The courts disdain for the American voters will soon remove our will to self-governance.
If you are not a Christian or if you don’t think Prop 8 should be law, I want to send out a warning that your values are not far behind. The left knows that they will have a willing accomplice in the White House soon. They are emboldened and eager to force their will into your daily lives. So even though you are not a Christian hold on to your stuff; they are coming for your: bass boat, private airplane, Monday Night Football, road signs in English, home schooling, Single family home, Private Farm, lawnmower, backyard barbecue, Big Mac, Kentucky Fried Chicken, jet ski, ski boat, vacation to Disney world, SUV, ATV, Jacuzzi…..etc.
America is the one country which should value the voter.
In California, the voters sent a clear message on their wishes to keep marriage between one man and one woman. But now,
Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court
Reporting from Los Angeles and San Francisco Jessica Garrison — The California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 on Wednesday to review legal challenges to Proposition 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a final decision.
The court may hold a hearing on the lawsuits as early as March, a timetable that scholars said was swift considering the complexity and importance of the legal issues. (LA Times)
*** *** ***
What Next Gays and Lesbians signing up for eHarmony?
What a Minute!
This Story form Michelle Malkin tells all:
eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services
So, this is “progress?” eHarmony, a Christian-targeted dating website, gets sued by a gay man demanding that the business match him up with a same-sex partner. The New Jersey Attorney General intervenes on behalf of the gay plaintiff and forces eHarmony to change its entire business model. To be clear: The company never refused to do business with anyone. Their great “sin” was not providing a specialized service that litigious gay people demanded they provide. This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. Sadly, eHarmony has settled . I wish they hadn’t, but I understand the decision given the chilling antics of the anti-Prop. 8 mob. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users. Behold the submission:(More From Malkin)
Have you Seen This?
Video: Michelle on the “insane rage” of the anti-Prop 8 mobs
There is still Hope!
Some sanity left?
I pray fro a quick resolve and for Gods hand over the outcome!
State Supreme Court rejoins Prop. 8 battle
Thursday, November 20, 2008
(11-19) 18:32 PST SAN FRANCISCO — The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California.
Six months after its momentous ruling that struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the court granted requests by both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8 to review lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative.
The vote was 6-1, Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting.
However, the court refused, 6-1, to let same-sex marriages resume while it considers Prop. 8’s constitutionality. Justice Carlos Moreno cast the dissenting vote. (Complete Article)
*** *** ***
And of course you can’t expect the left to lie down
and let Al Franken go back to Comedy can you?
The Franken-Coleman recount
Recount: Norm Coleman’s lead over Al Franken shrinks
The Great Minnesota Recount kicked off Wednesday with masses of volunteers for Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken moving into a fresh phase of the struggle: eyeballing the first of 2.9 million ballots, ready to pounce on anything that looked questionable.
Minnesota Recount: Team Franken glad their supporters are uneducated?
posted at 7:53 am on November 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
This has to be a first. In explaining why he believes Al Franken will prevail in the recount, a lawyer volunteering for Team Franken says that Franken voters are less educated and therefore more ignorant about how to fill in a bubble on a ballot. No, I’m not kidding:
Even the observers and lawyers have been instructed by their respective campaigns to not talk to the media. But Minneapolis lawyer Bill Starr, who is volunteering for the Franken campaign, was willing to say a few words. He said he thinks Franken will prevail. His hunch is based on a theory he has.
“People who voted for Coleman are more likely to have taken the SAT in their lifetime,” he said. “They’ve filled in circles. Franken voters are probably not college-educated. They’re new voters and immigrants. They’ve been brought in by groups like ACORN, from the inner cities. They’re more likely to make mistakes. I’ve bounced this off of minority people, and they agree with me.”
The “minority people” agree with him? Which “minority people” would that be? And what exactly did Starr mean by immigrants? Is he admitting that Franken and ACORN enticed non-citizens to vote? (More Hot Air)
*** *** ***
When will it end?
Good Question.
But don’t believe for a second that the left will leave you alone
They are coming!
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan of “change.” But his early appointees, including two top choices that emerged Wednesday, show that experience is one of his main criteria.
President-elect Barack Obama is looking to fill his administration with longtime Washington hands. Above, Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff.
His choice for secretary of Health and Human Services, officials said, is former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has a long Washington résumé. Jacob Lew, one of President Bill Clinton’s budget directors, is favored to direct the National Economic Council
http://www.lawyerschicagoblog.com
By: dougsimons on November 22, 2008
at 6:36 am
Thank you for your comment dougsimons,
It is interesting that now we have Clinton II in the White House.
Same book different cover.
Now we just have to wait and see if Obama will go further left than Bill and Hill.
How far left and how much infighting? That will be the sport of watching the White House Implode.
God Bless,
riggword
By: riggword on November 22, 2008
at 4:34 am
So am I to believe that you agree that US citizens should be deprived of their civil rights simply because of their sexual orientation?
If so, I think the Civil Rights Amendment that we all worked so hard to pass will get in the way.
By: Anthony on November 28, 2008
at 1:00 am
Anthony, gay marriage is not a civil right anymore than child molestation is.
Rigg, this blatant disregard for democracy in California is only the beginning. Right now, Obama has multiple suits against him challenging his citizenship and questioning his failure to provide hard evidence qualifying him to be POTUS.
Soon, it will be global warming taxes and regulations. Our paychecks will have a carbon tax deduction.
Doug is right, Obama’s White House is not looking like “change.” It is Washington politics as usual. The only reason Obama had a shot at the White House was his stance on Iraq, and I bet he keeps troops in Iraq (I favor this) and escalates the war in Afghanistan and starts a war in Pakistan. If his supporters fail to call him a warmonger as they did Bush, they are all hypocrites.
By: peak9 on December 1, 2008
at 7:58 pm
Antony,
Don’t show your ignorance by falling for the left’s tactic of changing the debate.
This is not about civil rights!
This is about redefining marriage!
The debate does not have to change.
We are on the threshold of drastically changing American society.
Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of the family. The family is the foundation of American life. Tearing down the family is the beginning of tearing down America.
If we can change the definition of marriage, we can change any definition we want.
Two women, two men, three women and one man or your bother your sister-in-law your kids and your neighbors and your pets; one big happy family all married to each other. Once the door is pried open the flood will begin. Marriage becomes meaningless if we go down this path.
Trying to change the debate has been the tactic of the left for years. The people have spoken all over the country. You guys are in the minority you lose the election every time. Get over it and quit trying to dissolve the sanctity of marriage.
Enjoy your lifestyle all you want, but don’t redefine traditional commitments through your intimidation and trying to change the debate. And quit degrading the civil rights movement with your dismal attempt to equate the two.
By: Noriko on December 2, 2008
at 3:18 am
Thank you all for your comments.
This post seems to have struck a cord with many.
I would love to take credit for all of the interest, the truth is that the subject is the interest.
With the gay activists acting up we are all forced to see this stuff on our front pages.
It kinda reminds me of the Bill Clinton, “Depends on what sex is” comments. Now our children and our families have to see Aberrant behavior on our front pages. Then we are called intolerant because we don’t see homosexuality as normal everyday behavior.
Noriko is right, this is not a civil rights issue; it is a war between Traditional American life and God given values of humanity and radical new age everything goes religion.
This battle is on the front lines of traditional life vs. new age relativism war. As peak9 says, the disregard for our democratic system is increasing. The disregard for tradition and decency is being challenged daily in America.
God bless America,
God save America,
riggword
By: riggword on December 2, 2008
at 3:34 am
Peak 9 and Norika:
If you are talking about the religious sacramental aspects of marriage, I agree that if an organization such as any organized religion wants to exclude members from participating because of sexual orientation, they indeed have that right.
However, the privileges of marriage from a legal perspective include spousal rights re: income tax, health care, visiting partners in the hospital or emergency rooms and inheritance.
If a same sex couple wishes to enter a committed relationship, then they should NOT be deprived of the same rights as anyone else.
Rigg, you and Noriko are wrong about this: it is NOT a war (except for those of you who choose to go to battle about something that is none of your business)
The news is full of heterosexuals who’ve committed horrible crimes, including pedophilia. Should we judge all heterosexuals by their behavior? I certainly wouldn’t, but the “pack mentality” exhibited on this thread leads me to believe that some “good Christians” would.
As far as your claim about “this battle is on the front lines of traditional life vs. new age relativism war” – more hogwash.
Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time, and isn’t going to go away anytime soon.
I don’t agree that a segment of our society should be denied the same rights as anyone else simply because some of you think its wrong. It may be wrong for you, but a healthy segment of our society begs to differ.
A good solution: If homosexuality is such a problem, then don’t practice it. If you already are not practicing it, then you should direct your hatred elsewhere (although Christian beliefs dictate that we should love all of God’s creatures)
Equal rights, freedom of choice and speech and secular privileges determined by one’s marital status are NOT confined to gay bashers.
By: Anthony on December 2, 2008
at 6:16 pm
Ok, Anthony,
I’ll play along.
So, let’s say we remove the concept of marriage as between one man and one woman just for the fun of your debate.
Now, what if I want my sister and my cousin and my hairdresser on my insurance and my taxes and my hospital visits. I just marry all of them and we are all happy.
After all I love my sister, my cousin, and my hairdresser. We all have a lifetime commitment to love each other. They all deserve health care, insurance and visitation. I need the tax right offs….so what would be the problem?
And what about my brother who can’t work because he has AIDS. He has no insurance and no money. Why can’t I marry him and help him out. We love each other, we have a lifetime commitment, he’s a nice guy, we’re both progressive….why should anyone care?
Wait a minute! What about my dog?
Love, commitment, he needs insurance too!
God Bless,
riggword
By: riggword on December 3, 2008
at 2:47 am
Rigg, you left out the kitchen sink.
Are you saying that you actually believe that gay marriage and polygamy are the same thing? Or are you “just degrading the civil rights movement with your dismal attempt to equate the two” as the bitter and hateful Noriko is fond of saying?
One has nothing to do with the other, so your hypothetical ‘mass marrying’ of all your relatives, friends and pets makes no sense here.
The question that I have is:
Why is it acceptable to deprive a segment of our society the same (and equal) rights as everyone else?
I fully agree that if an organized religion wants to prevent them from worshiping, that’s their prerogative. But legal status and the privileges that come with that belong to everyone.
and all this hate in the name of God. You’d think I was trying to reason with the Taliban
By: Anthony on December 3, 2008
at 2:37 pm
Anthony,
You have fallen for the left’s trap.
Noriko has it right,
“This is not a civil rights issue!”
If gays want to make legal issues for their lifestyle and sexual preference they can pursue insurance issues, visitation etc. through other legal means.
Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. The rest of your argument is pointless. The goal of the left and the gay activists is to normalize behaviors that are not normal. By making Gay marriage equal with God’s marriage plan our children will be misinformed and confused. Young children know instinctively that the gay lifestyle is aberrant. They will only be lead towards gay indoctrination if we make gay marriage the norm. I have seen this indoctrination first hand during my days of “Eat Drink and be marry for tomorrow we die”.
You also lose credibility when you through around the term “hate”. You have no clue what my love of people is. You have no knowledge of my life and who I love. You have no clue how many gay people I have known and cared for. This is not about hate, it is about traditional institutions being torn down by the left. The family unit is God’s plan for humanity. One man and one woman is the best form of parenting for that unit.
What I am pointing out is that once we open the door to same sex marriage Pandora’s Box is in a full head on crash with marriage. If anything goes then eventually all things go.
Words mean things, definitions mean things, and if we start redefining marriage there is no end!
You are using the same tactic of all the leftists who want to re-engineer our society. Calling names and insinuating that Christians are full of “hate” and that we are not compassionate changes the debate.
The problem is that many Christians have fallen for the lie that God only wants to love people no matter what, and that we should love people no matter what. God is righteous and holy and he will bring justice and wrath to those who turn from Him and continue to practice sin.
As Christians we are to love people by directing them away from sin. If you are not a Bible believing God fearing Christian then you probably will never understand what I we are talking about.
So, if gays want to practice their sexual desires I will not stop them. If they want to hear about the one true living God that will help them turn from their sin I will gladly share the Gospel with them. If they want to buy insurance and visit partners in hospitals I will not complain.
But, if they want to turn the traditional God given marriage plan upside down I will resist them as long as I breath.
One last question for you,
If this is a civil rights issue then why not allow adult men to marry young boys? They need love too. What about the civil rights of men who only “love” young boys? What about the rights of the boy to insurance, hospital visits, and love?
This is where opening Pandora’s Box will lead. Just ask the “North American Man/Boy Love Association? NAMBLA
If this is a civil rights issue and traditional marriage is wrong, then why not let men who can’t keep their hands off other men’s wives marry many wives. Some men are born to be with many women, they can’t help it. So, give them their civil rights and let them marry many women while at the same time letting many men marry the same woman.
Don’ think that allowing one homosexual to marry another homosexual will be the end of destroying marriage. Others will come forward and demand their civil rights to polygamy, marriage of adolescents, group marriage…etc. It will be the beginning of tearing down our society.
God Bless,
riggword.
By: riggword on December 3, 2008
at 4:21 pm
My goodness, Rigg, you sure got your panties in a bunch.
I maintain that this is an EQUAL RIGHTS issue.
The lack of tolerance you and Norika (and many others) are exhibiting is anything but Christian.
You say:“If this is a civil rights issue then why not allow adult men to marry young boys?”
The answer is because pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. That, my friend, is a myth that the Evangelical community has tried to attach to the gay lifestyle, even in spite of Ted Haggard’s shameful hypocrisy.
Your hateful views do not represent the Christian faith that I was raised in.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
By: Anthony on December 6, 2008
at 3:15 pm
Anthony,
It is obvious that you are not interested in understanding my point.
“If we open marriage to reinterpretation, then anything goes.”
As for the “Hate” word that you seem to want to use so freely, I suggest that you go back to your Christian roots and take a few Bible study classes. Then maybe you can learn to be less “Hateful” when discussing this issue.
Your rhetoric is boring and old, please find a new topic to discus or a new blog that agrees with you.
God Bless,
riggword
By: riggword on December 7, 2008
at 5:27 pm