Video: DeGeneres makes McCain squirm over gay marriage
posted at 12:09 pm on May 22, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Visibly uncomfortable, although not as much as Bill Richardson when Melissa Etheridge put him on the hot seat at that gay forum last year. All she wants here is a reason for drawing the distinction, and Maverick, ever mindful of the base, can’t do better than agree-to-disagree. But credit him as always for going on the show knowing that he’d have to take the question. It’s of a piece with his upcoming visit to the NAACP convention: He’ll be received coolly (but cordially), it won’t win him many votes, but the mere fact of attendance demonstrates that the disagreement has to do with policy, not with some sort of visceral distaste. The latter is a great weapon in the left’s arsenal for demagoging Republicans. McCain’s smart to bite the bullet and take it away from them.
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: 1 2 Next »
Good analysis. And a good appearance.
funky chicken on May 22, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Have to grin a bit at this. Reminds me of the old pre-PC days when people said what they thought to people who you didn’t even know in advance what they wanted to hear. McCain’s not gone that far backwards yet, but agreed, this is a good and smart step.
JiangxiDad on May 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM
McCain lost the battle, but probably won the war. He realized that challenging Ellen’s emotionally driven points (This is like denying women to vote and telling black people where to sit on a bus) would only hurt him in the long run. He just wanted to have a friendly conversation and not get into a heated debate. Still, if I were him, I would have been clearer to why I object to gay marriage.
Frank T.J Mackey on May 22, 2008 at 12:20 PM
McCain handled that issue diplomatically with good will and humor and without conceding the point to the host.
What’s with the audience’s reaction to DeGeneres’s remarks? Are they all lovelorn lesbians who want a ring and a ceremony?
onlineanalyst on May 22, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Social issues don’t seem to matter to John McCain, especially when he’s interviewed by a lesbian. Just like any liberal, he would feel comfortable talking about gay marriage or bestiality.
Didn’t you figure it out yet?
McCain is only about Iraq (everyone is about something – ask Al Gore) and promulgating laws that restrict freedom of speech and legalizing foreign intrusion from our borders.
Indy Conservative on May 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Uh, doesn’t Obama also oppose gay marriage? I expect he’ll get the same grilling from Ellen, right?
amerpundit on May 22, 2008 at 12:24 PM
So now that Senator Maverick has pandered to the gays and lesbians (Ellen) and to the slacker leftoids (Jon Stewart)by appearing ontheir shows,
how long before he panders to his… cough cough… Republican/conservative “base” by having a meaingful “sit down” with Ann Coulter and appearing as a guest on Rush’s radio show?
Bottom Line: Dont hold your patriotic, conservative breath for either one to happen…..
Always Right on May 22, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Of course she’ll do that…………Not.
Frank T.J Mackey on May 22, 2008 at 12:27 PM
She can get married to a man, just like any other woman. Where is the discrimination?
tommylotto on May 22, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Well done–no pandering!
HotJavaJack on May 22, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The real problem here is what these types of stupid interviews do to the Office of the Presidency.
The fact that we now have a cartoon show that specificly makes fun of the sitting President of the US is very troubling… we’ve degraded the meaning of the office.
I don’t want my future President to be on Oprah, or Ellen, or the View, or any softball show… its plain outright pandering. Its demeaning… and its sad that we’ve come to the place in this country where all the candidates feel this is neccesary.
Romeo13 on May 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Memo to Senator McCain:
The Media are the Enemy. They will destroy you. You will not know what hit you until it’s too late.
newton on May 22, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Always Right,
He considers meeting with meeting with conservative pundits, conservative talk shows/tv/etc.. as masochism.
He is very comfortable with libs/democrats/anti-conservatives/etc.. and will continue holding hands with them.
nottakingsides on May 22, 2008 at 12:35 PM
I see my marriage as agreement between three parties: God, my wife, and I. That’s what I call a marriage.
The state has another usage for the term; one that is legal and material, not spiritual (which is as it should be).
I would be married to my wife regardless of whether or not it involved a special legal status, so clearly the material definition isn’t that important to me.
What I now wonder is, why must I fight to apply my spiritual definition to the State’s material definition? The two are different things, and serve different purposes.
Let the secular decision be whatever we deem reasonable as a society. And I can see no reason to exclude gay people on a secular level. Let them have the legal definition of marriage. Perhaps it will discourage risk-taking behavior and so decrease the spread of STDs.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Please stop repeating this. I don’t think you realize how ridiculous it makes you sound.
crr6 on May 22, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Wut? male and female…
What about infertility?
Love makes a family.
Why do you oppose love and families?
/end technicolor lovebubble transhumanist LGBTIQQ hellhole cliche of the day
ninjapirate on May 22, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Her ex, Ann Heche, tried it but it failed. The guy was a total loser though.
ninjapirate on May 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Gotta give McCain points for stayin’ classy.
Osama Obama would have called this a “distraction” and weaseled his way out of answering. It wouldn’t have helped his children or Michelle…unless one of them came out of the closet.
McCain disagreed with Ellen in a calm and respectful way. Wish more people would do that.
MrScribbler on May 22, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Ill reiterate what I said in the comments to the headline item:
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage based on his religious beliefs, even though the United Church of Christ is pro-gay marriage. Who wants to bet she wouldn’t call him out?
its vintage duh on May 22, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Good Lord, is this all you can talk about? Seriously, get a new set of talking points. John McCain is too liberal for you, I got that the first four hundred times you said it.
On topic – As for myself, I would not feel comfortable going to a gay wedding. I think McCain handled this situation the best he could. At least he didn’t say that this conversation really doesn’t help his kids.
mjk on May 22, 2008 at 12:53 PM
The fact that you feel excluded does not make it so. You can get married to a man just like any other woman in the world. You cannot marry a woman, nor can you marry yourself, nor can you marry your dog, nor can you marry two men.
Even if you were to be given the ability to marry a woman, you will not be married, not in the way you want. It’s a social novelty that no amount of wishing or pining will make legitimate, regardless of its legal status. You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
spmat on May 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I always thought Ellen was funny and a nice person but sorry, being a lesbian is not natural. It’s not the same as giving the black person and white woman the vote.
When I first heard her announce this on her show (and mind you, I only had it on because Hugh Laurie was suppose to be on), the audience’s reaction was wild, yet it appalled me.
Now I see on here, she’s pushing the issue and now I am turned off to her.
I agree with the person who said it is getting ridiculous how candidates are appearing on any show. What good did it do for McCain, anyone?
Conservatives R Us on May 22, 2008 at 12:59 PM
My goal is five hundred times and a half.
McCain is not too liberal for me, McCain is a hypocrite liberal.
Too much about straight talk.
Indy Conservative on May 22, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Nice to see McCain is just as craven as Obama on this issue. The only reason to draw a line between “marriage” and a “civil union” is to descriminate against gays, otherwise the terminology wouldn’t matter. And obviously, there’s no reason to descriminate against gays unless you believe that God wants you to.
Why is God such a petty little sh*t about these things?
Enrique on May 22, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Gee, I wonder where McCain would get a silly idea like that.
Lehosh on May 22, 2008 at 1:04 PM
nObama has already appeared on Ellen’s show and all they did was dance with each other.
When Ellen asked if he would walk her down the aisle, he should have asked her, are you the bride?
cjs1943 on May 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Wait so John McCain being against something = Wrong
Ellen being against something = right
Soemthing is wrong with this interview.
As ussual the idea of the day is “Freedom of Speech rules all, unless you disagree with my Lib point of view.”
Rbastid on May 22, 2008 at 1:11 PM
McCain is not arguing for oppressing gays and lesbians. He feels they should be allowed to get the same benefits as married couples, but call it by a different name.
Comparing gays to the civil rights movement and the women’s suffrage movement is utterly ludicrous. In fact, they missed the entire boat on those two movements. The civil rights movement was fighting to prevent people from all types of backgrounds from discrimination. The women’s suffrage movement fought for voting rights for all U.S Citizens (Both genders) over a certain age.
The gay rights movements wants to destroy a tradition in our society and cherry-pick. You don’t see gay activists fighting for polygamy (That would be too disgusting), right to marry an animal, or enter into marriages where the couple is brother and sister.
Gay people in our society are free to get a private wedding ceremony, engage in homosexuality behavior without being fined or thrown in jail.
Frank T.J Mackey on May 22, 2008 at 1:12 PM
She handed him his ass, nicely toasted, on a silver platter, complete with frilly doylie.
I consider it quite revolting that we have religious bigots amongst us that feel it is perfectly legitimate for the might of government to be asserted in a bizarre attempt to ‘homestead’ the english language.
Words do not belong to anyone. Such proposed legislation/amendments should be seen as horrific by any American.
California finally got one right.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I had the same reaction as you, (although I only saw the clip here and don’t who Hugh Laurie is.) Anyway, the people applauded because liberalism is now institutionalized as the norm, and the audience was “well-educated,” so they know “right from wrong.” Nevertheless, I suggest that the truly revolutionary thought wasn’t coming out of deGeneris’ mouth, but nearly out of McCains. And that was “No.”
The tide is turning. The barbarians waiting outside the gate are saying NO to the liberal powers-that-be. It’s a glorious thing to see. McCain is rarely so revolutionary (global warming for ex.), but in this case, for whatever reason, he did well.
JiangxiDad on May 22, 2008 at 1:15 PM
McCain handled that well….Ellen was the one that seemed uncomfortable. I like Ellen, think she is a good sweet person and very funny but she does what so many liberals do to make their point and that is they change the definition of words.
Marriage’s definition is between a man and a woman. Period. It is really that simple. Consider the word marriage copyrighted!
Find another word to define your committed relationship. Think of it this way: Champagne can only be called “champagne” if it’s made in a certain region in France. Everything else has to me called “Sparkling Wine”.
Well the same goes with marriage. Marriage can only be called a marriage if it’s between a man and a woman. Find another word that is your own.
Another example of liberals trying to change the definition of a word. They are calling the woman who is very hairy & pregnant a man. Oprah did it. I guess some government agencies have defined her as a man. Well she isn’t. Men don’t have babies. Never will.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 1:19 PM
If you operated a business and said that all the customers, including the ones in wheel chairs, all had the equal right to take the stairs you’d likely have problems with the ADA and that logic.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 1:23 PM
> Obama doesn’t support gay marriage based on his religious beliefs, even though the United Church of Christ is pro-gay marriage.
.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Churches affiliated with the UCC have a congregational model, which means the membership of the individual church makes all the decisions for what that church will approve or ignore or denounce. Every couple years the UCC General Synod comes up with a few new wacky resolutions, but individual churches are not bound to agree with them — the resolutions are supposed to “speak to the Church, not for the Church,” or something like that. The affiliated churches then nod their heads, or chuckle, or grimace, or flee the UCC, as they deem appropriate.
.
That’s probably a lot more church polity stuff than anyone wanted, but my point is that the question doesn’t put Obama in a bind.
Guy T. on May 22, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Too bad he isn’t younger. He can truly unite people on the issues, not with vague rhetoric like Obama. Even if he’s elected he might not finish his 1st or 2nd terms…
AlexB on May 22, 2008 at 1:24 PM
good analysis, I agree. I mean we knew he wasn’t one to fight for the right side of the party…that’s how he got the nom by default lol
spacekicker on May 22, 2008 at 1:26 PM
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 1:19 PM
nice post!
max1 on May 22, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Oh he will, The Far Right Fringe will demand it, like they demand every other one of their Far Right rigerous (UnAmerican and not patriotoc at all) requests…don’t expect these demanding-never-can-please-them-until-it’s-the-1950s-again-with-McCarthy-foaming-at-the-mouth-loons to leave and start their own Party…or find a home in the Constitution party where they belong.
Please God, from my lips to Your Ears….
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Yes, I much prefer that the “might of government,” by and through a Court, “be asserted in a bizarre attempt” to piecemeal eliminate, not only a pillar of the Judeo/Christian foundation concerning marriage – from Genesis 2:22-24, to the words of Jesus Christ Himself Matthew 19:4-5 – but, also, to eliminate what has been a pillar of American, family law legislation from the foundation of the country.
I utterly deplore my “bigotry.”
OhEssYouCowboys on May 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Coulter and Limbaugh won’t extend the invitation. If it were extended, McCain would appear and be civil. It would be interesting to see if Coulter and/or Limbaugh could do the same.
funky chicken on May 22, 2008 at 1:39 PM
You mean the California Supreme Court? McCain is too conservative on gay marriage/civil unions for you?
Ellen DeGeneres handed McCain his rump on a doily? By having a light conversation with him? Neither is going for the jugular here…and this is a daytime talk show, not Crossfire or The McLaughlin Group.
unhinged you are, fella
I thought you were one of the “True Conservative” McCain haters though. I guess you are a “True Unhinged Liberal” McCain hater?
funky chicken on May 22, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Would have been a lot better if he’d said they’re just going to have to have a “gentleman’s disagreement”. Bonus points if he’d called her “sir” in the same breath.
RightWinged on May 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Definitions of words is what is at issue. Limey Geeks is making it an emotional argument by saying “words do not belong to anyone”….WTF does that even mean?
Limey Geek is a fluffy thinker. Listen you can teach your cat how to fetch and try to call it a dog but it will never be anything other than a cat.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Since when did it become the government’s job to decide who can get married? You say you don’t want government intrusion in your life? Then the a)#1 thing to do is get it the hell out of bedrooms and churches.
This incessant whining about the gays and their desire to tear down this country’s moral pillars by wanting to get married is absolute BS. If a gay couple can find a church that will marry them, it’s not the government’s damn job to stick it’s nose in their business. It seems there are plenty of “small government” type conservatives here, until they want the government to stamp out anything that they deem “offensive”. straight out of the liberal playbook.
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Right. He’s the one being petty.
Esthier on May 22, 2008 at 2:05 PM
The tradition you reference is based on Christianity. In my eyes and the eyes of God (I believe) the nature of one’s marriage according to the church is what is truly important to the tradition, not the official government definition.
I don’t see why we should waste time bickering over mortal rules when God knows what He wants. Rather, let’s allow for a secular government that places the choices and responsibility for moral behavior in the hands of its citizens while providing a basic framework for civilized living.
Society will not collapse because the State of California deems two men or two women “married.” On the other hand, the Government should not require the Church to recognize the spiritual legitimacy of the union either.
Honestly, the right falls down on issues like this because we conflate the responsibilities of government with the moral responsibilities of the individual. They exist on different planes. Government can be based on practicality, but should not presume to dictate individual morals that do not substantially impact others.
TheUnrepentantGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM
So its okay for a man and a boy to marry, who are you to tell them no?
And who are you to say the definition of marriage is now changed? You are the ones foisting your beliefs onto the rest of us.
Marriage is between a man and a woman…now contracts can be between man and man, woman and woman, no problem.
But why must the majority of society change the meaning of a word for 1 or 2% of the population.
Don’t push your beliefs onto us.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Hear, hear!
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 2:10 PM
You have no authority under the Constitution to abuse government power in such a manner. I appreciate your Judeo-Christian viewpoint on the issue, and I partly share it, but nobody has the right in America to use government to dictate ownership of the english language. It is a power that the government simply does not have. You will have to remain disgruntled with the way people misuse the language.
Plumbers talk about ‘marrying’ joints also…are they next on your hit-list? ;-)
No emotional fluff, just cold constitutional philosophy.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:14 PM
It is not a matter of morals. Marriage is between a man and a woman, that has been defined for hundreds, thousands of years. And since this only effects 1 or 2% of the people, then don’t change it, there is no substantial impact as you state.
By your argument of minimal impact, there should be no change.
We don’t want to change the law, the gays want to change the law. We want to keep the law.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:15 PM
Ager of consent is a tricky issue. I am happy to accept that by age 16 we’re usually capable of understanding the ramifications of our actions – if our parents have been worth a damn. We used to get married a lot earlier. Perhaps our predecessors were more psychologically/intellectually mature.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM
FYI – the flipside of this is that I also consider it legitimate that private entities, such as life/health insurance companies, should be at liberty to discriminate as appropriate when considering homosexual individuals/relationships.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM
No one is arguing for pedophiliacs to marry underage children. To turn it around on you- do you think that a forced marriage between, say, a 9 year old girl and a tribal leader is appropriate, because it’s one man/one woman?
Really? How is your life going to change because two people who want to spend their lives together want to get hitched? However, your beliefs are being foisted onto them. See how that works?
Conservatism is all about freedom. And one of the oldest freedoms is freedom of association, including the right to marry who you want. Apparently, my point was lost. It is not the government’s job to regulate your personal life. It’s your job.
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM
See this is the foolish arguments they end up with.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I’m not a ‘true’ anything, I assure you.
Lone wolf.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Loons will never be civil, nor can they, it’s not in their DNA.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Get a grip.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Thank you. The point is thesae far Right Fringe loons who busy themselves with gay marriage are not real Conservatives. They’re loons, plain and simple. They have beem masquerading as Conservatives for years, it’s about time we ban together and call their bluff.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
We’ve extended the idea of marriage to include 2nd & 3rd marriages. If a straight couple can promise “…till death do us part” and then split and remarry that seems to be a significant break from traditional notions of marriage–especially for women.
dedalus on May 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Fascism is as fascism does. Somtimes it carries a Bible, sometimes it wears ‘hammer & sickle’ underpants.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:24 PM
“Many Americans, who come to see same-sex marriage as just another step in marriage’s evolution, will accept the public pronouncements that they are doing no more than supporting ‘fairness’ by extending some valuable benefits to people of the same sex who happen to love each other and wish to live together without shame or stigma. What could be more innocuous? But for the hardcore activists, the real goal is the destruction of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. They aim to discredit all forms of authority—especially God and nature—that dare to tell people how to lead their lives. In the view of queer activists, desire, like love in Carmen’s ‘Habenera,’ knows no law—nor should any be imposed upon it.
“In the current climate, the appeal of their position is not hard to understand, especially since most of those who accept it do not begin to understand its implications. If anything, the defense of same-sex marriage looks like yet another logical step in the gradual increase in freedom for all members of society. And since activists, the courts, and the media overwhelmingly encourage this deception, we may readily understand that many people may come to see same-sex marriage as another blow against outmoded and illegitimate forms of authority—a blow for freedom and equality. Buying into this view, however, they will remain blind to the ways in which they are playing into the hands of vast governmental and economic powers. The freedom for gays and lesbians to marry will decisively contribute to disaggregating all of the remaining social institutions that provide the foundations for any collective resistance against political and economic domination.”
— Elizabeth Fox-Genovese
exlibris on May 22, 2008 at 2:25 PM
I was quite miffed when the words “gay” and “queer” were usurped – but I didn’t go whining to big pappy gubmint.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Yes. We’ll all be buggering our pooches and marrying turnips in a few years.
It’s so hip ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:28 PM
“The tradition you reference is based on Christianity.”
The long history of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman goes way beyond Christianity so that is a mute point.
Plus your whole argument seems to segment goverment from citizenry. The government is it citizens and to agrue otherwise is circular.
And then by your argument you seem to think that the individual should be responsible for how to define it’s own relationship. Huh?
Well if that’s the case then I want the ability to call myself an African American male when in fact I’m a white female. It isn’t hurting anyone right?
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 2:29 PM
You know what, you really have to laugh at these half assed faux Conservatives/Christians who get all jacked over and over about gay marriage.
They would much rather gay people live a life of endless drunken one night stands dripping in promuscity so they have something to hate them for.
Now that gay people want loving monogamous long-term commitments, that’s suddenly a big problem? For who – all the phony Christians who can’t even stay married once, like Rush – divorced 3xs or have never been married like Ann?
Are all the divorcees embarrassed for their failure to keep a loving marriage together? Is all of this based on shame?
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
If you are going to argue, don’t infer. I never said 9 year old, how about a 16 year old boy and an 40 year old man, that make it better for you? or a 13 year old (in some states). There is a reason NAMBLA has been pushing for this for years, wise up.
This is crazy, the norm for thousands of years is established, when you come along to change it you are the ones forcing the change. It is the ones who want it changed are the ones imposing. You don’t see that? You think that marriage between man and woman is not the historical norm for thousands of years?
Your definition is different from mine. It is following the laws laid out by our founding fathers.
The government already regulates many “freedoms” drugs, driving, trade, etc. It eliminates chaos. You are confusing conservative with libertarian.
Once again, it is no ones “job” to arbitrarily change definitions. If I decide to say the tail on my dog is a leg, do I have a 5 legged dog? Language is important, and definitions are important. And until further notice, marriage will be between a man and a woman.
What is your problem with a “couple contact” or a piece of paper called a “gayliage”.
Once again, why change the rules for 1% of the people?
If you listened to every 1% you would never get anything done in your life.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:31 PM
At some point doesn’t the host feel a little phoney having a room full of syncophants who will applaud your every belch. It would make me uncomfortable.
RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Ellen played the victim role so convincingly I felt Sally Struthers would move into frame at any second.
The Ugly American on May 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Correct. Right up until the point where you become guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.
There’s a Monty Python scene in Life of Brian about this kinda thing, I’m sure…
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Marriage has always had the notion that it can be renewed or changed, what kind of argument is that?
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM
That arguement went out with high button shoes…try something new and logical. Again the fear of marriage between plants and animals, so silly and so ridiculous, it doesn’t even warrant discussion.
What’s next in your silly arguement – you fear marriage with that special brass doorknob?
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Hmmm….Ellen can start feeling a little phony after Ann Coulter does.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Of course it is ‘the norm’, ever since ever since – biologically and culturally.
Would you kindly point to the section of the Constitution that authorizes government to enforce ‘the norm’ with legislation?
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:36 PM
And sometimes it knock on the door telling us that change will be good…accept it.
And what facist state carried a bible?
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM
This is a very passionate argument on both sides of this issue. Just let me say this- I think the CA Supreme Court decision was wrong, because it was judicial overreach. For the record, I am a straight white male, libertarian in philosophy and conservative in practice, who thinks the GOP needs to seriously rethink this, just along small government lines.
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Well who’s to say what is fraudulent mispresentation LimeyGeek? We have a woman who had a sex change to be a man is now having a baby and is still being called a man. Degrees, nuance that is what life has come down to.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Errr…switch your satire-o-meter back on…..something just flew over your head ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Before I answer that, I want to be sure I have your argument clear.
You are stating that if it is not in the constitution, then it isn’t enforceable?
But if it can be authorized by the government in accordance with the constitution, you will acknowledge and accept marriage as between man and woman.
Do I have that correct?
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:40 PM
If gay people are longterm married and normal there’s no one to lambaste and make fun of.
What will they do, who will be the new boogyman? These loons always need an underdog, someone to bully and pick on for their survival. Without a victim to tie to the whipping post they become obsolete.
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Let’s vote on it. They did in California and it was voted down until 4 judges trumped the vote of millions of people.
RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Same thing. A nine year old and a 16 year old are both, under the law, children. My argument was this, since you missed that one too…
You say that if the definition of marriage is changed to allow gays to marry, then it’s a step closer to allowing men and boys to marry. I got it. I countered by turning your argument on you. If you want the definition of marriage to be forever and ever one man/one woman, the same straw man argument applies, because one man/one woman could equal a 40 year old man and a 16 year old girl.
And NAMBLA? Who takes NAMBLA seriously? Methinks you don’t know a lot of gay people, otherwise you’d realize that NAMBLA doesn’t represent ANY mainstream gay political thought.
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Hey AprilOri
Coutlor does not have a talk show and when she is on one she is often attacked. Try again sometime.
RobCon on May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM
If McCain wants the nut vote he has to kiss the squirrel.
Of course kissing the squirrel or the nuts would be so necessary if John were a conservative.
Speakup on May 22, 2008 at 2:46 PM
That’s the point, this was soundly thumped at the polls, and it took four judges to overturn it. In the most liberal judicial state in the union.
If it was an important issue, take it back to the voters…or yeah, don’t forget that brilliant argument; if slavery was voted on would that make it right? My God, I can hear that whine for miles.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Bullcrap, when Coulter speaks to Conservatives, like at CPAC 2005, 206 and 2007 she was cheered on like a rockstar.
You try it again sometime if you can, Mister Mad (because gays are becoming too normal for me to handle).
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM
He opposes it for the same reason that Hillary does – he wants to get elected. All three candidates are shrewd enough to take the majoirty stand on this position.
And speaking of gay, McCain handled his guest appearance on Ellen a lot better than Obama did, IMHO.
Dork B. on May 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM
What’s the over under on when they’ll get a devorce?
- The Cat
MirCat on May 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM
If there is no authorization in the US Constitution for the government to regulate the meaning of the english language, then it may not do so. Ditto regulating our personal lives etc.
There is also no prohibition against such action either, therefore (in accordance with the 10A) such things fall to the States.
If the States wish to assert such authority, then they need to amend their constitutions – I believe Virginia has done so, shamefully.
I do not believe California has amended their constitution in such a manner, therefore their SC was correct. A gay marriage ban in CA is unconstitutional.
Every gay couple that wishes to get married should zip off to CA, get hitched, then return to their home state and assert the ‘full faith & credit’ clause of the US Constitution.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Last we heard she was calling Rush to get instructions…
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM
We’re not a democracy. Thankfully.
For now..
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I’m sorry Limey Greek, I thought you were siding with the loons…
AprilOrit on May 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM
I dont think McCain can secure enough Holy Water to have a “sit down” with Coulter.
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 2:52 PM
That’s so messed up ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Its a stupid argument, govt has no business being in the marriage business…period.
Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 2:55 PM
“What will they do, who will be the new boogyman? These loons always need an underdog, someone to bully and pick on for their survival. Without a victim to tie to the whipping post they become obsolete.”
It’s this kind hatful name calling that gets this world nowhere. If you are trying to insinuate, with your statement above, disagreeing with you on this matter is in anyway akin to that heinous crime of Matthew Shepard death you are a pathetic piece of shit.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
With me, you just never know ;-)
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I’ve never seen someone hand their own ass to themselves before.
LimeyGeek on May 22, 2008 at 2:57 PM
The legal age for sexual consent is 16 (male), as in many states (14 in some). Guess you missed that one.
So lets move onto your next wrong statement.
First, you don’t know who I know, you should replace some of your “thinking” with facts (as shown above re: 16 yr olds). I never said NAMBLA represents gays (however all NAMBLA’s are gay), I said they have been pushing for this bill for decades. And for good reason as pointed out by the 16 and sometimes 14 years old “meat” that is out there.
Now you are confined to your room for several hours of research. I expect your next post to be more accurate.
right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Love the debate here, folks (esp. from right2bright. No kidding. You’re a formidable debate opponent. Glad you’re on our side), but my plane for NY leaves in about 2 hours. It’s Fleet Week, so I have to get a lot of pics for my dad (USS Coral Sea) and my brother (USNS Bowditch, now at the bottom of the Rio harbor).
So Happy Memorial Day weekend, HotAirers. Give a hug to any and all service people. And if you’re a Navy man, and in lower Manhattan at Ground Zero on Saturday, I’m buying a round.
Badger in KC on May 22, 2008 at 2:58 PM
LOL true but it doesn’t make them any less of a POS.
sheryl on May 22, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »