See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Offensive Homosexual Weddings to Commence | Mark's Soap Box
2. More Layoffs and Focus on the Family » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

101. #101
     On June 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm, Rusty said:

     Blaming judges for overturning the will of the people is like gettingf angry at the Supreme Court for mandating integration.

     Saying that I don’t belong in a democracy because I could gtive a damn about the will of the people misses the point. We don’t live in a direct democracy. We have a republic where many different balances have been erected to protect the rights of the democratic minority. We live in a country where a committment to civil rights is more important than hatred.

     Gay marriage is an issue the Republicans are losing. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country and since gay marriage was implemented, nothing has changed. Homosexuality has earned enough acceptance that people are no longer interested in denying their gay friends and family equal rights.

     I will be shocked if gay marriage isn’t legal in every state by 2050. And my happiness on that day will know no bounds.

102. #102
     On June 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm, purplepeep said:

     Paul-Cincy said:
     Isn’t this the issue? Whether homosexual love is as real as heterosexual?

     Nope, PaulC, otherwise your question would have to include “incest love”, “group love”, “human-animal love” and a myriad of other unlimited social ills. If you incorporate those into your query then you’d pose a valid question in the correct context.

103. #103
     On June 15th, 2008 at 9:20 pm, purplepeep said:

     Rusty said:
     Gay marriage is an issue the Republicans are losing.

     Rusty, try not to contradict yourself from comment to comment.

     The demonstrated fact is that this is an undeniably winning issue for conservatives, as Americans in state after state have consistently proven. The only mistake Republican candidates can make is not to get their opponents on record as pushing for redefining marriage to include unnatural/abnormal lifestyle choices.

     It would be great if Democrats chose this issue to be their “hill to die on”. Actually, it would be more like a Jonestown-ish mass hari-kari.

     If it were a “winning issue” for Dems, you’re left to explain why Democrats - from Obama on down - aren’t running on it.

     If I were you, I’d push to make it the centerpiece of the Dem platform and national convention this summer. That is, if you actually believed same-sex “marriage” were a “losing” issue for Republicanss instead of that notion just being a personal fantasy of yours.

     And, as Henry pointed out above, come November any such mock “marriages” will be moot even in the tres pink state of California. Machts nicht.

104. #104
     On June 15th, 2008 at 10:41 pm, Trop said:

     Well, who needs government anyway? My wife and I were married in a church by a Christian minister–and in Jerry Falwell’s town, no less. Gays have been marrying extra-legally since the beginning of time. Laws won’t stop that.

105. #105
     On June 16th, 2008 at 7:17 am, Die Hippie, Die said:

     Blaming judges for overturning the will of the people is like gettingf (sic) angry at the Supreme Court for mandating integration.

     Your ahead of lgm in the idiot non-sequitur race. And if the two of you are competing to be the most condescending, you may have an edge there too.

     Who the hell are you accusing of being angry about Brown vs. Board of Education? Or are you just building straw men?

     Overturning a voter-approved initiative by judicial fiat is exactly what happened.

     We have a republic

     Almost. We have a constitutional republic with prescribed methods for enacting laws. There is no constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage. Got it?

     We live in a country where a committment (sic) to civil rights is more important than hatred.

     It takes a true ass (no pun intended) to accuse someone with a differing opinion of holding that opinion out of hatred. Seriously, how old were you when you last stormed upstairs to your bedroom yelling “I hate you. I hate you. I hate you,” when your parents didn’t buy you something that was your civil right you wanted? 25? 30? 35? 40?

     Gay marriage is an issue the Republicans are losing.

     Wrong. Gay marriage bans are popular with people of all political persuasions. That’s why they’re never defeated when they’re on the ballot.

106. #106
     On June 16th, 2008 at 8:33 am, abstractmind said:

     Honestly, this is an issue i’m tired of hearing about. California is going to start issuing licenses for this today.

     but hey, who cares about the will of the people? who cares about what the majority wants, we have people who want to subvert that, and we’re getting in the way.

     /sarc off

107. #107
     On June 16th, 2008 at 9:16 am, Die Hippie, Die said:

     On June 16th, 2008 at 8:33 am, abstractmind said:

     but hey, who cares about the will of the people?

     We have King kRusty the Klown to guide our consciences! We don’ need no steenking will of the people!

108. #108
     On June 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am, Rusty said:

     Integration of schools was a deeply unpopular policy that was brought to the South by judicial fiat. So was ending the ban on interracial marriage.

     How is that different than what the CA Supreme Court did?

     When the will of the people is unjustifiably evil, I don’t care what the people want. And denying someone equality without justification is evil.

109. #109
     On June 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, wighttrasch said:

     Oh, Rusty; I’m sure you were interested in what the ‘will of the people’ was in the 2000 election…hmmmmm?

110. #110
     On June 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm, Rusty said:

     I actually support the Electoral College and not popular vote. I didn’t support Secretary Harris’s shenanigans and I didn’t support Al Gore’s legal strategy.

     But assuming Bush won FL, the popular vote doesn’t matter.

111. #111
     On June 16th, 2008 at 1:37 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

     On June 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am, Rusty said:

     When the will of the people is unjustifiably evil…

     Grow up, junior. Calling people evil because they don’t agree with you or give you what you want marks you as immature.

     There is a long history of state regulation of marriage including laws against bigamy, polygamy and incestuous marriage. Call those laws “hateful” if you will…but who cares what wackos think feel.

112. #112
     On June 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm, wighttrasch said:

     I didn’t support Al Gore’s legal strategy.

     and

     assuming Bush won FL

     your choice of words in these two sentences belie your intent. And they answer my question…

113. #113
     On June 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm, Rusty said:

     Hey, Hippie. It’s evil to deny people rights for no reason. It’s not a matter of disagreement. It’s a matter of hate.

114. #114
     On June 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

     It’s a matter of hate.

     I bow to the Hatemaster.

115. #115
     On June 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

     It’s evil to deny people rights for no reason.

     What DP willfully ignores is that “most” Americans believe like I do that the behavior is sinful on the same level of pedophelia. And we’re not denying squat, civil unions supply (in most states and the others were correcting themselves slowly) the same “rights” as marriage without hijacking the definition of it to appease a 2% minority and force feed the other 98% of us into accepting sinful behavior as “okay”. And DP wonders why in every state (except the one I live in sadly, but round 2 comes this November) has voted overwhelmingly to add the definition of marriage to their state constitution as “one man and one woman”. That my friend, is what I call “winning”.

     An evil man calling those us sticking up for morality evil is rather hilarious, but not a first from our resident DP.

116. #116
     On June 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

     why in every state* (that it has come up for a vote on the ballot)

117. #117
     On June 16th, 2008 at 8:55 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

     The whole (no pun intended) argument that prohibitions against gay marriages are a denial of civil rights is nonsensical at best. It’s akin to saying that because my parents didn’t give birth to a child with wings, they hatefully denied my civil right to fly–or that the sun has hatefully denied my civil right to play pond hockey in July.

     I’m used to hearing Rusty’s style of reasoning from pre-adolescents, so maybe that’s why it’s so grating to find it here.

Comment pages: « 1 [2]