On Friday’s CBS "Early Show" an entirely one-sided story about the California Supreme Court ruling to allow gay marriage by correspondent John Blackstone, was followed by an entirely one-sided interview of a gay couple by co-host Julie Chen. Chen introduced the segment by declaring: "The landmark decision by the California Supreme Court yesterday to allow gay couples to marry..." while also fretting that the decision "... may be short-lived. Conservative groups hope to undo the ruling by putting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot in November." However, the perspective of those "conservative groups" is never presented in the segment. [audio available here]
Blackstone then offered his report on the ruling, which talked to no lawyers or legal experts and discussed no details of the ruling. Instead, Blackstone began by exclaiming: "In the Castro District, San Francisco's predominantly gay neighborhood...The court's decision was seen as a huge victory for equal rights." In the middle of Blackstone’s statement an overjoyed gay woman proclaimed: "Thank you, goddesses."
Blackstone went on to portray liberal San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as the hero of the day:
BLACKSTONE: At San Francisco's city hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom suggested barriers to same-sex marriage everywhere would begin to topple.Story Continues Below Ad ↓GAVIN NEWSOM: It's going to happen whether you like it or not.
BLACKSTONE: This all began four years ago when Mayor Newsom threw open the doors of city hall for a flood of gay weddings.
At the end of the report, Blackstone once again brought up those anonymous "opponents" to the ruling, though he had not featured any: "The debate isn't over. A measure to once again ban same-sex marriage is likely to be on the California ballot in November."
Blackstone’s story was then followed by Chen interviewing John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney, a gay couple from San Francisco. At one point, Chen asked Gaffney: " Stuart, domestic partnerships exist, civil unions exist. Explain to us why it's so important for you and John to be married." Gaffney replied by comparing gay marriage to that of the interracial marriage between his parents:
Well, I really am inspired by the example of my parents who are an interracial couple. There used to be barriers against interracial couples marrying. And what if my parents had been told they had an interracial union because they were of different races, whereas people of the same race could get married. The U.S. Supreme Court said no in 1967 and overturned all states laws banning interracial couples from marrying. That would be unthinkable today to tell couples like my mom and dad that they couldn't marry. And that's what we see right now. That equal marriage rights means that love is love is love.
Chen later mentioned those "opponents" one last time:
CHEN: And Stuart, how do you guys plan on dealing with the opponents out there who are trying to get this on the ballot in November to ban same-sex marriages?
GAFFNEY: Well, you know, no one should have to put their love before the voters. But if this is on the ballot in November, we will continue telling our story and telling people that this court decision is really about love, fundamentally, California has now made a great statement that all love deserves to be treated equally. And we're going to tell that story all the way until November. And we're very hopeful.
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:01AM TEASER:
JULIE CHEN: But also coming up this morning, big news out of California. California has become the second state to allow same-sex marriages. And we'll have more on that straight ahead.
7:12AM TEASER:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Up next, same-sex couples in California win the right to marry. But opponents are promising to push a constitutional ban.
7:15AM SEGMENT:
JULIE CHEN: The landmark decision by the California Supreme Court yesterday to allow gay couples to marry may be short-lived. Conservative groups hope to undo the ruling by putting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot in November. More from CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.
JOHN BLACKSTONE: With both cheers and tears, those gathered on the courthouse steps were already making plans for the next step.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I don't know the details of the ruling, but I think we're getting married pretty soon.
BLACKSTONE: In the Castro District, San Francisco's predominantly gay neighborhood.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN B: Thank you, goddesses.
BLACKSTONE: The court's decision was seen as a huge victory for equal rights.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN C: They got it. And I'm really happy.
BLACKSTONE: Talk show host Ellen Degeneres released a statement saying, she 'can't wait to get married.' She added, 'P.S., I'm registered at Crate and Barrel.' At San Francisco's city hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom suggested barriers to same-sex marriage everywhere would begin to topple.
GAVIN NEWSOM: It's going to happen whether you like it or not.
BLACKSTONE: This all began four years ago when Mayor Newsom threw open the doors of city hall for a flood of gay weddings. Jim Smith and Frank Reithsnyder got married then. They have 14-month-old twins. But until this court ruling, their marriage certificate had no legal meaning.
JIM SMITH: My family knows I'm married. My church knows I'm married. Finally, the state knows that I'm married.
BLACKSTONE: The debate isn't over. A measure to once again ban same-sex marriage is likely to be on the California ballot in November. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco.
JULIE CHEN: Joining us from San Francisco are John Lewis and Stuart Gaffney. They were among the couples that sued to overturn laws against same-sex marriage. Gentlemen, good morning and congratulations on your success here.
STUART GAFFNEY: Good morning.
JOHN LEWIS: Thank you so much. Good morning.
CHEN: John, let me begin with you, because you and Stuart have been together for more than 20 years. Why -- what was your --
JOHN LEWIS: Yes, yes.
CHEN: What was your reaction when you heard the ruling yesterday?
LEWIS: We were just enormously happy. As you mentioned, we've been a loving, committed couple now for 21 years. And it's just a tremendous feeling to know that we are no longer excluded. And that our loving, committed relationship is going to be given the highest dignity and respect under the law.
CHEN: Stuart, domestic partnerships exist, civil unions exist. Explain to us why it's so important for you and John to be married.
STUART GAFFNEY: Well, I really am inspired by the example of my parents who are an interracial couple. There used to be barriers against interracial couples marrying. And what if my parents had been told they had an interracial union because they were of different races, whereas people of the same race could get married. The U.S. Supreme Court said no in 1967 and overturned all states laws banning interracial couples from marrying. That would be unthinkable today to tell couples like my mom and dad that they couldn't marry. And that's what we see right now. That equal marriage rights means that love is love is love.
CHEN: John, since -- since this ruling came down yesterday, it will actually go into effect 30 days from now. So in 30 days, do the two of you plan to have a ceremony and get married?
LEWIS: We are planning to get married just as soon as possible. And our families and friends they're so excited. We were on the phone and on e-mails all day yesterday and we're going to have a wonderful, grand celebration with friends and family to celebrate love.
CHEN: And how do you guys plan on dealing --
GAFFNEY: The best part of getting --
CHEN: Yeah, go ahead, Stuart.
GAFFNEY: I was just going to say the best part of getting married is sharing your love with your family and friends and loved ones. That's the kind of wedding we want and that's the kind of wedding we are going to have now.
CHEN: And Stuart, how do you guys plan on dealing with the opponents out there who are trying to get this on the ballot in November to ban same-sex marriages?
GAFFNEY: Well, you know, no one should have to put their love before the voters. But if this is on the ballot in November, we will continue telling our story and telling people that this court decision is really about love, fundamentally, California has now made a great statement that all love deserves to be treated equally. And we're going to tell that story all the way until November. And we're very hopeful.
CHEN: In the final moments of this interview, it is hitting the wires this morning that Ellen Degeneres and her partner, Portia De Rossi, plan to marry in light of this ruling. Your reaction, John?
LEWIS: Well, it's just wonderful that we've been a loving, committed couple for, you know, over 20 years now, and there are thousands and thousands of loving, committed couples in California and across the nation who simply want the same dignity and respect for their family that everybody else has. And so we see this as a great day and a great step forward.
CHEN: John Lewis, Stuart Gaffney, thank you, gentlemen.
LEWIS: Thank you.
GAFFNEY: Thank you.
CHEN: You're welcome.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
Since when...
May 16, 2008 - 12:15 ET by ontheright...is deviant sexual behavior a "right"? The slope is becoming more and more slippery.
I think the same time it
May 16, 2008 - 12:19 ET by taterI think the same time it was determined killing humans in the womb was considered a "right".
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
May 16, 2008 - 12:17 ET by MeanderingLook, do whatever you want to do in your home. America is the land of personal freedom. I don't have an issue with gays or lesbians. My issue is with the judges who overturned the voice of the people yet again. The people had already decided what they wanted, is it the judicial systems' job to change what the people said or meant? What's next is my church going to be forced to do these types of weddings? Where will it end?
Most people who are against Gay Marriage
May 16, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Dee Bunkdon't have problems with gays and lesbians.
...and raise your hand if
May 16, 2008 - 12:28 ET by tater...and raise your hand if you are against gay marriage and then are called a bigot. I don't have a problem with their lifestyle because that's their choice not mine. I know it to be wrong because of my beliefs but then again I've done some wrong things in my life so I won't condemn them. I'm with a lot of people here in that I don't want 4 or 5 people deciding something that has been defined since the beginning of time "one man, one woman".
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
That's the Point
May 16, 2008 - 12:30 ET by MeanderingThis is the deal, not what each individual decides how to live their life, but its the 7 people who decided to overturn something that the people already voted on. I'm concerned with will the government eventually force religious institutions (churches) to marry gay couples because its deemed "unconstitutional", when I don't think marriage is a government run operation. Give me a break!
Well if that happens then
May 16, 2008 - 12:36 ET by taterWell if that happens then we can finally scream seperation of church and state then.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
You have to get a license
May 16, 2008 - 18:45 ET by MromelYou have to get a license to get married, so that makes it a legal partnership in the eyes of the government. So the seperation is there..the only reason religion is involved is because people feel the need to get married in churches. And if I'm not mistaken...aren't there openly gay church leaders in this country?
Why do people think it's okay to deny people a basic right like getting married. I mean seriously, people on death row are even allowed to get married (Ted Bundy), so why can't gay people?
Mromel: Why do people
May 16, 2008 - 19:20 ET by tracheostomyMromel: Why do people think it's okay to deny people a basic right like getting
married. I mean seriously, people on death row are even allowed to get
married (Ted Bundy), so why can't gay people?
Two words: Financial inequity. Gay male couples will face discrimination in favor of lesbian couples.
Think for a change instead of reacting.
Attention ladies (and ladies only). Come out of the closet and you can have it all, the money and the child custody. The men are completely clueless.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
And, according to Britcom,
May 22, 2008 - 01:24 ET by cleverpigAnd, according to Britcom, you can skip venereal disease and infidelity, too!
Crap, what am I doing wasting my time with a man?!
of course you must be
May 21, 2008 - 15:47 ET by TruthMongerof course you must be against ped marriage
or beastiality marriage, or necrophilia marriage
because...
WELL THAT'S JUST PLAIN WIERD
unlike
two guys getting married
which used to be just plain wierd
but it's OK - now
thanks to the miracle of movies and TV:)!!!!
Actually, the institution
May 21, 2008 - 16:02 ET by Ruths husband BenActually, the institution of marriage precedes the establishment of a government, certainly it precedes any mention in any government documents. Jews and Christians point to Genesis as the first marriage where God said that a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh as the first marriage pronouncement. So, actually, the government presuming to define marraige in any other manner than that (a man and his wife) is exceeding the bounds of the separation of church and state AND its constitutional authority (in the view of Christians, at least).
And yes, there are openly gay church leaders but they are also in open rebellion against the word of God. What's your point there? I can find you a church leader who openly hates America, it doesn't make him right (just Wright) or indicative of the beliefs of most christian leaders.
Because their GAY! Can they
May 21, 2008 - 16:04 ET by bassndudeBecause their GAY! Can they make babies together? Nooooo...Kind of the reason for sex. You can get married in California or where ever you like, but if your the same sex, get married in California, the another state is not obligated to recognize it. A marriage license for gays from California is only good in Ca, or Mass. Perhpas NJ.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well...
May 16, 2008 - 12:42 ET by libertycitizenShould courts ever overturn state or federal laws? Judicial review is a long-standing foundation of the American political system, ever since Marbury vs. Madison. I don't think it's controversial to assert this.
What if the people of California voted by a massive majority to ban all guns? That's not inconceivable. And what if the US Supreme Court struck down that law as being unconstitutional? What would people say about activist judges then?
PS Also, why are you saying it's a lifestyle? It's not like taking up vegetarianism or racquetball. Also, not condemning gays because you've done "some wrong things in [your] life" seems to suggest that being gay is also wrong somehow. I don't think it's right to throw the bigot word around; I'm sure you're a good person. But I can understand why some people might question your thinking here.
Okay I'll clear up what I said some more
May 16, 2008 - 12:48 ET by taterWould you prefer sexual choice instead of lifestyle...now I know some people who may condemn a gay person just because they have feelings towards the same sex, that is wrong. What I feel is wrong is the sexual acts between homosexuals...that is the sin, not the person. I would be the same way if two unmarried heterosexuals did the same thing, or a man who cheats on his wife...they all fall under adultery.
"They need to have a course in college called common sense and everyone should take it. Problem is there isn't too many people that could pass or teach it." -my grandfather
Sexuality is a core element
May 16, 2008 - 13:11 ET by libertycitizenSexuality is a core element to every human being. I can't imagine anyone saying having feelings but not acting on them ever is acceptable, at least for heterosexuals. You may be opposed to gays, but can you see how this would be hard for heterosexuals, to be celibate their entire lives?
Clearly this is a deeply ingrained issue and minds don't get changed when feelings are involved. But what is indisputable are the demographics. Young people in every poll absolutely support gay equality by large majorities, and the majorities are getting larger. Older people don't, but they are dying off.
Society is changing, and the GOP better change with it. Otherwise, we'll be cursed with the Democrats for good.
Society is changing, and
May 16, 2008 - 13:46 ET by KarmaSociety is changing, and the GOP better change with it. Otherwise, we'll be cursed with the Democrats for good.
If a Republican changes into a Democrat, what's the difference who we're stuck with?
"I can't imagine anyone
May 16, 2008 - 13:57 ET by Jerry"I can't imagine anyone saying having feelings but not acting on them ever is acceptable.."
Please.. pedophiles want sexual gratification from children, beasties want to have sex with animals, married men want to have sex with every hot babe they see..
The question is, "is it the right thing to do?". Everyone has wicked desires, whether you act on your desires is your choice.
"Young people in every poll absolutely support gay equality by large majorities"
That's because they have effectively implemented their agenda within public education.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
So you're saying being gay
May 16, 2008 - 14:40 ET by libertycitizenSo you're saying being gay means having "wicked desires"? If so, that makes gays inherently wicked, no different from being a pedophile who doesn't act on his desires. And you wonder why people call you bigots?
I now know what black people felt like trying to argue with racists in the South. I think it's better that we win this at the ballot box and in the hearts and minds of all Americans, not a select prejudiced few.
If you care to rewind the
May 16, 2008 - 15:11 ET by JerryIf you care to rewind the tape, I said that EVERYONE had wicked desires. That makes us all inherently wicked. Jesus said "there is none good, but one, that is, God".
You have chosen the liberal's easy way out, branding anyone who disagrees with you as a "bigot" or "racist" or a "phobe". Please stick to rational debate and leave the name calling to the 5 year olds.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
In going with your
May 16, 2008 - 18:50 ET by MromelIn going with your argument...didn't God make everything? So that must mean he made homosexuality too since a person doesn't choose to be gay/bi/straight, thats just how they are made. So that must mean that God made the person that way...and gave them free will.
"didn't God make
May 17, 2008 - 00:15 ET by Jerry"didn't God make everything?"
Absolutely.
"So that must mean he made homosexuality too"
God made man. Man brought sin into the world, through his disobedience to God.
"a person doesn't choose to be gay/bi/straight"
This argument can be used to excuse ANY type of irresponsible behavior. A pedophile doesn't choose to be attracted to children. A habitual kleptomaniac doesn't choose to have an uncontrollable urge to steal. That's bull. We all have desires that are not in our best interest. It is our choice to act on them or not.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Dude, that is a coward's
May 16, 2008 - 16:44 ET by libertycitizenDude, that is a coward's way out.
If a straight man desires his wife, and has consensual sex with her, that is not wicked. Right?
If a gay man desires his husband, and has consensual sex with him, that is wicked. Right?
Whatever these all-encompassing wicked desires you describe are, we are defined by what we do, by the acts we commit.
1. Right. 2.
May 16, 2008 - 16:49 ET by Clear thinker1. Right.
2. Right.
There, that settles it.
"Abstain from McCain"
Nonsense..
May 16, 2008 - 21:12 ET by TheDeuceThere's no such thing as a 'man's husband'. The federal definition of marriage, as quoted in the Defense of Marriage Act, clearly states that a marriage is made up of a MAN and a member of the opposite sex ONLY. Only criteria setting age limits and disallowing unions between certain familial relationships is legislated at the state level.
Learn the constitution liberty
May 16, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Dee BunkStates can't overturn federally given rights whether it's their people, their legislature or their judges.
There is no constitutional right to Gay Marriage.
So does that mean there is
May 16, 2008 - 18:54 ET by MromelSo does that mean there is no constitutional right to straight marriage? Because last time I checked marriage is one of those inalienable rights Jefferson talks about in the Declaration of Independence.
I love my pet goat.
May 16, 2008 - 13:00 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltNo, I mean I REALLY love my goat. Can I marry her (or him)? It's not a lifestyle that I chose, it was thrust upon me by nature-not like I actually CHOSE to love goats. I've always loved goats, as far back as I can remember. But this goat, Shellie, I don't know how to describe how she makes me feel, she understands me like no woman (or other human, for that matter) ever has. My two sons seem to accept her as my companion as well. In fact, she's the only mother figure they've ever known. We should be able to marry. And hey, the, um...geometry actually works better than that of two human men, so where's your objection?
(And by the way, I'm not suggesting that gays are not "built that way" and that they are choosing the lifestyle, but that's irrelevant. My tongue-in-cheek argument above points out that just because someone feels or is in fact built from the beginning to have an unusual attraction outside the norm should not be the litmus test as to whether it is accepted by society in every possible situation. To get REALLY crazy and with an analogy...Jeffrey Dahmer felt that he was born to eat other people, and maybe he was, but so what? And NO, I'm not comparing gays to serial killers and cannibals.)
You joke John Galt but I saw a play with this very
May 16, 2008 - 13:14 ET by Dee Bunksubject called "The Goat or who is Silvia" by Edward Albee and was treated to bestiality simulated on stage. I have a subscription at the theater house and I often don't read up on the plays first so I had no idea that this would involve sex with a goat and be sympathetic to it.
Still, even though as this play shows, liberals will some day want to excuse people who fall in love with a goat, It's really not the same as the gay marriage thing. I understand you and know that you are not saying it's completely the same but liberals can't see the valid part in your analogy and only focus in on the fact that a Goat isn't a willing partner etc...
There is no large number of people that are or will ever be close to wanting or advocating the ban of gay sex in private. Liberals like to act like people are and with this type of analogy they will act like that is what you are saying even though I know you are not.
Wow, haven't heard this
May 16, 2008 - 13:19 ET by libertycitizenWow, haven't heard this silly argument before. tongue-in-cheek or not.
1) Where is the groundswell for marrying animals? You know something I don't?
2) In this marriage ceremony you seem to anticipate, when the official asks the goat whether it takes you to marry it, what is its answer? You speak goat? The poor tin-can chewing thing can't give its consent.
As for norms, even the most conservative figure of 2% of population means there are SIX million gay Americans. That is not unusual. That is not outside the norm.
And more importantly, the polls are pointing toward support for gay equality by an increasing number of Americans. In 20 years, the 18 year-olds of today, listening to iPods and watching
YouTube and not caring about gay vs. straight, will be almost 40, and
having kids themselves. And the white-haired brigade of today, shaking
their fists at licentious, hedonistic gays will be six feet under.
If America wants it, what does that say about America?
Nor was there an argument
May 16, 2008 - 19:24 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltNor was there an argument thirty years ago for gay marriage. But here we are, discussing it.
And I seem to remember (actually I don't remember as much as I learned about it as a matter of history because I'm not that old) the sixties radicals declaring that when the grey-haired fossils of their generation lost power, there would be free love, no war, and a wonderful world where everyone loved each other (images of Tiny Tim prancing around). Didn't quite work out like that, did it? Funny thing happens when one matures and/or has children. You find wisdom in the way that humans have reared countless generations of offspring for thousands and thousands of years.
In twenty years, the majority of eighteen year olds of today will (as a matter of history it always works this way) will shed the "do whatever you want if it feels good" mentality when reality smacks them in the face. Just like the hippes did. Most of them anyway.
And as far as polls, who gives a crap what polls say? They're all pushed with an agenda. What is important is how the voters react, which, let's not forget, approved the BAN on same-sex marriages. In what is the most liberal state in the nation, very likely.
"Can I marry my
May 16, 2008 - 14:02 ET by Jerry"Can I marry my goat?"
Naaa aaa aaa aaah.... (goat speak)
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Well
May 16, 2008 - 14:18 ET by RainsfordHomosexuality is an act, it's not a type of person, and for the court to rule on an instutiton that is strictly social is unbeliveable. There's nothing in the Constitution talking about marriage, so it's quite clear that our bans on pedophila, incest, homosexuality and polygamy are social creations, deriving not from the law but from the will of society. Intent is becoming more and more important on courts nowadays, and it's hard to find where the founders expressed intent for the court to rule on marriage or other strictly social norms that don't impact anyones "rights".
It is offensive to me for you to say "gay" marriage please say
May 16, 2008 - 13:04 ET by Daniel Bakernon traditional marriage or perversion of marriage
"Where will it end"?
May 16, 2008 - 16:44 ET by Chumly"Where will it end"?
It will only end when religious people follow the doctine laid out in our constitution by our founding fathers. The constitution provides for freedom of religion as well as freedom FROM religion (there was great wisdom in keeping church and state seperate).
The only problem is...our own version of the taliban (conservative christians) do not accept that. Religious people have the right to live in a 1st century paradigm as it was preserved in the bible if they choose to. The rest of us have the right to live our lives free from any limits, and intolerance, and willful ignorance that would be imposed upon us by religious people like yourselves (aren't we fighting the taliban in Afghanistan? Aren't they one of our enemies? Do we have to fight (the western version of) them over here too?).
Just as you have the right to worship a fictitious god and all the ancient superstions that go with that, the rest of us have the inalienable right to be protected from the imposition of such willful ignorance and intolerance.
"The people have already decided"?? What people? You do not have the right to decide what other people do, or how other people live their lives. Our founding fathers made sure of that. The judges are only restoring rights taken away from one group, by another. It's pretty simple stuff.
Where does our constitution give one group the right to take happiness away from another? By the way, this issue does not affect your group in ANY WAY!
BTW, I am a hetero, married, father of 3 boys.
"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
-- John Adams, letter to his brother
Chumly: The only problem
May 16, 2008 - 19:11 ET by tracheostomyChumly: The only problem is...our own version of the taliban (conservative christians) do not accept that.
Does deliberately exaggerating one to compare with the other make it true, or do you really believe this?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Yes Chumly. If you truly
May 17, 2008 - 00:37 ET by JerryYes Chumly. If you truly believe that there is any comparison between conservative Christians and the Taliban, then you are indeed the proverbial village idiot.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Taliban and Conservative Christians
May 18, 2008 - 04:26 ET by ChumlyOh... do you know anything about the taliban?
The difference between the taliban and our conservative christians is a difference of degrees, not substance.
The taliban hate gays.
So do the christians.
The taliban believe in a fictitious, magical god.
So do the christians.
The taliban want to force their ridiculous, hateful, intolerant, ignorant, perverse ancient superstitions and views on others who do not believe what they do.
SO DO THE CHRISTIANS!! The mere fact that we are having this conversation PROVES that point - Mr. brain surgeon!
Remember Janet Jackson's brief nipple exposure on TV? Who do you suppose put the smackdown on what is allowed over the airwaves?
And, for further proof of the similarity, here is a quote from George Bush Sr.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Here's another one for ya...this quote is from Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, http://www.amvalues.org/about.php
""We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe."
That Einstein wants to indoctrinate all of our children to become ignorant "believers".
Here are a couple of quotes from Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics...
"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant baptism and holy communion must be denied citizenship."
"This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."
Soooo, are you people starting to sound a little bit TALIBAN-ISH?? It's just a difference of degrees. Allah ahkbar, or, as you might say...praise god.
Who is the village idiot? Someone who believes in a murderous, vengeful, intolerant, magical, fictitious god???
I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his b
wow Chumly
May 18, 2008 - 10:00 ET by botgwhat a bunch of crap.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
Intelligent reply, botg.
May 20, 2008 - 00:39 ET by ChumlyCan you refute anything I said?
I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
Chumly: Can you refute
May 20, 2008 - 02:47 ET by tracheostomyChumly: Can you refute anything I said?
He cannot literally rub your nose in it, but. . .just because you refuse to actually read the valid refutations that are already there (take my post for example), it doesn't mean you haven't been refuted already.
You comparisons were patently absurd and inflammatory. Either you don't understand the Taliban or you don't understand Christianity.
Take your pick. I'm being more than fair here.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
chums
May 20, 2008 - 21:03 ET by botgrather it is you making unsubstantiatable statements and you who have the burden of proof. i merely retort to you as i would most any other fool.
“i am the quixotic botg and i approved this message”
"The taliban hate gays.
May 18, 2008 - 12:00 ET by Jerry"The taliban hate gays. So do the christians."
Christians are not to hate anyone. Disagreeing is not hate. Are there Christians that hate gays? I'm sure there are, but I don't know any. Are there non-Christians who hate gays? Again, I'm sure there are, because I know some.
"The taliban believe in a fictitious, magical god. So do the christians."
"Fictitious God" is your opinion. You can neither prove He exists or doesn't exist. Einstein concluded He does.
"The taliban want to force their ridiculous, hateful, intolerant, ignorant, perverse ancient superstitions and views on others who do not believe what they do."
Please indicate the hateful, intolerant, ignorant superstitions being forced upon you by Christians. Don't commit murder? Don't commit adultery? Treat others as you would like to be treated? Love your neighbor as yourself? Have any Christians forced you to go to church, or worship God, or convert to Christianity at the point of a sword?
"SO DO THE CHRISTIANS!! The mere fact that we are having this conversation PROVES that point - Mr. brain surgeon!"
I'm not sure I understand. You said Christians were like the Taliban. I disagreed. This proves that Christians are like the taliban?
"Remember Janet Jackson's brief nipple exposure on TV? Who do you suppose put the smackdown on what is allowed over the airwaves?"
Is it ok with you for children to be exposed to nudity over the public airways and at public events? Not in my book. Question, if they had a Christian prayer during the SuperBowl, do you think any atheists would have complained, and would it have been ok in your book for them to complain?
"And, for further proof of the similarity, here is a quote from George Bush Sr. "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.""
This was an unverified accusation. According to Wikipedia: "There are no video nor audio recordings of this, nor has anyone else ever confirmed the quote"
"Here's another one for ya...this quote is from Gary Bauer, the president of American Values, http://www.amvalues.... "We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe." "
Is this not true? Somebody's values WILL prevail. Is everyone else allowed to push for their values but not Christians? If so, why.
"That Einstein wants to indoctrinate all of our children to become ignorant "believers"."
I'm not sure why an educated person who doesn't believe is just an educated person, while an educated person who does believe is an "ignorant believer". Were our founding fathers "ignorant"? Fisher Ames was a founding father. He was also the first Superintendent of Public Education. He believed that the BIBLE should be the primary text book in public education. I guess he wanted all children to be ignorant.
"Here are a couple of quotes from Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics..."The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant baptism and holy communion must be denied citizenship." "This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians.""
Since I don't know who Gary North is, I looked him up. Apparently Mr North is a member of a sect known as Christian Reconstructionists. He also predicted that only those who built fallout shelters would survive the nuclear war with the Soviet Union, and that Y2K would be a global disaster. I'm sure we can find extremists within every single group of people in the world. I would encourage you not to lump Christians, nor any group of people, into one category based upon the actions of a few.
"Soooo, are you people starting to sound a little bit TALIBAN-ISH?? It's just a difference of degrees. Allah ahkbar, or, as you might say...praise god."
Talibanish? Still not seeing it. By the way, Muslims worshiped multiple gods, one of which was Allah, their MOON god. Mohammed told man that Allah was the one god. God told Moses that He was the one God. Big difference.
"Who is the village idiot? Someone who believes in a murderous, vengeful, intolerant, magical, fictitious god???"
I apologize for the "villiage idiot" line, it may have been over the top. But it was extremely offensive for someone to compare me to the taliban.
For someone who is opposed to hate and intolerance, you certainly appear to hate the idea of God and appear to have an extreme intolerance for Christians. If Christians have offended you or mistreated you in the past, I am truly sorry. Christians see a road where the bridge is out ahead. If they hated you, they wouldn't say anything. If they loved you, they would try to warn you. Many interpret that love as hate.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Benefit of the doubt
May 20, 2008 - 01:23 ET by ChumlySince I have not posted to this board in a while, and I haven't read any of your posts before this one, I will give you the benefit of the doubt about the "village idiot" comment. It did seem to be a very classic NewsBusters rebut. The very reason I have not been on here in a while.
BTW, Einstein did not believe in the god of the bible. Neither did a lot of our founding fathers.
My comparison of the taliban and christians wanting to force their opinions and way of life on the rest of the respective societies STANDS.
My comment "The mere fact that we are having this conversation PROVES that point - Mr. brain surgeon!"
merely meant that the very fact that we are discussing whether gays should be allowed to have the same rights as the rest of us, and not have to follow an ancient belief propogated by 21st century followers of a relatively ancient text (the bible) proves my comparison with the taliban.
The whole point of my comments is just to show that the taliban agressively force their views on the rest of society. So do christians. Is that not true?
By the way, what is wrong with the naked human body????? Should we keep women covered up like the muslims and [the taliban!] do? You are just proving my point. It is christians who have made such a huge deal over sex and the human body over the centuries in the western cultures. If people like you didn't make a big deal about the naked human body, neither would our children.
I am not intolerant of christians. I am intolerant of the willful propagation of ignorance and intolerance itself. What I most fear from christians is their voting power. In this country, we have a huge proportion of voters who believe in an fictitious, magical, sky-god who can know every individuals thoughts, hear their prayers, and is all powerful.
Our future depends of people making rational, logical, informed, intelligent decisions at the polls. In my opinion, we are not getting that from the christians. We even had a republican presidential candidate recently who wore magic undergarments!
Since not one of the many millions of christians who have live over the last 2000 years can provide proof of a single conversation with god, or a single miracle (even a very minor one), I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that the god of the bible does not exist.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming the fantasmagorical existence of an all powerful, all-knowing, magical being. By the way, who made god????????????????????????????????????????
I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.
-- John Adams, letter to his b
Again, demanding the same old thing.
May 22, 2008 - 15:53 ET by tracheostomyCh: Since not one of the many millions of christians who have live over the
last 2000 years can provide proof of a single conversation with god, or
a single miracle (even a very minor one), I am going to go out on a
limb and suggest that the god of the bible does not exist.
Missed this one. Hey, I can provide valid proof of the resurrection.
Set the exact guidelines and ground rules for your standard of proof and I'll attempt to meet it. Preferably, this should be done on the forum.
Don't punk out on me now! >;)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"Sigh" Okay fine!
May 20, 2008 - 03:43 ET by tracheostomy:rolling up sleeves:
Guess I have to clean up another mess of misinformation.
Chumly: Oh... do you know anything about the taliban?
My neighbor and close friend personally met a few while working on a hydroelectric dam contract in Pakistan. He left soon after. Take the personal account for what it's worth. I've also learned a lot since then. Assuptions on your part aside, the point being is, how can you assume how much or how little someone on the other side of your monitor knows?
Chumly: The difference between the taliban and our conservative christians is a difference of degrees, not substance.
Degrees of what? I'm compelled to ask where is the very substance of your statement?
Chumly: The taliban hate gays. So do the christians.
Define hate.
QUESTION: Are we talking about a level of rage/anger to actually harm another living human being here? <--- Consider this one carefully.
QUESTION: Is hatred sin? <--- Consider this one carefully.
Chumly: The taliban believe in a fictitious, magical god. So do the christians.
Which you have not made the case for. Therefore, you make the assuption at the outset as if Allah didn't exist or if Christ hadn't risen.
Chumly: The taliban want to force their ridiculous, hateful, intolerant,
ignorant, perverse ancient superstitions and views on others who do not
believe what they do.
"Ridiculous, hateful, intolerant, ignorant, [and] perverse. . ." compared to what standard? Hmm? Answer that.
Chumly: SO DO THE CHRISTIANS!! The mere fact that we are having this conversation PROVES that point - Mr. brain surgeon!
No. This is not proof. Conversations do not equal subway bombs. Chist did not tell his followers to force moral law or the gospel. Who's the brain surgeon now?
Chumly: Remember Janet Jackson's brief nipple exposure on TV? Who do you
suppose put the smackdown on what is allowed over the airwaves?
Janet Jackson's still alive. You're saying what is allowed over the airwaves should have zero limits then? <--- Consider this one carefully.
Chumly: And, for further proof of the similarity, here is a quote from George Bush Sr. ["I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."]
Did the supreme court pass that opinion? Arguments from authority aside, I think atheists deserve the same rights as theists because their anti-faith actually depends on a god (any god; doesn't matter). Or else there wouldn't be any reason to be actively hostile.
Oh yeah. This is my turn to say, the mere fact that we are having this conversation proves that point. =)
Chumly: Here's another one for ya...["We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is
somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach
our children what to believe."]
Moralism = Christianity? I believe we're in a culture war myself, but I admit the word "war" is exaggerated. I think you got your doctrines mixed up.
Sure, we need laws to keep civil order. I really hope we can both agree on that. The problem is what standard do we follow? The code of Hammurabi perhaps? Oh wait. That's based on religion too.
As an atheist, you're in a real jam. You cannot provide any moral standard that doesn't steal from a religious precept. Therefore, you're just flailing. It's not our fault you can't come up with any original ideas.
Chumly: [North: "The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain
exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit
publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's
public marks of the covenant baptism and holy communion must be denied
citizenship."]
That quote doesn't even make sense. What? True Christianity is not about setting up a theocracy-by-proxy. I'd throw that one on there with the previous quote.
Chumly: [North?: "This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."]
That's just plain poor theology. I wonder if anyone (you, North, etc.) ever bothered to read Eph 2:2. Even Lucifer couldn't tempt Jesus in the wilderness if he didn't have something to truly offer.
So it's just super-bad theology all around. To top it off, this is even bad eschatology. Christians are not the lawful heirs until Christ establishes His kingdom. And even then we are "joint heirs." Christians have zero authority to pre-empt their king.
Chumly: Soooo, are you people starting to sound a little bit TALIBAN-ISH??
Nope. Far from. Not my fault you're listening to bad info.
Chumly: It's just a difference of degrees. Allah ahkbar, or, as you might
say...praise god.
Degrees of what? See above. You've got zip.
Chumly: Who is the village idiot? Someone who believes in a murderous, vengeful, intolerant, magical, fictitious god???
There's a fine line thyar between mere "belief" and "acting on the behalf of." Debates are only bloodless as long as you keep on debating. Get it?
BTW, did you used to go by the name "Syrius?"
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Don't try to distract
May 20, 2008 - 12:48 ET by ChumlyTrach, don't try to distract what my main point was. My main point is that the religious right in this country are trying to force their views and way of life on the rest of us. The taliban DO - THE - SAME - THING. Is that not true?????
I will define "hate" as one group trying to deny another group of something the first group already enjoys. I think intolerance is part of that definition.
The religious right are trying to deny some of their fellow human beings of certain laws and rights that they themselved enjoy. This is the same thing that the taliban does.
The taliban are very anti-woman. Women in their culture are denied a lot of the things men take for granted.
The christian religion is anti-woman. Remember, woman have had the right to vote in this christian country for less than a century. Remember the Salem witch trials and burnings? How about the priesthood? How about in the bible where it talks about the father's right to sell his dauters into slavery?
So, are our religious brainiacs who (pretend to know something they cannot really know), a little talibanish? Certainly. As I have mentioned, there is only a difference in degree between them, not a difference in substance.
By the way, I think John Adam's quote below speaks about not allowing one group to impose its beliefs on another group. Don't you think so?
No, I have not used a different user name on this board.
"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself".
-- John Adams, letter to his brother
Chumly, Wow! where to
May 20, 2008 - 13:10 ET by futbolisgreat1Chumly,
Wow! where to start?!
You have been obviously brainwashed by the anti-Christian left in America!
The Taliban use the fear of death, and death itself to force others to become Muslim.
Care to point out when was the last time than a mass group of Christian in America killed men, women and children because they refused to convert to Christianity?
Christian religion anti-woman? really?
You forget that for centuries now Christian nations have had women as queens!!! they have ruled over man.
You speak of the priesthood and you just gloss over it. You don't mention that FACT that in Christian religions like Catholicism, the Virgin Mary, a woman is considered the second highest human being after Jesus Christ. You fail lto mention that in the Catholic Church women Saints are put forth as example of how all men and women should live their lives. If women were so stepped on in Christianity as you claim, why do this?
If anyone in the USA is forcing another group of people to accept their beliefs it is the gay movement and many other left wing movements who use intimidation and other scare tactics to silence their critics. It is the left who uses violence, uses the media, uses judges to shove down the throat of America left wing agenda.
Remember that in California, 60% of voters voted against Gay Marriage, but guess what, the California Supreme Court didn't care about the will of the people, they only cared about shoving down the throat of Californian's the gay agenda.
Chumly, whatever happened to the lefts mantra that every vote counts? I guess every vote counts only when it fits the Liberal agenda, right?
Please, stop your simplistic, poorly informed, incredibly uneducated posts.
You hatred for Christianity, based on left wing propaganda would be laughable if it didn't do so much harm!
Hey futbol - you probably don't remember me
May 20, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Dee Bunkbecause it's been a really long time since we have been on the board at the same time.
I'm glad to see you here and love how you stand up and argue for Christians. You make great arguments.
I ditto that Dee...as fut
May 20, 2008 - 13:49 ET by bigtimerI ditto that Dee...as fut probably knows.
Glad to see ya' back now and again too futbol.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Dee Bunk, Thanks for the
May 20, 2008 - 13:55 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee Bunk,
Thanks for the kudos. I am always here, I come in a few times a day and read Newsbusters.org. I don't have as much time to put up posts as I did before, but nothing angers me more than anti-Christian left wing propaganda and how left wingers like Chumly repeat like mindless parrots all the lies that have been spread against Christianity.
Honestly, if Chumly would have stop and thought about Christianity before he typed away and clicked the submit button, his post would not be filled with so much anti-Christian left wing propaganda.
I found it incredibly amusing when he claimed that Christianity is anti-woman because just recently women were allowed to vote in Christian nations. HA! he forget all the centuries of Christian history where Christian woman have become queens! Incredible. Just one small example how the foaming at the mouth, anti-Christians don't bother to think beyond their misplaced hatred.
Anyway, once again, thanks for the kudos Dee Bunk.
Are there any bible readers out there in christian land??
May 20, 2008 - 15:32 ET by ChumlyHave any of you magic-god believers out there read any of the bible?....Come on people, be intellectually honest with me at least. This stuff is all written down in your ancient scriptures. Just because you say it here on this board, does not make it true! What I have found here is that the more forceful your reply (even if it doesn't offer a single, legitimate argument, the more kudos you get from your cohorts). See below...the list is long.
Here are some examples of what I am talking about when I say that the christian religion is anti-woman...um, just like the taliban...
Genesis
2:22
Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16
Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8
Rape virgins instead of male angels
Exodus
20:17
Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11
Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
38:8
Women may not enter tabernacle they must support
Leviticus
12:1-14
Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7
Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23
Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22
If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged
Numbers
1:2
Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31
Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35
"Virgins" listed as war booty
Deuteronomy
21:11-14
Rape manual
22:5
Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa
22:13-21
Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24
Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29
Woman must marry her rapist
24:1
Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa
25:11-12
If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off
Judges
11:30-40
Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed
19:22-29
Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man
I Kings
11:1-4
King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines
Job
14:1-4
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."
Proverbs
7:9-27
Evil women seduce men, send them to hell
11:22
One of numerous Proverbial putdowns
Isaiah
3:16-17
God scourges, rapes haughty women
Ezekiel
16:45
One of numerous obscene denunciations
Matthew
24:19
"[woe] to them that are with child"
Luke
2:22
Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus
I Corinthians
11:3-15
Man is head of woman; only man in God's image
14:34-35
Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands
Ephesians
5:22-33
"Wives, submit . . ."
Colossians
3:18
More "wives submit"
I Timothy
2:9
Women adorn selves in shamefacedness</