The Scales Have Tipped - Laura Hollis Opinion

Here is a post-election assessment from Notre Dame Law Professor Laura Hollis, who chairs their department of entrepreneurial studies.

A friend sent me this opinion piece by Notre Dame Law Professor Laura Hollis. A former writer for the Detroit News, she is now the Director of Entrepreneurial Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

I might have chosen softer words, but agree completely with her assessment of a divided America. She said it better than I could, so I'll print it verbatim.

In a future blog post, I'll offer some suggestions for blocking the current administration's plans over the next four years until conservatives can be elected. Michigan is on the right track for a recovery from a ten year depression, and it's not too late for America.

Written vs. Living Constitution - A Better Way Forward

The main strategy should be to weigh all proposals and actions against America's written Constitution, contrasting it with the Living Constitution that the current administration believes in.

America will have a deeper hole to dig out of beginning in 2016, but it can be done with patience and mid-term election gains of people to Congress who respect the Constitution in 2014.

Another key will be to convince Americans to try conservative principles, which are better for all segments of society and actually work, rather than causing more problems.

Professor Hollis addresses some of these societal problems, which have been made worse by our government starting with the Great Society in the 1960s.


"The Scales Have Tipped" by Laura Hollis, Nov 08, 2012
I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year's elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:
1. We are outnumbered. We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men,  independents, Catholics, evangelicals - they all went for Romney in  percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in  2008. It wasn't enough.

What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping  point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff.

There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered. For the moment. It's just that simple.
2. It wasn't the candidate(s). Some are already saying, "Romney was the wrong guy"; "He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else]." With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign.

Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances.

Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost. See #1, above.
3. It's the culture, stupid. We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that is not where the battle really is.

We abdicated control of the culture - starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions - education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. 

Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the institutions that instill good character - marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later - we are reaping what we have sown.

It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.
4. America has become a nation of adolescents. The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint.

Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well.

Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.
But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending. This does not bode well.

People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies.

American voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you." It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.
5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote. It's the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year.

Suffice it to say that the only "war on women" was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their "lady parts," comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb (and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control.

For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women (largely married) used their "lady smarts" instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.
6. It's not about giving up on "social issues." No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to.

This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard.) That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes.

We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible.
We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable. 
We defend family - mothers, fathers, marriage, children - because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent.

When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as "pro-life."

What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before. There is no "giving up" on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will win out in the end.
7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one. I have to laugh - bitterly - when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama "has to know" that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle.

I don't know what they're smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the "fundamental transformation" of America , the basic structure of which he despises.

Expect much more of the same - largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.  

8. The Corrupt Media - is the enemy too strong? I don't think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears.

This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to go.

Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.
9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst. For all the blather about "Wall Street versus Main Street," Obama's statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which - as with the public sector unions - are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from Obama's health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws.

It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.

10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it's personal. I've been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I've received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees - even when they have been our friends.

It isn't just about "my guy" versus "your guy." It is my view of America versus your view of America - a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me.

I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb "tweet" or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete.

What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama's policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.  

11. It's possible that America just has to hit rock bottom. I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay "a little bit more." So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist?

America is on a horrific bender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere - too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.
For the past four years - but certainly within the past campaign season - we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama's presidency - unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters - can be tied directly to Obama's statist philosophies, and his decisions.
What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own "rock bottom," and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.

Laura Hirschfeld Hollis is:  

Current: Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame.

Past: Director at Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Associate Director and Clinical Professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Education: University of Notre Dame Law School , University of Notre Dame.

Summary: She has 20+ years' experience in curriculum and other program development and delivery.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dave W February 10, 2013 at 07:43 AM
Dale, I would love to hear your legal argument against gay marriage, because citing the Bible does not work in court. You say that you don't "think it is good public policy for the government to grant them marriage licenses" and go on to imply that procreation is a requirement for marriage. Funny, I don't think people are required to have children in order to get married. In fact, I don't think believing in God is a requirement for marriage under the law. Athiests can get married by the state and receive a marriage license. What is so difficult to understand about the difference between civil and religious marriage? Civil marriage is a legal contract with the state between two individuals who publicly declare they wish to spend the rest of their lives together. Religious marriage is a sacred rite performed by one's religious denomination. Gay couples are fighting for the first (not "special privileges"), while social conservatives (mostly) fight "to protect" the second. Again, this is you wanting to legislate your personal beliefs based on religion. If you really want to protect marriage, then you should focus on making divorce & adultery illegal. While I disapprove of both, I also disagree with criminalizing them under the law. I am a gay man. I want you to explain to me how my getting married destroys or damages "the institution of marriage". I mean specifically in Troy, MI, how would my marriage affect anyone else in Troy? (And please don't cite the Bible)
Thomas Gagne February 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM
Dale, God's word is for God's people. The United States of America is not a theocracy so scripture can't be made law "just because." If because of your religious background you believe gay people ought not to marry, then you shouldn't marry another man, nor bless the marriage of your sons to other men or daughters to other daughters. That's your prerogative and obligation to piety. To prohibit others from same-sex marriages you will need a better argument describing a compelling government interest in rejecting them. I see no such argument. But I can't articulate a compelling argument why government cares about marriage generally, gay or not. What the government is interested in, and cultures throughout history, is children. Nations, tribes, and clans would disappear and be for naught if they didn't have children to renew and immortalize them. And for that compelling interest, the government has had a historical, but now misplaced interest in marriage. So while you or Ms. Hollis may think we've crossed a line, I think we may be able to renew ourselves for the better through a better understanding of what our nation's interest really are, and in doing so find we've better laws in God's eyes than before when we were blind.
Kevin G February 10, 2013 at 02:13 PM
You are ALL at fault for the existence of this Murrish fellow. He is a wretched narcissist & only exists because people engage him. He is nothing more than a Rick Santorum wanna be, let his moment in the light dim and fade away already. He is not relevant to anything real or possible and it needs to stop already.
Thomas Gagne February 10, 2013 at 02:30 PM
So you suggest hurling ad hominems to counter his opinion? With as wide a divide as exists between left and right, you believe insults will build the bridge we need to find moderation? How can your advice be any more constructive and irrational as his?
Kevin G February 10, 2013 at 03:12 PM
Oh look at you with your rhetoric and all. His arguments have been going on for a couple years that I have seen & he is not looking to discuss or compromise. He is rigid in his beliefs and as proud as one can be, and is not looking to learn about other perspectives. If I had seen one civilized conversation a moment of Dale enlightenment, which I haven't, I would give in to your "bridge," but Dale is not looking for new perspective, he is looking only to change yours. In my world you can be as conservative as you want to be and I do not want to make you into me. We both exist. In his world you are straight out going to hell if you don't follow the book HE accepts as truth. I have seen it over and over and over. If you think adding perspective to his arguments might change a thing, you are delusional. I am not directly on in any harsh way insulting anyone, but calling a spade a spade. Sorry if it bursts your bubble.
Daffy Noodnicks February 10, 2013 at 06:44 PM
I'm not an expert in this area, and clearly I don't spend as much time as Dale thinking about the topic, so check me if I'm wrong here: I am not aware of an act of lovemaking that gay people can engage in that straight people aren't capable of engaging in as well. Is he saying no sex should occur except for reproduction? No people should be allowed to marry unless children can be produced? Because I am dead set against both ideas. The bit about only divorces he thinks are ok should be allowed is super too. Apparently he doesn't think savage abuse is grounds for divorce. There's a key to his thinking and what we're dealing with here. I little while ago, he said (correctly) what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business. Here we are with his making it his business, again. Are you retracting your earlier statement Dale? Was it never true? Also, gay people have kids naturally and by adopting for all sorts of reasons. Bigotry like Dale's promotes discriminating against these families at law. I think these families should be treated fairly and not discriminated against, even if Dale thinks they are are icky, or he thinks the Bible tells him they are icky. The Bible should have no sway in this country in matters of civil law.
Daffy Noodnicks February 10, 2013 at 06:47 PM
I would bet knows many more gay people than he thinks he does. I imagine gay people would be comfortable being out to someone so intolerant and bigoted.
John David February 10, 2013 at 08:07 PM
Daffy, I was thinking about gay marriage during church today. I think people concentrate on sexual "orientation" and sex acts. Like you said, there is no sex act a gay can engage in that a straight person can't, and I am sure, have engaged in. What I think people ought to focus on is the humanity of everyone. If a person is attracted to and loves someone of the same gender, why should they be excluded from marriage, if that is what they want? Marriage is a legal, civil union, primarily, in the US. States set rules like when you can apply for a license, how long a license is good for until you get married, but does not require a religious wedding. Religious organizations can marry couples within the law and subject to their own requirements. Judges and others can marry couples within state law. I see no reason why under our law that same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying. There are benefits to them that would apply that they cannot obtain other than thru marriage, such as the right to be present when they are hospitalized, property rights, and other rights heterosexual couples are given by law. Religion should not prevent this. It took a Supreme Court ruling to allow whites to marry non-whites. Miscegenation was illegal in many states until the ruling in Loving v Virginia, a state decision based on biblical "separation of the races". I don't think it's a stretch that such a ruling will eventually apply to gays.
Greg Thrasher February 10, 2013 at 08:22 PM
Ditto as to Dale's comments!!
Daffy Noodnicks February 10, 2013 at 09:17 PM
John David: My opinion on the issue is very much the same as what you stated. This being tax season, it is incredibly easy to see how gay families are discriminated against. On the issue of humanity, I think things like kids being brought up in same sex families having to feel as though society thinks less of their family is just plain an awful injustice. It is also important to note that nowhere in any of the increasing numbers of places where it is legal for gay people to get married, no church has ever been compelled to marry anyone they didn't want to. It would be beyond the pale for that to ever become law. I understand and respect religious objections. Religious objections just aren't a basis for civil law for the entirety of society. I even respect the right of people to have the opinion that <insert here> people are icky for Biblical or any other reason. I think it's awful, horrid, and repellent, and if anyone says so around me I will say so. A community website represents the community. I don't want anyone to think Dale's bigotry, or our awful former mayor is representative of Troy. I have a substantial investment here, and I am raising my beautiful little Noodnicks here. It is also interesting to note that gay people are getting married all over this country at this time. I love Mrs. Noodnicks more every day I am fortunate enough to married to such a wonderful person, and the sanctity of our marriage has not suffered in the tiniest bit.
John David February 10, 2013 at 09:30 PM
Ya gotta love them little Noodnicks! All of them.
Greg Thrasher February 11, 2013 at 12:28 AM
The most lethal and backward collective in our nation today are intellectual cowards and cheerleaders most if course are conservatives ... For decades they have been against basic moral values from humanity to equality . Conservatives have promoted wars, fences, selfish policies . They are often hypocrites and they often lack the courage to admit their shortcomings often always seeking a scapegoat.., It is good for the nation to watch the GOP die off .. Good Riddance!!!
Dale Murrish February 11, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Oh, for the innocence of childhood, when we counted lights or ceiling tiles during boring sermons. At least we learned our multiplication tables. Sorry you were distracted by sexual thoughts instead of focused on worshipping God, John David. It’s a common problem, worshipping the gift instead of the Giver, or the creation instead of the Creator. Maybe you should try visiting a different church. We also take His gifts and twist them by enjoying them out of the boundaries He has set up for our good. Some even reframe real vices like pornography into virtues and tourist pictures into vices.
Dale Murrish February 11, 2013 at 10:43 PM
If you mean proportional appointment of Presidential Electors like Nebraska and Maine by Congressional Districts, along with an end to gerrymandering like Iowa's Congressional District's law, I’m all for it.
Dale Murrish February 11, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Dave W., I already made the argument from natural law, not just the Bible. I could cite civil court cases already underway for extending marriage rights beyond two men or two women. But this would only make some of your supporters angry, so I’d rather not. I’d ask that you respect my First Amendment rights to practice my religion and free speech. No one is forcing you to read my articles or attend my church. You’re welcome to do both. People who think they’re perfect don’t feel comfortable very long, though. I’m not causing you material harm by denying you a marriage license or calling gay sex unnatural. It is. I’m OK with visitation rights in hospitals and property transfer rights. If we need new laws to accomplish that, I’m open to that. What gives gay advocates the right to redefine marriage as it has been defined in all previous civilizations? And yes, a childless married man and woman is still a marriage. It’s called infertility; some choose to remain childless, while others wait years for healthy infants made scarce by abortion. America’s value system has been changed by a highly effective thirty year marketing campaign with slogans like “marriage equality,” constant pro-gay advertising from Hollywood and most of the news media, and worst of all, smacking down anyone who disagrees with epithets like “bigot” and “homophobe.” What will the next thirty years bring?
Dale Murrish February 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM
Gay rights advocates want society at large to accept gay sexual behavior and the right to teach my kids that this is a normal alternative lifestyle. Also the right to prosecute people for hate speech when they affirm traditional values. These we will oppose at the ballot box. You can call me old-fashioned or traditional if you like, but bigot does not describe me or many others who believe in traditional values. A bigot is “rigidly devoted to his or her own group, race, religion or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” Tolerance means live and let live. Some people on both sides are actually bigots. The venom heard from many on your side fits that definition – hateful words from those who preach tolerance. We would all benefit from a calmer dialogue. Thomas Gagne’s approach is better than many others. I respect his opinion. If more were like him we might find some common ground. However, government still has a vested interest in what is best for the children because it is what sustains a society. It still takes a family, not a village, to raise a child. Solid two-parent families do a better job on average than single parents. The church or government can provide a safety net, but any of these make a poor substitute for a mother and a father.
John David February 11, 2013 at 11:27 PM
I was thinking about human rights in relation to Christ's life and teachings. I wasn't distracted.
Dave W February 11, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Dale, your "natural law" agrument still does not hold water in a court of law. I didn't ask you to cite civil cases for polygamy, I asked you for a legal case against same-sex marriage. I do respect your First Amendment rights, Dale, because I am not asking for laws to be passed against your free speech or your religion. You are free to say whatever you please or practice whatever religion you want without the government punishing you for it. (Note that the First Amendment does not entitle you to say whatever you want without challenge from other citizens, only that the government cannot punish you for it.) I in no way claim to be perfect, so how long until you feel uncomfortable? You are materially harming me by advocating to deny me the same rights as any other couple under the law. You also seem to be the one fixated on the physical aspect of gay relationships, because you keep coming back to "gay sex is unnatural". As others have correctly pointed out, there is no act that a gay couple peforms that a straight couple can't. Gay advocates are not "redefining marriage". Marriage has morphed many times over the centuries. In this country alone, it was illegal for interracial couples to marry until 1967. Every argument you make here, is the same as the white preachers in the South at that time. http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
Dave W February 11, 2013 at 11:49 PM
As far as childless marriages, you seem to miss the point. There are many reasons that couples can't have kids, but my point is that those reasons do not disqualify them from getting married, so procreation is not a prerequisite. And for your information, there are hundreds of thousands of children waiting to be adopted in this country; there is no shortage: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/waiting2011.pdf America's value system is one that is constantly evolving to be more inclusive and less discriminatory. I have no doubt that in 30 years no one will care about the issue of gay marriage or anyone being gay, except maybe religious zealots who want to push their beliefs on everyone else.
Dave W February 12, 2013 at 12:04 AM
Dale, again, I nor any "gay rights advocates" are looking for your input on sexual behavior. I don't need to know what you do in privacy and you don't need to know what I do. You can also teach your kids whatever you want, you would be the parent, but for those kids who are gay you are being very destructive, whether you want to believe that or not. You wouldn't be a bigot if you weren't rigidly devoted to your own religious beliefs and intolerant of those of us different from you. "Tolerance means live and let live", yet you are not tolerant because you are trying to make it illegal for me to marry the person I love. You may not approve of it, but you don't have the right to make it illegal, which is why you are labeled as such. No one is asking you to marry someone of the same sex, or your church to perform the ceremony, or you to even approve, the whole point is that it is none of your business. The only reason you oppose it is because of your religious beliefs, and that's fine, but again you can't impose those beliefs or legally punish those who don't share them. I don't believe that I spew venom at you, Dale, I merely disagree with you and offer the reasons/data why. I don't care what you do in your life, or with who, or how you do it, but you seem to want to tell me (via the law) what I can do. You are correct that two-parent families better provide for (statistically) children than single parents, but that doesn't mean biological father and mother.
Daffy Noodnicks February 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM
How pedantic and obnoxious of you Dale.
Daffy Noodnicks February 12, 2013 at 12:08 AM
But Dale, you are clearly a bigot.
Daffy Noodnicks February 12, 2013 at 12:10 AM
But Dale, you are clearly a bigot. Calling someone else unnatural is hate speech. You are disgusting.
Daffy Noodnicks February 12, 2013 at 01:01 AM
As long as you exercise your first amendment rights to spread your antigay bigotry and lies, I will be here exercising my first amendment right to say how horrible you are being.
Dale Murrish February 12, 2013 at 01:14 AM
Dave W., I've not received any venom from you, just disagreement. The venom comes from some others: Daffy Noodnicks/Matt Goodman, would you please read what I wrote through some clear glasses before throwing it back at me with untrue insults? I said certain sexual behavior is unnatural, whether performed by straights or gays. Just because something is possible does not mean it is healthy or natural. By the way, the racist interpretations of the previous marriage laws were totally wrong. There is only one race, the human race. The preachers who preached against interracial marriage misinterpreted the Bible, as I've written elsewhere. So that is not a valid argument for gay marriage.
Daffy Noodnicks February 12, 2013 at 01:50 AM
Dale: why should anyone care how you rank different sexual behaviors, and why is it appropriate for you to be dwelling on the topic in a community website? Your definition of "unnatural" is untrue. You have said gay sex is unnatural which is untrue for gay people. It is not natural for heterosexuals to have homosexual sex, and vice versa. People engage in sex, you have clearly said gay people behave unnaturally in a sexual manner which is untrue. That is bigotry. And somehow, you have convinced yourself that this nonsense justifies not extending equal protections under the law to other citizens. The point about inter racial marriage is, you will be perceived the same way in historical terms. A lot of people already see you that way. A lot of people would also say you are misinterpreting the Bible. The gay people who live in Troy have been through enough with our horrible former mayor. They don't need your irrational judgements. Personally, I find them repellent on many levels, and I will say so. If you want me to stop saying you are spreading false bigoted information, then stop saying it.
Dave W February 12, 2013 at 02:00 AM
Dale, your interpretation of the Bible is no less flawed or incomplete than those preachers of the 1960s. I hope that you are not claiming to have an absolute understanding of the Bible, because I'm not sure that is possible considering the revisions and translations over the past 2000 years. Even so, there are many Christians who disagree with your interpretation, Matthew Vines being a very vocal one. Not that the interpretations really matter, because using the Bible is not a valid argument for denying gay marriage.
THEODORE GIBSON February 12, 2013 at 02:19 AM
DALE MURRISH: You said you support the government imposing regulations against marriage equality because "government still has a vested interest in what is best for the children because it is what sustains a society." I thought you were opposed to big government regulations infringing on our individual liberties. I am confused...Do you want big government or not? Do you want the government telling us how to best raise our children? Please clarify your position for me and help me understand your point of view. Thanks Dale!
Daffy Noodnicks February 12, 2013 at 02:33 AM
When you say you were also referring to straight people that is also untrue. You have referred to gay sexual behavior specifically multiple times.
Timothy Rath (Editor) February 12, 2013 at 03:00 AM
We'll close the comments on this now. It's getting a little out of hand. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns. Thanks for contributing!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »