Jonah Goldberg:
‘I could have handled that better.”
I don’t know if the captain of the Titanic ever said that. But Mike Pence did on Tuesday.
The Indiana governor has managed to step on an impressive number of parts of his own anatomy recently and in the process gravely injured what was already a long-shot ambition to run for president in 2016.
Earlier this month he signed the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act in a private ceremony. In attendance were prominent opponents of gay marriage.
In response, great algae plumes of righteous outrage erupted across the Internet. Gay-rights groups, the Democratic party, and the mainstream media, in unison, lost their collective marbles and raised unshirted hell. Know-nothings of every stripe cried out that Jim Crow had returned to the land. Shouts of “boycott!” went forth, including perhaps of the NCAA’s Final Four, which for Hoosiers is like threatening a boycott of Easter Mass at the Vatican. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce hied to its corporate fainting couch and begged to be rescued.
Pence, desperate to put out the political fire, raced to a TV studio last Sunday to quench the flames on ABC’s This Week. The only problem is that he arrived at the scene with a rhetorical water pistol hoping to put out a five-alarm blaze.
“Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?” George Stephanopoulos asked.
“George, you’re — you’re following the mantra of the last week online [media coverage],” Pence said. “And you’re trying to make this issue about something else.”
Well, as they say in formal debate classes, Duh.
Two days later, Pence held a press conference to ask the state legislature to rewrite the law to placate the mob.
Pence still had the better part of the legal argument. Indeed, he and supporters of RFRA have nearly the entire legal argument on their side.
The federal RFRA was passed in 1993, in response to a Supreme Court decision holding that Native Americans weren’t exempt from anti-drug laws barring the use of peyote, even for religious ceremonies.
In response, Congress passed a law barring the government from putting a burden on religious practice without a compelling state interest. If someone feels their religious rights have been violated, they can go to court and make their case. That’s it. Jim Crow laws forced people to discriminate. RFRA doesn’t force anybody to do anything.
The original RFRA was a good and just law championed by then-representative Chuck Schumer and opposed by right-wing bogeyman Jesse Helms. It passed the Senate 97-3 and was signed by President Bill Clinton.
In 1997, the Supreme Court held that RFRA was too broad and could not be applied to states. So, various state governments passed their own versions. Twenty states have close to the same version as the federal government’s, and a dozen more have similar rules in their constitutions. These states include such anti-gay bastions as Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Illinois, where, as a state senator, Barack Obama voted in favor of the law.
@George Wells:
No, because you didn’t answer the questions. Apparently you don’t know the answers
I didn’t already know, still don’t
Because I suspect they are extremely prejudiced and bigoted in their selectivity. For example, I’ll bet they don’t condone reference to blacks in a negative way, such as the N word. But I’ll bet they constantly use the W word in prejudiced bigoted ways. Apparently they don’t have a program in place to ensure that the persons that input the data are equally distributed. And since most persons employed by government are leftie liberals, I suspect the names/words denied are mostly infected by those LL thinking.
@George Wells:
I question your use of the word APPROVE. I suspect the correct word might be CONDONE. Someone previously mentioned above about someone gay getting married and not attending the wedding. I can say for sure I won’t be attending any gay ‘weddings’. So while it’s their business who they pretend to marry, I’ll let it remain their business by not getting into it.
@George Wells:
Another example of a statement that a ‘gay’ would make.
@Redteam #101:
My post #92 answered at least 9 of your questions, and I asked only three in return, which you totally ignored.
First of all, this comment of yours is nothing but conjecture. You SPECULATE but provide no information in support of whatever it is you are trying to debate.
I’ll ask again: WHAT’S YOUR POINT?
I don’t work for the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The Virginia legislature is overwhelmingly Republican, and the appointments handed out by that legislature go almost exclusively to partisans (not to Democrats) and it is those administrators, not the lowly civil servants who work for them, that set the policies.
I’m not arguing one way or the other over what the State’s DMV policies are. (No, the Department of Motor Vehicles isn’t a machine.) Right or wrong, the policies are what they are, and we have to live with them. I’m not defending them, and I’m not trying to change them. But as ignorance is no defense in the eyes of the Law, you better believe that I know what those policies are.
You must be terribly bored, to try and pick a fight over the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles’ policies.
You should take up gardening.
@Redteam #102:
The word “condone” is not used in the polls that survey public acceptance of gay marriage. The word “approve” is used. I used the word “approve” for the sake of accurately reporting the information I was providing.
What information contributes to your “suspicion” that “condone” would be the more accurate term?
(Remember that polls report the answers given by thousands of respondents to precisely worded questions, while your personal story, while anecdotal, reflects only one isolated data point.)
@George Wells: apparently being gay affects your mind in ways you don’t realize. in 104 you say:
If you will note, my first comment after your 92 was 101 which contained the answers to the 3 questions from 92. (I did have a no. 94 comment, but it was posted before I ever read your 92, in fact, I didn’t see your 92 until this AM.)
@George Wells:
It’s the metaphor.
I don’t garden, I’ve heard some fruits and vegetables are gay. Don’t want to grow anything gay. Are is it gays that are fruits? whatever?
@George Wells: George, you know damn well that 95% of the people being ‘polled’ don’t have a clue. Watters World polled people on the street and the majority are supporting the current Sec of the Treasury, Karl Marx, for president. What does that tell you?
The majority of persons polled have never heard of Joe Biden. They think the slaves were freed with the civil rights act of 1964. They think Columbus discovered America in 1942. Do you APPROVE of those opinions or just CONDONE them, recognizing that even gays have the right to be stupid?
APPROVE: to speak or think favorably of; pronounce or consider agreeable or good; judge favorably:
CONDONE:1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2.
to give tacit approval to:
so which do you think it is?
@George Wells:
Au contraire. I am stubborn when I reach a political decision, yet I was neutral on gay marriage. It is not your “ineffectiveness” as a writer that has changed my view, but your continued misrepresentations and the hatred shown by both you and the LGBT activists in these last weeks, attacking religious freedoms of one group to force them to either put away their convictions and accept your will or go out of business.
Look over your past postings on FA. Every time in the past where in FA articles you trotted out gay marriage whether related to the subject or not, I walked away. I did NOT attack your “advocacy” until you and the LGBT radical activists decided that you would no longer let opposing viewpoints alone. It is not hyperbole to point out when someone is using the tools and tactics of Saul Alinsky socialist activism to foist fascist demands against the Constitutional rights of others.
You see George, for over a decade I ignored the point of view put out by some that gay marriage was an attack on the religious institution of marriage, because I didn’t see it that way. But recent events have shown me the teeth of LBGT radicalism at the throat of those who simply do not want to participate in gay marriage celebrations because of their religious objections. this has all forced me to re-evaluate my neutrality. I will not allow this to affect my behavior towards gays,and I will continue to support gay legalized unions. But I will now politically oppose gay marriage, because I now see that your opponents were correct in that LGBT radicalism was, and is, using it to attack religion. I not happy about having to make this decision, but I have to stand against religious oppression.
@George Wells:
I realize that history is not your forte so perhaps you should research movements all across the world all through history and learn something. No movement, not from the German Nazis, the Italian fascists or any other left leaning group were large. 30,000 fascists, who marched on Rome, brought about the reign of terror that was Benito Mussolini in a nation of 40.9 million.
So while the percentages of the radical homosexual gaystapo may be small in number by percentages, they are loud and they are ruthless in using judicial activism against Christians and Christian owned businesses.
.
Bull. Every state that has put same-sex marriage as a voter referendum has voted it down. What happens then? Gays sue and find friendly judges to over rule the will of the people. You queers obviously are not winning hearts and minds if you have to resort to the courts to force your agenda down the throats of the voters.
Bull, again. Most people don’t even know their neighbors anymore. The combine press/movie/TV industry has done yeoman’s work to try to create the illusion that being gay is normal. It’s political correctness (cultural Marxism) gone wild. It is a fallacy that everyone has someone gay in their family so we might as well just accept that homosexuality is A-OK and that gays are just like heterosexuals. You’re not.
You’re delusional and in denial. The recent events show that gays may be tolerated, but when you go after Christians for no other reason than they believe in Christ’s teachings, you are going to create an alienation that you won’t like and a push back that will benefit no one.
Heterosexuals are beginning to see that even though they accepted the move of the bar, the narrowing of the bar, it is never enough. It will never be enough for those like you. When heterosexuals finally say “Enough!” you will not like the results.
@retire05: Said to George:
I agree with that. As I said above. Ok, gays can have a pseudo wedding, but I won’t be attending any. I know of one distant relative of mine (on my wife’s side) that is ‘born gay’. But when/if he gets married, he doesn’t need to waste an invitation for me.
I don’t know of anyone, that I know, that would go to a ‘party at a gay couples house”. I sure as hell wouldn’t and I won’t be inviting any gays to my house. Do I care if they live in my neighborhood? No, as long as they keep it inside. If they start flying a rainbow flag, I suspect it would get damaged.
Racism in the country had been disappearing since the civil rights act, until the country lost their mind and elected a racist president to re-light the fires again.
I’m not sure what the next move for the gays will be if/when the Supreme Court rules that being gay trumps religious freedom. They are going to be terribly disappointed when they discover that doesn’t make anyone ‘accept’ being gay is ‘normal’. It’s not normal, it’s a birth defect. As of now, there may not be a cure for it. But they can control Manic Depression to some extent, so there is still hope.
@Redteam:
.
Nor would I.
.
Pew Research (I think) did a poll of black Americans and asked them who was more racist; whites or blacks. A majority said blacks were more racist against whites than whites were against blacks. And people need to look at the reason for the problems that came out of Ferguson, Missouri. It wasn’t racism on the part of whites, it was, as Dr. Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams have explained, that the liberals decided that the best way to continue garnering black vote is to place them on Uncle Sam’s plantation. We now have a society where a white football player would be fired immediately for using the N word, but a black player can call a white player the N word and nothing happens. Consequently, race relations are as bas as I have ever seen them since the ’60’s.
If that happens, and it will probably hinge on Justice Kennedy, Christians are going to resent the fact that what cannot be achieved by popular vote has now been shoved on them by an activist court. But it will be an interesting time because it is the black preachers who are speaking out against same-sex marriage. That will pose quite a quandary for the taking heads. Do they support blacks, as has been the policy for the last 50 years, or do they throw blacks under the bus for the gays?
Social engineering never works. There is as much opposition to abortion now as there was when Roe vs. Wade was decided. Maybe more.
@retire05:
And I think that’s a normal process. Prior to R v W, I’d say if you asked the average person what their positon on abortions was, they would likely say, well, I guess in the case of saving the mother’s life or a genuine medical emergency, if it’s necessary to abort the baby, then it would be ok. But when it became a “everyone has the right to kill their baby” I think a lot of feelings changed. (even our current upstanding president voted on a measure in Illinois that would not require any attempt to save an aborted baby’s life if he was born alive, just throw them in the trash) Seems as if abortion has become a routine birth control procedure, and for a while, became a big money business. Planned Parenthood is still making tons of money off of it.
So, now people actually ‘think’ about abortions and it’s clear that many now consider it murder when back at the time, they didn’t think much about it at all.
Abortion is killing a baby. In some cases, it’s murder. in some cases, it’s justifiable.
If the Supreme Court rules that ‘now you have to like gay people and give up some of your rights for them’, many people that haven’t ‘been thinking about it’ will begin to realize that they’ve lost a lot of their rights without even ‘paying attention’. Then we’ll know if they REJECT, CONDONE, APPROVE of homosexuality.
@retire05 #110:
I cannot understand why you continue to put this lie in print. The 2012 elections featured state-wide referendums on gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington. The VOTERS in all three of those states APPROVED gay marriage.
EVERY state has NOT “voted it down.”
Since you evidently slept through 2012, and missed the election results that I have already called to your attention several times, why don’t you do some of your own research before continuing to make this stupid error. Appearing so incredibly ignorant can’t possibly help you convince anyone of anything.
@Ditto #109:
“the hatred shown by both you and the LGBT activists in these last weeks, attacking religious freedoms of one group to force them to either put away their convictions and accept your will or go out of business.”
I hate no one.
Perhaps you missed the several conversations I have had here with Nanny G in which we both discussed the merits of “incrementalism.”
The point of those discussions was that gay activists have already accomplished enough – and quite possibly too much – and that their enthusiasm in further pursuit of their agenda at this point – as if they have an opponent on a battle field in disorderly retreat – is counter-productive to their long-term goals.
I explained that successful cultural change is best achieved incrementally, with sufficient time between advances to allow for a smooth adjustment in the population. Nanny G agreed with this, I seem to recall.
The activist wing of the gay rights movement (or cultural war or whatever else you prefer calling it) is clearly pushing for too much, too fast. Such rapid movement in cultural politics produces much the same reaction as it does in oscillation physics – for example the essentially equal motion of the pendulum in the direction opposite to its initial direction. Retire05 is absolutely correct that for gay people, such a reversal of fortunes would be devastating. It isn’t something that I want and it is certainly something that I would gladly sacrifice speed in order to avoid.
I have addressed this issue many times, yet you ignore it. It is easier, I suppose, for you to lump all gays together and accuse them as a class of mistakes being made by the few that Retire05 correctly explains are at fault. I’m not sure what purpose of yours is served by this over-simplification. What influence do you think the vast majority of gays have on the activists? We are not asked how we think they should proceed. Even if we WERE asked, why would they trust us any more than you do?
In our discussions of the issues surrounding the conflicts between freedom of religion and gay rights, I haven’t been able to adequately articulate my dedication to incrementalism at the same time that I answer your questions (or accusations) about the rights that gay activists are indeed demanding. (I’ve made the point often enough that I’m not demanding anything, having already gotten what I want.) And I apologize for that. I already explained that FOR ME it is enough that a gay customer can go somewhere else to be served in a friendly establishment. My explanation that this solution is legally inadequate represents my understanding of the Law, not my personal feelings on the matter. The difference between the two does not present a fatal contradiction to me because, as I already explained, my goal is already achieved.
All of this is now for me only an intellectual curiosity, one in which I make predictions and eagerly await the outcome to see if those predictions were correct. Retire05 chides me for acting as if I have a crystal ball (I don’t) while she is quick to predict the reversal of gay rights acceptance on no more substantial evidence than I have. I explain what rationale I think will be used to justify court decisions that I believe will be made, and you likewise support alternative results with your own rationale based upon YOUR understanding of the Constitution. I am happy to admit that I am not a constitutional scholar. If you ARE, my apologies for presuming to lecture you on a subject on which you are clearly my superior. Otherwise, I suggest that we both watch and see what happens in June.
@George Wells:
This? From the guy who whines about having insults cast at him? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
But what you don’t understand, George, is that, unlike you, I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Unlike you, who comes here simply to push your gay agenda, I present the facts and allow others to decide for themselves what they believe. Unlike your ilk, I threaten no one, sue no one, and don’t have to use violence and the strong arm of the law to get my way. Oh, I know you claim to have never done that, but I would warrant you would have had you been given the opportunity. Pushing the gay agenda is what you do. How sad that being queer seems to have consumed your entire life, as you turn every thread on this blog into a promotion of the gay agenda.
I am at war with you, George. You are a sodomist that wants to reduce my nation to nothing more than an exercise in the philosophy of Antonio Gramsci and I will not placate you to avoid hurting your feelings. Frankly, I hope I do hurt your feelings. Perhaps you will go away and resume doing what ever it is that gays do when they are not trying to convince others that they are “just like everyone else.”
@Redteam #113:
“If the Supreme Court rules that ‘now you have to like gay people and give up some of your rights for them’, many people that haven’t ‘been thinking about it’ will begin to realize that they’ve lost a lot of their rights without even ‘paying attention’.”
Is there something before the Supreme Court that I don’t know about?
I don’t think that “liking gay people” is being litigated.
@retire05 #116:
“I present the facts”
yes, like your #110 lie:
““Every state that has put same-sex marriage as a voter referendum has voted it down.”
(The truth is that the 2012 elections featured state-wide referendums on gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington. The VOTERS in all three of those states APPROVED gay marriage.)
“Perhaps you will go away”
Not as long as you are here telling lies to the public. I’m performing a public service by pointing out your lies.
Anyone who reads your lies can check the facts for themselves and see how low a conservative will stoop to misrepresent the truth.
@George Wells:
It doesn’t really matter whether they did or did not approve it. It would have been crammed down their throat anyhow. Most states that have rejected it got ‘illegally’ over ruled and in some cases have had to capitulate to the illegal activities promoting it. It’s a simple case of the tyranny of the minority.
@George Wells:
you’re kidding, right?
Not likely.“
that, of course, is the case to be heard later this month that you have been applauding.
@Redteam #119
Retire05 lied.
I exposed her lie.
That’s what I’m here for.
Was her lie important? No.
What she lies about isn’t any more important than what she tells the truth about.
What happened in 2012 is a matter of public record.
Rettire05 misrepresented that record.
She didn’t make an argument that referendums approving gay marriage were unnecessary because court decisions would have accomplished the same thing.
Her point was (erroneously) that referendums are more legitimate than court decisions.
If she WAS right that referendums ARE more important than court decisions, your premise that referendums in Maine, Maryland and Washington don’t matter would be patently false.
Y’all can’t have it both ways.
@Redteam #120:
Re: A supreme Court case determining whether or not “‘now you have to like gay people.”
I’ve read every one of the written arguments submitted to the Supreme Court that were posted on the SCOTUSBLOG, and to the best of my recollection, not once did the issue of “liking gay people” ever come up.
The proponents of gay marriage address the harm done to gay families (especially when they have adopted children), talk about constitutionally guaranteed equal treatment under the law, talk about the value to society that resides in allowing gays to marry, and they rebut the objections raised by the opponents.
The opponents of gay marriage talk about the traditional meaning of the word “marriage,” about the right of the State to encourage childbirth to sustain the population by any means it sees fit, and otherwise rebuts the arguments offered by the proponents of gay marriage.
These written arguments carefully avoid any mention of the word “sin.”
Neither do they discuss any of the “religious freedom” issues that have overtaken the gay rights discussion of late, is in bakers, florists, photographers and pizzerias. And none of them discuss the question of “liking gay people.”
If “liking gay people” was the issue, there would be no case. “Liking” anyone or anything cannot be legislated or adjudicated or commanded by executive order.
I understand that you are being intentionally sloppy with the language in order to keep this conversation going. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but unwarranted. You should let it (the conversation) die.
@George Wells:
Can’t agree with you there homo man. The Constitution allows states to establish their own laws about whatever they wish to that is not prohibited by the Constitution. The Constitution has no laws about who marries who, therefore it is up to the states to determine what their laws are concerning marriage. The referendum is how the state chose to get the state’s residents to decide. The referendum was entirely legal, the federal court decisions were not. The federal courts should have declined the cases because they didn’t have any legitimate issues to decide. The issues they erroneously ruled on were state issues, not federal.
While saying that, I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that you are going to be the disappointed one in June. If, and that’s a big if, If the Supreme Court rules according to Federal law. They will rule that marriage is a state issue.
Otherwise take out a marriage license and marry your Mom and Pop, it’ll be legal.
@George Wells:
yeah, I know. That’s why I’m opposed to the case attempting to force everyone to like gays. No they might not make them like gays, but apparently they’ll be criminalized if they don’t.
Gays adopting children, what a travesty. Putting an innocent child in the care of someone with a birth defect brain disorder. But if they side with the gays in June, they won’t have to worry about adopting them any longer, they’ll just marry them, because it will then be legal to marry whoever and whatever you please. You surely can’t deny someone that falls in love with a horse the right to marry them, right?
Ya’ll can’t have it both ways.
@George Wells:
George, you bastardize the U.S. Constitution, mislead on previous SCOTUS rulings, deny knowing anything about any “radical” gay movement (I noticed you never answered when I ask you if you knew who Harvey Milk was), push an agenda claiming support for queers that is basically not there, and I’m the one presenting false facts when I failed to acknowledge Maine, Maryland and Washington? What about California? Remember Prop 8? Remember that it took a queer judge to violate the vote of the people in California?
And THAT, George, is right out of the philosophy of the Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.
I hold YOU responsible for the current actions of radical gays. You spend your time here, not on some pro-radical gay website voicing your opposition to what they do. If you don’t agree with what they do, then you have a responsibility to speak out against what they do.
@retire05 #125:
“If you don’t agree with what they (radical gay rights activists) do, then you have a responsibility to speak out against what they do.”
I don’t think that I do, primarily because I’m not convinced that I’m right about incrementalism.
There are compelling arguments that, left to the discretion of conservative leaders, gay rights would never have advanced at all. There has been exactly zero progress made in gay rights as a result of Republican legislative initiatives, and Republican presidents have never proposed anything useful either. Perhaps you were happy with the status quo, but you surely must understand that gays were not. Having been failed by both Republican AND Democratic politicians for longer than Black civil rights advocates had been similarly ignored, gay rights advocates took the only course available to them, which was through the courts.
It was a successful choice. Maybe it WAS a path that has been taken before – I’m SURE that it was. But just because a strategy worked for someone you disagree with doesn’t mean that the strategy itself is flawed or suspect.
Regarding whatever any Marxist may have said about incrementalism, the idea has nothing to do with any particular political movement. It has everything to do with the fact that social change is best accommodated slowly, so that its effects are not violently disruptive. Look how many decades have passed since the “Negro” was emancipated. It took us one hundred years to enact any meaningful civil rights legislation (1964) that gave Blacks some specific rights that SHOULD have already been guaranteed by the Constitution, excepting that the Constitution itself isn’t a Law, but simply the basis upon which our laws are forged. And neither did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 end racial discrimination, as if it can EVER be ended. Each step forward is a tiny one, and each is accompanied by resistance and backward inertia. Yet how else can progress be made? What possible “quick fix” would have had any chance of bringing X-slaves into socio-economic parity with White folk? NONE! Only by a painstakingly slow incremental approach to the establishment of racial equality could the sad consequences of slavery ever hope to be erased. If believing that makes me a Marxist, then that’s what I am, but what I’ve read about Marxism doesn’t really seem to indicate that.
I think that it is curious that you attack my “incrementalist” approach to gay rights on the grounds that the slow approach was advocated by a Marxist, while at the same time you complain that I am not advocating that “Marxist” approach to social change on some radical gay rights websites.
Is “incrementalism” good or bad? Make up your mind!
And what “radical gay rights websites” do you suggest?
I don’t know of any.
Do you mean the comment sections of articles on the Huffington Post?
I do comment there, and offer the same opinions that I express here. Think it matters?
I don’t.
Nobody cares there any more than they care here.
P.S. I saw the Harvey Milk movie with Sean Penn playing the title role. I can’t say whether the movie was accurate or not, as I was in the Navy and out of the country at the time, and not in a position to be informed on gay rights current events. There was no internet then. Since then, I have heard nothing to suggest that researching what really transpired before, during and after his assassination would add anything meaningful to my life, so I didn’t bother to look into the matter any further. If you think that I should have, that’s proof to me that my choice was correct.
@George Wells:
Please, don’t insult my intelligence by acting stupid. Re-read my comment. I never said anything about the philosophy of incrementalism. But you remain silent on the actions of the radical gays. The intimidation, the violent threats, the fire bombings of church rectories, the vandalizing of church buildings, all tactics of the radical gay lobby against those that dare to voice their own personal beliefs.
Tell me, George, honesty, what “right” was not obtainable, outside of marriage, by a simple trip to a friendly pro-bono law office? I guess your relationship is reduced to a simple $255.00 Social Security death benefit since you finally admitted there is no tax benefit to being married. And perhaps you would like to tell me how I would know that two guys wanting to rent an apartment are gay, if they didn’t make a big deal about it?
To try to compare the civil rights movement to the gay movement is an insult to black Americans. I can tell someone is black simply by looking at them. Can I apply that same rule to queers? And pray tell, how many X-slaves were involved in the marches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.? Oh, I guess you believe in blood liable. I am responsible for the sins of my ancestors. Then I guess I can hold you responsible for the deaths of millions of gay men from AIDS. See how that works?
Either you are butt stupid or the biggest liar to ever appear on these pages. Which is it?
@retire05 #127:
What I admitted to is that there is no marriage tax benefit to filing married, jointly or otherwise, when both married individuals have the sort of income that me and my husband have. That isn’t the only tax issue that connects to marriage, however. The entire Windsor case that broke this whole gay marriage issue wide open wasn’t about income tax, it was about inheritance/estate taxes, which for Edith Windsor amounted to a penalty of over $300,000.00 because her marriage was not recognized by the government.
I’ve explained this to you before, but you choose to ignore the facts, just like you chose to ignore the gay marriage referendums that voters DID approve, simply because you can’t stand the truth. So you concoct lies to deceive yourself and anyone else who is stupid enough to take your word for it. I don’t lie. Everything I present is information I’ve researched, and what I post is the most accurate information I can find. There are undoubtedly errors in some of it, but those errors are never my own constructions, like your “Every state that has put same-sex marriage as a voter referendum has voted it down” lie that you posted in your #110. That was YOUR lie, not something that you copied from anywhere else. Your INTENTIONAL effort to deceive. Shame on you.
You obviously can’t recognize the truth when it bites you in the face.
Did you ever stop to wonder if these so-called “radical gay” websites called themselves “Radical Gay”? You probably heard FOX NEWS mention “Radical Gay Websites” and you thought that you could just Google “Radical Gay Websites” and get a list of them. But you can’t. Gay activists don’t identify themselves as “radical,” only people who disagree with them do. And just in case you were wondering, I DON’T trust FOX NEWS as far as I can throw them. So, NO, you’re wrong on both counts. I gave you the place I know to go to post comments on articles or other comments, and I DO. But “Radical Gay Websites? I’m still waiting for your expose’.
No I haven’t. I’ve repeatedly condemned breaking the law and perpetrating violence of any kind. I’ve condemned public indecency displays, and I was critical, right here on FA, of the pressure placed on the Mozilla CEO who resigned. I don’t remain silent, and my incrementalism arguments are expressly made to counter the adverse effects of precisely that sort of radical pressure.
I explained that “successful cultural change is best achieved incrementally”
and YOU said, in your #125 post:
“And THAT, George, is right out of the philosophy of the Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.”
How soon you forgot.
So here I have exposed your lies in every one of your paragraphs. And where did I distort the truth? Was my characterization of the Windsor case, its tax consequences or its cultural significance not correct? The hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake in inheritance cases certainly swamps the Social Security Survivors Benefit that you deceptively argue is the only tax consequence of gay marriage. Did I misrepresent the results of the referendums in Maine, Maryland and Washington? NO. And, NO, I haven’t read Antonio Gramsci or Saul Alinsky, and have no idea whether or not what I am calling “incrementalism” is right out of their philosophies. I explained my honest opinion of the issue to Nanny G, and SHE called it “incrementalism.” I accept her label for the sake of convenient communication. I can’t imagine what problem you have with that, but as you have already explained that you object to everything I say, it is no wonder that you have to stoop to lying when I post honest and correct information. If you can’t smell the bigotry in that, your nose is broke.
@George Wells:
And preaching to those that agree with that, achieves what exactly? Shouldn’t you be voicing those opinions to those who are the perpetrators of such violent actions, as one of their ilk? Instead, you come here to push your gay agenda.
Odd that you have become fixated on calling me a liar, when it is you who has perpetuated so many falsehoods here at FA they are too numeral to count. You think you are the sharpest tack in the box, but you’re a fraud. Your problem with me is that I see right thru you and you can’t handle that.
I would think that when others point to those activists, as related to your agenda, it would peak your curiosity. Obviously, since you are such a singular issue clown, it would take more than a reference. Remain uninformed. It is your choice.
Perhaps you though that was clever of you, but major fail. You’re not cleaver, George. You’re just a propagandist. Pure and simple. You claim not to know so much yet seem to think that you know so much more than others. Bottom line; your incessant name calling of others has worn quite thin as you lament how others sling slurs back at you.
I really suggest you take up a hobby. Perhaps Nigerian women’s basket weaving or some other equally useless consumer of time.
@retire05 #129:
You see, Dear Heart, when YOU post a bald-faced lie like:
and I rebut that:
you don’t acknowledge that your “But you remain silent” statement was false. Instead you evade and obfuscate, asking:
ignoring the fact that I’ve also repeated my objections on the liberal sites that I mentioned.
Why are you having such a difficult time dealing with the truth?
You bear false witness constantly, as if the truth is irrelevant to your little war of misinformation. You charge that I have also lied, but don’t present any examples, and you imply that two “wrongs” make a “right.” Even if I DID lie, two “wrongs” don’t make a “right.”
I did so because of late you haven’t even bothered to discuss real issues, you just post incendiary lies, apparently hoping to distract others from actually presenting meaningful new information. You lie, I disprove your lie. I notice you can’t reverse that table on me.
And I didn’t call you a bigot this time, you did so yourself:
“I don’t like you.” “I’m at war with you.”
Why? Because what I say is wrong?
No. Because you don’t “like” me.
LOL.
Look up the definition.
@George Wells:
Changed his name, huh? So I guess you’re the wife?
@George Wells:
George, do you really think a radical gay has to have a sign around his neck saying “Radical Gay”?
@Redteam #132:
If you bothered to follow the actual conversation, you might have noticed that the issue was that it isn’t a simple matter to contact a “radical gay activist.”
Can you look “Radical Gay Activist” up in the phone book and get a list of phone numbers? No.
Can you Google “Radical Gay Activist” and get pages of names and contact information? No.
Retire05 wanted me to tell “Radical Gay Activists” my opinion of their excessive tactics, and so I asked her where to find them. No, not physically, as I have no intention of speaking to them in person any more than you want to speak to ME in person. But electronic communication would be a distinct possibility, provided Retire05 and I can agree on exactly who IS a ” Radical Gay Activist” and they should be contacted.
Can you follow that?
@Redteam #131:
What on Earth are you talking about?
Nobody here changed any names. You asked that question before, and I gave you the answer.
Why are you stuck on that question?
Your guesses are batting zero. There are no “wives” in our home.
Your ignorance is appalling.
@George Wells:
Are you admitting that you lied when you said you filled out your marriage license and inserted Wiband?
So you ‘claim’ to be in a marriage, which is the joining of a husband and a wife and you don’t have a wife in the marriage? Kinda makes a sham of your claim of a ‘marriage’ doesn’t it.
Hey, I’m not the one making all your claims. You’re the one that claims to be married, why do you insist on calling it a ‘marriage’ when it’s not a union of a husband and a wife?
I’m not the one pusing the sham on anyone.
@Redteam #135:
I am flattered that you remembered that Paul and I refer to each other as “wibands.”
That does not mean that the term was entered onto any form that we filled out for the State of Maryland or for the State of Virginia. (We actually officially got married in BOTH of these states, for insurance reasons.)
Neither will you find in ANY of my posts where I stated otherwise.
Your lies are getting almost as bad as Retire05’s. Sillier, perhaps, but at least you seem to be honestly forgetting what was said. Retire05 simply lies for the sport of it.
We have already reached an impasse over your bizarre claim that there is no such thing as a gay marriage because a “marriage” needs to have a husband and a wife, never mind that 37 states are performing them. I won’t address this foolishness of yours further.
@George Wells:
Strange that your refer to ‘gay marriage’ as ‘foolishness’.
I’m not going to search for the comment where you said it, but tell me what ‘wiband’ means if it is not a conjunction of wife and husband. If that’s what you intend it, then there has to be a wife and a husband to have a conjunction. Otherwise ‘wiband’ would be as much as lie as ‘gay marriage’ already is. I’m not going to say that a bunch of gays don’t refer to it as ‘marriage’ but I will say they are fooling themselves
@Redteam #137:
Your delusions aren’t worthy of comment.
Why don’t you try finding a topic you have something original to add to?
@George Wells:
Must be, you commented.
Actually the truth is that you don’t like being reminded of asinine comments you have made in the past. Such as the Wiband. I remember very well your defining it, now you’re trying to lie your way out of your statement. You said that both of you were ‘wibands’ a combination of a wife and husband. Are you now officially abandoning your position on your definition, or are you just going to continue to lie and deny? I know which way you’re going, you’re predictable.
@Redteam:
Oh, my, just caught George lying again. You know, as he tries to paint me as a liar because I made a mistake about three states?
George said:
and then he said:
Here is what I actually said:
Tell me, Redteam, do you see the word activists anywhere in my sentence?
And funny, when I Googled “radical gay activists”, the second link that comes up is “Bash Back” a radical gay group that harasses Christian churches. Now, I guess we are also to believe Mr. Honesty went to see the movie about Harvey Milk but never bothered to research Mr. Milk any further, or in all his years of being queer never bothered to look up any of the myriad of gay groups like GLAD or any of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_rights_organizations_in_the_United_States
to see if they were radical (i.e. violent in their actions).
And Mr. Clown (George) calls me a liar? It seems to be his true calling.
@retire05: Better watch it O5, George doesn’t like having his lies pointed out. He has a tendency to deny things he’s said. And get’s rather adamant about it.
Now, I don’t care much for the subject of Harvey Milk, but I did see, either the movie about him or some tv story about him. Anyhow looked into his story a little and it’s quite clear that the story of Harvey has grown much and elevated him to sainthood since the days when Harvey was actually just a queer running around in ass-less chaps disgusting the ‘regular’ people. It is interesting that something happened in 2009 that prompted the posthumous(by 31 years) Presidential Medal of Freedom. Was it that we had the first member of the Chicago Bath Houses gang elected? Milk ran for office 4 times, got elected once, served less than one year, got one thing passed, a gay rights ordinance, which was the law that allowed assless chaps and overt sexual acts (by gays)performed in public. Very good law for the youngsters there in Q city. And for his parading around in his chaps, he was awarded that Medal of Freedom (Freedom to openly show ass on streets). Real upstanding character in that guy, (or girl) whatever he,she,it was.