You must read my (and your own) links more carefully before responding to my comments #74-75. Had you done so, you would have seen that

1) you misread the accusations against Eric Holder; please reread your own link to confirm this.

2) Vicki Knox also threatened to teach her anti-gay views. And as far as I am aware, she was not fired.

3) David Ott was not arrested for "expressing views," as you stated, but for

disorderly conduct with a "hate crime" modifier.

The way you described the incident was false, so I had to correct you.

4) The story about David Parker's son being assaulted because of his father's views is a myth. The superintendent issued a press release describing what actually happened: some boys fought over seating in the cafeteria, and only one student actually hit Parker's son, although others were watching. The bully was punished, and the two boys actually had a playdate soon after. (Note: Mass Resistance seems to be the only group in the world that doesn't believe this. Apparently every student who was there and the teacher who broke up the fight got it wrong. And the principal, superintendent, police, District Attorney, and DSS all conspired to cover up the savage, premeditated beating of a 6-year-old boy. I know not even you believe this.)

5) PNE, the company that removed the Leviticus 18:22 billboard, is a private organization and has nothing to do with the New York State government So your point that

[I]t's now illegal to publicly quote Leviticus in New York City

is wrong. It is absolutely legal to publicly quote Leviticus in New York City.

Also, about Catholic Charities, this is about discrimination law, not gay marriage. Discrimination law forced the charity to allow gay couples to adopt or else not receive government money.

***********************

You and I seem to be having communication issues. I hope this comment helps clear up some of the facts I believe you got wrong. If not, how about emailing me so we can work this out via Skype? We'll talk it out and then post one comment with our conclusions.

My email address is blastroot@gmail.com. Think about it.

Parker had a right to protest. You want to reduce that to trespassing? That is unjust.

No. It. Isn't. You can't just refuse to leave someone else's property. Did you even read the article I linked to?

It looks like we'll have to agree to disagree about issues 2) and 5). Do you at least agree with me that AW seriously distorted (or made up) facts about each of 1)-6)?

State the criteria for assessing bigotry such that your own words and actions can be judged fairly along with those you would prefer to accuse and assume guilty.

You told a falsehood about me in your comments above. You also said that assumption of guilt was wrong and yet you did not object to Garrett doing just that; instead you jumped in to deflect from his lack of response to a query that arose directly from his own comments.

I realize that most SSMers are hell-bent on avoiding moral accountability, but you are here exemplifying the pattern that SSMers followed in their onslaught against Blankenhorn. It is not something you can deny as being real -- even by your own words in this comment section.

Your drive-by attacks are not nearly as informative as you might imagine, Spunky. Not nearly as civil. Not nearly as factual. But readers can find them useful for spotting the telltale signs of the double standards of the SSM campaign.

That is utter nonsense. But it clearly is okay with Spunky as an excuse for abuse of churches and of people whose consciences do not conform to the pro-SSM agenda.

Likewise regarding the case of Vicki Knox. Excuses, excuses, excuses for the pro-bigoted expectations of the SSM campaign.

David Parker's case is also an opportunity for SSMers, like Spunky, to excuse abuse. Parker had a right to protest. You want to reduce that to trespassing? That is unjust. But this is a good example of what the SSM campaign seeks to impose on society. Spunky's excuses reinforce it as Spunky portrays this and himself (or herself) as reasonable.

Such excuses do not debunk the gist of the actual problems posed by the SSM campaign's own portrayl of the conflict between the SSM idea and the marriage idea.

Thanks for posting my comments--would you mind deleting this and my last 3 other comments (76-78)?

Thanks.

I will now elaborate on my previous assertion that most of the events you reference are either irrelevant or false.

False claims:

1)

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" could be used to prosecute pastors for quoting the Bible on homosexual sex.

This is false. Eric Holder never said this. Of course, I could have told you right off the bat that this was wrong since hate crimes don't make anything illegal. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred. Since quoting the Bible is certainly not a crime, it can't possibly be a hate crime.

@ AW

I will now elaborate on my previous assertion that most of the events you reference are either irrelevant or false.

False claims:

1)

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" could be used to prosecute pastors for quoting the Bible on homosexual sex.

This is false. Eric Holder never said this. I searched and searched for a quotation of this and never found it, even from the most anti-gay, anti-hate crime websites. Of course, I could have told you right off the bat that this was wrong since hate crimes don't make anything illegal. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred. Since quoting the Bible is certainly not a crime, it can't possibly be a hate crime.

New York's 'anti-discrimination' law has been used to censor any mention of Biblical passages opposing homosexual sex.

This is obviously false and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the term "anti-discrimination." In fact, this doesn't even make any sense. "Any mention" of anti-gay biblical passages? Somehow I doubt it. Even if you cite a specific event, your wording is way to vague to possibly be true. (I can imagine that somewhere in NYC, some police officer decided to unfairly and improperly censor someone and claimed it was legal by anti-discrimination law. This is bad, but it's nothing close to what you said.)

4)

In Madison, Wisconsin an "ex-gay" Christian named David Ott was arrested on “hate crimes” charges for talking about his rejection of his former lifestyle, for which he faced up to $10,000 in fines and a year in jail.

False. Also note this happened in 1997, before any of us were even thinking about gay marriage or hate crimes.

5)

In 2011, teacher Vicki Knox faced the loss of her job for calling homosexuality a sin on her Facebook page.

It was worse than that.

6)

In Massachusetts in 2005, David Parker was arrested for objecting to the teaching of homosexuality to his kindergarten-age son.

Untrue. He was arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave his son's elementary school campus. This also has nothing to do with SSM.

In fact, none of these thing you've cited have anything to do with the legalization of gay marriage.

*********************

I have to admit I don't want to bother with your other examples, so I'll just summarize my point: they are true, and they have little or nothing to do with SSM. So when you say things like

To those who keep claiming the issue is about "equal recognition of relationships" and that SSM won't harm Christians:

you're drawing a false equivalence between SSM and discrimination law. This may not have been your intention, but this is how your writing comes across. You need to be much more careful about the parallels you draw and about the accuracy of your statements. In the future, give the proper background to each event you reference, and cite your sources so one can easily check the accuracy of your statements.

@ AW

I will now elaborate on my previous assertion that most of the events you reference are either irrelevant or false.

False claims:

1)

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" could be used to prosecute pastors for quoting the Bible on homosexual sex.

This is false. Eric Holder never said this. I searched and searched for a quotation of this and never found it, even from the most anti-gay, anti-hate crime websites. Of course, I could have told you right off the bat that this was wrong since hate crimes don't make anything illegal. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by hatred. Since quoting the Bible is certainly not a crime, it can't possibly be a hate crime.

More coming...

He did all that for some reason other than playing interference for Garrett who already fled after his own drive-by.

Or so he says. No matter,the distance between reality (what is actually said by those with whom Spunky plays the arbitrary contrarian) and Spunky's misrepresentations is stark and will go uncorrected by himself. So when he is corrected by others Spunky will elide but even that fits the pattern of how SSMers have treated Blankenhorn'strong and well reasoned case for the twosexed basis of marriage. Obstinacy of this sort fits the definition of bigotry. This is why SSMers deliberately elide the query about their criteria for assessing bigotry. It is why they do drive-bys and feign civil engagement in the public discourse.

The problem is deeper than this or that individual's failings. The SSM idea and the proSSM complaint are absurdities built upon a litany of falsehoods. It is a lousy idea that seems to require that its supporters become more and more stupid in their remarks. It is self-defeating but that wont stop them,apparently. They are in the grip of other motivations ... hence the obstinate rejection of reason and of sound argumentation and authentic civil discourse.

I truly wish it were otherwise.

You first wrote:

in those [sic] states and countries that have laws allowing SSM, Christians have already been forced to host same-sex weddings in their churches or otherwise participate in them, penalized (sometimes imprisoned) for publicly disagreeing with the policy or reading from the Bible on the subject , etc.

When I asked you to produce a single instance of this in the US, you listed 2 examples and 18 (!!)non-examples. None of these involved churches at all, and only the last two involved anyone getting arrested for invoking the Bible. (And by the way, while those 2 incidents were bad, charges were dropped against Pastor Holick. I imagine something similar happened with the seven Christians in Elmira. This leads me to believe that these were more about police abusing their power than anti-Christian policy.)

If you indeed wanted to list

cases in the U.S. in which Christians have faced various penalties for refusing to take part in gay weddings or similar ceremonies, publicly opposing homosexual sex, etc; as well as cases in which government officials have admitted that the law now allows prosecution of such people.

then you should have said that in the first place, or at least admitted you were wrong before and are correcting what you said before.

In the next few comments, I will explain why AW's 18 non-examples are more about discrimination law than about gay marriage. I will also show that many of them are completely false. But this will have to wait a day.

Until then...

Gayness is irrelevant to marriage. It is central to SSM. The conflct is between the marriage idea and the SSM idea which is an outrigh t rejection of the core meaning of marriage. No SSMer can claim otherwise without blatant contradictions.

Progay bigotry is a reality and it is mainstream among SSMers ... including the leadership of the SSM campaign.

Is ther bigtry among marriage defenders?Yes but it is not widespread and it is not the basis for the core meaning of marriage It is also irrelevant to marriage and marriage law. Bigotry is firmly and reliably denounced because of all of the above.

The contrast could not be more pronounced between the sides.

Bigotry
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2012/01/bigotry.html

Bigotry: The tenets or actions of a bigot; obstinate or blind attachment to a particular belief system or to certain tenets; unreasoning zeal; intolerance.

--

Note that in one sense to define 'bigotry' it is necessary to define 'bigot'. That means identifying actions or tenets that delineate bigotry.

The quality of the attachment is also a measure of bigotry.

--

Bigot: A person obstinately and unreasonably attached to a particular belief, opinion, or practice; a person blindly attached to any opinion, belief system, or group, and bitterly intolerant of those who believe differently.

Note that in this sense the definitive aspect is not this or that particular belief or viewpoint. The defining characteristics are unreasoning zeal or blind attachment and bitter intolerance.

--

Thus there is the sense of bigotry defined by certain tenets. And there is the sense of bigotry defined by characteristic behavior including how one responds to a different tenet. Likewise with an opinion or an action or a practice or a group.

At times the quality of the attachment is bigoted but is also distinct from that to which the attachment has been formed. At times, vice versa. And, at times, the distinction is one without a difference.

--

Read Blankenhorn's remarks for his nuanced change of position. His arguments for marriage are strong and sound; but SSMers obstinately object because they want to talk about something else than marriage -- something Blankenhorn called (and SSMers approvingly credit him for saying as much) "homosexual love".

Change the topic. Do not discuss marriage itself. The evidence for Blankenhorn's pro-marriage position abounds but ignore and deny it. Change the topic to "homosexual love" and assume bigotry as the reason to switch.

" If what Garrett said was true, then Randy E. King deserves no defense whatsoever."

Ah, but the accusation was made and the assumption of guilt was expressed. You did not object then. Nor now.

If you think it a ridiculous question to ask if you consider yourself a progay bigot, then, you are on the hook to reconcile that with your pro-SSM view which, Spunky, (according to your own remarks on the matter) does rely on an assumption of bigotry inherent to the bride-groom requirement.

That was your point in comment #36, surely. But that has zilch to do with the marriage law and everything to do with gay identity politics.

At first you frivolously mirrored my comment, then you said it was really (and obviously -- hence the "sigh") an expression of disagreement with what I had said, but now you go on to replace what I actually said with your own fabricated misrepresentation.

That query is about Garrett's remarks (here and elsewhere) and not about mine. You play interference for Garrett who has abandoned the thread. The query still stands.

It is not accusatory. It is plainly stated. Does Garrett consider himself a pro-gay bigot? It is anticipated that he would say, no. Okay, then, he owes the discussion his criteria for assessing bigotry. If he runs from that, then, his own words accuse him, not mine.

----

Now, readers might notice the pattern and see how that fits the context -- rather glaringly -- of the Blankenhorn story.

The SSM campaign is very fond of seeking to shut people out of the public discourse. Do not even pretend otherwise.

Spunky, your own false accusations speak loudly in contradiction of your self-claimed pose of wisdom, maturity, and civility.

I have addressed the content of what SSMers have said. That is not a personalized attack.

On the other hand, you quoted but then did not respond to the two-part query that arose from your own attempt to play interference for Garrett.

I asked but you elided:

1. Why should what you said earlier be taken as a truthful expression of your pro-SSM view?

2. What you said has not been reconciled -- within your response -- with your pro-SSM view (as stated in comments here and other comment sections).

Instead you chose to attack me personally for an attitude you falsely attributed to me. State the criteria for assessing bigotry such that your own words and actions can be judged fairly along with those you would prefer to accuse and assume guilty.

I feel I adequately explained my position, and that most readers could follow my reasoning. If you cannot, then we will likely have to discuss this person-to-person. If you want to Skype, let me know. You know how to reach me.

By the way, I have another comment to your post #59, but it'll take some time to get through moderation.

This thread, whose title is "National Organization for Marriage Says 'Acceptance' of Gay Marriage Is No Path To Follow," is not appropriate either.

Chairm: "Your comment merely mirrored what I had asked of Garrett. So it can't be that you disagree so much with what I asked."

*Sigh*

I'll summarize my thoughts here, but this is my last post on the matter.

Chairm, I have several problems with your comment #35. First, it is neither kind nor wise to accuse someone of being a "progay [sic] bigot" when he said nothing that was either pro-gay or bigoted. In comment #53 you continued to imply that Garrett needed to justify his comment or else deserve the label "progay [sic] bigot." This type of guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude is offensive, immature, and detrimental to civil discourse (the irony here should be evident). This is something you frequently do: rather than argue the issue at hand, you attack people who you believe are "progay [sic]," either by labeling them as bigots or by assuming their beliefs and actions as bigoted, as though all "SSMers" are Perez Hilton.

Secondly, not only is your accusation that Garrett is a "progay [sic] bigot" absurd and unfair, but it also serves to defend Randy E. King. If what Garrett said was true, then Randy E. King deserves no defense whatsoever.

By redirecting your own ridiculous questions back at you, I was hoping for you (and the unfortunate other souls who may think like you) to understand the absurdity of what you said. It seems I was unsuccessful. As for "playing interference," I would be shocked if Garrett actually responded to such nonsense, so I'm not really interfering with anything.

As I said before, I'm not discussing this any further, so you're free to have the last word. Understand though that I will not respond to any other questions you may have for me on this topic unless it's via email (or in a more appropriate thread, such as one on civil discourse).

On the other hand, responses to comment #36, which does deal with the pertinent issue, are more than welcome.

You have not answered my query in your response.

1. Why should what you said earlier be taken as a truthful expression of your pro-SSM view?

2. What you said has not been reconciled -- within your response -- with your pro-SSM view (as stated in comments here and other comment sections).

If, for example, freedom of expression has a reality independent of the law -- and so the law must conform to that reality rather than the other way around, then, is not the same also true of the moral truth of marriage?

The law is not the fountain of wisdom on the marriage issue. Nor is the First Amendment (part of the law) the fountain of wisdom on the issue of freedom of expression.

Today, freedom of expression and freedom of religion (as you described) already exists -- under the bride-groom requirement of marriage. But the SSM campaign seeks to tarnish societal support for that requirement as the moral and legal equivalent of racism.

This is about the truth of marriage and societal recognition of that truth. It is not about compartmentalizing religious support for that truth.

Your comment merely mirrored what I had asked of Garrett. So it can't be that you disagree so much with what I asked.

Playing interference is the more likely reason for your comment, Spunky, and we do not need email to discuss that here.

Nice job responding to post #45 right before I asked you to.

I'll try to be brief. (Again, if you want a longer answer, email me.) Just because people should have the right to do something doesn't mean a church should have to take part in a religious practice that violates said church's religion. And I feel it's obvious that any kind of speech that expresses a viewpoint should be legal under the First Amendment.

This goes both ways. If a church doesn't want to marry an opposite-sex couple for religious reasons, that's fine too. For example, Catholicism does not recognize a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic, so a Catholic church should have every right not to marry such a couple. However, other churches that do recognize such marriages should have the right to marry these couples.

Does that clear things up?

I have never used any other handles in the NOM Blog or the Ruth Blog. This thread is the first I've commented on in a while.

I "lept [sic] to play interference" because I objected to what you wrote. I don't want to get into it here, as it would detract from the main subject of the thread, but I would be happy to discuss it with you further. Feel free to email me at blastroot@gmail.com if you want further explanation.

In the meantime, maybe you can respond to my comment #36 (or even #45 if you want) so we can get this discussion back on track. Or, if you think there's no point, don't.

"No church should be forced to host or participate in a same-sex wedding, and certainly no one should be legally punished, much less imprisoned, for expressing moral or religious views."

Why do you say that? Please reconcile this with your pro-SSM view.

You made an assertion:

"There is nothing inherently wrong with consensual homosexual love between two adults."

When you added the qualifier, consensual, you clearly did not mean to invoke love.

You meant to invoke same-sex sexual behavior.

Please backup your assertion about same-sex sexual behavior. A sound moral argument is now your obligation to public discourse, given your pro-SSM viewpoint, as you described it, depends on your moralism.

SSMers stand opposed. But without sound argumentation. That is a key criterion of bigotry.

I ask because you have lept to play interference on behalf of "Garrett" whose comment does not "further public discourse" (his phrase as quoted).

I do maintain that a SS"M" is a counterfeit to the real thing, and a real threat to social stability, and genuine rights. You're right--we can't ignore them, because they produce real, negative consequences for every single citizen. They are genuine legal constructs, but they must be abolished, and prevented, using all legal/legislative means possible.

OK, I'm glad you can give arguments as to why we should not give legal marriage to same-sex couples and aren't content to just refuse to acknowledge them by declaring them counterfeits. They are legal marriages and their existence in reality does real things, we can't just ignore them or be satisfied to dispute their validity.

John Howard, to answer your query, I don't support same-sex couples conceiving offspring as they really can't do it "together;" one will always be an on-looker, and the child will be befreft of their opposite-sexed parent. Children shouldn't be conceived as lab experiements to assuage an adults desire to parent. Why bother opposing SSM? Because allowing the lie of SSM to sweep the land will bring great sorrow on the innocent; needless heartbreak that can be prevented by simply not allowing such a counterfeit of SSM to proceed forth in the first place. Besides most "SS" couples are neither homosexual, gay, or even SSA. They wouldn't qualify for marriage anyway. I have made many, many, many logical arguments for opposing SSM. Feel free to go back through the NOM blog for the last several years, if you'd like to see them.
Regards.

Then why do you bother with opposing it? Why don't you just ignore the whole issue and let states marry same-sex couples if they want to? And if you do have a reason you think states should not pronounce same-sex couples to be married, then don't make arguments that are bereft of reason and logic, use the reason that it actually matters.

And DOE, I still don't know: do you think the state should allow same-sex couples to conceive offspring together if a lab offers a way to do that?

Christians (and Mormons) say "that's against my religion so I (and everyone else) will not do it"

While I support gay marriage and do believe it is about "equal recognition of relationships," I do not support any of the other things you cited. No church should be forced to host or participate in a same-sex wedding, and certainly no one should be legally punished, much less imprisoned, for expressing moral or religious views.

However, I don't believe any of this has happened in the US, since the First Amendment should single-handedly prevent all of this. Can you please send me some links to incidents you're describing? Again, please limit this to the US.

I hope this linguistic ambiguity doesn't lead to the downfall of civilization (I think Confucius might've said it would!)

There is nothing inherently wrong with consensual homosexual love between two adults (I know the Bible can be interpreted to say it is wrong, but I disagree. The Bible says a lot of things are wrong...). However, homosexuals in society today are denigrated from when they are young to when they are old, and lack equal legal recognition of the validity of their relationships.

I know you have a right to believe that homosexuality is a sin. That does not mean it's okay for the U.S. government to discriminate against homosexuals. Nobody is ever going to force you to marry someone of the same gender, nobody is ever going to force you to attend a same-sex marriage. Federal law is not Christian law, and must be based on reason, not faith.

I recall the wonderful day after the victory of Prop 8, where the pseudo-marriage activists began tying up traffic to express their displeasure with the vote.

They began to fight the day after they lost.

Similarly, Blankenhorn desires to impose his values concerning the equal dignity of homosexual relationships.

That is not on the ballot this November, so you are welcome to proceed as if it were.

We will be defending marriage.

Let's compare notes in November and see how it all works out.

I recall the wonderfully day after the victory of Prop 8, where the pseudo-marriage activists began tying up traffic to express their displeasure with the vote.

They began to fight the day after they lost.

Similarly, Blankenhorn desires to impose his values concerning the equal dignity of homosexual relationships.

That ism not on the ballot this November, so you are welcome to proceed as if it were.

We will be defending marriage.

Let's compare notes in November and see how it all works out.

Chairm, what, if anything, have you done in comments to "further civil discourse"? Are you an antigay bigot? If not, please state your criteria for assessing bigotry.

It is now a straightforward, gold-old-fashioned, winner-takes-all front in the culture war, and this time we get to vote.

It's time for some smash mouth political football now.

David Blankenhorn: "I have written these things in my book and said them in my testimony, and I believe them today. I am not recanting any of it.

But there are more good things under heaven than these beliefs. For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love. I don’t believe that opposite-sex and same-sex relationships are the same, but I do believe, with growing numbers of Americans, that the time for denigrating or stigmatizing same-sex relationships is over. Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness."

"[T]o my deep regret, much of the opposition to gay marriage seems to stem, at least in part, from an underlying anti-gay animus. To me, a Southerner by birth whose formative moral experience was the civil rights movement, this fact is profoundly disturbing."

Blankenhorn does not succumb to anything or anyone. Rather, he realizes that his beliefs about marriage aren't as important as his belief that homosexual couples deserve equality.

Compliance with bigotry is not the way forward. It is appeasement in the face of the progay bigotry that aims at entrenching the supermacy of gay identity politics.

From Encarta:

Whore: somebody who is regarded as willing to set aside personal integrity in order to obtain something, usually for selfish motives.

Walker’s sham trial was an obvious affront to judicial integrity; yet these miscreants cried tears of joy as they celebrated in the streets after this blatant violation of their countrymen’s constitutional rights. When the SCOTUS smack down comes I will be in those same streets defiantly stating:

“Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed' JOB 38:11

Paul Mc, that clown-time pseudo-marriage troll, just decided that the definition of rational is anyone who, like him, hash;t quite figured out where children come from, or what marriage is.

Propaganda by redefinition of words, the very essence of the marriage corruption spiel.

LBGT couples getting married in a societal good. Period. No evidence you can bring would persuade any judge or rational bystander otherwise.

You embody the most important part of Blankenhorn's piece: that the anti-SSM fight is really about an underlying animus towards homosexuality. You wear your hatred on your sleeve, even though homosexual couples just want the ability to love each other and be treated equally by the government. But sure, call me wrong and talk of the doom of all civilization -- I'm sure people will find that very convincing. There is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, but you don't care about that and will forever refuse to acknowledge it.

Also, the post earlier in which someone compared the SSM movement to Hitler... the irony is astounding.

Read up on Jerry Sandusky and his refusal to acknowledge his crimes even when faced with dozens of eyewitness accounts. These miscreants will take their denial to the grave; holding out hope that their perverted sense of gratification would somehow see them through to the other side.

So goes the life of an addict.

"No it won't" is an excuse; not a rational. You just proved my point, but you are too self absorbed to realize it.

We shall get over it once we have defeated pseudo-marriage four more times this November, defeated Obama, and secured the conditions under which humanity's most important institution is secured against the insane desire to transform it into a legal fiction designed to convey benefits upon non-marriage relationships.

Until then.

Another principle characteristic of the sociopath is an inability to fill empathy for their victims coupled with no sense of personal responsibility for the things they do.

He lacked the intestinal fortitude for the fight.

Great events are now in motion across the global financial system, and also, especially, with respect to the Catholic Church in Europe.

The New Barbarism sweeping Europe as its economy implodes can be viewed in all its astonishing inversion of truth, beauty, and goodness here:

http://gloria.tv/?media=301724

The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has said that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is a settled issue and he wouldn’t try to reverse it even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and the GOP captures the Senate. “We fought that fight,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), adding that his focus was on getting “the things that our war-fighters need.

Confucius spoke from first hand accounts; as an eyewitness to events that led to the fall of cavitations.

These heathen are regressive; not the progressives they claim themselves to be.

HISTORY HAS PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT APPEASING AN AGGRESSOR DOES NOT GET YOU PEACE BUT ONLY UNLEASHES MORE AGGRESSION FROM THE AGGRESOR!!!!!!!!!!

There's tide of anti-s-s marriage organizations like the Institute for Family Values and now a stalwart of the GOP, once also a strong opponent of s-s-marriage who have changed their minds. The pages of history are starting to turn just a little faster. But perhaps some may prefer that that book be burned.

The rest of us will carry on. Thanks Brian and everyone at NOM for all you do.

Such a wise and discerning fellow.

You can have him.

The former vice president added, “Mary and Heather and their children are very important and much loved members of our family and we wish them every happiness.”

\

Blankenhorn, unfortunately, can be left in the dust as we crush the marriage redefinition movement, and restore our marriage culture.

Brian is exactly right: Blankenhorn's words will have the same effect on voters that it did in NC. None.

Thank you for all that you do, NOM.