Michelle Malkin » Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics

Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics

By Michelle Malkin • November 7, 2008 11:06 AM

Gay marriage activists in California refuse to accept the passage of Prop. 8, the traditional marriage initiative.

They’ve marched in Los Angeles. They’re targeting the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City. And they’re threatening to burn down churches and hunt down people of faith who supported the ballot measure:

Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.

“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages “valid and recognized” in the state are those between one man and one woman.

Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California voters adopted in 2000.

On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”

Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, “While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve.”

A contributor identifying himself as “Joe” said, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”

The Huffington Post is leading the charge to strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization.

A Carlsbad man was arrested after allegedly assaulting an elderly couple over their pro-Prop. 8 sign:

accused of punching an elderly couple because they had Yes On Prop 8 signs in their yard says he’s innocent.

Thursday, Lawrence Pizzicara pleaded not guilty to attacking his neighbors on Monday allegedly during an argument over Prop 8 signs.

The couple suffered numerous injuries.

Pizzicara is being held on $200,000 bail.

But don’t expect to read any condemnations of this insane rage on the NYT front page…

***

Since blacks and Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Prop. 8, I fully expect to see gay zealots marching onto South Central and East L.A. and threatening to burn down houses and businesses there.

Waiting…

Posted in: Double standards, Proposition 8, Unhinged

Regular View

comments (331)

trackbacks (47)

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

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#537127

On November 7th, 2008 at 10:09 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Okay, so where are the high-profile supporters calling for an end to violence? Where are the PSAs by Ellen, Rosie, and the rest saying to respect the rights of individuals to disagree?

They – your friends included – need to be more vocal and active about writing legislation to protect our rights, if they’re going to fight for theirs.
#537140

On November 7th, 2008 at 10:17 pm, Mookie said:

On November 7th, 2008 at 10:09 pm, englishqueen01 said:

Okay, so where are the high-profile supporters calling for an end to violence? Where are the PSAs by Ellen, Rosie, and the rest saying to respect the rights of individuals to disagree?

They – your friends included – need to be more vocal and active about writing legislation to protect our rights, if they’re going to fight for theirs.

If the protests get out of hand, I think you’ll see Ellen, T.R. Knight and others issuing statements.

If legislation was drafted that protected churches from lawsuits resulting in their refusal to perform marriages for gays, would it change your opinion on gay marriage?
#537157

On November 7th, 2008 at 10:45 pm, AniMEL said:

I need to point something out here…there’s a difference between “hate CRIME laws” and “hate SPEECH laws.” I am firmly against both because neither does any good; I am most staunchly opposed to hate speech laws because it directly infringes on our First Amendment rights.

I don’t like Fred Phelps. I imagine most here don’t, but the man has the right to say and teach what he wants, just like we have the right to picket back and tell him he’s starkers. All of the hate groups, be it the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Black Panthers (gag me), all of them have the right to say what they will. We, in turn, have the right to tell them they’re wrong.

I’m perfectly okay with civil unions. I have no problem with that as long as we have equal rights. I don’t give a rip what we call it. It’s a bit of a departure, though, to think that gay marriage would immediately result in hate speech laws.

Well…then again, we do have Obama for the next four years…*HURL*
#537158

On November 7th, 2008 at 10:46 pm, AniMEL said:

Moreover, I think that the Boy Scouts and all churches should be legally protected from the ridiculous lawsuits I see other gays and lesbians bringing against them.

It’s all First Amendment. If you don’t want someone you don’t like in your organization, don’t force yourself on someone else’s.
#537160

On November 7th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, Joy said:

Mookie – No. There is no reason whatsoever to redefine what a term has meant for millenia. And the absemce of lawdsuits still will not prevent it from being taught as normal in public schools. They already indocrinate our children with all manner of things offensive to us. And no one cares how we feel about it. We’ve seen it happen with abortion, and homosexuality acceptance. Parents have fewer and fewer rights all the time.

If you’d like to read the LDS view, please read THIS one from the Church.

If you read it clear through, we can discuss it further.
#537166

On November 7th, 2008 at 11:03 pm, Mookie said:

If you’d like to read the LDS view, please read THIS one from the Church.

If you read it clear through, we can discuss it further.

Thanks for the link, Joy. It’s pretty lengthy so I think I’ll save it for the morning when I’m not starting to nod off. That’s not insinuating that it’s boring. I just know I’m about ten minutes away from falling asleep.
#537169

On November 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm, Joy said:

No worries Mookie. It is lengthy, but I feel you’ll find it interesting and you’ll know how LDS people see it straight from the source. It’s an official press release from a bit back.
#537170

On November 7th, 2008 at 11:17 pm, Trollman said:

Doctor Hook said:

I bet they looked fabulous while rioting.

Does this blouse go with this riot?

Sorry, couldn’t resist.
#537171

On November 7th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, SHoward said:

I think we’ve been making too much of the ‘violence’ aspect of all this. AJ already reminded us how ferocious a pi**ed off goldfish can be. The ones that get out in the street and protest in anger are about as dangerous as Liberace…..naa, they’re probably not as bad as that.
#537187

On November 7th, 2008 at 11:57 pm, Joy said:

Showard – I used to be a volunteer with a Police Dept. in Victim Assistance. We responded to many many calls concerning domestic violence between gays and lesbians. Make no mistake, they can be extremely violent, just like all other human groups. In our district, it was far more common between gays than straights. And the lesbians were more violent than all the rest. I can only speak of the town I lived in. I don’t know the statistics anywhere else.

Don’t let the pink neckerchiefs fool you. They could well use it to strangle someone with.
#537192

On November 8th, 2008 at 12:13 am, SHoward said:

I believe you, Joy. I just felt like poking a little fun at the stereotype.

You actually make a good point — often it’s the people that shove ‘peace and love’ down your throat that can be the most violent of all.
#537197

On November 8th, 2008 at 12:17 am, Joy said:

Well, it was shocking to me. I always assumed that lesbians would be the least violent of any group. I guess I don’t know why I assumed that, but I did.
#537202

On November 8th, 2008 at 12:44 am, Joy said:

Here is another VIDEO that is very straightforward… ooops. I seriously didn’t see it until I had typed it.
#537217

On November 8th, 2008 at 1:25 am, joao1960 said:

Here it comes… Stonewall 2.0
#537235

On November 8th, 2008 at 3:34 am, love2rumba said:

Any church that uses their funds for political purposes should have their tax-exempt status yanked. I don’t care if they’re using it again abortion, for abortion, against gay marriage, for gay marriage, whatever. The rules are there for a reason and shouldn’t be abused.

Churches have free-speech rights (especially to redress grievances with government about an issue they care about) like anyone else…what are you saying, Mookie?
#537257

On November 8th, 2008 at 6:07 am, RetFireman said:

Prop 8 Protesting Turns Ugly
Posted By: Will Frampton 2 hrs ago

ORANGEVALE, CA – The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department says they don’t have any early leads on who spray paint-vandalized a Mormon church in Orangevale. The graffiti, sprayed sometime late Thursday or early Friday morning, was on the church’s front sign and nearby sidewalks.

In red lettering, it read, “No on 8.”

“Paint washes off and we’re just thankful there was no major damage done,” said LDS Church spokeswoman Lisa West.

For the church, the damage is more emotional than physical. They, along with other religious organizations, had encouraged followers to support Proposition 8.

“This is a very emotionally charged issue and we understand it goes to the core of people’s lives,” West said.

She said all they can do is let the vandalism go and move on. But moving on does not seem to be on the agenda for many No on 8 supporters.

“If you strip somebody of their rights, nobody’s going to let go of that,” said No on 8 protester Jason Word.

“It’s more than just marriage for us. It’s very personal for us in that we feel attacked,” said Darnell Fray-Stephenson, also demonstrating for No on 8.

For the third night in a row, No on 8 protesters gathered at the State Capitol to voice their frustrations over the ban on gay marriage.

Some have taken it further.

A Bay Area group has started the Mormons Stole Our Rights Web site. It accuses the church of advocating for the Yes on 8 campaign, and says they should have their status as a religious organization stripped.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS did not donate any money to Prop 8, but supported the measure, and encouraged members to go out and give up their time and their means,” said West. “The (church) members themselves did donate.”

At the Friday night Capitol protest, many of those in opposition to Prop 8 said they weren’t familiar with the Web site. They also said they’re outraged that someone vandalized a church on their behalf.

“We certainly don’t agree with that,” said Fray-Stephenson.

“I think that rallies we’ve been having here have been real peaceful,” said Word, “I think that’s the message we should use.”

Many of the No on 8 protesters said they’re looking ahead to Sunday afternoon, saying it’s going to be their biggest rally yet. They say it could include protesters from across the state, convening at the Capitol.

The Sacramento Police are planning for a large crowd.
News10/KXTV
Copyright 2008 / All Rights Reserved

But it is OK. As I predicted, and in true Liberal fashion anytime they lose an election on a proposition they do not agree with, they have already filed several briefs in court in their attempt to stymie the voice of the population of California…yet again. Say hello to Prop. 187.2. If you can’t win, legislate from the bench. The change indeed.
#537307

On November 8th, 2008 at 9:41 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

Trying to describe heterosexuality to a homosexual is like trying to describe color to a color blind person. They are simply incapable of understanding that wonderful added dimension of the heterosexual experience – attraction to the opposite gender.

I used to watch cartoons every Saturday morning when I was 6 years old; they were all in B/W. It certainly didn’t stop anyone from watching and enjoying TV back then. But after seeing color TV who would want to go back to B/W?

Homosexuals are not ‘attracted’ to each each other, they are just attracted to the sexual gratification they can get from another person who knows their ‘equipment’ as well as they do.

Homosexuals are free to enjoy their B/W world of sexual gratification all they wish but I darn well resent them insisting that their B/W version of marriage is no different our version which exists in the real world of living color; the real world of there being TWO genders – not one. In my world there is only one possible complimentary combination of those two genders and it is the only one that brings the prospect of new life.

Here’s my question to those who try to argue that Prop 8 violates equal protection.

A man and a woman apply for a marriage license and are given one. One of them is a really a homosexual. WHICH ONE?
#537410

On November 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, AniMEL said:

Danceswithdachsunds–

I WILL take offense to that. You are making an assumption about something you do not understand. I get along well with everyone here because I think rationally about politics, even if we have to agree to disagree on whether God accepts my orientation or not.

I tried my whole life–up until my 24th year–to force myself to be “normal” like everyone around me in my family and my church, but I was a miserable person. I couldn’t muster romantic feelings for men. Trust me, I tried. I tried damned hard. It just wasn’t natural. The instant I was willing to accept the fact that I was gay, my whole life changed. I became a much happier, more content person, I was less intensely emotional, and it was as if I had gone from your description of a black and white world to living color. My friends can all tell you that I am a very different person now than I was six years ago.

I don’t insult the way you live; please don’t insult me.
#537516

On November 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, flenser said:

Absolutely not and I think that’s the feeling of most gays who are looking for marriage equality. They don’t want to storm the churches and schools. They don’t want to get involved in any way with your kids. They simply want the same validation and protection that marriage provides.

I’d like a nice pretty unicorn with a pink and yellow mane. But I don’t think it’s the job of society to grant my wishes. In fact I know it isn’t.

You claim to be a Republican. Why are you in the GOP again?

They don’t want to storm the churches and schools.

Hello? Bueler? HELLO? You might want to ask them why they’re doing those things you say they don’t want to do.
#537517

On November 8th, 2008 at 2:52 pm, flenser said:

I always assumed that lesbians would be the least violent of any group.

They have many male characteristics, but not the social conditioning which curbs male aggression. So I’m not surprised that they’re violent.
#537668

On November 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm, Joy said:

AniMEL – Did you read the question and answer I linked to from my Church?
#537670

On November 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm, Joy said:

flenser – I hadn’t thought of that. Good observation.
#537681

On November 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm, AniMEL said:

I have read things like that before, Joy. I used to be a music minister, and I actually taught all those things at one point. I was very good at it.

That Q&A boils down to what’s sin. I still believe, I just don’t believe the way everyone else does about whether homosexuality is a sin. It took a lot of time and a lot of soul-searching for me to come to that conclusion.

My problem with that comment was that he was basically saying we don’t know how to live. That, I believe, comes from ignorance of what some of us go through when we realize we’re gay. My politics will remain conservative because it makes sense to me, and while I’ll challenge people’s ideas, I have no desire to attack traditional marriage. I simply want to be accepted as a human being, even if you don’t agree with who I love.

And I really don’t want to be patronized by comments about what’s real and what’s not. He might not have meant to come across that way, but he did, and it’s very off-putting after the huge change in my life.
#537786

On November 9th, 2008 at 12:40 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

AniMEL said:

Danceswithdachsunds–

I WILL take offense to that. You are making an assumption about something you do not understand. I get along well with everyone here because I think rationally about politics, even if we have to agree to disagree on whether God accepts my orientation or not.

I tried my whole life–up until my 24th year–to force myself to be “normal” like everyone around me in my family and my church, but I was a miserable person. I couldn’t muster romantic feelings for men. Trust me, I tried. I tried damned hard. It just wasn’t natural. The instant I was willing to accept the fact that I was gay, my whole life changed. I became a much happier, more content person, I was less intensely emotional, and it was as if I had gone from your description of a black and white world to living color. My friends can all tell you that I am a very different person now than I was six years ago.

I don’t insult the way you live; please don’t insult me.

First of all, I said nothing about God so that’s subterfuge. Secondly I’m only trying to be logical and point out the obvious.

I recognize that someone who is missing the behavioral attribute to be attracted to the opposite gender is only going to be unhappy trying to fake having one. Living a lie is living unhappy no matter what the lie is.

As I said, homosexuals are free to enjoy their small, (3%?), world of redundant gender relationships. If that describes you then I’m happy for you and I’m not insulting you or anyone in saying that. Be insulted if you want but you cannot deny that there are TWO genders – not one. It’s the BIOLOGICAL basis that I’m speaking about. You can neither get around the fundamental fact that two genders exist nor deny the primary function that is served by having them. Without an attraction between them – procreation doen’t happen. There HAS TO BE something in the brain to cause the two genders to be attracted to each other for the biologic system to work. Gender based species are wired by nature to be attracted to the opposite sex – in one way or another. But nature is not perfect, it just keeps trying to head in that direction.

At the risk of insulting your further, which I do not intend, it is my opinion that homosexuality is just a sexual behavioral dysfunction. There are plenty of physical sexual dysfunctions that prevent procreation and there are behavioral ones as well like homosexuality. I hold as much malice toward homosexual people as I do toward those who are impotent or missing ovaries or those who have no interest in sex whatsover, etc.

But those others also have the EQUAL RIGHT to marry someone of the opposite gender as much as you do – and THAT is the issue at hand concerning prop 8; it satisfies equal protection whether you like it or not.
#537789

On November 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am, Joy said:

No, I can assure you he wasn’t trying to patronize anyone. There is just so much more to our lives than sex. I think they were pointing out that many people are born with or encounter extreme trials in their lives and that there are many ways of dealing with those trials.

Since I have heard them speak on many occasions, I know their speaking voices and can apply them while reading.

Well, I won’t wrangle scriptures with you over this. It’s nice though to have a respectful conversation. Thanks for that.
#537790

On November 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am, Joy said:

Above 314 was to aniMEL…
#537815

On November 9th, 2008 at 3:19 am, graysonret said:

What ever happened to the McDonalds boycott, due to its stance on gay rights? I hear the AFA claimed a victory and stopped the boycott. Too bad…I was looking forward to seeing “gay burger with lesbian fries” on its Happy Meal menu.
#537990

On November 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm, AniMEL said:

Danceswithdachsunds, I could understand if you saw it as a boon to procreation, but that really wasn’t what you said. Homosexuality IS a boon to procreation. I will readily admit that. Scientists believe that when it occurs in animals, it’s a way to stem overpopulation (at least in most cases). But to say that we don’t have rich relationship experiences? That was what I took offense to.

Joy, you’ll find that I’m the exact opposite of the trolls on this board. I don’t see the point in shouting “hate!” at the top of my virtual lungs just to piss everyone off. If we’re not civil, what can we really accomplish?
#538377

On November 10th, 2008 at 2:36 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

On November 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm, AniMEL said:

Danceswithdachsunds, I could understand if you saw it as a boon to procreation, but that really wasn’t what you said. Homosexuality IS a boon to procreation. I will readily admit that. Scientists believe that when it occurs in animals, it’s a way to stem overpopulation (at least in most cases). But to say that we don’t have rich relationship experiences? That was what I took offense to.

Scientists? Is that some sort of consensus? If it’s actually true, I’ve never heard of such a thing. Starvation and disease are the two primary population limiters. But my comments concerning procreation were ancillary in support of my assertion that homosexuals are incapable of understanding and respecting heterosexual attraction.

My dog experiences a truly ‘rich and rewarding’ relationship with me and my family. He’s happy in his way, my wife and I our happy in our way and – you and your ’significant other’ are in yours. To each their own in happiness.

I’m not ‘putting you down’ for your lack of the attraction attribute; I’m proving that it is not only not the same as heterosexual love and affection, homosexuality can only be something less than heterosexuality because the attraction to the opposite gender is something missing and is therefore something that cannot be there to be shared within such a relationship. If you are incapable of experiencing it then how can you say that I’m wrong? It’s like a color blind person denying that color exists because they cannot see color. Should they have any place in naming which colors are which?

Just because your relationship is less than mine doesn’t mean that it is not a rich and rewarding one for you. I really do hope that it is for you but stop saying it’s the ’same’ as mine. It is not and you are just blind to the difference.
#538379

On November 10th, 2008 at 2:49 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

AniMEL, let me ask you a touchy question. If someone invented a ‘vaccine’ (totally safe and effective, etc.), that eradicated homosexuality would you want to ban it or – would you want to take it yourself?
#538685

On November 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am, CleanGuy said:

I’m proving that it is not only not the same as heterosexual love and affection, homosexuality can only be something less than heterosexuality because the attraction to the opposite gender is something missing and is therefore something that cannot be there to be shared within such a relationship.

What? Because two men or two women don’t have the “right parts” they cannot have just as a fulfilling relationship as a man and a woman? We’re not talking procreation or “opposites attract” biology. It’s about two people in love. Two people in a committed relationship to eachother. Sorry, DWD, you are wrong. Some have evolved past your point of view. Some of us are more complete human beings, even being gay.

Like Joy siad, there is so much more to life besides sex.

As for the vaccine, I myself wouldn’t take it, because my faith in other people to have evolved past the hate (for the most part) means that I can live my life in peace as I am. Maybe if I lived in Iran, or if I was a pre-teen in some religious compound with very limited contact with people outside, my answer might be different.
#538702

On November 10th, 2008 at 11:59 am, orlandocajun said:

The lunacy of the left, and homosexuals, is just proof to me that the states/voters made the right decision. Just like the illegal aliens demanding rights that they don’t have, or deserve, the loons on the left continually prove to the sane people in this country just how crazy they are. Then, they expect us to support their radical ideology.

Our country is losing its sense of decency in the name of diversity and tolerance. This time, Americans are pushing back and it’s about time.
#539012

On November 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm, AniMEL said:

DWD, I’m not sure if I would. On one hand, being heterosexual would make my life easier. I’d be able to go to church without being shunned, and my family might accept me again. On the other hand, I’d never want to go back to what my life was like before I accepted this part of myself. And I’m not with anybody at the moment, but the last relationship I was in made me so happy and made me feel so alive that I can’t imagine going back to trying to deny who I am.

The fact that I’m a lesbian is only one small thing you can know about me, but please don’t try to say that your relationship is better than mine. Again, you’re judging something you don’t understand. If you can’t understand it, how can you positively say such things–like a color blind person denying there’s color, as you suggest?
#539137

On November 10th, 2008 at 2:49 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

CleanGuy said:

What? Because two men or two women don’t have the “right parts” they cannot have just as a fulfilling relationship as a man and a woman?

Parts? What parts? I’m talking about the brain and that whatever it is that switches on to cause men to be attracted to women and vice versa is absent in homosexuals. Homosexuals are just incapable of experiencing that kind of attraction. I don’t expect them to have any concept of what it is they are missing because they cannot experience it. The power of heterosexual attraction goes far beyond mere sexual gratification; a heterosexual marriage is a lot more than just two best friends ~sharing~ mutual sexual gratification together.

Do you care to comment on my equal protection test question?

A man and woman get married but one of them is actually a homosexual. Which one? (and explain how it was possible that his or her rights were not ‘violated’ in post prop 8 CA…)
#539170

On November 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

CleanGuy As for the vaccine, I myself wouldn’t take it…

I have no doubt that IF you could be convinced of how incredibly powerful the desire for women actually is in normal men – you’d take it. (Men and women are sooo different from each other that the desire HAS to be extremely powerful in order to work at all.)

I also have no doubt that have all parents would administer it to their children….
#539183

On November 10th, 2008 at 3:06 pm, CleanGuy said:

Because you are incapable of experiencing man/man or woman/woman attraction means that these bonds are any less powerful than in a heterosexual marriage? Who says that homosexual attraction does not or cannot be just as powerful? Get real.

A man and woman get married, nothing is violated. If a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman, no one elses rights are voilated either. But when you say they are not allotted the same legal rights, then there is an issue. As I have said before, it is a failure of the so-called gay community to come up with their own word or institution that embodies the union of two people of the same sex. I’m all for the definition of marraige to remain intact, but what would embody same sex unions?
#539221

On November 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

AniMEL – I can’t imagine going back to trying to deny who I am.

Well.. the the whole gist of the point is that you wouldn’t have to deny who you are because you would be a different you.
#539293

On November 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

CleanGuy said:

Because you are incapable of experiencing man/man or woman/woman attraction means …

Oh, I can well imagine as much as I care to what it is that I’d ‘experience’ with another man; you’re forgetting that – I AM ONE! Inversely, I’m attracted to women and you are not despite that fact that both of us have no idea what it’s like to be one. (I’ve been married for 29 years and I’m still not entirely certain of what I’m doing.)

If a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman, no one elses rights are voilated either. ….

Huh? Whether it does or does not is irrelevant – it ain’t legal anymore. Nobody is violating my rights when they shoot heroin either. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make?

As I have said before, it is a failure of the so-called gay community to come up with their own word or institution that embodies the union of two people of the same sex.

I’m all for the definition of marraige to remain intact, but what would embody same sex unions?

I fully agree with you on that score. It’s been typical of the gay community to exploit and subvert existing words rather than coin new ones. ‘Gay’ used to mean happy, a ‘rainbow’ was an optical phenomenon and ‘normal’ was used to describe a given trait found within an overwhelming majority. What’s so bad about sticking with ‘civil union’ – the phrase was basically invented for homosexual couples wasn’t it?

I’m against allowing same sex couples to adopt children, (and not because of any religious reason), but I’m for things like parity on health insurance policies and hospital rights, etc.
#539301

On November 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

I just remembered a dramatically different ewe!
#543697

On November 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm, ontheright said:

Same sex couples have the same rights as married couples under the law, what these fine citizens want is absolution by the religious community that their lifestyle is acceptable. Clearly most church’s and conservative communities feel that homosexuality is not. Are conservatives/and religious folk now not allowed to have their own opinions. So tolerant of others are;nt we?
This has nothing to do with church and state. The citizens of California VOTED and the gay lobbies lost. Marriage is a sacrament of the church that most gay people reject anyway. If you stifle conservative dissent, you are just bigoted as those you cast stones at.
#546195

On November 16th, 2008 at 9:26 am, SoCal said:

Gays and Holy Rollers arguing… almost worth buying a ticekt!