Pajamas Media

200 Comments

1. Jaz:

I quite agree. I think the gay community (a term with which I have always had problems) is not doing itself any favors in its understandable, if not terribly wise, reaction.
We lost the battle, let us not lose the war. Sure kick up a fuss, sure make a lot of noise, but do it intelligently and reasonably without alienating the very people we need to help us regain the initiative.
I think that the tide of history is with us. Universal gay marriage will happen, of that I am quite certain. Prop 8 is a road bump, and a time when self-reflection on both sides, is needed.

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:41 am 2. Rachel Peepers:

Elizabeth Scalia.

So you’re a Catholic. And in your mind, that’s supposed to innoculate you against attacks when you attack Christians for praying and singing.

I find your article pathetic.

Who are you to judge and determine the right way for demonstrating Christians to act. How do you judge a condescending look? Is that different from a fearful look? Or a pensive look? Or a confused look? Oh, I know, you’re talking about condescending actions, like praying. Is the Twilight Zone music the soundtrack of your life?

Then you pulled out the “What would Jesus do, card”.

I don’t know. Do you? Are you God?

Maybe Jesus would renounce homosexuality. Or maybe he’d offer to marry any gay couple who was there. Not.

Love the sin, hate the sinner about sums up the Catholic Church’s stance on the matter.

Or do you know something I don’t know? Is your argument that Jesus would tell the Christian group to be less condescending? Doesn’t that sound silly?

Three paragraphs into your mistaken missive, I thought of a German WWII concentration camp. Why? Partly because you’re equating the violence and thuggery of the gays with what you call condescending praying and singing.

I can hear you condemning the innocent tortured, experimented-upon, not-fed, treated-like-animal concentration camp captives for making condescending looks at their Nazi tormentors (or worse, praying) with the same tone you condemn the Nazis for mass murder.

One more thing, Missy.

The transitional expression, “That said,” is only used by writers who haven’t had an original thought since they were in 11th grade creative writing class.

It’s lame. Without meaning. Vapid. Feckless. Insipid. Well, maybe not feckless, but, for me, as disappointing as the thrust of your entire piece.

No gold star for you. Whoever taught you to write owes you some money.

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:47 am 3. P. Ami:

Watching the Jon Stewart Show I heard his rational for supporting same sex marriage. His rational is that the tide of American history is towards greater freedom and allowing people to do what they please. He mentioned something about an America that he says never existed, that of the Cleaver family. I get his point and wonder what he would think of polygamy. I wonder if he would support a social and governmental sanctification of marriage between consenting adults who marry even if they are already married to another consenting adult. The logical conclusion to freedom to do as one pleases, assuming that is the natural progression of American history, aught not stop with same sex marriage. Is polygamy going to be the next step which Leftists like Jon Stewart and perhaps Jaz would support?

The issue here is not a matter of the individual getting to define for themselves what marriage is. We are in the process of deciding as a culture whether we define marriage as the joining of two people who guess their emotion for each other is love, and figure they will spend their lives together until they don’t feel like it anymore or if marriage creates a nearly inalienable unit which binds generations to one another, merges hereditary lines, confers responsibility on kin for the care of children and property and establishes the unit to which the individual is primarily loyal.

Considering divorce statistics, the distance between family members, the number of step and half siblings, and the common understanding of marriage which gives rise to such phrases as “This wedding is about the bride and the groom”, I think Jaz has a good chance of being right to patiently wait for America to accept same sex marriage but I’m not convinced that this Leftist definition of marriage will serve our society so well. One definition of marriage seems to me a vanity while the other is a responsibility.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:07 am 4. Tristan Phillips:

Moral equivalence takes on a special, noxious level when someone tries to cover their own ass by saying they’re part of a group they’re bashing.

Putting outright physical violence and forcible rape on the same level as praying and singing is particularly vile. Go back to the hole you crawled out of Ms. Scalia, and spend some time really learning about that which you preach about.

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:00 am 5. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Elizabeth Scalia
RE: Uuuuuhhhh…

He didn’t stand around singing hymns and praying for them… — Elizabeth Scalia

Not so sure about the singing hymns for them. But I do recall reading that He did a LOT of praying. And I’ll wager you dollars to donuts that he was praying FOR the sinners He was trying to reach.

Now….

….let’s talk about who’s ‘condescending’ HERE.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. There’s something of a difference between thuggery and praying for someone. Don’t you think? Or maybe you don’t…..based on what I just read….

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:18 am 6. Rose from Ohio:

When I see a group of people on the corner praying, seeing or demonstrating, I wonder if they have the legal right to have a public display – which may or may not require a public permit.

Otherwise, I ignore them. They have a right to their opinion just as I have a right to my own.

Until the anti-prop8 group decided to target Mormons (and not others) with economic (and possibly violent) threats, I also said they have a right to their own opinion as well. Hard to feel sympathy for a group so willing to engage in religous bigotry.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:02 am 7. Mike T:

You act like we must be fair to them because we are criticizing them. It is absolutely true that we knew that we were going to be persecuted at some point, in some form for our faith, but come on. Be realistic here. The behavior of some of the Christians here is at worst, annoying. Is it ineffective? Sure, but it’s not even remotely in the same ballpark as the way that a lot of gays are behaving.

Let me draw you a better example. Imagine someone in the 1950s or 1960s observing a few black boys standing on a corner saying, “man, those white girls sure are pretty.” This is in the wake of assassinations, church bombings, etc. against the black community. They say that white behavior is out of control, but frankly, the behavior of some teenage black boys standing on a corner admiring white teenage girls is frankly a problem too.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:17 am 8. Emma:

Personally I wish that both gays and Christians would quit trying to convince each other that they have the moral high ground. Call it a draw and move on.

For the Christians: If you believe that the power of prayer can turn someone straight, take that power and use it for something that would actually improve the world, like turning Al-Qaida into peace-loving slacker potheads.

For the gays who aren’t involved in these violent protests: for your own good, you had better speak out against them, and soon. They are putting a serious dent in all the progress of the last decade, and I really hate to see that happen.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:27 am 9. wheelers_cat:

The Mormon Church targetted gay marriage as an institution and poured between 20 and 30 million into campaigning for prop 8.
Frankly, many people would like to see the LDS stripped of their tax exempt status at this point.
Targetting low information voters in the black and hispanic community with identity politics is pretty evil, too.
So quit whining about engendering opposition hostility to the mormons.
Christian/mormon bashing and loathing is going to get worse, this country is going deep secular.

It is futile anyways.
Loving vs Virginia
and….
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_incredible_shrinking_repub.html

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:32 am 10. C Smith:

I neither condescend, nor denigrate anyone, least of all my gay cousins.
Rather, I stand for an idea that is orders of magnitude older than these contemporary sophistries: marriage.
The symbol remains what it is, with the pure, simple, obvious, productive and reproductive meaning it has had across time and cultures.
The mental gymnastics of some to alter its meaning shall fail.
And may the Lord have mercy on all.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:35 am 11. Gilligan:

Rachel Peepers

Love the sin, hate the sinner about sums up the Catholic Church’s stance on the matter.

I am going to presume that you mistyped that although the rest of your post certainly gives evidence that you might be the sort of nasty bigot who believes that sort of thing. I am also going to try to believe that it is merely poor writing skill that makes you come across as a worse person than you probably are.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:37 am 12. Dave R:

Rachel, Tristan and Chuck – there is a difference between praying FOR someone, which can be done anywhere, and pray AT someone, which requires you to be face to face or at least within hearing. Praying FOR someone is for their good, praying AT someone is simply to make yourself feel like you are doing something for them. Bringing up concentration camps and rape is beyond ridiculous in this case. I would think this event would actually make you feel better because the latest fashion in some Christian circles is to play the victim, loudly and dramatically. Try really reading what the author had to say instead of getting hysterical – in both meanings of the word. She did not attack anyone, but made observations which you should consider instead of demonstrating that you are much the same in attitude as those who became violent – all that matters is what YOU believe.

PS unless you have actually lived in an area where people gather to sing and whatever for a cause you have NO idea how disruptive it is and rarely generates good feelings towards or a desire to listen to them.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:43 am 13. Craig:

“…and Christians need to cut the condescension.”

Condescension? That’s not a word I would’ve used. What seems to be lost in all this…this was not in someone’s front yard. It was on a public street corner. Have you been to San Francisco lately. Try walking down the street near one of the parks, then getting acosted by the homeless, the drug peddlers, drug users, or the prostitutes. If I was to get a bunch of us together and chase them off- the ACLU would drag me into court faster than you can say Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:49 am 14. MarkD:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The people have spoken, clearly.

There is no right by anyone to terrorism, violence, or thuggery but that is what we are seeing. It’s bad tactics besides being illegal. My advice would be to get the government out of the marriage business entirely, leave the sacraments to the realm of religion, and work for civil laws that favor whatever rights you feel you lack.

I can predict I will be ignored.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:03 am 15. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dave R
RE: For v. At

Rachel, Tristan and Chuck – there is a difference between praying FOR someone, which can be done anywhere, and pray AT someone, which requires you to be face to face or at least within hearing. Praying FOR someone is for their good, praying AT someone is simply to make yourself feel like you are doing something for them. — Dave R

Who gets to decide which is the case?

I’ve found that people who hate God hate anyone who remotely suggests that God either exists or that they themselves recognize His existence.

Therefore, all one has to do in order to get those ‘haters’ hating is to even suggest that they are praying. Or show a sign, e.g., John 3:16. Or a cross.

The purpose of their hatred is to intimidate the christian into not doing anything that is in the public venue. Nothing more. Nor anything less.

So take your silly arg elsewhere. It won’t work on our kind.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. -- Romans 12:20]

P.S. That passage doesn’t mean we can’t pray for them.

P.P.S. Look upon it as ‘tough love’.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:06 am 16. Don't Drink the King's Wine:

First off, it’s a fair point to remind Christians that we should not be condescending or Pharisaic in our approach to others. That said, the mere presence of peaceful Christians in Castro does not excuse the dastardly conduct by the militants in the homosexual community.

Secondly, the idea of church and state operating in distinct spheres is a popular one, even convincing. But are we really so naive as to think that the homosexual activists who are rioting now will be satisfied if the government provides same-sex marriages but the churches do not? The next step will be to go after churches practicing freedom of conscience through abstention to sanctify that which is unholy.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:35 am 17. Aureliano:

Frankly, many people would like to see the LDS stripped of their tax exempt status at this point.

Right. Some kooks sequestered in various CA gay communities — mostly in the Bay Area and coastal Los Angeles — want the LDS stripped of their tax exempt status, and this therefore qualifies as ‘many people’.

Then again, a bunch of ditzy dames and metrosexual man-derivatives in local television news agree with your proposition, so I guess that instantly transmogrifies said micro-communities into ‘many people’, at least in the eyes of those who get all their information from television.

Targetting low information voters in the black and hispanic community with identity politics is pretty evil, too.

Er, doesn’t that pretty much describe the tactics of the entire Democratic party, of which most CA gays are members?

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:35 am 18. katoejane:

Why de people seem to think they are entitled to tell Christians that they shouldn’t believe that their religious beliefs are better than other peoples? Why would anyone be a member of any specific sect IF they didn’t feel that way?

Why do the JWs come to my door trying to talk to me? Personally I’d much rather they stood on street corners extolling their beliefs than bother me at home.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:28 am 19. HBG:

Christ came down on the Pharisees for giving public displays of their religiosity, so Elizabeth has a point.
Rachel: take a breath. What you wrote sounded nearly as ugly as anything that was flung at the prayer circle.
THAT SAID, the homosexual “community” is displaying self-destructive behavior. This is a surprise?

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:33 am 20. Tom:

This article is terrible.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:38 am 21. VA Creole:

If I read Mrs. Scalia’s comments correctly, what she’s saying is that when confronting gay people, religious folks would better serve their cause if they connected with them on a human level rather than carrying signs and ostentatiously praying for them in public.

Or as my old ma used to say, “You’ll catch more flies with sugar than you will with vinegar.”

This doesn’t mean that it’s necessary to compromise one’s principles a single iota, simply that a change in tactics would be more effective. Show gays that Christians aren’t rabid, hate-filled fanatics but people whose sincere faith has persuaded them that traditional marriage is best for any society, and that that’s why they voted for Prop 8.

In any debate whoever takes the reasoned, calm perspective is the one who claims the high ground.

As for the rampaging gays and what that’s likely to mean for them, I have more here: http://virginiacreole.blogspot.com/2008/11/childish-foot-stomping-intolerance.html

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:49 am 22. BMoon:

Enabling much, Scalia? Moral equivalence dementia? From you? (shivers)

Let me spell it out for you: Christians praying and singing, ON ANY CORNER OF THIS FAIR NATION, cannot be equalized with outright fascist, violent behavior. Got it? And Malkin did not exaggerate anything. She factually reported on the threats and violence that actually happened.

And back to those Christians…about 30 years ago in a “gay” neighborhood I met some, singing, praying and testifying. Today, I am a Christian and a father of two. If they had not been there I likely would be dead from AIDS.

Shame on you.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:55 am 23. Donna V.:

As usual, excellent and insightful writing, Elizabeth.

Christians do have a fine line to walk. It is a difficult balancing act to assert one’s moral and religious beliefs without coming across like the Pharisee who says “Thank you, Lord, that I am not like these miserable sinners.” Point that out and they’ll screech like scalded cats.

Rachel, maybe you should check out Scalia’s blog before comparing her to a Nazi concentration camp guard. That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever come across on PJM and that’s saying a lot.

However, Elizabeth, you end with:

Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.

I would have no objection to that. However, I think many Christians fear, with reason, that it won’t end there. Will the state continue to allow the churches to “sanctify according to their rites and sacraments?”
A minister who preached that homosexuality was sinful was hauled in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission not long ago. How long before gay couples would decide that getting married by a judge or in a liberal Unitarian or Episcopalian church would not be enough – nothing but a Catholic or Orthodox Jewish or Baptist ceremony will do?

That’s a legitimate objection. And, given the history of liberal judicial activism in this country, it is not a farfetched scenario.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:57 am 24. Saltherring:

Christians have a God-ordained agenda: Jesus, in Matthew 28:19, commanded his disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It seems the Christians on the street corner were doing just that, in a peaceful and contrite manner.

Radical homosexuals also have an agenda, and that is to force, through intimidation and violent confrontation, their sodomite perversion upon Americans. Before allowing this to happen, Americans should take note of God’s actions against two evil and wicked cities, as chronicled in Genesis 19:24, “The the Lord rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.”

Do as you wish, folks, but be mindful that there may be dire consequences for America, as well as for individuals who practice and promote evil.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:59 am 25. Mike T:

HBG,

The Pharisees were condemned because their actions were self-serving. For the sake of discussion, here’s what Jesus said in Matthew 6:

1″Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2″So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5″And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

The context that Jesus was condemning that behavior was that of people who do these things in order to be seen by others–a way of saying that they were doing it for the respect of others.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:16 am 26. submandave:

I can’t speak for the specific incident addressed, but there is a point beyond which I get the feeling that the praying, singing and testfying is done more for the individual Christians’ ego benefit than for any one else’s.

For example, in college we used to go down to New Orleans each year for Mardi Gras and you couldn’t help but run into at leaft a half dozen Christians so concerned about our souls that they took off from work to bring their giant cross and signs to the quarter to tell us how we were damned to burn in eternal hellfire but if we repented we’d be saved for glory like them. Every time I’ve been down on Beale Street here (not as often since the kids came) I’ve seen their like as well. I’ve always wondered how many happy, celebrating, drunken folks have ever stopped in the middle of the street with an epiphany any asked to be saved? Or does the self-righteous feeling that “we’re saved and better than these drunken sinners” not play into their motivation at all?

For clarity, I do think there are Christians who sincerely want to minister, help and testify but I also think there are the most vocal examples (e.g. Phelp’s gang) that are in it for their own egos. I’m not trying to characterize the specific group referenced, but I think Elizabeth’s larger point is that the “holier-than-thou” in-your-face Christians do as much to make all Christians look bad as the leather-masked B&D fetishist proudly marching downtown does to make all gays look bad.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:17 am 27. Self-hating boomer:

I’m with Elizabeth on this. The Christians in California are almost as big a bunch of sore winners as the obots.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:21 am 28. The Historian:

OBAMA WILL ABANDON LEFTISTS
What is Moveon and Kos to do given political reality in America and the practical nature of their savior:

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2008/11/democrats-and-radical-left.html

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:22 am 29. Pat J:

21. VA Creole:

If I read Mrs. Scalia’s comments correctly, what she’s saying is that when confronting gay people, religious folks would better serve their cause if they connected with them on a human level rather than carrying signs and ostentatiously praying for them in public.
—————————————–
You’re right. That’s Christ’s message.
This street corner proselytizing as peaceful as it sounds, is annoying and not really accomplishing anything.

But then neither are the homosexuals by attacking the wrong communities, the churches.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:27 am 30. submandave:

“Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.”

As I’ve said (and been attacked for) before, I have no problem with any legal construct that simplifies or standardizes the rights and responsibilities that two adults wish to conventionally establish between themselves, but I believe traditional marriage should remain a separate and distinct thing on completely non-religious grounds. My entire position is due to the traditionally critical role marriage plays in the future of society and the interests of those affected by marriage that do not freely enter into the agreement (i.e. children). IMHO, the government’s compelling interest in regulating and licensing marriage is not the emotional commitment of the participants, but the implied intent to conceive and bring forth a new generation. Every change that has so far weakened the perceived importance of children in marriage and instead bolstered importance of “love” or “self” in marriage (e.g. the celebrity marriage culture, the trial marriage culture, the open marriage idea, no-fault divorce, etc.) has thus far proven to have negative consequences for families, children, and society on a whole. Expanding the idea of “marriage” to include couples for which children and progeny are not even naturally biologically possible will only continue the trend.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:34 am 31. Chuck Pelto:

TO: HBG
RE: Those Pharisees

Christ came down on the Pharisees for giving public displays of their religiosity, so Elizabeth has a point. — HBG

He did it because they were hypocrites. Not because they prayed in public. And by ‘hypocrites’ He meant that….

[1] They did it strictly for ’show’ purposes.
[2] They didn’t really care about God.
[3] Nor did they care anything about the people they were supposed to be serving as priests.

Are you so sure you know the hearts of men so well that you can rightfully describe these people as ‘hypocrites’? Do you stalk them when they go to their church or bible study? Have you bugged their household to know what they say and/or do in the privacy of their own home? Have taken photographs or videographs of them doing things that Christians understand to be very, very wrong?

Or, can you tell me what’s wrong with praying for someone?

God knows what’s in their hearts. And they know He knows.

Who do you think could punish them more, if they ARE the ‘hypocrites’ of the Pharisees ilk? Don’t you think THEY know that? Probably better than YOU?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:40 am 32. Chuck Pelto:

TO: submandave
RE: In Your Face Christianity?

For example, in college we used to go down to New Orleans each year for Mardi Gras and you couldn’t help but run into at leaft a half dozen Christians so concerned about our souls that they took off from work to bring their giant cross and signs to the quarter to tell us how we were damned to burn in eternal hellfire but if we repented we’d be saved for glory like them. — submandave

Maybe they did. But, as I asked HBG, “How can you be certain”?

Furthermore, your comment reminds me of that tagline that I gave to Dave R. And I have to wonder if anyone REALLY understands it’s full ramifications, explicit and implicit.

For instance, I suspect that people who complain about being witnessed to in the public venue could well be suffering from a guilty conscience, when they complain about being so accosted.

After all, there’s a LOT of truth in that saying…

Hatred is the cowards revenge for being intimidated.

Where I live, we get the JW’s and Mormons here rather frequently. Ringing our doorbell and wanting to tell us the Truth.

Whenever they come, which isn’t very often anymore—I think they’ve learned better—we turn the tables on them, get them off their script and start witnessing to THEM.

On occasion, the JWs had to send a search and rescue party to our door to save their representative from the evil evangelical who was pointing out things they didn’t want understood.

So. If, in the future, you encounter someone who wants to ‘witness’ to you, you might want to consider that technique. BUT…and this is a biggie…you need to know what you’re talking about. And that requires a bit of reading.

I can recommend a Good Book for you to begin with.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Know your enemy and know yourself and you shall never be defeated. -- Sun Tzu, the Art of War]

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:48 am 33. Patriarch:

A quick review of history (even in classical Greece) shows that homosexuals are UNIVERSALLY disdained by the heterosexual majority. True, in some decadent cultures elites may hold them up as some exemplar but what follows is usually replacement of those elites by revolution, conquest, or general collapse.

Let’s face it, on a biological basis, homosexuality is parasitic on society. Science still lacks complete understanding of why homosexuality is tolerated in the gene pool.
My thanks to the Mormon Church, the Knights of Columbus and the others who fought this battle. I’m not a churchgoer but increasingly conservative Christian and Jewish organizations have my support and thanks as defenders against degeneration.

That said, individual homosexuals deserve our toleration but their demands for social benefits they don’t deserve and the right to recruit the young needs to be defeated. They don’t have to go back into the closet, just enjoy their freedoms quietly and with respect to the legitimate interests of straights.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:49 am 34. Ms Attitude:

25. Mike T: Great scripture to point out. The Church should be above using sacred prayer for attention. It belittles prayer.

26. submandave: “…the “holier-than-thou” in-your-face Christians do as much to make all Christians look bad as the leather-masked B&D fetishist proudly marching downtown does to make all gays look bad.” I agree.

I for one do not agree with the government being involved in social issues. Marriage is a social issue! Any person of faith who believes that the government has legitimate authority over sacraments (marriage, communion, etc) either has a very high opinion of the government or a very low opinion of sacraments.

If we allow laws that ban same-sex marriages can the opposite laws be passed that would require the church to honor them?

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:06 am 35. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. If you ever meet elements of the Phelps crowd, I’d recommend give the following verse to them….

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

That’s why christians, the REAL ones, are told to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Why? Because we could be too sure of ourselves in our own conceit/deceit.

I suspect that the Phelps crowd may be falling into that pit/prat-fall. I wouldn’t mind having a long discussion with them. But we don’t see their sort around here very often.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:07 am 36. Ms Attitude:

30. submandave: This is not an attack just something to think about.

In Jesus’ time, one got married without the aid of the government. During the antebellum era, our government did not acknowledge marriages between slaves. Unless one is a government-worshipper, there is no conceivable sacramental role for the government with respect to marriage because the government is not, and could not function effectively as, a sacramental institution.

Likewise, the government has no direct, legitimate interest in the propagation of children. This is not China; in the United States, couples may freely decide whether they have children and, if so, how many. Whether you want no children, two children, or twelve children, the U.S. government has no say in the matter–assuming the children are not themselves in danger, of course.

And even if we assume for the sake of argument that the government does have a legitimate interest in promoting parenting, there is a flooded foster care system full of kids who need parents and don’t have them. The government should be doing more to encourage adoption–which would also reduce the number of abortions, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:17 am 37. mr B:

That said, the gay community is being rather cowardly in going after praying Christians and the always placid Mormons.

Well, the Mormons funded the Prop 8 initiative. They’re fair game.

I’m not sure why Ms. Scalia believe the Mormons, or anyone, has the right to hide from their own bigotry.

As for Christians, who cares where or how they worship? — so long as they don’t restrict the rights of others, as they seem to fond of doing.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:19 am 38. newton:

It is only going to get worse. I believe that, because of Christianity’s belief against homosexuality (and of course, the strong pro-life position), many churches will eventually be shut down, with their charities, schools, and hospitals. Many Christians will lose their jobs and careers. Many will even lose their homes and their own children.

Don’t be surprised if more communities of Christians far away from mainstream society are developed, as secularists effectively kick them out of public life and into communities resembling leper colonies than anything else.

Or worse. I believe some are not looking for more right for themselves, but for the right to taste the blood they’ve begun to smell… The lions from the Roman coliseums are waking up after almost 2000 years… and they’re mightily hungry!

Persecution is coming. Christians, get ready!

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:22 am 39. robotech master:

Wow the moral equivalence in here is just staggering… let me see if I can translate it a bit.

Its the morning of November 10 1938 and the news paper head light “Jews and Germanys Behaving Badly”.

“The jews with their condescending attitude should have done more to spread the wealth and be more understanding of how Germany react to these issues. They need to spend more time getting to know their local germans and show them they are not anti-german and love their neighbors.

That being said the germans shouldn’t have threatened local jewish stores or try to take away the jewish church’s tax exempt status. Its not wholly the jews fault we lost the war their were many factors. The jews must work harder to reach out and show they aren’t trying to place the blame somewhere else and must do more to help all reach equal rights.”

To call the pro-gay marriage movement anything less then a bunch of radical religious fundamentalists is to not have eyes. They are probably the most dangerous and oppressive religious fundamentalists currently operating in the US. They wish to create a government run church that will approve of their actions and disapprove of others actions against them. They intend to use this power much like in the court system to oppress the vast majority of the US and force them to believe in their (now government-church approved) views.

I am a big history buff and one of the areas I like to view is the wonderful out comes of having church and state mix… be in the past(with Catholics) or the present (such as iran). I have great disdain for pretty much any “organized” religion due to the fact that they like to “organize” to oppress ppl. The pro-gay marriage movements have all the hallmark clues of past and present oppressive religious fundamentalists movements. They are dangerous and the most dangerous movement in the US today. Writing this BS slap on the wrist moral equivalence crap is the same thing papers wrote to cover for religions of the past, hitler, the KKK and a host of other actions committed by nuts whos sole goal is to oppress ppl.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:23 am 40. Thinking Person:

I couldn’t wait to read the responses to this article and I wasn’t disappointed! As a person who laughs who finds spiritual people inspiring and religious people frightening I can say I am truly frightened here. People holding their Bibles in the faces of others and spewing fire and brimstone are no better than the gays protesting at churches and businesses. Both are using extreme methods to their own end. Neither side is gaining a foothold and both are showing why they are both misunderstood and feared by the rest of society. Religion and sexuality are both intended to be private matters right? Please, just keep it that way and we’ll all be happy. I say if gays want to marry let them. But they should have to deal with all of the same legal entitlements and knots that the rest of us suffer or enjoy. What difference should it make? I’m thinking God didn’t intend for the Bible to be used as a weapon.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:23 am 41. Bill Perron:

Boys getting married to boys, girls marrying girls, c’mon folks, how much longer before us Pagans can exercise our civil rights and marry our favorite oak tree?

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:27 am 42. cfbleachers:

Wow. Just wow.

C’mon guys. Stop.

Rachel, you and I are pretty close on a number of issues, at least I thought so. But, …if I was born a Catholic (or a Jew or a Hindu for that matter) would your response above include me? I’m guessing not.

Let me start by saying that in this world of people “playing” victim…I take my victims where I find them. And devout Christians have been the whipping boy for leftists in an unrelenting, savage, disgraceful manner. I have no doubt why they react harshly to unfair condemnation.

I also understand the hurt and bitterness that gays must have felt in this election. They had been filled with hope that the wave of the tides would carry them along to the shores of the receding oceans. The very folks who claim high priest status at the victimization altar, turned on them with a ferocity they did not expect and apparently, did not recognize or anticipate.

By recognizing EACH fact above, I make not a single moral equivalence argument. Or even an ecumenical one.

When those who wander the leftist sphere start recognizing that constantly pounding on devout, faith based Christians is a losing proposition from every….every…perspective, they will begin to realize the error of their ways. Not a moment before. Devout, faith based Christians have been lampooned with such force and ferocity, that the stereotype needs no introduction. Southern, rural, NASCAR loving, homophobic, racist, bigoted, moralizing stumblebums. EVERY hollywood movie, EVERY leftist article, EVERY tv show, EVERY magazine promotes and advances this nonsensical stereotype.

I, for one…am sick of it. And sick of the behavior of the cretins who find it humorous and the imbeciles who believe it without questioning.

If anyone has been a “victim”, it is the faith based folks. But they don’t play that card. Good on them. And goodness remain with them for constantly turning the other cheek about it. A lesson they apparently learned and some have not.

But, let’s not be goaded into “mirror” behaviors. And Elizabeth may have made a poor contrast but she did NOT make an attack or lack for valid points.

ENOUGH! Many of us here, including many…if not most of the by-line contributors…articulated our thoughts on why Prop 8 should fall. I did. I hope I was respectful to my faith based friends, I tried very hard to be. Because I think they get unfairly picked on in this country.

But, I feel the same way about gays and this issue related to the word “marriage” and I said so.

I don’t think that makes me a bad person. I just reasoned it out the way I reasoned it out. And I let the chips fall where they may. As friends, we have to have room to respectfully disagree. We do. And we have to agree on the rules of engagement, if we are going to express why and how we come to any conclusions we do.

I’m willing to have you convince me, I have never once said a harsh word to anyone who posts to me or discusses with me from our own side of the fence. (and very, very rarely against the other side as well)

I’m happy to grab my comment to Claudia, it was, I believe…about gay marriage and you guys can come after MY thoughts on the subject…because I know and hope you would do so in friendship.

Let’s leave Elizabeth alone here. C’mon. We can do better than this, I know we can.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:28 am 43. dbust1:

“Meanwhile, the churches should reconsider their roles in authenticating marriage.…let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.”

So, what you’re saying is: let government administer civil unions and churches administer marriages? Doesn’t that go to the heart of Prop-8? Isn’t that why people were so dead set against gay MARRIAGE?

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:35 am 44. Rashputin:

I guess the student at Columbine who started praying when the Darwinian thugs approached actually did deserve to be shot for being so condescending.

You have to be pretty lame or dense one to equate physical force with selecting a confrontational place to pray. I bet you wouldn’t write the same type of article were a group of people praying on railroad tracks carrying military supplies to a port (as was done on several occasions during the Vietnam war) got roughed up by the locals.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander “gay” folks go out of their way to be both condescending and confrontational. The fact of the matter is that the “community” as a whole has very poor impulse control and a tendency towards violence. That’s what was illustrated and that’s what you’re trying to distract people’s attention from with your condescending article.

have a nice day

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:38 am 45. katoejane:

“21. VA Creole:

If I read Mrs. Scalia’s comments correctly, what she’s saying is that when confronting gay people, religious folks would better serve their cause if they connected with them on a human level rather than carrying signs and ostentatiously praying for them in public.”

Hmm – I’m confused as to how religious people peacefully praying for others or even carrying signs is any more objectionable than homosexuals having parades and open displays of their sexual orientation. Militant gays trashing a church service isn’t likely to connvince anyone that their cause is valid.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:46 am 46. cfbleachers:

ok, Guys….here is my post to Phyllis on October 5th. Have at it. And we can set Elizabeth aside for a moment.

Phyllis, I am very much aligned with you on numerous issues. Our differences are probably more semantic than fundamental. I have a few quirky ways of describing my positions, but we probably share basic agreement on most of them. For instance, I am pro-choice/anti-abortion.

I believe the greatest gift we have in this country, is the right to be spectacularly wrong, even stupid, in our personal behaviors. What separates us from totalitarian regimes and jackbooted compliance with “correct” behavior…is the individual freedom to make wrong choices.

I believe that God gave us the free will to do the same things…and it is up to us to find the right pathway…not be forced down it by the tip of a bayonet.

However, I think that abortion is a pathway littered with bad choices. Eliminating a life, snuffing out a fetus…when done for reasons that are cavalier about life itself…for leisure time convenience, when repeatedly performed as a form of irresponsible contraception, when done in late stages as the lifeform becomes recognizable…gives me great pause. I still see it as an issue between that individual and their deity…not so much a judgment call, but rather, a Judgment Day call. not in late term, which I consider criminal, by any standards

And I don’t believe that I am a grain of sand in the ocean compared to the judgment of God. I wouldn’t arrogate to myself the position of separating the saints from the sinners. Nor would I judge the free will pathways of choice.

The government has a role to play in protecting its citizens. It is a poor replacement vehicle for playing God. In matters of free will, unless the government can show a federal question and not a God question…we have to allow people to make bad choices. It is the greatest gift to us from God and it ought to be preserved as an equally great gift to Americans. The right to be spectacularly wrong on personal issues and spiritual ones.

I think the government spending a lot of time and psychic energy on those types of issues, distracts us from the things we need to concentrate on and we lose focus. I completely, respect and admire those faith-based folks who see abortion as a crime. I simply don’t see a legal way to articulate it prior to a more full term pregnancy.

I think the faith-based folks have the higher moral ground. I think their instincts toward pro-life sentiments are more appealing to the conscience. But I think that God’s gift to us of free will was intentional and that HE should make the judgment, not me or my government.

I have a similar but not exact reasoning, about gay rights. I really don’t care what any consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That may or may not be a God issue, but it certainly is not a government issue. Free will and the right to make choices about lifestyle do not become government issues, unless and until the government can clearly articulate a non-God issue reason for doing so.

I completely respect the folks who say that “marriage” is a sacrament and should remain intact as a holy bond between a man and a woman. I understand the reluctance toward watering down that holy ritual.

But, in working through the issue…it seems to me that most folks are willing to concede that committed gay couples deserve equal protections and rights to access of our national services, privileges and goods.

So, in essence… we are fighting…over…a word. Marriage. If one looks at the issue at its core, a gay couple are folks, who, for whatever reason..have a deep abiding, physical and emotional love for someone of the same gender. Who knows why this comes about, if it is a biological, chemical, chromosome, genetic imprint or other “root” reason?

For many gay persons and couples, they could no more change that trait than they could change their eye color or their height. The “choice” aspect made by most of them, is not related to BEING gay…but rather, acting upon their homosexual (rather than the more common and “accepted as normal” heterosexual) genetic characteristics.

To say it another way, they aren’t “acting gay”…they are BEING gay and choosing not to hide or secrete their “gay human condition”.

Are we to punish them for doing this? What, precisely…are we punishing them for? I think we fall away from the moral high ground if we punish them for being born with genetically gay traits. That, to me…is picking on people for who they are, and bullying them for reasons of birth, the absolute lowest form of human behavior. I believe similarly, picking on people because they are Christian, is abhorrent and despicable. Even worse, it is somehow “acceptable” to folks who consider themselves not bigoted. A ridiculous stance, if ever one existed.

Slavery of blacks, Holocausts and genocides reside in this dark side of human behavior.

We clearly cannot, MUST not legislate indefensible second class citizenship based upon a discomfort with non-heterosexual norms of behavior by consenting adults. There is no legitimate governmental interest that can be articulated for doing so. NOBODY of substance or character agrees with denial of rights for people who live a gay human condition lifestyle.

Then, what are we fighting over? A word? Marriage as a word? It is up to each religion to decide, not the government…whether they wish to allow their sacraments and rituals to include people who are born with and choose to act upon, the gay human condition.

I can’t think of another human trait or characteristic in which we would attempt to legislate a denial of entrance into society’s formalized bonding of couples. If one was born with blue eyes or brown hair? And chose not to conceal it by colored contact lenses or hair dye? How about six fingers or toes? Juvenile diabetes?

I wholly respect those folks who try hard to be open and tolerant of a broad array of melting pot cultures different from their “norms” and still have difficulty coming to a comfort level with homosexual lifestyles. It is hard for them to get comfortable with it, even though they don’t openly seek to disrespect anyone. Good people have difficulty with acceptance on this issue. It is an emotional hot button issue for many good and decent folks. I’m sure I disappoint many of the readers here on my views on abortion and on gays. I don’t apologize for working through these issues as I have, I only regret that otherwise good people might think me unwise and unworthy of their friendship because I have.

I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I’m certainly not a leftist, but I’m obviously not on the far right. I sit in the center field bleachers and watch each parry of foil and saber thrust back and forth, to and fro…and wonder why it is so lonely in these seats.

My view is that the government must LEAD on these issues, not follow. If we cannot articulate any sound reason for creating second class citizenry for folks born into the gay human condition, then we can’t in good conscience allow that sexual slavery to persist…or exist. If you believe, as I do…that BEING gay…is not where the “choice” comes in, but rather, allowing oneself to act upon their inherited human condition…then you can’t in good conscience deny them ANY access to ANY portion of our American life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. And we don’t own the word “marriage”. Certainly not enough to deny them access to it. WE need to stop picking on these folks. Today, not tomorrow.

If you believe that God has a judgment to make on their behaviors, again…I don’t see myself as a grain of sand in the ocean in capablility of replacing HIS judgment. HE gave us free will. If you believe that the exercising of behaviors in one’s gay human condition is a choice of free will, then you will come to a conclusion on how that judgment might come down. But, it’s not our place to try to replace HIS judgment…with ours. I happen to believe that God loves all HIS children. We are all born with traits and characteristics. We all have free will. Man can’t take that away. And governments shouldn’t try.

As you can see, I recoil from “one lever thinking”, in which any and all of my beliefs must first be filtered through a party line. I don’t need my food, nor my opinions, pre-masticated and regurgitated back to me like a baby bird.

But, Phyllis …I have grave concerns about the direction of this land of ours and of the fate of our alliance with Israel.

I believe that our information stream is now polluted and broken. Therefore, we not only cannot rely upon it to give us facts and news…but that it is toxic, fraudulent, and necrotic. How can we self-govern, through representative government…when those chosen to referee the matchups… are agents of deceit? When the public trust we place in them is shattered by intentional and glaring acts of shilling for one side and “gotcha” theater against the other.

If the refs are crooked, one team is not only the underdog and the other “championed”…but the loser, every single time…is the truth. And when the truth is “owned” and bent with predictable regularity to fit a “message”…I come to distrust that message.

The truth is a rock. It just stands there. It needs no construction and deconstruction. When agents of deceit chip away at it, the resulting shards cut deep into our body politic. Sen. Obama has been given a free pass. He has not been vetted properly and he has been given political cover.

Gov. Palin has been lampooned, ridiculed and “gotcha grilled”. Not once…ever…have I seen Sen. Obama presented with “gotcha grilling” type of question by Katie Couric or anyone else in the Democratic Party Media. I have tried more cases in state and federal court than Sen. Obama, Katie Couric, …and virtually any other newsperson or politician…I have written more appellate briefs and argued before higher courts more than they have.

And…if I was asked to name, on the spot…Supreme Court cases, by name…that I DISAGREED WITH…I couldn’t do it. It is a question designed to elicit humiliation, not elucidation.

When Charlie Gibson asked about the “Bush Doctrine”…I didn’t know to what, particularly…he was referring. I didn’t know it by that name. I certainly never called it that.

Yet, when Sen. Biden was asked about “intervention”…he said that he AND Sen. Obama agreed that when “we can do something about it”, and when there is “genocide”, and when someone has “a history of harboring terrorists”…then BOTH of them would be comfortable with intervention. Is that the “Obama-Biden Doctrine”?

Didn’t Saddam Hussein gas Kurds into a mass graveyard of sorrow? Didn’t he have woodchippers for political dissenters and his son have rape rooms for innocent women to be tortured and maimed for life? Didn’t he have a long history of harboring terrorists and congratulating them? Given the parameters of the “Obama-Biden Doctrine” it seems that Iraq was a primary choice. Has anyone asked them a “gotcha grill” question about it?

Has SNL done a skit repeatedly on FDR going on TV in 1929? Or on the price of arugula? A presidential seal? Where does Nancy Pelosi stand on the “fairness doctrine” when one side gets vetted and gotcha grilled and the other side gets a free pass and rigged debate questions?

I have an inclination to write a series of comments titled “I want to believe in your position, Sen. Obama on”: (Israel, taxes, foreign affairs, Iraq, mortgage meltdown/bailout, Middle America)and then go through the vetting process based upon research and information I can find. I don’t know where to place those articles, but I suspect I would put them in the comments section at Pajamas Media articles from time to time as I finish them. I believe it is necessary, because Sen. Obama has not been vetted by the DPM, in fact,…they have been shilling for him.

As it stands now, I couldn’t in good conscience recommend that anyone vote for an unvetted candidate. And, since I believe the refs are crooked, I couldn’t in good conscience root for the team that benefits from their moral bankruptcy.

I believe EVERY non-committed voter should vote AGAINST the crooked refs. Unfortunately for Sen. Obama…since they are attempting to benefit him by their acts…he should obtain no such benefit. He should lose, because the larger issue of how we govern this land of ours is at stake. And we can’t do it…if our information stream is corrupted.

EVERY thinking person of moral fiber…should demonstrate an act of will upon this fraud. McCain/Palin is the only way to make the statement. THAT is the largest issue before us and THAT is the most important one of our lifetimes. We must not reward the destruction of our information stream…because NO election from this day until eternity would be a product of informed consent. We cannot self-govern on a mountain of lies and deceit. No matter how I view any other issue…this one trumps them all.

Oct 5, 2008 – 8:34 am

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:54 am 47. Christians & Gays & Proposition 8 | The Anchoress:

[...] latest is up at Pajamas Media – my usual deathless pearls about the need for gays to man-up and act like citizens working within the confines of real democracy, and the need for Christians to find a better way to befriend them, and the past-due need for the [...]

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:55 am 48. Tex Taylor:

Ms. Scalia,

I was with you until this…

It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.

You are giving equal authority to state law vis-a-vis God’s law with this conclusion.

Concerning the issue of marriage, God clearly ordains exactly what defines marriage, and goes even further describing the idea of a homosexual marriage as an abomination. Pick the Old or New Testament; it does not matter.

Make your choice between the two opposing views.
To paraphrase the Prophet Elijah, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if the state is God, follow it.”

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:01 am 49. kelly k:

Condescension and street corner proselytizing versus actual physical violence, threats, intimidation, and attempts to ruin people’s livelihoods. Yes, those are exactly equal, aren’t they?

And it certainly isn’t like the gay community is ever condescending, separatist, and off-putting, is it? And it’s certainly not like they’ve ever given anyone a reason to dismiss them as yet another “special interest” group that has no idea how to effectively and intelligently get what they want and that, when they fail, tries to blame everyone and everything except themselves.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:06 am 50. Richard:

“Always placid mormons”?!?!?

I live in the closest thing there is to a mormon dictatorship (Utah), and believe me, when they are in the majority and get all snooty about how other people should live their lives, they are *anything* but placid. They’re just as quick to flush your individual rights and freedoms down the toilet as any other mob.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:11 am 51. Big Dave:

I have two comments

First of all I think we sometimes forget that Christ was no ordinary man. When he talked with sinners and ate with them it was because he KNEW them. He knew their thoughts, their hearts, their feelings, their fears and doubts, he saw within them something more and they could feel it. As the Messiah, He could communicate directly to their hearts, minds, and spirit in a way that no one else could. We do not have those abilities, so we pray that He will convey our hearts and feelings and love to the person we pray for. It is all we can do.

Second although we are taught to love the sinner, we are also taught to hate the sin. Anyone who asks people of faith to accept a lifestyle that flies in the face of what we believe, negates the very principals upon which faith is based. What are we supposed to except next? Murder? Incest? If we do not stand up and voice our opinion about that which we believe to be right, then what kind of disciples would we be. Some may feel that in order to be truly Christ like we have to be accepting of all. There is a difference between accepting a person as a child of God and accepting what they are doing.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:19 am 52. Donna V.:

cfbleachers:

Very well said. I don’t agree with every point Elizabeth made, but her criticisms of Christians were pretty mild. Saying that someone is unwittingly condescending is not like calling them a Christofascist or any of the other terms that are tossed around so easily by the left.

And yet Scalia gets compared to a Nazi concentration camp guard and gets savaged by “Christians” in the comments section here. She’s a conservative Catholic, for Pete’s sake, and some of you are acting no better than the heresy-hunting leftists at Daily Kos.

Really, I thought playing the victim card and attacking anybody who doesn’t toe the Party line 100% was solely a leftist phenomenon – but unfortunately, I’m seeing it’s not.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:27 am 53. Jbl:

“It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.”

This is clearly about protecting the churches from being forced to perform gay marriages or face prosecution. It seems pretty clear.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:42 am 54. Rashputin:

Richard – exactly

I’ve been laughing over that one myself. I guess some people generalize for the sake of generalization. It’s obvious, though, that history isn’t the writers’ strong point. Nor are Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular. In fact, exactly what did the writer know about anything in that piece other than her desire to call the folks praying condescending?

Regards

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:42 am 55. VA Creole:

katoejane said:

“21. VA Creole:

If I read Mrs. Scalia’s comments correctly, what she’s saying is that when confronting gay people, religious folks would better serve their cause if they connected with them on a human level rather than carrying signs and ostentatiously praying for them in public.”

Hmm – I’m confused as to how religious people peacefully praying for others or even carrying signs is any more objectionable than homosexuals having parades and open displays of their sexual orientation. Militant gays trashing a church service isn’t likely to connvince anyone that their cause is valid.
__________________
I didn’t say that praying in public and carrying signs was more objectionable than the yahoo behavior of rampaging gays (my characterization, not yours). Re-read what I wrote. I said, in so many words, that it would be tactically smarter for Christians and other people of faith to take a subtler approach by avoiding direct confrontation and defusing the gays’ “Christian-fanatics-are-after-me” rhetoric. That would constitute a kind of moral ju-jitsu, no? Read what I wrote on my blog, too, about the likely results of bad behavior on the part of the gays.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:51 am 56. Rob M.:

They pick and choose their sides, but they’re all alike…

I have serious doubts to any argument that the terms of equality can be met when we look down on those who disagree. What does it mean to judge, and furthermore, how is it that liberal gay rights advocates and peace freaks feel justified in hating those who don’t love them?

It isn’t being a Christian that makes you a target for hatred, it’s being a resident of California who isn’t gay. When people like myself can’t take their families out without being harassed by people calling me “breeder”, I know I’m not perpetrating hate, causing communication breakdowns, or facilitating emotional problems. I support families with mommies and daddies and their children. I have no problem with the lifestyles of others, and I won’t call them on their choices… but if somebody wants to create a problem with me, they will have a problem.

No matter who you are or what you happen to believe, looking down on me will never get me to see eye to eye with you. If people want to promote equality, they will only fail when they give into their childish means of wanting to hurt one another.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:10 am 57. copithorne:

Discrediting the marriage of other people is not ‘condescending.’ It is cruel. It is vicious.

Can I vote on whether your marriage is valid or not? Because it seems pretty insipid to me. If I was able to command a majority to vote that your marriage was invalid, you would know you had been punched in the face.

The days when you can bash gays and not have them fight back is over. You’ll just need to grieve the loss of that enjoyable pasttime.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:13 am 58. Bender:

It’s past time for folks to start considering the need for the churches to separate themselves from the having any authority imposed by the government – so that they can exist more freely within the Bill of Rights. It’s about protecting the churches from the reach of gay marriage laws and still exist within their own customs. Some don’t seem to be getting that.

We are at a cross-roads. Or, if you will, we are standing in the arena. We have two choices — to stand firm in the faith or to turn our backs on the faith.

Recently, it has been Catholic adoption services being pressured to adopt out to singles and gay couples.
Today, it is an evangelical dating service – e-Harmony – being compelled to making gay “love connections.”
Tomorrow, it will be Catholic pharmacists and doctors and hospitals being compelled to dispense abortion drugs and perform abortions or else close down altogether.
Many will apostacize. Some will stand firm. But we will all have to choose.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:27 am 59. robotech master:

55. VA Creole:

I fail to see your point… being subtle in a way is not only admitting that they are right but also refusing to do the right thing. If someone refuses to hire someone because their black you don’t go in and “subtlety” try to change their views… you sue their ass off. In the same case with these religious whack jobs you don’t go in and try to change their life style or views you tell them to shut the **** up and that their whiny BS isn’t going to be tolerated and that they aren’t some endanger species that gets to attack ppl and break the law because they are upset that they can’t impose their views on others…

Your view point is why groups like the KKK had free reign to commit terror on others and once again a group just like the KKK is angry because their personal little culture hasn’t been approved… these ppl need to be thrown in jail period.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:27 am 60. Jane Dyke:

Rachel Peepers needs to get some anger management – that and grow up. I think Ms. Scalia has hit the nail on the head – and I’m an out and proud woman-loving lesbian. Gay marriage being equated with civil rights movement is pissing off blacks – and rightly so. There ain’t no comparison, sweeties. Get over it and treat people with respect.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:28 am 61. Amphipolis:

Gays and Christians are saying condescending things TO EACH OTHER. Which ones choose to be violent?

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:29 am 62. Steve P.:

Marriage is not sacred in this country. We have TV shows entitled “Who wants to Marry a Millionaire”, and we have a ridiculously high divorce rate. So for those arguing that marriage is some kind of sacred institution that only some people whould be entitled to have, just know that the majority of Americans disagree with you. Apparently, most Americans either view marriage as a temporary situation or simply do not care enough about the “sanctity” of marriage to keep their own marriages alive.

But here’s the real issue: For the first time in American history, Christians are facing organized oppostion from a group that disagrees with them, and has every right to do so, and instead of thnking rationally and maturely about a solution that might benefit all groups, morons like Michelle Malkin are shrieking about how this is a Christian nation and that it’s just not fair that non-Christians should be able to promote policies that are contradict Christian ideology. Well, get used to it guys. If you want to deny an entire group of people the right to have something that you have, don’t be suprised when they fight back. Is violence ever the correct response? No, of course not, but apparently you guys didn’t get that memo during the last few thousand years when you guys were torturing and killing gays because you thought God instructed you to. So now the gays that you folks have marginalized since forever now have some power and organization, and they’re going to flex it, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost. To quote The Merchant of Venice, “The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:29 am 63. Brooklyn Dave:

Catholics and Mormons are perhaps the folks who you’d think would be less vociferous on the matter of same sex marriage. Not that either would be expected to approve of it, but because that neither would want the unnecessary spotlight on them due to the appearance of hypocrisy. Mormons, with their history of polygamy, you’d think would be a little more careful of being in the forefront of how marriage should be defined. OK, the LDS Church hasn’t allowed polygamy in many many years, but it was due to government pressure that they have changed their tune. Catholics, have another whole bag of begonias in their broomcloset….and I am not talking about pedophile priests..but something quite paralell—a large part of the RC clergy is gay. But this isn’t really about who is a hypocrite or not. Both churches have been consistent in their beliefs on the definition of marriage. The onus really is on the mtives of the gay activists. What is their real agenda? No one really wants to put them on the spot because even a legitmate inquiry will emit screams of discrimination. Their agenda is to legally enforce acceptance of the gay lifestyle and silence all criticism under penalty of legal enforcement. In street terms, if you criticize me or my actions, I’ll scream discrimination and bring your butt to court and try to castrate you by any means necessary so you will be powerless to criticize me in the future.
Of course gay activists are not directly attacking Hispanics and Blacks. They are too invested in identity politics to take that route. But those Black and Hispanic people who voted for Prop. 8–where are they to be found? In the churches. But gay activists are not targeting the right churches. They really could kill two birds with one stone except that their petrified liberal minds won’t let them do that. Why not picket a black church in Watts or a Pentacostal Hispanic Church in E. Los Angeles or the Mission. One thing I will say about Hispanics; even though they are still largely Catholic by birth and tradition…they are not the type of people who would be politically pro-active. Hispanics in the Pentacostal churches would be much more so inclined. So the gay activists are playing it safe by picketing Mormon temples and slime slinging at the Catholic church with whom they have traditional animosity and who for the most part will not defend themselves with a broad sword, but a butter knife.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:31 am 64. SeanLA:

The supreme court of CA is about to overrule the electorate.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue your vote does not matter.

what happened to government by the people?

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:32 am 65. Donna V.:

Can I vote on whether your marriage is valid or not?

Er, you’re nicely ignoring the fact that hetrosexual marriage has been recognized as the societal norm since the dawn of history, while gay marriage has not. I don’t recall it even being considered in the 1970’s – most of the gays I knew then scoffed at the whole idea of marriage as something boring straight people did.

Like I said earlier, my qualms about Prop 8 have to do with the fact that I doubt very much that gays would be satisfied with civil recognition of marriage. I can easily imagine the next step being lawsuits to force various religious communities to marry gays.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:35 am 66. mnotaro:

I am shocked to see such hatred and frightening, malicious anger from a group of people who want to be treated just like everyone else and who just want to be accepted and don’t want to be discriminated against…but isn’t that what they are doing to the Prop 8 supporters? The liberal illuminati are all about civil rights–only when it fits in with their agenda, and if it doesn’t then the right to have an opinion is apparently not allowed to be heard?!!!

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:42 am 67. kelly k:

Steve P:

1) Please provide specific examples of Christians, as an organization, e.g., the Catholic Church, torturing and murdering gays.

2) I think you really, really missed the point of Shylock.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:43 am 68. BMoon:

The moral relativists are entirely missing the point, which is understandable, since they have by definition erased a large portion of their minds – the basis of distinction between right and wrong. A little history lesson:

Making something “law” never justifies it. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew this when he wrote from a Birmingham jail, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Failing that, the law is contemptible.

The word “right” is maligned by every group wishing to impose it’s agaenda on the rest of humanity. Slaveholders claimed to have a “right” to own slaves. Lawyers, and even churches backed them up with creative Scripture-twisting and legalese. In 1841, arguing before the Supreme Court, former President John Quincy Adams defended the African slaves on the Amistad, who stood accused of piracy and murder. Pointing to the Declaration of Independence on one pillar of the courtroom, he rightly argued that slavery was against “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Whether homosexual marriage is ever made law or not, it will never be right. But we had best make law like our wiser forefathers did – on God’s laws, or we all will suffer for it in inumerous, multi-factede, and long-term ways.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:46 am 69. Bender:

It is only in the issue of marriage that church and state have commingled authority. That should perhaps change, and soon. Let the government certify and the churches sanctify according to their rites and sacraments.

That is an attractive argument, especially the last sentence. But the problem is the use of the word “marriage” in the first sentence.

“Marriage” is not a malleable concept, “marriage” is not like the word “is.” There is a truth about marriage. And the truth of marriage is that it necessarily involves two types of persons uniting into one, namely, a Man and a Woman. It is not a matter of opinion. It is not a matter of preference. It is not a matter of human invention or reinvention. It is what it is, and that’s all it is. It cannot be something that it is not, and still be what it is. Marriage is the union of a man and woman, and only a man and a woman. Period. Marriage is a truth, not an opinion, even in these dictatorial relativistic times.

Now, government may very well be able to certify joinders of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, or men and men and women, but whatever that union might be, it is not, it cannot ever be, “marriage.”

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:47 am 70. Jbl:

“The supreme court of CA is about to overrule the electorate.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue your vote does not matter.”

That is actually a bigger and more troubling problem than anything else. If the courts overturn the vote, it will create an enormous gulf of distrust and resentment. They’d be overstepping their scope.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:52 am 71. robotech master:

62. Steve P.: To quote The Merchant of Venice, “The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”

I know Steve P… I know you are religious nut jobs out to enforce your religion on everyone else… anyone with eyes can see this… and ppl like me who are atheist have had enough of your kind of religious enforcement. You are the very thing you claim to fight against and hate….

63. Brooklyn Dave:

Spot on. ppl like steve P would try to force schools and so forth to teach their life style and impose their views on others… If you don’t agree the gay government sanction church will throw you in jail(just like they did back during the spainish inquisitions) what next KKK and neo-nazi recruiting classes as well…

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:55 am 72. locomotivebreath1901:

“The Anchoress is Catholic, but I love her anyways.”

I use that rejoinder to close many of my posts which link her writings. I find her to be witty,

insightful, and far more talented than I’ll ever be.

I say this as rough hewn oak baptist to show that we have more in common than history or doctrine would suggest.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd and he has many different sheep.

But what happens when the goats demand to be counted as sheep?

There’s a visceral reaction; a vestige to vanquish vice.

WWJD is a common – sometimes pejorative – comment anymore. But Jesus already did, on Calvary; and in the temple with the money changers; and in public square with the pharisee; and in the town with those who wished to cast the first stone.

True, Jesus did join others in the community, first. But he also ‘whipped a little faith on them, whether they wanted it or not’.

It’s what enraged the pharisees and terrified the money changers and defused the stoners.

But what was the admonition to the adultress? Go, and sin no more.

Alas, we don’t call sin, sin anymore. “It’s lifestyle. It’s choice. It’s relative. Don’t judge me.”

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re in your face.” The goats demand to be counted as sheep. Yes, there is a difference.

Let not relativism rule the day and steal your conscience. Tolerance may engender respect, but be careful what you applaud.

It’s not a healthy ‘lifestyle’. The CDC consistently list homosexuals as the group most at risk for depression, drug use, partner abuse, STDs, and suicide.

Why are we, as a society, so h3ll bent on condoning and facilitating a behavior that is clinically proven to be so self-destructive, that we even now want to give it legal sanction??

Sin takes it toll, and price will always be paid. In this life and the next.

Why do we so easily dismiss that eternal Truth? Because proselytizing upsets them?

These people need compassion & help; not enablers.

“The Anchoress is Catholic, but I love her anyways.”

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:00 am 73. Ms Attitude:

62. Steve P.: People need to realize that this is not an us against them issue. I am a Christian and I don’t think the government has a right to tell a gay couple they cannot marry. I don’t want my church marrying gay couples. These are two different areas…one is state the other is church. Seperate! I don’t want this to come to a head and have the federal government make it a law that if my church doesn’t marry gays my church will have to pay a fine or whatever.

I am not the type of Christian who will go into an area that views me as the enemy and stand on their street corners and pray. I will pray in private. I am the Christian who sees another human being, an individual that God created, and give the person unconditional love. My favorite song when I was little had the line, “and they’ll know we are Christians by our love!”

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:05 am 74. Suzi:

How dare you compare Christians PRAYING FOR others with what has been wrought on the Christian community since this vote? And how DARE YOU even begin to suppose what “Jesus would do”. You are showing alot about your ‘faith’ and ‘Christian walk’ when you make these statements…and your knowledge (or lack thereof) on what ‘marriage’ means/is. The state DOES already offer a counterpart to ‘unions’. In fact, most ‘marriages’ by heterosexuals are not ’sanctified Holy Unions’. We’ve just gotten into a snare of using a word so loosely that we’ve forgotten (or never known) it’s meaning. Marriage was created by God. Marriage is the sacrement that binds two to become one, in the way that MAN and WOMAN have become one physically, emotionally, and spiritually. There is nothing stopping gay people from seeking a Civil Union, renting a hall, hiring a DJ, getting a caterer, doing their own ceremony (or even going to one of the many ‘churches’ who support them) and having their ‘wedding’. NOTHING is being taken from them. THEY want to take from the CHURCH. It is obvious that this whole issue is an attack on the Church. These people don’t even realize that…they just see an outlet for their anger. But then, with people like you quanitfying their actions, it’s not a surprise that they do this. Again, HOW DARE YOU!! And SHAME on you. *an added tsk tsk too*

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:10 am 75. Suzi:

Amen to #69 Bender! Perfect! That is the point. You can call something anything you like, but what it IS cannot be changed. People forget that in life, if you want something, honestly and truthfully, you gotta follow the rules. When something belongs to someone else, you cannot just TAKE it. You may have something of your own…and make it whatever you want…just don’t assume it will be the same.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:14 am 76. MylesJ:

JESUS HATES YOU – that would be the worst thing you could say to somebody. The problem is that I have heard and have seen “good Christians” scream that into the faces of gay and lesbian citizens of our country.

Where is the peace, love, and joyful understanding in that?

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:25 am 77. cfbleachers:

So who owns the word “marriage”? Are there other words I can buy, or are there restrictions to only buying vowels from Vanna for some folks?

If your religion says marriage is only “this”, and her religion says marriage is also “that”, do we have a battle of the Bibles and scriptures and call in ancient language translators?

There is a moral clarity in the pronouncements of what the “truth” is, but if that’s the case…then only the followers of that scripture should be allowed full citizenship here. The rest are only here upon the generosity and whim of those who own the “words”.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:29 am 78. Leigh Thelmadatter:

Although a mere note at the end… the idea of separating legal and religious “marriage” is really the best idea of the whole article. No mainstream church I know has a religious divorce, but Wicca (my religion by the way) does have a “handparting” ceremony which would be the equivalent. No one, including me, would think it a good idea to ask the State to accept the legality of such a rite.

The legal and religious comingling of the notion of “marriage” was fine as long as the religious and secular view of the two did not clash. It is obvious that now they do. Time to separate them. However, it is only part of the solution. Having all couples, gay or straight, have civil unions takes away the “inequality” for gays and takes away the legal word “marriage” for gay unions for those whose religion cannot abide with such an idea. However, then we have to decide what a “civil union” is, why we have them and who is legally eligible to enter into such.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:34 am 79. Douglas Bogle:

Never fear Obama is here.

The change has begun. The people speak and the government ignores them. All for the need to be PC, oh and the $.

Supreme courts are jokes. Start laughing now, your freedom has been lost.

Never fear Obama is here.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:47 am 80. Jbl:

“marriage was instituted by God…”

So was Baptism. The State has nothing to do with that, either.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:48 am 81. Donna V.:

“Jesus Hates You” is indeed the worst thing you could say to somebody – much worse than being condescending. But really, how many are saying that outside of Fred Phelp’s wacko church? That crew is about as representative of “good Christians” as Jeffrey Dahmer was of gays.

The problem is that when many Christians say “We don’t want to kill you or take away your livelihood or make you live in ghettos. However, we believe marriage should be between a man and a woman” many gays hear “Jesus Hates You!”

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:50 am 82. Wahine:

#51 Big Dave has said it best. And BMoon – #22,#67 – has made valuable contributions to this thread.

I would only add that, while no biblical scholar am I, it always seemed to me that Christ simply spoke the power of Truth both in the Temple and as He traveled about. He didn’t choose people, they chose Him. They wanted to be healed.

To those in His audience, they either heard the Truth, or they rejected it. It either broke their hearts, already made ready to receive it; or it angered them, and they sought to silence Him.

If I read BMoon correctly, his heart was ready to receive Christ. How wonderful he knows the loving arms of our Lord.

We are either drawn to Truth or not. But we cannot choose unless the Truth be heard.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:55 am 83. Ms Attitude:

I have reread the article and all of the comments. I have commented twice already myself and they already say what my views are on this matter.

I have a question….is the gay community wanting to make being gay a federal government issue?

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:59 am 84. Bender:

I know that this is hard to believe ever since the age of Clinton, but words do mean things.

But the very fact that the ever-militant gay brown shirts have rejected the attempt at compromise that is known as the “civil union” only goes to show that they are not really interested in gaining legal protections for themselves, they are not about expanding or protecting civil rights — they are only about DESTROYING existing institutions, especially the institutions that are the family and the church.

It is time that we all saw through the fraud.

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:13 pm 85. MarkFradl:

Ms. Scalia,

It’s sad to see how you are being attacked for daring – DARING!! – to propose that people with opposing views stop yelling at each other and start talking with each other. Although you and I are politically polar opposites, I applaud you calling out those who would criticize the Mormons yet not dare stand up against mosques or urban storefront churches. And I also appreciate hearing you talk of the need for Christians to establish fellowship and communication with people instead of just self-righteously praying at them. So sad that it’s rare to hear a Christian talk of such Christian values (I think that reflects which Christians gain the media spotlight, and is not indicative of Christians in general.)

I do love how so many of the responses reflect this idea that Christians are somehow a persecuted minority in this country. There are thousands of churches all over the country, they all receive tax-exempt status, and no one can be elected in this country without proving their fealty to a mono-theistic religion. Meanwhile, in large swaths of this country two men walking down the street holding hands risk being beaten to death. Who’s struggling under the weight of persecution?

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:18 pm 86. Brooklyn Dave:

The problem also is that many people think everything is a right. The Supreme Court would be better if it had stuck to the idea that such & such will be allowed by law rather declaring such & such a right…of course I am referring to Roe v. Wade (the only thing I believe should have been decided in that case was should a woman seeking an abortion be prosecuted, not declaring the right to an abortion). When something is allowed or disallowed by law it can be changed much more easily than when something is declared by the Supreme Court as a right. Society has the right (darn it, there goes that word again) to set the boundaries or remove the boundaries through their elected repesentatives or by referenda—not by judges.

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:21 pm 87. Aureliano:

Meanwhile, in large swaths of this country two men walking down the street holding hands risk being beaten to death.

Yeah right.

Geez, is there ANYBODY who supports same-sex marriage who doesn’t have a cartoonish, Hollywood view of their countrymen?

Stop being such a drama queen.

And go see a therapist.

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:33 pm 88. Wahine:

There is no greater marriage than the one our hearts enter into with Christ.

It happens when we’re finally obedient to that “first and greatest commandment.” When we’re no longer adulterers, when we have no other love but for Him.

When that union is made, Truth is no longer a mystery.

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:37 pm 89. momof3:

When will people stop blaming christians for this? This law passed because minorities voted for it, while they were out voting for Obama. Period. Go protest against that, if you want. Christians do not have to accept that 6% of the US (roughly) can tell the other 94% how life is going to be, because they want it that way. Gays are not denied rights. They can do anything any US citizen can do: they can have sex with any consenting non-related of-age partner they please. And they can marry any consenting, non-related, of-age mentally sound person of the opposite gender. No one ever says anything about love. It’s not encoded in law, and it’s not a right.

Marriage benefits the state by encouraging stable parenting units to have and raise the next generation. Gay marriage simply doesn’t fit this “benefit to the state” requirement. Therefor the state has no reason to have it nor should it be forced to.

If, as some commenter stated above, religious institutions are on the way out, american is in big trouble, and not just for our souls. Religious people, privately, give the most money philanthropically (read Who Really Gives). Far more than liberals who preach so loudly about the poor needing help. Religions run most hospitals. Most orphanages. Most homeless shelters. Most aid-the-poor networks. And if you think the state can pick up that slack, check out just how well the state is doing at educating our children first. Do you want that level of competence running everything in the country? I doubt it.

Gay people need to realize how good they have it and quite whining. If they worried more about being good citizens, productive and upstanding, and less about parading in thongs, people would not care if they married or not, even if it is wrong. AFter all, no one gets away with as much as the “good kid”.

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:05 pm 90. Cackcon:

Not that Ms. Scalia’s article particularly deserved it, but I responded with a blog post on my site.

Key question for Ms. Scalia: what prayer did Jesus state publicly as He was hanging on the cross?

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:12 pm 91. Steve P.:

kelly k: “Please provide specific examples of Christians, as an organization, e.g., the Catholic Church, torturing and murdering gays.”

Okay, how ’bout The Inquisition?

kelly k: “I think you really, really missed the point of Shylock.”

Shylock was an anti-hero created to show, in part, how anti-Semitism in Europe had created a class of angry and vengeful outsiders. As Shylock pointed out himself countless times throughout the play, Shylock only sought acceptance and friendship, but instead got abuse and derision from his Christian business partners. It was Christian hate that led Shylock to seek vengeance, which in turn caused his ultimate downfall. So please explain to me how I “missed the point of Shylock?”

robotech master: “I know Steve P… I know you are religious nut jobs out to enforce your religion on everyone else… anyone with eyes can see this… and ppl like me who are atheist have had enough of your kind of religious enforcement. You are the very thing you claim to fight against and hate….”

Whaaa? did you even read my post?

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:22 pm 92. Elizabeth Scalia:

I anticipated annoying both the gays and the Christians with this piece, although I frankly expected more heat (and more high drama) from the gay community, which I referred to as “cowardly” than from the Christians whom I merely suggested were “unintentionally condescending.” Instead, the Christians are doing most of the howling and I don’t see where it helps destroy the caricature that too many already hold of us.

I understand why Christians are feeling a bit thin-skinned these days, but it seems to me there is little cause in what I wrote for all of this hysteria.

I never said Christians should not approach the gay community, I simply suggested that there are better ways to do it – ways that help both sides see each other as human beings and not “opposing factions” – than what the Christians were trying.

To my way of thinking, and perhaps this is simply more of a Catholic instinct than an Evangelical one, setting up a corner with free coffee and inviting folks to come talk and pray together would seem more productive. I’d rather talk and pray with someone who disagrees with me – taking them completely as they are in their life – and hoping the Holy Spirit then uses that opportunity (or a thousand such chances, if that is what it takes) to attract someone toward better knowing-and-loving Christ, than simply standing there praying for them which, no matter how well I intend it, would probably seem too much like judgment to be productive. But clearly others feel differently.

My last paragraph was really where I had hoped the conversation would head, because I think it’s one we need to be having. Language is an issue here, so are basic civil rights. Believers have a fundamental, explicitly named, right to freedom of worship without the interference or oppression of the government.

It is very clear that in our post-Christian, secularist era, the churches are coming under increasing pressure to conform to the age (which is never the job of the church) or face cease to function in public. Currently churches work as as government-authorized agents capable of legalizing unions, and as long as they are doing so, they are opening themselves up to government intervention in their workings.

In suggesting that the government stick to its job of certifying and the church stick to its role as sanctify-er, I’m suggesting a means by which – for a while, at least – the churches can avoid the crippling lawsuits that are looming down the road. I’m trying to take the long view on that aspect.

I’m also trying to urge a mutually respectful POV in these street confrontations. Gays need to respect the fact that not everyone agrees with them and that “tolerance” does not mean “celebrate and endorse.” Christians need to find a way to present Christ to their neighbors that emphasizes Divine Love, not human failing. In my experience, anyway, shouting “Jesus loves you” at someone is nowhere near as productive as “being” the love of Jesus to someone else.

Or, as St. Francis of Assisi is supposed to have said, “Preach the gospel; use words if necessary.”

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:29 pm 93. kelly k:

“which in turn caused his ultimate downfall”

That would be missing the point about Shylock, professor. It ultimately caused HIS downfall.

And again, please be specific about incidents during the Inquisitions in which Christians, acting as an organization, tortured and murdered gay people. Don’t just try to throw “the Inquisition!!!!!” out there like it answers the question.

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:47 pm 94. robotech master:

91. Steve P.:

Did you even read what you posted… or what you post there… you understand as a atheist that ppl like me have suffered just as much as gays and in some cases worse because many many cultures didn’t have a problems with gays throughout history yet atheist have been hated throughout pretty much every culture during all the history. You ask for the same “privilege” that Christians had… the “privilege” of forcing everyone to believe what you say and to attack and persecute those that don’t agree with you… you somehow feel entitled to this right and plain on attacking ppl like me with your false gods… I will not tolerant seeing another religious fundamentalist group take charge on its quest to oppress everyone and everything it sees as a threat to spreading his views to the corners of the world… most of all that group trying to take power in the US which is suppose to be free of your kind religious bigotry…

Nov 20, 2008 - 1:49 pm 95. Donna V.:

kelly k: “Please provide specific examples of Christians, as an organization, e.g., the Catholic Church, torturing and murdering gays.”

Okay, how ’bout The Inquisition?

Steve, the Inquisition didn’t happen last week Friday. If the Vatican starts toppling walls on gays or jailing them (which happens to gays in Islamic countries right now), I’ll be right next to you at the protest.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:01 pm 96. Steve P.:

robotech master: “Did you even read what you posted… or what you post there… you understand as a atheist that ppl like me have suffered just as much as gays and in some cases worse because many many cultures didn’t have a problems with gays throughout history yet atheist have been hated throughout pretty much every culture during all the history. You ask for the same “privilege” that Christians had… the “privilege” of forcing everyone to believe what you say and to attack and persecute those that don’t agree with you… you somehow feel entitled to this right and plain on attacking ppl like me with your false gods… I will not tolerant seeing another religious fundamentalist group take charge on its quest to oppress everyone and everything it sees as a threat to spreading his views to the corners of the world… most of all that group trying to take power in the US which is suppose to be free of your kind religious bigotry…”

Man, if you want to be atheist, that’s totally cool with me. I don’t want to force anything on anyone. I just think it’s ridiculous to prevent gays from having the same rights as anyone else, just as i think it’s ridiculous to try to force athiests to believe in God or gods if they don’t want to. I think the only way we’re going to have a functioning society and unified country is if we learn to agree that all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, race, gender and orientation should be afforded the same rights and dignities that the people on this board enjoy. Except for Nihilists. Nihilists are idiots.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:07 pm 97. BMoon:

Elizabeth,

Christ presented love to a woman who was sleeping around by first pointing at the fact that she was sleeping around her whole life (Jn 4). It is the awareness of sin that first awakens the need for Christ and His love. (many Scriptures here I won’t cite.) This is precisely what gays do – looking for love in all the wrong places. To repeat (in case you didn’t get it or wanted to bypass my post) – as it was in the case of ex-abortionist Bernard Nathanson and bold Christians on the street, as it was in my case with my sexual confusion and woundedness, it was people on the street confronting in love that truly helped us. As is so lacking today, you have to have the moral clarity, the boldness, and yes, the love to confront and say that to people. Frankly, we need to say “Jesus loves you, as well as be it,” a bit of Savanorola or Bishop Sheen, as well as Francis of Assisi.

I know it is not the trendy thing in the post-modernistic, emergengent whatever menatlity being sold today for the church, and we Christians who are a bit more active in preaching the gospel, will always get disparaged by those like yourself, but nevertheless, it is the Jesus way and it is more effective than the hand-wringing, faithless, lukewarm, passive, whatever approach.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:08 pm 98. Tom:

Elizabeth,

Don’t ever try to compare Christians to those gay thugs I see on TV and those I’ve seen on local news. I’m a practicing Catholic from Sunnyvale, CA and lived there for 35 years. I have an uncle who is gay, one who was gay and died of AIDS (and it wasn’t from a blood transfusion).

Don’t say your Catholic, and then denigrate the efforts of other Christians.

How many souls have you saved? Have you ever once tried to counsel a man caught up in the sin of gay sodomy? Are you one of those Catholics who betrayed your Faith by voting for Obama despite what the Catechism says?

My guess? You’re not Catholic or Christian.

Let the rest of us Christians do the heavy lifting. You stay at Starbucks on your laptop, comparing Christians to militant violent gays.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:10 pm 99. Steve P.:

Donna V. says:”Steve, the Inquisition didn’t happen last week Friday. If the Vatican starts toppling walls on gays or jailing them (which happens to gays in Islamic countries right now), I’ll be right next to you at the protest.”

Kelly k. asked for an example and I presented one. She didn’t specify a time period.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:13 pm 100. kelly k:

Steve P: No, you did not present an example of Christians murdering and torturing gay people because they were gay. You said, “…the Inquisition,” which is meaningless. When did the Inquisition (Spanish or otherwise) of the Roman Catholic Church torture and murder gay people? Do you understand what the Inquisition was? If the torture and murder of gays was so common and widespread, why can you not provide a single example of it happening (time and place)????

You have no idea what you’re talking about. If you could even define “inquisition” without frantically consulting Wikipedia, I’d be shocked. You just thought that you could throw that accusation out there and get away with it.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:36 pm 101. Steve P.:

kelly k: “That would be missing the point about Shylock, professor. It ultimately caused HIS downfall.”

So you’re arguing that “the point about Shylock” is that he was punished by Christians for returning the same hate that they first showed him? What kind of point is that? That’s not the point, that’s just the ending, “professor”

And again, please be specific about incidents during the Inquisitions in which Christians, acting as an organization, tortured and murdered gay people. Don’t just try to throw “the Inquisition!!!!!” out there like it answers the question.

In Spain alone, Between 1571 and 1579 more than 100 men were torturedand at least 36 were executed; in total, between 1570 and 1630 there were 534 “trials” and 102 executions. And “trials” made waterboarding look like the Tea Cup Ride at Disneyland.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:36 pm 102. Donna V.:

Steve P.

The Inquisition’s main targets were heretics, not gays. The people who suffered the most were Jews, particularly “conversos,” baptised Jews suspected of continuing to practice Judaism in secret.

Throughout most of human history (and not just Western Christian history), homosexuals were held to be sexual deviants and so when persecutions primarily directed at others occurred they were swept up in it. (And I suspect many people accused of being homosexual might not have been, just as most women accused of being witches were not actually witches. Sexual abnormality was just another horrendous charge to be hurled at someone who was condemned to death for other reasons.)

Again, it’s not just a specifically Christian hangup, although some gays clearly think so. Homosexuals suffered greatly during the Cultural Revolution in China (to say nothing about how Castro has treated them). I’m sure it wasn’t because Mao cared about what Leviticus said.

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:15 pm 103. log cabin:

As a gay libertarian conservative who has participated in street protests in recent weeks, I’d like to thank Elizabeth for the article. First of all, we agree what needs to happen. The state and church need to go about their business separately.

Now,

there is a problem with gays selectively finding enemies. Much of this has to do with political correctness and a “no enemies on the left” mentality that’s unfortunately too common, it’s also been a factor in the absence of any widespread and open reaction against the gay lobby organization Human Rights Campaign — which at this point is basically a selfish and bloated interest group within the Democratic Party. These are real self-criticisms gays have been reluctant to address, and a lot of anger has been directed elsewhere; some rightly some wrongly.

Nevertheless, that’s real anger. The Christians standing on the street corner in the Castro (confronted just after the bars closed, I think?) come across as -very- antagonistic, which you’re right to bring up. But, frankly, hoping gays to cool it might be wise advice, but I don’t think it’s very likely to happen. People are fed up. And it’s utterly ridiculous that a slim majority of the state of California can strip equality from a minority — this is the worst kind of majority rule that the American founders sought to avoid. The anger now is anger at being deprived of human dignity, but also anger (beneath the surface, at least) at their own lack of progress and the overly cautious and lukewarm attitude of gay organizations that claim to speak for us.

In my view, the emphasis on “tolerance” is misguided and part of the political correct language that is weaved throughout the left. What I want is equality and dignity under the law. I couldn’t care less if someone does not like me because I’m gay, it’s their loss and not my business. I also don’t see the sense in going after matchmaking web sites that exclude gays, since there are plenty of competitive alternatives in our free market capitalist system.

And I’m venting. But please anyone reading this understand that there’s a lot of pent-up anger right now that comes from being excluded and marginalized from society (and I say this as someone who grew up in the conservative South, not coastal California). Lashing out at some demonstrators on a street corner is not a wise thing to do, period. But if I was there, I don’t think I could have resisted from joining in. And that’s something that gives me pause.

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:29 pm 104. robotech master:

Steve P are you retarded or something… no one has a problem with gays being gays… the problem is that your trying to create a government sanctioned church that approves of your false gods and oppresses the rest of us with those false gods… marriage is not a right and even if it was a right gays aren’t being denied it anyway. If you believe marriage is a right that gays have then must also believe killing gays is a right every christian has.

What you ppl fail to understand is you are no different then groups like the KKK and so forth… just because your views are different from their doesn’t mean you don’t use your views to oppress ppl and groups just like they did… and in many way your worse because you veil yourself in this pretend civil rights argument…

You even admit repeatably that your end goal is to oppress ppl just like shylock…

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:30 pm 105. kelly k:

The point about Shylock is that his need for vengeance led to his own downfall.

And congratulations on digging up the Black Legend. That’s some kind of scholarship.

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:42 pm 106. kelly k:

Donna V, thanks for your cogent answer. It’s also notable that homosexuality (like witchcraft) was against *civil* law throughout most of Europe until modern times. The idea that the Church waged a targeted campaign to round up, torture, and murder gays is absurd, much less that they spent “thousands of years” doing it.

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:50 pm 107. log cabin:

“When will people stop blaming christians for this? This law passed because minorities voted for it, while they were out voting for Obama. Period. Go protest against that, if you want. Christians do not have to accept that 6% of the US (roughly) can tell the other 94% how life is going to be, because they want it that way. Gays are not denied rights. They can do anything any US citizen can do: they can have sex with any consenting non-related of-age partner they please. And they can marry any consenting, non-related, of-age mentally sound person of the opposite gender. No one ever says anything about love. It’s not encoded in law, and it’s not a right.”

momof3,

This is absurd on its face. It’s true that blacks and Hispanics generally voted for the Cali amendment, and gays should direct their criticism accordingly. However, most people who voted for the amendment were white and Christian. It’s nonsense to say the fault lays solely with blacks considering the substantial numbers of white Christians who turned out to vote. I can’t really put it any other way.

And your views on how well gays have it shows a deep ignorance of the actual situation. Gays are excluded and marginalized in many sectors of American life, from the military, from employment (especially in blue collar jobs such as construction and other manual labor jobs), the military, along with hundreds of laws relating to tax benefits, fees, adoption and housing.

“Gay people need to realize how good they have it and quite whining. If they worried more about being good citizens, productive and upstanding, and less about parading in thongs, people would not care if they married or not, even if it is wrong. AFter all, no one gets away with as much as the ‘good kid’.”

It’s curious and somewhat troubling that so much of the anger is directed at gay men, when lesbians have been at the forefront of the gay rights movement. Always have been. I think it’s probably because of a common visceral surface revulsion at male intimacy and sexuality — men in thongs. It ignores the fact that lesbian couples have longer and more stable relationships than straight male-female couples. It’s a curious hypocrisy to ignore them.

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:50 pm 108. mk:

Hmm, why doesn’t the gay community go to Iran and try the same stuff against Muslims?

Christians are easy targets considering they won’t hang or stone you for being gay. Of course, I’m sure gay folks are “marginalized” by the praying, instead of the stoning…

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:51 pm 109. log cabin:

mk,

It bothers me that many gays on the left in America and Europe save their criticism for the “tyrannical regime” of George Bush than countries where gays are actually being hunted down and murdered by the authorities. I do think Islam is a greater threat to gays, globally, than Christianity. Nevertheless, that does not mean that gays do not have an obligation to fight against hatred and clerical bullying in whatever guise it takes, at home or abroad.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:10 pm 110. log cabin:

I’ll put it this way:

As much as I support the War on Terror, Bush made a mistake when he characterized the struggle as (and I’m paraphrasing) a conflict that can either take place “over here or over there.” It’s either everywhere or nowhere. And if it’s everywhere, then it’s right here.

Religious extremism in all forms, regardless if it takes a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist form, is a threat to the principles of American liberty and equality.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:16 pm 111. Mitchell:

Tom your comments are unfair and cruel, Elisabeth had a brother who was gay and died from aids, she has part of her profits go to the hospice who cared for her brother in his last days. she spent most of her time with him at the end caring for him and still grieves for the brother she loved so very deeply, and misses so terribly, just thought you should know that.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:22 pm 112. Christians and Gays Behaving Badly « Claridon Christian Fellowship:

[...] November 20, 2008 by zoelavie Pajamas Media » Christians and Gays Behaving Badly [...]

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:32 pm 113. Knights13:

“Religious extremism in all forms, regardless if it takes a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist form, is a threat to the principles of American liberty and equality.”

Any kind of extrimism is a danger to people’s liberties. Government is a threat to people’s liberties since they always come up with new rules which in turn infringe on your liberties. Special interest groups are a pain in your pockets. They will take your equality and your money and call this fair. See; liberties and equalities are not a religious problem. Most wars in history are not caused by religion.

I’m just wondering how you find religion as the major problem?

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:33 pm 114. Rachel Peepers:

Dave R:

“PS unless you have actually lived in an area where people gather to sing and whatever for a cause, you have NO idea how disruptive it is and rarely generates good feelings towards or a desire to listen to them.”

Dave R, apparently you didn’t live in the 60’s.

In the 60’s, African Americans, all over the country, of all stripes, sang to the world, “We shall overcome”.

Ever hear of that?

That singing echoed to people far and wide that an injustice of biblical proportions had been, was still being visited on African Americans.

It had to be acknowledged, vilified, rectified. Someday I hope it is.

Injustice born of slavery, in my mind, is evil incarnate. If you don’t like the idea, for whatever reason, of Obama being elected President, and the fact that almost all blacks voted for him, don’t blame it on the voters. Blame it on the slave holders. And those who still hold shamefully racist views.

I, personally, am a Bush backing, McCain respecting, Palin loving consersative who is sickened by the history of the treatment of blacks. Who, like my Uncle forced Germans to visit the concentration camps after WW II and view what they denied knowing about, and what their country did, believes whites in this country need to drive through the horror and poverty in America, from the Bronx in NY to the culture of poverty in Kansas City to the unmitigated poverty in east LA. Then you’ll know one of the reasons why Obama was elected.

My feelings of injustice visited on African Americans, however, as you can easily tell, doesn’t extend to gay America. Maybe that’s a character flaw in me. Maybe I make distinctions, simply have no compassion for gayness because I believe it’s wrong. If polyandrics demonstrated, I’d view them through the same prism as gays. If pedophiles demonstated, my hostility level would raise. If abortionists demonstrated, I’d denounce them.

Maybe I was too hard on Elizabeth Scalia, though about all I’d take back in the piece I wrote is the typo I made.

My problem with those who disagreed with my angry rant has nothing to do with cracks about needing anger management classes. Or anything like that. My problem is you tend to be so sure of yourselves. Somehow somebody gave you the intelligence and insight to be right. That’s where you and I part company. Not that I don’t respect differing viewpoints. And I do. I just wish I could be so sure about everything.

I just noticed in post number 92 that Ms. Scalia explains herself a bit. She loses me, though, when she characterizes Christians like dogs (the word howling wasn’t subtle enough to mask her feelings of distain.)Then she talks about Christians being too thin-skinned. (over sensitive).

Oh, I get it. It’s our fault for misinterpreting what you’ve written, Elizabeth.

“There is little cause for all this hysteria”, Elizabeth says.

Hysteria. Do you have any idea what that means? If you do, how do you justify using that word? Was it hyperbole?If so, you could have fooled me.

Elizabeth, on second thought, I take it back about you not being a good writer. I think you’d fit in fine at the New York Times or Washington Post, places where your biases can run rampant without some hysterical editor reining you in.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:38 pm 115. Chery:

So Catholic of you to stand above it all and pronounce judgement on both of the “lesser” two groups. Perhaps the condescension, as you put it, is actually conviction to you. Maybe you should have the courage to do something like pray in their midst instead of writing self-righteous articles
about condescending “fools” praying in the thick of thugs.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:26 pm 116. log cabin:

“Any kind of extrimism is a danger to people’s liberties. Government is a threat to people’s liberties since they always come up with new rules which in turn infringe on your liberties. Special interest groups are a pain in your pockets. They will take your equality and your money and call this fair. See; liberties and equalities are not a religious problem. Most wars in history are not caused by religion.

I’m just wondering how you find religion as the major problem?”

I think people should be able to practice their religion freely without coercion by the government. Therefore, I think churches should be able to marry who they wish, or deny marriage ceremonies as they see it.

I also oppose religious influence in the government. For two reasons. The first is that churches are human institutions and are as vulnerable to corruption as government. If involved in government, churches will invariably seek to attain worldy, secular power. See Pastor Hagee’s endorsement of John McCain, for example. McCain is rather moderate when it comes to social conservatism, especially compared to McCain’s Republican opponents during the primary season. But Hagee sought and seeks power for its own sake, to enhance himself. I find that deeply troubling.

Secondly, religious influence in the government corrupts government, and necessitates growth in government in order to make and enforce religious laws. The belief I’m talking about isn’t Christian, necessarily, but a political religion, or ideology, that calls itself Christian. It’s a religion that dictates politics and that politics should dictate laws, for Christians and non-Christians. There’s really no two ways about it, that kind of influences will necessarily restrict liberty — and it’s the same impulse, if different in practice, as the Islamists in control of Iran or engaging in the destruction of Iraqi civil society and the killings of US servicemembers. The thugs and bandits doing that see no distinction between religion and politics. To them, the two are relentlessly linked.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:55 pm 117. log cabin:

Now you might ask, why are gays protesting churches? The simple answer to this question is that the Mormon church, the LDS, raised and spent $20 million on a campaign in California to ban gay marriage. Should gays also protest black protestant churches that encouraged members to ban gay marraige? Yes, probably. But the LDS church, once it got involved in politics to this level, by bankrolling an amendment to the California constitution, can no longer sit back and declare itself immune from criticism or treated unfairly by political demonstrators. Once the church got involved in these affairs, it had to be fought against. That’s not to excuse these lamer tactics, bullying of church members or disrupting services, those are tactics I dislike and would caution against; but confronting the church in the public sphere I would argue is not only the right thing to do, but absolutely necessary in order to prevent further illegitimate coercion in government, which they have no business at all doing.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:05 pm 118. Dave R:

“It won’t work on our kind.”

Yeah Chuck, I suspect you are right. But the simple fact Christianity will survive “your kind” and those who read the whole Bible, not just little snippets they think justify their behavior, will continue to impact the world just as Jesus did. “your kind” seeks “persecution” so you can get all self-righteous and fall back on “Jesus said we will be hated”. Indeed we will but it will be because the Gospel of Jesus Christ will disturb them and force them to face things they don’t want to. He did not say “go forth and offend people with your behavior so the will refuse to hear the Gospel”, He said “Go forth and preach the Gospel”. Until “your kind” learn the difference your actions will continue to grate on the nerves of your targets rather than open them up to Jesus Christ. I spent 10 years in street ministry as well as in hospitals, prisons and homeless shelters so I am not speaking as an anti-Christian but as one who is disturbed by the attitudes of some who identify themselves as Christians. And by reading your comments I see exactly what you mean by “your kind”. Check yourself kid, arrogance has no place in a Christian’s life.

Rachel, I truly do not understand why you pull in completely unrelated periods in history and claim they are at all relevant to the current discussion. And the meandering paths you take to get to whatever your conclusion is are truly baffling. Concentration camps, Obama, the African-American struggle for equality somehow justify your taking offense at an article that was NOT anti-Christian or pro-gay, it was an observation, and to me a valid one, of the problem we face. You think gay is wrong, fine you’re not alone. I think that it is a distortion of Christianity to view us as an enemy to be defeated, or at least subdued. And I’m not alone. But the fact is we live in the same country, in the same states and the same neighborhoods and we HAVE TO come to a mutual understanding in peaceful manner. To get back to the original story, I think most LGBT folk are against the violence that has happened and simply want to live their lives. Isn’t that a common ground? But there are some on both sides who do not accept that the other side has a valid claim to the freedoms AND responsibilities this country offers because they are offended by something in the others lives/beliefs. Fact is Jesus never advocated forcing people to become believers. Fact is that some heterosexuals will never accept that most gays are “normal” people different only in who they desire as a significant other and will always consider us in the light of 7 or is it 9 individual verses in the Bible. And we (gays) have to respect that (even if we despise it) and not attempt through force to change that. We aren’t going anywhere, you aren’t going anywhere and hostility isn’t the answer. If we are all not willing to admit that we have said the wrong things or done the wrong things in an attempt to “have our way” nothing will ever change.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:07 pm 119. Donna V.:

Elizabeth, on second thought, I take it back about you not being a good writer. I think you’d fit in fine at the New York Times or Washington Post, places where your biases can run rampant without some hysterical editor reining you in.

Oh, right. Elizabeth Scalia supported Bush, McCain and Palin, and is a church-going pro-life Catholic. Sure, she’d fit right in at the NYT and Washington Post.

I just wish I could be so sure about everything

LOL! And I really did laugh out loud when I read that. If there is one thing you do not seem to lack, Rachel, it’s a overwhelming sense of your own rightness. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. People who write for and post comments on blogs are opinionated by definition.

I disagreed with some of the points Elizabeth made the first time I read her piece, particularly the ending. But the indignant, sputtering “How dare you! You, you – liberal you!” reaction to her (mild) criticisms proves her point better than the article did.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:19 pm 120. log cabin:

“My feelings of injustice visited on African Americans, however, as you can easily tell, doesn’t extend to gay America. Maybe that’s a character flaw in me. Maybe I make distinctions, simply have no compassion for gayness because I believe it’s wrong.”

That’s very bitter and hateful. You dislike people, have no compassion for them because there’s something about them you don’t like. That’s dehumanizing and cruel.

Yeah, I’d say it’s a pretty deep character flaw.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:23 pm 121. Donna V.:

I’m also trying to urge a mutually respectful POV in these street confrontations. Gays need to respect the fact that not everyone agrees with them and that “tolerance” does not mean “celebrate and endorse.” Christians need to find a way to present Christ to their neighbors that emphasizes Divine Love, not human failing. In my experience, anyway, shouting “Jesus loves you” at someone is nowhere near as productive as “being” the love of Jesus to someone else.

Me, I’m trying to understand why any Christian would be enraged and offended by such advice, or liken the person who wrote them to a concentration camp guard.

I guess I’m just not Christian enough to get it.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:27 pm 122. Ms Attitude:

log cabin: First of all, cool name! I agree that the government shouldn’t be involved in social issues. I’ve posted on this thread already stating my views.

But the understanding of what makes a person gay or straight is still being studied. From research that I’ve done I would have to say it has to do with brain development in utero. Male brains are different from female brains and maybe (I’m not an expert)there were some crossed “wires” that caused someone to be homosexual. None of us know.

When I was a teenager I met a lesbian couple for the first time. They lived two doors down from us. They were nice, funny and great neighbors. Did they make out in their front yard? No Did they parade around the neighborhood? No Did they talk about what they did behind closed doors? No….they were normal people that just happened to love each other. I’m a Christian, my mother is a church secretary and very involved in our church. Yep, you guessed it…we invited them to cookouts, dinners and over for tea and a chat. That is how I view homosexuals. The bad side was when one of them, recently, died of cancer. The one left behind had no rights as a spouse. Is that fair? Why is the government so involved with our private lives? I don’t think a church should’ve been made to marry them but I think the government should’ve recognized the union. They were together for over 30 years.

Nov 20, 2008 - 6:56 pm 123. Donna V.:

log cabin: Your comments made me think. My great concern with Prop 8 is what I mentioned in an earlier comment. You might be a very reasonable type and content to leave the churches alone if your marriage is recognized by the civil authorities. But we both know many gay activists would not be. It is very easy to foresee Joe and Nick, who are not content with a courthouse ceremony, or a Episcopalian one, suing for the right to be wed by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. (Or a Baptist one, or a Mormon temple.) You know that that will happen and when it does, the media will once again present it as a case of the benighted Christofascists standing in the churchyard gate like George Wallace on the schoolyard steps.

People are upset because they believe the Bible does not condone homosexual acts (which is a far cry from believing gays should be tortured and killed and harassed and fired from their jobs) and the government will be used to force their churches to condone it.

I have another problem with it. I have known and worked with quite a few gay men and got along just fine with them. As they grew more comfortable around me and talked a bit more freely, I became rather uncomfortably aware of just how promiscious their lifestyle was. I could have gone through life just fine without knowing what a “glory hole” was. I was told that monogamy was for boring straight people and that gay men, even men in committed relationships, never expected sexual fidelity. (The case of Andrew Sullivan, who passionately wants to marry his boyfriend and yet posts ads for “barebacking” sex partners, seems to bear this out.) I understand that the situation is a bit different for lesbians.

Yes, hetrosexuals are unfaithful too, and there are straight couples involved in “Swinger’s Clubs.” But the hetrosexual community is so huge you can find every sort of fringe behavior in it, while the fringe seems the norm for gay males. It makes straights like me wonder what marriage vows really mean to gays. Do they really intend to even try “forsaking all others” or do they just want the benefits and social recognition and approval? Are they really trying to enter the mainstream, or are they trying to undermine it by rendering marriage meaningless? There is an undercurrent of immaturity in the gay community, an adolescent desire to shock the bourgosie (as expressed by people like “The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” the SF drag queens who dress like nuns). Grabbing the cross of an old lady and stomping on it just reinforces the idea that these are not serious adults, but overgrown kids who want it all their own way and throw temper tantums when their desires are not met.

No, I don’t think it is the state’s business to regulate personal behavior. And I am certainly not saying that straight people always behave maturely (yeah, right) or that every gay man is out there wearing leather chaps on Saturday night. But those antics are the sort of thing that make people go into the voting booth and vote yes to Prop 8.

If my comments offend anybody, I am sorry. That is truly not my intent. I’m trying to speak honestly about the problems I have with the idea of gay marriage, and I think other straight people, who do not wish to harm or hurt gays, share some of my qualms.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:23 pm 124. Jbl:

Ms Attitude, that’s the point. If Christians got to know the gays as real, human people, rather than as “others needing conversion,” and if gays got to know Christians as real, human people instead of as “others who judge” they might be able to respect each other and not feel threatened by each other and live in peace.

Trouble is people don’t often want their minds changed. Or even just opened up a little. On either side. Which is why the country is in the shape its in.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:43 pm 125. Pat J:

121. Ms Attitude:
—————-
That was nice.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:55 pm 126. Rachel Peepers:

First, Elizabeth has the audacity ( a quality I generally like) to tell us how Jesus would do it.

Then Donna V, while tossing out a nice Seinfeld reference, says that something I said proves Ms. Scalia’s point.

Well, may I ask what Scalia point is proved? Please, enlighten me.

Then Log Cabin puts in her two cents, not attacking the points I’m trying to make, but attacks me. Ad hominem after ad hominem (third declension, accusative case)for the unwashed.

Then, I re-read Donna’s note, and realize Donna called Elizabeth opionated, me opionated and herself opionated. How is that relevant to anything?

Let me remind you, though, that I’m not the one who said she knows what Jesus would do. Just a tad presumptuous, don’t you think?

I’m not the one who knocked a cross out of an elderly woman’s arms.

Little old Rachel is simply saying what she thinks of Ms. Scalia’s article.

In case you didn’t look, the subhead says, “In the wake of Proposition 8, gays need to stop the thuggery and Christians need to cut the condescension.”

Not only does Elizabeth in her infinite wisdom know what Jesus would do, but she knows that the Christians were being condescending. Neither of which she knows to be accurate, unless the lass has some prescience powers.

So where did all this start? Apparently, with a Michelle Malkin voice over talking about a bunch of gay thugs intimidating an old woman, and knocking her to the ground.

We have physically intimidating gay thugs on the one hand, and praying and singing elderly Christians on the other. Equals?

Not quite I would say.

Reminds me of Russia invading Georgia and Obama telling the two of them to show restraint. Or a better comparison, it’s September 1, 1939, Germany just attacked Poland, and somebody tells both countries to show restraint.

Does anybody out there get what I’m trying to say?

Before (it feels like a past life) I said equating the two (gays and Christians) is a little like equating concentration camp guards and captives. I never implied Elizabeth was a concentration camp guard. I’ll state for the record that I think Elizabeth is a wonderful person. Somebody who knows her, in a comment, even said as much.

Well, I’ve said my piece. Thanks for listening. Sorry for any typos. My proofreading sucks.
Rachel

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:03 pm 127. john from cinncinatti:

what rights do gays deserve? Black suffrage is the same as gay suffrage? they want to call it marriage?
radical gays demonstrating in the streets? Gays want that leap of faith from the straight community, that they are just like me. the legal vs the moral law. don’t they already have civil unions but now they want to sanctify them with calling their union a marriage. is it only about health benefits and insurance, and the ability to be called next of kin at the hospital? or is the agenda to blur the lines.

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:58 pm 128. cfbleachers:

Donna

It appears that the only two people here who agree on anything…would be you and me. Thanks for writing…I really can’t believe the criticism of Elizabeth…it boggles my mind.

I tried to step in front of it…and take a bullet or two…and I am pretty sure I did not one iota’s worth of good.

On the bright side, this was a great lesson in humility for me. I tried to be the mediator and failed miserably. I tried to be chivalrous and gallant…and wound up being neither.

I tried to be open minded and offer a hand in friendship and was pretty much ignored.

LOL…if it wasn’t for you…I would wonder if my words were written in invisible ink.

It was great medicine if I was suffering from any swollen or bloated ego…I had absolutely not one shred of impact on helping the situation. LOL. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board to try to say something that might move someone…anyone…LOL!

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:26 pm 129. log cabin:

Ms. Attitude,

The answer as to what makes people gay is sin and the devil, obviously.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:05 pm 130. Rashputin:

Log cabin – “But if I was there, I don’t think I could have resisted from joining in. And that’s something that gives me pause.”

It should give you pause. Gay folks have been carefully manipulated to apply an emotional response to every situation rather than applying a reasoned approach. The playbook that has been in use by the democrat party for the past two decades, and the last six years in particular, is carefully designed to evoke an emotional response and to keep a negative noise in the ears of those it targets. It’s just like a movie with background music crafted to keep the audience on edge so that it reacts to the upsurges in the movie plot more vigorously. You and other targeted groups have been deliberately kept on edge, something that degrades and eventually eliminates rational reactions.

Log cabin – “Religious extremism in all forms, regardless if it takes a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist form, is a threat to the principles of American liberty and equality.”

Therein lies the rub. The Left has spent several decades carefully cultivating the attitude among the various special interest groups it depends on that their points of view are religious equivalents. As a consequence, most such groups (consciously or not) see themselves as religions. The targeted groups have been deliberately encouraged and taught the exact same way that the most extreme religious elements work their target audiences. The result is, in fact, religious war. Despite the allusions to legal fairness, (something that was slowly but surely making inroads within the Christian community), the real thrust of the current gay community is to directly challenge the right of anyone to have a religion that says anything specifically about gays other than what the community itself says. In other words, the gay community like other groups so cultivated, isn’t satisfied to rewrite laws in pursuit of equality. Insisting on marriage rather than civil unions is in essence a demand to redefine sacraments of the Church when you disagree with them. That isn’t a demand for individual civil liberties but rather a demand to have a superior, state sponsored, religion, entitled to permit or deny the theology of all others.

This careful cultivation of the worst aspects of religious extremism leads to gross errors on the part of the groups who have been so cultivated. The current situation in California is a perfect example. The gay community has become so focused on its stature vs. the theology of others that it is ignoring the most important lesson of the recent vote. That is, that the identifiable groups mentioned here so frequently did agree on the definition of what a marriage should be. There are few other topics that would garner equivalent widespread support of those same groups, especially in California. Having changed their own self-image to that of a persecuted religious group rather than of citizens deserving of equal rights, they are now angered that they have to compete on theological grounds as well as legal grounds. From the outside looking in, gay folks have chosen to elevate themselves to the status of a religion but now don’t like the consequences. As long as it was all about civil rights, Christians could “hate the sin and love the sinner” but agree that the sinner deserved equal rights. Once you hit the theology button, though, all bets are off.

You might well argue that few remain faithful to either their spouse or their Church, yet marriage remains a sacrament in the eyes of the Church due to Christ’s calling the Church his bride. If marriage can be redefined by the secular community on behalf of a minority, then there is no reason at all for the Church to not seek to redefine whatever it chooses in the larger secular community on behalf of a majority. I fear that all the careful work of democrats for the past few decades will end in nothing short of just that, the Church becoming as aggressive in pursuit of legal and Constitutional change as most of the special interest groups have become. Nothing else is a reasonable response on their part. Let’s hope the emotional, quasi-theological, attitude of not only the gay community, but several others recedes before they cause their own worst nightmare.

Regards

Nov 21, 2008 - 2:57 am 131. Chuck Pelto:

TO: MylesJ
RE: Yes

JESUS HATES YOU – that would be the worst thing you could say to somebody. — MylesJ

And whoever said it would need to be reminded of THIS line…

….which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago

And, while they’re digesting that sabot round, throw this HEAT round in for good measure….

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. — Same Guy

I mean, I’ve got a whole quiver full of these sorts of ’shots’. And each one can edify as well as reproach. And, as I commented earlier about heaping coals on someone’s head, they just might learn from the burn. As it surely beats the Hell out of burning later.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[How people react to the Truth is determined by how stupid they are, i.e., ignorant and proud of it. -- CBPelto]

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:29 am 132. Chuck Pelto:

TO: log cabin
RE: [OT] War On Terror Arg

As much as I support the War on Terror, Bush made a mistake when he characterized the struggle as (and I’m paraphrasing) a conflict that can either take place “over here or over there. — log cabin

You’re not really much of a student of military history or science or [as the Russians view it] ‘art’, are you.

After 27 years in the infantry, and a graduate of the Command and General Staff College, I think I’m a better SME on the matter than you. And I’ll simply point out a proven axiom of warfare….

The logical outcome of defensive warfare is defeat.

If you doubt this…

[1] I ask you where is the Confederacy?
[2] Please explain away why all the major casualties are in Iraq as opposed to NYC and DC these last five years.

’nuff said.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war. -- Ernest Hemmingway ]

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:41 am 133. Chuck Pelto:

TO: log cabin
RE: Heh

….that does not mean that gays do not have an obligation to fight against hatred and clerical bullying in whatever guise it takes, at home or abroad. — log cabin

I guess that depends upon what you, or they, consider ‘bullying’. Doesn’t it.

I know of drunks in bars who would consider someone taking their car keys away from them as ‘bullying’. They don’t seem to care that it could well be saving someone’s life. Even their own. [Note: I lost my boss and good friend, because I was unaware he was drunk at a party held at corporate headquarters. And I'd have forceably taken his keys from him. Even at the expense of my job, had I known.]

So. I guess it’s a matter of whether you think someone telling you you’re ‘fouled-up’ is ‘bullying’. Neh?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:46 am 134. Chuck Pelto:

TO: log cabin
RE: Hmmmm

I think people should be able to practice their religion freely without coercion by the government. — log cabin

When do the human sacrifices begin?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:49 am 135. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. In that last tag-line, substitute “Law” for “politics”…..

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:50 am 136. Donna V.:

cfbleachers: Thanks! I always find your thoughtful comments worth reading, so you do not type in vain.;-) Yeah, it is a lesson in humility, isn’t it? People have their minds firmly made up on this one and will brook no disagreement one way or the other or the slightest criticism of “their side.”

Nov 21, 2008 - 4:17 am 137. Ms Attitude:

Donna, I haven’t been around gays that behave that way, I only see them on TV and view them as part of California along with the crazy lifestyle of Hollywood. I would like to think that most gays and lesbians mesh into society. I also don’t want the government ever forcing their hand with my church and making it law for the church to do anything.

cflbleachers: I agree with you 99% of the time. Have you thought about setting up a webpage to blog on and put the link under your name?

I don’t think the gay community is going to gain support by being vocal and rude. They can’t equate their quest to the civil rights movement. I have never found scripture that said it was a sin to be black. At the same time I think the Christians should take the high road. I was impressed by the congregation in the church shown on tv that was barged in by lesbians yelling and throwing pamphlets. The congregation showed great restraint. I agree with what Elizabeth said in her comment, “… setting up a corner with free coffee and inviting folks to come talk and pray together would seem more productive.”

Nov 21, 2008 - 4:26 am 138. Ms Attitude:

One more thing: wouldn’t you sleep better at night knowing that you showed someone the love of Christ during the day? Even if it didn’t change their thinking you’ve planted a seed.

Nov 21, 2008 - 4:36 am 139. Donna V.:

This is about as productive as talking to a brick, but for one last time, Rachel, please tell me what is so terribly wrong and arrogant about this:

I’m also trying to urge a mutually respectful POV in these street confrontations. Gays need to respect the fact that not everyone agrees with them and that “tolerance” does not mean “celebrate and endorse.” Christians need to find a way to present Christ to their neighbors that emphasizes Divine Love, not human failing. In my experience, anyway, shouting “Jesus loves you” at someone is nowhere near as productive as “being” the love of Jesus to someone else.

Really, I can not wrap my head around the idea that Christians would find that objectionable. You think it arrogant of Elizabeth Scalia to presume to know what Jesus would do? Well, gee, and here I have been under the impression since childhood that trying to know and do what Jesus would do is what every Christian is supposed to do, although we are all bound to fail miserably. Like Elizabeth, I seem to recall verses about Jesus dining with sinners and tax collectors (incidentally, the Gospels seem to have more of a problem with the forerunners of the IRS than homosexuals, something Big Government types should note:), so I don’t think it’s terribly presumptous for Scalia to say that Christ would have reached out “in a way that emphasizes Divine Love, not human failing.” People are confusing that to mean Scalia is saying He would have condoned human failing, and she just isn’t saying that. I tried to present my own issues with gay marriage in #123 without resorting to “The Bible says it’s wrong, you people are whacked, and that’s that, case closed” because that gets us exactly nowhere.

Finally:

I never implied Elizabeth was a concentration camp guard.

Well, I guess you didn’t compare her to a guard, exactly. You only said:

I can hear you condemning the innocent tortured, experimented-upon, not-fed, treated-like-animal concentration camp captives for making condescending looks at their Nazi tormentors (or worse, praying) with the same tone you condemn the Nazis for mass murder.

So she’s not a concentration camp guard, she would have only sympathized with them. But yeah, you think Elizabeth is a nice person. Someone else said so.

You’re the soul of Christian charity, Rachel.

Nov 21, 2008 - 4:57 am 140. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ms Attitude
RE: Go Ahead

….I agree with what Elizabeth said in her comment, “… setting up a corner with free coffee and inviting folks to come talk and pray together would seem more productive.” — Ms Attitude

Try it.

However, be prepared for the same sort of response from those who actually ‘hate’. Heck. Some of them may even throw the hot coffee in your face.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Does the Salvation Army have a presence in SanFran? If so, do they go out on street crusades near any of the ’street fairs’ there? Like Sister Sarah Brown and Brother Arbide in Guys and Dolls?

If they do, what sort of response do they get?

If they don’t, why not?

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:12 am 141. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Elizabeth Scalia
RE: Trying to Change the ‘Subject’?

I understand why Christians are feeling a bit thin-skinned these days, but it seems to me there is little cause in what I wrote for all of this hysteria. — Elizabeth Scalia

Christians don’t have ‘thin skins’. Not after all this. Indeed. I think YOU’RE the one with a ‘thin skin’ in this thread.

Furthermore….

….this is hardly what anyone in their right mind would consider ‘hysteria’. This is merely constructive criticism.

I’ve SEEN ‘hysteria’ on PJM and nobody has threatened, as far as I can see, to ‘take you out’, like pinkytoo has on another thread here this last week. Let alone give you a shot in the chops like some other character did in another thread just the other day.

So. Please. Stop with the herstryonics already.

As the citation I offered earlier today goes…

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

I never said Christians should not approach the gay community, I simply suggested that there are better ways to do it – ways that help both sides see each other as human beings and not “opposing factions” – than what the Christians were trying. — Elizabeth Scalia

No. That is not quite accurate. You accused Christians of being ‘condescending’. When you wouldn’t be able to tell for sure unless you could read their minds and hearts as God does.

There’s something of a difference.

Now, in the face of the ‘constructive criticism’ you modify your argument to indicate, you just wish they’d do something ‘different’.

As for trying different approaches, why don’t you open up a coffee and prayer kiosk at some park street-corner during a pro-homosexual rally. Or, better still, in one of those ‘interesting’ street fairs.

And please give us your after-action report. Bring a camcorder and a friend to operate it for you. It may not make it on America’s Funniest Home Videos, but I’m confident it will be VERY educational.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hatred is the cowards response for being intimidated....by facts.]

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:31 am 142. Ms Attitude:

Chuck: My church does things such as this. We go into the “bad” neighborhoods where it is known that gangs call 911 and report fires just so they can shoot at the fire truck as it goes by. We don’t stand around and pray and sing, we ask who needs help. We do yard work, construct fences, and do home improvements. Do we talk about Christ to those who put down their guns and either watch or help? You betcha!

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:46 am 143. Mei-Lin:

Why do I get the sense that several people here did not go on to actually read the SECOND page of the article?

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:49 am 144. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Ms Attitude
RE: Good On You

Do we talk about Christ to those who put down their guns and either watch or help? You betcha! — Ms Attitude

However, please allow me to point out that gang-bangers are violent, but do not, of their own accord ‘hate’ christians, as the homosexuals hate them.

As evidence supporting my observation, I point out that I’ve yet to hear of gang-bangers invading christian churches during services to distribute pamphlets and shout.

I look forward to hearing your report of what happens when you do such things during a SanFran homosexual street fair.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Diversity training in the conference room at 9 AM. Body armor is recommended. Attendees must submit to body search on entering the training area. All iPods, tape recorders and cameras will be returned when training is completed.]

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:22 am 145. Rashputin:

Ms Attitude – your church is far too interested in reaching others. Your parking lot is probably in need of repair and I bet you have a lot of weirdoes in your congregation. Fishermen, former hookers, tax collectors, Jews, all kinds of unacceptable folks. Its people like you that keep Christianity from becoming the malleable hand maiden of trendy politics.

Regards indeed

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:37 am 146. Sarah Rolph:

Nice essay, Anchoress.

“Patriarch,” I call baloney on these statements of yours: “Let’s face it, on a biological basis, homosexuality is parasitic on society. Science still lacks complete understanding of why homosexuality is tolerated in the gene pool.”

For starters, there is no such entity as “Science.” (Science is a field, and a process (as in the scientific method), but not an authority or an entity.)

More to the point, it is ridiculous and very offensive to equate biological specifics with societal worth.

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:38 am 147. Dave R:

Chuck, can you please point out where any on here defended the attack on the old lady or the attack on the church or ANY of the violence? It seems that all that really bothers you is that some would dare to question what you consider appropriate. Your attitude and those who committed the above mention acts are EXACTLY the same. You are no more interested in hearing that perhaps your view isn’t perfect than they are. You have no clue of the amount of violence that is perpetrated by Christians on LGBT folk because the media NEVER covers it. Or Christian on Jew, or Christian on Muslim? Can you honestly say that if a group of “gay activists” want into one of The Call events that there wouldn’t be physical confrontation? Dream on. Imagine if there was an actual law passed that impacted millions of conservative Christians, would there be any less anger than there is now?

It’s not right that there should be any violence but you need to start taking responsibility for YOUR OWN actions and understanding that deliberate, arranged confrontation does nothing positive for anyone and certainly is going to convince anyone to accept Jesus Christ.

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:51 am 148. momof3:

Steve P, the Inquisition tortured and killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. That some of them, statistically, were gay is given. It was not a case of the church specifically targeting gays any more than they were targeting jews, atheists, protestants, “loose women” and any number of other non-conformists. You might as well say the holocaust targeted gays because some of the jews killed were undoubtedly gay. Neither is a strong argument for you.

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:03 am 149. Rashputin:

momof3 – “the Inquisition tortured and killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people.”

That’s been proven to be a gross exaggeration at a minimum, but don’t let the facts stand in the way of your making a point. I agree with what you’re saying but not with you’re accepting revisionist crap as the basis for it.

have a nice day

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:46 am 150. Jbl:

“How dare you call me a dog by using the world howling and how dare you call me thin-skinned.” The irony.

“No. That is not quite accurate. You accused Christians of being ‘condescending’. When you wouldn’t be able to tell for sure unless you could read their minds and hearts as God does. There’s something of a difference.”

From the article: The Christians may have unintentionally come off as condescending.

It’s a suggestion of something that may be the case, not an out-and-out accusation. I think authors are not responsible for the headlines or sub-headings of pieces they do not publish themselves.

But there are plenty of examples of Christians behaving badly, in this thread, without the headline, or sub-head or even the essay itself. Congratulations, Christians. You managed to make it all about yourselves being persecuted. Whatever happened to the idea of Christians wondering, like the apostles, “Lord, is it me” who might be behaving badly.

Nov 21, 2008 - 8:32 am 151. Wahine:

How easily distracted we can become. We’re losing our way.

Obedience to that first and great commandment allows God to work His greatest miracle. He awakens our hearts to the fullness of love. Love not only for Him, but every man. We learn what is Truth, hidden from us until that moment. The “veil is lifted.”

“In the twinkling of an eye” we’re forever changed. Such is the goodness of our God. But it requires something of us. The dedication of an Olympian, Paul tells us.

Consider that the “two standing at the well” might in fact be one. A divided heart stifles spiritual growth. A “house divided cannot stand.” Our time is spent with other loves – adultery of another kind.

Thoughts too attached to this world narrow and stifle our understanding of things far greater and everlasting. Seek to love Him more than any other thing – or one. With all our heart. With all our soul. With all our mind. Not in part, but with complete devotion.

Be caught up in the clouds to live forever more with Him. Leave the old self at the well. Let this be the day we begin to witness miracles.

Nov 21, 2008 - 8:55 am 152. Joe Bison:

The problem is that the state usurped the power
of marriage from the church. The state should
only issue certificates of union to anyone. This
will thus entitle a couple to benefits etc. This
would apply to employment contracts and so on.
The majority accepts benefits for unions.

Now whatever faith the couple belongs to would
issue the marriage certificate. I mean government
does not issue baptism certificates. There are
a variety of churches(I use the term generically).

So if you are Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve
I am certain someone can accommodate you. If
the two happy couples do not recognize each
other who cares. This is now a private issue
not a government one. Marriage is a sacrament.
Let the church administer it. Government administers benefits here.

Government can also dissolve unions, churches
divorces. Enough already I hope I have not
angered too many. Perhaps I will write about
polygamy another time.

Nov 21, 2008 - 9:07 am 153. Rachel Peepers:

Donna V,

You read and don’t understand what the writer is saying.

That’s an ad hominem remark. Your writing is replete with them.

These remarks usually don’t further the discussion.

Although you’re very resistant, I’m trying to get back to ideas with you.

The concentration camp reference was my attempt to give an extreme example of the senselessness of equating thuggery and violence with singing and praying.

I’m not saying that Elizabeth sympathizes with the Nazis. I’m criticizing the fact that Elizabeth treats them as moral equivalents. Ms. Scalia implies thuggery and violence is the moral equivalent of singing and praying. That, I believe, is her error.

Regardless, this back and forth between you and me is unproductive. Neither of us seem to be capable of understanding the others point of view.

Let’s call it a draw. Or anything you like. Let’s end it here and say we agree to disagree.
Regards,
Rachel

The fact of the matter is that Elizabeth expected to annoy both sides. She accomplished her mission, though, I believe, characterizing the “hysteria” of the pro Christian side was patently unfair, exposing her bias. I believe Scalia’s anger at Michelle Malkin came out in her unfair characterizations of Christians. I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.

Nov 21, 2008 - 10:43 am 154. Shum Preston:

Wrong.

Gay thuggery? Please. You are tarring a whole community from one tape you saw on FOX News. What you are seeing is an honest, heartfelt reaction from a group that just experienced something unprecedented in American history–they lost their civil rights through a public vote.

Cowardice? Please. The Mormon Church leadership donated the majority of $$$ spent on Proposition 8. They did a terrible thing to my marriage and my family. They own the issue of gay marriage now, they can handle the protests.

I don’t think there is any equivalence at all between what the gay community is doing–and what was just done to them. (That said, I realize you write for a right-wing site and probably gotta throw a little red mear around.)

Nov 21, 2008 - 11:39 am 155. Rachel:

The best thing I can think of is we all have souls right?
I’ve always been told “Never argue Religion or Politics”.
That says it all. I believe the bible is truth and I try to live by it. Whether or not anyone else does, it is up to each one and their Maker. I think the gays are trying to force Christians into feeling guilty by using Christ as an arguement that Jesus loved everyone. This is true but as he also demonstrated he did not “like” what some people did example: the money changers. He said He did not come to abolish the law but to fullfull it. You can interpret that several ways. Christians should be more tolerant and Gays should be less demanding. I do not care what people do behind closed doors. I do care when they make specticals of themselves and try to tell me what Jesus would do when the Bible is very clear about that.When the majority of the people have spoken why fight city hall so to speak. That is why we have a democracy so that everyone can speak and vote Christian or otherwise.So who dictates – Gays or Christians? The majority voted(and who cares who they are) against proposition 8 so let it go. As they say “America, love it or leave it”.

Nov 21, 2008 - 11:40 am 156. Barack Obama:

Can’t we all just learn to live together, in change we can believe in (like all the old Clinton cronies I am adding to my cabinet)and soon sizable numbers of the gay population will be trained and armed when I rescind “don’t ask, don’t tell”…so let’s all just get along and not ask our daughters to give birth to mistakes or to judge anybody for anything at anytime. Someday, I dream of “Straight Pride” parades with happy heteros all dressed like Ward and June, walking hand in hand with their 2.5 children…oh, I swoon..

Nov 21, 2008 - 11:53 am 157. Donna V.:

Let’s call it a draw. Or anything you like. Let’s end it here and say we agree to disagree.
Regards,
Rachel

Fair enough, Rachel. I agree with what you write much of the time. Just not this time.

Nov 21, 2008 - 12:04 pm 158. ILLPassOnTheSalt:

Proselytize…Jesus was a Prophet. To preach, to pray, to sway. What would Jesus do? Surely, you jest? I can see him hanging out with the ‘folks’ to get to know them, like drinking & getting plastered with the drunks, sexing it up with prostitutes or perhaps learning a slight of hand trick from the village thieves? You have it backwards. They were drawn to Him and Him to them. Bullying, intimidation or manipulation is not the way Jesus would do anything.

Nov 21, 2008 - 12:32 pm 159. Zoltan:

This is HILARIOUS! Prop 8 has been defeated and now the gay community must hope that, once again, activist judges will try shoving the abomination that is gay marriage down the throats of an American voting public which has loudly spoken out against the practice. This is AMERICA, you idiots! The will of the people must be served!

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:04 pm 160. Robert:

Let’s see – judicial review of a controversial proposition is activist judges trying to shove an abomination down the throats of the voting public.

For what it’s worth, I think a much better response to the Christian wankers on the street corner would have been to pointedly ignore them as if they were malodorous beggars, but that’s just me. I wasn’t there. Their assumption that they could do what they did without any negative consequences was at best deliberately obtuse.

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:21 pm 161. John M:

Reading E. Scalia remarks I couldn’t,t help but think “Other than the shooting how did you find the play Mrs Lincoln?” looking past rioters to condemn the act of prayer is pathetic.

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:21 pm 162. Jbl:

“…looking past rioters to condemn the act of prayer…”

Really?

Nov 21, 2008 - 1:55 pm 163. Brenda:

‘Expanding the idea of “marriage” to include couples for which children and progeny are not even naturally biologically possible will only continue the trend.’
************************
Whaaaa?
By that reasoning, “marriage” should also exclude women past menopause, men with erectile dysfunction, infertile couples and couples wherein one or both partners have chosen to be sterilized.

What about the validity of marriages where conception has occurred through sperm or egg donors, due to the infertility of a partner? No good?

We all know that “marriage” means more than that, in the emotional, social and spiritual senses. It is, in those realms, more than just a structure for child-bearing.

Scalia summed it all up perfectly at the end.

Personally, I do not care whether it is called “marriage” or “civil union” or “blarfest.”

Whatever the state allows for heterosexual couples should also be allowed for homosexual couples: property rights, medical rights, family rights and ytax status.

Let the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples make their own decrees on “sanctity,” to be observed under their own roofs, by choice.

If someone does nto like the rules of their chiurch, they can lweave it, or even form another church. It happened before, and will happen again.

But if there is only one franchise for civil rights (as there is), then how dare antyone refuse it to anyone else simply based on gender?

Why is everyone making this so complicated?

Nov 21, 2008 - 2:10 pm 164. Brenda:

159. Zoltan:

This is HILARIOUS! Prop 8 has been defeated and now the gay community must hope that, once again, activist judges will try shoving the abomination that is gay marriage down the throats of an American voting public which has loudly spoken out against the practice. This is AMERICA, you idiots! The will of the people must be served!

Nov 21, 2008 – 1:04 pm
*********************************

The purpose of the Constitution is twofold:
1–to protect the rights of the many against the tyranny of the few
2–to protect the rights of the few against the possible tyranny of the many

It is the job of the judiciary to make sure that such things do not occur.

Following your logic, as long as states voted in favor of Jim Crow laws, they should have been allowed.

The will of the majority MUST be tempered by the rights of minorities, as well.

Nov 21, 2008 - 2:19 pm 165. C.J.:

everyone has his or her opionion about what they believe or feel is right. God word is clear in Revelation 22:11-15 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still, and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:an he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Jesus said, and behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. may the peace of God be with you all.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God. and keep his commandments: for this is the whold duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing,whether it be good or whether it be evil.

ps.pray for our leaders, our country,
same sex is an abomination unto GOD.

Nov 21, 2008 - 2:22 pm 166. submandave:

log cabin: I’m sure we may disagree, but as I said before, I think marriage qua marriage is important to preserve in its traditional form and sense as the fundamental building block of a family, including the self-contained ability to sustain and grow that family (i.e. childbearing). As such, I don’t find it discriminating to define marriage as man-woman given that 99%+ of new Americans born come from that pairing and a stable marriage/family has repeatedly been shown as the best environment for a child.

“Religious extremism in all forms, regardless if it takes a Muslim, Christian or Buddhist form, is a threat to the principles of American liberty and equality.”

I always find comments like this to be wonderfully pure in ideology yet gratingly sparce in practical application of clearly observable data. There is a primacy in addressing any sort of violence-promoting extremism over any other, simply because, by definition, extremists are, well, extreme and therefore insufficient in numbers to, in a democracy, long affect policy. I would suggest that if a particular group has deep or enduring political power it probably isn’t “extreme” (unless all other factions are equally extreme and organizationally too retarded to gang up on the “bad” extremist group).

Nov 21, 2008 - 2:26 pm 167. Maggie:

Wow…The line of comments is really long but finally a chance to give my opinion on the question of Gays being allowed to marry…the Christians are convinced that marriage is somehow sacred and the Catholics have made it a Sacrament…the problem with their ideas of the Holy Marriage is that it is not what marriage was in the beginning, I find it interesting how Christians always want to make everyday activities into something “sacred”…if you look up the earliest “marriages” you will find that the union between a man and a woman was financial and bringing two families together or two kingdoms together…it was and still is a financial institution, ck out divorces if you don’t believe what I’m saying…man decided to add the spiritual aspect to marriage and man knows full well that there are marriages where there is one man and multiple women and as I learned in Cultural Anthropology there are places on the planet where one woman has multiple husbands…it has to do with necessity not spirituality or religion…
So since marriage is a union between two people or more than two people and is a financial institution, why are we denying the same sex couples their rightful request to benefit from the union of marriage…personally I think marriage should be civil unions for everyone and if you so choose you may have a spiritual and/or religious ceremony to celebrate your union before God and your community…
We can have our beliefs in God without imposing our religious and spiritual views on everyone for every event…we have a separation of Church and State in our Constitution in so many things where it should not be…I’m not saying we should change things that are already accepted by most everyone and has been part of our history as a country, but, a prime example of the people going too far is the Pledge of Alligance, not to change the subject, but I recall when the Pledge was changed to add the words “under God” when I was in grade school…so it wasn’t in the Pledge to begin with and it shouldn’t be there now, so, you might say well she isn’t a believer in God, not so, I just don’t think that God should be part of everything that is part of our “state” as in Church and State…we are free to worship whomever we choose but we have gone too far in many instances…do you honestly believe that if we don’t have “under God” in the Pledge of Alligance that it will somehow take the spirituality and religion out of us all…no it won’t but our Pledge is to our Country and “under God” is a personal choice and it should remain so…just as marriage should be for all who desire a union so that they are able to partake in the benefits of said union, such as, the right to be there as a “family” member in the case of a person dieing or there to make last decisions necessary in case one partner can’t make the decisions or being able to inherit from the partner instead of being left out and the “blood” relatives take the partners belongings that the two people have worked their whole life for, there’s also the Health Insurance issue and so many more that go along with the lawful marriage…because like it or not marriage is still only recognized if it is lawfully obtained and the marriage properly performed by someone legally able to perform the ceremony…if that weren’t the case then anyone, anywhere could perform a marriage and it would be legally binding and that is not, I repeat, not the case…so get off your high horses and if you want your marriage to be scared that’s fine but don’t impose your beliefs on couples who only want what they have been denied in the name of religion and/or spirituality…I would tell you without hesitation that “God”, “Our Creator” or whatever you call Him or Her would NOT approve!

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:00 pm 168. Tinika Lee:

You need to shut your mouth, Elizabeth Scalia about the Christians. It is obvious that you are not a Christian. Stop bad-mouthing the Christian community for our beliefs in the Word of God and for trying to spread the Gospel of the Good News about our Lord Jesus Christ. We want unbelievers to receive salvation so that will not perish into eternal death. We believe in eternal life. We don’t want people to perish for lack of knowledge in Christ nor do we want people to perish into eternal damnation. You need to thoroughly study the Bible and know what you are talking about and stop bad mouthing us. We are not the ones causing trouble. It is the gay community that is starting trouble and threating Christians that they would kill us. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND LEARN THE BIBLE!!!! You got a problem with us, take it up with GOD!!! AND MIND YOU, YOU CAN’T BEAT GOD SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL JOIN HIM!!!

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:19 pm 169. C. GRACE:

I find it interesting that the author titled her article Christians and Gays behaving badly simply because I was expecting as I read the article to read of some outrageous acts committed by Christians. To my great surprise what was there bad behavior? singing hyms and praying. “Wow” that really deserves being tarred and feathered.
Hence the problem with our society or at least one of them-Be politically correct and admonish both sides even when one side is clearly the only bad actor. Never call a spade a spade or the spade’s feeling might actually get hurt.
As for what would Jesus do. As he did when the crowd brought before him a woman caught in adultery he said paraphrase “Let you who have no sin cast the first stone.” Since no one fit that category the crowd dried up until it was only Jesus and the woman left. Noting her accusers were gone Jesus bid her go her own way, but here’s the clincher He told her to “Sin No More.”
Thus, if Jesus was dealing with gays today he would hardly coddle them in their sin. Talk to them sure, pray for them definitely but if they are to follow him they would have to take up their cross, follow him and lose their life in order to gain his.
I think its safe to say he would not be popular among the gays of the USA.

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:54 pm 170. Wahine:

Surely the apostles were considered “extremists” in their day.

Then maybe we should consider what is the result of this kind of ‘extremism.’ Does it bring harm to the hearer, risking death or injury? We would most likely say “no.”

And yet, it does in fact do that very thing: the hearer risks losing that person he wants to be – that ’self’ he’s constructed and clings so desperately to; he risks the “death” of self. And “injury” to ego.

The narcissist won’t allow it. The beast within him rails against it. And yet, allowing it to die, is precisely where his salvation lies. The psychologist might tell you he’s ‘hopeless.’ But with God all things are possible.

Unless we’re desperately attached to self, we should instead welcome this “extremist.”

Nov 21, 2008 - 4:29 pm 171. Mitchell:

I’ve done some investigating and found some really interesting things. There is this LIE going around saying that the leaders of the Mormon Church gave all the big donations to support prop 8, NOT TRUE! the vast sums came from individual members, look it up you can easily find the blacklist on the web. NO FUNDS CAME FROM THE CHURCH! NONE!!!!. so quite spreading this lie or you could and should be sued for libel and slander. Just because you are so angry doesn’t give you the right to just say what you want and lie. The only funds spent were to reimberse some leaders for their expenses when they attended a meeting they were invited to by the Coalition before the were even offically involved in the fight. They were invited by The Cathloic bishop of Sacramento to join in. TOO many are just mad because they thought they had it in the bag and stop working so hard, when the Mormon people decide to do something they work their butts off but they are never forced, it was all voluntary, just face it the gays had more money and more time and still lost because they put up stupid ads and even more stupid arguments, claiming a right that was never theirs to begin with. Screaming and throwing temper- tantrums has done more harm then you can believe, you have no one to blame but yourselves, you lost now quit belly aching and grow up and act like adults, approach this like adults, regroup and try again but remember you say you are fighting for your families well guess what that’s exactly how the pro 8 guys feel, they are fighting for their families too!

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:13 pm 172. Patrick:

But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13:13

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:41 pm 173. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Dave R
RE: Please Pardon My Fisking of You

But I think you deserve something of an education.

RE: Defending the Indefensible

…..can you please point out where any on here defended the attack on the old lady or the attack on the church or ANY of the violence? — Dave R

You did it, albeit indirectly, by accusing her of being ‘in their face’ with her bearing her cross through their midst.

Or rather ‘praying AT’ them.

In other words, doing unto them as they would do unto others. So, she walks through the area and they attack her.

RE: Your Misapprehensions

It seems that all that really bothers you is that some would dare to question what you consider appropriate. — Dave R

You can ‘question’ me all you want. Doesn’t bother me in the least. But it DOES seem to bother you when YOU are questioned. After all. Look at your response to my item #15.

Your attitude and those who committed the above mention acts are EXACTLY the same. — Dave R

Hardly. All I’ve done is question your approach. I’ve HARDLY attacked you physically, which is what the homosexuals have done to that little old lady and those people attending their Sunday worship.

There’s something of a difference. Don’t you think?

You are no more interested in hearing that perhaps your view isn’t perfect than they are. — Dave R

S—. I judge debate tournaments. I’m used to hearing both sides of an issue in a dispassionate and rational manner.

You’ve attempted, here, to equate demonstration of a differing view with physical violence. And THAT is an indication of a SERIOUS problem. But not on MY part.

You have no clue of the amount of violence that is perpetrated by Christians on LGBT folk because the media NEVER covers it. — Dave R

Contrary to your failure to know me in the first place, i.e., stereotyping me, I’m very much aware of violence perpetrated by people who claim to follow Christ.

Or Christian on Jew, or Christian on Muslim? — Dave R

Yeah. Those Christians, i.e., the US Army and US Marines are REALLY perpetrating crimes of ‘hate’ on Muslims. Oddly enough, they seem to kill fewer Muslims than the Muslims are killing. But they don’t use car-bombs in market places. Maybe they should just nuke em and have done with it?

Can you honestly say that if a group of “gay activists” want into one of The Call events that there wouldn’t be physical confrontation? — Dave R

Well. As I recall, the homosexuals went into one Sunday service and got ‘physical’, i.e., throwing literature into the area of the meeting.

Did the congregation rise, as one body, and pummel them? No.

Then again, we have the little old lady with her styrofoam cross…..

Would there be violence at an invasion of The Call event? Could be. But I’ll wager dollars to donuts that the ‘activist’ homosexuals would be the one who started it.

Dream on. Imagine if there was an actual law passed that impacted millions of conservative Christians, would there be any less anger than there is now? — Dave R

Depends on the ‘law’ that is passed. Don’t you think?

It’s not right that there should be any violence but you need to start taking responsibility for YOUR OWN actions and understanding that deliberate, arranged confrontation does nothing positive for anyone and certainly is going to convince anyone to accept Jesus Christ. — Dave R

So. Based on that, no one should say anything to anyone about a disagreement in politics or law or anything.

If that is indeed you’re argument, why don’t you practice what you preach and shut up?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Gay is a one-word oxymoron.]

Nov 22, 2008 - 4:14 am 174. Dave D:

Elizabeth, Even if they weren’t on a corner singing songs, they’d still be in judgment of people just for believing in needing salvation. You pretty much are saying christians shouldn’t make any public display of faith because they may make people uncomfortable.

A gay pride parade would make a lot of people uncomfortable, but I don’t hear the counter argument that gays should stop doing so, or any related public event affirming gayness or tolerance because it may make people uncomfortable.

As for jesus..well he also visited and ate, but he insulted people, calling them snakes and hypocrites (whitewashed tombs with nothing but bones within) and shut down an entire city with the whole palm sunday thing. They didn’t crucify him because he was going around washing people’s feet or baking them cookies-what he said offended the power elite by saying they NEEDED repentance, and that prostitutes would get into heaven before they did.

Praying and singing is tame in comparison.

Nov 22, 2008 - 9:37 am 175. Jbl:

“You pretty much are saying christians shouldn’t make any public display of faith because they may make people uncomfortable.”

The author is pretty much saying that there are more productive and effective ways to engage.

People don’t read anymore.

Nov 22, 2008 - 12:02 pm 176. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jbl
RE: Right AND Wrong

The author is pretty much saying that there are more productive and effective ways to engage. — Jbl

You’re right and you’re wrong. And Dave D is more right than you are.

Yes. You’re right that Scalia is suggesting that there are other ways.

However, the question of their efficacy has yet to be answered.

But you’re wrong inasmuch as Scalia IS suggesting what Dave D has identified: that Christians keep their comments about the nature of homosexuality out of the public forum. The difference between her and the homosexuals is that she’s not quite as obstreperous about it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Politeness: The most acceptable hypocrisy.]

Nov 22, 2008 - 12:20 pm 177. AST:

Remember the story of thw woman taken in adultery who was brought by the scribes and Pharisees before Jesus, whom they asked whether she should not be stoned to death under the Law of Moses? You probably remember that he said, “Let him without sin cast the first stone,” after which the crowd melted away, nobody daring to claim that he was without sin.

But what did Jesus do then? He asked her where her accusers were, to which she said none were left. He said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”
In other words, he was willing to forgive her if she would abandon her sin of adultery. Jesus forgave those who were humble and repentant in seeking his help. The scribes and Pharisees hated him because he preached repentance and they were too proud to admit that they had any sins. I would have voted for Prop. 8, but I would think that Christians would do better to invite others to seek the blessings of Jesus’ atonement rather than merely call Gays sinners. Since we are all sinners, no one should think himself superior to another, regardless of one’s position on Proposition 8. The idea of “gay” marriage is a contradiction. It smacks of Newspeak, and it deprives the most important institution in society of its distinctive meaning. That is a logical and defensible argument.

Those in favor of same-sex marriage won’t like this answer and will probably be angry at hearing it. Nevertheless, the suggestion that Jesus didn’t require repentance, or abandonment of sin, are mistaken, just as those who may think that they have the right to condemn others are wrong. That power and right belong only to Christ.

Nov 22, 2008 - 12:31 pm 178. Chuck Pelto:

TO: AST
RE: Poor Analogy

Remember the story of thw woman taken in adultery who was brought by the scribes and Pharisees before Jesus, whom they asked whether she should not be stoned to death under the Law of Moses? — AST

Or would you point out to me the people in California who voted against homosexual marriage who are actively calling for the homosexual to be stoned to death, in accordance with Mosaic Law.

A better analogy would be John the Baptist rebuking Herod Agrippa for marrying his brother’s wife while he yet lived. A sin of sex. And the outspoken John, a blood relation, via Mary and Elizabeth’s blood line, decrying his sexual sin in the public venue.

And we all know what happened to John….

….the persons he was rebuking had his head cut off.

Sort of what I suspect a lot of the homosexual community being rebuked in the public venue by the Christians would like to do to their decriers.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There is nothing new under the Sun. -- Ecclesiastes]

Nov 22, 2008 - 12:43 pm 179. Banjo:

Let’s get back to why the gay protests — including the one in Palm Springs where a little old lady was roughed up and spat upon — occur only in nice, safe neighborhoods. I would think hysteria would occasionally unbalance gay guys to the point where their outrage would take them into the ghetto.

Nov 22, 2008 - 7:11 pm 180. kelsie:

Gays don’t hate Christians. Gays hate Christians who legislate their religion into secular law. Marriage has always been a man and a woman. Slavery has always existed. Women couldn’t vote for thousands of years, until the recent push for ‘equality.’ How civil would it remain, if there were an election tomorrow, the outcome of which was that marriages between Christians that exist today were no longer valid, and Christians could no longer marry the consenting adult they chose, but only certain others chosen by the state? How civil would they be?

Nov 22, 2008 - 9:14 pm 181. kelsie:

Has it occurred to anyone that what all of this drama is based on is: the belief that all of the gods ever worshipped in the history of human existence were fantasies…..except one?; that a woman had a baby without having sex?; that water can be turned into wine without adding any ingredients?; that snakes can talk?; that earth is at the center of the universe?; that epilepsy is caused by demonic possession? For anyone who thinks jesus’ resurrection was a unique story, please go to Wikipedia and read chapter 43 of “Autobiography of a Yogi.”

Please, people, knock it off! You can’t really expect to hold those things to be true, and then be taken seriously in your other views, can you? How does that work? For anyone who thinks jesus’ resurrection was a unique story, please go to Wikipedia and read chapter 43 of “Autobiography of a Yogi.” Stories of virgin births to a divine teacher, deaths and resurrections, miracles, etc., were all over the near and middle east 2000 years ago. One such elaboration was adopted by the empire covering Europe at the time, and as a result it is predominant on the continents conquered by Europeans thereafter. Is a little intellectual honesty so threatening that you would have an immediate indignation to the suggestion of it? Or can we be adults here?

Nov 22, 2008 - 10:26 pm 182. Chuck Pelto:

TO: kelsie
RE: Those Who Hate

Gays don’t hate Christians. — kelsie

I doubt the reality of that remark.

I know a professor of polisci at the local university that has a hissy-fit when you mention either Christians or Republicans.

She had one, during a break at a seminar we were attending, right in a room full of people. The blasphemy and slobber and ranting went on for at least 60 seconds. Just at the drop of the question, “What do you really think about christians?”

The whole room fell silent to witness the event. When someone asked where’s the volume control, she first glared at the person who asked and then realized that everyone in the room was staring at her in shock and/or horror.

This is supposed to be someone teaching the leaders of tomorrow ‘diversity’?

So if a professor can hate christians, I’m confident that homosexuals can as well.

Gays hate Christians who legislate their religion into secular law. — kelsie

All laws are based on morals, kelsie. Therefore, whomever has the majority of the legislator’s agreement, makes and passes law based on their sense of morality.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one nor the other. -- John, Viscount Morley of Blackburn]

Nov 23, 2008 - 8:29 am 183. Rashputin:

kelsie – “Or can we be adults here?”

I suppose your definition of adult should trump all others, ritht? Not very tolerant of you.

have a nice day

Nov 23, 2008 - 10:09 am 184. Rosie:

I am a Catholic and I find evangelicals and their proselytizing to be annoying too. But live and let live. The bigger problem is the silencing of speech. Will Christians once again have to worship hiding in their basements? Below is where this trend of silencing Christians will go if allow the bullies to dominate the public square.

Court to decide whether campus evangelism a crime
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 11/23/2008 5:00:00 AM
The so-called “free-speech code” of Yuba Community College District is under federal court scrutiny.

California student, Ryan Dozier, decided to spend some time on campus sharing his faith and handing out tracts to fellow students, generating conversations about Christianity. Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Heather Hacker comments on the situation.

“A campus police officer came over and told him that if he continued to do so without a permit that he would be possibly expelled or arrested, and so Ryan stopped immediately,” she explains.

Hacker says Dozier thought the case was closed, but he was apparently mistaken. “Three weeks later he got a certified letter from the president of the college stating that his actions were the subject of a campus crime report,” she adds. “Last time I checked, sharing your faith on a public college campus was not a crime.”

But the letter informed him he could face expulsion if he shared his faith on campus again. ADF filed suit, and a federal judge has ordered the college to suspend enforcement of its highly restricted free speech policies until the lawsuit is resolved

Nov 23, 2008 - 2:20 pm 185. kelsie:

Chuck Pelto,

An example of one person expressing her frustration at groups that don’t agree with her doesn’t mean that gays hate Christians. Most gays in this country were, or are being, raised Christian, and many have remained Christian. A person (or group) angry and frustrated at another group for trying to legislate discrimination against them, does not define ‘hate.’

You said, “All laws are based on morality.” No, Chuck, laws are based on protecting people from others. A speed limit protects other drivers. Homicide laws protect people from being murdered. Tax laws protect taxpayers from footing the bill for tax evaders. Construction specifications protect people from unsafe builders.

You further said, “whomever has the majority of the legislator’s agreement, makes and passes law based on their sense of morality.” Also not true. Segragation was outlawed even in places where the population of the schools in question objected. Miscegenation laws and sodomy laws were struck down even for states where the majority were morally for those laws. Again, this was to protect the minority from the majority.” Allowing the majority to chose the morals of the rest is despotism.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” Ayn Rand

Nov 23, 2008 - 2:57 pm 186. kelsie:

Rashputin,

You wrote: ““Or can we be adults here?” I suppose your definition of adult should trump all others, ritht? Not very tolerant of you.” You take my quote out of context, make a supposition about me without my collusion, and then come to an accusing conclusion. I fail to see how this advances the discussion.

My whole thought was: “Is a little intellectual honesty so threatening that you would have an immediate indignation to the suggestion of it? Or can we be adults here?” In other words, I’m equating indignation at the request for intellectual honesty with immature behavior. Perhaps you disagree with that assessment. I’m interested to know whether you do.

Nov 23, 2008 - 3:06 pm 187. Chuck Pelto:

TO: kelsie
RE: Try…

Chuck, laws are based on protecting people from others. — kelsie

You said, “All laws are based on morality.” No,

…not to be too stupid.

What do you think ‘protecting people from others’ is all about?

Or do you advocate cannibalism? Or human sacrifice?

If not….

….why not?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Nov 23, 2008 - 4:11 pm 188. kelsie:

Chuck,
are you implying that keeping 2 people from marrying because you don’t like their morals is in some way protecting you?

I don’t advocate cannibalm or human sacrifice because that would be someone being harmed by another. In some societies in the world, cannabalism and human sacrifice were morally o.k. Thank goodness we all are protected from having that done to us against our will. In other words, thank goodness our laws are based on protecting us from each other, and not on morals…since if they were, the minority in any morals issue would be subject to the majority against their will, and they might end up being thrown into a volcano.

Nov 23, 2008 - 10:42 pm 189. Chuck Pelto:

TO: kelsie
RE: Again, I Counsel You….

are you implying that keeping 2 people from marrying because you don’t like their morals is in some way protecting you? — kelsie

….to try not being TOO stupid.

And why don’t you answer my questions (above)? Afraid?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Typical 'progressive' attitude, ask questions, but never answer them. -- CBPelto]

Nov 24, 2008 - 6:10 am 190. kelsie:

Chuck Pelto,

You said:

“Again, I Counsel You…” (condescending);

“…to try not being TOO stupid” (insulting);

“And why don’t you answer my questions (above)?” (dismissive)

“Afraid?” (baiting)

“Typical ‘progressive’ attitude” (specious)

I enjoy intelligent analysis of issues, not this Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Hannity style waste of time.

Sorry, Chuckles

Nov 24, 2008 - 6:40 am 191. Chuck Pelto:

TO: kelsie
RE: I’m Sure….

I enjoy intelligent analysis of issues, not this Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Hannity style waste of time. — kelsie

…you enjoy twitting about. But you’d probably benefit more from REALLY engaging in ‘intelligent analysis of issues’. But that would require you answer questions. Something you’re obviously afraid of because it requires of ‘progressives’ the one think they can’t stand….

…taking a stand based on logic.

Why is that? Because ‘progressives’ can’t stand taking a stand. Their ‘logic’ is that yesterday’s ‘truth’ could well be tomorrow’s ‘lie’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Liberals aren't. Progressives won't.]

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:39 am 192. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. This discussion we have enjoyed here has hardly been a ‘waste of time’. Indeed, it has provided myriad readers evidence of the nature of ‘progressive’ principles of ‘intelligent analysis of issues’, i.e., that there is no such think….

Nov 24, 2008 - 7:42 am 193. Linking Around | The Anchoress:

[...] on my controversial germ from last week, Vanderleun looks at the reluctance of the Proposition 8 Gay Mauraders to confront [...]

Nov 24, 2008 - 8:54 pm 194. Maria:

The only people who would benefit from gay marriage are the divorce attorneys. I tell you no lie.

The gay community has the freedom to form their own “church” and have their commitment ceremonies there, and leave everybody else out of their personal business.

What two people do in their home and in their own bed is not my business, and it don’t want it to be, whether they are gay or straight, married or not!

Nov 25, 2008 - 1:33 pm 195. M. Simon:

Trinka,

A lot of Jews in Spain around the 1500s or 1600s got a lot of good news – convert or die. Of course they were given other options too. Face torture or property confiscation and expulsion.

Some very good news indeed.

Now I ask you. How could a religion whose exemplar was Jesus – a rather anti-statist guy when it came to enforcing religion bring forth such criminals? It is a wonder. And the normally infallible pope gave he whole deal his seal of approval.

Nov 25, 2008 - 8:24 pm 196. M. Simon:

Oh yeah. What was my point? Combining Church and State is not a good idea. Zealots often get the reigns of power and get carried away.

Who the hell Cares about Gays getting married? It will not make Christianity any less true – or false. It is not going to change my marriage one bit (sadly – my mate could use a couple of improvements).

Gays are just getting their revenge for prior persecutions. And a rather mild revenge at that. Let them have it. It will be their downfall in the end.

Take it to heart. Christians should not be persecuting anyone with the power of the state behind them or on their own. Jesus would not approve. And he is showing his disapproval by elevating your enemy over you. Take it to heart.

Nov 25, 2008 - 8:52 pm 197. Chuck Pelto:

TO: M. Simon
RE: You Are Correct…

Who the hell Cares about Gays getting married? It will not make Christianity any less true – or false. — M. Simon

….except for the pernicious little odds and ends that show up afterwards. Things like adoption of children.

As some Wag put it….

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. — Luke 17:2

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The devil is ALWAYS in the details.]

Nov 26, 2008 - 6:28 am 198. Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: M. Simon’s Comment

It seems that either M. Simon has short-term memory loss, is OBE or realizes the error of his previous position.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Have a wonderful holiday, today. Be thankful for what God has given US….

Nov 27, 2008 - 8:00 am 199. Obama/Blagojevich or Podcasts? | The Anchoress:

[...] Camille Paglia wags a finger at the post-Proposition 8 goings on in a manner that reflects some of my own stated opinions. Paglia also writes about the terror attacks on Mumbai with typical [...]

Dec 10, 2008 - 11:08 am 200. Dull Razor » Pandering:

[...] Elizabeth Scalia is pandering to the Politically Correct crowd, and she’s doing it at Pajamas Media, which is not the best place to do that sort of thing. She criticizes both “the gays” and “the Christians” for behaving “badly” during the Castro district altrication – you know, the one I blogged about the other day in which a crowd of angry anti-Prop 8 thugs surrounded a Bible study and prayer group and poured coffee on them, urinated on them, grabbed a girl’s Bible and attacked her with it, and then tried to molest the members of the group as they were escorted away by the police. Okay, I think we can see where “the gays” behaved badly. [...]

May 25, 2009 - 8:51 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: