So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?

I have an important public service announcement for everyone who changed their Facebook and other profile photos to a rainbow recently. Absent some massive desire for more color in your life, you probably did this to celebrate the United States Supreme Court magically creating a constitutional “right” to a marriage license for gay people. Didn’t you?

I suppose you think this makes you quite tolerant, and forward thinking, but it doesn’t. I imagine you think you’re advancing freedom, but you’re not. You probably feel really good about yourself for helping gay people gain acceptance in society, but that’s not even remotely close to what you’re actually doing.

So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?

So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?

By making this display, you have done nothing but tell the world that you are a useful idiot. You have made yourself the tool of the anti-human left wing fanatics who are working overtime to bring mankind to his extinction. You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of government power, and the forced revocation of actual rights like freedom of association, and you have done so for nothing more than someone’s desire to get fucked in the ass. 

Were the court to strike down marriage licenses as an interference with contracts, I would celebrate with you. Were a legislature to repeal all laws pertaining to marriage, I would join your parade. Despite what these despots would have you believe, an opposition to government involving itself in more people’s sex lives is not an indicator that one hates gay people. I am entirely uninterested in the sex lives of complete strangers, and I think the government should hold the same position. Any person or group should be able to enter into any contract they see fit, and call it anything they want. Any person or group should be able to do whatever they want sexually without fear of government violence. Were the court to recognize these obvious truths, this would be a cause for celebration, but that’s not what they did.

The court decided that the constitution, despite lacking any language saying so, promises everybody a “right” to a “license” to marry. That statement on its face should set your reason thermometer to absolute zero from the start.

Firstly, a “license” is an indicator that you do not have a “right” to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law. To say that you are fighting for gay “rights” by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English.

Secondly, while I don’t have much use for constitutions these days, if a government is going to exist, it helps if it has some basic rules to follow. Despite the bizarre reasoning the court used to justify its decision, there is nothing in the US constitution which defines, mentions, or guarantees marriages. Absent an amendment, marriage is a thing the Federal Government has no role in whatsoever. So to the extent any government entity is to be involved, it is a matter for state and local governments to handle.

If the Supreme Court has any purpose to interfere with state and local laws, it is to strike down laws which are in contradiction to the constitution. This cannot be said of state marriage laws, since marriage appears nowhere in the constitution. The court has allowed ever greater restrictions on guns, and ever lessening restrictions on searches and seizures, even though striking down such encroachments on freedom would actually expand liberty and suit their purported purpose. So why the sudden concern for the wellbeing of gay people?

The answer is quite simple. To expand federal authority, centralize power, and give the left a win that they would never be able to accomplish through elections. While portrayed as being a lessening of restrictions on gay people, it is an increase in the power of the court and of the federal government, which could just as easily be used to federally ban homosexuality entirely.

Perhaps the most important problem we will now be facing, is the anti-discrimination lawsuits that are soon to follow, and we can expect it to go well beyond cakes, flowers, and wedding halls. What we’re inevitably going to see in the near future, is discrimination suits against churches. Soon, the “right” to “gay marriage” will be pitted against the freedoms of religion and association in court.

Now, plenty of people have addressed this part, and the abhorrent nature of a government forcing a religious institution to do something that is against its faith is almost too obvious to mention. So instead I’m going to take a different angle so often overlooked by gay activists and my fellow atheists. The religious conservative activism that is certain to follow any such challenge. Far from forcing society to accept homosexuality, this is going to compel a backlash which will see more hate and hostilities towards homosexuals than at any time in recent history, and that tension will result in political changes that do not favor gays.

As I mentioned in my piece about Indiana’s “religious freedom” law;

If a restaurant owner today hates gays, do you imagine he will like them more or less after government bureaucrats threaten him with fines and imprisonment? You might well land somebody a job, or get someone a lunch with such a policy, but you’ll certainly not solve the underlying problem of ignorance and irrationality. You have only escalated the conflict from an interpersonal one to a political one.

For a religious man to hate gays because he thinks his god told him to is irrational. For a religious man to hate gays because they are his political rivals and oppressors makes perfect sense, and is more difficult to argue with. The nature of political battles in America being partisan, it represents an even bigger problem. Not only do gays force him to do business with them, but they elect Democrats to do so, and they then raise his taxes, confiscate his weapons, and force other costly regulations down his throat. His religious bias now has real world backing behind it. “The gays did this” is seared into his mind, and he’s not wrong about that.

Far from correcting his behavior and encouraging him to abandon his irrationality, he is given political support from people who don’t much care for his beliefs, but see the government as the bigger problem. He is courted by politicians who feed off of his biases, promising to overturn or repeal the law that is forcing him if elected. He becomes politically active where he might not have been before, and his biases are thus imprinted on the political figures he helps to elect.

Since politicians are democratically elected, and most Americans still identify as members of some religious group, atheists really ought to be careful about stirring religious folks to political action. There is next to nothing left of the constitution these days, and a theocratic government is really just 50.01% of the vote away from becoming a reality in America. The same political process that bans discrimination, could just as easily make homosexuality a capital offense punishable by death. The same goes for heresy, ethnic cleansing, or any number of policies we all like to think we’re beyond these days.

A dignified atheist should reject the irrationality of State power the same way they reject the irrationality of religion, but with the added incentive of opposition to violence.

If you think that backlash had potential for disaster when we were talking about bakeries and florists, just you wait and see what happens when it kicks down the doors to the house of worship.

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Greg Loucks

    This article rocks! God bless you!

  • L.j. Lee

    You make some really good points.

    I see nothing wrong with “gay” marriage but you have definitely changed my view of how the government mishandled it.

    Thank you. Your articles are always enlightening.

    • Alex Summers

      Yes, because my rights are up for a vote? But yours aren’t?

      Marriages should be a federally recognized status between two people. Our legal system doesn’t stop at state level, and marriage gives people the right to speak on the other persons behalf. Not only in business, but in property, liability, etc.

      So no, that’s a bad idea dude. The government hasn’t mishandled it, if anything, they have taken a step towards fixing the bigger problem.

      Take marriage out of state and church, level the playing field so everyone can enjoy it, participate in it, and you will see commitment happen.

      • CJ

        Everything you mentioned can be handled with a contract. It was always possible to have those rights. They just wanted it to be called “marriage.” Why is that?

        • Alex Summers

          You can call it munfrt for all I care, so long as the same amt of paper work and acknowledgment go along with it. You dont want to let us call it marriage, why?? Because you believe it takes a man and woman, based on what? Your belief in god? Gender sure isnt the main identifier when it comes to life long commitnent, why pretend to even be bias about it?

          • CJ

            No, because marriage is the joining of 2 unique, compatible things. You can’t marry things together that are the same. You marry a car body to a chassis. You marry a male lamp plug to a female outlet, etc.
            Biologically , males and females are unique and compatible. The vagina is built to lubricate in preparation to receive and stimulate a penis, while being mutually stimulated by said penis.
            The anus has no natural lubrication, so it is not biologically designed to receive anything. Simple science.

          • Geoff

            You are a complete idiot —-
            “marriage is the joining of 2 unique, compatible things”

            Two individual human beings ARE 2 unique compatible “things”.

            Simple science for a simpleton.

          • CJ

            Nope. Biologically the same.

          • Geoff

            So only their genitals are evaluated for uniqueness or compatibility? Oh – I forgot we’re in CJ’s World of Biology.

          • CJ

            Yes. Evaluate it on anything further, then you have to acknowledge the existence of the soul and spirit. That’s unscientific . However, if you choose to acknowledge those things, then you have to acknowledge that there is a God. Which way do you want it?

          • Geoff

            “Evaluate it on anything further, then you have to acknowledge the existence of the soul and spirit”
            Uh – no. You may be nothing more than a dick (or vagina) but I’m certainly not and definitely not defined by that.

          • CJ

            You are liar, and you know it. You could find a female with all the exact qualities you look for, but you would reject her simply because she has a vagina.

            You have a lesbian whose girlfriend tries to act like a guy, dress like a guy , look like a guy , smell like a guy and talk like a guy.
            The only thing that’s different are the genitals, because in a sense, this “lesbian” with a girlfriend like this is actually attracted to guys!

            So I take it you acknowledge the existence of God, so now go and learn the will of your Creator.

          • Geoff

            A Creator ——HAHAHAHAHA.

            Using your example, humans are only different by possession of either dicks or vaginas. I feel sorry for you.

            BTW – I’m married w/ a wife and kids who share a similar viewpoint to my own.

          • CJ

            Yes, our Creator. You can’t claim there is no spirit if you are admitting that we are more than our biology. So which one is it?

        • Geoff

          Then why can’t it be marriage unless you’re a proponent of separate but equal —- that worked out well

          • CJ

            Separate yet equal would have been much better than what we have now, sir.

          • Geoff

            Are you talking education or marriage equality although neither is better than what we have now, son.

        • pyrophilia

          In response to conservative Christians who want to claim that they are not trying to deny anyone their rights because Gay people have the Same Freedom to marry a member of the opposite Sex as Everyone else does and so their rights are not being denied and that’s freedom, Fine, if that’s freedom Christians can worship at the mosque of their choice because that’s freedom.

          perfectly fair analogy.

          • CJ

            Horrible analogy, because the freedom to practice religion how you see fit is written in the Constitution, however, marriage in any form is not.

          • pyrophilia

            www DOT hermes-press DOT com/completing DOT htm Regarding The Worship of the Founding fathers and the constitution? Furthermore I reject the authority of this document and this country for one simple reason: Citizens united vs the federal election’s commission exposed to me that I don’t have political representation in practice in this country. I have it in theory, but that is irrelevant. No Taxation without representation in practice.

            I reject the Sentiments of James Madison about the country being Run by aristocratic elite. I realize on the right there’s practically an Esoteric belief system around the idea of being governed by a ruling elite “leading to the best results” but I reject that belief as well.

            You may note as well that the Constitution was always intended to be a living breathing document instead of a dead one that we had the potential to amend and in my view I couldn’t care less what it has to say for the simple fact that if it doesn’t contain that right then the Framer’s were less than perfect and forgot to include something that should have included.

            quiet frankly screw Those Slave Holders who wanted to be free

            In the future remember I am currently a Stateless Anarchist Residing in this country, I reject the authority of the constitution.

          • pyrophilia

            The aristocratic elite have done a marvelous job Demonstrating how poorly they can run things though. All the governmental failure, the dysfunction… They’re proving Madison a fool.

      • GracieW

        You just missed the point. If they issue a LICENSE then it isn’t a RIGHT. Don’t you GET IT? Stop asking the government for authority over your own freaking life!

        • Alex Summers

          You need a registration and or license to vote, carry a fire arm, operate as business, etc. So unless you have a problem with ALL licensing, YOU missed the point.

          • CJ

            So the government has to grant you permission to vote? Voting is our only power and we still have to get the government’s permission to exercise it. If you don’t see the problem in that, then that explains why we are getting pimped by our government as we speak.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            Can’t speak for Gracie, but yes, i am against ALL licensing. Because ALL licensing is the government giving its approval for you to do whatever the fuck you want. If you can do something with a license, you ought to be able to do it without. The only difference is state sanction.
            So you do miss the point, because you use a previous situation to justify a new one, without bothering to justify the previous one.
            Do you want permission from the state to take a crap too? Hell, why not, since obviously a license is so important to you.

        • MicrowaveWaffle

          We also need licenses to drive, registrations for our cars, and concealed carry permits. Is this an encroachment on our rights? No, licensure is sensible regulation. If you wanted the government out of everything, there’d be no way to prevent exploitation.

          • CJ

            Doesn’t it piss you off that the government has to give you permission to drive the car you’ve worked for and paid for? If I pay $35,000 of my hard earned money, I’m driving it, license or not.

          • Geoff

            So you think money provides you with the right to drive? Just because you paid for a car doesn’t mean you’re qualified to operate it. Why license anyone? Why should we care if physicians have passed any licensing exams etc?

            You can drive your car w/o license —— on your private property but not on the public roads.

          • CJ

            Are you saying that the citizen isn’t smart enough to regulate themselves and those in their immediate communities ?

          • Geoff

            Yes – that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. What f’in world do you live in? Oh – utopia.

          • CJ

            Nice. Now we know utopia is only a bad thing if you don’t include the line “every one is equal.”

          • Geoff

            Your utopia is anarchy —– everyone just gets along and polices themselves. Always suggested by the “enlightened 7th grader”.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            Considering that the state is the biggest mass murderer and human rights violator in human history, its track record of “policing” people and making sure they “get along” sounds magnificent.

            Tell me, what “private” person would have managed to make over a 100 million casualties in the 20th century the way the state has (and i am not including wars).
            Statists regard government as the holy church, complete with hymns, idols, and reverence and blind faith that they know better as if it is God. They look to government to hold their hands and fix everything for them. Yet libertarians are supposedly the “children.”

          • Geoff

            Libertarians want the govt to leave them alone until they have a need. Then they clamor for help and support and who’s there —- the state. Just like a brat child – parent relationship.

            Do I support everything the govt does? Of course not but they’re more reliable and accountable than a random person on the street.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            Yours is the Utopia where you think politicians are a special and magical sort of people that know better than you do what’s best for you, despite having never even MET you. Truly, for you to expect them to improve situations when they themselves have no fucking clue about ordinary people problems is the most utopian thinking of all. You statists truly are the political version of the Bible belt.

          • MicrowaveWaffle

            I am, actually. Certain individuals have the capacity to regulate themselves, but it’s madness to assume that even a majority do.
            Government provides us with some decent things: roads and schools, for instance, that can only be achieved through teamwork and pooled funds on a large scale.

          • CJ

            I hate stereotyping,but that is a typical nanny-statist mentality, that somehow you are smarter than the average citizen.

          • MicrowaveWaffle

            I don’t feel like I’m above average. In fact, I’m grateful that the laws were there to guide me, especially to ensure that I was old enough and qualified enough to operate a moving vehicle.
            In no way is it safe to have unlicensed drivers on the road.

          • CJ

            I appreciate that. You see the wisdom in having guidelines and boundaries. That’s where people who are against the redefinition of marriage are coming from.

            Everyone thrives when there are clear lines drawn. Decades ago we started following Hollywood’s example and you saw an explosion of divorces in this country. The people who suffered the most were the children, who suffered from instability and trust/commitment/abandonment issues. It is no surprise that children who had divorced parents are more likely to have divorces themselves.
            They then fail to see the point in getting married several generations down the line because marriage is no longer seen by them as to death, but is just as soluble as a dating relationship. So we began to see people acting out marriage in dating relationships, further eroding the boundaries that made marriage special in the first place.
            So now we have children being born, all their siblings being born by different fathers, so even the concept of a family has been corrupted. Now children have a hard time finding out where they fit in in the world because the institutions that were in place to provide them a jump off point into the world are perverted and destroyed.
            We now have a whole generation that don’t even make good friends because they don’t know how to trust, they believe the world is out to screw them, and are now sociopaths that are self-centered. The cycle repeats itself.

            We now have men that don’t know how to take care of a family, buying trucks and toys instead of setting their family up for the future. You have mothers knowing what’s going on with the Kardashians, but doesn’t know her boyfriend of the month is molesting her kids.

            See, everyone wants to ask “how does gays getting married affect you in any way?” That’s the point. It may not affect me personally, but every action has a long reach over the generations, often unforeseen. Our society is bottoming out now because of the changes we made generations ago, changes that we didn’t see anything wrong with.
            While you can easily see the harm in letting unlicensed drivers on the road, we often can’t see the covert implications to society with the decisions made on the family level.

            The “straights” did their part to ruin our society. However, there was always a chance that we could restore the honor in marriage and therefore strengthen our society. Some were saying” let’s fix what is broken, not break it further.”
            That is the crux of the matter.

          • MicrowaveWaffle

            Marriage has never been honorable in itself. Dysfunctional families are not a new thing: there have always been families that struggled with alcoholism, physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, domestic violence, and the like. Such problems may have been even more prevalent, but undercover. People remained in horrible marriages because a divorce was seen as shameful.
            Rewind a few years and people were selling their daughters to prospective husbands for seven sacks of flour and a goat.
            I’m generally against divorce. As someone with divorced parents, I agree that it leads to trust issues for the children. But divorce usually occurs as a result of an overly hasty marriage. It’s ridiculous, the amount of people who marry at eighteen (often a shotgun wedding) when they’re not ready for the commitment. However, this problem is absolutely nothing new.
            As someone in a long-term relationship (hoping to marry someday, possibly), I celebrate this SC decision. It allows two people, regardless of gender, to build something together–and that’s what marriage should be: two people who are able to commit to each other for the rest of their lives.

          • CJ

            I didn’t mean to imply the those issues were “new”, but we have to admit that the issue has grown mor pervasive in the last few decades, thus crumbling society.

            The very thing that made marriage honorable was true commitment, meaning no matter what happens or how you feel, you stick with it. When that level of commitment was expected from society, people worked through things that something a fraction of the scale would destroy a marriage today .

            I appreciate your perspective on divorce. I am fortunate enough to have my parents still together. My mom was 17 and my dad was 20 when they had me. Things weren’t always perfect, but the fact that they were in it for life, they didn’t break up when things were bad. Now they love each other deeply and can’t imagine life without the other.

            It really boils down to children not being properly taught on marriage from an early age. We as Americans don’t have a proper education on what love actually is. Love is not a feeling, not something you fall in and out of. Love is an action, the way you treat a person regardless of how you feel. That’s why I believe that you can be married to almost anyone and be happy, as long as you treat each other well. The concept of the ONE or a soul mate is a myth.

          • MicrowaveWaffle

            I agree. Attraction does not equal love, and I think that’s the main problem today. People too hastily cling to those whom they find attractive, expecting the feeling to last. Attraction comes and goes, but true love is the choice to be devoted to one another regardless of circumstances.

          • CJ

            Our minds have met! You are very reasonable.

          • MicrowaveWaffle

            Additionally, I don’t think the ruling changes anything about the nature of a truly loving couple. To me, the gender of a couple doesn’t matter: the most important aspect is their devotion to one another.

          • Murray Roodbaard

            The answer is YES. These are encroachments on your rights.
            And government *is* exploitation. They are exploiting you the minute they levy taxes, insuring you keep a lesser percentage of your income when you have done 100% of the job.

          • MicrowaveWaffle

            If you’re against government, move to Somalia.

    • Just Straight Shooting

      Everything is wrong with “gay marriage” it is the ultimate total rebellion against God and will remove the umbrella of Holy protection from the USA and bring God’s divine judgment on us.

      • Melker Johansson

        I seriously doubt that the Big Sky Daddy is that fickle.

        • Just Straight Shooting

          You poor dumb, satanic, reprobate fool.

          • Melker Johansson

            I don’t believe in Satan either. Do you still believe in Santa and the tooth fairy? Isn’t it time for you to wake up to reality and realize that there’s no Abrahamic God. BTW, I take your words as a compliment.

          • Melker Johansson

            I bet you are one of those “Christians” that cherry-pick what you like in the Bible.

          • Melker Johansson

            I notice that you post anonymous. I take that as a sign that you are ashamed of your beliefs. You don’t have to courage to stand up for your own beliefs because of your lack of faith. Weak in faith, you are.

          • pyrophilia

            aww… HAIL SATAN!

          • Alex Summers

            Satan wasnt even an independant pronoun in the OT. Get off your mighter than thou horse.

      • Geoff

        “God and will remove the umbrella of Holy protection from the USA”

        Is this a Monty Python joke or did you get kidnapped by a religious cult? BTW – I’m safe because I have a pair of Jesus jammies on, a St Christopher’s medal and a scapula —- that’s a VIP pass to the front of the line, fool.

        AND we always have he holy hand grenade!

      • pyrophilia

        Rebellion against god? HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN HAIL SATAN!

      • pyrophilia

        www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=itnfuhJ9ZFA

      • Alex Summers

        Then let God come down and say it himself, he has angels, he doesnt need you blathering. Fortune telling and speaking for God was one of the gravest of sins you could ever commit.

        • Just Straight Shooting

          How arrogant and stiff necked you are, because you have chosen to become reprobate in your mind you have sealed your fate. I truly feel sorry for you.

          • Geoff

            But you’re under protection of the holy umbrella so don’t worry!!!

        • Geoff

          Careful — Just Straight Shooting has a new word (reprobate) and is willing to use it! Over and over and over.

  • So far the only government that had the right idea was Alabama. The 10th Amendment center reported that they voted to just make it a contract.

  • Matthew Foster

    Why should you me or anybody care who gets married is it our business no,and the only people who want to make it Thair business have nothing better to do with Thair life.and this comment is for everyone who uses the word “GAYS” Wether you use the quotations or not it is still discriminatory and pajoritive to the homosexual community and why would you think that the homosexual community only wants to get married for and I quote”someones desire to get fucked in the ass” the way you think is Dr Martin Luther King fought for civil rights so “his homies could slang dope outside the corner store” it’s the same thing you need to fix your thought process and start seeing people as people and not gay or black or white or Muslim or anything else that you might deem discriminatory

    • Celesta

      You just proved you didn’t get the point. Based on how badly you spell and your obvious lack of reading comprehension, people like you are why we have to ask the government for permission to be allowed to get married. What business is it of the government to be requiring a license to get married in the first place? Is getting married even remotely the same as driving a car? No, I don’t think so. Who are they to tell anyone who we are “allowed” to love? Unfortunately my saying to this will go right over your head as well.

      • Brian Pettera

        Too bad you had to act like an asshat. “Based on how badly you spell and your obvious lack of reading comprehension, people like you …” Really? It’s people like you that are what’s wrong with this country.

        • Bill the eighth

          No Brian, she’s right and you are wrong and you cannot even grasp that thought.

        • Mark

          Shut up, your a fucking idiot

      • TomEver

        Actually, it might be in the government’s interest to control marriage. Marriage = families = breeding.

    • 36/g

      Fag

      • Matthew Foster

        Wow bro wow case in piont

        • 36/g

          homo

      • Brian Pettera

        Another anonymous keyboard troll rears its ignorant head.

        • Bill the eighth

          Why yes you did! Thanks for self identifying.

    • John Q

      If it is not our business, why is our government even involved with it? Marriage should not be a function of the government, especially the federal government. The only reason the government is involved is because of income taxes. Married-filing jointly, Married-filing separately, etc. If we get rid of income taxes or the different rates for different marital statuses, the government won’t need to be involved at all. Get the government our of our marriages.

    • Brendon Williams

      Those comments in the article were designed to be inflammatory. And like the civil rights movement, we can see that the ‘correct terminology’ will change as well. Either way, you’re missing the point of this article.

      • Matthew Foster

        If the article would have stayed on one subject and not got all derogatory and off pudding I would have gotten the point I agree the government should not have anything to do with marriages at all but we don’t have to talk down about any person to get that point across

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    Breakin’ it down.

    Trashing rainbow power for its unethical use of the state is valid. But it’s not an appealing or relatable message for gay activists and their supporters.

    Instead, I might applaud their spirit while rejecting their approach. Go with, rather than against popular emotional momentum. Go straight to the specific issues they are focused on and propose a better solution. Put up a rainbow-hued anarchy symbol on Facebook.

    Propose property rights and contract as the ultimate “gay rights” solution that would ensure gays never need cross paths with those that don’t genuinely respect their sexual beliefs and recognize their marriages not just mechanically but wholeheartedly. Gay people don’t realize it, but this state of affairs would far better meet their underlying personal needs to have their relationships recognized as valid.

    Selling people a solution that better meets their needs turns them from enemies into allies in the fight for property rights.

  • Rhett Lloyd

    Good stuff once again. Glad to see the picture up on your blog. Had a great time in Keene and drinking at that scenic overlook.

  • Judi S

    Bloody brilliant

  • Matt

    I’m fairly certain no one uses the rainbow filters to look cool – it’s a sign of solidarity. It’s a way of saying “that’s great, we’re totally on board with this decision, whether we’re gay or not.” As far as Christopher Cantwell’s argument that this decision supports “judicial activism, [and] expansion of government power…” the federal government has been expanding its power since the Patriot Act was put into place, and long before that, actually. Now, I absolutely despise the Patriot Act and all its modifications and do not in any way like or support it, but SOMETIMES it’s necessary to have the government step in and regulate certain things. There’s nothing in the Constitution that states that people are entitled to food and water that isn’t poisonous, and yet we have the FDA (which was put into place by the federal government). There’s nothing that says that we’re entitled to corporations not polluting our environment with toxic sludge, and yet we have the EPA. There’s nothing that guarantees that citizens have the right to not be deceived and scammed out of their money by unfair business practices, and yet we have the FTC.

    Look, we saw what happened when we gave states the right to discriminate against a minority group in the U.S. – they took full advantage of it under the pretense of “religious freedom”. So we tried that method from 1776 until 2015, long enough to notice a trend. And the trend was that if it’s deemed legal and acceptable, then some people would be OK with harassing and discriminating against that minority group.

    You know what else used to be up to each state to decide? Whether or not slavery was legal. You know what happened when Lincoln decided to take that power away from anyone and instead to make it a federally mandated law that all blacks be freed? There was a huge uproar, enough so that it actually sparked the Civil War (which was partially caused by the southern states wanting to reclaim slavery, and partially because the southern states wanted more power to the individual states and less power to the federal government.) Chris goes on to mention the “religious conservative activism that is certain to follow any such challenge.” So what? Religious activism against homosexuality has been in place since day 1, I can name three potential presidential candidates right now that are bigoted homophobes who are also Christians, and there are countless politicians who have spoken out countless times against gay marriage and the LBGT community in general because it will surely lead to the “downfall of this country, and the tearing of the fabric of our society” and all this slippery slope nonsense.

    Listen, it would be great if we could do away with marriage licenses altogether – I’m actually with Christopher on that one – but it’s just not feasible RIGHT NOW. The best, fastest, method that is actually possible with the system put in place right now in the U.S. has already been accomplished – by bringing it to the Supreme Court and having them make a ruling that affects the entire land. Is it possible to abolish marriage licenses altogether and just let anyone marry whoever they want without Uncle Sam stepping in? Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for certain, though, something like that would probably take decades to put into place, but we really needed something right now that would help just a little bit to protect the rights of this small minority group known as the LGBT community.

    Chris goes on to mention something about how “the “right” to “gay marriage” will be pitted against the freedoms of religion and association in court.” (his quotations, not mine – he obviously has a problem with referring to gay marriage as an actual “thing”, as if it’s phony or something, and apparently he doesn’t want to refer to it as an actual right either – go figure.) OK so he’s arguing that the rights of gays are going to butt heads with the rights of religious folks to discriminate against them? So fucking what? Who said that it’s OK to discriminate against anybody anyway? Hell, the Christian bible states that it’s OK to have slaves and it’s OK to murder people under certain circumstances – so should we give people who BELIEVE that the permission to actually DO that just so we don’t hurt their feelings? I mean, I defend fully the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of religion until the day I die – even if I believe that religion is one of the largest problems in the world today, which I do. But come ON, we have got to draw the line somewhere.

    • StoneAge

      Umm.. Civil war was started because the RICH south seceded from the North Union with all their money. They were sick and tired of paying all that dough and not getting anything in return. Sound familiar???

      Abe needed that money to run the government so they went to way. When he was out of money and was losing the war, he went to an activist group that were FOR freeing the slaves and had lots of money. After he allied with that group the money flowed and the war was won – But get it right – it was fought over MONEY not slavery. Heck Abe owned slaves and DID NOT want to set them free. He didn’t set them free until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

      General Robert E. Lee. only had inherited slaves – he never bought one – and he set them free BEFORE the war. Not after it was made law that one cannot have them any more.

      There IS a way to marry without a license. Been going on for CENTURIES – it’s called a Family wedding and the government has no part. 2 partners agree to contract to a life together based on whatever criteria they want to base it on and are married in a public ceremony by an ordained minister of their choosing – or a best friend – it doesn’t matter. It’s Common Law and there are no government ties OR benefits to being in that contract.

      THAT is the key – Government benefits – Sad part is the contract you sign when one gets a Marriage License – is a 3 way partnership where 1/3’rd of the co-signers (government) have 100% say in how you run your marriage, child rearing, divorce, housing situation etc,

      It’s a farce and FICTION of law. Not the actual law.

      Gays have always had the right to marry. That no longer exists. It is now a licensed activity by the government and limits your rights greatly.

      • Vitaly Ustinov

        Indeed. Good one.

      • Matt

        If the South was so rich, why did they still lose?

        • jms

          Because their economy was in agricultural exports. The economy of the North was in manufacturing. The south shipped cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported European goods in return. The North manufactured goods and sold them domestically. The only source of Federal revenue under the Constitution at the time was in import taxes, so the South was paying 2/3rds of all Federal taxes.

          Essentially the South lost because the Northern manufacturing economy outproduced them in weapons while their export economy was disrupted.

          • Steve McEnroe

            which makes no sense, since the South was EXPORTING – not importing. Tariffs go on imported goods.

          • paendragon

            Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.

            Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

            The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America’s citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government’s costs.

            See?

            😉

          • jms

            They exported raw materials to Europe and sold them, receiving European currency that was deposited in European banks. European currency was unwanted in the United States, and the most profitable way to convert the European currency into American dollars was to buy goods and import them for sale in America. Then they could sell the imported goods and finish the economic cycle by receiving American dollars. That’s why they were paying so much in taxes. They were exporting AND importing.

          • A Fox Among Wolves

            you are talking to retarded teabillies who do not understand the words they are using.

          • Bill the eighth

            While I am not sure what a “teabillie” is, I know for a fact you are a retard.

        • Bill the eighth

          Really? You have the nerve to post a question that stupid?

          • celsma

            Pretty stupid is right. 9,000,000 people in the South, 22,000,000 people in the North. Guess who paid 75% of the taxes? The 9,000,000 in the South. Sound familiar? Just read the declarations of Secession, I especially like Georgia’s!

          • A Fox Among Wolves

            Not to mention the North had shipyards and railroad lines.

            The south at least got to go home and rape and mutilate their slaves for a few more years.

          • Bill the eighth

            I just love it when people post ridiculous crap like this. You have NO understanding of what life was like in the 1800s.

          • Geoff

            What are you, the ghost of history past? Do enlighten us all on your 17th century experiences.

          • Bill the eighth

            You really have no clue do you? You frame this in today’s perspective. You apparently don’t even know there were no income or sales taxes in the 1860s., individuals didn’t pay taxes back then Then you read some decalrations of secession and think you understand what the entire situation was over 150 years ago.

            Your reply shows you have no understanding of US history, you really need to relieve your ignorance before you post such nonsense.

        • xxkingxx

          According to Carl Sandberg, at the time before the war the south owed the north approx. $200,000,000. Adjusted- add 2.”0″‘s..$20b. Always follow the $ the rest we don’t have wars over.

        • Brendon Williams

          In part, because much of the tax revenue had been invested in the north. Railroads, Etc.

          • Geoff

            South had a railroad but it was underground.

      • TomEver

        Umm.. Civil war was started because the RICH south seceded from the North Union with all their money. They were sick and tired of paying all that dough and not getting anything in return. Sound familiar???

        Actually, they seceded because they were afraid of not being able to hold slaves anymore.

        As for rich people not getting anything in return… Familiar, how? The rich in the US have only gotten richer, while the rest has been left in the dust.

        • actually, no they didn’t. They seceeded because of tariffs. Stop parroting your government’s propaganda.

          • Chris

            “actually, no they didn’t. They seceeded because of tariffs. Stop parroting your government’s propaganda.”

            Huh. I didn’t realize the Confederate government still existed, or that TomEver was a part of it.

            If the idea that the South seceded over slavery is government propaganda, it came directly from the Confederate government. Every single declaration of secession mentioned slavery as the primary cause. None of them mentioned tariffs. Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens boasted that slavery was the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy, and that his was the first government ever based on the principle that the Negro’s natural condition is slavery under whites. These were his words.

            So…were they just lying? If so, why?

          • Douglas C Fitzgerald III

            So there is no confusion I have no horse in the race. I do not care about the flag one way or
            another however I do care about inaccuracies in data. As far as the southern states succeeding because
            of slaves it is not the real reason. The
            state I am going to use is South Carolina because it is the first one I found
            on Yale Law School’s “The Avalon Project”.
            The first mention of slavery in the declaration of succession is “Thus
            were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the
            right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a
            Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted.
            And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact that
            each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN
            AND INDEPENDENT STATE.” The second mention of slavery is “The General
            Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these
            stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an
            increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the
            institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the
            laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the
            Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
            Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
            Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress
            or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the
            fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has
            the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution.
            The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her
            constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her
            more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by
            her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the
            right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States
            of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with
            murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus
            the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the
            non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is
            released from her obligation.” I do apologize
            for the long quotes but, I do not want anyone to say I cherry picked sentences. These are the only two mentions of slavery in
            this document. When South Carolina feels
            that the federal government would not uphold the laws that were set forth
            whether they were correct or not is why they felt they were no longer being
            represented.

          • Chris

            “I do apologize
            for the long quotes but, I do not want anyone to say I cherry picked sentences. These are the only two mentions of slavery in
            this document. When South Carolina feels
            that the federal government would not uphold the laws that were set forth
            whether they were correct or not is why they felt they were no longer being
            represented.”

            What laws did South Carolina feel the federal government was not upholding? Did they have to do, perhaps, with slavery?

          • Bill the eighth

            How dense are you? You simply swallow the propaganda put to you in grade school unquestioningly. Douglas is right, you are wrong, deal with it.

          • Chris

            I’m sorry, that is not a particularly convincing argument.

            South Carolina–as well as every other state which seceded–claimed that their primary reason for seceding was to preserve the institution of slavery. You can read that for yourself in each state’s declaration of secession. You can also read the same thing in Confederate VP Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech. Those are but a few of the primary source documents in which the Confederate leaders themselves state that their primary motivation was to preserve slavery.

            I have not been able to find any primary source documents in which Confederate leaders claim their main concern is taxation or tariffs.

            If this is “propaganda,” it’s propaganda put out by the Confederates themselves. It’s possible that the Confederates were lying when they said their government was based on the notion that the Negro was inferior to the white man, and that his natural state was slavery, and that this was the foundation of their government, and that theirs was the only government on earth founded on this great truth.

            Is that what you believe? That the Confederates were lying about their true motives?

            If so, why?

          • Bill the eighth

            You are confused. If you cannot find the information, you are not looking very hard. Ask yourself these questions:

            1) At the time of secession, was there slavery in the north?

            2) Was Lincoln in favor of slavery?

            3) Did Lincoln believe that black people were inferior to white people?

            4) What was Lincoln’s plan for the black people after the war?

            5) Did the emancipation proclamation free any slaves?

            6) When did slavery end in the north?

            I can tell you for certain, Lincoln was all about preserving the union, and, like an abusive spouse, he refused to listen to reason and would not compromise, let alone agree to divorce. He launched a war that killed over 700,000 Americans, including innocents and civilians. The aftermath, reconstruction, was even worse. Having now consolidated power in the Imperial City and making the federal government the master of the States, the feds then set their sights on the American Indians and you know how that turned out. So, while you may look at this period of history from a perspective of 150 years and decades of northern propaganda, the real story is the war was about State’s rights and keeping the power in the State’s and the people’s hands. I do not think you can argue that it has been nothing but downhill from there.

          • Chris

            Bill, I’m not sure why you believe the answers to any of those questions are more relevant than what the Confederates said their motivation was, in their own words.

            I’m also unsure why you think you are entitled to answers to those questions, when you have not answered the question I asked first:

            If the Confederates were not fighting to preserve slavery, why did every Confederate leader claim they were fighting to preserve slavery?

            You keep bringing up the North this, the North that. What the North said and did tells us nothing about the South’s motivation. The best way to tell what the South was fighting for, is to read what the South said they were fighting for.

            They said they were fighting over slavery.

            Now, again: Were they lying? If so, why?

          • Chris

            Here, again, is Alexander Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech:

            “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically….

            Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

            What is your response to this? Are you disputing that Alexander Stephens wrote this?

            And what of the various declarations of secession, each of which lists slavery as the primary motive for secession? Are those all Northern forgeries too?

          • Geoff

            ” keeping the power in the State’s and the people’s hands. I do not think you can argue that it has been nothing but downhill from there.”
            I think most black folks would beg to differ unless you also think the benefitted from being slaves.

          • TomEver

            Pick up a history book some time instead of inventing a fantasy world (which is where all anarchists live).

        • paendragon

          General Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves during the war and said that if he had known the war was meant to end slavery, he would have resigned his commission.

          Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.

          Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

          The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America’s citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government’s costs.

          😉

          • Chris

            You have not answered my question. If the purpose of the Confederacy was not slavery, but tariffs, why did every single declaration of secession, as well as Alexander Stevens, claim that the purpose of the Confederacy was slavery, not tariffs?

            We’re they lying about their own cause? If so, why?

          • paendragon

            Re: “every single declaration of secession, as well as Alexander Stevens, claim(ed) that the purpose of the Confederacy was slavery, not tariffs.”

            They did?! PROVE IT.

            Because even Abraham Lincoln – who started the war – was an avowed anti-black racist, who said he wouldn’t have freed even a single slave, if he could have won the war in any other way.

            Which clearly shows that he had started the war NOT with any intention of freeing any slaves.

          • A Fox Among Wolves

            The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

            Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. -MISSISSIPPI

            Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.-SOUTH CAROLINA

            We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

            That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.-TEXAS

            on and on and on and on….. ANYONE who vomits up anything else is not reading the ACTUAL DOCUMENTED REASONS that are in the historical records.

          • Chris

            I posted the Cornerstone Speech and the Declarations of Secession proving that the issue was slavery, but for some reason, the post was deleted.

            Oh well. They are very easy to Google.

            Long story short: Abe Lincoln didn’t start the war, the Confederacy did. Abe Lincoln’s motives are irrelevant. The Confederacy was probably wrong to panic over Lincoln’s election, since he had no immediate plans to end slavery; but panic they did, and they were very clear that they sefeded because they were afraid Lincoln was gonna take their slaves. That this belief wasn’t true is irrelevant.

          • paendragon

            The States had a Constitutional RIGHT to secede. Lincoln started the war in order to violently deprive them of that right and force them to remain in the Union.

          • Chris

            Lincoln did not start the war.

          • paendragon

            Yes, he did. He went balls-in with commitment to an all-out genocide war over a tiny disputed border fort.

          • Chris

            So if ISIS attacked a US military fort, and we then went to war with them, you would say we started the war? Your argument is absurd.

            You’ve also failed to respond to the facts laid out by myself and others here showing that the Cobfederacy claimed slavery as their primary motivation for secession.

          • paendragon

            Three different points:

            ISIS has attacked Iraq time and time again, and Obama does nothing,
            despite the fact that because America broke it, she also still owns it.

            But if you put a fort in my backyard, my removing it isn’t starting a war – it’s countering your opening attack.

            Keeping slavery as the basis for their economies was indeed the stated motives of the Southern States for leaving the Union, but Lincoln himself wasn’t about to risk losing all those Federal taxes the South way paying him by freeing ANY of their slaves, either – and he kept them in the Union illegally by force ONLY in order to keep extorting their economies, by pretty-much enslaving THEM, too!

          • Chris

            “Keeping slavery as the basis for their economies was indeed the stated motivated of the SouthernStates for leaving the Union,”

            Thank you for typing the only phrase necessary for explaining why the Confederate flag is a symbol of oppression, slavery, and white supremacy.

            Nothing else you have said is relevant to that debate.

          • paendragon

            Lincoln wasnt trying to free any slaves, only to keep the South enslaved to the North.

          • Chris

            Lincoln invented neither the Confederate nor the American flag, so all your attempted deflections about what Lincoln and the North did are irrelevant. You have now admitted that the Confederacy formed explicitly to preserve the institution of slavery. Nothing that you say about the North’s motives or attitudes in any way justifies your choice to display a pro-slavery, white supremacist flag as your avatar.

          • paendragon

            Before the confederate States decided to secede for economic reasons, didn’t they hold slaves under the American flag? So the American flag is a symbol of slavery, and should be banned.

            Lincoln was a racist who declared blacks forever inferior and that the races should never mix.

            He also said he wouldn’t have tried to free even a single slave if he could have won the war (and kept the Southern economy enslaved to pay the Federal taxes) in any other way.

          • Chris

            That is not a valid analogy. The Confederacy was established for the express purpose of preserving slavery. The United States was not. Your analogy makes about as much sense as equating the Nazi flag with the German flag.

          • paendragon

            Works perfectly: Germans were nazis, and all nazis (well, except maybe for all the Arab muslim ones in Kosovo) were Germans.

            When the US was formed, the first person to enslave a black man was another black man, but he was an American (not a ‘Confederate’) citizen.

            Therefore the America flag itself symbolizes slavery, and should be banned.

          • Chris

            “Works perfectly: Germans were nazis, and all nazis (well, except maybe for all the Arab muslim ones in Kosovo) were Germans”

            I don’t know what you are trying to prove here. Are you arguing that the German flag is as offensive as the Nazi flag? Are you saying neither is offensive? What is your point?

            Again, the United States of America was not formed for the express purpose of preserving slavery. The Confederacy was. Perhaps you could make an argument that the U.S. flag is a symbol of slavery.

            But the Confederate flag is a much clearer one.

          • paendragon

            My argument is the same as it’s always been – the Confederate flag symbolizes State resistance to false and overbearing Federal ‘Authority.’

            The States had a written legal right to secede from the Union.

            Lincoln only wanted them to stay because they were paying for the Fed Gov’s very existence, and very specifically not because he wanted to free any slaves.

            The flag symbolizes resistance to tyranny.

            And that’s why the current tyrant – whose own ancestors weren’t enslaved by anyone – wants it banned.

            If you want a flag to ban which DOES very proudly and officially symbolize slavery, try the muslims’ horned crescent moon one.

          • Chris

            Can you tell me what, precisely, the Confederates seceded over? What did they think the federal government was trying to force them to do? Please avoid vague statements about “states rights” and “economic concerns.” Be specific.

            Also, I’m assuming you are referring to President Obama when you say “current tyrant.” Can you point to any statements of Obama’s in which he says he wants the Confederate flag banned? Thank you.

          • Chris

            My, you sure know a lot about what Lincoln said about black people and slavery.

            What did Confederate leaders say about black people and slavery?

            More importantly, what did Confederate leaders DO about it?

          • paendragon

            My, but YES I do know what they all said about it. Seems you hate facts.

            Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.

            Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

            The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America’s citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government’s costs.

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON (NOT) FREEING THE SLAVES:

            “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

            And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

            “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

            And, finally:

            Executive Mansion,
            Washington, August 22, 1862.

            Hon. Horace Greeley:
            Dear Sir.

            I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

            As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

            I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

            I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

            Yours,
            A. Lincoln.

          • Chris

            I do not understand why you keep quoting Lincoln every time I ask you what Confederate leaders said.

            You claim the Confederates seceded over tariffs. Since you have such a plethora of quotes available on this issue, can you please cite DIRECT QUOTES from CONFEDERATE LEADERS in which they state that they were seceding over tariffs?

          • paendragon

            You sarcastically said: “My, you sure know a lot about what Lincoln said about black people and slavery.”

            So I quoted him directly.

            Now you say “I do not understand why you keep quoting Lincoln.”

          • Chris

            Man, you are a master at avoiding direct questions and picking at irrelevancies. Are you sure you’re not a politican?

            Let me ask one more time, so we’re clear:

            Can you provide any direct quotes from Confederate leaders in which they claim they were seceding over tariffs?

            If not, on what are you basing your argument that the Confederacy seceded over tariffs?

          • paendragon

            On May 1, 1833, President Andrew Jackson wrote of nullification, “the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.”

            So he thought any and all stated reasons for leaving the Union were “mere pretexts.”

            From historynet:

            First Calls for Secession

            Following ratification by 11 of the 13 states, the government began operation under the new U.S. Constitution in March 1789. In less than 15 years, states of New England had already threatened to secede from the Union. The first time was a threat to leave if the Assumption Bill, which provided for the federal government to assume the debts of the various states, were not passed. The next threat was over the expense of the Louisiana Purchase. Then, in 1812, President James Madison, the man who had done more than any other individual to shape the Constitution, led the United States into a new war with Great Britain. The New England states objected, for war would cut into their trade with Britain and Europe. Resentment grew so strong that a convention was called at Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814, to discuss secession for the New England states. The Hartford Convention was the most serious secession threat up to that time, but its delegates took no action.

            Southerners had also discussed secession in the nation’s early years, concerned over talk of abolishing slavery.

            But when push came to shove in 1832, it was not over slavery but tariffs. National tariffs were passed that protected Northern manufacturers but increased prices for manufactured goods purchased in the predominantly agricultural South, where the Tariff of 1828 was dubbed the “Tariff of Abominations.”

            The legislature of South Carolina declared the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States” and voted them null, void and non-binding on the state.

            President Andrew Jackson responded with a Proclamation of Force, declaring, “I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

            Congress authorized Jackson to use military force if necessary to enforce the law (every Southern senator walked out in protest before the vote was taken). That proved unnecessary, as a compromise tariff was approved, and South Carolina rescinded its Nullification Ordinance.

            The Nullification Crisis, as the episode is known, was the most serious threat of disunion the young country had yet confronted. It demonstrated both continuing beliefs in the primacy of states rights over those of the federal government (on the part of South Carolina and other Southern states) and a belief that the chief executive had a right and responsibility to suppress any attempts to give individual states the right to override federal law.

            ——-

            In a message to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, Jefferson Davis cited both the tariff and slavery for the South’s secession.

            You’ll find proof of that in Google books under “annual register, 1861” – since one can’t post direct links here at Christopher Cantwell’s site.

            Similarly, Google for “Tariff of Abominations” and “1832 nullification crisis.”

            There’s a lot more, but I’m not going to do your typing for you.

          • Chris

            So you cannot provide any direct quotes in which a Confederate leader claims that tariffs, rather than slavery, were the justification for secession.

            Meanwhile, many here have provided direct quotes showing Confederate leaders saying that slavery was the justification.

            Thank you for proving that slavery was the cause of secession, and that the Confederacy formed for the express purpose of preserving slavery.

          • paendragon

            The quotes are there. You’ve lost the argument, liar. Give up and go away.

          • Chris

            Where? You’ve cited no quotes from any Confederate leader.

            You claimed that Jefferson Davis cited both tariffs and slavery in his April 29, 1961 speech, but provided no direct quotes to prove your claim.

            When I looked up the speech, I did a search for the word “tariff” on the page, which returned zero results. The word “slave” returned 24 results. I did not bother reading the entire speech after that, since it’s unlikely the search function malfunctioned, but a skim of the document shows that several paragraphs are spent on the subject of slavery.

            If you have a direct quote from this speech, or any other, in which a Confederate leader cites the issue of tariffs, please provide the direct quote.

            It is highly unlikely that a tariff passed thirty years prior to secession, which was no longer in effect and had in fact been replaced by the tariff of 1857, which the South wrote, was the cause of secession. Especially as it is mentioned in no state’s declaration of secession.

            Alexander Stephens said that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was slavery. Davis’ speech you referenced supports this; it does not contradict it.

            Simply telling someone they have lost the argument and calling them a liar is not sufficient. You have to actually provide evidence for your claims.

            You have been unable to do so, presumably because there is no evidence to support your claims.

          • Kafir Kitty

            Your knowledge puts me to shame! LOL!

          • Kafir Kitty

            What was I doing in high school?! I dunno but I hope this info is in the history textbooks because I certainly learned something new!

          • paendragon

            It’s there in the history books, but probably not in school textbooks – which is the main point of attack the revisionist leftists have used to take over the education system: they bought up all the textbook companies (Scholastic etc) and inserted their own drek.

          • Chris

            Also–“genocide?” You’re insane.

          • paendragon

            And you’re stupid. Hm … burning down cities, destroying an entire culture’s economy? Yep! That qualifies as genocide.

          • Brendon Williams

            Show me a reference to slavery from the north before the battle of Gettysburg. I believe that was the very first time Lincoln mentioned slavery, which is funny because that was towards the end of the war.

          • Chris

            It is really revealing that Confederate apologists focus so much on what the North said when attempting to deny that the South fought for slavery.

            Just a suggestion–when trying to determine what the South was fighting for, wouldn’t it be more relevant to focus on what the South said they were fighting for?

          • Brendon Williams

            What is your point? That the south wanted to keep slavery around? Of course they did. Nobody is arguing that. Also, i’m not a confederate apologist, nor am I so ignorant as to believe what the Public Education system would have you believe about the Civil War. At what point did I attempt to say that the south didn’t fight for Slavery? Go back to your troll corner.

          • Chris

            My point is that the entire purpose of the formation of the Confederacy was to preserve slavery, and they boasted of that fact in their declarations of secession and the Cornerstone Speech.

            The motives of the North don’t matter, since the South fired the first shot. The north may not have posed a real threat to slavery, but the South certainly THOUGHT they did.

          • Chris

            I apologize if I misunderstood your point. There are many here who are arguing that the South seceded over tariffs, not slavery, despite no declaration of secession mentioning tariffs and all of them mentioning slavery. I may have lumped you in with these commenters by mistake.

          • Brendon Williams

            The point forming the Confederacy was to escape the policies of the north that were adversely affecting southern income. It’s true that black emancipation would have turned the economy of the south completely inside out, and they knew it. Of course they fought to defend their right to own slaves.
            This entire debate spawns from Matt’s comment in which he said that when Lincoln tried to free the slaves he sparked the Civil war. That is completely non factual. The point he tried (and failed) to make is that slavery was an issue that was reserved for the states to decide on, and because the states decided immorally a more centralized power was required to step in and do justice. What he fails to realize is that if the constitution had been enforced there would have been no slavery to begin with, nor would there have been any unjust policies enacted by northern influence oppressing the south. We are talking about the PRINCIPLES the constitution is founded upon. Nobody seems to realize that those principles took us further in 200 years than all the rest of humanity managed to achieve in the last 10,000 combined.

          • paendragon

            Skousen fan, eh? And you’re right!

          • Geoff

            This paendragon is a nut — believes in this crap
            “Obama has personally authorized the “legal” enslavement of American citizens”

            And I bet he’s a secret Muslim born in Kenya too?

          • Dead Pilot

            So why to put this on your finger ? According to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.”
            The other thing :The Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.However, the government recognizes only six official religions (Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism). Indonesian law requires that every Indonesian citizen hold an identity card that identifies that person with one of these six religions, although citizens may be able to leave that section blank.
            Someone had seen the Obama’s Indonesian ID ? Why just not to publish it to cut this story?

          • Geoff

            Spoken like a true paranoid Zionist hating Obama because he won’t kiss Israel’s arse when it comes to slaughtering innocent men, women and children.

            “for more than five hundred years before Muhammad, the vast majority of Jews and Christians in Arabia called God by the name Allah. How, then, can we say that Allah is an invalid name for God? If it is, to whom have these Jews and Christians been praying?”

            Skipped Torah class again?

          • Dead Pilot

            I’m not Jewish. So I don’t have Torah class and can’t be a zionist by definition. Whatever paranoid, bipolar or schizophrenic. There still no answer for my question.In case there is a problem of dyslexia( also known as reading disorder or alexia,is a learning disability characterized by trouble reading),I’ll try another time:”adorned with the first part of the ISLAMIC DECLARATION of FAITH, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.” I don’t mind being explained what the connection between Obama’s ring and “slaughtering innocent men, women and children”. Anyway this “slaughtering innocent” thing is common answer from the left wing when they have nothing to say . Like in this case.

          • paendragon

            He’s pretty open about being a muslim and he penned his own book-selling bio on his publisher’s website in which he had clearly described himself as having been born in Kenya. It stayed up for years.

            And, slanderer, here is Obama’s Executive order authorizing him to enslave any American citizen he wants to:

            According to EO 13603, the President, or the head of any federal agency that he shall designate, can conscript “persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation,” in both “peacetime and times of national emergency.” I can hear the Obama supporters now as they will write to me and say, “Obama would never do that, you are drinking from the Kool-Aid”. Well, here it is, you can read it for yourself.

            Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

            This means that Obama, and his fellow communists, can seize any resource, property, or person at any time for any reason, including being able to force that person to perform assigned labor without being paid.

            There is only ONE word for forced, “uncompensated employment”.

            That would is slavery.

            Congratulations President Obama, you have effectively repealed the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

            Section 601 of the act specifies, in part, how far the government can go in terms of making you their slave.

            Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:

            (1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;

            (2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;

            (3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;

            (4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs

            If the above section was merely going to be a military draft, then the Secretary of Labor would not have to be involved.

            However, as you will note the “Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall: …assist in the development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;… formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs…”. Refer back to section 502 of sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c); these are the people that the Secretary of the Labor will conscript in order “to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations”.

            This is a civilian conscription and this is why the Secretary of Labor is in charge instead of the head of the Selective Service! Under these provisions, the government believes that they can send you anywhere, to work on anything of their choosing.

          • Steven Graves

            Yeah…..None of that is true.

          • A Fox Among Wolves

            What a load…. Each southern state that turned in Articles of Secession in which the ONLY thing mentioned is their God given right to own slaves.

          • R Daneel Olivaw

            ” if he had known the war was meant to end slavery, he would have resigned his commission.”

            Really, so he didn’t get a hint from the Emancipation Proclamation! Sorry, not stupid enough to believe your shit story!

          • paendragon

            But you’re obviously a stupid enough shit yourself to have not bothered to check the dates of when the war started, and when the emancipation proclamation was written.

            (Hint: the war was started long before Lincoln freed the slaves, because, in his own words, he wouldn’t have freed even a single slave if he could have won the war without freeing any of them)!

            Both of which facts PROVE that he didn’t start the Civil War with any intention whatsoever of thereby freeing any slaves.

      • melissapowers

        Abraham Lincoln did not own slaves. Where did you get that preposterous notion? He was from Illinois. His parents didn’t have money to own slaves, even if it were legal to own slaves. His family were members of an abolitionist church.

        • paendragon

          Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves during the war and said that if he had known the war was meant to end slavery, he would have resigned his commission.

          • Geoff

            He was too drunk to realize.

        • Antiobamunist

          Refer to the Lincoln – Douglas Debates to understand Lincoln’s interest in Freeing the Slaves. At that time, he held no such Beliefs.

          • Steven Graves

            One singular statement in a campaign debate. You should refer to the debate, and reality of what drives this ridiculous narrative.

        • Steven Graves

          He’s an imbecile. Delusional racist.

      • gwaltluv

        You’re basically arguing that the government should stay out of marriage entirely, but that’s not going to happen. That’s still isn’t a good reason to discriminate against gays. All you did was give a basic history lesson everyone learns in college History 101.

      • Karen Stovall-Stringer

        StoneAge, you have the correct information. In fact, Abe signed the Emancipation Proclamation to gain more soldiers who were northern black slaves. Every other northerner was tired of the war and the inconveniences it was causing them. Mostly money. So, it wasn’t the slavery, it was the money. If everyone continues to blame the Civil War on slavery there will always be tension between some groups. we need to get past that.

    • better12than6

      You aren’t familiar with American Civil War history at ALL, are you? 😀

      • Matt

        Where’s your rebuttal then?

        • jms

          How does one even rebut against gibberish? If you think that the civil war started because Lincoln freed the slaves then it’s hard to even explain why you can’t be taken seriously. Is this what they’re teaching in school now?

          • Bill the eighth

            Exactly. It is very hard to discuss physics with a turtle.

          • Chris

            No one is saying the Civil War started because Lincoln freed the slaves.

            The Civil War started because the South was PANICKING that Lincoln was jeopardizing the institution of slavery. Whether that panic was justified is irrelevant–they were VERY clear about their reasons, which you can easily read for yourself in every state’s declaration of secession, as well as the Cornerstone Speech.

            They were fighting to preserve slavery, and they were damned proud of it. If you told a Confederate leader in 1862 that he wasn’t fighting for slavery, he would have laughed at you.

        • Brendon Williams

          Here is your rebuttal: Look at the number of people who agree you have no idea what happened during the time of the civil war. Stick to theory and not history my friend

          • Matt

            So your rebuttal is that I don’t know about the civil war and you must be right because 7 homophobes up voted a reply? Very well done.

          • Bill the eighth

            No, the rebuttal is you have proved from your insipid posts you know nothing about the not so civil war, but yet you think you do! And, you think that qualifies you to post all about it. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

          • Geoff

            And flag-waving Johnny Reb does?

          • Bill the eighth

            Johnny Reb does what? Try to make a coherent post Geoffry

          • Geoff

            Look above, dufus.

            ” you have proved from your insipid posts you know nothing about the not so civil war, but yet you think you do!”

            Johnny Reb knows history?

          • Bill the eighth

            I am not a Johnny Reb. Strike one, I obviously know more about history than you do because I have taken the time to educate myself while you sit back and do nothing. Strike two. Then you feel you can make insipid posts on the internet on subjects you know nothing about. Strike three – you are a moron.

          • Geoff

            You are clueless so I’ll spell it out for you. Next time ask one of your 7 other brothers named Bill.

            Who in this discussion would most likely be tagged Johnny Reb? HINT – look at the avatar.

            Strike one – surfing the internet to find info that supports your opinion DOES NOT qualify as getting educated.

            Strike two – because you can’t follow my posts reflects on your incompetence, not on my knowledge.

            Strike three – having to use a pejorative to get a 3rd strike is another example of your ineptitude.

          • Bill the eighth

            You are one of the most down right stupid people I have every come across geoffry!

            Strike 4 – I have read volumes of books and papers on the War of Northern Aggression, from authors who support both the yankee view and the confederate view. Obviously far more than you could be bothered with and it shows

            Strike 5 – Your posts are idiotic, contain nothing of substance, however, they are good for one thing; they continually prove your IQ hovers somewhere around the temperature of the inside of a refrigerator.

            Strike 6 Your immaturity shows through as strong as your stupidity there boy.

            You are dumber than a box of rocks! In fact, a bag of hammers has more intellect and personality that you do troll.

          • Geoff

            Your southern bigotry always begins to shine when y’all get mad!

          • Bill the eighth

            Do you know what “assume” means? Apparently not. I was born and raised and still live in that bastion of Lincoln idolaters, Illinois. I am not “mad”, it would be ridiculous for me to be mad at you. I don’t get mad at children or fools, they mostly amuse me, so why do you think you would have a different effect?

          • Geoff

            Southern bigotry knows no state borders.

            Perhaps your anger results from struggling to have any relationships while unemployed playing games in your mom’s basement. You need to get out of the house, son.

          • Brendon Williams

            It’s not about being right my friend. Listen, the point is that this is a discussion involving the principles that will lead to the greatest economic prosperity, and secure the greatest amount of liberty for our people as a whole. This article wants you to understand what a ‘license’ is. It’s the principle involved that you’re completely missing because you’re busy trying to compare the pride movement to the civil war (which you know nothing about). Just consider this: in order to license gay marriage the fed must first say its illegal. To license a thing doesn’t mean to make it legal. It means to make it legal for the license holder to break that restrictive law. So by licensing gay marraige, they’ve said, in concrete, you cannot do this unless we say yes. And we are celebrating that as a victory? Hence: ‘meanwhile.. On Facebook..’

          • Matt

            We’re celebrating because a wrong has been righted. For this country to have said that someone cannot choose who they marry is to have deprived them of their pursuit of happiness, a basic tenet of the Constitition. Government has no business in our bedrooms. Spin it anyway you want but that is the gyst of it.

      • gwaltluv

        Yay! He’s giving us a history lesson that everyone learns in college. Yay!

    • Matt

      Bravo!

    • Matt

      Damn I’m impressed by this! Although I still don’t understand why people are so hot to get the government away from marriage licenses anyway… I mean, without marriage licenses from the government, what would stop people from marrying children and animals? After all, that is what you claim gay marriage will bring…so that must be what you’re worried about. But not having marriage regulation at all, will certainly bring those very things about, right?

      • Bill the eighth

        What a good little brainwashed sheep you are! I am sure your masters are very proud of you and are very proud of themselves at how well their programming works.

        All I can say is, It is no small wonder we find ourselves descending into a collectivist hell when the sheep posting on a site like this display such breathtaking stupidity, a complete lack of any knowledge of history, let alone the founding principles of the US. and seem to be very proud of their own lack of intelligence. In fact, I would bet they would fight to the death to defend the slime who are bleeding them dry.

        • Alex Summers

          And how insulting you are of people who think for themselves, claiming they are brain washed?

          You’re the ones using words like “hell” “stupidity” “lack of intelligence” then go about making mention of military defending peoples rights.

          HELLO? Could you be any more fine example of a completely brainwashed individual?

          • A Fox Among Wolves

            that is not thinking for yourselves…. it is this groupthink collective where if you yell loud the other retards in the room all parrot everything you say and agree with it no matter if it is factual or just plain stupid.

            You folks share the same distributed views on the Civil War and black people as Dylan Roof…. going as far as to make word for word some of the same claims that he made in his manifesto.

            The crazy thing is you are too stupid to understand that you are much more closely related to some church killer than the patriots who died fighting for you to have that right to be willingly retarded.

          • Bill the eighth

            Funny, your posts prove beyond any doubt you are completely incapable of thinking for yourself. I never mentioned the military defending people’s rights, because they don’t defend people’s rights, they defend the government you fool.

            And, no, you have provided a perfect example of a brainwashed individual, who is incapable of critical thought, has no knowledge of history, and seems to think they are intelligent, that is the funniest part of it, you area funny, funny Joe!! You are funny like a clown and the best part is, you don’t even know that people are constantly laughing at you!

      • paendragon

        Muslims marry children and animals, yet the government isn’t stopping them, is it?

        😉

        • Geoff

          And THERE it is! Bubba spills the racist beans all over himself.

          • paendragon

            Er … what “race” is islam again, genius?

          • Geoff

            Touche’ —- I should have said BIGOT. Sounds better too “bigot beans”.

          • paendragon

            But bigot only applies to YOU, slanderer! Because ‘bigot’ means someone who pre-judiciously (i.e: before judging the facts) hates someone or something without caring to know anything about it.

            And that only describes YOU vis-a-vis islam, because only a criminal negligent would defend it.

            See, I have actually studied islam and it’s holy mobster muslim gang members for decades, and so I know pretty-much everything there is to know about it.

            Muslims DO marry children, and even (occasionally) their goats.

            To find out the truth of that, all you had to do was Google for it – but you didn’t, did you?

            And why didn’t you?

            Because … you’re the BIGOT, not me!

            😉

          • Geoff

            “See, I have actually studied islam and it’s holy mobster muslim gang members for decades, and so I know pretty-much everything there is to know about it.”

            HAHAHAHAHA — another scholar of Islam built on the right-wing hateful propaganda sites of the internet. Do you know any Muslims personally? Visited a mosque? Celebrated Ramadan with them? Then shut your face, phoney.

          • paendragon

            Like I said: you are a hateful, bigoted slanderer.

            I have lived and worked in the Middle East with muslims. I was married to a Black muslima – in fact, to the crown princess of one of their most wealthy African countries, and raised her kids. I have lived and worked among them for years over there, and back home here.

            I have studied islam for over 35 years, and so yes I know pretty-much everything about it. I have read the Qur’an many times, as well as the two most sahih ahadiths, and the other four collections, Ibn Hisham’s somewhat sanitized rendition of Ishaq’s Sirat, and their own Tabari histories. I have studied and published books on the four Sunni and one putative Shia maddhab fiqhs of sharia “law” (crime).

            What do you know about it? NOTHING.

            But I can easily see where your bigoted hate comes from:

            You liberals are racists: you always assume that ONLY White Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be guilty of being truly evil, while all your pet “People Of Color” (including the “swarthy palestinians”) being mentally inferior and all, just can’t help being enslaved by their instincts and emotions into acting as violent animals when frustrated, the poor oppressed little dears, so you liberals will always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

            So here’s your interminably ongoing “narrative” (story):

            “SO JUST STOP PICKING ON ALL THE THE POOR HELPLESS MENTALLY INFERIOR SWARTHY ANIMAL VICTIMS, YOU EVIL MENTALLY SUPERIOR WHITE BULLIES! YOU KNOW THEY’RE AT THE MERCY OF THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS SUCH THAT THEY JUST CAN’T HELP BEING VIOLENT WHEN CONFUSED, SO STOP BAITING AND CONFUSING THEM, YOU HATERS!”

            Sound about right?

            😉

            Just look in the mirror!

          • Geoff

            Now I know you’re a liar!

          • paendragon

            Sure, because before I mentioned them, you were perfectly well acquainted with such official muslim terms like “ahadith,” “maddhab fiqh,” “Ishaq,” “Tabari,” and “Sirat” – right?

            😉

            Oh, wait – YOU’RE still the criminal liar!

          • Geoff

            “I was married to a Black muslima – in fact, to the crown princess of one of their most wealthy African countries, and raised her kids.”

            And I got offered a lot of money over the internet from a wealthy Nigerian prince.

            You are a liar.

            And I am hateful of you and people like you. No question.

          • paendragon

            Yes, you are a slanderous racist bigot.

          • paendragon

            It’s (almost) hilarious watching you slanderous criminal frauds post your blustering opinions as if they were facts. Almost.

      • Geoff

        Matt – we’ve ventured into the “you can’t make me” zone. Don’t try to make sense of it. They think if every one is left to their own devices, all will be well. Called anarchy for a reason.

    • Bill the eighth

      All that just to be completely WRONG. You really work hard at being a moron don;t you?

      • Alex Summers

        It’s a moron who calls people a moron without pointing out the actual WHY.

        Because they are to ignorant to point out the cause and instead, resort to childish name calling 🙂 BRAVO indeed.

    • Brendon Williams

      How can you say that the civil war was fought over slavery? Have you read any real material on the civil war? I’m sorry but you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    • NAVORD

      I’ll like the rainbow avatar because it makes it easier for others to know who to ostracize, deny service,employment etc..they have a guy on 4chan who was taking the time to make a database with relevant personal information and posting it to pastebin. I can’t wait.

    • Rothbardian Slip

      Government should be abolished, not expanded. Your history is bunk and your arguments hold no water. Every time you advocate for government you are saying, it’s ok to murder people under certain circumstances, something you chastise the bible for doing. It’s odd that you think the rights to freedom of religion and speech should be defended, but freedom of association and property rights should be sidelined. How about we “draw the line” just before you try to legislate who I need associate with and what property of mine you can take to fund your little social justice adventures.

    • Mariana Ferreira Albuquerque

      You’re sure ? I know plenty of people who used it (out of the US, of course) because it looks ‘nice’

    • Brendon Williams

      Matt, do you understand that saying people have a “Right” to a “Marriage License” (Regardless of gender) is COMPLETELY convoluted? Do you know what a ‘License’ is? Your comment is wrong on so many levels that I literally cannot even begin to address them all. Despite your assurances that you agree “it would be great if we could do away with marriage licenses altogether”, I can tell by the rest of your comment that the point of this article COMPLETELY escaped you. I would invite you to read it again.

    • Marga Costan

      Why no mention of the confederate flag profile pics. Or the duck dynasty profile pics. I’ll bet if the supreme court made a CCW decision there would be some profile pics relating to that.

      People have changed profile pics for numbers of reasons, you should do an article on each one.

    • Geoff

      Don’t sweat these clowns. They’re toying with the political and social ideas that 7th graders come up with.

      • Matt

        “unsubscribe”

    • GracieW

      The gay editor at the Tab doesn’t want your fake solidarity. So you kinda look like a fool with that rainbow icon.

    • Who said it was okay to force people to do business with any group of people? There is already video up on Youtube where gay-owned bakery shops refused to bake a cake with a message that they disagreed with. Forced speech extorted under threat of fines and even prison time is not free at all.

      Enforced external conformity is the death of a culture, and society, and will be its own death too.

      You mention slavery and in spite of that you say religious freedom is a “problem”? This is an example of how much ignorance of history is inflicted upon students in government indoctrination centers aka public shools.

      Anybody can endorse anything and still call themselves anything they want to.

      But it was parliamentarian Christians like William Wilberforce, missionaries like David Livingston, Christian abolitionists in the USA that smuggled slaves to freedom, and the slave trader who became Christian and pastor who wrote that great song Amazing Grace, who drove the engine that has shamed the world into making slavery a taboo almost everywhere today. (Snuck back into place with the income tax).

      In fact it was the slave-turned-escapee St. Patrick and his disciples and their later followers that shamed the remnants of the Roman Empire into giving up slavery.

      And Christians are fast becoming the majority -in my opinion- among libertarians and free-market property-respecting anarchists, because Jesus Christ teaches us to respect our neighbors and live in peace with them. It’s even in the Ten Commandments that people hate so much: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s anything. That’s the part socialist bosses hate because they have to steal to accomplish their purpose. The part that most atheists hate is the first one: love God above all. But if you obey that one you obey the second: Love they neighbor as thyself.

      Slavery lasted because government protected the slave traders and the slave masters. Jim Crow was state enforced, and without it you would have had a true rainbow-colored population like south of the border, not like Chicago (the political base of Jesse Jackson and Mr. Chief Community Agitator).

    • And, Lincoln did not mandate that all slaves be freed. That was only for areas they did not control. Four slave states remained in the Union: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. His future plan was to send all the blacks (including freedmen) back to Africa. He was not any William Wilberforce. He was a tyrant; he had an escaped slave sent back from Illinois to his master in Missouri, in fact. He shut down any newspaper that opposed his war. He had soldiers shoot demonstrators protesting the draft.

      Lincoln’s draft is an example of the worst kind of slavery, forcing its victims to kill or be killed. (The politicians in the States today who most repeat a call to have a draft are the left wing).

  • Beamwalker

    Finally, someone else that gets it! i have been saying this for the last few years, and when the rainbow flags went up on Facebook all I could do was cringe, as all my well meaning friends jumped in lock step, toward the shackles of government control.

    • Matt

      That’s a really nice tin foil hat you have there.

      • Bill the eighth

        Well, it sure beats that block of concrete you call a head!

  • So basically, you’re mad about the way the SCOTUS decision went, and you wanted to make fun of people who support it.

    • kubel

      Re-read it or listen to the video (it’s actually nicely narrated by Cantwell), because I don’t think you grasped what he was getting at.

      He’s basically saying the SCOTUS has no authority on ruling on issues that, per its own constitution, must be reserved to the states (see 10th amendment) since they aren’t remotely mentioned by the constitution- but even more important than that (after all, Cantwell is an anarchist and doesn’t give two fucks about the constitution anyway) is the fact that ruling from a judiciary in such a way sets a precedent that can allow more centralized control over more areas of our lives by a small group of megalomaniacs.

      He’s also making it clear that the ruling doesn’t grant more rights, it only grants more government control- as a license (such as a license to marry) is not a right, it’s something government gives in order to permit you to do something. The best outcome would be for government to excuse itself from marriage entirely, but that’s giving up more control.

      He also mentioned that because the issue has now been politicized, instead of simply being personal, it’s going to lead to some nasty things happening. He also sees the danger of such rulings impacting religion- despite being a hardcore atheist himself- he still supports the right of people to believe and worship how they see fit, as long as they aren’t hurting other people.

    • UtMadman

      He’s mad about nothing, just disgusted in the ignorance of all the sheep who applaud this ruling (if you can call it that). Ignorant people who have no clue that, above all, the SCOTUS has no right to do what they just did. It is not in their job description.

      • TomEver

        So because someone doesn’t agree with his removed-from-reality ideology they are ignorant?

        Fail. Try again.

      • John Heitzenrater

        it is PRECISELY their job description to interpret laws vis a vis the constitution. that’s the whole point of the supreme court. sucks for you that you disagree with this one, but at the time SCOTUS ruled in favor of removing bans on inter-racial marriage, national polling showed only 20% supported them. that other 80% is the sad bin of history your kind will be relegated to. enjoy!

      • Geoff

        Who told you that – Ted Cruz or Donald Trump’s hairpiece?

    • paendragon

      They based it on the right to “equality before the law,” which they used to give Federal authority to something which wasn’t even specified in the Constitution at all.

      Generally, when something isn’t specifically granted to either the States OR the Federal government by the Constitution, it becomes, by default, a State jurisdiction.

      By this latest “reasoning,” gays wanted to be equal to heterosexuals, but they were already allowed to marry women.

      Now anyone who wants to “marry,” say, their pet dog (or, in the case of most muslims, their goats) can do so, by claiming they don’t feel “equal” to anyone else.

      Do you make less money than that rich guy who didn’t waste his paychecks drinking beer and eating pizza like you did, but who had instead decided to invest it?

      Perhaps the Federal government can come to your rescue by taxing him and paying his earnings to you, for “equality!”

      😉

      • mg760

        What a load of horseshit.

        • Bill the eighth

          Yes you are. He’s right and you are a collectivist.

          • mg760

            You used a word from the truly demented, sick and twisted mind of ayn fucking rand to describe me??? Oh fuck, go get a Dr. Seuss book and maybe you won’t be such a shit for brains.

          • Bill the eighth

            Wow, you are an idiot, a moron, an imbecile, Ranting and raving about what I am not sure. Hard to make sense out of a demented, feral, low IQ crack head who is devoid of any intellect. Go back to your crack house loser.

          • mg760

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

      • obadiahorthodox

        get rid of that racist rag.

        • Bill the eighth

          Confederate Battle flag is not racist.

          • Ophelia Meadows

            Yep, sure not racist. /s

          • Bill the eighth

            You display a breathtaking lack of knowledge of US history. However, your ability to cherry pick quotes is outstanding, but two can play that game. From your “hero” and “great emancipator:”

            “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

            “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

            So-Called “Civil War” was NOT about slavery to start with:

            “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing
            or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

            So, if any flag is racist, it is old glory, the stars and stripes, which flew over slavery, and defended it, for over 80 years.

          • Ophelia Meadows

            …and you just proved anything I ever could have guessed about you. Negroes, huh? I refuse to even remotely dignify any of your comments further. It’s clear that you are a racist, right-wing piece of trash and we are done here. It won’t matter what I say, I will never be able to change your hateful mind.

          • Ophelia Meadows

            Whatever man, I know which side of history I am on. I want people to live their lives, happily, as they see fit. As long as they are adults then I don’t care if they marry man or woman. I don’t care if they are black or white. I was not cherry picking, the Confederate flag is racist and that’s that. I never claimed that Abraham Lincoln was perfect but we now live in the 21st century. The racist and bigoted vitrol has to go. I’m done with this conversation, I have nothing more to say to you because I know I will never be able to change your mind. We are at an impasse. I refuse to waste anymore of my breath hoping you will see the light and become a better person.

          • Bill the eighth

            You claimed the battle flag was racist, but when I point out Lincoln was just as big a racist as any other, and provide quotes to prove it, you throw your hands up. So, you readily admit you know nothing about history and try to make excuses for your ignorance – nice.

            I am not racist, I judge a person, as MLK told us,, by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

            You want the State involved in every aspect of your life and the lives of all the rest of us too. You are a far left radical collectivist. You are the one who needs to become a better person, you need to grow up, you need to educate yourself and you need to stop looking to the State to solve your problems.

          • PostAmerican

            If you don’t want the state involved in every aspect of your life, than why do you want to state telling people who they can or can’t marry? A wedding is one of the best days in our short lives. In this messed up world, if two people find love, and want to commit fidelity and loyalty to each other, this is a good thing.

          • Bill the eighth

            What?! You just contradicted yourself Post. The State IS already involved!!! You have to ask permission, go get a “license”, agree to be held under the marriage and child support laws, go to the State’s courts, subject yourself to DCFS,etc. Whatever are you talking about? Get the State out of completely out of marriage, they have no business there in the first place.

          • Ophelia Meadows

            No, I do know a fair bit about history buy I also suffer from massive depression,anxiety and PTSD and I realized it is healthier for me to just let you think what you want to think. Not my monkey not my circus. I often obsess over people being hateful when I can do nothing to change it, therefore, for my own health I bow out of this discussion. Good day sir.

          • Bill the eighth

            Now come the excuses. Whatever, your posts are meaningless, the only thing they accomplish is putting your ignorance on display. It is not what I think, it is the reality of history that you want to remain clueless about.

          • Ophelia Meadows

            Whatever, you can think what you like. I don’t have to justify myself to anyone. As I said, good day sir.

          • Bill the eighth

            No, you don’t have to justify yourself to anyone. You do, however, have a responsibility to educate yourself, otherwise the scum that infests DC will most certainly take advantage of you.

            And a good day to you too Ma’am!

          • Geoff

            Then why is the Confederate battle flag embraced by white supremacist groups and used as a proxy for the swastika for neo-Nazis in European countries where the swastika is banned? It is widely recognized as a symbol of white power.

            What the hell does Lincoln’s position on slavery in the 1860’ss have to do with what the Confederate battle flag the represents TODAY?

          • Geoff

            Lincoln was a Republican so of course he was a racist. It’s a requirement.

          • Bill the eighth

            You are too stupid to believe. How do you get out of the nursing home?

          • Geoff

            Good comeback.

          • Bill the eighth

            Right? That single reply contains more intelligence than your entire life.

          • Geoff

            Remember your blood pressure, Bill! No point in having a stroke.

          • Bill the eighth

            No clue what you are talking about. Hard to understand someone who is incapable of rational thought as you are there Geoffry boy

          • Geoff

            Your anger management class starts at 3.

          • Bill the eighth

            Whatever troll, your Thorazine medications and electroshock therapy start immediately.

          • Geoff

            Poor Bill the eighth has fallen. Time for Bill the ninth to step up.

          • Bill the eighth

            ???? Another brain dead post. Looks like we need to up the voltage on your electroshock therapy. Nurse, 240,000 Volts please.

          • parkerjohn5

            Yeah because the US Flag was never racist..

          • Geoff

            The south WOULD have engaged in the same activities had they not LOST the war. For crying out loud, they fought a war over keeping humans as slaves. Another spurious argument.

            One similarity though is the fact that only ~2% of the south owned slaves but they succeeded in getting plenty of their non-slave-owning bretheren to shed their blood for their right to keep slaves. The very first 1% (or 2% in this case).

          • parkerjohn5

            Aside from the fact that race should never be compared to brand of sex..but lets look at how you compare…

          • Geoff

            You left out that the Dems of 1861 morphed into the Republicans of the 1960’s to present. Hardly comparable.

          • Matt

            Who won that war? Since when is a losing side allowed to fly their flag?

          • Bill the eighth

            The feds won the war and we are lost. If you don’t understand that, go back to high school.

            FYI – The losing side is always “allowed” (funny choice of words there statist), to fly their flag. Been to Germany or Japan lately?

          • Matt

            No ia haven’t. But I don’t see their flag flying on IS soil either.

          • Bill the eighth

            You don’t get around much do you? There are Japanese and German flags all over the country, you must be a shut – in. I see them on cars, German and Japanese businesses, in people’s yards, literally all over the place. Get a grip on yourself.

          • Matt

            Let me put this so you can understand. How many Japanese and German flags do you see on US GOVERNMENT buildings, UN and Embassies notwithstanding?

          • Bill the eighth

            You apparently are too stupid to understand plain English. The flags are ALL over, including government buildings! To the best of my knowledge, the only confederate flag flying on anything close to a government building is in S.C., on the grounds of the State House, in a war memorial. So WTF are you talking about? Oh yea, I am dealing with a moron here.

        • paendragon

          General Ulysses S. Grant kept his slaves during the war and said that if he had known the war was meant to end slavery, he would have resigned his commission.

          Both Lincoln and the slaveholders well knew in 1860 that a constitutional amendment ending slavery would never be mathematically feasible. But Lincoln further understood that the South was gravitating toward secession as the remedy for a different grievance altogether: The egregiously inequitable effects of a U. S. protective tariff that provided 90 percent of federal revenue.

          Foreign governments retaliated for it with tariffs of their own, and payment of those overseas levies represented the cost to Americans of their U. S. government. Southerners were generating two-thirds of U. S. exports, and also bearing two-thirds of the retaliatory tariffs abroad.

          The result was that that the 18.5 percent of America’s citizens who lived in the South were saddled with three times their proportionate share of the federal government’s costs.

      • Ophelia Meadows

        Yes, because a dog or goat can consent and enter a legally binding contract. Gtfo of here with your vitriolic bullshit.

        • Bill the eighth

          Spoken like a true anarchist.

        • paendragon

          Isn’t is time you reamed yourself again?

          • Ophelia Meadows

            I assume you are talking about my facebook name and my disqus name not matching. If you must know I changed my name on my Facebook when I left an abusive relationship. Not that you would care about that.

      • Vitaly Ustinov

        Good point. I like your point of view.

        • Geoff

          He’s pretty proud of his post as he’s cut and pasted it in discussions all over.

          • Dead Pilot

            Well,may be.I’m new in disqus I’ve just started to understand how the things going on here.

      • Geoff

        I think the federal govt bailed out some of those guys who chose to NOT drink beer and eat pizza. So sure, I’d appreciate some of that $$$ given back to the original taxpayers.

        • paendragon

          You mean when they kept their companies viable and therefore able to keep their thousands of workers employed and feeding their families? Yeah go rob those children!

          • Geoff

            “You mean when they kept their companies viable and therefore able to keep their thousands of workers employed and feeding their families?”

            No I mean when WE kept their companies viable etc. That’s what the bail out did.

          • paendragon

            Don’t act so proud of yourself – you just asserted it was wrong to do so, and that you also wanted to take all that money back!

          • Geoff

            Yes – I would like it back from the owners and stockholders who found their businesses in trouble because they made incredibly risky investments looking for quick large returns.

          • paendragon

            Well Geoff, since I’m sure you’re on welfare too, who are you to judge them for wanting corporate welfare? Fair is fair, right?

            😉

      • Geoff

        You’re so full of crap —– “DUH I studied Islam for decades an d most Muslims marry their goats” —- You jackass, I would bet good money most Muslims don’t even own a goat. Go outside and say some of your stupid hate-speech so we can kick your arse but I imagine you’re too busy studying up on Islam.

        • paendragon

          LOL! Aw, isn’t that precious! The poor widdle bedwetting crybaby libtard doesn’t like free speech, so when it hears the truth, it has to call it “hateful” and wants it to be banned by The Authorities. Then it can get its big bad gang of bedwetters together to force people to abide by its false right to remain irresponsibly wrong and to not be offended by having its feelings hurt by the often-painful Truth! WAAAAH!

          • Geoff

            Free speech allows morons like you to expose their stupidity with ridiculous comments like goat marriage. Keep it up. You and your ilk continue to “free speech” yourselves into obscurity by alienating the populous with your obvious hate speech and disinformation.

          • paendragon

            Still telling lies, criminal? Slander is fraud, which is a crime. There is no such thing as “hate speech,” although I can see you’re still trying so hard to prove me wrong about it.

          • Geoff

            Oh – what happened to all the First Amendment protections you espouse?

          • Geoff

            “Slander is fraud, which is a crime.”

            Like this :
            “So only a black idiot would want to convert back to racist islam, or adopt an Arabic slave name.

            Just think of how many young black kids named “Jamal” have no idea how moronic their parents are LOL! And besides their obvious racist identification”

            Or do you only support the First Amendment when it suits you?

          • paendragon

            Your publicly demonstrated stupidity is truly monumental.

            Something isn’t slander if it’s true.

            Arab muslims are slavers.

            In fact, NO non-Arab white from Germany, France, Britain or America ever enslaved a black man.

            All the blacks taken as slaves were enslaved by muslim Arabs in Africa, or were born into it later.

            As for “hate speech” – I hate crimes and the criminals who commit them. Morons like you who try to make “hate” into a crime, really ever only try to make it “illegal” to hate crime.

            That’s probably because you are such dedicated criminals yourselves.

            Ask yourself this question:

            “Is there anything which ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?”

            My answer would have to be:

            NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.

            Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed, that’s just the packaging, but because it’s fraudulent slander.

            Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!

            😉

          • Geoff

            “In fact, NO non-Arab wh ite from Germany, France, Britain or America ever enslaved a black man”

            So T Jefferson and other Founding Father slave holders were Arab Muslims? Good one.

            You ARE a crazy one, aren’t you?

            “without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.”

            “perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam);”

            WOW – a bona-fide religion is a crime in your book now? Well – another exemption from your support of the Constitution.

          • paendragon

            Psst! Buying already-enslaved slaves isn’t the same as enslaving them yourself.

            😉

            And please describe how, to you, islam qualifies as a “bona fide” religion?!

            (This is gonna be entertaining LOL)!

          • Geoff

            Psssst – keeping bought humans as slaves IS slavery.

          • paendragon

            1.) Better arrest all those white guys who are buying the black slaves from their Arab masters in Sudan, (in order to free them later) then.

            After all, to you, just by buying them, they are guilty of committing slavery, too.

            Best put a stop to that sort of evil crime ASAP.

            2.) Evasion. Simply stating “Has the basics of” (a bonafide religion) doesn’t mean jack.

            Define these “basics” then prove islam has them. Know what? You CAN’T.

            😉

          • Geoff

            Psssst – keeping bought humans as slaves IS slavery.

          • paendragon

            Maybe, but the people who kept them didn’t enslave them!

            Also, when they ask for ‘reparations,’ maybe they should think about how they would feel if their ancestors hadn’t been brought to America to have their crack (at the American Dream; pun intended) because then they’d still be enslaved to their racist muslim Arab masters back in Africa. I think it was worth it, and so did such American success stories as the boxer known as Muhammad Ali, for instance… when he got back from a trip to Africa, he said “Thank God my granddaddy got on that (slave) boat!”

            😉

          • Geoff

            Wow – The act of keeping humans as property is slavery. That act is enslavement.

            But you know all that you jut choose to be the bigot because you can.

          • paendragon

            Bigot? No, you’re the bigot, because you are so pre-judiced in your own racism that you refuse to admit that muslim Arabs are STILL the only people on earth who enslave blacks.

            That they had temporarily sold some of their private stock of black slaves to your ancestors, who went along with that entrenched African practice for a while, before feeling ashamed enough to free them here and work to establish universal human rights and free all the rest of the slaves worldwide, hasn’t registered with you, and probably never will: you just can’t seem to bring your self to admit that old white males abolished slavery.

            Arab muslims back in Africa refuse to.

            You self-hating white liberals pretend to claim the moral nigh-ground ability to blame all of your white neighbors because you agonize over what racists you, yourselves are.

            Like drug-addicts, you claim to always be struggling against your own race’s INHERENT and uncurable racism; you are always in remission, always self-monitoring, racist to the core.

            In fact, to you liberal racists, by being born white, you’ve unknowingly inherited racist DNA which can never be changed.

            To you, it’s a life sentence which only applies to the white race.

          • Geoff

            “who went along with that entrenched African practice for a while before feeling ashamed enough to free them here”

            Delusional comment. Slavery in the US was not restricted to blacks coming from Africa. Ask some Indians.

            “old white males abolished slavery.”
            Since they were the ones keeping slaves and in power, who else would? The old black slaves?

          • paendragon

            “Ask all those tribes of Indians who kept white, chinese and black slaves FIRST,” you must have meant?!

            😉

            And the Arab and black muslims in Africa had enslaved ALL the blacks they had then sold to whitey – so the old white men here ended up freeing most but not all of their slaves back there in Africa, too. But you refuse to admit that, because you’re a racist.

          • Geoff

            Ask all those tribes of Indians who kept white, chinese and black slaves FIRST,” you must have meant

            You seem to believe that “they did it first” absolves one of responsibility for doing the same thing. Once again, 3rd grade thinking.

            “so the old white men here ended up freeing most but not all of their slaves back there in Africa”

            So they were still enslaving people.

          • paendragon

            English clearly isn’t your first language.

            The subject of that sentence was “the Arab and black muslims in Africa (who) had enslaved ALL the blacks they had then sold to whitey”

            … so the object of “so the old white men here ended up freeing most but not all of *THEIR* slaves back there in Africa” meant that the “THEIR” referred back to the subject; i.e: the slaves of the African black and Arab muslims. LEARN TO READ.

            And, “they did it first” does indeed absolve one of doing the same thing in retaliation.

            Only by comparing two unrelated wrongs does the second one not automatically become a right.

            Obviously, cause-and-effect Justice is beyond your “liberal” (criminal) comprehension.

          • Geoff

            And, “they did it first” does indeed absolve one of doing the same thing in retaliation. Enslaving slavers is Justice.

            HAHAHAHA.

            But they didn’t enslave the slavers. They bought slaves FROM them.

            WRONG —- the subject of your sentence is “the old white men” …… what did they do? “Freeing most of their slaves”

            —- so the old white men here ended up freeing most but not all of their slaves back there in Africa.——-

            Your English teacher should be fired or you skipped school too much.

          • Geoff

            ” After all, to you, just by buying them, they are guilty of committing slavery, too.”
            Psssst – KEEPING bought humans as slaves IS slavery.

            —– Belief there’s one true God, belief in an afterlife, omnipresent God, God is in all of us, a set of moral values to follow, support peace and non-violence ——

            Yes there are other religions that vary from these but this is a basic list of commonalties that would qualify Islam as a “bona fide” religion today.

          • paendragon

            Well then, islam has disqualified itself.

            It’s “set of moral values” is purely one of double standards: all muslims are good, and all infidels are bad – SO bad, in fact, that they must all be VIOLENTLY extorted, enslaved, and murdered simply for their “crime” of not-being muslims.

            The islamic idea of “peace” is the same as our idea of “pacified:” the muslims will only have ‘peace’ after they have murdered all the infidels in the world for their “god.”

            Thus islam isn’t a valid religion at all (much less one “of peace!”) – it’s only the world’s largest, most ancient yet ongoing extortion-racket crime syndicate, and the only “religious” part in it, is where it’s holy mobster “muslim” gang members say:

            “God told us to commit these crimes!”

            (CAPISCE?)!

            😉

    • Bill the eighth

      Failed grade school civics you did.

    • No.

  • Kawlinz

    I never celebrate anything the government does

  • Jacob Osta

    Thank you for sharing this !

  • koq45

    I like how you know the exact reason why each person changed their profile pic.

  • koq45

    The fact that you think marriage equality is about the ” desire to get fucked in the ass” shows your ignorance.

    • Just Straight Shooting

      The homosexuals do not want “marriage equality” they want legal justification for their sexual perversion. It’s not about marrying the “one you love”, it’s about forcing their perversion on everyone else and creating a way to persecute Christians because when they see a Christian they are reminded of how evil, wicked and perverse they are. It’s about their hatred of God and His Word and their desire to silence Christians. They think that once they gain the legal right to persecute Christians that that sickening feeling they continually have that reminds them continously that they are nothing but perverted reprobates will go away, but it won’t, because they can not silence the Lord Jesus Christ!

      • Melker Johansson

        It’s hard to silence people’s imaginary friends.

      • Patti Lipsig

        easy on the apoplexy. Gays are not forcing anything on anyone. They just want the same rights the rest of us have had. Churches can still legally refuse to marry anyone for any reason [as it should be]. Christians can worship freely as before. The only thing is that Christians do not have the right to force Non-Christians to follow their religious rules.

        • Just Straight Shooting

          Christians have never tried to force religious rules on homosexuals. That is a lie of the left designed to sway those low information voters. And this supreme court ruling was designed not to give “equality” to same sex “couples”, it was designed to lay the groundwork for future mass persecution of Christians.

          • Geoff

            Dude – If you think this is persecution of Christians, you haven’t read your Bible or history. Not to mention the J-man crew did some serious persecuting of its own. Last – we can take you up on your apparent desire to be persecuted but you won’t like it! I guarantee.

          • CJ

            Catholic, not any of these other organizations that were established after 33 A.D aren’t “Christians”, although they claim to be.

          • Geoff

            So Christians are extinct? I’m sure the 7 billion globally would like to know that they’re not “CJ Christians”. And your non-Christians include all of the writers of the New Testament.

          • CJ

            Not extinct. There have always been people preserving the form of doctrine that was given by the apostles. It’s the doctrine you follow that makes you a Christian.
            The entire new testament was completed by 90 AD. The Roman Catholic started as a small group in 303 AD, installing the first universal bishop(“Pope”, a position that never existed biblically ) in 606 AD, Boniface III. Every other form of doctrine was broken off from them, starting with the Lutherans, which Martin Luther didn’t want to establish. His only goal was to get back to the pattern of doctrine found in the new testament, the first century church.

            Numbers don’t mean anything to God. We were already told wide is the path to destruction. This is worse than being an unbeliever. The unbeliever can just realize his standing and change, but it’s harder to save a person who already thinks they’re saved.

          • Geoff

            So there are CJ Christians still walking the Earth? Might want to re-read this part of your comment
            it’s harder to save a person who already thinks they’re saved.”

          • CJ

            He taught this through allegory. Out the whole world, He saved 8 souls, He defeated armies with 300 of Gideon’s men. He chose the children Israel as his chosen people, a people that were not only small in numbers, but small in stature.
            So no, God doesn’t care about numbers.

          • Geoff

            Uh no – the people of Israel chose to make themselves the “chosen ones” because it was their story to write.

            The rest is just more fireside fiction. God did no fighting nor did he select the winners and losers, primarily because there is no God.

          • pyrophilia

            if those chrisitans continue to be bigoted against Gays, good.

          • Alex Summers

            “That is a lie of the left”..

            When you go from instances you KNOW have happened in the past, such as, oh I don’t know, being pulled into a church and told you’re attending a homosexual reprogramming, and turning that into some ‘left’ group rubbish, you just distract from the real problems with generalities and denial. It’s your defense mechanism. You either are too ignorant of the happenings of this planet and what has transpired, or you are wishing to remain willfully ignorant to them in order the further your own morality onto others.

            Either way, it’s not a very stable position to be holding. Poor persecuted Christian.. Always the underdog, always having a spiritual war.

            Just, do it on your own. We’re really tired of fighting invisible things. There’s REAL people and REAL cases that need love, help, and kindness. You aren’t one of them who’s in need, so far that I can tell.

          • Wesley Quigg

            I am sorry you went through that but that wasn’t done to you by a follower of Christ. I may believe homosexuality is wrong but so is that. There are many who claim to be Christian and yet don’t follow Christ. Look at Obama.

          • Geoff

            How about born-again Christian war criminal GWB?

          • Wesley Quigg

            What war crimes did he commit? He sent our troops to Iraq and Afghanistan with the approval of Congress including Odumber and the rest of the Dumbocraps. W may not have been the best president but compared to the mess your hero Obama has made it is like comparing a Ferrari (GWB) to a Yugo (Obama).

        • Jeff

          “Gays are not forcing anything on anyone.” Tell that to the million+ “straight”
          lemmings with rainbows on their avi’s…..

          • Geoff

            Jeez – I feel left out. I put rainbow on my avatar on my own. Does that mean gays don’t like me enough to force me to do it?

          • Jeff

            You did it “on your own” because you’re a lemming…

          • Geoff

            And you think lemmings actually jump off cliffs because they see others doing it. Enough said – go back to Bio 101.

          • Andy Pastor

            You know there’s an unfriend or unfollow option don’t you?

          • Alex Summers

            Cause I forced anyone I knew to change their profile picture to a rainbow? Wait what?

            That’s some magical powers I have there. I think you don’t understand what force actually means?

          • Jeff

            I didn’t say you forced them to put the rainbow on their avi.

          • Geoff

            You did insinuate that straight people were being “forced” by gays to put rainbows on their avatar.
            Here —
            “Gays are not forcing anything on anyone.” Tell that to the million+ “straight”
            lemmings with rainbows on their avi’s…..

          • Geoff

            Oh know! I’ve been “forced” (enforced or compulsory) to do something and I didn’t even know it.

        • CJ

          They always had the same rights as everyone else! They wanted special rights. Name one man or woman of age that did not have the “right” to marry?

          • pyrophilia

            Yet once more, HAIL SATAN! HAIL IBLIS!

          • CJ

            I think the only question that answers is the one about your sanity.

          • pyrophilia

            People like you always think I’m crazy but I bet you I earn more money than you and Integrate better with society than your “sane” Ass does.

          • CJ

            Money, huh? We’re all broke when we die. So if that’s what you take pride in, I certainly hope nothing happens to it. A person like you would feel worthless.

          • pyrophilia

            My self worth is a lot more complex that you will ever be able to touch you pious fucktard

          • CJ

            Nope. It’s pretty simple. People fall back on what they know when they want to feel worthy. A drunk will always fall back on alcohol when times get tough. A cheater will cheat when his relationship gets difficult. You fell back on your money.

          • pyrophilia

            You think you can read me but you haven’t read shit. Please take your Pop psychology bible and stick it directly up your Anus. How bout this, In spite of All of the attacks on my Manhood and my masculinity I’m still Dearly loved by women? Plenty of them. Or my Intelligence, Which is supposedly low. I don’t see any old idiot doing the things I’ve done. Do you know how many times I’ve been told people can’t wrap their heads around Bitcoin? Or the Stock market? Of for that matter Economics? Or Politics? or any of the many fields of my obsessions.. .

            My intellect will never fail me. even, particularly, when People such as yourself refuse to recognize it. I don’t need that validation to know I am smart.

          • CJ

            Yet you still lack common sense.

          • pyrophilia

            “People fall back on what they know when they want to feel worthy.” What makes you arrogant enough to think I CARE if you consider me worthy? based on your ignorance on display here being considered Unworthy is an HONOR.

            Does your arrogance know no bounds?

            Why is it subhumans like you always assume that people like me Want to be liked by the Subhuman LGBTQIA hating Cishet Mongrel’s?

            Let me make one thing clearer to you: You AREN’T PEOPLE, HATER.

            When subhumans like you LOOK DOWN upon me it REFLECTS WELL upon my character.

            we don’t WANT your approval, the day the FILTH like yourself start to LIKE us that’s the day we’d reexamine our lives.

          • CJ

            You are the one who brought up how much money you make when it had nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about. Good day to you.

          • pyrophilia

            You’re the one who challenged me and acted smug.

          • CJ

            Challenged you? OK.

          • pyrophilia

            www dot facebook dot com/toi1etpride = you.

          • CJ

            Haha!

          • pyrophilia

            It bothers me when people who should feel worthless are confident.

          • Wesley Quigg

            You contradicted yourself. Subhuman means below human. To look down means to be above. How can a subhuman be above you unless you are even less than a subhuman? You show your need for approval when you tick off your accomplishments.

          • pyrophilia

            No, I didn’t contradict myself, Was English your first language? Look down upon.” = Figure of Speech. Not Literal Sure if you took it literally ” I contradicted.” myself but that would be you Inferring a literal meaning that I didn’t imply nor intend.

            Why are Bigots and their apologist always so slow with Idioms?
            idioms DOT thefreedictionary DOT com/look+down+on

            Stop trying to be clever. You’re just making yourself look dumber.

            P.s. (notices your icon.) all the star wars but for the Empire strikes back Sucked.

            That’s literally the only good Story writing. I still need to download American Graffiti but George Lucas so far is a Bad writer.

            Star Trek will always be infinitely better in it’s writing and more to the point the Star wars Goons Concede it every time they try to Win the fight by pointing out Princess Lela in the revealing dress vs The lack of Charisma on the Star Trek cast, they prove how irredeemably shallow the Star wars Fandom is.

            Star wars = Watered down Sci Fi, I’d rather Read.

            You confuse a Response with a Desire for approval, The fact that I continue to discourse with bigots is Bad for my psychological health perhaps but Somebody has address them if for nothing more than Demonstrating that we’re not all that Fucked up and cold

            if I wasn’t here it would just be a Vacuum of ignorance.

            I’m glad you pig-headed buffoons delude yourself into thinking yourself superior. because it only proves the point of my own Supremacy and your inferiority.

            The only NEED i have here is to be DISAPPROVED of by Bigots, I post incendiary comments because I Revel in their Hatred and contempt.

            Approval is not what I’m after, Scorn, Hatred, Ridicule and Contempt is.

            www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=IjSTQwamo8M

          • pyrophilia

            Besides since I was referring to mental perspectives and internal mental hierarchies it makes absolutely no sense given the context that I “contradicted” myself for the simple fact I wasn’t referring to anything material or tangible in the real world but merely abstract concepts of how a person’s self worth orients itself.. Gah… I hate people sometimes, Overly Concrete thinkers…

          • Wesley Quigg

            For someone who is so secure with himself why do you have to justify your existence by talking about your money, manhood and intelligence? When your life ends none of that will matter. When a Christian’s life ends they have the promise of eternal life living in a mansion and walking on streets of gold and never wanting for anything. You will be wanting a drink of water to quench your thirst as you spend eternity in the lake of fire.

          • pyrophilia

            I won’t care when i’m kicking back relaxing in the Summerlands what any of you shitbirds thought when I was alive.

          • pyrophilia

            When a Christian’s life ends they have the promise of eternal life living in a mansion and walking on streets of gold and never wanting for anything. You will be wanting a drink of water to quench your thirst as you spend eternity in the lake of fire.

            No they won’t. Because Their god doesn’t exist and these are merely comforting psychotic delusions.

            nice try though.

          • Wesley Quigg

            You are welcome to your denial. You will regret it when judgement day comes but by then it will be too late.

          • pyrophilia

            all Yahweh will do by putting me in hell is prove that my mercy is greater than his and that I am the morally superior one.

          • Wesley Quigg

            Full of yourself aren’t you? By sending you to an eternity in hell He is only doing what you wanted. It is your choice where you spend eternity.

          • pyrophilia

            No, it’s not what I wanted. I wanted to go away to to the summerlands after my death having never worshipped him. The afterlife I want isn’t even in your eschatology at all. It’s The pagan summerlands I want, maybe Avalon, perhaps Valhalla.

            Without ever bending my Knee to the Awfulness that is Yahweh AKA Jehova Aka al shaddai, aka the leader of ancient semitic peoples.

            and as to full of myself? Quiet humble actually in reality. The average high school student has a greater sense of right and wrong than your god.

          • Wesley Quigg

            You go ahead and keep telling yourself that. In the end you will regret your decision.

          • pyrophilia

            isn’t it so twisted how your world view says that I choose hell by not picking jesus though? Funny how Faith twist people. False choices, false dichotomies. You can only think inside that stupid box they taught you. Anything outside it and by refusing to believe in jesus I “choose hell.” Your entire worldview depends upon a faulty assumptino that forcing somebody against their will to pick between two bad options is a “choice” instead of What it is which is blackmail. Plain and simple. Your religion Only affords people a false choice between two things.

            Your faith requires you to frame it as if there are only two options when in fact there are limitless options.

          • Wesley Quigg

            You are in control of your life. Every decision you make is a choice. If you choose to break the law, you go to jail. If you choose to turn your back on God, you go to hell. God doesn’t force you to follow Him, but if you choose not to, you have chosen to accept the consequences of your decision.

          • pyrophilia

            in either event it rest upon a faulty assumption that telling people they can choose between conversion and eternal suffer is morally acceptable. Newsflash: It isn’t.

          • Wesley Quigg

            You obviously don’t know the definition of moral is. I will pray that the Holy Spirit softens your heart and opens your eyes to the Truth.

          • pyrophilia

            How would you feel if I told you as a Pagan that if you don’t convert to our ways and values you will be thrust into an eternal hell dimension where the law of diminishing returns was actually completely suspended and everyhing was carefully crafted so that the excruitaing pain on entry was not as bad as it was going to get. You would be stuck there for eternity and have no means of escape and escape would infact be impossible as every outlet out would be choked off and the gods who could let you out are beyond done with you. In fact the dimension was so bad that the pain and suffering was designed to create illusions of watching everyone you’ve ever loved suffer and be tortured wither or not they were or not and undergoing the same fate. Every ounce of pain emotionally spiritually and even sexually would continue to get worse and worse without end, every second the pain would get more and more excrutiating so that you could experience something for which there is no word in any language: the opposite of hope.

            The absolute certainty that struggle is futile and everything is only ever going to get worse. it will never get better.

            “despair” is merely the opposite of hope. The christians don’t even have a word for this.

            darkness is merely the absence of light. This is darker than dark.

            It’s darker than even pitch black…

            limitless suffering that would gradually get worse and worse.

            …That’s functionally what you have done the equalivant of.

            Convert or experience the lake of fire is what you are pretty much telling me.

            You are no better than that threat, and to clarify: i’m not telling you it. It’s a Pure hypothetical.

          • Wesley Quigg

            Of course it isn’t real. It is a figment of your imagination. You have to completely close your heart and be in complete denial to not know that God is real and the Master of the universe. Most decisions you make have one positive and one negative choice. If you choose the negative choice you have no one to blame but yourself.

          • pyrophilia

            I mean after all you didn’t convert so you choose to be sent to the pagan hell dimension i dreamed up.

          • pyrophilia

            Why are you hitting yourself? Stop hitting yourslf.

          • Wesley Quigg

            I thought you claimed to be some intelligent, manly man, not a 12 year old boy. Make up your mind.

          • pyrophilia

            Is that your serious response? it’s a perfectly fair analogy.

          • pyrophilia

            all that will accomplish is proving I am justice it self and he is unfit to judge me.

          • pyrophilia

            A god that pushes people into such a horrible place for any number of sins is unfit for worship.

          • pyrophilia

            More Directly I never asked for life, I never asked to be brought into this world so holding that threat over my head is true injustice.

          • pyrophilia

            I was RAPED into existance. AGAINST MY WILL NOT TO BE ROUGHT HERE. so holding ANYTHING against me is OBJECTIVELY Immoral. Life is not a gift it’s a CURSE.

          • CD

            I’m not sure you can be “smart” while being so contradictory.

          • pyrophilia

            Perhaps you should stop trying to read between the lines though because you suck at it.

          • Geoff

            And CJ falls back on his stupidity. But, it IS all you’ve got.

          • pyrophilia

            Good job jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence though.

          • pyrophilia

            IRONY: Lectures me about Self control but can’t stop self from jumping to conclusions.

          • CJ

            Lol. Like you jumped to the conclusion you knew how much money I make. Right…

          • CD

            Plenty of psychos are integrated in society making money. How dense can you be?

          • pyrophilia

            Seems to me being a Secular atheist is helpful to intergrating in society while being Christian is Harmful. forget what I said about being smart, seems i’m just wiser than you.

          • Sam Cru

            Bingo.

          • Geoff

            Every homosexual.

          • CJ

            Nope. Because every homosexual is either a man or a woman, so they had the same access to marriage as everyone else.

          • Geoff

            No – they only had access to marry someone of the opposite sex.

            Do you say the same thing about interracial marriages? Black folks have access to marry whoever they want, as long as they’re of the opposite sex AND black.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            The red herring is strong in this one.

            Interracal marriage integrates, while same-sex marriage actually segregates.

          • Geoff

            And the stupidity is strong in you. How does same-sex marriage segregate? This should be good.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            How does same-sexrace marriage segregate? This should be good.

            You amuse me.

          • Geoff

            WTF are you prattling on about with “white-exclusive spaces?”

            Why not just make your case for your comment unless you really have none?

          • Al Brennan

            Sprickolo’s analogy is apparently a little too recondite for your processing centre.

          • Geoff

            And apparently she needs you to intervene on her behalf.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            I have a life to live outside pontificating in comment sections.
            Unlike you, apparently.

          • Chris

            You’re putting a lot of work into a bad analogy.

            If you are going to compare race with sex than you need to make the comparison as close as possible. The equivalent of a same-sex marriage, when talking about segregation, is not a “white-exclusive space.” It is a same-race marriage. Obviously.

            Whether people should be free to choose to enter into a marriage with someone of the same race or sex is a far less controversial topic than whether people should be able to have clubs, associations, and teams that are exclusive to one race or sex. While there are points both for and against the latter, I have never heard anyone argue that individuals should not be free to marry someone of the same race as themselves; the idea is flatly ridiculous. No one would ever say with a straight face that all legal marriages must be interracial in order to decrease segregation; , arguing that we should not recognize same-sex marriage on the grounds that it segregates makes just as little sense.

            You may have other, more rational and principled arguments against same-sex marriage. I’ve never heard one, but your current argument–that we shouldn’t recognize same-sex marriage because it segregates in the same way that white-exclusive clubs do–is silly even by the very low standards of anti-equality arguments.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            You are putting a lot of work into a straw man argument.

            Perhaps if you crawled out of the mental “safe space” you made for yourself, you would comprehend that the imaginary petting of your imaginary friends serves nothing but your own narcisstic delusions.

            But since you bleaters live by that…

          • Chris

            How can I be drawing a strawman argument if I’ve admitted several times I don’t understand what your arguments actually are, and I’ve asked multiple times for clarification?

            If you truly feel misrepresented here you could easily respond to my multiple inquiries that you explain your arguments more clearly. Instead you have responded with insults and generalizations, and have made multiple assumptions and strawman arguments against me, throwing a lot of liberal buzzwords at me as if you think I’m part of some kind of hive mind.

            In short, you haven’t behaved as someone who wants to be understood, but like a common internet troll. If you continue to respond in this manner I will have to bow out of this conversation.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            In which the fanatic regurgiates the deranged idpol lines about the feelings of his token pets meriting collective rights, then declares himself to be open to “arguments” which he himself excluded from the realm of possibilities.

            What a repulsive troll.

          • Chris

            What are you talking about?

            Where did I say anything about feelings? Where did I say anything about collective rights?

            Clearly you’re uninterested in having a meaningful discussion, and you’d much rather insult everyone you see as even slightly to the left of yourself. Good luck with that strategy in winning people over.

          • Chris

            That’s a ridiculous argument. By your logic, marriage between people of the same race also segregates, and should be banned. But we don’t require people to integrate by race when making such personal choices as marriage, nor should we require them to integrate based on sex when making such choices.

            It seems like you worked backwards to find an argument against same sex marriage, thought the segregation line might be clever, and then used it without thinking it through. A helpful hint: that’s not persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            It seems to me that you are unfamiliar with the distinction of de jure and de facto, and the “white/male-only space” fixation of your own cult. And have trouble following anybody’s logic.

            Also, your straw men are not persuasive to anyone not a bleating sheep disussed in the article.

          • Chris

            “It seems to me that you are unfamiliar with the distinction of de jure and de facto”

            Well, one important distinction is that de facto discrimination is not illegal. So if you’re trying to say that same sex marriage creates de facto discrimination,* I’m not sure what your point is–that’s not a reason for refusing to recognize it as marriage.

            “Also, your straw men are not persuasive to anyone not a bleating sheep disussed in the article.”

            Can you explain which strawman arguments I have made, so I can avoid making them in the future?

            *I can’t actually tell if this is what you’re trying to say, because your writing is very unclear–you seem more concerned with making accusations against people than in making any coherent point of your own.

        • GracieW

          Tell that to the Christians losing their businesses in frivolous lawsuits by gays.

          • Alex Summers

            Those cases have names attached to them. It isn’t a “gay” thing to sue a business out of business. That’s just some jerk getting overly hurt, or maybe someone who actually deserved it, in which you don’t have all the info.

            In any event, I wasn’t there. It wasn’t me, it’s none of my business what transpired between the shop owner and his/her customer. That’s why we have courts.

            btw, can you name ONE business, in the end, that was lost or had to close its doors due to a lawsuit? No, we have taken arms and stood with them as a community to ensure they stay open. Gay and straight alike on both sides! So don’t give me that!

          • Al Brennan

            heh, delusionality is alive and well.

          • Geoff

            As every Christian knows, it’s God’s will.

          • pyrophilia

            frivolous? They got what they deserved.

        • Dead Pilot

          Muslim have a religious right to marry four woman. Should government or Supreme Court legalize this too? Muslims “are not forcing anything on anyone” also.

        • paendragon

          I want to sue a muslim bakery for not making me a cake which says “Jesus is God!” because forcing people to verbally support things they don’t believe in is my right and you oppress me by not letting me do it!

          • Chris

            No bakery has to write anything on a cake that they don’t want to.

            They do have to provide the same services to everyone, though.

            If a baker doesn’t want to write “Jesus is God” on a cake, they don’t have to. If a baker chooses not to serve you because you are a Christian, then you can sue him, and you will win.

            Everyone’s talking about “gay wedding cakes,” but that’s never been the issue. No baker has been punished for not writing “Congratulations on your Big Gay Wedding, PRIDE FOREVER” on a wedding cake. They’ve been punished for refusing to bake the same kind of cake they would for any straight wedding.

            This is basic civil rights law. Now it’s fine if you disagree with that on freedome of association grounds, but it’s not fine for you to misrepresent what’s going on in the real world.

            But given your elaborate fantasies about the South, this tactic of yours is not exactly surprising.

          • paendragon

            You just love lying (presenting your fact-free opinion as if it were a fact) don’t you?

            Re: “No bakery has to write anything on a cake that they don’t want to. Everyone’s talking about “gay wedding cakes,” but that’s never been the issue. No baker has been punished for not writing “Congratulations on
            your Big Gay Wedding, PRIDE FOREVER” on a wedding cake. They’ve been punished for refusing to bake the same kind of cake they would for any straight wedding.This is basic civil rights law.”

            WRONG, liar!

            A couple just got “fined” $135,000 for not writing the couple’s names and date on the cake.

            They gay couple could have bought a generic wedding cake, and written their own script on it later at home, and there’d have been no problem.

            It was their desire to target and force a Christian bakery to violate their first amendment right to free speech (and its implicit corollary, the right to NOT have to write something which would violate one’s conscience) that’s causing the problems.

            For your hypothetical scenario to apply, the gays would have to prove that the Christian bakers had already provided the same service (writing the names, dates and maybe vows of undying love) on some other gay or lesbians’ wedding cakes, too. Only that would legally qualify for order for a discrimination case to apply.

          • Chris

            No, they would have had to prove that the bakery had not previously refused to write the names and date for a straight couple in order to prove discrimination. Apparently, they did that.

            Writing names and a date does not constitutes an endorsement of a same-sex marriage; it’s simply providing the same service to a gay couple as you would to anyone else.

            Again, if the couple had asked the bakery to write an endorsement of their marriage on their cake, then you might be able to claim that their freedom of religion had been violated. But they were only asked to write basic facts, presumably a service they provide others fairly often.

            I do agree that the damages are excessive and the specific complaints of the gay couple were ridiculous and over the top.

          • paendragon

            Writing two male or two female names on a wedding cake is to write an acceptance, and, so, an endorsement of it, which violates the bakers’ right to disagree with it. If the gays had bought a generic wedding cake there would have been no problem. Gays already had equal marriage rights: they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

          • Chris

            “Writing two male or two female names on a wedding cake is to write an acceptance, and, so, an endorsement of it,”

            No, it really isn’t.

            “which violates the bakers’ right to disagree with it.”

            They can disagree as much as they want. They still have to serve the public.

            A cashier might disagree with an overweight person buying a candy bar. They still have to sell it to them if they want to keep their job and not get sued.

            “And besides, gays already had equal marriage rights: they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

            Sex discrimination is illegal without a legitimate state interest. Opponents of equality were unable to come up with any.

            Your argument is equivalent to saying that everyone had equal marriage rights prior to Loving v Virginia: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and the same race.

            “Furthermore, one could posit people are entitled to damages (as in this case, for simply not agreeing to sign contracts) in other ways, too: say these bakers had baked a cake on a Tuesday for someone, but, due to unforeseen circumstances, couldn’t be open on the particular Tuesday your pet gays demanded their cake be baked. Why, that’s a clear case of discrimination, you’d cry. Everyone has an equal right to have their cake baked on a Tuesday.”

            No. You have no idea how Civil Rights law works.

            “The funny thing is, we actually have property rights. That means I can sell something or not. And just because I decide to do a lot of selling, doesn’t somehow magically limit me by making me responsible to sell to everyone – I still have a right to refuse service.”

            But you do NOT have the right to refuse service based on gender, race, religion, disability, and in a growing number of states, sexual orientation.

            Now, you could try and change this by convincing Congress to repeal nearly all of civil rights law passed since the 60s. But I have to warn you, if you are going to do so while waving around a flag that was used by an army determined to preserve slavery, then by the KKK, then by opponents of integration, and now by white supremacist groups…you’re gonna have a hard time convincing people that your objections are based on a legitimate concern for property rights, and not, you know, racism.

            “I’m waiting for a “shirtarian” to start to sue because of being offended that their right to not wear a shirt into the local supermarket is being violated.”

            You really, really have no idea how Civil Rights law works.

          • paendragon

            I might disagree with selling cigarettes, SO I have a right to not sell them.

            Basically, I have a right to refuse to sign a contract with anyone.

            Until it’s signed (or the sale agreed to) there is no sale, and so also no right to sue me for not fulfilling an AGREEMENT.

            All the rest of what you typed is based on the slow incremental case-“law” creep of over-reaching government extortion (that which you call “Civil Rights Law”).

            I know EXACTLY how that works: some false minority claims oppression and extorts extra rights for its gang members.

            Have you ever stopped to think about how all of your precious “protected group rights” are completely opposed to all real universal individual human rights?!

            People have property rights. Period.

            What then are these ‘licenses’ the government gang requires, to ‘allow’ people to buy and sell goods on “its” turf?!

          • Chris

            “All the rest of what you typed is based on the slow incremental case-“law” creep of over-reaching government extortion (that which you call “Civil Rights Law”).”

            Ok, sure. But I’m describing the law as it exists, not as you wish it to be.

            You might actually be surprised by how much I sympathize with the argument that businesses should have a general right to discriminate in a free market.

            But where you lose potential allies is when you signal that your opposition to civil rights law is based in your own bigotry, rather than in a desire to protect the rights of people to be bigots.

            You have repeatedly defended a government that formed for the sole purpose of denying an entire group of people their civil rights. You display this tyrannical, oppressive government’s insignia as your avatar.

            That makes it reeeeaaaaly hard to take your arguments about freedom seriously.

          • paendragon

            “Civil rights laws” are actually illegal crimes. When groups have rights, individual humans don’t. Period.

            And the only racist bigotry on display here is yours:

            Liberals are racists: they always assume that ONLY White Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet “People Of Colour” (including the “swarthy palestinians”) being mentally inferior and all, just can’t help being enslaved by their instincts and emotions into acting as violent animals when frustrated, the poor oppressed little dears, so the liberals will always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

            So here’s their interminably ongoing “narrative” (story):

            “SO JUST STOP PICKING ON ALL THE THE POOR HELPLESS MENTALLY INFERIOR SWARTHY ANIMAL VICTIMS, YOU EVIL MENTALLY SUPERIOR WHITE BULLIES! YOU KNOW THEY’RE AT THE MERCY OF THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS SUCH THAT THEY JUST CAN’T HELP BEING VIOLENT WHEN CONFUSED, SO STOP BAITING AND CONFUSING THEM, YOU HATERS!”

          • Chris

            That’s not true. I am a liberal, and I think you are clearly mentally inferior, despite the fact that you are also white.

            Also, civil rights laws don’t give “groups” rights; all individuals have the right to be free of racial, religious, and gender discrimination, including yourself. But you don’t care; you just want a reason to be angry at minorities.

            I’m done assuming your choice to display the confederate flag is based on anything other than racial resentment, the exact force that motivated the Condederates themselves.

          • paendragon

            NO – your chosen “protected oppressed minority group” du jour has no right to influence my right to discriminate.

            “RACIAL:”

            Arab muslims are an inferior version of the Caucasian breed, due to thier choice to inbreed for the last 1,400 years. This is a FACT. They are FAR more prone to genetic diseases than everyone else. Not only does this cost society the extra taxes for having to support them, but their subsequent mental failings also endanger innocent lives.

            “RELIGIOUS:”

            As for “religion” YES I do have a right to use my powers of discrimination – to think that anyone who embraces a “religion” is a LIAR, putting forth their entirely fact-free opinions AS facts. That means they are delusive frauds, in effect criminals.

            And then there’s islam, which is nothing more than the world’s largest and most ancient extortion-racket crime syndicate which only blames a “god” as it’s holy mobster “muslim” gang members’ #1 alibi to excuse their own criminal desires and actions.

            But in your fascist extortionist world, I’m not allowed to defend myself from them, nor freely speak to warn or ask others to help defend us from them, because you think there’s some real right to not be offended or have one’s feelings hurt by the often-painful Truth.

            “GENDER:”

            As for gender – I can and will discriminate that women have less upper-body strength than men, so they shouldn’t be firemen.

            They also have far less aggression, and so should not be paid to be soldiers, especially on the front lines/ engaged in face-to-face combat.

            As far as I know, they are also less able than men at technical warfare (such as video game skills, necessary even for flying drones).

            ————–

            But, once again, in your fantasy world, because they are “poor oppressed minorities” I should let muslims – whose own islamic membership rules and lives as muslims depend on them murdering me – live near me and mine.

            I should let women firefighters let innocent people die “for equality!”

            And I shouldn’t be protected by a strong and capable military, because that might hurt some girls’ feelings.

            In short, in your groupthink world, no real live individual human should ever have any rights to free speech or self defense, because only “The Group” should have rights.

            And if someone sort of like me, somewhere else, and at some other time, may have “oppressed” somebody else like someone else in one of your arbitrarily chosen victim groups, then somehow I owe them.

            But hey, nobody loses individual human rights equality just because some other people have MORE rights than they do, by dint of belonging to more of YOUR groups, right?

            Learn to think for your self, and stop trying to tell everyone else “you aren’t allowed to think at all – or else” … you silly irresponsible fascist gangster extortionist libertine “liberal” criminal.

          • Chris

            Holy shit. You’re even more of a racist idiot then I’d ever suspected.

            Make no mistake, I fully support your right to be a racist idiot, and to publish as many racist comments as you want while displaying a racist flag as your avatar. I would never, ever want to take that right away from you. Not only would forbidding you from expressing your bigotry be unconstitutional, it would be unfair to everyone else, who deserve to know what a horrendous person you are.

          • Chris

            By the way, find any quotes from Confederate leaders saying they were angry over tariffs yet? Y’know, the tariffs that they wrote themselves? No? Thought not.

          • paendragon

            Look in the mirror: You only have that knee-jerk response of defending the Arab islamo-nazis because you are the racist.

            You liberals are racists: you always assume that ONLY White Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be guilty of being truly evil, while all your pet “People Of Colour” (including the “swarthy palestinians”) being mentally inferior and all, just can’t help being enslaved by their instincts and emotions into acting as violent animals when frustrated, the poor oppressed little dears, so you liberals will always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

            So here’s your interminably ongoing “narrative” (story):

            “SO JUST STOP PICKING ON ALL THE THE POOR HELPLESS MENTALLY INFERIOR SWARTHY ANIMAL VICTIMS, YOU EVIL MENTALLY SUPERIOR WHITE BULLIES! YOU KNOW THEY’RE AT THE MERCY OF THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS SUCH THAT THEY JUST CAN’T HELP BEING VIOLENT WHEN CONFUSED, SO STOP BAITING AND CONFUSING THEM, YOU HATERS!”

            Sound about right?

            😉

          • Chris

            No. You are the worst.

          • paendragon

            Last. Word.

            😉

          • Geoff

            But you can’t selectively refuse to sell cigarettes to someone based only on their skin color, gender, sexual orientation ……

          • paendragon

            Why not? If you want to buy something I own, and I simply don’t want to sell it, why should I ever have to justify my refusal?!

          • Geoff

            “For your hypothetical scenario to apply, the gays would have to prove that the Christian bakers had already provided the same service (writing the names, dates and maybe vows of undying love) on some other gay or lesbians’ wedding cakes, too. Only that would legally qualify for order for a discrimination case to apply.”

            No – that would only possibly fly pre-SCOTUS ruling. Now gays and lesbians are entitled to full equal treatment under the law. You can not discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation so all one would have to prove is that the couple was asking for nothing more than what other couples had been able to purchase – gay or straight. You can pay your fine on the way out.

          • paendragon

            The recent SCROTUS ruling was illegal, (a crime) because they ignored the basic facts and decided to legislate from the bench.

            They based it on the right to “equality before the law,” which they used to give Federal authority to something which wasn’t even specified in the Constitution at all.

            Generally, when something isn’t specifically granted to either the States OR the Federal government by the Constitution, it becomes, by default, a State jurisdiction.

            By this latest “reasoning,” gays wanted to be equal to heterosexuals, but they were already allowed to marry women.

            Now anyone who wants to “marry,” say, their pet dog (or, in the case of most muslims, their goats) can do so, by claiming they don’t feel “equal” to anyone else.

            Do you make less money than that rich guy who didn’t waste his paychecks drinking beer and eating pizza like you did, but who had instead decided to invest it?

            Do you want that “right” to be equal before the law, to get for free the best lawyer the other guy will have to pay for?

            Perhaps the Federal government can come to your rescue by taxing him and paying his earnings to you, for “equality!”

            You seem to love to Submit to false criminal laws, so your masochism should be a good fit for you when your muslim friends finally take over.

          • Chris

            I’m sorry–I don’t believe for a second that you have never been on welfare.

          • paendragon

            You’re a sorry-assed slanderer, and of course no more than a fraudulent criminal.

          • pyrophilia

            You know what I don’t care about Rights at all, because i don’t think they should have the right to be bigoted even if they do justify it on the basis of religion, furthermore I don’t define bigotry the way other’s do my own definition is intolerance of somebody for a trait that they cannot help. Either Gay people are Gay because of Enviromental factors as a child which cannot be helped because no child choose where they or to whom they are born. it’s little more than a random genetic event that caused them to be born in a home they had no ability to control and featured something in that caused them to be gay or it’s genetic and it is equally involuntary in nature. Bigotry is discriminating against somebody on the basis of traits they cannot control. Conservatives can stop themselves from believing homosexuality is a sin , believing the bible and uncritically accepting that it is is a choice , they choose to have those opinions and in so doing they are the ones with choice and it’s totally valid to be extremely intolerant of them. I don’t care what the dictionary says bigotry is anymore. I’ve redefined it on purpose personally and using the dictionary to argue your case is a fallacy known as appeal to authority. I don’t accept the validity of any authority any longer that defines bigotry as: “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.”

            Opinions are choices, being gay or lesbian isn’t.

            Therefore if you define bigotry that way your dictionary lacks usefulness and using that one is nothing more than a stubborn attempt to halt the evolution of language.

            fuck you, and the horse you road in on.

            Those christians deserved to get sued because they refuse to make the choice of accepting Homosexuality is not a choice and therefore cannot be a sin and their god doesn’t really exist so sin is a lie and doesn’t exist.

            As per my belief in my own individual autonomy I have made my mind up and my Definition of bigotry is more Valid than the dictionary.

            As per that, being intolerant towards Christians who won’t tolerate gays is not bigotry- it’s being heroic.

            humans do not have the right to not accept or include or tolerate people or even speak out against them on the basis of traits they cannot control.

            Hating gays, fearing them or speaking out against them is a choice. sharing their Bigoted opinons is a choice.

            in the strictest legal sense they have the 1st amendment rights but they should not and it’s an injustice that they do.

            On these grounds by refusing to print the cake because it violated their “convictions” they deserved to get sued and Be run out of business. i have no mercy for them and would sue myself if such a thing happened.

            As far as I’m concerned you do NOT have the right to an opinion that discriminates against human beings oon the basis of traits they cannot control.

            if that makes me a bigot under the dictionary defition of the term for refusing to accept their “right” to those Filthy Disgusting subhuman mongrel opinions then I am Bigot, hear me roar.

            I make no apology for that which i am proud of.

            Hate speech isn’t a right, Let us Take away the First amendment rights of Gay bashers. They ought to be.

          • paendragon

            So, you think people who have opinions contrary to yours shouldn’t be allowed to express them, fascist? You seem to think you’re entitled to your own facts, don’t you? Here’s a fact:

            There are many documented cases of identical twins, where one grows up to become “gay” and the other one doesn’t.

            Oops – there goes your “gays are born that way by DNA!” argument – so FUCK YOU, and your bigoted hateful opinion.
            And by the way, shitbot – I never quoted any dictionary here.

            As for your “hate speech” – guess what? THERE IS NO FALSE “RIGHT” OR LAW TO NOT HAVE YOUR FEELINGS HURT OR TO NOT BE OFFENDED BY THE OFTEN-PAINFUL TRUTH!

          • Jeff

            Basic civil rights law?

            Amendment I

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
            What’s unclear here?

          • Chris

            What’s unclear is how making a cake prohibits anyone’s free exercise of religion.

            No bakery can refuse to back a cake for an interracial couple because they believe it violates their religion. This has been the case for fifty years. Oregon has simply extended this to cover orientation.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            “Orientation” is completely subjective, thus intangible before any law.
            The only thing it extended to is lifestyle, which is unrelated to anything but personal decision.

          • Geoff

            Orientation is not subjective. Someone tells you that they are attracted to members of the same sex and what? You decide subjectively if that qualifies them as gay or lesbian? Give me a break Mr Putin.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            Just reflect on the amount of people who have called you a c_cksuck3r (to paraphrase in a family-friendly way) before, and you will be enlightened on the issue.

            Or not, because there might be too many. Heh.

          • Chris

            Race is also subjective (no two censuses have ever had the exact same racial categories, and there is no scientific classification for race), and yet racial discrimination by businesses is still against the law. So the fact that orientation is subjective does not mean it cannot be a protected category.

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            It would have been much simper if you just wrote “I haev no idae waht u r talkin aboot”.
            You would seem just as ignorant, but less of a pretentious git then.

          • Chris

            I’m sorry, Sprickolo, can you explain which part of my comment you found unpersuasive?

            You said that orientation cannot be a protected category because it is subjective. I pointed out that your argument was unconvincing because race is also subjective, yet it is still a protected category. This seems like a pretty solid counter-argument to me, but then, I’m obviously biased. As I am always trying to improve my arguments, I’d really like to know why you found my comment unpersuasive. Your earlier reply was unhelpful in letting me know what, exactly, I got wrong.

            Thanks in advance!

          • Sprickoló Tömegek

            I pointed out You asserted that my argument was unconvincing because race is also you believe skin colour is subjective, yet it is still a protected category.

            You are willing to live in a fantasy world where racist lynch mobs target people based on “subjective self-identification”, because that’s how “gayness” becomes an oppressed race.

          • Chris

            What are you talking about?

            I can’t tell what part of my comment you’re objecting to. Is it that race is subjective? Is it that race is a protected category? If so, are you denying that this is legal fact, or are you objecting to the law’s existence?

            Helpful tip: it’s important to be clear in your writing and avoid unnecessary tangents.

          • pyrophilia

            That baker Deserved to get sued and got what he had coming.

        • Wesley Quigg

          No they can’t. When Christian owned businesses are sued, fined and forced to close because of their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs their rights are being denied. Gays can go to other businesses who share their views but instead try and force their beliefs on others.

          • pyrophilia

            I’m glad. Bigots should pay for it Financially. It should Cost money to be a hateful piece of shit.

          • Wesley Quigg

            Look who is being hateful. I have not called you single name and yet every one of your posts includes hateful name calling.
            You also still never responded to my pointing out you contradicting yourself. If subhuman are looking down on you that makes you even less than a subhuman. Good way to severely insult yourself.

          • pyrophilia

            How the fuck did I call myself Less than subhuman precisely?

          • Wesley Quigg

            You talked about subhuman (less than human) looking down on you. If they look down on you you must be less than subhuman.

          • pyrophilia

            You don’t understand idiom do you? Not my fault or problem.

          • Wesley Quigg

            It is obvious by your posts that you are the intolerant, hateful, bigoted, racist.

          • pyrophilia

            *laughing dismissively*

        • Whistle Pig

          Patti, no doubt you’re a lovely person. Be encouraged to critical thinking, discernment, and using your brain in tandem with your heart.

          As for the notion about “not forcing” … you’re sorely delusional, it seems.

      • Aaria Carter-Weir

        Just breathe. Breathe. In through your nose annnnnnd ouuuut through your mouth.

        No go make yourself some tea, and then fuck off 🙂

      • pyrophilia

        Hail satan!

      • Alex Summers

        “The homosexuals do not want “marriage equality” they want legal justification for their sexual perversion”

        Um, no I don’t. I just want to love someone, ensure our property is legally recognized as being shared, and maybe get this whole you’re ” evil, wicked and perverse ” crap out of my life.

        J.S.S.: After removing guilt peddling people like you from my life, it’s amazing how wonderful it became. Maybe you should try it sometime? Walk into a room and at least, LEAST 3 times a day have someone you considered a friend or relative, look at you with disgust for no actual reason other than walking into the room.

        I’m certain you’ll make some wonderful life choices for yourself with that. Add to that, being told your own creator is going to punish you for all of eternity, for something you have no viable control over.

        I don’t want persecute “you Christians” I have more love in my little finger for all humanity than you do in your entire existence as a human being, (if I am to use your post as any indication as to your actual nature).

        I just want MY life.
        If your Jesus can’t be silenced… could he maybe.. I don’t know.. stop using people like you as his mouth piece and do it himself? Seems to me with all the angels at God’s command, he doesn’t need you spouting this.

        • Just Straight Shooting

          They look at you in disgust because that is what you are, disgusting, evil, wicked, perverse, and a reprobate. Professing to be wise you have become a fool, a fool of epic proportions. Your choice has made you and abomination before God, and in trying to justify your rebellion against Him, you have to be in continual rejection of Christ Jesus who gave Himself on the cross as a perfect sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. YOU prevent yourself from receiving that sanctification and salvation because YOU have chosen to reject it in favor of homosexual sex. You have made a terrible and poor choice. YOU, have condemned YOURSELF to eternal separation from God, you have no one to blame but YOURSELF.

          The reason you hate Jesus and Christians is because He rightfully says you must CONFESS your sins and REPENT of your sins and ask forgiveness for them. You are too proud of being an abomination, and that is what is condemning you to everlasting hell.

          I hope and pray that you turn from your wicked ways and come to Christ Jesus in repentance and seek His forgiveness of your deadly sin of homosexuality. The time is growing short, don’t be left behind!

          • Geoff

            I look at you in disgust spewing your vile putridness under the guise of christianity. You’re nothing but a bigot using religion as your defense. But your hatred belies the truth. Phoney.

          • Just Straight Shooting

            The truth hurts doesn’t it? You hate the truth because it sheds light on the darkness of your soul. Therefore you run from the truth like a cockroach scurries from the light to the darkness.

            The truth is, I don’t hate you, but you hate me because I tell you the truth. You’d much rather hear the lies from your fellow homosexuals because those lies give you a temporary yet false sense of security. Your soul is the most precious thing you have and you are willfully giving it over to satan for fleeting, perverse sexual pleasures.

            The truth is what you need though. It pricks your heart until it bleeds in hopes that you will change your evil, wicked ways and come to the light of salvation. I hope that one day, before it’s too late for you, that you will confess your sins, ask forgiveness, repent and receive Christ Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior. Wake up from your sinful stupor and grasp the truth, the Good News of Jesus Christ!

          • Geoff

            I know the truth and it doesn’t include a need for an imaginary protector watching over me and responsible for why things happen. So go tell your fellow frightened religious weirdos how sinful the world is. You’ll be the same compost that I will in the end. And that’s it.

          • Al Brennan

            Your comment surrenders a good deal about you and your ilk, that being that your entire worth is anchored in nihilism, the natural consequence is “leave no good behind”. If you knew anything at all about the authentic Christian life you would understand that it is a way of “being” in the world, regardless of destinations and outcomes.

          • Chris

            Just Straight Shooting, I have a very serious question.

            You seem to be basing your vision of “truth” on the Bible, thus you believe that its condemnations against homosexuality must be literally true.

            However, do you actually know which Bible verses condemn homosexuality? Do you know that the only two verses which condemn it in the New Testament are written by Paul, who also condemned women speaking in church and women having any authority over a man?

            Do you also call women who speak in church, or female Republican politicians, “disgusting, evil, wicked, perverse, reprobates, fools,” and “abominations” who hate God? If not, why not? There is as much textual evidence within the New Testament that women who do this are sinning as there is that homosexuality is a sin. Have you protested the campaigns of Carly Fiorina, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann? If you believe that Paul’s words on homosexuality are the literal word of God, then you must also believe the same of his views on women. Or are you picking and choosing?

            And don’t try and tell me about the Old Testament laws; those don’t apply to Christians any more.

            Why is it that Christians take Paul’s condemnation against homosexuality so seriously, when they do not take seriously his condemnations against women speaking in church or teaching or having authority over men? Again, remember that Paul is the ONLY New Testament writer to mention homosexuality; Jesus himself never says a word about it.

            I hope you will consider this comment and respond to it thoughtfully.

          • Just Straight Shooting

            When it suits your purposes people like you love to take the authority of God’s word and try to diminish it by referring to the person who God had pen the message, as if the Bible is just a collection of writings from the minds of men and not of the Lord God. You remind me a lot of the passage where the devil tempted Jesus after 40 days of fasting when His earthly body was weakened from the extended fast. satan used scripture in much the same way as modern day liberals do, and I know that is where anit-Christian liberals get the idea from, straight from satan himself. What satan did, and the same thing you followers of him are doing to this day is taking things out of context, editing out the parts that change it to fit your narrative and thus change the truth into a lie.

            But you can’t be much different from your father satan can you?

            Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually Christ Like, which is the definition of the word Christian! In fact most of the people that the world loves to call Christians are not. Jesus tells us of this as well as most of the authors of the letters that comprise the Bible at one time or the other. They didn’t use the word Christians because that was coined as slur by the romans used to denigrate the followers of Christ, as in, “oh you’re one of those CHRISTIANS”, but to their surprise the followers of Christ wore it as a badge of HONOR rather than as a slur!

            People the world over have tried to define people of all false churches and all false “christians” as the real thing so they can denigrate the true Christians who are diligently trying to follow Christ. These false churches and false “christians” are nothing but works of satan who is using them as false flag in order to confuse and divide people from the truth of God’s word in order to lead them astray. The Lord tells us that this would happen, “they will come in as wolves in sheep’s clothing” and it is rampantly happening and growing by leaps and bounds.

            And yes, ALL of the words that Paul penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit are true and are to be heeded in all true churches. God has an order that He set in place and no man has authority to change it. I believe that what Paul wrote about women being “teachers” having authority over men, was in the context of the church leadership in that women are not to be pastors of God’s churches. It’s God’s order and must be adhered to, no matter how much liberals want to challenge it! Again people want to take that out of context and apply it to areas where it doesn’t pertain in order to make the false argument that the Bible declares that women can’t be political leaders or run businesses or anything else. This is simply not true. Those who do so ignore the examples in the Bible where God used women in mighty ways when there wasn’t any worthy men to fill those positions, but they were not pastors per se, which is what Paul was speaking and teaching about.

            Another good example of how people want to obfuscate the meaning of God’s words is the way it was translated into English such as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, which taken literally from that poor translation would prohibit everyone from eating any kind of fresh food, from vegetables to animals! If those folks really wanted to know the meaning of it they would take it ALL in the proper context and not cherry pick some little thing and change the meaning of it to suit their narrative. The true meaning of that commandment is “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”. If you look just a few pages over in the same book of the Bible you will see that God gives the death penalty for certain crimes and sins, to be carried out by men against men who commit those crimes and sins! Did God contradict himself? Absolutely not! A person has to read it all and study it to find the actual context and meaning. God put His word in that order to cause us to draw close to Him by studying His word and not just cracking it open for an easy answer when we want it. He wants us to continually dwell on His word and draw closer to Him for understanding and that is the only way for us to discover the wonderful truths and love that God has for us!

        • Wesley Quigg

          You do have a choice just like everyone else. If it isn’t a choice then I guess we should condone pedophilia, rape, etc since quite often they say they have always had those urges. Do you condone those behaviors?

      • Rez Rivera

        Well half of that was right, the other half, not so right. As a lesbian, and no I certainly DO NOT label myself to be any part of the GLBTQ community, am disgusted with the way gays have been acting. Gays have become arrogant and prideful and too much pride will always destroy anyone. It isn’t about love it isn’t about rights. It’s about something to complain about. As human we have this subcouncious need to feel misery for what reason I have no clue, but I’ve been seeing things that shouldn’t even happen. Like when gays got mad at Macklemore for creating the song ‘same love’ to show support and gays jump all over him saying he isn’t “allowed” to sing about that stuff because he isn’t gay. So much for alliances right? And when the owners of Chik-fil-la in an adult way stated his opinion on homosexuality with no hatred and they make a big deal about it and protest resturants. Really. Who protests resturants. Sure if they are using nasty meat and or chicken but for someone simply stating their opinion. That’s stupid. And the new thing that has happened in Brazil. Mocking Christianity out in the open in the gay pride parade. Not having the same beliefs is one thing but gays should know how it feels to be mocked and teased but they do the same thing. Where is the logic in that. And the most recent that made me completly done with defending them in anyway (unless it’s directed to me personally only) is that all these gay people are getting mad because millions of people on facebook have changed their profile pics to rainbow, and have gone as far to say that people are just trying to be ‘cool’ or ‘it’s just a fad’ The funny thing is how do you think they would react if not enough people changed their profile pictures to rainbow? They would STILL be made that ‘no one supported them.’ Like I said they only want something to complain about. They don’t want rights they want to feel special. Honestly I don’t care who you are or what you believe in. If it doesn’t effect me or the people I love and care about then why should I get upset about it. It’s also about respect and knowing when it’s time to turn off your ‘stop being a jerk’ and be an adult. I am a lesbian and I am religious and I have never been to a gay pride parade or protest. I am happy with my simple great life that God has given me and I’m not going to let arrogant assholes take that away. The sad part is no one can say anything not even someone who is GLBTQ because it’s automatically a damn hate crime.

        • MicrowaveWaffle

          Every group has a closed-minded fringe. I’m sorry you’ve had the misfortune of coming across so many members of this fringe of the queer community. As a queer individual, I agree: these people are whiny and disrespectful, just looking for things to complain about rather than targeting the real problems.
          The one thing I’d contest is Chick-fil-a. It’s fine that the owners disagree with homosexuality, but it’s also known that the company has donated millions of dollars to so-called “family associations” that have a homophobic agenda.

          • Al Brennan

            And I hope they donate many more millions to Family associations.

        • CJ

          Months later, we aren’t talking about the gay’s anymore..

      • Tony Powell

        Hey, JSS! Why is Al Qaeda more compassionate than you?

        The 9/11 hijackers got to die instantly.

    • Sam Matthews Furina

      Obviously homophobic…and btw some straight people like it like that too
      Bahahahahahaha

      • CJ

        Straight or gay, the anus doesn’t produce it’s own lubrication, so that should be a clue that you aren’t supposed to stick anything in there!
        You can do what you want, but quit pretending it’s normal.

        • pyrophilia

          youtube v=d68_vlLD60Y

          “Normal” is nothing more than a social norm defined and justifed by society, in the animal kingdom truly there is no such thing:

          • CJ

            What does that have to do with “BIOLOGY”?

          • Geoff

            Do animals get married or is that a societal construct as well?

          • CJ

            They have found more animals that mate once for life than ones that are “homosexual”. If you want to define that as marriage, then be my guest. However, unless gays want to consider themselves a creature that is driven by lust and instinct, absent of higher thought, what animals do either way is irrelevant.

          • Geoff

            “want to consider themselves a creature that is driven by lust and instinct”
            That’s a lot of what humans do as well.

            ” absent of higher thought”
            Many animals have higher thinking skills than a lot of people.

            “They have found more animals that mate once for life than ones that are “homosexual”
            What is the relevance of this statement?

          • CJ

            There is a such thing as normal in the animal kingdom. You touch a baby bird, the mother will reject it. The human scent on a baby bird is abnormal, so the mother rejects it.
            If an animal starts to behave differently from the herd, that animal is killed or left behind by the herd.
            Every species has behaviors and attributes it considers normal.
            Humans consider it abnormal for a man to desire to put his penis where feces come out. That is not normal. It’s almost like someone who desires to EAT feces. Would you consider that normal? The fact that they only make up 1.7% of the population only bolsters the point that they are an anomaly.

          • Geoff

            “You touch a baby bird, the mother will reject it. The human scent on a baby bird is abnormal, so the mother rejects it.”
            THAT is just not true so please don’t pretend to be knowledgeable about biology and science.

        • pyrophilia

          There are homosexual Animals out there in nature and in particular ones that weren’t interfered with by humans. They aren’t “all raised in captivity” the way apologist want to believe. listverse DOT com SLASH 2013 SLASH 04 SLASH 20 SLASH 10-animals-that-practice-homosexuality/

          • CJ

            Here we go with this stupid stuff. Look, I know it’s fun to project human characteristics onto animals, but this is not a Disney movie. Calling animals “homosexual” is like saying a dog that humps a shoe is attracted to shoes. The dog just needs the sensation.
            I am kinda surprised that you would compare homosexuals to wild animals that have no control over their instincts.

          • pyrophilia

            They have sex with animals of the same sex as them. This happens all the time in nature outside of captivity. And Why wouldn’t I? Do you honestly believe Humans are not part of the Animal kingdom? We are. No better or worse than those who walk on all four, and that goes for Heterosexual’s like myself as well!!!

          • pyrophilia

            You know I know the conveniences of the modern economy and work at highly misleading but you are not separate from nature, you’re every bit as much a part of it. Man began to go astray when he thought his property actually made him separate from nature. You’re every bit as much a product of it as those who walk on all four…. And Humans are Animals too… How profoundly arrogant of the Homo sapiens to think that we are “Separate.”

          • pyrophilia

            “Stupid shit.” You’re not only Stupid but arrogant to boot, better than you.

          • pyrophilia

            io9 DOT com/yes-humans-are-animals-so-just-get-over-yourselves-1588990060

        • pyrophilia

          Plus it’s an extremely ignorant assumption that all gay people have penetrative anal sex.

          • CJ

            Where did I make that assumption? I never made that assumption, but your comment is like saying, “It’s an ignorant assumption that all straight people have vaginal sex.”

        • Geoff

          How about your mouth?

          • CJ

            Sure, if you want to digest a penis…

          • Geoff

            Oral sex is unnatural because the mouth is only for food intake? WRONG – plenty of animals, including bears, self-pleasure using their mouths. Just because you have a dick doesn’t allow you to be one.

        • Geoff

          How about your mouth?

      • Murray Roodbaard

        I personally am homophobic of any and all non-libertarian gay people that look to the state for solutions. Including the ones that celebrity “marriage equality” before the state.
        To me it is no different than women who want the equal right to join the army so they can enjoy equal benefit in invading countries and kill some people.
        The solution here was not to have the state recognize “marriage equality”, but to get heterosexual marriage the fuck out of the state’s business.
        So have gays gained acceptance in society? I had no reason to dislike gay people; now those who welcome state-authorized gay marriages have given me one.

      • Al Brennan

        Eh you speak as if no one has anything to fear from homosexuals, we all (even you) know that isn’t true.

        • Tony Powell

          Hey, Al! Why is Al Qaeda more compassionate than you?

          The 9/11 hijackers got to die instantly.

    • CD

      You missed the entire point of the article if that’s your quarrel.

  • koq45

    Lets forget the fact that straight couples engage in anal sex all the fucking time. Have you seen porn lately or..?

  • Vitaly Ustinov

    Hate to say. This is only the start . In Israel we suffer from juridical activism for a piece of time already. Don’t let it invase to the U.S.

    • TomEver

      But you’re Russian or something…

      • Vitaly Ustinov

        I’m Russian by birth, raised in Ukraine, live in Israel for 25 years. Oh, I’m a Mets fam also, so it’s complicated. Anyway in Israel it started the same way, now couple of times the Israeli Supreme Court defeated the laws that passed the Knesset ( parlament ).

      • Dead Pilot

        Born Russian,raised in Ukraine,Christian,live in Israel sinse 1990.

    • Geoff

      I think you mean military activism – — with Cuckoo Netanyahu at the helm.

      • Dead Pilot

        Whatever. I grew up in USSR so I’ve got leftcrap antibodies . Don’t waste your time on me, you’ve a lot of things to take care about . Like , for example, violating Islamic religious right to marry four women. Good luck.

  • WareWolf

    While I agree that the government really should have no involvement in the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults, it’s an unfortunate reality that they do.

    And while I also agree with you that if they are going to have their noses in our business, they should operate by a clear, objective set of rules and restrictions (i.e. a constitution).

    From the rest of your piece, it’s also clear that you lack any real understanding of the legal ruling in this case, or of how our US constitution works.

    Of course it doesn’t mention marriage anywhere. It’s a charter that recognizes the inherent rights of human beings and establishes the limits of government institutions to prevent infringement of those rights.

    For whatever reason, assholes in the various states thought it a good idea to “license” marriages, creating a legal construct that conferred special privileges to those who entered into the arrangement. Over time, other bigoted assholes from one state or another tried to put their own restrictions on who they would allow to enter into these constructs.

    Your idea that the federal judiciary can’t invalidate a state law that deals with any legal concept not specifically enumerated in the text of the US constitution is just silly. Any state withholding marriage licenses based on arbitrary criteria was in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments of the US constitution. Not because the states ran afoul of some federal definition of marriage, but because the states created this legal construct and then denied certain people its privileges in discriminatory fashion. First it was interfaith, then interracial, and now inter-gender.

    They were all stricken down in turn, and all for the same reason: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The same goes for the bigoted assholes in states who tried to deny recognition of marriages performed by other states. Doing so violates the Full Faith & Credit clause of the constitution.

    Far from “expanding federal authority,” this ruling is in close keeping with previous rulings regarding marriages. It didn’t define or redefine marriage at a federal level…it just prohibits states from defining the legal construct of marriage in a discriminatory manner.

    The legal reasoning is obvious on its face. If anything, it’s a wonder that it took this long to happen.

    • illuminarch

      That’s funny. The ruling specifically mentions that marriage is between “two people”, so it still discriminates against polygamous families. I suppose that’s not discriminatory though, in your mind.

      Incestuous marriages are still prohibited as well.

      How do these not fall afoul of the 14th amendment?

      • WareWolf

        I actually agree with you. As I said at the beginning, I don’t feel the state has any business being involved in the interpersonal relationships of consenting adults. If two or three or ten people want to enter into a “marriage” arrangement, why is that the concern of the government? I may consider incest morally repugnant, but again, if we’re talking about consenting adults, they should be free to marry if they want.

        But until someone with standing brings a lawsuit against a state that has anti-polygamy or anti-incest statutes in place, the question, legally, remains open.

  • John

    Blah blah blah

  • PostAmerican

    When did Republicans forget we live in a REPUBLIC? Republicanism asserts that ALL citizens are endowed by their creators with unalienable rights like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and getting married and being miserable just like everyone else. In a Republic, these human rights cannot be voted away by the tyranny of the majority. We live under the U.S. Constutution, not Christian or Shariah laws. We don’t live in a Democracy. This is why we have three branches of Government with a seperation of powers. We live in a nation that can change, evolve, and expand freedom. If you support limited Government and individual liberties, the ruling last Friday should have been a good day? How come these folks that want to protect straight marriage, have never tried to ban divorce? Just asking!

    • John Ash

      Because only straight people are allowed to destroy marriage.

    • Bill the eighth

      Another brainwashed sheep chimes in with more ridiculousness. Three branches of government with a separation of powers!! Hahahaha, stop it, you’re killing me!

      If you support limited government, you will surly LOVE having the government MORE involved in your life!!

      Up is down, wrong is right, bad is good, backwards is progress. WOW, Yuri was right, this stuff really works. The stupidity, lack of any frame of reference, let alone the ability to make a concise logical argument is long gone to Lufkin.

    • NAVORD

      but the problem is you only care about the concept of a Republic when it benefits you. You have no issue when people vote to raise taxes on others or forcing people to subsidize others healthcare. Why should you be allowed to decide what an employer and employee negotiate in wages(minimum wage) i could go on.. where is your support for incest marriage? Polygamy? Or whatever other forms of marriage that exist in other cultures. also it’s funny how you had no issue with voting when Ireland voted for gay marriage. Be honest the only reason you don’t believe in referendums at the State/Local level when it came to gay “marriage” was because you know you had no chance of winning.

      • PostAmerican

        I don’t believe that issues involving basic civil and human rights should be decided by referendum. Looking at the demographics of this issue, the opposition is literally dying off. Young Republicans and pragmatic Millenials support marriage equality. I don’t support incest marriage, I support marriage between two consenting adults. I guess its just strange that Repubilcans don’t seem to understand the concept of Republicanism, and Christians have forgotten the simple and basic lessons of Jesus. We’re not going back to a time when African Americans were considered human chattel or 3/5 of a person. We are not going back to a time when American women could not vote. We are not going back to a time when southerners lived under Jim Crow. We are also not going back to a time when two Americans can’t get married and be miserable like everyone else. You can either evolve and progress or you can wither and die. We’re moving on.

        • paendragon

          Re: “We’re not going back to a time when African Americans were considered
          human chattel or 3/5 of a person. We are not going back to a time when
          American women could not vote.”

          Wanna bet? Keep on importing muslims and that’s EXACTLY where you’ll wind up – again!

          😉

          • John Heitzenrater

            yes, i do want to bet, confederate apologist. you lost, and you’re still losing. keep clinging to that loser flag, though. makes you easier to identify.

          • paendragon

            Heil Heitzenrater!

            Keep importing millions of your islamonazi fellow travellers, Herr Heitzer!

          • Geoff

            And I’ll stand right with them to crush your arse. Johnny boy.

          • paendragon

            It’s your gay liberal arse they’ll be after, leftard. Well, after they re-enslave all the blacks first, of course!

          • Geoff

            I’m just going for you, klansman!

          • paendragon

            No, no – be brave: You just asserted you support muslims, while only they still have millions of black slaves worldwide.

            That makes YOU the “Klansman” here!

            (And muslims also wear white robes and hoods, so you’ll blend right in, too)!

            😉

          • Geoff

            They have “millions of black slaves” AND “marry their goats” WOW. Your research of Muslims is amazing!

          • paendragon

            Start with Wiki – enter:

            Slavery in contemporary Africa

            As for muslims marrying their goats:

            For starters, try Wiki, and enter:

            Sudanese goat marriage incident

          • Geoff

            Sudanese goat marriage incident —- so there must only be 2 Muslims on the planet if MOST of them marry their goats and you demonstrate a single case.

          • paendragon

            Silly liar – I never said most muslims marry their goats, I said most of them would prefer to marry their goats over marrying dogs, (because they see dogs as “absolute filth” thanks to Muhammad).

            To them, (like to your muslim messiah Obama) dogs are at most things to be eaten for dinner.

          • Geoff

            WOW – with research skills like that, I’m surprised you’ve not written more books.

          • paendragon

            Ad hominem evasion – you know you’ve lost.

            I presented you with the basics to let you do your own research – so of course you’re pretending Wiki article writers never list and cite their own sources at the bottom, for you to investigate further.

            You know Cantwell won’t let people post direct links to other sites or articles.

            You lost – again.

            BLOW.

        • NAVORD

          I don’t know how you equate slavery and women not voting to gay marriage but anyway..

          I HATE when Liberals compare Race and Gender to a sexual behavior.

          Gays are not a race or a new gender they are White,Blacks,Asians,Men,Women who get off having sex with the same sex..so what next you want to classify men who jerk off with their left hand instead of their right hand a protected class?
          Despite the fact I don’t agree with gay marriage, if gays got it the PROPER way..i.e..amending/changing STATE Constitutions while I may not like it I could respect the process..i don’t respect how the Supreme Court made up nonsense to make gay marriage legal..if they can lie and make up that..

          I have to put on my sexist hat..i can’t help but wonder if the founders didn’t allow women to vote for the reasons we have today..i don’t think it’s coincidence that after women got the right to vote Government grew and liberty shrank..on example is Obamacare..an unconstitutional law that heavily benefits women by forcing men to pay higher premiums to subsidize them..then we have the three female Justices who routinely favor for bigger government..on the topic of equal clause..how is circumcision and selective service not violating the equal protection clause…anyway not saying women shouldn’t vote just an observation..like i said “The Law” is not an absolute and it be twisted and interpreted by whomever is in authority..you complain about religion but to me the new religion is Government..you treat it as infallible and all knowing.

          • PostAmerican

            Yeah.. Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.

          • Geoff

            “..i don’t think it’s coincidence that after women got the right to vote Government grew and liberty shrank..on example is Obamacare..an unconstitutional law that heavily benefits women by forcing men to pay higher premiums to subsidize them..”

            You’re right – you had your sexist hat on and don’t seem to have ever taken it off.

            I don’t know where you’re getting your info RE: health care insurance but women usually are MORE expensive because of pregnancy coverage for one thing.

        • NAVORD

          also i forgot to add that as you were going about slavery and voting..you support forcing people to buy a service from a private company in order to subsidize other people(Obamacare) , you agree with forcing people to work for others(Gay Wedding Photography, Bakeries etc), you support people not being allowed to defend themselves(Gun Control)

          • Mandi Merlenbach

            If you have a public business, you are open to ALL of the public. Keep your religion where it belongs, in the privacy of your church and home.

            You can deny service to assholes, not because of who someone is.

          • Geoff

            you support forcing people to buy a service from a private company in order to subsidize other people(Obamacare) , you agree with forcing people to work for others(Gay Wedding Photography, Bakeries etc), you support people not being allowed to defend themselves(Gun Control)

            Not forced – only if you want to be a member of this society.

      • Alex Summers

        Have you even read the text of the bill for WA? It’s so leaky, and it doesn’t define family members. And honestly it does nothing really to restrict rights. It’s a joke. I LIVE in Oregon, I’m Liberal, and an NRA card carrying member.

        I’m so not worried about that bull passing. If anything it came down on stolen gun sales at swap meats. Oh darn, they need paper work to show if the gun was previously owned. (and that information is redacted for public consumption).

    • NAVORD

      and before you say incest relationships are a straw man..the BBC covered this topic twice..

    • NAVORD

      I am not even a religious person, but i was raised in a culture where gays where far and few between and the few that were their were considered the “village clown” so to speak..my point is my view of marriage is based on my upbringing..the concept of a marriage being anything other than a man or a woman is ridicules to me. So I will not vote,support something i don’t believe in since that is the mechanism marriage is set up in..i agree with Chris that government should get out of marriage completely, but that is not what we have/had so I voted for what i believe. I wasn’t put on this earth to care about the well being or happiness of gays.

      • PostAmerican

        I’m not religious either, but I follow the golden rule. Sounds like you might have some unresolved issues!

      • Alex Summers

        “I wasn’t put on this earth to care about the well being or happiness of gays.”

        So what were you put on this Earth for, Earthingy? Do you have a goal? A mission statement? Or even an idea of what you ARE here for?

        Seems to me if you can’t fire that off FIRST, you have no business saying what you aren’t here for.

        • Alex Summers

          Or do you commonly walk into a room full of strangers and tell them you aren’t here for this, that and the other, but can’t tell them what you’re here for?

      • Mandi Merlenbach

        So what you are saying is that you are a selfish asshole?

    • NAVORD

      Even if I concede that government should allow gays to marry..i will never concede that government has a right to force people to associate with gays. i.e. I will not support a Christian caterer being forced to attend a PRIVATE event on PRIVATE property to participate in something they find objectionable. What next are you going to try to force customers who refused to shop at gay owned businesses to be thrown in jail or fined?

      • Alex Summers

        You do you, but the fact you feel the need to mention this as a defense using such language as “even if I”, makes me wonder if you’re just using this example as a means to continue on your dysfunctional moral compass.

        I too don’t agree people should be forced to do something they find objectionable **if** there are other avenues to be had, and **if** those other avenues don’t cause a strain on those being asked to take them.

        “Ya know, I might not be up for doing this, but Casey’s bakery across town, does THIS sort of thing better” is not only good customer service, but it doesn’t out you as being a complete meanie. I can live with that sort of behavior.

        But telling someone “I’m not doing that, being gay is a sin and I can’t be a part of something so vile” isn’t cool. By any means!

        • NAVORD

          Thing is gays have done EXACTLY the same thing, i can’t recall exact details but one instance was a pro-traditional marriage person being denied service at a custom card maker, another instance i remember off the top of my head was a pro-traditional marriage person being denied service at a hair salon, another being kicked out of restaurant, I recall some guys on HGTV having their show cancelled because of their support for real marriage , The Mozilla CEO being fired..

          so why is it they can choose to not associate with people based on their religion/opinion but you are demanding I and others must associate with people we disagree with..and lets not forget we are not talking about refusing gays to walk into a store and buy a pre-made product off the shelf I’m talking about services that are either custom or off-site..in no way should a photographer be forced to attend a PRIVATE gay wedding and witness and participate in it.

          If the courts do try to force Christians to do those type of events I’ve seen that some suggest Christians make a sign saying all gay marriage proceed will go to candidates or organizations/governments either in the US or overseas that they know gays will object too.

          While this image i attached is from Australia, it’s still a western values country and as you can see gays are hypocrites

          • Alex Summers

            Grouping the behavior up and calling it “gays” doesn’t address the real problem of self absorbed people. We get them in all groups. As I said. I DON’T endorse doing these things, and I’m gay. And I have to say, a LOT of my fellow friends, don’t either. We have some oddballs who cause troubles on both sides.

            I didn’t even know about the HGTV guys until now. My thought is, if you’re not unduly imposing on someone or being mean about it, I see no issue reserving the right to keep your convictions. But it’s a very hard line to walk. When people do exercise this, especially in the public eye; they should at least try to be civil.

            As I said, I don’t mind being denied specialty services. I wouldn’t dream of asking my pastor, who is obviously against the idea of marrying two gay men, to facilitate at my wedding. I have too much respect for him. I’d ask, because I love the man dearly. But if he feels the need to decline, I have no issue with him. It’s not HIS duty and I sure can’t imagine forcing him into it or suing him over it?!?!

            Now if he came to my wedding and caused a scene, that wouldn’t fly. That’s not nice. I generally feel most people can follow their convictions without imposing on someone else’s life or well being.

            As for your clipping, you’re citing the Herald Sun. Not exactly known for its investigative diligence. It’s a bar owner who is “hypocritical”. Lumping everything into “gays” when you are specifically siting individual cases, shouldn’t be done. It dishonors the actual events, reasons or people involved in those cases, and boils them down to nothing but hysteria and hyperbole.

          • Geoff

            was a pro-traditional marriage person —– that translates as an anti-gay marriage person.

    • NAVORD

      On side note the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts could exclude
      gays, did gays accept that and respect their human right of freedom of
      association? No, they tried to get state lawmakers to punish them..point being no one really respects the law if they don’t agree with the outcome you are treating “The Law” like it’s an absolute You forget the vote was 5-4 and that vote could have easily gone the other way if you factor out the TWO Obama NOMINEES(did anyone really think they would vote against the man who nominated them). The courts ruled what it ruled, but you deluding yourself if you think I and others will change our views on marriage, the Supreme Court ruled that State Governments have to recognize gay marriage not individuals.

      I sugesst reading The Rule of Law is a Myth by Georgetown University’s John Hasnas

      • PostAmerican

        The law is an absolute, its settled, we’re not going back. No one ever said you had to change your views, but at some point they’ll be the same as those who once supported human slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, and supported the ban on interracial marriage. #progress

        • better12than6

          The law to allow chattel slavery was settled law also… and it changed.

          • Geoff

            Notice that the law changes over time to be MORE inclusive and equal NOT less.

      • Alex Summers

        Navord, when it came to boy scouts… There were gay boy scout already in the organization who fought for this. They and their friends, who were also scouts, fought for this. They have the freedom to associate with who they want as well. What about their right?

        Seems you look at one side of the coin, but not the other. And who is to say who has the right to associate with another human being, than THOSE people who are doing the association?

        *shrug* and who’s to stop a person from non-association with a fellow club member? You don’t like Todd, fine, don’t talk to Todd. But not liking Todd shouldn’t mean you kick Todd out of the group 😛 There’s plenty of other people who enjoy Todd’s company.

    • kalkent4

      If you and your ‘partner’ were not having se-x, you’d be just considered good friends, no different from two people sharing a residence for financial reasons. So that being the case and the fact that your brand of se-x cannot result in having children, can you please explain to me why it is that people should be granted special privileges, benefits and rights based solely on the type of se-x they are having?

      • PostAmerican

        Wow, if you think marriage is all about having se-x, than you sure don’t know much about marriage! Not sure what planet you live on, but gay Americans have been having children for centuries. Since 1978 there have been test tube babies and surrogates. Do we ban two elderly people who find love again later in life from marrying, they aren’t spawning. What about people who are infertile from sickness or cancer? Are they allowed to marry? C’mon these are pathetic arguments. For the last and final time, we live in a Republic, which means ALL citizens have unalienable human rights, that cannot be voted away.

        • John Q

          Still trying to figure out how homosexual Americans have been having children for centuries. The technology for in vitro is recent. Less than 50 years (not even one century)

          One thing I got from the article and the comments is that marriage should not be a function of the government. There should be no license to get married (basically a tax to get hitched) and there should be no benefits or penalties on taxes based on marital status.

          • PostAmerican

            Sigh, There are a lot of gay Americans who in trying to fit in to society, got married to the opposite sex, had children and families before coming out. This goes back throughout human history. The idea that a family is only one man, one women is preposterous, families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. There are war widows, there are single fathers, mothers, there are grandparents raising grandchildren, there are straight families, there are gay families? You yokels must live in a very simplistic black and white world, that here in the reality based community is a million shades of grey. If you are so concerned about marriage traditions, why not just ban divorce? What about Vegas weddings, those are classy? Gay weddings are probably one of the biggest economic stimuli at the moment, they throw a great party! #Love

          • JCP

            He either meant decades (typing fast equals a few mistakes) or adoptions, etc. Now continue!

          • Matt

            There’s this thing called adoption.

          • Geoff

            “Still trying to figure out how homosexual Americans have been having children for centuries.”

            Surely you jest. Or do you believe that only homosexuals can produce more homosexuals? Your knowledge is more ancient than in vitro fertilization.

    • Brendon Williams

      Do you understand what a ‘License’ is?

  • Matt

    Dude you got some anger issues. Loosen your tin foil hat a little bit, I think it’s cutting off the circulation to your tiny little brain!

    • Bill the eighth

      At least he has a brain, which is a whole lot more than can be said for you!

  • invisigoth

    Why is it the right complains about “activist judges” when the law doesn’t go their way. I didn’t hear this crap when Gore v. Bush was decided. Not a peep when Hobby Lobby was allowed to discriminate against women but enforce the 14th Amendment (as in Loving v. Virginia) they go into full butthurt mode.

    Get a grip. Don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a person of the same sex. Everyone deserves equal rights, including LGBT citizens.

    • Doug Taylor

      I totally agree w/
      invisigoth

      . As for you red-neck right wing bastards who oppose Freedom to Mary who you love; GET OVER IT! You lost, being on the wrong side of history once again!
      But my little bigots all is not lost for your legions of hate. You can break out the confederate flags, left over from the KKK CROSS BURNINGS and parades in your poor backwards towns, and go protest the effort to take down the flag of hatred and oppression now flying in front of the South Carolina Capitol.
      B/T/W You’ll be on the wrong side of history one more time!

      • Reb K

        Mr Doug. I am not a redneck nor do i believe the KKK, Five Percenters, Black Panther Party, and UHURU is right. Here is my question to you.

        When homosexuals seem to post about their rights why do they put crosses up as mocking Jesus? As well as advertising that their parades are family oriented when they go down the streets in almost nothing or completely naked?

        Being in the homosexual area for a bit of my life…. why do the butch girls say they hate men yet they strive to look and act tuff and strive to act like a guy? Why does the femme girls say they were not born that way yet they crossed over because woman know what woman want?

        • Geoff

          Never seen a cross put up with any gay pride stuff.

      • Bill the eighth

        You are not aware even aware of the subject at hand. Hint: It has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

    • John Ash

      SCOTUS should absolutely be activist in striking down unconstitutional laws. As it is, they catch many 1 in 100.

      • Bill the eighth

        You are giving them WAY too much credit John Ash!

    • Bill the eighth

      Apparently not hearing crap about anything is your strong suit.

  • Prawn

    This article should be plastered everywhere.

  • mg760

    ??? This is nothing but a circle jerk for reich wingers. Go suck a dick, unless your jaw is too sore from your glory hole marathon afternoon.

    • Bill the eighth

      Wait, yet another imbecile arrives.

      This site is for “Reich wingers” (you think this is clever, it’s not, sophomoric at best), yet it is a libertarian blog. Hmm, apparently you can’t tell the difference between the two, too stupid.

      You seem to “feel” this is a Reich wing site bashing gay marriage, but we are all gay. Hmm, another contradiction. Is it even possible for you to make any sense at all?

      • TomEver

        Anarchists, yes… Completely disconnected from reality.

        • Bill the eighth

          And collectivists aren’t? I am failing to follow your so-called point.

          • TomEver

            Depends on what kind of collectivists you are referring to. Humans are a collectivist animal, and denying the need to form groups (and for those groups to have rules and regulations) is insanity.

            And from human nature is the natural consequence that larger groups will defeat smaller groups, and more coordinated groups will defeat less coordinated groups.

          • Bill the eighth

            You have no frame of reference, this subject is clearly beyond your scope of knowledge.

            One thing I will say, a collectivist in this vernacular is a State worshiping sheep who believes the State comes before the individual. A collectivist believes the State has all the answers and should strictly control what humans are allowed to do, where they can do it and when they can do it. The State controls all and the individual obeys unquestioningly.

          • TomEver

            You are yapping rather loudly about other people’s scope of knowledge, but it turns out you are the one who are pretty much completely ignorant.

            I don’t know anyone who wants the state to strictly control everything, or who unquestioningly obey the state. I have lots of politically active friends who fight for all sorts of changes.

            But your ignorance compels you to believe that there are only absolutes: Either you believe the state controls absolutely everything, or the state doesn’t exist at all.

            People with just a tiny bit of knowledge know it’s a sliding scale. You are living in the insane fantasy world of reality denying anarchists.

          • Bill the eighth

            You mean you don’t know your average liberal or conservative. Very informing.

            Then comes this little gem:

            “I don’t know anyone who wants the state to strictly control everything,
            or who unquestioningly obey the state. I have lots of politically active
            friends who fight for all sorts of changes.”

            Politically “active” friends, who “fight for changes”. Hahahaha, that’s a real knee slapper right there! This statement alone absolutely proves beyond any doubt just how clueless you really are. The system is gaming you and you don;t even know it!!!! Oh man, I cannot get over how stupid you are! Unfortunately, it is clueless wonders like you we have to thank for the state the country is in.

            No, I am afraid it is you that has no knowledge of this subject, other than the propaganda you were fed in publk skool and you think that makes you intelligent. It doesn’t. You completely fail to even attempt to grasp ideas that are outside your comfort zone then make feeble attempts to ridicule people who are clearly much smarter than you. People who have taken the time to investigate other perspectives.

            Your poor education also shows in that you cannot read for comprehension, I never stated anything was absolute and I never said it was an all or nothing proposition, stop putting words in my mouth.

      • mg760

        Well in that case, I certainly see the prescience of my comment and find that I am again ahead of the game. No need to walk back the accuracy and foresight of my comment. In which “sophomoric” must then be replaced by “holy shit, you’re so smart you know things you don’t even know”, thank you very little. Gay libertarians… What is that exactly? Republicans who have completely lost their minds, but not over mythical dogma? Yes, let’s let the psychopaths and sociopaths that comprise the individuals who hide in the shadows of corporations do whatever they want with no regulation. I mean, look at how great that’s working out already………………..

        • Bill the eighth

          I think you have been off your medications. Your post is rambling nonsense. Looks like you answered my question – It clearly is NOT possible for you to make a coherent post.

          • mg760

            I think you’re pissed cuz someone called you out on your bullshit and you’re too weak of mind to defend yourself. Please, feel free to quote some more ayn rand, nothing like using the words of a psychopath to assert yourself.

          • Bill the eighth

            Too weak of mind to defend myself? First of all, I refuse to battle an unarmed (you) opponent. You have not made a post with anything resembling a coherent thought, You are an idiot and you are either high on some strange drugs or you are retarded. There is nothing to reply to, I cannot reply to an empty void’ you simpering fool.

            The only psychopath here is YOU!!!

  • Christopher Bowen

    I don’t care about Gay marriage two sneezes. Really. I abhor the idea of 2 guys getting it on, but I can tolerate that people make their own choices. That said, this idea of rainbow (with a hued filter) coloring people’s cover photos on Facebook IS a politically driven extremely dirty TRICK that someone came up with to DIVIDE and CONTROL regular people. Why am I not offered a kind of hueing to show solidarity against the inside job of 9/11? Or why cannot I get a hue to show solidarity for my disdain for geo-engineering. How about religious groups? Don’t they get special hueing? I am against drone strikes in the middle east. Can’t I have a hue for that? Nope, this is sinister. It’s divide and conquer. Facebook has gone too far with this crap!!

    • TomEver

      Yes, those evil homosexuals again! Aaaarh!

      • Christopher Bowen

        I guess you just post without actually reading what you are responding to. Another reason this country is doomed.

        • TomEver

          It’s divide and conquer! By the homos! With an agenda! Aaaaarrrrggghhh!

          This country? You have no clue what you are talking about.

          • Christopher Bowen

            The only point I was trying to make referred to Facebook. But since you can’t read, you wanna talk about homos.

  • Very interesting article. Roe v Wade was responsible for the rise of the Evangelical Christian Right. I wonder what this ruling will bring forth…

    • Bill the eighth

      Where do you get the idea that Re vs. Wade started the Evangelical Right?

      • I should have said Roe v Wade made the Evangelical Christian Right far, far , far more active & a lot larger as so many were pissed off by it…

        • Bill the eighth

          I can agree with that Jeremy.

  • John Ash

    Sorry, so much bullshit. The laws were discriminatory and needed to be struck down. This was government giving special rights to married people and then blocking others from getting them. It’s a win for freedom because finally conservatives might wake up to the fact other people might want the things that they so gleefully give to themselves at the expense of others.

  • John Ash

    The ironic butt hurt is strong in this article.

  • Jane

    Interesting perspective here. One thing I have to disagree with about his reasoning, though, is his constant statements that one must hate to disagree with a behavior or think it wrong.

  • Tom Heald

    you guys might have more luck in convincing other people to join your cause if you didn’t act like condescending, self-righteous assholes to everyone who wasn’t already on your bandwagon. and yes I call it a bandwagon because so many anti-government people blindly follow anti-government sentiments just as people blindly follow pro-government sentiments.

    • Bill the eighth

      And you don’t know the difference?

      • Tom Heald

        um yeah I know the difference, not sure why you would ask that or how that is even relevant to what I said there

    • DukeCanuck

      Oh look, a tool of the anti-human left wing fanatics. 🙂

      • Tom Heald

        lol. funny that I point out a couple of completely nonpartisan facts and proponents immediately label me whatever is most convenient to their point. hilarious. don’t ever change.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      Just ignore low-brow commenters and mindless bandwagoneers on all sides.

      If you exemplify neither, feel free to offer rational argument responding to the points made in the article.

  • Noel Swartout

    Really GREAT article & really great points… I like how this is written, this is definately going to be shared on my end…

  • phone2000

    good article but Christians do not hate gays that is a myth spun by media..in fact I see gays at church…there are CHristian gays

    • Geoff

      And black Republicans but nobody can really explain why either one exist.

  • Rob Dowdy

    Yeah, the old, “Just be nice to them and let them treat you like shit until they get tired of it and start liking you,” schtick. That worked out SO well for black folks.

  • TomEver

    If a restaurant owner today hates gays, do you imagine he will like them more or less after government bureaucrats threaten him with fines and imprisonment?

    Doesn’t really matter.

    The bigots will perhaps be bigoted for as long as they live, but they don’t live forever. Their bigotry dies with them. Newer generations are likely to be far less bigoted due to the government’s intervention.

    In fact, these bigots going batshit insane over equal rights could well bring even more attention to the issue and thereby create more awareness.

    What’s achieved here is not only recognition of equal rights, but also a contribution to to changing society over time. The government no longer accepting blatant discrimination is a huge step towards real equality, and winning hearts and minds.

    Haters gonna hate. But they’ll die, and their hatred along with them.

  • Mike Flint

    i dont agree with everything presented here, but there are some good points made here nonetheless.

  • Mike Flint

    as a christian, while i am against homosexuality (which is not the same as hating the people who identify as homosexuals, etc.), i would not wish to further any tensions between me and gays beyond what my faith teaches me to speak against. atheists dont seem to realize that a real christian will love someone no matter what, while yet speaking against things they believe are wrong. the true Church will be willing to suffer the persecution that is more than likely on its way, without hating those who bring it.

    • Vitaly Ustinov

      I’m not against homosexuality. Also I’m not against shizophenia , bipolar disorder and other diseases. Taking homosexuality out of DSM doesn’t means it not a pervertion any more, it’s just not “written down”.

    • better12than6

      Well said Mike.

  • Mike Flint

    but i see where he’s coming from at least. and there will be people who are pissed off by being forced to adhere to this ruling and who will retaliate in a number of ways. i only hope it doesnt end up quite as bad as this guy thinks it will.

  • Cristian Zoicas

    Without any intention of expressing my thoughts about gayism, I would like to tell you that the gayism is not “left-wing stuff”. On the contrary. And you can observe that the comunist countries are the ones that are less willing to accept it.

  • NAVORD

    Chris is right about the only outcome that will happen is animosity towards gays will increase if they pursue punishing Christians(take note how they avoid Muslims..), if you look at the Stats in Europe where a lot of governments forced gay marriage and punish freedom of association the crimes against gays have risen SHARPLY..France is a good example where you can go to jail for just saying a gay slur..over there the crime stats sharply increased.

    • Preston Burford

      Please cite an article that shows how muslims have tried to stop the government from allowing gay marriages here in the united states? See the issue isn’t with christianity itself, you are free to be as bigoted as you want, it’s when you think your views based on your religion should legally control others who aren’t part of your religion. So yah, christianity is taking the cake on this one, while muslims who don’t agree with gay marriage are sticking to their own beliefs and not getting gay married while letting others do at they please, simple as that.

      • better12than6

        Nope,it just isn’t being pushed on the Muslims yet… and if they ever dare to push it (forcing mosques to perform homosexual mirages, etc.) heads will roll… literally. They won’t be all ‘turn the other cheeky’ like the Christians.

  • Lisa

    Very sad to see this article. I can’t imagine if I wasn’t able to marry my husband, my best friend, my lover for over 20 years. – It isn’t about sex. It’s about a life with someone and being able to enjoy the benefits of being married. Your outrageous fear is spewing out hate and misguiding people to react horribly! This is a good thing for people. You sound like how people reacted when blacks were no longer segregated or when woman were allowed to vote. Our laws are changing because we the people are changing. We are evolving into a species that will no longer tolerate racism towards color and now gender/sex. America is freedom & equality for ALL not just for whites, blacks, brown,christians, islams, atheists, men or woman but for ALL. Love is generated many different ways. Nothing horrible is going to happen from letting gays marry. What are gays going to do that heterosexual couples haven’t already done to marriage? I know of heterosexual couples who have absolutely abused the sanctity of marriage but I have also seen couples grow more and more in love with each other such as my marriage. Why not allow this same freedom to other couples that love each other whether for a brief moment or a lifetime of bliss? Americans have the right to pursue happiness and freedom. The government isn’t going to come get you. It’s ok… you’re going to be just fine and you’ll be able to go back to your regularly scheduled programming of watching crap on TV. Go out and actually talk to couples of all kinds…. please educate yourself and let go of the fear.

  • jasonlc

    That has to be the stupidest fucking thing I’ve read in weeks.

  • jasonlc

    I wonder how many people in that picture at the top of the page have actually fucked farm animals. It’s obviously something they think about a lot.

    • Mandi Merlenbach

      You should have your brain examined.

  • Emanual Zorg

    Not Cool. A United States Citizen. Home of the Brave, Land of the Free. Tolerant of personal Freedoms. If you don’t like personal lifestyle choices, leave.

  • MuaDib

    All the same vitriol and FUD from the result of the Civil Rights movement. World didn’t end then either.

  • talkhost

    Stone Age………Better read more than a 4th grade history book.
    Tarriffs on Cotton was the South’s reason to SUCEED from the union. Also they wanted all HEMP growers to cease.

  • talkhost

    I think you will all have a convulsion after the DEMS win again in 2016.

  • talkhost

    You ALL want your FREEDOM, as long as it is something YOU want. Then hide behind the Constitution, which is a document written long ago when our country was strictly WASP, and the Population was almost nill. Times, Populations and groups changed over the past 250 years, and the Constitution has been changed along with it by means of Ammendments.

  • GunnaHurt

    well, SOMEONE’s bitter.

  • Mark Regal

    So.. what part of “equal protection of the laws” do you not comprehend?

    If you want to add ” *except for the fags” or ” *except for civil marriage laws” (note: civil marriage=/=holy matrimony), the Founders have provided you with an amendment process. It’s not a judge’s job to insert conditional “*except for..” language into the text of the Constitution.

    The final margin was 5-4, but in total ruling count, judges of all political stripes kicked equality opposition up and down the playing field. Not a coincidence.

    • better12than6

      But you want “except for Christians”… no hypocrisy here, right? 😉

  • GestapoKitteh

    I got to the second paragraph, but there was too much butthurt for me to try to wade through.

    • Philip Haddad

      I understand, I think that line will cause some of the more sensitive folks to stop reading. However, it is worth a thorough read as the shock value fades and it becomes a well reasoned article.
      We need to defend the 10th amendment. Lincoln massively hurt the Bill Or Rights and the Constitution and this ruling severely hurts what is left of it.

  • Alex Summers

    Gay man here.

    My rights aren’t up for a vote, and the supreme court has ensured that.

    If you honestly think legalization of gay marriage is going to wipe out the human population, you are sorely mistaken. If this was just about “fucking people in the ass” any woman can buy a dildo and please her man in that way. (hey, you opened that vile door, you asked for it).

    It’s about being able to commit your life, as an equal, to another person, regardless of their gender. I woke up to a sea of rainbows, and was touched. I wasn’t as alienated as I thought I was. There were people who understood my battle, and rejoice with me on this monumental occasion.

    For once, there is hope that I can love someone without feeling guilt, or as if I needed to hide it from the world.

    Marriages have happened between homosexuals long before the Christian right came along and decided to lay a claim of ownership over the practice. Federally, there was no way I could have a say in my lovers care, finances, etc, without a LOT of extra court procedure.

    And while you enjoyed those little financial perks of marriage without so much as recognizing you had them, I had to struggle for them.

    So no, you haven’t a damn clue what you’re rambling on about. You sound insanely ignorant of the reality of life. Perhaps you should grow up a little, do some actual research and apologize for being an asshole.

    k thx, love ya still. 😉 Hope you have a gay day.

  • Dave Rhodes

    Fucking rednecks.

  • Dee Dee Rivers

    You’re a fairly vile person if you think marriage equality is all about being able to “get fucked in the ass” Some of us actually believe in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and separation of Church and State. I change my profile picture so that my friends who love one another can share all the good and bad things we straight people do, so that I don’t lose anymore friends to AIDS, violence, depression, and suicide.

    If you believe the government is not supposed to be involved in marriage, then don’t file the marriage license, don’t take the tax breaks associated with marriage, and don’t expect to go to court when you get a divorce.

    Perhaps you should step back and take care of your own house full of sins before you worry about people that have nothing to do with you.

  • Dee Dee Rivers

    Never mind my last post. I misread some of it. Blame it on the heat.

  • Bruce Brown

    Id be grateful if someone could enlighten us as to exactly where in the Bible, book, chapter and verse, it specifically define marriage as sole one man and one woman. Not talking about husband an wife because we assign our own genders to those words, but specifically where it defines and restricts marriage. Id also like to know specifically where, like in those red letter Bibles highlighting the exact word of Jesus, that HE speaks about homosexuality. Not in John because it is well known that John wrote in his own voice since he didn’t know, nor had he ever even heard Jesus. John was an Orthodox Jew who very much believed the words of Leviticus. As we all know, no one today follows much thats in Leviticus. So in the red letter words of Jesus himself, tell me where he speaks of it.
    To save you all time, it appears nowhere. He Bible is therefore interpreted by people to suit their own opinions and support there own hatreds and biases.

    • better12than6

      The entire Bible is the words of Jesus, and it says a LOT about homosexuality that you don’t like. Either believe it and follow it, or ignore it. Changing it to fit your opinion isn’t one of the options.

  • Jen Carl

  • toma kay

    Actually your point is interesting. The sheep just don’t get it. They will not only themselves, but all will be anally rammed soon enough. Facebook is a tool. Disguised information gathering hub and mass populous control device. Why it’s free…that’s the hook…unfortunately, billions have fallen into the trap.

  • Antiobamunist

    From this time forward, every time I Iook up and see a Rainbow, I will be reminded that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was sacrificed to create a Right that doesn’t exist.
    The Republic has gone the way of Rome. Ben Franklin knew it would happen at some point, and here we are.

    • Mandi Merlenbach

      The pursuit of happiness is a human right.

  • Antiobamunist

    I really liked that the President that the Idiots Voted for to bring us all together, went out his way Lighting up the People’s House to Celebrate the demise of our Constitutional Liberties. Those Liberal types really love to spike the Ball if they get their way and Riot of they don’t. Offend a major portion of Americans (?), not Obama..
    Imagine if a similar stunt happened after the SCOTUS Dred – Scott decision. I guess they would have Whitewashed the White House.

    • Eric San

      What’s with the capitalization of so many words? Makes for a difficult read. I assume this ought to matter to you, seeing as how you’re supposedly not an idiot.

      And what constitutional liberties are you referring to? The liberty to discriminate? I’m so sorry your freedom just got ripped away from you. #SorryNotSorry

  • Susie Polgreen

    So because there are people who will be intolerant their entire lives, we should continue to deny equality to the victims of intolerance to avoid “backlash?” I wonder where this world would be today if we had taken that approach during racial segregation or women’s suffrage. And did it ever cross your mind that this intolerance may have been fueled by living in a society that denies these rights to other humans and not the other way around? That maybe growing up with the realization that a heterosexual orientation is legally superior could cause some to associate homosexuality as inferior, or wrong? Murder is illegal, and it is wrong. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, and it is wrong. Do you suppose this correlation was often made when homosexual marriage was illegal- that growing up with this mindset may have set the foundation for intolerance? I do, and here’s why- I grew up with 2 lesbian aunts and saw nothing out of the ordinary about their partnership until I started attending school and learned that this was not a universally accepted relationship. I remember the feeling of confusion when I learned that there was actually a time where people were denied rights because of their gender and skin color, and I can’t wait to see the same confusion on my children’s faces upon learning that there was actually a time where people were denied rights because of their sexual orientation.

  • Eric San

    To those who wonder, no, the reason I have a rainbow overlay on my profile picture is not because I’m a sheep following a trend… jumping on a bandwagon. I have been raising my voice in support of gay rights for some time now; my timeline can attest to that. To those who wonder where is my individuality, notice the picture is a selfie. It’s one of only four copies in the world; the others are on my iPhone, in iCloud, and on my home server.

    To those who ask why I don’t support anything else, have another look at my timeline. I am a liberal advocate and donor for numerous issues, including gay rights, animal rights, misandry AND misogyny, climate change, gun control, racial equality, and even frequently overlooked issues such as double standards based on attractiveness. And I don’t dedicate 365 days a year to one cause. It just so happens that a landmark ruling was recently made in the U.S. Supreme Court, and I am taking a few of the 28,000+ days of my life expectancy to commemorate this historic victory. The rainbow is only on my profile pic temporarily. It is not permanent, so you can take a deep breath and relax.

    To those who wonder what the rainbow flag stands for, I believe there are two schools of thought: the common representation is that of diversity. But another is Judy Garland’s performance of “Over the Rainbow,” a song speaking to secret, self image and desires that society would frown upon. People who are attracted to their own sex know that it is not normal, and are afraid this self-righteous world will ostracize or even harm them for their “wickedness.”

    Every living, grown, conscious person on this planet (myself included) has bias in some form or other. Many think they ought to know if they were prejudiced in any way, but it’s not always something so blatantly obvious (e.g. “black people need to be lynched, Mexicans need to be deported, Muslims need to be wiped out before they kill us, natives need to stay in their reservations and off the land of my forefathers, gays need a peotomy, and the poor need to get out of my neighborhood and off my tax dollars!”). Simple stereotypes and even little annoyances may indicate that, deep down, somebody has a problem with a certain group. Irritation with the rainbow overlay might mean nothing but, then again, it might not. Sometimes, people may never know they have a particular prejudice until somebody else points it out to them. And what we don’t know can hurt us or others.

    To those who believe they are justified by religion, enjoy your freedoms to work on the sabbath, play/watch football (skin of a dead pig), tote your guns around, fornicate, remarry, have an affair, and judge. It is not by mere coincidence that “haughty eyes” is the first of seven things that the Bible says are detestable to God. If we stopped worrying about others and started worrying about ourselves, then there would be nothing left for people like me to “troll” about.

    And lastly, to those who think that participants are “useful idiots,” feel free to sit on your hands for the rest of your lives, never lifting a finger if there’s no profit in it for you. Perhaps you feel that “making noise” accomplishes nothing but disturbing the peace, and that silence is “sometimes the best answer.” But I should remind you that the homophobes are not being silent. Had it not been for us, gay marriage would still not be legal nationwide.

    Bottom line: I’m sorry if you don’t appreciate what we’re doing, but I’ll bet there’s at least one gay person in your extended family who does appreciate it. And I’m doing this for them, not for you.

    Hope this answers your questions. Cheers!

    • better12than6

      In other words, you’re a social justice warrior statist busybody, and NOT a libertarian. Why would anyone on this forum care about your moronic opinion?

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        I have to admit this recent flood of mainstream statist views is tedious. Commenters are worlds away from understanding what property rights are and what non-aggression means. Such people don’t have anything to contribute to a meaningful discussion of a libertarian viewpoint on gay marriage. They’re just not equipped to rationally engage the article’s
        arguments. All they can do is reflexively spout emotion-based diatribe, which no one wants to read.

        • Eric San

          “Useful idiots” is diatribe. If you’re going to bash people for failing to contribute, even after a detailed (and relatively restrained) itemization of a liberal’s viewpoint, then I’d suggest you first make sure you’re not putting your foot in your mouth with a double standard.

        • Eric San

          By the way, I might also point out that, out of the four of us, Chris the OP is the only one who found it necessary to use profanity. Is that okay with you and, if so, why? Are you a libertarian as well, and have nothing to say to one of your own? Just curious.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Appreciate the curious inquiry. In my comments I choose to avoid personal attacks or profanity. There are too many crucial ideological matters at hand to become sidetracked by pointless personal offense or strife. I care about ideas, not personalities.

            If you look at my response to Chris below, you’ll notice I sanction his ideas. As a fellow libertarian, I think he is on point. I do critique his style. His approach puts non-libertarians off to what is actually the most peaceful, respectful, minority-empowering, political philosophy known to man.

          • Eric San

            I’m not ignorant to the arguments of libertarianism; I know better.

          • Eric San

            Thank you for clarifying. And for the record, I would love nothing more than peace, respect, and equality. In a perfect world, I would be a libertarian. Yet in a perfect world, the term “libertarian” wouldn’t exist. Neither would “minority,” nor would “empowering,” as everybody would have their livelihood and role in the community, the family.

            Unfortunately, a perfect world is not the place we live in. Everyone is instilled with a hunter-gatherer instinct, such that we always feel insecure, and that we need 10-15% more to get there. People succumb to the temptation of a quick and easy gain, and take advantage of those who are more honest or less aggressive (the strong prey upon the weak). People are raped, killed, and burglarized; and there is no recourse.

            Technological advancement halts, as does regulation of pollutants in the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe (yes, it could be worse than it is already). The disabled can do nothing but starve, unless they have family or somebody else to take pity on them. The private sector had their chance to fix our broken economy when GWB was President, taxes were lower, and regulations were rolled back. And a real bang-up job they did with it! Powerful execs don’t very often reach out to others in tough times; they hoard for themselves and lay more people off. And there are those who want minimum wages even lower than they are now!

            My girlfriend has Behcet’s Syndrome; she’s had arthritis since she was 12 years old. Her 63-year-old mother is stronger than she. And she has to have infusions every two months to suppress her immune system, lest it turn around and attack her. The infusions she’s getting would cost over $9,000 per year without Medicare and Medicaid.

            There was a time when the world had no government. We’ve been there, we’ve tried it, and it didn’t work. Yet libertarians want another go at it. I get it, there are some people in this world who have a problem with authority. But to me, there is a certain sense of satisfaction in being able to succeed while working within the confines of the rules. As I told your fellow libertarian, a flawed system is better than none at all.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Just a quick response to a few points, as I appreciate your clarifying a few of your objections to libertarianism. In the above cases you are focusing on just one element of a system and observing it’s unpleasant. For example, I might object to the notion of having children saying, “The diaper changing is horrendous!” or object to eating healthy by saying, “The cost of fresh vegetables and grass fed meats is outrageous!” without seeing the larger picture.

            Also, a common misconception people have is absent government, there would be no systems. Systems, structure, and cooperative order would arise spontaneously exactly because systems, structure, and cooperative order are so dearly valued by everyone, as you are exactly right to point out.

            Any need, any problem, any painpoint in a free market is solved by that market by profit-seeking entrepreneurs. Each and every one of the objections to freedom you make above and cite the need for a leviathan violent government to address, are needs that would be filled voluntarily and more productively by a free market.

            And no, the world has essentially never enjoyed a time men were free to live absent government when the true incentive structure of freedom along all dimensions was allowed to take hold. A free market is a complex interdependent organic ecosystem of optimally balancing incentives, much like a rainforest.

          • Eric San

            First, how long do you think it would take for systems, structure, and cooperative order to arise, when you’re talking about scrapping the whole system and starting from scratch? Who would run them? And how would they be supported? Would the citizens be taxed, or would they expect us to pay monthly service fees, like we do to utilities? And how would these fees compare to what we pay in taxes?

            Two, what’s the track record of private, profit seekers reaching out to help their communities? I addressed this in my previous response to you; it looks like you skipped that part. Banks cheat people, brokers lose people’s money, and execs lay people off in response to decreased demand. You can’t hire more workers when you’re not profitable. Any time an executive takes a pay cut in order to retain their workers makes the news, because that’s not what everybody else is doing.

            Three, what corporation is large enough to put together a trillion-dollar stimulus to put a paycheck (not a tax return) into people’s pockets and kickstart the economy? Apple, the most valuable company in America, is worth a grand total of $232 billion. Obama’s stimulus package was a few times that big. What can they do to save the economy on their own, when other businesses won’t work with them? Either you have a government, or you don’t. And government is the only body large enough to put paychecks (not just a single tax return) into a million people’s pockets, or mandate a cap on greenhouse gas emissions by such-and-such a time, or raise the minimum wage when a lot of execs want to lower it.

            I told you previously, I’ve heard these arguments before. You don’t think you’re the first libertarian I’ve debated, do you? Your problem is that you’re envisioning a Utopia, where people do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts. I would love to live in such a place, but this is not that place. People are greedy, and often refuse to lift a finger when they don’t see an immediate profit. I’m sorry, but libertarianism is a glorified term for fantasy.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Your many worthy questions are answered with proper attention in the literature I mentioned. I especially entreaty you to read Rothbard who responds to your points with far more brilliance and thoroughness than I can muster in my blog-post-length responses below:

            “…starting from scratch? Who would run them? And how would they be supported?”

            Privatize state assets and end state-imposed dominion over private property. This would allow competing entrepreneurs to flood in to provide all services government currently monopolizes. Entrepreneurs would supply the same services to customers on a voluntary rather than involuntary basis. Citizens would pay fees for services to the extent they wanted them and got value from them. Fees would be dramatically lower and service quality dramatically higher than government services because free, competitive markets always provide better cost, quality, and variety compared to unfree, monopolized markets.

            Your general line of inquiry here is the classic, “But who would build the roads?” objection that libertarians chortle at from its lack of comprehension of market dynamics. This is exemplified by the classic cartoon of one Soviet Russian women standing in an endless bread line saying to another woman, “But if we were in America, who would provide the food?”

            “…what’s the track record of private, profit seekers reaching out to help their communities?… Banks cheat people, brokers lose people’s money, and execs lay people off…”

            Charity would occur on a voluntary basis from the same personal motivations people have today when they vote for governments to give tax dollars to charity, give privately on top of that, and also launch PR-related charity efforts to gain reputational stature. Moreover, charity cases present undervalued, underutilized human assets that smart entrepreneurs would invest in for a share of any upside.

            Banks or brokers cheating would be dealt with as contract violations – fully enforceable by private guarantor agencies requiring bonded/insured contract performance, tracking reputation, and executing people’s own pre-determined adjudication and enforcement arrangements.

            Execs laying off people is akin to breaking up with your boyfriend/girlfriend. One party ending a voluntary association that isn’t working so well anymore so each party can seek out a different association that is more mutually advantageous. In a free economy there would always be 100% employment and healthy demand for skilled labor, so losing a job would not the sort of big deal it is today when government policies create an artificial scarcity of jobs.

            “…what corporation is large enough to…kickstart the economy?”

            The notion of “kickstarting the economy” is a Keynesian Economics concept. It is a false, debunked notion. It does not survive rational scrutiny. You can give printed money away to people who will gladly spend it on things willy nilly creating a temporary illusion of prosperity. But all you do is distort prices and thus market behavior, which implodes when the false bubble unsupported by any actual value creation bursts leaving everyone poorer for the period of misdirected investment and the inflated-away currency value.

            Nothing in the economy can be “kickstarted” in the sense of causing a transaction to happen that would not otherwise happen or not happen of its own accord if it was actually value-producing. In business, either something is a net gain or a net loss. Numbers don’t lie. Either a transaction creates value or it destroys value. If you’ve ever run a business, you understand what I’m talking about.

            “I told you previously, I’ve heard these arguments before. You don’t think you’re the first libertarian I’ve debated, do you?”

            I have no idea except your writing is replete with many common mainstream misconceptions that don’t stand up to calm, rational scrutiny. I can only hope my arguments spark some intellectual curiosity in you to take a second, deeper look into some of the things you are saying. Maybe I haven’t succeeded, but I’d rather make the attempt than just call you bad names. J

            “Your problem is that you’re envisioning a Utopia, where people do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts….People are greedy, and often refuse to lift a finger when they don’t see an immediate profit.”

            Libertarianism assumes while all men are equal in rights, all men are self-interested, all men are ambitious, and all men are driven by incentives. This is not utopian. Strict non-aggression prevails and is viable for humans precisely because of man’s covetous nature, not despite it. Non-aggressive interactions among men are vastly more profitable overall than violent exploitation of some men by other men, as government current embodies.

            On the contrary, it is your notion of a benevolent state that is utopian. You posit some benevolent politicians can be found (voted into office by benevolent majority decision) who do the right thing out of the kindness of their hearts. Your vision requires a benevolent king/president/legislature acting in capacity of benevolent slavemaster who necessarily treats his subjects with love and kindness by ruling over them. Libertarianism rejects such notions outright. The concept of benevolent rule by some men over other men is contrary to human nature, contradictory, and thus inherently impossible. For a fun animation illustrating this, go on youtube and search for “If You Were King” by Larken Rose.

            You adopt mainstream negative associations with the words “profit” and “greed.” Profit and ambition to create a lot of wealth are beautiful and desirable in the context of two parties voluntarily trading goods and services, both gaining in the process. What’s not to celebrate and prefer about voluntary mutual enrichment among men? The more the better, I say. Profit and greed are foul and obnoxious if they are involuntary, i.e. unidirectional and exploitative, which can only happen when one party is empowered by violence immunized from the consequences otherwise accruing to initiators of force, which can only happen via the existence and use of government force.

            If you can wrap your head around that last paragraph, if nothing else, I’d sleep tonight a happy soul.

          • Eric San

            I’m surprised you’re back. Apparently, you’re here for no other reason than a stubborn, primal compulsion to save face, with empty assertions that have zero basis in fact. I’m going to refute one point here, and try to make it as clear as possible; if you try to dispute it, then I’m not wasting any more keystrokes on you, as your mind is irrevocably made up…

            “Entrepreneurs would supply the same services to customers on a voluntary rather than involuntary basis. Citizens would pay fees for services to the extent they wanted them and got value from them. Fees would be dramatically lower and service quality dramatically higher than government services because free, competitive markets always provide better cost, quality, and variety compared to unfree, monopolized markets.”

            When taxes are deducted from your paycheck, a lot of government agencies are getting pennies from you. Are you trying to tell me that private, profit-seeking businesses; receiving service fees on an opt-in basis (meaning they would have a smaller user base than the agencies they would be replacing) could sustain themselves on pennies per user; while also having to pay out of pocket for insurance, utilities, and raw materials from other private, profit-seeking businesses; all the while having to deal with competition taking away a piece of the pie (as well as those who don’t opt in)?

            Government agencies are exempt from competition, taxes, and opt outs from anyone with a paycheck; they can afford to run on pennies per user. If you fail to see the trap you just walked into, then I can’t help you. All the best to you, and I hope you find your Utopia.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “I’m surprised you’re back.”

            Really? I’m a regular on this website. Always ready to discuss ideas.

            “Apparently, you’re here for no other reason than a stubborn, primal compulsion to save face.”

            Nope, I get my self-respect in the real world. And I’m engaging you in response to your inquiries to me. Including your insistence that I respond to your assertions directly rather than refer you to books. I’m quite certain your advocacy of government violence forcing people to associate in ways they do not wish is deeply wrong. I was hoping I might induce you to consider that. Obviously, I failed.

            “if you try to dispute it, then I’m not wasting any more keystrokes on you,”

            This strikes me as emotional bluster and nastiness rather than valid argument and signals to me we indeed lack a shared approach for productively discussing philosophical and political ideas. Best of luck to you.

          • Eric San

            Exactly the response I’d expected. You attempted to engage me in a debate a couple of weeks ago (you, not Murray Rothbard et al.). When you started running out of steam, you tried to drown me in literature so you could back out of your own debate with dignity intact. When I called you out on it, you heaved out your last hurrah with a quote-and-respond technique, containing nothing but frothy, empty assertions and straw man arguments. And in return, you got an exemplificatory, detailed refutation of your argument re: government pricing vs. business pricing, containing comparisons and multiple scenarios for which you must realize that no rebuttal you can possibly muster will ever hold water.

            The main reason why corporations cannot replace government is not that the seeking of profit is inherently evil (a foot-in-mouth argument from your less-experienced opponents), although the desire for profit does lead to corruption, the same problem we have with so many politicians, giving government its bad rep. The issue is twofold: first, one of libertarianism’s central arguments is that businesses are more efficient than government because they are driven by competition, whereas government is monopolistic and anti-competitive, and therefore less driven to innovate, streamline, and reduce rates. This is a fallacy, based on a misconception of the nature of government. As I said previously, government is not motivated by profit. Democrats are most likely to raise taxes for the sake of debt reduction and/or stimulus during a time of need. But taxes can only go so high, before the Democrat gets fired and replaced with a Republican. And besides, our government does not just rely on its own faculties for innovation; they partner with a lot of businesses with expertise in various industries. Second, and most importantly, government is the Walmart of public services; specialists simply cannot compete with them price-wise. Form a single organization that can do everything our government does, and what do you get? Another government.

            I’m sorry if I disappointed you by not deferring further participation in the debate you asked for by running off to read a bunch of books. And I’m sure Murray Rothbard writes very eloquently (as well as the other authors whose works you so admire), with mouth-watering ideals that appeal to your predisposed desire for “something better,” with less authority and less in taxes. But Rothbard is a human being, prone to fallacy and ignorant to tiny, yet crucial, details. And because of this, he has failed to adequately prepare you for a head-to-head debate with a strong opponent. Reality is not on your side. You can circumvent this fact with an individual who doesn’t know any better, but you cannot do it with me. Government cannot solve all of our problems, but government is not the source of our problems… people are. Doing away with government will not do away with corruption and violence. And if you are too impermeable to reason to see this, then you are correct about one thing: you and I cannot productively discuss philosophical and political ideas. Where you’re wrong is in your assertion that I am the reason for this, with my “emotional bluster and nastiness.” A mind is like a parachute; it works best when it is open. All the best to you as well.

          • Eric San

            One more thing, don’t try and assert that the elimination of taxes would offset competition and opt outs; it wouldn’t.

            I love how even libertarian criticisms of government supporters fall flat on their faces. “Who would build the roads?” “Profit = greed?” Of course, private businesses could build roads; they’d just charge more. And I’ve worked phone tech support, having to explain to people how a computer manufacturer cannot offer free support and training on products they don’t produce/sell. You’re throwing cookie-cutter accusations at the wrong person.

          • Eric San

            Also, I told you before that the private sector had a chance to fix the economy during GWB, and show us that they could work voluntarily and “more productively” than the government. And a real bang-up job they did, eh?

          • Eric San

            Also, I told you before that we’re still waiting to see the private sector come together and fix the economy; nobody’s stopping them. During GWB, there was mass deregulation and lower taxes, a great time for businesses to show us that they could work voluntarily and “more productively” than the government. And a real bang-up job they did, eh?

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            My goodness sir, the federal, state, and local governments are stopping them. Rather exhaustively and emphatically. With their legislators, police, judges, and jailors. With their millions, yes millions of pages of taxes, regulations, subsidies, prohibitions, franchises, etc. distorting every productive enterprise in the economy, especially the financial system binding them all. All this machinery drops you squarely into a 8’x6′ prison cell if you don’t conduct your business affairs strictly according to the state’s dictates at every turn. This state of affairs could not ever be confused with a free market.

            Do you think all this oppressive machinery was not operating full force during GWB’s presidency? Do you know how much the federal, state, and local legislative codes expanded during GWB’s tenure? GWB’s reign had nothing to do with private enterprise. His “mass deregulation and lower taxes” was Republican political marketing schtick.

            Libertarians like me mean something very different by term “private sector” than the mainstream media meaning you are employing. The mainstream media definition is whatever an elite group of politically connected corporate cronyists want. For example, Wall Street regulation ensconcing the investment banking cartel at the expense of would-be competitors gets labelled “private sector.” Or NAFTA distorting marketplace conditions in favor of politically connected manufacturers and growers at the expense of all others gets labelled “free trade.”

            The libertarian meaning of “private sector” and “free trade” means without any government involvement in or around a market space. Nada. No distortions imposed via state violence whatsoever. Only voluntary trade among private parties under voluntarily negotiated terms. Governments have almost never allowed such conditions, but in the 1800’s in the U.S. something arguably close to it existed in certain markets for brief periods of time and those produced the most amazing bouts of growth, competition, innovation, productivity, and prosperity the world has ever seen.

          • Eric San

            As it were, I’m not ignorant to the arguments of libertarianism; I know better.

            You might want to Google “what government does for us,” and see how much you’d stand to lose if you ever could do away with the government.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Enlightenment is good and encouraging others to do research makes sense. So I applaud your approach and thank you for the suggestion. However, to put it mildly, I’ve already done quite a bit more than Google search the subject. Specifically, years of reading countless books and articles and thinking through the arguments both for and against government. Like you, I want a world of peace, prosperity, and harmony with my fellow man.

            So I’m afraid I’ll have to turn your suggestion around on you and encourage you to do some reading. Murray Rothbard is incredibly lucid and accessible and relishes demolishing all flavors of specious claims that government does something for us. To start, read his book “For a New Liberty.” Also try David Friedman for practical illustration of society without government, Michael Huemer for philosophical demolition of basis for government, and Larken Rose for common sense moral refutation of government claims to authority.

            If you earnestly follow this line of inquiry without prejudice using your full rational mind, the earth-shattering revelation you may end up with is not only is government from top to bottom impractical, and immoral, but it is a faith-based notion. In reality, all men are equal. None have exemption from morality. None have any basis to claim to wield authority over others. And aggression among men is self-defeating in a society absent government.

            This may seem utopian or radical to you. I sense you could have many objections. They are addressed in the above literature. And if after reading you still have issues with the ideas, I and others would be very happy to respond to them.

          • Eric San

            This response really raised my eyebrows. People are immoral, Coralyn, not just government. Politicians are people, not aliens in human suits. And some of the best-liked people in any group are the “cool” ones, who will occasionally make everyone laugh by putting down the shy, awkward person in the group. Do a Google search for “people swerve to hit turtles,” and see what you find. About 6% of drivers will deliberately hit an animal on the road. Do you think government causes prejudice? If government did not exist, do you think fundamentalist churches would happily accept gays and let them be married? Ignorance causes prejudice. It’s fear of the unknown, paralysis before analysis. And it sounds like you’re blaming that on government.

            Suggesting to me to let go of rational thinking and take a leap of faith does not help your credibility, nor does telling me to go and read a bunch of books on an ideology I’m disinterested in, whose adherents have demonstrated insanity in every interaction I’ve had with them. If you have the answers, then let’s hear them. You’re telling me that you have an idea which would work better than what’s in place now; the burden of proof is on you.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            “If government did not exist, do you think fundamentalist churches would happily accept gays and let them be married?”

            Of course not. Any more than vegetarian restaurant owners would happily accept meat-eaters and serve them BBQ on their premises. Should they be forced to do that by government, in the name of tolerance of meat-eaters?

            What would happen without government is marriage would be respected as a personal matter. There would be many different churches catering to people with incompatible views of what valid marriage is just as there are currently many different restaurants catering to diners with incompatible views of what a good diet is.

            Why do you consider this a bad thing? What’s wrong with peaceful coexistence of diverse values on different properties? What’s wrong with people choosing not to associate or trade with others who hold values they dislike? Or, as you seem to advocate, must all be forced by law to live according to one monolithic set of personal values as determined by the state?

            In a free society all religions, all businesses, all organizations, all homeowners would be free to peacefully include or exclude from their property and dealings whoever they want on any basis they want. They just can’t escape the consequences of what other people peacefully choose to do with their bodies and property in response. A church with extreme views would have few parishioners. A business with unpopular policies would have few customers. Tolerance is thus incentivized without any employment of violence or loss of liberty.

            “Suggesting to me to let go of rational thinking and take a leap of faith does not help your credibility, nor does telling me to go and read a bunch of books on an ideology I’m disinterested in”

            Hmmm, feels not a fair criticism as libertarianism has formidable rational arguments on its side poorly summarized in blog form – thus my referral to the books. Your arguments in favor of government forcing gay marriage recognition are only refuted by such libertarian arguments as you may be disinterested in, such as the primacy of property rights. In any case, not wishing to come off as evasive, I just responded to your points in your other post.

            I will add your suggested books to my reading list. Thanks, the titles sound intriguing.

          • Christopher Cantwell

            Fuck you. Nice rainbow, pussy. Stop spamming your stupid blog in the comments, it’s getting your remarks held for moderation.

          • Eric San

            Um, no. I’m taken, and I don’t swing that way. And this is YOUR stupid blog; your pretentious, dimwitted blog. Go wank YOURSELF while you rent space to me in your head, as well as all the people who just got awarded equal rights, and all who actually give a damn about others. You are beneath the people you’re cursing here. Sorry you’re so angry to see other people happier than you. #SorryNotSorry

          • Eric San

            Thanks for responding to my comments, loser.

      • Eric San

        Moronic? That’s funny, coming from a libertarian. It’s because of opportunistic, every-man-for-himself anarchists like you that government was invented in the first place. Please, don’t even get me started on the fallacy of libertarianism. I have wasted keystrokes I’ll never get back, trying to break it down for untrainable imbeciles like you. Your simple mind will never understand what government does for us, and why a flawed system is better than none at all.

      • Eric San

        Moronic? That’s funny, coming from a libertarian. It’s because of opportunistic, every-man-for-himself anarchists like you that government was invented in the first place. Please, don’t even get me started on the fallacy of libertarianism. I have wasted keystrokes I’ll never get back, trying to break it down for untrainable imbeciles like you. Your simple mind will never understand what government does for us, and why a flawed system is better than none at all.

      • Eric San

        Moronic? That’s funny, coming from a libertarian. It’s because of opportunistic, every-man-for-himself anarchists like you that government was invented in the first place. Please, don’t even get me started on the fallacy of libertarianism. I have wasted keystrokes I’ll never get back, trying to break it down for untrainable imbeciles like you. Your simple mind will never understand what government does for us, and why a flawed system is better than none at all.

        • better12than6

          Yes… moronic. If you’re so against libertarianism, why are you even here? If you are really a genius like you pretend to be, surely you can find something better to do than troll libertarian blogs.

          • Eric San

            Um, because it was on FB. Do you think I came looking for a blog by some pretentious dimwit, cussing out a group of people and slamming those who give a hoot about others? Don’t flatter yourself. And in answer to your question, there are people still on the fence about libertarianism, who can still be reasoned with. I’m sorry that you’re too far gone for it.

  • Steven Graves

    Notes:
    Marriage licenses are not issued by churches.

    Churches have refused to marry countless couples for countless reasons for countless years.

    Lawsuits will be filed against those who refuse to issue licenses in an official capacity via the given State’s vehicle for issuance. That vehicle, ie; Clerk, state agency, etc…will likely also be sued.

    This is the historical, legal road that most fundamental sweeping change in federal law has taken. Compliance is always challenged legally by intentionsl refusal to comply. If I must list some examples ……A women’s right to vote. The abolishment of slavery. The civil rights act??? To name only a few.

    This is the system we have built, the checks and balances which make our country and our system of Government fair and strong.

    Progress is a bitch Chris.

    Let’s face it. You’re not all that bright.

    • Eric San

      Agreed. Some pretentious dimwit we’ve never heard of before comes out of nowhere thinking he’s got it all figured out, and probably won’t realize even after all this that he missed it by a mile… on a public blog.

  • Robyna

    The SCOTUS ruling that permits gays to have spousal survivor benefits via a State recognized marriage, plus other perks of a State recognized marriage, is all this furor is about. It means the discrimination by a parochial religious perspective is not permitted to deny equal rights to a minority group. Government has NO interest in religion or in religious tenets. The high court’s ruling simply removes the discrepancy of unfair treatment accorded to cisgender couples, while denying them to gay couples. That’s it. Are you sure you don’t wish to withdraw your rant, Christopher Cantwell, since it’s nothing more than a partisan diatribe?

  • Kelly Cason

    Homosexuals always had the right to marry? Then so have heterosexuals so why have they gone to get licenses? You are saying that same sex couples should go jump over a broomstick and be happy with it. Why does anybody get married? It is a legal contract with which comes certain securities such as insurance for a spouse, retirement and death benefits. Why would anybody imply or expect that a same sex couple should be fine without those benefits that hetero couples have? This is another sad attempt to support opression. Everybody is equal. For the fine christian shop owners who choose to ignore the example that Christ gave them? Well, I’m sure they can do for the gays,like they did to the blacks. Post signs in their Windows showing their bigotry and hatred for the LGBT. Im sure the LGBT community and their supporters would appreciate it so that we could take our business and our money else where. No problem. We reserve the right to refuse service to LGBT. Easy enough.

  • A Fox Among Wolves

    this article is retarded.

  • gwaltluv

    “The court decided that the constitution, despite lacking any language saying so, promises everybody a “right” to a “license” to marry.”

    -That’s not what it did, it held that any law that denies that right is unconstitutional. That’s your logical fallacy, it didn’t create a new right. it Changed “X” to “not X”, it didn’t change “X” to the “opposite of X”, or change “X” to “Y”. Study up on your logic.

    • CJ

      They always had that right. They just had to marry someone of the opposite sex, like EVERYONE else. It is not the court’s issue if that is not their preference.

  • Liz

    no. i don’t think it makes anyone “look cool”. it’s like dancing in the streets on FB. people are VERY happy.

  • What a hateful little toad you are, Chris. I feel sorry for anyone who has to know you personally.

  • Steve Thompson

    I wish I hadn’t read this. How do you type all this without the weight of the tinfoil hat dragging you down? Your reasoning is equal parts circular and vitriolic. There’s nothing bizarre about the decision – read sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and have a dictionary nearby to check the definition of “equal” as you read it. And please don’t use the phrase “fellow atheists” again because you definitely don’t speak for me or any of my fellow atheists.

  • You say: “You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of
    government power, and the forced revocation of actual rights like
    freedom of association, and you have done so for nothing more than
    someone’s desire to get fucked in the ass.” Yeah, it’s all about takin’ in the butt. That’s what this whole issue is…a desire for anal sex. It has nothing to do with a desire to be treated equally, the desire to enjoy the same social, economic, and legal benefits as heterosexuals. I mean, it’s not like homosexuals have had experiences such as not being able to make medical decisions when their partners end up in the hospital—partners they may have spent decades living with, loving, supporting. Nope…it’s just about the sodomy. And even if that WERE true, in any way, your sophomoric generalization denies the experiences of lesbians—this ruling affects women who want to get married, too, you know. Not to mention all the gay men who don’t even like anal sex.

    You mention left-wing fanatics ‘working overtime to bring mankind to its extinction.’ Well, if as a species we can’t seem to stop producing such huge numbers of monstrous, heterosexists, misogynistic troglodytes like you, I say perhaps extinction is the best that could happen.

  • I like the rainbow filter as a sign of solidarity and celebration – my own and that of any of my friends who used it. This article makes me want to put the rainbow on my profile banner, too. Just because it separates me even more from people who spread their hatred, like the author of this article did. I hope that one day he finds love – preferably with a man.

    • CJ

      What part was hatred? Not once did I read him advocating the harm of homosexuals. Not once. Maybe you need to redefine what you mean by hatred. How about asking those men and women who were killed in that church in NC what hatred is? Oh, that’s right, true hatred killed them.

  • Tyler Hurson

    Good job Chris. From this comments section, it looks like you got a bunch of leftist riled up. Keep it up.

  • Adam Hoisington

    I can only stand reading a handful of these statist/SJW comments, but it seems like they all stopped reading at the, “You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of government power, and the forced revocation of actual rights like freedom of association, and you have done so for nothing more than someone’s desire to get fucked in the ass.” part of this article. How silly they will feel, should they ever decide to read the rest of it.

    • Bill the eighth

      I, for one, am very surprised at the sheer amount of collectivists / statists visiting an anarchist site and then posting insane, ridiculous comments.

  • Chris

    Shorter Confederate flag debate:

    “The Confederacy didn’t fight for slavery! Here, look at all these quotes from the Union Army that prove it!”

    “Um…what about all the quotes from the Confederacy where they say they were fighting for–”

    “LINCOLN WAS A RACIST!!!!”

  • Richard Rosario

    I was cool LONG before the rainbow…jealousy is an ugly emotion…just because the world has turned…

  • Amber

    Whoever wrote this is a fucking idiot who thought too deeply into something so simple. Who are you to say what I’m really doing it for ? I did it to show I support gays, and to think more into it means you’re either against gay marriage or you have to be that one guy that searches for something to rant about. I really dont give a rats ass what the rainbow filter means, but to me it was a harmless way to show Im pro gay.

  • Shawn McBee

    You’re an idiot. The Supreme court ruling is a decision on whether the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, applies to same-sex couples… IE: Whether the 14th amendment guarantees them protection from being singled out in state law and denied the right to marry.
    The decision was that, yes, they are afforded equal protection under the law and therefore, any legislation which strips them of rights afforded to others is unconstitutional.
    So marriage doesn’t need to be explicitly mentioned in the bible to pass this. People were being discriminated against. That is unconstitutional. Period.

    • CJ

      They weren’t denied any rights, as NO ONE had the right to marry the same sex. However, EVERY man and woman of legal age had the right to marry. So not one person had their rights abridged, not were the denied any right that was available to other individuals.

      • Shawn McBee

        Well, this is just the most incorrect thing I’ve ever read. First: they were denied the right to marry the person they loved,which denied them of an additional ~1200 rights that married couples enjoy. That’s tax benefits, inheritance, kinship, emigration rights… It’s a lot.
        Secondly, how do you say “NO ONE” had the right to marry someone of the same sex? People in THIRTY SIX states had the right to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, that was a right denied to the people of the other 14 states. In fact, the case’s main plaintiff was a man who was legally married to a man…. When his husband died, they lived in a state that didn’t recognize their legal marriage from another state, so they would not recognize him as the next of kin for a man he had spent 30 years of his life with.

        And you think there’s nothing unfair going on there? You think no one is being denied rights in that scenario? It’s a good thing a majority of the SCOTUS can see more clearly than you.

        • CJ

          Are you saying a man was incapable of loving a woman simply because he was gay?
          So it’s not about love, it’s about sex, right?
          Secondly, they could solve most of the issues with a legal contract. A power of attorney is very easy to get.

          • Shawn McBee

            Are you saying that, even though you are a heterosexual, you would be able to love and marry someone of the same sex if that’s what was deemed “normal”?

            Secondly, a power of attorney does not replace 1200 rights. As an example, a friend of mine fell in love with a girl from the UK. They were together for eight years, but as they were both women, they could not marry and grant Kelly (the one from the UK) a green card to live here. So they would see each other for no more than 90 days at a time, flying back and forth across the Atlantic at great expense.

            As another example, I have a coworker who is gay and married his husband in California in the brief period before Prop 8 went into effect. But being legally married in California, they were required to file state taxes jointly, while having to file their federal taxes as single, losing all the federal tax benefits afforded to married couples.

            That’s two examples where no contract or power of attorney could have helped.

            Being gay is not a choice any more than being black is a choice. You may disbelieve that statement, but it is true. Because who would CHOOSE a life as a second-class citizen, hated by many, deprived of basic liberties, and often attacked or killed by those who hate your lifestyle? No one would choose that. They live their life by what their heart tells them, and they had to be brave to do so openly.

            The point is, they should not have to engage in complex workarounds to approximate the rights that everyone else around them has naturally. They shouldn’t be asked to share their lives with someone they are wired not to love or be attracted to just because some people don’t understand them, just as you would be unwilling to marry and spend your life with someone of the same sex.

            They are people who deserve to live their lives as freely as we heterosexuals do, to love who they choose and to enter into a legal union of that love with all the rights afforded to anyone else who enters that union.

            And now they can. Liberty, true liberty, has won out. And the arguments made by you and people of your ilk will be looked back on with embarrassment in the fullness of history, just as we look back on the arguments against interracial marriage. There is a line separating the right side of history from the wrong. Why don’t you join me over here on the right side?

          • CJ

            BS, because many, many, many “gay” men were able to marry straight and were very happy. Just like there are men with female-type attributes, there are plenty of females with male-type attributes. When perversion wasn’t celebrated, there was still a choice that was fulfilling and still natural.

            So being gay is a choice just like being straight.

          • Shawn McBee

            Oh? Please do tell me about when you made the decision to be straight.

          • CJ

            Well, I was in third grade. I liked New Kids on the Block, all the girls liked me and hung around me, my favorite colors were hot pink and neon blue, I have a recording of where I sang “Brush Rush” by Paula Abdul, I loved Madonna songs.

            Pretty gay, huh? I even realized that in 3rd grade. Right then and there, I decided to be straight.

          • Shawn McBee

            So, you’ve just told me that you’ve been suppressing your true sexuality for over 20 years. Now I get where your anger comes from.

            I’m sure we’ll all be as surprised when you come out as we were when Lance Bass came out. And you’ll be so glad that the Supreme Court decided that you can marry who you really love so you don’t have to live a lie.

          • CJ

            Nope. How is it suppression? I love the way a vagina smells , tastes, feels. It’s so cleansing and pure. Can’t see why a man would prefer the poop chute…

          • CJ

            Never did I mention sexuality. Notice, I only mentioned things that a 3rd grader would associate with a girl. It had nothing to do with sexuality.
            Now when people say they “knew” they were gay as a young person, they describe things exactly how I describe it. However, a 8-9 year old has no sexuality. So I know people are BSing.

            You asked me about when I chose to be straight, and I told you. I know you didn’t expect an answer, but please quit trying to discount it so you can hold on to the lie you’ve allowed yourself to believe.

          • Shawn McBee

            Homosexuality has nothing to do with liking Madonna. I asked you to tell me about when you decided to be straight, not when you decided to like G.I. Joe.
            Tell you what, I’ll tell you about when I decided to be straight: I didn’t. I never made a decision to be attracted to women, I just always was.
            Now, if your argument is that, as a pre-sexual young boy, you decided that you wanted to be straight, then congratulations: you lucked out in getting what you asked for. But that doesn’t make it a decision. That makes it a wish, which was answered by chance (and the law of averages).
            And, really, how does gay people getting married affect you in any way? Or gay people in general? Because, for me, the only relationship that has any bearing on my life is the one I have with my wife.

          • CJ

            It’s not just me. Do you really think that every single person that has been married and bore children never had a gay thought or feeling.
            You can say that it is more in the open now. You would be correct and you would also destroy your argument. When it wasn’t openly accepted, people conformed and they were just as happy. They stayed with their man or woman until death, which means that it is all choice and it has no bearing on happiness. Let’s not forget that not doing anything is a choice, also. Why does it have to be one or the other?

            How does it affect me? That’s a dump question, as the justice said ” Marriage is the bedrock of our society.” Now, either it is or it isn’t, but if you don’t believe all the divorces in this country isn’t affecting me, (though my parents stayed together.), If you don’t believe all these single parent households aren’t affecting each and every one of us, you are blind. It has affected the way we view our relationships, it has affected our habits. So, very last thing we need is to redefined something that is already in need of repair. No man is an island.

          • Shawn McBee

            Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that a gay man is just as happy marrying a woman and living his life as a lie as he would be living as his true self. And if you actually believe that, you’re way too far gone to continue discussing this with.

  • R Daneel Olivaw

    ” You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of government power”
    No I did not display the rainbow to support the Citizens United decision! Now that was judicial activism and expansion of power for the rich!!
    By the way, you’re a bigot 🙂

  • ensatina1

    And your using FB like all the other Sheep. Baaaaagh……

  • ensatina1

    And you’re utilizing FB just like the rest of the herd…..Baaaaaaagh……

  • domaka

    No one in our country should be made to feel less than another because of their race, religion or sexual orientation. Although you make valid points, my point for displaying my Facebook rainbow profile pic is this. My 20 year old son is a specialist in the Army infantry. He is ready to fight and die for the freedom and rights afforded to every American citizen including gay Americans. If my child is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his countrymen than I, as his mother, need to support and defend any person he would lay down his life for. It’s the least I can do in defense of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

  • Sam Matthews Furina

    Well I thought I would click to see the angle of who was calling us sheep and the first pic I see says it all….a bunch of rednecks, some giving the finger and trying to look tough. FYI I did not choose to rainbow my FB pic cause everyone else did or to make myself cool, I don’t give a toss about that…I am a supporter of love in all it’s forms and always have been. This is not about forcing ‘their’ ways onto any group religious or otherwise. It is obvious you feel very threatened by this. I would rather have my family rainbow pic to represent myself than your offensive gestured, evil eyed pic of you and your misguided clan any day. Thanks for the rant anyhow…blah blah blah. Have a nice day 🙂

  • Marga Costan

    People that continue to bring up an impending “backlash” only have themselves to blame when this is used in the next election campaign. Hope you accept your role in the election of Hillary, Fauxcahaunus, or whoever we get stuck with. Stereotypes exist for a reason I guess.

  • Rivke

    Typical low IQ bigots. Even though FB tell you why they created it you seem to be able to declare that they are lying. LOL!!

    Also FB ALWAYS track what we click and do, you dumbasses. Every click, every upload, every status is tracked and data collected for R & D.

    The ONLY ppl who will say that ppl are sheep for doing it are hateful, evil, bigots, and those who like ISIS, in that they manipulate their religion to suit their agenda for the day all the while picking and choosing what they live by.

  • Jay Bird

    This article saddens me. The writer and his supporters are a tragic reflection of the type of ignorant, uneducated, intolerant and hateful perspectives which keep our society suffering. There is nothing moral or Christian about hate, intolerance and/or exclusionist points of view. It is, in fact, an example of hedonism, selfishness, unjustified, paranoid fear. This is confirmation that the darkest forces of influence over humanity have beaten you and enslaved you to carry out the work of Jesus’s nemesis. From a truly Christian perspective, you are doing the most anti-Christian thing possible. You are helping Satan further erode the strength-potential that humanity needs to defeat his evil agenda. People like you, (the “author” of this article and all others who agree with and support this shameful perspective), are culpable for the types of acts against humanity which lead to the unspeakable terror and destruction which results from spreading this kind of message. You are the type of people who shoot up churches and schools, killing the innocent and destroying communities, as well as individual lives. I could have used opposing vulgar rhetoric and curses to address you, but I won’t. Instead I am using every drop of God’s will I have to peaceably address the fallacy of your philosophy in hopes that you’ll realize your contribution to the destruction of humanity and retract your claws. I’m sure you think you’re making a reasonable statement and rallying like-minded people against an evil in society. But the clear truth is that you’ve been had. The cruelest trick the devil plays is controlling and using people like yourself to do his dark work, while making you think he’s not there. Well I’m telling you, he is there, pulling your strings like a puppeteer, controlling the flacid marionette you have become. It’s like watching a horrific puppet show which plays out as an audience of trapped victims are being systematically mutilated, spiritually and physically, by the claws of the demons that are using you as you execute their brutal massacre. You’re destroying hope, beauty and progress. Open your eyes and heart and realize that you are damning yourself, as well as those you influence, by exacerbating the most destructive agenda we humans must constantly attempt to reject. You’ve been tempted, enslaved by ignorance, and manipulated into the place of evil’s messenger on Earth. Please stop spreading this kind of mindless hate against the rest of us. When we reach the end of life’s journey, we must answer for our sins and transgressions in order to transcend this plane of existence and be worthy of a place in the next. The path you are on right now only leads to pain, regret and inhibited growth which ultimately will trap you in a hellish cycle of stagnation, never to know the bliss of enlightenment. May you be blessed and enlightened before you fail the test which is life as we know it. May you perceive and embrace the simplicity of life’s beauty by learning to love and be loved, rather than spreading hate and securing your place in the purgatorial emptiness of non-evolution.

  • Dorothea Houchin

    I’m soooo confused, they got what they wanted and now they want anyone that doesn’t agree with them to just lap it up with a spoon. Well I’ve not often seen anyone willingly accept something being shoved down their throats when they don’t care for the medicine. I always try to believe in live and let live, but here lately I find others demanding I change to their way of thinking! That may have been me, a sheep, years ago now I have had enough. You live your lives anyway you want just don’t enfringe on me or mine! I would never dream of trying to change you. Your creator, and we all have one in one form or another, made you the way you are and me the way I am. I won’t try to change you and leave me the hell alone. Good fortune to you all straight, gay or green

  • Sam Cru

    “…the abhorrent nature of a government forcing a religious institution to
    do something that is against its faith is almost too obvious to mention.”

    The government is a religion, and religions don’t like competition.

  • Suz

    So because there are people who will be intolerant their entire lives, we should continue to deny equality to the victims of intolerance to avoid “backlash?” I wonder where this world would be today if we had taken that approach during racial segregation or women’s suffrage. And did it ever cross your mind that this intolerance may have been fueled by living in a society that denies these rights to other humans and not the other way around? That maybe growing up with the realization that a heterosexual orientation is legally superior could cause some to associate homosexuality as inferior, or wrong? Murder is illegal, and it is wrong. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, and it is wrong. Do you suppose this correlation was often made when homosexual marriage was illegal- that growing up with this mindset may have set the foundation for intolerance? I do, and here’s why- I grew up with 2 lesbian aunts and saw nothing out of the ordinary about their partnership until I started attending school and learned that this was not a universally accepted relationship. I remember the feeling of confusion when I learned that there was actually a time where people were denied rights because of their gender and skin color, and I can’t wait to see the same confusion on my children’s faces upon learning that there was actually a time where people were denied rights because of their sexual orientation.

  • Jay Russell

    What an utter moron. There’s some serious self loathing going on there.

  • ken spitzer

    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • ken spitzer

    That you didn’t discuss the actual constitutional argument that was used, I have to assume you are either too dim to understand it or too bigoted to care.

  • Richard Chiu

    It is true that the homosexual agenda isn’t about homosexual behavior or orientation as such.

    The homosexual agenda is a maskirovka for advancing Cultural Marxism, which is basically the set of propositions tied together by denial of the reality that different actions have different consequences, and that individuals who choose actions with undesirable consequences do not therefore have a ‘right’ to demand that those who have chosen actions with desirable consequences ‘trade places’ with them.

    The most obvious form of Cultural Marxism is doctrinaire Marxist Revolution, in which those who have chosen actions leading to poverty demand to switch places with those who have chosen actions leading to material abundance. “Same-sex marriage” is a form of Cultural Marxism in which those who have chosen actions which lead to sterility, disease, emotional distress, confusion, and anguish demand to trade places with those who have engaged in actions leading to fecundity, health, fulfillment, certainty, and love.

    But, just as it is impossible that the tiny minority of those who seek to find exclusive fulfillment in sodomy to have imposed ‘same-sex marriage’ on their own without the coalition of other Marxists, it is likewise impossible for this agenda to have been imposed without the groundwork laid by the success of all the other Marxist claims to the right of those who have chosen actions with undesirable consequences to displace those who have chosen actions with desirable consequences.

    By failing to note how the homosexual agenda follows on and logically dovetails with all the other impositions of Cultural Marxism, you fail to place the issue in a useful context for why libertarians must oppose it. Just because something is accomplished by a massive overreach of Judicial authority doesn’t, of itself, make it hostile to the interests of libertarians. After all, if tomorrow the court were to decide that the entire Federal government were unconstitutional and illegitimate (which would not be judicial overreach), and that therefore the Constitution itself along with the State governments were inherently invalidated (which would be overreach, no matter how much a libertarian might agree), I imagine that you wouldn’t be complaining about it.

    I could be wrong.

    Still, it is important to see the ‘homosexual’ agenda in its true context, as just another demand that those who have made choices contrary to the results they desire be entitled to ‘share’ the wealth gained by those who made radically different choices.

  • Murray Roodbaard

    Rainbow people… So cute; so childish. Only thing missing is My Little Pony.

  • Humatuses

    Oh vey oh vey, how can they lower yourself to this, pitiful pitiful person, did your mum beat you and your father….. yeah you know the rest, only heavy damaged persons are this disrupted in their brain. To bad they banned lobotomy.

  • Wesley Quigg

    Even atheists worship a ‘god’ be it themselves, money, possessions or something else. Us Christians at the very least have a promise of eternal life. If atheism isn’t a religion then why fight for equal protection under the 1st amendment?

  • Yup, exactly.

    Abolish government-sanctioned marriage should be the goal of everyone who wants real equality. Otherwise it comes down to requiring a license and thus not a right. Anyone that thinks this SCOTUS decision was a win is a supporter for tyranny, both of the left-wing and right-wing variants.

  • pyrophilia

    I hate it when they try to be clever about it: In response to conservative Christians who want to claim that they are not trying to deny anyone their rights because Gay people have the Same Freedom to marry a member of the opposite Sex as Everyone else does and so their rights are not being denied and that’s freedom, Fine, if that’s freedom Christians can worship at the mosque of their choice because that’s freedom.

    perfectly fair analogy.

  • Nicholai Chofski

    I have an important public service announcement for everyone who changed their Facebook and other profile photos to a rainbow recently. Absent some massive desire for more color in your life –(Most profile pics already contain all colors of the rainbow, so adding a rainbow overlay is not adding more color)–, you probably did this to celebrate the United States Supreme Court magically creating a constitutional “right” to a marriage license for gay people. Didn’t you? –(I support the decision, but no i did not add the overlay)–

    I suppose you think this makes you quite tolerant, and forward thinking, but it doesn’t. I imagine you think you’re advancing freedom, but you’re not. You probably feel really good about yourself for helping gay people gain acceptance in society, but that’s not even remotely close to what you’re actually doing. –(No, all this does is allow most people to say “I agree with this decision.” adding that rainbow to your pic doesnt make you tolerant, forward thinking or even advance equality. Even a hateful person such as yourself could do it just for the hell of it. Doesnt mean you are a good person)–

    By making this display, you have done nothing but tell the world that you are a useful idiot–(So, average facebook user?)–. You have made yourself the tool of the anti-human left wing fanatics who are working overtime to bring mankind to his extinction–(While right wing fanatics want to kill everyone they dont agree with)–. You are displaying support for judicial activism, expansion of government power, and the forced revocation of actual rights like freedom of association–(Please explain how requiring the County Clerks to give a piece of paper to a gay couple going to expand the government, revoke actual rights and freedom of association?)–, and you have done so for nothing more than someone’s desire to get fucked in the ass. –(Sorry to inform you, but lesbians dont get fucked in the ass, and many gay couples dont even have sex)–

    Were the court to strike down marriage licenses as an interference with contracts, I would celebrate with you. –(You would probably still find a new reason to bitch about it)– Were a legislature to repeal all laws pertaining to marriage, I would join your parade –(even gay pride?)–. Despite what these despots would have you believe, an opposition to government involving itself in more people’s sex lives is not an indicator that one hates gay people –(No, but telling one group of people they cant have the same rights as another, kinda is)–. I am entirely uninterested in the sex lives of complete strangers, and I think the government should hold the same position –(How does the government giving a marriage license involve them in a couple sex lives? I dont remember having to give those details when i got married)–. Any person or group should be able to enter into any contract they see fit, and call it anything they want –(Still can)–. Any person or group should be able to do whatever they want sexually without fear of government violence –(Still can)–. Were the court to recognize these obvious truths, this would be a cause for celebration, but that’s not what they did.

    The court decided that the constitution, despite lacking any language saying so –(or saying against)–, promises everybody a “right” to a “license” to marry. That statement on its face should set your reason thermometer to absolute zero from the start. –(No, it really doesnt)–

    Firstly, a “license” is an indicator that you do not have a “right” to do something. Licenses are a thing government issues, specifically to prevent someone from doing something, until they get government permission to so do –(You can still put a ring on someones finger, have a ceremony, reception, live with that person for the rest of your life, do whatever the hell you want. The license you get just registers you and your wife/partner with the government so you can benefit from what the government offers to married couples)–. They are, by their very definition, a constriction on rights, a limiter of freedom –(Including gay couples is not limiting freedom, unless by freedom, you mean only for certain people and not others)–. To license a thing is to outlaw it, and to then grant one permission to break that law –(Name someone who has gone to prison for not getting a marriage license?)–. To say that you are fighting for gay “rights” by seeking to have licenses issued to them, is not just a complete failure to understand rights, it is a complete failure to understand rudimentary English. –(You mean your rudimentary english)–

    Secondly, while I don’t have much use for constitutions these days –(you seem to talk about it like you do)– , if a government is going to exist, it helps if it has some basic rules to follow. Despite the bizarre reasoning the court used to justify its decision, there is nothing in the US constitution which defines, mentions, or guarantees marriages. Absent an amendment, marriage is a thing the Federal Government has no role in whatsoever –(Except for all those pesky benefits you get for being married. Sheesh, government)–. So to the extent any government entity is to be involved, it is a matter for state and local governments to handle –(Local governments don’t handle all marriage benefits)–.

    If the Supreme Court has any purpose to interfere with state and local laws, it is to strike down laws which are in contradiction to the constitution. This cannot be said of state marriage laws, since marriage appears nowhere in the constitution. The court has allowed ever greater restrictions on guns, and ever lessening restrictions on searches and seizures, even though striking down such encroachments on freedom would actually expand liberty and suit their purported purpose. So why the sudden concern for the wellbeing of gay people? –(Because if they were to rule against gay marriage, then it would clearly be seen as the government taking sides with the church)–

    The answer is quite simple. To expand federal authority, centralize power, and give the left a win that they would never be able to accomplish through elections –(We would have won if there were a vote too. Sorry but your wing is losing an uphill battle. You may get more vocal about it, but you are still losing)–. While portrayed as being a lessening of restrictions on gay people, it is an increase in the power of the court and of the federal government, which could just as easily be used to federally ban homosexuality entirely. –(For being an ‘anarchist’ you sure seem to care a lot about the government. What are you? One of those ‘Sovereign Citizens’?)–

    Perhaps the most important problem we will now be facing, is the anti-discrimination lawsuits that are soon to follow, and we can expect it to go well beyond cakes, flowers, and wedding halls. What we’re inevitably going to see in the near future, is discrimination suits against churches. Soon, the “right” to “gay marriage” will be pitted against the freedoms of religion and association in court. –(No idea where you people get these ideas. A gay couple will 99% of the time already go to a church that accepts them. They will probably also get married at that church. They arent going to just pick some random podunk church that preaches hate and discrimination. They are gay, not dumb and ignorant like most of the people throwing a hissy fit. Yes, there will probably be some lawsuits but less than any other discrimination suit due to race or gender)–

    Now, plenty of people have addressed this part, and the abhorrent nature of a government forcing a religious institution to do something that is against its faith is almost too obvious to mention –(The government isnt sending out military to force churches to cater to gay couples. Nowhere did this court decision implement any sort of forced acceptance, it just said gay couples could get a damn piece of paper)–. So instead I’m going to take a different angle so often overlooked by gay activists and my fellow atheists. The religious conservative activism that is certain to follow any such challenge. Far from forcing society to accept homosexuality, this is going to compel a backlash which will see more hate and hostilities towards homosexuals than at any time in recent history, and that tension will result in political changes that do not favor gays. –(No, no and no.. Some politicians may dig their heels in and get more fierce about their opinion, but over the next few years, there will be less and less of them. They only reason politicians argue about it now is it solidifies their position with thier constituants and increases their chance of winning the next election. Most of them probably dont even give a shit)–

    As I mentioned in my piece about Indiana’s “religious freedom” law;

    If a restaurant owner today hates gays, do you imagine he will like them more or less after government bureaucrats threaten him with fines and imprisonment? You might well land somebody a job, or get someone a lunch with such a policy, but you’ll certainly not solve the underlying problem of ignorance and irrationality. You have only escalated the conflict from an interpersonal one to a political one.–(85% of the populus are pretty decent at ‘dealing with it’. The other 15% will find some new thing to bitch about after this all blows over)–

    For a religious man to hate gays because he thinks his god told him to is irrational. For a religious man to hate gays because they are his political rivals and oppressors makes perfect sense, and is more difficult to argue with. The nature of political battles in America being partisan, it represents an even bigger problem. Not only do gays force him to do business with them –(Same thing was said about African Americans and the world didnt explode)–, but they elect Democrats to do so, and they then raise his taxes, confiscate his weapons, and force other costly regulations down his throat. His religious bias now has real world backing behind it. “The gays did this” is seared into his mind, and he’s not wrong about that. –(Aside from you not mentioning any violent reaction, this hypothetical extremist sounding person you talk about sounds very much like Dylan Roof. I dont know about you but those arent the kinds of people we want anyway)–

    Far from correcting his behavior and encouraging him to abandon his irrationality, he is given political support from people who don’t much care for his beliefs, but see the government as the bigger problem. He is courted by politicians who feed off of his biases, promising to overturn or repeal the law that is forcing him if elected. He becomes politically active where he might not have been before, and his biases are thus imprinted on the political figures he helps to elect.–(Its practically impossible to convince someone to change their opinion, so most people use that person as a tool to further their career. They will blow it further out of proportion than it would have been normally and not give a shit about the person they used)–

    Since politicians are democratically elected, and most Americans still identify as members of some religious group, atheists really ought to be careful about stirring religious folks to political action. There is next to nothing left of the constitution these days, and a theocratic government is really just 50.01% of the vote away from becoming a reality in America. The same political process that bans discrimination, could just as easily make homosexuality a capital offense punishable by death. The same goes for heresy, ethnic cleansing, or any number of policies we all like to think we’re beyond these days.

    A dignified atheist should reject the irrationality of State power the same way they reject the irrationality of religion, but with the added incentive of opposition to violence.–(Athiest is not equal to anarchist.. A dignified athiest is will not give a shit about religion, but they still accept the fact they live in this government. I think you have a weird perspective on what an athiest is)–

    If you think that backlash had potential for disaster when we were talking about bakeries and florists, just you wait and see what happens when it kicks down the doors to the house of worship.–(it wont, but you just go ahead and keep spreading the same word the hardcore religious people are spreading)–

    –For a supposed athiest/anarchist, you sure as fuck seem to care a lot about religion and governemnt..–

  • jeff4justice

    The inconsistencies in outrage here are amusing. So statism makes life a
    little easier for gays for once. Why would you indulge in fake
    victimization about “states rights” when “states rights” are just
    another form of statism?

    Also every individual has a duty to preserve their life first and
    foremost before allegiance to any ideologies. If lawsuits arise against
    churches who receive federal funding and also get bs tax exemptions
    while receiving tax payer funded services, I certainly won’t empathize.
    And please don’t act like religion does not mandate aggression.

  • Chris Nandor

    ‘The court decided that the constitution, despite lacking any language saying so, promises everybody a “right” to a “license” to marry.’

    If that’s true, then please explain how every state in the union puts limitations on unmarried consenting adults being married, and the Supreme Court did nothing to overturn this (despite it being mentioned in the case)?

    I am speaking, of course, of incest. There is no “marriage equality” anywhere in the U.S., because two gay brothers cannot marry each other, or a brother and sister, or father and daughter. Yes, it’s gross. But the homosexuality debate has taught us that the “ew” factor is not sufficient reason to disallow the union, and that marriage rights do not need to be linked to procreation.

    So anyway … the court did not decide that everyone has a right to a license to marry. It is still restricted. “Marriage equality” is a big fat lie.

  • Larry Jones

    hello am Larry Jones, just out here to spread the good news that just happened in my life few days back, i almost lost my life when my gay partner left me few days back after some argument over charting on him, i tried to make him understand that i was not, yet he got me wrong and left saying some words that really break my heart i have been in pain for few days now till i saw a post of one Rodgers on how this great spell caster brought back his ex with spell, i believed him at once because my dad always talk to me about the powers in spell, so i contacted this great man of Dr Blessing the man that brought me joy after some days of sleepless night on his email [email protected] and i explain my problems to him, he only requested for some of my details with i sent to him and said that my partner still love’s me, just only hurt that i charted on him, and he said he will never come back because he is getting over me with another guy some where, that all that needs to be done is just to cast a love spell on him to remember him of our goods times together and never to be able to live with me, he ask of some items with i provided, to my surprise Wilson just called after some hours he castes the spell telling me that he loves me so much that i should never hurt him again, i just discovered that life is so simple with spell, am living happily with Wilson now and we getting married soon, life is too short to be lived in pain so Dr blessing make me understand contact Dr blessing now on his email [email protected] to get all your heart desired solved.

    • PongGod

      So you “charted” on him or “sharted” on him? If the latter, he’ll never come back.