McCain fallout: What’s conservative talk radio’s next move? Update: Whither immigration?
posted at 10:53 am on January 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Medved used McCain’s last victory to flog the industry for being irrelevant, a dubious point given the fact that he’d won only open primaries to that point but decidedly less dubious this morning with J-Mac and Mitt splitting conservatives in Florida, 33-33. (It was independents registered as Republicans who put him over the top, natch.) What now? The Observer previews the spin:
[One claim] would be that the conservative punditry actually “won.” Mr. McCain has been getting stronger, they would argue, by embracing conservative positions in order to gain the nomination. Mr. McCain confessed that he had learned the lesson about immigration reform, that border control is essential before pursuing any legalization plan for those already here. He promised to retain the Bush tax cuts. He embraced his support of gun rights and touted his pro-life voting record. This, the conservatariat could contend, and not Mr. McCain’s global-warming ruminations or his role in the Gang of 14, is what helped him win.
They could, except that they’ve spent weeks accusing McCain of being a liberal Democrat who’ll quickly resort to his natural ways once elected. To claim now that he only won by tacking right is to admit either that the base is full of gullible morons or that they’re not listening to talk radio. The likelier spin, also identified by the Observer, is to follow the left’s playbook after Kerry lost in ‘04 and shoot the messengers by blaming Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani for being bad candidates. That would at least have the advantage of being true and would theoretically absolve talk radio — although if the knock on Mitt is that he can’t convincingly sell conservatism, the question becomes why, if Rush and Hannity are so influential, their own salesmanship isn’t enough to compensate. The answer may be that they, and he, can sell conservatism, but that “conservative” doesn’t mean “Republican” to quite the same extent it used to. Just a theory for now, but ask me again next Tuesday night if Maverickmania sweeps across the land.
My own hunch, which isn’t really a hunch so much as what I’d like to believe, is that McCain won because he’s the hedgehog to Romney’s fox. Mitt knows many things but McCain knows one big thing, i.e. Iraq, and when push comes to shove the GOP wants to win the war above all else. I’d like to believe that, only because the thought that Maverick won on the merits across the board is too dismal. Anyway, exit question: How does talk radio handle this week? Short of formally endorsing Romney, Limbaugh’s played every card he has on McCain, including an extravagant election day attack and a veiled threat earlier not to vote Republican in November if certain unnamed candidates are nominated. Does he go all-in by breaking his rule not to endorse in primaries and campaigning for Romney in earnest? If so and McCain sweeps Super Tuesday anyway, it’ll be final confirmation of the Medved thesis and the most humiliating rebuke since, well, since Giuliani’s vote totals last night.
Update: Yes, I’m aware that the exit polls put the economy ahead of Iraq as the most important issue, 45-14. And yes, I’m also aware that the guy who won admits publicly to not understanding economics as well as he should. I’m just … trying not to think about it.
Update: Another exit question: Is talk radio in better or worse shape than border enforcement right now? David Brooks and Bob Novak are already crowing about the irrelevance of Romney’s comparatively hard line against amnesty. That can be spun for the moment by pointing to Florida’s big Cuban minority. Same result next Tuesday, though? Not so much.
Update (Bryan): I think Brooks and Novak are intentionally missing the point re immigration. The fact is, McCain had to publicly track to the right on that and enough voters evidently bought it, at least to the extent that it neutralized Romney’s stance. Those voters didn’t hear about Juan Hernandez or the rest of the evidence that McCain’s conversion is insincere because the MSM didn’t report it. Talk radio didn’t do much with it either. Laura Ingraham brought it up, but I don’t think Rush or Hannity have. Novak and Brooks also fail to take into account the recent trio of immigration enforcement wins in NY, MI and MD. Those occurred under Democrat governors responding to pressure from the electorate, and the one in NY rattled the Clinton campaign for a while.
So those two are sticking to their preferred storyline, but they’re wrong.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
That it very true.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Yeah,agree with you. Full faith and credit clause…
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Make it a tiny bit more general, and your thesis becomes a cliche’.
logis on January 30, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Yep and contracts are not limited by the boundaries of the states they were signed in.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The same way one can be licensed to drive by one state and not another. Each State then determines how to treat ‘abnormal’ situations. California, for instance, does not license homosexual marriages. Massachusetts does license homosexual marriages. It is up to California to determine how out-of-state licenses are viewed.
What if Alaska suddenly decided that no examination is needed to gain a driver’s license? I think it would be entirely appropriate for other states, such as California, to then not allow licensed Alaskan drivers on public California roads. Same goes for homosexual marriage. Let the States decide these issues. They aren’t that complicated.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Don’t count Rudy out. Other candidates feel it is important to compete in Iowa and New Hampshire. Some candidates think there is something “super” about Tuesday.
Dropping out? endorsing McCain? Rudy is on his way to the nomination. Everything is unfolding…just…the…way…he…planned.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM
State recognitions of marriage differ according to each state’s laws. Here are same-Sex laws state-by-state.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM
You’re absolutely right. I don’t know what I’m talking about. Outlawing marriages between a man and a donkey is clearly a private matter. While we’re at it, we should make sure that those who want to have sexual relations with monkeys, dogs, mules, or whatever else they might desire should never be infringed upon. It’s clearly none of our business and would put the United States on the same level as countries with similar provisions, such as Afghanistan or Iran. What right do we have to tell individuals how the Institution of Marriage is defined?
By the way, are you familiar with these two portions of that same Constitution you’re speaking of?
Why do you support John McCain; a man who clearly refuses to enforce Article IV, Section IV?
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Not accurate.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM
In certain circumstances, yes, they are. Think about how divorce proceedings differ from State to State. Marriage is a contract, yet depending on where that contract is voided different results can occur.
Exactly right.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:10 PM
A donkey can’t enter into a contract of any kind. An animal can be enslaved or killed without it creating a legal or constitutional issue.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Add “Brother and Sister or Sister and Sister etc . . .” to your list. You know, for the “economic reason” crowd.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:10 PM
That’s a technicality which only strengthens my point. The hypothetical ban cares little about whether it’s legal or not and plenty about who would be allowed to enact said contract. Telling “certain” people that they may not engage in a voluntary contract through the Constitution (as long as it has nothing to do with other fundamental rights, of course), is nothing less than a Nazi idea.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Representation without taxation is unfair. This was as much a part of the original Constitution as was its corollary.
logis on January 30, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Marriage is a contract. It’s not like your marriage is null and void if the license expires.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM
No, state recognition of Gay Marriage differ according to each states laws.
If you want to use your argument then conventional marriages would have to fall under the same rule. Kinda chaotic, dontcha think?
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Tell that to this woman.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Then let’s add this scenario. An Aunt and her adult nephew need health insurance. It’s cheaper for married couples. Should they get married? Or how about an Father and his adult daughter? For tax purposes.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Boy, what a tangent in this thread. From Rush (talk radio) about McCain to gay marriage. Fascinating.
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Sad. Is thiswhat America is coming to? Everyone either plays the victim or buys some wack conspiracy? Sad day.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM
But not betrothed or impregnated.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Ah, it’s the typical “conservative” (actually, bigoted) argument. Yeah, let’s go ahead and compare people to animals or objects, in the midst of a debate on the Constitution. That speaks wonders about where we come from. What a ridiculous idea. I will not even dignify it with a rebuttal.
How would John McCain’s positions fail to “protect” the country from “invasion”? McCain’s position may have flaws, but it has nothing to do with enabling “invasions”. By the way, equating illegal immigration -which is an economic phenomenon- with “invasions” -which is a national security issue-, is once again wrong.
Also, I know you will reply that illegal immigration also has national security implications. It sure does, but we all know immigration-obsessed conservatives don’t think that’s the priority when it comes to illegal immigration.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:15 PM
You’ve just invoked Godwin’s Law. Congratulations! Now, back to reality.
It’s not telling, Baphomet. The voters of California passed a measure that said marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman. That is how this issue must be settled. It is an issue to be decided by the legislature or directly by the voters of each State. Same goes for how the State treats marriage licenses issued by other States.
It is not a Federal issue. That’s my only stance on the matter. Keep the Nazi business out of it. You’re only cheapening the debate by appealing to emotion.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:16 PM
If you are not working, you are not being taxed by the feds… in fact, you are paid.
rgranger on January 30, 2008 at 1:16 PM
From Drudge, Ahhnold will likely endorse Insane. No surprise. Arnold ran California into the ground with a $14 billion deficit. Birds of a feather.
Feedie on January 30, 2008 at 1:16 PM
How so? Some contracts are limited to state boundaries, such with those that are with a state or municipality to perform a function.
But if a contract is signed in one state it does not mean that if you leave town that contract is not longer in effect.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Argggggh. [no] longer.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Marry at 15 in some state where it’s allowed,go to the next state where it’s not recognized and marry there at 18. Two legal wives. Then, same sex marriage in a 3rd state.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
JiangxiDad on January 30, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Awww … how sweet and predictable. Two accusations of bigotry in the same comment, on two different issues. Your argument must be awfully weak.
Yes, conservatives are all bigoted against animals.
And of course, we have the always popular … “anyone who opposes illegals is obviously a bigot” accusation.
Go away moron.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:20 PM
I don’t see it that way. Remember, in a democracy the majority decides – but it has no right to hamper the rights of the minority. It’s a very difficult and important balance to achieve. No majority can tell two people they may not engage in a contract based on a subjective, purely perceptive condition such as sexual orientation. It is not legitimate, no matter at what administrative level it happens.
I’m not appealing to emotion at all. I was making a simple point. The purpose of a Constitution is to state that the government shall recognize people have certain inalienable rights and liberties, and that it is therefore bound to protect them. How is saying only certain people may engage in certain contracts or associations part of that? It’s basic Americana 101. Of course, the insane “social conservatives” who support these ideas don’t have a clue about what the concepts I mentioned in this post mean. They are just as eager to legislate what society should and shouldn’t be as the leftists.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Feedie,
Gov Arnold is a liberal Republican, but is by no means completely responsible for our budget mess. Since the record 34 billion dollar deficit which caused the state’s first successful recall election, our state budget has never been in the black since. This is mostly due to the state legislature, who pull all sorts of laws and entitlements out of their butts. Remember, it isn’t an income issue, it’s a spending issue.
Actually, what’s funny is liberal representatives have put a bill proposed by Gov Arnold to expand health care to every child in public school on hold because the state doesn’t have the money. Hilarious!
Anyway, CA is screwed because we’re a heavy blue state. I just hope I can finish my degree here before the budget collapses.
Weebork on January 30, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Look, we get it. We’re all Nazis and you’re a homosexual.
Mystery solved.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Great way not to rebut my arguments. Again: what basis is there to ground your constitutional proposal on the absurd case of a man marrying a donkey?
Second, there are two types of people who oppose illegal immigration. I find myself in the first: we oppose it because it is illegal, period. It is a violation of the law in itself, and therefore it’s an issue for the government to tackle. Common sense.
There’s a second type of opposer to illegal immigration, whom I’ll call the ugly American. He has been present throughout the history of the country. With each wave of new immigrants, legal or not, he has made accusations that “these people are not integrating”, complaints about their language, their food, their very presence. Will you deny there is a strong component of “cultural” illegal immigration fanatics?
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Marriage licenses have no expiration “date” so it’s a moot point.
They do. It’s just considered a non-issue since every state issues licenses to male/female marriage arrangements. Homosexual marriage is a fairly new concept, so each State has to figure out how they’re going to deal with it.
Dude, you’re being very rude. I am “obsessed” with Illegal Immigration because it has affected me every day of my life growing up in Southern California. You have no reason to question anybody’s motives, so please refrain from doing so.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM
It’s impossible for me to comprehend those that don’t see illegal immigration as a national security threat.
People say they like McCain because national security is the most important issue and he’ll keep us on the offense in the Middle East. Meanwhile, here AT HOME, we are slowly being overrun by citizens of other countries. They are bleeding us dry.
McCain cannot honestly say he is a champion of national security with a Mexican national on his campaign team!
NTWR on January 30, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Bingo.
Shay on January 30, 2008 at 1:30 PM
When you move from one state to another, you don’t have to get a new Marriage contract from that state, like you do with a drivers license. The constitution says that each state must honor contracts formed in other states. Therefore, get married in Mass., then live in the south and force them to honor your gay marriage via that. This is why they want a Constitutional definition so marriage itself isn’t suddenly redefined.
jp on January 30, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Unless, of course, one of the party “expires!” But I digress . . .
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM
We’re a democratic republic, Baphomet, not a true democracy. And marriage is and never has been a right. It’s a privilege, like a drivers license.
No, you just mentioned the Nazis because it looked good on paper…
Ahh, you make my point. The constitution says nothing about marriage. It’s not a Federal right. It’s a privilege granted by each individual state. Please understand that you have no RIGHT to be married. It’s a fairly simple concept.
The State of California has said that only people capable of a commonly-accepted standard of vision can operate a motor vehicle. That is discriminating against the blind. But since driving, like marriage, is not a right it is perfectly legitimate.
Please stop making a fool of yourself…please.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Weebork,
Yeah, we’re screwed. Just hope we can fend off the attack on term limits next week. At least it’ll get rid of Fabian. The blue counties rule California, that’s for sure. Got a feeling you’ll get your degree. :-)
Feedie on January 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Not rebutting, just a bit lazy. Where in the constitution? As a review of course.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM
I wouldn’t use the Constitution to deal with it. Rudy married his cousin, should that be legal? I don’t know.
One can make the case that the state should get more involved with marriages to lower the divorce rate. It could provide training and tests and certification–but it doesn’t and shouldn’t. It could further restrict marriage preventing drunks, drug addicts and felons from marrying–but it doesn’t. It could prevent people people of different races from marrying each other–but it doesn’t any more.
I’d rather have the government less involved and let people enter into the contracts that they want.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Dude.
Nobody said anything about conspiracy!
I’m telling the truth about big egos and you have to invoke that!?!
Jerk!!
Shut up and don’t even respond to me ever again unless you revoke that statement, you jerk!
You are beyond a pathetic wuss!
JERK!!
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Exactly, but drivers licenses do expire and have to be renewed, and the state can take the privilege of driving away from you if you fail to follow the law vis a vis operating a vehicle. The state cannot revoke your marriage license (unless it is challenged as being unconstitutional or improperly given).
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM
And your answer to that, and John McCain’s answer to that, is to simply MAKE IT LEGAL. Problem solved.
Are you suggesting that illegal aliens are “integrating?” Really? Because aside from your over-all dishonesty, the topic is illegal aliens, regardless of how hard you attempt to take it someplace else.
More dishonesty. Please point me to a single blog or group complaining about Mexican food. Also, please point me to all the blogs or groups currently complaining about LEGAL immigrants.
Yes. Key word being “strong.” You earlier suggested that this group was the majority of the anti-illegal group.
You’re an absolute dishonest clown, just like your boy McCain.
By the way …
My wife is an immigrant and my son is half Mexican. You’ll find that this is a common situation among those fighting illegal immigration. But you’re not interested in reality, are you? Because it wouldn’t support your stance.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Actually, you’re wrong. You don’t have to get a new driver’s license in every state. But that’s simply because the State you live in hasn’t had a reason to require it. If your state suddenly allowed blind people to drive then you’d soon find your drivers license to be worthless in other states.
Same goes for marriage. Each state gets to treat the privilege differently.
This is oversimplifying what the constitution specifically says and doesn’t actually address the reality of the issue.
Ha! You know, I actually wrote out a few caveats to that statement I made but deleted them. I thought folks would know there are subtle exceptions. I had made mention of annulment, divorce and death but thought it a bit pedantic for HotAir.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM
full faith and credit clause of the Constitution
I think this is one of those issues that Gay Activist are just waiting to challenge constitutionally and would get Clinton’s “Defense of Marriage Act” overturned on those grounds. Which is why we need an Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage, I beleive is the reasoning behind it, aside from the political point.
jp on January 30, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Ehem…I think you misunderstand the way human rights and liberties. Any two people have a right to get married as long as it does not affect another person’s fundamental rights: life, expression, association, religion, etc. It doesn’t have to be in the Constitution to be a “right”.
Again, it doesn’t have to be in the Constitution to be a right. If that were the case, most human activities would have to be explicitly stated in the Constitution. The role of the Constitution is different: it is to clearly state the individual’s fundamental, basic rights, and to force government to protect them. People are supposed to be free to enjoy their lives as they please as long as the government keeps to that basic, core function. This is the very key to Liberalism (not as we know it today and associate it with leftists of course) and Democracy.
Invalid analogy. That has to due with security and protecting other people’s safety. It’s pretty obvious, I think. Where are the externalities, the collateral damage if you will of two gay people marrying?
I’m still convinced that that is the case. I see it every single day making the blog rounds. Some people sound reasonable. Others, when you carve them a little, start ranting about Mexicans and listening to people talking and Spanish and all the same ugly bullshit we’ve seen for centuries now.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:40 PM
That’s a collective statement there Mcguyver, one about the landscape of America. I see people cast themselves as victims (as you have) or jump into conspiracies (as we have seen w/ ‘the whisper’ or 9/11). If you want to be offended by that comment, your choice.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Mcguyver, please calm down. You’re acting foolish. AP didn’t post on your tiny, obscure blog.
Actually, it most certainly can and has: fraudulent marriage, often for immigration purposes, occur quite regularly in border states like California. The state has every legal obligation to revoke invalid marriage licenses and can refuse to honor marriages from out-of-state in certain cases.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Actually, you’re wrong. You don’t have to get a new driver’s license in every state.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM
You do have to get a new driver’s license from the state you move to if you move. That is not true of marriages!
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I’m sorry. Where is this written again? In the far left liberal handbook? Or in Baphomet’s Guide to Socialism and Human Rights?
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Marriage pre-exists the state–from an anthropoligical and common law stand point. My marriage to my wife has its foundation in our two families, in our community and our church before the state becomes relevant. People commit their lives to one another, not casually. It is the job of the state to process the paperwork, not to tell you who you should marry–mothers do the latter.
I don’t need a license to drive, just to operate a street-legal vehicle on public roads. The government doesn’t tell me what to do off-road or in the bedroom.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I don’t believe I ever stated the majority of people who oppose illegal immigrations come to the “cultural” half I identified. I am sure that is not the case.
You want a single instance? OK, how about Victor Davis Hanson, one of my personal intellectual towering figures, penning a book called “Mexifornia”?
The idea that a certain wave of immigrants is failing to integrate and imperils the country is now centuries-old in the United States. As a reader of Roman history, I know perfectly well that theoretically it is a well-founded concern. However, I also know that time and again, these waves of immmigrants who supposedly were ruining the country with their separate neighborhoods, schools, places of worship, etc. eventually integrated just fine. Consider the Irish, the Jews, the Italians. I am 100% certain the Mexicans will be just like the rest. You can see it right now in the Armed Forces, where in recent years we have seen the rise of many Mexican-ethnic high-ranking officers.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Deep breath . . . now let it out.
Ah ah ah. Before you began typing a reply, take a time out.
You’ll thank me later.
geckomon on January 30, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Of course, but revoking invalid licenses has nothing to do with recognizing marriage from one state to the next.
/later.
Buy Danish on January 30, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Update (Bryan):
.
EXACTLY!
shooter on January 30, 2008 at 1:47 PM
No, I really don’t. There is no such thing as Universal Human Rights except in the eye of certain European courts. Our rights are laid out in the Bill of Rights. There is no right to marriage as it is a privilege granted by each individual state, just like a drivers license.
Actually, that’s exactly where it has to be.
Not at all. What you don’t understand is that the Federal Gov’t has enumerated our rights because those are the issues they felt cannot be revoked by each individual state. The rest of the issues we deal with on a day-to-day basis ought to be decided by each individual state because they are NOT rights.
You don’t have the right to get married. You have the right to live with whomever you want for the rest of your life, certainly, but the state doesn’t have to issue a license to you. They simply do not have to do that. It is a privilege and the sooner you understand that the better.
Dude, not being married doesn’t mean you aren’t free to do as you please. You can shack up with whomever you like. Pursue life, liberty and happiness ’til the cows come home. But marriage isn’t any of those three things. In fact, some would say marriage is anything BUT those three. It’s just a privilege granted by the State you live in. And they can take away that privilege whenever they darn well feel like it.
You need to stop reading the La Raza/MeCha talking points.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Actually, yes … you did.
Of course, you can do what liberals do and just claim that’s not what you meant. With all of your Nazi references and other insults … I’m sure that will go over easily.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Buy Danish, it depends on the laws of each state. Washington State, for instance, requires you to get a WA drivers license upon becoming a resident of the state. That isn’t the law for every state, however.
Marriage is a PUBLIC declaration of your intent to be with another person. It has nothing to do with your private life. It’s an explicitly public matter. Please grasp that very simple concept.
Sure it does. They may not be identical issues but they share the same legal framework. Marriage licenses can be invalidated for a variety of reasons. And if you followed that wikipedia link posted earlier you’d see that many states already have laws enacted to determine which licenses are valid in their state.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Gregor is right, Baphomet.
You slandered the opponents of illegal immigration quite brutally. I was definitely offended by your remarks. Please don’t paint with such a broad brush. One can totally appreciate the Mexican people and their culture and still hate the nation for encouraging their citizens to move here illegally. Mexico should be ashamed of itself for pushing its own people out instead of working to improve the nation from within.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 1:57 PM
You are completely, 100% wrong. Your rights as an individual don’t come from a text. They don’t come from the Constitution and they don’t come from whatever state you live in. You have those rights because you are a human being, an individual. Period. After that comes government, which is formed to stop anarchy. In anarchy, any one person can trample on any other’s rights, including life, property, etc.
That’s it. Government is there to protect your basic rights. Constitutions and laws are there simply to codify what those fundamental rights and liberties are, that’s it. It’s absurd to claim you have to wait until your state recognizes your “right” to marry to do it. Rights flow in an upward, not a downward direction. That is a monarchical conception of rights. One minute they are there, the next they are not.
Of course, there is the corollary that in practical terms this is a Republic of laws, and there are laws that regulate these contracts. The basic misconception is that many people believe that gives them a pass to arbitrarily ban certain activities. It is illegitimate to do so, unless it is in compliance with the original mission of government: protecting basic rights and liberties.
See, this is the problem. Who are we, or the government, to decide what’ included in that or not? The whole point Thomas Jefferson and the others were making was that the entire spectrum of human life was included in the phrase “the pursuit of happiness”. As usual, that was as long as it did not imply infringing another citizen’s basic rights.
Bullshit. I’ve seen plenty of that to know I’m right. I will however insist this is not nearly the majority of people.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I am 100% in agreement with you there. I do apologize if I offended anyone. It’s just that putting in a Constitution an article that says “certain people have no right to enjoy the same rights as the rest do” has a definite Nürnberg Laws ring to it, if you abstract it from the present situation (which is obviously lightyears away from Nazism). Don’t like that comparison? Fine, take a more present-day-flavored one: so-called “laws” and “constitutions” in Muslim countries.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:00 PM
“You know, the Constitution is not some notepad where you can scribble down a rant against the issue du jour.”
McCain-Feingold
In addition, the assimilation argument is bogus because the political and intellectual elites -demanded- it in the 1880-1924 period and oppose it now.
Apples and oranges.
No votes for the oath-breaker and free-speech foe, McCain.
ebrown2 on January 30, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Still waiting to hear where these rights are posted. Can you give us a link? A reference? Something?
I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of all these “basic human rights” before somewhere. Wait! Let me think! I’m pretty sure it was … Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Al Gore, and every other socialist throughout history. And now we hear it from a John McCain supporter. Shocking!
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM
You make my argument for me, Baphomet. Marriage isn’t a basic right or liberty. It’s a license granted by a State. Nobody is preventing you from having a wedding and sticking a ring on the finger of someone of the same sex. You can marry whomever you wish, but don’t expect every State to license your activity. They have no legal obligation to do so.
There is no RIGHT to marriage. Our rights are enumerated by the Constitution and protected by our Creator, whomever you think that may be. I happen to think it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster as I’ve been touched by her noodly appendage. Can I get a Ramen?
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Are you really that stupid? Marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. Are you suggesting that homosexuals are not allowed to take part in a “bond between a man and a woman” just like the rest of us?
It’s completely their choice.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Gregor is quite correct about this. The idea that we magically have “rights” not mentioned in the constitution is a talking point of the extreme left. We were taught to treasure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nobody will really stop you from doing that in the privacy of your own home. But when matters become public — such as marriage, an extremely public activity — the State can certainly possess a legal obligation to intervene.
The Federal Gov’t, however, has no such obligation. Their powers are explicitly enumerated to PREVENT a tyranny of Federal oversight. Over the years we’ve allowed our country to deteriorate this intended separation of power, but that doesn’t mean it has to continue.
Let the individual states decide matters that the constitution doesn’t weigh in on. THAT is how a democratic republic works.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM
What? Have you ever taken a course on political philosophy? Do you even know the history of Liberalism? John Locke? Thomas Jefferson? Hello? Those leftists you mentioned are precisely those who claim there are more rights than just the basic rights. They say there is a right to water, a right to tourism, a right to free health care, a right to government-funded pensions, etc. They think government can think up new “rights” and legislate them as they please. You really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
Those rights are included or mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights and some of them in the Universal Declaration.
Of course marriage is not a basic right or liberty: that’s why it is not mentioned -nor should it- in the Constitution. Instead, marriage is one of the many activities humans/citizens are free to engage in in whatever way they please. The government has no right to step in the middle of said activities unless they are in violation (or pose a danger to) the basic rights of other citizens. Everything else is out of boundaries for the government, including who marries who.
The fact that states give you a license to marry is just the way in which it works practically, but it would not necessarily have to be that way. Since for practical reasons that is they system that exists, so be it. However, the government would have no right to refuse anyone that license based on a subjective idea such as gender or orientation. And even further so, it has no right to actually try to stamp that as a law or a Constitutional amendment. It’s such an egregious violation of the core founding principles of the United States that it boggles the mind.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:14 PM
I’m just telling the truth here. You’re the one hyperventilating.
You’re wrong and you don’t care about it.
Well if that wasn’t directed at me then why post it in response to my post, jackass?
All of your responses are in fact because you can’t handle the rub from me telling the truth here, which is always the problem with wusses like you.
So like Spirit of 1776’s kneejerk response, I’m going to paint a wide brush here and say all of the McCain and Huckabee supporters are wusses who cannot handle the truth.
You happy now, wimps?
In fact some are wusses and others are deceived.
Is that better?
P.S.
A perfect point in example of what’s thoughtful and meaningful is comparing Bryan’s update post and Allah’s snark.
Are you wusses ever going to get it?
Now go back to Momma’s basement, jackasses.
Mcguyver on January 30, 2008 at 2:15 PM
You say “explicitly” but make it sound like “exclusively”–there are very private aspects to marriage as well (love, understanding, trust, commitment, etc.). If you are claiming that every public expression or commitment is grounds for government involvment, I don’t agree.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 2:18 PM
*sight* I wish Thomas Jefferson were here to explain this. I am obviously lacking his intellect to explain it clearly. First and foremost, it was me who said rights are not given (nor created) by government. Government *recognizes* them and is bound to protect them by the very citizens who found it.
Now, when citizens create a government and enshrine its role in a Constitution, they clearly state that all rights not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved for themselves. It is an ample spectrum of activities that merits no government intervention because they are private affairs belonging to one or more citizens, but which do not affect other citizens’ rights.
In an earlier post I caught you misusing the phrase “the pursuit of happiness”. They key phrase in this one is “the State can certainly possess a legal obligation to intervene”. Ehem – no, it does not. The State may not intervene to stop a contract from happening based on a subjective perception of the person(s) involved. Many people truly fail to understand this. Some philosophers have called it “the fear of liberty”. It is truly amazing, but that is the correct meaning of liberty as understood by the early (classic) Liberals. Any two people can voluntarily agree to anything as long as they are not infringing a third person’s rights. Government stays out. It’s beautiful. It’s freedom. It’s American.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Okay, now you’ve just gone completely loony. You just outlined exactly what you’ve been supporting throughout this thread. You’ve been sitting here arguing that there are “basic human rights” which are not defined in the Bill of Rights” and Constitution.
Apparently, you fully SUPPORT a government which “thinks up new “rights” and legislates them as they please.” You know? Based on nothing other than some idea in your own head of “basic human rights.”
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 2:22 PM
What??? How have I been supporting “a government which thinks up new rights and legislates them as they please”. You are projecting: you are the one who is supporting the idea that government can define who has the right to have a marriage license and who does not have that right. The moment it enters the Constitution, which I have opposed all along, it becomes a right some enjoy and others don’t. You are so wrong it’s sad. Please see the logic…
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM
No. Relationships are one of those activities. Marriage is a legal contract that is issued by each State. Anybody can have a wedding; only the state can determine who is truly married.
But it is that way. It’s not the practical approach, it is THE approach. States grant marriage licenses. They don’t carry out weddings. They are two different things. A wedding is a ceremony of dedication to another person. A marriage is a legal arrangement certified by the state.
The State Gov’t has the obligation as set out in their laws. The state doesn’t have the right; the law was passed by the legislature or via the voting public and the state must adhere to it. What you’re suggesting is that the State doesn’t have the legal authority that its citizens granted it. And that is simply ignorant.
If this topic was of such importance then why does the subject make no appearance in the Bill of Rights? Oh, wait. It’s the tenth amendment!
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
As the people of California voted to classify marriage as a legal license between a man and a woman you must agree that they are honoring the intent of the Tenth Amendment.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Dedalus, those private aspects aren’t a part of marriage. They are a part of a relationship, something the state has no legal obligation to license. A state marriage license doesn’t require you to love, understand, trust or cherish the other person. It simply legally binds two people into a contractual arrangement. That is all.
And, Baphomet, read over the Tenth Amendment please. It answers the argument quite clearly. Gregor is absolutely right about your misinterpretation of our constitution.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:29 PM
You almost got there, but you forgot what I said about majorities and minorities in a democracy. No majority can legislate against a minority’s rights or activities only because they have a higher number. Simple majority rule is not democracy, it’s authoritarianism.
Obviously that has become the law, as many other things. The point I’m making is that it is not legitimate. In this case, the people of California would be honoring the phrase “to the states” and dishonoring the phrase “to the people”, since they are legislating with the clear intent of stopping a certain class of people from engaging in certain contracts – which is discriminatory and illegitimate.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I’m quoting this simply to illustrate to others how poorly people are educated about the Tenth Amendment these days.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I’d love to see where this is written in our constitution.
And, again, because you seem to forget this: marriage is not a right but a privilege.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Slavery was legal in the United States. It was assumed to be left to “the states” or that it was part of a state’s “right” to legislate whatever was not mentioned elsewhere.
However, no one can seriously argue that slavery was legitimate, even though it was legal. Why? Because it was a basic violation of human rights and liberties, irrelevant of what was written on any piece of paper. It was a clear case of a majority legislating against a minority. All the paperwork was there. There were countless legal arguments in the run-up to the Civil War about the federal government, states’ rights, etc. They were all irrelevant because there was one fundamental truth that gravitated above everything else: slavery goes against all standards of human decency, human rights and human liberties. No one had a “right” to legislate against that, states be damned, laws be damned and everything else.
The issue is obviously not as serious, but the principle is the same. It is irrelevant whether you have licenses, or state majorities deciding some people can marry and others cannot. The principle is the same: no government, no majority, can violate the basic rights of the people. One of those basic rights is the right to live your life as you please, and engage in whatever contracts you please, as long as you hurt no one else’s rights. I think that pretty much sums it up.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM
You really are stupid, aren’t you?
Look at your own comment please:
Notice the word “right” in there? That’s all you bro. You’ve taken it upon yourself, to decide that marriage is a “right” rather than a privilege. You’ve just created a human right in your own little head, and then forced it upon the rest of us. Do you understand that little concept?
Obtaining a “marriage license” is NOT a “basic human right.”
Now, with that said … you’re perfectly welcome to go hook up with your gay pal and shack up with him until the day you die. Make whatever blood pact you wish, until death do you part, yada yada yada. I don’t give a cr&p. But you’re not going to force me to recognize you and you’re not going to force me to help pay for it by giving you a tax break and other benefits paid for with my tax dollars.
Unless of course … you believe TAX BREAKS are a “basic human right” as well.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I’ve not read the debate, and don’t have the time at the moment, but it looks fascinating. I just wanted to say that I agree with above. Our fathers thought we had rights conferred by both natural law (nonwritten obviously) and common law (written).
When the Constitution was first written it didn’t enumerate personal rights at all as it was assumed to be known that the government couldn’t and wouldn’t trample on them. However, minds with more foresight insisted that some be explicitly stated. I don’t read that to be all inclusive of all rights, unlike powers which, if not mentioned, are conferred to the states.
Spirit of 1776 on January 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Baphomet is making up his very own Constitution, just like Hillary, Jimmy Carter, and the rest of the socialists. He’s just too stupid to grasp it.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Although I think it’s a bit snarky for my tastes, I agree with Gregor completely.
You cannot unilaterally declare something a right if it is not, in fact, enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Marriage is a privilege, Baphomet, and that is simply reality.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM
OK. If marriage is the contract, then love has nothing to do with the marriage as profitability has nothing to do with an LLC. The government recognizes the contract, binds the parties, but doesn’t evaluate the business plan. I’d agree, which is why I’d favor letting people decide who they want to marry or what business they want to start and have the government take a step back.
If you want to start a business with gay investors, the government will enforce the contracts. It doesn’t tell you that it would be better for you if you found some straight investors.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Look, you’re really entrenched in your position and I am in mine. I gotta jet, but I’ll leave you with this thought: according to your definition of things, a State legislature or a majority of voters in a state can legitimately outlaw YOUR right to buy an XBox 360.
(always according to your definitions)
There is no “right”, written on the Constitution or anywhere else, to buying the XBox 360. It is a “privilege”. A majority can decide you specifically, or people they consider to be like you, are unfit to own that particular object. Maybe they can force buyers to have licenses to play videogames, just as there are licenses to marry or practice medicine. They can therefore refuse you that license, because they and not you are in the government. How’s that for tyranny, through a clearly silly example?
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Spirit of 1776, that exactly what the Bill of Rights does: enumerates the rights, endowed by our Creator, that cannot be trampled on. That is why the Tenth Amendment says, essentially, that everything else is either legislated by the states or determined by individuals.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM
My use of the word right there was an attempt to frame it in your terms. My point was that the moment you place it in the Constitution, either to grant it or to deny it, you are saying it is a right. The text would HAVE to imply that two people who are not a man and a woman would have no RIGHT to have that license.
I am not creating that right, because I do not think this should go to the Constitution. I think it’s part of your RIGHT to live your life as you damn please, not that there is a specific right to marriage. It is about a person’s RIGHT not to be discriminated on by the government when it comes to handing out licenses, permits, or generally treating its citizens.
But don’t take it from me. We can take it to a whole other level. Milton Friedman opposed giving licenses to DOCTORS, which many would argue would indeed pose a public safety issue (much graver issue than gay marriage). What would you tell him? Is it OK for the government to determine who can own a license to practice medicine and who can not? If you’re such a smartass, I’d like you to go ahead and argue for that.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Finally, someone who knows a little about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, basic human liberties, political philosophy, etc.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:47 PM
The Federal Gov’t should step back! But the State Gov’t has the legal obligation to fulfill the wishes of their citizens. The voters in California wished for marriage to be defined as only between a man and a woman. And so it became law, but only for Californians.
Of course they can. Just like they can determine that a blind person cannot operate a motor vehicle on public roads. The State government HAS that ability as stated by the Tenth Amendment of our Bill of Rights. The Federal Government does not.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:47 PM
You already said this and I refuted it: that is an argument based on externalities. In this case, it’s about public safety: a blind person driving would pose a mortal danger to other people. It’s a very dramatic case that has nothing to do with two gay people marrying.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:49 PM
SHOCKING! Seriously? You mean, the government could just come along and tell us we need to have a license to own something, or to buy something?
Naw, they would NEVER do that, would they?
Oh wait. You mean we can legally buy weed, meth, prescription only medications, and assault rifles, with absolutely no license or authorization? I didn’t know.
Oh wait. You mean we’re able to operate motor vehicles on the highways, and various aircraft through the skies without a license? Dang! I never knew!
God, I hope they never think to require any type of licensing or restrictions on such things!
How’s that for tyranny, through a clearly silly example?
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 2:49 PM
I’m actually against government licenses for most things. I would only oppose selling weapons to people with a criminal record. See my previous post about Milton Friedman.
Baphomet on January 30, 2008 at 2:52 PM
ROFL. Gregor, you’re a funny dude.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I probably agree that the state governments should decide, and expect that the laws concerning marriage and domestic partnerships will evolve over time. Giving gay couples the ability to inherit or share health care plans seems agreeable while using the word “marriage” seems to have majority opposition.
I think the Republicans should leave it at that. Pushing for a constitutional amendment perceived as targetting gays alienates not only the gay population but families and friends of gays. Banning gay marriage doesn’t stop terrorists, improve schools or fuel the economy.
Talk radio got beaten by McCain and the moderates in Florida. In addition to a better candidate the conservatives might want to think about how to prioritize their issues and persuade the rest of the country. Protecting America from married gay couples shouldn’t be at the top of the list.
dedalus on January 30, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Pardon me for interrupting this thread with logic.
The idea that “marriage can be left to the states” when nutty judges seek to promote same-sex pseudo-marriage is nonsensical.
It’s as simple as this: M1 “marries” M2 and F1 “marries” F2 in Massachusetts. Another state does not recognize these as valid marriages. Therefore, there, the four can go to this other state, and M1 can marry F1, and M2 can marry F2. So, group marriage is now possible.
corona on January 30, 2008 at 3:03 PM
No, now you’re changing your argument after losing it in it’s original format.
Your original argument was that marriage, and a marriage license was a “basic human right.”
“Marriage” is defined as a bond between a man and a woman, or “husband and wife.”
In order to legally obtain a marriage license, this is a requirement.
You’re suggesting that this violates the “basic human right” of homosexuals to marry who they choose.
As I’ve pointed out earlier, it does nothing of the sort, since marriage is not a “basic human right.”
You can still “choose to hook up with” or “live the rest of your life” or “take a partner” with whoever you like. Nobody is stopping you. You just can’t get a “marriage license” and/or enter into a “legal contract” of marriage.
It’s not a basic human right to enter into a “legal contract” created by a government.
Get it? There’s a difference between a “legal marriage” from the basic right to “take a partner for life.” One is a government provided benefit and legal contract, and the other is just something you choose to do on your own.
Once again, you’ve defeated your own argument. On one hand you’re suggesting that the government, or the majority has no right to determine who it “gives a license” to, and now you’re claiming that requiring doctors to have licenses somehow supports YOUR stance?
Weird. It would seem that you’re more in agreement with Milton Friedman.
Wait. Is being a doctor a “basic human right?”
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I am in COMPLETE agreement. Complete and utter agreement, and I told the mindless Huckabee supporters the same thing. Marriage and Abortion are horrible candidates for constitutional amendments. Even if, by some miracle, they got so far as to be ratified by the states there is no way that 38 states would pass those amendments. It would only serve to make the GOP look like overzealous bible-thumpers.
I don’t support homosexual marriage and I hate the practice of abortion. But I have no desire to force my beliefs down the throat of the citizens of other states. That is for them to decide, not me. I voted in CA to classify marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. That’s as far as I’ll go on issues of that nature.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Just because some Judges have overstepped their bounds doesn’t mean we need to seek a constitutional amendment to force a very controversial issue down the throats of the nation. Two wrongs do not make a right.
No. Please check out the wikipedia link mentioned earlier. States have legislated how out-of-state marriage licenses are honored within their state, preventing situations like that from happening. It is the obligation of the state and its voters to determine how to treat the issue.
We do not need — nor should we want — to get the Federal Gov’t involved in this issue.
HebrewToYou on January 30, 2008 at 3:12 PM
I understand your position that this is a states issue, but realistically, this is not the stance of the homosexual argument. Baphomet would be 100% opposed to leaving the issue up to the states, unless he was sure they would all rule in favor of gay marriage.
You write that you “have no desire to force (your) beliefs down the throat of the citizens of other states” but I would point out that the gay community and people like Baphomet want nothing less than to force their beliefs down the throat of the citizens of the United States.”
They don’t want states to decide. They want everyone to be forced to accept homosexual marriages. Period.
Gregor on January 30, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »