having seen my family attacked this past week

How so?

and in this thread seen comments that Roemmelt was going to \”kick my ass\”

That’s not true, my words were:

For a kung fu tough guy and all that, I have the suspicion that you didn’t mention Bruce’s excellent speech because you’re afraid that he’d kick your sorry little ass.

It was a question to your motivation for omitting Bruce’s powerful speech and your failure to address the profound constitutional issues. You still have not explained why you omitted the speech. Why did you? I thought that maybe all this kung fu stuff is an overcompensation for something you may be missing in your brick and mortar life, and my intuition seems to be ringing true. ding-a-ling!

p.s. - in a plea for “christian charity”, please drop the scare quotes on the word marriage. Out of respect for the religious liberty of your neighbors at the BRUU, you’re going to have to just get over it. Once your over it, please get the word out to your party.

But what was disturbing to me wasn\’t that I felt personally threatened, as I absolutely did not at the BRUU rally. What was disturbing was that I would be characterized as a segregationist simply because I believe that marriage is something that should continue to be between one man and one woman, as it always has been. I find it disturbing that anyone would advocate gay \”marriage\”. It\’s disturbing from a policy and phiolosophical perspective, not in a sense that I am threatened in any way.

I hope that you continue to advocate for these principles of christian charity and forgiveness within your party as I have in mine. Perhaps some day none of us will ever come to fear for the lives of our families because of what we believe and say. I think our political discussion would greatly improve as a result.

I’m not from Prince William and don’t know the personal dynamics between you and the good the locals who support liberty, justice and just plain fairness. You did say you were “disturbed” by the event, and it couldn’t have possibly been because you felt threatened or in fear for your personal safety, not from that loving crowd. If you have time, please elaborate on what “disturbed” you.

I would never threaten you Greg, but if you were thirsty, I’d give you water, and if you were hungry, I’d give you food.

In peace and love,
Jonathan

p.s. - Did you read section 1 of the Bill of Rights?

p.s.s. - I thought that I had posted this early this morning.

So Bruce Roemmelt is going to “kick my sorry little ass” now? Seems I’ve heard this sort of thing before from cowards such as yourself. How about you be a man and threaten me directly rather than stand Roemmelt up to do your dirty work for you?

“I’m gonna have Bruce Roemmelt beat you up” is one hell of an argument for your side. You might want to fix your lipstick, because this argument is still a pig.

The rally was a Vote No rally, not a marriage equality rally. The Commonwealth Coalition is very inclusive and welcomes people who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but disagree with the proposed amendment. Bruce Roemmelt articulated the “heinousness” of this amendment very well. It’s hard to see how the amendment fits with the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they wrote:

Section 1. Equality and rights of men.
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their osterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

For a kung fu tough guy and all that, I have the suspicion that you didn’t mention Bruce’s excellent speech because you’re afraid that he’d kick your sorry little ass.

Your tag line on the Porta quote, “in support of gay “marriage”” is an example of a very unsophisticated rhetorical trick, which everyone can see through. Thanks for the laugh this morning.