Defend Marriage Washington: "If you don't go to church you can't be here."

Good that they are finally admitting that this is a Holy War to force their Christian Dogma on the rest of the population. Guess they realized everyone was seeing through their "This isn't about religion, it's about the children, social stability, ect. etc." bullshit.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...re-they-try-to-make-security-remove-reporters

This thread smells like hippie stink.

Jesus is love.

Dat's sum fine jernalizin' dere, Spanky. Din't NObody see yer bias, NOPE!

Looks like they are taking a page out of the occupy wall street crowd. Next thing you know they'll be using kids as human shields and shitting in the street.

FTFY

It's the same lefty mentality.

Looking at more of the contents of that "publication", I think you're probably spot on. Looks to be yet another far-left Red rag a la anything from the Village Voice, whose contributors are not renowned for objective reporting.

Is there any factual inaccuracy, though? Especially the idea that they'd try to get anyone who isn't a church-goer punted from a public meeting taking place in a public building - that really doesn't sit right with me.

Meh. The Senate rules committee kicked out a tea party meeting a couple weeks ago. There can be reasonable restrictions on when where and how long you can be in a public space. Otherwise you think folks can just build a barn right in the middle of a park somewheres.

Except that the way it looks here it would be a pretty blatant violation of First Amendment rights. If they only wanted church-goers to go to their little pep rally, than maybe they should've held it in a church. Oh, no, wait, that would make sense.

I'd like to see another story covering the event from a publication with a better track record for objectivity and accuracy.

Just remember that the next time someone whines about the accuracy of a story simply because the source is Fox News.

Don't mind John Castle. He's not a Christian, but believes that Christians should have special rights that other religions don't. Or he's just trolling. Or drunk. Whatever.

Is Fox usually the only news source covering events like this?

Do I?

Would a larger media outlet normally cover the goings on of a little suburb in Washington?

Seems pretty constitutional to me.

I think so. You constantly whine about the brutal prejudices foisted upon white Christian Americans, implying you desire some kind of special protections that they currently aren't getting. Of course, I don't know a lot of non-Christians who whine about the opression of Christians as much as you do, so who knows. Whatever.

After hacking away all the editorial commentary, I've reached the following conclusions.

1. That everyone who was in that room is a douche bag.

2. The anti-gay marriage people shouldn't hold their secret strategy meetings in public spaces.

3. There are no good secular arguments for prohibiting gay marriage.

4. The State really needs to get out of the marriage business.

5. The contributor who wrote the article should stick to dime-store romance novels.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's this? Nothing? Maybe actormike's just got sandworms in his vagina because I don't bash Christians every time there's an opportunity and, more unforgivable of me yet, even point out the hypocrisy inherent in bashing them while giving their secular lunacy competitors a free pass.

the smell of desperation in the morning...well, evening...

since security declined to remove the offending individuals....

No that was blogger Dominic Holden's conclusion. His commentary and your interpretation serve only to illuminate your shared opinions.

Hippie Stink!

It will be very satisfying to see the bigots get defeated in yet another state. It's only a matter of time before the equal protection clause gets enforced for everyone even groups religious people don't like. That's a good thing too.

Lawmakers and Law Enforcement still pay attention to that? Or any of the Constitution for that matter? I heard that if you go to Capitol Hill, the White House, or the Eminent Palace of the Nine- SCOTUS, they use copied Constitution Toilet Paper. Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently said she wanted the Three Ply back, and the government's cutting back to the Two Ply as part of the Go Green initiative aggravated her hemorrhoids. At least seven other justices are with her. Kennedy hasn't had to go yet, so we just don't know if it's a unanimous demand thus far.

Depending on the outcome of the 2012 elections and how much conservatives in Congress are willing to make a foray into social issues again, I wouldn't be surprised if Congress amends DOMA to take away judicial review of the issue, which would make an equal protection challenge a little more difficult.