What the Oregon legislature and the governor did was railroad their minority view in opposition to the majority's will as expressed in passing Measure 36.

Of course, M36 had nothing to do with discrimination in employment practices. So the only reason to bring this up when speaking about "the petitions" (PLURAL) is because he's (wait for it) a bigot.

I think discriminating against homosexuals is stupid and wrong, but just because someone thinks something is stupid or wrong, doesn't mean they think it should be illegal.

There's a long tradition in America of letting people be idiots without putting them in jail for it.

The anti-discrimination law isn't a criminal statute. No one would go to jail, even if they did discriminate.

Damn you and your reality-based facts, Amy.

I rather like the new tradition of not allowing people to hurt other people just because they're different.

I rather like the new tradition of not allowing people to hurt other people just because they're different.

Amy,

As far as discrimination is concerned the short answer to your question is no: I have never discriminated against anyone, for any reason. I would consider it unprofessional to do so in my role as a private sales and management recruiter for Fortune 500 companies. In fact, I would wager a survey of American private companies would reveal most have HR rules in place prohibiting discrimination against anyone in the GLBT community.

What someone does in the privacy of their bedroom really isn't my business----person to person---and has no bearing on their ability to execute job-related duties.

I rarely see applicants. Because I work nationwide, all my communication with candidates and clients is by phone or email. I don't discriminate for any reason: race, creed, color, national origin, gender, orientation or whatever. People are evaluated for opportunity based on their experience, education, track record and qualifications, period. And this is as it should be.

When it comes to sexual orientation discrimination (SOD), there are laws prohibiting this at the federal level, especially concerning government job opportunities, and in various states. Admittedly, in the private sector, both in terms of federal and state law, there are no laws I know of that specifically prohibit SOD.

However, in Oregon, one case found that SOD is prohibited under the state’s constitution (Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, 157 Ore. App. 502, 971 P.2d 435 (1998)).

When in comes to SB 2, the problem is complex.

You see, if I was an administrator at a private Christian school, I could not, in good conscience, hire a practicing homosexual, and although the bill contains waivers for churches and and schools the bill references "bona fide" churches or religious institutions, and the state is left to decide who is "bona fide" and who is not.

And there are other provisions governing what kinds of employment opportunities are excluded from the law, defining a narrow path for churches etc. to walk to avoid the "adequate administrative machinery" set up to enforce the law and dole out penalties.

In the view of many, this gives the state the legal authority to regulate religious groups, making law which essentially violates the 1st Amendment, preventing government from interfering with "the free exercise of religion."

Troublesome too are provisions that call for a "program of public education calculated to elminate attitudes" upon which practices of discrimination are based. To understand how this resonates with people in churches, many of us read this as being akin to re-education camps the Vietnamese had to endure after the war.

We are deeply concerned about the use of state power to "eliminate attitudes" in any arena. Freedom is precious. We know from history if too much power is vested in a king or civil authority, freedom diminishes for everyone. What will our country look like if the state becomes the final arbiter of morality. Having spent time in Yugoslavia in 1974, I can tell you, it is a bleak picture. The life is drained out of people. They shuffle along, bent over and defeated, whipped into submission by tyranny. You may think that is an overstatement, but history shows that liberty is rare and fragile, and most people in most places at most times have lived under tyrants.

How can the state presume to use tax dollars in an attempt to force all of us to mainstream homosexuality? It is preposterous.

Flipping it around to illustrate the point, how might the secular world react if the Christians took over and passed laws to "eliminate attitudes" upon which anti-Christian discrimination is based?

Or better yet, how about a federal law requiring all Americans to be religious, with the attendant "public education" structures to be created and funded with tax dollars, and the "required remedies" for "aggrieved people" plus the "adequate administrative machinery" to address complaints and punish offenders? And we'll let the state decided what is or is not "religious." (Sounds a like present-day China.)

The language of SB 2 is ominous in other ways. People who believe homosexuality is unnatural, even sinful, are essentially categorized as a "menace to the institutions and foundations of a free state."

Those of us familiar with the rhetoric and propaganda coming out of Germany in the 1930, and the Soviet Union before that, recognize the language of demagoguery, pigeon-holing certain groups so as to scapegoat and persecute. Tyrants use this tactic over and over to acquire, hold and wield power.

Furthermore, many of us are suspicious of legislative moves like this, based on what many consider to be a false assumption: the paper tiger claiming massive discrimination against the GLBT community. It isn't there in any substantive measure, or if it is, it is not reported on much. I watch and read the news daily, and have for years. Other than the tragic case in Wyoming a few years back, almost nothing of substance has emerged to validate the claim of significant SOD against the GLBT community. In fact, homosexuals as a group are much more affluent than the average bear, so what are we to conclude when it comes to the claim of terrible discrimination in the workplace?

All this leaves one to wonder what is the over-arching agenda. Certainly, GLBT activists are interested in complete acceptance of all they are and do in society. There are those who believe the real thrust of the movement is to destroy the nuclear family and all vestiges of the Judeo-Christian ethic. I don't see evidence to support that rather extreme characterization, and afterall, if it's true the GLBT community amounts to only 3% of the population I doubt we need fear a "take over."

What I do think is people of faith are deeply concerned about the eroding moral condition of the country, seriously alarmed by the ever declining virtue index if you will. We see people more willing to savage one another, even in the church, and increasing brutality generally speaking, less respect and courtesy. Indeed, courtesy is now uncommon in many quarters, including here.

AE

PS All this was sent to you before your post, as you are well aware.

IN NEW JERSEY, ENDING DISCRIMINATION MEANS MAKING PRO-HOMOSEXUAL VIDEOS MANDATORY IN GRADE SCHOOL

Another example of how pro-homosexual propaganda is appearing in schools--and in lower and lower grades--was reported today in The New York Times.

Evesham Township, New Jersey is embroiled in controversy over a film called "That's a Family!" which shown to a class of third-graders.

Produced in 2000 with an obvious agenda to indoctrinate kids, the movie celebrates diverse "families." It includes a child who boasts that having "two dads" is "really cool."

Interestingly enough, the film is promoting homes headed by same-sex couples--a union that, with the exception of Massachusetts, doesn't even exist as marriage in American law.

After it was shown last December and some parents objected, a special screening was arranged--and parents remained split down the middle over whether it was appropriate.

The school board decided to remove the video from its curriculum on August 30.

The implications of this controversy go beyond just one school district--even to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) now being considered by Congress.

The Times reports that the decision to shelve the film has provoked "the threat of a lawsuit by gay rights activists who said the district's refusal to show the video was a violation of state antidiscrimination laws."

In other words, ending "discrimination" means that homosexual propaganda in grade school is mandatory.

One supporter of the film said that opponents "say, 'We can teach our own kids.' Sure you can. But who's going to teach you?"

There are none so intolerant as those who want to force their own vision of "tolerance" on others.

As this article points out, "That's a Family!" has wormed its way into far more cities than Evesham.

Source:
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

? Who is heavy-handed, forcing their morality on others, and acting in tryanncial fashion?

PS: Amy, I noticed you reported previously about the practice of Know Thy Neighbor publishing names and addresses of petition signers in Florida and Massachusetts, but I also noticed you left out a portion of the story, the part about certain individuals visiting the homes of those signers, threatening them, verbally abusing them, and subjecting their children to taunts and profanity. And now, Know Thy Neighbor is promising the same treatment here in Oregon. Might shock you to learn there are conservative homosexuals who are appalled at this kind of thing, as is any person of integrity.

The press release Amy references, if anyone is interested:

(Any Nader supporters out there? This history might be of interest.)

Dirty Tricks, Intimidation again the tactics of Homosexual Activists in Oregon

Traditional morality petitioners deny allegations

Homosexual activists are apparently using dirty tricks again in an attempt to undermine the credibility of faith-based organizations working to gather petition signatures in opposition to domestic partnership bills slated to become Oregon law in January. Those faith-based groups include Restore America, Concerned Oregonians and Defense of Marriage and Family Again!

A Portland lawyer with ties to at least one homosexual activist group is accusing faith-based organizations of unlawful fundraising and political activity.

The target of the accusations are organizers working to collect 55,179 signatures by September 25 to place referenda before the voters during the November 4th general election, measures allowing voters to decide if gays should have marriage benefits and special rights.

However, rather than allow voters to decide the future of traditional marriage in Oregon, legal and political activists are attempting to derail the democratic process, in much the same way they derailed Ralph Nader's bid to get his name on the state ballot during the presidential election three years ago.

In 2004, Oregonians voted in favor of Measure 36, to amend the constitution to state that marriage is "between a man and a woman only."

However, on May 9th this year, Governor Kulongoski signed House Bill 2007 and Senate Bill 2, both slated to become law on January 1, 2008. Both measures were viewed by many as behind the scenes legislative maneuvers to circumvent Measure 36 and the will of the majority.

HB 2007 provides the benefits of marriage to homosexuals.

SB 2 provides specials rights to homosexuals and "will have a chilling effect upon free speech, employer's rights, parental rights, and what is taught in the classroom," according to a press release from Concerned Oregonians. SB 2 forces one kind of morality on all Oregonians, carries the threat of legal action for non-compliance and forces citizens to accept immoral behavior.

Portland lawyer Margaret Olney of Smith, Diamond & Olney, filed a complaint with the Director of Elections John Lindback on September 4, 2007 alleging that faith-based organizations Concerned Oregonians, Defense of Marriage and Family, and Restore America, are acting unlawfully in gathering petition signatures to prevent HB 2007 and SB2 from becoming law. Olney alleged these groups are misrepresenting their status as political committees, inappropriately promising tax credits to donors, and are unlawfully soliciting donations.

Olney's firm has been closely associated with the gay rights organization Basic Rights Oregon. (Three years ago Olney was criticized by the Nader campaign for leveling accusations against Nader signature gatherers trying to place his name on the Oregon ballot, more below.)

The Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) press release came out one day after Olney filed her complaint. In the past, Smith, Diamond and Olney was listed as supportive of BRO. Olney has done legal work for BRO. In 2004 she worked with BRO trying to prevent Measure 36 from being placed before the voters, claiming churches were using food to force the poor to sign petitions. In this instance too, Olney worked with others to file a complaint with the Director of Elections.

http://www.marriagedebate.com/2004/06/oregon-gay-rights-group-files-election.htm

Basic Rights Oregon has instructed its members to scrutinize petition volunteers with Restore America to "witness" infractions of law to prepare a lawsuit challenging the legality of petitions eventually submitted to the director of elections.

Now, a Massachusetts-based gay rights organization called Know Thy Neighbor is now working in Oregon, attracted by HB 2007 and SB 2. This group threatens to post names and addresses of all Oregonians supportive of the petition/referendum movement, clearly an attempt to intimidate Oregonians as they tried intimidating voters in Massachusetts and Florida.

http://knowthyneighbor.blogs.com/

Some residents in those states report harassment and intimidation following publication of their names and addresses, acts of discrimination homosexual activists claim they are working to eradicate.

Spokespeople with all three traditional morality organizations deny Olney's allegations insisting they've complied with all state laws and rules governing political activity and the gathering of signatures.

A separate press release if forthcoming from Defense of Marriage and Family, Again!

The CPA for Concerned Oregonians, http://www.concernedoregonians.com, is preparing a detailed reply to the Olney complaint. A spokesman there reports the allegations are untrue, Concerned Oregonians does not pay anyone to collect signatures, and is prevented from registering as a political committee until such time as the referenda sought are certified by the elections division, donors are advised to seek tax advice concerning credits, plus all required federal and state filings have been accomplished on time.

David Crowe, pastor, and for 8 years executive director of Restore America, www.restoreamerica.org, assures Oregon voters his organization operates legally.

Concerning the petition drive to place referenda on the November ballot he said: “Defending traditional marriage and morality is not about discrimination, and common sense citizens know that. It is about what is moral and what is not, what is marriage and what is not, and the right of all Oregonians to make moral distinctions and decisions based on their moral values.

“Oregonians should not be deceived or dictated to by the Governor and a small but vociferous minority and their elitist friends in Portland. Instead, they should sign petitions 303 and 304, and let the people of Oregon decide what is best for Oregon.”

Crowe said he views the complaint filed by Olney as another in her firm's history of dirty tricks, noting the apparent ties between the Governor’s office and various opposition efforts, some of which seem nefarious, such as the out-of-state organization Know Thy Neighbor.

Three years ago Olney was criticized for sending threatening letters to Ralph Nader organizers. At the time Nader was running for President. Olney wrote to Nader workers telling them she was investigating their petition gathering practices, threatening them with felony charges, imprisonment and fines to $100,000.

At the time, Nader's campaign manager Theresa Amato said Olney's letter constituted "a blatant attempt to intimidate campaign workers and disrupt and interfere with the Nader Campaign, and may constitute a violation of Oregon Statues and Federal Election Law."

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=154

Amato asked the state director of elections, John Lindback, to demand Olney cease and desist her actions.

To our knowledge Lindback never ordered Olney to desist, Olney's allegations were never proven, but Nader's name never appeared on the ballot either.

The director of elections eventually concluded the Nader Campaign did not have enough signatures to place his name on the ballot. The courts first contradicted that determination, and then on appeal, upheld the administrative decision of state government, leaving Nader off the ballot.

Interestingly, Olney was appointed to the Governor's Law Commission Government Ethics Work Group, November 2005.

http://www.doj.state.or.us/releases/2005/rel110705.shtml

A former partner at Smith, Diamond & Olney, Paul Gamson, was named by the Governor to the Employment Relations Board, July 2003.

http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/p2003/press_070203.shtml

Kulongoski fast-tracked HB 2007 and SB 2, contradicting the will of the people expressed at the ballot box in 2004. Whether coincidence or not, there appear strong connections between the Governor's Mansion and parties working hard to further deny the will of the majority, even to the point of preventing ballot measures from seeing the light of election day.

Mr. Erickson - are you against discriminating against undocumented immigrants? After all, if you read Leviticus 19, the chapter after the one you always cite as to why queers are going to hell, you'll find:

"When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."

Do you understand that? Get rid of those I-9 forms. God orders you to do it.

Aaron,

I was a farm worker in the fields along side fellas from Mexico years ago. Illegal immigrants are treated well here. Those guys I knew were some of the hardest workers, and the nicest guys I ever knew. But they were illegal. I like them, worked with them, and would never even think of harming them, but none of that changed their illegal status.

According to our understanding of God's word, homosexuals are likewise illegal, and many I count friends, some deceased. I would never imagine harming them in any way, but my love for them does not change their illegal status.

I too am a sinner, saved by grace. We are all in the same boat. The only difference is some people have accepted Christ's invitation to join him in joy and eternal life, others have yet to make that decision.

I wish people would read more carefully. No one I know is suggesting persecution or discrimination: we do not embrace unlawfulness in any form. There is a legitimate point of view which holds certain behaviors unlawful. We appeal to reason based on traditional authority, traditional practice, and the law of love.

Just because we don't agree doesn't provide either one of us license to savage the other.

Careful reading of the Book reveals that not one class of sinners is at risk, but indeed we are all fallen, all separate from a loving Father, by sin.
We essentially told God to stick it in his ear, we'll go our own way. There is one violation (sin in all its forms), and one penalty: death.
Jesus goes beyond behavior.

He says if I'm angry with someone without cause, I've committed murder in my heart, and if I look on a woman lustfully, I've committed adultery.

In His perfect Holy reality, even the thought life subjects us to judgment.

Historic Christianity has always held that there is one way out from under this death penalty, for "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." That one way out is Jesus Christ himself. He came down to take the death penalty for us, to set us free, to remove the judgment. He bought us with his own blood, and this is why we love him so. I would rather suffer with him, taking the criticism and the abuse, if it means one gay person is delivered into his glorious light, than stand by and remain silent while people suffer and risk eternal separation from the one we call Wonderful.

You're just one of those great little gifts that keep on giving, aren't you?

Please, give us your thoughts on more complex legal matters.

No Kyle, I'm just a man with my own challenges, blemishes, failures and successes, trying to make my way in this world like the next person, looking for opportunity to be of some real use and contribute positively.

The One who keeps on giving is the Lord.

He can only give to those willing to receive. He doesn't force anyone.

How 'bout you? Are you willing to give him the opportunity to prove he is real?

Revelation 3:19-22
19 Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21 To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

John 14:6
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 13:34, 35
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.

Allan,

You're not at a loss for words, I'll grant you that.

"...I have never discriminated against anyone, for any reason": I'll take your word for that, for the sake of argument.

"What someone does in the privacy of their bedroom really isn't my business----person to person---and has no bearing on their ability to execute job-related duties": So we're arguing about what, exactly? Other peoples' right to MAKE it their business? You think it SHOULD be your business, if you so choose? You're above it all, but you think it's OK that those who aren't above it all should be able to shit on your legion of gay "friends"? What's up with that, Allan?

"...although the bill contains waivers for churches and and schools the bill references 'bona fide' churches or religious institutions, and the state is left to decide who is 'bona fide' and who is not": Oh, come on. I have a doctorate in divinity from the Church of the New Truth. Do you really think I should have the same right to declare myself "bona fide" as has a Jesuit high school? Should NO ONE set standards for divisions between sacred and secular? If I go out in my backyard and put my hand on a rock and declare myself a Church School, should that give me license to do whatever I want? If not, who decides what I can and cannot do?

"...many of us read this as being akin to re-education camps the Vietnamese had to endure after the war": Again, Allan -- come on, man! Next you're going to make comparisons with the Nazis.

"Those of us familiar with the rhetoric and propaganda coming out of Germany in the 1930...": Oopsie.

"...massive discrimination against the GLBT community. It isn't there in any substantive measure, or if it is, it is not reported on much": It's the latter, Allan. Ask your legion of gay "friends."

"There are those who believe the real thrust of the movement is to destroy the nuclear family and all vestiges of the Judeo-Christian ethic": There are those who believe the world is flat, and that the moon landing was staged on a massive sound-set somewhere in Texas. We needn't cater to any of those cults.

"...people of faith are deeply concerned about the eroding moral condition of the country, seriously alarmed by the ever declining virtue index if you will": I will. I'm not what you would call a "person of faith," but it disturbs me, too. Does the answer lie in enabling haters (or "lovers," in your description) to drive homosexuals further into the shadows? WHY DO YOU WANT THE RIGHT TO SHIT ON YOUR GAY "FRIENDS," ALLAN? What's up with that?

"...PRO-HOMOSEXUAL VIDEOS": Loaded language. Rhetoric. Drop it.

"...pro-homosexual propaganda": Ditto. "Propaganda" is in the eye of the beholder. Your whole oeuvre in this thread is propaganda, as far as I'm concerned. It's entirely subjective. It's only "pro-homosexual" in that it encourages impressionable youth not to shit on their gay "friends," the way you are encouraging them to do.

"...an obvious agenda to indoctrinate kids": Ditto.

"...the film is promoting homes headed by same-sex couples": Ditto.

"One supporter of the film said that opponents 'say, "We can teach our own kids." Sure you can. But who's going to teach you?'": Yes. If parents don't teach their children, someone has to. Who's next in line? The public schools -- the state, if you will. Or the church, if the parents have plugged the kids into that system. SOMEONE has to be taught. If we instill the publicly accepted mores into the parents, we save everyone time, trouble and money. The publicly accepted mores are non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (sorry) and religion (good for you).

"There are none so intolerant as those who want to force their own vision of 'tolerance' on others": Other than those who want to force their own vision of intolerance on others.

"I was a farm worker in the fields along side fellas from Mexico years ago": Ah. Yes. "I was a Jew once, myself." "Some of my best friends are Mexicans." Sorry, but somehow that rings hollow, even though it might be true....

"According to our understanding of God's word, homosexuals are likewise illegal": OK, let's conflate God's law with man's law. Let's start with Leviticus. Let's make shellfish consumption illegal (Lev. 10:12: "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you").

"I wish people would read more carefully": I wish people would write more carefully. If wishes were horses....

"No one I know is suggesting persecution or discrimination: we do not embrace unlawfulness in any form": You're suggesting making persecution or discrimination explicitly lawful. Explain to me how that distinction makes a difference.

"A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another": And if you deprive people of employment and housing based on WHO THEY ARE, or WHO THEY SLEEP WITH, you're loving one another... how?

Man, I'd grant you absolution, but I'm convinced you'd go right out and sin again. Allan, repent. Go ye and sin no more.

Will,

It would appear neither of us is at a loss for words, and so both of us violate the Scripture, fellow sinner:

Mt 5:37
Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Ec 5:2
Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few.

I’m not sure I understand you in the paragraph about me being above it all. Let me see if I can respond is some useful way.

I don’t think the effort to put these matters on the ballot is invading anyone’s privacy. I do this it is a legitimate effort by citizens to hold government accountable to the majority view of traditional morality. If government is suppose to reflect the majority view in a democracy, which has always been the measuring stick for setting community standards of morality, then allowing minority view to rule the day circumvents democracy itself.

Simply because the majority resists such things as gay marriage, or domestic partnerships, and so-called anti-discrimination law, does not automatically make the majority a bunch of raving homophobes and hate-filled bigots. One can pluck that string over and over but it’s still false.

Indeed, the people forcing their minority view of morality, seeking to impose their minority will on the majority, are homosexual activists who insist that anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal. This makes for an intractable situation. In my view, people of faith demonstrate grace and tolerance by saying, look, we don’t agree with the lifestyle, we think its immoral and unhealthy and wrong, and we think this is a better way for everyone to proceed, but if you insist on going that way, have at it, we’re not here to police your bedrooms or deny you work or homes, and in fact, there isn’t any real evidence of anyone policing bedrooms or denying people work or living quarters.

You guys should admit, you’ve been “up on our face” for a long time. We didn’t bring it on, you did, so if you don’t want to play by the rules and engage the process with cogent argument and persuasion effective at the ballot box, don’t complain if things don’t work out according to your desires. Just because you fail to convince the majority does not mean the majority is worthy of condemnation.

When we look at your side, we do see intolerance and name-calling and slander and the use of the courts and the legislatures to twist arms and force people to do things against their will, such as indoctrinate 3rd graders with videos, the passage of unconstitutional laws, illegal acts by Multnomah county officials issuing marriage licenses, verbal harassment, the publishing of names and addresses, and the posting of pictures on sites like this, an obvious attempt at intimidation, and the threats of lawsuits and the filing of lawsuits to try and cow the opposition.

I don’t know what you mean by “above it all.” We are in the thick of it here. I’m willing to engage the discussion. I don’t claim to be better than anyone. I just don’t get what you are saying.

I also have a difficult time understanding your reference to setting standards for divisions between sacred and secular? If you mean the state wielding power to determine what is or is not a workplace subject to discrimination enforcement, then we still have problem. As I read the bill, it allows the state to tell a business associated with a church whether or not they must hire gays. Does this mean the soup kitchen run by a Christian mission would be sanctioned if they refused to hire a homosexual based on moral orientation? Does it mean a St. Vincent De Paul store will be viewed the same as a Wal Mart when it comes to the terms of this bill?

See, you folks look at SB 2 and see a good law delivering oppressed people from under the yoke of discrimination.

We look at SB2 and see the state setting up a special class of citizens with special rights working against the majority notion of morality, giving the state the power to regulate private business and churches: the use of the state to impose the will of the few on the many.

You see us as a bunch of bigoted homophobes who hate gays and seek their injury.

We see you as a flock of misguided people living a destructive and unhealthy lifestyle, people who need the Lord, who need healing, who need love more than accommodation, truth more than empathy.

The bottom line in all this is the minority view of morality is being forced on the majority: the sexual orientation of the few, in your view, takes precedence over the moral orientation of the many.

“I have a doctorate in divinity from the Church of the New Truth.”

Playboy: You're not a real minister, are you?
Hunter S. Thompson: What? Of course I am. I'm an ordained doctor of divinity in the Church of the New Truth. l have a scroll with a big gold seal on it hanging on my wall at home. (1974)

I guess you are pulling my leg eh Will? Or did you already go out to your backyard, place your hand on a rock, and declare yourself a minister? I don’t mean to be unkind, but please, don’t be so disrespectful of faith and religion, especially while you demand respect for you contrary view.

And this really is the heart of the matter: you guys demand we conform to your vision, and you are willing to use political and legal power to force us into submission, and if we object, you make us out to be criminals and hate mongers, and all this, historically, is used by tyrannical movements time and again. Why? Because it works, at least in the short term!

Yes, Nazis said, “The Jews are the problem, and we have the answer to the Jewish problem! The gypsies are the problem, the communists are the problem, and we have the answer! We’ll either make them submit, or destroy them!”

They waged war, and were defeated, because they stood against the Truth. In the main, the children of the Truth, by the power of the Truth, defeated them.

The Communists said, “The capitalists are the problem, America is the problem, so we will make them submit or destroy them in the process because we offer a higher morality in the modern age, acting for the poor and dispossessed against the usurper and the exploiter. We will export a worldwide communist revolution and set people free.”

The result? Billions were enslaved and exterminated, and Communism was eventually defeated. Why? Because they stood against the Truth. Again, the children of the Truth, by the power of the Truth defeated them.

The Islamo-fascists say the Christians are the problem, and they will either submit or be destroyed. Ours is the only truth, and we’ll prove it by taking over the world.

Guess how that one will turn out?

You guys say, “The Christians are the problem because they dominate the culture and their anti-modern morality is the problem, and we operate on a higher moral plane then they do, so we give ourselves license to force them to submit to our view, or we will destroy them in the process!”

Am I calling you a bunch of Nazis, Commies, and Terrorists? No, but I am saying you are using their tactics, and tyranny is as tyranny does.

You are waging a cultural war, even a religious war in a sense. You declared it, and now the fight is on, and guess what side will prevail? Please don’t whine about the fight. You came looking for it, picked it, and continue in it. (We’d just as soon live in peace.)

The side that embraces Truth always prevails.

The personification of Truth, the Creator of all things, including every person on earth, the One who loves us so fiercely he was willing to go to the Cross for us, the One whose heart breaks over and over when his children suffer under the plague of sin, He is the King of Kings, and in the end, every knee will bow, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Great Sufferer, the Great Salvation Giver, the Great Healer, does not want to drive anyone into the shadows. He wants to bring everyone into His Marvelous Light, where there is no hate, no darkness, no death.

The Great God of the universe is altogether present in the person of Jesus Christ. That is our reality, and that is the reality for any Christian. If any pastor or ‘church’ refutes that view, they cannot legitimately call themselves ‘Christian.’

We follow the Master. He says sexual immorality in all its forms, is sin, and no unredeemed sinner gets into heaven. He says the entire Scripture is true, reliable, everlasting, unchanging, always applicable.

I’ll take His Word for it rather, than rattle around in my own feeble brain dancing with my preferences and prejudices.

His Truth endures, and is proven right, down through the centuries.

My truth is fallible, miniscule, weak and useless.

I tried to argue with God for decades. I worked very hard for many years to get around this Jesus. I did not want to submit to him because I knew if I accepted His claim to Deity, I would have to change my way of living, and I was afraid, and angry, because I liked chasing women and going to parties and being a professional sinner in a variety of ways.

But oh glory, the day He washed my sins away!

And that…has made all the difference…

Will, I sin in thought, word and deed, daily.

That’s precisely why I need a Savior, and you do too. He wants to grant you absolution.

Come on in.

The Holy Water’s fine…

Will: (PS)

Christians believe the problem is sin, and the solution is Christ. We believe Satan is part of the problem, and our fallen nature is also part of the problem, but in this spiritual war, Christ is the victor. We do not war against people, but against evil.

Ephesians 6:12

This is no afternoon athletic contest that we'll walk away from and forget about in a couple of hours. This is for keeps, a life-or-death fight to the finish against the Devil and all his angels. THE MESSAGE

For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms. NEW LIVING TRANSLATION

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world's rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

Arguing politics on the Sabbath? Allan, Allan....

:::sigh:::

We'll never understand each other, so this is probably my last post in the thread. Arguing with fundamentalists is fun in person, ideally over beers, but it's tedious online reading.

Let me clarify my problem with your position -- YOUR personal position as I understand it, not the larger anti-gay movement's:

You say you have gay friends, and you don't discriminate in hiring because of sexual orientation because it's none of your business. Those are good, moral positions. Yet you're trying to make it legal for others to MAKE it their business, to discriminate against your gay friends, to allow others to refuse them work and housing. I can't see that as a moral position, or a friendly position, or a statement of Christian love. You seem to be in conflict, Allan, and I'm here to help if I can. My advice: Remonstrate with your friends about their lifestyles person-to-person, if you must, but don't support the people who would hurt them just because they're different.

"Simply because the majority resists such things as gay marriage, or domestic partnerships, and so-called anti-discrimination law, does not automatically make the majority a bunch of raving homophobes and hate-filled bigots. One can pluck that string over and over but it’s still false": I didn't pluck that string. You're not "raving." You don't sound "hate-filled." "Bigot" is too easy a characterization. "Homophobe" I consider descriptive, not pejorative, and it's based on experience that most of us share -- the anti-gay crusaders I've met were clearly on fear-based crusades. Example: No one has been able to explain to me exactly HOW gay marriage would devalue one-man-one-woman unions, but spreading that fear is part of their strategy.

"...Indeed, the people forcing their minority view of morality, seeking to impose their minority will on the majority, are homosexual activists who insist that anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal": Also straights with queer friends. And there are a hell of a lot of us, in Portland at least. And you're free to disagree -- we're not creating "thought crimes." You just can't use the disagreement to hurt people because they're different.

"This makes for an intractable situation": Yep. That's why this is my last post in this thread.

"...we’re not here to police your bedrooms or deny you work or homes, and in fact, there isn’t any real evidence of anyone policing bedrooms...": Sorry, but that's how the Texas sodomy laws got shot down. By the Supreme Court of the United States. Because some thugs with guns decided to police a bedroom.

"... or denying people work or living quarters": Again, I'd check with my gay friends before making that claim.

"We didn’t bring it on, you did": "You started it!" "Did not!" "Did too!" "Did not!" -- Thanks for the laugh.

"I don’t know what you mean by 'above it all.' We are in the thick of it here. I’m willing to engage the discussion. I don’t claim to be better than anyone. I just don’t get what you are saying": Sorry. By "above it all," I meant that you yourself do not discriminate in hiring -- you're better than that. I respect that. Didn't mean to suggest the sin of Pride on your part.

"As I read the bill, it allows the state to tell a business associated with a church whether or not they must hire gays. Does this mean the soup kitchen run by a Christian mission would be sanctioned if they refused to hire a homosexual based on moral orientation?" Yep. "Does it mean a St. Vincent De Paul store will be viewed the same as a Wal Mart when it comes to the terms of this bill?" Sure. How is it different?

"We look at SB2 and see the state setting up a special class of citizens with special rights...": No. Same class as straights; same rights. "...giving the state the power to regulate private business and churches": No, the state has those powers already. I believe it's a good use of state power to prevent people from hurting other people just because they're different. You disagree. Live and be well.

"I guess you are pulling my leg eh Will?": No, I'm quite serious, as Doktor Thompson was about his ministry. Really, Allan, you gain no points with anyone by insulting a Man Of The Cloth. Yes, the Holy Water's fine, but I can buy jugs of it online, and probably get an ecclesiastical discount in the bargain. This is Free Exercise Of Religion in its highest and purest form.

I'm done.

Evangelizing on the Sabbath...I think I'm in the clear, but if not, He'll let me know, thanks.

Total fallacy anyone is trying to make it legal for one group to victimize another. Absurb assertion.

Not in conflict. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's a cliche' but a good one.

I've never argued from a point of view saying gay marriage or domestic partnerships devalue traditional marriage, but I understand the argument and find it compelling. Not going to explain it here, but you can certainly Google stuff all day long. This might help:

http://www.princetonprinciples.org/contents.html

There is a thought police regime being created by SB2, that is obvious, and again, I cannot understand how you construe anything I've written here as suggestion anyone be hurt. If you research it, you'll find the most charitable work being done for AIDS sufferers is being delivered by Christians. You confuse people telling the truth about sin generally, and specifically, with those idiots who carry placards stating "God hates fags." Rather than consider if God's law is a good and useful guide, a transcendent authority carrying blessing, you react to people who quote Scripture and take it personally, assuming we mean you harm.

I'm not going to bail on the discussion, because God never bails on me, so I'm not gonna bail on you, or anyone else. Who knows, maybe the Lord is using this to help us all understand one another better? Perhaps we are writing a treatise together to find a way to live together amiably without having to herd each other with laws and lawsuits and threats and discrimination?

Thugs with guns...mainstream? Are you equating those guys with the majority of Christian people? It's like De Palma using the rape in Samarra to condemn the entire US military.

I can be as prideful as the next person, and God help me, if I'm serious about following the Word, I need to remember it says I should always consider the other person better than myself.

Re: St. Vincent De Paul and Wal Mart...I'll tell you how it is different. Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. If you force them to hire people whose behavior is viewed as immoral, they have no more credibility to speak about morality. It would be like hiring a pastor who is practicing adultery, or a predator to teach Sunday school, or any number of professional sinners to serve on the Church Board. You are insisting people act, in hiring, contrary to conscience. Homosexuals promote their lifestyle do they not? How can a Christian ministry, whose foundations are rooted in biblical precepts, allow a contrary philosophy being promoted on premises. To force this on people is the essence of tyranny. It is ridiculous.

I can't understand how you all think this is going to work out other than increasing conflict and tension. There is no problem solved by butting people in the head and twisting their arms.

Let's spin the Lazy Susan 180 degrees.

A gay man runs a business. A Christian man applies for work, stating his faith openly. The business owner perceives they'll not see eye to eye in various ways, expects the working relationship will be strained, and declines to hire the Christian man.

Has the Christian man the right to sue for discrimination? Should he?

Our society has become a collection of warring classes, each one claiming they're victims, and everyone else should do something about it. We've become a bunch of whiners and complainers, refusing to take responsibility, always casting blame and seeking redress. It's a full time job for some people.

The real problem is we become so focused on self, and selfish motivations, and so occupied with trying to micromanage everyone else, we don't have time to listen, understand and serve.

We'd all be better off to just shut up and go out and help somebody, or make some extra money to donate to charity.

If you want to sleep with other men, go ahead, it isn't my business, but if I say I love you, and see you falling into destruction, and I don't speak up at least, then there is no love in me. This is the bottom line.

But please, don't hold a gun to my head and insist I validate, affirm and celebrate your lifestyle choice, for in doing so, you attempt to make me contradict my own conscience, something I would not ask of you. If you do not relent, your only choice is to pull the trigger.

Finally, you folks do love to talk about the separation of church and state, telling those of us in the church to stay out of government and efforts to influence public policy, but you all don't seem bashful at all to encourage the state to regulate religion (a clear violation of the Constitution). The "separation" door only swings one way I suppose. If your "religion" is imposed on people via the power of the state, that's fine, but let us talk about generally agreed upon moral principles through most cultures in most times throughout history, and we are trying to hurt people.

What's the word? Demagoguery?

You guys want the state to sanction that which most people consider wrong; you are trying to impose your wil by force; you cannot accomplish this at the ballot box, so you are working the system with the long arm of the law. Once again, liberals prove they are control freaks.

PS: Did not intend to insult you. Honestly thought you were kidding around. A man of the cloth has always been defined as a Christian pastor who believes Jesus is God, and the Scripture is the final authority. Since you don't believe those things you cannot be a man of the cloth, and therefore it would be impossible for me to insult you as such.

"I'm not going to bail on the discussion, because God never bails on me, so I'm not gonna bail on you, or anyone else": That's a good point. God never bailed on me, either, although there were times when He was hard to contact.

OK, I'll stay and play for a while.

"Total fallacy anyone is trying to make it legal for one group to victimize another. Absurb assertion": So you're NOT opposing the anti-discrimination law? My apologies. Amy will run a retraction, I'm sure.

"...again, I cannot understand how you construe anything I've written here as suggestion anyone be hurt": Apparently I was the victim of bad information. I applaud you for supporting the anti-discrimination law.

"If you research it, you'll find the most charitable work being done for AIDS sufferers is being delivered by Christians": I'll stipulate to that.

"You confuse people telling the truth about sin generally, and specifically, with those idiots who carry placards stating 'God hates fags'": No, I don't. I've been face to face with the Phelps gang. You're not one of them. Don't mix this up. This is YOU AND ME, not movement vs. movement.

"Perhaps we are writing a treatise together to find a way to live together amiably without having to herd each other with laws and lawsuits and threats and discrimination?": That would be lovely. The search for Common Ground is a worthy one. I'll be part of that search anytime I can. The anti-discrimination law, however, is not debatable. It's not on the table. We agree on that. I'm grateful for that.

"Are you equating those guys with the majority of Christian people?": No, but that was the law in action. If it's legal, it will happen. The anti-discrimination law we both oppose would make it possible in Oregon.

"Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. If you force them to hire people whose behavior is viewed as immoral, they have no more credibility to speak about morality. It would be like hiring a pastor who is practicing adultery, or a predator to teach Sunday school, or any number of professional sinners to serve on the Church Board": Not at all. A WalMart middle-management fundie should not have the right to discriminate. Nor should a De Paul fundie. No credibility is lost. Chalk it up to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

"...Has the Christian man the right to sue for discrimination?" Absolutely. "Should he?" Up to him and his lawyer. I only give spiritual advice, not legal counsel.

"We've become a bunch of whiners and complainers, refusing to take responsibility, always casting blame and seeking redress": No argument there.

"If you want to sleep with other men, go ahead, it isn't my business, but if I say I love you, and see you falling into destruction, and I don't speak up at least, then there is no love in me": OK, I agree, but speak up person to person. Don't do it through hiring and housing. That's just wrong.

"The 'separation' door only swings one way I suppose": The door swings both ways. Separation is established law. There are hundreds of years of case law to back that up. Equal opportunity for employment and housing is not a religiious position. It's simply equality. Which is what America is all about. Why do you hate America so much, Allan?

"A man of the cloth has always been defined as a Christian pastor who believes Jesus is God, and the Scripture is the final authority. Since you don't believe those things you cannot be a man of the cloth, and therefore it would be impossible for me to insult you as such": Wow. So I and all the Rabbis and Hindu leaders and the Buddhist Priest who married me to my spouse are all cast into the Lake of Fire?

Damn. What a bummer.

(Great! I'm glad you are staying, but please, play fair! I don't hate America. Hyperbole is useful in some of the sword play, but I didn't deserve that jab.)

Last sentence first: all I can tell you is what the Book says---"No one comes to the Father buy by Me." I hate the idea of hell. I wish it wasn't in there. Yet, I understand hell was not created for man, but for the devil and his demons. Given the grace of God in Christ, people have to practically crowbar their way into hell.

(The hell of it is: what if it's true?)

People always throw out the bit about, "what about the pygmies in Africa who never heard the Gospel and never had a chance to repent?"

God is good, just, faithful and true. I'm sure He will do the right thing by everyone.

(I also love the question: "Can God make a rock so big even he can't lift it?" The best answer I ever heard was: "No. God doesn't do stupid stuff." HA!)

Speaking of sinfulness, judgment, grace and mercy, it reminds me of two stories about two very different men who came to the same conclusion and the same destination.

One man had hated God all his life. Every time somebody asked him to consider the Gospel he practically threw a fit. Pretty soon people left him alone, and he remained bitter and angry throughout his whole life. Then, in old age, the doctor gave him the grim news---terminal cancer. By this time, he was alone, depressed, hopeless, and terribly lonely. On his death bed, he remembered some of the people who had tried to share God's love earlier in his life. With his few remaining breaths he prayed: "Lord, I've hated and rejected you all my life, and you don't owe me anything, but if you can find a way, please let me enter your kingdom tonight."

With that, the man died, and rocketed into paradise.

"I will never leave you, nor foresake you. I'm with you, even to the end of the age." JC

The other story.

Martin Luther, the Great Reformer, was living in peace after the tumultuous years challenging the Catholic Church and seeing the new Protestant Reformation take hold. He had been thrown out of the Church, of course, and had married.

One day friends came by bringing disturbing news. They said, "Martin! People are saying terrible things. They say you've sinned by getting married, you're in sin because you drink beer, and because of all this you've no right to lead the movement any longer. What shall we tell the people?"

After a pause, Martin replied: "Go tell them, it's worse than they imagine."

I appreciate you Will, your willingness to find common ground, and talk this stuff through. I appreciate you acknowledging some of the points I've tried to make, and I think we have a future here working for something good and helpful and progressive!

I agree with you. Discriminating against anyone in the GLBT community is wrong when it comes to employment and housing, but the problem remains, you cannot rely on the state to micromanage people and force them against conscience: it always ends badly.

Better to live and let live, and encourage people to do the right thing voluntarily, as we see happening more and more.

Besides, it's already a matter of precedent in Oregon law that discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional.

Is all this actually a tempest in a teapot?

Just a thought: why would anyone want to work or live in places not entirely welcoming even if the law insists? In my radical, longhair days many moons ago, I worked and lived where people didn't mind, so I was a tree planter in Humboldt County and lived in a cabin, but I was happy, sittin' by the river with my dog and my banjo! (I'm not BS'n ya.)

OOOoooopppppssss! "No one comes to the Father but by Me." Yikes...

"it's already a matter of precedent in Oregon law that discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional": That's the best argument against the anti-discrimination law, which you support (right?). All the rest is hooey.

"...why would anyone want to work or live in places not entirely welcoming even if the law insists?

Now you've gone ahead and hurt my feelings.

Isn't Hooey a congresswoman?

Seriously, check this out:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html#section1

Allan,

I don't assume you're BSing me. We've lost the rest of our audience altogether, I'm sure, but we're dealing straight (so to speak) with one another. Typos, hyperbole and all :)

"Discriminating against anyone in the GLBT community is wrong when it comes to employment and housing...": Thanks for that. "...but the problem remains, you cannot rely on the state to micromanage people and force them against conscience: it always ends badly": Options, other than total laissez-faire? None. Is it better to allow businesses and landlords a free hand in this matter or impose some restrictions? I prefer imposed restrictions. You don't. Again, live and be well, my man, but don't support those who would throw your gay friends into the street.

"...it's already a matter of precedent in Oregon law that discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional": That's your best argument against the anti-discrimination law, which you support (right?). Most of the rest is hooey.

"...why would anyone want to work or live in places not entirely welcoming even if the law insists?": Because that's reality. Say some McDonald's manager is a fundie with a grudge against gays. A job applicant lets something slip during the interview. The applicant's out of a job. How is that right? My fries & coffee are just as good cooked by a queer as by a straight. And some people NEED those McDonald's jobs. And McDonald's is just an example of corporate employment -- there are tens of thousands of non-corporate jobs at stake.

Thanks for the kind words. I try to take people on as individuals rather than stereotypes. It's a burden sometimes, but it's my cross to bear, and I bear it happily, for the most part, although some of your brethren on the Far Right get under my skin. You seem like a nice guy. I still don't understand why you're supporting so discriminatory.

Eek. Obviously I double-dribbled on the Return key somewhere in there.

The thing in Massachusetts: Those who practice civil disobedience should expect some jail/court time. On the left OR the right.

The thing is Massachusetts is evidence of what I've been trying to warn everyone about: conflict for no good reason, and people forcing people against their will.

A man tries to exercise his parental right to remove his child from certain classroom presentations, school officials deny his parental rights to the point he has to "sit in" and they arrest him, charge him with "trespassing" (on school grounds paid for by his property taxes) and eventually all charges are dropped.

The increasingly loud message is: the state will raise children, parents can go to hell, especially when it comes to "eliminating attitudes" (the language of SB2) supporting discrimination.

Therefore, in Massachusetts, according to some, the schools are now centers for social engineering and if parents don't like it, they can go to jail.

Fortunately the governor exercised some common sense:

Massachusetts Governor supports David Parker with statement on television the day following arrest:

"We have in Massachusetts a parental notification statute specifically in matters related to human sexuality. If a parent wants to be informed of what is being taught in a classroom and wants to have their child withdrawn from the classroom for that portion of the class dealing with human sexuality, that parent has the right."

But not according to the ACLU and Know Thy Neighbor, both organizations appearing to presume to tell people how to raise their children. And this is not tyranny?

Tyranny: not good for anyone--- straight or gay.

Ooo. We seem to have hit a nerve.

I see no connection between the Massachusetts case and Oregon. The leap to "tyranny" is a long one. None of this strikes me as "social engineering." Frankly, I'm smelling a "red herring."

Only to prove a point, consider this hypothetical: Ten years from now, state government is dominated by radical rightwingers elected in part to institute one of their platform planks, complete reversal of gay marriage laws and removal of sexual orientation, as listed, from all laws governing discrimination in the workplace and housing. Not only do they pass such bills, and the governor signs them, one proviso is that all homosexual students must attend classes in public school where they are taught their orientation is an unacceptable choice, an immoral lifestyle, and they will have their "attitudes eliminated" by the higher understanding of teachers and administrators in the public schools, regardless of what parents have to say.

This stuff is happening frequently, in reverse, and with Massachusetts-based Know Thy Neighbor established here in Oregon, ready to publish the names and addresses of petitioners, don't be surprised to learn about conflict and harrassment as petitioners' homes are visited by KTN sympathizers.

Red herring? Consider the following---

==============================
Despite a landmark decision in 2006 by New York's high court which stated that same-sex couples do not have a constitutional right to marriage, an Albany judge is doing what he can to make much of that ruling moot.

Last week, Judge Thomas McNamara threw out a suit brought by the Alliance Defense Fund which challenged the special benefits that homosexual partners receive as government employees.

Judge Thomas McNamara dismissed the lawsuit, saying that New York should recognize the out-of-state "marriages" of same-sex couples.

In true activist fashion, note that McNamara doesn't say, "New York does recognize out-of-state marriages" but rather "should" recognize them.

His decision protects the policy that provides pension benefits, normally reserved for married spouses, to gay couples.

Apart from establishing a foothold for homosexuals to pursue counterfeit marriages, McNamara's opinion also raises questions of U.S. sovereignty.

In his ruling, he makes New York law subordinate to that of other countries such as Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands--all of which have legalized same-sex unions.

If left unchallenged, this decision makes state employees who were "married" in those nations (and Massachusetts) eligible to apply for benefits in New York.

People on both sides of the political spectrum recognize that this case is about far more than same-sex "marriage."

It's a true test of the democracy.

New Yorkers must rise up in defense, not just of marriage, but of the legislative process.

Without judges that respect the boundaries of constitutional authority, no institution is safe--least of all the family.

Source: Family Research Council
==============================
(As with Massachusetts, so with New York, and soon, perhaps, Oregon.)

"This stuff is happening frequently, in reverse": You mean straight students are being taught that it's wrong to be straight? Where, please?

Family Research Council? Yeah, they're a great source of unbiased news. :::yawn:::

Group Warns Massachusetts Will 'Export' Marriage Destruction
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
June 14, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - A vote Thursday by the Massachusetts Legislature denying voters the chance to decide whether same-sex "marriage" should be banned in the state will embolden its supporters to take "the destruction of marriage across state lines, " a pro-family group said.

Fifty votes were required to place the issue on the 2008 statewide ballot, but only 45 votes were recorded in favor of the move, with 151 opposing it.

"Today's vote by the legislature to stop the marriage amendment from reaching the people of Massachusetts is only the beginning," said Matt Daniels, president and founder of the Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the federal marriage amendment before Congress.

"Radical activists will now move to strike the 1913 law in Massachusetts requiring state residency for a marriage license, in a determined effort to export the destruction of marriage across state lines," Daniels said.

"As designed, activists from all 50 states will travel to Massachusetts, obtain a marriage license and then sue in federal court to strike down any laws (or state amendments) protecting marriage in other states," he predicted, adding that activists are trying to make same-sex marriage "the new social norm for America."

"This is nothing short of a plan to create a national blitz of lawsuits challenging state marriage laws, state marriage amendments, and the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act," Daniels said.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins accused the three branches of government in Massachusetts of conspiring "to deny the people their right to vote."

"The legislature's obstruction of the democratic process further deepens the threat to marriage, ensuring this will remain a key issue to values voters in the presidential race," he said. "I call on all of our national leaders to declare how they will lead to protect marriage."

Homosexual rights activists welcomed the vote.

"We're proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders Executive Director Lee Swislow said in a statement.

"This proposed constitutional amendment was a misguided attempt to put people's equal rights to a vote," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "We are grateful that the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts legislators rejected this divisive measure.

"For the past three years, loving and committed same-sex couples have enjoyed the equal right to marry in Massachusetts. Despite the doomsday predictions of opponents of equality, the sky hasn't fallen, and no one's marriage has been threatened," Solmonese said.

"To the contrary, the institution of marriage has been strengthened as same-sex couples and their families have enjoyed the equal rights and protections they deserve under Massachusetts law. The Legislature's action ensures that they will continue to enjoy those equal rights and protections," he added.

But Daniels said while the majority of Americans believe "that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose," they disagree that homosexuals have "a right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

He said the only way to stop the nation from continuing "on a collision course with the courts over the future of marriage" is to approve the Marriage Protection Amendment.

The proposed constitutional amendment, which seeks to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, failed last June after the Senate failed to muster the votes required to proceed.

Now we're back to gay marriage. Another red herring. It's not enough to allege, falsely, that straight kids are being taught that it's wrong to be straight?

You are waging a cultural war, even a religious war in a sense. You declared it, and now the fight is on, and guess what side will prevail?

The pro-tolerance, same-sex marriage side. This is obvious to anyone paying attention. It may be ten years or it may be thirty, but same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination will be the law of the country eventually. I suspect even you know this, deep down.

Good luck in your futile battle. Oh, the "good luck" thing was a joke, though. I just wanted to throw the word futile in there and it seemed like the easiest way.

The anti-discrimination law isn't a criminal statute. No one would go to jail, even if they did discriminate.

I was being metaphorical. But by all means, ignore the substantive argument to score a technicality. The point still remains which you ignored: that someone can be for or against a law and it may not reflect on their actions whatsoever. I'm not a smoker and I'm strongly against laws to ban smoking in bars, eg.

I just wish people in these discussions, wouldn't make assumptions about people's personal actions based on their political or religious beliefs. For such an allegedly progressive town, it amazes me how often people's tolerance and intellectual generosity ends at disagreement.

Thank you extgramsg. A voice of reason! I will say that Will has been a breath of fresh air as well. Thought I'd share the following with no one in particular and b!X.

Galatians 6:1-10

Romans 1:19-32

Isaiah 5:21

PS: Fascinating reading---

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T348

Extramsg:

"...someone can be for or against a law and it may not reflect on their actions whatsoever": We've established that...

"I just wish people in these discussions, wouldn't make assumptions about people's personal actions based on their political or religious beliefs": ...but we compare peoples' beliefs to their actions all the time. It's why Senator Craig is in the shitter. Pun intended.

"For such an allegedly progressive town, it amazes me how often people's tolerance and intellectual generosity ends at disagreement": What, should we just AGREE with Allan, for the sake of tolerance? What's the alternative? I could match him word for word, Bible verse for Bible verse, for six years, but we'd never see eye to eye.

Allan:

I read your bible.crosswalk link, so others wouldn't have to. It says the Old Testament God and St. Paul didn't like homosexuality. No surprise there. Senator Craig doesn't like it, either.

Hey Will,

Look, we've agreed on a lot of things---

I believe you are essentially a nice person, and an honest person who gives a rip about others and the world and the future.

You've stated you think I'm probably a nice guy.

You are bothered by extreme rightwing freak jobs carrying hate placards, as am I.

We share an interest in spiritual matters and how one's faith nourishes the soul, and directs behavior.

We agree discrimination in housing or employment is wrong.

We agree Christians are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to AIDS relief/treatment/compassion.

We agree every person is God's special creation, precious in his sight.

We agree love does not walk away from a suffering person.

We probably agree politicians are better used for farm labor.

You agree I'm not a BS'r.

We agree too many Americans have become a bunch of whiners and complainers, refusing to take responsibility, always casting blame and seeking redress.

Out mutual search for common ground is a good thing, and perhaps this dialogue serves a useful, positive purpose: at least some understanding between warring parties.

We agree we are all in this thing together, this thing called life in America, and we have a responsibility not to bail on each other.

Let's accentuate the positive!

RE: INERRANCY & INFALLIBILITY---The words of the Master . . .

Matthew 5:17-18 (and the dire warning in verse 19)
Matthew 22:29
Matthew 22:31-32
Matthew 26:54
Mark 7:8-13 (note verse 20 re: sexual immorality)
Mark 12:35-37
Luke 4:17-21
Luke 16:17
John 7:38
John 10:35

Concerning the New Testament that would be written after his death---the authority of the apostles' witness:

Matthew 10:14-15, 40 (another warning)
Luke 24:48, 49
John 13:20
John 14:26
John 15:27
John 16:13-15
Acts 1:8
Ephesians 2:20-22
Hebrews 2:3-4
2 Peter 3:2
2 Peter 3:15-16 (another warning)

Revelation 22:18-19 (the ultimate warning)

AE

PPS: Anyone interested in words of the Master asserting he is God?

by J. Matt Barber

"Gay" Conquest Spells the ENDA Reason

September 19, 2007 02:00 PM EST

"They feel kind for a season, but remain blind to all reason."

— Matt Barber, just now

Such is the nature of political correctness. And in that spirit, lawmakers — who are purportedly sane — plan to take us all on a "long strange trip" through a mystical fantasyland where the impossible is possible and the objectionable is obligatory.

A vote is expected soon on the pro-homosexual "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA). This dangerous bill threatens to codify the very thing it purports to prevent — workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force all Americans who prefer to live within the realm of reality to pretend, by force of law, that a man is a woman — that an apple is an orange, simply because that apple thinks it’s an orange (awkward, fruity pun not intended). It’s "The Emperor’s New Clothes" meets George Orwell, and even if you’re the Mary Lou Retton of mental gymnastics, you land flat on your keister on this one.

ENDA is portrayed by proponents as a panacea against workplace discrimination — a mere extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They claim it simply insulates people against employment discrimination based upon "sexual orientation" or "gender identity". But instead, the legislation would actually violate the Civil Rights Act.

This bill pits the government directly against religion which is unconstitutional on its face. It would force employers to check their First Amendment guaranteed civil rights at the workplace door by not allowing them to consider sexual morality — in any way — while hiring or firing. It would make federal lawbreakers out of Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners who honor their faith and would require that newfangled "gay rights" — based entirely upon an individual’s chosen sexual behaviors — trump an employer’s enumerated constitutional rights.

But ENDA sits atop a house of cards. Homosexuals and cross-dressers are a privileged group, not an oppressed minority as activists would have you believe. The U.S. Supreme Court has devised a three part test to determine whether a class of persons qualifies as a true minority: They must be defined by an immutable characteristic (unchangeable, like skin color), they must be economically deprived, and they must suffer from a history of discrimination and political powerlessness. Homosexuals and cross-dressers fit into none of these requisite categories. Instead, the facts show that homosexual behavior is changeable, that homosexuals are largely affluent, and that homosexual activists represent one of the most powerful lobbies in the world per capita.

Furthermore, proponents falsely claim that the bill contains a religious exemption. But it’s entirely illusory. At best, only churches — and essentially pastors — could be exempt from the provisions of ENDA, and that’s not even guaranteed. All other faith-based organizations — even those which are tax exempt — would be discriminated against under this bill. Groups such as Christian schools, Christian camps, faith-based soup kitchens and Bible book stores would be forced to adopt a view of human sexuality which directly conflicts with fundamental tenets of their faith. ENDA would ultimately give liberal judges the authority to subjectively determine who qualifies for the exemption. It’s the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys, and it would open the floodgates for lawsuits against employers who wish to live out their faith and even those who don’t.

Finally, the bill legalizes sexual harassment. It states that "denial of access" to workplace facilities such as restrooms and dressing rooms based on gender is only allowed for "shared shower or dressing facilities in which being seen fully unclothed is unavoidable." This means that female employees would have to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with any male employee who got his jollies from wearing a dress.

But other than that, ENDA’s great! In fact, it may not go far enough. I mean, while we’re at it, shouldn’t we include protections for people based on "species identity?" If a man gets in touch with his inner horse and wants to run in the Kentucky Derby, let’s force Churchill Downs to make it happen. It makes as much sense.

jmattbarber@comcast.net" target="_blank">Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en=22b6d142cc99da65&ex=1190260800&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190306031-x2FKVhnn1kqo6OhVbYWK8Q

I am just fascinated by Allan Erickson's obsession with sex. That's a lot of research and analysis on that topic.

dinopdx-

Ever hear of the "straw man" argument?

How long have you lived in the twilight zone?

Is being irrelevant a full time engagement, or only a casual fancy?

Do you care about truth, justice and freedom, or are you just too snide to care at all?

AE

Will - Would you please tell me how I can get a Church of the New Truth Doctorate. I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to find out for a long time.