Tagged: gay marriage Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • just a conservative girl 1:45 PM on 02/22/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , gay marriage,   

    The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You Think It Says 

    Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona’s 1062 Bill “Anti-Gay”, discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn’t any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.

    Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.

    Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.

    Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity”, and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.

    Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can’t throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.

    People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don’t.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn’t want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn’t the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?

    I, for the life of me, can’t figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don’t want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn’t make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.

    We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.

    I am not saying that the whole “agree to disagree” is something that is simple.  But it isn’t as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn’t available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.

    A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don’t.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn’t do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.

    A jury will get decide.  This law doesn’t guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.

  • just a conservative girl 12:29 PM on 01/30/2014 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: award shows, , conservative values, , , gay marriage, grammy awards, , , , queen latifa,   

    A Night at The Grammy’s 

    While this is a little late to the party, I have been seeing all the talk of what went on at The Grammy Awards on Sunday night.  Satanic rituals performed onstage by a woman who was raised in a Christian conservative home, the mass wedding performed by Queen Latifa, and Jay-Z and Beyoncé performing Drunk in Love together on stage.

    I don’t really expect anything different from Katy Perry.  It has been obvious for quite some time that she has rejected the values that her parents believe in.  That is her prerogative.  What I find insulting about it is the fact that she feels the need to publicly mock it, doing so in front of the artists who were there to see if they won awards for Gospel and Christian categories.  At least one artist got up and walked out.  Ms. Perry has the right to live her life anyway she chooses to do so, but somehow I have this feeling that she really isn’t a devil worshipper and that wasn’t done to get her own particular point of view across.  It was done to make people who are questioning their own belief systems to feel ashamed that they may have the audacity to think that Christianity is a good thing.  A person who is firmly set in a Christian lifestyle may be insulted by the performance, but they don’t question their belief.  They simply shake their heads in disbelief and dismay.

    Queen Latifa, and ordained minister of some kind, performed a marriage ceremony for 30 or so couples.  Some of these couples were of course same-sex couples.  Now, I would say this if all the couples were heterosexual.  The Grammy Awards is no place to get married.  This wasn’t about making a lifetime commitment to another, it was about proving a political point.  That gay couples love just as much as same-sex couples.  I have never said they didn’t.  A wedding and/or marriage ceremony is about is two people making a commitment to each other; for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, to remain faithful and loving for the rest of your lives.  Most people do decide to celebrate that commitment in front of their families and loved ones.  Others do it more privately.  The vast majority of people don’t decide to do it because they want to the world to see their political viewpoint.  That makes a mockery of the thing that gay marriage advocates say that they are trying to accomplish.  Simple equality and the right to commit themselves to a person that they love.  What is so odd about it is that some of the lyrics that were being played out that night even talked about how marriage is more than a simple piece of paper.  If you want equality than stop acting like everyone in the world must approve of your marriage.  I have news for you, not everyone approves of all kinds of marriages.  There have been marriages that have been looked down upon since the beginning of marriage and that isn’t likely to end anytime soon.  You don’t need to me to like what your choices are in order for them to be the right choice for you.  I am never going to approve of gay marriage and that doesn’t make your feelings and your commitment any less valid in your own life.  My religious beliefs tells me that it is wrong.  The sooner the activists get that the better off we will all be.  But of course, that would hinge upon it really being about just marriage, when for many it is not.

    Now we can move on to Jay-Z and his lovely bride Beyoncé.  She was prancing around on stage barely dressed and moving her body in a salacious manner singing a song that included the lyrics “I can’t keep my fingers off it baby, I want you”.  You know, I don’t really need to know what goes in the bedroom of any other couple.  I really don’t.  It isn’t something that interests me at all.  I have read two opposing views of this performance.  One from the very left leaning Think Progress that is basically saying that conservatives should jump at the chance of having this couple be the spokesmodels for marriage, because they make it look like fun.

    This may not be the vision of marriage conservatives intended to try to promote. And it’s absolutely a more aspirational, exciting good than the idea that marriage will discipline wayward men or provide support for women who can’t manage economically on their own. But if conservatives want to sell Americans on marriage, maybe they have to talk more about the bliss half of wedded bliss, to think about the desire part of making marriage desirable. And maybe the entertainment industry that Douthat’s singled out as the enemy of marriage has something to add to the case for marital happiness. If marriage is a product that conservatives desperately want to sell, the smartest thing they could do right now is to hire Beyoncé and Jay-Z as a product spokescouple.

    Now I am far from the spokesperson for every conservative nor do I pretend to be an expert on marriage.  But I can think of no conservative that thinks that sex within the realms of a marriage is bad.  After all conservatives, especially of the social variety, tend to have much larger families.  Something must be going on in order for those babies to be coming along.  The difference is that we don’t like talking about it publicly nor do we think that it is appropriate viewership for our young children for a scantily dressed woman making provocative movements while using euphemisms about a surf board.  I also am unclear of the conservative message that women should get married because they can’t manage on their own.  Now the data is clear, the majority of children living in poverty are products of a single family home.  When you are married before you have children the chances of those children living below the poverty line decreases and not just a little.  That doesn’t mean that conservatives are saying that women should get married simply because they need a man to support them.  You have a 70% chance of lifting yourself out of poverty if you follow three very simple things, graduate high school, do not get married before the age of 21, and do not have children out-of-wedlock.  The left leaning Brookings Institute didn’t like these findings, but the finding are there nonetheless.  That is a far cry from saying that you must marry in order to support yourselves as women.  There are plenty of women who can support themselves and their children financially without the help of man, but that doesn’t mean that they give a strong base for that child.  Two active parents is better for children to thrive.

    I am not going to get into passing judgement on the marriage of that supercouple.  That is something that is between them.  He knew she was performer when he married her and apparently he has no issues with the whole “sex sells” part of her job.  He is obviously fine with it so it isn’t up to me to say that it is wrong in all instances.  What I don’t like is that being told that is what I am supposed to aspire to.  Sorry, but no.  In my relationship there isn’t a great deal of jealousy going on, thank God.  But somehow I don’t think that me shaking my ass in a barely there outfit is part of the long-term game plan for a happy and successful relationship.  It also isn’t the best role model for young children either.  But that is just some prudish conservative talking.


  • just a conservative girl 10:21 AM on 12/20/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: a&e, censorship, , duck dynasty, , gay marriage, , paglia, robertson,   

    A&E and the Dangers of Political Correctness 

    I will say at the offset I have never seen Duck Dynasty nor do I plan to.   It doesn’t seem like something that I would be all that interested in enough to spend a half hour of my life sitting in front of the television for.  I have heard of the family and seen pictures of him with various people, but I really know very little about the show except it has something to do with duck hunting.

    A&E has decided that it goes against their values to employ someone who holds a biblical worldview on sin.  You can disagree with the premise all you like, but it doesn’t change what the bible says.  Homosexuality is a sin according to Christian belief.  I fully understand that there are churches out there that ignore that and have no problem with openly gay clergy and will marry same-sex couples.  That still doesn’t change what the bible says about it.

    Phil Robertson gave an interview with GQ Magazine.  During that interview he was asked a question on his view of homosexuality.  He answered the question coming from a biblical point of view.  He is a person who believes that the bible is the living word of God.  Yes his words may have been crude, but they were not bigoted, nor did he liken homosexuality to having sex with a goat.  He simply gave a list of things that are sinful, he also included having heterosexual sex outside of marriage in his list.

    “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

    All he said is that sex outside the confines of  traditional marriage is sinful, which according to the bible is.  That shouldn’t be up for debate.  Again, you can feel that the bible is outdated, fake, or anything that you may feel about it, but it doesn’t change what scripture says.  If you are to follow the bible and its teachings you shouldn’t be having sex of any kind outside of traditional marriage.  Once you do that, you are committing a sin.

    Another part of his quote gets left out in almost all of the media coverage:

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

    Is it any wonder that this gets left out?  How can you say that he is “hating” on homosexuals if he says he is not judging them?  As a Christian it is part of your duty to spread the word of God.  People will do that in different ways and to different degrees.  But a true Christian never makes statements about someone else’s salvation and how God will ultimately judge a person and how they lived their life.  Not only isn’t that our job, it way above our pay grade.

    But of course the media coverage is he is a bigot, he is a hater, or he is some crazy right winged nut job.  He isn’t allowed to have a biblical worldview and share that openly.  That is something you must keep in the closet and act like it doesn’t exist.  Of course the same people who are hitting him hard have no problem with talking about homosexuality in sex ed classes geared to 6 year olds.  That is perfectly acceptable.  But don’t tell them the other side of the equation, oh no, you are a hater then.

    If activists for the gay community are as open-minded as they claim to be, they will have a debate on this topic.  But that isn’t what happens.  The debate gets shut off by people losing their income or labeled a bigot and a hater.  My gosh even feminist and openly gay Camille Paglia understands what is happening by these fanatics

    “utterly fascist & utterly Stalinist”

    Having a debate on the legalization of gay marriage is worth having in this country.  But it devolves into name calling and threats.  What does it say about people who say they are only trying to be accepted and have their rights protected by our society when they care none about the rights of those who believe otherwise?

    We have gotten to the point where any talk of religion must be closeted and must be whispered in the confines of your own home.  We have even gotten to the point that sometimes you can’t have a bible study in your home without interference, putting up Christmas lights on the outside of your home gets you a letter from your neighbors telling them how offended they are.

    That isn’t tolerance folks, that is tyranny.  This is how far we have fallen as a society; a major public university gives classes on the fine art of fellatio and that is deemed a perfectly acceptable use of tax payer funds for “educational” purposes, but a Christian man can’t give the biblical view that he tries to live his life by without losing income.

    A&E has every right to end their contract with Mr. Robertson.  They are a private business and they are under no restrictions constitutionally, as this isn’t a free speech or free religion issue.  The government isn’t interfering.  Just because A&E has the right to end his contract doesn’t mean that it should.  So far the sponsors of the show seem to understand what is at stake here and are standing on the right side.  The side that says he has a right to religious liberty and his viewpoints.

    A sad day in America.  A very sad day.

    • NotAScientist 10:53 AM on 12/20/2013 Permalink | Reply

      “Is it any wonder that this gets left out? ”

      Probably because he’s comparing homosexuals to terrorists and drunks. It’s probably better for his public profile for no one to report on that.

      “The side that says he has a right to religious liberty and his viewpoints.”

      Sure he does. He doesn’t have the right to be on a tv show, though.

      • just a conservative girl 3:46 PM on 12/20/2013 Permalink | Reply

        No he is saying that drunks, terrorists, and homosexuals will be judged on their behavior. He didn’t say that they homosexuals are terrorists or drunks.

        So let me get this straight according to your logic someone who owns a business who is a relgious person should be able to not hire someone who, like yourself, believes that gay marriage is a right? Because you don’t get to have it both ways. You can either employ people based on their personal points of view or you can’t.

        That is the danger of this action. It sets precedent for all kinds of hiring practices that I don’t think most people in this country would be all that comfortable with. They knew his worldview when they hired him. This isn’t the first time he talked about these types of topics. He is an outspoken Christian man.

        This allows a very small minority of people to make decisions about the financial well being of all kinds of Americans. All that accomplishes is shutting down debate. Which is exactly what they are trying to do. Shut and comply. No American should be ok with that.

        I didn’t think the man who yelled at the Chick Fil A girl should have lost his job. I disagreed with everything he said. I think Martin Bashir being forced to resign was also wrong. We are losing our rights to have opinions that others may disagree with. The really scary thing about that is what opinion can you then hold? We have more than 300 million people in this country, I think it would pretty near impossible to find something that everyone agrees on.

        • NotAScientist 7:50 AM on 12/21/2013 Permalink | Reply

          “You can either employ people based on their personal points of view or you can’t.”

          Wrong. Most jobs have nothing to do with expressing your personal views and being seen as a representative of the company you work for while you do so.

          TV star is not one of those jobs.

          Should a conservative Christian tv station be allowed to fire a pro gay star? Sure.

          • just a conservative girl 11:14 AM on 12/21/2013 Permalink | Reply

            Every employee is a representative of the company they are working for in some form or another. That is just reality. You just don’t like what he said and that is why you feel this way. Sadly you are not looking at the larger picture. This isn’t just about him, this is about a small minority of people being able to threaten people into silence, and therefore submission. No one should be ok with that.

  • just a conservative girl 3:24 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , alito, doma, gay marriage,   

    DOMA Section Unconstitutional 

    I have made no secret of the fact that I am against gay marriage, so it may come as a surprise to some that I am happy with this ruling.  I have also made no secret of the fact that I am a huge supporter of the tenth amendment and the rights of states.

    Marriage is not the issue of the federal government.  It never has been and will remain that way unless a constitutional amendment on the issue is passed.  While I would like to see that amendment, the chances of it passing at this point in time is basically nill.  Due to that, I have to support this ruling.  Marriage is a state issue and I have never been able to wrap my brain around how a legal marriage could not be recognized by the federal government.

    Even Justice Alito acknowledges in his dissent that the constitution doesn’t speak on the issue:

    no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.

    If no provision speaks to the issue and Americans fully expect our government to treat people equally under the law, what is the justification for the federal government to decide which legally married couple they give benefits to and which couples they don’t?

    As a limited government. constitutional conservative,  I couldn’t find a justifiable reason for that particular section of DOMA being upheld.  This doesn’t change my views of gay marriage.  I am against it.  But marriage is state issue, not a federal one.   This is an issue that must be fought on the state level.  If states are going to legalize gay marriage, the federal government has no right to overrule that.  Limited government means just that, limiting the power of the federal government.

    The main section of DOMA has not been overturned, a state like Connecticut that has legalized gay marriage has no right to force a state like Virginia to recognize that marriage.  As it should be.

    • signpainterguy 4:41 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply

      Agreed, it is a States` Rights issue, not a fed one. If a state allows gay marriage, the fed should not get in the way of it at all, nor should the fed make any special allowances to accommodate it, but other states should not be required to honor the marriage. Choice, by majority vote.

      Has any state that allows gay marriage passed the law by majority vote of the people, or has it always been a court action that made it legal ? I am under the impression that it has failed every time when put to a vote by the people !

      • just a conservative girl 5:11 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply

        Maryland was the first to vote for it on a state wide election.
        I am actually against ballot iniatives in general and most especially on this issue. I actually think it is a legislative issue. We are not democracy and ballot iniatives are turning us into one.

        • signpainterguy 5:19 PM on 06/26/2013 Permalink | Reply

          Yes, you`re right; we are a representative, constitutional republic, not a democracy. If the legislative process is carried out properly, our reps will have determined our wishes and will move accordingly, for us.

  • just a conservative girl 9:27 AM on 04/26/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: gay marriage, iains wife,   

    Quote(s) of the Day – Gay Marriage Edition 

    “The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.”

    Paul Varnell.

    Yes, but many of us already knew that.

    “Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goal … of radically reordering society’s views of reality.”

    Paula Ettelbridge

    See I thought that being “queer” meant that you attracted to members of the same-sex.  Silly me.

    “… fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.”

    Masha Gessen

    Ding, ding, ding.  I fully understand that there are honest people who want nothing more than the same rights afforded under our tax codes and legal protections for themselves that heterosexual married people get.  But that doesn’t change the fact that is not the goal here.  If it were, this problem would be long since solved.  I know very few that would be against giving those benefits to committed couples that live together, regardless of gender and sexual orientation.  Most agree on that.  This is about forcing your views that my beliefs are bad, outdated, and somehow harmful to society.

    H/T to Iain’s Wife

  • just a conservative girl 1:34 PM on 04/04/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: erickson, gay marriage,   

    Quote of the Day – Erick Erickson Edition 

    “Already Christians are being harassed by fellow American citizens for not wanting to participate in a gay marriage. The time will come, more quickly than you can imagine, when you will be made to care. … Evil peddles tolerance until it is dominant, then seeks to silence good. That’s why Christians fight on this issue. It is not to force themselves on others, but to protect themselves from others being forced on them.”

    Erick Erickson on why the faithful fight to preserve traditional marriage and his answer to young evangelicals that say they don’t care about this issue.

    The radicals on the left don’t want you to know this, but it won’t end with gay marriage.  If this was only about giving tax breaks and rights to hospital visits and will rights, it would have been settled by now.  Most people can agree on those things.  This goes far deeper than that.

  • just a conservative girl 9:33 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: diversity, gay marriage, , starbucks,   

    Photo of the Day – Starbucks Edition 

    For those that have not heard, Starbucks CEO has decided that if you believe in traditional marriage you can just sell your shares.  Not that he has said it exactly, but I guess you don’t need to buy their products either.  Perfectly fine with me.  I don’t need your overpriced drinks and sandwiches anyway.

    Apparently in the name of tolerance and diversity, your views aren’t welcome.


    • Sherry 9:45 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      Nice. Sigh. Have to give up my hot chocolate fix.

    • AKA John Galt 9:45 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.

    • NotAScientist 9:50 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      How dare he stand up for his moral convictions instead of caving to profit. HOW DARE HE!

      • just a conservative girl 10:06 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        He can stand up for his convictions all he wants, but why can’t the shareholder who happens to have other convinctions? If you want “tolerance” and “diversity” you need to accept other points of view. You can’t say you believe in those things and then tell someone who doesn’t agree with your views to get lost; unless of course you are a hypocrite.

        • NotAScientist 10:12 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          ” but why can’t the shareholder who happens to have other convinctions?”

          They can, by taking their money and going home. He said as much that they were free to do that if they wanted to.

          “If you want “tolerance” and “diversity” you need to accept other points of view.”

          True. But why do I have to be tolerant of intolerant points of view?

          I try to be as tolerant as I can. But if you hold the position that gays can’t get married, I’m perfectly fine with not having your business.

          You can still hold your own beliefs, and your own opinions. But I hold a position, and if you give me your money for my goods or services I am free to use that money to support that position. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine.

          • just a conservative girl 10:43 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

            But that isn’t the issue. Any company is free to do with their profits as they see fit. Much like Chick Fil A using theirs to promote traditional marriage. The difference being that Chick Fil A has never told anyone to get lost. Who exactly is being intolerant?

            As far holding a traditional view of marriage being intolerant, it is a belief system that you don’t share. It is only intolerant because you don’t agree with it. You are the one with the problem with people who disagree with you. You don’t want to accept the fact that people will differ on this issue. You are the one trying to bend your will onto others.

            . You need to have a physican heal thy self moment. You are trying to force your will, not me. I don’t have a problem with the fact that agree with gay marriage nor am I trying to change your mind. You are the one that has a problem with me not agreeing with you. The very essence of intolerance.

            • NotAScientist 10:51 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

              “The difference being that Chick Fil A has never told anyone to get lost.”

              Which is less honest.

              If you’re going to give your money to anti-gay organizations, that’s fine. Just be honest about it. Which is why I don’t give them my money.

              The CEO of Starbucks is being honest. He might not be as polite as you’d like him to be, but he’s honest.

              ” Who exactly is being intolerant? ”

              The group with the intolerant position is intolerant in relation to that position.

              “It is only intolerant because you don’t agree with it.”

              No. It is intolerant because it doesn’t allow gay couples to do the same thing that straight couples do.

              On top of that, I disagree with it.

              “You don’t want to accept the fact that people will differ on this issue. You are the one trying to bend your will onto others. ”

              Not at all. You are more than welcome to have your opinion. You are not welcome to force the rest of us to hold the same opinion, or to force the rest of us to make your opinion the automatic policy for everyone.

              If gays are allowed to get married, nothing will happen to you. The reverse is not true, however.

              “You are the one that has a problem with me not agreeing with you.”

              No, I don’t. I have a problem with you turning your opinion into law that prevents others to act according to their conscience.

              Even if gays can get married, you are still free to act according to your conscience.

              • Sherry 11:13 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                Not necessarily. Catholic Charities had to stop adoptions to hold to its convictions. People have been “outed” for signing a petition to support traditional marriage and made to take leave from their position in Maryland for expressing an opinion now deemed archaic. People are free to associate, to have whatever types of adult relationships they wish, no one is beating on the doors of gay people and telling them to cease existing. However, there is a sense that if you say, “I support traditional marriage.” in more than a whisper outside of the comfort of your own room, people will deem you the very worst of monsters for daring to disagree.

                • NotAScientist 11:25 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                  “Catholic Charities had to stop adoptions to hold to its convictions.”

                  Actually, they just stopped receiving government funds. They chose to stop adoptions rather than using only their own money.

                  “made to take leave from their position in Maryland for expressing an opinion now deemed archaic. ”

                  Whoever did that is wrong.

                  “However, there is a sense that if you say, “I support traditional marriage.” in more than a whisper outside of the comfort of your own room, people will deem you the very worst of monsters for daring to disagree.”

                  Perhaps. But since when has ‘people won’t like me if they know I hold this position’ been a good argument to make their opinion the legal one?

                  A fair amount of people don’t like me because I’m an atheist and I support gay marriage. Part of me doesn’t like that, but most of me doesn’t care. Because I believe my position on gay marriage is the moral one, it’s more important to hold that position than to insist everyone like me or to even make every potential customer happy.

                  • Sherry 11:52 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                    Bullying is always wrong, whether done by the oppressed or the oppressor, it damages two souls with one set of words. I am not making a legal argument. I am stating a social fact of our existing society.

                    I don’t support gay marriage because I am Catholic. I believe my position is a moral one and we should not demand everyone agree in order to “coexist.” But we are being painted as haters because we understand moral law to indicate acting on one’s sexual desires outside the context of a marriage is sinful, and as such, we do not want to promote/encourage/codify sin.

                    The argument, don’t support gay marriage, don’t invest is like don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Don’t believe in birth control, don’t take advantage of the prescription mandated by the government but do pay for it. Also, don’t be a pharmacist. Don’t believe in providing abortions, don’t go into medicine.

                    We are losing the freedom to live out our religion as we understand it, in favor of a forced secularism that brooks no tolerance for disagreement based on moral grounds.

                    • NotAScientist 11:58 AM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                      “We are losing the freedom to live out our religion as we understand it”

                      And yet, even if I accepted your argument ( I don’t ), you lose nothing if gays are allowed to marry.

                      • Sherry 12:51 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink

                        You do not think I lose anything. But sin affects us all.
                        We understand that war has long tentacles, abuses and wounds that linger long after the shooting stops. We understand that hatred has even longer tentacles, do you not think it would be possible to see the consequences of eroding the definition of marriage to family? Already, those who want polygamy are lining up to use the same argument.

                        I will thank you for your argument, your courage of your convictions properly chastised mine. It is easy to say one professes something when it is popular. The reality of what one professes, is revealed when it is not.

              • just a conservative girl 3:24 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                Actually what is happening in Canada since gay marriage has been legal proves that I will not be able to keep my beliefs without consquences.

                People in Canada have lost their jobs due to the own view that gay marriage is wrong and not wanting to perform the ceremonies. Families who choose to pass those morals down to their children are undermined by the state run public school systems, businesses in this country have been sued for not wanting to work with gay clients.

                Another thing that needs serious explanation is why the gay community that is fighting for this is so opposed to religious protections written into the laws. Not one state that has legalized gay marriage has done this. Why? Conservatives churches are being put into a position that they may be sued in order to perform these ceremonies. Now, I am sure that once it gets to SCOTUS they would be protected, but how much money would they have to spend to get there?

                You say you are looking for simple fairness, but that seems to end on the church doorways. They shouldn’t be given protections. Freedom of religion is enshirned in our constitution, marriage not so much.

                What people seem to forgot about the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is that was done to give all people the same access to the legal system when they are charged with a crime. It was never meant to talk about issues such as a maritial law.

                • NotAScientist 3:30 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                  ” due to the own view that gay marriage is wrong and not wanting to perform the ceremonies.”

                  That’s sad. But if they work for the government, and the government allows gays to marry, then they either have to marry them or quite. Perhaps a church or two will employ them?

                  “Families who choose to pass those morals down to their children are undermined by the state run public school systems”

                  Why are you sending your children to state-run public schools if you want them to only ever encounter religious points of view?

                  “Conservatives churches are being put into a position that they may be sued in order to perform these ceremonies.”

                  No, they really aren’t. Churches won’t be forced to marry gays any more than they are forced to marry Jews.

                  ” Freedom of religion is enshirned in our constitution, marriage not so much. ”

                  What about the freedom of the religions that want to marry gay people?

                  • just a conservative girl 4:03 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

                    Churches that want to perform those ceremonies are free to. They have been doing it even before it was legalized anywhere. I have no problem with that. I have a friend who was married in a unitarian church in a state that gay marriage is still illegal. He didn’t do it for legal reasons, he did it to make a commitment to his partner in front of his friends and family. I went to the ceremony. He knows how I feel about gay marriage and adoption, but he knows that I don’t have any ill will towards him or his relationship. He also understands my concerns about the institution of marriage and he himself is against gay marriage and gay adoption. He is far more tolerant than you will ever be with all your views on morality and tolerance as long as they agree with your points of view.

                    Not everyone can afford private schools. As such people who pay taxes to run those schools shouldn’t be subjected to their children hearing that their parents are bigots. That shouldn’t be a great deal to ask.

                    As I said, if you believe in tolerance, you must agree with putting religious protections into the laws. Otherwise, it is just lip service and what you are truly saying is it is my way or the highway.

    • joyannaadams 1:48 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

      McDonalds’ has cheaper coffee…and it’s less fattening. Just saying…

      • NotAScientist 2:04 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        Starbucks CEO: If you don’t like my political positions, you can take your money elsewhere.

        Anti-Gay Marriage Folk: That makes us angry! You know what we’ll do to show you? We’ll take our money elsewhere!

        CEO: Um…that’s what I said you should do.

        Folk: And that’s what we’re doing! Take that!

        • Sherry 2:11 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          You made me laugh at myself. Hope for both of us.

      • just a conservative girl 3:54 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

        I can do you one better – I don’t drink coffee. I do admit that I do like Starbucks Zen tea, but it is sold in the grocery store and it isn’t actually a “Starbucks” brand, so I have some in my cabinet when the cravings for it arise!!!!

        • Sherry 4:05 PM on 03/25/2013 Permalink | Reply

          I don’t drink their coffee either, but I have liked the place as a hideyhole once my Borders bit the dust. Would curl up with my laptop and a hot chocolate. Now it will have to be at home.

  • just a conservative girl 2:39 PM on 08/01/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , gay marriage,   

    Chick Fil A – My Take 

    Since people keep coming back to my blogs, I have to assume that you care about what I think.  So here it goes.

    Personally I find this whole thing ridiculous, and I mean that from both sides.  The Cathy Family are Christian conservatives, they have never hid that fact since they franchised the Chick Fil A restaurants.   They are not allowed to be open on Sundays, that is part of the franchise agreement.  Chick Fil A has a very slow growth plan that has helped them grow into the second largest chicken fast food restaurant in the country.  It has worked for them.  They don’t normally allow a franchise owner to own more than one, and they are looking for owners who are going to be hands on.  They are not looking for people to turn the place over in a short period of time.  They approve about 80 applications per year.

    Now, it is a fact that not all owners agree with the Cathy’s stance on marriage.  At least one Chick Fil A is going to participate in a gay pride parade sometime this summer.  I don’t know the exact date.  That is one of the reasons that I find this so silly.  These are individually owned, how does anyone know what the owner actually thinks?  I am sure that they are just like the country as a whole; some will agree, some will disagree.

    The left for some reason has chosen this restaurant as the poster child of hate.  Hate is a very strong word.  A word that the left doesn’t fully define.  Because I am against gay marriage and I have friends who are gay. They are my friends, so obviously I don’t hate them.  I was asked once by a former boss about my friendship with two men who happen to be gay, Ken and Norman.  Both great guys who I love dearly.  Norman and I hung out outside of work as well.  We have been to each other homes.  He is a very good man who happens to be gay.  I don’t want him tied up, gassed or anything else for that matter.  He can work where he wants, he can live where he wants, the only two things that I don’t think he can do is get married or adopt children.  I know gay people who don’t think that gay people raising children is a good idea.  His opinion is that childhood is hard enough without having that added pressure of being the odd kid out with gay parents.  He takes a great deal of ridicule, and yes outright hate from other gays for his belief.  He has been in a long-term relationship, something like 20 years.  Both families are very accepting of them, and they have nieces and nephews that they love dearly.   I don’t think a gay person is a danger to a child in any way, I just think that it just makes their lives harder than they need to be and question is placing an adopted child in that environment the best thing for them.  I don’t think that it is.  Am I a bigot or a hater?  According to many I am.

    This is what Christians see.  They see a society that has consistently told them that what they believe makes them haters and bigots.  They see a society that tells them that their rights as an American citizen to worship freely is really just a hate crime.  Put a Christmas tree in a town square and you are forcing your beliefs unto someone else, yet forcing them to accept gay marriage is tolerance.  It was only about 50 years ago that Christian conservatives started having a voice in politics.  For the most part before then they went about their lives, but the sexual and cultural revolutions forced them to find their voice.

    You hear from more moderate people in the republican party that they are going to be the ruin of it.  They are ridiculed in pop culture as ignorant hicks.  It never occurs to the people doing the ridiculing that all they are doing is standing by what they deeply believe in.

    Every Christian in the end gets called a hypocrite.  Somehow a Christian has to be perfect or they are one.  They are not allowed to make the same mistakes that others are allowed to make.  No Christian will ever tell they are perfect.  They will flat-out say that they fall short each and every day.  But, they try to live the best that they can in the eyes of God and what the bible tells them that they are to strive for.

    The fact remains if you are ready to redefine marriage then you need to be all in.  If you are not, it is the same intolerance that you are accusing Christians of.  There are approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States.  Plural marriage is widely accepted in the faith of Islam.  There are still Mormons who practice that as well.  If you are going to redefine marriage for homosexuals, then you must redefine for all.  Using the logic that is used if you don’t approve of gay marriage, you are a hater and bigot if you don’t agree.

    Christians feel that they and their belief system is under constant attack in this country.  You can disagree with that premise, but that doesn’t make it less so.  Now, if the issue truly is about the issues of benefits that can be done without redefining marriage.  But the problem is that isn’t what this is truly about.  It is truly about forcing the Christian belief system out of this country.

    There are conservative churches that are being sued for being unwilling to perform marriage ceremonies for gay people in states where gay marriage is legal.  That is about forcing their will on an organization that doesn’t want it.  My church would close its doors before it performed a marriage ceremony for people of the same-sex.  I wouldn’t want it any other way.  Those are my beliefs, beliefs that I am entitled to under our constitution.  You see, you don’t get to have it both ways.   The radical agenda that is being pushed by some in this fight are trying to force their will upon me, and using the tactic that it is the other way around.  Do I believe that everyone in this movement feels that way?  No.  Many just refuse to see what is really happening.  A push has been going on this country to eliminate all that is Christian for about 100 years.  They are getting closer and closer to getting it done.  They have accomplished this in part by redefining many things in our culture.  They have made the killing of an unborn baby just another lifestyle choice of getting rid of some cells.  They have made sex on the first date commonplace.  This is regardless to the bad effects that it has on society.  If it feels good, do it.  The consequences of your actions be left for another day, or better yet just leave them for someone else to clean up.

    I don’t hate gay people.  I could care less what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.  What I do care about is the society that we are leaving for the next generation.  I care about God having a place in the lives for the believers.  You don’t want to believe in God, don’t.  That is your choice, it is your soul.  But stop trying to take away my choices and the life that I want to live and to leave to the next generation.  The next time someone wants to call me a hater, just think about this; how much tolerance do you have for Christians?  Probably not very much.   Eating or not eating at Chick Fil A will change none of this.  So I didn’t waste my money or time today.

    • Kdaunt 6:21 PM on 08/01/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for that article. I’d just finished reading some posts on my favorite social site that got my dander up, but I could not put my finger on it. You have and I’m grateful. It’s nice to read an opinion that helps me identify my own. I think I understand the importance of some gay rights issues but the intensity and bile of their tactics seems overdone and more harmful than helpful. What keeps us from learning to get along?

      I remember seeing a Phil Donahue program on which his two guests, while discussing inner city issues, started to agree with one another and actually work out a potential solution. Phil got visibly scared when he realized they were no longer arguing but were collaborating. He started to inject things like “are you going to let him get away with that?”, like a kid in a schoolyard trying to start a fight. Without the disagreement, Phil didn’t have a show.

      So whose interest is really served by keeping these two sides at odds?

    • SignPainterGuy 6:45 PM on 08/01/2012 Permalink | Reply

      I drove almost 20 miles today to attempt to eat at Chik-fil-A, but you couldn`t get in in less than an hour and a half and I was too hungry to wait. The local AM talk radio station got several reports from the town`s 3 locations; all were very backed up, one had restocked 3 times today – by 3: o`clock ! One had done 3 days` worth of biz in a half day. One anticipated closing early, they were running out of food ! Customers were marveling at the patience and good naturedness of all the other customers. In the inside-mall location, the crowd broke out into “God Bless America” !

      I have a feeling (as do others) that Chik-fil-A will report a RECORD DAY today !! Not quite what the protesters had in mind ! Aaah ha ha ha haaaaaa !

      A small group of protesters had blocked the drive-thru shortly before I arrived. The Police were called; they moved the group of 1/2 dozen off property, down next to the highway, to be irrelevant …. in the direct sunshine ! 86° and humid out there !

    • fuzislippers 12:29 AM on 08/04/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Great post, JACG, I think I may be inspired to post on this topic as well (with proper attribution, of course ;) )

  • just a conservative girl 2:21 PM on 07/27/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , gay marriage, , ,   

    Liberal Logic – Rahm Emanuel Edition 

    Rahm Emanuel, Chicago’s mayor, has put his liberal logic on full display for all the world to see. You see, the mayor decided to weigh in on the Chik Fil A non-controversy by announcing Chik Fil A doesn’t share “Chicago Values”. Really? It wasn’t all that long ago that the mayor admitted that some in his city have the wrong values.

    Now this same man has decided that the city needs the help of The Nation of Islam to patrol the streets to help cut down on the unending violence in the city now being dubbed “MurderTown”.

    So this idiot liberal would like to keep Chik Fil A from expanding in the City of Chicago, which of course violates our laws, because they believe in traditional marriage. This belief, held by millions around the country, is simply that marriage is between one woman and one man. It in no way wants to see discrimination against homosexuals. Gay people can do what ever they want to do with that one exception. That is it. We don’t call for violence against people, we don’t call for the death of anyone. We are simply stating that the institution of marriage is something that is held sacred and by redefining marriage we are being asked to accept beliefs that violate our religious views and conscience.

    Islam, however, is a very different story:

    The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is another reliable collection of hadith. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

    The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: “Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death” (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

    Thus, these two passages in Sunan Abu Dawud go further than merely rejecting and banishing homosexuals or sexual sinners, as we saw in Bukhari’s collection. Rather, Ibn Abbas says that Muhammad and the early Muslim community commanded their execution.

    The hadith editor Timidhi repeats Ibn Abbas’ narration: “Ikrima reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that God’s messenger [Muhammad] said: ‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Recorded in Mishkat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson, vol. 2, p. 763, Prescribed Punishments). In the same hadith collection, the Mishkhat al-Masabih, a compendium that brings together other hadith collections, are found the punishments of being burned to death and having heavy objects thrown on the guilty homosexuals:

    The Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan also have such a good record when it comes to your faith, Mr. Mayor:

    “[T]he Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn’t a great man for me as a black person, but he was a great German. Now, I’m not proud of Hitler’s evils against Jewish people, but that’s a matter of record. He raised Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there’s a similarity in that we are raising our people up from nothing.” — Louis Farrakhan, radio interview, March 11, 1984

    “Jews have been conclusively linked to the greatest criminal endeavor ever undertaken against an entire race of people … the black African Holocaust. … The effects of this unspeakable tragedy are still being felt among the peoples of the world at this very hour.” — The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (NOI book), 1991

    “Who are the slumlords in the Black community? The so-called Jews. … Who is it sucking our blood in the Black community? A white imposter Arab and a white imposter Jew.” — Speech by NOI national official Khalid Muhammad, Nov. 29, 1993

    “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood that is seeding the American people and the people of the world and bringing you down in moral strength. … It’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews, that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality. It’s the wicked Jews, false Jews, that make it a crime for you to preach the word of God, then they call you homophobic!” — Louis Farrakhan, Saviours’ Day speech, Feb. 26, 2006

    So these are Chicago Values. Good to know. With values like these, it is no wonder the murder rate is so high.

    • SignPainterGuy 6:59 PM on 07/27/2012 Permalink | Reply

      A curious thing, this islam; on the one hand, homosexuals are to be executed, but as reported a couple weeks ago, a muslim had agreed to be voluntarily sodomized by 5 or more guys so that his rectum would be stretched large enough for the insertion of explosives. He wanted to become a human bomb. Would whittling down a length of closet rod deprive his buddies of some deviant sexual pleasure ? It`s permitted to have sex with goats, ya know !

      We know that it is OK in islam for the muslims to lie to infidels in the furtherance of the islamic cause, is it also OK to be sodomizer and sodomizee in the cause of islamic jihad ??

      Sorry ladies, I realize this is not standard dinner table fare, but the glaring hypocrisy of the ROP and what some, too many, on the left want to support or at least give appeasement to is just a bit disturbing to me ! And NO, I don`t normally spend a lot of time thinking on such subjects ! This one kinda “mooned me” as it were !

    • Don 2:15 AM on 07/28/2012 Permalink | Reply

      But it’s such a “peaceful” cult, er uh, I mean religion.

      • SignPainterGuy 12:29 PM on 07/28/2012 Permalink | Reply

        “Peaceful”; they keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means !

  • just a conservative girl 2:35 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: boycotts, , , gay marriage,   

    I’ll Eat Where I Want to Eat – Video 

    Gay marriage is a losing issue with the black community.  While it may be more accepting of it, they are still largely against it.  I don’t understand why the democrats are bringing this so much to the forefront this close to the election.  It isn’t going to help Obama.

    As long as Chik Fil A is not refusing to serve or hire people based upon their sexual orientation, they are doing nothing wrong.  The owner has the right to his opinion.  For now anyway.

    • Teresa Rice 2:57 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

      That is an example of tolerance. Great video!

    • NotAScientist 3:06 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

      ” I don’t understand why the democrats are bringing this so much to the forefront this close to the election. It isn’t going to help Obama.”

      Because sometimes people support issues because those issues matter to them, not because they will help any one politician.

      • just a conservative girl 3:21 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

        The issue that the owner of Chik Fil A doesn’t have the right to his opinion? How American.

        • NotAScientist 3:24 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

          No. The issue that homosexuals should be allowed to marry people they love and get the same federal benefits that heterosexuals do.

          The owner of any business, provided they do not do anything illegal, can say whatever they want and hold any opinion.

          And we are completely free to express our disagreement or distaste for their opinion. It’s a two-way street.

          • just a conservative girl 3:29 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

            No, actually the issue has become that two mayors are trying to ban them in their cities. A completely illegal act.

            You will find that their business will increase by doing this. It is comical. You are actually giving them more money.

            • NotAScientist 3:33 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

              The comment I referred to in your post was about gay marriage. Not about denying businesses access to cities.

              “Gay marriage is a losing issue with the black community. … I don’t understand why the democrats are bringing this so much to the forefront this close to the election. It isn’t going to help Obama.”

              That is the comment I responded to.

              If that is not what you meant, then you may want to edit your original post.

              • just a conservative girl 3:41 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

                Part of bringing it to the forefront is trying to deny access in two cities. An illegal and stupid act. In this climate of unemployment the last thing urban mayors should be seen doing is denying jobs because they don’t like the franchise owner’s opinion on gay marriage.

                These two mayors aren’t standing on principle, they are playing to the base of the party. Using this issue this close to the election is a mistake. Gay Marriage has lost every time it has reached the ballot. People are still largely against it.

                • NotAScientist 3:44 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

                  “Part of bringing it to the forefront is trying to deny access in two cities. ”

                  No it’s not.

                  It’s an overreaction from people who don’t understand how the law works.

                  “Gay Marriage has lost every time it has reached the ballot. People are still largely against it.”

                  Don’t care. it’s still the morally correct position.

                  • just a conservative girl 3:53 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

                    Moral to you. But to other people it is immoral. You don’t get decide some one else’s morality, that comes from within.

                    • NotAScientist 3:56 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply

                      You’re right, I don’t.

                      However, when dealing with what is legal, we adhere to a morality that is defined based on harm and benefit. No harm is caused by gay marriage, and there are plenty of benefits. Thus, it is both moral and should be legal.

                      Give it a few more years, and it will be legal everywhere.

                      • just a conservative girl 4:02 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink

                        Possibly, but that won’t change how people view it. Abortion has been legal for decades and the country is trending more pro life every year. Nor does something being legal, make it right.

                        And you find plenty of people that will be willing to debate on harm to society from gay marriage. Again, that is your opinion and your view of morality. Not fact.

    • Teresa Rice (@Teresamerica) 4:53 PM on 07/26/2012 Permalink | Reply


      So because slavery was legal in the United States it was moral? The problem with @NotAScientist’s statements is there is not much evidence as to whether gay “marriage” negatively affects society – children – so for some reason people think there needs to be an experiment to find that out. But also as a society when two people get married society recognizes that as legitimate or moral, so when progressives want to change the meaning of marriage they are indeed forcing people who oppose gay “marriage” on moral grounds to violate their consciences. But if homosexuals wanted to truly keep this a private issue, as they declared in the beginning of their crusade, that would be fine because I really don’t care what people do in the bedroom. As far as benefits go that is fine. I am fine with gay couples having civil unions and having the same benefits as everyone else in our society. That can be done without perverting the meaning of marriage. But then I think that the applicability of benefits should be expanded, not based on sexual orientation, so any two people such as two sisters living together are able to have the same benefits as others.

    • Don 4:05 AM on 07/27/2012 Permalink | Reply

      Tolerance from the left!! We NEED MORE of this!

  • just a conservative girl 3:56 PM on 05/10/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , gay marriage, , ,   

    Quote of the Day – Nancy Pelosi Edition Part 4 

     “My religion has, compels me–and I love it for it–to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination. I think it’s unconstitutional on top of that. “

    Nanny Pelosi on being asked how she can be for gay marriage and Catholic.

    • SignPainterGuy 9:56 PM on 05/10/2012 Permalink | Reply

      She is proof that liberalism is a mental disorder and in her case, proof that botox causes dain brammage !

    • Don 2:06 AM on 05/11/2012 Permalink | Reply

      So then why is she discriminatory against Republicans and Conservatives, and come to think of it, 99% of the American people?

      • SignPainterGuy 12:08 PM on 05/11/2012 Permalink | Reply

        I told ya, Don; Dain Brammage ! It explains a lot and you get a snicker as a bonus !

  • just a conservative girl 8:31 PM on 05/09/2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: gay marriage, ,   

    Fundraising on Gays for $500, Alex 

    This didn’t take long.  Not that I thought that it would.  But I was asked by a commenter not too long ago how I felt that my religious views were being used like a tool by the GOP.

    I wonder how gay people feel like when their private sexuality is being used as one?

    No one in their right mind believes that President Obama ever was against gay marriage.  This is nothing but pandering to a group of people who were upset that he wasn’t delivering on his campaign promises and were withholding those precious checks.  This is blackmail (from both sides of this equation in fact) plain and simple.

    It is also cheap political theater.  He is trying to use this issue to distract conservatives and get SoCons worked up into a tizzy over an issue that the President has virtually no power to do anything about.  Marriage is a state issue.  Even the likes of President Obama seems to recognize that.

    I also it think it is noteworthy that he even decided to bring his daughters into this.  What happened to family being off-limits?  You either keep your children out of the campaign, or they become fair game.  You don’t get to have it both ways.

    Do not be fooled by this folks.  This is a way to try and distract people off his failure of an administration, the poor economy, and all the factors that are working against him as he runs for re-election.  Don’t fall for it.  Stay on message.

    Friend –

    Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

    I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

    I hope you’ll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:


    I’ve always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

    But over the course of several years I’ve talked to friends and family about this. I’ve thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, I’ve gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

    What I’ve come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

    Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn’t dawn on them that their friends’ parents should be treated differently.

    So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

    I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

    If you agree, you can stand up with me here.

    Thank you,


Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc