TIM RICHARDSON -> ED HULETT wrote:
 TR> On 05-06-09, DAN CEPPA said to ED HULETT:


 DC>> Card hates gays, no matter what he says.


 EH>> You don't know what you are talking about.


 DC>> Card has called same-sex marriage a "potentially devastating social
 DC>> experiment" and argued that same-sex marriage is not
necessary to ensure
 DC>> equal rights, since "Any homosexual man who can persuade a
woman to take
 DC>> him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood
 DC>> under the law."[22] He claims that "gay activism as a
movement is no
 DC>> longer looking for civil rights, which by and large homosexuals already
 DC>> have."[23] He also says he is against "changing the
word 'marriage' to
 DC>> apply to something it's never applied to."[24]


 TR> See...here again Ceppa goes off the deep end in his claim that this person,
 TR> Card, `hates gays'.

Yeah, Ceppa is known for this stuff.

 TR> Reading the paragraph he then posts up on what Card `said' as his
 TR> `proof'......getting to the `hates gays' square from there is a real
 TR> stretch of the imagination.

It takes quite a stretch, too.

 TR> Here's something he'll really go off on:

Oh my...

 TR> Gay tail wags hetero dog


 TR> David Limbaugh


 TR> Posted: May 01, 2009


 TR> 1:00 am Eastern


 TR> Ordinarily, we would probably be wise just to move on from last week's
 TR> flap over Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean's truthful pageant answer
 TR> on same-sex marriage, but subsequent news reports reveal we are drawing the
 TR> wrong lessons from the brouhaha.


 TR> Prejean, in response to the trick question from gay activist blogger
 TR> Perez Hilton, one of the pageant's judges, refused to endorse same-
 TR> sex marriage, which probably resulted in her losing the crown she was
 TR> favored to win.


 TR> Not satisfied with unilaterally disqualifying Prejean and possibly
 TR> damaging her career, Hilton publicly excoriated her, saying she "gave
 TR> the worst answer in pageant history" and calling her a dumb B-word and
 TR> worse.


 TR> Prejean, in stark contrast, said that as a Christian, she loved Hilton
 TR> and was praying for him, a graciousness met with further ungraciousness
 TR> from
 TR> Hilton.


 TR> Don't miss David Kupelian's culture-war classic, "The Marketing of Evil:
 TR> How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised
 TR> as Freedom".


 TR> Hilton told the "Today" show's Matt Lauer: "I
personally would have
 TR> appreciated it had she left her politics and her religion out, because
 TR> Miss USA represents all Americans..... The answer she gave alienated
 TR> myself (and) millions of gays and lesbians. ..  Miss USA is not a person
 TR> that's politically incorrect. Miss USA ... represents ... all America
 TR> and is
 TR> inclusive and give(s) the right answers. ... I want someone who is going
 TR> to (say) things that will make everyone feel welcome. ... For example ...
 TR> she's a Christian, but I don't want her talking about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,
 TR> because that's offensive to all of the Jewish Americans, to all of the
 TR> Muslim
 TR> Americans, to all of the atheist Americans."


 TR> But it was Hilton, not Prejean, who injected politics. Hilton's clear
 TR> message, denounced by no one from the gay activist community or secular
 TR> left, is that Prejean should have lied or ducked the question because
 TR> her honest answer offended some. Had she high-fived same-sex marriage, you
 TR> can bet Hilton wouldn't be decrying her lack of inclusiveness toward the
 TR> majority and not making them "feel welcome." So if
Prejean had agreed
 TR> with Hilton's minority position -or pretended to- she would have
 TR> represented "all of America"; if she had agreed with the
majority, she
 TR> wouldn't have.


 TR> Go figure.


 TR> Pageant judge Claudia Jordan, obviously another opponent of pageant
 TR> integrity, said, "In pageants, just like in politics, it's probably best
 TR> to just give a neutral answer, where you're not committed to one side or
 TR> the other, if you want to win."


 TR> Keith Lewis, co-director of Miss California USA, said he was personally
 TR> saddened and hurt by Prejean's opinion and that "religious beliefs have
 TR> no place in politics in the Miss CA family." Again, all opinions are OK
 TR> except those they disagree with, especially when the opinions are
 TR> grounded in religious principle.


 TR> California pageant public relations spokesman Roger Neal accused Prejean
 TR> of lying for telling a church audience that California pageant officials
 TR> told her to apologize publicly and to avoid mentioning religion on the
 TR> "Today" show. Neal said Prejean was urged only to
reiterate that she
 TR> didn't mean to offend anyone and to use the national spotlight "to heal
 TR> some wounds."


 TR> I doubt Prejean lied, especially considering what Neal admits officials
 TR> did advise Prejean to say, which is egregious enough.
 TR> (Column continues below)


 TR> Why should Prejean have to apologize to anyone? And what wounds does she
 TR> have an obligation to heal? She did not spontaneously volunteer her
 TR> opinion on same-sex marriage; she gave it reluctantly, in response to
 TR> Hilton's loaded question. Nor did she "wound" anyone
merely by voicing
 TR> an opinion shared by hundreds of millions.


 TR> Or have we become such prisoners to thought control that one's just
 TR> voicing an opinion is pronounced hurtful and damaging? Should the
 TR> majority of Americans flog themselves for having the same opinion as
 TR> Prejean?

 TR> How about Barack Obama, who voiced precisely that opinion during the
 TR> presidential campaign?


 TR> Seriously, do Prejean's detractors believe her sin was to voice her
 TR> opinion publicly or merely to think those thoughts? If it's the former,
 TR> their ire ought to be aimed at Hilton for asking the question in the
 TR> first place. But I suspect many actually believe Prejean's primary sin (and
 TR> that of most Americans) is to think the way she thinks, which, they would
 TR> say, makes her a bigot and a homophobe. Talk about the tail wagging the
 TR> dog!


 TR> Those who say the militant homosexual activists' goal is to live and let
 TR> live apparently aren't following their reaction to Prejean and Hilton,
 TR> which proves the militants will not tolerate an opposing viewpoint.


 TR> Those who doubt their persistence might be surprised on a
 TR> not-too-distant day
 TR> when most states have succumbed to the bullying and changed their
 TR> definitions of marriage.


 TR> If you care to hear the other side of the argument - that same-sex
 TR> marriage is not an innocuous idea - read Frank Turek's excellent book
 TR> "Correct, not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts
 TR> Everyone."


 TR> The book will also serve as a wake-up call to complacent Christians
 TR> operating under the fallacious belief that they have no business
 TR> engaging in the political arena, a belief that could contribute to the
 TR> eventual loss of their very freedom to evangelize.

Ed

-- 
"Wise politicians will be cautious about fettering the government with
restrictions that cannot be observed, because they know that every
break of the fundamental laws, though dictated by necessity, impairs
that sacred reverence which ought to be maintained in the breast of
rulers towards the constitution of a country."

--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 21 December 1787

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318)