Hot Air poll shock: Near-majority support gay marriage in Vermont
posted at 5:10 pm on April 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m inclined to quote Sean Penn here, but I know if I do some nutroots moron will see it, not realize I’m joking, and accuse me of homophobia. Such is the price of working in a medium that thrives on politically calculated faux outrage.
In any case, shocka:
Three possible explanations: (a) you guys are far more libertarian than I thought, (b) we’ve got a vast audience of lefty lurkers, drawn to the site perhaps by my (unfair) reputation for being some kind of rabid Palin-basher, or (c) a left-leaning blog linked to the poll and pushed enough traffic to it to warp the result. And the correct answer is … (c). Ben Smith linked it this morning and Chris Orr at TNR picked it up 90 minutes after that, doubtless after a few hundred new votes for gay marriage had flowed in from Politico. I took a peek at the data last night, though, before any outside influences had affected it and the results were almost as surprising: From what I recall, fully 50 percent preferred the federalist option, 21 percent approved of the legislature’s decision to legalize gay marriage, and only 29 percent supported the FMA to overturn it. I thought we’d see a majority of social cons for this one; as it turned out, it wasn’t even close. Make what you will of the fact that three of the leading GOP contenders — Palin, Romney, and Huck — endorse the FMA while only 30 percent or so of our very heavily trafficked right-wing blog agree. Does that create some space for the GOP to take the middle course and back civil unions? A poll of delegates at the Republican convention last August showed 43 percent would be okay with that. By 2012 I’ll bet that number’s near majority, too.
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
oldleprechaun on April 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Thanks for that sterling political analysis. This thread can now be closed because the glowing sheen of your omnipotence is currently more blinding than the Rapture could ever hope to be. Hallelujah.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Babies can’t get married. OH NOES THEY IZ NOT HUMAN BEINGZ
lol
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 6:12 PM
If the democrats moved to the middle from where they are now, they’d be socialists.
portlandon on April 8, 2009 at 6:12 PM
I think Fred Thompson had the politics of gay marriage correct. He supports the federalist option, is personally opposed to gay marriage (or so it seems), and left room to support FMA should the supreme court insert its nose into the issue. That is where I’m at, and I think that is where most conservatives are. The poll results do not shock me. I think a large percentage of social cons do not want government overreach and realize that a government that can enforce traditional marriage can enforce gay “marriage.” It is up to social conservative institutions to fight for traditional vaules on the state and municipal level not the federal level.
Theworldisnotenough on April 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Nanny nanny boo boo
MC stepped in doo doo!
Do you have anything other than this tripe? Oh, excuse me, I forgot who I was talking to. The only thing gargantuan here is that you still have the balls to engage me even though I grind your face into the sidewalk every time.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 6:14 PM
I miss Teh Fred!
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Only 473 social conservatives voted so far. Maybe it’s true that the social conservatives have given up on politics? Maybe there is hope for the Republican party in 2010 after all.
popularpeoplesfront on April 8, 2009 at 6:15 PM
I know you were speaking to another commentor,but I have been posting on Hotair for quite a while now. Im no RINO,but I am definitely conservative. I voted the Federalist choice on this. Sometimes we all need to take stock of who we are politically,privately. You dont need to be a KOSkid to realize that this subject matter is a tough one for some,it touches many lives in many ways. You may want to check yourself a bit before you start tossing around the name calling based on your perceptions of conservatism.
canditaylor68 on April 8, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Scoffing at your nearly every argument because it’s backed by manic paranoia of public figures plotting your assassination doesn’t really provide you an opportunity to grind anything except your teeth, bud, nor does it take balls to address someone with advanced schizophrenia, contrary to what you had believed.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:17 PM
lol
Where do you libertardians get the idea that the republican party lost because of SOCIAL conservatives? They lost because of the economy and ogabe craftily placed the blame on FISCAL conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is on its deathbed in the US. Hot air is full of extremists. Don’t think that having favorable opinion here means anything.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM
With all due respect to your analysis AP, but I think that if you re-ran the poll with another option, namely: Don’t like, accept the result but would still support a Con Amendment; I’m willing to bet it would win in a non-mobed landslide.
Rogue on April 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM
When monkeys fly out your ass. Maybe you should move to VT, you’re even too dumb for CA.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 6:19 PM
I take it your explanation of how supporting an extension of entitlements is libertarian is coming in your next comment then?
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 6:19 PM
That is demonstrably false. Especially in California. Gay marriage had one goal and that is social acceptance. The kind they cannot get in our culture they sought to enforce via the courts. Civil unions in California were by law identical to marriage. The need to have gay marriage for equal “rights” did not exist, but we got gay “marriage” anyway.
Matter of fact I work for the state and if I wanted to get my homosexual partner on my insurance even after I have selected my insurance plan and I’m out of the open enrollment window all it takes is a simple form to fill out. If I decide to take care of an ailing parent over 50 and become my parents guardian and try to get my mom on my insurance it is damn near impossible. Equal rights my arse. They got it just fine.
Theworldisnotenough on April 8, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Amen. The only candidate I believed when he opened his mouth.
Theworldisnotenough on April 8, 2009 at 6:21 PM
Actually, I’ve gone along with the California initiative of abolishing marriage as a state institution altogether, which in the libertarian sense would be ideal. However, in light of the likely bigger opposition, legalization of gay marriage seems to achieve the closest thing to the same ends, in a practical manner. Support of the clearance of bigger segments of the population to be free to make a choice is libertarian.
Then again, your first comment referenced both libertarianism and anarchism. I’m sure you weren’t meaning to conflate the two, but if I’m wrong on your intentions, please feel free to correct me.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM
“Sodomy” includes more than just anal, and more than just gay — you know that, right? Have fun with your very small, very grumpy Party.
Tanya on April 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Your points are duly noted, and valued.
I state my positions in clear terms because the enemies of America LOVE misusing nuance.
This country was not founded on equity. It was founded on law.
Sodomites (or queers) generally are not truthful (Camille Paglia is a notable exception). Therefore, a rational discussion with most of them is impossible.
What I am saying is that true conservatives are opposed to altering social traditions derived from Judeo/Christian history. True conservatives are also opposed to government doing ANYTHING that the private sector can do for itself. Of course, there are places where it is more convenient for the people to be taxed for something that they could do themselves but there is a method for doing it called representative republicanism (which just happens to be the design of our constitution).
What Vermont did is not federalism for a single reason – there is no public NEED for sodomite marriage nor does it BENEFIT the rest of the Vermont population.
Just because someone is elected to public office does not mean that the elected person gets to do whatever he/she wants. That is called democracy, not a republic.
This country is not a democracy. I will boldly state that there is probably not one serious malfunction in America that is not directly caused by misunderstanding the nature of our government. Even GWB calls this country a democracy. Heck they all do it.
And that is why they cannot fix anything because they are what’s wrong and they do not even recognize it.
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Actually in the libertarian sense it would be the only option. Furthermore, libertarianism is a minority position and libertarians almost never get most things their way. To suddenly argue for “practicality” only supports my original theory.
Gay marriage is legal already. Nothing’s stopping two homos from going into some quack church and getting married. What you’re actually telling me is that doing the exact opposite of what libertarianism calls for “achieves the same ends in a practical manner”. Excuse me if I laugh my ass off.
“I don’t want a bailout but that’s not practical so I’ll support an even bigger bailout.”
“I don’t want welfare but that’s not practical so let’s give the poor laptops.”
“I don’t want any government regulated marriage but that’s not practical so I’ll extend it to even more people”.
Except this isn’t “a support to be free to make a choice”, it’s support for an expansion of government entitlements, plain and simple. Nobody’s stopping them from private marriages which have nothing to do with the government. Nobody’s stopping them from attempting a permanent commitment to each other.
Anarchy can be reasonably described as an extreme form of libertarianism. Like socialism is an extreme form of liberalism.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 6:36 PM
I don’t care if a presidential candidate supports gay marriage or civil unions, I only care that they support the states to make that decision for themselves. I wouldn’t vote for allowing gay marriage but I certainly should not tell the people of Vermont what to do on the matter and neither should anyone else outside of Vermont.
cadams on April 8, 2009 at 6:37 PM
Far too many leftys/libertarians coming in here AP.
AlreadyKnownAs on April 8, 2009 at 6:43 PM
Have fun with your open borders, infanticide loving, very STUPID and very naive Party.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 6:47 PM
So is conservatism. And liberalism. People tend to lose sight of that, especially in the face of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates lining up to woo the moderates, who make up the bulk of the electorate. So, I don’t see how that remark has bearing on the debate.
You really do make conservatives look bad with this bigoted crap, but whatever. Hitch is currently wiring your house with C4, so you’ve got to get as much with the time you have, right?
Wrong. It’s asking for a “none or all” approach. Either everyone gets the choice, or they don’t.
And in relation to my argument in favor of the abolition of marriages as a state institution, that would be fine. However, marriages remain a state institution. So yes, they are being stopped from being officially married.
Just like fascism is an extreme form of conservatism.
Again, what’s your point? This mindless attempt to color an ideology by comparing it to the extreme fringe of it never achieves anything.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM
What a terrible analogy.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM
How the hell did you just go from support of gay marriage to support of open borders and abortion?
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Thank you, Mr. Phelps for that positively Christian outlook.
/sarc
Vic on April 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM
~ Protect Marriage from the State ~
Because everything the government touches turns to crap
Why License Marriage?
Where Do These Kids Come From?
Rae on April 8, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Of course I know that. The UCMJ has a definition which works just fine.
As far as small, I’d rather be small in number than be immoral and proud of it. As far as grumpy, I will merely refer you to the behavior following Prop 8 to disclose who is grumpy and who isn’t.
Hope this helps.
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Madison, you have on my flaming back all day. You need a drink, my friend. I was telling Tanya to pack sand. Platypus has his opinion of gay marriage, but I can’t allow this constant barrage on the republican party to move the tent.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 6:51 PM
One other criticism is “all day” for you? Oy. Don’t think I’m the one needing the drink.
I don’t like the barrage of moving the tent either, but platypus was the one posing such movement, involving the ejection of “sodomites”. Over-the-top social cons are just as bad as the RINOs, particularly since a RINO is their candidate of choice.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:54 PM
The income tax is only about 40% of revenues. If we ran a constitutional federal government we could cut revenues by 80% and still pay your husband.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM
Oh well, that’s wonderful. Since, you know, that applies to civilian life.
Oops, wait…
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM
In my libertarian viewm I feel that the voters of Vermont ought to decode this issue themselves. Not the courts and not the federal government. if the citizens of that state support gay marriage, or support a ban on gay marriage, I will support their choice. I am a Texan and what vermont shooses to do ain;t none of my damn business. As for Texas, same here, whatever the citizenry as a majority supports, I will stand by.
paulsur on April 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM
The “federalist” position would actually have meaning if it weren’t for the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Activists will immediately begin the process of unlocking that door.
Why don’t we already have gay marriage in all of America?
So much for “federalism.”
spmat on April 8, 2009 at 6:56 PM
+1
This platypus is a complete cretin and makes the Phelps family of inbreds sound somewhat clever. The world will be much better when losers like him begin dying off…and its happening quickly, thank goodness.
dcwvu on April 8, 2009 at 6:57 PM
How about: Make all government benefits related to marriage available only if couples are raising a family (natural or adopted) or have raised a family. No family, no government benefits period.
rsl775 on April 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM
yep, let the few control the majority, sounds good to me.
foxone on April 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Instead of calling it the “federalist” position, it would be far more accurate to call it the position of utmost indifference.
You don’t care if they’re married or not, which essentially reduces to a pro homosexual marriage position.
spmat on April 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Again, libertarians are ‘conservatives’ without the hypocrisy.
It might be better to say “neo-cons without the hypocrisy.”
The man who wrote “The Conscience of a Conservative” was essentially a libertarian.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM
This is two, but who’s counting. Look, I am just sick and tired of people saying that our party is old and ‘grumpy’ because we don’t like that steve and steve can be considered ‘married’. We have values and ideals as conservatives. If that is a problem, too bad for you. Be a democrat or democrat lite and enjoy your life.
BTW, I’m not talking to ‘you’ personally, Madison. Just defending my point. Platy can be harsh on this subject, but he feels strongly and I defended the ‘party’ against little miss tanya.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM
So couples wherein one or the other can’t conceive due to biological reasons are screwed?
Great.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Amen.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Completely flawed logic. On the same token, do you think gays will ever have any rights if left in the hands of the majority?? Of course not. Majorities rarely let minorities enjoy the same rights — thats why cons squeal about letting the people vote on this. They know exactly how it will turn out, making the whole vote a farce anyway. I’m sure that White voters would have granted Blacks equal rights at the voting booth, had Pres. Johnson not stepped in with a unilateral equal rights law, right??
Anyone?
Hello?
*crickets*
dcwvu on April 8, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Or any understanding of causality or human nature.
spmat on April 8, 2009 at 7:06 PM
It does because you don’t suddenly stop being libertarian just because it’s hard to get something your way. Or maybe your principles are only as good as the victories they can get you.
Hitch is too drunk to wire his shoelaces together, I’m not worried. Dunno where you got the “bigoted” from. Maybe I need to perform ceremonial fellatio in advance as apology to opposing gay marriage? Is this supposed to be an argument? You claimed they couldn’t get married. I pointed out they could. I guess it never crossed your mind that marriage exists apart from the government. Libertarian elite.
1. After wrong you’re supposed to explain why it’s wrong. Not restate your position in different words. “none” is the libertarian position. “None or all” is moderate/liberal. Which brings us to:
2. I take it you support incestuous marriage then? Polygamy? Or maybe “everyone” doesn’t actually mean everyone. This is a tangential issue anyway. You’re taking the liberal position anyway, so the answer to this isn’t relevant to the argument, but I suspect you’re gonna be plain inconsistent like usual.
Shifting of goalposts. Why do they need to be “officially” married? Are government entitlements a right now?
I wasn’t comparing them cretin. I was mocking hot air’s readership for being so extreme that anarchy describes them better than libertarianism. Not that I expect reading comprehension from a fan of Christopher “I would take great pleasure in killing pro-lifers during a revolution” Hitchens or Thomas “I don’t even have a bible but I’m gonna write a detailed rebuttal of it anyway” Paine.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 7:06 PM
The problem is that platypus is the type pushing actual conservatives out of the party with the kind of remarks that most conservatives condemn. Please tell me how often Rush, Mark, and Sean talk about sodomites. It doesn’t represent mainstream conservatism, it represents social conservatism. Automatically shunning people because they disagree with you on a hotly contested issue that is, really, a throwaway issue(as opposed to issues like the border), is foolish. Focus your attention on the McCains and Specters and Frums, not the people who dare to disagree on one issue. Continue with that behavior, and the ideology is only going to get more fractured.
By the way, can I steal that “two times in a day = all day” from you? Would be able to allow my fiancee to boast much more heartily about our sex life.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:07 PM
You are wrong. No state is required to treat other states’ as you describe. Full Faith and Credit means that every state must grant standing to someone pleading a foreign judgment. The actual value of the judgment in another state is decided on a case-by-case basis UNLESS a particular type of judgment is declared by the legislature to be acceptable upon presentation or unacceptable for presentation.
This fundamental misapprehension of the FF & C clause has lead a lot of people to do unnecessary things such as DOMA.
Arguably, DOMA was needed due to the large number of public schooled people who now are adults. But the law sure didn’t need DOMA to know that Full Faith and Credit does not mean automatic acceptance. Such a notion would make state sovereignty illogical.
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM
“quack churches”, and you know it.
You really are a vile little termite. Have fun dodging the red dot from Hitchens’ laser sight.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Social conservatism is mainstream conservatism. The division between fiscal and social conservatives exists only in your mind and the minds of a handful of astroturfing libertarians.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 7:09 PM
I don’t want to know about your sex life, MADISON! Heh.
Now, NO ONE is going to push me out of the conservative party. My values and ideals are stronger than that.
Mainstream Conservatism….is that anything like Mainstream Media. If it is, no thanks.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 7:10 PM
This is hilarious considering how often Hitchens insults religion. Apparently me mocking churches that perform gay marriage = bigoted, but hitch mocking churches he doesn’t like = OK. The only bigot I see here is you.
Been a pleasure crushing you once again gov’nor. Hope we can tango again sometime.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 7:11 PM
And thus lies the reason your party hasn’t won an election in the last 5 years.
dcwvu on April 8, 2009 at 7:12 PM
Oh yes. Being a fan of Paine, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, certainly puts one’s conservative credentials in doubt. Must be an anarchist, like the Hot Air readership.
You totally win. I meant it, you have bested us all. I regret that I have no trophy to present to you, bearing a bronzed figure of a human being with a penis where their head should be.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:12 PM
I take it you’re a con law expert? Because the article I linked cites an actual law prof. Read it.
It isn’t as cut and dry as you say.
spmat on April 8, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Demonstrating the cause and effect of government is the best way to convert someone in to a libertarian. Worked for me. And worked for conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, who was really the one who radicalized me.
Of course his ideological journey was from a Marxist to libertarian. I only had to go from neo-con.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Correction: I meant to type one of the influencers for the Declaration of Independence, not signers.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Besides, if abortion activists can find a right to stick a fork in a baby’s head from “penumbras of emanations” in the Bill of Rights, then homosexual activists will have little problem using straightforward language in the body of the Constitution itself to force their will through the courts.
You do realize that most of the states that now have homosexual marriage have it in spite of their legislatures’ and executives’ explicit will? Homosexual marriage exists now for the most part purely on account of legal activism. And you think that your brittle reading of the FFCC will stand up to that level of legal muscle?
Right.
spmat on April 8, 2009 at 7:20 PM
Mainstream conservatism means the views espoused by those such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Steyn, Buckley, etc. Few of them ever took such fundamentalist-fueled stances on social issues.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:20 PM
I have a box of rocks that makes more sense than you.
Who do you think freed the slaves? Who do you think gave blacks equal rights?
Don’t say the answer too loud – the idiots’ heads will explode.
Oh yeah, it was the white Republican conservative majority that did these things for the black minority against the desires of the white Democrats.
Yet blacks vote 95% Democrat in 2008. Go figure.
I’m done with this. All you pervert supporters can pat yourselves on the back as you keep the GOP losing.
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Fair enough. I understand what you are saying, though. Worry about the border and other important topics first. Cheers, Madison. I always value your opinion on things.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Paine also influenced the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was about as conservative as the Soviet constitution of 1936, and accused George Washington of betraying the American Revolution. Being in the panthenon of men connected to America’s founding doesn’t make Paine flawless. Or conservative.
aengus on April 8, 2009 at 7:25 PM
And I yours.
Butthead.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:26 PM
Ummm…Madison…hate to say this, but Thomas Paine didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence. Robert Treat Paine did for Massachusetts. And yes, you do pretty much have to put Tom Paine in the radical camp–especially once the French Revolution gets going. He writes “Rights of Man” as a rebuttal to Burke’s “Reflections on the French Revolution.” He also served in the French National Assembly for a time, voting against the execution of Louis XVI, arguing that he should be exiled to the United States. Paine ended up arrested and imprisoned during the Terror and almost lost his head. He then ends up hoodwinked by Napoleon and finally returns to the US in 1802. He never really gives up his radical views, although he was by no means as extreme as Robespierre et al., he still advocated social programs by the government and progressive taxation amongst other measures.
Matt Helm on April 8, 2009 at 7:28 PM
His precepts from Common Sense were centered around the concepts of independence, liberty, and self-government. If those principles aren’t what were preached by Reagan, Goldwater, and the rest, then whence cometh conservatism?
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:28 PM
The framers all knew the danger of the tyranny of the majority. They worked hard to prevent it. Tyrants like democracy a lot more than freedom.
Ya and it only took 100 and 200 years respectively. Good point.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I think the only thing this poll shows is that a near-majority support the possibility of two women kissing.
The Ugly American on April 8, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Beavis. I hope you have insurance.
HornetSting on April 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM
In short, Thomas Paine was an ass with a few good ideas, but mostly bad ones. He spent most of his energy later in life incessantly carping and nitpicking at Washington, Adams and the Federalists.
Thomas Paine was hardly a conservative, or even a decent human being.
And Hitchens is a Troskyite that supported the war. Your point?
spmat on April 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM
When Vermont adopts California style gun control, then I’ll worry.
Browncoatone on April 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Those beliefs are not confined to conservatism even if they resonate in your mind with certain people. The Indian socialist Jawaharlal Nehru believed in all three as well.
To gauge what sort of man Paine was you have to consider the totality of his writings, the biographical details of his life, his allegiances and bitter disappointments etc.
For a good overview I’d recommend Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man by Christopher Hitchens. It’s fairly convincing that Paine, far from being a conservative, was anything but.
aengus on April 8, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I’m not saying they are. I’m saying that they are what conservative beliefs, as put forth by people like Reagan, emanate from.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM
If folks in NH want gay marriage, let them have it. Show me a state where the citizens overwhelmingly want gay marriage and I’ll show you two states that don’t. That’s the joy of state’s rights. The gays can move to NH and live happily ever after.
As for me here in my state, I’m sure if it came to a vote, it would go down in FLAMES.
Oink on April 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Immoral? I’m just saying, if you tell every man in the Party that he can no longer get, er, creative with his wife (and vice versa) once in a while, you’re going to lose a lot of members. How is that immoral?
Tanya on April 8, 2009 at 7:48 PM
If the “pursuit of happiness” does not confer the ability to determine the major milestones of your own life, what does it mean?
Chaz on April 8, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Furthermore, what are the “Bill of Rights” if anything but protection for the minority from a majority vote. Read a book or something.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Gay marraige? Sure. Why should straight couples be the only ones to enjoy the three rings?
john1schn on April 8, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Yet again Allah, you do not understand conservatives. The issue is important but it was passed as legislation not ruled on by a court. It’s when laws are imposed on citizens that is when we object. but if it goes throught the process and is accepted by the population, we may not like it but that’s what the process is for.
lwssdd on April 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM
I’ve been thinking about the issue of gay marriage versus civil unions all day. Normally, I’d have no issue with treating different things differently. We need to stop oversimplifying everything. So, in theory, heterosexual marriage and gay civil unions would be just fine with me.
It turns out that I reject my own theories, even when I put them into historical perspective. It’s quite likely that the culture war over gay mariage will be over in thirty to fifty years (assuming that the muslims don’t nuke us into oblivion and assuming no ecological catastrophe). It seems that this knowledge should be enough to make me indifferent to the semantic game of “gay marriage” versus “civil union”. But gay civil unions is not ok with me. I want gay marriage, because I resent how society has treated gays for so long. Given that I’m quite right wing for a gay man, I just don’t see gays compromising on this topic. I think we are right to be something near fanatic on this topic, though there are always excesses. Slavery was a terrible evil, but it didn’t justify John Brown and Harper’s Ferry.
thuja on April 8, 2009 at 8:22 PM
At the end of the article, there is this:
Joanna Grossman, a FindLaw columnist, is an associate professor of law at Hofstra University. Her other columns on discrimination, including sex discrimination and sexual harassment, may be found in the archive of her columns on this site.
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that this “professor” is focused on liberal issues. As such, her legal point of view is inferior to mine because I am a true conservative.
Okay?
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 8:30 PM
“Thanks for playing should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid.”
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Should I find a couple of broads who don’t mind being part of a multiple wife family and take the 40 minute drive to Montpelier tomorrow and demand “equal protection under the law”, and then sue when they don’t give it to me? Ugh, my state is such a friggin’ embarrassment.
RightWinged on April 8, 2009 at 8:43 PM
AP attracts a disproportionate amount of atheists to HA, & atheists unfortunately tend to be more libertarian than conservative.
jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 9:31 PM
Yet again rare poster, you do not understand Allahpundit.
Allahu.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM
Governing what? The City Council of East Cowflop?
Good lord, we badly need another Reagan.
The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
– RR
Bartrams Garden on April 8, 2009 at 9:47 PM
She’s a WITCH! Round up the townsfolk and ready the torches!
galenrox on April 8, 2009 at 11:02 PM
If Barry Goldwater himself were to rise from the dead and start posting here, there would be “true conservatives” calling him a liberal troll, and telling him to take his leftist garbage back to the DailyKos.
And these people actually expect to be taken seriously.
JohnGalt23 on April 9, 2009 at 12:48 AM
The social cons were the ones demanding McCain pick a pro-lifer above all else, even though it was obvious that his only chance of shaking up the electoral map was by picking a socially moderate Republican.
Speedwagon82 on April 9, 2009 at 2:37 AM
How’s that?
I haven’t seen “society” treat homosexuals any different than anyone else and I’ve been around quite a while.
Even if they have been discriminated against, it’s not rational or fair to want to inflict same sex “marriage” on the rest of us as some kind of payback/revenge.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2009 at 4:04 AM
Neo-Conservatism has nothing to do with social issues like same sex marriage; it advocates the muscular use of American foreign policy, guided by the firm belief in American exceptionalism.
Jenfidel on April 9, 2009 at 4:38 AM
Civil unions will not mean the death of the family, in fact as a libertarian I think promoting monogamy in the gay community is a hell of a lot more healthy then the promiscuity and flamboyance of the priders.
Give them their legal status, let them take the marriage penalty, leave them alone we have much more important issues.
They voted it in, they overrode a veto, its what the state of Vermont wants, and there were no riots or strong arm tactics involved in trying to get their way like there were in California.
@ntif@n on April 9, 2009 at 8:34 AM
Going back to the 1960’s there were laws against them gathering in bars and laws against some of their private sexual behavior.
Gay marriage won’t be inflicted on straight people who remain free in Vermont to marry someone of the opposite sex as often as they choose.
dedalus on April 9, 2009 at 9:23 AM
“Shocka?”
Why should I care what two other people do to themselves with regards to marraige or their sexual habits. When they involve a third person involuntarily, as with a child, I do care. But, gee, don’t we already HAVE laws against sexual mistreatment of minors?
So why should I waste my time over a silly word, marriage? So far as a secular state is concerned it means nothing other than two people accepting a prenegotiated contract to live together.
From a religious standpoint any law that forces a religion to accept any civil contract as “marriage” is wrong. That is the government meddling in religion. If some church chooses to recognize “marriage” between two people of the same sex let it. If some other church chooses not to recognize that, let it be. I’d recommend the churches who are picky about this adopt the term “God Sanctioned Marriage” or the term “Marriage Before God.” Leave blank “marriage” for the secular people if they want it.
There are FAR FAR better things to waste your emotional energy on than infantile worries about relationships between two adults who wish to make a sincere commitment to each other.
{^_^}
herself on April 9, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2