Posted on 09/09/2009 3:33:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
I was in Maine on the day that marriage qualified for the ballot this November. I went to Maine as president and founder of the National Organization for Marriage, which helped local groups organize the signature drive in Maine, as we did in California for Proposition 8.
Most of the people in Maine were enthusiastic, but one clergyman asked me, "Shouldn't we live with our neighbors in peace?"
His question haunts me for its debased presumptions: Is using democracy to fight for shared values somehow an act of war against our neighbors? "Agree with me or you're a hater" is not the authentic voice of peace and tolerance. But the question underscored an increasingly obvious truth: Gay marriage advocates now rage against Americans who disagree with them, no matter how civilly we conduct the debate. They believe only one side has the moral right to be heard.
Witness what happened to poor Monica Hesse, a Washington Post reporter who wrote a profile on NOM's executive director, Brian Brown. The profile was (in my view) clearly written by someone who supports gay marriage. She began by assuming gay marriage opponents were ugly, mean and stupid, and then presented Brian Brown as the surprising exception. That's why Monica expected outrage from social conservatives for her "snideness." Instead, she was shocked by the tidal wave of rage directed at her for publishing anything even remotely expressing human sympathy for a guy who effectively fights to promote marriage as the union of husband and wife.
I'm not the person calling this "rage." That's what The Washington Post called it in a piece by their own ombudsman on Monica, "'Sanity & a Smile' and an Outpouring of Rage."
Here's how weird things have gotten: The ombudsman of the Post felt he had to step in to defend Monica by credentialing her as a pro-gay marriage bisexual.
Reading her angry e-mails, Monica "wept." She won't care for my sympathy, but nonetheless, she has it. You have to experience it to understand -- it is shocking to discover the waves of hatred now aimed at forcing conformity with the gay marriage party line. Either you are for gay marriage or you are a bad person who should be repressed, humiliated, hurt, marginalized and excluded. "What's next, a piece on how a KKK leader is just 'someone next door' and 'really a nice person'?" as one outraged Post reader put it.
Here's the truth: You will now be called a hater and a bigot merely for standing for marriage as one woman and one man. What do we make of this sad truth? So far, the bullies pay no price for their meanness and their rage.
This is not an issue of free speech but of neighborliness. Fundamental decency requires that we treat each other with respect, especially when we disagree deeply on hot moral issues. Sadly, I've grown used to the reality that tolerance is now a one-way street for gay marriage advocates. It no longer matters how respectfully and civilly one makes the case for humanity's marriage tradition.
So Fred Karger gets quoted in The Washington Post calling Brian Brown "just as shrill, just as anti-gay as any of the leading gay-bashers." Fred doesn't provide any examples because he can't. Fred doesn't have to. The Washington Post does not feel any obligation to ask Fred Karger for proof. Being pro-gay marriage, Fred doesn't need proof as he hurls his charges like brickbats at Americans who disagree with him.
I know that not every gay person agrees with the tactics of hate currently employed by this powerful steamroller of a political movement to suppress dissent, just as I know some gay people don't support gay marriage. (Not many, but I've met 'em!) And I do know this: Bullies don't stop as long as bullying works. Gay marriage advocates have to rein in their movement, or people in Maine and elsewhere are going to draw the natural conclusion: When the law endorses gay marriage advocates like Fred Karger and their ideas, it will have consequences.
I’ve always been amazed by the way social conservatives who try to defend the way things have always been done are portrayed as the aggressors. As if their attempts to defend traditional values are the innovation.
Homosexual marriage is a specific example of a wider trend. The Left is full of rage and intolerance. This article has good examples of it. The Town Hall meeting where a pro-ObamaCare activist bit off a man's finger is another example.
The Left will kill us when they can. Their rage can only be quenched by the blood of their opponents.
Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Socialist indoctrination infested theological seminaries at about the same time it infested the rest of academe.
The brainwashing and subversion has been as effective.
Democracy is a hate crime and cap and trade wants to tax the air we breathe. All is left is for liberals to tell us ‘we want you to die’. That’s what they really want.
Sodomy by its very nature is intolerant, hateful, rageing and out of control. It hates what it is, and hates those that are not.
It is un-natural, sick, and its long range goals is to get to our children.
As a resident of Maine, I’ve run into this attitude more than once. Most Mainers are shocked and intimidated when they first encounter the ‘gaystapo’. But I believe gay bullies are ‘not born’ they are created by our school system and society.
It isn’t just the gay issue. More and more I’m encountering intolerance from the left. If you dissagree with them , you’re a “hater’. Civil discussion ends as soon as their ideas or beliefs are questioned.
At a recent country fair, some young republicans were soliciting signatures for a ballot initiatives concerning a local tax issue. The democrats from a booth down the lane could not tolerate the idea that the citizens should actually decide how their taxes are collected or spent. The dems kept coming up in front of the kids when people would stop and argue with the kids and cause the people to walk away. At the end of the day, two of the dems followed the kids to their car and and made a big deal of photographing their Mother’s liscense plate. The kids were too afraid to come back the following day.
The following day, some more ‘seasoned’ folks manned the booth. When the same tactics were attempted, they were less than effective. Shortly thereafter, when one of their members went to use the men’s room all by himself, he and I had a little ‘heart to heart’ about the situation. When he asked who I was,I told him my name was Emily Post, and I was here to teach hinm some manners. He spent the rest of the day looking over his shoulder as I re-appeared from time to time to wink at him.
If we continue to tolerate these groups’ tactics without responding, we effectively are bring a knife to a gun fight.
“Shouldn’t we live with our neighbors in peace?”
We are not the ones disturbing the “peace”. Shouldn’t our “neighbors” respect thousands of years of precident and tradition that has existed in every society known to recorded history? They are maybe 1% of the population who are radical and militant, turning society upside down. Go lecture THEM about leaving the 99% of us alone.
Gays have the same right to marry has I do.
Most of the people in Maine were enthusiastic, but one clergyman asked me, “Shouldn’t we live with our neighbors in peace?”
We should try to.
That said ,this does not mean we accept or tolerate pedophiles,rapists,drug addicts crack houses etc. in our neighborhoods or amongst our poeple.
A clergyman should understand that we are to forgive sinners their sins but at the same time the goal is to bring them away from that sin not to accept it as okay.
Except they don’t have the guns.
I'm going to use that one!
bump!
All bullies are alike, no matter what the agenda is..they all think their wants and desires should trump others, they don’t care what they have to do to get it, they don’t understand why everyone doesn’t just lay down and give them what they want, and if you fight back, you are “hateful”.
Something else that they NEVER understand is that their actions make people truly despise them and make it less likely for them to get what they want. Doesn’t matter if its a group or one person, its the same dynamic.
Now, having said that, my personal opinion on the gay marriage issue is that government should stay out of ALL personal relationship issues unless a child is being abused or harmed. PERIOD. I dont’ want or need the govt’s permission to become attached or detached to any consenting adult or adults.
Go get ‘em Maggie. Straight out of the heart of the “beast.”
So who gets to adopt children if no one is married in the government's eyes?
should be based on the couple’s stability, mental state, financial ability.. i don’t want gay couples raising kids though..THAT’s where the “unless a child is being harmed” comes in... I don’t think being gay is normal or good, I just don’t think its anyone’s business unless they want kids..then all bets are off.
You're evading the obvious questions. WHO makes the determination of a couple's suitability to raise a child? What reasonable criterion, which must certainly be established, will be set and used?
Who's to say that "all bets are off?" Is this only your opinion, or do you want this prohibition on who may not raise kids manifested in society? What if someone welshes on a bet - who is appointed to enforce?
A recent Daily Kos poll is showing an edge held by traditional marriage supporters, even in the heavily democratic state of Maine. IMO, this poll is still heavily skewed to the left. Liberals and democrats, who love to demonstrate and have a lot more disposable time on their hands (unemployed, government jobs, etc.) love to take polls and actively seek them out. Working conservatives are barely on the radar screen when it comes to these liberal polls.
I’m not evading anything..I was asked a question and I answered that, I have more answers...WHO makes the determination? The agency adopting the child or children...doesn’t necessarily have to be a government agency..
Are these things my opinion? Of course..just like every post on here..I was asked for my opinion and I gave it. As I stated before.. I believe that gays should not be allowed to raise children, I believe that its a bad idea, based on my opinion that being gay is a mental illness, and furthermore that gays have a track record of changing partners often, which is not good for a child.
My original point was, the government doesn’t need to be involved in what ADULTS do regarding their relationships with each other as long as its consenting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.