I love scouring the newspaper. I never know when something completely off the wall will be reported to make my day or at least provide some fun topic of conversation. Other times I’ll find an article that on the surface seems non-germane to anything I’m concerned about, but, in fact, proves to be Exhibit A in proving a point.
Such was the case this morning in the venerable Richmond Times-Dispatch. Its business section reported a feature article on a new trend of people contracting to buy houses together for various reasons: Older, widowed women who don’t want to rent, or recent college grads who want to invest in home ownership but can’t get a mortgage on their own. (According to the article, Time dubbed young co-owners ”communal homeowners” or “co-hos.”)
Right, right . . . I know this isn’t a real estate blog . . . getting to the point. Let’s go back to 2006 and the Marriage Amendment campaign. What was the biggest — of the endless —scare tactics used by the homosexual lobby and liberal politicians, and brainlessly repeated by the lofties at numerous editorial pages and Mainstream Media types?
Unintended consequences. That’s right. If the marriage amendment passed all sorts of evil unimagined things would happen: unrelated people would not be able to enter into contracts, go into business, or buy real estate together, to name but a few of the here-to-Alaska list.
The article (read it here) is about two Richmond-area women who have been best friends for 30 years. One is a widow, one is divorced and both are empty-nesters for the most part. They rented homes but spent so much time on the phone talking to each other, it made great sense to buy a house together. More than that, according to the article:
Grady and McAbee consulted an attorney and had a contract prepared that addresses such issues as what happens when one of them dies — each has a lifetime right to the house as long as they can afford it — and who inherits the proceeds from the eventual sale of the property.
So much for not being able to enter into contracts with non-spouses. They got a lawyer and everything! They got all legaled up with inheritance rights and all of that stuff even though the best and brightest lefties said it couldn’t happen. Hysteria, indeed. But let’s see the left prove their point. Let them file suit to make people who’ve bought houses together dissolve their contracts and sell off their assets. (Here’s another story we reported on in June which also proves our point.)
If this isn’t an example of the misdirection and untruth that constantly comes from the hysterical left, we don’t know what it is. In fact, it should serve as a warning to any fair minded person to take with an entire Morton’s Salt container anything that comes from their mouths.
We’re waiting for the homosexual lobby and their liberal politician allies to apologize for spending millions of dollars misrepresenting the truth to Virginians — and even their donors — who expect much better. We also wait for the dozens of know-it-all editorial page editors and Mainstream Media types to admit they were wrong. Of course, all the above mentioned could prove us wrong. Let them file a law suit against those who have bought homes together.
Right. Sure they will. There is an important lesson here, for all great issues that affect us: Policy discourse is about who you can believe. It’s about the truth. It’s about who has credibility — and who has a lack of it.
You won’t get the truth from the Family Foundation, that’s for sure. They spouted nothing but heaps of lies during the amendment campaign and continue to lie and appeal to prejudice.
Oh, it’s you again, Chad. Making more assertions. Where’s your proof? Without proof, who’s the liar? We just posted something that proves our point beyond any standard. You failed to answer our request on the other thread to cite hate speech from us. We’ll give you another chance. Prove it or be man enough to admit you’re wrong. Or show us where we’re wrong in the example cited here. Seems when someone calls your bluff and bluster you run and hide.
- The admin
Lies from the Family Foundation:
Gay marriage has “destroyed” Scandinavian families.
Gays (and liberals) are responsible for the high rate of divorce.
Gays wanted to legalize “homosexual prostitution”.
The whole “activist judge” thing.
These are from Family Foundation alerts or newspaper articles or TV interviews.
Chad -
First, what you have listed is opinion or from studies and statistics we’ve cited, or things you’ve grossly taken out of context. Second, you have not cited any specific article or provided a link to anything to prove your case. (If you can find the TV interview links, please let us know. We’ll post them in our archive.) Third, how is this hate speech? How are quoting studies making a personal, hate-filled attack on anyone?
Oh, we understand. Again, you’ve proven our point: Liberals such as yourself want to shut out any opinion that’s not shared by you by demonizing it as “hate speech.” Opinion on anything, or even fact, such as activist judges, is hate speech to you. Funny, we allow you on our blog. If we were so unfair, so intolerant, we wouldn’t allow you on our blog, now would we?
Finally, if you want to be honest, Chad, how can you say we are lying? Did not the homosexual lobby use the “unintended consequence” scare tactic during the the marriage amendment campaign? We’ve got the millions of dollars of TV ads to prove they did. And was not one explicit example of what the homosexual lobby said would be illegal under the M.A. now happening as reported in the linked article? Hey, but feel free to prove us wrong. As mentioned in the post, file a law suit saying the M.A. prohibits such purchases.
- The admin
I have recently finished an excellent book that was released in 2008, “The Liberal Mind – The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”, by Psychiatrist Lyle H. Rossiter, M.D. “Are Liberals Out of their Minds?”, is the question posed in bold type on the outside back page. Another paragraph on the back page states, ‘”Modern Liberalism’s irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns if thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that it’s relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche”. The Liberal Mind reveals the madness of the modern liberal for what it is: a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world’s political arenas, with devastating effects on the institutions of liberty.’
The real unacknowledged fact of gay marriage is this: men and women are different. Lesbians tend to couple up and remain much more closely monogamous than do homosexual men. Even the men in so-called committed relationships fully expect and understand that they will ea be free to get (or give) a little on the side from “temporary partners”. [One here thinks of Larry Craig in the Minneapolis airport bathroom].
Seems intellectually dishonest to say two men could marry yet ea be free to sleep around with any partner they fancy outside the marriage. Homosexual men are–as the AIDS crisis in its early years confirmed— incapable of any type of “forsaking all others” marriage commitmt. And for that reason we would be committing the ultimate definition fraud to call such an arrangemt a marriage. Not unlike such eye-rolling phrases such as “gentlemen’s club” or “People’s Republic of China”.
I don’t understand how a person’s right to do as they wish in private – to live with whom they please, and to do what they want with sex — (so long as they are duly consenting adults) — how exactly does that translate into this imagined right that they have to my approval of it?
Even if homosexuality were NOT so destructive in so many ways… and it surely is — how can it be a gay person’s right to get public sanction for their behavior, over public objection?
And yes, public approbrium of homosexuality and its destigmatization have not reduced the suicide rates of the poor people deluded by the confusion of homosexual perversion.
It’s not just the harm that gay “marriage” does — though homosexuality is medically, socially, and pyshcologically destructive — but public sanction and subsidy should be reserved for those things which we can agree offer demonstrated benefit to the society. Gay “marriage” does not.
I could sanction discretion – but legal solemnization? Never.
I will never agree that a man having sexual intercourse with another man is something to be made the centerpiece of any publicly agreed institution.
Homosexual “marriage” is deserving neither of support, nor approval; and has provided no good or benefit to society.