Heart-ache: McCain appears in ad opposing gay marriage
posted at 4:21 pm on November 3, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s for Prop 107, which would amend the Arizona constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
We’ve seen what happens when one of Sully’s Republican heroes betrays the Cause. Henceforth, St. John can expect his every last deviation from “the conservative soul” to be greeted with increasingly shrill denunciations, culminating in a year or two with outright vilification. Like, for example, being accused of having “lost his mind.”
Which is a criticism Andrew Sullivan is certainly well positioned to make.
On that note, my conscience compels me to note that Sully agrees with me that Lurch was making a joke about Bush, not the troops.
I am, in all seriousness, filled with heart-ache at that fact.
Say, is it just me or is this ad the teensiest bit heavy-handed?
Update: Says Ace, channeling Jim Webb:
But more fun than the actual story is, as Allah notes, how St. Andrew of the Sacred Heart-Ache will react. For so long Andrew Sullivan has held McCain up on a pedestal, then flipped him over and put his penis in his mouth. (An act of honor and love, not a sexual act, remember. NTTAWWT.)
Well, now McCain has slapped him in the face with that very same penis.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
Looks fine to me
Defector01 on November 3, 2006 at 4:26 PM
Just the fact that the whiny little smarmy jagoff agrees with you should fill you with self doubt and cause you to question your manhood as well.
Ok, maybe just cause you to question your initial judgement that Kerry wasn’t intending a slap at the troops as well as the president.
webproze on November 3, 2006 at 4:28 PM
It fills me with heart-ache as well.
Cary on November 3, 2006 at 4:28 PM
I like it too. I’d much rather see McCain standing up for marriage than sputtering about how we need a ‘Guest Worker Program’
infidel4life on November 3, 2006 at 4:32 PM
Actually it is down right polite; something people with opposing viewpoints could well learn to emulate.
MarkB on November 3, 2006 at 4:34 PM
I agree. I’ll give Sen. Golddigger the joke, but he has to own the Freudian slip that slipped into what should have been his punchline.
Kid from Brooklyn on November 3, 2006 at 4:40 PM
ahhhhhhhh…well…….heavy handed? no….1950’s Leave It To Beaver marriage shots…yeah….actually I thought it was not driving home either point….judicial activism or the sanctity of marriage. Just boring.
Limerick on November 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Has anyone ever seen Allahpundit and Andrew Sullivan in the same room at the same time?
I’m just sayin…
Kevin M on November 3, 2006 at 4:43 PM
Say, is it just me or is this ad the teensiest bit heavy-handed?
I wouldn’t call it heavy-handed. It’s just not that good.
Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 4:44 PM
I thought is was done in good taste.
Just imagine what it would have looked like if the visuals of gays had imitated the physical effect Parkinson’s has on Michael J. Fox in his stem cell ad.
[cover my eyes]
fogw on November 3, 2006 at 4:47 PM
Not even that little tinkly piano part? That made me laugh.
Allahpundit on November 3, 2006 at 4:48 PM
>Has anyone ever seen Allahpundit and Andrew Sullivan in the same room at the same time?
Yes, once. But the things they were doing…
Seriously, I feel bad for Sully here. He was wrong to let the marriage issue overwhelm everything else and drive him around the bend a couple years back, but this is the kind of thing–seeing pols he is simpatico with forced by public opinion to rag on gay marriage as if they oppose it as much as Sully wants it, when it fact they don’t care and would flip in a heartbeat if politically savvy to do so–that must really sting. Sucks.
Alex K on November 3, 2006 at 4:52 PM
Maybe it’s my almost complete ignorance of “Sully” or what he says/does/stands for, but I don’t quite get what’s being said here. I’m no fan of McCain, but he seems to be on the side I would be on, so where’s the betrayal?
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 4:54 PM
Okay, now that I’ve actually watched the ad I do find it quite funny. The piano is great. Marriage to the rescue!!
Alex K on November 3, 2006 at 4:54 PM
Well, props to John McCain for standing up for his beliefs. No waffling.
CrimsonFisted on November 3, 2006 at 4:54 PM
…and yes I thought it was rather heavy-handed.
And btw, I think you should have a pre-emptive BSG thread for tonight. 8)
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 4:56 PM
I’ve always thought that the phrase “I’m opposed to gay marriage” is code for “I think homosexuals aren’t fully human.”
Am I wrong about that?
Enrique on November 3, 2006 at 4:57 PM
This ad really does nothing either way for me, as the issue discussed is down a ways on my priorty list.
But damn, AP, you just can’t help yourself, can you? You just look for ways to criticize Republicans and take the liberal’s side on issue after issue. From the other thread about the misleading ad, to bending over backwards to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, to trying desperately to get everybody to move off the Kerry issue when it was still fresh in people’s minds (while milking out Foleygate for everything you could even after that issue jumped the shark), to suggesting that those who don’t believe that many democrats (including Kerry) disrespect the military as being in ‘nutroot’ territory … and on and on and on.
Do you really believe all this stuff? Are you playing devil’s advocate as has been suggested elsewhere? Are you naturally just a contrarian?
What gives?
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 4:57 PM
urbancenturion– The betrayal is to the Sullivan’s ideosyncratic, rather liberalish conservatism.
Alex K on November 3, 2006 at 4:58 PM
Yes, you are. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t oppose gay marriage.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 4:58 PM
I can’t speak for Allah, but I do think that there are times when the “big tent” doesn’t seem quite big enough for me. At those times I tend to complain with the goal of enlarging the tent.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:00 PM
It’s because (a) I’m a filthy traitor (b) who wants Republicans to lose (c) because I desperately seek liberals’ approval.
That about cover it?
Allahpundit on November 3, 2006 at 5:01 PM
Heavy Handed? It’s about a subtle as an ambulance; not that there’s anything wrong with that!
DR Good on November 3, 2006 at 5:03 PM
I’d better not post this or else some of you guys will never stop whining, huh?
Allahpundit on November 3, 2006 at 5:04 PM
I thought it was because you have the hots for a D-babe, AP.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:04 PM
It looks like a SNL spoof.
Enrique, it’s not code for anything. Just trying to keep us on top of the slippery slope.
jdpaz on November 3, 2006 at 5:06 PM
Is there a reason you think that would be a problem? I’d be very, very surprised if there weren’t “damage control” meetings. I would also be very, very surprised if there weren’t “damage infliction” meetings on the other side.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:06 PM
The slippery slope of what? Equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation?
Oh, the horror!
Enrique on November 3, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Thanks, but liberalish conservatism? Actually, I don’t want to know. If someone who is ostensibly conservative and thinks McCain siding for classical marraige is a betrayal, then that is one messed up individual.
Hear, hear. When AP starts to do the “devil’s advocate” thing, it confuses me quite a bit. But I can see how someone can get tired of an issue.
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 5:09 PM
Hey, between that and accepting Kerry’s apology, you’re becoming the Kirsten Powers of the Right.
Enrique on November 3, 2006 at 5:10 PM
The goalposts have moved. (Partially Enrique’s fault, and partialld jdpaz’s fault).
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:10 PM
…usually, the phrase “I’m opposed to gay marriage” is code among the homosexual set for “*I* am not fully human”, referring to the speaker. This is for them, then, the pretext they need to treat you as a knuckle-dragging Nazi, and it absolves them of any requirement for civil discourse.
…certainly homosexuals, activist or not, are fully human. My reading of Scripture tells me that *this* is the problem….
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 5:11 PM
Is there a reason I think there would be a problem? People were accusing me of trying to singlehandedly reignite the Foley scandal two days ago by posting video of that moronic B-movie cameo he did.
Here’s an idea. Anyone who thinks I’m too liberal to blog here should e-mail Michelle and tell her that. She’s a smart businesswoman; if there are enough complaints, she’ll replace me with a “real” conservative. Her address is on the About page. Fire away.
Allahpundit on November 3, 2006 at 5:11 PM
You really have to know Sully’s work to grok that. Personally, I grokked that he wasn’t really a conservative when he told us that gas wasn’t expensive enough.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:12 PM
Okay, okay. Calm down. I wasn’t one of those people.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:13 PM
Accepting Kerry’s apology in exchange for the realization that he is permanently irrelevant from now on? That’s an exchange I can live with.
What makes Sully a conservative–by any stretch of the imagination?
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 5:19 PM
Enrique, Regardless of sexual orientation? Really? So Jon Mark Karr can marry his 8 year-old sweetheart? Warren Jeffs can marry his forty-seventh wife? Once you step over the line and allow any other thing be called marriage then you’ve lost all logical reason not to extend it to cover every imaginable combination of people and things. Traditional marriage offers benefits to society that no other combination does. It needs to be protected.
jdpaz on November 3, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Other than the fact that he says he is? Not much these days. At one point, he was a fairly reliable supporter of the GWOT, and a pretty keen observer of the unhinged left. Then Bush came out agains gay marriage, and suddenly Sully decided that Abu Grhaib was the most gob-smackingly vile thing he’d ever heard of. This gave him a pretext to withdraw his support of Bush on the war. It’s been a steady veer to the left ever since.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:22 PM
“liberalish conservatism”–I know, I know! But that’s what it is. Or was. Maybe now it’s just “liberalism.” Anyway, you’re right, you don’t want to know.
Alex K on November 3, 2006 at 5:23 PM
So is AP now a Sully-Con? I.e., why the “heart-ache” in the title of this thread?
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 5:24 PM
Spending some quality time in person with Senator McCain this weekend………….
ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR QUESTIONS???
seejanemom on November 3, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Sully has been a supporter of McCain (McCain being a liberal Republican and all). Now that McCain has come out against gay marriage, consistancy – if such a thing were important to him – would require Sully to suddenly decide that McCain is just another evil fascist after all. This would undoubtedly cause him a good deal of heartache.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:27 PM
Oh. My. God.
Oh, the sweet, sweet tears of Andrew Sullivan. I shall savor them so. They will be added to my beverages and shall transform them into…ambrosia.
I haven’t even watched the video, but I am sooooo looking forward to Andrews freak out.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 5:30 PM
Nope.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 5:34 PM
I can’t read your mind, so I don’t know what the truth is. I’m just trying to figure out the meaning of the predominant trend of late. It’s hard not to notice.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 5:35 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong, but NJ and HI do not permit same sex marriage. They both support civil partnerships, but not marriage — at least not yet.
lefaucheur on November 3, 2006 at 5:40 PM
E-mail? Nah, I’m too damn lazy. But I’ll just publicly state that you’re the best thing HotAir has going for it, and are the reason why it is the success it is. Seriously. You all can disagree with him all you want. But the fact is, as an internet pundit, there is no better.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And now you all can feel free to fire away the the flipping AP over and placing…
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 5:41 PM
…homosexuality is behavior, not identity.
I’ve got an idea! Let’s have equal rights and mandatory “diversity” training in support of smokers! That’s behavior, too.
…no? How ’bout for alcoholics? Before you point out that alcoholism is a disease according to the AMA and others, remember that homosexuality was classed as a mental disorder until a homosexual shrink in a rubber gorilla mask (I think it was) shamed a professional conclave of shrinks.
…no? How ’bout for embezzlers? Before you point out that embezzling is a crime, allow me to point out that, until recent activism, homosexual acts were criminal affairs.
…no? How ’bout for adulterers? Before you point out that adultery is a matter of morals and is grounds for divorce, alllow me to point out that “switch-hitters” among our married miscreants often break up marriages…see where I’m going here? Why should our heterosexual adulterers get short-changed? More immoral sex for all!
…no? How about the NAMBLA guys? The ACLU and others have been championing their causes, and sleepy, weepy DAs all ‘cross the country have so far failed to do anything about their literature, which not only advocates statutory rape, it explains in some cases how to get at the kids, have our fun, and get away with the least bother.
…no? How about mandatory training for elementary school kids on the merits of homosexual behavior, pushed against the will of their parents right into the kids fresh little faces? Oh…already got that in California…nevermind.
I’m not against homosexuals. I’m not against homosexuals “playing married”. I’m certainly all in favor of homosexuals making their relationships public, being able to be listed as “primary family” or whatever for hospital visits and decisions, buy insurance at “family” rates, etc.
I’m just against both having our society being coerced to stamp its imprimatur on their odd little doings, and increasingly having to “celebrate” their “diversity” with them.
In Europe, they don’t speak of husbands and wives any more…”partners”, however accurate it is today in the familial realm where you can’t tell the players without a program, is an egregious assault on the English language…sort of like the “-person” craze of 20 years ago.
…remember: one of the key things which piss-off our jihadist playmates is what they see as the promotion of homosexuality…which makes their skin crawl no end…and about which they’re pretty close to the truth. So, if you’re simultaneously a homosexual *and* anti-Iraq War, get yourself sorted out. You’re both the pretext for the war, and are being directly defended by it.
…civil contracts? I say have one “partner” buy the other, and we can deal with things as a property matter. Then, when they want to divorce, they forego the muss of family law and simply sell one another on to another interested buyer…or back to themselves.
…mind you, politicians like Gov. Whassisname from New Jersey and Foley of Florida would soon introduce eminent domain into the mix, but we can deal with that when it…er…comes up….
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 5:41 PM
Yeah, how about “When are you going to admit that your campaign finance law has been an utter fiasco and a horrible abrogation of the First Amendment?”
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:44 PM
Puritan1648, NRO has a couple of articles about what has happened along those lines that you would like. I don’t know if you’ve read them, but if you haven’t, you probably should.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 5:44 PM
I read some of that weird article/thing and it reminded me of something I was considering the other day. I’ll state my thesis in the form of an assertion:
Marriage is not a right. Marriage is a freedom. We are free to marry, or not. If it were a right then the state would have some obligatino to provide you with spousal companionship, like a lawyer must be provided as described by Miranda.
OTOH, marriage, as an arrangement into which we are free to enter, has certain undeniable benefits to society, which is why society takes steps to reward those who get married with various policies, like tax breaks, inheritance issues, etc. Other social arrangements have their benefits and costs which earn them the consequences in law that currently exist.
(The definition of mixed feelings: seeing your consequence-in-law drive over a cliff in your new Mercedes–I know it was lame but it occured to me; sometimes I am a slave to my impulses.)
Am I wrong in my analysis? Why?
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 5:45 PM
Have you stopped spitting on your ex-wife?
jdpaz on November 3, 2006 at 5:48 PM
Most political punditry is so mindlessly partisan that it’s unreadable or unlistenable. One of the best things about Hot Air is that it’s not that way. Sometimes it does seem that Allah goes out of his way to be scrupulous in covering the latest partisan-line-divided Outrage! and that’s a good thing.
Alex K on November 3, 2006 at 5:51 PM
Urbancenturion, I don’t think the right vs freedom thing works (although, it is fresh and intriguing). Think of it in terms of your 2nd Amendment rights. The govt is not obligated to provide your weapon.
In the same way marriage is a right in that there are laws that allow the practice.
jdpaz on November 3, 2006 at 5:53 PM
…really? I’ll have to check it out. Thanks.
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 5:54 PM
They already have equal rights. A gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man can marry a woman “regardless of sexual orientation”. Therefore, where both are similarly situated, both are being treated EXACTLY the same by the law.
Fatal on November 3, 2006 at 6:01 PM
You’ve done it now John. I wonder where the first blackface will show up.
BacaDog on November 3, 2006 at 6:02 PM
…no…marriage is a *contract*, and the states have the *obligation* to regulate and ensure the integrity of contracts. Marriages involve property — not to mention progeny — and the state has the responsibility to regulate them because other parties than the principles might have claims on either the property or the progeny (e.g., grandparents)…and, before you ask, homosexuals *do* adopt, and so grandparents come into play there.
Also, the state often has to step in to deal with the leavings, both property and progeny, when a marriage goes wobbly.
Nobody would support new and unstable commercial or real property contracts. For that reason, why should the state be held to expanding a long-established tradition to include a new wrinkle for it to oversee….
Getting married is more binding than buying a car, and is almost as tedious as buying a house. The state is there to see that contracts are properly executed and to regulate the process.
…we’ve had an explosion of rights in this country…let’s not invent another out of whole cloth….
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Hey, Allah has the right to his own opinions. Does he ever try to strong arm others to think like him? Oh, wait, yes he does!
EF on November 3, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Not even that little tinkly piano part? That made me laugh.
That was funny, although the creepy music from Halloween really would have been better.
Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 6:06 PM
She already has Bryan and Ian. Allah, you just help us to celebrate diversity:) Have a nice weekend — for real
wytammic on November 3, 2006 at 6:24 PM
My thoughts exactly.
I like it here.
You people are real special.
I’m going to get right in his (honorably)crooked face and ask him just that—-appropriate since the 527s have really made this cycle…..interesting.
More questions for Senator McCain…anyone…anyone?????????
seejanemom on November 3, 2006 at 6:37 PM
I wish I could let out that cackling howl of a laugh that Laura Ingraham sometimes does, because that’s exactly what went through my mind when I read that.
Thanks for the laugh and a good end to the week.
NOW EVERYBODY (CONSERVATVE/REPUBLICAN) … IGNORE THE POLL, IGNORE THE NEGATIVITY, AND GO VOTE!!!!!!!!!!
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 6:39 PM
Hell, maybe I’ll take a camera and let Hunky Hub hold it in one hand while he salutes with the other and post my interview. It will definitely be on my site by Monday. (No link, because that would just be tacky and shameless….you can find me, I’m sure)
seejanemom on November 3, 2006 at 6:40 PM
Marriage is most definitely a right. We have the right to associate with whomever we want, as long as it doesn’t violate the rights of others. That includes the right to formalize a relational contract with another person (marriage). The only business the state has in recognizing and enforcing contracts is in legal matters, not social ones such as marriage. The state should have no say over whom you marry. If you marry someone, or something, and name your spouse as part of a contract which the state cannot enforce (e.g., you “marry” a tree, and ask the state to recognize the tree as your heir), that is your problem.
As to your point that marriage is freedom, that is precisely what rights are all about; there is no conflict between rights and freedom. A right is the sanctioned freedom to act. And rights do not require anyone’s participation in order to be exercised, so the state doesn’t to provide you with anything — it just has to prevent others from violating your freedom to exercise your rights.
You have the right to think and speak; the state doesn’t need to provide you with a microphone, nor should it. You have the right to own a gun; the state doesn’t have to buy you one. And you have the right to formally state your lifelong romantic commitment to another person; the state has no place either helping or hindering you.
Lazarus on November 3, 2006 at 6:43 PM
WHOAH!
That’s eery… I was thinking the exact same thing about AP when I scrolled to that comment.
You can accept Lurch’s dismal excuse -uh, i botched the joke … har har- for slamming our troops if you want to AP. And, you can try to perpetuate that personal perception if you like, but sometimes I wonder where your head is at when I consider some of the other posts I’ve read here over the last many months. Between your ridicule of my Lord and Savior, your obsession with KP, and making excuses for dismal failures like Lurch, who was clearly not making a joke about Bush, where once I was enthraled by Hot Air, I start wondering what I’m actually exposing myself to. Considering you’re the main man on Hot Air, and A LOT of people read your stuff and take it to heart, it’s nearly worth risking the ban to whip it out and slam it on the table.
Yeah, I give Hot Air’s sidebar advertisers my patronage (got a couple awesome t-shirts :D ), or at the vey least a click to help support this website, but when for the 3rd or 4th time in separate threads you have espoused that Lurch botched a Bush joke, and we all know that is utterly false, I really start to wonder where you’re coming from, and more importantly, where the hell you’re going to take us.
Oh yeah, and one of these days, will you at least respond to just ONE of my emailed tips/contributions? I’m a team player, and I try to help out when I can, but damn…
Hell if I know if you’re actually getting them, but I see posts about tips/contributions I email not long afterward.
SilverStar830 on November 3, 2006 at 6:49 PM
What’s with all the red on red lately? Trying to start an intraparty civil war?
Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 6:57 PM
Don’t let him off easy – hammer him. He’s got some “splaining” to do.
Rick on November 3, 2006 at 7:01 PM
It’s election time and everybody’s got their knife sharpened.
Rick on November 3, 2006 at 7:02 PM
That’s what I figure, but I think everyone should just chill the eff out with the ‘you’re not a real conservative’ nonsense.
Focus on the real enemy.
Slublog on November 3, 2006 at 7:05 PM
You mean Ace?
EF on November 3, 2006 at 7:59 PM
That was a great ad.
And smart politics for McCain.
I wish McCain wasn’t so old. He probably does deserve a term at the job.
Christoph on November 3, 2006 at 9:30 PM
… even though I can’t stand the liberal bastard half the time!
Christoph on November 3, 2006 at 9:31 PM
…even though I can’t stand the liberal bastard half the time!
Christoph on November 3, 2006 at 9:33 PM
Please ask the Honorable Senator if he is aware that Arizonan’s have about had it up to here (hand over head) with his positions on free speech (McCain Feingold), gun ownership, and immigration?
Please ask the Honorable Senator when he plans to resume representing the state of Arizona and not his personal self interests?
Please ask the Hornorable Senator where his spine went and if he thinks he can find it soon?
AZ_Redneck on November 3, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Contracts require two parties. Marriage requires participation. Your argument does not jive.
AZ_Redneck on November 3, 2006 at 10:56 PM
How about “How soon can we expect the bulldozers to start rolling over that metal monument to liberal dhimmitude in Phoenix?” Feel free to pretty the question up any way you want, I’m not picky. And thanks.
ReubenJCogburn on November 3, 2006 at 11:26 PM
Words of wisdom. We don’t need to be arguing about purity and calling folks heretics and stuff. Libertarians are bad enough about that.
(I kid! I kid!)
I also think conservatism is a big tent. Good thing, too; hell, if some folks here knew what I think about certain issues, they might want to break out the torches and pitchforks.
Did my part. I love early voting! And I’m looking forward to Tuesday night.
p.v. cornelius on November 3, 2006 at 11:37 PM
…”Senator, some of my friends were wondering: which is more important? The nation or your career.” Hang on his neck like a terrier until you get something approaching an honest answer.
You could also try, “Speaking of illegal aliens, how many do you estimate that the State of Arizona can absorb before social services and law enforcement begin to buckle?”
…or, “Why is it fair for one foreign citizen to follow our laws, while millions of others break our laws as their first act in our country?”
…then, ask him who does his hair….
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 11:44 PM
Puritan, I love your posts, and there’s a great deal of wisdom in most of what you’re saying in this one. But I don’t think I understand this part. Two problems occur to me as a straight man:
1. I have always been attracted (sexually, romantically, aesthetically) to women, never to men. Have dated only women, never men. For now, however, I happen to be celibate by choice. What does that make me?
2. Are prison rapists therefore gay?
(Somehow I’m reminded of Gallagher’s old line: “What if I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body but I don’t know it because she’s a lesbian?)
p.v. cornelius on November 3, 2006 at 11:59 PM
AP, you can put a stop to all the speculation by simply explaining what the joke was that Kerry botched. How does it go, and why does it work?
I don’t want to be on the wrong side here, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what the “joke” was supposed to be. Maybe you can explain it, lay it all out in a way that makes sense.
RD on November 4, 2006 at 12:35 AM
Maybe in a post titled: “The Kerry joke Explained”
RD on November 4, 2006 at 12:35 AM
Cool :-) but hey – if you’re right, you’re right, and no one ought to fault you for that. But this whole “joke” claim Kerry made is still a head-scratcher, at least to moi…
RD on November 4, 2006 at 12:46 AM
Ha! I just fell out of my chair laughing.
AZ_Redneck on November 4, 2006 at 1:25 AM
Puritan1648,
By definition a contract is something we enter into freely, but there’s no right to do so.
…which was my point (apparently not worded well enough) to begin with; there is no right here
The association point is not bad, but one can associate with another in a coffee shop without entering into a commit, long-term relationship.
Freedom does not equal right. Do you have a right to smoke? Do you have a right to drive? No, you don’t have those as rights. You are free to do those with limitations–based on the context, circumstances, etc.
urbancenturion on November 4, 2006 at 1:47 AM
How does that fact negate my point that marriage falls under the freedom to associate in the context of rights?
You don’t seem to understand my explanation of rights. Freedom doesn’t equal right, nor does it have to in order for rights to pertain to freedom. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.
And you’re damn right I have the right to smoke and drive. If I make it happen, I have the right to do it, as long as it doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. I don’t have the right to smoke in your house or drive your car, but I can in mine. You say I’m free within certain contextual limitations? Yes, exactly! And those are: I must respect the rights of others.
If you are making this case as a pretext to oppose gay marriage, I ask you, by what moral claim do you bar one person from formalizing their romantic commitment to another? (Disclaimer: I find gay marriage profoundly disgusting, but I find the prohibition of such even more disgusting. Gay marriage is no threat to me or anyone else.)
Lazarus on November 4, 2006 at 2:18 AM
Puritan1648:
“… alcoholics… embezzlers… adulterers… NAMBLA guys…remember: one of the key things which piss-off our jihadist playmates is what they see as the promotion of homosexuality…which makes their skin crawl no end…and about which they’re pretty close to the truth.”
And you’re not even against homosexuals! Get some help dude.
JM Hanes on November 4, 2006 at 2:22 AM
McCain didn’t need to worry, as I doubt any gay men want to marry him, anyway. That little martinet looks almost as leprous as Ted Kennedy; well, that’s stretching a point, I guess, but certainly he’s within an order of magnitude.
Kralizec on November 4, 2006 at 4:27 AM
Marriage is not “association”, it is a contractual relationship and no one is stopping gays from associating. The “right” that’s being restricted is the right to change the definition of words until they mean what you want them to mean. Gays have the right to marry, as long as they do it with someone of the opposite sex, same as everybody else. Meanwhile, they can live with and sleep with and enter partnerships with whomever they like. And I have the right to an abortion.
Pablo on November 4, 2006 at 6:29 AM
…simple: issues arise from your being homosexual, do something else. Issues arise because you’re black, you’re screwed.
Now, issues *shouldn’t* arise because you’re black. The ignorant bee-hatch who doesn’t like you because you’re just standing there, being black, needs the lugnuts in his brain-housing group torqued down…and I’d be the last guy in the world to stop you.
On the other hand, people who don’t like you as a result of something you *do* or *have done* is another matter. Not only can behavior change, but should be the basis of our estimation of our neighbors. By his fruits ye shall know him, and all that. If the guy’s chasing after school children, it makes less than a whit of difference *what* he is…you’re goin’ to realign his major organs because of *what he’s doin’*.
…now, as to folks whose situation — to use the example you used, prison — they’re already in a bad spot. Why make it worse?
Sexuality in prison often times isn’t about sexuality anyway…it’s about power.
Generally speaking, prisons are horrid places, full of horrid, unsympathetic men and women, by and large. Here in Texas, the average “offender” (the word the state prefers to “inmate”) has a 4th grade education (that’s either equivelant or actuall attendance, I’m not sure), and there’s about a 40% recidivism rate.
Funny thing is, in med/max security prison with which I’m familiar, the *LAST* thing you wanted to be in prison was a homosexual. They had a special “short bus” prison for those folks, stuck away with the snitches, child molesters and other “socially challenged” gentlemen.
They were segregated to keep them alive.
Something I learned from the experience: prison brings out human nature without the gloss of civilization.
Puritan1648 on November 4, 2006 at 10:39 AM
…first of all, thanks for your concern.
…second, I already have help. I have a wife and children, and they’re both a great challenge and a big help.
…third, what I have a problem with *isn’t* our homosexual neighbors (count yourself in if you’re one of the tribe), it’s with people who want to have society’s official approval extended to equate what my wife and kids and I share, have built, and entrust to eachother and what homosexuals get up to.
…fourth, a homosexual relationship may not be the leatherman, feather boa, dominant/submissive, roleplay wonderland we see again and again in San Francisco street fairs. Some would have you believe that this sort of behavior is atypical. I’ll buy that, if only to be sociable. A lot of that sort of thing happens in heterosexual relationships. Point: marriage isn’t about having a license to have sex. It’s about building something.
…fifth and final, those folks I mention (embezzlers, the broken toys in NAMBLA, alcoholics, etc.) are sinners. I can understand that. Homosexuals are sinners. *I’m* a sinner. That *is* the human condition. So, I have no problems with them. We’re all in this together.
Don’t think for a second, though, that by sin I’m talking about some exclusively religious prohibition. It’s best expressed in religious terms, but consider what sin is: it is proscribed anti-social, anti-species behavior. Theft, embezzlement, drinking to excess, predating after children, lying, getting angry and violent at the slightest pretext…all are anti-social and self-destructive, not to mention what it does to those nearest to you.
Put into simple and secular terms, sin is suicide.
So, I most certainly *DO* have a problem with is someone trying to tell me that sin is no longer sin. What I resist is someone telling me that unnatural behavior is now, by fiat of government edict and social fashion, as natural as the behavior marriage reinforces and celebrates…by virtue of genetic predisposition, societal acceptance or some other dodge.
Don’t piss down my back and tell me that it’s rainin’!
Puritan1648 on November 4, 2006 at 11:11 AM
Puritan1648
“So, I have no problems with them. We’re all in this together.”
ROTFL! You should probably get that irony meter checked out while you’re at it.
JM Hanes on November 4, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Comment pages: