Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on August 31, 2010 by Allahpundit

“There is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage,” former McCain campaign manager and fellow same-sex marriage fundraiser Steve Schmidt told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. “Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life…

As one prominent Republican who supports gay rights put it:

“I think there is a growing mass of people in Republican politics who are fundamentally sick and tired about being lectured to about morality and how to live your life by a bunch of people who have been married three or four times and are more likely to be seen outside a brothel on a Thursday night than being at home with their kids… There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality. People have reached a critical mass with this.”

***


Breaking on Hot Air

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

And really? You’re going to saddle me with Ted fu*king Haggard, who is a gay minister with a drug problem?

Jaibones on September 1, 2010 at 9:19 AM

And the founders purposely separated religion and state.

No, they didn’t.
See my earlier post on this.
There is no language in any of our Founding Documents requiring that Church and State be “separated.”

If the citizens decide it is the time to allow gay marriage (through the constitutional process not by judicial fiat) you should have no objection.

This is something that 7 million Californian voters will be astonished to see confirmed, but wait…they voted against same sex marriage and were overruled by judicial fiat.

Jenfidel on September 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Darn it, those Judeo-Christian values are really getting in the way of freedom again. Too bad the founders didn’t put a ban on gay marriage in the Constitution, then we could argue about marrying animals. It’s my right.

Kissmygrits on September 1, 2010 at 9:24 AM

If the citizens decide it is the time to allow gay marriage (through the constitutional process not by judicial fiat) you should have no objection.

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 8:28 AM

I totally agree. And this is the future, as I see it. Christian churches who follow the Bible will separate the centuries-old concept of religious marriage from the secular government’s legal concept as it evolves.

This is the spirit behind “civil unions” which seem to have much greater support among many conservatives who are looking for middle ground on the issue. If the people decide that this is appropriate — and I have no doubt that they will, eventually — then we voluntarily separate the religious marriage from the government accommodation to all citizens.

Jaibones on September 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Newt, Rush, Mark Sanford, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard – basically anybody who’s ever advocated for a return to (or at least acknowledgment of) conservative social principles and who has not, shall we say, walked the walk.

Good Lt on September 1, 2010 at 9:13 AM

This is a very weak excuse for an argument.
Just because several conservative public figures have failed at their marriages doesn’t invalidate the overall success, worthiness and value of the institution of traditional marriage in the least.

Jenfidel on September 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM

No, and likewise, believing fervently in the existence of the supernatural doesn’t make the supernatural exist.
Good Lt on September 1, 2010 at 9:02 AM

That’s completely different from what you said earlier. I guess you are conceeding the absurdity of the prior statement. God’s existance is objectively true despite how fervently man believes or disbelieves this to be the case. While believing in a falsehood doesn’t make it true, Disbelieving in truth doesn’t make it false.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:27 AM

This is the spirit behind “civil unions” which seem to have much greater support among many conservatives who are looking for middle ground on the issue. If the people decide that this is appropriate — and I have no doubt that they will, eventually — then we voluntarily separate the religious marriage from the government accommodation to all citizens.

Jaibones on September 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM

31 states have voted in referenda to oppose same sex marriage.
And there are a good deal of us (conservatives) who are not looking for “middle ground” on this issue.

Jenfidel on September 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM

There is no language in any of our Founding Documents requiring that Church and State be “separated.”

Jenfidel on September 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Nor is there any language linking church and state. Same result – separation.

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Jaibones on September 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Well said.

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Nor is there any language linking church and state. Same result – separation.
Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM

That doesn’t follow logically or legally. The 10th Amendment is clear that if the constitution is silent on the matter then the issue is left purely to the states. Since all states operate in a representitive democratic capacity the the issue is left to the will of the people of the individual state.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

That doesn’t follow logically or legally. The 10th Amendment is clear that if the constitution is silent on the matter then the issue is left purely to the states. Since all states operate in a representitive democratic capacity the the issue is left to the will of the people of the individual state.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

The First Amendment was incorporated to apply to the states, and has required that the government stay out of the religion business. Legislators are free to apply their religious values to the laws they write.

dedalus on September 1, 2010 at 9:39 AM

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

So the tenth amendment establishes a required link between the state and religion? Must be in the invisible ink.

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

31 states have voted in referenda to oppose same sex marriage.
And there are a good deal of us (conservatives) who are not looking for “middle ground” on this issue.

Jenfidel on September 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM

Understood on both points. I have a sort of historical view of Christianity — call it a siege mentality — and I am perfectly willing to be a Christian outside of the confines of government. I don’t agree with the notion that there is a “separation of church and state” in America, but if there must be, so be it. No skin off my back.

Jaibones on September 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM

So the tenth amendment establishes a required link between the state and religion? Must be in the invisible ink.
Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

No, the 10th Amendment says it is matter for the States to decide. What’s in invisible ink is “separation of church and state” words that appear nowhere in the constitution. It was a phase coined by someone who had nothing to do with the drafting of the bill or rights.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:27 AM

To feel able to make such a statement you must have some pretty solid evidence with which to back it up.

Care to share even one piece of this evidence with us?

OldEnglish on September 1, 2010 at 9:53 AM

“Care to share even one piece of this evidence with us?”

Evidence of what? I have made several posts on this thread and I don’t know to which you are referring.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:59 AM

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Sorry, the one at 9:27, where you state that God’s existence is objectively true.

OldEnglish on September 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM

You secular humanists will have your hellish utopia soon enough. You are going to love it.

Inanemergencydial on September 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM

“Sorry, the one at 9:27, where you state that God’s existence is objectively true.”

Well, this board is not the place to make arguenmts that fill books. I would say my statement is based on the cosmological, ontological, teleological, transcendent, presuppositional and moral proofs of God. I would also add the eyewitness testimony contained in scripture. The cumulative evidence presented by this is overwhelming evidence of the objective reality of the God of the Bible.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Ah, I see. Back to the Bible again – written by unknown humans, with no accompanying evidence.

All the physical evidence works just fine for a natural event.

Until we have actual, verifiable, evidence, the existence of God must remain subject to belief.

OldEnglish on September 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Understood on both points. I have a sort of historical view of Christianity — call it a siege mentality — and I am perfectly willing to be a Christian outside of the confines of government. I don’t agree with the notion that there is a “separation of church and state” in America, but if there must be, so be it. No skin off my back.

Jaibones on September 1, 2010 at 9:42 AM

That’s an interesting turn of phrase to be used in this context. No skin off my back…Don’t kid yourself. You have a historical view. What has always happened to Christians when they are ‘outside the confines of government’? We all know that if this happens, we will be forced to choose between the laws of nature and of Nature’s God and perverted man’s newly minted false law. It has already happened to a young photographer in New Mexico, and SSM isn’t even a law yet. The ‘skin off her back’ was only $6000 for refusing to participate in a homosexual ‘union’ ceremony based on her religious beliefs. See, the persecution has already begun. It will get much much worse.

pannw on September 1, 2010 at 11:08 AM

There is a fundamental indecency to the vitriol and the hatred directed against decent people because of their sexuality.

As we have always seen with regards to Steve Schmit and Sarah Palin’s “sexuality.”

Hope ya find happiness there, Steve, and work through your issues.

MNHawk on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Ah, I see. Back to the Bible again – written by unknown humans, with no accompanying evidence

Actually, none of the proofs I reference rely on the Bible. The eyewitness verification was from the Bible. It was written by known humans who are attested to in secular writings of the time, as was Jesus himself. There is tons of archeological evidence to corroborate the contents of the NT. This is the only physical evidence we can ever have for ANY historical matter. We have more concrete historical evidence for the statements of the Bible than we do for Hannibal, Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Marc Antony or any other ancient person or event. Do you not believe in any of those either?

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Evidence of dwellings, places, etc are all fine and good, but do not give evidence of actual persons having lived there. Even Egyptologists are not certain that they have the old kings properly identified as a whole.

All of the written Biblical evidence about the existence of a person or persons is merely hearsay, in that there is no corroborating evidence to back up the claims.

That is the problem I have with people citing the Bible as though it were established fact.

As an aside, the people of the Indus Valley are adamant that Alexander never came near them. He may have existed, but with some embellishment of his deeds.

To close, I only have a problem with statements that are made as being fact, without accepting that, minus evidence, they have no validity.

OldEnglish on September 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM

You secular humanists will have your hellish utopia soon enough. You are going to love it.

Inanemergencydial on September 1, 2010 at 10:40 AM

I always am saddened by those whose apparent claim to Christianity derive much of their happiness from imagining that spending eternity will involve a lot of high fiving one another because others are spending their existence in hell.
I mean loving god and saviour and all that. Where is the scripture?

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM

It was a phase coined by someone who had nothing to do with the drafting of the bill or rights.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM

You are arguing semantics. It is neither written in as they are separate or as they are linked. Absent further proof one must deduce that was done on purpose by the founders.

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Bradky on September 1, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Note that the Catholic Church, at least, rejected Enoch because he wrote of a general amnesty for the condemned. Doesn’t suit the narrative.

OldEnglish on September 1, 2010 at 12:12 PM

“That is the problem I have with people citing the Bible as though it were established fact.”

Thus, you are saying nothing historical can be considered factual. I don’t buy that.

tommyboy on September 1, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Oh come on you humorless insincere agitator bradky! Have you no shame?

For the love of the mattresses!

Everything I said was scriptural. Well. You may not enjoy your secular humanist utopia to be honest. But is what y’all wanted!

Inanemergencydial on September 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM

As far as I am aware, people in the 21st century can marry one another for whatever reason they wish – as long as they are of a certain age and of the opposite sex. No litmus test whatsoever exists to determine whether or not they will have children and raise a family. Heterosexual couples can marry if they are sterile and/or infertile, way too old to have or raise children, etc. So, even if the institution of marriage was originally invented in large part to support the bearing and raising of children, in today’s world, many married couples do not have children and never intended to have them.

I have zero problem with religions choosing to define marriage however they wish, and to restrict the institution to opposite sex couples. What I do have a problem with, however, is our government giving benefits to heterosexuals and not to homosexuals – which is what current law does.

These are, of course, issues to argue and discuss. What should be beyond discussion – but alas, clearly is not – is treating all Americans with common decency and respect. Sadly, this apparently is beyond some here.

pbundy on September 1, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Here

Bmore on June 14, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3