Report: McCain meets with president of Log Cabin Republicans
posted at 7:27 pm on June 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Unconfirmed as yet by the campaign, but the LCRs say it’s so:
A source with close ties to the Log Cabin Board of Directors provided information about the meeting to GayPatriot earlier this week. This source disclosed that the Log Cabin meeting was not reflected on Senator McCain’s published schedule in advance and the meeting…
Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon confirmed the meeting with Senator McCain in email correspondence with GayPatriot earlier today…
Based on published news reports, the meeting with Senator McCain would be the first between any national-level gay Republicans and a Republican Presidental nominee since “The Texas 12″ met with then-Governor George W. Bush in 2000.
One of Maverick’s more appealing mavericky qualities during the campaign has been his attempt to expand the tent by reaching out to minority voters. The rift’s not going to be healed anytime soon and he surely realizes it, but this gets us a tiny bit closer to healing it eventually. It’s commendable that he’s willing to devote resources to the task. What’s especially impressive — or insane, from the strict Machiavellian point of view — is that meeting with the LCRs could actually cost him votes among the most strident members of a social conservative base that’s not real keen on him to begin with and even less so after he dumped Hagee and Parsley. Surely there aren’t so many gay Republicans and independents that winning them over will offset the potential loss in votes among evangelicals, so what’s McCain’s game here? Or is there no game at all and he’s simply acting out of decency towards a GOP constituency?
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 ... 7 Next »
I am not sure how old he is but maybe my DNA got spread around a little more than I thought. I just hope that he doesn’t hit me up for any back support payments.
MB4 on June 25, 2008 at 8:41 PM
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 8:32 PM
“Social conservativism” is, objectively, any desire/attempt to conserve social mores by legislatively imposing them upon the population. How is that not clear?
Welfare reform was about making people accountable in some way for other peoples’ money, goods, and services they were consuming. It was all about reforming a system that allowed huge expenditures for basically nothing in return. As I said, welfare reform is intrinsically libertarian at its heart.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 8:42 PM
Hey, like Obama, he too can meet with any leader with no preconditions! But would that simply embolden that leader?? I’m running for the bomb shelter.
leftnomore on June 25, 2008 at 8:44 PM
But that did not answer my question, it re-asked it. Why do rich liberals favor “socialist beliefs”, which are against their own economic interests, when you say that economic interest is what drives peoples voting?
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Ah, but you did call me a liberal! Change of heart?
MB007 on June 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM
I am not sure,
MB4 on June 25,2008 at 8:41PM.
MB4:LOL,ya I know what you mean,I won the lottery
in that respect as well,or at least so far! haha.
canopfor on June 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM
As you probably well know, rich liberals have this habit of milking certain ideas for all they’re worth, and to their own benefit. I wouldn’t dare call them rational voters.
MB007 on June 25, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Flenser, I served with Barry Goldwater. I knew Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was a friend of mine. Flenser, you are no Barry Goldwtare.
MB4 on June 25, 2008 at 8:47 PM
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 8:35 PM
First of all, as a libertarian-conservative I typically object to the use of the word “liberal”… I prefer calling them what they are, which can be tidily distilled to “leftists”.
That said, I am not leaping to anyone’s defense. I just saw an emerging strawman–when you pulled out the big broad brush and casually referenced “their ideas about the family” which are “expensive”–and thought I would head it off at the pass.
Perhaps we disagree on semantics. I know many people who are “liberal” but who don’t have any particularly odd “ideas about the family” (whatever that might mean). Maybe you meant to refer to some group of people who are actively propogating some “ideas about the familty” that you didn’t specifically mention?
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 8:47 PM
It isn’t really, not when you think about it, socialism creates an economic stasis because it destroys competition. If you can survive the upheaval, you’ll stay up high and be able to keep the plebes from challenging your lofty position.
doubleplusundead on June 25, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Wow, this thread has it all. Gay, straight, liberal, conservative, social, economic, religious, libertarian, LCRs, RINOs, DINOs, and winos. Can someone throw in the quagmire in Nam and a bit of TeddyRs Bull Moose too?
Party (take your pick)
1. a social gathering, as of invited guests at a private home, for conversation, refreshments, entertainment, etc.: a cocktail party.
2. a group gathered for a special purpose or task: a fishing party; a search party.
3. a detachment, squad, or detail of troops assigned to perform some particular mission or service.
4. a group of persons with common purposes or opinions who support one side of a dispute, question, debate, etc.
5. a group of persons with common political opinions and purposes organized for gaining political influence and governmental control and for directing government policy: the Republican party; the Democratic party.
6. the system of taking sides on public or political questions or the like.
7. attachment or devotion to one side or faction; partisanship: to put considerations of party first.
8. Law. a. one of the litigants in a legal proceeding; a plaintiff or defendant in a suit.
b. a signatory to a legal instrument.
c. a person participating in or otherwise privy to a crime.
9. a person or group that participates in some action, affair, plan, etc.; participant: He was a party to the merger deal.
10. the person under consideration; a specific individual: Look at the party in the green velvet shorts.
11. a person or, usually, two or more persons together patronizing a restaurant, attending a social or cultural function, etc.: The headwaiter asked how many were in our party; a party of 12 French physicists touring the labs; a party of one at the small table.
12. a person participating in a telephone conversation: I have your party on the line.
13. any occasion or activity likened to a social party, as specified; session: The couple in the next apartment are having their usual dish-throwing party.
14. an advantageous or pleasurable situation or combination of circumstances of some duration and often of questionable character; period of content, license, exemption, etc.: The police broke in and suddenly the party was over for the nation’s most notorious gunman.
–adjective 15. of or pertaining to a party or faction; partisan: party leaders.
16. of or for a social gathering: her new party dress.
17. being shared by or pertaining to two or more persons or things.
18. Heraldry. (of an escutcheon) having the field divided into a number of parts, usually two; parted.
–verb (used without object) Informal. 19. to go to or give parties, esp. a series of parties.
20. to enjoy oneself thoroughly and without restraint; indulge in pleasure.
Limerick on June 25, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Yes, I did. But I didn’t say anything about McCain in connection with those single mothers. I said something about liberal social policy. See below.
Hrm. A mind reader. Usually only liberals can read minds. And no, I didn’t insist on socially conservative policies, but I will, just to make you happy. Here’s a hint: cut-and-paste the comments you address, and then you won’t have to make stuff up. Like this:
In what alternate universe is the liberal approach to social issues “hands-off”? Are you really trying to say that The Great Society was “hands-off”? Are you really saying that the enactment of The Great Society and the explosion of illegitimate births was mere coincidence? That the slow-down in economic gains by poor folks was also a coincidence? That the devastation of the black family, and weakening of the white family, was temporally associated, but not causally related? Whatevs.
Speaking of silly, and illogical.
So, I’m not sure I’m advocating passing any new laws. How about just repealing the old ones that had terribly unintended consequences? Good intentions do not fix bad legislation.
“Hands-off.” That’s a good one.
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 8:51 PM
How was welfare reform not exactly what you just described?
Making people be accountable? You mean, altering peoples behavior via legislation? Sounds an awful lot like enforcing a “social more” to me. Or is “social more” simply your pet term for things you dislike?
And as I said before, you know as much about libertarianism as you do about conservatism. Or about brain surgery. There is nothing inherently “libertarian” about the welfare reform which was enacted. The libertarian approach would have been to simply abolish the whole thing.
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Traditional America will be a thing of the past with the election of a new president in 08.
madmonkphotog on June 25, 2008 at 9:01 PM
But you are objecting to my criticism of liberal policy. Or, if you insist, of “leftist” policy. And if you go around blogs trying to impose your own definition words on people (is that even libertarian?) then you must live a frustrating life.
I did not mean to be unclear. I’m refering to the fact that liberals (leftists to you) are against the idea of the family. Is that clear enough? They understand, as libertarians do not, that social atomization leads to bigger government and greater government control.
Why is the GOP in decline? One reason is the decline in the traditional family. Married people with childen are the core of the party. (Married men and women, I suppose I need to claify.)
Social liberalism and economic liberalism (leftism to you) go hand in hand. They cannot be seperated from each other. You cannot point to one place in the country which is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And the most fiscally conservative part of America is the Bible Belt.
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM
That’s really cool! I’m glad you’re here, MB4, posting comments.
Weight of Glory on June 25, 2008 at 9:05 PM
MB4, I don’t believe you.
I sure hope not. Because as I say, he was an empty suit who spoke the words other people put in his mouth. Bozell and Jaffa in particular.
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Wow,this thread has it all.
Limerick on June 25,2008 at 8:51PM.
Limerick: At least the name calling hasn’t started yet!
:)
canopfor on June 25, 2008 at 9:09 PM
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 8:51 PM
I think you are, again, confusing Liberal with liberal. And you’re probably right that “Great Society” policy resulted in much of the social disfunction, and the libertarian approach (ie, not having it) would likely have produced an outcome that is more favorable to “social conservatives”. There is a difference, though, in the libertarian approach (no huge programs encouraging government dependence) and the “socially conservative” approach (laws dictating that people live a certain way), even though they may both produce results deemed desirable by social conservatives.
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Requiring some behavior for an unrequired program whereby someone can receive a taxpayer funded paycheck is not imposing anything. I don’t want to continue this conversation if you are going to be silly.
Sure, the purely libertarian solution would have been abolition of the program. That doesn’t mean that restrictions on the program and a reduction of its budget are not libertarian victories… that’s an odd non sequitur.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:11 PM
LOL
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 9:11 PM
I’ve never understood why anyone who calls themselves Republican would have a problem with gay marriage. You want to be able to be able to have guns in your home. You want the government to stay out of your home. You want to follow what ever religion you want in your home and in your god’s home. You want to raise your children as you want until they leave your home. Yet you want to have a problem if two men or women live together in marriage in a home. Shouldn’t the want of privacy apply to everyone?
Sure you don’t want it in your church, grand, government can’t do that. Sure you think its morally wrong, yet these morals are usually tied to religions which say sinners will be dealt with in the next life. You don’t want it corrupting your children, thats up to your teachings to your children.
In the end this is not the issue to focus on with so many other problems. I mean its gonna be hard for gays to corrupt your kids if your kids and the said gays are killed by a car bomb.
Zaggs on June 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM
I’d be fascinated to read some examples of atheist, agnostic, or broadly irreligious social conservatives.
Lehosh on June 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I guess I just don’t think that’s true, unless you actually are meaning to refer to the activist hard-left, but (despite their disproportional influence) they aren’t representative of most people on the left, let alone most people who would identify as Democrats (for example).
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:16 PM
I see these two ideas, conservatism and homosexuality, as being diametrically opposed…
One is based on preserving the strong moral convictions that helped found a great country. (In our case, Christianity formed the basis of these convictions.)
The other has manifested itself over thousands of years, primarily in the decadence of declining cultures.
One occurs at the beginning… the other occurs at the end… diametrically opposed on the timeline of a culture.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Slippery slope…….changing the culture…..not good.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Zaggs on June 25, 2008 at 9:13 PM
This is precisely my point in this thread… people like me, who are libertarian-republicans, believe that the government has no real reason to recognize any marriage. It’s silly. The “social conservatives”, though, want to preserve certain social mores legislatively, which necessarily increases the scope and power of the government.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Why did Rome fall?
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:22 PM
So you’re for protectionism on thought? Have you ever considered, just once, that overreaching government is the source of many of our societal ills?
Oh, here we go…
doubleplusundead on June 25, 2008 at 9:23 PM
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 9:17 PM
So are you implying that the mere act of outlawing something which you deem to be immoral will somehow imbue those who would do it with newfound morality?
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Not because of homosexuality, if that’s what you’re implying.
doubleplusundead on June 25, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Well, yes.
Next silly question?
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:26 PM
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Um… because of those crazy gay people?
(No.)
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Health care , it takes a village, welfare….want more?
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Zaggs
Why don’t you understand it?
Marriage is not confined to the home. It is a public contact which we all are a part of.
Car bomb? What the hell are you talking about?
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Absolutely, I believe that overreaching government IS the source of many of our societal ills. I’m not sure what you’re reading into what I wrote. However, homosexuality today is certainly NOT all about thought… it is about activism and changing the standards of our culture. It is about moving the moral boundaries of our society… no different than what our morally bankrupt 5 Supreme Court judges thought about the raping of a child.
Exactly my thought. You should study some ancient history.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 9:32 PM
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:27 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. Social health care, social welfare, etc., are not social conservative ideas.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:32 PM
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Um, no it isn’t. Unless you’re some sort of crazy swinger couple.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:34 PM
cs89 on June 25, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Gat a clue, Dave. You yourself want to preserve certain social mores. You just prefer to call them something else. But your own belief system is composed of social mores.
And if you want small government, conservative social mores are a lot more effective at getting you there than libertarian ones.
America has taken on a lot of libertarian social mores over the last fifty years, and the size and scope of government has grown by leaps and bounds.
Leviathan has no better friend than libertarianism.
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Oops- messed up the quotes.
Sorry.
cs89 on June 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Um, yes, it it.
Got a lot of legal training, Dave?
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM
True conservatism means less gov more freedom…agreed? That is within reason.
A man laying with a man and a woman with a woman is not normal.
When you start down the path that what ever feels good do it……it’s a downward spiral.
What’s next, bestiality? What you do in your bedroom is your business.
Don’t through it in our faces. If you can’t keep it in the closet, well, then we’ll just have to lock the door.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:38 PM
It fell because of moral decadence. The Roman rulers and people could no longer take a stand based upon principle. They no longer understood right from wrong. They became self-centered, jaded, and lived for pleasure. They were easily supplicated with circuses and entertainment. They abandoned the founding principles of their culture. They lost that which had made them strong. Thus, they fell to those who would prey upon the weak. Homosexuality was one of many symptoms of that decay.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM
So the people arguing for “gay marriage” are not Democrats or liberals? The people who argued for no-fault divorce were not liberals?
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Nope…it could work in his favor is so many other issues werent’ working in his favor…2nd amendment, immigration, etc, etc, etc…these issues matter to serious gay and straight voters alike…and he’s on the wrong side of a lot of issues…the religious right is a non-issue in this election. It’s about anti-american nut-roots vs. a few sane people…whether the sane ones are gay or not is a non-issue. But, as usual, JM’s ‘maverickiness’ will always lose votes, not matter how he tries to game it…he just doesn’t get it.
AUINSC on June 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM
If this shows us one thing it is this:
McCain is more than willing to meet with ANY group/demographic (LCR’s, La Raza, Moderates, Independents, Democrats, ex-Hilldog supporters, etc.) EXCEPT the one he needs to actually do some “healing” with
the Conservative Republican party base.
catmman on June 25, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I was implying liberalism.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:42 PM
close to where I was going ….wish I could type faster.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:43 PM
“Legislating social mores.” Like criminal laws? Encouraging some behaviors while discouraging others? That’s what government does.
Why do we encourage, and even subsidize, patently counter-productive behaviors like single-motherhood, and discourage, and tax, productive behaviors, like wealth-creation? And then we wonder at the completely predictable results.
I’d rather encourage productive behaviors and discourage unproductive ones.
Dunno about Republicans, but as a conservative, I’m against special rights for different groups of people, and so is the Constitution, of which I’m very fond.
For another, just about everyone has a problem with gay marriage. No legislature that I’m aware of has accepted it. No state population has accepted it. Just a few liberal, activist judges here and there, pushing their social mores on us.
Tolerance, sure. Acceptance? Promotion? Why, in the world? And if we’re going to accept it, how about wait until, you know, we accept it? Forcing it on us is not acceptance.
We want to encourage heterosexual marriage. Why do we want to encourage homosexual marriage?
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 9:48 PM
flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM
What do you mean “arguing for”? Again, with the broad brush. Do you mean, “have no problem with”? And I don’t see how “not having a problem with gay people getting married” translates into some hostility towards families.
But to answer the questions, I suspect that a majority of the people who have no problem with gay marriage are Democrats. I don’t know. I don’t see how that is relevant. It isn’t even an interesting question, to me.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:49 PM
I tend to type fast when my blood pressure is up.
Is it just me, or has the quality of comments on Hot Air gone down recently? I swear I’ve seen a huge influx of RINOs in the last month on this blog. I’ve never had to defend my conservatism as much as I have in the last month.
Or maybe, I’m the RINO. Since I am a conservative first, and a Republican a distant 2nd… The party just doesn’t seem the same anymore.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Absolutely excellent! You just echoed nearly all my thoughts on the subject. Thank you.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM
again @flenser on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 PM Oooh, I just see what you did. You were employing a very common fallacy. Since “people who argue for gay marriage” are “liberals or Democrats”, then “liberals or Democrats” are therefore “for gay marriage”, and therefore they are bad for families.
Yeah, you asserted an equivalence class where there was only a subset.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:53 PM
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I agree with that.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 9:56 PM
If I type as fast as I think…I can’t even read it.
on the other topic… I’ve been called a fool…a troll…old fart… you name it.
I’d still defend their right to speak…
Just old school.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 9:59 PM
But thats my point. And you’re contradicting yourself. You don’t want special rights for certain people. Does this mean you are not allowed to marry? But you want an exception to a right made for a different group of people.
If you truly don’t want different rules for different people then you would say gays can marry right now without any law having to be passed first. Otherwise your supporting certain people getting certain rights.
Zaggs on June 25, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Conservatism isn’t a laundry list of positions, it is a philosophy, or rather, a few different philosophies with somewhat similar interests. One can argue that someone who claims to be a conservative isn’t, but to base it on one policy position is asinine, you have to look at underlying philosophy and their opinions at large.
doubleplusundead on June 25, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Everyone already has the right to marry. However, marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage so that they can feel more accepted in a society that looks down on their publicly proclaimed perversion. They want a special right to change the definition of an institution that has existed for thousands of years.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Dave,
I’d be more wary of the liberal agenda then the Conservative…
health care, it take a village…welfare.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:10 PM
For many of the same reasons we encourage straight marriage. Two people living in a committed, monogamous relationship is healthier for them and for the community.
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM
so…..when’s the baby due?
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Why are the two incompatible? And really, why give the government the power to define marriage in the first place?
doubleplusundead on June 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM
This is a nice sentiment, but doesn’t really hold up in reality. If you examine marriage statistics in countries that enshrined homosexual marriage over a decade ago… you’ll find that the institute of marriage has drastically changed… massive numbers of out-of-wedlock babies, many more divorces, etc…. “family” is becoming an outdated concept. Homosexual marriage watered down the idea to the point where it’s no longer considered special… and marriage is in serious decline.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I’m not sure that this makes any sense at all.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 10:26 PM
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Also, what doubleplusundead said.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM
The rights of women within marriage has changed since the founding of the country. Were those changes to the institution a bad idea because of what had been done a thousand years ago?
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Extrapolate.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM
you’re going around in circles.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:30 PM
flenser, I can’t understand how someone can be so wrong, turn around and demonstrate such insight, and then turn around again and strike out at a beloved Hot Air citizen with a much longer track record than your own with such opprobrium.
And that’s just on page 1 of the comments on this thread.
RushBaby on June 25, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Yeah, dominigan I see where are going. You’ve read Gibbon’s Decline and the Fall of the Roman Empire, and you think Gibbon is just the greatest. Well, you know, there are other explanation for the fall of the Rome than how Christianity corrupted the morals of Rome. Yes, it may factually correct that Rome was being Christianized for the two centuries before it fall, you shouldn’t draw any hasty conclusions.
And I’m sure we remember that homosexuality was somewhat accepted in the Roman Republic before Rome reached its zenith of power, and five hundred years before its fall.
thuja on June 25, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Banning gay marriage in this country hasn’t prevented dramatic rises in the divorce rate and single parenting over the past 50 years. Is your contention that there is currently an incremental percentage of marriages that are being held together by the bans on gay marriage? Are there couples out there thinking “I’d like to get out of this marriage, but since I can’t find a gay relationship that will turn into marriage I’ll stick it out here with my spouse and the kids”? Seems far fetched.
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:36 PM
We encourage marriage to encourage childbirth. Historically. And without children, a marriage is just a couple folks living together and sharing expenses.
The two are not necessarily incompatible. But if you’re advocating a change, a radical change, the burden of proof is on you to show that it’s not going to have an adverse effect.
And we aren’t giving the government the power to define marriage. We’re giving them the power to encourage productive behaviors, and discourage counter-productive behaviors.
And here’s a question, someone please answer it:
Why in the world are we going to trust the liberals on yet another item of the liberal (DaveS: please say “classical liberalism” if that’s what you mean) agenda when all of their previous items have been absolutely disastrous?
Has anyone heard the conspiracy theory that the hard leftists, in order to undermine the family and increase the power of government, has been pushing these various items on the liberal agenda for the last 30-40 years?
And if there’s not a conspiracy (and I’m not a conspiracy theorist), how would they act any differently?
misterpeasea on June 25, 2008 at 10:37 PM
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Extrapolate what?
Why dismiss dedalus’ comment? He asked a good question. People who oppose gay marriage inevitably trot out the argument that the institution has existed for thousands of years and isn’t to be tampered with in any way… well, should women still be treated as property, or do some changes turn out to be pretty good ideas in the long run? If the latter, the argument is moot.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 10:39 PM
The whole ZOMG GHEYS DESTROYED ROME thing is pretty pervasive, unfortunately.
doubleplusundead on June 25, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Not at all. Institutions undergo change–marriage is one that has changed in ways that most people accept as important. Access to the ballot, another important institution, has also undergone changes.
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:42 PM
I never claimed that homosexual marriage caused the decline of marriage. Homosexual marriage could have been the side-effect of a weakened marriage institution.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Homosexual behavior is just part of the moral decay in this country.
Pornography , corrupt politicians……
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:45 PM
I must apologize to flenser for including remark #3, which was made by a different person.
I will read more thoroughly and comment less quickly in the future.
RushBaby on June 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM
I know straight couples who married in their 60’s, most widowed, who see their marriages as much more than that.
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Oh for crying out loud. When I pointed out that they want to change the definition of marriage, you go off in a different direction. This thread is like herding cats…
How women were treated is a different subject than the definition of marriage… one man, one woman… hasn’t changed.
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 10:47 PM
You have the relationship backwards. Unless you are really meaning to imply that nobody is really married until they have children.
Furthermore, he marriage of a gay couple does not, in any way whatsoever, prevent any other married couple from having a child, or discourage them from doing so.
They would devise a more effective conspiracy that makes more sense. Like pimping welfare and unemployment. In other words, the premise (conspiracy) is silly, in my mind.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM
They pay their taxes, obey the laws…
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I’ll take a stab at this one.
Marriage has undergone a number of changes. However, it has always been an opposite-gender relationship, often encouraged in social settings to foster stable family relationships to raise the next generation.
There is a qualitative difference between saying the wife is a person with equal rights to the husband, and saying it doesn’t matter if the “wife” is male or female.
cs89 on June 25, 2008 at 10:49 PM
He did that on purpose. Remember, you mentioned before about your blood pressure?
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 10:51 PM
That was the clear implication:
If you weren’t implying what I thought you were implying, than your comment did nothing to advance your argument.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM
It’s either going to be the big tent GOP or the itty bitty tent over in the far-right corner.
I vote for the big tent.
But I’m a federalist in the GOP.
Texas Gal on June 25, 2008 at 10:53 PM
cs89 on June 25, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Certainly, there is a qualitative difference, but there is no practical difference. Noone is imposing a homosexual marriage on anyone who doesn’t want it. Relationships and the next generation are safe and sound.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Evangelicals and other loonies will vote for McCain regardless. He might as well try and court people who may really be on the fence.
freevillage on June 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM
It would seem that changing the relationship between men and women within marriage had more of an impact on the family than allowing gay marriage. By changing the traditional role of the man as head of the family and giving women more rights along with economic freedom more marriages have had the opportunity to end in divorce–far more marriages than would be broken up by the availability of getting gay married.
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Oh, if your original comment was meant to be taken literally (“They want a special right to change the definition of an institution that has existed for thousands of years”) then you were wrong in the first place. It would require no “special right” to change the “definition” of marriage.
BTW, what is this mythical “definition” you speak of? IIRC, many states were actually scrambling to add precisely that definition to the books because it was NOT defined.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 11:01 PM
dedalus on June 25, 2008 at 10:59 PM
That’s an excellent point. If it’s all about keeping families strong, etc., why embrace–or, at least, accept–what are inarguably the more destructive aspects of marriage’s evolution?
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Not exactly a strong argument in my opinion. I actually like one aspect of the older ballot requirements… that you had to be a land owner to vote. It tended to limit wealth reapportionment through entitlements.
And since you brought up this topic, I also liked…
- The Federal Government was limited in the way it could raise money. Besides tariffs, the Feds could really only send bills to the states to pay. So, if programs were enacted, the states got the bills. This works well if…
- Senators were selected by the state legislatures to (properly) represent the states, not the people (that’s what the House is for). Since the Federal programs were funded by sending a bill to the states, Senators acted to control spending (since increased spending resulted in heavier tax bills on the state legislatures, who elected them to that office to start with).
You may see a whole bunch of advances, but I also see a whole bunch of steps backwards. We’ve really perverted the intent of our founding fathers from what they originally created. Ask yourself, would even 10% of the Federal budget pass Constitutional requirements? …that is if anyone even bothered to look at that old document…
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Which is why conservatives also oppose no-fault divorce. It allows for too easy of an out…
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I agree with you on that, but the case could probably be made that the 10th amendment allows the states to enact federals laws which are not enumerated in the Constitution, through their elected representatives.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM
dominigan on June 25, 2008 at 11:07 PM
But marriage is a contract between two people. It’s none of your business if they agree to end the arrangement.
DaveS on June 25, 2008 at 11:10 PM
It seams to me that you “guys” want to change the definition of marriage for some gratification that I have never been able understand. You already have the same rights and obligations. I can’t help but think this has more to do with ego than anything else. Having said that, I’ll let it rest. I have to get up early and teach someone how to dock his boat. Best when the waters are calm. Nite all.
jerrytbg on June 25, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Flenser, you are like so unwith it.
MB4 on June 25, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Why my good lad some people can believe six impossible things before breakfast!
Sigy on June 25, 2008 at 11:21 PM
YES! THANK YOU!
as with every post at HA that has anything to do with homosexuals, this one has brought out the christian bigots (A.K.A. “social conservatives”) whom we can find railing against big government on so many other issues. Yet when it comes to their religious beliefs, they are more than willing to let government impose those beliefs on others.
hypocrites.
homesickamerican on June 25, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »