Since I do more internet posting on websites other than xanga, you'll probably get some thoughts that I didn't originally intend to go here, but that I thought would be well-suited for my xanga. This is from a Catholic forum that I go to in response to this link:

BS.

The article isn't even so much about Ann or Michelle as it is about anyone who dare point out that the current administration is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. First off, Obama did have plants at his ABC broadcasted Healthcare Summit and at a recent town hall style forum. The reporter from the Huffington Post on ABC had been pre-arranged to ask a question and Obama was supposed to answer it. At the town hall forum, the overweight cancer patient was a worker in Obama's campaign and she got her pass to the event from the White House, so yes, she was a plant. Second, while he's trying to fool us on things like Healthcare, the "racial healer" is doing all that he can to increase racial tension with his statements on a situation of which, and he admits this, he didn't have all the facts. If Gates had just shown Sgt. Crowley his ID to prove that he lived in the house and that the break-in was legit, and just acted like a regular, everyday citizen in general, this incident wouldn't have even made the local papers, much less the national spotlight. The reason it did is because, in Gates' eyes, he's not a regular, everyday citizen, he's a black man. As an African American, it INFURIATES me that other African Americans who have power and influence are doing and saying things that further demonstrate the fact that it's always going to be about race, no matter how many influential blacks there are, no matter how many black presidents we elect, no matter how many black millionaires and billionaires there are on TV. As I said before, this article wasn't about Ann or Michelle. It's about the fact that people are really starting to see the devil in the details of this administration and what it's trying to accomplish.

If you're curious and want to see the entire discussion, you can go here.

Due to the stupidity of Gov. Mark Sanford, there are some among us who have found now the most opportune time to bring up the "gaymarriageshouldbelegalizedeverywherebecausethosestupidheterosalwayshaveshammarriages" argument.

I don't really want to talk about that, though. Why? Because the argument is dumb in itself. My belief isn't circumstancial and neither is their's. They believe that men should be able to marry men and that women should be able to marry women. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Period. Nothing's going to assuade us. It's not like a developing story in which new info can pop up at any given time. We both believe our views to be absolute, so what's this drivel about circumstance?

What I want to talk about is the argument brought up by many proponents of gay "marriage": "It's my/their right."

Is it? Really? Let's do some fact checking.

Fact 1: In order to marry someone else and have it be recognized by the state, one must be licensed.

Fact 2: In order to receive this license, one must apply through an agent of said state.

Fact 3: There are laws regarding the distribution of marriage licences in every state of the U.S., which leads to the logical conclusion that...

Fact 4: A couple may be refused the right to marry based on legal qualifications for the reception of a marriage license not being met.

For your viewing pleasure, here's a site that lists concise info concerning state-by-state marriage laws:

http://usmarriagelaws.com/

If marriage per se isn't a right, then how can marriage concerning a particular group of people be any different?

Proponents of gay marriage also contend that interracial marriage used to be outlawed in some places. Since it's no longer against the law and it's commonly accepted, then how is gay "marriage" any different?

Well, did anyone ever claim that it was the "right" of two people of different races could marry?

If they did, they'd be wrong. It's not, nor has it ever been. It's a fact that while the vast majority of humans prefer to marry/mate with/etc. their own race, there are those who find a mate in one of a different race. What happened that changed people's minds and in turn changed laws?

Answer: Our reason got the best of us.

Simply put, there's no compelling reason to legally prevent people of different races from marrying each other. As for morality behind it, if there's no pronouncement of the inferiority or superiority of any other reason below or above another, there's nothing morally wrong with it. For those who like to contend that racial blood should be kept pure or that their own race is superior to another and that their race shouldn't mix, well, let them find people of the same mindset and marry them. (Most of) those who marry are consenting adults and can't be prevented from marrying except by the state in accord with its laws.

Gay marriage, however, is not only a question of reason but of morality. Yes, I know they're the people always telling us that no one should be shoving morality down their throats, but they fail to notice that their belief is, in itself, a morality, however opposing or, in some opinions, twisted it may be. Does the sword cut both ways? Can they prevent those of my opinion from "shoving morality" down their throats while "shoving morality" of their own making down ours? 

Then there's the never out-of-style "separationofchurchandstate" mantra, which is in their minds, enshrined in our constitution. It's actually not. The first ammendment prohibits the government from instating a religion. That's it. Religion is not ruled out from the public square, including our laws. Our laws and the remnants of our culture in time gone by has been called "Judeo-Christian". Those who contend that our nation was not founded on Judeo-Christian values and morals don't know history. Those who contend that our nation is no longer Judeo-Christian in essence are either those aggrieved at what they see or are those who are doing what they can to aggrieve those former.

Opposers of gay marriage have listed reasons, both practical and moral, for not wanting marriage to be redefined that aren't, per se, rooted in religion. I'll probably deal with those reasons in another post. While I am a practicing Catholic and believe my faith, I don't bother with those reasons because I know they won't mean anything to those with whom I'm arguing. I'm not going to get into the reasons right now, but I'd just like to point out that they exist and that I'm of the opinion that most opposers of gay marriage aren't trying to "shove morality" down anyone's throat. They're trying to shove reason into the minds of those who claim that theirs are open, yet nothing seems to be able to go in.

 

This is a reply that I wrote in a discussion on the "Ann Coulter Fanclub" on Facebook. I thought I'd share it:

I agreed with the OP of the discussion primarily because I'm sick of the GOP not taking care of business because we have so many differences within and people not working toward a common goal. I now have to say that after some time, thought, and looking at the other posts on this discussion that I may have spoken for myself too soon.

"The GOP should long ago have expelled those members who are false conservatives: the Arlen Specters, the Olympia Snowes, etc. Their membership gives the lie to the contention that the GOP is a party of principles."

If the GOP really is the party of principles that you say it is, then why not attack the principles for which these people stand and not their names?

You gave an excellent point, Christopher. I myself am socially conservative but I've seen this exact same truth played out in my own experience. It doesn't pay to be like liberals in the fight for conservative values. The thing that made Obama successful in the last election wasn't the solidity of his principles, but the solidity of the people behind him. They were all on the same battle field. In order for the GOP to be successful, we need to fight the SAME battles on the SAME battle field.
 
I believe certain things very strongly and can't be assuaded from them. There are those on the opposite end of the spectra of the same issues who can't be assuaded as well. This isn't a discouragement to speak your mind on certain issues. I'm just saying that people will have their views no matter what the reasoning and you can't change their minds any more than they can change your own. I say believe what you believe, but win where you can. For conservatives across the board who can't stand what's happening with our country, that's going to be the most important thing for 2012.

Now is not the time to push people away from us. When you're working toward a specific goal and there are people who just aren't on board, they'll leave on their own, no need to be hostile or dismissive. Sticking to conservative principles first, attacking ideas (which are the real enemies) rather than people (who just play them out), and finding like-minded people so as to really make a difference acts like an emulsifier in dirty water: all of the dirt and grime stick to it and sink to the bottom so that the water is clear and more homogenized. Why do you think Arlen Specter finally left?
When someone's not doing a good job or when a public servant isn't doing the will of the people, then we should call them on it, but constant person-bashing simply distracts people from our main goal and only leads to more fault-finding and finger-pointing directed at us.

Don't attack Marxists, attack Marxism.
Don't attack abortionists, attack abortion.
Don't attack crazed environmentalists, attack crazy environmentalism.

We need to stop pitting ourselves against people, but our principles against principles that aren't good. That's what our founding fathers did. That's what the greatest people on Earth did when they were busy building the greatest nation on Earth throughout two centuries. That's what we should be doing now.