Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Mesquite, you are just too much like too many liberals who refuse to see anything other than what they want to see and will ignore just about anything in order to see it and will proof text just about anything to pretend you're right. So, you're all wet. Probably because you've been doing that thing up a rope you suggested.

Are you not saying it here?

Sure I used the term 'dismantleing the traditional family" though I can't use it anymore because it offends Blatham's literary sensibilities.

But it had nothing to do with denying rights to gays.

Anything specific that you would like to comment on Foxfyre, or just more general p' & m'ing?

You evidently are so used to taking positions on nothing more than a whim that you seem to become all flustered when asked for a little supporting info.

Pssst! BernardR, not all homosexual couples are male. I guess you are saying that lesbian couples should get extra credits.

I am very much afraid that Mesquite and Advocate do not know that the American People have strongly defended the concept that Marriage is a Union between a man and a woman. Married people are, all other things being equal, far superior to those individuals whose arrangements have not been sanctioned by society since they do not receive all of the benefits that would aid the children that may live with them!

Note



Gay marriage is a lost cause
Gay activists' failed strategy has put same-sex marriage out of reach for a long time to come.

By JEFF GANNON
Friday, September 01, 2006


A COALITION OF 250 authors, activists, intellectuals and celebrities recently released a major statement, "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships."

The manifesto suggests that the gay rights movement take its focus away from a singular emphasis on marriage equality in favor of a broad-based set of economic and social concepts that would eventually produce the same result. However, it is clear that the statement is less of a policy shift and more of an admission of defeat in the battle over gay marriage.

For all intents and purposes, gay marriage is dead. Activists proclaimed that the Goodrich decision in Massachusetts was the end of the beginning of the struggle for equality, but in retrospect it was the beginning of the end.

Let's check the standings: 44 states have laws that restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman. Nineteen states have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage ?- 16 of those enacted since 2003. Six more states have constitutional bans on the November ballot that are expected to pass.

The highest state courts in New York and Washington recently ruled against same-sex couples claiming a right to civil matrimony, and a federal appellate court upheld Nebraska's gay marriage ban.


LEADERS OF THE gay rights movement bear significant responsibility for that failure. They overestimated the strength of their political position and influence, even though an inherent weakness has been evident for at least 14 years.

In 1992, gays helped to elect President Bill Clinton and were starstruck at being romanced as a constituency by Democrats, mesmerized by the access and empowerment that came with it.

No sooner than the jubilant cries of "We're here, we're queer and we're going to the White House!" died down, the duplicitous Clinton reneged on his promise to allow gays to openly serve in the military. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was proposed by Clinton in 1993, and in 1996 the Democratic president signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law.

The leadership of the gay rights movement failed to recognize the political reality of the party to which it pledged unwavering loyalty. Republicans reject the gay rights movement and Democrats refuse to embrace it. Despite voluminous evidence to the contrary, gay leaders still gaze through rose-colored glasses at a bleak political landscape.


THE OTHER FATAL mistake has been misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the opposition. Conservatism was ascending during the 1990s ?- not declining as gay leaders and liberal media seem to have believed.

Social and religious conservatives were gaining in strength at the local and state levels, which accounts for the current GOP dominance in Washington. Since 1992, social conservatives have been working to halt the advance of the gay agenda, vowing never to be caught off guard again like they were in 1973 when Roe v. Wade made abortion the law of the land.

Gay leaders demonized opponents of same-sex marriage as hateful bigots and homophobes, completely ignoring the religious and social motivations behind the opposition. The reality is that marriage as the union of one man and one woman is our most basic social institution and deeply rooted in our culture.

Even though during the last few thousands of years marriage has had some variations that departed from strict monogamy, same-sex combinations have never been one of them. Gay marriage represents such a fundamental change that few can grasp it, let alone support it.

Instead of waging efforts to change hearts and minds, gay movement leaders have tried to bludgeon opponents and pursued a strategy where a very small minority would impose its will on a vast majority thought judicial fiat.

While activists relied on the courts for victory, supporters of traditional marriage took the debate to the ballot box and won every single time. A failed strategy appears to have put gay marriage out of reach for a long time to come.
**********************************************************

The comment that the 11th Appelate Court is JUST a judgment from THREE JUDGES FROM GEORGIA, is an ignorant comment which shows that the person knows NOTHING about the law. That ruling becomes case law and is subsequently used as Precedent in future cases. Only people ignorant of the rule of law think that ding a ling named Patio Dog has more influence in deciding cases than the 11th Circuit.

The precedent has been established and along with the 44 states that have established laws which restrict marriage to the union of one man and one woman, the drive of gays to adopt children legally is doomed to failure!

Again---------


Gay men lose challenge to Florida gay adoption ban
MIAMI (AP) ?- Four gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the men, who are foster parents seeking to adopt children in their care despite the 1977 law passed in the heyday of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign.

"Obviously we're crushed," said Paul Cates with the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.

Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether married or single. The law has withstood several challenges in state court.

Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its "moral disapproval of homosexuality" and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development.

Mesquite writes


No, I don't base any firmly held opinions on whims and I can and do usually provide supporting information for the deeply held convictions I hold. And I am not so obsessed with my hatred for religion and/or conservative views that I need to follow people around from thread to thread just to attack them for the views they hold and attempt to discredit them. When I join a thread it is specifically to participate in the discussion and share points of view. But that's just me.

And you gotta be you.

(puff of smoke rises from the grassy knoll)

But of course, that wouldn't be considered a cliche in lieu of serious debate.

Bernard quotes Jeff Gannon, male prostitute and ace Republican reporter. We can certain assign great credence to his writings.

I agree that Gannon/Guckert is not a credible source; he certainly wasn't an ace reporter. The evidence is still out, however, whether he faked his credentials for his own purposes (unlikely) or whether he was employed by an overly zealous GOP staffer (which would be really stupid) or whether he was planted by an overly zealous DEM staffer so they could accuse the GOP of planting him (which would be really risky).

Sometimes the plots in these things get really thick.

My theory, which has no basis in fact, is that Gannon had a thing going with Rove. He acted as a straight man for the press secretary, and he had almost unfettered access to the White House. Truly amazing!

I know it has been portrayed that way by some of the fringe media, but I don't believe you can make a case for it being that way. Both Rove and Guckert denied any connection and I don't think anybody was able to make one. Even the Democrats only asked for an investigation into how he was able to circumvent security and get press credentials and they didn't push that very hard, so I have to believe there just wasn't much if anything there.

The above post is a perfect example of your unsupportable opinions based on nothing more than a whim. The idea of me following you around from thread to thread is laughable. You should be so honored. I do a lot more reading than I do posting, and responses you get from me are the result of your being in the threads that I am following and the abrasive manner of your posting which often begs for a response, nothing more.

If you think you can support that absurd accusation, bring it on. I will be happy to show you the error of your whimsical opinion.

Hmmm Mesquite. I didn't, but it's funny that you put yourself into that post. Doesn't that tell you anything?

If you don't like the way I post don't read my posts. And if you think they're abrasive, then fine, just don't respond to them. And we won't have any probems whatsoever. I can assure you I won't be following YOU around on any threads criticizing everything you post. But then I never have.

At least Blatham was honest enough to say that is exactly what he was doing since I am so dangerous, it is his obligation to be sure that I am exposed.

I'm just wondering when I obtained all this power. It's pretty exciting.

Imagine that. Thinking that a post addressed to me, was directed at me.



And blathams response to that post by you was



Was that over your head?

Baltham said they you were dangerous and needed to be exposed

Sounds like another of your whimsies. Can you provide a reference?

Naw, he will either own up to it or he won't. I don't feel like going back through a lot of pages to find it. He's said it a couple of times though.

This is probably the post you are referring to, and it was the theocratic notions of the sort you have been defending that blatham characterized as a danger, not you as an individual. Let's give this post a well deserved encore
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2236791#2236791

That one is along the same vein but there have been a couple of others as well. The others were even more ridiculous than this one, but I'm not at all surprised that you approve of it. I would guess that most left wing wacko judgmental I'm-better read/superior/smarter/more informed-than-you types would.

Bless you.