www.debbieschlussel.com

Access the detailed review of the best online casinos in the UK? Its legal status, which makes a good casino and games more. Day by day, the offer of online casinos is getting bigger and bigger. But what are the best online casinos? They are reliable online casinos, that is, they have legitimate software and they pay players correctly. From the famous Las Vegas casinos to the not so well known ones. We could have just completed this list bonushitlist.com of the best casinos in the world.

August 5, 2010, - 4:50 pm

On the Gay Marriage Decision: Is It Just Me . . . ?

By Debbie Schlussel

Is it just me . . . or did you also notice that a good deal of the coverage of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling (and the ruling, itself) in favor of gay marriage seems to engage in a lot of annoying Miss California USA Carrie Prejean BS about “opposite marriage”? Remember her answer at the 2009 Miss USA pageant, in which she tried to straddle both sides of the fence on gay marriage? She said in America we can choose between gay marriage and “opposite marriage.”

gaymarriagehomersimpson

Not Marriage

The thing is, all of this pontificating by Judge Walker and the media covering his decision on California’s Proposition 8 is full of a term that doesn’t exist, “opposite-sex marriage,” or “opposite marriage,” in Miss California jargon. There is only one kind of marriage, between a man and a woman. This “opposite sex marriage” term has been invented to discredit it and make it not only equal to but inferior to gay marriage. Using the term “opposite marriage” sounds weird and dysfunctional. Marriage doesn’t need an adjective. It’s already defined. Putting opposite in front of it is like saying, “hot fire” when issuing a determination that fire can also be ice cold. It’s absurd. But the federal judge and the media have to resort to adding this repetitive adjective as a preamble to the word “marriage,” or they know their case is failed before it has begun. They have to use this nonsensical adjective as a way to justify the unjustifiable. It’s a game of linguistics. But we know what marriage is. And it ain’t between two dudes. Or two WNBA fans in brush cuts and “sensible” shoes.

Watch these videos from last night’s NBC Nightly News coverage of the decision, and you’ll see what I mean:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And then there’s this:

Tags: California, federal judge, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker, Gay Marriage, Judge Vaughn Walker, marriage, Opposite Marriage, Opposite Sex Marriage, Proposition 8, Vaughn Walker

75 Responses

This “gay marriage” thing pois the single biggest waste
of time and energy over a non issue I have ever seen.

Just like a judge cannot order two plus two to be
equal to five, a judge cannot order that gays are
married.

No matter what any court or legislature says, gays are
not and cannot be married, PERIOD!!!

Let’s stop wasting time on this and move on
to some real issues.

I_AM_ME on August 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm

1 judge nullifies 7,000,000 votes. Lets’ move on.

#1 Vato on August 5, 2010 at 5:43 pm

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Once again, the constitution has been confirmed.

Norman Blitzer on August 5, 2010 at 5:48 pm

Please note what the US Constitution states: “Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.” It does not state nor grant “guaranteed happiness”. So many people have deliberately misinterpreted what the Constitution means/states, thus having given birth to the PC movement and the downfall of our country.

Patspfs on August 6, 2010 at 9:58 am

Umm…what?

Are you honestly saying that Gay Marriage guarantees happiness? Does marriage guarantee happiness? I guess if we aren’t guaranteed happiness, then there is no point in pursuing it at all.

Your argument is so flawed it is pathetic.

gunDy on August 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm

gunDy – It is quite apparent that you do not understand what I had stated or what the constitution states. Gay marriage is a moral issue, not a constitutional issue that many, including the federal judge in CA, would like to think. I am not, nor have I been a supporter of gay marriage and do not find it to be equivalent to traditional marriage (between a man and a woman). If you feel it is equivalent (and I use the word “feel” for a reason and not “think” since the reasoning for gay marriage has always been emotion-based and not logic-based), then what is to prevent NAMBLA, bestiality, incest, and others forms, to have the same marriage rights as those granted to gays? If you want to start down this slippery slope, you go right ahead. Just don’t take me and the rest of this country down with you who do not support this.

Patspfs on August 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm

Patspfs, could you try to write clearly and concisely? I can’t make heads or tails out of your “argument.”

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 12:33 pm

[Once again, the constitution has been confirmed.

Norman Blitzer on August 5, 2010 at 5:48 pm]

Or is that affirmed?

Regardless, the decision is correct.

Norman Blitzer on August 5, 2010 at 5:58 pm

Yeah, Norm, but if you really gave a damn about gay people or individual rights, you’d not constantly support Islam the way you do here.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 2:49 pm

you know what is hilarious about the right and the conservatives when it comes to their little guns or health care they are ready to go to war to fight the government’s intervention in their individual rights.
how do you justify then pushing for the government to define what is marriage and who can get married or not?
can we have some consistency please? democracy is not and will never be the pure rule of the majority, or minorities would never have any rights..

octavianasr on August 5, 2010 at 6:16 pm

A fair point, octavianasr. However, you are a Muslim and therefore not only oppose gay marriage but want to kill gays & non-Muslims of all types. I’d take 100 Richards over one of you.

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 6:28 pm

1 judge nullifies 7,000,000 votes…the post above reads.
Since when do other people get to determine what’s fair?
Everyone’s entitled to be happy and they should marry if they please. Being very hetero myself, I don’t see anything great about the way we respect the instition of marriage. But I know what many of you think…”the bible says…” . It’s all BS. These people are together anyways. That peice of paper
will not corrupt the universe. There are better things to worry about in life. Move on.

Frank on August 5, 2010 at 6:17 pm

“The thing is, all of this pontificating by Judge Walker and the media covering his decision on California’s Proposition 8 is full of a term that doesn’t exist, “opposite-sex marriage,” or “opposite marriage,” in Miss California jargon. There is only one kind of marriage, between a man and a woman.”

Sorry, Debbie, but you are engaging in argument by tautology: if one defines “marriage” as involving two persons of the opposite sex, then, by definition, those who are married must be of different sexes. Thus, “opposite-sex marriage” is a redundancy and “same-sex marriage” is logically impossible.

I wish people who oppose gay marriage would skip the tautologies. The argument here is about “ought” not “is.” Some think that same-sex marriages ought not to be permitted; others disagree. The former want “marriage” to be defined in a different way from the latter.

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 6:22 pm

Same sex marriage is impossible.

Had Debbie been the judge, she would noted marriage has always been understood to be the union of opposites.

Anything else is absurd. But Judge Walker wanted to make a historic ruling. I think its one that’s not going to get very far in this country.

NormanF on August 5, 2010 at 7:20 pm

[NormanF – Same sex marriage is impossible.]

Exactly.

Nothing else needs to be said.

This issue is the biggest waste of time in the history of the universe.

Lets move on people.

I_AM_ME on August 5, 2010 at 9:22 pm

You are all wrong calling this a waste of time. Rampant sexual perversion has brought down every great Nation in history. It’s about the inner corruption of the soul because it is prohibited to everyone thru the Noachide Covenant. The sexual degradation you have become benumbed to in the US is what will get you in the end. It is not unrelated to the blindness towards Islam. Once spiritual illness sets in, it is the spiritual eyes that go first. False spiritual doctors try to fix it with “laws” and “intellect” totally ignoring the spirit and soul. That hastens the rot and the end comes in a total rejection of Biblical religion and values. Weird spiritual ideas and cults take hold and soon become the “representatives” of religion in most people’s eyes so they reject further.

mk750 on August 6, 2010 at 4:37 am

[NormanF – Same sex marriage is impossible.]

[Me (I_AM_ME) – Exactly. Nothing else needs to be said. This issue is the biggest waste of time in the history of the universe. Lets move on people.]

[mk750 – You are all wrong calling this a waste of time. Rampant sexual perversion has brought down every great Nation in history.]

I disagree that I am wrong. You are referring to the way some people behave and things they actually do. The points you raise are entirely valid.

I was referring to the government (be it the legislature or the courts) attempting to define a relationship in a way that is impossible. They do not have the capabilities to do so. They can no more make to people of the same sex be married than they can make “2 + 2 = 5” and that is why this is all a waste of time.

I_AM_ME on August 6, 2010 at 10:51 am

mk750, I am getting weary of your sloppy thinking and fake history (see my comment below on August 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm).

“Rampant sexual perversion has brought down every great Nation in history. It’s about the inner corruption of the soul because it is prohibited to everyone thru the Noachide Covenant.”

Spare me this Zohar-inflected, New Age “Judaism.” You have not a shred of evidence for what is an empirical claim. Indeed, you even make such elementary mistakes as using “Nation” in place of “state” or “polity.”

“The sexual degradation you have become benumbed to in the US is what will get you in the end. It is not unrelated to the blindness towards Islam.”

I look at Israel (the state as well as that part of the Nation living in Eretz Israel) and see a rapidly sinking ship. Why? It has nothing to do with sexual issues and everything to do with a political system that is not a democratic republic (and thus does not protect the Jewish majority) and the substantial population of Muslims that should, according to REAL Torah, have been expelled from all Jewish-controlled land. It must be convenient to focus on gays and naughty hetero sex practices rather than on the Islamic elephant in the room.

The US is not a “Noahide” state. It is supposed to be a state with minimal presence in our everyday life, and it is not supposed to be compelling religious practices. It is just too bad if you don’t like gay people being gay people. This has no bearing on what a secular state is supposed to be about.

I’d suggest that since Israel is neither a Jewish state nor a democratic republic, you pay more attention closer to home.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 1:29 pm

NormanF, you’re a great fellow. Nevertheless, your conviction is based, as I said before, on a tautology. In addition, “is” (or “what was”) is not necessarily what “should be.”

I would suggest to you that this may be the only issue on which you could make such basic logical mistakes.

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 9:55 pm

skzion, you are a regular poster here. Do the others know you are not unbiased in this discussion?

mk750 on August 6, 2010 at 4:38 am

mk750, you are also a regular poster here. Are you suggesting that, because we are Jews, we have no business arguing against anti-Semitism?

I have not seen such sloppy reasoning from you on any other topic, mk750.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm

I was amazed, that the judge hearing this issue of queer perversion was himself a queer appointed, by George Bush, Sr. What is the next perversion to be recognized. Talking about conflict of interest!

Richard on August 5, 2010 at 6:24 pm

Yes, Richard, I agree with you. Only people who write using terms like “queer perversion” should be qualified to hear this kind of case.

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Love you, Ted Olson!

Scott Spiegel on August 5, 2010 at 6:38 pm

I expect the case to go all the way to the Supreme Court. One man overruled the wisdom of the ages and the vote of California to preserve traditional marriage because upholding it today is no longer politically correct. Its considered bigoted to believe man is real only between a man and a woman and its the only kind of marriage that can produce children and pass on the parents’ values to the next generation.

I think Judge Walker thought it was a gay rights case. He is wrong and affronted millions of people who believe only one kind of marriage is right in the eyes of G-d and recognized under our human law. And his ruling will never change our belief that marriage is too important an institution for judges and politicians to mess around with. It was a sad day for California and for America.

NormanF on August 5, 2010 at 7:13 pm

Sorry, I meant the sentence to read: “Its considered bigoted to believe marriage is real only between a man and a woman and its the only kind of marriage that can produce children and pass on the parents’ values to the next generation.”

That is marriage. There has never been any other kind as long as man has existed upon this earth.

NormanF on August 5, 2010 at 7:17 pm

I think that the Judge in California is way, way worse than Carrie Prejean. While she is not a perfect person, she was basically on the right side of this issue, and the Judge is definitely on the wrong side. I was listening to a talk show today and a caller said that this decision means we live in what is showing characteristics of being a dictatorship, where the decisions of the majority are disregarded, just like in a dictatorship. It is really getting to that point.

Yes, Opposite Sex Marriage is giving up to PC, and the meaning of ‘marriage’ has been altered, just as PC has altered the meaning of ‘patriotism’, ‘rights’, and so many other terms.

This is a fight worth fighting, just like fighting against illegal immigration, the affront to our society by most Muslims, etc. are fights worth fighting. They are fights that can be won. While I am unhappy about seeing Kagan appointed to the Supreme Court, I was also disheartened to see so much faux conservative attention directed to this issue, and issues like the mosque at WTC, instead of more important fights like cleansing our country of illegals, i.e. fights that we can win.

Little Al on August 5, 2010 at 7:38 pm

I could care less about gay-rights, lesbian rights, beastiality rights- whatever floats your boat. But, all I saw on the tube were “heterophobes” chanting, “we want our rights!” Okay, now you’ve gotten your 15 minutes of fame…now what?

Which part of “no” do these finnochios not understand. I thought this was a ballot issue that was voted on.

I have an idea: how about if these so-called, “child advocates” grew some gonads and sought to overturn Roe vs Wade. That certainly would trigger an chain of societal, anarchic events. For example- we overturn Miranda rights, repeal seat belt, smoking bans and make all drugs legal.

Patrick Power on August 5, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Why do these gays want to get married anyway? One of the main reasons for 1 man and 1 woman to get married was and still is procreation.

I’ve got an idea for all of these gays who want to get married. We will give you gay marriage, but gays will no longer be able to adopt or raise children.

Jarhead on August 5, 2010 at 8:41 pm

Prop 8 was incorrectly ruled. Nobody was denied the right to marry. All people were allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex. People who claimed they were denied the right to marriage are flat wrong. There is equal protection under the law since everyone is only allowed to marry one person of the opposite sex. Because some people aren’t allowed to marry someone of the same sex or multiple persons doesn’t mean the law wasn’t applied equally. Similarly we are only allowed to use a restroom of the gender that we are born with. As a male I can only use a male restroom. I am not denied the right to use a restroom because I am not allowed to use a woman’s restroom.
This is not “separate but equal” because race and gender is something you are born with. Marriage is an action not something innate.

CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Screamer, the analogy to bathrooms doesn’t hold. Having a men’s bathroom for men and a women’s for women is actually an advantage for each, as space can be optimized (e.g., no urinals in the women’s room). But providing an option (or “right”) for gay men to marry women, and for gay women to marry men, means that the “option” is valueless.

If you were told that some cruise line you provide your meals and then learned that you were horribly allergic to the meals for some reason, would you consider that your meals were indeed “provided”?

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Are there still consummation laws on the books? It would be worth some laughs to hear politicians debate what a consummated gay marriage requires.

michman on August 5, 2010 at 9:48 pm

Re: I_AM_ME on August 5, 2010 at 5:36 pm and CaliforniaScreaming on August 5, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Exactly!

Coming up next, a federal court hears a case on whether or not the mathematical statement that 2+2=4 is constitutional.

JeffE on August 5, 2010 at 10:17 pm

Tautological.

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 10:27 pm

@ skzion at 10:27 pm

Okay, especially since after I posted my 10:17 pm post I saw your reply to Californai Screaming, how about this argument that may also be tautological, but has also to date unanswered by supporters of “gay marriage”–after that I will move on because you are correct about there being bigger fish to fry:

The reason why there has been this word to describe a bond between a man and a woman called marriage, is because a man and a woman has the potential to create children. It is for the children’s sake that there be a bond between the child’s mother and father. Whereas two gay men and two gay women does not have the potential to create children, therefore there is no reason to call their bond marriage. Now you might say in response, “Well they can adopt and raise children, so therefore for the same reason, their bond should also be called marriage.” But then consider this question: what if everyone on earth were gay or lesbian? Where would the children come from then?

JeffE on August 5, 2010 at 11:11 pm

JeffE, I don’t dispute the historical basis for the word “marriage.” I just say that if government is going to be in the business of giving out marriage licenses (and this has not always been the case in the West), it should not discriminate against gay couples. I have no quibble with religious institutions discriminating.

In an ideal world, the government wouldn’t be giving out licenses at all, and there wouldn’t be a tax code that advantaged married couples, and the taxes collected on individuals would be, compared to today’s, tiny. There would be no deduction for mortgages, but the taxes would be so low that this wouldn’t matter. The government also wouldn’t be seizing our money for “Social Security” or “Medicare.”

Big Government is notoriously unable to keep up the population. Legally recognized gay marriages will probably modestly increase the number of children. The net effect will be too trivial to care about, however.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Re: “In an ideal world, the government wouldn’t be giving out licenses at all, and there wouldn’t be a tax code that advantaged married couples, and the taxes collected on individuals would be, compared to today’s, tiny. There would be no deduction for mortgages, but the taxes would be so low that this wouldn’t matter. The government also wouldn’t be seizing our money for “Social Security” or ‘Medicare.'”

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 2:26 pm

Agreed. Actually I would go further and say that there should be either a fair tax as defined by Neal Boortz (which would mean that there would be no more IRS), or have a 15% flat tax rate. Either way, it would mean that there would be no more marriage tax code.

JeffE on August 8, 2010 at 12:14 am

There are much bigger fish to fry than gay marriage (e.g., Islam & immigration). I’m glad, on balance, that the court ruled this way. I say “on balance” because there are real dangers when courts start “discovering” rights. However, if equal protection can be applied to blacks, and women, it sure as hell can be applied to gays. Churches can discriminate; governments can’t.

By contrast, when we consider Islam, there is not only a “rational” reason to discriminate, there is a necessity to do so. The alternative is totalitarianism, death, and slavery. Oh, and the end of everything that makes the West valuable.

skzion on August 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm

Good comment, Michman, about “consummation”. And, if there is a child from the union, will charges be filed if it gets flushed?

RT on August 5, 2010 at 11:02 pm

Since I just wrote two posts here in which I said that there is no such thing as gay marriage, with skzion disagreeing with me and mentioned about Islam being a bigger issue–which it is–I want to make a comparison between our attitude towards gays verses Islam’s attitudes towards gays, including expanding a point that skzion made in one of his posts here.

Our attitude is that we take for granted that homosexuals–like everyone else–have a right to have a relationship–both sexual and otherwise–with whoever they want. They can have almost the same jobs, live in a same home–rent or own–as any hetrosexual can and–in short, live the same kind of life as does a hetrosexual–except for maybe two areas. We are right now are having a debate about 1) whether or not openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, and 2)–the topic of this article–whether or not marriage between two men and between two women on the one hand should be treated in the same way as is a marriage between a man and a woman on the other. The worse that can happen here from a gay point of view is that they are not allowed to serve in the military as an open homosexual, and that the homosexual bond not be treated in the same manner as is a hetrosexual one, but they would still otherwise be allowed to lead normal lives.

Islam’s attitude, on the other hand, is that if two men have sex with each other, both of them are to be put to death. End of story. Therefore imagine how a Muslim would react if one were to tell him or her that gays should have the same right to marriage as does straights.

JeffE on August 5, 2010 at 11:52 pm

JeffE, that is a fair statement. I’d just say, though, that I am NOT in favor of open gays in the military; I am, in truth, ambivalent, and I do not trust the evidence in support of, or opposed to, this change. I’d tend to err on the side of keeping open gays out, but I used to err on the side of letting them in (maybe 10 years ago). I’ve always been concerned.

I am also in favor of reducing women’s roles in the military (e.g., taking them out of subs and ships), as the evidence supports this change.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 12:45 pm

Re:

[“…I am NOT in favor of open gays in the military;…”]

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 12:45 pm

Nor do I.

JeffE on August 7, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Please show me where exactly in the United States Constitution provide anyone the right to marry? Is there a hidden or tiny-printed line somewhere in the US Constitution suggesting that we have the right to marry? Where is it??!

Bobby'sBrain on August 6, 2010 at 12:11 am

Just noticed that the judge making this awful ruling was appointed by Reagan. Goes to show you.

And of course if PC causes like this had not eroded the will of our society over the last few decades, we would be able to better fight Muslim subversion and destruction.

Little Al on August 6, 2010 at 12:18 am

Norman wrote:

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Once again, the constitution has been confirmed.”

Please show me where the Constitution has those words.

BoKnows on August 6, 2010 at 12:55 am

Well the sentence itself was in The Declaration of Independence, and it’s stated in the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

CO on August 6, 2010 at 2:28 am

Debbie,

I think I understand:

opposite-sex marriage

reverse racism

How did I do?

NJBeachbum on August 6, 2010 at 5:15 am

Someone wrote saying “life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Once again the Constitution has been confirmed.”First of all the term “life,liberty and the pursuit of Happines is in the Declaration of Independence,not the Constitution. Secondly,I assume the writer equates happiness with sodomy.

Jerry on August 6, 2010 at 7:40 am

Homosexual Marriage does not exist, but the gay mafia is pushing it on America and the world. The next step is to force the Catholic Church into making it a sacrament…

Marc on August 6, 2010 at 8:03 am

[Secondly,I assume the writer equates happiness with sodomy.

Jerry on August 6, 2010 at 7:40 am]

I equate being able to marry the one you want with happiness.

Norman Blitzer on August 6, 2010 at 8:19 am

Just to clarify, I’m talking about 2 competent consenting ADULTS!

Norman Blitzer on August 6, 2010 at 8:26 am

This is part of the cultural war where for liberal left moral relativists, redefinition of word’s meaning is essential. By injecting a negative meaning to the used-to-be-neutral word Negro, the left can keep using the race card as their weapon and inflict white guilt to push entitlement demand, left agendas. So, the push to redefine the meaning of marriage is part of this cultural war.

To not let the original meaning of marriage be diluted, why not conservatives create and popularize new definition for the marriage pushed by the left? Why not refer to those “marriage” as HOMORIAGE/GAYRIAGE/LESBORIAGE? And if the multiculturalists push for islamic style marriage, create another term such as PEDORIAGE/DHIMMIRIAGE or whatever fit. If lovers of donkeys want, they can have BEASTRIAGE. After creating and popularizing the new words, then as happened to the word “Negro”, the virtual weapon now exist to be used effectively. Just like what conservative now do to the word Socialism and Communism and attached to it the failure meaning (which it certainly caused) and to the word MSM (Limbaugh’s Drive-bys) as untrustworthy, the negativity of HOMORIAGE, all the problem it caused to the society and tax payers can be raised often and broadcast through conservative channels. It’s part of fight for the heart and mind of the people.

yoah on August 6, 2010 at 8:44 am

Chip, chip, chip, chip, chip….

Bill on August 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

To understand things simply look at what the term ‘Marry’ means. It means to take two different things and combine them into a single entity. That’s what marriage is a ‘Man’ and a ‘Woman’ two different entities joined as One. You can’t ‘Marry’ two of the same together. ‘Man-Man’ or ‘Woman-Woman’ may use the law to allow joint custady of assets or property. But its not Marriage. This whole thing is an effort to take the definition of Marriage and blaspheme it until it is corrupted to take the institution of Marriage down.

Karen on August 6, 2010 at 11:40 am

Much ado about nothing to me quite a waste of perfectly good bandwith….feel free to wake me when a serious issue arises again.

Chiefscotty24 on August 6, 2010 at 11:48 am

Hey if I was al-qeada this legalization of HOMOSEXUAL marriages only emboldened their beliefs and fears about America.

AS MUSLIMS PROCREATE, WE EMASCULATE!!

CaliforniaScreaming on August 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm

Screamer, I sometimes marvel at how you can write at all. Muslims hate us because we are NOT MUSLIMS. You get it now? Jihad is older than gay rights, correct? Gay marriage or no gay marriage makes no difference to them.

Do you actually read anything on this site?

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 2:56 pm

There need not be a slippery slope. Drawing the line at two competent consenting adults is sufficient.

[Hey if I was al-qeada this legalization of HOMOSEXUAL marriages only emboldened their beliefs and fears about America.
CaliforniaScreaming on August 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm]

If you care about what Islamic terrorists think about American freedoms, then maybe you’re not as patriotic as you think you are?

Norman Blitzer on August 6, 2010 at 2:35 pm

George Orwell was right, he was just off by about 50 or so years. All of this Newspeak is out of control. Wake up America or soon YOU will be the one with your head stuck in a cage full of hungry rats.

Farmerjohn on August 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm

Hey Farmer, have you actually read Orwell? Of course not, or you wouldn’t think that “Newspeak” is relevant here. Indeed, one characteristic of Newspeak is that the compiled dictionary gets smaller over time, and words have ever-fewer meanings.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Totaly, I agree with miss U.S.A. America California. Any-other sex thing disrupts by force the two people and surrounding lives. I don’t want to know about it or see but leave what I know to be normal to what is normal around me. What you do wrong you will do by force sometime or other to a younger person whitch could be your son, brother or a friend. Hate to see two guys kissing and to have a dick up my ass, liking it or not I would kill him without going to jail.

Augusto on August 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm

Yeah: It Is Just You!

I hope by now CaliforniaScreaming has emasculated himself. The legalisation of homosexual marriage doesn’t scare me at all, but on the contrary many dudes around here really do.

The Man Formerly Known As Jamal on August 6, 2010 at 4:58 pm

SERIOUSLY WHEN I SEE A GOOD GAY BASHING I CHEER!! A guilty pleasure.

http://www.laweekly.com/2008-04-10/music/tribal-stomp-a-report-from-the-frontlines-of-mexico-8217-s-latest-urban-youth-craze-emo-bashing/

But then again which culture or religion hasn’t spoken out against HOMOSEXUALITY?

CaliforniaScreaming on August 6, 2010 at 6:00 pm

Hey Screamer, thanks for undermining efforts to expel Islam from the West by becoming a useful propaganda tool for leftists and Muslims. If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were a plant by the Muslims/leftists to weaken us from the inside.

You remind me of how valuable our Second Amendment is. In the lawlessness of Mexico, only the criminals, “police,” and “military” have guns. One of my guilty pleasures is to imagine a bunch of gay bashers being slaughtered by a gay guy with a gun.

You would be a fine Muslim if you were born in the Dar al-Islam.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm

I hate to say it, but marriage has not always been a union between a man and a woman. At least two Roman emperors were married to other men — and I mean married. Nero, for example, married a man named Sporus, who was his bride and lived with him as a spouse.

In Native American societies, some men took on the calling to be “Two Spirit” men and take on all the roles and responsibilities of womankind. These honored shamans would be taken as brides by other men.

And so it goes. The belief that marriage has always been an institution between a man and woman is a myth not supported by history, and in fact, it would be more accurate to say that it’s considered such in most of the major religions. The marriage licence, however, is a legal document and therefore its distribution should not be subject to religious bias. When religious discrimination against one group becomes enshrined in law, religious discrimination itself has become enshrined and illogic has no place in law.

Colin on August 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm

@Colon (you’re so full) on August 6, 2010 at 10:11 pm

Nero….oh yeah, the perfect example. Thanks..
And than there’s the gay Spartans
…and Athens
…the Amazonians
all Great examples of homosexual societies…

So why not go join one?
I suggest you start looking somewhere around…hmmm…let’s say…Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan…
I heard there’s one of those “major religions” out there that says “The belief that marriage has always been an institution between a man and woman is a myth”
good luck
…schmuck

theShadow on August 7, 2010 at 12:27 am

The issue is what our G-d has said about marriage. He invented and Blessed it. Satan, the enemy of our souls wants to desecrate anything he can before our G-d puts an end to him. This is a Judeo-Christian nation. That is the fight now. Liberals want atheistic communism and the elimination of anything reminding anyone of the existence of our G-d. The interesting thing is what will happen is obamatrons facilitate making our country an islamic state? Ba-al (allah) worshipers have and will put sodomites to death. I wonder who will win out here before our G-d puts and end to the madness.

Ari on August 6, 2010 at 11:31 pm

Ari sez:

“The issue is what our G-d has said about marriage.”

First of all, Ari, why do you hyphenate “God” but write on Shabbat?

Second of all, no, the issue is not what Hashem has “said” said about marriage. That is relevant solely to certain religiously sanctioned marriages.

“This is a Judeo-Christian nation. That is the fight now.”

I don’t know exactly what “Judeo-Christian” means. Anyway, the issue is not the “nation” but the political system, which is limited by an Establishment clause that very clearly rules out religious control by the central political authority. It’s one thing to recognize that most Americans are Christian (not Judeo-Christian), but another to use government to impose Christianity.

Similarly, government cannot impose Islam or deference to Islam, even if the majority of US citizens were Muslim (ugh!).

Sorry, but I’d argue that the problem today is creeping totalitarianism under several guises, and I don’t think government, which has itself expanded its scope so dramatically, is the cure for this problem.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 2:47 pm

Gay marriage, gay schmarriage. The fact is that the matter is a moral issue, NOT a legal one – never was and NEVER should be. This whole thing is just one more glaring example of how the government – led by the nose by the sanctimonious religious right – is actually undermining the Constitution. There has been a continuous attack on the Constitution since we acheived nationhood in 1776. Our history is full of instances of Constitution erosion – not the least of which was the disastrous Volstead Act, which resulted in Prohibition and the related rise of organized crime. This gay marriage crap is just another nail in the Constitutional coffin. Who the HELL are we to pontificate, let alone legislate, against a couple, merely because they want to formalize their relationship? If they are not harming anyone else’s person or property, LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE! Its nobody’s business but theirs. The same thing – exactly – applies to a plethora of other issues – drug use and prostitution amongst the most prominent. If the damn government would only keep its nose out of people’s private lives, this would be a much nicer place. The same thing applies to the bluenoses who apparently cannot stand the thought that something might be fun, so that they are driven to get something banned, just because it offends their “sense of right”. Well, I do NOT subscribe to this view, not at all. Someone else’s “sense of right” is not necessarily mine, and that’s how it should be. The bluenoses and the government have NO right to police morals – that is up to the individual. The Constitution guarantees me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If getting married to a man, smoking the occasional joint or patronizing a prostitute are what floats my boat, so be it. It ain’t got nothin’ to do with you, so long as it doesn’t harm you or damage your property. I don’t care how offensive you find it. My retort would be “So what?” You and the government do not belong in my bedroom. Read George Orwell’s “1984” and then try to look at it objectively and tell me – honestly – that “1984” is not already with us, because of the government and their cohorts, the religious right.

Beedlebomb on August 7, 2010 at 10:48 am

To the straight folks….
would you be willing to give up your tax break for being married?

Pete Bone on August 7, 2010 at 1:13 pm

I’m ambivalent about Debbie’s periodic gay-related posts. On the one hand, it’s useful to know how many of those who oppose Islam oppose it not because it is an imperialist, totalitarian ideology but because the content of the doctrine is un-Christian (or un-Jewish).

On the other hand, even discussing gay-related issues weakens alliances. As Schattschneider says, it is necessary so suppress certain conflicts so that others can be joined effectively.

skzion on August 7, 2010 at 1:51 pm

theShadow,

Only the slightest change of wording, and your post would be a classic Archie Bunker tirade. As a lifelong fan of “All in the Family,” let me take this opportunity to stand up and applaud. However, just for the fun of it, I would like to point out some factual inaccuracies in your charming rant.

First of all, the Spartans had no “gay marriage,” or at least no recorded instances thereof. Rather, the Spartan man would marry a woman but spend most of his time with a male lover within the military barracks. Compare and contrast from the Samurai of Japan, who practiced the “Beautiful Way” — homosexual relationships that would take precedent over their duty to their wives and possibly even their daimyo.

And the Middle Eastern countries you listed as “homosexual” societies are hardly that; rather, they are nations which have taken your own views to their logical extreme. In each of these countries, there are prison and even death sentences carried out for homosexuality, with various extremes of cruelty.

You would have been better off listing countries that actually allow gay marriage, like most of the EU. And you know what? I WOULD go if I COULD. I’d take rationed healthcare and equal marriage rights over next to no healthcare and discriminatory marriage laws. And as for Muhammadization? Well, I’d like to see something like France’s anti-terror unit over in America, or something like Italy’s bulldozing of minarets due to noise ordinance violations.

And of course, you closed your comment as you opened it — with an ad hom. Well, your ad hominem remarks are the most reliable remarks you make. If you say I’m a schmuck, I must be. You, of all people, would know a schmuck when you see one.

Colin on August 7, 2010 at 7:11 pm

@Colin on August 7, 2010 at 7:11 pm
eh, so you’re no the typical troll who happens by here, but someone with intellect and substance. OK, my bad.
BUT, I wasn’t listing Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan…
as homosexual societies (maybe closet ones though). As you said: “In each of these countries, there are prison and even death sentences carried out for homosexuality, with various extremes of cruelty.”
That was actually the point of my sarcastic remark.
As for the “schmuck” thing. I only used schmuck “cause it rhymes with luck, period. You know a schmuck is the discarded part of the male anatomy after a circucision and…hey now!!!

theShadow on August 9, 2010 at 12:05 am

So many of you miss the entire point of the decision Judge Vaughan made. This is not about morality or ethics or ‘slippery slopes’. It all boils down to there being no basis on which a municipality can deny a license. If you want to protect marriage as a religious institution take the power to grant licenses away from your local government. In fact, take all power away from government and we’d be better off.

David on February 13, 2011 at 4:30 pm

Hurrah, another bunch of comments whinging about nothing as per usual, oh noes, a man and a man, or woman and a woman want to get married, that’s the downfall of society right there, how very dare two people wish to formalise their relationship, in a ceremony that their friends might attend.
Why in the name of your gods do you honestly care what two people get up to, on their own time. live your own lives and let other’s live theirs.

WHB on June 3, 2011 at 9:31 pm

Debbie Schlussel

Support My Work

Join My Mailing List!

Follow Me

Search

Categories

Sponsored Links

On the Gay Marriage Decision: Is It Just Me . . . ?

75 Responses

Leave a Reply

Sponsor My Work!

Advertisement