To add insult to injury, Reynolds (aka Instapundit aka “The Blogfather“) had agreed to give the speech free of charge:

Moreover, Reynolds’ speech was about Internet activism, not gay rights.

Does the Republican Party really want to tell libertarians they are unwelcome in the party, that their views on social issues are so repulsive they cannot be permitted to speak on any subject at Republican-sanctioned events?

Not only is this bad politics on the part of whoever invited Reynolds (a “small tent” policy?), it’s also just plain bad manners.

https://twitter.com/ToddKincannon/status/288058342985850881

It’s still unclear who exactly was responsible for this fiasco. State Party Chair Thomas Wright wasn’t aware of the incident until tweeters brought it to his attention earlier today.

After he learned of the disinvitation, Wright expressed interest in bringing Reynolds to the state:

Smart move.

* * *

Update: It was the Utah County Republican Party that disinvited Reynolds.

  • roycoleman

    and you wonder why the GOP lost the election . the party should stop worrying about social issues and focus on the big issues like the debt and jobs

    • Karla M

      Rubbish, people should not sacrifice their views to win elections

      • Bobby Adams

        Exactly! The nation isn’t reeling from less sodomy rights. Grow up, Twitchy!

      • v1cious

        There’s that Tea Party spirit!

    • http://youtu.be/efJUFlD1S8Q DaleVM14W

      It’s all ties together, pal. Wake Up!

    • Maxwell

      If I remember correctly, during the last election, the Republicans were talking about the economy and creating jobs, and it was the Democrats who were making it about social issues.

      • Harlan Hikaru Fox

        They were, but then, you’d go on any right-leaning news site, and you’d get an avalanche of comments complaining that the Rs weren’t being overtly Devout enough for them. Eventually the rift between Libertarians and SoCons is going to be irreparable.

        • Maxwell

          Puts the GOP Senate, Congress, and Presidential hopefuls in awkward position then. When their two biggest supporters are at odds ends. Although, in the end it may not be a big deal, since it’s only a matter of time before Libertarian candidates began garnering enough media attention. Then Libertarians won’t feel their vote was wasted so much on their party’s actual candidate.

          I hope that made sense…

        • Maxwell

          Puts the GOP Senate, Congress, and Presidential hopefuls in awkward position then. When their two biggest supporters are at odds ends. Although, in the end it may not be a big deal, since it’s only a matter of time before Libertarian candidates began garnering enough media attention. Then Libertarians won’t feel their vote was wasted so much on their party’s actual candidate.

          I hope that made sense…

      • Harlan Hikaru Fox

        They were, but then, you’d go on any right-leaning news site, and you’d get an avalanche of comments complaining that the Rs weren’t being overtly Devout enough for them. Eventually the rift between Libertarians and SoCons is going to be irreparable.

      • BBBE

        The Dems wisely cited the statist tendencies in the SoCon agenda to scare people away from Romney and the Rs.

      • BBBE

        The Dems wisely cited the statist tendencies in the SoCon agenda to scare people away from Romney and the Rs.

    • fred2

      The GOP in Washington DC took your advice by abandoning social issues completely. But they soon started yielded on other issues like gun rights and taxes. This caused conservatives to abandon the DC GOP, which became Democrat lite. Now the party is all but extinct.

      Once you give up your principles in one area, you soon give them up in ALL areas. That leads to ruin.

    • fred2

      The GOP in Washington DC took your advice by abandoning social issues completely. But they soon started yielded on other issues like gun rights and taxes. This caused conservatives to abandon the DC GOP, which became Democrat lite. Now the party is all but extinct.

      Once you give up your principles in one area, you soon give them up in ALL areas. That leads to ruin.

    • Jeanette Victoria

      GOP lost because it is democrat lite. Most normal people who haven’t had the common sense indoctrinated right out of them know that “homosexual rights” is the road the perdition.

    • Jeanette Victoria

      GOP lost because it is democrat lite. Most normal people who haven’t had the common sense indoctrinated right out of them know that “homosexual rights” is the road the perdition.

  • Steven Swenson

    People shouldn’t sacrifice their views to win elections but should be willing to allow competing ideas among the base, let the winners of primary carry the standards. Compete is the game. Republicans need to agree on their common principles and allow leaders on both sides of contentious issues compete and persuade to win the base for their respective contest.

    • EEKman

      Bigotry is not a “competing idea”

    • EEKman

      Bigotry is not a “competing idea”

  • Man of Little Means

    So when the left boycotts everybody for everything that’s their right.

  • Maxwell

    While I give the GOP props for sticking up for their beliefs, alienating the Libertarian party, which tends to vote Republican, probably isn’t in their best interests…

    • Harlan Hikaru Fox

      Pretty much. The whole “You’re not religious enough, so go join the welfare and socialism party already!” attitude is losing the GOP every damned election.

      • shimauma

        Ridiculous. The reason the GOP is sinking is because they are wallowing in the filth of the unrighteous. Maybe if they would clean themselves back up the righteous might be willing to return to their party.

        • Harlan Hikaru Fox

          You can’t legislate everyone into being Evangelical Fundamentalists. Why do you think the Muslims have to threaten to KILL everybody? Because even they know it’s impossible to force everybody to adhere to a single religion.

          • shimauma

            I’m not saying sexual deviants should be legislated to convert to Christianity. I’m saying their deviant lifestyle choices shouldn’t earn them any extra rights. If I decide to drive a nail throuh my hand every saturday, should I get extra priviledged status in legislation? No, because it is a STUPID thing to do. If I decided to dress like a baby as a lifestyle should I get a disablity check? NO, because it is a stupid lifestyle choice!! people who chose sexually deviant lifestyles do not deserve ANY extra legislative consideration EVER!!

          • Dan Thorpe

            gotta disagree with you. Its not a lifestyle choice its who they are. Some suppress what they are to live “normal” life but they are sometimes miserable with that choice. There is nothing deviant about being gay.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

            IT IS a Choice, just like when a guy chooses to go out with a woman instead of another guy.

          • Dan Thorpe

            and you would know how? Have you ever talked to a gay person?I understand the religious viewpoint but it is a close minded view

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Have you ever spoken to someone who has come out of homosexuality?

          • Dan Thorpe

            what is coming out of homosexuality? you mean that they were gay and become straight? I have not

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Well same-sex desire is not always a choice. That usually happens when someone is very small, usually by several means. But same sex behavior is always a choice.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            It doesn’t matter if it is a choice or not. Religion is a choice and it is a protected class. Familial status is a choice and that is also a protected class.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

            IT IS a Choice, just like when a guy chooses to go out with a woman instead of another guy.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Of course it is deviant. Anyone with two eyes and common sense can see that. If not just check the CDC stats of all the illness homo-sex will give a person.

          • EEKman

            That surely explains why homosexuality has been around for 1000’s of years, and over 1500 species of animals engage in homosexuality. Its not a disease, its just genetics.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            The genetic meme is a lie. So is the “animals do it”. Animals are not human and can not reason like people. Animals also eat shit and devour they young, BTW the so called “gay” penguins, they have now gone ex-‘gay.’

          • EEKman

            Are animals natural or unnatural?

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            AGAIN, follow Proverbs 23:2

          • Jeanette Victoria

            The genetic meme is a lie. So is the “animals do it”. Animals are not human and can not reason like people. Animals also eat shit and devour they young, BTW the so called “gay” penguins, they have now gone ex-‘gay.’

          • EEKman

            That surely explains why homosexuality has been around for 1000’s of years, and over 1500 species of animals engage in homosexuality. Its not a disease, its just genetics.

          • unitedelectric

            Seriously, you need help.

          • shimauma

            So very typical, of you lefturd scum, deciding since I think sexual deviancy is wrong so I must be a hater. My disgust at a depraved lifestyle choices must have nothing to do with how filthy and perverted they are, I’m just a bigot, right? you must be a member of the demoncrapic party, abort any babies recently, collect your gub’mint stipend last week?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            The left simply sees disagreement as hate. They are quite fascistic as they will brook no disagreements.

          • shimauma

            George Orwell did mention that truth would be illegal someday when the facists take over. The man musta been a prophet.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            So you don’t think it is hateful to call people perverts and deny them the right to visit each other in the hospital when they are sick? To deny them the right to leave each other their belongings when they die?

          • shamsky24

            No, we don’t. We do see the use of language like “filthy, depraved, perverted lefturd scum” as evidence of hate. But perhaps that’s just how conservatives respectfully voice their disagreement over this issue.

          • shamsky24

            Actually, it’s more likely that your use of terms like “filthy,” “depraved,” “demoncrapic lefturd scum” that have convinced many of us that you’re a hater… or perhaps just a closeted, self-loathing homosexual.

          • shimauma

            Another typical lefturd response trying to shut down the truth. You are all screaming and railing against the truth and refuse to consider that you’re defending a dangerous filthy lifestyle choice. Any parent who has ever caught their 3 year old playing in cat litter, do you let them keep at it because they are exploring in their lifestyle choices??? The behaviors of homosexuals (ie sexual deviants) is the same level of filth. Do you let your kids play in raw sewage? That’s what people who chose sexually deviant lifestyles are doing for fun, and it’s what they want to teach your children because they can’t breed so they must recruit.

          • shimauma

            Another typical lefturd response trying to shut down the truth. You are all screaming and railing against the truth and refuse to consider that you’re defending a dangerous filthy lifestyle choice. Any parent who has ever caught their 3 year old playing in cat litter, do you let them keep at it because they are exploring in their lifestyle choices??? The behaviors of homosexuals (ie sexual deviants) is the same level of filth. Do you let your kids play in raw sewage? That’s what people who chose sexually deviant lifestyles are doing for fun, and it’s what they want to teach your children because they can’t breed so they must recruit.

          • unitedelectric

            Seriously, you need help.

          • shimauma

            I’m not saying sexual deviants should be legislated to convert to Christianity. I’m saying their deviant lifestyle choices shouldn’t earn them any extra rights. If I decide to drive a nail throuh my hand every saturday, should I get extra priviledged status in legislation? No, because it is a STUPID thing to do. If I decided to dress like a baby as a lifestyle should I get a disablity check? NO, because it is a stupid lifestyle choice!! people who chose sexually deviant lifestyles do not deserve ANY extra legislative consideration EVER!!

        • Harlan Hikaru Fox

          You can’t legislate everyone into being Evangelical Fundamentalists. Why do you think the Muslims have to threaten to KILL everybody? Because even they know it’s impossible to force everybody to adhere to a single religion.

        • v1cious

          That’s interesting, I remember someone else saying something very similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA

          • Jeanette Victoria

            These guy are registered Democrats who at one time raised fund for Al Gore. Epic fail

          • v1cious

            Party is Irrelevant, The fact remains that most of the rhetoric coming from this thread is verbatim the same stuff you hear from the WBC.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            If you can’t tel the diffence between a moral dsageement about “same sex marriage and what the wesboro group does then it is *you* who has a severe problem.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            How is it different?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            These guy are registered Democrats who at one time raised fund for Al Gore. Epic fail

        • v1cious

          That’s interesting, I remember someone else saying something very similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA

        • unitedelectric

          You are sick. Get some help.

        • unitedelectric

          You are sick. Get some help.

        • EEKman

          I would sooner see all religions made illegal than return to a totalitarian theocracy that you describe.

          • shimauma

            dorkman, I never discribed a theocracy or any government intervention in the perverse lifestyle choices of those who engage in them, I just don’t think people who eat poop as a saturday night thing should be allowed to decide government for the rest of us who abstain out of disgust and a reverance for the Design.

          • EEKman

            Lol, If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married!
            How does legalizing gay marriage affect you in any way?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Wow an idiotic sound bite. How clever

          • EEKman

            I have never been called both idiotic and clever in the same statement. Thanks i think?

          • Jeanette Victoria
          • EEKman

            You cal roll your eyes all you want, but the cheeky comment gets to the heart of the matter that no one here can address. How does gay marriage affect you? Its the same exact argument that bigots used in the 60s for interracial marriage and the sky hasn’t fallen. The language you use is meant to suggest that your rights and way of life would be threatened by legalizing and recognizing gay marriage when the reverse is true. Your way of life is not being denied to you, you are denying others.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            It’s not. It’s a valid question. You are not gay. You obviously don’t know or care about any gay people. How does it affect you personally?

        • EEKman

          I would sooner see all religions made illegal than return to a totalitarian theocracy that you describe.

      • shimauma

        Ridiculous. The reason the GOP is sinking is because they are wallowing in the filth of the unrighteous. Maybe if they would clean themselves back up the righteous might be willing to return to their party.

      • fred2

        @Harlan Fox

        Please check out this video on why focusing only on the economy hurts fiscal conservatism:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9tXTd50BRA

      • fred2

        @Harlan Fox

        Please check out this video on why focusing only on the economy hurts fiscal conservatism:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9tXTd50BRA

    • https://twitter.com/davidjkramer DavidKramer

      As soon as you or Glenn can explain to me what gay rights are, you might make me give a damn.

      • shimauma

        Exactly, sexual deviants have the same rights as everyone else. What they want now is justification for their perversions.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

          well said.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

          well said.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          Nailed it. They also want the added right to brainwash your children

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Believe me. My desire to marry my husband couldn’t have LESS to do with your children. I don’t know you or your spawn. Nor do I care to. Please stop thinking this is all about you. It has nothing to do with you. You don’t fit into the picture.

        • EEKman

          Wrong side of history buddy.

      • shimauma

        Exactly, sexual deviants have the same rights as everyone else. What they want now is justification for their perversions.

      • Maxwell

        I can’t speak for Glen, but to me it seems like it would be an additional right afforded to people that would allow a Man/Woman to marry a person of the same sex.

        Mind you I haven’t stated my personal opinion on gay marriage. I was just pointing out that alienating the Libertarian party, a party that usually votes Republican, isn’t in the Republican party’s best interest, especially since they have had trouble getting votes in the past couple elections. Of course, I have no idea how Glenn Reynolds is viewed in the Libertarian party, so they may not be alienating anyone.

        Once again, I’m happy the GOP stood up for their beliefs, however.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          People of the same sex can’t be married it is an absurdity. Its like cats campaigning for the right to be dogs

          • EEKman

            Is it absurd for sterile heterosexual people as well? How about seniors? How about a man and woman who dont want kids? What is absurd about it?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Because men and women designed for each other. Your remark about whether they have child is a non-starter. It doesn’t matter because almost all male female unions result in in children.

          • EEKman

            “It doesn’t matter because almost about male female unions result in in children.”

            Do you think you can edit that so it actually makes sense?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            there feel better now

          • EEKman

            So in your mind there are no sterile people who get married and no one past child bearing age gets married? Those people don’t matter?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            That is such a silly argument and it fails everyone a homosexualitist brings it up, Man and female are complementary. they belong together by design. The fact that a few don;t have children is beside the point. Same sex paring is unnatural and a symptom of mental illness..

          • EEKman

            How exactly is it ‘unnatural? It happens all over nature across many different species and has for 1000s of years. If homosexuality was 100% detrimental to the species practicing it, it wouldn’t exist for this long. If your definition of ‘unnatural’ is that you cant produce children, well so what! As my other examples show, you don’t have to reproduce as a condition of marriage. If you did want children as a gay couple, then there are other ways of accomplishing that.

            If its unnatural because it goes against your religion, then you can’t force your beliefs on others, you’ll just have to suck that one up and move on with your life.

            Its not a mental illness. It’s genetics. Talk to some gay people as a human being and show some compassion.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Really you should stop using the debunked “genetic” argument, There has never been any proof that homosexuality is genetic. It is a symptom of mental illness. If you had any common sense I wouldn’t have to tell you this.

          • EEKman

            Really, its debunked? There may be a variety of factors and variables that cause it, but it happens in the womb. Its not a mental illness and had you come out of your protective ignorant christian bubble and actually talked to gay people as a human being, you’d know how callous and insulting your views are. You’d know they are born that way. Youd know the disgust you feel if you even think about gay sex is the same exact disgust that a gay person feels when they think about straight sex, and you want them to just live with it and be something they are not. Gay kids kill themselves on the streets because of the emotional torture of families who think like like you do and treat them as subhuman.

            Aren’t you the party of personal freedom? Aren’t you the party of do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt others? Your views hurt, and literally kill others, when gay marriage hurts nobody.

            You are ignorant and bigoted, and blissfully unaware of it.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            It is not a symptom of mental illness just because you say it is. You are making yourself look like a moron.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            You keep repeating that same sound bites over and overt again . It won’t make them any more true. Animals are not human. They don;t have the concept of love. Like I posted before even the so called “gay” penguins are now “ex-gay)

            Any child can tell a man is designed for a women. A penis doesn’t belong is the organ for waste disposal. The CDC stats will tell you homo-sex is deadly.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Since your only obvious problem is the single sexual act that you keep mentioning. A sexual act that straight people engage in all the time. Are you OK with lesbians getting married since they don’t engage in that one act? If I promise not to do that one act, can I get married? Will you force straight couples who engage in that act to get divorced?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Because men and women designed for each other. Your remark about whether they have child is a non-starter. It doesn’t matter because almost all male female unions result in in children.

          • EEKman

            Is it absurd for sterile heterosexual people as well? How about seniors? How about a man and woman who dont want kids? What is absurd about it?

      • Maxwell

        I can’t speak for Glen, but to me it seems like it would be an additional right afforded to people that would allow a Man/Woman to marry a person of the same sex.

        Mind you I haven’t stated my personal opinion on gay marriage. I was just pointing out that alienating the Libertarian party, a party that usually votes Republican, isn’t in the Republican party’s best interest, especially since they have had trouble getting votes in the past couple elections. Of course, I have no idea how Glenn Reynolds is viewed in the Libertarian party, so they may not be alienating anyone.

        Once again, I’m happy the GOP stood up for their beliefs, however.

      • J.N. Ashby

        I can. Basically, if the government is allowed to provide legal protection for heterosexual couples, there is no logical reason why they shouldn’t for homosexual couples. That said, they should stay out of both of them. Cohabitation shouldn’t afford special legal protection when simple civil contracts could.

        • AMSilver

          There is a very basic reason for government to give legal protection to heterosexual couples, and it’s called ‘children.’ The legal protection that a married couple has is available to everyone, but is especially necessary for children, who are incapable of providing for/defending themselves. That is why government provides the benefits of marriage in a cheap, bundled way as opposed to making a couple go to a lawyer and do the paperwork to get each benefit separately. Why should a wife automatically inherit her husband’s money in the case of his death? Because there is (or was, until liberals made motherhood such a black mark) a high likelihood of the couple having children. If there was no legal binding among the family, once the husband was gone, the wife/children would have no legal rights to the husband’s possessions, and would (generally) immediately fall into poverty – and require help from society/government. Society has a singular, invested interest in legally protecting the family because it prevents so many of the ills (poverty/criminality/etc) that otherwise would fall on government in one form or another. While there are gay people with children, the numbers are very small (you’re more likely to find a single mother living with the children’s grandmother – and are you going to advocate for ‘marriage’ for the two of them?), the children produced from that union are non-existant, and while there is a huge body of evidence spanning thousands of years showing the benefits of a family unit composed of a man/woman, evidence that such benefits come from same sex family units is lacking. If homosexuals want the priviledge of government recognition of their unions, then they need to stop complaining, and go about raising their families and demonstrate that there is a benefit to society meriting that priviledge. (Marriage is a right, but government recognition of marriage is a priviledge: one can easily get together a group of people, hold a ceremony, and call it a marriage. Our government does absolutely nothing to stop this).

          • EEKman

            Studies have shown that homosexual families are just as healthy as heterosexual ones. What about marriages with older heterosexual people? They cant have children. What about People who get married and don’t want children, or cant because of sterility? What does gender have to do with it?

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Actually they haven’t. Some of those so called studies are so poorly done that they are laughable.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            I know! The studies that tried to show that gay families were inferior were so poorly done that the people who did them were laughed out of science. All studies have actually shown that kids from gay families are actually better adjusted and more prepared for life than straight families.

          • EEKman

            Studies have shown that homosexual families are just as healthy as heterosexual ones. What about marriages with older heterosexual people? They cant have children. What about People who get married and don’t want children, or cant because of sterility? What does gender have to do with it?

          • J.N. Ashby

            Oh, wah. Think of the children! Pttttttt. That’s what I think of the children. The children are the responsibility of the parent. The government’s job isn’t to make being a parent easier, much to the chagrin of those that write to the FCC every time something sticks in their craws. You want kids? You make the legal survivorship. You make the inheritance contracts and wills. You do it. Don’t use my tax dollars for administration of your life.

            Also, I like how you patronizingly said “it’s called ‘children.'” That’s not smug at all.

      • J.N. Ashby

        I can. Basically, if the government is allowed to provide legal protection for heterosexual couples, there is no logical reason why they shouldn’t for homosexual couples. That said, they should stay out of both of them. Cohabitation shouldn’t afford special legal protection when simple civil contracts could.

  • Kevin

    The GOP can still stand up for their beliefs and allow the states to make their own decisions on gay rights. You want same sex marriage, move to a state that allows it, you disagree, move to a state that doesn’t. Its time to stop alienating votes over social issues that are progressing forward anyway and unite against bloated centralized government.

  • http://youtu.be/efJUFlD1S8Q DaleVM14W

    Need a waaamblance? “Cry Me A River”, boy!

  • BeyondPolls

    We have to stand up for traditional marriage guys. I agree with the move.

    • Dan Thorpe

      As some that is a conservative, I disagree with the move. I honestly believe the government should stay out of the personal lives of its citizens. Government should not be able to essentially decide what love is.

      • TN05

        Opposing gay marriage is not deciding what love is, it is defending what marriage is. Love isn’t just who you have sex with, it is also brotherly love, altruism, love of country. Our society has always defined marriage as one man, one woman – not one man, three women, one man one goat, one man one little boy, one man one shoe, etc. The restrictions on marriage are sound and not discriminatory – as long as you are of certain age you are legally allowed to marry any member of legal age who is of the opposite gender. Nothing is stopping a gay man from doing this and many gay individuals have done so

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          Bestiality, polygamy, and marrying inanimate objects aren’t what is being debated. Please stick to the subject. You may remember that race restrictions were also in place just a few decades ago. Now they are not. Did that redefine what your marriage was? No. It didn’t.

      • TN05

        Opposing gay marriage isn’t deciding what love is, it is deciding what marriage is. When our society decided what marriage is, we decided on one – allowing any member of the male/female gender of legal age to marry virtually any 1 (one) consenting unmarried member of the opposite gender who is of legal age. Combinations such as two men, one man five women, one woman one goat, one man one kindergardener, and one man one shoe would not be included for various reasons. Nothing is unequal about marriage – it applies to all citizens equally. For example, any gay man can marry any applicable woman. Any lesbian can marry any applicable male. The same applies for asexuals, bisexuals, etc.

        • J.N. Ashby

          The government’s function isn’t to define the word “marriage.” It’s Webster’s.

        • J.N. Ashby

          The government’s function isn’t to define the word “marriage.” It’s Webster’s.

        • Dan Thorpe

          Opposing it is deciding what love is. Our society was decided on the basis of Christian values right? As of 2007 78% of adults associated themselves as Christians, but some of those are still gay. When our society decided it was a very Christian philosophy of marriage. I am sorry as I said I am conservative but believe that a government should take the stance of allowing people to live their lives as they see fit as long as its not breaking a law and last I checked being gay is not against the law. If two people are gay does that impact your life? Most likely not, right? So if they want to get married again does that impact your life? Again most likely not. So what is the harm of giving them the same rights as everyone else? Them being gay is who they are just as much as myself who is a heterosexual male. If I can marry who I love, why can’t they marry who they love?

          • TN05

            No, it isn’t – nothing is stopping anyone from loving. Love is more than who you have sex with or want to have sex with. And on a practical level, that argument simply falls flat. I could say the exact same thing about polygamy – why can a polygamist not marry the twelve women he loves? Why would government keep them from marrying?

            Marriage is between one man and one woman – our society has decided this. It is not a right and gay people have the exact same right to marry as anyone else – that is very well established and gay people have done this to keep in the closet. The problem isn’t that they can’t marry, it is that they don’t like the option presented. However, that is how marriage works – to compare it to another government service, you can’t use food stamps to buy a sofa because food stamps don’t cover sofas. Complaining about food stamps not covering sofas would be silly because sofas are not food, and anyone who argued in favor of it would be laughed at. It is just as silly to me to want to redefine marriage because gay marriage isn’t marriage. You can’t marry someone who is of the same gender, multiple people, animals, youth, or inanimate objects. Are the rights of polygamists, zoophiles, and pedophiles being violated by marriage restrictions? No. Similarly, gay people are not having their rights violated.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            The difference, and you may not know this, is that the other things that you mention: polygamy, zoophilia, and pedophilia, are illegal. Homosexuality is not. See? Different.

          • TN05

            And why are they illegal? Because society thinks they are wrong. So if society thinks gay marriage is wrong, why should it be legal?

            If you want to argue marriage inequality, why are these oppressed polygamists being prevented from “marrying the people they love”? Why can a man not marry his shoe? Why should a gay couple be allowed to marry but a “loving, stable” polygamist trio be unable to marry? Given group sex isn’t illegal I’m not sure why you would oppose it. What makes you so special that you can define what ‘inequality’ is? The fact of the matter is you don’t deserve special rights that other ‘sexual minorities’ lack.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Homosexuality is not illegal. It is legal. Therefore there is no reason to deny marriage rights to gay couples. Polygamy is illegal. If you want to try and fight to make it legal and then fight for your right to marry multiple people, go right ahead. It isn’t my fight.

          • TN05

            I’m not fighting for it – I’m using the exact same arguments ‘gay rights’ advocates use to support ‘gay marriage’, but to support polygamy and polygamist marriages.

          • TN05

            No, it isn’t – nothing is stopping anyone from loving. Love is more than who you have sex with or want to have sex with. And on a practical level, that argument simply falls flat. I could say the exact same thing about polygamy – why can a polygamist not marry the twelve women he loves? Why would government keep them from marrying?

            Marriage is between one man and one woman – our society has decided this. It is not a right and gay people have the exact same right to marry as anyone else – that is very well established and gay people have done this to keep in the closet. The problem isn’t that they can’t marry, it is that they don’t like the option presented. However, that is how marriage works – to compare it to another government service, you can’t use food stamps to buy a sofa because food stamps don’t cover sofas. Complaining about food stamps not covering sofas would be silly because sofas are not food, and anyone who argued in favor of it would be laughed at. It is just as silly to me to want to redefine marriage because gay marriage isn’t marriage. You can’t marry someone who is of the same gender, multiple people, animals, youth, or inanimate objects. Are the rights of polygamists, zoophiles, and pedophiles being violated by marriage restrictions? No. Similarly, gay people are not having their rights violated.

          • Paula Noakes

            A lot of the problem I have with gay MARRIAGE is calling it MARRIAGE. Call it a union, make sure all the rights associated with wills, insurance, survivorship, etc., are legally spelled out, but I personally, as an LDS person, believe MARRIAGE is and always will be between one man and one woman, ordained of God. (Don’t stick gratuitous polygamy references into any responses, please. One hundred plus year old issues aren’t at the top of MY concerns.) Our Proclamation on the Family clearly states this, and as LDS we try to follow what our prophet says. We’re not perfect about it, just as many Catholics don’t follow the Pope 100%, but I’ve yet to meet a perfect person anyhow.

            And for what it’s worth, the LDS church has clarified its stance regarding gays and gays holding office in the church. As long as they follow the law of chastity (no sexual relations outside marriage), then gays are as worthy of full fellowship as straight people (who also are tempted). But anyone who isn’t following certain principles will be barred from some of the gospel ordinances, including temple MARRIAGE, which is between a man and a woman.

          • Cyrena

            Thanks, Paula. Well said. I completely agree. I believe marriage should be a RELIGIOUS rite/ceremony. Anyone that is not married in a church, gay or straight, could have a civil union/domestic partnership. All other rights extended to the civil union could be decided state-to-state.

            Having MARRIAGE defined as a one man/one woman is about religious freedom. Call it a UNION and wouldn’t that come closer to making both sides happy.

          • Paula Noakes

            Thanks, Cyrena! I was prepared for major flames … imagine my shock :) Washington State, where I live, already HAD all the laws in place for civil union/domestic partnership, yet the dingbats here voted to legalize gay marriage, just because the rabid pro-gay marriage folks called anyone who wasn’t for it a bigot, a hater, and worse. Stupid. And a waste of money, to go through all the laws that ALREADY PROTECTED gay couples, and make them say “marriage.” Ish.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Those laws didn’t grant the same rights that the word “marriage” does. Families can easily contest wills and prevent loved ones from going to visit in the hospital. Happens all the time. I am sorry that you feel that my right to marry the man I love is a “waste of money” but I do not see it the same. Fighting against it was a HUGE waste of money though. I think we can all agree on that.

          • Paula Noakes

            Thanks, Cyrena! I was prepared for major flames … imagine my shock :) Washington State, where I live, already HAD all the laws in place for civil union/domestic partnership, yet the dingbats here voted to legalize gay marriage, just because the rabid pro-gay marriage folks called anyone who wasn’t for it a bigot, a hater, and worse. Stupid. And a waste of money, to go through all the laws that ALREADY PROTECTED gay couples, and make them say “marriage.” Ish.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            You both are not thinking
            Homosexuals already have the ability to have a religious ceremony of their choosing because the religious ceremony does not make you legally married, the signing of the marriage certificate does.,
            A legal marriage has nothing to do with love, feeling connect to each other, taxes or any benefits, since you don’t get breaks for being married.
            A legal marriage is 100 percent about the biological rights of children to have, know and be supported by the actual people who bring them into this world. When a man signs of marriage cert, he is not saying he loves anyone, he is legally binding himself to any and all children born to the wife during the course of the marriage

          • Paula Noakes

            Boy, what a romantic YOU are …

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            You both are not thinking
            Homosexuals already have the ability to have a religious ceremony of their choosing because the religious ceremony does not make you legally married, the signing of the marriage certificate does.,
            A legal marriage has nothing to do with love, feeling connect to each other, taxes or any benefits, since you don’t get breaks for being married.
            A legal marriage is 100 percent about the biological rights of children to have, know and be supported by the actual people who bring them into this world. When a man signs of marriage cert, he is not saying he loves anyone, he is legally binding himself to any and all children born to the wife during the course of the marriage

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            How does my getting married to my husband prevent you from worshiping God? How does it affect you in any way?

          • Cyrena

            See above post. 2 up. It’s not YOU the individual I’m worried about. It’s what can happen politically and how the legislation could be twisted. If you read above, I WANT you to have the same rights as straight couples.
            Let me ask you, in all civility and sincerity: Why does it have to be “marriage”? Why not a “union” or a “partnership”?

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Because there was a case in this country where it was decided that having a separate accommodation for one group of citizens even though it may be equal to the other group’s accommodations, automatically makes one inferior to the other. If you remember, calling one drinking fountain “white only” even though they are the same fountain makes the “black only” fountain automatically inferior. There is no reason to have a different word. It is the same rights and the same institution.

          • Cyrena

            I am aware of that. That is why I propose that ALL couples who are not married in a religious ceremony are “United” or “Partnered” on legal records. It could be the same application for licensing for all. If couples are to be united they see a judge for ceremony and proper signatures. If they are to be married they see their respective religious official.
            So it would not exclusive to one group or another.

            That is a FAR cry from a “blacks only” water fountain. Because that implied one group was diseased.

            And fyi, I would have been “United” with my husband under the above scenario. We would have been under the “married” umbrella 5 years later, after a religious ceremony was performed. I would not have had an issue at all with that, as the ceremony was still an expression of our love for each other and all legal rights (and penalties) would have applied after that date.

            So I ask again, in sincerity, what is wrong for a “Union” for non-religious couples. It’s simply a matter of semantics.

          • EEKman

            When did the LDS church recognize interracial marriages?

          • Hiraghm

            Are you contending that homosexuality is a race?

          • EEKman

            Im contending that the LDS church has been on the wrong side of history in its recent past, and clearly still is.

          • Paula Noakes

            I don’t know, why don’t you Google it? I’m not your end source for all things LDS, am I? Cuz you’ll be disappointed.

          • J.N. Ashby

            Well, you did qualify all your opinions with the fact that you’re LDS.

          • Paula Noakes

            Sure, but I also don’t expect a lay member of any faith to be an expert on every detail of the faith’s history. But whatever …

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            They didn’t believe that black people were actual human beings worthy of being allowed into the Mormon faith until 1978.

          • Paula Noakes

            You are quite wrong. http://www.blacklds.org describes the history of blacks in the LDS church. Quit depending on anti-Mormon websites for your info.

          • EEKman

            When did the LDS church recognize interracial marriages?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            No, there shouldn’t be a “civil union” based on someone’ sexual desire’s either.

            The notion that your desires create rights themselves is a threat to everyone’s rights

            Legal maarriage as it is now, is not based on the rights of the man and woman being married. It’s sole purpose is to encourage and insure that children’s biological rights to know and be supported by their actual parents, preferably from the moment of their birth, not later.
            This is why marriage has always been encouraged before sex , before children become a reality.
            Legally, any child born to the wife during the course of a marriage is , as the courts are concerned, the automatic legal responsibility of the husband, He is automatically deemed the father and if for some reason he is not , he must go to court and prove he’s not. This insures children have support every moment of their lives.

            For this reason , you can not be a fiscal conservative without being for social conservatism. In a liberal world , the father is not needed nor the mother, only big government welfare programs paid for by others who didn’t create any fatherless children.
            You have to be for ever growing welfare programs to be for changing marriage from being what it is now to something about the desire rights of adults.

          • Paula Noakes

            Didn’t I say I didn’t want to change MARRIAGE? Read. Don’t accuse me of being for welfare, a liberal, for big government. Nothing is further from the truth. I agree that MARRIAGE is intended for the purpose of procreation (putting aside infertility issues, etc.; even Sariah had problems conceiving, remember? yet she and Abraham were still married). One reason I don’t want GAY MARRIAGE …

          • Cyrena

            I find your arguments interesting, even though I don’t fully agree. If what you are saying is true, then why, pray tell, is gay marriage so important for those advocating for it?
            If marriage is only for procreation and to imply parenthood, then there is no reason for gay marriage as they cannot procreate on their own.
            The only arguments I’ve heard for gay marriage from advocates are:
            1) Marriage is a symbol of love
            2) We need the same rights as other couples
            Both of which can be established in other ways.
            The point I am trying to make about RELIGIOUS freedom, is this: If gay marriage is made legal, then what is to keep the ACLU from suing the Mormon Church, or Catholic Church or Jewish Coalition because it goes against their religious beliefs to allow them to be married in their churches, temples or synagogues (or Muslims and mosques for that matter). Then it WOULD be a violation of the first amendment. That is my concern. I have gay friends in stable long-term relationships. I want them to have the same rights (and penalties, ie tax code) as married couples. This, for me, is an argument for/against religious freedom.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Gay people are not sterile. They can and do have children. They also adopt them. And no one is saying that they want to be married in a church that doesn’t want them. That has never and will never be part of the argument for marriage. Who would ever want to celebrate their relationship in a church that actively hated them. All we want is the rights attached to that word.

          • Cyrena

            Oh Michael, I was replying directly to ssenecal5000 on the marriage being for procreation bit. He/she was saying in previous posts that, historically, that is why the institution of marriage was made a legal process (to establish parental rights.) Under that premise (which I don’t agree with) then marriage would be archaic as parental rights can be established in different ways. You are assuming again, because I use someone else’s logic, I agree with them. Not the case.
            I realize that YOU don’t want to be married in a church that doesn’t want you. That is not the case for everyone, and certainly the ACLU has come in under other premises and used the courts to push an agenda. I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that SOMEONE, SOMEDAY would want to twist the law. Let’s take for example, (what may open another can of worms: The Second Amendment, it was established to arm the citizens against an oppressive gov’t (in the context in which it was passed). Today we have those who would disarm (yes, disarm) the citizens and are twisting the intentions of the law as written, with justifications that it protects against violence. Laws can and will be twisted to fit the desires of others. It’s usually done in court and that is my concern. If we open the door, SOMEONE (not you) will put his/her foot in.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            No, there shouldn’t be a “civil union” based on someone’ sexual desire’s either.

            The notion that your desires create rights themselves is a threat to everyone’s rights

            Legal maarriage as it is now, is not based on the rights of the man and woman being married. It’s sole purpose is to encourage and insure that children’s biological rights to know and be supported by their actual parents, preferably from the moment of their birth, not later.
            This is why marriage has always been encouraged before sex , before children become a reality.
            Legally, any child born to the wife during the course of a marriage is , as the courts are concerned, the automatic legal responsibility of the husband, He is automatically deemed the father and if for some reason he is not , he must go to court and prove he’s not. This insures children have support every moment of their lives.

            For this reason , you can not be a fiscal conservative without being for social conservatism. In a liberal world , the father is not needed nor the mother, only big government welfare programs paid for by others who didn’t create any fatherless children.
            You have to be for ever growing welfare programs to be for changing marriage from being what it is now to something about the desire rights of adults.

          • J.N. Ashby

            Then by that logic, marital status can’t be on legal documents, the term “married” cannot be used, etc.. Who would fight so hard for something as inane as semantics?

          • Paula Noakes

            So why are gays fighting so hard for MARRIAGE? Same argument applies …

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            A legal marriage has NOTHING to do with love, Zip Zilch Zero
            Homosexual can already have a religious ceremony of their choosing …the portion that deal with a love promise. They’ve been doing it for 5 decades, I’ve been to one, it was cute .
            This however is not why the government started recording marriages, Governments do it to put :LEGAL force behind the biological rights of children to know and be supported by the man who had the fun and ended up creating them
            Unlike being a right for adults, a legal marriage is an legal agreement where the man takes on RESPONSIBLITY for any and all children born to the his wife during the course of their marriage.
            Homosexuals do not fit in this equation, they both can not be the biological parent of the same child . It’s impossible . This is why homosexual marriage is idiotic and why no government has a reason to be involved in their relationship

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            It is not impossible. I don’t know if you know this, but gay people are not sterile. They can fertilize eggs and have surrogate mothers just like any straight infertile couple. They can also adopt children just like any straight couple. See? Children.

          • Hiraghm

            Nonsense. One does not need to be married to love. One does not even have to be of the same species to love.

            There are many things which take place which affect my society and thereby indirectly affect my life. The uncontested invasion of illegal aliens is one such example. The brainwashing campaign against smoking, for another.

            I have said repeatedly how redefining marriage will affect my society and my life; it makes marriage meaningless.

            It’s not about loving someone. It’s about the obligations and benefits that go with being married. The gay agenda is taking the same tack as the “bad” mother in Solomon’s famous decision. If she can’t have the baby, then yes, cut it in half! If gays can’t pretend to be normal and healthy by forcing the rest of us to treat them the same as we would treat normal and healthy people, then destroy the institutions valued by normal and healthy people.

            The pathology turns virulent.

        • Dan Thorpe

          Opposing it is deciding what love is. Our society was decided on the basis of Christian values right? As of 2007 78% of adults associated themselves as Christians, but some of those are still gay. When our society decided it was a very Christian philosophy of marriage. I am sorry as I said I am conservative but believe that a government should take the stance of allowing people to live their lives as they see fit as long as its not breaking a law and last I checked being gay is not against the law. If two people are gay does that impact your life? Most likely not, right? So if they want to get married again does that impact your life? Again most likely not. So what is the harm of giving them the same rights as everyone else? Them being gay is who they are just as much as myself who is a heterosexual male. If I can marry who I love, why can’t they marry who they love?

        • Gary Brian Cole

          Maybe some gay man can marry your daughter or your sister. I guess you
          didn’t think that one through did you. You are perverse. Thanks for helping to put
          an America-hating communist into office for a second term.

          • TN05

            I’m not perverse, everything I said is correct. Gay people are afforded the exact same marriage rights as all other people, and nothing can legally prevent that. The issue is gay people don’t like the options presented so they think they are being discriminated against. They feel they deserve the right to redefine marriage, something that polygamists, pedophiles, and zoophilles lack. From a practical level, it makes no sense to support gay marriage but oppose polygamist marriages.

          • Gary Brian Cole

            It doesn’t matter you fool. Obama won. You are complicit in giving him a second term. See you in line at the government hospital. We’ll all be sharing the same dirty needles because of your obsession with what gay men do.

          • TN05

            I have a very hard time believing you are anything but a liberal troll given your propensity for personal attacks. I have given very sound arguments and not attacked your person once, but apparently you can’t refute them so you need to insult me.

          • Gary Brian Cole

            We lost the election because of you and your kind. For a year leading up to securing the Republican nomination, Romney and other Republicans scraped and bowed to social conservative causes and concerns. Unrealistically of course. They knew full well it was impractical to push your issues on the rest of the country. At last minute it suddenly became about jobs. Everyone watched this. At that point it was too late. Republicans were tarnished. You thought Americans would take anyone over Obama and just put with whatever So-Con demands. You were wrong. Your personal objections to gay marriage or whatever social issue don’t matter anymore. You belong to the government now. Previously your kind were just hated by the nuts on the Left. Now many on the Right hate you as well. You will end up as poor as Jesus himself. Perhaps your hatred of gay marriage will keep you warm at night after you’ve lost it all. You and your children will die insolvent, decrepit and property of the state.

          • TN05

            I am not a social conservative. You are making an ass out of yourself by assuming you know ANYTHING about me. Guess what – you don’t.

          • Gary Brian Cole

            Then don’t give validity to their arguments you fool. You lost us the election. Your afterthoughts on gay marriage helped to lose this last election.

          • TN05

            That is a really silly argument. I can’t support things social conservatives support, but for different reasons? My reason for opposing it is because it makes no sense – a social conservative’s reason for supporting it is to legislate morality. My arguments have nothing to do with social conservatism. Frankly I don’t give a flying crap what you do in your bedroom, that is your right. But arguing I can’t oppose gay marriage is as stupid as saying German citizens can’t support autobahns because the Nazis made them?

          • Gary Brian Cole

            I’ve already made my point. And I could give a flying crap what you believe. But the other side used that against us. You live a comfortable life now and think your opinion has value. Republicans lost the election because members of each side believe they can use government for their personal causes. Enjoy your opinion

          • TN05

            If you don’t care what I believe why are you arguing with me? Republicans lost the election because people liked Barack Obama personally more than Mitt Romney and because, to quote El Rushbo, “You can’t beat Santa”. Once the people realize Santa is a fraud (and they are, just look at paychecks), support for him will plummet. It’s the same thing that happened when Bush beat Kerry by about the same margin in 04, but lost control of Congress in 2006. I think the same can happen, but only if conservatives unite instead of spit at each other. That means supporting moderates, conservatives, and social conservatives as parts of the movement to stop government growth. 2014 can be the year we undo 2008’s Senate gains – Alaska, Louisiana, NC, and South Dakota could be easy gains. Arkansas, Montana, and West Virginia could be very close, while Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire could swing. You may be a pessimist, but there are glimmers of hope.

          • Gary Brian Cole

            The experts will tell you whatever you want to hear. They wouldn’t risk alienating their followers. Such as the experts who told us that Republicans would win by a landslide this past November. Sadly, Republican candidates and the base took that to mean they could behave as they liked and would win anyway. That wasn’t the case was it? You said: “I think the same can happen, but only if conservatives unite instead of spit at each other.” – But you’re advocating for a divisive issue. Because the experts told you it’s ok. And our lilly-livered party leaders hear you. I live, work, am related to and have friends that are all liberals. Gay marriage is hardly of consequence to me after 12 years with my partner. But I’m a conservative so those liberals don’t listen to me. These heterosexuals see anti-gay marriage to them as code for hate. They don’t see the bigger picture. The bigger picture message is blocked out by social distractions (gay marriage, birth control, abortion….blah blah blah). I don’t know your background, but you seem to want to fill in the blanks of what you don’t know with what the experts are telling you. You take the talk from experts referencing 2004 as if our sorry school system doesn’t graduate another batch of Democrats every year. When President Bush announced the collapse of our economy in 2008, that should’ve been a wake up call for the Republican Party. The Tea Party was suppose to be the new direction. This last election showed it wasn’t. They spent a year talking about social issues. The Left can constantly paint the Right as religious fanatics because of these issues. Don’t contribute to the failure. I’m not pessimistic. I’m realistic. The Republican party thinking it can win by espousing the same views it did ten years earlier is ignoring demographics and culture.

          • TN05

            I didn’t get my information from ‘experts’, I got it from looking at the states that are up for election and my view of which ones can swing. You keep assuming stuff about me and you clearly know nothing about me or what I believe, so stop telling me what I believe. The best way to win elections is NOT to become Democrats.

          • TN05

            I am not a social conservative. You are making an ass out of yourself by assuming you know ANYTHING about me. Guess what – you don’t.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Again. Allowing me to marry my husband does not change the definition of marriage for you or anyone else. You are not affected at all. My marriage has nothing to do with you. And again, polygamy is illegal.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          And yet the definition of marriage was, only a few decades ago, restricted by race. And yet we changed that definition. See? Things change.

          • TN05

            And that was unequal, which is why it was changed. There is nothing unequal about marriage currently because it is not biased by race.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            Race is a protected class. Sexual orientation is also a protected class. See? Same.

      • BeyondPolls

        If it comes down to it, I will support the government not being able to define marriage at all. But the Constitution gives the federal govt the power to enforce higher moral law.

        • J.N. Ashby

          Where does it say that?

          • BeyondPolls

            1. The entire Constitution is based on higher moral law.
            2. The writings of the Framers clearly call for the federal government to enforce higher moral law.

          • J.N. Ashby

            Nowhere does it say that. The Constitution only serves to limit the power the government can grant itself.

          • BeyondPolls

            External writings of the Framers make it very that that’s what they meant.

          • J.N. Ashby

            Doesn’t matter if that’s what they meant. That’s not what the Constitution says. Your logic would make sense if it says it in the Constitution and then it were vague to some dummies and you looked at external writings for clarification, like bearing arms, which is explicit to anyone with a brain, but even moreso when every founding father says the people should have as many arms as the government.

          • BeyondPolls

            What about Everson vs the Board of Education?

          • J.N. Ashby

            What about it?

          • BeyondPolls

            According to it, extra-Constitutional writings by the Framers are fair game.

          • J.N. Ashby

            The fact that they quoted Jefferson and agreed with him, by one vote, didn’t establish that as fair game. It wasn’t justification for their decision. That said, their decision was wrong, but that’s another can of worms. Besides, Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” conflicts with what I presume is your interpretation of “enforce a higher moral law.”

          • BeyondPolls

            Okay, so you don’t agree with the decision. I was wondering. I don’t agree with the decision either.
            What Jefferson actually meant was that the government should not interfere with the church in the least bit. However, he did believe that the government should enforce higher moral law.
            Do you think that we should be able to pray in schools?

          • J.N. Ashby

            Where did Jefferson say that?

            That goes in the other direction too.

            And if a student wants to pray in a school, he’s welcome to provided it’s not disruptive to others or disrupting his own school work. The school, that I’m being forced to pay for, is not allowed to make mine or anyone else’s children pray, nor is the teacher allowed to do that. He’s a government employee doing government work. On the job, no can do.

          • BeyondPolls

            Yes, Thomas Jefferson enacted legislation as governor of Virginia which not only encouraged religious expression in the public sphere but also defined marriage exactly according to the Hebrew Law, or the Law of Yahweh.
            I don’t think the government should force anybody to pray. I think the government should allow any child or any teacher to pray to Yahweh in school.

          • J.N. Ashby

            I’ve not heard of any quote of Jefferson’s about marriage, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom seems to suggest that the government should stay out of religion, though I’m not sure what you mean by “public sphere.”

            The teacher is a government employee, thus praying in school would be favoring one religion over another. They’re a representative for the government.

          • BeyondPolls

            Research ‘Bill Annulling Marriages Prohibited in Levitical Law’
            What about ‘no law shall be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion’?

        • J.N. Ashby

          Where does it say that?

        • Dan Thorpe

          I have studied the constitution and I don’t recall it saying that. If you can tell me where that is then I would be willing to consider that position but I don’t recall it saying that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

            the Constitution also says that there is NO right to gay marriage either.

          • Guest

            The C

          • Guest

            The C

          • Hiraghm

            careful. Dangerous argument. Everyone remembers the 10th Amendment, nobody remembers then 9th.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

            the Constitution also says that there is NO right to gay marriage either.

          • BeyondPolls

            1. The entire Constitution is based on higher moral law.
            2. The writings of the Framers clearly call for the federal government to enforce higher moral law..

          • shimauma

            “[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” –George Washington (who according to today’s deviant society would be a hater)

          • Dan Thorpe

            nice try but no, I said where in the constitution does it say that a group of people can enforce what is moral and what is not? You may disagree with their lifestyle but I know many that are people that of good character and just want to live their life like anyone else without any limitations

          • shimauma

            I’ve never mentioned enforcing morals on anyone. This twitchy post was about someone who is pro-perverse lifestyle choices being dismissed as a speaker by a group that knows that perverse lifestyle choices are wrong. I’ve stated my stance that the group was not in the wrong, and any group standard they have is not wrong, and that any bowing down to perverse lifestyle choices is imminent corruption of any form of government we may end up with, but unfortunately, because of folks like Glenn Reynolds, righteous people are having this perverse agenda shoved in our faces, via our government(tolerance laws), national media and public schools.
            So when libturds like yourself demand “equality” in the name of perversity, it’s more often the righteous that are being trampled on to accomodate the people who are trying to justify their sexual deviancy.

          • Dan Thorpe

            That’s why we as conservatives continue to lose because there are Christian fundamentalists like you out there. I am not a liberal for one, I am a fiscal conservative and believe in a government that allows its citizens the most amount of freedom. Being gay may be against your morals but the gay community is not the reason that this government is corrupt and its certainly not a deviant lifestyle. Of the gay people that I do know, they are not trying to shove their lifestyle in your face all they want is to be treated just like everyone else.

          • shimauma

            I don’t know if you recalled the 2008 presidential election where that farce of a republican candidate ran against barry hussien, but if I recall correctly, he was very open-minded, so it strikes me as funny wondering why he didn’t win. If you try to claim romney was a fundamentalist, then you’re forgetting his wishy washy jack mormon stance on, well EVERYTHING. republicans are losing because they are full of spineless limp wrists who are afraid to take a stand on anything but are willing to bend over and take it up their keisters in the name of compromise and political correctness.
            True conservatives are disgusted with this course and are now just stocking up and getting ready for the revolution. We’ll see how well your social libturdism pans out when the people in deviant lifestyles you are so vocifierously defending decide to eat their own.

          • Dan Thorpe

            Ok honestly I have had enough of you and your disgusting narrow minded POV. I may not be a bibile thumper like you but doesn’t the bible teach us about acceptance? Romans 14:1-4 says

            As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to
            quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while
            the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise
            the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on
            the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment
            on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands
            or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

            It is not your right to pass judgement on how they live their life. It will be before GOD only.

          • shimauma

            There’s a bit of difference between a believer who is weak and a person who continually commits sin and says that it isn’t sin. People who choose to live sexually deviant lifestyles are justifying perverse behavior as normal. That is not any sort of judgement, that is discernment. Just as a key fits into a lock, that is how man and woman were designed to be with each other and anyone who tries to justify anything outside of the design is fooling themselves and those who demand respect for that perverse choice is fooling others.

            “2 Peter 12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, *enticing unstable souls*. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.”

          • shimauma

            There’s a bit of difference between a believer who is weak and a person who continually commits sin and says that it isn’t sin. People who choose to live sexually deviant lifestyles are justifying perverse behavior as normal. That is not any sort of judgement, that is discernment. Just as a key fits into a lock, that is how man and woman were designed to be with each other and anyone who tries to justify anything outside of the design is fooling themselves and those who demand respect for that perverse choice is fooling others.

            “2 Peter 12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, *enticing unstable souls*. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.”

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            I love that you speak of “perverse” this and “morality” that while insulting people and calling them profane names. Ha!

          • EEKman

            The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one. I’m not enforcing my morals on anyone, I’m just enforcing my morals on everyone!

            How exactly are “the righteous” “trampled” by legalizing gay marriage?
            Tolerance is not acceptance. Repeat after me, tolerance is not acceptance. It just means you cant persecute someone with a lifestyle you disagree with, no one is forcing the lifestyle on you, that is a ridiculous statement. . By denying the rights granted by the feds in a marriage to a portion of the population is persecution by YOU. No one is trampling you, you are the one doing the trampling. You are the oppressor, you are not the oppressed. You are the bully, you are not the victim. You are the one who is denying rights, no one is denying your rights. Your agenda is perverse, perverse to what our country is supposed to be about. You are not “righteous” you are a fundamentalist nut job.

          • shimauma

            LOLS what crap! your comments are just repeat talking points of the lefturd shriekers. Your being deliberately obtuse about what marriage really stands for because you and your friends want to toss each other’s salad and call it marriage because you want the acceptance of society to take away the guilt you feel because you know it’s gross and perverted.
            Yeah you go on, defend eating poop and giving each other anal diseases. Just because society accepts your little perversions doesn’t ever make it right or safe.

          • shimauma

            I’ve never mentioned enforcing morals on anyone. This twitchy post was about someone who is pro-perverse lifestyle choices being dismissed as a speaker by a group that knows that perverse lifestyle choices are wrong. I’ve stated my stance that the group was not in the wrong, and any group standard they have is not wrong, and that any bowing down to perverse lifestyle choices is imminent corruption of any form of government we may end up with, but unfortunately, because of folks like Glenn Reynolds, righteous people are having this perverse agenda shoved in our faces, via our government(tolerance laws), national media and public schools.
            So when libturds like yourself demand “equality” in the name of perversity, it’s more often the righteous that are being trampled on to accomodate the people who are trying to justify their sexual deviancy.

          • J.N. Ashby

            That doesn’t make a statement for or against gay marriage. You simply interpreting the word “virtuous” to your own virtues.

          • shimauma

            actually I’m pretty sure GW and I got our idea of “virtuous” from the same source. It’s called a Bible. There’s also this thing called common sense, and that is knowing that you don’t stick your junk in a sewer pipe and expect righteous people to want to hang around with you.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            I hate to be the one to tell you this, but straight people engage in sodomy all the time. And there are gay people who don’t. I guess then you don’t have a problem with lesbians getting married since your only objection is one particular sex act, right?

          • EEKman

            Righteous=people who take bronze age fairy tales based on the movement of the sun waaaaaaayyy too seriously.

          • J.N. Ashby

            That’s cute. How do you know the Bible’s right? Because the Bible says it is? The Bible says it’s a sin to wear cloth from two kinds of fabrics. Do you? I bet you do, you naughty boy.

          • shimauma

            actually I’m pretty sure GW and I got our idea of “virtuous” from the same source. It’s called a Bible. There’s also this thing called common sense, and that is knowing that you don’t stick your junk in a sewer pipe and expect righteous people to want to hang around with you.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            You must have studied the Constitution at a crack house
            Where does it day that sexual desires or any desires alone , emit special new rights ?

          • Dan Thorpe

            Where does it say that the government should decide what a marriage is? i never said anything about desires period!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

          The federal government does not define marriage now
          DOMA is about protecting states from other states. It has ZERO to do with the government coming up with the notion of a legal marraige, the purpose (insuring the biological rights of children) or the defintion.
          All those things were decided without the government, DOMA is nothign more than the Feds agreeing the sky is blue and the grass is green, and that one state can’t force another state into deeming the sky green and the grass blue

          • BeyondPolls

            Interesting. I honestly did not know that. Thanks for telling! :)

      • BeyondPolls

        If it comes down to it, I will support the government not being able to define marriage at all. But the Constitution gives the federal govt the power to enforce higher moral law.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        Same sex couples already have the right to live together. Homosexual rights is about whole sale indoctrination and suppression of free speech and religious rights.

        • J.N. Ashby

          No one’s telling you to accept homos. If your basis for legislating against them is your religion, however, you have no leg on which you can stand.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Balderdash people are losing jobs refuse entry to university programs and business are getting sued. Children are being indoctrinated with the lie that homosexuality is just the same and just as good a heterosexuality in public schools. Quit yer lying

          • J.N. Ashby

            Well. Considering that, at a university, your job isn’t to pontificate about the evils of homosexuality in, say, a science class, you wouldn’t be doing your job if you did so. Ergo, you should lose your job in that instance. And funny that, no teacher ever gave me any diatribe about the virtues of sodomy. Not once. I’m not lying.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            I don’t know if you are aware of this, but you can actually speak to your children and tell them that you don’t believe what the school said. You can teach your kids to hate gay people just as much as you do. Granted they will be ostracized from society as will you, but you have that freedom. No one is stopping you from turning your kids into bigots. Go ahead. And those other things you are talking about have nothing to do with homosexuality. They have to do with human resources and discrimination.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          How does my marriage to my husband prevent you from worshiping God? Does it stop you from going to church? You are free to hate me all you want, but you can’t prevent me from having the same legal benefits for me and my husband.

      • Hiraghm

        They are not deciding what love is. The purpose is to prevent a new definition of marriage.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          Like they did when they took race out of it?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        Please explain how the government not recording your relationship means they are telling you how you should live? or who to love?

        LOL You are just repeating the gay mafia’s non-sense

    • shimauma

      Seriously Correct! one of the reasons the GOP is so fscked up is because they let sexual deviants (ie homosexuals) in to start with. You want to clean up the party, make that damn tent smaller and the righteous will come back.

      • unitedelectric

        Seriously, GO AWAY. Please. Pretty please?

        • shimauma

          Oh wow what a good comeback, I’m pretty sure you must be college ed-ju-macated or indoctrinated into something with a socialist bent.
          It’s a sad day when standing up for morality is considered a disadvantage. Just goes to prove how depraved society is now days!

        • Jeanette Victoria

          I’m stunned by your brilliance ok not really.

      • unitedelectric

        Seriously, GO AWAY. Please. Pretty please?

      • BeyondPolls

        I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘forcing out’ people who live deviant sexual lifestyles. It’s a matter of taking a stand on moral issues.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        Yup. Nail on. I left the republican pasty becuase it was Democrat lite.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

          Me too, my local GOP candidate was for the ridiculous notion of “rights” being emiitted FROM sexual desires. I won’t vote for anyone so stupid.

    • shimauma

      Seriously Correct! one of the reasons the GOP is so fscked up is because they let sexual deviants (ie homosexuals) in to start with. You want to clean up the party, make that damn tent smaller and the righteous will come back.

    • unitedelectric

      GO back to the 1950’s where you belong. The world is moving on. We have some really important stuff before us. What people do in their bedrooms is not one of them.

      • BeyondPolls

        According to those who want to change the traditional definition of marriage, marriage has nothing to do with bedrooms. We are not trying legislate what happens on private property, we are trying to defend the traditional definition of marriage. We will never win if we play on liberal terms.

        • EEKman

          Let’s just be honest with ourselves: the Bible condemns homosexuality
          with the same fervor with which it condemns Philistines, Canaanites,
          (Old Testament) and women who speak in church and don’t cover their hair
          (New Testament). If we’re serious about getting back to Christian
          roots, we need to institute laws that allow for men to kill disobedient
          children and severe punishments for women who do not properly submit to
          their husbands. Traditional wives are their husbands’ property, it’s
          clear from the Ten Commandments, it’s clear from Genesis. God said so.

          • BeyondPolls

            By higher moral law, I am referring to the Ten Commandments and its contents.
            We need to look at your claims in context. Could you provide the references for the verses that you are disputing?

          • EEKman

            You can read your own bible or google up the verses yourself. If you are not familiar with these passages, maybe a re-read of the Bible is in order anyway.

            No matter how much you fervently believe it, the 10 commandments are no more a “higher order of morality” than the Harry Potter books are and that’s a good thing. Slavery isn’t even mentioned in the 10 commandments.

          • BeyondPolls

            I honestly don’t know what passages you are talking about except maybe the one about hair, which is yanked from context.
            What type of slavery are you referring to? Human coerciontrafficking is covered under the 6th, 8th, and 10th Commandments.

          • BeyondPolls

            I honestly don’t know what passages you are talking about except maybe the one about hair, which is yanked from context.
            What type of slavery are you referring to? Human coerciontrafficking is covered under the 6th, 8th, and 10th Commandments.

          • Hiraghm

            So there’s no such thing as morality, that’s what you’re saying.

            So what if slavery isn’t specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments by name? You know, they were written for and targeted at people who had just left a state of slavery… mighta been kinda safe on God’s part to assume none of them wanted anything to do with slavery.

            No point in talking further with someone who is amoral. Or doing business with them.

          • EEKman

            Yes, of course there is morality, but the 10 commandments, or the Bible or Religion is not the sole source of it. Examining what religion has done to our social evolution over the Millenia, can be argued that religion has caused much of our ills. To claim the Bible is the sole source of morality requires you to be willfully ignorant and cherry pick the verses that can be interpreted as a reasonable example of morality and ignore all the rest.

          • EEKman

            You can read your own bible or google up the verses yourself. If you are not familiar with these passages, maybe a re-read of the Bible is in order anyway.

            No matter how much you fervently believe it, the 10 commandments are no more a “higher order of morality” than the Harry Potter books are and that’s a good thing. Slavery isn’t even mentioned in the 10 commandments.

          • EEKman

            Here’s a few:
            The fact that slavery exists in the Bible is no secret. There are
            laws regulating its practice; how to buy and sell slaves, what to do if
            they commit a crime, the degree to which they can be beat, and laws
            concerning sexual activity with female slaves. Some of these verses are
            included here. The point here is not to comment on the existence of
            slavery or the Bible’s laws regarding it. My intention is more to
            increase awareness of its presence in Biblical text. A slave in the Bible (or in Greek, Roman, Islamic, or Egyptian history for that matter) is not the same as a slave
            in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. This new form of plantation slavery
            was unique in history in that it was based solely on race.

            Regarding the emancipation of slaves, Jewish slaves were to be
            freed after six years, except those who were born by the female slave.
            Female slaves, sold into slavery by their fathers, would be slaves
            forever. And the cost of freeing a slave was calculated using the number
            of years to the next Jubilee Year, ranging between 1 and 50 years.

            Exodus 21:1-4 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six
            years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for
            nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he
            were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have
            given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and
            her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”

            Deuteronomy 15:12-18 “And if thy brother, an Hebrew
            man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years;
            then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when
            thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away
            empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy
            floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God
            hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.”

            Exodus 21:7 “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

            Regarding the beating and killing of slaves, the Book of Exodus
            contains laws regarding punishment for the one who kills the slave as
            well as injunctions to avoid injuring the eyes and teeth.

            Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant,
            or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely
            punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
            punished: for he is his money.”

            Exodus 21:26-27 “And if a man smite the eye of his
            servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go
            free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or
            his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”

          • BeyondPolls

            Okay, so the first thing everybody needs to realize is that we still have slavery today. It’s called prison. Thus, the term ‘slavery’ has gotten a bad rap. Human coercion and human trafficking was problem during the days of William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln, and it is today, just in different forms.
            So since the Israelites didn’t have time to build a portable prison, they forced some people to pay off their crime so to speak. But some other types of slavery were merely apprenticeship, employment, or sharecropping.
            Therefore, the Ten Commandments outlaw the real problem, human trafficking and human coercion. Abortion is outlawed under the Ten Commandments.

          • shimauma

            It’s so funny when secularists try to use the Bible to say Christianity is wrong. When you get around to accepting salvation and understanding why Christ died for the Sins of the World then I’ll take you seriously. Until then, go read something you’d associate better with, like “50 shades of Grey”. Btw, not being judgemental, this is called DISCERNMENT, ie common sense knowing when a deliberately obtuse person is using a book they’ve never studied to back themselves up.

          • EEKman

            So you’ll only have a discussion with someone who already agrees with you. Well that explains why you’re a conservative. Beyondpolls referred to the 10 commandments as a source of higher morality, which while I may not have as much Biblical knowledge as you, I’m pretty sure that’s part of the Bible.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            All out of context quote and from NON literal translations , For instance , this isthe real Exodus 21
            “21 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

            2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

            3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

            4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.

            5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

            6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

            7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

            8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

            9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

            10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

            11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”
            Notice , no one is forced into chattle slavery , the “master” can be killed if he harms the “slave” and if a man takes another woman as his wife, the former wife has a right to be supported for her entire life.

            Try again
            “Slavery” in the Holy Bible is not chattle slavery. Chattle slavery is from central Africa.and the reason why blacks were the only ones in the America’s to be under it, Their system of owning someone is the same as other pagan africans -eygptians owning the Jews.
            “Slavery” among hebrews in the Bible is the same thing as our jobs today, You work first , then are paid weeks later for that work.
            Or you get paid in advance for your work , then you must do the work
            Its called bondsmanship, you dont actually own the person, they sell their ability to work to you.
            Or you do all the work first then you get paid when when you complete it all…this is um called “owning your own business”
            Or you agree to work for room and board. must like our elected officials

          • BeyondPolls

            By higher moral law, I am referring to the Ten Commandments and its contents.
            We need to look at your claims in context. Could you provide the references for the verses that you are disputing?

          • Hiraghm

            We’ll have all that soon. Just as soon as the Caliphate is established… /sarc

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            Wrong, the Bible does not condemn homosexuals , it calls the acts of homosexuality an abomination…an abomination is something that harms you. In a literal translation of Leviticus it says the act is the abomination because it brings the blood upon them, It does not say stone the gays, or that God kills them.

            It says the same thing about eating shell fish. ,which does harm you when its undercooked . The Bible calls its consumption an abomination because there was not way to tell if the food was contaminated nor thermometers to know if shellfish was cooked enough
            Anyway, the definition of marriage does not depend of the Bible, all religions have the same view, see China, India, Middle east.
            Why are they all the same? Because marriage is not about a religious notion and about a very real fact that men and women having sex creates children and those children will be harmed if they are fatherless, The biggest scourge of mankind is not war and disease, it’s the fatherlessness of children , who are left to poverty, abuse without support from the man responsible for their existence.
            No where in the Bible does it say women are the property of their husband, nor does it say divorce is outlawed.
            A man could divorce his wife but he still had to support her–alimony
            The “many” wives of the Bible are current wives and ex wives, just like is done today.
            A man however could not divorce his children, he must support them.
            Its just like marriage is today.

        • EEKman

          Let’s just be honest with ourselves: the Bible condemns homosexuality
          with the same fervor with which it condemns Philistines, Canaanites,
          (Old Testament) and women who speak in church and don’t cover their hair
          (New Testament). If we’re serious about getting back to Christian
          roots, we need to institute laws that allow for men to kill disobedient
          children and severe punishments for women who do not properly submit to
          their husbands. Traditional wives are their husbands’ property, it’s
          clear from the Ten Commandments, it’s clear from Genesis. God said so.

      • Hiraghm

        You mean the 1950s when we had the future ahead of us, were just beginning to move into space, were dominating the world in industry, science, natural resource production? I don’t see where the 1950s were all that bad, compared to today.

        Oh, yeah… segregation; that negates any and all good that could have existed prior to 1968, doesn’t it? Yeah, in order to get rid of segregation, we couldn’t just give blacks and other minorities the “Ozzie and Harriet” white lifestyle they claimed to be clamoring for. No, we had to destroy their family unit, make future generations uneducated and ignorant, all in the name of desegregation.

        Sorry, just like calling anyone who disagrees with a progressive “racist!” doesn’t work anymore, badmouthing the 50s doesn’t work, either.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          The 50’s was a very nice time.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            That was a time when you could punch a woman in the mouth if she got fresh and no one would call the police. They would assume she was asking for it. When you could hang black people from a tree and no one would say a word. When you could murder gay people and the town would thank you. Ahh. Nostalgia.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        Ah someone who blindly repeats the meme about the 50’s. Well I grew up the 50’s and they were a damn safer than today. And far more civilized as well.

    • unitedelectric

      GO back to the 1950’s where you belong. The world is moving on. We have some really important stuff before us. What people do in their bedrooms is not one of them.

    • http://twitter.com/gingerjet gingerjet

      By traditional marriage you mean one man and many women? Because that was the norm for far longer than your relatively recent marriage definition.

      • BeyondPolls

        Higher moral law states one man and one woman. You are right that this used to be accepted, but this is proof why we cannot trust direct democracy, but must instead trust higher moral law.

        • EEKman

          Who decides what “higher moral law” is?

          • BeyondPolls

            Yahweh already decided it. It’s in the Ten Commandments. There is no other source of morality.

  • Joe W.

    The DemocRATS won with removing God from their platform…I don’t think that staying true to our conservative position against “gay” marriage and abortion is a bad thing. Its what conservatives hold as a convictions. Something Democrats know nothing of. I would rather be firm in my convictions and lose every election, than to compromise my values to win. I think that is called prostitution, is it not??

    • http://twitter.com/kml4ndry Kevin

      I don’t believe it would be prostituting beliefs to state ones moral position and, as long at the action does not infringe on another citizen’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, keep the federal government out of it.

      • Joe W.

        Fine. Keep the government out of it. Keep things how they have been for millennium….Marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. Period..

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          Actually, just recently, marriage was between one WHITE man and one WHITE woman or one BLACK man and one BLACK woman.

          • Joe W.

            Bull crap. Show me where other races than whites were not allowed to marry in Biblical times or any other time. Not only are you insufferable, Mikey, you are stupid. Add that to being gay and “progressive, that makes you a 3 time loser. I don’t know why you insist upon engaging me, Princess. I always slap your fairy ass around and you keep coming back for more. Idiot.

      • AMSilver

        Cause a single woman who has free sex with different guys who have no intention to stick around and has children as a result does not infringe on another citizen’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. It’s her choice, her views of love, her family and we shouldn’t ever be taking positions on ‘moral’ issues when there isn’t direct, person-to-person harm that results from it! Rock on! Saying gay marriage is a human rights issue and we should just go with the flow is absolutely no different than saying free love is a human rights issue and we should go with the flow. The fact that you can’t point to a direct infliction of harm because of a person’s actions, doesn’t mean there isn’t harm. When liberals abandon the traditional family unit, they create a group of people who are unable to provide for the things they want/need or who have an over-entitled sense of what they should not ever have to endure, and those same people have the ability to vote for government to make up the difference. Welcome to the welfare state, government indoctrination of children in school, government prosecution of religious figures for ‘hate speech,’ etc. I know it’s oh-so-libertarian to just want everyone to be free to do whatever, but when you look at what happens to society (and thence the individuals in it) as a result of libertine morals, it’s not a good, or a sustainable thing.

        • http://twitter.com/kml4ndry Kevin

          I’m not saying it’s a human rights issue, I’m saying I could care less. Comparing a prolific breeder to piece of paper that allows the state to determine division of your property when a couple inevitably decides they can’t stand each other is apples and oranges. One puts a financial drain on society and the other I could care less about.

    • http://twitter.com/kml4ndry Kevin

      I don’t believe it would be prostituting beliefs to state ones moral position and, as long at the action does not infringe on another citizen’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, keep the federal government out of it.

    • shimauma

      well said. letting filth in to the party just to garner more votes is just as bad as prostitution no matter how you try to excuse it.

    • shimauma

      well said. letting filth in to the party just to garner more votes is just as bad as prostitution no matter how you try to excuse it.

  • https://twitter.com/davidjkramer DavidKramer

    What are gay rights by the way? Are there special rights only afforded gay people or what? I thought Libertarians were about government non interference with private matters? Oh well, that is why I describe myself as a Constitutional Libertarian. I do not fall for the Liberteen views of some of the Libertarians. Since the government should give no special benefits to anyone and not have ANYTHING to do with licensing of marriage, I guess some of the supposed Libertarians will of course fall for the liberal argument for “gay rights”.

    Oh well.

    • el_polacko

      it’s not about granting any ‘special rights’, it’s about insuring that gay citizens are not, as a group, being singled out for the denial of civil rights that are being granted to other citizens.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        It is exactly about special rights. Homosexuality is a behavior that someone can do or not.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        It is exactly about special rights. Homosexuality is a behavior that someone can do or not.

      • Guest

        Tell me w

      • Guest

        Tell me w

      • goat10000

        Anyone, regardless of their sexual preference, is legally allowed now to be married to a person of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is.

        What the people pushing same-sex “marriage” want is not equal rights, which they already have, but to force a redefinition of the meaning of marriage, and thereby force acceptance by others, through the state, of their chosen lifestyle.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    We don’t need anymore people supporting the homosexual mafia, I’m with

    Utah GOP

    • unitedelectric

      Go back to the shadows.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        Well that was deep. I guess you haven’t notice the threat to employment and free speech so called “homosexual” rights have engendered.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

          Very true Jeanette,

          The notion of rights being garnered FROM desires, esp sexual desires, is a threat to all our actual rights
          If desires emit rights themselves , then all desires emit rights.
          Once we are convinced of this , then all our real rights are in trouble
          It’s already started to happen, Last year with Chick Fila, , freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion were publically attacked by elected mayors and elected Gov of states They even threatened to punish by denying economic freedom to Chick Fila franchisees
          They even posted a video of a homosexual verbally attacking a young woman , insulting her and even saying “how can you live with yourself”
          The new “gay rights” outweighed Constitutional rights and made it okay for a middle aged man to go after a teenaged girl

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          That is a lie

      • Jeanette Victoria

        Well that was deep. I guess you haven’t notice the threat to employment and free speech so called “homosexual” rights have engendered.

    • unitedelectric

      Go back to the shadows.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/OMHO6ER5QJE3SIZ35VAXIRCLYM Stephan

      We already got it the 50 times you posted your tripe earlier.
      Obsessed with guy/guy girl/girl sex..

  • Jeanette Victoria

    $PLC? Bwahahahha

  • pickonename

    Does this mean New Hampshire will invite “for free” legal gun owners to speak at their Liberal events?

  • http://pinterest.com/j0s1395/ Josephine (D)

    So let’s abandon our values and make ourselves barely different than the Democrats. Sorry we don’t pull the “Personally opposed to x, but” BS. Yes we should reach out to minorities more, but changing our values? No. That’s what the socialists want us to do, but we have to stay strong.

    • el_polacko

      what ‘values’ include forcing millions of american citizens into a second-class status ? what ‘values’ include keeping someone from speaking at all based on the fact that they think that limiting a group of citizens rights is a bad thing ?

      • Hiraghm

        “Someone” can speak… just not at this event. The 1st Amendment limits government, not private institutions. Nobody’s rights are being limited.
        A person suffering from homosexuality has the same hurdles as anyone else who wishes to marry. They must find a willing member of the opposite sex. Should lonely computer geeks demand that masturbation be redefined as marriage so they, too can derive the legal benefits of marriage?

        What’s your position on narcissists marrying themselves?

        If you oppose it, you’re a hypocrite. If you support it, you are supporting the devaluation and dissolution of the concept of marriage until it can mean anything, and therefore means nothing, which is the “gay agenda”.

        • EEKman

          Homosexuality is not a disease. You might want to update those views, Some people might consider you an out of touch bigot.

          • Hiraghm

            Let’s see… out of touch… you’re right, I think for myself, I don’t let foolish, feel-good fads think for me. Bigot… hmm… dictionary tells me that bigotry is intolerance.. true, I’m intolerant of people who insist on equating a tail with a leg.

            I don’t care what people who are wrong consider me. I am right. If you want to be right, agree with me. Otherwise, enjoy being wrong.

            You cannot explain the biological purpose of homosexual attraction.
            You cannot explain away the simple fact that sexual and romantic attraction exist for the purpose of procreation, just as hunger exists for the purpose of nourishment.

            A sane, rational, thinking brain cannot possibly consider homosexuality as anything other than a mental/emotional disorder.
            Unless it is indoctrinated in political correctness, or has an agenda to promote.

            Now, my argument is biological necessity; yours is popularity… I think I’ll stick with mine, for now.

          • Buddha Stalin

            Idiot.

          • Hiraghm

            Let’s see… out of touch… you’re right, I think for myself, I don’t let foolish, feel-good fads think for me. Bigot… hmm… dictionary tells me that bigotry is intolerance.. true, I’m intolerant of people who insist on equating a tail with a leg.

            I don’t care what people who are wrong consider me. I am right. If you want to be right, agree with me. Otherwise, enjoy being wrong.

            You cannot explain the biological purpose of homosexual attraction.
            You cannot explain away the simple fact that sexual and romantic attraction exist for the purpose of procreation, just as hunger exists for the purpose of nourishment.

            A sane, rational, thinking brain cannot possibly consider homosexuality as anything other than a mental/emotional disorder.
            Unless it is indoctrinated in political correctness, or has an agenda to promote.

            Now, my argument is biological necessity; yours is popularity… I think I’ll stick with mine, for now.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            The APA says homosexuality is a SYMPTOM of an underlining developmental disorder, which can be from any stage of development

            So you are only half right.

        • EEKman

          Homosexuality is not a disease. You might want to update those views, Some people might consider you an out of touch bigot.

        • Gary Brian Cole

          Look at that. You and your ilk were so busy focused on gay marriage, contraception and legitimate rape, that you helped put an America-hating communist in office for a second term. You hated gays more than you loved freedom. You get what you ask for. We’ll be standing in line together and sharing the same dirty needles under Obamacare.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        Homosexuals are hardly second calls. But they sure have become the bully class

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          Can you show me one case of a gang of gay people beating up and murdering a “christian” because of their straight orientation? One? No? I can show you thousands of the reverse.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        There is not such thing as a minority group status based on abnormal behaviors or even normal ones.
        There is NO right of marriage for anyone, not even normal sexualities . If it was a “right” we couldnt have age restrictions or restrictions on how many people or incest.
        A legal marriage is not at all about the couple , and 100 percent about the children that come the from sexual acts between men and women.. Nothing more
        The only rights addressed in a legal marriage are the biological rights of children to know and be supported by the very people that create them., esp the father since the mothers has a hard time pretending children arent their offspring.
        A legal marriage gives LEGAL FORCE behind the biological rights of a child.from the moment of their birth , heck conception even.. so that the courts if need be can go after the father for support for the child. ,
        A child born to a single mother has to rely on the father to step forward willingly , after the child is born, or the state must hunt down the father at the mother’s request , take him to court, force him into DNA testing, then try to squeeze support from him like blood from a turnip.
        THIS is why the “government” must record every marriage between a willing man and woman. THIS is the morality of a marriage that ALL religions talk about.
        You see its not gay versus straight, Its phony new rights of sexual desires versus the biological rights of all children
        But gays don’t feel left out. YOU were a child once, YOU had these same biological rights that every child has.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          My parents could not biologically have children. They adopted children. Is their marriage not valid? Also, my father passed away and my mother remarried. They are both of the age where children are not an option. My mother still can’t have kids anyway. Is her second marriage also not valid?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        There is not such thing as a minority group status based on abnormal behaviors or even normal ones.
        There is NO right of marriage for anyone, not even normal sexualities . If it was a “right” we couldnt have age restrictions or restrictions on how many people or incest.
        A legal marriage is not at all about the couple , and 100 percent about the children that come the from sexual acts between men and women.. Nothing more
        The only rights addressed in a legal marriage are the biological rights of children to know and be supported by the very people that create them., esp the father since the mothers has a hard time pretending children arent their offspring.
        A legal marriage gives LEGAL FORCE behind the biological rights of a child.from the moment of their birth , heck conception even.. so that the courts if need be can go after the father for support for the child. ,
        A child born to a single mother has to rely on the father to step forward willingly , after the child is born, or the state must hunt down the father at the mother’s request , take him to court, force him into DNA testing, then try to squeeze support from him like blood from a turnip.
        THIS is why the “government” must record every marriage between a willing man and woman. THIS is the morality of a marriage that ALL religions talk about.
        You see its not gay versus straight, Its phony new rights of sexual desires versus the biological rights of all children
        But gays don’t feel left out. YOU were a child once, YOU had these same biological rights that every child has.

    • unitedelectric

      Enjoy electoral oblivion. That’s your future with that attitude.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        Um, I hate to break this to you but the House , which ever seat is voted on in each election , was won by far by the GOP as they did in 2010
        ….a total turn around from 2006 and 2008
        Yes, in 2012 , even with a popular liberal democrat President (who won by less than 2008), the GOP still won by a huge margin.

        • unitedelectric

          Yes. Because, thankfully, many in the party believe in real conservative core values, and that is GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE. Every aspect, that is. You have no business telling people how to live.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

            You are a backwards thinker. , and not a conservative in any sense of the word
            You are trying to FORCE the government into how you live ,not trying to stop them. The government NOT recording your relationship would be the government NOT telling you how you can live.
            Having the government sanctify YOUR relationship is the government in your life
            Homosexuals are lucky, the government doesn’t have any reason to be in their life because homosexuals can NOT create children ,TOGETHER. If anyone’s sexual acts are none of the government business it’s the acts of adult homosexuals . Children only occur from the acts of with a man and woman. The government should have a role in insuring that the FATHER’s of children live up to their legal responsility for their actions and the results ==Very real children who must be supported and should be supported by the person who creates them. THAT is the morality of a marriage. that is 100 percent what marriage is about

        • Gustavo

          Yes, the GOP “won” the House seats, but they lost the national House votes by about one and a half million votes. Being exceptionally good at gerrymandering may save the GOP House’s bacon for the next 7 years (Dems would have to win a Congressional election by well over 7 percentage points nationally to even regain the majority with current district make-up), but it is certainly a losing strategy for a party that wishes to maintain (or probably better stated, regain) national standing.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          You keep telling yourself that.

    • unitedelectric

      Enjoy electoral oblivion. That’s your future with that attitude.

    • Hiraghm

      Homosexuals aren’t a minority any more than are people with Aspergers Syndrome.

      • TN05

        I have Asperger Syndrome and I wouldn’t consider myself a minority because minority is a victimizing term. ‘Statistical minority’ and ‘political minority’ are two different animals and I want no part of the latter. Fortunately, because most of my fellow Aspies are rational we don’t demand special treatment.

      • TN05

        I have Asperger Syndrome and I wouldn’t consider myself a minority because minority is a victimizing term. ‘Statistical minority’ and ‘political minority’ are two different animals and I want no part of the latter. Fortunately, because most of my fellow Aspies are rational we don’t demand special treatment.

  • michael s

    How is he a frequent contributor? He’s been dead since 2002.

    • v1cious

      You’re right, meant to say “was”. they still post articles by him.

    • v1cious

      You’re right, meant to say “was”. they still post articles by him.

  • BBBE

    Ugh. The idiocy in some of these comments is a truly depressing example of why the progs will continue to hold power for some time.

    Virtue is only virtue if it’s freely chosen. Virtue enforced through the coercion of state sanction is not virtue, it is obedience; and that is not freedom. If you believe the morally righteous must reject homosexuality, make the case for it and give them the freedom to choose.

    If you wish to impose your definition of ‘traditional’ marriage onto the State’s, then you must make the secular case for it. Otherwise you’re doing exactly what ObamaCare is doing with birth control and the 1st amendment protection of religious liberty.

    • shimauma

      We are not talking about forcing virtue on anyone. At the same time, there’s no good reason to promote sexually deviant lifestyle choices much less embrace the deviancy that the demoncraps do just to garner votes. If a private political group decides to forgo having a speaker that promotes sexual deviancy, isn’t that their right to do that? As with Chick Fil A, the truly righteous will flock toward a morally grounded promotion and the deviants will scream and stomp their feet in vain.

      • J.N. Ashby

        It’s not promotion of sexually deviant lifestyle. It’s merely legal protection for long-term cohabitation, and if the government wants to be involved in it, it should give it to both or neither.

        • Hiraghm

          If I’m not mistaken, people have been able to live in the same habitation with other people for centuries, without needing to redefine it as “marriage”.

          “…give it to both or neither”… you presume an equality that doesn’t exist.

          • J.N. Ashby

            You afford one group special legal rights (i.e. immediate access nonsense to right of attorney, inheritance, etc.) as opposed to another. I’m not presuming something that doesn’t exist. I’m not a Christian.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          I suggest you check out just how much indoctrination is going on in the schools

          • J.N. Ashby

            What do schools have to do with the government’s opinion on that? If you don’t like how the teachers’ views on life seep into the kids (which tends to happen), put the kids in private school or home school them.

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            My sister and I came home from baptist camp and told our parents that they were going to hell because they went out dancing and occasionally drank a glass of wine with dinner. My parents sat us down and dried our tears and said that there are some people who believe that. And there are some people who believe differently. So you see, you can actually parent your own children and turn them into bigots like you even if they are being told something different at school.

        • Jeanette Victoria

          I suggest you check out just how much indoctrination is going on in the schools

      • J.N. Ashby

        It’s not promotion of sexually deviant lifestyle. It’s merely legal protection for long-term cohabitation, and if the government wants to be involved in it, it should give it to both or neither.

      • BBBE

        Reynolds wasn’t being engaged to opine on on gay rights, but yes, a private group has every right to forgo having anyone speak for any reason, and every right to act ignorantly and shortsightedly.

        I know virtue is a personal choice, but the left doesn’t; they see it only as law – if the state wills it, it’s right. Notice they share this with Islam? Any mystery the two groups find so much common ground against liberty?

        Knowing the left thinks morality is coercive, taking that kind of absolutist opinion gives them a weapon against us; the very same weapon they’ve been using to scare away the timid for several election cycles.

        • shimauma

          It’s sad when standing up for morality and virtue is considered a disadvantage in politics. I guess it just goes to show how depraved our current society has become.

          • EEKman

            Morality and virtue of modern society is not decided by bronze age fairy tales. if that were true, women would still be considered property of the man. It changes over time with reasoned discussion and debate, scientific advancement and the struggle of oppressed minorities.

          • Hiraghm

            That’s hilarious. You’re basically saying, “Santayanna didn’t know what he was talking about; ignore history because we’re smarter than anyone who’s ever been.”

            There’s nothing new under the sun with regard to human nature and behavior.

            Morality and virtue of modern society is not decided. You can put the period right there.

            To paraphrase Yoda, “THAT… is why we’re failing.”

          • Hiraghm

            That’s hilarious. You’re basically saying, “Santayanna didn’t know what he was talking about; ignore history because we’re smarter than anyone who’s ever been.”

            There’s nothing new under the sun with regard to human nature and behavior.

            Morality and virtue of modern society is not decided. You can put the period right there.

            To paraphrase Yoda, “THAT… is why we’re failing.”

          • shimauma

            “[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” –George Washington (who according to today’s deviant society would be a hater)

          • EEKman

            Morality and virtue of modern society is not decided by bronze age fairy tales. if that were true, women would still be considered property of the man. It changes over time with reasoned discussion and debate, scientific advancement and the struggle of oppressed minorities.

      • BBBE

        Reynolds wasn’t being engaged to opine on on gay rights, but yes, a private group has every right to forgo having anyone speak for any reason, and every right to act ignorantly and shortsightedly.

        I know virtue is a personal choice, but the left doesn’t; they see it only as law – if the state wills it, it’s right. Notice they share this with Islam? Any mystery the two groups find so much common ground against liberty?

        Knowing the left thinks morality is coercive, taking that kind of absolutist opinion gives them a weapon against us; the very same weapon they’ve been using to scare away the timid for several election cycles.

      • unitedelectric

        You do not get to define sexual deviancy. You do not. Read that again.

        • shimauma

          I never defined sexual deviancy, it is written in creation. It is common sense that anything that deviates from the norm is DEVIANT. All you have to do is look at what is productive and what is not. The risk and the dangers of using one’s personal parts outside of the design proves the deviancy of it. The fact that these folks choose (YES CHOOSE) to obsess with how they use their private parts just goes to show how perverted and twisted they’ve made their own lives.
          In the meantime you seem to be a product of gub’mint schooling so why don’t you go back to collecting your gub’mint check and quit talking to grown ups like you know anything.

        • Hiraghm

          You do not get to define “you” or “do” or “not” or “get” or “to” or “define” or “sexual” or “deviancy”. Above all, *you* do not get to dictate what others can or cannot define. Who died and left you in charge of the language?

          Explain to me why it is not deviant for a male to be sexually attracted to another male? Is it deviant for someone to be born with an appetite for eating paint chips… and only paint chips?
          Well, you’re not supposed to eat paint chips… but you’re supposed to get off on sticking your male parts into either end of the digestive tract of other males? That’s “normal”?

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            So you don’t have a problem with lesbians?

      • unitedelectric

        You do not get to define sexual deviancy. You do not. Read that again.

    • shimauma

      We are not talking about forcing virtue on anyone. At the same time, there’s no good reason to promote sexually deviant lifestyle choices much less embrace the deviancy that the demoncraps do just to garner votes. If a private political group decides to forgo having a speaker that promotes sexual deviancy, isn’t that their right to do that? As with Chick Fil A, the truly righteous will flock toward a morally grounded promotion and the deviants will scream and stomp their feet in vain.

    • locomoco

      So I guess you support polygamy and incest marriages?

    • unitedelectric

      The first logical comment I’ve seen in this cesspit. Really shocked at how nasty it is in here.

    • unitedelectric

      The first logical comment I’ve seen in this cesspit. Really shocked at how nasty it is in here.

    • Hiraghm

      There’s no need for the single quotes. There’s NO OTHER KIND of marriage than “traditional”. The gay agenda is trying to *create* a new kind of marriage.

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        Nope. You are wrong. It’s the same marriage. The only thing different is the gender of the people involved.

  • BBBE

    Ugh. The idiocy in some of these comments is a truly depressing example of why the progs will continue to hold power for some time.

    Virtue is only virtue if it’s freely chosen. Virtue enforced through the coercion of state sanction is not virtue, it is obedience; and that is not freedom. If you believe the morally righteous must reject homosexuality, make the case for it and give them the freedom to choose.

    If you wish to impose your definition of ‘traditional’ marriage onto the State’s, then you must make the secular case for it. Otherwise you’re doing exactly what ObamaCare is doing with birth control and the 1st amendment protection of religious liberty.

  • WVS

    I’m a libertarian on very few issues but this, no doubt, is one. Not that I support gay marriage, or that I think it’s acceptable morally–I just don’t believe the federal government has any role in marriage, period. When I get married it’ll be between my wife and me, before God, and no other entity needs to be involved. Marriage has been around a whole lot longer than this government, and God willing, it’ll outlast it too. Most conservatives rightfully can’t stomach supporting gay marriage, but having the government sanction only true marriage is now politically untenable. So I’m not saying gay marriage should be recognized; I’m saying no marriage should be. This isn’t ideal, not at all. But it’s going to be all or nothing in terms of government recognition of marriage, and since my conscience can’t handle all, I’ll opt for nothing.

    • Joe W.

      Coward.

      • WVS

        “Better a live dog than a dead lion.” I’m not saying to compromise on values; I’m saying we’re going to lose this fight catastrophically if we don’t make a way out of it. The writing is on the wall when it comes to public opinion, and the Supreme Court is about to deal a crippling blow to supporters of traditional marriage.

        And I admit being opposed to gay marriage–no coward would say that in these times!

        • Joe W.

          It is what it is, my friend. If you “make a way”, you are compromising, and that is cowardly. Only my opinion. You are welcome to yours.

    • Hiraghm

      So you’re opposed to taxing married couples who make $450k a year at a higher tax rate, while taxing individuals who make $400k a year at a higher rate? Just clarifying that bit about the feds’ role in marriage…

      • WVS

        Getting government out of marriage creates a whole crapload of tax problems to be tackled. I don’t pretend to have the answers!

        • J.N. Ashby

          I have one. Get rid of the income tax amendment. Making such an amendment wasn’t Constitutional in the first place.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      You don’t seem to understand the issue at all
      If you feel the Federal gov shouldnt be involved in marriage then you’d SUPPORT DOMA, which is designed to protect states from being forced by the federal gov to adhere to what is legalized or changed in another state

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      You don’t seem to understand the issue at all
      If you feel the Federal gov shouldnt be involved in marriage then you’d SUPPORT DOMA, which is designed to protect states from being forced by the federal gov to adhere to what is legalized or changed in another state

  • waltzingmtilda

    Tell me why gay marriage is a bad thing? Why? This country needs more marriage, more people wanting to make a permanent bond and create a positive home environment. No wonder the gays want nothing to do with Conservative “values”.
    I attended a wedding not too long ago and really hit it off with a gay couple. Me being me, I eventually brought up politics and let me just tell you…a guy who two seconds before was my BFF said “Oh, if I knew you liked Sarah Palin I would have pushed you out of that plane.”
    My protestations that the Deomcratic Party has not been a friend to gays went exactly fucking nowhere with him.
    If we want to win we need to get past this.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

      can gay people have children? answer -NO

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        Yes they can. Just like any other infertile straight couple. They can have children through surrogates, through fertilization, through adoption. Gay people are not sterile.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

      can gay people have children? answer -NO

    • Hiraghm

      And any bond will do, eh? Men with men, women with women, men with children, men with household pets… “permanent bonds” between humans does not require marriage, NOR EVEN ROMANCE.

      “Gay marriage” is a bad thing the same way giving a diabetic chocolate cake is a bad thing. They already are delusional and in denial of their mental/emotional disorder, and you want to further legitimatize it.

      I’m not going to let you snake me down that same old trail that begins with mating being about procreation and ending in straw man arguments about sterile couples.

      I’ll lay it out for you flat, blunt and vulgar in hopes you can understand it: A male is induced with lust and romantic feelings for a female so that he will mate with her and produce offspring, and then help see that they make adulthood. A female is induced with lust and romantic feelings for a male for the same reason. Whether the plumbing works or not is irrelevant to the purpose of lust and romance, just as whether your teeth are rotted or healthy is irrelevant to the purpose of your digestive system to process food.

      IF a male feels lust and romantic feelings for *anything* other than a female who has achieved breeding age, he is, to one degree or another, suffering from some form of disorder.

      That this disorder doesn’t debilitate is irrelevant. That the person in question is otherwise a fine, upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. If you can only get it off by being beaten with a strand of wet spaghetti, there’s something wrong with you. If you can only get it off by coupling with a member of your own sex, again, there’s something wrong with you. Both are harmless, but only one is threatening society by a concerted effort to change cultural mores.

      So long as both are practiced in the privacy of one’s home, they don’t threaten society. As soon as either attempt to modify society to accommodate his fetish, he threatens society. We laugh at the wet spaghetti fetishist, but don’t dare laugh at the homosexual, anymore.

      A sexually confused person, aka homosexual, lesbian, transgender, is not helped by acceptance, accommodation, or mutilation.

      Are we clear yet?

      • Dan Thorpe

        That is a narrow minded view of people that are gay. Being gay is not a mental/emotional issue. It has been a long debate are people born gay or is a choice. Knowing numerous gay men and women I can tell you without hesitation that they were born gay. I understand the religious issue, I do but we should be accepting of everybody gay or straight. At the end of the day they are human beings too, the reason that democrats get more gays to vote for them is because they are more accepting then SOME GOP members. As I have stated several times, I am a conservative and most of my views associate with the GOP but this is one are where I believe they should soften their stance.

        • Hiraghm

          Pedophiles are people, too. Exhibitionists are people, too. Voyeurs are people, too.

          There is no other explanation why a person with one set of genitalia would not be attracted to members of the opposite sex and attracted to members of their own sex. This is not, to use a word popular among leftists, “appropriate”.

          Okay, they’re born gay. There are diabetics who are born diabetic. But we don’t pretend that diabetics are “normal”.

          There are schizophrenics who are born schizophrenic, pretty much all children with Down’s syndrome were born that way.

          None of them are normal or healthy, but they’re all people too.

          I can explain why men should be attracted sexually to women. Can you explain why men should be attracted sexually to men? Not how it can happen, but why it *should* happen? What biological mechanism does it serve?

        • Hiraghm

          Pedophiles are people, too. Exhibitionists are people, too. Voyeurs are people, too.

          There is no other explanation why a person with one set of genitalia would not be attracted to members of the opposite sex and attracted to members of their own sex. This is not, to use a word popular among leftists, “appropriate”.

          Okay, they’re born gay. There are diabetics who are born diabetic. But we don’t pretend that diabetics are “normal”.

          There are schizophrenics who are born schizophrenic, pretty much all children with Down’s syndrome were born that way.

          None of them are normal or healthy, but they’re all people too.

          I can explain why men should be attracted sexually to women. Can you explain why men should be attracted sexually to men? Not how it can happen, but why it *should* happen? What biological mechanism does it serve?

      • EEKman

        Where is the evidence that gay couples threaten society?

        • Hiraghm

          By destroying the sanctity of marriage. It is already becoming trivialized. Much of that comes from the acceptance of the promiscuity prevalent in the homosexual community into the heterosexual community, as well as the view of sex being for pleasure rather than procreation.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/OMHO6ER5QJE3SIZ35VAXIRCLYM Stephan

            You are aware that we are living in the 21st century?

        • Hiraghm

          By destroying the sanctity of marriage. It is already becoming trivialized. Much of that comes from the acceptance of the promiscuity prevalent in the homosexual community into the heterosexual community, as well as the view of sex being for pleasure rather than procreation.

      • EEKman

        Where is the evidence that gay couples threaten society?

  • Guest

    “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised;they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” (Hebrews 11, speaking of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Sarah)

    This country isn’t that one. Never has been, never will be. Do the best you can to shine some light, and then let it go. People who can’t separate this country from that one are the people who make us all look hateful.

    • Hiraghm

      “hateful”… yeah, we’re “hateful” the same way mommy is “hateful” when she tells her 4 year old that he has to hold his sister’s hand while crossing the parking lot at Target.

  • riddler1620

    It’s great to stand up for values, and I’m sure as a permanent minority party, republicans will have absolutely no ability to shape morals in America.
    For gods sake, we have lost 2 presidential elections in a row, and considering the state of the economy, if alarm bells aren’t going off now, nothing will get thru.

    • Joe W.

      Amazing you invoke God’s name in your post. Do you think that God has changed his position on sin?? Do you think he approves of us looking the other way and not only ignoring sin, but sanctioning and glorifying it?? I certainly do not. I do not care about earthly elections. The Bible says that we are doomed because of our crumbling morality and capitulation to Satan. But folks who keep the Word of God as sacred and honored will be with him in Heaven. The rest of you will be left behind, and that is by your own choices. A simple reading of Biblical Prophecy bears this out, and it is all unfolding before our very eyes. Yet fwewer people choose to see it. Just as the Bible says.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      Moron, the GOP just won the House by a huge margin, just like it did in 2010== unlike in 2008

      Obama won by less of a margin then he did in 2008-

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      You are obvlously a gay democrat.

      THe GOP won the House by a huge margin. RINO gay supporting GOPers however failed to defeat any Democrats. due to “there is no difference ” among candidates factor

  • unitedelectric

    Listen, guys, you are either for liberty or you are not. You religious proclivities are none of my business and vice verse. Gay people do not effect you. Let it go or enjoy widespread political defeat ad infinitum. You choose.

    • Hiraghm

      Nope, not political defeat ad infinitum. Eventually your leftist agendas will destroy the country, and there won’t be any more political battles to win or lose.

  • unitedelectric

    Listen, guys, you are either for liberty or you are not. You religious proclivities are none of my business and vice verse. Gay people do not effect you. Let it go or enjoy widespread political defeat ad infinitum. You choose.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    “Homosexual rights” leads to indoctrination of children. That is a fact. We don’t need to teach small children that disease inducing perversion is normal. It’s a lie. Utah GOP group was right

    Middle Schoolers Subjected To Graphic Gay Indoctrination
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/middle-schoolers-subjected-to-graphic-gay-indoctrination/

    Gay teacher suspended after showing fourth graders homosexually-charged Christmas video http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-teacher-suspended-after-showing-fourth-graders-homosexually-charged-chr

  • Jeanette Victoria

    “Homosexual rights” leads to indoctrination of children. That is a fact. We don’t need to teach small children that disease inducing perversion is normal. It’s a lie. Utah GOP group was right

    Middle Schoolers Subjected To Graphic Gay Indoctrination
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/middle-schoolers-subjected-to-graphic-gay-indoctrination/

    Gay teacher suspended after showing fourth graders homosexually-charged Christmas video http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-teacher-suspended-after-showing-fourth-graders-homosexually-charged-chr

  • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

    Gay people have rights, they just want “special” rights.

    • EEKman

      No pretty much just the same rights heterosexual couples have.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        They already have that.

        • EEKman

          No they don’t, there are many things that are recognized in a marriage that are not recognized in a civil union. While many states recognize civil unions as the same as marriage, many do not. Civil unions aren’t recognized by the feds.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Same sex marriage is an absurdity. Homosex is a behavior. Homosexual are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, Just like everyone else. Let’s not use make a mental illness a right.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/OMHO6ER5QJE3SIZ35VAXIRCLYM Stephan

            There is only one mentally ill person in this thread …

          • http://youtu.be/efJUFlD1S8Q DaleVM14W

            Let’s call it what it really is, shall we? It’s poofter nuptials, not “gay marriage”, which is an oxymoron.

      • Jeanette Victoria

        They already have that.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        There is no such thing as rights garnered FROM your sexual desires.

        NO one has rights based on their sexual desires.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          So sexual desire has no part in straight marriages?

          • shimauma

            sexual desires in straight marriage are not only NORMAL, but also ordained by The Creator of the Universe. See unlike the poop eating perversity that the left wing engages in, when a man and woman connect intimately, a baby is created, continuing life…oh wait I forgot that calling a tiny unborn human a “baby” is offensive to folks like you. Yeah I know, you’re going to start shriek about straight people getting STD’s so let me clear that one up for you. Abstinence cures STD’s. That is that if a virgin man and virgin woman get married and only have sex with each other for the rest of their lives, THEY WON’T GET AIDS!!
            But as we all know, with the sexually deviant community the exchange rate of partners is square dance levels of ridiculous including the fecal matter involved. Just not a healthy lifestyle at all. But for some reason there’s these crazy folks out there thinks this kind of behavior should be justified and promoted and taught to our children (GLAAD, Kevin Jennings, NAMBLA) Hell, even the UK Guardian was saying that pedophiles are just normal folks.
            But folks like me have to tone down our fundamentalist rheotoric because some limp wristed little poop eater might get his panties in a bunch…

          • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

            I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but if a virgin gay man marries another virgin gay man, neither of them will get HIV or AIDS as well. And I also hate to have to tell you that straight people engage in the sex act that you are so fervently against. And for being so self righteous, you use a lot of profane language.

          • shamsky24

            Sorry to break this to you, pal, but the right wing engages in homosexuality, too. (See Craig, Larry.) They just don’t like to admit it. And many of these self-loathing homosexuals have a tendency to engage in the same kind of over-the-top homophobic vitriol that permeates your post.

            Mind you, I’m not saying that the fact that you happen to be a
            narrow-minded bigot necessarily means that you’re also a closeted homosexual. Your weird preoccupation with fecal matter, on the other hand, certainly could lend itself to such a conclusion.

          • http://youtu.be/efJUFlD1S8Q DaleVM14W

            Poofter nuptials is considered as abnormal behavior in most of this world. I like the Islamic Sharha law approach to this degenerate behavior.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        There is no such thing as rights garnered FROM your sexual desires.

        NO one has rights based on their sexual desires.

    • EEKman

      No pretty much just the same rights heterosexual couples have.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

    Gay people have rights, they just want “special” rights.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

    what civil rights are these gay people being denied ? are they being denied the same civil rights that African-Americans were? the answer is obviously no they were not denied any civil right – because once again – gay marriage IS NOT a civil right.

    • http://twitter.com/gingerjet gingerjet

      The Supreme Court disagrees with you that marriage isn’t a civil right. And yes – laws existed on the books to prevent two people of different races from getting married as recently as 50 years ago.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        Wrong, the Supreme court declare that children have a legal right to know and be supported by their biological parents.
        The interracial couple was having a baby. Denying them the ability to enter a legal marraige would be denying the child of his/her bological righs.

        The court did not say marrigge is a right of the couple. thats why the gay mafia gives a 5 word quote from the middle of a sentence – to hide the courts actual declaration

      • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

        I said “Gay Marriage” is not a civil right.

    • Gustavo

      How would you feel if your wife was in a horrible accident and the hospital would not give you any information about her condition? How would you feel if you and your wife while maintaining one household each had to buy separate health insurance policies costing you far more than a family plan? How would you feel if you died in an accident and the property you and your wife bought as a couple did not immediately pass on to her, but had to go through years of probate? I could go on and on and on, but basically there are many long-time same sex partnerships (my next door neighbors are one) that by law do not have the same rights as my wife and I do.

      I can’t believe that any American thinks that is an acceptable condition or a “special” right that gay couples are asking for.

      • http://twitter.com/Sincerly_oo Sincerely —

        Circumstance 1 – Medical Information: Red herring. Homosexual partners can grant a medical power of attorney to their partner. Even heterosexual couples have to sign a HIPAA authorization for their medical condition to be communicated with their spouse . . . so that argument is doubly fallacious.

        Circumstance 2 – Health Insurance: We’re all screwed in that regard, does that make you feel better?

        Circumstance 3 – Property Ownership in Case of Death: Another red herring and fallacious argument. Property already can be held in joint tenancy with the rights of survivorship by people who are not married. As far as other forms of property, everyone should have a will; however, there are a number of ways to immediate transfer assets to someone who isn’t a spouse.

        So other than the health insurance portion of your argument, which we could debate the validity of in several aspects and is completely blown out of the water with the advent of Obamacare, your entire argument is bunk. They as individuals have the same rights as every other U.S. citizen.

        • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

          The problem is that families can easily get a judge to cancel out the wills and legal wrangling that allows gay people to have marital rights. Families can deny hospital visits. Families can nullify wills. I have seen it happen.

    • http://youtu.be/efJUFlD1S8Q DaleVM14W

      Poofter nuptials are never a snivel right!

  • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

    what civil rights are these gay people being denied ? are they being denied the same civil rights that African-Americans were? the answer is obviously no they were not denied any civil right – because once again – gay marriage IS NOT a civil right.

  • Justin Case

    You hear that sound? That’s the bell tolling for the Republican party. If you don’t find a way to fight the social issues outside the political arena the demise of the party is imminent.

  • goat10000

    “Gay rights” is a problem because what it ultimately amounts to is an attack on religious liberty.

    • Hiraghm

      There’s no such thing as “gay rights” or “women’s rights” or “minority rights”… there’s only “individual rights”. What he claims to support isn’t rights… but the “gay agenda”.

    • v1cious

      Yeah, cause they’re totally forcing you to be gay.

      • goat10000

        Are you unaware that people are already being punished by “civil rights tribunals” for their religious beliefs with regard to same-sex “marriage?”

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/OMHO6ER5QJE3SIZ35VAXIRCLYM Stephan

          Bulls …

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        Ah a gay white liberal pretending to be black. LOL

  • Hiraghm

    “Does the Republican Party really want to tell libertarians they are
    unwelcome in the party, that their views on social issues are so
    repulsive they cannot be permitted to speak…”

    Why not? They’ve already told conservatives that.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      It’s funny because libertarianism is not for their stance.
      Demanding the government recognize your sexual desires , demanding the government teach “tolerance” of them in schools, is the opposite of libertarian thinking
      The federal and state governments, because homosexuals can not create any children together, means that they are not in gays relationships at all.,not at all in their bedrooms …..libertarians want this and that is the same as conservatives.
      The gay mafia is trying to twist libertarianism into something it’s not. It’s their trogan horse

  • JimmyNeutron

    Why is “Gay Marriage” and “Straight Marriage” or “Polygamist Marriage” a big deal? I’m Libertarian and a strong believer in the Tenth Amendment. If the state of Missouri wants to vote for or against Gay Marriage, let them. Soon it will become a competition in quality of life, economic opportunity and everything else – and in time the good ideas will win.

    Now, many say “What about legal rights? What about financial ramifications?” – and that is understood – you can’t have multiple jurisdictions with different rules. But the reason that government is involved in marriage for the most part is financial. Legal rights can (and should) be handled by a lawyer with strong Wills, Living directives, etc. The financial is more difficult – survivor disability benefits, joint or single/head of household tax filing issues, etc. My answer to that is to simplify the tax code (as in with a butcher knife). Why does the government legislate through the tax code? They can incentivize marriage, child tax credits, owning a home (mortgage interest deduction), and many other things. A tax code that incents is simply too large and complicated. DRAMATICALLY flatten rates, do away with ALL itemized deductions, and create a situation where people can spend an hour filing out a form on par with the 1040 EZ and be done. The tax-prep/advice industry generates around $200 billion per year. This is disgusting and speaks volumes about our fucked up tax code. Simplify, flatten and you will see vast revenues. Also, you will see many issues such as gay marriage become less important – because the complex financial questions that the government creates would go away.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      Neither one is dependent on marriage.
      There is no tax benefit for being married, in the long run there is a tax and benefit deficit of being married. Survivor benefits are paid any other guardian for the deceased’s children
      “”survivor disability benefits, joint or single/head of household tax filing issues, “”

      • JimmyNeutron

        But…there is the unlimited marital deduction for Estate planning purposes (this can be big). A husband and wife live together, husband works, wife does not. She gets some SS at retirement. Same situation with a gay couple – would it work that way? If a gay couple is married and the spouse dies, does the surviving spouse receive any benefit? There are advantages to being married.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

          Estate planning deduct is not limited to marriage.

          She would be elible for SA , and will lose it when she takes your husbands. Yes, she loses.it.
          You dont know what you are talking about.
          You lose all low income benefits when you marry somoeone whose bracket put you out of the qualifiers.
          My mother, lost her SS when she took my fathers.SS , he died before retirement , it was slightly more, As a couple they lost out of all her contributions save a small increase.

  • Garth Haycock

    It should be noted that it is the Utah County GOP that did this, not the state GOP. Utah County is farther to the right than the rest of the state.

    As someone who doesn’t care one way or the other about the plight of gays, I’m not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I think Mr. Reynolds is a reasonable person with a proper balance of social and fiscal conservatism. On the other, I think the County GOP can invite or disinvite whomever it pleases.

    Bottom line, however, is that this will make the progressives in this country to get worked up to the point that their heads will explode, so it’s really not as bad as seems.

  • Tequila

    Glenn was not going there to speak on behalf of gay rights. C’mon people get a grip and get off of your holier then thou attitudes. He was going to speak on internet activism. He did write a book after all on the subject. (An Army of Davids). Does Utah County vet all of their speakers for their position on every subject before allowing them to speak? They must have a very finite list of people they will let speak. This is the sort of stupid that just makes me shake my head. How many of you ask your local weapons instructor for his stance on abortion before deciding to take instruction from them? Same thing.

  • moonsbreath

    I guess GOP Utah never heard of GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans?

  • moonsbreath

    I guess GOP Utah never heard of GOProud or Log Cabin Republicans?

  • vino veritas

    The headline for this article, as well as the tweet instapundit sent out, seems designed to create controversy and is likely inaccurate. Labeling the contentious issue here as ‘gay rights’ is a clear attempt by instapundit to influence and create support for himself. There is no context or explanation here as to what he defines ‘gay rights’ as, but we all know what the liberal lgtb lobby define it as so for those of us who don’t follow him the facts are unclear. There is obviously more to the story, but (for whatever reason) there is no response from the Utah County R’s included here so everyone reading this is only reading half the story. People should wait until both sides have had their say before reacting.
    Generally speaking, people everywhere (not just on twitter) need to stop reacting to headlines that are obviously contrived to create controversy and start using their brains to think about the issue fairly instead of applying knee jerk reactions.

  • vino veritas

    The headline for this article, as well as the tweet instapundit sent out, seems designed to create controversy and is likely inaccurate. Labeling the contentious issue here as ‘gay rights’ is a clear attempt by instapundit to influence and create support for himself. There is no context or explanation here as to what he defines ‘gay rights’ as, but we all know what the liberal lgtb lobby define it as so for those of us who don’t follow him the facts are unclear. There is obviously more to the story, but (for whatever reason) there is no response from the Utah County R’s included here so everyone reading this is only reading half the story. People should wait until both sides have had their say before reacting.
    Generally speaking, people everywhere (not just on twitter) need to stop reacting to headlines that are obviously contrived to create controversy and start using their brains to think about the issue fairly instead of applying knee jerk reactions.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Collins/100000220517250 Thomas Collins

    homosexuals herald the era of the new Sparta (same as the old Sparta)…when women act like men, men act like animals.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Collins/100000220517250 Thomas Collins

    homosexuals herald the era of the new Sparta (same as the old Sparta)…when women act like men, men act like animals.

  • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

    Please. Republicans wouldn’t know anything that is actually good for them if it stood right in front of them with a sign that said, “THIS WILL BENEFIT YOU!”

    • illegalsout

      Ummmm, Michael………that’s the problem with current politics: the parties only worry about what’s in it for THEM. Some folks do still place principles above interest, you know…….

      • http://twitter.com/hamybear Michael Hampton

        I remember no too long ago when the left and the right sides of congress would go have drinks together after debating and then come to agreements. I remember when working together to benefit all Americans was the way things were. Now, republicans have this idea that they have to hate liberals. Bush made the other side the enemy. And fostered that hatred through 2 terms. Demonized anyone who wasn’t a conservative. These last 2 elections have widened that divide. It saddens me.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

    Gays say they don’t want the government involved in their lives and dont want the government “telling them how to live their lives”, but then demand that the government be involved in their lives and demand the government consider their lives worthy of destroying marriage by making it about the adult’s “Sexual desires” rather than the children’s biological rights. and demand the government teach their lives in public schools to other peoples children.

    Hello!! The government is not in homosexuals’ sex lives, because the government has not reason to be in their sex lives…gays can not create children at all.
    Its the DEAD BEAT dad’s that should be complaining about the government being in their lives, they are the reason why a legal marriage between a man and woman exists.
    In a legal marriage , the courts regard the husband as the automatic legal father of any child born to the wife during the entire course of the marriage.

    This insures children , and their mothers have a legal recourse to force dead beat dad’s into forking over support for their very own children
    Apparently the gay mafia thinks dead beat dad’s should have all the rights, and children should have none.

    • http://twitter.com/gingerjet gingerjet

      Gay men and women have children and raise families. That’s a simple fact. And one that isn’t going away. They should have access to the same legal protections that straight men and women have access to. And in this country – that is the civil institution of marriage.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

        Gay men do not have children together. They can not. Lesbians can not create children together, It’s impossible.
        One orboth of them is NOT the parent.
        Of most importance, a gay legal marriage certifcate would NOT answer the legal court question of “who is the biological parentsn” and thus” who is legally responsiblle to fulfill the biological rights of the child. The court can NOT assume that they are both the biological parent because…..it’s impossible for two people of the same sex to be the biological parent of the same child. IMPOSSIBLE
        Children have BIOLOGICAL rights The actual parents do NOT have the right to give away the child’s BIOLOGICAL rights . its not theirs to give away.
        If a homosexual couple hides the paternity or maternity of one of the parents then thy are not only fooling themselves they are attacking the child’s RIGHTS to know and be supported by their actual parents who are LEGALLY responsible to them. There is no such thing a “parental right” to deny their own parenthood or the parenthood of the other parent, ALL rights belong to the child

        There is NO legal “protections” for the ADULTS in a marriage. A legal marriage has NOTHING to do with “rights’ of the couple ZERO

        The gay mafia’s campaign is one fought AGAINST the rights of children
        It is not gay versus straight, It phony “rights” based on sexual desires themselves versus the biological rights of all children
        Yes, all children , even ones that later grow up and are gay.
        Gay adults do not benefits from a legal gay marriage just dead beat dads do…they are the only ones to benefit from destroying purpsoe of marriage and the biological rights of children

        • BeeKaaay

          You’re blinding them….with science! :)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

    Michelle Malkin’s Twitchy seems to be going the way of Michelle Malkin’s Hotair blog (now supposedly sold to only God knows who)
    Both are promoting the homosexual agenda. Here it’s under “twtichy staff” –nameless
    Over at hotair , its “allahpundit” …an anonymous blogger.

    Now this Glenn Reynolds is “instapundit”

    Michelle has a lot of explaining to do .
    Is Glenn Reynold also “allahpundit”?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

    Bradley Hope
    @instapundit @UtahGOP And that is why we keep losing elections. We are dumb.

    Umm, in UTAH the Gop wins the elections, So hello, you are backwards

    In states where the local GOP has supported the silly notion of rights emitting from your sexual desires…….they lose completely to the Democrats.

  • Adela Wagner

    I don’t believe I should expect anyone to live by my values. And as long as what they are doing in their private life does not infringe on my rights…it’s none of my beeswax. Liberals are idiots, and unless the GOP starts practicing what they preach ie:SMALL government…they will continue to fail in elections any bigger than “district” elections. Personal values are good, but when you try to preach them to others, resentment divides. We are a country of laws and that is all I have a right to expect others to follow.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IQIGXRVWW5XRETNV25R4FATCOM ssenecal5000

      You are backwards and obviously promoting liberal idiocy
      No one is in a homosexuals bedroom. Homosexuals are demanding the government and other citizens be in their bedroom
      People like you are the reason the US is sinking faster

  • http://twitter.com/maplebob23 Fake Obama Follower

    Protect the rights of the individual and everyone’s rights are protected.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    They said that gay marriage would not lead to this they lied. Now they are calling pedophilia a sexual orientation http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=8934

    • TN05

      Pedophiles and gay advocacy groups used to be supportive of each other until the gay groups realized that they were never going to get anywhere while publicly supporting child molesters. That’s why it’s not ‘LGBTP’, but it will be in the future.

    • TN05

      Pedophiles and gay advocacy groups used to be supportive of each other until the gay groups realized that they were never going to get anywhere while publicly supporting child molesters. That’s why it’s not ‘LGBTP’, but it will be in the future.

  • illegalsout

    I’ve ’bout had enough of the nutty, too-clever-by-half “libertarians”. I’m a conservative Republican. I repeat: conservative.
    “Wait, wait……..I’ll pick the easy option instead! I’ll call myself LIBERTARIAN so as to avoid being called one of those bad conservatives! Yeah, that’s it!!”
    Nah. I’m conservative.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Prowl1984 Tom Lund

    just wish that these abnormal people (gays) would have just stayed in the damn closet.