NOM BLOG

It Begins: Christian Wedding Vendor in Maryland Forced to Shut Down Over SSM

 

The ballot shown to Maryland voters used 25 words to described the redefinition of marriage but over 70 words claiming false religious exemptions for people and institutions who disagree with redefined marriage.

Sure enough, as we warned, citizens in Maryland who disagree with redefined marriage are now being forced out of the public square and are NOT protected under the redefining marriage law passed in Maryland:

An Annapolis wedding vendor plans to ask Maryland's General Assembly to give his company and others like him the right to refuse services to gay couples on religious grounds.

In November, Marylanders voted to uphold a law, passed by the General Assembly during the 2012 legislative session, that legalized same-sex marriages starting Jan. 1.

"The law exempts my minister from doing same-sex weddings, and the Knights of Columbus don’t have to rent out their hall for a gay wedding reception, but somehow my religious convictions don’t count for anything," Discover Annapolis Tours owner Matt Grubbs wrote in an email.

The email was provided to Patch by Chris Belkot on Nov. 29. He received it from Grubbs after Belkot inquired about using the company's wedding services this spring.

Grubbs confirmed the email, and said his attorney advised him to shut down the wedding part of his business immediately because he could be sued for refusing services to same-sex couples.

"We’re a Christian-owned company, and we just can't support gay marriages," Grubbs said. "We're not trying to make a statement. We're not trying to make a point. We're just trying to be faithful Christians."

The decision will cost him approximately $50,000 a year in revenue. -- Annapolis Patch

56 Comments

  1. Son of Adam
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Yet another example of how SS"M" doesn't effect anyone.

  2. Scott Rose
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

    NOM is misrepresenting -- (lying about) -- what the wording of the ballot measure said, as anybody can verify by clicking on the link in the post above and reading the ballot measure.

  3. Ash
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    It's unfortunate, but I'm sort of thankful that there was a good attorney on staff that gave them sound advice and prevented the turmoil that comes from a sudden lawsuit and years of litigation and threats.

    As we see with numerous other cases, LGBTs are not content with having the marriage label, but want to force everyone to be a part of the "celebration." The lawyer knew this and advised the company accordingly.

    Fifty thousand in lost profit, a loss in state revenue, and a loss for the real marriages that would have liked to use that service.

    On a brighter note, perhaps there is hope that the general assembly will permit more exemptions. And, of course, several of the cases involving photographers, etc. have not fully worked their way through the courts. It may turn out that not providing wedding services isn't a form of discrimination.

  4. Jon
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    @Scott Rose
    You are indeed correct, and this post by NOM is quite misleading. I'm not even sure how Discover Annapolis Tours is a "Wedding Vendor" at all -- they offer transportation for a variety of events. Because they are not a religious institution, they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation. This discrimination would be illegal regardless of the legality of same-sex marriage.

  5. OvercameSSA
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

    @Scott Rose -

    I read the ballot measure. It's designed to sound like a broad exemption where anyone with a religious objection can refuse to participate in a so-called gay "marriage" ceremony, but the exemption is really quite narrow. e.g., religious organizations are exempt, but not religious individuals who run a marriage business.

    Given the choice of the express Constitutional freedom of religion or celebration of sodomy, Marylanders chose sodomy. Let them own it.

  6. Marc Paul
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

    In the provision of services to the paying public, no, your convictions mean nothing.

    Damn right.

  7. OvercameSSA
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    "your convictions mean nothing"

    Surprise comment from one who has no moral convictions, vigilant in forcing tolerance of one's performance of perverted acts involving misuse of one's reproductive and excretive organs with the same sex.

    It's bizarro world.

  8. M. jones
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    Extremists seem to easily forget that the Lord's truth about marriage, is as old as the book of Genesis itself.

  9. Annapolis Sailor
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    My family will no longer be planning vacations in Maryland. We will forego our sailing weekends in Annapolis, and instead head south to the more family-friendly Virginia Beach. Instead of Deep Creek Lake, we will be skiing in West Virginia. We will make one exception, however, for Sandy Cove, which will surely never surrender its commitment to traditional marriage and the family. We will go out of our way to support those businesses whose religious freedoms are being trampled when opportunites arise. A state which tramples the First Amendment in order to celebrate deadly vice as public virtue is no longer a part of the America we love.

  10. Meeby
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

    This is another brick in the wall of foundation of civilization. At some point during the decay of moral standards, civilizations and governments fall. This is a fact the these miscreants just simply ignore.

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    Even the title, the "Civil Marriage Protection Act," is a lie. Gullible and clueless Maryland voters are going to get exactly what they asked for.

    I'm sorry for them, but elections have consequences.

    Mr. Grubbs should become a mail-order minister, then claim exemption.

  12. sw
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    soon to be relocating from Maryland. Away from a haven for the gay lifestyle.

  13. John B.
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    "Forced to shut down"? Oh please, could NOM be a bit more honest about this? They are CHOOSING to shut down because they want to discriminate against same-sex couples, and fear they will not be allowed to do so legally. They could choose not to discriminate, but apparently that's something they won't consider.

    But did this "wedding vendor" have the right to turn away African American, Mormon, Jewish, or interracial weddings as long as they had sincere religious objections? Why or why not?

  14. Son of Adam
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

    Oh, sure John B. Blame the victim. They have been coerced into shutting down because they are being denied their constitutional right to freedom religion and the free expression thereof to hostile forces that are willfully ignorant of the distinction between the values that support the natural family and racism.

  15. MarkOH
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    In Maryland, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone regarding sexual orientation as well as race, etc.

  16. Zack
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    @John B

    "They are CHOOSING to shut down because they want to discriminate against same-sex couples, and fear they will not be allowed to do so legally."

    They feared their 1st amendment rights would be violated should they choose only to service male/female couples. How is that not discriminating?

    "They could choose not to discriminate, but apparently that's something they won't consider."

    I have yet to hear a coherent logical argument or reason as to why believing Marriage is between a man and a woman is "discriminatory".

  17. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

    He was not forced to shut down. He was told by his lawyer that he was not allowed to discriminate. He then chose to shut his business down rather than provide services to people. It was entirely his choice to shut his business down rather than provide services to people that he thought were icky. No one is allowed to discriminate except for religious organizations. This man ran a bus service. This is not a religious organization.

  18. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Zack,

    You asked for a logical argument as to why believing marriage is between a man and woman is "discriminatory ". You ask the wrong question. No one thinks that believing that is discriminatory. You can believe anything you like. However if you discriminate against people because of your beliefs that is the problem.

    This man decided that he would not provide services to one group of people based on their sexuality. That is discriminatory. It has nothing to do with his personal belief about men and women and marriage. That part of it, as long as it's stuck in his head, is perfectly fine. However refusing to provide services is discriminatory.

  19. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam,

    The fact that he provides services that are used at weddings does not make him a religious organization. His constitutional right to freedom of religion and the free expression thereof has not in any way been compromised.

    The man runs a bus company. When you can show me that busing people from one place to another is a religious sacrament, then we can talk about freedom of religion. Until such time as you can however, What we are talking about is simply a business like any other that cannot discriminate against people based on their sexuality. Plain and simple.

  20. Son of Adam
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    Since when were religious liberties limited to religious organizations but not individuals, AnonyGrl? Where in the Constitution is such a restriction found?

    You are just inventing arbitrary restrictions against our civil liberties in order to rationalize your own bias. That we can believe anything we want, but we are not allowed to freely exercise our religious beliefs, even though the Constitution says we can. And, yes, that right DOES include individuals for this country was founded on INDIVIDUAL rights. Not group rights or couple's rights or any other kind of rights often used to promote government sponsored ideologies.

  21. Son of Adam
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    "In Maryland, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone regarding sexual orientation as well as race, etc."

    And we all know that no law can EVER conflict with the US Constitution!

  22. M. jones
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    Forgive thy people of Maryland, they no not what horrible thing they have done.

  23. Ken
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

    Of course, this is only a problem if Jesus died on the cross for our genitals. These followers of Artemis, disguised as Christians, have got to get over their sexual obsession.

    A business is not a church. A business that is licensed to serve the public must serve the public.

  24. Dan
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Romans 1:26ff

  25. MarkOH
    Posted December 6, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, your response makes no sense.

  26. Randy
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:56 am | Permalink

    And this just shows how SSM effects others while the gay activists try and say that SSM doesnt effects others. This story shows what the gay community is saying is not true.

  27. Zack
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    @Anoygirl

    "However if you discriminate against people because of your beliefs that is the problem."

    Why? Why should someone exercising the first amendment be punished? How is he only servicing male/female couples hurting you or hurting homosexuals? Why do you think tolerance means compulsory agreement?

    "It has nothing to do with his personal belief about men and women and marriage. That part of it, as long as it's stuck in his head, is perfectly fine. However refusing to provide services is discriminatory."

    It has everything to do with his personal belief. He thinks Marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether or not he denied anyone is irrelevant, the fact that he cannot operate a business in accordance with his beliefs is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.

  28. Zack
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:28 am | Permalink

    EDIT: cannot operate a business in accordance with his beliefs without a lawsuit is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.*

  29. Son of Adam
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    "Son of Adam, your response makes no sense."

    I wouldn't expect it to for one sophomoric enough to mistake an exit for an entrance.

  30. Son of Adam
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 3:29 am | Permalink

    "A business is not a church. A business that is licensed to serve the public must serve the public."

    Not at the expense of their first amendment constitutional rights, which DOES apply to individuals, not just churches.

  31. Good News
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 5:08 am | Permalink

    If I have a passion for plants and wild flowers and develop a photography business around my interest, I want the right to say “no” to some one who asks me to take pictures of his car. For that is not my line of work! I'm an artist, creative, I have a personal interest in the object of my work or I cannot do my work.
    If I have a passion or interest in man-woman unions and want to offer my services of photography for this reason, I should not be forced to photograph something other than that, like baby pictures, sporting events, man-man unions etc. For that does not interest me. And I should not have to bring up my religion, or lack of religion, for such a basic freedom.
    The words, “sorry, that is not my line of work” should suffice in this case.

  32. Good News
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 5:35 am | Permalink

    I asked a professional photographer to take a series of pornographic photos of some friends of mine.
    Pornography is completely legal, accepted and profitable, by law and by our culture (my daughter was even obliged, for her education, to see some in her University class the other day). And this portrait and family photographer refused to take these pictures for me. He simply said that it was not what he does. How dare he! What gives him the right! When his job is taking pictures of people.
    I'm suing him. Until he takes these pictures for me, or until he is punished.

  33. OvercameSSA
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    SoA, I think people are missing the point that this is a guy with religious convictions who by this law is not entitled to exercise those convictions in running his own business.

    The Maryland ballot was misleading in that it implied that anyone with religious disagreement to so-called ss"m," was exempt from the ss"m" law. In reality, it only exempted religious organizations. Total First Amendment violation; where's the Constitutional challenge?

  34. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Good News,

    Your analogy fails utterly, and on two points.

    Did the photographer refuse because you are straight? Does he take pornographic pics of people who are not? If so, you have a case. If not, your point is completely spurious...

  35. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    Over'SSM,

    It would violate the 14th amendment to allow businesses that are not churches to discriminate. And, in the civil rights arena, that takes precedence. It does not violate the 1st amendment to rule that a business cannot discriminate, and we have many civil rights acts that demonstrate this.

  36. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    SoA

    ""A business is not a church. A business that is licensed to serve the public must serve the public."

    Not at the expense of their first amendment constitutional rights, which DOES apply to individuals, not just churches."

    It does not apply in the way that you seem to think it does. An individual is free to worship as he chooses, where he chooses. He is not free to run a business that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. That is not at all covered by freedom of religion. There are numerous civil rights acts that have defined this principle.

    Those same acts protect you. If you needed a particularly complicated surgery, and the best doctor who could do it refused to operate on Christians, where would that leave you? But the law protects you against such discrimination. Just as it protects people who seek services from other businesses.

  37. AnonyGrl
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Zack,

    "Why? Why should someone exercising the first amendment be punished? How is he only servicing male/female couples hurting you or hurting homosexuals? Why do you think tolerance means compulsory agreement?"

    Seriously? Do not understand how discrimination hurts people? It's exactly the same as refusing service in a restaurant to blacks or Jews.

    And, frankly, that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what harm discrimination causes. Societally you are telling people that it's okay to deny or mistreat others because you don't like who they are. And that is not okay! That is never okay!

  38. Son of Adam
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    It is YOUR analogy that fails utterly, AnonyGrl. That photographer did not refuse his services because the clients were gay. He did it because the act that he would be helping to support and celebrate violated his moral and religious convictions - that being the promotion of homosexual activity.

    There are restaurants and hotels who have no problem feeding and accommodating for the night blacks, gays, straights, Jews, or whatever. But they do have a problem with being coerced by the government into taking part in celebrating an activity - like homosexual ceremonies.

    Refusing services because you object to one's identity is NOT the same thing as refusing services because you object to a certain activity or practice.

  39. Son of Adam
    Posted December 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    It is YOUR analogy that fails utterly, AnonyGrl. That photographer did not refuse his services because the clients were gay. He did it because the act that he would be helping to support and celebrate violated his moral and religious convictions - that being the promotion of homosexual activity.

    There are restaurants and hotels who have no problem feeding and accommodating for the night blacks, gays, straights, Jews, or whatever. But they do have a problem with being coerced by the government into taking part in celebrating an activity - like homosexual ceremonies.

    Refusing services because you object to one's identity is NOT the same thing as refusing services because you object to a certain activity or practice.

  40. Chairm
    Posted December 8, 2012 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    SSMers who have commented here have said that the SSM law is designed to squelch freedom of conscience.

    They said it. That is what they wish to impose on all of society. Note the gay emphasis.

    The SSM law does not make gay identity mandatory for those who'd SSM and yet when a fellow citizen objects to treating non-marriage as marriage the SSMers pounce to make accusations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    SSM law is supposed to neutralize sexual orientation as a consideration. They say. But now we know, from their own words, that their gay emphasis is unmistakably their promise of pressing progay bigotry into the law.

    Scot Rose told his falsehood because the ballot measure was a lie in itself.

    Jon undermined Scott Rose by making a false distinction between religous freedom and religious organizations. Freedom of conscience is buried in his bigoted view of lawmaking and SSM.

    Marc Aul applauded bigotry by brazenly declaring that freedom of conscience mans nothing under SSM law.

    Note that it does not matter if these things are later found to be unconstitutional. These SSMers have showed their true colors right here, on the record, in their own words.

    John can't hide his glee that he thinks SSM law prohibits anyone from discriminating in favor of marriage over non-marriage.

    MarkOH thinsk that SS law has some sort of homosexual requirement and that is why anyone discriminating in favor of marriage is discriminating based on homosexual orientation. Oh wait. There was no such homosexual criterion for ineligibility to marry but somehow there is one for eligibility to SSM? What a confused notion of lawmaking MarkOH has.

    AnonGrl blathers on about her being stuck on stupid. Two men are not required to be homosexual to SSM. Shhe knows that is true. But she pretends that to favor marriage over SSM (which is not marriage) is only okay for religous organizations and she actually shows great ignorance of freedom of religion and conscience when she says this is fenced inside "worship". The ignorance is right there in her own words Ut the intent of supporters of the SSM law is obvious. Stomp out the marriage idea. Replace it with the SSM idea. Then discriminate against anyone who dissents with the specious substittion for marriage.

    Why? Ecause we are icky -- if we stray outside of the "worship" ghetto she would likes us to be quarentined. Fascist.

    Ken tries to mock us by snickering about genitals. Well if same-sex attraction is indifferent to genitals, then, the gay man would be happy to marry a woman. Ut we know that En is obsessed. Hence his progay bigotry seeps out of his mocking attitude.

    These SSMers have told us their view of SSM law. Believe them, readers, because they do mean it.

    To their shame.

    And we can take that as fair warning. Bigotry is their faith. T is the unreasoned obstinancy of little tyrants. Let them tell us more. Their own words accuse them.

  41. Chairm
    Posted December 8, 2012 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    SSMers who have commented here have said that the SSM law is designed to squelch freedom of conscience.

    They said it. That is what they wish to impose on all of society. Note the gay emphasis.

    The SSM law does not make gay identity mandatory for those who'd SSM and yet when a fellow citizen objects to treating non-marriage as marriage the SSMers pounce to make accusations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    SSM law is supposed to neutralize sexual orientation as a consideration. They say. But now we know, from their own words, that their gay emphasis is unmistakably their promise of pressing progay bigotry into the law.

    Scott Rose told his falsehood because the ballot measure was a lie in itself.

    Jon undermined Scott Rose by making a false distinction between religous freedom and religious organizations. Freedom of conscience is buried in his bigoted view of lawmaking and SSM.

    Marc Paul applauded such bigotry by brazenly declaring that freedom of conscience means nothing under SSM law.

    Note that it does not matter if these things are later found to be unconstitutional. These SSMers have showed their true colors right here, on the record, in their own words.

    John can't hide his glee that he thinks SSM law prohibits anyone from discriminating in favor of marriage over non-marriage.

    MarkOH thinks that SSM law has some sort of homosexual requirement and that is why anyone discriminating in favor of marriage is discriminating based on homosexual orientation. Oh wait. There was no such homosexual criterion for ineligibility to marry but somehow there is one for eligibility to SSM? What a confused notion of lawmaking MarkOH has. Marriage is the union of husband and wife. No law can change that, in fact.

    AnonyGrl blatheeds on about her being stuck on stupid. Two men are not required to be homosexual to SSM. She knows that is true. But she pretends that to favor marriage over SSM (which is not marriage) is only okay for religous organizations and she actually shows great ignorance of religious liberty and freedom of conscience when she says this is fenced inside "worship". The ignorance is right there in her own words but the intent of supporters of the SSM law is obvious. Stomp out the marriage idea. Replace it with the SSM idea. Then discriminate against anyone who dissents with the specious substitution for marriage.

    Why? Because we are icky -- if we stray outside of the "worship" ghetto she would likes us to be quarentined. Fascist.

    Ken tries to mock us by snickering about genitals. Well if same-sex sexual attraction is indifferent to genitals, then, the gay man would be happy to marry a woman. But we know that Ken is obsessed with genitals. Hence his progay bigotry seeps out of his mocking attitude.

    Meanwhile a man is not reducible to his genitals. Nor a woman. Sex difference is obviously deeper than that. But Ken's thinking is shallow and childish.

    These SSMers have told us their view of SSM law. Believe them, readers, because they do mean it.

    To their shame.

    And we can take that as fair warning. Their asserted supremacy of gay identity politics is driven by their progay bigotry. It is their dogma, their faith. The object of their worship-like devotion. It is the unreasoned obstinancy of little tyrants. Let them tell us more. Their own words accuse them.

  42. Zack
    Posted December 8, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    @Anonygirl

    "Seriously?"

    Yes.

    "Do not understand how discrimination hurts people? It's exactly the same as refusing service in a restaurant to blacks or Jews."

    A private business has every right to refuse service to who they want when they want. In this case, the man has every right to run his business in accordance with his religious beliefs. His decision should be respected, not challenged. Honestly, how could anyone feel good about themselves knowing they had to force someone to comply with their beliefs? Again, how does acceptance(or tolerance) mean compulsory agreement?

    "And, frankly, that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what harm discrimination causes."

    And I thought slippery slope was a fallacy. He's just one business, he's not harming anyone. If he won't service you, then move on to someone who will. It's called "free market".

    "Societally"

    That's not a word.

    " you are telling people that it's okay to deny or mistreat others because you don't like who they are. And that is not okay! That is never okay!"

    Only he has not animosity towards people who fancy the same gender. I agree discrimination is never okay, but he isn't discriminating. The man believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I asked earlier how supporting the male/female definition is discriminatory and I think I got my answer.

  43. Zack
    Posted December 8, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    typo: Only he has no*

  44. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Chairm, ALWAYS the long windy list of meaningless terms and phrases. As I have said countless times, the only criterion for marriage is that both are adults, of age, and consent (that means not forced). They can be one man and one woman, two men or two women. It's all marriage.

  45. Zack
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    "They can be one man and one woman, two men or two women. It's all marriage."

    Only it's not all Marriage. Same-sex couples lack the basic components of what a Marriage is. Now before you go off on a tirade about how I'm being "bigoted"(that would be an improper use of the term anyways), Marriage establishes the understanding for children that men and women are different.

  46. Son of Adam
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    "the only criterion for marriage is that both are adults, of age, and consent (that means not forced). They can be one man and one woman, two men or two women. It's all marriage."

    Opinion. Not fact.

  47. Chairm Ohn
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH, your list of criter is arbitrary. The SSM idea lacks a core that would justify the participants in friendship (that is all that SSM is minus yout gay emphasis which you claim is an illegitimate basis for lawmaking on eligibility).
    Non-adults can form friendships.

    Consenting participants in friendship might be adults or nonadults. We have justification for age limits on eligibility to marry but you have zilch for eligibility to SSM.

    Besides consent does not trump the ineligibility of some two-sexed relationships under tHe marriage law but that is your criterion for SSM eligibility

    Of course, that to which consent is given is the key, not consent alone. You make consent an empty thing. You rject the core meaning of marriage and so you cannot rely on it to draw boundaries of eligibility. The SSM idea is lacking in this regard.

    Marriage integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation ... this is a coherent whole. It merits societal preference over other types of relationships. Marriage is a friendship of a distinct kind.

    All your arbitrary list does is mimick marriage boundaries and claim that SSM is a metaphor or a symbol. That is not a good basis for lawmaking nor for stomping on freedom of conscience.

    Your list explicitly lacks a gay criterion for eligibility to SSM. Your admission.

    How does that not contradict your gay emphasis. It does make your progay bigotry obvious. The SSM law is not legitimate. All that flows from it is not legitimate. By even the supposed standard of non-contradiction and non-arbitrariness that runs through the pro-SSM complaint against the marriage idea.

    MarkOH, I doubt you can engage the actual disagreement. No matter. Your remarks signify your intent in support of the SSM law. The law is unjustified. The attack on the marriage idea is an attack on comity and on freedom of conscience and on the principles of good governance.

    Your little list, as superficial as the SSM idea, says a lot in a small space. Thank you for showing the SSMers villify for no good reason. Stubbornly.

    That is the hallmark of bigotry: unreasoning obstinancy in favor of your dogmatic beliefs. And so unreasoning obstinancy against others and their reasoned beliefs is the central theme of the progay bigotry that drives the SS campaign.

    I believe that you believe your obstinancy is good stuff. And your own rhetoric and arguments illustrate that your obstinancy is unreasoned. Readers are forewarned by the words you offer. Those words accuse you.

  48. Chairm Ohn
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH, always you disparage thoroughness because you rely in bumpersticker rhetoric and little else.

    SSM is meaningless but for the gay emphasis. And the meaning of that is the asserted supremacy of gay identity politics over all other considerations including freedom of conscience. Look up the words you can't comprehend.

    Meanwhile, good job in shooting the SSM law in its face. One shot. Concise. Thank you.

  49. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Zack, how, exactly, does combining two things show a child they are different? And, any child knows the difference between men and women, usually at a very young age. It doesn't take marriage to show them.

    But, what, in your view, ARE the basic components of marriage?

  50. MarkOH
    Posted December 9, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    Son of Adam, I was merely responding to Chairm's misstatement of my position, which he does regularly (I think, it's hard to make out what he is saying).

    So, what are you criterion for marriage and how does it exclude same sex couples? Because when you harm people, there should be a good reason for it.

  51. Son of Adam
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    Your views harm children, MarkOH, which are based on the hedonistic notion that the wants and desires of adults outweigh the needs of the most vulnerable members of our society.

    Marriage is based on biology, not sexual desires. If it was, bigamy and polygamy would be legal too, and they aren't. Why is that? The trouble with basing the definition of marriage on sexual desires is the hypocrisy of redefining marriage only for homosexuality while all the other sexual relationships like incest and polyamory continue to be discriminated against.

    Basing the definition of marriage on biology, however, allows for more consistency since biology works the same way no matter what your sexual desires are. Two men or two women cannot procreate together no matter how gay they are. But a man and a woman can, regardless of sexual preference.

    It is all about biology, not bigotry.

  52. Zack
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

    "Zack, how, exactly, does combining two things show a child they are different?"

    Motherhood and fatherhood.

    "any child knows the difference between men and women, usually at a very young age. It doesn't take marriage to show them. "

    It's "differences". Not "difference". Yes it does take Marriage because like said before, it shows the children the differences between Motherhood and Fatherhood. Dismantling that barrier tells children that the two genders are interchangeable and have no bearing on how a child develops(studies tell a completely different story).

    "But, what, in your view, ARE the basic components of marriage?"

    It's not a point of view. It's the truth. A man and a woman who come together to establish a family. Even without children, only a woman's nature can tame a man's nature. Statistically speaking(as well as biologically), this doesn't happen among people of the same-sex.

    If you want to be irrational Mark, then please have this discussion with someone else.

  53. Zack
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    EDIT: with someone else on a different message board*

  54. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH your bigotry is on the record.

    Your SSM idea fails to justify the criteria in your list.

    You don't have the moral and intellectual courage to justify the list. You just assert it and pretend iy is a magic potion.

    Consent is not a trump card for two-sexed relationships that are ineligible to marry. That is because of the core meaning of marriage. That core is the marriage idea. You reject it outright.

    What do you have to offer in its place?

    Your SSM idea is just friendship with a gay emphasis. That emphasis is arbitrary. You have not justified it. Your list of criteria excludes it. Yet your gay emphasis is obvious. And arbitrary.

    Hey, it was you definitive list of criteria. Your words accuse you of progay bigotry.

  55. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    MarkOH's gay emphasis is obvious But is there a gay requirement for those who'd SSM? Nope. And it does not even make his list of definitive criteria.

    MarkOH might retort that there is not straight criterion for eligibility to marry. But that negates the basis of the pro-SSM complaint. It is not a criterion for eligibility, anyway.

    He shot the SSM idea in the face.

    But that gay emphasis is there nonetheless. It is progay bigotry -- unreasoned obstinancy is the source of bigotry and, in the SSMer's case, that is the source of progay bigotry.

    The SSM idea is about a type of friendship that is indistinguisable from the rest of the types of relationships that populate nonmarriage category. MarkOH has conceded as much in previous exchanges.

    The marital type relationships is distinguished by what M arkOH rejects: integration of the sexes and provision for responsible procreation -- combined together as a coherent whole (aka the marriage idea, the core meaning of marriage, the union of husband and wife).

    To choose the type of relationship that is denoted by the SSM idea is to exercise a liberty to form a nonmarital arrangement. That is not a right denied based on gayness. MarkOH has conceded as much in previous exchanges. If the choice is nonmarital, and it is, then the participants exclude themselves from marriage. The law does not.

    Nothing on MarkOH's list of criteria save his gay emphasis. He has conceded this in earlier exchanges.

    Is view is thus accurately represented. His contraryism does not save the SSM idea. But it is a contraryism that is unreasoned and obstinate. That is the telltale sign of bigotry. His own words accuse MarkOH.

  56. Chairm
    Posted December 10, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    It is the comprehensivenss of the marital relationship that makes the Husband and Wife closely related. Not the law. The law acknowledges this core of marriage.

    The husband and wife become more closely related, on to the other, than each is related to others with whom they would have been too closely related to marry.

    Neceassary to this comprehensiveness is bodily union. There is no other candidate for bodily union that coital relations of man and woman. The bodily union is not all of marriage but it is necessary to complete and renew the comprehensiveness of the marital relationship.

    Here is a puzzle for the SSMer. What could make the unrelated participants in an all-male or an all-female relationship more closely related than they are to people with whom they were born too closely related to marry? Nothing.

    If the SSMer claims the law does what the participants cannot do themselves, then, the SSMer negates the pro-SSM complaint that the marriage law 's bride-groom requirement is unjust.

    Think about that. The SSMer claims the law is wrong. But how might he claim that without some clear idea of marriage's reality independent of the law? He cannot. But that means the SSMer depends on the law arbitrarily drawining lines and distinctions between marriage and non-marriage.

    If the law is master of marriage, then, how can the SSMer justly argue the law is right or wrong? He cannot.

    Marriage law acknowledges the comprehensiveness of the marital relationship. While the husband and wife are very closely related, their bodily union is not a sexual friendship of unrelated individuas. And although they are closely related, their sexual relationship is not incestuous, as such a relationship would be with those with whom they would be too closely related to marry.

    SSM does not make a family. SSM is merely a metaphor or a symbol. The law is its master.

    So the bigotry displayed by the SSMers who commented favorably on thesquelching of freedom of conscience in the aftermath of the SSM law, well, they admit that their pro-SSM complaint and remedy is based on animus against the defenders of the marriage idea.

    Each of them gave us fair warning of what they intend with the imposition of SSM on all of society.

    Other: SSM is the Specious Substitution for marriage for the sake of the supremacy of gay identity politics.

    NOM is the National Organization for Marriage for the sake of the truth, good governance, freedom of conscience, and the child's birthright to be raised by her mom and dad together..