Are you proud of yourselves, anti-Prop. 8 mob?
I’ve blogged several times about how the anti-Prop. 8 mob hounded the El Coyote restaurant in Los Angeles over the $100 donation of its longtime manager, who happens to be a practicing Mormon.
Now, read this — a closer look at how the mob ruined the manager’s life:
A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8
Pat yourselves on the back, tolerance bullies.
(Hat tip – Jane Q Republican)
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
No. I’m saying there’s nothing inimical to the purpose of marriage – that a man and a woman, living together in the bonds of matrimony for the purpose of begetting children and raising them in a safe, healthy environment – in a multiracial relationship.
The free expression of religion is a fundamental right not anywhere in the league of gay “marriage.”
Yes, you can. Change the definition of the word “consent” and there you go. NAMBLA’s been pushing for that for years.
I am asking your reasoning for it. Clearly incest is NOT illegal everywhere. So based on YOUR reasoning (ie, being gay is not illegal) then why would you be opposed to incestual marriage where incest is legal? (link to such places above)
Frankly? Not really. I do think it is gross, but okay…sure.
Nor do I really have much of an issue with polygamy, though I do know that there are decent arguments against such relationships with respect to inherent inequalities between the parties.
I know some people who would love this!!!
NAMBLA can push whatever they want. Just because you can find some yahoos out there pushing a stupid idea does not mean it has any chance of serving as any sort of basis for anything in the future. Certainly we should not let our policy be dictated by the NAMBLA boogeyman.
The next truely equal marriage will be the first. The partners allways have some inequality in some way. Marriage is the art of compromise.
Your pissy little attitude does not make your case any stronger, Chap.
The premise is, you are advocating changing one aspect of the definition of marriage, and you want us all to believe that no other aspect of the definition of marriage will change, or that this change will not spark other changes. That is totally illogical… AND YOU KNOW IT!
Thats what they said about gay marriage in the 70′s.
No. I am saying that there is no inherent definition of marriage and any societal definitions we put on it need to have a better justification that either “religion” or “tradition”.
Just a few short years ago, you could say the same about Gay marriage. And look where we are now!
which is why I think I would have no issue with polgamy.
Well, this has been fun, but I have to go pick up my wife at the airport, as I think that is what husbands traditionally do.
I really think we made some progress here today. Just one or two more threads…
Major issue, 12 women with PMS getting hormonal on your ass at once. Time to eat a bullet.
Maybe I need to rephrase what I meant. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay. I think there’s a lot wrong with incest. Does that make me prejudiced or a hypocrite? Perhaps. But I’m completely ok with that.
And just think of what a pain in the ass Valentine’s Day would be!
So its based on YOUR morals. Who exactly do you think you are to dictate to us? Let me clarify:
WHO THE F%$^ DO YOU THINK YOU ARE??
Chap,
OK, you don’t care about close relatives marrying. What about the first cousin tradition of the Pakistani group? If you ban those that immigrate to the US from marrying their first cousins are you not imposing your beliefs and traditions on them? You can cite health reasons, but you are imposing your will on their right to marry whomever they want.
I’m sorry, who am I trying to dictate to again?
Some one said something about it on this thread, and now it’s gotten me worried. A couple of weeks after the election a gay “friend” of mine emailed me about something to do with banning divorce. Now I’m starting to read and hear hints or rumors that they (The gay community) might really be trying to do it. What’s everyones take on that?
Just so nobody thinks I am making the first cousin thing up:
from the BBC
So, for those of you who say anything goes, why do you think it is OK to impose your traditions and beliefs on Pakistanis who want to marry their first cousin? You can cite health reasons as a rationale, but what if they are incapable of conceiving children? Would it be OK then, or would you still prohibit it?
sithson,
If there ever is a ban on divorce, expect the number of annulments, abandonments, and domestic murder rates to skyrocket.
chapoutier wrote:
Not even close.
As I wrote before, nobody would have been taken seriously if they said letting a Hispanic woman marry a black man would lead to two men and two women being legally married. Homosexual sodomy was illegal in California for another 27 years afterward, when a bill written by then-state Assemblyman and former S.F. mayor Willie Brown was passed. And 23 years after that, the CA Supreme Court ruling said homosexuals could marry.
Why are you so sure that what judges and politicians think of as logical and normal today won’t be thought of as antiquated and restrictive some thirty years from now? History disagrees with you.
chapoutier wrote:
Alrighty then! Try this one on for size.
Two men and two women walk into S.F. City Hall. The men are identical twins. So are the women. Each couple goes to the city registrar and says, “We want to get married.”
Without using “religion” or “tradition” as a justification for declining them, chap, let’s hear your reason why they shouldn’t be given a license.
Don’t chicken out.
Objection.
Asked and answered.
Go back and reread what I wrote.
Relax folks. It doesn’t matter what you say to chapoutier. He’s a moral relativist and all values can be redefined. The losers in an argument with him, are those who run out of ammunitions first.
What evidence at all do you have that I am a moral relativist?
I am sure you are sharp enough to recognize the difference between having different morals and considering morals relative.
Aren’t you?
NO
Well, I am not surprised, but I do pity you.
It’s easier to live by standards. I’ve been doing it for 63 years with absolutely NO regrets.
Do you have regrets chap?
Everyone on this board and disagrees with you, by your own admission you have decided that YOUR view is the correct one and everyone else is a bigot.
Again, not sure how you come to the conclusion that I do not have them.
I regret wasting my time explaining and justifying myself to a person that clearly lacks any capacity for self reflection. You sound as deluded in your self righteousness as Bush.
Think of it this way chap. Some people think that rules are confining, while other like me find order and peace within a structure, A composer follows the mathematical rules of harmonics. If he doesn’t the music he makes is irritating to listen to.
Chap
It’s not being self righteousness. It’s called self preservation.
NATURAL LAW
I’m sorry, when did I say that everyone who disagrees with me about gay marriage is a bigot? Oh, that’s right…I didn’t. There’s a difference between objecting to gay marriage based on religious beliefs and objecting to gay marriage because you hate gays, hope they all get AIDS and die. Using your rationale, anyone who disagrees with affirmative action must be racist.
My objection to what the Mormon church did has always been about keeping religion out of government. If you are a Mormon and disagree with gay marriage and voted as such, that’s all good. But when an entire church decides to throw it’s muscle and money into an election, that crosses a line. Same goes for Trinity church.
Anything else you’d like to ask me?
I’m still wondering what the homosexuals have been using as their wedding march; I’m thinking Steely Dan’s “Two Against Nature” would be appropriate; They can debunk it in any religous context, and they can debunk it as the laws of man, but they will never, ever debunk nature!
L.N. Smithee wrote:
chapoutier responded:
I reviewed every comment you made on this thread (three minutes I’ll never get back). You neither answered my question nor a similar one.
You’re chickening out, Chap.
The Gayhadists will never be satisfied until we all celebrate their lifestyle choice. Tolerance will never be enough.
Hey L.N. Smithee
We need a chap call.
Here cap, here chap, good boy
Works for my dog.
I imagine every Democrat union and every Hollywood glee club dumped hundreds of thousands into the No on 8 campaign.
Do you have any problem with their influence, or only when it comes to God-based morality rather than a malevolent political agenda will you take a stand against free speech?
Please Mookie, chastising Mormons for injecting “religion into government” by infusing capital into a campaign for a specific issue important to church members makes you no different than John McCain, who wants to limit how much you can give based on some arbitrary rules set by John McCain.
Why are organized No on 8 donations from political interest groups free expression, but when a church puts its money towards its values it is somehow an assault on your (historically wrong) view of separation of church and state?
Maybe you should spend that three minutes brushing up on your reading comprehension skills then…
That’s his go to “don’t-really-wanna-address-the-issue-but wanna-look-philosophical” answer for everything now.
I swear that if someone asked him what ingredients go into a chocolate chip cookie, he’d answer eggs, flour, brown sugar and natural law.
I can just imagine these bible haters standing before the Lord at the Great White Throne and about to be judged for their eternal home. I can just see these idiots accusing the Lord of being a bigot and a gay hater. The truth is they won’t have a word to say because of the shame of their sin.
Yeah…not so much worried about that, but I hope it works out okay for you.
And I don’t hate the Bible. Lotsa nice stories and lessons to be learned from it.
I’d have a problem with their influence if they were tax-exempt.
Chap,, you are a great guy and great debator, but I hope you are right for your sake. From my viewpoint even if I am wrong I have lost nothing but if you are wrong you have lost all of eternity. I do hope it works out for you but I have no regrets with my views.
Chapy
Natural Law is NOT a philosophy, it is an observable FACT. Moral relativist have been attempting to downgrade Natural Law by calling it something other that what it is.
Positive Law is very very convenient, isn’t it.
I sincerely hope you do not, and actually I apologize to you for being flippant. But understand that my beliefs, or lack thereof, are just as sincere and considered as anyone’s faith. I tend to get defensive.
That is the funniest thing you have said all night.
Kudos.
If I may, I have a question for the folks against gay marriage. Would you have a problem with nationwide civil unions?
That was constructive and insightful.
Nope. Only on a state by state level.
Mookie, Civil unions fall under contract law and not state licensing laws.
About as much as you throwing out “NATURAL LAW!!!!” as your answer to this issue.
But let me please give you the chance. Kindly expound how your theory of natural law:
1) accounts for the concept of “marriage” in the abstract and;
2) accounts for the concept of marriage in the specific, i.e., one man/one woman and or any other definitional boundary you wish to put on the term, taking into account, of course, proven scientific fact that homosexuality has been shown to exist in nature in many other species and taking into account theories that certain instances of homosexuality is actually a function of evolution;
3) a short summary on why natural law, even if proven to exist, necessarily takes precedence over positive law when positive law better accounts for the fact that we are rational, thinking, self-determinative creatures.
Mookie said: (#247)
I think many of the unions, PACs, and such are tax exempt.
——————
And to your #252
Not too much, and I would make the governments change the name of their marriage contracts to civil unions in that case for logical consistency. Churches, of course, would continue to define marriage as they have.
This is an evolving position for me, and I reserve the right to change my mind to a more limited position. But I think it squares my desire for religious freedom and definitions of marriage with the need of a state for orderly civil arrangements.
But a straight couple who gets married at city hall gets a marriage license, right? They don’t get a civil union license.
Would you have the government change the name to civil unions for couples who marry outside the church as well?
Once again, i would like to see these mobs protest and cause problems in Compton. All of the straight people i know who voted against prop 8 were white. The minorities in California, who by the way together outnumber the whites, felt they needed to defend their churches. Gay marriage in California would be a litigation nightmare. Yes on 8 votes were also to protect children from schools too willing to teach gay relationships to young children.
One of the most effective commercials here for prop 8 showed a cute young hispanic girl who is home from school all excited and telling her mother that she learned today in school that when she grows up she can marry a princess. This was a valid argument, last year a rural county school district east of Sacramento had a “dress as the opposite gender day”. They went so far as to say that students who did not participate would receive a failing grade for the day. So many parents threatened to homeschool that the school decided to make the day optional and would not penalize anyone who did not participate.
Sorry, i believe most people do not care what 2 adults do, however they do not want their decisions affecting their lives so negatively. Anyway, I hope this woman overcomes the prejudice and closed mindedness she has had to endure. I hope she finds an even better job in an area of Los Angeles that is not so small minded.
Chap
I’m sure you understand the difference between Natural and Positive Law.
Natural Law is concerned with the absolutes of personal and social survival which is obvious. Positive law has infinite possibilities, and has no concrete moral structure.
Were talking about human rights and not chimps and frogs. Animal have no rights and no morality.
Rational thought has a finite probability. You must be brave and willing to go beyond that. Rational thought, if carried to it’s extreme will become self reflective and end where it began. I’m not talking law now, I’m discussing personal observation which is the only law that counts.
Correct. As it should be.
Mookie said:
NO
Mookie, in 259 asked:
I think the government piece of paper would say civil union for any consenting adult couple; it would be up to the churches to say marriage.
In point of fact, despite my bravely trying to argue in logic, emotionally I prefer the traditional way–once the miscegenation laws were invalidated.
Why not?
Does this answer my questions? No. No it does not.
You claim some theory of natural law supports your definition of marriage. I am waiting to see how that plays out.
But let me help you out, just to show you I am a good guy and a fair thinker. Try reading up on Kant’s first formulation on the concept of the moral imperative and apply that to the issue of gay marriage.
Mind you, I don’t agree with it, but at least it would give us something concrete to discuss.
I really think that’s the way to go. If marriage is a religious institution, remove it completely from the government. Change the tax code so that there’s no difference between a couple married in the church and one married civilly.
Chap said Kant
I don’t claim a special place in creation for myself or other humans. I claim my observable reality as Natural Law which is imperative for my personal and societal survival.
Chap. I have a 3AM call tomorrow and the roads are icy in northern Idaho.
Goodnight all.
I am curious, then, as to how your personal and societal survival intersects with gay couples, 99.999999999% of whom you would never know.
Idaho is a beautiful state. Goodnight.
Be careful, FamilyMan.
OK, chapoutier, we now know where you stand: You are not only in favor same-sex marriage, you would, if it came down to it, be in favor of gay brothers and gay sisters marrying each other even though you think it’s “gross.”
(Say, if you say that same-sex gay siblings marrying is “gross” in public after it’s legalized, is that a hate crime?)
So, let’s go with this, chap, since according to you, there’s no real rules for marriage; If a gay sister wants to marry her gay brother … problem? Howzabout a straight brother marrying his lesbian sister, or vice versa? Or is that still not “gross” enough for you to have a problem with?
On December 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am, sonofdy said:
Gay brownshirts…..
As we all know the leader of the original Brownshirts,Ernst Rohm was Gay.mmmmm
Again, with the reading comprehension issues with you. I think I make it pretty clear that my standard is not what I personally find “gross”.
But… I have thoguht further about the issue and wish to amend my answer. With respect to consanguinity, there are I think obvious health reasons as to why brothers and sisters (and probably 1st cousins) should not marry or procreate. I would therefore think it reasonable to bar the marriage of kin.
Now, a few people have brought up the issue of gay siblings or gay cousins, i.e., a couple that could not possibly procreate. However, I think an overriding factor for me is that I fundamentally do not want to see gay marriage treated any differently from straight marriage. It is often argued by anti-gay marriage folks that marriage is a construct developed to facilitate the raising of children. Pro-gay marriage folks argue that the ability or desire to procreate should be irrelevant to the granting of marriage rights, and indeed is if you are hetereosexual.
I believe the flip side of that is true as well. The mere ability NOT to produce children, i.e., with two gay brothers, should not serve to confer the right of marriage between two people if that marriage would already be barred.
Actualy you do every time the topic comes up.
Prove it.
I also find it amusing here that very few people here seems to know what a hate crime really is.
Is saying something is gross in general a crime of any sort? No? Then it does not matter one bit what or whom you say it about.
There has to be an underlying, pre-existing criminal action before something can be considered a hate crime.
That is why an artist desecrating his own lawfully purchased copy of the Bible is perfectly legal, though perhaps distasteful, and stealing (a crime) and vandalizing (a crime) a copy of the Koran, under certain circumstances, could be considered a hate crime. I am not saying the artist does not hate Christians any more or less than the theif and vandalizer hates Muslims.
I think you’re dreaming about what is happening…people are being arrested for being christians at gay rallies.
link
You forgot to mention that it can get you beheaded in some countries, however it is never illegal for a Muslum to desicrate the Koran or a bible.
Odd how that works, isn’t it.
Freedom of speech is being legislated away for non-minorities as is freedon of religion.
Wow. Thanks for the two examples that have nothing to do with our country.
And as for Stephen Green, me thinks we might not have the full story. I am always suspicious of stories that go out of their way to stress how [blank] was merely doing [blank] in a peaceful manner.
Good morning folks.
WOW! what a trip. Sliding down an icy mountain at 3;30, to see a new client, should be left to someone young and stupid.
Chap and Mookie are still here. Don’t you guys ever sleep?
Liberals?
I know what it is. Anything said or done to a liberal, or a politically-correct protected group.
Nothing more.
Mary Stachowicz – killed (a crime) by a gay man for her beliefs? Not a hate crime. In Canada, if you remove your child from a class lesson on homosexuality, it’s a hate crime. But when rabid feminists vandalized (a crime) a Catholic Church and interuppted a Mass (disturbing the peace, a crime) they were not punished save a slap on the wrist.
Same thing with the Bash Back protesters in Michigan.
Don’t give me that “we don’t know what a hate crime is.” For all the complaining about “equality” under the law with gay marriage, equal protection does not apply to hate crimes laws.
Crimes against Christians – no matter how vile – are never hate crimes.
Why is that?
Hate crimes are constitutional dangerous. How the heck can anyone read another persons mind, even if there is a previous pattern of behavior?
GEES!
Actually, I think I agree with this.
Thank GOD chap. I was about to post Descartes “I think, therefore I am”, to find out if we had any common ground.
Let me clarify this a bit. I do think it is entirely possible to know WHAT motivated a crime and still not think the motivation should have any bearing on the punishment.
face it people, folks f’ed up enough to be homosexual and or bisexual will never think they might be crazy. queers love to say it’s dna and they were born that way, but why is it that the majority of gays chose to be gay in their teens when they were seduced by a gay friend. it feels good, and they got a rep for being gay, so they were gay. just as the high school punch got a rep for being easy, so was easy. ellen disgraceful or madonna show how being cool gay gets you pubs within certain circles, but their guilt keeps pushing them to try to convince the majority it’s normal, so accept it. it’s not normal, get over it, and quit trying to make it normal through adoption, marriage, artificial insemination, and other means. you choose your life, don’t f up any other children to show how normal you really are.
don’t think it can happen hear?? please. you should know better…
link
here’s a few more…
link
you only THINK it can’t happen here…
Huh – where’d everybody go?
I can only assume that I have convinced everyone that I am right and therefore have no need to post anymore.
chapoutier wrote:
Well, I am glad that I spurred you to further thought, because on this issue it is common for people not to think.
Fact #1: The California Supreme Court decision that temporarily legalized same-sex marriage in California (In re Marriage Cases) was styled after Perez v. Sharp (1948), the decision that legalized marriage to “Blacks” and “mulattoes,” Indians, and Asians by “White” people (Half-Mexican plaintiff Andrea Perez’s mother was white, thus making her “white” under CA law).
Fact #2: The majority opinion in Perez summarily rejected the notion that children born from miscegenous marriage would be more likely to be diseased or disabled (thus being a burden on the state), saying that none of the voluminous data supplied by proponents of the status quo going back to the authors of the California Constitution nullified the fundamental right to marry the person of one’s own choice.
Fact #3: One of the concurring judges’ opinions stated that racially-based marriage restrictions fail the “a clear and present danger” test set by previous SCOTUS decisions, and addressed arguments linking such prohibition on mixed marriage to laws against polygamy thusly (bold mine, citations deleted):
Now, I ask you sincerely: Do you believe that the above explanation for keeping polygamy illegal could be defended using that language in this day and age?
Fact #4: Unlike the Justices in 1948, 2008′s In re Marriage Cases barely touches upon polygamy and incest, and does so in a cavalier manner. In Justice Ronald George’s 100+ page opinion, the oft-voiced concern that changing the nature of marriage as we have known it may lead to the unintended circumstance of opening the door to other proscribed marriage arrangements merits only this footnote (case references deleted, bold mine):
In his brilliant dissent, CA Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter respectfully laughs this off (bold mine):
In searching for this excerpt from Baxter’s dissent, I found it cut-and-pasted on a BDSM/Polyamory bulletin board with this comment: “…In their own way, [Baxter's] words hold out hope for us poly folk.”
An earlier web search as I was gathering information for this post brought me to this Los Angeles Times blog debate between duelling pro-8 and no-8 attorneys. Get this — the Yes on 8 lawyer used the “slippery slope” argument, saying that the door has been opened despite Justice George’s fig leaf footnote, noted above. The No on 8 lawyer actually wrote this in response:
HELLO, McFLY? They thought that would be next because nobody even IMAGINED the idea of homo marriage! You deny the “slippery slope” while you’re headed down the hill in an innertube!
you were wrong about it not happening here….
Without looking into each and every one of your poorly souced examples that you had simply cut and pasted from an article by Janet Folger (not really an unbaised source, heh?), I can at least say that I never said it happened in the US.
I said that the two examples you gave did not.
If these others you copied were so stellar, why didn’t you lead with them?