<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Guess who is NOT showing up at NOM&#8217;s rallies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:07:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: cd</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74120</link>
		<dc:creator>cd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74120</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure that since it&#039;s a civil rights matter, they&#039;ve gone to the ACLU for help...   ;-)


&lt;i&gt;This whole “right to vote” thing is a new NOM meme. Correct me if I’m wrong, but different states have different ways of voting amendments into their constitutions. Some states, like Iowa, make it harder to have their constitutions changed at the whim of the public. It seems like NOM is less interested in voting to “protect marriage™” than changing the way states legislate based on their personal agendas.&lt;/i&gt;

Oh, it&#039;s part of the process of moving of goalposts and moving down the political pyramid as the anti-marriage side loses its arguments in each state.

Phase 1: gay people are immoralists who want special privileges that will destroy The Christian Family

Phase 2: those judges are judicial activists who don&#039;t &#039;get it&#039; that Western Civilization is at stake

Phase 3: the state legislature and governor have been bullied, blackmailed, conned, are themselves gay, or are delusional Liberals full of atheist mind poison

Phase 4: the people of State/Country X have fallen away from The One True God and will be overrun and enslaved by brownskinned Muslims as they contracept and abort themselves into extinction.

The &quot;let the people vote&quot; stage is most intense at stages 3 but often begins in stage 2.  But it&#039;s also magical thinking: so far the anti-marriage side hasn&#039;t lost a marriage referendum.  (In part because Massachusetts and New York haven&#039;t had any.)

They will lose a popular referendum in 2012 in California.  But so far the lack of losses is something they can cling to as rationale for hope now that no respectable court will accept their theory anymore.  Elected politicians are treating them as nuisances because they all know the trend lines show that legalization is going to have popular majorities in favor everywhere that matters in the next 10-15 years.  Major churches are turning cold to them.

It gets worse: I hadn&#039;t (and few people outside it had) realized what a problem the RCC in particular has in the form of the amount of gay men in the clergy ranks.  From Italy there&#039;s a sense lately that some sort of implosion is in the making, has become inevitable in the foreseeable future.  The Vatican is in a bind: liberalizing the rules undoes in essence the re-orthodoxification that JPII and Benedict have tried to accomplish.  Tightening enforcement or purges might collapse the RCC as an organization in the West (and maybe elsewhere).  And doing nothing means that the average congregants continue to walk out the door at an unbearable rate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure that since it&#8217;s a civil rights matter, they&#8217;ve gone to the ACLU for help&#8230;   ;-)</p>
<p><i>This whole “right to vote” thing is a new NOM meme. Correct me if I’m wrong, but different states have different ways of voting amendments into their constitutions. Some states, like Iowa, make it harder to have their constitutions changed at the whim of the public. It seems like NOM is less interested in voting to “protect marriage™” than changing the way states legislate based on their personal agendas.</i></p>
<p>Oh, it&#8217;s part of the process of moving of goalposts and moving down the political pyramid as the anti-marriage side loses its arguments in each state.</p>
<p>Phase 1: gay people are immoralists who want special privileges that will destroy The Christian Family</p>
<p>Phase 2: those judges are judicial activists who don&#8217;t &#8216;get it&#8217; that Western Civilization is at stake</p>
<p>Phase 3: the state legislature and governor have been bullied, blackmailed, conned, are themselves gay, or are delusional Liberals full of atheist mind poison</p>
<p>Phase 4: the people of State/Country X have fallen away from The One True God and will be overrun and enslaved by brownskinned Muslims as they contracept and abort themselves into extinction.</p>
<p>The &#8220;let the people vote&#8221; stage is most intense at stages 3 but often begins in stage 2.  But it&#8217;s also magical thinking: so far the anti-marriage side hasn&#8217;t lost a marriage referendum.  (In part because Massachusetts and New York haven&#8217;t had any.)</p>
<p>They will lose a popular referendum in 2012 in California.  But so far the lack of losses is something they can cling to as rationale for hope now that no respectable court will accept their theory anymore.  Elected politicians are treating them as nuisances because they all know the trend lines show that legalization is going to have popular majorities in favor everywhere that matters in the next 10-15 years.  Major churches are turning cold to them.</p>
<p>It gets worse: I hadn&#8217;t (and few people outside it had) realized what a problem the RCC in particular has in the form of the amount of gay men in the clergy ranks.  From Italy there&#8217;s a sense lately that some sort of implosion is in the making, has become inevitable in the foreseeable future.  The Vatican is in a bind: liberalizing the rules undoes in essence the re-orthodoxification that JPII and Benedict have tried to accomplish.  Tightening enforcement or purges might collapse the RCC as an organization in the West (and maybe elsewhere).  And doing nothing means that the average congregants continue to walk out the door at an unbearable rate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mihangel apYrs</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74075</link>
		<dc:creator>Mihangel apYrs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74075</guid>
		<description>why isn&#039;t NOM (FRC) agitating to remove the right of divorce for those who undergo a marriage before a clergy person?

After all marriage is one man, one woman, FOR LIFE!!  (&quot;let no man put asunder.......&quot;)

Indeed that&#039;s the sort amendment to tack onto proposals like prop8.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why isn&#8217;t NOM (FRC) agitating to remove the right of divorce for those who undergo a marriage before a clergy person?</p>
<p>After all marriage is one man, one woman, FOR LIFE!!  (&#8220;let no man put asunder&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;)</p>
<p>Indeed that&#8217;s the sort amendment to tack onto proposals like prop8.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily K</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74063</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:57:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74063</guid>
		<description>the major right is the &quot;right to vote?&quot; I know about voter intimidation of Blacks, but legally, black men were given the right to vote before even white women were. 

If all it were about is suffrage, there would have been no need for sit-ins at &quot;whites only&quot; lunch counters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the major right is the &#8220;right to vote?&#8221; I know about voter intimidation of Blacks, but legally, black men were given the right to vote before even white women were. </p>
<p>If all it were about is suffrage, there would have been no need for sit-ins at &#8220;whites only&#8221; lunch counters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74061</link>
		<dc:creator>Darren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74061</guid>
		<description>Wait a minute.  I&#039;m APPALLED that Jackson is trying to pretend that segregation and discrimination were not MAJOR aspects of the Black Civil Rights Movement!  I&#039;m offended by that - not as a gay man - but as a Black man.  It&#039;s clear this man grew up around privileged whites, b/c he&#039;d never utter something so ridiculous as that otherwise.  Don&#039;t get me wrong, suffrage would arguably be considered the cornerstone of the Movement, but that is NOT the totality of what civil rights was - or ever has been - to Black people!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wait a minute.  I&#8217;m APPALLED that Jackson is trying to pretend that segregation and discrimination were not MAJOR aspects of the Black Civil Rights Movement!  I&#8217;m offended by that &#8211; not as a gay man &#8211; but as a Black man.  It&#8217;s clear this man grew up around privileged whites, b/c he&#8217;d never utter something so ridiculous as that otherwise.  Don&#8217;t get me wrong, suffrage would arguably be considered the cornerstone of the Movement, but that is NOT the totality of what civil rights was &#8211; or ever has been &#8211; to Black people!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74054</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74054</guid>
		<description>Radical anti-gay activist Brown wants us to believe that it&#039;s a &quot;civil right&quot; to vote away rights from other Americans.  It&#039;s not, it&#039;s unamerican, unchristian and immoral.  A moral wrong can never be a civil right.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Radical anti-gay activist Brown wants us to believe that it&#8217;s a &#8220;civil right&#8221; to vote away rights from other Americans.  It&#8217;s not, it&#8217;s unamerican, unchristian and immoral.  A moral wrong can never be a civil right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily K</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74042</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 02:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74042</guid>
		<description>But I thought (and forgive me if this is wrong) that the Black community was in general more homophobic, and more conservative religiously in church. I&#039;ve heard from many black folks in internet comments or wherever how resentful they are that the gays have hijacked &quot;their&quot; movement (as if civil equality can be owned by any one group). 

So I would think that they would not hesitate to show up to a cause they support - one-man-one-woman marriage. 

And on the flip side, this is why I always take special notice whenever I see Black Queer voices raised, especially in a religious setting, because I know first hand the pain it brings to have your own &quot;brothers and sisters&quot; turn on you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But I thought (and forgive me if this is wrong) that the Black community was in general more homophobic, and more conservative religiously in church. I&#8217;ve heard from many black folks in internet comments or wherever how resentful they are that the gays have hijacked &#8220;their&#8221; movement (as if civil equality can be owned by any one group). </p>
<p>So I would think that they would not hesitate to show up to a cause they support &#8211; one-man-one-woman marriage. </p>
<p>And on the flip side, this is why I always take special notice whenever I see Black Queer voices raised, especially in a religious setting, because I know first hand the pain it brings to have your own &#8220;brothers and sisters&#8221; turn on you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74037</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74037</guid>
		<description>Yes, I would like to do that, Regan.  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I would like to do that, Regan.  :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Regan DuCasse</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74034</link>
		<dc:creator>Regan DuCasse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74034</guid>
		<description>Tim, let&#039;s please get together soon! 

   And I wasn&#039;t sure if I should say something, but I was wondering where the black folks were too.

  That lady with the accent who felt under attack because she was breast feeding in public looked black Hispanic. Puerto Rican or Cuban, but she was it.

  You&#039;re right. No one of color representing.
I&#039;ve always suspected that Brian Brown doesn&#039;t really know any black people except H. Jackson. And I&#039;m sure that&#039;s enough for him.

    I might wonder if some black folks might have taken issue with the analogy to what these rallies are to civil rights. Folks sure enough lashed gay folks for it, even though there is actual legitimate parallels to point to, oh like discrimination and systemic bigotry and SEGREGATION.

  Chris Buttars of the LDS was a new low in doing so. But hey, whipping up hysteria is what NOM is trying to do, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, let&#8217;s please get together soon! </p>
<p>   And I wasn&#8217;t sure if I should say something, but I was wondering where the black folks were too.</p>
<p>  That lady with the accent who felt under attack because she was breast feeding in public looked black Hispanic. Puerto Rican or Cuban, but she was it.</p>
<p>  You&#8217;re right. No one of color representing.<br />
I&#8217;ve always suspected that Brian Brown doesn&#8217;t really know any black people except H. Jackson. And I&#8217;m sure that&#8217;s enough for him.</p>
<p>    I might wonder if some black folks might have taken issue with the analogy to what these rallies are to civil rights. Folks sure enough lashed gay folks for it, even though there is actual legitimate parallels to point to, oh like discrimination and systemic bigotry and SEGREGATION.</p>
<p>  Chris Buttars of the LDS was a new low in doing so. But hey, whipping up hysteria is what NOM is trying to do, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Burr</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74021</link>
		<dc:creator>Burr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:54:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74021</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s no such thing as a civil right to vote on and deny other people their civil rights.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s no such thing as a civil right to vote on and deny other people their civil rights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Timothy Kincaid</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/29/24779/comment-page-1#comment-74018</link>
		<dc:creator>Timothy Kincaid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24779#comment-74018</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Mike.

The African-American Civil Rights Movement is considered to have stretched from 1955 to 1968.

In 1968, Jackson was 15 years old, attending an almost-all-white private high school where he was &quot;the black kid at Country Day who stayed in the houses of wealthy white people.&quot;

I&#039;m sure that Jackson has experienced discrimination first hand, but I am certain that he never ever had to fight for his right to vote.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Mike.</p>
<p>The African-American Civil Rights Movement is considered to have stretched from 1955 to 1968.</p>
<p>In 1968, Jackson was 15 years old, attending an almost-all-white private high school where he was &#8220;the black kid at Country Day who stayed in the houses of wealthy white people.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure that Jackson has experienced discrimination first hand, but I am certain that he never ever had to fight for his right to vote.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
