Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Fight for Marriage Continues in California

Homosexuals are often stereotyped as being weak and limp-wristed, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Homosexual activists are proving over and over that they are strong, determined, and will stop at nothing to win--even fighting dirty.

Californians passed a law in 2000 which defined in law what people have understood by common sense for thousands of years: that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not content that the people had spoken, homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" fought back in the courts where they have more powerful friends on their side. In May 2008, a group of those "useful idiots" in black robes (aka the California Supreme Court) gave the one-finger salute to the people of California and manufactured a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage."

When this happened, already in motion was an effort to put a marriage protection amendment on California's November ballot. Supporters of the measure wrapped up their campaign and got the measure on the ballot.

Homosexual activists then sued to have the ballot thrown out. In a moment of temporary sanity, the California Supreme Court rejected this attempt to once again derail the will of the people.

The latest Dark Lord of the Sith to attack marriage is California Attorney General Jerry Brown who, according to the LA Times, rewrote the amendment to paint it in the most negative possible light.

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

The measure would remove no "right" because they have no right to call a homosexual union "marriage," just as I have no "right" to call my laptop my spouse.

Judges cannot create law, and the law still says marriage is between a man and a woman.

Brown's rewrite also states that California would lose tens of millions of dollars in revenue, further attempting to scare people who would normally support the measure into voting against it.

This tactic of scaring heterosexuals worked well for homosexuals in 2006; while the South Dakota marriage amendment passed, it did so with lower-than-usual numbers, and a measure in Arizona failed because of the same fear mongering.

Marriage supporter say they'll sue to fight Brown's revisionism.

The fight to preserve marriage isn't going to be easy, anymore. But it's worth it. It is the oldest and single-most important institution to our civilization. We cannot allow it to be hijacked.


Anonymous said...

Marriage is the single-most important institution to our civilization? You mean to say that you value your relationship with your wife more than your relationship with your kids?

Bob Ellis said...

I would have no relationship with my children, were it not for my relationship with my wife; my children would not exist. My children would not have the benefit of a mother in our home without my relationship with my wife.

So yes, marriage is the single-most important institution to our civilization.

Anonymous said...

I would contend that a blood relationship is stronger and more valuable than a civil/ceremonial contract between two people. You can choose your spouse, but you cannot choose your parents or children (save for adoption). Marriage is not essential for the creation and rearing of children, and your kids would still have a mother if you and your wife weren't married. Divorce would not change the relationship you have with your kids, and vice versa.

You seem to equate "relationship" only with "marriage," as if there were no alternative. A family can exist without having gone through the legal and religious rite of marriage. Incidentally, that's why gay people will cohabit and raise children together no matter what federal bans and amendments you throw at us. Things like the legalization of same-sex marriage are not a deal-breaker for many gay couples. You should remember that.

Anonymous said...

Oh Bob, have you had a chance yet to read the story I posted on another thread? I'm just dying to hear what you think. Thanks!


Bob Ellis said...

We've already covered that ground on another thread. You should go back and read it, and stay on topic.

Anonymous said...

Could you please tell me which thread? (And you and I both know you're just as guilty of going off-topic)

Bob Ellis said...

I don't remember which one it was. If my previous answer to this issue meant so little that you don't remember it, there's no sense in me wasting my time a second time around.

Anonymous said...

I posted the link to that story on 7/26, so now you have a place to start looking. I'll save you some time though: you don't remember in which thread you "covered this ground" because you never addressed it at all. But even if you had, doesn't the fact that YOU don't remember it say something about how little you care about your own responses to commenters like me? I'm just saying is all...

If you prefer to stay on topic, maybe you could answer me in a private email; I'd be happy to give you my address. All I want to know is how you feel about the article I posted and why this site doesn't write stories about anti-gay violence, especially the kind committed by Christians and other religious believers -- trust me, there are many, many stories out there. I doubt it's because CNN and other outlets already report them, because many Christian sites do too, as a way to spread Christ's love by seeking out violent acts and condemning them, regardless of how they view the victims.

Thanks again,

Bob Ellis said...

And I've explained it before. I get really tired of saying the same thing over and over to the same person who simply doesn't want to accept the truth, so I won't anymore.

You seem to have an extreme fascination with Dakota Voice, so I would think that fascination would lend enough energy for you to remember what I said on the topic you keep asking about.

If you don't care enough to remember when I've answered your question, I suppose you're entitled to that sentiment, but I'm not going to waste my time anymore saying the same thing over and over. The truth doesn't change with the calendar, as much as you'd like it to, so you won't get a different answer.

Anonymous said...


Here is the thread I'm talking about:http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/07/pennsylvania-supreme-court-overturns.html

I can't remember what you said in response to my post, because as you can see, you never wrote anything. How can I remember something that doesn't exist? How can I expect to get a different answer from you when I haven't even gotten a first one?

I cited the CNN story to get your opinion. So far you've ignored it, and when I repeatedly ask you to address it, even offering you the chance to email me privately, you claim that you've already explained it "over and over." This is a lie, because my comment on 7/26 is the first time I've ever tried to engage you in the topic of anti-gay violence.

What fascinates me about this site is that you constantly write about how gay people ruin and destroy everything you care about, yet when someone asks your opinion about how gay people are victimized, your true colors finally come out. You could have said, "Your question is off-topic, but send me a private message and I'd be happy to explain what I think of this story and why we don't write about religiously motivated anti-gay violence." But instead, you accuse me of forgetting about a response that you never wrote.

I think I know the reason why you choose not to write about anti-gay violence: it's not in your best interest to view us as people. There truly is no compassion in that cold, bigoted heart of yours for homosexuals.

God bless

Bob Ellis said...

Right, Alex. Keep telling yourself that if it's more comfortable than dealing with the truth.

You're either still failing to remember my answer to this question, or don't want to acknowledge it.

Anonymous said...

I SHOWED you the thread I'm talking about. Two posts from me, nothing from you. It's not even a matter of remembering what you might have said, because if your response were there, I wouldn't have to remember -- I could just go to the thread and look.

I'm honestly not trying to cause trouble here. If I knew where/what your answer to my question was, I would have acknowledged it already and I wouldn't be hounding you like this. Maybe you could at least have the decency to show me the thread you're thinking of, as I've done for you. I hope a simple cut-and-paste doesn't qualify as spoon-feeding your readers with information.

Bob Ellis said...

As I said before, I don't remember which thread it was on. So many have fascinated you that I have no idea which one I answered it on.

But I do remember answering it in some detail, and can remember several parts of my answer with great clarity.

Surely with your fascination with Dakota Voice and burning desire to get an answer to this question, a diligent search of the blog will definitely turn it up.

Anonymous said...

Ok let's look at this from the beginning.

On 7/26, I posted a link to a CNN story about an Iraqi man who was raped for 15 days because he is gay.


In that first post, I wanted to know three things: what you thought about the story, why Dakota Voice hasn't reported it, and why Dakota Voice doesn't actively condemn acts of anti-gay violence.

Three days later, I posted again on the same thread to say that at that point, my comment had been ignored.

Today, I posted on this thread and reminded you of my questions, at which point you said you'd already addressed them on another thread.

The logical place to answer someone's question is on the same thread where it was asked, but strangely I don't see any response from you on the original thread. I can't think of any reason why you'd answer my three questions on any thread but the one in which they were asked, and I'll assume for the moment that you're telling the truth about having written a response. So maybe it just didn't make it online when you tried posting it, like a glitch or something.

That, or you just never responded at all. I'm starting to think it's the latter, because why would you go through all this trouble to tell me that you'd responded, when you could easily restate your answers and end this right now?

Bob Ellis said...

The answer is out there and I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm tired of doing that, so you can quit asking and just go look for it if you want to know so bad.

Anonymous said...

On July 26 I posted the CNN link and my three questions onto an article you'd written on July 25 ("Pennsylvania Supreme Court..."). Since that day, you have posted eight stories, none of which contain your elusive answers that you swear are out there somewhere and conveniently refuse to re-post, even though you had a one in eight chance of finding them had they existed and can "remember several parts with great clarity." The only thread after July 26 that mentions the CNN story and my questions is the thread you're reading right now ("Fight for Marriage Continues in California," Jul. 29), and obviously your answers are AWOL here as well.

I did find an article from July 17, entitled "Christian Counselor Fired for Religious Values" (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/07/christian-counselor-fired-for-religious.html), where we talked about how Christians like yourself use the Bible to justify hostility as a means to acquire justice, as in the war on terror. This is the closest thing I could find that REMOTELY relates to what I was talking about on July 26 (anti-gay violence), but it doesn't mention either the CNN story, your opinion of it, or why you don't write about anti-gay violence. I have a hunch that this is because I hadn't yet posted the link or my questions. I know God can empower you to do many things, but I doubt time travel is one of them. Anyway, maybe that's the thread you're thinking of.

So there's your proof. One week after posting my questions, eight articles later, and no answers. So I'll ask again, and you can answer for the first time:

What is your opinion of the CNN story about the Iraqi man who was raped continuously for 15 days because he is gay?

Why hasn't Dakota Voice reported the story?

Why doesn't Dakota Voice actively condemn anti-gay violence?

Oh, and keep two things in mind: if you still consider this off-topic, you can always ask for my email, and if you don't want to answer, then grow a pair and say you don't want to answer. No need for the lengthy and embarrassing defense of how you are sure you've answered already and can remember your response in great detail...despite not remembering when you wrote it... or on which thread... on your own blog.

Anonymous said...

I guess it's unwise for the editor of a Christian blog to admit that he lied to one of his readers, so I'll drop it. I'm sure your audience can put the pieces together.

Although, if I come back with an entirely different story of anti-gay violence, I wonder if you'll use the same excuse.

Bob Ellis said...

You'll get the same response, because you already know the answer, I've already given you an answer, and you continue to be antagonistic.

You repeatedly demonstrate that you have zero interest in the truth, so I've had enough of wasting pearls.

Anonymous said...

And as I keep saying, this "answer" you've supposedly given me is nowhere to be found.

Clicky Web Analytics