Kirk Cameron says he's now target of "hate speech"

[maxpowr9]

Considering the DNC chair came out in support of marriage equality, I wouldn't be surprised if during the convention and the faceoff against Romney he openly declares his support for it.

 

[mbamike]

This is the most attention he has had in years. Ignore him and he will go away. . . again.

 

[harristate]

Methinks he dost protest too much. Makes me wonder what he's trying to prove...

 

[chrisrobin]

Kirk, your 15 minutes is up. I think I hear your mother calling. Run along now!

 

[Ninja108]

The only thing this has done is give him 15 mins of fame which he doesn't deserve.

 

[Kulindahr]

The only thing this has done is give him 15 mins of fame which he doesn't deserve.

In a moral society that would be fifteen minutes of shame.

 

[DigitalFudge]

I hope he enjoys a fraction of hate I have endured, all of us have endured, over the years.

 

[Kulindahr]

The way it will pan out, if the definition of marriage includes gay couples, is that the law will require those with marriage licences to conform to the law (rightly so), and as a result, those who are staunch in their religious beliefs, will no longer conduct ceremonies, and lose $$$, lots and lots of $$$. Inevitably this will make 'spreading the word' and 'doing god's work' a lot harder. Not a comfortable position for faith groups who already have a hard time holding on to their congregations or attracting new members.

Why should it bother those "staunch in their religious beliefs" in terms of conducting ceremonies? No law can require a church to perform a wedding it doesn't want to -- churches already do that; many won't conduct weddings for non-members, others won't for non-Christians, yet others will do them only for the members of their denomination.

That's why the claim that gay marriage will hurt "traditional marriage" is such a joke -- it won't bother them at all. Churches will continue as before, except some here and there will do a new kind of ceremony.

 

[chrisrobin]

Could his appearance on Piers Morgan be the first step in the "Kirk Cameron Book Tour"?

 

[texpatriot]

Could his appearance on Piers Morgan be the first step in the "Kirk Cameron Book Tour"?

Actually I heard that Piers Morgan was looking for a "ratings boost," and when his producer said that Kirk Cameron would be on his show and talk shit about "the gays" that Piers was all for it.

Kirk Cameron circa the 1980's:

I guess at some point Kirk realized that GUYS were rubbing one out looking at him as a piece of meat.

Now that he has "boys of his own" there's something wrong with that.

I saw the interview.

He honestly seems sincere to me.

At least he's not like that dumb bitch from SNL.

I'm willing to cut Kirk SOME slack.

He went on Piers Morgan's show openly, and honestly without the first clue of what he was talking about in the realm of political correctness.

He's not a "Hollywood Liberal," is that the scandal here?

 

[CowboyBob]

At least he's not like that dumb bitch from SNL.

Who's this?

 

[Kulindahr]

Its not about forcing them to marry people they don't want to, its about forcing them to decide which is more important, their belief, or their right to conduct marriage ceremonies (which is presumably a lucrative means to create revenue).

The state DOES sanction marriage over there don't they?

So this comes down to the legal definition of marriage. If licensees don't want to get sued for refusing to marry people outside of their congregation, if they offer that service, then they would have to comply with the law or lose their licence.

Those who provide marriages for their own congregations are free to discriminate against non-members, but they still have to have their licence sanctioned.

A law telling churches who they have to marry wouldn't last a week -- it would go right to the Supreme Court and be slapped down so hard the paper it was printed on would smolder. A law telling them they can't perform marriages would be laughed at, and be slapped down even harder..

There are still churches which won't perform weddings for racially mixed couples. They have to be able to point to where that comes from doctrine, and the doctrine can't be recently invented. People have brought suit against them, and the only question is whether there's that basis in doctrine -- and that settles it.

It's called religious freedom.

 

[rareboy]

At least Kirk has sure been feeling the heat.

 

[Kulindahr]

In a free society, religion and government should be seperate. So the belief of any doctrine should come second to the law. Freedom of religion is fair, the imposition of religion to create inequality is not, and that should be spelt out by reaffirming that government sanctions marriage, and so it is the legal definition that counts. Those of faith are entirely free to practice their faith, the law does not HAVE to recognise its ceremonies within the law.

In a free society, government should recognize the marriage/union/bonding ceremonies of EVERYONE. It isn't the government's business to decide who can marry or where.

To dictate to churches who they must marry is interference of the state in religion. People have the right to decide where to be married, and if the goverment doesn't like the church they pick... tough.

 

[Kulindahr]

FTFY



The law wouldn't be dictating who must be married, it would be dictating who has the legal right to sanction marriage in accordance with the law. Only those compliant would be able to administrate the ceremonies.

This does not interfere with anybody's ability to get married. It doesn't either impede the freedom of religion.

It most definitely interferes with the freedom to get married and with freedom of religion! If the government tells church A, "You can't perform weddings", the government has just told all the members of that church that they have to get married somewhere else. Freedom of religion means the freedom to choose your religion, and if your religion does marriages, to be married in conformance with it.

The only valid option would be to just do away with church weddings altogether. But that's an unjustifiable burden on people, who would have to effectively get married twice, once in their church and once for the government.

That's why the only just way is for the government to shut up and just write down whoever comes and says, "We're married".

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh please. Stop expanding the right. There is NO right to marriage. The freedom to practice your faith is what the right protects. Where there is no absolute requirement to partake in a ceremony or tradition in accordance with the faith, it is not an infringement of that right, for the law to restrict practices to what is legal.

There's a right to marriage in itself; it comes under freedom of association. And there's a right to marriage under freedom of religion; if yur religion tells you to get married in a church, that's what you do, and the government has no business saying otherwise.

Boo-hoo. One couple feeling that they HAVE to get married twice for it to mean anything of substance is A) saying a lot about their own love for their partner if it doesn't count unless its in a church, and B) Less of a hardship than those of us who cannot get married even once.

This is petty, claiming that it doesn't matter if other get to exercise their rights just because you can't.

Besides which, gays can get married once -- there are many churches in the U.S. that will perform weddings for gays. It's the government that's in the way of that right.

Many gays would say you don't give a shit about their love if you don't want to be be able to be married in a church -- I know some.

Your libertarian attitude towards government is as big a block to gay equality as evangelism.

Well, since neither of this is a block, I have to agree.

Besides which, gays pursuing gay marriage aren't interested in equality -- they just want the same privileges and benefits as the current privileged class... by joining it, and then to hell with anyone else.

Except by law, they can't for gay couples.

Or for ploygamies or other arrangements.
Which makes the law immoral.

 

[Rolyo85]

Kulindahr, that's not fair. The government is in the way BECAUSE of religious interference. Also, I disagree that government should stay completely out of marriage. Marriage needs to mean more than other relationships, or it becomes meaningless. And as there are many arguments that the existence of marriage is a good thing society (not even half of them based on religion), and since there are too many faiths and too many atheists to base marriage's importance on any particular religion, that relevance falls to the government.

 

[FuryOfFirestorm]

Who's this?

Victoria Jackson. She was known on SNL for doing handstands and portraying Roseanne. Nowadays she spouts out the usual Birther derp like "Obama is a secret Muslim!" and "The liberals are going to force everyone to get gay-married!".

Check her out on YouTube. That crazy b*tch makes Palin sound like Stephen Hawking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, that's not fair. The government is in the way BECAUSE of religious interference. Also, I disagree that government should stay completely out of marriage. Marriage needs to mean more than other relationships, or it becomes meaningless. And as there are many arguments that the existence of marriage is a good thing society (not even half of them based on religion), and since there are too many faiths and too many atheists to base marriage's importance on any particular religion, that relevance falls to the government.

No, government is in the way because of inertia from a time when church and state were mingled.

If government gets to define marriage, there will always be discrimination, there will always be meddling in people's personal lives. Government's only function should be to write down who comes and tells it they're married. What faith they are or anything else is irrelevant; government's task is to be the servant. No marriage licenses, just a certificate of registration, noting that free citizens have informed the government that they're married.

 

[bike10]

Kirk Cameron of show could not take Groin Pains. As I remember he was the horny little twink on the show who was horny and was lay every chick.