published Sunday, August 8th, 2010

The Wedding Cake

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
SavartiTN said...

I appreciate the thought that went into this cartoon. And especially appreciate the sentiment. We certainly do proclaim "with Liberty and Justice for all" but never really mean it.

August 8, 2010 at 12:39 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Republicans have used gay marriage successfully as a wedge issue before and the howling hounds are frothing once again, but The Constitution states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection. Conservatives opposed to governmental intrusion into our personal lives should champion gay rights.

I believe all law abiding taxpayers, gay, straight, black, white, short, tall, whatever, should be able to live the way they want.

Besides, concurrent jurisdiction prevents any state from enacting an unconstitutional law regardless of how many people may have voted for it.

Personally, I don't understand how gay marriage threatens traditional (or "opposite") marriage. If your neighbor wants to bang his head against his wall it's none of your business. It's his head and his wall.

When all is said and done, why should gay people be denied the same chance at misery as the rest of us?

August 8, 2010 at 12:48 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

What a clever cartoon Clay. You have nailed this issue. With Lady Liberty you represent the openness, tolerance, and protections granted to all citizens.

With Lady Justice you symbolize that Justice will be meted out objectively, without fear or favor to all citizens.

I am sure that some of the posters here who are so quick to quote the Constitution when it fits their agenda will rally to the protections granted to persons who wish nothing more than to be wedded to the person they love.

August 8, 2010 at 1:34 a.m.
OllieH said...

Brilliant, Clay!

August 8, 2010 at 1:42 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Liberty. Justice. And democracy? 52% of Californians vote for something; one judge strikes it down. Equality? He's more equal than all of them put together. And that's a built-in problem when government tries to equalize by force things that aren't equal; it requires an unequal Equalizer, so to equalize by force creates inequality.

August 8, 2010 at 1:46 a.m.
nucanuck said...

I believe Andrew just said equality was achieved,but the process was flawed. Maybe Andrew doesn't believe the government should be a three legged stool.

August 8, 2010 at 2:01 a.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

I'm afraid this court decision will dilute the holy sanctity of my upcoming 3rd marriage and make it less meaningful in the eyes of The Lord.

I didn't even get this one pregnant.

August 8, 2010 at 3:19 a.m.
Tax_Payer said...

I'm pretty sure Same-Sex-Marriage was not legal during the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, otherwise God would have not judged the place.

America does not have much time now before it is over.

August 8, 2010 at 5:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I guess God made some part of the human population gay so that the rest of us have someone to feel superior to and to persecute.


August 8, 2010 at 7:01 a.m.
notlittletommy said...

Geez, Clay. Put on your rainbow shorts, grab some rainbow sherbet and join your former leader of the TFP. This is getting old. How much more left can you go? Enjoy it, because just as the icing is licked off the cake and those who support this get their licks in (pardon the pun), hopefully the Supreme Court will strike this down. Wake up America! I guess this is George Bush's fault.

August 8, 2010 at 7:21 a.m.
woody said...

I truly believe as was alluded to above...the decision of a majority of voters was voided by one judge. This can't be right.

Have we been placed between the ultimate "rock and a hard place?"

Somewhere in the Bible it is written in red, something to the effect, "...whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me...."

Quite a bit later more prolific words stated somewhat differently, "...whenever the wants of a few are outweighed by the needs of the many...."

Let's review...are we really doing a disservice to those who would attempt to undo what God had originally intended?

Furthermore, in a country where diversity is rampant, if not praised and encouraged, are we obliged to allow a minority segment of the masses to hinder progress for no one's benefit but their own?

We live in a land where freedom rings, but don't we threaten that very freedom by trying to be "everything to everyone" instead of true to the majority of those who still believe the U.S. (though not perfect) stands heads above the rest?

I leave you with, "I may not always agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But not to rewrite history.

Ever faithful, Woody

August 8, 2010 at 8:43 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Proposition 8 was poorly worded. Judge Walker, a Ronald Reagan appointee, had no choice but to apply the Constitution.

The solution, for all you howling hounds, is to re-write the proposition in a way that IS Constitutional.

Oh wait. That would be impossible.

August 8, 2010 at 8:57 a.m.
Humphrey said...

"iberty. Justice. And democracy? 52% of Californians vote for something; one judge strikes"

You can't let a majority vote on the rights of a minority. Think about it.

August 8, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.
HiDef said...

tax_payer said - "I'm pretty sure Same-Sex-Marriage was not legal during the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, otherwise God would have not judged the place.

America does not have much time now before it is over."

Yes, and since my wife wasn't a virgin when I married her I should go round up some friends and we'll stone her to death...

Wake up folks and leave your 1500 year old book of "morality" behind.

August 8, 2010 at 9:07 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

If the appeal of Walker's ruling makes it to the Supreme Court, chock full of conservative jurists, the Constitution still applies.

It's difficult to imagine how these guys could ignore Article IV section 2.

Not saying they wouldn't.

August 8, 2010 at 9:22 a.m.
kmcgehee said...

@blackwater48 Exactly. I've never understood why this isn't a cut and dry Constitutional issue. States must honor each other's contracts, right? That's why people can get married in a drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas and it's still legal here in Tennessee, even though they can't get married in that fashion in this state.

Also, I wanted to introduce myself to all of Clay's commenters. I may not agree with all of you, but I respect all of you and the intelligent debate you bring to this site. - Katherine.

August 8, 2010 at 10:18 a.m.
Salsa said...

Divorce lawyers everywhere are celebrating their new access to another money source!

August 8, 2010 at 10:21 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Liberty. Justice. And democracy? 52% of Californians vote for something; one judge strikes it down. Equality? He's more equal than all of them put together. And that's a built-in problem when government tries to equalize by force things that aren't equal; it requires an unequal Equalizer, so to equalize by force creates inequality."

Think about that you're stating up there for a moment Andrew.

What if there were no judges in this country to push back when people go too far? Where would this country be if people who are of a majority of opinions truly had their way in this nation?

The judge in this case was in no manner attempting to equalize the opinions of people. That is an impossible task. Striking down a law arrived at by popular opinion of those who outnumber others seeking equality does not make all things equal. It is a good start however.

Democracy is a process of arriving at a popular opinion. It should never be confused with our form of governance in this nation. We live in a Republic. In our Republic, we live by the rule of law. Our laws are based on the Constitution of the United States of America.

While you did not bring religion up in your statements, I feel it safe to assume that any objections you have to any allowing of same gendered people being allowed to sanctify and legitimize their relationships, is based mainly upon your religious beliefs. And that is fine.

Where the line is consistently crossed is when people with such objections and/or beliefs attempt to force others to live THEIR lives inside the box you draw, by denying them that which would make them happy.

A majority opinion does not necessarily translate into anything at all that may be determined to be right, equal, or just.

If I lived in your neighborhood and I considered the color of your house to be an eyesore, I certainly have no right to gather others and to go to the Government to force you to change it to please our eyes.

Conversely, you should never have the right to gather with others to prevent people from living their lives according to your beholden values.

Mind your business and I assure you, they will mind theirs.

August 8, 2010 at 10:21 a.m.
sharkbat said...

If 52%, 68%, or 99% of Americans voted to make it illegal for blacks to sit in the back of a bus, or to make it illegal for Mexicans to serving in the Army, or to make it illegal for people with acid reflux to get student loans, it shouldn't matter.

The judicial branch exists so no amount of bigotry, intolerance, fear-mongering, or misguided (read: exclusionary) attempts at imposing morality can over-ride the constitution, and the guiding principals of equality, fairness, and justice exist for all.

August 8, 2010 at 10:23 a.m.
alprova said...

Tax_Payer wrote: "America does not have much time now before it is over."

How many years has that statement been uttered over the past several centuries?

Armageddon has been predicted and cited for at least the past 300 years.

No one, and I do mean no one...has the first clue as to when or if our world will end, whether or not Biblical prophesies are imminent or predictable, nor what may or may not trigger such events.

All that aside, there is a fundamental truth that no one can deny, despite all. You, yourself, are responsible for only one soul on Earth. That would be you and yours.

Take care of that and leave others to worry about their own. Most people I know have their hands full achieving that goal.

August 8, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

Some may cry foul that a judge overruled a majority of voters, but part of the justice's ruling made the point that we don't vote on what may be a constitutional right.

For the "cake and eat it too" crowd that's a good thing, because neither they nor I would like to see the 2nd Ammendment put up for a popular vote. Depending on the wording, the greater majority of voters favor an outright ban on private ownership of assault rifles. CCW, non-sport ordinance, and unregistered gun show sales were all decided by judicial or legislative fiat.

A woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is another issue social conservatives don't want decided by a majority of voters. The anti-abortionists know this too, that's why they NEVER try to put the issue on a ballot, seeking instead the weight of judicial activism.

August 8, 2010 at 12:09 p.m.
memphisexile said...

Voters cannot approve laws that violate the constitution. Just like Congress cannot pass laws the violate the constitution. It does not matter if 100% of the voters in California wanted to pass an unconstitutional law. It still cannot stand. What if 52% of the California voters decided to reinstitute the practice of slavery? Would that be ok? Of course not, it is unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. We do not know if this ban will be deemed unconstitutional or not, it will eventually go to the Supreme Court and will be decided.

For any law to pass constitutional muster that discriminates against a class of individuals it must be able to pass rational review, which means that the state must have some sort of purpose for passing the law other than to discriminate against the class being restricted by the law.

The judge in this case found that the state had no rational reason for passing the law other than to discriminate because the reasons given were either unsubstantiated/bogus (ie: gay people aren't as good parents and shouldn't be able to adopt or 2 heterosexual parents are better than 2 gay parents) or were based on politicians personal moral/religious beliefs which are not legitimate reasons for passing a law discriminating against a class of people. If a law cannot pass rational review it is unconstitutional.

This judge felt the law did not meets this rationality test and ruled accordingly. It will be up to the Supreme Court eventually to make this decision.

So please, leave off with the anti government defying the will of the people crap. This is our system, let it work. We have to have a judiciary that isn't afraid to enforce the constitution, otherwise it becomes a meaningless piece of paper. Just because in individual personally does not agree with the result does not mean the process is wrong.

Also, as usual, I find it continually amusing that the Republican/Libertarian anti government interference forces hate government interference in people's lives, unless it furthers their own political and moral agenda. Tax me no, traffic cameras no, tell women they cannot make their own medical decisions or tell gays they cannot marry yes. Hypocrites.

August 8, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

kmcgehee (Katherine). August 8, 2010 at 10:18 a.m.

Thanks for introducing yourself.

If you have followed these boards you are well aware there is a diversity of opinion here regarding Clay's cartoons. I too enjoy the opinions posted here and there are several whose opinions I look forward to reading. Feel free to post.

August 8, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
EaTn said...

What is marriage? This is where two people decide that living together is a sin or unacceptable to family so they pay a small license fee and make it legal, then after a period of time if it don't work one of them pays out the nose in legally dissolving the marriage. This is what same-sex folks are fighting for?

August 8, 2010 at 6:55 p.m.
BobMKE said...

No one is powerful enough to shake their fist in the face of the Lord and get away with it. I can predict the future, God wins. Dewey60, you are a VERY ANGRY (Young/Old?) man and you really need some help, so as my brother in Christ, I will pray for you. Earth is not our home, Heaven is, and we are only here for a short time to spend the Kingdom of God. We then go home to be with Him forever.

August 8, 2010 at 9:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

BobMKE, Dewey, although a little strange at times, just doesn't want others to impose their religious beliefs on him (I don't either). Maybe you guys can go on home to be with God and let the rest of us get on with life, unimpeded by paranoia inspired by stone age mythology.

August 8, 2010 at 9:50 p.m.
una61 said...

I think what homosexual couples are fighting for is societal acceptance, i.e., "It's o.k. to be gay". I have never felt threatened by anyone's declaration of homosexuality. My guess is that when same-sex marriage is legal everywhere (and it will be), the divorce rates for homosexual couples will be comparable to that of heterosexual couples.

August 8, 2010 at 10:06 p.m.
chattreb said...

I got to give you one thing, Clay, you sure give the liberal left cause for encouragement. In the long run, and I mean long......... run you and your fans are destined for disappointment.

August 9, 2010 at 1:22 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

In the late 1700s some people wanted democratic rule. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that the king ruled by God's will.

In the mid 1800s some people wanted to end slavery. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God approved of slavery.

In the early 1900s some people wanted to give women the vote. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved that God made women inferior to men.

In the mid 1900s some people wanted to end segregation. Conservative elements of the church pointed to the Bible and said it proved God wanted to keep the races separate.

When you look back at how your parents and grandparents dealt with these things, are you ashamed or proud?

Now some people want to allow gay marriage. Conservative elements of the church are pointing to the Bible and saying it proves God hates homosexuality.

When your children and grandchildren look back at how you deal with this, will they be ashamed or proud?

August 9, 2010 at 8:04 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Dewayne, you are an ignorant fool. Of course you prove this on a daily basis, but nevertheless...

Most Christians worship on Sundays not because they think it's the sabbath, but because it was the day of Jesus' resurrection. (died on Friday, resurrected on Sunday)


August 9, 2010 at 10:02 a.m.
alprova said...

Musicman wrote: "Most Christians worship on Sundays not because they think it's the sabbath, but because it was the day of Jesus' resurrection. (died on Friday, resurrected on Sunday)"

That's one explanation and a very popular one at that. The more truthful one is that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath eons ago, and all other religions for some strange reason, accepted the authority of the Catholic Church on that one.

Jesus didn't die on a Friday. That's an error caused by misunderstanding of scripture. He died on Wednesday afternoon. The day he was crucified, the Bible states that next day was a High Sabbath (NOT the weekly Sabbath), which was connected to Passover. Jewish days begin at sundown. Jesus and the others who were crucified had to be off the crosses and into their tombs before sundown on Wednesday, which is when the High Sabbath would start.

Jesus was in the tomb: Wednesday night and Thursday (one night and one day) Thursday night and Friday (one night and one day) Friday night and Saturday (one night and one day) He rose sometime after sundown on Saturday, which was the beginning of Sunday for the Jewish people.

It is indeed interesting to note that for once in my life, I have actually witnessed a likely Protestant take note of the fact that Sunday is not the true weekly Sabbath day. Saturday is the day that God set aside for the weekly Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week, established very early on in the Bibles we read.

The Catholic Church categorically and admittedly changing the day of Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. To the best of my knowledge, the Seventh-Day Adventists are the only organized Church that have that particular God commanded edict correct. They are sticklers when it comes to the Sabbath day, which begins at sundown Friday at dusk and ends Saturday at dusk.

There is no such law in the Bible that supports a Sunday Sabbath, nor the midnight to midnight timelines either.

But then, the modern day Bible in no manner resembles the one that existed before the European Catholic Church and King James did some antiquated cutting, pasting, and inserting of scripture of their own creation.

August 9, 2010 at 11:04 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

alprova, I understand that Jesus was likely born in April, not December, based on descriptions of the social and environmental descriptions surrounding his birth. It is celebrated in December to supercede the winter soltice pagan celebrations. Is it possible that Easter is similarly misplaced in the calendar year?

August 9, 2010 at 11:36 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

oops-gotta do a better edit job- social and environmental conditions.

August 9, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.
alprova said...

While we are on the subject of religion, a bit of history is in order. It was a large part as to why Proposition 8 was overturned by Judge Vaughn Walker.

In 1940, the case 'Minersville School District v. Gobitis' was big news. A very young Jehovah's Witness, Lillian Gobitas, was one of hundreds of school children expelled from public schools at the time, for failing to salute the American Flag and for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court ruled that national unity outweighed religious freedom. And after all, like Jewish people, Jehovah Witnesses were viewed as 'kooks' of the highest order, who did not share Christian values.

From 1940 to 1943, Jehovah Witnesses were treated very much like modern day Muslims. The flag salute, according to their beliefs was an idolatrous act of worship of a man-made symbol, which was forbidden by God. Mobs attacked Jehovah's Witnesses in 44 states, burned their houses of worship, and beatings of Jehovah Witnesses were quite common.

In Germany, failing to perform the Nazi salute resulted in Jehovah Witnesses being sent to concentration camps very much like those who were Jewish. Some 2,500 were gassed as well for their rigid beliefs.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in urging the Supreme Court to revisit the case. On June 14, 1943, the Supreme Court announced after hearing 'West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette'. June 14th was coincidentally...Flag Day.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson addressed the "tyranny of the majority," in his writings about the case. He wrote that the "very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect some issues from the volatility of politics and place them beyond the reach of majorities."

"One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, may not be submitted to vote."

One has to wonder why, some 67 years later, that it seems that we are traveling in reverse in this nation, when it comes to individual rights of our citizens, and their ability to live their lives as they desire, free from the whims of any majority of this nation.

Is it any wonder why so many people adamantly oppose religious belief is any part of the decision-making process when it comes to our societal laws?

Christians are unable to agree on much of anything at all, INCLUDING that which is contained in the Bible, their book of laws.

August 9, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
alprova said...

Ikeihlu asked: "Is it possible that Easter is similarly misplaced in the calendar year?"

According to all that I have read, the true and correct day to properly worship Easter varies wildly, due to beliefs surrounding the issue and which calendar is used to calculate Easter. At most however, Protestant calculations often depart from the Jewish calendar by as much as 27 days.

So, as far as the time of the year, it seems to be fairly correct, as Easter actually occurring in the early spring, but again, the Catholic Church refers only to the Julian calendar to perform it's calculations.

The Eastern Orthodox Church calculates Easter the same time or just after Passover. That Church apparently does not separate itself from the Jewish calendar. They have proclaimed that you cannot have Christianity without the Jews or without Passover because Passover is what brought Jesus to Jerusalem.

August 9, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
Humphrey said...

If Christians want to stop people from having gay sex, then they should be ENCOURAGING gay marriage.

August 9, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
alprova said...

I failed to note above that the 1943 decision by the Supreme Court was to reverse their 1940 decision that concerns of national unity outweighs religious beliefs.


August 9, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Humphrey wrote: "If Christians want to stop people from having gay sex, then they should be ENCOURAGING gay marriage."

Along that same vein of thought, I was reading a story this morning of a church that kinda bit off more than they were able to chew.

I'm not saying that either side is right on this one, but people are only going to be pushed only so far before they will start pushing back.

August 9, 2010 at 1:10 p.m.
FM_33 said...

SSM is like a eposode of * Married With Children * it just keeps getting better as it goes along.

Or does it !

August 9, 2010 at 3:07 p.m.

It's too bad the same people that hail this as a victory for freedom and justice, view the unequal taxation of those who are more successful in earning a living as fair. It's all just more pandering to special interests for votes.

Where are the calls to even the taxation laws? How about doing away with the marriage tax penalty altogether? How about the fairness of affirmative action? It's all about getting the votes. You are naive if you believe they actually care about fair treatment, justice or freedom.

August 9, 2010 at 3:41 p.m.

"Duh"wey60, For someone who has such a superior, condescending, arrogant attitude with some obvious hate for "hicks", you are one of the least cogent, least intelligent sounding contributors to this forum. One example: "You have just got yourself a fan of how you write." Really? That is hick talk if I ever "seen" it.

Why do you hate your roots so much? Why are you so angry? Did a big bad Christian hurt you at some point in your past?

My advice for you would be to tone it down a bit. Here are some words for you to live by: "It is better for people to think you are and idiot, than for you to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I paraphrased that from a quote I read somewhere. I am old and don't remember it word for word. Sorry I couldn't quote it more accurately.

August 9, 2010 at 4:23 p.m.
alprova said...

FPSE wrote: "It's all just more pandering to special interests for votes."

I'm sorry. I was totally unaware that gays seeking to legitimize their lives by marrying in the same manner as 90% of the rest of this nation, are a block of votes that would ever put any politician over the top into some perceived majority, under any mathematical equation.

If doing what is fair and just was remotely just about getting votes, don't you think that politicians who would "pander to special interests" as you call it, are declining caviar in order to eat table scraps, if they are indeed involved in overturning the will of a true majority of people?

Wouldn't it make far more sense to appease a literal majority of people, rather than to appease those who are horribly outnumbered? Homosexuals in this nation are about 9-12% of the population of this nation, and probably a tenth of those who are gay are interested in marriage. Who in their right mind would 'pander' to such a small group for the benefit of attaining votes in their favor?

To further denounce your theory, I remind you that Judge Vaughn Walker is a Federal Judge, and thus was appointed to his position, not elected to the bench. During his 21 years on the bench, Judge Walker's record has been far more leaning towards that expected of a Conservative judge, despite the fact that he is openly homosexual.

The true definition of those who are pandering in this nation for votes and approval numbers, are those like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who stuck her fingers out in the air to gauge public support for that state's legislated and infamous controversial immigration law BEFORE she declared her support for or against it and whether or not she would sign it, until she KNEW that a clear majority of people would be in favor of such a law.

Again, just because a majority of any people of this nation band together to declare their will, it will never translate into something being right, under any definition of the word.

In fact, our history in this nation has more often exposed such majorities to be quite the opposite, most of the time.

Religious conservatives who have been wrestling for control of this nation are an aging and a dying breed of people. I welcome the day that our current generation of young people start leading this nation.

They are far more open-minded, far more likely to seek to accept others who differ from themselves, will be more likely to integrate rather than to segregate, and they will have little interest in ruling a nation with a Bible tucked under their arms.

August 9, 2010 at 6:34 p.m.
alprova said...

Dewey wrote: "alprova, You have just got yourself a fan of how you write. Very very nice information."

Thank you.

"May I add that God was introduced in 1954 to the Pledge of Allegiance because of the same inviroment we have today when it comes to these Evangelical/Conserv Christians."

That is indeed correct, but then I hold no opinion at all on the issue as to whether or not it should remain in place as part of the POA. If someone has no belief in God, it's very easy to remain silent and to refuse to say those two words, if that is indeed their conviction to deny God's existence.

God is a generic and an English translation in reference to a supreme being. It is not reflective of any one religion, and thus rather innocuous, in my opinion.

"As you have pointed out in previous posts the Bible has been changed many times to subjugate its people. I have no problem with People needing a belief system if thats what they choose. There are places of worship all over Chattanooga and beyond to suit any individual's needs. Thats where it needs to stay."

On that we agree totally.

"Seperation of church/state is so important for this Country to move forward. Look how religion has tore up the middleast."

Which is precisely why I too do not want religious people of any description or faith to rule this nation, despite my own religious beliefs, which differ greatly with some or many others depending on the issue.

That is not to say that I do not respect their opinions or beliefs. I simply do not feel that anyone should ever be in any position of power to be able to force-feed their religious beliefs on others. Far too often and far too many people of faith are not content to respect the beliefs of others when those beliefs differ from their own. That by definition, makes them dangerous.

There is already too much that divides those who are religious. We certainly do not need any more division among the people of this nation. We need more unity and acceptance among our people.

Fanatical people are quite harmless, so long as they are never granted the power to rule over others. If there is one thing that all people of this world should have learned by now, it is that religion is extremely dangerous and deadly when it is used as a base in ruling any nation of people.

August 9, 2010 at 7:17 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Beautifully said, alprova.

August 9, 2010 at 7:34 p.m.
Oz said...

If same sex marriage becomes legal and a church denomination refuses to participate. I wonder if the state will stay separated from the church or if they will they prosecute the church?

August 9, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Marriage is a state contract-you don't need a church wedding to be married. I would hope that nobody would force churches to recognize any union that they didn't approve of. That would be unconstitutional.

August 9, 2010 at 8:20 p.m.
moonpie said...

Many interesting point above, but mostly the choir....

Many of our far right posters have been noticably absent in recent days. Have they:

1) Been on vacation? 2) Injured themselves in freak concealed-weapons accidents or motorcycle crashes? 3) Developed severe depression because of the failure of the tea party candidates to win local elections? 4) Been enjoying their last days of summer before having to return to elementary school? 5) Been shot in Red Lobster before they could unholster? 6) .... or woke up and saw a cartoon that they can't really refute on constitutional terms.

August 9, 2010 at 8:54 p.m.
sd said...

Oz said, "If same sex marriage becomes legal and a church denomination refuses to participate. I wonder if the state will stay separated from the church or if they will they prosecute the church?"

Please. I know you guys love your perceived martyrdom, but that is absurd.

Churches can refuse to marry people and do so all the time. Some only marry actively attending members (and have varying time length requirements) and some only marry those of the same denomination. Those that do marry people outside of the congregation typically charge non-members higher fees for the service and use of the facility, as is their right.

One of my relatives actually switched churches when he got engaged because the church his fiance wanted to get married at required a year of active attendance prior to the wedding date.

August 9, 2010 at 8:58 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Alprova-Great commentary and historical references.

Off topic- If anyone is interested, the Chattanooga Coordinating Counsel of is holding a rally at noon on Tuesday at the corner of ML King Boulevard and Georgia Avenue.

The rally is in opposition to the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as people.

I will be out there sweating at the rally.

August 9, 2010 at 9:02 p.m.
sd said...

re: righty posters

where rolando at? :(((

August 9, 2010 at 9:05 p.m.
Oz said...

sd said....Please. I know you guys love your perceived martyrdom, but that is absurd. Is it? Could they take away tax exempt status?

lkeithlu... I am fully aware weddings can be performed without the church but we all know...if given the chance someone will the push the discrimination button in the lawsuit lottery.

August 9, 2010 at 9:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

It would be a dangerous development for a church to be sued successfully for discrimination in this matter. The ACLU would take the church's side pretty quickly, and I presume that would be the end of it.

August 9, 2010 at 9:18 p.m.
alprova said...

Oz wrote: "If same sex marriage becomes legal and a church denomination refuses to participate. I wonder if the state will stay separated from the church or if they will they prosecute the church?"

For sure, there will be many churches that will refuse to marry same gendered couples, but then, those churches are already refusing to allow openly gay people to worship in their churches as we speak.

But you see, there are also many churches around the country that welcome ALL people, regardless of their circumstances or lifestyles. In fact, there are a few in the metro area who have been around for quite some time.

And those same churches will most certainly be more than happy to add this 'service,' for a lack of a better way to describe it, to those who desire it.

In other words, those discriminatory churches who pick and choose their parishioners will operate as they always have.

That doesn't mean they will be happy about the situation. They'll try sticking their noses into the business of others just as they have been doing for decades.

August 9, 2010 at 9:21 p.m.
alprova said...

Oz wrote: "I am fully aware weddings can be performed without the church but we all know...if given the chance someone will the push the discrimination button in the lawsuit lottery."

While the possibility certainly exists that someone might be silly enough to file such a civil suit, churches are not regulated in any manner by our Government, with the exception of OSHA standards and a scattering of local building codes.

Discrimination? That would be a hoot. Churches have been practicing discrimination for eons. I can't see a case being made that would not be trounced in a millisecond.

But this is America, and in America...anything is possible and eventually probable.

August 9, 2010 at 9:35 p.m.
alprova said...

Moonpie wrote: "Many of our far right posters have been noticably absent in recent days. Have they:

4) Been enjoying their last days of summer before having to return to elementary school?"


I nominate your post to be the most hilarious one offered in months.

I tip my hat to you.

August 9, 2010 at 9:38 p.m.
Oz said...

Every church should allow ALL people to attend. We are all sinners.

August 9, 2010 at 9:49 p.m.
BobMKE said...

To all of you Libs/Socialists/Progressives, everything will change on this blog on Tues. November 2, 2010 when the Silent Majority (The people right of center in this Country) take back America. Our forefathers will be very proud of us. Jimmy Carter II and his bunch will have two years being lame ducks and it will take decades before they try again. I predict that Hillary will run for President in 2012 via Ted "Hic" Kennedy in 1980 against Jimmy Carter I. She won't win but she'll try.

August 9, 2010 at 10:04 p.m.
moonpie said...


The person who voted against your last post certainly has a misguided sense of what it means to be a Christian.

If Churches didn't allow sinners in their midsts, no one could attend.

I once had the pleasure of talking to Howard Finster, the folk artist and God-man of visions who told me that one of his paintings was hanging over the bed in a porno movie. He said he was asked if it offended him that one of his religious paintings was in a porn film and he said he responded, "No. The people who watch porno movies need to see my paintings."

He was always trying to lead people to something, to save them, not condemn them.

Howard Finster may have been crazy, but if more Christians preached what he practiced, there would be less opposition to the church today.

August 9, 2010 at 11:24 p.m.
alprova said...

BobMKE wrote: "To all of you Libs/Socialists/Progressives, everything will change on this blog on Tues. November 2, 2010 when the Silent Majority (The people right of center in this Country) take back America."

Well you might believe that is gonna happen, but the primaries are not shaping up to be any indication that there is any widespread coup d'état in the works at all.

The Tea Party movement has run out of breath and is now on life support...beep...beep...beep...just as I predicted would happen.

Rand Paul is about the only significant candidate that the Tea Party can claim, and he has a near ZERO change of winning the general election in November, due to his cocky revelations shortly after winning the Republican primary election.

In 2006, the GOP fed $57 million to candidates in tight races to be used to augment their campaign coffers. This week, Michael Steel announced that there is only $4 million available for candidates in similar predicaments.

The only tight races being watched at the moment are in six states.

And to top it all off, John Boehner got CREAMED on Face the Nation this past weekend by David Gregory on the subject of the impending expiring Bush tax cuts.

Boehner stated that the tax cuts should not be allowed to expire for any class of Americans, including those who make over $250,000 a year. Gregory responded to Boehner by stating that many top economists agree with only allowing the top tax rates to expire. He then backed up his statement with a video clip of Alan Greenspan attesting to that very thing.

Gregory asked Boehner why he disagreed. Boehner replied that it was dangerous to allow the tax cuts to expire in any form during these difficult economic times. The result could be a double-dip recession. When Gregory invited Boehner to explain how that process would occur, instead of answering intelligently, Boehner dodged the question repeatedly with GOP rhetoric.

He honestly had that deer in the headlight look. I almost felt sorry for the man. Almost.

All the Republican strategies are misfiring...horribly. And we're only 90 days from the November elections. How much worse is it going to get for the Republicans?

I'm not confident by no means, which is why I am going to be casting my vote tomorrow in the Republican runoff in Georgia to cast my votes for the worst of the bad, and why I'll be writing some checks this week and mailing them to some Democratic candidates, as others have been doing.

August 10, 2010 at 12:05 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Moonpie wrote yesterday: "Many of our far right posters have been noticably absent in recent days."

canary showed up yesterday morning on the 2012 thread and spewed a series of posts on evolution, of all things (not on topic). It took quite a while, but I showed all of them to be dishonest and false (this is the ONLY area I am equipped to do this; I can just read and watch and question on all other topics-politics, economics, etc). Early this morning canary returned. He did not acknowledge or rebut, but spewed another series. I scanned them and they are full of new quote mines and falsehoods. I do not have the time to pick them apart today.

In summary: In the one area that I can assess well, canary has shown himself to be completely without integrity. IMHO EVERYTHING that comes from his keyboard is suspect. Reader beware.

August 10, 2010 at 9:10 a.m.
whoknows said...

Well, I can tell you where I’ve been. Though I do not consider myself a far-rightwing poster, I am definitely more right than left. Busy. It’s extremely busy for us at insurance companies right now… However, I have lost interest in this board every since the racist bigot, Dewey60, turned this into a playground for his prejudices. I have no tolerance at all for racism and fools like him. My thoughts on the cartoon and the decision to overturn Prop 8: If you have been a member of this board for awhile, you’ll know that I disagree with homosexuality. Doesn’t mean I don’t like them, just disagree with them. But I also REALLY disagree with the government thinking they have any say whatsoever in who can be married or not. It is not the government’s business. If you’re gay, straight, bi, or whatever else you can be these days, why does it matter to the government? Marry who you want. Just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean that you can’t do it. So, in other words, this should never have been an issue in any court. I do think, however, that someone will take this to a higher court. I’m sure we haven’t heard the end of this yet. C’est la vie.

August 10, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.
eeeeeek said...

la vie

August 10, 2010 at 12:37 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Well I have been very busy and on vacation....

And I am now finding myself disagreeing with a poster who means very much to me. If you have paid attention in the past everyone knows that I am against gay marriage. I believe that our country is headed for a country with no boundries and that is a dangerous thing. So now that gays are getting their way in California, it will surely trickle it's way across the rest of the country if it stands. So if in another 20 or 50 years a group of people think that marrying their dog is a good thing then it would be unconstitutional to deny them based on this prop 8 overturn.

I know that was a ridiculous example but so are the arguments above.

How do we know what is right and wrong anyway? Is it only wrong to murder because the LAW says so? Is it only wrong to rob because the LAW says so? How did we come to these conclusions? They were handed down from the morals set forth from God himself.

I have no problem stating that it is AMORAL to be a murderer, thief, pedophile, gay, or even someone who has sex outside of marriage. And I will admit that my views come from the Bible just as do most of our laws in this country and many others for that fact.

It is good to be back. I enjoyed reading everyone's (well almost everyone's) views above. We do have a good forum here with the exception of the dewey decimating system.

August 10, 2010 at 3:03 p.m.
FM_33 said...

If same sex marriage becomes legal and a church denomination refuses to participate. I wonder if the state will stay separated from the church or if they will they prosecute the church? Username: Oz | On: August 9, 2010 at 8:16 p.m.

Is this the old caller by the name of "Ozzy" who use to call the Chattanooga Week-in Review radio show ?

If it is..... yo what's up !

August 10, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
FM_33 said...

I call it as I see it. There is a reason when repub/conservs get together there is going to be that awful twangy country music playing. I am not one of your nascar goobers loving palin/bush hick crowd. In the great words of boxer Ali,

"Donot Hate Me Because I Am Beautiful".

And before you think I am black,you would be very very wrong. I am self-employed now because I am tired of lazy whites and lazy blacks. I have much more on that one. Sooooooo,whatever floats your boat.

Dewayne Callahan East Ridge Username: dewey60 | On: August 9, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.

Where did the race issue get brought up in this conversion ?

August 10, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.
FM_33 said...

re: righty posters

where rolando at? :((( Username: sd | On: August 9, 2010 at 9:05 p.m.

He went to look for that CIA office up on Signal Mtn and to check out that manual on the internet in the library congress in Washington DC that i posted about.

August 10, 2010 at 3:58 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Moonpie wrote yesterday: "Many of our far right posters have been noticably absent in recent days."

They went to Wal-Mart to buy a lot of boxes of Moonpies.

August 10, 2010 at 4:01 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Every church should allow ALL people to attend. We are all sinners. Username: Oz | On: August 9, 2010 at 9:49 p.m.

And all people should get in one bed and have a mass orgy just to show our love to the world huh Oz !

August 10, 2010 at 4:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"I have no problem stating that it is AMORAL to be a murderer, thief, pedophile, gay, or even someone who has sex outside of marriage. And I will admit that my views come from the Bible just as do most of our laws in this country and many others for that fact."


victim? murder-check theft-check child sexual abuse-check adultury-debatable homosexuality-where is the victim? Who's rights are denied by the fact that someone is gay?

"And I will admit that my views come from the Bible just as do most of our laws in this country and many others for that fact."

curious-what laws do we have that spring from the Bible that are not found in other countries that don't use the Bible as a source of guidance?

Murder, theft, even public drunkeness, drug abuse, are all against the law in countries that are from other religious traditions. What laws do we have that are from the Bible that do not occur in other countries?

According to the Bible, we must all worship or perish. In the US, is the death penalty or imprisonment the punishment for not attending church? Seems that the bible demands a lot that we conveniently ignore from a legal standpoint.

August 10, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.
Oz said...

I believe all sinners are welcome in the church. I did not say I supported same sex marriage.

August 10, 2010 at 8:49 p.m.
ITguy said...

Since modern science has pretty well determined that sexual preference is genetic, the only arguments against same sex marriage are religous. That said, to continue to deny same sex marriage would not only violate the equal protection clause but also the separation or church and state. When this makes its way to the supreme court, I expect that the ruling by the California court to be upheld. There is clearly no rational reason to deny same sex marriage.

Mainstream Christian denominations all over the world are currently struggling with the issue of the ordination of openly gay ministers. Several have allowed it, and more will follow. Educated people realize that the scriptural prohibitions are reflections of a different time and culture, like the prohibitions against eating pork or shell fish.

We should encourage all people to be responsible in their sexuality. We should encourage monogamy in relationships. Why would any rational person argue against this?

Before you jump to judgement, ask yourself "what would I say if my son or daughter told me that they were gay?"

August 10, 2010 at 10:48 p.m.
Oz said...

Psychopathic behavior may have a genetic componet too. Will educated people realize that the scriptural prohibitions, of psychopathic behavior, are reflections of a different time and culture, like the prohibitions against eating pork or shell fish?

August 10, 2010 at 11:20 p.m.
Oz said...

My point is....educated people can and will twist the truth to justify whatever. I am not saying a homosexual and a psychopath are the same thing. It's not. As a wise educated young man, I justified premarital sex as a reflection of another time and culture. It was genetic...I could not wait.

August 10, 2010 at 11:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Just a quick observation: sexual preference is not genetic, but most likely a result of hormonal environment (during gestation). There is not a "gay" gene discovered, and may never be-the circumstances that set sexual preference are WAY too complex.

August 11, 2010 at 7:24 a.m.
ITguy said...

I stand corrected. However my point is that sexual preference is not a choice and is not something that can be 'cured'. It is a part of who you are.

Oz, I assume from your second post that you are retracting your first, so I will not point out how irrelevant it was.

As for your second post, I take it that you agree that people should be encouraged to be responsible in their sexuality and that they should be encouraged to be monogamous. If you are gay, pre-marital sex is the only option. If it is desirable for heterosexuals to wait until marriage, why wouldn't the same hold true for homosexuals. Or do you think that they should be encouraged to be promiscuous?

August 11, 2010 at 1:47 p.m.
Oz said...

ITguy... I would not encourage same sex relationships either way. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I have known 5 gay men during my life and all of them had terrible relationships with their father's. The relationships were borderline abusive. I believe these men were looking for the relationship, they never had with their father. Maybe I'm wrong. This is based on my own personal experiences. Your experiences might different.

August 11, 2010 at 11:49 p.m.
ITguy said...


Your post indicated that you think that the reason these men are gay is that they had abusive fathers. That is an interesting theory, but it has no scientific basis.

I think that it is far more likely that these fathers could not bear the fact that their son was gay. This is deeply troubling. How sad it is that peoples families are torn apart because we fail to understand the nature of human sexuality. It is a documented fact that gay teenagers have a much higher suicide rate than heterosexual teens.

I am a heterosexual male with two children, however I have known and been friends with gay people since I was in high school. I am passionate about this issue because I have seen far too many people suffer from abuse at the hands of ignorant hateful people. It is way past time that we put an end to this bigotry.

August 12, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Bravo, ITguy. Well said. I too have known gays who were demonized/rejected just for who and what they are. They no more made a conscious decision to be attracted to the same gender as I did when one day (at about 9) discovered that boys were interesting, not disgusting and obnoxious.

August 12, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.
acerigger said...

Just so i'm not confused by the wording in your post ikeithlu,are you in fact a female?

August 12, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

yes, acerigger! Married 28 years

August 12, 2010 at 11:17 a.m.
Oz said...

Itguy...I expressed an opinion. I did not say or imply that it was scientific! You cannot prove any statement as scientific either. My statement was based on individuals I have known over the last 50 years.

Heterosexuals locked up in jail for long periods usually end up in homosexual relationships. I don't think a gene had anything to do with it. It was a jailhouse conversion. You know.....If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.

I have never condemned anyone for being gay. That is way above my pay grade. I have always treated gay friends and co-workers with respect. The same respect I have for all human beings.

I would never condone the humiliation of someone because they are gay. If I had a gay child, I would still love them unconditionally.

I could careless about what two people do in their bedroom. However, I'm not going to support same sex marriage.

August 12, 2010 at 10:19 p.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu....We both have 28 years of marital bliss (most of the time anyway) in common!

August 12, 2010 at 10:22 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Congratulations, Oz! You've (we've) certainly beat the odds. Marriage is hard work, but worth it.

August 13, 2010 at 6:37 a.m.
acerigger said...

thanx ike,and congrats.

August 13, 2010 at 3:30 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.