It's not much of a leap between supporting laws that deny equal protection under the law (human rights) and seeing those laws as license to kill. It's very convenient to my argument that you introduced the white supremacist who had inspired his followers to commit violence. Thanks for that. So you would be mistaken in your thought that I am not equating the two, and the fact that you cannot equate the two in regard to homosexuals, but are able to where white on black racial violence is concerned also confirms your status as being as much of a bigot as those who are inclined to attempt to murder people like me because of my orientation. Also. Actual laws which discriminate are far more compelling as "inspiration" than the personal charisma of some wingnut white supremacist. Or do I have you all wrong? Would you not vote to repeal the legalization of SSM if given the chance?
Moral equivalence is a very sad concept.
In your mind, the Muslim that throws a gay person off a roof to their death and a Christian who prays for the deliverance of the gay person's soul is somehow equivalent? Just...sad.
The charge of bigotry can go both ways. You've proven to be quite the anti-Christian bigot in what you've written. Comfortable with the badge?
My position on SSM is that the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to involve itself in the issue in any way. SCOTUS should never have taken this case, as it is an issue properly left to the States under the Tenth Amendment. However, once SCOTUS did take the case, they decided correctly, as the"equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does stipulate that, for Federal purposes, a marriage deemed to be legal in any one state must be recognized as legal in all the others. For myself, given the chance to vote on the issue, I would not vote to approve SSM because I believe the government has no compelling interest in the definition of marriage.
Wow. That's my first reaction. I'm really curious where you get your sources. In the case of Curley vs. NAMBLA, the only person saying NAMBLA "somehow spurred" Jaynes (the murderer) to commit crimes was a witness for the Curleys, who the judge ruled incompetent to testify. Jaynes has always maintained his innocence. Also, irrelevant except for accuracy's sake Jayne's partner in crime, Sicari, who testified against Jaynes in the criminal case, reported the chain of events differently from from your presentation of them. I won't go into details because of where we are, but do some proper research, like I have, and you'll know the truth of it.
Guess what. The ACLU has defended the KKK!
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech
The ACLU has defended Christians!
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
Perhaps it's because they disagree with you on the SSM issue that you want to drag their name through the mud?
https://www.aclu.org/feature/out-freedom
Edit P.S.: Oh, by the way, your might find this statistic interesting:
In the mid 90s, an undercover detective discovered the NAMBLA organizational rolls. 1,100 members. In 1997, NAMBLA was the largest group in IPCE (an international pro-pedophile organization) The largest! I'm sorry, but they seem like quite the fringe organization to me.
I agree that NAMBLA is a "fringe organization", but it seems that Progressives do not necessarily equate numbers with impact. The modern Klan is- thankfully!- a tiny percentage of what it once was, yet authorities remain vigilant against its activities. But the Black Panthers are also a "fringe organization" but the Obama Justice Department gave them a pass in a clear instance of voter intimidation. If one is deserving of scrutiny, then all are. If one should get a pass, then all should. I would prefer that all such groups have an eye or three be kept on them.
As for the ACLU, I'm sure that you are aware that they were started by a Communist:
I have continued directing the unpopular fight for the rights of agitation, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union ... I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with international radical activities, chiefly against war, fascism and imperialism; and have traveled constantly in the United States to areas of conflict over workers' rights to strike and organize.
My chief aversion is the system of greed, private greed, private profit, privilege and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment ...
Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.
I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth.
Communism is the goal.- Roger Baldwin
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=21474
They have not strayed too terribly far from that goal.
In any event, what the heck does this have to do with SSM anyway?
Another poster asked about a potentially "slippery slope" developing whereby other 'alternative' forms of marriage might see a push towards legalization, to which I replied that has already happened with polygamy. The attempts are few as are those calling for its legalization (though Politico, hardly a fringe publication, recently offered this advocacy for polygamy:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469). That article makes a very good point in saying that SSM was all but "unthinkable" only 20 years ago, but is now the law of the land. Time will tell, of course, but it is more than possible that marriage will be redefined once again in the space of 20- or less- years, when the standard definition of the term lasted for centuries.
- - - Updated - - -
Just because methods differ does not make either one more or less bigoted. There are no degrees of bigotry.
Simple bovine excrement.
Gay in the US prior to the recent SCOTUS decision? Alive to bemoan the fact you can't marry your same-sex partner. Gay in, say, Iran prior to the recent SCOTUS decision? Either more deeply in the closet than R. Kelly ever thought about being or dead.
I'm going out on a limb and posit that you are somewhat familiar with Saul Alinsky.
