The heading and signatures are in one script (edwardian), most of the body is in another (oldglory), but the last part is in a third (Times New Roman).

It leaves the reader confused as to whether the whole wording is part of the signed statement, or if part of it is commentary.

Who is running Anti-Gay, Inc. these days? Their efforts have been getting progressively amateurish.

I believe this planet was created deliberately, is there any such thing in your mind as “evolution denying creationist who is not-whacko?”

I think the problem with documents like the Declaration of Independence is they are written by people who are so smart, that when dumber people try to understand what they meant centuries later, they totally stuff it up.

I do admire Americans for managing to tolerate what some other Americans say. That is a serious belief in freedom of speech going on there. Even “evolution denying creationist whacko”, well let’s face it, it is a fact that they are “evolution denying” and “creationist”, so that makes “whacko” all you are calling them. Considering that some of these people want to kill you, and many more want to deprive you of your basic rights, that is really extremely tolerant.

Chris Matthews got somewhere near the truth about these brain-dead nutters, and unfortunately these are the very peopel who have chewed away at the Republican party. I hope the GOP vomits them out if it wants to survive as a credible electable party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMakgyEK90&NR=1

The thing that was baffling me is the logic of a bunch of people in a country that was founded based on radical ideas, and via revolution to get those ideas put into practice, now claiming that progressive ideas are contrary to the founding principles of that country. Then Timothy posted this article, so I was just pleased to see that there are people in the USA that are stumped too. The fault with their logic looks quite mind blowing from over here.

This “self evident” notion was in conflict with the ENTIRETY of history. Very few cultures did not have some form of nobility or prefernce due to parentage.

Of course, at that time they meant white, male, and property owner. But the principle shined through and, over time, “all” began to be seen as including all citizens without entitlement due to the race, gender, or economic situation of ones birth.

We are simply battling to get the nation to see that we are included in the “all” that are “created equal”.

Apparently they don’t actually believe in the rule of law or limited government any more than they truly believe in individual liberty. Every time the courts make a decision that they don’t agree with (especially upholding the right to individual liberty or limitations on government) they claim that the decisions are contrary to the values of democracy and the founding documents.

Perhaps these people should actually READ the documents they are claiming to support? Or maybe they have read them and just have abysmal reading comprehension skills?

What they call limited government is actually unlimited majoritarian tyranny. What they call individual liberty is actually collectivist Christian dominionism (the exact opposite of individual liberty). What they call defending the family is actually attacking families that differ from their own.

These groups have definitely mastered the art of doublespeak!

It seems to me that they meant “for all” because “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

I can see a problem for women there…but I assume that at some point in USA history it was decided that “men” indicated humankind, rather than “male”, and I know enough history to see that people of certain racial heritage had a struggle to get included, I’m glad those parts are fixed now. I am thinking that to see that as excluding gay people, you would either have to think gay people are not “men”, or not “created”. Maybe some people think that an exclusion applies, because they also think that certain sexual orientations are not created by the Creator.