June 29, 2015

Three Essays on Post-America America
— Ace

Charlie Martin: The Know-Betters Will Bring You Morlocks to Heel.


In the 1850s there was an active political movement that became known as the "Know-Nothings," because they considered themselves semi-secret, and members, when questioned about the group, were supposed to say "I know nothing." Of course, a secret political party doesn’t have much effect, and quickly the Know-Nothings were pretty overt about telling everyone around them that they knew nothing, over and over again.


It seems to me there’s a semi-secret political party at work in the U.S. now: the People Who Know Better.

...

[T]he Know-Betters would never come to the conclusion that conditions in places like Colorado simply aren’t suited for wide-scale mass transit.

Instead, the Know-Betters have decided that we should use government to impose greater population density, with utopian city plans that push people into small, "walkable" communities with mass transit hubs.

And if people prefer to live on half-acre lots with lawns and space between houses, well, they Know Better.

...

I keep finding myself coming back to a passage from Thomas Jefferson that I put up on Tatler a long while ago. Here’s Jefferson:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all.

– Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Henry Lee, 1824)


Rod Dreher writes of the need to now live as expatriots in our own country. Internal exiles, as the Soviets termed them.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision-- and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision "a threat to democracy," and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.

...

The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?

For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.

For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives....


It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said "a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict."

Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.

I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts.

Tim Carney's piece is tangentially related, but it expresses a very important point.

Buzzfeed Ben was asked to reconcile his shitty listicle site's stated claim of being "neutral" with its all-in rainbow-color theming for the gay marriage ruling. He said that he was being perfectly neutral and objective -- it's just that there aren't two sides to the gay marriage question. There's only one.

This is a frightening thought, and LOLCats Ben isn't the only one pushing it. In order to claim the high road of being liberal and tolerant of ideas, while at the same time actually being as illiberal and intolerant as any zealot or hooded klansman, it is necessary to deem contrary positions unpositions, which therefore can only be held by unpeople.

By claiming an idea simply does not exist in civil society, one must, perforce, also claim that those holding that idea do not, or must not, themselves exist in civil society.

Something must be sacrificed in order to maintain these two contradictory claims -- and the thing most easily sacrificed is any acknowledgement of you as a human being and American citizen.

But Buzzfeed Ben is a nice, open-minded guy. Just ask him. He'll tell you so.

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (437)
Post contains 948 words, total size 7 kb.

1 If there can be only one POV, it better be Her Grace's, or mine.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 29, 2015 08:52 AM (evdj2)

2 I'm glad we're getting on the same page.

Posted by: HoboJerk, The State Loves You at June 29, 2015 08:52 AM (FA3Z7)

3 Barack Obama is a SCOAMT.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 08:53 AM (kff5f)

4 "Tolerance" is a one way street.

Posted by: tu3031 at June 29, 2015 08:53 AM (YFFpo)

5 Burn it down. Scatter the stones. Salt the earth where it stood.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 08:53 AM (kff5f)

6 Love and Despair'16.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 29, 2015 08:54 AM (evdj2)

7 Internal exiles That about sums it up perfectly. Je sui Benedict of Nursia.

Posted by: Citizen X at June 29, 2015 08:54 AM (7ObY1)

8 The Cathedral will not be satiated until it has complete dominance over public and private life. Build your own liberty wherever you can.

Posted by: HoboJerk, TPHSATAR at June 29, 2015 08:54 AM (FA3Z7)

9 The Cathedral will not be satiated until it has complete dominance over public and private life. Build your own liberty wherever you can.

Posted by: HoboJerk, TPHSATAR at June 29, 2015 08:54 AM (FA3Z7)

10 "Coexist"!  Or else...

Posted by: tu3031 at June 29, 2015 08:54 AM (YFFpo)

11 Making some people 'unpeople' is EXACTLY how the holocaust got started.

Not snarking, not exaggerating.  Removing the humanity from one's opponent is simply how an aggressor makes destroying that opponent palatable.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards at June 29, 2015 08:55 AM (fwARV)

12 So...another depressing day huh? Sigh.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 29, 2015 08:55 AM (lIU4e)

13 POV, ATM, prepare for the new meaning of those acronyms to become part of your kindergartner's curriculum. With coloring books by Dan Savage.

Posted by: wooga at June 29, 2015 08:55 AM (/NyM4)

14 Is there a third essay linked somewhere, or is it Ace trashing Buzzfeed? Because if the third essay is just Ace's, I can live with that.

Posted by: dIb at June 29, 2015 08:55 AM (HYAmq)

15 I, for one, am looking forward to that magical time when polygamy is made legal by the US Supreme Court. Why, the idea that I could marry not just one, but two, three, or even FOUR insane, unfaithful, money-grubbing, pathologically dishonest bitches at the same time simply gives me Eternal Wood!

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 08:55 AM (72D6h)

16 I'm somewhere in the middle of Jefferson thus I think there are three sets of people. Unfortunately that third set is on a balancing wire with a gale force wind.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 29, 2015 08:56 AM (Q4pU/)

17 Trying to look on the bright side. At least I'm not wasting time watching TV much these days. Since all the news is bad.

Posted by: Citizen X at June 29, 2015 08:56 AM (7ObY1)

18 >>>So...another depressing day huh? Sigh. i'll see if there's anything good or fun.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 08:56 AM (bhepQ)

19 Tolerance and freedom are only words yelled by the left to continue to further their own goals while they are NOT in power.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2015 08:56 AM (nqBYe)

20 The Rebel Alliance has a flag now.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 08:56 AM (CdIQH)

21 Is there a third essay linked somewhere, or is it Ace trashing Buzzfeed? Because if the third essay is just Ace's, I can live with that. If you want there are a few up on that blog I don't have. http://dedicatedtenther.blogspot.com But the third one is just linked to the word "unpeople."

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) - Not dead yet at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (kff5f)

22 How many Christians will be able to fit into the closets vacated by the homosexuals?

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (mvenn)

23 Ponder this: Buzzfeed is less biased than Politico.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (evdj2)

24 remember when the left was oh so concerned about the constitution and govt overreach, of course because they KNEW what they would themselves do with power.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (nqBYe)

25 4 "Tolerance" is a one way street Not even. At least on a one way street you get to drive your own car. "Tolerance" is a light rail system.

Posted by: wooga at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (/NyM4)

26 Before despair, consider that the mouth breathing Red State of California put this question to the people and wonders of wonders these retards wanted nothing to do with teh ghey marriage. Clinton appointed judges were brought to bear and the people's hatred was expunged from the law. So what we have is a Supremes diktat that you people suck and need to know your place. Yeah, democracy.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (oDCMR)

27 I like Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: @votermom at June 29, 2015 08:57 AM (cbfNE)

28 Lynch the Intolerant!

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 08:58 AM (CdIQH)

29

Not a socon, not a con, not religious.

 

Lawlessness and authoritarianism are the issue, and the mindsets (very alien to the American experience) that underly them.

 

Those are the evils now dominant.  They are present in every pernicious court ukaz and ridiculous law now impoverishing, coarsening, weakening, and restricting Americans' lives.

 

 

Posted by: rhomboid at June 29, 2015 08:58 AM (QDnY+)

30 It was actually linked once by the word "unpeople." However, I guess that link was too short, and I now link it with the whole "Tim Carney's piece..." sentence, before the part on that essay.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 08:58 AM (bhepQ)

31 The irony is that post-Christian Europe, although it started earlier, will be less post-Christian than post-Christian America. They subsidize their churches. We will not and will shut them down via civil lawsuits.

Posted by: AmishDude at June 29, 2015 08:58 AM (b65cm)

32 I am all for a dissolution of the Union. I no longer care to extend any respect to a majority of the citizenry.

Posted by: Garrett at June 29, 2015 08:59 AM (o3+os)

33 I, for one, am looking forward to that magical time when polygamy is made legal by the US Supreme Court. Who are we to judge the love between amongst amidst consenting adults?

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 29, 2015 08:59 AM (evdj2)

34 i'll see if there's anything good or fun.

Robo-marriage?
http://is.gd/10SMDR

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 08:59 AM (ZKzrr)

35 21. People were saying things about you having something called a blog. I thought it was a joke . Thanks, by the way.

Posted by: dIb at June 29, 2015 08:59 AM (HYAmq)

36 I think I prefer being called a troglodyte.  Sounds more intellectual and snazzier.

Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2015 08:59 AM (bynk/)

37 In the 1850s there was an active political movement that became known as the "Know-Nothings," because they considered themselves semi-secret, and members, when questioned about the group, were supposed to say "I know nothing." Dindu Nuffin Cantdu Nuffin Nose Nuffin

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 29, 2015 09:00 AM (BKWpy)

38 remember when the left (Obama) was angry at what they believed the Scotus was doing? no outrage is real. only useful

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2015 09:00 AM (nqBYe)

39 >>i'll see if there's anything good or fun. Batman?

Posted by: Garrett at June 29, 2015 09:00 AM (o3+os)

40 And thanks Ace. I am blind.

Posted by: dIb at June 29, 2015 09:00 AM (HYAmq)

41 27 I like Thomas Jefferson. Of all the Founders, he's the most difficult to figure out. His political persona was "the man of the people" but he lived as close to a princely life as one could lead in America. He loathed big cities yet he lived very happily in Paris for many years, and he helped design Washington D.C., intended from its inception to be a big city even though it took a lot longer than the planners thought it would. He was a brilliant man who couldn't for the life of him balance a checkbook. In the end, frustrating as he is to get a handle on, I like him too. But Ben Franklin is my very favorite of the Founders.

Posted by: Citizen X at June 29, 2015 09:01 AM (7ObY1)

42 But does this mean I should no longer place my faith in John Boehner and Mitch McConnell?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 29, 2015 09:01 AM (8ZskC)

43 and I still say it's a poor kind of love that isn't real until the State approves it.

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 29, 2015 09:01 AM (evdj2)

44 I like Flat Earther. Because the joke is on them. The Earth is flat. The curvature can be mathematically proven not to exist.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 09:01 AM (CdIQH)

45 Not snarking, not exaggerating. Removing the humanity from one's opponent is simply how an aggressor makes destroying that opponent palatable. That can be made a two way street.

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 29, 2015 09:01 AM (BKWpy)

46 In Germany it is a national law that all students must study religion for the first seven years. They get two choices - Catholic and Protestant. Something about knowing right and wrong. Seems things went downhill in Germany a few years ago. Who Knew?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:02 AM (oDCMR)

47 In Germany it is a national law that all students must study religion for the first seven years. They get two choices - Catholic and Protestant. Something about knowing right and wrong. Seems things went downhill in Germany a few years ago. Who Knew?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:02 AM (oDCMR)

48 Ace, given that you are an agnostic, why do you care about what happens to Christians? Asking coz it's so common to see the sentiment "I'm not religious so I don't care about churches."

Posted by: @votermom at June 29, 2015 09:02 AM (cbfNE)

49 And if people prefer to live on half-acre lots with lawns and space between houses, well, they Know Better


1/2 acre would be considered small in my neighborhood.  In fact, my house is built on 2 - .75 acre lots.


But old Tom is my favorite President of all time.

Posted by: Vic[/i] We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 09:03 AM (GpgJl)

50 I also keep saying Good Citizens are Chumps.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:03 AM (evdj2)

51 Dreher has been giving me nightmares for weeks reading his stuff. Too bad he's fucking Nostradamus with that shit lately.

Posted by: Fred at June 29, 2015 09:03 AM (ckrhB)

52 That can be made a two way street.

Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 02:01 PM (BKWpy)

Can be?  Sure.  It can be.

But it won't.  Because no one wants to die first and no one wants to die alone.

The left knows they have the entirety of the State, with its full force and aggression, on their side.  What does the conservative have?  Being right?

How many legions does 'being right' have?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards at June 29, 2015 09:03 AM (fwARV)

53 "He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us." Bullshit. Wrong lesson. But I figured this might be a response from a group congenitally incapable of fighting.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:03 AM (s/yC1)

54 McIntyre and the Benedict option on the front page of the HQ. Dark days ahead.

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:04 AM (U8W/7)

55 Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.


Hell voting Republican ALLOWED us to get here so no matter what they sure as hell would not save us.  Because they do NOT want to save us.

Posted by: Vic[/i] We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 09:04 AM (GpgJl)

56 Never been a fan of Jefferson or his Toadie, Madison. I'll take Hamilton, Jay and Adams.

Posted by: Garrett at June 29, 2015 09:05 AM (o3+os)

57 >>>ce, given that you are an agnostic, why do you care about what happens to Christians? Asking coz it's so common to see the sentiment "I'm not religious so I don't care about churches." well, one, a natural cultural kinship and therefore sympathy. Political alliances are not sustained by agreement on all issues, which is impossible, but fellow-feeling among other members of the alliance, even with whom one may disagree. Secondly, and more importantly: Christians are just the canaries in the coalmine, boys. Totalitarians will destroy all dissenters. Christians are just the first, most noisome group to get the Totalitarians' wrath. But I'm just a couple of lines lower on the list.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:05 AM (bhepQ)

58 Who are we to judge the love between amongst amidst consenting adults?

Posted by: Grump928(c) withdraws his consent at June 29, 2015 01:59 PM (evdj2)



Who are you to impose your "ageist"  beliefs on what does and does not constitute adulthood? 

Posted by: 12 Year Old and their "Fans" at June 29, 2015 09:05 AM (TOk1P)

59 1/2 acre would be considered small in my neighborhood. In fact, my house is built on 2 - .75 acre lots. My house is built on a wooded 10 acre parcel and my annual property taxes equal the entire purchase price of your sorry little shack. Zing.

Posted by: Mr. Poo Poo at June 29, 2015 09:05 AM (8ZskC)

60 All of which is why I believe it doesn't matter who is president, who serves in congress, who we go to war with, or not. What matters is 51% of the voters voted for Obama twice. Until that difference is reconciled, nothing else matters. And flipping the vote from 51-49 to 49-51 doesn't change anything. One side or the other has to be beaten into submission. The same with our foreign enemies. They have to have the will to fight beaten out of them.

Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 09:05 AM (zGQ5T)

61 We have both kinds of politics! Socialist AND Communist!

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 29, 2015 09:06 AM (vXKGT)

62 Just remember Horde, this last year and a half of obama rule is going to be coming at us fast and furious. The progressive left is going to set as many cultural fires as possible and push for things they would other wise have waited for. This is the culmination of 100 years of arm twisting, nose breaking, and carefully connived actions. If you think they are going to rest on their victories you'd be wrong. But hey, Jeb! or Rubio will save us, right?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:06 AM (UnJ7w)

63 But I'm just a couple of lines lower on the list. Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:05 PM (bhepQ) "Then they came for the hobo-hunting ewoks, and there was nobody left to speak up for me . . . "

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 09:06 AM (72D6h)

64 The first amendment as far as the "religious portion of it" hasn't really meant anything to do with religion since the Warren court.  Following the school prayer decision it was only used to beat on Christians with "freedom from religion" for militant atheists.

Posted by: Vic[/i] We Have No Party at June 29, 2015 09:06 AM (GpgJl)

65 Being tolerant is what got to the point we are today. I know there a lot of people today that are mad as hell that the SC made an edict that gay marriage legal across the country based on the unconstitutional aspect of the ruling and placing power where it does not belong. On the other hand these same people said they did not have a problem with gay marriage per se prior to the ruling. Glenn Beck for example . It's this type of tolerance without considering future consequences that allowed this to happen.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 29, 2015 09:06 AM (Q4pU/)

66 isn't it interesting that Buzz has the same position as that paper in Philly. That there can be no dissent. Journ0list II seems to be in play

Posted by: Ugh at June 29, 2015 09:07 AM (5rX6U)

67 I'll take Hamilton, Jay and Adams. Posted by: Garrett at June 29, 2015 02:05 PM (o3+os) Me, Patrick Henry.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:07 AM (s/yC1)

68 The Soviets tried to crush the Christian church. Its instructive to note that Russian and Ukrainian churches thrive today while Soviet Collectives have disappeared. Lesson learned - don't fuck with God.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:07 AM (oDCMR)

69 Heads on pikes, my friends. Heads on pikes. The only thing unresolved is who will be the spectacle, and who will be the spectator.

Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at June 29, 2015 09:07 AM (aiogl)

70 i'll see if there's anything good or fun. Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 01:56 PM (bhepQ) Hey, complaining gets results! Who knew?

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 29, 2015 09:07 AM (lIU4e)

71 Dark days ahead, my friends.  Dark days indeed.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 09:08 AM (P25Hh)

72 For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives.... ---- Yup. Challenges in court to Church's "discrimination" against gheys will NOT be made against a predominantly black church.... nor will it be made against a mosque. It WILL come against either a bitter clinger evangelical church or a Catholic church. Mark it in red.

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 09:08 AM (8XRCm)

73 "He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us." I was watching The Last Alaskan's this weekend. And, my wife asked if I envied them and wish I lived that lifestyle. She almost fell out of her chair when I said yes I do and yes I would.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 09:08 AM (kQBSd)

74 Lesson learned - don't fuck with God.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 02:07 PM (oDCMR)

Posted by: Ramess II at June 29, 2015 09:08 AM (/2E+M)

75 56 Never been a fan of Jefferson or his Toadie, Madison. I'll take Hamilton, Jay and Adams. Obama would just love him some Sedition Acts of his own so he could imprison his critics like Adams did. Quite surprised he hasn't just imposed them yet.

Posted by: Citizen X at June 29, 2015 09:09 AM (7ObY1)

76 67 Hamilton? Not that Bastard.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 09:09 AM (CdIQH)

77 Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:05 PM (bhepQ) Just wait. Compile enough views and you'll be on the list in multiple places. Since there are various groups operating off differing lists, there is no a period where I'm not under attack for the most part.

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:09 AM (U8W/7)

78 Got into an argument this weekend about it. I was told that I should just accept the decision. I said "if it went the other way, would you abide by some condescending, patronizing shithead telling YOU to "just accept it?" I got a smug look in return. These guys are assholes. I'd feel almost sorry about the Left using them, but they deserve to have reality crash in on them when the country goes Full Fascist.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 09:09 AM (PFy0L)

79 'Goodbye Sweden' buy should have rethought his exit strategy.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 29, 2015 09:09 AM (AC0lD)

80 "Being tolerant is what got to the point we are today. "" We'll be just like the Totalitarians, but with our own dogmas, which are better, because they're ours!

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:09 AM (bhepQ)

81 79 'Goodbye Sweden' guy should have rethought his exit strategy.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at June 29, 2015 09:10 AM (AC0lD)

82 Behold the rage of the rabid secularist No different than any other zealot

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:10 AM (zOTsN)

83 69 Heads on pikes, my friends. Heads on pikes. Posted by: jwpaine, otherized for your protection at June 29, 2015 02:07 PM (aiogl) Yup. This is what it always comes down to against fanatics. Face it, or lose it.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:10 AM (s/yC1)

84

If burning    flags is constitutional, I don't see why burning churches can't fall under the same penumbra.

 

  -   Anthony Kennedy

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 29, 2015 09:10 AM (vJki2)

85 The only thing unresolved is who will be the spectacle, and who will be the spectator.

I hear the tumbrils comin'
They're rollin' round the bend....

Posted by: pep at June 29, 2015 09:10 AM (GMG6W)

86 We'll be just like the Totalitarians, but with our own dogmas, which are better, because they're ours! Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:09 PM (bhepQ) ^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:11 AM (UnJ7w)

87 HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 01:59 PM (ZKzrr) Here's a happy thought, at least going back to a thread last week where HR and I talked stouts for a few seconds: I mentioned Deschutes River Black Butte Porter, and had completely forgotten that Deschutes Brewery also makes a stout, called "Obsidian Stout", so I knocked a six pack of that off last Friday while watching Band of Brothers on disc. The Obsidian Stout was off the hook delicious, and really took the edge off a shitty week. I highly recommend.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 09:11 AM (72D6h)

88 Well, with his "Surrender and Pray" approach, looks like Dreher will be the GOP front-runner in 2016.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 29, 2015 09:11 AM (amQXf)

89 Instead of a yellow star, we get to wear a little white cross, right?

Posted by: Roy at June 29, 2015 09:11 AM (VndSC)

90 The dichotomy is this: when you elicit support as a subterfuge for a more diabolical end- you really don't have popular support. You've beguiled and tricked people into believing a fairytale which is really Trojan Horse.

When people finally see this for what it is, the undermining of a democracy, the creation of a special class, the destruction of states rights, constitution through judiciary, creation of a police state and the destruction of individual liberty- the worm is going to turn. I can't imagine a plurality of people in this nation giving those sacred values up for pretext of "gay marriage".

This ultimately isn't about "rights", it's about liberty.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 29, 2015 09:11 AM (GGCsk)

91 We could do the NASA UFO thing.

Or not.

Seems like it has potential for an interdasting thred.

Posted by: eleven at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (IPzoI)

92 Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 02:09 PM (PFy0L) I accepted the collapse of civil marriage some time ago. As such, this decision (which really just altered some contract law to me) is... well... anti-climatic. Yes, yes, they'll come for the churches next. They were going to do that anyway. Hell, I'm not even sure this accelerates that. So I greeted it largely with "meh" but that got me yelled at for not caring enough.

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (U8W/7)

93 88 Well, with his "Surrender and Pray" approach, looks like Dreher will be the GOP front-runner in 2016. Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 29, 2015 02:11 PM (amQXf) No, too religious. They opt for "surrender and surrender."

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (s/yC1)

94 We'll be just like the Totalitarians, but with our own dogmas, which are better, because they're ours! (a) Our dogmas are superior because science (b) We have all the guns

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (8ZskC)

95 >>>Batman? Batman is... okay, but not blowing me away. It might be too big. I played Batman thursday and friday night, but then not at all on saturday and sunday. It's not a bad game, and it will probably get better once I get over the alienating hugeness of it, and once I learn to drive the batmobile. But so far, it's... eh. Shadows of Mordor had me hooked by now.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (bhepQ)

96 The Soviets tried to crush the Christian church. Its instructive to note that Russian and Ukrainian churches thrive today while Soviet Collectives have disappeared. Lesson learned - don't fuck with God.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 02:07 PM (oDCMR)



It will be interesting to see what happens when  the Supreme Beings rule that Churches  MUST  perform gay weddings.  Lots of those  Churches, and their clergy of course, will. 



Others won't, and I suspect it will ultimately destroy those Churches.  As in, the institutions/buildings that we now think of as "Churches."  Eventually, they will go  underground.  Without all  the trappings, these Churches will thrive. 



In other words, they'll come for the buildings, they'll come for the wealth, they'll come for the bodies of the men who have faith, but  they will not get the souls.  They cannot have what they do not know exists. 

Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (TOk1P)

97 Thinking of myself as an internal exile in the country I love leaves a bitter taste, but there's nothing for it: there it is.

Posted by: troyriser at June 29, 2015 09:12 AM (S08gh)

98 Batman is... okay, but not blowing me away. It might be too big. Are you playing on a PC or console?

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 09:13 AM (PFy0L)

99 Yeah the go into the woods and pray thing doesn't really work for me.

Posted by: eleven at June 29, 2015 09:13 AM (IPzoI)

100 In Canada some years ago there was a big kerfuffle when some pro-life students tried to organize a pro-life campus group at some college. They were not allowed to do so. Why? Because the debate is settled. There is no debate. Presenting the "other side" of an issue that has no other side is simply hate speech. And here we are.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 09:13 AM (MYCIw)

101 The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 09:13 AM (8XRCm)

102 When people finally see this for what it is...- the worm is going to turn.

Too late.

Posted by: Weimar at June 29, 2015 09:13 AM (GMG6W)

103 Cede legal marriage to the gays; we won't overturn that, given our current political class of GOPe and the courts.

What we can do is petition our states to stop issuing all marriage licenses.  Make it impossible for anyone -- gay or straight -- to get a license.  If states don't issue marriage licenses, they can also stop being in the divorce business, as well.

Sever religious marriage from any connection to legally recognized marriage, so that now it's only a union recognized by the Church and God.

It's time we started beating the left at their own game.

Posted by: elaine at June 29, 2015 09:13 AM (Y0Piu)

104 The Soviets tried to crush the Christian church. Its instructive to note that Russian and Ukrainian churches thrive today while Soviet Collectives have disappeared. Lesson learned - don't fuck with God.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 02:07 PM (oDCMR)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

So you're ready to face what the Christians in Soviet Russia faced?   Millions died because of it.  Again.  Are you ready?

 

I for one will  remain a warrior protecting my Christian friends, even IF I have to die alone.  I've dedicated myself to the one who'll stand on the wall.

 

If that makes me un-Christian, so be it.  But that's my choice.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 09:14 AM (P25Hh)

105 LOLCats Ben Why the LOLCATs h8?

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at June 29, 2015 09:14 AM (DL2i+)

106 >>> Behold the rage of the rabid secularist you just have to understand (which I'm sure you do) that all men are religious, and all men are cultish in their devotion to their class/tribe icons, particularly those men who claim to be free of such tendencies at all.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:14 AM (bhepQ)

107 Sever religious marriage from any connection to legally recognized marriage, so that now it's only a union recognized by the Church and God. It's time we started beating the left at their own game. Posted by: elaine at June 29, 2015 02:13 PM (Y0Piu) That's a great idea.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 09:14 AM (72D6h)

108 >>> Are you playing on a PC or console? console.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:14 AM (bhepQ)

109 Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 02:12 PM (TOk1P) Your going to end up with 2 different types of churches. The gov't approved that preform SSM and the underground church that will be hunted for it's non conformist attitude.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 09:14 AM (kQBSd)

110 53 >> Bullshit. Wrong lesson. But I figured this might be a response from a group congenitally incapable of fighting.
 
The Benedictines went Galt. And that IS a choice.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2015 09:15 AM (eB5ZF)

111 I'd like to think i'm part of the Leave-Me-The-Fuck-Alone-And-I'll-Leave-You-The-Fuck-Alone crowd, so no thanks to fighting against ghey marriage because it offends my morals. It has to be on a Constitutional basis.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:15 AM (UnJ7w)

112 I for one will remain a warrior protecting my Christian friends, even IF I have to die alone. I've dedicated myself to the one who'll stand on the wall. If that makes me un-Christian, so be it. But that's my choice. Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 02:14 PM (P25Hh) There is nothing wrong with fighting to defend your family and faith. And you won't die alone. I'll stand with you.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 09:15 AM (72D6h)

113 In the book of Kings, the downfall of the kingdom of Israel is discussed. Every single king, in the end, embraced other Gods. Even Solomon. Solomon married 700 women, and in the name of diversity allowed them to continue to worship their own Gods and built them temples to do so and to make their sacrifices. Even to the God Moloch, to whom infant sacrifice was necessary. All in the name of diversity. That is the Torah portion coming up in August. If you are so diverse you lose who you are you will fail

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:15 AM (zOTsN)

114 Shadows of Mordor? Can that XBOX 360?

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 09:15 AM (CdIQH)

115 Did Benedict have kids and a wife to worry about, because I do. I could convince the wife to move far away, but where? Where will be safe over the next few decades? The only good answer I see is peacefully dividing the US into smaller bits that can govern themselves closer to the people, but who is going to have the courage to lead that movement? Who gets to keep the dollar and the debt? Will all of the groups in power, including big corporations, tolerate the idea of America getting smaller? No. It's pretty much dissolution for my people. Watch Dr. Zhivago sometime. His kid ended up digging dirt with a bunch of slaves and didn't even know who her father was.

Posted by: Old Hob at June 29, 2015 09:15 AM (VRc/p)

116 "Now, we've had legal marijuana in Colorado for at least a couple of years, and civilization hasn't collapsed." Well, alrighty then. Point made, point taken, nothing more to be said. It's a proven fact, the science is settled. Consensus has been achieved. Any failure now would be 'bad luck', and no one's fault due to unforeseen circumstances that no rational person could have predicted.

Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 09:16 AM (zGQ5T)

117 >>>When people finally see this for what it is...- the worm is going to turn. i think dreher is right about this: Those who continue asserting there is some Silent Majority ready to be wakened are dreaming. This is a majoritarian phenomenon.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:16 AM (bhepQ)

118 Yeah the go into the woods and pray thing doesn't really work for me. Posted by: eleven at June 29, 2015 02:13 PM (IPzoI) ---- Not the point. The benedictine cloistered themselves (for self preservation) from society in an effort to keep the faith and intellectual philosophy alive during the the Dark Ages. Some argue the Benedctine were a major contibutor to rebuilding Europe after the dark ages ended. They went underground.

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 09:16 AM (8XRCm)

119 Your going to end up with 2 different types of churches. ------------------------ We had that already. One always preached the Gospel of Man, along with air-conditioned doghouses.

Posted by: Roy at June 29, 2015 09:16 AM (VndSC)

120 >>>hadows of Mordor? Can that XBOX 360? i imagine so, it's not an exclusive to PS4.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:16 AM (bhepQ)

121 There is nothing wrong with fighting to defend your family and faith. And you won't die alone. I'll stand with you. Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 02:15 PM (72D6h) **** I'm in.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at June 29, 2015 09:16 AM (mvenn)

122 >>When people finally see this for what it is...- the worm is going to turn.
Too late.

Posted by: Weimar at June 29, 2015 02:13 PM (GMG6W) <<

Not really. It's never too late. The only question is  how that change will occur. That's why Scalia spoke in terms of a revolution. He realizes there are probably a lot of people who may be supportive now, but once they see where this is going are not going to like it.

By then it will be too late to change without drastic repercussions.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 29, 2015 09:17 AM (GGCsk)

123 103 >> What we can do is petition our states to stop issuing all marriage licenses.
 
Mississippi is considering doing exactly that; no marriage licenses at all.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2015 09:17 AM (eB5ZF)

124 oh wait, xbox360? I don't know if there's a port for the 360. I forgot, the new one is the Xbox One.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:17 AM (bhepQ)

125 The only way they can attack churches is via 'Income Tax Law'. Simple fix is to do away with income taxes. Many ways to do this. This further hurts NoGo outfits like Soros runs. A National Sales Tax would be fun and would encourage saving nationally. It would further increase citizens' privacy via the State. Think of the amount of social engineering that would get trashed with no Income Tax?

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:17 AM (oDCMR)

126 We'll be just like the Totalitarians, but with our own dogmas, which are better, because they're ours! Jesss! To quote Her Grace; My good is also *a* good.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:17 AM (evdj2)

127 Bullshit. Wrong lesson. But I figured this might be a response from a group congenitally incapable of fighting.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 02:03 PM (s/yC1)

 

What group is that, hero?

Posted by: troyriser at June 29, 2015 09:17 AM (S08gh)

128 The only way this is going to end is in violence.

Posted by: GMan at June 29, 2015 09:18 AM (sxq57)

129 Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:16 PM (bhepQ) I figure when they're coming after me to lock me away for "wrong think" my wife and family will be asking why I just don't repent for my "think sins." There is no majority waiting to spring free, this is LIV world, everyone else just wants to be eaten last. This is the human condition, stay alive by not fighting.

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:18 AM (U8W/7)

130 Why, the idea that I could marry not just one, but two, three, or even FOUR insane, unfaithful, money-grubbing, pathologically dishonest bitches at the same time simply gives me Eternal Wood!

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 01:55 PM (72D6h)


Sharkman... you need to find a better, more conservative, class of woman to hang out with. We truly are not all like that.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 09:18 AM (OrI3J)

131 And you won't die alone. Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 02:15 PM (72D6h) No, you won't.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:18 AM (s/yC1)

132 Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 02:15 PM (zOTsN) Umm, this is not the 700 Club website. What God chose to do with Solomon is between God and Solomon.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:19 AM (UnJ7w)

133 What I find interesting is that the gay marriage ruling is the one that has people all riled up. To me that was almost inconsequential. The real anger should be towards the Obamacare ruling #1 as SCOTUS basically said laws can mean whatever the fuck you want to mean. And #2 the disparate impact ruling which from an end result point of view will be worse than Obamacare long term. 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly. Obamacare and disparate impact bullshit will impact your life negatively for the next 50 years.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 09:19 AM (0LHZx)

134 Unpeople of Jesusland -- I guess we're no longer worthy of acknowledging. It's gonna take a hell of a candidate to get us out of this slump. I wish I could see that person or unperson on the horizon.

Posted by: se pa moron at June 29, 2015 09:19 AM (xQX/f)

135 "Instead of a yellow star, we get to wear a little white cross, right?"

i'll wear crossed rifles: I went to Harmony Church.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 29, 2015 09:19 AM (I8nxO)

136 Posted by: troyriser at June 29, 2015 02:17 PM (S08gh) Idiot doesn't know the book he mocks. You can't fight something so large as the fall of Rome. It's not an enemy. It's entropy.

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:20 AM (U8W/7)

137 "I was watching The Last Alaskan's this weekend. " Can be interesting but those people, especially those boys, are a little weird.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 29, 2015 09:20 AM (LA7Cm)

138 Your going to end up with 2 different types of churches. The gov't approved that preform SSM and the underground church that will be hunted for it's non conformist attitude.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 02:14 PM (kQBSd)



It is going to be interesting to watch, if we live  that long.  State sanctioned Churches.



But  what about that pesky Amendment, the people will cry? 



Ha.  We have ways around  that,  the Supreme  Beings will answer. 

Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 09:20 AM (TOk1P)

139 I think the better example is that one paper's declaration that they will no longer publish opposing opinions on Gay Marriage. I guess they later walked it back a tad and opened a limited window for it.


But you can bet they'll still be pushing the gun control despite the fact that the SCOTUS has clearly ruled over and over on the matter.


And what if the ruling had gone against Gay Marriage at the Federal Level? Would the paper have shut down debate?


Of course not.


You thought these were interesting times? They're about to get a lot more interestinger.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 09:21 AM (xSCb6)

140 This Super Creepy Eric Hoteham: "The only way they can attack churches is via 'Income Tax Law' "., indicates that you a vastly underestimating the enemies of the Church.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 09:21 AM (OrI3J)

141 i'll wear crossed rifles: I went to Harmony Church. **** Safe In The Arms of Jesus, eh?

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at June 29, 2015 09:21 AM (mvenn)

142 Sever religious marriage from any connection to legally recognized marriage, so that now it's only a union recognized by the Church and God. It's time we started beating the left at their own game. Posted by: elaine at June 29, 2015 02:13 PM (Y0Piu) That's a great idea. Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 02:14 PM (72D6h) ---- Thats a terrible fucking idea. Church weddings have been recognized by the State for over 225 years. We're to have church weddings in secret, at night, like Mel Gibson in Bravehart so that the secularist cant have Prima Nocte up my ass because I believe in the imaginary man in the sky???? Fuck.That.Shit. Im not about to cede a right that Church going folk have enjoyed for over 200 years for some sense of fucked up secular fair play. WTF is wrong with you.?

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 09:21 AM (8XRCm)

143 Others won't, and I suspect it will ultimately destroy those Churches. As in, the institutions/buildings that we now think of as "Churches." Eventually, they will go underground. Without all the trappings, these Churches will thrive. In other words, they'll come for the buildings, they'll come for the wealth, they'll come for the bodies of the men who have faith, but they will not get the souls. They cannot have what they do not know exists. Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 02:12 PM (TOk1P) Ridicule is the answer. You have a conservative church that gets approached by a couple of shirt-lifters that want to marry? Recognize first that this is a political assault on that church, and that what they really want is to be turned down, so they can lawfare the church out of existence. So let them have their wedding, but do everything humanly possible to fcuk it up, without the church itself being accountable. The choir shows up in clown suits, or assless chaps, and sings gay-mocking songs, and the pastor shouts, "Hey, what you clowns doing? Don't you know this is a solemn occasion?" Plausible deniability, right? A little careful planning, and that ghey wedding could be a complete gong show, and yet the church elders could say, straight-faced, "Oh, that was terrible. The service got hijacked by outside agitators, we didn't plan it that way."

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at June 29, 2015 09:21 AM (wvk+d)

144 Polygamy only works when the man has the legal right to beat the recalcitrant wife into submission or lock her in the attic and never let her out.

Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 09:21 AM (zGQ5T)

145 106 >>> Behold the rage of the rabid secularist you just have to understand (which I'm sure you do) that all men are religious, and all men are cultish in their devotion to their class/tribe icons, particularly those men who claim to be free of such tendencies at all. ------------------------ Yep. With the new religion all you need is the right token, amulet and incantation and you are a good person. You do have to keep up with Network News to find out what token to worship everyday and incantation to recite, so it does require an effort.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (oDCMR)

146 So we have some gay friends who got married in Europe and I love them. I really do. And I want them happy. We were talking the week before this decision, and they were complaining about the Indiana law, such an outrage the Indiana law. I asked what law. They reminded me of the law the governor would not sign. I said it wasn't law, they got what they wanted, why were they still upset? They were furious that it was ever discussed and proposed in the first place There must be no discussion. They can only be one thought. I told them that places that require uniformity of thought have no liberty. Silence. They had not thought of that at all. I'm sure I didn't change their minds. I'm sure they didn't even think. I only managed to stun them momentarily.

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (zOTsN)

147 William Bullitt, in his final dispatch to the State Department, dated April 20, 1936, the [United States] ambassador [to the Soviet Union] issued a frank warning: "The problem of relations with the Government of the Soviet Union is ... a subordinate part of the problem presented by communism as a militant faith determined to produce world revolution and the 'liquidation' (that is to say murder) of all non-believers. There is no doubt whatsoever that all orthodox communist parties in all countries, including the United States, believe in mass murder... The final argument of the believing communist is invariably that all battle, murder, and sudden death, all the spies, exiles and firing squads are justified." Sound familiar? Found this quote when looking up "Betty Glan" who was mentioned in Amity Schlaes' "Forgotten Man". The is quote taken from a book called "The Forsaken" by Tim Tzouliadis.

Posted by: OCBill at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (Mj+FA)

148 >>This is a majoritarian phenomenon.
Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:16 PM (bhepQ) <<

We'll have to disagree on that.

I don't believe the social media generation works based on facts or from an informed position. They mostly work on pathos without any real sense of long term repercussions.

You have to remember that social mores and societal values are built on a long trend of experiences. Most of those have been proven over time which is why they exist in the first place.

When you fool people into thinking one thing, only to use them for other purposes that's not popular support. It's the big lie. That's been tried before in history and it never ends well.

Can it take time for people to realize it? Sure and many times it only ends in violence. Liberty stolen is seldom easily regained.

You're seeing this too much form a religious standpoint, some of which I believe comes from your anti religious bias.


Posted by: Marcus T at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (GGCsk)

149 i'll see if there's anything good or fun. Posted by: ace SCROTUS told the EPA fcukoff - so the lights will be on while the lights go out.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (DL2i+)

150 This is a majoritarian phenomenon.

Agreed. 

Posted by: pep at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (GMG6W)

151 >Heads on pikes, my friends. Heads on pikes. Damn, I miss Vlad Tepes. He knew what to do.

Posted by: Agent-J at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (ueOgE)

152 What group is that, hero? Posted by: troyriser at June 29, 2015 02:17 PM (S08gh) Republicans, and most "conservatives." We come up with every alternative to simple political confrontation and combat under the sun. And I'm no hero.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:22 AM (s/yC1)

153 To me that was almost inconsequential. To be fair, you never fail to make it clear what kind of a fucking imbecile you are.

Posted by: situation normal at June 29, 2015 09:23 AM (ZtFr+)

154 Can be interesting but those people, especially those boys, are a little weird. Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 29, 2015 02:20 PM (LA7Cm) different show

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 09:23 AM (kQBSd)

155 The Know Betters are otherwise known as the Congress for a New Urbanism.

Posted by: Buddha at June 29, 2015 09:23 AM (3CczE)

156 Mississippi is considering doing exactly that; no marriage licenses at all.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2015 02:17 PM (eB5ZF)



Which of course is as it should have been all along.  Someone who knows better than I, how long has it been the case that licenses were  somehow brought into  the mix? 



I certainly do not believe it  was always the case. 

Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (TOk1P)

157 >>>I don't believe the social media generation works based on facts or from an informed position. They mostly work on pathos without any real sense of long term repercussions. In what golden age where men not superstitious, cowardly fools? I can think of a couple... which lasted for 10-15 years.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (bhepQ)

158 My congregation has already decided to withdraw from the sham of secular marriage. The marriage on Saturday was the last one in which we will care whether the State Approves are not. We will just administer the Sacrament, if you want a tax break, you will have to apply for the Certificate of Government Approved Cohabitation yourself.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (evdj2)

159 @25: ""Tolerance" is a light rail system."

Light rail? Not exactly.  It's a Deutsche Reichsbahn cattle car.  You either get on board, or *you get on board*.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (amQXf)

160 The totalitarian left is forgetting something. One way political streets often become two way shooting ranges.

Posted by: AZ Hi Desert (All my hate cannot be found) at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (O9qtX)

161 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly.

I can't figure out if the people who keep saying this are too stupid to have read and understood the ruling and the dissent, or if they really believe "the law doesn't have to mean what the words say" won't fuck them up along with everyone else.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (ZKzrr)

162 " 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly" Unless you are a florist who gets sued to kingdom come, and fined by the government, and ordered into state mandated sensitivity training because you decline their invitation of employment.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (MYCIw)

163 Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 02:19 PM (0LHZx)

You are wrong.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 09:24 AM (OrI3J)

164 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly Actually, it does for me. Do I allow my kids to participate as props for a sham ceremony and thereby tacitly tell them that this is acceptable? It has effects. Far reaching ones. If this didn't matter, the Gaystapo wouldn't have gone Fox Force Five on society over it.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 09:25 AM (eytER)

165 133 -- 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly. Obamacare and disparate impact bullshit will impact your life negatively for the next 50 years. Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016

Actually, it all affects all of us, as it's all of the same piece  -- it's all about an activist court which can do whatever it likes and justify legislating from the bench with strawman arguments and glossing over any real concerns.

I'd also suggest that while the gay marriage issue might not directly affect me or anyone here (though I'm sure it does), it DOES impact everyone's First Amendment right to exercise our religion or belief system, such as it is.  When the court creates rights for one class of people while denying the rights that are clearly spelled out for all... well, that's a problem for us all, regardless of our personal beliefs.

Posted by: elaine at June 29, 2015 09:25 AM (Y0Piu)

166 i think dreher is right about this: Those who continue asserting there is some Silent Majority ready to be wakened are dreaming.

This is a majoritarian phenomenon.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:16 PM (bhepQ)

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

Christians and/or anyone with deeply held core beliefs toward freedom are always in the minority.  It was the same during the American Revolution.  

 

What scares most people is that now they have to make a really hard decision according to their beliefs.  Do I fall in with the majority or do I stay  with my long held beliefs.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 09:25 AM (P25Hh)

167 "different show" Not that I think back, you're right.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at June 29, 2015 09:25 AM (LA7Cm)

168 >>>When you fool people into thinking one thing, only to use them for other purposes that's not popular support. It's the big lie. That's been tried before in history and it never ends well. ages tend to be defined by their follies. >>>You're seeing this too much form a religious standpoint, some of which I believe comes from your anti religious bias. Rolling eyes.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 09:25 AM (bhepQ)

169 Massive tl;dr upcoming. I do apologize to ace for this as this is not my blog. Of course, I'm not sorry enough not to post it but I want credit for at least feeling bad about it. I am going to break my own rule and comment on this because it is important to me that my voice be heard somewhere, by someone, at some point. Tolerance requires, nay, demands, that there be two sides to an issue. If I want to be able to continue to exist, that means that I must tolerate those who will tell me to my face that they believe I am going to hell. Indeed, it requires that I tolerate those who tell me that they hope that I will do so, given that they are not taking actual, physical steps to send me there. Because, you see, if I do not allow those people to exist? They will not allow me to do so. It is not per se homophobia to state that religious belief requires opposition of gay marriage. In fact, such a position is not homophobic at all. It is a statement of faith. That statement of faith and the actions of those who express that faith, be it by refusing to perform wedding ceremonies or refusing to provide services for a wedding, are worthy of exactly and precisely the same amount of respect and tolerance as is due my position that I should not be jailed or killed for my sexuality. These are reciprocal. If I demand that I not be jailed or killed, and I do demand that, then I have the concomitant responsibility to respect the religious rights of others. Unless and until a person crosses the line to advocate for violence against me, then that person can say and do what they will. Do I have to like that? Of course not. But I do have to tolerate it because that is the societal compact. My existence is protected because that speech and those actions are protected. When one side violates that rule, then the other side will lash out. What is happening right now is that lashing out. I am trying, very diligently, and to only moderate success, to remind myself that those who are now declaring that I am expendable in this war are having a very natural and, in some ways, healthy response to being backed into a corner. That is what concerns me. I do not view my position as radical. I view it as practical. But there is no room for me. Not on the Left. Not on the Right. My position that each side must give some leeway to the other is now homophobic itself. My very existence is refuted. Those principles which I hold dear to my little black heart as spat upon. This is done by both Left and Right. Yes, it hurts personally. It pains me more than I can say to read words typed by people for whom I have had respect and some good will and to discover what they really think of me. But it pains me more to know that such a response is entirely comprehensible. Of course such statements will be made because the space of simple common courtesy has been destroyed. And for what? Nothing. Nothing at all. Now I realize that I have spent 30+ years screaming into a maelstrom and the obvious has occurred. So be it. I will attempt to continue to live by the principles that I hold dear. I will watch the world burn that to the ground around me. I despair. I despair.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 09:25 AM (mf5HN)

170 ***"i think dreher is right about this: Those who continue asserting there is some Silent Majority ready to be wakened are dreaming."***


Yup. Ignoring and downplaying the culture war was a huge strategic error.


Was it Breitbart who said that Politics is downstream from culture?


The Left has been poisoning that water supply for decades.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (xSCb6)

171 Look at the bright side. When the Supreme Court uses the same tortured logic as gay marriage to endorse sharia law, then the jihadists will have a prepared list of gay persons to throw off of buildings by checking the marriage registers. Yayyyy, gay people!

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (NjiZL)

172 The answer, of course, is to keep voting republican.  That will solve the problems.  The GOP will fight, fight, fight for conservative values.

If we just elect another "conservative", it will change the GOP.  So, keep voting GOP!!  It's the only way. it will achieve results. 

Why, if for no other reason, vote GOP to "save the Supreme Court". 

After all, that has always worked in the past.  So, vote, vote, vote for the home team, we'll buy you peanuts and crackerjacks, and win, win, win for the GOP . . .

Posted by: Monkeytoe at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (3ZtZW)

173 i'll wear crossed rifles: I went to Harmony Church.

Posted by: redc1c4 at June 29, 2015 02:19 PM (I8nxO)

 

An old Army buddy of mine, a retired Sergeant Major who lives in Columbus and works as a civilian defense contractor, took me by Harmony Church when my son graduated from AIT at Benning and we stayed with my friend for the weekend.  It's no longer there.

 

Can't say I miss it.  While visiting Ft. Benning, I discovered that I didn't feel all warm fuzzy and nostalgic about boot camp.

Posted by: troyriser at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (S08gh)

174 I'm telling ya folks, nullify or nothing at this point. We need 20-25 states to band together and start some heavy-duty nullification of gay marriage, EPA regulations, gun laws, whatever else and challenge the Feds with "What're ya gonna do?" Do we really think the Feds will send in the military to force judges to marry gays? And if so, do we really think a military of which 85% already despise Obama are going to be really zealous about obeying? And if so, do you really think We the People will tolerate it?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (YYJjz)

175 @31: "The irony is that post-Christian Europe, although it started earlier, will be less post-Christian than post-Christian America."

Wanna bet?

Posted by: Dar al Islam at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (amQXf)

176 i'll wear crossed rifles: I went to Harmony Church. Posted by: redc1c4 at June 29, 2015 02:19 PM ISWYDT.

Posted by: RedMindBlueState[/i][/s][/b] at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (h4vJk)

177 Idiot doesn't know the book he mocks. You can't fight something so large as the fall of Rome. It's not an enemy. It's entropy. Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 02:20 PM (U8W/7) The "idiot" was extrapolating to our times, because this isn't Rome, and as much as history repeats itself, it is never the same. To equate our information age with that time, with the tools we have and the sheer numbers we boast, is a doomsday conceit. Going off to woods to husband ourselves during a siege is not the answer, either morally or practically as I see it. Going Breitbart, not Galt, is the answer. But I could be wrong. Because I'm an idiot.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:26 AM (s/yC1)

178 To all those that what to Let It Burn. "The one sure way to conciliate a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured"-Konrad Adenauer. Maybe Let It Burn should be re examined as a sane solution to our woes. Article V, Ace?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:27 AM (UnJ7w)

179 We were talking the week before this decision, and they were complaining about the Indiana law, such an outrage the Indiana law. I asked what law. They reminded me of the law the governor would not sign.

They're not very well-informed, are they?  He signed a religious freedom law, and that's when the butthurt--fueled by lies--broke out.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 09:27 AM (ZKzrr)

180 Gay Marriage, how about Single Marriage. You can't discriminate against me simply because the other person doesn't love me back. I just want my "equal dignity in the eyes of the law".

Posted by: Reality Man at June 29, 2015 09:27 AM (9AQdP)

181 Where will be safe over the next few decades? Don't think of places, think of communities. Mormons, for example, very well equipped to survive The Burning. Also, Rednecks.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2015 09:27 AM (O7MnT)

182 Silence. They had not thought of that at all. I'm sure I didn't change their minds. I'm sure they didn't even think. I only managed to stun them momentarily. 2x4 works better.

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 29, 2015 09:27 AM (BKWpy)

183 Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 02:24 PM (ZKzrr) In my case, I recognize that regardless of gay marriage altogether they were coming after us. If not this: abortion. If not that: monogamy If not that: etc. etc. I feel awful for the baker and photographer, but let's be clear. If "gay" was no even a thing, there'd be something else they'd attack with. The ruling is a symptom no a cause.

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:27 AM (U8W/7)

184

I despair.

I despair.

 

*hugs alex*

 

Shantih.  Shantih. Shantih.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 09:28 AM (JtwS4)

185 Article V, Ace? What's the use of patching your walls without disarming the lunatic shooting holes in them? If words on paper held any value, we wouldn't be where we are. This, like all disputes, will be resolved by power.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (evdj2)

186 A friend of mine just got this official Air Force email: "On Tuesday, 30 June starting at 1930 under the Harmon Hall Overhang there will be a Candle Lighting Celebration. This is an opportunity to bring the academy together and show support for the LGBT community. Candles will be lit inside various colored cups representing the rainbow, an international symbol of the LGBT movement. Ribbons will also be handed out to all attendees."

Posted by: The Great White Snark at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (XUKZU)

187 Unless you are a florist who gets sued to kingdom come, and fined by the government, and ordered into state mandated sensitivity training because you decline their invitation of employment.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 02:24 PM (MYCIw)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

Or an HR manager that hears rumors that you don't agree with  homo marriage and expressing that opinion when asked.

 

Corporations don't like employee discord.  They'll go with the flow every time.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (P25Hh)

188 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:26 PM (YYJjz) Who called the Birchers?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (UnJ7w)

189 hugs alex.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (nqBYe)

190
Conservatives and Christians, to the lion's den!

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (ODxAs)

191 The ruling is based on a lie. Support for "round circles" ie, traditional marriage, is not an expression of animus towards any person or type of person. To say so is slanderous. So I am going to sue Justice Kennedy for defamation. Anyone care to join?

Posted by: Ghost of Charlemagne seated on his mighty throne atop SMOD at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (UUiDa)

192 "Before despair, consider that the mouth breathing Red State of California put this question to the people and wonders of wonders these retards wanted nothing to do with teh ghey marriage. Clinton appointed judges were brought to bear and the people's hatred was expunged from the law."

Judge Vaughn Walker, who struck down California's Prop 8 *, was installed on the federal bench by President G.H.W. Bush.

Note that Walker was gay, and in a long-term relationship, but did not recuse himself on the basis of the potential conflict of personal interest.

(* Because Fairness. Also, emanations and penumbras.)


Posted by: torquewrench at June 29, 2015 09:29 AM (noWW6)

193 Tasteless ABSOLUTLY tasteless https://prenerk.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/gay-flag.jpg

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 09:30 AM (kQBSd)

194 The Soviets tried to crush the Christian church. Its instructive to note that Russian and Ukrainian churches thrive today while Soviet Collectives have disappeared. Lesson learned - don't fuck with God.

An interesting point given that there is a widespread belief in Russia (promoted by Putin's media) that Russia is the last branch of Christendom not overrun with muslims and sodomites.

Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 09:30 AM (ZbV+0)

195 You are wrong Colonel Sanders! Like, you know what im sayin? When I was in like Brattleboro High Skool I learnt from Ms. Cloggenstein that's the Know-Nothin Party, also known as the KKK or Republican Party, were responsible for locking up all the like Japanese peoples during the Civil War between the States and that the KKK/republicans banned all homosexuals but that the like Democratic Party freed all the Japanese peoples and gave them all 40 acres and a mule and like they named a harbor in Hawaii like after them called Pearl Harbor ok? Like know what I'm sayin?

Posted by: 20 years old and stupid at June 29, 2015 09:30 AM (D0NZx)

196 >>In what golden age where men not superstitious, cowardly fools?

I can think of a couple... which lasted for 10-15 years.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:24 PM (bhepQ)<<

I'm missing your point I suppose.

I think my point is that democracy works in a deliberate fashion, especially in a republic. When you make short term decisions and corrupt the constitutional process to make very large shifts based on contemporary whims, trends and pathos you destroy the entire society.

You've beguiled people who are poorly informed. That's not a majority. It's a bunch of lemmings going over the cliff because #gaymarriageisaright or something.

This isn't a religious discussion. This is much larger than that. It's about personal liberty and most people don't even realize that.

Posted by: Marcus T at June 29, 2015 09:30 AM (GGCsk)

197 It's not a bad game, and it will probably get better once I get over the alienating hugeness of it, and once I learn to drive the batmobile. But so far, it's... eh. Shadows of Mordor had me hooked by now. Posted by: ace at June 29, 2015 02:12 PM (bhepQ) The overreliance of the game on the Batmobile is pretty much ruining it for me. If I wanted a driving game, I would have bought Need for Speed. And I HATE driving games. And you HAVE to complete a bunch of things with the Batmobile to advance in the game. Grrrr.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 09:30 AM (2Ojst)

198 anyway, fk them, and them over there, and those others. that's how i feel these days.

Posted by: willow at June 29, 2015 09:31 AM (nqBYe)

199

Note that Walker was gay, and in a long-term relationship, but did not recuse himself on the basis of the potential conflict of personal interest.

(* Because Fairness. Also, emanations and penumbras.)

 

Would a judge who is straight married not also have a conflict of interest?

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 09:31 AM (JtwS4)

200 I think the better example is that one paper's declaration that they will no longer publish opposing opinions on Gay Marriage. I guess they later walked it back a tad and opened a limited window for it... Yeah I know a person who writes for that paper. Imagine a human pig, who lives knee deep in clutter.Drug abusing since his teens. F'd up genes to the max.Reports on porn conventions so he can be in the same room as Ron Jeremy. Proud to join into a passing gay pride parade, but has a girlfriend/beard. I can't say more, but I think you get the picture.

Posted by: Public Service Announcement [/I] at June 29, 2015 09:31 AM (xQX/f)

201 Shantih. Shantih. Shantih. Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 02:28 PM (JtwS4) Shape without form, shade without colour . . . .

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 09:32 AM (mf5HN)

202 @68: "Lesson learned - don't fuck with God."

Sorry, do what now?

Posted by: Saladin at the Horns of Hattin at June 29, 2015 09:32 AM (amQXf)

203 This, like all disputes, will be resolved by power. Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 02:29 PM (evdj2) Who said the future Amendments had to ask anything of the federal government? For example pass hypothetical Amendment x and qualify it by saying if the feds ignore Amendment x the States withhold federal tax collection. This country is full of lawyers who could work the wording out, lol.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:32 AM (UnJ7w)

204 Of course, a secret political party doesn't have much effect, and quickly the Know-Nothings were pretty overt about telling everyone around them that they knew nothing, over and over again. ----- And running obscure, secret individuals for President such as Daniel Webster and Millard Fillmore!. (What an idiot.)

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 09:32 AM (NUqwG)

205 Would a judge who is straight married not also have a conflict of interest? Not more than a white judge ruling on a civil rights case, unless he personally benefited from it.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:32 AM (evdj2)

206 Maybe Let It Burn should be re examined as a sane solution to our woes. Article V, Ace? You think they will follow an Art. 5 Convention when they don't follow the established Constitution? Okay. Show your work.

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 29, 2015 09:32 AM (BKWpy)

207 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly. Stop that redundant screed Moo-Moo. The point of Ace's article and the numerous comments following it is that two gay sides getting married WILL affect people when the gay dudes decide they want to get married in a church and pastors get thrown in jail for refusing or churches sued for not allowing it. But maybe you don' know or care for anyone who is a conservative practicing Jew or Christian so you simply don't care.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 09:33 AM (OSs/l)

208 I would despair about this ghey SCOTUS thingy. In my experience ghey married males last about three years. Homo women last longer, but they have less choice, they are hideous and wear khakis.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:33 AM (oDCMR)

209 Kind of odd how the moment we became post-Christian, we also became post-Constitutional huh?

Posted by: Ghost of Charlemagne seated on his mighty throne atop SMOD at June 29, 2015 09:33 AM (UUiDa)

210 Ironic isn't it, that a group that wants to reject conventional societal traditions insists on doing it via a traditional ceremony in a traditional venue.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at June 29, 2015 09:33 AM (mvenn)

211 I have a question, if the people who proffered and passed the 14th amendment, which we are being told was really an enabling act to right all social inequities, why was it necessary to pass constitutional amendments to give women the right to vote and extend it to 18 year olds?

Posted by: Kreplach at June 29, 2015 09:33 AM (1SzQh)

212 ***"I don't believe the social media generation works based on facts or from an informed position."***


Social media generation? I see my Facebook punctuated with rainbow/pink equal sign bullshit frequently and it's from more than one generation. Granted it's anecdotal, but I've got about 400 friends on there largely coming from a conservative or military culture (a 20 year career tends to have a lot of people look you up and send requests).


And it's multigenerational.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (xSCb6)

213 First things first......remove your children from the public schools. This decision is most dangerous for our children and grandchildren.

Posted by: pam at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (EAZ7y)

214 Gay Marriage, how about Single Marriage. You can't discriminate against me simply because the other person doesn't love me back. I just want my "equal dignity in the eyes of the law".

Posted by: Reality Man at June 29, 2015 02:27 PM (9AQdP)



I intend to marry Morgan Fairchild! 



What is she going to do, you ask? 



That matters... how? 

Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (TOk1P)

215 Would a judge who is straight married not also have a conflict of interest? Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 02:31 PM (JtwS4) ----- Only eunuchs should serve on the bench.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (NUqwG)

216 If "gay" was no even a thing, there'd be something else they'd attack with.
The ruling is a symptom no a cause.


Yes.  The "what gay dudes do doesn't affect you" crowd are fighting strawmen.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (ZKzrr)

217 Imagine a human pig, who lives knee deep in clutter.Drug abusing since his teens. F'd up genes to the max.Reports on porn conventions so he can be in the same room as Ron Jeremy. Proud to join into a passing gay pride parade, but has a girlfriend/beard. I am picturing a cross between Russell Brand and Lindsey Graham.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (O7MnT)

218

We have one of those mass-transit hubs right now in our city.

 

Basically, all the buses converged on Main St. for a line up but all the high school kids got into craploads of fights and it all culminated in a girl getting raped in broad daylight after getting konked on the head and dragged to a nearby doorway.

 

So, fed up, the city built a transit hub for all the buses to go to. Now the kids won't use it because its actually more dangerous than the street line up was.

Posted by: Bigby's Gang Signs at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (3ZtZW)

219 A very moving post, AtC.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts.


Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (/Ho8c)

220 142 -- Thats a terrible fucking idea.

Church weddings have been recognized by the State for over 225 years. We're to have church weddings in secret, at night, like Mel Gibson in Bravehart so that the secularist cant have Prima Nocte up my ass because I believe in the imaginary man in the sky????

Fuck.That.Shit.

Im not about to cede a right that Church going folk have enjoyed for over 200 years for some sense of fucked up secular fair play.

WTF is wrong with you.? Posted by: fixerupper


I didn't say to hold religious weddings in secret.  Why should we give the State any say over marriage?  We hold our religious ceremonies out in the open, but they're merely a consecration of a union before God.  As they've always been.

The State imposed itself in this mess; we're simply taking back what has always been a holy union and making it completely thus.

Back when the gays couldn't get married, they could've had pretty much all the rights of legal marriage without the state sanctification by simply going to a lawyer and having their rights and responsibilities to each other laid out in contracts.  But they didn't want that, because it wasn't about gaining the rights of marriage (even though that's what they claimed), it was about ruining marriage.

Any rights we need if religious marriage is severed from legal marriage can be had in those same contracts.

Posted by: elaine at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (Y0Piu)

221 Every single person in America should fear the decisions of last week, for they each demonstrated the SCOTUS is now acting extra-Constitutionally. As is the President and the Progressive party generally. Combine that willingness to ignore all law and convention on the one side with complete corruption and weakness on the other, the nominally "Republican" side, and even a Democrat should be able to se what trouble we are in. Nothing good can come of these decisions. Nothing at all.

Posted by: MTF at June 29, 2015 09:34 AM (DkJ4E)

222 @ 196 - "This isn't a religious discussion. This is much larger than that. It's about personal liberty and most people don't even realize that." The irony, for me, is that back before all this gay "marriage" nonsense, I was actually willing to tolerate gays from a religious standpoint. I believe homosexual behaviour (not "homosexuality," since there really is no such thing as a "sexual orientation" - your sexual behaviour is a series of ongoing *choices*) is a sin, but was willing to tolerate gays with a view towards winning them to the Lord. It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (YYJjz)

223 I know it's been mentioned before, but can we also please continue to note that this ruling, in conjunction with the Obamacare ruling, show that our Chief Justice has the constitutional introspection of a magic 8 ball. I mean, if you're going to pretend to be Mr. Conservative Justice, it's probably not a good idea to do it the day after selling us out. Be a bit less obvious with your failure theater, dude.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (MYCIw)

224 Actually, it does for me. Do I allow my kids to participate as props for a sham ceremony and thereby tacitly tell them that this is acceptable? It has effects. Far reaching ones. If this didn't matter, the Gaystapo wouldn't have gone Fox Force Five on society over it. Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (eytER) _______ Huh? Your kids are participating in gay weddings? I really don't get what you're saying.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (0LHZx)

225 Going Breitbart, not Galt, is the answer. But I could be wrong. Because I'm an idiot. Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 02:26 PM (s/yC1) I'm trying to help technology enable Exit from one's living room. 3D printing Drones Tor Cryptocurrency

Posted by: HoboJerk, TPHSATAR at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (FA3Z7)

226 *hugs AtC* *proffers blondies*

Posted by: RedMindBlueState[/i][/s][/b] at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (h4vJk)

227 Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (mf5HN) Indeed, I imagine it must be hard for you. So much of this is caused by the growing expanse of the levers of power. Neither side should have the power to damage the other. And yet it exists. We'll all fighting over who gets to control the nuclear force of government. This is not a good thing to be happening. (For my part, I want to be left alone, and I'll leave you alone. I tend to see all the sexuality things similarly, I have my viewpoints, perhaps I'll judge silently, usually I'll just try to live my morals out and if someone likes them, emulate. Otherwise, ignore.)

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (U8W/7)

228 What scares most people is that now they have to make a really hard decision according to their beliefs. Do I fall in with the majority or do I stay with my long held beliefs. Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (P25Hh) To be honest, part of me wants the authentic church to go underground. When we were meeting in caves and catacombs, we were a pretty tight group. Persecuted, but tight.

Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at June 29, 2015 09:35 AM (yxw0r)

229 I have no love for this country anymore. I don't feel loyal to it and would not fight for it except out of naked self interest. I'm largely contemptuous of my fellow citizens. I find them,generally, to be selfish, trivial-minded sheep. They're ignorant, unprincipled, self righteous and utterly BORING. They don't read, they don't synthesize information, they don't have have any interesting ideas or even interest IN ideas. They don't think. They don't know how. They simply emote. I try not to hurt others or step on their freedoms. I try to treat others with respect and kindness unless they give me a good reason not to, but I'm a shitty Christian because I don't go the next step and actively love my neighbors and certainly not my enemies. I need a lot of work on that. A lot. The nice thing about all this crazy shit we're living through that it's forced me to focus much more deeply on the things that really matter. So in a weird way, these prog fascists have made me a better husband and parent.

Posted by: Warden at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (3ILeG)

230 Would a judge who is straight married not also have a conflict of interest? Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 02:31 PM (JtwS4) In a word, no. Vaughn stood to benefit from his own ruling. A straight, married, male judge in his place, would not stand to benefit, regardless of which way he were to rule.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (wvk+d)

231 Who said the future Amendments had to ask anything of the federal government? For example pass hypothetical Amendment x and qualify it by saying if the feds ignore Amendment x the States withhold federal tax collection. Why would you need, and what particular good, would an amendment like that serve? If the State has the Power to withhold tax revenue from the Fed, then they can do it, no amendment necessary. What we need is for a large state *cough*Texas*cough* or a Confederacy of States, if you will, to secede in place. Don't take the King's Shilling and don't do his bidding.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (evdj2)

232 Show your work. Posted by: rickb223 at June 29, 2015 02:32 PM (BKWpy) You're right, we should not use a mechanism the Framers left us. So onto NULLIFICATION! and the imaginary revolution right? No thanks.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (UnJ7w)

233 Gay Marriage, how about Single Marriage. You can't discriminate against me simply because the other person doesn't love me back. I just want my "equal dignity in the eyes of the law".

If no one loves you back, you're even less than an Unperson. 

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (ZKzrr)

234 Thomas Jefferson was an immigrant who didn't understand our Constitution.

Posted by: Ann Coulter at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (Ui7Rt)

235 What's the use of patching your walls without disarming the lunatic shooting holes in them? If words on paper held any value, we wouldn't be where we are. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (BKWpy)

236 >>We have one of those mass-transit hubs right now in our city. May I ask which city>?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2015 09:36 AM (O7MnT)

237 Thats a terrible fucking idea. Church weddings have been recognized by the State for over 225 years. We're to have church weddings in secret, at night, like Mel Gibson in Bravehart so that the secularist cant have Prima Nocte up my ass because I believe in the imaginary man in the sky???? Fuck.That.Shit. Im not about to cede a right that Church going folk have enjoyed for over 200 years for some sense of fucked up secular fair play. WTF is wrong with you.? Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 02:21 PM (8XRCm) Nothing the Fuck wrong with me, but we do have a difference of opinion. Or am I only allowed to have one opinion on this subject? I happen to think it is a good idea to separate the government from normal behavior and marriage as much as possible, since one branch of the government, the Supreme Court, has now foisted something completely unnatural and abhorrent upon us. YMMV, of course, which I respect.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 09:37 AM (72D6h)

238

Would a judge who is straight married not also have a conflict of interest?

--


Not more than a white judge ruling on a civil rights case, unless he personally benefited from it.

 

Is it implicit in that statement that a black judge would have a conflict of interest in a civil rights case?

 

A straight married judge with an interest in protecting traditional marriage has as much conflict of interest as a gay judge in a long term relationship.  Just different biases.

 

 

 

 

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 09:37 AM (JtwS4)

239 "I think the better example is that one paper's declaration that they will no longer publish opposing opinions on Gay Marriage. I guess they later walked it back a tad and opened a limited window for it..."

Hey, everybody, I've got a great idea! You know how our paid circulation has been falling steadily for years? Let's gravely and rudely insult a demographic who make up a large percentage of our remaining paying subscribers! This plan can't fail.

Posted by: The Patriot-News Chief Editor at June 29, 2015 09:37 AM (noWW6)

240 Huh? Your kids are participating in gay weddings? I really don't get what you're saying. You *may* have someone ask if your kid can be a "ringbearer" or "flower girl". You know, things kids traditionally do during weddings.

Posted by: GMan at June 29, 2015 09:37 AM (sxq57)

241 If no one loves you back, you're even less than an Unperson. Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 02:36 PM (ZKzrr) 'Cause I ain't got nobody Nobody nobody cares for me I'm so sad and lonely Sad and lonely sad and lonely Won't some sweet mama Come and take a chance with me Cause I ain't so bad

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (2Ojst)

242 Why would you need, and what particular good, would an amendment like that serve? If the State has the Power to withhold tax revenue from the Fed, then they can do it, no amendment necessary. Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 02:36 PM (evdj2) Call me fucking retarded, but having the Constitution on our side would be a plus no?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (UnJ7w)

243 2 dudes getting married or not doesn't impact your life directly...
Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 02:19 PM (0LHZx)


Tell that to the Christian jewelers, florists, and bakers who have had their lives ruined by gaystapo lawfare, genius.

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (AWijS)

244 Posted by: Warden at June 29, 2015 02:36 PM (3ILeG) Well said.

Posted by: rrpjr at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (s/yC1)

245 Well, this post does nothing to relieve the nausea I feel when I see the American flag flying above a government institution nowadays. The enemy captured the old glory without a shot and now waves it in our face to gloat.

Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (Jktp1)

246 Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 02:35 PM (0LHZx) Maybe his kids are altar servers and have to shpw up for Masses for weddings?

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (OSs/l)

247 We will all become outlaws in our own country.

Whether we decide to exhibit this openly or just carry the conspiracy in your head,  makes a big difference as to what happens next.

There is no worm to turn.  Who will pass on these ideas that we hold dear?  These ideas are just inside us.  If we are silent and passive, all these ideas will disappear.  Count on it.

Ronald Reagan once said we are only one generation from losing our freedom;  the ideas of freedom and liberty can only be carried inside a persons head, and guide their actions.
A piece of paper such as the Constitution is only document, it's not alive.  Liberty and Freedom have to be alive in the hearts and minds  of the people.  The Constitution is just a teaching document.

What has happened is the ideas of Liberty and Freedom have become corrupted inside the minds of many Americans.  They have confused  "Equality"  (as enforced by the Federal Government) as some permutation of Freedom or Liberty.
This is all about enforced equality.  This cannot be called "Freedom".

The aggressive collectivists know this already, but this is again, the timeless struggle between Collectivism and Individual Freedom.

It is not essentially what gay men or women decide to do in their lives.  It is enforcement of what the government has decided is correct.

Reading suggestion:  "How I Found Freedom in and Unfree World", by Harry Browne  (one time Libertarian Presidential candidate).  While you may at times find Libertarians annoying, this book is more of an insight as to what individuals should do to find  "freedom in an unfree world".

And New Zealand is not accepting of too many immigrants, as is Australia.  Most of us don't have the alternative of running off somewhere else.  That's a pipe dream.

Posted by: Bossy Conservative....outlaw in America at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (RFeQD)

248 During the Reign of Terror, the French satirist Chamfort made a joke that the motto of the Revolution was now "Be my brother, or I will kill you." However, the revolutionaries were not amused - he was arrested and sentenced to death. He tried to cheat the National Razor by jumping off out the window, but botched it and died of his wounds a few days later. (He also said, "If it wasn't for me, I would succeed brilliantly.") I think Chamfort was the first Moron. He summed up the left perfectly with that quip.

Posted by: Donna V. (sans ampersands) at June 29, 2015 09:38 AM (u0lmX)

249
I really don't see how polygamy can not be equally legal now.  Of course, reasonable logical thoughts have no standing in the SCOTUS.

No Standing For You! --  Soup Standing Nazi.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 29, 2015 09:39 AM (ODxAs)

250 Huh? Your kids are participating in gay weddings? I really don't get what you're saying. Really? Two acquaintences, more my wife's friends than mine. They want to make sure we are all celebrating their stupid ceremony, even those of us who think they already suck up WAY too much oxygen out of the room. So of course, to make sure we are all accepting, "invite" my kids to be flower girls/ring bearers. Because they are the right age and goddamn it, they are going to have their special day regardless. So the conundrum...refuse and have the more militant of the two start calling my employer, or acquiesce and surrender the right to be the author of my kids souls? No, it impacts everyone.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 09:39 AM (eytER)

251 Call me fucking retarded, but having the Constitution on our side would be a plus no? Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 02:38 PM (UnJ7w) -------------- Depends

Posted by: Supreme Court at June 29, 2015 09:39 AM (NUqwG)

252 247 We will all become outlaws in our own country. Jeff Goldstein's been shouting this warning for years.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 09:39 AM (2Ojst)

253 AtC, Trust me when I say that my disgust and horror at this ruling has nothing to do with how I feel about any gay person I know. I harbor no ill will toward anyone who isn't trying to explicitly destroy America one institution at a time.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 09:40 AM (MYCIw)

254 Call me fucking retarded, but having the Constitution on our side would be a plus no? *looks around* Apparently not.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:40 AM (evdj2)

255 So let them have their wedding

No.

Once a church facility has been desecrated by the gay marriage rite, it can no longer be considered dedicated to God. It's probably best if its simply razed and burnt.

Please review the meaning of 'holy.'

Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 09:40 AM (ZbV+0)

256 Weaponized government coming at you for incorrect thought

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:40 AM (zOTsN)

257 No, it impacts everyone. Moo Moo is rather myopic about this.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 09:41 AM (OSs/l)

258 So the conundrum...refuse and have the more militant of the two start calling my employer, or acquiesce and surrender the right to be the author of my kids souls? Refuse, and then tell the more militant of the two that if *you* suffer any consequences for the refusal, *they* will suffer worse.

Posted by: GMan at June 29, 2015 09:41 AM (sxq57)

259 Stop that redundant screed Moo-Moo. The point of Ace's article and the numerous comments following it is that two gay sides getting married WILL affect people when the gay dudes decide they want to get married in a church and pastors get thrown in jail for refusing or churches sued for not allowing it. But maybe you don' know or care for anyone who is a conservative practicing Jew or Christian so you simply don't care. Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 02:33 PM (OSs/l) _________- I know plenty of religious people and none of them have - at least publicly - gone apeshit over this the way so many have here. And the answer to that is get govt out of marriages altogether. I've been saying this for years. Have two weddings...a civil and a religious. The civil one is the one that counts for things like taxes, inheritances, etc. Everyone has that. Then if you want, you can have a religious ceremony as well that doesn't mean anything legally.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 09:41 AM (0LHZx)

260 @ 232 - "You're right, we should not use a mechanism the Framers left us. So onto NULLIFICATION! and the imaginary revolution right? No thanks." Hey retard, the Framers were on board with nullification. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson - all of them at one point or another explicitly said not only that nullification was a right of the states, but was a DUTY as well. That's why the caveat "pursuant to this Constitution" is found in the Supremacy Clause. They put it there *specifically* as a constitutional "out" for states if/when the federal government started making laws that were NOT "pursuant to this Constitution." Nullification is not "revolution" - in fact it's the opposite. It's a deterrent to revolution when that revolution comes by means of changing the constitutional system without actually amending the Constitution the way it said it was to be done. An Art. V convention will do not a thing to stop what we see now. If they didn't respect the old Constitution, what makes you think they'll respect a new one, if they don't get to write it?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 09:41 AM (YYJjz)

261 @129: " This is the human condition, stay alive by not fighting."

It is a *part* of the human condition.  Groups like the Romans, Vikings, Mongols, Zulus, etc. are the other side of the coin.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 29, 2015 09:41 AM (amQXf)

262 It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:35 PM (YYJjz) Thank you for being honest. I'm not being snarky in the slightest. I do appreciate knowing that.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 09:41 AM (mf5HN)

263 THE TRUTH + ONE MAN = A MAJORITY.

See the Son of God.

If atheist, see Galileo.

Posted by: Beverly at June 29, 2015 09:42 AM (TK5OE)

264 Article V is in the Constitution for a reason. George Mason and other Framers had the foresight to imagine just the circumstances we find ourselves in. I just don't understand all the resistance if Article V fails anyway. What could it possibly hurt to try?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:42 AM (UnJ7w)

265 Don't despair AtC! Lots of us are on your side, and are your friends. I object to the decisions of last week, even the SSM decision for different reasons than most here. I object to the Supreme Court imposing decisions on the 50 states that the people are fully capable of making for themselves. Look at Ireland, a Catholic country who voted by overwhelming majorities in nearly every county for SSM. Look at America, where SSM has been accepted in many states already. Change cannot be imposed upon people from above, and the SCOTUS made a grave error thinking it is above the law. But leave gay people out of this: there are plenty of obnoxious assholes on all sides of this issue, and generalizing doesn't help the problem.

Posted by: MTF at June 29, 2015 09:42 AM (DkJ4E)

266 246 Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 02:35 PM (0LHZx) Maybe his kids are altar servers and have to shpw up for Masses for weddings? Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 02:38 PM (OSs/l) ____________ Is that how it works? Your kids have to particiapate in someone else's wedding? I'd say fuck that shit regardless of who is getting married.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 09:42 AM (0LHZx)

267

It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison.

 

That is...what is the most cromulent word?...utterly assholish.

 

Utterly. 

 

There are people reading these words who are very dear to me whom you would imprison because they fuck differently from you. 

 

That is wrong on every human level.  Dollars to doughnuts your particular acts of fuckery would run afoul of someone's moral compass. 

 

Please, Horde, please don't be assholes.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 09:43 AM (JtwS4)

268 "but having the Constitution on our side would be a plus no?" Only if those who "interpret" the constitution weren't a bunch of penumbra hunting SJWs.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 09:43 AM (MYCIw)

269 So of course, to make sure we are all accepting, "invite" my kids to be flower girls/ring bearers. Because they are the right age and goddamn it, they are going to have their special day regardless. So the conundrum...refuse and have the more militant of the two start calling my employer, or acquiesce and surrender the right to be the author of my kids souls? No, it impacts everyone. Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 02:39 PM (eytER) Invent a prior commitment for the kids. Failing that, feed them nothing but beans for several days prior to the show.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at June 29, 2015 09:43 AM (wvk+d)

270 It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:35 PM (YYJjz)


Someone earlier asked why alex avoids threads like this.

That's why.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (fwARV)

271 I just don't understand all the resistance if Article V fails anyway. What could it possibly hurt to try? Try away. I'll even support you in it. I just don't believe that it will do any good unless it is itself used as a rallying point for real power.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (evdj2)

272 Germany does civil and religious weddings iirc. Italy too I think But there are some gays in the UK who are suing their church. They want to be married in church. I think they will persist even if churches get out of the wedding business

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (zOTsN)

273 I'm telling ya folks, nullify or nothing at this point.

We need 20-25 states to band together and start some heavy-duty nullification of gay marriage, EPA regulations, gun laws, whatever else and challenge the Feds with "What're ya gonna do?"

Do we really think the Feds will send in the military to force judges to marry gays? And if so, do we really think a military of which 85% already despise Obama are going to be really zealous about obeying? And if so, do you really think We the People will tolerate it?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:26 PM (YYJjz)

Cut, jib you know the rest

Posted by: Velvet Ambition greatest thing since before sliced bread at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (R8hU8)

274
Many people have already noted that this wasn't really about gay marriage anyway, including those pushing for it.  The Left is chagrined that the activism to destroy our form of constitutional republic might wain.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (ODxAs)

275 257 No, it impacts everyone. Moo Moo is rather myopic about this. Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 02:41 PM (OSs/l) I would say deliberately and willfully blind rather than myopic.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (2Ojst)

276 It is rather ironic that the downfall of the church and people starting to turn away is the direct result of the pedophile priest scandles of the 70 and 80s. You know, closeted homosexuals posing as priests and abusing children under their control. A little too ironic, don't you think?

Posted by: Kreplach at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (1SzQh)

277 So the conundrum...refuse and have the more militant of the two start calling my employer, or acquiesce and surrender the right to be the author of my kids souls? I watched a movie this weekend that dealt with much the same issue called "God is Not Dead". Basically stand and defend your beliefs or submit to the status quo and just get along.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 09:44 AM (kQBSd)

278 To be honest, part of me wants the authentic church to go underground. When we were meeting in caves and catacombs, we were a pretty tight group. Persecuted, but tight.

Posted by: Bob's House of Flannel Shirts and Wallet Chains at June 29, 2015 02:35 PM (yxw0r)



Yep... and  such a Church would have no need to listen to The Fresh Pope yammering about Globull Warming and the evils of capitalism,  because  it would  not have any need for all that gilded ceremony  in  the first place. 

Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2015 09:45 AM (TOk1P)

279 Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 02:41 PM (mf5HN) Amazingly I don't despise gays. I despise idiots. I despise people who look at me and say "You won't take your kid to pridefest?!" Fuck no. I wouldn't take my kid to Mardi Gras, adding rainbows doesn't make it more family friendly. "Homophobe" "What? Ask me the same thing about St. Pat's day and substitute "shamrocks" for "rainbows."

Posted by: tsrblke (Tablet) at June 29, 2015 09:45 AM (U8W/7)

280 I personally see teh ghey SCOTUS ruling as predictive of America's future. We have recognized that we are in an existential black hole. The purpose of life is more life, not bukaki shots in gay porn. The greatest revenge you can have on the materialist is to have children and enjoy watching them grow up. Teh gheys will spend their lives pursuing fresh tail and will die early. Its what they do. They know this and this is why they hate you. The best they can do is mock you by pretending to be married. They are sick. Smile and move on.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:45 AM (oDCMR)

281 269 So of course, to make sure we are all accepting, "invite" my kids to be flower girls/ring bearers. Because they are the right age and goddamn it, they are going to have their special day regardless. So the conundrum...refuse and have the more militant of the two start calling my employer, or acquiesce and surrender the right to be the author of my kids souls? No, it impacts everyone. Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 02:39 PM (eytER) ____________ Give me a fucking break. Just say you're busy that weekend and don't show up. You think you're the first person to get invited to a wedding who didn't go because you don't like an aspect of that wedding or the person getting married or whatever? Sheesh.

Posted by: HUCK / AKIN 2016 at June 29, 2015 09:45 AM (0LHZx)

282 Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (mf5HN)
 
My mom and I had a discussion a couple of days ago, which in summary was that for oh so long it was live and let live. And that for so many people, it was the same. The silentest majority.
 
But now, we are forced to make a choice, to choose a side, to make some kind of personal stand on one point of view or another. Because neutrality is no longer permitted.
 
It's a sad state of affairs.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2015 09:45 AM (eB5ZF)

283

No.

Once a church facility has been desecrated by the gay marriage rite, it can no longer be considered dedicated to God. It's probably best if its simply razed and burnt.

Please review the meaning of 'holy.'

 

Hmm.  That will come as a surprise to the gay assistant pastor at the Episcopal Church where I was married.

Posted by: Bandersnatch at June 29, 2015 09:45 AM (JtwS4)

284 @ 262 - "Thank you for being honest. I'm not being snarky in the slightest. I do appreciate knowing that." I'm not being snarky here, either, but if they're not willing to respect my rights, then I am not willing to respect theirs. When they stop going after florists, and trying to get everyone fired who doesn't agree with them, and all of the rest of the forcing down our throats nonsense, maybe I can back to my original live and let live attitude.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 09:46 AM (YYJjz)

285 No, it impacts everyone. Posted by: VA GOP Sucks My answer, "Sorry, the kids are busy at an Appleseed event that weekend."

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2015 09:46 AM (ztOda)

286 Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:41 PM (YYJjz) Hey retard, show me where in the Constitution the States are give explicit power for NULLIFICATION! Show me in Madison's Constitutional Convention notes where NULLIFICATION! was an integral part of the process. You can't you fucking nut. Tell me, how is it that Article V is an ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION and NULLIFICATION! is not included in for example the Bill of Rights?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:46 AM (UnJ7w)

287 I intend to marry Morgan Fairchild! **** I thought she was already married to John Lovett.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at June 29, 2015 09:46 AM (mvenn)

288 There was a movie directed and acted in by George Clooney about the McCarthy hearings a number of years ago that this brings to mind. (Thank You and Goodnight, or something like that?) The TV reporters were trying to decide how far to buck the system and one of them said something along the lines of, "We have to realize that there are not always two legitimate sides to every story." I remember this struck me then as being very instructive of how the media, and for that matter, liberals in general, think, and why they are so arrogant. If you disagree with their politics, you are not just wrong by definition, you are evil.

Posted by: RM at June 29, 2015 09:47 AM (fRppw)

289 ***"Call me fucking retarded, but having the Constitution on our side would be a plus no?


Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 02:38 PM (UnJ7w)"***


I won't call you retarded, but it seems obvious you haven't paid attention to how all three branches of out government treat an ostensibly binding document lately.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 09:47 AM (xSCb6)

290 "Every single person in America should fear the decisions of last week, for they each demonstrated the SCOTUS is now acting extra-Constitutionally."

A habit of long standing on their part, it must be admitted.

"Combine that willingness to ignore all law and convention on the one side with complete corruption and weakness on the other, the nominally 'Republican' side, and even a Democrat should be able to se what trouble we are in."

The Andy McCarthy piece boiled down to this pull quote:

"Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote? There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left's voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation."

Quite.

Consider for a moment that Democrats nominate Ginsburgs, Breyers, Kagans and Sotomayors to the SCOTUS.

While Republicans nominate O'Connors, Kennedys, Souters and Robertses to the SCOTUS.

Outcomes such as last week's string of rulings really should not come as any surprise, viewed in that light.

Posted by: torquewrench at June 29, 2015 09:47 AM (noWW6)

291 68 The Soviets tried to crush the Christian church. Its instructive to note that Russian and Ukrainian churches thrive today while Soviet Collectives have disappeared. Lesson learned - don't fuck with God.
===========
Not so good if you're one of the millions killed in the 75+ years while they were trying to stamp out religion.

But, we can probably vote our way out of this.

Or just go underground and it'll blow over real quick.

It'll be different this time . . . .

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 29, 2015 09:47 AM (ZvKdv)

292 And the answer to that is get govt out of marriages altogether. I've been saying this for years. Have two weddings...a civil and a religious. The civil one is the one that counts for things like taxes, inheritances, etc. Everyone has that. Then if you want, you can have a religious ceremony as well that doesn't mean anything legally.

This half-assed "live and let live" proposal won't be good enough. The gaystapo will come after the churches doing the "merely religious" wedding ceremony, too, it's never "live and let live" with them. They want it all, not just a part. Have you been asleep for the past five years?

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2015 09:48 AM (AWijS)

293 Totalitarian impulses, no mater who you sleep with, are the issue

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:48 AM (zOTsN)

294 This Nation was founded by Outlaws.

Posted by: Boss Moss at June 29, 2015 09:49 AM (CdIQH)

295 Totalitarian impulses, no mater who you sleep with, are the issue

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 02:48 PM (zOTsN)


Balls-on accurate.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards at June 29, 2015 09:50 AM (fwARV)

296 A little too ironic, don't you think? Posted by: Kreplach at June 29, 2015 02:44 PM Like rain on your (same sex) wedding day?

Posted by: RedMindBlueState[/i][/s][/b] at June 29, 2015 09:50 AM (h4vJk)

297 Amazingly I don't despise gays.
I despise idiots.


There's some overlap, of course...but I hope AtC knows she's not a member of the idiot set.

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 09:51 AM (ZKzrr)

298 >>And the answer to that is get govt out of marriages altogether. Rand Paul has proposed exactly that.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2015 09:51 AM (O7MnT)

299 This Nation was founded by Outlaws with guns.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2015 09:51 AM (ztOda)

300 Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (mf5HN)
Well said and thank you.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition greatest thing since before sliced bread at June 29, 2015 09:51 AM (R8hU8)

301 Can a Catholic R be reelected now? Or win a first one? Attack ads are going to get nasty in future, no? And you know what the press will ask, right? Fundamental transformation. Done.

Posted by: the littl shyning man, addam at June 29, 2015 09:51 AM (H8flP)

302 It's called the Diaspora. Jews, thrown out of Israel, and out of other countries, their temple and then their synagogues destroyed, kept their religion and their moral lives alive by worship at home, study at home, and sticking together. Thats one way

Posted by: ThunderB at June 29, 2015 09:51 AM (zOTsN)

303 ***"I would say deliberately and willfully blind rather than myopic."***


I'd say Huck/Akin is an idiot and troll, BIRM.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 09:52 AM (xSCb6)

304 I won't call you retarded, but it seems obvious you haven't paid attention to how all three branches of out government treat an ostensibly binding document lately. Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (xSCb6) No I'm well aware. I meant that if you were going to have a hypothetical amendment be qualified by the threat of withholding money from the federal gov't you'd better have law on your side rather than just because when the calvary is sent against the States.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:52 AM (UnJ7w)

305 Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2015 02:48 PM (AWijS) This is another way of attack on the church. Look at the attck on the catholic church via Obamacare and birth control. Now SSM, next will probably be tax exempt status.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 09:52 AM (kQBSd)

306 Article V is in the Constitution for a reason. George Mason and other Framers had the foresight to imagine just the circumstances we find ourselves in. I just don't understand all the resistance if Article V fails anyway. What could it possibly hurt to try? Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 02:42 PM (UnJ7w) John Adams said the US Constitution works only for a moral people. We have become immoral and words written on paper are meaningless, but if you believe that more words written on paper will solve our immorality I will enthusiastically support your efforts to write those words. I would even help you write them. And like was done with the original US Constitution we'll argue over every letter, every clause, every punctuation mark, ever inclusion, every exclusion and every special case. And it will all be a waste of time when people ignore those written words and armed force is necessary to imprison those who refuse to obey those words you and I have written. Do we have to buy our own meals and lodging is will the be a grant for expenses?

Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 09:52 AM (zGQ5T)

307 Keep in mind that the ghey "community" does not represent all gay people any more than LULAC represents all latinos, NAACP represents all Blacks, or the GOP represents all conservatives.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 09:53 AM (NUqwG)

308 NBC shit canned Trump over his Immigration comments. So will the GOPe hit back.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2015 09:53 AM (ztOda)

309 Totalitarian impulses, no mater who you sleep with, are the issue I sort of beg to differ. Totalitarian impulse, imposed on the the entire nation from the top are the issue. If a particular community wants to be stupid and insular, in my opinion, they should have that right. If you don't have the right to be wrong you don't have self-government, you have rule by the Wise, who rarely are. What I object to now, as a principle, is not necessarily the power of government, though I personally object to much of it, but it's geographic reach. One-size does not fit all. Let a thousand flowers bloom etc. Bad choices serve as a cautionary example to others.

Posted by: Grump928(c) is an AllenG wannabe at June 29, 2015 09:53 AM (evdj2)

310 when the calvary is sent against the States. Cavalry. Cavalry are mounted soldiers, Calvary is where Jesus was crucified. Yes I'm being pedantic, but this is a particular pet peeve of mine.

Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 09:54 AM (2Ojst)

311 Yes, I'm sure the buggering priests has had a huge impact on society. I went to a wedding recently. Both bride and groom raised Catholic. Ceremony was in a forest. No priest. Just grooms friend 'officiating'. Vows on 3 x 5 cards. They signed some papers and drove away.

Posted by: Public Service Announcement [/I] at June 29, 2015 09:55 AM (xQX/f)

312 but obviously all of you are still sucking up to your legions of ghey friends while they constantly rub it in your face that they will do anything in their immense power to shun and silence every conservative thought. I can't really say I am sorry for you. Go on leftist blogs and count the people that say 'I have a conservative friend'.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 09:55 AM (rnV3B)

313 And in 10 years, when they read The Diary of RoyalOil, the class will stand and cheer at the end, for another threat to Love was removed from the World of Peace and Happiness.

Posted by: RoyalOil at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (ZvKdv)

314 Give me a fucking break. Just say you're busy that weekend and don't show up. You think you're the first person to get invited to a wedding who didn't go because you don't like an aspect of that wedding or the person getting married or whatever? Sheesh. Doesn't work that way... As I said, more my wife's friends than mine. And as my views are well known on the subject in our circle, failure to show is the same as outright and public disrespect to two guys who are already on a hair trigger about any slight, real or perceived. In other words, there is no polite fiction out of this one. And the SCOTUS just emboldened them, assisted by people who myopically insist that this is no big deal and doesn't impact me in any way. It does. And I don't appreciate being forced into a situation like this.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (eytER)

315 Give me a fucking break. Just say you're busy that weekend and don't show up

So in other words, in order not to participate, he has to lie, evade, and make up excuses.

He can't tell anyone what he really thinks, or he'll get punished, and you approve of this, moo moo? Really?

But no, it doesn't affect him, not at all.


Posted by: OregonMuse at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (AWijS)

316 AtC,

Trust me when I say that my disgust and horror at this ruling has nothing to do with how I feel about any gay person I know. I harbor no ill will toward anyone who isn't trying to explicitly destroy America one institution at a time. Posted by: lauren


+1 to this sentiment.  I figure what two consenting adults do in private is between them and God.  Although there are other reasons, my first and foremost concern with the ruling is how it will so clearly be used as a cudgel to destroy unfavored religious institutions and trample on religious liberty. 

Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (/Ho8c)

317

"Change cannot be imposed upon people from above, and the SCOTUS made a grave error thinking it is above the law.

But leave gay people out of this: there are plenty of obnoxious assholes on all sides of this issue, and generalizing doesn't help the problem."

 

 

Well said.  Scalia warned about this in the context of abortion in his Casey dissent in 1992.  He pointed out that Roe v.Wade deprived people of the chance to make their case to fellow citizens.    

Posted by: Benji Carver at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (OD2ni)

318 Call me fucking retarded, but having the Constitution on our side would be a plus no?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 02:38 PM (UnJ7w)



Ok... but only because you told me to. You are fucking retarded.


We had the Constitution on our side last week and when Roberts saved Obamacare the first time. Hell, we had the Constitution on our side all the way back to Roe v Wade given that the Constitution says nothing... not even "honey I will pull out, I swear"... about pregnancy and the rights of states to outlaw the murder of human beings in utero.



The Constitution means nothing when your political opponents are willing to make shit up and bend reality to suit themselves AND have the power to make you go along.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (OrI3J)

319 Yup. Challenges in court to Church's "discrimination" against gheys will NOT be made against a predominantly black church.... nor will it be made against a mosque. It WILL come against either a bitter clinger evangelical church or a Catholic church. Mark it in red. Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 02:08 PM (8XRCm) Yep. I'm guessing a suburban, mostly white evangelical/conservative, decent sized church in Texas will be the first target(s). Mosques and black churches will be, with rare exceptions, out of bounds.

Posted by: Blano at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (VJImz)

320 In amusing news, the Church of Cannabis will not partake of their sacrament at their service.
http://is.gd/y6JaMM

Posted by: HR braucht ein Bier at June 29, 2015 09:56 AM (ZKzrr)

321 I'm not being snarky here, either, but if they're not willing to respect my rights, then I am not willing to respect theirs. When they stop going after florists, and trying to get everyone fired who doesn't agree with them, and all of the rest of the forcing down our throats nonsense, maybe I can back to my original live and let live attitude. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:46 PM (YYJjz) Meanwhile, you will jail me. The person who believes that the ruling was an abomination. The person who believes that going after florists is wrong, both legally and morally. The person who believes that getting someone fired for believing differently is out and out vile. The person who agrees that having the "gay rights" position forced down anyone's throat is horrid. The person who is on your side. You will send me to jail. As I said, fine. Now I know where you stand. So be it.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 09:57 AM (mf5HN)

322 It does. And I don't appreciate being forced into a situation like this. Rent a clown suit.

Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2015 09:57 AM (ztOda)

323 If no one loves you back, you're even less than an Unperson. https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=PofmKxIwArk ?Duluth?

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at June 29, 2015 09:57 AM (DL2i+)

324 It does. And I don't appreciate being forced into a situation like this.

Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 02:56 PM (eytER)


It IS a tough situation, and I - with no other information - think these guys (trigger warning) are douchebags for forcing you into it.

For whatever it's worth, my position is this:  Call them out on it.  Some variation of 'I'm really not comfortable with my children being props in your wedding.  Thank you for the offer, and congratulations.'

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards at June 29, 2015 09:57 AM (fwARV)

325 Arson Wells,

At this point, the Constitution is meaningless from a legal standpoint.  As the basis for a set of ideals, yes, it still has validity.

Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 29, 2015 09:58 AM (/Ho8c)

326 "Keep in mind that the ghey 'community' does not represent all gay people any more than LULAC represents all latinos, NAACP represents all Blacks, or the GOP represents all conservatives."

Does today's GOP represent *any* conservatives?

Asking for a friend.

Posted by: torquewrench at June 29, 2015 09:58 AM (noWW6)

327 Think this through - now teh gheys have what they said they wanted, what will be their burning issue in 2016 and why would they be excited to vote for Hillary? Hillary, now also has to defend Obamacare on the hustings and attack teh Confederate Flag religiously. A perceptible drop in intensity among the Orcs is the most likely outcome from these rulings with a noted increase in intensity from their opponents. Do you really think gheys attacking churches will be received warmly in this country? Did the country shame the Indiana Pizza Parlor or teh gaystopo. This might be why Roberts save Obama chestnuts all along - to force the people to act politically.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 09:58 AM (oDCMR)

328 Of course such statements will be made because the space of simple common courtesy has been destroyed. And for what? Nothing. Nothing at all. ...I despair. Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (mf5HN) Is time to give my loss of manners rant again? Because more and more, that is a problem. It's a vicious cycle. People disagree on a subject. This is normal. The only kind of societies where everyone agrees are deeply totalitarian and these 'agreements' enforced by a bullet to the head. So fine. Disagreement. But none of these people were taught to be gracious winners. Or were taught to be kind. To respect others. Or if they were taught, they have forgotten and abandoned these basic niceties. So they get pushback. How many people who don't care about the confederate flag are all of a sudden wanting one, just because FU that's why. People don't like to be told what to do, told they are evil, condescended to, and have their lives and businesses threatened for their deeply held religious beliefs. I have long been sympathetic to civil unions but the tactics used to get them have me almost running the other direction, because your freedom (and not you, AtC, but the general 'you') should not encroach on mine. We should be able to be kind and 'coexist' without bloodshed, anger and hatred. I, like you, despair of that happening any time soon. And what people don't realize I think, is that the people who are unhappy with all of this have not disappeared, they've just been driven underground. That isn't healthy either. I don't know the answers. I know that I personally would love to be all 'go love, love wins' if it were legislated. If their truly had been a campaign to win hearts and minds. That could have worked. This gloating is just making people angry who would otherwise be sympathetic.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 29, 2015 09:58 AM (lIU4e)

329 Crap, in the time it takes me to write a book I'm willow'd!

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 29, 2015 09:59 AM (lIU4e)

330 Actually,  I'm pretty sure they will go after   Black churches with glee.

I'll put a fiver on it.

Posted by: eleven at June 29, 2015 09:59 AM (IPzoI)

331 Posted by: Insomniac at June 29, 2015 02:54 PM (2Ojst) Duly noted.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 09:59 AM (UnJ7w)

332 The Constitution means nothing when your political opponents are willing to make shit up and bend reality to suit themselves AND have the power to make you go along. Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 02:56 PM (OrI3J) ---------- But in the political process it would not aid the acquisition of allies by making reference to the Constitution?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 09:59 AM (NUqwG)

333 At this point, the Constitution is meaningless from a legal standpoint. As the basis for a set of ideals, yes, it still has validity. Posted by: Moderate Salami at June 29, 2015 02:58 PM (/Ho8c) That may be true, but it doesn't mean we stop fighting and using everything available to us, including the Constitution.

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 10:00 AM (UnJ7w)

334 In response to AtC's comment, I'm going to repost my comment from the end of an earlier thread. And no, I do not lump her or any like her into the idiots on display: Had a brief exchange w/someone on Twitter this morning who was aghast at the "BURN ALL THE HERETICS!!" words and actions from the militant GLAAD folk. When I said that anyone with an above room temperature IQ knew this was going to happen, she got a little peeved at me since, to be fair, she is not a paste-eating, window-licking, Joe Biden wannabe. I then responded that the most militant members of pro-SSM people had always been honest and open about their endgame, or at least ONE of their endgames: the destruction of organized religion and churches. They were very clear about it. They spoke openly about it. But when I mentioned it, people typically responded in one of two ways: 1) They said I was lying, or that I had misheard 2) They refused to take the militant activists at their oft repeated word. "Oh, they don't actually MEAN that." So here we are. And many of the honest and genuine supporters of SSM are now horrified to see that they were, in fact, nothing more than useful idiots to the members of GLAAD and its ilk. And they're even more horrified to find out that they not only are they being discarded like yesterday's news, they're being attacked as well. In a larger sense, I was always more or less ambivalent about SSM. In my now lost pixels of my first blog (you could say the same about my current blog because I almost never post), I opined about giving same sex couples ALL of the legal protections that married couples had vis a vis property, inheritance, visitation, that sort of thing. But I opposed calling it marriage because a) words mean things and b) I knew what would happen once it was enshrined as a legal right. FYI: getting the result you want, while important, is not the most important thing. HOW you get there is. And having SCOTUS declare all of us haterz to be non-persons will, sooner rather than later, lead to open and armed hostilities. While I won't enjoy watching it burn, because I'll be busy protecting my kids, I will enjoy watching the useful idiots shit themselves. Repeatedly. Because willful stupidity should be painful.

Posted by: Barackus Dickus the First at June 29, 2015 10:01 AM (MT22W)

335 Guess what. Buzz Feed doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for some time. The message put forth in this post is already understood and internalized and acted upon. The whole not existing thing works both ways.

Posted by: bour3 at June 29, 2015 10:01 AM (5x3+2)

336 Fromabroad, Yeah, but I do have gay friends, and the vast majority of them aren't assholes. They, for the most part, are just excited about the whole lovey love aspect of the ruling and don't really understand why anyone would be worried about the religious implications because they themselves would never in a million years try to force someone to marry them who didn't want to. Of course, they're not running any Gay Mafia groups. The people at the top of the movement don't give two shits if Bob and Jim can get married, they just want to destroy America one piece at a time. Bob and Jim are just pawns.

Posted by: lauren at June 29, 2015 10:01 AM (MYCIw)

337 The Dept of Education had rainbow colors on their website. So, next year will your 8 year old son/grandson have to listen to homosexuals lecture them that anal sex is normal and safe behavior and now made "legit" by the Supremes? How long will it be before those boys are participating in this kind of "normal" and "natural" sex? Of course smoking will still be held up as shameful and dangerous.

Posted by: pam at June 29, 2015 10:01 AM (EAZ7y)

338 Actually, I'm pretty sure they will go after Black churches with glee. I'll put a fiver on it. Yep, the black church pissed off the left in their opposition of SSM in CA. They will be on the target list.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 10:02 AM (kQBSd)

339 I really, really, really need to remember to remove my socks before commenting. ::grumble-grumble::

Posted by: physics geek at June 29, 2015 10:02 AM (MT22W)

340 This gloating is just making people angry who would otherwise be sympathetic.

Posted by: Lea - I don't want to have to fight you but I damn sure will at June 29, 2015 02:58 PM (lIU4e)


There needs to be a re-post of the 'walking the battlefield, shooting the survivors' thread.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider, Keeper of the Guards at June 29, 2015 10:02 AM (fwARV)

341 I think we need to outlaw law schools. They fucking suck at turning out lawyers. Maybe just make it a trade with OJT experience required before licensing.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 10:02 AM (oDCMR)

342 My anguish over the SC SSM decision haz nothing to do with gays and everything to do with a SC just plain old making shit up.

Posted by: Public Service Announcement [/I] at June 29, 2015 10:02 AM (xQX/f)

343 Hmm. That will come as a surprise to the gay assistant pastor at the Episcopal Church where I was married.

The first of a couple.

Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 10:02 AM (ZbV+0)

344 Does today's GOP represent *any* conservatives? Asking for a friend. Posted by: torquewrench at June 29, 2015 02:58 PM (noWW6) --------- It is a slow, arching pitch day!

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:04 AM (NUqwG)

345 290 Posted by: torquewrench at June 29, 2015 02:47 PM (noWW6) =========================== McCarthy is exactly right on this. RBG even said publicly, several times, that the issue was a done deal, months ago. The libs were confident of victory, even though the case was ultimately decided 5-4, for the very reason you cite. They do in fact vote as a bloc.

Posted by: MTF at June 29, 2015 10:04 AM (DkJ4E)

346 Nothing wrong with gay marriage. Why are you against gay marriage? Don't push your morals on us. I would vote for gay marriage . What the SC approved gay marriage? Why would they think they could get away with that?

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 29, 2015 10:05 AM (Q4pU/)

347 I'm standing with the Roman Catholics who say "No" and every other church that does so. No because I don't think gays are capable of lifelong commitments and deep love (Heck I know a clergyman who's been with the same guy for 15 years, longer than some straight marriages I know of, Someone came in and did a religious service for them and then their state approved gay marriage. I stand with them because I know perfectly well you can find any number of religious traditions who will marry gays without forcing the RCC or other churches to do it when the RCC church has a very detailed theology on Christian marriage. I will stand with them because not having the ability to say no will mean the state will then tell them church what thus must preach (Witness the authoritarian Houston Mayor who wanted to see the sermons of pastors.) Heck, I'm in some little church where the likelihood of someone suing me to perform a gay marriage is not great (at least not right now) but I will refuse because i don't want to the church to become yet another organ of the state. I don't want the state to tell we whom I must perform weddings for-straight or gay. or that I must out Global warming over the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 10:05 AM (OSs/l)

348 alexthechick... this: "but if they're not willing to respect my rights, then I am not willing to respect theirs." indicates that Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus was perhaps not speaking of you in particular.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 10:06 AM (OrI3J)

349 What scares most people is that now they have to make a really hard decision according to their beliefs. Do I fall in with the majority or do I stay with my long held beliefs. Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 02:25 PM (P25Hh) If they truly believe, the decision is simple.

Posted by: Blano at June 29, 2015 10:06 AM (VJImz)

350 Like Benefict, I too have a contingency plan to retire to the remote woods and pursue my faith in a hostile world. I am securing reliable supplies of food and water, and a tall stack of magazies for off-the-grid living when access to utilities, groceries and cell phone service comes to an end.

Posted by: Edgar Allan Schmoe at June 29, 2015 10:06 AM (/f6Nd)

351 AtC: I disagree that your sexuality is a normal thing that should be celebrated and normalized. That is because of my faith and the reason that I have brought to bear on the subject in thinking on it over many years. That said, you are a human being of infinite worth, who is entitled to respect and love because of who you are. Whether who you are is "sinful" is not for me to say, because I am not the Judge, and also because if who you because of your sexuality is sinful, then who am I to say that my own sinful nature is "less" than yours so that I may be entitled to judge you or cause you pain? None of us are in any position to judge anyone else based on their sexual choices. Your famous screed that has been reposted many times, in which you declared that you were not your sexual organs was brilliant and completely on point. The Left has turned this country against itself by declaring endlessly that all we are is the sum of our sexual choices. Well, that and what we think about abortion. And they've done that to try to destroy people and this country. You are a blessing to this blog and to those people you share your life with, and are loved, respected, and honored by many here, and there are quite a few of us who would die for you if you were ever threatened, for any reason. I'm sorry if my comments in the past about SSM have hurt you. I will try in the future to be more cognizant of how my comments may be perceived.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 10:06 AM (72D6h)

352 Stop it with the article V talk. The current Constitution is ignored and circumvented. What makes anybody think a new one is going to be honored by those that rule by whim??

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 10:07 AM (8XRCm)

353 338 Actually, I'm pretty sure they will go after Black churches with glee. I'll put a fiver on it. Yep, the black church pissed off the left in their opposition of SSM in CA. They will be on the target list. ---------------------------- Nope. A lower caste token cannot attack a higher caste token. It is forbidden. See DNC Talmudic Law.

Posted by: Super Creepy Eric Hoteham at June 29, 2015 10:07 AM (oDCMR)

354 Yep, the black church pissed off the left in their opposition of SSM in CA. They will be on the target list. Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (kQBSd) ------- I suspect they are far down on the list if on it at all. Black churches are generally not attacked by any element of the left. Maybe they will be able to find a ConFag in a log cabin somewhere to go after a Black church.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:08 AM (NUqwG)

355 If you are conservative politically, financially, legally, but on different sides of this gay marriage thing, can you not see how this issue divides and weakens conservative political thought? That is the intent, to divide and weaken, to pit friend against friend, brother against sister, parents against their children. It is an attack aimed directly at the Catholic and Protestant churches to divide and weak. It is a direct attack against the legal structure of our nation state, to remove limits to behavior. Not just sexual behavior but civil behavior. It is a direct effort to reduce the United States to warring camps one set against the other. Throw out the melting pot, e pluribus, assimilation. and you can see it working right here on this blog. We are being played, trolled, jiggery pokery.

Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 10:08 AM (zGQ5T)

356 @ 286 - "Hey retard, show me where in the Constitution the States are give explicit power for NULLIFICATION! Show me in Madison's Constitutional Convention notes where NULLIFICATION! was an integral part of the process. You can't you fucking nut. Tell me, how is it that Article V is an ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION and NULLIFICATION! is not included in for example the Bill of Rights?" Well, for one, I already did that. The wording of the supremacy clause specifically and ONLY assigns supremacy to federal laws and rulings that are "pursuant to this Constitution." Failing to meet that criterion, they are null and void on their face. An Art. V convention is really irrelevant to this discussion. Such a convention deals with amending (or replacing) the Constitution itself - not dealing with unconstitutional usurpations that are already taking place. Your whole line of questioning is irrelevant.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 10:08 AM (YYJjz)

357 My anguish over the SC SSM decision haz nothing to do with gays and everything to do with a SC just plain old making shit up. Posted by: Public Service Announcement at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (xQX/f) ---- Well stated. Pithy and to the point.

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 10:08 AM (8XRCm)

358 And you won't die alone. Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 02:15 PM (72D6h) I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag* I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag* I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag*

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 29, 2015 10:09 AM (vXKGT)

359 (cont.) As for the Founders' support for nullification, ""But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer first that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declamatory clause; and I answer in the second place that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded. Suppose, by some forced constructions of its authority (which, indeed, cannot easily be imagined), the federal legislature should attempt to vary the law of descent in any State, would it not be evident that in making such an attempt it had exceeded its jurisdiction and infringed upon that of the State? Suppose, again, that upon the pretense of an interference with its revenues, it should undertake to abrogate a land tax imposed by the authority of a State; would it not be equally evident that this was an invasion of that concurrent jurisdiction in respect to this species of tax, which its Constitution plainly supposed to exist in the State governments?" (Hamilton, Federalist No. 33) ""On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments caused by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter." (Madison, Federalist #46)

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 10:09 AM (YYJjz)

360 Posted by: Public Service Announcement at June 29, 2015 03:02 PM (xQX/f) Well said.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 10:09 AM (OSs/l)

361 An interesting point given that there is a widespread belief in Russia (promoted by Putin's media) that Russia is the last branch of Christendom not overrun with muslims and sodomites. Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 02:30 PM (ZbV+0) Kinda hard to argue at this point.

Posted by: Blano at June 29, 2015 10:10 AM (VJImz)

362 30 Actually, I'm pretty sure they will go after Black churches with glee. I'll put a fiver on it. Posted by: eleven at June 29, 2015 02:59 PM (IPzoI) Eventually, when the Dems no longer need the black vote to win elections, they will. But not before that. AlextheChick: I'm angry at the gay activists. I'm angry at the people who are hatefully gloating and sneering at Christians now. I'm angry at those turds who spit on the priest yesterday. I can distinguish between them and you.

Posted by: Donna V. (sans ampersands) at June 29, 2015 10:10 AM (u0lmX)

363 I suspect they are far down on the list if on it at all. Black churches are generally not attacked by any element of the left. Southern Baptist have been making noise against the ruling.

Posted by: wrg500 at June 29, 2015 10:11 AM (kQBSd)

364 I just don't understand all the resistance if Article V fails anyway. What could it possibly hurt to try?

Posted by: Arson Wells at June 29, 2015 02:42 PM (UnJ7w)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

I'm not resistant.  I just think this push for it came way too late.  It should have  begun back in the early 90's when we saw what the Clinton's and the  progressive movement  really had planned for us.

 

Since 2009,  the Constitution has pretty much  been null and voided.   DC  would just laugh at it now.  They have the  power to laugh, you see.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 10:11 AM (P25Hh)

365 I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag* Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 29, 2015 03:09 PM (vXKGT) ---- You will with those plastic pieces of shit. (I keed I keed...... I own a couple or thirty myself)

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 10:11 AM (8XRCm)

366 Throw out the melting pot, e pluribus, assimilation. and you can see it working right here on this blog. We are being played, trolled, jiggery pokery. Posted by: Khalid el Browncowski at June 29, 2015 03:08 PM (zGQ5T) ------- Already gone. Basic: White (non-Hispanic) - available for attack (limited) African American Asian (and Pacific islander) Hispanic (trans-racial) Native American Advanced: LGBT Mooselum Atheist

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:12 AM (NUqwG)

367 alexthechick... this: "but if they're not willing to respect my rights, then I am not willing to respect theirs." indicates that Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus was perhaps not speaking of you in particular. Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 03:06 PM (OrI3J) Ahhhh but there's the rub. I am, of necessity, caught up in that proposition. Venn can be a right bitch that way. There is no exception for "oh but she's cool" when one advocates imprisonment. Which, again, is fine. I stated my position. A counter position was stated. Both sides now know where the other stands. So be it.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 10:12 AM (mf5HN)

368 (cont.) The rest of it the comments section is not letting me post, so I'm not going to bother with figuring out how to get it to do so. Read the Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), esp. pp. 190-196, to see their support for nullification.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 10:13 AM (YYJjz)

369 Donna, I am on the same page as you.

Posted by: Tilikum Killer Assault Whale Armed and Ready for Anna at June 29, 2015 10:13 AM (LWWrf)

370 Which, again, is fine. I stated my position. A counter position was stated. Both sides now know where the other stands. So be it. Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (mf5HN) ----- Knock it off.... both of you..... THAT sounds suspiciously like....... tolerance. And there will be none of that....

Posted by: fixerupper at June 29, 2015 10:14 AM (8XRCm)

371 Stop it with the article V talk. NO The current Constitution is ignored and circumvented. Ignored by the left and bent by Roberts != gone. Because if you start shooting without trying first it's just murder.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at June 29, 2015 10:14 AM (DL2i+)

372 Posted by: Donna V. (sans ampersands) at June 29, 2015 03:10 PM (u0lmX) Hopefully the vast majority of us here can do that.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 10:14 AM (OSs/l)

373 Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 03:06 PM (72D6h) Thank you.

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 10:15 AM (mf5HN)

374 "...a new and doubtless very different St. Benedict." How about a "Carbine Benedictine"?

Posted by: Fat Albert at June 29, 2015 10:16 AM (nqiq9)

375 ussia is the last branch of Christendom not overrun with muslims and sodomites. Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 02:30 PM (ZbV+0) Kinda hard to argue at this point. Murderers and thieves however.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at June 29, 2015 10:16 AM (DL2i+)

376 @ 367 - "There is no exception for "oh but she's cool" when one advocates imprisonment." Actually, I have no desire to put anyone in prison for being gay. None at all. But the rub is that sooner or later, a lot of gays are going to want to put me in prison for being a Christian. A lot already do right now. I'm not down with that, see? And I hate to say it, but far too often, the basic human response is to support the tribe. How many gays will go along with throwing Christians and other "haters" into jail, even if they personally wouldn't have gone along with it even two years ago, because of the pressure from their "tribe" to do so?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 10:17 AM (YYJjz)

377 Which, again, is fine. I stated my position. A counter position was stated. Both sides now know where the other stands. So be it. Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 03:12 PM (mf5HN) Reason, logic and civility in today's society? I'm so confused.

Posted by: physics geek at June 29, 2015 10:17 AM (MT22W)

378 I have no love for this country anymore. I don't feel loyal to it and would not fight for it except out of naked self interest. I'm largely contemptuous of my fellow citizens. I find them,generally, to be selfish, trivial-minded sheep. They're ignorant, unprincipled, self righteous and utterly BORING. They don't read, they don't synthesize information, they don't have have any interesting ideas or even interest IN ideas. They don't think. They don't know how. They simply emote. I try not to hurt others or step on their freedoms. I try to treat others with respect and kindness unless they give me a good reason not to, but I'm a shitty Christian because I don't go the next step and actively love my neighbors and certainly not my enemies. I need a lot of work on that. A lot. The nice thing about all this crazy shit we're living through that it's forced me to focus much more deeply on the things that really matter. So in a weird way, these prog fascists have made me a better husband and parent. Posted by: Warden at June 29, 2015 02:36 PM (3ILeG) Well said. Only problem is, one of these days you're gonna have to decide if you'll love your neighbor the way, say, George Washington "loved" the British. He may have been a praying man, but when the time came it was clear to him what had to be done. That is, kill the enemy. If you don't, you will be done in.

Posted by: Blano at June 29, 2015 10:18 AM (VJImz)

379 off fat sock.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at June 29, 2015 10:19 AM (nqiq9)

380 Gotta go to work.  Be good, you rowdy  morons.

Posted by: Soona at June 29, 2015 10:20 AM (P25Hh)

381 I will still continue to place a portion of the blame on the 'tolerant' straights that had no problem conceding the definition of marriage.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 29, 2015 10:20 AM (Q4pU/)

382 The irony, for me, is that back before all this gay "marriage" nonsense, I was actually willing to tolerate gays from a religious standpoint. I believe homosexual behaviour (not "homosexuality," since there really is no such thing as a "sexual orientation" - your sexual behaviour is a series of ongoing *choices*) is a sin, but was willing to tolerate gays with a view towards winning them to the Lord. It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 02:35 PM (YYJjz) Cut, jib, newsletter. That was exactly my progression, as well. I .....WAS ......very sympathetic. Ancient history, now.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Staring at the Lake in the rain at June 29, 2015 10:22 AM (CFcIt)

383 @ 371 - "Because if you start shooting without trying first it's just murder." That's exactly why nullification is the answer. An Art. V convention is a fool's hope. There's no reason to think the Left will respect a new Constitution (which is what will happen) if they didn't get to control its creation, and there's no reason to rejoice should they get to control its creation. It's a dud either way. At the same time, no sane person *wants* a shooting war (though many sane people at the same time recognise we may get one anywise, if the Left keeps on the way it is going). So what do you do? The people and the states reassert their explicit and implied rights under the 9th and 10th amendments to nullify federal laws and decisions not made "pursuant to this Constitution." The Founders believed that the States were the ultimate arbiters of what was Constitutional, and said it was their duty to act accordingly. So what is nullification? It's simply a state or a block of states saying "No. We're not going to do what you've said we have to do. We reject it as unconstitution, and declare it to be of no force." States are *already* beginning to do this on all kinds of things, from gun laws to NSA spying to EPA regulations. No violence involved, unless the FedGov initiates it. States simple say, we're interposing. We're not complying. Shoot, states have been doing it at least since the 1840s when Northern states started instituting personal liberty laws to avoid supporting the institution of slavery.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 10:23 AM (YYJjz)

384 nood has been up.

Posted by: rickb223 [/s][/b][/i] at June 29, 2015 10:23 AM (BKWpy)

385 examples of idiocy on display " So we have some gay friends who got married in Europe and I love them. I really do. And I want them happy. " aaaaawwwww so sweet, do you think you will tell them to clean up their stilettos when they will gladly stomp on your face? Please do not upset your ghey friends, otherwise you might get a shock from the horror of not receiving their postcards from pride parades around the world. Remember, the most important thing is their precious sensibilities, do not inconvenience them by nasty thought of intellectual honesty, personal integrity. The gheys are magic, especially the ones gracing you of their friendship. And you are all amazed you have capitulated so quickly? You are just one millimeter away from the idiots with Facebook photos covered in rainbows.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 10:24 AM (rnV3B)

386 This can only be made right when Clarence Thomas goes full "Django Unchained" on Kennedy and Scalia kills Roberts in the parking lot with a trident.

Posted by: Strictly from Apathy at June 29, 2015 10:25 AM (VQea+)

387 Actually, I have no desire to put anyone in prison for being gay. None at all. But the rub is that sooner or later, a lot of gays are going to want to put me in prison for being a Christian. A lot already do right now. I'm not down with that, see? And I hate to say it, but far too often, the basic human response is to support the tribe. How many gays will go along with throwing Christians and other "haters" into jail, even if they personally wouldn't have gone along with it even two years ago, because of the pressure from their "tribe" to do so? Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 03:17 PM (YYJjz) I beg your pardon, I misunderstood your statement that "It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison." Funnily enough, I took that to mean that you, you know, despised gays and had serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison. Also, far more than you think. Because, you see, there are many of us who loathe the concept that sexuality defines our "tribe".

Posted by: alexthechick at June 29, 2015 10:25 AM (mf5HN)

388 "Don't despair AtC! Lots of us are on your side, and are your friends. " "You are a blessing to this blog and to those people you share your life with, and are loved, respected, and honored by many here." Quoted from above, because I couldn't say it any better if I tried. Also, sorry for shocking you with the news about the SMOD / Yellowstone thing this morning; your staff deserves whatever wrath you care to dispense for their negligence. I thought that you already knew ! Surely someone from the Weekend Book Thread (which has been discussing Seveneves for weeks now) might have brought it to your attention, but apparently not.

Posted by: sock_rat_eez at June 29, 2015 10:25 AM (OCcU9)

389 And you won't die alone. Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 02:15 PM (72D6h) I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag* I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag* I will not die alone *loads round in P-Mag* Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 29, 2015 03:09 PM (vXKGT) My comment was meant to mean that I would fight alongside any Moron who needs me, and die if necessary, when Ye Olde Burning Tymes finally arrive. But the comment also works well in the "I'm taking as many of the enemy with me as I have bullets to load" meaning.

Posted by: Sharkman at June 29, 2015 10:27 AM (72D6h)

390 "The Soviet government feared that people of certain nationalities would act as "fifth column" subversives during the expected war, and took drastic measures to prevent this perceived threat." This is how Whites are viewed by DC. Since they can't forceably resettle Whites, they instead dump huge numbers of immigrants from Somalia, the Middle East, Mexico, and the remainder in areas deemed "too White". Note that Eastern Europeans are never placed en masse in Watts.

Posted by: YourMomKeepsTexting at June 29, 2015 10:28 AM (vexAN)

391 >>>The Know-Betters Will Bring You Morlocks to Heel. I thought we were the Eloi. THEY are the Morlocks.

Posted by: Hilldawg at June 29, 2015 10:29 AM (6qR/9)

392 @ 387 - "I beg your pardon, I misunderstood your statement that "It took the *political* angle to make me really begin to despise gays and have serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison." Funnily enough, I took that to mean that you, you know, despised gays and had serious second thoughts about even allowing them toleration, rather than prison. Also, far more than you think. Because, you see, there are many of us who loathe the concept that sexuality defines our "tribe". " I don't see it as all that contradictory. I genuinely don't have a desire to punish gay people. At the same time, I will defend myself if I feel threatened. If the "political" anger went away, so would the animus that it's been generating. I think you'd find a lot of folks would agree to that. And yes, I know that you and some other gay folks might not like the "tribal" aspect of identity politics. But the problem is, the folks that *do* seem to be the ones running the movement.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at June 29, 2015 10:29 AM (YYJjz)

393 "An interesting point given that there is a widespread belief in Russia (promoted by Putin's media) that Russia is the last branch of Christendom not overrun with muslims and sodomites." I don't know where you get this but it is wrong. Religious people are a small minority in Russia and the orthodox church is not vocal at all like let's say the catholic church. Both Russia and Ukraine dislike of homosexuality does not come from religious sentiment. They successfully disrupt any gay pride parade because the government think it is right to do it, not because some priest tells them so. Like some other parts of old Europe almost nobody comes up with the religious argument or the bible. Homosexuality deserves to be despised for the immense amount of lies that the lobby injected through the years to make itself acceptable. This alone should be a reason enough to dismiss every request. The simple answer to the most basic question 'what kind of advancement is ghey marriage in my country?' (NONE) should be enough. That is unless you are an idiot sentimentally involved in pushing the delusion.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 10:30 AM (rnV3B)

394 There is no exception for "oh but she's cool" when one advocates imprisonment.

Why not? There's no actual law anymore, just Calvinball, as DrewM put it.

Pretty much everyone on this blog adores you.

We just have to take absolutist positions because the times require it.

Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 10:30 AM (ZbV+0)

395 From Facebook: "Yes, I am a Christian. I believe the Bible. I do not support homosexuality or homosexual marriage. Yes, I still love you. Yes, we are still friends. No, I am not condemning you to hell. No, I will not let anyone bully you. But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those of us who stand for what we believe is exactly what you don't want done to you. We have a right to speak what we believe, same as you have a right to speak what you believe." I would add that people need to be more careful with their language, as they are using the word "judge" when they mean "condemn". Christians need to make judgments all time like everyone else. Life requires it. However, we are explicitly prohibited from "condemning" people by our Lord. That's His job to do when the time comes.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at June 29, 2015 10:31 AM (nqiq9)

396 And you can put me in the "Loves AtC" column.

Posted by: 1bulwetweft at June 29, 2015 10:32 AM (nqiq9)

397 "Keep in mind that the ghey "community" does not represent all gay people" anxiously waiting for the allegedly long list of initiatives from 'moderate' gheys to prevent harm to christian florists, photographers and pizza places. Silence = consent. Everything else is bullshit. I dare any of you with this special 'connection' with the rainbow coalition to put your money where your mouth is and write what is the silent majority of good gheys doing. Are they telling the others to lower the hateful tone? Please enlighten us with the numerous petitions to call for an armistice.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 10:33 AM (rnV3B)

398 "As I said, more my wife's friends than mine. And as my views are well known on the subject in our circle, failure to show is the same as outright and public disrespect to two guys who are already on a hair trigger about any slight, real or perceived. In other words, there is no polite fiction out of this one. And the SCOTUS just emboldened them, assisted by people who myopically insist that this is no big deal and doesn't impact me in any way. " OMG, what am i reading here. I tell ya there are several people here who would SWEAR SWEAR that their ghey friends would never do such a thing, because gheys are NOT LIKE THAT, NO, NO!!11!!1111!1111!1!!1 It's just a small minority of combatant!

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 10:36 AM (rnV3B)

399 Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 03:33 PM (rnV3B)




When the pizza place in Indiana was being bombarded and the fundraising for them was going on, several people who gave also posted comments that they were homosexuals that disagreed with the "destroy anyone who disagrees with you" actions of the gaystapo.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 10:37 AM (OrI3J)

400 I anticipated AtC would be caught up in the backlash . I also thought she would be able to handle it but unfortunately I have a feeling it's opening some wounds.

Posted by: Cruzinator at June 29, 2015 10:39 AM (Q4pU/)

401 Posted by: VA GOP Sucks at June 29, 2015 02:39 PM (eytER)

I suppose your wife would rat you out if you suddenly said you and your kids couldn't make it due to being invited to your parents place so they can spend the day with the grandkids?

Posted by: Deathknyte at June 29, 2015 10:40 AM (lJU8Y)

402 One has only to go to "Gay Patriot" with it's numerous essays and comments about their utter disagreement with the fascist tendencies of the left to know that not ever gay person is on board with the "Gaystopo"

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 10:42 AM (OSs/l)

403 "As I said, more my wife's friends than mine. And as my views are well known on the subject in our circle, failure to show is the same as outright and public disrespect to two guys who are already on a hair trigger about any slight, real or perceived.

In other words, there is no polite fiction out of this one. And the SCOTUS just emboldened them, assisted by people who myopically insist that this is no big deal and doesn't impact me in any way. "

fromabroad at June 29, 2015 03:36 PM (rnV3B)



I have always found honesty is the best policy so my response to an invitation to a homosexual wedding would be, "I love you but I cannot attend a ceremony that not only celebrates sin but is also blasphemous." Also, "no my children cannot take part because it matters to me that they not have sin modeled to them and normalized in their eyes."

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 10:42 AM (OrI3J)

404 anxiously waiting for the allegedly long list of initiatives from 'moderate' gheys to prevent harm to christian florists, photographers and pizza places. Silence = consent. Everything else is bullshit. I dare any of you with this special 'connection' with the rainbow coalition to put your money where your mouth is and write what is the silent majority of good gheys doing. Are they telling the others to lower the hateful tone? Please enlighten us with the numerous petitions to call for an armistice. Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 03:33 PM (rnV3B) ---------- You are saying that 97% of the population is powerless in the face of 'attack' by 1% because another 2% don't defend the 97%? That is weak. There are numerous blogs containing negative comments by gay people on the politic activities of the gay 'community'. If you really cared you could find them. Some even attack gay marriage (because it is homo-normative or because it is nonsensical). Silence is not consent. It is only silence. Some moderate gays as you might refer to them are silently going about their lives just like most normal people do. Normal people don't talk about politics in public or on anonymous blogs. Only a small minority does.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:44 AM (NUqwG)

405 O/T
But why do we give a shit if Greece goes down the tubes?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition greatest thing since before sliced bread at June 29, 2015 10:47 AM (R8hU8)

406 @397 I don't really like outing myself, but I love this community (AoS) and I identify with it more than I ever have the "gay community" - which I view as mythical frankly. Most gays are far too self-absorbed to involve themselves in any "greater good" movement, misguided Marxist ones included. Have I attempted to enlighten people I knew regarding the dangers involved with going "all-in" with the Marxists? Hell yes. But if I may draw a parallel, it is quite similar to going into a poor Black neighborhood and trying to explain the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson or Hayek. What percentage have the capability, and interest to take in this info and recognize that they are being used as props? 2%? Most are angrily bored by such info. They accept on it's face that the "Dems care about them." And then they want to get back to cruising for boys and shopping for clothes. I do not know any ass-chafing activists. It has occurred to me to apply for an IT job with one of the commie-affiliated activist groups and copy all of the emails coming in and out of the building. There is surely a great deal of coordination and collusion with politicians and the media. Exposing it would please me greatly. Hope this helps.

Posted by: YourMomKeepsTexting at June 29, 2015 10:49 AM (vexAN)

407 But why do we give a shit if Greece goes down the tubes? -------- Probably for the same reason someone gives a shit if Bruce Jenner's dick goes out in the trash.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:50 AM (NUqwG)

408 There are numerous blogs containing negative comments by gay people on the politic activities of the gay 'community'. If you really cared you could find them. Some even attack gay marriage (because it is homo-normative or because it is nonsensical).

Silence is not consent. It is only silence.

Some moderate gays as you might refer to them are silently going about their lives just like most normal people do. Normal people don't talk about politics in public or on anonymous blogs. Only a small minority does.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 03:44 PM (NUqwG)


I wonder if there was a single homosexual advocacy group that believed the definition of marriage should not be changed and made that opinion known to the Supreme Court?


Somehow I doubt it. There are individuals who disagreed with the challenge to marriage laws but, in the main, fromabroad is right that silence=consent. See Martin Niemöller for elucidation on this point.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 10:50 AM (OrI3J)

409 Actually, I have no desire to put anyone in prison for being gay. None at all. But the rub is that sooner or later, a lot of gays are going to want to put me in prison for being a Christian. A lot already do right now. ---- You let things go long enough and one culture will take the other one over. To live in an "Everybody's free to do whatever" state is to try and live forever in a leaderless power vacuum. One side is going to eventually rationalize a takeover. The country has to split.

Posted by: RKae at June 29, 2015 10:51 AM (1RqFl)

410 But if I may draw a parallel, it is quite similar to going into a poor Black neighborhood and trying to explain the brilliance of Thomas Jefferson or Hayek. ------- Hamilton or Webster would be better!

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:52 AM (NUqwG)

411 I can't remember who originally said it, but this quote seems to sum up how things now stand vis a vis the Supremes: "Someone who is ruled by the discretion of another is, to that extent, a slave."

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at June 29, 2015 10:53 AM (amQXf)

412 "The person who is on your side. You will send me to jail. As I said, fine. Now I know where you stand. So be it. Posted by: alexthechick" can you please stop this disgusting display of drama? can you please stop playing the martyr? can you please tell us when was the last time (if there ever was) a ghey was thrown in jail in america for the crime of being ghey? can you provide evidence without a shadow of a doubt that the same will not happen to any of us (NOT just christians, but against homosexuality for practical reasons)? I have no idea why the people here like you so much since you never bring anything intelligent to the discussion and most of the time you play the victim (exactly like the rest of the ghey mob you claim to dislike). Can i remind you that millions of Christians are under siege in many parts of the world as we speak (middle east, China, NKorea etc) and they do pay with their lives? your pathetic attempt to equate your very comfortable situation to theirs is shameful (right now you could sue your employer with a claim of homophobia and you will have FREE LAWYERS from gladd and flag, cannot say the same for Baronette the florist). Incredibly annoying to read your passive-aggressive whining, like your same-sexuality mob you completely lack any sense of proportion. If this escaped you it was heterosexual conservatives that lost a lot last week. Not you, since you are not heterosexual and neither conservative. (conservative do not whine)

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 10:56 AM (rnV3B)

413 200I think the better example is that one paper's declaration that they will no longer publish opposing opinions on Gay Marriage. I guess they later walked it back a tad and opened a limited window for it...


Yeah I know a person who writes for that paper. Imagine a human pig, who lives knee deep in clutter.Drug abusing since his teens. F'd up genes to the max.Reports on porn conventions so he can be in the same room as Ron Jeremy. Proud to join into a passing gay pride parade, but has a girlfriend/beard.

I can't say more, but I think you get the picture.

Posted by: Public Service Announcement at June 29, 2015 02:31 PM (xQX/f)

 

Is it Jeremy Elliot?

 

Tell me it's Jeremy Elliot.

Posted by: Hikaru at June 29, 2015 10:56 AM (CMbMd)

414 I wonder if there was a single homosexual advocacy group that believed the definition of marriage should not be changed and made that opinion known to the Supreme Court? Somehow I doubt it. There are individuals who disagreed with the challenge to marriage laws but, in the main, fromabroad is right that silence=consent. See Martin Niemller for elucidation on this point. Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 03:50 PM (OrI3J) ---- Why would they? Why would it be an issue they would expend effort on?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 10:57 AM (NUqwG)

415 Can i remind you that millions of Christians are under siege in many parts of the world as we speak (middle east, China, NKorea etc) and they do pay with their lives? Perhaps you haven't read enough of AtC. She has mentioned this repeatedly.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 10:59 AM (OSs/l)

416 "Yeah, but I do have gay friends, and the vast majority of them aren't assholes. They, for the most part, are just excited about the whole lovey love aspect of the ruling and don't really understand why anyone would be worried about the religious implications because they themselves would never in a million years try to force someone to marry them who didn't want to. " Say it until you believe it. It has already happened so your friends are either dumb as a bag of rocks or mendacious (as in, they pretend not to know the consequences). Is it that exciting to count dumbasses or mendacious as friends? I am new to this concept since assholes+dumbos are not allowed in my circle. Is it really that hard to find a hair stylist that is not a homo? BTW consider yourself tasked to report back the numerous activities your moderate ghey friends are doing to stop the assault of their same-sex stasi against florists/bakers/photographers/churches. If we could turn back in time in the 30s in central europe you would be all saying 'but the majority of my german friends would NEVER put jews in the ovens, NEVER, I tell you'

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 11:00 AM (rnV3B)

417 (conservative do not whine) Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 03:56 PM (rnV3B) ---- Really? You are delusional.

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 11:01 AM (NUqwG)

418 Why would they? Why would it be an issue they would expend effort on?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 03:57 PM (NUqwG)


For the same reason a number of white southerners (ministers and laypeople) and northerners marched with MLK... because it was the right thing to do.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 11:01 AM (OrI3J)

419 For the same reason a number of white southerners (ministers and laypeople) and northerners marched with MLK... because it was the right thing to do. Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 04:01 PM (OrI3J) ------ But were the co-marchers segregationists?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 11:06 AM (NUqwG)

420 Well AtC ... this nasty son-of-a-bitch is accepting allies wherever I can find them. So ... if you're down with "you do your thing, I'll do mine" after the smoke clears ... I'd be glad to make common cause. Bring like-minded friends.

Posted by: ScoggDog at June 29, 2015 11:07 AM (/LX46)

421 But were the co-marchers segregationists?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 04:06 PM (NUqwG)



You are drawing a nonsensical parallel.

Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 11:09 AM (OrI3J)

422 You do understand, of course, that by "the people," Jefferson means property-owning white males over 21, right?  At the time, no serious person - and certainly not Jefferson - believed in a "universal franchise." 

In fact, it was considered a laughable concept. Women voting?  Free blacks?  Indians?  Men so derelict they owned no real estate?  Are you freakin' nuts?

Before you get all egalitarian in interpreting what he wrote nearly 200 years ago, remember context matters. 

Now that you mention it, they were on to something.  All those groups just pool their votes to seize the property of white males, don't they?

Posted by: Adjoran at June 29, 2015 11:10 AM (QIQ6j)

423 I have no idea why the people here like you so much since you never bring anything intelligent to the discussion and most of the time you play the victim (exactly like the rest of the ghey mob you claim to dislike).

Holy shit, dude.

ATC is one of the most insightful commenters on the blog, and as she said, she generally stays away from this topic. If you want evidence of that go read literally any other comment she's made. She's funny. She plays video games. She's got better taste in chicks than I do. And she's been part of the horde for nigh forever.

Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2015 11:12 AM (ZbV+0)

424 "When the pizza place in Indiana was being bombarded and the fundraising for them was going on, several people who gave also posted comments that they were homosexuals that disagreed with the "destroy anyone who disagrees with you" actions of the gaystapo. One has only to go to "Gay Patriot" with it's numerous essays and comments about their utter disagreement with the fascist tendencies of the left to know that not ever gay person is on board with the "Gaystopo" There are numerous blogs containing negative comments by gay people on the politic activities of the gay 'community'. If you really cared you could find them. Some even attack gay marriage (because it is homo-normative or because it is nonsensical). " wow, they write on the internet, I AM IMPRESSED. not to carry the water of French people who I despise, but some homo org in France RALLIED against ghey marriage. Yes, GAY cheese eating surrender monkeys had the guts to say that a child needs a mother and a father. Now, as you claim the american gheys are not only MORE than the french gheys so why NO RALLY, NO STANCE, NO NOTHING other than WRITING on a fucking blog? I have seen on TV those rallies in France, HOMOS were speaking to the microphone with PRINTED T SHIRTS 'a child needs a mother and a father' and they were rallying together with catholics and non religious conservatives! They lost, thanks to commie hollande but it was impressive that they even tried. The circulation of gay patriot is the same dozen of losers and most of them are MARRIED with adopted children, how can they run AGAINST something that they have benefited from? It's like that fucking retard Camille Paglia whining against the disappearance of male fathers from family, and the jerk is in a lesbian relationship and somehow managed to mother a child (without father of course), and yet she is branded the voice of reason of the ghey world. Fucking hypocritical. Wow, writing on a blog, how brave! Sounds a lot like lining up chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 11:16 AM (rnV3B)

425 You are drawing a nonsensical parallel. Posted by: redbanzai at June 29, 2015 04:09 PM (OrI3J) ---- I was not drawing any parallel, nonsensical or otherwise. Just a question about relative degree of interest in promoting or opposing a policy. Are you a publicly-identified member of a group that presented an opinion to the court?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 11:19 AM (NUqwG)

426 Now, as you claim the american gheys are not only MORE than the french gheys so why NO RALLY, NO STANCE, NO NOTHING other than WRITING on a fucking blog? Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 04:16 PM (rnV3B) And what have you done?

Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 11:20 AM (NUqwG)

427 Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015 04:20 PM (NUqwG) They've emoted on a blog.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 11:23 AM (OSs/l)

428 Well, that is three things. Good, Bad, and the evil twin. Everything gets ugly after awhile. They say that is shame based, and what preserves Life Itself. Might take awhile. Hard to live with. Answers, not very pretty.

Posted by: first and last at June 29, 2015 11:24 AM (2z4UX)

429 "Perhaps you haven't read enough of AtC. She has mentioned this repeatedly." wow, and here she has the guts to play the martyr? oooh, please do not throw me in jail... when was the last person in jail for being homosexual? She has the guts to claim something like that happened in the past 30-40 years? Did you read about that story posted here of a san francisco priest 40 years ago not wanting a homo musician performing in the church and he GOT SUED fucking 40 YEARS AGO? and she whines she does not want to be thrown in jail? "If you want evidence of that go read literally any other comment she's made. She's funny. She plays video games. She's got better taste in chicks than I do. And she's been part of the horde for nigh forever." I do not qualify video games as intelligent conversation. How many photos of lesbian on lesbian action she sent to you to have you constantly drooling over her all the time. I rest my case. Any ghey today whining about 'being thrown in jail' is a certified vermin. Even in countries where there is no ghey marriage, the gheystapo is lobbying to have booklets primary school about daddy one kissing daddy 2 and how touching each other (male/male) at 6 years old is a good thing. And she whines about being thrown in jail? how fucking out of touch with reality one must be? We are this closed to have legalized pedophilia via school curriculum and she talks about being 'thrown in jail'? Next time she will talk about being burned on a cross. But please, let's go on treating her like the special snowflake she is. The most important thing is that she must feel validated.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 11:27 AM (rnV3B)

430 Perhaps you should address her directly instead of yammering on about her when she's not here. When people say to you, "You go on about gay marriage endlessly" your response is, "I'm not here all the time, or "I have other things to do." So does she. Maybe you're the coward for attacking a person who has other things to do. At any rate I find your attacks a bore. Good day.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at June 29, 2015 11:31 AM (OSs/l)

431 "And what have you done? Posted by: RioBravo at June 29, 2015" I have voted conservative in my country for 20 years and it is constantly people who oppose ghey marriage and homosexual agendas. Secondly, I am not GHEY, I do not have to prove anything, it is the people here who claim that the moderate gheys are so numerous and strategic and they are so outraged about what is happening that have the burden to prove they are doing something. Me telling to faggots that they are wrong will not do any effect, it is up to THEM to calm down their same-sexuality travellers. Aren't we told that we need to weed out the racists and theocratics among us? Aren't the moderate muslims the one who should weed out the radicalized? Why not the gheys? WHY?

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 11:31 AM (rnV3B)

432 "Perhaps you should address her directly instead of yammering on about her when she's not here." I frankly do not give a shit about her, she is as usual, the homo-hypocrite I always knew she was. As I said I come here to read commentaries of SOME people, she is not included, unless it is something so idiotic like bring thrown in jail, but I was asked by someone else to state my motives and the justifications you have all added about her do not stand on their own legs. If this is the top representation of the moderate gheys, then consider yourself truly fucked. At this point it is quite hypocritical to demand that moderate muslims weed out the fanatic in their midst. You do not ask it of gheys, who are even less. Enjoy your status of second class human being, enjoy to see churches bankrupt and seeing supermarkets or mosques built instead. And enjoy the gheys around you being SHOCKED, SHOCKED of the gambling going on in here (quote from Casablanca). Ah, if only comrade Stalin knew of our misery.

Posted by: fromabroad at June 29, 2015 11:38 AM (rnV3B)

433 I'm ready to seriously begin discussing secession. There is nothing to debate when one side doesn't view the other as human. Enough of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Give me liberty or give me death!

Posted by: Patrick Henry at June 29, 2015 11:38 AM (83FI7)

434 I'm ready to seriously begin discussing secession. There is nothing to debate when one side doesn't view the other as human. Enough of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Give me liberty or give me death!

Posted by: Patrick Henry at June 29, 2015 11:38 AM (83FI7)

435

Fuck being an exile in my own country.  Fuck being a pious martyr.

I am a fat old man.  My knees are shot: running hurts, kneeling hurts, and getting down and up is a bitch. 

I weep for the country I knew and loved.  Nothing left to lose.

Posted by: butch at June 29, 2015 11:48 AM (0APJ3)

436 Alexthechick. I'm totally on your side, and yet, I understand Titus' sentiments on the matter. A commenter upthread had mentioned how the differing sides were grabbing at the levers of govt. power, in order to harm one another with that power. I think that's the crux of the damn thing. Being a charter member of the "Leave Me The Hell Alone Party", I'm also a fan of leaving YOU the hell alone, as regards your choices, life, religion, sex, etc. If the "activists" on both sides would just back the fkuc off, and away from the grabbing at those levers, we'd all be much better off. You know the old quote; "I despise what you say, but will defend to the death, your right to say it". Well, that's about where I am as regards to you, and other ghey folks who ARE NOT GRABBING at those damn levers, with evil intent in their eyes. You n' me, ma'am, would have a fine understanding and be great friends and neighbors, no doubt about it. That whole Moron Way, what with mutual respect and all that. But, like Titus..... I'm so very sick n' tired of being hectored* by the Ghey Kay Kay. I was told to "tolerate", and I did, only to have that demand ratcheted up to "celebrate", which I will not do, and I damn sure won't "embrace", either. The fight is on, at that point. Alex...... If I could get a brain extract from you and synthesize it, I'd try to get a dose to every militant, radical, Ghey Kay Kay lesbian to be found, just to help bring some sanity to the distaff side of the equation. I have no idea who the male equivalent "donor" would be. Certainly, not Gabriel Malor. See, the idiots out there in LiV-land, should listen to us and take notes. We know how to disagree, without being disagreeable. How to "tolerate", without giving in and surrendering. Funny, isn't it......and most of us just plain get along pretty damn well together. Go figure. Jim Sunk New Dawn Galveston, TX * snark intended

Posted by: Jim at June 29, 2015 11:58 AM (RzZOc)

437 On a somewhat related note: I'm not sure why all the single US citizens tolerate the government subsidizing *any* relationships at all. No marriage should be given any preference, beyond recognition of some sort of standard contract.

Posted by: Mephistefales at June 29, 2015 03:58 PM (Y6zmH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




332kb generated in CPU 0.76, elapsed 2.1367 seconds.
64 queries taking 1.7467 seconds, 675 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.