Friday, February 10, 2006

CPAC Continued

Just met Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum. In the main auditorium, a conversation is going on to which I don't agree. While I support traditional marriage, and am against homosexual marriage...I did not support the speech of State Senator Mooney from Frederick, Maryland. He spoke about former Governor Paris Glendening, and pulled a John Kerry by stating "Glendenings brother-who died of aids from his homosexual life style" brought in unneccessary attacks. A "former" homosexual also spoke about how he came out of "that lifestyle" I also to not agree with much of the hate crime legislation out there, but State Senator Mooney said that putting homosexuals in the legislation "legitimized" their lifestyle. He also told the audience that he believed eventually laws would be passed that would "prevent preachers at the pulpit from disgareeing with homosexuality" Come on here guys... While traditional marriage is supported by a majority of Americans, this spewingof unnecessary comments is disturbing. Mooney also stated that it upset him that some people say homosexuals are "in love". I personally don't believe it is my business to tell people who they can be with...but this is just my opinion. Gay adoption gets into the lives of others, so I disagree with it..but gay marriage continues to get brought up,and I believe will eventually hurt our party in the years to come.

19 Comments:

At 2/10/2006 03:23:00 PM, Anonymous Not NOVA GOP PAC said...

TC: Gay marriage will hurt our Party? I'm sure there are Democrats out there as well who don't buy into gay marriage.

Homosexuals and lesbians who have entered into gay marriage are ultimately doing themselves more harm at the end. God have mercy on their souls. State Sen. Mooney should be commended for his words. We need leaders like State Sen. Mooney to espouse conservative principles and counter the liberal media bias and viewpoints on all social issues.

 
At 2/10/2006 06:08:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

TC,

"Unnecessary comments"?

Let me take these point by point. Of course I did not hear the speech, nor do I know Mr. Mooney so I am limited to the quotes you mention:

"He spoke about former Governor Paris Glendening, and pulled a John Kerry by stating "Glendenings brother-who died of aids from his homosexual life style" brought in unneccessary attacks."

I don't know if the reference to Glendenning's brother was relevant to the rest of his speech, but was he wrong in his facts? Did he die of AIDS brought on by something else?

"A "former" homosexual also spoke about how he came out of "that lifestyle""

I assure you TC, no need for quotes there. People DO come out of the homosexual lifestyle. I can point you to some in your own church who have and are living quite happy heterosexual lives now. If you need proof, please email me and I will point you to where you can find out.

"I also do not agree with much of the hate crime legislation out there, but State Senator Mooney said that putting homosexuals in the legislation "legitimized" their lifestyle."

This is a fact. To put someone in a protected status does "legitimize" their lifestyle in the eyes of the state. Do we have hate crimes listed to protect pedophiles? Bigamists? Of course hate-crime legislation is all nonsense anyway as it is actually "thought" crime. We need to have strong punishment for crimes of harassment in general and do not need to make one crime more egregious than another just because of the criminals state of mind.

"He also told the audience that he believed eventually laws would be passed that would "prevent preachers at the pulpit from disgareeing with homosexuality""

This is also true. Have you been to Canada lately?

 
At 2/10/2006 06:26:00 PM, Anonymous NoVa Scout said...

I can foresee absolutely no possibility under the present Constitution of clergy or congregants ever being constrained in preaching or commenting against behavoirs deemed by his/her church to be immoral. I question why any knoweldgeable person in the United States would make such a contention, other than to frighten and inflame the discussion. If that's happening in Canada, we should throw open our doors to the refugees (we can tell the Minutemen to go easy on these guys) and rest assured that our Constitution would not permit anything similar here.

 
At 2/10/2006 10:11:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

Uninformed comments like the first two are exactly why Republicans are losing elections. People associate the terms Republican and conservative with this drivel, and stay home. Do you realize that 90% of Virginians support prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, exactly what was just narrowly defeated in a Senate committee? The testimony against this bill is being ridiculed across the state.

How long do you two think that lies and fearmongering are going to buy votes from a rapidly shrinking base? This is an ill-advised strategy, and that's the nicest thing I can think of to say about it.

 
At 2/11/2006 12:49:00 AM, Anonymous rtwng extrmst said...

David,

Please point to the lies. Please point to the fear-mongering. I am not at all discriminatory toward homosexuals.

However, laws such as the "hate crime" protections could be used against people even in churches. It would be a question that might go as far as the supreme court, yes, but in today's world with some of the decisions we've seen of late, anything could happen. Pastors are not free from the pulpit to incite people to riot or committ other crimes. Hate crime legislation would open them up to law suits of all kinds. In Canada this happens today on the airwaves where religious speech is restricted on the homosexual issue.

To give homosexuals protected status would force churches to employ homosexuals in positions that would be in opposition to their beliefs. Not to mention that today homosexuals as a group are not discriminated against by and large in industry. They are in fact one of the most prosperous demographics financially.

I do not hate homosexuals nor do I unfairly discriminate against them. I just disagree with their lifestyle. However much I disagree with them about it, I do not believe it is right to do anything to force them to change. I believe in tolerance. However this does not mean that society should be forced to promote that lifestyle.

 
At 2/11/2006 09:24:00 AM, Anonymous ZB said...

>To give homosexuals protected >status would force churches to >employ homosexuals in positions >that would be in opposition to >their beliefs.

There is the biggest of your lies, Rightarooney.

In 1964, the US Congress passed the Civil Rights act banning discrimination on the basis of race and sex in employment decisions. This law included a SPECIFIC EXEMPTION for religious groups. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have enacted similar laws protecting employment on the basis of sexual orientation---ALL HAVE INCLUDED AN EXEMPTION FOR RELIGOUS GROUPS. No church has EVER been forced to hire someone contrary to their religious beliefs.

Time to get your facts "straight."

 
At 2/11/2006 10:16:00 AM, Anonymous David said...

Yes. That this lie continues to be repeated ad nauseum really shouldn't surprise me, but still.. Might I point out (again!) that, last time I checked, Canada was still not subject to the provisions of our Bill of Rights, and I don't forsee that changing anytime in the future. Has Fred Phelps been shut up? Didn't think so.

This is related to the even more outrageous lie that "churches will be forced to perform same sex marriages." (This is always to be stated with the requisite wide-eyed, lowered-voice horror.) Let's think about that for a moment. Can Catholic churches refuse to marry persons who have been divorced? Check. Can rabbis decline to perform mixed marriages? Check again. Insert situation of your choice. Check.

Religious communities always have and always will be at complete liberty to define for themselves what constitutes marriage within their doctrine. Claiming otherwise is both lying and fearmongering.

Anyone continuing to repeat this idiocy will have some 'splainin to do in the next life. Please recall that bearing false witness appears on that Top Ten list of no-nos, while building a life with the person one loves does not.

 
At 2/11/2006 02:34:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

You are both good at twisting the facts. There was no discussion previously of a religious exemption and by the way religious exemptions vary from state to state. This is not cut-and-dried. Religious exemptions have been interpreted in some states as applying only to specific religions and denominations. In other words you can't force a Jewish synagogue to hire a muslim cleric who might apply for a job.

I will admit that if an exemption is written specifically to apply to a church's beliefs with regard to "sexualty" that would be a help. However this is still not a guarantee. Political proponents of homosexuality have shown a propensity everywhere this protective status is applied to use the law to limit the rights and influence of the church on this matter.

The Bill of Rights you would think would be a protection, however as we see in the recent Kelo decision our rights are constantly under assault. I have no doubt that similarly if hate crimes were applied to homosexuality (and by the way my problem here is not with homosexual "hate crimes" alone, but with the idea of "hate crimes" in general) there would be a plethora of cases against people who did nothing more than execute their rights of free speech. This has already happened in PA by the way. Anyone could be considered the perpetrator of a "hate-crime" simply for saying they believe homosexuality to be a sin.

Finally there is the problem of applying these laws to other organizations like the Boy Scouts or schools that are private in nature. The Boy Scouts have already seen this issue and it would get worse under a law "protecting" homosexuality.

These kinds of laws in the end do nothing to really protect homosexuals any more than they are already protected. As I said earlier homosexuals as a class of people are not discriminated against in this country like some other groups have been traditionally. In they end the laws will be used as a legal hammer to repress free speech and freedom of association by people that disagree with the lifestyle whether or not they actually discriminate against anyone.

Not hate, no lies, no fear-mongering here, just hinest discussion of the issue.

 
At 2/11/2006 02:35:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Sorry for the typo, that should be "honest"

 
At 2/11/2006 02:52:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

BTW below is an example of the kind of oppression I speak of:

http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=477

 
At 2/11/2006 02:58:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

"He also told the audience that he believed eventually laws would be passed that would "prevent preachers at the pulpit from disgareeing with homosexuality"

Come on here guys..."

C'mon here, TC. A Scandinavian pastor was prosecuted for precisely such an offense within the last few years.

Senator Mooney --- whose brother used to work with me --- is precisely correct. These people don't want tolerance; they want acceptance. Tolerance is not "tell[ing] people who they can be with"; mandating "acceptance" is what hate/thought crimes and public benefits legislation is.

It's too bad you can't see the difference, TC. It will only "hurt our party in years to come" if people like you fail to recognize the nihilistic goals of these efforts.

 
At 2/11/2006 03:04:00 PM, Blogger James Young said...

And nova scout, that's just great. You "can foresee absolutely no possibility under the present Constitution of clergy or congregants ever being constrained in preaching or commenting against behavoirs deemed by his/her church to be immoral." That's funny, because I'm sure that, fifty years ago, there were plenty who could foresee absolutely no possibility under the present Constitution of the wholesale legalization of abortion (Roe v. Wade), the striking down of the legislative veto (INS v. Chadha), the striking down of sodomy laws, or the reference to international law as the basis for American constitutional interpretation. I doubt that a hundred years ago, people would foresee absolutely no possibility under the present Constitution of the wholesale interference in the right of contract (Railway Labor Act; National Labor Relations Act).

That you "can foresee absolutely no possibility under the present Constitution of clergy or congregants ever being constrained in preaching or commenting against behavoirs deemed by his/her church to be immoral" tells me that you just haven't been paying attention.

 
At 2/11/2006 06:46:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

I can only conclude from this that you would think it perfectly fine if an employer fired you simply because you are heterosexual.

If you were familiar with the bill in question, you would understand that it has nothing whatsoever to do with creating a "protected status." It simply says that a person's (actual or perceived) sexual orientation is not an acceptable criterion for discrimination, because it has no relevance to state employment. Hint: This protects everyone from discrimination. For those who seem to feel oppressed as heterosexuals it ought to be a welcome development.

I notice that there has been no attempt to refute the fact of our constitutionally protected religious liberty, only further obfuscation and reference to something that happened in Sweden, which, like Canada, is not subject to the provisions of our Bill of Rights.

All the talk about "thought crime" is absolutely hilarious in light of the treatment methods offered to people who wish to change their sexual orientation. You probably don't want to get me started on that.

 
At 2/11/2006 07:39:00 PM, Anonymous NOVA Scout said...

YOu're right, James. I must have dozed off. Certainly I sleep far better than you, since I don't have to worry about these things. I'll buy you a box of the best Havanas (assuming by then the embargo will be a thing of the distant past) the first time a member of the clergy is brought up on charges by the Government of the United States for preaching against immoral sexual practices (hetero or homo). And I'll not lose a wink worrying that I'll ever have to deliver on this.

 
At 2/12/2006 12:40:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

My employer can pretty much fire me for whatever reason they want -- they didn't have to hire me, and don't have to employ me tomorrow.

The EFFECT of anti-discrimination rules is to make it harder for employeer to fire people if they are in the protected class, while leaving employers free to fire non-protected workers for any reason at all.

And BTW, under the wording of these statutes, and the existing legal interpretation, a gay boss would be perfectly free to fire me for being heterosexual, even though a straight boss would have to prove that the gay was not fired because he was gay.

I say this as a member of a protected class -- I'm over 40, so my employer does have to think about not breaking THAT rule when they fire me.

The nice thing about making "gay" protected, is that unlike every other protected class today, anybody can be "gay". In fact, you should just go and tell your boss you are gay if your state has this rule, it will pretty much keep you from worrying about that extra hour of internet browsing at lunch. I'm not supporting any protected class rules, just pointing out that while it is clear who is a woman, and usually clear who is black, and it is even fairly easy to tell if a person practices a religion seriously enough to fall under protection, there is no need to be a practicing homosexual to be protected as gay. You could be a happily married man, and simply say that you feel homosexual tendencies that you suppress, or that you are bisexual and believe in monogamy.

Now, it is true that most people would find the stigma of saying they were gay to be too great a price for this protection. But if you thought your job was in jeopardy, it might be worth it. And the gay lobby is working very hard to make it illegal to have a "stigma" applied to being gay, so if they win there will be nothing to keep every citizen from pleading "gayness".

 
At 2/12/2006 12:41:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

Meanwhile, at least he didn't complain about how Muslims got too much attention for their problems while Christians were severely persecuted by having the date of christmas hidden from them.

 
At 2/12/2006 12:22:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

And BTW, under the wording of these statutes, and the existing legal interpretation, a gay boss would be perfectly free to fire me for being heterosexual, even though a straight boss would have to prove that the gay was not fired because he was gay.

Can you please explain what you mean by this? I am unaware of any statute that doesn't simply refer to "sexual orientation," which is neutral. This notion of a "protected class" is a red herring. Either a characteristic is relevant to job performance or it is not. Common sense says that sexual orientation is not, unless the job involves having sex with people, which I doubt any Virginia state jobs do.

 
At 2/14/2006 07:59:00 PM, Anonymous 10th District Conservative said...

TC,

this may be a comment for another thread, but would you care to define -- specifically -- what you believe to be the core principles of the Republican party? --
The sine qua non of our beliefs?

If the party abandoned platform plank X, would you abandon it? How about Y & Z?

I assume you've read the platform of the party -- if not, give it a try.

I constantly hear about how holding to this or that principle will get our party in trouble w/ the voters. I find this wrong-headed. It is our principle, if we are wrong we should change it, but if we are right, we should stick to it, regardless of the vagaries of popular opinion.

Two other ways to consider this: do you believe in a trusteeship (Burkean) or "by the latest poll" theory of representation? Is the purpose of the political party first to (A) advance the shared ideas of its members or (B) to elect candidates so that it can retain power?

Thoughts?

 
At 2/17/2006 11:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mooney is facing a primary challenge in his home district from Conservative Tim Brooks. Brooks is also opposed to gay marriage but is hammering Mooney for corruption and pandering to illegal aliens. Here is an excerpt from Brooks' website brooksforsenate.com


Mooney has shamelessly pandered to illegal aliens



He has sponsored or voted for all of the following:



X Giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates. Most tax paying American citizens wouldn’t even be entitled to these education benefits.



X All state documents must be printed in Spanish.



X Affirmative action and set-asides exclusively for Hispanics.



X Legislation which makes it easier for illegal aliens to fraudulently vote.



X Allowing legislation, which makes it easier for illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses.

*Source - 2003 SB520, HB253, SB82, 2002 SB133, SB265, SB639, 2001 SB411, SB440


Alex Mooney has encouraged the massive illegal immigration to Frederick County which is happening now. His actions and words scream loudly 'We'll leave the light on for you.' This is not good policy for you but it seems to be beneficial for Alex Mooney. His response says it all. "It's a big mistake to ignore them, because 20 years from now their kids will be citizens, will speak English and will vote." Mooney's statement was published in the Baltimore Sun on March 3, 2003.


Pandering to an illegal alien constituency at your expense is the final straw. We have tolerated a lot and looked the other way many times with Alex Mooney but this is going too far.


Mooney opposes special treatment of Gays but is in favor of it for illegal aliens. Go figure...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home