From setting a Book of Mormon alight to sending envelopes of white powder to Mormon Temples, proponents of gay rights show no respect for the real rights of others in pursuit of imaginary rights for themselves. Why, in the wake of California voters rejecting homosexual marriage, target Mormons? Because they are a more marginalized religious minority than Catholics or evangelicals, and going after blacks--who rejected same-sex marriage in California by a 7-3 ratio--just wouldn't be helpful to people quick to invoke Selma and Memphis as antecedents to their narrative. Freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech are under attack. National Review Online details that after the Mormons, the gay activists may come after your religion: "In New Mexico, a state civil-rights commission fined an evangelical wedding photographer $6,637 for politely declining to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. In California, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against two San Diego fertility doctors who refused to give in-vitro fertilization to a lesbian owing to their religious beliefs, even though they had referred her to another doctor. And just this week, evangelical dating site eHarmony, which hadn't previously provided same-sex matchmaking services, announced it had been browbeaten into doing so by New Jersey's Division on Civil Rights and the threat of litigation. The first 10,000 same-sex eHarmony registrants will receive a free six-month subscription. 'That's one of the things I asked for,' crowed Eric McKinley, who brought the charges against eHarmony." As the NRO editorial's title points out, this amounts to "Legislating Immorality." Compounding the evil is that those legislating are judges, bureaucrats, and the media attitudinal police and not actual legislators.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
-Declaration of Independence
Key points: All people are equal, unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it .
To push their particular brand of an extreme agenda, the way to force acceptance so that an aberrant lifestyle can flourish is to break what most would consider the norm. Once social standards are broken down to be all inclusive of such behavior the bar is lowered and the norm now applies as a new standard.
Religion represents one important component in changing views of what is acceptable and what is not. Especially as most religions have definitive rules about sexual norms and marriage.
Although one of the smaller sects, Mormonism might be considered one of the strictest of the Christian based religions. The Mormons are uncompromising with regards to keeping with the basic tenets of their brand of the Christian faith and prize family above all. Also, they are one of the richest and most successful of religious organizations due in no small part to their strict work ethics and adhesion to the letters of their law.
So naturally they would be a primary target of zealots who would hope change the norm by knocking down any institution that represents strong values opposed to theirs.
Books,
Please to clarify:
Which of the two parties in each of those scenarios is being denied Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?
tfm,
I could be wrong but (I don't think so) you're getting sucked in by Dandy, horse, angrymob, '.', Books, etc..
Your call but this guy does not and will not make sense. Just likes to be a pain.
In fact, he's so lame, he has to keep changing his label to get a response.
There is a right way and a wrong way to change society.
The great bus boycott was the right way.
Dan lists examples of the wrong way.
Be well,
Sponge
TFM, I think "Books" is applying the right to pursue happiness in a weird way.
Not that it justifies the illegal acts against Mormons, but I believe the Mormon Church spent an exorbitant amount of money to pass Prop 8. I think this explains their problems with the Mormons more than their picking a safe target.
"Mormonism might be considered one of the strictest of the Christian based religions."
If they were Christians, your words might hold water.
"they are one of the richest and most successful..."
Where did Jesus praise (or even accept) the glory of wealth? He didn't ("The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. (Matt. 13:44)), and they are not Christian.
"The Mormons are uncompromising with regards to keeping with the basic tenets of their brand..."
Like seeing stones, polygamy, racism, the importance of wealth, contextual exegesis, God=Adam, altering several thousand verses of the Bible (Wolverton, Susan (2004). Having Visions: The Book of Mormon : Translated and Exposed in Plain English. Algora, 51-53), Native Americans=Hebrews, and the significance of Independence, Missouri.
Their 'brand' is a bigot cult not related to the actual teachings of Christ nor Old Testament. They have chosen what stories they want from the bible to push their agenda (like so many other Zealots) and then added more. How you call them Christian is beyond me.
Is the Government being used to destroy the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the Mormans? Unless you argue about pediphilia and plural marriages being stopped, you don't have a leg to lean on.
Is the Government being used to destroy the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the homosexuals? Yes.
This has nothing to do with the personal attacks of violence, but rather the role of government in restricting rights to certain people who are 'more equal'.
Nothing validates criminal behavior from either side, but the fact remains that Government just stepped in to restrict rights. Where are the real conservatives for small government?
by the way, I am still waiting on several answers Attacking Sensible Democrats Forever
Everyone has a right to advocate their position and that also means funding it.
That's all the Mormons have done but because it isn't to the liberal/left's liking they will seek to demonise and attack the opposing view to browbeat, denigrate and ultimately vanquich the opponants.
This because they don't really respect others rights or viewpoints.
This is because in their arrogance/pride they know they are right and everyone must shut up even if they are in the minority.
You now have OB1, lets see what sort of rights you still have in 3 yrs?
Assuming George Soros and his ilk wants you to have any.
Really? Same sex matchmaking on eharmony?
What if they don't know how to do that? Are you they then going to be sued for that? Seems to me, the man started the business doing what he believes he knows how to do, and well enough to make money at it.
It's a sad state of our culture that we seem to need to force others to provide things for us. How about inventing "gHarmony.com"? (feel free to use that) Dang, I went to FTD.com and couldn't buy a car. I went to Carmax.com and couldn't buy shoes. Not to mention the dog food I couldn't get at Zappos. Geesh!!! I won't even mention trying to force OIL companies to provide us with solar and wind power.
Wake up people, your liberty is slipping away as it follows your common sense.
"So naturally they would be a primary target of zealots who would hope change the norm by knocking down any institution that represents strong values opposed to theirs."
I think you were talking about gays attacking mormans, but really, just sit and think about your words possibly talking about coming from the other side. It is funny how it works both ways.
ReadThem,
People nowadays keep many different ideas of the correct moral code, along with socially acceptable codes of action and unacceptable codes of action. Some believe that a certain type of personal relationship is so important to healthy society that it ought to be encouraged through law. Others believe there is another type of personal relationship that is important in that way. Civilization has arranged a way for these disputes to be settled without violence and in the U.S. it is the Constitution and the republics. This particular issue is settled until those powers say otherwise.
If you believe the inalienable rights are being destroyed, thereby authorizing revolution (or rule by fiat of "judges, bureaucrats, and the media attitudinal police"), please explain. I fail to see how life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are being restricted to homosexuals any more than they are restricted to me, an unmarried man. It seems to me the ones with weightier grievance in the NRO article are the ones who can no longer pursue their profession without contradicting their own moral code and conscience.
The government is not restricting any rights. Specially not in California. A Civil Union carries all but the name "marriage".
Marriage is recognized by the citizens as a traditional bond between a man and a woman. Civil Unions seem to be a way for the general populace to avoid the feeling that they are stomping on someone's right to live the way they chose, but it witholds from it that it is as fundamental to the community as traditional marriage.
Meanwhile, enlisting people by court-order to participate in a gloss of acceptance reassigns one's right of conscience, which used to be recognized as a fundamental right.
But I think that's the point. Although available, Civil Unions are not acceptable to these folks as their intention is the truly smash the traditional concept of marriage.
So this exercise isn't about capturing some elusive feel good ‘right’ but all about breaking down anything that represents the societal norm.
I understand and agree that the financial support against the amendment by the CLDS made then a target. But they were not the only ones who posed opposition and were not the biggest contributors either. So I still think that it was important for the pi$$ed off losing proponents to target the Mormons because of what they represent as a religious, social and political standard.
Plus, it’s become chic to beat up on a religious minority like the Mormons. As we saw become fashionable in the last election season.
"The government is not restricting any rights. Specially not in California. A Civil Union carries all but the name "marriage". "
Pull your head out of your ass and research it before asuming that they are equal. First of all, CA doesn't have a Civil Union law, they have a domestic parnership act.
As for the differences, there are several very important features (a.k.a. RIGHTS) that are not included (not to mention that the ones that are recognized are not applicable out of the State)
A contrast between the domestic partnership act and marriage can be found here: www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm
Armyant,
We know that gay marriage isn't AS accepted. That's pretty much what's being compared on that page.
That's what we've all been trying to tell you. You can't force people to regard as the same thing, something that they might consider different. You cannot compel people to regard as equal the most traditional and fundamental institution of society and this new re-definition of marriage more or less by sexual attraction.
This is why if you want to do it in one state, it should not compel 200 million to join with you in your historical experiment.
This political movements wants the same benefits that traditional marriage has built up over the ages, and it won't even take a trial period for people to make up their minds about whether they're similar.
"We know that gay marriage isn't AS accepted."
I think you are talking about unions and partnerships when talking about this, meaning their rights aren't guaranteed elsewhere. If me and a hypothetical domestic partner live in California on the boarder with Utah, and he is in a car accident and hospitalized in Utah, no rights for me. This is an issue that has Federal implications when taxes, insurance, inheritance, family benifits, and information privacy are at stake. This is about legal status on a piece of paper rather than attacking a social institution. If it were solely a social and religious institution then why don't the individual churches decide on their own and leave gov. out of it? Because it is beyond that argument it is a matter of federal rights.
As well, your charge that marriage and partnerships are basicly the same is like the obsolete justification of counting black male voters as 3/5 of a person just because 'You can't force people to regard as the same thing, something that they might consider different.'
You also just don't get it when saying that gay marriage is based 'more or less on sexual attraction'. Do you not believe in gay love, you know, the emotion deeper than lust? Do you also recognize in your criticism that maybe the greater than 50% of 'traditional' marriages ending in divorce were also based 'more or less on sexual attraction'?
So get the Civil Union laws or whatever other legal arrangements that a given state might have changed to provide benefits. Why go after the age old institution of marriage where it doesn't apply?
Marriage should not be an evolving paradigm.
One should keep in mind that even the ancient Greeks, to which homosexuality was a very normal practice, considered marriage to be between a male and female.
Alexander the Great, and others, had wives..female wives. But they also had constant male companions/lovers.
As I said before, there is a right way to change sociaty. There would not be all of these new gay marriage bans if it were not for the backlash from the gay activists.
Be well,
Sponge
Speaking of religion, looks like P.E. 'O' has dropped the whole “God thang” completely since throwing the T.U.C.C under the bus. Or does all this stuff re-surface on 1-21-09?
