Comedian, radio talk show host and blogger Roseanne Barr has a special place she wants to send Californians -- including blacks, Catholics, and Mormons -- who voted for Proposition 8. Too bad they'd have to time travel at least 17 years back in time to get there.
Picking up her never-ending screed against those she considers enemies of well, humanity, Barr wished to be able to send voters in favor of the California constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman to the now-defunct Soviet Union:
From her November 13 blog entry entitled, "boycott these hateful anti american donors to 8" [sic]:
http://www.AntiGayBlacklist.com
Let's expose these evil doctors accountants dentists business owners, pastors who hate the united states of america and seek to overthrow its guarantees of equality and rights to all of its citizens. these disgusting supporters of hatred should not be hired, or socialized with or not allowed to enjoy life in this country which they despise!!!! These people should be forced to emigrate to the soviet union where they will be more comfortable with other totalitarians that hate freedom!!!
listen to our radio show here in the radio show forum
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Another person that needs to shut up.
November 14, 2008 - 15:54 ET by mizflame98Is there a reason why that bloated pariah is given a platform to spew her idiocy?
“I've spoken to all of them that are living. I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances" B.H. Obama
Rosie, just because you
November 14, 2008 - 15:56 ET by motherbeltRosie, just because you create a blog on the Internet it doesn't automatically follow that anyone actually cares what you think.
Your own relevance and 15 minutes ended about the same time as that soviet union [sic] that you would like to send your enemies to.
Well. There was an article
November 16, 2008 - 03:11 ET by hirogen73Well. There was an article written about her blog. And you have commented about it. So it would seem at least two people care, including you.
hiro... You're just a
November 16, 2008 - 03:23 ET by bigtimerhiro...
You're just a regular whiz-bang this time of night aren't you...
Keep your day job.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Note to Roseanne.
November 14, 2008 - 15:58 ET by Mike BrattonThe deluxe version of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing is only $19.99 at Best Buy's online store.
Look into it.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Ha
November 14, 2008 - 16:12 ET by moderncommentaries83By the way, very, very funny comment.
Roseanne Won't Buy a Mavis Beacon Product..
November 14, 2008 - 18:27 ET by L.N. SmitheeRoseanne won't buy a Mavis Beacon product. Mavis Beacon is black. She probably voted Yes on 8.
I'm guessing all the Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, and Cream of Wheat in her home are going into the garbage...well, at least the boxes. I don't think Rosie's in the practice of letting food go to waste.
(BTW - I prefer the previous "Mavis" to the current one. The new one reminds me too much of Michelle O.)
"Well, I've got nothing against the press...they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true..." -- Joe Jackson, "Sunday Papers"
Here's how out of touch I am.
November 14, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Mike BrattonCouldn't have told you Ms. Beacon's ethnicity.
At all.
And, indeed, if she resides in a California home filled with typewriters and keyboards, the percentages suggest she would have voted Yes on Proposition 8.
Perhaps we can find Roseanne some typing software endorsed by, oh, David Duke? His worldview might be more down her alley.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Typing software?
November 16, 2008 - 20:20 ET by Indiana JoeSeems she just needs to learn basic grammar and composition.
Or is that too much to expect?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Mirror, mirror, on the wall...
November 14, 2008 - 15:59 ET by Pilgrim1949Say whaaaaat?
"...who hate the united states of america and seek to overthrow its guarantees of equality and rights to all of its citizens..."
And this tool/fool is herself shrilly advocating what?
The absolute self-UNawareness of some of these clowns is stunning, who live in such a vacuum that the sound of their own voices obviously doesn't make it to their ear drums and, hence, register in their brains......ahh, wait a second now.... "brains" .... I think I have just stumbled on the deficit in their own attention disorder.
It's all too sadly amusing, and yet somehow not. Just, well, predictable.
Wow
November 14, 2008 - 16:11 ET by moderncommentaries83Yes, Christians/Mormons/Jews/supporters of the family structure are intolerant bigots...so let's destroy every aspect of their lives! Oh, look how toleranta of diversity Barr is - if you don't think like her, you should be jailed.
Wow - way to set an example, Roseann.
By the way, I'd like her to show me which part of the Constitution affords her and the gay community the right not to be offended or challenged, and how that justifies their utter ignorance of the explicitly clear language of the First Amendment.
And we're supposed to just say, "Yeah, okay, take away our churches, our right to speech, our right to free worship, and that's a-okay."
Bigots, every last one of them. And boy, it doesn't take a degree in psychology to figure out that they're engaging in some major projection.
***UPDATE***
More death threats from the tolerant No on 8 crowd. A commenter at Michelle Malkin linked to this sign from a protest: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/3030650282_4b8fc5650f_o.jpg
Lock and load, folks. They're coming for you. Someone is going to end up dead before all this is over, and it will probably be a Mormon, Catholic, or Christian.
Whoever it is, though, if they supported Prop. 8, Roseann will no doubt applaud, as will Ellen and the rest. It'd be refreshing if they just came out and said they wanted us all dead. Because that sure seems their ultimate goal nowadays.
Roseanne Barf...
November 14, 2008 - 16:02 ET by LionKingObviously well-educated by her display of grammar and punctuation, we should definitely consider her opinions.
Let's look at her grievances: Like-minded people wanted legal protection for the institution of marriage. So peaceably, legally, and democratically, they amended the constitution of California.
Let's look at her remedy: People have a different opinion than Roseanne so she wants them gathered up and thrown in jail -- to hell with the law and due process.
I think it is abundantly clear that when speaking of Rights and Freedoms, Roseanne is unequivocally unqualified to do so.
Lion
November 14, 2008 - 16:07 ET by NorthCoasterSo we know who is truly grounded in life don't we and who represents the best aspects of the Constitution?
So Rosie, you gonna do something crude to show your intelligence? (Sarc off)
Are you now or ever have been . . ?
November 14, 2008 - 16:08 ET by Mica the MagnificentHmmmm.
A more obese, less intelligent and way more drunk Joe McCarthy has reincarnated into the form of Roseanne.
I thought blacklisting was a taboo in tinkletown?
This is not hate speech, therefore not subject to the Fairness Doctrine - - Roseanne testifying in the near future
Rosie..you are a has been,
November 14, 2008 - 16:10 ET by bigtimerRosie..you are a has been, trying to be a somebody... who cares what you say.
NOBODY!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
You know, our friends at
November 14, 2008 - 16:19 ET by BettendorYou know, our friends at WorldNetDaily have on occasion published articles advertising this book that says liberalism is a mental disorder. Normally, I would disagree with that assessment (there are other things that contribute to that worldview), but I might make an exception in this case.
How in the world I watched her show while I was in high school, I'll never know...
If I were a liberal
November 14, 2008 - 16:33 ET by moderncommentaries83I'd gladly glom on to the argument my beliefs were a disorder. I sure as heck wouldn't want to admit I believe in such stupid, backward, illogical arguments of my own free will.
Like The DHS Counter-terrorism Panel's Report On Conservatism?
November 15, 2008 - 04:46 ET by Mycoshttp://terpconnect.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf
ABSTRACT
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism), intolerance of ambiguity, existential needs for closure, regulation of others, terror management, and ideological rationalizations and system justification for social dominance behaviors.
A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: Death anxiety; system instability anxieties; dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity; closed to new experiences; uncertainty intolerance; excessive focus on order, structure, and closure; integrative or intellectual simplicity; exaggerated fears of threat and loss; lowered self-esteem.
The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality, and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and fear.
Hey idiot!!!
November 16, 2008 - 00:18 ET by RESTLESS 1Check this out. An excerpt:
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Here's some more for you if
November 16, 2008 - 00:28 ET by RESTLESS 1Here's some more for you if you want to continue to play this game.
Relevant portion:
"In several large internet surveys, my collaborators Jesse Graham, Brian
Nosek and I have found that people who call themselves strongly liberal
endorse statements related to the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity
foundations, and they largely reject statements related to
ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. People who call
themselves strongly conservative, in contrast, endorse statements
related to all five foundations more or less equally. (You can test
yourself at http://www.YourMorals.org.) We think of the moral mind as being
like an audio equalizer, with five slider switches for different parts
of the moral spectrum. Democrats generally use a much smaller part of
the spectrum than do Republicans. The resulting music may sound
beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many
of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the
Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political
realignment."
More:
"If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they
must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They
should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum
themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned
their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting
fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive
struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated
commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America
lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania
that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding
fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral
importance that many liberals find hard to fathom. "
Thanks for playing. You're dismissed.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
liberals
November 16, 2008 - 08:37 ET by livingfreeRestless-I have saved this to my favorites. I will read this daily.
Thank you for entering it. Right on track, perfect discription of a liberal. Most of my co-workers are liberals makes me sick every day I work. Love my job but difficult to keep mouth shut when a scream is just below the surface. This article will help me get through the day. Thanks again.
ahahah! did you even read
November 16, 2008 - 00:35 ET by katainkentahahah! did you even read what you pasted?
I am keeping this forever and ever... ooo flowcharts.....
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
And I thought liberals
November 14, 2008 - 16:33 ET by rbosqueAnd I thought liberals hated people to be incarcerated in GTMO-type "gulags".
Now now Roseanne, your insanity is showing.
No
November 14, 2008 - 16:47 ET by moderncommentaries83No. They only hate incarcerating suspected terrorists - you know, folks who want to kill Americans - in gulags. They're all for throwing Christians and other conservatives in jail for crimes of Ungoodthink.
By the way, I wonder how Barr and the rest would feel about living under shari'a law? It would make the passage of Prop. 8 look like a child's birthday party.
But remember - Islamists want to kill gays. They have killed gays. And Islamic clerics - on American soil - have justified those positions. Remember when Iran's "I'm-a-Nut-Job" said they had no homosexuals in Iran? No kidding. They'd be murdered. None of this matters 'cause Christians/conservatives are still more bigoted and far worse than that!
Yeah I agree. Libs are nuts.
November 14, 2008 - 17:42 ET by rbosqueYeah I agree. Libs are nuts.
Barr
November 14, 2008 - 16:53 ET by rick007Barr is what they mean about lipstick on a pig
The cosmetics...
November 15, 2008 - 09:05 ET by Deskpilotindustry would be a co-plantiff to the pork-farmers of America(Not Congress in this case) in a class action lawsuit for defamation of charater.
Cosmetics are supposed to add to beauty. Not possible with Barr. About the only thing ANY make-up Barr could possibly put on would be to protect cameras from exploding if they could ever focus that wide, even with a 18mm fisheye lens.
What an insult to pigs!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
Plastic surgery
November 16, 2008 - 11:30 ET by mizflame98You know, she's had a lot of plastic surgery. You'd think she'd look better after all of that. But of course she did it for a very dumb reason.
Rosanne was unhappy in her marriage to Arnold and says she would have cosmetic surgery done just to get away from spending time with her husband. She says, “Every time I had a break I would have surgery. I think just to get away from him and then when I came back there’d be nurses in the house and I wouldn’t be alone with him.”
http://plasticsurgerycelebrity.blogspot.com/2008/10/rosannes-turnaround.html
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
sore loser
November 14, 2008 - 16:54 ET by right of waymy word, these libs are a bunch of sore losers! when they don't get their way they cry like babies. you lost rosanne, get over it and move on.
Is there a Gulag big enought
November 14, 2008 - 17:09 ET by Tim the EnchanterIs there a Gulag big enought to hold Roseanne? Just wondering.
Cuba isn't.
November 14, 2008 - 23:22 ET by AFCloneHow about Antarctica?
They reveal their true
November 14, 2008 - 17:11 ET by mattmThey reveal their true totalitarian colors when they feel they own the power structures.
"Send the Marines to the Whitehouse"
"boycott these hateful anti
November 14, 2008 - 17:15 ET by Richard Romano"boycott these hateful anti american donors to 8"
Let's take this apart one word at at a time:
"Boycott" -- nothing wrong with personally boycotting a company or business if you want to protest their ideas, but to call businesses to threaten violence and send envelopes with white powder to a Mormon temple are another thing altogether.
"These hateful" -- ahem, and the Prop 8 supporters who assaulted an elderly woman (waving signs with slogans such as "No More Mr. Nice Gay") are not hateful?
"Anti-American" -- traditional marriage has been enshrined in society for thousands of years...if you're mad at anyone, get mad at all the philosophies that precede and undergird the American ideal (Greek, Roman, Medieval scholasticism, The Enlightenment).
"donors to 8" -- win a proposition fair and square and it's wrong; have a court rule 5-4 to impose the redefinition of marriage on everyone, then that's a-okay. Thanks Rosie!
Gulag's huh?
November 14, 2008 - 17:35 ET by DirjjRosie seems to have the right of it, but in reverse. We can kill 2 birds with one stone. Let all the Gays ( and their advocates ) go to the Gulags. Then, they can act as gay as they want; and we normal people will have what we VOTED for.
ab
Homosexuals
November 14, 2008 - 18:06 ET by boozyDamn..she is not only a homosexual, but a damn ugly one at that...they need to learn that their lifestyle is not in sinc with a healthy culture...just take a look at san fran weirdo (nancy pelosi's} stomping grounds along with 2 some newsom the mayor...what a complete disaster...anybody with a family needs to take charge, clean up the feces and urine in the street...get rid of the free needles for the drugies...reverse the murderous "illegal immigrant sanctuary" flag they wave...and go back to what san francisco used to be...I live about 60 miles from the place, but refuse to go into the area due to the filth and will no until this city is cleaned up...
Why send them to the USSR?
November 14, 2008 - 18:32 ET by ChattychitoAll we have to do is wait two years and the US will be a mocking succes of the USSR in it;s heydays. Where the Government runs all the factories and businesses, the peopel work four hour work days high suicide and murdr and the only illigal business supporting the Govt will be the syndicate.
Newpapers print what is apporved only, no freedom of speach, shot anyopne who wont work or disagrees witht he Govt. only one church will be need a Catholic one. if yo work hard the govt company will give youfree tickets to se the lastest James bond movie of course with all the censored material bcked out it wil last only 25 minutes
Better yet give Barr Brain tansplant
PLEASE
November 15, 2008 - 09:10 ET by DeskpilotUse the PREVIEW COMMENT button and proof read your comment. It's as bad as Barr's typing. Excruciating to reread three time to figure out what you're trying to say. See my tag below.
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)
Defending Minority Rights
November 14, 2008 - 20:17 ET by Retired GeekThe smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
Should every American Citizen have the same Rights and Protections provided by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights - no more - no less?
Barack Obama, Liberals and most Democrats - say a loud resounding NO - American Citizens should have Constitutional Rights and Protections based on specific circumstances 'Special Rights'.
Homosexuals have exactly the same rights that everyone else has.
Blacks have exactly the same rights that everyone else has.
Females have exactly the same rights that everyone else has.
The statistically poor have exactly the same rights that everyone else has.
These 'Special Rights' depend on who is in power at any given time and can as easily be taken as given.
Why did the government become involved in marriage?
November 14, 2008 - 20:22 ET by Retired GeekModern Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.
Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.
They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.
The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.
The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.
'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.
The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.
Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.
Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.
Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.
Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.
Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course be a violation of privacy rights.
Every American Citizen has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as any other American Citizen.
Define this right
November 16, 2008 - 14:37 ET by CobraMan"Every American Citizen has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as any other American Citizen."
So, I have a right to marry a minor, or a relative like a sister or my own child? No, I don't. That "right " is denied to me, correct?
"Rights" are defined by laws, and laws are defined by the societies that create and enforce them. The California Constitution, which defines the rights of Californians, was democratically amended by the citizens if California. It is those citizens who define the "right" of marriage and any inclusions, or exclusions, to that 'right" and not some interpretation of a generic global "right" that has not been nether defined or enforced through law.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
civilization is based
November 16, 2008 - 14:49 ET by TruthMongercivilization is based entirely upon shared morals - these morals are where our rights come from
gay marriage is not a shared moral - by a very large measure
Honestly, to answer this
November 14, 2008 - 20:29 ET by ConservativeRexHonestly, to answer this numbskull would give creedence to anything she spews out.
I would tell her to shut up and act, but she can't do that either.
I could tell her to shut up and sing, but that would get me in trouble.
Liberal Law in Hollywood
November 14, 2008 - 21:59 ET by Jman449The more washed up you get, the more liberal you get so maybe the powers that be will throw you a crumb (such as a no-ratings talk radio program).
Roseanne fat-ass needs a lot more than a crumb, though.
This isn't just a Freudian
November 14, 2008 - 22:15 ET by semolina_filcherThis isn't just a Freudian slip--I think the liberals really believe that an Obama presidency= Marxism policies. Why else would fat A$$ mention the word "Gulag"? Folks, we are being set up for something that is unAmerican.
Hollywood Amazing!
November 14, 2008 - 23:59 ET by JipCThere have been so many laws and statutes put into play to make sure that "partners" are covered legally (company medical benefits for "partners", living wills naming "partners" to make decisions, wills to name "partners", etc.). Yes, the LEGAL marriage would JUSTIFY their unions, but it seems that the majority of America is just not ready for it. So Roseanne can cry foul and Drew Barrymore can cry about her's and her family's dear friends and how they are so very hurt by this vote, but if they are so hurt, my question is "why do they stay in California?" when they can move to other places in the world (even in the US) where their unions ARE accepted? Answer: Let's just hold sit-ins, beat someone up or threaten law-abiding citizens. Yeah... that'll do it!!!
But I'll just bet that that "Get Out The Vote" had SOMETHING to do with Prop 8 passing, so WHO SOLD OUT WHO?
To the Gulag, Go!
November 15, 2008 - 00:18 ET by NetstatterRoseanne has bared the soul of the Gay Rights Movement, showing us what it really looks like. If these folks ever get in position where they are running the country, they will begin taking away our rights and putting us freedom-loving people in gulags. That is clear to me from how these people are acting. They do not have the calibre or the character to run our country, and may the Good Lord help us all if they really get in power.
It's time to get involved, people.
Roseanne first before the
November 15, 2008 - 00:31 ET by semolina_filcherRoseanne first before the rest of the homo activists.....
Rosie's Radical Lesbianism
November 15, 2008 - 03:21 ET by BlondeHere is what the radical "whatever it takes to get their way" culture of gays and lesbians has wrought:
THIS is what the high school shooting in Fort Lauderdale was all about yesterday....a "spurned" lesbian!!! of high school age....who didn't get what she wanted.
Thank you Rosie. I look at that sweet little face and cry. For a lovely young ballerina who will never have the opportunity to dance, nor drive a car of her own on her sixteenth birthday....because you and all of the radical sexually deviant activists have made nastiness and violence an acceptable theme.
Rock on, Rosie. I lay this girl's death at your feet, you miserable b****.
Wow, blonde, I don't even
November 16, 2008 - 20:01 ET by JasonCWow, blonde, I don't even know which part of your post to criticize first. Suffice to say: Every time a man kills or rapes or mutilates a woman whom he feels has 'spurned' him, is it acceptable to blame the very notion of heterosexuality?
"The family values response, unless it is combined with a radical
renunciation of all aspects of modern society, is not an authentic
alternative."
Well, JasonC,
November 16, 2008 - 21:23 ET by Indiana JoeI don't even know how many parts of Blonde's post you could criticize. Seems to me that she's mainly blaming the "I want it, so you have to give it to me" attitude of the militant mind-set, in this case a militant sexual mind-set. It's not too far of a stretch from the gulag to the guillotine once you've decided your "rights" are at stake... to someone with that sort of mind-set, that is. Read your history, and you'll see what I mean.
Of course, the difference between Blonde's example and yours is that society frowns on relations being forced on people. Apparently, Roseanne and others like her feel that it's okay to force your views on others... even to the point of imprisoning those who disagree with you. And some people, sadly, buy those ideas wholesale.
So, what other points of Blonde's are giving you trouble?
And just BTW, could you attribute or contextualize your tag-line? Seems kind of open-ended and not relevant to anything in particular. Maybe just a slap at "family values?"
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
What is this about forcing
November 17, 2008 - 06:50 ET by JasonCWhat is this about forcing views on others? Do people who view Prop 8 as homophobic nonsense not have the right to protest it? Do we not have the right to believe it's wrong that a majority was allowed to strip a minority of a basic right, despite the fact that it doesn't affect that majority in any material way? Indeed, we do have the right to voice our opinion on these matters and, contrary to what NewsBusters seems to think, Barr is not the unquestioned leader of this movement. Seriously, I love how people read a few quotations from her and align them with an entire group of people. And besides which, you know, I don't take Barr's comments any more seriously than I do those by witty conservatives who make pronouncements about liberals who ought to be sent to Guantanamo.
But Blonde is blaming the murder of this girl directly on the idea that gays just can't get it through their heads that they aren't entitled to the same rights as straight people. And that is rank, unadulterated bullshit. If one girl really killed another because of unreciprocated attraction, then the fault lies with the murderer and perhaps her parents. The fact that the murderers attraction happened to be homosexual is irrelevant. To prop this up as an example of homosexualities inherent wrongness is beyond irresponsible.
"The family values response, unless it is combined with a radical
renunciation of all aspects of modern society, is not an authentic
alternative."
Yes, and the homosexual
November 17, 2008 - 11:44 ET by andophiroxiaYes, and the homosexual community seems to be very mature in convincing its position, particularly black people.
I see rights as all-inclusive. Since marriage has requirements then it's not a right. I have to fufill requirements as much as anyone else here.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
You're welcome to try..
November 15, 2008 - 04:08 ET by docjohn52Come take me to a gulag Rosie...
But let's don't forget who owns all the guns.
If we sent you to the gulag, in one generation we'd be done with your sorry whining.
I fought for your right to say what you want, you come to my house, your rights are over.
I love watching the left
November 15, 2008 - 11:12 ET by msh1973I love watching the left become unhinged...it all depends who Ox is being gored, doesn't it.
Sorry, CM. Go back and read
November 16, 2008 - 19:23 ET by HockeyKidSorry, CM. Go back and read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Then come back and let us know what you've learned about the source of rights.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
They're PROTESTING this, yet!
November 16, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Indiana JoeHeard about a lot of protests around the country on this the other day. Several in Chicago. Isn't it funny how liberals' love of the process is so easily shattered when the process doesn't get the results they want?
SCOTUS affirms Roe v. Wade, under some vague "right to privacy," and it's "the settled law of the land." But when SCOTUS affirmed the BSA's right to refuse to admit gay scoutmasters under the clearly spelled-out "freedom of association," it was a "bad decision" that had to be fought against.
Now that their favorite child, the voter referendum, has turned on them, I'm sure the bloom is off that rose too. Lucky for them, the California SC already showed they have no problem ignoring "the will of the people," and can likely be counted on to throw this vote out too.
I couldn't be that hypocritical, I'm glad to say.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
That sword cuts both
November 16, 2008 - 22:54 ET by hirogen73That sword cuts both ways. When courts side in agreement with same-sex marriage, its always because of "those blasted liberal judges legislating from the bench". But when courts decide to stop counting votes for president, its always "the just and righteous nature of our American fabric has been upheld today".
Judges are eeeeeeeeevil, until they agree with us.
Fighting for the "right" to marry by denying opponents' rights
November 16, 2008 - 21:15 ET by nkviking75Isn't it interesting that people like Rosanne defend rights that never really existed in any constitution in this country by denying the rights of countless others who don't agree with them. More than that, they feel justified in assaulting their enemies. I think it's a matter of time until they blow up a church or a candidate's home or a courthouse. I don't think all gays are like this, but it's frightening how many are.
The bottom line is, the gay activists know they'll never get what they want by constitutional means. They have to depend on courts to ignore precedent and law and literally change the meaning of the word marriage. And they have to destroy their opponents, especially religious people.
Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!