What happens in San Jose if you publicly support traditional marriage
Posted in: Uncategorized
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
- The Oh-So-Tolerant Left « Decidedly Right
- What Happens When You Support Publicly California Proposition 8 and Traditional Marriage | FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
- SUV Denounces Family’s Prop 8 Stance - Do All SUV’s Think The Same Way? « Padna’s Ponderings
- F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.] » Blog Archive » Getting Nasty
- ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Getting Nasty
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Doug Ross @ Journal
» ACORN pwnage part II: Breitbart's BigGovt Lowers the BoomBig Government
» BREAKING: San Diego ACORN Document Dump ScandalVillainous Company
» Amateur Hour in the Oval Office Continues....Green Room
» Times Slimes Obamic ClimesLegal Insurrection
» Nation Mag Outs Secret U.S. Anti-Terror Program
Bad link.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_10788236?nclick_check=1&forced=true
Link not working
page load error
Ah.. thank you Rabbid.
A family put a sign up in front of their house saying “YES ON 8″
In response, someone parking their huge SUV in front of the house with “BIGOTS LIVE HERE” painted on the windows of the SUV.
Link fixed.
If Prop 8 is defeated, then what happens if my priest doesn’t want to marry a gay couple?
Wouldn’t THAT be ironic!
Lesbians will park outside the Rectory.
Seems to me that such a vehicle would need to be doused in water soluble paint. Not to damage it.. but just to cover it up.
Simple: The church loses tax exempt status, is forced to close its doors, and the priest is brought before a kangaroo court “Human Rights Commission” and tried for hate crimes. Parishioners who agree with the priest are also tried for doubleplus ungoodthink and summarily punished. Tolerance is not enough. YOU MUST APPROVE.
Freedom of religion is all well and good when you want to talk about the latest Chopra spirituality guide; traditional religion – and those who practice it – have no place living or working in America.
The left makes that clear.
Me, personally, I would have taken different colored paint and wrote:
Intolerant bigots drive this vehicle.
Actually, you can just get rid of everything after the question mark and the link will work just fine.
In answer to the question about the priest not wanting to perform a marriage for a same-sex couple: nothing will happen. Just like today, no clergy can be forced to perform anything.
A Big SUV?
You mean the kind that drive of their own accord (Not Accord) as they savage the environment?
SUV’s for me but not for thee, the shameless pervert’s motto.
Someone should forward this SUV story to Rush lol.
And yet we republicans are the “mean spirited” ones.
It’s Cali so you can take a shortcut and append “In This Car.”
Riotus would it be.
Um, look at Canada, the left’s inspiration for dealing with politically incorrect folk.
Rev. Stephen Boission (sp?) wrote a letter to a local paper and was tried before a Human Rights Tribunal. That tribunal ORDERED him to stop all “disparaging communications” (both public AND private) and basically forbade him from privately or publicly practicing his faith or preaching. Ever again.
Plus fines.
Don’t think that can’t – or won’t – happen here.
i still can’t get the link to work–it shuts down my IE everytime
Gosh, I’m sure glad some “kids in the neighborhood” didnt strip the vehicle to its frame or have an impromptu front yard baseball game.
As kids we used to drive golf balls out of our backyards to check our distance by seeing how many houses we could miss. As an adult, I am horrified by what we used to do.
Oh, btw, never pretend your vehicle is better than everyone elses by parking the middle of two parking spaces. I have seen occurences where you might only be able to access your drivers seat through your trunk.
At least its nice to see the police were willing to take action to get it removed, for once.
I think they should have removed the license plate’s, then reported an abandoned car to the police.
IE?????? Who uses IE??? Theres your problem. FireFox my good man, FireFox. (or Safari)
True, i originally did a quick delete and left off the question mark, so it failed. So I just grabbed the whole line to get it posted in the meantime
It is just the lefts thug thizzle.
Deys gettin their mack on?? Aight playa, word.
Gay marriage is one area where this free thinking conservative does not walk in lockstep with Republicans.
I would hate to see either of those ugly signs in my neighborhood, there is enough unsightly junk some of my neighbors have around their homes without a bunch of stupid political signs going up too.
You know, that big SUV isn’t very eco-friendly.
Dear Ms. Gippergirl
The priest in question is unpatriotic and will be denounced as a dangerous, bigoted homophobe. After all he should have no fear of being married to a gay couple or gay three-some, or a mixed three-some for that matter. This is all in the natural order of things as us liberals see it.
Yours truly,
Nancy Pelosi
rabbidsquirrel & sonofdy–
O NO U di-UNT
What irritates me is the incredibly idiotic headline. It isn’t the SUV that’s denouncing the family’s support for Prop 8… IT’S THE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS WHO PARKED IT THERE!!!
P.S We will help him understand this in these country retreats we plan to hold for people who disagree with us. Your paster will enjoy the chance to lose weight with a strict diet and plenty of exercise!!
Missed opportunity. That vehicle was just begging for a couple dozen McCain/Palin Stickers all over it.
There’s a guy down the street that has a YES on Prop 8 sign in his front yard (brave soul). Right next to a guy who has an Obama sign out front. It was there yesterday when I went to check our mail.
How much you want to bet that sign is gone today?
Just another example of what fascists the liberals truly are.
Freedom of (state approved) speech
Freedom of (state approved) assembly
Freedom to address (liberal) grievances
Freedom of (state approved) religion
The right (of the state) to bear arms
The right to vote (for politically correct candidates) etc
Nothing will really change. Gay Pride parades and Earth Day celebrations will continue as usual…
Good one, EQ. Fight fire with fire. I like the way you think!
Freedom of speech is SSSSOOOO 2007….
I am LDS, and the question was raised as to what happens to the LDS church if we “refuse to marry gay couples” as well.
The answer is not that the Mormon church loses its tax-exempt status, it’s just that the marriages performed by the LDS church, which are now recognized as legal in the eyes of the State of California (I was married there), will not be recognized by the state.
What this means: Mormons who typically marry in one of the more than 120 temples worldwide–for time and eternity–would be forced to marry, in effect, twice. Once in a state-sanctioned locale, like a courthouse, and again, to affirm their faith in eternal marriage, in what is now known as a “sealing” ceremony.
I would assume that other churches would have to do the same. My concern is not that now religious couples would need to marry “twice” as it were, but that the traditional definition of marriage is being hijacked by the gay minority–and that two cards are being played erroneously: the “bigot” and “old-fashioned” cards.
Ridiculous arguments both.
Ah yes, the tolerance of the radical homosexual agenda. Free speech for me but not for thee. They will fit right in with Barry’s agenda.
Any statement uttered by a social or economic conservative is racist if
1) it contains the word “is” or
2) the statement offends the “sensibilities” and doesn’t conform to the delusions of any particular leftist….
I hope that clarifies the issue.
Unhh, you dont no me like dat wight boy…
lol
Fellow blogsters:
PBS has an online poll asking if Palin is experienced enough. Currently, the results are neck and neck. Go and vote now! Here is the link:
http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/poll/poll.pl
BTW, we put a “Yes on 8″ yardsign in our front yard on Saturday, which has been pulled up and thrown down three times in three days by the kids on their way to the local high school. It’s good to see that the students are listening to their teachers.
Oh, well, don’t worry. This is how it works in The Russian Federation. You get married in the government hall and then you have another ceremony in your church. The church wedding is just for show.
They got used to it and so will all of us.
Remember, if you disagree with a leftist you are a “racist bigot.” That is the new definition from Dear Leader and his minions.
Try This and then look for the story.
It’s interesting.
I would have washed the writing off myself, and made sure I was videotaped doing it so they couldn’t lie and say I’d damaged the car.
The link doesn’t work for me.
The police probably weren’t promising any involvement, really. 3 days is the standard tow away duration for abandoned vehicles. In some neighborhoods, like mine for instance, staying home with the flu can get your vehicle towed away. Who doesn’t love revenue generation? :0)
I congratulate the SUV Bigot sign-makers for not destroying the family’s property. That was a nice twist. Still, get some tolerance. Sheesh.
This intolerant bull-s$$$ is exactly why I left the Bay Area. They are tolerant as long as you agree with the narrowly defined PC criteria.
You can’t believe how narrow the belief system is there and how hypocritically the word “tolerance” is used. Tolerance for me but not for thee is the law of the land…
WarEagle82
This link should work:
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html
War Eagle
“They got used to it and so will all of us”
Ummmm, nope!… I won’t get used it and I’ll actively fight to NEVER get used to it. but that’s just me. I’m thinking you meant that as an aside?
A month ago Prop.8 was written off as failed according to the polls. Today, the polls show it a close race.
When are Republicans going to learn that California could be in play if it didn’t suffer from neglect and national misconceptions? Many of the Hispanics I know are social conservatives and opposed to open borders.
Think about how the electoral map would look if California were treated seriously by the Republicans, the party and state of Ronald Reagan.
They firmly believe they can remake this nation in the image of the “Homo Sovieticus.”
From what I have seen over the last few years I am not sure they aren’t right.
I wish I could be more optimistic.
These ladies were obviously just doing it for the kids.
School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartners
Pretty brave leaving their car in front unattended, me thinks somtin just might have happened to it if it were parked in my neighborhood.
Mara and Renee are obviously just a couple of rude, intolerant dolts.
There are two type of Republicans right now. There are the party “leaders” who are RINOs and believe in nothing, especially social issues. Then there are Republican rank-and-file who could be motivated and organized with a modicum of resources and leadership.
Guess who controls the resources? Yes, the first group. They don’t care and won’t fight for anything.
This gives rise to a growing group of FORMER Republicans like me who have realized the first group won’t ever push for the things I hold dear. More Republicans will be joining me in this category over the next few years.
They would be in jail for a hate crime AJ. Catch 22…either accept the bigot label or retaliate and go to jail
http://www.maramcwilliams.com/
The bigots have a website.
Site temporarily offline.
1. I’m sure they could just ask another pastor or priest who doesn’t value Biblical standards (shouldn’t be too hard to find one).
2. Tax-exempt = government’s economic leash on “non-profit” organizations, a leash that churches choose not to shed. If the Local Church truly cared more about righteousness than worrying about what contemporary, worldly culture thinks, then they’d just pay the taxes and be done with it. Honestly, churches are too scared to rid themselves of this “burden”, and not for economic reasons. Their “tax-exempt” status gives them something to hide behind rather than preaching and calling for righteousness in their churches. American churches, for the most part, are more concerned with being cool than they are with being right. They don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, and the “tax-exempt” status gives them an excuse when called on this issue.
3. Why else would our liberal legislators introduce hate-crime bills in Congress? They’re merely paving the way for hate-thoughts. It’s the law of the harvest: thoughts lead to temptation; temptation to action… If a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, then, in time, they will get in trouble for doing so. They’ll be viewed as the inciter of violence. Then, in time, when enough support, legal and cultural, has been gained, the Bible, among other writings, which state that certain behaviors deemed acceptable by society are wrong, will be banned as well. Banning implies punishment for possession thereof. You can think I’m paranoid if you’d like, but you can’t deny the connect between these things. In fact, it’s already happening: just ask the Philadelphia Christians who were arrested and charged for committing hate crimes (though not convicted) for repeating Bible verses saying that homosexuality is wrong.
If I were a priest or a pastor in California, I would be revising my parish’s procedures. I would no longer conduct “marriage ceremonies,” I would conduct “religious dedication ceremonies.” The two participants would have to be members of my congregation whose beliefs are known to me. No, walk-ins off the street or referrals from friends.
I think it’s time for churches in CA to give the State the “live free or die” heave-ho.
I would’ve painted Bible quotes on it….
My brother was a pastor for years and refused to marry people he didn’t know or counsel. He always said it was too important a responsibility and he wanted to know the couple realized that too. And he didn’t want to be responsible for all the divorces that come from idiots getting married without thinking it through.
Yes we know you are inlolerant of anyone who disagrees with you, no need to repeat your bigotry.
accept the label, i think not, and who whould know who did the damage?
There is probably public nuisance laws that they could have removed the car sooner…. but who knows it’s lib land.
For those who don’t live in CA, we have a law that allows same sex couples to enter into contracts which provide the same benefits as marriage.
May God be with us on Nov 4th.
I sure do miss Ronald Reagan…
I wonder if the owners of the van were hoping that the family would do something, anything to their van, so that they could bring them up on charges. It seems like a favorite ploy with people pushing the homosexual agenda. Play the victim card, cry ‘hate crime’, get a lot of publicity, and an added bonus of intimidating a lot of people from putting up signs in favor of Prop. 8.
As Ann Coulter explains quite well, you can thank John McCain and Russ Feingold for their work to ensure we never get another Reagan.
Oh, yeah, that‘ll get ‘em to change people’s votes…
Other fun ways to mess with these people and their unattended SUV:
Place a “Yes on 8″ Bumper Sticker on their SUV.
Place a McCain-Palin ‘08 Bumber sticker on their SUV.
Place a “No War for Oil” Bumper sticker on their SUV.
Place a poster over their rear windshield just under “Bigots Live” that says “In This SUV.”
Attach a “Just Unmarried” dangling banner to their vehicle.
And the coup de grace: Place a Bush/Cheney 2000 sticker on their SUV.
They’ll never park they’re SUV outside anyone else’s home ever again.
Seems like everyone was within thier legal rights. The car could legally be parked there for three days.
Protest and debate is good. If I can find fault in what was done it is the labelling of the famliy as bigots.
If the car said something more like “Vote No On Prop 8 For Equality” I would have no qualms about the situation.
As a straight married California Republican, I really don’t care about gay marriage except for the fact that this may be less about civil rights than it is about forcing a homesexual agenda on the population, including the children.
From the Democratic party platform (page 7):
Or not.
well first off, after they left, i would have washed off the SUV myself. let them come back and try to paint the car with it parked out front of my house. i would not have let that vehicle be out in front of my house with those comments for very long.
Which is exactly how we got Liz Dole spending millions of RNC money to save RINO Obama-endorser Lincoln Chaffee from a conservative primary challenger while hanging Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, and George Allen out to dry. You wanna know why Republicans lost the senate? Two words: Liz Dole.
Charming, these supposed ladies are. I thought that SUV’s were Eviiiiiiiil…
I guess they aren’t if bigoted heterophobes are driving them or parking them in front of someone else’s private property.
I expect Cali to fall into the Pacific within 5 years. Seriously.
I like this….
Fellow Conservatives,
In a debate, how do you reconcile support for Prop 8 and these words:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Any takers?
This is what the independants will look like when they see what Obama will do if he wins!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkqqMPPg2VI&feature=related
Forgive me for I had a terrible thought: It wouldn’t be lesbians parked outside the Rectory.
ECS
A marriage license is not a right. Gays have been able to marry in america since 1776, they just couldn’t get a license. Licensing is a matter for the state.
sonofdy,
Even if something is not a right protected by the constitution, once the a licensing is granted to one, under equal protection it must be granted to all.
What say you…
1) you’re not a conservative
2) what does equality have to do with marriage?
3) if gay marriage is now a right, what about the right to polygamy, and the right to pedophilia, or any other perversion you see fit?
The problem with pointing a finger is that one goes away from you and three point back. Liberals are the least tolerant people I know.
We do not grant drivers licenses to all. Each state has the right to decide licensing issues according to its own standards. This prevents San Fransico forcing its value system on Salt Lake City. Forcing your values onto others is what causes ill feelings to begin with.
Are we to assume then that there should be no prohibitions regarding brothers marrying sisters, or with daddys marrying daughters, or with polygamy?
If the state doesn’t have the right to determine minimum acceptable criteria for citizens entering into a social contract, then anything goes.
Entering into a social contract is not a right.
Correct. This way if Utah decided to re-institute polgymist marriage for example, this would not affect Californian marriage law.
Wouldn’t it be bad if someone were to ‘accidentally overspray’ something on their SUV which would, in effect, make the sign permanent?
Just saying…. not advocating…
http://www.local6.com/politics/17784129/detail.html
more tolerance from the left
There is a difference between marriage licenses and driver’s licences.
In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled marriage is a fundamental right; the word fundamental being a legal term of art – it is granted the highest of constitutional protections.
There is no such ruling in favor of driving. It has reached the level only of “revokable privilege.”
Since marriage is a fundamental right, how does one square Prop 8 with being in support of the workds:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Just because the high court said it doesn’t make it right, does the dred scott ruling ring a bell? Under your logic here any sort of marriage would be legal. Clearly this was not the intent of the ruling you included because it would strike all marriage rescritions of any kind country wide. Age, gender, number of partners, family relationship, or even species would not be barriers to marriage.
Is procreation a fundamental right? Do you want gays to have that right also?
All lberal opinions backed up by smears, name calling, vandalism and imtimidation. It kinda makes their opinions not worth much if violence works better than debate.
Of course – being the thinking person I am, I’m still trying to figure the “honesty” of collecting taxes from ANY entity that can’t vote. Corporations pay lots of taxes and never get to vote. One of those “taxation without representation” things.
There is a strong need for a constitutional amendment to prevent the activist judges from overturning the will of the people. They did it in California, they did it in Connecticut, and they’re going to do it in Arizona as well. My “Yes on 102″ sign has been stolen from my house, as well as the yards of my neighbors. “Free” America won’t be such if we allow the judges to legislate new laws from the bench.
Ummmm…I’ll bite. Please finish the sentence. It DOES NOT say all men are equal. Some are 5′3, some are 6′8″ (not equal). It does say “…with respect to…”
But luckly for us all JustifiedRight, the ruling you are quoting only applies to inter-racial marriage.
You are making clear that you don’t like the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision, despite the fact that it declared heterosexual marriages as a fundamental freedom.
You can not like it, but you can’t ignore it. It’s there.
That 1967 certainly did not void any restriction on marriage.
The marriage right being fundamental, and restriction has to first pass a particular legal test.
Anyone here know what that test is?
That equal stuff was written a long time ago.
I prefer to deal with current reality, not “once upon a time.”
How would THAT work?