I just received the picture above from a friend of mine. Yes on 8 protestors are standing at the corner of Bristol and 17th, in Santa Ana. This is the campaign to outlaw gay marriage. It is being run by hard-right Republicans. They are trying to reach out to Latinos. In fact they hired Matt “Jubal” Cunningham’s wife, who is a Latina, to run their public outreach campaign to Latinos. And Jubal’s pal Jeff Flint is running the entire hate campaign.
So I wonder if Mrs. Jubal sent these people to Santa Ana today? Don’t be fooled! These people want your votes today – and later they want to deport your relatives, friends and neighbors.
Latinos are the last people on earth who should embrace a measure that is anti-Civil Rights! Vote No on Prop. 8!
Quick, before it’s too late! Someone write an initiative to prevent the disaster of a Crowley-Danielle marriage.
I’ll be back in a bit Terry. Anyone else wanna soften him up while I’m busy?
Jubal,
I never said that the church had repudiated the doctrine of indulgences, and you know it. But the semantic dance you’re doing is certainly entertaining.
Jubal,
I hate to put you out there but, as the voice of the PRO-8 crowd on this thread, I will.
Obviously, you believe that doctrine, belief, bible teachings dictate that mariage is exclusive. Does that mean I can present other issues as written in the Koran or the Shakyamuni (buddist bible) as law?
PROP 8 IS THE MOST UN AMERICAN MEASURE OF MY LIFETIME.
It is clearly, a defining issue of our time. This is just like the civil rights fights of fifty years ago. Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side!
Jesus, Bhudda, Mohamed, Jerry Garcia, Howard Cosell.
Who are we to say which is the GOD you’ll mee
Terry,
You are making a common mistake of those that blur the Church/State divide.
Your rights are dictated by your Govenment, not your Creator.
You live in America.
If your Creator allows you to drive drunk, should you be immune form prosecution?
Obviously, you believe that doctrine, belief, bible teachings dictate that mariage is exclusive. Does that mean I can present other issues as written in the Koran or the Shakyamuni (buddist bible) as law?
Can you say “straw man”?
Point to me where I have ever maintained that the heterosexual nature of marriage is purely biblical?
A person can be an atheist and believe marriage is, by it’s very nature, the union of a man and woman.
The anti-8 side tries to either falsely portray this as an issue of equal rights, or to falsely paint the pro-8 position as purely religious.
No duplo, YOU are making the mistake that secular humanists make when blurring the Church State divide.
The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We live in America, not France.
The government can’t interfere with the Press, the Press can criticize the government. The government can’t interfere with peacable assembly, peacable assembly can involve itself in government. The government can’t interfere with religion, religion can involve itself in government. Its the only consistent interpretation thats ever existed. Otherwise, your argument is, the First Amendment means the Press can’t involve itself in government. Don’t bother.
And the Creator doesn’t allow you to drive drunk. You make the choice.
Jubal,
Yes, I said the doctrine of indulgences has changed and evolved over time. Your denial of that fact is merely an exercise in semantics.
Sorry to so rock your world with the concept that something like the Catholic Church and it’s doctrines could evolve and change over time. I know you fear change.
That said, allow me to shift to another example where a core doctrine has changed or evolved over time.
http://cbs3.com/topstories/Limbo.Catholic.Church.2.303594.html
Jubal, I missed the early part of the thread that defined ‘church’ as ‘roman catholic’. Sorry. And I’m not aware of the fine point of RC apologetics that differentiates between doctrine, dogma, and discipline. It wasn’t my intent to come across as ‘know-it-all’… I know there are still gaps in my learning, and I’m trying (unsuccessfully) to close them all. Would you care to enlighten me?
That said, frankly, all this discussion about which church taught what doctrine at what time… America doesn’t –or at least shouldn’t– base its laws on what is or is not defined as sin in one or more sets of Scripture. America derives its law from the consent of the governed, and has strong controls to protect minorities from majority caprice. We haven’t always been perfect in the application or understanding of those controls (lack of women’s sufferage, enslavement and later disenfranchisment of black people, land title restrictions, and racial apartheid laws are a few examples of our shortcomings), but we as a Nation have always striven to ensure the equality of of all our citizens before the law.
I don’t care about the motives of the proponents of Prop 8; I don’t care if the proponents of Prop 8 hate me. I don’t hate them, but I don’t suppose they care about my feelings for them, either. What I do care about is the fact that they are trying to deny me a basic civil right.
LIMBO, anon! How low can you go?? Jubal will just keep going like the Energizer Bunny though. Do you have an answer Jubal, for my angels-on-head-of-pin-splitting-hairs query?
Yes, Terry, I’m back, and fashioning a torpedo for you.
Terry
I am not married but I will be in two months. I am engaged to a wonderful man.
Vern, put a cork in it.
Ah, the mating habits of our fair rightwing friends.
Vern
I think you need glasses maybe you should look into that.
I have a fiance already thanks for being so interested in my life.
ALLLLrighty then.
First point: No rights can be taken from, nor given to, anyone. My rights come from my creator. And the laws of the land are set to prevent government from interfering in them. Not to grant them, not to create them.
Umm.. Whatever. Semantics. All right then, God the Divine Father, by implanting in MOST of us the urge to have a committed monogamous relationship, imbued us each with the right to marry. And at the same time, when he decided to create 10% of us gay, he self-evidently blessed us with the gift of gay marriage. The sacred, God-given, all-American right of gay marriage. We – we being anyone who cares about equality and civil rights – just don’t want the GOVERNMENT to INTERFERE in that basic right. And that IS what your allies out here are trying to use the government to do. Game. Set. Match.
What people like you have never understood is you have OBLIGATIONS.
Red herring. What’s this here, are you calling me a tax cheat? A deadbeat dad? What? “People like me,” your butt.
The real point of what you’re saying is that the institution of marriage of 2000 years was a de facto denial of rights. This is the basic leftist slander. Whatever is, is wrong.
You sometimes get on my case for believing in PROGRESS, and I think that is something I can cop to. I have an idea – how about, we don’t mess with any straight people’s marriages at all, but just continue to allow same-sex couples to marry as well. Oh yeah. That’s already the status quo.
Second point: You pick your words more carefully than the rest of those you dance with, I’ll give you that.
Thank you, I guess. But I’ll be happy to repeat anything I’ve said much more recklessly if you like.
I cannot marry my brother. I love my brother. Why should a homosexual be given special rights others do not have?
Well… tell you what, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it OK Terry? If you can organize, starting with yourself and your brother, a critical mass of good American citizens who are really insistent on marrying their siblings – anything like the number of gay citizens we have in this nation – then we can HAVE that conversation. We’ll look into the pros and cons. Until then… well, hell’s bells, you and your brother will just have to shack up secretly out in Kansas City but I won’t say anything! LOL
Third point: This is elemental Vern.
Oh shit. Oh man. OK, I’m all ears.
You are not advocating new rights Vern.
TRUE, buddy. You figured that out? So let’s forget about this stupid initiative. Gays have all the rights they need now, thanks to the California Constitution! Are you done?
You are advocating for the abolition of the meaning of marriage. There’s no reason to limit the number you love to 1 Vern. NOT ONE.
Well again. I’ve got no strong feeling about that. You want to lead a charge for legalized polygamy now? You’re starting to get a pretty full plate already. Again, don’t you need to worry right now about Obama taking Missouri next week?
Final point: Why are you advocating a right that denies my mother the right to marry her pet? Me the right to marry my brother? You are the one who is denying rights Vern, by admitting your agenda.
Damn your family is weird, Terry! Why do you even have to tell us about that stuff? Still, I am NOT stopping you or your mom from doing that stuff, in fact I am COMPLETELY UNAWARE of a Missouri initiative that aims to make those exotic couplings illegal. ALL red herrings, bro. (Oh, and please keep your hands off those red herrings, you pervert. I might want to cook and eat them later.)
People like you just handpick 1-2% of the population and think you can call yourself moral or liberating by taking their cause.
AH, 1-2%. Where did you get that figure, the pinche Creationist Museum? Sometimes I really wonder if I should take you seriously or not.
Think of marriage as a line in the sand. All you are doing is erasing that line with your foot and drawing another one. But you cannot “move the line in the sand” without someone like me telling you you’re a bigot for not moving it again. And I will do it in the name of showing your hypocrisy. Come up with an “Eliminate the institution of marriage” amendment? At least its consistent and honest.
This is where you wrap up all your great arguments with a grand gesture and swing of the cape. Sadly, if your arguments are a house of cards, then the effect is not quite so grand.
Come up with a Initiative that gives ANYONE the right to grant ANYONE ELSE the right to inherit, raise children, visit in the hospital, et al, I will campaign for it.
Really, dude, the status quo we have now in Cali, Mass, and Conn’t, is already doing fine with that. Letting same-sex couples CONTINUE to marry without YOUR GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE is the simplest, most elegant way of retaining those rights for all of us.
You will not answer any point Vern. Will you?
PUNK’D, CROWLSTER!
Society by definition has rules.
So…
it does NOT MATTER that you were “born” with certain “tendencies”, society’s rules are still in force OR you leave that society.
So…
if you were “born” with “tendencies” for the SAME SEX partner, children, animals, corpses, aliens, or whatever, IF you want to be part of an informed society, you must accept the rules. The rules of this society, founded on Judeo-Christian concepts, is that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.
A retort worthy of admiration, Vern.
Inimitably well-stated …
“oops.” (stupid name) It’s all Lord of the Flies for folks like you, isn’t it? Maybe if the tables were ever turned on you, for just one day, you would learn something. Probably not.
Jubal,
Perhaps I was wrong. I assumed your Catholic teachings were the basis of your argument. From what I have read, much of what you have stated is rooted in your faith.
My point is simple. Athiests can support marriage between man and women and at the same time believers, whether they believe in Jesus or Buddha can believe in same-sex marriage.
I find it difficult to digest how we can discriminate against a segment of our society.
And just for clarification, while I am a shitty speller/typist I am Jesuit-trained with a post-graduate degree, and I have spent more than a hundred days in silient prayer in Vina. Still I can not find any rational reasonable answer as to why you would oppose equal rights for others.
Except that you have a personal agenda which can be furthered by supporting prop eight.
Except that you have a personal agenda which can be furthered by supporting prop eight.
Duplo, I imagine it is very hard for Jubal to separate three different things working in tandem within his troubled soul: the “traditional doctrines” of his Catholic faith, his own distaste for homosexuality, and most importantly the hope of a committed Republican activist to get more “conservative” “Christians” out to the polls Nov. 4.
Kind of like me I guess – I love civil rights, equality and the Constitution, I love gay people, and I love to f**k with Republicans!
Oops,
Sounds to me like you were created from the same genetic and/or psychologically aberrant material as Adolph Hitler! Please tell me you haven’t procreated!!!
“Final point: Why are you advocating a right that denies my mother the right to marry her pet? Me the right to marry my brother?”
Yikes, Terry, you are one weird dude.
The lack of a decent philosophical discussion about the ideas of marriage in this discussion is truly depressing. This is why I hate reading 75+ comments only to be disgusted towards the end. I can write an entire tome on the subject of religion, marriage, and the evolution of homosexual identity. I can go on and on about legal precedent, argue about the definition of liberty and its place in society but I know that in the end that it will be futile. So I am just going to say:
Vote No on Prop 8. Why? Because the State has no right to allow a certain group to enjoy a fundamental right while prohibiting others to enjoy it. I don’t know why people are so distressed about same-sex marriage. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It is just a certificate issued by the state that extends certain rights to same-sex couples that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Leave them to their privacy and enjoy your own life. Keep your views of morality to your own, stop trying to impose them on others.
Frank -
‘And Sarah, thank you for pointing out WHY you are the way you are (as are many others on this blog). If you have no control over your own life, how easy it is to blame others and to just complain. You can do no wrong (including lying about other folks as Art does) and you have none of the blame. How perfect.‘
I guess you took the blue pill. Pity. Your eyes will never be open to the truth. If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic right now. I’m not blaming anyone. It is what it is. I’m also not complaining. I’m doing something about it like, uh, running this blog. Wake up and smell the OJ, Ury.
Incidentally, when have I ever lied about anyone or anything? I’m literally as honest as they come and you’ll have a hard time proving otherwise. Of course it’s my honesty that gets me into trouble, so you’re acting just as I would expect as well – like someone on the defensive.
SMS
erick,
I think you offer valid feedback.
Check out the comments on the “Defend the Octopus of Marriage” post from
9-27-08. There, I think you’ll find the kind of discussion you’re preferring to see here. This debate has been ongoing for quite some time, so people have already raised many issues that they aren’t repeating here … but I’d be curious to hear your take on religious organizations’ concerns about losing their tax exempt status, etc.
Sweettelle,
Yes on Proposition 8 proponents have frequently argued that religious organizations’ face a possibility of losing their tax exempt status in California. The argument is somewhat alarmist in nature but it does have some truth to it. If a religious organization refuses to perform a same-sex marriage it faces NO risk of losing its tax-exempt status but it is different when it comes to church owned property. For example, if a religious organization owns specific public property such as dance halls or scenery that it rents out to be used as a wedding site (or any other purpose) it cannot prohibit a same-sex couple from renting it. Doing so will put them at risk of losing their tax exemption for that specific property. The reason? Since the site is not open to the public on an equal basis, the State can revoke its tax exemption. In the case of liberty, this makes sense why such property should be open to all.
The reason why many proponents of Prop 8 are alarmed is because the way the campaign has shaped the information. Their attack ads give the impression that the religious organization itself (meaning the traditions, teachings, and overall system of religious belief) is in danger when in fact it is not. Same-sex marriage has been allowed since the California Supreme Court overruled Proposition 22 this May. Has anyone heard of any same-sex couple suing a religious institution for not allowing them to be given religious marriage rights? Or hearing a religious institution losing their tax exemption on such grounds? If so, don’t you think the Prop 8 campaign would have used such incident as ammo for their argument?
My sisters are among the most F*%ked up people I know, I would never marry them!
Now my brothers on the other hand…………