Got it in one

Gonna piss some folks off.  So be it:

“But Og, don’t those people at least deserve the same happiness as married couples? "

That comment- which I hear all the time- is high on the list of ignorant things a human can let come out of it’s mouth. Look around you at the married couples you know. Unless you’re living in Stepford, the odds are that all those people have their own problems, and to suggest that gay couples do not is ignorant in the extreme. ” I don’t see what the problem is” The problem is that Gay marriage is not about them seeking happiness, period., it’s about a government mandated wedge, made for a vanishingly small portion of the population, purpose built to destroy the churches who will not accept their lifestyle. “I don’t see that, at all. All the gay people I know are really nice” You don’t see it because you choose to ignore it.

Emphasis mine.  And I would say that it's not just designed to destroy the churches, it's designed to destroy the institutions who refuse to accept open homosexuality.  Disagree?  Then tell me why I must now shower with a person who is sexually attracted to men, but I can't shower with women.  You want to talk discrimination?  That's discriminatory right there.

Gonna piss some people off here

And I'm OK with that right now.  Here's a letter from a retired Chaplain that I received today, and I'm posting it in it's entirety.

Yesterday, September 20th, 2011, a date that will live in infamy, the U.S. armed forces were deliberately and successfully attacked by advocates of the scourge of homosexualism. The elimination of the last vestige of moral restraint on sexual perversion in the U.S. military, commonly known as the "Don't Ask / Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, ushers in a new Orwellian era in which the military leadership of our nation will proclaim the unnatural as natural, the unhealthy as healthy, and the immoral as moral.

In August 2010, before the DADT policy was rescinded by the U.S. Congress and the current President of the United States, I wrote the following in a guest editorial in Stars & Stripes, the private newspaper intended for the U.S. armed forces:

A “nondiscrimination” policy would surely mutate into approval and celebration of the “gay” lifestyle, followed by “affirmative action” recruitment of homosexuals, politically correct ideological indoctrination throughout the armed forces including family members, and, finally, active discrimination against — and persecution of — those who dare to express a dissenting opinion.

We shall soon see whether that prediction was exaggerated or prescient.  May God the Holy Trinity preserve the U.S. armed forces especially in this new Dark Age.

The repeal of DADT was less about "equality" as it was about pushing political correctness onto the Army, with the resultant lawsuits and other legal actions that will follow.  We'll see how much damage the Armed Forces sustain from this.  All I know is that we haven't begun to see the problems yet, because nobody has bothered to actually try to figure those problems out.  Just wait until the first Chaplain preaches his faith, to include advocating against homosexuality, and the lawsuits start to fly.

And before anyone tries to tell me that removing DADT was about "equality", I still cannot shower with the females.  Why not?  Because long ago, people realized that allowing people who are sexually attracted to each other causes problems in a military unit.  But now men who are sexually attracted to me can shower with me in an open bay shower, and I cannot shower with females who I am sexually attracted to.  So it's not about "equality", is it?  No, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. 

another attack on traditional values

Read about H.R. 3567 was introduced just days ago by U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, and more than 90 co-sponsors, here.

Putting it bluntly

...is why I like Og so much, even though I've never met the guy.

The issue of marriage, in case you’ve been living under a rock, is about this and this alone: Militant gays want to damage the church because the church will never accept their lifestyle. If you don’t get this, you probably never will.

Through history, if you see a group of people whining to be allowed to join an institution, like a country club, or an all-male military academy, or a basically religeous institution like marriage, their aim is not to be inclusive, but to destroy that institution. Plain and simple. The moment there is nationwide “Gay Marriage” there will be a call to force the churches to allow gay marriage, or be put out of business. This is that road. Want to go down it? I sure as hell don’t.

The phrase "Gentleman's Club" actually use to refer to a place where Gentlemen went to socialize. Now it's used to refer to strip clubs. Want to guess why?

Because a few women demanded entry. And now there are very few Gentleman's Clubs.

Which is just what the Gay, Lesbian, Transexual, Trianything, BDS&M, getmyfreakon community wants to happen to the various churches in America.

California Proposition 8 upheld

Today the California Supreme Court vetoed same sex marriage. The down side to this is that all current same sex marriages that occurred before Proposition 8 stand. The reasoning's for this are questionable at best.
I can understand the whole that proposition 8 was not worded to be retroactive. But to say that it would cause issues with property rights! Come on, who are we kidding here?

Some may call this a hollow victory because of the remaining "marriages". Considering I thought it would be pretty much thrown out, I think we should be happy, not elated, but happy with this judgment.
g
You can read more about it here.

Another strike against traditional values and marriage

DES MOINES, Iowa – The only gay couple who were legally wed in Iowa are looking forward to getting some company. Iowa county clerks were to begin processing same-sex marriage applications Monday, following the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on April 3 that legalized same sex-marriage. Iowa typically requires a three-day waiting period for marriages, but judges can waive that and allow immediate weddings.

Washington State O.K.'s expanded domestic partner rights

Even though this was not allowed to go to the voters, probably due to fear it wouldn't pass, I think we need to call this a win.

1: it is not a marriage, it is a domestic partnership, so it has not changed the definition of marriage

"Same-sex couples have the right to form meaningful relationships. But I don't think they have the right to redefine marriage for all of us," said Sen. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake.

2: it was done through the proper channels.

3: domestic partnerships must be registered, much like marriage, only this is the same sex version.

As of Tuesday, 5,112 domestic partnership registrations had been filed since the law took effect in July 2007

I was under the impression that this question was resoved

California high court reviews gay marriage ban

Gay marriage opponents said overturning the California ban would change the nature of state government by gutting the people's right to make law.

The court would create "a sweeping power vested in the least-democratic branch that overrides the precious right of the people to determine how they will be governed," same-sex marriage opponents said.

Gay marriage proponents, led by former governor and current California Attorney General Jerry Brown, argue that the right to marry is part of the "inalienable right" to liberty, so the state Supreme Court must strike down even an amendment to the constitution limiting it.

Mr. Brown, the right to marry what is an inalienable right?

These people are just going to keep going until they are either dead or, um?????

Judicial Activism

At it's worst. The California Supreme Court has just overturned a ban on gay marriage. I'm not going to get into it too deep, because I'm still at the "throwing things around" stage. But I hope this might be Step One into getting the worthless gummint out of the marriage business altogether.

For anyone who wants to stop by and scream "GAY MARRIAGE IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER MARRIAGE!", I have only this to say:

I want to see any gay couple beget a child. On their own. Without ANY HELP FROM ANYONE ELSE.

Can't do it? Then don't claim that you're just like everyone else.

I'm not saying that you cannot love like anyone else. I'm not saying that you cannot feel the same things anyone else can. But marriage, as an institution, is honored for the simple reason that a stable household can produce the future of the nation. Hell, a gay household cannot produce the unbalanced future of the nation!

There ARE differences, whether people want to acknowledge them or not. Mrs. du Toit has gone over this plenty of times, from all sorts of angles. The bottom line is this: If homosexuals wanted all the legal rights that married people have, they could have them. In California, they already do. What they want, however, is the moral equivalence that a legal marriage brings. The problem with that is legal does not equal moral. Now, if you're the kind of person who's moral code says gay marriage is fine, then you have no problem. The problem arises when people who's moral code says that gay marriage is wrong are told "FUCK YOU! I'M MORAL AND LEGAL! YOU MUST ACCEPT ME!"

That's the wrong answer, folks. You don't want the moral folks intruding onto your bedroom, you can't tell them that they have to accept anything you do. Live and let live, and all that.

Tell me what's wrong with this story (pile-on)

Confirmed by the SmokingGun we have a Senate Staffer charged as child molester

What's missing?

Hhmmmm... could it be the party affiliation?

Which is a dead give-a-way as to what party to which James McHaney is... affiliated?

Before working for Sen. Maria Cantwell as a scheduler, James McHaney, the accused solicitor of anal sex with a 13-year-old boy, worked for the 2004 presidential campaigns of both former Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. John Kerry.

Yup... you guessed it... the Ass grabbing pedophile is a staffer for the party of the Ass.

Protected Classes

I was talking with my sister, who works for a *major* corporation. We were discussing what is and is not considered acceptable banter at work. She told me that there is a man who will give lurid details about his life with his boyfriend, and she could not possibly press harassment charges, because he is gay. But, if she were to discuss being Christian, she *would be* disciplined, from her phrasing, I suspect possibly fired.

She was also telling me that if she and her husband were not married they would not be able to get *partners benefits* because they are not the same sex.

She cited many other examples, that were all equally reprehensible.

This is her reason for not wanting to allow Gay marriage, people who are already a *protected class*, and now they want *more* rights????


The sadder part of this conversation is that all of these classes have come out in the last 30 years at most, most in the last decade. It makes me a little sick to my stomach.