It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'
By William A. Jacobson

Supporters of gay marriage have reacted with anger at the passage of California Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to provide that only marriages that fit the traditional definition (one man, one woman) will be recognized. The resulting protest movement has devolved into anti-Mormon bigotry which has been met with silence by liberal civil rights groups. The anti-Mormon fervor has become so nasty, and is growing at such a pace, that it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott."

The use of boycotts in support of gay marriage, including by some law professors, preceded the passage of Prop. 8. These boycotts, which aim at suppressing political speech, are distinct from the boycotts of the black civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. The civil rights boycotts sought not to suppress speech, but to provide access to goods and services by targeting those people withholding the goods and services.


Regardless of whether one supports the use of boycotts in the Prop. 8 context, the targeting of Mormons is gross hypocrisy considering that other groups, such as Blacks and Latinos, likely were the decisive electoral factor. A persuasive argument can be made that Mormons have been singled out because they are a relatively small group with political power mostly in one state. The irony of singling out a religious group which has itself been the victim of discrimination appears lost on anti-Prop. 8 boycott groups.


The anti-Prop. 8 boycott efforts have not been limited to Mormons, but Mormons have been the primary focus of public vitriol and at the center of the boycott movement. The evidence is mounting daily that the "Mormon boycott" efforts of pro-gay marriage groups have gone too far, and have devolved into anti-Mormon hate speech.


While the web is filled with hate speech by fringe elements directed at many groups, the anti-Mormon efforts are openly embraced and promoted by a wide range of anti-Prop. 8 groups. Anti-Mormon hate speech no longer is on the fringe, it is at the heart of the post-election anti-Prop. 8 campaign. The examples are too numerous to list completely. This sampling reflects the breadth and increasing scope of post-election anti-Mormon activities:


The creation of a boycott list of Mormon-owned hotels. The creator of the list states as follows: "I personally won't do business with any Marriott hotels, as they are owned by Mormons. I'm done with this gak. They just use the money against us."
Additional calls for a boycott of all Mormons: "While much ado is being made about the overwhelming support of prop 8 by black voters in California, there is little ado being made about getting even with the Mormons...."
A boycott of the entire state of Utah because of the high percentage of Mormons, and other efforts targeting Mormons as "hate's banker, and we need to make sure that their moral bankruptcy becomes a fiscal one as well."
Protests at Mormon churches around the country, including New York City, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles.
Postings on Daily Kos and elsewhere calling for boycott of Mormon owned businesses: "Businesses owned by Mormons, who tithe to the Church, should also be boycotted. Large amounts of Church income comes from tithings. Vote with your wallets! Every dollar less that you give to a tithed Mormon is a dollar less that can be tithed and spent on anti-gay activity."
Postings on YouTube of blatantly anti-Mormon videos calling on people to "Boycott the Utah Hate State and the Mormons."
The creation of high profile websites devoted to portraying Mormons as having betrayed the U.S. by taking control of the Boy Scouts and other devices: "The Mormon people have been able to flourish because of this country's generous spirit. But now, history has reversed, and it is the Mormons who have become the oppressor."
The production of an anti-Mormon musical by the creators of South Park, which is expected to start rehearsals soon.
Calls not to tip Mormon waiters: "Now do not tip, hire, or do any business with a Mormon. 10% of their income goes to the church that worked tirelessly to take the civil rights away from people. They are a Nazi organization who only what their point of view followed. I asked my waiter if he were a Mormon, when he said he was I did not tip him, telling him, I was sorry but I can not support bigotry."
Suggestions that Mormon businesses that do not wish to be harassed should post signs in their windows against Prop. 8: "Any business, Mormon or otherwise, can take the simple step of posting a sign on the premises urging the repeal of Prop 8, or make a public statement against it."
Calls to fire a Mormon employed by the American Jewish Congress because he supported Prop. 8.
The forced resignation of the Mormon director of the Los Angeles Film Festival for support of Prop. 8.
The investigation by the State of California of the Mormon Church's tax exempt status, even though religious organizations routinely support or oppose political causes without losing their exempt status.
A hotel in New Mexico luring visitors away from Utah by using a web address that incorporates the words "mormon-boycott-utah."
A call to boycott businesses, including Macy's and Nordstrom, which plan to open stores at a shopping mall owned by the Mormon church: "The Mormon Church came after our rights, and if we don't stop them, they will be back again and again."
A call to boycott businesses which have Mormons in senior positions: "Universely [sic], we need to avoid putting any more money into the Church's coffers by boycotting all companies where a Mormon church member holds an officer's position or a large majority interest."
Efforts to create and distribute lists of businesses "either owned by the Church, owned by Mormons, having a Mormon in a high executive position, or generally benefiting Mormons," including on Facebook and elsewhere.
The boycott of Mormon business has been likened to a war: "There is a war cry being sounded in gay communities all across America - Boycott Mormon owned businesses. This is a war cry that should be heeded."
The singling out of Mormons, and the hateful nature of the boycott, is not coincidental. Prop. 8 is being used as an excuse to vent pent-up anger at the Mormon Church, and the traditional lifestyle of Mormons. With each passing day, it seems that the web is filled with more and more hate speech directed at Mormons. As others have noted, the attacks on Mormons would not be tolerated if directed at other religious or ethnic groups.


What is most disturbing is that there has been complete silence from groups that normally defend religious freedom. The Anti-Defamation League has not stepped forward to defend Mormons against the current boycotts, even though the ADL has spoken out against anti-Mormon hate crimes in the past.


The silence of the ADL and other Jewish groups is unconscionable. Economic boycotts of goods and academics have been condemned as veiled anti-semitism by ... the ADL.


In the end, the supporters of gay marriage who engage in anti-Mormon hate speech will realize that they have damaged their own cause. Lashing out at others and engaging in religious bigotry does not constitute an argument in favor of gay marriage.


Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott." There simply is no one else who will, if we don't.


William A. Jacobson is Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, NY, and author of the Legal Insurrection Blog. The views expressed here are his own, and not on behalf of the university.

What constitutes “bigotry”? And can you come up with a definition that allows you to say that critics of social conservatives are bigots, but not social conservatives who block marriage rights?

Frazzled wrote:http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/its_time_to_speak_out_against.html

It's Time to Speak Out Against The 'Mormon Boycott'
By William A. Jacobson

(snip)

The civil rights boycotts sought not to suppress speech, but to provide access to goods and services by targeting those people withholding the goods and services.

Regardless of whether one supports the use of boycotts in the Prop. 8 context, the targeting of Mormons is gross hypocrisy considering that other groups, such as Blacks and Latinos, likely were the decisive electoral factor. A persuasive argument can be made that Mormons have been singled out because they are a relatively small group with political power mostly in one state.

The irony of singling out a religious group which has itself been the victim of discrimination appears lost on anti-Prop. 8 boycott groups.

While the web is filled with hate speech by fringe elements directed at many groups, the anti-Mormon efforts are openly embraced and promoted by a wide range of anti-Prop. 8 groups. Anti-Mormon hate speech no longer is on the fringe, it is at the heart of the post-election anti-Prop. 8 campaign. The examples are too numerous to list completely. This sampling reflects the breadth and increasing scope of post-election anti-Mormon activities:

What is most disturbing is that there has been complete silence from groups that normally defend religious freedom. The Anti-Defamation League has not stepped forward to defend Mormons against the current boycotts, even though the ADL has spoken out against anti-Mormon hate crimes in the past.

The silence of the ADL and other Jewish groups is unconscionable. Economic boycotts of goods and academics have been condemned as veiled anti-semitism by ... the ADL.

Regardless of one's position on gay marriage, it is time to speak out against the "Mormon boycott." There simply is no one else who will, if we don't.

OT but man I am so Jonesing for a piece of chocolate cake with rich sweet frosting...

Typeline wrote:TL;DR

Any church that takes political stances should have it's tax exempt status removed.

sebster wrote:

Except, of course, that mormons provided most of the funding for the prop-8 campaign, and voted almost uniformly for it. Whereas the black and latino populations voted 70% for it, meaning if you boycott a black owned business you’re about 30% likely of missing the target and ending up a jackass.

Fallen668 wrote:Got to love it when one group tries to force others to live by the writings of a 2000+/- year old book that is supposedly devine in nature but in reality had to go through an editing process and still can't tell a cohesive story and keep its' facts straight.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Fallen668 wrote:Got to love it when one group tries to force others to live by the writings of a 2000+/- year old book that is supposedly devine in nature but in reality had to go through an editing process and still can't tell a cohesive story and keep its' facts straight.

I think you would be shocked as to how much of your morals are based on that very book. For example, are all people equal? In most sets or moral codes that are not from the 'western' school of thought- the answer is no. Confucianism sets each person in their place and they should happy in it. India had a very rigid cast system. African tribe brutally murdered other tribes. Life was cheap, really. It was "western thought" (which is based on that book) that taught that life is equal.

edited:typo

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:As opposed to laying the blame at a church that did not donate the money (it was the members of that church, not the church itself). You also have no way of knowing the vote of the Mormons as votes are on secret ballets. I would wager that the number would be similar to active Catholics. As for the cash, the "Yes on 8" was outspent by the "No on 8". It is not like money buys votes or 8 would have been voted down! And No on 8 also recieve out of state funds (NY, etc.)

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I think you would be shocked as to how much of your morals are based on that very book. For example, are all people equal? In most sets or moral codes that are not from the 'western' school of thought- the answer is no. Confucianism sets each person in their place and they should happy in it. India had a very rigid cast system. African tribe brutally murdered other tribes. Life was cheap, really. It was "western thought" (which is based on that book) that taught that life is equal.

edited:typo

Mekniakal wrote:Are you serious? What's next, "the constitution was based on the ten commandments?".

You do realize that until recently blacks were considered second class citizens, right? Even in this "Christian" country, right?

Modernization has brought about the new liberties of today, not a specific book. It wasn't two hundred years ago when people were using the bible to justify slavery of black people, and it was much more recently that is was used to justify the illegality of interracial marriage. Or were the Salem witch trials not influenced by that "very book?" The Inquisition?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I think you would be shocked as to how much of your morals are based on that very book. For example, are all people equal? In most sets or moral codes that are not from the 'western' school of thought- the answer is no. Confucianism sets each person in their place and they should happy in it. India had a very rigid cast system. African tribe brutally murdered other tribes. Life was cheap, really. It was "western thought" (which is based on that book) that taught that life is equal.

edited:typo

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

I think it is a basic requirement in a democracy for both sides to be willing to accept the results graciously.

In this case, I think the soft response is usually the more effective one. I think adopting a response of hate will hurt the anti-8 groups cause more then it will help it.

dogma wrote:Its been said by Sebster, but this is one of my personal pet peeves so...

Railguns wrote:They are an "easy" target because they are a church, not the only target. It makes them easier to blame thoughtlessly. I'm not talking about what they actually did or didn't. If they were involved, and their side won, I think it would be all too easy for people to hate them because they are the obvious enemy and not dig any deeper into the issue, to see what actually happened and to what extent, to break down the sequence of events. Thats the kind of thing I'm worried about. I'm not defending anyone, I'm advocating full research into an issue to support opposition, rather than rausing opposition through simple group-think.

Mekniakal wrote:

I am Arab and in the military. "Don't trust Arabs because they are all terrorists!" or saw an advertisement that said, "All military personnel are baby killing monsters!" I would be pissed.

Mekniakal wrote:

You realize Prop-8 was an initiative to repeal a law that was decided, right? The anti-gay groups didn't like the ruling, and fought it again.

It will be struck down as unconstitutional, and the Mormons have wasted $20 million dollars that could have spent helping people instead of hating them.

One of the reasons the Mormon Church is a target is because they created monstrously misleading ads, saying things like, "If prop-8 passes, kids will be taught HOMOSEXUALITY IN SCHOOLS!" which is, of course, a bald faced lie and a misrepresentation of what prop-8 was advocating to do.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Mekniakal wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

I think it is a basic requirement in a democracy for both sides to be willing to accept the results graciously.

In this case, I think the soft response is usually the more effective one. I think adopting a response of hate will hurt the anti-8 groups cause more then it will help it.

You realize Prop-8 was an initiative to repeal a law that was decided, right? The anti-gay groups didn't like the ruling, and fought it again. It will be struck down as unconstitutional, and the Mormons have wasted $20 million dollars that could have spent helping people instead of hating them.

Also, the majority cannot vote to limit the civil rights of a minority. What Prop-8 is trying to do is legislate discrimination into the state's constitution. It will be struck down by the Supreme Court because that's their job. They have to ensure the legality of a law, and one that flagrantly violates the rights of a minority is blatantly illegal.

Of course I understand that this issue is very important to a lot of people on the anti-side, and I hope they understand that it is equally important to many people on the pro-side.

I don't think much can be gained by demonizing the people on the other side. All that does is polarize the issue and make civil discourse nearly impossible to acheive.

I think it is important to point out, however, that using the courts instead of ballots creates bad feelings, because it subverts the democratic process. I think the proper way to effect change is through a vote, not by getting the courts to rule in your favor. That's only my opinion, of course.

It would be interesting to see a court attempt to rule a part of the constitution unconstitutional, since that would be beyond their authority.

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

Da Boss wrote:Yeah I was about to ask the same question.
Surely there's nothing wrong with explaining the concept of homosexuality to kids. At least then a kid who is experiencing homosexual urges won't feel as isolated and wierded out.

Frazzled wrote:Mormons are being picked on because they are the only non-leftward group of the bunch. Hence the attacks, the mailing of suspicious powders, etc.

Frazzled wrote:As long as its not in school-cool.

Schools have not right to teach nuttin but that thar readin ritin and 'rithemetic until they get that right, then they can trie to move on to more advanced stuff...

reds8n wrote:MFT

It depends what you mean by adding to the curriculum though surely ?

I appreciate that whilst it is impossible to teach/cover any/all problems or issues a child will have to face up to ( I'm not proposing Serial killing 101... yet ! ) I still don't see what the problem is in covering it in, for example, sex education classes.

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

Da Boss wrote:It is a norm- it's a norm that a small proportion of the population are homosexual. Making people aware of that is to my mind no more harmful than making them aware that a small proportion of the population live in Utah.

But hey, Ireland is hardly a bastion of gay rights, so don't think I'm just crapping all over america here.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

I disagree. The school is charged with the intellectual training of children. Not the social training of children. Social institutions (Religions, families, clubs, groups, etc.) are responsible for the social instruction. (As for 'norms", we are talking about 2% of the population. Hardly a norm.)

Envy89 wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:To me, the core issue is this: When you use a democratic process to resolve differences, what is the appropriate response when you win, and what is the appropriate response when you lose?

well, when you are a left winger.

if you win - you rub it in everyones faces
if you lose - you start claming it is racist / bigoted in some way, whine aobut it, and if all that dosent work, start sueing people... or boycot.


when you are a right winger

if you lose - you have it rubed in your face
if you win - you have to deal with being called racist / biggot, and all the whining and nagging, and court fees.


just something i have noticed.

Da Boss wrote:That's not really my point, my point is that the existence of homosexuality is normal. It's as normal as the existence of people who are allergic to milk, or people who burn easily in the sun, or whatever. Kids get taught that these things happen in school, I see no reason why they couldn't be taught that homosexuality exists too. Hiding it is a bit wierd from my perspective.
I'm not talking about the act of homosexual sex, the fact of homosexual attraction or anything. Just the existence of homosexuals, and what homosexuality means. That's all. I'm not advocating teaching about positions, terminology, philosophy or anything like that, or anything about how to react to or treat homosexuals. I'm just saying that acknowledging their existence is sensible, as it prepares kids for the real world in the same way teaching geography does.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

I disagree. The school is charged with the intellectual training of children. Not the social training of children. Social institutions (Religions, families, clubs, groups, etc.) are responsible for the social instruction. (As for 'norms", we are talking about 2% of the population. Hardly a norm.)

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote: But the school has a duty to at touch upon the societal norms and alws.

I disagree. The school is charged with the intellectual training of children. Not the social training of children. Social institutions (Religions, families, clubs, groups, etc.) are responsible for the social instruction. (As for 'norms", we are talking about 2% of the population. Hardly a norm.)

It's impossible to do the latter without some teaching of societal norms. School IS a societal institution. Part of the problems in too many schools is kids from "bad" homes who haven't been taught good manners and basic politeness. And even if they have the school still reinforces and builds upon this basic instruction : kids learn to que up, to not interrupt others, national anthem in your country I believe.

And how does a school train people intellectually without debate or awareness of other points of view. I'm sure the civil right struggle is covered in your schools, you're not claiming that it's possible to learn and think about that without being aware of the history of the movement. It's the same for female emancipation and the changing attitudes towards homosexuality : it's in the news, it's being discussed here, schools would be remiss not to touch upon it in some ways.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't schools in the USA swear allegiance to the flag?

Schools have an important role in social training. The point of pre-school and kindergarten is to socialise children to the point where they can enter primary school successfully. More social training follows through all sorts of teaching such as sports, humanities, foreign languages, geography, religious education, off-site visits and after school activities, and basic classroom discipline.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Don't schools in the USA swear allegiance to the flag?

Schools have an important role in social training. The point of pre-school and kindergarten is to socialise children to the point where they can enter primary school successfully. More social training follows through all sorts of teaching such as sports, humanities, foreign languages, geography, religious education, off-site visits and after school activities, and basic classroom discipline.

Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:[quote=reds8n

@ Gen.Lee.Losing : But homosexuality is normal in nature isn't it ? We've been over this already.

You teach democracy in schools, and that, from a strict "natural is good" school of thinking is distinctly unnatural no ?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

You see, it's a matter of tolerance. If you teach about something in school, it becomes more acceptable. You can clear away a lot of bigotry with just a couple of lessons. This means the '2%' suffer a hell of a lot less, and if you can make even one persons life better, surely it must be worth it? The lessons would be about what it is to be gay. All to often the media portray homosexuals as quite flamboyant individuals, and also efeminate. Most homosexuals are neither of these things. One lesson, bam, myth somewhat expunged. The worst thing you can do with a young mind is tell it something is right/wrong and never bother to explain why.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: But sex ed is about reproduction. That is why it was permitted into schools in the first place. It is a scientific view of the reproductive system.

Da Boss wrote:So, what do schools in the US teach then? Just how to read, write and do maths? Or do they teach geography and history too? Do they teach science? I'm not sure what the difference between the facts in these subjects and the facts of the existence of homosexuals is.

Envy89 wrote:also... how is banning gay marrige discriminating to ANYONE???

last time i checked, a stright guy couldent marry another guy if he wanted to.
a stright woman couldent marry another woman if she wanted to.


if a homosexual man wishes to marry a woman. he is free to.
if a lesbian woman wish to marry a man she may.
heck, if a homosesual man wants to marry a lesbian womman they can.

there isnet a law saying "if you are homosexual you cant marry anyone"

Mannahnin wrote:Shockingly (I’m sure), I’m on board with Sebster and some of our European colleagues here. Sex Ed talks about consent, safety, disease prevention, etc. It’s about behavior as much as biology, and it helps kids make smarter decisions. Some Comprehensive programs include a component for young children to help them avoid molesters; Obama supporting such a program was labeled by some dishonest opponents as trying to teach Sex Ed to little kids. Given that somewhere between 2%-7% of humans, including the school kids themselves, are inclined this way, it’s appropriate for them to know enough about it to help them make safe (or safer) choices, and maybe reduce the incidence of hate crimes.

Envy89 wrote:also... how is banning gay marrige discriminating to ANYONE???

last time i checked, a stright guy couldent marry another guy if he wanted to.
a stright woman couldent marry another woman if she wanted to.


if a homosexual man wishes to marry a woman. he is free to.
if a lesbian woman wish to marry a man she may.
heck, if a homosesual man wants to marry a lesbian womman they can.

there isnet a law saying "if you are homosexual you cant marry anyone"

This is an intellectually-bankrupt and fundamentally dishonest (whether you’re lying to yourself or to others) argument. Please do me the favor of not polluting the board with it.

Frazzled wrote:Mormons are being picked on because they are the only non-leftward group of the bunch. Hence the attacks, the mailing of suspicious powders, etc.

Envy89 wrote:also... how is banning gay marrige discriminating to ANYONE???

last time i checked, a stright guy couldent marry another guy if he wanted to.
a stright woman couldent marry another woman if she wanted to.


if a homosexual man wishes to marry a woman. he is free to.
if a lesbian woman wish to marry a man she may.
heck, if a homosesual man wants to marry a lesbian womman they can.

there isnet a law saying "if you are homosexual you cant marry anyone"

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Mormons are being picked on because they are the only non-leftward group of the bunch. Hence the attacks, the mailing of suspicious powders, etc.

Of course being the primary financial contributors, and a contiguous religious entity, couldn't anything at all to do with it. :S

dogma wrote:

Envy89 wrote:also... how is banning gay marrige discriminating to ANYONE???

last time i checked, a stright guy couldent marry another guy if he wanted to.
a stright woman couldent marry another woman if she wanted to.


if a homosexual man wishes to marry a woman. he is free to.
if a lesbian woman wish to marry a man she may.
heck, if a homosesual man wants to marry a lesbian womman they can.

there isnet a law saying "if you are homosexual you cant marry anyone"

This is phenomenally ignorant for so many reasons that I barely know where to begin.

By definition, you are heterosexual if you prefer the opposite sex. By definition, you are homosexual if you prefer the same sex. We are absolutely denying homosexuals the right to their preference, which may indeed be referred to as a right for the fact that the state endorses heterosexual preferences.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a school, any school, can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents. I'm not saying that kids should be told what is, and isn't wrong, only exposed to other ways of thinking as par for the course is any philosophy class. Essentially, being forced to account for what Socrates thought was wrong.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay, by that definition of social instruction, I would alter my statement to say that acceptance of homosexuality and teaching it as 'okay' (Which it probably is) would fall under Philosophical/Moral instruction. And that has no place in schools.

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a school, any school, can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents. I'm not saying that kids should be told what is, and isn't wrong, only exposed to other ways of thinking as par for the course is any philosophy class. Essentially, being forced to account for what Socrates thought was wrong.

And in a philosophy class, please! Have at it! Talk it up! Because that is the point of philosophy.
But to require students to listen to something they may find offensive to appease 2% of the population is a bit out of hand.
Students who want to debate can join debate club or sign up for that philosophy class.

But the schools function is not to offer an alternative to the parents thinking. That is very dangerous indeed!

dogma wrote:

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a private school can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But the root of that 'bigotry' is just a belief that homosexuality is wrong and that lies with religion/moral codes, not a lack of knowing what homosexuality is. So in essence, you are claiming that the school is to teach that religion is wrong. You can see why religions would be upset by that.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay, I was hoping not to have to say this, because I HATE it! please forgive me.

But people have a Right to Hate. You are allowed to foster intense and absolute irrational hate for anyone you want. That is a freedom we all have. You cannont act on that hate to do harm to another person, but the hate and bigotry is a right people have. I think it is a waste of energy, but it is legal.

I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I know of "Rights of the State" and "Rights of the Individual" but not "Rights of the Couple". The law is applying the same rule evenly, you dislike the rule. That is fine! You are allowed to dislike it! But the Right as presently written is not being denied you, you just don’t like how the right is written. I can understand. Feel free to campaign to change the rights of Civil union to be the same as marriage. Leave Marriage alone.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Mormons as individuals? Okay, you can be upset at them but be upset at them because of their vote not their faith.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? You really should not be mad that a religion abided by its own theological ideas. That is like getting pissed of at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
And in a philosophy class, please! Have at it! Talk it up! Because that is the point of philosophy.
But to require students to listen to something they may find offensive to appease 2% of the population is a bit out of hand.
Students who want to debate can join debate club or sign up for that philosophy class.

But the schools function is not to offer an alternative to the parents thinking. That is very dangerous indeed!

Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. If you want to "challenge their parents thinking" (aka brain washing) do it in college where they have developed and are independent enough to disagree. Education is a requirement-you're subscribing to mandatory brain washing. As a parent I politely invite you to take a long run off a short pier if you try to impose that on my school district. Your statement alone is why millions are now homeschooling their kids.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

dogma wrote:

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a private school can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents.

Fixed your quote.

Public schools have no business subverting parental authority.

reds8n wrote:

Acceptance of homosexuality is not a dogma, it's the law of the land.

dogma wrote:
Either way, unless the Mormons have a theological doctrine which requires them to deny rights to those they do not agree with I gotta say that this is less like getting mad at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map, and more like getting mad at Jews for oppressing non-Jewish resident of Israel.

Ozymandias wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

dogma wrote:

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a private school can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents.

Fixed your quote.

Public schools have no business subverting parental authority.

So you're saying that if the parents are racists or don't believe that the Holocaust happened then Public schools have no right to teach the students these things? I don't see how saying, "A small percentage of humans are attracted to the same sex; they are called homosexuals." is subverting the will of the parents. It is neither condoning nor condemning homosexual behavior, just stating it as a fact.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Doctor Thunder wrote:

dogma wrote:
Either way, unless the Mormons have a theological doctrine which requires them to deny rights to those they do not agree with I gotta say that this is less like getting mad at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map, and more like getting mad at Jews for oppressing non-Jewish resident of Israel.

As a Mormon, I thought I should just point out that Marriage and Family are central to our faith and sacred to us in a way that can be difficult for people not of our faith to understand.

Our position is not anti-gay, our position is pro-preserving what we believe is sacred. I know it may be hard to believe, but it really has nothing to do with the homosexual community. If there had been a law passed allowing people to marry their pets, we would have opposed that just as strongly.

We may have incompatible beliefs with the pro-gay marriage community, but that does not make us enemies. We hold no enmity against the gay community. We are simply standing up for what we believe to be right, and we understand that they are doing the same.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: But they cannot say that hate is wrong.

Ozymandias wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

dogma wrote:
Either way, unless the Mormons have a theological doctrine which requires them to deny rights to those they do not agree with I gotta say that this is less like getting mad at Jews for wanting to keep Israel on the map, and more like getting mad at Jews for oppressing non-Jewish resident of Israel.

As a Mormon, I thought I should just point out that Marriage and Family are central to our faith and sacred to us in a way that can be difficult for people not of our faith to understand.

Our position is not anti-gay, our position is pro-preserving what we believe is sacred. I know it may be hard to believe, but it really has nothing to do with the homosexual community. If there had been a law passed allowing people to marry their pets, we would have opposed that just as strongly.

We may have incompatible beliefs with the pro-gay marriage community, but that does not make us enemies. We hold no enmity against the gay community. We are simply standing up for what we believe to be right, and we understand that they are doing the same.

You are using laws to say something is sacred. Don't you see the problem with that?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: But they cannot say that hate is wrong.

You've said a lot of silly things in this thread and the other on marriage. But this one takes the cake.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Frazzled wrote:As noted, if a private school wants to do that-good for them. Its not required. If a college wants to do that-good for them. Its not required. Public education is required. Again, what you call "challenging" I see as nothing more than forced brainwashing. further, it takes away from actually teaching them something. In places where that is a fad test scores are pathetic and the students can't compete because they are too busy being indoctrinated into the latest fad and not learning what 2+2 is. Meanwhile our Asian competition kicks our teeth in.

Frazzled wrote:Fortunately I and my ilk vote and contribute politically.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Acceptance of homosexuality is not a dogma, it's the law of the land.

Actually, Non-discrimination is the law of the land. Acceptance is a personal issue that cannot be legislated.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
If the parents are racist that is their right (and it sucks, yes.). The school has No business to interfere with that. Now, the school is required to protect it's students so it can punish any intimidation, threats, action of those whho are distributing hate. But they cannot say that hate is wrong.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
No, they are voting their conscience. That is something different.

dogma wrote:
Unfortunately Texas holds a virtual monopoly on the printing of text books, so you and your ilk hold a frustratingly disproportionate sway over what is taught in this nation.

reds8n wrote:
non discrimination IS acceptance with regards to the law which was the point.

By using any votes they had the Mormons weren't attacking homosexuals. By contributing millions of $s to campaign against something that would not affect them at all-- unless you are perhaps a gay mormon ?-- they did "attack" the homosexual community.

I've yet to see any evidence or argument put forth how homosexual couples having the same rights ( and responsibilities) as "regular" married folks would have impinged upon the lives or values of Mormons anymore than 9,999 other things in America.

Ozymandias wrote:*sigh*

Seeing that no one still has been able to provide a logical reason that gay marriage should not be allowed it's really hard for me to take you seriously and not believe that it's simply homophobia or mis-guided beliefs about gays in general.

It's also painfully clear that none of you know anyone close to you who is gay. I think if you did, you wouldn't be able to look them in the face and tell them that they can't marry who they love because you don't think their lifestyle is "moral".

I'm outta here.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

dogma wrote:

I gotta say that I beg to differ. One of the most important things a private school can do is provide a potentially dissenting opinion from that of the parents.

Fixed your quote.

Public schools have no business subverting parental authority.

So you're saying that if the parents are racists or don't believe that the Holocaust happened then Public schools have no right to teach the students these things? I don't see how saying, "A small percentage of humans are attracted to the same sex; they are called homosexuals." is subverting the will of the parents. It is neither condoning nor condemning homosexual behavior, just stating it as a fact.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:*sigh*

Seeing that no one still has been able to provide a logical reason that gay marriage should not be allowed it's really hard for me to take you seriously and not believe that it's simply homophobia or mis-guided beliefs about gays in general.

It's also painfully clear that none of you know anyone close to you who is gay. I think if you did, you wouldn't be able to look them in the face and tell them that they can't marry who they love because you don't think their lifestyle is "moral".

I'm outta here.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:

You are using laws to say something is sacred. Don't you see the problem with that?

Ozymandias wrote:
As a married man, I don't see how gay marriage somehow makes my marriage less sacred. It just doesn't make any sense.

Someone please explain how gay marriage negatively affects my marriage.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I am not saying you deserve fewer rights. If you read my posts, I am saying I support upgrading Civil Unions to be an exact match of marriage. You agree to leave marriage alone and I agree to you having the same rights. Marriage is an institution that has been hetro for a VERY long time. Why change it if you can get the exact same rights with a different approach?

Doctor Thunder wrote:
No one can do that, because what you do or do not hold sacred and the way you hold it sacred is a personal choice of yours.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:
As a married man, I don't see how gay marriage somehow makes my marriage less sacred. It just doesn't make any sense.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

Someone please explain how gay marriage negatively affects my marriage.

No one can do that, because what you do or do not hold sacred and the way you hold it sacred is a personal choice of yours.

dogma wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:
No one can do that, because what you do or do not hold sacred and the way you hold it sacred is a personal choice of yours.

If you cannot justify your belief, then it cannot be written into law. Simply saying 'I believe something because I do' in public discourse is not acceptable.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

I think you have brought up two good key points of this issue. 1) To what extent do you believe that people have a right to free thought?

2) To what extent do parents have the right to teach their children as they see fit?
Here's my position: I dislike thought-police. I believe in the right to freedom of though enough that I will defend it for those I disagree with.
Many of your thoughts, Ozymandias, I find to be evil, but under no circumstances will I suggest that your children must be indoctrinated into my way of thinking.

When they get older they will encounter other points of view and may choose for themselves, but when they are children the rights belong to the parents.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
I never said I cannot justify my beliefs, I said I cannot explain his beliefs.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

You are using laws to say something is sacred. Don't you see the problem with that?

No, I don't. We are using the vote exactly as it should be used. We are voting for what we think is right, exactly the same as the pro-gay marriage side is.

dogma wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

You are using laws to say something is sacred. Don't you see the problem with that?

No, I don't. We are using the vote exactly as it should be used. We are voting for what we think is right, exactly the same as the pro-gay marriage side is.

But when what you think is right is the denial of legal rights to another minority group you are very much in the wrong.

dogma wrote:

But when what you think is right is the denial of legal rights to another minority group you are very much in the wrong.

Doctor Thunder wrote:In your opinion.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

We vote.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

Doctor Thunder wrote:
In your opinion.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

We vote.

dienekes96 wrote:We are a Republic, not a democracy. The unconstitutionality of the issue renders my opinion and your opinion moot.

Our opinions do not matter...the law does. The law is derived from the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments).

Fortunately, my opinion on this issue does not contradict the legal rights of other citizens, so I'm OK here. There are some places where I might not have an opinion that runs concordantly with the Constitution, but that is too bad for me.

reds8n wrote:

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

Indeed. But why ?

Seemingly by spending $20 Million dollars to affect the vote in a place that has no/minimal affect upon you.

Like Mr. Ozymandias says, we've yet to hear any rational explanation for being against gay equality other than dislike.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

Indeed. But why ?

Seemingly by spending $20 Million dollars to affect the vote in a place that has no/minimal affect upon you.

Like Mr. Ozymandias says, we've yet to hear any rational explanation for being against gay equality other than dislike.

No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Mekniakal wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:We are a Republic, not a democracy. The unconstitutionality of the issue renders my opinion and your opinion moot.

Our opinions do not matter...the law does. The law is derived from the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments).

Fortunately, my opinion on this issue does not contradict the legal rights of other citizens, so I'm OK here. There are some places where I might not have an opinion that runs concordantly with the Constitution, but that is too bad for me.

Exactly.

Just as someone can't outlaw you teaching Mormonism to your children or being Mormon, you can't restrict the rights of another group of people if it is constitutional and isn't directly impinging on your rights.

The reason there is a supreme court is to, surprise, surprise, strike down unconstitutional laws. If you voted on a law that would make it illegal for black people to marry, it would be struck down, even if it got a popular vote, because it is unconstitutional

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Separate is necessarily unequal. Unless you want to remove marriage from the legal books that argument is bankrupt.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

But does saying marriage is between a man and a woman unconstitutional?
I think to say that marriage should have more rights than gay unions is!
But Marriage has long been defined as man and wife. Why change that? If you can get rights, why change marriage? There is no legal reason too!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

Mekniakal wrote:

Also, if a church wants to marry a gay couple, what right do you have to stop it?

Mekniakal wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

Here's the facts:

As long as marriage isn't a religious institution, you cannot use faith based restrictions on it. There are Christians that are perfectly happy to marry a gay couple.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes..

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes..

They're only equal if they are equally accepted everywhere. If, for example, you try to purchase goods or access services and are told " Sorry we only take $100s in gold not silver" then they are not equal.

I guess it ultimately comes down to what is easier to change : the myraid of benefits and responsibilities that that marriage brings with it over civil partnership-- over 1000 apparently-- or the definition of the word marriage.

You'll note, as far as I'm aware anyway love to be proved wrong, that the Mormon church/Yes campaigners never seemed to argue for the former idea.


Just to point out : Mr.GL Losing has previously stated he himself has no problem withh full equality with regards to access of said benefits etc.

Nurglitch wrote:Bad Mormons! No gay sex for you!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

Mekniakal wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

But, you're infringing on the right of other religions to marry who they believe should be allowed to marry! Your church doesn't have to recognize their right to marriage. Also, what thousands of years of tradition? Hindu? Bhuddist? Christian? Different regions have had different view on marriage/who can marry/etc.

Why does your specific traditions override others?

Slavery is a historic institution, do you object to the loss of it?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I want to keep that tradition. I also want civil unions to beefed up to be a "mirror" of marriage.

reds8n wrote: err... I don't think peple are arguing that you can or even should use laws to change opinions.

I agree this would be a fallacy, if not impossible.

It's also a fallacy to pretend that chnaging the definition of amrriage would alter future or existing marriages in any way what so ever.

I don't get how it's an " attcak on tradition" even. Surely the fact that people want to get married, as opposed to just shacking up/living in sin/whataver shows the tradition is more valid and worth keeping than was previously thought.

You can't argue that marriage, at least in Americ, has traditionally been between a man and a woman. But the actual nature of the marriage itself had changed in countless ways throughout this same period. It's only by adapting and evolving (slightly) that traditions stay alive or vaguely relevant.

Traditionally you eat a gose at Xmas. But we don't most go for Turkey. Hell, I'm doing steak this year . It's the basic principle : family/friends sitting down and sharing a meal in compansionship or in religious celebration that is the essence of the tradition.

marriage is about 2 people ( consenting adults blah blah) making a special vow to each other. As this is, lets be honest, pretty cool and generally has proven laregly beneficial for society we throw certain advantages to people who undertake this. Thengenders of those involved is, surely, irrelevant.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

Mekniakal wrote:

Here's an idea:

What if the government could only issue civil unions, and then the churches decide whom they want to marry? They can marry only those that they believed are allowed to in the eyes of their god.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

When I was in High school, there was a group of kids that wanted to say the Pledge of Allegiance with their left arm in a raised salute. If them doing so did not prevent me from putting my hand over my heart, I shouldn't have objected right? My use of tradition was not stopped. But it offended those who love the tradition. Same with marriage. It would not destroy my practice, but would be very offensive to the majority of its practitioners. It would 'dilute' the tradition. My marriage would be less special as it was so casually tossed about.

p.s.- I am not saying my example is the same, only saying the argument above was flawed.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.

In that instance there is a common denominator, legal tender, upon which the valuation of two different commodities can be measured. The same should be true of the law with respect to marriage, at the moment that is not the case.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

That rest one the premise that 'straight' is a rigid category against which 'same' can be judged. Such an assumption is false.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

I would be happy with that so long as marriage was still confined to a man and wife, pastors/bishops/etc are still licensed to perform marriages, and marriage certificates can still be issued to young couples of opposite genders. (i.e.- still ownership of the word marriage). The government would recognize the marriage as having the civil union rights.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The argument being made was about words. "Marriage" vs. "Civil Unions". They can have the same right (don’t now, right?). Therefore they would be equal before the law.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The argument being made was about words. "Marriage" vs. "Civil Unions". They can have the same right (don’t now, right?). Therefore they would be equal before the law.

In something so deeply linguistic as the law a separation of terminology will never allow for absolute equivalence.

reds8n wrote:I don't get how it dilutes your tradition.

dienekes96 wrote:In the United States, you have to get a state-administered legal document of a union to get married anyway.

Let's face it...Britney Spears has done more damage to marriage than any homosexual ever could.

If the church wants to define it a certain way, I have no problem with that. Separation of church and state. But the church does not provide any legal benefits to its members. As it should be.

There. We can all be happy.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:I don't get how it dilutes your tradition.

It is difficult to understand something alien to you. It is just as hard for traditional marriage types to understand how it Won’t! My union of man and wife is marriage. Your union of man and man (or woman and woman) is not marriage by tradition. It deserves equal rights. But it is not marriage. Changing that word would dilute the tradition.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

It is State sanction, but can be ministered by clergy. I am arguing that civil unions should have identical language in its law, save that marriage is between a man and woman. That way both sides win. Equal rights/Traditional Marriage.

reds8n wrote:

Fair enough(ish) I suppose.

can you see therefore how it might be equally important for a gay couple to be able to say they are married, not just joined in a civil union ?

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

It is State sanction, but can be ministered by clergy. I am arguing that civil unions should have identical language in its law, save that marriage is between a man and woman. That way both sides win. Equal rights/Traditional Marriage.

Traditional marriage has nothing to do with the law.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

African American Male, and White Male are not written into the legal framework. Anywhere.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Such as African American Male Vs. White Male. No equality in the law?

African American Male, and White Male are not written into the legal framework. Anywhere.

So there is no Affirmative Action???

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

dogma wrote:

Not any that is government sponsored in the way you consider it. The legal framework simply states that the government will "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." Which is nothing more than a justification for investigating claims of discrimination. Any measures taken to avoid such accusations are not a part of the legal system.

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.

Who decided that? Definitions are far from fixed in a living language.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

No, it does not make sense if you use the definition which you subscribe to. But, again, no word is subject to an unchanging definition.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

They are the answer, when that is the legal term applies to everyone. The only was you'll get that resolution is if the State is not permitted to recognize ANY religious marriage.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
1 -The people of california had previously voted to legally define marriage a few years back. So that is the current legal definition.
2- based on the above, the 2nd point was technically valid.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
3- If I said that I want Gay to mean straight, and thus Gay marriage would be straight marriage, you would say I was an idiot. If words are so easily cahnged in meaning, then laws (a collection of words) are doomed to fail the moment they are written. (i.e.-Murder means cutting throats. I only shot him!) Marriage has a definition. You don't like. I am sorry.

dogma wrote:

If that's the case then the law is in violation of the first amendment in a pretty clear way. After all, legal definitions only have merit within the court of law and the application of such a definition to the term marriage as it impacts individuals churches violates the capacity of that church to engage in free worship.


Words are that easily changed in meaning, and laws do fail for precisely that reason. To say that marriage has a single, immutable definition is disingenuous in the extreme.

Either way, you say you advocate civil unions for homosexuals, but marriage for heterosexuals. What you are essentially doing is turning this into a battle of definitional supremacy that will directly bring your case into conflict with the first amendment. The government does not have the power to legislate speech.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Meh.

I say, let the Mormons and the gays settle things Old Testament style in the deserts of Utah.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
It is no more a violation than prohibiting any religion from having child brides.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
The majority rule must protect minority, but that does not mean giving the minority what it wanted. It is not a matter of defination supremacy if each word has equal rights. Individuals would still have their right to treat one as better, but the law would not. That is legal equality. The law cannot change peoples hearts.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I concede. Sex Ex was not just about biology. In it's first incarnation it was a bunch of slide shows and films of VDs to scare kids away from sex. But, as previously pointed out, the USA has a very high teen pregnancy rate. So the 'education for smarter choices' is a failure.

Frazzled wrote:As noted, if a private school wants to do that-good for them. Its not required. If a college wants to do that-good for them. Its not required. Public education is required. Again, what you call "challenging" I see as nothing more than forced brainwashing. further, it takes away from actually teaching them something. In places where that is a fad test scores are pathetic and the students can't compete because they are too busy being indoctrinated into the latest fad and not learning what 2+2 is. Meanwhile our Asian competition kicks our teeth in.

Fortunately I and my ilk vote and contribute politically.

Doctor Thunder wrote:As a Mormon, I thought I should just point out that Marriage and Family are central to our faith and sacred to us in a way that can be difficult for people not of our faith to understand.

Our position is not anti-gay, our position is pro-preserving what we believe is sacred. I know it may be hard to believe, but it really has nothing to do with the homosexual community. If there had been a law passed allowing people to marry their pets, we would have opposed that just as strongly.

We may have incompatible beliefs with the pro-gay marriage community, but that does not make us enemies. We hold no enmity against the gay community. We are simply standing up for what we believe to be right, and we understand that they are doing the same.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Well, technically marriage is defend as a traditional marriage. That is its connection to current law.
But you are right. The use of the word marriage is based on tradition. The phrase "gay marriage" makes no sense based on the definition of marriage as a man and wife. It is like saying a one person marriage (i.e.- husband with no wife). It does not make since if you use the definition of marriage.

Hence I am saying Civil Unions are the answer.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay. I surrender. You win. You have fully shown me to be a bigot. How evil and wrong of me to think, "Hey, I support the idea that civil unions can have the same rights as marriage, but marriage can be preserved as between a man and a woman." I have seen how selfish and idiotic I have been to think “Since marriage has always been between a man and woman in the US, it can stay that way. Sure, it is an idea that excludes homosexuality- just as homosexuality is an idea that excludes heterosexuals”. I promise not to ever post again on this or any other thread discussing homosexual unions, for fear of showing my vile and hateful ways.
Good day, gentlemen.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay, I was hoping not to have to say this, because I HATE it! please forgive me.

But people have a Right to Hate. You are allowed to foster intense and absolute irrational hate for anyone you want. That is a freedom we all have. You cannont act on that hate to do harm to another person, but the hate and bigotry is a right people have. I think it is a waste of energy, but it is legal.

I agree that schools should not teach religion! Fully agree. But acceptance of homosexuality is a dogma that also should not be taught. Acceptance of homosexuals is okay, as they are people with feelings and rights. Children should be taught to accept those different from themselves. You don't need to go into the specifics of sexual alignment as that is not a public matter. Skin color is a better example. You can tell if someone is dark skinned, you can’t tell if they are homosexual.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:



Bigotry comes from a shocking lack of understanding. Fantastic example would be the self made British Underclass, the Chav. We recently had a massive influx of foreign workers from Poland into Britain, who took jobs as plumber, electricians, carpenters etc. The Chavs as ever got up in arms declaring the Poles had taken British Jobs and British Jobs for British People etc. Yet, had this (again, largely self made) underclass got off their arses, and had a job in the first place, the job the Poles allegedly 'stole' would not have been there in the first place. Now, if someone has had homosexuality demystified in the classroom, away from Religious dogma, and they still don't like a Homosexual just because of who they fancy, well, education has done it's part, and some people just want to bear a grudge.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And as others have said, why did the Mormons get so upset? Adam and Steve getting hitched impacts on them not one jot. It's bullying to my eyes, little more than 'you can't do that because I say you can't'. This is ridiculous in the modern age. There should never have been any religious involvement here. Then again, my general stand point is one of neutrality. I say abortion should be legalised, and let each persons conscience dictate their choice. Same with Gay marriage. No place of marriage should be forced to marry anyone together. Allow them to say no, but do not *ban* the marriage of two people of the same gender.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Okay. I surrender. You win. You have fully shown me to be a bigot. How evil and wrong of me to think, "Hey, I support the idea that civil unions can have the same rights as marriage, but marriage can be preserved as between a man and a woman." I have seen how selfish and idiotic I have been to think “Since marriage has always been between a man and woman in the US, it can stay that way. Sure, it is an idea that excludes homosexuality- just as homosexuality is an idea that excludes heterosexuals”. I promise not to ever post again on this or any other thread discussing homosexual unions, for fear of showing my vile and hateful ways.
Good day, gentlemen.

Kilkrazy wrote:Gen Lee's position is that he supports gay marriage in all but name. That does not seem bigoted. It's certainly a lot better than wanting to prevent gay marriage totally.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
FWIW, that is the very crux of the matter.

Most people against gay marriage want to reserve the word "marriage" as defined for 1 man and 1 woman, but have no problem with an alternative structure that only differs in name, but not in law. Kind of like how "heterosexual" is defined as man-woman, while "homosexual" is man-man or woman-woman.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The gays want to appropriate the word and take it away from the 98% who currently use it properly, perverting the history of language. It is the same reason that gays want to say that everybody is homosexual, rather than focusing on the 2% who self-identify as such, so that words lose their meaning and they can benefit this way.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I have yet to meet anyone who would deny gays civil rights. After all, it's not like gays lack enhanced civil protection under the law, nor that they would be customarily lynched for looking at a heterosexual person in a sexual manner.

So because the divide here really is definitional, there is no compromise possible.

Kilkrazy wrote:You mean this proposition 8 is purely about the dictionary definition of a word?

How very French!

focusedfire wrote:It's amazing that the only ones against compromise are the ones who would benefit. Seems like most people in favour of gay marriage want to stick it to the religious right more than accomplish there goal.

The talk of evolving the language is just an attempt at progress bullying, ie if its traditional its obviously bad and anybody who supports tradition is a backwards bigot.

The real problem is there is a conflict in the structure of U.S. law. It is a leagal system that has adopted seperation of church and state but, prints out traditional religious jargon on government forms for the purposes of accounting(taxes).

You want to fix this, simple, change the MARRIAGE LICENSE to a CONTRACT of CIVIL UNION. Thus making the document a legitemate legal document & get government out of marriage altogether. It started as a religious term and concept it should stay that way.(don't beleive me? Check out the tradition of jumping the broom)

The governments only concern should be with co-habitation. Couples pay taxes then they should REAP THE BENEFITS!!! No matter their sexuality. Just don't be a hipocrit and say that someones sexuality is any more important than somebody elses faith.

sebster wrote:

focusedfire wrote:It's amazing that the only ones against compromise are the ones who would benefit. Seems like most people in favour of gay marriage want to stick it to the religious right more than accomplish there goal.

Compromise can be a good and necessary thing, when two parties with opposing, principled arguments are at loggerheads. But to this point the only principle the anti-gay marriage people have stuck to is ‘marriage has a traditional meaning’. I can’t see the substance that demands a compromise.

The talk of evolving the language is just an attempt at progress bullying, ie if its traditional its obviously bad and anybody who supports tradition is a backwards bigot.

That’s a terrible mischaracterisation of the debate. Who said that it was traditional and therefore must be bad? Who said supporting tradition makes anyone a bigot? I think you made that up.

People have said that language is not as important as rights. Keeping the meaning of word really pales into insignificance compared to making sure a lifetime partner has access to their spouse on their deathbed.

The real problem is there is a conflict in the structure of U.S. law. It is a leagal system that has adopted seperation of church and state but, prints out traditional religious jargon on government forms for the purposes of accounting(taxes).

You can draw loose dates and argue marriage was a religious act before it was a legal act, but the point of difference is very hazy, and started a long time ago. Regardless, marriage was a feature of both legal and religious bodies for a lot longer than there’s been a United States.

You want to fix this, simple, change the MARRIAGE LICENSE to a CONTRACT of CIVIL UNION. Thus making the document a legitemate legal document & get government out of marriage altogether. It started as a religious term and concept it should stay that way.(don't beleive me? Check out the tradition of jumping the broom)

I’ll ask all the folk arguing for Civil Unions and Marriage to become separate… are you fine with everyone the same legal piece of paper, called ‘civil unions’, entitling the couple to the same set of rights and obligations regardless of their genders? Are you also fine with leaving it up to religions to decide who they will grant ‘marriages’… such that a couple can get their civil union, then go to their local church and get a ‘marriage’.

And so then you’ll be fine when under that system, a couple can still get ‘married’ in addition to their ‘civil union’ whether they’re gay or straight. So that the word ‘marriage’ will still change to include gay marriage, regardless of whether you set up the ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ distinction or not.

The governments only concern should be with co-habitation. Couples pay taxes then they should REAP THE BENEFITS!!! No matter their sexuality. Just don't be a hipocrit and say that someones sexuality is any more important than somebody elses faith.

But they aren’t asking anyone to give up any part of their faith. Nothing is lost by someone else getting gay married.

focusedfire wrote:
1st)Thank you Sebster for proving the first line of my post accurate. You are so caught up on terminolgy rather and maintaining the urgument, that you pass when your objective is in reach. Instead continuing the battle. Something I might use against you if we ever game.

focusedfire wrote:
2) As to the terrible mischaracterization of the debate. Your own words made gen lee feel as if you think he's a bigot. Jesting or not comedy has its roots in truth. Check his last reply to you. You are so concerned with your side of this your not considering other points of view. What is it about civil union & winning what your arguing for that is so repelant?

focusedfire wrote:
3) As far as lose dates apply the only ones that really matter are 1776, 1781, 1794 and what was in the founders mind when they set the initial laws of this country. Which at that time marriage was the pervue of the church. But, if you want to go back futher you still have a long way before it gets cloudy. The Magna Carte was written when? Its safe to say that marriage was a church regulated institution at that point.

focusedfire wrote:
4) As to your question wetherr we will be fine if the church abopts it later or not. yeah, it's up to the individual church and their membership. It' a little thing called freedom of choice. And, if a church says no what would your answer be? ..................................If its anything other than "as long as the couple in question isn't denied any of their gauranteed benefits from the gov't it's ok" then you need to examine what your real motivations are.

1st)Thank you Sebster for proving the first line of my post accurate. You are so caught up on terminolgy rather and maintaining the urgument, that you pass when your objective is in reach. Instead continuing the battle. Something I might use against you if we ever game.

2) As to the terrible mischaracterization of the debate. Your own words made gen lee feel as if you think he's a bigot.

Jesting or not comedy has its roots in truth. Check his last reply to you. You are so concerned with your side of this your not considering other points of view. What is it about civil union & winning what your arguing for that is so repelant?

3) As far as lose dates apply the only ones that really matter are 1776, 1781, 1794 and what was in the founders mind when they set the initial laws of this country. Which at that time marriage was the pervue of the church. But, if you want to go back futher you still have a long way before it gets cloudy. The Magna Carte was written when? Its safe to say that marriage was a church regulated institution at that point.

4) As to your question wetherr we will be fine if the church abopts it later or not. yeah, it's up to the individual church and their membership. It' a little thing called freedom of choice. And, if a church says no what would your answer be? ..................................If its anything other than "as long as the couple in question isn't denied any of their gauranteed benefits from the gov't it's ok" then you need to examine what your real motivations are.

focusedfire wrote:Also your way opens people to litigation for merely having a religious beleif.ie... A church refuses to marry a Gay couple and is in violation of the law.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
1. Would the Mormon / Catholic Church, as an agent of the State authorized to perform Marriages / Civil Unions, be required to perform gay marraiges?

JohnHwangDD wrote:5. At what point does First Amendment right to free practice of relgion, no matter how heinous or offensive, have to cede to Anti-Discrimination law?

JohnHwangDD wrote:That's what people say, but then nobody has really advanced the argument properly.

For example:

1. Would the Mormon / Catholic Church, as an agent of the State authorized to perform Marriages / Civil Unions, be required to perform gay marraiges?

2. If the Mormon / Catholic Church chooses not to do so, would Anti-Discrimination laws apply?

3. If Anti-Discrimination law applies, would the Mormon / Catholic Church be enjoined from performing Marriages / Civil Unions at all?

4. Do these Churches need recognize Marriages / Civil Unions that they don't agree with?

5. At what point does First Amendment right to free practice of relgion, no matter how heinous or offensive, have to cede to Anti-Discrimination law?

As none of the above are well-understood, yet have tremendous societal impact tied to the First Amendment rights that this country was explicitly founded upon (Puritans, Quakers), it is presumptuous in the extreme to expect that Gay Rights automatically have priority in all cases.

And that is why California was correct to pass Prop 8 from a societal POV.

But then, given that the Gays are the ones advocating violence, California was also correct to pass Prop. 8 from a moral POV as well.

sebster wrote:
Because of a shameful campaign of misinformation that led people to believe that their church would be legally forced to marry gay people? That might have had something to do with it.

focusedfire wrote:And who was in control of mideaval Europe at that point. Who sanctioned every union? Who dominated every part of european mideaval culture.

You claim vague dates, I supply you with hard dates, I bring up historical evidence, am able to quote my sources, give to you what is accepted in historical circles and according to the writtings of the architects of the law. You dismiss fact without supplying anything to back up your side.

As far as Mideaval, I make my living off of Mideaval and Renaissance time periods. Tell me Within a minute Who Fiore D' Libre was, or Which French King Supposedly made Friday 13 unlucky.

I still stand by my statement about gen lee and your snarky line where you imply subtley that hes a bigot without apology. I would reply in kind but then I would be you telling somehow they should feel. I'd respect you a little more if you'd just come out and said it.

I IMHO think thou doth protest to much on having a problem with terminology. Reason, in a game if all you had to do to assure victory was sit back on your objectives and the other army was conceding the things that gave you the win. As a general do you jeopardize the win to continue in a battle that is a waste of resources or do you accept the win.

As far as silly artifice, read the last lines of my last post. laws and litigation are a little different over here. Your way would create more of a mess than it cleaned up.

As far as there is no precedent, not long ago there was no precedent to override when the catholic churches offered sanctuary. its now pretty much non existant.

You say much about look it up without providing any info yourself. One of the earlier informed arguments talks about churches lossing their tax exempt status if their actions are percieved as political. Thus depriving the church of many of its legal protections. To the point it could be no longer viewed as a church. So yes the churches could be open to litigation. Instead of just saying so please inform me of your source material.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Is it?

What is the precedent in Federal / California case law addressing this specific issue?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@malfred, that would be a reasonable conmpromise, but once the courts get involved, all bets are off.

Read up on the principle of precedent some time.

Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

Frazzled wrote:Thank you for provided your wise insight though Sebster

Fortunately, anti-gay rights supporters are growing older and dying while pro-gay rights supporters are becoming of legal voting age. Give it 4 or 8 more years and this will be overturned and gay marriage will be as legal as inter-racial marriage.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

If you look at the Prop 8 breakdown, nearly all of the recently-immigrant (i.e. non-white) groups voted for traditional family values. In particular, the blacks can be commended for really stepping up to the plate in a big way, with 70% voting in favor of Prop 8. Asian-Americans and Hispanics weren't quite as monolithic, but they still came out for Prop 8.

So when you look at the demographic shift towards non-white immigration, coupled with the likely amnesty of 20+ *MILLION* additional (non-white) illegal immigrants, and then consider that Cali is among the most one Liberal states, one concludes that gay marriage has a ways to go before it's the law of the land.

It's going to be a long, bumpy ride, methinks.

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

focusedfire wrote:Still dont get it. Once the term is changed Civil union is the only one that matters. The other term becomes nothing more than what it should be considered currently. A religious or occult ritual that has no bearing on your rights freedoms.

Let me simplify. Man unites with man, it's a civil union. Woman unites with woman, it is a civil union. Man unites with woman, ITS A CIVIL UNION!

And yes it involves the constitution, "The govt shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances."- THE FIRST AMMENDMENT

focusedfire wrote:
If asking why mince words? This way everyone gets most of what they want. and if individual churches want to include gays in their occult ritiual its up to that individual church. Your way FORCES people to adopt and accept your way of thinking....There's a word for that........

focusedfire wrote:
Also your way opens people to litigation for merely having a religious beleif.ie... A church refuses to marry a Gay couple and is in violation of the law. Thus open to court mandated sanctions. Which then are appealed under religious freedom and the whole thing starts again. What I propose ends the problem, which is the either acctual or percieved state use and sanctioning of a religious term.

warpcrafter wrote:Bah! Their 'Prophet" is in jail.

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

Frazzled wrote:
If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

focusedfire wrote:Oh yeah, to Sebster......you say it will come full circle and my argument is for naught......PROVE IT. Whats the harm doing it the way I suggest if your going to win.

You suggest this argument is over protecting the meaning of a word and therfor has no merit. It's a word with a meaning and a belief behind it. Such words like freedom, the name of your country, God. History shows that people are willing to fight, even to the death, over words with a belief behind them. I meerly tried to offer up a solution that circumvents the likelyhood of the fight.

And as to your challenge AFTER I'd Signed off........how very Chivalrous. And the answer to your challenge, JohnHwang pretty much summed it up. You bore me and my HOT GAY lover wants cuddle time.

Frazzled wrote:I do believe John is an attorney, and is thus fully versed in the concept of stare decisis. Thank you for provided your wise insight though Sebster

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, because precedent can never be overturned

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence.

JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, thank you for your efforts to enlighten my countrymen. Sometimes I'm pretty ashamed of them.

JohnHwangDD wrote:As I've already stated:
1. Homos have the same legal rights to one man-one woman marriage as heteros. And them some, because they have "hate crime" protection.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
2. Dred Scott (and Plessy) were hotly debated landmark cases, but still ultimately overturned.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Of *course* the law is unequal.

That's the point of law, to create and amplify distinction to the "betterment" of society as a whole. The idea that the law should be equal or identical is ludicrous in the extreme. That is why we say that Justice is blind, and in a legally valid marriage, we only have the minimalist requirement of one man and one woman. When you really break it down, the law primarily exists to protect the "haves" from the "have nots", so you don't have society overrun with lawless squatters and thieves and so forth.

For example, who are the biggest drain on societal resources? Married couples with children. Do they pay more, per capita or per dollar earned?

HELL NO!

They get additional tax breaks on the non-working spouse, the children, the house, etc. Plus, they qualify for extra things like free public schooling and subsidized state college. Is that "fair"?

Of course not!

Correct, and we never will. This is pure opinion poll, not some kind of consensus-building project. It's like trying to tell someone that liking chocolate is intrinsically better than liking vanilla (mint is actually the best). Or that Pepsi is somehow superior to Coke (it isn't).

Actually, in this argument, John has merely chosen an aggressively argumentative style that demonstrates the very same elitist contempt that the Liberals show for non-Liberals and shoves it back in their faces. It's really annoying when people talk down to you, right? So if you want to stop, I'll stop, too. But quite frankly, I'm sufficiently annoyed with the whole Liberal approach to argument, that at this point it hardly matters what I believe, only that I continue to argue the "Con" side of the debate as Devil's Advocate.

The core reason is very simple: gay "marriage" - isn't. And no matter how you dress it up, with however much lipstick you paint on, it's still a damn pig. And you will never convince people otherwise.

I'm an atheist, so I could care less what is taught in any church. I understand the Biblical argument, and am willing to consider that it (along with all the other Old Testament / Kosher / Hasidic rules) might even be valid if you live as a small desert commune, rather than modern society as we currently know it.

Mannahnin wrote:Again with that ridiculous false argument claiming that allowing a homosexual the right to marry a person of the opposite sex is somehow equal to allowing me to marry a person of the opposite sex. How can you believe that? If it was the opposite, you darn well know you wouldn't be equally treated. If people were only allowed to marry people of the same sex, you or I would certainly be at a disavantageous position vis a vis marriage compared to (e.g.) Bishop Gene Robinson.

Sebster, thank you for your efforts to enlighten my countrymen. Sometimes I'm pretty ashamed of them.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You mischaracterize the issue at your peril. The people I know who are against this are not "homophobes." They firmly believe in the existing definition of marriage. Period. End of Story.

And, apparently, imposing that definition on the rest of the country. Which is pretty much the definition of bigotry.

Frazzled wrote:
If you brand antagonists as bigots, and homophobes, as has been done on this thread, then all you do is harden them against the issue, and others who were sitting on the fence. JohnHH has a point, immigrants are not nearly as tolerant on this issue. As California's immigrant population is skyrocketing, this could be the last window of opportunity unless you address all the arguments against it. Casting the entire Catholic Church as bigots and homophobes is not going to help that cause.

It is worth noting that the issue of bigotry did not come up until an anti-gay marriage poster presumed that our arguments with him necessitated that we consider him a bigot.