Quote of the day
posted at 9:30 pm on April 18, 2009 by Allahpundit
“There are those who think we can win the White House and Congress back by being ‘more’ conservative. Worse, there are those who think we can win by changing nothing at all about what our party has become. They just want to wait for the other side to be perceived as worse than us. I think we’re seeing a war brewing in the Republican party, but it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past. I believe most people are ready to move on to that future…
I am concerned about the environment. I love to wear black. I think government is best when it stays out of people’s lives and business as much as possible. I love punk rock. I believe in a strong national defense. I have a tattoo. I believe government should always be efficient and accountable. I have lots of gay friends. And yes, I am a Republican.”
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 … 5 6 7
Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Your right. All those years John McCain was “reaching across the aisle”, he was backhanding his own party in the progress. And she is being used to do the same thing. Pitiful.
kingsjester on April 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM
For Senators in the NE and West Coast there are two conservatives, and one of them retiring–Gordon Smith and Judd Gregg. Those states WA, OR, CA, ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, PA, RI, NJ have 167 electoral votes. There are also 3 GOP senators Snowe, Collins, Specter who are social moderates (and thus considered RINO’s or Dems by many).
In 2009 the NJ governor’s seat is up. The likely GOP contender to Corzine is a social moderate who is tough on crime–somewhat in the Rudy style.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I’m sure this has been mentioned before, but she is so out of touch and void that she thinks ANY change in philosophies must be good for everyone. She doesn’t understand hard work, sacrifice, and humility, so she simply skips over those ideals. She doesn’t realize that the conservative principles she is railing against are based on those ideals she doesn’t understand.
Will she EVER have the epiphany that reveals her absolute ignorance to herself? I doubt it. It’s rare for a silver spoon elitist to ever have to suffer the effects of her behavior because there is always someone there to save her before she has to actually try and use her “enlightened” ideals to live in the real world.
csdeven on April 19, 2009 at 11:25 AM
You are jumping to a conclusion. I’m more of a libertarian who wants government pragmatically reduced to its core services. To the extent that some want the government to legislate their values on others, rather than simply practice them privately, they adhere to a philosophy nearer a big government liberal than mine is.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM
McCain got his a$$ handed to him by Obama and lots of you whined he wasn’t running conservative enough.
By all means please please please go full old school conservative for 2012.
It will be an awesome train wreck.
Dave Rywall on April 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Yes, let’s go with daddy’s politics. That’s worked so well for him!
Moron. If her suggestions had worked, she’d be in the First Family right now. They don’t work, so screw off you sow.
John_Locke on April 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Well said!
blatantblue on April 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Why, exactly, would it be a train wreck? Did you think McCain was actually conservative?
John_Locke on April 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM
You most definitely have the right; we all do. But if, for instance, we agreed that abortion is murder and should be criminilized, do we give up that alliance because perhaps we disagree on government’s role in marriage? Why let one disagreement and/or different interpretation shatter every alliance we might otherwise share?
I don’t ask people to change their values to coincide with mine; I believe that the party can be – and has to be – accepting of more than one person’s (or one group’s) beliefs. And if you believe that what you determine to be “right” is and has to be “right” for everyone, that’s fine; but this is a POLITICAL PARTY not a belief system. It has room for more than just one point of view, and joining ranks, IMO, doesn’t lessen or threaten anyone’s personal convictions in anyway.
Least of These on April 19, 2009 at 11:36 AM
You, like others here, think the gay marriage issue is one of a social nature.
If gays get to call their unions “marriage” they must be lumped in with all marrieds because of equal protection. Your insurance rates will rise dramatically because gays life spans are shorter and health costs dramatically more expensive.
THEN you and others will realize this was always about redistribution of our wealth to others whom don’t want to accept responsibility for their own actions. Typical liberal tactics and it needs to be vehemently opposed.
The only social ramification of this is that NAMBLA and the rest of the sickos will use the same exact argument as the gays do to justify their abhorrent behavior and get the laws changed to legitimize it.
csdeven on April 19, 2009 at 11:45 AM
You mean after the four year train wreck under Obama?
Elric66 on April 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Wyznowski on April 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I don’t follow Meghan except for the occasional info that’s posted here at HotAir, so I can’t speak for her. I will say that for me personally, being a member of the Republican party makes a clear statement that I reject the Democratic ideology; and I think the best way to excoriate liberal policies is to get the Dems out of office.
There are ways to support the Republican agenda that don’t involve attacking Democrats.
Least of These on April 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Don’t gay people already have health insurance? Most employers are part of a group plan and some states mandate that insurers cover everyone who applies. I recognize the concern on healthcare costs–a huge macro-economic problem–but the issue seems tangential.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 11:55 AM
My point is just that there is no separation between “church life” and “civic life.”
The source,, the root,, of the values that the “Too Cool to be a Conservative but I got a Tattoo McCain” says she supports,,, come from the the thing she wants to reject! Christianity!
My point,, when in responding to the post “I separate my church life from my civic life” is just simply,,, if your church life has nothing to bring to civic life, your church life is worthless!
It is a lie and a deception to think church and state can be separate! Even if Christians hide in their churches and refuse to be involved in government,,, it will only be a matter of time, as we are seeing now,, it is only a matter of time before that same government that Christians choose to separate themselves from,, will come to them! Abusive, corrupt and tyrannical government will not stop at the church doors!! It will come crashing through those doors and drag you out into the streets! Church doors did not stop Hitler, Mussolini nor Stalin or Pol Pot! church doors will not stop Fascism and communism!!
Separation of church and state is a lie from the enemy! it is a lie meant to shut the church up! To make it ineffective and worthless!
Ok,, I think I’ve caught my breath now!
JellyToast on April 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 19, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Reading through the life of Jesus or the writings of the US founders one could come to the opposite conclusion.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Nobody is using Meggie-moo except for AP who is using her to annoy the rest of us.
clnurnberg on April 19, 2009 at 12:08 PM
No you don’t.
If that were true you would recognize the movement to keep marriage intact for the libertarian sentiment that it is, a First Amendment fundemental.
Those that organize to amend their state constitutions are moving to limit the government’s power from interfering with a practice that existed LONG before the government’s existence. Most, if not all legal language that has previously existed in the government is not a religious mandate (which would be unconstitutional) but a recognition of marriage, as it has been defined since time immemorial for purposes of adjudication.
Those that “want the government to legislate their values on others, rather than simply practice them privately” are the very people you portend to be defending, the homosexual lobby. They are working diligently to legislate from the bench, and within state legislatures to empower the full force of government to impose their will upon the population. You are defending these people, in the name of libertarianism, to legislate their values on others.
You think that libertarian ideals give government the right to completely redefine a religious practice to mean something that it did not before.
That’s a new one to me.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Yes we must listen to Drywall for our political advise.He can be trusted/sarc
McCain was not wanted by conservatives thus they often stayed home. They will come out for someone they believe in. So Drywall take your BS elsewhere. We do not want you.
Jamson64 on April 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Because of the first amendment the government can’t define a church’s sacraments anymore than it can demand that women have an equal opportunity to become priests.
The government recognizes many non-Christian ministers and churches for tax purposes, it doesn’t denigrate Christianity when some new age church applies and qualifies for religious tax and legal status.
Our disagreement may have less per-se to do with gay marriage than the relationship between church and state.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Her intention is to get attention at the expense of others — which is exactly what you are doing. You two deserve each other. Fat + Prat.
Blake on April 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM
You are a kiss ass, which means you are trying to have a “personal relationship” with Allahpundit. Unless you are a famous fat rich rino, your chances of that happening are zero to none. If it is any consolation to you, AP is pro gay marriage.
Blake on April 19, 2009 at 1:13 PM
You know, for a Party that holds the concept of Liberty in such high regard, there sure a bunch of hypocrites on this board.
pcbedamned on April 19, 2009 at 1:13 PM
I’m not sure if this is meant as a rebuttal or a confirmation on where we agree.
I believe our disagreement is your use of libertarian principles as a platform for legal re-definition of marriage.
As in my post above, I make the case for your supposition to be built upon its head the feet pointed toward the sky.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Oops.
Apologies for the poor sentence structure in the last line…
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I’m not contending that libertarianism should be a prescriptive solution to a set or problems, rather that the principles that guide my approach to issues attempts to limit the state and increase liberty, weighing the need for the state to keep things orderly.
My points on gay marriage are:
–Civil unions are fine and the way states should go as long as they legally equal
–It is better for voters to decide than the courts
–Gay marriage is inevitable because of the courts and generational change
–There are issues more relevant to the well-being of families that the GOP should focus on.
–As gay marriage is implemented voters will see little disruption to their daily lives, yet families will still face the significant challenges of raising their kids.
Successful parents should be married, not get divorced, not cheat on each other, not do drugs, stay in good physical shape, stimulate their kids and lead by example. Where possible the government can encourage this, though it is beyond the scope of government to legislate and enforce it.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
LOL. Man, you are one angry sob. I don’t have a “personal relationship” with AP. Yeah, I defend him and I’ve defended Ed when he’s come under attack by poor saps like yourself (that just happens much less often). I’m a loyal person. I defend my friends relentlessly, and I defend people I like relentlessly, even if I’m not “personal” with them. What a bunch of crap you just posted. Feeling down today? Feeling the need to take out your subpar quality of life (emotional, financial, or otherwise) on others?
Funny — you don’t even bother to deconstruct what I posted. Look at how many topics that get just as much attention as this. That was the point of my post. Someone implied that it was sad that something was wrong with the fact McCain posts got so many comments. Nothing is wrong with the picture. There is plenty of other things going on, on HA. That was the point I was making — but why bother paying attention to that? You’re too busy being an aggressive assh*le.
Look at how much other material there is on this website to read. But you don’t look. You drone on and on, like a child. Are you an adult? Do you consider yourself one? I’d hope not. How old are you? Probably a lot older than me. Despite the perverted persuasion of my comments, I tend to think that in the end I’m quite mature. I appreciate this website and the hard work put into it, and at other sites like JW, MM, etc. That is why I defend these sites and their authors in my own small way.
The point is, this website isn’t all Palin/McCain. Folks like you who try to paint that picture are
1) Pathetic
2) Moronic
3) Annoying
4) In need of correction.
Defending good people and good things makes me a kiss ass?
I’d say whining endlessly is worse.
I’m not trying to get anywhere. I’m saying what is right. I know doing the right thing is foreign to you.
Grow up, you foolish sucka
blatantblue on April 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Yea — call me a kiss ass. You an call me whatever you’d like.
Some miserable sap on HA isn’t going to ruin my day.
blatantblue on April 19, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I don’t think so.
Mark 12:17: “And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
There are two commandments here. Give to Caesar and give to God. Caesar has his due,,, but so does God.
We are responsible to give Caesar his due. But only his due! And what is God’s due??? What else am I responsible for??? What is the greatest commandment??
“And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.“ Mark 12:28-31
I will add also, “Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Gen 4:9
My church life is my civic life! They are inseparable! I care about limited government, about abortion, about abusive taxation, about creeping socialism and Fascism,,, not just because I personally dislike those things,, but because I am commanded to love my neighbor and be my brother’s keeper!
JellyToast on April 19, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Ah, I come on HotAir after a wonderful Sunday morning and what do I see…..Porkchop is running her mouth again.
Look, we tried it Porkchop’s way this last presidential campaign. Porkchop’s dad tried to be a democrat by reaching out to minority groups like La Raza, bashing conservative values, and bending over and grabbing his ankles for the democrats like he has been doing for all of these years by ‘reaching across the aisle’, without getting so much as a reacharound. It did not work. Why vote for faux democrat when you can get the real thing, a socialist that is going around and apologizing for the greatness of the United States and licking the boots of our enemies?
Now, the only way we are going to get rid of Porkchop is by Arizonians taking a stand against this Rino, maverick, and voting in a REAL conservative during the primary. Then, and only then, will Porkchop go back to Arizona and be put out the graze with the other pigs.
HornetSting on April 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Individually. It is the couples rates they want to get their hands on. Since gay “marriage” isn’t legal in most states, insurance companiers write two different policies. When they get the title “married” then the rates have to apply equally with hetro marriages. Since gays die sooner and have larger health expenses, they are a greater expense. That expense will be passed onto those of us who are not at the same risk.
Now, can any RATIONAL person claim that is fair? I would expect gays to be the first to defend any person against unfair policies, but I suspect that most of them would toss aside their highly evolved sense of fair play when they get to save a buck.
csdeven on April 19, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but, you didn’t answer the questions before.
What about the republican party is different than the democrat party? What makes them unique? There are plenty of republicans in name who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and some who are socially conservative but fiscally reckless. There are also many democrats who are more republican than some republicans are on various issues. You mentioned “core principles” and I want to know what those core principles are which differentiate us from them.
And, how does one support the republican “agenda” if one 1) cannot articulate it’s tenants, 2) cherry picks the ones they do wish to agree with and tosses the rest and 3) doesn’t draw a CLEAR distinction between the Ds and Rs in both practice and word?
Serious questions.
Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Something also from our founders:
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this – that it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” John Quincy Adams
JellyToast on April 19, 2009 at 2:00 PM
State intervention is needed to love your brother? Jesus didn’t get Rome involved in his mission. Among Jewish leaders he criticized the temple leaders, but not Herod. He said that his kingdom was not of this world.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Not a founder.
Proud Rino on April 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Riiiight. Until NAMBLA and other despicable groups start using the same logic to justify their extra special rights. And don’t try to say the situations are different. These groups are already praying for the day the gays get their extra special rights. They support the militant gay agenda and the gays tacitly support them by not condemning them outright.
csdeven on April 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
You tacitly support the KKK because you’ve never condemned them outright.
Proud Rino on April 19, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Insurance is inherently a socialization of risk. Currently families can pay the same premium regardless of the number of children–that seems to provide a discount to larger families over smaller ones. While smoking can trigger a different rate, physical fitness, diet and alcohol use don’t seem to. So someone is likely subsidizing a neighbor who is working his way to a heart attack by his late 50′s.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
My bad! Son of founder! ;) He was one of those old guys at the beginning when it all started!
JellyToast on April 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
There already seems to be a North American Young Girl Fetish industry, still a lot of websites chronicled the Olsen twin countdown to 18 watch because laws in the U.S. recognize that minors can be abused by sexually motivated adults.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Perhaps not, but Paul did. “…But when the Jews spoke against it, I was compelled to appeal to Caesar,…” Acts 28:19
JellyToast on April 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
You made an analogy that those who organize to limit the Fed’s power to interfere with the definition of marriage as “big government liberal”, and that you, in defending the homosexual lobby’s effort to use government to legislate their values on others, rather than simply practice them privately, take a libertarian approach.
This is just a skirt around the issue statement.
“Civil unions are fine as the way states should go” is a great start until you mangle it with “as long as they are legally equal“.
You set the Fed’s mandate to enforce that faux marriages are legally the same exact thing as marriage marriages.
That makes about as much sense as redefining circumcision to mean “the loss of any body part” so that the circumcised can legally use handicap parking.
Yes, and the preservation and protection of the US Constitution is primary in that role. Forcing states to equate civil unions with marriage is not libertarian. It defies federalism at its core. And the GOP needs to repeat over and over again the importance of federalism as part of its major concerns.
Faux marriage is not equal to real marriage; it is inherently different. Logic demands some consistency of thought adn language. And the courts need to be disabused of playing stupid little games of “let’s play make believe”.
I, personally, would prefer not to use the term “faux marriage”, but it is an accurate representation, rather than the oxymoronic mangling of terminology. This is offensive to some, I understand, and that is part of the reason why, for purposes of precision in language and law, they need to use a term that is precise, that rationally recognizes the separate and distinct “religious” institution that they’ve decided to create.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Actually the founders infused their writings with biblical references, prayers and built the entire framework of our republic on biblical ethic.
And, uh…what part of Jesus are you missing?
Mommypundit on April 19, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Specifically, I was identifying that my approach came from principles that tend towards libertarian rather than big government solutions. I’m not contending that all libertarians should arrive at the same conclusion. However, if one contends the government must become the primary protector of tradition then I think that tends toward something other than libertarianism or even conservatism–but that would have to be demonstrated across a range of issues.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Tool Box.
HornetSting on April 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Some of the US founders questioned the divinity of Jesus or were very critical of the clergy’s interference in politics.
I’m missing the words from Jesus where he applies his teaching to the Roman or Jewish governments.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
So what was her point about, “I like to wear black”?
Sounds kind of racist to me.
anniekc on April 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Black even makes Shamu look a little more slender….maybe it can help Porkchop McCain.
She is the Janeane Garafalo of the RINO movement. Someone needs to tell her to shut it. Maybe Michael Steele will explain to her that we tried it her way with daddy and it failed miserably and she can go home and play on facebook now.
HornetSting on April 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
There is a conflation of libertarianism and federalism in your statement. The two aren’t always in synch.
On a variety of issues, to protect individual Constitutional rights, the federal government (mostly SCOTUS) has applied the bill of rights to the states–overriding state laws and the will of people within the state. I’m a proponent of federalism, though if there is contention between the rights of a state and the rights of an individual the individual should win out if the Constitution supports the right.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Well, they aren’t. That’s my point. But, enough of that.
Besides, we are all going about this the wrong way. I have an idea that serves as an umbrella for us all to unite under.
If the issue really is about taxes and the unequal treatment of one group of people over another group of people, and that this point of contention is dividing the GOP into a fractious discombobulation, then I have the ultimate solution.
It will join us together hand in hand, harmonically singing praise in unison, without anyone having to compromise anything, at all, whatsoever.
Repeal the 16th amendment.
Can I get a hallelujah!!!
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I knew it wouldn’t be long before she was the toast of the HuffPo. Just read about it on another conservative web site, how they now adore her. No, I’m not going or linking. I’ll leave that to her Twitter buddy.
Marcus on April 19, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Hallelujah on that. I’m not going to concede the point on libertarian principles, since I don’t want to get rid of my Friedman or Hayek writings. However, happy to drop the issue.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM
What individual constitutional right re-defines marriage?
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 3:41 PM
If she doesn´t know conservatives who listen to weird music and wear black and have gay friends, she is even more isolated and out-of-it than I thought. For example, having gay friends does not mean you automatically have to approve of the redefinition of marriage – but that´s too fine a point for this “sophisticated” RINO.
el gordo on April 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
That can be argued about, but where the courts find there is one it overrides the voters. So far the state courts have been relying on equal protection and due process. If a state were to have a strong domestic partnership status it would help in court. However, in CA it didn’t.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM
These are false arguments.
And an indication that the Constitution of the US is to be relegated as a second opinion to the courts.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM
The state courts seem like they are on a roll that will continue across several additional states. The question that SCOTUS probably hears in a few years could be a challenge to DOMA on the full faith and credit question.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Thus giving the notion of a Constitutional amendment credibility.
And as I’ve said already, if the issue truly is about taxes and the unequal treatment of one group of people over another group of people, and that this point of contention is dividing the GOP into a fractious discombobulation, and that we should be focused instead on liberty and economy, then we should join forces in making the repeal of the 16th amendment central to our commonness to “expand” the GOP on republican principles.
Otherwise, the real issue is not about taxes and equal treatment. It is about the homosexual lobby’s attempt to impose its view of morality and equality upon another group of people through legislation and judicial fiat. Something that you purport to be completely against.
Do we really need to go down this ridiculous path of redefining “husband” and “wife”, or “man” and “woman”, and “marriage”….[or "circumcision" ;-)], when we can completely turn around the forces of collectivism and big government, and the issues dividing Republicans in one fell swoop by joining our political focus upon the 16th amendment?
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 5:13 PM
I doubt any amendments or repeals are on the horizon. I’d favor replacing the income tax with some type of consumption tax, with a goal to lower the overall amount collected.
As I said above, if gay couples have equal legal rights then arguments over the word marriage seem superfluous.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
…which was the whole goal of the “gay” “marriage” movement in the first place: to destroy (traditional Judeo-Christian) marriage.
From my cold dead hands, as they say!
I’m not letting traditional marriage and the family be destroyed and made into a joke and a travesty while I have breath!
Jenfidel on April 19, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Jenfidel on April 19, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Present the argument in a rational fashion, and they just prove that there is not interest in “expanding” the GOP.
It is a practice in the art of deception. They have only one goal.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 5:44 PM
And ask what “rights” they are trying to defend and they start their whole irrational circular argument all over again.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 5:46 PM
And this is done by allowing divorce for the 95% of the population that is straight but attempting to balance that by preventing 5% of the population from marrying at all?
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Exhibit ‘A’:
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Currently the question of gay marriage is reaching a tipping point where states with a majority of the population will recognize it. Expanding the GOP can be done by articulating a structure of government that appeals to voters with a variety of personal spiritual beliefs and lifestyles.
The questions the GOP should address are about operating a government service, not ratifying private belief.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 5:59 PM
You’ve presented an exhibit without an argument. Aside from word games about “marry” is there a point you are prepared to defend?
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 6:01 PM
And I’ve offered the way to do that.
But this is not your aim.
You prefer legislating morality and divisiveness over an umbrella unification regime.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 6:17 PM
You spoke to the tax issue. Would you be OK with the IRS recognizing gay unions?
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 6:21 PM
If they want to lobby Congress for special tax considerations, I don’t see why that is any different than all the rest of the thousands of special interests forced to do business under the extortion clause in the Constitution.
Yes, why not?
Why not lobby for total income tax exemption?
Go for it.
Seems to me a lonely row to hoe when you could use the gigantic force of a unified party pursuing equal tax liability for all Americans by repealing the 16th amendment. Think of the economic and social liberty that would unleash, while simultaneously crushing the Left’s goal of destroying the greatest nation in the history of the world.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 6:34 PM
-
Too funny.
-
RalphyBoy on April 19, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Sign me up for a financial contribution to the cause and I’ll lobby my congressman, senators and state reps.
In the meantime w/o equal tax treatment the courts are more likely to continue to weigh in on the side of gay marriage.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Well, the courts are an ass, then.
But, apparently you aren;
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Oops…..
Well, the courts are an ass, then.
But, apparently you aren’t interested in calling them out, so long as it serves your personal interests.
And all this time I thought you guys were trying to expand the GOP.
I’m so gullible.
Saltysam on April 19, 2009 at 7:23 PM
The issue doesn’t serve a personal interest much.
I’m interested in seeing the GOP win elections in the North East and compete better for younger and urban voters. Usually, GOP politicians in the North East need to back off some of the social conservative positions to win elections.
dedalus on April 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Somebody, ANYBODY, throw a twinkie in front of a bus when you see her on the street….PLEASE!
BillaryMcBush on April 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Her only qualification is that Her mother didn’t have an abortion.
BillaryMcBush on April 19, 2009 at 8:24 PM
And I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I don’t know how to answer your question. The party Platform gives a clear, detailed statement on a vast array of policy positions. Are you asking me to list specifically what I agree with? Ok… abortion, national security, homeland security, strength of military, limiting social programs, reducing taxes and federal spending, our position in the UN and other groups, support of Isreal, treatment of enemy nations, “rights” of enemy combatants, the appointment of Constitutionalist Supreme Court judges, protecting the Census, increased drilling for domestic oil, making health insurance portable through competition, not funding human embryonic stem cell research… I can go on if you need me to.
So suppose you and I agree on all of the issues I just listed (and we quite possibly do, as well as many more). Does that fact that we probably disagree on gay marriage make me unfit, in your mind, to be a Republican? Am I “cherry picking” and, therefore, just another RINO you want to leave the party? And if you get your wish, what then? How would such a turn of events effect the RNC and the nation?
Least of These on April 19, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Moral relativity moron. So guys jerking off to the Olsen twins is the same as adult males chasing little boys and people marrying their pets.
You liberals are certainly psychologically damaged.
csdeven on April 20, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Nope. Divorce doesn’t factor into it.
Divorce is for those marriages that fail and for every marriage that fails, there are many more that succeed.
That is why the traditional marriage and family are so valuable and must be preserved.
The 3% of the population that is homosexual (I don’t think it’s as high as 5%) isn’t being prevented from marrying.
Homosexuals can marry.
They just aren’t allowed to marry someone of the same sex and have it be legally recognized.
(They can even be “married” in private and have always had the freedom to do so–I know a lesbian who “married” another lesbian 30 YEARS AGO.)
It’s not a marriage and never will be a marriage.
There is no “right” to marry.
Nor should they have the right to be taxed like a married couple, who receive preferential tax treatment to help in the raising of their natural children.
Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM
No but adult males taking trips to Thailand for sex with under-age girls would be, or a man molesting his adolescent step-daughter.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Are you purposely being obtuse? The point is that once the gays get to be “married”, the flood gates to all those deviant behaviors open up and the push for normalization goes in to overdrive.
But the militant gays do not care what the effects will be on society as long as they get their extra special rights. The evidence of this is their current stances toward said deviant behaviors. They practice tacit approval by saying nothing.
csdeven on April 20, 2009 at 9:18 AM
Your concern about deviant behavior is more related to the overturning of anti-sodomy laws. If it could be demonstrated how that has led to a recent increase in the public acceptance of pedaphilia or beastiality (especially gay bestiality) maybe it would show a compelling state interest in the matter.
Gays evidently are having plenty of sex. What is being fought is recognizing their commitment to a monogamous relationship. Does marriage tend to lead to a net increase in sexual perversity?
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Some thoughts on your post:
1.) The Supreme Court does recognize a fundamental right to straight marriage.
2.) The gay population may be 3% or 5% I doubt there are accurate numbers, but I’m happy to use your figure.
3.) Divorce is for people who are unable to manage their commitment. Gay marriage is for people unable to have a physically intimate life with the opposite sex. Christian tradition opposes both, and Jesus identified the first as a sin.
4.) If a gay couple is raising children, it is difficult to argue that those children deserve less of a benefit than the children of a straight couple.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Just because homosexuals are pushing for the “right” to marry each other doesn’t presume a commitment to monogamy; they want to be able to “marry” just to say they can (not that they will), but in the states that have made that possible, not that many homosexual couples have utilized the privilege once granted.
Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM
I live in a state with civil unions and gay marriage already ordered by the state court, soon to be implemented. It hasn’t affected my marriage and I doubt it will regardless of what the legislature does, or how many gays eventually marry.
There are already different types of marriage–they vary based on what church one goes to, how a couple perceives the roles of husband and wife, and the strength of commitment. The state could recognize “covenant marriages”. I’d be OK with that but whatever the state does I still need to focus on being a good husband and tending to the kids, regardless of whether the other couples on the block are married, divorced, gay, or shacking up. The most relevant to me is that the households are stable.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Homosexual couples haven’t shown that they are stable; in fact, they’ve proven to be quite the contrary.
This is in addition to the fact that male homosexuals pose a considerable public health risk which same sex “marriage” doesn’t promise to mitigate.
Before we destroy the institution of traditional marriage, a paradigm that has existed for thousands of years, homosexuals must prove that the benefits and rewards of changing marriage laws to benefit them are in the public good or general welfare to do so and this they cannot and have not done.
Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 11:14 AM
???
“Gay” “marriage” isn’t for anybody.
There is no such thing.
Why drag religion and the Lord into it?
Homosexual behavior is perverse, unnatural and deviant, even without the religious prohibitions.
“Gay” couples shouldn’t be raising children, if it can be helped–they’re not stable enough psychologically and children can only be profoundly confused in their sexual and personal identity by 2 “mommies” or 2 “daddies.”
All children deserve a happy, stable home where there is a loving mother and a loving father and preferably, their biological parents.
Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM
On each of your replies by number:
1.) “Loving v Virginia”, “Zabloki v Redhail”, “Turner v Safley” are SCOTUS rulings that all address marriage as some level of fundamental right and limit the state’s ability to restrict it.
2.) There is gay marriage in 4 states, while NY recognizes gay marriages from other states. Churches and individuals are free to not recognize those marriages.
3.) My contention is that religion should be outside of the state criteria. However, others cite Jude-Christian teaching as a barrier to gay marriage.
4.) Gay people already have a constitutional right to have children. The law can choose to not recognize their family, but there will still be kids.
dedalus on April 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Did anyone notice how “Valley Girl” this naive twit sounded. I’m almost sure that if you looked up “clueless” in the dictionary you would find a picture of this moron next to the definition.
TrickyDick on April 20, 2009 at 1:48 PM
the answer to McCain and other RINOs is IGNORE them, they do not vote with the GOP 95% of the time and ONLY are Republicans to drive a wedge issue into the heart of the GOP as the Democrat’s surrogate.
mathewsjw on April 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
All of these cases deal with normal couples, i.e. a man and a woman getting married, because this is what is considered marriage.
They call it “gay” “marriage,” but that doesn’t make it marriage–it’s a travesty thereof.
You don’t have to belong to a church to believe that either.
Homosexuality is unnatural, belief systems aside.
While I am a Christian and hold such teachings to be truths, same sex “marriage” is against nature and also a public health risk when it comes to male homosexuals–this isn’t based on religious beliefs.
Not only do they not have a “constitutional right” to have children, but it is biologically (you might say constitutionally) impossible for 2 people of the same sex to produce a child.
The main purpose of marriage is to provide a stable, loving environment in which the natural children produced by that union can be raised.
It’s not primarily about the sexual congress, but same sex “marriage” would be and is only about the sex.
Jenfidel on April 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7