Conyat has left the building. 

I'm surprised you keep cracking the door, hope.

It's a good bet conyat's going to mumble bs to himself until he's positive there's no one left listening.

What is wrong with you?

Good imponderable. Here's another -- three, if you're being precise:

How many accusations of lying does it take to add up to an ad hominem attack?... how many angels on the head of a pin?.... who's counting?

Done with your insults, lies and distortions for tonight, conyat.

But maybe I'll bring some of my Stormfront sympathizer, moron friends along with me tomorrow.

Hope, you can twist and distort all you want, but the meaning of the piece is clear:

>>Will Churches Be Forced To Conduct Gay Weddings?

>>Not a chance. That’s just the scare tactic conservative groups use to frighten voters.

"Remember we're still a long way" in this context means -- "even after the most extreme things that have ever happened, we haven't nearly approached"--it doesn't mean "it's only a matter of time."

You aren't going to fool anyone. This place is not nearly so full of morons or Stormfront sympathizers as you imagine.

You're entitled to believe whatever race-baiting scenario makes you feel entitled to claim to be a victim this time, just as you were entitled to believe that date rape was invented by feminists or whatever the hogwash was you posted on the other board. But you haven't tricked even one person here into going down into the gutter with you. Pretty amazing. Folks here are a lot smarter and more decent than you give them creidt for.

You invented the threat of lawsuits over interracial marriage out of whole cloth, and persisted even after I pointed out that the dean of Harvard Law had debunked it. There must have been a reason, hope.

Glad to know the shoe you made for yourself fits so comfortably.

Here's the headline to the article hope quoted out of context to scare the Stormfront sympathizers:

>>Will Churches Be Forced To Conduct Gay Weddings?

>>Not a chance. That’s just the scare tactic conservative groups use to frighten voters.

 She could hardly have missed it; the type is huge on the page.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/gay_marriage_churches_synagogues_and_mosques_won_t_be_forced_to_conduct.html

To turn around and make it seem like the author is just biding her time---after a headline like that--well, it's pretty much an admission that the second line of the headline is true.

Again clearly, I'm not the target for all this race-baiting. Who here is believed to be so full of racial resentment that they would fall for this? I've been lurking awhile and can't identify anyone here, but hope must have thought this would sound plausible to someone......

-- Edited by conyat on Monday 29th of April 2013 02:43:09 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Monday 29th of April 2013 02:44:37 PM

Throughout our history we have seen efforts by the Supreme Court to maintain that separation of church and state. InReynolds v. United States, George Reynolds was convicted of violating a statute that prohibited bigamy. He appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that his Mormon religion called for him to marry more than once, and religious freedom should allow for this. The Court however did not agree, it clarified that the State can legitimately govern actions but not beliefs regarding religion and that prohibiting bigamy does not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment seeing as marriage has been between two people since before our ancestors traveled to America from England (Reynolds v. United States 1878).

Religious Duty argument

The Court considered whether Reynolds could use religious belief or duty as a defense. Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.

The Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. However it argued that the law prohibiting bigamy did not meet that standard. The fact that a person could only be married to one person had existed since the times of King James I of England in English law, upon which United States law was based.

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

 And..

And on this single point—religious institutions can’t discriminate on the basis of race and remain tax exempt—the courts have held fast, because on this issue the country has reached a consensus. Minow points out that Chief Justice John Roberts said he supported the court’s Bob Jones decision at his 2005 confirmation hearing. Neither party wants to defend blatant racial discrimination any longer. In fact, Bob Jones ended its ban on interracial dating a decade ago. (The university hasn’t reapplied for its tax exemption, but an affiliated academy and museum are tax exempt.)

And Emily Bazelton, Yale Law School educated liberal at Slate, and Senior Research Fellow at Yale Law,wraps it up for us in the very article you posted...

But remember, we are still a long way from churches being forced to marry gay couples or hire gay ministers. We’re talking about teachers and social workers who work for religiously affiliated institutions—in states that have chosen to protect them from discrimination.

You made your point. I'm an anti-American race-baiter in your mind.

In future, I'll see posts declaring "Even you yourself admitted you are an anti-American race baiter."

Now stop.

-- Edited by hope on Monday 29th of April 2013 05:38:24 AM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 29th of April 2013 06:02:00 AM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 29th of April 2013 06:02:53 AM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 29th of April 2013 06:30:10 AM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 29th of April 2013 07:34:26 AM

There are more libertarians on this board than you can imagine.  Far more than conservative right wing posters. 

You know, the fiscally conservative, socially liberal type. The kind that are pussed off about the debt, but don't give a damn who you marry. 

I voted for legalization of gay marriage in California, btw.  

I think the moderator was attempting to end this thread, in case you missed it.

Goodnight, conyat.

For heaven's sake, give it a rest already, Conyat!

 I  do not even read Free Republic, and I'm pretty sure no one here does.  I used it as an example  where you could put your special brand of distortion to real use.  

What is the matter...have you been banned there? 

This forum is about the mildest you can probably find on the Internet. 

The fact that liberals went into retreat here says something.

There is a way to respectfully disagree with a poster without making every response a personal attack.  

I welcome your dissenting opinion, but if a poster attacks you personally - not just your opinion -  call it out and then make your case.  If your argument is strong, than  is far more compelling than making it strictly a rebuttal against one person, again and again. 

The horse is long since dead and your point got lost along the way, because even I tuned out your posts, and I have read every single post since ths board launched. I had enough of the pinata treatment at CC by people who shall remain nameless, but basically attacked me, not my argument.  It is ugly and not any way to convince others of tge merits of an argument. 

Your mileage my differ. 

Anybody can find a lawyer who will sue anybody. That's the law. Very pro-American idea, at that. Whether or not he/she will win is another question. 

Twenty years hence, that remains to be seen

Even with all your powers, I tend to doubt clairvoyance is one of them.

So that's all you've got to finally hang your hat on after all these posts.

Start a new thread on another topic why don't you.

Your concern for the thousands and thousands of youth reading here is touching, though.

Now I really am going to bed.

Libertarian is still right wing. Look at Ron Paul. Ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. Solid supporter of Section III of DOMA; believes government should be granted the power to break down people's doors and arrest them for using a non-government approved orifice in bed. (He'll claim he doesn't "want" government to do this, he merely "wants" them to have the power to do it if they please). Believes that the Bill of Rights, including the First and Fifth amendments, simply doesn't apply at the state level, 14th amendment be damned.

You could argue--and I have argued--that Ron Paul is no libertarian. But the fact is the Libertarians embraced him and put him at the top of their ticket over more freedom-loving candidates because in their eyes, better a right winger who wants to destroy your access to your Constitutional rights than a left winger who will defend them.

Whether you agree with hope that her demographic deserves special legal rights is ultimately irrelevent to moderation of this board if/when you let your "left pinata/right stick" bias dominate your perception of what "civil" means.

I did, a long way back. Again:

(CNSNews.com) – Civil rights activist Rev. William Owens, who is founder and president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, said Tuesday there is no comparison between the civil rights movement and the gay community’s fight for same-sex marriage.

“I marched and many other thousands of people marched in this same location years ago on the claim that we were being discriminated against, and today the other community is trying to say that they are suffering the same thing that we suffered, but I tell you they are not,” said Owens, who gathered on the National Mall with other traditional marriage supporters in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court met Tuesday to consider Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. However, the Associated Press reported that the high court could dismiss the case with no ruling at all.

Owens said that as a black man, he cannot change the color of his skin.

“Every morning I wake up, I look in the mirror, and I see a black man, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to change the color of my skin,” he said.

Owens said there is no comparing the gay community’s fight for marriage equality and the black community’s civil rights movement.

“They are not suffering what we suffered, and I sympathize with people who face discrimination. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, but what they’re going through does not compare to what we went through,” Owens said.

“There is no comparison, and for many years, the African-American family and community have been under assault from all sides – abortion, single family households, poverty and a failing education system,” he added.

Owens said for the gay community to try to change the definition of marriage will be “devastating to all of our families.”

“Perhaps, you were not old enough to be with me in the civil rights movement in the late 50s or the early 60s, but I’m marching again, and this time I’m marching to defend marriage between a man and a woman,” he concluded.

No one I know, including Catholics, believe gay people should be treated with anything other than respect and dignity. I don't know anyone who objects to civil unions.  We do object to changing the definition of marriage, for many reasons that go beyond religious beliefs. 

Why not go stalk and attempt to discredit Rev. William Owens. He has a larger following than I do, haha. Or grace some liberal Catholic board whose members voted for Obama and put to use your superior knowledge of Catolicism to teach them that their vote for unfettered abortion rights and gay marriage are contrary to their religion.  If my religious inconsistency bothers you so much, they must be driving you totally insane. 

Not really? Oh, what a shock.

Madhatter perhaps you will care to look at my first post to hope and hope's first post to me. You will see that I simply asked a polite question and was immediately made the subject of a particularly vile insinuation.

It was trademark behavior of hope's on CC to launch all sorts of pre-emptive nastiness at people, while claiming to be a victim if anyone disagreed with her in any way.

I suppose if this is one of those message boards designed for non-conservatives to be passive pinatas for conservatives, that's okey-dokey.

It must be very hard to inculcate a place where conservatives will know that they can post anti-American race-baiting and no one will dare to disagree with it for fear of being banned. Seems you've done a great job so far silencing anyone who would speak up. I count about 10 conservative posters to 1 longprime.  That's really something for you to be proud of. Good luck in your future endeavors.

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 06:32:50 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 06:33:44 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 06:36:25 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 06:38:07 PM

-- Edited by conyat on Sunday 28th of April 2013 06:38:36 PM

One of the goals I had when starting this message board was to give people a place to discus things such as politics and other issues of the day in a civil manner. 

Loosely moderated, with no porn or hate speech, was the basic idea.  I figured if we were adults we could have that kind of discussion that spoke to the facts without personal attacks. This is not always the case.  Unfortunately, we have more lurkers than active posters, and much of it has to do with resentments started over at the CC board. 

So, when one lurker comes on and just starts making everything personal against another poster, post after post,, I have to wonder why. 

I have let this gone on too long.  I did not add my opinion because I have basically said everything I ever want to say about gay marriage on CC back in the day. i am not Catholic, and although right wing, not personally religious. this isn't my fight.  I do not agree with hope on a lot of things, and in this matter she has held her own.  

Instead of doing the passive agressive thing with a personal message to a poster, I am leaving it out for everyone to see.  

Conyat, if you are here to post and have a serious discussion with us, that is great.  What I see in your posts seems to be a personal fight between you and hope.  If it were a drinking game where we took a shot anytime you said "hope" or "smear",  most of us would have passed out long ago from you pointedly referring to her comments. 

It is getting old.  Either let it go or take it outside.  

 I cited the DOMA White House decision to show that people like Obama are perfectly willing to ignore the law when it suits their agenda, and of their willingness to label special protections for their chosen groups (including, now according to Holder, illegals) civil rights.

For the hundredth time, my own personal religious inconsistencies are my own personal business.  Many people believe Pope Francis privately condoned civil unions as a compromise in Argentina, by the way, so I guess I'm in good company. But....not good enough, is it.

Why don't you take your vitriol over to someplace like Free Republic, where they have more readers? Or do you post your mean- spirited word puzzles on All message boards who have one or more "bigots" posting?  I hope you do.  It just proves my original point that there are gay activists (yes, activists, and, yes, powerful activists) out there who will stop at NOTHING to reach their goals. As Pope Francis said, "Let's not be naive...."

During his time as archbishop of Buenos Aires, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio referred to gay marriage as a “destructive attack on God’s plan” and “a move of the Father of Lies who seeks to deceive and confuse the children of God.” In addition, he characterized adoption by gay parents to be a form of discrimination against children. 

I agree with this, whether you decree this belief is based on my religion or not. In the end what does it matter. According to you I am a bigot who "hates" gay people because I believe marriage as between a man and a woman is part of natural law, as is anyone who believes the same, for whatever reason.

You admitted a few posts back that all anti gay-marriage human beings, whether they base their "hate" on their religion or not, are "bigots." You have as much respect for any teachings of the Church , including its teachings on abortion, as the man in the moon (I remember your rabid proabortion rights posts on CC). You just use people's own religion against them to twist and "deceive and confuse." 

Any further posts you write to me I will simply repost the above. 

 I cited the DOMA White House decision to show that people like Obama are perfectly willing to ignore the law when it suits their agenda, and of their willingness to label special protections for their chosen groups (including, now according to Holder, illegals) civil rights.

For the hundredth time, my own personal religious inconsistencies are my own personal business.  Many people believe Pope Francis privately condoned civil unions as a compromise in Argentina, by the way, so I guess I'm in good company. But....not good enough, is it.

Why don't you take your vitriol over to someplace like Free Republic, where they have more readers? Or do you post your mean- spirited word puzzles on All message boards who have one or more "bigots" posting?  I hope you do.  It just proves my original point that there are gay activists (yes, activists, and, yes, powerful activists) out there who will stop at NOTHING to reach their goals. As Pope Francis said, "Let's not be naive...."

During his time as archbishop of Buenos Aires, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio referred to gay marriage as a “destructive attack on God’s plan” and “a move of the Father of Lies who seeks to deceive and confuse the children of God.” In addition, he characterized adoption by gay parents to be a form of discrimination against children. 

I agree with this, whether you decree this belief is based on my religion or not. In the end what does it matter. According to you I am a bigot two "hates" gay people because I believe marriage as between a man and a woman is part of natural law, as is anyone who believes the same, for whatever reason.

You admitted a few posts back that all anti gay-marriage human beings, whether they base their "hate" on their religion or not, are "bigots." You have as much respect for any teachings of the Church , including its teachings on abortion, as the man in the moon (I remember your rabid proabortion rights posts on CC). You just use people's own religion against them to twist and "deceive and confuse." 

Any further posts you write to me I will simply repost the above. 

>>Well finally, the truth of what you believe.

Funny coming from you. You've tried to claim over and over that your religious beliefs are the reason you object to gay people having the same legal status as yourself. But it's been proven on this board that you accept the teachings of your church only when they do not conflict with your political opinions. If you had a different opinion from your church about the legal status of gay people, you would simply ignore church teaching (as you do for abortion) or leave your religion.

For you, hope, your demand for superior legal status compared to gay people is entirely a political stance that just coincidentally is shared by your church.

I notice you've yet to explain why it violates your religious freedom for gay people to be able to marry, but doesn't violate others' religious freedom for inter-racial couples to be able to marry.

According to Hope's claims, because of Loving vs. Virginia, this church should have already been sued and its leaders arrested for preaching against interracial marriage.

http://www.applebybaptistchurch.com/Articles/IRM.pdf

http://www.salon.com/topic/appleby_baptist_church/

Can I have a show of hands if there is anyone who believed Hope that making it legal for gay people to enter into state marriage contracts would require Catholic priests to perform gay weddings and make it illegal for them to criticize gay marriage?

Was anyone fooled even a little bit?

Remember that you aren't just demanding that your church bar gay people from receiving one of the sacraments--you are also demanding that the government treat them unequally in order to satisfy your need to feel superior. Once you start demanding preferential treatment from the government for your own demographic compared to another, you cross a line. A line that you'll notice that the pastor who wrote the article I linked hasn't even crossed. He believes that black people are slated by God to be servants only--a belief that I am sure is just as sincere as your belief that gay people cannot receive the sacrament of marriage--yet he doesn't call for the government to treat them as second-class citizens. Yet I don't think most people would have trouble identifying him as a racist. What makes his belief in the superiority of his demographic any less valid than your belief in the superiority of yours?

 - Conyat

Well finally, the truth of what you believe.

To clarify, the point was that you were very, very wrong in your understanding of the facts. You persisted in this error for years, and continued to say incorrect things even after I called your attention to the bishops' statement. You simply made up your own reality and became compelled by it. Exactly the same thing you are doing with your ludicrous statements that inter-racial couples can sue for sacraments or that making something legal means the government will arrest people who criticize it. You have no ability to understand that this isn't real anywhere outside your own head.

Fortunately, most of the people in America do have that ability, so they won't fall for the rehashed race-baiting and America-bashing, no matter how many times you assert that up is down and wrong is right and day is night.

Among the many reasons I began voting Republican in the 2000 election was that I did not trust the Democrat party to ultimately preserve religious liberty in this country. Included in that decision was that, other than the repeal of Roe v Wade, I was closer in agreement to their platform on abortion by far than the Democrat platform.  The latest Democrat platform on abortion is alarming to say the least (I have read it). I am also a huge supporter of parental rights, another reason I switched parties, strongly in favor of parental notification in cases of underage abortion.

I have not voted for a pro-choice candidate since I voted in 1998 for Bill Clinton. I do not work for or give money to abortion groups, and am not a public person. Other than believing abortion should be legal in this country, I am entirely pro-life. It's as is no one ever heard of the phrase, " safe, legal and rare."

As I said, I somehow doubt you are as concerned for the souls of the 50 percent of Catholics, including Biden and Pelosi, who voted for the extreme pro-abortion candidate Barack Obama as you are for the souls those of us, who might, depending on the circumstance, vote for a moderate pro-choice Republican. 

President Barack Obama won a slim majority of votes from self-identified Catholics, according to exit polls conduct by CNN.

The polls shows that 50% of voters who identified themselves as Catholics voted for Obama, and 48% for Republican nominee Mitt Romney. The CNN poll did not distinguish between active and lapsed Catholics.

Protestant voters swung heavily toward Romney, the CNN polls showed, with 57% choosing the Republican and only 42% voting to re-elect Obama. The initial reports on the CNN exit polls did not distinguish among the different Protestant denominations.

Among voters who said they had no religious affiliation, Obama was the overwhelming favorite, with a commanding 70-26% edge.

The CNN exit polls showed a clear preference for Romney (59- 39%) among voters who attended church services weekly, and an even more pronounced tilt toward Obama (62-34%) among those who never attended services.

Republican Party platform:

 THE SANCTITY AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFEFaithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

 

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion, permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by exacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties to health care providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives and abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions - gender discrimination in its most lethal form - and to protect from abortion unborn children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a revision of federal law 42 U.S.C. 289.92 to bar the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research. We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We also salute the many states that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose live, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

 

Democrat Party platform:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs."