Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on April 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
“I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not…
As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.”
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 … 6 Next »
Again with the “rights” argument.
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM
just what the repub party needs…to do the one thing that will cost them the american people.. even hussein obama has to pretend to be against gay marriage since he knows where the public is.
Yeah, lets move to the left of Obama….great idea.
The Wall on April 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM
A response, qft.
Spirit of 1776 on April 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM
just what the repub party needs…to do the one thing that will cost them the american people.. even hussein obama has to pretend to be against gay marriage since he knows where the public is.
Yeah, lets move to the left of Obama….great idea.
The Wall on April 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM
just what the repub party needs…to do the one thing that will cost them the american people.. even hussein obama has to pretend to be against gay marriage since he knows where the public is.
Yeah, lets move to the left of Obama….great idea.
The Wall on April 17, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Because this guy’s been such a keen political operator in the past…id surely trust his judgement this time around.
That said, the insistence that the federal government was prescribed the right to look after social mores is a major bone of contention i have with the republican party. The states are given expressed right to look after the morals of the individual. The federal government is to be as blind as possible to the social mores of the people. its about the law. its about freedom to speak and to be treated equally by the law. simple.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:04 PM
So it’s the “rights” argument again.
Major yawner.
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:04 PM
News flash Mr. Schmidt, we lost the last election with your middle of the road politics. Go quietly into the good night and save your opinions for the next fool who hires you to run a campaign.
msmveritas on April 17, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Another gay marriage thread.
Tacitus_SGL on April 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Whoah….
I’m sorry for the semi-double post.
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Marriage isn`t a right, gay or straight.
ThePrez on April 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Third Party needed like never before if this guy gets his wish.
maladapted on April 17, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Which of course, in fact, that is already the case.
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:07 PM
It is somewhat difficult to even take the argument that the right (no disrespect, ernesto) will pigeon-hole itself as a religious party with a diminishing base, when whenever social issues come up on the ballot, they are winners, even in blue states.
Spirit of 1776 on April 17, 2009 at 10:08 PM
So why the photo of a young Lex Luthor on the front page there?
Asher on April 17, 2009 at 10:08 PM
This is bound to get some heated comments…
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Thus ensuring an Obama landslide in 2012. No thank you. The country cannot afford it (quite literally).
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Party most likely to support gay marriage: Democrats
Party most likely to condemn countries that execute gays: Republicans.
You decide what’s important.
Disturb the Universe on April 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM
This has a scent of the looming McCain-Feingold II
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM
if the federal government has the power to identify 2 separate individuals as one tax paying entity, to set an arbitrary restriction (their gender) doesn’t seem blind to me.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM
If I remember correctly, didn’t Bush run on anti-gay marriage in 2004, and he won?
deidre on April 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM
+1
Tacitus_SGL on April 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Meghan McCain and Steve Schmidt are trying take over the party. It’s been an ongoing campaign between them crafted up after the election ended. This is why Meghan refuses to talk about Palin. She wants to convey a rejection of her politics and wants to refuse acknowledging her since it would “discredit” her with the group she is trying to court.
TimeTraveler on April 17, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Yeah, listen to the guy to run the worst campaign in American history. Sounds like a great idea!
therightwinger on April 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM
snooze.
HornetSting on April 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I don’t oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.
Marriage is between a man and woman … period. By definition – that is what marriage is.
Now … when I go watch NASCAR … I guess I can “pretend” I’m watching Indy Car … but I’m really not. NASCAR is NASCAR and Indy Car is Indy Car. There’s a difference and, asking me to call “NASCAR” “Indy Car” is just plain silly … and quite frankly – gay (no pun intended).
And besides – maybe someone should tell Obama that he’s turning the Democrats into a religious party – after all – he’s opposed to gay marriage also.
This is just another … “Hey look, let’s be stupid like the Democrats and we’ll pick up five votes here!”
Be for real. I’m willing to listen to gays and see what compromise we can reach – like civil unions – but gays don’t get to redefine marriage. Sorry.
HondaV65 on April 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM
‘Way to Fail’ by the McCain Campaign.
HornetSting on April 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Most religious conservative I know doesn’t hate me for being gay. They just don’t want to discuss it or have it brought up all the time. Hell, people like Schmidt are more obsessed with teh gays than I am! It’s bizarre!
SouthernGent on April 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM
I have a great feeling about this thread. This is the one that’s going to settle this debate once and for all.
SnarkVader on April 17, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Hm. You sound like a bitter man, clinging to language.
Spirit of 1776 on April 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Hey look, it’s SnarkVader! Still not banned…imagine that.
PBoilermaker on April 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Good comment. I won’t forget that one.
I lol’d.
Spirit of 1776 on April 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM
How many Sarah Palin threads have we had?… Nope, nothing got settled…
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Sure it is, at least straight marriage is.
dedalus on April 17, 2009 at 10:15 PM
sure marriage has been known to be a union of a man and a woman, but that doesn’t mean that ought to be the case. while surely one could make the argument that pre-20th century there simply was no other way to get by in this world. but lets not act as if supposed purpose isn’t at least somehow changed by the advent of adoption services and women in the workplace and IV fertilization. its just not necessary to keep people alive any longer.
thats not to say it offers nothing. just that i dont see how marriage simply being known as between a man and a woman means anything these days. outside of a denominational religious point of view, which is never justification for policy.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:15 PM
What is blind about it is that any gay person can get married. What is also blind, is that as a straight male, I cannot marry the same people that another gay male cannot. The exact number is equal in both cases. As it already is, we are treated equal.
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:15 PM
For…?
SnarkVader on April 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I don’t get what’s all the fuss about McCain and Palin had the same positions on this issue like Obama who won the election.
TimeTraveler on April 17, 2009 at 10:16 PM
It’s going to be a sad day when the Republicans betray the readers of the blog again. It’s sad because I don’t like to see peoples faith taken for granted, and also because of the arrogance they display because they think you have nowhere else to go.
The Republican party is going to betray all you hold sacred.
True_King on April 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM
the gender rule is still arbitrary though. how is equal protection under the law (not rights mind you, the whole body of federal law) being served by insisting that only a pairing of opposite sexes can be viewed as 1 taxpaying entity?
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:17 PM
This is too funny click on the J’accuse!!! when you get to the post. So are the comments, I do so enjoy villainous company.
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2009/04/as_i_suspected.html
Dr Evil on April 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM
I’m sorry……..
……….. what’s the difference in law, rights, and benefits between a “Civil Union” between Homosexuals, and a “Marriage” between a Man and a Woman?
Nothing…………,
………. so stop waisting our time and trying to undermine what is left of our civilized society.
What’s next…………
…………. the Homosexuals taking over “Tea Bagging“?
Seven Percent Solution on April 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Isn’t a political party by its very nature sectarian?
Lehosh on April 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Yes, because the media and the last couple generations have migrated that way, and attempted to legitimize it. Most do believe it, but that doesn’t make them right. Again, we don’t need a religious argument, because “being gay” is simply illogical.
RightWinged on April 17, 2009 at 10:19 PM
I would argue that Republicans could get more gay votes if they simply decided to let states decide this issue. Gays tend to be fiscally conservative.
But I don’t want the Republicans pandering to a specific demographic either.
doug1981 on April 17, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Again: gay people are not banned from marrying one another. There isn’t a state in the union that forbids gay people from marrying one another.
The question is whether states should recognize for legal purposes same sex marriage. Not recognizing marriage – gay or straight – is not banning that marriage.
The question of the legal recognition of marriage is a state issue. The 10th Amendment gives the states and the people of those states the power to deal with this matter.
Why Mr. Schmidt is talking about this issue on the national level is a mystery to me.
SteveMG on April 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM
People who are against gay marriage should be petitioning the IRS to changes the tax laws, making them gender neutral for civil unions. Establish nationwide civil unions with a conscience clause that protects churches from being sued. Problem solved. I take cash or check.
SnarkVader on April 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Agreed, but who are these fiscally conservative gays? They are out there, but I think many a “proud-n-out” gay prefers LARGE GOV’T.
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:23 PM
From a national party standpoint the federalist approach would have some appeal. State politicians could play to their voter base and national politicians could speak to economic and national security shortcomings of the Dems.
dedalus on April 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
the state issue’s a red herring.
from a gay rights perspective, the only logical claim one can make in terms of ‘equal protection under the law’ is that a gay couple should be able to file a joint tax return, and sign any related federal contracts. the states have a constitutional argument to look after the morals of their population. the federal government does not.
thats the compromise. thats constitutional.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:24 PM
In some places gay couples with no kids are high net worth and would rather keep their money than see it spent on government services they won’t use.
dedalus on April 17, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Meghan McLame and Steve Schmidt are playing up to the liberal media’s views on conservatives and republicans: that we hate gay people.
On the contrary, we welcome ALL people who love liberty, freedom, limited government, and low taxes. However, to pander to groups just to win their votes is a losing strategy. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Civil unions is acceptable. Why the need to pander?
jencab on April 17, 2009 at 10:26 PM
I disagree. It is an essential, explicit component of the definition.
Do we really want to add the ‘equal protection’ clause and anything with taxes in the same context?
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Btw, I’m in favor of gay marriage….
But this is hardly an issue that will return the Republicans to electoral dominance….
Competence, fiscal conservativism, a strong national defense, and an emphasis on economic liberty will…A lot more people are right than left in this country, IMO…it just takes a good candidate and the right message.
therightwinger on April 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
I think more & more that the most palatable solution for everyone is to take marriage away from the state; make it a religious designation that you could follow up with a legal, contractual agreement if you so choose.
Security Mom on April 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
It is government striking down a religous doctrine not the other way around. Government should stay out of religous issues!
petunia on April 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
That may turn out to be the only way.
petunia on April 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Run that by me again ’cause it went right over my head.
I’m not being sarcastic; I missed your point.
SteveMG on April 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Well this is a hell of a way to end the work week…..Hugo has wine and cheese with Barry, Ambassador Rice still can’t get the U.N. to even say “bad-boy” to lil’Kim, 300,000 Americans give the revenuers the finger, Texas raises the Bonnie Blue Flag, and Israel pulls off a massive refueling exercise for it’s air force in the middle of the med (for what only and idiot wouldn’t know), and we sit bashing each other over wedding rings, hurt feelings, and DNA vs imprinting.
Limerick on April 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
I don’t see how. At least not in the legal sense.
Insofar as they’re both functions of federal law yes.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:28 PM
Yes, in some places. But there are many gays that would prefer the government to provide healthcare, regulate all aspects of adoption (in favor of them…), pass “hate crime” bills, &c…
I’m not disagreeing with your ideas; however, I don’t think the GOP is going to necessarily get tons of votes from the gays. That’s not to say the GOP shouldn’t treat all voters equally, just that I cringe at the idea of the GOP pandering to the gay groups.
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Well,the Liberal Party does enjoy the gay vote,
and support,then,they throw the gays under da bus!!
But,the angle,or slant,seems to be of painting the
Rerpublican Party as Religious Party!
Civil Unions seem okay,but not marriage!
Its a flamethrower issue,all i know is,I think
the Republican Party would respect gays,a lot
more than the Liberals,who are just useing and
abuseing them for the votes!!
canopfor on April 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM
It’s not enough for them they already had all those rights in Calfornia… but they insisted on the term “marriage” and nothing else would satisfy them.
petunia on April 17, 2009 at 10:30 PM
F you Mr Schmitt.
More PC based bull.
Square pegs don’t fit in round holes in nature. Not even if YOU say they should.
JoeAvg on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
the term marriage and its implications at the state level are off the table in favor of returning constitutionally mandated equal protection under the law to the process of collecting federal tax rebates, as well as any other federal contracts related to ‘marriage’.
thats the only logical way i can figure this gets solved. anything else would be outside the realm of whats constitutionally mandated.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Don’t change a thing and run Palin.
getalife on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
And this I think many conservatives could accept if not love.
Progressives not so much. They wouldn’t know what to do.
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Yes, but Allah brought punch and pie.
SnarkVader on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
I read in one of the linked articles today that the McCain ticket got 30% of the gay vote in 2008. It struck me as high, but it shows that there are probably more votes to be had.
dedalus on April 17, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Believe me, I am not talking about the San Fran people….
But it should be known that 26% of gays voted McCain/Palin.
doug1981 on April 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM
We were thinking of running Arianna’s bisexual, “Democratic” uber-liberal husband…
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:32 PM
And I’m only suggesting we drop our support of FMA, not endorse or promote gay marriage.
doug1981 on April 17, 2009 at 10:33 PM
they still couldn’t file taxes jointly, and they still had issues related to inheritance and other tax related sh*t that’s involved with creating a tax paying unit.
federal law doesn’t get to play games like that. if it did then i suppose you’d all be ok with affirmative action.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:33 PM
This I’m not surprised by. Let’s hope they weren’t just voting for Mac…
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Oh, noes!
You might need a new dictionary! The horror…
JetBoy on April 17, 2009 at 10:33 PM
He may have just told her he was gay so she’d leave him alone with her incessant yapping.
dedalus on April 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM
“I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality.”
Actually, I used to believe this too. Then I looked at the evidence available and realized there is no basis for this belief in fact.
In reality, those who suffer from a homosexual disposition have a known psychological pathology. Also, there is absolutely no evidence that this trait is inborn or genetic.
Think about it: how could the trait be genetic if homosexuals cannot reproduce?
If the statement regarding the genetic disposition towards homosexuality is true, then by accepting and allowing gays to “marry” we are actually insuring they die out by not allowing them to pass on genetic traits through normal heterosexual unions concocted out of a need to fit in with social norms.
In other words, gay “marriage” would make homosexuality extinct.
If the statement regarding the genetic disposition is not true, then what we are dealing with is a psychological issue which involves the exercise of free will.
But in the end, the argument is not relevant because homosexuals themselves do not believe in the “inborn” or “genetic” origin of their behavior and often relate stories of “turning” certain objects of affection much like a vampire “turns” his victims.
This whole “born gay” argument is a simple ruse to get legal recognition.
StubbleSpark on April 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Even better.
That’s the ticket.
getalife on April 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM
HUH?
apco on April 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Do you believe that the government should be allowed to redefine something that has predominantly been a religious or at “worst” cultural institution? Why not let the states decide?
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Again, why empower the government by giving them the power to define social institutions for you? By taking the position that the government should define what “marriage” is, you are ceding your right to think for yourself and to make decisions according to your own beliefs and the beliefs of your religious communities.
The government doesn’t need to be recognizing any marriages, gay or straight; any mutually consenting adults, gay or straight, should be free to enter into any contracts that they see fit without interference of the government, and they should be able to attach whatever significance to it that they wish.
DaveS on April 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Mom is right.
Get the government out of my wallet, my kid’s education/indoctination and my bedroom. (Well, actually, it would be the guys next door’s bedroom.)
(Clarification for Mrs. Strozek if she reads this post..)
Bruno Strozek on April 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Blather.
It’s not about religion or prejudice.
Marriage has been the union of a man and a woman to create a family throughout history, and it has been a tenet of western civilization for millenia.
You want have a sexual relationship with a fire hydrant? Hey, go for it. I couldn’t care less. Get a lawyer and sign a love contract. But don’t pretend to me that it’s marriage, and don’t demand the same rights as the institution that is the foundation of our culture.
And don’t flaunt your perversities and pretend they are normal in front of my kids either.
notagool on April 17, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Hahaha
But remember, she campaigned for him… on “smaller gov’t”
HAHA
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Steve Schmidt? Why would anyone take someone who ran the worst campaign in 50 years seriously? Face the facts people – Schmidt is a loser and trying to find a scapegoat for his own miserable failure.
pearson on April 17, 2009 at 10:36 PM
You are my kind of politico
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM
because the government decided to tax peoples income at rates that differ for “married” couples and dependents. its federal law that does not equally protect those who choose to file jointly with whomever else could lawfully enter upon a marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex.
sounds like the only legal argument. anything else is needlessly cultural.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I’m all for states rights on most issues, but this one cannot be left for individual states to decide…since if a gay couple marries in a “gay marriage” state, and moves to a “non-gay marriage state”, their marriage ceases to be recognized. It’s gotta be on the federal level.
JetBoy on April 17, 2009 at 10:38 PM
You need to take a class on biology or genetics or something.
DaveS on April 17, 2009 at 10:38 PM
The etymology is religious in origin. Legislatively changing a major tenet (especially on the federal level) of most religions would be quite a no-no Constitutionally.
Then maybe you can imagine the slppery slope. Flat tax (of which I support) for starters?
anuts on April 17, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Yup. Don’t disagree. The gov’t should change the tax code.
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:39 PM
Is a definition of a word…”marriage”…really that important?
Cripes…all I see these days are pre-nups, 50% divorce rates, cheating spouses.
Honestly, you can HAVE that lousy “marriage” term. It’s jinxed.
JetBoy on April 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
It seems more reasonable to support marriages that may produce children than “marriages” that cannot. But from the standpoint of the same end, it also seems more reasonable to deplore the men and women who don’t marry and have several children, rather than those whose love can never lead them to do so.
Kralizec on April 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
I don’t really care a whole lot about this issue and I don’t base any argument on my religion…but since when was it some sort of right for gays to marry? Exactly when did this happen?
Terrye on April 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM
My point would be that marriage should not be “defined” by the government. Give them a partnership contract or something like this… (this doesn’t just apply to gay people either).
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM
I oppose gay marriage, as marriage is a cultural definition. Gov’t has power to do many things, but it can’t change the dictionary.
As someone with libertarian leanings I have no objections to gays having the same rights as married couples, as I think all individuals possess those rights.
That doesn’t mean that Schmidt isn’t an idiot. The argument that says “they must be accepted because they were born that way” is the most specious argument ever. There are lots of innate personality traits, homosexuality, gregariousness, obnoxiousness, addiction, etc. Are we going to validate all of them?! Plus what about the gay person born Catholic? What if his religion (heaven forbid) means MORE to him than his sexuality? It’s also a decidedly anti-Christian view of causality. Are the poor poor because God wanted them that way? How about the disabled? No sane person would argue that. Yet why is God’s will not apparent there but so readily manifest in someone’s sexual orientation?
Saying that sexual orientation or any innate trait overrules all other considerations is the same saying that free will and individual agency are an illusion and we are totally subject to the whims of nature.
tlclark on April 17, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Hmm, I’m not sure what you’re saying. What are “federal contracts related to marriage?” You mean benefits? Tax writeoffs for those filing a joint return?
Anyway, it’s not a term, it’s a legal definition used by states for legal purposes. In many states, it’s defined in their constitutions.
Whether the extension of that legal recognition only to opposite sex couples is a violation of the equal protection clause (of either states or the US Constitution) is being determined.
Even if it does violate the equal protection clause, the question is whether the state has a legitimate interest in extending the recognition only to opposite sex couples.
Right now, this issue is being handled almost exclusively in state courts and legislatures.
SteveMG on April 17, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Hey, at least her ideas wouldn’t discriminate against anyone or force organizations to recognize unions they don’t want to.
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Absolutely. While I will sometimes come to the conclusion that public sector money does, indeed have a purpose outside of national defense (urban policy comes to mind)…ive also realized that the federal government is poor at doing everything it was told not to do by the constitution. its as ironic as it is utterly maddening.
but irony is the new sincerity, so maybe my generation (im 23) will finally figure this out.
ernesto on April 17, 2009 at 10:43 PM
I think our generation has a while… a tad bit more maturity is needed…
Upstater85 on April 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 6 Next »