Tom Toles for October 15, 2010

Who is not allowing others to have an opinion?

Better put, some people will not recognize that opinions other than their own just might have some validity, and should only be denigrated.

Obama has been handed a skam0dunk in the gay-rights department, wherein by doing NOTHING everyone gets what they want.

Instead, he is actively snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by fighting the courts advances in civil rights and actually defending unconstitutional, mean-spirited laws. what a stupid, stupid man.

is it painful, nailing yourself to a cross every time you come here jackson?

Thats pretty much the path of our country on all matters concerning its citizens. No direction! no leadership!

How boring is your bed, that you need to worry about what’s going on in someone else’s? The Bible says that God gave man free will. Let Him worry about who’s following His rules.

“Boy some people will just not allow other to have an opinion.”

What does one’s enforcement and stances on unconstitutional and discriminatory laws have to do with one’s opinion? Christians are of the opinion that no one else’s religion but their own is valid (as are most religions). The law allows them all to practice their religions, though. Opinion vs. Law. You can have all of the opinions you want, it’s whether or not you enforce laws that restrict my access to equal rights and Constitutional protection that it becomes an issue. You are perfectly allowed to hold whatever opinion of gays you want. But the United States Constitution’s 1st and 14th Amendment are supposed to protect them from your opinion, should you attempt to turn it into law. Right now, the Constitution is failing to protect its lawful citizens.

Remember the days before we’d ever heard of Fred Phelps???

question of the day is the armed services to defend the USA or promote social engineering?

jack, people are going to continue to insult your grammar as long as you put up difficult-to-read posts that demonstrate an almost total lack of knowledge of the rules of punctuation.

Silly fagots dicks are for chicks.

Seems to me people need to look inward and pay attention to how they practice the values Jesus taught and stop trying to play God. If homosexuality is a sin, as they claim, God will take care of it in His own way and in His own time.

and people like Limbaugh and Gingrich ain’t got no right to talk about the sanctity of marriage.

^ Adulterers, interestingly enough, are in no better place on the sin totem poll (though depending on which aspect of the religion you believe in, all sins are equal to God), are often at the forefront of anti-gay laws. It’s interesting.

Our country still has the Defense of Marriage Act that governs how the Federal Govt. treats marriage as ONLY between a man and woman, just the way the Holy Bible that you denigrate teaches. It was meant to be the ultimate symbol of the relationship between Christ & the Church. It is not ever to be entered into without this understanding.

The Feds have the ability to sanction all other unions that we the people decide should be lawful in our Republic. Have at it. Just don’t call it marriage.

churchill, I think you are referring to the fact that Woodrow Wilson undid integration in the civil service and set back civil rights 50 years, but I read your note as meaning exactly the opposite. Incidentally, I don’t know who thinks of him as a progressive these days – Teddy Roosevelt was a true progressive. Wilson was not only a racist, he was a total slimeball who, if he had any integrity at all, would have kept us out of WWI.

yeah, that site sounds just like you, church … you write it?

DOUGDASH - men and women’s marriages represent the symbol of christ and the church ? did christ have a church during the time of jesus ? so, does every marriage between a man and a woman of every religion become a symbol of their christ and church ? no ? then your statement doesn’t hold water if christ made ALL the peoples on this planet…

@Doug Dash- but I’m not a Christian- why do I have to follow arbitrary rules from a book of myths that have no meaning for me?

Also, the US is not Christian (the Constitution specifically forbids it), why should the laws follow arbitrary rules from a book of myths that has no meaning for it?

Adam Sperry; +2!

It’s the same “christ wanted men and women to be together” who always insis that Christ wasn’t married and hung out with guys…

church, I might have known you were a Yankees fan. And this link was fascinating in a horrible sort of way. I cannot imagine how providing safer, more efficient cookstoves (which also avoid asphyxiating families) to poor families is a bad thing. I suggest you read Nature on this: http://tinyurl.com/27en29g

^ Weird stuff, church. Why can’t they use sentences instead of broken phrases? I thought the video might clarify, but it was removed for copyright violations.

Then there was the totally untrue complete sentence: “Progressives do not believe in the free markets or capitalism.” Since I would certainly be progressive by the standards of this author, and I firmly believe capitalism is the best economic system on earth, it is a lie.

Of course, most progressives don’t go for the extreme laissez-faire version that conservatives back, which comes out “all government bad, all business good”. A true student of capitalism knows that it is totally unworkable without government.

I waste enough time being obsessed with my own sex life, I have no time left to be obsessed with other people’s.

Ah, sorry, churchill, I appreciate Mets fans. They share a fundamental bond with Red Sox fans: hating the Yankees. But I can also understand supporting whichever New York team remains. (Boston had two teams once…)