al Gayda On The March: “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”

The New York Times ends it's piece with an interesting quote from a prominent Mormon and co-founder of the WordPerfect Corporation:

Mr. Ashton described the protests by same-sex marriage advocates as off-putting. “I think that shows colors,” Mr. Ashton said. “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”

They warned against a potential increase in terrorist activity during a presidential transition. I just don't think they predicted the right source. And with large majorities of Hispanics and blacks supporting Prop 8 - the New York Times is pointing fingers - at the Mormons. Funny that the black churches draw a pass. It seems al Gayda and the NYT's like their targets to be easy and white.

More from first link:

Gay marriage protesters have escalated their boycott of business concerns who contributed to the passage of Proposition 8. The left's backlash is now a full-on campaign of intimidation and vengeance.

The photo above show hundreds of activists protesting at the El Coyote restaurant on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles. Marjorie Christoffersen, a daughter of El Coyote's owner, gave $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

Marriage is between a man (22 chromosomes + X, 22 chromosomes +Y) and a woman (22 chromosomes + X times two) and that's why triple-X females, who are unable to produce children, are forbidden to marry. Ditto for Klinefelter's syndrome males, who have two X chromosomes in addition to the Y. Their unholy union bears no fruit and is clearly frowned upon by God.

Wait, sorry, I'm being told that these people are allowed to marry otherwise biologically productive Americans in sham "marriages". Somebody alert the Mormons! Gametes are going to waste!

[Chairm]

Well, were you just kidding when you coined the term, Gayda, or did you mean to refer to the make-believe terrorists, BashBack?

See:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2008/11/firsthand-account-of-gays-bashing.html

[mark l.]

there are about 760,000 mormons in california...
not sure how many are eligible to vote among that number, but then over 12 million voted on the measure, so they represent, assuming full turnout and any mormon elgible, about 6% of those who voted in California.

relevant numbers? not important enough for the nyt to mention. nor relevant to those who were looking for a church along the parade route that could be protested, without alienating a larger group of voters.

their reasoning was completely centered around fund raising. where would they get the idea that money is more important than people willing to vote? maybe from their sources who helped write their column to explain away why mormons should be 'targetted'?

[Fred Beloit]

Say, um, Downtown Load, how is it that you have the ability to know when someone else is happy? Did you study ESP (a non-existent phenomenon) at Duke U?

[JustOneMan]

BREAKING NEWS - CURE FOR AIDS FINALLY DISCOVERED!!!

Scientists at the Helsinki Medical Consortium (HMC) announced this morning that after years of research a real cure for AIDs has been dicsovered. Dr. Uta Oltemy, HMC's Director of Research stated that the cure "has been right in front our noses for years yet people refused to see it".

He unvelied the results of his research and announced "The cure for this deadly disease is.......SIT DOWN AND KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT"

Immediately the "gay lobby" bagan protesting the Helsinki Mormon Temple......

[Continuum]

I totally agree with both the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches.

Marriage is soley for procreation of children.

However, our society has become too lax. That is why, we should immediately forbid any woman from marrying who is past child bearing years. Since, this is difficult to determine, I would just make a general rule forbidding marriage for any woman past the age of 30.

Ok, maybe 35 tops.

Similary, we should allow marriage for girls to start at the age of puberty. Generally, around 12 years old. For some girls, maybe, 11 or 10. OK, 9 years old just like some of the Mormons do.

Oh, yeah, Catholic Priests should no longer be required to have supervised visits with altar boys. The Catholic bishops will continue to do the fine job they have done in the past.

[Downtown Lad]

Why is Dan trying to hide the fact that his faggot brother died of AIDS, and Dan is proud of the fact that his brother died alone?

[WBestPresidentEver]

Maybe this is all the beginning of the Implementation of The New World Order. It's been hanging around for a long time now.

"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.

There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simple be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."

"We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. A government which lacks authority will have little ability short of cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people the sacrifices which may be necessary."

[jharp]

"Gay marriage protesters have escalated their boycott of business concerns who contributed"

I'm not gay but will join their boycott. And you all can sit back and watch the gay community win.

They are right. Equal rights to all. Not equal rights except the right to marry.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, um, Downtown Load, how is it that you have the ability to know when someone else is proud? Did you study pride in America under Michelle Obama?

[jharp]

I especially like the fact that the Mormons spent $20 million to bring about boycotts to Mormon owned businesses.

Good move. They have made their bed and now must sleep in it.

[Fred Beloit]

"Not equal rights except the right to marry."
I am so proud of you, Harpo. Will I be able to marry my favorite race horse? How about my Camry, I love that car. But wait a second, are the gays really helping themselves by attacking Mormons who have a right to their religion? Shouldn't their fight to change a word be fought in the legislatures instead of on the streets or in the courts.
But why am I asking Harpo? Harpo is irrelevant and powerless.

[Undertoad]

My fiancee and I are 44, both formerly married and we will not be having additional children. We have not set a date and are not really that concerned with actually getting married. I am on her insurance plan as a civil partner.

They say marriage as all about children and God. Well, our child-raising time is done, and since we are not very religious, we see no reason to actually marry. I suppose that, if there were civil unions in our state, we might get civil-unioned. But there isn't.

[mark l.]

"They have made their bed and now must sleep in it."

rather appropriate choice of words given that the majority of aids deaths in calfiornia were a result of carelessness and stupidity.

[Fred Beloit]

I prefer there be civil unions for such matters as the legal aspects of marriage. I would accept marriage for gays if voters and their legislatures were to agree to it. I oppose decisions by activist judges who substitute their personal preferences based on what they feel the law should be, not just in the area of gay marriage but in any area of law.

[scarshapedstar]

"I am so proud of you, Harpo. Will I be able to marry my favorite race horse? How about my Camry, I love that car."

Hear hear, because you obviously can't father a child with your Camry. Neither can you father a child with a woman who's had a hysterectomy. This is why you shouldn't be legally allowed to marry her.

Right?

[JustOneMan]

Californians voted...the bill passed...the "gay lobby" lost...accept it and move on...

Americans voted....Barry Obama won...rational "hard working" Americans lost....accept it and bend over and take it for the next 4 years

[Fred Beloit]

I have never tried to make the argument that marriage requires children, scar. You are thinking of someone else. But words must mean something. Laws are written using words, for example. A judge shouldn't be able to change the meaning of "murder" to mean self-defense so that he can claim the person on trial for murder has been wrongly charged.

Do you disagree with that?

[Fred Beloit]

The word "marriage" has a meaning in law now, as it has had for more than 2000 yrs, that does not include any hatred, Jame Gumm. Can't you read? If you want a law changed, don't expect a good judge to change it for you. A good judge would not do it for you, however.

[Fred Beloit]

You know Jame, I am going to be a little cross with you for falsely accusing me of hating gays. Why do you hate men so?

[scarshapedstar]

Fred,

Well, people often say that marriage is "between a man and a woman". I submit to you that there is a significant portion of the population that doesn't fit neatly into either category. And so there are plenty of marriages involving quasi-men and quasi-women, talking about chromosomal disorders here. Literally the only way they can be considered "man-woman" marriages is by judging the non-functional reproductive organs of either party. That just doesn't seem right to me. "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina" works well for 5-year-olds but not so much for adults.

And yet this is a concern that must be addressed, whether you like it or not, because "man and a woman" is saying that the right to marry is based on the haplotype of the 23rd chromosome. You can't say that some nonreproductive combinations can marry (for example: 44+X, 44+XXY) and some cannot (44+XY, 44+XY; or 44+XX, 44+XX) without any sort of justification to prevent an equal protection challenge. The only one I've heard is that an infertile, outwardly male-female couple is at least keeping up appearances so as not to frighten the children.

I prefer to consider the adults when it comes to marriage. Call me crazy.

[jharp]

"Loving v. Virginia, was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."

Is this another example of the judges legislating from the bench?

I wish the ignorant right wing jackasses would kindly stop suing this idiotic phrase.

The Judicial branch of our government has specific powers clearly spelled out in the Constitution. It is a 1/3 coequal branch.

It is their duty to uphold the constitution and nothing less. And eventually even the brain dead wingnuts will see that gays have the same right s as everyone else. Including the right to marry.

[Fred Beloit]

scarshapedstar: "I prefer to consider the adults when it comes to marriage."

Two points, if I may.
(1) Your exceptions encapsulated for brevity are :"And so there are plenty of marriages involving quasi-men and quasi-women, talking about chromosomal disorders here. Literally the only way they can be considered "man-woman" marriages is by judging the non-functional reproductive organs of either party."
My response is the "exceptions" imply there is a rule, a norm. Terms may be fine-tuned by exceptions, but terms are defined by the rule/norm.
(2) Someone above or on another thread reminded us there is no right to a government-recognized marriage because a license must be obtained, as in driving a car. But there is also a common-law marriage recognized ipso facto by many, if not all states, as another commenter mentioned.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo introduces an irrelevancy, as per usual. But these are Wiki's words not Harpo's:
"Loving v. Virginia, was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States."
To Harpo's credit there are quotation marks around the quote. To his detriment there is no link.

In any case if you go to Wiki, you will find that this ruling, I could not find the date, says nothing at all about the meaning of the word marriage nor about whether a marriage could be between a man and man, woman and woman. The ruling was against racial discrimination. The fact is we all now have equal rights. I can marry a woman. A woman can marry me. I cannot marry a man (in most states), a woman cannot marry a woman.

If gays want to change this they can go to the courts and try to get some activist judges to distort the English language. Or they can try to convince their neighbors and the legislature to change the laws of the state because it is the right thing to do. I strongly recommend the latter course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Ah, Fred is talking about matters with which he is unfamiliar again, i.e. "ipso facto" marriages - whatever that is. Perhaps he means "de facto" marraiges. In any event, "common law marriage" can only be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia; can no longer be contracted in 26 states; and was never permitted in 13 states.

Moreover, one does not need to acquire a license to get married. A license is only EVIDENCE that such a marriage exists. It is not like driving a car or going fishing. It's a fundamental right as recognized by Loving v. Virginia - a case I'm certian Fred has considered and studied in detail.

But don't let reality stop you from making stuff up.

[mark l.]

"anti-miscegenation statute"

unenforceable.

considering the reality of biracial children which were present, at least since the founding fathers started sowing their oats, the possibility of enforcement was nil. Do you codify a system that punishes children for their parentage?

can a biracial child choose which race to marry becuase he possesses links to both races?

Had the courts been able to define what actually constitutes 'race', the outcome might have been different.

defining sexual orientation is a completely different matter. Loving v. Virginia bears almost no relevance to the current status of gay marriage. (I am a big proponent of states rights, and had CA chosen to recognize it, it would have to be accepted within the confines of the state.)

[jharp]

"defining sexual orientation is a completely different matter."

I didn't expect you understand my point but just in case you'd like to give it a try.

My point is the right of a black person and a white person to marry was only enforceable because of a court decision.

In other words, judges legislating from the bench as our right wing imbeciles like to call it. Or what the educated left refers to as upholding the U.S Constitution.

[jharp]

Most white Americans in the 1950s were opposed to interracial marriage and did not see laws banning interracial marriage as an affront to the principles of American democracy. A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.

[Dan Riehl]

That's arbitrary nonsense, jharp. Another judge - a different outcome. And you wouldn't be celebrating that one. The CA decision came from the people - it was democratic in nature. Your advocating for a totalitarian approach to everything that ensures nothing but that the will of some few can outweigh the will of the people. That's hardly in the spirit of the constitution in this sense.

[Fred Beloit]

"Ah, Fred is talking about matters with which he is unfamiliar again, i.e. "ipso facto" marriages - whatever that is. Perhaps he means "de facto" marraiges."

From Wiki: "Ipso facto Other uses
Aside from its technical uses, it occurs frequently in literature, particularly in scholarly addenda: e.g., "Faustus had signed his life away, and was, ipso facto, incapable of repentance." (re: Marlowe, The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus.) or "These prejudices are rooted in the idea that every tramp ipso facto is a blackguard" (re: George Orwell, Down and Out in Paris and London)."

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo: "A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96 percent of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage.
Posted by: jharp | Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Source please.

[Fred Beloit]

jaime "...for thousands of years "traditional" marriage was that the woman was as much a piece of property as a goat."

The Spanish will be surprised to learn that their Queen Isabella was treated like a goat in 1492.
You remind me of the Islamollama school of rhetoric, jaime. Exaggerate every possible statement to the maximum for a debate-winning effect on the groundlings. Excellent grasp of History. Attend a modern American university did you?

[jharp]

That's arbitrary nonsense, jharp. Another judge - a different outcome. And you wouldn't be celebrating that one. The CA decision came from the people - it was democratic in nature. Your advocating for a totalitarian approach to everything that ensures nothing but that the will of some few can outweigh the will of the people. That's hardly in the spirit of the constitution in this sense.

Posted by: Dan Riehl | Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 04:09 PM

You are wrong on all counts.

Me advocating a totalitarian approach? Surely you jest.

I advocate following the Constitution and the courts have the power to protect the rights of minorities.

Yes the majority of voters voted in favor of denying a basic right to a minority. Exactly why the founders made three co equal branches of government to insure equal rights to all, not just the majority.

And it's not the will of the few. It's about equal rights for all Americans.

The courts protecting the equal rights of all Americans is EXACTLY in the spirit of the Constitution.

[jharp]

Here you go Fred, you bigot.

http://www.gov.harvard.edu/faculty/jhochschild/Hochschild%20&%20Weaver%20Shifting%20Politics%20of%20Multiracialism%20APSA.pdf

[PDF]
But demographic changes do not necessarily mean that multiracial ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
When the Gallup Organization asked American adults in 1958, “Do you approve or. disapprove of marriage between white and colored people?” only 4 percent ...
www.gov.harvard.edu/faculty/.../Hochschild%20&%20Weaver%20Shifting%20Politic... -

[Dino]

The year is 2002. The Finance Minister of Norway has married his homosexual partner in what activists have called a breakthrough for gay rights and a show of tolerance by the political right.

In 1993, Norway became the second country in the world, after Denmark, to allow homosexual partners to marry, have the right to adopt children and have church weddings. Imagine 1993!!!

Mr Foss told his party's Oslo chapter he was gay and as a result he received a standing ovation for his openness and was unanimously elected leader of the... Oslo Liberals? Wait, no, of the Oslo Conservatives!!! This is the Conservative Party of Norway and Per-Kristian Foss is the CONSERVATIVE Finance Minister of Norway...

I rest my case! These people have archived an unbelievable level of consciousness and here in the US we live way back in the past century...

[gocart mozart]

Dan, if you really were against gay sex, wouldn't you be a strong proponent of gays getting married? In my experience, marriage tends to greatly reduce the amount of sex one gets.

[Fred Beloit]

jaime: "Ouch! Jharp."
If that was an expression of commiseration with me because of a Harpo insult, jaime, it was unnecessary. If I didn't receive regular insults from this twerp, I'd feel I was saying something wrong. This clown has insulted much better and smarter folks than I."

[Jerry Lewis]

"The year is 2002. The Finance Minister of Norway has married his homosexual partner in what activists have called a breakthrough for gay rights and a show of tolerance by the political right."

How did same sex marriage come to be legal, Dino, and about when was it made legal? In other words did Norway pass a law or what?

"...here in the US we live way back in the past century..."
Oh, you are so right, Dino. Why have you chosen to live here with us in the past century, I wonder?

[Jerry Lewis]

By the way, Dino, will you sing "Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime" for the folks? Thanks.

[Todd]

"You are wrong on all counts.
Me advocating a totalitarian approach? Surely you jest.
I advocate following the Constitution and the courts have the power to protect the rights of minorities.
Yes the majority of voters voted in favor of denying a basic right to a minority. Exactly why the founders made three co equal branches of government to insure equal rights to all, not just the majority.
And it's not the will of the few. It's about equal rights for all Americans.
The courts protecting the equal rights of all Americans is EXACTLY in the spirit of the Constitution.
Posted by: jharp | Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 04:50 PM"
------------------
Well said, jharp. Bravo.

As for the boycott, there is an old saying from the bible....."do unto others, as you'd have done to you."

[Dan Riehl]

"gocart mozart"

A regular spirit in the night, gm. The irony of this whole silly debate is that it isn't over gays, or what they do or don't do, sexually or otherwise. It's about the word "marriage." Marriage is a traditional institution. And like any, the liberals won't rest until they year it down.

Evidently the majority of CA voters disagreed. And if they can't get CA on board, the notion that they can win anywhere is a real longshot.

So, once again they will run to the courts in hopes of tearing down another fundamental tradition on their desired road to where nothing means nothings, anymore. The irony is that they have no realistic plan for the world after they get to their desired utopia.

It still wouldn't give them the world they desire. They7 just haven't figured it out. For all their talk of so-called progressivism, they can't define their goal as an endstate, because it doesn't exist in any governable form.

[gocart mozart]

The inherent Old Testament defines marriage as between a man and as many women as he can afford, or as Tina Palin would say "A sacred bond between two unwilling teenagers."

[Dino]

Yes, there is a marriage law in Norway that allows homosexuals to marry and adopt children and permits lesbians to be artificially inseminated. There is this Internet thing, you know, which you can use to find information and educate yourself...The rest of your questions and comments,Jerry, I will just ignore because of the obvious reason...

[jharp]

"It's about the word "marriage.""

Wrong. It's about equal rights for all Americans.

"the liberals won't rest until they year it down."

Actually the opposite is true. We want to build it up by allowing all Americans the right to it.

And how you come up with this is tearing it down is beyond me.

Do you favor making divorce illegal?

"And if they can't get CA on board, the notion that they can win anywhere is a real longshot."

Please tell that to the citizens of Conn. and Mass.

"So, once again they will run to the courts"

And what is wrong with that, Dan? Aren't the courts available to all Americans? Or should we make the courts only available to heterosexuals?

"It still wouldn't give them the world they desire."

And what is this world they desire? Equal rights? Sorry but this will give them exactly the world they desire.

"For all their talk of so-called progressivism, they can't define their goal as an endstate, because it doesn't exist in any governable form."

They have clearly defined their goal. The right to marry. It's quite simple. And they will win because they have truth and justice on their side.

Bigotry and intolerance always loses.

[PA]

Until they protest in Compton, I think they're just a bunch of pussies.

[jharp]

"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own"

[scarshapedstar]

"My response is the "exceptions" imply there is a rule, a norm. Terms may be fine-tuned by exceptions, but terms are defined by the rule/norm."

The rule is that one partner look womanish and the other look mannish, is that it? In that case, would it be sufficient for one partner to undergo a sex change operation? Because my argument is that the "norm" is biologically, and therefore logically, incoherent. The "norm" seems to be based, rather, on how people look and act. Nobody is sure how many transsexuals end up married, but they're out there. Do conservatives consider their marriages valid? This is a legal gray area, with no national consensus. You can say to look at the birth certificate, but more genders are "assigned" at birth than people like to admit.

I think the exception proves that the rule is untenable. Seems to me the single requirement for marriage ought to be love. Why do conservatives insist we complicate the matter?

[Spartan112]

That's arbitrary nonsense, jharp. Another judge - a different outcome. And you wouldn't be celebrating that one. The CA decision came from the people - it was democratic in nature. Your advocating for a totalitarian approach to everything that ensures nothing but that the will of some few can outweigh the will of the people. That's hardly in the spirit of the constitution in this sense.

Posted by: Dan Riehl | Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 04:09 PM

Civil Rights cases are almost always resolved in the courts long before they are addressed legislatively. The minority should have the right to be protected from the will of the majority in some cases, particularly as it pertains to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

[WBestPresidentEver]

That would be you !

[Fred Beloit]

Mr Lacksavagina says the Norwegians didn't riot in the streets, Harpo, they worked to pass a law. Why can't gays be like the Norwegians and work to have a law passed rather than violate the freedom of religious rights now being suffered by the Mormons.

Turd applauds you for saying this, Harpo: "Wrong. It's about equal rights for all Americans." But this statement is demonstrably WRONG. We all have the same[equal] rights to marry. What you really mean is gays want special rights to marry by changing what the definition of marriage is.

Harpo, are you stone dumb, deceitful, or just overly emotional so that you cannot see reason right in front of your face? For God's sake, Harpo, join the Norwegians in this righteous quest to change the meaning of "marriage" through legislation before the gays so alienate their fellow Americans that passage of the law they seek will be long delayed.