Time magazine article on backlash vs. LDS in CA ....

[_Morrissey]

I'd be interested in whatever evidence you can muster that we have reached a tipping point.

As previously intimated, as yet there isn't sufficient data points (to use "political jargon") to determine whether it is a tipping point or a temporary glitch. We'll just have to wait and see what the next several polls turn up.

I have never claimed that there will not be short-term tactical defeats. I think I was quite clear that I think this will take some time, I'm guessing in terms of a decade or more.

The issue came to the fore in the early 80's with highly publicized court cases on SSM. Over the last 27 or so years, a mere six states have legalized SSM. That is one-fifth the number of states that have amended their state constitutions limiting marriages to opposite-sex couples. So, I am thinking that you are way overly optimistic in your guess if you think that gay advocates will have nearly 5 times the success in the next 10 years as they had over the last 27 years.

I can also point to a variety of civil rights battles that have been waged in this country. The civil rights movement was a long, bitter fight with a number of tactical setbacks along the way. As time goes on, however, bigots will have an increasingly difficult time making the case that full civil rights should be withheld from certain groups because God doesn't like them as much as others.

I am aware of the propaganda fallaciously and offensively linking SSM to the civil rights movement, and not only thereby trivializing what people of color have suffered in the past, but also how unwarranted labels like" bigotry" and "homophobia" are tossed around for want of a legitimate case to be made.

It may interest you to know that while several state and federal supreme courts have ruled that opposite-sex marriage is a fundamental and civil right, they have also clearly and explicitly said that the same does not apply to SSM.

The notion that gays have equal rights or civil rights to be married is a fabrication intended to fool people into ignorantly granting the them the right they don't rightly have, nor ought they to have for reasons of state interest.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am sure that certain courts back in the 50s and 60s held that opinion that what we all now agree are civil rights were not civil rights at all.

I hardly agree that appealing to the historical oppression of homosexuals trivializes what people of color have experienced. Case in point, homosexuals were murdered along side Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. It is only recently that homosexuals were even recognized by society as possessing civil rights roughly on par with other citizens. You have a very selective memory.

To me, it is a civil rights issue. I am confident that history will vindicate my position. Whereas history will brand you a bigot. While I agree that the terms "bigotry" and "homo-phobia" are not always warranted, as I do know decent, fair people who oppose SSM. In your case, however, the terms are fully warranted.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hi there, Wade. I noticed that you are talking about this poll as if it is reflective of nation-wide trends. With that in mind, I'm curious what you think about the fact that less than 900 people were polled...

Hey Scratch. I noticed that you jumped to the false conclusion that I think the latest Times poll is reflective of a nation-wide trend.

I don't think so, Wade. Check it out:

The fact of the matter is, while the trendline has steadily increased over the years, we are experiencing the first major drop (essentially erasing several years of increase acceptance). This signals either a temporary decline, or a tipping point where where people are finally seeing through the propaganda and seeing the movement for what it really is--an attempt to normalize sexual perversion. As the saying goes, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

You say it is "either a temporary decline, or a tipping point," and then you go on to say that people are "finally seeing through the propaganda."

Well, Wade, I think you'll have to admit that n=900 is kind of a small sample set. Perhaps you'd like to retract what you said?

I have said nothing that could rationally be interpreted as suggesting this.

See above.

[_Ray A]

To me, it is a civil rights issue. I am confident that history will vindicate my position. Whereas history will brand you a bigot. While I agree that the terms "bigotry" and "homo-phobia" are not always warranted, as I do know decent, fair people who oppose SSM. In your case, however, the terms are fully warranted.

Well said.

[_JohnStuartMill]

n=900 is actually a pretty standard sample for political polls, Scratch. I think we were witnessing a slight, temporary bandwagon effect last month, what with the string of victories gay marriage ran up at the time. But that shouldn't distract from the long-term trend lines, which point to widespread acceptance of gay marriage in a few years.

[_wenglund]

I am sure that certain courts back in the 50s and 60s held that opinion that what we all now agree are civil rights were not civil rights at all.

I hardly agree that appealing to the historical oppression of homosexuals trivializes what people of color have experienced. Case in point, homosexuals were murdered along side Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. It is only recently that homosexuals were even recognized by society as possessing civil rights roughly on par with other citizens. You have a very selective memory.

To me, it is a civil rights issue. I am confident that history will vindicate my position. Whereas history will brand you a bigot. While I agree that the terms "bigotry" and "homo-phobia" are not always warranted, as I do know decent, fair people who oppose SSM. In your case, however, the terms are fully warranted.

I find it rather disgusting and absurd when people use racism as an excuse to promote sexual perversion and to devolve the fundamental institution of society. In terms of civil rights, there is no rational comparison between the two groups. With racism, we are talking about people being denied the right to vote based on the color of one's skin (a physical characteristic over which there is no choice), whereas with SSM, we are talking about an inane social experiment where the government is to be obligated to sanction demonstrably harmful behaviors and relationships. To suggest that there is a comparison, is to be completely ignorant of where civil rights are derived, why they were granted, and the legal basis upon which they are adjudicated.

Sure, there were racists laws in our nations past. But, those laws have been overturned through the process of judicial review, and the civil rights that were abridge have been restored. However, with cases regarding SSM that have been brought before the court, the same process of judicial review has been applied, and in all but a handful of the 91 cases, the courts have ruled against SSM, and this precisely because there is no civil right of SSM to begin with, let alone to abridge or restore. The fact that homosexuals may have been sent to concentration camps in Nazi Germany, while sick and wrong, does not alter the reality that government sanctioned SSM is not a civil right, any more than child-child marriage or child-adult marriage or human-animal marriage are a civil right, and in terms of governmental interest (which is the basis upon which laws and rights are created and adjudicated) SSM makes absolutely no sense, and is even contrary to governmental interest.

Anyone not bamboozled by the gay propaganda, and who is familiar with the relevant legal arguments, will know that that there really is no rational case for SSM, which is why gay advocates tend to resort soley to appeals to emotion and illegitimately calling people "bigot" and "homophobe".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Morrissey]

I am sure that certain courts back in the 50s and 60s held that opinion that what we all now agree are civil rights were not civil rights at all.

I hardly agree that appealing to the historical oppression of homosexuals trivializes what people of color have experienced. Case in point, homosexuals were murdered along side Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. It is only recently that homosexuals were even recognized by society as possessing civil rights roughly on par with other citizens. You have a very selective memory.

To me, it is a civil rights issue. I am confident that history will vindicate my position. Whereas history will brand you a bigot. While I agree that the terms "bigotry" and "homo-phobia" are not always warranted, as I do know decent, fair people who oppose SSM. In your case, however, the terms are fully warranted.

I find it rather disgusting and absurd when people use racism as an excuse to promote sexual perversion and to devolve the fundamental institution of society. In terms of civil rights, there is no rational comparison between the two groups. With racism, we are talking about people being denied the right to vote based on the color of one's skin (a physical characteristic over which there is no choice), whereas with SSM, we are talking about an inane social experiment where the government is to be obligated to sanction demonstrably harmful behaviors and relationships. To suggest that there is a comparison, is to be completely ignorant of where civil rights are derived, why they were granted, and the legal basis upon which they are adjudicated.

Sure, there were racists laws in our nations past. But, those laws have been overturned through the process of judicial review, and the civil rights that were abridge have been restored. However, with cases regarding SSM that have been brought before the court, the same process of judicial review has been applied, and in all but a handful of the 91 cases, the courts have ruled against SSM, and this precisely because there is no civil right of SSM to begin with, let alone to abridge or restore. The fact that homosexuals may have been sent to concentration camps in Nazi Germany, while sick and wrong, does not alter the reality that government sanctioned SSM is not a civil right, any more than child-child marriage or child-adult marriage or human-animal marriage are a civil right, and in terms of governmental interest (which is the basis upon which laws and rights are created and adjudicated) SSM makes absolutely no sense, and is even contrary to governmental interest.

Anyone not bamboozled by the gay propaganda, and who is familiar with the relevant legal arguments, will know that that there really is no rational case for SSM, which is why gay advocates tend to resort soley to appeals to emotion and illegitimately calling people "bigot" and "homophobe".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And with this diatribe are you trying to convince us that you are not a bigot or homophobe?

[_Ray A]

The fact that homosexuals may have been sent to concentration camps in Nazi Germany, while sick and wrong, does not alter the reality that government sanctioned SSM is not a civil right, any more than child-child marriage or child-adult marriage or human-animal marriage are a civil right, and in terms of governmental interest (which is the basis upon which laws and rights are created and adjudicated) SSM makes absolutely no sense, and is even contrary to governmental interest.

And thus we see that Wade considers gay marriage right there with bestiality.

What other behaviours are harmful to society, Wade? Do you think polygamy would be harmful to society? Do you believe polygamy was harmful to 19th century society? Do you believe that inculcating in women the idea that they will have to share their partner in the afterlife a belief beneficial to society?