NOM BLOG

Seattle Times on NOM's Promise to Help WA Defeat SSM

 

The Seattle Times:

With same-sex marriage virtually assured in Washington state, opponents seeking to undo it are looking ahead to summer and fall, and to a campaign they say will draw on the resources of national organizations that have waged and won these kinds of fights.

A day after the state Senate approved same-sex marriage on a 28-21 vote and moved the bill to the House, where it's expected to pass, the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) said it's fully committed to repealing the measure in November.

One of the largest national funders in the fight against gay marriage, NOM also is gearing up for ballot battles in North Carolina and Minnesota, where voters this year will decide whether to ban gay marriage in their constitutions, as 29 states already have done.

In Washington state, NOM will employ strategies not unlike those it used four years ago to help roll back legislatively approved gay marriage in Maine and bring about a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in California under Proposition 8.

"We plan to submit a referendum on this to the secretary of state before the ink is dry on the governor's signature," said Chris Plante, regional coordinator for NOM. "We've got a major constituency; faith communities across the state will carry a heavy load on this. But they're not the only ones committed to retaining the current definition of marriage."

119 Comments

  1. Hello hello
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    I am not Christian nor religious,
    and NOM is not the only one committed to protecting the hearts and minds of our children.
    Or the only one who is committed to fighting for definitions to words given our children.
    One word so my child can express that he wants to have biological children with his wife and create a life long union for those children and for the couple. One word to express what is more instinctively in his guts and desires than anything else.
    “I want to get 'married' when I grow up!” And so expressing with it all that can not be expressed in long dictionary or university definitions and arguments. Marriage is not about bodily pleasures – it is about the power to create life!

  2. John Noe
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    To Poster #1: Although I am a devout Christian this fight is for everybody and all should feel included. If you have read some previous blogs we have had support from Orthodox Jews in the fight for marriage.
    As I have expressed elsewhere and there are numerous articles backing this up the secular and non religious arguments against SSM are actually stronger than the religious ones.
    This is more than about religious freedom. When the sodomites foist their agenda on all of us and that means non Christians included, they have taken our civil rights and liberties away from us.

  3. MIke J.
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Does any of the NOM posters here ever read the comments to the articles NOM links to? This one has about 445, and mostly all if them are not too thrilled with NOM.

  4. Little man
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    MIke J.: So number of comments means..... what?

  5. Little man
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    NOM is going to try to reverse the Washington State law? No. It's all the donors and supporters of NOM who are doing it. It is also logic which will counter the new law of same-sex civil marriage in WA, and it will also be the consequences which will set it back to what it was. The present situation just begins a new balance, with legislators who do not represent their constituents going on record. It's a 'cleansing', but it takes time.

  6. Randy E King
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Mike J,

    Peer pressure is one of the worst type's of bullying; marraige corruption supporters excel at it.

  7. MIke J.
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Today, J C Penney sticks by their decision to hire Ellen totally ignoring the hate groups, One Million Moms. Millions of fans and supporters agree. The huge moderate middle is growing sick of the anti-gay hate groups.

    @ little man, I referenced the comment section of this linked article because of the number of people speaking up and angerly towards NOM.

  8. james2
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    NOM is still fighting to be relevant I see. What happens when the money runs out?

  9. MIke J.
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    James2, NOM's not worried, the Vat I can has plenty of money. You do know this is their war on gays. With all the disclosure laws the VatiNOM is breaking the DOJ will soon have to step in.

  10. Publius
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    I am not a Catholic, but I couldn't help but notice that MikeJ's post drips with animus towards Catholics. You might try googling "last acceptable prejudice."

    It has been my observation that the LGBT lobby usually wins if the number of comments, especially angry comments, are counted and usually loses when the votes of the people are counted at the ballot box.

    A blog swarm does not a majority make. Rick Santorum has received many more votes than Fred Karger, the blogosphere notwithstanding.

  11. Louis E.
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    Being "anti-gay" is not "hate",it's just part of being anti-stupidity.The "gay" attitude toward homosexuality is wrong and must be criticized whenever advocated.
    But that's animosity toward a wrongheaded idea,not a person who can get over a bad idea.

  12. AM
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Mike J
    Most of your comments are ad hominem, off topic or both. You troll every thread.

    Seriously, moderator, this guy needs to go.

  13. Garrett
    Posted February 3, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Well, as long as Louis E. gets to stay, I think Mike J. is safe...

  14. The.Truth
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 12:48 am | Permalink

    Publius, that line about the ballot box is working well for you so far. However the trend is unequivocally clear that societal support for same gender marriage equality is on the rise.

    You'll note that the margin at the ballot box has been growing increasingly small. And polls are now showing that majority of the American people support change after marriage equality

  15. The.Truth
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 1:11 am | Permalink

    Sorry that last line should have read "polls are now showing that majorities of the American people support same gender marriage equality". I'm using voice recognition here, and it can make for some amusing results.

    Poll results seem to hinge on how you ask the question. When you ask people if marriage should be defined as between 1 man and 1 woman, they tend to think of their own marriage and of any other possibilities. This seems to result in higher margins of people saying that that should be the definition of marriage.

    However, when you ask if same gender couples should have equal legal marriage rights, they tend to think of other people and gay people that they know, and this seems to lead to a higher margin of people saying that yes gay couples should have legal marriage equality.

    All this suggests that asking in the affirmative is a winning strategy for marriage equality. The first test of this will now be coming in Maine where proponents are putting the affirmative question on the ballot.

    Regardless the trend lines are still clear, marriage equality is gaining ever increasing acceptance.

  16. Louis E.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Yes,the mischaracterization of it as a "people's rights" issue leads to the intended outcome of higher support for destroying the essential purpose of marriage.
    But "marriage equality" remains totally indefensible,and only its complete and permanent aboilition and prohibition can bring an acceptable end to the debate.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    "You'll note that the margin at the ballot box has been growing increasingly small. And polls are now showing that majority of the American people support change after marriage equality"

    And yet SS"M" has and will continue to lose referendums, no matter how much the media load polls and spin facts. If it can't win in California and Maine, of all places, it certainly can't win anywhere.

    The fact of the matter is that the government promotion of homosexual dogma compromises civil and religious liberties. That much becomes more and more clear in each state as referendum dates approach.

    So regardless of how much the odds are stacked against it, the values that support the natural family will always prevail in the end because that's the natural order of things.

  18. james2
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam, remember that Californians only voted for Prop 8 based on homophobia or on the lies that NOM told, such as school's teaching kids how to masturbate if same-sex marriage became legal in the state.

    The religionists have gotten into bed with the homophobes and straight supremacists to create a hate coalition. That coalition is falling apart though.

  19. Lefty
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    @Hello hello

    Hi! I'm not religious either, and I feel the same way as you.

  20. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    That's just great, james2. Any more feverish conspiracy theories you want to share with us?

  21. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam, what ex-gays say us not proof that homosexuality is a choice. In fact Alan Chambers himself said you cannot make someone straight. At best an ex-gay can just not try to think about it. Also do your own research, conversion theropy has a really bad "success" rate. But I have to ask again, are zillions of gays lying about not choosing to be gay?

  22. Louis E.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    James2,it is the pro-homosexual side who tell lies.(Such as accusing their opponents of lying and hating).

    Mike J,of the two criteria that lead to someone "being gay",experiencing same-sex sexual attraction may or may not be a choice,but the delusion that circumstances exist in which gratification of same-sex sexual attraction is justifiable is generally a choice,and once one outgrows it one ceases to "be gay".The defensive embrace of that delusion in no way excuses the existence of same-sex sexual activity or relationships,or absolves people of responsibility for perpetrating them.Education is the key to getting them to admit that all such acts are by their nature wrong.

  23. The.Truth
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    I think the fact that the Prop 8 team did not use any of the rationales in court that they used to sway voters speaks volumes. They couln't because they have no supporting evidence for it. This is the #1 reason that they do not want the trial tapes made public.

    Courts are different than what the public can learn in 30 second commercials. It's why judges and juries can make better informed decisions than can voters at the ballot box on such issues. They get all the facts and evidence on both sides of the issue and weigh it against knowledge of law and the Constitution. It's why we have such a system to begin with.

    As to public opinion, the longer this debate goes on and the more they learn, the more they come to the side of marriage equality. That is clearly evidenced in the polls.

  24. AM
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    "NOM is not the only one committed to protecting the hearts and minds of our children.
    Or the only one who is committed to fighting for definitions to words given our children."

    So true.The belief that men and women are unique -not fungible -and that children need both a mother and father, is not based on some religious tenet.
    Do not confuse my children.

    As someone else on this blog said:
    Keep your bedroom out of my kid's classroom.

  25. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    Are you able to read minds Mike J? Is that how you know that all the ex-gays who have married the opposite sex and had children with them are liars? Besides, conversion thereay has no lower a success rate than the therapy used to get people off of drugs and alcohol or cure depression. Does that mean we should give up on alcoholics, drug addicts, and people who suffer from depression? No more than we should give up on those who practice a lifestyle that kills thousands a year through the STDs it spreads.

    And yes, I can say with absolute certainty that the thousands of gays who claim that they have no choice are only fooling themselves. It is a very attractive rationale for those who wish to absolve themselves from all responsibility for their own behavior.

    And "The Truth", you should know that the vast majority of courts have rejected SS"M" as a civil right. And for good reason. It is because most judges are not biased activist social engineers masquerading as judges like Walker.

  26. james2
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Prop 8 would never have passed (and certainly wouldn't pass today) if NOM and the Mormons hadn't run dishonest ads tapping into the homophobia of straight people. Since there are no rational reasons for outlawing same-sex marriage, what else could they do?

  27. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, no need to read minds, every study has shown that reparative theropy is a crock. And true conversion or not does not prove homosexuality is a choice. Bottom line you still have no proof.

  28. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    If Prop 8 really wouldn't pass today, james2, then why is it that it hasn't been put back on the ballot? Why are you forced to run crying to the courts? Surely if SS"M" was as popular in CA as the polls indicate, gay activists should be able to gather the number of signatures required to put this up for a vote again easily. But they have failed to do so - twice!

    And Mike J, it is YOU who have no proof. No proof of the existence of a gay gene. No proof that the human anus is designed for sexual intercourse. And certainly no proof that the thousands of ex-gays, many of whom have married the opposite sex and had kids with them, are lying for some unfathomable reason.

  29. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, you maintain your realm of absurdity

    ..."Most professional psychologists view reparative therapy skeptically, to say the least. In 2007 the American Psychological Association assembled a task force to study the effectiveness of this approach. After spending two years sifting through the available research—it evaluated eighty-three studies dating back to 1960—the group concluded that there was scant evidence that sexual orientation could be changed. What's more, it found that attempting to do so could cause depression and suicidal tendencies among patients. Based on these findings, in 2009 the APA voted to repudiate reparative therapy by a margin of 125 to 4."

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201108/curing-homosexuality

    Yes, everyone is wrong and you're right. LOL

  30. Randy E King
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    As one doctor once told me:

    "The muscles of the rectum are designed to push things out; when you push things in you are slowly killing yoursef each time."

  31. Louis E.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    James2,there are no rational reasons for allowing same-sex "marriage".

    Mike J,there is no defense for the choice to engage in homosexual activity,which most certainly IS a choice.

  32. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    So perhaps, Mike J., you can tell me how reparative therapy is any more dangerous than homosexuality itself? The Center of Disease Control reports that appoximately 80% of all HIV/AIDS cases belong to homosexuals. They also make up 60% of syphilis cases. Thousands die every year pursuing that deathstyle. So how can it be any less dangerous than reparative therapy?

    Besides, I never said that dropping a vice was easy. Most people will fail to do it whether it is alcoholism, smoking, or homosexuality. But there will those who can which is why we should never deny anyone therapy if they desire it in the interests of promoting some politically correct ideology.

    And since you brought up the Amercian Psychological Association, I feel that I should point out that not even they contend that homosexuality is "inate" or "inborn" anymore.

    Their new statement as of 2009 is as follows: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

    Quite a difference from what they said in 1998:

    "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

    So much for being "born that way."

  33. Publius
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    @The.Truth

    Your argument that judges and juries are better at making decisions would argue that they should replace the legislatures as well as referenda. Why bother with elections? The California Supreme Court did not buy that line of reasoning, even when asked to block Prop 8 before the referendum and when asked to nullify it afterwards. The U.S. Supreme Court and the sovereign people will not accept that line of reasoning either. Just governmental powers require the consent of the governed. Here the people rule. If Judge Walker’s rulings, which have been properly stayed by the courts, were to be forced on the whole country, there would be a massive movement for a federal DOMA amendment. Most Americans are blissfully unaware of what the elites would force on them.

    As for the State of Washington, their legislature will do what it wants. The other states should not be forced to redefine marriage based on Washington State, and the people of Washington can decide if they want new representatives in November.

  34. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, you keep leaving off the last sentence of that APA statement. They still contend that it's not a choice.

  35. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    A spokeswoman for the American Psychiatric Association -- which has about 36,000 members out of roughly 48,000 psychiatrists nationwide --  didn’t recall any significant internal dissension in recent years over the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice. Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association, which has 150,000 members, also considers it a "settled question" that homosexuality isn’t a choice, said Clinton W. Anderson, the associate executive director of the American Psychological Association and the director of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender concerns office.

    APA 2010

  36. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    From the Amicus brief filed by the APA for Gill v. OPM

    ...The amicus brief provides extensive psychological research on key points, including how homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality, is generally not chosen, and is highly resistant to change.

    This was filed on November 2011, a lot has changed since 2009, so much for choosing that way.

  37. Mr. Incredible
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Court testimony shows that, if you ask ten psychologists something, you'll get ten different answers.

    Just because you like what they say doesn't make them right. Nor correct.

  38. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    From PolitiFact:

    Pawlenty said that scientists are "in dispute" about whether being gay is a choice or not. We think most people would interpret that to mean sexual orientation -- that is, attractions and impulses -- rather than sexual behavior. And on that question, it seems that the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Human Rights Campaign and even the Family Research Council are in agreement. So we rate Pawlenty’s statement False.

  39. Randy E King
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

    @ Mike J,

    “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

    Just like many believe it is a mental illness.

    If you truly believed your proclivity was acceptable you would not be working this hard to pimp the lie that it is not a choice; if it were acceptable it would make no difference...

  40. Posted February 4, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Courts are different than what the public can learn in 30 second commercials. It's why judges and juries can make better informed decisions than can voters at the ballot box on such issues. They get all the facts and evidence on both sides of the issue and weigh it against knowledge of law and the Constitution. It's why we have such a system to begin with.

    The courts must follow binding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court.

    [C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

    Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890), quoting Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)

  41. Randy E King
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    The APA has lost all credibility and is now viewed as nothing more than a special interest group.

    "In 2006, Dr. Nicolas Cumming, PhD, ScD, a former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), raised major concerns regarding the association’s direction and the need for reform. In his remarks, he raised concern over the APA’s growing problem of research and advocacy motivated by political agendas rather than science. He further provided several examples of the association’s refusal to examine studies that fell outside of political correctness. Cumming reminded members of the APA that when psychologists take professional stances, those positions should be based strictly on research evidence and clinical experience, and that failure to rely on unbiased evidence risks the loss of the APA’s credibility."

    "American psychiatry is facing a "crisis of credibility," said Steven S. Sharfstein, M.D., the new president of the American Psychiatric Association.

    Dr. Sharfstein vowed at the APA's annual meeting to restore that credibility by advocating for patients and creating and enforcing ethical standards.

    "Our profession is seen, by many, as an interest group, a trade association. And too often we have behaved like one," said Dr. Sharfstein, who has served as president and chief executive officer of the Sheppard Pratt Health System, a nonprofit psychiatric hospital system in Baltimore, since 1992.

    Psychiatrists are failing to lead when it comes to problems such as lack of access, high costs, and unmeasured quality in health care. The problem, he said, is not a lack of sound policy proposals, but the profession's lack of credibility and leverage.

    "When we speak, too few listen," he said. "And to a large extent, we have only ourselves to blame."

  42. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
    60 U.S. 393 (How.)

    DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
    v.
    JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

    December Term, 1856

    The Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.

    See, even the SCOTUS gets it wrong and then grows up.

  43. Randy E King
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    "The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

    For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

    "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

    That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

    "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization,""

  44. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    So now you are comparing the values that support the natural family to slavery, Mike J? How pathetically desperate can you get?

  45. MIke J.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, nice try. Let's face it you are anti-gay and immuned ton the facts. Be hateful and bring up AIDS, always classy.

    Randy, that made up crap has long been discredited but always brought up be the cheesy conspiracy therorists.

  46. Randy E King
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Word for word from the the president of the APA himself and you calim falacy Mike? Little wonder you claim your porclivity is not subject to the laws of nature.

  47. Posted February 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    It's a shame that demanding "rights" so often replaces doing what's right.

    Marriage: man + woman

  48. The.Truth
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, again as with the opinion of the American public, the courts have been moving more-and-more toward recognizing same-gender marriage equality as a civil right, based on their growing understanding of the inherent unchosen nature of sexual-orientation and the demands of the U.S. Constitution for equal treatment of the law.

    And many, if not most, of the justices which have ruled in favor of marriage equality have been Republican appointees and/or regarded as conservative in their rulings. There is nothing "activist" about ruling in favor of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights that have been wrongfully denied.

    Look, you guys are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that same-gender marriage equality is going to be a reality across this nation one day in the not to distant future. Democrats, independents, and a growing number of Republicans are moving that way. SCOTUS is very likely to rule that bans preventing marriage between people of the same gender is unconstitutional.

    And if you really think the American people are going to demand our Constitution be amended to eliminate rights for a select group of American citizens, something never done even for minorities people have viewed far less favorably, then I don't think you've thought that through too well.

  49. Louis E.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    The Goodridge decision in Massachusetts was the Dred Scott decision of the 20th century...declaring that a hateful form of human interaction was constitutionally protected.That time it took a war to set things right,I hope abolishing "gay rights" is more peaceful.

    Mike J,if you weren't "immune to the facts",you'd be "anti-gay" too.The mere fact that the APA has a "lesbian,gay,bisexual,and transgender concerns office" proves it has no credibility on the matter.That homosexual orientation is "highly resistant to change" is a powerful argument for research into more effective means of reparative therapy!

  50. JR
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage: man + woman" for the heterosexual majority
    Marriage:man+man or Marriage: woman+woman for the homosexual minority. True equality. No one is hurt.

  51. Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    The Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.

    I suspect the Constitution was amended a couple of times since then.

    So now you are comparing the values that support the natural family to slavery, Mike J? How pathetically desperate can you get?

    He is desperate.

    He, for example, did not cite any amendments that undercut the foundation of Davis . By contrast, the 13th Amendment clearly undercut the foundation of Dred Scott .

  52. Leo
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Mike J,
    There is nothing classy about homosexuality, ssmr or any other unnatural coupling...

    Also, you mention the APA a lot, they use t5op be a credited establishment, not any more...There're are nothing than a special interest group.

    CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Some statistics about the Homosexual lifestyle:

    * One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners
    * One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
    * Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting
    * Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior"
    * Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" . Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress")
    * Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population
    * Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus
    * 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization
    * 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics

  53. Leo
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    Cont...

    Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands) . Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex
    * 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs
    * 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals * Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" . For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
    * It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us.
    * Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population
    * Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne
    * 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism
    * 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs

  54. Leo
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries.
    * The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.
    * The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79.
    * Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.
    * 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things.* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals)
    * About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians.

  55. Leo
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    The homosexual agenda.

    * The homosexual agenda includes desensitizing the public: "The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights.....To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preferences the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games....At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full 'appreciation' or 'understanding' of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing...then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won".
    * Part of the homosexual agenda is to get the public to affirm their filthy lifestyle, as one homosexual admitted in the October 1987 homosexual rally on Washington: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives"
    * Part of the homosexual agenda is to turn people from Christianity: "The teaching that only male-female sexual activity within the bounds and constraints of marriage is the only acceptable form should be reason enough for any homosexual to denounce the Christian religion"
    * Homosexuals knowingly lied (and still lie) about the 10% figure (i.e., homosexuals make up 10% of the population). As Tom Stoddard (formerly of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund) said, "We used that figure when most gay people were entirely hidden to try to create an impression of our numerousness".

  56. Publius
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Mike J. makes the excellent point that the SCOTUS can make bad decisions. That is why unchecked rule by the courts is a bad idea.

  57. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    "Marriage:man+man or Marriage: woman+woman for the homosexual minority. True equality. No one is hurt."

    Except for our civil and religious liberties.

  58. Son of Adam
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    "Let's face it you are anti-gay and immuned ton the facts. Be hateful and bring up AIDS, always classy."

    If I were anti-gay, why should I care that thousands of homosexuals are killed every year by the diseases homosexuality spreads? Unlike you, I care enough about the lives and health of gays to be disturbed by the lethal dangers your ideology promotes.

  59. Publius
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    JR,

    If marriage becomes a de-gendered institution, all marriages are only between partner 1 and partner 2, and all parents are only parent 1 and parent 2. There is no room is these gender-neutral definitions to protect women in their asymmetric relationships with men. Women will be more vulnerable and more likely to fall into poverty. This will hurt their children, and ultimately almost all of society. In contrast, this problem would not arise with civil unions for those who want a gender-neutral institution.

  60. Louis E.
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    JR,everyone is hurt by failure to enforce public policies explicitly rewarding the enormously greater importance and usefulness of opposite-sex relationships over same-sex sexual relationships through the reservation of benefits exclusively to the former.Allowing homosexuals to behave as if they do no wrong gratifying their attractions is like telling alcoholics they should get drunk as they please.

  61. Publius
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    JR,

    I get it. Just turn over your cultural and legal institutions to the gay blogosphere, and no one gets hurt.

    But when marriage is redefined, so are the terms mother and wife. Marriage will be reduced legally to the lowest common denominator. When two men get divorced, it is no big deal to society. When the SSM is not sexually exclusive, it is apparently no big deal to the leading advocates of SSM. But these are big deals for women. Reducing marriage to the lowest common denominator will hurt women.

    As for the churches, nice little institution you have there. I would sure be too bad if something happened to it. Just stay quiet, and no one will get hurt.

    I get it.

  62. Spunky
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    @ Publius, Son of Adam

    The whole "gay marriage vs. religious liberty" idea is a false dichotomy. Just because society allows gay couples to marry doesn't mean it has to come at the expense of churches. I can tell you with complete honesty that I believe religious liberty should still be upheld as much as possible. For example, I disagree with the fine levied upon the NM photographer, and I believe churches and chaplains should be able to marry whoever they want. You saw others who agreed with this belief in the "Navy chaplain" thread, so you know I'm not the only pro-gay guy who thinks this.

    @ Publius

    I don't at all understand your "lowest common denominator" comments, and I don't understand why your concerns about sexual exclusivity are limited to gay couples.

  63. M. Jones
    Posted February 4, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    Mike, homosexual identity politics should not drive policy decisions in any organization, if they want a modicum of respect or credibility. Homosexual extremists are skilled at the politics, but fall way short on facts.

  64. james2
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    I'd rather redefine marriage (for the umpteenth time!) than redefine equality. Treating all citizens equally is more important than clinging to some outdated notion of what marriage is, or was.

  65. Spunky
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    @ Publius

    I feel the "religious freedom vs. gay marriage" argument is a false dichotomy. There's no reason you can't have both. For example, I want churches to be able to marry gay couples, but I don't think they should be forced to. I (and others on this blog) feel the same way about Navy chaplains.

    Do you think it's possible for me to support gay marriage and religious freedom, or do you think there will be conflicts? If so, could you please give examples?

  66. Son of Adam
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    Spunky, reliegious liberties will be compromised whether we want them to be or not. Redefining marriage by its very nature conflicts with first amendment rights as evident by all the "religious protections" legislators have to put into each SS"M" law. Here are but a few examples on how gay activism has compromised religious liberties:

    Julea Ward, an Eastern Michigan University student was expelled from a counseling program because she refused to counsel gays and lesbians about their lifestyles.

    Wegner, a15-year-old Wisconsin boy who wrote an op-ed opposing gay adoptions was censored, threatened with suspension and called ignorant by the superintendent of the Shawano School District.

    Viki Knox, the teacher who objected to a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History Month display in the school’s hallways on her personal Facebook account, presently faces the loss of her job.

    And james2, marriage has not been redefined "for the umpteenth time." Whatever changes there have been have been based on the way women are treated, not how marriage is defined. And it is you who are redefining equality by making it about the rights of "couples" instead of being about the rights of individuals as the founding fathers intended.

  67. Publius
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    Spunky,

    It is clear that much of the left is openly hostile to religion and wishes to push people of faith out of the public square as much as possible. The left in Revolutionary France and Revolutionary Russia and elsewhere in Continental Europe was openly hostile to the Church. Until recently, this was not true in the English-speaking world. But under the prodding of the LGBT lobby, this has changed.

    If the state, rather than natural biological relationships, becomes the foundation of family law, we all become wards of the state. This follows from redefining husband and wife, mother and father into state social constructs. The churches and the natural, self-sustaining family are natural counter-weights to the power of the state.

    If marriage is defined as a non-gendered union, and if the churches should be kept out of the public sphere, why should the ceremonies of a church that believes those ceremonies must be opposite gendered be recognized by the state? It is a straight line from the hostility of the left to non-recognition of those ceremonies. It is straight line from the hostility of the left to banning speaking out against homosexual unions as unacceptable hate speech, as has happened in Europe.

    Sound farfetched? SSM was considered farfetched not very long ago, as were widespread divorce, government sanctioned abortion on demand and below replacement birthrates.

  68. Publius
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Spunky,

    I am waiting to see if my reply is allowed by the moderator.

  69. Spunky
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    @ Publius

    I hope you only replied to post 62 and not 65. 65 was a (weaker) repost from sketchy memory.

  70. Randy E King
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    The principal goal of the sociopath is to create willing victims.

    James.

    Please provide evidence in support of your rediculous assertion that the official definition of what a marriage is in the United States has ever been anything other than what it is; the joining of opposites.

  71. Louis E.
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    James2,
    YOU are trying to redefine equality in order to redefine marriage.Equality of persons does NOT mean treating their decisions as of equal social usefulness.And attempts to redefine equality so as to justify treating same-sex sexual relationships as if of no lesser worth to humanity than opposite-sex marriages must be stopped.

  72. Spunky
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    @ Publius

    Feel free to email me at [email protected] if you want to continue our debates or if the moderation takes too long.

  73. Leo
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Spunky we know you love to debate despite the substance for reasoning...

  74. AM
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    "I feel the "religious freedom vs. gay marriage" argument is a false dichotomy. There's no reason you can't have both. For example, I want churches to be able to marry gay couples, but I don't think they should be forced to."

    Spunky,
    I know your comment is directed to Publius but I wanted to comment on it as well. Hope you don't mind.
    While it is very gracious of you, to condemn using force on others to act in ways that are contrary to their conscience, it is not up to you, a fellow citizen, to grant this exclusion, no?
    We don’t force doctors and nurses who have moral objections to perform abortions. We don’t force conscientious objectors, even during time of war, to kill *NOT* because you or I say it’s OK, but because we have constitutional rights. Our rights are supposed to be upheld by the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government regardless of what fellow citizens think they can graciously grant.

  75. Publius
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

    If equality before the law means all behaviors must be treated equally by the law, the very notion of equality before the law is being redefined, and not for the better.

  76. Spunky
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Hold on a second. Publius and AM, before I respond to you, do either of you agree with Leo?

  77. Publius
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    Certainly not with comment 73. Leo speaks for himself and not for me.

    The Obama Administration has been pushing the boundaries of state power against the First Amendment in previously unheard of ways. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ's radical stance. Catholic Chaplains are now forbidden to openly read a letter from their Bishops. We are not yet at a Mit brennender Sorge moment, but such a moment is not impossible.

  78. The.Truth
    Posted February 5, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    Leo, you cite discredited statistics from discredited and sanctioned researchers who have an undeniable anti-gay religious agenda. These proven inaccurate and/or misapplied 'statistics' and conjectures are the very reason WHY the highly respected Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled certain Christian' Pro-Family' organizations as hate groups. Which I'm assuming is where you got this information from.

    The fact of the matter is, that marriage equality and continued mainstream acceptance and integration of gay people into societal institutions only serves to help mitigate and alleviate many of the actual problems and difficulties that gay people can suffer from.

    These anti marriage equality groups have an interest in something but it's not marriage, it's advancement of their interpretation of their religious doctrine. The more honest among them admit that.

  79. The.Truth
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Publius, the left is not hostile towards religion, indeed there are many left leaning Christian denominations. What the left adamently opposes is the entanglement of religious doctrine and secular law. To do so harms our democracy as well as our religious freedom.

    The church is never required to recognize any marriage that goes against its beliefs, so long as they are not licensed to do for profit business with the general public or receive public funding. The Catholic Church regularly refuses to perform or recognize straight couple marriages that it disagrees with.

    As to freedom of speech, churches can always speak out against things that they disagree with. While it may become socially inadvisable to do so it will never be illegal. Churches often speak about things that the general public is not on board with. Part of what being a church is, is a group of people who live by the values that they hold dear, regardless of what the rest of society does.

  80. The.Truth
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Son of Adam,

    Julia Ward, is alleged to be violating the schools code of ethics and counseling guidelines, which entails not telling gay people that homosexuality is immoral and that they should try to change it.

    Wegner was not simply opposing gay adoption, but was doing so by citing biblical passages on several occasions, that appear to call for the execution of homosexuals, and using that as a reason why gay people should not be allowed to adopt. As well as citing discredited anti gay research.

    Viki Knox was contradicting the schools inclusive accepting of gay students policy on her Facebook page which was accessible by current students at the school, and doing so by saying things that are regarded as contrary to the inclusive environment that the school is trying to achieve.

    You of all people Son of Adam should know that the devil is in the details.

  81. AM
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:52 am | Permalink

    Spunky,
    I tend to ignore the copy & paste stuff, since I can't verify and I'm not inclined to spend my time trying.

    The Truth
    Yada.Yada.
    Thank you for confirming that religious liberty must give way to your world view.
    It is not inevitable, though. Thanks to organizations like NOM.

  82. Louis E.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    The.Truth,I am skeptical of Leo's statistics,but the Southern Poverty Law Center has disgraced itself by its embrace of "gay rights".
    "Gay people" need to be constantly pressured to stop rationalizing gratification of their same-sex attraction...of course they will complain until they admit the error of the "gay" attitude toward homosexuality,but it is for their own good.This is NOT a religious matter,nor am I religious.
    Ethical counseling should require reminding the "gay" that homosexual activity can not be rationally excused.A counselor who would be indulgent toward a client's same-sex attraction is no more competent than one who would tell a drug addict to keep shooting up.
    Schools should not be allowed to mislead children into thinking homosexual activity is reasonable or unobjectionable.

  83. Posted February 6, 2012 at 1:56 am | Permalink

    I'd rather redefine marriage (for the umpteenth time!) than redefine equality. Treating all citizens equally is more important than clinging to some outdated notion of what marriage is, or was.

    The Washington Domestic Partnership Act states that its provisions "shall be liberally construed to achieve
    equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of
    state registered domestic partners and married spouses."

    Julia Ward, is alleged to be violating the schools code of ethics and counseling guidelines,

    By requesting a referral. And yet, the university could not "point to any policy articulated in its course materials, the student handbook or anything else forbidding practicum students from making referrals. The student manual, to the contrary, includes a chapter dedicated to "Referrals," which says that students "may at times need to refer a client for additional counseling services outside the Counseling Clinic" and encourages students "to first consult with their Faculty Supervisor for assistance in making the referral." At no point did any professor tell Ward about a no-referral policy—not during the informal review, not during the formal review, not even in the letter dismissing her from the program. " Ward v. Polite , Nos. 10-1200/2145, at 12-14

  84. Son of Adam
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Hey, "The Truth." Ever hear of the first amendment of the US Constitution? Part of it reads and I quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Julea Ward, Wegner, and Vikki Knox are all victims of unconstitutional laws that place the promotion of homosexual dogma above civil and religious liberties.

    Once again, this proves that the tolerance of the left is a one way street.

  85. MIke J.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Spunky and The.Truth,

    Thanks for pushing past all the falsehoods posted here.

  86. Ash
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    The.Truth: "Julia Ward, is alleged to be violating the schools code of ethics and counseling guidelines, which entails not telling gay people that homosexuality is immoral and that they should try to change it."

    The.Truth, Julea Ward merely referred a same sex couple to another counselor. Perhaps you are confusing her situation with the other counseling student, Jennifer Keaton. What you described sounds more like her story.
    http://www.nomblog.com/16139/

  87. MIke J.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Ash, it's pretty simple and it's the ethics code that Ward agreed to adhere to when she enrolled:

    Eastern Michigan's counseling program -- like many others -- requires its students to practice in ways that are consistent with the counseling association's ethics code, including requirements that bar behavior that reflects an "inability to tolerate different points of view," "imposing values" on clients or discrimination based on a number of factors, including sexual orientation. 

  88. Randy E King
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Discriminating against sexual inclination is no less acceptable than discriminating against drug use.

    The Sixth circuit ruled that a "rational" jury could find that the school discriminated on the basis of religion; which implies that a district court finding in opposition to the student’s expressed 1st and 14th amendment rights would be viewed as irrational by the 6th circuit.

    Biggest problem I have with marriage corruption supporters is with their demands that the un-expressed an un-implied right to sexual perversion trumps the expressed and implied right of conscience and the free exercise thereof.

  89. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    @ Publius

    The.Truth said almost everything I wanted to say, and (s)he did so better than I could have. Thanks, The.Truth.

    The only thing I'd add is that none of the things you brought up relate to gay marriage in any way. While you're talking about gay activism, I specifically used the phrase "gay marriage vs. religious liberty." Can you name some examples where gay marriage specifically infringes upon religious liberty?

    I'll give you an example in the other direction. Many churches would happily marry gay couples. Yet a ban on gay marriage restricts their religious freedom to marry who they choose.

  90. Louis E.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    Mike J,counseling ethics should prohibit,not require,a counselor from validating a client's delusions.Anyone who has a "gay" attitude toward homosexual activity needs to be counseled out of it.

  91. Ash
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Mike J., the ethics code does not prohibit the referring of clients. Referrals are accepted professional practice, and are done for a number of reasons. In fact, it is recommended that a counselor refers clients if they have certain biases that may negatively impact the client’s services. So, Ward actually protected those clients from an imposition of her values. Perhaps that’s why her SUPERVISOR advised her to make the referral.

    "Inability to tolerate different points of view" would make sense, let's say, if Ward was counseling a couple who wanted a divorce, and she tried to impose her opposition to divorce on them. It has nothing to do with referring clients. How could one even know their client’s "different point of view" until the start of the sessions?

    For these reasons, and perhaps others, Ms. Ward will now have her case heard in court.

  92. Son of Adam
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    I have posted a response on how Julea Ward, Wegner, and Vikky Knox's first amendment civil and religious liberties were compromised in favor of homosexual dogma, but it hasn't passed the moderators yet.

    And though these incidents have occurred where SS"M" is not legal, they are still examples of the intolerance of gay activism, of which SS"M" is a part. Are you saying that incidents such as these can never occurr under a legal environment where SS"M" is legal?

    Lastly, any religion can preform marriage ceremonies between gays, and actually do in places where SS"M" is not recognized by the state. The government places no restrictions against that.

  93. leo
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    @ Louis I respect your skepticism of my reporting and will only say, you free to do a rebuttal of my findings...As for who to credit for the research and statistics offered, is a compilation from various source, most of the info can be googled... like the report below:
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    * Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence" . Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels "subjective distress")...

    @ The Truth-the truth hurts... My prior post, "reports" are usually without commentary, do you discredit my post without a fact check? The information I provided regarding homosexuality would be hard to just make up... To discredit the findings without a logical, similar reply does not constitute as a rebuttal... I'm not religious, so what if someone the information was from a religious organization, are you saying any research from a religious group should be discredit? If so, please explain why?
    In your post @ 79 directed to me, you agree that homosexuality is a problem which is a good thing; accept, in your opinion, promoting the acceptance of homosexuality is your solution-SSM equals gay/lesbian liberation-more homosexual problems. Legalizing an unhealthy lifestyle does not decrease an unhealthy lifestyle but giving you more of it.
    SSM is nothing but propaganda by you and the people you represent for acceptance of your out of control habit/disorder for self-gratification. ..its like smoking, you know it's bad for you but you can't stop or don't want to...with the knowledge the second smoking will not only harm your but the people in your immediate environment...

  94. Publius
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    “…the left is not hostile towards religion, indeed there are many left leaning Christian denominations. What the left adamantly opposes is the entanglement of religious doctrine and secular law. To do so harms our democracy as well as our religious freedom.”

    The left is not hostile to religion that supports leftist views. However, if you cross the left you will get the Komen treatment and worse. The disentanglement proposed is so radical as to allow an unelected judge to disenfranchise millions of voters if he personally believes their votes were based on religion. This is not religious freedom; this is tyranny.

    “The church is never required to recognize any marriage that goes against its beliefs, so long as they are not licensed to do for profit business with the general public or receive public funding. The Catholic Church regularly refuses to perform or recognize straight couple marriages that it disagrees with.“

    The state can simply and logically refuse to grant legal status of religious marriage ceremonies it doesn’t like. “Marriage” will mean state-sanctioned marriage only. The word and the sacrament will be stolen by the state. Opposition will slowly be made disreputable and costly. It was fairly obvious that the SF tax assessor targeted the Catholic Church in retaliation for the Church’s support of Prop 8.

    “As to freedom of speech, churches can always speak out against things that they disagree with.”

    In Europe, the left has arranged that such speech can be prosecuted as hate speech.

    “While it may become socially inadvisable to do so it will never be illegal. “

    The left will use every legal tool as cudgel to marginalize the churches they disagree with. The argument is not framed as, say, a disagreement over what should be the highest marginal tax rate. Disagreement is framed as bigotry, lies, and hatred. What lasting compromise is possible with bigotry lies and hatred? How can the curricula of schools not then be reformed to fight bigotry, lies, and hatred? Christianity, is so far is it champions marriage as a gendered institution, will be labeled by the state as a false religion; not only false, but criminally false, a religion whose tenets are not only wrong, but wicked. The left will want this taught in the classroom. Home schooling is illegal in parts of Europe so that the state doctrines can be forced on the children.

    Farfetched? Look at the history of anti-Catholicism in this country and in Europe especially in the Kulturkampf. Look at how the government (state and federal) tried to crush the Latter-day Saints (using marriage as the issue). Observe rising anti-Islamic sentiment. Look at the history of the Jews. Note the attempt arising in San Francisco to ban circumcision.

    The churches and the natural family predate the state. They have a right to oppose encroachment by the state, which encroachment will inevitably follow the redefinition of marriage. They ignore this encroachment at their peril.

  95. leo
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    SOA,
    I think if the SSM support want equlaity by marrriage, they should seek reparative therapy to help get their head straight, not search for State who will approve their pervision in the form of so-call SSM... Best course of action for NOM supporters and the like, is to avoid at all cost, making the Delusional even more out of touch with reality...

  96. leo
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    sorry of the mispellings in my post...

  97. leo
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    (SOA),
    I think if the SSM supporters want eqality by getting married, they should seek reparative therapy to help get their head straight, not to search for States whom would approve of their perversion in the form of so-call SSM... Best course of action for NOM supporters and the like, is to avoid at all cost, making the Delusional even more out of touch with reality...

  98. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    @ Son of Adam

    I should have been more clear. Churches can have marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but they don't mean anything legally. This is because states "allow the religious [marriage] ceremony to double as the state ceremony."

    So church marriage ceremonies don't get the same legal treatment for marrying gay couples that they do for marrying opposite-sex couples. And that is an example of the government not respecting religious freedom.

  99. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    I forgot to post the link to the site I quoted: http://iwgonline.org/marriage/

  100. MIke J.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Ash, you know this better than the staff and advisory board at EMU? Me thinks you are under the "magical thinking" spell like the rest of the NOMers.

  101. MIke J.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Leo, if the whole conspiracy of gays forcing the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM is true , how come this doesn't come up in court? That would be a strong basis to fight all gay rights.

    Oh wait, it hasnt because it's not true.

  102. Ash
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    I think I do know this stuff better than the EMU staff, Mike J.! You must not have heard about the legal setback they suffered. Read Michael Ejercito's words in post #83. They couldn't show in court that counseling referrals are prohibited. Actually, they showed the opposite.

    But feel free to cure me of my "magical thinking."

  103. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    MIke J.: Oh,... so, number of comments, and number of angered comments, means... what? I can post many 'angered' comments on a comment thread, under different names, and the moderators can filter out comments they don't happen to like. So, where's your logic. Oh, you forgot to bring it, today.... I see, said the blind.

  104. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    The.Truth: You are not talking truth, though you think you are. Polls can only be used to present a rise in public opinion if the questions and statistics of all the polls are the same, or very similar. You are basically arguing for a poll of polls, which mathematically irrational. When do you ever consider the sampling margin of error, and other errors that polls are affected by? Your user name would be more accurately - The.Truth.Unreached.

  105. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    The.Truth: The real question is whether a perceived statistical increase is a monotonic increase, or is it an increasing and later decreasing trend. Even if polls are used naively, ignoring how the questions are generated to show more controversy, ignoring that some polls are automated, ignoring survey participants can easily lie, ignoring that children might answer an automated survey (children like to press buttons), the trend doesn't necessarily start at zero, where it can not go more negative, and go to 100%. That is a matter of interpretation, not Statistics (a branch of Mathematics). People who sincerely believe an erroneous conclusion, as a matter of sympathy or philosophy of life, often justify the means for the goal. What about polls taken just before each of the 31 States passed a marriage amendment disqualifying friendships as 'marriages'? If we are to make a mathematical conclusion, you better be ready to reason.

  106. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    MIke J.: What is zillions?
    '...are zillions of gays lying about not choosing to be gay?' Of course, not. They are not lying. It's their belief system. They have been brainwashed that there is no hope in exiting homosexuality. NOM supporters, for the most part, believe there is hope for many of the zillions (does that terms come from 'zit'?) of whatevers? To start the discussion, define in scientific terms what a 'gay' is. Is it a human being? I think i am a gay person, but that's an adjective.

  107. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Oy, my post 98 is missing a sentence. It should read

    "I should have been more clear. Churches can have marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but they don't mean anything legally. On the other hand, when churches have marriage ceremonies for opposite-sex couples, these ceremonies are legally binding. This is because states "allow the religious [marriage] ceremony to double as the state ceremony."

    (Italicized sentence was missing.)

  108. Leo
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Mike J.

    I'm not an attorney, so you can ask an attorney who would handle cases of that natural...

    Maybe because the "argument" has been whether SSM should be illegal, not whether homosexuality should be illegal...

    Maybe we should start making the "argument" whether or not homosexuality should be illegal-like pedophilia is illegal-both mental conditions are linked; both “illnesses” engages in sexual abnormalities, and self-gratification. In both cases, the individual feel out of control, and will take dangerous risk without any regards of the outcome, or who they may hurt. I personally think it should be part of the “argument”, as why the APA suddenly removed homosexuality from the mental illness code…Maybe it has something to do with the reason there are now-where it wasn’t before- a good percentage of gays/lesbians, possibly including trannies, bi-sexuals as part of the club-membership. If we hold anything the APA says to be as the highest intelligent on the matter, then by all means they should be apart of any court proceedings involving in SSM, however they would not be seen as creditable witnesses. Of course that maybe a pledge of war with the homosexual community at this point… If the LGBT propaganda continues on the course it is on, making that pledge will be easy.

  109. Little man
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    If photographers are fined or sued for not agreeing to photo shot a same-sex civil union or 'marriage', they will simply stop answering certain kinds of inquiries (which already they don't answer), and give some sort of lame excuse like.... "Hmmmm, sorry i am already booked for that date", 'oh! you will change the date to accommodate my services?', 'Well, let me see... i think i'm planning my family (1man+1woman) vacation around that time...", 'By the way, i recently raised my prices, also, but my web page hasn't been updated.' When it comes to business, you cannot force the issue.

  110. Publius
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    @Spunky

    “Churches can have marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but they don't mean anything legally.”

    They do where marriage has been redefined.

    The Churches should decide the definition and nature of marriage for the respective churches. The people should decide the definition and nature of marriage for the people of the state as a commonwealth.

  111. Publius
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    “…the refusal of … religious organizations to treat a same-sex sexual relationship as if it were a marriage [will mark] them and their members as bigots, subjecting them to the full arsenal of government punishments and pressures reserved for racists. These punishments will only grow more frequent and more severe if civil “marriage” is redefined in additional jurisdictions. For then, government will compel special recognition of relationships that we the undersigned religious leaders and the communities of faith that we represent cannot, in conscience, affirm. Because law and government not only coerce and incentivize but also teach, these sanctions would lend greater moral legitimacy to private efforts to punish those who defend marriage.”

    From
    MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
    Fundamental Goods That Stand or Fall Together
    An Open Letter from Religious Leaders in the United States to All Americans
    Released January 12, 2012

  112. Louis E.
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Spunky,a church can call whatever it likes a marriage,and a government can let them call it that.But a government has a responsibility to treat only opposite-sex relationships as offering a benefit to secular society by existing and being acknowledged as the norm,and must only give specific benefits to opposite-sex relationships.Any constitution not requiring this needs to be amended to do so.

  113. Spunky
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Publius

    Yes, I meant where gay marriages were not legal. I was responding to Son of Adams post, where he said that regardless of marriage law, churches could marry whoever they chose.

    So in states where gay marriages are banned, the church's religious liberty is compromised, because the government doesn't recognize its gay marriages.

    My point wasn't about who decides marriage law. My point was that marriage inequality can directly take away religious freedom from some churches, while marriage equality doesn't have to.

  114. Layne
    Posted February 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    "I think if the SSM supporters want eqality by getting married, they should seek reparative therapy.."

    @Leo: Reparative therapy is junk science was debunked decades ago.

    Even the most prominent "ex-gays" admit they still have attractions towards the same sex, and have yet to see a single person (out of hundreds) "cured" of homosexuality.

    It's a joke, and always has been.

  115. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    @Leo: Reparative therapy is junk science was debunked decades ago.

    Even the most prominent "ex-gays" admit they still have attractions towards the same sex, and have yet to see a single person (out of hundreds) "cured" of homosexuality.

    It's a joke, and always has been.

    Sounds like you speak from experience? Provide us with some factual info to debunk the treatment..

    Now that you agree that homosexuality is a problem, but you also believe that reparative treatment does work, does that mean we give up trying to cured the problem, or continue finding solutions... Should we embrace and promote the brehavior or embrace non-junk science to find a reliable cure? Its about making really good decisions or really bad once for ours country, do you know difference?

  116. maggie gallagher
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    In case there is anyone out there who for religious or other reasons would like to live in accordance with their basic moral beliefs, there is good scientific evidence that therapy can help:

    http://journals.biola.edu/jpt/volumes/27/issues/4/articles/329

    Sexual desire is hard to manage and direct for all of us; we don't always choose the challenges we face.

    Of course this is an option not a requirement.

  117. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Maggie,

    NOM should post the link on its site as a permanent fixture...

    My post at 115, pleas excuse my misspellings, thanks!

  118. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Maggie,

    NOM should post the link on its site as a permanent fixture...

    My post at 115, pleas excuse my misspellings, thanks! Post was the directed at Mike J

  119. Leo
    Posted February 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Oops! Sorry, post 115 responding to post by Layne at 114...