Naomi Bar-Lev on the Race for the 76th Assembly District

Guest Column Guest Column 51 Comments

Share

Guest Column

by Naomi Bar-Lev

Recently, the San Diego Union Tribune posed four questions to the 76th assembly district Republican candidates (view them here).

One of the questions that was asked, Should Proposition 8 be overturned to again allow gays and lesbians in California to marry? My answer: I am for civil unions. The rights of adults to choose with whom they want to live happily ever after is very important to me.

Prop 8 was a necessary step to protect religious institutions from discrimination and from costly litigation by groups such as the ACLU. The costly and damaging assaults on the Boy Scouts could have come to a church or synagogue near you. This was more a preventative measure against the potential of religious persecution.

Most importantly Prop 8 was a vote by the people. Judges should be real careful in writing law from the bench to support their own personal views and overturning the will of the people. We have all seen the cost and damage of overturning Proposition 187. The cost to our state due to overturning this proposition rivals the deficit. One can’t predict the damage overturning Proposition 8 would do to our places of worship and the new burdens on our courts.

Ralph Denney, a Log Cabin Republican and the group’s president, whose stated agenda is to overturn Prop 8, answers the following:

“Actually, I would prefer that Government get out of the marriage business entirely. But until then…

“Certainly we must protect the rights of the various religious institutions to define traditional marriage according to their respective tenets and beliefs. On the other hand, it’s in the best interest of society to encourage two people to accept responsibility for each other, to care for one another. Together to build a secure future for each other so that neither will become dependent on society for their welfare and care. Currently that can best be done under a Civil Marriage Contract.

“Most people don’t understand that without such a contract, a person cannot even deduct from his or her Federal taxes the medical expenses of their partner. If they obtain health insurance through their employer for their spouse without a civil marriage contract, the value of that insurance becomes taxable income to them, in too many cases, depriving them the ability to save or accept responsibility for their loved one. For these and many more reasons, I opposed Prop 8.

“Traditional marriage needs to be protected, but I would also hope the people of California will soon understand the difference between that and civil marriage, and by a vote of the people, allow all responsible couples the same responsibilities and limited benefits of Civil Marriage Equality.”

Now to Thomas Warschauer’s answer:

“I was personally not in favor of Proposition Eight. I would work to see it overturned at the polls. However, I have great respect for the ballot of the people. I am opposed to judicial or legislative interference. Personally, I would prefer full rights for marital partners without the term “marriage.” However it is clear that is impossible under federal law. So the only way to gain equal rights for the gay and lesbian community is to permit actual marriage. I believe there was much misinformation about Proposition Eight during the election. (Promoting homosexuality in public schools, for example). I believe Californians will overturn Proposition Eight within a few years.”

In light of the answers to the questionnaire put out by the Union Tribune I am more conservative than my opponents. People tell me I am straight-talking, and soft-spoken in a way that will appeal to Democrats and Independents. The Republican party should support someone who can sustain being unabashedly conservative while appealing to all voters. I believe I am that person. I will speak about the economy in the general election and especially how to bring back business which will appeal to all voters. I have experience running a business in this state for 20 years. Denney, a perennial candidate, is listed as a business owner this election cycle, but listed himself as a manager in the previous cycle. Warschauer’s experience is in the academic world. As such he is a candidate who benefits from one of the state’s biggest looming problems, the state pension plan.

Please vote for me, Naomi Bar-Lev, on Tuesday.

Share

Comments 51

  1. Naomi, a couple of things…

    You called Ralph Denney a “perennial candidate” yet, you yourself have been running for various offices dating back to, at least, 1998. That includes runs for Central Committee, Congress, Community College Board, and now Assembly.

    Also, you say that you’re for civil unions yet you’re against Prop 8. That may fly in a republican primary but in AD 76 that won’t get you many cross-over votes in the General Election against Toni Atkins. You may counter by saying that Prop 8 did pass statewide — and you’d be right. It did. However, it failed by nearly a 2-1 margin in AD 76.

    On that issue, I don’t think you can have your Kosher cake and eat it too.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure you’re a fantastic woman with a bright future, but you need to do better at fact-checking. Also, Ralph Denney is not the President of LCR. I believe that position is currently held by Ray Bell.

  2. Ah, Naomi… haven’t you yet learned not checking your facts will only come back to bite you?

    I am not now nor have I ever been the President of Log Cabin Republicans… neither local, state, nor national…

    I am a member of LCR-SD, as I am a current or former member of the California Congress of Republicans, Clairemont Republican Women Federated, Pt. Loma Peninsula RWF, the SD Republican Century Club, and other Republican organizations.

    I do understand you are a single issue candidate for tomorrow’s primary – Prop 8 – but I’m not really sure what issue you’re taking with me, since we both seem to prefer government to stay out of the marriage business, and where you quoted me I clearly said I do respect traditional marriage as a religious institution and will defend the right of those institutions to define marriage according to their beliefs. I have always opposed any attempt to force any institution of faith to recognize any marriage which is in violation of its tenets. Also, this issue has already been decided by a vote of the people… and short of another vote of the people overturning it, it’s not likely to come up again soon… or is it the ‘vote of the people’ you take issue with?

    No Naomi, tomorrow’s election should be about whom best represents true fiscal, political, and governmental conservatism; and can defeat Toni Atkins in November. And that clearly is Ralph Denney…

    In your article, you have again referred to me as ‘the perennial candidate’, yet you don’t mention the number of times you’ve run for office – and unlike me, all different offices. Even for this election, you pulled and submitted papers not only for Assembly, but also for the college district. Covering your bets?

    Yes, I have run for the Assembly twice before…

    Six years ago, I sat down with a few of my friends because of the direction our Great State was heading. We thought then I was best qualified to offer change and common sense. We also drew up a plan wherein I would essentially be running for this year, where the 76th would be an open seat, most likely with Toni Atkins as my opponent. I have ran consistently on a fiscally and politically conservative platform so that people will know where I stand on the issues. I have over the last six years offered real world, common sense solutions to the problems facing our state. I have built my reputation and am prepared to now stand against the most bankrupt and fiscally irresponsible politician in San Diego’s history – Toni Atkins. Which is why the San Diego Tea Party and the California Republican Veterans have endorsed me.

    And your platform, Naomi? That Ralph Denney is President of Log Cabin (which I’m not) and that I’m opposed to Prop 8 (which is now a decided issue).

    Naomi, instead of attacking me with misinformation and irrelevant info, join with me to ensure Toni Atkins never sees the inside of the Capitol Building without a guest pass. Regardless of who wins tomorrow, join with me to support the REPUBLICAN candidate, whether it be you, Thomas, or me.

    On June 9th, I will support the Republican winner… will you?

    Ralph Denney
    Ralph@VoteRalph.org

  3. Re “Logic”

    I see you are referring to her Central Committee race 10 years ago.

    On the other hand Ralph Denney is in his 4th race now. I think Naomi is accurate in saying that he is a perpetual candidate. As a result of this, Ralph often wins the primary, he then has voting rights at the state GOP.

    That is a ploy “Log Cabin Republicans” use to try to change the party platform. In the past this group has made it very clear their goal is “to change the GOP from the inside”. These types of candidates often run in heavily Democrat districts. They try to sound Conservative and generally avoid talking about social issues. This is nothing more than an infiltration tactic.

    Candidate, California Assembly, District 76, 2010
    Candidate, California Assembly, District 76, 2008
    Candidate, California State Assembly, District 76, 2006
    Candidate, California State Senate, District 39, 2004

    Based on conversations I have had with Ralph Denney, in my opinion I would describe he fits into a category as a Radical Leftist disguised as a “Common sense” candidate for the GOP, because his primary agenda is “gay marriage” and to change the GOP platform to include it. That position alone puts him in this category. Unlike Ralph, Naomi adheres to the entire GOP Platform.

    He has learned the anti-illegal immigration, ant- Tax issue, pro military, pro gun issues quite well to pass as a conservative and gain support for his hidden agenda. Ralph Denney avoids discussing his true agenda. He has no chance of winning the final election. Isn’t it time for the “Log Cabin Republicans” to move on. You will never change the GOP! Not even “from the inside”.

  4. Mr. Porrello, to hear you talk about Ralph makes him seem like a trouble-maker. To my knowledge, over the past 4 years since he has been a member of the Central Committee, I don’t recall a time where Ralph Denney has made a public spectacle of himself by accusing party leaders of wrong-doing, or trying to “change the party” from within.

    In fact, I seem to believe that Ralph has consistently been a team player for the local party. Perhaps the reason you don’t support him is because he won’t vote with you to remove Tony as party chairman. If that’s not the case, then perhaps you don’t like him because he’s gay, in which case, that would make you a bigot.

    But, I’m not sure. You seem to have such a grasp of the 76th assembly district. Remind me, which district are you elected to represent on the committee again?

  5. HMMMMM…..Someone seems rather defensive about something that never happened……..Mr BlackBerry this is about a Republican candidate who misrepresents his real agenda. The facts about this guy speak for themselves.

  6. Anthony, anytime I’ve ever heard Denney speak before a Women’s Federated group, or any other GOP organization it’s always been antagonistic towards the Democrats. You say Ralph has a “hidden agenda” but what verifiable evidence do you possess that proves your allegation? That he’s gay? Carl DeMaio is gay. Does that mean you think Carl has a “hidden agenda?” Perhaps Carl is a closeted union fan?

  7. I guess Porrello has given up on defending Jeff Stone. He must have realized that it was a herculean task.

  8. Here is some information in their own words:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20050520222330/online.logcabin.org/talking_points/talking_points_whyitisokaybeingagayGOP.html

    Talking Points: Why It’s Okay Being A Gay Republican

    The radical right’s influence on the GOP can be diminished one voter at a time, by making the case for fairness. That is what motivates the Log Cabin Republicans to lead today’s most important battle for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans.

    2. Defeating the radical right and transforming the GOP will allow gay and lesbian Americans to achieve full equality much sooner-decades sooner. The radical right represents the last obstacle on the path to full equality. Defeat them in the grassroots of the GOP and all of us can enjoy the benefits of liberty much sooner.

    3. The party will change only from the inside. Pressure from the outside, from the far left won’t work. The GOP must be transformed one person at a time, across America on the grassroots level by gay Republicans and their fair-minded allies. Across America, gay Republicans are shattering stereotypes and educating rank-and-file Republicans about the importance of fairness and equality for gay and lesbian Americans. This is the right path to progress.

    5. We are doing important work to the transform the GOP, bringing about the same grassroots change that happened in the Democratic Party over the last three decades. We applaud the gay and lesbian activists who worked so hard to change the Democratic Party-making it more inclusive and tolerant. 25 years ago, had gay and lesbian members left the party, then the Democrats would not be where they are today on issues of equality and fairness. We are now doing similar work in the GOP.

  9. Since when did we start talking about Jeff Stone?

    Umm, isn’t this whole post regarding the 76th Assembly District? Last time I checked, Jeff Stone isn’t running in the 76th. In fact, his Senate District is miles away from the 76th. So, whoever brought him up: stop wasting our time talking about him in the 76th! Some of us can’t (and won’t) vote for him.

  10. Anthony, have you ever seen Ralph Denney bring a PRIDE flag to a Central Committee meeting?

    Of course, why would I expect you to answer that. You won’t because you’ve avoided answering other questions people have brought up against you. Instead, if you wish, please post another non-sequitur. It seems to have no impact on the race.

    Much success on your Central Committee race in a district that isn’t the 76th AD. May you come in 7th of 12 candidates. :-p

  11. @Miss Bar-Lev:

    As Vice President and Operations Director of the Log Cabin Republicans of San Diego I can personally state that while Ralph Denney a sitting member of the LCR-SD he currently does not hold the title as President. Assuming Mr. Porrello’s link is the source of this assumption then I think at the very least it is very unfortunate that you would actually miss the word “former” and then make a claim such as that. I would hope that someone who wishes to represent the 76th district would do more to read through her sources as that same person would be required to read complex legislative bills and language. I do hope that this is not an indication of how you would do that, as that is a poor representation at best. Where Democrats might not read Legislation, you would misread legislation. Outstanding.

    @ Mr. Porrello: This wouldn’t happen to be the same Mr. Porrello that was caught up in that whole internet scandal. Sending pornographic emails and what not. I find it very interesting that some of the most outspoken opponents of LGBT rights happen to be people who have a tendency for sexual misconduct themselves. Especially a representative of an organization that was courting Christian voters. Very disgraceful, very hypocritical.

    Furthermore Mr. Porrello I ask you this question. I served Honorably in the United States Marine Corps I am an Iraq War Veteran and I participated in the defense of the freedom this country provides. So having done so, and then being honorably discharged, do you really believe that you have the moral high ground when you say that you have the right to marry whom you choose but I do not. The simple disqualifying factor being that I am gay. I find it in the highest contempt that someone who dabbles in the perverted and obscene such as you should tell a Veteran who served honorably that he protected the freedoms of this country, for everyone but himself.

    I am in line with Steve Schmidt (former Bush and McCain Aide) on this issue who said this “It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is Un-American or threatens the rights of others, and our great Republican Party should always be on the side of expanding freedom and equal rights.”

    With that said you have to look at the youth and future of this party, I am 22 and these social hangups of the GOP are the reason that they lose with young voters. The future of the party is thinning because people like Miss Bar-Lev and Mr. Porrello decide to not focus on the imminent issues: Economy, Unemployment, National Security (illegal immigration), and taxation and would rather focus on: A. an issue that was of 2008, and B. something that is secondary to the immediate problems that face our community, state and nation.

    So to these two individuals I say this: Get with the truth, Get with Reality, Get with the times, or Get out of the Way!

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Will Rodriguez-Kennedy
    Vice President and Operations Director, LCRSD
    Veteran, United States Marine Corps

  12. @ All: I am sorry that this post is somewhat off topic. Several people in this thread have ignored issues and instead indulged in attacks against me, and I finally feel I have to respond. So, please ignore this post if you aren’t interested in the discussion between Mr. Rodriguez-Kennedy and myself.

    @ Mr. Rodriguez-Kennedy: The “scandal” you refer to was a storm in a tea-cup–and happened several years ago (talk about living in the past!). But here is what happened. I sent a couple of photos of San Francisco’s “World Naked Bikeride”–privately–to someone I thought was a friend–because I find the whole thing ridiculously amusing, especially the photos I sent. The images were not pornographic (that is unless you consider all nudity, regardless of context and how ridiculous it may be, to be pornographic). Note that this event is held in public and covered, albeit with less racy images, in the mainstream media (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37481196). This friend then publicly defamed me for sending him “pornographic” images. By the way, my friend has since apologized for the misunderstanding and we remain reconciled. Consequently, when you talk about me being prone to “sexual misconduct,” you are the one living in a fantasy world, and I can’t help but think that the images in that fantasy come from your own unnatural, sterile sex life. That you bring this issue up makes it clear that you only motivation for writing is character assassination. I wonder why the Vice President and Operations Director of the LCR would stoop to such a thing.

    It’s obvious by how you write, Mr. Rodriguez-Kennedy, that you think you are very clever, but as clever as you may be and as honorable as your military service may have been, I am left to conclude that one thing you haven’t learned along the way is basic logic. Please, I beg you, show me the steps in your reasoning that lead you from, “I served honorably in the military” to, “I have a God given right to redefine the meaning of marriage in a nation founded on Christian values.” I’ll bet you anything that you cannot–because such a line of reasoning does not exist. If you want an alternative, more inclusive definition of marriage, I would suggest that you move to India–where you can even marry your dog (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html). For all I know, you may even be able to marry multiple dogs, gerbils, and even your own hand. India is a great nation and has a powerful economy, and you won’t be distracted by so many pesky social issues there.

    Perhaps you haven’t realized this, but someone can focus on “Economy, Unemployment, National Security (illegal immigration), and taxation” AND social issues. In fact, anyone with a conscience is obligated to do so. Furthermore, the Gay Marriage issue is anything but “2008” or, aka, dead. In January of THIS YEAR, the New York Times ran a story of how ideological opponents are uniting to oppose Prop 8 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/us/11prop8.html). I agree with you that “Economy, Unemployment, National Security (illegal immigration), and taxation” are critical issues. Please do not use them as a red herring to or as part of a misguided either/or argument that attempts to minimize the importance of social issues. For what it’s worth, I too agree with Steve Schmidt: “It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is Un-American or threatens the rights of others….” Unfortunately, un-Americanism and threats to the rights of others are not the issue. The issue is the integrity of the family, which is the thing that ultimately holds a great nation together.

    The last thing I would point out is that your attempt to distract the party from one of the most critical social issues of our time further supports my claim that the LCR has an alternative, non-Republican agenda.

  13. The fact that James Hartline was the one to make a to-do over the supposed “porn” emailed by Porrello — which wasn’t porn at all — should say enough. Glad to see the Log Cabin Club is now working in tangent with Hartline to peddle the same ridiculous garbage. Strange bedfellows.

  14. Anthony, it’s no one’s fault that you feel people are attacking you. That’s your own doing by not responding to basic questions that have been directed to you. Keep in mind, it’s not called “character assassination” when the wounds are self-inflicted.

    I think Mr. Blackberry raised a good point. The real reason you don’t like Ralph Denney is because he either won’t help you remove Tony Krvaric as our party chairperson, or it’s simply because he’s gay.

    BTW, telling off decorated veteran like the commenter above is a real winner. Suggesting to someone — who served honorably in our armed services — that they should move to India and marry their dog is heavily insulting. We just celebrated Memorial Day for God’s sake. The memory of those who have fallen to protect our American freedoms. Is this what you think of our veterans? Individuals who go abroad and fight to protect our freedoms here at home should never be spoken to like that. You make me ashamed to be a republican voter.

  15. @Mr. Porrello: This “Logic” is why you will fail. Marriage, Family, is defined by society. The concept of Marriage itself predates Christianity. Society changes, it adapts, it improvises, it overcomes. Society is changing on this issue, and the youth will be the salvation of the party in this regard. So in effect, I think it is time you retire you backwards thinking and start focusing on the issues of the day. The quicker you snap out of this state of Denial that you seem to be in, the quicker this party can move forward. Until then, people like you will hold us back.

  16. The word “marriage” does not predate Christianity. And that is what Prop 8 did. It defined a word. More accurately, society voted to define the word.

    I am not one for giving government power, but Ms. Bar-Lev did make the point that Prop 8 was a step to protect. Specifically it protected churches from being forced to perform marriages they do no agree with. If you want to change the law don’t change Prop 8…get rid of the law in California that forced the North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group, inc. v. Benitez decision. Get rid of the encroachment of government in private business in California.

    Many people who supported Prop 8 didn’t like voting for it because it went against their principles of small government. The unintended consequence of forcing private business to do business with anyone, no matter whom or what they are, was drawing a line in the sand. So we picked a side.

    That being said, no party will draw new people by excluding them. If you are gay, be gay. But stick to the low tax, individual rights, small government, nobody is better than anyone else ideals that the Republican Party was built on.

  17. @ “Logic”: Ah, I get it. Your moniker, (Logic”) is sarcastic, like so much else of what you write.

    Seems to me Anthony has answered the questions put to him. As I read his posts, he opposes Ralph Denney because Ralph is affiliated with the LCRSD, and Anthony doesn’t trust the LCRSD. But maybe you don’t see the distinction. So please, let me spell it out for you. Someone can be opposed to an organization that pushes so-called gay rights and its representatives without having a negative opinion of gays. I am strongly against so-called gay marriage, but in moral terms, I don’t consider myself better than gays, and I enjoy the company of gay men as much as I do the company of heterosexual men. I hope that doesn’t hurt your brain too much.

    Judging by his equitable reply to Anthony, it doesn’t seem to me that Will needs you to defend him. Have you stepped in because you think Will is too stupid to defend himself, or is it that you can refrain yourself from taking yet another poke at Anthony? If Will doesn’t want to get flamed, he shouldn’t accuse people of “sexual misconduct.” And last time I checked, accusing someone of “sexual misconduct” is tantamount to attacking them. You should look up “attack” in the dictionary (if you know how to use one). In any case, it seems now that we’ve gotten the character assassination out of the way, the debate between Anthony and Will is starting to tread on the solid ground of a legitimate difference of opinion regarding “gay marriage.” Too bad that that ground has already been covered ad nauseam in the Prop 8 debates.

    How well Will served our country and the fact that we just celebrated Memorial Day has nothing whatsoever to do with Anthony responding to Will in kind. In case you didn’t notice in the last presidential debate (and I suppose you know something about it since it was on TV), being a war hero doesn’t exempt one from scrutiny.

    And you really should read more carefully. Anthony didn’t tell Will to move to India so that he could marry his dog. That was not the point of what Anthony was saying at all. Anthony implied that marriage is not regulated in the great nation of India, so in a country such as India, everyone is free to do as they please regarding marriage. That is unlike the US, which is founded on Christian principles, one of which is the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. The thing that strikes me is that Will wants to move our country away from the Christian ethos of our founding fathers. He states, “The concept of Marriage itself predates Christianity. Society changes, it adapts, it improvises, it overcomes.”

    BTW, we didn’t celebrate Memorial Day for “God’s sake.” We celebrated it for the sake of our veterans. Since you are so concerned with decorousness, maybe you can try keeping your profanity to yourself.

  18. “Many people who supported Prop 8 didn’t like voting for it because it went against their principles of small government.”

    Then one could make the argument — in truth — that the Log Cabin Republican group statewide was standing up for the core republican value of less government. So, a group that Anthony says can’t be trusted because its a “radical leftist” organization was actually standing up for a core republican principle and value: less government.

    If Anthony can’t trust people who are gay, or veterans, or gay veterans, then that’s his problem. I, at least, know that my conscience is clear from judgement. If individuals, like Anthony, were in charge of the GOP when our party was founded in 1856 there’d still be a Confederacy. Prove me otherwise. *happy face*

  19. @Mr. Schwatz: That was a legitimate response to which I have no response other then to say I respectfully disagree. That response was that of a man who is truly arguing logically and without negative inclination, I can respect that kind of response.

    The only correction I would have is that I said that “the concept of marriage predates Christianity” not the word. As the word marriage is English and the English language or at least the earlier forms of it “Old English” derives from the 5th Century, Christianity having been established centuries before that.

    @Logic and Omho: I thank logic for the praise, but I prefer people who argue use their own names as arguing from the shadows tends to imply cowardice… I sort of suspect that OMHO is Mr. Porrello but I cannot be sure. That is another reason I can respect Mr. Schwartz’s response, and the sole reason I can respect Mr. Porrello’s comments.

    @OMHO: 1. Sexual misconduct may have went too far, but even if it wasn’t sexual misconduct, it surely was poor judgment about an issue with sexual imagery involved. So that inference from the resources given are about as “logical” as Mr. Porrello’s assumption of LCR’s non-Republican agenda. I simply see the marriage equality issue as a civil rights issue and the Republican Party not the Democratic Party is the “Party of Civil Rights.”

    I do agree with Mr. Schwartz and I think everyone here that Religious organizations should not be forced to perform marriages that are in violation of their tenets. In that respect even I who believe in marriage equality believe that should this issue be approached again that legitimate concern should be addressed. Civil Marriage or Common Law marriage, endorsed by the state however cannot be discriminative and that is where I have a problem. I think I take a slightly different approach then what you perceive as the typical “gay agenda” and that is I take the constitutional approach. Religious institutions should be allowed to define marriage as they wish, but if marriage is endorsed by the state (via tax benefits, and rights) then the constitution applies and Equal Protection under the Law must be adhered to.

    I feel that if a religious institution has a problem with performing marriages that violate their tenets then they should not be forced to and lawsuits should not be allowed against them.

    I do hope that clears up my position on the matter. This is a civil rights issue, and it also is an important social issue, however society is shifting on it and it is best for the GOP to be with the times rather then against it because it is these Social issues that are the biggest hangups for younger voters and voters other then the Party base. It simply is a fact that my generation is more open minded on their view of this issue, and that generational gap is evident in the party. As the youth move forward you will see a shift in Party Platforms and things of that nature. Political Parties are evolving entities, if they don’t evolve, they go extinct. That is simply my view on the issue.

    I see this as a rights issue, and since I see it as a rights issue, I believe and many my age agree that it is unfair that you can send me to war to protect your rights, (incl. the rights associated with marriage) and then upon my return tell me that I am not allowed to share those rights. Its abhorrent. This is not a theocracy, and I do believe in christian principles and that this is a christian nation. With that said I do believe that God is far more loving and understanding then many people who interpret the bible give him credit for. I feel that I was born the way that I am, and I think their is a serious disconnect between what the Bible reads, and what the Bible means.

    The Bible is God’s word, interpreted by man. Since Man is fallible I think considering that the bible has been interpreted and reinterpreted that this issue may have shifted from its original meaning and context. I put my faith in God, and his son our savior, and I trust in him more then I trust a man’s interpretation of him. That is my faith.

    Wow, we certainly have strayed from the course. I think we all agree that regardless of our differences of opinion on this issue that the Democratic Majority have failed us at the State AND National levels so hopefully we can agree to disagree here but work together after this primary is over.

    I supported John McCain though he didn’t side with me on this issue, and I think I am pretty happy with the candidates put forward right now to where I personally would support most of them as long as they can argue rationally and without hatred.

  20. Wow, I bet Naomi never thought a guest column would elicit such a discussion!

  21. @ Logic: Should we say then that — in truth — the Nazis too were “standing up for core Republican values” because they were Anti-Marxist, Anti-Communist, Anti-Bolshevist?

    Now before you go diving off into the deep end with my little reductio ad absurdum (as I know you are wont to do), please note that I am NOT comparing Nazis and LCRs. I believe that LCRs are sincere in their support for Republican economic values and are in NO WAY classed with the Nazis. I simply think they are misguided in holding that Republicans can embrace gay marriage in good conscience.

    My point is that there is an argument to be made that, in opposing marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, LCRs are contradicting core Republican social values. I would add that economic values are predicated on social values, for what would be the point of having a prosperous but morally reprehensible society? Conservatives believe that conservative economic values are necessary to create a prosperous society worth living in. However, it is the “worth living in” part that is paramount.

    Meg Whitman is running on a platform that attempts to separate economic issues from certain social issues, and this type of separation of economics from social values is exactly what you propose. This, however, is deeply misguided, and it is exactly this type of thinking that enabled the Nazis to rise to power. Again, before you go jumping off the deep end, do I think Meg is a Nazi? Of course not! I do think that it is gravely misguided to suppose that you can separate social values, such as woman’s “right” to choose abortion, from economic values AND end up with a state worth living in.

    Consequently, Republicans need to take LCRs very seriously. They are not interested in separating social values from economic values—but they would have main-stream Republicans do so so as to promote LCR social values. In short, beware of anyone who talks about focusing only on the economic message, for he or she is leading you down a slippery slope.

    And again, what is with your fixation on Mr. Porrello? He didn’t share anything about his personal feelings about gays, veterans, or gay veterans. And what does the Confederacy have to do with anything? Talk about “non-sequitur”! I might as well say something like, “If MIT had teachers like ‘Logic,’ they’d be spending all of their money attempting to build a perpetual motion machine”; or, “if WWII Los Alamos physicists reasoned anything like ‘Logic,’ we’d all be speaking Russian.

  22. @ Mr. Rodriuez-Kennedy:

    I can assure you that Anthony Porrello and I are two distinct individuals.

    As for whether Anthony exercised poor judgment in sending vulgar images to someone he believed to be a friend and who he believed would appreciate the humor value of images, I would admit that he seriously misjudged the quality of that friendship. However, to suggest that his misplaced sense of friendship (and humor) prejudices him regarding other matters is merely an ad hominem attack.

    While the concept of marriage certainly predates Christianity, our the modern concept of marriage comes to us entirely through Christianity and is unlike the concept of marriage held by pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures. With Christianity comes the idea that marriage is much more than a contract. It is a covenant that binds two people together in a lifelong relationship comprising mutual aid AND the procreation of offspring. This is what I defend, and I would admit that, granted the overuse of artificial contraception and the ease with which people can divorce, our society is rapidly moving away from (has moved away from) the Christian idea of marriage. When we have completely abandoned the Christian idea of marriage, I can’t see much point in defending what the state calls marriage. And mark my words, society, especially our children, will be far the worse for it.

    I understand why it is impossible for the Church to marry two people of the same gender. As I suggest above, however, I am not sure what the difference is between “civil union” and “marriage” as far as the state is concerned. I would point out, however, that the state is in the business of regulating marriage only because marriage, as an institution between one man and one woman, sustains civil society. Gay unions bring no benefit to the state, so while I support that idea that the state should support equal rights in several areas, I reject the idea that a fruitful relationship between a man and a woman is identical to (and should be called the same thing as) a relationship between two men or two women through which children cannot be brought into the world. If the state had only one dollar with which to support either a truly needy heterosexual couple or a truly needy gay couple, the state would be foolish to support the gay couple–for it would get no return on its investment. Consequently, I think we need to differentiate “marriage” from “civil union.” If gays need to feel that their unions are somehow binding and sacred (and I am not saying or implying here that they are not), there are many religious organizations that are willing to give that to them.

    Regarding faith and the Church, I would point out that our idea of “God’s only Son” comes to us only through the Church (for along with oral tradition, the Church alone–inspired by the Holy Spirit–gave us the Bible). In other words, once you know the history of the Church, you won’t be able to honestly separate your faith from the Church. The Church is not a church of individuals. We are so profoundly united that St. Paul calls us the “Body of Christ.” And according to the Nicene Creed (which predates the formation of the canon of the Christian Bible), that Body is “One, holy, and apostolic.” Consequently, to the extent that you reject the teaching of the Church, you reject the Bible and Christ Himself.

  23. We can attest to being near certain that IMHO and Anthony P are different commenters.

  24. Why does the state care if someone is married or not? And why are we giving tax dollars away to people in the hopes of a return on investment? Government spending is overhead, not an investment.

    The “morally reprehensible” argument doesn’t move the ball forward. I am positive the other side finds people who oppose “gay marriage” morally reprehensible. The thought of not letting people live within a marriage is, in their eyes, not promoting values. So we are right back where we started the debate.

    The part of your argument that talks about what is beneficial to society is a dangerous one to make. What if studies show that gay couples with no kids make more money and therefore pay more taxes so the state benefits with a nice ROI? Or gay couples adopt more orphans taking the burden off the state so that benefits the state? Or any number of twists and turns that happen when people learn how to use statistics. To imply the reason to support marriage is because it is good for society also implies that if “gay marriage” were found to be good for society then you should support “gay marriage”. I doubt this is what your opinion is.

    The whole argument is in that the concept of marriage being a covenant is what Christian churches believe. Government should have no role other than filing the paperwork for the name change…ideally. According to the First Amendment religion cannot be stepped on by government and according to conservative philosophy less government interference in my personal life is better.

  25. @ Michael A. Schwartz:

    Thanks for your excellent comments.

    You ask, “Why does the state care if someone is married or not?”
    I’m not sure if this is rhetorical or not. There are several reasons that I know of, mostly having to do with inheritance, privacy, visitation, and adoption rights.

    You ask, “why are we giving tax dollars away to people…?”
    Because sometimes people, through no fault of their own, can’t provide for themselves and need the help of society–and Ronald Regan proved that just cutting people loose and trusting the private sector and private citizens to do the right thing doesn’t work. Nevertheless, my argument was just for the sake of example. I didn’t intend to make government handouts the crux of my position.

    I unhesitatingly concede that IF it was demonstrated that gay couples benefited society as much as heterosexual couples, then both would be entitled to the same social benefits. But as the current demographic winter in Europe proves, it is fantastical to believe that sterile relationships benefit society as much as fertile relationships–and gay relationships are literally sterile. Furthermore, it is unethical to use children, who could be adopted by married gay couples, as guinea pigs. Do we know how psychologically healthy it is for a child to be raised in a gay adoptive home? No. How exactly does that effect a child’s understanding of his or her own gender? We simply do not know. What we do know is this: IN GENERAL, gays have more sexual partners, engage in unsafe sexual practices more frequently, suffer more from depression, abuse drugs more often, and commit suicide more often. They generally have a very difficult lot in life–and I have only admiration for gays that beat the odds. This isn’t to say that there aren’t what could be considered happy gay unions. It does mean that those unions are the exception rather then the rule.

    Finally, I reject the moral relativism implied in your statement that “morally reprehensible” is meaningless. Moral relativism is bankrupt as it enabled most of the worst horrors of the 20th Century. (Shall we can start with Stalin?) While there are many shades of gray in morality, there are also absolutes. This idea is supported by the best moral philosophy of the past 2000 years and is embraced by Deontology and Rule Utilitarianism. For example, the deliberate taking of innocent human life is always wrong. Stealing when one is neither starving, naked, nor homeless is always wrong. Lying to those who have a right to information is always wrong. Exploiting children is always wrong. The just state enforces these moral laws, has a right to do so, and must do so. It is simplistic to merely say, “the less the state interferes in my personal life, the better.” A responsible approach debates issues, passes judgments, and enforces laws. And while the issue of gay marriage is not nearly as cut and dry as theft , neither is it simply relative. There is a fact of the matter. It’s up to us—homosexual and heterosexual—to determine what that fact of the matter is. In this regards, I think that Rodriuez-Kennedy and I have a legitimate difference of opinion.

  26. I personally totally agree with Mr. Schwartz, and I think that approach is a very interesting one that hasn’t been attempted. Government should not be in the business of marriage and if that was the proposal on the table, taking government out of the endorsement of marriage other then essential things (name change, hospital visitation) that would be an acceptable solution for me.

    Again Mr. Schwartz has brought some much needed logic to this debate.

    @IMHO: Your argument is morally unacceptable and mathematically false. As Mr. Schwartz has stated that argument in addition to bringing up the totally unrelated rise of the Nazi’s is plainly misleading. To think that the state should choose what couples to support on the basis of return on investment is the opposite of conservative and small-government principle. In fact that is very similar to liberal principles. That is very similar to the way Health Care would work for example.

    I have things to do with the election, I have been taking voters to the polls all day. Hope you gentleman have a good day.

  27. Btw, I still think its weak that people comment here with such authority on this matter but do not identify themselves. I did, Mr. Schwartz did, and so did Mr. Porrello. Very respectful.

  28. @ Rodriuez-Kennedy:

    Mathematically false? You lost me there.

    Sorry if I offended you with by using the Nazis as an example. As I said, “I am NOT comparing Nazis and LCRs.” Again, I was using them as an example of the types of things that are possible when your vote is informed by only economic issues. A sound political platform needs to address economic AND social policy.

    As for welfare, I think you are confusing Libertarianism with Conservativism. Libertarianism, as I understand it, holds exactly the position Schwartz articulated and which you endorsed. Conservatism, on the other hand, allows for a more active government role—and stops long before liberalism/socialism. I find libertarianism very attractive, but I think it is too ideologically top-heavy and that ideology is too simplistic. It’s no coincidence that the best countries in the world to live in, those whose cities regularly show up in “Top 10 Cities In the World to Live In” surveys (for example, Vienna and Munich) have responsible fiscal regulation and an responsible social programs. It is similarly no coincidence that the worst places to live have corrupt governments and no government regulation.

    Also, there were two prongs to my argument. Along with my ROI argument, I also asserted, “it is unethical to use children, who could be adopted by married gay couples, as guinea pigs. Do we know how psychologically healthy it is for a child to be raised in a gay adoptive home? No. How exactly does that effect a child’s understanding of his or her own gender? We simply do not know.” Along with this, there are other the other issues I mentioned that make “gay marriage” problematic; namely, “inheritance, privacy, visitation, and adoption rights.” As far as I have seen, the gay rights movement has completely ignored these issues as well as the fact that gay marriage is completely lacking a procreative aspect. You claim that you have a right to “marry” someone of your own gender, but you haven’t demonstrated how what you call marriage is essentially the same as marriage between and man and a woman. This reminds me of a male character from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” who continually walks around claiming, “it’s my right to be a woman.” Ok, sure. But that doesn’t make you a woman.

    Finally, the “authority” (as you put–or lack of) with which I speak should have nothing to do with my name or title. Consider my ideas. The name and title don’t matter. I have my own reasons for remaining anonymous, and it isn’t becuase I am ashamed of my ideas.

  29. Regarding the hospital visit thing…married or not, have thing sin place like medical directives, power of attorney, wills, trusts, etc, etc, etc. And the responsibility of government is to enforce contracts. We don’t need to have marriage dictate all of this.

    And IMHO, I believe we agree on some things and disagree of others. I am not sure Reagan proved what you think he did and I do not believe that the government should or should not support marriage based on perceived benefit to society. We do agree on the moral relativism point, but my point was more on the approach and structure of the argument rather than the content.

    Also, what is with attacking Anthony Porrello? Respectfully disagree with the guy, but have respect for the guy. He is on our team and does a great job. We’re trying to have a discussion/debate here. That’s all.

  30. @ Michael A. Schwartz:

    Regarding Reagan, I am thinking specifically about when he cut funding to mental institutions, the result being countless homeless , clinically insane people on our streets. If you were around in the 1980s, you saw exactly what I am talking about. These people were sick and, through absolutely no fault of their own, completely incapable of taking care of themselves. And private citizens and the private sector, while I do not blame them, left the homeless insane to rot on the streets. They say that about 5% of any given population is incapable of caring for itself. In our current (consumption obsessed) way of life, with both parents working outside of the home, there is no private infrastructure (aka, “family”) capable of caring for this 5%. Consequently, just as we need tax funded institutions to incarcerate criminals (and thereby protect society), we need tax funded institutions to care for those incapable of caring for themselves (and thereby protect society in a positive sense). This isn’t Libertarianism; nor is it Liberalism.

    You stated, “Regarding the hospital visit thing…married or not, have thing sin place like medical directives, power of attorney, wills, trusts, etc, etc, etc. And the responsibility of government is to enforce contracts. We don’t need to have marriage dictate all of this.”
    Technically, I agree. In practical terms, I disagree. Marriage and domestic partnership already automatically provide many of the things you list. (And the existence of domestic partnerships is another reason why I oppose “gay marriage”; it is legally superfluous.) Do you really envision a state in which after I get married or enter into a domestic partnership, my partner and I need to fill out an additional set of forms to accomplish all of the things marriage and domestic partnerships now accomplish automatically? How do you suppose that would effect government bureaucracy and the courts?

    Before I would be comfortable saying that the government should not support marriage based on perceived benefit to society and those who are married, I’d want to take a very close look at why the government got into the business of regulating marriage. Perhaps you understand the history and can enplane it to me? My understanding is that it was to protect society and because the state has a vested interest in the family (for reasons I’ve already stated). In short, things are the way they are for a reason, and it is imprudent to just blindly change things–based on an argument comprising no more than a political slogan that can fit on a bumper sticker–without understanding why they are they way they are.

    For the record, I haven’t attacked Anthony Porrello.

  31. Right off the bat, I should have specified specifically who I meant when I defended Mr. Porrello. Certainly if you did not saying anything bad about him, I did not mean you.

    Regarding Reagan, originally this came up when I made the point of government spending money to expect a return on investment. Hospitalizing the insane does not produce a return, it is overhead. I won’t even argue it is a necessary one, only that it is overhead. The role of government is not to turn a profit which is what was suggested by saying that government support of marriage is somehow beneficial to government.

    Regarding filling out forms after you get married, we already do. If you do not have things like medical directives and living wills and trusts in place…consult an attorney about the dangers of not being prepared. About the only thing marriage gets you legally is the ability to pass assets on after death with no tax, hospital visitation rights, and an additional few hundred bucks in income tax penalty. They should work these romantic bonuses into the vows, if you ask me. However…easing the burden of paperwork is not a reason any of us got married.

    So the way you state it is not how I would, but the idea of getting your legal affairs in order after marriage should be a no-brainer.

    I agree with you about looking at history when it comes to evaluating laws and policies, but I am not as comfortable with the “things are they way they are for a reason”. I am suggesting that the path we chose in the past is not working and should be changed. I do not want to blindly do anything.

    There was a comment about government not being involved in marriage as being “libertarian” and not “conservative”. I would suggest that it is a constitutional view which is both conservative and libertarian. IMHO would be right about the point of government involvement if we were talking about something like cars and speed limits. I like speed limits and the “right to speed” is no place in the constitution. But we are talking about religion. The first amendment protects religion which is why whether or not marriage benefits society or pays dividends for the government doesn’t matter. It is a religious institution and weddings are religious ceremonies therefore government shouldn’t be able to touch. This is the part of the argument where someone usually brings up marrying dogs. Until a legitimate religion comes to the conclusion that bestiality is OK…I think we can table this argument. Did anyone really rush out to the polls to vote for Prop 8 based on the darn dog marrying cults?

    Taking a step back and re-evaluating the strategy is never a bad idea. It is easy to get wrapped up in the fervor and emotion. It is easy to think your path is the best for everyone. My fear is that churches are losing their authority rather than benefiting from government regulation. Reasserting the church in our society and reaffirming church supersedes government will work and it is the right path to take.

  32. @ Michael A. Schwartz:

    You’d be surprised; those darn dog marrying cults are everywhere! 😉

    I completely concur with your distinction between “overhead” and profit center. My argument was sloppy in that regard. Nevertheless, the thing I am not convinced of is that marriage regulation is unnecessary overhead. So, it seems we have two issues. 1. Should the definition of marriage include unions between people of the same gender? 2. Should the state regulate marriage?

    Regarding #1, marriage is more a matter of natural law than religion. As Will pointed out, marriage was a secular institution in many ancient cultures (Ancient Rome foremost comes to mind). So the philosophical questions become, to what extent does natural law define marriage as an institution between man and woman, and to what extent must the positive law of the state conform to natural law in this matter? Since it is not too difficult to establish that according to natural law philosophy marriage is and always has been an institution between man and woman, we are left to struggle only with the second question. What do we risk by redefining marriage to include homosexuals? History has demonstrated that it is generally a very bad idea and a very bad precedent to create positive laws that contradict the natural law. If we are going to do such a thing, it needs to be warranted by something more than “an argument comprising no more than a political slogan that can fit on a bumper sticker.”

    Regarding #2, I wouldn’t stop at “things are they way they are for a reason.” I meant something more along the lines of, “things are they way they are for a reason–so lets understand why they are the way they are before we change them. If nothing else, tax free inheritance and hospital visitation rights are a pretty big deal. Ask any gay man or woman that lost a loved one before the advent of domestic partnerships.

    But at this point, I am not terribly concerned with gay marriage. I am far more concerned about the passing of Prop 14 and that we now have someone who is pro-abortion rights AND pro-state funding of abortion as our best option for Governor.

  33. I’m getting real tired of Mr. Porrello. He he had the nerve to oppose Joel Anderson, Sheriff Gore, Whitman, Fiorina and Mr. Denney. That is plain bad judgement. Some one should fire him or remove him from central committee. We would all be better off with a person who has common sense. Lucky for us the good guys won!

  34. Concerned:

    Mr. Porrello may tire you and others with his opinions, but where pray tell has he done anything by opposing your favored candidates to deserve being “fired” or “removed” from the central committee?

    Which of the candidates that you mention were endorsed by the central committee prior to the primary, which thus meant Anthony was openly working against a party-supported candidate, and in violation of the GOP rules?

    I’ll tell you how many. Zero.

    So, aside from disagreeing with you — and me in the case of at least one candidate you note — he has the “nerve” to express his freedom of speech, one of the reasons for this blog.

    Instead of firing or removing him, perhaps someone should administer you a quiz on the First Amendment.

    Regards.

  35. Well “Concerned” may not have been informed but from what I understand Mr. Porrello did not make reelection to the central committee. I believe he came in second to last. So unless there is an seat vacancy and he is appointed I believe that takes care of that.

    With that said I am not attacking him, merely pointing out the results, and the will of the people. I agree with Mr. Jantz that Mr. Porrello has every right to express his opinion as that right is clearly stated in the first amendment of the Constitution, the Constitution that I swore to support and defend when I first swore into the United States Marine Corps.

    I am curious as to which of those candidates you didn’t like Mr. Jantz. Just curious I had some concerns with at least one myself. Just curious.

  36. Thanks, Will. My point was not to rehash my list of supported candidates, which were either very public endorsements or between me and God in the voting booth (oh…and my wife), but to note for anyone thinking otherwise that I wasn’t defending Anthony simply because we agreed on those candidates 100 percent, but because he has a right to disagree with anyone without fear of the retribution that “Concerned” so easily seems to want to dish out.

  37. I like Barry, Anthony, and the First Amendment. And had a great debate with IMHO and Will. Can’t we all just get along? 🙂

    And if you still have the naked bike pics, Anthony, please e-mail them to me too. Sounds hilarious!

  38. I think we have concluded this argument quite peaceably. Good job gentlemen see you around!

  39. There will be a “World Naked Bike Ride” in downtown SD tomorrow, if you want to attend in person.
    Plaintiff Sarah Bush (no pun intended) is suing the City of SD to overturn the City’s anti-nudity ordinance, and the 9th Circuit will issue a decision today. Check VOSD for details on coverage (pun intended).

    And Anthony did show poor judgment in opposing Anderson 🙂

  40. My original email back in 2007 was titled “FUTURE BIKING IN SAN DIEGO”. It was a no brainer to realize that this is a trend and it will happen here someday. It was merely an action alert to a select few individuals.

    I was expressing then that public nudity in front of young children sitting on the sidewalks watching this type of parade was/is not appropriate. Even though this may be considered “art” by some, the idea of nudity in public, parading down the street is far too “progressive” and not acceptable. Exposing young children to this behavior allows them to believe open nudity is acceptable in our society. I fear this type of exposure can and will lead to other obsessions, experimentation, etc…. when and as they get older. Then, when these children are older, they get caught up in pornography, drugs, or whatever, and all they can say is “my parents never had a problem with this, they even took me to parades where the people rode down the street on their bikes naked”. Kudos to Judge Larry Burns for stating that the city has “a substantial interest and right to regulate public nudity” ( http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/this_just_in/article_de0854ac-7026-11df-b580-001cc4c002e0.html )

    Here are a few interesting quotes in their own words. It may be worthwhile to read the documents to see how it relates to today’s politics and where we find ourselves. These are real eye openers. The first one is called”Communist goals”. It was entered into the Congressional record in 1963:

    http://archive.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml

    25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

    26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

    From the Communist Party of Great Britain – Communist Manifesto:
    http://welshcommunists.co.uk/manifesto97.htm#Youth

    Communists are for the full equality of people whatever their sexual preferences. No more jailing for consenting sexual acts. There must be no discrimination against homosexuality in schools or any other area of life. Homosexuality should not be portrayed as unnatural.

    * End police harassment of homosexuals.
    * Full state funding of Aids research. NHS care for Aids victims.
    * Workers’ defence against ‘queerbashers’.

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
    — 21 — What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

    It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.

    And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the “community of women”. Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.

  41. Wow l, I read this whole conversation and I thought everyone was beating up on Anthony for a mistake he made a couple years ago but now after that last statement I am sure that the man is simply stupid.

  42. We repeat: policy, not personalities. We debate policy differences here, not engage in name calling. Based on experience, we would say that those not able to have a discussion without resorting to the latter, are not as intelligent. We would call Bystander stupid himself, but that would be violating our own rules, wouldn’t it? So we won’t.

  43. Mr. Porrello, are you really linking the wish of some activists to end the bashing of homosexuals due to their orientation, funding for a worldwide epidemic that affects both heterosexuals and homosexuals as Communists beliefs? Since when was the right of people to not be beaten in the the street a communist ideal. Or the wish to fund research to combat an epidemic that affects millions of people. These are basic human rights, what happened to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” I don’t remember there being a footnote stating “unless you are LGB or T”.

    Your argument is simply offensive. This type of ridiculous, hypocritical diatribe is why you were soundly defeated in your race for the central committee. Normal rational god fearing people do not say things such as this it really is mind boggling. Whats worse is that you say it without knowing the implications of the comments you make. You are saying that I Will Rodriguez-Kennedy should I wish not to be beaten because of my sexual orientation have communists views. Not only me but millions of people who identify with the LGBT community.

    Furthermore you pull a platform from the communist party of Great Britain, well if you want to argue the politics of the United Kingdom then please sir buy yourself a one way ticket back to the

    This is truly repulsive, you know I can defend someone who might not support marriage equality, when they argue on grounds such as Mr. Schwartz. There are legitimate concerns there that don’t include hate, but when you say that the government should not help in the fight against a disease that kils 2 million people per year is marxism, thats just disgusting. When you say that people should not have to fear being beaten in the streets because they are homosexual is communism, that is just wrong.

    Sir the people have spoken, and you have not been reelected to the Central Committee. Take that as a sign that your remarks while you have the right to say them, are completely inappropriate. They are in contradiction to Christian principle (“Love thy brother” “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” etc. ) and to the beliefs of conservatism, and the GOP. Marriage equality, we can agree to disagree on that but on this you are plain wrong and you should clarify your remarks as even if you didn’t make the direct accusation you created the perception and perception is reality.

    You speak about your fears of things like the naked bike marathon as being precursors to pornography and drugs. You speak and advocate out of fear. Sounds like cowardice. That same ignorance and cowardice fuels your hatred against the LGBT community, and I know you will argue this point but the remarks you have made are very offensive and seem to mark and underlying hatred that you harbor for the LGBT community. A hatred born of fear and ignorance.

    “Cowards can never be moral”
    -Mahatma Gandhi

    P.S. Note that I never directly called you a coward, I did the exact same thing as you, left it to the assumption of the reader. Just as you did by likening anti gay bashing and AIDs research to communism. I find it just as offensive for my beliefs to be labelled as communist.

  44. I wasn’t endorsing gay bashing, and my point was that even the LGBT community has been taken in by communist ideology. Comunist Goal # 15. “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States” (http://archive.glennbeck.com/news/03212002.shtml). Clearly the Democrat Party has been captured.

    I fully respect and support your right to not be discriminated against because of your sexual preferences. And if it were up to me labeling people based on mere sexual preference would not happen. It is none of my business what people do in the bedroom. My concern is what happens when people want to start changing long standing social institutions that are the bedrock of our great society (such as marriage). Those changes truly do frighten me. You seem a little obsessed with fear and courage and your own status as a veteran of war. I also have some thoughts about fear and courage. Fear is only a problem when there is nothing to fear. It is called rashness or foolishness when you lack fear of something that is truly frightening. The destruction of the moral fabric of society is something to be feared. Facing the powerful voices of who want to destroy the moral fabric of society…… that is courage.

    I merely provided the full quotation from the Communist Party of Great Britain. “Full state funding of Aids research. NHS care for Aids victims,” Those are their words not mine. It is truly tragic that over 500,000 Americans have died from aids. Unfortunately “Men who have sex with men are on average 19 times more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population” (http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art56243.html) and the government has limited resources. Granted that AIDS is largely avoidable the limited resources we have would be better spent on diseases that kill people through no obvious fault of their own, such as breast or ovarian cancer. I don’t think aids research is a bad thing. I do think the CPGB added full funding for aids research to their platform to attract gays in particular. That was my only point.

    Regarding labeling me as a “coward” and “gay hater”, this is exactly the type of rash judgement you jumped to in your first post when you boldly claimed that I engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior and was therefore a hypocrite. Jesus never said “love your brother.” He said “love your neighbor as yourself”. And then he gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan. “Neighbor” is a much broader category than brother. He also said “love those who persecute you”. I know that as a soldier of the United States you would lay down your life to defend me against a foreign aggressors and I hope that you understand that if I came across you being beaten by a gang of gay bashing/fearing thugs, I would lay down my life to try and defend you. Apart from that sometimes “loving” means speaking hard truths to people. I may not always present my ideas in the most clear way but speaking truth is all that I have been interested in.

  45. Fair enough. I disagree with your views and find them offensive but as a veteran I respect your right to express them, and to vehemently oppose them without being labeled a communist.

  46. All I can say is, if there really are such things as Log Cabin Republicans, I’m glad there’s a truly Conservative Tea Party. I’ve only been registered as a Republican for a year, and I am completely appalled at the Log Cabin’s agenda to co-opt the Republican Party for the sake of someone’s sexual lifestyle cholce. How incredibly stupid is that? Hello!!! The 14th amendment doesn’t guarantee ANYONE their choice of sexual partner! STOP THIS NONSENSE!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.