!!!
    And I bet you were lovely in a BB uniform :-)

  • 32. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Or an uncle………..

  • 33. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:43 am

    You're too kind.

    I don't think anything could top the newspaper skirt and blouse (seriously!) I wore for "Herbert Hoover," from "Annie."

    It was quite a show, I must say. (I was also a tap-dancing building for "Wall Street," among other things.)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 34. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:45 am

    @TexasJoe: Well as for myself, I could not give a fuck what your 'god' "thinks".

  • 35. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:45 am

    Haven't gotten to Maggie's post yet but did find it interesting that my first post on this subject went right thru and this one is in moderation.

    The first is the post I was responding to this time:

    #
    TC Matthews
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Sheryl, the issue isn't whether a single mom CAN do the job. Obviously she can, both by law and occasionally by outcome, but just because you may or may not have had a great experience as a single mom, doesn't mean it's a good idea. In fact, the research shows vastly otherwise. It's not even a question.
    #
    Sheryl Beckett
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Yes, TC, but J. Martinez was proposing a ban on children in single parent households and a ban on divorce. Both of which were my situation. By his logic I should have stayed in an abusive because divorce would not have been an option as he wants a ban on it also. So, if I had moved out, even though not divorced, I would have been raising my son in a single parent household and therefore would have had him taken from me because he wants that ban. This is what I was addressing in answer to his post. So, what do you think, because "children do better with a mother and father in the home" should there be a ban on children in single parent homes? And, should there be a ban on divorce to force parents to stay together "for the sake of the children," even though that relationship is an abusive one? And, again, what is going to be done with all of those children that are taken away from single parents?

    And, as for Samantha's comment, I don't believe that having a mother and father in the home is the only requirement for a wonderful environment for the children. I believe that it is the quality of the relationship not the sex of the couples involved that is important in providing children with what they need.

    Will be interested to see if this gets posted.

  • 36. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:48 am

    clueless shoeless one

    For the WIN!

  • 37. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:51 am

    And another post awaiting moderation, my first one about this subject made it thru.

    The first is the post I was responding to:

    NOM BLOG
    Home » Divorce » Do Girlfriends and Boyfriends have Rights to Your Child?
    « Senate Republicans show opposition to SSM in MD
    CBN: Will 'Bluest of Blue States' OK Gay Marriage? »
    Do Girlfriends and Boyfriends have Rights to Your Child?
    Share0 0

    For the gay press, this case is about discrimination against a gay "mother" who never adopted a non-biological child.

    For the rest of us it raises the question: what happens when the law gives romantic partners legal rights over our children?

    Lambda Legal: "Today the Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in Lambda Legal's case defending Michele Hobbs, a lesbian mother who was denied access to her child when she and her former partner, the biological mother, ended their relationship."

    Share0 0
    This entry was written by NOM Staff, posted on February 3, 2011 at 3:40 pm, filed under Divorce, Same-Sex-Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
    « Senate Republicans show opposition to SSM in MD
    CBN: Will 'Bluest of Blue States' OK Gay Marriage? »
    5 Comments

    1.
    Marty
    Posted February 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Love they phraseology of these folks. "mother… her child" (nevermind that she was not the childs mother in any legal or biological sense of the word).

    You hear the same when they speak of marriage "depriving us of the civil right to marry" (nevermind that such a "right" is brand new and limited to only a handful of places).

    Or when they talk about "born that way, can't change" (nevermind that there is no biological proof that anyone is born gay, no proof that they cannot change — and don't even mention the fact that they used to be married to someone of the opposite sex and often even had children together).

    Their reality is defined by what they say it is, and nothing more.
    2.
    Anonymous
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    I'm not sure what your issue is with this. The two agreed to co-parent and did co-parent, telling the child she had two mothers. You don't make an agreement like that and then get to say, "I take it back." The sex or gender of the parties involved makes no difference.
    3.
    Sheryl Beckett
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    To answer the question, yes if the biological parent gave them that right, which in this case she did.
    4.
    Marty
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I told my kids that the tooth fairy came and replaced the baby teeth under the pillow with a dollar coin.

    Not much more fantastical than telling a kid she has two mothers…
    5.
    Sheryl Beckett
    Posted February 4, 2011 at 6:49 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Quite different. The child never sees the tooth fairy. However, the child does interact with the second mother (or father as the case may be) on a daily basis and that interaction in accepting that other person as a parent was requested by the blood parent. And what happens when the child learns there is not a tooth fairy? What happens when the child is denied the relationship with that person that they have accepted and interacted with as a parent? Major differences here in my opinion.

    Now to see if I can find Maggie's post.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 38. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:52 am

    Well said, sir!!!

  • 39. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Sorry about that didn't realize I posted the article and all of the comments. Need to do better about that.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 40. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Let's be clear about this: The voters of this country simply do not want gay "marraige." Like it or not, the reality is that in every state where they have been allowed to vote on this issue, the voters have said NO! What part of NO do you not understand?

    The only handful of places where gay "marriage" is allowed are where it was forced through state legislatures or court systems that were heavily influenced by the power and money of large, very well-funded gay activist groups like the HRC, But even in a few of those states like New Hampshire and Iowa, that's not likely to remain the situation for long, at least not if the people have their voices heard.

    Voters make their decisions for a variety of reasons, not all of them religious. How they vote is up to them. And to those who contend that "civil rights should never be put on a ballot," I politely say bunk. The reason supporters of gay marriage don't want this question on ballots is NOT because they don't think this so-called civil-right shouldn't be decided by popular vote; it's because they know they'll lose! Every time.

    Besides, aLL of our rights are always on the ballot when we vote because we elect the legislators who enact legislation that determines our rights according to the law. Still, I would turn that around to say more accurately that decisions like the definition of marriage shouldn't be left in the hands of a few partisan, bought-and-paid-for legislators, and that these are precisely the kinds of questions that should the voters of a state should be allowed to make.

    To be clear, what I'm saying is that the voters actually get it that the question of gay "marriage" is less about the definition of marriage than it is about one small minority group trying to force the acceptance of its own lifestyle choices on the rest of us, our churches, our government, and our children. We get it, which is why we keep saying NO whenever gay "marriage" is on the ballot. And we will continue to do so every time this question is placed on the ballot.

  • 41. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Bigot Troll is bigotty

  • 42. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:09 am

    You rock, Sheryl!!
    Keep at it – we are right there with you (and are inexpressibly grateful that you are here with us!)!

  • 43. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:12 am

    I apologize for the tiny lapse in logic there. What I meant was that the reason supporters of gay "marriage" don't want this question on a ballot isn't because civil rights should never be subject to the popular vote, but because they KNOW they'd lose such a vote every time. After all, no one screamed "unfair" when the supporters of gay "marriage" tried to get an initiative on the California ballot to ALLOW gay "marriage." So, it's not about civil rights; it's about the fact that the voters have consistently said "No" to the redefinition of marriage.

  • 44. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:13 am

    "God" is irrelevant…nice try though….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 45. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:14 am

    Wow, it is a good thing that "the voters" decided that you (a woman, I'm guessing) should have the right to vote, own property, not BE the property of your husband (should you have one)… oh, wait

  • 46. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:18 am

    hehehehehehehehe

  • 47. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:20 am

    As long as you're working on your logic, you might want to clean up your self-contradiction in this paragraph:

    "Besides, aLL of our rights are always on the ballot when we vote because we elect the legislators who enact legislation that determines our rights according to the law. Still, I would turn that around to say more accurately that decisions like the definition of marriage shouldn’t be left in the hands of a few partisan, bought-and-paid-for legislators, and that these are precisely the kinds of questions that should the voters of a state should be allowed to make."

    Do we elect legislators to make decisions or should we NOT elect legislators to make decisions?

  • 48. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Ahem: 1 Timothy 2:12

    Now where's my sammich!

  • 49. Ed  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:23 am

    History lesson, Karen….the number of state bans on inter-racial marriage when it hit the SCOTUS? Enough said.

  • 50. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Simple… they (& you) are all Fascist bigots who don't know how to mind their own business forcing their repugnant un-American heterosexist supremacist superiority complex on those who will not live their lives how you demand…how you want…

    "one small minority group trying to force the acceptance of its own lifestyle choices on the rest of us"….you aren't even capable of comprehending the definition & connotations of the word "lifestyle", you benighted troglodyte…..

    "our churches, our government, and our children."…What about our churches & our children?….& newsflash….it is NOT your government…I pay taxes too….so I own as much of it as you do..you are nothing but selfish… >I …Ronnie

  • 51. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Karen wrote: And to those who contend that “civil rights should never be put on a ballot,” I politely say bunk.

    Cool. Which of your civil rights shall we put on the ballot, Karen? I'll start gathering signatures directly.

    I'm straight and married. Please tell me how my gay friends getting married harms my marriage, because I can't figure it out. If your marriage is so frigging shaky that someone else getting married, gay or straight, affects it? Seek counseling.

  • 52. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Let’s be clear about this: The voters of this country simply do not want gayinterracial “marraige.” Like it or not, the reality is that in every state where they have been allowed to vote on this issue, the voters have said NO! What part of NO do you not understand?

    The only handful of places where gayinterracial “marriage” is allowed are where it was forced through state legislatures or court systems that were heavily influenced by the power and money of large, very well-funded gayblack activist groups like the HRCNAACP, But even in a few of those states like New Hampshire and Iowa, that’s not likely to remain the situation for long, at least not if the people have their voices heard.

    Voters make their decisions for a variety of reasons, not all of them religious. How they vote is up to them. And to those who contend that “civil rights should never be put on a ballot,” I politely say bunk. The reason supporters of gayinterracial marriage don’t want this question on ballots is NOT because they don’t think this so-called civil-right shouldn’t be decided by popular vote; it’s because they know they’ll lose! Every time.

    Besides, aLL of our rights are always on the ballot when we vote because we elect the legislators who enact legislation that determines our rights according to the law. Still, I would turn that around to say more accurately that decisions like the definition of marriage shouldn’t be left in the hands of a few partisan, bought-and-paid-for legislators, and that these are precisely the kinds of questions that should the voters of a state should be allowed to make.

    To be clear, what I’m saying is that the voters actually get it that the question of gayinterracial “marriage” is less about the definition of marriage than it is about one small minority group trying to force the acceptance of its own lifestyle choices on the rest of us, our churches, our government, and our children. We get it, which is why we keep saying NO whenever gay “marriage” is on the ballot. And we will continue to do so every time this question is placed on the ballot.

    There, fixed that for you. And I just love the "scare quotes".

  • 53. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:27 am

    Oh Ms. Grube if that is indeed your name, we could care less what you think is fact…..we as LGBT persons did NOT chose to be this way, but rather we were BORN this way. So please please pleae stop saying things like 'Your lifestyle choice'
    No one should have their civil right brought to a popular vote. Were that the proper way of handling civil right black Americans would not have been freed, would not have been given the clear civil right to marry the person of their chosing, and women would not have been given the vote and allowed to own property….rather than BE property.
    Also I need remind you that the voters in Washington state by a very wide margin upheld the civil rightsd of LGBT persons by making civil unions state law…..this was NOT pushed through by legislators or the courts but by the people.

  • 54. fiona64  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:29 am

    +1

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 55. Ed  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:29 am

    EPIC WIN

  • 56. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:29 am

    I echo what bJason said…..yes…well said…<3…Ronnie

  • 57. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:31 am

    awesome!

  • 58. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:32 am

    I know I haven't told you lately… I love you!! :) (nice with the show lyrics above, also!)

  • 59. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Sadly we were unable to stop a state constitutional amendment banning SSM….but the fight is still on
    For now we will live with VOTER APPROVED
    Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships

  • 60. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:34 am

    SCORE!!!!!

  • 61. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:34 am

    I am fascinated by which equality messages 'go viral'. Just as Dan Savage did a wonderful thing for LGBT youth by starting the 'It Gets Better' project, someone should start 'The Kids are All Right' project.

  • 62. Chris B  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:35 am

    People who are divorced and remarried to a new spouse are not married in God's eyes either–they are adulterers. And there are a lot more of those than they will every be gay marriages. Why don't you work on getting divorce outlawed, TexasJoe? Why don't you focus on the REAL problems of heterosexual marriages, rather than making up some lame excuse like 'gays are ruining marriages'?

  • 63. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I apologize for the tiny lapse in logic there.

    Apology accepted.

    Of course you do realize that attitudes are changing right? That it is just a matter of time before gay marriage is ubiquitous, by popular vote or otherwise?

    What will you do then? Go to the legislatures and the courts? Nah – you wouldn't do that would you?

    Perhaps you haven't figured this out yet, but it is a civil rights issue. Whether you accept it as such is irrelevant.

    We will not stop fighting until we win. And we are winning. All you have is religious dogma and bigotry. We have actual truth on our side.

  • 64. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Get it started! I think that is an awesome idea!!!
    I would gladly talk our kids about doing a video

  • 65. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Hateful Troll ran away, hatefully.

    OR

    Nonsense Troll ran away – from her nonsense.

  • 66. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:42 am

    That's Lt Gov .Anthony Brown

    Brown steps out on same-sex marriage in Maryland
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/0

  • 67. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:43 am

    +2 – this is a fantastic idea!!!

  • 68. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Where they stand: The Maryland Senate on same-sex marriage
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/0

  • 69. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Agreed – excellent idea.

  • 70. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:53 am

    from the link in your post:

    Senators who said in interviews that they are undecided (6):
    Sen. John C. Astle (D-Anne Arundel)
    Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore)
    Sen. Ulysses Currie (D-Prince George's)
    Sen. Edward J. Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County)
    Sen. Katherine A. Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
    Sen. James C. Rosapepe (D-Prince George's)

    Should we "outsiders" start contacting these folks? Is there a concerted effort to rally constituents to contact these folks? What can we do?

    Obviously, I'm not asking you Sagesse (unless you know the answer :) ). Thanks for the link! Important stuff!!

  • 71. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:53 am

    It's not a question of "should" or "should not." It is a simple reality that our votes for legislators ARE votes on the issues for which they claim to stand. The problem is that elected officials too often betray the trust of the voters who elected them by first, claiming they have one stand on an issue, and then ostensibly changing their minds. And when we remove those state legislators, like they did in New Hampshire, we ARE voting for someone we can trust to truly represent us on these issues.

  • 72. Sarah  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:57 am

    We should elect them to make decisions, but they must also be fundamentalist Christians who will uphold the infallible Bible in office. Did I get that right? So if we didn't elect the "right" (in more ways than one) person, that's when we need to be given the vote on civil rights.

    Seems that Karen saw the problem with that argument and had to cover her tracks. I always think of those cartoon scenes when the characters try to wipe away their tracks by brushing the snow with a tree branch or something.

  • 73. Chris B  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:57 am

    So many things we should let the voters vote on: Interracial marriage, muslims entering the country, integrated schools, whether women should be paid the same as men, whether the Pope should be allowed to visit the US, if women should be able to run for political office, if latinos should be able to enter the country, if there should be an income tax, if Playboy should be allowed to be published, if the Mormon church is a real religion, if Pat Robertson should be allowed to be on TV, if children should be forced to be vaccinated, etc. The list could go on and on.

    We elect legislators to represent us because citizens don't always have the facts or understanding of the issues. For example, what if we had a popular vote to remove all federal and state income taxes? I guess that would overwhelmingly pass. But that would leave the government without the funding for many important things: roads, airports, police, firemen, etc.

    Do you think the voters would have passed civil rights legislation? I doubt it. Do you think the voters of Virginia would have voted to allow interracial marriage 40 years ago? The only reason anti-gay-marriage people want a popular vote is because they think they could win. Once popular opinion turns, they will not want a popular vote, they will want the legislature to vote. But what they really want are constitutional amendments so that when the popular opinion changes, it will be hard to change.

  • 74. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:58 am

    But, man/woman marriage is under attack… but only by irresponsible hetero couples! I mean you, Britney Spears. I mean you, Newt Gingrich. Go defend marriage from the likes of them, Mrs. Srivastav.

  • 75. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:00 am

    What I said is that we ALWAYS vote on so-called civil rights issues whenever we vote for legislators. We choose whom we vote for based on their stands on issues, including such issues as the definition of marriage. I was also saying that it is THOSE individuals who, in many states, have the power to make changes to state laws and to the state constitution affecting civil rights. In other words, the simple reality is that who we vote for counts. It's not just about letting the voters make this decisions at the ballot box. It's about realizing that we have to be very careful about whom we elect, because of the power we give them. But thankfully in some states, the legislatures have been responsive to the voters, and in some states they do actually have a ballot initiative process that allows the voters to change the state constitution. And when we don't like how our elected officials misrepresent us, we don't re-elect them and instead, elect someone who actually listens and truly respects the collective wisdom of the voters, as happened in November in New Hampshire and a few other states.

  • 76. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:01 am

    SENATORS BY NAME
    http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/sen

    The links go to email addresses.

  • 77. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:04 am

    'The only reason anti-gay-marriage people want a popular vote is because they think they could win. Once popular opinion turns, they will not want a popular vote, they will want the legislature to vote. But what they really want are constitutional amendments so that when the popular opinion changes, it will be hard to change.'

    That is exactly right. And when public opinion changes (and it is changing Karen), then, suddenly, the anti-equality folks will run to the courts/legislatures as they have always done.

    Do you really think we believe that once public opinion moves into the marriage equality column that radical christianists like Karen here will just throw up their arms and say "Oh well"? No, of course not.

    Why should we Karen?

  • 78. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Great! But are we staritng a thing about foot fetishes?!?

  • 79. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Ahh, but that works both ways Karen. As happened in a few states like Hawaii and others last election. :)

  • 80. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Bovine excrement! Don't you DARE compare this pitiful push for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle to the very real struggles of Black Americans for true civil rights. I have NEVER seen a "gays only" bathroom, nor a "gays only" water fountain. Nor have I EVER seen firehoses aimed at a group of gay people just trying to stand in line to register to vote. Nor have I ever known of a gay person denied the right to vote. That comparison is a slap in the face to every person who, like me, marched in the streets to support real Civil Rights for Black Americans in the 1960's. Even Dr. Alveda King agrees with that.

  • 81. Ray in MA  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Good work Sheryl. Keep on it.

  • 82. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:15 am

    No what is happening in New Hampshire is that selfish homophobes want to take rights away from tax payers who will not live their lives how the homophobes demand they do…attacking & harming their families, friends, & children to satisfy some people's superiority complex…It is disgusting & un-American….Do you want me to come into your home Karen & demand control every aspect of your personal life? Tell you how to raise your children? What words you can & cannot use & how to use them? Do you want me to demand that you pay for my health insurance & what not? Do you want me to demand that you pay for my food, clothing, & shelter? You want to control who I marry & what words I use to describe my relationship & family, so why stop there? Start controlling EVERY aspect of our personal lives…come on, Karen…you know you want to…you know you want us to live our lives how you demand…you are so important…you are so special…you are so perfect…you homophobic heterosexuals control the world & everything in it…Everything revolves around you,,,come on Karen…keep playing "God", "King', & "Dictator"…come on Karen I know you want to…do it….where should I send the bills?….How high should I jump Boss?….Pickin' this cotton sure is hurtin' my hands Boss…can't I have some water, Boss?… >I …Ronnie

  • 83. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Ummm, someone should direct Karen to LaVar Christensen. He is trying to implement those very things as we speak.

  • 84. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:19 am

    No, according to the likes of you, people who are LGBT shouldn't use ANY bathroom. Every time a non-discrimination ordinance is brought up, the first thing the right wing nuts say is, "Do you want your daughter to have to use a bathroom with lesbians or men wearing dresses?" (nevermind being a lesbian or transgender person has nothing with being sexually attracted to kids, nor is a transgender woman a "man wearing a dress")

    When you all stop using that argument, then we can talk about how there are no differences in bathrooms. But right now, one of the most dangerous things a transgender person can do is to go use a bathroom (and it doesn't matter if they use a men's or a women's room – the outcome is the same). I rate the right to urinate above even the right to marriage – but you would deny people both.

  • 85. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:21 am

    'Bovine excrement!'

    Just say "Bullshit". We are adults here.

    'Don’t you DARE compare this pitiful push for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle'

    There are so many things wrong with just that sentence alone.

    I will compare the bigotry and hate that people like you throw at us to other civil rights issues of our time as I see fit. I could care less what you think of it.

    'Even Dr. Alveda King agrees with that.

    Holy shit – did you just reference "Dr" Velveeta King to "support" your "argument"? Really? Do you even know WTF you are talking about?!

    Have you ever seen a gay person fired for being gay? Ever seen one beaten to death for being gay?

    Want to click on my link and read the glorious stories of dead kids you and your kind helped to kill with your "lifestyle choice"?

    Get a clue Karen.

  • 86. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:25 am

    So, who gets to decide which laws are made by legislation and which are decided by referenda?

    What you're saying here goes back to your original rant of "And to those who contend that 'civil rights should never be put on a ballot,' I politely say bunk". I reiterate Fiona's question – on which of YOUR civil rights should we vote? Mind that you would GET to vote – not because voters said so. People of color would get to vote – not because voters said so.

    If you believe that civil rights should EVER be put on a ballot, I politely say that you don't believe in the founding ideals of this country. There are several countries that agree with you. I suggest you relocate.

  • 87. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Oh, lest anyone think I'm trying to get "Karen" to think logically, I know it's a lost cause; But the arguments "Karen" makes are common ones, for which there are very easy and simple to understand answers. If she is unanswered, the uninformed stumble on this garbage and think we have no logical response. So I don't answer for the sake of "Karen" (although I invite "Karen" to spend a week with my family and then tell me we're not "really" married). No, I answer for those with open minds who just haven't heard both sides of the story yet (I was one of them).

  • 88. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:27 am

    "gay lifestyle"…there is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle"…..goth is a lifestyle…preppy is a lifestyle….country is a lifestyle…bohemian is a lifestyle…learn how to use words you benighted troglodyte….

    "Don’t you DARE compare….very real struggles of Black Americans for true civil rights."……Who "F" do you think you are?…I am an African American & I will compare it to that if I want…you are not the boss…you don't own shite…you un-American Fascist porcine….

    ""I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice… But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' … I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." ~ Coretta Scott King

    "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." – Coretta Scott King

    "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy." ~ Coretta Scott King

    "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." ~ Coretta Scott King

    ""Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." ~ Coretta Scott King

    "That's why when I am asked, 'Are gay rights civil rights?' my answer is always, 'Of course they are.'" ` Julian Bond, NAACP

    "Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

    I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about." ~ Mildred Loving, Loving v. Virgina

    Bayard Rustin was one of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's right hand men & openly Gay….
    http://www.soulforce.org/article/766

    PWND…. XP …Ronnie

  • 89. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:37 am

    First, public opinion is clearly NOT moving in "that" direction. The vote last November was a complete repudiation of the president's and the dem's pro-gay, pro-abortion agenda, not only his economic policies. Like it or not, there is a very clear movement toward social conservatism that is, in large part, a reaction to seeing decisions made AGAINST the wishes of the mainly-conservative voters of this country, and that includes decisions on gay "marriage" in some states.. We didn't like it so we voted them out. We're sick and tired of having our deeply-held convictions being betrayed. Note, I didn't say "religious" convictions. Many people vote NO on gay marriage because it's just bad social policy, not necessarily on moral or religious grounds. Many believe strongly that it's bad for the future success of our society as a whole, from a practical, pragmatic social standpoint, because the gay movement in general has said they aren't interested in fidelity within "marriage"; that multiple partners should be – and are – the norm, and that marriage as an institution should be dismantled. Also, many people just know deep down that chidren need both a mom and a dad in their lives, and that denying them that, which gay "marriage" does, is just wrong. And some people just think that nature and biology shouldn't be ignored, since two women and two man cannot have children without outside interference. Yes, not ever man-woman couple wants or can have chilren, but the union of one man and one woman is STILL the only union that can produce a child, which it why it has been honored by society's laws and social policies for millennia.

    So, I just don't think I'll ever have to 'throw up my arms" as you say, on the issue of preserving traditional marriage. There are too many reasons that vary with each individual, why gay "marriage" will never be approved by the voters of any state.

  • 90. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:38 am

    You said: "the collective wisdom of the voters" – that is where you lost me. OK, one of the places you lost me. You don't mean "collective wisdom" you mean "collective opinion that corresponds with MY opinion". I defy you to prove "collective WISDOM" in this nation's voter pool. The "collective wisdom" of the day did not want you (women) to have any rights.

  • 91. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Wow, can't you think up something new Karen? All you did is spit out the same rhetoric that Maggie and other gay haters have devised as thier "rational" argument.
    Whether I want children or not should not matter in whether I can marry the man I love.

  • 92. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:46 am

    First, public opinion IS clearly moving in our direction…the polls say that exactly….

    "Like it or not, there is a very clear movement toward social conservatism"…..No you are a part of a Fascist, un-American dictatorship ….

    "Many people vote NO on gay marriage "….because they are SELFISH homophobic supremacists with a unhealthy superiority complex….THAT is wrong & bad for the future success of our society as whole

    Everything else just proves that you a repugnant heterosexist selfish un-American Fascist Supremacist..

    CHILDREN DO NOT NEED A MOM & DAD…THEY NEED PARENT(S)/GUARDIAN(S) WHO LOVE THEM & WILL CARE FOR THEM & you don't get to define that for rest of us…..GET OVER YOURSELF!!!!!!…. > I ….Ronnie

  • 93. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Oh, Karen, the above rant is so filled with spoon-fed nonsense that I am now starting to both pity you and realize that no amount of discussion will sway (not that I thought it would to begin with).

    Keep your thoughts and beliefs if you must. But, keep them to yourself. My ability to marry won't change any (number of) marriage(s) you may – or may not- have — any more than your marriage(s) would change mine. Find something positive to do with your energy. You and yours WILL lose this battle in the end. Get a hobby that won't raise your blood pressure – for your own sake.

  • 94. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:59 am

    OT, but I just had to share this with my P8TT family.
    I just got the following email from the It Gets Better Project:

    Hi Richard,

    Thanks so much for your video submission! Sorry for the slow e-mail response. We put as many videos as we can review up on the site, and we are thankful for so many submissions (although it does take a while to get through them all). If you want, you can give us the exact title of the video so we can search through our submissions and put it on the site as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience and support!

    -The It Gets Better Project

    They are actually going to use the video I made in December! OMG!

  • 95. PoxyHowzes  |  February 4, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Thanks for the civics lesson, Karen.
    In Maryland, same-sex marriage was bottled up in the state senate for years. In November's election two Rs lost their seats to Ds and the R caucus is down to an even dozen, one of whom (a straight, white Xian) has said he will vote for same-sex marriage.

    So I guess under your understanding of civics, Marylanders took a giant step *for* civil rights last November.

  • 96. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:01 am

    "Dr." Alveda King – that puts and end to it right there.

    Shit-Stirry Troll is shit stirring. And spinning out of control in the process.

    Hey, hey, Karen **in whispers** say more things that don't make any sense!!!

    Now, I'm enjoying the ride.

  • 97. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:02 am

    And I am quite sure I could get our adult son and at least two of our grandsons to do one!

  • 98. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:03 am

    @Karen:

    'First, public opinion is clearly NOT moving in “that” direction. '

    You must read a 'different' stream of news than I do. It clearly is moving in that direction – has been for the last 10 years. Do some googling. Read a newspaper or something. Educate yourself. Or is that against your religion too?

    'The vote last November was a complete repudiation of the president’s and the dem’s pro-gay, pro-abortion agenda, not only his economic policies.'

    Hogwash. To believe that, you would also have to believe that the pro-dem elections of 2008 were a clear repudiation of social conservative policies.

    Oh, and it's not 'pro-abortion', it's 'pro-choice'. I don't believe anyone out there cheers when an abortion takes place. Your religion is showing.

    'Note, I didn’t say “religious” convictions.'

    You didn't have to – it's plain for everyone to see.

    'Many people vote NO on gay marriage because it’s just bad social policy, not necessarily on moral or religious grounds. '

    Citations please? Have you read any of the trial documents regarding Prop8? I have. Clearly the law does not allow 'religious moral disapproval' to hold sway in deciding the rights of others. We are not a theocracy.

    That's why it could not be used to defend prop 8. Really, I encourage you to get up to speed on whats really happening in the world, and not what you want to happen.

    '…because the gay movement in general has said they aren’t interested in fidelity within “marriage”; that multiple partners should be – and are – the norm, and that marriage as an institution should be dismantled.'

    Again – citations please? Or are you just making this shit up as you go along? I guess we are also interesting in having sex with children and animals too right? Is that what you also read "somewhere"?

    'Also, many people just know deep down that chidren need both a mom and a dad in their lives, and that denying them that, which gay “marriage” does, is just wrong.'

    Hey a mom and dad is usually a good thing. Except in real life, children are often better off without their bio moms and dads due to drug addiction, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, etc. The world is a complicated place. Check it out sometime.

    And how does allowing gay marriage prevent children from having a mom and dad exactly? Perhaps you mean adoption of children by gay people? I got a clue for you, that is already legal, and is already happening today.

    'Yes, not ever man-woman couple wants or can have chilren, …'

    Well, I am relieved that you aren't bringing up the pro-creation argument, which is essentially a non-argument, since as you know, having children is not a requirement for marriage.

    '…but the union of one man and one woman is STILL the only union that can produce a child,'

    Oh, wait… :(

    And another thing, the 'one woman' part is incorrect. Read your bible.

    'So, I just don’t think I’ll ever have to ‘throw up my arms” as you say, on the issue of preserving traditional marriage.'

    Oh, I know you won't – even when it's the law of the land, people like you will still wring their hands and murmur to each other about those filthy homos. Thing is, I won't have to give a crap anymore :)

    'There are too many reasons that vary with each individual, why gay “marriage” will never be approved by the voters of any state.'

    Keep clinging to that dream Karen. I believe quite differently.

  • 99. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Karen, you're just wrong. And mind you, this graph is already outdated.

  • 100. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Mazel tov!

  • 101. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:05 am

    Personally, I'm OK with the Black lifestyle.

  • 102. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:07 am

    Sarah, I never said who – or what political persuasion – people should vote for, only that they should make that decision carefully and base their decision on their deeply hel values whatever they are – and hopefully without being lied to. I would expect that if a liberal elected official from a very liberal district, for example, suddenly decided to vote for 48-hour waiting period for abortions, that the voters of his or her district might indeed not re-elect that person. In other words, no matter what the issue, if you have been mis-represented by your legislator, you have the right to vote him or her out of office. I am saying, though, that it is generally the conservative voters (both fiscal and social conservatives) of this country who have had their values betrayed lately and who have chosen to boot out those by whom they were betrayed. That's pretty obvious.

    The point is that I honestly and deeply trust the voters to make such decisions. Sometimes that happens through a direct ballot vote, as it did in California and Florida, and sometimes through their votes for legislators who truly represent their values. They make bad choices sometimes too sometimes, The beauty of our system is that we get a "do over" every two, four, and six years. Still, when people vote thoughtfully and with good information, the majority of them do make good choices.

  • 103. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:07 am

    See, I think it will pass in Maryland much the way it did in Maine; the question is whether NOM and its allies will be successful with their usual sh-t-stirring, fear-mongering tactics.

  • 104. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:09 am

    …that puts AN end…

  • 105. bJason  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Yay, Richard. Thanks Sagesse. Karen, it was fun! Really, I haven't played Engage-A-Troll in a long time.

    Fight the good fight, all. It is past my bedtime.

    Love to my tribe-peeps!

    Jason

  • 106. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:16 am

    G'nite

  • 107. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Awesome….to go with your announcement Richard….

    LGBT & Straight Allies at North Carolina State University say "It Gets Better" …. <3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuSNuPM5BsI

  • 108. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Also, Karen, with regard to your failed "logic" in regard to state constitutions, if something happens to be found unconstitutional by federal judges who are doing their job properly whether you like the decision handed down or not, then your state constitution has to fall into line with that. The federal constitution trumps the state constitution every time, and when something is found to violate the US Constitution, then all ofifty states have to go by that whether extremists like you who want to hide behind misinterpretations, misquotes, mistranslations, and redactions of the scriptures like it or not. And I am not the one you want to get into an argument with about the scriptures, dear one. My husband is a LUbavitcher rabbi, so I propbably know a lot more about the true meanings of the passages than you ever dreamed of knowing. And probably more about the history and culture of the regions wherein those scriptures were originally written. By the way, check out what Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth had to say. We are the very first group he mentions in the passage that was mistranslated and misinterpreted to refer to "eunuchs." The term "born eunuchs" was the term used in that era to refer to the LGBT population. Since those of you who claim to follow Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth also claim that he is equal to G-d and that as a result, he and G-d are one, that means that he would be considered by you to be the Original Equipment Manufacturer for the Human Race. If that is so, don't you think he of all people would know about his own creation? Therefore, if he is telling you that some of us are born this way, you really should listen to him and stop with the bigotry and hatred against us. Especially since he goes on in that same passage to say that we are also Children of G-d and that we are Blessed of G-d.

  • 109. RebeccaRGB  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:25 am

  • 110. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:25 am

    That kind of name-calling and vitriol is precisely one of the reasons Prop 8 won. I mean that honestly. One of the reasons many people voted for Prop 8 was because they didn't like the way the supporters of prop 8 were being attacked by the proponents of gay "marriage." I'm talking about the supporters of traditional marriage being pushed and shoved, donor names being put on websites and labeled 'haters' simply because they disagreed, and people being forced from their jobs for their personal donations. That pushed a lot of voters to lose sympathy for the supporters of gay "marriage." This name calling here is very clear evidence that the incivility and bullying is still very much alive.

  • 111. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Karen,

    I can't imagine even you really wants traditional marriage. But maybe you do.

    You support traditional marriage? Do you mean where women can't sign contracts or represent themselves in court, without the husband there to do these things "for her"? You mean coverture? You mean where a wife is allowed to be beaten a bit "if it isn't too bad"? Where blacks and whites can't marry? Forced marriage? Winning wives in battle? Selling wives? Multiple wives? Children brides?

    That is traditional marriage. It's disgusting. And it should be disgusting even to anti-gay marriage advocates.

    You don't want traditional marriage. You want modern marriage (but not TOO modern).

    Going to a really "traditional" source:

    The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman or as between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman (Gen 30:26) or as between a man and his sister (Gen 20:12-13) or as between a boy aged 10 and a woman (2 Kings 16:2, 2 Kings 18:1-2; Do the math).

    I'm Christian. But I don't pretend to want "traditional" marriage. Nor am I so ignorant of history as to think marriage originally looked like it does today. It doesn't, thank God. And, tomorrow, thank God, it will look even better.

  • 112. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:30 am

    And how about all of the LGBT folks that Coretta Scott King honored in her statement which equated our struggle to theirs. She even talked about Bayard Rustin and others who "Fourght for our rights when they had no voice with which to fight for their own." I think you really need to get down on your knees and pray for the guidance to become a true human being, Karen, instead of a SHEEPLE for NOM and their ilk. You need some serious therapy to rid yourself of the Fred Phelps brainwashing you have been subjected to all of your life.

  • 113. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Democrats ask DOD to allow ousted gays to appeal for honorable discharge
    http://www.stripes.com/news/democrats-ask-dod-to-

  • 114. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:36 am

    'One of the reasons many people voted for Prop 8 was because they didn’t like the way the supporters of prop 8 were being attacked by the proponents of gay “marriage.”'

    Really? So how many were beaten to death for that? Houses torched? Did any of the prop8 supporters commit suicide? Hmmm?

    The reason prop 8 passed was due to a large influx of money from religious organizations proclaiming how anal sex would be taught to kindergartners if it failed. Watch the ads.

    Do you really even know what you are talking about? No. I think not.

  • 115. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Get over it!!!…you don't want to be called a Fascist, Heterosexist, Supremacist, Bigot, un-American, Selfish Homophobic Hater…..then it is simple…don't be all those things…the truth hurts darling…..GET OVER IT!!!!…..You are soulless…you are selfish…you are all those things….

    "that the incivility and bullying is still very much alive."…NO, that would be from you sweetie….EVERY single thing you posted was offensive, bullying, condescending, arrogant & proof that you want to force your repugnant anti-American, anti-freedom, superiority supremacist & oppressive agenda on the rest of us while stealing our hard earned tax money to fund it…….Get over yourself…..& everything you said in that diatribe was done to us as well by your selfish side time 1000…so don't play victim card…it doesn't suit you…oIo…..XP…Ronnie

  • 116. nightshayde  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:38 am

    @Karen

    1. You might want to have your keyboard checked. For some reason, quotation marks are appearing when you type the word "marriage" (eek – mine just did it… must be catching). I'm pretty sure your marriage (if you have one) is no more or less special than the marriage of any two people who love each other.

    2. Marriage should have nothing to do with the shape of the genitalia of either partner. Marriage should be based on the love shared between the partners. Mutual love is a beautiful thing — telling someone that he/she doesn't deserve to be married to the person he/she loves, especially when that love is reciprocated, is vile and reprehensible. If you don't believe that you should marry someone with matching genitalia, don't do it. Very simple. Very easy. There's no reason your narrow viewpoint of love and relationships should keep loving couples from spending the rest of their lives in each other's arms (and on each other's tax returns).

    3. Marriage and child-rearing are two entirely different issues. Yes – they often occur in close proximity to one another, but people don't have to be married in order to procreate and they don't have to procreate in order to be married. Arguing that same-sex couples shouldn't marry because children need both an adult penis and an adult vagina in the house is both hogwash and completely irrelevant.

    4. Nobody is attacking "traditional marriage," no matter how hard you or anyone else tries to make people believe it. You and your ilk pretend that there's a competition between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. If only a finite number of marriage certificates was allowed to be distributed per year, that might make a tiny bit of sense — but states don't run out of marriage certificates. They just print them as needed.

    5. Equal rights should be guaranteed – not voted on. That's not bunk — that's truth. Subjecting the rights of a minority to the whims of a majority is something that happens in backwards third-world countries. It's something that happens in fundamentalist theocracies. It shouldn't happen in the United States of America — and it shouldn't happen anywhere else.

    As a straight woman who has been happily married for almost 11 1/2 years, I can't even begin to understand why anyone thinks marriage as an institution is going to be changed or negatively affected by sharing its blessings with a wider variety of loving couples. I want my GLBT friends, relatives, acquaintences, and fellow citizens to have the same rights I have. If my daughter happens to have been born a lesbian, I want her to be able to marry the woman of her dreams when she grows up. If she happens to have been born straight, I want her to be able to marry the man of her dreams when she grows up. Frankly, I don't care what shape genitalia her future spouse (if she chooses to marry at all) will have as long as he/she treats my beloved daughter with the kindness, respect, and love that she deserves.

  • 117. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:40 am

    I got it.

    Denying Someone Rights = Morally Correct.

    Calling Someone a Name = Absolutely Horrible and Justifies Voting Against People's Rights.

    Thanks for the clarification. :)

  • 118. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:50 am

    nightshayde++

    :)

  • 119. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:57 am

    @ Nightshayde

    You wrote something that needs to become our mantra. It is something I have thought before but had never been able to articulate the way you just did. I love it!!

    You wrote, "4. Nobody is attacking “traditional marriage,” no matter how hard you or anyone else tries to make people believe it. You and your ilk pretend that there’s a competition between same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. If only a finite number of marriage certificates was allowed to be distributed per year, that might make a tiny bit of sense — but states don’t run out of marriage certificates. They just print them as needed.

  • 120. Sagesse  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:57 am

    For those of you in the LA area

    Same Sex Marriage: Past, Present, and Future
    http://www2.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/progra

  • 121. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Thank you, Ronnie. I met many of these fine people from NCSU at Pride in September.

  • 122. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Unless they are like you and only listen to what FAUX News and NOM tell them, and both of those sources are about as trustworthy as an embezzler in the accounting department.

  • 123. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    I did mean that sincerely. Maryland did vote in elected officials who seem to support gay marriage, and it may come back to bite them in the behind. Look what just happened in New Hampshire. They elected a Republican legislature mainly because they were upset about gay marriage having been forced on them by their elected officials. My expectation, though it remains to be seen, is that legislative efforts to reverse gay marriage there will succeed. And look what happened in Iowa. They refused to allow the judges who forced gay marriage on them to retain their seats on the bench. No one knows what will happen in Maryland or Rhode Island, but what do have is the evidence of what happend in New Hampshire. When gay "marraige" was forced through by the legislature, the voters voted them out. The legislatures and Governors of Maryland and Rhode Island would be wise to take note of that. All I'm saying is that the voters are changing out their representaives when they feel they have been misrepresented, especially on this issue. Forcing gay marriage on a state in defiance of the voters wishes can be hazardous to one's political career. I DO trust the voters to elect new officials who will rescind the actions of those who betrayed their trust. So, even if gay "marriage" is forced through in Maryland and perhaps even Rhode Island, it can and likely will result in a complete turnover of their legislature and a reversal of the decision.

    The whole point here is that if the legislators in these states REALLY believe gay "marriage' is what the voters of their states want, they will allow them to vote on the issue. In other words, the voters will have their say one way other the other. It they are prevented by legislative action from voting directly on this issue, a few important examples show that voters are likely to replace their legislature with those who will allow them to vote and/or who will reverse any legislative action to allow gay "marriage." As a tactic, trying to force gay "marriage" through a state legislature isn't really proving to be a great tactic. Neither is trying to force it through the courts. The voters are saying NO, not only by their direct vote on ballot initiatives, but by changing their legislators and giving them a mandate to either reverse an earlier gay marriage decision or to pass a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.

    I'll go back to my very original statement: Gay "marriage" just isn't something the voters of this country want or will ever vote to approve. I'm not trying to convince you to stop pushing. I'm just asking for a reality check here.

  • 124. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Was just going to make that point, Ed. Great minds!

    Also, I want to comment on the absolute ignorant arrogance of thinking that she knows what LGBT rights advocates thin. Especially since it is evident that she hasn't actually listened to one of us. Ever.

  • 125. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    And actually, Karen, if you actually go and look at the true records, you will find that it was those who were in favor of Prop H8 who were the ones doing all the firing of those who were trying to prevent the passage of Prop H8. It was the opponents of Prop H8 who were victimized, who were pushed and shoved, beaten, who were fired for their contributions, who had signs taken out of their yards, torn up, and then scattered on their yards after being torn up. It was opponents of Prop H8 who were attacked, who had their homes and vehicles vandalized. You have got your situations reversed. YOu really need to learn how to properly look into things rather than believing the lies NOM spews out on a regular basis.

  • 126. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Gee, calling the majority of voters of New Hampshire selfish homphobes isn't exactly the way to convince them to embrace gay "marriage." You may want to brush up on your people skills just a bit there.

  • 127. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Forcing gay marriage on a state in defiance of the voters wishes can be hazardous to one’s political career.

    How does California fit into your view of voter wisdom?

  • 128. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    @Karen
    I haven't reading you entire post yet, but I have to comment on one thing you said before I get drawn off track. You wrote:
    And look what happened in Iowa. They refused to allow the judges who forced gay marriage on them to retain their seats on the bench.
    and I have a lot to say about that event.
    First, Judges should not have to depend on elections to retain their jobs. They are judges because we rely on their .Making them depend on the electorate to retain their jobs. This has a tendency to sway their judgment. This is a prime example of how paid political influence dictates the payee's choice when presented with differing opinions. "hmmm, shall I eat tonight? Or shall I vote my conscience". Any person would choose to eat.

    Though those Iowa judges are out of a job, there was an entire panel of judges which made the decision you didn't like. You NOM types act like there is one or two "activists judges" out there voting against your political opinions. There are more than three.

  • 129. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    You aren't too far off with the tax example. I live in WA state. Last election there was a referendum to implement a much-needed state income tax. We currently don't have one. There were even PSAs and commercials and news stories saying that everything from education to fire departments would face massive cuts. Schools would close as smaller districts were consolidated. Funding would drop all together for things like birth control.

    Guess what the idiots in my state did? That's right. No tax. AND these same people are complaining about everything being cut! They are SHOCKED I TELL YOU that they are losing services.

    People are idiots.

  • 130. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    LOL never seen police or crowd brutality toward gay people? Really? You been living under a rock? Never heard of Matthew Shepard or any of the other people BEATEN TO DEATH by people like you? Never heard of the kids who were driven to suicide by people like you?

    Do a Google search or watch a real news station – any that isn't FOX – and open your eyes. In the mean time shut the frak up and sit the frak down.

  • 131. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    P.S. nothing I said was "bullying"…..Harsh?…True, but justified…It wasn't bullying because it was in defense of the offensive superiority filled unoriginal c&p talking points that you posted…It is like you are robots & have no brain of your own…it is quite sad…truly pathetic…not only is it offensive to LGBT people but heterosexuals as well…You came to a pro-Equality blog & right off the bat started bullying…but i guess it is ok for you do it….hmmmm…..

    We don't like the way the supporters of prop 8 are attacking the proponents of MARRIAGE (aka the supporters of REAL Marriage..US…LGBT & Straight of ALL faiths, races, genders, creeds, nationalities, (dis)abilites, & ages)…calling us derogatory names & comparisons, attacking our families & children, & treating us as inferior to you while taxing us at the same rates & in some cases at higher rates all to satisfy your ominous desire to be deemed superior to everyone who will not live their lives how you demand & want them too according to your delusional autocratic fantasy world beliefs & definitions of who, what, when, where & how… for very selfish reasons….

    & stop with the scare quotes around marriage after the word "gay"…your superiority complex is showing…& its not very flattering….that's all….<3…Ronnie

  • 132. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    I don't want them to embrace MARRIAGE….I want them to mind their own business & stop thinking they have a right to control our personal lives…I don't care what you homophobes embrace…you are irrelevant…my taxes don't pay you..they pay the government….really pay attention….& there are those superiority complex scare quotes again around marriage…careful, you may start to think you are God…your the one that has no people skills…& a real showing of a lack of ethics as well…good job…. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 133. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    You're the one that needs to reality check, Karen….NOBODY is forcing MARRIAGE on anti-gay, anti-Equality, anti-Freedom people like you….it is you who are forcing your autocratic superiority on us…we pay into this country just as much as you do & we deserve EVERY single right, benefit & privilege you get from the government 100%…how they fit into our personal lives & not how you demand & want….IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU….Who I marry is none of your business….how I form my family is none of your business….you pushing yourselves into those personal life choices of ours is selfish…is unacceptable…you wouldn't want us pushing ourselves into your personal lives controlling every aspect of them….so don't be a selfish hypocrite…GET A LIFE!!!…Get over yourself…& most of DEAL WITH IT!!!…..>I …Ronnie

  • 134. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    @Karen,
    You wrote:
    Look what just happened in New Hampshire. They elected a Republican legislature mainly because they were upset about gay marriage having been forced on them by their elected officials.

    Hmm, you mean to tell us that the majority of the voters in New Hampshire were so upset about same sex marriage being allowed in New Hampshire that the voted based on that?? Not on the 12% unemployment in the state? Not for their own state’s prosperity? They voted against Same Sex Marriage?

    No one knows what will happen in Maryland or Rhode Island,…

    Yeah we do, they will do the right thing and support Equality. Because everyone knows that it will come someday. Too bad you had to see it in your lifetime. I am sorry for that.

    All I’m saying is that the voters are changing out their representaives when they feel they have been misrepresented, especially on this issue.
    Yeah, see my earlier post for my opinion on that. I never used to think Term Limits were a good idea. I figured we had natural term limits because of elections. If the people didn’t want these representatives, they would vote them out. That may have worked in the colonial days. There was less money to be thrown around. But in the 21st century, when we have a Supreme Court that allows a mega corporation to be able to donate to a political campaign as if was one person, policy makers can easily be bought. It’s like the Mafia “owning” a senator or a judge. So therefore, I have changed my opinion on term limits. If every session was a lame duck session, we would see a LOT more good things come out of the legislature.

    As a tactic, trying to force gay “marriage” through a state legislature isn’t really proving to be a great tactic. Neither is trying to force it through the courts. The voters are saying NO

    No one is trying to force this thru legislature. Trust me, I have the code book for the “gay agenda”, and it’s not in there. Legislatures are picking this up on their own, because they know it is the right thing to do. The reason we have to go to court is that the judges, well, the Supreme judges anyway, are not reliant on mob rule to make their popular decisions. Look how often equality has been favored by the courts. So often, the NOM types have come to believe it is a few “activist judges legislating from the bench”. I believe they are not “legislating” but doing what they know is the right thing to do. Which is why judges should not be elected.

    I’m not trying to convince you to stop pushing. I’m just asking for a reality check here.
    It’s been nice having you here Karen. Most anti=equality people that come here are so full of hate, they only try to hurt with their words. I can see you are a kind person and truly believe what you are saying.

  • 135. Joe  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    I can't wait till i get to fight for the right of Americans to marry not just to ones we love, but the two's or three's that we love too.

  • 136. AnonyGrl  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    God who?

  • 137. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    ROFL

  • 138. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    You're welcome…I thought it was a very well made video…If you see them again…let them know I said that & that their testimonies are amazing & thank you for sharing….<3…Ronnie

  • 139. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Absolutely! If the Supreme Court decides to intervene and decide there really is a "civil right" to gay marriage, every state will have to honor it.

    However, if the California State Supreme Court rules that the proponents of Prop 8 do NOT have standing, then the federal Prop 8 case will have to be be completely vacated because the Proponents of Prop 8 should not have been allowed standing in Federal District court at all, so Judge Walker's ruling would have to be be vacated. That may force a retrial, but I doubt it.

    If the State Supreme Court rules the proponents DO have standing, then the 9th Circuit will get to rule. That will be interesting, since the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country. If they rule to uphold Judge Walker's decision, it is unlikely the Supreme Court, based on their history with 9th Circuit, will do anything but overturn them again. And if Boies and Olson do lose in the 9th Circuit, they would be fools to appeal to the Supreme Court. A loss there, which is completely likely, would be a bigger loss to the cause they ostensibly support, and I doubt they'll risk it. What is more likely is that the Supreme Court will dismiss the case with prejudice the way they did Baker v. Nelson if Olson and Boies lose and then decide to appeal.

    Look, to everyone here who's having fun bashing me, please understand that I'm trying to look at the situation objectively. If you disagree with this analysis, please show me how it doesn't make sense. I'd love to hear.

  • 140. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    OMG! WOW! Congratulations!

  • 141. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    I don't know where you're getting your information regarding the law, but you're misinformed.

    The California State Supreme Court will not decide whether the Proponents have standing in federal court; only a federal court can make that determination.

    As to the assumption that if the the Proponents are found to lack standing Walker's ruling will have to be vacated, this is just not the case. The requirements for standing to intervene in the trial are different, and less rigorous, than those required to have Article III standing. Strict Article III standing was not necessary at trial, where the government defendants were present. However, once the government defendants dropped out of the case (by choosing not to appeal the decision), Proponents must meet the standards for Article III standing in order to appeal.

  • 142. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    ROTFLMGAYAO…all of a sudden…legal talk..holds as much water as a pair of fish net stockings on Pandora Box….

    "Look, to everyone here who’s having fun bashing me, please understand that I’m trying to look at the situation objectively."

    ROFL…MAUDE!!!!. yeah…ok…. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 143. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    @Karen,
    You wrote, "If you disagree with this analysis, please show me how it doesn’t make sense. I’d love to hear."

    I just read Baker v Nelson tonight as it was the topic of another discussion. Tho you can argue it has control, you have to remember that it was nearly 40 years ago. Are any of the justices presiding then still on the bench today?
    Times have changed. This is the 21st century. We grew up with the Vietnam war in our living rooms. We are a different generation than that was. For one thing, Stonewall had not even happened yet. Compare how the Civil War led to to the freeing of the slaves to what Stonewall had led to for the LBGT people. It was the turning point in "Gay Rights". (I use quotes because Maggie from Nom reads this site, and I want to use a term she will understand. ) But we have come a long way since then. Not just the LBGT populace, but we, as a species. The human race. I can understand how a lot of older people are still clinging to the old ways. They are, after all, traditional. I still enjoy the tradition of Christmas, even tho I don't read from the Bible on Christmas Eve anymore. I don't want to give up my Christmas tree!
    But my Christmas tree is not hurting Richard. So he allows me to keep my tradition alive. We are not trying to KILL your "traditional Marriage", we only want to share your tradition.

  • 144. AnonyGrl  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    Dr. Alveda King is not the voice of authority on this matter, sorry to tell you.

    However, I will tell you EXACTLY where you find the equivalent of the "gays only" water fountain.

    It is called MARRIAGE, and currently homosexuals are excluded from it in many places.

    You need only look up the Stonewall riots to find that homosexuals have been beaten by cops, very much the same as those firehoses you mention.

    If you insist on feeling slapped, that is your own problem. Dr. King's wife, Coretta Scott King, made it clear that her husband would have been in support of marriage equality, and would have seen the comparison between the two causes as perfectly true and valid. Chew on that one for a while.

  • 145. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    For Walker's discussion of Baker, see the transcript for the hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment available here: http://www.afer.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcr

    Just do a .pdf file "find" for Baker to find the relevant section.

  • 146. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    I will. In fact, I am going to contact their GSA about doing a Scentsy Fundraising event or event series for them. Especially since I am trying to get NCSU added to our Campus Collection. And yes, these folks are VERY representative of the attitudes at NCSU.

  • 147. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    You'll have an uphill battle there. Have you looked into the rights of a spouse in marriage? Have you figured out how many of those could apply to a 3+ way marriage? Hint: not very many. You would have to change literally thousands of laws for it to make sense legally. There would be a good argument against that, legally, due to the State's interests. Unlike banning gay marriage which only serves religious and prejudiced interests.

    Now, have you looked at how many can apply to a same-sex marriage? EVERY SINGLE ONE – without changing anything (just by recognizing the 14th Amendment). At most, one or two laws in a state would have to change – not thousands – and the only reason those laws would have to change is because some bigot wrote them to exclude people, unlike that laws that would have to change to allow 3+ way marriage.

    But, really, you should take a logic course. You assume that there is a continuum, with straight marriage on one side, gay marriage in the middle, and polygamy and animal marriage on the far side, with an irresistible force drawing us towards the animal marriage, making it critical to hold our ground as long as possible before we each end up married to a goat (which, apparently, is inevitable).

    Just one problem with this: marriage is not a continuum. Polygamy is separate from gay marriage, and whether or not it is legal has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage is legal. Really.

    If you truly are worried about it, though, remember that when polygamy was popular in the territory that became Utah, gay marriage was decidedly unpopular. So you don't need gay marriage first to have polygamy, nor do you need polygamy first to have gay marriage. They aren't on a continuum. Clearly you can have one or the other, without requiring both. Basic history combined with basic logic.

    I hope that helps you sleep at night. If you need any other help with logic, I'm sure people here are glad to help.

  • 148. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Actually, the standing that the proponents of Prop H8 had was valid for Judge Walker's court. However, just because they had standing to intervene in the original trial does not guarantee that they have the proper standing to appeal (Article III Standing). Therefore, if they are found NOT to have Article III Standing, then Judge Walker's ruling will NOT be vacated, but will stand. However, it will only be binding on the state of California. This is where you really need to go back into your middle school class, and review your civics dear.
    And nobody here is bashing you. AS President Truman was once quoted as saying when a reporter asked him why he was giving everyone hell: "I'm not giving them hell. I'm just giving them the truth, and they THINK it's hell." We are just giving you the truth about yourself and your bigoted viewpoints and you think it is bashing. I have actually lived through bashing. Think about being handcuffed to a street sign on a street corner known for being the site of numerous auto accidents just before rush hour. Or think about Matthew Shepherd, who was brutally murdered simply for being honest about who he was. Think about having urine thrown on you followed by gasoline. Think about having a shirt thrown over you and then having baseball bats swung at you on all points of your body. This is only a few of the things I and friends of mine have endured, simply for refusing to lie about who we are, who we were born to love, and who our spouses are. This is true bashing. All you have experienced here is being called out on your lies, bigotry, hatred, and inability to think for yourself. All you have done is spout the very same lies and misinformation that has been spoon fed to you by NOM and thier psuedo religious ilk.

  • 149. grod  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    @TexasJoe
    Thank you for acknowledging the distinction. You acknowledge the equality of marriage that is being sought is in the civil sphere. Some of the contributors below focus on your second statement reminding you that all of us possess a freedom to practice religion as one chooses. That freedom places on each of us a responsibility to embrace the act of choosing that others' make.

    Like you sometimes its hard to reconcile my civic and religious duties. Maryland’s State Senator Allan Kittleman the other day ably spoke of that challenge: “ while my faith may teach that marriage is between a man and a woman, our government is not a theocracy. As the state senator from District 9, I represent everyone in my district, regardless of their faith. Therefore, while my spiritual life is extremely important to me, it cannot be the sole basis for my decisions as a state senator."
    The senator could have substituted the word citizen. Thus spiritual life is not the sole basis for fulfilling our civic responsibilities ( i.e to embrace the equality of all).

  • 150. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    You seem to have some confusion over the issue of polyamory and multiple partners and marriage. If you want to discuss marriage and polyamory with me, click on my name. it links to my Facebook and you can contact me there.

    All that is a different issue than the one at hand – namely getting this country off it's collective ass and finally coming around to the idea that LGBT are just as worthy as non-LGBT and should have equal protection under the law in every way. Including our current marriage laws.

  • 151. Paul in Minneapolis  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Let's spell it out clearly for poor Karen — if the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing, Walker's decision STANDS, Prop 8 is HISTORY and same-sex marriage WILL BE ALLOWED once again in California. (Yes, proponents could appeal to SCOTUS, but let's not confuse Karen with even more facts; she seems to have an unfortunate allergy to them.)

  • 152. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Thank you, Peterplumber. No, your Christmas tree does not hurt me in the least. And the fact that I light a menorah for Chanukkah does not hurt you. However, if you were to visit my house, I would ask if you wanted to witness the lighting of the candles for whichever night you visited, because I would feel honored to have you as a guest in my home. Our nation was built on diversity, and yet, there are those who are trying to misuse religion to change this country from being a democratic, constitutional republic into a theocracy, and I will not allow that to happen. I will fight that tooth and nail! And yes, there will be times in this fight that I will get my rear end beaten, but I will still leave plenty of evidence that I was there. I am not only in this fight for myself, but for everyone in this country. Because I know that once we have the laws in place to provide marriage equality, we will decrease our government by the number of people who will lose their jobs of coming into the bedrooms, homes, and private lives of every citizen here just to make sure that the only ones who are sharing a home are "the right kind of families."
    Unfortunately, Karen Grube does not seem to realize that the harder she fights for discrimination in marriage, the more people there will be who will be visiting her home to make sure that she has "the right kind of family" and the first time one of those government inspectors finds out that she does not, either she will be dragged off to be re-educated, or her family will be taken from her. That is the kind of totalitarian regime she is looking for here, and that is what we must all fight against.

  • 153. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    I completely agree with your legal analysis. It would be way too complicated to change the law at this point to allow for multiple legal partners.

    I also agree with your logical and social points: It's not the same fight, and this isn't the same place to talk about multiple partner arrangements.

    You are very wrong on one point: Consenting adults entering into polyamory/polygamy aren't even close to the same thing as a non-consenting animal and a person.

    I offer you the same thing I offered above: Click on my name to reach my Facebook and contact me there. We can talk more in depth about this issue there if you like.

  • 154. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Hmm . . It was NOT the proponents of Prop 8 who trashed nine LDS churches. It was NOT the proponents of Prop 8 who put up lists of doners who opposed their cause calling them bigots and haters and created the "AntiGayBlacklist" website in 2008. Thankfully, THAT no longer exists. It was NOT the proponents of Prop 8 who pushed an elderly lady to the ground for her stand on this issue in Palm Springs that was caught on video, or who forced the resignation of employees or ruined the business of places like El Coyote Cafe on Beverly Boulevard in L.A. This kind of behavior came only from the supporters of gay "marriage." Personally, my own apartment was vandalized (too disgusting to describe here) because I had a "Yes on 8" sign in my window. So I don't think I have the situations reversed.
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/

    Let's be honest about what really happened, shall we? It's hard to forget all that.

  • 155. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Please accept my apologies for the careless and hurtful choice of words. I do not believe that consensual adults in a relationship is anything like animal-human sex. I should have been much more respectful in my posting.

    I support anyone's right to consensual relationships (or getting legal recognition for them) when there is no harm to others. I will do better next time. :)

  • 156. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    & another thing…"You may want to brush up on your people skills just a bit there."…….this coming from the person who has not answered ONE question I asked her…..Etiquette skill #1….When someone asks you a question, whether you like the question or not, a sign of respect & decent people skills is to answer it…ignoring it only proves how selfish, arrogant, & self absorbed you really are..well, that & it is extremely insulting….. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 157. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    [unbiased credible citation needed]

    hint: Not the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, Focus on the Family, National Organization for Marriage, The Mormon Church.

    hint two: Try local newspapers or news websites, verified police reports, corroborated first person accounts, national newspapers not owned by NewsCorp, local or national ABC, CBS, NBC reports, NPR

    Try again.

  • 158. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Thanks for the question! That really is a good one. I may be able to explain part of it. The entertainment industry and the labor unions are HUGE here – especially the public employee unions, Also, here in California we have a HUGE problem with illegal aliens being registered to vote illegally and told who to vote for. All of these tend to vote Democratic. I believe the retention of a Democratic state legislature and the election of a Democrat Governor and Attorney General and the re-election of many Democratic state legislators are the result of those influences. And yeah, there was a ton of gay activist money here to defeat some candidates. A few districts were particualy targeted.

    On top of that, we have a – gosh, I can hardly find the word – horrible State Republican Party chair – Ron Nehring – who has led the state Republican Party to election after election of losses. He has yet to find truly decent candidates that people can respect, and instead let Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina try to buy their elections for him. He let them finance their own campaigns because he didn't want to spend the money to find and work with decent candidates. Still, JERRY BROWN???? Yeash!

  • 159. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Thanks :)

    I figured it was just an oversight. And my offer still stands about Facebook – to talk about this or anything else.

    Like otters, who have been known to partner to each other :). SO CUTE!

  • 160. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Ah, it's liberal Hollywood, all those commie labor unions and voter fraud. That explains it. Thanks!

  • 161. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Actually, Hollywood is far less Liberal than people like you think, especially on gay rights.

    Also, on the issue of undocumented immigrants being told who to vote for on a large enough scale to tip elections I say again

    [credible citation needed]

    Meg Whitman is laughable largely because of her part in supporting Prop8, you know.

  • 162. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    But neither have you ever presented the full story on what happened. You have only presented those things which justify your continued bigotry, your continued hatred, your continued choice to be a SHEEPLE instead of actually trying to get to know anyone here, or anyone in your own area. And when it comes to Prop H8, think about this too. When you tell someone that their marriage is not worthy of the same LEGAL and CIVIL recognition, protections, obligations, duties and responsibilities as yours simply because you do not agree with the person they have fallen in love with, then you are actually attacking a very fundamental portion of this person;s life. You are backing this person into a corner. And anyone who feels backed into a corner is going to fight and defend himself or herself to the fullest extent of his or her abilities. Add to that the fact that under the US Constitution, ALL OF US are GUARANTEED the freedom of religion and religious expression (which you are trying to deny to those churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship who do support marriage equality), that ALL OF US are GUARANTEED the freedom of association (which includes associating with our spouse, regardless of gender), and that ALL OF US are guaranteed the SAME PROTECTIONS OF THE LAW AND THE FULL DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW, and you will see why Prop H8 generated such reactions. None of us are trying to tell you that your church has to perform our weddings. We ahve churches that will perform our weddings. We are asking that you render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto G-d what is G-d's. In other words, keep your church out of the secular law, and we will keep the secular law out of your church. This is NOT A THEOCRACY. If you want a theocracy, feel free to exercise your freedom of association and relocate to a country which has a theocratic form of government. But stop trying to justify your interpretation of the CIVIL law based on a book that has been so misused, mistranslated, misinterpreted, misquoted, and redacted that it is nowhere near the original! That is what we have been trying to get you to see, and this is what you have been calling getting bashed. And yes, I know that Ronnie can get passionate and fired up. That is part of what makes Ronnie, Ronnie! but you have steadfastly refused to even consider giving any thought whatsoever to anything any of us have said. All you want to do is keep using the same talking points NOM, FRC, AFA, and all the other groups have been putting out. And most of the groups you are quoting without giving them credit for what you are posting here have officially been listed as hate groups because of the violence their words has caused. I don't know what happened in your early life that filled you with such hate that you would work for something that would destroy so many lives, but you really need to find a board-certified professional and get help for it. And I don't mean NOM board-certified, either. I mean a REAL professional.

  • 163. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    @Rhie–You mean on top of the troubles she caused with eBay and PayPal? And then there is the VERY dark cloud under which Ms. Fiorina was forced to leave the Compaq division of HP after the merger. I believe that both were under some suspicion of financial malfeasance, if not bordering on embezzlement.

  • 164. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    You want to play the victim game?….

    A heterosexual council woman in NY has had her car vandalized with anti-gay epithets because she supported the election of an openly gay man

    Baby Roy was killed at 17 months old because his mother' s boyfriend thought the baby boy acted "too girlie"

    I was threatened to have my throat slashed in high school for being gay even though I wasn't out

    The United Methodist Church in Hollywood has had their marriage equality sign vandalized twice in the last month

    Lawrence King was killed at 15yo shot in the head at point blank range for being gay . All he did was give the boy he had a crush on a Valentine. The next day the 14yo homophobic boy brought a gun to school & killed Lawrence

    Barry Winchel a soldier was killed for being Gay

    Several members of this blog have had their signs ripped

    A rainbow flag set on fire & attached to the NYC LGBT center

    A noose attached to the door of an LGBT center in Cali.

    Dorms rooms & College campuses all over the country have been vandalized with anti-gay epithets.

    Chris Armstrong, University of Michigan Student body president was threatened from several diffrent directions….he was staked by anti-gay Andrew Shirvell Assistant attorney general.

    We can be fired for being LGBT, thrown our of our homes for being LGBT, forced to choose btw, country & boyfriend/girlfriend from another land.

    We are called "deviants, abominations, evil, demons, monsters, perverts, pedophiles"

    Our 1st & 14th amendment rights are violated., Our religious liberty, our freedom of speech & expression.

    DON' T PLAY THE VICTIM CARD, Karen…it doesn't suit you & you always LOOSE!!!!…. > I …Ronnie

  • 165. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    I'm sorry, but the isolated acts of criminals in no way can be compared to institutionalized, widespread, and government sanctioned discrimination against a class of people.

    Every time a gay man walks in public holding his partner's hand, he's at risk. Every time a lesbian kisses the love of her life in public, she's at risk. Every time a transgender person leaves her house, she's at risk. This risk isn't just name calling and insults, nor even shoving. It is DEATH. To my knowledge, no Prop 8 supporter has died for the cause. Gays have died just for living their lives as they are. I'd take being pushed any day over being murdered.

    You think it's horrible that some donors might have got fired? Try getting a job as a GLBT person in most of the country (in plenty of states, it is 100% legal to fire someone just because they are GLBT). But perhaps I misunderstand you – perhaps you think that people shouldn't be fired being honest to themselves and the world. Ok, fine, I'd go for that. Are you going to support ENDA? Are you willing to have it apply to faith organizations?

    I'm a Christian. Trust me, I've seen that people don't always like Christianity. But trust me on this too: it's far safer to be a straight Christian than to be gay. In fact, I used to be a leader at a Christian organization, where the leadership did receive a threat. We were threatened because our homophobic group (I am ashamed to say that I was a bigot at the time) was not homophobic enough in some extremists' eyes. We never did receive any threats for being homophobic – just for not being homophobic *enough*.

    And certainly the violence in the Prop 8 campaign was not one-sided. Nor was it even comparable. The GLBT community faced a lot worse than you did – not that it is acceptable either way.

    I'm with you on this: I do not believe obscenity, assault, or theft belong in our political processes.

    So, there's two choices: Let the hateful people determine our decision making process, or stand against it by continuing to do the right thing, no matter how ugly some of the supporters of either side may be, recognizing that the worst of either side do not represent the best of their side. I personally think the second one is the morally right choice. Do you?

  • 166. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    I gave you a link with varifiable information. There was a LOT there, and each instance had a footnote with a source. If you have any kind of information or a link to a site that provides the same kind of information on the same types of multiple instances of vandalism, intimidation, and violence coming from the supporters of Prop 8, I'll be glad to go look at it. If not, please at least acknowledge that these instance were real and that the information is accurate. To be honest, I actually remember reading the news reports of most of these at the time.

  • 167. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Wow I had forgotten about those. Yea.

    Then the question becomes why the Republican party can't find any reasonable candidates? Maybe because the current GOP isn't all that reasonable?

  • 168. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Karen, the simplest way to find all of the links that will give you the information you are looking for is to go back through this entire site and check out every blog post. You can also go to Matthews Place.org, the Trevor Project, even go to Project LIfe Vest. Did you know that at least 40% of our homeless youth are homeless because their families kicked them out simply for being gay? And that was on a major news report recently. I believe it was on Nightline or 20/20. And I know that Ronnie and several others have the links bookmarked. However, I am not skilled enough to track down all of the links that are available on this and related subjects. Besides, I have an early day tomorrow, and it is already 12:28 here on the East Coast, so I need to take my AARP self to bed.

  • 169. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Heritage Foundation verifiable? You're either kidding or extremely – and there is no other word for it – stupid.

  • 170. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    It is rather hard to be reasonable when you owe your career to the huge multibillion dollar companies that you helped redefine as "small businesses" by changing the rules to base the determination on number of owners rather than gross revenues, gross profit and net profit. Those rule changes by the Republicans have resulted in Apple, MicroSoft, IBM, ABC/Comcast, and other companies of the same magnitude being listed as "small businesses" because there are fewer than 100 stockholders for each.

  • 171. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Hey Karen…learn how to use Google…you benighted troglodyte…."provide a link"…They are all over the place…even this blog has reported on them….careful, Karen…your selfishness, laziness , & arrogance is showing….. > I …Ronnie

  • 172. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    @Richard A. Jernnigan Apple stockholders include several HUGE investment portfolios, in which probably thousands of individuals have their investments. I'm not sure how you determined that Apple had fewer than 100 stockholders. Can you clarify please?

  • 173. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    'It was NOT the proponents of Prop 8 who trashed nine LDS churches…'

    Citation please. And the 'heritage foundation' does not count as a citation.

    That's like me telling you how evil republicans are, then referring you to the democratic national committee website for proof. Stop being stupid.

    Show me the news reports. Show me the police report. Hmm?

    'It was NOT the proponents of Prop 8 who pushed an elderly lady to the ground for her stand on this issue…'

    I saw that video! Did you? Really – all this crap has been discussed here before. To wit – she was not 'pushed to the ground'. Rather the giant cross she was waving in peoples faces got ripped out of her hand. Tough shit. If you watch the people (prop8 supporters) behind her pushing her out into the street… heh, well you can draw your own conclusion about the reason for that.

    Those police lines were there for a reason.

    '…“AntiGayBlacklist” website in 2008. Thankfully, THAT no longer exists.'

    Ahhh, so then since there are so many of these 'hate the gays' website out there – I assume you disapprove of them too? What about 'godhatesfags.com'?

    What's your feeling on that? That site still exists. Do you support it? Do you agree with it?

    'Personally, my own apartment was vandalized (too disgusting to describe here) because I had a “Yes on 8″ sign in my window.'

    Pics, or it didn't happen. Even a mention in your local newspaper? No?

  • 174. Tweets that mention We (c&hellip  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tyler Breisacher, Testimony. Testimony said: We (c) Maggie's (a) & (b), raise a (p.s.) http://wp.me/pLuL9-2bD […]

  • 175. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    @JonT Actually I would say that a Republicans are evil site would be like some fringe paranoid commie site that no one takes seriously. There isn't really a mainstream example on the Left to put against the disgusting bigotry that is the Heritage Foundation.

    @Karen – I don't think you understand how this works. You're the one making the incredible (as in defies belief) claim. You provide the links to the videos and news stories. You say they are on the site. Well, you do the work and find them and post them. Then we'll evaluate them.

    As far as "too disgusting" – there is a very high TMI line here. Tell us. Post pics. Or, send a copy of the police report or newspaper. If it was as bad as you say, surely you called the cops or the media. At the very least you took pics for the homeowner's insurance report.

  • 176. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    'The entertainment industry and the labor unions are HUGE here – especially the public employee unions, Also, here in California we have a HUGE problem with illegal aliens being registered to vote illegally and told who to vote for. All of these tend to vote Democratic.'

    And…. SCENE!

    The trifecta — unions, 'entertainment industry people' and the damn Mexicans who are ruining everything for white, christianist folk like yourself.

    Of course it couldn't actually be people who vote their conscience — you know, the ones that you were lauding so heartily in your posts above right?

    Do you not see the illogic and ignorance of your own contradictory statements?

  • 177. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Here is a nice, readable analysis of the standing issue in the Prop 8 case. Scroll down a bit ti find it.
    http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/on-the-record

    The basic upshot is that no one really knows yet the implications of how the State Supreme Court may rule. It seems pretty certain that they are likely to issue their ruling next week, but no one's sure how they might rule, and certainly no one is sure how the Ninth Circuit will move or act based on that decision. I do appreciate the information on the distinction between standing in state court and federal court. I think I understand why that's important here.

    "The proponents may establish standing either by demonstrating a concrete injury stemming from the district court’s judgment or by showing that the judgment invades an interest created by California law. . . Thus, the standing question turns on an unanswered question of California law. The Ninth Circuit would prefer not to answer this question until California’s highest court has had the opportunity to do so. . . . Prop. 8’s proponents argue that California’s constitutional right to propose initiatives creates an interest in the proponents of these initiatives, the invasion of which confers standing." That's an interesting argument.

    So, we'll all have to see how the court rules on that "unanswered question of California law" before we'll know anything about what the Ninth Circuit will do.

  • 178. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    @Peterplumber The way I know you're wrong about the influence of organizations like the HRC and others on state legislatures is based on the list of supporters of the Democratic candidates in New Hampshire. Organizations like their state "Equality" group weren't shy about how much money and influence they were putting into those campaigns at all. And a call to the Democratic Party of New Hampshire – yes, I actually called them – indicated that they were pleased with the support their candidates were getting from these groups. Next, for weeks, the HRC kept the photo of their leadership standing behind and beside Governor Lynch as he signed their gay marriage bill into law. So, it's pretty clear they had some influence over his '"change of mind" on that issue.

    You'd have to be naive to think these groups don't use their influence on state legislators. Of course, in California they have Mark Leno and Tom Ammiano to do most of their work for them.

  • 179. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    & there are those superiority complex scare quotes around the word marriage again after the word gay….Karen, WTF is wrong with you?….Do you have any ethics what-so-ever?…..Do you like it?…straight "marriage"…..You listen & listen closely…..YOU are NOT superior to us….YOUR marriage is NOT superior to ours….YOUR relationship is NOT superior to ours….You need to learn how to respect other people's relationships…stop the scare quotes "Karen"…..your straight "marriage" is "fake"….your straight "marriage" is "nothing"…."Karen" is "Selfish"….."Karen" is "soulless"…"Karen" "thinks" "she" is "moral"….."Karen" "thinks" "she" is "ethical" "Karen" "thinks" "she" is "superior"…"Karen"…."Karen"…."Karen Grube" is "insignificant"…"Karen Grube" "should" "be" "forced" to "hand over" "Her" "marriage" "license""because" "she" "doesn't" "deserve" "to" "be""married""because" "she" "abuses" that "title".."Karen Grube"…."Karen Grube…"Karen Grube" …."Karen" "thinks" "she" is "American" "Karen" "thinks" "she" "Voted" "for" "Traditional" "marriage"…but what she really voted for was to control, destroy, harm & attack the personal lives of LGBT tax payers,…she really voted to attack & harm our children & families..just to satisfy her repugnant superiority complex…."Karen" "thinks" "she" "voted" for "religious" "Liberty"…but what she really voted for was the violation of religious liberty for churches, congregations, denominations, religions, spiritual followers who support Equality, recognize MARRIAGE btw. 2men or 2women, & are LGBT affirming just to satisfy her repugnant anti-American, anti-freedom Theocratic Dictatorship agenda & superiority complex……"Karen" "thinks" "she" "voted" for "morality"….but what she really voted for was immorality, selfishness , supremacy, oppression , FACISM, …"Karen" "doesn't want" PRO-EQUALITY supporters to compare Freedom to Freedom even though all of the major players of Freedom, support Freedom…while "Karen" "tried" to site a Fake "Dr." named "Alveeda" "King" who according to "Karen" is more qualified to "speak" for Freedom then Coretta Scott King, MLK's wife, Mildred Loving & the NAACP who ALL support MARRIAGE, EQUALITY & LGBT RIGHTS……."Karen" "thinks" "putting" scare quotes "around" "marriage" makes "her" "clever" & "original"…"Karen Grube" doesn't know what a "lifestyle" "is"…"Karen" "Karen"…"Karen Grube' …did I "forget" "anything" "?"……"<3"….."Ronnie"

  • 180. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    I can't get onto the site for the link you posted. Where are you getting your information that the Supreme Court is likely to issue a decision on the question of California law next week?

  • 181. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    @Karen:

    'Here is a nice, readable analysis of the standing issue in the Prop 8 case. Scroll down a bit ti find it.'

    Thanks Karen — prior to your post, none of us here had any idea what was going on.

    'The basic upshot is that no one really knows yet the implications of how the State Supreme Court may rule.'

    Oh, thanks. My crystal ball was pretty sure it knew how it would turn out, but since the upshot is that we can't predict the future, I will wait for further news.

    BTW: They 'may' decide whether 'to even answer the question' next week. They will not be 'ruling' on anything.

    If they decide not to answer the certified question before them, then it goes back to the 9th, who will decide standing based on Article III.

    How could you read that article and not understand what it really meant???

  • 182. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    @Karen why hello there Straw Man! Nice to see you on the moving goalposts! No one is suggesting that HRC etc isn't using influence or lobbying. However, lobbying for legislation isn't even close to "pushing through" legislation. The latter is what you are claiming. That is the claim that is being addressed here. So answer THAT CLAIM, and the evidence given against it.

    Also, compare the tactics of the Right and Left, and the monetary influence of both. Then come back and talk to us. As I said before: Sit down. Shut up. Do your homework.

  • 183. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    The site finally loaded for me. I'm not quite sure what you expected me to see there.

    Was there a point you wanted to make about the law?

  • 184. JonT  |  February 4, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    "LOL" "Ronnie!"

  • 185. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    @Karen, just so you don't waste a lot of time explaining the case to us, many of us here have read the trial transcripts and most all of the documents filed (by both sides) in the District Court, the Court of Appeals, and both the CA and US Supreme Courts. Most of us either attended the oral arguments in Dec or watched them live or on video. In addition, we regularly have participation and Q&A sessions from attorneys well versed in civil rights law and procedure.

    In short, you're speaking with a group of people who either have a legal background or are otherwise possibly the most well-informed group of lay people that you'll find on the topic of this court case.

  • 186. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    @Kathleen: Here is a link to the LA Times article on the upcoming State Supreme Court decision next week on standing in the Prop 8 case. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0203-chie

  • 187. Michael  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    Shrill anti-gay activist Gallagher is confused. Homophobia is NEVER a "moral" view. Homophobia is a sin like lying, stealing and murder. Anti-gay activists can like however they like. But they do not have the right to redefine the Constitution for the rest of us.

  • 188. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    That simply says that we may hear as soon as next week whether or not the CA Supreme Court will "weigh in on the federal Proposition 8 appeal", i.e., whether or not they will answer the question certified to it by the 9th Circuit.

    If they do decide to take the question, then we can expect to see a schedule set for briefing and oral arguments, all of which will happen before the Court issues a decision. Of course, if they decide not to take the question, then it will just go back to the 9th Circuit w/out input from the CA Supreme Court.

  • 189. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    @JonT and @Kathleen The article from Hastings Law Journal is simply a fairly succinct summary of the issue of standing and the question of law that the California Supreme Court will decide (or choose not to decide). I didn't see that kind of analysis in these comments, so I thought I'd point folks here to it. If you already knew all of that, I do apologize for wasting your time. I haven't been to this site in ages, so I didn't know.

    The link to the LA Times article is simply a small comment mentioning that the CA Supreme Court CJ believes the court will decide next week whether or not they will weigh in on the issue of standing, not actually rule on that issue. Thank you for the correction.

  • 190. Kathleen  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    You came here thinking that (a) next week the California Supreme Court would be answering the question certified to them, (b) the CA Supreme Court would be deciding whether the proponents have standing to appeal in a federal court, and (c) lacking standing to appeal equates with lacking standing to intervene at trial. You've (hopefully) gain some new information so that you better understand what is going on with the case. If that is the case, then I don't consider that a waste of my time.

  • 191. Karen Grube  |  February 4, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    @Kathleen I read Walker's Summary Judgment and his comments on Baker. He based his decision on the incorrect (I believe) assmption that Prop 8 was not supported by genuine state interests. He was also wrong on the idea that there was even a question about whether Prop 8 was passed with a discriminatory intent. Whether it was or not can't possibly be relevant to whether the votere had the right to make this decision.. You can't tell people how to vote, and you can't tell people to check their opinions or their faith before they enter the voting booth. Nor can you get inside the heads of every voter and ask them why they voted how they did. That's absurd! And so is the assertion that that state has no compelling interest in the preservation of traditional marriage.

    How about what would happen if the state DIDN'T have any interest in marriage. What if parents could dump the kids they bore on any person who wanted or raise them – or not? What if we did NOT prohibit polygamy or bigamy? Of COURSE the state has a compelling interest in the protection of traditional marriage. It is what provides stability and cohesion to our society. It's why people go on to college – to make a better life for their kids. It's why people earn a good living and work two jobs – for their kids and wife. What it IS NOT is an excuse for two people of the same sex to "buy" a child to raise for their own selfish interests, or an excuse to get on someone else's insurance. Judge Walker just got it wrong.

  • 192. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    " It is what provides stability and cohesion to our society"…NO it doesn't….& you can't prove that…

    "It’s why people go on to college – to make a better life for their kids."…..we do the same…..

    "It’s why people earn a good living and work two jobs – for their kids and wife."……..we do the same….women work also for their husband or wife & kids…men work also for their husband or wife & kids…..you live in a fantasy world…..

    "What it IS NOT is an excuse for two people of the same sex to “buy” a child to raise for their own selfish interests, or an excuse to get on someone else’s insurance."…..You f**king disrespectful BITCH…you better apologize to every single adoptive parent in this community, LGBT & Straight…you better apologize to every single Father & Mother in this community, LGBT & Straight…How DARE you?..There is something mentally wrong with you..

    You are the repugnant selfish one..Shame on you…oIo…. > I ….Ronnie

  • 193. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 4, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    @Karen Grube

    You're saying that people in general, as a collection of all citizens allowed to partake in the voting process, have this inherent right to vote on everything, including other people's rights.  But what you are forgetting is what the Founding Fathers of the United States of America knew all along: minorities that do not harm anyone by their life choices (and I'm talking about real harm as opposed to made-up harm that Maggie and Brian like to talk about a lot) must be protected from the tyranny of the majority.

    No majority should ever use its power to make other people's lives miserable for no good reason, and denial of fundamental rights is very detrimental, not just because the denied ones do not get those rights, but because the very denial of those rights conveys the message of inferiority of the minority in question, and this is why violence against those inferiors becomes justified in the eyes of ignorant folks, this is why bullying becomes normal and accepted, this is why the persecuted ones live miserably and kill themselves unable to see any hope to be one day free in spirit and expression of who they inherently are.

    This is why we have the Constitution of the Unites States: to protect everyone from that tyranny.  And one of the things in the Constitution that is under its protection is freedom of religion… for everyone.  And freedom of religion entails freedom for everyone to have their own religious and moral views and live their own lives the way they see fit, so long as they're not trampling other people's rights directly.  It is not a freedom to be Christian, it is a freedom to be whoever you want.  And that is why you cannot tell us that because homosexuality is a sin in Christian doctrine, we (the geiz) do not deserve same rights, protections and acceptance.  Let's be honest — religion is the source of many of those misconceptions that were codified in sacred scripture and now are viewed as holy truths, when in fact they are mere misconceptions of people who did not know better because the science was not there to explain unusual things.

    — ♂K♥F

  • 194. Michelle Evans  |  February 4, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    I have not had a chance to catch up on today's post and comments, so I hope that I am not repeating something that's already been said on here today, but I just found out something very disturbing that I wanted to pass along, in hopes that others here at the P8TT may take action with me.

    The Pacific Justice Institute, which is one of the groups that has attempted to fight to keep Prop 8 on the books here in California, is having a conference on April 2 at Disney's Grand Californian Hotel. One of their keynote speakers will be from Focus on the Family.

    Disney has always been extremely pro-LGBT, so hearing that they would allow this sort of an anti-LGBT conference on their turf is very disturbing to myself and Cherie. I hope that everyone here might go to Disney's web site and send an email expressing your displeasure with this conference.
    https://disneyland.disney.go.com/help/email/

    or phone the hotel at:

    (714) 635-2300

    I'll try to repost this info on Saturday to any new thread. Thanks everyone.

  • 195. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country

    Err…  I don't know how to check this statement, but not going to because I have a reason to believe it's most likely true.  And want to point out why…  9th Circuit Court listens to cases from one of the most populous states of the entire country — California.  10% of all Americans live there…  So, it is reasonable to expect more cases being heard, ruled on, and, subsequently, sometimes overturned by higher courts, which is why, probably, “the 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country.”  Easy-peasy.  They just have more cases.  But let's not confuse NOMbies with our logic and facts…  God forbid…

    — ♂K♥F

  • 196. TexasJoe  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:22 pm

    1 john:

    4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

    7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

    I dont know what church you go to Fiona, but God the Father hates sin absolutely, as is indicated by the above passages.

    And yes I love my gay brothers and sisters, just as much as myself; God the Father asks them to live a life of celibacy. So when they talk of wanting to be legally "married", I recognize that for what it is, an attempt to lead astray by a non-believer.

  • 197. TexasJoe  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Well Chris, once upon a time in the USA, it used to be hard to get a divorce.

    The law actually required a couple to try and reconcile, rather than this "no fault" divorce stuff we have today. The elimination of no fault divorce would go a long way toward healing some of the ills of our society, in that people would realize that marriage is a real commitment versus a legal contract that can be broken at will.

  • 198. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    Joe the Texan
    Do you understand what freedom of religion is?
    Do you understand that some of us refuse to follow your religion and that we do have a right to do so and have same rights as you have, no matter who follows what religion?
    Do you understand that that is the cornerstone of the society — freedom and equality for all?
    Do you understand that it is in our Constitution?
    Do you understand that we live in the secular society first and foremost, and only afterwards we break down into groups according to our personal beliefs?
    Do you understand that America is not for Christians only, but for everyone who was born there or became a citizen or a legal resident through a lawful process?
    If you do understand all that, then you should not have a problem with people getting married to someone of their choice, regardless of gender.

  • 199. icapricorn  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    TexasJoe, you say without no-fault divorce people would realize marriage was a "real commitment." A life sentence, you mean.

  • 200. Michelle Evans  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Wow, I leave for the day, and find I missed all the fun. :-)

    With people like Karen here pouting her ignorance and fear, I'm sorry I wasn't around to comment. There were times that I read her comments and was close to tears at how horrible she, and those like her, want to make our lives. Then I read the comments from those friends here, and was moved to tears in the opposite direction by the wonderful things so many of you had to say. Heck of a day!

  • 201. Joe Jr.  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    1 Joe 23:14-22

    14 And,lo, god appeared unto his lowly servant Joe and said unto him, 15 "Go to my Gay and Lesbian Children and tell then of my message. 16 I the Father of all Creationism do request of my same-sex attracted but yet somehow still non-demonic children to live a life of absolute celibacy." 17 And Joe went out unto them, through the cover of anonymous media and spread the Word of God According To Joe. 18 And the gays and lesbians all wept tears of great Joe and revered Joe for his great wisdom. 19 And all those who followed Joe and chose to live in self-derogation and abstinence, pitiful in the sight of the merciful ruler of all Creationism, did live through their unhappy and frustrated lives with the knowledge that they would go to Heaven™. 20 And all those who were led astray lived in matrimony with their belov-eds unaware that, 21 though they were experiencing peace and happiness and wellbeing with additional insurance and other rights 22 ETERNAL DOOM FOREVER awaited them! (Because God told Joe that it was so.)

    Amen.

    (I'm and now TOTALLY convinced! Joe, you have certainly made a recruit of me to your religious lifestyle choice!!!)

  • 202. Peterplumber  |  February 4, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    Joe, Stop. Marriage is still marring the ONE you love. Without love, marriage would have no significance. That is why we want marriage so bad, because we all have found THE ONE and want to prove that to the world. Just like str8 people do.

  • 203. TexasJoe  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ

    1. Yes I understand what freedom of religion is
    2. Yes I understand that, according to the free will you were given by God, you may choose to follow a religion other than Christianlity
    3. That is NOT the cornerstone of the society – The US Supreme Court has said "Whether embodied in the fourteenth amendment or inferred from the fifth, the equal protection clause is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness or logic of legislative choices". So I know that based on the LAW as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, Prop 8 is constitutional.
    4. See number three.
    5. You have it backwards. We live for Christ first and foremost, and in secular society second.
    6. Yes I understand that America is a "melting pot".

  • 204. John  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    LOL! “brush up on your people skills”!

  • 205. TexasJoe  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    It is always possible to be reconciled to God. All that is necessary is to ask.

  • 206. Rhie  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    I know you can’t see the really wrong assumptions you have made there with your example of a liberal legislator and a waiting period for abortions. That’s makes me sad, honestly. That kind of ignorance is just horrible to live in. I know. I was there.

    I am liberal living in a liberal district of a liberal state. The FIRST THING I would do is find out as much as I can about that bill if it came up. Is it an amendment on an important bill? Is it a stand alone bill? What are the reasons given? Do they make logical sense? Do they mesh with the Constitution? Do they mesh with existing law on privacy, abortion, and patient’s rights?

    That’s just on the bill. Whether I would vote for the legislator again would launch an entirely different set of questions that may include their record on abortion as a whole.

    See, I’m a liberal because I think. I don’t just knee jerk on an issue. I actually look for the logic.

  • 207. Joe Jr.  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness IS, in fact, the cornerstone of our society.

    Please cite your Supreme Court reference. You have taken it GROSSLY out of context. (Which is very much bearing false witness and twisting words.)

    Freedom from governmental and religious tyranny IS very much the foundation of our nation.

    YOU live for some mythical jesus. You do not even live for the same Jesus that many others 'live' for.

    Our secular society entitles backwards Joe is to live however he wants. Our secular society is RAPIDLY allowing Gays and Lesbians to live how THEY want. Very soon Gays and Lesbians will be able to impose gay marriage on Gays and Lesbians even if only the ones that desperately WANT to be imposed upon!!!

    Texas is not a 'real' state. It is not even allowed to fly the US flag over the Texan flag. Texas has to fly its flag on top to show that it is not one of the states that united together to form a more perfect union. Texas kinda sucks. (Sorry for Stupid Texas.)

  • 208. Martin the Brit  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    It's an amazing pretzel shaped piece of logic, isn't it? It never fails to astound me how people come up with this.

  • 209. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    @Joe the Taxan
    I can quote, too:
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    In bolding is what you took out of the context, forgetting about the next sentence:

    Whether embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment or inferred from the Fifth, equal protection is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices. In areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.

    It's all said here:
    it should not proceed along suspect lines (many courts already found sexual orientation a suspect class that need to be protected and not discriminated against);
    it should not infringe fundamental constitutional rights (US Supreme Court 18 times proclaimed that marriage is a fundamental right);
    there has to be a reasonable conceivable state of facts that could provide rational basis for the imposed law (Prop8 trial was all about trying to find those reasonable facts and rational basis and failing to do so — read Judge Walker's decision).

    There is no rational basis for Proposition 8 to continue to be on the books, other than discrimination against an identifiable group of people for no good reason whatsoever, other than unfounded prejudice deeply rooted in religious misconceptions.  Ergo, Proposition 8 in UNconstitutional as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and it will be found so, if not Prop 8, than any other similar measure that makes it to SCOTUS.

    As for living for Christ first and in secular society second, you are entitled to make up your personal priorities as you see appropriate, but in doing so you are denying other people's freedom of religion when you act on secular matters (that do not directly affect you) in accordance with you religious beliefs.  And that is the core problem of the whole situation that we call struggle for equal civil rights for all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation.

    — ♂K♥F

  • 210. Joe Jr.  |  February 4, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    OH NO JOE!!!! Some Russian kid living in Siberia just beat you to your own legal case quote exposing you as a TOTAL IMBECILE!!!

    And the roosky kid even gave an in depth analysis of its meaning and implication! *OH, SNAP!*

    And there is Rational Basis again! Look out Joe! The Russian is thoroughly owning you!!!

    Quick, Joe! Say something ignorant to cover your stupidity!!!

    PWND, MAN!!! Totally PWND by a RUSSIAN!!!

    (This is a sad day for Texas. Uh, much like everyday.)

  • 211. Felyx  |  February 4, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    We are watching this video right now here in Russia. (3:14 pm our time.) I am close to tears! When I was there so long ago the little club that we had struggled to find a place at all. And now, WOW! I am crying!!!

    I am working hard. I want everyone to know… I am working very hard to bring Kevyn home. This is the University that I am working to get him into. The cost will be daunting (he is out of state) compounded by the costs we will face due to his immigrant status.

    There is nothing NOTHING like this here in Russia. People struggle to survive. Very little is well organized so few people even have time to engage in social policy improvements. There are so many that deserve to go to a University like this… I can't fix it for everyone… but I can do something for this one.

    This video is such an inspiration. Stand with me in support of Kevyn! Let's bring him home and share with him the promises and positive opportunities expressed in this video. It is getting better for us… let's help make it better for our Kevyn!

    Hoping, Wishing, Doing,
    Felyx

  • 212. Papa Foma  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    OK, Buddy – Tears, Tears, and more tears – – –
    Of course I have other reasons to be proud of you – including the love I have for you as a member of my family — BUT to read the interpretation of our Constitution and the intent of our forefathers from a probable FUTURE American really puts me in my place. Your comprehension of the situation amazes me. There will always be the "Karens" out on the fringe, and the "Maggies" to stir us up. May there also be "Kevyns" to counter their nonsense and intentional hate.
    We need you here, Kevyn!

  • 213. Ed Cortes  |  February 4, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    I must have missed something! I thought that (most) politicians put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the Constitution and Laws of the United States, not the other way around!

  • 214. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:01 am

    I believe the term you are looking for is Mobius Logic!

    "148. Dave P. | August 17, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Ah – NOM’s ‘Mobius logic’ in action again. At this point it’s almost comforting, like an old familiar song…

    (The similarities and differences between the Prop 8 and DOMA cases-August 17, 2010)

  • 215. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:07 am

    Perhaps we ought to call it NOMbias (ill)Logic!

  • 216. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:20 am

    (Some) politicians have to swear to the Bible… the rest of those who uphold the constitution do it just because they are honest.

  • 217. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:27 am

    @ Karen. Yes. The way the counts are determined is by the number of named stockholders. They are not going by how many members there may be in an investment portfolio, because the way the RepbuliCANTS rewrote the rules, each investment portfolio only counts as one owner, because they are an agent of whomever they supposedly represent. However, prior to this rewriting of the rules by the RepubliCANTS, in order to be considered a small business, your gross revenues, your gross profits and your net profits all had to be under a certain amount. This is the way it should have remained. Except that there are so many like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner who think that big business is more important than human beings. People who would rather see me do without medication for my migraines and without my eyeglasses than to allow a decent health care reform bill, and who even now are continuing to lie to the US public about the health care reform in order to force the states to file lawsuits against it and to keep the normal American citizsens from having access to the same level of health care that they enjoy as congressional representatives and at a lower percentage of their exorbitant salaries than what I can get on my own. This is who you need to be fighting and standing up against, not us!

  • 218. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:51 am

    God never answers. Because he is an imaginary friend

  • 219. Martin the Brit  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Oooh, Mobius logic! I like that a lot.

    I'm not sure though; pretzels taste good when you devour them :-P.

  • 220. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:54 am

    @ Karen Grube. Okay, now I must weigh in on your ABSURD comments WRT to adoption. HOw in the hell is a couple adopting a child "buying" a child? You are so full of shit that you make the entire production of Thanksgiving and Christmas turkeys for a decade jealous! With that one comment, you have just managed to insult EVERY couple, gay or straight who have ever opened their homes and their hearts to a child or to more than one child. When a couple adopts a child, it is so that they can let that child know that he or she is worthy of being loved, that he or she is worthy of having a home with stability, with a roof overhead and food on the table. When a couple adopts, they are taking on a huge responsibility that does not end. There is nothing selfish about adopting a child. When a couple adopts a child it is the ultimate act of SELFLESSNESS! You really need to come out from under whatever rock you have been hiding under, wake up, smell the coffee and join the real world. Leave behind the world that NOM and the AFA have painted for you as the only true world there is. While reading your posts, I have honestly tried to see things from your point of view, but to be honest with you, I cannot get my head that far up my ass!

  • 221. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:55 am

    coughBullchoughshitecough

    1. You DON't understand what freedom of religion is…it has nothing to do with your "God"…iit has to do with the laws of this country.

    2.Your "God" didn't give me free will because I don't believe in your "God"…he/she/it is irrelevant.

    3. Prop 8 is unconstitutional & yes the courts are qualified to make such assessments about law…they always have….that is their job….take a civics class.

    4. See number 3

    5. You have it backwards. We live for Our own high power or our own spiritual beliefs first and foremost in a secular society, not yours.

    6. NO, you don't understand that America is a “melting pot”…evident in past diatribes……

    8 / ….Ronnie

  • 222. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:57 am

    And they completely redefined voting with that decision.

  • 223. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:58 am

    "The elimination of no fault divorce would go a long way toward healing some of the ills of our society"

    No it wouldn't….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 224. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:04 am

    I don't need to be reconciled with your God…because I do not follow your God….it really is that simple…I am perfectly fine with my Higher Power & I have no need to reconcile with her because I have not forsaken her…nice try though……<3…Ronnie

  • 225. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:06 am

    There is no such thing as collective wisdom. There can't be. One person can be intelligent and wise. Masses of persons are always stupid.

    It's simply too use to rile up people behind fabricated and exaggerated causes. No matter the issue.

  • 226. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:08 am

    Ah, but you are using a very badly mangled passage. In fact, I suspect you are using the KJV, which is only one of a long line of poorly translated versions out there. And yes, most versions are very poorly translated, because instead of actually researching the history and culture of the area in which these passages were written, they are all slanted with a Western, Caucasian slant and bias to them. There is also the fact that too many people who claim to be the followers of Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth totally and willfully ignore the fact that he even refers to us in a passage which has been mistranslated and misinterpreted to refer only to eunuchs. They are ignoring the fact that in the first Century of the common era, the term born eunuchs referred to those of that time who were LGBT. And if you consider this man to be the same as G-d, then that means you also consider him to be the Creator of the Human Race. If that is the case, don't you think he would know about those of us who are born LGBT, and whom he himself called Children of G-d and Blessed of G-d? And if he is saying that we are born this way, that we are Children of G-d and Blessed of G-d, and you consider him to be the Creator of the Human Race, don't you think you should listen to him anbd drop your hatred and bigotry against us and allow us to have our full legal and civil rights? And as for you thinking that my marriage is not considered a marriage in G-d's eyes, I want to know when G-d died and appointed you her successor!

  • 227. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:10 am

    Actually most people don't really care.

    But when nutty fringe groups like NOM come along, pour masses of money into a region and rile up people with lies, they can be easily swayed.
    That's always the issue with public referenda. Not just about civil rights, but about any issue. They are always used by fringe groups to prevent something.

    In a representative democracy, the chances are higher that people only vote based on what actually matters (like the economy) and aren't so easily manipulated by social agendas.

  • 228. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:11 am

    Also, you are forgetting the fact that the loosening of divorce laws was accomplished by heterosexuals, not us. I think that the real reason you are so adamant about continuing to oppress us and to fight giving us our civil and legal right to marriage is that you are so afraid we will provide better examples of love, commitment, and working together to help our marriages remain vibrant, green and growing than the heterosexual community does overall.

  • 229. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:12 am

    Maybe the complaint should be made to the PJI?

    Their contact info:
    http://www.pacificjustice.org/contact-us

  • 230. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Yeah, liberal Hollywood. Where so many actors are in the closet because they are told coming out will hurt their career.

    CA is actually only liberal in the coastal regions. Much of the hinterlands are firmly redneck territory.

  • 231. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:17 am

    TexasJoe,

    You really don't want to be quoting scripture here. You're uninformed. (to non-Christians here – I apologize for the lengthy quotes, but I can't stand to see the Bible taken out of context like this, particularly when the foundation is a handful of scriptures that don't even apply).

    I'd also say the devil referred to by John is far more sinister than what you think! The devil would turn worship of God into a list of acceptable and unacceptable practices, rules that we must follow lest we lose our salvation. That's not from God.

    We can start with the type of worship God wants – Isaiah 58, speaking to a group of people that got the letter of the law right, but missed the whole point:

    Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness[a] will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.

    Or we can look at Isaiah 56, which talks about "eunuchs" which can pretty clearly apply to at least transgender and intersexed people, and, likely, also meant other forms of gender and sexual differences from the norm (such as being gay); I also believe it applies to childless couples (since procreation was a key status symbol back then, a childless couple was actually seen as "cursed by God" by too many):

    And let no eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the LORD says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever.

    Personally, I'd take that "better than sons or daughters" thing. It sounds good to me.

    Then there's 1 Cor 13. I'm not seeing much love in your words:


    Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

    And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

    You like 1 John. So do I. I just think you took it out of context (and didn't define "sin", but we'll get there). 1 John 4:

    God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

    We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.

    There may be no fear in love, but I see plenty of fear among people who are "defending" marriage as if it is under attack. It's not even a justifiable fear, certainly not one from Christ. And, once again, love is more important.

    As for your quote on 1 John, I'd suggest you seriously consider how it is possible for Christians to live without sin, which is the requirement John is stating in the passages you quoted. I'll give you a hint – first he didn't say that Christians live without homosexuality, he said sin. I've yet to meet an honest Christian who could say that they never did anything wrong as a Christian. Was Christ not in them then? Did they need to get re-saved every time they did something they knew was wrong or was unloving? Not hardly.

    (and, besides, you can't take a handful of verses out of context and decide that they define a whole group of people – GLBT people in this case – as sinners. You misunderstand those verses – homosexuality is not sin – but I've used up enough space arguing with you already, so I'm not going to go into this, particularly since your misunderstanding is far worse than simply thinking homosexuality is sin – rather, you think your definition of "sin" can separate us from Christ)

    And, finally, what is sin? Romans 14, talking about the controversial issue of their day, but equally applicable to the controversial issue of our day:

    So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

    Please, next time, realize that there are people here who know the Bible too. I am sure there are people here who know it far, far, far better than I do. And remember it's use: it's supposed to point to Christ, not point to a religion based on law and acceptable/unacceptable ways of living.

  • 232. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Felyx, this is one of the things I will be discussing with the state organizer for Get EQUAL NC when we talk later this afternoon. If you can skype me within the next hour or so, I can write down any questions and concerns you have so that we can begin addressing them ASAP!

  • 233. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:25 am

    TexasJoe: Quick, where in the Bible does it allow a woman to divorce a husband who abuses her?

    The reason no-fault divorce laws were passed, among other reasons, was sometimes a woman couldn't *prove* she was abused, even though she was. MOST people thought she had a right to leave the jerk and go on with her life without the chain of being married to the jerk forever. So they changed the law.

    Do you think an abused woman should be able to leave an abusive relationship through divorce? If so, what is the standard you will require to prove abuse? If not, then you hold an ugly view, but at least it's consistent.

    (and as other people have said, us straight people did plenty good coming up with divorce; perhaps the real threat to children and marriage is on our end, and maybe we need to ban straight marriage if we truly care about the institution)

  • 234. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:35 am

    Will do.

  • 235. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:36 am

    I continue to be amazed about how bright your expression of love is. The world doesn't have nearly enough of that, so, thank you!

    There is nothing more disgusting than people who would try to separate those who love each other.

    You have the support of people here. I will look forward to Kevyn being in our country. I'll look forward even more to seeing Kevyn fully legally recognized as belonging with you.

  • 236. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:41 am

    I heartily second Michelle Evans!

    Yesterday was my first full day of work since my second eye surgery, so except for very brief moments between appointments, I was not able to read P8TT until late last evening. What a day to have been away! :-(

    As was so clearly proven in Judge Walker's courtroom, marriage equality causes absolutely NO HARM to ANYONE.

    On the other hand, it BENEFITS ALL, among them the families (adults & children) who finally get the same legal protections that others have. And as even a proponents' witness stated, America will be a better place when it stops discriminating against its LGBT citizens.

    So why are there still the Karen Grubes spouting the same tired yet hurtful rhetoric that we heard before the trial? You know, the same lies, the same illogic, the same "research" from discredited sources? And most of all, the same religious arguments that have NO PLACE in an issue of civil law?

    Well, the BBs & the MGs et al are getting tons of money for rabble-rousing. The politicians get the backing of the GOP & the votes of those who fall for their fear-mongering & rabble-rousing. The fake religious leaders get more folks into their churches, thus more money & power. Getting all that lovely publicity doesn't hurt their egos, either.

    And our increasingly uneducated population, whatever their "deeply held moral/religious beliefs," fails to underst. They are iwilling to think & vote based on the sound bites delivered to them by the above-mentioned leaders of the Bigotry Crusade (BC).

    Fortunately for all of us who believe in civil rights, we have many ways to work effectively for equality. From the highly publicized court cases to the one-on-one conversations we have with others, we can & are making things better. I am continually encouraged by all the folks here who so willingly share their knowledge & expertise with the rest of us, & so ably counter the Karen Grubes who show up here from time to time. I've learned so much from everyone in this community of ours.

    Thank you all!

  • 237. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Actually, John, there have been provisions for the abused and/or neglected spouse to end the relationship since the days the Pentateuch was first written. We just never had to spell it out in the Scriptures as pertaining absolutely to divorce. It is, however, in the ketubah that every Jewish couple has. The ketubah is given to the spouse who is taking a new name after them marriage, and is the property of that spouse. If the spouse from whom the ketubah was received violates the terms of that ketubah, the spouse who owns the ketubah can then go into not only a rabbinical court but also into a civil court and be granted a divorce and the requisite recompense.

  • 238. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:45 am

    I'm behind in my reading – should have added the TexasJoes to the Karen Grubes.

  • 239. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:48 am

    Thanks for the insight Richard, I didn't know that. I've always been impressed by the Jewish faith's willingness to recognize reality rather than the world people might want to see instead, which is something Christianity can learn from. Too often in Christianity, the simple black and white world people want to see is made more important than the actual reality that real people live in.

  • 240. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:51 am

    Some interesting tidbits in this article.

    Gay member numbers won't be tracked inside military
    http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/feb/04/tom-phi

    "Department of Defense actuaries can tell you that half of all service members are married. They know that 14 percent of enlisted are women and 11.6 percent are Hispanic. They even know that 20.2 percent of members are Roman Catholic and less than 1 percent are Jewish. But, they will caution, 19.5 percent claim no religious preference or decline to identify one.

    What DoD actuaries won't be able to tell you — because they won't know — is how many homosexuals serve in the military. Sexual orientation is to be "a personal and private matter" under new DoD policy guidelines set to prepare for repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

    Even attempting to collect such data will be banned."

    And…

    "The policy papers confirm that many benefit questions surrounding gay service members, such as whether partners will qualify for military health care or whether married gay members will get the higher "with dependents" housing allowance are settled by the Defense of Marriage Act. That law prohibits extension of many federal benefits to same-sex couples including housing allowances, health care and travel reimbursements.

    But gay service members will be able to designate partners as beneficiaries for some programs including possibly the Service Member's Group Life Insurance (SGLI), the federal Thrift Savings Plan, military survivor benefits and the lump sum death gratuity."

  • 241. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:51 am

    Not@Karen Grube: "That kind of name-calling and vitriol is precisely one of the reasons Prop 8 won."

    This is precisely the type of response why I am 100% behind the FCKH8.com campaign. Because there exist people, like Ms. Grube, who would vote to give us our rights (which should not be voted upon in the first place, of course), so long as we play nice, it would definitely be easier to gain our rights by playing nice. However, the other edge of the blade comes once our rights are secured by referendum and we stop playing nice all the time.

    I'm only questioning my sexuality, granted, but I fight a parallel battle for religious rights. People get really worked up about Wicca and witchcraft because of biblical injunctions, and there was a long campaign by Wiccans to prove that we should be accepted because our rede ("An it harm none, do as thou wilt") was used to "prove" that we were all nice and would continue to play nice. Made us easy bait for trolls in any forum. Don't let that happen to the LGBT movement.

  • 242. James  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:56 am

    I really hope the trialtracker team will be able to show up in Santa Fe when two hateful anti-equality bills are introduced to the legistature. One sponsored yearly by a very narrow minded representative from the southern part of the state that insists that marriage be between a woman and a man. Also a new bill that will not recognize marriages from other states. Unfortunately our newly elected governor feels the same. It's going to be a tough road ahead.

  • 243. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:57 am

    Thanks, John. What is really funny is how much I have learned about the Jewish faith since discovering my Jewish heritage and meeting BZ. Funny how much you can learn when you're married to a Lubavitcher rabbi, isn't it?

  • 244. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:01 am

    Not new, but keeping track

    Lesbian Methodist minister faces church-based charges
    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/02/05/2634039/lesb

  • 245. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:01 am

    Or how much you can learn when you are actually WILLING to learn. Thanks as always, Richard!

  • 246. Carpool Cookie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:12 am

    "I can’t help but try to recognize that she may actually believe that [marriage] IS under attack. This logic does not make sense to me, but I am hopeful that she does believe this because otherwise her work really has no merit."

    It's increasingly hard for me to believe Maggie and her corporation are sincere in any way. She/They know they are spouting complete b@llsh!t.

    Maggie is nothing more than a snake oil salesman, a modern day Harold Hill or Bill Starbuck. The difference is that those characters found some kind of moral redemption before the curtain fell.

    This would only happen for Maggie if there were more money to be made by switching teams.

  • 247. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:15 am

    One of my adoptive mother's mantras was "Every day in which you learn something new, and can help someone by sharing that knowledge, is a productive day. If you have learned something new today, you have accomplished something." My mother always felt that everyone who was willing to apply themselves to the task deserved the opportunity to learn, no matter what their income level was or what part of town they lived in. And to this day, I enjoy learning something new. And yes, that is part of what keeps me coming back to my P8TT family.

  • 248. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:19 am

    @ Karen
    You wrote,
    What if parents could dump the kids they bore on any person who wanted or raise them – or not?
    Umm, I believe several states have a plan, where parents who have an unwanted child can dump the child off. There are rules, like it has to be just born and stuff. I don’t know the details, but someone here does, I am sure.

    Of COURSE the state has a compelling interest in the protection of traditional marriage.

    People use the phrase “protection of traditional marriage” when debating this issue all the time. I really don’t understand how allowing same sex marriage interferes with “tradition” marriage. Can you please explain that to me?

  • 249. Kate  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:31 am

    Amazing! A troll who can actually spell and write complete sentences and who doesn't resort to citing her imaginary friend in the sky and books of fairy tales!

  • 250. Carpool Cookie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:34 am

    The whole ridiculous thing about Maggie and her ilk is that she acts as if the concept of Marriage Equality were just a theory. It is already LAW in a number of states, and countries. The train has left the station, and Maggie is huffing and puffing and weazing, alongside.

  • 251. Carpool Cookie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:41 am

    But when Maggie removes her shoes, don't the cloven hooves show??

    Why does she risk it?

  • 252. Carpool Cookie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:48 am

    [b]"I can’t wait till i get to fight for the right of Americans to marry not just to ones we love, but the two’s or three’s that we love too."[/b]

    You would have to get some supporters, first. Though since NOM is funded with money from the LDS, you could possibly start there and try to get them to turn back the clock to the days of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

  • 253. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Adm Mike Mullen interviewed by Jon Stewart

    Adm. Mullen: Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ comes down to ‘integrity’
    http://www.thegavoice.com/index.php/blog/politics

    You may want to watch the opening bit where Stewart and Justin Bieber switch bodies to get some of the references.

  • 254. Mouse  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Point at NOM. Laugh.
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/2/4/941291

  • 255. Carpool Cookie  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Whenever I hear talk of "the will of the people", I start thinking about taxes.

    Would we be okay with carrying out "the will of the people" if the sentence was altered to, "Let’s be clear about this: The voters of this country simply do not want taxes.”

  • 256. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:14 am

    For Michelle Evans

    Transgender vets want military access for own
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/0

  • 257. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:52 am

    The saga continues (relevant because Justice Thomas sits on the US Supreme Court that will eventually decide LGBT rights)

    Justice Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.h

  • 258. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:10 am

    Sheryl, and others. I believe TC Matthews is one of the admins on the NOM blogs as well as a commenter. He is a long-time friend of Brian Brown and was an admin on the original NOM page on Facebook.

  • 259. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:26 am

    What you need to know about Karen Grube is she is extremely anti-gay, so right out of the gate her vision of "fair and unbiased" is skewed. When Karen states that our lifestyle is a choice, she automatically disqualifies herself because she weighs her decision by disregarding the facts.

    Furthermore, when the New York legislature voted down marriage equality, Karen and her ilk said that these elected officials did their job. But in the states that they approved marriage equality, Karen would say that it's not their right to make this decision. Quite baffling there, Karen.

    Third, to Karen the only fair system is the system that gives the results she wants. What's going to happen in 20 years? As we see in Canada, the majority do approve. The religious right up north are claiming to being abused by the majority.

    Karen Grube is ultra-cautious about mentioning it, but her motives are purely religious… she knows where that leads.

  • 260. fiona64  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:32 am

    TexasJoe wrote: God the Father asks them to live a life of celibacy.

    Really? Could you show this to me in scripture?

    And let me tell you something, dude; I don't want to know your hateful god.

  • 261. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:34 am

    Did she really post a link to Heritage? Funny. I had friends there, they took washable chalk to the walls of one of the LDS churches. Funny how that's reported as trashing. But the religious ones are always quick with the exaggerations and drama.

    When the police officers who roughed up Rodney King were acquitted the riots after killed 55 people. What's our teachable moment with that one, Karen?

  • 262. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:37 am

    Chris, her excuses are all red herrings… if it were in her power, no matter how well you behaved she would never grant you a right.

  • 263. fiona64  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:39 am

    Karen, just a teensy little fact check for you. Those websites? Show *all* political donations greater than $500. It's the LAW in the state of California. If you don't want your name to show up on the State Attorney General's website, don't donate an amount that triggers that requirement.

    'Nough said.

  • 264. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:45 am

    The reality is the people spoke and they voted for those who are for the Prop8 repeal. And the candidates the said they would defend Prop 8 lost.

    As we know with social issues, the moderates were blindsided the first go round. They don't like to have that happen twice.

  • 265. fiona64  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:50 am

    Dr. Alveda King? Did you really go there? Referencing a woman with an "honorary degree" from an institution that is not accredited to provide doctorates?

    How about Coretta Scott King:

    POMONA, N.J. (AP) — The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.

    Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.

    "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-ki

    BTW, one of MLK's primary advisors was an out gay man named Bayard Rustin. Use your amazing Google-fu and look him up.

    While we're talking about this, though, how do you defend your Prop 8-lovin' buddies beating up a teenaged girl who was against it? http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/pol… Big men, beating up a young girl. Is that what Jesus would do?

    I was threatened with physical violence for refusing to remove a "No on 8" sign from my own lawn, BTW.

  • 266. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:02 am

    First, Alveda King is not a civil rights leader, she's related to one. Her PhD is honorary, she has a MBA in finance. Correta Scott King who actually picked her husband was killed actually believes in LGBT rights including marriage. Google that.

    Second, in 29 states you can be fired for being gay. How many states allow you to be fired for being black?

    Third, you show you know absolutely nothing about sexual orientation, you just keep repeating know spoon-fed nonsense. You know as much about homosexuality as I do on performing open-heart surgery. Do my silly notions about surgery qualify me as an MD?

  • 267. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:05 am

    If you want to see what Karen Grube thinks about glbt people, just see some of her comments in forums where she doesn't feel the need to be quite as restrained as she has been here. Do a google search of "karen grube Washington Poll: Approve R-71 has big lead" (without the quotes). See her remarks in the comments section.

  • 268. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:11 am

    I already Googled the name Karen Grube . I see she has left a trail of the same NOMspeak all over the place. Look how she spent her past Christmas!

    Karen Grube
    Okay, here we go again. So called 'gay marriage' just isn't going to happen at the federal level. And it will not happen because it isn't what the voters of this country want. Wherever the voters of any state have been allowed to vote on this issue, they have said NO! What part of NO do you not understand? And when the voters are allowed to make this choice in the few states that permit gay marriage, it will be reversed.

    And please quit calling people names. It demeans you, as though you have nothing more intelligent to add to the debate. What am I saying. There IS no debate on this issue, nor will there be one. It's a dead issue after the election, despite all the money and vitriol a bunch of wealthy gay activist organizations are trying to throw at it!

    #596 – Sat Dec 25, 2010 11:05 PM EST

  • 269. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:20 am

    OMG! I think Karen lives in San Diego. I also found this:

    Wildmon, whose organization includes 192 radio stations, launched a boycott this month against McDonald's for contributing $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

    “We contacted McDonald's and we told them: 'Look, you should stay neutral in the culture war. You shouldn't take sides; just sell hamburgers' ” Wildmon said.

    San Diego resident Karen Grube is honoring the boycott by skipping her twice weekly stops at McDonald's.

    “We perceive what McDonald's is doing as an attempt to somehow make gay marriage and the entire gay agenda more acceptable,” Grube said.

  • 270. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:32 am

    LOL regarding the McD's boycott.

    So it's not okay to name supporters of Prop 8 and cause them any loss of business or such. But it's fine to do it to the opponents.

    Personally, I think boycotting a business is a right we all have. And I think it's perfectly legitimate – and serves a legitimate state interest – to know who's paying the bills to get a law passed. After all, wouldn't the anti-some-family groups want to know if an GLBT organization was sponsoring some change to family code?

    But while she has every right to boycott McD's, it's hilarious how much of a hypocrite that is. You can't play it both ways!

  • 271. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:46 am

    @ John
    Karen got named. They even show here address. I won't post it here, but it's out there for anyone to find.

  • 272. Karen Grube  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:54 am

    I have never created a fake name like some of the people here to try to hide behind. But I absolutely do not appreciate anyone EVER posting my location unless I choose to post it myself. Remove the post with my location please, immediately. It is precisely THAT kind of cyberstalking behavior and exposure of personal information from people like those who frequent this forum, that got Prop 8 passed.

    I don't know if the administrators of this forum actually read what goes on here, but if they do, they need to boot Peterplumber for violating my privacy, despite the fact that he's been around for quite some time. This was highly inappropriate. And, I want a formal apology.

    You have every legal right to post leads to anything I have posted publicly, but that doesn't mean you get to violate my privacy. Would you really want someone doing that to you? I don't think so. I don't care about the ridicule you THINK you're subjecting me to here. I will always say honestly what I think. What I will not stand for is having my personal information posted like that.

  • 273. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:55 am

    I've done a google search for "Karen Grube" also….It appears hypocrisy is not beneath her capabilities …so sad..found out what you all have..quite interesting yet extremely boring…..very telling…. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 274. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:03 am

    And that hypocrisy right there is why I left the church. You and people like you SAY it is as simple as asking God for forgiveness but you don't believe it. You put all kinds of conditions on it – the least of which being that anyone who follows your God HAS to say that LGBT people are wrong and sinful.

    Of course, the way you try to slither out of that one is to say that anyone who truly accepts God would naturally believe all these things. That's interesting because you've just damned yourself by that saying that.

    You're saying that YOU get to decide what God really meant when he said things, and dictate that to others.. You are setting yourself as the person who decides who God gets to forgive.

    This setting yourself above God places you in the league of proud idolaters which is called out by name as someone God hates and sees as sinful more than a few times. I believe Jesus called people like you the walking dead who care only about appearances.

    All of this is assuming that "homosexual" is the proper translation, and has the same societal and relational implications that we understand today. Which it doesn't.

    And, that Protestant Evangelical Christianity – or any other version of Christianity – is the basis for the Constitution and all law in this country. Which it isn't.

  • 275. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:03 am

    @ Karen
    I am sorry, Karen. I personally apologize. I didn't know San Diego was such a small place that by stating you live here could lead someone right to your door. I will never mention San Diego and the name Karen Grub in the same sentance again.

  • 276. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:04 am

    What privacy? While I commend the fact that you don't post under a fake name, the fact is that anyone here can google you and find out where you live.

    Peterplumber's reference to you being a San Diego resident came from an online article published by The San Diego Union-Tribune. If you don't want people knowing you live in San Diego, then don't allow yourself to be quoted by your local newspaper.

    No one here has revealed information that isn't readily and easily available to anyone with an internet connection.

  • 277. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:05 am

    Wow…Karen…you really do live in reality….Your location is written in an article on the internet in the news….you blame them…Get over yourself you self absorbed little crybaby

    NOBODY here has posted your personal information…do you see an address anywhere? Did somebody post a phone number?….are you saying that Peter is not his real name?…How do you know that?….

    Get off your high horse… you self-rightous, sanctimonious hypocritical, condescending termagant…. oIo …… >I …Ronnie

  • 278. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:11 am

    I had to look up the meaning of TERMAGANT

    According to Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    1ter·ma·gant noun ˈtər-mə-gənt
    Definition of TERMAGANT
    1capitalized : a deity erroneously ascribed to Islam by medieval European Christians and represented in early English drama as a violent character
    2: an overbearing or nagging woman

  • 279. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:15 am

    What's interesting is that even at the formation of the country, not long before the constitution was written, is that some religious (definitely Christian) groups wanted marriage to be an entirely religious rite where the state had no business regulating it. Others claimed that the Bible never said anything about marriage as a religious rite, and thus wanted it to be entirely civil, with no church ceremony or input.

    Yet apparently all of the founders must have been exactly like Focus on the Family Christians today. What hogwash.

  • 280. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:24 am

    @ Karen

    Why don't you tel us who Aimee Garten is??

  • 281. Karen Grube  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:31 am

    Wrong, Kathleen, Ronnie and Peterplumber. It is NOT okay to post any one else's personal information of any kind – particularly their location – here like that. If I want to post it, that's my choice, but you do not get to do that here. It is a violation of privacy.

    But then what else could I expect, when there seem to be no rules of conduct for this forum, and no one monitoring to see if they are being violated. Typical of the Courage Campaign.

    Regarding boycotting . . . No one said boycotts against companies aren't okay. But you do NOT get to subject a company to a boycott or abuse for the personal donations or support of an employee – or even the owner – for their personal political views.. We all have a legitimate right to boycott companies that contribute to causes we don't support as companies or corporations, but not individuals.

    It's funny. I think we all thought this was a time and perhaps a place for civil discussion and debate, I guess that only applies to people who agree with you. I get it now. Basically nothing has changed since the vandalism and vitriol of the Prop 8 campaign. I had actually thought better. I'm sure you hear this all the time, but it just hit home to me: For people who claim they want tolerance, this group is the MOST intolerant I have ever encountered.

  • 282. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:39 am

    Karen, perhaps you should complain to The San Diego Union-Tribune for mentioning in a published article what city you live in. Do you really think it's an invasion of your privacy to quote from an article available online? If that's the threshold of your comfort level for your information being publicly available, you should rethink being so public in your views.

  • 283. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:40 am

    @Joe Jr

    Interesting you should bring up bearing false witness. It doesn't actually mean lying as in telling an untruth. It's more than that.

    It means presenting any information in a way to give a false impression about a person or group of people. So, it includes everything from an out right lie about person to quotes taken out of context.

    It even includes vague phrases that, by themselves, aren't exactly FALSE but leave an impression that is false. i.e. "Well, they never PROVED that Jane Smith had a body buried in the back yard…".

    So yea, by every standard the words of NOM and TexasJoe are absolutely breaking that commandment.

  • 284. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:44 am

    @Karen Grube

    "For people who claim they want tolerance, this group is the MOST intolerant I have ever encountered."

    You clearly don't get out much.

  • 285. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Hey, Karen,

    As others have said, if you don't want people to be able to locate you, don't do anything that links your bigotry to your real name & location. The information didn't originate from this site, & there was restraint in not posting more details about where you live.

    You sound reasonably intelligent, but you seem to have no idea of the information available on the web these days. It's available to anyone who is even halfway knowledgeable about using Google.

    So get off your high horse & remember that it's pretty hard these days to hide behind the 21st Century's version of a KKK hood.

  • 286. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:47 am

    NOBODY has posted your personal information you benighted troglodyte.. it was written in an article…you are an idiot…your privacy was not violated you moron…..

    "But you do NOT get to subject a company to a boycott or abuse for the personal donations or support of an employee – or even the owner – for their personal political views"…..then neither do you..you selfish Termagant….stop being a selfish hypocrite

    You anti-freedom…anti-marriage…anti-eqaulity….Homophobic Porcines did a thousand times more vandalism & vitriol towards us….you called us derogatory names & comparisons, you attacked our families & children….You clearly do not know how to read….

    You know nothing about tolerance you ignorant hateful, Fascist BIGOT….

    "violating my privacy" ~ Karen Grube

    Interesting…..who we marry & how we form our families are our private decisions to make…our privacy….yet The Fascists of this country such as Karen Grube have no qualms with involving themselves in our personal lives & privacy…but the second someone delves into her information & past misdeeds on the internet it is an invasion of privacy…..Karen, sweetie…Hypocrisy is a very ugly color of oral bile that you are drenched in…Get over yourself….GROW UP CRYBABY!!!!….. > I ….Ronnie

  • 287. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Swearing on the Bible is more tradition than anything, and not required at all. There have been four presidents (I believe) who haven't done so. And the country didn't collapse as a result. :)

  • 288. $55!  |  February 5, 2011 at 7:54 am

    $55!

  • 289. Bob  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:00 am

    On Karen Grube, this pretty much sums it all up.

    Karen Grube’s rant from Newsvine.com

    “Just to be clear about this, the voters of this country won’t settle either! We will not stop until traditional marriage is a part of the US Constitution the way it already is in over 30 states, until gay marriage is gone from the few states in which it is currently allowed, until there is no need for DOMA because there is no reason any longer to have to defend traditional marriage, until people like Kevin Jennings are out of any position of responsibility in our government so they never have the opportunity to mess up any kid’s life again, until parents are the ones who decide what values their kids are taught in public schools, until we stop creating laws that deprive a child of having both a mom and a dad, until schools and public facilities refuse to allow men to walk into the ladies room whenever they ‘feel like a woman,’ until organizations like adoption agencies don’t have to shut their doors because they want to give the children they’re trying to place the best start in life by placing them in traditional families, until our service men and women don’t have to worry about the sexual preference of the their fellow soldiers because no one has to ask and no one has to tell, and until our leaders have more common decency than to try to glorify a child molester like Harvey Milk by nominating him for any kind of award or recognition.

    All we need to accomplish that is a new President, a new Congress, several new Governors and state legislators, several new State Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges (especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), and a Supreme Court that actually reads the original constitution rather than trying to rewrite it!

    That’s not too much to ask. All it takes is for people to pay attention to what’s going on and actually VOTE!! You can make a difference, even in an off-year election!! Don’t lose this opportunity to get rid of the kinds of changes we never wanted or asked for! Be sure you’re registered and be sure you vote in 2010. It won’t happen without you!”

    —————————————————–

    For Karen, there’s no marriage equality, no LGBTQ people in the federal government, no DADT repeal, no ENDA, no gay adoption, no gay parenting.

    Absolutely no gay rights.

  • 290. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:03 am

    The real Karen: exposed!

  • 291. Joe Jr.  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:07 am

    @Fiona

    I posted the scripture reference up above;

    1 Joe 23:16

    "I the Father of all Creationism do request of my same-sex attracted but yet somehow still non-demonic children to live a life of absolute celibacy.”

    You just need to lay of Tea-yeksas Joe there… he is only doing what the god voice in his head is telling him to do!

    @Rhie

    First off, how do you pronouns that? Like 're.'? or 'ray'?

    Second, thank you for noticing that about false witness. Not too many poeple know that. It also refers to directly using non-truth to cause harm to another person.

    loves y'all!

  • 292. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:10 am

    @Joe Jr:

    LOL!

  • 293. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:12 am

    @Karen: 'What it IS NOT is an excuse for two people of the same sex to “buy” a child to raise for their own selfish interests, or an excuse to get on someone else’s insurance.'

    Ahh, now we see the real you. Your ignorance and sugar coated hate are astounding. You poor thing. I pity you. If there is actually a god, I hope he/she/it can heal the gaping wounds in your soul.

  • 294. Karen Grube  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Clearly, my information is available publicly, but that doesn't make it okay for you here to encourge others to cyberstalk me by publishing it here and other locations to which it may be crossposted, or to do it themselves.

    Actually, I'm wondering now why so many here hide behind fake names. Why the secrecy? I'm not the one hiding behind what you call a 21st Century KKK hood of anonymity. For something sponsored by the "Courage Campaign," hiding like that and resorting to namecalling and personal attacks shows a remarkable lack of courage.

  • 295. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:20 am

    I second that emotion. :)

  • 296. Joe Jr.  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:22 am

    OMG!!! That is just disgusting!

    "try to glorify a child molester"

    Slander and False witness!!!

    It would be like me proclaiming that "Karen Grube is a convicted child rapist enabler and staunch abortionist!" with only enough evidence to convince a select few!!!

    "All we need to accomplish that is a new President, a new Congress, several new Governors and state legislators, several new State Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges (especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), and a Supreme Court that actually reads the original constitution rather than trying to rewrite it!"

    Oh, and also the complete and total genocide of anyone who disagrees with us!

    Never going to happen Karen!!! If you don't like it here then go play on NOM's webpage where you can get away with hate and crap!

    As for anonymity, there is courage and then there is stupidity!!! GLBT are stalked and hated everywhere and all the time. That is why we have learned to protect ourselves. If you are ashamed of where you live and whom you donate money to then move and stop supporting causes that you don't want to be associated with!

  • 297. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:25 am

    And Karen, you have a whole lot LESS to lose than any of us here who are actually supporters of full CIVIL and HUMAN RIGHTS for ALL US Citizens, not just those who buy into the lies NOM, FRC, and others of their ilk spout. We can actually lose our lives here. All you lose is your audience.

  • 298. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:27 am

    There is that superiority complex again…Insignificant Karen going around telling people what they can & cannot….YOU ARE NOT BOSS….

    Who here is hiding behind a fake name? Can you prove that ASSumption?…..My name is Ronnie, so STFU you uneducated Bitch….& you listen closely you Fascist Porcine….everything we said was justified you selfiish imbecile…..you have called LGBT people anti-gay epithets all over the internet….you have said derogatory & offensive things about out families & our children….you have attacked our families on this very thread…so why don't you take your sanctimonious hypocritical bullshite & shove it down your own nasty throat…

    You are the one that shows a remarkable lack of courage…not to mention a lack of ethics, morals, & ALL decent human emotions….Karen Grube, YOU are a failure on every level humanity…

    "Grube" must be an acronym for:

    Grotesque Reich Upholding Bigotry & Evil

    just saying…. > I ….Ronnie

  • 299. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:28 am

    @Karen,

    Some people use aliases here because people like you want to remove or have already denied all legal protections which allow them to be out & still hold a job, be safe from physical & emotional violence, become estranged from family, lose their housing, or (still) get discharged from the military. Of course, I'm guessing you fail to understand your role in that.

    I, on the other hand, DO use my real name. I am self-employed in a profession where my clients only care that I can help solve their problems. My family knows I'm bisexual. I'm old enough & tired enough of people like you that I don't give a crap what your opinion of me might be. I only care that we LGBT folks FINALLY get the same civil rights & legal protections as everyone else.

    BTW, I am the one who accused you of wanting to wear a KKK hood, not one of the folks who feel the need to use an alias. So don't just spew at random.

  • 300. Joe Jr.  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:36 am

    Courage Campaign is an open and free site where anyone, even you, can post anything with little to no censorship. (That first amendment thingy you done heard tell about.)

    No one forced you here, no one forced you to expose yourself to ridicule, no one is making you read our comments.

    Please feel welcome to stay and read and comment. Please realize that this is real life and not a kiddy play ground where you get to slander and bully and say rude and coarse things and then run to the teacher when the other kids don't like playing with you.

    If you want to be in a place where you can get away with all manners of lies and delusions without opposition let me refer you to NOM's website. Anyone who would post against you would be immediately moderated out. Just be careful you don't let all your hate show. NOM likes to pretend that they are not a hate group. So far they are doing good enough that Southern Poverty Law Center is merely watching them and has not yet officially named them like their counterpart.

    Have Fun!

  • 301. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:37 am

    I just wanna add something I cannot overlook. "Грубо" (Grubo) in Russian, my native language, means "Rude." Enough said about Karen and her attitude towards us. This is one of those cases when her name suits her.

  • 302. TexasJoe  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:40 am

    It’s all said here:
    • it should not proceed along suspect lines (many courts already found sexual orientation a suspect class that need to be protected and not discriminated against);

    Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning:

    "The Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is a suspect class for equal protection purposes".

    • it should not infringe fundamental constitutional rights (US Supreme Court 18 times proclaimed that marriage is a fundamental right);

    Zablocki v. Redhail:

    "“Surely, for example, a State may legitimately say
    that no one can marry his or her sibling, that no one can marry who is not at least 14 years old, that no one can marry without first passing an examination for venereal
    disease, or that no one can marry who has a living husband or wife.”"

    • there has to be a reasonable conceivable state of facts that could provide rational basis for the imposed law (Prop8 trial was all about trying to find those reasonable facts and rational basis and failing to do so.

    Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning:

    "Here, § 29 limits the class
    of people who may validly enter into marriage and the legal equivalents to marriage
    emerging in other States — civil unions and domestic partnerships. This focus is not
    so broad as to render Nebraska’s reasons for its enactment “inexplicable by anything
    but animus” towards same-sex couples."

    So, according to the 8th circuit court of appeals, it doesnt violate the constitution for a state to enact a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

    It cant be FEDERALLY constitutional in Nebraska, and unconstitutional in California.

  • 303. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:42 am

    Very eloquently said, Joe Jr!

    One of the big differences between us & NOM is that we allow everyone to post whatever they want, & rarely ban anyone. If I remember correctly, 1 troll who went way over the line was banned, as was 1 member of our community who responded to that person in an unethical way.

    It's tough to be a bully when the playing field is actually level, isn't it, Karen?

  • 304. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Grubby 'Grubo'! Sigh… enough with the name-calling.

    So Karen, what are you going to do when the entire US supports GLBT?

    The tide is turning, you do realize that this is truly inevitable don't you?

    Anticip8tting the inevitable,
    Felyx

  • 305. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Bob, I think that's his point. LGBT can "go along to get along" in the hope that we will win support. But that strategy never, ever works. So you may as well come out with a bang – or an F bomb – at the beginning.

    The other upside is that such campaigns do a lot to show that LGBT are just like everyone else – a diverse group of people with no one way of thinking. There are many people who are uncomfortable with the FCKH8 program. There are many people who cheer it. There are many between – and it's all OK.

    I think the same basic unfortunate misunderstanding about the US is at the basis of all kinds of bigotry: The US was not founded as a Christian nation. Even if it were, it certainly was not founded on 21st century religious right fundamentalist protestantism. That's a fact a lot of people just can't or won't accept.

  • 306. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Hey, Karen! If you think I am hiding under a fake name here, why don't you go to Facebook and type in my name as it appears here and see what you get!

  • 307. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:53 am

    Peterplumber

    Yup. They are called Safe Haven laws and most states have them. They became necessary after more than a few highly publicized instances of teenage girls throwing babies in a trash can.

    A link can be made between these unfortunate instances and the attack on the abortion, birth control availability and proper sexual education that includes instructions on condom use. If these people REALLY cared about children, they would start there.

  • 308. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Thank you Karen Grubo for… providing another opinion to consider.

    Not all of us are young and need employment, not all of us are in the military, not all of us have young children to protect, not all of us hide from your harmful ways Karen.

    Thank you Sheryl Carver for being out when others cannot. Thank you Ronnie with sharing yourself when others will not. Thank you Courage Campaign for having the courage to be open and accepting of all posts!

  • 309. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:56 am

    'If you want to see what Karen Grube thinks about glbt people, just see some of her comments in forums where she doesn’t feel the need to be quite as restrained as she has been here.'

    I found this gem: ''Reject R-71

    Don’t be fooled. A vote to approve R71 is a vote for gay marriage. If that isn’t clear, then you’re really NOT living in the real world. Look at what’s happened in other states! It’s a vote to have your children taught about homosexuality as young as 5 years of age and giving you no chance to opt your child out of such indoctrination. It’s a vote to change the law so that intentionally deprives a child of being raised by both a mother and a father. It’s a vote to force christian adoption agencies to close because they believe in placing a child in a family they know gives children their best chance for success for life: a home with a real mom and dad. It’s a vote to force christian schools to hire gay teachers because to refuse to hire a teacher because he or she is gay would be ‘discriminatory.’

    It’s a vote for even the most reprehensible public exhibitions of homosexual conduct to be allowed because to arrrest someone for public nudity or public sex if they are gay would be ‘discriminatory.’ And if you think this can’t happen in Washington, just look at what’s happening in Massachusetts and California, as people like Gavin Newsom, the gay mayor of San Francisco, wield their authority to promote the gay lifestyle. Please, if this isn’t what you want for your state, you must Reject R-71'

    Funny funny hater. And the Google. Really? You donated $25 to vanderplaats? What an idiot.

    Haha I'm laughing my ass off sorry.

    Maybe Karen will think twice next time before dropping by our sandbox and taking a big dump in it.

  • 310. TexasJoe  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Fiona:

    Read Romans 1.

  • 311. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:56 am

    And thank you too, Richard! (Your post came in as I was typing.) And, in advance, shout out of appreciation to all of those who stand tall in the face of the Karens Joes Brians and the like so that one day the rest of us can do the same!

  • 312. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:00 am

    And thank you, Felyx, for being one of the most amazing & admirable people I've ever had the privilege to know, if only virtually.

  • 313. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:04 am

    'Definition of TERMAGANT…'

    Yes Peter – I remember looking up two other words I've seen Ronnie use: Benighted Troglodite.

    :)

  • 314. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:05 am

    it's really quite funny, that law of unintended consequences…

    Karen Grube drops in to dish out a few nasties, possibly intending to cause distress in our community. Instead, she ends up making our connections & resolve even stronger than before.

    God/Goddess/The Universe (my favorite) must be laughing his/her/its head off! Assuming He/She/It has one.

  • 315. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:07 am

    Carpool Cookie – I think you'd might be surprised at how many people actually do support legal rights for multiple partners if they are consenting adults. At least enough to provide hospital, parenting and death benefits if not out right marriage. I can provide you with links and books, as well as my own story.

    The second paragraph contains several misconceptions about both the LDS and polyamory. I'll address a few here.

    First, the LDS doesn't condone polygamy. The official church stance definitely doesn't condone the practice of an adult consensually practicing sexual relationships with multiple partners outside of marriage.

    The LDS certainly doesn't condone child marriage, child rape, and forcing women into a relationship they don't want to be in. The group that does is the FLDS, which is a cult that bears no resemblance to the LDS or to polyamory.

    Polyamory today is about multiple, loving, chosen adult relationships. There are multiple ways in which this can work. If you want more information, just clic on my name here and leave me a message at Facebook or drop an e-mail to ribean05@yahoo.com

  • 316. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:23 am

    All Peterplumber said was that you donated money to a campaign, and as per campaign law, your information is made public on their website. There is nothing stalking or illegal or wrong in saying that. He didn't post your address nor even a link to where a person can find it.

    If you don't want your info out there, check campaign law next time you decide to give money to a cause.

  • 317. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:24 am

    I think I will take this one up…

    “The Supreme Court has never ruled that sexual orientation is a suspect class for equal protection purposes”.

    True… but then the original comment was…

    "many courts already found sexual orientation a suspect class that need to be protected"

    While 'many' would have been better as 'some'… I will still award the point to the Russian.

    Zablocki v. Redhail:

    ““Surely, for example, a State may legitimately say
    that no one can marry his or her sibling, that no one can marry who is not at least 14 years old, that no one can marry without first passing an examination for venereal
    disease, or that no one can marry who has a living husband or wife.””

    Can you provide any large class of siblings or 14 year olds or presently married persons (other than fundamentalist Mormons) who are petitioning for such a right? (BTW, not all states require health exams as a requirement to marriage.)

    Furthermore, can you demonstrate that prior to 1992 there was in anyway an actual factual universal consensus among ALL 50 states that same-sex marriage was constitutionally prohibited? (Hint: we all know the answer is NO.)

    I will let Kathleen tackle the rest but I will say that it is true that, "It cant[sic] be FEDERALLY constitutional in Nebraska, and unconstitutional in California." but only because it is not really constitutional anywhere.

  • 318. Karen Grube  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:29 am

    The first amendment is a nice thing to hide behind. But there is a difference between expressing an opinion publicly and invading someone's privacy by posting their personal information. Besides that, the information you have is wrong, and you may be subjecting someone else to cyberstalking by publishing incorrect information here that may belong to someone else, for all I know. That's just not acceptable. Please stop doing that. Seriously.

    I care much less about my information being there than that you get it wrong and hurt someone else by subjecting them to cyberstalking. I truly am concerned about that, based on the level of conversation here. No, not from everyone, thankfully.

    Engage in all the namecalling and personal attacks you want, but you have to realize that it really only serves to alienate people from even listening to what you have to say. I'm still not sure why that is acceptable here. I WANT to listen, but it's hard to hear through all the "Noise" of vitriolic attacks and namecalling. It's just not productive.

    I came here to learn what I could about the question of standing in the Prop 8 case. I think it is an interesting question, no matter what side of the issue you're on. And I did learn a lot. But I guess the discussion about Prop 8 generally kind of overshadowed the discussion.

    In any event, let's stop the hate speech in here, please. Let's keep the discussion civil. Hey, even the Prop 8 trial itself was civil.

  • 319. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:30 am

    People use aliases largely because of people like you. They want to avoid getting killed, and that's not an exaggeration or a metaphor. That's not quite the same thing as "hiding" behind a "fake name".

    Many here don't, or have left enough information for people to be able to find them if others cared to try. You'll find people don't tend to care to try unless a person comes in for the express purpose of being hateful, or they make judgments about other people supposedly hiding. You did both.

    Oh, and you might want to check cyberstalking laws. None of them say that cyberstalking constitutes statements like "hey her information is publicly available on a public website!".

    Maybe you don't know this but cyberbullying laws are put into place to protect people like us from people like you. Not the other way around. See, LGBT and their supporters experience real and lasting harm as a result of things said and done by people like you. You can't claim that with any honesty.

  • 320. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:35 am

    The really interesting thing is that we actually DIDN'T know for sure that was her in those articles and quotes until she confirmed it. Before that, we were all reasonably certain that those comments originated with her, and that the newspaper had gotten her location right. But we didn't know until she said.

    Would have been better to just have ignored all that, Karen.

  • 321. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:37 am

    @Karen:

    Hate speech? Worried the "wrong person" will be "cyberstalked?" Perhaps you're also worried that meteors will magically fall upon you from the sky because you were so incredibly brave to post here?

    OK, I am tired of your self-righteous, sanctimonious, victim positioning.

    May you some day develop a rational brain.

    Bye, bye.

  • 322. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:41 am

    Re the 14 year olds in marriage…

    My state, Colorado, does not marry 14 year olds. But we do recognize marriages of 14 year olds (even 13 year old girls) if they were married legally in New Hampshire.

    Ironically, Colorado will marry first cousins while New Hampshire will not. But first cousins that marry in Colorado *are* recognized in New Hampshire as married.

    Gay marriage should be treated exactly the same way, if you want to say states can regulate it. Just because your state doesn't like what another state does doesn't mean your state can invalidate the contract – just as if I bought a car in Alabama, I couldn't drive it to Georgia to avoid making car payments. Georgia would recognize and enforce the Alabama contract – just as Colorado would enforce and recognize the New Hampshire child marriage.

    But for some reason, anti-equality advocates think states shouldn't recognize contracts executed by other states – that we should transfer this power only to the Feds to decide what contracts are valid in all 50 states (since, by the logic that one state need not recognize another state's contract, no business could really make a binding contract under state law – something that would cause a major problem).

    Fortunately, we do have the full faith clause of the constitution – so I'm suspecting DOMA and the like will eventually be tossed out, as it should be (if it isn't repealed first, which is certainly a possibility, particularly when the Supreme Court decides gay marriage is a human right).

    Speaking of DOMA…Karen: Do you feel that the US Congress did the right thing by enacting DOMA without a vote of the people? Why or why not? (not that I expect our troll to answer)

  • 323. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:41 am

    "The first amendment is a nice thing to hide behind"…nobody is hiding behind anything….we have 1st amendment rights….& we are enforcing them….DEAL WITH IT!!!!

    "But there is a difference between expressing an opinion publicly and invading someone’s privacy by posting their personal information………NOBODY has invaded your privacy…& NOBODY had posted your personal information….Learn how to read…& GET OVER YOURSELF!!!!…..

    "Besides that, the information you have is wrong,"……The info came from a newspaper who you were interviewed by…I guess they are lying….FAIL!!!

    "Engage in all the namecalling and personal attacks you want, but you have to realize that it really only serves to alienate people from even listening to what you have to say"……Everything that was said to you was justifiable…..& stop being hypocrite you personally attacking our families & children & threw personal attacking as well so GET OVER Yourself….You alienated people of this community as well….But apparently you allowed to do it to us, but we aren't allowed to return the gesture….SELFISH….How about your vitriolic attacks & offensive Fascist talking points?….There is that Fascist Superiority complex again….

    YOU CAME IN WITH THE HATE SPEECH FIRST….we only defended ourselves….you don't like it?….Too bad…IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU…you selfish Fascist BIGOT…. oIo…. > I …Ronnie

  • 324. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 9:51 am

    'The first amendment is a nice thing to hide behind. But there is a difference between expressing an opinion publicly and invading someone’s privacy by posting their personal information.'

    Hey Karen – try googling your name. It's not that difficult.

    'I care much less about my information being there than that you get it wrong and hurt someone else by subjecting them to cyberstalking. I truly am concerned about that, based on the level of conversation here.'

    Riiiight. wink wink.

    'I WANT to listen, but it’s hard to hear through all the “Noise” of vitriolic attacks and namecalling.'

    No you don't, stop lying already. Every time someone confronts you with things like facts, you just move on to some other talking point. You don't listen at all. You have no interest in our side of things at all.

    Stop lying.

    'I came here to learn what I could about the question of standing in the Prop 8 case. I think it is an interesting question, no matter what side of the issue you’re on. And I did learn a lot.'

    Really? Can you describe for us what you learned? Seeing your posts, and remembering you from about a year ago when you came here, I don't think you've learned a damn thing.

    That's not why you are here at all. Your posts (here, and elsewhere on the internet) make that clear. You hate LGBT people. In your dream world we would not exist. If you could make that happen, you would.

    At least you should have the courage to own your hate. But you can't because you are, ultimately, a coward.

    'In any event, let’s stop the hate speech in here, please.'

    We aren't the ones who hate you Karen. We aren't the ones trying to legislate you out of existence.

    That's all on you, and projecting your hate onto us will not absolve you of your crime. Only your god can do that.

    Frankly, I think I will go back to ignoring you. I really had hoped you'd learn something in the year since you last shat on us, but… You have no interest in really understanding us, or learning anything from us at all.

    May your god have mercy on what's left of your soul.

  • 325. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:01 am

    In case anyone thinks Karen is really concerned about people knowing where she lives, you might want to check out this post on the Ruth Institute site: http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/05/28/sb-906-a-back-

  • 326. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Karen

    Ah the tone argument. I was wondering when that was going to make an appearance!
    http://www.derailingfordummies.com/ – for more information but basically it's when a person comes into a group and says "I WOULD Listen to you but only if you play it my way by doing x y and z". It's a way of shutting down conversation and real learning on your part by insisting it be on your terms.

    It's also completely, demonstrably false in this case because there were many, many people who tried to answer you questions and accusations kindly at first.

    The public search of your public information and subsequent posting to a public site only started after you got nasty and made it clear you are simply a troll.

    The reiterations of public there should make it clear to you that no one is in any way cyber-stalking you or anyone else.

  • 327. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:07 am

    I thought I might take this opportunity to promote this book again…

    The Authoritarians

    It goes a very long way towards explaining the behaviours of sheeple like Texas and Karen Grub.

    Highly recommended reading!

  • 328. Karen Grube  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Fiona, that has never been my point. I know my information is available on the Internet. I object to it being published here where the intent in presenting it is to cause harm, to encourage others to subject me to verbal abuse at the very least. I also object to incorrect information being posted potentially leading to harm to someone else.

    Listen to the way many of you speak? Look at your language? Is there any wonder why I might be concerned? The verbal abuse here is too much to be believed! And the encouragement of it is even worse.

    I am going to leave this discussion with one last small item: I will never lose my faith in the voters of this country. I will never cease working to allow them to make decisions of such significance as the definition of marriage for their states, either directly at the ballot box, or through their legislatures where a direct vote isn't allowed. Whatever their decision, it should be theirs and theirs alone. I will work as diligently as I possibly can, not to influence the decision itself so much as to guarantee that the voters of this country are allowed to make it. As I said, I trust them, deeply.

  • 329. LCH  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:19 am

    PWND!

  • 330. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Hi, Kathleen!

    I doubt anyone here really bought Karen Grube's pitiful claims of victimhood. You've certainly blown her "cover", in any case.

    I do wonder what people like Karen see when they look in the mirror. Are they really so self-delusional that they believe their own lies? Seems like an opportunity for a doctoral dissertation, doesn't it?

    It's really, really sad that so many humans use their great big brains to try to harm others, instead of applying themselves to solving real problems, or at least making the lives of others nicer in some small way.

  • 331. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Karen Grube
    Posted February 18, 2010 at 2:31 am
    http://nomblog.com/757/

    Okay, if no one else will, I will. Here's the information about the bill. Call your Senator and till him or her to support this bill . . . Do this NOW, before this reprehensible gay marriage law is allowed to go into effect because of Congress' inaction!

  • 332. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Verbal abuse? Hate speech? Hyperbole much?

    No one has done or said anything even close to even an extremely liberal definition of either of those.

    You came here with the intent to ridicule, humiliate, sow off and alienate. We simply you called you on it.

    One way I know that you aren't here for serious discourse is that you haven't once answered the serious points brought up in polite discussion.

    How about you do that and then complain?

  • 333. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:50 am

    More from Karen Grube:
    http://nomblog.com/918/

    Karen Grube
    Posted May 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    The problem is this: In the same way that the push for gay 'marriage' is very little about simply legitimizing a gay relationship legally and giving a gay couple all the legal rights of a heterosexual married couple, and is ALL about pushing the entire gay agenda (forcing companies to hire cross dressers, letting little boys use the little girls bathrooms in schools, silencing religious objections to homosexuality, forcing companies like wedding photographers or caterers to take work from gay couples against their deeply held convictions, etc.) , it's the same with the repeal of DADT. Before long lawsuits will be filed to allow 'married' gay soldiers to move into military family housing together, any ban homosexual behavior will be seen as 'discriminatory' and so those bans will be dropped, the military will be forced to pay for fertility services for lesbian 'married' sailors because, if that service is available for heterosexual married military couples, it will have to be made available for 'married' lesbian couples . . . I could go on and on about what this repeal will open the door for that WE DO NOT WANT!

  • 334. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:53 am

    This person in insane.

    From a Google search:

    Karen Grube said:
    Sep 29, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    An Open Letter to Sergey Brin,

    I just want you to know that the attack on Prop 8 you published in your corporate blog today was just too much. I know you don’t care, but you need to know this matters. I’ll never use Google again as my search engine. I’m removing all traces of Google from my computers, including the Google Desktop.

  • 335. Kathleen  |  February 5, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Maybe that's why she doesn't realize how much information is available out there? She's renounced teh googelz.

  • 336. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:00 am

    LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

    I'm dyin' here! Kathleen you are too awesome! Oh I so hope I get to meet you in person one day!!!

    What did I tell you guys, Conscientious Ignorance!!!!

    Too busy laughing to write, 'ROTFLMAO'!
    Felyx

  • 337. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:00 am

    More on the NOM Blog:

    Karen Grube
    Posted January 28, 2011 at 7:50 pm | Permalink
    Look, let's be honest. The only reason Gronstal and Kibbie and the rest of the Democrats are trying to stop the voters from voting on this issue is absolutely NOT because they think the definition of marriage (what they erroneously call a 'civil right') shouldn't be subject to the popular vote. They don't want this vote because they KNOW the voters will reject gay "marriage," as they have in every other state where the voters have been allowed to vote on this issue. They aren't defending the right of gays to marry on some high-level constitutional grounds. They're doing it solely for partisan political reasons. They want the money and influence available to them from large, wealtht gay activist groups. They could care less what the people of Iowa want.

    Gronstal will hear from the voters if he continues this nonsense, the way the Iowa judges did and the way the New Hampshire legislature heard. Count on it.

  • 338. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:06 am

    @Karen Grube

    Let me get this straight… you publish on the internet. Folks here quote you or refer to your own words.

    "I object to it being published here where the intent in presenting it is to cause harm, to encourage others to subject me to verbal abuse at the very least."

    So you publish openly where ANYONE can read it, but it will cause harm if it is repeated HERE?

  • 339. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:06 am

    Will she renounce watching Fox because Glee is on it?

  • 340. Steve  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:10 am

    Some people just need to be beaten up…all day long

  • 341. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:11 am

    WOW, there is so much shit in Cyber space covering many many years from this idiot. (Credit: Google)

    Does she have time to earn a living?

    Is she actually Maggie Gallagher!?!?

    Let's count calories!!!

    from: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080728/

    San Diego resident Karen Grube is honoring the boycott by skipping her twice weekly stops at McDonald's.

    “We perceive what McDonald's is doing as an attempt to somehow make gay marriage and the entire gay agenda more acceptable,” Grube said.

  • 342. Kate  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:14 am

    This reminds me of my uncle many years ago. He actually refused to watch the Ed Sullivan Show because Blacks were allowed on it!

  • 343. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:19 am

    And she think's she's a Patriot!!! LOL!!!

    http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/profile/KarenG

  • 344. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Oh, Sagesse, you are getting all logic-y here!!! Don't you know that's a sign of being controlled by the devil?!?! Or by intellectual elitists? (Code for LGBT folks or their sympathizers, ya know.)

    Ah, sorry, it's been a long day & the blathering of Karen has warped my admittedly tenuous self-control.

    Hope everyone has a nice Saturday evening. May Karen someday allow her brain to fully function.

  • 345. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:24 am

    I here by nominate one Karen Grube as the Queen of all Trolls ever on P8TT for years 2009 2010 2011!

    Done.

  • 346. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:31 am

    And Karen Grube annotates her map of the internet:
    P8TT – "here there be dragons"

  • 347. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:33 am

    @Sheryl Carver

    "Oh, Sagesse, you are getting all logic-y here!!! Don’t you know that’s a sign of being controlled by the devil?!?!"

    Never said I'm not controlled by the devil…..

  • 348. Sheryl Carver  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:37 am

    @Sagesse:

    :-) :-) :-)

  • 349. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Heh.

    One thing I will say in her favor: She does at least know how to compose complete sentences, with proper punctuation and capitalization.

    Unlike the other loser-trolls of late.

  • 350. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Good luck with that. Yahoo sucks, and Bing uses Google.

  • 351. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    What I don't understand, Texas Joe, is why you are here attemp ting to give us lessons in religion when marriage equality has nothing to do with religion. Are you saying that anything that is against the bible you believe should also be illegal? And, since different Christians do have different beliefs, how do you decide which beliefs should be law and which should not? You might read Leviticus and see how many of those biblical laws you do not live by, why pick and choose?

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 352. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    To Texas Joe, Karen Grube, and all the rest of the NOMbie sheep and trolls who post here with your anti-American rhetoric. This is only one example of what your hateful words lead to.
    http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/906532

    And this happened just since yesterday.

  • 353. Peterplumber  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Sorry to hear that. Was that close to your home?

  • 354. Kate  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Richard, their type loves this sort of thing. They likely only regret that the couple didn't die in the fire.

  • 355. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    Clayton is about an hour from where we are. AT least the Red Cross is being true to their mission about the assistance they are offering the couple while they await the rebuilding payments from their insurance carrier.

  • 356. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    You are so right, Kate. However, the couple's neighbors are not the only ones who are frightened and outraged. These men did nothing to deserve this to happen. And unfortunately, as stated in the article, this is not the first incident of harassment. This is just the one that has caused the greatest amount of damage.

  • 357. Kate  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Exactly. This is just the sort of things the Karens and the Texas Joes love to see happen to us.

  • 358. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    And then, instead of owning up to their part in inciting it, they want to blame us for living our lives openly. I did not have any choice in having been born gay. My only choice WRT to my orientation was my refusal to hide and be loved for pretending to be something I am not. Bigotry, however, IS a choice!

  • 359. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    'These men did nothing to deserve this to happen.'

    Well, they did actually: They chose to be gay.

    /sarcasm

  • 360. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    That's what the right can't understand about hate crimes – it doesn't just affect the victims, but it affects everyone who has whatever trait the victims had (in this case, being gay).

    I am so ashamed that I used to spout the stuff that Karen does. I sincerely believed it – I believed crap like, "I love the sinner, but hate the sin." It was really about fear and insecurity, coupled with ignorance and prejudice. But I was 100% convinced I was right, that gays were rebelling against God, that homosexuality would bring us one step closer to the destruction of the USA, etc. So I know her argument. I could, probably to this day, walk into an extremely fundamentalist church, sit down, and talk with others there as if I were still a native of that denomination. I know the language and the thoughts. I listened to Focus on the Family daily. I can tell you why environmentalism is an enemy of heterosexual marriage (seriously, they believe that crap). I am so grateful for the forgiveness of God, for what I said and thought about His children. And I'm glad God found a way to get through to me. I certainly will pray for Karen too – you never know when God will throw someone a curve ball. In the meantime, however, she is a bigot and the words she spews is used to justify the attacks – just as the words I used to spew could be used to do the same.

    As for this couple, I'm really glad they are okay physically, although I can't imagine what kind of pain they are going through right now emotionally.

  • 361. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Hey glad to meet another escapee from that particular asylum. I was there too. It's a really horrible place. I am so glad that you got out of it!

    You and I are in a unique position here. We can talk to these fundies. We can even sympathize with them. We can definitely help bridge the gap between fundamentalism and reality.

    My particular strategy is to play a weird sort of game of Taboo. Certain words and thoughts trigger certain straw men, and that's a waste of time. Talk around those code words and you have half a chance at getting them to listen.

    My other way of dealing with fundies is to draw out their arguments to the rational conclusion. Most people get pretty horrified when it's pointed out that their viewpoint leads to death.

  • 362. Bob Barnes  |  February 5, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1049672807

  • 363. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Aw. Ryan Sorba is her facebook friend.

  • 364. JonT  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    Hey John and Rhie – at least your minds were open to new information. You did not stop learning new things like these people did.

    You could see beyond the rhetoric and see actual 'people, and not some inhuman caricature of evil that these types of people feed on.

    You both deserve a lot of credit for that.

    Maybe one day Karen and her kind will have the same epiphany. I'm not going to wait for that though :)

  • 365. Bob Barnes  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    You're known by the company you keep.

  • 366. John  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    The instruments God used to help me in particular were the introduction of people into my life who were gay and intersexed. It's relatively easy to argue with a faceless "them" and decided that "they" are all evil, horrible people. It's quite a bit harder to see someone who is a coworker or friend that way. From there, it's not a far step to realize that injustice is never right.

    As far as deserving credit, I am grateful to every person who is willing to be "out" and tell their story. That's where the most change happens. I'm particularly grateful to the people who got to know me, despite my bigotry. That took a lot more character than anything I did. And it put a face on my beliefs.

  • 367. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    JonT

    Oh I wouldn't my breath either. :)

    And thank you! I love to learn new things. The big irony of this is that it was my ultra-Conservative parents who taught me how to think critically. That skill – and meeting LGBT people for myself – was the single biggest reason I left. My parents made the rather large miscalculation that if I was taught to think I would come to the same conclusions they have.

  • 368. Rhie  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    John — same here. Meeting people, talking with people did the absolute most good for me too. I will never forget the day it hit home to me just why marriage is such a big issue. I was sitting across the table from friends of my boyfriend. They are a gay couple and were talking about what it would mean to be married. I just about started crying at the absolute longing in their voices.

    It's easy to spout crap when you don't actually have to say it to and about people like that.

  • 369. Bob Barnes  |  February 5, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Workforce Diversity

    ResortCom International believes that a diverse workforce is an essential element of organizational success. Being a global organization with clients and members all over the world, we don't simply talk about diversity, we ARE diversity! Every continent and the majority of world cultures are represented in our employee population. We are committed to developing numerous hiring opportunities to ensure that our company identifies, hires and promotes to maintain and develop the widest range of talent.
    ——————–
    It's a small world after all, right Karen?

  • 370. LCH  |  February 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    *snerk* if that's a recent picture of her I'd like to know her beauty secret. I was in elementary school in the '60s when she was marching in the streets for civil rights and she doesn't even look my age.

  • 371. Michelle Evans  |  February 5, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    Sagesse, Thank you much for the link to the great article.

  • 372. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    There is that superiority complex thing again….ignoring that we were offended & alienated by what you said..see?…..SELFISH….you are allowed to do it…but we are not allowed to defend ourselves..hypocrite…what about your verbal abuse, Karen?….It really is reprehensible that you think both the Ruth Institute, The Reporter who interviewed you, & every offensive comment you left all over the internet which a lot of it is word for word what you posted here yourself on this very thread…..is “false information”…..Try changing the wording from time to time, Karen….It is 100% you…unless you are so delusional in thinking that there is more then 1 Karen Grube who thinks & speaks exactly the same as the other(s)…..

    Look at the way you spoke to us…as if you are superior to us right off the bat in your first comment, you repeatedly told us what to do, what to say, how to act as if you are the boss & control us….arrogance is dripping from your diatribes…you have done nothing but talk down to us….GET OVER YOURSELF….

    Good riddance…make sure you let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out….. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 373. TexasJoe  |  February 5, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    Tell me Sheryl, what is the definition of marriage in the Mormon Church? Ah here it is:

    "The doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is absolutely clear: Marriage is between one man and woman and is ordained of God," said the July 6 letter from church President Thomas S. Monson.

    You must be in a terrible internal fight, having to try to reconcile the position of your church with the internal workings of your family, and wanting for your son what the church will never give him.

  • 374. Felyx  |  February 5, 2011 at 8:30 pm

    I looked briefly into ResortCom International Unlimited based in San Diego where there is a Karen Grube who is a ResortCom Data Automation Specialist.

    Another site has some serious complaints listed with quite a few comments suggestion the business is not exactly honest and aboveboard.

    If the company is scammy, then it seems to reason that it would attract personnel that might not be in touch with reality or be emotionally knowledgeable in matters of appropriate and functional behavior.

    In any event, ResortCom appears to be a company to watch with a great deal of caution.

    Felyx

  • 375. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:07 pm

    We can assume she is here viewing all these loveley comments about her:

    Her Facebook link now shows:

    The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.

  • 376. Ray in MA  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=

  • 377. Sagesse  |  February 5, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Your morning smile

    Nom Nom Nom
    http://www.snorgtees.com/nom-nom-nom

  • 378. Bob Barnes  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:36 am

    Remember, Karen Grube ignores what ALL the major medical and psychological associations say about sexual orientation. She instead, choices willfully to define us with already debunked claims about homosexuality. And these view and their voices on these views lead to harm for us all.

    She will not stop for one minute to consider her actions and how it affects real living beings, from children to the elderly. She has zero compassion.

    She will do everything in her power to work against you and me… it may be underhanded, it may seem unethical, but if it's legal, she'll do it.

    It's time to return the favor.

  • 379. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:39 am

    Oh, goody! We get to talk about Paul of Tarsus. I'm so glad you brought him up.

    First, you need to know that Paul is preaching his own agenda. To say that he had issues with the Greeks among whom he lived is to greatly understate the matter. Fortunately, we have some intellectual authority on the matter.
    http://wsu.edu/~dee/CHRIST/PAUL.HTM

    Quote: Paul also had to deal with cultural practices among the Greeks and Romans who were forming Christian communities. It is clear that he felt that many of these practices were not only antithetical to Jewish law, but to what he considered the spirit of Christianity as well. So while Paul was magnificently tolerant of Greek practices of eating or circumcision, he did not tolerate other aspects, such as homosexuality. In pursuit of this, he took a contradictory course to his universal stance and declared salvation off-limits to an entire set of people engaged in certain behaviors. In social and political terms, his list of excluded peoples would reverberate throughout Christian history in social tensions and, in some cases, violent oppression of excluded groups.

    Unlike Paul of Tarsus, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef (Jesus of Nazareth) not only said not one thing against homosexuality (which was not understood then as it is now), but in fact healed the centurion's "beloved slave" (a relationship which would most assuredly have been understood as sexual).

    Why do I say that? During Biblical times, sex was not something done between equals. A man could have sex with a woman — because she was not his equal, she was his property. A man could have sex with a slave of either gender for the same reason: property. OTOH, the Levitical prohibition against sex between two men was because those men were equals. It was "toevah," or "ritually impure" (which does not, BTW, translate in any way, shape or form to the 15th C. Latinate word "abomination"). To give you a hint, a woman on her period was "toevah" to even be near. In order to return to temple, ritual purification was required. End of story.

    You and other self-proclaimed Christians who insist that the Bible should be read in context consistently fail to do so — because the context is not only where something shows up in the book. It involves the culture of the people and places in it. It involves the original language.

    I will not get into a more lengthy exegesis because, frankly, I know that you either will not read it or cannot understand it. You are using your religion as a bludgeon — an excuse to hate people whom you find personally distasteful.

    I wonder what Jesus would do … seeing as how he spent his time with people that the Religious of his time (the Pharisees) found personally distasteful …

  • 380. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:51 am

    Oh, Karen. Shall we talk about Cyberstalking? Really?

    Like when some of your fellow Prop 8 supporters found and posted my name, street address, telephone number and place of work on an anti-equality site? I had to get law enforcement involved.

    Stuff it, honey. You gave your name to a reporter for a newspaper. It just means you were quoted in that newspaper. It doesn't mean that you live in that town.

  • 381. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:16 am

    Comment from a Truth-Out article on DADT:

    Sep 30, 2010 … These things are just wrong, and I am proud to stand with NOM and AFTAH in refusing to accept them. Comment by Karen Grube

    'Nuff said.

  • 382. Chris in Lathrop  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:30 am

    Rhie, I'd like to take you up on your offer for a discussion about the legal aspects of polyamory and legalizing multiple marriages, if you don't mind. Seems I'm woefully ignorant. I'll message you. Thanks!

    Chris

  • 383. John  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:33 am

    I disagree a bit with Fiona on this one, but I definitely don't agree with you in the least TexasJoe.

    We don't know exactly what the "homosexuality" in Romans 1 is, other than it certainly wasn't anything like modern homosexuality. As Fiona mentioned, it certainly wasn't sex between equals. But, regardless, we don't know exactly what it was, other than something different than modern homosexuality.

    In addition, the list of behaviors was NOT the cause, but the effect. It was the effect of idol worship. The gay people I know were always gay, they didn't become gay after worshiping idols. So I'm not sure you can apply this verse even if you ignored the fact that Paul wasn't talking about modern homosexuality.

    Taking a verse where the meaning is, at best, uncertain, and forming rigid doctrine around it is a bad idea. There's a lot of things we consider morally wrong with a lot less uncertainty that today we felt may have been meant for the people and time it was written for, but not today (Jesus generally prohibited divorce – he explicitly denied some of the reasons a Jew could be divorced; Slaves were told to obey cruel masters particularly if the master was Christian, women couldn't speak in church). If we're willing to throw out verses where the meaning was clear…why does the standard we're using with verses on slavery or women in church not apply to the Romans 1 verse on "homosexuality"?

    But, regardless, I'd suggest you missed the whole point of Romans 1. It wasn't about judgment of those who broke the law. It was about those who judge based on the law. Romans 2 starts with a therefore, meaning it's the *point* of Romans 1:

    "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"

    Basically, this is what Paul is telling one faction of believers:

    "Yep, all those horrible pagans you don't want in the church are going to hell." This is Romans 1. Then, in Romans 2: "Your own judgments against those 'pagans' is going to send YOU to hell."

    Based on the comparison Paul draws in Romans 2 between gentile and Jew, it looks to me like some jews had some major problems with some of the gentile converts – and Paul was saying, "So you think the gentiles were bad…let me tell you something about yourselves…" He rips into them at the end of Romans 2, with fragments such as, "if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law…" No doubt some of the Jews felt superior to the pagan idol worshiper converts, since the Jews never worshiped a false God. But Paul, eloquently, explains that doesn't matter – both were lost in Christianity without Christ.

    Paul gets to this point in the end of Romans 3: "This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

    Romans 3 is connected to Romans 1. It's all a big logical argument. Romans 1 was never meant to stand alone – it's a logical argument that the gentiles were no worse off than the Jews, and that both needed Christ. The rest of Romans focuses on justification through faith, not works, and, then, Paul's grief over Israel not following Christ since God works in them every bit as much. It's one big logical argument, with they key being that the gentiles aren't worse than the Jews, nor are the Jews worse than the gentiles.

    So it makes sense he starts it off with statements that some of the Jews in the area would believe in their prejudice about the gentiles – he confronts the ideas that the Jews might have about why they are better than the gentiles. Later he confronts the prejudice the gentiles have about the Jews, and explains why they aren't better than the Jews.

    Yet people miss the whole forest in Romans which is described sharply and clearly, instead focusing on some blurry trees.

  • 384. LCH  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:50 am

    It's up again as of 8:49 pacific but now scrubbed of it's friend's list.

  • 385. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:01 am

    Oh goody – toevah!

    The most serious act of toevah was idolatry.

    One act of idolatry at that time was male sacred prostitution, which carried the death penalty.

    Also, when 1 Kings talks about the male sacred prostitutes being kicked out of the temple, it uses the word "toevah".

    Thus, "toevah" is clearly tied to male sacred prostitution.

    The problem here is that there is no condemned homosexual act that is not tied to male sacred prostitution.

    Further, as you point out, women were property. But what you miss is that the context is that men were made in the image of God, so a man having sex with another man would be degrading God, and therefore blasphemy, i.e. degrading God to a mere woman.

    So, in context, a man having sex with another man would be considered blasphemy, and the word toevah refers to idolatry, a form of which is male sacred prostitution, which is a condemned homosexual act over and over again.

  • 386. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:34 am

    Actually, TexasJoe, I'm quite happy that my son accepts who he is and did not strive to be "the good Mormon" and did not marry and bring children into the world only to end up leaving them when he realized that he could not remain in a marriage that was denying his wife all that she deserved and was not completely fulfilling to him. Way too many stories like that. I also believe that Jesus will judge us for the type of person we are not what our sexual orientation is. One can be straight and still not be a good human being, AND I also believe that denying other people their civil rights places one in that last category. This is not about religion, this is about civil rights.

    Nope, no terrible inner battle. What I want for my son is the same rights that I have; I want him to be who God created him to be and not try to live up the expectations of religious leaders; and I want him to be a productive member of society who treats his fellow humans with dignity and compassion. Except for the first, he has all that I want for him. Tell you, I would not trade my son for some of the "fine upstanding Mormon men that I know." So, nope no inner conflict.

    And, you did not answer any of my questions. Which Christian beliefs would you have be law and how would you decide. Hey, if Mormon beliefs could be law, then we could make coffee, tea, alcohol, and smoking illegal; bet there'd be a lot of unhappy Christians with that. And have you checked out Leviticus and figured out which of those laws you have broken or should be civil law? Or do you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament laws and we only need to follow the New Testament?

    And, why are you posting in a place that is about civil rights when you want to discuss religion?

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 387. Jenny  |  February 6, 2011 at 2:51 am

    Exactly! and we have a 1st amendment right to not give a fuck. Any argument against LGBT rights and same-sex marriage which cites religion is void in my mind. I don't follow your religion and neither can the government. Separation of Church and State is a wonderful thing.

  • 388. John  |  February 6, 2011 at 3:04 am

    "And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
    — James Madison

  • 389. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 3:08 am

    Prove it?….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 390. Peterplumber  |  February 6, 2011 at 3:31 am

    @Texas Joe
    You wrote, "Marriage is between one man and woman and is ordained of God"

    The problem with that statement is that Government does not base it's laws on "the word of God(dess). This is because no one can decide on which word, or which God(dess) is right. If you believe in the Christian God, that works for you, but what about the millions of NON Christians who are citizens of this country?

    That is why the founding fathers of this country decided there should be a seperation of church & state. Or do you want to create a constitutional ammendmentment which would negate THAT?

    @Sheryl
    You wrote, "And have you checked out Leviticus and figured out which of those laws you have broken or should be civil law? Or do you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament laws and we only need to follow the New Testament?"

    Actually, it was Paul that decided that. If you read in the book of ACTS, Paul (who never actually met Jesus) argued with some of the apostles (who actually walked with Jesus) about the Mosaic laws, and it is PAUL and his writings which the modern day Christians believe to be the word of Christ.
    And that is why I have a hard tome with devout Christians. They pick & choose certain passages out to their Bible and tout them as if they are Governmental law.

  • 391. Rhie  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:55 am

    TexasJoe –

    Women are ALSO made in the image of god. The word translated as man is actually gender neutral and more accurately translates to man and woman. English doesn't have a gender neutral noun for people, so man ends up meaning both "men" and "men and women". That's true not just in the Bible but in pretty much anything written in English.

    The modern equivalent would be someone saying "hey, guys!" to a room full of men and women.

    Fiona – thanks for the link! I will go check that out. What you wrote meshes with other research I've read about Jesus and Paul. Early church history is really interesting.

  • 392. Rhie  |  February 6, 2011 at 6:56 am

    Cool :) Got your message – will reply shortly :)

  • 393. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 6, 2011 at 7:09 am

    Just thought I'd add that all of my posts passed moderation. Still waiting for answers to my questions about banning children in single-family homes and banning divorce.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 394. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 6, 2011 at 7:45 am

    As for the LDS Church's current definition of marriage, that is exactly what it is, current definition. You do know that in the early history of the church polygamy was practiced? You do know that the church did not perform interracial marriage. So, since the definition has changed over the decades, no reason for me not the think that the definition will not change again when God considers the time right. We do believe in continuing revelation. I am looking forward to that day when all of God's children are created equal, no matter what their sexual orientation.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 395. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Rhie:

    We are talking about the time here when Deuteronomy/Leviticus were written, not today.

    The common belief at that time was that man was made in the image of God, and woman was made from the rib of man. Thats why women were property, because they were considered to be second level.

    So placing Deuteronomy/Leviticus/1 Kings in context, you can understand the thinking of the time.

    Deuteronomy 23:17 – No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine-prostitute.

    1 Kings 14:24 – There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

  • 396. Rhie  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:43 am

    TexasJoe

    I was putting in the context of the original meaning of the Hebrew word used, which is the context that matters. Interpretations of text were wrong then, as they are now.

    That's the point most people here are making that you are ignoring: We aren't talking about what people thought. We are talking about what the original text says.

  • 397. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:51 am

    And you, TexasJoe, are also taking everything from the Torah out of context. First of all, the Levitical laws were for the Jewish people, and were primarily to be for the Levitical Priesthood. Also, the verses from Leviticus that are so often used to condemn us, even when the gallahs of the second book people claim that Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth fulfilled the law, had nothing whatsoever to do with a loving, committed, long-term relationship between two men or two women who were, to use the term from that time and place, "born eunuchs" (this term was also used by your revered Yoshua ben Yosef, and he called us children of G-d and blessed of G-d). It actually referred to one of the fertility rituals of the area wherein to appease the fertility gods and goddesses, men who were heterosexual were to lie with the male temple prostitutes, and the women with the female temple prostitutes. IN this way, it was believed that the couples who went along with these rituals would guarantee themselves a bountiful crop in the fields and a child born live within that year. This is what was considered Toevah, ritually impure.
    And yes, I know whereof I speak. My husband is a Lubavitcher rabbi. As a Jew who is a rebbitizen, I think I can probably hold my own against someone who is spouting the same mistranslated, misinterpreted (not only in actual wording, but also in context), misquoted, and redacted versions of the Scriptures that have been going around ever since Saul of Tarsus corrupted what Yoshua ben Yosef was teaching.

  • 398. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 9:54 am

    "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible" – George Washington

    "“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” – George Washington

  • 399. Rhie  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:01 am

    I can play that game too:

    If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.
    — George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
    — George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.

    — George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the "Magna-Charta" here refers to the proposed United States Constitution

    Mine provide context and source. And yours doesn't say "the Protestant Christian God and a particular interpretation of the Bible" which is what you are claiming.

  • 400. Kathleen  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:05 am

    TexasJoe, I've seen so many made up quotes attributed to the "founding fathers" that I no longer believe any of them unless you can cite to a reliable biographer or other reputable source.

  • 401. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Also, TexasJoe, you have the order reversed. Leviticus is first, as Deuteronomy is derived from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Chaldean for "Second Reading" which the gallachs so often mistranslate and state means Second Law. And since you brought the Kings into this, you also need to go back and re-read the story of King Saul and King David, especially the part where Saul is talking to David and states that He is David's Father-in-law in the twain. Even Saul knew that David and Jonathan were married. Yes, David was married to Saul's son as well as Saul's daughter Michal.
    Again, you really don't want to go into the Hebrew Scriptures, or their context, with regard to not only the words, but also the meanings and the history and cultures of the regions in which those Scriptures originated with the Lubavitcher rabbi's husband. If there is something I am not certain of, I can always pass my laptop over to my husband and simply correct his spelling and grammatical errors before hitting the submit button. Unless of course you really upset him by perverting our Scriptures. Then he goes into Hebrew and I can't fix any of that at all. Not that you would notice it yourself. You have already shown your knowledge and understanding of Hebrew, Aramaic and Chaldean to be woefully inadequate.

  • 402. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Richard :

    "First of all, the Levitical laws were for the Jewish people, and were primarily to be for the Levitical Priesthood."

    Thats exactly the point. If it was "out of bounds/taboo/abomination" (toevah) for a male priest, then how in the world could it be "OK" for a "born eunuch"? If a priest cant do it, then how can the normal, average, joe?

  • 403. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:19 am

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment

    Your religions definitions of anything are irrelevant because our country is NOT a Christian Theocratic Dictatorship….8 / …Ronnie

    P.S. try fact check

  • 404. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:24 am

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." –October 11, 1798 letter, John Adams, available from the Library of Congress.

  • 405. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Again, TexasJoe, look at my entire comment and try to get a grasp on the full context before you do a simple copy and paste. You are blatantly ignoring the fact that I also informed you that the passage referred to an idolatrous ritual that had nothing to do with a committed ling-term relationship between two consenting adults who loved each other. Loving relationships have NEVER been against Jewish law, regardless of whether they were between two people of the same gender or two people of opposite genders. However, sleeping with a temple prostitute has ALWAYS been against our laws, both religious and civil, and carry heavy penalties. That is because you are to save yourself for your chosen spouse. It was also a way for us to separate ourselves from the idolators (like you yourself, who are placing more trust in a mangled mistranslation than in HaShem) who would have their heterosexuals lie down with the temple prostitutes of the same gender. That is what was illegal to us, both civilly and in regard to the religion. And since our priests are the ones who are in the temple as our representatives, they are held to a much higher standard than even the general populace.
    I would really be happy to go into this in more detail with you, but first you must really let go of your preconceived idolatry that you claim is the truth, and you really must study the history and culture of the regions of the Torah, as well as the commentaries that our own scholars have written. After you have done that, and have completed a thorough course in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean (and I DON'T mean Rosetta Stone), then come back and talk with me about the Scriptures. And while you are at it, you will also want to examine very thoroughly those books that so many have misnamed The Apocrypha. And when you do, you will find many of those quotes that Yoshua ben Yosef of Nazareth referenced that you cannot find in your KJV because those who did not like the Jews threw them out of your Bible.

  • 406. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:33 am

    "There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.” – Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593

    “ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.” – Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593

    “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
    – Noah Webster, [Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

  • 407. Rhie  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:33 am

    "Moral and religious" isn't synonymous with Christian. It certainly isn't the same as 21st century protestant evangelicalism.

    There are moral Christians who disagree with you.
    There are moral Jews who disagree with you.
    There are moral Muslims who disagree with you.
    There are moral Pagans who disagree with you.
    There are moral Wiccans who disagree with you.
    There are moral Atheists that disagree with you – and the 1st amendment protects non-belief as well as belief.

  • 408. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:33 am

    "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington, and approved by the Senate of the United States

    " … I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Thomas Jefferson, Letter, Danbury Baptist Assn. January 1, 1802

    "I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election; from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, eds., Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2002, p. 70.)

    8 / ….Ronnie

  • 409. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Repeat for the Fascist who thinks ALL Americans must bow to to his version of Christianity…violating their 1st Amendment rights as Tax paying American citizens

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” ~ First Amendment

    8 / ….Ronnie

  • 410. TexasJoe  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Further, the three branch system of our government is from Isaiah 33:22:

    “For the LORD is our judge,
    the LORD is our lawgiver,
    the LORD is our king;
    He will save us.”

    – James Madison, Constitutional Convention of 1787

  • 411. John  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:38 am

    @TexasJoe:

    "It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible" – this quote is attributed to Washington, yet there is no evidence of this, and, when you look at the document it supposedly came from (his farewell address from his first term and/or a Thanksgiving address depending on who is doing the misquoting), it's simply not there. In other words, someone probably lied about history (not uncommon, sadly).

    Your second quote actually was real (ironically from the actual farewell address).

    One of the most famous quotes of Washington regarding separation of church and state (and NOT establishing a "Christian" nation, despite the value Washington saw in "religion" [which even then didn't mean "Christian"]): "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were 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."

    He was giving that message to a synagogue. I hope one day that his words become true. I think his quote could apply to equal rights too (go figure – freedom of religion and freedom to love are both human rights, after all).

    See: http://www.tourosynagogue.org/pdfs/WashingtonLett

    Touro Synagogue reads that letter annually. The letter always makes me both proud to be American and also sad that we don't live up to what Washington said. I look forward to the day when the US government gives "bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance."

  • 412. Ronnie  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Whose "LORD"?….your "LORD" is not my "LORD"….read the 1st amendment… 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 413. John  |  February 6, 2011 at 10:42 am

    @TexasJoe – regarding the three branches of Government…if we were intended to be a Christian nation by Madison, these would have rested with the church (and, by implication, God – just like the quote said).

    Fortunately, Madison then stated that having all three in the hands of one group of men would be very, very bad. He wasn't saying "The Lord should be ruling the nation" but rather saying "Since man is ruling this nation, we probably shouldn't think man can do all these simultaneously and justly."

  • 414. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    TexasJoe wrote: Thus, “toevah” is clearly tied to male sacred prostitution.

    Wrong.
    http://modernorthoprax.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-

    It refers to several matters of ritual impurity. In fact, it is only used twice when referring to homosexuality, as compared to seven times when referring to idol worship … just for example.

    Don't try to argue scripture with me, sweetie. You'll lose. Your lack of scholarship is an embarassment.

  • 415. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 6, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Thanks, fiona! BTW, I think TexasJoe's biggest problem with you is that he has trouble with women who have a more well-rounded education than he has. I wonder how old he was when he was first home-schooled, and for how many years. It is also obvious that he has never done a thorough study of the region of the Torah and the myriad of cultures that existed there during the time of the Torah and the Second Book. It is also obvious that if he has had any instruction in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean, that it was far from complete, and was probably based on one of the worst examples of translating Hebrew and Greek into English that I have ever seen–Strong's "Exhaustive" Concordance. Talk about out of context with the definitions. The words are not even spelled correctly in the original tongues. Of course, this book was also begun in the time of Charles Dickens. Dr. Strong and his "dictionary" are referred to by Dickens in one of his novels. The character Dickens based on Dr. Strong was rather absent minded and temperamental.

  • 416. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  February 6, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    @ Texas Joe

    Marriage is between one man and woman and is ordained of God

    Some religions proclaim that, but the truth (reality, facts — call it whatever you want) is that marriage predates religion. Dr. Cott demonstrated it in the Prop 8 trial in January 2010, over a year ago. It's all in the record now, supported by the verifiable and trustworthy evidence. Marriage did not come from any Deity, recognized sexual unions existed long before religions hijacked marriage in order to legalize themselves in the eyes of the society. Too bad we forget our own history, but it's wonderful that we have people to remind us about it.

  • 417. fiona64  |  February 6, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Karen Grube spewed: Also, here in California we have a HUGE problem with illegal aliens being registered to vote illegally and told who to vote for.

    You know, I keep hearing this accusation from uber-conservative types, and yet there is not one iota of proof that any such thing happened. (Their "source" for this information seems to be Michelle Malkin saying it happened … oh, and an accusatory article on WorldNutNetDaily that was picked up by the Heritage Foundation).

    Reality looks a lot different.

    In fact, there has been no evidence of illegal voting at all. In 1995, 757 legal immigrants were found to have registered to vote when they got their California drivers' licenses. That was it.

    Not that I expect Karen Grube to be honest about anything. But I did not want to let this one slip by either.

  • 418. Mark M - Seattle  |  February 7, 2011 at 4:44 am

    Just amazing how she kept calling us rude, uncivil, bullies, and yet refused to see that her actions and that of NOMs are by FAR more hateful, uncivil, and bigoleted than anything anyone here at P8TT has ever said or done.
    I just can't imagine what life must be like when lived behind blinders as she clearly lives it.
    Who needs truth and science when she can simply cling to her beliefs and ideals of truth.
    UGH!!!

    I will pray for you Karen

  • 419. Rhie  |  February 7, 2011 at 5:35 am

    Fiona

    Oh I hear you. Mom gave me that line. I asked her nicely for a reliable source. She knows I won't listen to anything on Fox or Drudge or anything by the Right unless it is corroborated by a better news source. Three weeks ago and still haven't heard. Nothing is coming up on Google.

    What IS coming up on Google is voter intimidation and purposeful confusion by the Right though.

  • 420. Carpool Cookie  |  February 7, 2011 at 7:08 am

    [b]"The second paragraph contains several misconceptions about both the LDS and polyamory. I’ll address a few here."[/b]

    LDS and FLDS both incorporate polygamy into their faiths; FLDS as a current, Earthly practice and LDS as the doctrine of eternal marriage (i.e., polygamy exists for them in Heaven.) Both concepts exist in Section 132 of “Doctrine and Covenants”.

    To me, LDS and FLDS are different, but they grow from the same roots. FLDS is the child of LDS, and they only differ on a few points. The only reason the LDS changed its course on polygamy was because of outside pressure. (Which coincidentally coincided with holy revelations to The Prophet.)

    So going back to my statement that they might be a place "to start" for seeking support for legalizing polygamy, it seems there’s more room to return to polygamy via the LDS than there would be in trying to get other groups to embrace it (even though most of the marriages mentioned in the Bible are polygamist.) For instance, LDS men can still be sealed to multiple non-biological women on Earth NOW, even though it's not called "marriage" any more.

  • 421. Rhie  |  February 7, 2011 at 7:29 am

    Honestly it sounds like you get your information from shows like Big Love or Sister Wives which are hardly representative of mainstream LDS.

    Let me try to explain again. Perhaps the Mormon mother could answer any other questions better than I can.

    There is a huge difference between forcing women and girls as young as 13 to physically marry and submit to rape by a much older man and prayer, words on a page, or baptism after death or in absentia. For one thing, the first is physically real and hurts people. The second…not so much. the LDS does not condone, sanction or allow polygamous marriages in practice.

    There are individual people and families who claim to be "fundamentalist" LDS – which isn't the same as the FLDS by the way – and practice polygamy. I have no problem with this so long as they are all adults and all consent to it. But they aren't sanctioned or mainstream in any way according to the official doctrine of the LDS.

    I can tell you right now that the LDS isn't the place to look for allies for legalizing polyamory. For one thing, their multiple marriages are limited to men with multiple wives and are for religious reasons, as you mentioned.

    Polyamory isn't necessarily about marriage at all. It also incorporates every situation from a stable triad of any mix of genders to a woman with multiple male and/or female partners, to a male with multiple women partners who might also have other relationships. I highly doubt the LDS or even any fundamentalist Mormon would be OK with any of that. Especially since there isn't any religious doctrine involved – unless the people choose, of course.

  • 422. TexasJoe  |  February 7, 2011 at 7:53 am

    Perhaps you can explain then why "toevah" was translated into greek as "bdelygma", as opposed to "anomia".

  • 423. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 7, 2011 at 8:56 am

    First, you are absolutely correct in that the LDS Church would not condone polyamory.

    Carpool Cookie, I'm not sure what you mean by the following quote so I will respond to it as I interrupt it.

    "For instance, LDS men can still be sealed to multiple non-biological women on Earth NOW, even though it’s not called “marriage” any more."

    If you mean that while a man is living that he can be sealed to more than one woman as long as all but one of the women are deceased or he is divorced from the other wives, then yes, the LDS religion does allow polygamy. A woman can also be sealed (which is the same as marriage but is for "time and all eternity" as opposed to the civil ceremony which is "until death do you part", to another man in the Temple if her husband is deceased or if she has gotten a temple divorce (which annuls the first marriage). In the case of a deceased husband, we believe that it will be worked out as to which husband will be with her for eternity. For the man, all of his wives (unless one of them got a temple divorce) will be with him for eternity.

    So, while a man can indeed be sealed to more than one woman in this life (in the case of divorce), he only lives with, and is only considered married to, the most current wife in this life. He would also have to receive permission from the ex-wife in order to be sealed to another wife.

    Also wondering what you meant by "non-biological women?"

    Hope this helps.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 424. fiona64  |  February 7, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Oh, Joe. Do you really want me to do that whole exegesis that I threatened? Do you really want to know about "anomia" vs "bdelugma"? 'Cause you're going to get your feelings hurt.

    You asked for it, pookie.

    Let me briefly point out that there is no word in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, or koine Greek for homosexual or homosexuality (the OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the NT in koine Greek). The ancient Jews and Greeks had conceptions of gender and sexual acts, but not what modern psychology calls sexual orientation. The word homosexual in English was not coined until the end of the 19th century and the notion of sexual orientation is largely a 20th century psychoanalytic construct. The word "homosexual" was first used in an English translation of the Bible, the Revised Standard Version, in 1948 (the passage was 1st Corinthians 6:9). If Greek and Hebrew had no words for homosexual, and the English word was not introduced into the text of the Bible until 1948, I think that some revision of thought is in order.
    Let's review the texts about which you ask. Here is a transliterated text of the Hebrew into English characters:
    The Hebrew texts read: Leviticus 18:22 v't-zkr l' tskb mskby 'sh tvjbh hv'.
    Leviticus 20:13 v'ys 'sr yskb 't-zkr mskby 'sh tvjbh jsv snyhm mvt yvmtv dmyhm bm.
    In the 3rd century BC, the Greek Ptolemys in Alexandria Egypt commissioned a Greek translation of OT from Hebrew into Greek. Some 72 Greek-speaking Jewish scholars are said to have collaborated on it; it is consequently called the Septuagint ("Seventy"). It was widely used throughout the Mediterranean since Greek was the international language of the time. The Greek texts from the Septuagint read: Leviticus18:22 kai meta arsenoV ou koimhqhsh koithn gunaikoV bdelugma gar estin
    Leviticus 20:13 kai oV an koimhqh meta arsenoV koithn gunaikoV bdelugma epoihsan amfoteroi qanatousqwsan enocoi eisin
    The King James Bible was a translation of the entire Bible into English in 1611. The translators made use of many earlier translations of the Bible, including the Latin Vulgate Bible used by the Catholic Church. The texts in the KJV read: LEV 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
    LEV 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
    These two passages are badly misunderstood, particularly because of the inaccurate and inexact use of "abomination" in English to translate a much more particular word in the original Hebrew. Both say essentially the same thing in Hebrew and Greek (the Septuagint). The verb and the direct object are cognates (a so-called cognate accusative). The root for both the verb and the object can mean several different things. The verb has possible meanings of "going to sleep, going to bed, having sex." The object of the verb means "sleep, bed, sex" To translate literally one has several alternatives: "Do not sleep the sleep; do not lay the laying; do not engage in sex with the sexuality," etc. The object is then modified by a word meaning "of a woman, female, feminine." One ends up with the difficult phrase "Do not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man, do not lay the laying of a woman with a man, etc." Jewish moralists for over a millennium have debated exactly constitutes "the sleep of a woman" and who is technically a "man" in the situation.
    No one in the time of Moses or Christ ever used the word "abomination." It is a modern English word and English as we know it did not exist in Biblical times. "Abomination" is correct only in the Elizabethan sense of the word which is borrowed from Latin "abominatio." The root is omin- which means "omen." The prefix "ab" means away. Thus the word means to turn away from something because it is ill-omened or portentous. But what about the original text in Hebrew?
    Various things in Leviticus are called an "abomination." Some are what we would consider moral issues (incest), but others are manifestly about health and hygiene (avoiding pork, shell fish, brackish water). Some are matters of cleanliness (touching dead snakes, sleeping with a woman during menstruation). Others still are issues of ethnicity and religious identity (cutting of hair and beard, etc.). The word "abomination" translates the Hebrew word "toevah" which really means something like "impure or unclean for the purposes of ritual" (i.e. something that could unfavorably affect sacrifices, auspices, etc.). It is not a blanket denunciation of all homosexuals any more than it is a denunciation of all women by saying that they are also considered "toevah" during menstruation. This is further underscored by one of the oldest most authoritative translations of the Old Testament–the Septuagint. Beginning in the 3rd century BCE, Greek speaking Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament into Greek. The Greek language distinguishes between violations of morality and justice (anomia) and infringements of ritual purity (bdelugma). In Leviticus 18:22, the activity is called a bdelugma making it an issue of ritual purity rather than one of general morality. The word "toevah" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occur as part of the stock phrase "toevah ha-goyim,""the uncleanness of the Gentiles" (2 Kings 16:3). It is often used in condemnations of temple prostitution (1 Kings 14:24–"sodomite" in the KJV is a mistranslation for the Hebrew "kadash" or temple prostitute). Often it simply means idol. The severity of the punishment (death), then, would seem to arise from the association of the act with idolatry and paganism. The law is one that preserves the ethnic and religious identity of the Jews and is backed by the first few exhortations of the Ten Commandments.
    Since there is no biblical word for homosexual, the passages in Leviticus are problematic but refer to ritual purity as opposed to universal morality, there is no intrensic contradiction between being gay and a Christian.
    P.S. The books of the Bible were not collected into one literary compendium until the 4th century CE at the Council of Nicea. The word Bible comes from Greek biblia meaning books (in the plural). The books were codified by a vote of the committee, and what books were to be include were a matter of dispute by different nominations into the 18th century. The Roman emperor Constantine employed St. Jerome to translate the collected books into Latin. The original language texts are nonetheless still available. You can see them online at http://unbound.biola.edu/.

  • 425. Rhie  |  February 7, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Fiona

    So, I'm impressed :). Mind if I save that for my own use and edification?

  • 426. Carpool Cookie  |  February 7, 2011 at 10:09 am

    "Also wondering what you meant by 'non-biological women'?"

    Yes, I would wonder what I meant by that, too : )

    I meant to put the word "non-biologically-related women" in there…though that phrase isn't so clear, either. What I am trying to differentiate is: Male sealings to females beyond the sealing that now automatically exists between mother and son, and the additional sealing he undertakes with his living wife.

    For instance, a friend of mine who is a former LDS wrote to me: "… once you're 30, if you're unmarried and prospects don't look good, you are urged to get yourself sealed to a man although you will not be his wife in this world. My B-I-L is sealed to 3 women, his ex, my sister and my sisters best friend who never married."

    I am not saying the LDS currently practices polygamy on Earth….or saying they have anything to do with any related abuse, or other topics raised.

    I am saying their somewhat recent (in comparison to older faiths) history considered polygamy essential to attaining godhood, and polygamy is still part of their afterlife. ERGO: If I were going to seek support for polygamy, it would make sense to consider a group that had at one time revered it, and still included it in their faith in one way or another…as is true of the LDS.

    (An additional attraction would be that specifics of the faith can change quite drastically…as it did in the 1970's when black males were allowed into the priesthood. So, that changeable-ness (?) leaves a wider crack of possibilty than exists with some other groups.)

    I am not attacking the LDS, here…and Yes, I am aware they differ from the FLDS (and other splinter groups) in specific ways. However, it can't be denied they also have major things in common, and a shared history.

  • 427. Sarah  |  February 7, 2011 at 10:11 am

    Fiona, Every time I read that sort of Biblical breakdown it becomes slightly more clear. Bravo to you, and thank you! :)

    (I hope I found the right spot to hit "reply"…)

  • 428. Peterplumber  |  February 7, 2011 at 10:45 am

    WOW, great job Fiona!
    I actually knew most of that, but I could have never put it together so eloquently as you have done.

  • 429. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 7, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    Hey Julie, if you are reading this, please weigh in on this issue.

    First, CC, thanks for the clarification of non-biological woman.

    Okay, there is an automatic sealing of all children to both parents only if the parents were married in the temple before the children were born. In that case, the children are said to be born in the covenant. If the temple marriage took place after the birth of the children, then there is a sealing ceremony (not sure that is the correct word) to seal the children to the parents. Now, in the case of a single parent the children cannot be sealed to the parent until they do it as adults. (At least this was the case when I was raising my son as a single mother, his father is Catholic)

    As to what your friend told you, I have been a member my entire life, have friends who are over 30 and single and have never heard any of them talk about being encouraged to be sealed to a man. Did your friend mean to someone who was already deceased? To someone who was living? I will certainly do more research on this but I do believe that your friend gave you incorrect information. As for her B-I-L being married in the temple to his ex-wife and your friend's sister, I covered that above. A little confused about the sealing to your friend's sister's friend. Was this woman already deceased? was the friend's sister deceased and the B-I-L then married the friend? Any clarification on this would help me with my research.

    And, I do understand where you are coming from with your thinking that looking to a group that practiced polygamy in its history would be a good place to find support for making that practice legal.

    I think, however, that too many generations have passed for us to want to re-establish that. Well, at least for some of us. Can't speak for the entire membership. I'm not about to share my man with another woman. LOL.

    And, it is the fact that we believe in continuing revelation that gives me hope that there will be a time in the future of the LDS Church that the policy toward homosexuals will also change.

  • 430. TexasJoe  |  February 7, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    "BTW, I think TexasJoe’s biggest problem with you is that he has trouble with women who have a more well-rounded education than he has."

    My mother has more education than you and fiona put together.

    And I definitely have no problem with her.

    So take a leap, Richard.

  • 431. fiona64  |  February 7, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    Oh, Joe. Did you really go there? I don't know your mother, so I can't speak to her level of education.

    However, given that your eloquent response to the exegesis that was provided *at your request* was to tell a fellow poster to take a flying leap, I can certainly draw conclusions about your own level of education.

    Now, why don't you go color while the adults talk?

  • 432. fiona64  |  February 7, 2011 at 11:52 pm

    Exactly so, on all counts.

    Despite the words of the Bible (as poorly translated as they are), the basis for law in this country is *not* religion. (I have a suspicion that this vexes our little friend Joe no end.)

    Joe has yet to provide a compelling state interest for why my gay and lesbian friends should not enjoy the same rights I do … but he has demonstrated his ignorance of his own faith's history beautifully.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 433. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  February 7, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    check

  • 434. TexasJoe  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Fiona –

    That was not directed at you.

    In fact, I am enjoying our discussion, and researching the points you make.

    I am also having a side discussion with my brother, who is an ordained priest, and has a degree in these things.

  • 435. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 12:38 am

    @ TexasJoe,
    I hope your brother doesn't let his religion obscure his view of REAL LIFE.

  • 436. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:15 am

    TexasJoe wrote: "my mother has more education than you and fiona combined."

    Really? How was that not directed at me?

  • 437. Sheryl Carver  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:31 am

    Not that Richard & Fiona need any help, but Texas Joe clearly fails the logical thinking test, since it is unlikely he has any greater knowledge about Richard's & Fiona's education than they do about his mother.

    Nor does he realize/acknowledge that he slammed Fiona along with Richard.

    Sad, just sad.

  • 438. Sheryl Carver  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Since the anti-equality legal team wasn't able to prove ANY compelling state interest in the Prop 8 trial, guess none of us are surprised that Joe, whatever his educational background, cannot either.

  • 439. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 1:46 am

    And TexasJoe, you need to consider that not all education confers a degree, nor is all education limited to a home-school or private school classroom. Also, many of us are well-versed in mmore than one field, and many of us have had experiences that have given us an education you could never even conceive of. And you say that you have no trouble with your mother being highly educated, and yet, you attack any woman here who is able to point things out that you don't know so that you can learn. That shows that deep down, where you have hidden it even from yourself, that you DO have trouble with your mother, and therefore any other woman, having an education greater than yours. So if anyone is to take a leap, it is you. Take a leap into TRUE faith, not some bigoted perversion of faith that states nobody is going to heaven unless they agree one hundred percent with TexasJoe.

  • 440. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 2:40 am

    So, getting your information from a priest means more than getting it from a rabbi who not only has his rabbinical degree and ordination, but five bachelor's degrees in related subjects, including the history and culture of the regions of the Torah? Wrong answer, TexasJoe. I guess when they say everything is bigger in Texas, that they are including the egos, especially the egos of the egomaniacs who think that their misinterpretations, misquotes, mistranslations, and redactions of G-d's word should be the secular law, in defiance of what they have been told by the very rabbi they claim to follow, and whom they claim is G-d!

  • 441. TexasJoe  |  February 8, 2011 at 3:55 am

    "So, getting your information from a priest means more than getting it from a rabbi who not only has his rabbinical degree and ordination, but five bachelor’s degrees in related subjects, including the history and culture of the regions of the Torah? Wrong answer, TexasJoe."

    Well since you dont know my brother, thats a pretty big leap there Richard. You have no idea of his education or anything else. In this case, yes it does mean more.

    So basically, STFU.

  • 442. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 3:59 am

    TexasJoe keeps telling my brother/friend Richard to "take a leap" and "STFU."

    Is that what Jesus would do, Joe?

    Frankly, I'm embarrassed for you at this point.

  • 443. TexasJoe  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:00 am

    "And you say that you have no trouble with your mother being highly educated, and yet, you attack any woman here who is able to point things out that you don’t know so that you can learn. That shows that deep down, where you have hidden it even from yourself, that you DO have trouble with your mother, and therefore any other woman, having an education greater than yours. So if anyone is to take a leap, it is you. Take a leap into TRUE faith, not some bigoted perversion of faith that states nobody is going to heaven unless they agree one hundred percent with TexasJoe."

    Fuck you, Richard.

    I have not "attacked" any woman here. I may ask some dumb questions from time to time, but that does not constitute an "attack".

  • 444. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:02 am

    So, YOU are allowed to make ASSmptions about my level of education and knowledge, the level of education and knowledge of my sources, as well as to make those same ASSumptions about fiona and her education, knowledge, and sources of information, but the same does not apply to you? Rather bigoted and egocentric of you. If anyone is to STFU, it should be you. Now, go back to your coloring books and let the adults converse in peace, little boy!
    You are acting in a manner that even my youngest grandchild is above acting in! And that particular grandchild is less than a year old!

  • 445. TexasJoe  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:02 am

    No fiona, Its not.

    But I am a miserable sinner, just like any other christian.

  • 446. TexasJoe  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:07 am

    Adults? I have yet to see any on this blog.

    All I see is a bunch of gay children, crying and stamping their feet saying "I want my way!!!"

    BWAAAAAAHHHHHHH….

  • 447. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:09 am

    TexasJoe, I would not allow you to F me without first having a complete physical done on you that was performed in my presence, and I would definitely have to be there to read the results from the labs myself. And even then I would not allow you that pleasure, simply because your personality is so abusive and abrasive. And yes, you have attacked fiona many times. Your questions have not been merely dumb, but arrogant, egotistical, and bigoted.
    Of course, your latest comment to me is probably an indication of what is wrong with you. You are denying yourself the love you truly want, just so you can fit in with what some misguided preacher has told you is correct and proper to do.
    Therefore, you are cordially invited to go to your nearest adult emporium, purchase whatever silicone or rubber toy best matches your desires, and GFY!

  • 448. Richard A. Jernigan  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:13 am

    TexasJoe. You really should go and seek some board-certified therapy with a reputable therapist about those projection issues of yours! BWAAAAAHHHHHH!

  • 449. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:15 am

    I think this thread is getting a bit out of hand. It's no longer a conversation but a name calling b**ch session. No one is getting anything out of this convo except perhaps a bit of heartburn.

  • 450. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:19 am

    TexasJoe wrote: Adults? I have yet to see any on this blog.

    All I see is a bunch of gay children, crying and stamping their feet saying “I want my way!!!”

    Oh, Joe. Look at you, with your assumptions again.

    I'm straight (and married) and so are a whole lot of other people who participate here. I guess it just never occurred to you that some of us support equal rights for people who are ::gasp:: different from ourselves.

    Did you think all of the civil rights workers in the 1960s were African-American?

    Again, I'm embarrassed for you. Is this going to be a regular occurrence? If so, let me know. I'm trying to meet you where you are, but I also grow very weary of wasting my time with those who are deliberately obtuse.

  • 451. Peterplumber  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:27 am

    @TexasJoe,
    Also, I would like to know, (as I am sure has been asked before but this thread has gotten very long) what is your interest in the case pertaining to California? I am assuming you live in Texas.

  • 452. Felyx  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Oh Fiona!! I have no idea how much Joe or his ordained brother is getting out of this, but that breakdown of 'toevah' was just chock full of good and interesting information!

    If I had the slightest interest in staying up late late into the night, I would write you a companion piece on 'yadha' or 'just what does a mob trying to 'get to know' angels have anything to do with loving gay couples wanting to consensually get married'. As it stands, this bit of information renews my belief that when the rather undereducated scientifically-adverse faithful start to delve into their own faith they will find lots of reasons to actually start living it.

    Once again, thank you Fiona! Your efforts were not wasted on anyone, rather, I testify, as many others I am sure will, that they were a benefit to me!

    With Love,
    Felyx

  • 453. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:41 am

    Thank you, Felyx. ::hug::

    I do feel that I owe Joe an apology for calling him "pookie." Condescension does not reflect well upon me, and is not in conjunction with the kind of person I want to be.

    I think what bothers me the most about so many self-proclaimed Christians is that they do not want to look very deeply into the history of their faith. Now, I give Joe credit for saying he's going to look into the information I presented, and discuss it with his ordained brother. I can only applaud that, because he could say "Nuh-huh. You're wrong, because my pastor said so, so there."

    (I'm not so keen on how he's addressed Richard, Sheryl and some of the others here … but I can't change whatever vibration he's feeling that makes him lash out that way.)

    All I would ask of Joe and other self-proclaimed Christians who come here to tell their brothers and sisters that they are evil sinners is that he remember the story of the Good Samaritan. Rabbi Yeshua makes it very plain in that story that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that all are our neighbors. I heard a perspective on this particular story last year that really made me think, and I want to share it here.

    We all like to think we would be like the Good Samaritan, who stops and helps the injured man, right? But how about if we look at it from the viewpoint of the guy in the ditch? After all, who among us has not been down-and-out now and again, whether emotionally, physically, spiritually, financially? We have all been that person, right?

    Now, the Samaritan could have stood there and lectured the guy in the ditch. He could have said something like "What the hell are you doing? You shouldn't have come down this road. Are you stupid?"

    Would that have helped the guy in the ditch? No.

    Instead, he decided to do what my friend Woody calls "taking exercise for the heart by reaching down to help another person up." He didn't lecture, he didn't demand that the guy in the ditch get right with his personal concept of "god" or anything else. He just helped him.

    That was a whole different spin on the story for me, and one that I wish more self-proclaimed Christians would hear. We see so many self-proclaimed Christians coming in here, lecturing GLBT people and their allies about how "wrong" they are. These self-appointed Elect don't see the log in their own eyes when they do this, and they tend to get mightily upset when their actions are judged by those whom they lecture.

    Sometimes, it seems like "Do as I say, not as I do" is the main commandment these folks follow, you know?

    Rabbi Yeshua ben Yussef called his followers to do three things, as specified in Isaiah 58: feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, and love their neighbors as themselves.

    So, when I ask some of the folks who come here with their lectures and their Levitical law-flinging whether this is how Jesus would behave, it's for a reason.

    I've said before that you don't see true Christians behaving that way because they're too busy out feeding the hungry, comforting the afflicted and loving their neighbors as themselves.

    There's always time to learn something new and get a new vibration, you know? If I hadn't met a church full of true Christians (thanks to my social justice work), I would have never entered a church again. It was 20 years from the time I walked out of church until I walked back in. That's almost half of my lifetime.

    Those who maintain that their God hates anyone who is different from them are very conveniently speaking their own truth and not the truth of the godhead. (Isn't it just a trifle convenient when "God" hates the same folks you do?)

    Anyway, I'm glad if anything I write here helps anyone.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 454. Sarah  |  February 8, 2011 at 8:42 am

    A great pastor of mine at my former church in Dallas once spoke this in a sermon:

    "Stand in the gap between what is and what should be. The place between the rich and the poor, the privileged few and the marginalized masses."

    That spoke volumes to me, and close to a year later, or possibly longer, I can quote it verbatim. She was speaking to a church full of people who had been turned out by family, and other churches (it was a predominately gay church), and still had us looking toward what we should be doing to live out what we know to be God's Truth. I would say that is a great way to live your life. And I think about it so often.

  • 455. fiona64  |  February 8, 2011 at 9:24 am

    I would also add to Sheryl's comment my understanding that children must *agree* to be sealed to their parents later in life.

    My dad tried to convince me to be baptized in the LDS church during my last visit, so that I could be "sealed" to him and my mother.

    I looked at him as though he had grown another head. When I said "I respectfully decline," he pushed the matter until I was no longer so respectful. :-/ (I think Sheryl will agree with me that there are a whole lot of priesthood holders [read: male LDS members] who are not accustomed to being gainsaid by women … and my dad is one of them. He and my mom are converts.)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 456. nightshayde  |  February 8, 2011 at 11:52 am

    I had to jump through a few internet hoops, but I just sent this message:

    Dear Disneyland Resort,

    I love your resort, and have been an annual passholder for a number of years. I try to visit the parks roughly every six weeks or so — often for multi-day excursions.

    I write to you today to express dismay at the fact that the Grand Californian will be hosting a conference of pro-discrimination groups led by the Pacific Justice Institute. Among scheduled speakers at this conference is apparently someone from the SPLC listed hate group, Focus on the Family.

    The Disney family of companies gives a very forward appearance of supporting equal rights for its gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. It boggles my mind that a pro-equality company would allow a pro-discrimination conference, and would willingly accept speakers from a hate group.

    Please reconsider the choice to allow the PJI and the speaker from FotF to use your beautiful facilities. Your company is better than that.

    Thank you,

    nightshayde (with my actual name in the letter)

  • 457. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  February 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm

    You are correct, Fiona. If we are talking about young children, before age 9 then the parents make that decision. If the child has not been baptized by age 9 (baptism age is 8, no one is baptized before that age in the LDS Church), then missionary lessons are required. As an adult, yes, the child makes the decision. As we believe that families must be sealed to be together in the Celestial Kingdom (the highest degree of glory), we have baptisms and sealings for the dead (to us death is just the separation of the spirit from the physical body and that we all go to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection). Now, just because these are performed does not bind the deceased to the ordinances, we also believe that the deceased can either accept or reject these ordinances.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 458. Felyx  |  February 8, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Just a shout out to nightshayde. I rather like to keep liking Disney. So a personal thanks to you!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!