Smart populist politics but anathema to a New Yorker, needless to say.

You cynical bastahds.

Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:33 PM

Part of me wonders whether this is really about Thompson, or if it’s a power struggle among evangelical leaders.

Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Part of me wonders whether this is really about Thompson, or if it’s a power struggle among evangelical leaders.

Yeah, good point. Dobson’s going to lose face if Fred gets elected without him. Maybe this is Land angling to play kingmaker

The only surefire way to earn a Slu comment anymore: the Dobson thread.

Allahpundit on September 24, 2007 at 10:49 PM

The only surefire way to earn a Slu comment anymore: the Dobson thread.

Haha.

I can’t help myself!

Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Were all these “proclamations” made from the pulpit? If so, don’t they lose their tax exemtion? :)

For what it’s worth I agree with Land over Dobson.

Who is Dobson again? Then again, Who is Land? :)

I know it’s about votes! Which would King Solomon choose?

HMMMMMMMM?????

Nelsa on September 24, 2007 at 11:07 PM

Allah,

Fred’s “unwilling to compromise on federalism”? Give me a break. The “federalist” position is just an artful straddle for candidates who don’t want to make too many constituents, or potential constituents, angry. Issues of individual rights and equality are largely addressed by federal law, most notably in the Constitution.

Big S on September 24, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Slublog on September 24, 2007 at 10:46 PM

Interesting point. How might that work out?

nailinmyeye on September 24, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Part of me wonders whether this is really about Thompson, or if it’s a power struggle among evangelical leaders.

Could be, but isn’t Dobson on the top? If that were the case, it would seem he would keep his powder dry and then just bandwagon when the winner become clear. It’s the insurgent that needs to get out and pick early and opposite.

Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Let’s cut them in half and see!

thedecider on September 24, 2007 at 11:12 PM

I think Solomon chooses Land vs. Dobson and Fred grows up to be POTUS. ;)

Nelsa on September 25, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Some of you are so stinking judgmental. I’ve listened to Dobson on the radio hundreds of times every year for 15 years, & I am confident he has absolutely no desire to be “kingmaker,” & he is not worried about “losing face.” Maybe, maybe he just cares about this country! I’m sure Land does, too. Don’t decent people disagree sometimes?

jgapinoy on September 25, 2007 at 12:49 AM

I love Dobson and hate to side with his opponent, whom I’d never even heard of until today, but I must say that his mischaracterization bothered me. It was an exaggeration that might hurt us, as a whole, in the general election. For all their invocation of Reagan and posturing as stuanch followers of him, a lot of Conservatives seem to have forgotten the ” Eleventh Commandment “.

I enjoyed reading this. If you loved Reagan, you might too.

We can’t afford to forget what he taught us and let, yet another, unethical, immoral, terrorist-appeasing creep or creepette into the White House. If Fred, Rudy, and the rest of those already running aren’t good enough and Newt and those not running DON’T run, what do people expect the party to do…? Call it an election and cut their cash, energy and time losses, all for the sake of avoiding a bad turnout…? I say argue issues, in good faith until the primary season is over and once we have a candidate, shut up and VOTE for him, Dammit…!

Rugged Individual on September 25, 2007 at 1:09 AM

Fred, the human snooze button.

their eyes glaze over and they end up looking like a bunch of flies happily lapping up their own puke.”

Bwahahahaha!! This guys stole my shtick!

OUCH! This one might leave a mark!

the more the conservosphere gets a look at Thompson, the less they like what they see.

Even Trump isn’t fooled by Fred’s facade!

“I just don’t know really what he has done…

Fred is like watching sausage being made. The more you see what’s in it, the more you dislike it.

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Fred needs to steal another page from Mitts play book.

Mitt goes for aloonyboonyjobs throat with a new ad. Here is the text. Indict aloonyboonyjob! RIGHT ON MITT!!!

How many terrorists did Fred turn away? OH heck, that’s right! He didn’t turn them away because he was too busy giving advice to Syrian terrorists!!!

Here is the audio.

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Smart populist politics but anathema to a New Yorker, needless to say.

What’s wrong with New Yorkers? I am from Chicago which is a big city which is many times nicer than the smelly, rat infested city you call home. Yet, I have no desire to talk down to people who don’t live in the “city”. New Yorkers are the biggest narcissists. It isn’t all about you. /rant

Sorry, I overreacted. I am still a little tender after the Bears game last night.

Bill C on September 25, 2007 at 2:29 AM

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 2:46 AM

Your post makes no sense. It’s crystal clear that Thompson does not support homosexual marriage. The fact that he’s against CHANGING the Constitution to attain that end does not change that fact.

What I find most amazing is that there are three people on HotAir that spend most of their time attacking Thompson on various issues. What’s ironic is that on almost every issue they attack him on … the candidates they’re supporting are no better, and in almost every case … they are actually worse.

Anyone attacking Thompson for not being conservative enough, and then supporting Giuliani is defining hypocrisy. Anyone attacking Thompson on this Constitutional amendment and then supporting Romney, is defining ignorance.

The only people with any legitimate room to attack Thompson on ANYTHING would be Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo supporters. But it’s even MORE bizarre that these same people attacking Thompson for not being conservative enough are also attacking Hunter and Tancredo.

You’ve got to wonder what their real agenda is.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 3:08 AM

Fred is like watching sausage being made. The more you see what’s in it, the more you dislike it.

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Hey! No bashing the sausage factories! K?

RD on September 25, 2007 at 3:39 AM

Those homosexual advocacy groups already have grounds for equal protection arguments. Pretty good ones, too. And sooner or later they’re going to prevail on those arguments, not only because they’re right, but because people are actually starting to see that gay marriage in early-adopter states such as Massachusetts hasn’t presaged the demise of Western civilization.

Except of course for the minor detail that countries which have accepted gay marriage have a) declining populations and b) declining marriage rates. Moreover, aside from the large onset of initial gay marriages, the gay marriage rate in Mass. is now startlingly low. The onset of gay marriage is the precursor to the death of all marriage.

You are, in other words, fighting a hopeless rearguard action. Gay marriage is going to be the law of the land, probably within a generation or two. The only questions of any consequence are how it happens, and how much self-inflicted political injury conservatives are willing to absorb before they grow up and accept the reality of the situation.

Well, considering gay advocacy groups have to hoax hate crimes in order to drum up any sympathy for their perversion, and the fact that anywhere gay marriage tries to get approved throuh the vote of the people instead of the courts it gets struck down, I’d say you are the one who denies reality. Homosexual groups are fakes, frauds, and phonies trying to get public acceptance of their perversity. People already tolerate them, and noone appreciates their wrapping themselves up as the new civil rights movement when their only claim to discrimination is that the government isn’t giving them tax breaks for their fruitless and useless sexual proclivities.

Lobbying for an FMA-alike, which will never pass, is as good as doing nothing, and attempting to ban gay marriage through state constitutional amendments still leaves you vulnerable to the Full Faith and Credit arguments. By taking those Full Faith and Credit arguments off the table, as Fred’s solution would do, then each state can adopt gay marriage or at its own pace, and you folks who exist in sphincter-clenched fear of teh ghey can console yourselves knowing that while gay marriage is coming, it’s not going to be imposed on an unwilling nation by the federal courts.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 5:56 AM

You’re the first person to bring up anything “sphincter-centered.” Guilty conscience? Look, maybe you and the other water carriers for the homosexual movement constantly have your heads up your (or your partner’s) ass, but most right thinking americans don’t support you and when they see that the proud marys never act above board, they aren’t going to support you. Fred’s “solution” works for you precisely because it is the only one which easily allows the equal protection clause to come into effect. The fact is, homosexuals already have the rights to shack up with and put into their wills and get private ceremonies for whoever or whatever they want to be with. The only thing they don’t get is government benefits and de facto public acceptance. A Federal Marriage Amendment is consistent in its definition of marriage. Fred’s idiotic response isn’t consistent, and because it is inconsistent it is cannon fodder. If Fred were really a conservative with conviction and not just an ignorant actor auditioning for president as the conservative Republican, he would know that.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. That’s the way nature works, that’s what basically every religious system that didn’t collapse teaches, and that is what the state has a compelling interest in protecting.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 7:58 AM

Thompson is a true-blue conservative. Conservatives believe in states rights. State representatives are closer to their constituents than national representatives in Congress or the Executive branches, where one size fits all.

One compliant about President Bush is that while No Child Left Behind may have satisfied Kennedy and others in Congress interested in dictating standards to the states, it is far from conservative fundamentals.

Captain America on September 25, 2007 at 8:35 AM

Thompson is a true-blue conservative.
Captain America on September 25, 2007 at 8:35 AM

I know he is espousing conservatism. That has never been the issue. The issue has always been……is he an honest conservative and have his actions over the years support what he is saying now.

The answer to that is a resounding “NO”. He knows it, we know it, and it requires the willings suspension of disbelief to believe he thinks he can actually succeed.

It is very likely, considering Fred’s history of funneling cash to his family, that Fred is simply collecting campaign donations and at the last possible moment he will scuttle his campaign and drop out. He will then do what he did the last time he ran for an office. He will convert all that money to a PAC, hire his family at exorbitant salaries and funnel that $3.4 million right into his pocket through them.

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 9:36 AM

The only surefire way to earn a Slu comment anymore: the Dobson thread.

Allahpundit on September 24, 2007 at 10:49 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHA… oh man. True.

Moth to the flame, baby. Moth to the flame.

daveintexas on September 25, 2007 at 10:43 AM

I know he is espousing conservatism. That has never been the issue. The issue has always been……is he an honest conservative and have his actions over the years support what he is saying now.

Yep.

PRCalDude on September 25, 2007 at 11:57 AM

The hypocrisy from Romney supporters just keeps on coming.

Check out number EIGHT on the Human Event’s TOP 10 RINOS list.

The Mitt Romney Deception

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Well, considering gay advocacy groups have to hoax hate crimes in order to drum up any sympathy for their perversion

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 7:58 AM

This is a common example of “Christian love”: deny the abuse that anti-gay Christian dogma is, in part, responsible for. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if some gay people made up a hate crime, just as some women make up rapes, and other people make up other crimes. I think your Christian sensibilities would excuse those other people (which include Bible-believing Christians, too) for being “flawed” and “human”. None dare call it perversion when Christians do it! Still, that’s a far cry from your implication that *ALL* gay-bashing is fake, though I understand why it’s in your interest to lie about something like that.

Also, consider that some anti-gay Christian groups like to make up hate crimes as well:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/09/evidence-still-scarce-in-alleged-pfox-assault/

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 1:36 PM

This is a common example of “Christian love”: deny the abuse that anti-gay Christian dogma is, in part, responsible for.

Hey Loundry, I have the world’s smallest violin. I’m playing it for you right now. Spare me your hatred of Christians diatribe, you aren’t worth my time.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v50/ai_21129275

At Eastern New Mexico University, threatening posters started appearing around campus last September. “Are you sick of queers polluting this great land with there [sic] filth?” asked the error-ridden fliers. “I thought so. Want to do something? Join the Fist of God. With his might, we can ride [sic] the world of there [sic] sickness. Ask around. We’ll find you.” The poster identified eight people on campus as homosexual and concluded: “Take us seriously, or we’ll begin executing one queer a week following this list.”

The four men and four women listed soon received threatening e-mail messages and letters. Shortly after the posters appeared, the person whose name topped the list, a lesbian teaching assistant named Miranda Prather, was attacked in her home. She told police a masked assailant had slashed her cheek with a kitchen knife.

In the ensuing investigation, police examined surveillance footage of a nearby laundromat where the threatening fliers had been posted. Their search was ultimately successful, and they were able to identify the culprit as . . . Miranda Prather. Later, they found a knife in Miss Prather’s apartment that matched the wounds in her cheek.

Interesting how the hoax threatening group was “The Fist of God.” Yeah, its the Christians who hate gays.

At the University of Georgia, this year, resident advisor Jerry Kennedy found the door of his dormitory room on fire. Everyone concluded that a bigot had been responsible: Kennedy was openly homosexual, and his door was covered with gay-activist literature. The Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Student Union sent a letter to University President Michael Adams asking him to address the incident by creating a hate-crime task force and obtaining a faculty advisor for the LGBSU. Meanwhile, LGBSU members wrote messages in chalk around the Tate Student Center, including “Stop burning down our doors” and “Are you next?”

The attacks on Kennedy, meanwhile, did not stop. After the third time his door was set afire, Kennedy said he thought it was “strange that somebody, in order to get to me, would risk the lives of at least five hundred people [in the dormitory].” Asked what he thought of the LBGSU’s response, Kennedy said, “It makes me feel like I’m doing the right thing, and I appreciate the support.”

Shortly thereafter, the official student newspaper the Red & Black learned that Kennedy had been the target of 9 of the 15 hate crimes reported on campus since 1995 — not just the fires, but threatening phone calls and incidents of criminal trespassing. The head of the campus police said: “He’s certainly had more [harassment] than anyone else I’ve known of.” Kennedy was arrested and charged with two counts of arson and four false reports of a crime, and a student who had been suspected of setting one of the fires was exonerated. A faculty member, dealing in race discrimination told the Red and Black that she “hoped the Kennedy case would not hinder dialogue about homosexuality.”

Sure, it was all a farce from someone that endangered lives, but “THE HATE COULD HAPPEN HERE!”

http://www.washblade.com/2005/10-21/news/national/dorm-arson.cfm

FT. LAUDERDALE, Fla. — “Florida arson is hate crime,” declared the headline at Firehouse.com, an online discussion forum for firefighters. The site then reprinted an Orlando Sentinel article titled “Gay men’s home burns, with epithet left behind.”

The fire that gutted Paul Day and Christopher Robertson’s home in Lakeland, Fla., on July 25 had all the drama of a hate crime, particularly the words “Die Fag” spray-painted on the steps of the burned-out house. As a result, the incident received widespread media attention as a potential hate crime.

But on Oct. 12, Robertson confessed to starting the fire to collect insurance money, Lakeland fire officials said.

Sure it was a fake arson, BUT THE HATE IS REAL! IT COULD HAPPEN HERE! A little bonus in that one, it actually points out conservatives are using these hoaxed crimes. Well of course we are, when most of the supposed hate inflicted on homosexuals is in hoaxed stunts to point out the hate inflicted on homosexuals, it is difficult to believe the widespread hate exists.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/05/050905calHate.htm

(Mill Valley, California) A 17 year old lesbian high school student has confessed to faking a series of homophobic attacks over the past year.

The student, whose name has been withheld since the incidents began, has been suspended from school and could face charges.

The attacks began last November (story) at Tamalpais Union High School.

The girl, who is a leader of the school’s Gay Straight Alliance, claimed she had been pelted with eggs, had her locker and car vandalized, and had been flooded with handmade hate messages

Homophobe, hate thyself!

http://www.exacom.net/firstlibrary/News/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Imposition/Staged%20hate%20crimes.htm

Pretty much a summarizaration of the previous plus a few more that are too old to show up in an Ask.com search.

But let me guess, all of these are just “isolated incidents.” Knock me over with a straw.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 1:59 PM

“Nature” “works” in terms of one man and one woman? Where? Certainly not in humanity! You don’t need marriage to produce a child. All you have to do is ___ like rats do and *bam* pregnancy! Humans, even Christians, are serial monogamists and cheaters. What part of “nature” supports your artifical construction?

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 1:54 PM

“Certainly not in humanity?”

Huh? Where is the “humanity” world you’re referring to? Is this on planet Earth? Are there seperate laws of nature on this planet, or universe? Or is this some make-believe place where everything is the way you wish it was?

You don’t need marriage to produce a child. All you have to do is ___ like rats do and *bam* pregnancy!

Unfortunately for your argument … a woman is unable to “___ like rats do” with another woman to create a child. This is the “nature” that was referred to. Nature intended man to be with woman. Look down. It’s hopefully quite obvious how the puzzle works.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 2:20 PM

He literally just said he would treat a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage derived by the same means differently!

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Please show me a link or direct me to where Fred Thompson “literally” just said “treat a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage derived by the same means differently.

Mitt has grown and evolved and changed and whenever he made a promise, he kept it. You can dislike what Mitt has said and promised over the years, but the fact is he’s honest to the core.

This is an absurd comment. So what you’re saying is … that Mitt “evolves” (your word) based on what he thinks the voters want at any given time in order to get elected, and that is somehow “honest to the core?”

And you claim that Mitt was only telling the gays what they wanted to hear when he promised his support, but that he never actually gave them that support, but then at the same time, you’re claiming that “whenever he made a promise, he kept it?”

“Honest to the core.”

You and I have different definitions of the word “honest.”

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Except of course for the minor detail that countries which have accepted gay marriage have a) declining populations and b) declining marriage rates. Moreover, aside from the large onset of initial gay marriages, the gay marriage rate in Mass. is now startlingly low. The onset of gay marriage is the precursor to the death of all marriage.

Even Stan Kurtz, who goes to bed each night having just rubbed one out thinking of those numbers, won’t claim that there’s a causal link between gay marriage and declining population/marriage rates in Europe. It’s beyond ludicrous for you to try to do so here. You can prophesy doom until you’re blue in the face, but even if only a small number of gays ever get married, once the public sees those who do, people start to wonder what the big deal was. The existence of happily married gay couples living well-adjusted lives next door, or down the street, or on the evening news is considerably more persuasive than bigots shrieking about a possible link between gay marriage and declining marriage rates.

Well, considering gay advocacy groups have to hoax hate crimes in order to drum up any sympathy for their perversion,

I’m pretty sure I couldn’t have gotten a better example of an unapologetic bigot if I’d called Central Casting. Look, some gays fake hate crimes. This does not mean that all hate crimes against gays or fake, or that gays need to fake hate crimes in order to engender sympathy. Some of us are sympathetic towards gays because they’re our friends, and because we despise bigots like you.

and the fact that anywhere gay marriage tries to get approved throuh the vote of the people instead of the courts it gets struck down, I’d say you are the one who denies reality.

Riiight. Look, the country currently opposes gay marriage by about ten to fifteen percentage points. That margin is largely generational: the people who are going to be voting and setting national policy in twenty years are considerably more accepting of gay marriage than the people who are going to be dead in twenty years. The very reason that you and the rest of the bigots are attempting to freeze the status quo is because the political tides are gradually turning against you, and you know it. So, again: the only relevant questions are the precise process by which gay marriage is going to be realized, and how much self-inflicted political damage conservatives are willing to absorb before they concede the inevitable.

People already tolerate them

Not if your post here is any example.

and noone appreciates their wrapping themselves up as the new civil rights movement when their only claim to discrimination is that the government isn’t giving them tax breaks for their fruitless and useless sexual proclivities.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, gay couples are asking for the same rights to hospital visitation, adoption, child custody, power of attorney, and probate that married straight couples enjoy, without having to spend a boatload of extra time and money arranging for them.

Look, maybe you and the other water carriers for the homosexual movement constantly have your heads up your (or your partner’s) ass, but most right thinking americans don’t support you and when they see that the proud marys never act above board, they aren’t going to support you.

Hold that thought for fifteen or twenty years, sparky.

Fred’s “solution” works for you precisely because it is the only one which easily allows the equal protection clause to come into effect.

Uh, no. As I pointed out above, the Equal Protection arguments are already in effect. Gays won on these arguments in Massachusetts and New Jersey. They’re going to win in more places, because they’re right. And the first time a federal court agrees with them, then you’re going to have to deal with gay marriage going national, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The problem is that you appear to be laboring under the delusion that it’s possible to pass something like the Federal Marriage Amendment. It’s not. Will. Never. Happen. Doesn’t matter who you put in the White House; you’re simply not going to get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to write bigotry into the federal Constitution. And the harder conservatives try, the more political damage they’re going to inflict on themselves.

So you can waste a lot of time and energy lobbying for something that’s never going to happen, and kill yourself politically along the way. Or you can grow up and accept half a loaf, preventing de facto national gay marriage while letting individual states decide for themselves whether and how to deal with gay marriage.

Marriage is between one man and one woman. That’s the way nature works, that’s what basically every religious system that didn’t collapse teaches, and that is what the state has a compelling interest in protecting.

Sorry, but this is what we call a conclusory statement. You fail law school.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 3:04 PM

That is literally saying that gay marriage is allowed, it just doesn’t count. That is by definition a violation of the equal protection clause.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The fact that different states regulate marriage differently doesn’t implicate the Equal Protection Clause at all.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Just guessing, but maybe he meant the Full Faith and Credit clause?

Maybe, but I doubt it. He’s been rather insistent that Fred’s solution opens the door to Equal Protection Clause arguments. Which is true only in the sense that it doesn’t preclude those arguments, since the status quo opens the door to them as well. He’s living in a fantasy world where the FMA or something like it is a possibility.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 3:20 PM

I don’t give a damn what gays do in their own homes, but I do care that they are trying to devolve a sacred institution mostly responsible for America’s greatness into a meaningless joke.

Seems heterosexuals, with the 50% divorce rates, have done quite a bit to devolve marriage ourselves.

Slublog on September 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire? Seriously? And here we all thought it was Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

SouthernDem on September 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire? Seriously? And here we all thought it was Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

SouthernDem on September 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Were you to actually read rather than cherrypick, I said the onset of public approval of homosexuality happens before that society declines. Nowhere did I imply causation. Rampant homosexuality is a symptom of (advanced) rampant hedonism. Rampant hedonism comes before internal collapse. First a nation loses its soul, then it loses its nation.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, it is a mutually destructive sickness much like alcholism.

Christians love gays! They really, really, really love gays!

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 3:54 PM

Never said I wanted to give up. Not sure where you got that from me. I just wish the church (whose marriage rate nearly equals that of the secular community) spent as much fixing heterosexual marriage as it does decrying the idea of gay marriage.

Slublog on September 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM

The church does plenty of work on both fronts. The problem is often that people abdicate responsibility as totally belonging to the church. The fact is that despite the majority of the country calling themselves Christian, most aren’t willing to do the hard work of fighting against no-fault divorce and frivoulous 55-hour Vegas hook-ups. Even less likely to stem the tide are those with no religious foundation or those who do not see the purpose of marriage.

Marriage is central to the conservative movement and to a strong America. That is why feminists and homosexual groups have done everything in their power to weaken, deride, and otherwise devalue it. The problem is that most conservatives really don’t see it happening or know why it’s important.

Marriage isn’t just a “leave it to the church” thing. It needs the support and strengthening of every conservative. Even if you don’t believe in God or sacredness, you should recognize that a strong, healthy marriage institution is vital to the success of the nation. Just look at how things turn out when marriage isn’t there? Out-of-wedlock births rarely produce model or even functioning citizens, single mothers have become so common as to find the two-parent household a freak occurrence. The fact is that the country is sick and it won’t get better unless everyone, religiously inclined or otherwise gets the message:

No more frivolous flings. No more no-fault agreements. No more 55-hour drunken Vegas hookups. No more making excuses for people who leave their spouses. No more villifying men as the evil oppressor and patronizing women as helpless victims. Every last one of these ideas that have flown into the tapestry of American society has destabilized and weaknened the central institution to American success.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM

I really don’t have a problem with having a different definition for the types of partnerships they ultimately want, but would you be willing to allow civil unions as well, so that they can be as responsible for each other as hetero marriages?

If they want some sort of non-overridable arrangement for the disbursement of assets or whatever other legal arrangements they need in order to take care of their hospitalized partner or children, I really don’t see a problem with it. I refuse however, to let it share the name marriage. People shouldn’t have their wills overridden just because a petty family member didn’t like who they chose. Noone should die alone in the hospital because their partner wasn’t allowed admittance.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Sure, men and women have to screw (vaginally) for him to impregnate her. You are really smart to have figured *that* puzzle out! Now tell me: how, specifically, does that imply a one man, one woman marriage? Better yet, tell me how it DISqualifies a one-man, many-women marriage?

(Watch and learn, kids. He won’t be able to do it!)

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Because a one-man, many-woman “marriage” is an unstable and confusing familial arrangement for any children that get involved. Inevitably there is squabling and infighting that breeds dyfunction and violence.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 4:08 PM

Homosexuality is a sexual perversion, it is a mutually destructive sickness much like alcholism. The promotion of sexual experimentation that goes hand in hand with the promotion of homosexuality has done nothing but spread disease to the next generation. It is a sickness and a curse.

But you’re not a despicable bigot, nosiree.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 4:26 PM

You equivocate campaign stump speeches from 13 years ago with his actual actions as governor. I do not.

BKennedy on September 25, 2007 at 3:02 PM

No, you simply ignore them when you determine that said speech would not support your agenda.

You just finished defending Romney as being “honest to the core” while at the same time suggesting that his speeches don’t mean anything because he’s only saying what is needed to get elected. So who the hell knows who Mitt Romney is? Do you? How is anyone to know which Mitt Romney is the real Mitt Romney?

“Honest to the core”

Mitt made promises to the people of Massachusetts going in as Governor and he kept all of them, to the delight or shagrin of people everywhere.

If that’s true, than it is NOT a good thing and it doesn’t go a long way to support Romney’s supporters when they claim he is a “true conservative who stands on his convictions.” Romney’s “promises” to Massachusetts were LIBERAL promises and you can’t honestly stand here and say that Romney fulfilled all those promises of liberal agendas and at the same time claim he’s a true conservative who stands on his convictions.

A true conservative standing on his convictions does not support immoral acts or laws which violate his faith, regardless of how an election might turn out, and even if he did … once he wins he certainly wouldn’t then IMPLIMENT THEM.

Fred won’t even own up to his involvement in McCain-Feingold(-Thompson). That’s the difference Gregor.

Really? Are you sure? Or did you just make that up? What’s your definition of “owning up to” because I’d swear he’s been pretty clear in acknowledging his stance on the issue (emphasis added):

When the former star of TV’s “Law and Order” series and newly-minted presidential candidate spoke to reporters on the porch of the Grand Hotel here, I asked Thompson whether he was proud of his role in enacting the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation in ‘01.

“Yes,” replied the former Tennessee senator without hesitation. “You will recall that the central part of the legislation was getting rid of soft money [from the political process].” He then went on to remind me that he came from a background in the private sector and, in that sector, it would have been thought unseemly for “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to be poured in to influence someone’s decision. In the public arena, “it got to be the norm” because of the soft money, upon which there were no limits for donations to the two major political parties.” The contributors, he said, would then, “harass legislators before they vote on anything. This was not a good idea.”
Thompson went on to remind me that it was his amendment to McCain-Feingold that, “raised the hard money index” and he was also proud of that.

If there is anything in McCain-Feingold that “has not worked out,” he went to say, it is “placing limitations on ads [by independent groups] in the [political] process. Thompson hinted that he would support legislation to change this, since “the Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than hear cases on unfair limitation.” (Earlier this year, by a decision of 5-to-4, the Supreme Court struck down parts of McCain-Feingold that dealt with limiting ads by independent groups.) He also said that the landmark campaign finance legislation he held shepherd to passage (and which President Bush signed in ‘01) has created a larger bureaucracy to enforce regulations and “that part hasn’t worked out.”

I guess you just missed that, right? I’d hate to think you just made up your claim off the top of your head.

Vis-a-vis marriage:

That is literally saying that gay marriage is allowed, it just doesn’t count.

It is? I guess only in your world.

That is by definition a violation of the equal protection clause.

Uh. No, it’s not. The Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause were written to give equal protection relating to race relations and there’s no historical interpretation thus far that would propel it into the realm of sexual preference. Of course, since you’re busy interpreting the Constitution and giving it your own little special meaning, I guess you can say it means whatever you want it to mean.

So let me ask you this? If you’re willing to push the equal protection clause into such an area, than isn’t Rudy Giuliani violating the equal protection clause by criminalizing handguns in NY City?

If I take my handgun from California where it’s legal and I drive into NY City and rent an apartment, does NY City have to honor my California hand gun permit?

Oh yeah. Only that which fits your agenda shall count.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:37 PM

Humans, even Christians, are serial monogamists that cheat. The “one man, one woman union” is a farce and you know it. And it is entirely, 100% natural.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM

You’re babbling. There’s absolutely no connection to what you just wrote to homosexuality. The fact that humans “cheat” relates to homosexuality HOW exactly?

Because humans cheat, then homosexuality is perfectly natural? LOL!

You’re really stretching it, but whatever makes you feel better while you’re fulfilling your sick perverted desires.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Sure, men and women have to screw (vaginally) for him to impregnate her. You are really smart to have figured *that* puzzle out!

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Which means that you’re really STUPID to have NOT figured it out.

Now tell me: how, specifically, does that imply a one man, one woman marriage? Better yet, tell me how it DISqualifies a one-man, many-women marriage?

I didn’t say it did. I said that it’s clear that nature intended man and women to be together based on basic physical characteristics and the nature of reproduction. It simply works that way and it doesn’t your way. Of course, you choose to ignore the obvious functional make-up of your body and instead prefer to follow whatever path that most easily brings you physical pleasure. You know? Sort of like Elmer’s Glue is designed to be used to bond two objects together, but certain mentally disturbed deviants will sometimes use it for physical pleasure by squeezing the fumes up their noses.

Whatever makes you feel good is okay by you, right? What gives us the right to “disqualify” glue sniffing from the legitimate uses of Elmer’s Glue?

Did you know that humans have raped, pillaged, and murdered since the beginning of time? Guess it’s okay then, right?

And now comes a certain commenter sure to chime in with the sarcastic response …

“Christians really really really love rapists, pillagers, and murderers!”

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:12 PM

Yes, it’s fascinating and novel how you turn all gays into pedophiles.

Loundry on September 25, 2007 at 4:58 PM

And here we have evidence that you are nothing more than a liar. I said nothing of the sort. I stated that a hatred for an action or lifestyle that we feel to be immoral or wrong does not translate into a hatred for those people. In your world, there is no right to suggest ANYONE is EVER wrong, unless of course, they are Christians or simply don’t agree with you and then you can call them names all day long.

Gregor on September 25, 2007 at 5:23 PM

I stated that a hatred for an action or lifestyle that we feel to be immoral or wrong does not translate into a hatred for those people.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with this per se. But as a practical matter — and I’m not accusing you of anything Gregor, just making an observation — I think this “I hate the sin but love the sinner” line is all too frequently trotted out by people who manifestly don’t love the sinner in any real sense, and are just bigots attempting to use religion to excuse their bigotry.

See, for instance, BKennedy, above.

Centerfire on September 25, 2007 at 5:36 PM