Those are your beliefs not the beliefs of people on the other side of the fence.

Lula, I think homosexuality is already well affirmed in society (a hate crime you know!!!) and throughout the government, the Churches and around the world. They have the rights of all other single Americans (here), but they are stopped there, for now. If you don't know of the benefits gleaned from marriage and civil contracts ... then you haven't been listening to the poor and downtrodden people whose soles you are salivating over. You don't listen to what anyone else says knowing all there is ... so why not ignore them too. If you think the Church has dominion over marriage, you are sadly mistaken. And they certainly wouldn't have any interests in civil unions which is not a moral issue at all ... just a legal one. Need I remind you of the separation of Church and State (mythology and reality). Take your case to court again if you wish ... but you will never win this ridiculous plight of yours in the public domain.

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

Separation of Church and State huh, hahaha … and a Constitutional amendment yea right … when the cow jumps over the moon … maybe then. But there is no discrimination here ... oh this is hilarious but sad, hahaha, sorry.

Well they are "strict constructionists".....We will construct the constitution to strictly adhere to our doctrine if it not constructed strictly enough already.

They won't ultimately win in court either. Ted Olsen who represented Bush in Bush v. Gore was on Bush's short lists for AG as well as the Supreme Court. He not only openly supports gay marriage, but also believes banning it is unconstitutional and is one of the lawyers working against the Prop 8 law in Ca. It is obvious that some of the old Bush supporters (by this I mean sheep not major monied interests) realize some of the issues where they were deceived but many don't realize that this is another of the issues he wasn't so upfront about. The truth is Bush became a reborn again right before he ran for Texas Gov. I don't blame him, he knew he couldn't hide his old problems of alcoholism and drug abuse so he had to take the redemption route. In any case the major players in the Republican Party mostly just use the Gay card for political expediency however the Gay Card is becoming a tougher play because their own family members are coming out of the closet and the judges Bush appointed are not the religious zealots the sheep think they are. The ID case in another thread is the first sign of that and there will be more. 

Couldn't agree more.

Gay Marriage Attorney Ted Olson

 

Solicitor General in the Bush Administration no less. Go figure.DOH

How does the FOX crowd miss such things airing on FOX? Must be because they show the real substantive stuff like this on Sunday morning while they are off experiencing different programming.

I'm going to answer this by quoting an article by Abiding Truth Ministries. The author is Scott Lively. Sorry I don't have the date.

I think you'll find it both informative and interesting. I know I did.

"It was 1926 and a culture war was raging between the Fascists and the Communists in Germany. The growing Nazi Party was strong, but the people still favored the Communists. It fell to young Josef Goebbels to win hearts and minds to the Nazi cause. How could this be done?The Nazis were newcomers, trying to change the social order, and their aggressive tactics were offensive to many people. But in a move that would establish him as a master propagandist, Goebells turned the tables by casting the Nazis as victims of the Communists. The key was Horst Wessel.

Horst Wessel was just another Nazi street thug, but on Feb. 12, 1926, he was murdered by a Communist. Wessel wasn't killed over ideology; it was a matter of unpaid rent to his landlady. However, the timing was right for Goebell's scheme and so Horst Wessel became the first martyr for the movement: the symbol of Nazi victimhood at the hands of the evil Communists. The "Horst Wessel" song , became literally, the anthem of the Nazi Party, and Wessel assumed mythic stature as figure of near religious worship. 

In 1998, a culture war was raging between the homosexuals and the Christians and even though the homosexual movement was growing strong, the people still favored the Christian values of Marriage and the natural Family. The leaders of the "gay" movement needed to win more of the public to their position. How could this be done? The "Gays" were still relative newcomers, trying to change the social and moral order of the nation, and their aggressive tactics, "We're queer, we're here, get used to it."

were offensive to many people. But in a move that would confirm their reputation as master propagandists, the "gay" leaders turned the tables, casting the homosexuals as victims of Christian "homophobia".The key was Matthew Sheppard.

Matthew Sheppard was just another self-identified "gay" but on Oct. 23, 1998, he was murdered by two men. He wasn't killed because he was a homosexual, it was a matter of robbery. And the robbers obviously weren't Christian,however, the timing was right for the "gay" scheme and so Matthew Sheppard becaame the new martyr of the homosexual movement; a symbol of "gay" victimhood at the hands of the evil Christians. The "Matthew Sheppard Play" became the showpeice of the "gay" movement, and Sheppard himself assumed mythic stature as a figure of near religious worship.

Matthew Sheppard is the Worst Hessel of the modern "gay" movement. His legend is a lie. It's purpose is to deceive and manipulate the public. And its proponents are facists.

Indeed, the AMerican "gay" movement is as fascist as the German fascist movement was "gay" and there are many links between the two. For example, the first US homosexual organization, formed in 1924, was the Chicago Chapter of the  German Society for Human Rights. The most member of the German parent organization was Hitler's closest friend, op[enly homosexual Ernst Roehm, head of the Nazi SA (also known as the Brown Shirts). Interestingly Horst Wessel, as a member of the early SA was probably a homosexual or bisexual as well. (And yes, Hitler was "gay".)

But this isn't an article about German Nazis. You can read about them in "The Pink Swastika" which I wrote along with Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams, (see www.defendthefamily.com ). This article is about modern "gay" propagandists. They follow the Nazi model but their threat is not just an interesting historical question. It is quite actual and immediate. 

It is a testament to "gay" propaganda that much of the American public now thinks of Christians as the aggressors and homosexuals as victims. But it is the "gays", not the Christians that are trying to overthrow the traditional, family centered society. And it is the Christians, not the "gays" that are being silenced and marginalized for their views: in government, mass media, academia, and corporate America. Adolf Hitler would be proud. The fascists who deny freedom of speech to others and advocate pre-emptive violence against their "oppressors", have pulled off another propaganda coup."

..............................................................

The homosexual activists exploited the murder of  Matthew Shepard and the story captivated the nation's media. They  promoted the line that he was "killed because he was gay". When in fact the case is much more complicated than that.  

Katie Couric took up the spurious "gay" charge  and slammed an ad featuring former homosexuals saying the ad might have led to Shepard's murder by fomenting anti-gay "hate".

TV documentaries used the MS case to push "hate crime" laws favored by homosexuals. The day Shepard died, Clinton pressed Congress to pass hate-crime legislation that specifically favored homosexuals. 

You mention other stories.

Have you heard of Jesse Dirkhising? In case you haven't Jesse was 13 years old when he was brutally sexually assaulted and murdered in Rogers, Arkansas, on Sept 26, 1999 by two homosexual men. The media outlets said nothing until a month later, when the Washington times ran an expose of the media's inattention. Can you think of a good reason why the media coverage surrounding the murder of a "gay" college student Matthew Shepard should be any greater than the sadistic killing of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising by two homosexual lovers in Arkansas?

 -------------------------------------------

Another question?

If Matthew Shepard had AIDS and approached those two guys for sex and did have sex with them, and they got AIDS, should he be charged with a hate crime? Just wondering.

They can't get married to each other but they sure can get married that is if they want to marry someone of the opposite gender.

So given the laws that are in place in your state, they have the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

These people have the same legal right to marry as long as they abide by the law in their state. Let's be clear. Everyone has access to marriage as long as they meet the legal requirements.If the legal requirement sof the state they live in are that marriage is between a man and a woman, then they have the right to marry as long as they abide by the laws.

 

But, this is not about legal access to marriage; rather it's about redefining marriage to be something it has never been.

 

 

I wouldn't expect you to provide anything more than some piece of propaganda to try to write off the existence of bigotry in the case.

Maybe you should have looked at actual court testimony. One of the defendants pleaded guilty and the other tried to present some kind of gay panic defense until both the defendants girlfriends testified that the act was planned beforehand and perptrated specifically because the victim was gay.

That is actually in the court record not off some agenda driven religious propaganda site.

In any case you should take a look at the video link BT posted.....My opinion on the issue is very much in line with that of Ted Olsen's. My opinions on legal matters that involve the constitution are usually formed from information from actual cases and well known constitutional lawyers. Not politician/lawyers who know how to construct schemes to tie up issues in courts while they work their way up the political ladder or religious zealots whose legal opinions are about as valid as unicorns.

 

In any case if I was you I wouldn't be so afraid of proposed laws that try to limit your ability or the ability of the Westboro Baptist Church to say what you will. The supreme court will in the end protect your freedom of speech so that you can say what you want about gays just as much as it will protect others freedom of speech to call you a bigot. If a case like that makes it to the Supreme Court I wouldn't doubt Ted Olsen is the one who brings it seeing how he also successfully won the Citizens United case on the grounds of freedom of speech.

 

Lula, why do you need to do this kind of thing … is this a RCCC thing or what? Shepard was mortally attacked in October, 1998 and died 6 days later. Wyoming tried to enact hate crime legislation … during their next session but that failed. Clinton's ‘efforts’ were rejected by the Congress in 1999. In 2000, both houses passed this legislation but it was conveniently removed before final passage. In 2007, a bill was introduced and both houses of congress passed it … but because Bush wouldn’t sign it … it was conveniently dropped. The bill was finally incorporated in hate crime legislation (amended) and signed into law by the infamous Obama in 2009.  It took 11 years to get this done and you intimate a ‘quick response’ to his death; sounds pretty misleading to me…  

Who cares what they document about??? ... What "hate crimes"??? ... Favored by homosexuals??? Are you serious … of what ‘hate crimes’ do you speaketh? Sounds like you are about to step on your own homophobic foot … oh pray tell continue… Katie Couric’s opinion huh … you are getting desperate.

We have laws, human laws that allows us to deal with your hypothetical slander … what just because he was gay, you are not being curious here at all. Why don’t you at least attack someone alive and leave the unfortunate dead alone… in heaven. It never fails to amaze me … the ease with which you can manipulate a real life tragedy … to suit your intolerant views.  Imagine whatever you want, whatever took place in that bar but the FACTS speak for themselves. You should be ashamed of this kind of behavior.

Last I checked, your sexual orientation was not grounds for slavery.  While there are people that discriminate (it is called free will), I have yet to see the government instituting slavery or even capital punishment for being gay.

There is a HUGE difference.  You only have to look at the situations to see one is unjust, the other completely immoral.

Doc: I believe the reference was to the 'revolutionary' processes ... not the specifics in each case, hahaha ... or the case you decided to take offense of. You were joking ... right?

Rightwinger: The open and I stress open homosexual ‘revolution’ is just such a case and they are using the same proven process and arguments. Is there another way for them?  Why should they have to change anything? Or are you uninterested at all in their being people rights?

SMOOTHSEAS POSTS:

So what was done to people like Matthew Shepard is "just" discrimination? How do you explain that one away or similar cases which may or may not be as widely known?

SMOOTHSEAS POSTS 69 

I wouldn't expect you to provide anything more than some piece of propaganda to try to write off the existence of bigotry in the case.

What you expect for answers is beside the point. What I offered more than answered your question.   

In 1998, a college guy was robbed, beaten and killed by 2 men and the media went wild reporting it. Why? Because the college guy identified himself as "gay".

"Hate crime" laws were immediately called for which essentially change the punishment meted out; it varies according to whom the crime was committed against.    

If Matthew Shephard were not "gay" would that make it less of a crime?  So, why the calling for new "hate crime" laws? The laws already in place worked just fine. The two guys were tried and punished. Should they have gotten a different or harsher punishment because Shephard was "gay"?

Fast forward a year later and the murder of Jesse Dirkhising....

 

 http://www.armyofgod.com/JesseDirkhising.html

 

and we find that the media treated the murder of Matthew Shephard very differently than the murder of Jesse Dirkhising. Why Smoothseas? Wasn't the life of a 13 year old boy just as valuable as that of a homosexual college student? Apparently not.

 

As far as the existence of bigotry, you have not answered my question about Jesse Dirkhising. Won't you admit the media showed plenty of bigotry in his case?

Why did the media fail to cover the murder of Jesse Dirkhising? Was it to protect homosexuality and hold it up high just like they did with M. Shephard's homosexuality? Of course it is. 

There certainly are huge differences, but there are also similarities. Back in the day many of the things we now consider immoral and unjust were not viewed that way. However don't narrow your side of the argument to just slavery. I included woman's rights as well and even today many religions including some mainstream ones practiced in this country don't exactly treat women as equals now do they?

 

What you offered was propaganda that is very easily proven to be incorrect and quite contrary to the FACTS. You offered something that is not even as worthy of consideration as somebody's opinion might be.