The Democrat Media Operatives (a.k.a. “journalists”) in the MFM love to hound Republican candidates on the most divisive issues they possibly can. No one in the MFM will ever ask Hillary to explain why she supports partial birth abortion or gun control, but Republicans are hounded constantly about gay marriage. The Democrat press has discovered that if they ask Republicans nothing but questions about divisive social issues, their hacks can then claim that “Republicans are obsessed with social issues because they won’t talk about anything else.”
Most Republicans just try and play along with the game; vainly hoping that they can get away with the same anodyne, focus group tested non-answers that Democrats get away with. They naively assume that the press isn’t a Democrat propaganda machine staffed by Democrat operatives.
But at least one Republican isn’t playing the game.
“Is there something about the left — and I am going to put the media in this category — that is obsessed with sex?” [Senator Ted] Cruz asked after fielding multiple questions on gay rights. “ISIS is executing homosexuals — you want to talk about gay rights? This week was a very bad week for gay rights because the expansion of ISIS, the expansion of radical, theocratic, Islamic zealots that crucify Christians, that behead children and that murder homosexuals — that ought to be concerning you far more than asking six questions all on the same topic.”
Cruz also said he did not think his opposition to gay marriage will hurt his chances with moderate voters.
“With respect, I would suggest not drawing your questions from MSNBC — they have very few viewers and they are a radical and extreme partisan outlet,” Cruz told a reporter.
Don’t you wish they could say something like, “After I read your column where you asked Mrs. Clinton about her stance on later term abortions, I will be more than happy to answer your questions on trivial matters. But please, ask Mrs. Clinton questions on important matters.”
Republican candidates should have some b*lls and tell interviewers from the MFM upfront that they will not answer any question on social issues and confine their questions to economic issues without a mention of social issues, national defense, and international policy issues. The problem is, does the MFM have the intelligence to ask such questions?
Both parties are obsessed with these idiotic social issues, the Democrats setting the conservations & the GOP responding forthwith. It’s a neutral for the Democrats, but it’s a lose for the GOP because, hey, the world really has changed even in the past 10 years & no, it’s not right to discriminate & if you give someone a bullet they’re going to use it against you.
I do like Cruz & I do hope he can lead the GOP out of constantly pandering to the minority (yes, minority) who stand on their soap boxes giving the nation such wonderful opinions about gay wedding cakes & why it’s okay to violate many states’ law & refuse service. Let’s keep the service refusal for those that stink & are without shoes & shirts, please. It’s not admirable being drawn into an argument by one’s enemies.
We missed the gay rodeo it had more competitors than viewers
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/gay-rodeo-tests-tolerance-arkansas-hotbed-rights-fight-131020365.html
Bull dyke riding championships.
How has gay marriage and “cake” become the be-all-and-end-all of gay rights in American politics — especially at the Presidential level? The extreme Left has been banging that drum louder-n-louder, and the extreme Right has been trying to shout them down, to the point that it’s drowned-out the more thoughtful argument about employment and public accommodation equality, or whether you can be denied an apartment just for “being gay”. ENDA, civil unions and gay adoption have run-aground on the rocky shoals of “cake politics” and have slide beneath the waves leaving behind just a tell-tale slick…and an odd smell.
Is whether you can be hired or summarily-fired more important than “cake”?
[ Personal Disclosure of Conflict of Interest; I’m single so marriage isn’t a personal-issue, but… I was forced-out of a well-paying and professionally-fulfilling job after coming-out to several of my immediate superiors, but I couldn’t “prove it”. It’s been 15-yrs and I still haven’t professionally or financially recovered from that “unexplained-therefore-sinister” blot on my resume’, even though I live in a state with full employment protections. ]
If I understand the law correctly (and I could be mistaken), places of “public accommodation” may not discriminate. That includes businesses that serve or sell food, and places that provide
housing or lodging (apartments, hotels). The law may not be as clear about bakeries, florists, and wedding photographers. Also, common carrier laws supposedly prohibit discrimination by transportation providers (taxi companies, transit authorities).
Unfortunately, discrimination in employment is hard to prove, and, in an “at will” state, an employer could claim, “I didn’t fire him because he’s gay, I fired him because my brother-in-law wanted his job.”
@Tom, photographers are definitely NOT public accommodations.
That said, you have to ask why so many insist on this particular baker, photographer, or florist.
Seriously, if I went to a business who refused to serve me because I was a Christian, I would simply take my business elsewhere.
I will leave it up to the reader to determine why this is such an issue.
Good for Cruz. This, and helping Paul in his filibuster, has raised my opinion of him greatly.
On an unrelated topic, I am extremely annoyed with a Catholic site that I sometimes visit. They linked to an article that put forward the idea that, since homosexuality is a sin, homosexuals are incapable of “truly” loving their partners, and should not be surprised when the “shifting sands of sin” cause their partners to be unfaithful. An interesting proposition, since it seems to imply that 1) infidelity, while common among same-sex couples, is in no way ubiquitous or unique to same-sex couples, and can occur in otherwise “proper” relationships; that 2) homosexuals are incapable of self-sacrifice, which is a sign of love; and 3) even if homosexuality is always a sin (obviously I do not find this to be the case), God is capable of using bad to bring about good (the Fall of Adam and Eve is called the “felix culpa,” or “happy fault” in Catholic theology and liturgy).
I realize that this one author is not the Pope speaking ex cathedra, but I still find it rather presumptuous and mean-spirited. I’ve read other articles that, while not saying that homosexuality is acceptable by current Church doctrine, admit that the situation is more complicated than, “homosexuals are all lust-filled, unfaithful devil-spawn.”
Considering the fact that the Church once permitted slavery under the Just War doctrine before “understanding” that it is always wrong, I don’t think it’s outside of the realm of possibility that the Church will experience a “growth of understanding” on the issue of homosexuality this century. Of course, the Church’s new obsession with Latin America and sub-Sahara, which are culturally opposed to homosexuality, suggests that the Church may prefer to perpetuate its stances on issues by flooding itself with Latins and Africans (who have no great theological tradition, and a history of syncretism with native religions, but that’s another issue).
@ Sean L, which Catholic site is this? I sometimes visit different Catholic sites.
Sean L:
There are numerous Protestant churches who have made such “evolution,” like the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. It is very likely that the Methodists will make this shift by the end of the decade.
Good for Cruz.
All GOP candidates should make a pact that they won’t entertain these lines of questions and will turn the tables and ask the media to ask Hilary why she supports partial birth abortion.
I seem to have made some mistakes in my previous posts. The first point should be that the article implies that infidelity is ubiquitous to same-sex couples, which is obviously not the case, and the third point should be that, in the case that homosexuality is a sin, God’s grace cannot work through a same-sex relationship to the benefit of the couple.
@ James: the site in question was New Advent. The article it linked to was from a site called The Stream (.org, not the Al-Jazeera show), by the editors. It was in response to an editorial by the editor of the National Review that supported same-sex marriage. The article had some good points that I agreed with (a same-sex union is intrinsically different from a heterosexual union). However, the implication about same-sex couples being incapable of love seemed willfully “I am right and cannot be wrong.” The article also dismissed the notion of ending government involvement in marriage as “misguided libertarianism,” ignoring the fact that, historically, government has not regulated marriage to the degree that we do now. It also suggests that science fiction, a genre that has historically predicted many important technological innovations, is a “childish” genre. All in all, the site has the same tone that Huffpo or Slate has, but with a noxious, busybody Christian bent to it.
Sean L.,
At the risk of hi-jacking the thread….
“Homosexuality” includes the tacit understanding that homosexual lust and gratification are in play. “Homosexuals” is a more difficult term to parse. One can be “gay” without acting on the sexual impulses.
The idea that those who love one another must also be physical “lovers” is not a valid presumption.
Let us stipulate that sodomy is a sin. Stealing a parking space is also a sin. What is not clear is how “sin” is to be rank-ordered. The circles of Hell in the medieval concerns over guilt and eternal damnation are too uncivilized for a nuanced and largely educated society. We can not only read our own Bibles, but we have the experience and communication powers to challenge those who would bully us over the “true meaning” of the chapters and verses or who would band us together in some sort of clan-like doxology or bigotry.
When I visit any church I always ask about the population of kids in the nursery during the services. Tiny nurseries is a sign of a congregation that is going extinct. And that is a sign that the spiritual feeding of that church is meant to prop up the geriatrics and is not sowing the fields and raising nourishing growing souls.
Meanwhile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7ykYHwG5i4&spfreload=10
Well, Heliotrope, one advantage the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have over the Mainliners is that they have higher birth rates. Hence, Evangelical churches tend to hold steady, while Mainline churches either decline or barely hold on.
@ Heliotrope: I am familiar with the distinction between the different forms of love as the Church and the Greek philosophers understand them. My objection to the article was not the notion that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong. That’s a debate of moral theology. My objection was the implication, intentional or not, that a same-sex couple engaging in expression of eros, the romantic, sexual form of love, cannot engage in other, higher forms of love, like self-sacrifice for each other.
My dilemma is that, even if I a dissent from Catholicism on the issue of homosexuality, I still agree with too many stuff in Catholicism to easily adopt another denomination with ease. That, and I loathe the tepid worship band stuff. And I’ll never be able to call a woman in a black button-down and slacks “Reverend Mother” without bursting out laughing.
Any Evangelicals here? They tend to be male led, right? How traditional are the hymns? And what’s this I’m hearing that Evangelicals are letting up on homosexuality?
Mainline Protestant churches don’t tend to have contemporary worship band music in their services, Sean. They are socially liberal and allow women pastors, but you won’t be hearing any corny “Seven Eleven” worship music in most services.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/22/what-do-ted-cruz-rick-santorum-and-jeb-bush-have-in-common-josh-duggar
Nope, CrayCray; your attempt to scream “child molester” just got smacked down not once, but twice.
Because, to put it succintly, we know you support and endorse child molesters and rapists like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Bryan Singer, Allen Ginsberg, and Lena Dunham.
So you can eff off. You don’t care about child molestation; all you care about is bashing Christians, and if Josh Duggar were an Obama donor like Human Rights Campaign founder Terry Bean, you’d be sucking his c*ck right now and screaming that sex with underage children is normal.
I don’t suck c*ck. That’s your bag. You’re about as tall as a lot of men’s crotches. So, that makes a lot of sense.
And, no, Duggar is a pedophile and he’ll continue being one. Nice try though.
You’re short. You like c*ck. And Duggar likes underage p*ssy.
The facts won’t ever change.