tvashtarkatena

Religion enjoys special protection under the constitution that the restaurant does not, so your comparison is ridiculous. (Of course, you already know this being an ACLU guest speaker and all. ) I support gay marriage, but if you really want to know why the idea doesn't gain wide acceptance, it is because of a militancy that wants to impose itself on others. Forcing churches to marry gays when it is against their doctrine is just such a case. Why else would someone want to do it? It's no different from forcing churches to marry mixed racial couples (something which, until relatively recently, most churches refused to do). Why give churches a free pass to disriminate, while penalizing all other public entities for doing so. Sorry, no disciminatory hall pass for churches. They get enough freebies from the state as it is. I hear the 'militancy is the problem' argument from conservatives and it's basically a bullshit attempt to keep change at bay. The idea itself is basically fucking stupid on its face. A) Militancy has always been a potent force for positive change. Imagine the civil rights movement without militancy. You can't; there simply wouldn't have been one. B) Most of what's going on in the courts isn't 'militancy', it's people standing up for their equal protection clause rights under the constitution. C) Society is rapidly accepting equal rights for gays, with or without 'militancy'. There is not a shred evidence that if gays just put up and shut up, suddenly everyone would love them. Quite the contrary; the current rapid change of attitudes is a result of a concerted, nationwide effort to codify equal rights for gays, i.e., 'militancy'. D) Most civil liberties were won through the use or threat of force, physical or legal. Not all disciminators give up the practice willingly. The issue of the day is no different.

Oh right, thanks Bug. The problem I see with this is that in fact, as you point out yourself, new interpretations of the law are being established expressly to construe church exclusivity as a violation of civil rights. This makes you guilty of a circular argument. Personally, I find it confusing that someone would want to get married in the kind of church that would try to exclude them. I'm left with the impression that the motivation to do this is more adversarial and spiteful, than it is an expression of a desire for civil justice. I do believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights under the eyes of the law as anyone else. I'm just not sure that churches are the right 'battlefield' for this occur. Churches shouldn't have anything to do with it. Substitute 'black people' for 'gays' in your church argument and see if you still think churches should not be a battlefield for civil rights. Churches always have been such, at times in support, and at times against civil liberties. Why you think they should suddenly be exempt from this role is a mystery.

It's a wonder why the entire population hasn't driven the fuck out of that shithole.

Here's a fun little 'normality' test for all you manly men out there: Which of these subjects is more sexuality repulsive to you?

Wow. I haven't seen that article yet. Can you please give me your source? It was from my Psychology 101 in about 1980, but I know the “experts” have changed their minds about this, again, based on nothing other than the idea, “well that can’t be right”. There is no gene that shows people are genetically predisposed to be normal or homosexual. Therefore it must be a learned behavior, and therefore a choice. I think your ideas are the ones based on uninformed opinion. The 'experts' in question's theories on the subject are base on research. Experiments in brain chemistry and genetics have changed the sexual orientation of animal subjects. In addition, there is a growing body of experimental evidence that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. That fact that you, personally, are not aware of 'a gene' (which reveals your basic misunderstanding of genetics) for homosexuality, or that 'one' has not been discovered yet, does not at all prove your point. To characterize your heterosexuality as 'normal' and homosexuality as 'abnormal' is patently ridiculous. Homosexuality has been observed in over 100 species of animals; a certain percentage of a given population exhibits homosexual behavior; it's as normal and natural as red hair or freckles. Now, you may not like red hair and freckles, but that doesn't make such naturally occuring traits abnormal. Abnormal, in the biological sense, means malformation resulting in reduced function. Homosexuals have as much capacity to be fully functional beings as their heterosexual counterparts. In the end, it doesn't matter from a civil liberties standpoint. Whether sexuality is chosen or bestowed, people in a free people should (and now more than ever, do) have the basic right to chose who they will love. Preventing religion from being used as an excuse to violate basic civil liberties, and thus the law, is not limiting religious practice under the establishment clause. Quite the opposite; allowing religious organizations to break the law constitutes state support, or 'special rights', for religion; something that is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. The smoking ban comparison doesn't apply here, either. That is a public health issue (there is no fundamntal right to smoke, or use any other type of drug, for that matter), not a basic civil rights issue. Businesses enjoy an secure operating environment provided by the state: police, fire, roads, etc. The state has every right to regulate them for the public good, and prohibiting discrimination falls squarely in that category for an enlightened, just society.

The nomenclature is a side issue; changing the wording in such a way would do nothing the resolve most of the conflicts between sexual orientation and religion. Most of the court cases have involved the denying to gay congregation members the use of church facilities that are otherwise open to the rest of the public. It has been argued successfully that this is akin to a restaurant (also a privately owned facility that is open to the general public) denying service due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal.

For those among us who have lost friends in the Alaska Range, I offer these photographs of the Climber’s Memorial in Talkeetna, Alaska. My apologies for any omissions; I only photographed the names of people I met or knew personally.

OK, let's here it: how many of you are planning a nuptual sojourn to California in the near future? The groundswell to legalize gay marriage has resulted in a number of court cases pitting religious organizations against gays; often regarding the use of their public facilities. So far, religion has been losing case after case. I applaud this. The establishment clause of the constitution was never meant to give religion cart blanche to descriminate or violate basic civil liberties. Believers may dissapprove of gays all they want for (ostensibly) religious reasons (fabricated bullshit, if you know your bible), but when this translates into public action in the form of discrimination, these churches are now breaking the law. The days when society accepted religion as an excuse to abuse children, practice racial and sexual descrimination, and violate the equal protection clause are now, thankfully, numbered. If your religious doctrine violates the basic civil liberties of others, either work to change your doctrine, or move it on down the road. There are plenty of countries where that kind of discimination is still OK. This one is no longer one of them.

If the crowd's really unruly, They just flip on that arctic array thingy to make it rain, so all that shit gets nice and runny.

Sounds about like my last trip to The Continent, minus the sidetrips to Christiania and St. Pauli.

Clearly, his self esteem is healthy.

Bring a fresh pair of earplugs for your partner in the likely event that your deviated septum bursts into the Flight of the Valkyries at 1:00 a.m., or in case you just can't shut the fuck up during waking hours.

It was a 5-3 decision. Happens all the time, through recusals or absences.

Whenever I meet a woman with guns or a motorcycle, I know it's just a matter of time before I'll be staring down either a barrel or a tailpipe.

All aboard the Straight Talk Express.

No more bragging, swaggering, or dick swinging until somebody brings home a 1st place trophy, mkay?

I've already posted Article 3, ratified by Congress (and therefore the law of the land) which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners anywhere, anytime. Guantanamo has been a clear violation of that law, as well as a stain on our national honor and integrity. But fuck it, what does honor matter these days? That's just a nice, quaint word from a distant past.

The most interesting part of the article was the description of John McCain's multiple extra marital affairs, including the one with Cindy. Yes, he's quite a guy...a man of real integrity.

How about a word like 'winning'? Could you proud, dutiful, and honorable heroes throw us civilians who are shitting money by the humvee load for all this foreign adventure a bone and maybe actually 'win' a war for a change? I mean, two resounding defeats in six years? With all the pricey, high tech crap we waste on you? This shit's getting old. Come back to us when you've got a victory under your belt, soldier. Until then, shut the fuck up, blowhard.

What, exactly, are this man's intentions? And, isn't that a paintball gun in his right hand?

Wow. Interesting woman.... Brief biography

Looks like we're finally gonna get a first lady who wasn't molded out of polystyrene.

Yeah, definitely a M1911A1 with a monobrow.

Pure fiction, but consider the source. Torture at Quantanamo has been well documented; many of the released innocents from the place have gone on to give detailed accounts of their mistreatment, and their stories are all similar. There is an excellent documentary out about three british tourists who 'accidentally' spent several years being tortured at Quantanamo before their eventual release. See "The Road to Quantanamo" for an explicit account of how our fine men and women in uniform have been keeping America safe. And remember; support the troops. In addition, the International Red Cross came out with a report in 2004 concerning misuse of detainees in US custody around the world. Such abuse included death, breaking a prisoner's shoulders, rape, sodomy with a bottle, and electrocution. You know, the kind of stuff 'some of our soldiers in training' go through on a regular basis. No big deal.

No, single shot'll be fine.