Supreme to Marry Gay Couple

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the tiny liberal well-beyond the point of decrepitude, will be the first member of the high court to perform a same-sex marriage. 

Ginsburg will be first justice to officiate at same-sex wedding

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will become the first Supreme Court member to conduct a same-sex marriage ceremony Saturday when she officiates at the Washington wedding of Kennedy Center President Michael M. Kaiser.


The gala wedding of Kaiser and economist John Roberts at the performing arts center brings together the nation’s highest court and the capital’s high society and will mark a new milepost in the recognition of same-sex unions.


Such marriages were virtually unheard of a little more than a decade ago but now are legal in the nation’s capital, 13 states and in all or part of 17 other countries. After victories at the Supreme Court earlier this summer, a wave of litigation is challenging bans on same-sex marriages in states where they remain prohibited.

The issue of same-sex marriage remains a point of contention on this blog. This writer (TerranceH) believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but is not overly concerned with the growing acceptance of same-sex marriages. Put plainly, I don’t care one way or the other. I’ve debated the issue many times, from both sides, and see no point in doing so now since disagreeing parties will never find a middle-ground. 

With that being said, my question is whether or not it is appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice of the United States to sanctify, if you will, that which remains illegal in 37 states. 

Justice Ginsberg favors same-sex marriage with the same fervor as a squirrel burying a nut – and of course that’s her right. But Supreme Court Justices should not be gallivanting about town making provocative political or social statements. They should behave with the integrity and impartiality their position demands. 



  1. For a SCOTUS judge to do so puts her in a position to be recused from any cases involving same-sex fake marriage.

    As far as you not being concerned about growing approval of SSFM, you are being foolish. You will suffer harm as society crumbles. The increasing approval will bring increasing persecution of those who disagree. We have already seen hundreds of people charge with hate crime, hate speech, fined, jailed, suffer loss of business, lose jobs, etc. Yet you aren’t much concerned.

    Most Germans weren’t much concerned as the Jews were led to the gas chambers.

    • Wouldnt she then have to recuse herself since she obvioulsy has the opinion that same sex marriage should be legal, since she’s officiating? Since the issue has never been formally argued in the High Court, she wears her bias on her sleeve and should be barred from hearing.

  2. Yup..she will have to recuse herself but if she doesn’t, what’s the legal recourse? Exactly..none. Not happy where this third ” branch” of government has taken this country.

  3. Only Glenn could equate this to the Holocaust…..

  4. “Only Glenn could equate this to the Holocaust…..”

    He’s not. He equates this to the attitudes that led to the Holocaust. It’s another way of referring to what happens when good people do nothing.

  5. I basically agree with you Terrance. I do think it better, from a constitutional democracy point of view, if gay marriage passes legislatures rather than getting handed down by judicial decree. As for recusal, interesting question. I don’t see why performing a *legal* marriage should occasion recusal in future cases. I suppose if she tried to officiate a gay marriage in a state where it was not legal would manifest an unwise contempt (for a SCOTUS justice) for an existing law. Merely because justices have strong convictions about certain issues — and make those convictions known — does not mandate recusal. Else justices would have to recuse themselves frequently.

  6. Glenn,

    Look around you. You think legalizing same-sex marriage is the path to Christian persecution? Have you bothered to watch prime-time television? Looked at the apparel teenage girls are waltzing around in these days? Sat in a science class lately? Looked at the number of churches closing? If Christian society is falling, it’s doing so in spite of homosexuals. Legalized same-sex marriage is only a symptom of a growing problem.

  7. Again Marshal Art proves to understand the written word while R.Nash reads into it what he want so he can attack it.

    Terrance, I don’t waste my brain filling it with the trash on prime-time TV.
    If you haven’t noticed, you didn’t respond to my examples of the persecution of Christians by the homosexual agenda. Instead you brought up straw men and red herrings of other sexual immorality fostered upon society (that not one is being jailed, fined, fired, have their business shut down, etc for refusing to approve it), and numbers of churches closing. None of that had anything to do with what I said.

    • Don’t confuse yourself Glenn as a “good person doing nothing.” Think of yourself as a person blowing a lot of hot air in a failing attempt to keep gay people from getting a marriage certificate. And the good news is you’re not alone. You have a lot of company, and they are also failing. So when we get marched into the gay ovens, you can tell me, “I told you so Nash”!

      I keep waiting for society to collapse. I keep waiting for homosexuals to violently take over churches and preach gayness from the pulpit. Where is the forced mental health converting us to homosexuality?

      Funny how christians here in the States continue to utilize the word and idea of “persecution.” So if you hijack it, what can we call what is happening to the Coptics in northern Egypt? I guess we will have to graduate the rhetoric?

      Fact: There are 350k+ churches in the US. 4500k new churches started every year. 70% survive past 5 years. 76-79% of the country identifies as christian…….
      And you continue to claim persecution? Versus homosexuals and their 130k gay marriage certificates? Your being persecuted by .004% of the population? Why? I wouldn’t stand for it.

      I will make you a deal though. The very moment you are actually “persecuted” for anything at all, to include your religious belief, or for any other legitimate liberty, I will be right next to you fighting the good fight.

      • Nash, your ignorance of the fines, jail time, job loss, business loss, required indoctrination classes for those who just don’t want to give personal sanction to queers is astounding.

        Your stupidity on the subject is exactly why you are a waste of time to bother with any further communication on the subject.

  8. Nash,

    “I keep waiting for homosexuals to violently take over churches and preach gayness from the pulpit.”

    Actually, some churches have been rudely interrupted by homosexual activists during services. This isn’t exactly a complete takeover, but a brief one until they could have them removed.

    As to preaching the goodness of gayness, this is happening in many churches already. Every hear of V. Gene Robinson? Ever hear of the United Church of Christ? Almost every Christian denomination has some congregation, parishes or leaders who are “open and affirming”. What do you think that really means?

    Do you think that persecution comes in only one flavor? One degree? One level of hardship inflicted upon the persecuted? It’s never been so. Saying there is persecution of Christians in this country is NOT akin to calling football a war or football players warriors. However, calling the righteous defense of traditional marriage “discrimination” does indeed diminish the treatment of blacks and women in history.

    “The very moment you are actually “persecuted” for anything at all, to include your religious belief, or for any other legitimate liberty, I will be right next to you fighting the good fight.”

    I don’t believe this for a minute. Have you fought in any way for the florist, photographer, baker who refused to provide their products and services in celebration of homosexual unions and were sued? Have you defended companies like Chic-Fil-A? How about the supporters of Prop 8 whose addresses were made public so homosexual protesters could annoy them at home? Are you really going to pretend that numbers mean anything when they’ve managed to get laws written to their satisfaction? C’mon. Get serious. We’re dealing with initial ripples of this tidal wave of persecution. How bad does it have to be to satisfy you and arouse your sense of reason?

    • Yes Marshall, I did and continue to stand up for Chic-Fil-A. You and your fellow adherents have every right to deny services if a moral situation presents itself like it did for the florist and photographer. Those instances did not happen in my state so I have no real discourse to engage in beyond my circle of friends etc. Over the last 20+ years I have either flat out lost or slowly drifted away from all of my old die hard leftist and rightist friends because I wouldn’t blindly support the party line cultural orthodoxies that were in vogue at any given time. The “you’re either with us, or against us”, dogma just means that eventually any and all objectivity is sapped from any collective ideals and becomes dominated by groupthink.

      I recently lost a couple of friends because I wasn’t sure if homosexuals had a “right” to adopt children. I was simply pressing them for their best formulated position on the matter. Not asking them to justify a position, just asking for the why of their position. They were so enraged that I just didn’t tow the obvious company line, that they left and I haven’t spoken to them in over a year. These are friends of more than 20 years. Absolutely nobody wants anyone around who isn’t a full fledged adherent. I mean at least with McCarthy there was just one side, one groupthink. Now we have 2, and believe it or not, some of us choose to belong to neither. A tough road no doubt. But I feel an important one. So I find myself putting myself in harms way for both sides quite often.

      Christians also have a right to have a traditional marriage opinion. You have the right to vote your conscience. You have a right to be against gay marriage or support those business’s that are. You also have the right to protest against being called a bigot. You have the right to either marry or not marry gay couples in your church. If your church puts it to a vote and they vote to do it, and you disagree, you have the right to find another church or start your own. If I was present in your church when an uninvited guest took to the pulpit to blather on about the homosexual agenda, I would be the first one to throw him out on his ear, in exactly the same way I would throw a christian loud mouth out of a gay church, if there is such a thing. But to say that christians in the US are being persecuted as a blanket generalization, is just more yelling fire where there is not even smoke. To say that .00000001% of the christian base is being persecuted seems a little alarmist. Further I think that claiming that it will or could lead to something akin to the holocaust is irresponsible bullshit. Again if the bully taking the pulpit qualifies as persecution, what new word needs to be used to address being dragged into the street and beaten for being a Coptic in Cairo?

      A good read of many social change instances in our history will show that when slavery was being debated we had the same running around, fear based reactions. When women wanted to vote and own property, same thing. When it was time to allow African Americans to vote, own property or not sit at the end of the bus, again more than just a few people saying that it would yet again lead to widespread chaos. It would undue the fabric of society.

      But you do not have a right to legally prevent gay people from marriage. No quantitative, legal argument can be made to keep homosexuals from getting married. Plenty of slippery and subjective moral and or biblical arguments can be made, and you have every right to make them. But your rights end when you try to prevent or revoke other peoples pursuit of happiness. And I don’t want to hear how it will lead to people marrying farm animals….

      How bad does it have to get to arouse my sense of reason? Do you mean to say, “How bad does it have to get for christians,” to arouse reason? If that’s what you mean, then I hope I have made some dent in that question above.

      • Nash,
        We DO have the right to prevent those who practice sexual perversion from redefining what marriage is. If they want to pretend to be “married” in their own little ceremonies and commit to one another, I couldn’t care less.

        What we object to is redefining what marriage is and then making it into a law which everyone has to abide by.

        • Glenn please show me where this “right” comes from. How do you feel it is your right to prevent the legal redefinition of marriage?

          Further, how would YOU “have to abide” by a law that opens up the legal definition of marriage to include homosexuals? How does this so adversely affect you in your home, in your church that you would spend so much time railing against it? I understand your christian principles. I have that part put to memory. Where is the legal argument? I am trying to imagine how your position is any different than the numerous other individual liberty examples I gave above, and those who stood to prevent those rights.

          • R.Nash
            Glenn please show me where this “right” comes from. How do you feel it is your right to prevent the legal redefinition of marriage?
            Nash, show me where the “right” to redefine marriage comes from. How do they feel it is their right to change the definition of marriage, a definition which has been accepted in societies around the world for thousands of years? THAT is where my “right” to prevent the redefinition comes from. You think it’s okay for perverts to redefine the institution but it’s not okay for me to want to prevent it?!?!? Hypocrite!

            How do I have to abide by it? How many times do we have to point out that if we DON’T abide by the law and give it personal sanction, then we as Christians (or any rational human) are persecuted by being fined, jailed, fired from occupations, have businesses shut down, are vilified as bigots, charged with hate crime and hate speech. HELLO!!!

            • This Chicken Little reaction to everything that is part of your worldview/agenda Glenn is perpetually blown way out of proportion. Long before gay marriage was on the front page divorce rates were reaching 50%. So christian, non gay families have been falling apart before hand. Now what?

              If you cannot apparently assemble a legal argument against gay marriage, you are again not alone. The rest of those who would adhere to the same position are also failing. Personal, individual, citizens liberty, will always trump your biblical values Glenn. Always. To argue that your right somehow manifests from others exercising their individual liberty is exactly why your position is marked by failure. It is untenable to attempt to prevent the human right to marry, in the same way that it is untenable to legally punish the photographer for refusing service. Both are entirely too extreme. Maybe just a public flogging for those who refuse to enable the devious homosexual agenda.

              And you know what else was defined for thousands of years? The flatness of the Earth, the rotation of the Sun around our planet and slavery. But your kind slowly graduated from those staunch positions, why so caught up on gay marriage? I really don’t get it. I mean to the extent that you do seems well like the behavior of a zealot. Doesn’t the bible describe eating shrimp and shaving ones beard in the same way?

              I will give you guy’s abortion. It’s a disgusting practice and it sends shivers down my spine. But to vehemently and proactively attempt to keep two people from getting married seems, well, untenable. I wish we could rally this sort of energy and focus around keeping fracking fluid out of drinking water to tell you the truth.

              I frequently visit Austin Texas which is filled with homo’s. I have never been charged with a hate crime for telling any of them what I think. It would be hard to imagine a more liberal, pro gay town. But here I am acting like a monkey wrench to this agenda….with no fines, no jail, no persecution. Nor have I seen it happen to anyone else. You keep lofting up these examples that represent .000000000003% of the population as if it’s ready for a prime time generalization. It’s not. The day you start fighting for everybody’s rights and against everybody’s persecution you will gain some modicum of respect and relevance.

              • R.Nash,
                Again bringing in red herrings and straw man arguments.

                Again, society is crumbling due to all sorts of things, but state sanctioning of homosexual behavior is causing the crumbling to increase exponentially. But what was my primary complaint which you don’t address? PERSECUTION FOR NOT WANTING TO GIVE PERSONAL SANCTION!!!!

                No one get charged with hate crime/speech, fired, sued, imprisoned, sent to indoctrination classes, lose businesses etc for speaking out against abortion, or divorce, or pornography, or bestiality, or adultery, or pedophilia, etc, etc, etc. BUT if they dare speak out against same-sex fake marriage, or don’t want to participate in it by providing anything to assist them in their endeavors, well that’s just “intolerant” and “bigoted,” and even “hateful.” Some ‘gays’ have even said Christians should be executed for such things.

                So to say one is not concerned about issues is exactly like saying one isn’t concerned as they march people of to the concentration camps, because, after all, it doesn’t affect me (YET!).

                Why do you think “gays” have the “right” to change a definition of social institution but we don’t have a “right” to try to prevent it? As Marshall pointed out, no one has ever blocked their pursuit of happiness or liberties, etc. What they want is forced approval. What they want is to punish those who refuse to give personal sanction. Now, who is denying who liberties and pursuit of happiness?!?!?

                Your ignorance is showing when you say “flatness of earth” was defined for thousands of years. That’s total nonsense – only a minority of people ever believed that, but that isn’t a definition of a word, or even a definition of a social institution. Just like your claims about slavery and earth rotation. LOGIC FALLACY!

                You claim that this persecution isn’t happening, but I could give you a ton (hyperbole) of links to cases around the world to refute such a stupid claim.

              • I think there is real persecution of Christians, but it’s not here in America.

  9. Glenn,

    If you think my previous reply “had nothing to do” with your statements, then you didn’t interpret what I said correctly. You need a boogieman to explain the downfall of your religion and you choose homosexuals because they’re an easy, simple target. But the issue is far more nuanced than you think. Society has gradually shifted away from piety toward freedom in all manner of sexuality and perversion. It has nothing to do with homosexuals – and you know it.

    • Terrance,
      It is you who obviously has a problem with reading and comprehension. Nothing in my comment had anything to do with the downfall of the Christian faith. Nothing, nada. I would have never claimed anything about homosexuality had anything to do with the downfall of the Church. It would be a very, very foolish thing to say.

      I complained that the approval and sanctioning of the homosexual agenda causing a persecution of those who disagree with all things homosexual, including especially Christians. Now explain to me how that is even HINTING at blaming homosexuality for the downfall of the Church.

  10. Glenn,

    Quit with the doubletalk. You connect the downfall of society with the downfall of the Church and you’ve said as much in the past. Now, however, you seem unable to grasp the fact that legalized same-sex marriage is merely a symptom of a much larger issue. You think those who disagree with the so-called “homosexual agenda” are the only one’s persecuted? Ha! I know for a fact that those opposed to abortion receive just as much condemnation.

    It’s not about homosexuals or abortions; it’s about the overall rejection of a patriarchal religion, and if not that then the fundamental transformation of it. And clearly you must agree with that last point, otherwise you wouldn’t complain day in and day out about “scripture abuse.”

  11. Terrance,

    Where is the doubletalk? Can you read and understand the English language? You know, comprehend what I have said rather than what you think I said?

    Society in general has been crumbling faster and faster ever since the introduction of same-sex fake marriage around the world. Families fall apart, culture is degenerated, etc. That is a separate issue from the church falling apart. The fact that the church as a whole has bought into the perversion only speeds the degeneration along.

    But go back – I said that by state sanctioning of homosexuality it has brought persecution to the church and I gave examples. Even sexual immorality being taught in the schools, abortion, etc, never caused any persecution of Christians. There is only ONE social issue bringing persecution of Christians and that is the demand for approval of homosexual behavior and same-sex fake marriage.

    You are still tossing red herrings.

  12. Nash,

    “A good read of many social change instances in our history…. It would undue the fabric of society.”

    Regarding the above, there are two points to make. First, it can be debated by some on any of the given examples where our society was negatively impacted. Not willing to get into it here, but I believe a good debate can be had. Secondly, none of those issues are comparable to the issue of homosexual “rights”, that is, rights that are not already enjoyed by them which are enjoyed by all. They want something more.

    You speak of “group think” and proudly proclaim yourself part of no group. But there is no problem being part of a group that thinks soundly based on reality and truth. I aspire to that group always. In the meantime, I send kudos your way for standing for your principles at the risk of losing friends and associates.

    Again, persecution comes in varying degrees. There are many cases of people losing their jobs or being sued over their position on this issue. Though they haven’t been beaten in the streets, they have still been persecuted for their beliefs. No one is trying to assert that the level of persecution suffered by opponents of the homosexual agenda is in any way equal to that of Christians in muslim countries. But to pretend it isn’t persecution is every bit as false as saying it is equal to the suffering of Copts.

    “But you do not have a right to legally prevent gay people from marriage.”

    Fortunately, they’ve never been so prevented. Unfortunately for them, marriage had always had a distinct set of criteria that must be met for the STATE to license and sanction any marital union. If they met those criteria, they had no problem getting a license. As such, there is the legal prohibition against a man marrying his sister, a married man marrying another woman, a man marrying a girl under the legal age designated by his state. So obviously there is a legal “right” to prevent a variety of marriages, and that “right” used to include prohibiting two people of the same sex. If there is no such right to legally prevent homosexual unions, then there can be no right to legally prevent unions of sibling or multiple partners, etc. Either the state (the people) can decide what constitutes a marriage or it can’t.

    “But your rights end when you try to prevent or revoke other peoples pursuit of happiness.”

    Fortunately, this too has never been the case. Rather, the case has been that the homosexuals are not denied their right to pursue happiness, but that they are demanding that the rest of us provide/grant that happiness. That’s not what “pursuit” of happiness means. More importantly, their demands indicates that the happiness they are pursuing is not marriage at all, but the financial or economic gains they see marriage providing, the relief from guilt by forcing their immorality upon the rest of the nation and the ability to pretend they are like normal people without anyone saying otherwise. If their happiness is defined by virtue of tying the knot, that has always been available to them, even before corrupt ministers and judges agreed to preside over “marriage” ceremonies. All it takes is for each to commit to each other and bingo! they’re married.

    I don’t see how you’ve reasoned very well at all. Don’t feel to badly about it. Few who defend the agenda haven’t reasoned through it, either.

    “Glenn please show me where this “right” comes from. How do you feel it is your right to prevent the legal redefinition of marriage?”

    This one is easy. This right must obviously come from the same place that grants homosexuals the right to redefine marriage. That is, if they can redefine it by some authority as yet unnamed, then we can defend the current definition by the same authority. Fortunately, we can defend it from the authority granted by common sense, reason, logic and science and biology (before ever needing to speak of morality and religion).

    • Ok Marshall,
      1) Are you willing to revoke the legal rights of the spouse to make decisions in the event of emergency or death? Are you further ready to revoke tax benefits for the traditionally married? If so, then gays can just have their ceremony and no particular group is enjoying a different or significantly better legal/tax status. Currently it is not equal. This is the legal issue that sticks in the craw of the argument against and is at the heart of ever more states legalizing gay marriage. There cannot be a hierarchy or different status for the citizenry. This is the same legal argument made to end slavery and grant women the right to vote.

      2) “You speak of “group think” and proudly proclaim yourself part of no group. But there is no problem being part of a group that thinks soundly based on reality and truth.” I will be absolutely honest here, the word “truth” scares the daylights out of me. I hear it all the time in this sort of informal setting and feel that it’s use muddles things.

      3) And you are absolutely right about the variances of the quality of prosecution. It comes in all degrees. And like I said, I will without hesitation, support any private entity, business or person that is being hounded for this reason or a number of others.

      4) If and or when any judge at any level of the bench decides to even hear a case in which someone wants to marry their brother or favorite cat I will be as proactive and pointed in yelling that date. This introduces a topic that I think we have exhausted more than enough previously on where in the heck I get my morality. I can hear John now: Well Rick if these two guys get married what system/type of moral decision making would prevent you from marrying your newborn daughter. And isn’t that a naturalist or relativistic slippery slope etc? I am hoping we don’t need to do that again.

      5) “Fortunately, we can defend it from the authority granted by common sense, reason, logic and science and biology (before ever needing to speak of morality and religion).”

      The authority granted by common sense? Is that a “legal” construct?

      Happy Labor Day

      • R.Nash,
        With legal contracts sexual perverts can give their “spouses” the right to make decisions in medical emergencies or death. It’s called a power of attorney. We have given this right to non-related friends in the event both my wife and I are incapacitate.

        Marriage is indeed handled equally for perverts as it is for normal people; the same rules apply. Marry someone of the opposite sex, not closely related, and of age. If you say they should marry whoever they want so as to be legal, then you cannot logically prevent adult siblings from marrying, or adult children and parents marrying, nor can you deny polygamy. The “equality” argument is total B.S. and you know it. The only real reason for same-sex fake marriage is to force approval of homosexuality with the power of the state.

        Tax benefits were established to foster the mother staying at home and raising kids, because the family is the foundation of society. So now you are saying that the reason for same-sex fake marriage is just about money?

  13. Glenn,

    You say one thing, say another, and then pretend as though the point is misunderstood. In truth, your narrow-minded interpretation of reality makes for a point dashed with a smidgen of sense but made mostly of utter nonsense. It’s time you knew.

    Furthermore, I find hilarious your penchant to berate those that disagree with your point of view even slightly, particularly when it comes to religion. Boy, have a disagreement with ‘ol Glenn in a religious discussion and you’re nothing but a heathen subscribing to false doctrine. Your reactionary predilections are tiring.

    Society in general has been crumbling faster and faster ever since the introduction of same-sex fake marriage around the world.

    Really? It seems to me that any society willing to forego basic human decency in favor of a sexual revolution that culminated in the legalized slaughter of unborn children is, at least in my mind, already crumbling. And surely you’re aware that this occurred long before same-sex marriage became legal in a whole 13 states.

    And don’t tell me the only social issue “persecuting” Christians is same-sex marriage. I’m heavily involved in the pro-life movement. There’s been instances of burning Bibles being tossed at pro-life protesters, violence, and retribution in the workplace. Haven’t heard of the nurse who was fired for expressing her pro-life views? Of course you haven’t. It doesn’t fit with your gay-hating rhetoric.

    As I said, the issue is far more nuanced than you think.

    • Glenn,
      I guess let me ask the question again but slightly differently. Are you willing to forgo the legal/tax benefits that are granted to you by the state for being married? Or can we keep the government at all levels out of providing anyone a benefit to legally sanctioned marriage. I mean if the tax benefits were another invention to keep women housebound….it failed.

      Your argument about the social perversion avalanche with gay marriage automatically leading to marrying my sister seems flawed. Polygamy has been allowed. It’s in the Bible. It’s been around off and on for a long time. So how could legalizing gay marriage also be the same as incestuous marriage? What is the mechanism? Do you envision that some collective group in a given local will organize and lobby for the right to marry their siblings and find attorneys, judges and Governors to make it law? I couldn’t make sense out of that if I was high on some sort of hallucinogen. To connect the two, through these continuous fear based generalizations is insane. If this were true Glenn, then where are these groups of people who have lobbied for such a law? Which state allows for this? It would logically follow that the first state to allow gay marriage would be the first state where I can marry my favorite monkey! Where?

      The outright disgust and disdain and constant ridicule and judgement that you have for your fellow citizens is the earmark of a zealot. Isn’t your job to pray for sinners? Wasn’t Simon a zealot? He was so awesome Jesus sent him off to try and convert the Berbers right? I think we just found a job for you!

      Geez, Glenn, every time anyone plays nice you ratchet up the rhetoric to the point of exclusion. Do you do missionary work? Go door to door? Please don’t come to my house. Your salesmanship, interpersonal skills and marketing strategies are horrible.

    • Terrance,

      There was no saying one thing and pretending another. Look at my original statement which got your panties in a wad:

      You will suffer harm as society crumbles. The increasing approval will bring increasing persecution of those who disagree. We have already seen hundreds of people charge with hate crime, hate speech, fined, jailed, suffer loss of business, lose jobs, etc. Yet you aren’t much concerned.

      What is the context of my statement about society crumbling – the explanation in the very next two sentences! And yet you went off on a tangent about the collapse of the church, etc. My whole context was about the overtaking of society by those promoting homosexuality and pushing it on the rest of society and if you don’t approve you will be persecuted by loss of jobs, loss of money, imprisonment, etc. Look around the world and you see this happening on almost a daily basis. It has been forced into our school systems so that even Kindergardeners have to learn that “Heather Has Two Mommies” and it is all normal. Promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is saturating our schools, as well as the entertainment media, let alone the courts!

      So now I’m “gay-hating” – you sound like a liberal making such charges. The only thing I “hate” about “gays” is their forcing of approval or seeking punishment for not doing so.

      Yeah, once in a blue moon someone gets in trouble for expressing anti-abortion sentiments at work. Compare that to the almost daily examples of Christians being charged with hate-crimes or hate-speech, or fined or jailed, or fired, for losing their businesses, etc for nothing more than not wanting to give personal sanction to homosexuality.

      Yes sexual immorality is a cause of crumbling society, with its associated abortion industry, and yes the failure of the Church to address such issues when the opportunity was there fostered such collapse, and yes the acceptance of the church of this culture has also fostered its collapse, and yada, yada, yada. RED HERRINGS! These were not the subject topic. None of this had anything to do with what I wrote and yet you keep insisting that I’m the one off base here! Stick to the topic, and if you want to address what I said, then don’t bring in all these other subjects.

      YOU are the one who said the same-sex agenda was something you weren’t really concerned about and I was explaining to you why you should be concerned. Because no one will jail you or fine you, etc, for speaking out about divorce, or adultery, or fornication, or bestiality, or pedophilia, or even polygamy. Perhaps once in a blue moon someone will have some minor action taken against them for speaking out against abortion, but speak out against the homosexual agenda and you have the full weight of the government all over you like stink on a skunk.

  14. Quote of the day: R.Nash: “I will be absolutely honest here, the word ‘truth’ scares the daylights out of me.” :) Not sure I’d frame it that way, but I understand your point.
    Glenn, not to pile on, but your incivility does sometimes compromise the quality of your argument. You are so intelligent and articulate, and you generally present cogent and self-consistent positions — but then you become bizarrely dismissive and harsh, and your contribution to otherwise genuine and enriching dialogue darkens. (And just a personal nit: using a word like “pervert” as casually and categorically as you do is essentially saying, “I don’t really want to be part of this conversation as I am incapable of rudimentary civility.)
    Otherwise, very engaging and informative dialogue guys! Thank you for the read.

  15. Glenn,

    First, let me apologize for referring to your comments as “gay-hating.” Indeed, that sounds like something a liberal would say. So, I apologize.

    You and I both know that you have referenced the downfall of the Church in the past, attributing it to the ever increasing social liberalism this county is experiencing. But I took issue with this notion that blame rests squarely on the shoulders of homosexual activists. You didn’t expressly state that, but your hardline words certainly indicate a bias in that direction. And my point simply is that acceptance of same-sex marriage is only a symptom of a larger issue. You must understand that liberalism, in general, which pretends to focus on the needs of the downtrodden (e.g., homosexuals, transsexuals, abortionists, Islamists, and many others), is to blame for societal rot. It’s not just homosexuals or same-sex marriage.

    Honestly, how legitimate is your argument, Glenn, when same-sex marriage is only legal in a whole 13 states? Your words simply don’t ring true.

    • Terrance,
      Whether or not Same-sex fake marriage is legal in all states is irrelevant. I’m talking world-wide where it is legal in whole nations. Even in the USA, SCOTUS as determined for federal purposes it is to be treated as legal in all states – after all, DOMA has been dismantled, the military legalized it, etc.

      Even in the other 37 states, there are anti-discrimination laws which still force you to provide the same services, still prevent you from speaking against it, etc. I can find cases from virtually every state where people have been punished for being against SSFM.

      When I speak of the downfall of the church it is not the same subject as the collapse of society. So you putting the two in the same category and claiming that is what I have done is a straw man.

  16. Nash, re: your 5 points (I really enjoy “Copper” by the way),

    1. These points are not lightly granted or granted out of prejudice, but by virtue of the perceived importance of men and women who are likely to produce children maintaining their relationships for the benefit of all involved as well as the communities in which they live. The procreative aspects of the man/woman union is the focus of it all. Without that aspect looming as large as it does for all man/woman unions, the state would have no interest in the union at all and would render no considerations whatsoever that it didn’t also provide to all. This favorite whine used as evidence of unequal treatment fails due to other arrangements of people also denied, such as the polygamist and the incestuous. You wish to dismiss this argument, but then you must deny what marriage has meant for most ever, and certainly for most of this country’s history. It has always required that neither party be currently married, that the couple not be closely related AND, as another criterion, OF OPPOSITE SEX. The SSM proponent demands that the criterion HE wants stricken from the definition be regarded by all as unfair, leaving those who fail the rest be ignored and regarded as unequal.

    What’s more, if the issue is marriage, then at its core, marriage is the commitment of one to another for life. They have not been denied this legally, but only that their commitment is one of which the state has no compelling interest. And if they only wish to marry, then the demand for licensing because of benefits really makes their claims of love less than sincere and surely not their focus. The state simply does not grant licenses to celebrate the love of the two getting married, but for the legal implications of inheritance, child maintenance, support for the wife (far less necessary these days) and to some extent, the domestication of the husband which ties all three components together. But without the state granting the aforementioned benefits to all, they can be had by other means, if they mean so much to those who don’t qualify for licensing, such as single people caring for a family member or friend.

    2. Truth scares a lot of people. Usually those whose style might be in some way cramped by it. It certainly has mine on occasion. But I have no fear of it. You can’t go wrong finding the truth unless what it brings prohibits what you want. This is why so many fear it and pretend it is not possible to fully know and thus don’t seek it out. And it certainly is no friend to the proponents of SSM and the homosexual agenda. It tends to get in their way.

    3. Good. I hope so.

    4. Of course proponents and defenders of SSM do not like bringing up the slippery slope. It doesn’t work in their favor. But dismissing it doesn’t make it go away. Polygamists are already working the same argument and one can find (if one looks) examples of the incestuous doing the same. It has to lead to that because they all share the same argument. They all feel they are being denied their rights to pursue their happiness (“have” their happiness, actually, but the won’t say it that way).

    5. No, It is an important ingredient of a legal construct.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: