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.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pm, BobonStatenIsland said:

   Did they make the girls sit on one side and the boys sit on the other?

2. #2
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

   When I start teaching at a public university, I guess I’ll just make all the kids there go to Catholic mass on Sunday. If anyone asks, it’s a “field trip.”

   Although in that case, it would do more good than harm.

3. #3
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, right4life said:

   the gay rights movement is all about the recruitment of children. even though they claim its not.

4. #4
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm, CantCureStupid said:

   This is why, as my children approached school age, I got the eff out of California. Between the leftist indoctrination and the metal detectors (at least in some places), why the hell would anyone send their kids to a California public school?

5. #5
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm, tyrfing said:

   That’s so much easier than teaching them how to read or do math. But hey, they might be ignorant and dependent, but they sure are tolerant aren’t they?

6. #6
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, BobonStatenIsland said:

   Is this all part of “It’s O.K. if your teacher touches you” lesson?

7. #7
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pm, letget said:

   I wonder what the parents of these kids thought of this? Did they have to sign a form to let the kids go? If I had a child in that school, I would get that child out so fast and put that child in a private school. I am so thankful I have no kids in school today with all that the schools are teaching them even at the age of 5 or 6.
   L

8. #8
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:17 pm, teachem2 said:

   I can’t homeschool because I work, trying to make the public school a more balanced place to get an education. This is exactly why my kids go to a Catholic school! They reinforce my Catholic beliefs and values, not this type of illegitimate drivel.

9. #9
   On October 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, InCali said:

   Well, I’ll exercise my right to vote on this. But Gavin Newsome gives me no confidence that he will follow the people’s will. So the vote is mostly symbolic, I guess. Isn’t that a dictatorship?

10. #10
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, Defector01 said:

    Its San Francisco, not taking them to a leather fair is damn near a Buchanan like educational philosophy.

    Wonder if they could pull this off with a ‘normal’ marriage, you know, in a church with a man and a woman?

11. #11
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, Omu said:

    The teacher herself didn’t actually organise the trip; the pupils are in a private school, not a public school. The school children obviously adore their teacher and enjoyed surprising her on her wedding day. First graders, it seems, are much more mature and much less bigoted and mean-spirited than social conservatives.

12. #12
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, Boomer said:

    I fear for my niece and nephew that are wards of the People’s Republic of Kalifornia’s public school system. I hope my youngest brother and his wife have the strength and patient to deprogram them as they come home from school everyday. I begged him to escape before the housing bubble burst and now he is stuck in a home that he owes more on then its adjusted market value.

    Welcome to the United Socialist States of America! We’re boned!

13. #13
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, b-cat said:

    They have to indoctrinate. It is the only way such a marriage can have offspring. Our country is being overtaken by creeps.

14. #14
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm, John Ansell said:

    Glad to see my taxes go to good use!

    Major Sarc/

15. #15
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, William Teach said:

    I remeber (vaugely) my days in school, when we went to fun places like the zoo, aquariums, parks. Even learning places like the Ben Franklin museum, the historic sights in Philly and NJ, were fun.

16. #16
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    Gavin Newsome is so greasy it’s bad for the environment.

17. #17
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    the gay rights movement is all about the recruitment of children. even though they claim its not.

    Well, when you disrupt the natural order and cannot biologically have your own children, to whom are you going to pass along your values if not the children of others? Especially of those others disagree with your “lifestyle”….

    When I start teaching at a public university, I guess I’ll just make all the kids there go to Catholic mass on Sunday.

    You’d be on the unemployment line (and, in Obama’s America, probably in jail) so fast it’d make your head spin.

    How is this defensible in any way, shape, or form?

    Further proof that “education” in American public schools is 99.9% about passing along a political agenda and not teaching anything of substance.

18. #18
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    Omu said:

    The teacher herself didn’t actually organise the trip; the pupils are in a private school, not a public school. The school children obviously adore their teacher and enjoyed surprising her on her wedding day. First graders, it seems, are much more mature and much less bigoted and mean-spirited than social conservatives.

    You need to be put in a camp.

19. #19
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pm, Omu said:

    Well, I’ll exercise my right to vote on this. But Gavin Newsome gives me no confidence that he will follow the people’s will. So the vote is mostly symbolic, I guess. Isn’t that a dictatorship?

    I’m pretty sure everybody didn’t vote on whether you should be allowed the right to marry, or did they?

20. #20
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:22 pm, twofoot said:

    Intolerant bigots! What? You expect them to teach silly nonsense like math?

    God I am so glad my kids don’t go to city schools.

21. #21
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, InCali said:

    The teacher herself didn’t actually organise the trip;

    Then who did? If it was the students, why didn’t an adult let them know that school is for learning, not for going to weddings.

    Hey, if it was on a weekend and the students went of their own volition, I think that’s great, but that doesn’t seem to be that case here.

22. #22
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I’m pretty sure everybody didn’t vote on whether you should be allowed the right to marry, or did they?

    No, they didn’t. But, then again, it was a sane, civil society that recognized the best way to support that society was encouraging stable, heterosexual marraiges as a way to raise future generations.

    Don’t pretend this is about “marriage” – it’s about forcing social conservatives and especiall religious persons to accept something they find unacceptable.

    PERIOD.

    Intolerance is not a conservative trait. Liberals cornered the market on it long, long ago.

23. #23
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    Omu said:

    I’m pretty sure everybody didn’t vote on whether you should be allowed the right to marry, or did they?

    You need training to strip you of your speech codes. You’re blatantly exhibiting unbecoming behavior and you should be ‘fixed’ by our instructors.

24. #24
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, UberInfidel67 said:

    I would sue the school. My “religion” doesn’t approve of gay marriage…this is insulting to all who believe the way I do. They have stepped all over my human rights by exposing my kid to this…it is an affront to God,….

    That defense works for another “religion”, can I use it too???

25. #25
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Omu said:

    Social conservatives (the meanest, nastiest, most repugnant type of politically-active person in the US) always have to enforce the view that anything pertaining to homosexuality is automatically a political statement and anyone who even feigns sympathy or acceptance for gay people are merely pawns in some nebular menacing “gay agenda”.

    Maybe, just maybe, these schoolchildren liked their teacher and were excited about her big day. Maybe, just maybe, these first graders just wanted to surprise her and don’t even understand that the fact their teacher is a lesbian is a huge issue. Ever think of that?

26. #26
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    Just like any other wedding, with the mayor officiating. Liberal PR at its most nauseous, using kids again. Enjoy the pre-K, Cahleefoneya.

27. #27
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    Omu said:

    Social conservatives (the meanest, nastiest, most repugnant type of politically-active person in the US) always have to enforce the view that anything pertaining to homosexuality is automatically a political statement and anyone who even feigns sympathy or acceptance for gay people are merely pawns in some nebular menacing “gay agenda”.

    We will break you. You will submit. The weak always submit.

28. #28
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, b-cat said:

    What I would like to know: How many Muslim children went on this field trip. I’m sure there weren’t many.

29. #29
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, josetheguerilla said:

    What the hell?

30. #30
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm, MtsEdge said:

    Maybe, just maybe, these schoolchildren liked their teacher and were excited about her big day. Maybe, just maybe, these first graders just wanted to surprise her and don’t even understand that the fact their teacher is a lesbian is a huge issue. Ever think of that?

    How would they have known about her “big day” if she hadn’t shared this with them? Manipulating these children and robbing them of their innocence is totally unjustified.

31. #31
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm, Uncle Monkey said:

    The MSM in CA is in a slight panic mode as the poll numbers are starting to lean positive for Proposition 8 (our amendment against gay marriage).

    They’ve cleverly worded it on our ballots as “gays losing the right to marry”. Funny, I didn’t think they had it since we voted against it in 2000 and 4 freaks in robes decided they knew better than 61% of the voters.

    But, Gavin Newsom saying things like this are pissing off voters:
    “As California goes, so goes the nation. It’s inevitable. The door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not. This is the future, and it’s now.”

    It’s a California thing – you wouldn’t understand.

32. #32
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, Stubby said:

    The queers keep pushing their agenda in our faces. The recent street orgy in San Fran is an example of the insidious results of the law makers yielding to the demands of this outrageous group of deviants.

    This “field trip” should result in the firing of the teacher and any in the school system that supported such an egregious act against childhood innocence, the will of the parents and human decency.

    It seems clear to me that the tolerance American citizens have afforded queers to this date, are now jeopardized and will lead to more anger, hate and intolerance. They should have left well enough alone.

    I can only imagine what I would do if this had happened to my grandchildren. These subhumans had better get a grip and keep their personal, intimate activities private.

    Jail should be appropriate for this teacher. This act shows us how arrogant, self-serving and deranged these people are.

33. #33
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, b-cat said:

    Omu, are you suggesting that 1st graders are capable of planning a “field trip” without adults?

34. #34
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:33 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    Fair enough. But the same exact kids need to be rounded up one day and be made to go to the gay divorce proceedings also.

    Omu said:

    The school children obviously adore their teacher and enjoyed surprising her on her wedding day.
    First graders, it seems, are much more mature and much less bigoted and mean-spirited than social conservatives.

    That almost sounds like the same argument that a sexual predator would make.

35. #35
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:34 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    If that were my child they would not go, damn the repercussions-let the heaven fall-they would not go. If some one were to suggest my child attend such an event the heavens would fall.
    A man who does not provide for/protect his children is worse than an unbeliever. It would be better for them were a millstone tied around their neck and they be thrown into the sea.

    My children attended private Church schools and still I knew where they went and with whom.

    Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner,

    And may everyone involved be damned to Hell for harming these little ones. They are soul stealers including the parents-especially the parents- and we’ll see which trolls defend this filth. That will tell us everything we need to know of them.

    —
    ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
    Should be a convenience store
    NOT a Government Agency

36. #36
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Chicago is about to create a gay public high school. Not that there is anything wrong with that

37. #37
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, b-cat said:

    That almost sounds like the same argument that a sexual predator would make.

    You’re getting ahead of the agenda. Pretend not to notice.

38. #38
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:36 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Social conservatives Liberals(the meanest, nastiest, most repugnant type of politically-active person in the US) always have to enforce the view that anything pertaining to homosexuality religiou or conservativism is automatically a political statement and anyone who even feigns sympathy or acceptance for gay people questions the homsexual agenda are merely pawns in some nebular menacing “gay agenda” “mean social conservative movement”.

    I have every sympathy for gay people. But not when they attempt to force their lifestyle and acceptance thereof on me, my children, my church, or my nation.

    Funny you mention “sympathy” – you should see some of the treatment gay people who choose to live chastely receive from the oh-so-tolerant left.

    Liberals are absolutely obsessed with everything from the waist-down. If it doesn’t have to do with sex, or restricts sex in any way, they’re against it.

    More to the point: if these kids had been taken to a Catholic wedding mass, would you take the same tack?

    My guess is NO.

39. #39
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, karnold said:

    I understand that the field trip to the Folsom Street Fair is not permitted – not until the third grade.

    Have to be sensitive to the tender psyches of the youngun, don’t you know…

    /sarcasm off

40. #40
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, Omu said:

    Don’t pretend this is about “marriage” – it’s about forcing social conservatives and especiall religious persons to accept something they find unacceptable.

    This bizarre paranoia is surely some type of satire, yes?

    It is about marriage; it’s about allowing committed couples who happen to be gay to get married, and maybe start a family. There’s nothing wrong or evil about that. I hate to brake it to you, but gay people genuinely do just want the same rights us straight folks already have. I’m pretty sure they don’t just want to annoy people who hate them, like yourself and Ms. Malkin (though I’m sure they view it as a bonus of sorts).

41. #41
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, love2rumba said:

    Child Abuse

42. #42
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, John Ansell said:

    Will they also get to go to the divorce so they can see the whole picture?

43. #43
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:40 pm, PBoilermaker said:

    Dude.

44. #44
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pm, twall said:

    hey Michelle I sent you the TIP on this story on Sat the 11th………..
    did you get it ?

45. #45
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, Omu said:

    More to the point: if these kids had been taken to a Catholic wedding mass, would you take the same tack?

    My guess is NO.

    What are you talking about? If the children had gone to a Catholic wedding, no one at all would have a problem with it. It would just be a simple case of first graders surprising their teacher at his/her wedding. This is exactly what happened with this class; but, oh no, it has to be damned and discredited by despicable homophobic bigots. Sigh.

46. #46
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    It is about marriage; it’s about allowing committed couples who happen to be gay to get married, and maybe start a family. There’s nothing wrong or evil about that. I hate to brake it to you, but gay people genuinely do just want the same rights us straight folks already have. I’m pretty sure they don’t just want to annoy people who hate them, like yourself and Ms. Malkin (though I’m sure they view it as a bonus of sorts).

    Omu is in need of social reconditioning. She is sick and a danger to herself (or itself).

47. #47
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    It would just be a simple case of first graders surprising their teacher at his/her wedding.

    If it were just a simple wedding would it have made the national press?

48. #48
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm, right4life said:

    the pupils are in a private school, not a public school.

    its a charter school, not a private school.

    First graders, it seems, are much more mature and much less bigoted and mean-spirited than social conservatives.

    and much easier to indoctrinate into the gay lifestyle…gotta get those new gays somewhere…

49. #49
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm, sonofdy said:

    OMU: This is not a civil rights issue. It is a states rights issue. If California wants gay marriage then fine. Why should Utah be forced to live by California ideals when a vast majority of Utah doesn’t want it? Let the gay couples go to California and get “married” if they want. Leave the rest of us out of it. The same with abortions. (yes I know I just pissed off both sides of the argument.) If California wants abortions, then fine. Don’t force your ideals on Utah.

50. #50
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:44 pm, MtsEdge said:

    I have every sympathy for gay people. But not when they attempt to force their lifestyle and acceptance thereof on me, my children, my church, or my nation.

    I have a family member who is a lesbian. I love her, but I can’t support her lifestyle. She lives in (you guessed it) California…

    I really think the whole “gay agenda” has to do with the lack of peace among people who practice this lifestyle. The real or imagined slights they receive from others who disagree with them really pale in comparison to the lack of peace they have within. People who practice this lifestyle have deluded themselves that if only they were accepted by society, they would have peace.

    Even if the whole world agreed that their lifestyle was OK, they would still not have peace with God. The practice of homosexuality is an abomination to Him. He loves them, but like any other sinful lifestyle, He does not and cannot condone it. We all need to make peace with God, and such peace is available to all who renounce their sin and accept the work of salvation that Jesus provided on the cross.

51. #51
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:44 pm, right4life said:

    This is exactly what happened with this class; but, oh no, it has to be damned and discredited by despicable homophobic bigots. Sigh.

    the only people who are despicable are the pro-gay marriage types who will do anything to promote their lifestyle. its sick and despicable to use children so.

    no surprise you’d be for it, you piece of trash.

52. #52
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, sonofdy said:

    This is exactly what happened with this class; but, oh no, it has to be damned and discredited by despicable homophobic bigots. Sigh.

    Prove I am homophobic or admit your lie.

53. #53
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, karnold said:

    I understand that the field trip to the Folsom Street Fair is not permitted – not until the third grade.

    Early one Saturday morning I put my 12 and 13 yr old on the subway to visit a friend in the city. (I thought it was just a normal day) Well, they popped up on Market Street in the middle of the Gay Pride Parade. The first person my son saw was a man wearing nothing but Buttless Chaps. He says he is still mentally scarred to this day. lol

54. #54
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, b-cat said:

    It is about marriage; it’s about allowing committed couples who happen to be gay to get married, and maybe start a family.

    They don’t happen to be gay, they choose to be gay. The only way they can start a family is by taking someone else’s. It is a biological impossibility otherwise.

55. #55
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    School’s been in session for, what, a month and a half? How attached could these kids be to their teacher? It was a lesson in indoctrination.

56. #56
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, karnold said:

    @ sonofdy: the majority of Californians don’t want it either. We voted against homosexual marriage once. Four judges appointed themselves kings and struck it down. We’re going to have to do it again, this time as a State Constitutional amendment.

57. #57
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, madchef said:

    What the hell is next? A field trip to a NAMBLA meeting? Keep your hands off our kids you damn, dirty, preverts!!!!!

58. #58
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm, feebiebabe said:

    I heard about this from a local talk show host. Just absurd. If this teacher was straight, where on earth would this happen and also, isnt there something brilliant about that saying “leave your personal life at home”.

    I want to know if the school gets paid for children being in attendence this day?

    And for all the kids whose parents didnt allowed them to go…I’ll bet this teacher is gonna have these kids pegged as the kids whose parents are Homophobic or some nonsense. Ugh.

59. #59
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, FireBlogger said:

    “After traditional photos,”

    Huh?

60. #60
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:47 pm, right4life said:

    It is about marriage; it’s about allowing committed couples who happen to be gay to get married, and maybe start a family.

    how hateful, and bigoted of you to exclude polyandry.

    I hate to brake it to you, but gay people genuinely do just want the same rights us straight folks already have

    there is no ‘right’ to be married. laughable. and they have the same privilege as straights do, they can marry someone of another sex. no one is stopping them.

    they want to twist the meaning of marriage, ultimately to destroy the institution of marriage, and the protection it affords children from them..

61. #61
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, Omu said:

    Omu is in need of social reconditioning. She is sick and a danger to herself (or itself).

    Are you just going to continue making inane comments like this (as you have done 3 times already) or are you actually going to address my points?

    If it were just a simple wedding would it have made the national press?

    If hateful bigots like Malkin didn’t exist, it wouldn’t have.

62. #62
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:48 pm, sonofdy said:

    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm, karnold said:
    @ sonofdy: the majority of Californians don’t want it either. We voted against homosexual marriage once. Four judges appointed themselves kings and struck it down. We’re going to have to do it again, this time as a State Constitutional amendment.

    Its a state process which puts it where it should be, states rights.

63. #63
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    An attempt at brain washing children by San Fran Nan’s constituents.

    For those so inclined, take you kids on a field trip to church and have your priest/reverend/pastor explain why it’s against God’s laws for same sex couples to marry.

64. #64
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, wighttrasch said:

    always have to enforce the view

    How is this ‘enforced’ exactly? Omu? Examples?

65. #65
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, karnold said:

    @ Omu: if Michelle is a “hateful bigot,” then count me in that camp as well.

    http://alhbible.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/california-supreme-court-and-homosexual-marriage/

66. #66
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, Omu said:

    What the hell is next? A field trip to a NAMBLA meeting? Keep your hands off our kids you damn, dirty, preverts!!!!!

    And are people honestly going to make the case that most people who refuse to grant rights to gay people are reasonable following a comment like this?

67. #67
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, bayou22 said:

    Honestly, at this point, if people in the SF area aren’t smart enough to realize that this is happening, then they aren’t very involved parents. If they don’t want their kids attending, don’t sign the permission slip or better yet, move out of the state. We all know the inmates are running the asylum out there.

68. #68
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, tonyr951 said:

    Prop 8 was losing big just a month ago.

    Now it looks like it is leading slightly.

    The Yes on 8 campaign is running a very effective ad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNaHpHl3t8g

    “Whether you like it or not” – Mayor Gavin Newsom

69. #69
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:50 pm, sonofdy said:

    If hateful bigots like Malkin didn’t exist, it wouldn’t have.

    Prove Malkin is a hatefull bigot or admit your slander.

70. #70
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Omu said:
    Maybe, just maybe, these schoolchildren liked their teacher and were excited about her big day. Maybe, just maybe, these first graders just wanted to surprise her and don’t even understand that the fact their teacher is a lesbian is a huge issue. Ever think of that?

    Were the parents made aware of this little “school trip?” If no, why not?

    If yes, then there is something completely off kilter with the parents of these youngsters. Everything else you have to say Omu is moot.

71. #71
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, flaming_o said:

    Public education should be abolished. It’s nothing more than political indoctrination. What to American children learn in public schools if not how to “otherize”?

72. #72
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, Omu said:

    Prove I am homophobic or admit your lie.

    Like it or not, sonofdy, anyone who wants gay people to exist without any laws protecting their relationships is homophobic. And yes, it’s still wrong to deny rights to gays even in Utah (where it’s particularly popular).

73. #73
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    I’m pretty sure they don’t just want to annoy people who hate them, like yourself and Ms. Malkin (though I’m sure they view it as a bonus of sorts).

    Look to Canada, where it’s a prosecutable offense to say anything “bad” about homosexuality. In the states, there have been cases where people expressing their First Amendment right to freedom of religion were punished for not kowtowing to the “gay agenda.”

    I agree it’s not about annoying; it’s far worse: it’s about denying the First Amendment right of people to object to something they find wrong. It’s about overhauling the most beneficial structure of society (marriage) and re-defining it to fit a political agenda.

    I don’t hate gay couples. But I do hate it when their “rights” infringe on the actual rights outlined in the Constitution.

74. #74
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

    It made the news because some gays won’t shut up and just live life with the rights we all have in their pockets. No, they have to bleat it all over because they are soooo “put upon”… well, ever stop to think who is really being put upon?….. it’s tiring and boring, Omu.

75. #75
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, sonofdy said:

    And are people honestly going to make the case that most people who refuse to grant rights to gay people are reasonable following a comment like this?

    If you have to issue a license, then it is not a right. That makes it a state by state issue.

76. #76
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm, John Deaux said:

    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm, Omu said:

    And everybody pointed and laughed when they village idiot wandered by.

77. #77
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, vinny said:

    Life immitates South Park. Was Mr. Hand there as well? On the other hand, if this was a hot teacher, I would have also like a school trip as a teenager to see some hot lesbian action. Unfortunately they both probably looked like that bus driver lady from Southpark; the one with a birds nest in her hair.

78. #78
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, BurnedOutHippie said:

    Next week the teacher is going to bring in her dildo for show and tell.

79. #79
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Like it or not, sonofdy, anyone who wants gay people to exist without any laws protecting their relationships is homophobic.

    Dude, get yourself a dictionary.

    “Homophobia” – like all other phobias – is an irrational hatred or fear that inhibits one to function normally.

    Not disagreement.

    But, then again, when have liberals given a crap about what things really mean when they really just care about how they feel?

80. #80
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm, MtsEdge said:

    Like it or not, sonofdy, anyone who wants gay people to exist without any laws protecting their relationships is homophobic.

    “Relationships” is not covered by the Constitution. People who practice this lifestyle have the exact same civil rights as anyone else, they want MORE…

81. #81
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    Are you just going to continue making inane comments like this (as you have done 3 times already) or are you actually going to address my points?

    The insane Omu’s of the world have no points; their ability to reason is eroded. They need treatment and rehabilitation.

82. #82
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm, sonofdy said:

    Prove I am homophobic or admit your lie.

    Like it or not, sonofdy, anyone who wants gay people to exist without any laws protecting their relationships is homophobic. And yes, it’s still wrong to deny rights to gays even in Utah (where it’s particularly popular).

    That does not prove me homophobic at all. It proves that we disagree on this issue. You have no idea how I feel about gays. Now try again, prove I am homophobic or admit your lie.

83. #83
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

    If hateful bigots like Malkin didn’t exist, it wouldn’t have.

    Hilarious… coming from someone who has being hateful and a bigot downpat.

84. #84
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    anyone who wants gay people to exist without any laws protecting their relationships is homophobic.

    The gays have gotten along fine for thousands of years without laws written for them.

85. #85
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, b-cat said:

    No rights are being denied. Your argument for the indoctrication into an abominable practice is threadbare. These kids were no surprise to the teacher either. The kids did not just all jump into cars and go to the town hall for a wedding. It was planned and sponsored by someone in the “gay community”.

86. #86
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, ThatSamIAm said:

    Pathetic. Just pathetic. If that happened to my kids I’d be knocking down school doors to make them answer for this. Our children are in no way safe from the extremist homosexual agenda and brainwashing.

87. #87
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:56 pm, Cosmo said:

    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:12 pm, right4life said:

    the gay rights movement is all about the recruitment of children. even though they claim its not

    This is how socialism works, since reasonable adults with average-or-better intellect would never fall for this nonsense.

    The gay minority is simply plagiarizing a page of the playbook for their cause.

88. #88
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, Goldwater Knight said:

    What we need are stronger laws protecting heterosexual marriage not faux marriage.

89. #89
    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:59 pm, Gorebot said:

    Sigh. It all seems to make the predicters of anarchic chaos sound like they might be on to something.

    It really gets repugnant when those of us who are not gay bashers get called “homophobic hate-mongers” simply because we want to maintain some semblance of tradition (ie, the centuries-old definition of the word “marriage”).

    I’m not religous, I don’t hate gays, I believe gays should have legal rights equivalent to those of heterosexuals, but all I get for wanting to preserve the definition of traditional marriage is that I’m a “narrow-minded homophobic bigot”.

    Enough is enough. Here’s hoping California’s Proposition 8 passes (but it probably won’t).

90. #90
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm, Omu said:

    It made the news because some gays won’t shut up and just live life with the rights we all have in their pockets. No, they have to bleat it all over because they are soooo “put upon”… well, ever stop to think who is really being put upon?….. it’s tiring and boring, Omu.

    You’re actually going to downplay the discrimination gays face. Just a few days ago, it was the 10 year anniversary of the death of Matthew Sheppard. He was a young man in the university who was brutally beaten and tied to a roadside fence for hours, eventually enduring 6 days of torturous pain before his death. All because he was gay. You can try to hide from it, but attitudes like those expressed in this horror show of a comments thread create the climate that lead to 2 men thinking it acceptable to beat a a gay teenager to death.

91. #91
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm, sonofdy said:

    The fact is OMU, the left is using words like RACISM and HOMOPHOBIA to avoid arguments about thier policies. It is a form of emotional blackmail where they willstate thier view then try to shut down dissenting views by saying, well that is just racist/homophobic. This is moral cowardise of the lowest form since they accept no challenge to thier point of view. If challanged on it they will claim the challange itself is proof of your racism/homophobia and never actualy address the issues rasied.

92. #92
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, sonofdy said:

    You can try to hide from it, but attitudes like those expressed in this horror show of a comments thread create the climate that lead to 2 men thinking it acceptable to beat a a gay teenager to death.

    Which none of us had anything to do with and all condem. So shove your bigoted comparison up your …..

93. #93
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:03 pm, madchef said:

    On October 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm, Omu said:

    And are people honestly going to make the case that most people who refuse to grant rights to gay people are reasonable following a comment like this?

    Reasonable people would not expect their childs teacher to take them to an immoral, deviant event!! Jacka$$!

94. #94
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, b-cat said:

    You can try to hide from it, but attitudes like those expressed in this horror show of a comments thread create the climate that lead to 2 men thinking it acceptable to beat a a gay teenager to death.

    Nonsense. This thread or “attitudes” any more leads to torturous deaths for homosexuals than it does for kittens. You are defending the indefensible. We are not advocating lynching, we are condemning the indoctrination of other peoples’ children into a perverse lifestyle.

95. #95
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Like it or not, sonofdy, anyone who wants gay people to exist without any laws protecting their relationships is homophobic. And yes, it’s still wrong to deny rights to gays even in Utah (where it’s particularly popular).

    Sounds like the same argument that Democrats use against Republicans that if you don’t vote for Obama (or God forbid question his experience or his associates), then you’re a racist.

    Doesn’t fly. Disapproval of gay marriage doesn’t make one a homophobe.

    Plenty of laws in the states protecting relationships.

96. #96
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:06 pm, Omu said:

    The fact is OMU, the left is using words like RACISM and HOMOPHOBIA to avoid arguments about thier policies. It is a form of emotional blackmail where they willstate thier view then try to shut down dissenting views by saying, well that is just racist/homophobic. This is moral cowardise of the lowest form since they accept no challenge to thier point of view. If challanged on it they will claim the challange itself is proof of your racism/homophobia and never actualy address the issues rasied.

    Gays are actually people. Not economic policy. Not foreign policy. Not education policy. Gay rights are not comparable to those things, because gays are a people that are hated in every red state in the country and that are subjected to violence and discrimination on an unacceptable level. And to top it off, when they overcome adversity and eventually do fall in love (like the rest of us do) they are entitled to nothing that will recognise this relationship and if one partner adopts a child and they raise him/her together, the government will not recognise that family. It’s incredibly unfair and it IS homophobic.

97. #97
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:06 pm, gippergirl said:

    TWO issues here: 1. Protecting church/state.
    2. The people hath voted and the court overturned the will of the people… this is the SECOND time in CA that this happened…the first in 1994 w/Prop 187…this isn’t just about gay marriage; it’s about preserving democracy and preventing judges from legislating from the bench.

98. #98
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm, Omu said:

    Which none of us had anything to do with and all condem. So shove your bigoted comparison up your …

    Assuming you all held the same beliefs you do now back 10 years ago, then yes, you played a part in justifying the climate that murdered Matthew Sheppard. You can try to hide behind your “it’s just my religion” and “I respect gays, but hate homosexuality” nonsense but it doesn’t make a difference.

99. #99
    On October 13th, 2008 at 1:10 pm, MtsEdge said:

    You can try to hide from it, but attitudes like those expressed in this horror show of a comments thread create the climate that lead to 2 men thinking it acceptable to beat a a gay teenager to death.

    Please stop ignoring inconvenient facts. Matthew Shephard had no business leaving that bar with these two strangers. He did something foolish, and he paid with his life. Just because he also happened to be gay doesn’t magnify the intensity of the horrible crime that was perpetrated on him. His homosexuality is a red herring used by libs to try to gin up sympathy for a lifestyle that most people simply don’t support.

100. #100
     On October 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm, ThatSamIAm said:

     To all homosexuals: Brainwash your own children and leave ours alone.

     Oh wait! You can’t really have children can you? Speaks volumes doesn’t it?

     Homosexuality is not normal. It is not natural. It is in fact unnatural. It’s a perversion. It is a choice. Keep it to yourself and leave the kids alone.