128 Million Bigots (Including Your Mother): Gmarriage By The Numbers. Updates

A citizen undergoes treatment to remove his opposition to gmarriage.
A citizen undergoes treatment to remove his opposition to gmarriage.

Your Mother Is Evil

Latest Gallup survey showed about 40% of citizens did not support gmarriage. According to gmarriage supporters, those who oppose gmarriage are bigots. Since mostly older people and folks not in our great coastal cities support Truth, your mother and grandmother (if these sweet ladies, filled with non-governmental supplied dignity, are still with us), are almost certainly bigots. Good luck telling them so. According to many Tolerant on Twitter, no punishment is too harsh for them. (They were old anyway.)

Interesting (see below) that Friday nearly all major companies told a near, or in some cases even a full, majority of their employees that they hate them. The occupiers of the now Rainbow House told a large chunk of citizens its rules that there were bigots.

Watch the latest poll for support uptick sharply. It is now a crime, or rather it will be thought a crime, a thoughtcime, to hold to Truth. People are scared.

Gallup also says about 30% of citizens do not support divorce, either. But an increasing number, up to about 15% now, support polygamy. It’s coming. You bigot.

(Voting does not decide Truth, of course.)

Orwell & Persecution

How long before we’re all required the chant slogans like these?

Sodomy is Healthy1

Gay Marriage is Healthier Than Straight Marriages

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell only partly guessed right. In 1984, the Party declared “2 + 2 = 5” a truth to which assent must be given—or else. Yet it was because the Party knew this to be false that it became a weapon, a tool to command obedience. This is not completely the case with gmarriage.

Many, but not all, in The Party today believes gmarriage to be a truth. Assent to it, like to “2 + 2 = 5”, will certainly, as everybody knows, be required. But in most cases it is because the Tolerant have a raging hatred against dissent. Those that don’t care about gmarriage, but who assent to it and are in positions of leadership, will insist others do likewise, but their hearts won’t be in it—unless they get something good out of it.

Orwell, though wrong in detail, nailed the spirit:

Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable — what then?

Why Persecution?

What everybody forgets is that marriage is not just a permanent bond between a man and a woman (only two)—this is the Truth—but an agreement or understanding between that couple and society. This is why the same-sex attracted fought so vigorously for the term “married”. After all, no one was stopping them from any “experiments in living” they imagined. They wanted acknowledged and affirmation that their actions were not sinful, and not just not sinful, but equal with Truth.

In order for a couple to be married, others must agree if society is to function. Since many do not agree with gmarriage, society will not be able to function harmoniously. Supporters of Truth must be made to put the pinch of incense in the fire or gmarriages won’t seem real. The government must supply and defend (artificial) Dignity.

Size Of Persecution

Persecution will arise largely from gmarriage “test” cases. How many will there be?

There are around 2% of citizens declaring exclusive same-sex attraction (many citizens, succumbing to relentless propaganda believe that number is 20% or higher). That’s around 6 to 7 million folks. Of these, maybe 60-70% are adults (limiting gmarriage to adults is an arbitrary prejudice, surely2), which gives maybe 4 million. Given cultural conditions and our knowledge of behavior of the same-sex attracted, maybe (at most) only half of these people would want a gmarriage ceremony.

That leaves 2 million. Since the government (so far) arbitrarily puts marriages at only two people, this makes only about 1 million possible ceremonies, a number which is probably on the high side (by twice?). And these ceremonies will be spread out over time. The rate depends on culture and how many same-sex attracted “come up through the ranks”, a number which must increase as the number of gmarriages occur (think of effects of adoption, enculturation, etc.).

Most of these ceremonies will be where most of the population is. More in San Francisco than in Butte Montana. Now, the majority of participants are not bug-eyed litigious Tolerant angry religio-phobes. The majority of any peoples just want to be left alone (but most want to be acknowledged). So we’re down to a few thousand Tolerant ceremonies, maybe 100 per annum, to the nearest order of magnitude. And from these the pool of “test cases” will arise. Since most threats of lawsuits go nowhere, we’re looking at roughly 1 or so newsworthy, important case per year.

Don’t forget it’s mostly the non-same-sex attracted who work themselves into a tizzy over thoughtcrimes. So any pair (only a pair!) of Tolerant people seeking gmarriage will always find an army of angry allies.

Kinds Of Persecution

Employers, when they think of it, will search prospective employee’s names, eliminating from consideration those who hold to Truth. There will be few or no open firings, but there may be secret ones. The Tolerant refuse to consort with their many enemies. The argument will be freedom of association, that business can hire whomever they want. And this is true. Discrimination is good. Most large corporations already told their faithful employees to stick it (by adopting the “rainbow” flag, etc.).

Private businesses will be banned from placing signs such as “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” (you know what I mean), because these are discriminatory. Businesses cannot not hire certain people nor deny groups inimical to their faith services. Discrimination is bad. The inconsistency will not bother the Tolerant, who let rage blind their reason. Bake the cake or lose your business. Many will voluntarily close up (consequently there will be many more large businesses and more people depending on government for support).

Government employees involved in gmarriage are in deep kimchi. They will either have to violate their consciences or quit. “Good riddance!” say the Tolerant.

Faithful adoption agencies will close. The Tolerant cannot abide that a (say) Catholic orphanage will only place children in faithful homes. (But this and this will not bother them.)

A Tolerant couple is bound to sue a church for refusing to service them. The grounds will be that since this church has agreed with the government to also administer the civil aspects of marriage, the church has no choice but perform the entire ceremony. The Tolerant couple, whatever their initial success, will lose. I do not think any church will be forced (from the outside) to change beliefs. Though smart money says that churches will lose the ability to perform civil duties, though this loss will be state by state and somewhat gradual.

Christian colleges and organizations with married housing or which now offer benefits to married students or employees will be hit hard and fast. Next 18 months. A Tolerant couple will sue, probably braced by the ACLU or similar big-money group. Depending on which state the first suits hits, the Christian organization will win or lose, so look for district shopping by the Tolerant. Either way, win or lose, the suit is bumped to a higher level. Now if this organization is, say, a nunnery, the faithful have a reasonable chance of beating the Tolerant, but if it is a hospital, school, charity, or the like, they will lose.

Churches proper, though I speculated otherwise before, I do not think will lose their tax-exempt status. Even the pathetic Justice Kennedy3 allowed for freedom of worship—though not, infamously, freedom of practice of religion. (See below about the law being mere words.)

Many churches will slip over the cliff, naturally. Look to Europe for plenty of examples. It’s only post-Christian nations in which gmarriage is legal, incidentally. This is why faithful churches will be largely left alone. There will be too few of them to bother with.

Most persecution will be soft, the worst kind. Why? Because ultimately it is souls that matter, and nothing else.

Look for lost friendships, associations, and the like. As in all Tolerant societies, silence will be inadequate; it will be noticed. And punished. “Sally must be one of those religious bigots. She didn’t contribute to Steve and Steve’s wedding card. I’m telling HR.” “Sally, this is HR, can you come by on Tuesday at 10 am? You have to attend our diversity training.” Alas, this one already happens. Tolerance is a willful cancer that must spread.

Fighting Persecution

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” —George Orwell

Some brave soul will push back publicly against the kind of bullying seen in HR departments. God bless her (I’m guessing it’s a lady). Others will write articles, which increasingly will have little effect. Many churches will eschew the topic, fearing irritating its diminishing members, always a losing tacit. But some, only a few, will become champions for Truth.

We must be reminded (as Father Z has done) that “No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman…” and “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.” And

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.

Every is a strong word. Requires heavy lifting. Not all have the strength. Yet “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.” Support is “gravely immoral.”

Nobody said life would be easy—or fair. It is folly to think the opposite.

The Law Is Mere Words

Don’t bother quoting the law. It is now only a rough guide. Words are meaningless, as Justice Scalia recently noted (in another case). The Law means what the powerful say it means.

Update Catholic Priest Reports Being Spit On At Gay Marriage Parade. Fr Jonathan Morris (I was on his show two week ago.) Also this:

Update Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

Update Adults only: this gentleman did us the service of documenting San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair over this weekend. E.g. this and this. And this. And this. Not safe for work.


1“Many same-sex attracted people do not engage in sodomy.” “Is the argument then, ‘Most people do not murder therefore murder is healthy’?”

2“Marriage requires consent. Children can’t give it.” “How do you know?” “It’s not in the nature of children to be able to.” “But it’s not in the nature of mankind to support gmarriage. If there is no human nature, all choices are by will alone.”

3If any a man, besides Yours Truly, needed our prayers, it is he.


  1. Tolerant people are the most intolerant and hate-filled of all people. Of course, black is white and white is black, so that actually turns out to be true in the new language of the age.

    Again, I can refer those interested to some very interesting websites of people who live in unreality. I’d like to think it could awaken some, but this is not a sleep people are awaken from. This is a slow death from which one does not recover for decades–and the progressives are proud to have provided for you.

    We already have pastors ordered to marry gays, pedophilia is one step away from becoming normalized, probably right after polygamy, then there’s beastiality, necrophelia, etc. Pandora’s box is wide open. I suppose that’s why we have this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118939/Deaf-students-aged-8-13-sex-school-bus.html*

    Perhaps the best hope in all of this is the Catholic church might actually close down every one of its charities, but after the Pope’s latest sell-out to Satan, it seems more likely priests will start performing gmarriages and happily going down the road to Hell.

    Thank you all so much.

    (*A note on the “consent” of children for sex. If children cannot consent to sex, then schools are violating the law by handing out condoms to 12 year olds. The requirement for consent in sex is a complete and utter lie perpetrated by those who know they are wrong and don’t give a damn about truth.)

  2. Sylvain

    Wow Briggs you are totally losing it. You sound hysterical. Just like a toddler who throw a tantrum after his mom told him it’s not okay to hurt other child.

    Also, there are not 128 millions bigot since the problem is not the thought or belief that gay marriage is a sin or immoral. This doesn’t make someone a bigot.

    What makes someone a bigot is the action he takes against people to prevent them their own liberty.

    A bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, while accepting baking a cake for a dog wedding is a bigot.

    A t shirt companies that refuse to print a pro gay t shirt is not a bigot. But is a bigot if they refuse to sell unmarked t shirt.

    The costumer of this photographer is the definition of bigotry.


  3. Syl: A bigot is whatever the left says it is. There is no definition and no meaning to any of this. It is truly just about getting even and with suppressing anyone who disagrees. Surely you are familiar with the concept that what is right at the moment is right, even if in the past current proponents clearly opposed an action. Let’s think—Bill Clinton signed DOMA and now Hillary is pro-gay marriage and presumable Bill is too. Obama was against gay marriage until it served his purpose to be for it. None of this has any right or wrong in reality—it’s just opportunistic. Otherwise, the rules wouldn’t change constantly as the politics change. Ten years from now, homosexuals could be run out of the country if that suited the left. It’s all about power and control, nothing more. There is no such thing as a “bigot”. There is a person who at this moment is labelled bigot because it gets the left to an end. That’s it.

  4. Briggs

    “The inconsistency will not bother the Tolerant, who let rage blind their reason.”

  5. Sylvain



    A bigot is someone that cannot tolerate that someone else as a different opinion. I have no problem with you being agains gay marriage as per your faith.

    On your end, you are against anyone who doesn’t share your opinion and you conservatives (maybe not you personally) are ready to go to great length to prevent these people from having a different opinion in shaming and shunning them into behaving your way.

    To bad for you that just like the bully in high school who loses his power once the victim finds the courage to stands his ground, your victims decided they had enough and stood their ground and people who were once following your leads out of fear just got out of the way. This is how marriage equality went from Clinton signing DOMA in the 1990s and now saying it was his biggest mistakes.

    All religions leaders have lead people astray from gods true nature for more than six millennium for their own personal gain. They transformed Christ message into a message of fear to oppress the population. People are starting to see the light and see that gods true nature is not in destruction but in creation. It’s not in hate and fear but in love ove and understanding.

  6. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7


    Not only do you fail to celebrate this long-overdue lifting of the repressive heterosexual orthodoxy view of marriage, you also fail to understand the Court ruling does not go far enough — it leaves in place other arbitrary and irrational limitations which must also fall.

    I know many men who find great comfort and emotional fulfillment in relationships which are still not permitted under the court’s decision. These men continue to endure scorn, ridicule and in many cases contempt if their attachments become known. So they must hide in a darkened room when they need to touch, stroke and caress the one other who is truly responsive to their desires.

    I say it is time these men had their rights protected, so they can finally come out and openly, proudly, joyously be joined together forever with the one who gives their lives meaning.

    I say we should immediately demand the right for men to marry their TV remotes.

    I can hear you all laugh and snicker, but what is the point of marriage, if not to make you feel better? The court has already wisely seen that when personal desires are involved, outmoded and arbitrary distinctions such as gender must not be imposed. So where is it written marriage can only be between people? Appeals to scripture are strictly out of order — the court has so ruled. So what is left to consider except that which we desire, for whatever reason we desire it?

    I hear some object: “but that would be bigamy!”. No doubt the bigamy laws will also be struck down, but we need not wait. The beauty of my approach is simply to note the bigamy laws are all written to prevent the marriage to two different people at the same time. They are therefore no bar to being married to one person plus a TV remote, and perhaps a lawn tractor and pickup truck as well.

    So I call to oppressed men everywhere: march down to your city halls and apply for a license to be joined in lawful matrimony with your remotes, your smart phones, lawn tractors, recliners and anything else which which you want to spend the rest of your lives. And if they refuse to grant one, then sue — your human rights are being violated!

  7. Syl: You bore me now. I’m through with your comments. It’s the same thing over and over.

    Alan: Sign me up. I’m willing to fight for the right of men everywhere to marry their remote and live in bliss eternally!! (I love my lawnmower–perhaps it’s time for a commitment ceremony while I wait for the enlightened to allow marriage to my mower.)

    All: I have heard the ridiculous statement that “This is the law of the land now so you have to follow it”. Really, and all the progressives followed the law that marriage is between a man and a woman, right? NO–and no one is obliged to consider this “the law of land” but rather a temporary rule that can be removed with enough whining, lawsuits and bullying of those who oppose. That is the rule of progressives and they should be treated the way they treat others. Don’t like a rule–ignore it. If anyone complains, call them bigots, evil, etc. etc and scream it loudly from the street corner. This is what the progressive’s preach and who are we to question the legitimacy of it? It’s the right way, or so they insist. So go on the offensive and take away whatever laws you don’t like. It must be the proper way, you know, because progressives are never wrong. Ignore that idiotic statement about the law of the land. (Alan’s idea on marrying the remote seems a good start.)

  8. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

    All: I have heard the ridiculous statement that “This is the law of the land now so you have to follow it”.

    Deporting people determined to be in the country illegally is still the law of the land, but apparently nobody has been willing to intrude on the President’s tee times to inform him of that.

  9. Sylvain

    Poor Sheri, yup go in your room and cry about how society is so unfair to you like a the little baby girl than you are.

    Maybe your prayer will be heard and a conservative gunman will be able to use the conservative weapon of choice the AR-15 and kill all the gay supporter he can find.

    Get over it you lost.

  10. Sylvain

    “Deporting people determined to be in the country illegally is still the law of the land, but apparently nobody has been willing to intrude on the President’s tee times to inform him of that.”

    Of course do not let the facts stand in your way. Obama deported more people than Bush. And for sure the New Republic chose to not mention that people crossing the border illegally dropped down leaving the possibility for returning people much less lower.


    Politifac has a storage take on it. Agreeing that the number of crossing is at its lowest since the 1970s though ignoring that it was much easier to not be caught back then because of a lower number of border patrol at that time. The likelihood to not be caught is much lower today than it was in the 1970s.

    Who needs facts when we don’t like them.


  11. DAV

    Obama deported more people than Bush

    But stopped and is now ignoring the law.

    US has reached a dangerous point. The checks and balances concept behind the three branches has eroded. We now have three legislative bodies:

    1) the presidential office, whose job was supposedly to enforce the law, has now deemed itself fit to create and modify the law — even effectively rewriting its favorite, Obamacare, when politically expedient.
    2) the supreme court is now getting into the act of creating and rewriting law.
    3) Congress seems to have abdicated completely.

    At least in N. Korea it would seem one knows where one stands with respect to the government although one is still subject to its whimsy.

    The one hope is all of the recent shenanigans will result in an incredible backlash in 2016.

  12. Sylvain


    Your claim is baseless in the face of reality and facts.

    Deportations has barely if at all slowed down in the past few months.

    1) Obama wrote less executive power than any other of the recent presidents. Is executive order on immigration was largely inspired by Reagans own executive order on immigration, which was not at all controversial in the 1980s.
    2) SCOTUS is doing the job it was created. They are applying the law as they are written. Again you had no problems with extending religious freedom to soulless corporations, or went they said that money was free speech.

  13. Gary in Erko

    If religious ministers end up being forced to conduct gmarriages, will that mean Catholic Churches can be forced to conduct Jewish, Buddhist, Islamic marriages, and vice versa? Etc, etc, etc. Will they be forced to use the form of marriage native to the couple or will the (eg) Islamic marriage in a Church be conducted with the Christian form of prayer?

    And, according to some comments, if it doesn’t effect my life . . . . whatever.

  14. Sylvain

    Gary in Erko,

    I lacked time this weekend to reply to your comment:

    When you wrote:

    “A few hundred people were blown up in the last couple of days overseas. So what. It doesn’t effect my life. Is that how you insist we should all assess the goings on in the world? ”

    What is your solution? Bomb them into liking each other? How did it affect you? Though it made me sad that people on the other of the world feel like they have to kill each, it didn’t change anything in my life. What did it change in yours? What have you done differently since that bomb blew up. You told a muslim you love him?

    Marriage has never been one thing? the definition as changed over time and always meant something different. That the government defines marriage different than the church doesn’t change the definition of the church. Priest are not required to perform same sex marriage unless they are performing them. In the US anyone can start its own church and claim a tax free exemption as long as they meet some criteria.

    For a long while in the US the definition of marriage exclude marriage between a man and a woman of different race? What happenned then to the that it was between one man and one woman?

    The social organization is to respect that people have different opinion about how to live their own life. Gay marriage changes nothing about marriage, people are still free to conceive it as they want. What changes is that conservatives have to stop meddling in other people business.

    For many man marriage is simply the number wife #1 #2 #3 etc. Very few people ever respected the ideal of marriage. They divorced, they had kids with mistress, they sleep outside their marriage, molested their children.

    The reality is that marriage only matters when dealing with the government. Out of that people don’t give a damn about it.

    No one on this blog as given a clear answer as to how it affect their person? They say it does, but they never say how.

  15. Gary in Erko

    Sylvain –
    “The reality is that marriage only matters when dealing with the government.”
    Well, I’m glad this has now been made clear for everyone. The purpose of marriage is to regulate taxes and property rights for a specific category of legal partnership.

  16. Sylvain

    “The purpose of marriage is to regulate taxes and property rights for a specific category of legal partnership.”

    This is actually the limit of what this ruling is about. For the government it is simply a legal matter of how it deal with the a household. Not sure why it is so hard for conservative to understand.

  17. Bert Walker


    “A bigot is someone that cannot tolerate that someone else as a different opinion.

    “Wow Briggs you are totally losing it. You sound hysterical. Just like a toddler who throw a tantrum after his mom told him it’s not okay to hurt other child.”

    Syl, your tolerance position is called “HYPOCRISY”

    You should wear the label with pride. After all you have worked so hard to earn it.

  18. Gary in Erko

    Sylvain – “Not sure why it is so hard for conservative to understand.”
    Maybe it’s because conservatives understand there’s greater impact than initially intended in the terms of a written contract. The proof of that are the numerous complex court cases needed to untangle contract issues. Conservatives also understand subtle nuances of tradition in social relationships.

  19. M E Wood


    Sylvain you could read this.
    I’m presuming you are a French Canadian young man?
    So I expect you will just refute this without reason but be careful it’s published by Jews and we can’t have anti semitic statements, can we?
    In New Zealand we had a ‘free vote ‘ asked for by a member in Parliament to establish gay’marriage so again we have the Nice people deciding for us, with no reference to the People , though NZ is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy.
    Those who were so keen on it in Parliament did not do very well in the next General Election most extreme left wing parties lost adherent in droves much to the dismay of their friends the News Media.
    it doesn’t always work out the way politicians think and they have to be fast on their feet to survive.

  20. Gary in Erko

    Same sex marriage is probably not the right phrase. There’s far more than two sexes nowdays. A non-heterosexual couple might be different sexes.
    Another potential complication … Suppose a heterosexual couple are married as Catholics, and later one changes sex. This could mean their civic marriage still holds, but their church recognised marriage becomes annulled. So, although in civic law they would be bigamists if either married someone else, they could be married in the church again as long as it was only a religious marriage with no civic registration.

    This is fun. Chucking out all the rules is more fun than 3D chinese checkers.
    PS – I hope that’s not a racist statement.

  21. I think Dickens had it right: “The Law is an ass”, or for the full quote:

  22. I still can’t use the html tags…here’s the full quote:
    “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

    the term “bachelor” in the above was for Victorian times. Now we might replace that by “leftist liberal”.

  23. Hack

    Also, why do you all bother debating Sylvain? He (she?) says nothing you can’t read or see in the New York Times, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. etc.

    I like reading various comments, but when ever anyone debates Sylvain it quickly degenerates into nonsense.

    Never debate an idiot, you can’t tell who is the idiot.

  24. Hack

    Sorry, I should have left that last line out in my previous post. I don’t like name calling, it is childish.

    My humble apologies to Sylvain.

  25. Sylvain


    I guess that only a dumbass idiot can detect an 1-D-10-t. See I can be a dumb ass to it only requires a redneck IQ wihich is about minus 10 the IQ of a newborn baby.

    Must feel nice smelling the ass of the guy in front of you %#€£¥ moron

  26. Hack: Certain commenters are impossible to have any exchanges with because they simply repeat a mantra. If you have the time, it’s occassionally interesting to see if the mantra ever changes. If not, it’s best to ignore the comments.

  27. Sylvain

    Gary in Erko,

    I would say that conservatives think they know enough to tell other people how they should live.

    Briggs always react, and often rightly so, when a well intentioned nutritionist comes along to tell people what they should and shouldn’t eat. They do so because they think they know more. But he fails to notice that he is doing the exact same thing concerning people behaviour that he finds appalling to him.

    Briggs likes to point out how climate change catastrophist often claims it’s worth than they thought. Yet, when it comes to the LGBT it is always always worst than we thought and that the world is doom. Even mentioning Soddom and Gommore. YOS is also good at doing such things.

    When Katrina hit New Orleans it was according to Pat Robertson because of the gay. Earthquake, hurricane, tornado, famine, flood they somehow always cause by LGBTs for him. Then how come we never have catastrophic event in Quebec where gays are free to live their life openly.

  28. Sander van der Wal

    My mom doesn’t live in the US of A, a d is not a bigot because of that.

  29. JH

    Mr. Briggs,

    Which is worse to you, calling people intolerant or being a bigot? Just wonder. I sure hope that you don’t believe that there are no bigots among those who oppose same-sex marriage.

    Don’t know how you make certain conclusions, perhaps, you you have surveyed gay people. Don’t think this post will bring peace and harmony to society. Don’t know how you know truth is on your side.
    It can be a great consolation to know or believe that truth is on you side, though.

    Truth WINS…

    Justice Kennedy is not pathetic. I shall pray for you… in the presence of the most prominent figure in Catholic church.

  30. Ramz

    Sorry William, but you failed to give any moral argument against “gmarriage”. Saying “it’s Gods holy law” is as relevant and meaningful as saying “Zeus deems it so.” The US is secular and doesn’t make laws, or interpret them, through the biblical lens. Iran does, just with a different holy book. Doesn’t matter anyway, we will progress, learn from our mistakes and move on. Come with us, won’t you?

  31. Sylvain

    Bert Walker,

    Just saw your comment:

    Bigotry is not disagreeing with someone, which is what me and Briggs have.

    Bigotry is not to say or believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. Bigotry is to deny the right you enjoy to other who disagree with you. Bigotry is to go out of your way to make people feel bad about themselves because you disagree with their freedom to choose their individual way of life.

    Bigotry is cancelling a photoshoot because the client discovered that the photograph had no problem doing photoshoot with gay. Not only the client cancelled but they had to rub the photographers nose in it. It turned out backfiring for the customer.
    Look for Brentwood photography.

  32. Sylvain

    Quote from Samuel Alito:

    “Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy”

    Alito is really saying that it is okay to vilify gay people but that this is a bad thing to vilify those Who mistreat gay. Just don’t mistreat people and no one will vilify you.

    If the Catholic Church is able to play landlord with one of the gay spa in Italy, surely a catholic school (which is not a church) is able to play land lord to a gay couple.


  33. Billy Squibs

    Can anyone provide a link to the podacst with Fr Jonathan Morris that was mentioned in the main article?

  34. Hack

    Lol! Sylvain, glad to see you excepted my apology!

  35. M E Wood

    The position most people who are appalled by the action of these Judges is that they have changed the law of the land.

    Jewish Rabbis think the same as Roman Catholic priests and Orthodox Metropolitans so maybe all these unfashionable people can make an informal alliance… if they have not already done so. They have all come out with statements about concerns with freedom of speech and freedom of religion so maybe you can call all of them Bigots , but remember they represent very large numbers in your country and millions in the rest of the world.

    Hand out badges with “Bigot” for us all to wear! Make “Bigot” a proud label.

    This fuss is not about marriage of homosexuals it’s about the arbitrary undemocratic manner of changing the law of the land. Free speech is threatened everywhere it used to be treasured , and watch out
    the next big push by those who would rule us , namely the Nice people, is Euthanasia. After all they have just about finished with abortion and homosexual marriage. now they will use opposition to Euthanasia to attack religious institutions.
    So gather round Bigots. Free Speech for all.

  36. One supposes that in today’s society, being intolerant is far worse than being a bigot, since black is white and white is black. In the past, I’d have gone with them being equal IF accurately applied.

    Ramz: All evidence is that you are totally and completely incorrect. People rarely if ever learn from their mistakes, mostly because most mistakes result from a failure to recognize reality. Note, for instance, that today’s thought police bear a striking resemblance to Hitler, Stalin and virtually all other dictatorships of the past but people are blinded by the desire to believe in fairytales and lies that suit their whims. The more candy you pass out, the more followers you can drag in. Then the slaughter begins. Always does, always has but few ever learn and never enough to avoid repetition.

    Again, to all reading, this is NOT about marriage anymore than abortion is about women’t rights and whether or not a fetus is a real person, as M E Wood points out. The fact that so many cannot or will not see that is proof that Ramz is incorrect. We do not learn. We bury our heads in the sand and pretend the largest target on our anatomy is not sticking up there for all to see and hit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *