Episcopal Priest "Proud" to Call You and Chris Christie a Bigot


The Rev. Susan Russell writes in The Huffington Post's Gay Voices:

Yes, I rise to defend bigotry -- but not to defend acts of bigotry that get in the way of our being that nation "with liberty and justice for all" to which we teach our kids to pledge allegiance. Rather, I rise to defend the naming of those acts as bigotry -- which is critical if we're going to fully become that nation "with liberty and justice for all" to which we teach our kids to pledge allegiance.

Because here's the deal. A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal can only live up to the high calling of that dedicated proposition by recognizing that all Americans suffer collateral damage when the fundamental rights of any Americans are subject to bigotry-based discrimination.

A case in point is the blog I wrote the week before last calling out Governor Chris Christie for vetoing marriage equality in New Jersey. In it I said that Christie "chose bigotry over equality" and "was standing on 'the Lester Maddox side of history.'" I said it, and I meant it -- and I still do.


  1. Good news
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Great blog.
    No comment!
    Just the sound of an empty cave, deep in a silent mountain side.

  2. Louis E.
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Standards of conduct are not "bigotry" against would-be violators.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    It appears the good Rev. has contracted Rabies.

  4. Randy E King
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

  5. RichardCortijo
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    No Barb, It appears more and more Americans, religious or otherwise are realizing what American stands for, Equality!

  6. Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    In it I said that Christie "chose bigotry over equality" and "was standing on 'the Lester Maddox side of history.'" I said it, and I meant it -- and I still do.

    But which side of history is the right side on this issue.

    The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”

    1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.

    “the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children

    id. at *35.

    Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”

    John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)

    For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not
    barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction
    betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is
    necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be
    sustained even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment

    id. at § 79

    Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the
    promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,
    and for securing the maintenance and education of children

    Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. ) (1828)

    Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man
    and woman
    reciprocally engage to live with each other during their
    joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by
    law on the relation of husband and wife.

    John Bouvier, A Law
    Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
    105 (1868)

    “For certainly 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 guarantee of that
    reverent morality
    which is the source of all beneficent progress in
    social and political improvement. ”

    Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) and United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908)

  7. RichardCortijo
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Michael, Do you have anything in the 21st or even the 20th century to site, I saw you have one as late as 1908?

  8. Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Michael, Do you have anything in the 21st or even the 20th century to site, I saw you have one as late as 1908?

    Richard, Russell was discussing what the right side of history was. Obviously, determining the right zside of history relies on history and tradition.

    But history did not stop in 1908.

    The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

    Baker v. Nelson , 191 N.W.2d 185 at 187, (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971) summarily aff'd 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972)

    Appellants were not denied a marriage license because of their sex; they were denied a marriage license because of the nature of marriage itself...
    Although, as appellants hasten to
    point out, married persons are not required to have children or even to
    engage in sexual relations, marriage is so clearly related to the public
    interest in affording a favorable environment for the growth of children

    that we are unable to say that there is not a rational basis upon which the
    state may limit the protection of its marriage laws to the legal union of
    one man and one woman. Under such circumstances, although the legislature
    may change the definition of marriage within constitutional limits, the
    constitution does not require the change sought by appellants.

    Singer v. Hara , 11 Wn.App. 247 at 262-264, 522 P.2d 1187 at 1197 (Wash. Ct. of Appeal 1974)

    We need not, however, delineate the exact outer boundaries of this
    limited judicial review. We hold that Congress's decision to confer spouse status under section 201(b) only upon the parties to
    heterosexual marriages has a rational basis
    and therefore comports
    with the due process clause and its equal protection requirements. There is no occasion to consider in this case whether some lesser standard of review should apply.

    Congress manifested its concern for family integrity when it passed laws facilitating the immigration of the spouses of some valid heterosexual marriages. This distinction is one of many drawn by Congress pursuant to its determination to provide some-but not
    all-close relationships with relief from immigration restrictions that might otherwise hinder reunification in this country. See Fiallo v. Bell, supra, 430 U.S. at 787, 97 S. Ct. at 1473, 52 L. Ed. 2d 50. In effect, Congress has determined that preferential status is not warranted for the spouses of homosexual marriages. Perhaps this is because homosexual marriages never produce
    , because they are not recognized in most, if in any, of the states, or because they violate traditional and often prevailing societal mores. In any event, having found that Congress rationally intended to deny preferential status to the spouses of such marriages, we need not further "probe and test the justifications for th
    e legislative decision." Id. at 799, 97 S. Ct. at 1481.

    Adams v. Howerton , 673 F.2d 1036 at 1042 (9th Cir. 1982)

    Thus, in recognizing the fundamental right to marry, the [Supreme] Court has only contemplated marriages between persons of opposite sexes- persons who had the possibility of having children with each other.

    Dean v. District of Columbia , A.2d 301 at 308 (D.C. Ct. of Appeal 1995)

    In contrast, recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of “marriage.”...
    Petitioners lastly argue that the State's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex unions is not reasonably related to its interests in procreation, because excluding same-sex couples from the marriage relationship does not impact procreation.   We agree with Petitioners that allowing same-sex couples to marry would not inhibit opposite-sex couples from procreating.   But the reasonableness of the State's position is not dependent on the contrary conclusion.   Rather, as previously explained, supra ¶ 38, the State does not have the same interest in sanctioning marriages between couples who are incapable of procreating as it does with opposite-sex couples.   We therefore reject Petitioners' argument.

    Standhardt v. Superior Court , 206 Ariz. 276 at 278,
    77 P.3d 451 at 453 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003);

    By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples, such laws “encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children.” The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry. But it is also based on a “responsible procreation” theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot....
    But the argument [that "prohibiting protection for gay people’s relationships” does not steer procreation into marriage] disregards the expressed intent of traditional marriage laws -- to encourage heterosexual couples to bear and raise children in committed marriage relationships.

    Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning , 455 F.3d 859 at 871 (8th Cir. 2006)

    We agree with those courts that have found no equal-protection violation.   The state has a legitimate interest in promoting the raising of children in the optimal familial setting.   It is reasonable for the state to conclude that the optimal familial setting for the raising of children is the household headed by an opposite-sex couple.  

    In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. , 326 S.W.3d 654 at 675-677(Texas 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeal 2010)

  9. JR
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Most certainly Rev. Russell is entitled to her religious liberty.

  10. 654321
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Here is one RichardCortijo.

    The human species is made complete in the man woman coming together. In it all the human organs and chromosomes are finally represented. The 'human-being', finally, 'is'.
    And this ONE human-being (one human species) can symbolically, or in reality, of and by himself create the entire human race.
    This otherwise unidentified (and awkwardly expressed 'ONE human-being) has only one word to clearly name it 'marriage'.

    654321, 2012

    Neither religion nor State made the union , it is not there from where the definition comes.
    It is not the name 'marriage' that demands a definition, it is the union man woman itself that demands a name!

  11. Ash
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Many marriage supporters are over the "bigotry" charge. It's lame and worn out; it shows a shallow way of thinking about policy matters. Therefore, these kinds of denunciations from people like Rev. Russell mean nothing.

    Excellent job, Michael 🙂

  12. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Michael. Your comments are brilliant and educational.

  13. Paul
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Great post, Michael.

  14. Vil
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    Speaks volumes to the values of those citations that they haven't been able to create a victory in Federal Courts for the last 3 years.

    I find it odd that you would cite "Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B." given the Third Court of appeals more recent conflicting ruling on a similiar divorce case, so clearly the value of that decision is still pending.

    And if you are going to cite rulings from pending litigation, I assume the more recent slate of federal rulings about DOMA and Prop 8 would be more relevant.

  15. Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if the "Reverend" has read the book of Jude lately.

  16. TC Matthews
    Posted February 28, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    Well done M.E.

  17. John Noe
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    Apparenty this Rev. has flunked Bible theology and the basic course of human relationships.

  18. Posted February 29, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    I find it odd that you would cite "Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B." given the Third Court of appeals more recent conflicting ruling on a similiar divorce case, so clearly the value of that decision is still pending.

    The circuit split in Texas was over whether the state could intervene in a same-sex "divorce" suit, not over the constitutionality of Proposition 2.

  19. David Argue
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    'Americans suffer collateral damage when the fundamental rights of any Americans are subject to bigotry-based discrimination.'

    Driving starting at 16 - Age discrimination
    Jockey - Height discrimination
    Marrying 1st cousin - Ancestral discrimination
    Marrying a minor - Age discrimination
    Don't yell fire in a theater - free speech discrimination
    Sex offenders can't live near schools - location discrimination

    Society is full of discrimination, for the benefit of society itself.

  20. Chairm
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    To the accuser (particularly the person who would accuse from the pro SSM view):

    Please state the objective criteria by which you decide what is, and is not. an act of bigotr.

    With these criteria -- your own stated criteria --we may fairly evaluate the supporter of SSM, also.

    Do you agree?

    If you would neglect to state the criteria, then, surely in your own you would lose credibility as the accuser.

    Indeed you would negate the use of such accusations by SSMers in general. Think about that before you opt to neglect objective criteria.

  21. Chairm
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    There is a sexual basis for marriage in our legal system but that basis does not fit the SSM idea.

    See the sexual basis for consummation (sealing and renewing the agreement to form the comprehensive union of husband and wife), for annulment (i.e. no marriage existed), for adultery (grounds for injury and for dissolution). This sexual basis is not any and all sexual behaviors; it is the same sexual basis as for the marital presumption of paternity.

    That is a legal presumption and not merely a quaint social custom. It is not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. It directly reflects the two-sexed basis of humankind; the opposite-sexed basis of human generativity; and the both-sexed or complementarily-sexed basis of human community.

    Not one whit of this is bigoted.

    The SSMer who thoughtlessly throws around the accusation of bigotry must stand against the marriage idea in order to stand for the SSM idea.

    The SSM idea is a rejection of the very thing -- the core meaning of marriage as a social and legal institution -- that has justified the designation of marriage as a fundamental right in our jurisprudence.

    Cut marriage off from those deep roots and what is left? An arbitrary special status. A status unjustified by any constitutional arguments. And, of course, unjustified even by the standards of the SSM side which has put forth the complaint that the marriage status quo is arbitrary. The complaint is profoundly flawed as is the proposed pro-SSM remedy.

    It is unjust to assert the supremacy of gay identity politics over the meaning of marriage, over justice, over the constitution, and over the principles of good governance.

    You, the SSMer, is the inheritor of the promoters of white supremacy who also abused marriage for nonmarriage purposes and who also promoted selective sex segregation -- based on the filter of identity politics -- and who undermined responsible procreation -- again based on the filter of identity politics.

    You, the SSMer, stand accused of bigotry.

  22. Ash
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Excellent points, Chairm. SSMers love to say that marriage isn't about this or that, namely responsible procreation. But their idea of marriage makes any government privileging of it unjust and arbitrary. Why the government should recognize a relationship between two people for whichever of the flimsy reasons articulated by SSMers (love, etc.) is not clear. SSM makes the greatest argument for abolishing marriage. And considering how some of the SSM advocates in academic circles literally hate the institution of marriage, I wouldn't be surprised to see them arguing for why having a legal category entitled "marriage" is unconstitutional and unjust, even AFTER the enactment of ssm. The only other option is to keep marriage as a legal category, but one which represents a diverse range of relationships, including polyamory. Oh wait...ssm advocates have already stated that this is one of their goals.

    As George Dent said: "...if traditional marriage is unconstitutionally discriminatory, can any privileged status for marriage be upheld? The defense of traditional marriage is that it promotes responsible bearing and raising of children. If that defense is constitutionally inadequate, what constitutional justification is there for privileging marriage at all?"

  23. JD
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    So much for Romans 1. Clearly this "minister" uses a black Bible highlighter.

    "Professing to wise, they became fools ...."

  24. Vulg Christos
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

    Why do these homosexualists and lesbianists keep infesting the Church with their compromised and fractured moral compass and continue to promote the dangerous and unhealthy lie that homosexuality is a "healthy" and "fabulous" lifestyle when the mountains of evidence actually show the contrary? Evil anti-Christian lesbianists like "Reverend" Russell are the most insidious type of threat to our institutions that exists.

  25. Steve
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    The earliest psychologists--Sigmund Freud, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Havelock Ellis--were in agreement that homosexuality is a psychological malfunction

    Read more:

  26. Robert Taylor
    Posted February 29, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    I hope she doesn't assume she's going to Heaven which she isn't while committing this abomination to God. She mentions religion and bigotry together. Gods word is not religion. Being saved by The blood of Jesus is not religion. You either obey all of Gods laws and commandments or none. There is no multiple choice here. Most who believe in God but are gay or lesbian choose to ignore those scriptures which speak out against this lifestyle. For instance: Romans 1:26-27. No one can say any part of God's word doesn't apply today. Heaven and earth may pass away, but his word shall never pass away. It is eternal!

  27. Leo
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    Very interesting finding, the study indeed needs more attention. I am anxious to see some of the concepts in the report be put into practice if not already... It made good reading.
    Some of the psychological terminology used, I had sensed was the mental diagnosis for homosexuality, about 5 years ago. It goes towards the heart of the matter. I agree with both of the physicians in the study, that homosexuality is a mental disorder; however I was not sold on the “born that way” logic for obvious reasons. The really good news, their claims that the dysfunction is reversible. Providing more hopeful treatment for the so-call sufferers. I call them so-call sufferers because they act out to please for self-gratification rather than causing direct physical harm or pain … adolescent years could apply to the saying, “the devil made me do it” or “I can’t help myself because I was born that way’, once you reach adulthood though, it’s pretty much free will and the choices you make from that point on… Folks we have a bunch of sick people in our society, leading the blind (their supporters) to attempt to make us like them ( blind and confused) trying to tell us how we should live our lives… at the end of day, we’re trying to rationalize with people who are clinically ill and need reparative therapy for their sexual identity disorder gone mad... I encourage everyone to see the movie Residential Evil-part 1,2,3,4… I think there’s a part 5 also… LOL

  28. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Suzy wouldn't know the word of God if it hit her in the head.
    First of all, ANYone who uses the title of reverend is immediately suspect.
    We are to measure people by the word of God and she flunks!

  29. Posted March 1, 2012 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Read Romans 1:1-34 I guess this makes her God a bigot and just may be rev Susan also

  30. Chairm
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Ash, the federalist society article provides a very good description of this conflict of ideas. The first question is not why draw a line at one mand and one woman. The first question is why have this special status in the first place?

    * * * *

    To marriage defenders who talk of the centrality of procreation:

    Here is my understanding of responsible procreation.

    Marriage defenders should not alow SSMers to trap the defense of marriage into a false argument regarding procreation.

    The societal significance of marriage is not just that the husband-wife union provides for responsible procreation [see footnote]. Yes, this is the type of human relationship that is orientated toward procreation, but it is not merely a government contrived tool fo adding to the population. All government does is acknwledge this central purpose of marriage and protects it.

    But husband-wifeare not forced to procreate for that would be an antimarriage policy. SSMers seem to think this is a flaw but their thinking betrays a toalitarian impulse.

    The bride and groom consent to the sexual basis that makes the presumption of paternity a very reasonable legal requirement for those who'dshow-upto marry officially. This is not an option. It is the default. No married couple can drop this default as a condition of their consent. The government cannot drop it for this is not a government created aspect of this type of relationship. This sexual basis is intrinsic to the husband-wife union by type and not by choice and not by sexual preference.

    The presumption that the husband will be the father ((social and biological -- indeed social because biological) is not bigotry. That should be obvious. This legal rquirement is among the most vigorously enforced in our legal tradition. But the law is reasonable and not totalitarian.

    This is illustrated by the legal provisons for a challenge -- on a ase-by-case basis -- to the marital presumption of paternity. That begins wit the same sexual basis upon which the presumption arises. In this sense the provisions for annulment based on lack of consummation are also legal requirements that are reasonable and not totalitarian. The Government does not own each and every marriage nor does it own each and every child born to marriage. But government acts on behalf of society in protecting the child's interest as well as the interests of the husband and the wife and, yes, all of them s a whole, as an organic unit of civil society, a family founded on marriage. So there is an obligation to protect marriage as a type of relationship and as a cornerstone social institution of civil society. We entrust that protection to our form of government but society has nt surrendered this nongovernmental institution to a totalitarian regime.

    But SSMers imagine otherwise and I think they do so carelessly without due consideration. Some hardliners know more than they would like to admit to the soft supporters of SSM. The hardliners are much moe reckless than most supporters would ever be.

    Marriage unites the sexes as is very clear with the unity of motherhood and ftherhood that underlies the marital presumption of paternity. Seen in that bright light, the sexual basis for the husband and wife union is intrinsic even to particular marriages that are childless for whateer reason. There is only one bodily function that is fulfilled by two human beigns acting as a united organism: coital relations of man and woman. This is a sexual union that seals or completes the comprehensive union of marriage. It is comprehensive socially, volitionally, emotionally, spiritually, and bodily ... as a sexual relationship of mutual consent in all these dimensions. These are not bits and pieces that stand alone, these are interdependant and form a coherent whole.

    This makes marriage a good in itself with or even without children in this or that particular instance of marriage.

    * * * *

    To marriage defenders who respond to the homosexual emphasis of SSMers:

    The marriage issue is not he homosexual issue. Yes the SSM campaign emphasizes gay this and gay that. Their focus is not an identity group rather than on marriage. They taunt you to reat to the homosexual issue rather than the marriage issue. They confuse the two seperate issues. Be careful not to do the same as they.

    The need to forthrightly respond to the homosexual emphasis is real, iven the pro SSM implications for the culture and for the law and for our form of government. The conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea is merely a vehicle for some to press the conflict between identity politics and liberty, including religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

    But that does not justify describing homosexuality as a mental sickness. It may be a malady of some kind but it does not always impair an individual from functioning well. It may well be a condiion that is disproportionately correlated with other mental and physical (and spiritual)pathologies but it can be too easy to overstate.

    There is a moral disorder that confounds some people who experience same sex sexual attraction. That moal disorder is located in the type of sexual behavior and not in the orientation. The homosexual activists will conflate the two ... they will deliberately blur the significant difference between a proclivity (same sex sexual attraction)and behavior because that blurring is the contrived basis for construction of the socio-political group identity "gay"Gay is not a sexual orientation but it is an identity that conceptually is designed to own the individual. Hence the rhetoric about reorganizing society by group identites.

    Marriage is not the homosexual issue.

    The homosexual issue is not really about a mental disorder or malady but ratherit is an issue within the morality of human sexual behavior.

    Gay is not one and the same as same sex sexual attraction. Whether or not homosexuality is nborn, no sociopolitical identity is inborn.

    The overarching conflict is between pluralism and liberty on one side and a peculair sectarianism and an the invidious assertion of supremacy of gay identity politics on the other side.

    But there really is lot of middle ground and that is most obvious on the marriage issue which is a subheading beneath that overarching issue.

    At the most basic level the SSM campaign is a radical departure from marriage itself, certainly, ut it also comprised of other radical departures rom the principles of good governance, from the role of religion in civic life, from public morality, from decency in public discourse,and much more.

    As a defender of marriage we must learn what is at stake and how to remain focussed as we turn from issue to issue. Whichever issue you choose to turn to, please make the distinctions that matter and ry not to be pressed into conflating issues at the behest of the SSM campaign.

    * * * *

    Footnote: Responsible procreation is a general phrase that denotes a coherent set of principles and practices. Its first principle is that each of us directly responsible for the children we bring into this world through our sexual embodiment ... as part of a male-female duo. Responsible procreation begins before conception and even before consummation of the conjugal relationship. It extends beyond pregnancy and childbirth and even beyond the young adulthood of one's children. It entails responsibility for the educationas well as the physical and social well being of the children born of the parents. It entails the unity of motherhood and fatherhood in all its dimensions including the responsibility and the obligation of father and mother to one another. There is more to the centrality of procreation than SSMers would imagine whn they talk of a lack of compulsory procreation in marriage law.

  31. Anne
    Posted March 1, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink


    Thanks so much for taking the time to write that great post. I agree strongly with what you're saying. We need to identify what the real issues are and avoid the pitfalls that the "SSM" proponents set by conflating the issues with their very slective and deceptive vocabulary.

  32. Chairm
    Posted March 3, 2012 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Thanks Anne.

    It is important here to return to the accuser, Russell, who framed her accusation with a definition of bigotry that I have discussed at Opine Editorials.

    At that blogsite We have a series of blogposts tagged, 'Bigotry', and I encourage readers to take a looksee.

    Russell exhibits an unreasoned obstinancey in favor of her peculiar sectarianism and against the reasonable marriage laws. Her own criteria for detecting bigotry now turns the table and she, the accuser, now stands accused.


  33. Posted March 4, 2012 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    So, what exactly then is the difference between radical fundamental Christianity and its Islamic counterpart? And if you aren't strong enough to live in a free country, why not pack up and move to Iran?

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.