"Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally"

[Asclepias]

There is nothing special about the relationship between one man and one woman.

Nothing beyond that such is the way nature designed the species. Of course, beyond that, nothing else matters as God designed nature and as such the relationship between a man and a woman provides the means for such to be blessed by the spirit of God. And there's no downside to that.

Bullshit. God also designed gay animals if you want to blame someone.

 

[Moonglow]

Same sex marriage

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

For the sole purpose of divorce..

 

[sealybobo]

Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

Ha ha ha! Either submit to homosexual activist dogma or you are a Nazi. What a drama queen! lol

I find it odd to hear black people being anti gay when it was them experiencing it just about 50 years ago themselves. And the only argument they have is that being gay is a choice which it is not unless you are bi, and being black is not a choice.

Even if it is a choice so what?

Any Black person that has an issue with gay people needs to take a deep look at themselves. They dont have to want to be gay to see the parallels.

I think it has more to do with fundamental religious beliefs than it does about being black

Which is even more proof that religion is a way they use to control the masses. George W Bush was able to win over religious black people with issues like abortion and gay marriage.

 

[Moonglow]

There is nothing special about the relationship between one man and one woman.

Nothing beyond that such is the way nature designed the species. Of course, beyond that, nothing else matters as God designed nature and as such the relationship between a man and a woman provides the means for such to be blessed by the spirit of God. And there's no downside to that.

Bullshit. God also designed gay animals if you want to blame someone.

Ahhhh, to be asexual , I'd never leave the house....literally...

 

[sealybobo]

Those who continue to spout that line are the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

Ha ha ha! Either submit to homosexual activist dogma or you are a Nazi. What a drama queen! lol

I find it odd to hear black people being anti gay when it was them experiencing it just about 50 years ago themselves. And the only argument they have is that being gay is a choice which it is not unless you are bi, and being black is not a choice.

Even if it is a choice so what?

Any Black person that has an issue with gay people needs to take a deep look at themselves. They dont have to want to be gay to see the parallels.

I think it has more to do with fundamental religious beliefs than it does about being black

I wonder if they ever stop and ask themselves where that religion came from in the form they presently practice it?

When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant and superstitious Plus doesn't make any sense then maybe your religion was manmade. Amazing people are still buying it but that's how dumb the masses are

 

[Asclepias]

Ha ha ha! Either submit to homosexual activist dogma or you are a Nazi. What a drama queen! lol

I find it odd to hear black people being anti gay when it was them experiencing it just about 50 years ago themselves. And the only argument they have is that being gay is a choice which it is not unless you are bi, and being black is not a choice.

Even if it is a choice so what?

Any Black person that has an issue with gay people needs to take a deep look at themselves. They dont have to want to be gay to see the parallels.

I think it has more to do with fundamental religious beliefs than it does about being black

I wonder if they ever stop and ask themselves where that religion came from in the form they presently practice it?

When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant and superstitious Plus doesn't make any sense then maybe your religion was manmade. Amazing people are still buying it but that's how dumb the masses are

Present day christianity is a bastardization of old African, Greek, and Roman religions

 

[Thunderbird]

Yup, not one person harmed by Marriage Equality.

I don't know who you are trying to fool Syriusly. Maybe yourself? What kind of sick authoritarian personality wants to force some baker to write a particular message the baker doesn't agree with? It's Homosexual activists vs. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, artistic freedom, freedom of thought. Just look at the facts.

Quote: For years, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love as they choose, but does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships? A growing number of incidents demonstrates that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

Now these citizens are facing a new wave of government coercion and discrimination. State laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

These laws add sexual orientation and gender identity (dubbed SOGI) to the list of protected classes such as race, sex, and national origin. Regrettably, these sexual orientation and gender laws have serious flaws.[1] Specifically, they frequently fail to protect the civil liberties of Americans, especially religious liberty. They tend to be vague and overly broad without clear definitions of what conduct can and cannot be penalized. Judgments can also be quite subjective: Boise and other cities in Idaho now prohibit even indirect acts that might make another person feel that he or she is being “treated as not welcome.”[2]

Under newer laws, family businesses—especially photographers, bakers, florists, and others involved in the wedding industry—have been hauled into court because they declined to provide services for a same-sex ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs. Although Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship.

Protecting religious liberty and the rights of conscience does not infringe on anyone’s sexual freedoms. All Americans should remain free to believe and act in the public square based on their beliefs about marriage without fear of government penalty.

Wedding-Related Religious Liberty Violations
Elane Photography. The case of Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jon, is perhaps the best-known example of violations of religious liberty.

The Huguenins run Elane Photography, a small photography business in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 2006, the couple declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony because, as Elaine explains, “the message a same-sex commitment ceremony communicates is not one I believe.”[3] Elane Photography did not refuse to take pictures of gay and lesbian individuals; they declined to photograph a ceremony that ran counter to the owners’ belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (something with which New Mexico law agreed). Other photographers in the Albuquerque area were more than happy to photograph the event.[4]

In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that by declining to use its artistic and expressive skills to communicate what was said and what occurred at the ceremony, the Huguenins’ business had discriminated based on sexual orientation. As a result, the commission ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees.[5] The ruling cited New Mexico’s human rights law, which prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” (“any establishment that provides or offers its services … or goods to the public”) based on race, religion, and sexual orientation—among other protected classes.

At the end of 2013, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the Human Rights Commission’s ruling. It concluded that under the state’s sexual orientation and gender identify law, the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s freedom to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony—even when doing so would violate the photographer’s religious beliefs. Justice Richard C. Bosson, in a concurring opinion, claimed that requiring the Huguenins to relinquish their religious convictions was permissible as “the price of citizenship.”[6]

Elane Photography petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of its case on November 8, 2013.[7] On April 7, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to review Elane Photography v. Willock. While neither affirming nor rejecting the lower court’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari means the New Mexico Supreme Court decision against the Huegenins’ right to free expression will stand.

Sweet Cakes by Melissa. In early 2013, two women asked the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa to bake a wedding cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony. Although bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein consistently had served all customers on a regular basis, this request would have required them to facilitate and celebrate a same-sex relationship—violating their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Oregon law defines marriage in the same way.[8]

Soon afterward, the two women filed a complaint under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. During an investigation of the Kleins by Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, bureau official Brad Avakian commented: “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”[9] In January 2014, the agency issued a ruling that the Kleins violated Oregon’s sexual orientation law when they declined to bake the cake.[10]

Melissa and Aaron Klein have also faced other pressure for their unwillingness to violate their beliefs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa reported being subjected to threats and violent protests, vicious telephone calls, and boycotts by activists.[11] The Kleins, who have five children, reportedly received hundreds of phone calls and letters—including death threats to the family.

Fearing for the safety of their family, the Kleins decided in September 2013 to close their small business.[12] Yet the Kleins still have to deal with the Labor Commission’s conclusion that they engaged in discrimination. The case is likely to proceed to an administrative law judge for further review.

Masterpiece Cakeshop. A similar wedding-cake scenario unfolded in Colorado—a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman[13]—involving Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop.[14]

In 2012, a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Colorado. Phillips declined to create a wedding cake, citing his faith: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for.” The couple obtained a wedding cake with rainbow-colored filling (illustrating the expressive nature of event cake-baking) from another bakery.[15]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public accommodation law. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on December 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by declining service to the couple “because of their sexual orientation.”[16]

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but baking a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, thereby violating his freedom to run his business in accordance with his faith.[17]

Arlene’s Flowers. On March 1, 2013, longtime customers Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed met with Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts owner Barronelle Stutzman to request that she arrange the flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. Washington State had redefined marriage the previous year. Stutzman responded that she could not accept the job because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ” and her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.[18]

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state’s sexual orientation law. Ferguson is seeking a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Stutzman to violate her conscience by using her artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex relationship.[19] The matter is now pending before the trial court.

Görts Haus Gallery. Betty and Dick Odgaard, a devout Mennonite couple in Iowa, run an art gallery in a 77-year-old church building. Among other things—running a lunch bistro, a flower shop, a gift shop, and a framing shop—they host weddings. Betty and Dick work with the couples who wed there on everything from flowers, food, and decorations to the wedding ceremony itself. On the day of every wedding, they oversee all of these details.[20]

In 2013, the Odgaards declined a request to organize, facilitate, and host a same-sex ceremony because they believed that it conflicted with “the religious message they seek to convey through the Gallery, a message which includes the importance of living one’s faith in all aspects of life.”[21] They now face punitive action before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.[22]

“We hire and serve gays and lesbians, and have close friends who are gays and lesbians,” said Betty Odgaard. “And we respect that good people disagree with our religious conviction against hosting a ceremony that violates our faith. We simply ask that the government not force us to abandon our faith or punish us for it.”[23]

The Odgaards have filed a lawsuit in Iowa district court seeking protection of their religious liberty.[24]

Intolerance Against Adoption Providers
In addition to private family businesses affiliated with the wedding industry, organizations that serve children in the foster care system are also facing serious repercussions and intolerance.[25] Every year, the foster care system serves approximately 400,000 children, nearly a quarter of whom are waiting to be adopted.[26]

Across the United States, there are more than 1,000 private, licensed foster care and adoption providers.[27] Many are faith-based organizations whose religious and moral beliefs motivate their care for some of the most vulnerable children in society.

In a number of states, sexual orientation and gender identity laws, coupled with the redefinition of marriage or the creation of same-sex civil unions, are threatening the freedom of private foster care and adoption providers who believe children should have a married mother and father. These providers should not be forced to abandon the very beliefs that motivate them to care for families and vulnerable children.

Boston Catholic Charities, Massachusetts. For more than 100 years, Catholic Charities in Boston, Massachusetts, had a successful record of connecting children to permanent families, placing more children in adoptive homes than any other state-licensed agency.[28] Then, in 2003, following a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the state began to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.[29] This decision, coupled with an earlier state policy on sexual orientation, forced all state-licensed adoption providers to be willing to place children with same-sex couples.[30]

Rather than abandon Catholic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, as well as its conviction that the best place for a child is with a married mother and father, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to end their foster care and adoption programs. In the two decades before it ended those services, the organization had helped approximately 720 children to find permanent adoptive homes.[31]

D.C. Catholic Charities, District of Columbia. In 2010, the District of Columbia passed a law redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.[32] The redefinition of marriage, coupled with the District’s sexual orientation policy, would have required Catholic Charities’ foster care and adoption services to place children with same-sex couples.[33]

Despite requests by the Archdiocese of Washington that it protect private organizations’ moral and religious beliefs, the D.C. government refused to grant an exemption. Because it would not violate its beliefs—the faith that had guided more than 80 years of service in the District—Catholic Charities was forced to transfer its foster care and adoption program to other providers.[34]

Evangelical Child and Family Agency, Illinois. For decades, the Evangelical Child and Family Agency (ECFA) had contracted with Illinois to provide foster care services. In 2011, however, a new state civil union law,[35] coupled with an existing sexual orientation policy, effectively forced private agencies to license unmarried, cohabitating couples—including same-sex couples—as foster care parents in order to keep state contracts.

Because ECFA was convinced that children should have the unique benefits provided by a married mother and a father, the state would not renew its foster care contract.[36] As a result, ECFA was forced to transfer the cases of the foster children it served to different agencies and end the foster care program that had connected children with permanent families.

Pushing out faith-based foster care and adoption providers comes at a very high cost; these organizations provide real—and unique—services. “One of our main things we were looking for in an agency was one that shared our religious and faith beliefs,” explains John Shultz, who with his wife Tammy adopted four foster care children through ECFA. Without the support of ECFA, “I don’t think I could’ve weathered the storm of the foster care system,” Tammy remarked.[37]

When combined with other private providers in Illinois, including numerous Catholic Charities affiliates,[38] ECFA and other faith-based organizations in the state were forced to stop serving over 2,000 children, transferring their cases to other providers.[39]

American System of Civil Liberties
Part of the genius of the American system of government is its commitment to protecting the liberty and First Amendment freedoms of all citizens while respecting their equality before the law. The government protects the freedom of citizens to seek the truth about God, to worship according to their conscience, and to live out their convictions in public life. Likewise, citizens are free to form contracts and other associations according to their own values.

While the government must treat everyone equally, private actors are left free to make reasonable judgments and distinctions—including reasonable moral judgments and distinctions—in their economic activities. Legislators should impose substantial burdens on sincere religious beliefs only when the government proves that imposing such a burden is necessary to advance a compelling government interest (and does so by the least intrusive or restrictive means). Not every florist need provide wedding arrangements for every ceremony. Not every photographer need capture every first kiss. Competitive markets can best harmonize a range of values that citizens hold, and there is no need for government to try to force every photographer and every florist to service every marriage-related event.

Those who make decisions based on moral and religious views may well pay a price in the market, perhaps losing customers and qualified employees, but such choices should remain lawful. Freedom of association and freedom of contract are two-way streets. They entail the freedom to choose with whom to associate, and when and on what terms, as well as with whom to contract and for what goods. Governmental mandates that force or prevent association violate these freedoms and should be pursued only for compelling reasons. Americans are free to live as they choose, but no one should demand that government coerce others into celebrating their relationship.

Many of the family businesses cited above understand their professions to be extensions of their faith-life. In this view, being a wedding photographer, for example, means not simply being another business offering services, but utilizing God-given talents to tell the story of a particular couple and their relationship. For them, celebrating a same-sex relationship as a marriage affirms that relationship. It is understandable that some religious believers would not want the government to coerce them into doing that.

The government should not be in the position of determining who is right or wrong about baking cakes or taking photographs of same-sex ceremonies. There is no need to hold the same beliefs as the owners of Sweet Cakes or Elane Photography to recognize that both should have the freedom to run their businesses in accordance with their values—and without fear of reprisal from the government.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.

Well, the coolest part of this cult is how consistently wrong these people are, about everything.

For starters, most people on earth recognize human gender, what it is, its purpose and that Marriage is a Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Secondly, if every human being on Earth beleived to the core of their beings that Marriage was a Walnut... that would in NO WAY alter the self-evident truth... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Cult? These people? People like you make up an ever shrinking minority. I would think you are in the cult.

Isn't it cool how DESPERATE it is to 'believe' that?

Understand Reader, if every human being on EARTH BELIEVED that gender was irrelevant to marriage, that would not erase the essential function of gender to marriage and to civilization.

That there exist a cult which rejects the obvious, tells you everything a reasonable person needs to know about that cult and that is that they're quite mad.

Understand, Homosexuality is a mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

That disorder is a form of delusional sociopathy... which also just happen to be the predominate character traits of the Nazis, the Maoists and the Stalinists. Recall that that group murdered 150 MILLION innocent people in the mid 20th Century.

Such is also the trait common to Islam, who just happens to be the second most lethal human enterprise, behind the Left.

And that's all anyone of reason really need to know about these people. They're fundamentally dishonest, morally bankrupt and have a demonstrated disdain for boundaries.

Meaning that they're a threat to everyone around them.

And you saw that demonstrated just prior to the 14 election, when they were seeking out victims... and attacking innocent people, ruining businesses and lives... and one case turning a little pizza store owner into a millionaire, because the Homo-cult is SO POPULAR, that people all over the world sent them money as a means to protest and contest their merciless brutality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That's what it used to mean...

"IT" meaning Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant ...

Reader, understand that the ideological Left has reduced the words: Racist, Bigot and Ignorant... to what is effectively MEANINGLESS.

The above would-be 'contributor' cannot take the literal meaning of any of those words and apply them to any position which recognizes deviancy as abnormality as bigotry.

It can't take the word racist and apply it literally to any political position of Americans; which is to say Conservatives.

And what can be said about a person claiming ignorance in its opposition, where that same person rejects the otherwise undeniable facts of nature that any 12 year old readily understands.

And truly, what more does one really need to know to understand the devious nature of this cultural malignancy?

 

[sealybobo]

That's what it used to mean...

"IT" meaning Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Not anymore. There's gay marriage now. Did you see my analogy about porn? You can have your straight porn and gays can have their gay porn. All the same benefits. That's the way a secular society rolls

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.

Well, the coolest part of this cult is how consistently wrong these people are, about everything.

For starters, most people on earth recognize human gender, what it is, its purpose and that Marriage is a Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Secondly, if every human being on Earth beleived to the core of their beings that Marriage was a Walnut... that would in NO WAY alter the self-evident truth... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Cult? These people? People like you make up an ever shrinking minority. I would think you are in the cult.

Isn't it cool how DESPERATE it is to 'believe' that?

Understand Reader, if every human being on EARTH BELIEVED that gender was irrelevant to marriage, that would not erase the essential function of gender to marriage and to civilization.

That there exist a cult which rejects the obvious, tells you everything a reasonable person needs to know about that cult and that is that they're quite mad.

Understand, Homosexuality is a mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

That disorder is a form of delusional sociopathy... which also just happen to be the predominate character traits of the Nazis, the Maoists and the Stalinists. Recall that that group murdered 150 MILLION innocent people in the mid 20th Century.

Such is also the trait common to Islam, who just happens to be the second most lethal human enterprise, behind the Left.

And that's all anyone of reason really need to know about these people. They're fundamentally dishonest, morally bankrupt and have a demonstrated disdain for boundaries.

Meaning that they're a threat to everyone around them.

I suppose since there is such a large percentage of cultists who support marriage equality, then we should assume there is a great flood or fire and brimstone soon to follow?

 

[sealybobo]

When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant ...

Reader, understand that the ideological Left has reduced the words: Racist, Bigot and Ignorant... to what is effectively MEANINGLESS.

The above would-be 'contributor' cannot take the literal meaning of any of those words and apply them to any position which recognizes deviancy as abnormality as bigotry.

It can't take the word racist and apply it literally to any political position of Americans; which is to say Conservatives.

And what can be said about a person claiming ignorance in its opposition, where that same person rejects the otherwise undeniable facts of nature that any 12 year old readily understands.

And truly, what more does one really need to know to understand the devious nature of this cultural malignancy?

Don't try to use nature science fact logic on this because really what you're referring to is your ideological religious beliefs and nobody cares what you or your religion says

 

[sealybobo]

When your religion is racist homophobic bigoted ignorant ...

Reader, understand that the ideological Left has reduced the words: Racist, Bigot and Ignorant... to what is effectively MEANINGLESS.

The above would-be 'contributor' cannot take the literal meaning of any of those words and apply them to any position which recognizes deviancy as abnormality as bigotry.

It can't take the word racist and apply it literally to any political position of Americans; which is to say Conservatives.

And what can be said about a person claiming ignorance in its opposition, where that same person rejects the otherwise undeniable facts of nature that any 12 year old readily understands.

And truly, what more does one really need to know to understand the devious nature of this cultural malignancy?

I'm not worried about gays who truly want to get married. I'm worried about straight people who might marry someone just to get their pension and Social Security.

But I guess I know many women who have done this so why should they be allowed and gays cannot?

 

[Moonglow]

The only " self evident truth" is that you are on the fringe.

Well, the coolest part of this cult is how consistently wrong these people are, about everything.

For starters, most people on earth recognize human gender, what it is, its purpose and that Marriage is a Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Secondly, if every human being on Earth beleived to the core of their beings that Marriage was a Walnut... that would in NO WAY alter the self-evident truth... Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Cult? These people? People like you make up an ever shrinking minority. I would think you are in the cult.

Isn't it cool how DESPERATE it is to 'believe' that?

Understand Reader, if every human being on EARTH BELIEVED that gender was irrelevant to marriage, that would not erase the essential function of gender to marriage and to civilization.

That there exist a cult which rejects the obvious, tells you everything a reasonable person needs to know about that cult and that is that they're quite mad.

Understand, Homosexuality is a mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy.

That disorder is a form of delusional sociopathy... which also just happen to be the predominate character traits of the Nazis, the Maoists and the Stalinists. Recall that that group murdered 150 MILLION innocent people in the mid 20th Century.

Such is also the trait common to Islam, who just happens to be the second most lethal human enterprise, behind the Left.

And that's all anyone of reason really need to know about these people. They're fundamentally dishonest, morally bankrupt and have a demonstrated disdain for boundaries.

Meaning that they're a threat to everyone around them.

I suppose since there is such a large percentage of cultists who support marriage equality, then we should assume there is a great flood or fire and brimstone soon to follow?

I did eat hot peppers...

 

[Thunderbird]

Homosexual fanatics ignore the victims of their intolerance. Here's some ugly bigotry directed against religious folk and African Americans:

There has been a string of global clashes between LGBT activists and black Christians -- not only in the U.S., but abroad. African-American Christian Angela McCaskill nearly lost her job at Gallaudet University for signing a petition about gay marriage, even though it wasn't clear that she was signing in protest against it.

Crystal Dixon was an African-American administrator in Toledo who authored a rebuttal against someone who'd accused the University of Toledo of economic discrimination against homosexual couples. Dixon said, "I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman." She went on to clarify the illegitimacy of the economic comparison:

Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.

Dixon's point is particularly important to keep in mind when we consider the case of Edie Windsor, who was the plaintiff in the DOMA case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in late June. Windsor, a white lesbian, sued because her lesbian partner's estate amounted to $3.5 million, as Patrick Deneen has pointed out. Not content with this gargantuan estate, Windsor won her legal case and is now set to receive $360,000 more.

Crystal Dixon was fired from her job; she sued and lost her case.

Julea Ward was a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University. She asked to refer a client to a different counselor, based on the fact that her religious beliefs disallowed her from affirming an unchaste homosexual relationship. As Jeremy Tedesco points out:

Her objection is to providing counseling on certain topics, not to counseling any particular group.

So the claim that Julea refused to see clients who identified as gay is patently false.

The actual facts are that Julea faced a values conflict when a potential client sought counseling about a homosexual relationship. Recognizing the likely values conflict with the client, she asked her professor whether she should refer him before any meeting took place and was instructed to do so. But the University charged Julea with "imposing values" on the potential client, and disobeying ethical rules that apply to counselors. It then expelled her from the program, even though she was a stellar student who was carrying a 3.91 GPA.

She won her case, but only after fighting tooth and nail.

 

[Agit8r]

Same sex marriage

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Except in the Bible, where David had many wives, but was still Yahweh's favorite weepy twink.

 

[Moonglow]

Same sex marriage

Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Except in the Bible, where David had many wives, but was still Yahweh's favorite weepy twink.

He even managed to bed a few that were not his wife....

 

[G.T.]

The bigotted butthurt continues.
Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50

 

[Moonglow]

The bigotted butthurt continues.
Meanwhile, gay marriage legal in all 50

Well look how long they had their whey...