Like many self-defined minority groups, gay Americans were mostly swept up in the vague but grandiose promises of “change” emanating from Obama’s campaign, and voted for him in overwhelming numbers. But after a year of total inaction on any gay rights issues, it has become painfully obvious that Obama was lying to the gay community — just as he lied to the rest of America on practically every other issue under the sun.
A remorseful voter is an angry voter. How many times can the Democratic Party burn its constituent voting-blocs with broken promises and still count on those votes in the next election?
Gay voters who base their electoral decisions exclusively on gay rights issues need to stop automatically assuming that Democrats are their allies and Republicans are their foes. By awarding their votes to Democratic candidates by default, the gay community has ensured that they are taken for granted and no longer have much political pull.
Yes, it is true that some Republican candidates are also social conservatives who oppose gay marriage. Yet the same is true for many Democratic candidates, though perhaps not quite as many percentage-wise. If you insist on being a single-issue voter (which is an ideological blunder, in my opinion, but that’s a different topic), then look at each candidate individually, aside from party affiliation, to see where they stand on the issue of your choice. When it comes to gay marriage, you may be surprised to find that in many instances (not just Obama vs. the McCains) there are no real differences between the Democratic and Republican positions in any particular head-to-head race. And that being the case, you can move down the list to other political priorities on which to base your vote (economy, defense, etc.), and you can make a decision outside of a rigid political framework.
Only by putting “the gay vote” back in play can those who fight for gay rights get any traction. Otherwise, the gay community will be seen by the Democrats as a sure thing whose demands can therefore be safely ignored.
Although I am firmly against “Gay Marriage” (because I am not in favor of the Government defining an act that is not unitive as an act that is unitive) I enjoyed this article quite a bit. I’m very happy that Zombie is posting here.
Pro-gay marriage, but pro-fedrealism and pro-expanding not contracting civil liberties. That said, you go Cindy! I love it.
Gee, the one issue that doesn’t conform to the liberal orthodoxy in California and McCain ends up on the wrong side. Again! McCoakley?
So is she saying her husband is filled with “H8″? I’m sure that will win him over. People love being falsely accused of bigotry.
I’ve always thought gay marriage an oxymoron.
Marriage has three constituent parts–
Nature of the participants– animal, vegetable, mineral, biological, human, animal?
Number of participants —
Gender (predicated on ‘nature’ being animal, human)
Gay marriage means one of the three, gender, is now out the window and either/any gender ‘marries’ any other. This, of course, opens the logical door for the other two parameters to change……
marriage between 3, 5 or fifty, anyone? Marriage between humans and animals, anyone? Want to marry your dog, your favorite car, the planet itself?
IN other words, gay marriage invites an insane inability to define the institution of marriage. It destroys the meaning of a word. And the gays’ defense “we’re not asking for the others!” is no defense, because someone else will, and how can you deny them?
Already I’ve heard demands from fringes that multiple people be allowed to be considered legally married.
If you defend the principle that only 2 people get married, you must go to the same well, “tradition”, to get your defense, and there you will find ‘tradition’ also insists against two men or two women being married.
In forcing the template of marriage to fit a tortured definition as a result of a self-identified minority grievance, ‘marriage’ itself is destroyed and made meaningless.
This has been my philosophical take on the matter. I am against redefinitions of words which result in the loss of meaning of those words. Ironically, “Gay” itself once had a different meaning, not so long ago……..
Gays, like African Americans, have been sold a bill of goods, by the Democrats, that is entirely based on stereotypes and lies repeated by the Democrat-owned media. I am a conservative who thinks people should be free to love whomever they want (consenting adults, of course) and if two gays want to marry each other, it’s their business not mine (although I believe because of the first amendment that they cannot and should not force churches to go against themselves in order to marry them. A JP is just as legal, right?)
The thing is, I know a lot of conservative people, and they all pretty much feel the way I feel: people should be left alone to live their lives, and we all answer to God for plenty. I have enough trouble managing my own soul; I don’t need to manage someone else’s.
But the press loves to find the fringe and pronounce them as representative of “all” conservatives. Newsflash: Dick Cheney is in favor of gay marriage. George W. Bush met up with an old classmate at a Yale reunion. The classmate was transexual, from guy to gay. She went up to Bush and said, “I bet you don’t remember me, but my name used to be Dave.” Bush responded, “and now you’ve come back as yourself” and gave a hug.
The haters, I am very sorry to tell you this, are not on the right. But the left has had to make you think it. Otherwise you might not vote for them.
In the ‘stacked’ department, Cindy McCain’s got nothing on my wife.
Whoops, I meant that to read “from guy to gal.”
So people who think marriage is a man-woman thing are filled with hate? Not a good way to garner any sympathy or support.
I oppose gay marriage, though I’m not a conservative by any measure other than that. A marriage is between a man and a woman. On the other hand I DON’T oppose homosexual couples having a civil unions/contracts…just as long as it’s not legally called marriage.
The Obama/Biden admin is a step back for us gays in another sense. In the previous admin, the Cheney family provided a heartwarming example of how parents and siblings should accept and celebrate a gay family member, her partner, and their child–and they did it at the highest levels of power and symbolism in America, with the blessings of the Bush family. We no longer have that shining example.
With any luck though, we may yet have a Cheney in the next admin, this time straight sister Liz — and maybe in the top position. A Republican woman Pres who is also be the proud sister, sister-in-law, and aunt of a gay family. God Bless America.
During the Presidential campaign, I also asked a liberal friend if she was uncomfortable with the way Obama was actually running to the right of McCain on Afghanistan, talking very tough about bringing bin Laden in, etc. “Oh no,” she said complacently. “He has to say certain things to get elected, that’s all.”
Well, months of months of dithering did confirm Obama’s insincerity, but what do you know, in the end he poured more troops into Afghanistan. One of the few times, as with gay marriage, where he actually did what he said he would.
If you give a candidate permission to lie to you, can you complain about his telling the truth?
This post doesn’t convince me that gay people voting on the marriage issue should have supported McCain. Saying that black is white because there exist shades of gray, does not a political statement make.
Look, this is in the GOP platform:
“Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.” (http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm)
So let’s play out a very simple hypothetical scenario. We have checks and balances in this country, and presumably McCain — had he won — would have presided over a quite-strong Democratic-led Congress.
One major goals of the gay rights movement presently is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Let’s say Pelosi and company get their act together and pass such a repeal. McCain is President. Can you convince me — given the above, or any other relevant facts — that he would not veto it? Especially knowing fully well what a lightning rod the issue is, and that it could never get a supermajority to override his veto?
Look, I am gay and I did vote for McCain, but you can’t convince me that just because his wife is posing for an ad campaign, that he would have acted in my best interest where these issues are concerned. I very much understand why a person who highly values gay rights and gay marriage voted for Obama. And I can hardly defend the current crop of so-called “red meat” conservatives in this respect.
I’m not defending single-issue voting, or even Obama per se, but just noting the realities that keep gay-issue voters away from GOP candidates; namely the party itself.
Does Cindy support a bisexual person having both a husband and wife? If not, why not? If not, does she hate bisexual people?
#7 Dave — great post!
Elton John said it best: “Heterosexuals have marriage, gays have civil unions.”
Yep, they might complain now but come 2010 midterms and 2012 general elections they’ll be exactly like your friend again, Zombie, lining up to vote dutifully for Dems that will lie to them for another cycle, ad infinitum…
Make no mistake about Obama here: it is not at all that he is somehow more moderate on the issue — I assure you he is sympathetic to every liberal plank. However, just as with closing Gitmo right away, or immediately bailing out on Iraq & Afghanistan, he would sincerely love to, but it’s just that *everything* is secondary to the project of pushing the USA irreversibly toward some form of socialism.
His ‘moderation’ or alleged ‘pragmatism’ that pops up in a few isolated areas is purely the result of political calculation, defending the flanks of his main goal.
Perfect example: as much as he is personally a Carter-redux left winger who appeases (or even some ways possibly admires authoritarians & dictators) he is disappointing his base on Gitmo and matters terror-related because he knows that his #1 vulnerability, another major attack here at home.
Aside — Funny how the people who insist homosexuality is totally biological, something deeply innate, not to mention ‘natural’, are simultanously the ones insisting that ‘gender is culturally constructed’ when discussing general differences (tendencies) between men and women.
I am fairly neutral on gay marriage but am concerned about the hatred I see, which I fear would be turned against churches that declined to perform the ceremony if it were legal. That is a conundrum which a bit of tolerance on the gay side would do much to solve. However, I see people like Andrew Sullivan who I’m sure would be delivering a summons to a Catholic church a week after the legal question was settled.
“Only by putting “the gay vote” back in play can those who fight for gay rights get any traction. Otherwise, the gay community will be seen by the Democrats as a sure thing whose demands can therefore be safely ignored.”
One of the problems with building a coalition party on a bunch of single issue constituencies is that you can never actually give them what they most want… as that frees them to vote based on other reasons… reasons that may not align with the party any longer.
In short — Democrats need the issue… why would they ever solve the problem?
Recently BravoTV ran a series ‘Million Dollar Listing’ about 3 gay realtors in LA selling hot properties. One of the realtors, Madison Hildebrand, participated in a NOH8 photo shoot, shown on a ‘Listing’ episode.
http://www.bravotv.com/million-dollar-listing
Gays need to take their gayze off those disco balls and focus on reality. The Donks aren’t going to do anything for them.
Since when is marriage a political decision?
Tax law and property rights are already based on the premise that the state holds the right to define marriage in the first place, which is a circular argument.
What if it were not a state decision?
I do not think it should be. It is possible to be non-divorced according to the Roman Catholic church and yet be so according to the state of Nevada, for example. I am pretty sure anyway, after three long weekends there.
My question is not so much about whom is or not married, it is about who decides.
The holy institution of marriage should be decided by holies and nobody else. There are no deals with the polity which do not result in loss of power.
So maybe less is better.
Spindok
1. Just because Cindy supports same sex marriage does not mean her husband does.
2. Cindy McCain may have never come out in support of same sex marriage had her husband won. He courted the religious right when he ran for office, and chances are she would have kept her mouth shut until he was out of office.
3. Obama has been staunchly anti same sex marriage / pro civil unions, and anybody who voted for him believing he would legalize gay marriage was in some major denial.
“The holy institution of marriage should be decided by holies and nobody else. There are no deals with the polity which do not result in loss of power. ”
I don’t quite buy this libertarian argument — after all we expect the government to support others sorts of contracts whose validity, which it at least implicitly endorses (‘decides’).
Well one thing about marrying objects think both sides need to consent so how dose a non person consent?
Well looked at this earlier today, one thing is Civil unions aren’t universal can get a civil union in one state then move to another and get the same legal rights unlike marriage where say can marry in one state at 17 then move to another state where legal age for marriage is 18 and it still accepted. So maybe should make civil unions equal to marriage?
Though I am strongly considering the heretic position which no one likes. Looking back at why the government subsidizes marriages (reduced tax rates), what benefits do the government have from encouraging it. I can see a few from std reduction and nuclear families if they are faithful. So if the benefits of marriage are enough to be encourage would not also enforcing a minor adultery law to keep it in good faith? Or if the benefits aren’t enough to subsidize simply just allow easy method of legal recognition and power of attorneys, but no tax breaks.
Give me a break. John McCain and Barack Obama have both stated their opposition to gay marriage. Just because the President’s views are heard more loudly (because he is president), that does NOT make him any “more” anti-gay marriage than McCain. And while, as a gay man, I do appreciate the anti-prop 8 statement that John McCain’s wife is now making (the same statement that his daughter has been making for a while), it is too little too late. Where was her Anti-Prop 8 cry when it mattered – before the proposition passed and while she still had some political clout? It was not there. Believe me – I’m totally psyched that she has volunteered her name and image for the anti-prop 8 campaign. Everyone knows we need every Republican we can get. But I think it’s ridiculous to start making inferences that the McCain family is more gay-friendly or has done more for the gay community than the Obamas.
You know what I just realized that bugs me about the anti-8 campaign? It says, “No H8″ – no hate. Ie, those who are in favor of Prop 8 are motivated by hate.
My Christian faith held me back from saying something extraordinarily harsh to all people who back gay marriage – but I will point out that the vast majority are tired of a lot of things, not least of which is the attempts to cast those who against things like gay marriage as motivated by hate.
Want some “change” on this? Then stop being a bunch of …. well, once again, my Christian faith holds me back from writing some words…
Spindok,
No, the various benefits applied to the institution of marriage were placed there, over the years, in recognition of the absolute necessity of forming families for the procreation and rearing of the young. Anyone who does anything which in any way, shape or form undermines marriage by default then passes power to the State.
I’ll agree with the commenters who note that accusing your opponents of hate isn’t the way to convince them to change their minds. I’ve been saying something similar for years.
I’ve also been pointing out to those who are opposed to gay marriage a simple conundrum: do you believe the government should be prohibiting behavior, just because a majority of the population doesn’t like it? Various gay marriage opponents have tried to do things like link legalizing of gay marriage with things like immorality, teen pregnancy (?!?), and other social ills, but really, can anyone explain to me how these things could be connected? I got married during the Clinton administration, but that doesn’t mean Bill was responsible for my marriage.
The government should be in the business of prohibiting things because they endanger the public’s safety, not because a group (no matter how large it is) disapproves. Gay people live together in modern America; if you think by prohibiting gay marriage you’ll be preventing gays from living with one another you’re an idiot. I know a couple, a pair of gay men, who had their 25th anniversary a few years ago; one pair of lesbians my wife and I know have been together (at least dating) since they were in middle school, and they’re now in their late 50′s. What purpose does preventing these people from having a legal instrument legalizing their union serve? How does their possessing this piece of paper threaten my marriage to my wife? Frankly, if your marriage is so weak that it’s damaged by the possession of a piece of paper by a pair of people you’ve never met, I feel sorry for you.
Frankly, I think the central point of this article a bit overdrawn. McCain isn’t any better, really, on the gay marriage issue; if he were elected President, he’d be too tactically obsessed with fending off the religious right to defy them over something like this. The gay community would hate him (for being a Republican) regardless of what he did, so advocating gay marriage would be a lose/lose situation. At best they were sold a bill of goods by Obama, but frankly there they can just get in line, along with most everyone else who voted for him. I guess the public employee unions are happy with him, sort of. Maybe a few other special interest groups.
As to those who still aren’t convinced about my argument regarding whether the government should prohibit something because it’s unpopular. Should the government also prohibit overweight people from wearing spandex at the beach? I’d be willing to bet most people, surveyed, would think such people “shouldn’t be allowed” to wear such attire–but outlawing it would clearly be outrageous. The whole point to our government, and our conservative principles, is that we can do that which is unpopular but not dangerous, without the government prohibiting us or interfering with us doing it…and that should apply even to people who are unpopular with conservatives.
George W Bush on national TV comments on civil unions. Mr. Bush said, “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL5qSiW3LUQ
http://www.tidefans.com/forums/non-sports/19433-bush-endorses-civil-unions.html
DavidN Jan 21, 2010 – 6:21 pm
My issue is the naming aspect. Once you call it marriage then it opens a whole legal avenue for gays to attack churches and other institutions that do not support it. I am a fairly conservative person but I would be fine with a federally sanctioned civil union with all the rights and privileges of marriage, except calling it marriage and expecting people of good conscience to be forced to participate.
I can foresee that if gay marriage is adopted Churches attacked, sued, maybe even forced to close because of this.
For that reason alone I think many conservative Christians oppose it.
Give me a break!
I love Cindy McCain, and Meghan McCain for that matter, because of their support of marriage equality. However, I dare say, they probably wouldn’t have been outspoken about their views if John McCain had won. And even if they were, they would not have been the ones in power! Bottom line: Obama sucks on marriage, and he has dragged his feet on almost everything else gay-related. However, he’s still head and shoulders above McCain when it comes to gay rights. We now have the Matthew Shepard Act. That’s one more piece of gay rights legislation than we would have had for McCain’s entire term(s), mostly symbolic as it is.
And this does NOT dispel the “tired, old” stereotype that Republicans are anti-gay. It’s in the party platform! Of course there are individual Republicans, even some prominent ones, who are for gay rights, including marriage, and I love them for it! But the fact remains that Republicans are against gay marriage by somewhere in the high 70% range (maybe higher, I don’t remember). This is not a stereotype; it’s a reality.
“A remorseful voter is an angry voter. How many times can the Democratic Party burn its constituent voting-blocs with broken promises and still count on those votes in the next election?”
1) Marriage should not ever be an issue the federal government should be involved in, let alone gay marriage. It is a cultural institution based on family and grounded in religious doctrine.
2) An institutional long lived cultural norm should not be subject to the whims of a select few vocal people, especially when it is as simple as a word. You say millions of gays voted for Obama for gay marriage rights? I am not convinced that there are enough gays in this nation to make millions of voters for one reason plausible. First, there are many things that affect gays, and marriage is not the highest priority, sometimes taxes or regulations of their business’ might be and that includes gays who votee for McCain. Second, not all gay people vote, some are not even registered to vote. Thus, I seriously doubt it was millions, maybe several hundreds of thousands who voted for president voted for the right to have gay marriage sanctified by the federal government. That would indicate fractions of 1% of the population voted specifically as the single issue of gay marriage rights.
3) You have access to gay marriage, and that access is in one state, which is part of a federation of states that is supposed to be a democratic republic. Not only that, but in many states you have access to same sex domestic partnerships or what ever it is called, along with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities of marriage. This gives people the ability to live in places where they enjoy living, and are allowed to move away from places that they do not enjoy living. If the federal government were to be the decider on this issue, it destroys this relationship between the governed and the government. We are no longer allowed to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as there would be no place left to find that happiness for people who do not want to live in a place where gay marriage is commonplace. This is one reason why abortion is the issue for which it is, because it destroyed that part of the relationship between the governed and the government.
The gay marriage (sic) “argument” as advanced by gay apologists has itself descended into argumentum ad absurdum ad infinitum. One of the crowning glories of the “gay marriage” (sic) argument that’s been posed for serious consideration was this: “How would gay marriage diminish your own marriage? If it doesn’t, then why should we be able to marry?”
Now, merely substituting an open-ended statement for an argument is no argument at all. For example, how does a farmer marrying his most beloved goat affect my marriage? Obviously such social insanity doesn’t affect my marriage one whit in a practical sense, but the question still remains, would such an arrangement be a desirable facet of civil society? I would posit such an “arrangement of convenience” WOULD NOT be in the interest of civil society or our posterity, whether between goats and humans or between homosexuals.
Until gay activists and their PC sycophants start getting really serious about this alleged “bigotry” issue by also strongly advocating for marriage “rights” between bisexuals and their multiple partners of both sexes as well as reaffirming polygamist “rights” which, btw, have infintely more historical precedence than “gay marriage” (sic) “civil rights”, then those on that side of the “argument” can’t be taken seriously because its only by appealing to some time-honored tradition, moral code or legal code (all of which could be changed, right?) to justify their own pooh-poohing of polygamy or bisexual marriage, thus justifying their own philosophical fraud which they slyly perpetrate upon civil society in order to make it appear “gay marriage” (sic) has a far more legitimate claim so please-don’t-worry-about-that-slippery-slope-folks-because-we’re-only-talking-about-gay-rights. Well … yeeeah!
You see, “gay marriage” apologists don’t want to recognize the unintended consequences of their own willingness to redefine marriage because they know most mainstream citizens aren’t going to embrace “gay marriage” (sic) if they also have to swallow the emerging reality that we’re also going to have to accomodate bisexual marriage between mulitiple partners, polygamy, inter-special marriages, cross-special marriages, incestuous marriages, ad nauseam. This kind of sly political obfuscation is despicable in that the gay lobby knows that the slippery slope they are creating will indeed eventually lead to other crude redefinitions of holy matrimony down the road simply to appease people with peculiar sexual and social fetishes. If you change marriage for one special group you have to change marriage for all special groups, right? C’mon, let’s be honest here!
And if marriage is all about “love”, then why shouldn’t a son be able to platonically “marry” his mother or even grandmother for the sake of extending his insurance benefits to them? Well, why not? Surely gay activists aren’t going to argue their “love” is any deeper or more meaningful than that of a son’s love for his mother or grandmother, right? It’s “all about love”, right?
And how about an adult daughter being able to marry her divorced father … well, why not? Divorced father? Why not make it a real family affair and have the adult daughter marry her father why he’s still married to her mother? Well, why not? Because it goes against moral tradition and repugnant? Buwahahaha, you’ve just fallen upon your own sword! Because it’s presently illegal? Ditto. Can’t wait until NAMBLA gets into the act! I mean, who are you to deny consenting humans of any kind to be married in the name of “love”? Moral fascists!
Historically speaking, there is nothing compelling that empowers the State to redefine the institution of marriage. It’s merely a case of moral license (not to be confused with real liberty) gone mad.
Civil unions? Absolutely, that’s well within the power of government to bequeath, but no government or component of man-made government has the power to redefine marriage.
Rather government, any government, merely has the power to make provision for beneficient institution which which always has defined marriage as being between man and woman, and in more refined, civilized societies as being between one man and one woman.
One last thing. A strictly gay relationship is by definition physically and reproductively sterile. It contributes nothing a living posterity, the natural product of a union between one man and one woman. And please don’t trot out the shameless argument of a heterosexual couple being any less married because they can’t have children. In the case couples who can’t have children or who don’t want children there is still a reasonable expectation they would have offspring, right? Operative word, reasonable. I guess that makes me a “birther”? How progressive of you and thank you very much, I consider the name calling an honor coming from such critics.
By contrast, in a homosexual relationship this is absolutely no reasonable expectation that human posterity would be served by such an arrangement. Hey, if two homosexuals want to live together in the privacy of their own home, that’s their business, but once they want to drag us into their bedroom and by government action force us to applaud their wonderful, blissful union, I’m sorry but that’s a tyranny I can’t stomach.
So what’s the overarching, utilitarian principle here? I’ll give it a whirl. If every person on the planet Earth were heterosexual, humanity would continue on without so much a glance backwards or lament for an aberrant human sexuality that never was. However, if everyone were homosexual, the human race would become extinct in one generation. So which state of being yields life and which state eventually yields death for humanity? Sorry to put it in such stark terms but actually there’s more to argue for legalizing polygamy and even bisexual marriages than there is for strictly “gay marriages” (sic).
Now those of you who claim to be so “open-minded” and have the peculiar ability to proclaim your love for all humanity yet always find ample opportunity to hate on people who won’t agree with you, now you can engage in your snarky hatefest because I have the unmitigated gall to hold honestly held opinions that have long been celebrated by all of humanity down through the ages. If the founding fathers, who were classical liberals to a fault, were confronted with this insanity they would have tarred and feathered those apologists espousing such views, if they didn’t first commit you to an insane asylum. Think about what your doing.
#31 DavidN
“As to those who still aren’t convinced about my argument regarding whether the government should prohibit something because it’s unpopular.”
Actually I have a questions for you. Should the government promote something that the vast majority of Americans oppose while forcing the majority to change the meanings of words which have been in existence for many centuries and finally force schools to teach the majorities children that there is no difference between the relationship between a man and a woman and the relationship between either two males or two females?
Gay marriage is not about freedom, it is about the abuse of power to force a cultural change onto the people that the government is meant to protect, not subject.
The relationship between the GLBT community and the Democrat party is like an abusive marriage. The GLBT community is the battered wife and time and again the Democrat husband beats and beats the wife, then apologizes profusely, buys her flowers and candy only to beat her again.
But the GLBT cannot see they must get away from Democrat batter.
What do gay people REALLY want from gay marriage?
Why does it have to be called ‘marriage’ to get what you want?
To be accepted as ‘normal’?
What?
Unless you somehow have the ability to make civil union or domestic partnership federally recognize then do not make it sound like they are equal to marriage. Otherwise most gay people would choose not to pick this fight.
There are too many fringe sectors of the christian right that prevents gay people from achieving equality.
Geez, gay people are not some sort of “others”. They want marriage for the exact same reason, you may want. Not everybody chooses marriage for the sake of procreation. Your bible has already labeled homosexuals as someone of lesser worth or less than. This is a simple fact.
I’m gay. I’m not for Gay Marriage. I’m for Registered Civil Unions between consenting partners with legal protections across the board (custody, health care, visitation, alimony, assets, wills etc etc) I’m agnostic but I strongly believe that no one and definitely no government has any right to force a house of worship to perform marriages they do not wish to do. This can only lead to anger. If your church will not marry you, I’m sorry, I sympathize, it must be hurtful but either work internally to reform/change the views of members or move to one that supports you. Religion is not the place for government to get involved in and -that- is what the founders really meant by separation of Church and State. They where protecting religion from the government (the powers, our elected “kings”) not the other way around.
Broadly speaking, I’m a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. There -is- no viable party that represents my values and my desires for this nation. It takes a lot of research to figure out who’s the lesser of two evils and frankly, I think I’m running out of energy for it.
What is your point? Most gays would still prefer Obama vs. McCain.
if only barack were simply ignoring equality-under-the-law for gay citizens.. what is actually happening is that his administration has been actively fighting AGAINST issues of concern to the gay community in the courts. he’s not just a disappointment, he’s a back-stabbing liar.
It occurs to me that before my husband and I were married, we went to the county courthouse and received a marriage license from the clerk. We were considered legally wed a day or two before the actual ceremony.
So why not just call every civil ceremony (the one performed by a justice of the peace) a “domestic partnership” or a “civil union” and let it apply to ALL couples, gay or straight? Then for those who felt the need to be married, the right to perform the religious ceremony of marriage would be retained by individual churches, according to their own ideas of what is morally right or acceptable in the eyes of God. That way those who want partnerships have them, the government can officially recognize those partnerships as binding, the churches that want to solemnize gay marriages are free to do so, and the churches that consider it an abomination won’t be forced into acting against what they believe to be morally right.
41. Jesseq, if gays are not some sort of ‘others’ (your words), then perhaps a good many of them shouldn’t refer to themselves as the ‘gay community’ and self-segregate themselves like ‘the black community’ do. Maria 42. spoke from her own experience and personalized her POV rather than speaking for ‘the gay community’. Just as I’d never consider myself speaking for the ‘heterosexual community’, especially considering there are so many variables on even heterosexuality/religion/politics anyhow.
The McCains are people I can’t identify at all with. I think Beck had it right… ‘Progressives’. Ick.
I would like to keep that duct tape on all the Mc Cains!
Bravo, Maria, and hear, hear! My marriage is sacred to me because it was witnessed in and took place as a sacrament in my church… but it’s legally binding because I got a government license for it first. It would’ve been just as legally binding if the license had been for a civil union, which my husband and I chose to announce and, in our particular way, sanctify within our church. And our church is one which will in fact perform marriage ceremonies sanctifying a union between two men or two women, who lack (in our state) only the ability to go to the office we did and get a binding contract.
I have great sympathy for two anti-gay-marriage (not anti-gay) arguments: the one expressed several times here that says, if you argue against tradition in naming as “marriage” a union that isn’t included in the traditional usage of that term, you can’t then go back to “tradition” to argue against other types of unions. And the one that I haven’t explicitly seen so far, that says we don’t and can’t know the long-term unintended consequences at the margins of a redefinition of something as basic and pre-government as “marriage” (and Europe not being the US, I don’t buy arguments that we can look at, say, Sweden and draw valid conclusions about unintended consequences here), and therefore the cautious, federalist state-by-state approach is far safer for society. But I have no animus against gay people who want to be as legally bound to those they love as they are emotionally and spiritually bound.
I reject the slippery slope arguments about polygamy, incest, and bestiality. I’ve never heard gays propound the principles on which anti-gay-marriage people seem to think the case for gay marriage rests. For my gay friends, it’s not some far-reaching case of cosmic justice, but a simple, personal yearning: two people in love want to openly make a lifelong, exclusive commitment to each other. If some church is willing to perform the ceremony and call it a marriage, so be it.
As a conservative, I certainly agree that identity politics and single-issue voting are losers. What about anti-gay-marriage people here? If Dick Cheney ran for president and continued his vocal support of gay marriage, would you withhold your vote?
The “gay community” was never part of the Obamist cabal; indeed, the Petulant Left as a whole was never part of it, although many of them deceived themselves into thinking that giving their blood, sweat, and tears (not to mention other secretions) to Dunham’s campaign would shame his handlers into exhibiting gratitude.
No, the Obamist cabal is made up of Wright’s black racists (and if you want to see real homophobia, breach the subject of gay marriage to them), Daley’s machines pols (whose homophobia is second only to that of the racists), and Ayers’ hard-core Marxists (who may cover a particular useful homosexual with the mantle of their protection out of pragmatism, but who don’t really have a dog in this fight).
The high-water mark of “gay rights” was on 3 November 2008.
Gay men are legally prohibited from giving blood in this country because their sexual behavior is too dangerous. Can anyone tell me how such a relationship is in any way equal to that of a man and a woman?
There isn’t anyone I could care less about hearing from than the McCains. They are entitled to their opinions but basically they are all idiots in their own way. Dad is a failed RINO candidate and political has-been, mom is a non-entity, the daughter is a dumb ass who is trying to stretch her 15 minutes of fame into a career as a pundit and is failing miserably. They only thing you can rely on with them is they will trash conservatives and sell us out on the big battles.
Conservatives are on the right side of the issue. The country is still FOR traditional marriage, it wins every time it is on the ballot. With all of the pressing matters facing the country now is not the time to worry about how some far-left grievance group who can never be appeased wants to redefine the family unit to suit their agenda. And the agenda goes far beyond marriage as anyone following the Kevin Jennings scandal would know.
They will never vote Republican in any decent number regardless of their disappointment with Obama. Courting them loses us more than it gains and their agenda is bad for the country anyway.
“I reject the slippery slope arguments about polygamy, incest, and bestiality. I’ve never heard gays propound the principles on which anti-gay-marriage people seem to think the case for gay marriage rests.”
That is irrelevant to the argument. Even if gays don’t come out in support of polygamy or man-boy love or whatever (you don’t really know if they would or not) the polygamists will make their own case and use the gay marriage issue to make it.
Once you open the door to redefining marriage I don’t see how you can reasonably prevent others who have another version of what marriage is from demanding that they recognized. What is to stop 2 heterosexual males from marrying merely to gain benefits normally reserved for married couples? You couldn’t. Marriage and the family unit will mean nothing.
There are reasons that a male/female partnership is being promoted and favored. It is the optimal family unit for raising children and maintaining the social fabric of civilization. We have empirical evidence showing that a lack of a father in the home has disastrous consequences. To knowingly promote a scheme whereby that is the case much of the time is irresponsible.
This country is supposed to have separation of church and state, but name me one state that doesn’t require marriage licenses. For me, the solution is found in the Bible; Christ said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s.” Marriage is a religious sacrament; leave it to the churches. The state can license civil unions for everyone. (Allow existing marriages to be grandfathered in.) Gays will be able to be married in churches that are agreeable; churches unwilling to marry them won’t be forced. The monetary and other benefits currently provided under marriage will be available to those in civil unions.
I believe that people have rights, and that includes the right of a child to have a mother and a father. It may be politically incorrect to say so, but there are differences between men and women. Of course some women are somewhat masculine and some men somewhat feminine, but the differences still apply.
When children are not raised one or both of their biological parents, they eventually have to ask why. If Daddy was a sperm donor, that means that Daddy wanted nothing to do with me, in other words. It all becomes unnecessarily complicated for a child, and it’s all because adults think that their desires come first. The same logic holds true for children of divorce. Children do not see things the way adults do. They are needy and self-centered, but at their age, it is appropriate for them to be self-centered. If they do not have a biological parent around, they tend to think that it is their fault (depending on the circumstances, of course).
I once taught two fourth grade classes that for some reason were separated by sex for the day. (I was teaching a special lesson in electricity.) The boys immediately began to experiment with the materials that I provided – lots of energy and curiosity. The girls were easier to for me to manage and they worked well in groups but with less enthusiasm than the boys.
How often do we have to hear that inner city boys need male mentors?
Political correctness will at some point become a thing of the past, and we will all be better off when it does.
arhooley (#47):
1. Is it your claim that there is no “simple, personal yearning” in the case of polygamy, incest, …
2. If Dick Cheney agreed to run for president, not only would I vote for him regardless of his position on gay marriage, I’d even agree to marry him myself!
Gordon (#6): “So is she saying her husband is filled with “H8″? I’m sure that will win him over. People love being falsely accused of bigotry.”
Not to worry. McCain is a famously affable and sweet person. A veritable pussycat.
http://tinyurl.com/y9gx3av
Writing about Gay Marriage on a decidedly conservative site is always fun, isn’t it?
As a gay libertarian and recovering republican, I can’t tell you how ridiculous the “gay vote” is. Believe me (or go ask GOProud.com or GayPatriot.com) if you suggest that you are anything other than a democrat as a homosexual you will be tarred and feathered by your piers. Yet (and I agree single platform is silly) they sell their votes for free- believing blindly that the Dems will set them free. They barely even get outraged when the same people they voted into office do NOTHING for them (or in the case of Clinton actually sign in Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Defense of Marriage Act) they keep their anger preserved for those bigot Republicans- what a waste. Figures vary but the general gay consensus is that 10% of Americans identify as gay or bisexual. 10% that throw their vote away and demand nothing. It’s a real shame. Perhaps if they really took their vote seriously someone else might too.
The strength of a nation is founded upon the strength of the family unit. This used to be a universally recognized truth within the American culture. Marriage is not just about a partner. You can have a partner in business or a room mate. Marriage is about family, this involves procreation and raising children. Some people have a great difficulty in recognizing the obvious. The reason is because the obvious begins to “infringe” on their chosen “life-style”.
Democrats can’t afford to follow through on their gay Americans. They would lose the only leverage they have. Gays would start worrying about taxes and poor schools and ineffective police departments. They have the same concerns that the rest of us have. I wish everyone could have seen the look on my gay neighbors’ faces when I asked them how much the marriage penalty would cost them if they were a married couple. Gay marriage isn’t going to affect me and my wife one bit but it’s going to cost gay couples plenty. Sooner the better. Norm
For those calling the Bible and Christians wrong or hateful for calling gays bad you totally miss the point. Gays are not bad. It’s their behavior that is bad. There are lots of other sins derived from bad behavior.
This is why mccain wasn’t elected. Most of us knew he was far from what we wanted in a conservative candidate. His time has come and gone. I would rather have a far liberal democrat than a RINO. At least the far liberal democrat will wake up the people. The RINO puts lulls them to sleep then crushes truth and ultimately liberty.
The McCains – they just keep on giving, don’t they? Time to put John out to pasture. He is an embarassment in his attempts to seem “relevant”. He is part of the old gurad who has been in DC way too long and whose ideas harken back to another era. He really is out of step and should be out of time.
zom,
“How many times can the Democratic Party burn its constituent voting-blocs with broken promises and still count on those votes in the next election?”
The professional victim culture in the USA pretty much guarantees that the voting-blocs would rather hear the lies they want to hear from the Donks, than see real action from anyone with “R” after their names.
Staying political, the Federal Government is forbidden by the Constitution from regulating either way on homosexuality. That is a States right issue (10th amendment). For the Feds to regulate homosexual relations, another amendment to the Constitution is required.
Good luck with that.
Legally, homosexuality IS NOT a civil rights issue (14th amendment). The 9th Court might change that, as prone to legislating from the bench as they are. The backlash will be horrendous. Right now the 14th amendment covers gender; sex, not sexual acts.
If the 9th court changes that then Millions of Americans will be wedding their household pets ( or salads ) for the tax break.
“I now pronounce you cucumber and wife!”
What about the geek that likes to choke his chicken while a building burns? That is a sex act, one that would be allowed under equal protection if the 9th Court applies the 14th amendment to Sex acts as well as sex.
If one looks where all this leads, you can see why Society has either outlawed or discriminated against homosexuals for thousands of years.
Homos are sort of caught in the middle. Western civilization tolerates them in small numbers. To paraphrase Lady Astor; ‘So long as they don’t do it in public and frighten the horses.’ Western Societies major competitor, Islam tends to hang them. So if the Homosexuals go to far in their quest for access to more young bodies (gay Marriage), they will destroy the society that protects them from the noose.
Decisions, decisions….
What idiocy. The McCains aren’t elected officials, unless you think that they have some royalty-like position, who cares what they say either way? That should have been how it was in 2008, that should be how it is now. Sending your family out to back causes that you don’t have the courage to–or, as you suggest, as a way of undermining an opponent–is exactly what’s wrong with politics. There should be a thousand teabaggers backing me up here.
Well, since I got some civil answers, I’ll answer back.
Ken Royall, your argument has merit; polygamists etc. could appropriate gay marriage for their own interests. But why give in to these intellectually dishonest slippery slopists? In other cases, they stop Nativity displays at Christmas and racial profiling at airports. Regarding fatherless homes, I don’t think it applies so much to gay couples. The fatherless home tragedy we’re so familiar with features a single, uneducated, virtually unemployable mother with a series of abusive boyfriends and little care for her children. It does not apply to Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, although I readily allow that certain biological characteristics of males and females may be more favorable for the kids.
Bill 57, no, that’s not my claim. Let’s take one issue at a time. When we get to polygamy and bestiality, I think it will be reasonable to say that goat-plus-man or man-plus-10-wives is a long way from the union of Mary Cheney and Heather Poe.
“Gay voters who base their electoral decisions exclusively on gay rights issues need to stop automatically assuming that Democrats are their allies and Republicans are their foes. By awarding their votes to Democratic candidates by default, the gay community has ensured that they are taken for granted and no longer have much political pull.”
Replace the word “gay” with black, woman, Latino, Jewish, and poor. Such is the folly of identity politics.
Well written Hankmeister and Ken Royall!
I’m so glad McSame didn’t win. We are better off paying for the financial sins of the GOP with four years of the Moa-bama, then we can repent of our ways and get back to being the adults.
I must protest that the author of this article and the commenters treat the issue of gay marriage as being no less frivolous than John McCain’s East Coast Elite wife. This topic demands the gravest consideration.
I do not oppose gay marriage because of gays. I have no trouble with gays at all. I oppose it because it will open the floodgates to polygamy. The evidence is as clear as the best crystal. In affirming gay marriage, the Iowa Supreme Court held that it was the only way that the plaintiffs could be happy. That justification opens the door widely to polygamy. Folks intent on polygamy can use exactly the same argument as gays.
Permitting polygamy in this country would cause fundamental societal changes at the grass roots level and all levels. In a polygamous society, a young woman would find that her chief motivation for choosing a particular partner is not the character of the man but the character of the family, the man and his existing wives. That changes everything. It requires quite a stretch of the imagination to identify another change possessing equal shock to the system. If the government simply did away with Social Security and did not compensate citizens, that might have an equal shock, though a temporary one. Everyone would have to rethink the incentives that they have pursued as fundamentals in their lives. They would have to adjust by saving more and consuming less. They would adjust in time to the altered economic incentives. But there is no adjustment to the bite of polygamy. You cannot simply rearrange your emotional resources. Part of your emotional life is dead, the part that took monogamy as bedrock.
There are powerful institutions in the USA that will sue for the right to polygamous marriage. CAIR and all its sibling organizations will inevitably sue for the right to polygamous marriage. They need not sue under first amendment protection of religion because the Iowa rulings make clear that marriage must accommodate whatever is necessary for happiness. CAIR will have powerful allies in this work. One of them is president of the USA at this time.
So, take it seriously, folks, as you would the government’s notice that the Social Security system and all your savings will be abolished during this administration.
Here is a perspective destroyed by you bunch of crazy, puritanical, victorians from a lost world . . . that includes both sides of this sordid mess:
Quote from “The Soul of the Indian” by Charles Alexander Eastman:
There was no religious ceremony connected with marriage among us, while on the other hand the relation between man and woman was regarded as in itself mysterious and holy. It appears that where marriage is solemnized by the church and blessed by the priest, it may at the same time be surrounded with customs and ideas of a frivolous, superficial, and even prurient character. We believed that two who love should be united in secret, before the public acknowledgment of their union, and should taste their apotheosis alone with nature. The betrothal might or might not be discussed and approved by the parents, but in either case it was customary for the young pair to disappear into the wilderness, there to pass some days or weeks in perfect seclusion and dual solitude, afterward returning to the village as man and wife. An exchange of presents and entertainments between the two families usually followed, but the nuptial blessing was given by the High Priest of God, the most reverend and holy Nature.
The family was not only the social unit, but also the unit of government. The clan is nothing more than a larger family, with its patriarchal chief as the natural head, and the union of several clans by intermarriage and voluntary connection constitutes the tribe. The very name of our tribe, Dakota, means Allied People. The remoter degrees of kinship were fully recognized, and that not as a matter of form only: first cousins were known as brothers and sisters; the name of “cousin” constituted a binding claim, and our rigid morality forbade marriage between cousins in any known degree, or in other words within the clan.
The household proper consisted of a man with one or more wives and their children, all of whom dwelt amicably together, often under one roof, although some men of rank and position provided a separate lodge for each wife. There were, indeed, few plural marriages except among the older and leading men, and plural wives were usually, though not necessarily, sisters. A marriage might honorably be dissolved for cause, but there was very little infidelity or immorality, either open or secret.
John McCain Week In Review:
1. Supreme Court declares your legacy and signature piece of legislation to be UnConstitutional because it supports tyranny by limiting free speech.
2. Wife Cindy joins your liberal gad-fly daughter in calling the people who voted for you bigots and haters.
And so the national career of a once vaulted moderate (liberal) politician who briefly claimed to be conservative ends.
The solution is simple, really. If the state must ratify, certify, and sanctify a relationship between two adults, then continue with “marriage” as historically defined and simply add a new label instead of fudging the definition. If 2 plus 3 equals marriage, than call 2 plus 2 equals pairiage. See? Simple. It sure beats cutting the baby in half.
I don’t get the duct tape over Cindy’s mouth. Are gay marriage proponents suggesting they’ve been prevented from speaking out, because if they are, I’ll need to take a moment to LMAO. I also don’t agree that gays are “politically vulnerable and thus need constitutional protection.” The LGBT lobby is well-funded, quite vocal and influential (how else could we have gotten to the point that, in many jurisdictions, they’re a protected class?). Professor Segura’s argument that gays are deserving of special protections because they have “unreliable allies” in government is just plain silly. Any number of groups and individuals have unreliable allies in government (as a conservative, I know this from years of personal experience). If we’re going to start handing out special protections on that basis, we’ll end up with a Constitutional free-for-all.
Tallgrass writes:
“Here is a perspective destroyed by you bunch of crazy, puritanical, victorians from a lost world . . . that includes both sides of this sordid mess:”
Typical Leftist: no actual experience with the topic at hand but offers a “perspective” or “theory.” Sorry, dude, but folks need real advice to give real daughters about the most important decision they will make in their lives. Theories are worthless in these matters.
Most Americans already support civil unions. If gays are so politically powerful why the hell can’t they pass a nationally recognized civil union.
Fighting against dominant church dogma is not just a pain in the butt, it’s a constant struggle for public opinion.
How would you feel if your marriage is constantly being put on trial?
Oh please Delia, gays are the most integrated out of all the minority groups. Heck you wouldn’t even know they are there unless someone comes out the closet. BTW all I said was gay people want marriage for exactly the same reasons as you. Is it so hard to think that this is true. Procreation may not be a reality for them, but they do adopt.
Do you actually think that gay people want to destroy an institution they are fighting so hard to get in?
Nothing but the facts I cor 6:9 Read it and you will find out who needs to repent if not
they go to Hell not Heaven.We should help everyone fond a way to be accountable not sinful.As far a The McCains they have sin like all of us Read Acts 2:38 Repent and be Baptized that includes the Gays”
The controversy surrounding the issue of homosexual marriage is mainly due to our PC society being afraid to debate the issues truthfully. I will go out on a limb and just spit it out as succinctly as I can with regard to homosexual marriage and homosexuality in general.
First off, regardless of how we personally feel about it, core American beliefs dictate that we accept homosexuality. After all, two consenting adults should be able to do what ever they want to. To quote the Declaration of Independence:
“That they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights,
That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–“
If exercising their rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are expressed by engaging in a homosexual lifestyle, it is fine with most Americans. Most Americans don’t want homosexuals to be persecuted or discriminated against. Folks can do what ever they want as long as they don’t bother anyone else. I believe that this is true. If most Americans didn’t feel this way, homosexuality would never be tolerated. I think this can accepted as a base line.
This is the problem though: Accepting homosexually in our society is one thing, endorsing or celebrating the homosexual lifestyle is quite another. There is a moral continuum where all Americans fall. People on one end believe any behavior is acceptable, but people on the other end believe in much stricter standard.
In America today, I believe a significant majority of Americans fall in the area where they can accept homosexually as a life style, but they don’t want it officially endorsed and especially not celebrated. Marriage is a public, official and celebratory act of a union between a man and a woman that typifies the ideal in our society. It signifies the beginning of the ideal family unit consisting of the father who lovingly mates for life with the mother so they can both provide the proper environment to raise their biological offspring to be productive members of the society, tribe, or whatever. Furthermore, this notion of marriage has existed everywhere for thousands of years and has proved to be the most successful societal recipe to emulate. Most Americans do not want that recipe tampered with. Most Americans do not think homosexually is a healthy lifestyle and don’t want to see it placed in such high regard. This is why homosexual marriage amendments will always fail, even in the most liberal states. To allow homosexuals to marry is a public and official endorsement of a lifestyle that most do not want endorsed. Right or wrong that is the reality. It has nothing to do with slippery slopes or any other argument. Most Americans are simply afraid to say what they really think and dance around the subject.
Lastly, Americans not endorsing the homosexuality has nothing to do with religion either. Most people have an instinctual feeling about what is normal or not. The vast majority view homosexually as something very abnormal. The question is do we view it as a personality trait like red hair or do we view it as a malady like alcoholism that should be cured? Deep down inside, I believe most Americans, whether they admit it or not, view it like a malady that should be cured.
In time it may change, but for now, the current level of homosexual acceptance is as far as most Americans are willing to go. If homosexual activists keep pushing for more, they may very well see a backlash instead.
Here’s a quote from a gay writer and talk show host, Michelangelo Signorelli from 1994: He advocates “fight(ing) for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin(ing) the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake — and one that would perhaps benefit all of society — is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.” (“Bridal Wave,” “Out” magazine, December/January, 1004, page 1-D)
I’m sure that some homosexuals and lesbians do not have a radical agenda, but, then again, some do.
Cindy likes attention…
Cindy likes having her picture taken…
And based on photos that appeared during the election, her commitment to “traditional marriage” is questionable.
Blacks vote dependably and overwhelmingly for Democrats. Since Democrats don’t have to do anything for those votes, they don’t do anything.
I predict that Gays will continue to vote dependably and overwhelmingly for Democrats. I also predict that it will work out just as well for them as it has for Blacks.
76. Jesseq, the only reason I got married [eloped and married by a female pastor we didn't know] was because I wanted to have a child. That was the only reason for me personally to get ‘married’. We’ve been ‘together’ for over 23 years and we don’t wear wedding rings or a lot of the ‘traditional’ things. So, for me (personally) marriage is not the end all be all.
78. adnerb, yikes! Well, I think the radicals are more the minority than the majority (I hope).
#12. Rich Vail:
Good point. A LOT of people are NOT opposed to civil unions for gays, they just do not want to call it marriage. This presents an opportunity:
Have the states register civil unions. That’s really what the state does, anyway. Let the churches decide whether to call it marriage. Then everybody has a civil union registered with the state, and gays who belong to churches that recognize gay marriages, can call i marriage.
The polls have been saying for at least a decade that such a solution would be acceptable to a majority of people. The failure of the otherwise-politically astute and connected gay activists to pursue this option tells me that they don’t want a resolution to the issue.
I’ve had a very simple opinion on Gay Marriage for some time now.
The government shouldn’t reckognize any marriage, period. ALL “marriages” as far as the government is concerned should be a “civil union.” The government is supposedly a secular entitiy isn’t it? So why have it push a religious term around?
Simply make Civil unions equal to marriage in all of the legal and government matters. Then the government can determine what it’ll reckognize as a civil union under contract law. Marriage is left to churches and those who believe in the words.
For instance I’m married to my lovely wife and I would be reguardless of whether the government reckognizes it or not. Many gays I’ve known who are in relationships are “married” as far as they’re concerned, reguardless of what the government thinks. Same goes for my boss who is married but parts of the government doesn’t believe he is either but he’s still married.
So yes, this entire mess is about words more than anything. The law can be made to make civil unions the law of the land replacing marriage throughout the law and you know what? I bet there still would be gays complaining about not being “married.” Trying to force those who’s religous beliefs or otherwise won’t reckognize their relationship.
I don’t understand how gays can attack pro-lifers as single-issue captives when the homosexual agenda is uppermost in their mind, even to the exclusion of every other question before the republic. They are about 3% percent of the population — not 10% as Kinsey would have had you believe — and yet their needs easily occupy 50% of the left agenda.
The base of the Democratic Party now consists of a fractious alliance of Blacks, Hispanics and Moslems. Historic sources of leadership including Jews and Homosexuals are used as money machines and vote farms but there is decreasing evidence that this results in any attention to issues that concern them. White ethnics, especially Catholics, are now ignored except insofar as they are in mobilized unions such as the UAW or government employees. They are being rapidly replaced in those ranks by more favored groups.
The attitude of most Republicans towards homosexuals is benign neglect. That is not hostility it means a respect for privacy so deep that the Republican wants it to be mutual. At worst it means that they don’t really give a damn, and don’t demand more of strangers. That is a workable basis for a modus vivendi.
Cindy McCain’s photo-op is a classic case of projection. Her “argument” against the other guy is really about her.
And please, stop with the slander and libel that those that do not want a radical redefinition of marriage because they do no believe men and women are fungible are engaged in “hate”.
Same-sex couples should be afforded a standard, legally enforceable contract detailing the obligations and responsibilities of their partnership — ie civil union or domestic partnership. Just don’t call it “marriage” because same-sex couples are fundamentally different than opposite-sex couples.
Same-sex marriage advocates pretend their are being “silenced” when what they are after is being able to harass, intimidate, sue and jail anyone that disagrees with them.
Look at their behavior prior to the passage of Prop 8. They are the real “H8″ers.
Jesseq writes:
“Do you actually think that gay people want to destroy an institution they are fighting so hard to get in?”
Most likely, they are only thinking about themselves and do not see the consequences of their actions. That is why internet sites should insist that articles about gay marriage address the very grave consequences that follow legalization of gay marriage.
Kipling writes about McCain:
“And so the national career of a once vaulted moderate (liberal) politician who briefly claimed to be conservative ends.”
The whole thing is hilarious.
Oh, John McCain, hanging around with people like Cindy and your miscreant daughter does not elevate your stature among voters that you need desperately. Make an adjustment.
Homosexuality is, was, and will always be a
emotional dysfunction. Its a maladaptation to early childhood conditions. Its not a choice, its not a lifestyle, and it certainly isnt happy or free. Its a compulsion that leads to endless psychological pain..and that pain stems from within. The homosexuals inability to understand himself ..leads him to demand that all of society must change. And then one day all of society does change..and guess what..none of the homosexuals inner turmoil goes away. The sex is just as grief ridden, the searching …keeps going in circles. But now all of us have been dragged into a similar spiral. Which is what so many Gays really want. After all misery loves company
That’s so ironic:
Cindy McCain posing with tape over her mouth, suggesting oppressive censorship, in support of an organization that is actively seeking to destroy the livelihoods of fellow artists who dare to disagree.
Mark in Texas: I predict that Gays will continue to vote dependably and overwhelmingly for Democrats. I also predict that it will work out just as well for them as it has for Blacks.
Back in 2008 I told them in the lesbian “community” that they were being sent up the river by Obama, the African-American “community” shot down same -sex marriage in California by a two-to-one margin and this was Obama’s real base. All I got from my trouble was a lot of shunning and accusations of being a racist. And I’m not even white.
Fortunate Son: To allow homosexuals to marry is a public and official endorsement of a lifestyle that most do not want endorsed.
I refuse to accept the idea that straights can have lives but all I can have is a lifestyle.
It is precisely by denying marriage equality to gay and lesbian couples that you have a public and official endorsement of marriage in an established religious mode, rather than a legal contract between two adults mediated by the state. Once marriage was turned over to the government as a state function (“By the power invested in me by the State of Texas…”) rather than a religious sacrament controlled by Canon Law, marriage was subject to political scrutiny in regards to its fair application. It is as though marriage was a private plot of land that was sold to the state to become a public square. Efforts to adorn that public square with a cross or menorah run up against the prohibition of the state establishing a religion.
Obama was raised Muslim. Muslims do not tolerate homosexuality. Therefore….
It’s really THAT simple.
As for McCain, he’ll support whatever is popular. He is a gross opportunist of the worst sort. Dumped his sick 1st wife, so he could snag a rich, beautiful heiress and secure his bright future. His politics are the same, except his foreign policies.
Global Warming? Check.
No drilling in Anwar? Check.
Environmentalism? Check.
Immigration reform? Check.
Campaign Finance? Check.
Anti-Big Oil? Check.
Anti-Wall Street? Check.
Bailouts during the meltdown? Check.
No new bailouts? Check.
Reaching across the aisle? Check.
Every time a media trope becomes popular, he joins the bandwagon. If Gay Marriage became popular, he’d switch sides so fast, you’d lose your breath.
If it weren’t for his stances on foreign policy, I’d have absolutely no use for such a crass, opportunistic pol.
Apologies but some of this is silly.
There is an obvious difference between 1, 2, and 3.
Anyone who knows numbers knows that.
1 is assuredly lonely. 2 requires sharing and commitment and doubly rewards life and it’s blessings – even best friends know this. 1 step I will make for you…. 3 involves witholding from 1 at some point in time. The argument is simple and I don’t think it’s worth engaging (just as similar-DNA unions – simple – is that all you got?). I’m thinking of res ipsa loquitor (or whatever).
I claim without proof that those hearts are missing a piece.
(It occurs to me today er maybe yesterday the churches might be the critical points – IYKWIM – not their exclusion – but their damnings, which frankly lack perfect moral authority at the moment need I explain)
Plus, if one doesn’t want to be with someone, before joining, then to put them together and forsake the children is a sin. Thats why we don’t have arranged marriages (anymore?).
But the real funny thing – and I mean real funny – is those who act as if it is hereditary and also oppose gay unions… It is so funny to me because of the following. (though I dont think anyone can say for sure yet) Assuming it IS heredity… then gay unions would DECREASE the amount of gays. Need I explain? ok I will. See cause take 2 partners, who would have been together but are not because of whatever and with opposite sex. Then they have children naturally. Compare that to those 2 people in union together… hopefully adopting, but even if a surrogate is used… then that is 1 less DNA passed on…. yes? So if you oppose this your are being selfish (IE not thinking of the world your children will have as more important than yours).
It’s funny how the conclusions contradict the desire. But what would we be without humor?
So you see… irrational all around. Left and Right. Good thing Lord is forgiving and may He help us and save us from our hate of ourselves
If Obama had a pair
…then he would sign an Executive Order banning discrimination against gays in the military.
This singular act, which he has the power to do RIGHT NOW—if he so chose to do, certainly would shake up things. Some veterans groups might bristle at the executive order. Conservative groups would howl.
But this is a fact: The ordinary soldier, marine, airman, or sailor would not blink an eye. As long as a military brother or sister can carry their own weight…as long as that military brother and sister can FIGHT, the ordinary military person doesn’t give a damn who sleeps with whom.
Obama never served in the military. Harry S. Truman did serve.
Harry Truman desegregated the military in 1948, nearly 20 years before the larger society followed suit. Harry Truman (though no social saint) served in the military and he knew that Black soldiers were integral to America’s success.
Obama, having never served in the military, seems clueless how integral gay military personnel are to America’s success in fighting two wars simultaneously. Perhaps, one of Obama’s “crack” Cabinet aides didn’t supply the necessary memo or focus group poll.
Harry S. Truman didn’t govern by focus group. Harry S. Truman didn’t need photo ops and beer summits. Harry S. Truman didn’t need a staff of spin doctors and pollsters in order to govern effectively. Harry S. Truman originated the phrase “The buck stops here” and he certainly meant it.
Being a military veteran is not necessary for being a good President…but it helps:
“Truman was chosen to be an officer, and then battery commander in an artillery regiment in France. His unit was Battery D, 129th Field Artillery, 60th Brigade, 35th Infantry Division, known for its discipline problems.[23] During a sudden attack by the Germans in the Vosges Mountains, the battery started to disperse; Truman ordered them back into position using profanities that he had “learned while working on the Santa Fe railroad.”[23] Shocked by the outburst, his men reassembled and followed him to safety. Under Captain Truman’s command in France, the battery did not lose a single man.[23] On November 11, 1918 his artillery unit fired some of the last shots of World War I into German positions. The war was a transformative experience that brought out Truman’s leadership qualities; he later rose to the rank of Colonel in the Army Reserves,[24] and his war record made possible his later political career in Missouri.”[23]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
Yes, it is very obvious that Harry S. Truman had a pair.
I’m for every sexuality having its own form of marriage: homosexual marriage, rape marriage, pedophile marriage, voyeur marriage, s&m marriage, polymarraige, whatever, as long as no one, by word, thought, or deed, including policy or business, is required to believe or act as if they believe in that form of marriage.
1) Zombie, you’re a silly loser – stop summoning your friends (like Bryan and Jessica) to come with ecstatic approvals immediately after you post a rant here. (Or at least try find some smarter types than Bryan and Jessica – they’re soooo phoney!)
2) Further, you try to find way too much in Cindy McCain’s stunt – all what’s there is a silly, clueless woman who got who knows how in this affair.
Her weight in the gay-marriage debate is inexistent – actually it reinforces the existing idea that she’s an airhead trying to expand her long gone 15 minutes of limelight in any manner possible (it might be also a streak in the family – I remember Megham flashing her tits for this nation’s edification – exhibitionism looks like an enduring gene in this family, and sure doesn’t add seriousness to their pronouncements).
The fact is, the gay marriage cause is losing speed – if you check the proceedings of the anti-prop 8 in San Francisco, you can see how Olson’s and Boie’s pleadings are just some flimsy argumentations that present (take this as “amplify”) the emotional side of this affair to absurd dimensions.
And this lack of factual support for this cause’s claims will doom this action, even with Walker’s obvious complicity – ever heard about a federal judge being admonished by SCOTUS just before the trial begins that he is trying to influence the proceedings?
Me not – and SCOTUS admonishment responds to this nation’s view that gays are ALREADY an over privileged category of people who shouldn’t be granted anything more.
Probably (and hopefully) the anti-prop 8 action in San Francisco will fail – Los Angeles Times suddenly going mute about this after a few days of triumphalism shows that not even they see a success in this cause -
So after this, probably will come SCOTUS – well, so we’ll have more moaning and lamenting from the left, and then, thanks god, this matter will be closed for ever.
Or ’till, not that very far away moment, when homosexuality will be curable – development which amusingly strikes terror in the liberals’ souls, since it cannot but free the incoming generations of this disorientation -
RE #21/stevieray:
[...] “Only by putting “the gay vote” back in play can those who fight for gay rights get any traction. [...]
Bah, humbug – if there is an electoral block whose power has been grossly overrepresented, that is the gays’ –
Gays are less than 1% of this nation, and some frenzied activists aside, they generally have other things in mind than voting -
In some local elections, in the few cities where gays tend to aggregate, they do have some influence – but, thanks god, this doesn’t play well in Peoria, so…
Theo,
Time can only tell. It has only been a decade since the first same-sex marriage was performed. And no, marriage is still marriage. 48 nations still recognize polygamy. Nobody cares for marrying your dog, much less your car. 18 is still the average marriageable age for males and apparently there are plenty of countries that like the idea of 16 for females (lol, as long as there’s parental consent)
The good thing about the slippery slope argument is that it gets a lot of votes. It is easier to scare someone than to make them understand.
Oh, was that Cindy McCain? i thought I was watching Avatar.
Should gay marriage become law along with the threat of force by the government to make sure churches perform gay marriage, my bet is that gays will flock to mormon churches for the ceremony. And just like after the prop 8 vote, gays will ignore the black and muslim churches.
Yes, and anyone who would vote based on believing that their candidate was complicit in a lie gets what they deserve. Oh, and homosexuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexuals*. Saying that they don’t is just another lie.
*If you are my father’s brother, you are my uncle. Saying you are gay wouldn’t make you my aunt. In the same way, ‘marriage’ is a word referring to a particular relationship between a man and a woman. If homosexuals people want a new right, they should amend the Constitution. They could start showing honest intentions by refusing to misuse the word ‘gay’.
If you think gays are the victims here or that they are the ones without political support, then you need to read the following story about the Prop 8 trial where a Christian man had to go before the court to prove that his religious views were proper.
http://townhall.com/news/religion/2010/01/22/prop_8_trial_summary,_day_8_chinese_religious_leader_criticized_for_views
The ‘equal rights’ argument is weak at best because it hinges entirely on framing het marriage as something less than what it is: an institution found in virtually all societies for promoting the formation of sound families for the propagation and prosperity of said society (i.e. it’s “for the children”), a role so important that those men and women who enter into it *do* have a higher status as full real adults.
It does so by formalizing and supporting fidelity and presumption of paternity in exchange for chil support, plus the related issue of inheritance. Where monogamy is the norm, added benefits include reduced intra-group male-male violence and greater stability in general. This is self-evident from the most cursory study of history and anthropology (which too often misses the forest for the trees by focusing only on differences.)
The fact the humans have not fully evolved into a more automatic, more reliable monogamy like some birds, does not in anyway diminish the significance of marriage but supports it — if it were a matter purely of instinct there would be no need for the institution, it would just simply *be*.
Het couples have to take extraordinary measures to *not* have children, whereas G/L couples need them *to* have children (kids leftover from a previous straight marriage don’t count for this purpose.)
Gay marriage smacks of playing house.
One may as well support driver’s licenses for the blind in the name of equal rights.
104 D’oh,
I’ve also heard it put this way:
“Everyone *does* have an equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.”
Here is a happy thought: If John McCain is voted out of office we will no longer have to endure him, his spoiled, rich beer fortune wife and his pudgy, ignorant attention seeking daughter. We get a threefer !!
Um..
People keep thrashing this topic out, over and over, without noticing one key point: if you check many national surveys on this topic, you will see that only old people are worried about gay marriage. Younger demographics by and large (big majority) just do not care.
I tell my many older friends who are all worked up about it, that their attitudes and fears will die out with them, and not be carried on by future generations. The issue is literally dying.
Nowhere have I ever seen evidence that if gay marriage was approved, churches would be required to change their doctrines.
Kind of think the Constitution protects against that kind of thing.
Yeah, maybe it would open the door to all kinds of other marriages. Guess we would have to deal with that on a case by case basis.
I think civil unions for everybody is a great idea, with marriage by a church being optional, but that has been said over and over.
Beginning to think that there is some hidden agenda in keeping people arguing about this. Might raise money for churches?
Enjoy the fund raising while you can. Young people do not care about gay marriage, do not fear it, won’t take the bait. Ah, well.
When are you supposedly intelligent knee-jerk gay liberals going to get a basic education and actually read the Founding Documents including the Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence. If you would bother to invest an hour of your time, you would understand what fools the Democrats are making of you.
The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal government (Congress, Executive, and Judicial) to very few innumerated powers. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People. Presidents and Congress all lie to you to get your vote and your money because they know that virtually all of you are ignorant of their inability to create laws regarding civil actions such as marriage. Only the States have the power to create or ban marriage statutes. It looks like they can fool all the uneducated people all the time.
Ten to twelve percent of the population will never have the numbers to call a Constitutional convention, rewrite the Constitution, then have the changes confirmed by a super majority of two-thirds of the states.
The only two questions are how long is the gay community is willing to be screwed financially and politically by the Liberals. Liberal is the modern name for the Progressive Movement of the 1920s and 30s. The Democrat Party is actually the Progressive Party (remember Clinton’s presidential debate where she insisted that she be recognized as a Progressive). Please read the history of the Progressives, as the only plans that they had for homosexuals in the US and Europe was not the wedding march, but a “truly instantaneous humane lethal gas and lovely classical music be used in the gas chambers” after the government interview. Most homosexuals voted for the progressives in the 1930′s. The Progressive majority US Government waited almost five years after learning of Hitlers’ gassing of the Jews, Gypsies, and Homosexuals before getting involved.
I wonder how many Jews and Homosexuals regretted voting Hitler’s National Socialist Party (yes leftist socialist) into power.
Please educate yourselves before it is too late. Obama and his cabinet are self-described Progressives, Marxists, and Maoists. Learn each mentors’ historical solution to the “Homosexual Problem” before sending more money and support. Or you can just keep fiddling while Rome burns.
RE #109/latenight:
[...] without noticing one key point: if you check many national surveys on this topic, you will see that only old people are worried about gay marriage. Younger demographics by and large (big majority) just do not care. [...]
Latenight, you mis the opportunity to appear intelligent, and here is how:
A) “Only old people are worried about gat marriage” -
Actually you should have said “it’s generally people with life experience who [...] because they are much more aware of both the destructiveness of homosexuality, and of the positive function of the normal, biology-induced and society-sanctioned heterosexual associations” (i.e. marriage) -
And this should close the matter -
B) “Younger demographics are blah… blah…” –
b-1) Younger demographics, as time inexorably and evenly ticks for anyone, including y/self, become older and align on the positions & views harbored previously by “older demographics” – solid fact of life you should should be aware of -
b-2) As a blanket truth about younger demographics in politis, they are notoriously unstable and unreliable since their immediate interest and short attention span always trump the long term investment in showing up at the booth – screwing, getting dope, checking on the newest iPods are more important than budgetary politics or figuring on the map where Yemen is -
Younger demographics can be represented on a crescendo of reliability and political influence:
At the bottom of the heap you have the Hanna Montana and Perez Hilton’s pink, squeling constituencies (solid Obama supporters), then you have the Madison U, acnee ridden sophomore revolutionary types, then your have the laid-back 25-30 types, then…
… here things begin to sour for Guevara, since by 35, “we want to change the world!”, “What’s personal is political!” and “my marrige doesn’t hurt your marriage!” open-minded chic claptrap has gone away for most, and now they, as time goes and world spins, that group see things in terms remarkably close to the previous generation on that ladder rung –
Etc. etc…
And as an illustration of this demographic situation, I take you, who are clearly demographically and mentally still somewhere between Hanna Montana and Andy Clark and I ask Ploufe – do you want this Latenight thing as constituency?
And Ploufe’s answer will be: “Errr… I kind of… tell you, can I get some 50 years old types instead?”
Latenight, an F for your attempt at arguing in this matter – no problem though, hurry up to the store, the new iPod is there – the guano pies are there for the first comers, too –
Regards -
RE #110/Frostbyte:
[...] I wonder how many Jews and Homosexuals regretted voting Hitler’s National Socialist Party (yes leftist socialist) into power. [...]
It aint’t so frosty – the SS and the Gestapo (exactly like their mirror image, Cheka and NKVD) were packed with homosexuals, and this obviously, after the SA masscres – that is well into 1945 -
Perhaps you want to review the “practices & attitudes” in SS Printz Eugen and SS Brandenburg (and other SS division) when camped in Marienburg (and elsewehere) -
Also you may want to review Tom Of Finland’s work (the guy who made a career drawing parties of supermuscular sailors, soldiers, cops etc. with bulging crotches – uniforms and harnesses a must) – you’ll find there guys in black leather SS uniforms as central pieces -
NB: interesting enough, the SS guys in Tom of Finland’s work kind of get airbrished in the recent times – hehehe – I wonder why -
Still, you go under the last six years of so, you can get some nice SS gay officers who don’t seem to regret Hitler at all – hey, you sure can get some kicks running Treblinka –
Regards -
Re #109, 111: The same youth demographic rhetoric has been used for the last 35 years to predict Canadians will eventually vote for Quebec’s independence from Canada. The secessionists say “time is on our side” because younger voters favor secession. But then a funny thing happens: young voters grow up, and wise up.
I used to work with young people who professed to be liberal/left. After they got out of college, bought a home and started earning a living, it gradually dawned on them how much the government was taking away in state & federal income taxes, social security tax, medicare tax, property taxes, capital gains tax, sales tax, etc. It was interesting to watch the transformation.
“Geez, gay people are not some sort of “others”. They want marriage for the exact same reason, you may want. Not everybody chooses marriage for the sake of procreation. Your bible has already labeled homosexuals as someone of lesser worth or less than. This is a simple fact.”
I love religious intolerance. No, not the kind you think. I love people who are intolerant of religion. The kind who got burned out in 4th grade sunday school but think they know everything about religion.
Newsflash: gays are not some subhuman race, they are people too, we know that. But by the Christian faith they are engaging in a sinful act. To say that homosexuals should be allowed to be wedded in a religious ceremony would mean you’d expect God and the clergy performing the ritual condone a union based on sin.
Now all people are sinners, and we believe in forgiveness of one’s sins. But to wed two people based on sin just isn’t gonna happen. We love the sinner and hate the sin. A legal contract based on stealing is wrong, a diet plan based on gluttony is wrong, and a marriage based on homosexuality is wrong. It’s that simple.
So let’s be honest. It’s not about Marriage. It’s about the legal benefits. Nothing stops a same-sex couple from loving each other. Heterosexuals don’t need marriage if they are commited to each other, why do gays? No, the government decided in its wisdom that legal benefits be attached to a wedding certificate. That needs to be undone, they need to be exclusive and applied for separately. Get your marriage in a Church and your Civil Union in… whatever, then go to the courthouse to apply for partnership benefits once you have documentation that you are a commited couple.
See that? That’s what we call a compromise. You get your benefits and legal recognition, religion keeps its marriage. Everyone wins.
Amazing! Thank you! I continually wanted to create in my site something like this. Am i allowed to take a portion of the post for my own website?
That’s some sublime stuff. Ne’er knew that ideas can be this various. thanks for all of the ebullience to offer such accommodating data at this site.