A "new rainbow coalition" made up of influential Christian pastors and leaders gathered on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon to declare support for the traditional definition of marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act in response to President Obama's recent announcement that he supports same-sex marriage and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's support of repealing DOMA.
...The press event at the "Senate Swamp" was held after "The Defense of Marriage Summit: the Impact of Presidential Decisions on Social Institutions" this week, which produced the Stand for Marriage document. All the pastors and Christian leaders at the summit signed the document that states, "Marriage is intended for one man and one woman in a life-long covenant. One of the essential purposes of marriage is to carry on the human race through childbearing, another purpose of marriage is to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the Bridegroom and the Church as the Bride."
41 Comments
There are no rainbows in that coalition. What one sees are varying shades of gay-bashing bigot flesh tones. To pervert the use of the Pride flag colors to bigots' end is despicable, and completely characteristic of NOM's malevolent Republican operatives.
Oh, my "bigot flesh tones".
How easily the mask drops.
There is no mask. Anybody who exhibits bullying non-acceptance of gay human beings, and works against their human and civil rights, is by definition an anti-gay bigot.
Well, thanks for the definition there Scooter.
Let me assure you that while Bolsheviks noticed the utility of propaganda by redefinition of words, it will only get you so far in a country where freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed and there is just not one......single....solitary....thing....you can do about it.
See you in November
Well, thanks for the definition there Scooter.
Let me assure you that while propagandists have noted the utility of propaganda by redefinition of words, this practice will only get you so far in a country where freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed and there is just not one......single....solitary....thing....you can do about it.
See you in November
Here is the open minded love and tolerance we hear so much about. LOL!
Scott,
Your same-gender sex club ripped off the rainbow from the Christian movement in their quest to lend a greater appearance of acceptability to their depravity; much like the way you folks have ripped off the words Gay, Marriage, Civil Rights...
Pervert: An unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.
@Scott
And any two people coming together who do not complete the human species, by bringing the man half and the woman half together, are by definition – not married.
The word marriage is valid and useful, and is neither homophobic nor hateful.
And if you are talking about human and civil rights of two people of the same sex to be able to claim to be the unique, true and real two parents of the children born or adopted into their union. Well than its time to start talking about children's rights. That is if you have any concern for the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and defenseless people in your community – the children.
@Scott
What is even more despicable is how the homosexual group perverted the colors of the rainbow. The very symbol that the monotheistic religion's god sent to Man so that they could be reminded, each time that they saw a rainbow, that their god would never again destroy all the people. As he did in the time of Noah. The gay community is sticking to god in a way. “Ha. ha. Now we can parade gay pride. And remember god, you can't come along and destroy us all any more. Remember, the rainbow? You promised. Ha. ha.” As they wave their flag as a sort of passport. Now that's despicable. But maybe it shows a slight unconscious concern, by the acknowledgment that maybe someone just, is indeed being pushed.
I for one, am happy that these pastors are taking back the colors of the rainbow.
Scott's definition of "tolerance" and "acceptance" seem to be quite facistic.
RAINBOW Coalition, I like that. If we're going to protect marriage we might as well restore the rainbow to its proper place while we're at it.
Hey Brian - Can you work the colors of the rainbow into the NOM logo? That would be great!
Wow, using the symbol of pride to spread hate, how ridiculous.
"There is no mask. Anybody who exhibits bullying non-acceptance of gay human beings, and works against their human and civil rights, is by definition an anti-gay bigot."
Well, then you're fortunate to be here at NOM, where we NOM supporters don't view one's political identity (including gay political identity) as a reason to prevent a citizen from getting married. Here, we're all about sex integration; sexual orientation and political identity are irrelevant as marriage eligibility requirements.
Love the original meaning behind the "sign of the bow."
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/9?lang=eng&query=sign+bow
It is hardly surprising to see that NOM's supporters are gay-bashing bigots.
@Randy E King I know it's science and that scares you but a rainbow is not Christian ONLY property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
Correction to #9
"...sicking it to god..."
And since we're having fun McGoo. Some would say you're right, the rainbow is not a Christian only property. But it is god's property. As is science.
And science doesn't scare me, but wiki-wikipedia doesn't necessarily reassure me either.
@Scott
So why post here scott? You say you aren't suprised but then you just come on this site to spread your hatred of conservatives. If you are not willing to engage in intellectual discussion then leave.
Scott,
Marriage was about children and procreation long before it was about love. The reason some of my friends on here doubt this is a "equal rights" issue is your definition of marriage is not about the children.
Michael
Meanwhile, America marches forward. We Shall Overcome.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/01/conservative-jews-approve-gay-wedding-guidelines/
The tide is turing in favor of the lords truth about marriage and its procreative purpose. The consequences are just to dire, the sexualization of young children exposed to homosexual PDA and threats to religious liberty.
Nothing but crickets since the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Baker v. Nelson was guiding precedence that did not permit them to award Heightened Scrutiny for sexual deviants; let alone allow them to declare there to be a constitutional right to marriage corruption.
The only thing the 1st Circuit could come up with was the opinion that if they could just pull the blindfold down a smidge they may be able to make out a brand spanking new level of scrutiny that only applies to perverts.
"The tide is turing in favor of the lords truth about marriage and its procreative purpose. The consequences are just to dire, the sexualization of young children exposed to homosexual PDA and threats to religious liberty."
You know, we treasure posts like this.
Randy, Baker has nothing to do with the current 1st circuit appeals court. But it's fun to watch you fumble this ball.
Pete,
You either never read the ruling, or you are a bald faced liar:
"The Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Baker v. Nelson summarily dismissed, for want of a federal question, an equal-protection challenge to a state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriage. Baker remains binding precedent; it “does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Again, Randy, this is not about the constutionallity of SSM, it's about federal benefits offer to some legally married people but not all of them. How this makes me a liar is beyond me, you seem to accuse without ample proof.
But we forgive you, it must be hard to be on the loosing side.
Baker directs the court to apply rational basis; the court acknowledged that:
"it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage"
Baker is a limiting precedence that directs the court to apply the rational basis test to which the court acknowledged DOMA meets. The Court was forced to go to the extraordinary length of inventing an entirely new level of scrutiny - extraordinary in that it spits in the face of 225 years of U.S. jurisprudence - that only applies to perverts.
Not only are you on the losing side; your pride will not allow you to see it:
"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall" Proverbs 16:18
Randy, you only demonstrate by your copy and paste and your name calling that you really don't understand.
Again, this is NOT about "a constitutional right to same-sex marriage" do. Need to do American sign language in your palm like Helen Keller to get you to understand?
Save your scripture for the history of cherry picking museum.
Pete,
The 1st Circuit based its opinion on a basis test that does not exist; one of their own imaginations that even they could not define.
Pervert: An unusual or abnormal sexual act that is habitual.
What the 1st Circuit did was, in effect; declare that the strike zone called out for in the rules book did not properly account for limp wrists.
You got nothing; and your depravity leads you to cheer when the constitutional rights of your countrymen are violated by corrupt jurists - this makes you a disgusting human being.
Ed Whelan, as usual, has a very interesting take over at Bench Memos.
Well worth the read.
Relevant excerpt:
"....the panel’s characterization that DOMA will have “adverse consequences” for same-sex couples and “will penalize” them smuggles in a baseline that assumes that same-sex couples have the same right to marriage as opposite-sex couples. Thus, while the panel purports to be abiding by the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Baker v. Nelson (see point 1 of my summary post), it in fact isn’t doing so."
Bottom line: The marriage corruption movement, now knowing it cannot hope to win at the ballot box, and finding itself faced with the prospect of electoral reversals of some of its key legislative impositions, is down to the courts.
The decision by the First Circuit is a typical Trojan Horse strategy, reminiscent of the highly successful "civil unions" sham.
Once the Trojan Horse is in the door (couples married in the SSM belt states are entitled to Federal marriage benefits), it becomes much easier to push the rest of the way; after all, since Federal rights have already been granted, it must therefore be unconstitutional to deny access to these benefits to others, etc etc etc.
Same as civil unions.
It is, like the Prop 8 challenge, a legal strategy which is quite brilliant, well conceived, and suffers from one notable defect: the inability on the part of its originators to count to five.
Check out Pete's spelling: 'this is not about the constutionallity of SSM, it's about federal benefits offer to some legally married people but not all of them.' Are we writing to/with a sane person who can't spell? Why wouldn't federal benefits have something to do with the 'Constitutionality' of those benefits? Oh, i get it. . . because we are talking about 'constutionallity'. Yes, Pete, you are absolutely correct. It has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with -constipation- either. Thanks for pointing that out to us. . .
Randy,
Only you could spin losing a section of DOMA into a win for NOM. Nice job! Have you considered working for FOX news? Name calling rant begins in 3.....
Rick,
I, for one, will not be held to the PC rules you wrote that dictate those that share your proclivity be referred to by the "name" of your choosing. You can declare yourselves to be Lord Inquisitor's, but that will not change the fact that you are all nothing more than an Organized Horde of Decadent Miscreants.
Organized: working in a systematic and efficient way
Horde: a large group of people
Decadent: showing uninhibitedly or immorally self-indulgent behavior
Miscreant: somebody who behaves in a dishonest, malicious, or otherwise contemptible way
Miscreant: somebody who behaves in a dishonest, malicious, or otherwise contemptible way.
That describes NOM and their supporters quite well.
You can't hijack the name of an organization, especially not to push an agenda that's in direct conflict with that organization's mission. What the hell is wrong you guys?
Randy - Refarding the crickets you think youre hearing... in simple terms, the court was guided by Baker because the question being asked here was entirely different than the one in Baker. Baker asked - "Does a state denying a same-sex couple a marriage license violate the U.S. Constitition?" Gill asked "Does the federal government not recognizing legal marriages violate the U.S. Constitution?" Those are completely different questions. Perry, on the other hand, asks a very similar question to Baker and could give SCOTUS the opportunity to overturn it. To put it in perspective, after the Pace decision, the federal government still recognized marriages of interracial couples from states that allowed them long before the Loving decision which required all states to allow them. Eventually Baker will equal Pace.
@Rick
"The decision by the First Circuit is a typical Trojan Horse strategy, reminiscent of the highly successful "civil unions" sham."
But they could also have been doing this to help us. By ruling as they have, in a way that directly conflicts with the ruling of the 9th, the 1st Circuit has set itself up to be heard by SCOTUS prior to Reinhardt's argument; which was nothing more than a personal love letter to Justice Kennedy in an obvious attempt to gain favor.
Reinhardt refused to acknowledge Baker v. Nelson as a guiding precedence; whereas the 1st Circuit not only acknowledged Baker as the standing precedence on this subject, but also acknowledged that Baker limited their ability to rule in favor of the plaintiffs based on the basis’s currently available to them. The 1st based its opinion on a basis that does not exist; a basis they acknowledged does not currently exist.
Kind of like saying “if we tilt our heads to the left and squint we can kind of make out the image of something that might work.” This opinion of their pretty much strikes down the whole “justice in blind” meme.
14th,
"the court was guided by Baker because the question being asked here was entirely different than the one in Baker."
So your point is that the court was guided by Baker to ignore Baker...? Ya; that pretty much looks like a claim you would make.
The 1st Circuit acknowledged that DOMA passes the rational bases test; Game over, Do not Pass go, Do not collect $200.00, Bye-Bye now.
Thanks for playing.
A very interesting take there, Randy.
Perhaps they really are scared of what might happen should the Dream Team's inability to count to five land them in front of SCOTUS first.
Very interesting.
So, the First Circuit attempts to take the Perry cards off the table, by limiting the question to recognition of eligibility for Federal marriage benefits for SS"M" couples.
Again, its civil unions all over again, it seems to me.
Secure the intermediate objective, just in case the political circumstances change unfavorably this November.........
Whelan also makes an excellent point- that the First Circuit decision directly contradicts the Ninth Circuit in fundamental ways, and hence greatly enhances the likelihood that Prop 8 defenders will receive an en band, full hearing before the Ninth Circuit.
It is indeed possible we could see cracks starting to form in the opposition, between the hard-core "go for it" Dream Teamers, and the more dangerous, boil-the-frogs-slowly partisans, who used to call the shots over in SS"M" land.
You seem to be struggling here. SCOTUS let a lower court ruling which said that states are not constitutionally obligated to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That didn't restrain them from ruling that the Federal Gov't is required to recognize marriages legally performed in the states.
"The 1st Circuit acknowledged that DOMA passes the rational bases (sic) test" ...and promptly proceeded to unanimously rule it unconstitutional. Game over.
LOL!
"Game over".
You are a real hoot there, Amends