Fox News' Greg Gutfeld has a very amusing idea, which he explained to Glenn Beck the other day. The proposed "ground zero" mosque in New York City, The Cordoba House, is supposedly being built in order to build bridges and foster tolerance according to one imam.
With that being the case, Mr. Gutfeld has proposed opening a Muslim-friendly gay bar next to the mosque in order that they may also lead by example with their tolerance. He tried to get a hold of the people in charge of the Cordoba House Mosque and was finally able to get a response via Twitter regarding his proposed plan. They tweeted Mr. Gutfeld saying, "You're free to open whatever you like. If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialogue." Irony at its best! See the video. It is hilarious!
6 comments:
Splash, I don't think that most conservatives necessarily have "issues" with gays until the miltant gay activists want to misappropriate the sacrament of "marriage" as part of their agenda.
Folks can live and let live, and indeed should do so, but when someone want extra-constitutional rights that is where I draw the line.
Gay couples, in my opinion, should have the right to civil unions with all of the same rights entitled to married couples. However, they should not be able to cloak their union in the biblical terms of a sacred sacrament in order to give it the appearance of propriety.
Still sounds bigoted to me, Paine. Rights are rights, and we are all supposed to be equal under the law. Religion is not an issue here as it is the state that issues a marriage license. If a church or synagogue or mosque doesn't want to allow the ceremonies in their facilities, that is their right. But the state should not be allowed the same "license" to discriminate.
Rights are not supposed to be up for debate or a vote. They are rights, and gays are being treated as less than equal under the law. What is "extra constitutional" about equal protection?
I think this quote from Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover sums up the issue, for me, very nicely. "Conservatives cannot deny that our Founders intended the judiciary as an equal and independent branch of government purposed to ensure the protection of every citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental constitutional right.
When an unpopular minority is denied the right to marry, it is indeed the role of the courts to protect the rights of that minority, especially when a majority would deny them. This is why Judge Walker’s opinion reads, “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Not to mention that conservatives have a flawed history with civil rights, a trend that began when Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional. While Goldwater was no racist there is clearly a conservative precedent for a breakdown at the intersection of ideology and reality,"
Frankly, I don't see why government should have any say in who can marry. The fact that one has to get a license from the government to begin with is a sign of control of our natural rights that the government should not have.
That being said, if a gay couple wishes to "marry", I am fine with it. Just do not call it marriage.
Lastly, there have been and will continue to be law suits brought against churches that have refused to marry gay couples.
If gay "marriage" were to become the law of the land, then under the equal protection clause, I could see where churches could be governmentally forced to conduct gay weddings against their will, or lose their tax exempt status etc. accordingly. That is the slippery slope towards which the militant gay population is trying to push this issue.
Wanting the same rights as every other American can hardly be called militant.
I agree, and gay couples should have the same rights, except for the misappropriation of the term "marriage". What is so difficult or wrong with that, sir?
Post a Comment