NOM BLOG

Bristol Palin: People Want Me To Die Over Gay Marriage Blog Post

 

Politico:

Bristol Palin admittedly “stirred up a hornet’s nest” with her argument against gay marriage last week, drawing hate mail and death wishes that she addresses in a new blog post.

“People claim they’re just trying to protect the right of two people to love each other – a right I don’t contest, by the way – and then spew the worst words imaginable at someone they disagree with,” Palin, the eldest daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, writes. "If the agenda is love, why do you hate so intensely?”

Near the bottom of the post, Palin displays some of the worst feedback she’s received, including death wishes against her and her family.

"You all, including your son, deserve a slow, painful and miserable death," one commenter wrote. "Your backwards thinking is so sad because the world is moving forward and you will certainly be left behind. May death be upon you.”

Palin wonders why her remarks – in which she criticized President Obama for consulting his daughters about gay marriage – prompted such nasty backlash.

98 Comments

  1. Posted May 15, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    But for so many using SSM to promote gay identity politics, the ends justifies the means.

  2. David Argue
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Saw the title and was going in to post that we need to be civil to those whose disagree with us, and saw that the hate was coming from the SSM side. Unfortunately, this seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.

  3. OvercameSSA
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    I've always found homosexuals to throw hissy fits when they don't get their way. It's consistent with the behavior of someone living in suspended adolescence as most homosexuals are. My teenage daughter always threatens to kill my son for things he does.

  4. Dan
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    It prompted a nasty backlash because there is no good argument for ssm. They can already "love each other" all they want.

    >>"If the agenda is love, why do you hate so intensely?”

    Well said.

    >>...saw that the hate was coming from the SSM side. Unfortunately, this seems to be the rule, rather than the exception.

    Yes, it is hate in the true sense of the word.

  5. Good News
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    @ To Eve's Daughter

    Help me out. I'm sure there's something good and useful there. But what does “gay identity politics” mean exactly.

  6. Dan
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Just more of the typical terrorism from their camp and then PPP wonders why their polls show false support for ssm. Unreal.

  7. Ash
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Bristol has to undertand that these people have no logical argument or rational reason for redefining marriage. So when they hear opposing views, it sends many of them into fits of rage.

    Terrible words spoken about Bristol and her son. But maybe she, and others, will begin to grasp the nature of the kind of people we are dealing with. They not only respond nastily to opponents. They work to get people fired and keep them out of employment; sue companies that don't validate the homosexual lifestyle; sometimes engage in physical attacks; and on and on.

    The agenda is NOT "love."

  8. someguy
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Kudos to Ms. Palin for standing up to the bullies. Who should know better than a single mom about the importance of reliable fathers? It's nice to have at least one celeb on our side. Who better for the NOM marriage anti-defamation spotlight?

  9. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    Until a few short years ago there was no real national organized knowledge of or resistance to the opposition's agenda. Thanks in large part to the organizing efforts of NOM, we now see more and more people waking up and getting involved.

    The opposition believed the war was won without any major battle. It must be very frustrating for them.

  10. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    My estimation of gay men & women has taken a nose dive sense this debate first began. Both there ability to engage in civil & logic debate as well as the lack of integrity and honest has lead me to believe that homosexuality itself is more of an physcological problem than I once thought.

    Someone once wrote that "sin makes you stupid" and I now agree with the general assesment. They refuse to acknowledge that society ever had a definiton of marriage to begin with, that it is not even POSSIBLE that same-sex "marriage" will effect the insitution & That reproduction has no rational connection to marriage.. All claims that are ill-liberal & anti-intellectual.

    I was talking to a group of young doctors about this issue and they responded to me "dont argue with crazy people it will just drive you crazy" refrencing their collective belief that homosexuality should never have been taken off the list of physcological conditions.

  11. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    From the very beginig this debate has been about hate. Apparently there is something about being attracted to the same-sex that makes one hate the "heteronormativity" of marriage. From terms like "breeders" to the vehamance that "leave it to beaver marriages" ellicit; it is clear to me that this "community" hates the bulk of monogamous heterosexual couplings and there aura of ligetamacy and wholsomness.

  12. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

    Easy solution for everyone. Get government out of the "marriage" business. Let the churches keep the term marriage for the religious who wish to call their union a marriage. Let the government issue civil unions which gives the couple the same rights, benefits and responsibilities regardless of gender.

    The argument for same-sex marriage is two fold. First, gay couples who are in love deserve to be treated equally under the law as their heterosexual counterparts. (sine procreation is not a requirement of marraige licenses.) Second, it is the law same-sex marriage supporters want changed. Gay activists do not want to destroy your marriage. In fact, since gays have been allowed to marry in various states, I dont hear of straight couples not getting married because Adam and Steve can. The law of our nation should treat its citizens equally. I hear the "gays can marry, the same way straights can". Unfortunately, if you want two people to marry who are not sexually attracted to each other, you are really advocating for the further diminution of marriage.

    In short, the same-sex marriage activists want equality under the law. They want to have the 1200 privileges, rights, and responsibilites that come with being recognized by their government as married. Therefore, if you believe that same sex couples should be discriminated against under the law, when they are similarly situated with heterosexual couples, you advocate for a position that intentionally makes a certain class of people secondary to the majority.

    I welcome all view points, but please let me remind people that religion can be freely exercised, but should not be legislated. (Especially as there are a wide range of interpretations in Christianity).

    Thanks.

  13. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    The gay position is about equality under the law. Gay couples do not feel it fair to be in identical situations but face drasticall different outcomes. Gays merely want to be recognized by their goverment and be allowed the 1200 various rights, responsibilities, and priviledges that come with civil marriage.

    My position has always been to leave marriage to the churches and have the government only issue civil unions to couples, regardless fo sexual orientation.

  14. Thomas Aquinas
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

    Austin, couples are corporate entities. Do you believe that corporations have rights? Citizens United lover.

  15. Zack
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    @Austin

    You will find no arguement from me on that. I'm all for equal protection under the law and affording same-sex couples all the same legal rights and benefits. However, there is a difference between Fatherhood and Motherhood and any law that tries to blur that line(redefining Marriage) is going to and should be met with opposition.

    I was listening to Mark Davidson on the radio and he made that case so clear that a caller started calling him names because he had no argument against Mark.

  16. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    @Zack: Unfortuantely, civil marriage has never had a requirement that the couple become Mothers or Fathers. I would agree with the anti-gay marriage stance if the sole purpose of marrige, and thus a requirement thereof, was procreation.
    Since procreation is not a requirement, there is no blur between Motherhood and Fatherhood.

  17. walterpc
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    People on the right not only make death threats to gay people, they kill gay people. Christians are not being beaten and murdered by gays, but gays are being beaten and murdered by people who (falsely) call themselves Christian. I am a Christian, and I don't hate gay people. And I know that those who do don't represent all Christians.

    At the same time, the people who made these terrible comments to Bristol Palin don't represent all gay people. And I think it's disingenuous to try to present it as though they do. There are extremists on both sides. We're not going to get anyplace if we treat everybody on the opposing side as though they were extremists.

  18. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Austin..

    The only people who use the word "requirment" are advocates of same-sex "marriage"

    This is a straw man argument...you understand what that means..

    Of coarse their is no requirment that married couples have children. The argument is that the goverment protects and promotes marriage because opposite sex couples can & do have children and the state has mutiple interests in promoting procration within marriage.

  19. Good News
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    You are right Austin procreation is not a requirement for marriage, but a penis and a vagina are. (Or the symbol of such by the scientifically verifiable presence of a man and a woman).
    Get yourself your own word to name your own union. The word 'marriage' names a thing that a same sex couple cannot be; and that thing is, the completed human-species in one entity.

    And we want equality! Parent-equality for each child. That they each be equal in having a mother and a father.

  20. Pete
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    Pro boxer Manny Pacquiao is slamming President Obama by calling for homosexuals to be put to death.

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/manny_pacquiao_gays_put_to_death.php

    You got to love these NOMers posting their imaginary, made up crud.

  21. Jim
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    I think gay and lesbian people should have the same legal rights as straight people, including the right to marry.

  22. Pete
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    "They work to get people fired and keep them out of employment; sue companies that don't validate the homosexual lifestyle; sometimes engage in physical attacks; and on and on."

    If you are doing nothing wrong, how could you possibly get fired? Oh little ones how we exagerate.

    Nationally, about 15% of hate crimes happen to LGBT people, in the DC metro area it's up to 4 times that amount, why is that, Ash?

    http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,567500.asp

  23. Good News
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for the link #17 Pete. A very encouraging article. But I don't think you need a biblical argument to invoke the positive aspects of deterring homosexuality through the treat of death. Its just a helpful and loving educational tool for growing boys and girls.

  24. Pete
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Good news,

    So you ate saying putting gays to death is a positive deterrent? Well there you go.

  25. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

    As I said before, I am fine with everyone having a non-marriage title when it comes to recognition from the government. Civil unions should be granted for every couple seeking the rights, responsibilities and privileges currently bestowed only in marriage.

    To respond, a penis and vagina are not required for marriage. If so, men who have had unfortunate accidents would be barred from marriage.

    Until the denial of recognition and rights ends from the government, the gay rights movement will continue to fight and struggle to achieve what is inevitable. By 2020, my generation, who overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, will be 40% of the voting public. I believe that equality can be achieved earlier, but I am willing help the effort until that day arrives.

  26. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    The arguments I keep getting back are the same... "man/woman... penis/vagina... complete human species". All of these pairings are in fact just the symbolism of procreation which is not a requirement of marriage.

    I believe many NOMers believe that you come up with counterarguments, but you in fact only create a variation of the theme I have already shot down.

  27. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Austin - You have yet to "shoot" anything, much less "down"

    Perhaps legal decisions will (if not persude you -unlikley) disuade you from thinking that the argument is that it must "require" bearing children...rather than simply be reserved to the general class of couples (male/female) that can have children..

    Remember - the legal standard is "rational basis" not "exhaustive basis of every conceivable misbegotten counter-argument" - (requirment is your straw man)

    From the Washington State Decision

    “But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”

    Get the standard being applied in 14th amendment cases???

  28. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    Austin - You have yet to "shoot" anything, much less "down"

    Perhaps legal decisions will (if not persude you -unlikley) disuade you from thinking that the argument is that it must "require" bearing children...rather than simply be reserved to the general class of couples (male/female) that can have children..

    Remember - the legal standard is "rational basis" not "exhaustive basis of every conceivable misbegotten counter-argument" - (requirment is your straw man)

  29. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

    From the Washington State Decision

    “But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single- sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.”

    Get the standard being applied in 14th amendment cases???

  30. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Shot down???

    You have yet to even apply the right standard? Do you really think the law requires that strange a nexus between sex & procreation that is must have a requirment for childbearing??

    Creating a straw man argument just so you can knock it down is not the same as making a intelligent point.

  31. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    Austin..
    Example of an actuall legal argument on point...

    "Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1

    1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)

  32. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

    Austin
    Or (if you perfer) The Maryland Supreme Court decision.. again directly on the "argument" you seem to think is so solid...

    "In terms of the justifications for the current marriage law, the court ruled “fostering procreation is a legitimate government interest” and the “‘inextricable link’ between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members (advances in reproductive technologies notwithstanding).” The court held “the fundamental right to marriage and its ensuing benefits are conferred on opposite-sex couples not because of a distinction between whether various opposite-sex couples actually procreate, but rather because of the possibility of procreation"

  33. Good News
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Not at all Pete. I'm saying the death penalty is an effective deterrent to the encouragement and practice of homosexuality. It certainly wouldn't leave one indifferent – nor flippantly arrogant in the public square about the subject.

    Austin, those “unfortunate men” where included in the requirement with the addition; “(Or the symbol of such by the scientifically verifiable presence of a man and a woman).” Which is not the symbol of procreation, but the symbol and the reality of the entire human-species in one entity.
    Its really not that big a deal. Just find a nice respectable and honorable word to name the same sex union. Just keep in mind that the letters i.a.r.g.e.r.m.a arranged in the order of m.a.r.r.i.a.g.e are already counted for.
    And in 2020 as in 2090, no same sex couples will have been able to become the-completed-human-species. They will still have to look at a married man and woman to see one. As for parent-equality for the children: each child equal in having one father and one mother, I'm sure there will be people fighting for that just cause as well.

  34. Susan rosenthal
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    There is no excuse for making death threats against Bristol Palin. I am sorry that happened.
    Let's continue the fight for marriage equality without this sort of behavior.

  35. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    Good News: Until you start protesting single moms and dads, I will believe that your "each child should have a mom and dad" line, is merely an attempt to justify a losing argument.

    As an attorney, I too have access to Westlaw and Lexis. However, I intend to make my own arguments instead of quoting cherry picked cases. Not saying your do not show excellent research skills, but as you know, there are always cases on one side of a civil rights issue that are decided one way, until society changes and the courts rule the other direction.

    I honestly feel as if you cannot picture yourself in the future, where children in schools are learning the history of gay rights and how people tried to stop gay marriage. There will be pictures of NOMers holding up signs in front of the Supreme Court and the children will look upon you the same way children today look upon the protesters who were against interracial marriage.

  36. Pete
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    So, Good News, you are saying that's gays should be put to death.

  37. Randy E King
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Austin

    The day we afford Civil Rights consideration to people based on what they like to do, as opposed to who they are, is the day we sever our connection to our freedom.

    The children you write of will never be connected to the miscreants you defend in any real way.

    The real reason why you prefer to make your own arguments, as opposed to referencing precedence, is because you cannot find justification for your position in established case law; whereas your victims can trace the justification for their position all the way back to 1 AD.

  38. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Randy: I know that you did not just say that somehow I am victimizing someone? If so, in what way?

    Your argument goes back to the "choice" of being gay. Who would choose such a life? A life of hardship, bigotry, intolerance, beatings, and verbal abuse? A life where your parents disown you, where you dont get a job because you love someone of the same sex, where you get fired because someone finds out something about your personal life that is considered deviant? Honestly, who in their right mind would choose that?
    Why can you not accept the word of those people who are gay when they say it is not a choice? I would gladly accept your position that being gay is a choice when heterosexuals make the plunge and choose to be gay for a while. On that thought, then did you choose to be straight? I mean, we all wake up one day and say "my goodness, I think I like vagina from now on.", right?

    And yes, the children of the future will look back on the opponents of equality and ask "Why would you oppose love?" They will see your propaganda with the benefit of hindsight and never believe that a religion that prides itself on the golden rule and being non judgmental would actually attempt to legislate a majority RELIGIOUS view into law to harm a vulnerable minority.

  39. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    The opposition often makes the weak argument that children are sometimes separated from one of their natural parents already through divorce, death or some other cause. Indeed, *some* children do lack a mother or father in the home.

    What the opposition fails to mention is that 100% of same-sex couples in possession of children have separated them from at least one of their natural parents.

    So-called same-sex "marriage" is the vehicle that normalizes this practice.

  40. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Barb: Why should the gay rights movement not show the reality of stable children being raised outside of what is deemed as the only "desirable" situation? You create a world where if you arent brought up in the ideal, you should feel as if you were cheated?

    Would you then want to legislate that ever child have the right to rich parents who have 2.3 children, a dog, savings, trust fund, 2 cars, and are white? Because that seems ideal to me. But we dont try to legislate the ideal situation because of REALITY.

  41. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Thought in between reps: If your concern is children then your logic fails due to the reality that same-sex couples already are parents to children. Therefore, would not the natural reaction to be to strengthen the bonds of any parental unit raising children? By giving the legal rights of marriage to couples who are already parenting and those couple who want to parent, you thereby protect children.

  42. Bruce
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Barb:
    "What the opposition fails to mention is that 100% of same-sex couples in possession of children have separated them from at least one of their natural parents."

    What Barb fails to mention is that 100% of children of same sex couples had biological parent(s) who either (1) are dead; (2) have been declared unfit as parents; (3) or willfully signed about their parental rights.

  43. Randy E King
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

    Austin.

    Your refusal to acknowledge that we all choose the things we do only prove that you know the choice you made in indefensible on its own merits.

    "A life where your parents disown you, where you dont get a job because you love someone of the same sex, where you get fired because someone finds out something about your personal life that is considered deviant?"

    This statement of yours only proves that you are after revenge; not truth. You want everyone else to pay for the crime you committed; to legislate the absolution of your sins.

    You are only fooling yourself because no matter what subterfuge you may employ everybody will still be able to see that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.

  44. Randy E King
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Additionally,

    All anyone will have to do to convince a child that you folks are indeed depraved is introduce them to the laws of nature. The mirror of turth is one of the deadliest tests out there for those who choose to live their life cruising the river denial.

  45. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Austin:
    Im sure you dont like the quotes I provide because they expose directly how much of a straw man your "requirment" argument is... For an attorney you really have the most transparently refutable argument there.

    Austin (writes) :"Until you start protesting single moms and dads"

    The various members of NOM, pro-family conservatives, Christians, and our supporters are all on record as opposing & helping to address illegitamacy, fatherlessnesss, divorce, un-wed childbearing and the like

    All anyone will have to do in your hypthetical future (that may never arise) is state simply "I think children need their mother & father"

  46. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Austin (writes)
    "I know that you did not just say that somehow I am victimizing someone"

    I am & so are gentelmen like these.

    "Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

    Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress, Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

  47. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Austin (writes)

    There will be pictures of NOMers holding up signs in front of the Supreme Court and the children will look upon you the same way children today look upon the protesters who were against interracial marriage."

    Loving v Virginia & Perez (its twin California case) are the anti-miscegenatioist cases that overruled such laws trhe congressman equates to same-sex "marriage.

    Concerning the Loving analogy as has been employed. I would draw peoples attention to the
    argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision

    Hernadez v Robles.

    "Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."

    Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382

  48. Fitz
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    (above)

    Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.

    Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.

  49. bman
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    Austin->Civil unions should be granted for every couple seeking the rights, responsibilities and privileges currently bestowed only in marriage.

    Society needs a healthy marriage trend for its own well being.

    In general, increases in teen pregnancy, single parent households, welfare, juvenile delinquency, poverty, crime, school dropouts, abortion and such can be traced to a decrease in the marriage trend in society.

    Thus, some benefits should be given to encourage and help maintain a healthy marriage trend, which benefits should not be given to other unions because that would compete against marriage.

    A company gives customers a discount coupon to promote its product, and does not "equally" give out coupons for a competing product.

    If a company equally gave out coupons for a competing product that would be a dysfunctional company, or a dysfunctional government.

    Society needs more marriage between men and women to combat the social ills listed above.

    And so, that is the "product" for which it grants incentives, instead of others.

  50. Austin
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Again, I applaud your legal research to find cases that are on point for your position. But like Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Ed, there is always the first time a ruling comes down on the other side.

    To Randy: I can choose not to have sex. I cannot choose who I am attracted to. There is no choice involved with what type of companionship I feel is natural for me.

    A question to all: When has the majority ever voted to give rights to a minority?
    Do you think it was wrong to vote for women to have the right to vote?
    The thing about rights is that you dont get to vote on them. Our country was founded by men who understood the tyranical nature of a religious majority imposing their view points on the minority.

    Be back in an hour or so. I think my husband wants a little sin time.

  51. Susan Rosenthal
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    You folks do criticize people for having babies out of wedlock, getting divorced, etc. However, I have yet to see NOM sponsor laws or constitutional amendments to prevent this type of behavior. I am also not aware of any efforts that NOM has made to prevent people who are clearly a risk to children, such as child molesters, from getting married. If you are going to make the argument that marriage should be protected because it the best way to foster the needs of children, then why wouldn't you be taking active steps to prevent child abusers from getting married. It seems to me that NOM should be taking very aggressive steps to prevent convicted child abusers from entering into a relationship whose primary purpose is supposed to be meeting the needs of children. I look forward to many years of healthy debate about this subject. I am sure that NOM will be sponsoring amendments and laws in all 50 states to prevent child abusers from getting married.

  52. MarkOH
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Back to Bristol Plain: you know, the abstinence only girl, who engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse out of wedlock, got pregnant, gave birth and then refused to marry the father of her child. The fact she has the NERVE to post that a child needs a mother and father. She is a walking fool, a hypocrite.

  53. bman
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Austin->If so, men who have had unfortunate accidents would be barred from marriage.

    Marriage legally implies that a bride and groom have given up the right to have sex with anyone other than one's partner.

    Thus, even if one partner was disabled, a sexual contract would still be implied under the law.

    Furthermore, if the woman did not know about the disability until after the marriage, most states would accept that as grounds for annulment, which again shows that marriage is a sexual contract at law.

    The public purpose of marriage as a sexual contract between a bride and groom is not redefined by the private circumstances of some couples.

    By analogy, if someone registered a non driveable car, the public purpose of a car registration would still entitle cars (plural) to drive on public roads.

    Although that particular car could not drive, the public purpose of a car registration would not be changed by that.

    In a similar way, the public purpose of marriage as a sexual contract with sexual rights and responsibilities, and the expectation of sexual fidelity, is not changed by the private circumstances of some couples.

  54. bman
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:00 am | Permalink

    A question to all: When has the majority ever voted to give rights to a minority?

    Didn't some states grant civil unions by way of popular vote?

    Also, where minorities are only defined by a behavioral trait the unethical nature of the behavior would be a valid reason for society to not sanction the behavior.

  55. bman
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:08 am | Permalink

    Susan Rosenthal->You folks do criticize people for having babies out of wedlock, getting divorced, etc. However, I have yet to see NOM sponsor laws or constitutional amendments to prevent this type of behavior.

    The act of promoting monogamous bride groom marriage to society helps deter the social ills mentioned.

    Likewise, a federal marriage amendment would help deter the social ills mentioned by lifting up a clear marriage standard for all society.

  56. Fitz
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:09 am | Permalink

    Austin (writes)
    "Again, I applaud your legal research to find cases that are on point for your position"

    But each and every time you do absolutley nothing to refute the arguments presented...All you can say is "one day we will prevail" and then draw spurious anologies to past court precedents that (again) I present actuall arguments that show how strained and flawed such arguments are?

    Austin (writes)

    "When has the majority ever voted to give rights to a minority? Do you think it was wrong to vote for women to have the right to vote? - The thing about rights is that you dont get to vote on them."

    All the time. You contradict yourself when you bring up the 19th amendment.. Only men could vote at the time, yet the voted to give women the vote...

    Will you really be back or are you just running away?

    Are you now going to retire that silly "requirment" language..

    Every single right in our consitution was voted on and every amendment including the bill of rights.

    And not just my simple majorities but by supermajorities.. and then ratified by 3/4 of the states..

  57. Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Jim
    Posted May 15, 2012 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
    I think gay and lesbian people should have the same legal rights as straight people, including the right to marry.

    NOM agrees, Jim, and thankfully, they do.

  58. Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    NOM agrees, Jim, and thankfully, they do.

  59. eliasasm
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    @Zack#13,

    Where on Earth do you get the idea that any law is blurring any line. You simply cannot be thinking this through. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think that a mother and a father is the ideal situation. Come on. The problem is it ain't reality, never has been. And thinking that voting against one specific group of human beings is going to change that or anything isn't thinking at all. Seriously. And most important, this is a civil rights issues having nothing to do with marriage or religion. Civil. You cannot vote against anyone just because you do not like who they are. Appalling that anyone thinks so in the United States of America with a half Black president in the 21st Century. Scary ain't it? Please, Zack, think things through a little further.

  60. Zack
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    @Eliasasm

    Marriage serves to draw the distinction between the two sexes. That's where the idea comes from. Any law that tries to redefine what Marriage is serves to blur the lines between the two sexes. You can look at it however you wish, but redefining Marriage is telling people that the two genders are interchangeable and provide nothing unique to children. It's basically saying children don't need a mother nor a father, that any combination of the two are equally good.

    http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=d9fb0980-9c95-48e8-a493-86b965c7d5ee&url=same-sex_marriage_and_the_insignificance_of_men_and_women

    Albeit this article references the Prop 8 trial back in 2010 but still a good read.

  61. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    Calling for violence is never acceptable, no matter at which side you stand in this or any other debate. I think I saw another comment on this side by someone who said that NOM promotes violence. While I disagree with NOMs views in many ways, I absosutely disagree with that poster's comment.

    That said, I often find discussions like the one in this post tend to be bitter and generalizing. As evidenced in this discussion, some NOM supporters generalize the opposition to their views as hatred that is shared by the whole gay community. Likewise, some NOM opponents (HRC is a bit like the NOM of the other side in my opinion) are way to easy in generalizing all Christians as bigots and homophobes. The discussions here often tend to attract the most vocal and outspoken people on the marriage issue. I think its fair to say that the vast majority of the gay community, Christians and those that belong to both want nothing more than a civil debate.

  62. Markus
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Jeremy Hooper over at "GoodAsYou(dot)org" has published a eye-opening reality about what the moderator allows and dis-allows here at NOMBlog. Check it out. Your comment could go "viral"!

  63. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    I love the 19th amendment for the simple fact that it was the minority voting to give the majority rights. Women have always been a 1-2% larger population than men in Western civilization. However, it must be noted that many states (New Jersey comes to mind) did vote on women's right to vote, and many states voted the measure down time and time again until the 19th amandment came along. Progress is not quick, it is not easy, and there will be set backs.

    The cases I use are not to show that the legal framework has been laid to show that an outcome is certain. I use them to show that civil rights issues often are judged in a particular way for decades before progess is made. How many times was seperate but equal upheld before Brown? How many interracial couples lost their case before Loving? History teaches that in order to make strides for equality, defeat is to be expected time and time again before true change can occur.

    As for marriage being a sexual contract, I laugh again at the "procreation" argument being used just by a different name. Honestly, every single justification for "traditional marriage" has been in the context of procreation or the protection of children. Come up with something new. If all marriage was illegal, the human race would survive. People would still have children. The conservative version of the ideal might be gone, but we dont legislate on individual freedoms and pursuits of happiness.

    Just as an aside, I came across and interesting article: http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

  64. Good News
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    @ Markus
    Thanks for the info! They just don't understand what a balanced debate is.
    Keep me informed. But don't make me fearful if you can help it.

  65. Louis E.
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Eliasasm,what's appalling is that anyone would call this a "civil rights issue" (or that you could seriously say that the definition of marriage "has nothing to do with marriage").
    We can't treat standards of conduct as critical to the well-being of humanity as the need to guarantee preferential treatment to opposite-sex relationships as "unfair" to groups defined by desire to violate them.

    Austin,if you are attracted to the same sex,that imposes on you a responsibility not to have sex.

  66. Posted May 16, 2012 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    And homosexuals wonder why so many people hate them. =.=

    Homophobia. WHAT homophobia? It's mostly homo-hate-eeah

    Just because someone doesn't agree with you on homosexuality doesn't mean they need to be KILLED for it. My word. People are stupid.

  67. Don
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    We know that the vast majority of Americans are against SSM. It is about time for the right to get off their lazy butts and speak up. Put the weird minority back in their place. Even if that place is insane asylums. Forget about political correctness and do what is right.

  68. Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    In my opinion, homosexual "marriage" was never about love but about forcing society to accept homosexual acts as normal. No one objects to love. Most people object to the harmful and filthy act of sodomy.

  69. carol jordan
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Does it really matter what homosexuals think of us. You go girl, Bristol. Your mom raised you good, and you are right to stick up for Biblical and right values. Too many people give in to the social ills, to blend in. I look forward to voting for you for President in several years.....you got MOM's b_lls, girl, and you certainly will go far. Unwed mom or not, you are a great example of who young people, and all people should aspire to be.

  70. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    Im not a Catholic Priest. I did not chastity. And just because your religion has misinterpreted its own teachings on homosexuality does not mean you get to impose religious beliefs and doctrine on a group that doesnt share in your belief.

    I find it ironic that being gay is seen as a choice by some, but religion is somehow immutable. Go figure.

  71. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    **** did not take a vow of chastity***

  72. Crysee61
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    im just so sick of hearing about it...so much crying over something so insignificant....hasnt anyone noticed the muslims are invading our country and trying to turn our country into socialism..lord help us.
    and your whining cause you cant marry your lover....i dont care you will be the one answering to god about it not me..im worried about my childrens future in this stupid country.

  73. Jess
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Just curious..How many "Death" comments where actually made? I willing to bet one. Albeit, an angry SSM supporter might have mad a comment but you all actually PREACH Violence and act on it!!

  74. LonesomeRhoades
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    Homosexuality is unnatural.
    Homosexuality is immoral.
    Homosexuality is sin.
    The above are facts.
    It is time to push back against the hate and bigotry of these Homosexuals.

  75. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Whether or not you believe the bible on homosexuality being wrong, nobody can deny that our bodies are designed for a man and woman to have sex- not two of the same sex to. You can deny Christianity all you want but you can't deny how your body was made to function.

  76. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    You NOMer's make my point for me. Thanks!

    BTW, don't knock it til you try it :)

    Hate and bigorty of homosexuals? LMAO! That's right, I was just reading about the straight group that had to evacuate its office due to bomb threats. Wait......

  77. Austin
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Ummmmm.... the laws of our nation now stand that you dont get to make laws regarding the consensual acts of adults behind closed doors. So... are there anymore variations of the procreation theme you want to throw my way and make my poing for me?

  78. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    Ummm, if the people get to vote they will vote however they feel is right. So yes we do get to help make laws based on how we want to vote. Whether that's based on our faith or our opinion of something. Your not going to tell people how they can vote. It won't work.

  79. AliceInWonderland
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I think the government has no place in marriage, at all. I understand why homosexuals want to be "married" for tax and other reasons. But I think the government should come up with a different term for it and get out of the marriage business all together.

    It is my plan to have a "civil union" take its place. Whereby any two people over 18 can be "unionized" Then they basically have the tax benefits and other stuff that the government has say in, just like they are married. But it is basically just a social contract between any two people to live together and share economic burden. Kind of like a company, but with only two people. It could be you and your roommate, you and your husband, you and your mom for all I care There doesn't even have to be a sexual relationship there. It is just a tax shelter, of sorts.

    Then, those who want to can be married by their given religious affiliation, or stay unmarried, for all I care. People shouldn't look for acceptance for their beliefs from others, if they believe something to be right or wrong, it is their business. But the government shouldn't be used to force one set of beliefs on anyone.

    Honestly, I don't know a single person who hates gays, and I live in the Bible belt. The thing people hate is their freedom being taken away. The problem religious people have with the gay agenda is that part of it is to force their belief on religious organizations. They have shut down adoption agencies for not adopting out to gay couples, gotten churches in trouble for not marrying them, and corporations in trouble for not hiring them.

    Seek equality from the government all you want, but don't try to get them to force others to go against their beliefs. Private Entities should have the ability to do whatever they want, It is like this thing with forcing Catholic institutions to give free birth control. The government needs to stay out of religion. Religious organizations should be able to marry who they want to, and adopt to who they see fit, and not give BC because it is against their beliefs. It isn't like there aren't secular organizations who don't serve the same purpose. We have courthouses, adoption agencies, and public universities. They aren't out of luck for not believing. However, when they try to force their lifestyle and their beliefs on others, it is no wonder they get "discriminated" against.

  80. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Chelsea, gay people being murdered for thousands of years in every country on earth with any law and order looking the other way (USA) or encouraging such actions (most african and middle eastern cultures) sounds encouraged by the majority of "traditional marriage" supporters with few on that side opposed to such practice. I think we all can agree on what's at the heart of this issue.

  81. Albert C. Kliwer
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Lonesome, too bad we're in a free country like the US and not a religion based government like Pakistan and Iran. Maybe if you want your religion to be law of the land, you should really think about immigrating. :-)

  82. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    I don't happen to think it's discrimination. Everyone follows the same laws now. People in other types of relationships don't get their type recognized by the government either. I think marriage should stay the way it is and that people shouldn't be able to change it for any definition they want.

  83. Dave
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    I am so proud of Bristol Palin for using her celebrity to shine the truth onto this issue.

  84. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Nanette, out of curiousity.... Same-sex relationships exist, there is no denying that. With that in mind, how much rights should those couples have? Should couples that have been together for many years be able to make life-and-death decisions? Should they have inheritence rights? Hospital visitation rights? Or how about rights related to parenting? Which rights should they have and more interestingly, which should they not have?

  85. Jane
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    God knows that I don't care for Bristol or her mother, but this is the one time that she got it right. Chin up Bristol. The LGBT clowns are scared that you may actually make a difference and judging from their reactions, you obviously have. None of them will dare to harm a hair on your or any member of your family's heads, no matter what vile, empty threats they may direct towards you. If their evil, perverted ways don't kill them, their blatant self-hatred will rot their hearts out. Keep being a truth teller. It's forcing everyone to see who these "harmless" citizens truly are-ugly, cowardly, perverted and afraid.

  86. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

    Jane certainly demonstrates the very thing I first noted in this post: generalizing a whole community based on the awful behavior of some. In all fairness, it is rather absurd to think that the majority of the gay community would approve of any threats or call for violence agains Bristol or anyone else.

  87. AD
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    So NOM supports teen mother Bristol, who didn't want to marry her baby's father.
    Yet NOM is against millions of gay people who DO want to get married.
    Interesting. National Organization Against Marriage would be a more accurate name, honestly.

  88. Good News
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    @ Johan de Vries #80
    Now there are some real questions Johan! Bravo!
    To bad I think everyone has left the room. But ask them again some day. Good for you; you've got guts, and a heart.

  89. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Why not let everyone marry anyone or more than one person except of course children?

  90. AW
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Johan de Vries: The "hospital visitation rights" issue was recently resolved when the Obama administration induced hospitals to allow patients to decide who they are allowed to see. There is no need for "gay marriage" to allow hospital visitation rights. As for "inheritance rights", all you need to do is draw up a legal Last Will and Testament and you can will your property to whomever you choose, married or not. These issues are red herrings.

  91. grandmaliberty
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    what I have observed is that homosexuals do not want tolerance from christians... they want acceptance and approval for their lifestyle..It's not going to happen...

  92. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    AW, these are not red herrings. For example, a long-term same sex couple needs to spent substantially more money and time to draw up legal contracts to get an approximation of what a opposite couple has even after being married for say a week. And even then it may be much, much more difficult to have things worked out if one of the partners pass away.

    That said, I am not so much interested in what is legally possible through constructs like these, but more what you and Nanette for example think from a personal view. Not saying that it goes for you two, but in my perception that are some people against marriage equallity, but for civil unions where the partners have the same rights as opposite couples. That begs the question: if a civil union walks like a duck (marriage), and it quacks like a duck from a civilian point of view, why isn't it a duck?

  93. AW
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    Johan de Vries: Take a look at the following article by a lesbian who says she never felt she was at a legal or practical disadvantage for not being able to marry her lover :
    http://marriagematters.mncc.org/2011/12/reaping-the-%E2%80%9Cbenefits%E2%80%9D-2/
    But show me any evidence that gay couples are spending more money on legal arrangements due to the lack of "gay marriage".

  94. AW
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    AD: No one here supports out-of-wedlock birth, as you know perfectly well. The article was supportive of Bristol Palin's comments about gay marriage and her admission (elsewhere) that she shouldn't have had pre-marital sex, not her previous actions.

  95. Nanette
    Posted May 16, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

    It doesn't matter if anyone thinks from a personal view. That's our opinion and we have a right to it. I still say people can't just decide they want a different type of marriage and have the government back it.

  96. Chairm
    Posted May 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

    SSMer said:

    "100% of children of same sex couples had biological parent(s) who either (1) are dead; (2) have been declared unfit as parents; (3) or willfully signed about their parental rights."

    This bizarre remark by an SSMer upthread is noted here simply for readers to contemplate the sort of thinking that produced that remark.

    And to note that the remark is false. The percentage is far from 100%.

    By far, most of the children living in same-sex households (a census term denoting a presumptively homosexual relationship between the head of household and another adult of the same sex in residence), -- better than 95% -- migrated from the previously procreative relationship of mom and dad (usually married or at least cohabitating) to that same-sex household with either mom or dad.

    Yet the bizarre remark does concede the fact that for two persons of the same sex to attain parental status as co-parents over a child, the child's parent of the other sex must relinquish parental status (or die) first. The second pre-requisite is that the government intervenes to assign substitute for the child's parent.

    However, even then the "biological" parent remains that child's parent for purposes of marriage law, intestate law, and other instances such as regarding incest and so forth.

    Generally, that is not so for the same-sex parenting scenario in which the second person who attains co-parental status did so through adoption. It is not so to a high degree -- closer to the 100% figure that the above bizarre remark invoked falsely.

  97. Mohana
    Posted May 19, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I would like to start by saying that death threats are never justified, by either side, regardless of how heated an argument gets. Neither Bristol nor her family (or anyone else for that matter) deserve that.

    Second, thank you to Austin and a few others for interjecting their opinions in the affirmative for some sort of union being made available for homosexual couples.

    I myself am lesbian. And I can tell you that it was not something I chose. The fact that I am attracted to females took me a long time to come to terms with (for societal reasons, not personal ones). For a long time, I did the 'natural' thing and went on dates with males. If I could have made myself like them, believe me I would have. But, I am emotionally (and yes, sexually) attracted to those of the feminine persuasion. And I'm happier and healthier (emotionally) for having accepted this fact about myself. As Austin said ... it isn't an easy life and no one in their right mind (my words, not his) would CHOOSE it.

    For a long time now, I have believed that the religious institutions should not be made to perform marriages that were against their beliefs. To me, it is the same as my community feels is being done to them; in that something is being forced on them that is unfair. I do however feel that the government could and should put something in place for me and my significant other that would provide the same rights that heterosexual couples have. I don't want special treatment, just equal treatment.

    Again, there are fanatics on both sides of the fence. Hateful comments and death threats aren't right regardless of who says them.

    My best wishes go out to Ms. Palin and her family.

  98. AW
    Posted May 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    Mohana: No one chooses their temptations, but you can choose whether or not you act on them. This is common sense.