It is, however, equally hard to understand what on earth they thought they were doing. There is not a Republican on the national scene who supports the right of Americans to marry whomever they choose. Very few of them truly believe in protecting the civil rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans at all. And Mr. Cruz dwells on the far side of right-wing crazy on most issues, including this one.
The two gay dudes have since repented for being civil to a Republican, and promised it will not happen again.
So much for “Let’s talk, and share with each other our points of view”.
What bothers me is the idea fomented amongst the Left that nobody who opposes gay marriage deserves to hold public office. What kind of attitude is that? Certainly not an American one.
“There is not a Republican on the national scene who supports the right of Americans to marry whomever they choose.”
No, but there aren’t many Democrats who do either.
The hoteliers are cowards. Ted Cruz has a good friend since college, who is a successful businessman, a libertarian, and identifies as gay. When the gaystapo went after him, he told them to get stuffed and donated even more money to Cruz.
Speaking of ‘identifying’…..here are some gays who admit sexuality is fluid with environmental causes (molestation and rape at a young age), rather than being ‘born that way’.
http://clashdaily.com/2015/04/gays-admit-they-were-not-born-that-way-shocking-undercover-video-footage-right-here/#
This is what happens when you are gay, and you step off the gay plantation. Ruin your career, ruin your business, ruin your social life. What does that remind you of? Communist Russia, China, or Nazi Germany.
These two men were treated with more grace and respect by the Conservative, than by the Gaystasi. I keep hoping that the epiphanies will start coming, but they never do. To me that is one of the saddest facts about modern America.
The NY Times is great at kicking people back into their armed camps. It’s a glaring conflict of interest. Newspaper sales depend on constant lurid and sordid things going on so they keep stoking conflicts. If peace were to break out in the country, layoffs would begin in the liberal media. (Partly because good news isn’t news as far as they’re concerned.) The Times is, at base, hate literature calling itself a love crusade.
Annie! Hello! Did you see my reply in the other thread? You’ve got one of the major stories here. It could throw a lot off kilter. If being gay isn’t always congenital, does that mean it can be a choice as Dr. Carson says? The guy in the bar says it was forced on him at 13, a decade after science seems to agree our basic makeup is formed for life.
It wasn’t much of a choice for me. I felt it overwhelmingly in early early childhood, and nobody laid a hand on me. Anybody else?
@The_Livewire, as far as I know, there are NO Democrats who support the rights of Americans to marry whomever they choose.
You can’t marry minors, or instance, and I know of no one except NAMBLA and some Muslims who think you should be able to.
You can’t marry more than one person or marry someone who is already married, although some are making noise to change that, but certainly most people, Democrat or Republican, don’t that that should be allowed.
You can’t marry outside your species, or to an inanimate object, or yourself.
The problem is that we have forgotten what the purpose of marriage is. Even proponents of traditional marriage see nothing wrong with two people who do not plan to have any offspring marrying. I say, why should they? To what purpose?
Ryan Sorba citizen journalist.
Flashback.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/05/10/tammy-bruce-takes-down-ryan-sorba/
“You can’t marry minors, or instance, and I know of no one except NAMBLA and some Muslims”
I was going to make a crack about Congressman Menendez & some other ( D)s but I realized none of them actually wanted to marry who they abused.
That’s one of the main objections straights make against to gay love, that sex is there for producing the next generation. Won’t wash, because they’re all on birth control and only a few times (if at all) in their lifetimes do heteros attempt to procreate.
I don’t necessarily support gay marriage, because I think we are going to see people using it as precedent to demand the “right” to marry their child or sibling or maybe their horse…. if it’s not happening already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU4g_WzOKb8
What “most people, Democrat or Republican” want is, ominously, of less and less interest to politicians and courts.
Craig Smith, while the idea is that two people with complementary bodies marry and are open to new life, it doesn’t always mean they have biological children.
There’s nothing more intolerant than the “tolerant” left.
Bigger question: why does it matter?
A certain percentage of those who identify to the left of the political spectrum seem to think that pity is a positive emotion and therefore if everyone just would recognize that “it’s not a choice”, we could transform the pride parades into pity parades (though for what end, I am uncertain).
Another percentage to the right of the political spectrum seem to think that by labeling it a choice, that somehow makes it irrelevant and worthy of outright dismissal if not criminalization (not seeming to realize that the USA has long protected choice-based behavior).
To both camps, again I would ask: why does it matter whether “it” is a choice or not? Isn’t freedom based on choices, to a large extent? I never understood why I need someone else’s approval to be who I am or to associate with my choice of people (assuming that choice isn’t, say, those who are looting stores in a protest or somesuch other obviously criminal behavior).
It matters enough for the question of why people are gay to have been intensely probed by ourselves, our friends, our enemies, science and philosophy for centuries.
In a sense it matters everything. If it’s not a choice, it rips the rug right out from under any argument against the orientation itself. If it is a choice, the hate being unanimously heaped on change therapy is just so much intolerance…. for instance.
And regardless of how many people hate what I just wrote, I still think it would be quite interesting if folks would self-report a little here. Ahhh, FREEDOM!!!!
Isn’t it ironic: while marriage, esp’y religious marriage, is being mocked and marginalized by the leftys, same-sex marriage is being affirmed. Does any advocate of SSM smell political opportunism and/or yet another example of liberal hypocrisy here?
You’ve got it! Everything extremists are demanding for themselves, they want to stomp to death in everybody else.
Of course the gaystapo has admitted for years that these things are a means to an end. They care far less about SSM itself (or human beings for that matter) than about dynamiting the established standards and givens, such as “traditional” marriage and family. Like family courts aren’t already clogged enough, they need whole new genres and quantities of trouble?
I agree RSG..I don’t think it matters much either way. And we may never know definitively what makes some one gay. Live and let live has become almost cliché, but I think that that is the way this world should be. As long as your choice or what you believe you are born with isn’t hurting me; then shine, love, and thrive. That is why I absolutely love this website. It reminds me that all gays are not on the left’s plantation. The vocal idiots are ruining growing tolerance by becoming what they hated.
BTW, the comments on the OP Ed were even more disheartening. I didn’t see ONE that said discussion with an opposing opponent was actually a good thing. And this is what is wrong with America.
Damnit Craig!
I leave perfectly good troll-bait out, and you go an ruin it. 😉
Did Harry Hay support marrying children? OR just buggering them?
From the editorial:
Let’s make that a question, shall we?
Who supports the right of Americans to marry whomever they choose?
Can anyone find one or more tiny flaws is this “Follow Your Dreams” banality? Shall we have any nasty, gnarly restrictions of any sort on “the right of Americans to marry whomever they choose?”
If you should answer “yes, I can point out a flaw,” then Abe Rosenthal’s whole editorial goes bust like a loose flywheel set careening across the factory floor.
Rosenthal is railing against critical thinking. This is coming from a liberal moral relativists who watched a President defend himself by posing behind the mystery of how the meaning of “is” is applied. This is not critical thinking; it is egotistic admiration of one’s own cleverness and caginess.
The entire Rosenthal quote is:
See that? Rosenthal is rabble-rousing by creating a thought terminating cliché. He is pandering to the mob which needs to be fed its ration of anti-Republican red meat.
In fact, this is an exercise in “social dominance orientation.” (You can look it up.)
1. The ends justify the means: In getting what you desire, force is sometimes required.
2. Elitism: Its probably necessary that some groups of people are on top in order to fundamentally remake America.
3. Utopianism: Group equality should be our purpose.
4. Egalitarianism: Social and income equality is the goal of society.
Rosenthal is not particularly interested in marriage “equality” at all. He is for the party line, Progressivism and defeating the principles which conflict with his utopian version of “truth, justice and the American way.”
“Truth” would always be aligned with what la mode du jour of political correctness might be.
“Justice” would always be aligned with what la mode du jour of social justice might be.
“The American way” would always be aligned with what la mode du jour of the power elite might be.
This is one gigantic case of petitio principii; circular reasoning in which the utopians constantly control society as they impose whats good for society on the society in order to perfect society which slips a cog and has to be put back on the track and on and on and on.
So long as you give the mob their bread and obamaphones, the mob will slobber on your shoes.
Extremely useful buzzterms, Helio — social dominance orientation and petitio principii. Thank you.
An important correction–the article was written by ANDREW Rosenthal, not Abe. Abe Rosenthal was one of the great editors of the NYT–he was there when Watergate broke. He spent his entire life at the NYT, rising from copy boy to foreign correspondent to editor.After he retired, he was given a permanent op-ed column. He was an old-fashioned, patriotic New Deal Democrat who voted for Reagan both times, and came to describe
himself as a “bleeding-heart conservative.” The current Sulzberger decided that there was no room for dissent on the Times pages, and booted him off the paper a few years before Rosenthal’s death. His name should be treated with respect.
It won’t be by me. That’s all I say :-^
Thanks for the update on the NYT staff and clearing up the Rosenthal names. “The” Abe Rosenthal was a controversial man who did battle with Sunday editor Max Frankel and often annoyed Publisher Arthur Sulzberger. He was “retired” from the editorship in 1986 by the simple calculation of reaching age 65 and mandatory retirement. Rosenthal was known by many as a homophobe who kept reporting on AIDS in the NYT to a bare minimum. He was succeeded by Max Frankel who introduced the word “gay” to the NYT stylebook and immediately did an in-depth, four-part series on the Aids in NYC. The articles were front page.
William Safire, a great scholar of language and a polished wit, noted that Rosenthal had thought his epitaph should read: “He kept the paper straight.” Apocryphal? Who knows.
The NYT was a powerful and ponderous institution in the days of “Punch” Sulzberger, Rosenthal, Frankel, Safire and others. Sydney Schanberg, a Times columnist said that the NYT is “the newspaper that interprets the establishment to the establishment; that tells the establishment what it is doing and how it should be done.” That was more than largely true.
Under “Pinch” Sulzberger the NYT has faded into being the head cheerleader for Progressive clap-trap and socialistic jingoism. As to Andrew Rosenthal, I know nothing. I assumed that little “Pinch” had found another Abe Rosenthal to write his script.
I think people should be able to marry whoever and it’s not the business of federal government one way or another. It’s a matter of the heart and who you love but I applaud candidates that say MY PERSONAL OPINION is… However. That’s honesty, not vote getting.
Legal wise the whole, because I, not a spouse I get nothing is bullshit. Without a will even a spouse is SOL unless it’s a legally owned property, that’s not limited to a hero couple.
I’m an RN, so many times I’ve seen people die alone with no one but nursing staff to ever care about them, not one single visitor. But Obama proclaimed that visitors are welcome and I saw gays praising oooooobama. Finally we can visit. You always could, you never did. And hooray we won something because of oooobama. You didn’t win anything, it was always there
I knew I was different around the age of 5. I developed this constant nagging feelings of guilt and shame. I didn’t know if it was because I was gay, Catholic or a Conservative/Democrat!