2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Not true.  He called her motives, ethical and financial, into question, in strong terms.  He had just spent an hour listening to her denigrate his morals, his lifestyle, the commitment and love he has experienced, the essence of who he is.  It wasn't until that point that he turned the tables on her.  He didn't get personal, he didn't attack her.  He disagreed with her, in her own language. 

As a listener, I had spent that hour listening to her spout her hate speech about homosexuals, couched in her calm, reasonable, "I'm just saying what everybody else thinks and knows is true" words.  It was appalling, and I was relieved to hear him stand up to her in the end.  We should all be doing that. 

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context

As always on this issue, Ms. Gallagher is muddying legal marriage (an institution created and sustained by governmental entities) and the state of being married (an emotional, spiritual commitment between two people).  Actually she's not the only one making this mistake; most people, including our lawmakers, combine the two. 

It's simple:  if it's a legal institution, with responsibilities, rights and privileges attached, it MUST be available to all adults who wish it.  If it's not, then it doesn't matter.  People would then be free to make these contracts between themselves, without interference from the state.  Children, when they come along, should be the legal (as well as personal) responsibility of their legal parents. 

This way, people like Ms. Gallagher are free to live in their beliefs that their way is God's way, that their definition of marriage is the only true one, without hurting anybody else. 

BTW, Ms. Gallegher, you were not being personally attacked, either by Mr. Simmons or any other commenter.  You were being disagreed with; you were being categorized as wrong, and possibly financially motivated.  In other words, you were on the receiving end of their judgment, instead of the other way around.  Sucks, eh? 

posted 2 years, 4 months ago
view in context