Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Republicans support the GOP because we believe our party is right on most (but not all) things

On Sunday, when I was celebrating Gay Pride in West Hollywood and relaxing with a friend at Universal Studios in the Valley, gay voices in the blogosphere (and on Facebook) were abuzz about Frank Bruni’s New York Times Op-Ed “The G.O.P.’s Gay Trajectory” which focused on a billionaire hedge fund manager Paul E. Singer’s new American Unity PAC, whose “sole mission will be to encourage Republican candidates to support same-sex marriage, in part by helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

What struck me about the piece was that Bruni gave Singer the last word, putting forward a notion which is only now gaining currency:

One Republican who unequivocally opposes marriage equality [sic]* is the man Singer backs for president: Mitt Romney. Does that trouble Singer?

“I feel very strongly that Obama needs to be fired, and that the Republicans are right on most things,” he said, adding that with continued work on marriage equality [sic], he expects to persuade more Republicans of its rightness, too.

I think it would be naïve of me to take this issue and just upend everything else I believe,” he said. “Because I think we’re making progress.”

Emphasis added.  This is what I have been hearing gay Republicans say for as long as I have been out as a gay Republican, that we continue to support the GOP because overall even as we disagree with our party on some issues.

Until recently, we have regretted that there has been no national organization making that simply point clearly.  Things seem to have changed when GOProud set up shop.  Even Log Cabin now is beginning to sound like Paul Singer.

*By my count, Bruni used the troublesome expression, “marriage equality,” twelve times (including once when quoting the head of HRC), but never once quotes Mr. Singer using the term.

Share

44 Comments

  1. I would put it differently. Not that Republicans are right about most things, but that Republicans are more right about the important things. They are right that Government spending needs to be reduced. They are right that excessive Government interference is bad for the economy. They are right that the USA needs a strong military to defend our interests. They are right that these important things trump the fashionable social issues of the day.

    And there was a time, before they became the party of deranged Euro-socialists, that Democrats would also have agreed that these were important things.

    Comment by V the K — June 12, 2012 @ 7:42 am - June 12, 2012

  2. The GOP gay trajectory

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/the-gops-gay-trajectory.xml

    Comment by rusty — June 9, 2012 @ 10:38 am – June 9, 2012. http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=49014

    Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul E. Singer, 67, is a marriage equality supporter with the mounted bucks to prove it. Recently, he raised more than $1 million for Marriage Equality New York. The end result of that nationally-publicized campaign: same-sex marriage in the Empire State

    http://theseattlelesbian.com/gop-billionaire-paul-singer-creates-super-pac-to-endorse-marriage-equality-and-mitt-romney/

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 8:48 am - June 12, 2012

  3.  “It’s absolutely necessary…We will never win marriage equality without bipartisan support.”
    Paul Singer

    http://www.afer.org/blog/one-of-the-most-important-republican-donors-is-on-a-mission-marriage-equality/

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 8:53 am - June 12, 2012

  4. [...] GayPatriot: Gay Republicans support the GOP because we believe our party is right on most (but not all) things [...]

    Pingback by Morning Coffee Links | Liberty News Network — June 12, 2012 @ 10:13 am - June 12, 2012

  5. Why does the issue of gay marriage needs to be nationalized? Does the GOP believe in States rights to some degree or do we think the Federal Government should start issuing marriage certificates?

    I believe the Democrats have made gay mariage a partisan issue when it is really an issue that the huge majority of religious believers have their concerns.

    Comment by anon23532 — June 12, 2012 @ 10:36 am - June 12, 2012

  6. It is part of the nature of the argument that marriage has been nationalized. One of the arguments to DOMA’s legality is that congress may determine how and if Full Faith and Credit may be applied. That is a federal issue. Baker v. Nelson being the controlling precident says that the states may determine what counts as ‘marriage’. The mess of the 9th circus’ decision aside, that’s the precident.

    For the state issues, it seems the purpose of the PAC is to support the state senator (for example) that would support the referrundum to repeal Ohio’s DOMA since it is assumed he’d lose support from social conservatives.

    Likewise, for the Federal level, it sounds like the PAC is for conservatives who oppose DOMA for a variety of reasons, whether it be support for SSM, feeling that DOMA is an unconstitutional overreach, or feeling that it’s just an overreach. (Just because something is constitutional, doesn’t make it a good idea to do).

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 12, 2012 @ 11:09 am - June 12, 2012

  7. More on that Trajectory. . .Carrie Underwood and Jimmy

    “As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love and want to marry,” Underwood told the Independent. “I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”

    Raised a Baptist and known for hits including “Jesus Take the Wheel,” the singer told the paper she and husband Mike Fisher, who plays for the NHL’s Nashville Predators, now attend a nondenominational, “gay-friendly” Christian church. Underwood’s outlook is similar to that of singer and Broadway star Kristin Chenoweth, another devout heterosexual Christian from the South who is sympathetic to gay issues.

    “Good for her,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, co-founder and executive director of GOProud, an organization that bills itself as “the voice of gay conservatives and their straight allies.”

    “You know, Carrie Underwood isn’t any different from anyone else in America,” LaSalvia said Monday in an e-mail to The Times. “The more Americans think about how issues affect their gay friends and family the more they come to realize that supporting same-sex civil marriage is the right thing to do. More and more people are coming to that conclusion — and that includes conservative Christians.

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 3:35 pm - June 12, 2012

  8. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-carrie-underwood-gay-marriage,0,7333550.story

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - June 12, 2012

  9. “As a married person myself, I don’t know what it’s like to be told I can’t marry somebody I love and want to marry,” Underwood told the Independent. “I can’t imagine how that must feel. I definitely think we should all have the right to love, and love publicly, the people that we want to love.”

    LOL.

    When she says that she gives that same right to everyone else, including pedophiles, then she can talk.

    And if she or anyone else objects, I will simply point out that she whines and cries that anyone who tries to judge “love” or says that anything other than “love” should be the guiding force in marriage law is a bigot, and that she can’t imagine how people can be denied the “right” to marry whom they “love”.

    These people haven’t thought through a word they are saying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2012 @ 4:38 pm - June 12, 2012

  10. you hit is on the head again NDT. . .These people

    “You know, Carrie Underwood isn’t any different from anyone else in America,” LaSalvia said Monday in an e-mail to The Times. “The more Americans think about how issues affect their gay friends and family the more they come to realize that supporting same-sex civil marriage is the right thing to do. More and more people are coming to that conclusion — and that includes conservative Christians.

    I think that be Jimmy LaSalvia, friend and cohort of Chris Barron, that boy who married his BOYfriend.

    Got it, NDT, you hit the nail on the head again!

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 4:44 pm - June 12, 2012

  11. I think that be Jimmy LaSalvia, friend and cohort of Chris Barron, that boy who married his BOYfriend.

    Got it, NDT, you hit the nail on the head again!

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 4:44 pm – June 12, 2012

    LOL, so?

    Both Chris and Jimmy know I disagree with them. They don’t particularly care or think less of me for doing so, nor do I think less of them.

    You betray so much about your psychology with your citations, rusty — namely that you think citing someone on “your side” who disagrees with you should shut you up.

    That’s because in your case, it does. You have been conditioned since day one that gay and lesbian “unity” is more important than principles or values, and you have also seen numerous examples of how your fellow gays and lesbians treat people who dare to buck that “unity”.

    Gay conservatives operate under no such constraints. In fact, we ARE gay conservatives because we consider principle to be more important than “unity” and one’s character to be more important than their minority characteristics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2012 @ 5:17 pm - June 12, 2012

  12. “This is what I have been hearing gay Republicans say for as
    long as I have been out as a gay Republican, that we continue
    to support the GOP because overall even as we disagree with
    our party on some issues.”

    Setting aside that the sentence seems to be missing a few words,
    I get your point. And the same is true of most gay people I know
    who don’t vote Republican; they find the (Democratic) alternative
    overall better than voting Republican. That is, it’s not just a
    matter of gay-specific issues; it’s everything else also.

    Comment by Tom1729 — June 12, 2012 @ 5:29 pm - June 12, 2012

  13. I guess the whole point is that I really don’t care if you disagree with me , either. No Big Deal NDT. and that’s ok.

    Not really concerned about draggin you over the fence. Your feet are firmly planted in your beliefs. Kudos to you.

    And precisely to the point. Conservatives are moving toward SSM because of their principles and their own beliefs.

    It will certainly be ok for you to be the curmudgeon in the corner of the room. For it isn’t just gay folk, right-center-left, pushing for SSM. . .
    it’s their parent’s, grandparent’s, friends, church folk . . .etc. who are moving SSM forward. Peter Thiel – Paul Singer – Ken Mehlman – Dick Cheney.

    And like Singer pointed out, it will happen and will happen with bipartisan support.

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - June 12, 2012

  14. I HATE the term “marriage equality.”

    And the same is true of most gay people I know
    who don’t vote Republican; they find the (Democratic) alternative
    overall better than voting Republican. That is, it’s not just a
    matter of gay-specific issues; it’s everything else also.

    Then why do so many gays call gay conservatives “quislings” and other things? I suppose they are likely a small minority of gay people, but they certainly either don’t give very much importance to non-gay-specific issues or they just can’t ever support anything that is remotely conservative for no reason other than it is conservative.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — June 12, 2012 @ 5:56 pm - June 12, 2012

  15. It will certainly be ok for you to be the curmudgeon in the corner of the room.

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 5:30 pm – June 12, 2012

    LOL.

    You don’t have an intelligent argument, rusty. You just have your “look at this movie star, you’re a curmudgeon if you disagree, you’re on the wrong side of history, you hate love”, etc.

    And that shows the total vapidity of your cause.

    Which is typical. People endorse vapid, feel-good things with no intellect behind them all the time; that’s why Barack Obama is president.

    But, as with most things liberals push, they essentially require one to believe that the accumulated wisdom of human millenia is worthless, that everyone who came before you is an idiot, and that you are so much smarter and better-informed that you can throw everything out in favor of your whim of the moment.

    Moreover, conservatives are also aware that the same people who are pushing all of these liberalizations will never actually take accountability for their consequences. For example, liberals demanded that the “shame” be removed from pre-marital and non-marital promiscuity and that it be institutionalized and celebrated by Hollywood — then acted surprised why we had all this child poverty in single-parent families and a skyrocketing abortion rate.

    Moreover, you’ve got to be kidding. Lethal diseases didn’t stop you from being promiscuous and irresponsible; should we believe marriage would make you any different, especially when your leader Dan Savage rants that monogamy is “hurtful” and that married couples should be more promiscuous?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - June 12, 2012

  16. Yeah, that endorsement . . .Singer . . . People endorse vapid, feel-good things.

    All those other vapid endorsements. . .Ric Grenell, Dick Cheney, Peter Thiel, Ken Mehlman

    Guess that whole GOP GAY MARRIAGE TRAJECTORY THINGY. . .

    wishful thinking. giggle giggle

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 6:07 pm - June 12, 2012

  17. http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/04/17/conservative-superhero/

    comment # 2

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 6:12 pm - June 12, 2012

  18. Rusty, nice quote by Carrie Underwood. Always good to have support from all corners. Like most people, I didn’t interpret her statement to be an endorsement of pedophelia either. I’m guessing that includes Jimmy DeSalvia and Chris Barron. It’s almost as if they believe marriage involves two consenting adults, not one. Go figure.

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2012 @ 6:33 pm - June 12, 2012

  19. Go Figure!. Hugz Pat!

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 7:29 pm - June 12, 2012

  20. All those other vapid endorsements. . .Ric Grenell, Dick Cheney, Peter Thiel, Ken Mehlman

    Comment by rusty — June 12, 2012 @ 6:07 pm – June 12, 2012

    Once again, rusty, you miss the point.

    First, yes, in my opinion, those people are making endorsement of a vapid, feel-good thing.

    And second, the supreme irony of seeing Obama and gay-sex marriage supporters trying to champion these people, Dick Cheney in particular, who they have compared to the Nazis is not lost.

    Now, for Pat.

    Like most people, I didn’t interpret her statement to be an endorsement of pedophelia either.

    Since you clearly didn’t read it the first time, I’ll repeat my statement.

    When she says that she gives that same right to everyone else, including pedophiles, then she can talk.

    And if she or anyone else objects, I will simply point out that she whines and cries that anyone who tries to judge “love” or says that anything other than “love” should be the guiding force in marriage law is a bigot, and that she can’t imagine how people can be denied the “right” to marry whom they “love”.

    These people haven’t thought through a word they are saying.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2012 @ 4:38 pm – June 12, 2012

    I’m guessing that includes Jimmy DeSalvia and Chris Barron. It’s almost as if they believe marriage involves two consenting adults, not one. Go figure.

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2012 @ 6:33 pm – June 12, 2012

    I repeat myself again, since you clearly didn’t read that the first time, either.

    LOL, so?

    Both Chris and Jimmy know I disagree with them. They don’t particularly care or think less of me for doing so, nor do I think less of them.

    You betray so much about your psychology with your citations, rusty — namely that you think citing someone on “your side” who disagrees with you should shut you up.

    That’s because in your case, it does. You have been conditioned since day one that gay and lesbian “unity” is more important than principles or values, and you have also seen numerous examples of how your fellow gays and lesbians treat people who dare to buck that “unity”.

    Gay conservatives operate under no such constraints. In fact, we ARE gay conservatives because we consider principle to be more important than “unity” and one’s character to be more important than their minority characteristics.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2012 @ 5:17 pm – June 12, 2012

    Second off, Pat, when you name-drop, at least attempt to get the names right. Saying “DeSalvia” when it is clearly quoted as “LaSalvia” only demonstrates that you are desperately grasping at straws, rather than making any type of intelligent assessment.

    And finally, the irony value of an Obama gay-sex marriage supporter like yourself whose party calls people like Chris and Jimmy quislings, kapos, traitors, and Nazis suddenly trying to quote them only demonstrates how desperately hypocritical and shameless you are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 12, 2012 @ 10:17 pm - June 12, 2012

  21. NDT, I read what you wrote. Feel free to blockquote a few more times though, as if that somehow bolsters your weak argument. You are the one that keeps on missing the point.

    Saying “DeSalvia” when it is clearly quoted as “LaSalvia” only demonstrates that you are desperately grasping at straws, rather than making any type of intelligent assessment.

    Talk about desperately grasping at straws. That was a good one.

    And finally, the irony value of an Obama gay-sex marriage supporter like yourself whose party calls people like Chris and Jimmy quislings, kapos, traitors, and Nazis suddenly trying to quote them only demonstrates how desperately hypocritical and shameless you are.

    Oh, let’s see here. Other people call Chris and Jimmy all these things, but I never did. So my quoting them makes me hypocritical and shameless. Do you really believe the horsesh&t that comes out of your keyboard?

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2012 @ 11:21 pm - June 12, 2012

  22. Cheney doesn’t strike me as someone who desires cheerleaders or groupies.

    These folk are pandering to those evil Lefties but rather are acting to support loved ones or themselves.

    But as usual, I clearly am called to follow your heed NDT. For that is the only path to cleansing and life of purity.

    Comment by rusty — June 13, 2012 @ 12:45 am - June 13, 2012

  23. These folk are NOT pandering

    Comment by rusty — June 13, 2012 @ 12:46 am - June 13, 2012

  24. Oh, let’s see here. Other people call Chris and Jimmy all these things, but I never did. So my quoting them makes me hypocritical and shameless. Do you really believe the horsesh&t that comes out of your keyboard?

    Comment by Pat — June 12, 2012 @ 11:21 pm – June 12, 2012

    Just applying your same rules, bigot Pat.

    Until you repudiate Joe Jervis, GLAAD, and the Barack Obama Party, all of whom endorse and support such statements, you support them.

    You and rusty like to pull all these quotes of conservatives and whatnot and try to use them to paint people here; you can live by your own rules.

    It’s not a surprise that you react poorly. Bigots like you and rusty never have any intention of living under your own rules and applying your own standards.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2012 @ 2:02 pm - June 13, 2012

  25. These folk are pandering to those evil Lefties but rather are acting to support loved ones or themselves.

    But as usual, I clearly am called to follow your heed NDT. For that is the only path to cleansing and life of purity.

    Comment by rusty — June 13, 2012 @ 12:45 am – June 13, 2012

    So in other words, they’re trying to manipulate the law to obtain special favors for themselves or their loved ones at the expense of other people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 13, 2012 @ 2:05 pm - June 13, 2012

  26. NDT, one of your problems (out of many) is that what you subscribe as my rules exists only in your mind. As such you continue to lie and slander, and make up all the crap that comes out of your keyboard. If you weren’t so pathetic and wretched, it would be entertaining. Once again, your assumptions about me have no basis in reality. Have a blessed day.

    Comment by Pat — June 13, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - June 13, 2012

  27. Pat it is a privilege to be ‘grouped’ with you. :) I find your commentary enlightening, engaging and entertaining. My many thanks.

    Comment by rusty — June 13, 2012 @ 4:40 pm - June 13, 2012

  28. NDT. . . ‘they’re trying to manipulate the law’ whoa!

    Let’s go back to the #3 of this post.

    Now with the ever increasing support of SSM moving across the country

    coupled with the bipartisan developments working to approve SSM,

    and the synchronization of a wide swath of folk (the left, the center and the right): the public support of not only political figures, private individuals, religious groups and people of faith. . .

    The more Americans think about how issues affect their gay friends and family the more they come to realize that supporting same-sex civil marriage is the right thing to do. More and more people are coming to that conclusion — and that includes conservative Christians. j lasalvia goproud

    guess, someone will be grumbling in the corner about special favors.

    Comment by rusty — June 13, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - June 13, 2012

  29. Rusty, thanks. It’s cool to be grouped with you as well. And I admire your patience dealing with immoral, thuggish behavior.

    Comment by Pat — June 13, 2012 @ 11:39 pm - June 13, 2012

  30. Pat, Rusty, if I may.

    The problem with statements like Ms. Underwood aren’t a matter of ‘it’s not fair’ it’s a matter of ‘rights vs priviliges’.

    In a completely free society, anyone has the right enter into a contract with anyone else. We, as a society, decided to restrict those able to enter into a contract (age of consent laws, mental competency laws, etc.) and allow the government to define what criteria must be met before those contracts are recognized.

    That’s the distinction. Because we live in a republic, those statutes can be changed by our elected officials, or by public refferendum (where allowed).

    Now here’s the rub. Those laws, the ones that society can change, there aren’t some that are inviolate, just some harder to change than others. The proposal by Nancy Pelosi to gut the first amendment is an example. What this also means is that paedophile has the exact same right to argue to have age of consent laws removed as you do to have the legal definiation of marriage changed. What stands between him and his goal? The same thing that stands between you and yours, everyone who disagrees with you..

    Now clearly we agree that buggering 8 year olds is morally wrong. Because of that, we’re always going to shoot those laws down (even as I’d prefer to shoot the people, YMMV). Likewise, I’m going to oppose changing the definition of marriage, Seane-anna’s going to oppose changing the definition of marriage and fred, etc etc.

    Is it ‘fair’ that Bill and Ted can’t get their contract recognized by the state but Ozzy and Harriet can? Maybe not. Is it legal? Yes. Just like it’s not ‘fair’ that Patti, Evan and John can’t get married. But they have the same right (and more votes!) that Bill and Ted do to lobby their government and try to get the law changed.

    That’s the point that gets missed.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 14, 2012 @ 8:24 am - June 14, 2012

  31. Thanks LW, I understand that there are folk who disagree with the concept of morphing same sex unions into the collective of marriage. I understand that folk don’t like rules / laws being modified. That is so Scary.

    It be the early stages of change, SSM is still gaining support.

    There is growing support coming from conservatives. That is the tipping point, LW.

    And with any social change, there are going to folk who will never be settled with SSM.

    By the way, Fred is an option also. And you might see a change when everything morphs into Fred, a collection of benefits and privileges granted to folk, but marriages will be performed in churches.

    Comment by rusty — June 14, 2012 @ 9:03 am - June 14, 2012

  32. Livewire, I see Carrie Underwood’s statement as support. We are free, thanks to the First Amendment, to give our opinions for something even if it is against the law and/or doesn’t have the support of a majority of people. I didn’t take her statement to mean that we should be able to flout the laws, rely on judicial activism, or change anything about the way we do things in terms of changing laws.

    When she stated that a person should marry who they want, I assumed she also meant the other person in the party to this marriage a) also wants to get married to the first party, and b) is a consenting adult. Just as in the past when someone stated that a man should be able to marry the woman he wants, I always assumed the same type of qualifiers. If it turns out I am wrong and Carrie Underwood meant something else, then I will disagree with that.

    I totally agree that a pedophile has the same right as anyone else to try and get the age of consent laws changed.* But the support is not there for that, and I think it will be well beyond my lifetime if and when that happens. And I don’t believe I am hypocritical to say that I am glad there is increased support for SSM (or Fred), while there is virtually no support for pedophilia.

    * Since I believe that marriage should be a contract between two consenting adults, I favor having 18 as the minimum age for marriage nationwide. And I realize the thing that stands between this happening and the current laws is disagreement by others.

    Is it ‘fair’ that Bill and Ted can’t get their contract recognized by the state but Ozzy and Harriet can? Maybe not. Is it legal? Yes. Just like it’s not ‘fair’ that Patti, Evan and John can’t get married. But they have the same right (and more votes!) that Bill and Ted do to lobby their government and try to get the law changed.

    I am definitely not missing this point. Simply believing something is fair or unfair is not going to change things, until a majority says so. And even if SSM is an inalienable right, it wouldn’t do any good until a majority of people either a) also believe SSM is an inalienable right, or b) believed that marriage is a privilege that can be extended to same sex adults.

    Comment by Pat — June 14, 2012 @ 11:06 am - June 14, 2012

  33. Thanks LW, I understand that there are folk who disagree with the concept of morphing same sex unions into the collective of marriage. I understand that folk don’t like rules / laws being modified. That is so Scary.

    Comment by rusty — June 14, 2012 @ 9:03 am – June 14, 2012

    Oh, I see, rusty.

    You have declared in your infinite wisdom that everyone who opposes gay-sex marriage does so out of pure fear and bigotry.

    You have unilaterally stated that none of their arguments have merit, that nothing they have said is correct, that none of them need to be heard or listened to in any shape, form, or fashion.

    You have made it clear that the ONLY reason that anyone would EVER oppose gay-sex marriage is due to fear of change. Nothing else.

    You have just exposed yourself as a complete and total bigot.

    And the hilarity is how you then try to insist that just because people agree with your bigotry, i.e. Pat, that that makes it right — when you insist that the majority of people, who as we saw with Proposition 8, OPPOSE gay-sex marriage, are wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2012 @ 11:34 am - June 14, 2012

  34. I totally agree that a pedophile has the same right as anyone else to try and get the age of consent laws changed.* But the support is not there for that, and I think it will be well beyond my lifetime if and when that happens. And I don’t believe I am hypocritical to say that I am glad there is increased support for SSM (or Fred), while there is virtually no support for pedophilia.

    Actually, yes you are, Pat.

    You have babbled and whined that people should not be “shamed” or punished based on their sexual choices and preferences.

    You have insisted that doing so makes children kill themselves.

    So bluntly put, unless you endorse ALL forms of sexual expression, then you have blood on your hands and support the murder of children.

    Furthermore, you have stated that the public has NO right to in any way restrict marriage based on sexual choices and that the government must grant everyone marriage or violate “equal protection”.

    What this all boils down to, Pat, is that you are irresponsible and stupid with your rhetoric because you won’t accept the right of other people to disagree with you or the possibility that you could be wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 14, 2012 @ 11:38 am - June 14, 2012

  35. @Pat,

    Thanks. The point I was angling for is that (I at least) see our ability to enter into agreements (as consenting adults) as the right. The government recognizing those agreements is the privilege.

    Aside, even if it is a right, our society limits rights (for right or wrong) all the time. I can’t shout Fire in a crowded theater. I can own a PS-90 but not a P-90, etc.

    That’s why I think the ‘right’ argument is ill informed.

    @Rusty
    Are you saying that fear is the only reason people oppose it? Fear can be a good thing. There’s a reason it’s hard wired into us. Fear of buring buildings, fear of wild animals (even behind cages) fear of Levi’s posts causing brain damage to the reader; all are valid fears.

    Fact is, we don’t know what the long term effects of changing a core institution of western civilization will be. It could be as beneficial as Constatine’s adopting Christianity, or as harmful as using lead pipes in the aquaducts. Being afraid to change the institution doesn’t automatically make it a good reason to change it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 14, 2012 @ 12:52 pm - June 14, 2012

  36. Fear can be a good thing. There’s a reason it’s hard wired into us. Fear of buring buildings, fear of wild animals (even behind cages) fear of Levi’s posts causing brain damage to the reader; all are valid fears.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 14, 2012 @ 12:52 pm – June 14, 2012

    LOL! Another mouthful of coffee gets sprayed on my desk. :)

    Comment by jman1961 — June 14, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - June 14, 2012

  37. There was a long standing core institution that kept women from voting. Omg-d

    There was a long standing core institution that kept minorities in their place. Omg-d

    Quick quick, the sky is falling.

    The point is that the Mo’s have been given a bad rep, and some Mo’s have made poor choices leading to an increase of extending that bad rep.

    But like folk have expressed, the more folk see th Mo’s as real people and not vile, unproductive members of society and family, friends, employers, faith leaders,politicians continue their increasing support. . .well then goes the irrational fear.

    *Mo’s is reference to Homo’s, not Mormons. . .and Mormons are good people too!

    Comment by rusty — June 14, 2012 @ 2:28 pm - June 14, 2012

  38. There was also a longstanding core institution that banks would only loan mortgages to people who were financially responsible. But then progressives decided it was unfair and discriminatory to exclude people from the fundamental human right of home ownership. So, they insisted the rules be changed to include people who couldn’t get mortgages before.

    And that worked out SO well…

    Comment by V the K — June 14, 2012 @ 5:34 pm - June 14, 2012

  39. There was also a longstanding core institution that public schools should be locally run, should focus on core curriculum and skills, and that disruptive students should be expelled and bad teachers fired. Then progressives decided this model was obsolete and oppressive. They thought kids with behavior problems should be mainstreamed to share the classroom with other kids, and not to do so was discrimination. They thought science, math, history, and English should be DE-emphasized and dumbed-down so kids could get better grades, and they thought teachers should spend more time teaching about sex, multiculturalism and the environment.

    And that worked out SO well…

    Comment by V the K — June 14, 2012 @ 5:38 pm - June 14, 2012

  40. V the K, I agree with you on 38 and 39. Maybe I’m not so much a lefty after all.

    Comment by Pat — June 14, 2012 @ 8:13 pm - June 14, 2012

  41. V the K hit the problem with Rusty’s argument in a nutshell.

    Rusty doesn’t make any argument in #37 that is for government recognition of gay partnerships. Instead he makes only the argument that “The status quo isn’t enough, look at all these icky things!” The problem with that? Everyone has ‘icky things’ that aren’t ‘icky’ to others.

    Pat, OTOH, makes an argument for the institution of marriage being set at 18 because society considers that a ‘gateway age’. That is a positive argument. Whether you agree or not.

    Next time you can’t argue a point Rusty, might be best to just say so.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 15, 2012 @ 8:34 am - June 15, 2012

  42. Sorry for the big FAIL LW. Guess those pesky little changes and feather that were ruffled during the suffrage movements are insignificant. COupled with those minor efforts of all those you worked tirelessly over the years to change the laws and attitudes around slavery and support for minority populations.

    Yes, sad state of affairs the schools be.

    And Yes, Banks lent out way too much money to folk who were no where near being able to repay.

    I think a way to enhance and correct those issues, is to possibly focus on rebuilding our educational system under the quise of national defense and prosperity.

    Like my sister, 36 years in Education, likes to point out. We can invest in education or we can end up paying folk who are unprepared to handle the world.

    I personally would put someone like ILC in charge to develop a educational program that would be taught from an very early age. . .
    how to manage money.

    But thank you. LW

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2012 @ 8:53 am - June 15, 2012

  43. those who worked

    Comment by rusty — June 15, 2012 @ 8:54 am - June 15, 2012

  44. We can invest in education or we can end up paying folk who are unprepared to handle the world.

    Under the current status quo, we are “investing” vast amounts in an education system that produces graduates that are unprepared to handle the world.

    And the more we “invest,” the worse the outcomes. This would not be tolerated in the private sector.

    Comment by V the K — June 15, 2012 @ 11:14 am - June 15, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.