Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 11, 2008 01:02 PM

I think it’s time for Democrat leaders to counsel the anti-Prop. 8 mob to stop the protests and accept the will of the people of California.

Tell them to leave the churches alone. Tell them to stop blocking traffic and impeding businesses and harassing elderly couples and targeting donors.

It’s over. You lost. Move on.

With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Prop. 8 had 52.3% of the vote, with 47.7% against. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.

You know how those Obama supporters have launched their treacly “healing” website, “from 52 to 48 | 48 to 52 with love?”

Maybe Prop. 8 supporters should do the same thing.

If you are a Californian who voted for Prop. 8 and want to send a healing message to a sore loser who voted against it, feel free to send me a photo, e-mail, or comment and I’ll create a separate “from 52 to 48″ post.

***
Previous:


Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire

Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics

Who supported Prop. 8?

First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding

Public school politicking and Proposition 8

Posted in: Proposition 8

See what others have said

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

Trackbacks

  1. Baptist Church to picket burial of Obama’s grandmother » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
  2. Left Of Center
  3. Radical gay group terroizes Mount Hope Church, Lansing, MI | blogs4God
  4. Dan Cleary
  5. Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
  6. Ignorantia Juris » Archive » Hmmm
  7. California Communist Party aka Democrats (plus Arnold) « Bob’s Bites
  8. Obama and his followers make McCain and Palin still look good! « Riggword Weblog
  9. Legislators throw the democracy baby out with the Proposition 8 bath water | Neolibertarian at large
  10. Prop 8, YES - NO | BigMouthFrog
  11. Stocks drop, Bum Ninjas “rock,” Big 3 don’t see the clock « Mark Epstein
  12. Memo to Michelle Malkin- Move on, please…. | Political Byline
  13. Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
  14. Proposition 8 Protestors Getting Out of Control « Trust, But Verify
  15. The Daily Conservative
  16. The Strident Conservative

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #541522
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am, SoCal said:

    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:13 am, right4life said:

    What the Republitards are doing isn’t working… The young people see you all as haters. They are looking for freshness.. and your stale old religious crap just ain’t cutting it.

    oh please, sounds like democrat talking points. us stale old religous folks are the base of the party, good luck winning without us.

    It didn’t help much having you all around this time, did it?

  2. #541523
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am, FamilyMan said:

    Natural law observes that homosexuality is a perverse. Resistance to homosexual behavior by NORMAL people is a derivative of natural law.

  3. #541527
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot
    You must admit that homosexual acts are a perversion of nature and is deviate behavior.

  4. #541531
    On November 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am, garydt said:

    Again Digshot you arguments won’t hold water on that Great Day, you will be silent when you face Him with your puny arguments. Remember He is long on patience and suffering, but He won’t wait forever.

  5. #541538
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:00 am, FamilyMan said:

    Crickets Digshot crickets

  6. #541542
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:03 am, right4life said:

    It didn’t help much having you all around this time, did it?

    oh yeah you’re the future of the party…the next john mclame!! :roll:

  7. #541555
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am, Digshot said:

    sure enough. and gay marriage is a disaster for traditional families, children, and for religious liberty.

    Go back to what you said before, that marriage has worked for thousands of years, while gay marriage hasn’t. What does that mean? What are the metrics? Because in the United States, most marriages end in divorce, and gay marriage, when it’s been legalized, has worked perfectly fine.

    Religious liberty, lol! Give me a break.

  8. #541574
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:12 am, Digshot said:

    Digshot
    You must admit that homosexual acts are a perversion of nature and is deviate behavior.

    Why must I admit that? Animals have homosexual sex in nature all the time. Even if you view it as a perversion, which is real classy, by the way, why do you care if other people do it? What does it have to do with you?

  9. #541576
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am, Digshot said:

    Again Digshot you arguments won’t hold water on that Great Day, you will be silent when you face Him with your puny arguments. Remember He is long on patience and suffering, but He won’t wait forever.

    Hilarious.

  10. #541578
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot
    If your gay, don’t look for acceptance on this blog. May I suggest you go back to parents to find comfort.
    If your looking for legal acceptance natural law will not validate your perversion.

  11. #541581
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am, right4life said:

    Go back to what you said before, that marriage has worked for thousands of years, while gay marriage hasn’t. What does that mean? What are the metrics?

    I know this is hard, but gays cannot procreate. its rather obvious :roll:

    Religious liberty, lol! Give me a break.

    its obvious you’re fine with eliminating religous liberty. which is what gay marriage is all about.

    Because in the United States, most marriages end in divorce, and gay marriage, when it’s been legalized, has worked perfectly fine.

    uh whats that mean? where are the metrics??

  12. #541585
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am, right4life said:

    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:13 am, Digshot said

    you know what they say about who laughs last, diggy!! :P

  13. #541586
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot said: What does it have to do with you?

    This is my culture and I don’t wish to have it bastardized by deviates.
    Animals do on occasion attempt homosexual acts an are quickly reprimanded.
    NATURAL LAW

  14. #541587
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am, Digshot said:

    Digshot
    If your gay, don’t look for acceptance on this blog. May I suggest you go back to parents to find comfort.
    If your looking for legal acceptance natural law will not validate your perversion.

    I’m not gay, and I’m not stupid enough to seek acceptance on a conservative blog.

  15. #541591
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am, Digshot said:

    This is my culture and I don’t wish to have it bastardized by deviates.
    Animals do on occasion attempt homosexual acts an are quickly reprimanded.
    NATURAL LAW

    You are officially a caricature.

  16. #541592
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am, garydt said:

    You can deny and deny and laugh and laugh but you won’t be on that day. Think before you go on and mock Him. He is patient and long suffering but not forever.

  17. #541594
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot
    Spiders sometimes consume their mates.
    NATURAL LAW

  18. #541598
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot said: You are officially a caricature.

    That’s an argument?????????????????

  19. #541599
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am, granite said:

    Again, with respect, this discussion is a lot of blah, blah, blah, marriage, blah, blah, blah, rights, blah, blah, blah, animals, blah, blah, blah…; that is a distraction (on which the socialists/existentialists thrive, and without which they wither away) from the real, core, essential argument: there are two worldviews that have essentially nothing – not one thing – in common.

    A better, clearer illustration of the irreconcilable difference – the unbridgable chasm – between the two worldviews, than is being provided by this discussion, could not be asked for.

  20. #541603
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am, Yashmak said:

    Digshot
    If your gay, don’t look for acceptance on this blog. May I suggest you go back to parents to find comfort.

    – FamilyMan

    Ah yes, bigotry, Jesus would be proud. I wager you’ll have some explaining to do on the big day as well.

    and, right4life, how exactly is allowing gays to marry restricting your freedoms? I’m anxious to hear you explain that one.

  21. #541604
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am, right4life said:

    A better, clearer illustration of the irreconcilable difference – the unbridgable chasm – between the two worldviews, than is being provided by this discussion, could not be asked for.

    very true!! the libs cannot deal with truth, facts, etc. they just ignore those, and move onto the next talking point.

    in the last days the Lord promised to send a deluding influence…I’d be stunned if He has not already. these libs are scary obamabots…hailing their new messiah!

  22. #541606
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:25 am, Digshot said:

    I know this is hard, but gays cannot procreate. its rather obvious :roll:

    So…. what are you saying exactly? If we allow gay marriage, people will stop procreating, and we’ll die out?

    its obvious you’re fine with eliminating religous liberty. which is what gay marriage is all about.

    If gays are recognized as married by the state, what does that have to do with you, your religion, and your religious liberty? You can walk around pretending like all the gay marriages are invalid if it makes you feel better, why won’t that work?

    Because in the United States, most marriages end in divorce, and gay marriage, when it’s been legalized, has worked perfectly fine.

    uh whats that mean? where are the metrics??

    The metrics are that the world has continued to spin. For years we’ve heard from conservatives about all the inevitable problems we’d be facing with legalized gay marriage, and none of them have materialized despite the existence of thousands upon thousands of married, gay couples that have been married for years. You can no longer go with the doom and gloom scenario, because it’s not borne out.

  23. #541607
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am, FamilyMan said:

    Yashmak said; – FamilyMan
    Ah yes, bigotry, Jesus would be proud. I wager you’ll have some explaining to do on the big day as well.

    When did I say I was a Christian?

  24. #541608
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am, Digshot said:

    You can deny and deny and laugh and laugh but you won’t be on that day. Think before you go on and mock Him. He is patient and long suffering but not forever.

    I don’t care what your imaginary friend thinks of me.

  25. #541609
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:29 am, right4life said:

    and, right4life, how exactly is allowing gays to marry restricting your freedoms? I’m anxious to hear you explain that one.

    this just shows how uninformed you are on this issue. but its typical of liberals to have not thought through an issue…you just spew talking points.

    Marc D. Stern, whose many years handling religious freedom cases for the American Jewish Congress have made him an expert in the area, can hardly be identified as a conservative agitator. Yet he firmly believes that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will make clashes with religious liberty “inevitable.”

    “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them,” Mr. Stern has written. But for other individuals and institutions opposed on religious grounds to same-sex marriage, its legal acceptance would have “substantial impact.”

    He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

    One example, which he did not anticipate when first undertaking his analysis, was the Boston Catholic Charities’ decision to withdraw from providing adoption services because the state license required placing children with gay married couples on the same basis as heterosexual married couples.

    Chai R. Feldblum, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and a proponent of same-sex marriage, agrees that permitting gay couples equal access to civil marriage will inevitably burden the religious liberty of those religiously opposed.

    already a doctor in CA was sued by a lesbian, and lost, because he would not provide insemination for her. this will affect everything from adoption agencies, to christian schools, who can attend, who can teach, churches, who can work there, and what benefits they have to provide..

    do you libs EVER think through the ramifications of ANY policy you support??? :roll:

  26. #541611
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:31 am, Yashmak said:

    As an aside, I noted in the newspaper this morning an article about the next Califonia gubernatorial election. It listed San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome among the candidates. Even though I think Prop 8 is wrong, I’d sooner shoot myself in the head than vote that guy into the state executive position.

  27. #541614
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am, Yashmak said:

    When did I say I was a Christian?

    – Family Man

    Just a guess. If I’m wrong, my bad.

  28. #541615
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:32 am, Digshot said:

    Again, with respect, this discussion is a lot of blah, blah, blah, marriage, blah, blah, blah, rights, blah, blah, blah, animals, blah, blah, blah…; that is a distraction (on which the socialists/existentialists thrive, and without which they wither away) from the real, core, essential argument: there are two worldviews that have essentially nothing – not one thing – in common.

    A better, clearer illustration of the irreconcilable difference – the unbridgable chasm – between the two worldviews, than is being provided by this discussion, could not be asked for.

    Good post. Some of us want to use the government to solve problems, others obsess over using it to keep penises from touching. Irreconcilable indeed.

  29. #541616
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am, right4life said:

    The metrics are that the world has continued to spin. For years we’ve heard from conservatives about all the inevitable problems we’d be facing with legalized gay marriage, and none of them have materialized despite

    again, you sir are uninformed. and its on every aspect of this issue? ever hear of stanley kurtz???

    So the real question raised by Badgett’s comparison is why Holland should be virtually the only traditionally low out-of-wedlock birthrate country in which couples have easy access to birth control where out-of-wedlock birthrates are now “soaring?” I’m grateful to Badgett for (inadvertently) drawing this additional factor to my attention. Rather than weakening my point, it greatly strengthens it. It is clearer than ever that something very unusual is happening in the Netherlands. Demographically, we have a kind of Dutch exceptionalism — and the key difference is that the Dutch added gay marriage to their precarious balance between socially liberal attitudes and traditional family practices. Gay marriage — not restricted contraception or the collapse of Communism — upset that balance, with the result that the out-of-wedlock birthrate began to zoom

    The Dutch scholars are right. Many factors are in play in European marital decline, and more research is needed to separate out the relative importance of the various factors. But continued marital decline in Scandinavia and the Netherlands has already provided us with enough evidence to call the wisdom of same-sex marriage into serious doubt.

    link

    and when we have more babies without fathers we end up with more crime…as we’ve seen in the black community..

    you continue to prove what a shallow intellect you and liberals in general have.

  30. #541618
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:35 am, Digshot said:

    He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

    How the hell would gay marriage make things difficult for summer camps? Hahahaha. What?

    Additionally, how many gays do you think are chomping at the bit for access to religious, conservative institutions? You think they want to be married so they can infiltrate your homeless shelters?

    Hahahaha.

  31. #541631
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am, Digshot said:

    right4life, just curious, do all of your religious institutions listed above, community shelters and athletic programs, etc., are they okay with allowing unmarried gays to participate?

  32. #541632
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am, right4life said:

    How the hell would gay marriage make things difficult for summer camps? Hahahaha. What?

    you are an idiot. seriously stupid. you cannot deal with the truth, and even liberal lawyers acknowledge the problems that it would cause.

  33. #541633
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am, FamilyMan said:

    Yashmak said; If I’m wrong, my bad.

    Your wrong on all counts. Natural Law will not allow homosexual behavior as it is perverse and a deviation of nature. Check out Constitutional law.

  34. #541635
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am, right4life said:

    why don’t you try posting something to back up the BS you spout diggy? something, anything?

    you’re very shallow and uninformed.

  35. #541639
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot
    Are you avoiding Constitutional law and the natural law discussions?

  36. #541640
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am, Yashmak said:

    this just shows how uninformed you are on this issue. but its typical of liberals to have not thought through an issue…you just spew talking points.

    – right4life

    Well, spewing talking points is all you’ve been doing for 6 pages of comments too, so I guess you must be a liberal as well.

    Your quote doesn’t explain to me how gay marriage restricts your freedoms. Stern even says:
    No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them,”

    He has in mind schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.

    Organizations like this had to make adjustments when blacks gained equal civil rights too. I’m left to assume that based on your logic, things like allowing blacks to adopt, etc etc, would have somehow been considered a restriction of their religious freedoms too?

    Stern says allowing gay marriage would have ’substantial impact’. But I note that he provides no detail about what form this impact might take. No specifics, just a big fear sale.

  37. #541645
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:44 am, Digshot said:

    you are an idiot. seriously stupid. you cannot deal with the truth, and even liberal lawyers acknowledge the problems that it would cause.

    Well, don’t keep me in suspense. If you know the problems it would cause, share them. Because I don’t think there are any.

    Again, what if an unmarried gay parent wants to send their kid to your summer camp? Is that allowed?

  38. #541646
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:45 am, right4life said:

    Your quote doesn’t explain to me how gay marriage restricts your freedoms. Stern even says:

    can’t you read??

    already a doctor in CA was sued by a lesbian, and lost, because he would not provide insemination for her. this will affect everything from adoption agencies, to christian schools, who can attend, who can teach, churches, who can work there, and what benefits they have to provide..

    Organizations like this had to make adjustments when blacks gained equal civil rights too.

    comparing gay marriage to ‘civil rights’ is specious and laughable.

    christian churches will have to hire gay pastors, as christian schools will have to hire gay teachers. christian schools will not be able to expell gay students. freedom of religion will end. even reading bible verses that condemn homosexuality will be a ‘hate crime’

    Stern says allowing gay marriage would have ’substantial impact’. But I note that he provides no detail about what form this impact might take. No specifics, just a big fear sale.

    try doing some research. I know thats asking a lot of liberals :roll”

  39. #541647
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:45 am, right4life said:

    Well, don’t keep me in suspense. If you know the problems it would cause, share them. Because I don’t think there are any.

    just did moron, can’t you read?? duhhhhhhhhh

  40. #541653
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:47 am, Digshot said:

    Digshot
    Are you avoiding Constitutional law and the natural law discussions?

    You’re talking about religion. Constitutional law doesn’t talk about marriage and establishes the principle of equality among men and women, and NATURAL LAW wouldn’t be making judgments about whether or not specific behaviors are perverse.

    But you’re talking about religion.

  41. #541667
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:52 am, Digshot said:

    can’t you read??

    already a doctor in CA was sued by a lesbian, and lost, because he would not provide insemination for her. this will affect everything from adoption agencies, to christian schools, who can attend, who can teach, churches, who can work there, and what benefits they have to provide..

    What do the doctor and the lesbian have to do with gay marriage? That’s discrimination based on sexual orientation. Which apparently is fine with you, if you think Christian schools should be allowed to expel gays. But that doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage. What’s the connection?

  42. #541675
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am, right4life said:

    What do the doctor and the lesbian have to do with gay marriage?

    the doctor was already sued civilly because he would not inseminate the lesbian…with gay marriage he would most likely face criminal charges of discrimination.

    That’s discrimination based on sexual orientation

    Christianity, and most religions DO discriminate on ’sexual orientation’…now that will be illegal with gay marriage. as I wrote..and apparently you don’t get.

    if you think Christian schools should be allowed to expel gays

    obviously they should…its called freedom of association, religion…ever hear of it??? and you want that freedom to end…along with your fascist gay allies.

  43. #541676
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:55 am, FamilyMan said:

    These trolls are truly moronic. Not a single legal issue has been argued. What a waste of my time.
    Good luck right4life

  44. #541683
    On November 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am, jsr said:

    Family man,
    Like most points it is useless to argue this with libs. They understand our objections but will merely dismiss them as bigotry that stands in the way of somebody’s supposed rights. The irony is they are cut from the same ideological cloth as radical feminists that have insisted for 40 years that marriage is slavery and should be restricted if not outright banned. In both cases they attack traditional marriage because it stands in the way of personal freedom. I have to wonder if radical feminists that hate traditional marriage are in favor of gay marriage? I also have to wonder if those demanding the “right” to gay marriage realize it is a net loss of freedom for those committed to a long-term, successful marriage? All decisions must take into acount your spouse and children. Gratification must be delayed, scaled back or completely forgotten to provide financial security for the family unit. Buying a house, changing jobs, moving, vacations or just going out for the evening all require for more forethought, planning and discussion than if one were single. (I think the feminists might have a point in that it is a form in institutionalized slavery, but are wrong in believing it is only so for the women.) And then there is the big one: no more dating! I don’t believe for a minute this is what they are after. They only want the right to get married, and have their homosexuality recognized and accepted by the force of law. They fool nobody but themselves.

  45. #541691
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:00 am, right4life said:

    These trolls are truly moronic. Not a single legal issue has been argued. What a waste of my time.
    Good luck right4life

    very true, they cannot deal with facts, I do enjoy making them look foolish, not that its very hard.

    they have not commented upon Kurtz’ reseach for example.

    they’re typical libs, uneducated, and easily led.

  46. #541704
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am, Omu said:

    Why is your position reasonable but the polygamist’s unreasonable?

    Why do you keep making this about polygamy? Prop 8 wasn’t about polygamy, gay marriage is not about polygamy, the people protesting in Salt Lake City, New York and up and down California are not protesting about polygamy. Can’t you just let it go? Stop telling me I can’t support gay marriage without supporting polygamy. Stop telling me I have to justify my support of polygamy when I’ve never stated an opinion on polygamy.

    Just let it go for crying out loud!

  47. #541729
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am, Omu said:

    FamilyMan wrote:

    Hey perverts …

    Six thousand years of human history validates the social disgust of the practice

    Alas, I am proven correct.

    When I said that all of the arguements against gay marriage (polygamy! jailed preachers! the end of civilisation!) are just thin veils for bigotry, I was right. FamilyMan has at last revealed the way ALL anti-gay bigots feel. They feel that gay people are different, and are therefore “disgusting”. Nice going, FamilyMan!

  48. #541733
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:17 am, right4life said:

    this is a taste of the gay sharia to come if gay marriage advocates get their way…

    The treatment alleged by Los Angeles Police Officer Eric Holyfield provides one example of such discrimination. Holyfield is a Police Sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department and is also the Pastor of the Gospel Word of Life Apostolic Church.[40] The family of a fellow officer who had recently died asked Holyfield to preach a short ser­mon at the funeral.[41] Holyfield, who was off–duty and on vacation status at the time, agreed; wearing a black clergy shirt and white clergy collar, he preached about the need to prepare for death by avoiding sin, including sins involving homosexual­ity.[42] When another officer also attending the funeral overheard Holyfield’s sermon, including quotations from Bible verses prohibiting adultery and homosexuality and other sexual conduct, he filed a formal complaint against Holyfield alleging that Holyfield had made disparaging remarks toward gays, lesbians, and adulterers.[43] Holyfield claims he was subsequently demoted and denied promotion for expressing his religious beliefs through the sermon he preached.[44]

    The treatment alleged by Los Angeles Police Officer Eric Holyfield provides one example of such discrimination. Holyfield is a Police Sergeant with the Los Angeles Police Department and is also the Pastor of the Gospel Word of Life Apostolic Church.[40] The family of a fellow officer who had recently died asked Holyfield to preach a short ser­mon at the funeral.[41] Holyfield, who was off–duty and on vacation status at the time, agreed; wearing a black clergy shirt and white clergy collar, he preached about the need to prepare for death by avoiding sin, including sins involving homosexual­ity.[42] When another officer also attending the funeral overheard Holyfield’s sermon, including quotations from Bible verses prohibiting adultery and homosexuality and other sexual conduct, he filed a formal complaint against Holyfield alleging that Holyfield had made disparaging remarks toward gays, lesbians, and adulterers.[43] Holyfield claims he was subsequently demoted and denied promotion for expressing his religious beliefs through the sermon he preached.[44]

    link

  49. #541741
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am, SoCal said:

    Republicans. You lost. Its over. Move on.

  50. #541744
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:21 am, Omu said:

    christian schools will not be able to expell gay students. freedom of religion will end.

    If expelling gay teenagers is your idea of “religious freedom”, then maybe restricting it with anti-discrimination laws is not such a bad thing after all …

  51. #541750
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am, right4life said:

    If expelling gay teenagers is your idea of “religious freedom”, then maybe restricting it with anti-discrimination laws is not such a bad thing after all

    thanks for showing what a nazi you are. why shouldn’t a PRIVATE SCHOOL be able to admit, and EXPELL whomever they want??? hmmmmmm???

    explain that, and how it relates to freedom for me…

  52. #541754
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am, right4life said:

    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am, SoCal said:
    Republicans. You lost. Its over. Move on.

    uh we won the gay marriage vote every time its tried :P

  53. #541815
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am, granite said:

    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am, right4life said:

    …we won the gay marriage vote every time its tried.

    But, as far as existentialists/socialists/statists are concerned…so what?

    These dangerous opposite-worldview-holders are essentially saying to us, to paraphrase the immortal words of Goldhat the bandit (Alfonso Bedoya) to Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:

    The vote? We don’t want no vote (that we lost). We don’t need no vote (that we lost)! We don’t have to accept and move on from any stinkin’ vote (that we lost)!’

  54. #541817
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am, Tru said:

    Here’s my letter to the Gov (for what good it will do)

    Dear Govenor Schwarzenegger:

    I respectfully request your immediate condemnation of the dangerous and thuggery actions of the angry prop 8 activists who are using intimidating and corruptive tactics against the citizens of California, your constituents. By failing to speak out, you are complicit and malfeasant. These activists are threatening businesses with boycotts at a critical time in this States disastrous economy, naming individuals thus making them vulnerable to retaliation and physical harm, targeting places of worship, and disrupting the peace.

    It was shameful enough that you encouraged the protesters to defy the majority will of California voters. You proved yourself a lame-duck politician by reversing your principals on the issue of gay marriage (not to mention taxation). For this voter, you have lost all credibility.
    However, to stand by silently, while the community is being subjected to the minority unlawful and menacing behavior being inflicted on cities statewide is reprehensible as a governor.

    I sincerely hope you make a strong statement condemning these demonstrations very, very soon.

  55. #541823
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am, Yashmak said:

    can’t you read??

    – right4life

    Can’t you comprehend? I asked, how does this restrict religious freeom. Please cite the passage in the Bible where it says that artificial insemination of lesbians is a sin. I fail to see the connection between this, and religious freedom.

    very true, they cannot deal with facts, I do enjoy making them look foolish, not that its very hard.

    Right, your name-calling habit makes US look foolish.

  56. #541824
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am, right4life said:

    But, as far as existentialists/socialists/statists are concerned…so what?

    yeah they’re so concerned with ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ but that never extends to the rights and freedoms of those whom they disagree with!

  57. #541828
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am, right4life said:

    Can’t you comprehend? I asked, how does this restrict religious freeom. Please cite the passage in the Bible where it says that artificial insemination of lesbians is a sin. I fail to see the connection between this, and religious freedom.

    after all I posted, I don’t know what else to say. you don’t see because you either:

    a) refuse to see
    or
    b) don’t have the intellect to see

    which is it?

    why should a doctor be FORCED to provide services which he feels are immoral??? hmmmmmm??? whatever happened to freedom???

  58. #541839
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:55 am, Yashmak said:

    uh we won the gay marriage vote every time its tried

    – right4life

    What a triumph! Ammending discrimination into state constitutions. We ALL lose when we start down that road.

  59. #541847
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am, right4life said:

    What a triumph! Ammending discrimination into state constitutions. We ALL lose when we start down that road.

    it is a great triumph!! preserving FREEDOM!! instead of having your view imposed upon us by some black-robed thgus!!!

    FREEDOM won…fascist intolerance lost…get a clue.

  60. #541849
    On November 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am, Yashmak said:

    why should a doctor be FORCED to provide services which he feels are immoral??? hmmmmmm??? whatever happened to freedom???

    – right4life

    Because discrimination based on sexual orientation is ILLEGAL, and will continue to be so regardless of the legality of homosexual marriage. This still has nothing to do with gay marriage, and has no relevance to constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage.

    I’ll throw your own words back at you, as they seem fitting:
    after all I posted, I don’t know what else to say. you don’t see because you either:

    a) refuse to see
    or
    b) don’t have the intellect to see

    which is it?

  61. #541859
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, Digshot said:

    Christianity, and most religions DO discriminate on ’sexual orientation’…now that will be illegal with gay marriage. as I wrote..and apparently you don’t get.

    How will gay marriage make it illegal? According to you, if Christians are allowed to discriminate against single, unmarried gays, why wouldn’t they still be allowed to discriminate against married gays?

    That doesn’t make any sense.

  62. #541861
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:01 pm, right4life said:

    Because discrimination based on sexual orientation is ILLEGAL

    so basically religious freedom is ILLEGAL, based upon what you and your gay allies want. thanks for admitting this!!

    This still has nothing to do with gay marriage, and has no relevance to constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage.

    sure it does, why you refuse to see it, I don’t know. do you have anything to support your view?? I have amply documented mine…you have not, or cannot, which is it??

  63. #541865
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Omu
    Six thousand years of human history validates the social disgust of the practice
    I hate to resort to liberal tactics of name calling, but you are a MORON Omu.

  64. #541871
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:05 pm, right4life said:

    How will gay marriage make it illegal? According to you, if Christians are allowed to discriminate against single, unmarried gays, why wouldn’t they still be allowed to discriminate against married gays?

    because once the state decides that a relationship between a man and a woman is a form of irrational prejudice against homosexuals, pretty much anything the state decides is ‘discrimination’ is out the door…and religious beliefs themselves will be a form of discrimination, and therefore illegal.

    how hard is this?

  65. #541875
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm, The_Livewire said:

    Omu,

    As I quoted you, you’ve said that no majority has the right to deny a minority. Thus you are pro-polygamy by your own words.

    Then again, you’d deny a private school/organiztion the right of free association, so I shouldn’t be surprised you can’t see the conflict.

  66. #541879
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm, longhorn734 said:

    Go back to what you said before, that marriage has worked for thousands of years, while gay marriage hasn’t. What does that mean? What are the metrics?

    I know this is hard, but gays cannot procreate. its rather obvious.

    Quadriplegics can’t procreate. Should they not be allowed to marry?

    Menopausal women can’t procreate. Should they not be allowed to marry?

  67. #541882
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Omu said;They feel that gay people are different, and are therefore “disgusting”. Nice going, FamilyMan!

    In my opinion the gay people are different. I never said I was disgusted, I said “validates the social disgust of the practice”. Get your head on strait sport and read more carefully.

  68. #541884
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm, right4life said:

    Quadriplegics can’t procreate. Should they not be allowed to marry?

    yeah they can, sorry to tell you.

    Menopausal women can’t procreate. Should they not be allowed to marry?

    anyone with any sense could understand the context with which I was explaining this. Gay ‘marriage’ is a fraud. it cannot work, they cannot procreate, which is the primary purpose of marriage.

    this is all about restricting the freedom of christians, and placing a gay sharia law on the country.

  69. #541895
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm, longhorn734 said:

    My bad – paraplegics? People paralyzed below the waist is what I was going for.

    My point is that it’s clear that the ability to procreate has nothing to do with it, as previously stated. Should the church ban people who marry and don’t have children by their own choice?

    Is it possible that marriage means different things to different people?

  70. #541902
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:18 pm, right4life said:

    My bad – paraplegics? People paralyzed below the waist is what I was going for.

    they can with artificial insemination.

    My point is that it’s clear that the ability to procreate has nothing to do with it, as previously stated.

    the primary purpose of marriage is to raise a family. its been that way throughout history. gays cannot procreate, therefore their ‘family’ is a fraud, as is their marriage.

    you want to throw out thousands of years of history for some made-up ‘right’ that has never existed anywhere else. what you want is a radical change of our culture…and you don’t care about the effects upon society or children, or anyone else.

  71. #541908
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, longhorn734 said:

    they can with artificial insemination.

    Is this the “natural law” to which I’ve been reading about in the various comments?

    the primary purpose of marriage is to raise a family. its been that way throughout history. gays cannot procreate, therefore their ‘family’ is a fraud, as is their marriage.

    Perhaps the primary purpose of YOUR marriage is to raise a family. And the primary purpose for most of us. But I have many straight friends who are only interested in companionship and not in raising a family. Is their marriage a fraud as well?

  72. #541909
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:21 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Homosexuality counters that of natural law. The constitution supports natural law.

  73. #541918
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm, right4life said:

    Is this the “natural law” to which I’ve been reading about in the various comments?

    the point is through history gay marriage is unsustainable. all they can do is recruit more children to their cause…oh and gay marriage helps the breakdown of traditional marriage, which makes children more vulnerable…convenient isn’t it??

    But I have many straight friends who are only interested in companionship and not in raising a family. Is their marriage a fraud as well?

    most of them will change their mind. whereas gays cannot change their plumbing…

  74. #541919
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, longhorn734 said:

    Homosexuality counters that of natural law. The constitution supports natural law.

    Extending human life through medicine counters natural law too. Are you as adamant against medical advances as you are against gay marriage?

  75. #541921
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm, FamilyMan said:

    longhorn734
    Here is the definition for you. Study up on it. You may come out a wiser person.

    Natural law or the law of nature is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. ] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be evoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

  76. #541926
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:27 pm, marge45b said:

    The No on 8 people don’t understand that traditional Marriage supports healthy relationships for children to grow up in. There are lower rates of; crime, drug abuse, suicide, run away, and pregnancies when kids grow up in a home with a Father and a Mother in traditional gender roles. They clam that half of traditional marriages end in divorce. True some marriages fail, but most stay together to raise the children. Kids do much better when they have a female Mom and a male Dad role model. Why can’t the No on 8 people leave us church going traditional families alone? I think they are a bit upset the black and Hispanic Obama voters voted to pass prop. 8. God bless them! They value the traditional family way of life. It brings up healthy kids who will be productive and contribute to society.

  77. #541928
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, FamilyMan said:

    longhorn734 said:Extending human life through medicine counters natural law too.

    Try again sport. Read the above

  78. #541929
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm, longhorn734 said:

    most of them will change their mind. whereas gays cannot change their plumbing…

    So being gay is not a choice anymore? Which is it?

  79. #541931
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, right4life said:

    The No on 8 people don’t understand that traditional Marriage supports healthy relationships for children to grow up in

    yes they do…its one of the main reasons they want gay ‘marriage’ …destroys traditional marriage making children more vulnerable, and makes their recruitment easier!

  80. #541932
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, Yashmak said:

    so basically religious freedom is ILLEGAL, based upon what you and your gay allies want. thanks for admitting this!!

    – right4life

    Nope, I said discrimination is illegal, but as usual, since you can’t address what I said, you twist my words into something you can attack.

    I have amply documented mine…you have not, or cannot, which is it??

    – right4life

    You have not. You have provided information that didn’t address the question I asked. If, in your mind, that is ‘ample documentation’, then you’re incapable of an honest discussion on this or any issue. It’s the sort of arguments I’d expect from someone at Daily Kos. Based on prior attempts to debate you on numerous issues, I didn’t expect any different though.

  81. #541933
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:30 pm, right4life said:

    So being gay is not a choice anymore? Which is it?

    where do you get that? you were talking about your straight friends..

  82. #541943
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:32 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Homosexuality is not natural. How plain do I need to make it for you.

  83. #541953
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:37 pm, right4life said:

    Nope, I said discrimination is illegal, but as usual, since you can’t address what I said, you twist my words into something you can attack.

    according to the gays, firing a gay pastor is DISCRIMINATION..quoting the bible om homosexuality is DISCRIMINATION…we get the picture :roll:

    You have not.

    uh yeah right…and your documentation for anything is??? please. this is laughable.

  84. #541974
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Homosexual bigotry;
    See my post #333…347…352…357…364

  85. #541990
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:53 pm, FamilyMan said:

    DISCRIMINATION IS NATURAL LAW.
    We can not survive for one day without it.

  86. #541995
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:55 pm, Digshot said:

    because once the state decides that a relationship between a man and a woman is a form of irrational prejudice against homosexuals, pretty much anything the state decides is ‘discrimination’ is out the door…and religious beliefs themselves will be a form of discrimination, and therefore illegal.

    how hard is this?

    I’m sorry, but the state isn’t deciding hetero marriage is irrational prejudice, it’s deciding that gays should be allowed to marry. Nothing is out the door, for the hundredth time, the gay marriages that have already occurred haven’t brought about the end times.

    Also, I don’t care if you 4th century sensibilities are offended. Grow up, realize that gay sex has nothing to do with you, and let people enjoy the same rights and privileges that the rest of us do.

  87. #541999
    On November 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm, corkie said:

    Yashmak, digshot, and Omu,

    Why won’t you answer my questions?

    You continue to claim that you oppose polygamy and other forms of marriage, yet you offer NO argument against them OTHER than the fact that they are currently illegal (which is earth shatteringly illogical).

    I want to know why you oppose polygamy, etc? Please answer.

  88. #542017
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:04 pm, FamilyMan said:

    corkie said: Why won’t you answer my questions?

    They are discriminatory. They are social bigots.

  89. #542028
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:07 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Digshot said:the state isn’t deciding hetero marriage is irrational prejudice, it’s deciding that gays should be allowed to marry

    We are being discriminatory.

  90. #542035
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:08 pm, FamilyMan said:

    Natural law Digshot Natural law

  91. #542040
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:10 pm, cheapseat said:

    if the butt-bandits continue to demonstrate their deviance and utterly grotesque behavior at folsom st fairs and on the beaches of cape cod, they will continue to outrage society and soon will be persecuted. they are a threat to society, bringing the world aids, and they continue to act as if this is not a homosexual disease over 20 years later. guess what, if you have unprotected gay sex, you stand a big chance of getting aids, and black men who have unprotected homosexual sex seems particularly susceptible as many are so stupid they believe if they have sex with women also, they aren’t gay and hence can’t get aids. then they pass this on to their female partners. but the absolute fact is that if you eliminate homosexual sex, introveinous drugs use, women who have sex with gay men, the aids epidemic is about as prolific as the leprosy plague. so please quit telling me to feel sorry for aids victims, only the wives of these gay morons are at all worthy of our pity

  92. #542050
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:13 pm, right4life said:

    I’m sorry, but the state isn’t deciding hetero marriage is irrational prejudice, it’s deciding that gays should be allowed to marry.

    and opposing that will be considered discrimination. please.

    Also, I don’t care if you 4th century sensibilities are offended. Grow up, realize that gay sex has nothing to do with you, and let people enjoy the same rights and privileges that the rest of us do.

    yeah like I care what some FASCIST thug gay (or gay supporter) says. why don’t you grow sonny boy? and learn that the world doesn’t revolve around your gay sensibilities. get a clue, moron.

  93. #542054
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:14 pm, Common Sense said:

    The insanity has spread to Colorado:

    Burning Book of Mormon on church doorstep

  94. #542056
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm, FamilyMan said:

    crickets Digshot more crickets

  95. #542074
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm, Digshot said:

    I want to know why you oppose polygamy, etc? Please answer.

    Polygamy would be a redefinition of marriage, and would have repercussions far and wide throughout our society and economy. Marital law, family law, inheritance law, divorce law, etc., are all premised on two individuals entering into a marriage contract. Would employers and health care providers be forced to cover a man’s five wives? Will children of polygamists have multiple mothers and fathers in the eyes of the law? In a polygamist divorce, do the kids go with the departing wife, or stay with the rest of the family?

    Legalizing polygamy would require a ridiculous overhaul of just about every facet of American law, which is impractical. That’s setting aside all of the social problems and crimes typically associated with polygamy like incest, pedophelia, and sexual assault.

    When gays marry, they need no such exceptions or reworkings. Gay couples will fit into the marital system the exact same way that straight couples, do.

    That’s why.

  96. #542076
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:26 pm, Digshot said:

    yeah like I care what some FASCIST thug gay (or gay supporter) says. why don’t you grow sonny boy? and learn that the world doesn’t revolve around your gay sensibilities. get a clue, moron.

    I’m not arguing for anything but equality under the law.

    So defensive….

  97. #542078
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:27 pm, right4life said:

    I’m not arguing for anything but equality under the law.

    BS. some pigs are more equal than others.

    this isn’t ‘equality’ its discrimination against christians and christianity. get a clue.

    and of course you refuse to acknowledge that this ‘equality’ means that polygamy/polyandry should be legal..and so should pedophilia.

  98. #542082
    On November 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm, right4life said:

    Polygamy would be a redefinition of marriage, and would have repercussions far and wide throughout our society and economy.

    what do you think gay marriage is??? DUHHHHH

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob

November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin

49 Comments | 1 Trackback

Left-wing thug of the day

November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin

78 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Maine votes down gay marriage

November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin

759 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Breaking: Prop. 8 upheld

May 26, 2009 01:05 PM by Michelle Malkin

100 Comments | 16 Trackbacks

They’ll be back.

Courting trouble

May 26, 2009 06:02 AM by Michelle Malkin

41 Comments | 7 Trackbacks

A pageant Perez Hilton won’t be judging

May 7, 2009 05:15 PM by Michelle Malkin

50 Comments | 3 Trackbacks


Categories: Proposition 8



Mudville Gazette

» When the wind won't blow

Mudville Gazette

» Bad Weather (Part I)

Legal Insurrection

» Hacked E-mails or Else!

Pundit & Pundette

» About last night's vote

JustOneMinute

» "Unequivocal"?
Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook