Gay Marriage

Maggie Gallagher's Refusal to Attend Gay Weddings Shows Why Government Shouldn't Compel Service-Providers to Work Them

When you debate with words instead of government force, acceptance of gay marriage will win

|

That marriage won't organize itself! |||

National Review social conservative Maggie Gallagher has a telling and useful column today explaining to a hypothetical gay male friend who has invited her to his wedding why she, unlike Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), will refuse to attend. Excerpt:

We are born male and female, and marriage is the union of husband to wife that celebrates the necessity of the two genders' coming together to make the future happen. I know you don't think that. I know the law no longer thinks that. But I have staked my life on this truth.

The problem for me in celebrating your gay wedding, as much as I love you, is that I would be witnessing and celebrating your attempt not only to commit yourself to a relationship that keeps you from God's plan but, worse, I would be witnessing and celebrating your attempt to hold the man you love to a vow that he will avoid God's plan. To vow oneself to sin is one thing, to try to hold someone you love to it — that's not something I can celebrate.

And I would be party to the idea that two men can make a marriage, which I do not believe.

On your happy day you should be surrounded by people who can honor your vow and help you keep it. I can't do that.

I appreciate Gallagher's candor, and not ironically. Just like when ESPN commentator Chris Broussard greeted the news of NBA backup center Jason Collins coming out of the closet by declaring Collins to be not "Christian," Gallagher's open expression of disdain is actually useful for those of us who believe the opposite, because it gives us something to argue against.

The notion that someone has staked their life on marriage staying male-female is frankly bizarre. To single out same-sex couples for being disqualifying unable "to make the future happen," and untenably mired in sin—in a world with tens of millions of multiply-married people, many of whom re-couple after child-rearing age; while younger same-sex couples eagerly adopt otherwise unwanted children—is to demonstrate that some Christian conservatives are elevating homosexuality far above other sins, most of which involve actual discord and harm rather than a joyous union of two loving people. Gallagher's literal intolerance of gay marriage can quickly become an argument in its favor.

That's how this stuff should work, and in fact has been working for decades.

Thanks, Anita! |||

As Jonathan Rauch put it, in a 2013 Reason piece on free speech I keep quoting (and will do so again in my editor's note of the forthcoming issue of the magazine), one big reason that public opinion about government policy related to homosexuality has changed so far and so fast is that trail-blazing activists

saw Jerry Falwell and Anita Bryant not as threats to hide from but as opportunities to be seized: opportunities to rally gays, educate straights, and draw sharp moral comparisons. "Is that what you think this country is all about? Really?"

To appeal to a country's conscience, you need an antagonist. 

It's a counter-intuitive point, one that many progressives find hard to swallow, but compelling people to change their minds and hounding minority viewpoints into silence is not nearly as persuasive as, well, persuasion. And it has the added benefit of being more harmonious with America's rich and enviable history of liberal free speech.

Final word goes to Jonathan Rauch:

For politically weak minorities, the best and often only way to effect wholesale change in the world of politics is by effecting change in the world of ideas. Our position as beneficiaries of the open society requires us to serve as guardians of it. Playing that role, not seeking government protections or hauling our adversaries before star chambers, is the greater source of our dignity.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ronald Bailey Reviews the Big Coffee Table Book of Doom to Celebrate Earth Day 45

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. is to demonstrate that some Christian conservatives are elevating homosexuality far above other sins,

    Sure they are. The reason for that is that the people who commit other sins are not demanding the government force people to affirm and be a part of their sin.

    Like it or not the entire gay marriage controversy has sent the message to Christian Conservatives that gays hate their guts and are going to use government to ensure that they either change their beliefs or learn never to express them in public. Shocking enough, this hasn’t caused Christians to change their evil ways and embrace gays as the superior citizens they are.

    1. the entire gay marriage controversy has sent the message to Christian Conservatives that gays hate their guts

      You left out the words “a few”. Several times. The actions of a few activists is hardly representative of the views of every gay or every conservative christian.

      1. Perception is reality. It doesn’t matter that it is a few or many. That is the message that has been sent. I am pretty sure the Pizza Parlor in Indiana doesn’t think it is just a few gays who think that way. It isn’t fair but it is reality. It doesn’t matter if it is only a few. The impression is what matters and the impression is that gay hate their guts. Indeed, the entire mass culture hates their guts, but they already knew that.

        1. I don’t think gay people as a group hate conservatives and Christians, it’s really just progressives in general who loathe them and are thrilled to use this particular cause as a means of sticking it to their culture war enemy.

          Read a Huffington Post, Salon, Gawker, Jezebel thread on the subject and like 95% of the people aren’t gay but you can see the hatred they have for people like the owners of Memories Pizza.

          1. See Bo below. The is practically slobbering on himself over this. What makes Progs like Bo remarkable is not that they are intolerant oppressive assholes. Plenty of people are that. It is that they are so mendacious even to themselves that they convince themselves that the people they are fucking are the really powerful and oppressive ones.

            1. John’s like Irish about race. The centuries of government oppression of gays and the current support of heterosexuals isn’t the tragedy, it’s this past few years of gays asking for what heteros and SoCons have enjoyed for a long time. Now THAT’S awful!

              1. Wrong, as usual.

                The activists are asking for government oppression to be forced onto someone else.

                1. (above is directed toward Bo.

                  Some day I will get in line with P Brooks.)

                2. “The activists are asking for government oppression to be forced onto someone else.”

                  The same type of government action that has long been available to religion as a protected class.

                  1. What?

                3. Gotta oppress somethin’.

                4. Correct, they are. Perhaps by forcing it on the religious crowd, they will join in to end it for everybody.

              2. I don’t blame Christians for being annoyed at the attacks. It’s gotten pretty absurd, with the shrikes of the world treating them like they’re Muslim terrorists wannabes. It’s a very telling sign of the status of religion in this country that, because drugs are bad, m’kay, the Supreme Court reduced the Free Exercise clause to a matter of law, not constitutional jurisprudence. Whatever you think of religion, that’s not a victory for liberty.

                The fact is, the lifting of oppression has come because the majority has wanted it to come. Women got the vote because men–mostly white men, incidentally–voted for the expansion of the franchise. Ditto most other improvements in civil liberties.

                A absolutely huge problem with the left is that they see everything through the lens of the civil rights movement in the 60s, and that in a weird capsule version that ignores a large amount of the reality of even that movement. And gays, whatever shit they have had to contend with over the years, are nothing at all like the blacks.

            2. John – if perception is reality, then libertarians are racists and homophobes.

              1. It is not reality but it has the same effect. Sure, it is not true. But a lot of people think it is and that has the same effect as if it were true.

          2. I don’t think gay people as a group hate conservatives and Christians, it’s really just progressives in general who loathe them and are thrilled to use this particular cause as a means of sticking it to their culture war enemy.

            Perhaps that should be “conservative Christians”, not “conservatives and Christians”. There are a whole lot of progressive Christians in the world.

            1. So here I am, True Christian Dude B. Square, and y’all are tellin’ me I’m supposed to keep right on honoring and loving and cherishing my wife and 1.5 children and 2.5 cats and 3.2 dogs, 0.5 gerbils, 3.7 hamsters, and 7.9 goldfish, even thought that them thar evil sinful gay faggots down the road are devaluing my marriage license??!?! HOW in God’s Holy Name can you expect me to do THAT?!?! Why, every time I even THINK about them gay faggots, I am COMPELLED to go and beat my wife and divorce my goldfish; it is commanded by GOD! Ya expect me to go agin’ GOD, fer Chrissakes?!??!

              1. I’m not tellin’ you anything, squirrel man.

              2. But, that isn’t what is happening. An interviewer asked a Pizza guy about his Christian beliefs and he said he had no problem with gays, but didn’t think gay marriage was something he personally would want to be involved with. Pretty mild. And, what happened was national outrage and vitriol towards him, which ruined his business.

                People are objecting to that.

                But, keep with your completely false example. You do realize you exaggerate because the truth doesn’t support your position. You have to exaggerate because it is only the false version you can actually rebut.

        2. LOL John. If you are gonna take the stance that perception is reality and that a vocal gay minority gives the impression that gays hate Christians, are you also gonna admit that a small vocal minority of Christians is making all Christians look like assholes?

    2. ditto Johns comment

    3. I love this kind of thing.

      For most of US history SoCons had their way and gays were rather systematically oppressed via government. Homosexual behavior was a punishable crime. Their relationships (and any relationship other than the ones that SoCons preferred) were punished by law and they were forced to subsidize the relationship preferred by SoCons. They were systematically discriminated against in government employment and programs.

      In this recent small, recent sliver of our history gays have started to demand to have all the laws that protected SoCons and their unions apply to them, and of course to the Right we hear caterwauling about the awful, awful oppression of SoCons.

      I don’t want the government to coerce anyone, but when it comes to these SoCons they’re moaning because the bed they made and supported for so long is suddenly uncomfortable for them to lay in.

      1. You don’t want the government to coerce anyone. You just love it when it happens to SOCONS. Go away Bo, Let the adults have a thread for once.

        1. I find the whining of people in bed with the government about the government to be less moving than other complaints, yes.

          1. Would that be the people in bed with the government forcing business to cater to them or the people in bed with the government trying to stop the other people from putting their bits together?

            1. Here’s what I say: if SoCons will start to demand that religion be removed as a protected class as loudly as they oppose gays being included, then I’m right there with them and would drop any and all criticism.

              1. if SoCons will start to demand that religion be removed as a protected class as loudly as they oppose gays being included, then I’m right there with them and would drop any and all criticism.

                How about getting rid of all protected classes? I would be ok with that.

                1. Me too, but let’s be clear, this is not what the anti-gay people are talking about.

              2. How magnanimous of you.

                Of course religion is protected by the 1st amendment mostly because nobody liked that the King could tell you that you had to be Anglican and if you practiced anything else, then you could be locked up. So not exactly on the same level of the protected classes as laid out by the CRA, et cetera, but I think I get your point.

                1. Let’s clear up something: the 1st Amendment protects religion from government action.

                  Non-discrimination laws are government ‘protecting’ certain protected classes from private actors. One of those private classes has long been ‘religion’. Now some people are talking about sexual orientation being one too. So, when did we start to hear all of this fuss? You guessed it.

                  1. If you’re protected from government action, aren’t you de facto protected from the government forcing you to do business with someone?

                    1. I’m comparing the affirmative protections government offers under anti-discrimination laws not the negative protections it offers under the 1st Amendment. It’s long granted the first to religion and is only recently started to talk about including gays. If what you’re saying is that the latter might be used as a shield to enforcement of the former, then OK, but I don’t see how that speaks to my point re: SoCons being fine with affirmative protections for them but highly upset about the same for gays.

                    2. I think it’s wrong to talk about the history of the country oppressing gays and connecting that to just SoCons, but I’m not the one who runs around trying to cherry picks single points from comments in order to twist around arguments in a pedantic attempt to show how enlightened I am compared to everyone else.

                      SoCons being fine with affirmative protections for them but highly upset about the same for gays.

                      Yes. Most people are because their fundamental conception of government is arbitrary.

                      The gays are a minority who have been oppressed. And libertarians, by and large, support them in gaining equal rights.

                      I refuse to turn them into martyrs or now claim they have special victim status and are ok to use government force because their persecutors did it.

          2. The issue we’re discussing has little to do with government recognition of same-sex relationships, Bo. This is about either respecting free association or not accepting it as a basic principle.

            I accept it and will always condemn any person that would enslave another by forcing them, under penalty of fine or imprisonment, to work for another person against their will. You seem to refuse it because “SoCons had their way and its cool to turn the tables”.

            Principles or principals? Looks like you’ve decided. And you are rightfully being judged harshly for it.

            1. So let me get this straight: if, say, a long time government crony receiving favorable treatment from the government were to suddenly find itself the victim of programs it had long happily benefited from, I can’t give a little Nelson Muntz laugh in their direction without being a hypocrite?

              1. Compelling them to work against their will because of the sins of their fathers is a little more serious than a “ha-ha”.

                1. Sloop, I don’t disagree with your opinion of the law, but I don’t see how this is a “sins of the father” thing.

                  Whether or not you want to join Bo in laughing, I don’t think laughing means he agrees with the punishment. Lord knows people here react in a very similar manner whenever progressives get fucked over by the sort of laws and policies they tend to support.

              2. You can laugh at them, sure. But the second you refuse to support them in the instance their right makes you a hypocrite, yes.

                1. I agree with that, and the same goes for anyone who refuses to do the same for a progressive caught a situation I described above.

        2. You are correct, we love it when it happen to the SoCons, because their attitude is still: we may force others to do our bidding, but we insist on liberty for those who agree with us. Apparently, the only way to get through to them is to impose on them what they have imposed on others for do long. Maybe then they will become advocates of liberty for everybody.

      2. Good God. How many times have I heard Bo make the argument that we should treat violations of Libertarian positions equally, regardless if the violation is perpetrated by the left or right. But here we see Bo reveling in the disparity because it’s the SoCons who feel like their getting screwed, Libertarian purity be damned.

        If you ever use that tired ‘show me where I’ve taken a position against the Libertarian ideal’ again, I’ll be sure to point you here.

      3. Socons didn’t ‘have their way’.

        There were no ‘socons’ among the cavemen, Bo.

        And that’s where marriage comes from.

        Group enforced human pair bonding predates civilization.

        As does being uncomfortable around homosexuality. Animals exhibit this discomfort

        So let’s all say fuck the socons and try to understand what exactly we’re doing here.

        We are trying to alter human nature, to force natural xenophobias out of the picture–and it’s actually starting to work. Rationally, most humans can’t see a reason why someone should be treated differently due to their orientation–but it’s a process.

        And undermining freedom of association to get it will just perpetuate the problem–as it has done wrt race.

        1. As does being uncomfortable around homosexuality. Animals exhibit this discomfort/

          Wow, this is as dumb as anything Bo has said.

          1. Is it?

            So you think that, pre-civilization, everyone was down with the gays and only religion got people messing with them?

            wow.

            1. I’m actually gonna need a citation on the “animals exhibit this discomfort” bit.

              1. As am I, mostly because I am being lazy and short on time to research this claim myself.

              2. Question: Is it gay to pull stuff out of your ass?

                1. Ask Bo. He pulls shit out of his ass for every one of his comments.

          2. Of course they fell discomfort. A by animal will try nc fuck the non by me in all in the ass. Hence, discomfort.

        2. “Group enforced human pair bonding predates civilization. As does being uncomfortable around homosexuality. Animals exhibit this discomfort”

          Bullshit. Homosexuality and promiscuity are the norm among animals. Monogamy and heterosexuality are extremely rare.

          When it comes to humans, behaviors are extremely variable, but group enforced pair bonding is pretty rare. At best, it has been a common choice.

          1. Homosexuality may occur among some animals, but it isn’t “the norm”. Heterosexual promiscuity is. Haven’t you ever kept an animal, or is your experience of the animal kingdom restricted to goldfish?

      4. Shut up, Bo. Nobody cares what you think.

      5. Bo…I actually think gays have been treated worse than black people in many ways. I think the way gays have been treated throughout time has been horrible. It might be the defining issue for me when I consider how to evaluate a society.

        Having said that if I had lived within a 100 miles of the Pizza Parlor I would have driven it to buy a pizza. And, I’d buy some Chick Fil A, and I think Tim Cook is an idiot.

        A guy was asked in an interview, which he did not solicit, his views on gay marriage. He said he had no problem with gays but would choose not to be involved with a gay marriage. Pretty mild. And, there was national vitriol from good progs everywhere as they TRIED TO RUIN HIS LIFE. What kind of people do this to someone who holds slightly differing views. He wasn’t being bad to gays. He thinks marriage is a sacrament that was intended to be for a man and a woman. Why would anyone try to ruin someone’s life over this?

      6. Go you Pig Fighter Go!

    4. some Christian conservatives are elevating homosexuality far above other sins

      Because, as John notes, some people are elevating homosexuality far above other rights.

      Shocker – not everyone agrees. So how about we keep the fucking government out of ALL of it, and I’m good with Ms. Conservative having whatever views – I just don’t give a shit. Just like I don’t give a shit about some college friends who came out as gay after graduation. As long as neither drags in the government, which none has.

      Don’t care – either way, either side of the issue.

      Interesting that Matt – and many other oh-so-cool people – cannot fathom someone who has Ms. G’s views. I don’t share them, but I understand them. Just like I understand and don’t share my college buddies’ sexual orientation.

      CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?!! No – clearly, as history – and the current KULTUR WARZZZ demonstrate – no we can’t.

      1. “some people are elevating homosexuality far above other rights”

        Really? All I’ve seen is them invoking being included as a ‘protected class’ along with….wait for it….religion!

        1. To be fair, the entire concept of “protected class” is bullshit.

          1. I agree. But if SoCons have no problem with religion as a protected class but think gays being one is teh worst thing in teh world I say that’s a bit much.

            1. And it’s only SoCons who are being enslaved? Well then, I guess that makes it alright.

              1. What makes it alright is that SoCons are fine with the enslavement as long as it isn’t happening to them. If, as libertarians, we want them to join us, we shouldn’t go out of or way to protect them from government until they actually take a principled stance themselves, rather than demanding special privileges.

        2. “Really? All I’ve seen is them invoking being included as a ‘protected class’ along with….wait for it….religion!”

          If so then your vision is cloudy.

          Gays have always had the same rights as Hertos to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what the historical definition of marriage has always been. What they want is a new right to marry someone of the same sex and the power to force others to participate in it regardless of their desires to do so or not.

          Hertos have never been able to marry someone of the same sex ( for whatever legal or financial reason they may have wanted to ) , just like Gays.

          I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a case where a Herto, or SoCon to you, wanted the government to force a Gay to work for them in some manner against the Gay’s wishes.

          1. I honestly can’t understand how someone can be stupid enough to make this argument and still function in day to day life. If you want to argue against gay marriage because you think homosexuality is immoral or it isn’t marriage, go ahead. Making idiotic arguments about how they really haven’t been discriminated against because they could marry someone they’re not attracted to is just fucking asinine.

            1. “I honestly can’t understand how someone can be stupid enough to make this argument and still function in day to day life. ”

              Well then you are indeed an idiot.

              ” If you want to argue against gay marriage because you think homosexuality is immoral or it isn’t marriage, go ahead.”

              I’m not arguing against gay marriage. Those are your words not mine. I simply stated the fact that they have always enoyed the same rights as everyone else as far as marriage goes. Why are you so deft to understand that ?

              “Making idiotic arguments about how they really haven’t been discriminated against because they could marry someone they’re not attracted to is just fucking asinine.”

              Throughout the history of marriage many people have been compelled to marry someone they weren’t attracted to. Only in the last 100 years or so has being attracted to someone been a cause for marriage. I never said they haven’t been discriminated against. Once again that is your strawman. I clearly said they could legaly marry with the same rights as Hertos. Do you deny that fact ?

              Making assinine arguments is something that you seem to be better at doing yourself rather identifying it in others.

              Have you ever tried actually debating against what someone actually said rather than taking the easy road to victory and argueing against what you wanted to argue against ?

      2. I’m only commenting because you expended some effort and thought into that, and it wouldn’t be right if only Bo commented.

        Mornin’. How yew doin’?

        1. God love ya, Hamster! Thanks!

          Even if you’re teh gai…..:) NTTAWWT….

          1. *nods* SO teh gai…

      3. “other oh-so-cool people”

        Oh, just say ‘cosmos’ and get it over with.

      4. Matt declares it “blizarre” which it may be, but he offers no real explanation for his -judgement- so color me unconvinced.

    5. That’s not what Gallagher is talking about. Her hypothetical gay friend is not asking the government to force her to attend.

      Like it or not the entire gay marriage controversy has sent the message to Christian Conservatives that gays hate their guts and are going to use government to ensure that they either change their beliefs or learn never to express them in public.

      That might be accurate, and it’s fair to laugh at and call Christian Conservatives stupid for seeing that message. And so Matt’s incredulity is spot on. “That’s really what you’re seeing from this movement?”

    6. Yes, SoCons have just been on the defensive from the gays, it’s not like they haven’t supported government enforcement of their beliefs to outlaw homosexuality or otherwise make gay people second-class citizens. If Christian conservatives feel that gay people hate them, maybe they should wonder why.

      (Note that I’m not saying I agree with efforts to mandate making gay wedding cakes, etc. I’m just saying that trying to paint them as defensive victims who just want to be left alone and are being attacked by the gay hordes who hate them for no reason is ridiculous).

      1. Maybe the hatred on both sides is justified. You are right, they certainly can ask that. But gays of course should ask themselves the same thing. If the point is to get people to accept you, revenge is usually not the best strategy.

      2. People should read the briefs by the states and the organizations that oppose gay marriage. They are generally in agreement that the state has an important, critical role to play in supporting the kinds of unions they approve of, and that any legitimation of SSM is a potential disaster, not because government should stay out of the business of picking and choosing unions to support, but because it might undercut the important focus and support government gives, and should give in their opinion, to heterosexual unions.

        1. Yes, I have historically found these statements extremely offensive due to their screaming support for procreation.

      3. ” If Christian conservatives feel that gay people hate them, maybe they should wonder why.”

        When I was out of work last year and checking the craigslist employment section, a regular thing would be to see a LGBTQ activism ad that would say something like “Did you know you can be fired for being gay? Fight for LGBTQ Rights”

        And I don’t equate such activists with the gay community, but they often seem to equate themselves with the people they’re using to manufacture outrage. If you didn’t know any gay people personally, I can see how you’d confuse the screaming ones with the regular easygoing apolitical ones.

    7. The reason for that is that the people who commit other sins are not demanding the government force people to affirm and be a part of their sin.

      Except when they are, like people who get remarried after a divorce, people who get married knowing they plan never to procreate, etc. At least some Christians consider those things sins that witnessing a marriage would make them a part of.

      1. Don’t forget the people who eat cheeseburgers on Fridays.

        1. Splitters!

        2. Did you know you could buy meat and milk with food stamps???

          1. *furiously mixes meat and dairy*

            TAKE THAT!

          2. If an ISP can block my children from porn sites at my request, EBT cards should enforce Kosher Law at the checkout register at my request.

            1. You mean the laws of halal, you greasy Islamophobe.

      2. If anyone has ever been sued for refusing to cater or be a part of a marriage between two divorced people, I have never heard about it.

        And people refuse to go to weddings for second marriages all of the time. What are you talking about Nikki? And maybe you missed it, but last I looked divorce and adultery were in the words of crazy Joe Biden a big fucking deal.

        1. Lots of discrimination laws cover marital status John.

        2. The legal protections are there, John. Religion is a protected class everywhere. Do you think a Catholic hospital would get away with acting like two previously divorced Protestants weren’t married? Just because one hasn’t tried doesn’t mean government force isn’t involved.

          1. They included that as a protected class because someone asked for it.

            Marital status cases are not uncommon in case law. For example, people used to refuse to rent to unmarried people or divorcees. That’s why marital status is in many non-discrimination laws.

          2. Do you think a Catholic hospital would get away with acting like two previously divorced Protestants weren’t married?

            That is an interesting question. First, the protections are there because of the first amendment. Religion is a special case. It wasn’t made up by some court or passed by some evil Southern legislature. The right to free exercise is in the 1st Amendment.

            And in answer to your question, if recognizing the marriage required them to break their beliefs, yes they could. For example, if they had a “spouse support group” and only allowed first married spouses and not g/fs or second spouses, they would win in court every time.

            1. “First, the protections are there because of the first amendment. ”

              Absolutely wrong, the First Amendment applies to state action.

              1. Yes and the state telling someone they must serve someone or do something that violates their religion as a price of doing business, is state action. The issue is can the state as a matter of law require the hospital to recognize the marriage.

                Bo, do yourself a favor and stop and think before you post. Even when you are not trolling, you still often muck up the threads by making off the mark comments like this.

            2. The right to free exercise is a right to freedom from the government. This is a public accommodation/free association issue.

              And it’s not clear at all to me tha you’re right about who would win. If that were the case, why wouldn’t RFRAs protect people who won’t accommodate gay weddings? It should be legally identical.

              1. Nikki,

                The government forcing hospital to recognize the marriage is government action. The question is can the hospital do that without being sued. The only reason the couple could sue is because there is a law that says the hospital has to. That is government action forcing the hospital to act against its religion and a violation of the free exercise clause.

                You are making the same mistake Bo did. That is not good.

                And the reason why the RFRAs contain that language is because the legislatures wanted to make sure the courts properly protected religion. In an ideal world, they shouldn’t have had to do that.

              2. Correction, our right do not stem FROM government. Our right are inalienable and government’so authority flows to it from us.

                Sorry to be nit picky.

            3. The Constitution only says “government shall make no laws…”. Nowhere does it say that government should interfere in how private citizens treat each other based on religion.

          3. Do you think a Catholic hospital would get away with acting like two previously divorced Protestants weren’t married?

            Are you citing a specific case? Catholic INSURANCE may do such a thing, but I am unaware of a Catholic hospital refusing anyone based on marital status or sexual orientation.

            Personally, I think any individual or private organization has the right to refuse labor for any person regardless of reason. Let’s pretend this “you’re not private because subsidy” argument is valid; subsidy is often used as blackmail.

            1. It doesn’t really matter if there is an example of it happening or not. The threat of government force may well be stopping people from freely exercising their religion. Or preventing further innovation in religion. Not all harm from regulation comes through direct action.

              I think pretty much everyone here agrees with you about the rights of individuals and private organizations. The point she was making is that religious people are already forced to recognize marriages they don’t consider legitimate.

        3. If anyone has ever been sued for refusing to cater or be a part of a marriage between two divorced people, I have never heard about it.

          We are all forced to recognize and acknowledge those marriages in exactly the same way we are forced to recognize and acknowledge gay marriages. If an employer who provides spousal benefits to employees refused to do so for a previously divorced employee, you bet they would get sued.

          The whole baking cakes and flowers thing is a big, stupid distraction. It is something that is almost never going to come up in reality. And no one here thinks anyone should be forced to do that. And before you start wildly accusing people of being on the wrong side of this again: No one here had anything to do with it.

          1. The whole baking cakes and flowers thing is a big, stupid distraction. It is something that is almost never going to come up in reality.

            It seems to be happening more and more. Beyond that, it was just the start. Now we have the Pizza parlor, were merely expressing the wrong opinion gets you in trouble.

            1. It’s happening now because everyone is making a big deal of it. Some asshole reporter went and found a pizza place who wouldn’t cater a gay wedding. I can’t see that continuing as a trend.

              Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I think it will blow over. Very few people actually object to providing services to gay people. And very few gay people are going to insist on having someone who thinks they are doing something sinful provide services to them. And I think that as time goes on, more and more people will accept or at least tolerate the fact that gay couples are becoming a normal part of our society.

              We’ll see, I guess. Neither your opinion nor mine is likely to change the eventual outcome.

              1. Unfortunately, there have been several cases where bakers and florists have been fined for refusing to provide services to gay weddings. As well as some places that used to host weddings not wanting to deal with the hassle.

                The problem is that some people on the left are hunting down dissenters from gay marriage, and forcing people to either participate or face legal sanctions.

                I’m a strong proponent of SSM and have been for almost 20 years. But after seeing the SJWs going after every mom & pop with a religious belief, at least some chunk of the gay rights movement is just being dicks. As much as it pains me to say it, Skeletor’s stunt double Anne Coulter was right, the gays won, now they’re just shooting the survivors.

                Common sense kind of left the room in some of these discrimination arguments. After all, who serves Pizza at a wedding, can’t find a gay florist, and can’t find a B&B that is at least gay friendly.

                1. The problem isn’t gays. It never really was. It’s the progressives. We all bitch about them, but what are we going to do to stop them?

                  Better figure that out soon, or one morning we will all wake up in their dystopic ‘worker’s paradise’.

        4. People refuse to go to second weddings? You know very different people than I do.

    8. i wouldn’t go as far as saying “gays hate Christians”. Progressives hate Christianity and they are using a minority group as a bat to beat them into submission. The homosexuals are the useful idiots. It is not like we haven’t seen this done before. Which other minority groups are/were used as pawns? The homosexuals I know… respect my Christianity and would never force me to attend a gay wedding for the reasons Maggie Gallagher articulated. They also know that I stand with them if there was any real discrimination because of their sexual choices. A gay wedding opt out is not discrimination.

      1. Progressives hate Christianity

        Why do people keep saying that? Not all Christians are conservative protestants and Catholics. And a whole crap load of Catholics are progressive. The fucking Pope for starters.

        The old mainline protestant churches are pretty solidly progressive as are most American and British Anglican churches. And many of those churches will solemnize gay unions. Even some evangelical churches are quite progressive, though not usually in the gay loving way.

        1. What he means to say is that his straw-man of Progressives hate Christians. Just like the straw-man Christian hates homosexuals. It’s a great way for both sides to generate a lot of emotion and outrage while constantly talking past each other and getting nothing done.

        2. Marxists hate Christianity. A lot of progressives derive their politics from second or third hand marxism.

        3. Most do. It is an impediment to an all powerful state. Which is the only God they really believe in.

      2. I don’t respect your Christianity, though not just because you employ it as an excuse not to be a decent human being. Wonder how your god thinks about that. I’ve heard stories about Jesus being about not judging and stuff, but I don’t really buy it.

        And as a liberal who knows other liberals, I must tell you that homosexuals are not useful idiots; we’re the ones in charge. The great thing about being gay is that you can insinuate yourself into positions of power and anonymously advance your agenda. Pray that we do not overreach even more than you fear.

        1. what an asshole

    9. This special fixture on homoism predates the violent gay marriage thing by some years, if not decads. I recall commenting on it far before anyone but the most paranoid anticipated the way things would go. So there is some other underlying cause. Certainly, there never has been such a widespread hullabaloo over adultery or heterosexual fornication in recent memory as has been there about gayhead. It might be explicable simply by that rampant homosexuals are really fucking annoying and have been agitating in obnoxious if not always violent ways for some time. And there’s the whole homosexuality reification scenario, which probably doesn’t offend all the muddleheads out there that readily turn every convenient metaphor into a thing.

    10. You’re such a fucking idiot it would give you too much credit to call you a bigot. Bigots rationalize their vile opinions. You just sort of act as Bill O’Reilly’s dumber siamese twin, all id.

      Christians are not the victims here. They not only have equal rights, including the right to be free from discrimination, they are far and away the dominant religion in this country. Does it ever seem strange to you that the only people whose rights you whine about being trampled are people who at the moment have the vast majority of the power and money in this country? Hello? Anybody home?

      Replace “serve an interracial wedding” with “serve a gay wedding” and you just might acquire some perspective on this issue. Maybe you have a libertarian attitude and think people should be free to discriminate. But you don’t stop there, you insist on setting your hair on fire over the gay mafia. Give me a fucking break.

      1. What do you actually get out of corpse fucking a thread when there’s nobody around to even appreciate all of your delicious projection?

      2. You really are a vicious, soulless, little racist turd aren’t you?

        Oh, and fuck off Tony.

  2. Jesus they couldn’t find someone other than a fat hog to be the spokesman? I feel like marriage has a branding crisis right now.

    1. Not a street libertarians want to go down.

      1. okay, please continue to explain how great rick santorums dick tastes.

    2. I was wondering that, too. Also, I can’t find any mention anywhere that Maggie Gallagher is actually married herself. I haven’t found a bio of her that mentions a husband. If there is no husband, I have to snicker in the general direction of a disgustingly fat, thoroughly undesirable old spinster who shrieks and flails about how and whom others should be marrying.

      1. If that’s the case she is mostly worried about the how competition will increase and she may have to lay off the chocolate chip pancakes she consumes by the pallet.

      2. “She also has a son, conceived and born out of wedlock, from a previous relationship at Yale with a man who, according to Gallagher, eventually abandoned her and became uninterested in their child.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie_Gallagher

        1. WIkipedia also notes that she married Raman Srivastav in 1993,[7] and they have one son together.

        2. Maybe that explains her hard on for marriage. If only she could have forced that guy to marry her she might not be so fat and bitter now.

      3. I linked it below, but she was dating a guy in college, got knocked up and he left her. 30 years on they tell different stories about how it all went down, but it’s an interesting read and her position and passion for it make sense in the context of her personal past.

    3. Branding. hehehe…

    4. Sure they can, and have. Proggies ignore those and focus on the uglier people of the opposition. And you fell for it.

      1. I was just making a joke.

    5. just curious…. would you say… Couldn’t they find a dude that doesn’t prefers other dudes to be a spokesman? Or couldn’t they find a guy not in a wheel chair to be the governor of Texas? just saying you better cover up… your douchebaggery is showing.

      1. You’re a fucking idiot.

  3. “Is that what you think this country is all about? Really?”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..-marriage/

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/…..imination/

    I don’t know Matt, is it?

    1. I agree with you.

  4. “elevating homosexuality far above other sins”

    Really? I didn’t notice Gallagher doing that. For one thing, I didn’t see her describe homosexual *inclinations* as sinful, any more than she described any particular temptation as sinful.

    She said she wouldn’t attend a same-sex union ceremony because that would imply approval.

    1. Would she refuse to attend the marriage of two divorced people?

      1. I don’t know, why not ask her?

        1. Someone should.

      2. She sees them as different as she notes in the National Review article that Welch is commenting on. She sees gay marriage as explicitly worse than remarriage.

        Rubio sees going to a gay wedding as no worse than going to a second wedding, Gallagher talks about this position and then goes on to disagree.

        1. She seemed to mention Rubio’s divorce remarks without commenting on them.

          1. The entire article is her listing off Catholics who have come to a similar conclusion and point out that they are wrong about gay marriage. She doesn’t chide them for going to second weddings AND gay marriages, she talks about how gay marriages are fundamentally different from straight marriages.

            So yes, I’m inferring, but I don’t think it’s a particular stretch from what she wrote.

            1. She’s commenting on Rubio’s I’d-go-to-a-same-sex-wedding remark.

              For the “what about divorce” argument of the SSM crowd, I reply, “well, what about it? Do you think it *helps* your cause that a previous ‘reform’ of marriage (no-fault divorce) has had so many bad consequences? That doesn’t buttress your position; it makes the cause to be cautious about adopting yet more ‘reforms.'”

              1. That is the weird aspect of Welch’s piece. It is not as if Catholicism, for instance, is especially approving of divorce and remarriage.

      3. Or Mormonites.

      4. I know people who didn’t attend a wedding of two people who had an affair which ostensibly broke up their marriages.

        1. A good catholic would never forgive them for this.

    2. Wow, when you get fact-checked by arch socon Eddie that should be your clue right there that you’re full of shit.

    3. She clearly doesn’t have any problem with gluttony.

      1. That was awfully wrathful of you!

        OMG, I felt PRIDE in pointing that out.

        ‘scuse me, I’ll just pop out and burn myself at the stake.

        1. Suicide is a sin.

        2. I envy your pride 🙁

    4. “Staking her life” on the exclusion of gays from marriage is a pretty lofty elevation.

  5. When you debate with words instead of government force, acceptance of gay marriage will win

    Matt, I think you’re reaching the wrong conclusion here. There shouldn’t be any arguing or talking with people who are obviously in the wrong. Clearly, the best way to win the gay marriage argument is by slandering its opponents, threatening their employers with boycotts and sending nasty letters and tweets to their family members, so that these enemies of the Revolution confess in public their sins and ask for forgiveness before they’re shot in the back of the head.

    1. As long as you are doing it to the right people, you are damn right it is.

      1. It’s ok when the left does it. Saul Alinsky and all that jazz.

    2. The SSM people didn’t get this far by gentle persuasion. They’ve used violence, litigation, fines, etc. The goal is to force “acceptance” through intimidation.

      And “acceptance” includes “accepting” the use of government to tell businesses whom to serve, whom to hire, and the terms of their employment. To the extent libertarians become identified with opposition to this agenda, they will soon be numbered among the movement’s enemies, and no amount of “but, but..we’re on *your* side!” will be of any avail.

      1. What the “forcers” are really doing here is just a way of othering people they don’t like. It seems two wrongs do make a right – at least then the left does it.

        1. And it explains their constant attribution of “hate” to their opponents. The activists vehemently hate the traditionalists, so they assume the hate is reciprocated. The difference is that their own hate is righteous and good.

          1. Oh come on. Some, but not all, gays hate Christians, but surely some, though not all, Christians actually hate gays. Let’s leave the overgeneralizations to the activists on both sides.

            1. That burning straw man is a fire hazard.

              1. Wait a minute, Eddie, Bo saying that some Christians hate gays is a strawman, but you saying that gay activists hate Christians isn’t? Explain the logic here to me.

                1. Yes, I’m comfortable repeating what I said – the “activists” and the “SSM crowd” generally fit my description.

                  The exceptions tend to say stuff like “you poor deluded fools, I don’t hate you, I pity you.”

                  1. I just want to be clear that your are claiming that there are NO Christians who hate gays. Otherwise it would simply be wrong to claim that “some Christians hate gays” is a straw man, would it not?

                    1. “The activists vehemently hate the traditionalists, so they assume the hate is reciprocated.”

                      How you got from there to “no Christians hate gays” I have no idea.

                    2. ???

                      Bo said:

                      Oh come on. Some, but not all, gays hate Christians, but surely some, though not all, Christians actually hate gays. Let’s leave the overgeneralizations to the activists on both sides.

                      You replied:

                      That burning straw man is a fire hazard.

                      What straw man are you referring to, if not “some, though not all, Christians actually hate gays”?

                    3. The straw man was that he was refuting some position I actually held.

                      It’s as if I said there’s too much police brutality, and Bo replied, “unlike you, I love my country!”

          2. Oh yes. The attribution of “hate” is today what the attribution of “dirty” or “filthy” was in previous decades/centuries…and is still used today I am sure.

            Funny thing is, hate is a normal human emotion and can never be eliminated, whereas dirty implies that you just need to be…cleansed…

      2. Neither did social conservatives carve out their protected classes through gentle persuasion. What’s your point?

    3. Good ideas all, OldMexican, but can’t we sue them into poverty as well? Nothing humbles wrongheadedness like begging for a living, and we really can’t have these backwards people producing things with their bigoted hands.

    4. +1 Vishinsky.

  6. To single out same-sex couples for being disqualifying unable “to make the future happen” …

    It’s simple, really. If everyone were gay there would be no future for the human race. Therefore, no one should be allowed to be gay. QED.

    I can prove anything with a non sequitur and a strawman.

    1. some guy,

      I’ll challenge you: Prove to me that the trolls are here to have a good faith discussion.

      I’m interested in your creative ability.

      1. And here I was going to lapse into a “Argument, oh, this is Abuse” joke 🙁

      2. I don’t know if even a non sequitur can lead to that conclusion.

        You want creativity? Read some of SugarFree’s works.

    2. We should start a government registry where fertility doctors blacklist infertile men and women, as well as post-menopausal women from engaging in future civil marriages. Since marriage is primarily about procreation and all.

    3. Turkey baster.

  7. How is not going to the wedding “intolerance”? Is Galliger saying the ceremony should be illegal or that it is her moral duty to disrupt it? Is she saying that she will no longer associate with these people? If not, and she doesn’t seem to be saying any of that, how is she being intolerant?

    You can disapprove of something without being “intolerant” of it. Matt sadly seems to have convinced himself that anything short of absolute public affirmation of gays and their lifestyle and their marriages is intolerance. WTF? What the hell ever happened to just disagreeing with something?

    1. Do you think people who, say, refused to patronize a pizza parlor because of its position on gay rights, are intolerant?

      1. Yes you fucking half wit. Galliger isn’t saying she won’t associate or do business with these people. She is saying she won’t go to there wedding. You really are incapable of understanding metaphor and simile. It is just remarkable how you fail to understand anything but the most simple and crude comparisons and logical arguments.

        1. So boycotting a business is bad, but boycotting a personal event, not bad.

          Aren’t you the one always reviling the ‘progs’ for making the personal political?

    2. She is intolerant of gay marriage. As in, she won’t tolerate attending one even if invited by a dear friend.

      Your second paragraph is embarrassing.

      1. No its not. How is disproving of something being “intolerant”. Intolerant means more than that. Intolerant means you take its existence. She is not saying they shouldn’t get married. She is saying she doesn’t agree with it and won’t be a part of it. That is not being intolerant. And my second paragraph is no worse of a hyperbole than you use against Galliger. How exactly is she supposed to object to gay marriage if she must attend the wedding and be a part of the ceremony? If she can’t refuse to do that without being branded intolerant, then you can’t object to something without being called intolerant of it. That is a misuse of the term intolerance. You can be plenty tolerant and just disagree with and not want to be a part of something.

        1. I see your point, John but let me say this:

          Being intolerant of it is sending them an email in response to their wedding invite and making a huge production of stating the reason she will not attend. Being tolerant is politely declining and checking the “will not attend” box on the RSVP.

          I think she’s being petty and smug in the way she claims she would handle this. Tolerance, in my opinion, means acting indifferently to it until it directly infringes on your own rights. She is stepping way over that line here.

          Just my two cents.

          1. She is being forceful and public with her disapproval. As long as she is still willing to be friends with the person, I just can’t see her as intolerant. Take gay marriage out of it. Suppose she had a friend who had dumped his wife and kids to marry his 20 something secretary. And she really sided with the first wife and thought the guy was being a really selfish ass. If she publicly and loudly said she disapproved of the marriage and wasn’t going to attend the ceremony but would still be friends with the person, could you call her intolerant? I don’t think so.

            1. “She is being forceful and public with her disapproval.”

              Yeah, who in the world could read intolerance into that!

            2. Yes, I would absolutely call her intolerant of that new marriage.

              I don’t care that she’s intolerant. I’m just pointing out that I think stepping into a public arena to make a spectacle of your declining attendance rather than simply checking a box on the RSVP says you are not tolerant.

              That’s not to say she will not be tolerant when she sees the together. But I would judge her actions on that when it (hypothetically) happens.

              1. It is semantics. I think intolerance means more than disprove. If you say she is intolerant in that situation, then what would it mean for her to merely disprove of it? To me intolerance means you don’t just disprove of something but you actively look to eliminate it and dissociate from anyone involved with it.

                1. And since it means that to you it must mean that to everyone.

                2. To me intolerance means you don’t just disprove of something but you actively look to eliminate it and dissociate from anyone involved with it.

                  Then we disagree. I don’t approve of certain things.And if invited to attend a ceremony that elevated or even recognized them, I would politely decline to attend or would merely not show up. That would be tolerance. (Think a friend celebrating an abortion, which I’ve heard of happening.)

                  If, say, somebody held a contest for best pizza in the world and a friend set up a booth with deep dish, I would take out a full page ad decrying them claiming deep dish is the same as traditional pizza, and I would add hundreds of citations through the history of mankind showing that there has never in history been a culture that accepted deep dish as the same as traditional pizza and that it has routinely been shunned by all societies. That would be intolerance.

                  See the difference?

                  1. The concept of tolerance has always seemed easy to me. First you have to 1: be opposed to or dissaprove of something in some way and 2: not use violence or coercion to end said thing.

                    You can’t be tolerant of something you support of approve of either, hence SJW’s aren’t actually tolerant of anyone. If, for example, your roomate were playing music you happen to like you’re not “tolerating” that music. But if they’re playing Dwight Yoakam or some such shenagans and you decide to just deal with it, you’re tolerating it. If you decide to put in ear plugs, or leave the room or in some way not put an end to it, but also not partake in it, you’re tolerating it.

                    So I agree with John. This lady isn’t making a move (at least here) to forcefully shut down a wedding she doesn’t agree with, and not going to said wedding isn’t basis for calling her intolerant. If she’s not agressing against people I don’t see how she’s being intolerant.

          2. sloopy,

            Thanks, you’ve helped me understand Matt’s point of view a little better (although I think I would’ve used a less strong word than intolerance if I were describing her attitude).

            1. Intolerant has gone through the same change as discrimination. As soon as you use either people just assume you mean the absolute worst case.

        2. Why do you care so much about whether Gallagher’s being called intolerant? You’re never going to get mainstream lib culture to stop labeling socons as intolerant. That’s how they guilt-trip/shame socons into silent yielding, by shrieking “Intolerant!” or “Racist!” or “Sexist!” at them.

          If you don’t recognize gay marriages and don’t want to participate in them in any way, take it as a badge of honor that you’ve been labeled intolerant. If you’re a socon, they were going to call you that anyway, for any of your beliefs. The proper response to being labeled “intolerant” because you don’t embrace prog causes is “yeah, so? So what?”

          FWIW, Gallagher actually does actively fight against gay marriage rights, as is her right, though that’s outside the scope of simply refusing to attend or endorse a gay wedding.

          1. Why do you care so much about whether Gallagher’s being called intolerant?

            Because as Sparky points out above, “intolerance” has become an enormously pejorative term. In one sense you are right, what does Gallagher care if Welch calls her “intolerant”? It bugs the shit out of me because the term is so pejorative in its current use, it implies that Gallagher is a lousy person who has it out for gays when she doesn’t seem to be that way at all.

            1. I’m sure your intense dislike of Matt had nothing to do with you popping a rage boner and ranting up and down the page.

              1. I like Matt. I generally like his posts. But don’t let reality get in the way of the voices in your head.

        3. You’re all wrong. Tolerance means vacuous diversity initiatives and “coexist” bumper stickers.

        4. Toleration is suffering the existence of something we’d rather not have about.

      2. So toleration= approval now? Good to know.

        1. So attendance at a wedding=approval now? Good to know.

          1. Bo, we already know you’re incapable of understanding how arguments work. You don’t have to prove it constantly.

            1. Haha

          2. Usually, yes.

            1. That was to Bo

              1. And some of us even get threading!

          3. yes…. that is what a wedding is.

          4. If one approved, then one would be incapable of tolerating, as toleration requires that the thing being tolerated be in some way aversive. Since the Gay Wedding isn’t directly inflicting pain upon somebody, then its aversiveness must consist in it being disapproved of, therefore in order to tolerate the Gay Wedding one must disapprove it. In general, I would say most actions that could be intelligibly described as “tolerant” these days involve the suffering of something of which the tolerator disapproves.

    3. Re: John,

      How is not going to the wedding “intolerance”?

      It is in the mind of the “non-Brutalist” libertarian, John.

      For me, the fact that I don’t want to witness a gay wedding is simply a sign that *I* don’t want to see a fucking gay wedding, not that I am being intolerant. If the gay wedding is happening whether I witness it or not, where is the intolerance?

      For the fluffy, squishy libertarian, one must have beautiful thoughts besides not wanting to hurt people or take their stuff, because otherwise we could be too… brutalist.

      1. I don’t want to watch dogs fucking. Therefore, I am intolerant of puppies.

        1. See! Libertarians do hate puppies!

          1. +1 Fido

          2. “See! Libertarians do hate puppies!”

            I knew it. I guess I’ve always known it, but just didn’t want to believe it.

            The excuse that the orphans couldn’t have a puppy because the libertarian would be the one stuck with feeding it and scooping up after it was just an excuse to hide the ugly truth.

            1. Charles – I have five dogs.

              Not because I love dogs – but so I can kill them, one by one, in front of the orphans. Some day. Just for fun.

              /evil Capitalist

              1. Sure, evil Capitalist, but just yesterday you told us you had six dogs….

                Oh.

      2. And I don’t see why it needs to go beyond personal preference, why that isn’t adequate justification for not wanting to attend a gay wedding, service gay custom, &c. Why is it that personal preference is adequate for what foods we wants to eat, drugs we take, the manner in which we dispose of property, but it is somehow a terrible thing to apply any sort of preference with regards to the groups wherewith one chuses to associate? At this point, a person who just dislikes the company of fags will tend to rationalise it with some kind of philosophical condemnation that he’ll have to drag around with him for the rest of his term, when in a more tolerant environment, he’d say, “I just find them unpleasant to be around, not gay at all…,” and leave the moralising to the fanatics.

    4. I have to agree with John on this one; she is tolerating gay marriage, but only tolerating. Would we call someone “intolerant” of infant baptism because they refused to attend a different-religion friend’s child’s christening?

      1. I always thought saying “you can do what you want and I will still treat you the same way but I just can’t be a part of what you are doing” is the definition of tolerance.

        1. ntolerant
          adjective in?tol?er?ant \-r?nt\
          : not willing to allow or accept something

          http://www.merriam-webster.com…..intolerant

          1. Yes, My not attending it or being a part of it doesn’t mean I don’t accept it. Stop it Bo. There has to be a limit to how much even you can embarrass yourself.

            1. So refusing to go doesn’t imply non-acceptance? Lol.

              1. No Bo.

                It means he is going to car bomb it because he isn’t going to allow it.

              2. No Bo.

                It means he is going to car bomb it because he isn’t going to allow it.

          2. merriam-webster is incorrect. Tolerance is not acceptance. It is putting up with.

            tolerance
            See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
            Syllabification: tol?er?ance
            Pronunciation: /?t?l(?)r?ns/
            Definition of tolerance in English:
            noun
            1The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with:

            tolerate
            See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
            Syllabification: tol?er?ate
            Pronunciation: /?t?l??r?t/
            Definition of tolerate in English:
            verb
            [with object]
            1Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:

        2. *checks latest edition of Newspeak dictionary*

          Nope! You’re wrong John! Off to the Eastasia front with you!

          *looks around, seeking approval from Big Brother*

          1. Merriam Webster is the Newspeak dictionary?

            1. Apparently

    5. Matt sadly seems to have convinced himself

      … that social signalling takes priority over principles.

      Matt could have done the smart thing and totally ignored the social signalling of whats-her-chins but sadly he instead decided to wallow in the detritus of Kulturkampf.

      1. You know who else wallowed in the detritus of Kulturkampf?

    6. If it was some random couple who invited her to a wedding to make a point, I wouldn’t call her not going “intolerant”. But if it was a friend or family member’s wedding, I think a case could be made that she was being intolerant.

      I suppose it depends on how you define “intolerant”. Are you tolerating something as long as you don’t try to use violence to stop it? (Not to say that I think she is doing everything short of violence to stop gay weddings) That’s a reasonable definition, I suppose.

      1. Yep. I would say that, if she were tolerant of gay marriage, she would be indifferent to attending one. If her good friend is having a wedding and invites her, that gives her a reason to attend that wedding. So that’s one reason to attend, no reasons not to attend.

        If the fact that it’s a gay marriage outweighs the social nicety of attending a close friend’s wedding, she is not indifferent to gay marriage. And given that she’s made her disapproval very clear, I think it’s fair to say she’s intolerant of gay marriage. Which is fine. Whatever.

  8. God’s plan

    After BSG, I’m deeply skeptical that ever really is a “plan.”

    1. I larfed.

      +1 goddamnit Moore.

      1. I gave up on the show after one season with the comment that it’s like watching the Adventures of Golgafrincham Colony Ship B from Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

        Little did I suspect at the time that Moore literally took their ending from the book and made it the ending of NBSG.

        1. That robot chick was hot. But I lost interest pretty fast.

  9. So Matt’s right and anybody who disagrees is wrong? Sounds very liberal.

    1. I think Gilmore has permanent indulgence to disagree on suit/tie combo choices, but otherwise, pretty much.

  10. Fuck you people and your weddings. Live as man and wife or man and man or woman and woman if you want. Stop making spectacles of yourselves and forcing me to waste a Saturday on you. And fuck your cash bars.

    I only wish I could use the club of government to force my views on this subject on the rest of you. Who weeps for Fist of Etiquette?

    1. The trees?

        1. They scream because they were all made equal.

    2. Cash bar? I’m not paying for alcohol at someone else’s wedding.

      1. I’ll go along with the cash bar but will use the cash I would have allocated to a gift.

        1. We have to buy gifts too?

          Jesus.

          1. It’s an extortion racket.

      2. No doubt such people would have a money tree you could use to turn it into an open bar.

    3. Whatever, I had to tolerate strippers two weeks ago as a groomsman. STRIPPERS. At least the wedding will have an open bar…I think.

      1. You forgot to specify they were female, jesse.

      2. You mean girl strippers, right?

        1. Stripper 1: ARE YOU BEING A PUSSY!?
          Me: Nope, just gay.
          Stripper 2: I am too!!! Aren’t women’s bodies beautiful!?
          Me: Yeah, women are pretty, but [muffled by very hard fake boobies]

          1. I would pay top dollar to have seen that, jesse.

            jesse: “mmummph!”

            Stripper 2 :”speak up, I can’t hear you!”

            1. Stripper 1 was seriously miffed when I suggested she spend more time on the people who would appreciate her taut ass and leave me alone. Eventually I handed a stack of $1s to another groomsman and wandered off to have dinner.

              1. Her entire job is predicated on her sexual appeal. You seriously wounded her self-esteem. Jerk.

                1. I know, I felt bad, but the steak was good, and I put in as much money as the straight people.

            2. She could turn you. She was confident of it.

      3. Jesse, how much would you have to be paid to be one of those Dancing Bear guys for one night at a bachelorette party?

        1. Nobody would want that. You want a muscle bear or an otter. I’m quite pear-shaped, have zero rhythm, and embarrass easily.

          1. People have all kinds of sick fetishes, Jesse. Shit, there’s probably women out there that would even want Chriss to put his balls in their face.

            1. My balls were ringing. Y’all talking shit? I’ll have you know that my extensive knowledge of all things Pokemon is a lucrative and highly sought after fetish.

    4. Who has a fucking CASH BAR at a wedding reception? Like -srsly – is that a thing?

      That’s a reception I’m not attending….

      Me and Mrs. Almanian was PO when we got married – I mean my ring cost $57 and I think the entire wedding cost about $1000…..and we managed to have a keg for our guests 🙂 All my fraternity brothers were tripping, so they mostly just wanted water….

      PS Thirty years June 1 – take that, doubters! (looking at you, Mrs. Almanian’s parents…:) )

      1. People who don’t have a lot of money. Open bars cost a fortune. But weddings in general are a giant waste of money.

        1. John – I didn’t have a lot of money, as noted. We was no-shit PO.

          just don’t have a bar at all, but – for FUCK’s sake – don’t charge people to drink!

          1. You can’t expect people to suffer through a wedding sober. What the hell kind of a monster are you?

            1. then *politely decline* the invitation, like I do 🙂

              1. Personally, I am intolerant of weddings with cash bars.

                1. Oh – and the Dutch.

            2. At every wedding I’ve ever been a part of, I’ve been hammered. Start drinking the night before and don’t stop until you’re walking into the church. Oddly enough I really enjoyed my friends’ weddings, and mine.

      2. Poor folks and tacky folks who are other than poor.

        1. Yepper

      3. If you don’t have the money to pay the bar bill, you don’t have the money to marry.

        I figure such a marriage is doomed from the start, so why bother going.

      4. We had two wedding receptions. One with no bar at all, just champagne, for my family in Minnesota- almost none of whom were drinkers. Everyone was happy except my aunt who was angry that we had any alcohol at all. The second wedding reception for my husband’s family had an open bar with local craft beer kegs. None of his family were happy because we didn’t have any “American beer”. Bottom line: It’s a crap shoot trying to please wedding guests.

        1. I take it you’ve never been to a Mormon wedding. They do not have fun weddings. Even asking for a Coke makes you as an outsider. They’re drier than Hillary Clinton’s vag.

          Say what you will about the tenets of Catholicism, but at least they know how to party after a wedding, and usually have open bars.

    5. “Who weeps for Fist of Etiquette?”

      Cassandra Wilson?

      1. The blond from Wilson Phillips? I can dig it.

        1. http://www.metrolyrics.com/cas…..tures.html

          She’s an impressive singer/songwriter from Mississippi with an excellent voice. But that’s my opinion.

  11. Glad to see that we are focusing on the truly important issues facing the nation.

    Now everyone get over here and eat some Gay Deep Dish pizza together while we poll these millenials about how to do proper alt-texts.

    1. Will there be robots there as well. Tman? Will we have to participate in a poll?

    2. Thanks, Tman, for refocusing us on the truly eternal matters.

      +Alt Text

    3. Hold on their, hoss. What about teh circumcision???

    4. Deep Dish pizza

      Don’t make me say it again.

      1. What, …is delicious?

  12. Gallagher comes to her views on marriage honestly. She returned to the Catholic fold after she was abandoned by her baby daddy and became a zealous defender of traditional marriage and sexual norms.I dislike her position and am frequently annoyed that she’s intent on ordering my house before she ordering the houses of heterosexuals, but I certainly can’t fault her for having it.

    Her life story is actually very interesting.

    1. I really can’t be bothered to research if she’s ever commented on this, but I’m genuinely curious if she would summon the same amount of moral indignation on display here if she were invited to a heterosexual friend’s second wedding.

      1. Yeah, if she’s total RC, she shouldn’t be tolerating any o’ that.

        Unless, I think, if both parties’ orig marriage were annulled by the RC? I think that’s how it works?

        Dunno. I’m Presby – Presby Church USA recently announced its recog of gay marriage, so…..not the same as Roman Catholic doctrine, with which I’m not entirely familiar.

        Anyhooo….

        1. I don’t know why it matters. It’s not like anybody is expected to hold to their “vows”. It’s just a formality, like when a judge takes an oath to uphold the constitution.

      2. Actually the article Welch is commenting on seems to be in response to Rubio comparing going to a gay wedding to going to a second wedding. She says

        Rubio compared it to attending “second marriages” after divorce, which the Catholic Church teaches are attempts to consecrate adultery. “If someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives,” he said.

        She then goes on to explain that gay marriage isn’t just a sin in the act of the marriage but dooms both by vowing to stay off God’s path as Welch noted above.

        So no, she reserves a higher level of moral indignation for a sin that others commit rather than her sin of having a kid of out wedlock and not being a virgin bride.

        1. Now, Jesse, I’m sure she’s prayed long and hard to her god for forgiveness about that. Plus she has to endure the ongoing shame of being an unwed mother. Those gay people are openly defying god by participating in counterfeit marriages which mock and cheapen biblical marriage*.

          (*)Not actual polygamy as was practiced by most people in the bible, but the modern retconned version which consists of One Man plus One Woman(tm). Lulz.

        2. She does that because she repents for her sin of getting knocked up. Gay marriage isn’t just a single sin. It is a life time vow to continue that sin. That is a big difference. It would be as if rather than getting knocked up out of marriage once and repenting and trying her best not to do it again, she decided to spend the rest of her life getting knocked up out of marriage at every possible opportunity.

          1. Sigh. Yes, John, I understand the mechanics of it.

          2. “It is a life time vow to continue that sin.”

            And a divorcee remarrying is not (for RCs)?

            1. If you don’t believe in divorce it isn’t. We can only try and help you to understand so much.

              1. Nikki tried to explain this to you below John. If, as RC’s believe, divorce is sin, a divorcee remarrying is just as surely vowing to a life of sin as a same sex couple marrying.

          3. “Gay marriage isn’t just a single sin. It is a life time vow to continue that sin.”

            So the fuck is marrying after divorce. Or mixed marriages, as a rule, for that matter. And the gay marriage is really rather a lesser thing as the person doing it either has to have never engaged Christianity or else to have broken from it already, so what the fuck difference does it make if he spends the rest of his life in a gay marriage? For a heathen or an apostate, as a sin gay marriage doesn’t amount to five piles of owl manure. Now if he’s going around causing strife and misery and doing injustices, stealing people’s stuff, and so forth, that’s something worthy of some concern on the part of your h?gstaaende Christian Man. Or if he’s a rabid agitator, spreading bad philosophy yet unwilling to engage the opposition in honest debate, then there’s again something of interest. But bloody hell, the gay marriage may in the scheme of things be better for the heathen than a lot of other courses of action, and is most certainly not among the worst.

            1. Look at the Jehovahs. They don’t care if people drink and smoke and listen to difficult music, UNTIL the person has got over the big problem of coming to worship the ONE TRUE GOD. Yet Christians seem to’ve lost track of things and come to treat everybody around like they are all members of the church and need to be corrected on minor indiscretions, when in fact the big problems are entirely unaddressed. Plus, all these evolutionist arguments against gayhead are pretty obnoxious. Either come up with a legitimate philosophical objection or piss off. How fucking hard is it?

        3. She then goes on to explain that gay marriage isn’t just a sin in the act of the marriage but dooms both by vowing to stay off God’s path as Welch noted above.

          Pretty sure people going into their second marriage are also vowing to stay off God’s path.

          1. Yes they are. And a good Catholic would not forgive them.

            1. Bloody fucking hell, Man. Your brutishness astounds me! A “good catholic” has no business in the forgiving of sins. It was seen as borderline over-the-top when Jesus himself was doing it. Only God can forgive sin. We have no business forgiving or dooming a person. We have no real power to do it even if we wanted to. All we can do is pretend, and Satan is the father of pretending.

          2. Eddie wants me arrested for that.

      3. There are a lot of Christians that will. Second marriages in southern Baptist churches are many times only acceptable if the first marriage was broken up by cheating, occurred before the parties were born again, or were not imitated by the parties getting remarried. Even then they are expected to go through counseling and prayer with both the pastor and church elders. Mainstream culture may be okay with divorce and remarriage but the types to protest gay weddings generally aren’t apart of mainstream culture.

        1. Mainstream culture may be okay with divorce and remarriage but the types to protest gay weddings generally aren’t apart of mainstream culture.

          This is true, but it’s also true that there are many, many more heterosexual remarriages occuring than there are gay marriages. Since both are an affront to God, supposedly, I would think that Maggie Gallagher and all those organizations so dedicated to “defending marriage” from being devalued would be much more concerned about, and vocal in their opposition to, the former, rather than focusing almost exclusively on the relative rarity of the latter.

        2. the types to protest gay weddings generally aren’t apart of mainstream culture

          Well, that’s why they get the hammer. So they can be forced to be tolerant. You can’t have a libertarian utopia without a little, or even a lot, of force first.

          1. +1 omelette

    2. That makes sense. Despite what the harpy hard core feminists say, marriage for the non-elites is an instrument designed to protect women. Not surprising that someone burned by pre-marital sex would champion traditional marriage.

      This reminds me of the 2012 prez election when Donald fucking Trump was getting semi-serious consideration, but because he was the most direct and outspoken critic of Obama. This woman is way off base, IMO, but since muttering even a syllable of critique of gays is verboten these days people like John feel the need to defend her.

      1. I have not defended the substance of her views. How did you miss that? I am defending her against Matt’s charges that she is intolerant. She doesn’t seem to be intolerant at all. She just objects to gay marriage. I honestly can’t see how she could object to it in any more of a tolerant way than she is doing.

        1. The same way I do when I go to a Catholic wedding. I don’t participate in the prayers, but I’m there for my friends.

          Side note: First Catholic wedding I went to was also my first time in a Catholic church. I was sitting in a row with all the groom’s friends who likewise had never been in a Catholic church before (we were all Jews, the groom was the token Catholic in our crowd). We were delighted to find that there was a long, fold-down footrest, which we promptly folded down and put our feet up on. Couldn’t understand why all the goyim were glaring at us until later in the ceremony when we found out what they actually used it for. Wacky goyim.

          1. I had the same feeling that time I lite my cigarette on that Menorah.

            1. I hope you used the shammos.

        2. A good catholic would never forgive you for not defending the substance of her views.

  13. The notion that someone has staked their life on marriage staying male-female is frankly bizarre.

    I think she is saying that she has staked her life on the idea that the Bible is an eternal and divine truth. For a fundamentalist, if one part is wrong, it all is.

    And yes, a lot of fundamentalists have blinders on when it comes to all the contradictory parts of the Bible. I’m not saying it’s a defensible position, but it is understandable on an emotional level.

    1. I figured more that she meant she has made it her life’s work and if gay marriage keeps winning then her life has been meaningless.

      1. Oh no–understand, once the pope gives it his okay a whole lot of these die-hard anti-SSM Catholics will just shut up–it will be as if their opposition never was.

        1. Just like they all accepted Vatican II?

          1. I remember that. They were lined up around the block for that one.

    2. So just a tip Gallagher is in no way a fundementalist. This is basic level understanding stuff. Catholics aren’t in the least bit fundamentalist and the Catholic argument for marriage isn’t based uniquely on scripture. In fact it’s largely based on an anthropological understanding of what it means to be human and the complementary nature of the sexes.

      1. I think you’re confusing Catholicism with Anthroposophy.

    3. I wish the fundamentalists would just QUIT thinking that they can “Kiss God’s Holy Ass” by taking as many verses of the Bible, literally, as they can possibly stand. I wish the fundamentalists would be fundamentalists in the following sense:

      The true fundamental understanding of Christianity is in NO way contradictory to any other faith system, to include agnosticism and atheism, whenever and wherever such beliefs are under-girded by LOVE of our fellow beings, the Universe, etc. … God (on non-God of secular humanism, machs nix to me) is LOVE… Compassion and well-wishing, benevolent wishes, for all! So yes, I am a proud fundamentalist… I believe in the “fundamental” of Love; of treating my fellow beings (universe etc.) the way that I want to be treated. Small-minded beings, in the name of LOVE, I command you to RETREAT!

      1. Bull crap.

        1. I stand corrected by your elegant, logical, and well-considered rebuttal.

  14. Oh, and you’re all getting Botoxed – look at the strawmen and misrepresentations of the arguments littering the field!

    Its bleatings are so pitiful 🙁 It must be hard not to have friends. Or sex.

    1. Whine about Reason’s cosmos some more, speaking of bleating.

    2. It’s a lonely life, being a pedantic, contrarian concern troll. Even aspie retards want attention, too, you psychopathic juvenile monster. Can’t you give it to them? It means so little little to you, and so much to them!

    3. Cherry blossoms fall
      perfect; only to be squished
      It’s a hard-knock life

  15. But I have staked my life on this truth.

    You need to get out more, honey.

    1. I’m in.

    2. God Bless America.

    3. Traci Lords….

      I’ll be in my bunk…

      1. I think you have successfully deduced the elevator pitch that enabled the making of this film.

  16. Maggie Gallagher totally lost this. She’s desperately trying to hang on to any shred of relevance, but just comes across as a sore loser. And Maggie, honey, you don’t have, nor will you ever have, any gay friends.

    1. I am sure she just so torn up about that. Who gives a fuck if they have any gay friends?

  17. “Maggie Gallagher’s Refusal to Attend Gay Weddings Shows Why Government Shouldn’t Compel Service-Providers to Work Them”

    Too bad she hadn’t written her article in time for some bakers and florists to use that brass bound, airtight argument to save their livelihoods.

  18. Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boys. Let the indignation flow through you.

    1. Star Wars: The Force Awakens Official Teaser #2:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngElkyQ6Rhs

      1. So, is this the start of another trilogy or just a one-off? If a trilogy is Abrams doing all three?

  19. To follow up on my earlier remarks, Gallagher writes a lot about marriage, but does not confine herself to gays. She also discusses how the decline of marriage among straights leads to bad results.

    http://maggiegallagher.com/category/marriage/

    1. And she has a sense of humor. Here’s an article she linked on her blog, about how values-voters and libertarians ought to be closely aligned on religious freedom:

      http://www.christianpost.com/n…..it-127136/

    2. “Gallagher writes a lot about marriage, but does not confine herself to gays.”

      She just focuses a lot on them.

      1. Not as much as the activists to whom SSM is The Most Important Thing In the Entire World.

        When they focus on the issue, it’s commitment to social justice. When their opponents resist them, it’s obsession.

      2. 95 percent of what you say about marriage is related to gay marriage. Who the hell are you to criticize? You are pastiche of 2nd ideas gleaned from the social signaling of left-wing elites.

        1. To be fair, Botard the Hotard doesn’t really know a whole lot about marriage because he won’t be convincing anyone to marry him anytime soon, man or woman…

  20. When (former) out-groups rise to power they frequently become worse than the in-group they’ve replaced. SoCons have good reason to worry and should do everything they can to either diffuse the shift occurring or stop it.

  21. Can 3 gay males marry?

    Can 2 transgender and 1 non-transgender marry?

    Can a lesbian mother marry her lesbian daughter?

    Can a gay father marry his two gay sons?

    As long as everyone is “lgbt”, can everyone, of any number, form a marriage unit?

    1. “arbitrary legal contract is arbitrary!”

      So what?

      You seem unaware this is the same stupid argument that anti-gunners use when they say, “SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO OWN A BAZOOKA!? A NUCLEAR WEAPON!??!”

      ie. “unless you argue there are ‘zero restrictions’, well clearly you should accept *any* restrictions!”, say the gun-grabbers.

      “refusing to accept limits on gun magazines is the same as arguing people should be able to mount rocket launchers on their cars”

      the ‘reductio ad abusudum’ here is the claim your opponent is demanding “complete abandonment of any legal framework whatsoever”, rather than objecting to restriction of far more banal and socially accepted relations.

      Similarly, no one is agitating for the complete dissolution of marriage as a 1-1 contract between non family members.

      Claiming that expanding marriage from man/woman only to SSM is the same as ‘erasing all of its socially established conditions” is stupid. Its an argument that only appeals to stupid people. Even the procreation thing has more validity, particularly as a legal argument.

      1. Similarly, no one is agitating for the complete dissolution of marriage as a 1-1 contract between non family members.

        Does marriage have to be limited to a 1-1 contract between non family members? I can’t think of an argument for single sex marriage that couldn’t be used to advocate for marriage outside those limits.

        1. Because opposition to magazine limits is basically the same as wanting a bazooka, right? Right. “Same argumentz!”

          i like how you point out something is stupid, and the best anyone can do is go, “Oh but *is it*?” I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!

          1. No, just tell me why marriage must be limited to a 1-1 contract between non family members. I don’t think it should be; do you?

            1. “why marriage must be limited to a 1-1 contract between non family members’

              There is no underlying “why must________”.

              There is no “should be”.

              And my personal opinion on what “should or shouldn’t” be would be as meaningless in this case as it is on whether polygamy was “acceptable” in Mormonism, or whether pederasty in ancient Greece was “moral” or whether ‘arranged marriages’ in traditional cultures “should exist” or not.

              Did you entirely miss the point of noting that, “arbitrary contract is arbitrary”?

              1. I think an arbitrary contract is arbitrary, which is the underlying basis of my question. I’m curious what, if any, limits libertarian thought puts on the subject of “marriage”. I infer that libertarians supported expanding the definition to include “two people competent to make a contract” and wonder if the principles support a number 2, for example.

                As in the bazooka matter, I think certain restraints on behavior are prudent, my general question of libertarians is, how are limits set by whom for what reason.

                1. should have been .gt. 2, system hid my pointy bracket.

                  1. This is the key point. If the definition is arbitrary, then it is basically illegitimate, because what is “right” is simply what I think should be right. My opinion isn’t any more valid than anyone else’s, so there’s no logically “right” position here.

                    It seems to me that the only position consistent with basic libertarian principles is to have no government involvement in marriage at all. And it seems to me that once that option was identified, then it is wrong for procalimed libertarians to continue argue in favor of SSM when there is a much better alternative available. To continue to do so smacks of utilitarianism and the equality nonsense that infects much of the rest of our lives already.

                    So in my ideal and “right” world consenting adults of any gender(SSM), number(polyamory), and relation(genetic) can contract however they wish and no one outside of that group is harmed.

                    “But why don’t you let me marry my snapping turtle or let NAMBLA do it’s thing, NAS, you monster?!”

                    Well, because animals and children cannot give consent. I realize there will be some disagreement on the latter, so we’re a bit back to “arbitrary is arbitrary.” Sorry, outta juice on that one for the time being.

                    Getting back to my original point. If we’re all in agreement that the criteria for marriage are arbitrary, then of course you can advocate for your position, but you can never claim you do so because you or your position are “right.”

                    1. cont.

                      Oh, and I actually do have a hard time coming up with an argument to ban bazookas (or large fusion weapons). The best I can come up with would be to say no private citizen should own a weapon which can kill more than 10 people with a single pull of a trigger or button press. Then again, what about ammonium nitrate bombs… Self consistency is hard. I’d rather tell you when Cheryl’s bday is.

                    2. This governance thing is tough when you get down to the details of where it’s justified to set boundaries on behavior. All I know is, the boundaries are too tight and getting tighter.

                    3. It’s a mother’s tight embrace after you were lost at the grocery store.

  22. The reason that so many people dislike religious conservatives is that for so long they have had the power to jamb their shit down people’s throats. They don’t really have that power anymore because people got sick of them.

    Idiot proggies now are the same people doing the same thing. Today Cotton Mathers would be a flaming progressive instead of a preacher. Two hundred years ago our very own Tony would have been a preacher. It isn’t about saving people’s souls or the tenants of progressivism, it is about control.

    1. A lot of Christian activists have been progressives.

      Wilson was a vehement Presbyterian who thought he could introduce Christian principles into the world.

      I don’t say this with pride, but the historical record is there whether we like it or not.

      1. You are correct, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. See: the commie pope. My point was that for both types, and those who are both, their goal is to leash their fellow man. All the harping about righteousness is a ruse.

        1. Not everyone with debatable economic ideas is a “commie.”

          1. No, some of them are fascists too…

      2. That’s just the tip of the iceberg too, much of the welfare state can be traced to radical Christian sects.

        1. And of course Prohibition in all of its forms.

        2. I mostly blame Otto von Bismarck for that.

          1. Poor, Bismarck.

            The Pietists pre-date him by some time though.

    2. “Pity he has utterly erased from his nature, and joy he has never known. He has an ambition, bitter and burning. It is to rise to such an eminence that no one can ever again humiliate him. Not to rule but to be the secret ruler, pulling the strings of puppets created by his brains.”

    3. When was this period of religious conservative dominance? It certainly never existed in your lifetime. Indeed, the religious rights platform would have polled at 85 or higher well into the fifties. Religious conservatives didn’t impose anything since its creation the religious right has been on the defensive. This kind of historical myopia is concerning because if is the kind of myth making that sanctifies genocide. Name one thing that was imposed on the nation by religious conservatives.

  23. I am utterly tired of this of this gay marriage issue. Cant it just go away? It may be the only major battle in the KULTUR WAR in which both main sides are thoroughly and transparently lacking in any merit. Just take .gov out of ALL consenting adult sex relationships already and be done with it!

    Even better, take all SoCon marriage traditionalists and all gay marriage advocates and seal them in Alcatraz until only one side is still alive. It isnt as if either one will actually ever convince the other

  24. This story has allowed me to hit upon a much more serious issue that needs to be addressed by griefers everywhere:

    I typed the word “bachelorette” in a comment earlier and it was highlighted as being misspelled. When i right-clicked it, “bachelor” showed up and nothing else. What I want to know is, who the fuck do those white, cis-hetero shitlords over at google think they are not recognizing a female bride to be as they do men? Is this fucking Mecca or Medina we’re living in where women are treated so fucking poorly they aren’t allowed to drive and their impending nuptials are ignored by the world’s largest search engine?

    This is a fucking travesty and I suggest we notify Lindy West and/or Amanda Marcotte immediately so their head(s) can explode!

    1. You joke, but if you email one of them with that I am betting three pages of ranting will appear in whatever rag they write for within a week.

      1. Well, if one of those harpies does so, my theory that Warty is actually a feminist blogger coming here and trolling for material will be true.

        1. *mulls this theory over…head explodes*

          1. You killed Swiss Servator – you fatherless curs!

  25. the necessity of the two genders’ coming together to make the future happen

    I’m going to need a citation for this.

    1. You see, when a man and a woman love each other very much…

      1. They hug violently without any clothes on?

      2. They don’t have to be in love. They could just be drunk.

        1. You’re so rapey.

  26. “…is to demonstrate that some Christian conservatives are elevating homosexuality far above other sins, most of which involve actual discord and harm rather than a joyous union of two loving people.”

    The efficacy of any particular flavor or Christianity isn’t the issue, but that “some Christian conservatives are elevating homosexuality far above other sins” is right on the mark.

    What we’re talking about is adultery, here, in the ten commandments, and breaking any of them should be wrong for a Christian because breaking them is why Jesus had to die. There’s a commandment against lying, too. If you claim that Jesus died for your transgressions of the ten commandments, then Jesus had to die for every lie you tell. And every time you lie, you have crucify Jesus all over again. Lying is especially wrong for Christians because it means we’re willfully participating in crucifying Christ in that way. Our lie made his death necessary.

    Adultery is especially wrong for Christians for the exact same reason. Being saved by the death of Jesus Christ means taking personal responsibility for his murder. For God’s grace, you need to plead guilty as charged for that murder. Taking that responsibility on is supposed to mean not willfully murdering Jesus all over again every time you sin. That’s the reason lying is especially wrong for a Christian, and that’s the same reason adultery is especially wrong for Christians, too.

    1. And the sin we’re talking about in homosexuality is adultery. Cheating on your husband is no better a form of adultery than a single person going to a prostitute or gay sex. If homosexual acts are wrong because they’re adultery, then it’s not an adultery that’s worse than any other kind of adultery. For Christians, all forms of adultery are equally bad in that they required Jesus to sacrifice himself to save us.

      Incidentally, having taken personal responsibility for Jesus’ murder is supposed to make it so we don’t look down on other sinners–who have supposedly done something worse than we did in murdering Jesus? Once you’ve been baptized and proclaim that Jesus died for your sins you’re the one who murdered Jesus, looking down your nose at adulterers of any kind is to denigrate the significance of what you did in being responsible for the death of Jesus. If you willfully sinned murdered Jesus, you have no standing to look down your nose at other people for their sins.

      There is a bold line, however, between devaluing other people for committing adultery and participating in their sin. Jesus associated with prostitutes, but he didn’t facilitate prostitution. Christians have no business looking down their noses at homosexuals or using the government to discriminate against them, but, that having been said, any law that compels Christian business owners to participate in adultery is fundamentally compelling them to willfully…murder Christ again.

      1. We are a sex obsessed society. Homosexuality is no better or worse than any other sin. And it is no more or less difficult to deal with from a Christian prospective.

        Should homosexuals be welcomed in churches? Yes. Everyone sins. So why should their sin disqualify them? It doesn’t.

        The problem is that Christians have themselves bought into the idea that we are defined by our sexuality. Because of this they can’t seem to grasp that they can accept the person without also approving of their sexual predictions.

        1. Because of this they can’t seem to grasp that they can accept the person without also approving of…

          Thinking rationally makes people uncomfortable which is why most people will just adopt a belief structure that is convenient for them and ensures status in an established group. Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, Republicans, Democrats, Formula 1 fans, NASCAR fans, IPA fans, just pick a group. You want to be a part of the group you have to think believe like the group. The group trying to force their beliefs on another group are no better than the other group that is trying to do the same.

    2. I have heard that argument before but I had forgotten about it.

      Holy shit that is a potent control mechanism. I have even heard it extended to cover impure thoughts.

      1. I was flipping through the new Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the other day at the supermarket and must have murdered Jesus about a thousand times in the process.

      2. How is it a control mechanism? Who is controlling you? It’s pretty revealing that the libertarians who will stand by when the government forces compliance form bakeries find this alarming. its called self-control and apparently it’s a terrifying concept to libertarians.

        1. I’m a libertarian, and it isn’t terrifying to me.

          I think it’s a foreign concept to non-Christians.

    3. “The efficacy of any particular flavor or Christianity isn’t the issue, but that “some Christian conservatives are elevating homosexuality far above other sins” is right on the mark.”

      Are they the ones elevating it? It looks like they’re just reacting to it’s newly elevated status.

      1. Homosexuality and heterosexuality didn’t exist as identifiable groups before the advent of psychology.

        Before psychology, there was normal and perversion. A certain amount of sex within marriage was considered normal.

        Sex outside of marriage was perversion. Gay sex acts were perversion, and even too much sex inside of marriage–that was considered perversion, too.

        The sort of orientation as an identity only came into existence with psychology. If psychology hadn’t regarded homosexuality as a mental illness, we might not have orientation as a group identity today–and that means homosexual or heterosexual.

        These identities are social constructions even IF IF IF the essential desires themselves are rooted in biology.

        1. “The sort of orientation as an identity only came into existence with psychology. If psychology hadn’t regarded homosexuality as a mental illness, we might not have orientation as a group identity today–and that means homosexual or heterosexual.”

          The modern crisis of identity makes me doubt that the blame can be put on the psychologists. Some of the ridiculous things floating out there would make them pack it up. I think politics is more to blame than psychology.

          1. What I was trying to say is that we’re talking about an identity-group that’s only existed for a hundred years or so and has only been out in the open for less than 50 years.

            The very existence of the idea of people having a sexual orientation only goes back that far, for academics to psychology, and for average people, we just started thinking of ourselves that way less than 50 years ago.

            It speaks to something John wrote up top about people buying into the idea of being defined by their sexuality. The origin of that idea came from the advent of psychology, and its been generalized through society by whatever mechanisms such things are generalized by.

            Meanwhile, psychology has completely disavowed their earlier beliefs about sexual orientation and psychology. Meanwhile, the gay rights activists have to keep expanding their LGBTQXYZ acronyms, because people are far too complicated to fit into their four identity categories + heterosexual.

            Certainly, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether we are or should be defined by our sexuality.

            1. Well we’re talking right past one another then.

              I don’t disagree that “sexual identity” is an extremely new phenomenon. It being a new phenomenon is entirely my point. It (and more to the topic, gay marriage) are extremely new, and much ballyhooed by the right people. So it makes perfect sense for SoCons to write a disproportionate amount on it.

              1. It (and more to the topic, gay marriage) are extremely new

                False. Homos have been pairing off into constructions that are functionally marriages for quite some time. People just used to have a confirmed bachelor uncle or spinster aunt who had a “friend” they lived with for decades. Just because people ignored the implications of these relationships doesn’t mean that they weren’t there.

                Just because the specific identity of “gay” is new doesn’t mean that the impulses that back that identity haven’t been in play forever.

                1. “False. Homos have been pairing off into constructions that are functionally marriages for quite some time. People just used to have a confirmed bachelor uncle or spinster aunt who had a “friend” they lived with for decades. Just because people ignored the implications of these relationships doesn’t mean that they weren’t there.”

                  The inversion of the old standard(s) is the entire point. We’ve already acknowledged that homosexuality existed prior.

                  Acknowledgement (and even celebration) of the “functional marriages” (to the point of state-sanctioning) is the new phenomenon here.

                  1. State sanctioned marriage, period is a relatively new phenomenon for all but the aristocracy, and landed individuals. In most cases you moved in with your person and your neighbors just assumed y’all were married. State sanctioning of gay marriages only became an issue when hospital visitation rights, social security, inheritance taxes and a bunch of other things got tied to marriage.

                    1. “State sanctioned marriage, period is a relatively new phenomenon for all but the aristocracy, and landed individuals”

                      Agreed.

                      “In most cases you moved in with your person and your neighbors just assumed y’all were married.”

                      Unless you were the same sex, that is.

                      “State sanctioning of gay marriages only became an issue when hospital visitation rights, social security, inheritance taxes and a bunch of other things got tied to marriage.”

                      State sanctioning of gay marriage was still unheard of before all of those were bundled with marriage.

                    2. Unless you were the same sex, that is.

                      Still false.

                      President Jame Buchanan and William Rufus King “lived together in a Washington boardinghouse for 10 years from 1834 until King’s departure for France in 1844. King referred to the relationship as a “communion”, and the two attended social functions together. Contemporaries also noted the closeness. Andrew Jackson called them “Miss Nancy” and “Aunt Fancy” (the former being a 19th-century euphemism for an effeminate man), while Aaron V. Brown referred to King as Buchanan’s “better half“.

                      You might also find the story of of Charity and Sylvia surprising.

                      Just because they don’t teach you in history class that these relationships existed doesn’t mean that it’s a new thing, or that these relationships went unrecognized by the surrounding community. The tolerance levels were different from community to community and in some cases it was just better if everyone was in denial about what was going on, but there’s clear documentation that these things were going on and recognized as far back as colonial America.

            2. Quick note, the shift to identity rather than behavior really came to be a thing with German unification in the mid-1800s and was codified in the 1860s there although it quickly began to seep into the Anglophone world with Ulrichs’ concept of Uranians.

              “Third gender” constructions such as the bakl? in the Philippines, berdaches in North America or hijra in India have a much longer history in non-European contexts although sex and sexual orientation are largely bound up in different ways than we find readily recognizeable in the Euro/American experience.

              But I overall agree whole-heartedly about the behavior/identity thing.

              1. Quick note, the shift to identity rather than behavior really came to be a thing with German unification in the mid-1800s and was codified in the 1860s there although it quickly began to seep into the Anglophone world with Ulrichs’ concept of Uranians.

                Yes, and the shift to identity was driven by increasing persecution on the part of the German state. The modern gay identity rooted in behavior is a creation of social conservatives and churches; they created it when they criminalized specific behavior across society, and people who engaged in that behavior banded together and fought back, again across society.

                And don’t kid yourself: attempts to bring social conservatism into politics have nothing to do with helping people; just like progressive state nannyism, it’s about power for those in charge of those movements.

            3. The very existence of the idea of people having a sexual orientation only goes back that far, for academics to psychology, and for average people, we just started thinking of ourselves that way less than 50 years ago.

              Historically, exclusively gay men have been recognized for a long time, and they have had their niches in society. In many societies, they would take wives and procreate, treating the wives as little more than property, while at the same time satisfying their sexual needs with other men. In others, they would form special castes or join particular professions.

              The modern “homosexual identity” was effectively created by social conservatives, who started using the power of the state to widely persecute and punish previously private homosexual conduct across society. Naturally, the people who were subject of such persecution banded together and tried to defend themselves, and since the persecution was for sexual conduct independent of other factors, the identity that was created also was.

              Certainly, there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether we are or should be defined by our sexuality.

              Well, for a few centuries, the law used to define people in terms of their sexuality. But I’m glad you seem to agree that it shouldn’t. Logically, once you remove definitions of sexuality from the law, then OSM and SSM should both be legitimate, right?

  27. Why is National Review afflicted with so many walking advertisements for celebacy ?

    1. Because if you are hot you go into sports journalism?

      1. Or blogging. There are a ton of hot right wing female bloggers. For whatever reason, NRO won’t hire them. Maybe NRO wants to keep office affairs to a minimum and had decided to only hire women that no man would sleep with on a $1000 dare.

        1. Timp is decent looking.

          1. I don’t see the cute but I do see sweater kittens…

    2. Why do you think Gallagher was head of NOM? She wants government to supply her with a man; she’ll even settle for a closet homosexual.

  28. Real progressives would try to abolish marriage.

  29. I am not touching this post with a ten-foot pole. Y’all can have at it.

    1. Exaggerating much?

  30. But I have staked my life on this truth.

    She thinks going to a gay marriage would be fatal?

    1. Nah, she just wouldn’t be able to pay the bills anymore if people stopped caring about her truth.

    2. “She thinks going to a gay marriage would be fatal?’

      You joke, but my parents died in a gay-marriage accident.

  31. Has “Bo” thanked all you troll-strokers for the handjobs yet?

    Why’d ja have to ruin a perfectly good SoCon KULTUR WAR thread by milking his spooge all over it? I’m thoroughly disgusted with my fellow commenters.

    1. Whatever. He was at least as civil, and many times more cogent, as John or Eddie were in this thread.

  32. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…………..

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  33. Do you hate your friend when you encourage him to stop drinking since he is becoming a danger to himself and others? He may think your opinion is hateful and that you want to steal his pleasure, but isn’t your effort really motivated out of compassion? This notion that Christians hate gays is propaganda. A true Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, strives to find compassion and love for everyone. Jesus didn’t cast stones at Mary Magdalene even though she was clearly guilty. He was kind to her and defended her; but, crucially, He did not defend her conduct.

    The fullness of his love for her was expressed in these words: “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more”. He knew that if she continued down the road she was on it would lead to bitter unhappiness. His love was expressed both in his acceptance of her as a person and his encouragement to avoid the actions that threatened her well being. Somehow that approach is being defined as ‘Hate’ these days.

    Paternalistic? Sure. The Christian God is depicted as a Father, after all. But hateful? How exactly?

    1. If you say that being born gay is a sin–while you most certainly regularly engage in and pay no attention to a hundred other biblical sins–that is bigotry, described by some as hate. I think it’s merely annoying and patronizing, and that one day you’ll either actually befriend gay people and realize what a moron you were for treating them as subhuman, justified in the name of a god you are speaking for… sinfully… or you won’t.

      1. I’m not sure how you interpreted my post. Sub-human? On the contrary, your value as a human transcends your perceived sexuality. The world may want to narrowly define your identity based on how you deploy your genitalia, but God does not. Jesus is focused on you, Tony, the individual, in your totality, not on one aspect of your character that you choose to emphasize. Your value to Him is greater than any sin. That is the message of the Cross.

        And, Christians don’t emphasize homosexuality above any other sin. Greed, pride, mendacity, gluttony are treated much more severely by the scriptures. Most Christians would recognize your God-given right to engage in any behavior you choose so long as it doesn’t endanger others. The issue is using government and public schools to propagandize your cause and to legitimate your preferences as equal to the natural and divine order. It is the suggestion that homosexuality is not a sin, but is instead a heroic lifestyle to be celebrated and encouraged. This is the error that many of us feel compelled to respond to. Not out of hate, but because our God of love strongly suggests this behavior will eventually harm us – personally and societally.

        1. There are no gods. This is the 21st century. Wake the fuck up. Even if there were gods, they don’t give a shit about where you put your genitals. That would be absurd.

    2. This notion that Christians hate gays is propaganda.

      The notion that gays or atheists hate conservative Christians is also propaganda. They just want you to renounce your wicked and irrational beliefs, your perverse lifestyle, and to come to terms with the horrid history of your churches.

      A true Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, strives to find compassion and love for everyone.

      Well, keep striving, because obviously you are still very far from achieving it.

      The part that crosses the line is where you’re asking for special privileges and tons of money from the state, and where you try to force your religions on others by passing laws.

      1. You clearly have a bias against religion: “..horrid history of your churches”. Religions are like many other human institutions: well intended but corruptible. Are all corporations to be equally impugned for the sins of Enron and Madoff? Shall we dispense with every government since Russia and China are autocratic? Let’s shut down Hollywood because ‘Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2’.

        Churches have fed, clothed, healed and helped people for thousands of years. For every Torquemada and Tetzel there have been millions of devout individuals inspired by the example of Christ whom have sacrificed their time and money to help their fellow man. To ignore this is to embrace bigotry.

        It’s like that old canard, that religions are inherently violent and that all wars are started by religion. Ugh. America is the most religiously pluralistic nation in the history of the world. Mormon tabernacles across the street from Jewish synagogues beside Buddhist temples near Catholic rectories around the corner from Mosques next door to Baptist sanctuaries. Hundreds of religions, millions of practitioners living in peace for hundreds of years? How is this possible if religion is inherently violent? Yet anti-religious bigots accept such lies despite witnessing evidence to the contrary every day. It’s frustrating.

        1. You clearly have a bias against religion

          If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that my statement is only against conservative Christian churches, not against all Christian churches, or against all religions, or against all believers.

          For every Torquemada and Tetzel there have been millions of devout individuals

          Oh, even in the worst Christian churches, there are many good people; people who are often doing good deeds despite their churches, not because of them. You see, there is a difference between churches (institutions) and believers (individuals). Pretty much ever Catholic sent to a concentration camp, for example, was sent there not because of his church, but despite of it.

          To ignore this is to embrace bigotry.

          You should perhaps deal with your own bigotry first, namely the assumption that Christianity is all the religion there is, and that churches deserve credit for the good deeds of their members.

  34. Maggie Gallagher sets herself up as a defender of traditional family values and sexual morality. But in fact she has an illegitimate, bastard son, conceived and born out of wedlock.

    She is a SLUT and a HYPOCRITE. She believes in traditional sexual morality for everyone–except herself.

    1. That is the most idiotic thing that has ever been posted here

      1. It’s a fact.

        1. Tu quoque * ad hominem = (even if it were a fact, it’s an irrelevant fact)^2.

          1. How is that a “tu quoque”? Does Mr. Toad have illegitimate sons?

            And her personal history and beliefs are very much relevant to her views and credibility, if not for any other reason than the fact that she herself said so.

            1. How is that a “tu quoque”?

              “Tu quoque (/tu??kwo?kwi?/;[1] Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position. It attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This attempts to dismiss opponent’s position based on criticism of the opponent’s inconsistency and not the position presented.[2]”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

              You think she has to celebrate someone else’s sin because she’s sinned in the past herself?

              Why is that?

              “And her personal history and beliefs are very much relevant to her views and credibility.”

              Once you get your head wrapped around the tu quoque fallacy, you should work your way towards understanding the ad hominem generally. To put it succinctly, her arguments are right or wrong regardless of her personal history.

              1. To put it succinctly, her arguments are right or wrong regardless of her personal history.

                Her personal history is very relevant because she herself uses it as an illustration of the need for the policies she advocates: she failed to achieve a stable marriage on her own, that’s why the state should support marriage. And those kinds of anecdotal examples are all the support she has for her arguments, because there is no actual data supporting her claims that the policies she advocates would have the beneficial effects she claims they would have.

                (Of course, even if there were evidence, that would still not be sufficient justification for her policies.)

          2. Yes it is a fact. I was at Yale with her when she had her bastard, and I know. She was known as “The Mattress of the Party of the RIght [of the Yale Political Union]”.

      2. The fact that she was an unwed mother is, of course, relevant to her supposedly socially conservative views and her views on marriage. She screwed up by getting knocked up in college; she probably blames that for never finding a man who’d stay with her.

        Instead of taking responsibility for her errors, she blames society and demands that society create a “social institution, endowed with public authority, that teaches young men and women blah blah blah”. It’s the typical progressive and conservative blame shifting: “society is responsible for not keeping me from screwing up my life!” True social conservatism means living according to your convictions and taking personal responsibility when you fail to live up to them; true social conservatism doesn’t require laws to force yourself or others to do the right thing.

        1. “The fact that she was an unwed mother is, of course, relevant to her supposedly socially conservative views and her views on marriage.”

          Actually, it isn’t.

          I don’t understand why it would be.

          If she did sinned in the past, then she has to celebrate someone else’s sin?

          Why?

          1. I don’t understand why it would be.

            Because she herself says that her socially conservative views are the result of her earlier experiences. She is saying that she wants the government to step in to keep other young women from making the same mistakes she made in her youth. That’s her rationale for NOM.

            If she did sinned in the past, then she has to celebrate someone else’s sin?

            Ah, I see what your problem is: you think that people give a f*ck about whether she had a kid out of wedlock. That’s not her problem. Her problem is that she is a bitter woman who couldn’t find a man to marry her and now goes around blaming other people for the fact that her white picket fence fantasies didn’t come true.

  35. I’m not sure much more is going on than what Welch advocates. A couple lawsuits in the whole country don’t constitute a strategy for the entire movement or for liberalism. I do perceive a difference between the approach of my youth and now, though I’m not entirely sure it’s real. If there is a difference, and it’s not just mischaracterization of actual arguments, I do think it’s better both tactically and for the benefit of one’s mental health to adopt an attitude of resilience instead of sensitivity. I react very negatively to outrage that appears entirely feigned. Outrage should have to be actually felt. Manners deals with what terms you use and how you interact with people socially (and how you react to mistakes). The law will deal with legal equality. Social acceptance comes by means other than whining and scolding people for their bad manners. Those means include legal action to a significant degree, but also behaving as if you cannot be defeated by bigots because you are stronger than they are. And fainting in shock at the merest expression of casual bigotry is not a demonstration of strength. (Let’s just keep in mind that the real villains are the bigots, not liberals trying out strategies for gaining positive social outcomes for minorities.)

  36. This isn’t about acceptance of minorities or change anymore. Gays and lesbians have been accepted for a decade or two. This is now about a show of political power. And the two opposite powers are “traditional” churches and progressive gay organizations. I don’t particularly like either group, but given that churches insist on maintaining their special privileges, I think politically the best way forward to demonstrate the absurdity of that is to grant special privileges to as many other groups as possible.

    Forcing religious bigots to cater at gay weddings doesn’t serve to instill a sense of tolerance towards homosexuals in them, but it may foster the idea in them that perhaps using government to hand out special privileges to groups based on arbitrary group memberships is a bad idea in general.

  37. I am so sick of vocal minorities pushing everyone else around. If you are a Christian, Muslim, or Jew then you do not believe in homosexuality. If you do then find another religion. Please do not become an atheist because we already have our share of whiners and busy bodies. Does anybody understand the concept of freedom anymore. Here goes: do or believe what you want as long as it does not interfere with the life or beliefs of others. Why should a Christian take their money to open a business and then be forced to go against their beliefs. Why would you want a someone to cater your wedding knowing that they disliked everything you stand for. So you can yet your 15 minutes of fame on social media and that is just pathetic

    1. RE: ” If you are a Christian, Muslim, or Jew then you do not believe in homosexuality.”

      Actually the majority of Christians and Jews in USA support homosexuality. I don’t know about Muslims.

  38. Move along nothing to read here. It’s all been said before.

    To summerize: find one Christian viewpoint to shoot down (easy to do), throw in the, “loving couple” while ignoring that love is infinite so why can’t it be, “loving polygamy” , the inherent differences that most men and women have between them so they bring into a marriage particularly children, ignoring that they only way one can legally argue rights for gays is via the cultural argument not a natural rights one which has radically transformed the Constitution into toilet paper, and then pile on the self-righteousness.

    This is the template of gay marriage advocates, including this article.

  39. LBGT issues are a red herring. What the left is really after is undermining Western culture since undermining the economic system didn’t get the prols to to burn down capitalism the way they hoped. What goes by political correctness has its roots in critical theory, founded by Frankfurt School theoreticians: Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has additionally been influenced by Gy?rgy Luk?cs and Antonio Gramsci, as well as the second generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably J?rgen Habermas. It’s not about LBGT rights, which are just one piece of a longer term strategy to enable statists to undermine Western culture and individual freedom. Destroy the building block of society, the traditional familty unit, and you make people more dependent on the state. It’s actually working quite well.

    1. I wouldn’t leave out Malthus. This is as much about population-control as economics. Environmentalists have been suggesting a cull for decades in order to preserve finite resources and forestall a global-warming catastrophe (forget that Malthus has been repudiated, AGW is junk science, and the entire human population could currently fit in the state of Rhode Island). The normalization of homosexuality is an international imperative not because of human rights but in pursuit of resource preservation.

      But, I think you are right. It is amazing when you read the objectives in the Communist Manifesto and compare them to modern America. Destruction of the traditional family – easy divorce, working mothers, gay marriage – along with their other goals: graduated income tax, estate tax, national bank, federal control of education, abolition of private property, control of agriculture and environment. Incrementally the manifesto has entrenched itself in our politics and culture while the constitution is ret-conned to assimilate it. Perilous times.

  40. Thomas Sowell speaks to the red herring:

    The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.

    The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined – and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

    Despite heavy television advertising in California for “gay marriage,” showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil right marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.

    Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing – riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.

    Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.

    Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

    None of us has a right to other people’s approval.

    1. The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined – and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?

      No, that’s not the real issue. Legal marriage (as opposed to religious marriage) is a government-provided legal status available to two adults. As such, it should be available to any two adults regardless of gender.

      Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else’s business. Now they are asserting a right to other people’s approval, which is wholly different.

      Not at all. What they are saying is that a legal status that confers numerous financial and legal benefits to two adults should be available to any two adults regardless of gender. Whether you approve of them or not is irrelevant.

      What you are thinking of has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage. “Christian” bakeries or photographers are required to provide service to gay couples regardless of whether those couples are legally married or not. I think those are bad laws, but so are laws that require gay bakeries or photographers to provide service to conservative Christians.

  41. I do not think what Gallagher says..….

  42. my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $74 hourly on the computer . She has been without work for seven months but last month her pay was $19020 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit this website ……….. http://www.Work4Hour.Com

  43. my best friend’s mom makes $63 hourly on the internet . She has been fired for nine months but last month her income was $16725 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at here………………. http://www.work-cash.com

  44. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  46. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  47. “not seeking government protections or hauling our adversaries before star chambers, is the greater source of our dignity.” that is precisely your behavior. You are seeking government protections and hauling people (florists, bakers, etc) who disagree before star chambers. That is our future if we disagree with you. Thanks for pointing this out.

  48. Her comment is the basic problem with the entire debate. I don’t have a problem with same sex marriage for one HUGE reason: the marriage of two men or two women will have ZERO impact on my life. What so many conservatives fail to understand is the majority of Americans do not give a crap about gay marriage. We care about taking care of our families and planning for the future. In the past 8 years the cost of EVERYTHING has risen to the point it is hard to survive. There is no longer a middle class because the government and it onerous regulations are crushing all of us. I am trying to keep my family afloat in an economy that continues to flounder. I don’t have the time or inclination to give a rat’s ass about gay marriage…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.