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

[Fred Beloit]

scar asks me: "The rule[who can marry] is that one partner look womanish and the other look mannish, is that it?"

Why yes, scar, you've head the nail on the head. Of course the looks should be taken with the subjects pants off. Any more silly questions?

[Todd]

What I don't see posted from anybody here arguing against gay marriage is a set of statistics from Denmark, Norway, Canada, Spain, Belgium and South Africa (or Massachusetts) that display how the actual existence of same sex marriage in those jurisdictions has weakened, or threatened, traditional heterosexual marriages and the family. This is the argument put forth by the Family Research Council.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=bc04c02

History shows that the United States has not been on the leading edge of granting equal rights to disenfranchised citizens. Other countries and self-governing colonies led the way in allowing women the right to vote starting with New Zealand (although Wyoming was well before NZ prior to it actually being a US state) in 1893. Norway, Finland, Denmark, Canada and Australia also gave women the right to vote before the United States. The United States granted women the right to vote in 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

Proponents of banning same sex marriage are fighting an uphill battle demographically. The views of the generation under 30 are vastly different from people over 55. 75% of those under 30 are fully accepting of equal rights for gays and lesbians, while only 45% of those over 55 do. The 35-55 age bracket has solid support of 58% in favor of equal rights. As intolerant people over 55 pass away, their intolerant views will go with them. Judging by the Gallop Poll numbers, the United States eventually will join other progressive countries and grant equal rights to all it's citizens, just as the U.S. Constitution mandates. As it's a state's rights issue, most likely it will be a majority of U.S. states that will make it a reality with some states denying equal rights.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27694/Tolerance-Gay-Rights-HighWater-Mark.aspx

[Fred Beloit]

I am in shock and awe. Totally agress with me about something. I wrote: "But there is also a common-law marriage recognized ipso facto by many, if not all states, as another commenter mentioned.
Totally wrote: "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."
Or is Totally so totally a nitpicking AH that Totally was arguing that 11 states are not "many, if not all states". Unfortunately Totally provided totally no links to a source. Oh well, never mind.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh that Turd: "What I don't see posted from anybody here arguing against gay marriage..."
I haven't exactly seen anybody here arguing against "gay marriage" (NOTA BENE: To express his thought Turd had to use the adjective gay in front of the noun marriage. That indicates that the word marriage doesn't include man/man woman/woman. For when we mean man/woman marriage we don't need to use the adjective heterosexual, for it is already in the definition of the noun marriage.
I will try once more to explain to those with a strict agenda, even though they won't listen, that I do not oppose the possibility of redefining the word marriage. I only want this to be done democratically. Our language belongs to the people, contrary to what activist judges may believe.
And I believe gays who are trying to force this change by using the courts, the streets, and scapegoat victims, e.g. the Mormons are only delaying the change they wish for.

[scarshapedstar]

Fred, we're talking past each other. My argument is that marriage is defined in such a way as to render equal protection impossible, and thus a court challenge is inevitable and legitimate, whether or not "the voters" intervene. It's the same situation anti-miscegenation proponents found/find themselves in (doesn't Jerry Falwell's school prohibit white students from dating the nonexistent black students?); not only did cultural mores change, but "race" is a social construct and the human mind is notoriously ineffective at changing objective scientific reality.

When the supporters of a status quo can't even pin down exactly what it is they're defending, it's time for a change. And the "pants-down" test sounds like a form of social organization fitting lower primates. I'm sure it works well for them. But we're talking about adult human beings. Human beings who may have had their gender forcibly assigned at birth due to ambiguous genitalia, and later on chose to live the way that they feel is right, superficial appearances be damned. In many states, they are told that they should live with their lot and hope for better luck in the next life, because they ain't marrying, even if they get reconstructive surgery to satisfy the "pants-down" test.

And so you can end up with a person who was never male to begin with being told they must marry a woman to fit someone's barnyard animal notions of domestic life; to hell with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sure, you might say, if I'm really insistent on harping on all these oddball, marginal exceptions, then marriage codes probably ought to be updated... and then I might have a huge grin on my face.

Once again, it seems to me that one could cut through all these ethical and logical quandaries by making mutual love the sole precondition for marriage. As it stands, love almost seems like an afterthought to the "genitals uber alles" crowd. One wonders if they will ever connect this to the ever-rising divorce rate.

[templar knight]

The people of California amended their Constitution to forbid marriage between folks of the same sex. Enough said. You gays lost. Get over it.

Oh, those were basically the same words spoken to me by an Obama supporter after the election, just substitute the word conservative for gay. Elections have consequences, right jharp?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

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

Wow, what's it called when two words mean the same thing? Cause that's the definition of a liberal.

[neelynzus]

Tolerance is a virtue only to men without standards.

Here's a standard: promoting public health. The CDC reports that: "In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM."
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

The California government, including, apparently, the Supreme Court, is populated by morons. It seems appropriate, therefore, that the public take steps to oppose the normalization of -- indeed a government stamp of approval for -- conduct that creates a public health risk.

[neelynzus]

Tolerance is a virtue only to men without standards.

Here's a standard: promoting public health. The CDC reports that: "In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM."
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

The California government, including, apparently, the Supreme Court, is populated by morons. It seems appropriate, therefore, that the public take steps to oppose the normalization of -- indeed a government stamp of approval for -- conduct that creates a public health risk.

[neelynzus]

Well, it was worth saying twice!

[North Dallas Thirty]

It should also be added that the same Supreme Court that decided Loving decided, in regards to Baker v. Nelson, that gay marriage was not required by the Federal Constitution and that banning it was perfectly legal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson#Review_by_the_United_States_Supreme_Court

Meanwhile, it should also surprise no one that the liberals on this board support the complete delegitimization and deconstruction of marriage, as is outlined in the Beyond Marriage manifesto published and pushed by gay and lesbian activists.

http://beyondmarriage.org/

Furthermore, it should be known that liberal groups like the ACLU are also pushing this as a matter of advancing their arguments for the legitimization and legalization of plural marriage.

http://www.acluutah.org/pluralmarriage.htm

Finally, gay and lesbian rights groups have made it clear that they want age-of-consent laws weakened or removed, and in fact are arguing that having sex with children half their age is "common" and normal for gay and lesbian activists.

http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=4379&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=9

[North Dallas Thirty]

And of course, the liberals here like jharp are calling people "bigots" for being intolerant of those who dress up little girls as sexual slaves and take them to "show off" for adults at sex fairs as an "educational experience".

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html

Notice that Democrat Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi see nothing wrong or offensive about this behavior of taking children to sex fairs for the purposes of "showing off" for adults.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/14227320/detail.html

Again, though, this is not surprising; liberals and socialists have been screaming that investigating this behavior of gays is "homophobic", with the end result of silencing due diligence in the name of political correctness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html

[Fred Beloit]

Wahoo asks: "Wow, what's it called when two words mean the same thing?"
As you know it is called a redundancy, as in, "Harpo is a liberal bigot." or "Harpo is a bigoted liberal."

This may be more than one wished for, Wahoo, but just for the heck of it. From Answers.com:

"USAGE NOTE The usages that critics have condemned as redundancies fall into several classes. Some expressions, such as old adage, mental telepathy, and VAT tax have become fixed expressions and seem harmless enough. In some cases, such as consensus of opinion, hollow tube, and refer back, the use of what is regarded as an unnecessary modifier or qualifier can sometimes be justified on the grounds that it in fact makes a semantic contribution. Thus a hollow tube can be distinguished from one that has been blocked up with deposits, and a consensus of opinion can be distinguished from a consensus of judgments or practice. Some locutions, such as close proximity, have been so well established that criticizing them may seem petty. See Usage Notes at rarely, refer.

Our Living Language Although certain vernacular constructions, such as the double comparative and superlative constructions (as in more higher and most fastest) are scorned as unschooled redundancies, many fundamental features of Standard English, such as subject-verb agreement, also manifest redundancy in their double marking. For example, in She sits on the chair, the –s inflection on sit indicates that the subject of the sentence is a third-person-singular form. However, this information is redundant—it is conveyed by she. Standard English pronoun forms may encode redundancies too. Subject pronouns are nominative, and direct object pronouns are objective (for example, I saw him and He saw me); these distinctive forms are technically not necessary, however, since normal English word order makes evident whether a pronoun refers to a subject or object. Nevertheless, standard practice requires the avoidance of constructions such as double comparatives except when they are employed for rhetorical or comical effect."

[Todd]

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

Wow, what's it called when two words mean the same thing? Cause that's the definition of a liberal.

Posted by: WAHOO WILLIE | Sunday, November 16, 2008 at 07:25 PM
--------------------
Not at all, WW. As a liberal, my personal definition of a liberal is someone who is intolerant of intolerant people. I respect people's rights to their opinions, lifestyles, or identities. I am intolerant of small-mindedness, ignorance, and prejudice. It's fine to be intolerant of someone based upon their views, but not intolerant of who they are based upon race, gender, creed, nationality, sexual orientation etc etc etc. Take everybody as an individual and make your judgments based upon who they are as a person. There's plenty of conservatives I like and respect, and plenty that I don't. Have some civility and take time to listen to other people's opinions and judge them based upon their validity, and I completely respect that. Being acrimonious, disrepectful and engage in ad hominem attacks, I find that deplorable.

And Fred, why is it that you can't argue with me without being disrespectful and calling me names (Turd)? It diminishes you and your arguments.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

Well Todd, you are a true oddity. Perhaps I should have said "the average liberal"