I don't know who I'm going to vote for, then. Right now, I hate (yes, hate) Bush, that psalm-singing, sanctiminious, hypocritical bastard with all his "fag"-and-"dyke"-hating "Sanctimony of Marriage" crap. Gutless, finger-to-the-wind, caving in to the most rancid rats and putrid scum that ever crawled on the surface of this planet. Big phony, lying, cowardly draft-dodging, coke-snorting, drunk-driving, pampered daddy's boy, posturing in his fake flight suit as a "war hero" while betraying everything our Flag stands for and every word of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES foreign AND DOMESTIC. Sorry, but I'm in a really, really, _really_, _really!_ pissy mood today about that FUCKing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment and its supporters.

Steven,

Calm down. I don't know where to even begin to address your intolerant, christian-hating, heterosexual-hating, anti-American, lie filled screed. Are you just as irate at Bill Clinton and his DOMA? Bush never called anyone a fag or dyke, but you just did. The flight suit wasn't fake. He's taken the fight to our enemies (and yes, Virgina, the Taliban and Al Qeada hate your liberal ass, too). It's people like you that have become so confused as to how this world really IS. You and your liberal allies have so much hate in your hearts, and I can't understand it. Such divisive rhetoric. Why do you hate me so much? Does my straight family somehow threaten you? Are you frightened of my Chrisitanity? I'm so afraid people like you will get in power and march all of us God-fearing Christian straight people to the gas chambers. You are truly, truly scary.

Steven, it looks like neither you nor Jeff are afraid to say what you really think today!

Now that I think about it, I have had to hold my nose almost every time I have voted. That's because politics stinks!

They say that Americans have short memories, and that "two weeks is a long time in politics." I have a longer memory. Hell, I still remember all the way back to September 11, 2001.

Ivan,

Steven is an utterly sincere person who speaks his mind freely, and feels driven to despair over the FMA. If you scroll down, you will see that he is a frequent commenter, and not easy to stereotype. (He has Christian friends, and I believe he would die to prevent them from being "marched into the gas chambers.")

I am also very annoyed by the FMA issue because of the dishonest way it has been presented. A declaration of culture war, it would prohibit far more than same sex marriage, and I think that if the President supports it, he'll be giving the Democrats an excellent issue -- and further dividing the country by hopelessly politicizing people's personal lives.

The reported or created infidelity is one thing. What really makes me wonder is the supposed statements by the woman's father. If he really went from calling him "sleazy" to endorsing him within a few days..he's either an extreme holder of nose or now beholden to who knows.

Rich -- the father denies having made the original "sleazy" statement to the british tabloid. You can't believe everything you read in tabloids (but you already knew that, right?)

It's amusing to listen to you guys talk about Polier's parents' location without mentioning
Malvern's claim to fame - living legend Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins, the drag racing genius.

If the President could take John Kerry for a ride in a F-102 or any high-performance aircraft,
Kerry would do little except stare at his feet in terror. Bush is real, and Kerry is fake.
He was fake when he read scripted perjury at a Senate show-hearing in '71, he was fake as a
Mass AG filing endless motions against the Seabrook NH power plant instead of doing his job,
and he was fake when he traveled on "fact-finding" missions to prove UFOs were delivering
cocaine to the Contras instead of showing for votes.

Well it's nice to see everyone in a love-thy-neighbor kind of mood.

Jeez, I'm nearly 50 and now I'm going to have to change my name, lest I be associated with the emotionally disturbed rantings of Steven Malcom Anderson.

Eric, if you love him, get him into therapy before he hurts himself - or someone else.

I'm in a really, really, _really_, _really!_ pissy mood today about that FUCKing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment and its supporters.

Queer, then?

Eric,

This being the United States and not Canada, Steve Anderson has the right to insult whomever he pleases. But let’s imagine that his ire is directed at someone else, and imagine his tirade accordingly.

"I don't know who I'm going to vote for, then. Right now, I hate (yes, hate) Johnson, that psalm-singing, sanctiminious, hypocritical bastard with all his whites-and-Southern-hating "Civil Rights Act" crap. Gutless, finger-to-the-wind, caving in to the most rancid rats and putrid scum that ever crawled on the surface of this planet. Big phony, lying, cowardly glory-grabbing, drinking, machine politician, posturing with his fake Silver Star as a "war hero" while betraying everything our Flag stands for and every word of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES foreign AND DOMESTIC. Sorry, but I'm in a really, really, _really_, _really!_ pissy mood today about that nigger-loving unCivil Rights Act and its supporters."

Would you still willing to excuse him as an utterly sincere person who speaks his mind freely, and feels driven to despair over the CRA?

>Steven is an utterly sincere person

I was actually kinda hoping that he is not utterly sincere...otherwise, he comes off as more than a little juvenile, and certainly not one with whom one could expect a rational discussion about anything... The phrase "barking moonbat" comes to mind...

Don,

I defended Steven as a loyal reader and a good, utterly sincere person. I am not responsible for his remarks, nor am I excusing them; please note what I said in my blog.

Steven can either defend, modify, or retract his own remarks.

So, the answer to your question is no, because an explanation is not the same thing as an excuse.

Don't confuse sincere with right.

Today, I had a really good sandwich.

All,
Bush is a good guy -- pure and simple. The lefty folks are so blinded by the success Bush has achieved they are starting to foam at the mouth. My prediction for the election -- close race up till oct then some public showing of Bush hatred will make the news and the center will shift big time to Bush

It's amusing to listen to you guys talk about Polier's parents' location without mentioning
Malvern's claim to fame - living legend Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins, the drag racing genius.

Grumpy's Toy. Sox & Martin. Gapp & Roush. Stone, Woods & Cook. Pure Hell. Big John Mazmanian. Snake v. Mongoose. "Jungle" Jim Liberman. Arnie the Farmer Beswick. Wild Willie Borsch. The ChiZler. Roland Leung's Hawaiian. Gene "Snowman" Snow. Big Willie Robinson & Tomiko. Chris "the Greek" Karamasines and the ChiTown Hustler.

God bless you, poster. At last, someone in the blogosphere who knows something about REAL cars.

Eric,

The "dishonesty" associated with the FMA is that of the people making necessary. Namely, the "judges" and others who are dishonestly claiming that State or the Federal Constitutions contain any "right" for gay s to have civil unions, marriages, or anything else on that line. You want to bitch about dishonesty, bitch about that dishonesty.

If black robed thugs like the majorities on the Vermont and Mass Supreme Courts weren't bullying states into giving gays things they don't deserve, there would be no push for the FMA. If dishonest people weren't cheering those thugs on, the thugs wouldn't be pushing so hard, and again the FMA wouldn't be needed.

So put the blame where it belongs, on dishonest "activists" who are drunk with teh belief that they have the One True Way, and that no one is allowed to disagree with them, not even a democratic majority. They are the villians of this piece.

Steven Malcolm Anderson,
You forgot "plastic turkey luggin'"!!!

I came here to see what kind of "Bush hating" Glenn Reynolds found so shocking. Surprise, surprise, it's not a jot harsher than the bile routinely heaped upon Democrats, from Bill and Hill on down, and lo and behold, there's a fellow here who finds poor old Kerry so offensive as to dribble spasticly in a manner even Instapundit would have to admit isn't suitable for "polite society"!

Steven, whoever you are, stay pissy - the Defense of Marriage legislation is nothing but polite society's way of saying, "God Hates Fags." It's about bigotry pure and simple.

And Don, here's one difference between Bush and Johnson: When Johnson signed the civil rights legislation, he knew full well that it would hurt his party politically for years to come (and he was right). But he signed it because he also knew it was morally and Constitutionally correct - that is, he consciously put principle over power.

Bush, on the other hand, can push an anti-gay marriage amendment knowing full well that it will strengthen his position with his political base, despite its obvious clash with the premise that "all men are created equal." Apparently the power to be derived from bashing gays is more attractive than the principle of defending Americans' individual rights and their pursuit of happiness.

(By the way, if we restore classical values, does that mean that we boys get to shag each other senseless like the Greeks? Pretty classic!)

Ivan

I agree with you. I'm tired of sanctimonious, irrational Bush haters, & in this case an anti-traditional family hater, who think that they can simply say: "I hate Bush because he's a Christian, a conservative, pro life, pro family, etc, & I know that I can say this w/o causing any problems 'cause, like Pauline Kael, I don't know anyone who doesn't agree with me & so why can't I get to proclaim my average-Joe feelings, huh?"

What a sad, rude, bigot the first responder is.

And shame on the host of this site for defending him. "He's not normally this bad, ya see.... and some of his best friends are Christian!" He really said the latter!

TomCom

"close race up till oct then some public showing of Bush hatred will make the news"

Oh. Were we supposed to be ignoring it before today? And I don't know if I can pretend it doesn't exist all the way until October. It's like hiding an elephant.

Beebe & Mulligan....Clayton Harris...Pisano & Matsubura. Garlits' streamliners...Thanks for making my day IowaHawk!

Hey TomCom - just because someone supports gay marriage doesn't mean they're "anti-traditional family." What's wrong with both? Or do you think that gay people stalk through the neighborhoods looking for families to break up?

And just because Bush is a Christian and someone hates him doesn't mean they hate him BECAUSE he's a Christian. I mean, they may hate him because he tries to push his Christian life decisions onto people that don't agree with them. But that's different.

Go Steven! Bush WAS a cokehead! He DID slum through school! He DID rely on dad's money and influence to bail him out of the Army, buy him into business, and into politics! He DID make an ass of himself on that aircraft carrier! He WILL pander shamelessly to The Base! And sometimes he just plain LIES! Or, his people do. Go Steven! Go Steven!

Greer, Black & Prudhomme... Isky v. Engle... TV Tommy Ivo... Tony Nancy... Art Arfons... Pete "Surfer" Robinson... KS Pittman... "Ohio George" Montgomery... Shirley "ChaCha" Muldowney... Linda "Miss Hurst Golden Shifter" Vaughn... Pat "Wildman" Foster...

gossip. tabloid shit. get over it. If you insist on it then dump on Bushman and his coke and drunk behavior---equal opportunities, right? No legs to Kerry shit excep0t you and the extreme right wing and Drudge...have yo7u finally no sense of decency: the girl denies it; the candidate denies it...and there is no evidence to refute them...but you persist, very girlish behavior on your part (sorry ladies)..

Speaking of Hypocrites, Glenn Reynolds complaining about Bush haters is laughable. Reynolds doesn't have the nuts to admit he's been wallowing with Kerry haters for months, passing off rumor as fact. Of course, Kerry won Tennessee anyway.Heh.

BTW, when McCain beat Bush in the first couple of primaries in 2000, Rove and Co. proceeded to slag McCains character and record with no regard for the truth. McCain deserved better. The garbage that will be spewed in the next 6 months,(breathlessly linked by InstaHypocrite) will make the 2000 Election look like a bake sale. Heh my ass.

Has it occurred to anyone that Polier's 'career' in journalism might have been threatened unless she goes along with the Kerry line? Just a thought. Too much 180 turnaround on recent remarks by principals

Thank you, Eric, my good and true friend always, and the best blogger in the sphere in my opinion.

As to those of you who attacked me, however:

"...bullying states into giving gays things they don't deserve..."

Indeed. Thanks for showing your true colors. Thank you for giving the case AGAINST the FUCKing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment in a nutshell and better than I ever could. I wish I could put your eloquent words up on a billboard for all to see.

This is the _real_ John Galt speaking, Steven Malcolm Anderson. I am a Pagan, but, yes, I do have Christian friends, and the only resemblance they have to the likes of you and Jerry Fartwell and Pat Robertscum is that they have five fingers on each hand. The only one who wants to send anyone to a gas chamber are the supporters of that despicable abomination of an amendment.

Actually, I couldn't care less about Bush's war record or any other irrelevant details. Strom Thurmond, like my father, fought bravely in World War II -- but, unlike my father, was a racist bastard and unfit to be President.
(That Trent Lott thinks he was fit only shows that the party of Lincoln has now been taken over by the Confederates.)

The only reason I mentioned it at all is because I no longer trust a word President George W. Bush says about anything any more. Too bad. A year ago I would not have hesitated to vote for him.

The idea of equating that FUCKing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment with any Civil Rights bill is worse than obscene, as is this whole business of you homo-haters posturing as lovers of the Negro. You are nothing but a bunch of liars and hypocrites, as you have shown over and over again. I have had it with you, and I don't give a damn what you think of me. If you don't like it, tough. That's the way I am.

Remember when homosexuals were known for being ultra-polite people who had a flair for interior decorating?

If you are going to call Bush and co fag haters then lump in Bill Clinton and his cronies as well. They pushed through the defense of marriage act just a few years ago. That includes the person you will probably vote for in the general election.

As someone who supports gay marriage, I find myself in the odd position of cringing at the rantings of people on my side of the argument. Although I think gay marriage is absolutely demanded in a free society (and have felt that way for too many years to say), I also understand that its institution will be epochal.

Most politicians that are giving it lip service now were only recently dismissing it. They are no more enlightened than their political opponents except that they can see the way the wind is blowing. It will happen but it will be difficult. And it will change the world.

And good people that have until recently thought it completely crazy to even consider such a concept will eventually change. They'll have to be convinced and they won't be with name calling.

We have a one party state north of the border and this sort of rambunctious debate is limited to pointing fingers at rude dog puppets.

So, can the people who think President Bush was selected/not elected by the Supreme Court please tell me why the opinion of judges should now over-ride elected legislatures?

And for the people who now want a federal constitutional amendment tell me how they square this with Republican advocacy of state's right in most everything else?

For the record: I don't think the Mormons should have backed down on polygamy to join the Union. I don't see what right the government has to determine which religious sacrament gets a tax exemption but, hey, like I said, I am in Canada so can only marvel at American democracy in action. We have philosopher-kings and guardians-of-virtue to make decisions for us north of the border.

Steve, in case you hadn't noticed, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act. And Kerry says he's against gay marriage. So does Dean. And Edwards.

I voted for Gore. I've been on the fence. You've convinced me. Tonight I'm going to give the maximum (2k) to the Bush campaign. So will my wife. I'm a JF Kennedy/Scoop Jackson/Zell Miller/Ed Kotch Democrat now. I don't care what the fuck Bush thinks of Gays. He took Afghanistan (remember how we were going to freeze in the awful Afghan winter?) and Iraq (The awful battles for the cities?). Khadaffi is giving up all his weapons and progams. Syria wants to make peace. They're fucking afraid of Bush, and 3 of my friends, who were flying home on flight 11, would say that's a very, very good thing. DC, Chad and Rubin, rest in peace, we're taking care of it.

It's war. You want to worry about who's fucking who? Fine, go worry. We have people to kill and things to break.

Steven (catchy name) -

Hey, blogs and forums and news lists and all the other cyberdust we wade through daily were largely intended for rants. There are happy rants and mad-because-I-stubbed-my-toe rants and several million other varieties.

At least yours has more content in a short space than others. ;)

Steve

Lots of remarks, and I do appreciate all of your visits and opinions.

But TomCom, you've put words in my mouth! I said "Steven has Christian friends" (I happen to be one of them!), and I do believe he would die to prevent them from being "marched into the gas chambers." I do not defend his remarks about Bush. So shame on me!

T Tux, your remark that Glenn Reynolds is a hypocrite who "doesn't have the nuts to admit to admit he's been wallowing with Kerry haters for months, passing off rumor as fact" -- it's an assertion offered without any supporting facts. Unless you've seen him "wallowing" somewhere. (In fact, he is usually quite skeptical, and quite careful NOT to pass off rumors as fact.)

And "breathlessly linked" "garbage"? (Hope you're not referring to my post!)

Freddie.... I am sorry you think I am lacking in decency and persist in very girlish behavior! I don't know where I went wrong.

I want to say one more thing about Steven. I appreciate all of the commenters for coming here and saying what you think, and I censor no one. I honestly try to give everybody a fair shake. Many of you don't have their own blogs, but those who do will understand it when I say that loyalty means something. Steven has left innumerable comments on innumerable topics, some agreeing with me, some disagreeing with me -- attacking Communists and liberals with just as much vitriol as he directs towards the opposite side of the spectrum. Sometimes he defends the indefensible, often hilarious, never boring. I don't defend his remarks about Bush, but I will always defend him as a person.

Hatred and incivility is something I try to avoid. Not always easy, either.

I can't please everyone, of course. Free speech can be mean and ugly, and I wish people (myself included) would try harder to make it less so.

Blogging is the newest frontier of First Amendment freedom, and frontiers are, well, frontier-like. Speak your mind and take your chances.

I can't help wishing more commenters had blogs of their own, but again, there are no rules!

Long story behind my long signature, that's how I sign myself in Dean's World. I guess I should make my stand a bit clearer. I am not a Leftist on most spectrums. I am a Rightist on Professor J. A. Laponce's spectrum, i.e., on the side of inequality, hierarchy, continuity, and ancient, eternal, absolute values: Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness (heterosexual and homosexual, androsexual and gynosexual, man and woman, etc.). I admire Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, Ayn Rand, Camille Paglia. I am pro-life, pro-gun, pro-United States of America, pro-West. Above all, I am an individualist.

I am very pleased that Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) took notice of me, even if only to see my style as that of an archetypical Leftist "barking moonbat", even surpassing the usual Leftist moonbat in the heat of my anger. I certainly was over the top, even more than usual. I have often said of myself that I am so far to the Far Right I am on the Far Left and so far to the Far Left I am on the Far Right. Among conservatives I'm a libertine ultra-liberal and among liberals I'm an ultra-conservative reactionary. Glenn Reynolds is on my blogroll mainly because 1) he is pro-gun and 2) he did an excellent fisking of Bork.

But you know what teed me off about Bush? I'll tell you a story about me and Ayn Rand:

Throughout my life, there have been a few historical events that really stand out, some that were nothing less than exhiliarating.

One was the Apollo 11 landing of the first men on the Moon in 1969. I think that was the most thrilling event in my life to have witnessed. Our whole family watched it. I was just going into 9th grade then. And Ayn Rand watched it, was privileged to have been present at the launching. She had the same feeling I did. But she also heard and read the chatterings of a swarm of petty nihilists who belittled the event, saying the money should have been spent on the slums, etc.. And she was enraged.

Another such event was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Instead of this being celebrated as it should have been, as another V-E Day, the cadre of neo-Communists set to work re-writing the history of the Cold War, equating it with "McCarthyism" (supposedly worse than Communism). As I think of it, if Reagan had still been President, the man truly responsible for that great event, I think we would have had such a celebration. But instead it was presided over by that empty shell of a successor, George H. W. Bush Sr.. Too bad.

Another such epochal event, horrifying and tragic, was the attack of September 11, 2001. There, too, a gaggle of nihilists set to work diminishing its significance, blaming America, and urging us not to fight. The Political Correctness infected even the President himself, who, instead of identifying the enemy as he should have, called Islam a "Religion of Peace". But that was merely "fuzzy" thinking on the part of Bush and most everybody else. Still, there was a wave of patriotism even so, President George W. Bush was leading it, I was part of it, we were all Americans then, and for over a year, my attitude was "pas d'ennemi a droite" (no enemy on the Right). Throughout 2002, I was supporting Bush all the way, and even more hawkish.

When Trent Lott expressed a nostalgia for Jim Crow, he was justly slapped down, beginning with by conservative bloggers like Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan. I fully expected the same reponse when Santorum advocated the abolition of the concept of individual privacy. Instead, Santorum was canonized and then...

Another event, on a par with Apollo 11 and the fall of Communism was the Supreme Court decision John Geddes Lawrence & Tyron Garner vs. State of Texas, June 26, 2003, upholding the right to privacy and sexual love between consenting adults, both heterosexual and homosexual. The response to that decision among most of the whole spectrum of intellectuals and ideologues was the opposite of mine. That Rev. Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps saw the Court as the Devil incarnate was fine and fitting, and I expected nothing better from the likes of Fartwell (he called Ellen DeGeneres "Ellen Degenerate", so...) and Robertscum. But even the "National Review", which had been or seemed much better, had a few years before called for an end to the futile and un-Constitutional "War on Drugs", attacked it, as did Jeffrey Rosen in "The New Republic" and many, many others. And the majority of soi-disant "libertarians" were at best lukewarm or raised niggling legalistic objections.

Then, increasingly and even in his State of the Union address, President Bush caved in to the totalitarian radicals, falsely called "conservatives", in support of the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment. That was bad enough.

The last straw was this: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newson bucked the tide and defiantly wed several homosexual couples, beginning with the long-time Lesbian heroines Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, who had been married spiritually to each other for 51 years. This was a beautiful, glorious, joyous, "gay" in the old sense, grand, exciting, exhiliariating event, noble, profound, in all its ramifications, again on a par with Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, with Apollo 11, and with that other epochal act of defiance, Rosa Parks's refusal to go to the back of the bus (in 1955, the year of my birth).

And, again, a bunch of niggling pettifogging legalistic objections and demands for "law and order". (Where were the demands for "law and order" from these same quarters when Harvey Milk was murdered?? Instead, his murderer got let off on the "twinkie defense"!) So, yes, I'm mad as Hell, and, yes, I'm taking it out on President Bush, who is caving in to the subversive scum, the haters of the good, and pushing for an amendment to the United States Constitution to make any such weddings impossible anywhere in the U.S., to enable Big Brother to snuff out the last flicker of "deviant" love.

No, these sacred marriages will not last in legalistic terms, they will be cancelled by court decree soon enough, crushed by the mailed fist of the State, "that coldest of all cold monsters" (Nietzsche) -- by the same hypocrites who attack the courts whenever they rule in favor of homosexuals' rights!

But this only reminds me of what Ayn Rand wrote of in a heartbreakingly beautiful essay "The 'Inexplicable Personal Alchemy'":

"For three minutes on Red Square I felt free. I am glad to take your three years for that."
-Vadim Delone, Soviet dissident sentenced to 3 years in Siberia ("New York Times", October 13, 1968)

I'm well aware that Clinton signed the DOMA, and I was disgusted at his gutlessness in so doing. I'm also aware that Kerry is a waffler and none of the others want to take an unequivocal stand for homosexual marriage. Even Arnold Schwartzenegger, The Terminator, has a bit gone soft.

The difference is: It is President George W. Bush who is supporting an AMENDMENT to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION to outlaw homosexual marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships ANYWHERE in the United States, federal, state, or local. Andrew Sullivan has some devastating and irrefutable analyses of it on his blog. Those pushing it, the American Family Association, Alliance Defense Fund, Family Research Council, etc., etc., have a vicious anti-homosexual agenda and lie and gyrate at every turn. Trusting in their honesty would be like relying on the patriotism of Alger Hiss.

They give us a "benign" interpretation now, but when or if they get their amendment, they will turn around and interpret it in the most destructive way possible. Already, they seize upon every possible pretext to challenge wills, powrs of attorney, etc.. If they get that amendment, there will be no stopping them. And they will certainly find ways to interpret it so as to overthrow Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas and impose "sodomy" laws in every state.

Therefore, the question for every candidate for public office is: Do you or do you not support that amendment? That is _the_ issue.

As for the DOMA, it at least leaves the question of marriage (as well as civil unions and what not) to the states. That is all we can have right now. We're in a holding action. We must leave it to each state to decide.

As for the War, I say the Enemy at home is the same as the Enemy abroad. It is the same struggle reproduced on another level. Ultimately, it is the War between Individualism vs. Collectivism.

Big Daddy T:

You had a great sandwich today? Me too!

I had a ten minute stopover at home today between job #1 and job #2.

When I came in, I saw my wife had two plates on the table, a sandwich on each one, and a candle between the two.

Turkey on wheat, w/ mayo, muustard and potato chips for texture.

My wife rocks.

Whether I was tasting sentiment or not, it was damn good sandwith, and a good sandwich is one of those singular pleasures in life that are all too often ignored.

What was yous?

Dear Mikey Wales: Sounds good.

Steven Malcolm Anderson:

For all the ranting and raving, when can we expect you to put a comments section on your website ? Kind of commie, isn't it ?

Eric,

First of all, as George Knightley said to Emma, your defense of Steven is "Badly done" and shows a distinct lack of integrity and principle. "Loyalty" in the service of hatred is neither admirable nor justifiable.

As for Steven, he's emotionally unbalanced and deserves pity not anger. As concerns, the DoMA, he and others are spewing hatred over a cultural issue on which --need I say?-- reasonable people may disagree. As a Christian conservative I don't condone hate speech coming from any direction. But because someone nut on some blog somewhere makes an anti-gay statement it doesn't justify a response twice as shrill and hate-filled. As despicable as the first offense is, the second is more so.

As for the mindless allegations against President Bush, it's wearisome to see otherwise intelligent people contort their faces and stain their character by making baseless allegations. He did graduate Harvard with an MBA; he was a fighter pilot. Acknowledge that and move on. Don't try to debase the degree or the service. He is a politician and will vacillate, although nothing like President Clinton did with his daily Dick Morris polling. If you disagree with his positions, then disagree but do it logically and not like an animal.

The level of discourse at this site is troubling and I'm sorry Reynolds linked to it.

It seems odd that Ms. Polier's parents now seem to have done a U-turn, with her father now saying that they look forward to voting for Kerry in November, especially considering that last week he was quoted (or, he now claims, misquoted) as referring to Kerry as a "sleazeball." One wonders whether there was a liberal application of Benjamins to change such a negative opinion into such a positive one in such a short period of time. I wouldn't have been suspicious if the woman simply denied the allegations, but the father's change of position smells fishy to me.

Is that still all that people can come up with to laud Bush for his anti-gay views? "Clinton signed DOMA". Yes, he did. Clinton was a hypocrite and no real friend of any gays. However, Clinton did not:

- give millions of dollars to ex-gay groups and groups which have called for the murders and quarantines of homosexuals
- associated with groups who blamed gays for 9/11 and call them "domestic terrorists"
- given millions of dollars to "charities" which devote much of their budget to discrimination and spreading lies against gays, athiests, single mothers, etc.
- pushed an amendment to ban ALL legal benefits for ALL time, and then casually lied about the true consequences of that amendment

The GOP shills here who say this is all about activist judges should go read the fine print of their poster boy's amendment again. The amendment will also make sure that NO state legislatures will be able to get away with passing any sorts of benefits with benefits for gay couples, because (as the anti-gay groups have said they will do), people will simply go to court and say that the Hate Amendment states no state can recognize marriage or any equivalence of marriage.

So before you again try to dredge up Clinton's name (which seems to be the only defense that most Bush supporters have these days..."Clinton mean, Clinton bad, Bush good and Bush mean to terrorists and French people!"), please take a long, long look at the actual FMA. Or go to www.andrewsullivan.com and read the painstaking work he has documented.

I voted for Bush in 2000. I don't like Kerry. I supported the war in Iraq. But that doesn't mean I can turn a blind eye to the many polarizing and damaging policies, the deceptions, the cheap power grabs of this administration, all behavior which will likely bankrupt future generations of children who will be paying debt which no one can imagine.

If you want people to vote for Bush, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than shrieking about "leftists" or thumping your chest about how much you hate terrorists, or attacking gays because they dare to be upset ("hey you dumb fag, it's all those ACTIVIST JUDGES who are responsible for you NEVER getting to see your partner in the hospital...don't blame the people who WROTE and SUPPORT the amendment that will destroy your rights forever!!!") about the constant stream of anti-gay animus from the current Republican party. All you are doing is sending even more people like me running as far away as possible from a party I once voted for.

And I also wanted to point out that even though the war in Iraq was the right decision, the faulty intelligence used as evidence, the conning of the public, and the poor planning for the cleanup period (not to mention the wildly overoptimistic selling of this war by some GOP quarters) are huge black marks for this administration. And it would be refreshing if freepers could admit that instead of somehow turning the whole thing into an example of why Jesus hates Bill Clinton.

This is ridiculous. Steven is making entirely reasonable points, and he in fact pre-apologized for his rant (to which everyone is entitled, at one time or another). He's entitled to his opinion about Bush or any other polician. And he's allowed to voice his opinions - it's right there at the top of the document, remember? Thank God.

I agree with him that preaching about the "Sanctity of Marriage," in reference to gay people who WANT to live "till death do us part," while never saying a word about Britney Spears' 10-minute nuptials or about "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" is about the absolute zenith of hypocrisy - and this, of course, just scrapes the surface of that hyporcrisy. Gay people are being used as scapegoats, pure and simple, and Steven is right to be angry about it. I'm angry about it, too. And what does "sanctity" have to do with life in the political sphere, anyway?

Yes, the "polite homosexual" seems to be a thing of the past (just like the "subservient Negro," fortunately). Sorry some people here regret that. We pay taxes just like you all, and in fact we contribute a great deal to society. Anyway, groveling is a tad un-American, wouldn't you say?

Fortunately, the FMA will never pass, because most Americans don't support it.

(And BTW, I support Bush's foreign policy, and supported the war against Hussein. I was actually thinking about voting for the guy, until the FMA thing. Now, I can't - I'll either vote for Edwards, if he gets the nomination, or I'll write someone in.

That's what happens, when you get attacked, folks. When a minority of people - conservative Christians - attempt to enforce their concept of "sanctity" (i.e., discrimination against an entire class of human beings) in the political arena.)

I didn't realize there were so many good comedy sites on the web. Took me a minute to realize that Steven and others here are obviously GOP stooges (possibly even Wolfowitz-programmed robots, yeah!).

Amazingly emotional screed punctuated by obscenities... I could care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. However, I refuse to ignore the pervasive gay agenda which is being forcefed to America by liberal mavens. Homosexuality is viewed as an abberant behavior by the vast majority of humanity. Scripture specifically condems this behavior. Like it or not, the USA is a deeply religous society and appears to be heading even furthur in that direction. There is a gay backlash building in this country primarily because gay activists have gravely misjudged just how far "Joe America" can be pushed. This has nothing to do with president Bush. It has to do with just how far out of touch with reality liberals are.
Yeah... Steven. You go... just keep fanning those flames with polemic, hate filled, Christian baiting rants.

Hey Steve, what do you have to say to the millions of Christians and Jews who do not believe their screeds condemn homosexuality? What about gay Christians and Jews? Can you explain exactly *how* I should live my life in a way that will not piss off all these great religious folks who cheat on their spouse, who neglect their children, who con the poor and sick out of their money, but who are somehow morally superior to me because they aren't a Sodomite?

Bush has gone out of his way to inflame anti-gay sentiment. The so-called "Average Joes", at least those I know, are far more worried about trying to feed their children or about finding a job, or about keeping the meagre jobs they currently have. In EVERY major poll, things like gay rights and same-sex marriage rank DEAD LAST in concerns voters have this election year. Polls show that Americans do not want the Constitution amended, nor do they want the government spending millions to "promote" marriage. Even most Republicans don't want that. So which portion of America are you speaking for, Steve? Extremist fundamentalists? Should we cater to their every whim and weep at their feet?

All this gay activists crap is simply an attempt to condone bigotry. You want to blame the millions of gay men and women in this country for the fact that their state legislatures and their government are happily doing their best to pass laws which will ban all benefits for them for all time. You can't be honest and admit that this is all being done to try to manipulate black and Hispanic and blue-collar whites into voting Republican. You can't be honest and admit that the RNC was saying long before the Mass. court ruling that they would play the gay-bashing card no matter what the verdict was ("I don't see a difference between civil unions and marriage", said Ed Gillepsie last August).

Instead, you use Gary Bauer-speak to try to intimidate us into blaming ourselves for our government being made up of fundamentalist anti-gay zealots.

Nice try.

Iowahawk, don't forget Roger Lindamood and the Color-Me-Gone SSA Dodge.

FYI, folks: there are non-conservative Christians, you know. And their ranks are growing. Again, thank God. I highly value and respect our religious freedoms - but conservatives are NOT the only game in town, anymore.

And BTW, we live in a society that values the concept of "separation of church and state" - again, thank God. I want to worship in my own way, and I certainly acknowledge that others have the same rights. But we don't have Mullahs here.

And whatever happened to "federalism," anyway? A conservative concept, I thought. And that's built into the Constitution, too, to allow the States to serve their own citizens. So let them do so - or is federalism only appropriate when YOUR values are upheld?

artemis, I sure wish the non-conservative Christians would speak up and speak out. The fundies have ruined Christianity and ruined America as well.

They're starting to speak out, James. It's going to take time - don't forget that Susan B. Anthony died before women's suffrage became a reality, and never cast a vote herself - but some of the best friends we have in the world are these good people.

Nobody can ruin America - or even if they can, it's only for a while. The wheel is turning.

Gary Owen -

And the Ramchargers of Mr. Norm's Spaulding Dodge. And Hemi Under Glass. And the Hurst Hairy Olds. And Bill "Maverick" Golden's Little Red Wagon. Gasser Wars. Flopper Wars. Fuel Altereds. Broadway Bob Metzler. Art Chrisman. Stroker McGurk. Mickey Thompson. Gas Rhonda.

Guys... Perhaps in your haste to slam me, you have attempted to paint me with a large brush which is entirely missing the point. What I stated is factual. You are shooting the messenger.

The gay backlash has little to do with contemporary politics. It's been building for a while. Yeah... we don't have Mullahs here. That would be a good thing for gays. In middle East countries they execute gays... a horrific thought.

Extremist fundamentalist? Hardly.

If you are going to go on about "activist judges" and the "Average Joes" who are going to make gays pay, then surely you expect a backlash.

I don't need anyone to tell me that this country despises me. I don't need anyone to tell me that if there were not a few laws in this country, that people like me would be beaten to death by a majority of this country's "normal" citizens. I don't need anyone to tell me that America is full of bigots and hatemongers.

I also don't need anyone to tell me "YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!", and whether that was your intention or not, that was what your message reeked of.

Karl Rove and Ed Gillepsie planned all this. Please don't blame this on the fags. We already know how loathed we are. We don't especially want to hear - AGAIN - how we brought it all on ourselves because we're stupid and don't know our place.

Steve, I don't know if I'm included in the "you guys," but I wasn't responding to you at all. (I'm certainly not "slamming" you. It doesn't interest me in the slightest to pick ad hominem fights with anonymous people on the internet. I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself here!)

Support for civil unions is quite high in the country today - upwards of 45% or so. This is because more and more, Americans have come to know gay people - either as members of their families, or through their workplace, and even (yes!) in their churches. This is progress that cannot and will not be stopped. And people are starting to recognize the unfairness of the situation. How can two people who've lived together for 40 years and cared for each other through good times and bad be regarded as "strangers before the law"? It's simply not right.

Many legal scholars believe that FMA WILL usurp the individual states' abilities to enact even civil union law. Is that what you really believe should happen? If Vermont or Massachusetts or New Jersey wants to enact civil union (or marriage) legislation, why should what George Bush believes the Bible says control, instead? It's a bizarre formulation. Gay marriage hurts nobody, and will help many gay people - including gay couples who have children. I know a couple who've adopted 4 kids who were languishing in foster care. Nobody else wanted them. Isn't it a good thing that they should have some legal protections, when they are as much a family as any other?

BTW, "sanctity" mean "holiness." When was the last time you heard an American President tell the citizenry that he was concerned with their state of "holiness"? It's absurd and ridiculous. That's not what we do here.

mk, I am intrigued by your comment that "'Loyalty' in the service of hatred is neither admirable nor justifiable," and that my defense of Steven shows a "lack of integrity and principle."

Let's take loyalty. Let us assume that you had a friend you loved who made a remark you considered hateful. As a Christian, would you summarily drop him as a friend? Or would you remain friends, defend the friendship, and disagree with what he said? I think the argument can be made that the former approach shows a greater "lack of integrity and principle" than the latter.

You say that "the level of discourse at this site is troubling" and you're "sorry Reynolds linked to it." Bearing in mind that the "level of discourse" includes you and your remarks, what would you have me do? Would you be happier if I censored comments over which I have no control? People can speak for themselves. I am sorry that you are disappointed in the level of discourse here, but other than having me renounce friendships or delete comments (and your criticism of Glenn Reynolds for linking to this blog), you have offered no constructive advice.

I'm a Conservative Christian, and I don't support the FMA. I don't believe that kind of thing belongs in the Constitution. This would be better:

No federal judge shall change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. No federal judge shall mandate civil unions between same-sex couples.

But it still sounds wrong for the Constitution. Best would be an amendment which requires the courts to enforce the Constitution as written and which disallows treating it as a 'living' document. Justices Scalia and Thomas would be well qualified to write such an amendment. This would prevent activist courts from imposing either civil unions or liberalized marriage laws, among other things. It would be so nice for the courts to follow the Constitution without changing or updating it. That's what amendments are for.

Yours,
Wince

P.S. To Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete. Nice to see you. The Courts have been beating up on Christians for somewhere around forty years. We're tired of it. I realize that Courts, Legislatures, preachers and many others have been beating up on homosexuals for much longer and you are tired of it as well. But some Christians believe we might actually have the votes to prevent the Courts from hitting us one more time. I suspect you would support a pro-life Amendment, which was one case where the courts preempted the people. We need a way to rein in unconstitutional behavoir by all three branches of our government.

"Grumpy's Toy. Sox & Martin. Gapp & Roush. Stone, Woods & Cook. Pure Hell. Big John Mazmanian. Snake v. Mongoose. "Jungle" Jim Liberman. Arnie the Farmer Beswick. Wild Willie Borsch. The ChiZler. Roland Leung's Hawaiian. Gene "Snowman" Snow. Big Willie Robinson & Tomiko. Chris "the Greek" Karamasines and the ChiTown Hustler.

God bless you, poster. At last, someone in the blogosphere who knows something about REAL cars."

My father drove Pure Hell. I was a wee lad but the Fuel Altereds were pretty wild. Never know who you might meet around here...

Sorry, Wince - I shouldn't have made that sound like ALL conservative Christians believe the same things, either. I know they don't.

It's hard to discuss things, sometimes, without making mistakes like that. Generalization is shorthand, and sometimes a good thing, but sometimes it's flat out wrong. Apologies again.

BTW, Wince: How do you see "gay marriage" as "hitting" Christians? (If that's what you mean, that is.)

This honestly has little or nothing to do with anybody but gay people. We have NO rights at present in this area at all. For example, if our partners are not native-born, our relationships can be broken up even after 40 years by deportation, as if they never existed.

"Separation of church and state" evolved as doctrine for a reason.

I wasn't trying to pick a fight with anyone. My initial statement made it very clear that I personally could care less. My other statements are factual observations based on my take of the issue. I said nothing about "activist judges" anywhere. Basically because I commented that the initial post by Steven is a hate filled screed, I am labled a right wing fundamentalist nut. Believe me when I say as a Southern Baptist, my voice is one of reason... not as inferred, hatred and bigotry.
Stevens initial post does nothing except fan the flames of devision. In your haste and paranoia over this issue, you condemn even those moderate voices such as mine, which clearly indicates a personal level of support.
I just personally believe this has been building long before GW Bush took office.

You can view this as an attack if you so choose. It is most certainly not meant in that vein and I would apologize for any inference of any such ill feelings.

God Bless... Steve

Well, I didn't label you a "right-wing fundamentalist nut," nor did anybody else, as far as I can see. I don't think anybody complained about "attack" either. I think you're reading a lot into things. Nobody's identified you in particular in any way, in fact.

This is called "debate." And once again, Steven has already apologized for venting. He was angry. What do you want us to do? Pretend that it's NOT Christians (some Christians, not all) who are trying to wipe us off the face of the earth? The main actors in the anti-gay camp, except for a few psychoanalyist nuts at NARTH, ARE conservative Christians. There are entire groups of religionists dedicating, apparently, 100% of their time to this topic. They create "ex-gay" "ministries," something that had become at one point a cottage industry. They even kick gay people out of their churches! (Imagine that, BTW. Imagine that some people believe that there is a group of sinners - homosexuals - so disgusting, so vile, that they may not even darken the doors of God's house. It boggles the mind.)

I just read an article on Beliefnet.com that asked the question "What would Jesus say about gay marriage?" The answer was: probably nothing, since he never said a thing about homosexuality. What really ticked him off was divorce, in fact - yet there's no Constitutional Amendment being called for on THAT topic, is there? Guess why.

(And yes, I agree that it's not just these Christians: I know all about the Mullahs. Don't get me started. I'm against ALL religionists who persecute gay people. But this is what is happening in MY world, so it's what I talk about.

Anti-gay conservative Christians have the right to their opinions. But they DON'T have the right to impose their beliefs on everybody else.)

This is great. Following this thread, I see all kinds of voices, which is good - too many blogs are full of like-minded people slapping each other on the back for reinforcing whatever bias they happen to have.

But I gotta pick on Wince for a minute - if there's one thing a non-Christian can't stand, it's hearing Christians moan about how the courts pick on them. This country is a model of religious freedom, and the thriving church is just one measure of its success. We're home to an astonishing numbers of churches and faiths, and Christianity is obviously doing extremely well in the "marketplace of ideas." So what's the problem? What are the attacks? How has the church been hurt?

I presume the attacks to which you refer involve things like prayer in school, Nativity scenes on City Hall lawns, perhaps the Ten Commandments-in-the-Courthouse flap. These seem to me to be reasonable measures to prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing religion. This separation has been, of course, a great boon to religion - because your church gets none of my money, your religion remains none of my business (unless, of course, you try to shove it down my throat).

I challenge any religious person to find a better model in the world than the one we have here, in that regard. There's loads of countries that integrate the church and the government, and in all that I can think of, the government corrupts the church far more effectively than the church purifies the government.

All that said, I'm not sure exactly what "attacks" you're referring to, so if you'd like to expound, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Artemus... God loves all people. I have been taught that homosexuality is a sin. Does that lessen you as a human? Does that make you any less worthy of God's love? I think not. Jesus is not about hate and I am saddened when anyone uses Jesus as a justification for hate. Jesus was very emphatic about divorce... the simple fact is that all of us are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.
Perhaps we all read too much into the written word....

And no... I can't imagine a church that would exclude someone simply because they are gay. That is so wrong it hurts...

It's perfectly fine to say gays don't "deserve marriage" but if you criticize the president, you're referred to as emotionally unbalanced? It's no longer acceptable to criticize the president? at least not when it's a republican? I seem to remember plenty of "spewing hatred" during the Clinton administration. If you listen closely, you can still hear it behind everything a republican says. And he deserved that b/c he got a little head on the side? Oh for christ's sake.....

"I have been taught that homosexuality is a sin. Does that lessen you as a human? Does that make you any less worthy of God's love?"

No, of course not. Because those are YOUR beliefs, not mine. I DON'T believe homosexuality is a sin, because the whole formulation simply makes no sense.

I don't even think about this much anymore, actually - there are many more important things going on in the world right now. As I said, I'd actually have voted for Bush if he hadn't gone this route. I don't hate him, but I don't want to vote for him anymore.

I am a patient person; I don't need everything to change today. But things WILL change, eventually. It's the only thing you can be sure of in this world.

BTW, here's something that Desmond Tutu said about gay people, in 1996:

"We reject them, treat them as pariahs, and push them outside our church communities, and thereby we negate the consequences of their baptism and ours. We make them doubt that they are the children of God, and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy."

It's true. But it's changing now.

Wince, when you and your partner are not allowed to adopt or be near children because you are a Christian, when you and your partner are split apart because of a law for being a Christian, when you are arrested for being a Christian, when you are beaten and killed and the judge throws out the case because you are a Christian, THEN maybe the courts are coming after you. Until then, you're doing pretty darn good. Except of course for those homosexuals who insist on ruining your life by wanting to visit their partner in the hospital. If you want gays to stop using the courts, then why don't you and others like you start voting for legislators who do not use gay-bashing as a platform for power.

Steve, maybe you didn't mean to attack, but your first post, which was full of you-asked-for-it and other sniggering mentality, came across as a blatant attack. And if this "build" towards a gay backlash has been coming since Clinton was in office, it's odd that the poll numbers in terms of gay rights were very high until last year. Then last year the sodomy laws were thrown out and the media coddled "normal" America into believing that their lives were going to end because those creepy homos were having sex.

If you really care about gay people, even in a tiny way, then please don't tell them that they deserve all sorts of ugly legislation because we do not know our place. Few things are more offensive or hateful than to tell us that if we had just stayed in the corner, mewling and simpering, we would be doing jes fine.

If the core community of believers concludes that American society, such as it is, has become hostile towards the believers -- and such hostility is certainly on display on this page -- that community will ultimately do what was done back in the early 1600s. Leave. That community will include (as polls have shown) a substantial number of military personnel and an inordinate percentage of larger sized families (whose children would have been counted on to shoulder the ever-increasing tax burden in this aging society). At that point, a poorly defended, economically challenged America would be much easier pickings for a hostile foreign entity (such as, let us imagine, militant Islam). So to all the haters of God out there, I say: Be very careful what you wish for. You wish the believers silent. Our departure will leave a roaring silence...followed, quite possibly, by the sounds of gunfire from America's enemies. Mock the believers if you want, but God will not be mocked.

Wow. "Gay marriage" will certainly have some interesting ramifications, won't it?

;-)

I'm sure that if the "core community of believers" would only stop trying to turn this country into a theocracy, I'm sure the "mocking" would cease quite soon afterwards. (And wow! That's quite a serious victim complex you've got going there! I don't think there was much "hatred of God" evinced here, BTW - most of the animosity was aimed at George W. Bush.)

Anyhoo: have a good trip, and I hope you enjoy your new digs, wherever they are! And don't let the door hit you on the way out!

BTW, I must ask those who've posted on this thread: Why is what Steven said so SHOCKING and OFFENSIVE, when nobody has batted an eyelash at the "human-sewage Kerry" thing taken from the original post?

Don't you think there might be - oh, I don't know - some sort of CORRELATION between the two things?

So many good things here in this thread! I launched an Instalanche to my favorite blog of all blogs in the blogosphere, Eric Scheie's Classical Values! To those of you who've just discovered this blog, stick around. Eric has so much history, philosophy, and wisdom to offer.

About President Bush: I hereby explicitly retract anything I said about him that is factually inaccurate, unproved, or irrelevant. Everything I said against his support for the Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment stands. That is _not_ an issue on which reasonable people can disagree because it is an obvious violation of my rights and the rights of those I love. I will not stand for it.

The Ghost of a Flea makes an excellent point about the Supreme Court and the President. I'm consistent. I always opposed that "selected not elected" baloney. I support, and I always have supported, the decision of the United States Supreme Court that George W. Bush is now the lawful President of the United States. The President is chosen by the Electoral College above the popular vote, and the Supreme Court has the authority to decide Constitutional questions. That's the way our Founding Fathers set up our American Constitutional system. Let's keep it that way.

The Supreme Court ruled, in Dale vs. Boy Scouts of America, that that or any other private association has the right to exclude homosexuals, atheists, or anybody else, just as the Girl Scouts have the right to exclude those without clitorises -- and just as that very same Supreme Court ruled, in Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas, that two men (or two women) have the right to intimate, exclusive, association in the privacy of their own home. I support both decisions. If the one is "judicial activism", then so is the other.

Wince and Nod:

Good to see you here at Classical Values, my friend! I will vouch for Wince that he is the type of conservative Christian who does not hate or despise homosexuals and will defend their rights. I know him well from Dean's World.

Yes, I would support a Human Life Amendment to extend Fourteenth Amendment protections to the unborn.

As for his proposed amendment on marriage, I would agree to an amendment such as the following:

"Neither Congress not the President nor any federal court shall interfere with the right of states, counties, or municipalities to define the terms, or to confer the incidents, of marriage within their respective jurisdictions as they see fit, in accordance with their own laws and Constitutions. In case of a conflict, the smaller unit of government shall prevail unless there is a compelling reason otherwise or a clear conflict with the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, of the United States. The definition of marriage for federal purposes shall be that obtaining at the time this Amendment is adopted, until Congress should decide otherwise."

That's a bit on the verbose side. I'm no lawyer, and if you can think of a pithier way of saying the same thing in essence, you're welcome to do so.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree with Wince on philosophy of jurisprudence. My choice of Justices to write any sort of meta-amendment regarding Constitutional construction would be Kennedy and Stevens, both also conservatives but of a different kind, the one appointed by President Reagan and the other appointed by President Ford. Richard Posner, Eugene Volokh, Glenn Reynolds, and Timothy Sandefur would be excellent also as Constitutional scholars. I guess that's about all I have to say on this for now.

If Wince doesn't hate gays, then why does he think the courts are trying to ruin his life and trying to force gays on him?

Otto, I believe in God. I think that God is disgusted by bigots and fundamentalists who spread fear, hate, and lies. I do not believe that all these people are in the military. I think that many gay men and women would happily join the armies to replace these cowardly Americans who you think would flee in terror.

If you and your ilk are so petrified by the concept of gays being anything but corpses and crash test dummies, then I say leave America. Good riddance. I won't miss you, and many others, including many Christians, won't either. Just make sure you don't come back.

I thought I was done for now, but I guess not... To begin with, I'd better add one more verbose item to my proposed amendment on marriage:

"In accordance with the First Amendment to this Constitution, no branch of government, legislative, executive or judicial, whether federal, state, county, or municipal, shall interfere with the right of religious or other private associations to define the terms, or to confer the incidents, of marriage as they see fit respecting their own members."

Anyway, Otto's comment was extremely interesting. As to military persnnel, the loss of anti-homosexuals could well be made up for by those homosexual men and women formerly excluded. We would have a stronger, more effective military then.

But, on to the main point: That's exactly what I have been thinking that homosexual men and women and we who admire them should do if that despicable Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment passes. Leave. Go into exile. Withdraw our minds and talents from society. If not leave physically, then go on strike. Take only the lowliest jobs. Refuse to let our persecutors benefit from our creativity.

Think of this: If Alan Turing had gone on strike in protest against the persecution he suffered, we would not have computers, the Internet, or a blogosphere to be posting these thoughts on. If the men of the Renaissance had gone on strike against the persecution they suffered from the Church of their time, we would never have had a Renaissance. How lucky we are that they and so many others like them did go on working, striving, and creating in the face of such enormous persecution. How much we owe them.

Yes, I'm beginning to think that it may soon be time for Atlas to shrug. As I've said before and I'll say again, we are now living in what can only be called Weimar America. The parallels are obvious and ominous. But I believe that we _can_ save America and reverse the Decline of the West.

How is it that y'all think Mayor Gavin Newsom in ol' Frisco is jist fine fer breakin' the law and marryin' "gays", but ol' Judge Moore in Alabama is an evil right-wing crazy who must be ostracized 'cause he put the 10 commandments in a vestibule? They's both disobeyin' the law, folks! One's jist as guilty as the other. So it's okay to break the law, as long as you's doin' it for a liberal reason? That's the road that leads to Stalin & Hitler, people!

How is it thet y'all think ya knows whut Ah thinks, pal? Ain't you bin readin' mah comments in this h'yar thread? Effen you neo-Confed'rate, nigger-segree-gatin', fag-'n'-dyke-hatin', inbred outhouse dwellers gots a right to live the way y'all do, includin' ol' Moore gots a right ta stick his 10, or 2 or 11 or 12 or 100 or whatever he wants, Commandments anywhere he feels like so long as it's not on somebody else's property, well, then, by golly, Ah reckons us city-dwellin', mocha-sippin West Coasters done gone gots a equal right to choose the way we wants ta live, including marryin' "niggers" an' "fags" an' "dykes". Whatta ya say ta thet, pardner? It's still a free country. An' ah gots mah gun ta make sure she stays thet way.

I know, I know, I sound like the Anti-Jim Goad. That's the way I feel right now. Right now, the Johnny Rebs are us Damn Yankees. Nat Turner and John Brown rise again.

To Lil Abner:

I don't think what Newsom is doing is fine. I think it's reckless, and although seeing those couples warms my heart, I know he is only doing this to make a name for himself. He's exploiting gays for his own selfish interest without having to suffer any of the consequences we do. I don't think his position is any less illegal than Moore's (although at least Newsom doesn't want to kill gays and lesbians) and I agree with Boxer/Feinstein/Frank's anger at him over this publicity stunt that will definitely cause even more of an ugly backlash in Congress and among the bigots who now make up America.

Steven, many people I know are going to leave America if this passes. Honestly, there isn't any good reason to stay here now anyway. The country is now ruled by fear and hate. Gays are used as punching bags for the many, many failures of George Bush and of America in general. We are not welcome. That's obvious. And we never will be.

Here's a piece on how America's obsession with prejudice and hate is starting to have an effect:

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/022004ecStudy.htm

Here's what Eugene Volokh has to say about San Francisco's marriages: (Can I make a link here, I wonder? Hope this comes out right.)

But part of American law is the principle that unconstitutional laws are not laws at all. This principle isn't always taken to its logical conclusion, but generally it is understood to be the principle. As I understand it, Mayor Newsom's position is that California's male-female-only marriage law -- which is only a statute, albeit one that was implemented by a voter initiative -- violates the California Constitution. If he's right, then refusing to marry same-sex couples (thus complying with the invalid state statute) would be violating the law, because it would be denying people the equal treatment that the constitution allows them; agreeing to marry same-sex couples (thus violating the invalid state statute) would be upholding the law, because it would be complying with the constitutional command. His actions are, I suspect, partly calculated to create a test case that would lead the California Supreme Court to decide the matter.

It seems to me that this sort of conduct is permissible, and is in fact the way constitutional law is often developed. In recent years, people have been able to challenge laws in other ways besides not complying with them, for instance by bringing a declaratory judgment action. But this is, as I understand it, a relatively modern development, and it may not always be available even now. It certainly has not been seen as the only legitimate way to challenge a law that one believes is unconstitutional.

The matter is different, I think, when (1) there's a clear precedent squarely rejecting the government official's constitutional position, or (2) a court order to the government official requiring the official to act in a certain way (and the official has not appealed the order). Here, I think the rule of law arguments do cut very much in favor of requiring the official to comply with the legal rules, even ones with which he disagrees. That's why I think Justice Moore was acting wrongly, especially when he defied a federal court order; both factors (1) and (2) were present in his case.

In any case, the marriages will not be honored, in all probability. Other relevant actors (employers, tax agencies, etc.) will likely not recognize the licenses. They are of symbolic value only, a fact of which everyone is already aware.

Here's one more quote from the Volokh article:

Neither (1) nor (2) are present as to gay marriages in California; and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that gay marriages have to be recognized in Massachusetts suggests that a similar argument in California is at least plausible. So though I think Mayor Newsom's legal argument will and should lose, I think he's acting within the American constitutional tradition in his actions. People can certainly disagree with his decision on the merits, and argue that it doesn't deny equal protection of the laws for the state to limit marriages to male-female couples. But I don't think that one ought to also fault Newsom for usurpation, or departure from the rule of law, so long as his position is a legally plausible interpretation of the state constitution.

And BTW, why shouldn't San Francisco, with its huge gay population, be allowed to issue marriage licenses? It's certainly supported by the vast majority of people in the community. Why, really, should Orange County have any say about this?

If Federalist principals are so important, why can't localities do as they wish even within States? It's absurd that people who don't even live in the municipality should be able to rule over it this way. Same for Chicago, New York, Boston, and many other areas with large gay populations. If the people who live in these areas don't care that their marriages might become null and void outside their jurisdictions, why should anyone else care?

Again, I make the point that gay people pay exactly the same taxes as everybody else. We are being cheated. Obviously, the majority thinks this situation is perfectly OK. But we don't, and why shouldn't we start fighting back? Wouldn't YOU?

Boxer, Feinstein, and Frank are Democratic party hacks who think the only important thing is to keep electing Democrats over and over again. I'm not a Democrat nor a Republican, I'm totally Independent and not interested in any political party. Mayor Newsom is willing to risk jail to stand up for his values. And, yes, that _is_ selfish. Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon are beautiful selfish heroines. These weddings of love and defiance are like Lawrence & Garner vs. Texas, like the Fall of the Berlin Wall, like Rosa Parks refusing to go to the back of the bus (1955, the year I was born), like the Apollo 11 Moon landing.

I must also mention that Boxer and Feinstein both voted for that "Communications Decency Act" (censoring all sexually-oriented material on the Internet "to protect the children"), which Clinton gutlessly signed. Fortunately the (mostly Republican-appointed) Supreme Court struck it down as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. This is not in any way to excuse Bush for that Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment, which is even worse. I condemn him for that. All this just underscores why I'm an Independent.

Boxer and Feinstein also voted against DOMA, and against plenty of other anti-gay legislation. They are not awful women because they don't agree w/Newsom. And they are nowhere near as bad as Republicans. Boxer is up for reelection this year and has a tough opponent.

They are not awful women because they don't agree w/Newsom. And they are nowhere near as bad as Republicans. Boxer is up for reelection this year and has a tough opponent.

I'm just picking a nit on the hypocrisy here.
It is okay with you that Boxer said that the California law is a good one. She supports the California law that Newsome is arguing is unConstitutional. It's okay for her to do that because A) she is up for re-election and B) she isn't a Republican.

When Republicans pander to their base - they are bad. When a Dem does the same thing and in effect holds the same position - it's okay. Why? Because you know in her heart she's lying? Got it.

-----

For the record, I am a Catholic Republican. In favor of SSM and solidly fighting the FMA.

By the way, it's not Gay Marriage it's Same Sex Marriage (SSM), because the lesbians want it too.

Eric,

I commend you for sticking up for SMA. I would do the same. His rhetoric is sometimes over the top but he means well. He's not the bigot that he appeared to be - his venom was not broad it was very direct. He's very specific with his disgust. I don't agree with him about Bush but he has a right to say it.

Dear Rosemary:

Good to see you here, too! Were you drawn here by the Instalanche? Stick around. My friend Eric has much more to offer you. Dig into his archives. A rich treasury of history, philosophy, and independent thought. And -- thank you!

HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL GOOD!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL!!!!

And -- HAIL TO THE KING!!!! NORODOM SIHANOUK OF CAMBODIA!!!! HAIL!!!! (Yes, I am a Monarchist!)

Just followed the link over here from Dean's place....wow, you folks are sure going at it.

I see there's a shorthand tendency here to say
"gay" is opposite "Christian" used by both sides of the debate.

But please remember that this is not true.

There are plenty of Christians who support gays as you've seen here (You might want to visit Allen and friends at "The Right Christians" to meet some more of them.) There are plenty of gay Christians, in all denominations.

Opposing same sex marriage (SSM-Thanks, Rosemary) does not define Christianity!!!!!

Those of you from more conservative denominations do not have to support or participate in SSM, you don't have to accept gays, heck you can throw them out of your Church. No problem. That's what separation of Church and State means.

The problem is whether your conservative denomination gets to make the rules for everyone else in the civil sphere. That's a theocracy, and at its extreme manifestation, you get the Taliban. I bet there weren't many Christians in Kabul during the taliban.

As for what distinguishes Gavin newson from Roy Moore--I bet when the courts tell Newsom to stop (they haven't yet), he will. Moore didn't.

I.T.!: Good to see you here! Welcome to Classical Values. I hope you'll stick around. Dig through Eric's archives. Get a taste of the rich feast of history, philosophy, and independent thought he sets before us each day. And his _style_!

God created Adam and EVE (and Lilith), not Adam and STEVE!

BOB created Adam and BOB, not Adam and STEVE!