Video: Huckabee battles Stewart over gay marriage
posted at 3:35 pm on December 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Nothing you haven’t heard before but I know how much Hot Air readers like to watch Huck squirm. The tone is set early, with Stewart pressing him on why conservatives think government should be in the business of commanding armies but not, say, handing out cheese or otherwise playing perpetual wet nurse to the population. The gay marriage exchange comes in the second clip; as often happens with opponents, he hops from one justification to the other without trying very hard on any of them. First it’s tradition, then it’s a slippery slope to polygamy, then (by implication) it’s a distinction between immutable traits like race and “lifestyle choices” like homosexuality, then it’s procreation. He’s in retreat the whole way. Not his finest hour.
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 5 6 ... 8 Next »
but you little gay nazis don’t want that. oh no, they want to impose gay marriage via the judiciary. and if you can’t win now, what makes you think you’ll win in the future? and your thuggish tactics in CA are turning more people against the gay movement, now that it is exposed for the hateful, intolerant, bigoted bunch of wackos they are.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I don’t think they recognize gay marriage yet–at least the IRS doesn’t. Perhaps the MA and CT will cause them to change the tax treatment, but I don’t think they have yet.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM
We’re discussing civil unions for same-sex couples and not marriage.
Of the harm done to marriage over the past several decades, my guess (I could be wrong) is that civil unions is far down the list.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 8:42 PM
and if gay marriage is OK, then why not polygamy? and why not pedophilia? after all its just a lifestyle choice right? and who is to say what the age of consent really is?
oh and yes the gay movement is all about ending the protection of families for children. makes it easier for them to recruit new members.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:43 PM
you can guess, but do you know for sure? do you disbelieve what Kurtz said?
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Actually I’m in favor of less state power than the nazis were. Also for less state power than we have in the US in 2008. I’m also against the courts taking up the issue, since it is better for the culture if people argue it out.
As for thuggish tactics. I’m not in CA and don’t watch the local news anyway. If people are protesting and breaking the law. Put them in jail.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Human right, constitutional right. Po-tato, Po-ta-to, what’s the difference? Stewart’s point was that gays have a RIGHT to get married. He’s implying that the constitution favors/permits gay marriage.
I agree that marriage laws should ideally be on the state level, but the more I think about it, the more I get the impression that this issue should be done on the FEDERAL LEVEL if, and only if more and more states have gay marriage. Think about it: what if a married gay couple wants to move to another state, and that state doesn’t permit gay marriage? The gay couple would then lose all their government coupons.
I understand about the equal protection thing, but here’s the thing: we have welfare programs and government providing prescription medicines and free school lunches to a certain group of people. Our government is unequal in their distribution of governmental coupons. So I don’t think the liberal gay rights side is correct here.
Lets face the facts folks: Marriage and Civil Union mean the same thing. Both refer to an intimate/close union among two people.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Well, they don’t. And they don’t extend the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the US Constitution to those states that legally recognize gay married couples either.
That is, a legally recognized gay marriage in Mass. will not have to be recognized in Virginia if the couple moves there. However, an opposite sex couple married in Mass. must have their marriage recognized if they move to Virginia.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Out of all of the political battles being waged, I am going to enjoy watching religious conservatives lose the gay marriage debate more than any other. Their lives will be no different after it is legalized, but they will continue to complain for years.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Well, some people say that a right to medical care is a human right. Or a right to a job. Or housing. Et cetera.
There’s a world of difference between saying someone has a human right to medical care versus having a US Constitutional right.
Well, states give out marriage licenses. The federal government doesn’t.
Second, the US Constitution currently requires that all states recognize marriages from any state. Couples don’t have to re-marry when they move out of state.
The question that remains to be decided (and eventually the Supreme Court will address is) is whether the US Constitution requires a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage to recognize it from another state. That is, if a gay married couple from Mass. moves to a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage is that state required to recognize that marriage as legal?
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Stewart may have been alluding the right to marriage that straight people are able to exercise but that gay people can’t reasonably exercise.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 8:53 PM
The federal courts review state laws on granting marriage licenses and have voided the laws when they’ve been too restrictive.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 8:56 PM
It depends on how they lose it.
If the liberals use the Courts to mandate that a same sex married couple must be given the same benefits that an opposite couple gets, there will be a huge backlash.
Even a liberal state like California saw the backlash.
If the people acting through referendum or legislatures extend those benefits, there won’t be much of a backlash.
If I were a liberal on this issue, I wouldn’t be so arrogant and smug.
But liberals can’t help being smug. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be liberals.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 8:57 PM
hey delusional moron, WE ARE WINNING 30-0
get a clue wacko. and hasn’t history taught you anything??? christianity triumphs.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Yes, it’s called the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution which applies to the states.
All state laws can be reviewed by the federal courts for violating the US Constitution.
Again, states issue marriage licenses. But the US Constitution requires that they issue those equitably.
The question is whether the Equal Protection Clause here applies to same sex couples.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:01 PM
thats a bunch of BS, no surprise you’d say something so stupid though.
gay marriage is all about ending religious freedom in this country. and if gay marriage succeeds, religious freedom is gone in this country, along with any freedom to criticize gays.
the gays will implement a ‘gay sharia’ law on this country, where any criticism of homosexuality is verboten.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:01 PM
as we’ve seen the black-robed fascists can make the constituion and laws mean whatever they want them to mean.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:02 PM
So allowing gays to get married makes marriage meaningless, but allowing a straight couple to get married even though they both agreed they would never have kids ever goes along with your definition of the purpose of marriage? Houston, we have a problem. You never addressed my point about what if a married couple can’t procreate or desire to have kids (even if they signed a contract, saying they will not do so).
You don’t want the gays to win? What in the world are you implying?
As for children growing up without fathers/mothers point, does the gender really matter? I know lots of kids who grew up without a father (I am a case in point.) and they grew up just fine. What if the father died when the kid was 2? Should the government throw the kid into an adoption agency? Let me guess you’re probably against gay adoption. So you think it is better to keep in the kid in an orphanage, then to have him/her being raised in a loving gay couple household.
As for my politics, I consider myself conservative actually. I voted for McCain and Bush twice. In the GOP primary, I voted for Romney. If you want a list of my political positions I’ll give it to you (Tell me where I stand).
I am very pro-life, anti-drug, pro-capital punishment, against most types of gun control, pro-flat tax or getting rid of the capital gains tax, pro-school vouchers, favor leaving entitlements to the states, pro-free trade for the most part, and support the patriot act.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 9:03 PM
They will eventually lose ……… and, they know deep down that they will.
SC.Charlie on December 10, 2008 at 9:04 PM
And what “right” is that?
Gay people can get married at any time. There is no law against gay marriage.
The issue here is whether the benefits that opposite sex married couples receive by the state should be extended to same sex married couples.
These are benefits and not rights. The government may take away these benefits if they want.
If the government (states) got out of the marriage business altogether (something I’m starting to favor), no one’s rights would be taken away. People would lose benefits but none of their rights.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Does anyone else buy right4life’s brilliant argument that gay marriage advocates want to lose referendum so that gay marriage can be impose by courts?
I wonder if there is a single people who has turned against the gay movement, because of the recent protest in CA? And I do assume that there are people who have always been homophobic willing to say that the recent protests have turned them off–like those “conservatives” for Obama that have voted Democratic in the last five elections.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 9:07 PM
This is a moral issue that, as all moral issues ultimately do, comes down to the Word of God. God’s revelation to mankind clearly delineates marriage as between a man and a woman. Anything else is sin, period.
It is irrelevant what Jon Stewart, Huckabee, atheists, theists, or the American voter think. What is relevant is what God thinks! Therefore, even if same sex marriage was made the law of the land next week, it is still wrong and I, as well as millions of other Christians and/or religious/social conservatives, will still preach and teach the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. We will not be silenced.
What will be interesting, if this thing does become the law of the land in the near future, is how society will decide the fate of those of us who refuse to accept this blatant act of rebellion against the will of God.
Oh, and one other thing; this nation will be on the fast track to ultimate disintegration if this kind of thing does become law. No nation in the history of mankind has ever survived defying God’s will. Allowing homosexuality to become equal with legitimate marital relationships will mark the beginning of the end of the U.S.A.
Joe Pyne on December 10, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Every time there is a referendum on the issue, the pro-gay marriage side loses.
Even in liberal, pro-Democrat states.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I agree with getting government out of the marriage business, though it seems unlikely.
The right to marriage for gays is something the courts are working through now. To the extent that the state provides benefits to straight couples but not gay couples adds a 14th Amendment issue to their analysis.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:11 PM
there is nothing to address with your ‘point’. its a marriage of members of the opposite sex. whether they have kids or not. your ‘point’ is meaningless.
haven’t you heard about the lesbian in CA who sued a doctor because of his refusal to artificially inseminate her? and won? or the case in NJ where lesbians sued a church because they wouldn’t allow them to get married?? and the state took their side? no I don’t want the gays to win, because if they do religious freedom in this country is finished.
absolutely. because gay marriage is not about the kids, its all about the gays.
and here’s a couple examples of you ‘tolerant’ gay future:
link
link
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:11 PM
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I never said there was. You, however, brought up the Court’s words from old race-mixing cases that we’ve already been through; that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Do we need to rehash it?
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 9:12 PM
thats not what I said, how nice of you to have to twist what I said.
they don’t want to lose the vote obviosly, but they will not accept the will of the people, preferring to impose their will through the courts..
get a clue.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:13 PM
sorry charlie, I’ve read the back of the book, and christians win..BIG TIME.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:15 PM
By smaller and smaller margins. There will probably be one or two additional states with legalized same sex marriage by the time the next elections roll around. With high acceptance of homosexual relationships among younger voters, and a demonstration that legalized same sex marriage does not really change life all that much, you’ll start seeing things move the other way pretty soon.
Be afraid!
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 9:16 PM
SteveMG,
Folks like Stewart would argue that the government has a right to provide everybody health-care or housing. I think that is the dividing line here. Stewart believes the government owes people things. Conservatives don’t see it that way. We have freedoms, but the government does not necessarily have to provide for you.
It would be easier if there were a universal standard if we start to have legal chaos over gay couples moving from state-to-state. That is why a universal standard might be necessary. Mitt Romney made this point during the 2007/2008 campaign.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Why do you keep saying the “right to marriage for gays”?
Second, many states give the same benefits (outside of, I believe tax deductions in some states for married couples filing a joint return) under civil unions.
Question: If every state gave the same benefits under civil unions that married couples had (visitation rights, inheritance, taxes, et cetera), would that be sufficient for the proponents of gay marriage?
That is, same sex couples get everything that opposite sex couples get except for the recognition by the state of the word “marriage”.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:18 PM
I was referring to a fundamental right identified in multiple SCOTUS cases, independent of any one decision.
It isn’t necessarily a precedent for gay marriage. My point is that straight people have a Constitutional right to marriage–at least in the way SCOTUS reads the Constitution and restricts the individual states.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Be afraid!
I think a bit of that Mountain Dew just came back up in my nostrils. Thanks for the laugh.
If anything its you who should be afraid.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 9:20 PM
of what? oh you are sadly mistaken my friend. you see I have this Friend, and He takes care of me…and He is the only One to be feared.
you are the one who should be afraid…and you will be…
you can repeat the same old lies and BS, but I’ve proven what an intolerant, fascist agenda the gay movement has. all you can do is spew lies.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Yeah, you’re probably right that when Stewart used the term “human rights” he was also meaning US Constitutional rights.
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt but I’m probably wrong.
And not probably, too.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Why? Because the gay couple in the apartment down the hall might decide to get a marriage certificate someday? I never talk to them anyway, and I don’t expect that to change if they get married.
Big S on December 10, 2008 at 9:23 PM
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Please, excepting Loving and Zablocki, let me know just what “multiple cases” you’re talking about.
Ryan Gandy on December 10, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I used the phrase because that is the matter that courts have examined–in MA, CT, CA, NJ minimally. I’m not advancing an argument that there is one.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:23 PM
But, again, straight people don’t have a Constitutional right to marry.
The issue was that IF states grant marriage licenses that the states may not violate the equal protection rights of citizens when they give them out.
That is, if they give them out to white people, they must give them out to black people. States may not discriminate on the basis of race in giving out licenses. Either they give them out to all races or they don’t give them out at all.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Okay, but remember that these Courts are looking at their state constitutions and not the US Constitution.
SteveMG on December 10, 2008 at 9:26 PM
That’s the point. That’s why I used the word “coupons,” not rights. But I do think government should be in the marriage/civil unions business. By giving committed couples tax breaks, they are essentially promoting committed relationships. They want people to stay together and not be swingers, and possible raise children in stable environments. This is why I don’t see the problem with gay marriage and why conservatives are so against it. Conservatives want to promote stable households and ensure children grow up in loving households. Gay people also want to raise children in loving households and have stable relationships.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 9:26 PM
True.
Homosexuality is not a race.
End of story.
SaintOlaf on December 10, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Why do you care so much who someone else marries?
whiskeytango on December 10, 2008 at 9:33 PM
right4life and SaintOlaf are religious bigots who think gays are subhuman, no point in arguing the merits of anything with them they will never change or reply with anything remotely interesting.
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Turner v Safley in 1987 is the third case I had in mind.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:35 PM
right4life,
You ignore my points. Point one: Marriage does not always equal one man, one woman union. The word marriage can be referred to other things. You haven’t addressed that issue. Point two: If marriage is about procreation, then what do you say to couples who don’t want to have kids or lack the ability to procreate? Do you say, “Sorry couples, the government can’t recognize your relationship as legal if decide not to have kids?”
As for the issue of religious institutions being attack, I do understand that is an issue. But here’s the thing, I am not for the government telling churches what to do. That’s a violation of their freedom.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 9:36 PM
SCOTUS has looked at the US Constitution and found a fundamental right to marry for straight people. It may have crawled out of the penumbra where they found privacy, but (for better or worse) SCOTUS thinks its there.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Are you aware that before the Bush tax cuts and the child tax credits, the IRS actually penalized you for being married?
As to the rest of your statement, that is Socialist/Communist engineering.
The government simply wants to make the most revenue it can.
Any “best wishes” for stable families are only implied.
We have no evidence that same-sex marriage is about raising children in loving households.
And the jury’s still out as to what would make homosexual relationships “stable.”
They seem to think that it’s the blessing of the State in the form of “gay marriage” but there have already been considerable “divorces” springing out of the “gay marriage” allowance in Massachusetts.
Jenfidel on December 10, 2008 at 9:41 PM
this the entire issue we are addressing. if it means ‘other things’ then it can mean anything, such as polygamy and pedophilia…you have not, and cannot, address those points of mine.
I already talked about this, if its between opposite sexes, then its marriage. I didn’t want kids originally when I got married, but I changed my mind. not everyone can have kids….so??? marriage is still marriage. and the counterfeit gay marriage is a fraud.
and as I have documented, that freedom will end if the gays get their way with gay marriage.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:43 PM
The answer to this whole issue is civil unions. Civil unions for gays should be encouraged. Religious organizations that believe in gay marriage, should then feel free to have marriage ceremonies for the gay couples who want them. Religions that do not believe in the homosexual lifestyle should then be free to not marry same sex couples without fear of legal intimidation or penalties.
That’s what this whole issue is about. If anyone had seen the pro-Prop 8 commercials that were run in California during the election, they would know that the thing that really convinced people to vote for Prop 8 was the very real concern that this was an assault on religious liberty. We already have civil union laws in the state of California. Everything that the gay marriage crowd is saying that they need marriage for is already legal under our civil union laws — joint health care benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc. They just want “marriage” because it is a key to official recognition of their lifestyle and a way to legislate against the religions that do not condone it.
They want to create a world in which they never have to hear anyone say, “I disagree with your lifestyle”. There were/are three ways that this “I disagree with your lifestyle” sentiment was/is expressed.
First, there was the science of mental health, which had stated, “Homosexuality is a mental disorder”. The gay community successfully lobbied to get the APA to remove that diagnosis from the DSM.
Second, there is the general and innate “ick factor” among the majority of heterosexuals when thinking about homosexuality. The gay community has been very successful in removing or mitigating the “ick factor” by flooding our pop culture with positive images of gays and desensitizing us to homoeroticism. The public is fed a vanilla version of what the gay lifestyle is. Unless you’re viewing art house films, you will not see depictions of bathhouses or cruising for anonymous sex because that would reinforce the “ick factor”. They don’t like to get into transsexuals too much either because that sort of thing is too kooky. They slowly have to desensitize the public in incremental steps before they can spring stuff like He-Shes having babies and giving interviews about it to Oprah. What the public will accept today is not what they would have accepted yesterday.
The third and final stumbling block to eradicating the “I disagree with your lifestyle” sentiment is the religious institutions. These institutions have stated for centuries and millennia that “homosexuality is a sin”. Getting them to change this statement is very difficult. The best way is to convince them that their religion really doesn’t teach that homosexuality is a sin. But because these religions clearly do teach that it’s a sin, this is a very limited line of attack. The most effective way to get them to stop calling it a sin is to make it illegal for them to do so or at the very least, intimidate them into shutting up about it.
And this is where Prop 8 and gay marriage comes into play. Once the government grants gays the right to marry, the churches cannot discriminate against gay couples. Any church that refuses to marry gay couples could risk face prosecution and/or even lose their non-profit status.
Don’t think this is a likely scenario? Take a look at Massachusetts and what happened to the Catholic Church there when they said that they would not place adopted infants with gay couples because it was against the tenets of their faith. They had to get out of the adoption business altogether or face criminal prosecution. The same thing will soon happen with marriage.
This is an issue of religious freedom and the freedom of conscience. Americans are by nature tolerant people, and no one should or would deny gays the right to live as they choose. But marriage is a sacred religious institution. They have no business telling us to change our religious beliefs.
As I wrote in my first sentence, civil unions are the answer. Allow civil unions, and churches who believe in gay marriage can “marry” gay couples. Churches that do not, do not have to.
The only thing that crazy old Joe Biden said during his vp debate that I agreed with was this:
Allow marriage to be determined by religion and the people who practice religion. Civil unions are something we can all agree upon.
ramrocks on December 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM
This is exactly why it is an issue.
This is why I can’t imagine why anyone would be for gay marriage, knowing that it will destroy religious freedom in America.
That is…I can’t imagine how anyone except extreme anti-theist wackos like nonya here, could support it.
SaintOlaf on December 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM
If the state wanted to recognize multiple types of marriage–as they’ve started to do with covenant marriages–it would be fine by me.
They should just take the word marriage off the forms and replace it with a number. I’ve been married for five years and couldn’t tell you where my certificate is or what it says. I do remember my anniversary, regularly help with housework, and try to always tell my wife she is right–that, more than the state government language, keeps my marriage functioning.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM
and you’re a gay nazi. evil hateful and bigoted.
you cannot argue the merits, because your argument has no merits. loser.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM
It’s not about benefits. It never was. They already have civil union benefits in California. It’s about absolute acceptance of their lifestyle and the ability to sue and intimidate any religious organization that dares disagree with it.
See my post here for my case for civil unions.
ramrocks on December 10, 2008 at 9:56 PM
being anti-gay marriage will keep you in the wilderness with each new generation, case in point the millennials, who by 2/3 approve gay marriage and perhaps not-so coincidentally voted Democrat by 2/3. good luck grabbing power w/ that 1/3 support. maybe if you stick your noses out of people’s bedrooms and drop your obsession with abotion and gay marriage you stand a chance in the future.
Noneya on December 10, 2008 at 10:02 PM
some of us have principles, and don’t bend over for whoever or whatever comes along.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 10:03 PM
This is your first solid argument. What would happen if gays are permitted to marry? Would this mean that religious charities would not be permitted to only allow adoptions for straight couples? Would this mean a loving straight couple would not always get preference over a loving gay couple.
I am not sure if permitting gays to marry would cause that chaos. If this does impede on religious freedoms, then I am forcefully against gay marriage.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 10, 2008 at 10:04 PM
yes. its already happened in MA where the catholic charities has stopping doing adoptions because they were forced by the state to do gay adoptions.
right4life on December 10, 2008 at 10:06 PM
The way you wrote you answer, it seemed to me that you were implying it. Communication is tricky. I’m glad your idea is not what I thought.
thuja on December 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Nonsense. Nobody cares about your or anyone elses religious principles. We’re talking about a government function which should be rendered unto Caesar. Gay couples give the same social benefits as hetero couples and therefore have the right to the same government benefits. You’re welcome to believe whatever you wish privately.
Dash on December 10, 2008 at 10:20 PM
No, it isn’t. Someone’s race is usually very evident and undeniable. Society has in the past, and even in today’s world, forced people to deny the fact that they are homosexual………..even to the point of attempted suicide. I did. I put a revolver to my head for five days playing Russian Roulette, pulling the trigger around one hundred times. I was suffering from major depression. I cheated. But, in my state of mind I don’t know how I didn’t screw-up. I spent 17 days in the mental hospital ….. some of the time under suicide watch.
SC.Charlie on December 10, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Principles ……. I did not choose my sexuality, did you? With all the support that heterosexuals have, even from childhood, why do they have so much difficulty in maintaining their relationships? Nearly every-time I turn on the radio I listen to a straight love song.
SC.Charlie on December 10, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Thats fine on an individual level but what would be the effects on millions of people be if heterosexual marriage were simply called Marriage Type A as opposed to forms of alternative marriages designated Type B, Type C etc.? It has a dystopian ring to it.
In the same way renaming London as Airstrip One would have no physical or legal consequence it would not feel or sound right. Theres no secular argument against it though–the objection to it has to do with the transcendence of a nation or a city. (Not just in the religious sense.)
aengus on December 10, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Marriage ceremonies are not conducted in bedrooms. Homosexual marriage is an intrusion into the pubic sphere.
aengus on December 10, 2008 at 10:38 PM
……right4life?
Interesting choice of screen name …………… how about the name right-to-my-life, as a screen name for someone who is homosexual? I don’t have any claim to being absolutely right. I can only tell you my personal story.
SC.Charlie on December 10, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Aengus, the entire aspect of marriage is to publicly declare in front of witnesses the commitment of both spouses to each other? ………..what is to fear of gays/lesbians to call their union a marriage, whether or not it is recognized by any government?
SC.Charlie on December 10, 2008 at 10:46 PM
In the U.S. we’ll probably end up auctioning the naming rights for everything off to corporations in order to pay the massive debt we are accumulating.
You are probably right about the sentiment, and my idea is unlikely to happen. I do think that removing the word “marriage” from the government sphere and returning it to the religious sphere would be helpful. One is already free to point to the moral shortcomings of some “marriages” (say Anna Nicole Smith to an octagenarian billionaire) and just because the church down the street recognizes it doesn’t mean that another church would see it as valid.
dedalus on December 10, 2008 at 10:54 PM
PM
What the heck are you trying to say? I remember when Ho Chi Minh City was Saigon, Beijing was Peking and when a chairperson was a chairman …….and, I still can’t understand Beowulf.
SC.Charlie on December 10, 2008 at 10:54 PM
If its not recognised by the government and hence leading inexorably to new categories of anti-discrimination law which will be wielded against Christians then, while I don’t personally approve, you could start your own church and hold a non-legally binding marriage ceremony I guess.
I argue against the “stay out of people’s bedrooms” cliche because I find it absurd. It suggests not that what goes on in private is no one’s else business (which is true and no one is arguing against that) but that private matters like homosexual coupling would remain entirely private (and intimate) even if they were legally recognised public ceremonies.
Its also a poor use of language as (like I said) marriage ceremonies are not typically conducted in bedrooms.
aengus on December 10, 2008 at 10:56 PM
If we could disentangle “civil unions” and marriage entirely – turn every marriage into a civil union, make it perfectly clear that marriage-the-religious-rite is not marriage-the-governmental-license, and you don’t need one for the other – we might be able to come up with something that everyone would be all right with.
And then, after we did that, I’d have a nice talk with the unicorns.
Mal Carne on December 10, 2008 at 10:58 PM
That would be equally wrong imo. It reminds me of the Idiocracy.
I think most conservatives would agree with that. It doesn’t seem likely to happen anytime soon though.
aengus on December 10, 2008 at 11:03 PM
???
I’m saying that a name is part of the history of a city or country and is transcendent in a way that is not necessarily related to the Christian religion.
For instance the Americas are named after Amerigo Vespucci who was not a pilgrim or even English yet his name is inseperable from the discovery of the New World.
Someone upthread said that this marriage debate was just an issue of semantics but I think that even if thats true words and names are crucial to societal understandings of who we are and what our institutions represent.
Communists often rename their cities on purpose in order to demoralise the population. Castro didn’t rename Havana but let its historical architecture degrade for similar reasons. Military juntas (Burma/Myanmar) and Hindu Nationalists (Bombay/Mumbai) have the same idea. I still use all the old names. Bejing Duck doesn’t sound quite right.
That is a horrible PC distortion of the language. A woman who chairs a committee is a chairman. The suffix -man is genderless. If it wasn’t we’d have to refer to women as wopersons.
I haven’t read Beowulf but I do know that London is not an Anglo-Saxon name. It derives from the Latin ‘Londinium’ – a city founded by the Roman empire.
aengus on December 10, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Good question. So far, the only answers that have been provided are that-
-It will lead to people marrying their dogs. Which is stupid.
-It will redefine the traditional meaning of marriage. Which is trivial.
-It undermines religious freedom. Which is ironic, since gay marriage opponents currently want to force society to practice their religious beliefs with rspect to marriage.
The real answer – what fundamentalist Christians really fear – is that succesful gay marriages would make their beliefs about homosexuality look petty and anachronistic.
RightOFLeft on December 10, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Its funny when your politicos get pwned by comedians. :)
benny shakar on December 10, 2008 at 11:52 PM
I wouldn’t say it was retreat. Every time Huck started explaining his position, Stewart interjected. John did most of the talking. Hard to make your point when you keep getting cut o….
apacalyps on December 11, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Huckabee is the man when it comes to just laying it out there.
“Until Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain saying he’s changed the rules, let’s keep it like it is,” – Mike Huckabee
apacalyps on December 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
It’s a moot point. When scientists discover what makes people gay they will soon afterwards develop a therapy that can be applied prenatally to stop gayness. There will be no gay marriages when there are no gays.
NotCoach on December 11, 2008 at 12:24 AM
What I enjoyed more was when the dems got pwned by a little ol gal from Alaska…
And what really gives me a kick, is that you only take pot shots, but never add anything or make any statement of consequence, you just spout off comments…is that a liberal thing, where you can’t put an idea together?
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 12:28 AM
So you equate abortion and gay unions the same?
Let me see…so far every time gay marriage has been on the ballot it has lost, even the very liberal California. 68% of the people oppose it.
And they won’t put abortion on the ballot because they know that will lose also, about 75% oppose that…
Okay, they are the same, they both have been rejected by the voting public.
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Conservatives need to practice debating fools. There ARE certain ways out of lib traps but you have to be prepared for them. For instance NOBODY gets the better of Rush Limbaugh.
Mojave Mark on December 11, 2008 at 12:33 AM
They vote that way, until they have to fend for themselves…funny how the youth changes as they see their real rights, wealth, and privileges taken away by the dems.
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 12:35 AM
That’s because he doesn’t debate anyone…just a few callers now and then.
When was the last time you saw him on a prime time news show debating someone?
right2bright on December 11, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Yeah, the Dems got pwned all the way to the White House and even bigger majorities in Congress.
Meanwhile, crazy sarah spent yesterday baking cookies for an Xmas open house in the state capital she hadn’t visited since “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”
benny shakar on December 11, 2008 at 12:47 AM
No real conservative harbors this much hate.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Here’s something Huck needed to say several times during that interview:
“Shut the hell up and let me talk!”
Yes, if Stewart “won” that interview it was only because he wouldn’t let Huck finish a complete sentence.
R. Waher on December 11, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Delicious, isn’t it!
Tzetzes on December 11, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha! You just knew r4l would be on this story like a fly to poop! And love the bizarre revisionist history, put out by that august publishing house the SSCG.
Tzetzes on December 11, 2008 at 2:04 AM
Can anyone tell me why polygamy (consensual, of course) would be such a bad thing? It’s treated as just self-evidently terrible (esp. by people who claim to follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).
Tzetzes on December 11, 2008 at 2:08 AM
The arguments by the homofascists and gay marriage proponents for gay marriage and sodomy to be practiced legally are practically identical to the reasons and arguments made by members of NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association).
Its more than just a slippery slope we’re talking about here. Its a high speed elevator down to the bottom.
TheMightyQuinn on December 11, 2008 at 4:14 AM
Folks, I know I am going to tick some of you off, but the libertarian in me just doesn’t understand why gay marriage is such a big deal. Look if 2 consenting adults want to cohabit and become intimate I couldn’t care less how they do it, how often they do or which side of the bed each wants to sleep on. it’s none of my business. I have enough s**t going on in my life. Where I have the problem with gays or any gay advocacy group is when they want to openly proselytize in schools or enhance the mainstream credibility of the gay lifestyle with the help of government funding-I’m traditional: schools should be set up to teach the 3 R’s, science, history, economics and English. I’m like Sarah: I don’t know if someone is born gay or becomes gay but I do know that even if one claims to be born gay he or she still has to decide how much time he or she will devote to sexual activities as heterosexual people have to make the same choices; Also both gays and heterosexuals have to decide for themselves if they want to play the field, become monogamous or become a monk. One lifestyle does not fit all. I accept that. I just wish the GOP would be more accepting of that principle as well. Let and let live is the motto I live by. By the way I am a strong supporter of Sarah Palin-one of the main reasons I am is she doesn’t try to shove ‘religion’ down people’s throats and that as she says it “I have gay friends who live their lives as they see fit, but it is not how I have chosen to live my life.”
technopeasant on December 11, 2008 at 4:40 AM
Being against same-sex marriage isn’t “shoving religion down peoples’ throats.”
Homosexuals don’t need “marriage” to enjoy the same civil rights everyone else does–they already have those rights and don’t let them tell you otherwise.
They don’t need to set up these travesties of straight marriages and families to claim legitimacy, acceptance or equality.
Two people of the same sex will never form a relationship and a family like a normal, committed man and a woman.
Marriage is for the blessing of that sacred union of a man and a woman and any progeny that result from that union.
Jenfidel on December 11, 2008 at 5:46 AM
Are those the gays that put Germans into death-camps or are they the gays who string Muslims up on cranes?
Fascist doesn’t just mean “person whose views I disagree with”. Unless you’re on the Left.
Tzetzes on December 11, 2008 at 5:57 AM
The strongest argument homosexual marriage advocates have to offer seems to be:
How does two men or two women getting married hurt your heterosexual, traditional, one man one woman marriage?
Anytime wrong is promoted as right it hurts everyone.
Anytime evil is promoted as good it hurts everyone.
If I want to compare the best case scenario of homosexual marriage with the worst case scenario of traditional marriage homosexual marriage is still not equal because it is based on sexual immorality.
Dishonest scales hurt all members of the society using them.
Semantics and logic circles can never turn homosexual marriage into the equal of traditional marriage. Only a dishonest scale, that is, a lie, will ever state that as the truth.
When any society starts basing its founding fabric on lies it hurts everyone and will eventually destroy that society.
jack_in_the_box on December 11, 2008 at 7:14 AM
The radical homosexual lobby is on the Left and they’ve been quite repressive of the views of those of us who don’t want to welcome the “gay” lifestyle into mainstream America.
In fact, this whole “day without a gay” thing, as well as their acting out against Mormons and others who supported CA’s Prop. 8–sometimes almost violently, has shown that they’re unwilling to accept the views of the majority of their fellow citizens at the ballot box.
The next step if anarchy, of course, which is where the whole same-sex marriage issue is leading anyway.
Jenfidel on December 11, 2008 at 7:17 AM
To a great extent, I agree with you in that I take a Lockean position regarding marriage–I view it more as a social contract than as a sacrament. However, I do understand that many do view it as a sacrament. That’s why I think the issue should be decided by the people within their communities through either their representatives in state houses or directly through referenda.
What has turned me, someone who has, until recently been neutral to somewhat supportive of gay marriage into someone who will now vote against any pro-gay marriage referenda is the bullying and threatening behavior of those who have been targeting those individuals opposed to gay marriage in California and elsewhere. I will not accept being bullied by a bunch of thugs throwing a temper tantrum because they didn’t get their way on that referendum. Is that more emotional than rational? Yes. But that’s how I’m reacting now. Push me, and I will push back. Now, if, after the vote, they’d have issued a statement saying something to the effect that, “We regret that the people of California voted the way they did. This means that we have to redouble our efforts to explain better why we want and need this,” that would have garnered far more sympathy from people like me.
The tarring of people opposed to the bill as “fundamentalists”–as if that really is a bad word–is equally offensive to me. It smacks of a potential desire to carry out religious persecution that, frankly speaking, concerns me far more than denying gay marriage. I would put to the poster who used that phrase that you, sir or madame, are as intolerant as those whom you’ve branded with that label.
As for benny…you’re never going to get a logical argument from him because he has never been taught how to make one–he’s a product of our school system after all…
Matt Helm on December 11, 2008 at 7:20 AM
If fundamentalist isn’t a bad word, you really can’t object to me “tarring” anyone with that label.
RightOFLeft on December 11, 2008 at 7:44 AM
no they do not. and of course since you beleive this, what about polygamous couples? or ‘intergenerational’ couples (pedophiles) hmmmmm??
you’re welcome to believe whatever you want to privately, just don’t try to ram it down our throats when you cannot win any elections on your issue.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 7:50 AM
Yes, he can, because you and others posting here use it as a bad word to “tar” those of us who are Bible-believing Christians.
I join his objection.
Jenfidel on December 11, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next »