A few things she says that are worthwhile from the article:
Gay marriage threatens traditional marriage. Proponents of the right of same-sex couples to marry insist it doesn't: But it does. Gay marriage is threatening because the issue . . .
- Forces voters, notably in California and Florida, to confront closely held religious beliefs.
- Forces people to balance the seemingly contradictory decision to deny people the legal right to commit to a person they love with their decision to love God more by following His commandments (or trying to).
- Opens a Pandora's box of controversy over what it means to be a man or a woman and how people of faith should model appropriate gender behavior in a world that has come to accept many definitions of gender and sex roles.
And while the economy plummets and wars rage on, many Americans feel threatened with the prospect of reordering life as we know it: Gay marriage is a frightening proposition for anyone who looks at it with the slightest level of intellectual honesty.
It is beyond me why so many gay marriage activists have gotten so ugly and mean about the right to marry. Calling people of faith, namely Christians, "haters" is no way to get people to understand the other side. Publishing blacklists of people who donated to groups fighting to ban gay marriage won't win friends.
Fomenting "retribution" against people who don't support it won't influence people. "I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved," said Scott Eckern, who resigned as artistic director of the California Musical Theater when he was "outed" for donating to the Proposition 8 campaign to ban gay marriage.
Activists threatened to boycott the theater as payback for his personal expression of free speech. Gay-rights activists even marched outside Saddleback Church. Legal sure, but the protest showed disregard for religious tradition and worshippers' beliefs. It was tacky.
Read the whole thing.
Then some self Righteous Fellow from Glenview IL, Neil J. Blum, posts his opinion. And believe me it is JUST HIS OPINION because it has no basis in fact whatsoever. I have over the last few years had the opportunity to fine tune my debate skills with liberals. One of the things they always do is try to just parse out one statement, hold some ideal without context (US Constitution in Blum's Case) or vilify and make fun. Liberals in the absence of true argument rely on ridicule.
This is sad. But in fairness, I urge you to read his whole response. Then you will see for yourself how infinitely vacuous the liberal arguments can be. My comments in RED.
I am a 50-year-old happily married (soon to be 28 years) heterosexual (Some of my best friends are black argument here), and I happened to find her column ignorant of the one true issue being faced in the gay marriage debate -- equal protection under the law. Really, and what protections are Gays married or otherwise denied that a civil contract cannot accommodate?
That's U.S. law, not some religious doctrine, so please allow me to quote the first words of the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Of course like all liberals he fails to mention the balance of that statement. Look it up. Dumb and dumber.
I invite her to read the entire U.S. Constitution. Something it's dubious Blum has ever done based on what is to follow.
Homosexuality is natural; it's found in nature everywhere. And, as a kicker, she adds that perfectly healthy children result from these unions. By that argument I assume she believes that heterosexual couples who cannot conceive healthy children should be barred by the state from entering into a marriage. This is the most pathetic of the argument liberals learn from one another. Sterile couples have been known to propagate children even after dire prognosis. Homosexuals never have. Not by the union. And found in nature? OK, I'll bite. Cite some anal intercourse between same sex chimps. Or anything else for that matter.
"Unfortunately, many gay marriage proponents betray ignorance of the Bible they preach against and of marriage itself." Well, maybe I am ignorant of the Bible she speaks of, but alas, Douglas shows ignorance of how that Bible was used to keep black people in chains right here in the good old United States of America. OK, the old race card again. Blacks and Gays are alike. Hogwash. And by his admission doesn't know the Bible as well as the Constitution. People have used the Bible to justify all kinds of idiocy. They have used a fictional component of the Constitution (right to privacy) to justify the murder of babies before birth. So, his ignorance of either is evident.
Thanks to the genius of our Founding Fathers, it's really simple. If the government is going to allow two people to marry, then that shall be open to all people. OK MR BLUM. I'll need chapter and verse on this one. You will be looking for a while. It's not there.
Thank you for your illustration Mr. Blum. You signed up for this, now you have arrived. Had I written this in jest I couldn't have done better. Now go back to your Daily Kos and Huffington Post and drink some more Kool Aide.