Tony Perkins announces evangelical support for Rick Santorum

posted at 2:30 pm on January 14, 2012 by Tina Korbe

At a major meeting in Texas this weekend, a group of 150 Christian leaders and conservative activists defied expectations and actually managed to coalesce around a single candidate.

Surrogates for Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (no one for Jon Huntsman) made their pitches; the evangelicals considered them. On Saturday morning, they voted, and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins held a call to debrief the media. He saw white smoke.

“What I did not think was possible appears to be possible,” said Perkins. After three rounds of balloting, “there emerged a strong consensus around Rick Santorum as the preferred candidate of this room.” It was a “clear, clear majority.”

Without doubt, this will be a major morale boost for the Santorum campaign — and a blow to the Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry camps — but whether it can morph into something more remains to be seen. Before the meeting, experts doubted that the group of aging activists would be able to alter the race much at this point in the nominating process:

But does the group stand a chance of reshaping the race? There are reasons for doubt: many of the leaders convening in Texas are well past their primes, with declining influence, and the nominating contest is already pretty far along.

One candidate – Mitt Romney – has won the first two contests, in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the South Carolina primary comes just a week after the Texas meeting.

“Some of these evangelical leaders are not as active as they once were in politics and the evangelical movement has changed a little overtime,” says John Green, a political scientist from the University of Akron. “Where this group could have an effect is if they coalesced around one candidate and then helped to provide resources.”

Boots on the ground, phone lists, robocalls, and even the possibility of an evangelical super PAC could move the needle for a candidate, Green said. But the time for such resource-intensive mobilization is growing thin.

Now that the group has demonstrated its ability to do the improbable by coalescing around one guy, it seems possible that they could also do the practical and provide actual, tangible resources to Santorum’s campaign. Maybe they should all board the same plane for South Carolina, where Santorum is far behind in the polls. At the very least, they’ll begin to mobilize their own constituencies for Santorum.

The Christian leaders insist they didn’t meet to brainstorm a way to stop Mitt Romney. One said it was an “anti-Obama meeting,” while another said he’s more concerned to stop Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. It’s obvious they haven’t been overly enthusiastic about Romney’s likely nomination, but Perkins said they didn’t overly discuss the former Massachusetts governor — and that his Mormonism came up not once.

Still, it’s clear they didn’t choose Santorum on the basis of his conservative credentials alone. Perkins said they overlooked Rick Perry, for example, because, while they liked his record, they had concerns about his electability. Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa surely nudged the group in his direction.


Related Posts:

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 4 5

Not gay, Nancy. My gorgeous wife wouldn’t like even less than I would. But thanks for playing!

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I didn’t say you were. Vielen dank für das spielen.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Anyone who clearly states that they do not believe in the autonomy of the individual AND supported Medicare part D is not a small government conservative.

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Just because he fell for Roves political swindling doesn’t mean he’s for big government.

By default, Rick is Conservative.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:21 PM

New Reuters Ipsos poll out for SC. Romney jumps to lead of 37% while Grinch drops to 12%.

andy85719 on January 14, 2012 at 4:22 PM

The purpose of marriage was to incentivize men to stick with the women they knocked up. This isn’t applicable to gay couples, yet they want the same perks of heterosexual marriage. It’s not a logical argument.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

If our society was only organized around logic then why would there be any incentive to end slavery? It is a perfectly rational system of labor that afforded great wealth at minimal economic cost. Ending slavery was, in part, about emotion and morality, neither of which are always “logical.” But more to the point, is it logical that the same-sex partner of a military veteran should not have access to their partner’s pension if they pass away? Where is the “logic” in that? Are senior citizens on pensions still raising children?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and did not see Joseph Smith. Did I miss something? – liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Pick up a copy of the book of Mormon at a bookstore. Or, perhaps go to a Church of Latter Day Saints and buy a copy.

SC.Charlie on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Giving me tax breaks and other government perks simply because I have an abnormal condition in epilepsy is just as absurd as giving gay couples tax breaks and other govnerment perks to gay couples.

That’s my point.

Nobody ever thinks about the gay issue in this way so it’s fun to redirect the normal flow of the debate.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

If Romney is the nominee then I will support him…heck he’s better then McCain….and I won’t hold my nose voting for him.

I think if he has a Republican controlled Congress and Senate, he might screw it up like Bush did.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

What’s interesting is gay people hate you if you talk about gay issues, while at the same time they are trying to force society to recognize gay marriage.

You can’t win with gay people. They are divas.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM

The irony is that by you focusing on bigoted stereotypes you’re actually fulfilling bigoted stereotypes that many leftists and centrists have about those on the right. Thanks for that.

I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and did not see Joseph Smith. Did I miss something?

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 4:09 PM

That’s self defeating logic considering one does not “see” Jesus when reading the Tanakh. The messianic descriptions only line up if you implement a large amount of metaphoric leniency. Mormons believe they are Christians. When discussing a belief system affiliation, self-ascription is the only realistic metric one can use for categories as broad as “Christianity”. What you’re arguing is equivalent to Orthodox Christians arguing that Baptists aren’t “really” Christians, Baptists arguing that Catholics aren’t “really” Christian, so on and so forth.

Kriggly on January 14, 2012 at 4:24 PM

But more to the point, is it logical that the same-sex partner of a military veteran should not have access to their partner’s pension if they pass away? Where is the “logic” in that? Are senior citizens on pensions still raising children?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I think most Republicans are for civil unions which would allow for this, but people like youa re never going to be happy unless it’s called gay marriage, right? You are militant about this issue.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM

is it logical that the same-sex partner of a military veteran should not have access to their partner’s pension if they pass away?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

NO

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

…The purpose of marriage was to incentivize men to stick with the women they knocked up…..

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

It is astonishing how that grossly obvious fact gets swept under the rug. Marriage was never about people forming ‘pair bonds,’ or any of that other crap. It is an obligation, not a right.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Giving me tax breaks and other government perks simply because I have an abnormal condition in epilepsy is just as absurd as giving gay couples tax breaks and other govnerment perks to gay couples.

Right, so lets make sure not to specially train any employees at public hospitals to deal with epilepsy. Why should they prepare to treat your minor abnormality. Rationally it would save the public health system money. Sounds like we already “absurdly” help you out, whether you want to or not. Your argument isn’t as clever as you think it is.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Why redefine marriage?
It would be much easier to gain acceptance for equally accessible “perks” with civil unions.
Don’t you think so?

That said…why are gay advocates so hung up on the sex part of what constitutes marriage..i.e “where a man like to stick his you know what”?
Its always about sex with liberals. Why do you suppose that is??

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I wonder what the spin will be if Romney loses to Obama, after years of hearing about his superior electablity.

That will be fun to hear.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Gingrich seems to be to have the best chance of beating Obama. Yes, they will go after his personal life but with Romney they will make him out to be Gordon Gekko. As far as being a true conservative I wrote a story about Newt called ‘Damn Newt’ that you can read at this link http://www.rightface.us/forum/topics/damn-newt?xg_source=activity

Newt is a contradiction in many ways but they all are! I think he would make a good President. Better than the rest.

jcm9079 on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I didn’t say you were. Vielen dank für das spielen.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Amusing, after the ‘dodge’ accusation, that. Heh. Keep going! I’m having fun with this thread filled with hypocrisy!!!!

Mais mercis du jeu !

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I have never seen a poor Mormon

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM

1001st reason why you are an utter fool.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It is astonishing how that grossly obvious fact gets swept under the rug. Marriage was never about people forming ‘pair bonds,’ or any of that other crap. It is an obligation, not a right.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Then why do heterosexual couples who can not reproduce have a right to marriage?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Well, what’s amusing to me most about the gay topic is that gays will play the diva and say government is big government trying to get into their private lives, but then they demand that government recognize their sexual relations and give them perks for it.

It’s just amazing how they go from the big government argument to whining about the lack of recogintion from the government as being unfair as though there’s no contradiction at all there.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Horsecrap. It means we’re tired of The Republican Party acting like if we keep voting for their progressive democrat-lite candidates, that someday we’ll get back to addressing at least some social concerns. If they had any balls they’d just say, “Hey suckers, we’re done with you. We’re not going to address any of that again, ever!”

This abstract meme that we can’t address both social and fiscal issues is utter hogwash and a dodge to keep Conservative voters strung along.

hawkdriver

No, its hogwash, because what many of you consider to be real Republicans, actually would have been Democrats until not that long ago when the Democratic Party was the party of Social Conservatism.

And the kind of people that you consider to be Democrat-lite, are probably in reality more of a traditional type Republican that believed in individual freedom and limited government.

If the Social Conservatives were so into limited government, they would not have been so much for the big government when it suits them.

If the Social Conservatives were actually the true Republicans, then why did they foist Jimmy Carter upon us?

firepilot on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM

That whole schtick was a strawman imo.

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Related, Huckabee had another forum today. It’ll be on tv tonight. All the candidates except Paul were there.

I think these forums are a far superior format to that of the msm debates.

juliesa on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I think he’s right. A good case can be made for the intolerance of liberals while it would be difficult to support the claims of “if you don’t like Obama you’re racist.”

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM

He didn’t specify liberals, just anyone who didn’t support Santorum. That includes me. I have now been accused of not supporting Obama because I’m racist, and not supporting Santorum because I’m an anti-christian bigot. Neither are true.

TedInATL on January 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Caro Doctore, are there currently government rights/priveliges afforded non-epileptics that you would like?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

How about becoming a test pilot? An epiliptic can do that better than a gay couple can make children.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Then why do heterosexual couples who can not reproduce have a right to marriage?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

The main answer is life’s not fair, but heterosexual couples could still adopt kids. I don’t think that it’s a good idea to send kids off to live with gay couples.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

It would be much easier to gain acceptance for equally accessible “perks” with civil unions.
Don’t you think so?

Yes, and please remind me which Republican controlled state legislatures are pushing for gay civil unions? And the “sacrament of marriage” would not be any more redefined than it already is. Some churches already perform same-sex marriages even in states where same-sex marriage is not legally acknowledged. You seem to forget that every “marriage” is a legal civil union with the *option* of going to the church to engage in the cultural ritual of marriage. Its a distinction without a difference. But no one is fooled. Republicans are not advocating for civil unions, are not passing civil union laws without major pressure from the left. If they were they would have a shred of legitimacy on this issue.

That said…why are gay advocates so hung up on the sex part of what constitutes marriage..i.e “where a man like to stick his you know what”?
Its always about sex with liberals. Why do you suppose that is??

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Why don’t you look at the comment form Dr. Tesla that I was responding to when I talked about sticking body parts where. He was the first to bring up explicit sex acts. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn’t see it and not that you are a massive hypocritical jerk.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I don’t think that it’s a good idea to send kids off to live with gay couples.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Based on what data cher Doctor?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

*facepalm*


Single Issue Stupidity and Rick Santorum

“Voting for the candidate who is most vociferous in his defense of your one issue to the exclusion of everything else is suicide. While candidate Rick Santorum speaks about limited government and lower taxes and overregulation on the campaign trail, Senator Rick Santorum was far from a constitutional conservative. He voted in support of most of George Bush’s big government agenda, he voted against NAFTA, voted for steel tariffs and was a huge supporter of earmarks. And just in case there’s some uncertainty as to Rick Santorum’s view of the role of government, in 2004 he laid out his view very clearly:

“One of the criticisms I make is what I refer to as more of a Libertairanish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be alone to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

Obviously Rick Santorum has never heard of the United States. Both his record and his words make it crystal clear that he is no friend of limited, constitutional government….”

http://floppingaces.net/2012/01/10/single-issue-stupidity-and-rick-santorum-reader-post/?utm_source=feedburne

Can’t believe what’s happening in this primary…It’s like a virus has caught hold and muddled clear commonsense thinking.

As a nation we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression. Only one state in the Union is doing well compared to the rest of the country and many nations. Texas is doing well because it is governed with conservative principles and led by a strong commonsense conservative. He has the best record and policy plans. There have been 9 debates since his oops! gaffe, and he’s been solid in each one.

But

We are being told Romneycare is inevitable cause well we don’t know why exactly…It’s not his record as Governor really (Obama will beat him in this economy)

Then there is a former speaker who although he accomplished a great deal was driven out of office by his own caucus and has some iffy ties to Freddie Mac.

Santorum the statist who lost his last election and has a google problem he can’t fix and whines about since 2003…and is pro-union among other things?

And finally the Chinese speaking former governor and Obama ambassodor employee who has a pretty good record in Utah but can’t stand most of the conservatives in the base.

But the regular guy who is a farmer’s son and an air force pilot who worked his way through the crazy rodeo of Texas Politics to lead the state through this depression by convincing Texans on both sides that we can thrive if we make tough choices and stay true to our heritage as Texans. The guy who led an historic sweep in 2010 to achieve a republican super majority in both houses and later stared them down pushing to initiate the largest budget cuts since WWII $15 Billion to balance the budget and upgrade our credit rating while Obama downgraded the nation. The guy who has fought DC over the border since 2003 when W was poaching our agents and spent $400 million of Texas money on border security and billed the federal govt. The guy who has fought the EPA since the 1990′s when he was Agr. Commissioner. The guy who pushed though tax breaks for disabled vets and their widows. The guy who signed sonagram legislation that is closing Planned parenthood clinics in Texas. The guy who pushed tort reform Loser Pays Law and chased bogus lawyer out of Texas and flooded the state with doctors who can afford to practice here. The guy who led a state that created 3 out of 4 private sector jobs in the nation, led the country in exports for the last 9 years and beat the US & China in manufacturing while keeping taxes low, saving the rain day fund and achieving a $1.6 Billion surplus. Y’know the 10th Amendment guy…The antithesis to both Obamalite and Obama.

Yeah…Republicans and conservatives are gonna throw away Gov. Rick Perry cause he had a few lousy debates early in the race and said Oops! in November…and maybe cause they really do let the clearchannel media do their thinking for them.

Incredible.

workingclass artist on January 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Not a slap it’s the truth. The Republican Party joined in during the lame duck session to help repeal DADT. All are destroyed by the party, like Santorum, for making any innuendo at all in reference to supporting maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I agree that the Republicans don’t really like to talk about gays much anymore, but if you look at our party’s actions (well, I guess my party since you say you are done with it), it seems that, in general, it is still pretty social conservative on the issue.

For example, Republican politicians vote against same-sex marriage in virtually every state in the nation. And the House Republicans are defending DOMA in the courts.

As for DADT, yes, some Republicans went along with that. Can’t disagree with you there. But many did not.

As for the “slap” comment and tone of my post, I guess I was a little sensitive because I thought you were kind of suggesting that I didn’t really care about abortion that much and really cared about other social issues instead. I apologize for that. It’s just that I care very much about the rights of the unborn and can get a little defensive about it.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Based on what data cher Doctor?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:32 PM

I think kids were meant to have a father and a mother. Men and women are different. If you mess with the natural normal state of things, this can have negative impacts on kids. We shouldn’t be willing to expose kids to social experiments simply because all you care about is the selfishness of gay folk.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Well, what’s amusing to me most about the gay topic is that gays will play the diva and say government is big government trying to get into their private lives, but then they demand that government recognize their sexual relations and give them perks for it.

It’s just amazing how they go from the big government argument to whining about the lack of recogintion from the government as being unfair as though there’s no contradiction at all there.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Taking bets on how many times you’ll troll gay in this thread. Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay!!!! All day, all night! This is strong evidence you’re painfully in trapped in the closet, Nancy. Make a Cher reference next. Or maybe Liza, or Bette???

Huge douche-bag is huge.

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Then why do heterosexual couples who can not reproduce have a right to marriage?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

It used to be that everyone married young and no one knew who was or wasn’t infertile.

If you wanted to fix that loophole that so many people get through now, then you should be trying to do that. Instead, you want to expand the loophole.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

If you mess with the natural normal state of things, this can have negative impacts on kids.

Based on what data cher Doctor?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

DOMA was actually Bill Clinton’s brain child.

Libs tend to forget that. Never heard libs call Clinton a homophobe though.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Taking bets on how many times you’ll troll gay in this thread. Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay!!!! All day, all night! This is strong evidence you’re painfully in trapped in the closet, Nancy. Make a Cher reference next. Or maybe Liza, or Bette???

Huge douche-bag is huge.

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Taking bets if you ever out grew your adolescence.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The Independents went with Obama in 08′ so I don’t much stock in their votes. Thankfully most of them are going for the Republican this time around because they see the face of progressiveism rearing it’s ugly head. Hopefully it’s a lesson well learned.

Are we better off now then 5 trillion dollars ago?

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I think there are two main groups of independents. There’s a smaller group that are too set in their views to accept what they see as an ideological straightjacket of party membership. That group is too diverse to really predict how they’ll pan out, full of too-liberal-to-be-democrats, too-conservative-to-be-Republicans, and extremist moderates.

The other main group is generally disinterested in politics except when the presidential election comes around. They’re like Catholics who only go to mass on Christmas and Easter. Are they suffering from progressive fatigue, as you suggest? Probably, but it will be easier to appeal to them in non-political terms. They got taken in by Obama’s anodyne “Hope and Change” trash last time, so maybe it’s best to find apolitical issues to get their votes.

Anyway, not so much of a specific response to anything you were saying, but your post got me thinking, so…

RightOFLeft on January 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

I didn’t know there that the word “gay” was in short supply and being rationed. :)

I’ll say the word however times I want to…you kind of have to say it when you talk gay issues, it would seem.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

If you wanted to fix that loophole that so many people get through now, then you should be trying to do that. Instead, you want to expand the loophole.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

I don’t want to fix that loophole, you do. And no one on your side is talking about limiting the right to marriage to fertile heterosexual couples. Could you imagine? having people jerk off into a cup before they got married or undergoing fertility tests. Marriage may have originally been about kids, but lots of people by choice or by design are married and childless. Its not causing society to fail.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Based on what data cher Doctor?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Based on History, natural law, morality and what made this country great.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

No, its hogwash, because what many of you consider to be real Republicans, actually would have been Democrats until not that long ago when the Democratic Party was the party of Social Conservatism.

And the kind of people that you consider to be Democrat-lite, are probably in reality more of a traditional type Republican that believed in individual freedom and limited government.

If the Social Conservatives were so into limited government, they would not have been so much for the big government when it suits them.

If the Social Conservatives were actually the true Republicans, then why did they foist Jimmy Carter upon us?

firepilot on January 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM

I don’t agree with your assessment. Not sure what you mean about Carter. But whatever. However you want to characterize the evolution of the party, I simply am not represented by it now. Less so by the democrat party but that’s no real consolation. I’m a Conservative. I want to support getting rid of Obama, but I find myself thinking I’d only be represented well by people the party seems bent on destroying.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

I think there are two main groups of independents. There’s a smaller group that are too set in their views to accept what they see as an ideological straightjacket of party membership. That group is too diverse to really predict how they’ll pan out, full of too-liberal-to-be-democrats, too-conservative-to-be-Republicans, and extremist moderates.

The other main group is generally disinterested in politics except when the presidential election comes around. They’re like Catholics who only go to mass on Christmas and Easter. Are they suffering from progressive fatigue, as you suggest? Probably, but it will be easier to appeal to them in non-political terms. They got taken in by Obama’s anodyne “Hope and Change” trash last time, so maybe it’s best to find apolitical issues to get their votes.

Really strong analysis.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

SC.Charlie on January 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Thanks. Thats what I thought, but wasn’t really sure.

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

The reality is gay couples just want government goodies. They want government involved in their lives. It has nothing to do with liberty, it’s about getting goverment perks.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Will you guys vote for romney if he is the nominee or will you stay home.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Romney so electable so why should I bother to vote for him. He has it locked up according to his supporters. Why go stand in line for this unbeatable candidate?

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Based on History, natural law, morality and what made this country great.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM

If it is so evident please link to a single study which indicates that children in same-sex parenting households are doing worse on any educational, psychological or economic indice. Take your time, I won’t be holding my breath. And believe me, if the Family Research Council had *any* evidence that same-sex parenting was bad for kids they would’ve published it.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Amusing, after the ‘dodge’ accusation, that. Heh. Keep going! I’m having fun with this thread filled with hypocrisy!!!!

Mais mercis du jeu !

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It wasn’t an accusation. You used the latent dodge. It always happens when the issue of gay rights comes up. I didn’t even come close to making an assertion on your preferences. I said you used the dodge. Which you did. And really, it’s over.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Taking bets if you ever out grew your adolescence.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Orly? Bring it, a55hat. What’s your contribution?

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

The reality is gay couples just want government goodies. They want government involved in their lives. It has nothing to do with liberty, it’s about getting goverment perks.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

So?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Dakine.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I can’t imagine sending little Johnny or little Suzy Q to live with two daddies or two mommies is the ideal, healthy situation for a kid to be in. Other kids are going to ask them about it and they aren’t going to understand it. It’s weird and cruel to put kids in that situation but hey, world revolves around gay adults. They say so.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Rhetoric isn’t your strong-suit, chief. Stick to what you know. LOl!

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM

So?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Doesn’t that make them hypocrites, as they like to frame the issue as one of big government? You seem to be missing the point badly, for a person so itnerested in this subject.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Will you guys vote for romney if he is the nominee or will you stay home.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Romney is a snake. He is not my first choice.

That having been said, I will vote for Romney over Obama.

Why?

1. He doesn’t hate the military, capitalism, or apple pie. I am exaggerating just a bit, but there is no doubt that Romney would be a better Commander in Chief, better on economic issues, and would try to put America first. And I bet he naturally puts his hand over heart instead of feeling forced to do so. (Yes, that general attitude matters a lot to me. )

2. The Supreme Court.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I think every person who has an abnormal condition should get some kind of government perk for it if we are going to reward gay couples simply because they enjoy sticking their you know what in another guy’s you know what.

I know when I think about freedom, I think about sodomy.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Orly? Bring it, a55hat. What’s your contribution?

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Retired military…what’s yours…

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I wouldn’t be so quick to think Romney is going to pick conservatives for the SC.

He passed over qualified Republicans for court positions in Mass to place liberal activist judges, most who were pro-choice.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Doesn’t that make them hypocrites, as they like to frame the issue as one of big government?

I’m pretty sure gay marriage supporters do not claim they are being oppressed by “big government.” Rather, their argument is that religious beliefs are being used as a basis for policy making and lawmaking and *that* is unacceptable.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Great, friendly points. But we’re right back where I can state without any reservation that this Republican Party is not as representative of anything I wish to achieve as the Conservative Party is. If there’s a Republican candidate that comes close, I’ll have to vote for him or her. But the sad fact as even evidenced by comments on this very thread is that the party is about done with any person of faith that even hints at a social issue they’d champion.

Unless it’s a progressive social issue.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM

This is one’s for Dr. Tesla.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLnn96n3Lpg

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Will you guys vote for romney if he is the nominee or will you stay home.

tomas on January 14, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yes. With pleasure. Don’t particularly like him in the primary, but will absolutely vote for him, or any other GOP candidate who wins the primary, over the disaster who occupies the WH at the moment.

Any other position is clinically insane, in my view.

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Rhetoric isn’t your strong-suit, chief. Stick to what you know. LOl!

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Because you said so in your barely coherent retort?

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Then why do heterosexual couples who can not reproduce have a right to marriage?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:28 PM

They don’t.

If two heterosexual people of the same sex..that have no interest in sex, want to get married for tax or pension benefits, they can’t.
Marriage is between one man and one woman.
To allow it would necessitate the redefinition of marriage.

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

If it is so evident please link to a single study which indicates that children in same-sex parenting households are doing worse on any educational, psychological or economic indice. Take your time, I won’t be holding my breath. And believe me, if the Family Research Council had *any* evidence that same-sex parenting was bad for kids they would’ve published it.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:42 PM

It’s still to new to see any realistic outcomes. But know of children turn out pretty crappy. So far were finding out that children turn out the same way as if they came from broken homes. You can search for yourself because I shouldn’t have to “BURP” you.

First and foremost…where are the SCIENTIFIC studies that prove homosexuality is normal???

I searched for myself and found none.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I’m pretty sure gay marriage supporters do not claim they are being oppressed by “big government.” Rather, their argument is that religious beliefs are being used as a basis for policy making and lawmaking and *that* is unacceptable.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

You are being disingenous about this, gays say all the time it’s big government.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM

I don’t click on youtube links provided by gay people.

Core value.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Mimzey on January 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

This is the second time your inability to read has caused you to put your foot squarely in your mouth. If a man and a woman choose to get married and are biologically infertile, nothing stops them from getting married. Why not?

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM

“that religious beliefs are being used as a basis for policy making and lawmaking and *that* is unacceptable.”

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Like the beliefs our founding fathers held?

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I don’t click on youtube links provided by gay people.

Core value.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Wow, you’re officially an idiot.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Like the beliefs our founding fathers held?

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Many of our founding fathers were religious. Jefferson, of course, was a Deist. But they also believed that religion should not determine how laws are established in this country. (Hint, its in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution).

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM

When gay people can impregnate each other, I’ll agree with them that it’s discrimination not to give them marriage rights.

Until then, they have a weak argument. But like I’ve pointed out before, at least they get to vote on the issue. Pro-lifers don’t get to vote on the abortion issue, it was decided by the courts for us. I’d rather be in your shoes as a gay marriage advocate.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Dr. Tesla,

Has libfreeordie said he is gay?

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Same. Jumped out of junk USAF equipment for a big chunk of my life. For the past several years at a major defense contractor designing equipment for our guys in the sh@t, keeping their a55es out of harms way.

Keep going, or STFU.

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m an idiot because I chose not to click on YouTube links provided by gay people? God knows what that’s going to pop up.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The meeting wasn’t unanimous. Some were disappointed that their fallow pastors went with the poll numbers instead of their principals.

juliesa on January 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Dr. Tesla,

Has libfreeordie said he is gay?

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

No, but I get paid as an engineer to make logical assumptions. :)

Does it matter if it turns out he’s not gay? Nobody will die.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Dr. Tesla,

Has libfreeordie said he is gay?

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Even if I were gay that’d still be the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM

…Marriage may have originally been about kids, but lots of people by choice or by design are married and childless. Its not causing society to fail.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

You are blind.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Because you said so in your barely coherent retort?

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Irony-challenged. Keep going, Clarence Darrow…..

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I’m an idiot because I chose not to click on YouTube links provided by gay people? God knows what that’s going to pop up.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Its a link to a speech by Zach Wahls before the Iowa legislature. Google it on your own. Or remain in ignorance, you seem comfortable there.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM

What was idiotic about saying that I don’t click on YouTube links provided by gay people who I don’t know? That could take me to some gay porn website.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Many of our founding fathers were religious. Jefferson, of course, was a Deist. But they also believed that religion should not determine how laws are established in this country. (Hint, its in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution).

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Well your half right, I’ll give you that.

The establishment clause is very straight forward. It states CONGRESS can make no laws…

Now who is that? Congress. Where? Congress

Not the courts, not the supreme court. Doesn’t say religion can’t determine our laws. Where do we get Can’t murder, can’t steal?

BTW, the Constitution limits the power of the federal government or at least it use too. Our freedoms come the Declaration of Independence. Our rights come from God not by man. Thomas Jefferson may have been a deist but he had great respect for Christianity because it gave us our civil society.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Oh, well I guess you have to listen to Zach Wahls speaking to the Iowa legislature to be informed on things.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Dr. Tesla,

So if I were to post a Youtube link to a speech by Ronald Reagan, you wouldn’t click on it because I’m gay? Come on. Admit it. Now you’re just joking around with us a little.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Yep, you keep throwing them out as long as they makes sense to you. “LOI”

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Same. Jumped out of junk USAF equipment for a big chunk of my life. For the past several years at a major defense contractor designing equipment for our guys in the sh@t, keeping their a55es out of harms way.

Keep going, or STFU.

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Now that you have been bonifide.

You need really need to outgrow your adolescence chump.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Not completely OT: Nice mention, Tina.

kunegetikos on January 14, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Much respect for posting the link re: Romney being a disasterous candidate to up against Obama.

apocalypse on January 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

…And no one on your side is talking about limiting the right to marriage to fertile heterosexual couples. Could you imagine? having people jerk off into a cup before they got married or undergoing fertility tests. ….

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM

No one on ‘my side?’ I was pointing out what would be your side if you were not ignoring reality.

Anyway, fertility could be easily proved simply by making marriages legally valid in the eyes of the government when the woman bears her first child.

fadetogray on January 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

What was idiotic about saying that I don’t click on YouTube links provided by gay people who I don’t know? That could take me to some gay porn website.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Oh great. Not only are you dumb in assuming that gay people want to trick you into watching gay porn. You are admitting a total ignorance about what’s on youtube.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Dr. Tesla,

So if I were to post a Youtube link to a speech by Ronald Reagan, you wouldn’t click on it because I’m gay? Come on. Admit it. Now you’re just joking around with us a little.

McDuck on January 14, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I don’t click on links in general. It’s a core value from which I rarely deviate. I might would for a Reagan speech.

I’ve had some bad experiences in the past with gays linking me to gay porn websites or virus/malware type of websites….payback for my rants about the gays and homophobia. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Yep, you keep throwing them out as long as they makes sense to you. “LOI”

hawkdriver on January 14, 2012 at 5:03 PM

If they don’t make sense to you, blame it on your education, Nancy. :D

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Oh, well I guess you have to listen to Zach Wahls speaking to the Iowa legislature to be informed on things.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Considering he was raised by a lesbian couple, he may have some insight that you don’t. Especially since the basis for your anti-gay positions seem to be little more than vague opinions. One wonders how you can claim to be an Engineer and be totally bereft of data on this question.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I am not surprised that Santorum received the evangelical nod. This will help Rick in closed GOP primaries. More bad news for the Grinch campaign.

Some of the anti-Mormon comments here scare me, though. I would love to believe they came from liberal trolls. The Obama campaign will send surrogates to do their anti-Mormon hate-mongering. Harry Reid who?

Philly on January 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Gays are well known for being practical jokesters. I’m the kind of guy they like to target, for obvious reasons.

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

You need really need to outgrow your adolescence chump.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Why is that? Details, please….

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I don’t click on links in general. It’s a core value from which I rarely deviate. I might would for a Reagan speech.

Then go to youtube yourself and look up Zach Wahls and speech. But wait, you won’t. Because this whole “I don’t click on links” is pure bull. You just don’t want to be confronted with information that may contradict your vaguely formed negative opinions about gay parenting. Which is fine, but there’s no need to lie about it. You’re certainly not making any kind of a compelling case against gay rights.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Joseph Smith was a false prophet and an agent of the devil himself. Mormonism is not Christianity

liberal4life on January 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Thanks to liberal4life for keeping it real!

apocalypse on January 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Gays are well known for being practical jokesters.

Ha! Well that’s a new one, I’ll give you that. Yes it mines new depths of stupidity, but it is at least new.

libfreeordie on January 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I just assume most gay people will hate me because I don’t suck up to them like your average Republican pundit does.

Why take the risk of clickin on one of their links?

Dr. Tesla on January 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Why is that? Details, please….

MTLassen on January 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Why? Haven’t figured it out? Calling names like were in Jr high? If you wonder why the world doesn’t like you….might have to go look in the mirror.

b1jetmech on January 14, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5