The Right Marriage Question

Andrew Sullivan's Dissent of the Day questions this observation from Judge Walker:

"Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage."

This is (the writer argues) nonsense, since there were no such eras, unless you are talking about all of recorded history up to the late 20th Century.

That's true, but it misses the point. Here is the more salient conclusion from the opinion:

"The evidence did not show any historical purpose for
 excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never 
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
 order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an
 artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct
 roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed."

The proponents of Prop. 8 want to focus exclusively on justifying heterosexual marriage, but the court was being asked to decide something else. Heterosexual marriage is not at issue in this case. It will continue with or without a decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, or any other case. No one is challenging heterosexual marriage.

The relevant question is this: Are there reasons, historically or in the present, to exclude same-sex couples from marriage? That is both a different question from the one most people are accustomed to asking, and a vital one for the constitutional analysis of the issue lesbians and gay men are facing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held, very explicitly, that the constitution recognizes a fundamental right to marry. But that can be viewed in at least two ways. First, it could mean the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That would be a right that only heterosexuals could exercise meaningfully. "Fundamental" in the constitutional sense, means that the government cannot interfere with the right's exercise except for the most compelling reasons. If the right is exclusive to heterosexuals (because it is not just "the right to marry," but "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex") then voters or legislatures can exclude homosexuals from exercising the right.

But it can also be viewed as the courts have actually stated it: a fundamental right to marry. Period. The question is whether the phrase, "someone of the opposite sex" is inherently included in the right.

That was what Judge Walker's opinion was examining. Marriage between heterosexuals has been taken for granted for all of recorded history, not because anyone ever made a decision to exclude homosexuals, but because no homosexuals had the visibility or political strength or will to even try. It was not until the late 20th Century when lesbians and gay men were able to become visible and politically active enough to challenge even laws that made them criminals -- the obvious first priority. And that task is accomplished.

Now is the time to ask the marriage question -- but it needs to be the right question. The anti-marriage forces have been enormously successful in keeping the focus on heterosexuals, and off of homosexuals. The political battles over same-sex marriages are battles focusing on heterosexual grievance, anxiety and privilege. Homosexuals do not play any role onstage in the fight against same-sex marriage. The Prop. 8 campaign was a classic example of an argument of, by and for heterosexuals.

Political battles can be over anything, or nothing. That is the nature of politics. But when it comes to some rare things that are important enough to be set out in our collective aspirations, known as the Constitution, real and substantial justifications are required along with a vote. Fundamental rights cannot be taken away by majority vote. And the equal protection of the law, by definition, cannot be abridged by a majority of any size.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the first opportunity in a federal court for exploring and answering that kind of question. No one is asking whether heterosexuals have to defend their marriages. They don't. The question - the only question - is whether there are reasons to exclude homosexuals from that vital and deeply human institution.

Opponents of same-sex marriage had every opportunity to offer any such reasons. And any one would have done. But in the end, they continued their pathological focus only on themselves, and failed to answer the question they were being asked.

45 Comments for “The Right Marriage Question”

  1. posted by BobN on

    Sullivan’s dissenter constructs a straw man. The sentence does not mean what the dissenter thinks it means. I’m sort of surprised the Sullivan falls for it and supports the deception.

    Passing requirements — that spouses be of the same race, that women be virgins, that men be fertile, etc. — cannot be “integral” to marriage because that’s not what “integral” means. The only integral aspect of marriage is that it is how humans form, or include others in, family. Binary, polyandrous, polygynous, plural, sexually faithful, sexually open, asexual, whatever, at the core is union and nothing else.

    I wish we’d listen more to the anthropologists. They, not priests, are the experts on this. And they, unlike the dissenter and even Mr. Link, can document that even same-sex marriages have existed and not just in the last few years. Why, when we’re talking about human institutions, we so blithely surrender the entire experience of human history to our foes mystifies me.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Well!

    Very close to what I was thinking. The NYS Court of Appeals decision stands as a strong and persuasive denial. This decision stands as a strong and persuasive affirmation. The decisions make completely different assumptions, starting from two completely differing laws. In one case, the marriage law is a hundred years old, and was found to be “rationally related” to a legitimate state interest in promoting stable families, considering that only straight sex can produce children by accident. This law was about heterosexuals. Another law was a reactionary measure born in prejudice and heterosexism, clearly designed to attack gay couples, who were found to need special protection, whose marriages were found to be completely equal to straight marriages given the evolving roles of gender in society and marriage, and that law was found to have no rational basis toward any state objective. This law was about homosexuals.

    The effect of both marriage laws is the same. Either the state has a legitimate interest in favoring straight couples or it doesn’t. Either we are entitled to the strongest safeguards of our equal protection rights, or we are not. It does not matter how the law was written or why, what matters is the effect it has on us.

  3. posted by Regan DuCasse on

    I was reading through the judges decision. (Whew!)

    I love reading legal transcripts. I’ve been following this case with them and watched the previous trials.

    The evidence brought to the courts by the couples suing against 8, was all the research and statistical information, and there are precedents in several countries and three states here in the US.

    This isn’t a theory anymore. The opposition complained that the integrity of marriage is damaged by gay couples marrying. And they complained that their rights are taken away by not being able to vote, or uphold 8.

    The thing is, there is no evidence that any of that happened. And no evidence that Prop. 8 protected anything at all.

    And the integrity of the Constitution was compromised, something that REALLY should never happen.

    It isn’t in the state’s interest to discriminate because gay people have the same responsibilities and needs as other people.

    I’ve said all along that it seemed gross that in a country where marriages, spouses and children are abandoned and there isn’t anything the courts or legislation can do to prevent that, it’s unreasonable to KEEP people who ARE committing and taking responsibility for a significant other and their children from doing so.

    Why WOULD the state keep someone from being self reliant?

    Judge Walker set up and excellent template for other courts to work from.

    It is a work book so to speak that, chapter and verse, thoroughly covered the FACTS and EVIDENCE.

    That the opposition had none, and are now crying bias and unfair, is so much sour grapes.

    They HAD their chance and didn’t deliver.

    Always interesting seeing how the laws are applied.

  4. posted by Throbert McGee on

    Off-topic, but probably of interest to some:

    Ann Coulter (yes, that one) will be a featured speaker at the GOProud-sponsored ”Homocon 2010” event on 25 September in NYC.

  5. posted by Throbert McGee on

    Oops, my bad — that link goes to an old Gahan Wilson cartoon that I had just shared with someone on FB. Talk about Freudian slips!

    Here’s the correct GOProud-Homocon URL with the Ann Coulter graphic.

    Anyway, seems like shrewd publicity both for Coulter and GOProud — though at $250 for general admission, I wouldn’t be attending even if I lived in NYC.

  6. posted by Bobby on

    I would love to go, but I’m neither in New York nor do I have $250. Still, I love Coulter, she’s absolutely brilliant.

  7. posted by Throbert McGee on

    I’m not a huge Coulter fan (though I have nothing against her apart from the fact that she’s too much about the one-liners), but I do think it’s a great move for GOProud to invite her. After all, no matter what they do, they’re gonna get called “Uncle Toms” by the same knee-jerk progressive demographic that thinks Ann is Hitler in drag. So embracing Coulter in an upfront way deflates the inevitable gay-left attack somewhat, by preempting it.

    Plus, of course, it helps GOProud show that they’re ballsy and outside-the-box, in contrast to (bland, anemic Beltway insiders) LCR.

  8. posted by Jorge on

    I can tolerate Coulter, but GOProud I’m not so comfortable with. I suppose that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    It’s a smart move for Coulter, who has crossed the line into pure nastiness a few times at conservative conferences. Any gay person conservative enough to be in GOProud is probably inner circle enough to have a long memory of her.

    Anyway, $250 is either a lot of my charity money or a lot of my election contribution money, and I have enough junk mail as it is.

    Still, I have to say I approve.

  9. posted by Bobby on

    Hey Throbert, you should read one of her books, like Bias. She’s more than one liners.

    Jorge,

    “I can tolerate Coulter, but GOProud I’m not so comfortable with. I suppose that doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

    —I get a lot of that, if I had a dime for every straight and gay person that has asked me “how can you be gay and republican?” I would have a lot of dimes. In fact, it’s usually the gays that ask me that question, the straights don’t even care.

    “It’s a smart move for Coulter, who has crossed the line into pure nastiness a few times at conservative conferences. Any gay person conservative enough to be in GOProud is probably inner circle enough to have a long memory of her. ”

    —Her nastiness is no different than that of Olberman, Maddow, , Maher, and plenty of other son the left. She is a “mean” conservative, it is her job to put people down sometime.

  10. posted by Jorge on

    I get a lot of that, if I had a dime for every straight and gay person that has asked me “how can you be gay and republican?” I would have a lot of dimes. In fact, it’s usually the gays that ask me that question, the straights don’t even care.

    No, that’s not it.

    My problem is not that they’re gay and Republican or that they are conservatives first. My problem is that they are conservative (period) and that some of their proponents have been nasty toward other gay Republicans who are activists first.

    Ann Coulter’s presentation is much more anti-liberal than pro-conservative.

    Her nastiness is no different than that of Olberman, Maddow, , Maher, and plenty of other son the left.

    I’m only familiar with Maher, but I don’t agree. Coulter goes out of her way to provoke people and thinks it is acceptable to do so. Maher does not go out of his way to provoke people: he really is a bigot.

  11. posted by Houndentenor on

    Of all the speakers who are Republican but who also support gay rights, why have Coulter who has never been for any gay rights and in fact has used anti-gay slurs in public. Having Giuliani or Schwartzenegger or Cindy McCain or someone like that who might not be popular with liberals but who can legitimately claim they have been fair to gay people (even if they don’t support the entire gay rights platform) might be appropriate.

    Choosing Coulter is clearly designed to inflame the rest of the gay communit and has obviously been successful. Now the homocons can endulge in even more victimization. It’s clear GOProud has no interest in advancing gay issues inside the conservative movement, if that is even possible in the current political environment.

  12. posted by Jorge on

    Of all the speakers who are Republican but who also support gay rights, why have Coulter who has never been for any gay rights

    I am quite sure that is not true. But the internet has so much noise it’s impossible for me to even find Coulter’s views on the issue I’m looking for. In any case, she accepted their invitation.

  13. posted by BobN on

    In any case, she accepted their invitation.

    You think she’s going for free?

  14. posted by Jorge on

    You think she’s going for free?

    Ah, yes, you said something similar about Cornyn at the LCR. I doubt it.

    In any case, she accepted their invitation.

  15. posted by BobN on

    Well, Cornyn’s certainly not going “for free”. It’s a fundraiser.

  16. posted by Bobby on

    “My problem is not that they’re gay and Republican or that they are conservatives first. My problem is that they are conservative (period) and that some of their proponents have been nasty toward other gay Republicans who are activists first.”

    —Well, that I can’t deny.

    “Ann Coulter’s presentation is much more anti-liberal than pro-conservative.”

    —That’s true. By the same token, some liberals are more anti-conservative than pro-liberal.

    “I’m only familiar with Maher, but I don’t agree. Coulter goes out of her way to provoke people and thinks it is acceptable to do so. Maher does not go out of his way to provoke people: he really is a bigot.”

    —You don’t think Coulter is just as nasty as Maher? I mean, Maher goes around ridiculing republicans, ridiculing people who believe in guns, saying that if you like big guns you probably have a small penis. Maher gets away with all that, yet when Coulter, Limbaugh, or anyone else does it, the world goes oh my God.

    Coulter has to be just as vicious as Maher because people who are not progressive or liberal need an outlet. She is our outlet, she is the person that defends us whenever some progressive/liberal commentator calls us a teabagger, a nazi, makes fun of our weight, calls us ugly, etc.

    I like it when Coulter is as vicious as any progressive, because I think it’s important for the left to experience what they dish out.

    I’m also tired of being told to be sensitive to others, when are the so-called “others” going to be sensitive to us? It’s like the 9/11 Mosque, try build a Church in Saudi Arabia, it’s impossible! Even so-called “secular” Turkey persecuted the Greek Orthodox Church that existed in that land before Turkey was even a country, I saw a report about it on tonight’s 60 minutes. So, the “secular” arabs aren’t tolerant, religious arabs aren’t tolerant, but we’re supposed to be ok with a mosque 2 blocks from the 9/11 hole.

    So who represents people who are against that mosque? The liberal media doesn’t have the guts, mayor Bloomberg is the type of guy that won’t suspect anti-semitism unless he’s already in a boxcart, so who does the average American have left? Ann Coulter.

  17. posted by Jimmy on

    “You don’t think Coulter is just as nasty as Maher? I mean, Maher goes around ridiculing republicans, ridiculing people who believe in guns, saying that if you like big guns you probably have a small penis. Maher gets away with all that, yet when Coulter, Limbaugh, or anyone else does it, the world goes oh my God.”

    Maher is a comedian, and everybody is in on the joke. Coulter, on the other hand, is a polemicist. The former is an entertainer, the latter, a propagandist and an even bigger joke. I loved when Kathy Griffin called her out on her “look”, rocking that omnipresent black cocktail dress. I love how her Adam’s Apple quivers when she gets mad.

    “So who represents people who are against that mosque?”

    Well, there you go again, showing us how unprincipled you are. What about your sacrosanct private property rights?

  18. posted by Jorge on

    You don’t think Coulter is just as nasty as Maher?

    I don’t.

    I’m also tired of being told to be sensitive to others, when are the so-called “others” going to be sensitive to us?

    You should be more sensitive to others. Be the change you want to see in the world.

    Maher is a comedian, and everybody is in on the joke.

    Well, the joke must be on me then because I don’t find him funny.

  19. posted by Bobby on

    “Maher is a comedian, and everybody is in on the joke. Coulter, on the other hand, is a polemicist. The former is an entertainer, the latter, a propagandist and an even bigger joke. I loved when Kathy Griffin called her out on her “look”, rocking that omnipresent black cocktail dress. I love how her Adam’s Apple quivers when she gets mad.”

    —Funny, when a liberal insults somebody, it’s comedy, when a conservative does the same, is controversial. Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Michael Moore have something in common, they use comedy to advance a political agenda.

    “Well, there you go again, showing us how unprincipled you are. What about your sacrosanct private property rights?”

    —Tell me, Jimmy, do you believe in private property rights when it comes to gun ranges being built? What about oil refineries, nuclear power plants, prisons? This issue is about R-E-S-P-E-C-T, I don’t see the Japanese building a Budhist temple next to the Pearl Harbor memorial, I also don’t see adult strip joints being built next to churches. In Las Vegas, you can only build casinos in certain areas, and even Pahrump, NV where prostitution is legal, you can only build a brothel where it’s zoned for that stuff.

    Yet somehow when it comes to Muslims, we’re supposed to let them do whatever they want, no questions asked.

  20. posted by Debrah on

    Read and listen to this for the simple, fact-based reality of Islam.

    And Bobby, this Instapundit graphic is for you.

    Although the commentary isn’t bad, either. LOL!

    Regarding Ann Coulter, she sometimes has a wiry look and I’ve seen what might be a slight Adam’s apple on occasion.

    She alternates between looking very good and sometimes looking a bit straggly. Such is life!

    Although, I’ve never seen the stumpy-legged Kathy Griffin dwarf look close to feminine—ever.

    She’s got a thick neck that looks as though it belongs on the shoulders of a middleweight university wrestler.

    Very malformed woman.

    Quite odd that she would be dissing Ann Coulter, who is actually able to walk without having to grease her thighs with vaseline.

    If Kathy Griffin isn’t a man in drag, she should be. The plastic surgery didn’t work.

    Oh, and she won’t live long enough to even approach Coulter in the brains department.

  21. posted by Jimmy on

    “we’re supposed to let them do whatever they want”

    Who is the “we” and who is the “they”? Such a revelation in that statement.

    We’re not even talking about Ground Zero itself; get over yourself.

  22. posted by jimmy on

    “Very malformed woman.”

    Right, and Ann is suuuuuch a flower of femininity. Ha! At least Kathy, A COMEDIAN, is self deprecating enough to own up to her flaws, making her even more human and effective, which is necessary for her craft. Kathy has a rockin’ bod lately, lots more curves than that bag of bones with a bad disposition.

    Who shows up at a morning talk show in black cocktail dress? It’s as though she were some sad lush that just left from getting boozed up at an all nighter at XYZ Country Club, giving handy-jays to all the other old lushes that happen to look like Joe McCarthy.

  23. posted by Bobby on

    Great links Debrah, I realized something about Islam I did not know before.

    “Who is the “we” and who is the “they”? Such a revelation in that statement.”

    —Progressives always focus on semantics, why is that? But if you insist, I suppose the “we” is the western world vs. the “they” which is the backwards 14th century style Islamic world. “We” is people who love freedom and “they” are the people that want to cover women in burkas whether they want to be covered or not.

    “We’re not even talking about Ground Zero itself; get over yourself.”

    —Jimmy, if it’s illegal to have a billboard advertising cigarettes or booze near a school, why can’t you understand that it’s very offensive to have a mosque two blocks away from ground zero?

    I’m also surprised that in a city where both Giuliani and Bloomberg fought to keep adult stores off Times Square they suddenly have so much tolerance for a mosque in a part of the city where the last time Islam had a presence to buildings came down.

    So it seems to me the zoning board is treating these Muslims like they’re special people. I mean, it seems everyone else has to put up with red tape, even Wal-Mart had to give up on setting up shop in Manhattan or Queens, yet some Islamic organization with dubious funding can set up shop in spite of protests and get the zoning board to vote 9 to 0.

  24. posted by Jorge on

    I think Bloomberg got the best word in on the issue when he framed it as a separation of church and state issue, and argued that if we give into tolerance, al-Qaida has already scored a victory.

    We would never have had this controversy even a few years earlier. The narrative in Debrah’s first link was not as widespread. People know the insidious and deceptive face of Islam now.

    Some guy from CAIR actually told Bill O’Reilly the other day something like “we are tired of condemning terrorism.” Well, I certainly hope American Muslims never tire of killing terrorists.

    It will take both liberals and conservatives to defeat the enemy.

  25. posted by Jimmy on

    ” why can’t you understand that it’s very offensive to have a mosque two blocks away from ground zero”

    Because I’m not offended, and I don’t care that you are. I don’t think 1st Amendment rights are a matter of semantics; in fact, they are sacred.

    “So it seems to me the zoning board is treating these Muslims like they’re special people….”

    So, what do you want – Big Government to step into the affairs of a local municipality because YOU don’t like what’s going on? Typical hypocrite.

  26. posted by Bobby on

    “Because I’m not offended, and I don’t care that you are. I don’t think 1st Amendment rights are a matter of semantics; in fact, they are sacred.”

    —The first amendment doesn’t give Larry Flynt the right to sell a pornographic magazine at Wal-Mart. The first amendment doesn’t give me the right to declare a public beach a nudist beach. Besides, just because you’re not offended doesn’t mean other people aren’t offended. Just because the Muslims have the legal right to do somethign doesn’t mean it’s the moral thing to do. Hey, why not set up a Christian Identity church in Harlem? When you set up a business or a church you have to consider the nature of the neighborhood. Of course, radical Muslims being used to the role of conquerors don’t give a damn about anyone else but themselves.

    “So, what do you want – Big Government to step into the affairs of a local municipality because YOU don’t like what’s going on? Typical hypocrite.”

    —A local zoning board is not big government. What I wanted was those board people to vote against the mosque, and not 9 to 0 in their favors. Now it’s up to the people to protest, put pressure, and do LEGAL things against the Islamofascists.

    Frankly, I hope Bill O’reilly is right when he implies that the mosque is going to have trouble finding contractors and construction workers willing to work on the site. I don’t know if the mafia still controls all building projects in the city, but if they do then this is the time to act.

  27. posted by jimmy on

    “The first amendment doesn’t give Larry Flynt the right to sell a pornographic magazine at Wal-Mart. ”

    “The first amendment doesn’t give me the right to declare a public beach a nudist beach.”

    Completely incoherent. Do you have your drool bib on?

    Again, you’re so unprincipled it is astounding. You don’t give a shit about the constitution, the Bill of Rights or anything other than your constipated world view. Take an Ex-Lax and RE-lax.

  28. posted by Bobby on

    “Completely incoherent. Do you have your drool bib on?”

    —It is not incoherent, my points were valid. You’re the one making special exceptions for an Islamic mosque, exceptions not even a billion dollar company like Wal-Mart gets.

    “Again, you’re so unprincipled it is astounding. You don’t give a shit about the constitution, the Bill of Rights or anything other than your constipated world view. Take an Ex-Lax and RE-lax.”

    —Hahaha, this has nothing to do with the constitution. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom to build a church anywhere you want. If I can’t build an adult store on Times Square, why should a bunch of ragheads get to build a mosque next to ground zero?

    What the Muslims are doing in immoral, if it was up to me I would spray pig blood on their mosque walls. Would that be a hate crime? Well, if PETA can get away with assaulting people with furs, I think assaulting Muslims with bacon bits shouldn’t be such a big deal.

    It’s time for the Muslims to learn that you don’t insult the victims of 9/11 by placing a Mosque next to the wound. Shame on them for not standing up to the radicals among them.

  29. posted by Jorge on

    The first amendment doesn’t give Larry Flynt the right to sell a pornographic magazine at Wal-Mart. The first amendment doesn’t give me the right to declare a public beach a nudist beach. Besides, just because you’re not offended doesn’t mean other people aren’t offended. Just because the Muslims have the legal right to do somethign doesn’t mean it’s the moral thing to do.

    The First Amendment prohibits the government establishment of religion and the government prohibition of religious freedom.

    The decision on whether to the Ground Zero Mosque should be built rightfully belongs to private enterprise, local bureaucracy, and the local community. Any decision made by a government body cannot take religion into account except for the purpose of promoting diversity (if that). In objecting to the Ground Zero Mosque, you have many times conflated religious identity with actions. The law does not permit this. I can assure you that the people of New York City can tell the difference. And I can also assure you as well that if you were to commit an act of vandalism against a mosque for no other motivation than because it’s a mosque, you will caught and arrested. Hate crimes are taken very seriously in this city and are not tolerated. I would be more than happy to pass on your friendly warning to the office of the police commissioner and ask them to keep an eye out for you and your kindred.

  30. posted by Bobby on

    “The decision on whether to the Ground Zero Mosque should be built rightfully belongs to private enterprise, local bureaucracy, and the local community. ”

    —Thank you! You’re a much better arguer than I am. That is the point I was trying to make to Jimmy, yet I forgot how to do it.

    Moving on, there must be a way to protest the mosque without incurring arrest. If you can figure out some creative ways to disrupt the mosque I’d like to hear you ideas.

    Also, I think everyone should read Michael Lucas’ column on The Advocate about this monument to terrorism.

    http://advocate.com/Society/Commentary/Michael_Lucas_on_The_Monument_to_Muslim_Terrorism/

  31. posted by Jorge on

    Oh, you caught that, huh? You’re welcome.

    Protest without incurring arrest? Carry a sign and wave it around in front of the mosque. Be sure not to block the sidewalk. You can also carry the sign and trespass or refuse to leave, which is traditional civil disobedience.

    Anyway, I’ve changed my mind about the Ann Coulter deal. If I can to join protests organized by progressive moderates (and ignore their yahoos), then I should be able to go to an event run by people slightly to the right of me. And come to think of it, there is something I want to hear from her.

  32. posted by Throbert McGee on

    What the Muslims are doing in immoral, if it was up to me I would spray pig blood on their mosque walls.

    Really? You’d hand CAIR an excuse to go on national TV complaining about Islamophobia?

    Interesting strategy, there.

  33. posted by Throbert McGee on

    Anyway, I think you just need to be patient and have more faith in the boundless capacity of Muslims to be their own worst PR agents.

  34. posted by Bobby on

    “Really? You’d hand CAIR an excuse to go on national TV complaining about Islamophobia?”

    —Oh, they don’t need an excuse to complain about that, to them playing the victim is as natural as breathing. It’s just like crying racism, nowadays anyone can be a racist, all you have to do is disagree with a democrat, and like magic, you’re a racist.

    Here’s something interesting I got today:

    “Can a good Muslim be a good American?

    This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

    The following is his reply:

    Theologically – no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia .

    Religiously – no.. . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam . (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

    Scripturally – no. . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

    Geographically – no . Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

    Socially – no. . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews .

    Politically – no.. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

    Domestically – no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

    Intellectually – no. . Because he cannot accept the American

    Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

    Philosophically – no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

    Spiritually – no.. . . Because when we declare ‘one nation under God,’ The Christian’s God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent names.

    Therefore, after much study and deliberation…. Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. – – – They obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish it’s still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

    The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. ….

    Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.”

  35. posted by BobN on

    the boundless capacity of Muslims to be their own worst PR agents

    They appear to not be alone in that characteristic.

  36. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    The evidence did not show any historical purpose for
 excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never 
required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
 order to marry.

    Mainly because marriage is more of a response TO the fact of procreation than anything else.

    Opposite-sex couples will have sex and have babies in the vast majority of cases. In response, society designed and put in place a structure to encourage them to stay together to raise said babies and to facilitate the process.

    Since same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate, there was and is no reason to include them in marriage. It’s not an issue they would ever face.

    Rather, the exclusion exists as an
 artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct
 roles in society and in marriage.

    So Vaughn Walker honestly believes that if he cooks and cleans, he will be able to get pregnant, since gender is only an artificial social construct.

    Mhm. Tell us how that works.

  37. posted by Bobby on

    “Opposite-sex couples will have sex and have babies in the vast majority of cases. In response, society designed and put in place a structure to encourage them to stay together to raise said babies and to facilitate the process. ”

    —Well, the structure isn’t working. When people like Bristol Palin has a baby out of wedlock and then breaks her engagement with Todd after realizing he’s more interested in being famous than in being a dad, you can see that heterosexuals don’t need gays to destroy the institution of marriage, they’re doing a great job themselves.

    I also heard on The O’ Factor that 34% of babies being born in America belong to single mothers. In fact, some women even choose to be single-parents, in spite of how much more expensive is to raise a child when you don’t have a partner paying for half your bills.

    Now I admit that I’m not an enthusiastic supporter of same-sex marriage, my struggles with finding a man that will date me more than once are well known. However, I do not see heterosexual marriage as this magical government structure that solves all problems and protects the kids. My own parents who have been married for 40 years aren’t a great couple because of the government, and their parenting style did not come from some liberal big government agenda either.

    Besides, how can marriage be such a sacred institution when you can go to Las Vegas and get a drive-through wedding, an Elvis wedding, a King Arthur’s wedding (at the fabulous Excalibur Resort & Casino), and all kinds of weddings from just $100 to thousands of dollars.

    If marriage is so sacred and serious, why do some people elope? Why did Britney Spears married her gay best friend for 24 hours?

    Procreation is irrelevant, the fact that people who are too old to procreate get married should say something. And what about prisoners? Did you know you can marry any serial killer or rapist in prison? Sure, just bring a priest and if you can’t kiss his lips, they’ll let you kiss the glass! Sanctity of marriage? What a joke.

  38. posted by Jorge on

    Can a good Muslim be a good American?

    This brings to mind the question posed to Gandhi that if he praises Christianity so much, why isn’t he a Christian. “Because I’ve never met one.”

    For that matter, it’s work asking how in God’s name can anyone be both a good Christian and a good citizen of the richest country on earth.

    …Domestically – no. .. . Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34 )

    How many American Muslims do you know who marry four women? This list is a load of bunk promoted by the Hamas sect of Islam and their enemies.

  39. posted by Jorge on

    …work asking how in God’s name>> worth asking

  40. posted by Debrah on

    “So Vaughn Walker honestly believes that if he cooks and cleans, he will be able to get pregnant, since gender is only an artificial social construct.

    Mhm. Tell us how that works.”

    ***************************************************

    Just one more logical dissection of how tendentious Walker’s decision was.

    That particular feature of his argument is outstanding in its ignorance.

    Judicial tyranny will not assist this objective in the end.

    Really smart constitutional attorneys have said the same.

    What’s so very humorous is that gays and other SSM “activists” have used a photo of the San Francisco Chronicle’s front page headline “Unconstitutional” as an avatar all over the internet.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that grants marriage as a “right”.

    Who are these ignorant people?

  41. posted by Debrah on

    I perhaps should have linked this one here instead of on the proceeding thread.

    On the NYC mosque debate, Greg Gutfeld wants to open a gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque.

    If this indecent démarche by the supposed imam Rauf and his janissaries continues, I think that exercises such as this one will be a fantastic idea as a response.

  42. posted by Bobby on

    “This brings to mind the question posed to Gandhi that if he praises Christianity so much, why isn’t he a Christian. “Because I’ve never met one.””

    —Please, Gandhi was nuts, he once declared himself to be a Hindu, a Budhist, a Moslem, a Christian and a Jew. Yeah right, and I declare myself to be the King of England.

    The thing about Muslims is that if they are tolerant, if they don’t mind you taking your dog or liquor in one of their taxicabs, if they don’t hate non-Muslims, then they’re not really good Muslims and thus can be persecuted by their own kind.

    The fact is that moderate Muslims often live in fear, celebrity-moderate Muslims often have to change residences and even have bodyguards. In fact, the moderate Muslim who appeared on the O’reilly factor, a woman who is sensitive towards the gentile majority and who doesn’t want a mosque in that place, I’m pretty sure her life is going to change, at least she’s going to be called a traitor by jihadists.

    “How many American Muslims do you know who marry four women? This list is a load of bunk promoted by the Hamas sect of Islam and their enemies.”

    —How many Muslims do you know that are willing to oppose Hamas publicly? How many will admit that they drink wine and eat pork? How many will get outraged by honor killings? How many will fight to preserve the western traditions of America? Very few.

    As someone said on townhall, “not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim.” From 9/11 to the USS Cole to the Fort Hood shootings to the Christmas bomber, all those terrorists have been Muslim and all of them have been inspired by radical Islam.

    After all, unlike white-supremacists, Muslim extremists have BILLIONS of dollars at their disposal and thousand of followers willing to die for their cause. I find it ironic that while the media hates white supremacists and will protest if they even dare to march on a public street, they have no fear of radical Islam. How many 9/11’s do we need to have for MSNBC to realize that radical Islam is dangerous?

    “On the NYC mosque debate, Greg Gutfeld wants to open a gay bar next to the Ground Zero mosque.”

    —I know, and one of the comments at The Advocate was that this was insensitive and didn’t help the gay community build bridges with Muslims. Amazing the double standard! If the Muslims want to build next to the 9/11 hole, that’s peachy, but building a gay bar next to a mosque, oh my God, how rude!

  43. posted by BobN on

    I declare myself to be the King of England

    Say “hi” to Liz and watch out for the corgis!

  44. posted by Jimmy on

    “I declare myself to be the King of England”

    May you go the way of Charles I.

  45. posted by Mike Wells on

    What is wrong with these people and parts of normalized society? The Majority always rules. Those are the facts and they are undisputed. We (The Majority) set the bar and the standards. Gays are trying to claim rights and privileges that were never remotely intended for them and are not theirs to enjoy.

    Gays are trying to normalize something that is not normal, much less moral, ethical or even physiological correct by design.

    There are plenty of other places on this planet that are more accepting of this CHOSEN, defective, anomalous behavior. The majority always rules so get over it or get out

Comments are closed.