National Organization for Marriage claims that gay marriage will take away the freedom of heterosexuals and that the government punishes churches that does not support gay marriage in their "Gathering Storm" TV Advertisement.

Both of these claims are lies with no supported evidence.

You can help refute and spread the truth by educating your family, friends, classmates, co-workers, etc. about the importance of giving GLBT members equal rights and protection, and how many anti-GLBT organizations are spreading lies to manipulate their minds.

You can watch the advertisement at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/NationForMarriage


PS: Thanks to No on Proposition 8 for the news.

My friend emailed this to me & I wanted to share it with all of you on here. Please try to keep your comments nice & not straight out rude or bashing of gays or non-gays.

Here is the video

A BIG GAY STORM IS COMING, GUISE.

lol. Did anyone else see the Colbert Report segment on the ad a few days ago?

He made his own version and it was pretty awesome. ;-D

I did not! Where can I watch it?

To see Stephen's segment on the ad, go here.

I love that Comedy Central has everything online :)

Thanks for the link. I always forget that you can watch most of his stuff online. I really need to get cable again. Le sigh.

As hilarious as Colbert is (and I enjoy much of what he says), legalizing gay marriage truly does threaten the rights of certain professional individuals and churches. I'm not sure how the government would legalize gay marriage AND protect the rights of everyone, including those who support traditional marriage. For this reason, I think the most fair solution would be to remove marriage from our legal system entirely.

What do you mean by the professional individuls part? Just curious.
Christian churches have the right to their beliefs, and I don't think they should be expected to marry everyone. They have the right to be selective in that sense, because churches are independent institutions, not run by our government. At least, their rights should be upheld in that matter.

I guess in a bad analogy, I see it as being like private schools are. They don't have to accept people they don't want to.

Specifically marriage-related, I know someone who is a marriage counselor who would absolutely never provide premarital counseling for a homosexual couple. Would she be sued for breaking the law? I hope not. In a broader sense, many feel that normalizing gay marriage would mean that doctors, lawyers, etc., would also need to be more open-minded to issues like in-vitro fertilization or homosexual divorce, to name a few. I think the issue has a lot of "gray area" potential that would lead to a LOT of court proceedings.

I think we agree about the church issue. If the government could realistically make such a separation possible, then I'd have no problem with allowing gay marriage in this country.

Very few doctors are involved with IVF so really these are rather minute point. Particularly as IVF is already being used to allow single women to have babies. If a single woman is allowed to have a child alone by IVF and sperm donation, why shouldn't a women who is a relationship with another woman? IVF doctors are already dealing with this issues, so this law will not have a huge impact on them. And I don't see why Christian lawyers hould have any more issue with gay divorce than with straight divorce. And there's many alternative areas of law which they could work in if they DO have issues with divorce.

I do agree on the other point though. I don't think the church should be forced to marry anyone if they don't want to, and I very much doubt that will be the result of this. My understanding is that the church will always retain their right to choose who they marry, regardless of this bill.

Apologies for the typos. I'm on a study break and a bit distracted!

I think we agree about the church issue. If the government could realistically make such a separation possible, then I'd have no problem with allowing gay marriage in this country.

A more important question is this: why is civil government involved in marriage in the first place? Legalizing same-sex "marriage" is completely unnecessary as all of the aforementioned legal benefits can be obtained via a general freedom of contract.

I think you forget the legal aspects of marriage, namely benefits such as health insurance, life insurance, shared accounts, etc. Were it solely up to the individual to recognize such contracts (and not acknowledged by the government), it would create a legal fallout when determining who is the benefactor when different occasions arise.

Someone mentioned that individual companies are forced to compromise their beliefs under the "Equal Opportunity Act" (which I find abhorrent), however, if companies no longer have to deal with government-backed marriages, they can refuse to acknowledge the marriage of an individual whom they disagree with on a religious basis, and thus refuse to cover their spouse with health benefits. Isn't this also possible with a total "hands-off" approach?

I think you forget the legal aspects of marriage, namely benefits such as health insurance, life insurance, shared accounts, etc.

I didn't forget those aspects at all. In fact, I said before that all of those issues can be dealt with via a general right of contract. We do this every day in the form of a power of attorney, will, etc. Why would this be any different?

...however, if companies no longer have to deal with government-backed marriages, they can refuse to acknowledge the marriage of an individual whom they disagree with on a religious basis, and thus refuse to cover their spouse with health benefits. Isn't this also possible with a total "hands-off" approach?

Absolutely. That's the price of living in a free society with market-based economics. Civil government doesn't exist to guarantee me a job or ensure that I have benefits. And it certainly doesn't exist to micromanage businesses to fit whatever the cultural consensus happens to be. In our market-based system, I can leave a business if I believe they are treating me unfairly.

Similarly, if a store owner refuses to do business with me because I'm a Christian, then I have the option of shopping elsewhere. He certainly has every right to refuse me service, but he's also going to pay a price for that stance in the form of lost profits.

This is why the "civil rights" movement was a complete failure. When the Federal government came in to force businesses to serve blacks, this only created further resentment and didn't solve the underlying problem of racism. Why? Because that's a problem which civil government is incapable of solving. They thought they could be cultural engineers, but it blew up in their faces when forced-busing became a complete flop. Government cannot bind the conscience or solve problems of the heart.

Yet these "right of contract" do indeed require the government to be involved, lest an insurance company decides that the only marriages it will acknowledge and thus cover are one particular, or choose to reject claims based on a marriage they decide is not binding. This "right of contract" still would require the government meddling you are so ready to be rid of (although I admit the idea of a least-governing government does appeal to me.) The price you describe of living in a free capitalism can simply reject the general right of contract on any level, at any time, so these legal aspects fail short of government meddling. It's a double-edged sword, so to speak, as one can either have the government sanction and uphold marriage as a legally binding institution, or marriages can be private, and thus, ignored at will by anyone, whether a person, corporation, or even government.

But on a more basic level -- do you really believe that such a hands-off approach would work, given the current state of super-government big-brother America? I very much doubt America can return to its intended state as proposed by the forefathers -- a libertarian society.

Yet these "right of contract" do indeed require the government to be involved, lest an insurance company decides that the only marriages it will acknowledge and thus cover are one particular, or choose to reject claims based on a marriage they decide is not binding. This "right of contract" still would require the government meddling you are so ready to be rid of (although I admit the idea of a least-governing government does appeal to me.)

How much more government meddling would there be than there is with contracts right now? You speak as though there would be direct involvement by magistrates at every level. That's not the case at all. I'm speaking of contracts which already exist and are practiced right now. What would be different? The only significant involvement we have by magistrates is when a contract is breached and the parties involved go the court.

The price you describe of living in a free capitalism can simply reject the general right of contract on any level, at any time, so these legal aspects fail short of government meddling.

Who is talking about rejecting legallly-binding contracts? I don't understand what you're saying here. Please clarify.

It's a double-edged sword, so to speak, as one can either have the government sanction and uphold marriage as a legally binding institution, or marriages can be private, and thus, ignored at will by anyone, whether a person, corporation, or even government.

This is an interesting statement because I would effectively ignore same-sex "marriage," legal or not. In fact, I consider "homosexual marriage" to be an oxymoron. Thus, if we remove civil government from the marriage business, then it simply becomes any other set of contractual agreements and the sexual aspect of it is done away with entirely.

But on a more basic level -- do you really believe that such a hands-off approach would work, given the current state of super-government big-brother America? I very much doubt America can return to its intended state as proposed by the forefathers -- a libertarian society.

I would never call myself a libertarian; I'm a paleoconservative. I have a producerist/distributionist bent economically. I'm socially conservative, but I don't like the statist tactics of the "Christian Right." I favor traditional nationalism (not ideological nationalism like the neocons), limited government, federalism, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution.

Will America ever return to the limited, retrained type of government that was indictative of the Republic established by our founders? I'm not brazen enough to answer that question. I honestly don't know. However, I do know that the American Empire is unsustainable and will eventually come crashing down. An inflationary monetary policy coupled with imperial overreach abroad and reckless government growth at home will not last for very long. It will collapse under its own weight.

You're blowing smoke, and stinks.

The civil rights movement was a full success. Sometime brilliant people have to pass laws to get the ignorant to catch up.

typical market worshipper, clueless on how things work. We tried leaving it up to the businesses to treat people fairly, with fair wages, it didnt work out. people get desperate and will work at a job, despite it being completely unfair, they dont have the choice to find another one, especially when left up to the capitalist twisted views of success being only measured by how much one can hoard )money resources) in a world of abundance.

Let me clue you in on globalism.

How do you get control of a foreign bank? you give them your money. (fiat debt) and you do that by giving aide, buying foreign products in unbalanced trade agreements. what do you think foreign central exchange banks can get for all this IOUs? They only can get more paper debt in teh form on US bonds and treasury notes, or on some case they get dumped some bad loans.

Look man, fair trade is a must, it puts a mighty dent in the financial globalism that ties all banks together.

The civil rights movement was a full success.

Forced busing was a full success? Really? The "civil rights" movement was a failure for the most part, gave us a bloated Federal government, and never addressed the root causes of racism (because civil government cannot).

typical market worshipper, clueless on how things work. We tried leaving it up to the businesses to treat people fairly, with fair wages, it didnt work out.

Yeah, we also tried wage controls and price controls and both were a complete failure. The Puritans tried all kinds of government interventions into the market in 17th century New England. All failed. Jimmy Carter tried the same thing in the '70s. Also failed.

And I don't worship the market. Anyone who has actually read my writings on economics knows that I'm not a laissez-faire libertarian. I definitely don't support free trade agreements and the plethora of globalist initiatives.

forced busing was a success. I happen to live in a town that had forced busing, i was bussed myself. bec our town was segregated, now our town isn't segregated, bec kids will get along despite being a different color. force busing was a full success.

I highly recommend you read the works of Tim Wise:
(he destroys your libertarian capitalist greedy racist crap of nonsense)
read and learn:
Racism, Free Markets, and Libertarian Deceit
The problem of whiteness as property
by Tim Wise


I know how Austrian economics works. It's globalism.
It ties all central banks together.

You can talk about your opinion of a free socighty all day long. You have no viable solution on how to get there. I just told you how. dont ignore it.

vote.org

wake up!

Oh, you're that Tommy guy. Okay, now I know enough that I ought to ignore everything you say. Good to know.

And by the way, I'm not an adherent of Austrian economics.

It doesnt matter who I am. what matters is what I say.
forget the messenger, but dont be foolish and ignore the msg.

In order to have a "free society" the society must have a voice that counts.
Representative government is broken.
Mike Gravel has written up the legislation that is the first step in being a truly free society. A true democracy, with National Initiatives.
vote.org

spread the word, we have a solution

And as far as economics go. You're pro free trade, but not the special interest groups fake free trade. Me to. However, unless you include, with sound money, all trade must be fair and balanced, completely equal. It does not work. Bec if you dont have balanced trading, then at the end of the yr, and by the way the US owes 4 trillion to foreign central banks now, with an additional 1 trillion more to be added on annually, what this does, and the US is very expletive, bec she buys foreign resources, and labor, for a paper debt. ...and what it does is all these countries that do business with us, like China for exmp: they get stuck with all this paper debt (US dollars, bonds n treasury notes) it ties all banks and economies together, and not in a good way. In return china get the techknowlgy via putting our companies over their with their slave lobar. bec some people dont get it, and think if you dont like your job you can just go get another one. the people have no choice, so smarter people that understand equality have to step in and regulate the greedy business men.


I get my information an economics from Micheal Hudson btw
look him up!

and of course you wont bother reading Time Wise, based on you dont like the person that offered the link, real smart!

They have the right to be selective in that sense, because churches are independent institutions, not run by our government. At least, their rights should be upheld in that matter.

Private business establishments are independent institutions as well, yet they would be subject to state and Federal laws, respectively, requiring them to compromise their beliefs as employees in the name of "equality." The example Christina gave of the professional marriage counselor is a case in point.

In a free society, we don't have to worry about civil government telling us to do business with this group or that. Freedom of association is something we used to have. Unfortunately, we don't live in a free society anymore. Thanks to the "civil rights" mentality within our legal system, the state can intrude at the drop of a hat into the affairs of private establishments. Hence, the homosexuals were suing the Boy Scouts in order to force said organization to accept them as members.

I promise you that you yourself do not want a "free society"

We have a Republic here in the US. and what is a republic? It;s trusting only politicians to make all decisions for you, which isn't working out so great! Lobbyist buyout anyone. and even if you find an honestly politician that cant be bought, their one in a sea of sharks, and get no where.

The way out of the mess we're in is with a true democracy, a direct democracy, done with National Initiatives.
We the people must have the power to make laws, the central part of government. All inciatives must be deemed as constitutional by the supreme court, what that does in nullify any ridiculous cliams of mob rule. meaning abortion, same sex marriage, etc is still up the the supreme court. But on other issues, like war, trade agreements, etc etc we the people must have a venue that counts. Think of it as a third party system, and the third party is us, the we the people.

go to vote.org to learn more.

then come back here and shoot it all down, and tell us all how the same road we're on (the republic of only trusting politicians, and giving all your power to them with your vote, vs voting on teh issues yourself) is so perfect, and real change is bad

Actually many churches and pastors have been complaining that the new hate crimes law even puts their preaching at odds with the law and they could be arrested. I am sure that when and if marriage is legalized everywhere it will only be a matter of time before some civil rights group tries to sue a church saying that they were discriminated against because the church wouldn't marry them. Will it fly. I don't know, but I am sure it will be tried by the more militant groups for gay rights.

Agreed...but then who would the secular go to if they want to get married?