Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on February 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
“We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.”
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
It’s “C’est la vie.” peace.
Otherwise, +1 again.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 6:51 PM
“Worse” is a very relative term in the case of these 2 evils, as I keep repeating over and over.
I loved it being illegal.
Lawrence v. Texas, overturning the Texas sodomy law, was what kicked this whole f-agenda stuff off in the first place.
No, it isn’t, Miss Prissy Pants!
The question is bogus.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I’m in favor of flatter taxes with fewer exemptions. To the extent that taxes are progressive and redistribute wealth, if it goes to people raising kids it seems the best use of the money.
Many gay people believe that they live committed lives which are substantially the same as straight couples. Given their ability to have children, in practice they have families and operate households with the same financial needs as straight couples.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 7:22 PM
The government would seem to have enough to do without policing the private sex lives of consenting adults.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Worse is always a relative term. This isn’t special.
You really believe the government should be able to stop consensual sex because of what the Bible says?
You’re not a conservative.
Prissy? No, you certainly have be beat there.
Sure, but obviously the majority of Americans disagree with that or else we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Don’t you mean inability? Or do you mean ability to raise children? Either way, including children obviously changes the equation anyway. If gays have the ability to adopt, then they’ll get those deductions.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 8:10 PM
I was referring to producing children that are biologically related to one member of the couple. For lesbians acquiring sperm is relatively easy–there doesn’t seem to be any shortage.
dedalus on February 23, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Oh, yes I am!
It’s far more Conservative to wish to preserve the Family and decency in Public Life than it is to allow for deviants to engage in their consensual perversions, much of which is done in public these days.
“Gay pride” parades, gay bath houses and gay bars, anyone?
Upholding a moral code for the common good is very much a part of Conservatism, whereas embracing the moral relativism of “tolerance” and “diversity” which entails jettisoning decency, mores, ethics, civilized decorum and the Family is decidely Liberal.
Hence the reason the “abortion or gay marriage” question comes so easily to them: the Left doesn’t care whether they are murdering babies or breaking up families and destroying traditional marriage.
It means nothing to them.
This country was founded on the teachings of the Bible, including our laws.
The Ten Commandments are carved into the facade of the U.S. Supreme Court.
If 4 and 1/2 of the USSC Justices weren’t Leftist judicial activists, Lawrence v. Texas would never have overturned those TX sodomy laws.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Addendum, and once homosexual activists had their ruling on Lawrence v. Texas, the push for same sex marriage began and it continues even today fiercer than ever.
Same sex marriage was voted down in 3 states in November 2008, y8et they’re out the pushing for this anathema every day and twice a day if there’s an Oscar telecast.
I AM SICK TO DEATH OF IT.
These people are evil–and I speak from much personal experience and knowledge.
Jenfidel on February 23, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Sure for them but not so much for homosexual men. They’d still need a womb.
No, you’re not. You’re just as much a big government liberal, but instead of wanting to take care of people you want a theocracy. I hear Iran’s good for that.
Maybe you’d like Saudi Arabia. They execute the deviants.
You’re the one who wants them locked up for doing something that means nothing to you personally. You want the law to replace morality.
We had that. That’s why Jesus had to come and sacrifice Himself for people like you and me, and all of those deviants you seem to hate.
If the law had been enough, He never would have had to come down here and suffer. That’s blood on all our hands, and you want to go back to it. You’re mistaken on the concept of evil.
Esthier on February 23, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4