Saunders doesn't add to much that is new to the discussion. What I found interesting, though, is the comment thread at the Chronicle's page, where the responses are running about 25-to-1 against the writer - no surprise given San Francisco's ideological milieu.
She's being attacked as a "bigot" who's spouting "typical putrid swill." At least one comment has been deleted for violating terms of service, which was quite possibly a death threat (recall that fellow Chronicle columinst Cinnamon Stillwell has written about her experiences with hate mail).
I did find one sympathetic comment among the many attacks, which really sums up things:
Debra Saunders' final words of her fine piece say it all --- "The gay community's failure to show tolerance is costing it friends." And California Justice Marvin Baxter's dissenting opinion, in slapping the majority court's reasoning, also says it all --- "The court does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage ... in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice." This is a no-brainer for the majority of people of a Christian nation who understand that our creator brought Sodom and Gomorrah to ruin for a similar homosexual lifestyle. Gavin Newsom and the Devil would make a delightful gruesome twosome, most probably with the Cal Supreme Court's blessing.As noted, we'll be seeing a rekindling of left's attacks on California's marriage traditionalism in a few weeks. The response to Saunders' essay is just a glimpse of how nasty things are going to get.
10 comments:
I agree, but I always have a problem when "God" or "Sodom and Gomorrah" are brought up. I understand those things may guide an individual's personal beliefs re: homosexuality, but they are not legal or Constitutional arguments, so they don't seem to add anything to the debate. For example, God may be against it, but if the Constitution clearly protected it, it would be legal. Thus, I think if conservatives want to win the debate, they really need to focus less on God, and more on the fact that it clearly is not protected by the Constitution, is clearly not supported by the majority of voters, and that judicial-activism is the wrong way to create a "right."
Adding God to the debate can also inflame tensions. I've known many homosexuals who want to be God-fearing individuals, or grew up a such, but feel as if they cannot, because they are always told that God is against them or that God thinks they are sinners, because of the fact that they are homosexual. My point is that not only does God not add to the legal debate (and, as conservatives, we should be focuses on the legal debate as it is liberals who like to contravene basic Constitutional principles with activist judiciaries, free speech-silencing legislation like the Fairness Doctrine, etc.), but it's going to add antagonism to the equation.
Sticking to the legal arguments also helps us "win" the rest of the debates we currently have over social issues. Rather than debate abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. all separately, if we simply convinced the population at large that, generally speaking, judicial activism is wrong and that the states, constitutionally, should make the bulk of the decisions, we automatically win all of the debates and the liberals lose their main avenue of enforcing their beliefs on people.
There is a story at the moment playing out in New Zealandand Australia, a mother who carried a child for a gay couple is now being chased by the two men for child support.
Gay's want the same "rights" as herto couples only when it suits them. I wonder if they care about the poor kid or just the money.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,24961787-952,00.html
I've actually written a post on the secular case for gay marriage, Private Pigg. I can argue against same-sex marriage either way.
Thanks.
Are you just getting hard up for subjects you have to keep beating the gay bone Professor? The bigots and homophobes are on your side already.
In California it's as a big a 'hot button' issue as you're going to see, to it should not surprise anyone to see him blog about it.
I"m curious as to your thoughts on the big debate going on in Portland- The PDX mayor scandal
Well, I just read Deborah Saunders' piece and it hit the nail on the head. The problem is that those who are advocating same-sex marriage need to take this time to EDUCATE people why their position is right. They are doing exactly what they accuse the other side of doing. Demonizing. If one read Miss Saunders' column, she said EXACTLY what I have said. That given time, the people of California were moving to an open position and probably would have voted for same-sex marriage. By the Gavin Newsome stunt and the California supreme court decision, they literally set back the same-sex marriage cause a generation in this state. If those who believe that their position for same-sex marriage is right, they need to find a different way to reach out to opponents and or fence-sitters. Demonizing those people is not helping.
Read Ezekiel 16:48-50 and then tell me why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. For some reason, that reference "Sodom" is left out of concordances.
Oh, and Truth, you just proved the point with the second half of your comment.
Funny how the tolerance you demand from us is absent from your dialog.
Post a Comment