Obama Judge Based Gay Marriage Ruling on Misquote of Constitution

Arenda-L-Wright-Allen

Meet Judge Arenda Wright Allen; she’s exactly at the level of competence and political correctness that one expects from an Obama appointee.

Allen is being celebrated for deciding that Virginia couldn’t limit marriage to biological couples because she didn’t like the law. Also she once read something about all men being created equal in the Constitution. Sure she can’t tell apart the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence, but it’s not like that’s her job.

Both federal judge Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and the one-time newspaper of record confused the Constitution for the Declaration of Independence during their haste to celebrate the overturning of Virginia’s gay marriage ban Thursday night.

“Our Constitution declares that ‘all men’ are created equal. Surely this means all of us,” wrote Allen in a tautological pronouncement that cited a unilateral assertion of sovereignty penned in response to 18th-century British abuses of power, rather than the supreme law governing the U.S.

The New York Times gave no indication it noticed Allen’s glaring error, dedicating most of its 761-word article to sniffing at opponents of same-sex marriage.

“[S]o far, the justices have not decided the basic issue raised by the new decision in Virginia and similar recent decisions by federal district courts in Utah and Oklahoma: whether any sound constitutional reason exists for a state to deny gay and lesbian couples an equal right to marry,” reporter Erik Eckholm wrote, who declined to mention whether the Declaration of Independence gave gay and lesbian couples an automatic legal right to marry.

Instead, Eckholm praised the U.S. District Court for its ruling, lauding Allen’s language as “lofty.”

“The judge often used lofty language in declaring that Virginia’s marriage ban violated the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment,” he wrote. “In summing up the decision, she wrote, ‘We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.’”

“When We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.” That’s some mighty lofty talk right there. Any moment now we arrives at the moment when judges no longer need to be able to read, just process MSNBC talking points and then our freedoms become even more perfectest.

I’m sure that when the Declaration of Independence was being penned, it was in the hope that one day an illiterate judge would cherry pick a quote from it to force wedding photographers to participate in gay marriages…

…because that’s what they were fighting for.

  • Veracious_one

    The judges decision to overturn the gay marriage ban is sure to offend Virginia’s Muslim supporters of Islamic sharia law.

    • DB1954

      Actually, I know an Islamic woman who’s a blogger. She’s a very vocal supporter of SSM, but interestingly enough, she never answers questions about what the clercs of her mosque would say about her support for SSM. In fact, she scarcely ever even talks about her religion. There are, in point of fact, Muslim-Americans who engage in every conceivable form of jihad against America and Americans. These are matters I don’t suspect are occuring; I KNOW they’re occuring and have been for years.

      • A Z

        I wonder if hiernonymous supports polygamy or better yet polyamory?

        Some supporter of the declaration Beyond Marriage came out and said they were for polyamory.

        The same reasoning used for SSM is being used in the polygamy lawsuits as we speak.

        hiernonymous might as well sit down & have lunch with David Cary Hart. Maybe those two can sit down and make spiel why SSM & polyamory is the best of all worlds.

        You got to wonder about the MOS.

        • DGJC

          Canada has had marriage equality for a decade. Polygamists have attempted to overturn the ban on polygamy, using the same legal reasoning gays, and have been shot down every time. Sorry, but the slippery slope argument is stale and not compelling. When women got the right to vote did this lead to donkeys getting the right to vote? NO! Your logic is flawed. Homosexuality, which is an innate and immutable sexual orientation has nothing to do with the heterosexual lifestyle “choice” of polygamy. Not even close…. Nobody is born polygamous.

          • A Z

            It took gays 20 or 30 years to get SSM and they are not yet finished with the project.

            The polygamists have just gotten revved up. give then another decade or so.

            This is like one big game of reversi. With immigration the way it is you might get to see polygamy legal and yourself proscribed, but I digress.

          • DGCJ

            I don’t care if polygamy becomes legal. In fact, I support it as a religious freedoms issue. I think polygamy is illegal simply because the government could never figure out the financial implications of such arrangements. If a man has seven wives and divorces just one of them, how is the estate divided? See my point? But, from a moral point of view, I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it doesn’t harm young girls who might be forced into it. Also, it is not something one is born with, and therefore has no relevance to gay marriage whatsoever.

          • A Z

            “Canada has had marriage equality for a decade. Polygamists have attempted to overturn the ban on polygamy, using the same legal reasoning gays, and have been shot down every time. Sorry, but the slippery slope argument is stale” – DGCJ

            “I don’t care if polygamy becomes legal” -DGCJ

            LMAO, but you back pedal in a passive aggressive sort of way!

          • DGCJ

            Nope, not backpedaling. I’ve never said I opposed polygamy. I said polygamy is a lifestyle choice of heterosexuals which has nothing to do with gay people. Try to keep up. You can’t even read properly, and you project what I’m saying. That’s bad.

          • A Z

            ” I said polygamy is a lifestyle choice” – DGCJ

            Animal studies prove otherwise. But you ignored it.

          • DGCJ

            Animals studies proved nothing regarding polygamy in humans. I said that EVERY human is capable of loving multiple partners. Try to READ.

          • A Z

            “But, from a moral point of view, I have no problem with polygamy, as long as it doesn’t harm young girls” – DGJC

            The devil is in the details and you do not know the details or choose to ignore them.

            What does that say about you?

            Nothing good IMO.

          • DGCJ

            The polygamist family that has a TV show is an example of a family I would support. They are mature women, none of whom were forced into the lifestyle. Therefore, I have no problem with it. But, if I were a government official I’d be very concerned about all the financial and tax implications, which would be HUGE! I really think it doesn’t come down to morality, but rather it’s financial. The government would be hopeless at trying to figure out how to handle polygamous marriages from a financial standpoint. Polygamy is currently legal in more than 50 countries. Somehow they’ve worked it out…

          • A Z

            And a study showed that polygamous societies have high crime and civil disturbance.

            But you choose to ignore it.

            I have to see reality. I have daughters. I cannot blithely walk through cities, where there are so many unattached men that will never have a life because there is a shortage of eligible women.

            But of course you have a solution. You will proselytize.

          • DGCJ

            Yes, and societies that embrace polygamy also outlaw gay marriage. What is your point?

          • DGCJ

            You are aware that it took women 100 years to get the right to vote, correct? It took African-Americans that long to go from being slaves to the Civil Rights Act. The speed at which gay marriage has progressed has been lightening speed, by comparison. My husband and I were legally married six years ago. At that time there were only 2 states which recognized it. Today we have 18 states, and the Federal government on our side. Do you realize how quickly this happened? I predict gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states by 2016 at the very latest.

          • A Z

            “It took African-Americans that long to go from being slaves to the Civil Rights Act”

            That is a demonstrably false. African Americans got the franchise immediately after the Civil War. It took the Democrat Party 5 to 20 years to take it away from them after the war.

          • DGCJ

            And, did you forget that the Republicans and Democrats switched ideologies? Abraham Lincoln would be a flaming liberal, by today’s standards.

          • A Z

            There you go with the southern strategy argument.

            Yes I am a racist, just like the southerners of yore.

            Yet I am the one in a mixed race marriage.

            Go try again harder. You talking points are stale.

          • DGCJ

            Actually, YOUR talking points are stale, and you always project things that I don’t say. You also have not been able to counter any of the proof that I provided regarding how heterosexuality is less healthy than homosexuality. Point taken.

          • A Z

            “I predict gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states by 2016 at the very latest.”

            And I predict that before you die you will still love and respect your partner, but you will be mad as HeII at society and life in general as your scientific understanding increases.

          • DGCJ

            With each passing year, science seems to be closer and closer to definitively showing us that homosexuality is biological. There are no legitimate scientists who state that it’s a choice, or even that it’s changeable. Only religious organizations make such a specious claim.

          • A Z

            There are about 28,000 genes. They have about 25% of them identified. You are running out road.

          • DGCJ

            Most experts say homosexuality is epigenetic, not genetic. Try harder.

          • A Z

            Let me help you out on where the gay genes is found.

            It is the warrior gene (Monoamine oxidase A).

            And no you had no choice, because you are not willing to believe. Instead you created a fantasy called queer studies.

            Who said dragons, trolls & faeries do not exist?

          • DGCJ

            Let me be clear, if sexual orientation “were” a choice, I would choose to be homosexual. That’s because I view it as a biological gift. Just as everyone cannot be a genius, not everyone is “chosen” to be a homosexual. I do not take my gift lightly, and for you to laugh about something so serious it just shows your immaturity. Point taken.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      They actually love it…that we infidels discredit ourselves this way. That’s their view. It makes a stronger argument in their minds for a sharia revolution.

    • DGJC

      Who says all Muslims oppose gay marriage? They don’t….. Stop being ignorant.

  • brittman1

    Another incoherent and unpersuasive analysis by a man who appears to blame every development he doesn’t like on “Obama” judges and MSNBC. Perhaps Mr. Greenfield should stick to radical Islam which, I would hope, he actually knows something about.

    • tickletik

      I feel you bro. Since your inability to comprehend this article shows that you are obviously illiterate, I did a quick google search for books on reading comprehension and came up with this:

      http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Success-Minutes-Day/dp/1576854949

      No no, dont thank me. Just remember if you practice consistently, then you will succeed

      • DGCJ

        Right, says the person who probably didn’t take the time to read the judge’s decision. Read it, and report back. Her decision is well reasoned and based on actual case law. She has already issued an apology and retraction for mistaking which document had the quote that all men are created equal. It’s appalling that eight people gave you a thumbs up. Just shows the mentality of people on this site. Sad state of affairs…

        • tickletik

          +2 troll points for being demented enough to criticize anyone on the planet for not actually reading through EVERY SINGLE JUDGES DECISION ON EVERY RANDOM NEWS ARTICLE THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS ON.

          Because that is actually what you have implied with your wacky disconnected and rambling blather.

          And the best part, is that a careful reading of your gibberish shows that you actually acknowledge that I’m right. IOW your entire comment is nothing but pure BS.

  • Solo712

    To invoke the Founding Fathers to justify gay marriage is in itself a fantastic leap of logic. But then again, as the US Constitution says, “a sucker is born every minute”.

    • Gavin

      For a century the Progressives have been ignoring the Constitution – now they can just pretend whatever is in there that they want, and the vacuous media will eat it up.

      • scdvaca

        Blah, blah, blah…. wrong side of history. Haters love to invoke the Constitution but only when it is convenient for them.

        • Kevin Zent

          That is simply not true, we want the constitution to be followed no matter how convenient or inconvenient. You seem to have missed that she did not use the constitution as her supporting document, she thought she was quoting it but was using the declaration instead, which is an incoherent method of supporting her decision.

          • DGCJ

            You are very uneducated, because you clearly did not read her opinion. Mistaking the document from which one quote comes is not the basis for her decision. Read it, and report back to us. Her decision is well reasoned and based on the constitution. And, only one judge has upheld a ban on gay marriage using the constitution, and he was a Mormon, so he shouldn’t have even been allowed to hear the case in the first place (Nevada). Conflict of interest anyone?

          • gawxxx

            just because she used ( or abused ) the constitution for her “degenerate ” decision means nothing , just man’s /women’s flawed attempt at making laws at their whim , the ultimate authority is the “CREATOR” and he says it is abhorant behavior , believe what you chose to believe but in the end , mankind will implode with it’s assinine decisions ,

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, you need to get some education. You can’t even spell properly. You’re just proving that religious people lack education. Well done.
            There is no “creator.” God is a creation of men.

          • DB1954

            DGCJ, be very careful when you type and post here. I’m going to call you out on every typo you make and attribute it to a lack of education.

          • A Z

            “I’m going to call you out on every typo …”

            That usually is a gay debating tactic. Gays ignore the substance of an argument and argue technical merits such as misspelled word. If we still wrote instead of type they cry foul over an undotted i or an uncrossd t.

            They will not like such a tactic to be used against them.

          • DB1954

            And you know this because you were there at the creation, right?

            Have we been through this before? Perhaps you can explain existence. I mean the existence of everything that exists–the whole universe–to include you, the Marxist demi-god. I guess you created yourself huh?

          • tickletik

            Edit – sorry db, I replied at the wrong location!

          • Nick

            Did you mean to reply to DB1954? Posting is rapid fire with DGCJ. I think you replied to the wrong post.

          • tickletik

            Whoops :)

          • DB1954

            Ok, fair enough. It’s meaningless to ask where the devil all this came from. Meaningless to ask the one question that confounds all atheists. Got it.

            Oh by the way, it wasn’t an argument. It was a question. You didn’t answer it. But no pressure. No pressure at all.

          • John Fowler

            “There is no ‘creator.’ God is a creation of men.”

            Please cite your sources, professor.

          • DB1954

            How would you know if Kevin Zent is uneducated?

          • DGCJ

            Because he never read the decision. He based all his information on this hack job of a so-callled “journalist” on a website that is a known hangout for conservative extremists, who use this as an anti-Obama cheer-leading forum. DUH! He obviously didn’t read the decision because she did NOT base her decision on the “all men are created equal” phrase, but on the 14th amendment, genius.

          • tickletik

            Duh! Like, it’s obvious you are SO uneducated. You are SUCH an extremist! You uneducated creationist conservative fascist! Just last week, my professor told me all these conservatives are ruining the environment, and like, humanity, and like, women’s rights, and they like, you know, can’t read, or like, spell and stuff? So I’m like, DUH! Just go over their Crissie, and we’ll get together and like, we’ll troll it and like check it out? You know? And I’ll tell them what for, and like DUH! We’ll even show these working class bourgeois how they should like, read through a decision even though they like, accurately reported on it, you know? Yeah!

            Girl power! Whooooooo!

          • Alex

            Actually, I would not want to debate Daniel Greenfield. He might be wrong on a few things, but I have notice he better at wordsmithing and rhetoric. He is also very knowledgeable.
            You on the other hand are innumerate, which is just the beginning of you shortcoming.

          • tickletik

            “Innumerate”? OK Ricardo, now you are just showing off! LOL

          • Alex

            Innumerate is to statistics & mathematics in general what illiteracy is to reading.

            I did not know what it was myself until I went back to college and a math TA said it was one of societies big problems.

            It is the other half of Mark Twains observation. There are liars, god/mn liars and staitsticans. But if those people are going to get away with their lies, their audience has to be ignorant about numbers. It is hard to play Santa Claus as a politicians if people can see through your phony stats.

            Showing off. Okay charge me. I don’t care so long I get the point across and things get better.

            I know you are not innumerate, but I really want to push this concept.

            Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences

            http://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Its-Consequences/dp/0809058405

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeracy

            unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods; unable to use mathematics; not numerate.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innumeracy

          • DB1954

            How do you know he didn’t read it?

          • tickletik

            Hi troll!

            I don’t think you are aware of what the word “uneducated” means.

            You wacky little troll you!

          • Ricardo

            DGCJ I suspect does not have an education in math, science, or engineering.
            Don’t expect too much out of him and you will not be disappointed.

          • tickletik

            Oh yeah, but I’m betting it’s “she” not a “he” the bitch is strong in this one

        • Gavin

          Progressives love to invoke the “right side of history”… all the time, because it’s a fatuous concept whose only purpose could ever be to aggrandize power and to cloud clear debate.

    • DGCJ

      Why is “equal protection” under the law a fantastic leap when it comes to the rights of those of us who have the biological gift of homosexuality? You make no sense… Do you see anywhere in the 14th Amendment where it says “except for homosexuals?” Me neither… That’s why you continue to lose in court, just FYI.

      • John Fowler

        That’s the argument pedophiles will be using in twenty years, if not sooner. If behavior is utterly caused by genetics, every defense attorney needs to get on that bandwagon. How can we not condone and even support anything, regardless of how contrary it is to thousands of years of societal standards?

        • DGCJ

          It’s quite possible that pedophilia is biological. There has been no solid evidence one way or the other. However, pedophilia harms children, and therefore should forever be illegal. But, that didn’t stop you heterosexual males in Yemen from legalizing marriage to girls as young as eight. Many girls have died in childbirth, or been beaten to death for refusing to have sexual intercourse with their “husbands.” You heterosexuals have strange ideas of morality. This is the same country which executes consenting homosexual adults. Unbelievable!

          • Drakken

            You seem to be under the impression that us hetro’s endorse marrying underage girls? More emotional stupidity from you leftards.

          • DGCJ

            Well, who legalized marriage to girls as young as eight? Was it homosexual males? NO!
            DUH! Heterosexual males legalized marriage to girls as young as eight.

          • Drakken

            We live in the 1st world you bloody dolt, not the 3rd world, ignorance by the left knows no bounds. Well those same savages also fu** little boys as well, happy now?

          • Amin

            Not in European countries or in North America.

          • DGCJ

            How come if I click on your name “A Z” comes up? Are you the same person? I have two names operating here, DGJC and DGCJ, one is for my I-phone and the other my computer. I switch back and forth. Full disclosure…

          • Drakken

            I am not AZ ,and I do not go under any other name period. I go by that name sub rosa because I work in Islamic countries.

          • Melinda

            No way you teach at a Catholic University. As much as you hate heteros you would give yourself away.

          • DB1954

            “It’s quite possible that pedophilia is biological. There has been no solid evidence one way or the other. However, pedophilia harms children, and therefore should forever be illegal.”
            On the other hand, HIV-AIDS has infected millions of women worldwide, and the overwhelming majority were infected by male partners, who had previously engaged in same sex behavior with other men, had become infected with the virus, and then passed it on to one or more women. I see no calls from any quarter to make homosexual conduct illegal again.

            In the 1980s, homosexual groups were busy spreading the false rumor that there would a catastrophic epidemic of HIV-AIDS would soon break out among heterosexuals. That epidemic never came to pass.

        • DGCJ

          I also find it humorous that you conservative types will jump through hoops to defend “religious liberties” and the right to “own a gun,” both of which are CHOICES we make, and yet when we talk about sexual orientation, god forbid you grant homosexuals equal rights. Now, even IF homosexuality were a choice, which science has proven it’s not, why are gun owner’s rights, and the religious nut’s rights protected and not the rights of homosexuals? You are clearly hypocrites, who pick and choose which group’s (chosen) proclivities to protect.

          • Drakken

            Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right, your lifestyle choice, is a choice, se the difference?

          • DGCJ

            1 homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle, nor a choice.
            2 owning a gun IS a choice.
            3 my sexual orientation is protected under the constitution, see Lawrence v Texas.

          • Drakken

            Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right princess. Your sexual orientation doesn’t over ride rights and privileges under the Constitution.

          • DGCJ

            Lawrence v Texas would disagree with you.
            And, owning a gun is a sin in my religion. I’m fighting to repeal the 2nd amendment.

          • Drakken

            I really hate to rain on your rainbow parade, but folks that take the 2 nd Amendment seriously are no longer going to give an inch, you might want to keep that in mind princess. Without the 2nd Amendment, you no longer have the 1st Amendment, so much for the Constitution. So your going to have to pardon me and others as we say NO.

          • DGCJ

            Who cares? i will continue to push to repeal the 2nd amendment. It might not go anywhere, but at least we can try. Owning a gun is immoral. No human being needs to own a gun. Many countries completely outlaw gun ownership. I’ve been to Japan numerous times, and even the police have no access to guns. That’s as it should be.

          • Drakken

            Owning a weapons makes me a free man and a citizen, you want to be a subject and be subjugated, sorry if we take a pass on your leftist utopia. That is the problem with you leftist regressives, your all about emotion and feelings over cold hard uncomfortable truths, there is no helping useful idiots like you anymore.

          • DGCJ

            Nope, owning a weapon is immoral. End of discussion. Your gun ownerships violates MY beliefs. To a Quaker, owning a gun is a sin.

          • Drakken

            You are about to be shown the error of your ways if you try to usurp the Constitution. The hard way.

          • DGCJ

            HAHAHAHAHAHAH! Just keep it up, old man. In case you haven’t noticed, you’re LOSING the culture war. Guess what? Even most hardcore conservatives now admit they’ve lost the gay marriage fight. Wake the f—k up.

          • Drakken

            Today you laugh, tomorrow it won’t be so funny to you and yours. Old man? Not hardly princess.

          • DGCJ

            Old man, I’ve been married for six years now, and our marriage is equal to yours in the eyes of our state and the Federal government. Deal…
            Keep showing the world how you hate women. It’s entertaining, to say the least. I surely wouldn’t insult you by using masculine slurs. You really really hate women. Sad… Do you beat your bit–h?

          • Drakken

            The only thing entertaining is the utter stupidity you display, no wonder your a college professor, the real world must be extremely traumatic for you. Frankly it would be extremely amusing to have you in a Islamic country where I work, and see you spout your nonsense here, Darwin would love your company.

          • DB1954

            Homosexualists are by definition misogynists.

          • DGCJ

            The reason I call you old man is because most people who love guns and hate gay marriage are over 60. The vast majority of young people under 30 oppose guns and support gay marriage. I’m a college professor, I know what they think…

          • Drakken

            That is the problem right there “college professor” I laugh at the irony which obviously went right over your head. Well the inner city college that you re-educate at, I am not surprised, as there is zero critical thinking skills involved and leftist communist like you revel in dumbing down our young. History is littered with people like you, they are called mass graves.

          • DGCJ

            Assume much? I teach at a private Catholic university in the suburbs. And, they know I’m gay and married to another man, and they don’t care.
            Keep grasping at straws. It’s rather amusing…

          • Drakken

            The fact that to teach anything should cause anyone pause, your anti-hetro rants show what a true regressive and what a communist is. Assumption is the mother of all fu**ups boy, and I assume nothing, unlike you. History is going to be a very cold cruel thing to useful idiots like you, and frankly where you and others of your ilk are concerned, let Darwin have his due.

          • DB1954

            I assume–correctly–that you’re an ageist.

          • Melinda

            You can’t be teaching anything important.

          • Dave

            No doubt you teach queer theory or theater

          • Martin

            Who is losing?

            Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

            Your man Obama is increasing Muslim immigration.

            Do you dare walking thought little Bangladesh in NYC?

            You have been to Japan. but it begs the question. How safe will you be in Paris, London or Oslo 5 years from now or 10 years from now? Jews are leaving those places. Conservative or liberal, Jews are leaving those places. If it is not safe for them how safe will it be for you? You dare not walk those streets had in had regularly for the next 20 years. I don’t have to do anything. I don’t have to speak, write or goad anyone. All I have to do is do nothing except to get the popcorn.

          • DB1954

            I’m not a Quaker, and since you’ve already admitted that you’re an atheist, I don’t think invoking Quaker sentiment on that subject is wise. Moreover, if you saw the TV series–Band of Brothers–you would know that firearm ownership and use is entirely a matter of personal conscience for Quakers. There is no written Quaker theological statement that addresses the subject of firearms ownership or, for that matter, any other moral issue. Hmm, possibly slavery, but I’m not sure of that. A few Quakers continued to own slaves until the Civil War, even though British Quakers essentially started the original anti-slavery movement in English speaking countries. There’s actually no Quaker catechism of any kind of which I’m aware. So, in point of fact, the real-life commanding officer of “Easy Company” was a Quaker.

          • DB1954

            Educate yourself first. We will continue to exercise our God-given right to firearm ownership. You will never erase that Constitutional right. You don’t have the power or authority.

          • Larry

            Since when do you have a religion?

            What is its’ name? If it feels good do it?

          • DGCJ

            My right to marry WILL override your right to vote on my marriage. Just wait and see.

          • DB1954

            And marriage will, in a matter of a few decades at most, cease to exist as per the original plan of Antonio Gramsci, the neo-Marxist theorist and revolutionary and as articulated (on YouTube) by lesbian activist, Masha Gessen, and countless other homosexualist intellectuals of the gay and lesbian fascist movement.

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, but sexual orientation isn’t a choice, and gun ownership is an immoral choice (and one which potentially harms ME);

            Human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation
            emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual
            experience. Although we can choose whether or not to act on our feelings,
            psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that
            can be voluntarily changed.
            American Psychological Association, Answers to
            Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, July 1998

            Can
            a homosexual orientation be changed?
            Homosexuality is not an illness. It
            does not require treatment and is not changeable.
            American Psychological
            Association, Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and
            Homosexuality, July 1998

          • DB1954

            For the one millionth time: sexual orientation has not been proven to be genetic. There is no gay gene. Homosexuality is both an orientation and a behavior. Over behavior, everyone–gay or straight–has choice.

          • A Z

            You never heard of the Pink Pistols?

            Banning guns will not save you from violence. You will just be more subject to mobs.

            All those Tutsis in Rwanda did not have guns. Not having guns sure saved their lives huh?

          • tickletik

            Sorry, but asserting something is so with appeals to credentionalism is not an argument, if it were, then most breakthroughs in science that flew against politically correct dogma never would have happened.

            Yawn. I’m bored now.

          • John Fowler

            .Quoting the APA really doesn’t mean much, as psychiatry isn’t real science. They change their views based on fads. Remember when multiple personality disorder was a thing? No one worth their salt even believes it exists any longer, but at one point, the APA would go to the mat defending it.

          • Fran B.

            Why can’t they just choose to be straight? as evidenced here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhBKvsFtPg4

          • DB1954

            WE really don’t care what you find humorous. I might find it humorous that homosexuals have been dying of AIDS by the hundreds of thousands, except that I don’t. Heterosexuals, the ones you hate, not so much. I simply pity homosexuals. As Jonathan Swift said, “There’s none so blind as they who will not see.”

          • tickletik

            Actually the science shows the opposite. Studies of twins were at least one identical twin was gay shows basically no correlation for homosexuality.

            So … FAIL!

          • John Fowler

            I don’t find hypocrisy in finding more value in defending religious liberty than in a dude putting his wiener inside another man’s anus.

            “…even IF homosexuality were a choice, which science has proven it’s not…”

            Since when has science proven that people are forced to insert their body parts into another person? I’m not sure you get what the term “choice” means.

      • Michael Miller

        “Biological gift” is actually a immoral choice by crude persons God created no one with twisted morals. The biological gift was bestowed upon themselves by their own choice. Read God’s word, Romans Chapter 1, then argue with God. His court is what really matters, at death. Not mans court, during life.

      • Michael Miller

        “Biological gift” is actually a immoral choice by crude persons God created no one with twisted morals. The biological gift was bestowed upon themselves by their own choice. Read God’s word, Romans Chapter 1, then argue with God. His court is what really matters, at death. Not mans court, during life.

        • DGCJ

          Nope, there is nothing remotely immoral about being born homosexual. Nice try. Sorry, but those nut job heterosexual males who concocted your bible are not to be trusted nor believed. And, every major scientific organization agrees that sexual orientation isn’t a choice, and is not changeable (even the ex-gays agree that you can’t change it). Sorry, you’re just plain wrong.

          ” Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation,
          there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of
          parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a
          person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is biological in nature,
          determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine
          environment. It is therefore not a choice.” The Royal College of Psychiatrists.
          And, yes homosexuality is a biological gift, that I’m quite proud to have.

          • DB1954

            Male homosexuality is just a form of sex-hate. It’s called misogyny. Not all misogynists are homosexual, and not all homosexuals engage in acts of misogyny, but all homosexuals are misogynists.

          • A Z

            Homozexuality in many cases results from betahood. The pecking order starts from the beginning and the cookie does not always break the same way.

      • Solo712

        The “equality argument” here is a red herring. People with “the gift of homosexuality” can’t have kids by doing stuff with a spouse. They have to go to market to hire a vagina or buy sperm. So when you talk ‘spouse’ and I talk ‘spouse’ we are not talking about the same thing. Why are you pushing this ? Most people, including myself, would grant gays and lesbians partner equivalency when it comes to spousal rights and benefits. But the idea that propagating the species through market or government regulation is somehow “equal” to having it done through intimate relationship of two people made to that purpose, is both stupid, and alien to any notion of free society. It’s just another way the bolsheviks would destroy the natural human bonds and loyalties that grow out of families based on blood ties, ie. kinship.

        • DGCJ

          Stupid comment. First off, what does marriage have to do with procreation? Secondly, why do you view procreation as something to be proud of, when the planet is already overpopulated with EIGHT BILLION humans? Thirdly, if your purpose in life is to procreate, that’s a very sad reason to exist.
          Why are you pushing against my right to marry is a better question…

          • Drakken

            This is the communist worldview at its best. If your looking for sympathy or empathy for your cause, I am all out.

          • DGCJ

            I don’t give a rat’s behind what you think of my marriage, to be honest. I’ve been legally married for six years, and now 19 state and the Federal government recognize it. Do you really think your opinion matters one iota to me? Think again.

          • Drakken

            I among millions and thousands of years of evolution, you not so much princess.

          • DGCJ

            There you go again, showing your hatred for women and all things feminine. I happen to agree with you, princess. I guess we should show how much we dislike women? I always knew that you heterosexuals hated women. This is not a secret. But, to insult someone by using terms associated with a group you are supposed to “like” is rather odd…

          • Drakken

            If that is what you got out of the conversation, it really says it all doesn’t it? All about I feel, therefore I am, versus, cold hard logic and common sense. Your absolute stupidity knows no bounds. Keep up the great work of winning friends and influencing enemies Cupcake.

          • DGCJ

            Common sense, and your own words, display your hatred of women. Calling me cupcake is just an illustration of how you hate femininity. By the way, I’m not a fan of femininity, either. If I had been I might have married a woman rather than my hot man. I am a huge fan of masculinity, which is why women, boys and girls, don’t turn me on. Sorry, if you don’t have chest hair and a deep manly voice, I’m not interested, there, cupcake. Keep up the anti-women insults, though. You’re just confirming my statements beautifully.

          • Drakken

            If your not a fan of femininity, you sure at like a little effeminate bottom boy. If you think I hate women, your even dumber than I first imagined, and you teach students, hilarious. Like a typical woman, it would seem you have to have the last word as well, priceless.

          • DGCJ

            How many times have you been arrested for abusing your woman? How many times have you raped a woman? I can guess, but I’d like to hear the stats from you directly without assuming too much. I know at least a dozen women who’ve been abused by heterosexual men, and I know a lesbian who was raped by one.

          • DB1954

            Hmm, you allege that one “heterosexual” man raped a lesbian you know. So therefore, ALL heterosexual men are rapists. That’s just brilliant. Brilliant logic.

            You do know that men and boys can be and are raped by homosexuals, right?

          • Drakken

            Your utter stupidity and lack of any logic, common sense is something to see with bemusement and laughter. It would be tragic if it wasn’t so hilarious. Now don’t be throwing al little hissy fit cupcake, I am sure someone will throw you a tissue.

          • A Z

            You posted to the wrong comment. Oh well it happens. At least it is not me this time.

          • Drakken

            Hey no one is perfect, but it would seem that cup cake thinks it is. ;)

          • DB1954

            Hmm, Really? lol I’m sure you meant to address the resident homosexualist, Mr. DGCJ.

          • Drakken

            Need a tissue cupcake, I am sure someone will give you one. LOL

          • DB1954

            Uh thanks, but I don’t get butt-hurt about these matters.

          • Drakken

            But, pardon the pun, you do seem to get bottomed out now don’t you cupcake?

          • Drakken

            Again my apologies, I was responding to the cupcake princess, you know DGCJ. I hate typing on tough books, bloody frustrating.

          • DB1954

            De nada, sir.

          • Drakken

            Sorry mate, I was responding to that bloody wretched >>>>> DGCJ.

          • DB1954

            No worries. All is well.

          • Drakken

            I respect and honor women, you, not so much, I just laugh at useful idiots like you. Sorry cupcake, your emotions do not overrule common sense, logic and cold hard facts, but I give you an A for effort.

          • DGCJ

            By the way, homosexuality has always existed alongside heterosexuality in every culture, and every time period. No exceptions. It’s in your bible, duh.

          • A Z

            Sodom and Gomorah?

            Yes, evil has existed on earth ever since The Fall.

          • Drakken

            Sorry princess, your not married, your the bottom in a man/boy relationship. Funny, its just like the muslims, strange.

          • A Z

            I never knew about tops & bottoms until the Sheriff of Pima country was outed by his male lover.

            Over at PJMedia there is a fairly nice guy ( I assume he is gay because of the points he is always arguing).

            Anyway he was arguing that many, many gays do not engage in intercourse. He was so emphatic that you would think most gays do not engage in intercourse.

            But that raise the question as to why so many of them come down with HIV infections. They say that oral zex does not pass HIV at the same rate as intercourse. So if so many of them only have oral zex and/or only practice frotting, it is a great mystery as to how they could have so many HIV infections.

            The ideal of a top and bottom shows they are mentally sick. There can;t be a gene for that unless there is a gene that predisposes one to be submissive. Maybe that is why so many on the Left are dhimmis.

          • DB1954

            From the earliest of (Common Era), times, the Church taught that all forms of sodomy were immoral because both were outside of marriage. Thus it was sodomy, be it oral or anal, that was condemned by the early Church fathers. Heterosexual sodomy was (and officially) still is, a practice forbidden by the Church. Originally, the reason for the proscription of both was quite simply, that sodomy couldn’t possibly cause pregnancy in the human female. And since the Church defined marriage as a gift from God and sex as God’s gift for the purpose of propagating the human species, homosexual and heterosexual sodomy were equally forbidden. The point is, that what the Church condemned was all sodomy, not just homosexual behavior, and not simply the inclination to same-sex behavior.

          • Solo712

            The state should not give a hoot whether married people are procreating or not, all it should care is that if kids are born, it is within the union of those who are procreating. ‘Why do I view procreation as something to be proud of ?’ Because, they are ‘my’ kids. They know where they come from and to whom they belong. That’s my hetero pride !

      • gawxxx

        man/women is not the ultimate authority on it’s behavior’s , the “CREATOR” is , it’s degenerate behavior plane and simple , believe what you want to believe , in the end we all will answer to the ultimate lawgiver not mankinds degenerate version ,

        • DGCJ

          Sorry, homosexuality isn’t degenerate behavior. The APA states: “Homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality.” Deal. I’m sorry science isn’t on your side.

      • Fran B.

        Well, I don’t know. But this is a pretty shocking stance. Only one guy has commented yet but I’m thinking of writing something too.

    • Michael Miller

      And penned by P.T. Barnum, Right ?

  • Veracious_one

    the founding fathers had high hopes for America and Future Americans….they’d be crying today were they alive….

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

      Really? Virginia’s ban is/was a recognition of religion in defiance of the Establishment Clause enshrined in the First Amendment (in addition to insulting due process and equal protection).

      Our founding fathers would also be aghast at an African-American President or a woman as our prior Secretary of State. How about the Air Force?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Our founding fathers would also be aghast at an African-American President or a woman as our prior Secretary of State. How about the Air Force?”

        How did you go from gay marriage to “while male oppression?”

        If the state is wrong to favor traditional married couples because of the traditional need to produce offspring to perpetuate the state, then the state should stop favoring them. The state should not continue to grow in pursuit of the idea that it can achieve radical egalitarianism once it’s big enough.

        What you call “due process” is in reality a bridge effort to create a new official class of victims and a whole new slew of laws altered and created.

        • DB1954

          What David Hart means to say is that homosexualists and lesbians aren’t demanding due process; they’re demanding the process that is due, in other words, special laws for them–made to order.

        • hiernonymous

          “How did you go from gay marriage to “while[sic] male oppression?””

          I don’t think he did. He appears to be listing currently accepted public servants and institutions that would have been socially or legally unaccpetable to the Founders. Mr. Obama would likely have been chattel; women were not even allowed to vote; the Founders certainly never envisioned an Air Force. I’d guess that Mr. Hart is highlighting the limited usefulness of invoking Shocked Founders as an argument against a current application of Constitutional law.

          I particularly like the Air Force aspect. The Founders anticipated the need for defending the country; they certainly never anticipated all the forms that could take.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I see the humorous angle. It is cute.

            I think the assumption most of the time is that the founders would judge us differently not out of partial ignorance but how far we’ve strayed from their intentions.

            Obviously there’s room for both debate and jokes. It’s not always easy to tell which is which.

          • A Z

            The Founders would have been chattel or our founding fathers wanted it that way?

            Some of our Founding Fathers, who owned slaves. knew slavery was a mistake, but they had a hard time separating themselves from it, because they did not want to lower their economic status.

            It was a Gordian knot to them. They thought a significant minority of people would oppose it (which would imperil the union), they would lose their wealth, and ex-slaves would be mad as HeII. Maybe the bet way would have been to solve the puzzle of the knot, the same way as Alexander and just do it. Just emancipate the slave and pay them as laborers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            These lunatics act like our forefathers created a fresh new existence and had control over ever element, every value held by every citizen and had unlimited time and resources to “get it right.” They failed to build Utopia but now we can!! Yes we can!!!

            Since they didn’t, we must strive for radical egalitarianism because that seems much better than what those stupid bigoted white males came up with.

          • A Z

            George Washington certainly felt it was a mistake and feared where it might lead to in the future. But he could cut himself down in size economically. So he was not perfect. Yet he was better than most. He also had some prejudice, but show me a person who does not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I think it’s obvious that all of them knew they didn’t inherit a situation of their creation or one they had total control over.

            I don’t think that’s a solid basis to show that they’d object at all to anything in particular has happened through today. It takes a slightly deeper argument to show what they had in mind. What they had in mind was equality before the law, and minimum interference from the government.

            If they did have hopes for a Utopian society it was not one they would want based on coercion and a new oligarchy of elites running a big daddy federal government. Obviously. It’s kind of surprising that educated adults can pretend otherwise. They would rather see a liberal meritocracy…forever.

          • hiernonymous

            More to the point, those whose with an ox to gore resist socail change by scorning it as “Utopian.” I don’t think anyone would argue that ending slavery or extending the franchise to women was anything but just, but both were bitterly resisted all the same.

            In other words, accusations of Utopianism seem calculated to defend the status quo from any change at all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “More to the point, those whose ox stands to be gored resist social change by scorning it as “Utopian.””

            There’s clearly a history of people (demagogues mostly) making promises that they can’t deliver. The word is probably overused, but debaters must honestly decide if the shoe fits. Do you not understand the criticism if someone for example takes the position that a totally egalitarian society is absolutely impossible? That you destroy justice when you pursue class justice? That you can’t actually have something that you destroy? But when you pretend that you can both keep something and destroy it at the same time that you are living a delusion?

            Pushing for truly positive social change is not in itself Utopian. The problem is that by the time you build coalitions these days, there are so many dupes of Utopian ideas that the coalitions become corrupted. That’s usually why conservatives oppose them: Not because conservatives oppose good things, but because they object to the bad things bundled with the good. That is when the arguments get bogged down and the name-calling starts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t think anyone would argue that ending slavery or extending the franchise to women was anything but just, but both were bitterly resisted all the same.”

            Most that opposed any particular plan were not resisting the principals of equality before the law. It was about retaining the meritocracy component. How do you suddenly “enfranchise” people by class without wrecking the meritocracy?

            I’m proud of what we have done. It shows just how great our constitution truly is as a framework for justice. Just be careful about what you expect.

          • hiernonymous

            “It was about retaining the meritocracy component.”

            That’s certainly a novel point of view.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Novel for today perhaps.

            What do you think their concerns were about?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In other words, accusations of Utopianism seem calculated to defend the status quo from any change at all.”

            I appreciate your honesty because that’s a ridiculous statement. Obviously progress happens. To draw attention to “Utopia” is to remind people clearly that it takes more than dreaming for something better. You have to learn to work out whether it’s truly possible.

            I think it you pay more attention to the arguments you might find out what the objections are and whether people are being overly skeptical or perhaps they some times have a valid point to make.

            The idea of “gay marriage” is not tied directly to delusion. But a lot of the arguments and expectations are delusional. The idea that “society” should treat gays as equal to heterosexuals according to the perceptions of the gays…that’s delusional.

            Virtually every time you hear the phrase “social justice” outside of church or a charity group, you’re going to be talking about someone’s delusional expectations that you can achieve “class justice” by ignoring the attack on individual justice and come up with “progress.”

            Expecting organic or cooperative progress is not in itself delusional. But people do have a lot of simple and delusional ideas about “progress.”

          • hiernonymous

            “I appreciate your honesty because that’s a ridiculous statement.”

            I appreciate your grammar because elephants are grey.

            “Obviously progress happens. To draw attention to “Utopia” is to remind
            people clearly that it takes more than dreaming for something better.”

            As a rule, “Utopia” is invoked as a means of ‘reminding’ the reader of the horrors that emerge when the status quo is disrupted. If that’s not offered in the spirit of defending the status quo from change, one is at a loss to understand its actual meaning. It doesn’t often seem to be attached to a counterproposal, a slower and surer method of achieving the same goal. If that was intended in your own post, I missed it.

            Consider your reference to assumptions about what the Founders could and couldn’t control, and the mocking reference to “yes we can!” Consider, also, that the Founders knew that they were kicking the slavery can down the street for future generations to deal with. Rather than confront a known wrong in their own time, they ‘hoped’ for ‘change’ down the road, and what it bought us was a 600,000 corpse bloodbath fourscore and seven years later.

            You see, moral inertia and inaction are no less symptomatic of dreaming and naivete than are calls for change. I’ve always found Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech as remarkable for his comments on the Founders as for his refreshingly blunt statements on the nature of the Confederacy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As a rule, “Utopia” is invoked as a means of ‘reminding’ the reader of the horrors that emerge when the status quo is disrupted.”

            That’s your interpretation. Given how well you read minds here, mine included, I’m going to stick with my position that you just don’t get it most of the time.

            “It doesn’t often seem to be attached to a counterproposal, a slower and surer method of achieving the same goal. If that was intended in your own post, I missed it.”

            People often run out of time after they get exhausted fighting with people rather than constructively engaging. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is on the one proposing change. So if nothing else you should offer evidence that your proposals are rational if someone challenges them as Utopian. And some times the proposal itself, the stated end objective is Utopian. I already gave you an example for that.

            “Consider your reference to assumptions about what the Founders could and couldn’t control, and the mocking reference to “yes we can!” Consider, also, that the Founders knew that they were kicking the slavery can down the street for future generations to deal with. Rather than confront a known wrong in their own time, they ‘hoped’ for ‘change’ down the road, and what it bought us was a 600,000 corpse bloodbath fourscore and seven years later.”

            I thought I was already clear that some times change is possible given enough time and other times it’s completely impossible and contradictory, like the example I gave you where people expect radical egalitarianism.

            I think all factions often fail to engage and understand the others. However, delusional people on the left are far more dangerous because of the actions that the ideas some times incite. And a lot of today’s anger is based on delusional expectations. I think a lot of wasted energy and emotion today is based driven by disappointment about hopes that government would deliver things they had no hope in delivering.

            I’m not even truly conservative. I usually fight on the conservative side only because leftists are far more dangerous. It’s much easier to reason and collaborate with conservatives.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s your interpretation.”

            Sure.

            “However, delusional people on the left are far more dangerous because of the actions that the ideas some times incite.”

            I don’t know that I’d agree with that. I’ll see your French Revolution and call with the Civil War. I think WWI could fairly be attributed to overzealous defense of the status quo. WWII, the single bloodiest conflict in history, was largely the result of ultra-right-wing nationalist ambitions, though to be fair, a lot of the groundwork was laid by the October Revolution and the international Communist movement.

            Perhaps it’s fair to say that radicals tend to cause their problems more quickly?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ll see your French Revolution and call with the Civil War.”

            The American Civil War accomplished something great. What id the French Revolution accomplish that could be characterized that way? We get some interesting platitudes about freedom and equality without even defining what that meant or leaving anything to back it up. It’s a clear cautionary tale if read objectively.

            “I think WWI could fairly be attributed to overzealous defense of the status quo.”

            In one sense yes, but it was also driven by fear about this idea that empires would consume each other, growing or dying. It was about maintaining the status quo as a defense against what might come next. In other words if you’re not gaining, you’re threatened with extinction eventually.

            “WWII, the single bloodiest conflict in history, was largely the result of ultra-right-wing nationalist ambitions…”

            Nationalists are not always right wing. The right wing is the establishment. The left wing is “the commoner.” Hitler was nationalist, and the establishment is usually nationalistic but that is the only justification for presenting the Nawzees as analogous to say, American conservatives. Hitler was for government sovereignty over virtually everything. That’s socialist. And he was a delusional nutjob with respect to racial theory, which some people want to paint as springing from the right, but again it’s just not that simple. Let’s just say that nationalists deal with race differently than those looking for international institutions to govern their socialist Utopia). So there is no way that you could refer to Hitler or his regime as “right wing” because most of the notable features came from delusional Utopian ideals with a strong measure of racism. And his ideas about nationalism were post-revolution, not conservation. Not right wing at all. He didn’t truly fit neatly in the left-right paradigm we use in parliamentary and American politics.

            “…though to be fair, a lot of the groundwork was laid by the October Revolution and the international Communist movement.”

            If you look at the wars since the onset of the Industrial Revolution collectively you’ll find a clear evolution in dominant ideological themes. It was really the industrial revolution that created the final circumstances for modern warfare, because suddenly a lot of radical ideals seemed to be interpreted more and more as “clear and present danger” to various nations and regimes.

            There are always so many ways to look at causes that it’s easy to miss bigger themes.

            On a hopeful note, I do think that communications technologies have also given us alternative outlets to hash out and test some of those ideas short of going to war.

          • hiernonymous

            Re the two wars: I was actually posting thinking about the blood cost of the wars themselves; I was thinking of the Civil War less in terms of the freeing of the slaves than of the huge number of deaths attendant with delaying the freeing of the slaves. But you raise a thought-provoking point, so I considered the question from your perspective. I think we agree that the Civil War ended a great injustice; I’d argue that the same could be said about the French Revolution, though less immediately and cleanly. One might even argue that they’re analagous in that they were more successful in ending the overt injustice than they were at replacing it with something better; in both cases, the elements in society that were threatened by change were very successful in fighting back for several decades.

            I strongly disagree with your reading of the Nazis, but it’s a conversation I think we’ve had before, and I’m too tired to do that one again.

            On your final point, I’m cautiously optimistic as well. On the positive side, communications technologies do seem to be opening up conversations and information that was suppressed previously. On the negative side, I don’t think that many people appreciate that the nature of the internet means that exactly nothing that is ever sent from a device is anonymous or private; the ability to track communications is greater on the internet than it ever was in the day of phone and letter. Privacy is dead.

          • A Z

            George Washington set an example albeit slowly. It was not followed and so was not a precedent.

            But freeing his slaves did lower the value of his estate. So it did “gore the ox” of his patrimony, which he bequeathed his heirs in a pure economic sense of the times.

          • DB1954

            Extending the franchise to women was “bitterly resisted,” was it? Not really. It passed with a majority of men, and their resistence to it was more a form of skepticism than of bitterness. In 1920, many men still believed that women were “too emotional” to be trusted with the vote. But a majority disagreed, otherwise the Con. Amendment wouldn’t have gone through, right? uh …. professor General. … sir.

          • hiernonymous

            “Extending the franchise to women was “bitterly resisted,” was it?”

            Yes. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment was included specifically to prevent the possibility of the amendment being read as applicable to women’s suffrage. Supporters of suffrage were arrested. And so on.

            “Not really. It passed with a majority of men…”

            In 1920, 72 years after the Seneca Falls Woman’s Rights Convention, 42 years after the amendment was introduced in Congress. That’s not exactly what you’d call expediting matters.

          • DB1954

            So where’s the “bitter” part, I mean the extreme bitterness which you conjured out of the decades between the 14th Amendment and 1920ish? We’re talking about the adjective you used to describe the Women’s Suffrage Amendment, professor … er, I mean, General Professor, … sir.

          • hiernonymous

            I suppose the most objective evidence of ‘bitter’ resistance is the employment of force and coercion. For example, in the summer and fall of 1917, police in D.C. used “obstruction of sidewalks” the basis for arresting over 200 women who were protesting for suffrage.

            Alice Paul was famously force-fed when she went on hunger strike in prison, as were fellow suffragettes; I invite you to look up some descriptions of the process to understand just how violent it was.

            Lucy Burns and Dora Lewis were beaten by guards when they were imprisoned for supporting women’s suffrage.

            In the end, the brutality of the methods employed against the women’s suffrage protestors became a turning point of the movement; media reports of their treatment led many to get involved and support the amendment.

            “The bitterness in 1920, if any, was among the suffragettes who, even in
            victory, couldn’t get over the fact that “Sambo” had the vote ever since
            1865. Now THAT’s bitter.”

            Maybe so, though many of the women’s suffrage supporters at the time of the Civil War consciously made the decision to shift their focus to black suffrage.

            “Uh … perfessor .. sir. ”

            Okay, that’s bitter, but you’ll get over your hurt feelings sooner or later.

            Or not.

          • DB1954

            Major, I regret that my remarks highlighted your obvious bitterness and/or butt-hurt for being denied that promotion to Light Colonel, the rank to which you–as a Point grad–felt yourself entitled at a minimum.

            In my father’s generation–WWII–all most soldiers wanted to do by 1945 was to get out of the RA. That was because they had better and more challenging things to do like get into or back into business for themselves and make money. But it’s so much easier to sit back and enjoy the cushy government ride to financial success, so who can blame you for your choices, umm … sir?

          • hiernonymous

            “Major, I regret that my remarks highlighted your bitterness and/or butt-hurt for being denied that promotion to Light Colonel, the rank to which you–as a Point grad–felt yourself entitled.”

            Actually, I retired at LTC. And not from the JAG Corps. Perhaps you should just ask if you’re curious about the particulars of my career. I don’t promise I’ll answer your questions – most of it’s none of your business, really – but it’d be better than flailing around like that.

            “But it’s so much easier to sit back and enjoy the cushy government ride to financial success, so who can blame you for your choices, umm …
            sir?”

            If you say so.

          • DB1954

            Retired at LTC? An academy grad? Well now I think I truly understand you, Col. … sir. But thanks for your honesty in one respect anyway.

            Do be careful, however, about promoting yourself to professor of American criminal justice history. The cops were awful to virtually everyone before WWII–that included white men, blacks, and white women suffragettes. The 1930s are known today as the “stone age of civil rights.” Moreover, there have always been bad apple cops. There still are, if you hadn’t noticed.

          • hiernonymous

            “Retired at LTC? An academy grad? Well now I think I truly understand you … sir.”

            Well, that’s good.

          • Paul

            DB1954
            Getting promoted to Lieutenant Colonel is nothing to sneeze at. We do not know the MOS nor do we know how full or empty the pipeline was.
            Promotion %
            O2 95
            O3 80
            O4 70
            O5 50
            .95 * .80 * .70 .50 = .40
            Plus there is the wickets of being selected to a officer program and completing a program to consider. I know of classes that lost 33% of their initial group.
            Drawdowns also affect promotion and those drawdowns are often political and a butter of guns decision so pols can play Santa Claus.

          • DB1954

            I don’t sneeze at LTC Hierno. I give the Col. full credit. Besides, LTC is pretty much the career cap for JAG, which he says he was at least for a spell. That JAG job may have made been the reason he didn’t make Big Bird. I just think I’ve detected a hint of bitterness in that his political views are, I think, unusually progressive [read: regressive] for a military officer and, in my view, quite misguided. Perhaps by the bitterness of a somewhat early separation from a promising career?

          • hiernonymous

            Not to worry, Paul. I seem to have stepped on DB’s toes over the past day or two, and he’s been casting about for something that will allow him to feel he’s cut me down to size. No harm done.

            Your numbers are pretty close, actually – were you a mid-80s year group yourself? My year group just missed the drawdown at captain (all the VSI, etc) and subsequently got murdered at major, so the numbers were closer to 88 and 64, respectively, but it works out to much the same thing. You’re pretty close on the precommissioning as well; our class entered with 1400+ and graduated about 1000.

          • DGCJ

            Um, are you unaware that the majority of men in New Jersey voted to deny women the right to vote? Are you also unaware that four attempts to amend the Federal Constitution regarding banning interracial marriage were made, and none of them were successful? And, that was a time when well over 90 percent of Americans oppose interracial marriage. Just making you aware, if you are unaware.

          • DB1954

            “Are you also unaware that four attempts to amend the Federal Constitution regarding banning interracial marriage were made, and none of them were successful?” Hmm, so “none of them were successful.” Hmm, “NONE of them were successful.” “None of them were successful.” Hmm I wonder why?

          • DGCJ

            Do you dislike professors? In addition to being a concert pianist, I’m a college professor (my day job). Just wondering why conservatives dislike education and science so much. Do tell…

          • Kevin Zent

            Professor we do not dislike you, we dislike your stance that you are always correct; no matter what the subject. Though the only experience you have with anything (maybe you are different?) is from behind your lectern. Those of us who have attended college have all been told by you that our views are wrong and normally our grades affected by our views at a school where critical thinking is supposed to be part of our education. If your views were so perfectly correct we would not be penalized for having different views.

          • Drakken

            The fact that you leftist progressives are dumbing down these students to the point of they being less than useless to a society that needs productive citizens instead of the leftist drivel that they are being indoctrinated with, might help.

          • DGCJ

            There is a difference between educating and dumbing down. Dumbing down would be telling students that gay people wake up one day and make a silly “choice” to be gay. Education would be telling them that sexual orientation is biological and cannot be changed. Even the ex-gays agree that they are still gay.

          • Drakken

            You obviously are a product of our re-education system, no critical thought process to be had, all about I feel, therefore I am as your policy positions, stupidity on steroids.

          • DGCJ

            I am a very deep thinker. I also believe in what science teaches us, and science has taught us that some humans (and animals) are born homosexual, and that this is not changeable, nor a choice. Deal.

          • DB1954

            DGCJ is a very deep thinker, if he does say so himself. That reminds me of a black graduate student who gave a presentation on the difficulties of being an intellectual in the black community. He referred to himself several times as an “intellectual.” That was the first year of our master’s program. Funny, but I didn’t see him after that.

          • gawxxx

            delusion at it’s educational best !

          • DGCJ

            No, delusion is believing that mankind was “created’ 6000 years ago, despite the fact that we’ve been here for over 1.5 million years. Oops! You probably believe in talking snakes, and Methusela lived to 900 years of age. That’s nice, Johnny. Grow up.

          • DB1954

            Who believes that mankind was created 6000 years ago? And why do you presume that some here believe that? Who on this thread has said they believe that?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There is a difference between educating and dumbing down. Dumbing down would be telling students that gay people wake up one day and make a silly “choice” to be gay. ”

            I wonder if you can actually quote someone? Paraphrase? I wonder why?

            “Education would be telling them that sexual orientation is biological and cannot be changed.”

            You’ve conflated indoctrination of your views with education. You are a Marxist. And you actually believed that this:

            Abstract

            During spatial navigation, women typically navigate an environment using a landmark strategy, whereas men typically use an orientation strategy. To examine the as yet unknown effects of sexual orientation on these normative sex differences, this study required 80 healthy heterosexual and homosexual adult men and women to provide directions from experimental maps for 4 routes. The frequency and type of strategy used by each participant were computed. Expected sex differences were demonstrated, and a robust cross-sex shift was shown by homosexual men in using landmarks. This remained after controlling for differences in mental rotation, directional sense, and general intelligence. The findings may limit the number of putative neurodevelopmental pathways responsible for sex differences in navigation strategy utility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

            You imply that this Is essentially an argument that butt sex makes men smarter.

          • gawxxx

            well if you look at what humankind’s education and science has gotten humankind we would be better off with out it , just saying …

          • DGCJ

            Education would do you a world of good. At least you’d realize to capitalize words at the beginning of sentences, and use proper punctuation. That way I would better understand you. You write like an uneducated, religious nut who gets their information from their King James.

          • DB1954

            No, I certainly don’t dislike ALL professors, just all the arrogant, pompous, self-righteous, know-it-all-but-know nothing-valuable, leftwing windbags so common among those in the misnamed social sciences and humanities departments. Why would I hate all the members of one of my professions?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            There are many professors that I dislike intensely but I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s merely because they profess some thing or the other.

            “Just wondering why conservatives dislike education and science so much. Do tell…”

            Because we’re cave men that feel threatened by your superior intelligence. I fear being compelled to have anal sex in order to improve my IQ.

          • scdvaca

            Oh honey, yes it was resisted. And, yes, it finally passed, with votes from men, just as gay marriage is passing, not with votes by gays — there are not enough — it is passing with support from heterosexuals. Yep, that’s how change works… same with slavery, segregation, right to vote for blacks, etc…. we EVOLVE.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t think you actually understand theories of evolution. According to those theories, might makes right. So you would win by building consensus or you could lose by being killed before you breed (or spread the ideas that evolution does not favor). Both are valid according to evolutionary theory.

            See Nietzsche if you want to explore the dark side of evolution and philosophy.

          • DB1954

            Yes, one of them who owned slaves was Ben Franklin. He bought and traded a few for a while, but detested the institution. So did Jefferson, but alas, being a Virginian, in the end, he simply didn’t have the courage of his convictions. We all have an Achilles heel, I suppose.

          • A Z

            hiernonymous is taking The Founding Fathers to task in 1776 and 1783 for not being perfect. Yet at that time I do not see anyone else outlawing slavery nor giving women the right to vote that was a country of any note.

            A guess the words “a more perfect union” while a logically flawed has no meaning to utopians.

          • DB1954

            Anti-slavery was a movement that began in Britain among London Quakers in the 1780s, spread at an astonishing pace, and culiminated in complete abolition in that country by the early 1830s. The movement’s ideas spread to the then British North American colonies even before the Revolution, primarily through Methodists, even though the Methodists split into two factions by the time of the Civil War because of the slavery issue. Back in Britain, anti-slavery had become virtually synonymous with Evangelical Christianity, and in fact, the Republican Party in the U.S. was composed overwhelmingly of Evangelical Christians, although most lived in the north where slavery had been legally scrapped for the most part but definitely repudiated as an acceptable cultural institution. Sadly, most so-called progressives claim that American Christians largely accepted slavery because of their religiosity, which the progs continue to portray as the mark of ignorance. Look who’s ignorant now. Evangelical Christians demanded the end of slavery with such vehemence, they were willing to go to war with their southern co-religionists and relatives to end it, but progs still portray them as backward, ignorant, and illiterate hicks.

          • DB1954

            Col. Hierno reminds me of some of my self-admitted Marxist professors in grad school: Marxist social and economic analysis isn’t really understood to offer solutions to social problems. It’s at most a critique and at its best when critiquing society, its institutions, and those who speak in defense of the status quo–which is whoever the Marxist critic critiques.

            I’m by no means calling the Col. a Marxist–just that he seems often to rely on a similar “negative” approach to analysis.

          • A Z

            I forgot where I read it. It was either a marginal Revolution or ZeroHedge, probably the former. The point of what i read there was that the 1st 1/2 of Das Kapital rendered a accurate description of the defects of capitalism up to that time. It was then mentioned that Karl Marx offered no cogent or workable solution in the the other 1/2.

            http://marginalrevolution.com/

            You won’t like everything in the blog, but marginal revolution is a very good blog and well worth reading.

            That may be it. I tire of the “negative” approach.

            I know what the defects are. My old man played devil’s advocate all the time especially, when he thought I was too stridently arguing a point. He defended unions (although he was white collar, but had been blue collar) and planned obsolescence among other things.

          • hiernonymous

            “hiernonymous is taking The Founding Fathers to task in 1776 and 1783 for not being perfect.”

            You seem to be missing the salient point, which is not aimless criticism of the Founders, but to highlight the fact that the Founders themselves often did not live up to the ideals they’d expressed, and were often aware of that fact. The key takeaway here is not “Founders Bad,” but to highlight the flaw in the “What Would the Founders Do” method of evaluating the advisability or Constitutionality of a proposed course of action.

            Portugal had outlawed slavery by then, btw, and Britain had effectively banned it in Great Britain itself in 1772; in 1807, it banned the transportation of slaves. In fact, studying the approaches that Britain took in achieving emancipation in some of the colonies that were more reliant on slavery is instructive in considering paths that might have been followed in the U.S.

          • DB1954

            Lord Mansfield’s Somerset decision of 1772 effectively ended slavery within England with the observation that slavery had never (legally) existed in England, notwithstanding the idea expressed by some that it had and–by 1772–the actual presence of more than a few blacks in Britain. Parliament subsequently banned slave transport in 1707 (credit to Col. Hierno) but didn’t abolish slavery throughout the Empire until the early 1830s.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, hence my comments “…banned it in Great Britain in 1772″ and “…in 1807, it banned the transportation of slaves.”

          • DB1954

            I credit you for the accurate dates, Col.

          • hiernonymous

            Ah. Well, that’s good, then. Thank you! Can never have too much credit for one’s dates.

          • DB1954

            I’m wondering Col., if you’re familiar with Antonio Gramsci, the Italian labor union organizer, journalist, neo-Marxist intellectual, and communist revolutionary who died in a fascist-era prison in the 1930s. Although most SSM advocates would deny it vehemently, Gramsci is the true father of same-sex “marriage,” IMO.

            Also, ever heard of Masha Gessen, the lesbian activist who immigrated to the U.S. from Russia? There are videos of Gessen on YouTube. I think you’d find them enlightening.

          • hiernonymous

            All I recall of Gramsci was his opposition to economic determinism; I recall thinking of that as a conceptual step toward Maoism, though I don’t know if there was every any actual formal link. I can’t think of anything about him that would link him to SSM in my mind, but I don’t really recall much about him.

            As far as videos go, if you’d like to link one, I’ll take a look, but as a rule I don’t conduct searches at others’ suggestion. It’s not out of sheer obstinacy, it’s simply time-consuming, and one never knows if what one has found has anything to do with the point, if any, the OP was trying to make.

          • A Z

            Portugal is one of the reasons we had slavery. They codified it in 1441. But I take it with a grain of salt. There were the tip of the spear and the continuation of slavery grew out of the wars with Islam.

            “In fact, studying the approaches that Britain took in achieving emancipation in some of the colonies that were more reliant on slavery is instructive in considering paths that might have been followed in the U.S.”

            That is a true statement. Especially considering Barbados was extremely lucrative due to the profits from sugar. However, considering the the stamp act and all the other tax issues I don’t think slavery was at the top of the list of issues from 1763 to 1776.

            “The key takeaway here is not “Founders Bad,” but to highlight the flaw in the “What Would the Founders Do” method of evaluating the advisability or Constitutionality of a proposed course of action.”

            This is exactly what I would do. I would take into account how they would fail due their consideration of which rice bowl would get broken.

          • A Z

            I did not know Franklin had slaves. He made money in so many different ways, you would think he would not have to go there.

            But I can see why he could quit unlike Jefferson. Jefferson died in debt. He should have pulled a Washington and left his heirs a reduced estate.

            On another note, I read where Jefferson was “way” smarter than climate fraud Michael Mann. Jefferson could at least could figure out how to place a thermometer correctly to get accurate readings.

            It was in Discover or Scientific American.

            The takeaway was that TJ would not have been so stupid as to place monitoring station next to runway aprons, diesel engines, etc.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He appears to be listing currently accepted public servants and institutions that would have been socially or legally unaccpetable to the Founders.”

            I also disagree with that statement. It only makes sense if you fail to understand the society in which they lived, which was a product of history. It doesn’t mean they wanted it that way forever.

            Obviously that’s what the constitution is all about: a framework for justice. It’s just not as loose as some people seem to think. It’s not supposed to be a framework for a coercive socialist Utopia.

          • hiernonymous

            “It doesn’t mean they wanted it that way forever.”

            Nothing about my statement implied such. In fact, the underlying assumption is precisely as you articulated: that the Constitution was intended as a framework to achieve its broader goals, which themselves are articulated in the Preamble.

            There were no doubt many, from the Founders’ time up to now, who would see the female franchise and the equality of blacks as evidence of the Constitution being used as a framework for a coercive socialist Utopia. Both were bitterly resisted, often with arguments that sound strangely familiar.

            In the case of same-sex marriage, I would argue that the preamble’s call to establish justice is the most compelling aspect, and promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty also apply.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There were no doubt many, from the Founders’ time up to now, who would see the female franchise and the equality of blacks as evidence of the Constitution being used as a framework for a coercive socialist Utopia. Both were bitterly resisted, often with arguments that sound strangely familiar.”

            The dominant arguments were based on competence and roles in society, not persecuting people for their genetic makeup. It wasn’t about “blackness” or gender per se but about preparedness to participate as equals while being dependents on others. It’s easy to look back after we’ve solved it all and expect they should have done it sooner. And it’s naive to do so.

          • hiernonymous

            “It’s easy to look back after we’ve solved it all and expect they should have done it sooner.”

            The comment wasn’t offered as a recrimination; it was offered as evidence that the Founders had not fully lived up to the ideals that they enshrined in the Declaration and the Constitution, and that every step toward bringing us more fulling into alinement with those ideals was resisted. The competence arguments, of course, are empty and tautological. To deny a group of people an education, then claim that their lack of education makes them unfit to participate as equals in society, is self-serving and self-perpetuating twaddle. That one persecutes a class of people in order to protect one’s own standing in society, rather than from a perverse desire to persecute, is hardly a recommendation, but it is human nature.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The competence arguments, of course, are empty and tautological. To deny a group of people an education, then claim that their lack of education makes them unfit to participate as equals in society, is self-serving and self-perpetuating twaddle.”

            Of course it’s wrong. But the point is that it was wrong before, and getting it right requires a lot more than merely recognizing that it’s wrong. Why can’t you understand that? It wasn’t that the dominant idea was that we should always run it this way, but how do we fix it without making it worse?

          • hiernonymous

            “…but how do we fix it without making it worse?”

            I understand it just fine. What you don’t want to acknowledge is that when you ask “how do we fix it without making it worse,” what is generally actually meant is “how do we fix it without upsetting my own standing and wealth?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What you don’t want to acknowledge is that when you ask “how do we fix it without making it worse,” what is generally actually meant is “how do we fix it without upsetting my own standing and wealth?””

            I did acknowledge that humans are by nature selfish that that this selfish nature would have to be challenged and it often was. Of course self-interest is a current and an issue that must be challenged. But that doesn’t mean it was the only one or even the dominant one.

            And if you’re so concerned about this always being a factor why would you care about change? You’re promoting one group or set of groups at the expense of others without knowing how the newly empowered groups will abuse their new power. What’s the point if we can’t ever trust those with power?

          • hiernonymous

            “And if you’re so concerned about this always being a factor why would you care about change?”

            That’s a very interesting and valid question. I don’t know that I have a great direct answer to it, but I’ll mention something I’ve noticed about how men behave in organized groups over the years.

            For example, in intelligence operations, you tend to have different possible organizational philosophies. On the one hand, you can organize people by their specific technical skills and disciplines: imagery analysts, signals analysts, linguists, etc. This has the advantage of consolidating scarce technical resources and providing the greatest flexibility for training and using individuals with those skills. It has the disadvantage of diluting the focus of those organizations in terms of target knowledge, and it reduces the possible synergy of cross-disciplinary feedback. Another possible organizational philosophy is to organize by targets, putting individuals of all disciplines on such teams. This has the advantage of ensuring that the analysts are target-smart, and increases synergy: there’s a great deal of cross-talk, and signals analysts are quick to cue other assets, for example. The disadvantages of this sort of organization are that discipline-specific skills tend to decay, and there’s much less flexibility and efficiency in using personnel (because there are fewer of a given discipline on a team, the loss of one of them for training, vacation, deployment, etc, is disproportionately large).

            What’s the point of this excursion? What I found, over many years, is that it’s not so important which of these organizational philosophies is implemented so much as it is important that it change every few years. Organizations tend to ossify; people get comfortable doing things the way they’ve always been done. Power relationships develop and become set. The healthiest organizations that I found were those that swung back and forth, changing frequently enough to breathe life into things and to keep up with changes in the environment, but not so often or radically that competence, resourcing, and morale suffered.

            I am leery of charges of “Utopianism” because it seems to indicate a resistance to all change. I believe that change is necessary in itself, independent of any ultimate “Utopian” goal. Having some sort of Utopia in mind may be useful in providing a healthy direction and sound ethical basis for the change, but the act of change is vital in itself.

            “What’s the point if we can’t ever trust those with power?”

            Another excellent question. I’d suggest that our primary objective should always be to prevent the accretion of power in such a manner that it cannot be effectively challenged. Societies tend toward aristocracy: whatever the form of government, those with wealth and power tend to find ways to keep that wealth and power and to pass it on to their offspring. We talk about tyranny, but it’s this trend toward aristocracy that I think is most insidious. Nobody can be trusted with power; the trick is to be alert and always try to dilute power such that, with a nod to Adam Przeworski, nobody enters a policy conflict assured of victory.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I am leery of charges of “Utopianism” because it seems to indicate a resistance to all change. I believe that change is necessary in itself, independent of any ultimate “Utopian” goal. Having some sort of Utopia in mind may be useful in providing a healthy direction and sound ethical basis for the change, but the act of change is vital in itself.”

            OK, so change for the sake of change is something that you value for yourself and for organizations where you are accountable for performance. And you’ve sort of extended that philosophy to just believe that change for the sake of change is probably good for all organizations.

            Adaptation is change. We should adapt to emerging realities. If we’re too rigid we may fail to adapt. I don’t oppose change for the sake of opposition for the same reasons that I don’t promote change for the sake of it. We should simply put a lot more thought in to anything we coerce others in to going along with whether we consider it adaptation, progress or whatever.

            “Another excellent question. I’d suggest that our primary objective should always be to prevent the accretion of power in such a manner that it cannot be effectively challenged.”

            Or that tilts in that direction. So we agree on most principals except you seem to have a blind spot or two for those who pose as altruistic but are in fact serving themselves. That’s true for most on the left.

            Our constitution gave us an excellent framework for accomplishing the ideals, or at least for working towards those ideals in objectively quantifiable ways. But when we start disparaging the authors as if they were somehow deficient or less intelligent than we are, it’s easier to forget some of the things they warned us about. In order to achieve the egalitarian state some people dream about, they’re willing to look at our forefathers as kind of ignorant bigots that didn’t go far enough and they were only good for getting us to a certain point. Now we need to just pick and choose the phrases of the constitution that inspire us and take it from there.

            The framework that they developed is supposed to force us to objectively justify every time we coerce someone to go along with our ideas, no matter how popular the idea is. They wanted us to be careful and I don’t think they were wrong and I don’t think they were motivated by bigotry or narcissistic selfishness when they established the various protocols and separations of powers.

            I think that many people are too haphazard about “progress” without thinking too much about what might happen if they get their way. It’s just easier to think of those who disagree with you as selfish reactionary bigots. Just because you can find examples of selfish bigots that do in fact disagree with you doesn’t mean there isn’t a better argument taking the same exact ultimate position, or close to it.

            “Societies tend toward aristocracy: whatever the form of government, those with wealth and power tend to find ways to keep that wealth and power and to pass it on to their offspring. We talk about tyranny, but it’s this trend toward aristocracy that I think is most insidious.”

            Our forefathers came up with some good ways to create what they believed would be a meritocracy, not a radically egalitarian society where somehow everyone was equal no matter their talents or efforts. There is no way to lead any society without leaders. Those leaders should be kept from abusing the privilege as much as is possible. A lot of the ideas that I hear from the left will lead to new abuses from different groups. Change for the sake of change is I guess all they can imagine.

            I believe however that most true progress comes from working together to lift each other up cooperatively. It doesn’t hurt me when someone has more power or wealth until they abuse it. It might even create opportunities for me if we’re both open to collaboration.

            It’s hard to develop the skills and attitude needed to find cooperative collaborative relationships when as a student I’m constantly being told about victim’s stories without setting the context in some kind of balanced way. Or else people will not see the great potential of our current systems. They’ll assume we need another revolution of some kind. Revolutions must destroy before anything good can possibly come. There are often better ways to achieve real progress than that.

          • Drakken

            The Aristocracy as whole have been far better than the religious counterparts especially islam, for under the Aristocracy life thrives and prospers, while under religious theocracies life becomes stagnant and regressive. Our Republic is the best system that man has produced, it is now becoming, decadent, weak, self indulgent, dumbed down now to the point that our very Republic is in danger of falling in upon itself out of some misguided leftist philosophy that all things are equal, when it is crystal clear that it isn’t.

          • hiernonymous

            “…for under the Aristocracy life thrives and prospers…”

            It does, does it?

            “Our Republic is the best system that man has produced, it is now becoming, decadent, weak, self indulgent, dumbed down now…”

            Right – cue the Gibbon references…

          • Drakken

            Western Civilization as a whole would disagree with you.

          • hiernonymous

            With which, exactly? I had her over to dinner about three weeks ago and she didn’t seem to take issue with either point then, but she’s known to be fickle.

            The Gibbon reference was simply a nod to the tendency of individuals in mature empires to make protracted comparisons of their own state with that of Imperial Rome, complete with analyses that attribute the fall of Rome to whatever social ill is bothering the speaker about his own society. I’m just as guilty of it as anyone else, but in my own defense, I haven’t done it sober or unprovoked in the past 15 years or so.

          • DB1954

            Wow. Amazing … One who claims a West Point education and sees all of history in class and class struggle terms. Hmm, where have we seen that before? I mean, other than the proto-Marxist boob and historian, Charles Beard?

          • hiernonymous

            What about my post suggests that I see “all history” in class struggle terms? Don’t fall victim to a tendency to draw conclusions broader than the evidence suggests.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That one persecutes a class of people in order to protect one’s own standing in society, rather than from a perverse desire to persecute, is hardly a recommendation, but it is human nature.”

            Yes, people are selfish. But when engaging in policy debates and carefully thinking through issues, holding oneself accountable to higher standards, people do reach mature decisions more often than you give them credit for. The problem was not that they couldn’t build consensus that it was wrong, but they could not build consensus on the right way to correct it. They could not come up with specific plans on their own but they left it with a legal framework that to me clearly implies that they wanted it to be fixed and hoped fervently that it would be, without making other things worse.

            But sure, some were selfish bigots and it’s easy to take the focus off of the fact that the left promotes delusional demagogues by pointing out the imperfections of our past.

            The real objection these reactionary bigots have is that they want to live in the past.

            Oh sure. I long for the days of slavery and I’m sure every “black” conservative does too. I’m sure they miss being house slaves as much as I miss arbitrarily whipping people.

          • DB1954

            Blah, blah, blah … now you’re an expert on US history, General?

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve taught it, but I wouldn’t call myself an ‘expert’ in it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In the case of same-sex marriage, I would argue that the preamble’s call to establish justice is the most compelling aspect, and promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty also apply.”

            I’m less concerned about equality before the law (which has already been established as a principle) than I am about alleged reparations and class victims and the rough justice that comes along with these new ideas. What worries me is not equality of individuals before the law, but collectivism and the fallacies of achieving “social justice” with new laws and interpretations driven by collectivist ideas.

            The state should have no role in marriage if there is no way for us to build a clear consensus on what marriage is. That’s a fair and reasonable compromise considering that its traditional grandfather status would be rejected and nobody could complain about inequality. Not that they would stop complaining but it would be easier to deal with.

          • hiernonymous

            “The state should have no role in marriage if there is no way for us to build a clear consensus on what marriage is.”

            But surely that consensus is exactly what’s emerging. You don’t appear to care for that consensus, but that wasn’t the basis of the objection, was it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But surely that consensus is exactly what’s emerging. You don’t appear to care for that consensus, but that wasn’t the basis of the objection, was it?”

            I already clearly articulated my objections. It’s not an objection to the consensus about what marriage is, but about protecting those who disagree when it comes to modern ideas about social justice.

            The state should not block anyone from getting married to whoever they want. The state should also not coerce others to accept new ideas about what blocks of people can come up with and lawfully act on any new ideas. The state should have no role if the consensus is that the old role is somehow unlawfully prejudicial.

            My problem is that the social engineers want to come along and decide what the next steps are, and it all boils down to growing federal government power for the sake of growing government sovereignty in place of individual liberties.

          • hiernonymous

            “The state should also not coerce others to accept new ideas about what
            blocks of people can come up with and lawfully act on any new ideas.”

            I’m not sure exactly what this means. Who is being coerced into accepting ideas? Are you talking, for example, about requiring a hospital to treat a man’s husband as a spouse – allowing him access to the same sorts of information and deferring to him on the same sorts of decisions that a wife would have had? Or, for example, while a civilian minister could choose whom to marry, a military chaplain, as an agent of the government, would be required to perform services for all legally eligible servicemembers – is that the sort of thing you’re talking about, or did you have something else entirely in mind?

            “My problem is that the social engineers want to come along and decide what the next steps are…”

            Well, anyone who envisions a change to society is a ‘social engineer’ by this outlook, is he not? Who is going to effect any change in society whatsoever, except those who have identified and need and a path to get there?

            If it weren’t for ‘growing federal government power,’ homeowners’ associations would still be free to enforce deed restrictions against selling homes to blacks; it would seem that social engineering, as you put it, is not necessarily a bad thing, and it’s hard to see how any ‘individual liberties’ were threatened there.

            Perhaps a sympathetic reading of your fears is that you are concerned that it will not stop at fixing genuine injustices and will become a tool for creating a new privileged class – one of which you are not a member. I suppose that there are two incompatible answers:
            1. Too bad for you. Privilege goes where power goes, and if you no longer represent power, then you and yours will get the opportunity to experience life from the perspective of those whose suffering was previously very hypothetical. That’s pretty cynical and callous and disturbing, but it’s an approach.
            2. Actual change generally results from the vision of the “Utopians” running headfirst into the resistance of the conservatives (in the old-school sense of the term), and it’s highly unlikely that there will be truly radical transformation unless a genuine injustice is too long left unaddressed. In short, French Revolutions don’t usually happen unless the current aristocracy is so set on rejecting all change that only the radical can succeed. From that perspective, what’s happening in our country is healthy indeed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Who is being coerced into accepting ideas?”

            Right now bakers and photographers, not to mention public school students who are being indoctrinated to “accept” gays and gay marriage.

          • DB1954

            Take a look at what Barack Obama has done for the past 5 years. That might be a starting point for you. uh … sir.

          • hiernonymous

            What are you referring to, specifically? There are several policies of the Obama Administration that give me pause, and a couple that deeply concern me, but I’m not sure which you’re trying to highlight here.

          • DB1954

            Zero-care for one. The appointment of judges to the federal judiciary who act as if they’ve never heard of the 10th Amendment for another.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay, what, exactly, about the ACA do you want to apply to OFM’s argument? There are a few directions you could go with that.

            Appointment of judges doesn’t strike me as unusual. Which decisions by these judges stand out to you as unusually dismissive of the 10th Amendment, in contrast to prevailing legal norms?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, anyone who envisions a change to society is a ‘social engineer’ by this outlook, is he not?”

            No. By envisioning and discussing change, you’re participating. By trying to engineer from the top down, you’re trying to promote yourself to something above society.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If it weren’t for ‘growing federal government power,’ homeowners’ associations would still be free to enforce deed restrictions against selling homes to blacks; it would seem that social engineering, as you put it, is not necessarily a bad thing, and it’s hard to see how any ‘individual liberties’ were threatened there.”

            As I’ve said many many times. it’s not an objection to any increase in size or scope. Obviously there is no way to avoid growth and no sane person wants to avoid growth or true progress. We’ve grown as a nation and discovered some legitimate new roles for the government. If the objectives are legitimate and the management is sound, there is nothing wrong with growth per se. My objection is to growth in the federal government for the sake of additional sovereignty over its citizens for unjustified delusional objectives, like “social justice” and radical interventions in markets. Actually any time you find the phrase “social justice” you can be sure that if there are no delusional idiots trying to scam you that they’ll be arriving soon.

          • hiernonymous

            Okay, I think I understand your position a little better. I’d only say that it’s one thing to hear “social justice” with healthy skepticism, and another entirely to dismiss it out of hand.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Social justice is an ideal that requires altruism. If it was simple justice people were after, they would say so. What people are looking for is “justice” that can’t be accomplished as we define it already.

            Social justice can be attempted voluntarily when people are exhorted to respond by giving their time and money. Or it can be attempted coercively by making people believe (those who would gain illicitly) that social justice is something we can objectively weigh and pursue and that it is a right “we” (who? the victims groups of course) or certain people have (as groups) and it ends up being the rhetoric of class warfare.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Perhaps a sympathetic reading of your fears is that you are concerned that it will not stop at fixing genuine injustices and will become a tool for creating a new privileged class – one of which you are not a member.”

            I could be a member of the new oligarchy if I chose to be. You assume that everyone is irredeemably selfish but you and those that agree with you as a paragon of altruism.

            “I suppose that there are two incompatible answers:
            1. Too bad for you. Privilege goes where power goes, and if you no longer represent power, then you and yours will get the opportunity to experience life from the perspective of those whose suffering was previously very hypothetical. That’s pretty cynical and callous and disturbing, but it’s an approach.”

            If that reflects the simple reality then the approach should be that people simply try to win.

            “2. Actual change generally results from the vision of the “Utopians” running headfirst into the resistance of the conservatives (in the old-school sense of the term), and it’s highly unlikely that there will be truly radical transformationunless a genuine injustice is too long left unaddressed. In short, French Revolutions don’t usually happen unless the current aristocracy is so set on rejecting all change that only the radical can succeed. From that perspective, what’s happening in our country is healthy indeed.”

            Luckily for us there are more than two factions. You’re saying we’re lucky that it’s not worse because the leftist demagogues could possibly be even more regressive. Things could always be worse.

            It’s most important to define things accurately as they are, without forgetting how they got that way. That’s how you have the best results when trying to plot a course for a successful future.

          • hiernonymous

            “You assume that everyone is irredeemably selfish but you and those that agree with you as a paragon of altruism.”

            Not at all. I don’t think I’m any better, or could be trusted with power, more than anyone else. Sorry if the brief nature of my remarks leaves that impression.

          • Drakken

            With the way the US is going, a French Style reaction is what may come to pass with the Political class being on the receiving end.

          • DGCJ

            I wish the USA had the attitude of the French government towards marriage. Do you know that religious weddings aren’t legal in France? You can marry in a church, but only after you’ve been legally married at city hall, and the government does not allow the religious ceremony to qualify as a “marriage.” Call it something else, like holy matrimony, but it’s not a marriage. That’s true separation of church and state. Germany has similar policies, and religious weddings aren’t legal, nor are they called “marriage.”

          • Drakken

            Wrong, in Germany and France it is called marriage, quit being so bloody obtuse princess.

          • DGCJ

            Nope, princess, religious ceremonies do not qualify as a marriage in much of Europe. Tell us how much you hate women. I love to hear about how straight men truly hate women and anything feminine. Women disgust you, don’t they? Is that why you beat on them and rape them?

          • Drakken

            I love woman shortbus, where you came up with the nonsense and stupidity is beyond me, Frankly I know some Saudis that would love your company , I just can’t guarantee you will be in the same shape coming back as you went, they get a little rough. One thing is for sure, little shrill, effeminate, loud mouths like you really are cheap entertainment to say the least. Keep it up princess cupcake, your a hoot.

          • DB1954

            lmbo :-D

          • DGCJ

            THE TARGETS

            Young women, low-income women and some
            minorities are disproportionately victims of domestic violence and rape. Women
            ages 20-24 are at greatest risk of nonfatal domestic violence8, and women age 24
            and under suffer from the highest rates of rape.9 The Justice Department
            estimates that one in five women will experience rape or attempted rape during
            their college years, and that less than five percent of these rapes will be
            reported

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What could your point be?

            Nothing short of pure communism can fix this mess that the capitalists created, that’s for sure.

          • Drakken

            With the way the US is going, a French Style reaction is what may come to pass with the Political class being on the receiving end.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          Rubbish. Irrespective of the legality of same-sex marriage, the same heterosexual couples are going to unite in the same marriage, crank out the same kids and sue for divorce. There is no effect on “perpetuating the state.”

          Perhaps you should actually read the 14th Amendment as well as some case law,.

      • DB1954

        Virginia did NOT have a ban on SSM. No state has ever had a “ban” on SSM. What VA had and was robbed of, was its 10th Amendment right and authority to define marriage in the State of Virginia and the definition of marriage itself.

        • DGJC

          If VA didn’t have a ban on gay marriage why were the plaintiffs in this case denied a denied a marriage license? You are clueless….

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          The Tenth Amendment does not give a state the right to violate the US Constitution. Justice Kennedy makes this abundantly clear in his opinion in Windsor.

      • Omar

        Obama is a mixed-race president, you loon. He is half-black and half-white. The president is not even directly related to the historical African diaspora in the Western Hemisphere, as his father is from Kenya (which is located in East Africa), while the ancestors of most black people in the Western Hemisphere came from West Africa. Anyway, the Founding Fathers believed that all men (meaning all people) are created equal. In fact, in Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that people were equal regardless of race and that race-based slavery was a result of colonialism (in this case, British colonialism). But Jefferson had to edit that part out in order to get Southern colonists to join the fight for independence, as many Southern colonists were loyalists or were loyal sympathizers of the British. Contrast the Founding Fathers’ long-term goal of liberty and justice for all with the long-term goal of the black racist Marxist dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, who stated that “white farmers have no future in Zimbabwe”. Who is the racist and bigot there?

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          It’s hard to separate the inaccuracies from David Barton mythology. For that matter, I am trying to figure out how this relates to the post that you are seemingly replying to.

          What part of Africa the President’s ancestors came from seem entirely irrelevant. You seem to make this identical comment repeatedly in this venue as if you are trying to demonstrate some measure of erudition.

          How Mugabe fits in is beyond reasonable comprehension.

  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

    This is close to an argument ad hominem. Nevertheless, the judge erred in citing the Constitution in contrast to the Declaration of Independence.

    Nevertheless, none of this has anything to do with an opinion based upon precedent. She even cites Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Windsor as reason to conclude that Windsor establishes a logical path to marriage equality.

    Ultimately, this is an issue of Constitutional rights of Equal Protection and Due Process. Those are the grounds for argument – not what amounts to an irrelevant typo.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      A judge who this unfamiliar with the Constitution isn’t qualified to rule on Constitutional rights.

      • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

        Daniel:

        Have you actually read the full opinion? It is well reasoned and based on clearly established precedent from Utah, Oklahoma and, of course, Windsor. Moreover, it demonstrates a complete understanding of the 14th Amendment.

        On the surface, this is one of the President’s weaker nominations. I will grant you that. She was strongly recommended by Senator Webb. At the time I voiced concern because she is married to a man from Jamaica. She lacks the academic credentials that we expect of federal judges.

        However, this is quite similar to the opinion by Judge Shelby in Utah. Shelby , a Republican and a Mormon, was hand picked by Hatch and had the support of Sen. Lee. He has the usual erudition that we expect of a federal DCJ.

        • rxpc

          “Have you actually read the full opinion? It is well reasoned and based
          on clearly established precedent from Utah, Oklahoma and, of course,
          Windsor. Moreover, it demonstrates a complete understanding of the 14th
          Amendment.” Probably written by a law student clerk who actually does have the knowledge, but not the power. It still doesn’t excuse the obscene confusion of our two founding documents.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Exactly. She’s a puppet.

          • DB1954

            A tool and a fool.

          • DB1954

            The only precedent you can cite is from the Cali case or your precious Judge Shelby both of which were decided what? Less than 5 years ago by a TRIAL court judge? Every first year law student knows that opinions by federal district court judges are not authoritative or binding on other trial courts. They’re merely persuasive. The SCOTUS needs to take up the question directly NOW.

          • DGJC

            I agree that the Supreme Court needed to take up this issue a year ago. But everyone knows they are basically cowards when it comes to sweeping social issues. They know the American public is now close to majority support for gay marriage and they want to make sure this is what the country is ready for. However, they overturned the interracial marriage bans when a full 90 percent of the country opposes interracial marriage. I guess judges in the 60s didn’t care about public opinion as much?

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            ALL opinions are written by clerks. I fault the judge for not picking this error out in the final draft. Nevertheless, this error has no effect on the well reasoned opinion.

          • DB1954

            You think? So the judge, who should have picked up on this little pooh-pooh nugget but failed to do so–the very basis for the holding itself–this is your definition of a “well-reasoned opinion”?

          • DGJC

            By the way, even though “all men are create equal” IS in the Virginia constitution, this judge has already issued an apology and correction of her oversight.

        • DB1954

          I don’t give a damn what Judge Shelby had to say about the 14th Amendment. Judge Shelby is simply dead wrong. The California federal judge who was the first to strike down a state’s marriage law was also a Republican, appointed by Bush 41. Within about a month after he issued the opinion striking down Cali’s marriage law, he retired from the bench, and shortly thereafter, he admitted that he’s homosexual. But SSM opponents were not allowed to raise the issue of bias on appeal. He had all the erudition that one would expect, and in fact, he was pilloried by the far left in Cali for being a “tool” of the “corporate interests” right up to the very day he wrote the pro-SSM opinion.

          WHY were you so concerned that Allen is married to a man from Jamaica? Is there something wrong with that? How does that bear on her qualifications to be a federal district court judge? I’m failing to see her shortcomings in that regard. The reason she’s not qualified is her abject ignorance of American history and the sad, even terrible consequences this will have for the entire country. America just took one huge turn off the left side cliff. This country is more and more lawless every day. What will it take for you to understand that these Obama people are NOT liberals? They’re radical leftists!

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            I’m not going to argue with you but you are factually incorrect about Judge Walker. Before trial EVERYONE knew that he is gay. They also knew that he ruled against gay interests in the past. His original appointment to the bench was not confirmed because he was considered anti-gay. Moreover, Judge Walker’s sexual orientation was most certainly raised on appeal. The matter was argued before the panel. All three judges on the panel (including the dissenter on the eventual opinion) determined that the issue was meritless.

            You can argue that Shelby was wrong; Oklahoma and Kentucky too and five Justices of the Supreme Court. Their opinions count – yours doesn’t.

            As for Allen, she spent most of her career in JAG. Those folks tend to be rather conservative. Furthermore, TED OLSON is extremely conservative. He represents the Koch brothers and is pillar of the Federalist Society. Cato also wrote an amicus brief in Windsor supporting marriage equality. Do you doubt Cato’s conservative credentials? True conservatives honer the Establishment Clause.

          • DB1954

            1. None of that is true. Put it up if you have the evidence.

            2. I never said that Walker’s confession of homosexuality WASN’T brought up on appeal. I know it was, so where did I say it wasn’t?

          • DB1954

            JAG????????? Affirmative action JAG??????? JAG would be a reason she SHOULDN’T be on that bench! She’s just doubling down on that government check LBJ and Obama promised her.

          • A Z

            “WHY were you so concerned that Allen is married to a man from Jamaica? Is there something wrong with that?”

            Mr Hart is gay. He is a fan of at least one really vile blog. So vile in fact that they scrub the site periodically.

            He has a score card and Jamaica is on the naughty list.

          • DB1954

            Okay, thanks for the info, but I still don’t understand what this is about.

          • DGJC

            And why did you leave out the part of the story regarding the Mormon judges in the 9th Ciruit, one district and one circuit, who upheld the ban on gay marriage in CA and Nevada? I say let’s impeach them. They shouldn’t be using their personal cu lt beliefs in a courtroom.

          • DB1954

            To save time?

          • DGJC

            I agree that SCOTUS really dodged the real issue in Prop 8. I was particularly puzzled because the California Supreme Court was asked if the defendants of Prop 8 had legal standing and they decided that they did have the authority to defend it. So, why did SCOTUS rule differently? I think Sotomayor and maybe other Justices were ready to invalidate all bans and uphold gay marriage as a right. She did not vote with the majority opinion on Prop 8, it means she wanted to rule on the merits.

          • DGJC

            You may not know that the gay community was very concerned when Judge Walker was the judge for Prop 8 because he had previously voted against gays in a high profile case. They were afraid of a repeat. The news of his sexual orientation being homosexual was a big surprise to many.

        • A Z

          “At the time I voiced concern because she is married to a man from Jamaica. She lacks the academic credentials that we expect of federal judges.”

          To prove it you could link the post to your blog.

          Married to a foreign national might be a security risk but she is not in a job that requires a security clearance. It seems security clearances are a joke anyway.

          Why is being married to a foreign national in and of itself a problem? Does he intend to become a naturalized citizen or does he intend to stay a Jamaican citizen because he does not like the U.S.? If the latter that would be a problem?

          Being married to a foreign national is not as risky as being Buzzy Ginsberg who want to incorporate foreign law into the U.S. constitution and all the other nonsense she has spouted.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            Ugh! You can skip all the Tea Party drivel.

            She is married to a citizen of the most homophobic country in the world after Uganda. That caused me some concern at the time.

            Presumably, were she married to a Saudi national, the right wing echo chamber would have been in apoplexy.

          • A Z

            Buzzy is a wreck of an intellect. I have not been to any Tea Part sites or listened to Palin or whatever. Why did you say Tea Party Drivel?

            Why not come right out and say Tea Bagger Drivel? Why not? I saw your blog roll.

            “She is married to a citizen of the most homophobic country in the world after Uganda”

            If I had drawn an inference from the general to the specific, some people here would have been all over it.

          • A Z

            Your blog roll does not look like a left wing echo chamber?

          • Drakken

            What would be a fun exercise in tolerance, would be for you to go to Saudi and yell your gay and proud, let’s see where that lesson on tolerance gets you?

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

            The same thing that would happen if you attempted to convert people to Christianity or Judaism. The fact that Saudi Arabia is, essentially, a theocracy has no bearing. How is that related to tolerance in this country?

            Our Constitution prohibits laws in recognition of religion. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus et al are treated equally. What is your point?

        • DB1954

          Why would one have to read the full opinon? After a person who is supposed to be a first rate thinker and scholar comes up with crap like mixing up the Decl. of Indep. with the Constitution! I wouldn’t waste my time.

      • DB1954

        Impeachment is in order.

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ DavidHart

          Right lets impeach all the judges who make decisions that you don’t like. Makes perfect sense to me.

        • DGJC

          Let’s impeach the Mormon judge who upheld Nevada’s: ban on gay marriage. Talk about conflict of interest!! How was a Mormon judge allowed to hear a case on gay marriage without a very loud public outcry? Outrageous!!!

      • DGJC

        This article leaves out the fact that “all men are created equal” is in the Vieginia constitution! Oops! I hope the author apologizes. Not in our lifetime.

        • DB1954

          NOT in the federal! There just might be a very good reason why it is in VA and not in the Fed. She’s a federal judge. Duh.

          • DGJC

            Did she mention whether she was referring to the Commonwealth or Federal constitution? I don’t read that. But she has since apologized for what she has herself acknowledged was an error. You won’t see this poor author retracting his article any time soon.

      • DGJC

        By the way, the author of this poorly written article seems to completely misunderstand the issue of bakers and photographers re gay marriage. When someone can prove to me that baking a cake or taking a picture is a religious act or ritual, I will be sympathetic to their concern about providing these services to gay couples. Until that point, your victimhood is not compelling. I am an Atheist musician who has played for Jewish, Catholic and Protestant weddings all of which deeply offended my personal beliefs. I felt very uncomfortable during the communion when they were participating in their cannibalism. But I did my job as I was paid to do. In many states refusing public accommodation simply because you don’t like gays is a violation of the law, and you should be held accountable. Your victimhood is phony. Give it a rest. If you refuse to bake a cake for gays you should be sued. End of discussion. We’re not talking about a clergyman performing a ceremony and most bakers don’t even attend the wedding anyway.

        • DB1954

          We’re so sorry that your personal beliefs were offended at every one of those religous ceremonies for which voluntarily contracted to play your precious little flute, or whatever, but you seem not to understand that you don’t have a constitutional right NOT to be offended. I mean, unless the General here cares to take issue–and explain why you do. He’s really good at creating those post-modernist arguments that turn a chestnut into a chesnut horse and a chesnut horse into a chesnut. I guess he learned that on your tax dollars at West Point.

          • DGJC

            Of course you missed the point when I mentioned that baking a cake and taking pictures isn’t a religious act and therefore doesn’t qualify you under any circumstances as being a victim of gay marriage. Its just another way for phony religious people to complain that gays are rears equally. I’m sorry, but my right to marry trumps your right to decline to services me in a public accommodation. Keep whining. It’s entertaining. By the way, I’m a concert pianist

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By the way, I’m a concert pianist”

            Great. I’d like you to create an original piano performance dedicated to the love of traditional Christian marriage. Will you accept the commission?

            Baking an “off the shelf” cake is about like performing on a musical instrument. Creating a custom cake with a specific theme would be more analogous to authoring music.

            Taking photos according to a script, for some functional reason would be like playing a piano from sheet music. Taking photos at an event that requires artistic decisions is more akin to playing a live semi-scripted (not fully scripted) performance accompanying someone you must interact with. It matters how you get along with the other performer or the subject.

            You want scripted products and services? Anyone should be able to get that. You want commissioned work that requires any artistic (custom, creative work specific to the project) result and you should not be able to coerce people to perform. Nobody should be able to coerce such performances. I’m not even talking about who defines what “religious rituals” are. You should simply not be able to use the law to coerce an artistic performance. End of discussion.

            It’s arguable that musicians performing sheet music should also not be required to perform either, but that’s less controversial. Playing a piano is just working a machine.

            It doesn’t matter what you consider a religious act. It’s not your beliefs that matter to others, dumbass.

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, I don’t compose music, and when I play for a wedding I use Classical compositions that have nothing to do with promoting “Christian” marriage. What a silly concept.

            And, your blathering about whether taking pictures is an artistic venture or just documenting an event is kind of silly. It doesn’t matter in the least, because taking a photograph is not a religious rite nor ritual, and therefore should not be referred to as a protected “religious liberty.” it’s nonsense… I stick by my original assertion, which the courts have agreed with: no religious liberties are compromised when you provide public accommodation services for a wedding. Therefore, refusing to bake a cake or take photographs, or provide outfits for a gay wedding is discrimination and your refusal is grounds for legal action against such discrimination. Pretty simple, actually.
            And, your beliefs are NOT compromised if you do any of those things. Therefore, you have no case. You lost this argument.
            By the way, since when is composing music a religious act? That’s a new one on me.

          • Drakken

            Let me guess? Your wore the dress didn’t you? Oh how quaint and cute. Keep on whining there princess, it will really endear you to the rest of us.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sorry, I don’t compose music, and when I play for a wedding I use Classical compositions that have nothing to do with promoting “Christian” marriage.”

            So you’d refuse the way the photographer and baker refused.

            “What a silly concept.”

            That’s very similar to what they said.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, your blathering about whether taking pictures is an artistic venture or just documenting an event is kind of silly. It doesn’t matter in the least, because taking a photograph is not a religious rite nor ritual, and therefore should not be referred to as a protected “religious liberty.” ”

            1) I didn’t say that it was a religious liberty.
            2) It is not up to you or the government to limit what a person does to express their religious convictions as long as they are not explicitly violating your rights when doing it or refusing to dance for you like a zoo monkey.
            3) Freedom to express oneself religiously or politically is important just as the freedom from compulsion to contradict the same convictions is.

            “Therefore, refusing to bake a cake or take photographs, or provide outfits for a gay wedding is discrimination and your refusal is grounds for legal action against such discrimination.”

            And I outlined a legitimate defense.

            “And, your beliefs are NOT compromised if you do any of those things. Therefore, you have no case. You lost this argument.”

            You are a completely partisan hack or totally unable to see value in any view other than your own. A wedding ceremony is religious in the eyes of virtually all religious people. We have freedom of religious expression for a number of reasons and one of them is certainly due to the fact that there is no single unifying standard to determine where religious expression begins and ends. It’s up to the believer.

            You are a religious believer. If you didn’t believe in rituals you would not support and participate in them. Objective observers can see that you have religious beliefs. Who defines them? Do you want people that disagree with you or that are even disgusted with you to define what religion is or is not? Isn’t that how we got here?

            Do you not see your own hypocrisy or do you simply not care because fighting the partisan fight is all that defines you?

          • DGCJ

            Guess what? Your “legitimate” defense of bigotry has not passed legal muster in courts, and they agree that denying public accommodation services to gay couples is discrimination in those states which have such laws. Sorry, you lost, and will continue to lose. No freedoms are lost when you participate in a gay wedding. You are free to disagree with gay marriage, you are free to think it is a sin, you are still free to hate gay people, but you CANNOT refuse service to gays, just that simple… You have no case.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Guess what? Your “legitimate” defense of bigotry…”

            Are you paying any attention to the conversation? Or is all of your focus on your formidable outrage?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “No freedoms are lost when you participate in a gay wedding.”

            Your position is actually that, “No freedoms are lost when you forced to participate in a gay wedding.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You are free to disagree with gay marriage, you are free to think it is a sin, you are still free to hate gay people, but you CANNOT refuse service to gays, just that simple… You have no case.”

            I’m not arguing for my own personal interests or as a partisan. I already stated my case where the line should be drawn. You ignore the most salient issues raised here. You’re a partisan.

          • DGCJ

            And, the hilarious part is that you don’t even see your own hypocrisy. If you can hang a sign in your bakery saying “no gay couples allowed”, then I can hang a sign that says “I don’t play for Christians, Jews or Buddhists.” See what a hypocrite you are? You’d jump all over me in a minute if I refused to serve Christians.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Most of the “dialog” you’re experiencing actually comes from your own mind.

            “If you can hang a sign in your bakery saying “no gay couples allowed”, then I can hang a sign that says “I don’t play for Christians, Jews or Buddhists.””

            We’re not talking about refusing trade with classes of people. We’re talking about political, artistic and religious expression and the freedoms people have according to the US constitution.

            “You’d jump all over me in a minute if I refused to serve Christians.”

            You have the exacty same rights defined in precisely the same way. That’s not good enough for you.

          • DGCJ

            Yep, a wedding service might be a religious act, but baking a cake for a wedding involves no religious ritual nor act, and a baker usually doesn’t even attend a wedding in the first place. And, to top it off, the gay couple might be having a religious or civil ceremony, which means THEIR religion and “god” approves of gay marriage. Sorry, your beliefs don’t trump theirs, and that’s why your victimhood is not compelling in the least. Unless you are a clergyman, you cannot refuse to service a gay wedding in those states which have strict anti-discrimination laws, PERIOD.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yep, a wedding service might be a religious act…”

            Very good. We’re getting somewhere.

            “…but baking a cake for a wedding involves no religious ritual nor act…”

            It can be seen as participating, particularly if a custom (non-fungible) product is made as part of the ritual.

            “…and a baker usually doesn’t even attend a wedding in the first place.”

            Not necessarily relevant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, to top it off, the gay couple might be having a religious or civil ceremony, which means THEIR religion and “god” approves of gay marriage.”

            Correct.

            “Sorry, your beliefs don’t trump theirs, and that’s why your victimhood is not compelling in the least.”

            There is at least one choice you’re forgetting. What is so crucial about your zero sum approach? Why can’t you leave each other alone? Why must your rights trump there’s?

            “Unless you are a clergyman, you cannot refuse to service a gay wedding in those states which have strict anti-discrimination laws, PERIOD.”

            Dumbass, many religions consider all of their believers to be members of the clergy. Your view of clergy membership is totally irrelevant.

          • DGCJ

            And, who are you to say I’m not disgusted by heterosexuality? I am. And, the fact is that I’ve performed for countless heterosexual weddings, which violate my personal beliefs, and don’t even pass the ‘ick” factor.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, who are you to say I’m not disgusted by heterosexuality? I am. And, the fact is that I’ve performed for countless heterosexual weddings, which violate my personal beliefs, and don’t even pass the ‘ick” factor.”

            If you’re providing fungible products or services, you should do that. If you’re providing non-fungible products or services, it should be left to your conscience, not the state. In the end anyone can infer that you’re just an awesome person or that you carry about money. But our judgment about your motives shouldn’t really matter, now should it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “By the way, since when is composing music a religious act? That’s a new one on me.”

            Keep playing stupid.

          • DGCJ

            By the way, the photographer who was sued in New Mexico for refusing to accommodate a lesbian couple (the state sued her, not the couple) used your argument of “artistic expression being compromised” and was shot down for it. The court didn’t buy it, and neither do I.

            Here’s a brilliant summary of the whole thing:
            http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/04/new-mexico-supreme-court-anti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I understand what happened. That’s why I’m pissed. That’s why I’m disturbed enough to start taking my time to oppose Gay Liberation Theology posing as some kind of fundamental human right comparable to the right to draw breath that trumps the rights of all others.

          • DGCJ

            Sexual orientation is a fundamental human right. Science has PROVEN that people are born homosexual, and it was decades ago. This is not news. And, I find it so very disingenuous of the religious right to claim that they are entitled to “freedumbs” and “protections” under the law because of their religious CHOICE, and yet they claim that homosexuals do not have the same rights. Even IF homosexuality were a choice, which it isn’t, please tell me why your religious choice trumps my sexual choices. It doesn’t, and it won’t, at least not after Lawrence v Texas, which ruled that every American citizen has a RIGHT to their own personal sexual choices. So, you’re screwed.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Sexual orientation is a fundamental human right.”

            What does that mean?

            “Science has PROVEN that people are born homosexual, and it was decades ago.”

            This is false. Obviously you’re no scientist. We hope. Then again…you might have a government job playing a scientist.

            “And, I find it so very disingenuous of the religious right to claim that they are entitled to “freedumbs” and “protections” under the law because of their religious CHOICE, and yet they claim that homosexuals do not have the same rights.”

            You have the same rights dummy. Those rights apply to individuals. It seems like perhaps as a cultural Marxist you think the concept of “rights” means that you can pursue collective justice and make society equally pleasant for you and your new religion and culture. That’s cultural Marxism. The US constitution does not necessarily support the rights of collectives by violating the rights of individuals.

            “Even IF homosexuality were a choice, which it isn’t, please tell me why your religious choice trumps my sexual choices.”

            It doesn’t. If people disagree, we don’t force them in to unnecessary relationships just because “social justice.” You want to “win” when the solution is to leave others alone when they disagree with you rather than having them forced to defend their views and then you playing the victim when you had other choices in the first place.

            “It doesn’t, and it won’t, at least not after Lawrence v Texas, which ruled that every American citizen has a RIGHT to their own personal sexual choices.”

            That’s not the issue.

            “So, you’re screwed.”

            I’m not, even if that is your goal.

            You seem unable to look at any of this objectively. And you teach? That’s a big part of the problem; putting people like you in to positions of authority.

          • DGJC

            And one more thing, the cases of people getting sued for refusing to serve gay people have occurred in states where gay marriage wasn’t legal. Your arguments are stale and not compelling and the courts have agreed. Cry babies

          • DGCJ

            The same condescending attitude you used towards me can easily be turned around and used against those who “object” to gay marriage on religious groups. I don’t have ANY sympathy towards those people. I don’t care what your personal beliefs are, they are NOT compromised if you service a gay wedding. When my husband and I got married six years ago in CA we made sure to vet every business associated with our wedding to ensure there were no homopho–ic a-holes anywhere near our special day. Now, I don’t actually have a lot of sympathy for those gay couples who ended up suing the businesses who wouldn’t service their weddings, but I think most of them turned the issue over to the state, who handled the lawsuits. It is telling that not one of these has gone in favor of “religious liberty” protections, rather the opposite has occurred. If you refuse to service gays in states with anti-discrimination laws, you are in violation of the law. Just that simple. Don’t like the law? Change it…

          • Drakken

            You certainly are a whinny little bitch aren’t you? Of course it is all about you, why how dare anyone offend you and your precious little sensibilities, we just can’t have you having a little emotional meltdown now can we?

          • DGCJ

            Here’s a summary of why the photographer in New Mexico was breaking the law by refusing to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony:
            http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/04/new-mexico-supreme-court-anti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer

          • DB1954

            Why do you bother? I don’t visit websites recommended by cultural Marxists.

          • DGCJ

            That’s not a website for Marxists, you dum—a-ss. It’s a legal website.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You are a cultural Marxist. Virtually all cultural Marxists are dupes. That means you strenuously disagree with what any educated and objective observer can discern about your agenda.

          • DB1954

            He’s also a cultural Marxist who can’t read. I called HIM a cultural Marxist–not the website.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I saw that. He’s very emotional when fighting for the right to dominate and oppress other religions with his own religious beliefs.

          • DGCJ

            The words “educated” and “conservative” do not belong in the same sentence. An “educated conservative” is an oxymoron.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Repeating mantras increases the likelihood that they are true. According to many religions. It also helps keep the mind off of inconvenient facts when it’s more pleasant to live in denial.

          • DB1954

            I very well know that it’s not a Marxist website. I didn’t say it was, dum bass. I said that YOU’RE a cultural Marxist.

          • DGCJ

            I realize that education hurts the brains of you conservaturds, but you’ve got to TRY.

          • DB1954

            You know me so well, after all DGCJ. Say, aren’t you late for your blood transfusion?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            So you’re representing the educated man these days?

          • DB1954

            How about answering the question: why did you say that I said Justia is a Marxist website? I never said that, so why’d you accuse me of saying that?

          • DGCJ

            You said the site was recommended by a cultural Marxist. I’m a Socialist, not a Marxist. Learn the difference, dummy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The state law then just might be in conflict with the US constitution.

      • DGCJ

        Wait, I just realized this whole website is “tongue-in-cheek,” just like Stephen Colbert and “The Onion”. Gotcha! I’m sorry I didn’t get it the first time. I just read some of your other articles and they are so ridiculously over the top absurd at making fun of rightwinger mentality. Well done! I didn’t “get it” until now… Sorry, been a slow day.

      • DGCJ

        What are the chances we could get a repeal on the 2nd amendment going? It’s one of my pet peeves. I’d like a repeal of the 2nd amendment and legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Keep trying. It’s part of the Marxist agenda so it’s no shock to hear you bundle that with your “gay rights.”

          • DGCJ

            Here’s why the rightwing whining about “religious liberties” being lost
            when gays get married is phony, and won’t hold up in court:

            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/18/kansas-anti-gay-bill-another-attempt-to-force-warped-christianity-on-others/

            Kansas’ anti-gay bill another attempt to force warped
            Christianity on others

            By Jill Filipovic, The Guardian
            Tuesday,
            February 18, 2014 6:36 EST

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gay liberties, gay autonomy and gay authority are much more important than traditional religious liberties. Traditional religious liberties are passe.

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, but when you attend a gay wedding, or participate by providing services your religious free dums are intact. You are still free to oppose gay marriage and think that homosexuality is a sin. Your argument has not received any credibility nor traction in courts. They see through your religious liberty canard as patent big-otry.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            According to your Marxist religion, you get to define the limits for everything.

          • DGCJ

            And, the point is that your victimhood pertaining to gay weddings is nothing less than dressed up big-otry. And, the courts have seen it that way, as well. They even went so far as to point out that bans on gay marriage are a form of “moral disapproval” of homosexuality, and that it has little to do with anything else. I’m sorry, but you’re transparent, and the whole “religious liberties” argument has failed miserably. I suggest you find another argument, because it’s not compelling, and is actually quite embarrassing. The House of Representatives in Kansas has been humiliated because they support evil legislation meant to discriminate against gays blatantly, and fortunately some Republicans in the Senate stopped it before it got too far. Otherwise, their legislature would have been the laughing stock of the nation, and rightly so. It was no different from Jim Crow. They were advocating that any businessman could deny services to gay couples for ANY reason whatsoever. Absurd. And, unconstitutional!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And, the point is that your victimhood pertaining to gay weddings is nothing less than dressed up big-otry. And, the courts have seen it that way, as well. They even went so far as to point out that bans on gay marriage are a form of “moral disapproval” of homosexuality, and that it has little to do with anything else.”

            I’m not advocating a ban on “gay weddings.” I’m advocating a ban on collectivism.

            “I suggest you find another argument, because it’s not compelling, and is actually quite embarrassing.”

            You should be embarrassed that you can’t follow the dialog but I sense that you’re too busy ranting.

            “The House of Representatives in Kansas has been humiliated because they support evil legislation meant to discriminate against gays blatantly, and fortunately some Republicans in the Senate stopped it before it got too far. Otherwise, their legislature would have been the laughing stock of the nation, and rightly so. It was no different from Jim Crow. They were advocating that any businessman could deny services to gay couples for ANY reason whatsoever. Absurd. And, unconstitutional!”

            I haven’t read it. But I don’t trust your analysis based on what you’ve written already.

          • DGCJ

            Religious people are free to believe whatever they want. They are NOT free to deny public accommodation services to gay people, just because they “disagree” with gay marriage. You people don’t even have a clue what freedom means. It means that you cannot impose your religious beliefs onto others, nor deny someone services because your beliefs differ. Otherwise, every gay owned business will hang up signs saying: NO Christians allowed. That’s where this is heading, and the fact that you don’t see this is quite disturbing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Religious people are free to believe whatever they want. They are NOT free to deny public accommodation services to gay people, just because they “disagree” with gay marriage.”

            Correct.

            “You people don’t even have a clue what freedom means. It means that you cannot impose your religious beliefs onto others, nor deny someone services because your beliefs differ. Otherwise, every gay owned business will hang up signs saying: NO Christians allowed. That’s where this is heading, and the fact that you don’t see this is quite disturbing.”

            You’re not paying attention. You’re lost in your own maniacal rants.

          • DGCJ

            I’m sorry that you’re losing the argument of “religious freedoms” in regards to gay marriage. You will continue to lose in court, because the courts have seen it as phony victimhood, and they see that if they were to give in to the religious right, and allow a baker to refuse service to gays, this would open a slippery slope to discrimination to ALL groups. And, that’s exactly how fascism is born. That’s what the Nazis did to the Jews: they started by not frequenting and boycotting Jewish businesses. If you advocate discrimination against gays, then you are advocating that ANY group can be discriminated against for any reason. So, your argument has failed in court, and will continue to fail. Sorry….

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m sorry that you’re losing the argument of “religious freedoms” in regards to gay marriage. You will continue to lose in court, because the courts have seen it as phony victimhood, and they see that if they were to give in to the religious right, and allow a baker to refuse service to gays, this would open a slippery slope to discrimination to ALL groups.”

            I haven’t lost anything. There is no “slippery slope” when one can define objective standards for thresholds. You ignore the fact that I’ve already done that. You’re repeating talking point mantras and you’re not engaged in dialog here at all.

            “And, that’s exactly how fascism is born.”

            I’m skeptical that you even know what fascism is because you’re the one promoting it here.

            “That’s what the Nazis did to the Jews: they started by not frequenting and boycotting Jewish businesses.”

            That’s right. Arguing for freedom of expression is just about morally equivalent to targeted mendacious genocide…because “slippery slope” and all of that.

            “If you advocate discrimination against gays, then you are advocating that ANY group can be discriminated against for any reason.”

            What I’m actually arguing is that not all discrimination is unlawful. People like you forget that. So does the average person. You and they have been indoctrinated to react emotionally any narrative in which someone exercises politically incorrect discernment. It’s time to unpack the fully articulated arguments and as that happens I hope people can all think a bit more rationally and objectively. For some emotional basket cases, it just might be too late for any such awakening.

            “So, your argument has failed in court, and will continue to fail. Sorry….”

            No worries. My arguments have not failed in court. Similar arguments have failed on occasion in lower courts. Which is not that surprising. Disappointing? Yes. Surprising? No.

      • DGCJ

        I realize your raison d’etre is to tow the conservative party line (still not sure if this is done as a parody, but that’s another issue), but I would like to point out that the “religious liberties” argument against gay marriage is complete bunk. The courts have agreed on that. In fact, no beliefs are compromised if you perform services for a gay wedding. You are still free to object to gay marriage, you are free to believe homosexuality is a sin, but you may not use those beliefs to deny services, period…
        Here is a brilliant summary of why the courts don’t buy such arguments. This is just an instance where conservatives have a rallying cry point that is completely without any merits whatsoever. it’s their way of claiming to be false “victims” of gay marriage, and it’s phony to the core. As a musician, do I have the right to hang a sign in my music studio that says: “I don’t serve Jews, Chinese people or blacks?” NO! And, you don’t have a right to hang a sign in your bakery that says “I don’t serve gay people or weddings.”

        http://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/04/new-mexico-supreme-court-anti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer

        • Daniel Greenfield

          The word you’re looking for is “Toe”

          • DGCJ

            That makes no sense, but neither does “Jewish Conservative.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You toe a line with your feet. You don’t tow it.

            Real Jews are conservative.

            ” As a musician, do I have the right to hang a sign in my music studio
            that says: “I don’t serve Jews, Chinese people or blacks?” NO! And,
            you don’t have a right to hang a sign in your bakery that says “I don’t
            serve gay people or weddings.”

            Do you have a right to refuse service to neo-nazis?

          • DGCJ

            You are far from a real Jew. Every Jew I’ve met is extremely socially liberal and they support gay marriage.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Because they’re not real Jews.

          • DGCJ

            Right, and you’re a real Jew because you hate Jews. That makes a lot of sense. In case you weren’t aware, the present day hatred that rightwing conservatives show towards gays was once flung at you Jews. Just FYI. I know this because I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, and my parents had little patience for “the Jews.”

          • Daniel Greenfield

            These days liberal churches are far more anti-Semitic.

          • DGCJ

            Nope, not in my circles. It’s the Evangelical Christians that have historically hated Jews. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. I KNOW. My father’s an Evangelical minister, who is extremely conservative. My mother never liked the Jews. Nor my grandfather.

          • Gaylord

            I have a better ideal.

            You said homosexuality was a gift. I will spread the word. I can email or link this story without any commentary by myself.

            Insha’Allah

          • DGCJ

            Yep, homosexuality is a gift. With it comes many advantages in life:
            1 gay men have superior cognitive functions
            2 gay men have superior spatial memory
            3 gay men have superior verbal skills
            4 gay men earn more money per capita
            5 gay men have more education per capita
            6 gay men can have all the sex we want and no threat of accidental pregnancy
            I can validate all those claims above with real scientific evidence. Care to challenge me?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “In fact, no beliefs are compromised if you perform services for a gay wedding.”

          Absolutely ridiculous. Unless you are the new high priest for the one true global religion? Is that the case already?

          So Gay Liberation Theology is now the official global religion?

          • DGCJ

            If my arguments are ridiculous, please explain why my side of this argument is winning in court, and you are losing. Sorry, but baking a cake does not violate anyone’s religious beliefs. It’s phony and won’t hold up in court.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Because cultural Marxism is gaining dominant hegemony in the West. And demagogues are exploiting these trends.

            “Sorry, but baking a cake does not violate anyone’s religious beliefs.”

            I already told you where the threshold lies. Baking a cake in itself does not violate anyone’s rights if the baker in question provides that fungible product or service to others. Being forced to perform artistic or expressive services that contradict anyone’s convictions is wrong. Fungible products and services must be offered to all.

            “It’s phony and won’t hold up in court.”

            Your tyrannical little soul prays that your new religion will always win the day. But any objective observer who has read my explanations will not be so certain that you are correct.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “…but you may not use those beliefs to deny services, period…”

          Vital services or public accommodations.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          People are not refusing to serve gays. They’re refusing to participate in the gay religion because they see this as a testimony against their own beliefs.

          • DGCJ

            Participating in a gay wedding is not participating in any religion. In fact, I’ve attended Jewish, Protestant and Catholic weddings, all of which violated my beliefs. I’ve also been paid to be there and perform services. Your point is moot and invalid.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Keep repeating mantras while ignoring the valid points that are made.

  • ctfarmer

    it’s Pat!

  • Bryan

    How does equal protection under the 14th apply to progressive taxes, affirmative action, and Obamacare’s mandate for people that employ more than 50/100 employees?

    • scdvaca

      Obama Obama Obama… this has nothing to do with Obama. So tired of the haters.

      • DGCJ

        You might want to scroll around and read the other articles on this website. I think it’s a parody of conservatism, just like “The Onion” and Stephen Colbert. I must say they do a good job of imitating those hopeless conservatives. It’s pretty funny once you realize it’s all a joke… Well done!

        • Drakken

          I almost laughed at your hatred towards conservatives, but as history has clearly shown time and time again, it is never kind to hopeless, useful idiot, progressives like you.

          • DGCJ

            Progressives move the world forward. Either come with us, or be left behind. Your choice.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Communism really moved the world forward

          • DGCJ

            And Capitalism has moved the world backwards. Your point?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Overthrowing feudalism and making quality possible is your idea of backward?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And Capitalism has moved the world backwards.”

            Did you not deny that you are a cultural Marxist? You in fact have the full blown disease.

            So you’re the super-bright gay guy that understands progress comes from Marxist revelation. And these are scientific facts.

            Stick to the piano. At least I have an easier time avoiding your nonsense that way.

          • DGCJ

            I understand that progress means giving gays and lesbians equal rights, and providing health care for women. That’s what I understand. Denying women the right to contraception and gays the right to marry is not progress. That’s regression, and moving us backwards to the 1950s. Sorry, those days are gone.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You want equal rights the way that the NAACP wants “equal” rights. If you zoom right past “equal” and hit “favored status due to historical injustices” you won’t mind at all. And since you already have…

            You’re a collectivist and a partisan fighting for your “oppressed class.”

            “Denying women the right to contraception…”

            It’s not about “right to contraception” but your explicit definitions of contraception, dumbass liar.

            “…and gays the right to marry is not progress.”

            “Gays” should be able to do anything they want as long as they don’t violate the laws and constitutional rights of others.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Progressives” arrogantly think they are the source of progress. That’s where the name comes from.

            I do want to thank you for your contribution to the Manhattan Project though. Great work. The jet engines are also fantastic. Thanks a lot. And I guess we can thank you and Al Gore for the Internet as well.

            Round of applause for the progressives!

          • DGCJ

            You’re welcome. And, it was we progressives that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, and desegregated the schools…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            All goodness comes from Marxist enlightenment about class struggle.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Eisenhower was a progressive?

          • DGCJ

            I don’t hate conservatives, I pity people with small brains and a hateful heart.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          “Just like “The Onion” and Stephen Colbert.”

          Oh look, it’s 2007.

          • DGCJ

            Oh look, it’s 2014, and this website is borrowing its playbook from 2007. How very conservative of you to look backwards.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You’re the one babbling about Colbert and the Onion. And I’m being generous by pretending the Onion was even relevant in 2007.

          • http://fuzislippers.wordpress.com/ FuziSlippers

            I’ve been scrolling through this hilarious discussion and have come to the conclusion that you simply must be a parody account. Who else would accuse conservatives of looking “backwards” when their entire (purported) ideology is a product of and rooted in the 1930′s? Good job, Sir (or Ma’am).

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I guess you didn’t read the question carefully. Or at all.

  • DB1954

    Arenda Wright Allen MUST be immediately impeached. This is either a deliberate misreading of the Constitution or such folly that it’s scarcely to be comprehended how anyone with or without a legal education could be so horrendously WRONG.

  • DB1954

    Another point which perhaps some conservatives are missing in this mess, is that Judge Allen has joined other federal trial court judges in–for the first instance in the history of American jurisprudence, recognized GROUP rights. Consider again, what the NY Times had to say about the basis for Judge Allen’s ruling: “[S]o far, the justices have not decided the basic issue raised by the new decision in Virginia and similar recent decisions by federal district courts in Utah and Oklahoma: whether any sound constitutional reason exists for a state to deny gay and lesbian COUPLES an equal right to marry,” reporter Erik Eckholm wrote, who declined to mention whether the Declaration of Independence gave gay and lesbian COUPLES an automatic legal right to marry.

    • Bryan

      Wasn’t citizens united a ruling for a group of individuals owning a company? Pro-Union rulings also probably fall under groups of citizens. Boy Scouts of America vs Dale also makes an interesting read. That’s where they decided the group of people’s rights out weigh an individuals right to join said group.

    • DGCJ

      I just realized that those whole website is an over-the-top parody on conservatism in America. My bad. I didn’t realize it was all a joke, similar to “The Onion” and Stephen Colbert. You guys really got me on this one. It was like April Fool’s gone wild. But, after reading a few of the headlines of other stories I figured out it was all a parody. My bad. Have a great day!

    • http://www.facebook.com/psiphiorg David Henderson-Rinehart

      I’m pretty sure that Loving v. Virginia involved the rights of an individual to marry the person of their choosing. All of these cases do likewise. But if you see it as being the rights of the couple, Loving can be seen equally as affecting the right of an interracial couple to marry, and how the government cannot interfere with that decision.

  • scdvaca

    Oh how dishonest can journalists be. We all know the facts. Declaration of Independence, but the decision was not based on that. And, “Obama judge” — you mean the one recommended by Mitch McConnell? Stop it! This kind of dishonestly is what has ruined and divided our country and caused so much misinformation and hate.

    • DGCJ

      I agree with you that this is a terrible piece. But, just read the title of this website, and it speaks volumes about the “agenda’ they have to put forth. They must tow the ‘party line.’ And, the BS about people being victims because they have to bake a cake for gay people is getting rather stale. Courts aren’t agreeing with them one bit. If you service a gay wedding your beliefs are NOT compromised. Period. In fact, you can still hate gay people and think homosexuality is a sin. Nothing is stopping you from having that belief. These people are phony whiners. It’s getting entertaining, I must say.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        You don’t tow a party line. Seriously, think about it.

        • DGCJ

          And, you’re right that I don’t tow party lines. In fact, I am a Socialist who would have voted for Jill Stein in the last election, if that vote hadn’t counted for Romney. I had no choice but to vote for Obama, and I did so proudly. And, would do it again.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            No one tows a party line. They toe it.

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, they TOW it. You’re wrong.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            How exactly does one tow a party line? Where are they towing it to?

          • DGCJ

            In the case of conservatives, it’s to the garbage dump.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your determined ignorance is impressive.

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, I’m educated, and that’s why I’m a liberal. Conservatives, by nature, lack education and fear science.

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • DGCJ

            Studies show that liberals have more education. Studies have also shown that those with more education are less likely to believe in a personal god. Those of us with a Ph D are very unlikely to be religious.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            As your case demonstrates, education is not the same thing as intelligence.

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • DGCJ

            Sorry to disagree with wikipedia, but my entire life I’ve seen “tow the line” and that is correct. Sorry, they are wrong, as are you. And, it’s stand IN line, not stand ON line.

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Progressive” leftists in a nutshell:

            “Sorry to disagree with wikipedia, but my entire life I’ve seen “tow the line” and that is correct.”

          • DGCJ

            There are clearly disagreements about this:
            http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/45905/toe-the-party-line-or-tow-the-party-line

            Tow the line is more sensible because you are “pulling” the party line. Toe has to do with feet, and therefore is irrelevant. It’s definitely tow the line.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            There are no disagreements at that link or anywhere else.

            If you type Tow the Line into Google, Google will correct it for you.

            Grammar is not your friend.

          • DGCJ

            Grammar is indeed my friend, and those who say “toe the line” do not understand what they are saying. When I say “tow the line” it means I am pulling it with me, similar to towing a car. I don’t care what you post here, you are incorrect, and I will continue to use the phrase “tow the line” because that’s what I MEAN. You continue to remind me of Dan Quayle, and “potatoe”.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s a good analogy. The problem is that in this case, you are Dan Quayle.

          • DGCJ

            Towing the line is like towing a car. You are pulling it along with you. Now, what the he ll does “toeing” the line mean? Are you sticking your foot in it? It makes zero sense. I don’t care what wikipedia says, it is incorrect, as it does not have any logical meaning.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It means that your toe is against the line and you don’t move your foot beyond that.

            You’re obeying the party line.

            That’s how you used it originally when you said that you don’t “tow the party line”.

            Except using “tow the line” to mean that you don’t obey party discipline makes no sense, even by liberal standards.

            Why don’t you just find another of those gay master race men with higher cognitive skills who is halfway literate and ask him.

          • DGCJ

            I repeat; I TOW the line, as in pulling it along with me. I do not “toe” my car.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The party line is a physical mark inside which you stand, it’s not a telephone line that you pull around.

            I know this is confusing and every place you look on Google tells you that you’re wrong, but don’t give up.

            Original thinkers like you have made the world what it is today.

          • DGCJ

            Do you stand “on” line or “in” line when you go to the bank? If you say “on” you are incorrect. Typical New Yorker…

        • DGCJ

          Yes, I do. It’s similar to towing a boat or car. It has nothing to do with feet. “Toe the line” sounds like a mistake Dan Quayle would have made. LOL!

    • DGCJ

      My bad, I just had a Eureka moment. This whole website is a parody of conservatism in America. And, it’s pretty well done, because they use the dumb mentality of the conservatives but take it far over the top. It’s really believable, just like Stephen Colbert and “The Onion.” I must say it’s well done. I’m going to forward to this to lots of friends, because it’s really pretty funny. The sad thing is that there are some conservatives out there that probably actually take this stuff seriously and really believe everything here.

      • Drakken

        You idiot progressives are laughing today, tomorrow you will be crying.

        • DGCJ

          The words “idiot” and “progressive” don’t belong in the same sentence. I think you are confusing “conservative” with “progressive.” People with an education think progressively. Those without an education regress…

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “The words “idiot” and “progressive” don’t belong in the same sentence.”

            They’re pretty similar. Both imagine that they’re very smart and neither one understands consequences.

          • DGCJ

            Well, I would say the exact same thing about conservatives. Shortsighted and very little education.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Of course you would. Believing in your own intelligence is the closest thing you have to an identity.

          • DGCJ

            Oh believe me, I have a strong identity. And, it’s odd that you deny your identity as a Jew in favor of rightwing fascist Christianity. Perhaps a sign of low self esteem?

          • DGCJ

            Here’s why the rightwing whining about “religious liberties” being lost when gays get married is phony, and won’t hold up in court:

            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/18/kansas-anti-gay-bill-another-attempt-to-force-warped-christianity-on-others/

            Kansas’ anti-gay bill another attempt to force warped
            Christianity on others

            By Jill Filipovic, The Guardian
            Tuesday,
            February 18, 2014 6:36 EST

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Gay judges aren’t fans of the First Amendment and the Separation of Unitarian Church and State.

          • DGCJ

            Um, since when are all judges gay? This woman in the article is a heterosexual, and married to a man from the second most homophobic country on the planet. She probably hears anti-gay slurs all day and night.

          • faithandhonor

            I think that’s called a “synonym”. LOL.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And people always choose accurate labels for themselves.

            There are no stupid gays either. Being gay means you’re smarter than all of the others.

            I took some Sunday school lessons from the new High Priest of Gay Liberation Theology and he “educated” me on these “facts.”

          • DGCJ

            Yes, actually there is indeed proof that homosexuals have higher cognitive functions, spatial memory and verbal skills. The evidence is found on this website:
            wikipedia: biology and sexual orientation

          • objectivefactsmatter

            LOL!

            Too bad you can’t seem to manage any of that goodness.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            “Yes, actually there is indeed proof that homosexuals have higher
            cognitive functions, spatial memory and verbal skills. The evidence is
            found on this website:
            wikipedia: biology and sexual orientation”

            I don’t think we need any further evidence of your vastly superior cognitive functions

          • DGCJ

            Thanks. we both realize you were mentally outclassed from the beginning, but now you know why. It’s because I was born with superior cognitive functions, as a homosexual male.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes, you’re just too smart to detect sarcasm or to know better than to use Wikipedia as a source.

            It’s much that master race cognitive superiority.

          • DGCJ

            I often recommend wikipedia as a starting point for my college students, because it has links to real scientific studies. Wikipedia is often full of errors. For example, the article on Isaac Albeniz says he studied with Franz Liszt. We know that to be incorrect. But, at any rate, at least it is a starting point, and you can click on links to real science.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your college students? Please tell me you’re joking.

          • DGCJ

            I teach at a private Catholic university on the West Coast. Prior to that, I taught at NYU. Heard of it?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I assume as an adjunct.

          • DGCJ

            That’s where I got my Ph D. I was a teaching fellow. By the way, where are you getting this nonsense about “toe” the party line? It’s TOW! Meaning that you are pulling the party line along with you, like a tug boat. I’ve never heard “toe.” Is that comparable to the way New Yorkers say: “stand ON line,” when the rest of normal America says “standing IN line.” The second way is proper, the New York way is incorrect.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            If you’re trolling well done. You provided me with some laughs in a long day.

            You toe the party line in that you follow strict dogma. If you pulled the party line with you it would mean the opposite of that. And considering that you used it to mean obeying the party line, I think you know that.

          • DGCJ

            I tow the party line, dummy.
            I just corrected you. Nobody toes their car, do they? They TOW it. DUH!
            And, the last laugh will be on you, my friend. I don’t troll. I speak the truth, and conservatives hate facts. Science is not your friend.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ladies and gentlemen, this is NYU’s finest.

          • DGCJ

            NYU was merely my finishing school. I consider my real education to be from Juilliard, and that is the degree I am most proud of.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That explains things. It clearly wasn’t a degree in English.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I feel pretty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

            You are towing a lot of baggage, that’s for sure. Good luck with all of that.

          • FrankS2

            I recommend you read George Orwell on the subject of toeing the line… and on much else besides, while you’re about it.

          • faithandhonor

            I think you need to go down to the local OFA store and buy another digit on your IQ… Oh, so sorry, triple-digit not allowed in Obama’s world…LOL.

          • DGCJ

            I think you know that nobody “toes” their car. It is towed. And, that’s the direct parallel to towing one’s beliefs, or the party line. I can’t believe I’m having this discussion. Now, I have to go stand IN line at the bank. Bye.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Nobody toes their cars, they do however toe a line.

            http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I didn’t even see you beat me to it.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It will still do no good. Nothing is as impermeable as a liberal’s conviction of his intellectual superiority.

            It’s like training to explain basic math to Paul Krugman.

          • DGCJ

            You know, instead of belly aching because our side is winning the culture war, and will continue to win elections, perhaps you could learn from us liberals? We have been telling you for quite some time now that alienating various groups is not going to get you votes. We’ve been telling you that if you try to deny women the right to access to health care, and gays the right to marry, and Latinos the right to immigrate to our shores, that it will backfire on you. Guess what? That’s precisely WHY you lost the last election. It had nothing to do with the economy, nor the ACA, you lost because you are alienating vast numbers of people, and it’s only going to continue to escalate as this nation moves more and more towards being a nation of minorities. The white Protestant male is a dying breed, and the sooner you face it, and realize that there are other people out there who are not like you, the more likely you have a chance in hell of winning an election. I’m primarily here to educate. I don’t purposely troll. That’s a waste of time and is very juvenile. It’s something a heterosexual male would do. I’m above that. I came here to show you the error of your ways, and you can either learn from me, or continue to lose elections and lose in popular opinion. In case you haven’t noticed, the majority of Americans are coming on board with gay marriage. The more you fight it, the more you look like desperate big ots who are trying to keep gays down and women and Latinos, and blacks, and…..

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So why did your side lose in 2010 and is set to lose in 2016?

            Also have you seen the poll numbers for support for gay marriage in the black community?

          • DGCJ

            I don’t even understand how you can live in New York City. That’s astounding. You must feel like a sheep surrounded by wolves. Jesus…

          • http://fuzislippers.wordpress.com/ FuziSlippers

            Maybe s/he is? I mean what college-level instructor would ever recommend wikipedia for research . . . or anything? This must be a parody account. Right? Please tell me I’m right.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            I have the disturbing feeling he’s for real.

            Twenty-something music professor with more credentials than sense.

          • http://fuzislippers.wordpress.com/ FuziSlippers

            Sigh. Well, I was hoping that no one could think like that . . . but I guess we all know better.

          • DGCJ

            McCormick CM, Witelson SF (1991). “A cognitive profile of homosexual men compared to heterosexual men and women”. Psychoneuroendocrinology 16 (6): 459–73. doi:10.1016/0306-4530(91)90030-W. PMID 1811244.
            Jump up ^ Rahman Q, Abrahams S, Wilson GD (2003). “Sexual-orientation-related differences in verbal fluency”. Neuropsychology 17 (2): 240–6. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.240. PMID 12803429.
            Jump up ^ Gladue, B. A., W. W. Beatty, et al. (1990). “Sexual orientation and spatial ability in men and women.” Psychobiology 18: 101–108.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Wow! You really are smarter than the rest of us!

          • DGCJ

            Thanks for acknowledging that I’m smarter than you. I think it was self evident from reading our comments, but at least you have the courage to admit it. Well done! Progress….

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How could I be credible if I failed to bow to your superior gay intellect? All I have going for me “against the gays” is poorly developed gay-dar.

            Heteros are so weak.

            That’s progress alright. And you are a prime example of the finest political “progressives.”

            I want to thank you again for quantum mechanics. Awesome stuff. Thanks so much.

          • faithandhonor

            I believe that “idiot” and Progressive” are synonyms.

  • DGCJ

    You sure do like to project. Where did I mention that homosexuality is genetic? I never said any such thing. I am well aware that homosexuality is biological and that humans are born homosexual and have no choice in the matter. I am also aware that homosexuality is epigenetic, and that there is a genetic component. It definitely runs in families on the mother’s side. I have three of five cousins on my mother’s side who are homosexual. It’s definitely influenced by genes, and NOT environment, because our environments were vastly and hugely different. And, yes polygamy is a choice. The numbers of partners one has is not predetermined at birth. This is not rocket science. You clearly have a choice about how many partners you have. And, every human is capable of loving multiple people at the same time. 80 percent of heterosexuals admit to infidelity.
    By the way, most major health organizations state that there is no environmental influence on sexual orientation. In other words, child abuse or the nature of parenting have no influence on whether you are gay or straight. It’s actually common sense, because most homosexuals have heterosexual siblings, who were raised in the identical environment. I have also read an interesting theory as to why heterosexual fathers are distant from homosexual sons. And, it’s the fathers who “choose” to distance themselves because they find out their son is gay. It’s not that the son “became” gay because the father is distant. The mother sometimes takes up the slack and becomes overbearing. So, the causation factor is the reverse of what has been traditionally thought to be the case. I was closer to my father than my mother growing up, not even close, so that blows that theory out of the water.

    • A Z

      “Homosexuality, which is an innate and immutable sexual orientation” – DGJC

      “You sure do like to project” – DGJC

      Innate can be another way other than genetic, but usually it is taken to mean genetic.

      So were are back to playing gay games of it is genetic it is not genetic, it just is, do not question it.

      That is as they say “GAY!”.

      If it is not genetic, then it is developmental. Do you want to go there? It looks like process fall out to me.

      • DGCJ

        The gene which causes eye color was not discovered until 2007. The jury is out on whether a gene which causes sexual orientation exists or not. And, no, there is no evidence that sexual orientation is development, or environmental. In fact, Swedish scientists discovered that the brains of gays and straights are shaped differently in 2008. They also say they will be able to predict sexual orientation before birth some day.

      • DGCJ

        If you want to be educated on this topic, I suggest you start here. It has good links to REAL science:
        wikipedia: Biology and sexual orientation
        There is no debate any longer among legit scientists (those without religious bias) as to the biological basis for sexual orientation. It is a given.

        • A Z

          I know all about wikipedia.

          As Rush Limbaugh predicted in 1991 that gays would flip to pro-life if a gay gene were found.

          Many parents in gay support groups said they loved their children but they would not wan tot go through it again.

          People already test for zex of the child and terminate the pregnancies of the baby is going to be a girl.

          • DGCJ

            I’ve always been pro-choice, and won’t be changing if there is a gay gene found, and sexual orientation is predictable before birth. And, it makes no sense why any parent would want to abort a child that is homosexual considering the fact that homosexuals generally outperform heterosexuals in life. It would be like aborting a genius because you want an “average” child. It’s illogical. Would Michaelangelo’s parents have aborted him because he was homosexual? I hope not.

          • A Z

            And many people will choose to abort babies with those defects.

            If it is genetic your community will get smaller. From what I remember of the deaf community, they sued parents when those parents tried to get ear surgery for their deaf children. They were not biologically related to those children and they did not have guardian ship. Yet they sued.

            They did not want their community to get smaller or disappear.

            I know exactly how histrionic you will get.

          • DGCJ

            Homosexuality is a defect like being a genius is a defect. You crack me up.

          • DGCJ

            Why would any society get rid of the best and the brightest? The only thing I can imagine is that heterosexuals are intimidated by us gay people. That’s a given. Just look at the gay marriage debate. It reeks of feeling insecure and “less than” gays.

          • DGCJ

            The ironic thing is that Rush is right about the fact that some gay activists have fought against research into finding a gay gene and precisely because of the issue you’re raising. However, the even more ironic aspect is that those who are anti-gay are also against abortion, so I guess they’ll be the group facing a dilemma once the gay gene is located? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
            And, gays procreate responsibly, by the way. It’s yet another advantage to our biological gift. No accidental children will ever magically appear in our home. Thank goodness!!

        • A Z

          The discussion on AGW is also over according to Obama & Al Gore. Your point is?

          This has been a real b tch of a winter and we are about to enter a solar grand minimum soon. So you follow your pied pipers if you want.

          The Swedish scientist found a correlation not causation. Were the difference cause by a gay lifestyle or by genetics. I see you ignored the Swedish twins study.

          But you are gay, so I expected nothing less of you.

          • DGCJ

            The harsh winter is without question a result of global warming. Just heard a radio program about that, in fact. It has to do with the jet stream moving lower and lower. This will continue to happen as the two poles warm up. Just wait and see.

          • A Z

            I remember the polar vortex from grade school. We would get Canadian clippers/ Alberta Clippers and it would be colder than a witches t it. This is nothing new.

            Try harder.

          • DGCJ

            Sorry, it is new. In fact, the increase of cold weather is unprecedented. Just saw a show on it last night.

          • DGCJ

            There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. That’s a myth. My lifestyle does not differ from any heterosexual who is in a marriage. Not one bit.
            Twin studies have been used to both confirm the biological basis of homosexuality and deny it. I think it’s safe to say they mean nothing. Identical twins have different fingerprints, which means they are different biologically. Any attempt to explain homosexuality via twins is moot.

      • DGCJ

        If sexual orientation were influenced by environment or developmental, we would have figured that out by now. The American Academy of Pediatrics states: “The current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual
        orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual
        or heterosexual. There is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual
        abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation,”
        The Royal College of Psychiatrists states:

        ” Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation,
        there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of
        parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a
        person’s sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is biological in nature,
        determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine
        environment. It is therefore not a choice.”

        And every homosexual I’ve ever known states:
        “I did not choose to be gay. I discovered my sexual orientation, just like every straight person does. No choice involved, and I have no interest in changing it.”

        • A Z

          “American Academy of Pediatrics’”

          Their track record is better than the APA?

          Doubtful

          • DGCJ

            It’s true that the APA bowed to pressures from religious conservatives in the 1950s, after the Kinsey report was released. It is not often brought up that they “created” an illness that never existed when they briefly classified homosexuality as an illness. Freud thought homosexuality was 100 percent normal, as did the mental health field before 1950. Thank goodness that the gay activists pressured them to do blind studies in the 1970s, which revealed NO difference in mental health between gays and straights. Homosexuality would have to fit three criteria to qualify as a DSM, and it fails to meet one of those criteria. Therefore, homosexuality is 100 percent normal. That’s been their stance for four decades now.

          • A Z

            Which is why they have higher incidence of drug abuse and taking steroids.

            They also have a higher incidence of HIV infections and other STDs.

            I read a gay blog which had a post about prophylactic drug use to prevent HIV infection.

            So many gays responded that if it worked, they would take off the condoms & push the STD rate higher. Being gay is a gift?

            Yes, gays are so intelligent and responsible.

          • DGCJ

            Heterosexuals introduced AIDS to the world. The World Health Organization states: “80-90 percent of HIV infections are due to heterosexual intercourse.”
            Try to keep up.
            And, yes, gays are so intelligent and responsible, because without gays the world would not have recognized there was a problem with AIDS. In fact, Africa ignored the problem for half a century. The heterosexuals in Africa should be on their knees thanking gays for the treatments they now enjoy.

          • A Z

            50+% of infections in the U.S. are still due to gays 30 years later. What is that about.

            I know all about AIDs in Africa. They like rough zex (dry zex), which is a bad practice. It provides more stimulation.

            there dating is slightly different. They have the same # of life time partners as Americans. They just have them all at once. So viremia comes into play.

            3rd people lie about being on the down low. Bizexuals kiII a lot of women.

            Given the the health care facilities and general level of poverty and the life expectancies of Africans before 1980 how are they going to know about why a person died.

          • DGCJ

            Yes, you’re focusing on the USA, which has less than 10 percent of all AIDS cases. You need to look at Africa, which has over 70 percent of all HIV infections. AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease. This is news to you?

          • A Z

            You are ignoring the post in toto or do not understand much about health and physiology.

            Do you have any ideal what dry intercourse is or what it does?

            Of course not, you are gay and it is your constitutional right to be stupid.

      • DGCJ

        Do you think left handedness is genetic? Are you aware that it can be observed in the womb, and therefore is not environmental nor a choice?

        • A Z

          The asymmetry of organs is set up in when there is only 16 of so cells in the foetus. A current flows through those group of cells establishing the bodies symmetry. I also know the theory on why we have 4 limbs and not more and not less.

          I am aware of a lot. try harder.

          • DGCJ

            When will you refute my list of evils brought onto society by the heterosexual lifestyle? And, when will you acknowledge that heterosexuals brought the AIDS virus to humans?

    • A Z

      The most some scientists have been willing to say is that gay is 40% genetic. Which leaves it 60% developmental or choice.

      Or don’t you read the papers.

  • Drakken

    Ah yes, there it is, the gay I am a victim I am owed something mentality. The more you push and throw this nonsense into the faces of the regular folk, the more likely you will loose support and forget about empathy or sympathy because it is running short.

    • DGCJ

      We we continue to push the “gay agenda” until it is accomplished:
      THE GAY AGENDA:
      1 equality
      2 see no. 1

    • DGCJ

      It’s funny how the heterosexuals accuse gay people of “pushing” this issue. I ask you which group it was that spent 70 million dollars to overturn gay marriage in California, after it had already become the law. Hint: it wasn’t the gays. If you people would stop being immature playground bullies this would have been settled a decade ago. But, you have to fight our equal civil rights tooth and nail. Guess what? You’re GOING TO LOSE. Get over it, and move on. I married a dude, Geesh, it’s not like I’m stealing babies from heterosexuals.
      This brings me to another topic. I find it disingenuous that you heterosexuals complain because gays are raising the kids you throw away. If you would man up and take care of your own damn kids, then no gay couples would be adopting children, would they? Man up, and take care of the kids you create. Then you will have nothing to complain about. Big whiners…

      • Drakken

        Your leftist hypocrisy really is amusing.

        • DGCJ

          Sorry, fighting for our civil rights isn’t leftist nor hypocrisy.

          • Drakken

            Keep up your bitching and whining about it, and complain about us straights, yeah that will do the trick eh cupcake?

        • DGCJ

          Here’s a definition of hypocrisy:
          pooping out a kid you don’t want and then blaming the gay couples who adopt them.

    • DGCJ

      It’s funny that you think marriage is nonsense. It just illustrates how you heterosexuals don’t take it seriously. Guess what? We gay people do take marriage seriously and we think it’s worth fighting for. We also support traditional marriage. You heterosexuals have acted like this a playground and gays are stealing something from you. Well, grow the f—k up and learn to share. How old are you? It’s embarrassing that you act this way. Gays aren’t trying to steal anything from you, any more than women were trying to steal the right to vote from men. Your paranoia is not healthy.

      • Drakken

        I frankly don’t give a bloody rip about gays period, but your throwing it our faces doesn’t make you friends, it makes people who are sympathetic to your cause less sympatric and more hostile.

        • DGCJ

          Who really cares? i certainly don’t. You don’t get the right to vote on my marriage, period. And, if you haven’t noticed, I’m not a big fan of heterosexual males. Just FYI.

          • Drakken

            Well wear a dress and make everybody happy cupcake. That fact that you are self righteous whiny little bitch doesn’t endear you to us straights, it just makes us that more hostile to you and your cause.

        • DGCJ

          SEXUAL VIOLENCE

          According to the National Crime Victimization Survey,
          which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the
          U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006. That’s more than 600 women every
          day. Other estimates, such as those generated by the FBI, are much lower because
          they rely on data from law enforcement agencies. A significant number of crimes
          are never even reported

          • Drakken

            What does gay marriage have to do with violence against women? The fact that your teaching young people is incredulous.

    • DGCJ

      It seems the only victimhood I hear is that of heterosexuals who actually think my marriage affects their sad, and boring lives. Keep whining for me, because that’s all you’ve got. I’ve already been married for quite some time and no precious heterosexuals have been harmed. Cry babies.

      • Drakken

        You certainly are a drama queen, women are less emotionally driven than a quaint queer as yourself. Too funny!

      • Drakken

        You certainly are a drama queen, women are less emotionally driven than a quaint queer as yourself. Too funny!

  • A Z

    That has be one of the most aggressive and stupid statement I have read.

    Expect reciprocity when it comes to passing laws.

    • DGCJ

      Aggressive? What are you talking about. It is absolutely true that heterosexuality is more harmful to society:
      1 teen pregnancy
      2 abortion
      3 abuse of women
      4 rape
      5 98 percent of child molesters are heterosexual males
      6 having unwanted children
      Sorry, but my facts are irrefutable. Homosexuality is healthier for society, and especially in women.

      • A Z

        Living causes cancer. I suppose we should ban living.

        Given that 98% of males are hetero they are not overrepresented. Yet gays are 2% of the population and make up the majority of HIV & syphilis cases.

        what do you do for a living? SSI?

    • DGCJ

      Can you explain to me why heterosexuals complain because gay couples adopt the children you discard? My own heterosexual cousin had four kids with his stripper wife. She didn’t want them, and they gave them away like unwanted puppies. I wish I could understand the mind of the heterosexual, but I can’t really grasp why any human would do such a thing. Unthinkable…

  • DGCJ

    Many researchers have come to the conclusion that homosexuality is a biological necessity and some species would perish without it. It has to do with the availability of females and also the fact that some males will not compete to mate with a female, if they are homosexual.

    • A Z

      You are like Dan Savage, not too bright, bigoted and dangerous.

    • A Z

      If that makes you feel better about holding the s_____ end of the stick then believe it.

      It is what they are going to tell the men in China, who will have no wives due to the zex imbalance brought on by government policy and culture.

      All this has been covered in Sci-fi years ago. The elite want to control over population by this method and you are more than willing to sing kumbayah.

  • CaoMoo

    So I can read, am a paralegal, and know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the constitution. Can I have her job? I’m not a minority but I am handicapped so you know go protected class!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You can read. So you’re obviously disqualified. Come back when you’re a proper prog.

  • DGCJ

    From what I understand, yes the gay photographer should photograph for a Westboro Baptist Church, Why not? Actually, I’d love to be a gay photographer and photograph the Westboro clowns. I’d photoshop their pictures, and change their signs to “God Hates Flags.” And, show them with the American flag. That would get a good laugh, wouldn’t it?
    And, I also enjoy playing for Catholic weddings and funerals because when it comes to the point where they cannibalize Jesus I always play very dissonant and unpleasant music. Nothing violates my personal beliefs more than that act of cannibalism, which I find atrocious! I object!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Because it’s a violation of his freedom of speech

      • DGCJ

        Nope, you are free to hate gays and disagree with gay marriage. No freedoms are compromised when you bake a cake for a gay wedding. You’re wrong, and the courts agree with me on that. Sorry that you’re losing this argument.

      • DGCJ

        Here’s why the rightwing whining about “religious liberties” being lost
        when gays get married is phony, and won’t hold up in court:

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/18/kansas-anti-gay-bill-another-attempt-to-force-warped-christianity-on-others/

        Kansas’ anti-gay bill another attempt to force warped
        Christianity on others

        By Jill Filipovic, The Guardian
        Tuesday,
        February 18, 2014 6:36 EST

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You really don’t understand how life works, do you.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “From what I understand, yes the gay photographer should photograph for a Westboro Baptist Church, Why not?”

      It should be the choice of the photographer. I also think you’re a liar.

  • DGCJ

    Sorry, I’m a homosexual man. This means I am not violent by nature. You’re confusing me with the heterosexual males, who have violence in their DNA. It’s their way of life. Just read all the comments about gun ownership and how they will die fighting for this right to be a violent individual.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Sorry, I’m a homosexual man. This means I am not violent by nature.”

      Is homosexual now a different “race” or species?

      “You’re confusing me with the heterosexual males, who have violence in their DNA.”

      Are you aware that you’re a kook? If you were joking I might ignore it but I know that you’re not since you already referred me to wiki-evidence.

      “Just read all the comments about gun ownership and how they will die fighting for this right to be a violent individual.”

      I can see you’ve put a lot of thought in to your conclusions. Emotional thoughts.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    And then I’ll hire a second “gay” photographer to take pictures of the first one working. We’ll see what happens when those photos start to circulate.

  • Irv Spielberg

    USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans

    Any connection between beautiful New England and predicted disasters?
    Take same-sex marriage. I would have guessed that a “sin” city (San Francisco? Las Vegas?) would have been the first to legalize it.
    Oddly it’s been America’s birthplace that’s wanted to be the first place to end America and its values! It’s been a Nor’easter of Perversion (helping to fulfill Luke 17′s “days of Lot”) that began in (you guessed it) Boston in 2004!
    New England has gone from the Mayflower Compact to the Gay Power Impact, from Providence to decadence, from Bible thumpers to God dumpers, from university to diversity to perversity, and from the land of the Great Awakening to God’s Future Shakening that’ll make the Boston bombings look like Walden Pond ripples by comparison!
    The same Nor’easter has been spreading south and as far west as Washington State where, after swelling up with pride, Mt. Rainier may wish to celebrate shame-sex marriage by having a blast that Seaddlepated folks can share in lava-land!
    The same Luke 17 prediction is tied to the Book of Revelation which speaks of the cities that God will flatten because of same-sexism – including American cities – a scenario I’ll have to accept since I can’t create my own universe and decree rules for it.
    I’ve just been analyzing the world’s terminal “religion” that has its “god,” its accessories, its “rites,” and even a flag. It’s an obsession that the infected converts are willing to live for, fight for – and even die for!
    Some claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Well, when gays have birthdays they don’t say what they don’t want but say positively what they do want.
    Likewise Jesus didn’t get negative and mention every sexual variation that He knew mankind would invent, but stated positively that marriage involves only a man and a woman!
    Want more facts? Google “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “Government-Approved Illegals,” “FOR GAYS ONLY: Jesus predicted,” “Filthy Still Club (Rev. 22:11),” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”

  • Fran B.

    The gay agenda is EVERYWHERE. When I saw this video I was stunned that peopel could be so ignorant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhBKvsFtPg4