No Bill, I don't feel ashamed of what I said. I recognize that you were careful in choosing your words; you labeled my words hateful or bigoted, instead of calling me hateful or bigoted. But it is a difference without distinction. That only a bigot would use bigoted words is the implication. And yes, in discourse, calling someone a bigot or calling their words bigoted is a deliberately leveled rhetorical device meant to inflict shame. And the shame of being called out is supposed to make a person consider whether or not she should modify her behavior to conform to in-group standards. SCOTUS clearly defined the civic in-group yesterday. Standard religious tactic: shame. Now employed by not-necessarily-religious advocates of SSM. And after shaming comes shunning: you shall not have this job, you shall not get these federal funds, you shall not be accredited, you shall not be tax exempt, you shall be forced to make something that goes against your conscience. "We live in a highly spiritualized age, I argue, when we believe that our ordinary political opponents are not merely mistaken but actually evil." That's Joseph Bottum writing in The Weekly Standard, Hey everybody--I want to run to the pool today with my kids, so I would like to sign off. To Sadie, Bill and Chocolate Reign and others like-minded--I know this thread is pretty much a rehash of the usual threads on this subject, but it presents an opportunity to share my position on this as we have had back and forth on the matter. I know you don't like what I am saying and Bill is pretty up front about wanting me to feel ashamed of it, but I still do think it is good to be able to yet share things on a public forum. So it isn't exactly "fun" but I do appreciate the engagement on the matter. To Artic Mama and Crimson Wife and Orthodox and others--I'm glad I'm not the only one.

from the article I mentioned above by David French: This isn’t constitutional law, it’s theology — a secular theology of self-actualization — crafted in such a way that its adherents will no doubt ask, “What decent person can disagree?†This is about love, and the law can’t fight love. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that). And that’s what makes it so dangerous for religious liberty and free speech. Practitioners of constitutional law know that there is no such thing as an “absolute†right to free speech or religious freedom in any context — virtually all cases involve balancing the asserted right against the asserted state interest, with “compelling†state interests typically trumping even the strongest assertions of First Amendment rights. And what is more compelling than this ode to love? The challenge for orthodox religious believers is now abundantly clear: For years, they’ve been standing against “history,†“equality,†and — yes — love itself. Now, all of that rhetoric has been constitutionalized, embedded in the secular scripture of our land. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love

Yes, we are in disagreement about how one walks in love. But I do want you to know that I hear you.

Chocolate Reign, I know that this information will not sway you personally, but because it is an open forum that others are reading, I would like to post this essay by David French in response to your post. For someone who would like to understand the viewpoint that the new policy has broad implications, just like a broadly held religion based on a set of holy scriptures, this may be helpful reading. The title is The Supreme Court Ratifies a New Civic Religion That Is Incompatible with Christianity Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420376/marriage-christians-religion-love

We disagree Sadie, but I understand what you are saying and I want you to know I do hear you.

You may find some helpful links in my first post today.

Ah. I see I need to explain how I was using the word traditionalist. I am meaning to say that I believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. I come to that view based on Scriptures in the context of working out my faith with my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in my church. Spy Car, you and I will not come to an agreement. You see my view as hateful and bigoted. And if you want to call my views bigoted hate you can. I understand where you are coming from. But I am not changing my views because I believe very sincerely that I am operating in love. I believe that true love does not agree to condone what is wrong. The most loving thing I can do for someone I believe is in error is show all manner of kindness, patience, forgiveness, hope, tenderness and mercy toward that person in helping them understand that what he or she may be doing is harmful to his or her own person and hurtful to God. That's me, Bill. And I think it is other people on this forum as well. The people I interact with, the people I have into my home to share a meal with my children, my friends...those who walk with me have not labeled me as hateful even though we do not agree on these matters.

If now that people in the movement have significant legislative, judicial, and media power and they have been actively working to crush those who disagree, it really isn't just about dignity for the LGBTQ community. It's about revenge. And I cannot imagine that every single person who wanted SSM also wanted to crush dissenters. Your sarcasm falls flat because sadly, that is what is happening. Hence the maxim I posted earlier, coined by Rod Dreher, called The Law of Merited Impossibility: Don't worry traditionalists, It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it. And from Jonathan Last "It’s a small thing, to be sure. But telling. Because it shows that the same-sex marriage movement is interested in a great deal more than just the freedom to form marital unions. It is also interested, quite keenly, in punishing dissenters. But the ambitions of the movement go further than that, even. It’s about revisiting legal notions of freedom of speech and association, constitutional protections for religious freedom, and cultural norms concerning the family. And most Americans are only just realizing that these are the societal compacts that have been pried open for negotiation." And Samuel Alito, writing in his dissent: "Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools. The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds."

Chocolate Reign, you are making my point for me--which was that Obergefell will be a major tool used to crush the dissent. 1) 5 Justices at SCOTUS have decided that not having SSM is discriminatory. Thus, every state now has to provide it. 2) The implication from that case is that not agreeing with SSM is discrimination. 3) Anyone who has a sincerely held religious belief against SSM is a discriminator and should therefore have no federal funds, no accreditation, no tax exempt status.

Thank you. I have not posted on many of the threads on this topic, though I have been doing a lot of reading since April. The links I put down today amount to a tremendous amount of material and it would take a person quite a while to wade through all of that. It's more than salad..it's a huge meal. I do offer an apology on that. I do want to post now, though, because I want to share some positive thoughts about the traditional view and give understanding about where we are likely headed as a society. There may be those of the LGBTQ community who are moderate or conservative in their approach to liberty and may not necessarily be on the side of silencing the dissent. They may not be in favor of forcing artisans to create for SSM ceremonies. They may not want to call a traditionalist a bigot.

If you are calling my post a link salad and doing so in a derogatory way, I think that is not a good way to promote thoughtful dialogue. I actually spent a lot of time on it and did so because I often see posters here saying that a dissenter didn't post any reasons. If you meant it in a joyful way, because, hey, who doesn't love an expensive organic fruit salad, then, well, thank you very much. I provided initial links to writers who contribute to thoughtful essays and analysis on conservative websites because, well, Huffpo and MSNBC doesn't typically publish writings of dissent on SSM. Please don't find it necessarily a reason to dismiss the whole thing. When linking events, I used a variety of random news places. NYTimes, WashPo, Huffpo, CNN, Foxnews, etc. My overall point was that I do believe Obergefell will be used as one tool of many to make religious traditionalist begin to acquiesce. It might be useful to debate hypocrisy over boycotts in another place, but that was not my particular intention in this post.

Rod Dreher writes here. A very short snippet: Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,†and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.†So, while as of today, Obergefell cannot force a minister to perform a SSM, two justices are saying that the case will be the tool to make dissenters conform. There are lots of ways of making people conform--silence them (like the newspaper in PA that said it will not print any opinions against SSM post Obergefell), take away protections (tax-exempt status), deny opportunity (take away jobs, like Brendan Eich lost his). and here http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/democracy-is-dying-persecution-is-coming/ here are thoughts by Jonathan Last on where we are headed. Here is more from Rod Dreher: "For a few years now, I have used a concept I’ve dubbed the Law of Merited Impossibility to characterize the doublespeak many LGBT activists and their allies have used to advance the cause. Here’s the Law: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it. The Law is about bait-and-switch rhetoric among LGBT activists and their allies. It has to do with assurances they give to anxious skeptics of this or that gay-rights claim, telling the fraidy cats to relax, the worst-case scenario will never happen. And then when the very thing the supposed paranoids happens, the activists say that haters had it coming." The whole article is here. There are many other voices other than Rod Dreher that can explain how the next thing down the pike is clamping down on the free exercise of religion, but he is a succinct one. See also Ryan Anderson and David French at the National Review. Also, thefederalist.com. *** I'm choosing to link articles and make references to authors who are much clearer writers on this subject than I am. Hopefully it will be food for thought for all--those who celebrate the ruling and those who do not. As a Christian with a traditionalist view of marriage, I do not believe that the general LGBTQ movement is interested in me preserving the exercise of my beliefs. I don't believe it because of what was done to Brendan Eich, cake bakers, photographers, civil servants who don't want to participate in SSM ceremonies, people who own venues that can be rented out for weddings, people who write dissenting editorials to newspapers, major companies threatening to pull out of Indiana because of the RFRA, calling people bigots to get their pizza business shut down, policies of major corporations like J.P. Morgan who prefer employees not use the word husband or wife anymore, Gordon College almost losing its accreditation, but certainly losing its standing in the community around it, Prominent lawyer Paul Clement arguing for DOMA and is now a pariah, here and here. To the original poster: Your statement followed by your question was (forgive me, I'm having trouble using the in-app quote feature), "However, a small handful have been extremely negative and posited a world in which their pastors are forced to officiate at weddings they think are wrong. So my question is, could this actually happen?" Well, it will not happen at my church now OR later. Shortly prior to the Obergerfell decision my pastor has said that he is no longer performing civil marriages at all. He will perform a religious ceremony in our church; the couple will then need to go apply for a civil license should they desire one. Also, we have stated that church policy is that our church can't be used for any non-church event. So no one can claim they have a right to rent the building for their non church event. But, in the future, could our church lose its tax exempt status if our employment policies did not reflect the new LGBTQ doctrine? Yes. Of course. It's just a few litigations away. See the question that Alito posed during the arguments for Obergefel and the answer of the attorney. It's not just me, average home-schooling mom saying this. Could our church be targeted in a public smear campaign as a bigoted place? Sure. It's just one mean blogger, one LGBTQ principled business that won't serve so-called traditionalist bigots, one LGBTQ principled landlord who won't rent building space to a small "bigoted" traditionalist church away from happening. But quite frankly, I don't think I would want to legally force a business to have to rent to us. Other churches or parachurch organizations that have accepted federal funds to do good works in the community will not be able to keep taking federal funds to do so if their policies do not conform to the new policy. Some will bow to the policy. Some, like this Wyoming Catholic college will not. Religious schools that do not have strong ties to an overarching church structure are going to have to bow to the coming pressure. Shall we talk about the financial burden that dealing with discrimination charges is going to bring on churches, schools, private individuals? Even if the traditionalist could win, it would come at a high cost. Obergefell will be used as an inciting tool to make traditionalists conform.

I don't have picky eaters so I am an outsider looking in on this but the one thing I see that makes it hard on the picky eaters and their social groups is the parents who insert comments like these into food events: "My Bobby will not touch strawberries." "My dear ones have texture issues." "We don't eat beans, bananas, peas, and I don't eat fish because my mom made me eat it as a kid." "I have to pick this out for him because he doesn't like it." What I am hearing some of you say is that a picky eater can't help it--super tasters, tongue tied, undiagnosed asthma, etc. I hear you. I can be more understanding. But I think it is really horrible to speak words over a kid (or HUSBAND! or GROWN UP SELF) in a group setting and repeatedly tell others what the person "can't/won't/hates" to eat. It might be true, but the words are spoken like a death sentence. JOHNNIE WILL NEVER EAT BANANAS. As if the kid can't hear it. And then, quite frankly, I think it is just rude to the people who have cooked all the food, invited you over, etc. It's just bad manners. If manners even matter any more. Good grief. It's so hard for people in a community to share food anymore because by the time you get past the folks with physical limitations (super tasting, texture issues, tongue tied) and people who have serious food allergies, AND people who have food sensitivities AND people who are on diets. It's kind of like all that's left is water, as long as it was properly filtered and served in a non-plastic container. I recently picked up a cookbook from the library and while the recipes are nice, the commentary from the author about what her toddler will and won't eat is nauseating. From "Cook This Now," by Melissa Clark of the New York Times dining section. "My daughter, Dahlia, won't touch potatoes (sweet potatoes included), spits out roasted butternut squash, and says "no thank you" to carrots, but she absolutely loves mushrooms."p. 43 "The dish was a success; even Dahlia ate it after she laboriously picked out the dill bits and tossed them from her tray in a green-black shower."p. 86 "Brown butter vinaigrette on butter lettuce is quite wonderful, especially when it's also tossed with toasted almonds, fresh mint, and bright clementine segments. Even Dahlia will eat this, which is saying a lot when it comes to two-year-olds and salad." p. 73 "When I served this dish to my family, I wasn't surprised that Dahlia wouldn't touch the clams (although I had held out a modicum of hope since she loves the salty flavor of salmon roe; but then again, those neon red salmon eggs are prettier than gray clams). However, I was sure that I'd get her to eat some of the Israeli couscous. I even tried renaming them pasta bubbles. But alas, she pushed my hand away with a polite yet emphatic "No thank you, Mommy," and I had to retreat." p. 175 If this is you, the parent, talking with your friends over a meal about whether or not your kid can eat x,y,z, please stop doing that. It really is as tacky as a gourmet food writer telling all her readers what her toddler will and won't eat. It's tacky, and unless it is medically necessary for the hearer to know, it's just not helpful to the picky eater to have her pickiness announced to the world.

I have sent my children places (park and store) by themselves...WITHOUT A CELL PHONE. ON PURPOSE. So they would figure out how to do what they needed to do without calling me. And I know that there are a few of you here on the boards who also have that sort of parenting philosophy, but around where I live, that is, well, thought of as c.r.a.z.y.

:) Yes!!! Yes!!!! 16 Years ago, my husband was resident director of a men's dorm, and since we were married, I like to say I lived in the men's dorm as well. :) At any rate, watching the freshmen arrive every August was fascinating. Some would come totally on their own, some would have a bit of help from their folks, and some boys stepped aside while their mothers created their living habitat. We decided then and there that our goal in parenting would be to raise up children who could leave our home and set up a dorm room without us. Please no one on the thread be offended and think I think you are terrible if you buy some nice things for your sons to take to college. I'm just saying I've watched the moms do it and...I've seen the boys. And I see how they live in a dorm. And I think it is a gift to just let them figure out what they need and do it on their own. Give them the gift of letting them figure it out.

I like you.

I appreciate your questions. Here is a link to a video of an MSNBC video interview of Donezal. Melissa Harris Perry asks Donezal about cultural appropriation. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419906/dolezal-interview-isaac-cohen

I am putting my middle two kids in school. The two elementary and two high school kids will still be homeschooled, although this year my high school kids are taking co-op classes for the first time. I'm not calling it a transition. I'm just putting those two kids in school. Forgive me. It's been a job teaching them. Not sure I did as well at it as I would have liked. And I pray that going to school will be a blessing for them. And if they don't do their homework from school at school, I might just sign them up for the afterschool program as well.

Rachel Dolezal changed her identity from white to black so that she could get the jobs she wanted. Now whether or not she actually HAD to do so in order to work for the NAACP is interesting, but clearly she thought so. Why was it that Elizabeth Warren said that she was Native American? An old article from Atlantic Monthly said she didn't benefit from it professionally, but her employer touted the fact that she was Native American. Why would her employer do that? Does it help an employer to be able to say, "We have these minorities on staff"? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/is-elizabeth-warren-native-american-or-what/257415/ And here is an article about affirmative action in practice http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418530/what-ivy-league-affirmative-action-really-looks-inside-david-french A bid my husband's empoyer recently competed for required that the bidding firms list the ways that in which they hire and encourage minority subcontractors. It's a big deal. Your bona fides are the numbers you can present about the diversity of your business! Based on what I am seeing in real life and what I am reading in the news, I don't think my white sons are at an advantage over my black daughters.

What I am hearing you say is that you are anxious when the neighbor kids come into your space. You find it uncomfortable to establish or hold boundary rules. You are using the forum to express your emotions on this issue and are finding that many posters share your experience on the matter. Now I am also understanding that you are not looking for direction on how to set boundaries or reasons why doing so could potentially alleviate this stress. I honestly thought you had put me on ignore per your earlier statement about drive by trolls, so my last response about feeling happy about sending the kids out side was actually directed at the poster right before me (and anyone else who wanted to feel better about sending kids outside). I should have used the quote feature so that my post would be more easily understood. I just wanted you to know that I have heard what you are saying.

I'm a big fan of unsupervised outdoor play for siblings and groups of neighborhood kids. I think it is great for their intellectual development. And quite frankly, there really is no substitute for it. It's just wonderful for kids. And I think many children are suffering for lack of it. Put the kids outside and pat yourself on the back. In a few years, when your kids are the ones who have enough executive function to get and hold a job, have creativity to solve the problems of the world, have curiosity about the world--you will look like a genius. And all because you let them play. Alone. Outside. With Friends.

...

If the Today Show did any kind of pre-interview, did the homework and research about this person, and still put her on the air, that troubles me. It's not hard to conclude that there are some mental health concerns for this person. I think it is cruel to interview her on TV.

You might be able to sit in the parking lot of the store and send them in alone. I know someone who wasn't ready yet to send her boys to the store by themselves on bikes but did let them walk in while she waited outside. My kids also liked it when we would be in the store together, but I would send them across the store alone to pick up an item. And yes on the clean up!

This spring I gave my 4th and 5th grader a $20 bill, asked them to plan supper, bike to store by themselves and shop for ingredients, come home and cook the meal they planned. They were so proud. My oldest son felt like it was high time his 4th grade brother had tools--so he got him a real deal tool kit. That has been a great thing as well. He's thought of his own things to do with the tools.... It's good to plan what skills the kiddos should learn, but I think that one of the most important things for kids in that age range is to make sure that they have time where they are alone without parents/adults around. I think kids that age benefit highly from going on bike rides to the stores or parks by themselves. I very particularly do not send cell phones with them because I want them to think for themselves and not call home. I've seen growth and maturity come from those times of independence.