Report: McCain meets with president of Log Cabin Republicans
posted at 7:27 pm on June 25, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »
who cares?
really? again because you or some blog say so? please, the political agenda of the gay movement is clear as a bell.
I never said they were. and you are a liar to imply it.
ok list for me the gay groups that are against ‘hate crime’ laws and against ‘gay marriage’
again anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda is ‘hateful or fearful’ right.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:35 AM
oh yeah give me the straight equivalent of NAMBLA.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM
LOL… the quality of this conversation took a remarkable turn for the worse when right4life jumped in. Anyone else notice that?
DaveS on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
FLDS
Vic on June 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
go ahead and post their literature that advocates pedophilia….
nice try.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
another liberal troll joins in.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Solid
+1
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
solid lie.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
It is a pattern.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Thank you. And somehow, he’s not saying that gays want to rape children, and then brings up NAMBLA? Ugh.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Would the rest of you please forgive me for engaging him? I’m really sorry, I’m just having a boring morning. I never meant to take it out on the rest of you thread-readers.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM
So because they are a church it is OK to marry off little girls.
Old School Islam could apply as well.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 11:46 AM
again you have to lie to distort my postion.
I didn’t say every gay which is what you lied about me earlier..
I know its gotta be hard for you to keep up with all your lies…
and I notice you couldn’t answer:
ok list for me the gay groups that are against ‘hate crime’ laws and against ‘gay marriage’
no surprise….
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
One, and I mean one, of the criteria I use to see if a group is a viable entity or not, is how it polices itself.
When PETA goes about destroying animals, and then defends itself, it shows how their agenda is more important then being “right”. When the Dems cover up Feinsteins illegal contracts to her husbans (or Dodd’s fiasco) it shows their agenda is more important then being “right”, tax dodgers, etc.. When they defend Barney’s brothel, you get the idea. When Republicans kick someone out because of bathroom tap dancing, or messing with an intern, they know what’s “right”. Unlimited sex partners, whatever orientation, is not right.
Does the LCR condone or condemn the “brothers” in the gay pride parades? Do they police themselves against their members who promote unlimited sex partners?
I don’t know, but their are some standard of values that should be stated. Do they think toe tapping in a public restroom should be overlooked, or punished. I don’t know, but it would be nice to see what social standard they have.
Just saying you are conservative, doesn’t make you a conservative…and saying you are a “group” doesn’t make you a viable group, until you have standards, and are willing to uphold those standards even if it means taking down your leadership.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
NAMBLA explicity exists to encourage pedophilia…post your proof that the FLDS does.
put up or shut up.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM
lets see you go ahead and tell your islamic ‘friends’ they are a bunch of pedophiles…should be good….
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I’m sorry I’ve made you look foolish…not that its very hard…
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Where did I say you said those things? I merely stated that not all gays do those things. No quotes, no “you said that.”
I don’t know any gay groups like that. I do know of individual gays that are against those things… in fact, there are several gays like that on HotAir (either against one or the other, or both, iirc). Why do the gays have to form their own groups? You should be happy they’re working with the straights.
Very true, Squid Shark, about Old School Islam.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Not all gays are members of “groups”
Or should I judge all Christians because of the actions of the group?
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Nuance
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I’m off to go grill some cheese. It’s been real. It’s been fun.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
You are very strange, shifting from judging individuals because of the actions of groups to judging groups because of the actions of individuals.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM
then it really doesn’t matter what a few isolated individuals do. the gay movement is pretty monolithic in their support of these issues.
I don’t know, but they have to push their political agenda…you cannot name any that disagree with the ‘gay agenda’ so there is a great deal of uniformity in the gay community over these issues.
so what do you disagree with in their agenda?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:54 AM
as you have made clear previously you do.
ok so go ahead and tell me the gay groups that oppose gay marriage, hate crime laws, etc.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:55 AM
its called projection…look it up.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM
stupidity.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I wont because I know that the few that do are probably so far on the fringe that they are inconsequential.
BTW, you are still living in that fantasy world where I hate Christians.
Wake up Neo…
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
given our last encounter, where you accused me of wanting to kill 2/3 of the jews, its not much of a fantasy.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:09 PM
No just nuance.
By your reasoning it would seem that it is less repulsive for FLDS to support child rape than for NAMBLA to do it.
Just because it is not the express focus of the organization.
Of course it could be argued that it is one of the focus’ otherwise they would be regular Mormons.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
so you admit the gay movement is very monolithhic.
do you also admit they want to silence all who disagree?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
One: that they have a monolithic agenda. I do not condemn the actions of all when a few are outspoken on one or two issues.
I think the thing I disagree with most, though, are hate crime laws. All crimes are hate, are they not?
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM
your ‘reasoning’ is flawed, but you haven’t posted anything from the FLDS that advocates pedophilia. I’m still waiting for that.
so you admit its not, but equate it to NAMBLA…shows how flimsy this equivalence is.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I would agree that those groups would like for them to shut up, but I refuse to accept that all gays do.
There is a difference between the “gay movement” and “gays”
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Ahhhh so marriage between 12 year old and old men is OK.
Its actually Rape.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM
but you cannot name a gay group that opposes the gay agenda.
so one or two individuals is basically meaningless.
I’m surprised you disagree with them on this. and these ‘hate-crime’ laws will soon be thought crime laws…
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM
and of course once the courts get ahold of this, they will impose gay sharia upon us.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I qualified the statement further since polygamy is the main reason for the split with mainstream LDS.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Which is something I fear greatly. I just think hate crime is redundant. It’s hate to kill someone, there is no need to separately catagorize it. However, it is not hate to speak out against someone… last time I checked, that’s a right in the Constitution. There should be no surprise why I am against hate crime laws…
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM
again, please post where that is their theology/position, etc.
that you cannot speaks volumes.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Hate crimes have such flimsy legal standing, I doubt even this court would uphold it.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
not for long…given the judiciary makes up the constitution as they go along.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:19 PM
uh right…we have a ‘right’ to guns by one vote of our black-robed masters…soon it will be gone.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Because Republicans aren’t libertarians. It’s not that they fear libertarian policies; they just don’t like them.
In fact, most people don’t. They’re often considered the liberals of the Right-Wing, and unfortunately Paul is their shining star.
Log Cabin Republicans, by definition, vote Republican.
It may alienate people (and there isn’t much return on investment), but they are a part of the party.
So long as he changes “Christian morals” to “social morals.” Issues like drugs and alcohol aren’t specifically Christian morals.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Even with their ruling today, I have serious doubts about the court. Okay, doubts about 4-5 of them, and how interested in they really are in upholding the Constitution.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Are you saying that the FLDS’s prophet does not have the authority to take any bride, at any time, at any age?
Are you saying that these modern day prophets don’t take child brides???
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
The fact that it is condoned and encouraged by their leader and prophet makes it their theology.
Also their doctrine of “placement” is eerily similar to the oft mentioned Mohammed child bride theology.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:23 PM
If it is not written down in their “official” theology it does not count.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I read your post, and for a moment there I though you were arguing with yourself. I must need glasses, although at first glance, the names right4life and right2bright are similar.
Or I’m just insane.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Any individual in any group can be a lawbreaker, pedophile, murderer, etc. I’m asking for their official position that they are for pedophilia.
I asked for a straight group that was equivalent to NAMBLA which explicitly advocates pedophilia…I was given the FLDS..so where do they advocate pedophilia??
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM
OK to eliminate your word games, Fundementalist Islam.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM
BTW, NAMBLA is a disgusting group of pedophiles, gay groups denounce them on a regular basis.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Ha, sometimes I do argue with myself, and I have never lost…
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 12:33 PM
In summary,
NAMBLA is not a gay group, it is a group of sick pedophiles.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:34 PM
ain’t that nice.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM
in summary, they are a gay group. NORTH AMERICAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION.
and trying to say fundamentalist islam is an equivalent group is ludicrous.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Indeed. I am glad you agree.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM
A photographer was recently sued because she didn’t want to photograph a gay marriage ceremony. I don’t see why churches would be free from suits like this.
And that’s really the whole point of the argument here.
Government only has one reason to recognize marriage, and that’s because a marriage produces children, and a family is the building block of any civilization. For that reason, the government has an invested interest in making sure that family unit stays together as it makes society healthier; a marriage is much harder to break than a relationship without a legal contract.
In order to encourage these family units, government recognizes marriages that will lead to those units.
In countries with decline birthrates, this is important. There are of course other ways to deal with this issue and encourage family-building, but every single one of them will, by their very nature, be considered discrimination against homosexual couples.
Libertarian.
Oh, and seriously, you’re only involving more government intervention when you include another set of couples the government has a say in.
If you really favor less government intervention, you’d oppose marriage contracts altogether.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM
go ahead and post all these denunciations.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:39 PM
What I don’t understand is why there has to be a straight group to counter NAMBLA, or a gay group against gay marriage. I am for and against many things, but I don’t have membership in a single group. I just don’t have the time to be active. I cannot be the only American like that though.
I think the emphasis on whether or not a group exists is misplaced. It’s bad to generalize against an entire subpopulation because of the actions of a special interest group that might not be condoned by anybody.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:39 PM
yeah and soon anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda will be jailed for hate-crimes.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I see, you dismiss pedophiolia because it is not in the theology.
When it is in the theology, you say it is not equivlant.
Convenient.
The sick men like that scum in louisiana are the same as regular heterosexuals then, correct?
Groups founded around abusing little children and consenting adults having sex is not the same.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
That’s a travesty right there. For Pete’s sake, just find another photographer! Good post, though. You working your way through the thread?
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:41 PM
because you told me:
but some are. and you have an equivalence to straights, so I thought I would ask for a straight group like NAMBLA…there is none.
again because you told me gays aren’t all alike, and there is diversity of thought in that community…so I asked a simple question…result: any who disagree are just a small fringe of that group.
but obviously gay marriage, hate crime laws, etc, are endorsed by the vast majority of gays, otherwise there would be gay groups to oppose these issues. there are none.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM
you don’t understand the point of the gay agenda…to force their lifestyle down our throats and criminalize anything they disagree with.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:45 PM
you are basically ISLAM is a group founded to promote straight pedophilia. its a lie, sorry. and I’m not a fan of islam.
but its the GAYS who have a group ‘founded around abusing little children’ not straights. but you defend the gays, which means you defend gay pedophilia, using your logic.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Seems we just had a Supreme Court case about straight pedophilia. Just because a group does not exist does not mean it is not happening.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM
your ‘logic’ is laughable.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM
There are businesses that provide sex tourism to Asia for men who want to have sex with underage girls.
Certainly, in mainstream media underage girls are sexualized to market, in part, to adult males.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 12:52 PM
You want to nitpick your way into proving that NAMBLA makes gays penophile enablers.
I am assuming that is your point, but since you rearely have one, I cant be sure.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:53 PM
It’s like I’m arguing with my 5yo… in the sense that you’re hearing me, but not listening. I’m saying that there is no reason that these groups must exist, and that their absence is not proof that the gays condone the groups that do exist. A group to counter NAMBLA does not need to exist for other gays to disavow it. Chort, the way you’re acting, everybody needs to be in a group. Committees to form committees to form “Group against XYZ” to counter committees that formed committees that formed “Group for XYZ.”
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Good call, thank you.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 12:53 PM
you are impossibly dense. on one hand you say that ‘not all gays agree’ so I ask you to name a gay group that disagrees…now its ‘groups don’t have to exist’.
there is obviously no reasoning with you.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Ah, but if religion doesn’t count, then he’s not going to accept businesses either.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:58 PM
NAMBLA is a gay pedophile enabler. the point is when I am told how wonderful gays are, and they aren’t trying to recruit children, and they’re so ‘good’ ‘nice’ ‘wonderful’ etc…
I just asked where the straight NAMBLA is…since straights are just like gays, and straights are pedophiles, perverts, etc, while gays are ‘good’.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Can someone tell me, other than right4life, if I’m making sense? That not all gays agree, and that they don’t have to be in a group to do so? Obviously, I am being dense, because it makes sense to me.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 12:59 PM
No, that would be more appropriate for the Phelps clan. Not wanting to change marriage laws is hardly the same as condemning people.
Did you feel insulted? I mean I don’t want to have sex with a woman, but I’d be a good catch.
To be fair here, many Christians believe that you either are a Christian or you aren’t. If you’ve changed your mind, then the thought it that you never really were one, or that you will one day come back.
That’s just because we believe that Christians literally become a new person with help from the Holy Spirit. It would be like saying, “I used to be black, but P. Diddy (or whatever he now calls himself) ruined it for me, so now I’m white.”
It’s just a theology difference.
Most people do.
Yes. I hate to post on a thread when I haven’t read all of the comments. It just seems rude. Finally made it.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM
just as there are:
There are businesses that provide sex tourism to Asia for men who want to have sex with underage BOYS.
Certainly, in mainstream media underage BOYS are sexualized to market, in part, to adult males.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I will ask you again (I don’t know why this is such a difficult question for you), does the “Prophet” have a right to take any women as a wife, at most any age?
Is it the official position of the church that the “Prophet” assigns, performs all marriages?
Can the “Prophet” take a child bride, and it be right in the eyes of “God”?
You don’t need an “official” stance to make it a practice.
You will not find it the official stance of NAMBLA to abuse children, but to “love them”, to “show them love”, that is the official stance, not to abuse.
You won’t answer, but the practice of Prophets, and their belief is that child brides are okay. Jeffs and his father and his father learned that from the LDS. Smith said it was okay and practiced it, Young practiced it, and Jeffs practiced it. It was just a continuation of practice that was accepted at one time.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Of course you’re making sense. This is right4life’s pet issue, so arguments with right4life are naturally going to be difficult.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM
the point is that those unknown individuals, if they really exist, are meaningless
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:02 PM
this is too stupid to respond to.
ok, show me in the official stance of the FLDS that its their position to “show them love”
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I have been hit on by another woman before, and I was flattered. Pregnancy and motherhood have done me no favors, so it was nice to get it from someone other than my husband.
Other than that, I’m thinking I should stop playing with the big boys and girls. This thread is getting to me, I’m starting to doubt myself.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I think this is the same paranoia where Chistians are “persecuted”.
Not all gays are good, not all straights are good, there are sick monsters of both orientations. You insist on using the red herring of NAMBLA to somehow reenforce your view that the gays are “recruiting” and “luring” young people.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:04 PM
You are close to a rationale for eugenics. If my marriage has to benefit the state and to feed its need for children then what are the limits on the state’s interest? Could they tell me that I couldn’t marry across racial lines? What if genetic information about a potential spouse showed that there was an elevated risk for birth defects based on the combination of our DNA? Should the state be able to encourage the couple to marry others with better genetic matches?
I never saw my marriage as a service to the state. Also, never saw my decision to have children as meeting a requirement. I did it for love of my wife and love of my children–a love of family that is greater than my commitment to the federal government.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 1:04 PM
that they exist, show that they ARE recruiting and luring..
how hard is this?
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:05 PM
And now, by right4life’s logic, I’m meaningless. I oppose abortion, but I don’t belong to a group that also opposes it. All of us groupless people should off ourselves because our lives are without meaning if we’re not in a group.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM
again you show you don’t understand what I said. reading is fundamental.
sigh…
you said not all gays support the gay agenda…so I asked you to show me a group of gays that opposed it,…you could not….
now you have to twist and turn your arguments…laughable.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I’d agree that there underage boys are part of the sex tourism business. Don’t know if it is more or less than half–haven’t studied it.
My casual observation of television and print advertising tells me that the ratio of sexualized young girls to sexualized young boys in marketing is more than 10 to 1.
dedalus on June 26, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Baaaaah
But NAMBLA is not all gays, it is not even most gays, it is not even a sizable minority of gays.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I can show you a group of liberal christians, pro-abortion christians, pro-gay christians, and I can show you the opposing christian groups…
that you cannot show any gay groups that oppose this agenda show how monolithic the gay community is…yet you cannot acknowledge this…refering to some anonymous ‘indviduals’ to try to make a point. pathetic.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:10 PM
No, I think right4life’s point is that it’s so much accepted by gays that they even have a group that supports it, not that it doesn’t happen without the group, just that it has more acceptance.
I don’t believe it’s fair to pain homosexuals with the NAMBLA brush, but the point is true. There is (at least marginally) more acceptance of man boy relationships than there is for man girl relationships.
This has been true for ages. The Greeks even had a system for it where the young boys were basically apprentices with sexual benefits.
I think it’s largely linked into how we view women, specifically girls. We see them as weaker and needing more support than men or boys. For instance, when a male teacher has sex with a female student, it’s largely condemned. But when a female teacher (especially a hot one) has sex with a male student, they’d rather give the boy a high five.
And that’s just an example on the heterosexual side.
Curiously there’s no NAWGLA (though I like the way that “word” sounds in my head).
If women didn’t have a stigma about sleeping with younger men, society would likely even be more open to a NAWBLA than it is to NAMBLA.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Please take pity on my denseness. I deserve special rights, you know.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:10 PM
do you really know their numbers? does anyone? the point is they exist, and for all the pro-gay ‘equivalence’ arguments with straights, there is not a straight equivalent.
right4life on June 26, 2008 at 1:11 PM
You are making perfect sense, the gay community as a whole abhors NAMBLA. They have denounced them many times, and there are not “groups” to counter every other group.
I.E., there is no counter Boy or Girl Scouts, there is no counter to MoveOn, there is no counter group to the KKK, or the anti-defamation league, or the U.N., it goes on and on. Groups are generally formed as a link to like minded individuals for specific purpose, their are no anti-sewing clubs, anti-book reading clubs, anti-investment clubs.
Their is no reason to have an “anti-Nambla” because basically if you don’t belong you are “anti”, their practices are so abhorrent.
Ever see an anti-murder group? Anti-bank robber group? How about a pro-pollution group to fight those environmentalists.
Yeah, you make sense Anna, but the other guy is too confused to understand.
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Except for all those “Barely Legal” websites. Britney Spears, Hillary Duff, Miley Cyrus, etc.
Squid Shark on June 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM
I dunno, with all the stories you hear about female teachers sleepng with their young male students and all. I wouldn’t be surpised at all to see a NAWBLA show up in the next decade or so.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Thank you. One thing, though, there is a counter group to the Scouts - they’re all about inclusion of everybody, which they contend is a counter to the exclusiveness of the Scouts. They’re SpiralScouts (thank you Google), and seem to be pagan.
But I appreciate your post. Glad to know I’m not totally a lost cause.
Anna on June 26, 2008 at 1:17 PM
right2bright on June 26, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Obviously they can and did. We’ve since changed our minds.
Besides, the government doesn’t gain anything by outlawing mixed race marriages. Mixed race couples can still have children and provide that family unit, and they still provide the statistically stable family, a mother and father.
We do that indirectly anyway, don’t we? Isn’t that why we don’t allow siblings to marry?
To you it isn’t. To the state though, it is, or rather, can be.
That’s because it isn’t a requirement, obviously. But marriage does encourage childbearing. I mean wasn’t that the first question people asked you after you got married: When are you going to have kids?
Clearly. Most people don’t make a commitment to another person out of love for the government. That’s an entirely separate argument than the one I was making.
That doesn’t mean the government doesn’t have an interest in encouraging your child-producing relationship. I apologize for the double negative.
Esthier on June 26, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »