Video: Michelle talks gay marriage, immigration on O’Reilly
posted at 10:55 pm on May 22, 2006 by Allahpundit
A rare in-studio guest appearance for the big M. I was hoping she’d let me tag along to the taping and introduce me to Kirsten Powers, whom I find saucy despite her evil inclinations. But it wasn’t meant to be, alas. Here’s the video; I’m not 100% sure, but I suspect gay marriage is one of the few points of disagreement within the Hot Air family. Even Michelle sounds ambivalent.
Update: The Kirsten Powers effect — from the other side.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Totally–Kirsten Powers is a serious danger for all redblooded right-wing men of the non-gay-marrying persuasion. In that, I think she is rivaled only by MSNBC’s Flavia Colgan. But then, Flavia’s evil inclinations seem somewhat more controlled.
Alex K on May 22, 2006 at 11:19 PM
A familiar scene on The Factor tonight: Michelle makes point after point with common sense, wit and wisdom while Kirsten struggles even to form a coherent sentence.
Michelle, take it easy on her, she’s a lib and therefore is at a serious disadvantage when debating a conservative. Kinda like bringin’ a knife to gun fight.
Did anybody see Tammy Bruce on FOX today? Same thing, easily outwitting her liberal debate partner as if talking to a child.
After decades of media pitting one conservative against three libs, the cons have gotten so good at taking them on that when they have a one on one (which only happens on FOX) it’s not a fair fight, not even close.
Condi ’08!
Tony737 on May 22, 2006 at 11:34 PM
AP: take many cold showers or resign your life to one of abject pain! Of course, JamesC and MaryM have worked it out so maybe there’s hope for other such strange bedfellows, to use an old phrase. Enjoy life as it comes.
Now, however, Flavia might have more interest simply because she’s of the more alluring kind, perhaps!
MM is right on the money as she’s got the GOP pegged right on. Their lack of guts is going to take them down this fall except the Dems don’t have a winning hand either. This is not a good election year by any means.
Kirsten is playing the typical silly Dem game of trying to be above the fray except she’s ignoring the real concern people have over the gay marriage issue being forced on us regardless; judges might yet make it necessary to consider a gay marriage amendment.
DougW on May 22, 2006 at 11:45 PM
I just want to go on record as being for the amendment. I understand why liberty-minded conservatives might be against it, but I still think it would be a good thing.
greenpiece on May 22, 2006 at 11:48 PM
Gay marrage is just another atack on our cultures and values. This is just one more hit on the Judain-Christion religen.
birdman on May 22, 2006 at 11:54 PM
I just watched it again on the rerun. How many times did K.P. say “I agree with Michelle”? No, you don’t agree with her, you just don’t have an arguement to come back with. Lucky for you you’re cute, ’cause your debate skills are weak.
Michelle, you kick ass!
Tony737 on May 22, 2006 at 11:56 PM
They political organizations behind the gay marriage right has agenda well beyond just equal right. If equal right is what they are seeking, they would not care if it is called union or marriage. With “union” they can still seek equal benefits and equal right under the law. However, they would not settle until they have infringed on the copy right of the term “marriage”.
Their motive is clear, they want to destroy the meaning of marriage. They are not after equal rights or equal benefits. They are after destroying the heterosexaul relationship that we cherish.
Their goal is to destroy the meaning of marriage and thus destroy the sacred principle of one man one wife system.
In other word, their final goal is to destroy the traditional family, and thus the values associated with it.
Easy87us
easy87us on May 23, 2006 at 12:10 AM
I am more concerned about the big picture. In our quest to keep “church and state separated” and keep from “legislating morality”, the strategy of the libs is, that if you can get an issue labeled as a moral issue, then you can keep it from being legislated. After gay marriage will be man-boy sex, teacher-student sex, beastiality as a right, and then as something that we need to culturally enlighten our children about.
What about lying, stealing, murder? Maybe people are just born with those innate desires and it’s really normal and we shouldn’t punish people for exercising thier natural tendencies. In politically correct thinking it is almost unthinkable for adultry to be considered illegal. Currently there is nothing wrong with it if both are consenting. It used to be illegal.
To liberal thinkers, there is no solid moral foundation, unless it is something that a politically conservative enemy is doing — then they need to be nailed to the wall.
As a democracy, we can only be as morally disciplined as the minimal tolerance of the majority of us. Or worse, until the majority get fed up with the lack of governance of our elected leaders.
Until we figure out how to agree on a common moral standard (it used to be the Bible in this country), the barriers will continut to fall — way beyond gay marriage. And we better figure that out soon.
CountryDoc on May 23, 2006 at 1:12 AM
Yeah, I was sympathetic to that Nick guy with “the other side”of the Kirsten Powers effect until he ended with “Michelle is cute–but Markos is cuter!”
I guess some of us saw Kos’s frightening bugeyed visage leering in the window of the Ned Flanders commerical and thought “whoa–dial 9-11 and grab the shotgun!”; others like Nick thought “Hello, sailor!”
Oh, yeah, Michelle–gay marriage? Come on.
see-dubya on May 23, 2006 at 1:13 AM
Allah – I wouldn’t say “ambivalent.” I’d say nuanced–a perilous thing to be on cable TV.
My own views, though only remotely as well-expressed tonight, mirror http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2004/02/27/10904.html” rel=”nofollow”>Charles Krauthammer’s.
Michelle on May 23, 2006 at 1:51 AM
I tried to link to Krauthammer: I got, Error: 404 not found.
birdman on May 23, 2006 at 2:19 AM
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2004/02/27/10904.html
Michelle on May 23, 2006 at 2:32 AM
…Thanks easy87us, for putting into words exactly what I’ve been trying to tell anybody that I could get to listen..There simply is no such thing as Marriage between same sex partners. It is not defined; because it cannot exist. And the efforts of those that would try to make it exist or be defined, in the name of equal benefits or equal rights, is indeed a sham. Those efforts are an attempt to make a mockery out of a traditional institution simply because it’s here and it’s good. Let them chose “union” or some other term to define whatever it is they are trying to achieve. Leave the word Marriage, out of it…
Ben Here on May 23, 2006 at 2:45 AM
Personally, I wonder why congress is wasting their time with gay marriage when the BORDER is the problem. God. NEITHER party is worth voting for. This is the presidential race conundrum in spades: which of the lesser of two evils to you want in office? In this case, it’s “which of the lesser of two incompetents”?
As far as the gay marriage “debate”, there is no debate about it when it’s put up for a vote. It’s been voted for, so far, in about eleven states, and voted down every time. That’s why gays are always in court, they can’t win in public opinion. Same as Democrats. Lose at the polls? No problem. Go to court.
clyde on May 23, 2006 at 4:46 AM
Michelle is so sizzling Hot….
Federali on May 23, 2006 at 5:08 AM
Michelle: Thank you.
birdman on May 23, 2006 at 5:09 AM
… Adding to Ben’s post: And if you voice your opposition to gay “marriage” then that makes you an eeeeevil right wing homophobe!
Same thing on the Border. If you want the border shut well then that also makes you an evil right wing something or other, in this case fill in the blank with “racist” because somehow Mexican has become a race.
Libs. Easier to accuse a con of being a (blank) than to come up with a logical opposition.
Tony737 on May 23, 2006 at 6:41 AM
We have to make up our minds. We have to be decisive once and for all.
And by “we” I mean the citizens of the United States.
Here is my suggestion:
In November’s Ballots, either this year or in 2008, there should be, in every State, a question such as this one, a REFERENDUM:
Would you approve a constitutional amendement defining Mariage as the only legal union between one Man and one Woman which should be acknowledged by State and Federal Government? YES or NO.
Polls are not accurate and do not express exactly and totally the views of all the citizens.
I think a referendum, in all 50 States, same question, will solve the riddle, will quiet many people once and for all.
That’s what democracies must and should do.
CatholicConservative on May 23, 2006 at 7:04 AM
Just to clarify, gay marriage is wrong (butt-monkey) BUT if I were a woman I’d STILL wanna marry Michelle! I could practice writing my name: Mrs. Toni Malkin ….. Mrs. Antonette Malkin
Tony737 on May 23, 2006 at 7:19 AM
Why doesn’t someone ever poll me!!???
I can’t believe that only app. 50% are opposed to gay ‘marriage’.
jatfla on May 23, 2006 at 7:35 AM
I think the reason that 50% of americans could care less about gay marriage is because it just doesn’t affect their lives in one way or another – at least that’s MY reason. If two consenting adults (homosexual or hetero) choose to live their lives dedicated to each other and want legal protection to do so, blaze a trail, dude. Just don’t take away MY right to have MY MARRIAGE. And, can someone please tell me how civil unions would make our country a BAD place?? This is where I disagree with many posters, with all due respect.
pullingmyhairout on May 23, 2006 at 9:06 AM
I think most folks want to just live and let live. They are loathe to go against the herd, don’t want to make waves, just get along, blah blah. Therefore they don’t consider the long-term implications of this cave-in, the slippery slope, because the here and now, their personal future occupies them constantly.
“Who cares”? is the response I usually get when I broach the subject in polite conversation. Indeed, many get downright irritated when pressed on the issue. Apathy, fear of being “mean”, and shortsightedness is a brew many folks are quite content to suck on. They refuse to realize that appeasement never works because the side presented with weakness will demand more and more and more. It’s so screaming-in-your-face easy to see, but most folks just plug their ears and say “la la la la la la.”
It never ceases to amaze me.
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 9:20 AM
I don’t think that my position is a cave in at all. In the scheme of things, it is just NOT high on my priority list. i’d prefer my representatives to work on things that are more important, like tax reform and border security. Moralistic issues such as gay marriage and abortion should take the back seat to issues that affect EVERYONE. I’m not plugging my ears and saying “la la la la.” i just don’t care because it’s not an issue that we should be wasting bandwidth on. So, on that note, i’m off to my kids school to do end of the school year stuff. eating pizza and having a splash day is much more fun than debating the merits of gay marriage.
xoxo
pullingmyhairout on May 23, 2006 at 9:53 AM
Country Doc nailed it. The slope of this Nations morality is pointing downhill, all the way. It’s exactly what liberalistic reasoning accomplishes. Liberal minds hate democracy unless they are the majority, and actually want dictatorship, as long as THEY are the dictators. Nothing is really immoral supposedly, it’s just progressively distastful. But that can be fixed. And so begins the campaign to make it appear “common” and desensitize the populace. Today, homosexual sex, tomorrow polygamy, after that, pedophilia, besiality, and worse. If you think it won’t happen, consider that not too long ago, homosexual sex didn’t dare venture out of the closet. Now it’s everywhere and demanding its supposed “rights”. The only real barrier to polygamy is what, the Bible. That won’t stand the test of our Courts obviouosly. The only barrier to pedophiles is age of consent, and they will soon be talking publically about their perversion just like homosexuals have been for some time. Things like, “people become young adults much faster now a days and women get their periods much sooner than in the past” will become common mantra for their cause.
There is no limit to the depth of depravity that Godless mankind will sink to, and our liberalistic society seems to be embracing Godlessness with a passion.
NRA4Freedom on May 23, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Dr. Krauthammer is one smart dude.
mikeyboss on May 23, 2006 at 10:08 AM
I know the divorce lawyers are chomping at the bit to pick up all those pieces from all those soon to be broken gay lives; for a profit.
I’m sure they will also have a ball sorting out all the social security payments made on fraudulent documents by illegals. I guess John McCain never has worked in the real world.
Greg McCann on May 23, 2006 at 10:12 AM
I said: “they don’t consider the long-term implications of this cave-in, the slippery slope, because the here and now, their personal future occupies them constantly…“Who cares”? is the response I usually get… most folks just plug their ears and say “la la la la la la.””
Pullingmyhairout responds:
“I don’t think that my position is a cave in at all…I’m not plugging my ears and saying “la la la la.” i just don’t care… So, on that note, i’m off to my kids school to do end of the school year stuff. eating pizza and having a splash day is much more fun than debating the merits of gay marriage.”
Hahahahah! See what I mean, folks?
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Yeah. Krauthammer’s one sharp cat…most of the time. He’s one of the best, IMO.
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 10:29 AM
It’s funny that the liberal gal accuses conservatives of using the gay marriage issue for politics. I had never heard of gay marriage a couple of years ago when the libs started their gay marriage assault on the country as an “act up” exercise against the war.
Perchant on May 23, 2006 at 10:29 AM
If the issue is a political pawn used to mobilize homophobic voters (which it is), why doesn’t Ms. Powers care how politicans go on it? Bill makes an excellent point: doesn’t she want to know what politicans are jerking her around?
Yikes… you’re dangerously close to violating Hot Air’s “no tin foil hats allowed” policy! How many homosexuals do you personally know? Have you ever talked to any of them about what they want? In case all your gay friends are at their jobs right now making more money than you, let me clue you in:
They don’t want to destroy heterosexual marriage. Heck, most of them don’t even care what gay marriage is called. They just want equal rights. Not special rights, equal rights.
I know where you’re all coming from. I grew up in a very conservative household and was told all sorts of things about the big evil gay agenda and how gays wanted to “convert” people and how they wanted to “force their lifestyle” on me (a thinly veiled way of saying that they wanted to rape people). Then I actually met some homosexuals and figured out that they’re just normal people. They’re not sex-crazed maniacs. And the big evil gay agenda was pretty much the same as the big evil straight agenda: the right to live one’s life as an equal citizen with equal rights.
People are slowly starting to realize that, and over time, homosexuals will be given the same rights as heterosexuals to form civil unions.
All I’ve really seen here is the “don’t pee in our marriage pool” argument… as if somehow the fact that homosexuals can get married has any effect on the existing or future marriage of two heterosexuals. This argument isn’t about sex as much as it is about rights, and money, and insurance, and hospital visits, and next-of-kin rights.
Gay people are still going to have sex with each other, and be able to hold hands and kiss in public either way… just like all us heterosexuals. I really don’t understand why this issue ranks so high among heterosexual Conservative hotbutton issues, when it has no effect on them, and when there are so many more important issues out that that do affect them. Imagine if conservatives got this hot and bothered over eminent domain or tax reform.
Mark Jaquith on May 23, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Michelle again demonstrates her keen grasp of the issues and her clear understanding of reality in Washington.
Where else can you get such accurate, clear, sharp commentary and reporting on important issues?
Bravo Michelle!
omegaram on May 23, 2006 at 12:09 PM
To those who do not see what the problem is with gay marriage, notice what is happening in Canada:
Gay marriage is a stalking horse for tyranny. Gay marriage coupled with “Hate Speech” laws means that (1) The Gay lifestyle will be promoted big time in Sex Ed in public schools (already happening in Massachusetts) and (2) it will be illegal to speak against the behavior because it will have achieved the ultimate in “normalcy.”
Good luck in trying to convince your children not to try it for themselves. If they are asked in school what their parents think and they answer honestly, you may find yourself accused of “hate speech” and could lose control over your own children while you fight to stay out of prison.
Ministers and priests are already threatened with arrest in Canada if they publically speak out against sodomy. So, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are gone in Canada. Freedom of speech is disappearing in the US too with our “Hate Speech” laws and campus codes and McCain-Feingold.
Waiting till something affects you personally is the recipe for disaster. Dietrich Bonhoffer, theologian in Germany in WWII, said (and I paraphrase here), “First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I didn’t speak out; then they came for the Catholics, but I wasn’t a Catholic, so I didn’t speak out. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”
That is why the Left slowly works their agenda in the courts. They start with small victories that generate public outrage that fades over time; then they make more outrageous demands generating more outrage from the public that again fades over time. Collectively, we get used to the corruption of our values and ideals because the corruptions are attractively and slowly introduced to us by the entertainmnet media. Those who have the longer view try to call attention to what is happening and the societal ramifications, but most people can’t or refuse to see them. Then one day we look back and wonder how our society crumbled; it crumbled because we were too busy with the details and amusements of our own lives while our enemies worked their agenda.
Margaret McC on May 23, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Nothing against giving credit where credit is due but with all the brown-nosing, shouldn’t there be an official hot air page for praising MM?
Mark… If you don’t get it, then you have no morals. Gay used to be a nice word. Now it means immorality. Literally think of the argument, “I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT MY SEXUAL PREFERENCE IS AND I SHOULD BE AFFORDED SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR SAME. NOW, LET ME ACT LIKE A NANCY WHILE SINGIN’ SHOW TUNES.”
Make marriage an amendment between ONE WOMAN AND ONE MAN and then the immorals can spend their time fighting for rights for boyfriends and girlfriends and casual sex partners. At least then the issue is honest but as someone else stated, that’s not the issue. The issue is to attack marriage. Their goal? “It’s yours and I want it. I’m going to screw you in the ass just like I do my partner and I’m good at it because I practice every day.”
RolandHall on May 23, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Mark said, “How many homosexuals do you personally know…They just want equal rights. Not special rights, equal rights.”
Blah, blah, blah. We aren’t ignorant, we have all seen all the perverted gay pride parades and heard the talking heads for their cause. One of the easiest ways to tell when mankind is truly lost is when he becomes proud of his perverted ways. A few years from now, your exact same statement will be said concerning pedophiles…
“How many pedophiles do you personally know? Have you ever talked to any of them about what they want? In case all your pedophile friends are at their jobs right now making more money than you, let me clue you in:
They don’t want to destroy children. Heck, most of them don’t even care what sex with children is called. They just want equal rights. Not special rights, equal rights.”
“Equal rights” to pursue their perversion, which is little different than the perversion America is courting now, same lust, just different target.
NRA4Freedom on May 23, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Margaret McC-brilliant.
I just think marriage is an American institution that is seen as something that needs to be broken by the liberal agenda. It’s like the communist manifesto- get rid of traditions, culture, etc.
I also think it’s sad to have to base your entire identity on what you like to do in bed.
Imagine if the polygamists marched in the streets in SF and Ford gave them a free car for doing it! Nope, Warren Jeffs (sp?) is on the top 10 FBI most wanted list… why doesn’t the ACLU protect polygamists like they do NAMBLA? Simple, the values of polygamists, while very questionable in many repects (especially the child-sex stuff) still resembles American pioneering spirit and values.
Controversial, I know, lay it on me…
NTWR on May 23, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Mark Jaquith: For me, it’s a matter of following things to their logical conclusion.
The following ideas look pretty good on its face, even necessary. Welfare, birth control, and civil rights are great ideas, right? I think so too, but there are a myriad unintended consequences and opportunities for exploitation by the unscrupulous scum of our society.. Consider the flip sides of…
WELFARE: Results- Skyrocketing illigitimacy, divorce, broken homes, promiscuity, crime(due to no parental supervision and men free from responsibility), lifetime welfare recipients, and above all…an ingrained feeling of entitlement, lowered self-esteem and lazinessness, not to mention increased taxes for the folks who actually DO work and the accompanying resentment.
BIRTH CONTROL: Results- Non sustainable birth rate resulting in loss of country and culture, lowered or no respect for sanctity of life, fantastic rise in immorality, adultery, divorce, freedom from responsibility and its degrading effects, partial birth abortion, and violence.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Results- Riots, forced integration(does not work), sense of entitlement, affirmative action, ridiculous lawsuits, angry whites, angry blacks, divisiveness, pimps and race baiting scum (jesse jackson and farrakan), shakedowns, ebonics, terrorism, entire races being indoctrinated that non-whites are born victims and whites are born racists(discrimination in its purest form), unfair school and job quotas(dumbing down effect), thought police, illegal alien invasion, and OJ.
Welfare, birth control and civil rights are great ideas. They are, IMO and their faults notwithstanding, needed. The point I make is that besides being ludicrous beyond belief, same sex marriage is not needed whatsoever. It will usher in a slew of problems, not the least being a crushing blow to morality.
Morality is what binds our culture together. It is what made us great. Why would we destroy its most sacred institution? Yes, it WILL destroy it by making it irrelevant. What is one single benefit of making marriage a empty word? None. Same sex marriage is a terrible idea.
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 2:11 PM
I’m back now from living my life and having a fun time eating pizza and playing with my kids, and i see that the debate is still going on.
Mark Jaquith says:
Gay people are still going to have sex with each other, and be able to hold hands and kiss in public either way… just like all us heterosexuals. I really don’t understand why this issue ranks so high among heterosexual Conservative hotbutton issues, when it has no effect on them, and when there are so many more important issues out that that do affect them. Imagine if conservatives got this hot and bothered over eminent domain or tax reform.
My response: this is exactly what i was talking about in my earlier post. Conservatives are wasting precious time when they could be doing MUCH MORE VALUABLE work. i understand the “then they’ll ask for bestiality, polygamy, etc.” arguement. But puuuuleeeeze can’t our Congress focus on something more important? i agree with earlier posters that if we conservatives (and yes, i AM a conservative) got all hot and bothered about tax reform and social security reform, that SOMETHING, ANYTHING might get done!!! Our slippery slope is not necessarily granting homosexual unions equal protection, it is our inaction over things that are REALLY important, like fiscal responsibility, controlling our borders, tax reform, social security reform. After all, that’s what the government SHOULD be doing. Instead, they blow a bunch of hot air and waste their breath on things like marriage. That was the point i was trying to make. sheeesh. If our useless congress can fix everything else first, THEN BE MY GUEST and work on the gay marriage thing. First things first.
pullingmyhairout on May 23, 2006 at 2:31 PM
Another hot one folks, but no mention of the kids. What about the kids and where is the ACLU for them? Imagine a baby or toddler about to be adopted by gay parents. 2 moms or 2 dads, married? Would they ever be allowed to go to a Christian church, or would their “parents” stop them?
This has got to be one of the most egregious violations of a persons civil rights possible today. It is absolutely beyond my imagination why anyone would subject (or allow) any child to this way of life, and future torture from schoolmates, etc.
Imagine the ‘stork’ talk, imagine the kids horror in sex-ed class at about the 4th grade(yes they start about then). Talk about messed up, wait for the stats to roll in on these kids in 20 years.
WHO WILL PROTECT THESE KIDS??
shooter on May 23, 2006 at 2:55 PM
shooter: Damn straight, but if everyone taught their kids from birth that Nature is just a big cruel bully that needs to be slapped down, ignored, or mocked, than these poor kids wouldn’t be subjected to the tortures they’ll endure from other kids.
Besides, it’s not about the children, it’s about the feeeeelings of gay people who are being unfairly subjected to Nature’s homophobic demand of a male-female union for procreation.
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Pullingmyhairout:
All the issues of conservative concern are related — we are holding our fingers in the dike of Leftism which seeks to destroy our way of life; from subverting our Constitutional freedoms, to the destruction of our capitalist economic system and to our Judeo-Christian values.
The fact that the polar opposites of Marxists/Leftists/Secularists are Islamic fanatics does not stop the Left from aligning with them because they share the desire to destroy the U.S. and all Western Civilizations.
Every thing these people do is done to undermine our society. Environmentalism is now the home to extremists — the better to undermine corporate entities; the ACLU works tirelessly to obliterate any vestiges of Christianity from public life; the Peace & Justice crowd speak right out of the Communist Party USA playbook (check out the CPUSA website to see how well-matched their talking points are with every peace group). The universites, and even Catholic colleges, are “owned” by the hard Left. The U.S. media are similarly biased.
We get so used to the surrounding propaganda that we get numb to its effect. Little by little we feel more and more constrained about what we can say aloud; that’s not accidental. We no longer feel shame about being obscene or using foul language in public, but we cannot call sins by their proper name. The former license just causes us to be coarse; the latter makes us cooperate with Evil by our cowardice.
Margaret McC on May 23, 2006 at 4:03 PM
I am really not a coward, i just don’t see how we can solve all the problems at once. The gay marriage thing is low, low, low on my list. Just prioritize is all i’m saying. And, if you all knew me, you’d know that i am the most UN-Politically Correct person on the planet. i feel like i can say anything to anyone (and i do on a regular basis, much to my husband’s dismay). I DO understand what is happening around us – that’s why my kids are in a private school. I cringe everytime I hear some liberal pundit complain about gas prices, social security mess, culture of corruption, saving the environment, war for oil, Katrina mess and then blame everything on Bush, like these problems have only been around for 5 years. yea right. i’m tired of being called a racist just because i’m conservative. i’m tired of people telling me that we are “in bed with Big Oil.” gag. I’m tired of people telling me that we don’t care about the environment (soooo not true, especially in this part of Texas). I just see that there are much bigger fish to fry than trying to convince 2/3 of the american people that we need some sort of constitutional amendment to reconfirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. i just think it’s a waste of time. that’s all. Margaret, trust me – I definitely understand the big picture. And ecamorg, please try to figure out when I am being a bit sarcastic. :)
gotta go feed my kids now.
love and kisses,
pullingmyhairout on May 23, 2006 at 6:20 PM
You know MargaretMcC, I think that the Islamofascists, Marxists, and Communists are very close in ideology. Imagine a big circle, Fascism at one “end” of the line and Communism on the other. They are still connected and the ideologies are right next to eachother, so to speak. I was once laughed off of a liberal message board for saying someone was a “fascist liberal.” They claimed the two were “polar opposites.” I think they are more alike than different.
NTWR on May 23, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Gay marriage is NOT low on the priority list. The core of our culture is families and we have lost the standard of morality. If truth is not culturally important in Iran, or muslims don’t feel it is wrong to lie to an infidel, is it politically incorrect to prosecute them since they are just practicing thier culture?
Scenarios: Your 14 yo daughter is raped by her high school teacher, but it is not rape because she consented. She elects to give the child up for adoption and has full control and signs over custody. You have no input because she is an “emancipated minor” since it has to do with sex. The adoption agency assigns your grandchild to a couple of gay men.
Your son is on the wrestling team and the coach he has admired for years, who teaches his values along with good wrestling technique turns out to be on his 6th gay marriage. Your son admits to being confused about his sexual orientation.
Your 15 year old daughter comes home an announces she is marrying her 18 yo girlfriend and they are adopting a daugher together when they are 18. You as a parent have no input because since homosexual marriage is OK and she is an “emancipated minor” everything is OK in the land. You speak against it and Children’s services removes your daughter from the home because of your “abusive”, hate-crime, homophobic, behavior. It is thrown out of court but costs you 50K in legal costs.
You learn that all year your son’s 3rd grade teacher has been talking excitedly about the new baby he and his male partner are getting ready to adopt. Your son can’t understand why you have a problem with it. He and his friend andy were talking about doing the same thing when they grow up.
Without an accepted moral standard, or society standing for the right of parents to train thier children according to thier own moral standard, our society will fall apart in about 2 more generations. The Judeo-Christian Bible that our country and laws were founded on was not considered by our founding fathers to be enforcing religion. Implied in the fabric of the documents is the assumption that the standards of our Creator were absolute truth. This assumption is rapidly being destroyed while we worry about “higher priority” items like borders and taxes.
The lack of morality is why laws don’t even work in this country any more and we are being forced to protect our borders with with guns. Soon we will be protecting our children from teachers with guns, becuase the laws won’t matter anymore.
CountryDoc on May 23, 2006 at 7:49 PM
NTWR, you are correct to say ‘fascist liberal’. Those who laughed at you either don’t understand their own viewpoints or are lying about them. Say to a lib: “I think we should enforce the border.” They will respond with: “You can’t say that! It’s racist!” Oh really, I can’t say that? Are you taking away my freedom of speech? Who’s the fascist now, bee-otch?
And where did this notion of fascism being a right of center ideology come from anyway? (cough libs cough cough) Fascism is about state control and is basically the same as communism in that if ya don’t like it you’re off to the gulags. Fascism is also about everybody being the same. Stalin, did he or did he not murder just as many if not more minorities than Hitler and El Duce combined? He’s more known for killing ethnic Russians than minorities ’cause libs want him remembered in a more favorable light (you know, ’cause it’s ok to kill whites!)
Tell your lib friends to turn off American Idol and read a freakin’ history book once in a while!
Condi for President
Ayaan for Florida Gov
Tony737 on May 23, 2006 at 8:25 PM
michelle, class act as usual…keep up the great job
michelle in 08???
mike hale on May 23, 2006 at 8:44 PM
Public schools shouldn’t exist. And if you care about your kids, you shouldn’t let them go to one. And I don’t know what’s going on in Canada, but down here we have this thing called free speech.
Cafeteria-style sexuality? This isn’t marijuana or skateboarding… something you just “try.” This is a fundamental aspect of one’s self that cannot be changed on a whim.
And I oppose those things. But they’re tangential to the matter at hand.
Go poison someone else’s well.
Let me know when you learn to debate like an adult.
Children are not adults and are not capable of making decisions about sexual matters. We’re talking about two consenting adults… your slippery slope argument doesn’t apply.
Not welfare. But civil rights are absolutely a good idea. That doesn’t mean that I have to be happy about “reverse-discrimination” or affirmative-action or race-baiting scum like Jesse Jackson. Yeah, the consequence of birth control may be a reduced birth rate, but so what? Are people required to reproduce in some sort of reverse-of-China situation? If people want to have 10 kids, go at it. If they don’t want any, who am I to say that they must reproduce? You’re thinking like a socialist… this whole concept of group rights and what’s best for the group.
Morality is subjective. My morality is not your morality. Our country was founded on principles that were meant to allow the coexistence of people with different morality. Freedom of religion, free speech, freedom from unwarranted search.
I take it by your use of the word “sacred” that you are a religious person. Answer me this: without a certificate from the state saying that you are married, do you believe you can be married? That is, do you grant power over your concept of marriage to the state? This seems a very strange thing for a religious person to do… I would think that state control over a sacred institution would be avoided. As for me, I believe that marriage is a deeply personal, even religious sacrament that the state can never touch. I’m engaged to be married at the moment. If the state of Florida decided that it wasn’t going to offer legal marriage anymore, would I call off the wedding? Of course not! There is a distinction between one’s personal concept of marriage and the idea of a civil union as granted by the state. You seem to be using your personal idea of marriage and applying it to the state’s concept of marriage. They are two separate entities. The gay marriage debate isn’t about changing your personal idea of marriage. Gay people get married in churches already… that’s not what’s at stake. What’s being debated here is the state’s concept of marriage.
They already are being adopted by homosexuals. And the long term studies are already in… the kids turn out fine. And they’re no more likely to be homosexuals themselves, in case you were wondering. At any rate, they’re not your kids, so unless they’re being abused (unlikely… heterosexual males are the biggest abusers of children), it’s none of your business.
Which one? You talk about “an accepted moral standard” (i.e. forcing people to conform to one standard… yours?) and “the right of parents to train their children according to their own moral standard.” These are two opposing schools of thought. Fascism vs individualism. Conformity vs freedom.
The main argument here seems to be that homosexuality doesn’t agree with your idea of religion or morality. You’re not quite ready to outlaw homosexuality (or maybe you are?) so the best that you can do to make society conform to your idea of morality is to limit the legal rights of homosexuals, and by doing so, keep them in the shadows, where their lifestyle won’t offend your sensibilities. In a lot of ways, it sounds like standard left-wing thinking: “you don’t have the right to offend me.”
Mark Jaquith on May 23, 2006 at 9:26 PM
pullingmyhairout: I considered the possibility that you were being sarcastic. I hope you were seeing my sarcasm. I have never challenged you before.
mark jadith: Answer me this: without a certificate from the state saying that you are married, do you believe you can be married? That is, do you grant power over your concept of marriage to the state?
Answer: I think that “Render Caesar’s things to Caesar” pretty much sums up the Christian position. Unless the State’s doctrine is in direct violation of God’s law, you obey the State.
mark jadith: “Are people required to reproduce in some sort of reverse-of-China situation? If people want to have 10 kids, go at it. If they don’t want any, who am I to say that they must reproduce?”
Answer- Straw man. No one suggested a mandatory birthrate…that is a consequence of birth control. I thought that was made clear.
mark jadith: “Morality is subjective. My morality is not your morality. Our country was founded on principles that were meant to allow the coexistence of people with different morality.”
BTW, Using your logic…My morality says that because I am bigger and stronger than you, I can kill you, take your woman and enslave your kids. Cool huh?
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 10:25 PM
“Therefore what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
So it would be in violation of God’s law, according to the Bible. A certificate from the state doesn’t make you married in a Christian state, nor does the lack thereof make you unmarried.
It was a question… I was asking how you avoid negative consequences of birth control without interfering with people’s private lives and individual freedom. If you can’t, then it’s a moot point.
No, because you’ve violated my rights in doing so. We’re talking about two consenting adults… no one’s rights are violated by that. Coexistence of people with different morality doesn’t mean that rights are out the window. If I want to teach my children that homosexuality is natural, you can’t stop me just because that is against your morality. Nor can I stop you from teaching your children that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.
Mark Jaquith on May 23, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Calling All Catholics
National Catholic Register
May 21-27, 2006
by the Editors
Our cardinals and bishops want your help.
In June, the U.S. Senate will vote on the marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which will define marriage as between a man and a woman. The U.S. bishops are asking as many Catholics as possible to participate in the Knights of Columbus’ drive to contact their U.S. senators.
To participate, print out the Knights’ response form at KofC.org or write your own letter using the information here. Find their names and addresses by typing in your Zip code at Vote-Smart.org.
Why homosexual “marriage” is wrong, and not just for Catholics.
Read all the article here:
http://www.ncregister.com/articulo4.php?artkod=NDg4
CatholicConservative on May 23, 2006 at 11:18 PM
“Therefore what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”
The God of Israel has hated a divorcing (Mal. 2:15,Matt.19:8,9). However: Romans 7:2,3 makes an exception as does 1st Cor.6:9-11 by death or adultery respectively.
“It was a question…it’s a moot point.”
OK, Moot point.
“If I want to teach my children that homosexuality is natural, you can’t stop me just because that is against your morality. Nor can I stop you from teaching your children that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion.”
Horse$#!t. The fact that folks like you are ramming this garbage down our kid’s throats against our will thru state sponsored edu… I mean, indoctrination proves your disingenuousness. As far as your last point is concerned. I’ll paraphrase John Wayne:
“Just because we’re neighbors, doesn’t mean I have to be neighborly”
Isn’t that magical?
ecamorg on May 23, 2006 at 11:48 PM
I cannot believe only 50% of Americans are against gay marriage.
There’s no way in hell that’s true. It’s gotta be more like 75-80%.
Who are they trying to kid?? 50% M.A.
Richard Davis on May 24, 2006 at 12:03 AM
Mark, you said, “Children are not adults and are not capable of making decisions about sexual matters. We’re talking about two consenting adults… your slippery slope argument doesn’t apply.”
Yes, it applies. Again, 100 years ago, the majority of people hardly comprehended what homosexual sex was. 30 or 40 years ago, even the word “homosexual” was spoken in low tones IF it was spoken at all. All those things have changed. If you think that the other immoral lusts are just going to sit by and keep silent, you are fooling yourself. It’s only a matter of time until some liberal minded judge declares that say, a “consenting” 14 year old is fair game. An all out assult on the “thinking” of “prudish” people who “don’t understand that people become adults a lot sooner now a days” will take place, just like the assult of the last few decades against people who understand that homosexual sex has nothing to do with “love”, but is all about lust, is a perversion of the worst sort, and is something that once brought out of the closet where it belongs, will permeate and further help destroy a moral society. But then, that’s really at the heart of what liberalistic thinking is all about, “do what thou wilt, we answer to no one”.
NRA4Freedom on May 24, 2006 at 10:21 AM
It’s getting to the point that I can’t believe anything the mainstream media puts out anymore. Gay marrage is only a boon for the divorce lawyers because the breakup rate is high. No way 50% of the American public is for it.
Shmo on May 24, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Civil unions yes, marriage no.
I see marriage as being a sacred institution started by religions, not something to be dictated by government.
I do believe everyone has the right to spend their life with anyone they choose, and they should get the same benefits. Just don’t try to make it seem that the church is okay with it, or that 2 mommies is natural for a family.
It’s not!
When 2 guys can make a baby (without the help of some deranged doctor)then I might reconsider my position.
Kids need a mom and dad. I realize that divorce and death can change this, but that isn’t a planned situation.
Gooch on May 24, 2006 at 1:59 PM
I am against public education, for this very reason. Don’t assume that just because I support classical liberalism (that is, the free and open exchange of ideas) that I’m a left winger. I’m opposed to government indoctrination, erosion of parental rights, and the whole idea of the “Nanny State.”
You need to silence your moral indignation for a minute and actually stop to consider how adult homosexuality and pedophilia differ. Children are not adults. Children are not capable of making decisions regarding sexual contact. Sexual relations with a child is a violation of that child’s rights. They can’t consent, so it is rape. Just because you see rape and homosexuality as sins doesn’t make them the same.
Do you really want the government legislating what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your bedroom? Who you can and can’t be intimate with? If you’re going to advocate for what is essentially a theocracy, you better be damn sure that your view of morality doesn’t ever become a minority view, because if it does, you’ll find that you have become a second class citizen, hung with the noose that you tied.
Gooch,
I agree that marriage is not something to be dictated by government, but the state’s idea of “marriage” (i.e. a civil union) is invariably controlled by the government. You just need to realize that when the government talks about “marriage” it is not the same as your idea of marriage, or my idea of marriage, or anyone’s personal/religious/spiritual view of marriage. An ideal solution would be to eliminate the word “marriage” from state use. Call the joining of two people a “civil union” and call it a day. The word “marriage” carries a lot of baggage… and it gives many people the utterly false idea that the state has control of their personal idea of marriage. Thus, when homosexuals want to be civilly united, and it is called “marriage,” people feel that their personal/religious/spiritual view of marriage is being attacked. It isn’t. When people are polled, VASTLY more people are in favor of “civil unions” than “gay marriage.” It’s a semantic difference. They are functionally identical. People just hear “marriage” and “gay” and since many people’s personal idea of marriage specifically excludes homosexuals, they cry foul, even though they’re perfectly fine with the concept of granting a civil union to homosexuals.
In the eyes of the state, all “marriages” are civil unions. The state doesn’t claim (nor should anyone think that they could claim) any sort of religious or spiritual jurisdiction.
Mark Jaquith on May 25, 2006 at 1:21 AM
Mark Jaquith: Ah well. We’re not ever going to see eye to eye on this. I think you’re dead wrong, and you think the same about me. Good sparring with you anyway.
ecamorg on May 25, 2006 at 4:22 AM
“Do you really want the government legislating what you can and can’t do in the privacy of your bedroom?”
They already do. I’m not allowed to murder anyone in my bedroom. I’m not allowed to torture anyone in my bedroom. Who said sex had to be in the bedroom? After all, your buddy Cliton said, “oral sex is not sexual relations” so you should be able to do that in public. We can kiss in public and if oral sex is not sexual relations then kissing isn’t either. This is what we have when you make ridiculous arguments to further an immoral agenda.
Yes, there is more talk about what was “taboo” at one time but that is because every day the Liberal agenda is forced upon us and yes, our children do lose their innocence at an earlier age than they used to. While we know it is by “the Liberal” design, we’re against it, even before we were against it.
Nobody can stop you from having anal sex just as nobody can stop you from committing murder or torture. That’s a weak argument. Your decision to oppose and ignore laws implies you will do so no matter what the law is if you feel it’s wrong… to you.
“Go poison someone else’s well.”
Mark, where’s your tolerance or is that just something straight people are required to have?
“Let me know when you learn to debate like an adult.”
Homosexuals are the ones who refer to themselves “girls” when they’re male and how much they like show tunes but make a reference to it and I’m not an adult. I guess we’re on the same level when I do then. Thanks for clearing that up for me because to me, you’re a Nancy. Nancy is a woman’s name I never cared for, including Nancy Palosi, nor do I care for gays. So, I say Nancy. You guys took a perfectly good word and ruined it by adopting it because I guess a long time ago you didn’t like being called queer, which means abnormal. I think queer is better suited.
Marriage is between one woman and one man. You already have a word that says two [or more] men or women are companions. It’s called homosexuality. You don’t need to hijack another word which we hold dear and try to destroy the family, which you are obviously against and I believe your primary goal. If you can destroy the family, the sky’s the limit. Next the argument will be for multiple partners, beastiality, etc. It’s not so far fetched. If the government cannot dictate, then they cannot dictate. So, if I choose to kill some queers in my bedroom, who is the goverment to tell me that I can’t or shouldn’t do in my bedroom? They can’t stop me. Isn’t that the argument?
You’re so hypocritical. You cannot produce life unless you violate the very premise for your argument. You got that? You need us or you have to impregnate women, either through sex or implantation or you [queers] will eventually cease to exist.
Your argument that you need to impose your sexual preference as a reason to need special privileges is a bunch of coffee house crap. I could care less where you stick your member but the last thing I want to do is hear about it and see it on every show on public TV. Yes, we liked you better in the closet. We also don’t care for hearing about any tragedies or any other immoralities, such as pedophilia, rape, murder, etc.
You saying, “I’m gay” is similar to me saying “I like sex with women.” It’s not a topic people care to hear about no matter which side of the fence you’re on. It’s also not a topic to be discussed with children. Children should be children for as long as they can be.
Does one immorality beget another? You already said we can’t stop you, so I guess it does.
RolandHall on June 1, 2006 at 4:15 AM
Old thread… I’m not going to bother addressing in full Roland’s paranoid slippery-slope fallacies, because it’s not likely to matter. I will mention how telling it is that you assumed I was gay just because I don’t want to join you in discriminating against homosexuals. I’m straight, so I don’t have an immediate personal stake in this issue, but that doesn’t mean that I should ignore it, or take your side. One of my concerns here is that if equal protection can be ignored for homosexuals, why not for any other group? Why not a group that I am part of? It’s not far fetched, I can think of two things (religion and national heritage) that would have had me subject to discrimination at some point in this country’s history. If we allow discrimination against homosexuals, we’re setting a precedent that could be used to institutionalize discrimination against other groups.
Once again, this isn’t about gay rights… homosexuals don’t want special rights not afforded to heterosexuals. This is about equal rights. Unless you’re 100% positive that in an unequal rights scenario, you’ll always fall on the up side, it’s folly to encourage such inequality. And I don’t care who you are or what you do, everyone is a minority in some way.
Mark Jaquith on July 21, 2006 at 1:10 AM
I have read Sanger’s own words, and she originally started Planned Parenthood with the intention of reducing the urban black population. What your high school teacher thinks is irrelevant.
captainmeta4 on May 21, 2009 at 6:05 PM