Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Support to Ban Same-Sex Marriage Slips In California

A ballot initiative seeking to outlaw same-sex marriage in California lost support among voters after the state attorney general revised its wording to explain that the measure would rescind gay couples' newly won right to wed, according to a poll released Thursday.

The Field Poll of 830 likely voters found that the share of the electorate backing Proposition 8 fell during the last two months, with 38 percent of those surveyed saying they intend to vote for the measure compared to 42 percent in early July.

Opposition to Proposition 8 increased during the same period, the poll found. A solid majority of the likely voters--55 percent--said they would vote against the same-sex marriage ban, compared to the 51 percent who opposed the initiative in the July poll.

61 Comments:

All the fake, plastic "christian" fundos out there must be wailing and gnashing their teeth at the prospect of decreasing hate in CA.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/18/2008 12:37 PM

California is a very diverse state, and it does not seem to have the type of monolithic culture which would pass this amendment. In Alabama and Mississippi, sure, but Californians are considerably more sophisticated and cosmopolitan in their thinking.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/18/2008 12:51 PM

All I can say is, those who want to overturn it are wasting their money. Brad Pitt, however, just donated $100,000 in support of marriage equality. Way to go, Brad!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/18/2008 1:32 PM

This is great news! If we defeat Prop 8 we will be one step closer to nationwide marriage equality.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/18/2008 4:31 PM

Gay Ex-Mormon Bruce Bastian Donates $1 Million to 'Say No to Prop. 8'

http://www.gaywired.com/Article.cfm?ID=20368
posted by Anonymous, at 9/18/2008 4:56 PM

I'm a Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue, but this is what I found when I searched the organization and its survey: First, the sample was 2001 adult Californians, of which 1047 were considered likely voters. Out of nearly 40 million California residents, that's a pretty small sampling. Second, this is the question as it was asked, I am assuming by phone:

"Proposition 8 is called the 'Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative Constitutional Amendment.' It changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. [That sentence indicates more than a little bias that may have affected the polls results.] It provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal impact over the next few years includes potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, it will likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 8?"

40% said yes
54% said no
6% said they didn't know

Now, in addition to the language regarding taking away a "right" (isn't that one of the central issues being voted on?) and the "fiscal impact" (in light of Californian's current budget crisis), it is still confusing at the end as to what the yes or no vote meant. I can't imagine keeping all this straight in my head as the surveyor rattled all this at me and then asked a yes or no. So I think we should all take this survey with a grain of salt lest we find ourselves very disappointed in November.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/18/2008 5:01 PM

Pete, the numbers you're quoting are from the PPI poll at the end of august, not from this most recent field poll. I assume the same goes for the rest of your comment.
posted by Priya Lynn, at 9/19/2008 1:26 PM

I know it's not on par with marriage, but...

Today my county legalized domestic partnership registration!! And any company doing business here who already offers spousal benefits can no longer discriminate against gay couples, they have to extend the existing benefits to cover all families.

Again, not quite marriage, and only in one county, but still a happy day. On October 4th my man and I will be celebrating five wonderful years together with many more to come. We will be registered as soon as we can. Gives me just a little peace of mind.

Whatya think, I'm thinking of adorning my car with streamers and cans, and a banner reading "Just Demostically Registered".
posted by Anonymous, at 9/19/2008 3:37 PM

Oops lol I meant "domestically", obviously. I'm excited and typing fast!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/19/2008 3:39 PM

Brad Pitt's whole argument is just dumb. There's no law forbidding a gay couple to marry. No one is telling them how to live their lives. If they want to publicly commit themselves to one another, they are free to do it. But I see no reason to shift taxpayer benefits to gay couple who offer nothing in return. They produce no children. No future taxpayers come of it. If they marry someone of bisexual tendencies, they've just removed a family from the gene pool. What incentive do the common people have for granting marriage benefits to gay couples when they offer NOTHING in return? Let them marry and love one another if they want. That's their prerogative. Gays don't want to just "love," though. They're after money, they're after power, and they act like 4-year olds doing it.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/19/2008 5:31 PM

Help me out here anaonymous, so you want benefits only for couples with children. Well, may I be the first to inform you that there are gays who have children. SOooooo lets just give benifits to those with children. I am open to this.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/19/2008 6:21 PM

Anonymous, there is NO law which says that people MUST have children. Benefits are not taken away from heterosexuals who do not reproduce.

And yes, LGBT DO produce. They pay taxes and work, just like heterosexuals do. So what you are saying is that benefits are are only for heterosexuals. Sorry, does not work that way.

And in this time of rampant overpopulation, is reproducing really that good idea.

And I am adamantly against benefits being given to parents that are not given to CF/CL couples.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/19/2008 7:04 PM

Anonymous...(folks I think this may be Theo back again, or Ethan)....you say that we produce no children? The fact is, WE DO. Many bisexual and gay men (some of whom are deeply closeted, like you) have married and have had children, you idiot.

Secondly, if you want to deny marriage and benefits to gay couples, then you have to deny them to straight married couples who a) don't want to reproduce and b) those who can't produce and who are either infertile or otherwise incapacitated.

So your argument for banning gays to marry is that procreation is a must? What a cretin you are! Love is the primary reason people marry not having children which is secondary as far as civil marriage goes. If we're looking for financial gain, then the same must apply to straights to obtain lower tax brackets for instance and child allowances at my expense and other gay tax payers. Our taxes also support children and the public education system too, moron.

Thirdly, last time I checked, there is NO federal amendment allowing gay couples to marry, if so, please enlighten us as to where? Only two states permit it. And most states where it is not, do not recognize marriages performed in California or Massachusetts, except New York.

Again, you're an idiot!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/20/2008 8:15 AM

Anonymous, you don't want "your taxpayer money" going for gay marriage, huh? Well, what about MY tax dollars? What about the huge taxes that I pay as a gay citizen and businessman? Your argument is very offensive, considering that the taxes that gay people pay have always gone to subsidize your marriages, your families, and your children, including their entire public school education. What's more, studies show that gay marriage brings money TO a state's coffers. Please wake up to the reality, ok, and stop pretending that the world belongs to you.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/20/2008 11:04 AM

Robert, I did not write that post above. While I do not support government recognition of homosexual relationships, or heterosexual relationships for that matter, I think the post above by Anonymous was absurd.

In the future, please know that when I post, I place my name at the bottom. Thanks!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/20/2008 3:23 PM

the failure of prop is going to be a stunning defeat of conservatism as we know it.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/21/2008 6:36 PM

Um... anonymous... just because someone has kids doesn't mean they're contributing to society.

If you're a homophobic douchebag who teaches your kids to be ignorant fuckwits, then you are a blight on civilization and an obstacle to human progress. It defeats the purpose of having a family, or existing at all, for that matter.

Why should MY taxes go to stupid straight families who waste their lives being uneducated bigots?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/21/2008 10:49 PM

Eshto, to be flippant, how about adding a "stupid" tax on "stupid" people, make the breeders pay more for their "stupid" offspring too. No lower tax brackets for them because of their marriages and the equally "stupid" brats they raise or drag up, tomorrow's haters?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 7:50 AM

Here's the thing. I'm from California. I'm a liberal. I'm a Democrat. A LIFE-LONG liberal Democrat. I voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry. But I do not, cannot, and will not favor homosexual "marriages." Marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Marriage is not a license to have sex, a license to receive benefits, a license for social recognition. Marriage is primarily a license to have children, a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage says to a child, "The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you." Marriage says to society as a whole, "For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other." Every child being raised by a homosexual couple would be denied their birthright to the parents who made them. And losing that right would not be a consequence of something that is tragic, such as a marriage that didn't last, or an unexpected pregnancy where the father-to-be has no intention of sticking around. No! In the case of homosexual marriage and the children given to those unions (the homosexual couple didn't produce them), it will be explained to everyone, including the children, that something wonderful has happened, when it didn't! Government recognition of homosexual relationships will benefit those couples who would choose to marry. But changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate homosexual orientation definitively would undermine the very thing that is marriage's most distinctive contribution to human society. And that is a change that I will not support. I will vote for Proposition 8, and for Senator Obama.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 11:06 AM

Anonymous-- I suspect you are Theo under another name, but here you go. some are excerpts from some other postings.

To being with your whole argument falls apart. No child is entitled to a mother and a father-- though it's nice if they get them, and they are good parents. But lots of children are adopted, and not by gay people. So this so-called argument means nothing.

and this has nothing to do with Prop 8. No where in the initiative are the terms mother, father, child, heterosexual, divorce (tellingly here), or family mentioned. Prop 8 deals only with civil marriage between two consenting adults.

To Douglas Kmiec:

Among his many absurdities, Douglas Kmiec bases his argument against gay marriage on "preserving the link between marriage and procreation." The Supreme court addressed that issue by stating the obvious: though there is such a link, it is neither necessary nor exclusive. Procreation is not required for heterosexual marriage. Old, infertile, paraplegic, even child-phobic people can get married. But if a same sex couple want to marry, procreation suddenly seems to be an important issue.

Likewise, marriage is not required for procreation. Many women and many men, both straight and gay, procreate outside of marriage, some responsibly, many not. Some communities are in fact plagued by children born outside of marriage, born by child mothers to absent fathers, perpetuating cycles of poverty and family breakdown.

Kmiec's absurdly claims that somehow, if gay people are allowed to marry, this will have an effect on heterosexual procreation. Using scare terms like "global decline in fertility", "depopulating world", and "asexual reproduction" he wants to blame gay people for falling fertility in western countries. Utter nonsense dressed up in pseudo-scientific drag! Is his "depopulated" planet the same overpopulated one I am on? I can see it now. John to Susan: "Look. Ben and Paul are getting married. Let's not have kids!" If heterosexuals are not reproducing, maybe you need to talk to them about it instead of denying us marriage.

The issue of procreation is an obfuscation used because the anti-marriage people want to avoid using the more accurate descriptor of the issue: children-- a descriptor which would humanize gay people. Kmiec wants voters to believe that gay people do not procreate. Some have, and some do, when we are not busy adopting and raising the unwanted castoffs of irresponsible heterosexual procreation, many of whom are dying for a home, dying for the love of two parents (of whatever gender), or maybe literally just dying.

The Supreme Court noted that there are some 70,000 children being raised by same sex parents. Do not the children of gay people, however gotten, deserve the same protection, provided by marriage, that is afforded their counterparts in "traditional" families? Or are those children just not important to the anti-gay industry?

And here is another:

You seem to be saying that if you are not here to reproduce, there is no point to being here, let alone being married.

I wrote earlier of my friend who adopted a child with her partner-- an unwanted child who would have been raised in poverty and disease, but has been given a chance at a different life with her. M. is now healthy, bright, charming, well behaved, and a joy to be around, instead of merely another piece of 3rd world refuse heading towards an early death because his heterosexual parents neither wanted him nor were prepared to care for him. How does preventing my friend from marrying another woman, thereby giving M a set of married parents and all of the benefits that the law and society allow, do anything to protect anyone else's family? As the Supreme Court decision said, there are an estimated 70,000 children in California being raised by gay parents. Do not those families need the protection of marriage as well?

And finally, let's talk about perpetuation of the species? Are we running out of people that this is now relevant? Let's look at the results of heterosexual-love-is-all-that-is-RELEVANT:

Your irresponsible and unconsidered reproduction is threatening the world as we know it, and threatening all families, gay and straight. There are 6.5 billion people on the planet. Pollution, lack of water, energy, food, global warming are threatening our very existence, as are poverty, lack of medical services, lack of education,. and you have the balls to ask ME why my love and relationship should be considered relevant and important? My point is NOT that my husband and I are not reproducing. My point is that many heterosexuals are, without thought or consideration.

So what exactly are heteros doing for the survival of the species, except making certain that whoever survives will be as miserable as possible.

And another:

There is no place in our state's constitution, or any other's that I am aware of, that indicates that procreation, responsible or not, is of interest to the state. The court decisions you cite were indeed made, but were intentionally blind to reality. Marriage is not required for procreation and never has been. Irresponsible heterosexuals pop out children all the time, and for no other reason than that they CAN. No one requires them to get married. Likewise, procreation is not required for marriage, and never has been. It's only brought up when gay people say we want to get married too. all of a sudden, procreation is suddenly an issue.

The New York case in particular was deliberately blind, citing the instance of an irresponsible straight boy and an equally irresponsible straight girl producing a baby that neither were prepared for. Marriage is somehow supposed to be for them-- with the rather weird ignoring of the fact that nothing requires them to be married-- but not two highly responsible gay people who want to be married, and who may already have children.

Of course, those children don't really matter, do they? they need no protection and stability that marriage might provide. they're just the children of fags and dykes, and they matter no more than do their fag and dyke parents.

but then, it really isn't about marriage, is it. The court decision here recognized that, and that was in fact the basis of the decision. Separate is not equal, and never has been. You should read the decision. you might learn something.

And finally:

Gay people are already living together, raising children, and acting as married as anyone else. Some states have domestic partnerships in place. A number of European countries have domestic partnerships. 6 countries have full marriage rights for gay people.

So the only real difference now is that gay people can actually BE married.

Instead of trying to hide behind faulty reasoning and prejudice masquerading as fact or informed opinion, why don't you just say it OUT LOUD:

I'm a bigot, and I'm proud.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 12:59 PM

How about a new rule for this site. Anyone who uses the word homosexual more than 5 times in a post and in the same post is incapable of using the word gay without quotes, that post will be deleated. The comment section of this blog has been taken over by the stalker AJ/Theo/Ethan (the unholy trinity). I am not visiting waynebesen.com anymore because of it.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 1:18 PM

Yes it is amazing, isn't it? We have ten billion people on this planet, the population is out-of-control, the prospects for the future are startlingly negative, and yet, some are against gay marriage because they apparently believe that the human race would be in trouble if heterosexuals don't continue to crap out babies at the same rate that got us into this mess in the first place.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 1:20 PM

"Marriage is primarily a license to have children, a gift that society bestows on its next generation."

So Anonymous, what do you say to those married couples who purposely "choose" NOT to have children and what about those who can't? Ban them too from marrying? I don't hear you denigrating or criticizing them either. The "primary" purpose of marriage is that two people love one another above all things, not children which are secondary if one so chooses to have them. Where is it written in the constitution or at the state level that married straight couples in a civil marriage should marry only for producing children or that its purpose should be for that?
Further there are homosexuals and bisexuals who have married, have had children of their own and are now divorced. So you're saying those very children should be discriminated against because gay people in 48 states can't marry? What about orphans Anonymous? Their birth right parents are no longer around, how do you address that?

By voting for proposition 8, you are endorsing the discrimination of hundreds of thousands of children naturally born to homosexual or bisexual parents, hardly what I would call pro-family. Further, homosexuals and lesbians can have children via artificial insemination, so don't say we can't have children. What do you say to bisexual couples who marry and have children while maintaining their gay side? What do you say or do to straight couples who don't marry and have children? There are also surrogate mothers who willingly and gladly bear children for gay men and women. Don't give me that crap about a child having two parents. Your distorted view I suppose would rather have children remain in an abusive household with both parents, one of whom or both may be abusing them physically, verbally and sexually. Yet, you would prefer them to be shuttled from one foster home to the next instead of being raised in a loving, caring gay household where they will thrive and in many cases have a better chance of an education and a future? What about the widows and unmarried women who have children, some with several children. Do you compel the widow with children to remarry, do you discriminate against those children too? Your argument is flawed and nothing short of homophobic.

Further, 6 countries now offer full marriage for gay couples, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Norway as of January 1, 2009), Canada and South Africa. Your argument is alluding to the christo-fascist mantra that marriage equality will endanger the institution of marriage as we know it. Explain how marriage has endangered marriage in any of those societies? Can you point to any recent studies in five of those countries? Why don't you contact the government agencies of those countries and find out what the impact has had on heterosexual marriage and children in general? Lets see the evidence, better yet, lets get some evidence from Massachusetts and later on, California.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 1:29 PM

Robert;
I suspect it is a waste of time. Missy here wants to talk like a lberal, or claim to be one, but the same idiocy and lack of thought is in play. that's why i just did a bunch of cut and paste. i doubt we'll here form missy explaining that she had it totally wrong, and now understands.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 1:39 PM

Actually, to the person who listed me with others and ascribed the post to me, I disagree with Anonymous. Marriage is, in essence, a kind of contract or agreement between individuals. All adult, mentally competent individuals have rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. All that is done by mutual consent is within their rights, so long as no-one is coerced by the use of force. Contracts should be presumed valid unless some reason can be shown to regard them as the result of coercion or if the contract somehow involves the violation of the rights of a third party, as in a murder contract. In all this, government should be strictly limited to taking only those essential actions necessary to secure and defend the rights of individuals.

The government recognition of homosexual relationship would not violate any third party's rights, and it would not involve coercion between the parties involved. And it is hard to see how the government can have any legitimate interest in controlling or regulating the kinds of relationships into which people can enter.

It is worth noting that marriage as currently enacted in American law is a complicated contract which not only involves mutual duties between spouses but also places one in a position of entitlement with regard to various government programs. One strong attraction of marriage in our current system is that spouses are entitled to preferential treatment as regards Social Security benefits and inheritance taxes. Another benefit of marriage is that spouses are recognized as each others' legal guardians in times of health emergency or incapacitation.

Now, I support personal responsibility, not government retirement programs, and I am morally opposed to "progressive" taxation as an unearned penalty on the productive. I long for a society of individual freedom in which government has far less power generally to define social norms or enforce moral standards. Reality is a better judge of moral standards than are politicians.

However this says nothing to the "morality," or "immorality," of homosexual "marriage." Indeed, one has the political right to engage in many immoral acts.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 2:09 PM

Ethan is typical of the bigots who are incaple of saying "gay marriage" only homosexual marriage. This is typical of the religious right who like to frame being gay as a "condition". Ethan why not save some typing and just refer to it as homo marriage.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 4:25 PM

Ben, you're probably right about that. I've no doubt they will come up with a new excuse in regard to straight married couples who elect not to have kids, or can't. So far, they've not addressed it because in reality, they can't. For the sake of consistency, using their usual mantra..."marriage is essentially instituted for procreation", they would need to also call for a ban or an amendment to bar those straights from marrying who enter civil marriage with absolutely no intention of procreating. I'd like to see them try. Having said that, their argument holds no water.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 4:33 PM

Actually, except for the "homosexual marriage"crack, ethan's last post sounds reasonable. I haven't been reading too much of what he has to say, otherwise.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 7:04 PM

Ben, I fail to understand how labeling homosexuals as homosexuals is somehow a "crack." It was not meant to be. I think the label "gay" can be problematic for many reasons, including the fact that in schools the term "gay" is often used as an insult. I was not, and am not, trying to belittle you or others in any way. I apologize if that happened.

Now, I should point out that I regard homosexuality to be a "sin" - the definition being "missing the mark" (Greek, hamartia) of our Creator's ideal. Having said this, I need to add three important points.

First, there are a number of scholars who argue that these six passages are not as clear cut in denouncing all forms of homosexuality as they may initially seem. For example, some point out that the word the Apostle Paul uses in I Tim. 6 and I Tim. 1 that is usually translated as "homosexuality" (arsenakoitai) is very ambiguous. It's never used before Paul coins it in these verses and historically it's been translated in a wide variety of ways. For example, Martin Luther translated it "masturbation." Also, some scholars argue that the kind of homosexuality Paul had in mind when writing Romans 1 would have been the kind typically practiced by Romans and would not have included loving, respectful, monogamous committed relationships. Now, I am not at all persuaded by these arguments, but neither do I casually dismiss this debate.

Second, there is absolutely no justification for the way many Christians today make homosexuality out to be worse than other types of sin. Judging from the way certain Christian leaders have publicly crusaded against homosexuality, you'd think it was the number one sin in the Bible and the most damaging sin to society. Yet, while we have AT MOST six verses in the Bible that mention homosexuality, we have around 3,000 passages that address greed, gluttony and the need to care for the poor. Not only this, but if there are any sins American Christians are most guilty of, they're greed, gluttony and apathy toward the poor. And if there are any sins that demonstrably kill people, it's these ones. Yet Christians GO AFTER AND IN SOME CASES ATTACK HOMOSEXUALS. Why? One can't help but suspect it might be because it's one sin they can feel self-righteous in condemning.

Third, and closely related to this, there's no justification for the way many Christians make homosexuality a "deal breaker" sin. That is, many seem to think that it's impossible to be a Christian and also be gay. You can be Christian and be greedy, an overeater and never sacrifice for the poor, but you can't be gay? You can be Christian and be divorced and remarried, gossip and judge others - all mentioned in the Bible more than homosexuality - but you can't be gay? Why?

When people get their life from their religion rather than from their relationship with Jesus Christ, they need to find some sin-group they can positively contrast themselves with. Sadly, for many Christians, this happens to be gay people.

This tendency to put sins on a scale of importance, ranking homosexuality near the top and other sins - the ones WE are guilty of (and that are mentioned more frequently in the Bible) - towards the bottom is antithetical to the ways of a true follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus commands us to DO THE OPPOSITE. We're to regard our sins, WHATEVER THEY ARE, as planks sticking out of our eyes, and other peoples sins, WHATEVER THEY ARE, to be mere dust particles. With St. Paul, we are to confess that we are "the worst of sinners."

So, while I believe homosexuality "misses the mark" of God's sexual ideals, I adamantly believe it doesn't do so more than any other sin we might think of.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 8:17 PM

Now, I support personal responsibility, not government retirement programs, and I am morally opposed to "progressive" taxation as an unearned penalty on the productive.---This is typical right wing bullshit! The 'productive' usually get super wealthy by exploiting those beneath them. You tell me some Fortune 500 hotshot who runs the company into the ground and walks away with a platinum parachute works any harder or is more productive than the underpaid mother of 3 or 4 who works for the same company, is paid no benefits, and can barely survive let alone save up for her retirement. And why shouldnt the wealthiest (or at least we used to be!) country on earth take care of the elderly. What the hell kind of a country do you want to live in anyway. These same elderly people worked hard all their lives and in more than a few cases gave their children to be killed or maimed defending the same greedy exploitive bastards who wont give them a living wage or help them when they're old and or sick. This country is becoming suckier by the day thanks to the policies of people like ethan. The financial meltdown we just had is just the beginning and OF COURSE they expect US taxpayers to bail their asses out. Ethan and the current conservative philosophy is privatize profits, but socialize losses. If I were young right now I'd be moving to Europe or Canada. America is in the twilight of empire.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 8:17 PM

ps...the Creator MADE us gay, it's not a sin, only you're ignorance is, you big closet case!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 8:26 PM

I completely agree that "America is in the twilight of empire." But that's not due to a failure of free market capitalism. It's precisely the opposite. It's due to the failure of government-controlled faux market capitalism. The blame for the problematic state of the economy lies squarely with the Federal Reserve. It should be abolished and the money power returned to the several States; if it is not, the nation will go bankrupt and be broken by forces much stronger than mere partisan politics.

Concerning taxation specifically, what America needs to do is eliminate the federal income and payroll-based taxes with a national retail sales tax. We need to abolish all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax - to be administered by the existing (or newly created) state sales tax authorities.

But I don't even need to focus on that to answer the objections above. More generally, we need to radically downsize and simplify the functions of government at all levels. We need a social consensus that it is morally right to earn wealth. We need a consensus that rejects the envy we see everyday in America. But the vital matter is not the complexity of the tax code, but the extent of the government our taxes fund and the willingness of the public to condone such a bloated and harmful system.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 8:47 PM

Ethan (AJ), I thought you were banned from this site.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 10:04 PM

Generally, I try to stay out of these discussions, but I'm willing to engage a little.

Here's the crack. You wrote:

However this says nothing to the "morality," or "immorality," of homosexual "marriage."

My marriage, honey, is not 'marriage', whether approved of by you, the state, the church, or anyone. But it happens to have been blessed by a Christian minister and recognized by my state. now, having said that, I will also say this.

The passages you cite, as you note, are HIGHLY ambiguous, and there is a great deal of evidence-- you cite Martin Luther, for example-- that they don't mean what some people think they mean.

I had a discussion with a pastor, who basically claimed that references Sodom were sexual, and homosexual in nature, even though not one passage of the bible backs that-- he had to rely on extra-biblical authority to establish biblical authority. "It was well known at the time", he said. And as I said, "But apparently not worth mentioning except a few hundred years later, I replied.

He then took his ball and went home, so to speak.

Since these passages are not only highly doubtful, but highly doubtful that they are in any way or sense addressing what we understand now to be true of homosexuality, well...

when you say it is a sin, by your own admission, that is highly questionable.

when you say that homosexuality is no greater sin than any other, You are speaking the truth. assuming of course, that it is a sin.see #1.

however,, when you personally say it misses G's mark, then you are just speaking ex cathedra from your belly button (I know, it dates me).

In other words, you are just making it all up. You have NO scriptural basis for that.

My experience is that Christians would rather bend and twist scripture, which you believe is the word of G, to fit your very narrow religious and political agenda, than to admit that the seven or so extremely ambiguous passages allegedly condemning gay people are no where near as clear as the 250 or so passages governing hetero behavior. You'd think if it were so goddam important it would have been mentioned clearly rather than having to be magicked into existence. The minister claimed that Hebrew was not very precise, except for having 200 words for sand. You would think that G would have picked one that was.

In other words, it really isn't about sin, gay people, G's word, or anything.

It is, as it has always been, how much the very existence of gay people bothers some straight people no end, as well as some people who wanna be straight but aren't.

I will take a bow now.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/22/2008 10:38 PM

Ben, I was just reading Ethan's post. He uses language and references identical to Theo. Wayne needs to ban these christo-fascists once and for all. They can only fool us some of the time, but like a lot of liars, they give themselves away, they're not that clever in maintaining their disguise for very long.

I wouldn't mind betting that some computer geek could track down Ethan's ISP address regardless of domain or email address and find out that these two are probably one and the same.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 8:08 AM

That's actually not true Robert. But I fail to understand your obsession in this area. Wayne is free to delete any comments he wants. I suggest you leave that up to him. If you want to engage in dialogue in his comments section, great. If not, then why do you keep pushing Wayne to delete comments that people leave? No one is forcing you to read them, are they?
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 9:14 AM

Ethan, why dont't you have the honesty to admit you're Theo? Your writing style is identical as well as some of the expressions you use. You're so transparent. Sooner or later you give yourself away. You have to be a good liar to fool anyone, but you're not. I'm not the only one here who concurs either.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 11:07 AM

I have to disagree with Ethan saying that you can be christian and gay. It makes about as much sense for someone to run into a burning house as it does for a gay person to go into a church. It is much better for ones self esteem to go where you are welcome. What purpose is it to sit in a church being told that you miss the mark, that you are a child of a lesser god. I am much more interested in Eastern religions, and Kaballah, etc.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 1:01 PM

Actually, part of me says Ethan isn't Threo-- they disagree on some fundamental points.

Part of me says ethan is Theo-- both don't usually rsspond t a direct challenge on what they say.

Who knows
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 2:00 PM

Robert, from what you have written in the past there is little point in dialoguing with you. You simply do not want anyone commenting on Wayne's posts who doesn't agree with you. If anyone sees Wayne on TV or on various blogs, visits his site, comments on his blogs in a way you disagree with, then somehow they are apart of some vast-right wing, "anti-gay" or "ex-gay" conspiracy to...to comment on blogs? Again, Wayne is free to delete my comments, or any comments, but I don't see why he would mine. Unlike other people you relate me too, I am respectful and enjoy the dialogues I have, even when there is disagreement. But you Robert don't dialogue. You simply accuse. And it's pointless.

Ben, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this issue. Being that you don't claim to be a Christian, that really doesn't matter all that much I suppose. In my view there are three passages in the Old Testament and three or four in the New Testament that have traditionally been read as prohibiting homosexuality. On top of this, the entire biblical narrative presupposes that sex is supposed to take place between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. The biblical definition of "sin" is "missing the mark," and on the basis of this scriptural evidence, I have to regard homosexuality as "missing the mark" of God's ideal. So again, yes, I regard homosexuality to be a sin.

And as I've said, there's no justification for the way many Christians make homosexuality a "deal breaker" sin. It is possible to be a Christian and also be gay. Again, you can be Christian and be greedy, an overeater and never sacrifice for the poor, but you can't be gay? Again, you can be Christian and be divorced and remarried, gossip and judge others - all mentioned in the Bible more than homosexuality - but you can't be gay? That doesn't make any sense.

Recently I was asked if it was possible for two Christians of the same gender to remain a "couple" if they do not engage in sex? They said they loved one another, but their study of the Bible and the early church fathers convinced and convicted them that engaging in sex was wrong, so they committed to abstaining. But they still wanted to share their life together.

Now, I've found that a lot of gay people assume the Bible's teaching that homosexual behavior is sin condemns them to a life of solitude, devoid of love. It does not!!! I did advise these two people not refer to themselves as a "couple" any longer (this is the language of romance, not friendship), but that there was nothing in the Bible that suggests two people of the same gender can't share a love for one another that is as profound as a love between a man and a woman. David and Jonathan had this kind of affection for one another.

Two people of the same gender can share a deep, godly, profound love for one another. The Bible is against homoerotic BEHAVIOR, but not against same gender love itself. I advised several other gay couples along these lines. They obviously have to struggle with sexual temptation, but the ones I know have found the struggle worth the reward of continuing to share life with someone they love profoundly.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 2:14 PM

Ethant take your tale of the imaginary sky fairy and go home. The ignorant ramblings of primitive ancient goat herders has nothing of any value to say to anyone. You want to live by superstition go ahead but stop trying to cram your bigoted crap down LGBT people's throats.
posted by Priya Lynn, at 9/23/2008 2:39 PM

OK, I agree. ethan is theo
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 2:45 PM

Ethan (THEO), you're a total fraud and a liar! You use exactly the same references and accusations THEO uses in here. I don't give a flying f--k "dialoguing with you, its the the same useless conservative shit and drivel you spew in here. What is it about a gay blogsite that attracts you so much anyway? Can't stay away from the men, self-loathing closet case! You get kicked out once and you come back in under a different name, you're that much of a liar and again, a total fraud.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 2:45 PM

I've never been "kicked out" Robert, and the reason two Christians may cite to the same verse(s) when discussing homosexuality is because they utilizing the same book, the same verses, and addressing the same issue. Since you and Ben often give similar answers and make similar points, are you the same person? Of course not. You're just being silly and childish now and, yes, as others have pointed out, "conspiratorial."

I will say that I too have looked back and the banned "Theo" made many different points as well.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 2:56 PM

Who cares what the Bible says? It's a 2,000-4,000 year old book for goodness sakes. It was written by primitive human beings; it's not like it was delivered supernaturally to us by some deity. Please, awaken and join reality!
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 3:00 PM

Ethan(THEO)...conspiratorial? Exactly the same word THEO used, a lot. You're the same person. THEO you are the only one who ever accused me of subscribing to conspiracy theories about you, many times, nobody else ever did. In fact others enjoined me in that. I often say the same things but I don't change my name or pretend I'm someone else to avoid being booted.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 3:39 PM

The Bible is against hetroerotic BEHAVIOR outside marriage. Bull most all people have taken their spouses for a test run befor marrying them (smart move), even after being "born again". This includes Ethan who was not a virgin befor marriage, and likely had extramarital sex even after claiming to be a christian.

Perhaps we should just all be honest adults here. Since this is not a site who purpose is to debate whether gays should be celebate, I think we should have heard all we need from Ethan (AJ, Theo) especially since he was banished from this site. If he was an honest christian he would respect the desire (and the right) of Wayen Besen to not have his presence here.
posted by Anonymous, at 9/23/2008 5:14 PM

I see this post has brought out all of the usual wailers and gnashers of teeth.

What some people can't seem to grasp is that the USA and all of the states in it are governed by Constitutions, not the Bible. Accordingly what the Bible says is a moot point. Outside of religious arguments opponents of same-sex marriage have nothing other than fabricated nonsense.

Marriage equality is a basic and necessary right. It was in 1967 when interracial marriage was legalized and it is now. It's high time people understood that.
posted by Buffy, at 9/25/2008 10:36 AM

看房子,買房子,建商

自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮
 儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA
PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,廣告
 課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,

日式料理 , 台北居酒屋,燒肉
posted by Anonymous, at 1/12/2009 11:13 AM

花蓮|花蓮縣|花蓮縣長|楊文值|花蓮楊文值|縣政值日生|花蓮選舉|花蓮初選|花蓮民宿|傅崑萁|花蓮議長|張志明|花蓮|杜麗華|蔡啟塔|花蓮初選|花蓮美食|花蓮|花蓮縣長|花蓮民宿|花蓮旅遊|楊文值|縣政值日生|傅崑萁|杜麗華|張志明|蔡啟塔|傅崑萁|中國國民黨|花蓮黨內初選|花蓮縣|花蓮初選|花蓮楊文值|花蓮選舉|花蓮百里侯|花蓮|楊文值|縣政值日生|花蓮縣長|花蓮民宿推薦|花蓮初選|花蓮縣|楊文值|花蓮縣長|縣政值日生|花蓮|花蓮民宿網|楊文值|花蓮縣長|縣政值日生|花蓮|花蓮縣長|楊文值|縣政值日生|花蓮|花蓮縣長|楊文值|縣政值日生|楊文值|楊文值|花蓮縣長
posted by Anonymous, at 2/22/2009 12:41 PM

[url="http://motel.ezhotel.tw"]汽車旅館[/url]
[url="http://shopping.ezhotel.tw"]消費券優惠[/url]
[url="http://motel.ezhotel.tw"]motel[/url]
[url="http://shopping.ezhotel.tw"]消費券[/url]
[url="http://www.ezhotel.tw/motel"]薇閣[/url]
[url="http://www.ezhotel.tw/motel"]住宿券[/url]
[url="http://tw.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]廣交會[/url]
[url="http://tw.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]廣州飯店[/url]
[url="http://tw.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]廣州[/url]
[url="http://cn.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]广州[/url]
[url="http://cn.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]广交会[/url]
[url="http://www.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]广州酒店[/url]
[url="http://en.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]Canton Fair[/url]
[url="http://en.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]Guangzhou Hotel[/url]
[url="http://en.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]Guangzhou[/url]
[url="http://jp.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]広州[/url]
[url="http://jp.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]広州の交易会[/url]
[url="http://jp.chinahotel.com.cn/ch_guangzhou.php"]広州のホテル[/url]
posted by Anonymous, at 2/23/2009 10:06 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 3/31/2009 11:46 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 1/09/2010 11:53 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 6/25/2010 6:10 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 8/11/2011 12:07 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 8/06/2013 11:10 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 5/23/2014 9:52 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at 4/01/2015 10:30 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at 5/25/2015 12:47 AM