Marriage is about children and the next generation of citizens.

Let’s suppose that what you’re saying was true and you aren’t expressing some irrelevant emotion. That would not supercede any American’s civil protections. Also, you have no proof or evidence that gay marriage is harmful to anyone.

Do you believe you have waged a good argument on your behalf? How so?

I ask because I am trying to understand if you really believe what you’ve said or if you are just regurgitating anti-gay rhetoric.

You can live as you please but the only justification for the state to recognize and support marriage is because it usually results in the raising of children.

Basilsbest on November 2, 2009 at 8:20 AM

It usually ends in divorce too…depending on your stats/source.

I wager they offered to pay off her campaign debt in return for her endorsement of the leftist. Pity the RNC or CFG or perhaps the Taxed-Enough-Already folks didn’t get to her first. We need (a conservative organization) to establish a standing offer to pay off reasonable campaign debts given (1) early withdrawal (4 weeks or more before election), (2) run on issues not attack ads on other conservatives, (3) give endorsement to the conservative. It’s very hard for a party to do this (given the party is the elected members, in large part), so we need an alternative that does not have to defer to an incumbant. Would also make RINOs less so.

But…whatever.

There is no legal reason to deny gay men and women equal protection under our laws.

You can live as you please but the only justification for the state to recognize and support marriage is because it usually results in the raising of children.

“Let’s Roll”

There is no legal reason to deny gay men and women equal protection under our laws.

Uh.. what equal protection are they being denied?

Marriage is a privilege not a right. That’s why you have to get a _license_ for it.

Care to tell a child which sex parent it just doesn’t need in his/her childhood?

Republicans aren’t ‘demonizing sex and love’. Adults can do whatever they want. Marriage is about children and the next generation of citizens.

How about we get the gvmnt completely out of the marriage business. None for straights or gays?

I’m so dammed sick of this ‘ I wanna re-define a word to make me feel better about my life’ debate.

I agree. Fred Thompson showed real leadership during this time period. I wouldn’t mind him as fell asleep in the chair.

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

You’re the bullsh*t conservative. Enough with the pious, tongue-lashings from those seeking to limit my freedoms.

Evangelicals have successfully shifted the focus, energy and ire of conservatives from fiscal to metaphysical issues. They have twisted the abortion argument from one of states’ rights to one of Christian doctrine. IMO it’s those same tiny minds that bend border-security and Tea Party protests to fit their nativist, crypto-bigoted mindset.

Marriage should be handled the state. It should be treated as a contract between willing parties and if freely entered into should not be restricted or regulated beyond typical fees and documentation. There is no legal reason to deny gay men and women equal protection under our laws.

You refer to the full recognition of their civil rights as a “cash-grab” for gays. I find it interesting that you seem to think that homosexuals would be exploiting the system by doing what heterosexuals do unencumbered.

What is it about gay men and/or women that would earn them such marginal civility?

Explain to me your interest in whom some random dude marries. What is your obsession? It would seem that a conservative would seek to respect personal sovereignty, personal freedom.

It rings hollow and smacks of hypocrisy-squared to watch Republicans try and demonize sex and love between consenting adults. What’s worse is it rings un-American.

The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year, but fiscally liberal nominees are going to earn them either a primary challenge, a third-party challenge, or a disaffected base spending election day at home.

This.

I agree. Fred Thompson showed real leadership during this time period. I wouldn’t mind him as the chair.

I was thinking the same thing.

You are dreaming in technicolor if Sarah Palin, a female governor from Alaska would ever have been given a chance to become a prominent player in GOP national politics.

I am a Palin supporter but there is no way in God’s green earth that Palin would have got to first base with any future campaign on her own.

technopeasant on November 1, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Sorry but I have to disagree with you on the above statement. Gov. Palin would have made a name for herself considering the current state of affairs on a national level. Sarah as you should know by now can only keep her thought to herself for so long. It is in her nature to speak out when wrongs are happening. In this case O’s election is a case in point. I do not what to get into a long drawn out discussion on this let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that–Coda.

Fact 1:
If Corzine wins it is because conservatives in NJ are waking up to the fact that Christie is a RINO just like Christie Todd Witless.

Fact 2:
If the Dems keep NJ when it should have been a cakewalk then the blame should be laid at the feet of Sean Hannity who was the deciding factor in the RINO Christie defeating an electable Conservative who would have destroyed Corzine.

bill30097 on November 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM

You might as well throw Neil Cavuto under this bus as well. He lives down the street from Christi and has had him on box Fox News and Fox Business repeatedly.

Besides that, I’ve zero interest in hearing anything from him ever again. Not strategy, not principle, nothing. Let him rot on the couch with Botox Nancy and fret about global warming to the interns.

Kensington on November 1, 2009 at 7:50 PM

You said it. The man was so wrong in endorsing her for political reasons rather than endorsing Hoffman on principles.

He and other republican politicians clearly didn’t grasp the major upset of the tea-parties and townhalls. We want change based on principle.

For me to even consider giving him an ounce of respect he needs to publicly apologies to conservative voters. Really!

Not so. For instance, gay marriage – and the resulting benefits for partners – is a huge cash grab.

Basilsbest on November 1, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Bulls#it.

Ampersand on November 1, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Perhaps his will help you understand why you are wrong.

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourspouse.htm

Follow the comments over there. Right now.

You or not, this is so full of win:

By Anonymous @ Sunday, November 01, 2009 8:59 PM
Is that you downthread Allahpundit ? The Eeyore of the Vichy conservative blogosphere here defending Newt?

Hey, pull up a seat between Newt and Nancy. Meghan will have horderves and cocktails out in a Jiffy.

Cigar?