Posts Tagged ‘gay marriage’

I had fun with that title. Or, I’m sleep-deprived. Today’s edition of Homo Hate™® comes from WND’s HomoHater Bob Unruh: “Ten Commandments Judge: ‘Gay Weddings A ‘Travesty.’

I haven’t talked about Roy Moore before, so if you don’t know who he is, I recommend perusing his Wikipedia page. The reason he’s called the “Ten Commandments Judge” is that he was the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, he had a multi-ton granite copy of the Ten Commandments placed in the Alabama Judicial Building, he was court-ordered to remove it by a federal judge, and on November 13, 2003, the “Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from his post as Chief Justice.” After a failed political career for the next 10 years, he was re-voted in as Alabama Chief Justice. I weep for Alabama.

So, you can imagine that he has a small group of very VERY vocal supporters who eat up every word he spews out of his various orifices. The latest is that he’s on a personal crusade to outlaw same-sex marriage, writing to every state Governor (damn well better not be on official Alabama stationary) to get together and have the states amend the Constitution to illegalize it … ’cause, you know, Jesus, and gays are icky:

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was returned to the top judicial post in the state after he fought with bureaucrats over the message of the Ten Commandments, is now adding his voice to a campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage.

“It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”

… The campaign is alive online under the “I Stand With Judge Moore” headline and proposes the Constitution be amended to state: “Nothing in this Constitution or in the constitution or laws of any state shall define or shall be construed to define marriage except as the union of one man and one woman, and no other union shall be recognized with the legal incidents thereof within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

In addition to the online presence, the campaign mailed letters to governors of all 50 states urging them to get their legislatures to call for a convention to add that amendment to the Constitution.

Many commenters weighed in on the issue, echoing Moore’s learned, measured, and polite thoughts, with their own. 135 comments to-date, most of them supporting Moore, several of them quoting the Bible, some of them supporting what’s going on in Russia with the “don’t say gay” law there.

Oh, and of course, “Black Racism” had the nuanced insight, “No one is preventing gay men from marrying lesbian women.” He got 16 up-votes and 1 down-vote.


Continuing a string of legal victories for marriage equality proponents, in mid-January, a federal judge in Oklahoma struck down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage, finding it unconstitutional. However, he stayed his ruling pending the certain appeals (probably to avoid a situation like Utah’s). World Net Daily copied three paragraphs and a figure caption – without the figure, and put in the middle of the text – from The Oklahoman and entitled it, “Oklahoma ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban ‘Unconstitutional.’

A few days later, they published two paragraphs from People’s World with the headline, “Communist Party Cheers ‘Gay’ Marriage.” I think this is supposed to be a “poisoning the well” logical fallacy — most WND’ers consider communists bad, therefore if they like something, it’s even more reason for WND folks to dislike it.

I’d be repeating myself if I cited all my normal commentary on how conservatives are fighting a losing battle on this issue. But, instead of closing out the article and not writing about it, I decided to delve into the 184 comments to try to understand what the arguments still are on the conservative side against marriage equality. Here’s what I found:

  • Homosexuals are not an ethnic nor sectarian minority and therefore don’t deserve protected rights.
  • Homosexuals are defined only by “sexual deviance.”
  • “Anal intercourse or lesbian mutual masturbation are not constitutionally protected rights.” –“jtrollla”
  • The ~50% of Americans who support same-sex marriage “are deceived” (“3rdryder”)
  • Moral disapproval (my a majority) should be a permissible justification.
  • Gays can get married to an opposite-sex partner.
  • God
  • Jesus

I know it’s been pointed out elsewhere, but I actually find this kind of thing reassuring. These ridiculous arguments clearly show that there aren’t any rational ones that can be made for preventing two people of the same gender from entering into a legally binding contract and receive the legal rights, protections, and responsibilities thereof.

Edited to Add (February 1, 2014): I missed this in my queue, that WND’s Ilana Mercer has an article about it, as well: “Conned About Marriage, Constitution and ‘States’ Rights.'”

It’s a bit of an old story and I almost didn’t bother to write about it on here because the comments are what you would expect and WND only linked to a Washington Post article about it: Bush 41 Witness at ‘Gay’ Marriage in Maine.”

In fact, I’m only writing about this in case you, dear reader, missed it. George H.W. Bush, US President #41, from 1989 to 1993, was a witness on a marriage license for a homosexual male couple who got married in Maine. Father of George W. Bush, US President #43, one of the most conservative and religious presidents in recent memory.

Well, I suppose I’m also writing about it to point out just how far we’ve come as a society where even a guy like H.W. Bush would do this. And to show just how über-conservative and out of touch World Net Daily commenters are (i.e., two of the three top-rated comments are Bible verses condemning homosexuality).

To be honest, I’m surprised it took three days for World Net Daily to post this. I saw the announcements about it on August 30, but WND didn’t post about it until September 2. Perhaps because FOX “news” itself, which WND decided to link to for the story they entitled, “Ginsburg Officiates at Same-Sex Wedding,” didn’t post it until September 1.

The article’s main point is quite clear by the title. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most liberal members of the US Supreme Court today. Such a story is, therefore, not surprising. Nor is it surprising the commenters by WND folks.

For example, we have “Amerizon Warrior” with 11 up-votes and 0 down-votes (I wish I could down-vote due to grammar): “and she has the NERVE to call conservatives activists…what a hypocrite! she should never have been appointed to the ussc…she is not loyal to this country”

“renojmc” with 15 up and 1 down: “A vile and disgusting person officiating a “wedding” between two vile and disgusting people. All of these fools are simply invoking God’s wrath on them.”

“mossback” with 5 up and 0 down votes wrote: “Why has that dried up old Crow not been put to pasture in a straight jacket? She is a perfect example for the need for term limits!”

“jtilii” with 5 up and 0 down: “What an old CROW!! To all those who celebrate this debauchery, can you just fly far, far away now and off to never-never land?”

But, it’s really just “Mikeyh0” with 5 up and 1 down-vote that I want to comment on, and really only their first sentence: “Gee, she seems so fair-minded and not driven by an agenda, doesn’t she?”

It was when I read this that I decided to put it up here on WND Watch. The reason is that it is such hypocrisy to say that Ginsburg is the one driven by an agenda. I direct you to Justice Antonin Scalia. Right Wing Watch has just a small sampling of probably the most outspoken Supreme Court Justice in recent memory. And one of the most conservative.

For example, April 18, 2013: “Even as Scalia and his colleagues consider a challenge to a key provision of that law [the Voting Rights Act], Scalia chose this forum [University of California Washington Center] to elaborate on a claim he first raised during oral arguments, when he called the law a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” This week, he echoed that claim, calling the law an “embedded” form of “racial preferment.””

Or on October 25, 2010, when Scalia “said traditional Christians should have the courage to embrace their faith. … What is irrational is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular – which is, of course, precisely what the worldly wise do.”

Or, just generically his anti-gay moments, such as defending employment and housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, or comparing a ban on homosexuality to a ban on murder.

Ginsburg may be one of the more outspoken liberal Justices, but Scalia takes the cake in both being outspoken and a stereotypical grumpy old straight white man stuck in the mentality of the early 1800s when blacks knew their place and gays all hid in dark closets.

This story made the rounds late last week and is continuing this week: There appears to be nothing in New Mexico state law and nothing in the New Mexico state constitution that prohibits marriage licenses from being issued to couples of the same gender. This all started in Dona Ana country, and WND chose to post a link to the article from Christian Post that they entitled, “County Clerk Issues ‘Gay’-Marriage Licenses on His Own.”

I love how they prejudice the story starting with the title itself: “on his own” implying that he has no authority or authorization to do so. Which he does. In fact, a judge ruled that another county clerk in New Mexico had to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples unless he could come up with a legal reason not to. He couldn’t so he started to issue them, too.

What does a good, solid, right-wing ultra-crazy religious Christian WND commenter do when confronted by this? Quote the Bible, of course, and lament the fall of America, and say that the county clerk should be fired and is “probably a lesbo and a wacko.”