According to this Portland Mercury Blogtown PDX post, the best validity rate in recent history was Measure 36 at 86% valid.

So they have a shot, assuming their baseline number of signatures is correct, but it will be very, very, nail-bitingly close.

• Bob R.

Yes. Usually around 20-30% or so. I believe it is usually lower for groups that use established social networks, such as churches.

It is highly unlikely that Shannon et al gathered enough signatures to make the ballot, but that is not because there weren't plenty of willing signers. Successful signature drives are very much about organization.

There may be a million willing signers out there, but if you don't put a petition in front of them, they never have the opportunity to sign.

This drive did not appear to be well organized. I requested petition sheets a few weeks ago, so I could sign and get friends and neighbors to sign. The petitions never arrived. I have to wonder how many others had the same experience.

So, when you make up your list of signers, so you can tell the world who they are, perhaps you would be kind enough to include my name. I would have signed, if I would have had the opportunity.

I doubted from the beginning that this drive was organized enough to succeed. Frankly, they did better than I though they would. But it is highly unlikely that their validity rate is high enough to make it. In fact, they probably missed by a fair amount, what with your side counting the signatures.

Validity has dropped from 85 percent or so (on the average) a decade or so ago to down around 70 percent or less under Bill Bradbury. The quality of signatures has not decreased. The legislature and secretary of state have accomplished that on their own. They have created a ton of new roadblocks and gotchas to invalidate perfectly valid signatures.

Bradbury does plenty of bad mouthing of petition circulators and chief petitioners, including me, but if there is a crook or thief at work here, it is he.

I feel sorry for those who worked so hard to get this issue on the ballot and probably fell short. This question should have been put to the voters, not shoved down our throats by a bunch of liberal Democrats.

You holler at the religious right for trying to foist their values on everyone else and then turn around and do the same thing. I guess it all depends on whose values are being foisted, doesn't it.

"You holler at the religious right for trying to foist their values on everyone else and then turn around and do the same thing. I guess it all depends on whose values are being foisted, doesn't it."

Gay people haven't prevented you from marrying the one you love. You've done that to gay people. Get back to me when you're foisted into a gay partnership.

Glad to know that Bill Sizemore feels put upon because he may not be able to openly discriminate against the LGBT community anymore. Poor Bill! He didn't even get a chance to sign the petition. I know all of our hearts are breaking for him. I have news for you, Bill. Equality is not a value. It is a right.

-Billy,

You arrogant Satan worshiping slut! Take your money and sleeze and move out of the state. Go someplace where you are more welcome... Iraq, perhaps?

I agree that they are probably toast, especially because, as revealed by the Nader failure in 2004, there are MANY MANY ways to invalidate a signature. They probably needed at least 70-75k to be safe, but we shall see.

Hey Bill,

Get a real job and pay your back taxes. I find it amusing that someone who takes money from Loren Parks, famous for:

Parks Medical Electronics Inc., which was founded by  
Parks in 1963. The company, which employs about 50 
people, sells electronic equipment that measures blood 
flow, most notably a penile plethysmograph, which senses  
male sexual arousal.

doesn't want GLBT couples to marry. Why does all of this weird sexual stuff keep coming up in connection with big GOP types? Thank goodness there is finally a device that measures male sexual arousal ! All of this weird right wing repressed sexuality, and just some of the odd coincidences are quite amusing. I hope I don't see you in the men's room stall.

Loren Parks sells the "peter meter?" That was the tool used to find that homophobic men are aroused by gay porn.

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

I voted against the last anti-gay rights initiative. In a weird way, maybe it would be a good thing to get this one on the ballot. End the debate once and for all by shutting down this one also at the ballot box.

The obvious thing that has changed since a "decade or so ago" is how signatures are gathered. They used to be gathered by committed volunteers who had a personal investment in seeing the measure on the ballot. Now there are sleazy companies that hire less-than-savory people to harrass folks on the street.

There have been many instances of paid signature gatherers copying signatures from one petition to another. There's no accountability. The gatherers get paid whether their signatures are valid or not.

Initiative drives -- at least the right-wing ones -- have become a business. Signatures are the product and petitioners are the customer. I'm not surprised that, when the business model is "create more product (signatures) at lower cost," the quality of the product suffers. It's the same business model as Chinese toy manufacturers.

And, Bill, if you disagree with the Sec. of State on the number of invalid signatures, you can do something about it. But you have to show that they invalidated valid signatures. Vague feelings of persecution and hopelessness are not enough -- though you may want to talk with your doctor to find out if Prozac is right for you.

I suggest that Bill Sizemore spend his time satisfying all the court judgements against him that he has failed to pay. Didn't Oregon already stick a fork in Sizemore's butt and concluded he was done?

No, David, you may be able to stick a fork in me, but I am not done yet, as you will see next November. The OEA spent a million and a half dollars, stacked a Multnomah County jury, and even found a dishonest judge whose son is an OEA activist, to preside over their lawsuit, but that was not enough to force me out of politics. Heck, it's too much fun to quit.

And yes, Bradbury does cheat. He is easily worse than any secretary of state in my memory. Go to www.billsizemore.com and read my article about when your signature doesn't count. The man has no conscience. Bradbury uses his office to further his own political agenda, plain and simple. That might be overlooked in some offices, but secretary of state? Even left wingers ought to demand integrity from that office.

And what back taxes are you talking about, Raul. That's a pretty lame shot, since there are none. Personal attacks are the last resort of shallow people with nothing intelligent to say.

There was at least one intelligent post on this thread. Jeni makes a reasoned argument. Just because I believe homosexuality is wrong does not mean others should have to live by my values. But the thing is, Jeni, this values war was not started by homophobes attacking gays. It was started by a militant gay and lesbian movement, which is trying to force society to give their lifestyle some official stamp of approval.

There are valid societal reasons for resisting that movement and one can do so without being homophobic. You don't have to have animosity towards gays to oppose their politial agenda.

I find it interesting that on those rare occasions I post on this or other liberal sites, the first thing that happens is the cheapshot artists begin their personal attacks. Such behavior is immature and pitiful. Some of you really don't have anything intelligent to say, do you?

The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc? Why is this a right? Is it a right simply because they want to do these things?

Is this one of those inalienable rights to which all men were endowed by their Creator? If so, what creator are you talking about? Certainly not the Christian or Jewish Creator. If this right does not stem from a creator, what is the authority for claiming it is a right, other than personal preference? And all of us want things and have preferences that are hardly rights.

For your side to win this argument, other than by legislative fiat, you need to persuade society that there is now some basis for legitimizing behavior that has been deemed ill-advised, antisocial and immoral for pretty much all of human history, except near the end of a few collapsing civilizations.

If you cannot do that, then you are going to have to be content with forcing your will upon the rest of us. But then, don't blame us for resisting.

Is it too much to ask these people to just mind their own business and leave the people be? Why must they stick thier nose into something that really isn't any of their business to begin with? Why must they butt in? What they do in their lives is of no concern of me or others. We have no right to control these people.

To call these people 'christians' would be hypocritical and fraudulant.

The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?

Why, that would be the US Constitution, Bill (which you apparently confuse with the Declaration of Independence). The latter document does nevertheless bear quoting:

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I voted against the last anti-gay rights initiative. In a weird way, maybe it would be a good thing to get this one on the ballot. End the debate once and for all by shutting down this one also at the ballot box.

The "last anti-gay rights initiative" was Measure 36 - and it PASSED.

Thanks to all those prejudiced Catholics, Mormons, and African American Protestants who came out in droves to deny basic civil protections to their fellow Oregonians because their evidence-free, imaginary gods and goddesses told them so...

And thanks also to limp, pathetic Democrats who pander to these folks, and who still fail to acknowledge gays and lesbians as fully human, due the same Constitutional rights and responsibilities as they enjoy.

I suspect it's much better if we are spared further voting on my family's equal participation in American life..! Who's going to stand up and speak for us this time? The Archdiocese of Portland? Hillary Clinton? Ted? Please...

I thought Sizemore was a closeted gay - doesn't he live off his sugardaddy (the Oregon billionaire) Jeld Wen, down there in Klamath Falls?

The reason the right-wing neo-con nuts didn't send Sizemore any petitions is because Sizemore is unwanted anywhere in Oregon politics; no grouip wants to be associated with him. And Sizemore's posting here shows that he is trying to stroke his own ego and feel important. The fact is that Bill Sizemore is a pariah in Oregon politics.

Bill S., the right for people who are gay to be treated by the government in the same way that the government treats people who are straight is derived from "All men are created equal." Note that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of any "marriage protection" act. Rather, etched in stone above the entrance to the court are the words, "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW." The court has unanimously determined that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

liberalincarnate You move your A#$ out of this state, git, get out, we don't need you here. Bill S is what we need in this state, not YOU!!! Let me be the one to pay for the U-haul for you so you can MOVE out of this state...Hurry up now

It has been said before by me and others, but it bears repeating: Civil marriage is a right that is recognized even for terrorists (who can still marry), murderers (who can still marry), (heterosexual) child molesters (who can still marry -- even their victims after time), the "underage" in some states (who can still marry), the multiple-divorcees (who can still marry -- so much for "sanctity"), everybody. Just not gay people.

• Bob R.

Sizemore,

First, I apologize for the vitriolic, personal attacks thrown at you by my liberal cohorts on this site. I consider Tom’s post particularly distasteful.

Second, homosexuals derive rights from the same source as heterosexuals: the U.S. and Oregon constitutions. Discrimination based on sexual orientation violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses) and Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution.

Just because a law discriminates according to sexual orientation does not render it per se unconstitutional. Courts apply different standards of review to discriminatory laws depending on the importance of the interest involved. Thus, courts apply strict scrutiny (almost always fatal to a law) to the discrimination against homosexuals in the exercise of their political rights, as in Romer v. Evans. But courts apply only rational-basis review to discrimination with respect to less fundamental interests, such as adoption ( Lofton, 358 F.3d 804). Thus, when those of us who oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation argue that homosexuals have a right to adopt, what we are really saying is that to the extent that government permits adoption, it cannot discriminate against homosexuals because this discrimination is not rationally-related to a legitimate government interest. Most courts have disagreed with us on this point, but I am confident that our argument will ultimately prevail.

The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?

Bill, as both a gay man and a jewish man, I can tell you I'm a believer that my religion does support me in relationships. If you want references, I can send you to a few Rabbis who agree. In fact, there are entire congregations that agree.

It helps to know that when we talk about the generalities of equality, everyone deserves it (thank you James X). Yet, we're not treated equal. In over half the states of the union, I could be fired for simply being gay. Not for any reason of my performance. And with every serious, major medical study showing that this is not a conscious choice (trust me, it isn't), how can you stand there and say I'm not equal because of a decision I never made?

The laws adopted by the legislature support the belief that the government can't treat differently people just because the government doesn't like them. Ironically, this is exactly what Bill's accusing Bradbury of.

Yet I digress, the government can't stop committed couples from enjoying the legal benefits, tax incentives, and many of the other dozens of things that previously were only given to heterosexual couples. As well, the laws protect me from being fired simply because my employer disagrees with things that have no impact on my performance.

Bill, if you wanted to fire one of your staffers cause he's gay, and no you can't because you have no other reason, then too bad. But you're still free to go hating anyone or loving anyone you want. That's your right, and I'll fight for your's, even though you won't stand up for me.

p.s. I'm proud to be a progress democrat. So throw that word around as slander as much as you want, I'll wear it with the respect it deserves.

Hooray... BlueOregon dialogue has achieved the intellectually-void "No YOU!" reasoning of NW Republican.

Guys, please remember that the R's started quoting blogs on their direct mail last cycle. Pointing out their foibles and idiotic reasoning makes for fine sport... but shouting back insults isn't going to spark any measure of self-reflection and -- at worst -- colors the left as dim-witted moonbats.

If you count Bill Sizemore as your foe, then relish the chance to see a little deeper into his [bizarre] thought process (with more than just a grain of salt, of course).

Is this one of those inalienable rights to which all men were endowed by their Creator? If so, what creator are you talking about? Certainly not the Christian or Jewish Creator. If this right does not stem from a creator, what is the authority for claiming it is a right, other than personal preference? And all of us want things and have preferences that are hardly rights.

Let's put aside, for the moment, the fact that the American system of laws is not a theocratic one. As a Jew, I take deep offense at your characterization of the Creator as one who did not endow us all with the rights that we are only too slowly now getting around to granting to gay men and lesbians explicitly through our laws. It takes a certain chutzpah for you to tell me what the Jewish Creator thinks.

I'm perfectly happy to see Sizemore come here. He can become a guest contributor. I just think some of his arguments are not fully reasoned, and I'm going to explain why I think that.

And while I'm not a fan of name-calling and cheap shots, I'm not wary of the GOP quoting us, either. Someone could perfectly easily come here and post something just to use it in an ad against us. Oh well.

The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc?

While I appreciate Jeremy's thoughtful response, I really don't understand the question.

What is the source of the right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships? The source of the right is a statute passed by the Oregon legislature last session, just like the source of the right for straight couples to enter into relationships recognized by the state is a statute (or, more precisely, a variety of statutes).

In most states, gays and lesbians have no right to enter into state-recognized relationships. But they can still encourage the government to create such a right.

Bill, what do you believe to be the source of your right to enter into a relationship with your spouse? (I'm assuming you're straight. Correct me if I'm wrong.) If you think the source of your right to have the state recognize your marriage is God, then I'd ask you to point me to a passage in the Bible that discusses state recognition of marriage. (Being that the church did not consider marriage a sacrament until the year 1215 CE, and state recognition of marriage was an innovation of the 18th Century, I think you'd be hard pressed to find such a Biblical passage.)

Even if the Bible did say something about state recognition of heterosexual marriage (which it doesn't), I wonder why that should have any bearing on the present discussion. The Bible doesn't say anything about the right of Hindus to get married, and yet we don't stop them from entering into state-recognized relationships. Conversely, the Bible does expressly sanction polygamous marriages (see, e.g., Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15), and yet we don't permit men to have more than one wife. So, to borrow a phrase, "What's the Bible got to do with it?"

The whole discussion seems to be beside the point, Bill. Jeremy argues that there is a constitutional right for gays to enter into state-recognized relationships and for them to be free of discrimination. I think he's right. But even if he is wrong, so what? It is still good public policy for the legislature to provide these rights.

I also agree that we, as progressive people should not lower ourselves to a level of name calling and malicious remarks. There is always room for respectable debate, and a lot of that has certainly been shown here today. It's important that we stick to the facts, and I would suggest that Mr. Sizemore and his constituents do the same.

The last time I checked, those "liberal democrats" who are "shoving this down our throats" were elected by the majority of Oregonians to make and pass laws on our behalf. It is unbelievable to me that a group of people who are obviously ignorant to the facts are able to delay my basic rights as a person. I don't have a "lifestyle," I have a life, and that life includes my wife and my children.

My partner and I deserve the same protection under the law that I received when I was married to a man. No more, just the same.

Why is that asking so much?

It's 3.5 years old, but this cartoon still is relevant as long as there are arguments about "defending traditional marriage" and who should or should not be allowed to marry or gain civil unions.

Some of my relatives, US citizens by birth, who fought in WWII for the US while the rest of their families were placed in concentration camps were still not allowed to legally marry Caucasians in Oregon and had to cross over into Washington state to marry.

-tl

Also, let's remember that what Mr. Sizemore calls policies "shoved down our throats by a bunch of liberal Democrats" are actually policies supported by a solid majority of Americans.

1. The Legislature passed a ban on employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. According to a May 10-13 Gallup Poll, a solid 89% of Americans support this policy.

2. The Legislature passed a domestic partnership law, giving same-sex couples many (but not all) of the same rights as opposite-sex married couples receive. According to a Fox News poll from last November 4-5, a full 60% of Americans support either gay marriage (30%) or "a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage" (30%).

So, Bill, think what you will about the merits of these policies, but let's not pretend they are part of some kind of radical agenda forced upon Oregonians by an out-of-touch legislature. These policies are well within the mainstream.

Genesis 2:24

Romans 1:26-32

DanS--

I just read those two Bible passages three times, and I can't for the life of me figure out what they have to do with allowing gay couples to file their income taxes jointly or allowing gays to visit their life partners in the hospital.

Maybe you can explain....

Also, maybe you can explain to me how we should give these Bible passages effect in the law: Deuteronomy 23:1 Deuteronomy 23:3 (Under those Biblical provisions, bastards and eunuchs are not permitted to get married.)

Or one of my favorites from Leviticus 20:9--

"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head."

Perhaps we should use this to justify legalized infanticide?

According to the SOS's website, 62,000 unverified signatures were turned in for both, meaning that the validity rate would need to be 89%, not at all likely.

1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12

Colossians 2:8 & 2:13-15

Our laws do not need religious rationale; Bible verses are red herrings. We can get as far off track as we like arguing back and forth about what Leviticus said or what happened in Gomorrah, but it is not pertinent to whether Oregon will allow bosses to fire employees for being "too faggy."

Dear DanS,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:

1. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

2. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

3. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

4. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't know. Can you settle this?

5. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging, and we should do what the bible says.

1 Corinthians 10:23-26

We can go on and on with the quote game all day! My favorite (for non-spiritual purposes) Bible quote:

1 Kings 7:23 Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.

Get it?... Pi = 3, apparently.

Romans 13:9-10 En garde, DanS!

(Disclaimer: "Paul of Tarsus" is my sock puppet)

The question I pose to serious readers on this site is this: What is the source of the supposed right of gays and lesbians to have official relationships, adopt kids, etc? Why is this a right? Is it a right simply because they want to do these things?

The source is concept of freedom and justice. In a free society, you have the right to do as you please, until it interferes with someone else's right to do as they please, at which point a negotiation ensues. In a just society, every one is treated as fairly and equally as possible.

Gay marriage does not prevent straight couples from marrying. Narrow-minded religious bigots (which does not include all religious people fortunately!) prevent gay couples from marrying. That is not freedom.

Freedom only has meaning if you apply it to things you don't approve of: the freedom to be or do only what others approve is no freedom at all.

Or, as Robert Heinlein said well: “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).”

If you want a legal basis, rather than fundamental principles, how about the 10th amendment to the US Constitution and Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution. It couldn't be spelled out any more simply and clearly.

I also find it interesting that the same people who decry "special rights" for those who are trying to get equal treatment are the same ones now calling loudest to keep the very real special rights they now enjoy.

This argument is pretty intersting, but I really would like to hear from one of our Bible-believing fiends from the right how they respond to the argument raised several times above, that many of the laws in the Bible are completely ignored by even the most devout of modern-day Christians. I'm serious, I really want to hear a response to this. I assume they have one. This is not a new argument. I have heard it several times before. But I have never heard the Christian-right's response. It does appear to me that Christians are picking and choosing the rules they want to live by. If that is not the case, please tell me why this perception is wrong.

Bill,

Why do you keep butting your nose into our business when you live in New York?

Well, Christ did kinda do away with the "unclean" stuff... but keep in mind who Paul was and who decided to edit his texts:

St. Paul was a Roman whose job it was to basically go around persecuting Christians because Rome thought that it wasn't the best idea to have them worshiping a God who didn't vouch for the Roman government.

At some point, Paul meets a bunch of Christians, and the following exchange (or something like it) ocurrs:

Christians: Oh noes! Are you here to persecute us? Paul: Nah. I was going to, but I had a vision of Jesus! Christians: Really? Did the guys travelling with you see Him too? Paul: Umm... no. He was invisible. Except to me. Christians: Cool! What did He say? Paul: Umm... He said that I'm going to be setting Christian policy from now on. Christians: That's odd... but if Jesus said so... Paul: Yup. And he wanted me to tell you guys that Rome is totally awesome! And also to pay your taxes on time. Christians: That doesn't sound like Jesus... Paul: Well, he also told me a whole mess of ways to make sure that your soul isn't damned forever... but if you're not interested in hearing them, I guess I'll just-- Christians: Oh wait! Tell us! Tell us!

Yeah... that's a slightly less reliable source than Christ Himself.

Personally I think that Saul/Paul was a closet case himself. And if we're going use Paul's words, there are a whole bunch of crazy things that he said. Paul wasn't that big on marriage for anyone. He was pretty sure that the end of the world was just around the corner.

Still waiting...

Paul's wacky biblical laws...

• Don't marry (1 Cor. 7:1, 1 Cor. 7:38
• Don't get divorced (1 Cor. 7:11)
• Don't get circumcised (1 Cor. 7:19, Gal. 5:2)
• Don't seek freedom from slavery (1 Cor. 7:21, Tit. 2:9)
• Don't worry about eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:4)
• Don't have long hair [men] (1 Cor. 11:14)
• Don't wear gold, braids, expensive clothes (1 Tim. 2:9)
• Don't let women teach/have authority over men (1 Tim. 2:12)
• Don't give welfare to women under sixty (1 Tim. 5:9)

Well, apart from the first one, it kinda sounds like the Republican Party platform.

I'm absolutely amazed that none of the many Christians that read this site on a daily basis haven't stepped in with comments on the posts below. If you are Christian, you should be troubled by your liberal brothers and sisters posting such attacks on the words that you believe and live by. Some of the more troubling, and in some cases blasphemous are listed below:

Posted by: lestatdelc | Sep 27, 2007 4:28:16 PM

DanS... can you help me decide on whether I should pick Canadian or Mexican slaves (it seems to be Kosher with the big sky-pixie according to Leviticus 25:44)...?

Posted by: East Bank Thom | Sep 27, 2007 9:24:02 PM

Paul's wacky biblical laws...

Posted by: Recovering Straight Girl | Sep 27, 2007 8:48:55 PM

Personally I think that Saul/Paul was a closet case himself. And if we're going use Paul's words, there are a whole bunch of crazy things that he said.

Posted by: JHL | Sep 27, 2007 8:10:47 PM

Yeah... that's a slightly less reliable source than Christ Himself.

After I see some liberal believers in Christ and his word refute some of the non-belief parading as a real response, I will gladly refute each and every post.

May the Lord bless all of you that put your faith above your politics.

Besides numbers, these things should have to have regional diversity. Has anyone been approached to sign this petition? I have never, which seems incredible in this town...

If anyone ever was approached, where was it?

Guess I'm just disappointed. Would have enjoyed that discussion.

" After I see some liberal believers in Christ and his word refute some of the non-belief parading as a real response, I will gladly refute each and every post.

What an American! Ignorant but willing to take all comers! You sound like a 16 year old that's learned to drive an automatic transmission and thinks they can race at Daytona!

I'll gladly have the debate with anyone that can read the damned text in the Greek! How can you debate every little nuance as divinely inspired, when you have a tranlator in between? Sure there are good translations, but it's somebody else's interpretation. I read both. Believe me, it's very different.

Koine Greek is the most gutter of common gutter dialects ever spoken. Anything that makes it sound otherwise is inaccurate on the face of it. Then you have books like John, that seem to be trying to set a record for puns. All Greek puns, quoting somebody that didn't speak Greek. Yeah, that's what He said. Want to limit it to what we KNOW Jezus said? That would have to be the ONE LINE where Aramaic is written phonetically in Greek, "Eloi, eloi lama sabaxthani", as a direct quote. So, if you want to fantasize that your living His Xtianity, your only reliable starting point is that sentence, "Oh God, why have you abandoned me?" That's it. Want to quote Him? Go around saying "Why has God abandoned me". The rest is Pauline marketing.

You can't even take the bible literally. It's filled with contradictions. Doing so makes it meaningless. Obvious literal commands included. Do you eat pork? Do you think women should be confined to the home during their menstrual periods? Read it again, SFB, that was a MUCH, MUCH more imporant deal for them than being gay.

It's too bad the little "epilogues" never made it into scripture. If you go to original, untranslated manuscripts- not copies, the real thing- you will often find some little bits of the author's personal wisdom attached. Theories of physics, life, you name it. Kind of like one person having a conversation like this one with themselves. What I find interesting is that they are never right. Worse, they're not even good guesses. These need to be published as well. Statements about moral behavior sound better if you don't say later, "and by the way, I've figured out the physics of sound propagation. when the tongue strikes the air, it prouduces a remote effect, which is actualized by the passive intellect. the air is a vacuum, which is why it reacts to being struck. And, I've reviewed the relevant scriptures and find homosexuality to be a mortal sin, unconditionally". Maybe you'd start to see this as the interpretations of not very bright people, instead of divine truth.

If the government interferes in our lives to the extent we cannot control and choose our most intimate relationships, relationships that are at the very core and essence of each of us as a person, are we free?

The Constitution guarantees our freedom. If we are not allowed to marry who we want, are not allowed to control our own reproductive processes, are we free?

What's wrong with saying Paul was a closet case?

He was.

People who quote Old Testament verses as a basis for condemning homosexuality do have a problem. There are in fact many other deeds that are listed side by side that must also be condemned, if the Law of Moses is the basis for condemning homosxuality.

The same is true for capital punishment for murder. If your authority for capital punishment in modern times is the Law of Moses, then you have to support the death penalty for such things as adultery and even gathering firewood on the Sabbath.

However, those who point to those "outlandish" Old Testament verses to reinforce their defense of homosexuality are in way over their heads. They know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous to themselves and to those to whom they offer their counsel.

God did not change or mature or grow up between the Old and New Testaments. He made no mistakes back then. How could He? He lives in eternity, not time, so for Him there was not a then and now, not a Bronze Age and an Information Age. Then and now is all the present to Him.

There are very solid explanations for what seems to some of the writers on this blog to be contradictions in the Bible. There are good reasons why God dealt with people differently in Old Testament times than He does now, but how does one explain that to people who are not looking to learn about Him, but deny Him or want to remake him in the image they prefer or fit their preconceived notions.

The Bible is a spiritual book. In it, it says that without faith it is impossible to please God and He who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. If you do not start with faith and diligently seek Him, you will not find Him and you will definitely not understand the Bible. Rather you will be as many who write on this blog, arrogantly and mockingly quoting scriptures that they are not even remotely close to understanding.

One can make a coherent argument that notwithstanding the Bible's clear denunciation of homosexuality, the laws of this nation can permit civil unions for gays and lesbians. States can allow such agreements and amke them like any other civil contract. You can even make an argument that such contracts are automatically legal absent a law prohibiting them.

I am not sure that is what frightens most social conservatives.

I think it is more along this line: In Canada and in Europe, Christian ministers have been jailed for preaching that homosexuality is wrong, something they believe deeply. We fear that happening in this country.

Churches and church camps have been sued and sanctioned for not agreeing to allow civil unions to be performed on their properties, even though such practices violate their beliefs and conscience.

The fact that militant gays are intentionally instigating these crises tells us that the real goal is not to live and let live as they claim, but to force society to endorse their life choices and punish those who dare disagree with them.

It is easy to use the more extreme crazier elements of the social conservative side, those with the "Burn Gays" signs and signs with quotations from Leviticus, to attack the more thoughtful conservatives and lump us all together. But there are lots of us on this side of the fence who understand this issue a lot better than you apparently think.

In spite of what some on our side claim, Leviticus is not binding today and should not be quoted in this debate. God's reasons for stating what He did back then are no longer relevant. But God had a point to make and knew when He spoke the prohiitions that you would judge them the way you are today, 3,500 years later. He obviously didn't care what you would think.

I am going to say one more thing that may be a waste of key strokes, but so be it. God is who He is. He is not who we want Him to be. In our tiny mental capacities and frame of reference, we might think we can judge His actions at some time in history and conclude that we are wiser than He or more loving than He and are somehow better than He is. But how foolish such a position is.

He knows the thoughts of every person who ever lived and even those we have not even thought yet. Yet we dare judge Him or believe we know better. But it has always been this way.

Here's how Jesus explained why men reject Him: He said, "Light is come into the world, but men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil." Many read the Bible in the same way. They hate the Book because it condemns their choices. They prefer the darkness of their own judgments.

In one story in the Gospel of John, Jesus watched a huge crowd walk away and follow Him no more because of something He had just said. He had just told them that unless they ate His flesh and drank His blood, they would have no part with Him.

Any Jew knows how blasphemous that sounded. Jesus made no effort to stop them from leaving and even asked His disciples if they would leave also. When they decided to stay, He told them that the words He spoke were spirit and they were life. In other words, the point God is making is not always waht it appears, but to see that requires spiritual insight.

Many today try to juxtapose the words of Paul with the words of Jesus and both of those to the words of Moses in the Old Testament and point out apparent contradictions. In reality, these men never disagreed. They were all inspired by the same Spirit and their words go together perfectly. How that works is not necessarily apparent to a novice, but it is so. The words of Moses and the words of Jesus are from the same omnicient, eternal God.

I have studied the Bible for more than 40 years and don't know of one contradiction, but I don't expect casual observers to know that.

Back to pure politics. I doubt the Constitution guarantees a right to civil unions. In those times, the founders would not have carved out such a thing anymore than they would have seen the 1st Amendment as protecting pornography, as some courts do today. However, I believe it is within the pervue of states under the 10th Amendment to enact laws allowing civil unions and Oregon has done so.

I see no basis for claiming that such contracts are basic rights and find nothing I have read here to be persuasive. But Oregon has chosen to elect enough liberal Democrats to make civil unions the law and our side failed to gather the signatures necessary to force a referendum, so the rest of us will have to live with that until the law is changed.

FYI, I try to ignore the fools who resort to name calling, but am happy to discuss issues with the thoughtful ones who sometimes comment on these threads.

Actually, the argument is circular.

The bible wasn't compiled until Constantine needed an instruction manual to let all his new converts know what he was converting them to. Just like today, there was a professional consensus about who were the mainstream and who were the fringe element.

Only those that agreed with the a priori conclusions the bible was to have were invited. There are scriptures which contradict all this, but they weren't included, because these political choices had already been made. If you believe it is God's will, then you believe that Constantine was ruler by divine right and direct inspiration.

Marriage is a legal term. Justinian is the author of marriage, in our culture, not God. As Roman law defined it, and Constantine implemented it, gay marriage does destroy the institution of marriage, because that's how he defined it.

It's just another debate between the status quo and the progressives about change and stasis. The stasis people either don't know what they're defending, or know it's just resisting change, which they never feel comfortable admitting. Why not? Better than teaching everyone that the Bible is a load, trying to use it to answer a question that had a different social meaning at the time.

Let's have some quotes from the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel according to St. Peter, the Apocalypse of Moses and the Fourth Book of Baruch as well!

Start with Thomas' gospel. Talks about two Xtianities, before Paul's big takeover at the Council of Jerusalem, one run by his family, and the other by Paul. After his success, Paul just had all the others killed. James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was their leader.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the right are continuing Constantines conquest. "Under the sign of the cross, you will conquer". That was Constantine's inspiration/motto. Maybe that's what it's about, what the right are still doing. "Under the sign of the cross you will get your way politically".

Bill, you mentioned something very telling that illustrates the split between modern-day social conservatives and Christ:

"Jesus watched a huge crowd walk away and follow Him no more because of something He had just said. ... Jesus made no effort to stop them from leaving and even asked His disciples if they would leave also."

Why did He make no effort to stop them from leaving? If Christ was more like modern-day social conservatives, the quote may have run like such:

"Jeebus watched a huge crowd walk away and follow him no more because of something he had just said. ... Jeebus asked his disciples to bring them back and sit them the hell down, but found it was outside the scope of law to do so. So Jeebus set up a political action committee that lobbied Pilate to alter the law and force the people to listen to him and live according to his teachings."

It's pretty shallow-minded to think that just because someone doesn't share your political beliefs means that they don't cherish the Bible as much as you or they must have not understood it.

The silence from the left is very loud. I wondered if anyone who reads this, that considers themselves a lefty and a Christian, would take up the comments I highlighted and put forth by your fellow political warriors.

I especially though Jenni might have something to say about Lestatdelc calling God the "big sky pixie". But, to no avail. Just silence.

I'm disapointed. If I ever see a conservative make comments about God, or his word, I would be the first to tell them I disagree with their logic and their words.

"...and they exchanged the truth with for a lie.."

Well, I've got to say, Bill Sizemore is quite an eloquent bible story teller. In the end though, the conclusions of the stories told ultimately come down to the same degrading conclusion: that any person not assimilating and extolling the literal dictates of the bible are inferior to those that do.

A long, long time ago, before his life and purpose was twisted, warped and exploited by zealous so called "followers", I think Jesus was probably quite an extraordinary, inspired fellow with some good ideas that could perhaps make everyones life better. In fact, for all intent and purpose, I continue to think that's the case, but not because of much the bible has to say about him. That adulterated book and many of those that pitch it long ago led me to realize that they were far less concerned with the welfare of others and what "god" intended for everyone than they were about expanding their powerbase and imposing a lifestyle exclusively favorable to their own limited interests upon a widely diverse land.

I think wiser ones will hope, and pray if you will, "god" willing, for something far better than that. Letting people that love and commit themselves to each other share the same rights across equally across the land, is a good place to continue the work that has been so far.

Mr. Sizemore,

What I don't understand is: Even if everything you said in your post was correct -- and I do not concede that it is -- still,

Why should the government privilege your religious views to mine?

You obviously have strong opinions about The Truth according to God. So do I. But why do you believe the government is justified in constraining the rights of a minority group based only upon your faith?

I think that is the fundamental disagreement. People on the left believe government should be neutral as between divergent religious worldviews. And, unless you would want a Mormon majority to ban caffeine and alcohol or a Jewish majority to outlaw conducting business on Saturdays, I think you probably agree with the left on this most of the time.

So why is the issue of gay rights any different?

May the Lord bless all of you that put your faith above your politics.

So are we talking about "faith" in Zeus? Buddha? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Jebus? Mohammed? Hera? Shazam? The Big Sky Pixie?

It always come down to: my imaginary friend (fill in the blank), whom I have complete and utter faith in (i.e., I have absolutely no evidence for whatsoever) tells me that you're bad and evil and less deserving of basic civil protections than I am...

And therefore we must limit, qualify, and do away with our powerful, human, Enlightenment agreement (an agreement amongst people, who actually exist) to guarantee EVERY American equal, civil rights.

An old and very American story (Blacks, women, interracial couples; praise Jebus, he hated them all at one time or another) - but the arc of history is long, and it bends towards justice...

"so the rest of us will have to live with that until the law is changed."

In what way do you "have to live with that"? Are you being forced into a civil union against your will? Is anyone else? Absent that, what possible difference does it make to you?

Prior to the first civil unions or domestic partnerships in the United States, what was the divorce rate? 50%? Higher, even? Weren't there significant problems, therefore, precluding gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships from being taken into consideration in any respect whatsoever, when discussing the current state of hetereosexual unions? Yes - it is emprically the case that gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships have no effect -- and certainly do no harm -- to the general institution of marraige.

So you, Bill, have no supportable argument, and therefore no reason to complain that you have to "live with it". You are not harmed in any way, shape or form. Neither is any other person, or any other intangible institution, value or belief. You simply cannot make, support or prove your case.

Living in a society means you have to put up with other people doing things "you don't like". There are plenty of things going on that I don't like either. But if simply "don't like" was the standard for passing laws and legally regulating behavior - that would be insane! Don't like it? Too bad. Don't live here. Oh that's right - you don't!

Italics OFF... OFF I say!

(We could always pray to St. Isidore of Seville to turn off the italics for us... he is, after all, the patron saint of the Internet.)

<h2>italics off did that work?</h2>