GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/10/could-supporting-gay-marriage-help-the-gop/trackback/

  1. I think the Republican party is shooting itself in the foot by insisting on defining marriage. The GOP platform champions individual rights/freedoms then goes on to define marriage. I don’t think it’s the governments’ role to define this, either federally or on a state level. People cry about separation of church and state to the point where we can’t say God in schools but they feel perfectly justified in defining marriage, which in my opinion originated as a religious institution. If lawmakers can define it, then they can collect fees for it. It’s a racket.

    Comment by Dayal — November 10, 2012 @ 6:32 pm - November 10, 2012

  2. You’ll please a few liberal Democrats who’ll never vote for you anyway and you’ll alienate your conservative base who, once ssm is law, will never vote for you again.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 10, 2012 @ 7:00 pm - November 10, 2012

  3. Interesting idea, but I believe that supporting civil unions would be easier for many in the party (and be less controversial among the evangelical base).

    Comment by Left Coast but Leans Right — November 10, 2012 @ 7:31 pm - November 10, 2012

  4. I don’t think it’s the governments’ role to define this, either federally or on a state level.

    So, marriage between a nine year old girl or boy and fifty year old man arranged by her/his parents to be one of the adult man’s seven mates is OK.

    Got it.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 10, 2012 @ 7:41 pm - November 10, 2012

  5. What does she mean by making marriage mandatory? As in, everyone has to get married, or just people in relationships? I don’t think this is the right approach. Just get government out of marriage entirely and let people define it however they want.

    So, marriage between a nine year old girl or boy and fifty year old man arranged by her/his parents to be one of the adult man’s seven mates is OK.

    No, because that would be against laws banning pedophilia.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 10, 2012 @ 7:47 pm - November 10, 2012

  6. Just to clarify, I guess making people who aren’t in relationships get married would entail finding someone you don’t necessarily want to be in a relationship with and just marrying them anyway to avoid breaking the law. Or perhaps it would mean arranged marriages.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 10, 2012 @ 7:49 pm - November 10, 2012

  7. Rattlesnake,

    Heliotrope’s point (which is one I’ve made) is that saying ‘government shouldn’t define marriage’ is a bit of nonsense. If the government doesn’t define marriage, then what’s wrong with the 50 year old and 9 year old? Remember, age of consent is a social construct as well.

    Even if a state legalizes SSM (Remember, I prefer Fred). Then they’ve ‘defined marriage’. It’s still ‘defined’ as between two people.

    Now one can argue that the state shouldn’t recognize Any interpersonal contract. (Obama would likely call it intrapersonal relationships). But that’s a completely different route.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 10, 2012 @ 7:58 pm - November 10, 2012

  8. Remember, age of consent is a social construct as well.

    Yes, it is a social construct that is based on the objective reality that young people aren’t generally rational enough to make certain decisions. What the exact age of consent is is arbitrary, I’ll grant, but that doesn’t necessary mean it should be abolished.

    Even if a state legalizes SSM (Remember, I prefer Fred). Then they’ve ‘defined marriage’. It’s still ‘defined’ as between two people.

    That is why I don’t support government mandated same sex marriage. The only sort of government recognized “interpersonal relationships” I support are basic contracts.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 10, 2012 @ 8:21 pm - November 10, 2012

  9. The advice always comes down to “The GOP should definitely alienate a part of the base to appeal to people who will never vote for them.”

    Comment by V the K — November 10, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - November 10, 2012

  10. Regardless of how one may feel about SSM, one thing that seems clear to me with this election is that conservatives can no longer view marriage-related ballot initiatives as a way to bring out more voters on their side than the other side. Maybe they still can in red states, but not in blue states. The MN GOP put an amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman on our ballot. It was close, but the amendment failed. What’s more, I am certain that Obama’s margin over Romney in MN was higher because the amendment was on the ballot. Were it not for the amendment, I think a lot of Obama voters would have stayed home. (To be sure, I think Obama would have still carried MN, but it would have been closer.) I knew very few people here excited to vote for Obama’s reelection. (And why should anyone have been excited?) However, I knew lots of people who were extremely motivated to vote the amendment down. Driving around the Twin Cities over the last month, I barely ever saw an Obama sign, but I saw tons and tons of Vote No signs. On FB, I had one friend who was outspokenly in favor of the amendment, and he’d get a handful of people liking his status, but I had no shortage of FB friends who were outspoken against the marriage amendment. Many of these friends aren’t religious, but some of them were people from my own church, whom I would describe as evangelical Christians.

    Some on the traditional marriage side (or, as some might prefer, the anti-SSM side) are optimistic that the tide will shift back their way. I see no evidence of that. In my mind, people (like myself) who are torn between the two sides, wanting an expansion of rights and recognition of same-sex couples while having concerns about the consequences of SSM, must now get engaged in the discussion to try to find win-win solutions that work for people on both sides of the debate.

    Comment by chad — November 10, 2012 @ 8:47 pm - November 10, 2012

  11. http://m.christianpost.com/news/cheney-other-gop-heavyweights-pushed-for-passage-of-md-gay-marriage-bill–69940/

    Comment by rusty — November 10, 2012 @ 8:50 pm - November 10, 2012

  12. I think the party should go federalist. Have a clear difference between the state committees and the national committee on these social issues. At the federal level, I don’t believe the federal government should be involved one way or the other. For example, repeal the DOMA and get the federal government out of the issue. Then you allow the various states to reflect their local culture in their local laws. Let it be a major platform issue for the state committee during a campaign if they want that but keep the federal platform limited to federal issues such as fiscal responsibility, defense, economic growth, international relations, domestic commerce, etc. I would fully expect the social realities to be different in Kansas than in California. People resent folks outside forcing their world view on them. Let the folks in the various states decide what works best for them. I think that would make us all happier and take a lot of the angst out of federal level politics.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 10, 2012 @ 8:58 pm - November 10, 2012

  13. I don’t think it would make a lot of difference. VtK nails it:

    The advice always comes down to “The GOP should definitely alienate a part of the base to appeal to people who will never vote for them.”

    The GOP and the Romney campaign made errors and suffered its share of foot-in-mouth moments but, really, the blame lies with the electorate.

    An earlier post here at GP cites the number of people who think Obama “cares about people like them”. Utter drivel… “Gee, this doctor is an utter incompetent but I will let him do my bypass because I feel that he cares more about people like me.”

    A relative, a cardiologist, had a friend that studied at Baylor in Houston some ears ago. He fell on the stairs one day and Michael Debakey (remowned

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 10, 2012 @ 9:13 pm - November 10, 2012

  14. Oops – hit wrong button…

    Anyway – Debakey walked up, glanced down, and then stepped over the fallen doc and went on his way. So – he didn’t act like he cared but I’d prefer someone with his skills to the touchy-feely incompetent (and BHO doesn’t strike me as touchy-feely anyway).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 10, 2012 @ 9:15 pm - November 10, 2012

  15. So, marriage between a nine year old girl or boy and fifty year old man arranged by her/his parents to be one of the adult man’s seven mates is OK.

    Helio, I tried to find evidence of an arranged marriage between boys and old men by the boy’s parents and I can’t find anything. Are you talking about the Greco-Roman era? I can’t find any examples, at the very least, modern. I’ve heard of forcing young gay men into heterosexually-arranged marriages, which is alive and kicking today, but never a boy forced to marry a man. It’s strange that you would use a hypothetical that has no precedent, like, let’s say heterosexual polygamy, which has a long history or, to a lesser extent, a young gay man, who is forced into a heterosexual union.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 10, 2012 @ 9:22 pm - November 10, 2012

  16. What’s more, I am certain that Obama’s margin over Romney in MN was higher because the amendment was on the ballot

    Similar to Ohio in 2004 with its marriage amendment.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 10, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - November 10, 2012

  17. LIvewire gets it.

    #1 Dayal pronounced:

    I don’t think it’s the governments’ role to define this, either federally or on a state level.

    That is a blanket statement that government at any level is not permitted to define marriage.

    I offered up an outrageous circumstance just to test the theory.

    Sharia permits a man to have a multitude of wives and a nine year old shows up in Mohammed’s bevy of wives. The bartering of girls for family favor is part of cultures world wide and throughout history. I just threw the little boy part in to attract your attention.

    So, does the government have a role in defining marriage or not?

    How the heck does pedophilia get a bad wrap other than by government declaring it icky?

    Some of you folks are really pretty slow if you can not recognize the obvious duplicity in such grand pronunciations about how society should or should not organize itself.

    No wonder you blow Sharia off as so much distraction and navel lint. You don’t actually have a clue.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 10, 2012 @ 10:25 pm - November 10, 2012

  18. I think there’s a difference between the GOP being an actively pro-SSM party and a party that takes no position on the issue. To be sure, a lot of people would be disappointed if the GOP gave up the fight either by being decided pro-SSM or by merely giving up its efforts against SSM, as the fight can probably not be sustained without the GOP’s support. But I do think a lot of people would be fine with the GOP just dropping it as an issue who might not welcome the GOP becoming a second pro-SSM party. I don’t see any upside to becoming a pro-SSM party over just moving on from the issue.

    Anyone who really believes that the battle against SSM is worth fighting really has to figure out new and effective ways of winning hearts and minds. (I say this as someone who is sympathetic to the arguments of both sides.) As for myself, I just can’t care enough about the issue to believe that the GOP should continue the fight if doing so alienates voters and thereby weakens conservatism’s influence on issues I care about more, such as the sanctity of life, national security, and especially economic and role-of-government issues.

    Comment by chad — November 10, 2012 @ 10:33 pm - November 10, 2012

  19. Just to follow up on my previous post…do people who believe that social conservatives would be alienated by a pro-SSM GOP (and I agree that that would happen) also believe that just dropping the issue would alienate social conservatives? Just curious what others think.

    Comment by chad — November 10, 2012 @ 11:08 pm - November 10, 2012

  20. Well, Romney-Ryan dropped social issues from their campaign, lost the election, and millions of Republicans sat out. So, how did that work out with them?

    How did Scott Brown’s embrace of gay marriage work for him?

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 12:24 am - November 11, 2012

  21. How the heck does pedophilia get a bad wrap other than by government declaring it icky?

    So, pedophilia is okay then?

    It is obvious that, because children, in general, are not rational enough to make certain decisions (and, should therefore be considered victims of predation when someone tries to get them to make such a decision, such as to have sex). If you reject this premise, please state what is wrong with it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 12:39 am - November 11, 2012

  22. +1 (Rattlesnake #21).

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 1:02 am - November 11, 2012

  23. I have read somewhere (can’t remember the source) that in parts of Afghanistan, relations between men and boys is a celebrated part of their culture. Is this a result of their treatment of women? I have no idea how a culture gets to the point of treating its children this way. I find the whole idea disgusting.

    Comment by Ignatius — November 11, 2012 @ 1:03 am - November 11, 2012

  24. I have no idea how a culture gets to the point of treating its children this way.

    If you use something other than reason to try to determine what is moral and what isn’t, this is a potential result (that is, it is the product of a society with subject morals).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 1:07 am - November 11, 2012

  25. That should be subjective morals.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 1:07 am - November 11, 2012

  26. RE: Ignatius #23

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 1:10 am - November 11, 2012

  27. RE: #24

    While I can’t do Helio’s views any justice nor speak for him, his answer to that will be likely be something along the lines of moral relativism, goalpost shifting, slippery slopes, etc, in absence of a time-tested tome representing morality (i.e The Bible, which, incidentally, doesn’t disparage pedophilia, but, possibly, quite the contrary).

    I probably have it wrong somehow, though.

    However, some things you know are just wrong. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a moral crusader to figure them out, as RS quite simply pointed out in #21.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 1:16 am - November 11, 2012

  28. his answer to that will be likely be something along the lines of moral relativism, goalpost shifting, slippery slopes, etc, in absence of a time-tested tome representing morality

    I would hope that one would be able to recognize that what I am saying is the opposite of moral relativism. Morals are objective and can only be identified through reason. Any system of morality that is dictated from a book with no rational basis is subjective (and I’m not saying the Bible fits that definition (although I would argue there are parts of the Bible that might), but it appears to me that the Quran does, at least in part and to a much larger extent than does the Bible). I agree that Biblical morality has been, overall, positive for society and I believe that these objective morals that are to be identified through reason are very similar to those in the Bible, but that doesn’t give the Bible inherent authority on any matter (unless you are a Christian, I guess).

    I am not going to guess what, if anything, Heliotrope is going to say in response to anything I’ve said, and I don’t think you should put words in his mouth (in the backhanded fashion in which you did it), Cinesnatch (because that is exactly what you did). If anything I just said is an applicable response to something he might have said, that is great.

    However, some things you know are just wrong. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a moral crusader to figure them out

    I disagree. There are things that I consider wrong (bestiality, for example) but I don’t know why. I doubt you would be able to find very many people who would argue that bestiality is okay, but just because I find it disgusting doesn’t mean I have the right to tell people not to practice it (unless it is covered by other laws, such as animal cruelty) for the sole reason that I cannot indetify a rational reason why it is wrong. Of course, I am free to disassociate myself from anyone who practices bestiality (just like anyone who thinks homosexuality is disgusting can disassociate from homosexuals because they are free to without any penalty) and call that person revolting (or an abomination, or whatever).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 1:55 am - November 11, 2012

  29. I have had conservations on the subject with Heliotrope for the past two years and it has been quite a while since the last time. And if I was blessed with a better memory, I could do his argument better justice.

    As far as bestiality, one could mine an argument from your post #21.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 2:22 am - November 11, 2012

  30. Animals aren’t comparable to children. They have no intrinsic rights (although I support laws against making animals suffer for no reason, the only laws I will ever support out of nothing other than compassion).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 2:36 am - November 11, 2012

  31. “Well, Romney-Ryan dropped social issues from their campaign, lost the election, and millions of Republicans sat out. So, how did that work out with them?”

    THEY dropped it but the Democrats didn’t. I heard from several of my local friends that they would not vote for Romney because “he wants to outlaw abortion” which was absolutely not the case. The thing is that there are a lot of people who are “spring loaded” to believe that. All they have to do is hear someone ELSE say that and they instantly believe it, it becomes the gospel truth, and nothing you can say will dissuade them from it.

    I remember watching Anderson Cooper eviscerate Debbie Whatshername-Shultz for going around saying Romney wanted to outlaw abortion in all cases or that he supported that when in fact Romney had said exactly the opposite.

    Romney and Ryan might have dropped that issue from their campaign but the Democrats didn’t. They created the issue where it didn’t even exist.

    Comment by crosspatch — November 11, 2012 @ 2:37 am - November 11, 2012

  32. On the other hand, the issue of laws against making animals suffer for no reason does raise some questions that I’m going to have to think about.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 2:40 am - November 11, 2012

  33. Being gay is not comparable to a predator preying on children. Not. At. All.

    Its not a social construct. Its a sick person trickling, trapping and stealing innocence.

    It’s beyond offensive to compare the two.

    And republicans do not need to support gay marriage. Instead conservatives just need to stop supporting laws to halt two committed adults from calling themselves married.

    Comment by mike — November 11, 2012 @ 3:36 am - November 11, 2012

  34. Scum Obama won by pivoting to the hard left. Conservatives should become democratic lite?

    Social conservatives are treated as lesser human beings while it is evident that religious charities look after anybody, even terminally ill gays.

    I hope that all the gays married or not (and the people who made this the defining issue of 2012) suffer under Obamacare, unemployment, a decimated military etc. The first that starts complaining, should be reminded soundly that selfishness is an ugly beast and the thousands of charitable institutions that they demonized all the way (used to assist) ALL, while gay groups only cared about their own self interest. Enjoy your gay marriage, it will be like listening to the orchestra on the Titanic.

    Comment by susan — November 11, 2012 @ 3:55 am - November 11, 2012

  35. The problem with making any reforms within the GOP is that the bulk of the control over Party policy is at the State and County committee levels, where many of these committees are in the thrall of the social-conservatives. While the DNC Central Committee can order “diversity” and controls much of the purse-strings, the GOP committees are a law unto their own in many jurisdictions…and are strictly-controlled by the social-conservatives that have taken-over much of the party apparatus since the fall of the Nixon Administration.

    It’s at these lower-levels that active committee-members are vetted for their ideological-purity and issues like abortion and gay-rights figure largely as means to maintaining power and influence. Here in NJ, the local County Committees have the political clout and influence over local, county and State-wide candidates…not the State Committee. And you’re not going to easily change those positions since the existing (parochial) incumbents control who gets into the room in the first-place…not the elected officials, not the candidates, nor the general public.

    In my own home-county, you can’t even get involved with the local GOP without first making an anti-abortion pledge. It’s their favorite obsession once you get past the money and the patronage. It’s their major litmus test-issue since otherwise they don’t have anything else to differentiate themselves from the locally-conservative law-and-order Democrats of this still-rural county. Industrial policy and trade-unionism are distant issues of “other people”.

    And these are the same soc-con zealots who launch the life-starts-at-conception planks and public-policy platforms fights about abortion, gay rights and immigration at the Natl. Conventions that embarrasses those of us with a more-progressive social P.O.V.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 11, 2012 @ 4:25 am - November 11, 2012

  36. Original question: No.

    But, the GOP can certainly get away with “micro-targeting” the various unequal treatments that the marriage license offers. Taxes, adoption, inheritance, etc.

    Comment by BigJ — November 11, 2012 @ 7:30 am - November 11, 2012

  37. “Make marriage mandatory”? What does that mean? It’s like something out of Obamacare.

    And eliminate no-fault divorce? Is that going down the road of government control of marriage? If the Republicans want to be seen as the party of “stay out of my bedroom and let me do whatever I want in my personal life,” many people aren’t going to like them telling them why or why not they can get divorced.

    Comment by Mitch — November 11, 2012 @ 8:02 am - November 11, 2012

  38. Rattlesnake,

    Please. At #21, you quoted my statement: How the heck does pedophilia get a bad wrap other than by government declaring it icky?

    Then you wrote: So, pedophilia is okay then?

    Thereafter, some esoteric obtuse discussion about being naturally repulsed to pedophilia is unleashed.

    Context be damned, we will just get all agitated about pedophilia because it may infer that Jerry Sandusky and gays get lumped together. Blah, blah, blah and other defensive B.S.

    Everything I wrote in satire, irony and sarcasm was meant to illustrate the blank stupidity of this statement @ #1:

    I don’t think it’s the governments’ role to define this, either federally or on a state level.

    If the government does not define marriage, then, why in all logic would Sharia not make perfect sense. You may recall that Muhammad is star power in Islam and for Islamic fundamentalists in particular. Keep in mind that Sharia has a lot of rules about marriage with a bunch of followers around the world who even get into the honor killing thing with fair consistency and fervor.

    Ummahāt ul-Muʾminīn was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of six and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. Better know as Aisha, her status forms a cultural imperative across the world for child brides, arranged marriages, polygamy, subservience and instant divorce. For all their anti-gay stuff, Mid-Eastern Muslim men are avid buggers of little boys and animals.

    Those are the f.a.c.t.s.

    So, enlightened and provincial as you may posture to be, the absence of government in encoding the “societal norm” is pure bunk.

    When you open the door to booting government out of the marriage definition business, you darn sure better understand and respect the forces of unrestrained change you are inviting in.

    I guess, for many, Pandora’s Box is the title of a porn flick.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 11, 2012 @ 9:36 am - November 11, 2012

  39. [...] Gay Patriot wonders if supporting gay marriage could help the GOP [...]

    Pingback by Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove — November 11, 2012 @ 9:40 am - November 11, 2012

  40. helio, have you had the chance to see Christopher Plummer in Beginners?

    Comment by rusty — November 11, 2012 @ 11:00 am - November 11, 2012

  41. When asked in the same interview if the Republican Party is simply too old, too white, and too male, Boehner said, “What Republicans need to learn is: How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?” Presumably Republicans’ polling data will help them figure out how to express that sentiment without making it sound like minorities are totally alien to the party.
    Comment by rusty — November 9, 2012 @ 8:31 pm – November 9, 2012

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/11/gop-tries-to-piece-together-what-went-wrong.html

    Comment by rusty — November 9, 2012 @ 8:31 pm – November 9, 2012

    Comment by rusty — November 11, 2012 @ 11:02 am - November 11, 2012

  42. @Rattlesnake,
    Remember, Age of Consent is a recent construct. The age of Consent in California at one point was as low as 10. (And, as Helio pointed out, is clearly a Western innovation.) I watched Season One of Copper on BBCA, it delt with a 12 year old being murdered and raped (in that order) by an upper class gentleman. Copper’s repulsion was clearly the exception, not the rule. As far as I can tell that was historically accurate for 150 years ago.

    Romeo and Julette were barely in their teens, yet got married w/o parental consent.

    This goes back to what Heliotrope was getting at. If a government can define some limitations on marriage (age of consent) then they can impose others. In a government of, by, and for the people, we choose to do so.

    Unfortunately, the government has opened the door to arranged marriage, as there is now legal precedent to entering contracts against one’s will.

    To fall on the ‘morally repugnant’ aspects, is a false choice. I find the smoking ban in Ohio repugnant. It doesn’t make it unlawful. If age of consent was lowered to 12, a 40 year old man dating my niece would still um, disappear. Morals are taught, and influence how people make laws, but are independent of law.

    @mike
    Like it or not, Paedophelia, like Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, and Left Handiness does appear to be hardwired to some level. We’ve already had some people (Richard R) say that one should not allow morality to intrude on one’s sexual inclinations. I don’t plan to be writing/shooting/swordfighting with my right hand anytime soon.

    The difference is, as I said above, social norms. Heterosexuals, lefties and homosexuals are all accepted in society. Buggering children isn’t.
    Well isn’t now.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 11, 2012 @ 11:44 am - November 11, 2012

  43. I have no idea how a culture gets to the point of treating its children this way.

    It gets that bad, because as a society the value of humans is lowered.

    As for the question of gay marriage-I think that best tack is to push for a state legislature method.

    I also think the GOP needs to recognize that the SSM boat is going over the waterfall and perhaps they need to instead support the institution of marriage.

    I am not sure a position to eliminate no fault divorce is going to be received well-I think it can very easily be turned into another bullet in the whole “war on women” meme.

    I do think taking the value of marriage beyond the goodies that comes with it is important. I also think the idea of civil unions especially in the more conservative, red states would work.

    I guess for me as a conservative-I would rather see the conservative approach taken with marriage in general-and rather than focus on who is getting married encourage the support of the institution.

    I do think as an issue this one is one that the GOP should either not take a position on or give up on full opposition.

    Comment by Just Me — November 11, 2012 @ 12:21 pm - November 11, 2012

  44. Despite keeping the issue(SSM) at arms length during the campaign, LaSalvia said in a The Wall Street Journal interview that the issue was critical to the GOP if it wants to attract new voters, in particular young people and women.
    “Singer Kelly Clarkson, a single woman who was asked while she was on her tour who she was voting for. She said well I’m a Republican at heart but I’ll probably vote for Obama because I have a lot of gay friends. And so I think that [marriage equality] is an issue that everyone is considering. And especially because everyone has gay friends and family,” LaSalvia said.

    Comment by rusty — November 11, 2012 @ 1:13 pm - November 11, 2012

  45. ” And especially because everyone has gay friends and family”

    Bullshit, gays aren’t 80% of the population. And Kelly Clarkson is the typical out of touch aithead celebrity, if she is not a has been yet

    Comment by susan — November 11, 2012 @ 1:44 pm - November 11, 2012

  46. Rusty what the fuck you care what the gop will do? You’re not going to vote it anyway.

    The fastest way to implode is to listen to leftists. Do you think ‘They care’?

    Comment by susan — November 11, 2012 @ 1:47 pm - November 11, 2012

  47. When asked in the same interview if the Republican Party is simply too old, too white, and too male, Boehner said, “What Republicans need to learn is: How do we speak to all Americans? You know, not just the people who look like us and act like us, but how do we speak to all Americans?”

    That’s rich coming from such an unabashed enabler of Obama’s policies. Mr. Speaker (or hopefully soon to be ex-Mr. Speaker): you could start by not hanging out your non-white male conservatives out to dry like the GOP did to Mary Bono Mack, Mia Love and Alan West. Tea Party, TRUE Tea Party conservatives DID do the right thing and endlessly tried to cut through the media distortion with their messages of fiscal responsibility, American exceptionalism and free market principles.

    As Crosspatch and other posters said, the election wasn’t lost by Romney-Ryan not bringing up SSM but because the Democrats created a false construct of what a Romney Administration would bring and were not challenged on it by either the MSM OR the establishemnt GOP who were just looking out for their own chances in 2016.

    However, look what happened when Akin and Mourdock opened their traps and went from having real shots at handing the Senate to the Republican party to becoming sick electoral punchlines.

    The old white men of the GOP are still thoroughly in bed with the Liberals and the rest of us who value true conservatism need to realize it….. AND UNITE AGAINST THEM. They belong in the same dust heap as the Obama Administration. We can start by demanding replacements for WhinerBoehner and McConnell.

    Comment by PopArt — November 11, 2012 @ 1:54 pm - November 11, 2012

  48. Speaking of “out of touch” …

    Stronger is U.S.-certified platinum.

    But, the tone of the language used says it all.

    Touchy, touchy.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 2:55 pm - November 11, 2012

  49. Rattlesnake,

    Please. At #21, you quoted my statement: How the heck does pedophilia get a bad wrap other than by government declaring it icky?

    Then you wrote: So, pedophilia is okay then?

    Thereafter, some esoteric obtuse discussion about being naturally repulsed to pedophilia is unleashed.

    Context be damned, we will just get all agitated about pedophilia because it may infer that Jerry Sandusky and gays get lumped together. Blah, blah, blah and other defensive B.S.

    I stated why pedophilia is wrong. It has nothing to do with being naturally repulsed to it, or Jerry Sandusky, or gays.

    If the government does not define marriage, then, why in all logic would Sharia not make perfect sense.

    And what Sharia has to do with anything I have no idea. I am not advocating for a vacuum of morals; I am arguing for the opposite (and these arguments are meant to illustrate why the government doesn’t need to define marriage). And I would argue that government involvement in an institution that has historically been under the authority of churches and other religious bodies has weakened it. If you want this institution and other religious institutions to strengthen, don’t let the government undermine them with its involvement in their practices.

    So, enlightened and provincial as you may posture to be, the absence of government in encoding the “societal norm” is pure bunk.

    This is a straw man. The rejection of one government “encoding [of] the societal norm” (i.e. marriage) doesn’t require the rejection of all others, as long as the others have a rational basis.

    When you open the door to booting government out of the marriage definition business, you darn sure better understand and respect the forces of unrestrained change you are inviting in.

    I guess it is a good thing I don’t care. A government that operates outside of its necessary duties (i.e. enforcing the law, national defense) is morally illegitimate because it requires infringement upon people’s natural rights (whether that be through excess taxation or undue regulations on freedom of association, among other things).

    Remember, Age of Consent is a recent construct.

    As are many other things. The idea of natural rights is that, as people’s perceptions of what is entailed by them evolves, so do the laws (for better or worse). And it is a good thing this philosophy (or others that are similar, such as certain Christian sects) has some influence in society, or slavery still might be legal and women might not be allowed to vote. I’m not saying this system is perfect, but I utterly reject any other basis for laws because, in my view, they are necessarily subjective and therefore illegitimate.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 3:00 pm - November 11, 2012

  50. RE: #45

    The vast majority of the voters who passed marriage-equality in WA, ME, and MD were … straight …. (and included my mother, father, brother, and sister-in-law, as well as old schoolmates and at least one GP poster)

    In fact, there’s a good chance that more than 80% of the people who voted for marriage-equality were … straight …

    Off subject, to illustrate, I don’t have children, nor ever will, but part of my taxes go to the schools and other services I don’t use. Also, I’m never going to get married, but I voted against Proposition 8 four years ago, and was tempted to unlawfully vote for Ref. 74 (but I didn’t) …

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 3:17 pm - November 11, 2012

  51. Liberals can create a legal fiction of “gay marriage,” but it will never be equal to real marriage; and it will always be a joke.

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - November 11, 2012

  52. Not with Latinos and blacks.

    Comment by kyle — November 11, 2012 @ 4:20 pm - November 11, 2012

  53. If the goal is to turn out more Latino voters for Republicans, lurching to the left on social issues is not the way to do it.

    There’s nothing in the exit polls that indicated social issues turned people off from the Republicans. We ran the candidate that ignored them, after all.

    Comment by kyle — November 11, 2012 @ 4:24 pm - November 11, 2012

  54. Republican politician Maureen Walsh publicly declared her support for ‘legal fiction’ Ref. 74. As well, 21% of Republicans expressed intent to vote ‘yes’ on the ‘legal fiction’ days before the election.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - November 11, 2012

  55. “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions.” — GK Chesterton

    Comment by Ignatius — November 11, 2012 @ 4:39 pm - November 11, 2012

  56. Vince is apparently unaware of the fallacy known as ‘argumentum ad verecundiam.’

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 4:42 pm - November 11, 2012

  57. Stoning adulterers has fallen out of fashion in some circles.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 11, 2012 @ 4:43 pm - November 11, 2012

  58. I don’t think the answer is for the GOP to give up on social issues, but they (and, by extension, those of us who are socially conservative individual Republicans) need to really rethink how we discuss these issues. We really can’t afford to let the Mourdocks and Akins of this world become our nominees. If a candidate values socially conservative positions, he or she must be able to speak about them intelligently and persuasively. If you have a position I agree with but you speak about it stupidly, please don’t run for office as a Republican. Contrast Paul Ryan’s smart response on the abortion question with either Akin or Mourdock. Overall, social conservatism has a huge image problem. Social conservatives often seem not just unable to appeal to people who are young and/or irreligious, but they often don’t even seem to care if their appeal is limited. I generally agree with social conservative positions (much more on abortion than GLBT issues), and I don’t want the GOP to give up being the pro-life party, but if you are going to alienate everyone who isn’t an evangelical Christian, a conservative Catholic, or an orthodox Jew because we are unwilling to change how we talk about these issues, then I have to wonder why we should even bother. If an issue is important to someone, one must work to make one’s position appealing to a plurality if not a majority of the electorate. This is not happening on social issues, and this is a huge problem.

    Comment by chad — November 11, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - November 11, 2012

  59. Republicans need to really rethink how we discuss these issues.

    Agreed. Especially now that the MFM have discovered Abortion-Rape as the ultimately ‘Gotcha’ question. Akin and Mourdock handled it stupidly. It can actually be answered easily.

    “My personally belief is that a child is innocent of the crimes of his parents. Every child deserves to be loved and welcomed into the human family. Decent people do not scorn or abuse children whose parents happen to be criminals; morality demands that we are better than that.

    “However, I recognize it will never be possible to advance the kind of legislation that is necessary to protect innocent human life without a rape exception. I am willing to make that compromise in the interest of saving innocent life. The question is, are pro-abortion opponents also willing to make some compromises?”

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 5:06 pm - November 11, 2012

  60. If an issue is important to someone, one must work to make one’s position appealing to a plurality if not a majority of the electorate. This is not happening on social issues, and this is a huge problem.

    I would say that the way to do this is to frame the issue differently (i.e. not in terms of “social issues” but something else, if possible). I’m pro-life, but it still turns me off when people use religious arguments against abortion or use an appeal to emotion. If you consider abortion to be murder and that life begins at conception, you have to try to convince people that embryos and zygotes are entitled to life. My argument is that zygotes, while just cells, have unique human DNA and are therefore “people” in a legal sense (I realize zygotes are unicellular, and I find it difficult to think of a cell as a person, but that isn’t a rational argument). Furthermore, I don’t see any other point at which it can be concluded that life begins, but it is, at the latest, the point of viability (which isn’t static, and is therefore problematic in my opinion).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 5:09 pm - November 11, 2012

  61. Let’s face it.
    They aren’t called ”useful idiots” for nothing.
    How long does an “Obama Promise” last when made to a group of his useful idiots?
    Not too long.
    Before the election what did Obama do about Gay Marriage?
    He fought for it, even doing ads for it for a couple of state ballot measures.
    He ”promised” to keep fighting for it.
    He wanted the Gay Vote.
    And liberal gays fell for it.
    BUT……
    He’s been elected so, guess what?

    JUST ONE DAY after endorsing gay marriage proposals in Washington and Maine, President Obama told MTV viewers Friday that he would not be pushing gay marriage in his second term, ABC News reported.

    http://spokanefavs.com/politics/legislation/obama-endorses-gay-marriage-push-in-washington-maine
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-ramps-media-blitz-race-tightens/story?id=17571200#.UIxYzWfleSp
    http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-mtv-i-won-t-be-pushing-gay-marriage-second-term

    Gay USEFUL IDIOTS were PLAYED!
    And, one-by-one, each of Obama’s USEFUL IDIOT groups will learn how Obama plays.

    Comment by Nan G — November 11, 2012 @ 5:24 pm - November 11, 2012

  62. Rattlesnake,

    No straw men were let loose in my comments. Especially my references to Sharia.

    France, Canada, and England in particular are fooling around with weaving Sharia into their legal codes to accommodate their fundamental Islamic growing minority while simultaneously cracking down on Christian and Jewish influence within the culture.

    If you support taking the government out of marriage, then you are actually dealing with a point that I have raised many times on this site in the past: What is the compelling state interest in defining and regulating marriage?

    Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why child marriage, arranged marriage, multiple spouses, close kinship, divorce, inheritance rights, property division and all other marriage related issues are or are not part of the compelling state interest discussion.

    That is to say, if the state is taken out of marriage, on what basis can the state regulate marriage in any way?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 11, 2012 @ 5:41 pm - November 11, 2012

  63. France, Canada, and England in particular are fooling around with weaving Sharia into their legal codes to accommodate their fundamental Islamic growing minority while simultaneously cracking down on Christian and Jewish influence within the culture.

    Again, I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. This is the product of progressive multiculturalism, which is idiocy. Sharia law is incompatible with natural rights.

    That is to say, if the state is taken out of marriage, on what basis can the state regulate marriage in any way?

    What I’m saying is that marriage shouldn’t be regulated by anything other than the laws that should exist, such as laws against pedophilia or forcing people into marriage.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 6:14 pm - November 11, 2012

  64. OK, I’m lost. If I have offended in some manner, I apologize. But I have no clear idea of what you are saying. Sorry, perhaps it is my age.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 11, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - November 11, 2012

  65. Obama won’t fight for it now that he has used the gay vote for his re-election. So no to the GOP.

    On Friday, Obama told an MTV audience that he would not fight for gay marriage his second term, intoning that “it would be up to future generations of Americans to implement meaningful reform.”

    Gyas should know that Obama’s loyalty gone once a group has outlived its usefulness to him.

    Comment by OccamsrazorX — November 11, 2012 @ 7:04 pm - November 11, 2012

  66. You’ll please a few liberal Democrats who’ll never vote for you anyway and you’ll alienate your conservative base who, once ssm is law, will never vote for you again.

    Well of course. It goes without saying that liberals and Democrats aren’t going to become a loyal Republican constituency just because you guys mellow out on gay marriage. But that wouldn’t really be the point. The problem for Republicans is that teenagers and college students just entering into the political arena for the first time are writing off your party before you even have a chance to make your pitch. Young people are more and more accepting of homosexuality, and think that preventing gays from marrying is both stupid and mean-spirited. Not to mention that opposition to gay marriage completely contradicts the party’s message about limited government and individual freedoms. This is a pretty glaring hypocrisy and it chases people away.

    The objective behind Republicans supporting gay marriage wouldn’t be to immediately convert a bunch of Democrats into Republicans, but to make Republicanism more appealing to future generations. You guys are basically giving away 18-22 year olds the longer you hang onto this crap. The payoff might not come in 2016, but you’d be in much better shape in 2020 and going forward if you could do a few things to undermine the Democrats’ advantage with that demographic. Yes, it would offend the socially conservative base, but the math is obviously against you at this point. Whatever advantage that social conservatives have conferred in the past is not enough, so you have to stitch together a different constituency. And you can’t deny that the writing is already on the wall – gay marriage just passed in 4 out of 4 states where it was on the ballot, and by popular vote for the first time ever. The momentum is building. People can see that gay marriage isn’t the end of the world, this election will likely be viewed as one of the watershed moments in the history of it’s national and complete legalization, which is most likely a decade out. Do you really want to be seen fighting against this inevitably, tooth and nail, when you must know that it’s over? After all it’s costing you? If the religious people are too stupid to understand this, that’s all the more reason to ignore their concerns, don’t you think? At some point you have to face reality and come to grips.

    Comment by Levi — November 11, 2012 @ 7:13 pm - November 11, 2012

  67. Yes. I have a feeling we are not having the same conversation. I apologize if I have been brash, but that is my nature.

    What I am asserting is that, based on the basic principles I believe in and advocate for, marriage is beyond the legitimate exercise of the government. The definition of marriage should be left up to churches, or whatever. That doesn’t mean that people have the right to have sexual relationships with children, because that would be against the law in itself. The foundation of these laws is natural law, which I’ll grant isn’t black and white, but is (again, according to my beliefs that I advocate for) the only morally acceptable foundation of law because, I would argue, it is the only system that can be derived objectively given a basic premise (and this is another discussion, but I’d be more than happy to have it). For that reason, under this system (which is not a system any country has, to my knowledge), it would never be acceptable to recognize Sharia law. Anyway, because anything else would violate my principles, I can support nothing other than the government not being involved in marriage at all (unless some contract is used in its place), regardless of the consequences.

    Hopefully this clarifies my position.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 7:14 pm - November 11, 2012

  68. Do you really want to be seen fighting against this inevitably, tooth and nail, when you must know that it’s over? After all it’s costing you? If the religious people are too stupid to understand this, that’s all the more reason to ignore their concerns, don’t you think? At some point you have to face reality and come to grips.

    Yes, and this another reason why I am advocating for what I am. I highly doubt that gay marriage isn’t completely inevitable (even in the United States), and if social conservatives don’t want the definition to be changed forcefully by the government, they should probably bail out of government defined marriage while they can.

    For the record, I don’t personally believe in or support gay marriage (and I have never supported it or argued for it). I’ve always viewed marriage as between one man and one woman. Having said that, I don’t really care about the institution. But I think people who do are more fit to be in control of it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - November 11, 2012

  69. Levi demonstrates the basic issue of the Obama Party: it sets policy on the basis of the whims of teenagers.

    Besides, since Levi is an irrational and insane bigot who will never vote for a Republican no matter how bad the Obama Party candidate is, who cares?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 11, 2012 @ 7:29 pm - November 11, 2012

  70. What do Clint Eastwood, Dick Cheney, Ted Olson, and John Bolton have in common? All are strong, lifelong conservatives. Each has fought on behalf of smaller government. And all support the freedom of same-sex couples to marry.

    As former Vice President Dick Cheney noted in explaining why he supports civil marriage for all American couples, “freedom means freedom for everyone.” He’s right.

    What freedom is more basic and personal than the right to marry the person you love?

    Same-sex couples want to marry for reasons similar to other couples. They want a lasting bond that can endure through good times and bad, through sickness and health, and that will bring stability as they continue life together.

    Clint Eastwood, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Ted Olson are not alone. Recent surveys today show that more Americans favor the freedom to marry than oppose it. Among Republicans, the number has increased by 50 percent in the past three years, and a majority of conservatives under 30 favor this basic freedom.

    This isn’t surprising. The freedom to marry is consistent with core conservative and American values — limited government, personal responsibility, commitment and, above all, freedom for all.

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/173960281.html?clmob=y&c=n&refer=y

    Comment by rusty — November 11, 2012 @ 8:10 pm - November 11, 2012

  71. That doesn’t mean that people have the right to have sexual relationships with children, because that would be against the law in itself. The foundation of these laws is natural law, which I’ll grant isn’t black and white, but is (again, according to my beliefs that I advocate for) the only morally acceptable foundation of law because, I would argue, it is the only system that can be derived objectively given a basic premise (and this is another discussion, but I’d be more than happy to have it).

    I’m kind of confused here Rattlesnake. Right now (in most states) Government recognition of non-traditional marriage is against the law, and yet you support changing that law. (As do I, in a different fashion)

    Yet, you are saying that age of consent is a ‘natural law’. How are you arriving at this conclusion? It’s clear to me that it is a matter of ‘social law’ not natural. As has been pointed out, it is a recent, and Western, construct.

    And even if we concede that not buggering children is ‘natural law’ (As opposed to moral law) how do you arrive at the conclusion that buggering children is natural law, but marriage being a heterosexual institution only isn’t?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 11, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - November 11, 2012

  72. T

    Comment by rusty — November 11, 2012 @ 8:26 pm - November 11, 2012

  73. Levi demonstrates the basic issue of the Obama Party: it sets policy on the basis of the whims of teenagers.

    I guess you might not be aware that teenagers can vote? And if a teenager starts voting for Democrats, then they’re more likely to continue voting for Democrats into adulthood.

    Besides, since Levi is an irrational and insane bigot who will never vote for a Republican no matter how bad the Obama Party candidate is, who cares?

    I’m not saying you should do these things because then I might vote for Republicans. I’m saying that it would be intelligent for for your party to do these things because it would help you win elections. It would make me happy to see Republicans support gay marriage because it’s an issue I care about. But I’m also pointing this out because it illustrates the general stupidity of the conservative movement. You guys want to be taken seriously and viewed as credible policy-makers, but you’re too dumb to realize how much your position on this issue, which shouldn’t be that important, is hurting you politically. That you guys can’t figure out something so obvious proves exactly how ill-equipped you are to be in positions of policy-making.

    Comment by Levi — November 11, 2012 @ 8:51 pm - November 11, 2012

  74. Levi is an irrational and insane bigot who will never vote for a Republican no matter how bad the Obama Party candidate is, who cares?

    Agreed, and so why should we believe him when he claims he is trying to help “us” win elections?

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 8:53 pm - November 11, 2012

  75. Levi is an irrational and insane bigot who will never vote for a Republican no matter how bad the Obama Party candidate is, who cares?

    He is also a sociopath who cheered and did fist-pumps that over a hundred people died and millions of lives were disrupted by Frankenstorm Sandy… because it was helpful to Glorious Leader.

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 8:54 pm - November 11, 2012

  76. And let’s be honest with ourselves; if voters are so determined to have gay marriage that they will reject economic sanity because of it, there is no hope for the country anyway.

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 8:56 pm - November 11, 2012

  77. Livewire,

    My view is that a natural law is determined from the premise that everyone has the right to do anything that doesn’t infringe on those same rights of others. It isn’t based on what is currently the law, or what the U.S. constitution says, or anything like that. It comes solely from that premise. Yes, it is messy, but I view everything else as inherently immoral so I can’t support anything else.

    Since children are immature and irrational, even if they have “consentual” sex (or some other sexual act), it should always be considered predation on the part of the adult because the child doesn’t know better. As for what point one is an adult and no longer a child, I’m not sure what it is, I just know it exist (because of what I just said).

    Unless you can think of a way keeping marriage outside of the realm of legitimate government functions infringes on people’s rights, I will consider it to be in that realm. And I’m not saying marriage isn’t a “heterosexual only” institution; I am saying churches and other private entities should be allowed to define it however they want for their own practices.

    Also, I’m not advocating specifically for the US to change its laws, I’m just trying to argue the principle. This is applicaple to Canada (and everywhere else) as well.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 9:18 pm - November 11, 2012

  78. And let’s be honest with ourselves; if voters are so determined to have gay marriage that they will reject economic sanity because of it, there is no hope for the country anyway.

    Good point.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 11, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - November 11, 2012

  79. I am surprised that on this site, a mention of gay marriage brings out the “slippery slope to legalized pedophilia” talk.

    Its a false comparison.
    One is rape, the other is a commitment between two human adults.

    If society says that 10 year olds can smoke, get drafted, vote, make their own medical decisions and work 40 hours a week, fine then you can say “age of consent should be lowered” But this is a separate argument and has nothing to do with Gay Marriage.

    Gay Marriage is the government allowing two adults of whatever gender to marry and receive the same benefits as everyone else. Pedophilia should not even be in the conversation

    Comment by mike — November 11, 2012 @ 9:25 pm - November 11, 2012

  80. I actually generally agree with what Levi is saying in #66. Regardless of whether Republicans should continue opposing SSM, support SSM, propose some unique solution that isn’t simply pro or anti-SSM, or drop the issue altogether, I do see ample evidence that being anti-SSM does hurt the Republican among young people, including the sort of young people who might otherwise be receptive to the Republican message. I don’t think Republicans should just take it for granted that a certain segment of the population won’t vote for us anyway. Now, if the only way to appeal to a certain group is to pander or to totally compromise our values, that’s nothing I would recommend, both politically and as a matter of principle. But I do think it’s good to question whether we are approaching the issue the right way. I think there is a preference cascade occurring toward acceptance of SSM. It seems to me that Republicans either need to come up with more compelling arguments for why SSM is to be opposed, retreat from their hardline against it, or accept losing more and more of the youth vote and therefore becoming unable to win elections. If there is a scenario where Republicans can just continue opposing SSM without doing a better job explaining why it’s wrong and still stay a competitive party, I wish someone would explain it to me because I just don’t see it. (Again, I’m not suggesting becoming actively pro-SSM but rather seeking out compromise on this issue or just dropping it as an issue.)

    FWIW, I’m just looking at this as a thirtysomething guy in urban/suburban Minnesota whose friends are mostly young, Christian, and to the left of me.

    Comment by chad — November 11, 2012 @ 9:27 pm - November 11, 2012

  81. I’m not the GOP should stop fighting SSM, I am saying it doesn’t matter if they do. A significant number of young female voters believed Romney was going to outlaw tampons; because Obama’s people started a Twitter rumor that he would do that.

    On the whole, the GOP would lose a lot more voters than it would gain from opposing SSM. And even if they did, the left would just lob some other social issue at them. There’s really no way the GOP can win this one. And people just don’t care about economic issues in an era where record food stamp dependency and Obamaphones are the new normal.

    Comment by V the K — November 11, 2012 @ 9:34 pm - November 11, 2012

  82. I think John Hinderacker’s post on Powerline about social issues is brilliant. There’s very little here that I disagree with…

    Where Do Republicans Go From Here? The Social Issues

    Comment by chad — November 11, 2012 @ 9:44 pm - November 11, 2012

  83. Now I am totally confused.

    I am saying churches and other private entities should be allowed to define it (marriage) however they want for their own practices.

    But that is not consistent with

    Sharia law is incompatible with natural rights.

    What is going on here?

    We have Muslims living in the US who want to follow Sharia and the first quote says they can define marriage however they want for their own practices. Then the second quote says that Sharia is incompatible with natural rights and is therefore not OK.

    How does that work? Especially if the state is completely out of defining (read: regulating) marriage. Is there some universal natural rights board that meets in San Francisco or the Falkland Islands that rules on this and enforces the code?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 11, 2012 @ 9:58 pm - November 11, 2012

  84. Agreed, and so why should we believe him when he claims he is trying to help “us” win elections?

    Oh, I’m not trying to help you win elections. I’m simply pointing out the simple fact that supporting gay marriage would definitely help you win elections, yet your party is so short-sighted and so in thrall to religious fanatics that it’s likely not to happen.

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 12:19 am - November 12, 2012

  85. And let’s be honest with ourselves; if voters are so determined to have gay marriage that they will reject economic sanity because of it, there is no hope for the country anyway.

    Oh give it a rest. Republicans had 8 years to demonstrate their version of ‘economic sanity’ and they were chased into the minority after presiding over the biggest economic disaster in a century. Now you may not like Obama and you may not like liberals and you may not like their economic policies, but you can hardly accuse the electorate of rejecting economic sanity by voting against the party that brought us this meltdown in the first place. Just because ideological conservatives would like to forget that the Bush years ever happened doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 12:25 am - November 12, 2012

  86. I am surprised that on this site, a mention of gay marriage brings out the “slippery slope to legalized pedophilia” talk.

    Its a false comparison.
    One is rape, the other is a commitment between two human adults.

    If society says that 10 year olds can smoke, get drafted, vote, make their own medical decisions and work 40 hours a week, fine then you can say “age of consent should be lowered” But this is a separate argument and has nothing to do with Gay Marriage.

    Gay Marriage is the government allowing two adults of whatever gender to marry and receive the same benefits as everyone else. Pedophilia should not even be in the conversation

    Especially after nearly a decade of gay marriage being legal in a few jurisdictions. The argument has been total bullshit from the beginning, but there’s really no excuse now that we’ve moved from the realm of theory and speculation to evidence and data. By any measure, pedophilia is no closer to legalization in Massachusetts or Washington DC or Iowa, which means that an already invalid argument has somehow found a way to become even more invalid.

    Just goes to show that the true motivation for invoking the slippery slope in this case is to say the word ‘homosexual’ and ‘pedophile’ in the same sentence as much as possible. In other words, Republicans chasing votes by getting conservatives to hate minorities.

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 12:31 am - November 12, 2012


  87. I think John Hinderacker’s post on Powerline about social issues is brilliant. There’s very little here that I disagree with…

    Where Do Republicans Go From Here? The Social Issues

    I have something to point out about Hinderaker’s article. He says:

    The issue remains alive in large part because Democrats are constantly warning that Republican candidates will do away with “a woman’s right to choose.” This was, of course, part of the absurd war on women theme.

    In reality, since Republicans good showing in 2010, nearly 1,000 anti-abortion bills have been introduced across the country. Far from being a secondary issue that no one was paying attention to that the Democrats just all of a sudden decided to scare women about, abortion was immediately assaulted all across the country by Republicans when they got a little bit of power back. This happened at the national level, too, and the GOP platform even went so far as to disallow rape and incest exceptions. You also had prominent Republicans railing against Planned Parenthood, threatening to pull funding for an organization that tens of million of women rely on for women’s health services.

    So to say that the war on women theme was absurd, is, well, absurd. Republicans went after abortion and contraception like you thought that was your primary directive in the 2010 election, and they were rewarded by losing women by huge margins. And it’s not because Democrats decided to paint Republicans as extremely anti-abortion, but because Republicans decided to paint Republicans as extremely anti-abortion. I’ve been saying it all week, but conservatives have to stop playing stupid here and admit that they’ve been going after abortion very hard for the past two years. Democrats aren’t manipulating women, Republicans are setting themselves up.

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 12:57 am - November 12, 2012

  88. Now I am totally confused.

    I am saying churches and other private entities should be allowed to define it (marriage) however they want for their own practices.

    But that is not consistent with

    Sharia law is incompatible with natural rights.

    What is going on here?

    I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Maybe I’m just not doing a good job of explaining it. Natural law is a first principle. Religious pracitices that violate people’s rights (the rights that they are entitled to) are not compatible with natural law, and this applies to many aspects of Sharia law.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 1:35 am - November 12, 2012

  89. Oh give it a rest. Republicans had 8 years to demonstrate their version of ‘economic sanity’ and they were chased into the minority after presiding over the biggest economic disaster in a century.

    Even if you make the assumption that those Republicans were responsible for the fiscal crisis, those were different Republicans. Something happened after Obama was elected called the “Tea Party” that had different economic principles than the Bush era Republicans. I have never seen anyone argue that Bush or the congressional Republicans at the time were fiscally responsible. And the 2008 fiscal crisis was a bigger disaster than the Great Depression? Did you really just say that?

    but you can hardly accuse the electorate of rejecting economic sanity by voting against the party that brought us this meltdown in the first place.

    Even if Bush was fiscally irresponsible, it is absurd to claim that Obama is comparatively economically sane (quite the opposite, actually).

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 1:43 am - November 12, 2012

  90. If that isn’t a good enough explanation, Bill Whittle explains what are basically my positions (i.e. natural law) in this video better than I ever could. It doesn’t have anything to do with marriage, but you can easily derive what the government’s approach to marriage should be from it (particularly the two laws he mentions). That is, marriage isn’t covered at all.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 2:15 am - November 12, 2012

  91. Even if you make the assumption that those Republicans were responsible for the fiscal crisis, those were different Republicans. Something happened after Obama was elected called the “Tea Party” that had different economic principles than the Bush era Republicans. I have never seen anyone argue that Bush or the congressional Republicans at the time were fiscally responsible. And the 2008 fiscal crisis was a bigger disaster than the Great Depression? Did you really just say that?

    Tea Party or not, Republicans are the same as they ever were. I get what you’re doing – you want to be able to say that everything that happened before 2009 should be ignored and forgotten. Huh, why should that be the case? You’re asking for the reset button, you want a blank slate. If I’m to assess the merit of the Republican Party, I’m only allowed to consider the past 4 years and forget all about the 8 before, is that it? Oh, that was some other group of people, you say? You’re telling me that was a completely different party? Well my, how convenient for you! And you’re just so sure that this new batch of Republicans has a different set of economic principles, even though they haven’t had the power or responsibility to implement them. They just say they have different economic principles, and you believe them?

    Even if Bush was fiscally irresponsible, it is absurd to claim that Obama is comparatively economically sane (quite the opposite, actually).

    How do you figure that? Bush came into office with the economy in pretty good shape and with the deficit at a manageable level. He decided to start wars, expand the size of government, cut taxes without spending cuts, let the financial industry run amok, and left office with the economy in the worst shape its been in a long time. Obama inherited that disaster when it was still at risk of spiraling out of control, and the economy has stabilized and has somewhat begun to recover. Does it not count for anything at all that Obama inherited a disaster?

    Comment by Levi — November 12, 2012 @ 4:12 am - November 12, 2012

  92. Gee, Levi seems to have completely forgotten:

    1. The economy in 2001 was heading into recession as a result of the Tech Bubble bursting.

    2. 9-11-2001

    3. Bush signing the Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation laws and prosecuting Enron and other financial industry malefactors (a far cry from letting industry “run amok.”)

    4. That deficits exploded and the econony collapsed only after his cult regained control of Congress in 2006.

    But, it’s unsurprising that a dishonest, sociopathic, mindless cult follower would rewrite history in order to demonize, once again, his cult’s Hate-Figure.

    Comment by V the K — November 12, 2012 @ 5:23 am - November 12, 2012

  93. Also, to anyone who think the GOP can win elections by becoming fiscally moderate and socially liberal, I have a two-word answer: Scott Brown.

    Comment by V the K — November 12, 2012 @ 5:40 am - November 12, 2012

  94. “48.Speaking of “out of touch” …

    Stronger is U.S.-certified platinum”

    Maybe you should look up in a dictionary the meaning of out of touch. It has nothing to do with personal wealth (gold records) however according to the Democrats rich=out of touch so my definition of Clarkson fits perfectly.

    And about your other comment, I rest my case. Homosexuals do not comprise 80% of the population as well as pro gay marriage people do not comprise 80% of the population.

    If you are trying to tell me that entire family clans voted Obama because 1 distant cousin is gay regardless of their opinion of the economy, national defense, job situation, then you would admit you are in a truly f#ucked up situation. It will be interesting to see when you jump off the fiscal cliff how gay marriage and free condoms will tamper the butthurt.

    This is more evidence that proponents of gay marriage are like infantilized children interested in that toy just because others have it and will soon throw it away once they have it.

    And we should pander to those people?

    Comment by susan — November 12, 2012 @ 6:56 am - November 12, 2012

  95. @Rattlesnake,

    Re natural law. Who defines that children are incompetent/immature? One of my strays is 25, yet she has a work ethic and maturity that puts people my age to shame. Yet on the other side, I’ve a little lost cause who’s 25 with 4 kids because she’s had no impulse control. Both are the same age, but the later is far from ‘mature’ in every sense.

    Likewise, it was accepted that 12 year olds could, at one time, live, work, give consent, get married, etc. I started hunting at 12, and I knew people my age who started younger. Clearly we were ‘mature’ enough to use firearms.

    Heck, raising the age of consent from 10 to 13, then to 15, as was done in California did “infringe on those same rights of others” because society decided to restrict those rights.

    As to the video, I’ll have to check it when I get home.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 8:11 am - November 12, 2012

  96. Natural law is a first principle. Religious pracitices that violate people’s rights (the rights that they are entitled to) are not compatible with natural law, and this applies to many aspects of Sharia law.

    For the sake of argument, let us agree.

    How do we proceed to banish Sharia from Islam? Isn’t that the state meddling in religion. Isn’t that the state defining “acceptable” religion? You do recognize that we have a growing body of Islamists in our country and that they are pushing the nose of the Sharia camel under the tent of our system of justice, don’t you?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2012 @ 9:47 am - November 12, 2012

  97. 94. You might want to look up the definition of “has been.” “Has beens” don’t go Platinum.

    DA.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 12, 2012 @ 10:55 am - November 12, 2012

  98. “The message should be that if everyone can get married, then there’s no really excuse not to be.”

    The excuse of not marrying has occurred. People are not marrying. They are seeking alternatives.

    Articles are written by female spinsters about not being able to get a date and marrying at near 40 years old. You can’t turn the clock back from the liberal and feminist culture wars. It is too late.

    I fear gay marriage is force everyone to play on the same field when marriage is regarded by the religious as sacred. To make it available for everyone makes its less enticing.

    Women love it because they can’t have it. Less eligible men want it. Women lost the meaning of being a partner. Women want a man to fulfill her instead of being a submissive mate to her husband. A man is no longer the head of household. He competes with her, yet she doesn’t respect a weakling as her husband.

    Gay marriage is not a winning issue for the GOP. Thus, the GOP is resigned to losing the gay vote. Besides, a pro-gay position is nothing more than Democratic Lite. Gays will still vote for the real Democrat.

    Caving on abortion and immigration will have the same effect. Women and Hispanics will still vote for the GOP.

    The strategy is more about neutralizing a bad issue so the demographic will respond to the Conservative message. Bush succeeded, but he never won with the same electoral votes as Obama. We have 4 more years to work with our messaging. It starts today!!!

    Comment by anon322531 — November 12, 2012 @ 1:01 pm - November 12, 2012

  99. “97.94. You might want to look up the definition of “has been.” “Has beens” don’t go Platinum.

    DA.”

    lots of nobodies go platinum, this isn’t the 80s, with record sales declining (and boy how they have declined) the numbers to get the platinum card are ridiculous.

    I am in Europe and we never heard of this person, surely not in the same league of the other ex teenage sensations.

    Plus 6 months ago she was kicked around all twitter for saying she supported Ron Paul, therefore, not only a has been (or a never was) but also damn stupid for embracing the very people that kicked her around. What a role model.

    How can she justifies moving from Ron Paul to Obama (unheard of -the cultists of ron paul either voted for the third candidate or did not vote, there is simply no rationale for switching from RPaul to obmama) just shows how clueless she is.

    But I guess you are a fanboy, so your idol is the gospel… try to grow up, I still am a madonna fan since the 80s but never bought into her politics.

    Comment by susan — November 12, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - November 12, 2012

  100. Billionaire conservative David Koch was a delegate to the Republican National Convention, is spending millions to back GOP candidates, but disagrees with his party and presidential nominee on same-sex marriage.

    “I believe in gay marriage,” Koch told Ken Vogel of Politico outside a reception in Tampa.

    Asked about nominee Mitt Romney’s opposition to marriage equality, Koch replied: “Well, I disagree with that.”

    Romney spent much of the Republican primary season trying to appease the religious right on same-sex marriage. He backed the embattled Defense of Marriage Act, said he would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and appoint like-minded federal judges.

    Comment by rusty — November 12, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - November 12, 2012

  101. 99. Considering the advent of iTunes stateside, album sales going platinum is impressive. You are correct, the 80s were a time when it was much easier to go platinum. And considering clarkson has been in the public eye for a decade now, she’s more than just a flash in the pan.

    I can’t comment on her politics. But true libertarians are against bans on gay marriage and considering her fan base, social circles, and generation, it was an issue deep in her heart. When they choice became between Romney or Obama, she went with the one who supported marriage equality.

    Republicans would be wise to take note.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — November 12, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - November 12, 2012

  102. Tea Party or not, Republicans are the same as they ever were.

    How do you figure?

    I get what you’re doing – you want to be able to say that everything that happened before 2009 should be ignored and forgotten.

    What you’re doing is saying that, regardless of what the Republicans do now, or how many new Republicans are in office that weren’t there when Bush was president, they should be held accountable for Bush’s misdeeds. And, no, that is not what I’m saying at all. I would like to see those irresponsible Republicans get thrown out of office.

    And you’re just so sure that this new batch of Republicans has a different set of economic principles, even though they haven’t had the power or responsibility to implement them. They just say they have different economic principles, and you believe them?

    So I’m supposed to prefer people that I know have economic principles I disagree with just because the Tea Party Republicans might be lying. I’m not sure how that is supposed to work.

    Obama inherited that disaster when it was still at risk of spiraling out of control, and the economy has stabilized and has somewhat begun to recover.

    Economies are cyclical and go through periods of growth and periods of recession. Various factors affect this cycle. Nothing the government can do can mitigate the cycle; it generally just exacerbates it when it tries. The 2008 recession was going to happen one way or the other, eventually, regardless of who was in office or what policies they implemented. If you aren’t even going to bother with trying to determine the actual cause of the 2008 recession rather than just say whatever is most convenient for you, there is no point in discussing it.

    As for Obama’s policies, even by his own criteria, he failed in his efforts to try to get the economy to recover, while substantially increasing the debt. There is nothing good about Obama’s fiscal policy.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 4:45 pm - November 12, 2012

  103. Livewire, I’m not really interested in discussing such minutiae. I said that natural law isn’t always clear cut. One thought I have is to administer some sort of “adulthood test” after which, upon passing the test, you would be considered a legal adult.

    I would like to know, though, what you suggest as an alternative. If the government established these age of consent laws arbitrarily, what is to stop them from abolishing them or moving them back down?

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 4:54 pm - November 12, 2012

  104. How do we proceed to banish Sharia from Islam? Isn’t that the state meddling in religion. Isn’t that the state defining “acceptable” religion? You do recognize that we have a growing body of Islamists in our country and that they are pushing the nose of the Sharia camel under the tent of our system of justice, don’t you?

    I’m not sure what else I can say. Yes, it is the state defining acceptable religion, which I never said that I have a problem with. Sharia law oppresses people involuntarily, and is therefore morally unacceptable. If that makes the entire religion of Islam unacceptable, so be it.

    Tell me, please, what you would like to do in response to the growing Islamist presence.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - November 12, 2012

  105. I would like to know, though, what you suggest as an alternative. If the government established these age of consent laws arbitrarily, what is to stop them from abolishing them or moving them back down?

    To be honest? Us.

    It’s society that raised the age of consent. It’s society that will keep it up or lower it.

    To use NAMBLA for example. It’s illegal to bugger children. It’s not to lobby for buggering children. Just like it’s illegal for me to own a P-90, but not to lobby for the right to own one.

    So you and I and everyone else are the ones who say what society declares as legal or as right.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 12, 2012 @ 8:41 pm - November 12, 2012

  106. So you and I and everyone else are the ones who say what society declares as legal or as right.

    The problem with that is, if you reject natural law, and if society elects itself into tyranny, no one would be morally justified in forming a militia to try to remove the tyrannical regime or defend themselves from servitude to it. You might argue that you would be morally justified in doing so even though it is against the written law, which would mean you accept natural law on some level.

    As for the age of consent (and other unclear issues), perhaps it is best to make these arbitrary decisions when needed (and that doesn’t mean giving the government more power than it is entitled to). But that doesn’t change the fact that there is one objective truth in the matter, it is just that don’t know exactly what it is. All I know for certain is that there is a difference between children and adults regarding their ability to make rational decisions, and this is based on when the brain becomes fully developed. Scientific research into this field should eventually elucidate the objective truth regarding at what age one becomes fully mature, and hence what the age of consent should be.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 9:48 pm - November 12, 2012

  107. Rattlesnake,

    Stop and ponder. I treated the position in #1 of this thread with ridicule and sarcasm and irony and you jumped with both feet on the Islam and little boys part of my litany as if that were the point. Now you have admitted that Sharia and Islam may be a problem to letting the people and the churches define marriage without any government input.

    My job seems to have come to a conclusion.

    But just for the slake of clarity and the strong choice of muddying the waters, allowing same sex marriage and disallowing multiple marriage has no logic to it. And I am not so certain that close kinship is any problem for same sex marriage as they are not going to reproduce. So, I am always interested in some argument against the slippery slope that isn’t just a bunch of hoopla about “common sense” or even natural law.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - November 12, 2012

  108. Now you have admitted that Sharia and Islam may be a problem to letting the people and the churches define marriage without any government input.

    I did no such thing. You’re obviously not understanding my point.

    But just for the slake of clarity and the strong choice of muddying the waters, allowing same sex marriage and disallowing multiple marriage has no logic to it.

    I don’t disagree.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 12, 2012 @ 10:22 pm - November 12, 2012

  109. Yes, it is the state defining acceptable religion, which I never said that I have a problem with. Sharia law oppresses people involuntarily, and is therefore morally unacceptable. If that makes the entire religion of Islam unacceptable, so be it.

    That led me to write this:

    Now you have admitted that Sharia and Islam may be a problem to letting the people and the churches define marriage without any government input.

    To which you responded:

    I did no such thing. You’re obviously not understanding my point.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 12, 2012 @ 10:44 pm - November 12, 2012

  110. I’m not sure what this has to do with marriage:

    Yes, it is the state defining acceptable religion, which I never said that I have a problem with. Sharia law oppresses people involuntarily, and is therefore morally unacceptable. If that makes the entire religion of Islam unacceptable, so be it.

    If what you are saying is that I’m saying the government should be able to restrict marriage if it violates natural law, then, yes, I am saying that and I never suggested otherwise. But that is covered by other things that don’t explicitly have anything to do with marriage. To illustrate my point: if, for example, there was a religion in which marriage involved kidnapping of some random person and murdering them, obviously the government would (and should) ban that practice.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 13, 2012 @ 3:11 am - November 13, 2012

  111. Rattlesnake,

    Are you aware of honor killings and the control of the movement of women under Sharia and the process of instant marriage and instant divorce and role of the Imam in all of this?

    If not, that is where the problem lies. There are enclaves of Islamic people in the United States who take their direction from the Imam first and the laws of the United States somewhere down the line. They want their right to be governed by Sharia to be recognized as their right.

    Canada has gone (foolishly, in my opinion) too far in protecting Sharia. Here is a little taste of the matter of the nose of the Sharia camel under the tent.

    You can google “Sharia Canada honor killings” or marriage or whatever else might make you curious. Then Google the same for the US and England and Holland and Denmark and Sweden and France and Germany and get in touch with the trend.

    There are cultural forces at work in changing the definition of marriage and gays are not the only such force.

    Where do YOU draw the line besides “natural law” with, like “social justice” has no specific meaning and no clear force for identifying it, enforcing it or find a person innocent of violating it.

    This is not a hostile question. I just wonder if you have a grasp of what you seem to be promoting.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 13, 2012 @ 9:54 am - November 13, 2012

  112. This is not a hostile question. I just wonder if you have a grasp of what you seem to be promoting.

    Yes, I have a grasp of it. I’m still not sure we’re having the same conversation. You seem to be reading in my comments some justification for Sharia law.

    I am familiar with honour killings and the increasing presence of Sharia law in Western countries. And that is something that alarms me, and I’ve written many posts on my blog on this subject, such as this one, which includes some details on what is happening in France.

    There is no ambiguity about whether or not Sharia law violates natural law, and it does. Natural law is a very well-establsihed theory. It cannot compare to “social justice” in vagueness, because it is derived from a very simple premise. I recommend watching the video I linked to in comment #90 if you haven’t already.

    There are enclaves of Islamic people in the United States who take their direction from the Imam first and the laws of the United States somewhere down the line. They want their right to be governed by Sharia to be recognized as their right.

    The problem is that their being governed by Sharia has wider implications. If that “right” also implies the “right” to kill their daughters in the name of honour, or to beat their wives, it isn’t a right that they have. And you seem to understand the consequences of being permissive with regards to the increasing Islamic presence in Western society. What is happening in France, for example, where immigration of Muslims has transformed certain areas into places where the government has lost any control in enforcing its laws, is obviously something that must be avoided. People in those areas have no protection of their rights, and the whole idea of natural law is to ensure that people are granted the rights that they are inherently entitled to (as a product of humans’ capacity to recognize that we have free will).

    Marriage, in this context, is a minor issue. If the government has the ability to define it, that means that churches and other private entities have lost their ability to define it. Again, as long as they don’t define marriage as involving murder or some other illegal practice (many of which are involved in Sharia law, which would therefore make some definitions of marriage under Sharia law inherently invalid and subject to prosecution if practiced), they have the right to define it, for themselves, however they want. And they will have that right regardless of what the government does, but they are on the verge of losing the ability to practice it.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — November 13, 2012 @ 3:25 pm - November 13, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.377 Powered by Wordpress