21 Comments Add your own

• 1. John Foust  |  February 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  

  Elliot, what a short and sweet explanation of the religious right!

• 2. BobG  |  February 7th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  

  I’d have to say it describes both extremes of the right and the left, which is why I belong to no political parties. I do run into more problems with the left side of politics trying to run my life than from the right side though, and I live in a fairly conservative state.

• 3. JJ  |  February 7th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  

  I made this argument with Scott on a different thread, but the only personal liberties that I have ever had taken from me or restricted were from the liberals and the nanny-state. My favorite – when I was told my 5-year-old wasn’t allowed into the hot tub at the indoor water park to warm up because of the new WI State Law indicating that no kids under 6 could go in.

  Rights and Liberties taken from me from evangelicals? None.

  So which side has the real boogy-man and which side is just blowing smoke to try to shut the other side up?

• 4. charliesaurus  |  February 7th, 2009 at 8:09 pm

  

  The religious right?! Please — examples?

  I can think of plenty from the left side… plenty.

  Government enacted dictation from the right?

  Not saying there aren’t any… but I’m having a pretty hard time thinking of any.

  TY!

• 5. capper  |  February 8th, 2009 at 1:48 am

  

  I agree with Bob that it comes from both extremes. The biggest difference, I think, is that the right tend to pick on minorities a lot more, and in more devastating fashions. Prime example would be all of the legalized discrimination laws, like Prop 8.

• 6. Billiam  |  February 8th, 2009 at 5:57 am

  

  Ah, yes. The new push is that the right is racist. Old lie in a new package.

• 7. JJ  |  February 8th, 2009 at 8:32 am

  

  Prop 8 is nowhere near legalized discrimination.

  Segment society into so many parts that everyone except white males, conservative women, or conservative blacks are considered a “minority” and must be protected from the tyranny of the only three non-protected classes listed above – which are, in fact, also minorities based on numbers.

  Let us also not forget that certain minority protected classes like blacks and hispanics had majority votes for Prop 8. Both groups whom traditionally vote with the liberals. Why are the Prop 8 guys picketing those churches and threatening and boycotting those business?

  The only part of “marriage” that the gay community doesn’t have wide access or acceptance to is the religious part. Although there are a few churches or ministers that will perform commitment ceremonies. Every other red herring like hospital visits or transfer of property can all be remedied through regular means like powers of attorney, trusts and wills – the same as for hetero couples that just want to live together.

  But the gay community would rather try and force the religious community to renounce their faith. Which is, in effect, another form of discrimination. When they do that, they shouldn’t whine when there is a backlash.

• 8. Fuzz Martin  |  February 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am

  

  I agree with Bob that it comes from both extremes. The biggest difference, I think, is that the right tend to pick on minorities a lot more, and in more devastating fashions. Prime example would be all of the legalized discrimination laws, like Prop 8.

  Yeah! And the Jim Crow laws!!!!!!

  Oops… nope… those were democrats. Someone’s been watching too much TV. *cough *cough *capper ;)

• 9. BobG  |  February 8th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

  

  “Let us also not forget that certain minority protected classes like blacks and hispanics had majority votes for Prop 8. Both groups whom traditionally vote with the liberals.”

  Very true; I know a lot of Hispanic people (they are a large segment of the population where I live), and all of them were against Prop 8. You have to remember that the majority of Hispanic people are raised Catholic, but tend vote to the left on everything else.

• 10. charliesaurus  |  February 8th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

  

  Here in WI – the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage won with an 80% majority vote. I think it’s pretty clear by now that we’re a majority Dem state – so what happened there?

• 11. capper  |  February 8th, 2009 at 11:04 pm

  

  No one is trying to make the religious community renounce their faith, unless your faith means you have to suppress other people’s lifestyles.

  As for the popularity of these bills, just remember, Prohibition was wildly popular when it passed too.

• 12. Billiam  |  February 9th, 2009 at 9:35 am

  

  Capper, no one suppressed thneir lifestyle! The state can give them all the rights that married heterosexual couples have. Also, a will as well as power of attorney can give many of the same things that hetero’s have. Just leave that little word out of it. It’s not the samer. I know, how intolerant of me. Screw that!

• 13. Wonder Woman  |  February 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  

  Billiam you mentioned “push”… and then again I was lost… mind wandered… wow, my ADD is serious today!

• 14. capper  |  February 9th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

  

  Bill, you know you are my brother, but you are also wrong. The state did not give them the same rights. If my wife was in the hospital, and was incapacitated, I could make the decisions without Power of Attorney documents (although we do have them to be safe). Or if we had adopted a child, and something happened to me, I know that the bio family couldn’t come and rip the child away from Linda.

  The gays, even in California, didn’t have those rights.

• 15. Elliot  |  February 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am

  

  I voted against the ban in Wisconsin. I’m squeamish about calling gay marriage “marriage,” but I’m also uncomfortable with have second class citizens.

• 16. Billiam  |  February 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am

  

  Capper, read it again, my friend. I said the state CAN give them the same rights. Most people I know, while they may disagree with the state doing so, would not raise a huge fuss were a state to do that. Just don’t call it marriage, as it’s not.

• 17. capper  |  February 11th, 2009 at 1:36 am

  

  I have an issue about the semantics myself. Under the same arguments that the anti-gay marriage people use, would also put my marriage into question of legality.

  They argue about procreation and being sanctified by marriage. My wife and I cannot have children, and we were married in a civil ceremony. Does that mean our marriage is a sham too? Hell no! And the same goes for gay marriages.

  It’s only a frickin’ word, but it is a big one.

• 18. Billiam  |  February 11th, 2009 at 5:36 am

  

  No sir. You can’t heve children because of a medical reason. Men cannot have children with men, just as women can’t with women. Of course, thanks to man’s perverted tinkering, now any woman can have a child without a man, though a man is still needed, as an outside additive, so to speak. Naturally, it can’t happen.

• 19. Wonder Woman  |  February 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  

  Get a room you two…

  Heh.

• 20. Billiam  |  February 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  

  WW, Capper and I enjoy these debates. We really ARE friends.. :-)

• 21. capper  |  February 13th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  

  I second that.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.