Friday, May 11, 2012

Robbing Hood and his Married Men

After an "evolutionary period" slightly longer than that which allowed fish to crawl up on dry land and decide that it looked like a good place to start producing dangerous greenhouse gasses, Barack Obama has finally admitted that it is his "personal opinion" that same sex couples should be allowed to marry. To which we say, "Who the heck cares?! What are you doing about jobs and the deficit, you miserable scum-sucking, anti-American slimebag?!"

Admittedly, we have a tendency to get a
little wrought up at times. And when talking politics, a slight inclination for Tourette's.

Let's get something out of the way quickly: here at
Hope n' Change, we don't want to talk about gay marriage because it's exactly what Obama wants all of us to be talking about instead of his abysmal record and the dire straits that America finds itself in under his leadership.

That being said,
Hope n' Change is already on the record as saying that we don't have a problem with gay marriage (well, no more problem than we have with innumerable straight marriages) in a secular, legal sense...but we think churches should be free to define marriage however they want. And that's not really a debate we want to get into again right now, because it distracts - and is intended to distract - from the real issues challenging our nation.

Here's a radical idea (since Barack Obama
loves radical ideas) - what if the president of the United States decided to help gay Americans, and black Americans, and female Americans by helping all Americans?

Seriously, no matter what our differences, don't we
all want a chance to have gainful and meaningful employment? Don't we all want national security? Don't we all want an energy policy which will keep this a vital nation? Don't we all want to know that our largest institutions won't be collapsing under the weight of Washington's lies in a few short years?
Hope n' Change is frankly sick of Obama's unending efforts to divide Americans and set them against each other: rich versus poor, black versus white, straight versus gay, old versus young, men versus women, and on and on and on.

The issue of gay marriage is not insignificant (certainly not to my gay friends, both liberal and conservative)...but it is
not critical to this moment. There is no pending national legislation about the issue, nor is the president proposing such. He has spoken out on the issue only to drown out the voices of those asking the important, difficult, and urgent questions.

We can not and
must not allow ourselves to be sidetracked from focusing on the very real destruction that Barack Obama has done in his first term...and the ultimate destruction which would result from a second term.

We must turn our backs on the president's sneering politics of division and stand united to throw this hateful and hate-filled man out of office.

Young Barry's closest personal friend in college was a composite.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!


Dave David Schmoyer on Facebook said...

Ok well as I said last night on FB:
He wants the election in Nov to be about ANYTHING but the economy and his job performance. Anything at all. If he was really for Gay marriage he would have come out about it before it became an issue with NC passing a law against it.

And to eliminate any misunderstanding let me also say that I believe that non-traditional families should have all the same LEGAL rights as a traditional family. I also however believe that churches should not be forced to condone non-traditional families. If the church wants to fine but don't force them to. Third everyone needs to get their nose out of everyone else's bedroom and worry about what is going on in their own.

That said. Odumbass is playing the old flip flop to get everyone talking. He has done nothing other then allow Seal Team 6 to complete a mission started under GW Bush. And it is my firm belief that the only reason he allowed it was he couldn't come up with a way to blame someone else for it not launching if it got leaked. We already know he went out of his way to set it up so that the General in charge would catch any backlash if it failed. We also know Obamer has made a complete idiot out of himself this MAy over the one year anniversary of Osama's death. About the only thing he didn't do is spike Bin Laden's head in the end zone of a college game. Other then that his greatest accomplishment has been to play golf and go on vacations. WHy you might as do I consider these things accomplishments? Because when he's playing golf or zipping all over the world wasting taxpayers' money that we can't afford he isn't pushing his cronies to come up with other ways to screw us (the American Public) or figuring out another way to Shred the Constitution.

The only thing this president knows how to do is waste money, reward his cronies, destroy decades old alliances, shred the Constitution, and lets not forget BLAME everyone else.

It's time he goes....I don't care where he goes as long as it is FAR from the White House. ANd he can take his food nazi, yam lovin' wookie with him. And he know the majority of the thinking population also believe it is time for him to go. So get ready for the best sleight of hand act since Penn and Teller hit the stage boys and girls. He will bring so many issues up over the next couple of months in an attempt to confuse the masses. My only concern is that if you pay any attention to social media it appears to be working......

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

I can't help but imagine Obama as the Black Knight, sans extremities, yelling at King Arthur, "I'll bite your legs off".
Hubris and denial...blend well and pour into a big glass of fail.

Colby said...

Reading your most excellent post today, I found myself sayin' AMEN (out loud) after each perfectly crafted paragraph. There is nothing to add; you have said it all. But I will add anyway because I feel energized by your post....

Let's keep focused folks, and not get sucked into the vortex of deception, smoke and mirrors. There is a good reason he choose "forward" as his slogan because he sure as HELL doesn't want us looking even one day backward. I pray Romney sees this opportunity and pounds the living crap out of BO over his record.

I see signs of waking people after this last election in NC, and am amazed at the amount of RINOs and lifetime politicians that got the old nose thumb. I think America is waking up, let's not get drowsy again!

Chuck said...

I've nothing to add except that I am in total agreement on all counts.

graylady said...

Well said, David and kudos to you too, Stilt.
Keep the bum in the White House on task. The real issues in this election are the economy, the unemployment rate, his do nothing but golf and vacation term, and the fact that the Dumbocrats haven't even passed a budget in years. Don't let him distract the electorate with silliness like the non-existant war on women, same sex-marriage (yucky, in my opinion, but really not my business) and how "he" got Bin Laden. He has to distract the voters because he has nothing else to run on.

Earl said...

Stilton I agree. These side issues are actually boring the crap out of me. I think our "forward" president actually wants to go backward in time and refight the Civil War. He wants to consolidate power at the executive level and throw federalism out the window. This time, the slaves are the 99% divided into all the appropriate pc victim groups; the slave owners are the 1% private business class and red state governors and legislatures which are actually trying to solve problems at the state level (only to get sued by the EPA, the Justice Department or mobbed by union rioters.) Remember that this president actually compared himself to Lincoln. The cruel irony is that he unifies to divide and destroy. He must be defeated.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Agreed. Ă˜bama is just a vote-whore. It wasn't an evolution at all; just an instinctive move to satify his "needs" - he's likely thinking he'll sway all those folks who support codifying gay marriage. To wit, he is getting accolades from all those folks in Europe - folks I'm not entirely sure didn't vote in the 2008 election. After all, it's infinitely easier for live people to vote than it must have been for all the dead people that have voted for democrats year after year after year...

I'm betting that, before November, he also attempts to show he supports those who oppose gay marriage. Really very easy for one having a multitude of faces to show to the public...

We, as the "vote vice squad" need to keep the discussion on the critical subjects, as you have done here, to help reduce the number of :vote-johns" this whore can count on in November.

Suzy said...

The timing of his announcement made me mad. Obama is against America, and in particular, against our states and states' rights.

The people of North Carolina just voted that marriage should be between a man and a woman. (I personally agree...I feel civil union is plenty for gays and that they are unfair to encroach upon the age-old definition of traditional marriage.) The people spoke, the state has done as it feels right.

NOW Obama stands up and basically says North Carolina is wrong. Just like he said Arizona was wrong (and sued them, along with Mexico), he feels Alabama is wrong, just as he turns his nose up at the Supreme Court, and I'm sure I'm missing some others.

The beauty of statehood is that they are supposed to be able to make choices that are best for their state. If people do not like their state, they are free to move to another one that better suits them.

Obama hates our country and he hates our states. I wish he'd go away. Back to Kenya. Traitor.

CenTexTim said...

This must be a wonderful time to be a cartoonist/humorist/commentator. obama is a veritable cornucopia of material.

“I was for gay marriage before I was against it. And then I was against it before I was for it.”

Actually, even now he's not for gay marriage. He's for $$$ from gay PACS.

And speaking of gay marriage, let's recall what Kinky Friedman had to say about it:

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@David Schmoyer- I had to look twice to make sure I hadn't written your letter myself; we're in complete agreement! Thanks for sharing.

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I think the comparison to the Black Knight is a good one: he continues to boldly state the opposite of what everyone can see with their own eyes, convinced of his own invulnerability. And I hope that by November, he's been whittled away to the point where everyone can see him for the joke he is.

@Colby- Exactly. Obama and the Dems are trying desperately to inject social arguments into the political dialogue, because they're frequently based on feelings and not cold, hard facts. But none of those social policies will mean a damn when everything else comes falling down. We've GOT to hold Obama's feet to the fire and make sure this election is about spending and his abysmal record, and never allow ourselves to become distracted - or for us to descend into fights amongst ourselves.

@Chuck- Hey, that counts!

@graylady- Like Chuck just said, all I can do is agree with you.

@Earl- Excellent points, particularly about the Obama camp wishing they could turn back time to the liberal "glory days" of appalling discrimination, when they were fighting "the good fight" (or imagine they were fighting it - many Democrats fought civil rights tooth and nail). I read a wonderful editorial recently which described this phenomenon as "nostalgia for racism."

And as you point out, Obama knowingly and gleefully divides us so we won't think - or vote - as Americans, but only as little pockets of self-interest. The man is simply despicable.

@Emmentaler- Obama is already sucking up to the anti-gay marriage crowd, praising the long and important tradition of male-female marriage. Plus, to give himself cover like the worst kind of coward, he again placed his daughters in the line of fire - saying that it was conversations with them that changed his mind, owing to the fact that their little friends have same-sex parents.

He's slick, I'll give him that. And your description of him as a Vote Whore is exactly right.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Suzy- The timing of (and preparation for) Obama's announcement was as precisely plotted as that for a moon launch. Well, before Obama ended our manned spaceflight program and turned NASA into a Muslim Outreach Center.

Obama supports states' rights when doing so allows him to avoid the blame on an issue...and he attacks states' rights when he thinks he can turn it into votes. He is, purely and simply, anti-Constitution.

@CenTexTim- It's only a "wonderful" time to be a conservative cartoonist in the sense that I'm unlikely to run out of material. But oh how I wish this wasn't the case. I'd personally prefer to take the time I spend on Barack Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama and spend it with someone more pleasant to be with - Johnny Optimism.

The self-inflicted curse of my "job" here at Hope n' Change is that I'm always angry, but can't give myself permission to look away.

But back to the real topic on hand, you're right that Barry seems to be "for" and "against" every issue. In college, he was considered masterful in debate because everyone listening to him thought that he made a compelling case for their side... even if their sides were in direct opposition to each other. He has a genius for grand vagaries and meaningless inference. He is as insubstantial, yet powerfully unpleasant, as a rank fart.

John the Econ said...

There's little question that Obama's new-found love for being gay is part of a shrewd political calculus; Yes, he risks alienating his core Black & Hispanic constituencies who are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. But he solidifies support in the highly affluent gay community, who have otherwise had enough of him. I have no doubt that his new found "conviction" on this issue was backed up with hard data from his re-election staff.

And you all are correct here; This is just another attempt to get the national discussion away from anything having to do with the state of America in 2012, as we set up to enter "Recovery Summer III, yet another dreary sequel".

Oh, and speaking of meaningless distractions, the big news of the day is that Romney might have beat up on some guy in high school. Yeah, high school. (And he might have been "gay" too!) Quite a contrast, considering the media's complete lack of interest in anything about Obama's life prior to his being elected to the Senate.

Expect a seemingly endless series of such meaningless interjections between now and November. Look, over there, a squirrel...

The upside is that as unseemly as most of these interjections are likely to be, they will not be able to distract most "swing" voters from the Obama reality; high unemployment, high inflation, an overall lower standard of living, mass government intervention & incompetence, and no end in sight.

They're already touting QE3 to push more cash into the economy this summer. It's literally a tax on everyone who saves.

Oh yes, and there's "taxageddon" coming in 2013. Possibly the single remaining saving grace of our democracy is that the entirety of the middle class has not yet been co-opted by the mega-welfare state; enough of them know that eventually, taxes aimed at the "1%" ultimately will hit them, sooner or later.

Add to that the fact that Europe is swirling ever faster around the event horizon towards the black hole that is the inevitable result of "social democracy". You don't need a degree in economics to see how spending more money that doesn't exist to expand government & benefits isn't going to solve anything.

Neo-Keynesiansim hasn't saved
them; why would it save us?

Pete (Detroit) said...

John - not only is the good news that the distractions increasing will fail to distract anyone, it will become blatently obvious that all he can do is run for cover, somewhere, ANY where. Expect him to be up the wife's skirt and / or behind the girls before long. And the longer he keeps the shenanigans up, the more people he's going to piss off. Presumably on both sides.

Suzy, it's my understanding that MOST people are fine w/ 'civil union' type of arrangements, it's when the word 'marriage' gets attached that people flip out. And the activists who insist that 'separate is NOT equal' probably have a point. I understand you to be saying that 'it's not equal, and therefor *should* be separate.
The obvious solution is to have states issue CU certs to EVERYONE, (the legal bit) and let CHURCHES handle the Marriage (the religious / special part). Simple, easy, effective. And no glory for the pols, so it probably won't happen. See also a bottle of ink for finger dipping, to hamper voter fraud.

John the Econ said...

You'd think that Obama and the media would instead focus public attention on success stories such as this:

As part of Obama's class-warfare and "green" agendas, a government-funded (half-a-billion financed by the 99%) electric luxury automobile burns down the house and two other carbon-spewing automobiles belonging to an evil 1%-er, the primary customers for the $100,000 environmentally-correct car. It only took two weeks after the owner took delivery of the Fisker Karma for the plan to come to complete fruition. Fisker is blaming the owner of the car for the conflagration, suggesting that the fire might have been the result of fraud or malicious intent instead of any fault in the car.

(The people at Consumer Reports should consider themselves lucky that their Karma died before they had a chance to test it and it had a chance to explode inside their garage)

PRY said...

Wow...when Biden was on meet the press sunday, I mentioned to my wife that he ALWAYS says something
unbelievably nutty...and he didn't disappoint me. Yeh, they are just trying to distract, but I really feel thet shot themselves in the foot on this one.

Also, I am so glad you are on FB now so mmore people from the left can get a dose of the 'hopenchange' truth! You sre pretty much preaching to the choir here at blogspot, so hopefully this great blog will reach many progressive and also 'uninformed' eyes!

Larry Walker, Jr. said...

Welcome to the devolution.

Cookie said...

Why is it that when obama changes his mind about something it's called evolving, but when Romney (or any other Republican) changes his/her mind it's called flip-flopping?
Yep, let's just get the squirrels out of here and get back to fighting the dragons!

JustaJeepGuy said...

I'm wondering why it is that back in the early '70s, so many people started questioning the institution of marriage and decided it needn't apply to them. Now, so many people who felt that way about marriage then seem to think that it would be great if there were legal same-sex marriages now. Why was it an archaic institution then but it's just jim-dandy all of a sudden? Aside from the usual liberal hypocrisy, I mean.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Jeep - Lemme esplain. No, take to long. Lemmee sum up.
1) homos (to use the term accurately, and non-pejoratively) need to have a basis to establish a legal relationship to those they love / choose to partner w/. (hospital visitations, inheritance, etc) - argue if you want, commonly accepted as 'reasonable'
2) "civil unions" (aka "domestic partnerships") Pretty much cover this to everyone's satisfaction. (again, debate at will)
3) see comments to Suzy

Coon Tasty said...

@Pete(Detroit) - "The obvious solution is to have states issue CU certs to EVERYONE, (the legal bit) and let CHURCHES handle the Marriage (the religious / special part)."

Except that's not what the homosexual lobby want. - They want Christians to be FORCED by law to accept behaviour that explicitly goes against what the Bible says is permitted. THAT is what the issue really is.

Suzy said...

Pete....because civil unions solve all the problems gay couples face (mostly financial, or hospital visits, or what have you), there is absolutely no need to have marriages for them.

Why punish regular couples by taking "marriage" out of regular everyday courts? And why do gays think they need MORE than civil unions?

Scrambling definitions and changing words for the sake of political correctness is unnecessary. Marriage between a man and a woman is an age-old thing that spans many, many generations and cultures. Now that Bob wants to marry Harry and Jane wants to marry Judy doesn't mean the definitions need to change. They can add something NEW, if they want. Civil unions work fine. But don't encroach upon what has already been known for centuries as something between a man and a woman...i.e. people who can actually procreate and start a family, all of whom share the same DNA.

There's really no reason for gays, who have access to civil unions, to be upset about marriage other than the fact people always want something they can't have, even if they do not need it.

If a gay person wants to get married, then they can go straight and do so. There are always things in life people are not allowed to do for one reason or another....there's no reason to make it a global crisis.

I say this all honestly and candidly and without anger, just so ya know. :-)

I just get tired of all the whining, ya know? All these special interest groups, always whining that they want more attention, more perks, more this, more that. Sheesh.

Suzy said...

Yeah, Coon has a good point too, I forgot about that.

I find that gays aren't just interested in minding their own business. They want everyone else to AGREE with their own business. I don't know why it seems to be the gay agenda to make their sex lives public, but there ya go, and there it is.

There have been documented cases of gay people trying to work with a known Christian business person and then threatening lawsuit when the business person, for one reason or another, feels they are not able to work with the gay people. Now, unless the business is government-owned, no business should ever be required to work with ANY one person if they feel the services are not a good match.

Also there are many groups that want to force homosexuality into churches of all denominations, whether in the pulpit or to force ministers to perform the weddings, or etc.

You gotta admit, two men can't make a baby...that's really not too natural. Two men can do whatever they like in their own home, but don't force my family to be included in your decisions.

Gays don't want Christianity shoved down their throats...and Christians don't want the gay lifestyle shoved down theirs.

Fair is fair, right?

Pete(Detroit) said...

Coon - I think this is stepping where Stilt didn't want to go, debating the whole "homos have rights" thing. (and I may well be wrong) but, to try to clarify, are you saying that homo is observed in all mammalian species but 'unnatural' in just one of them? Are you suggesting they have SOME legal rights but not all? Suggesting that they have NO legal rights at all?
MY point is to render unto Cesare.. (the LEGAL stuff) for all, and to render unto God (the "M" word) from the churches. If you belong to a church where they can be married, cool. If that's not for you, change churches.
What's the issue?
(Unless, of course, you wish to take the hopelessly minority position that they 'deserve' no 'rights' at all)

Pete(Detroit) said...

And, I guess, if you truly do NOT want to put up w/ homos in society, there are several that to this day will stone them to death. Consider emigration? (note - they tend to be generally VERY unpleasant places to live, and not overly polite to Christians, either)

Pete(Detroit) said...

Coon, to look at it another way - the hell w/ what the "activists" may / not "want" - let's give them "equal" not "special" and be DONE w/ it.

Suzy said...

Just a bit more food for thought and I will cheerfully refrain from any more commenting...but...

If homosexual marriage is a "right", then why isn't polygamy a "right"? Why isn't it a "right" to marry an underage girl?

You know....a lot of people think they have the "right" to do whatever they please and have the government smile and agree with it. That is not the case at all. Just because gays can't always get married does not mean they do not have just as many "rights" as someone else.

Have a great night all!!!! :-)

Pete(Detroit) said...

Suzy, some good points, (esp about 'forcing' gay ministry - go found your OWN flipping church!) But again, if the State issues the CU to EVERYONE, what have you lost? You are STILL going to go to your church to get the "Marriage", yes? How is 'equal for everyone' harmful or wrong? I'm not interested in changing "Marriage", just making sure that everyone gets equal legal treatment. Speaking of, can we please kill off 'hate crimes' too? I mean, really, ever hear of a 'love crime'? Are they not ALL 'hate crimes'? Does it MATTER 'why' someone was chained to a truck, or a fence, or a tree? A HUMAN is DEAD, yes? Can we not all just agree that that is horrible, regardless of why, and treat them all the same?
(and no, sorry, abortion, where the fetus / baby is judged NOT to "human" is a whole different issue - lets keep the side tracks to a minimum? Just a suggestion...)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- In truth, Obama is risking NOTHING with Black and Hispanic voters: he can explain to them that he simply expressed an opinion, as every American can do, but he's done NOTHING to challenge "protection of marriage" laws, and is proposing nothing of the kind. He's taken the gays' money, and slipped out the bathroom window with no services rendered. (Note: that's not a slam on gays - that's my way of calling Obama a whore).

The Romney/Bully story is stupid and completely irrelevant, which means it will probably have legs in the MSM.

And the economic news I've been hearing (and which you cite here) is more of the same old recipe for disaster that we've had shoved down our throats (and other orifices) for almost four years now.

@Pete (Detroit)- The Bamster is ALREADY hiding behind his daughters; he claimed his position on gay marriage "evolved" because they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples.

And I like your idea on the marriage conundrum. Per the Constitution, we should allow churches to handle things however they want - but at this point, I think the legal protections for secular marriage should be equal for all.

@John the Econ- The Flaming Fisker story is a huge embarrassment for the electric car evangelists. We're paying outlandish sums to build these time bombs that nobody wants. Not a bad metaphor for the whole freakin' Obama administration.

@PRY- I actually think this whole thing was planned down to the last nuance.

FIRST, the Obama campaign team digs up a 45-year-old story about Romney hassling a student who may have been gay. But how to get anyone to care? Ah ha! Have Biden announce HIS thoughts on gay marriage, "forcing" Obama to declare his own thoughts "reluctantly." And why "reluctantly?" So when, hours later, they leak the story of young Romney possibly hassling a possibly gay kid, it doesn't look like Obama's team planned it.

But they did. Count on it.

Regarding the new Facebook presence, it's a wild ride so far. My material is definitely getting exposed to more people, which is good - and some of it is getting "shared" like wildfire, which is great.

But it's very time-consuming (more than I would have thought), and there are a fair number of idiots who I should just ignore...but feel the need to try to educate.

I haven't found my balance yet. I already have too much to do and too little time, and wrestling with trolls just isn't on my schedule.

@Larry Walker Jr- "Devolution" is exactly how it feels.

@Cookie- Great point! The word "evolving" in such a context makes my skin crawl, as do the alleged "journalists" who accept that as an answer.

@JustaJeepGuy- I'm going to opine that a lot of people in the 70's questioned the value of marriage because they just wanted to have sex with as many partners as possible. And that went for gays, too. But as people get older, they yearn for something more substantial. And now that gays have been out of the closet for a significant amount of time, quite a few would like to settle down with someone really special to them.

When you think about it, some gay couples are saying they want the traditional comforts and responsibilities of marriage that more wildly liberal types reject as archaic. And I can respect that.

@Pete(Detroit)- Short, sweet, to the point.

@Coon Tasty- This is an interesting debate for me, being neither gay nor religious. But I support the right of gays to be legally married and the Constitutional right of churches to reject this and say "no."

Because some churches won't say no. And that's where the gays should go in order to protect everyone's religious freedom.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Suzy, I know of NO good argument against polygamy / polyandry / polyamory OTHER than knowing who the father of the baby *is* can be hugely relevant to the next generation (and, certainly, there are whole TV shows based on the concept that enough women have NO clue as to the answer to that question that it is the basis for a TV show - if that makes sense) In any event, one man / one woman mated for life is a VERY relatively recent phenomenon, socially, and far from global even today. Not saying better / worse than other systems (have not personally experienced ANY form of 'legal' relationship) just saying that what YOU are promoting as "normal" is anything but. Personally, I think line marriages as illustrated in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein make a HELL of a lot of sense, but that's just me. Also, throwing statutory age limits in w/ polys is a poor canard - they have NOTHING to do w/ each other. Fuzzy critters would be a better pair, and the problem w/ that one is that there is NO need for any legal relationship other than 'I own you' - horses, goats, sheep etc don't really HAVE rights, other than it's illegal to abuse them. (definition of "abuse" being left to the student)
And, by the way, thanks for playing, and politely - I always appreciate folks who can disagree w/o being disagreeable!

Pete(Detroit) said...

Man, they're flying thick and fast tonight!
Missed this the first time around, and I think Suzy was asking an honest question, and deserves an honest answer...

"Why punish regular couples by taking "marriage" out of regular everyday courts? And why do gays think they need MORE than civil unions?"

1) what "punish" - If a CU satisfies all the legal necessities for gays, why not also for straights?
2) "Well, it's a sanctity thing, us and God, cleave unto one flesh, you know?" Yes, I get that - and as such, as a RELIGIOUS matter, it's b/n you, your religious advisory type person (priest(ess), minister, shaman, tree) and your God. Keep the frigg'n LEGAL COURTS the HELL away from God, you know?
3) "Why do they think they need more?" because YOU do. They see YOU as having different / special rights, and want the same. Actually, that's not *quite* true - MOST gays (as I understand the polling) just as most straights are perfectly FINE w/ CUs - it's the crazy agitators (as noted well above) who point out (with a fair bit of history) that "separate is NOT equal" - and they claim to want equal. Again, the easy answer is to GIVE them equal. And see where they go from there.
As Stilt says, some "churches" will permit homo "marriage" just as some permit poly's or fuzzy critters (Fatwas have been written on how to dispose of said fuzzy critters - eeeeewwwww!). That does not mean we have to "accept" or "approve" of them any more than Catholics "accept" or "approve" of, say, Baptists (you're ALL going to HELL, per Sr. Agnes)
No big.
Legally, the same - good
Morally, b/n you and God - good.
God, free from lawyers, VERY good.

And yeah, it's getting late / early here, too - g'nite all. Looking fwd to checking in tomorrow night, see where this has gone!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- YIKES! There seems to have been a flurry of posting while I was composing my last comment. So things may seem just a little out of order.

Let me try to address the comments that actually preceded mine:

@Suzy- I agree with almost everything you say. If gays want the blessings of the church on their wedding, then they need to find a church which accepts that as part of their doctrine - not try to use the courts to make churches change their teachings and beliefs.

Regarding wanting everyone to agree with "their business," it's an interesting and complex point. If we were discussing race, say, and I was part of a minority, I'd want it acknowledged generally that I was as good as anyone else.

BUT, if there was a church which said otherwise...I'd be out of luck, because churches enjoy uniquely protected speech. Which is why Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan are free to preach anti-white matter how much we don't like it.

@Pete(Detroit)- It seems like you're summing up my feelings pretty accurately. And the phrase "equal but not special" certainly strikes a responsive chord.

And remember how in a recent cartoon, I was pissed off about abortion because of my personal experience with a tiny preemie fighting for life? (Side note: he's doing great, and someday I expect him to be a linebacker) So, too, my opinions are strongly based on my personal, albeit limited, face to face interactions with gay friends. Those I know are good people who have played important roles in my life. I've seen perfectly good long-term relationships, and I've seen the pain of loss when a partner dies. And damn it, they're not "gays" they're people. Imperfect people...because all of us are.

Long story short: when I think of the gay friends I know personally, I can't support any legislation which would hurt them, or give them fewer or lesser rights than anyone else. It's just that simple.

(And please note that I'm not implying that any of you are saying differently: I just want to give the personal perspective about where I'm coming from.)

@Suzy- Ouch! You have a gift for asking the hard questions! (And believe it or not, that's a compliment!)

And I don't have tidy answers. Again, I'll say I'm 100% behind the church doing whatever it wants to do. But the age at which it's legal to marry is already a variable matter of states rights: what's legal in one state is statutory rape in another. So that's something for each state to work out.

Polygamy? I wish you hadn't asked, because I may get tarred and feathered, but... I'd again say it's a matter of states rights. If Hawaii wants to legalize polygamy, I'd think they were idiots (in fairness, I already do) but I'd say to let them do it and see how it plays out. Note that I would not say that such polygamous marriages would have to be recognized in other states.

Let me be really clear: I think polygamy would be INSANE, bad for family structure, bad for individuals, and bad for society. I just don't have a ready argument to say why the determination shouldn't be left up to the states.

@Pete(Detroit)- I'm happily going to grab the life preserver of "hate crimes" so I can get off the topic of gay marriage. I despise the notion of "hate crimes" because it says some murders are worse than others. Did you beat some poor bastard to death because he was a different color? That's a HATE CRIME! Did you beat him to death because you just wanted his wallet? Oh, well, that's not such a big deal. Except to the victim and his family.

"Hate Crime" isn't about the action, it's about the thoughts in your head. And "Thought Crime" isn't really a road any of us should be eager to go down.

Suzy said...

Interestingly enough, I think polygamy is not as "strange" as homosexuality, although of course, I believe in neither.

Think about it.

What is the difference between marrying five girls, one at a time (then divorcing) in your lifetime, or marrying them all five (willingly) at the same time, and staying with them and providing for them all your life? I mean, seriously. Guys jump around from bed to bed to bed to bed to bed and yet they think being faithful to three women for 45 years is BAD? And as far as family structure, having two moms and one dad can't be much worse than only having one single mom, or only one single dad, or two moms and no dad, or two dads and no moms, or....(and please, no offense to those in any of the above given situations, they are given for sake of discussion only.)

Being the devil's advocate there, a bit....but surely you see my point.

My point is...morality has to have a foundation. In one generation, slavery was okay. In the current generation, gay marriage is okay. Next generation, girls will be getting married at age ten. What is YOUR foundation for morality? Think about it. Mine is God, because outside of that, morality is anybody's game, anybody's opinion, and is subject to change...but that is outside the topic being discussed.

Anyway, to me, the idea that gays need marriage in order to have "equal rights" is ridiculous, because if that's the case, then men should theoretically have the "right" to marry ten girls....they should also have the "Right" to marry (again, theoretically) a consenting 12 year old (after all, they do in the middle east)....and so on. What is a "right"? Who gets to define "rights"? And who makes sure everybody's "rights" are consistent?

I maintain, before I go to bed, late as usual hahahaha....that marriage was "here first" so gays need to go find another solution for their lifestyle. People "get married and have kids". Marriage is...marriage is timeless. Gays have come to expect it in the eleventh hour, but its like a girl joining the Eagle Scouts. Its just not the way it works. It doesn't make the girl a horrible just means she belongs in her OWN GROUP.

Know what I mean? Its late, please excuse anything that may not make sense. ha. And yep Pete, I always love a good, calm discussion with other people who know how to act like adults! *thumbs up*

Suzy said...

PS: And yep. Hate crimes are ridiculous. All crime is done out of hate. Crime is crime no matter the color of your skin, your sexual orientation, or your religion. The government has no right to choose winners or losers based on the above criteria.

Coon Tasty said...


No, I wasn't saying any of those things. I don't even know how you could conclude that from my comment.

I DO, however, take the position that there should be no such thing as "gay rights", for the same reason that I don't believe that there should be special rights for, say, left-handed accountants who were born on a rainy Tuesday and whose favourite colour is brown, i.e. they already have the same rights afforded to them as any normal citizen. The very fact that they even call it "gay RIGHTS" is a giant warning sign that they are angling for special treatment.
Homosexuals in the Western world are the least discriminated-against group I can think of. - Police forces actively advertise to try and recruit gay/lesbian police officers, who will receive promotion in advance of their heterosexual colleagues, based solely on their sexual preferences. Homos are not at all discriminated against.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Stilt: I hear you: as with your pining away to spend more time with JO, I'm pining away for that day when I can focus my entrepreneurial bent toward enhancing my wealth rather than toward thwarting those who wish to steal the fruits of my labor.

@Coon Tasty: you nailed it. Most homosexuals I know would be happy with simply having their unions recognized and legally honored for insurance, etc. It is the extremists that are pressing for "marriage" as, as you indicate, this rubs it in the faces of all those who condemn their lifestyle by forcing it's recognition upon them.

I have many homosexual friends. I am only aware of one couple that went out of their way to "marry", and they told me straight out that they only did it for the notoriety and novelty of it - their state and employer already gave them all the recognition, rights and status of married couples.

I am no psychologist/psychiatrist (nor do I play one on radio or television), and all of my homosexual acquaintances seem little different from me, in most cases and excepting sexual preference, but I am deeply troubled by the manner in which homosexuality was removed as apsychological disorder in 1973 to a state of normality. Google it up some time to see coercive socialism at play. Knowing this bit of history drives deep suspicion in me regarding all such machinations...

Pete(Detroit) said...

Ok Coon, apol's for coming at you from left field. Clearly, we're on the same page w/ r/ t "equal, not special" rights.
Emmentaller, your experience w/ your friends matches what I understand to be the case in general - MOST folks would be perfectly happy to have CUs and be done w/ it. It's the few percent of activists (on both sides) that are causing all the fuss.
Boo them.
Then again, just because *I* don't see what the fuss is about does not mean they're not honestly invested...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Suzy- I agree with you that our culture's acceptance of "serial polygamy" (marrying a succession of spouses) isn't a lot different than regular old polygamy.

But regarding gay marriage, we need to keep a clear focus on whether we're talking about laws (which is the business of the state) and morality (which is the business of the church). There are no laws that make anyone more moral - only laws which force behaviors which are deemed acceptable. Without freedom to choose, including making bad choices, there can be no morality.

And while there are moral absolutes defined (and not agreed upon) by different churches, these do not constitute the law of the land.

Personally, I do not feel that homosexuality is inherently any less moral than heterosexuality. But I find promiscuity to be immoral, or a willingness to use or hurt others - whatever the sexual orientation. I respect the taking of vows, and am unforgiving of those who break them.

When dealing with laws, we must remember that they're intended to regulate behavior in pro-social ways... not enforce our differing conceptions of morality. And when you think about who's in power right now, isn't that a good thing? (By the way, the movie "A Clockwork Orange" is a classic exploration of the question of trying to regulate morality; I love it - but it's not for those with delicate constitutions.)

@Coon Tasty- I agree that the goal should be "equal rights not special rights." And while a lot of progress has been made, I think there is still discrimination against gays. Not so much as a matter of law, but as a matter of the lack of "mainstreaming" (if you will), in which people get a gay couple living in their neighborhood and find out that the world doesn't come to an end.

@Emmentaler- Hopefully both of us will be getting our wishes early next year.

@Pete(Detroit)- Nice summation.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Thx Stilt. As a friend points out, even considering poly-iags, they're always cross gender. Same sex relations (he claims) have NEVER been referred to as a "marriage" and should not be now. Just as his wife cannot be a 'father' nor he a 'mother', a same sex relationship needs a new name. I suggested "Mawwedge" as in "Princess Bride" (The "Twuuu Wuuv" scene). Not sure he thought it funny.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

Yes, me little droogies - look to The Clockwork Orange to see such moral engineering at in all its glory. Good call, Stilt. The relevance of Kubrick's film to the concept of "legislating morality" is clear. Excellent call!

Now, back to my daily plans - I planned to be mostly dead all day!

(And happy mothers' day to most, and happy mutha's day to the rest of ya...)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete(Detroit)- At some point, it comes down to semantics. And never let it be said that I'm anti-semantic.

@Emmentaler- I'm going to bump "Clockwork Orange" up in my Netflix queue for another viewing. It's a great examination of morality, free will, and the state (for those who can get past the sexual content). Also highly recommended is the original novel by Anthony Burgess, who frequently (and brilliantly) used satire to explore the theme of citizens' relationship to the state.

Stan da Man said...

Crikey, Stilt, I'm a gonna HAS to get me a keyboard cover, like they use in auto shops.... anti-semantic - YEESH!