Gay Patriot Header Image

Does Rick Santorum hate gay people. . .

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:58 pm - January 16, 2012.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gay Politics

. . .  or, is his opposition to gay marriage just, as he says, a “public policy difference”?  I have my differences with Santorum and cannot support his bid for the Republican nomination, but tend to the latter view.  I don’t think he hates gay people.

Joel Gehrke at the Washington Examiner posted about a woman in South Carolina supporter who asked him how to address her support for him.   Interesting how that wife answers first (before he follows up):

Can a public  policy difference, as the Senator puts it, be seen as a personal assault?

Reminds me I do need blog asking if social conservatives hate gay people.  Some do, but most, it seems, do not.  More on that anon.

Share

159 Comments

  1. On the one hand, I do agree that politicians get unfairly tag and targeted if they don’t hold certain PC positions, and that those of us who step outside of the expected stereotype and think for ourselves do equally get vilified. many of us have our run-ins with the “gay mob”!

    On the other hand, Santorum is making a huge error simplifying the issue when he says it’s just a “public policy” difference. It’s not just a public policy issue, as it directly affects the lives of gay people who want to marry on the deepest personal level.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 16, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - January 16, 2012

  2. Actually, many public policies affect people on a deeply personal level. Policies that deny parents access to private schools affect families with schoolchildren on a deeply personal level. Policies that mandate tough sentences for violent crime affect violent criminals on a deeply personal level.

    The basis for policy should be what provides the most good for the most people, not who’s going to whine the loudest if they don’t get their way.

    Comment by V the K — January 16, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - January 16, 2012

  3. Well, he’s compared gay people to pedophiles, zoophiles, rapists, adulterers, polygamists, etc.

    Yep, he sure LOVES gay people…

    Comment by Paul — January 16, 2012 @ 8:43 pm - January 16, 2012

  4. Policies that deny parents access to private schools affect families with schoolchildren on a deeply personal level. Policies that mandate tough sentences for violent crime affect violent criminals on a deeply personal level.

    I’m unaware of any policies that expressly prohibit children from attending private schools. V, do you vote for politicians who want to restrict your childrens access to private schooling, even if that politician claims it’s for the greater public good? I’m going to go out on a limb and say no. Now, someone who doesn’t have any kids may buy the “it’s for the greater good” line, but those with kids who want the best education for their kids won’t. So my point stands. It’s not just about policy when it’s personal.

    Violent criminals are being punished for their criminal behavior. Are people who approve of gays being able to marry one another the equivalent of “violent criminals”? Remember that there are plenty of non-gays who also support same sex marriage. If Santorum believes this equivalency, then he is definitely unfit to hold office.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 16, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - January 16, 2012

  5. It is just a public policy issue, as Santorum says. Like any State license, a marriage license is a positive creation of the State that imposes restrictions and obligations on third parties. As such, it is not a fundamental right, and can never be. Which may be why the _Loving_ decision, when speaking in its own voice (as distinct from its quoting other sources), spoke of a “freedom” for inter-racial couples to marry under the 14th amendment, rather than a “right”.

    Having said that: I’m on the other side of the issue from Santorum.

    Having said that: If a majority doesn’t agree with me: Oh well, I’d rather have democracy than not… plus I’m inwardly confident that things will change over time.

    Having said that: the Santorums didn’t answer the woman’s question, at least not in this clip. Her question (paraphrasing or in essence) was: how do I deal with the gay activists who vilify you? and the guilt I feel as a mother, about my gay son feeling or believing that you vilify him?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - January 16, 2012

  6. It is just a public policy issue, as Santorum says.

    Just as California’s “public policy” to subsidize “green”: energy, pursue a “greener” California and create more regulation that drives out business is also “just a public policy issue”. The majority can be idiots sometimes, and shouldn’t always be listened to, which is why the framers of the Constitution gave us a government system that was a representative republic, so that sometimes, the representative could go against the majority, even of it cost that person in the next election (and too bad there are so few with a backbone, but that is what a full-time legislature will give you).

    Having said that: If a majority doesn’t agree with me: Oh well, I’d rather have democracy than not…

    By that logic, then you should support raising taxes on the rich, since survey after survey shows that that is what the majority of the population wants to do too. I agree that marriage isn’t a “right”. But there is no logical reason why the privilege or freedom of marriage should not be extended to two people of the same sex, if marriage is desired.

    Got to get ready for tonights open mic. Saying good-bye to a friend who is going back to Russia at the end of the month. Going to attempt to fingerpick on the guitar for the first time… And I still hate the B bar chord.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 16, 2012 @ 9:23 pm - January 16, 2012

  7. the Santorums didn’t answer the woman’s question, at least not in this clip. Her question (paraphrasing or in essence) was: how do I deal with the gay activists who vilify you? and the guilt I feel as a mother, about my gay son feeling or believing that you vilify him?

    I’m not sure that they could have told her what to do about the gay activists. All they could do was show that Santorum is not the bigot the gay activists represent him as, nor does he villify homosexuals. If they still are not convinced he is not a bigot, then they likely never will be.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 16, 2012 @ 9:29 pm - January 16, 2012

  8. Paul, I never said he loved us. The question is does he hate.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — January 16, 2012 @ 9:51 pm - January 16, 2012

  9. Oh… I totally missed that. Which begs the question: Do you feel a politician has to “love you” or “understand your needs” in order to get your vote?

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 16, 2012 @ 9:53 pm - January 16, 2012

  10. I don’t think the question should even be whether Santorum loves us or hates us. In this country, we shouldn’t have to worry about how our elected officials feel about us. If he wants to keep it on a public-policy level, he is at least approaching it from the proper perspective.

    It was the Left that tried to make everything about how politicians feel about us. It’s all emotional to them. The only interest we ought — rationally — to have in the issue is what a candidate’s philosophy of government is.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 16, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - January 16, 2012

  11. It was the Left that tried to make everything about how politicians feel about us. It’s all emotional to them.

    Oh come on, both side are equally adept at exploiting the emotions of their constituents. The right does it very well. Any listen to either the debate or to Rush or Hannity or Levin will prove that out.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 16, 2012 @ 10:02 pm - January 16, 2012

  12. HAve to go play music now.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 16, 2012 @ 10:03 pm - January 16, 2012

  13. HAve to go play music now.

    yawn… Doesn’t everybody? (have to do something?)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2012 @ 10:29 pm - January 16, 2012

  14. The majority can be idiots sometimes, and shouldn’t always be listened to

    Yes: when they override fundamental rights.

    Here’s some hints for you. Fundamental rights are not created by the State; they precede the State morally and logically, and are then merely recognized by the State. And they are not attibutes of groups (such as couples – or, for that matter, races, genders, sexual orientations, etc.). They are given, by God, to sovereign individuals. And they do not limit others’ freedom of action, except of course that others must refrain from assaulting you and your legitimate property. Your fundamental rights cannot require another to do positive things for you (because that would make him your slave). Your fundamental rights cannot limit another’s ability to do certain positive things in disregard of you (because that would make him your prisoner).

    Now ask yourself if a driver’s license, fishing license, medical practice license, marriage license, business license, etc. is given by God, or merely by the State.

    There are secondary or non-fundamental rights, that flow from State actions. For example, a marriage license incorporates a couple as a new legal entity (“the marriage of John and Mary”) with its own powers and interests which the State treats as rights, in many situations. But they are not fundamental rights. And obtaining (or for that matter, keeping) the license from the State is not, in itself, a fundamental right. The majority gets to legislate who qualifies (so long as said qualifications do not constitute invidious discrimination under the 14th amendment).

    So yes, the majority is limited – in that it can’t deny fundamental rights. Sure. No problem granting that. It’s just that getting a marriage license per se is not a fundamental right. You have to qualify. And within the scope of the 14th amendment -as presently interpreted- by SCOTUS, the majority gets to decide who qualifies. Or ought to…

    By that logic, then you should support raising taxes on the rich

    Complete bullsh*t. The majority does not get to vote what my personal opinions should be. MY opinions… MY right to decide what they are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2012 @ 10:52 pm - January 16, 2012

  15. (continued) a.k.a. freedom of conscience, of speech and of association… all fundamental, individual rights.

    Try to launch another sophistry (i.e. confusing/destroying the meaning of words) if you want, sf, but it won’t make any impact… most people here will see through it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 16, 2012 @ 10:56 pm - January 16, 2012

  16. “Oh come on, both side are equally adept at exploiting the emotions of their constituents.”

    As I never said they weren’t, I quite agree with you.

    What I said was that the electoral process should not be about how our elected officials feel. If they were dictators, or kings in some medieval empire, it would be appropriate for us to be slavishly attentive to their every whim. But they are supposed to be our servants, not our masters.

    Comment by Lori Heine — January 16, 2012 @ 11:07 pm - January 16, 2012

  17. While I believe Santorum MAY be inappropriately fixated on homosexuals, I doubt he is emotionally invested in them enough to actually ‘hate’ homosexuals. However, whether he hates homosexuals or is indifferent to them emotionally is beside the point. What cannot be denied is the fact that he does not hold homosexuals of any color in high regard. If his cavalier dismissal of the fact that a marriage amendment would essentially invalidate all same-sex marriages heretofore doesn’t demonstrate his antipathy. Then the numerous times he’s gone on record equating homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, bestiality and even paper towels should paint a clear picture.

    In any case, I’m not going to lose any sleep over what or how Rick feels about homosexuals. I don’t believe he will be a long term contender. Even if he were to become POTUS I don’t believe he would be able to implement all his ideals. However, should he, by some miracle, manage to amend all these things to match his convictions, then to some extent, I believe it would be a good thing.

    It would be interesting for a change if Santorum and those who share is opinion could be in the same position as homosexuals. Then they would know something that they currently do not know: mercy. That the concept of a society is based on the quality of that mercy; its sense of fair play; its sense of justice. But that’s a frontier stretching further then their hearts will choose to go.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 16, 2012 @ 11:45 pm - January 16, 2012

  18. Well, he’s compared gay people to pedophiles, zoophiles, rapists, adulterers, polygamists, etc.

    Not quite; what he said, as other people here have pointed out, is that the Supreme Court preventing the states from having sodomy laws establishes precedent that could possibly be used to undermine more laws in the future. I doubt anyone expected Griswold v. Connecticut to lead to Roe v. Wade, but it did.

    In another video (in which he is interviewed by Piers Morgan) he states that he personally opposes sodomy laws, as he doesn’t believe that it is any of the government’s business. I don’t know if he actually believes that, or if he was just saying that because sodomy laws are unpopular, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (especially considering he seems to be one of the few politicians that actually has principles).

    Yep, he sure LOVES gay people…

    If I recall correctly, he actually said he loves gay people. I think it was in the video in this post, but I watched two other similar videos as well and it might have been in one of them.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 16, 2012 @ 11:46 pm - January 16, 2012

  19. To clarify, he actually says (indirectly) that he loves everyone (or that he is called to love everyone), which includes gay people.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 16, 2012 @ 11:50 pm - January 16, 2012

  20. “…the Supreme Court preventing the states from having sodomy laws establishes precedent that could possibly be used to undermine more laws in the future.”

    Hmm…allowing people to smoke and drink beer in the privacy of their own home hasn’t led to anyone’s freedom to smoke crack or shoot heroin in the privacy of their home. Allowing a woman to go down on her husband/boyfriend (sometimes referred to as sodomy) in their bedroom hasn’t led to the freedom of a father to force himself on his daughter behind closed doors. Why is ‘sodomy’, in the homosexual sense, the tipping point? Who defines where the fulcrum rests?

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 17, 2012 @ 12:08 am - January 17, 2012

  21. “To clarify, he actually says (indirectly) that he loves everyone (or that he is called to love everyone), which includes gay people.”

    Then there’s our answer; with love like his he doesn’t need to hate gays.

    (Sorry Rattlesnake, I’m not trying to come accross as flying at you. Just commenting on the informaiton your relaying) ;-)

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 17, 2012 @ 12:21 am - January 17, 2012

  22. #20

    That neither of those things has happened doesn’t eliminate the possibility of Lawrence v. Texas establishing a precedent that leads to the declaration of laws against bestiality or incest (for example) as unconstitutional. Nor does it answer Griswold v. Connecticut leading to Roe v. Wade (which, to me, proves that the Supreme Court is capable of some very bad reasoning; which makes it somewhat irresponsible and dangerous to establish precedent when it isn’t necessary).

    And, for the record, I disagree with Santorum on that issue. If bestiality or incest is declared constitutional, fine. It doesn’t affect me (well, actually, since I live in Canada, which has universal healthcare, it does affect me. But, for the purposes of this intellectual exercise, I will disregard that and assume I live in a jurisdiction without universal healthcare). I still think the legislature is preferable to the courts, especially regarding a law that is difficult to enforce.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 12:33 am - January 17, 2012

  23. Just commenting on the informaiton your relaying

    Of course, and I appreciate it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 12:41 am - January 17, 2012

  24. [...] watching this video at GayPatriot, I watched a few more (which are [...]

    Pingback by Rick Santorum Isn’t a Bigot « Canadian Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 1:07 am - January 17, 2012

  25. ILC…. . I did not call it a right. I called it a privilege. From my comment # 6.

    I agree that marriage isn’t a “right”

    And I don’t understand where this hostility is coming from. We fundamentally agree on this topic. I’m just a little more impatient than you are.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 17, 2012 @ 1:48 am - January 17, 2012

  26. @Sandhorse.

    Actually IIRC, Scalia did say that Lawrence would open the door for a court redefining marriage, just as Griswold led to Roe. As to DOMA, it would also depend on how the amendment was written as to if it would invalidate a state’s decision on SSM. I don’t care if Connecticut approves SSM, but Ohio should have the same freedom to reject it.
    I do find it amusing that you don’t think anyone who disagrees with you has any concept of mercy.

    @Sonic. Public schools do limit the freedom of their constituants. A kid from Buckeye Lake Ohio has to go to Lakewood public schools, they can’t go across the lake* to Sheridan. Likewise there were some roads where the kids on the left side went to New Lex, the kids on the right went to Sheridan. People who choose to send their kids to private school don’t pay less taxes, even though they choose to opt out of public schools. Public schools also scream against any sort of voucher system. (and are supported in that by the current administration)

    @Rattlesnake
    I have to disagree with the ‘no one expected Griswold to lead to Roe’ argument. When you have Justices citing the rulings they made in the previous case to support Roe, I have to think it was part of a bigger plan.

    *Calling Buckeye Lake is a bit generous, but it techinically is a (man-made) lake.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 17, 2012 @ 8:53 am - January 17, 2012

  27. “Hate” may be strictly in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder has no concept of a Christian hating the sin, but loving the sinner.

    I would be stunned if Santorum said he “hates” gays in any way.

    However, I am keenly aware of the argument used by some gays that a person of deep faith, like Santorum, must flip the switch on his religious beliefs and think from an entirely a religion-free position in his political musings. It is some sort of split cultural, ethical personality requirement which is ordained by a misreading of a letter Jefferson sent to the Danbury Baptists chatting about the First Amendment.

    As a side note, what loving mother with a gay child is going to concentrate on the sin and go about introducing the child as “my son, the sinner?” That, in my Christian world, would be edging toward hate. At the same time, what loving mother of a gay child is going to glorify the sex act instead of the loving partner the child has? Of course, if the gay child of the loving mother goes about spitting on religion, being publicly obnoxious about seeking “gay rights” and jumping from sexual liaison to sexual liaison, I guess the loving mother is just left to watch. Where “hate” may lie in all of this, I do not know.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 17, 2012 @ 9:08 am - January 17, 2012

  28. the gay rights movement via youtube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u62OtM_vt5k

    Comment by rusty — January 17, 2012 @ 9:23 am - January 17, 2012

  29. Rusty,

    That video falls flat on its face. “It is OK if you are gay” may still be the battle front in some insular pockets of resistance in America, but it is not the issue.

    The idea that being gay is a “separate, but equal” issue or a form of being a “second-class citizen” is not proven in the video, nor does the video rise a millimeter above being an emotion based polemic on the “second-class citizen” front.

    If not being able to marry the partner of one’s choice makes a person a second class citizen, then by all measure of intelligence, all those affected by the marriage definition should ban together in the name of citizenship rights. That group would be the gays, the multiple partners people, those who want to marry children, and, yes, the man-dog people. Those are the people who are “second-class citizens” (by extension) touted in this video.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 17, 2012 @ 9:44 am - January 17, 2012

  30. I just think it’s pathetic and sad that so many people believe the difference between a meaningful and a meaningless relationship is the signature of a bureaucrat.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 9:55 am - January 17, 2012

  31. @The Livewire

    “I do find it amusing that you don’t think anyone who disagrees with you has any concept of mercy.”

    Let me refrase that somewhat, as that was not my intended meaning. It was late last night and I should have been sleeping by that time.

    Let me revise ‘opinions’ with ‘intentions’.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 17, 2012 @ 10:27 am - January 17, 2012

  32. @Heliotrope

    “I am keenly aware of the argument used by some gays that a person of deep faith, like Santorum, must flip the switch on his religious beliefs and think from an entirely a religion-free position in his political musings.”

    I not sure I entirely agree. While I believe the general populace is entitled to vote their conscience, in fact I believe politics cannot be free of religion. Any leader, in this case Santorum, must put his own ‘political musings’ ,religious or otherwise, on the back-burner. The position of POTUS is not to enforce any theological concept or ethical principle. As the inderlined intention of Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists. The president is not a Priest King, contrary to the behavior of the current administration. His purview is necessarily limited to only that which benefits all citizens, (i.e. keeping the country safe from internal and external forces, and keeping the country running economically). The spiritual health of the country is the responsibility of the church, which cannot and should call upon the government to enforce its doctrine. It’s a fine line understandably, but one that must be maintained.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 17, 2012 @ 10:27 am - January 17, 2012

  33. I did not call it a right

    Then what’s your beef, sf? If it isn’t a right… it’s a PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 11:20 am - January 17, 2012

  34. All you can tell from Santorum’s comments about homosexuality is that he’s an asshole. Who knows if he hates anybody and who cares?

    Comment by Levi — January 17, 2012 @ 11:34 am - January 17, 2012

  35. Rusty,

    That video falls flat on its face. “It is OK if you are gay” may still be the battle front in some insular pockets of resistance in America, but it is not the issue.

    The idea that being gay is a “separate, but equal” issue or a form of being a “second-class citizen” is not proven in the video, nor does the video rise a millimeter above being an emotion based polemic on the “second-class citizen” front.

    If not being able to marry the partner of one’s choice makes a person a second class citizen, then by all measure of intelligence, all those affected by the marriage definition should ban together in the name of citizenship rights. That group would be the gays, the multiple partners people, those who want to marry children, and, yes, the man-dog people. Those are the people who are “second-class citizens” (by extension) touted in this video.

    This is the argument of a second grader. The argument is not that anybody should be able to marry whoever they want, it’s that a gay person of sound mind and of a certain age may marry another gay person of a sound mind and of a certain age – it is not this hysterical, over-the-top, ANYBODY-CAN-MARRY-ANYBODY-OR-ANYTHING-REGARDLESS-OF-ALL-LAWS strawman that you’ve created.

    I mean think about this Helio, if hetero marriage is legal, why can’t an old female marry an infant male? Why can’t a male adult marry a female horse? It’s because there are laws against those things, and those laws aren’t going anyway. Changing the sexes requirements on a marriage license is a minor, technical change that in no way invalidates laws against polygamy or child marriage, nor does it set any kind of precedent for the ANYTHING-GOES nightmare that you’re so eager to talk about. Gay marriage has been legal in a number of states for years now – do you remember seeing anything resembling your worst fears coming to fruition?

    The only reason that people oppose gay marriage is because Christians fear that their religion is somehow marginalized by its acceptance.

    Comment by Levi — January 17, 2012 @ 11:46 am - January 17, 2012

  36. All you can tell from Santorum’s comments blah blah blah

    Operative word: “you”. (Levi)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 11:53 am - January 17, 2012

  37. I just do not understand the Santorum apologists on this forum. The closer he gets to the GOP nomination or the VP-slot on the ticket, the more fervent the revisionists and the apologists proclaim he’s not a homophobe and a hater.

    As someone who’s watched his political career up-close for years in PA, he repeatedly gone out of his way to demonize and attack the G/L community. And it’s not just his “principled” opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He rejects any talk of civil unions or gay rights. He’s opposed to gay-adoption, and has openly-disparaged gay families and gay households raising children as inferior and second-class. He’d reinstate DADT and rejects any concept of privacy of the home, or of a relationship. He’s repeatedly supported state sodomy laws that would criminalize just being gay. He and his supporters in PA have been instrumental in maintaining that PA is the only state in the Northeast without any forms of gay-discrimination protection; employment, housing, or public accommodation.

    And yet it’s “acceptable” that he might become President of the United States…or be “just a heart-beat away from the Oval Office”?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 17, 2012 @ 11:55 am - January 17, 2012

  38. When the ‘public policy difference’ in question involves arbitrarily singling out certain people for no good reason, then of course it’s a personal assault. Santorum wants to be the victim, when he’s the one that supports a policy that hurts people. You could justify anything by dressing it up as a public policy difference. Santorum is a fundamentalist forcing his religion on people and he pretends he’s doing us all a public service.

    Comment by Levi — January 17, 2012 @ 11:59 am - January 17, 2012

  39. I just do not understand the Santorum apologists on this forum.

    Can you name one?

    a·pol·o·gist ( -p l -j st). n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

    Who’s argued in defense of Santorum’s policies, thus far? I know that I have not.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 12:02 pm - January 17, 2012

  40. It’s not like Santorum wants to drag people kicking and screaming into his ideal future, or thinks that people are incapable of wanting democracy based on the colour of their skin.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 17, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - January 17, 2012

  41. Levi,

    You (a male) can marry a female. The laws prohibit various sorts of women like mentally incompetent, too you, too closely related. Also, only one woman at a time.

    Clear? Shorthand: one man and one woman.

    Gays want the man and woman formula changed.

    Clear?

    Polygamists want the one and one formula changed.

    Clear?

    Child lovers want the age rules changed?

    Clear?

    Man-dog lovers want the species qualification changed.

    Clear?

    What do they ALL have in common? Hope and change.

    Why is it “intelligent” that only the change gays desire is the one and only change and all the other changes are off the charts and imbecilic?

    Your turn, oh master of rational thinking.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 17, 2012 @ 12:19 pm - January 17, 2012

  42. V’s post at #30 pretty much says it all for me. I’ve never understood the allure of getting married; gay or straight. How a marriage “license” is going to make me or my old man feel different/better/happy about our relationship is beyond me.

    Comment by Gene — January 17, 2012 @ 12:57 pm - January 17, 2012

  43. And yet it’s “acceptable” that he might become President of the United States…or be “just a heart-beat away from the Oval Office”?

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — January 17, 2012 @ 11:55 am – January 17, 2012

    Yup.

    Because he would be a damn sight better than Barack Obama.

    Again, Ted, this is the same discussion we’ve had previously. You’re going to vote for Obama if Santorum is the nominee because gay-sex issues are more important to you.

    But in this forum, I think it’s been clearly established that gay-sex issues are not the primary reason why people vote the way they do. Perhaps you could try actually making an argument in favor of Obama and against Santorum based on something other than gay-sex issues.

    My mind is pretty clear on this. Obama and his coterie spit on the Constitution, want me punished for being successful, want my company punished for being successful, and intend to take the money I’ve earned and set aside so that OWS adult babies like Levi can sit on their asses all day and attack me as a racist, a Christian, and a homophobe.

    Those are the things that concern me most day in and day out, and there is no way in hell that any “civil union”, “nondiscrimination”, “gay adoption”, or anything of the sort is going to help that.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - January 17, 2012

  44. And yet it’s “acceptable” that he might become President of the United States…or be “just a heart-beat away from the Oval Office”?

    In other words, it is preferable to re-elect the Stuttering Clusterf— of a Miserable Failure because Rick Santorum hurts your feelers.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 1:08 pm - January 17, 2012

  45. Public schools do limit the freedom of their constituants. A kid from Buckeye Lake Ohio has to go to Lakewood public schools, they can’t go across the lake* to Sheridan. Likewise there were some roads where the kids on the left side went to New Lex, the kids on the right went to Sheridan. People who choose to send their kids to private school don’t pay less taxes, even though they choose to opt out of public schools.

    Proves my point. Although they would love to if they could get away with it, they don’t ban kids from going to a private school, as I stated above.

    ———–

    I just think it’s pathetic and sad that so many people believe the difference between a meaningful and a meaningless relationship is the signature of a bureaucrat.

    and

    If it isn’t a right… it’s a PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE.

    Both false dichotomies. V – Just because the state doesn’t yet recognize my relationship with the Sonic-Mate does not make our relationship “meaningless”.

    ILC – Just like the school districts It’s a public policy issue AND a personal one for those affected by the current restrictions. Live gave this example:

    A kid from Buckeye Lake Ohio has to go to Lakewood public schools, they can’t go across the lake* to Sheridan.

    If the Sheridan Schools are consistently better (by whatever metric you use) than those in Lakewood, you lived in Lakewood and your child was stuck in that district, would you still argue that this is simply “a PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE”? Of course not.

    PS. I don’t remember if Dan or Bruce blogged on it, but a few months ago, there was an article in the WSJ that revealed just how anal some of the school districts have become. They prosecuted a woman who lied about where she lived so that he child could go to school in the better district next door. They call it “education theft”.

    Will try to find it when I have some time.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 17, 2012 @ 1:10 pm - January 17, 2012

  46. When you have to take a wheelbarrow full of quarters to the store to buy a loaf of bread, or we’re living under Shariah law, gay marriage will be the non-issue it SHOULD be already. Let’s think big picture for a change, people.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — January 17, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - January 17, 2012

  47. @sonic,

    Actually, I think you undermined your SSM argument as I’m reading it. It’s not ‘fair’ that a parent can’t use the money they pay in property taxes to instead send their kid to a private school. It’s not ‘fair’ that they still pay those taxes even if their kids aren’t going to that school. By the same token it’s not ‘fair’ that you and your partner can’t meet the requirements to have a marriage recognized by the State/Federal Government.

    1) Life isn’t fair. The place to advocate for change of that is the legislature, not the courts.

    2) Communities can set their own rule structure. Those rules will never be ‘fair’ to everyone. As Heliotrope pointed out to Levi, it’s not ‘fair’ for the state to outlaw polygamy. It’s not ‘fair’ for the state to outlaw incestous relationships. It’s however, legal to do so.

    (Aside, I think it was Delroy Murdoch who pointed out that was the problem with Lawrence. It’s not ‘fair’ to outlaw sodomy. It is however, constitutional. The way to resolve the issue is repeal the gorram law.)

    (Aside the second: I recently got into an argument with a woman about the adoption laws in FL. She was praising Charlie Crist for not appealing the ruling in court. I pointed out that because of his ‘bravery’ a) those laws were still on the books and future cases could challenge them in court and b) if Charlie was so ‘brave’ he’d have asked the legislature to repeal the laws.)

    Comment by The Livewire — January 17, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - January 17, 2012

  48. When the ‘public policy difference’ in question involves arbitrarily singling out certain people for no good reason, then of course it’s a personal assault. Santorum wants to be the victim, when he’s the one that supports a policy that hurts people. You could justify anything by dressing it up as a public policy difference. Santorum is a fundamentalist forcing his religion on people and he pretends he’s doing us all a public service.

    Comment by Levi — January 17, 2012 @ 11:59 am – January 17, 2012

    I love it. Levi rants about how banning anyone from marrying whomever they love is “hurting people” and “forcing” morals on society, but then he blithely advocates banning whole swaths of people from marrying whomever they love.

    Speak up, Levi. Is it love that matters? Or is society allowed to determine what is and what isn’t valid love, what is and isn’t moral, and so forth?

    What this is inadvertently revealing, Levi, is the real problem. We’re well aware that liberals like yourself really don’t like gay people, and in fact fully support and endorse not only harassment and discrimination against them, but groups like the Taliban that openly execute them. But what you make obvious is that you are only using gays as an excuse to pinkwash what is blatant and obvious anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bigotry on your part and the part of your Obama Party.

    Why do you have to smear gays by associating them with antireligious bigotry and hate, Levi? Why do liberals and “progressives” like yourself have to hide your true feelings behind minority groups and lie?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - January 17, 2012

  49. When you have to take a wheelbarrow full of quarters to the store to buy a loaf of bread, or we’re living under Shariah law, gay marriage will be the non-issue it SHOULD be already. Let’s think big picture for a change, people.

    I think people in Europe are already coming to realize that a piece of paper with a bureaucrat’s signature doesn’t mean much when your government is bankrupt, you can’t find a job, your taxes are outrageous and your public services are wretched, and roving gangs of thugs whose ethnicity shields them from prosecution can prey on you at will. California is pretty close to this point also.

    And yet, all of that is supposed to be OK… because a bureaucrat signs a piece of paper validating your relationship.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - January 17, 2012

  50. And yet, all of that is supposed to be OK… because a bureaucrat signs a piece of paper validating your relationship.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 1:29 pm – January 17, 2012

    I think it’s because, V the K, the whole whiny argument about gay marriage has never had anything to do with the actual relationships; it’s always been about using the power of government to force people to do what you want at gunpoint.

    As I pointed out, Levi and his ilk don’t care about gay and lesbian people; in fact, they fully endorse and support their own fellow liberals and progressives discriminating, and they fully endorse and support “progressive”-endorsed religious beliefs like Islam pushing for and carrying out the execution of gays.

    As Heliotrope and I have previously alluded to, the French Revolution is an excellent study of what happens when “progressive” populists overthrow an existing government in the name of relativism; we manage a rather quick move into anarchy, an immediate backlash into authoritarianism, and before we know it, we are in the hands of a messianic and narcissistic autocrat who manages to recreate the monarchy that was previously rebelled against in even more extravagant and freedom-crushing detail.

    Such as Obama fancies himself to be.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - January 17, 2012

  51. I really wish someone could explain to me why a same-sex marriage license is so much more important than a strong economy, personal liberty, and national security. As there are so many who will eagerly exchange the latter for the former.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 2:02 pm - January 17, 2012

  52. Just like the school districts It’s a public policy issue AND a personal one for those affected by the current restrictions.

    A null statement. Public policy issues BY DEFINITION affect people. To point out that public policy issues affect people or vice versa, is to add nothing to the discussion.

    Thus the fact remains: Gay marriage is a public policy issue. The only meaningful way to dispute that is to claim gay marriage is something else (like, say, a right). If in fact you don’t believe it’s a right, then it is a public policy issue and you just wasted everybody’s time.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 2:12 pm - January 17, 2012

  53. As Heliotrope and I have previously alluded to, the French Revolution is an excellent study…

    And ILC ;-) Here’s something to think about. Napoleon believed in sound money. With only a couple of exceptions, he paid cash – meaning gold – for everything. If he didn’t have the gold, then the government couldn’t afford whatever it was. Just prior to Napoleon, France’s economy was ruined by hyperinflation due to its “quantitative easing” (money printing). That’s what led to Napoleon’s rise.

    Since he returned France to sound money, their economy could function again and that is an unsung part of what made his rule look good to the French people. How terribly sad, that it took a vicious dictator and warmonger to bring a great nation back to common sense and basic economic reality. I hope it won’t be necessary in the U.S. Because, to return to an earlier point of mine, democracy is valuable.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 2:20 pm - January 17, 2012

  54. “I really wish someone could explain to me why a same-sex marriage license is so much more important than a strong economy, personal liberty, and national security.”

    I know of numerous gay couples that either never were happy with or are now disillusioned with Obama. And they are locked and loaded to vote for the republican nominee. This doesn’t mean they have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is it wrong for them to try and strike a balance between a candidate with sound fiscal priorities and at least a moderate (if not an affirmative) social stance?

    Most couples I’ve conversed with would be willing to vote for Santorum if they were left with no other choice. However he is their least favorite candidate. Gingrich still outflanks Santorum in their estimation. Reason being is that if they must ‘sacrifice’ their social views at the alter of the economy and national security, they would like to get the most ‘bang for their buck’. But again, voicing these opinions does not mean they are running to Obama.

    Republicans won the New Hampshire state legislature on a fiscal conservative platform. This hasn’t stopped them from now multitasking and submitting a repeal to same sex marriage in that state. Something that passed in 2009 legislatively, not by judicial fiat.

    So it’s not so unreasonable to at least question a parties intentions, nor is it as much of a ‘distraction’ as it’s made to be.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 17, 2012 @ 3:49 pm - January 17, 2012

  55. Is it wrong for them to try and strike a balance between a candidate with sound fiscal priorities and at least a moderate (if not an affirmative) social stance? Most couples I’ve conversed with would be willing to vote for Santorum if they were left with no other choice. However he is their least favorite candidate. Gingrich still outflanks Santorum in their estimation.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 17, 2012 @ 3:49 pm – January 17, 2012

    And that is why Republicans are having primaries.

    I think what Dan is referring to is the whole “Santorum disagrees with people, therefore he wants to put them in concentration camps” rhetoric that the gay left and the idiot media are trying to push.

    And as I said above, don’t care. Bigger fish to fry. Obama is a SCOAMF and a wanna-be dictator who has demonized me, my skin color, my religious beliefs, my lack of debt, and the fact that I work for a living and get paid well for doing it for the last time.

    It is an insult to the intelligence of gay and lesbian people that Obama thinks that he can destroy every other aspect of their lives and still be worshiped as a god by pretending at some point in time that he might consider thinking about handing them a marriage certificate.

    But then again, given that it works on the vast majority of gay and lesbian people, perhaps it is less of an insult — and more of a realization that the vast majority of gays and lesbians are stupid enough to enslave themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - January 17, 2012

  56. I really wish someone could explain to me why a same-sex marriage license is so much more important than a strong economy, personal liberty, and national security. As there are so many who will eagerly exchange the latter for the former.

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 2:02 pm – January 17, 2012

    Two reasons:

    1) There are a lot of gays and lesbians on the welfare and Obama Party payrolls.

    2) Gays and lesbians have been brainwashed to ignore everything else in favor of their minority status — and had the tar beaten out of them by their so-called “supporters” in the Obama Party if they dare think otherwise.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 17, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - January 17, 2012

  57. Sandhorse,

    Santorum can not, as a strong Catholic, downplay his belief system when asked to express it. I may be wrong as wrong can be, but I am not aware of Santorum bringing up issues of gay marriage and campaigning on reinstating sodomy laws.

    My impression is that when asked specific questions, he answers honestly. I am not certain just how Santorum’s views on sodomy would affect his role as President. Nor do I understand how his view (or any President’s view) on a marriage amendment to the Constitution has any impact whatsoever on the complicated and lengthy procedure for amending the Constitution.

    What I do know is that the liberal press can focus on Santorum’s belief system and “make him own it” as a way to kneecap him with people who don’t like such views.

    Obama ran as a chameleon with no bold opinions. He has proceeded to fundamentally transform America into a socialist state with a limp Constitution that can be read in any convenient way.

    Are some asking Santorum to pretend he does not hold the religious views he does in order to be more “palatable”? I know for a fact, that some people who comment here expect Santorum to round them up and put them in concentration camps and do fundamentalist Nazi Catholic things to them for his pure amusement.

    So, how would you advise Santorum to respond to the social conservative baiting by the liberals which he gets and expects?

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 17, 2012 @ 4:59 pm - January 17, 2012

  58. “Santorum disagrees with people, therefore he wants to put them in concentration camps”

    Which makes me wonder, given the left’s proclivity toward projection, how do they real feel about us “right wingnuts.”

    Comment by V the K — January 17, 2012 @ 6:35 pm - January 17, 2012

  59. “Why is it “intelligent” that only the change gays desire is the one and only change and all the other changes are off the charts and imbecilic?”

    Good question, Heliotrope. Here’s the answer. It’s a manifestation of the “malignant narcissism” that Tammy Bruce touched on in one of her books (I believe it was “The Death of Right and Wrong”, if memory serves.) Ms. Bruce basically said that gay liberals are malignant narcissists who would destroy any institution in society in order to advance their goals. And she was right. The uncomfortable thing, though, is that some of that narcissism is present among gay conservatives as well. No, it’s not as virulent as on the gay Left, but it’s there and that’s a problem.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — January 17, 2012 @ 6:55 pm - January 17, 2012

  60. Santorum is a Catholic conservative intellectual.
    I find it refreshing and enjoy hearing him speak.

    Comment by Geena — January 17, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - January 17, 2012

  61. #26

    When you have Justices citing the rulings they made in the previous case to support Roe, I have to think it was part of a bigger plan.

    That may be the case, but it seems like a major leap to go from a right to privacy to preventing states from banning abortion. Perhaps it was part of a bigger plan (among liberals), but I doubt it would be expected by most people that Griswold would lead to Roe.

    #34

    All you can tell from Santorum’s comments… is that he’s an asshole.

    The same can be said about you.

    #35

    The only reason that people oppose gay marriage is because Christians fear that their religion is somehow marginalized by its acceptance.

    It is equally valid to say that the only reason people support gay marriage is because gay activists want to marginalize Christians. It isn’t valid to say that, but it is just as valid as what you said.

    #41

    Why is it “intelligent” that only the change gays desire is the one and only change and all the other changes are off the charts and imbecilic?

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with Levi here, to the extent that there is a rational reason to differentiate between gay marriage and bestial marriage or pedophilic marriage (that reason being based on the lack of the concerned party to legitimately consent). Having said that, I have yet to think of or encounter a valid reason to differentiate between same sex marriage and polygamous marriage. As for incestuous marriage, I think there is a valid reason to ban it (being the above average probability of a birth defect occurring in the offspring).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 9:10 pm - January 17, 2012

  62. As I see it, the salient points are:

    - Santorum is made out to be a virulent homophobe, but this video (and other videos) suggests that he isn’t. In the absense of any evidence that he is (a virulent homophobe), it can be tentatively concluded that he isn’t.
    - Acknowledging that Santorum isn’t a homophobe, or defending him when he is unfairly smeared, is not equivalent to endorsing him or his policies.
    - Santorum, as president, would be preferable to Obama, because the economy and foreign policy are much more important than anything else. To most conservatives, I would assume, Santorum is better in those areas than Obama.
    - Even if Santorum is elected president, that doesn’t necessarily mean that his social views will be imposed.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 9:21 pm - January 17, 2012

  63. Rattlesnake,

    You failed to mention plural marriage which has infinitely more history of acceptance. When you change child marriage (think India) and call it “pedophiliac marriage” you are biasing the issue.

    My point was academic and nothing more. I named several “groups” that have an interest in redefining marriage. I did not support or denigrate any of the groups. From a purely rational standpoint, these groups should unite to batter the barriers together and tear traditional marriage apart.

    It makes no sense that gays hold a place of preference over any other group. Sure, some groups may be more “marginal” than gays, but the polygamy crowd has a far larger population and history than the distinctly puny gay claim to “equality.”

    Somehow, you have failed to keep the argument rational and gone off on a judgement basis that requires choosing sides on the basis of emotion. The “reasonable” solution liberals are forever attacking the traditional marriage people as stuck in the past and adhering to some sort of bigotry.

    But when the “reasonable” solution will not account for parallel “reasonable” demands for equality, it is “reasonable” to demand wherein the differences lie.

    What is good for the gay goose is good for the child loving gander.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 17, 2012 @ 9:45 pm - January 17, 2012

  64. My position requires an assumption to be made, which is that young people (i.e. children) are not rational or mature enough to consent to marriage. In the context of a Western society, wherein marriages to children are both taboo and illegal, other cultures are irrelevant. And I think that children can get married in other cultures demonstrates their inferiority to Western culture. But I digress.

    Can you explain how the assumption I made isn’t a reasonable one? Such a relationship is predatory. The vast majority of monogamous same sex relationships, where both participants are of legal age and have sufficient mental ability, are not predatory. So, in the context of modern Western culture, I would like to know specifically where I have used emotion in my argument.

    As for plural marriage, I did mention it in my comment (as polygamy). This is what I said:

    Having said that, I have yet to think of or encounter a valid reason to differentiate between same sex marriage and polygamous marriage.

    And, for context, I am opposed to gay marriage (as I have said before).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 10:23 pm - January 17, 2012

  65. I have yet to think of or encounter a valid reason to differentiate between same sex marriage and polygamous marriage.

    The structure of exclusive, two-person marriage tends both to stability and to the equality of the partners. That’s an average or a tendency of course – far from a universal. But the structure is that both partners are to give up all others, making the other their exclusive “number one”. There is a both a great deal of mutual commitment and a kind of equality, in that.

    By contrast, the structure of polygamy tends to EITHER stability or equality – never both. Polygamy is stable where the man dominates and the women are treated as chattel – but then the partners are not equals; the structure is fundamentally sexist. Structure polygamy instead so that the partners are all equals, and you have a recipe for instability.

    The bottom line is that letting same-sex couples into the structure of two-person marriage is a far smaller change to that structure, than is changing it to handle 3, 4, 19 people. Gay male couples may tend to be less stable on average (i.e. with MANY exceptions) than straight couples, but by the same token, lesbian couples tend to be more stable (again with exceptions). Let’s do it for the lesbians.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 11:14 pm - January 17, 2012

  66. Levi Summarized:

    This is the argument of a second grader…

    it’s that a gay person of sound mind and of a certain age may marry another gay person of a sound mind and of a certain age…

    It’s because there are laws against those things, and those laws aren’t going anyway…

    When the ‘public policy difference’ in question involves arbitrarily singling out certain people for no good reason, then of course it’s a personal assault.

    Kind of an asked/answered type thingy. I guess that’s the sort of thing you get from second graders these days.

    Comment by TGC — January 17, 2012 @ 11:18 pm - January 17, 2012

  67. As for incestuous marriage, I think there is a valid reason to ban it (being the above average probability of a birth defect occurring in the offspring).

    We should get to ban it, regardless. Again, the qualifications for a State marriage license is a public policy matter – meaning that the People (or legislatures) get to vote on it. I just happen to advocate the vote going a different way than it has, for gay couples. Not for incest couples.

    I think it’s important to draw a distinction between what behavior is allowed in general i.e. not criminalized, and what behavior is allowed in the context of State marriage licensing.

    As discussed in other threads, I have reason to believe that the Constitution does confer a right to privacy (as the concepts of limited government, privacy and liberty are logically inseparable – and the Constitution certainly provides for both liberty and limited government, with the 9th and 10th amendments specifying that the People retain all manner of fundamental rights that the Constitution may otherwise be silent on). Based on that, the law ought to ignore the “victimless crimes” including pot smoking (where there are no other bad consequences), incest (ditto), sodomy (ditto), etc.

    However, saying that the law should constitutionally *ignore* a given sin, is not to deny the People’s right to shun/exclude it from their positive legislative acts. State marriage licensing is, again, legislated by the People, who IMO should not need any reason to exclude gays, or incest couples, or anyone else. I simply happen to think that excluding gays is poor policy, while excluding incest couples continues to be good policy. And I vote.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 11:26 pm - January 17, 2012

  68. (“excluding gays” – i.e., excluding same-sex couples. Sorry for the imprecision there.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 17, 2012 @ 11:28 pm - January 17, 2012

  69. You make good points, ILC.

    I kind of doubt a liberal Supreme Court (some time in the future, I have no idea when) would deny polygamists the “right” to marry given the precedent of same-sex marriage, however. I’m certainly not an expert on American jurisprudence, but I think I know enough about it to be fairly confident in my doubt.

    That is not to say that that is the basis for my opposition to same sex marriage.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 17, 2012 @ 11:39 pm - January 17, 2012

  70. Levi,

    You (a male) can marry a female. The laws prohibit various sorts of women like mentally incompetent, too you, too closely related. Also, only one woman at a time.

    Clear? Shorthand: one man and one woman.

    Gays want the man and woman formula changed.

    Clear?

    Polygamists want the one and one formula changed.

    Clear?

    Child lovers want the age rules changed?

    Clear?

    Man-dog lovers want the species qualification changed.

    Clear?

    What do they ALL have in common? Hope and change.

    Why is it “intelligent” that only the change gays desire is the one and only change and all the other changes are off the charts and imbecilic?

    Your turn, oh master of rational thinking.

    Because there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality. Pedophelia and beastiality are illegal with good reason, and pretending that legalizing gay marriage establishes some kind of precedent for legalizing those things is hysterical and stupid. There’s no justifiable reason to prevent gays from getting married, while there are nothing but justifiable reasons for preventing children from marrying their pets. You’re making it sound like the law would read; “Marriage: ANYTHING GOES.” That’s not how laws work, you know that, right?

    So what’s so special about gays being able to marry that renders obsolete all previous marriage laws? Why haven’t these things that you’re so worried about started happening in the handful of states that have already legalized gay marriage? When the prohibitions against blacks marrying whites were lifted, why didn’t that seem to give the polygamists or the child rapists a push towards legalizing their preferred forms of marriage?

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 3:23 am - January 18, 2012

  71. It is equally valid to say that the only reason people support gay marriage is because gay activists want to marginalize Christians. It isn’t valid to say that, but it is just as valid as what you said.

    No it isn’t.

    There is most assuredly some little sliver of the gay rights movement that in part wants to marginalize Christianity, but the vast majority of people just want to be able to commit to each other, buy property together, raise their families, etc., without being told they’re weirdos or outsiders and not normal. They’re not trying to stick it to the Christians, remember that the vast majority of American gays, just like any other identifiable American group, is Christian.

    On the other hand, you have evangelical communities who are nosing their way into people’s bedrooms and insisting everyone respect and defer to the arbitrary social constructs of their religion. They have absolutely no justification for their position, and to anyone less naive than a fourth grader, it should be clear that they’re so strident about it because Christianity is continuing to lose its stranglehold on the culture. Christians always complain about how marginalized they are, despite them having most of the power in most situations, and specifically on this issue, despite the fact that they are the ones who are insisting that another group is denied certain privileges. They want to be able to deny gays the right to marry, because they generally want to be able to deny groups of people rights as a demonstration of their power and influence. The whole point of religion is that it’s supposed to be authoritative and consistent, and that’s what gives people the confidence and desire to believe in it. I mean how can you believe in the authority of God’s law if God’s law changes?

    So no, it isn’t equally valid, because there is almost nothing but sincerity on one side of this argument and nothing but desperate religious chest-thumping on the other.

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 3:45 am - January 18, 2012

  72. Regardless of whether one agrees with his public policy positions, Rick Santorum comes across as a good and decent man who genuinely cares about his family and his country. This is, of course, the left’s definition of “asshole.”

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 8:48 am - January 18, 2012

  73. Levi,

    You overlooked plural marriage. You went right for pedophilia and bestiality. Those are the low hanging fruit. However, Levi, there is a long tradition of child marriage that has nothing to do with pedophilia.

    I will give you the points concerning pedophilia and bestiality. But I will state these two conditions in their place:

    People who want to marry a child to an adult as part of their ancient tradition want the age rules changed?

    Clear?

    Eccentric millionaires who love their pet and wish their estate left to the pet and want marry the pet want the species qualification changed.

    Clear?

    Now, Levi, you can fairly easily still shoot down the species change people in large part because the pets have no way to make a noise for themselves. Your insistence that this example is off the charts, is only making the point. What is your evidence that same sex marriage is not off the charts?

    So what’s so special about gays being able to marry that renders obsolete all previous marriage laws?

    You blithely kiss off the fundamental change based entirely on what is “wanted” by gays, but you have no ear whatsoever for the plural marriage people getting what they “want” and the child-child people get what they “want” or is “wanted” for them and what a human “wants” when he decides he “wants” to tie the knot with a python. (How does a man and his python have any effect whatsoever on how society operates, blah, blah, blah…?)

    By what metric do you measure the validity of what people “want” in overturning an ancient understanding?

    Now, I know you will do some sort of tap dance around the core point of the validity of “wants” vs. the existing structure. In doing so, please trash can “Loving” because you have a very bad example.

    In “Loving” the law did not permit one man and one woman to marry if the black person was not marrying another black person.” If you want equivalence using “Loving” then you will have to deal with a law that requires a gay male to marry a gay female.

    There is a “Loving” parallel insofar as to “who” a person “wants” to marry is the same. That is to say, society is right back at manipulating the concept to satisfy “wants.” “Loving” was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Gay man and gay women, however, are not denied 14th amendment protections in terms of being able to marry, so long as they meet all the requirements of the marriage statutes.

    I suggest you read ILC’s comments above. He has worked out a much better reasoned case for considering a fundamental change in the marriage tradition.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 18, 2012 @ 9:01 am - January 18, 2012

  74. @Rattlesnake.

    I’ve pointed out in the past, that the concept of age of consent is a legal construct. Indeed, I read an article yesterday that Keith Ellison wants to lower the voting age to 16. There’s even less legal ‘red tape’ to change the age of consent, than there is to change the voting age.

    Aside: Anyone else ever notice Levi’s arguments all boil down to ‘because I said so’?

    Comment by The Livewire — January 18, 2012 @ 9:02 am - January 18, 2012

  75. Anyone else ever notice Levi’s arguments all boil down to ‘because I said so’?

    A long time ago, which is why I no longer bother to read them.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 9:35 am - January 18, 2012

  76. “but the vast majority of people just want to be able to commit to each other, buy property together, raise their families, etc., without being told they’re weirdos or outsiders and not normal.” — Levi

    This attitude is precisely what I cannot relate to.

    My partner and I HAVE done all of these things; we’ve just done them without any sort of fanfare because that’s not the kind of people we are and because, quite frankly, this is OUR relationship and we really don’t give a rat’s ass what other people think. We’ve been committed to each other for 13+ years. We own property, have joint financial accounts, etc, etc, etc. And everything is legal. I still have a hard time understanding how Joe Bureaucrat handing you that marriage license is going to make your feelings of weirdness, outsiderness and non-normalcy suddenly change.

    Comment by Gene — January 18, 2012 @ 10:26 am - January 18, 2012

  77. This attitude is precisely what I cannot relate to.

    My partner and I HAVE done all of these things; we’ve just done them without any sort of fanfare because that’s not the kind of people we are and because, quite frankly, this is OUR relationship and we really don’t give a rat’s ass what other people think. We’ve been committed to each other for 13+ years. We own property, have joint financial accounts, etc, etc, etc. And everything is legal. I still have a hard time understanding how Joe Bureaucrat handing you that marriage license is going to make your feelings of weirdness, outsiderness and non-normalcy suddenly change.

    You’re indifferent, good for you. Who cares? I don’t place marriage on a pedestal either and am similarly capable of committing to a monogamous relationship without a license or any kind of nod from the state. Other people want to get married and it doesn’t have anything to do with people being validated by their government. This is supposed to be a free country, remember? And if gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 10:56 am - January 18, 2012

  78. I disagree. From what I see it’s ALL about being validated by the government. Why else fight for the right to get married? Why not work to do away with any sort of governmental recognition of marriage altogether? Or why not just go to your church, have a ceremony and leave it at that?

    Comment by Gene — January 18, 2012 @ 11:05 am - January 18, 2012

  79. Because, Gene, none of those options shoves it in the face of the Christian Right.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 11:20 am - January 18, 2012

  80. I don’t place marriage on a pedestal either and am similarly capable of committing to a monogamous relationship without a license or any kind of nod from the state. (……)

    This is supposed to be a free country, remember?

    And if gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    Oh.

    And if a group of gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    And if a group of non-gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    And if an eleven year old and a twenty seven year old want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    And if a man wants to marry each his collection of fishing flies, there’s no good reason for him to be denied that right.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 18, 2012 @ 11:22 am - January 18, 2012

  81. In any case, Heliotrope, none of those relationships would in any way affect the relationship between a heterosexual man and his wife. So, using the logic of the gay left, there is no reason to oppose them.

    When discussing same-sex marriage under the rules of the gay left, the topic of wider social consequences may not be brought up, because it is “bigoted” and “ignorant.” (“Bigoted” being the left-wing code word for “obvious” and “ignorant” being the code word for “irrefutable.” )

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 11:39 am - January 18, 2012

  82. Levi,

    You overlooked plural marriage. You went right for pedophilia and bestiality. Those are the low hanging fruit. However, Levi, there is a long tradition of child marriage that has nothing to do with pedophilia.

    I will give you the points concerning pedophilia and bestiality. But I will state these two conditions in their place:

    People who want to marry a child to an adult as part of their ancient tradition want the age rules changed?

    Who cares if they want the rules changed and who cares about their ancient tradition? The law of our modern society recognizes that children shouldn’t be entering into contracts and thus there is an age requirement for marriage and many other things. The justification for the law is the same regardless of whether or not gays can marry, and again, there would be absolutely no precedent set to change the age requirements if the sex requirements were to be changed. You can equate sex and age until you’re blue in the face but it’s utterly meaningless, the law doesn’t agree with you.

    <blockquote?Clear?

    Eccentric millionaires who love their pet and wish their estate left to the pet and want marry the pet want the species qualification changed.

    Clear?

    Now, Levi, you can fairly easily still shoot down the species change people in large part because the pets have no way to make a noise for themselves. Your insistence that this example is off the charts, is only making the point. What is your evidence that same sex marriage is not off the charts?

    I am trying, but this is just too stupid to coherently respond to. You’re comparing gays getting married and people marrying animals to one another, and saying they’re equally outrageous? And you want me to give you proof that this isn’t the case? I don’t know what to tell you here – gay marriage isn’t off the charts because it involves two, consenting, human adults. Mess with any of those variables and you’re talking about ridiculous situations that don’t have anything to do with homosexuality or state-licensed marriage.

    You blithely kiss off the fundamental change based entirely on what is “wanted” by gays, but you have no ear whatsoever for the plural marriage people getting what they “want” and the child-child people get what they “want” or is “wanted” for them and what a human “wants” when he decides he “wants” to tie the knot with a python. (How does a man and his python have any effect whatsoever on how society operates, blah, blah, blah…?)

    Why should I have an ear for what polygamists and child rapists want? As I’ve repeated a number of times, the laws in place preventing polygamy and child marriage and python marriage are completely justified and changing the sex requirement does absolutely nothing to change that fact.

    By what metric do you measure the validity of what people “want” in overturning an ancient understanding?

    Whatever your idea of ‘an ancient understanding’ may be, it’s completely irrelevant. In this modern society that we are living in, marriage in the eyes of the state has a very specific definition, which can be changed for good reasons. This modern society has decided for one reason or another reasons that children are incapable of making certain kinds of decisions and that polygamous relationships are impermissible. That’s the metric that matters and your ‘ancient understanding’ has nothing to do with it.

    By the way, I shouldn’t have to report that if ‘ancient understandings’ were how we based laws in this country, all of these polygamists and child-rapists that you’re so worried about would have as much justification for their marriage as you do for yours.

    Now, I know you will do some sort of tap dance around the core point of the validity of “wants” vs. the existing structure. In doing so, please trash can “Loving” because you have a very bad example.

    In “Loving” the law did not permit one man and one woman to marry if the black person was not marrying another black person.” If you want equivalence using “Loving” then you will have to deal with a law that requires a gay male to marry a gay female.

    There is a “Loving” parallel insofar as to “who” a person “wants” to marry is the same. That is to say, society is right back at manipulating the concept to satisfy “wants.” “Loving” was a clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Gay man and gay women, however, are not denied 14th amendment protections in terms of being able to marry, so long as they meet all the requirements of the marriage statutes.

    You said it yourself – there is a parallel. Why tell me I have to throw it in the trash can and then admit there’s a parallel?

    I suggest you read ILC’s comments above. He has worked out a much better reasoned case for considering a fundamental change in the marriage tradition.

    My responses to your posts haven’t exactly been about presenting a case for gay marriage, but about pointing out how dim-witted your slippery slope arguments against it are. I struggle to think of a stupider argument that is as widely deployed in American politics as this one. I’ll wrap up by reiterating an earlier question – gay marriage is now legal in a handful of states and the nation’s capital. So why haven’t we seen child marriage, animal marriage, and plural marriage take off in these heathen states? Indeed, it seems like legalization of gay marriage in these places has given absolutely no traction to people that want to legalize child marriage, animal marriage, and plural marriage. What’s up with that, man? Isn’t this your entire premise that the one leads to the other?

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 11:44 am - January 18, 2012

  83. Oh.

    And if a group of gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    And if a group of non-gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    And if an eleven year old and a twenty seven year old want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    And if a man wants to marry each his collection of fishing flies, there’s no good reason for him to be denied that right.

    Except, of course, there are good reasons for those people to be denied that right…..

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 11:49 am - January 18, 2012

  84. I disagree. From what I see it’s ALL about being validated by the government. Why else fight for the right to get married? Why not work to do away with any sort of governmental recognition of marriage altogether? Or why not just go to your church, have a ceremony and leave it at that?

    The gays deserve the benefits that their straight counterparts enjoy. There’s a discrimination principle at play here, too, but I think you’re way off the mark. Most people find the idea of life long monogamy very appealing (it’s in our DNA) and they just want to take part. And if there’s some tiny segment that want to do it to be validated by their government, who’s to begrudge them for that? What works for you doesn’t work for everyone else.

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 12:05 pm - January 18, 2012

  85. Levi’s incoherent blatherings get even more hilarious.

    Who cares if they want the rules changed and who cares about their ancient tradition? …..You can equate sex and age until you’re blue in the face but it’s utterly meaningless, the law doesn’t agree with you.

    And the law doesn’t agree with you on same-sex marriage.

    So by your own logic, who cares what you think, Levi? The law is the law, and you are making a meaningless argument.

    As Heliotrope has pointed out, your arguments are not based on principle or reasoning; indeed, you expressly disavow your own arguments when they are applied equally to areas that you dislike. What that demonstrates is that you are arguing based on your own anti-Christian bigotry, which you pinkwash as being “gay rights”.

    This is what the Republican Party and conservatives are correctly pointing out — that “progressives” like yourself and your Obama Party are not pro-rights, they are anti-religious. You are simply using gays and lesbians as an excuse to hide the fact that you and your fellow “progresives” are repulsive bigots who would like nothing better than to ban people from any participation in public life or office based on their religious beliefs.

    And that’s what you’re demonstrating, Levi. You are clearly showing that the arguments for gay-sex marriage are not based on the Constitution or on whether or not it is good for society, but are solely based on attacking Christians and carrying out your anti-Christian bigotry.

    You are a bigot, Levi. It can’t be any more clearly stated than that. And you and your fellow gay-sex marriage “supporters” are nothing more than bigots hiding behind gays and lesbians. You loathe and hate the fact that Christians have rights in our society guaranteed by the First Amendment, and you want to strip Christians of any and all public rights based solely on the exercise of their faith.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 12:11 pm - January 18, 2012

  86. The gays deserve the benefits that their straight counterparts enjoy. There’s a discrimination principle at play here, too, but I think you’re way off the mark. Most people find the idea of life long monogamy very appealing (it’s in our DNA) and they just want to take part. And if there’s some tiny segment that want to do it to be validated by their government, who’s to begrudge them for that? What works for you doesn’t work for everyone else.

    Comment by Levi — January 18, 2012 @ 12:05 pm – January 18, 2012

    And the incest practitioners. And the bestialists. And the pedophiles. And the plural marriage practitioners.

    That’s what makes you hilarious, Levi. You are sitting here blathering that government should never discriminate, that people should mind their own business, and that you shouldn’t care who other people want to marry or have sex with because “what works for you doesn’t work for everyone else”.

    And then you start to tap dance and spin when you actually have to apply those principles.

    You’re an anti-Christian bigot, Levi, and that is the problem. You have latched on to gay-sex marriage as a “cause” simply to pinkwash the fact that you are an anti-Christian bigot.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 12:14 pm - January 18, 2012

  87. I think LiveWire nailed it. All of of Levi’s “argument” comes down to “Because I say so.” But he is as clueless as Froma Harrop.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - January 18, 2012

  88. Of course, V the K.

    You see, Levi’s mommy and daddy raised him like good liberal parents; they taught him he was always right and that anyone who disagreed with him was wrong.

    That’s why he’s a failed incompetent. He’s not capable of learning because he thinks he knows everything. He’s not capable of listening because anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. He’s not capable of thinking coherently or presenting an intellectual argument because he’s never had to think beyond “because I say so”.

    Just like Obama. In Obama’s case, it’s because of the liberal belief that black skin trumps competence, coherence, and intelligence; Obama is an emotionally- and intellectually-retarded individual because he’s been surrounded his whole life by people like Levi who evaluated him based on his skin color.

    It seems interesting that so-called “progressives” like Levi are so desperate to take us back to the days of race-determines-intelligence. But really, that’s what “progressives” are; they are regressives who oppose freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and judging people by character and deed rather than arbitrary traits, and who would prefer that their decisions be imposed upon the rest of us by force.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 12:36 pm - January 18, 2012

  89. ND30,

    Don’t forget that Levi believes that the judges should be the supreme arbiters of the law. Unless he disagrees with them.

    So Levi’s arguing that the issue of SSM is settled (Baker v Nelson) unless you disagree with it. If you disagree with it, then it’s settled as soon as you get the supremes to agree with you.

    Dizzy yet?

    Comment by The Livewire — January 18, 2012 @ 12:42 pm - January 18, 2012

  90. @Heliotrope

    “So, how would you advise Santorum to respond to the social conservative baiting by the liberals which he gets and expects?”

    Perhaps were aren’t quite on the exact same page. Your speaking of Santorums freedom of expression, especially when the MSM is pressing him to express it.

    “What I do know is that the liberal press can focus on Santorum’s belief system and “make him own it” as a way to kneecap him with people who don’t like such views.”

    I agree. And it wont be the last time the MSM asks the wrong questions, for the wrong reasons.

    “Are some asking Santorum to pretend he does not hold the religious views he does in order to be more “palatable”?”

    No pretending required or requested. (from me at least) In a perfect world he COULD perhaps be more tactful. But that’s being petty, which I strive not to be.

    In any case, what I am specifically referring to are his comments such as:

    “The question is whether we should change the laws of this country to reflect a different value structure. What we’re talking about here are different values. We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on Biblical truth and truth that can be acclaimed and resolved through reason. And, those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

    Couple this statement with:

    “”We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law, Gods law. “…not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

    He has made it clear his beliefs will direct his stance on policy. A policies that will not change despite how “people’s attitudes may change.”

    Incidentally, these comments were made during speeches, and not prompted by any questions.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - January 18, 2012

  91. Speaking of failed incompetence, NDT, word has leaked out that Dear Reader is going to officially kill the KeystoneXL pipeline; which will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and fuel prices that are predicted to spike to $5 a gallon this summer.

    And dupes who think social issues are more important than the economy will happily vote for him.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 1:02 pm - January 18, 2012

  92. “fuel prices that are predicted to spike to $5 a gallon this summer.”

    If I show them my marriage license will I get a discount?

    I guess I shouldn’t care. Afterall, now that I have that license, it’s nice to finally “matter”. They might want to consider handing out self-esteem lessons, too, I guess.

    Comment by Gene — January 18, 2012 @ 1:26 pm - January 18, 2012

  93. Actually Gene, it would be more expedient to go to the local Barns and Nobel and buy the “Complete Idiots Guide to Self-esterm”.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - January 18, 2012

  94. At the risk of putting my hand in a ‘hornets nest’…

    And if a group of gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    Nope, but from a taxation/ benefits perspective only one spouse need be recognized. With plenty of reasons why.

    And if a group of non-gay people want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    Again, nope, but from a taxation/benefits perspective only one spouse need be recognized. With plenty of reasons why.

    And if an eleven year old and a twenty seven year old want to marry each other, there’s no good reason for them to be denied that right.

    From a legal perspective, yes there is. Since a child is not a taxpayer, cannot drink alcohol, cannot smoke, cannot drive, cannot enter into a contract, cannot give consent, cannot serve in the military and a parent or guardian also cannot give consent for the child regarding the previous examples, and in addition to numerous laws, regardless of gender/faith/philosophy, that re-enforce this rational. Therefore, a child also cannot enter into a marriage contract.

    From a taxation/ benefits perspective, see above.

    And if a man wants to marry each his collection of fishing flies, there’s no good reason for him to be denied that right.

    Fishing flies (or any other inanimate object, life of varying species, deceased person) are not taxpayers nor even United State citizens. Therefore, from a taxation/benefits perspective need not be recognized.

    For all the examples involving two taxpaying, US citizens, equality of opportunity is standard across the board and the ‘playing field’ is level.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - January 18, 2012

  95. Sandhorse,

    The flaw I have with the argument is this. Who determines the qualifications for a marriage license? The States. Who determines the age of consent? The States.

    To say one can be changed, but the other never will, is a false argument.
    50 years ago, if asked people would say that marriage would never be changed to allow two men to marry.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 18, 2012 @ 2:23 pm - January 18, 2012

  96. From a legal perspective, yes there is. Since a child is not a taxpayer, cannot drink alcohol, cannot smoke, cannot drive, cannot enter into a contract, cannot give consent, cannot serve in the military and a parent or guardian also cannot give consent for the child regarding the previous examples

    So? Change the law and there are no restrictions.

    And at risk of repeating what has already been stated above, why should your belief system that supports these laws and opposes all of these things be written into law as the supreme authority, when the argument has been made that belief systems cannot be used as a basis for discrimination?

    The basic problem is this: the gay and lesbian community has decided that it doesn’t want to wait for “due process” and instead wants the judiciary to change definitions by fiat. However, the only way in which the judiciary can change definitions by fiat is to a) violate the separation of powers or b) invalidate the very concept involved.

    The reasons Loving had even a shred of constitutionality associated with it were a) the existence of the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments making it clear that race was not a valid consideration for any government-sanctioned form of discrimination and b) it was striking down a law that criminalized and provided criminal penalties for public activity.

    This does not apply to gay marriage for obvious reasons. One, there is no amendment stating that sexual orientation is irrelevant to government considerations. Two, you are not prosecuted and put in jail if you go to Canada and get married or if your church holds a marriage ceremony for you; you simply aren’t recognized by the state.

    Polygamous, incestuous, and child marriages are better candidates for being struck down under the Lawrence criteria, since they ARE criminalized and, using Loving‘s argument, violations of the fundamental right to marry.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 2:31 pm - January 18, 2012

  97. For all the examples involving two taxpaying, US citizens, equality of opportunity is standard across the board and the ‘playing field’ is level.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 1:52 pm – January 18, 2012

    But it is not, since you cannot marry someone who is already married to someone else, and you cannot marry someone who is closely related to you.

    Furthermore, you are arguably engaging in indirect and pernicious discrimination, since you are creating and enforcing laws defining who is an adult, who has the “right” to marry, what qualifies as consent, and so forth when it has been previously stated that laws that define or limit marriage, even indirectly, are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    This is why the “equality” claim implodes. It has nothing to do with equality of treatment for all citizens.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 2:38 pm - January 18, 2012

  98. The left is constantly pushing for birth control and abortion without parental notification be made available to children of all ages, then they turn around and claim it’s absurd to suggest that minors can consent to adult relationships.

    It almost makes one question their sincerity.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - January 18, 2012

  99. V @ 72. Sanatorum is probably a ‘ good guy ‘ since he did round up enough support to make it this far. Considering he was working with folk prior to the 08 elections, I always consider who started chumming the waters with the whole Gheys R Icky campaign; did Rick start with the theme to court his hopeful evangelical support or was it the the Socons looking for someone like Rick for the Prez Poster boy?

    Anyway based on some new studies about gay parents, seems like Rick’s – such a swell guy status – doesn’t really match your personal success raising your boys

    Children raised by gay parents do just as well in life as kids raised by straight couples — and they may be advantaged when it comes to tolerance and sensitivity to discrimination.
    CREDIT: Chris Harvey / Shutterstock.com
    View full size image
    Gay marriage, and especially gay parenting, has been in the cross hairs in recent days.

    On Jan. 6, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told a New Hampshire audience that children are better off with a father in prison than being raised in a home with lesbian parents and no father at all. And last Monday (Jan. 9), Pope Benedict called gay marriage a threat “to the future of humanity itself,” citing the need for children to have heterosexual homes.

    But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn’t back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t.

    Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.”
    Children raised by gay parents do just as well in life as kids raised by straight couples — and they may be advantaged when it comes to tolerance

    Comment by rusty — January 18, 2012 @ 3:56 pm - January 18, 2012

  100. NDT, you bring a number of different points. I will endeavor to address each of them. As an aside, I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, but I am enjoying the dialog.

    “Change the law and there are no restrictions.”

    This is similar to The Livewires argument.

    All the child laws I mentioned are based on the same criteria. Which is; a child lacks the mental capacity and maturity of will to make an informed decision and without threat of coercion. This is not based in ‘belief’ but empirical evidence. Any entity seeking to change these laws would need to prove otherwise; a daunting task at best.

    “And at risk of repeating what has already been stated above, why should your belief system that supports these laws and opposes all of these things be written into law as the supreme authority, when the argument has been made that belief systems cannot be used as a basis for discrimination?”

    Again, the fact that children are immature is not a belief system.

    “The basic problem is this: the gay and lesbian community has decided that it doesn’t want to wait for “due process” and instead wants the judiciary to change definitions by fiat. However, the only way in which the judiciary can change definitions by fiat is to a) violate the separation of powers or b) invalidate the very concept involved.”

    I was not discussing the way in which these laws may come about. So I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this point.

    “The reasons Loving had even a shred of constitutionality associated with it were a) the existence of the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments making it clear that race was not a valid consideration for any government-sanctioned form of discrimination and b) it was striking down a law that criminalized and provided criminal penalties for public activity.”

    This is a two pronged argument; one addressing liberty, the other addressing government recognition. I will address the later since we can agree the former is not an issue.

    Loving didn’t just address the freedom issue, but grandfathered in the government recognition aspect as well. It could have just done one and not the other, but it didn’t. From a governmental recognition perspective, prior to Loving, there was no governmental discrimination regarding interracial marriage. Both races were treated equally. A white person was free to marry another white person and receive government recognition. A black person was free to marry another black person and receive government recognition. However, if a white person married a black person, or a black person married a white person, both would concede government recognition.

    “This does not apply to gay marriage for obvious reasons. One, there is no amendment stating that sexual orientation is irrelevant to government considerations. Two, you are not prosecuted and put in jail if you go to Canada and get married or if your church holds a marriage ceremony for you; you simply aren’t recognized by the state.”

    Again, I’m not implying that gay couples are threatened with imprisonment in regards to marriage.

    “Polygamous, incestuous, and child marriages are better candidates for being struck down under the Lawrence criteria, since they ARE criminalized and, using Loving‘s argument, violations of the fundamental right to marry.”

    Your statement is correct, but over simplified. Polygamous, incestuous, and child marriages must all be addressed on an individual basis and not as a group.

    I have to break your next statement down a little, sorry…

    “Furthermore, you are arguably engaging in indirect and pernicious discrimination, since you are creating and enforcing laws defining who is an adult, who has the “right” to marry, what qualifies as consent, and so forth …”

    This is already being done even with laws that have nothing to do with marriage, nor are they arbitrary. Laws defining who is an adult are based on verifiable evidence and they are not exclusionary.

    “…when it has been previously stated that laws that define or limit marriage, even indirectly, are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    I would need to know more on the context of this statement before I can respond.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 4:04 pm - January 18, 2012

  101. Can someone explain to me how to block quote? I am not HTML savvy. My previews clearly delineate my paragraphs but post submission everything is muddled together…

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - January 18, 2012

  102. Anyway based on some new studies about gay parents, seems like Rick’s – such a swell guy status – doesn’t really match your personal success raising your boys

    Don’t you love, V the K, how rusty and the gay liberal left, despite bashing your religious beliefs, your political beliefs, and your behaviors, as well as calling you a self-loathing closet case, try to use you as an example of how gays and lesbians can be good parents?

    I think what you prove is that gays and lesbians can be great adoptive parents — if they espouse and practice views and behaviors that the gay and lesbian community as a whole completely rejects.

    Meanwhile, aren’t these studies hilarious? Even with slanting the data to include the worst-case scenario heterosexuals and the best case gay and lesbian couples, they can’t get better than “tends to” and “may”, and have to make up all sorts of new metrics like “tolerance” to push their point.

    We won’t even get into the hilarious bigotry of the gay and lesbian community trying to argue about how they’ll be good parents when it’s at the forefront of movements to remove parental notification and consent laws for childrens’ sexual activity, as we see for abortions and so-called “safe schools” individuals like Kevin “Fisty” Jennings.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 4:15 pm - January 18, 2012

  103. 101.Can someone explain to me how to block quote? I am not HTML savvy. My previews clearly delineate my paragraphs but post submission everything is muddled together…

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 4:09 pm – January 18, 2012

    Sandhorse,

    For HTML, the basic protocol is that a command enclosed in carats – the signs — is placed right before the text you want to change, and you place the same command in carats at the end of the text you want to change with a slash ( / ) in front of the word.

    For block quote, the command is blockquote. :) Put the word blockquote between the carat signs at the beginning of the phrase, and then put the word /blockquote between carat signs at the end of the phrase.

    Hope that helps.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 18, 2012 @ 4:24 pm - January 18, 2012

  104. Individually, I may be an all right parent, but my family arrangement is better only when compared to the alternatives: dysfunctional bio-parents or a group home. The best arrangement for kids always will be a committed, two-heterosexual parent, nuclear family.

    My sense of self-worth is not so fragile that I have to pretend otherwise in order to validate myself.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 4:35 pm - January 18, 2012

  105. Thanks NDT, I think I follow. I will try it on my next post.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - January 18, 2012

  106. Sandhorse,

    Santorum’s quotes you put in your comments do not surprise me, nor do they much bother me.

    Our culture is based entirely on the Judeo-Christian ethic. The major force at work against it is the Muslim version of the Old Testament as interpreted through the Qur’an and Tafsirs which introduces Shari’a and the theocracy of Islamic rule over the religious and secular life of each person.

    Santorum is opposed to any change away from the Judeo-Christian ethic which informed the founding fathers, English common law and our entire history up to the present.

    I do not see this as Santorum’s insistence that he has to read the Bible before he can enforce the law. I see it as an eager admission that he is a man of faith and if you care to look into his belief system, it is wide open to view and shared by hundreds of millions worldwide.

    This is not meant as any endorsement of Santorum. I simply understand his grounding and I find zero threat coming from it.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 18, 2012 @ 4:52 pm - January 18, 2012

  107. V the K,

    Not that I need any validation either, especially since I am not a parent, but how does a couples sexual orientation effect or otherwise influence their child raising capabilities? Can you elaborate?

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 4:54 pm - January 18, 2012

  108. As a wise sage has posted. . You don’t have to like someone and not oppose dishonest smears against them.

    And if you think it is ok to smear someone over and over and over, just because you disagree with that person, your ethics are questionable.

    Comment by rusty — January 7, 2012 @ 11:45 am – January 7, 2012

    Comment by rusty — January 18, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - January 18, 2012

  109. Helio, like you I wont be losing any sleep over the statements I’ve quoted. And you may be surprised to know, from a faith standpoint, I agree with a lot of his views. I agree by and large our culture is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. I just approach the idea of state enforcing any Christian ethic with ‘fear and trembling’. Many Christian ethics are ‘all over the map’. We should all be free to cherish the ones we own.

    Comment by Sandhorse — January 18, 2012 @ 5:08 pm - January 18, 2012

  110. The best arrangement for raising children is a committed, heterosexual couple heading a nuclear family. The reasons for this are as follows:

    1. Each parent brings a different perspective to the table. Short version is, when a kid falls down and hurts himself, the mother says “Oh, you poor baby!” The father says, “Stop crying and pick yourself up.” A kid needs both, really, to grow up with the right balance of safety and daring. Single parents and same-sex couples can’t provide that.

    2. >90% of children are going to grow up to be heterosexuals. These children need to see a healthy heterosexual relationship modeled in the home in order for them to understand how to make a marriage work, and how men and women have to give and take and give in order to have a successful relationship. If they do not see these traits modeled by their parents, they are unlikely to learn them later in life. This means it will be less likely that they will form stable family units.

    3. The most stable arrangement throughout human history has been the nuclear family. This arrangement provides social stability, cohesion, and a vehicle for the transmission of positive values across generations.

    Now, studies by gay advocates will claim children raised by same-sex couples are just as healthy as kids raised by heterosexuals, but these studies in flawed because the outcome by which they define success isn’t the ability to form healthy, positive, long-lasting relationships. They might measure things like academic achievement and socialization, things for which factors like income is a major determinant, or that are subjective.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 5:47 pm - January 18, 2012

  111. Gay adoption recently caused controversy in Illinois, where Catholic Charities adoption services decided in November to cease offering services because the state refused funding unless the groups agreed not to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Rather than comply, Catholic Charities closed up shop.

    Catholic opposition aside, research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. (There are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.)

    An October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that, of gay and lesbian adoptions at more than 300 agencies, 10 percent of the kids placed were older than 6 — typically a very difficult age to adopt out. About 25 percent were older than 3. Sixty percent of gay and lesbian couples adopted across races, which is important given that minority children in the foster system tend to linger. More than half of the kids adopted by gays and lesbians had special needs.

    The report didn’t compare the adoption preferences of gay couples directly with those of heterosexual couples, said author David Brodzinsky, research director at the Institute and co-editor of “Adoption By Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Dimension of Family Diversity” (Oxford University Press, 2011). But research suggests that gays and lesbians are more likely than heterosexuals to adopt older, special-needs and minority children, he said. Part of that could be their own preferences, and part could be because of discrimination by adoption agencies that puts more difficult children with what caseworkers see as “less desirable” parents.

    No matter how you slice it, Brodzinsky told LiveScience, gays and lesbians are highly interested in adoption as a group. The 2007 report by the Urban Institute also found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the U.S. would like to adopt. That adds up to an estimated 2 million gay people who are interested in adoption. It’s a huge reservoir of potential parents who could get kids out of the instability of the foster system, Brodzinsky said.

    “When you think about the 114,000 children who are freed for adoption who continue to live in foster care and who are not being readily adopted, the goal is to increase the pool of available, interested and well-trained individuals to parent these children,” Brodzinsky said.

    In addition, Brodzinsky said, there’s evidence to suggest that gays and lesbians are especially accepting of open adoptions, where the child retains some contact with his or her birth parents. And the statistics bear out that birth parents often have no problem with their kids being raised by same-sex couples, he added.

    “Interestingly, we find that a small percentage, but enough to be noteworthy, [of birth mothers] make a conscious decision to place with gay men, so they can be the only mother in their child’s life,” Brodzinsky said.

    Comment by rusty — January 18, 2012 @ 7:44 pm - January 18, 2012

  112. In addition, Brodzinsky said, there’s evidence to suggest that gays and lesbians are especially accepting of open adoptions, where the child retains some contact with his or her birth parents. And the statistics bear out that birth parents often have no problem with their kids being raised by same-sex couples, he added.

    Well, this is as conclusive as it gets.

    “Interestingly, we find that a small percentage, but enough to be noteworthy, [of birth mothers] make a conscious decision to place with gay men, so they can be the only mother in their child’s life,” Brodzinsky said.

    Nothing to question here, keep on walking.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 18, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - January 18, 2012

  113. Why do cut and pastes from advocacy articles remain so … unpersuasive?

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 8:23 pm - January 18, 2012

  114. More cut and paste.
    Adopted by Two Gay Dads After a Tumultuous Upbringing, 15-Year-Old Zac Shares a Letter of Love

    To my Family,

    This is the first Christmas letter that I have ever written. I feel like since I am getting older, I should start writing a letter to the family or just talk about how I thought the family’s year has gone until Christmas.

    Ever since I ended up in this family people have told me that I was lucky. I have always known that I am lucky, especially when I have two dads that love me so much as Dad and Dadio. My family is very special to me. Even when we fight and even when we argue, I know they will always love me. Yes I am a lucky boy to have ended up here after spending so many years in foster care and not knowing if I would ever have a family.

    I didn’t grow with a dad. My birthmom had many boyfriends and she did a lot of drugs and partying. My sisters and me were taken from her on my eighth birthday. It was not fun to have police in my room on that day. It made me sad and this sadness I carried for many years and it got me in a lot of trouble. Then I landed in a great foster home after having lived in 12 different homes in three years. It was when I lived there that both my foster mom and social worker told me there was a family that wanted me. There was a catch: it was two dads!

    Honestly, it didn’t matter to me. I told them, “well, I never had a dad, now I get to have two!”

    The start was tough and rough, and I put them through hell and back. I did awful and nasty things to them both. I stole their credit card and spent thousands of dollars online. When we went on my first vacation out of the country, I stole stuff from a souvenir stand – they found out and made me go back to the shop to return the souvenirs and made me pay the lady who owned the shop for the stolen property which then I had to give to a local kid. I didn’t get it and thought they were being mean.

    When I stole their American Express and maxed it buying stuff online I was only 12 years old. They were very upset, but Dad made sure I got the message of how serious this was. He took me to our local police station and reported me to the police captain for having stolen again. I was taken to an interrogation room and talked to by three police officers. All the time there I only wanted my Dad to come in and bring me home. I wanted to turn time back to before my stealing so I would not be there and I would not have hurt my parents so much. I learned my lesson and NEVER stole again!

    But Dad and Dadio brought not just me into this family. They also added my brother Derrick. What I can say about Derrick is that he is really cool, he is funny, he is an awesome gay guy, he is a one of a kind guy, he is my bro. Next they added Nick. Nick can get on my nerves sometimes, but in the end he is pretty cool. He is a fast leaner when it comes to math and multiplying numbers. And with that said, I will go to the roots of the family.

    Dad and Dadio. They are my parents and they are always here when I need them.

    When it is dark they are the light,
    When I feel frightened and chill’s,
    They are the warmth I feel.
    When I am hungry they cook my meals.

    I did not put a lot of time into the poem, but in the poem you see my parents. The people that show me the light. The people that warm my heart when it gets dark. The people that cook my meals. If I could only ask for anything for Christmas I would only ask for my family.

    By Zac

    Comment by rusty — January 18, 2012 @ 9:15 pm - January 18, 2012

  115. My bullshit detector is red-lining.

    Comment by V the K — January 18, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - January 18, 2012

  116. #71

    On the other hand, you have evangelical communities who are nosing their way into people’s bedrooms and insisting everyone respect and defer to the arbitrary social constructs of their religion.

    Do you have any proof that said evangelicals constitute more than “some little sliver” of the evangelical population?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 18, 2012 @ 11:52 pm - January 18, 2012

  117. I have some questions for anyone who is saying that once gay marriage is allowed that there is no basis for preventing pedophilic marriages from being allowed (which is what I am getting from many comments, but please correct me if that is not the case). I will define a pedophilic marriage as a marriage between an adult and a pre-pubescent child (which should eliminate involvement of age of consent laws). And I am strictly talking about modern, Western cultures.

    The questions are: are you saying homosexuality is morally equivalent to pedophilia? If not, how do you reconcile that with saying that there is no rational basis for stopping pedophilic marriages once gay marriages are allowed?

    I would sincerely like to know what is behind your thinking, as I have found some things said in this thread perplexing.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 19, 2012 @ 12:05 am - January 19, 2012

  118. I’ve pointed out in the past, that the concept of age of consent is a legal construct.

    Then I think it is a good one. I don’t like its arbitrariness, but I think it is necessary to legally separate children from adults (in terms of what rights they have). What exactly the age of consent should be is beside the point; the point is that it exists and that pre-pubescent children fall below the age of consent.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 19, 2012 @ 12:11 am - January 19, 2012

  119. Rattlesnake,

    I have used the child marriage and the human-animal combinations as examples of what some people “want.”

    Gays can marry. Gays “want” to marry a same sex partner.

    In that one tight control area, gays are like everyone else who “wants” the marriage formula changed to accommodate their “wants.”

    The obvious problem with that “simple” point is that is allows for the “other side” to go all ballistic and say that I am saying there is no difference between gays and pedophiles or bestiality mavens or cannibals or whatever.

    The point, however, is that gays who “want” the marriage formula changed to drop the one man, one woman construct seem to stick with the one and one part of the construct. Why? What order of common sense ordains that one male and one male is a sensible alteration but plural marriage is not?

    I have lived through a lot of debates about whether gays should be permitted to adopt children. A lot of sociological hooey was tossed around as if it were “consensus science.” When I read the reasons why plural marriage should be off limits, it is still a lot of consensus science sociological hooey.

    I oppose both gay marriage and plural marriage. But if we are actually going to break open the traditional marriage formula, I would sure hope that we can move from the “want” argument to something substantial to consider. Otherwise, i will stick with the absurdity of what pedophiles “want” and the man-dog crowd “wants” as a means to show the weakness of the argument.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 19, 2012 @ 9:30 am - January 19, 2012

  120. Heliotrope, I would say it a little differently. It goes to whether marriage is an undeniable “right” that Government cannot deny to people, or whether marriage is a social institution subject defined by rules and social consensus.

    If marriage is a “right” in the same sense that free speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom of religion are rights… then Government is obligated to acknowledge that right universally with only extraordinary exceptions. The bar to prohibiting plural marriage and intra-family marriage gets raised a lot higher, because you have to show a compelling public interest to prevent them. And considering plural and intra-family marriage are part of the cultural fabric of certain groups, the bar to prohibiting them is higher still.

    But if marriage is a social institution, constituted by rules agreed to by social consensus, then it becomes possible to say, “We will permit two unrelated consenting adults of the same sex to marry, but not consenting adults who wish to have plural marriage, or who wish to marry their first cousin.”

    Comment by V the K — January 19, 2012 @ 9:52 am - January 19, 2012

  121. Hear, hear.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 19, 2012 @ 10:44 am - January 19, 2012

  122. @ Rattlesnake.

    That’s my point entirely. Age of concent (or majority) is a legal construct. Government recognition of marriage is *also* a legal construct. I happen to think both of them are good (and support a 3rd construct ‘fred’), you believe one is good, the other is bad. Harry Hay apparently thought both were bad.

    “Good, bad, I’m the guy with the gun.” -Ash, Army of Darkness.

    Part of the argument is that ‘bad’ laws can be constitutional. From my reading, the reason Brown v Board overturned Plessy v Ferguson was that “Seperate but Equal” wasn’t. To be honest, I’m not sure either case was the right way to address the issue. Clearly Brown thought Plessy was a bad ‘law’. McCain Feingold is a bad law, but it apparently has been upheld as constitutional.

    Baker v. Nelson is the current ruling decision. Good or bad, it sets the rules. That’s why the federal amendment is the issue, to override Baker (that the power is reserved to the states). Logically, an amendment to the Constitution to say it’s a Federal issue would be the route for a pro-SSM decision, instead of ‘judge shopping’.

    Same thing for Age of consent laws. They’re determined by the states. (Well, it’s my understanding the UCMJ trumps states for military personell, but Federal Employee health insurace also ignores all state mandates) You want to change it, you use the legislature and the amendment process, not find a judge to strike it down because it hurts someone’s feelings.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 19, 2012 @ 10:47 am - January 19, 2012

  123. But if marriage is a social institution, constituted by rules agreed to by social consensus, then it becomes possible to say, “We will permit two unrelated consenting adults of the same sex to marry, but not consenting adults who wish to have plural marriage, or who wish to marry their first cousin.”

    Comment by V the K — January 19, 2012 @ 9:52 am – January 19, 2012

    Exactly, V and Heliotrope.

    And if the social consensus can be put together to redefine the institution, as it has been in several other iterations, then so be it; that is the “due process” of which the Fourteenth Amendment speaks.

    But the gay left refuses to build that social consensus. Instead, it just screams that anyone who disagrees is a “racist” — and, as we’ve already seen with Obama’s overplaying of the race card, that merely teaches people that the demands for gay marriage need to be ignored.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 19, 2012 @ 11:33 am - January 19, 2012

  124. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written on this, from his latest book – “This is a matter of ordinary justice. We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about – our very skin. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups.” (page 54) and – “Equally, I cannot keep quiet while people are being penalized for something about which they can do nothing – their sexuality. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as apartheid ever was.” (page 55) Strong words from a great man who has fought against apartheid.

    From the comments on the article about the increasing support for SSM in New Jersey

    http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/01/19/n-j-lawmaker-gay-marriage-nears-veto-proof-support/?mod=google_news_blog

    Comment by rusty — January 19, 2012 @ 2:41 pm - January 19, 2012

  125. Know what, rusty?

    Pedophilia apparently is an uncontrollable biological impulse that people are born with and can do nothing about.

    Wonder how fast Desmond Tutu can flip-flop his argument on that? I bet he can find arguments to say that pedophiles should be forced to control their behavior and be denied marriage to those whom they find sexually attractive. I bet he can find arguments that pedophiles should be celibate. I bet he can explain why these bans and criminal prosecutions are not human rights violations.

    Which makes him a hypocrite.

    And perhaps he can explain to us how he equates behavior, which always carries the potential for change, with skin color, which carries essentially zero potential for change.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 19, 2012 @ 3:22 pm - January 19, 2012

  126. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as apartheid ever was.”

    Close, but no cigar.

    I have looked for Archbishop Desmond TuTu’s endorsement of gay marriage and I have not located it. I find plenty of quotes in which he condemns persecution of gays and I found a letter to the Presbyterian leaders saying he supports their decision to allow gays to be ministers.

    If you know of a statement that TuTu has written which specifically endorses gay marriage, please bring it forward. Otherwise, it would appear that the man’s condemnation of gay persecution is being tied to things he did not specifically say.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 19, 2012 @ 3:32 pm - January 19, 2012

  127. Here is something about Tutu back in 2004

    Bishop Tutu not to endorse gay marriage, prefers ‘blessing unions’
    (AP, April 21, 2004)

    Former South African Archbishop, Desmond Tutu, spoke of equality for gays and lesbians, but stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriage.

    At an honorary degree ceremony held in one of Vancouver’s oldest Churches, the Nobel laureate told the crowd on Tuesday that God draws in all races and groups, including “gay, lesbian, so-called straight.”

    Asked outside the church on his position on same-sex marriage, Tutu, an Anglican, said he “would prefer we didn’t call it marriage.

    “It just causes a lot of hassles. If you say you are blessing a union, I would prefer that. You just raise unnecessary hassles.”

    Comment by rusty — January 19, 2012 @ 6:30 pm - January 19, 2012

  128. Thanks for the responses, Heliotrope, V the K, and Livewire.

    I think I understand now.

    #122

    you believe one is good

    Actually, I believe both are good. I don’t think marriage is a right, and I think it is best reserved for heterosexual couples whose families form the basic foundation of society.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 19, 2012 @ 8:17 pm - January 19, 2012

  129. The point, however, is that gays who “want” the marriage formula changed to drop the one man, one woman construct seem to stick with the one and one part of the construct. Why? What order of common sense ordains that one male and one male is a sensible alteration but plural marriage is not?

    How is that not clear to you? Plural marriage would require a complete reworking of the tax code, of inheritance law, of divorce court, of custody hearings, of insurance rules, of welfare programs, of Social Security…. the entire system would be upended. The only real world, practical alteration that gay marriage requires is the reprinting of some forms – you might as well restart the whole country if you want to implement plural marriage.

    And once again, how much further has the plight of plural marriage supporters advanced since gay marriage started becoming legal in a few states? I might have missed it, but did some Massachusetts judge order the state to legalize plural marriage and cite the gay marriage decision as a precedent? If not, then what the hell are you talking about? You can’t just keep making these predictions Helio, gay marriage is being legalized all over the country and your roster of dire consequences has yet to materialize in any way, shape, or form.

    I have lived through a lot of debates about whether gays should be permitted to adopt children. A lot of sociological hooey was tossed around as if it were “consensus science.” When I read the reasons why plural marriage should be off limits, it is still a lot of consensus science sociological hooey.

    I oppose both gay marriage and plural marriage. But if we are actually going to break open the traditional marriage formula, I would sure hope that we can move from the “want” argument to something substantial to consider. Otherwise, i will stick with the absurdity of what pedophiles “want” and the man-dog crowd “wants” as a means to show the weakness of the argument.

    Apparently, the hypocrisy of a self-avowed, small government conservative that supposedly loves freedom and people’s right to self-determine dismissing what somebody ‘wants’ seems to be lost on you. Especially considering how inconsequential and symbolic it is – these people aren’t asking for free housing or for a bigger slice of your taxes, what they want harms absolutely no one and will never affect you or your life in any way. I mean, isn’t getting what you want what this country is all about? What if somebody were to tell you that because of some arbitrary and insignificant characteristic, you couldn’t get what you wanted? It seems to me that your desire for gay marriage to remain illegal is a ‘want,’ so maybe I’ll blithely dismiss you and ask you for ‘something more substantial to consider.’

    Such a typical religious attitude; ‘The things I care about are hugely important and must take priority at all times, the things that other people care about are secondary and require my approval. I want all marriages to be just like my marriage, and I am not in any way sympathetic to what another kind of person might want in a marriage. So I’ll just make up a bunch of stuff and bring up beastiality over and over again and that will have to settle it because I said so and this is how I was bred to think! I can also reconcile my inability to live and let live with a bunch of hot air about how much I love freedom and personal independence!’

    Comment by Levi — January 20, 2012 @ 3:44 am - January 20, 2012

  130. Whew!

    If it….

    would require a complete reworking of the tax code, of inheritance law, of divorce court, of custody hearings, of insurance rules, of welfare programs, of Social Security…. the entire system would be upended…

    ….then it would be so inconvenient to the government that there is no reason to consider right from wrong, civil rights, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, polygaphobia, anti-Islamicism.

    Sort of like “we can’t free the slaves, because it would be such a mess. They have no citizenship, they have no last names, they have no nothing.”

    With gay marriage, you would have only a partial adjustment of the tax code, of inheritance law, of divorce court, of custody hearings, of insurance rules, of welfare programs, of Social Security….. the entire system would not be upended.

    Also true of child marriage. Also man-beast marriage. Also true of gay “incestuous” marriage. (Just using the “sane” pattern of reasoning set forth as the “common sense” model here.)

    Therefore, in terms of plural marriage, child marriage, man-beast marriage, gay “incestuous” marriage, I can only offer this to Levi:

    what somebody ‘wants’ seems to be lost on you. Especially considering how inconsequential and symbolic it is – these people aren’t asking for free housing or for a bigger slice of your taxes, what they want harms absolutely no one and will never affect you or your life in any way. I mean, isn’t getting what you want what this country is all about?

    Brilliant!

    I mean, isn’t getting what you want what this country is all about? What if somebody were to tell you that because of some arbitrary and insignificant characteristic, you couldn’t get what you wanted?

    This opens a door so wide that it opens endless possibilities for parody. For example, I “want” to be transgendered, but……

    Levi, you see everything through the prism of government. You are so enmeshed in whether the nanny state can handle it, that you have only a utilitarian sense of morality, culture and ethics. You are a diversity pimp, yet, you blithely limit diversity to your highly distorted and bigoted comfort zone.

    Seriously, would you consider reeducation camps for the children of Christian religious people in you ideal nanny state? Sort of like current public education, but ramped up a bit. Do you favor a reservation-type separation for Amish folk or just take their kids aways from them and let the state raise them correctly? Or, would you leave the Amish alone because they are good for the tourist industry and raise taxes.

    I will do all I can to use your model of utilitarian amorality when reading your screeds. That is a promise.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 20, 2012 @ 9:53 am - January 20, 2012

  131. Seriously, would you consider reeducation camps for the children of Christian religious people in you ideal nanny state? Sort of like current public education, but ramped up a bit. Do you favor a reservation-type separation for Amish folk or just take their kids aways from them and let the state raise them correctly? Or, would you leave the Amish alone because they are good for the tourist industry and raise taxes.

    Heliotrope, he answered that question two years ago.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 20, 2012 @ 12:42 pm - January 20, 2012

  132. ….then it would be so inconvenient to the government that there is no reason to consider right from wrong, civil rights, discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, polygaphobia, anti-Islamicism.

    Sort of like “we can’t free the slaves, because it would be such a mess. They have no citizenship, they have no last names, they have no nothing.”

    There are justifiable moral reasons to oppose plural marriage. On the scale of right and wrong, there is definitely a large chasm between child marriage and polygamy, but for these purposes those aren’t even all that necessary to consider. If marriage is going to be something that confers financial benefits and special privileges in this country, a maximum number of participants has to be enforced. Unlike changing the sexes involved, changing the number of people involved really does portend a never-ending series of absurdities. And once more, just because you change one variable in this equation (sex) which is arbitrarily limited for no good reason, doesn’t mean you open the possibility of changing another variable (quantity) which is justifiably limited with good cause.

    With gay marriage, you would have only a partial adjustment of the tax code, of inheritance law, of divorce court, of custody hearings, of insurance rules, of welfare programs, of Social Security….. the entire system would not be upended.

    Also true of child marriage. Also man-beast marriage. Also true of gay “incestuous” marriage. (Just using the “sane” pattern of reasoning set forth as the “common sense” model here.)

    It isn’t true of those things – marriage legalizing those forms of marriage would be in direct conflict with laws that we have on the books for good reasons. You aren’t following the same pattern of reasoning because homosexuality isn’t illegal, whereas child marriage and having sex with animals is. You’re comparing apples and oranges and, for the 6th or 7th time, if these types of marriages are the inevitable consequence of gay marriage, then why haven’t they become legal yet? Gay marriage is legal in a number of jurisdictions in this country and around the world, and the plight of the child molester has not improved.

    At the end of the day, you’re deflecting. The question of whether or not gays should be able to get married is a completely separate question that has nothing to do with whether or not kids, donkeys, and family members should be able to get married. Those questions have been settled by society, and the only reason that gay marriage opponents bring them up is so you can associate homosexuality to these things that are negative and extremely unpopular. You have no legitimate arguments, so you’ve settled on simply using homosexuality and man-on-animal sex in the same sentence as much as you can.

    Therefore, in terms of plural marriage, child marriage, man-beast marriage, gay “incestuous” marriage, I can only offer this to Levi:
    what somebody ‘wants’ seems to be lost on you. Especially considering how inconsequential and symbolic it is – these people aren’t asking for free housing or for a bigger slice of your taxes, what they want harms absolutely no one and will never affect you or your life in any way. I mean, isn’t getting what you want what this country is all about?
    Brilliant!
    I mean, isn’t getting what you want what this country is all about? What if somebody were to tell you that because of some arbitrary and insignificant characteristic, you couldn’t get what you wanted?
    This opens a door so wide that it opens endless possibilities for parody. For example, I “want” to be transgendered, but……

    Now before you go putting words in my mouth because that’s all you’ve got, let me just state that no, I don’t think people should be permitted to kill other people just because they want to. But as a general rule, and as a small government conservative you should believe this as well, people should be free to pursue their wants without unjustifiable interference from the government or their neighbors. You talk about what people ‘want’ as if it’s some petulant whine when it’s actually the cornerstone of our form of government (democracy) and economy (capitalism.) I mean, listen to yourself – ‘I would sure hope that we can move from the “want” argument to something substantial to consider.’ What, have you achieved some higher plane of existence wherein you want for nothing? Who are you to go around telling people that their hopes and dreams require ‘something more substantial to consider?’ Oh, I’m sorry gay people, it isn’t enough for Heliotrope that you want to commit to each other for the rest of your lives, do you have something more substantial for him to consider? People, apparently, just want stuff to be a thorn in your side, I guess? The only wants that really matter are the wants of Christians like yourself, I suppose?

    Levi, you see everything through the prism of government. You are so enmeshed in whether the nanny state can handle it, that you have only a utilitarian sense of morality, culture and ethics. You are a diversity pimp, yet, you blithely limit diversity to your highly distorted and bigoted comfort zone.

    You’ve said it all before. I’m an atheist and so I’m incapable of morality, yeah, yeah. Remind me again, which of us is the war supporter? Remind me again who would like his fellow citizens to have access to healthcare? I’ll take my own set of ethics against the Christian right’s any day of the week.

    Seriously, would you consider reeducation camps for the children of Christian religious people in you ideal nanny state? Sort of like current public education, but ramped up a bit. Do you favor a reservation-type separation for Amish folk or just take their kids aways from them and let the state raise them correctly? Or, would you leave the Amish alone because they are good for the tourist industry and raise taxes.

    I wish people gave their kids a chance to come to their own conclusions. Of course, religion would be eradicated in two generations if that were to happen, and that’s why every religion in human history has made indoctrination from birth a primary responsibility of their adherents. When most people are introduced to religion, their brains haven’t really even begun to develop yet. The world is a confusing place full of hazards, but one overriding impulse exists – ‘trust the parents.’ Religion takes advantage of that instinct (which as an aside, is the product of millions of years of evolution by natural selection) and begins infecting young brains during the earliest stages of their development. By the time you’re capable of abstract thought, you’ve been exposed to a solid decade’s worth of religious propaganda by the people whom you are hardwired to trust implicitly. You’re a convert before you ever knew you had a choice. There isn’t a man, woman, or child alive who came to their religion on their own – that decision was made by their parents, whose parents made the decision for them, and so on and so forth.

    Of course I wouldn’t want to put anyone in camps. Religion is decaying all on its own, it has been for thousands of years.

    I will do all I can to use your model of utilitarian amorality when reading your screeds. That is a promise.

    And I’ll remember that biblical morality endorses the killing of women and children.

    Comment by Levi — January 20, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - January 20, 2012

  133. There are justifiable moral reasons to oppose plural marriage.

    Such as?

    On the scale of right and wrong, there is definitely a large chasm between child marriage and polygamy, but for these purposes those aren’t even all that necessary to consider.

    Shorter Levi: I can’t refute this argument so I’ll ignore it.

    If marriage is going to be something that confers financial benefits and special privileges in this country, a maximum number of participants has to be enforced.

    So Levi does support plural marrage. Since a maximum number of participants need to be ‘enforced’ So apparently now in addition to dragging people kicking and screaming to the future, he wants to drag them to the altar too.

    Unlike changing the sexes involved, changing the number of people involved really does portend a never-ending series of absurdities.

    Because Levi said so. Don’t ask him to provide data, he doesn’t have any.

    And once more, just because you change one variable in this equation (sex) which is arbitrarily limited for no good reason,

    So now Levi has to approve reasons before they can be offered. This is his future, Emperor Levi! (now if only he could move out of his mother’s basement)

    <blockquote<doesn’t mean you open the possibility of changing another variable (quantity) which is justifiably limited with good cause.

    Because I, emperor Levi, declare from my mom’s basement what reasons are justifiable!

    Now hush Levi, adults are talking.

    Comment by The Livewire — January 20, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - January 20, 2012

  134. Thanks, Livewire.

    Plowing through the hills and dales of Levi’s whatever-works-morality is like trying to swallow yourself whole and then returning to your former state by exiting through your navel.

    Levi, have you thought of bunking with Cas and Serenity? There must be room in the basement for the three of you. The manage a trios of moral relativism served with pompous certitude would present endless combinations, permutations and “want-a-thons” and “demand-a-thons.”

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 20, 2012 @ 3:24 pm - January 20, 2012

  135. There are justifiable moral reasons to oppose plural marriage.

    Ah,. but you see, Levi, you have already stated that morality should never be incorporated into law.

    This is why you continue to make a fool of yourself. All Heliotrope and Livewire have to do, which they have been doing masterfully, is to simply require you to apply your “principles” equally to different situations.

    You can’t. Thus we end up with the hilarity of you insisting it is unjustified to write morals into law with your insisting that laws based on morals are justified.

    Because you don’t have “principles” that can be applied equally; you just have the childish tantrum game that anything you want now is right and anything you don’t want now is wrong.

    And that is why you and your Barack Obama are patently unfit for government, Levi. You do not in any way respect the rule of law, because you refuse to follow, enforce, or otherwise acknowledge laws with which you don’t agree or which inconvenience you.

    Classic example.

    And I’ll remember that biblical morality endorses the killing of women and children.

    Comment by Levi — January 20, 2012 @ 12:54 pm – January 20, 2012

    Which is hilarious, Levi, because you endorse and support the killing of women and children RIGHT NOW.

    Indeed, you even want the Federal government to pay for and encourage the killing of children. You want regulations relaxed on abortionists and insist that it would be too much of a burden for them to have to comply with medical regulations and inspections.

    You yourself have stated that there is nothing wrong with killing a child if they are inconvenient. You yourself have said you would kill a child yourself if it would inconvenience you. You yourself have stated that there are ZERO moral concerns with killing children and that anyone who doesn’t support killing children hates women.

    In short, your morality is purely relative. You do not in fact have any morals other than your own personal convenience.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 20, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - January 20, 2012

  136. Thanks, Livewire.

    Plowing through the hills and dales of Levi’s whatever-works-morality is like trying to swallow yourself whole and then returning to your former state by exiting through your navel.

    Levi, have you thought of bunking with Cas and Serenity? There must be room in the basement for the three of you. The manage a trios of moral relativism served with pompous certitude would present endless combinations, permutations and “want-a-thons” and “demand-a-thons.”

    You accuse me of quitting fairly regularly and not answering your questions. I suppose that your endorsement of Livewire’s meaningless post is an indication that you want to quit now, which is fine because you’ve predictably transitioned to endlessly repeating yourself about your divinely inspired moral superiority (which again, includes a God who orders and approves of the slaughter of women and children!). But if I may, I’d like to ask one more time, just for giggles, why your parade of horrifying taboo marriages hasn’t begun in Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington DC, or Amsterdam yet? Isn’t that what gay marriage inevitably leads to, according to your argument? It’s been like 8 years now, do you have an estimate for when the people of Boston are going to start marrying their pets? I must have asked you a half dozen times, and you’ve consistently ignored answering that question. So who is running away now?

    Comment by Levi — January 20, 2012 @ 3:51 pm - January 20, 2012

  137. You accuse me of quitting fairly regularly and not answering your questions.

    Because you do.

    I suppose that your endorsement of Livewire’s meaningless post is an indication that you want to quit now, which is fine because you’ve predictably transitioned to endlessly repeating yourself about your divinely inspired moral superiority (which again, includes a God who orders and approves of the slaughter of women and children!).

    Projection, Levi. You are quitting and running away, so you’re trying to blame Heliotrope.

    I just presented proof that liberals like yourself not only want to slaughter women and children, you want the Federal government to pay for it and to reduce oversight to make it more possible. That’s why you’re running.

    Of course, because you’re a pathetic coward, you try to get one more shot off.

    But if I may, I’d like to ask one more time, just for giggles, why your parade of horrifying taboo marriages hasn’t begun in Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington DC, or Amsterdam yet?

    But it has, Levi.

    All you have to do is read things like Beyond Marriage, which is signed and endorsed by numerous Obama Party members and Obama’s own lesbian puppet Chai Feldblum and agitates for, among other things, marriage for “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”.

    And you can also read the national position statement of the ACLU, which bluntly states that the ACLU is demanding recognition of plural marriage.

    So there’s the proof. The gay and lesbian community, the Obama Party, and “progressive” organizations like the ACLU are already pushing to demand marriages that you swore could never happen.

    So you’re a liar, Levi. That’s why you’re running. Now quit and run away, just like the pathetic little quitter you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 20, 2012 @ 4:56 pm - January 20, 2012

  138. I’d like to ask one more time, just for giggles, why your parade of horrifying taboo marriages hasn’t begun in Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington DC, or Amsterdam yet?

    The Islamists have patience. They will wait until the society is worn down to the point where they can jamb Shari’a down it’s throat and force polygamy and all the rest on the Levi’s and the willing idiots who will bravely tell them

    ….you’ve predictably transitioned to endlessly repeating yourself about your divinely inspired moral superiority (which again, includes a God who orders and approves of the slaughter of women and children!).

    Yeah, that’s you, Levi, taking on radical Islam and tweaking them bravely about gays and women and polygamy and child brides and drawing political cartoons of Muhammed.

    Now let me be clear enough for you understand about Vermont, Massachusetts, Washington DC and Amsterdam.

    Gay marriage is moderately accepted in some areas of the US. (I will comment of Amsterdam separately.*) The DC gay married couple will have no luck with their marriage certificate in Maryland and Virginia. Until a strong majority of states accept gay marriage it is still a special “perk” of a few areas.

    The Sharia Islamists are patiently waiting for the “gay pride” lobby to break down the traditional barrier of one man and one woman. When “gay marriage has become common throughout the US, it will produce the undeniable example that redefining marriage to accommodate the “wants” of a few should be a clear 14th Amendment case for equality of due process to further redefine the “modified” traditional marriage to accommodate the long established religious rights of Islam and permit plural marriage and even child marriage. Get it? Strong precedence.

    Once the 2000 year old (and more) Judeo-Christian marriage code has been overturned, besides you, who can we count on to tell the Islamists that their “wants” and “sky-god-follishness” are not acceptable?

    Out of curiosity (just for grins) have you any stomach whatsoever for standing up to Radical Islam in order to preserve your floating and flexible versions of culture, morality and ethics? Or are you in more of a mood to join up with the winners in order to save your neck and let the “gays” fend for themselves?
    ————
    *That you would mention Amsterdam is evidence of how uninformed you are about the peace and tranquility between Radical Islam and Western culture.

    You might wish to learn something of Geert Wilders, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others before you go whistling “gayly” about Amsterdam’s Islamic quarter.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 20, 2012 @ 6:36 pm - January 20, 2012

  139. and again Levi proves he has nothing but platitudes, since he can provide nothing to back up his statements.

    Now hush Levi, adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 20, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - January 20, 2012

  140. Now hush Levi, adults are talking.

    If it walks like a platitude and talks like a platitude …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 20, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - January 20, 2012

  141. The things I care about are hugely important and must take priority at all times, the things that other people care about are secondary and require my approval.

    Yep, that’s the gay left.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 20, 2012 @ 7:52 pm - January 20, 2012

  142. Dan, If someone compares gays to pedophiles, then, yes, I would say that person is a hateful person (a passive, rather than aggressive form of hate). Kudos to you for taking the high road with Santorum, but, if he is not a hateful person, then he needs to reconsider how he expresses his anti-marriage-equality views, because he isn’t merely communicating a “public policy difference,” he is conveying something all together different.

    A person can argue for traditional marriage based on the tenet of “if it’s broke, don’t fix it,” tradition, etc. I get that. But, gays have been raising productive, civilized, contributing members of society for quite a while now. They’ve supplied examples of how they have assimilated into the social familial contracts wildly understood to be exclusively heterosexual.

    Polygamy has provided many examples of quite the opposite, namely involving forced marriage, underage marriage and sodomy. If that’s not the case, then it’s time for a better PR rep. Polygamy has a long history and it’s not flattering.

    For someone to use the slippery slope argument that includes incest and pedophilia equally against both gay marriage and polygamy is unfair, disingenuous and inappropriate. The two are apples and oranges.

    Santorum needs to do a little bit more soul-searching and understanding of where he’s coming from before the unhateful part of him will emerge for all to see. It seems to me that he’s completely unaware of how he comes across.

    Conversely, Dan Savage can be very openly hateful in how he comes across in his words and arguing tactics. I’ll be quite honest, I often find myself agreeing with what he has to say. He’s a very intelligent person. And sometimes he even makes me laugh. Furthermore, I can empathize with where he is coming from. That being said, it doesn’t change the way he can come across as hateful. I find it a big turn-off and I don’t listen to him or read his column as much as I used to.

    No contest, Savage is more outwardly hateful than Santorum. However, hate doesn’t come in just one form. Hate can be passive, just as much as it can be aggressive.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 20, 2012 @ 7:57 pm - January 20, 2012

  143. People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.

    There is absolutely no reasoning with someone like this (Levi). I won’t try any more.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 20, 2012 @ 8:15 pm - January 20, 2012

  144. Vince,

    Why should “incest” be any sort of qualifier in gay marriage? On what basis is it “icky” for loving brothers to earnestly love one another and form a same sex union and seek gay marriage?

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 20, 2012 @ 9:48 pm - January 20, 2012

  145. Vince,

    How is it disingenuous? SSM advocates just want to change marriage to allow two men to ‘marry’. Pro-incest just want to change marriage to allow two cousins to marry. Polygamists just want to change marriage to increase the number from two. Paedophile marriage advocates just want to lower the age of consent, which, after all, is a legal construct same as government recognition of marriage.

    So how is it different? As to ‘there is no slippery slope’, I suggest you refresh yourself on Griswold v Connecticut.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 20, 2012 @ 10:45 pm - January 20, 2012

  146. Thanks for your responses.

    However, in the past, Helio challenged me to provide a convincing argument for gay marriage. It got me thinking. Gay couples have been providing positive examples of productive, contributing families in our society for decades. The examples only get stronger and higher in numbers as time goes on.

    Polygamy has been around for centuries. More recent examples can be found in offshoots of the LDS. In many of those scenarios, we don’t find healthy examples of contributing, positive families. We see under-age marriage (which you don’t find in gay couples), you see incest (which I don’t understand is a pervasive problems within gay families) and we see rape of minors.

    Santorum compared gay marriage to polygamy. I didn’t. Santorum compared gay marriage to incest. I didn’t. Santorum compared gay marriage to child molestation. I didn’t.

    If he wants to compare polygamy to incest and child molestation, he’s more than welcome, as there are many examples. Gay marriage is in a totally different league.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 21, 2012 @ 12:18 am - January 21, 2012

  147. Bravo CS

    Comment by rusty — January 21, 2012 @ 2:39 am - January 21, 2012

  148. Vince,

    The polygamy issue is not an issue that ties into LDS.

    Warren Jeffs is more like the David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the Heaven’s Gate Hale-Bopp Comet religious cults. Jeffs’ happened to twist the Mormon religion to feed his ego.

    Vince, you would object, and rightfully so, if someone were to pick the worst cases of gay marriage and gay adoption gone wrong as instructive of how to view gay marriage and gay adoption in general.

    There are long histories of plural marriage throughout the world that can stand up to scrutiny in their time and place.

    We have a cultural aversion to polygamy. If we can be “big enough” to change our cultural aversion to gay marriage, why would we not do the same for polygamy.

    As a matter of fact, why would you oppose polygamous gay marriage? The answer, I suggest, would be on strictly cultural grounds. And since gay marriage is breaking a long-standing cultural “taboo” then any reluctance to break the polygamy “taboo” is no different.

    Modern incest rules have biology and defective children at their core. That is of no consequence whatsoever in a gay partnership as all gay sex is a biological dead end. Therefore, any objection is purely a cultural aversion and it falls to the same argument I expressed concerning polygamy.

    I am not up to speed on just how (context) Santorum compared gay marriage to incest, child molestation and polygamy. Furthermore, I do not have any reason to defend Santorum, except if he is being oversimplified and misrepresented.

    The way I am reading your words is that Santorum finds gay marriage as reprehensible as child molestation. If Santorum has said that, then I think his perspective is wildly out of whack.

    Can you provide a link to the statements Santorum has made that would include the context in which he made them?

    Santorum is a devout Catholic. If he has jumped from hating the sin to also hating the sinner, he has some really heavy baggage to clear up on the Vatican level.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 9:07 am - January 21, 2012

  149. Well Helio, it’s quite the pivot to go from hysterically prognosticating animial marriage to ridiculously doom-saying about Sharia law. I mean, what have we been arguing about this whole time? Has this been your real concern the whole time, or are you worried about Sharia in addition to all these other things you’ve been warning against?

    I just don’t know what to tell you at this point. If your concern is that there is some kind of meaningful Sharia law constituency that could conceivably acquire enough power to implement their religious edicts as the law of the land, you’re beyond being reasoned with. Who knows, maybe it would happen? While we’re at it, maybe the scientologists will have enough influence to one day rewrite the Constitution and force us all to read L. Ron Hubbard books. Maybe witches will take over and there will be witch marriage!

    All these bizarre hypothetical scenarios are enough to prevent you from supporting gay marriage, I understand. But certainly you can recognize that the writing is on the wall, and that as the older generations die off, gay marriage is going to become an accepted universal in this country, available in all 50 states. So does that mean we are on the schedule of a kind of gay marriage doom clock? Are you promising that gay marriage is ultimately what brings this country down? Or maybe, you’d be willing to entertain the idea that none of your crazy nonsense comes to pass at all?

    Comment by Levi — January 21, 2012 @ 10:44 am - January 21, 2012

  150. Poor Levi, you can’t comprehend even basic logic.

    So what follows will fly right past Levi, but for others who may read my words I offer the following:

    I oppose gay marriage on cultural Judeo-Christian grounds. I support civil unions as a reasonable solution to untangling actions of the state which complicate life between two same sex individuals who live a life as if they were able to marry.

    Shorter version: Marriage is between one man and one woman. Civil Unions provide a special access to gay couples in terms of the law.

    Nowhere have I read any compelling reason for the redefinition of marriage. The flaw in all “reasoning” I have read stems from the fact that no gay or lesbian is barred from marrying. I repeat, any gay or lesbian is protected under the 14th Amendment and the due process rights. The “reasoning” is always about what somebody “wants.” In the case of gays or lesbians, the “want” is a same sex spouse.

    When one insists on making laws to accommodate “wants” we are immediately treated to all the demons let loose from Pandora’s box. Somehow, a hierarchy has emerged which assumes that redefinition of marriage to accommodate gays is right and just and all other nature of people with “wants” for marriage redefinition are nuts and to be denied.

    This form of reasoning denies the essence of our justice system. This is the type of reasoning that mandated that a black can not marry a white. We all look at “Loving” and wonder how such bigotry could have been so enshrined in our legal system. (“Loving” involved two people meeting every marriage requirement except the “extraneous” statute barring interracial marriage.) “Loving” is an example of society permitting government discrimination based on race.

    So, is homosexuality a culturally benign characteristic akin to race? Are gays just like everybody else. I would suggest that in terms of being left alone to their privacy and being protected by the 14th Amendment and the due process of the laws the answer is “yes.” In terms of whether the definition of marriage “discriminates” against homosexuals I would say “no.” Marriage is not denied. It is the formula that is in question.

    That formula includes factors of numbers of spouses, age, kinship and mental stability. If the sex of the partners in the formula is up for change, what, pray tell, means the other parts of the formula are not?

    Admittedly, I do have a strong resistance to all things that motivate radical Islam. How anyone could watch the “Arab Spring” unfold and not smell the death of to the Copts, Christians and Jews is amazing. Dearbornistan is carefully testing the resistance of the system to accommodate Shari’a. That some can ignore the growing occurrence of “honor killings” in our country is to be willfully complicit. How liberal gays, in particular, can see radical Islam as just another funky religion is breathtaking.

    But, to the chucklehead crowd, just repeating talking points overwhelms any sense of reason of any reason of “common sense.” That’s why they are chuckleheads.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - January 21, 2012

  151. If we can be “big enough” to change our cultural aversion to gay marriage, why would we not do the same for polygamy.

    Polygamy has had centuries to do it and has failed to do so. Gay marriage has done it in a comparatively shorter period of time, because it has assimilated. If gay marriage had issues with incest, child molestation and rape of minors more, equal (or even less than, considering the scrutiny gays face, as, currently, the onus is on the gays to prove themselves worthy of marriage) to traditional marriage, then, we wouldn’t be witnessing such an exponential climb to cultural acceptance.

    Gay marriages aren’t as different from traditional marriage as many think. Scientific advances and untraditional ways of bringing children into families (both traditional and gay) have placed less emphasis on procreation as the only means of doing so. Adoption, fertility drugs, surrogates, foster care, etc are the many ways of building a family. Perhaps they are more difficult or involved than the act of procreation, but they are no less meaningful in taking raising a child to be a positive, contributing member of society.

    Gender role arguments (i.e. traditional mother/father roles) don’t hold very strongly in the face of single parents everywhere (for whatever reason: a grandparent being the only figure available, deceased spouses, dead-beat dads/moms), traditional marriages with either or both parents who physically/sexually abuse their children, etc. If you asked the average kid if they’d rather be raised by two parents of the same gender who loved them, provided food and shelter, taught them to believe in themselves and offered them an overall fun, safe and educational childhood over two parents of opposite gender who either couldn’t offer those things and/or something much worse, my guess would be the average kid, gay and straight, would choose the former. As would I.

    Helio, I find your views of incest objectionable. Biology has very little to do with it. The act of of a parent having sex with a child is proven to screw a child up psychologically, regardless fo the gender of the parent. I find it questionable (and, well, offensive, though, I hope I’m misinterpreting you somehow) for you to concentrate solely on the biological ramifications. At the core isn’t what results biologically; at the core, is the damage done to the child being molested, pure and simple. Not to forget, it’s a bloody violation of their physical bodies.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 21, 2012 @ 1:24 pm - January 21, 2012

  152. Vince,

    Incest is not only about children. I am not certain what I wrote that implies that incest is limited to sex between a parent and child (adopted, scientifically gardened or naturally born.)

    Incest is sexual intercourse between blood relatives. Period. The concept revolves around inbreeding which often results in congenital birth defects.

    While incest is a nearly universal taboo, what is not universal is where the “close kinship” line disappears. In many places, consensual sex between adult siblings is considered a victimless crime and not of interest to the state. The assumption, I suppose, is that consenting adult siblings are keen enough to avoid pregnancy.

    I have no issue with your disgust for incest with a child. Nor am I an advocate for incest.

    Here is my issue in a nutshell: Gay sex is a total dead end activity. (I am not talking about a gay guy walking his semen down to the fertility clinic for use by a lesbian. Nor am I talking about a lesbian getting a semen donation and firing into the uterus of her mate with a turkey baster. I am limiting my definition of “sex” to be what the average raccoon or humpbacked whale can carry off.)

    Gay sex is biologically benign. Therefore, having sex with several willing partners is only a variation of lust and not associated in any manner with procreation. Having gay sex with a close relative is also biologically benign.

    Clearly, if one gay partner is inclined toward monogamy, then for psychological health, the other partner should probably be so inclined as well.

    But, from a purely rational perspective, if a group of gays wish to marry and include a few close kin the mix, I can not think of why they should be denied the permission.

    I also agree with you that recent history has seen a great deal of cultural acceptance of gays in general and a growing indifference toward whether gays should be permitted to form same sex marriages. As a result of this opening up of cultural acceptance, I have joined with those favoring civil unions for gays.

    But I am not blind to what clever lawyers and gay activists can use as precedence to overturn the institution of marriage entirely.

    Many, many, many commenters on this site have already expressed their opinion that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely and let marriage just be a quaint custom some enter into by way of their church.

    I, too, have asked on this site many times if we have reached the point where there is no compelling state reason to regulate marriage. That is to say, throw out all the laws that involve marriage. Let all children be bastards on their own from birth. Let every individual hold property individually and disperse of it according to his wishes alone. Let there be no legal benefit of any sort to any form of union between two or more people.

    You think it through. Opening marriage to same sex partners is a major shift in culture, ethics and morality. Our legal system was predicated on a lot of cultural understandings about the institution of marriage and those understandings would necessarily be open to reexamination to see how they mesh or conflict with the new definition of marriage. I do not oppose that from the standpoint that it “inconveniences” the state. I do oppose gay marriage because I do not see how it improves the culture, the ethic, the morality of the existing order.

    These are not “welcomed” thoughts on a site such as this. I do not mean to be obnoxious. But I think it is fair for those who dislike my thoughts to have a clear statement of my reasoning. I heartily welcome thoughtful debate.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - January 21, 2012

  153. Helio, I hear your argument. However, I will reiterate, gay marriage has been the only “non-traditional” scenario in the sea of tabbos, unlike polygamy, that has proven to be beneficial to society. Sibling coupling is an anomaly at best which hasn’t provided proven any social benefit and, biologically, has proven the opposite. I will reiterate again that societies are built and sustained not by procreation only.

    However, I see the benefit for society to offer civil unions for all. I see the benefit for society to encourage two consenting adults to enjoy certain rewards for entering a legally recognized committed relationship and raising children. Marriage has provided that institution for opposite-sex partners and has been a proven example for offering such a contract to two consenting adults. Gay-marrieds, unlike any other “taboo” have assimilated to this construct exponentially more successfully than any other without even being offered the full benefit and recognition of traditional marriage.

    Yet, tens of millions of Americans argue over the sanctity of that one word, despite the long-running tradition of martial laws’ violation of church and state and the long-running tradition that, technically, gay marriage had always been legal, until the recent unconstitutional legislative and propositional actions to outlaw it.

    If it was always going to be one man and woman procreating to propagate the species, then it would have remained that way. We’ve evolved beyond that. By not renouncing fertility drugs, surrogates and the like, one accepts that propagating the species has moved beyond one man and one woman having intercourse. Once we started and accepted science extracting eggs and sperm from the body, once we accepted tinkering with the basic math of procreation, all bets were off. To use a surrogate is sinful (was not Ishmael a bastard child who served as a lack of belief in God’s will and covenant?), to use fertility drugs is sinful, therefore anyone married who engages in such practices are sinful and their marriages are a slap in the face to God. To denounce gay marriage on grounds that it’s unholy would negate one to denounce any kind of procreational enhancement.

    If we were to rely solely on good-old fashioned unadulterated missionary position sex without any scientific influences, considering the diseases and chemicals we face today, I imagine man’s numbers would be dwindling to the point of the scenario visited in the film Children of Men with one pregnant woman left on this planet. While it’s a science-fiction premise and the 2027 setting seems rather extremely premature, it’s not a scenario that I would find surprising if we lived in a world without procreational enhancements like fertility drugs. We’re a dying species without evolution.

    Gay marriage, like fertility-drugged induced pregnancy, would not be possible without the evolving of the species.

    “Monogamy is the state of higher evolution … with the right person.” Friday Night Lights

    Comment by Cinesnatch — January 21, 2012 @ 3:37 pm - January 21, 2012

  154. Vince,

    However, I see the benefit for society to offer civil unions for all.

    I am not sure what you mean by this. But as an aside, those who debate me on the civil union idea think it is a slippery slope that will open up civil unions to other currently “taboo” partnership combinations and proclivities. My “rebuttal” is that society has to be convinced of the “worthiness” of the application before membership in the civil union club is approved. Thus, you maintain the definition of marriage, but you offer an “accommodation” based on statute and how the union benefits the state.

    technically, gay marriage had always been legal

    This can not possibly be so. There are very, very clever gay lawyers and it does them a disservice to imply that they can not get a “technicality” cleared up.

    If it was always going to be one man and woman procreating to propagate the species, then it would have remained that way. We’ve evolved beyond that.

    Bad choice of word here. The biology of procreation has not evolved. Test tube babies are possible because of man’s ingenious mind. Perhaps science will discover a way to clone a baby from a strand of human hair. But that is not evolution in any sense of the term.

    As to the fertility business, I suspect you would agree that the Octo-mom is not a miracle of science so much as she has used technology for less than moral, cultural, ethical, sensible, loving, thoughtful, admirable, role modeling, purposes. She is a narcissist who abused the beauty of science. Now, I do not propose shutting down fertility clinics because she went over the top. I offer her up as an example of how smug we can be and how ham handed we can be when we deign to play God. She has presented the state with a licensing and regulatory nightmare only because she is the poster child for reckless irresponsibility. By over-extending her womb, she has invited the state into her womb.

    Furthermore, we have every reason to go slow on cloning, growing body parts, farming body parts, selling access to willing, vacant wombs, etc. This is a huge arena for considering ethics.

    What you hail as the Brave New World of substitute biology is not as it seems. Court cases arise over the parental right to frozen sperm and cases where an implanted, fertilized egg produced an “unsatisfactory” child. When artificial procreation is accompanied by all manner of legal understandings, the state is dragged into a very murky area of what was once just the miracle of birth.

    I am not so swayed nor impressed by the science of man in this area. That is why I referred to the raccoons and the humpbacked whale. Unless they are being interfered with in a zoo, they are left strictly to their natural instincts.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - January 21, 2012

  155. Polygamy has had centuries to do it and has failed to do so. Gay marriage has done it in a comparatively shorter period of time, because it has assimilated.

    Actually, if you look at cultures across the world, polygamy in its various forms wins out handily over monogamy of any form.

    Gay-sex marriage, on the other hand? Ha.

    Gender role arguments (i.e. traditional mother/father roles) don’t hold very strongly in the face of single parents everywhere (for whatever reason: a grandparent being the only figure available, deceased spouses, dead-beat dads/moms), traditional marriages with either or both parents who physically/sexually abuse their children, etc. If you asked the average kid if they’d rather be raised by two parents of the same gender who loved them, provided food and shelter, taught them to believe in themselves and offered them an overall fun, safe and educational childhood over two parents of opposite gender who either couldn’t offer those things and/or something much worse, my guess would be the average kid, gay and straight, would choose the former. As would I.

    That says it all; the only way in which gay-sex couplings can be seen as equal to heterosexual ones is if one compares the best possible gay-sex couplings to the worst of heterosexual ones — single or abusive parents.

    Unfortunately, society does its best to discourage abusive parents and single parenting. So why would we want to encourage a relationship that its proponents like Cinesnatch insist is just as bad for society?

    The problem is, Cinesnatch, you can’t make an honest comparison between gay-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, because opposite-sex marriage is clearly superior in every regard societally. Hence your obsession with trying to pick nits and tear down opposite-sex marriage; you have nothing positive to offer with gay-sex marriage, so your only hope is to make opposite-sex marriage look bad.

    This is what makes your self-centeredness transparently obvious. It is in EVERYONE’S interest to support heterosexual parenthood, fidelity, and responsibility and to set up structures, both social and legal, to facilitate and encourage it. If heterosexual parenthood were pushed to perfection, there would BE no “unwanted” or foster kids.

    You don’t seem to recognize that fact. You don’t seem to recognize the value of marriage to society at all; you only see something you don’t have and want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 21, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - January 21, 2012

  156. To use a surrogate is sinful (was not Ishmael a bastard child who served as a lack of belief in God’s will and covenant?), to use fertility drugs is sinful, therefore anyone married who engages in such practices are sinful and their marriages are a slap in the face to God. To denounce gay marriage on grounds that it’s unholy would negate one to denounce any kind of procreational enhancement.

    Completely untrue.

    First off, the issue with Ishmael was Abraham and Sarai’s disobedience and lack of faith. Indeed, as one reads in Genesis 16, 17, and 25, God blessed Ishmael and his mother Hagar, and indeed out of Ishmael’s birth God brought many great things.

    This is the problem, Cinesnatch. You have the typical liberal issue of judging the worth of a child by the circumstance of their birth and insisting that nothing good could come of a child being born under less than desirable circumstances. Christians and conservatives emphasize that great things and good things are always possible regardless of the circumstances of one’s birth, and the greatest evil is to judge and destroy life before it has even happened.

    Second, the use of fertility drugs is allowed when they are used to treat ovulatory and hormonal dysfunction. However, procedures that wholly separate or confuse the marital relationship relative to children, i.e. surrogacy, and ones that involve producing multiple fertilized embryos that are not all implanted or subjected to a process that has a very high likelihood of killing them, i.e. freezing, are not allowed.

    This is where the belief of liberals that Christians are “anti-science” gets in the way of discussion. If anything, Catholics in particular have successfully used scientific studies and techniques, such as improvements in fertility detection and hormonal balancing, to facilitate matters for couples that are having difficulty conceiving. Lutherans, such as in my denomination, have developed guidelines for when IVF can be considered and used and worked with fertility specialists to develop techniques that balance what can be done with what is acceptable from an ethical standpoint.

    Furthermore, what both Catholic and Lutheran denominations have focused upon is that would-be parents who are having difficulty conceiving must, MUST receive counseling to evaluate exactly why they would like to have a baby, the implications, and the stability of their relationship, in addition to fertility assistance. In other words, they use the infertility as a chance to evaluate, take a deep breath, and be sure you are ready for a child before you start trying everything to produce one — because the welfare of the child can and must be paramount.

    Notice that difference. Liberalism advocates having the sex and killing the baby. Conservativism and Christians emphasize thinking through what you’re doing before you have the sex, and will not facilitate procedures that kill children or open the very real possibility of marital discord.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 21, 2012 @ 6:53 pm - January 21, 2012

  157. NDT,

    I am humbled. Years ago, I decided (as a coward) not to argue on the basis of scripture or to defend my Christian beliefs when confronting issues of state in the daily comings and goings in the public square.

    You have addressed the issues from a religious standpoint brilliantly.

    When someone like Senility quotes scripture, I cringe at the realization that I have no energy for taking a numbskull to task. That means, I have sheathed my sword and left the arena.

    In a world where morality is more and more based in the “common sense” of pimps, reprobates and mildly educated egoists there is an ever greater call for those who will “gird their loins” and meet them head on.

    Bravo! to you for taking the stand in what they (the amoral and moral relativists) see as sky-cloud bull feathers.

    Go with God, God bless you and thanks for being there.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 21, 2012 @ 9:07 pm - January 21, 2012

  158. Heliotrope, you’re handling Vince quite nicely (no innuendo intended) but I do find two of his statements at cross purposes.

    First, he argues that polygamy has a long history of failure. By what standards? i’d point out that I know some polyamourus couples (a married couple and their ‘extended family’) that have outlasted my two marriages. By that standard, It’s 2-0 Polygamy.

    But the plural of anecdote is not ‘data’.

    At the same time, Vince says that SSM has ‘proven itself’ in record time. I have to wonder what basis he uses for comparison.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - January 22, 2012

  159. The idea that SSM has “proven itself” in record time, I suspect comes from the gaggle you walk with. When you, your friends and associates generally agree about SSM, it is probably fairly easy to project that there is a groundswell out there agreeing with you.

    Comment by Heliotrope — January 23, 2012 @ 8:23 am - January 23, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.