MSNBC’s Matthews on gay marriage: “At least Democrats believe in evolution”

posted at 12:41 pm on May 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Help me out here: can the Obama White House possibly boast of a more useful stooge than this guy? Of course, Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews has made no secret of his infatuation with the man, the myth, the legend that is Barack Obama, but at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek. Upon closer examination, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case — I think the gentleman is in earnest.

Really? “Evolution” is just a handy-dandy term being used by President Obama’s messaging team, because it allows him to hold hard decisions on the issue at arm’s length while implying that gay-marriage advocates can readily hope for something better in the future — all without ever actually committing to anything. Matthews’ doesn’t seem to have been listening to what his own guest says earlier in the segment: there aren’t many who really believe that President Obama is personally undecided about gay marriage and that his hesitation is anything other than a practical political matter. It’s just another rhetorical tease from the Campaigner-in-Chief, but Matthews buys into the White House’s narrative perfectly. Oh, but you say that the president is open to new ideas and actively thinking about the issue? The joy! The rapture! What infallible conclusions will he come to next?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that Chris Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” never ceases to amaze.


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

tingles is just another cog in dear leader’s wheel

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM

On topic, on what really matters.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

– Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 12:44 PM

So Democrats think that gay marriage will eventually lead to two men or women conceiving children without someone else’s sperm/egg? Now that would be evolution!

Spliff Menendez on May 8, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Chris Matthews, evidence for devolution.

Lily on May 8, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Matthews has made no secret of his infatuation with the man, the myth, the legend that is Barack Obama, but at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek.

Sure he does, have his tongue in Obama’s cheeks, the other ones.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Wipe your chin Chris!

ronsfi on May 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Good, let the democrat party be the same sex “marriage” party, and let the GOP be the traditional marriage/family values party.

They’ll get no net new votes, and we’ll be able to split off large chunks of black and hispanic voters from them.

Sounds like a win to me.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that Chris Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” never ceases to amaze.

“Hardon” wouldn’t have made it passed the censors.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Hey, Meathead! Evolution will naturally select AGAINST homosexual communities. Republicans at least believe in BIOLOGY, unlike Democrats.

michaelo on May 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM

If you believe in “evolution” then it should be OBVIOUS that homosexuality is a DEFECT. IE: if the species “evolves” into homosexuality it will DIE.

wildcat72 on May 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Matthews is just waiting for the day 0bama dumps Moochelle so he can have his turn with “teh one”.

Sasha List on May 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Belief in evolution? What the hell does that have to do with anything? I believe in the theory of evolution. It’s not a requirement that one abandon belief in God at the same time.

I suppose it would distress Tingles to learn that the greatest scientific minds of centuries past were devoutly religious and didn’t see that as an obstacle to scientific inquiry and endeavor.

Besides, if one believes in evolution, wouldn’t that necessarily entail that a species has to continue to thrive and procreate in order to evolve? I have nothing against gays getting married, but let’s face facts: without a sperm/egg (for which one needs male and female) or scientific intervention ala cloning (which would, theoretically, halt the process of evolving), surrogacy and/or gene splicing, you don’t get new humans to carry the species forward.

This guy is an idiot.

totherightofthem on May 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Matthews is just stupid. He’s just not smart enough to do the job he is trying to do. I feel sorry for the guy when I see him in action.

forest on May 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM

It’s not called MSDNC for nothing.

Bitter Clinger on May 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

He must have a very stupid, or stupidly idealistic, wife.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

When Democrats change thier mind its evolving, if Republicans change their mind its flip-flop

HOOLiBAR6 on May 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

“Actively thinking”

Am I to await the message from on high? These guys are getting so Orwellian every day it’s just mind boggling.

WitchDoctor on May 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Wouldn’t gays actually become extinct in an evolutionary theory?

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Once against I’m left wondering why so many who think belief in evolution is so gosh darned important refuse to participate in it.

PerceptorII on May 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Science!

rogerb on May 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Chris Matthews must believe in evolution. Otherwise, he would be hard pressed to explain why he looks and behaves so much like an angry, poop throwing monkey.

Archivarix on May 8, 2012 at 12:53 PM

The evolution train has just passed Chrissie. Did this man breed? I hope not, for our sake.

JimboHoffa on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Good, let the democrat party be the same sex “marriage” party, and let the GOP be the traditional marriage/family values party.

They’ll get no net new votes, and we’ll be able to split off large chunks of black and hispanic voters from them.

Sounds like a win to me.

Or how about we let the GOP be about small government and fiscal conservatism, and not some social values party.

This does nothing to help the country economically, or getting our financial house in order. It does nothing to reverse the creep of ever increasing government in our lives. Spending time on this does nothing to reduce the debt, or reduce taxation.

I would rather the GOP be known for pragmatism, good ideals for the future and about being a party that wants to get back to being a party about individual freedom like it used to be. Not a party that is looking for any way to get government in our lives

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Obama’s $6T in new debt will ‘evolve’ into a monster.

faraway on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

There is really only one thing all of us need to know about Mathews and his lust for Obama: He wants to be congratulated for voting for a black man. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Leftists have never seen an evolutionary pressure they didn’t think they knew better than. For people who scream so loudly about the fact of evolution, they have never seen any examples of it they consider “legitimate”.

If there had been leftist single-cell organisms with any power back a few billion years ago, the Earth would be nothing but slime.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Evolution is indignant.

However, he qualifies for the Darwin awards.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Spot on hool

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I like the way you think, firepilot.

totherightofthem on May 8, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Hmmm, evolution and Chris Matthews??

Well, I’ll give Chris this much, Early Java Man
still has the edge on you

ToddPA on May 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM

“It’s great to watch politics in action. As we cover this story, the president is thinking.“

IOW, the new definition of “spineless.”

“Everyone knows that he supports gay marriage. He just wants to be reelected more than anything in the entire world, so he can’t afford to upset anyone. As a result, I have to make up some crazy kind of shyt to give him cover so that I can get ‘Four More Years Of Leg Tingles!’”

- Chris Matthews

Resist We Much on May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

They believe in evolution, but apparently not natural selection.

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

“Actively thinking”

WitchDoctor on May 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

its a step to the right on the thinking evolutionary chart from the “thinking” that was done that created the stimulus, Dodd-frank, obamacare, cash for clunkers….solyndra…

t8stlikchkn on May 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Well, I’ll give Chris this much, Early Java Man
still has the edge on you

ToddPA on May 8, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I have to respectfully disagree. Chrissy Matthews and Barky are about on the same level.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Matthews: “This is a very important cause

LOL don’t you mean important ISSUE? As in there are two sides? As opposed to a “cause” where one side is just and the other is not? Chris Matthews, transparent gay marriage supporter.

Paul-Cincy on May 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Evolution used to also mean survival of the fittest. Chrissy wouldn’t have made it to pre-adolescence.

Bevan on May 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Good, let the democrat party be the same sex “marriage” party, and let the GOP be the traditional marriage/family values party.

They’ll get no net new votes, and we’ll be able to split off large chunks of black and hispanic voters from them.

Sounds like a win to me.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yeah, it does, until you realize this:

- In almost every single poll that was released at the time, the majority of people polled were in favor of repealing DADT

- In the past two decades, the percentage of people in favor of gay marriage has been constantly rising

- Millennials/Youth are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage

Not to mention that anytime the “Pray the gay away”/”Homosexuality is a mental disease”/”Homosexuals are pedophiles” meme gets brought up, an overwhelming majority of people get turned off or get a bad taste in their mouth of the republican party.

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

“At least Democrats believe in evolution”

Shun The Non-Believer

Seven Percent Solution on May 8, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Hey dumb azz(Matthews): I believe in intelligent design. For me that means that I believe that G-d used EVOLUTION to create the world-and that His hand was always involved in the process.
That was easy.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Talk about evolution… I think I saw Chrissy just starting to walk semi-upright.

mr_west on May 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

. Not a party that is looking for any way to get government in our lives

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Same sex marriage is all about using the power of the government to shove the homosexual agenda down our throats.

You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. –Jim DeMint

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Mathews is wrong.

Polling shows roughly 40% of Democrats are creationists, along with about 60% of Republicans and 40% of Independents.

farsighted on May 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Why are so many conservatives against gay marriage? It really has no effect on your life.

It’s supposed to be about individual liberty, so what people do of their own free will should not concern anyone else.

I think it’s more about opponents of gay marriage imposing their moral views on the rest of us.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Communist Democrats also believe that Dinosaurs fricking farted their way to extinction.

Now THAT is evolution.

PappyD61 on May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

the president is thinking

I think this is just a simple misunderstanding; clearly he was trying to say “faking.”

calbear on May 8, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Yeah, it does, until you realize this:

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 1:03 PM

People already believe this about the GOP, yet they gave the party a historic victory in 2010.

To bring it on topic, even the democrat party, the party you would expect to embrace same sex “marriage”, is shying away from using it as a plank in their platform – why is that?

The progressive homosexual meme of the popularly of same sex “marriage”, simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Typical Matthews BS. People can and do change their minds, but no one with any brains believes that Obama is doing anything but playing politics on this one. The U.S. going for marriage equality will rightfully be viewed favorably by future historians, but for accuracy’s sake, I sure hope they remember to include in their works the story of how Obama dragged his feet.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

What Obama is saying to the LGBTQ crowd is that this is his last election and he will have more “flexibility” in his second term. Chris Matthews is absolutely pathetic. I cannot wait to see him on election night when O goes down. I’m making popcorn.

magicbeans on May 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Is that because Darwin taught that blacks and women had inferior brains and needed to be led by white men?

mankai on May 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Meh, democrats believe in evolution until you point out that adult intelligence has a high degree of heritability.

jhffmn on May 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Homesexuality AND Evolution… two more issue in which Catholics like Matthews (and Bidenm, Pelosi, Kerry, etc.) are way out of step with Church doctrine.

Why in the heck isn’t the Vatican going after these “Lost Sheep,” and either insisting on compliance, or excommunicating them?

VastRightWingConspirator on May 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Why are so many conservatives against gay marriage? It really has no effect on your life.

It’s supposed to be about individual liberty, so what people do of their own free will should not concern anyone else.

I think it’s more about opponents of gay marriage imposing their moral views on the rest of us.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Legalizing gay marriage will radically change the culture. Gay marriage is not about what people do of their own free will, or individual liberty. You get all the benefits of marriage with civil unions. It’s about redefining the word “marriage”, which, again, will radically change the culture. It’s about the gay lobby imposing THEIR moral views on everyone else. If it was just about freedom and liberty, civil unions would be sufficient. No, they want to impose their values onto the culture. Why do they want to change the definition of “marriage”? Why won’t they leave everyone else alone?

Paul-Cincy on May 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM

It really has no effect on your life.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Tell that to Elaine Huguenin.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM

You can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative. –Jim DeMint

Sure you can. Then the GOP was the biggest on fiscal conservatism, social conservatives were voting Democrat. I did not realize Jim Demint was some end all be all of knowledge. Social conservatism required greater top down government involvement in our lives. Fiscal conservatism requires less government. A fiscal conservative government cant be telling us how to live.

Same sex marriage is all about using the power of the government to shove the homosexual agenda down our throats.

Well I do not want evangelical agendas shoved down my throat either.

In fact I do not want them dealing with any social agenda, I can deal with my own life very well. I want them dealing with issues that are more important than being social busybodies. I want them getting the economy of the country back in order.

Gay people are some boogeyman that is going to cause the downfall of the country apparently. Seems heterosexual divorce is going to cause a lot more damage. Why is there no fighting divorce?

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:12 PM

“As we cover this story, the president is thinking.“

I see no evidence in support of this assertion.

talkingpoints on May 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM

+1 alt

Hear hear

cmsinaz on May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Or how about we let the GOP be about small government and fiscal conservatism, and not some social values party.

This does nothing to help the country economically, or getting our financial house in order. It does nothing to reverse the creep of ever increasing government in our lives. Spending time on this does nothing to reduce the debt, or reduce taxation.

I would rather the GOP be known for pragmatism, good ideals for the future and about being a party that wants to get back to being a party about individual freedom like it used to be. Not a party that is looking for any way to get government in our lives

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Pro-family is inherent anti-government. Strong families don’t need governments. “Pragmatism” is all about leaving your values at the door.

Tell me, have you ever analyzed the Democrats core constituencies, really analyzed them? Democrats show stronger support among basically every group outside married heterosexual couples, with that strength increasing the more dependent on government the person in question is.

The GOP does the best among taxpayers independent of government assistance, so our coalition is basically married couples with children, singles with business interests, and religious voters who don’t think of government as a charity equivalent.

In short the GOP survives best in a culture that makes dependency on the state something to be ashamed of, something that an ordinary, decent person avoids until their most desperate moment. This is a moral argument, not a fiscal one.

Those who ignore the cultural dimension of society are cutting off their noses to spite their face. Strong families are the single greatest bulwark in helping a country economically and keeping a financial house in order.

Why do you think the left spends every waking moment of every waking day trying to undermine them? Why do they promote endless assistance to single mothers and layabouts, and promise to redifine marriage to include people who have no real use for it? Why do they constantly rail against masculinity and men who protect their families while advancing an intensely paternalistic, almighty State (ala Julia)?

Leftists know the game in a way “pragmatic” fiscal cons do not. Would that the latter pay attention before their entire community votes for the former on the basis of their dependency.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM

People already believe this about the GOP, yet they gave the party a historic victory in 2010.

To bring it on topic, even the democrat party, the party you would expect to embrace same sex “marriage”, is shying away from using it as a plank in their platform – why is that?

The progressive homosexual meme of the popularly of same sex “marriage”, simply doesn’t pass the smell test.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Of course the GOP won big in 2010-the economy was horrible, the unemployment rate was skyrocketing, and, by and large, all of the GOP candidates ran on a platform of improving the economy. I 100% guarantee you that if Romney decided to focus heavily on social issues instead of economic issues from now until November, he would lose to Obama by double digits. Like it or not, moderates, independents, youth, and, as polls have shown, roughly 50% of the country is turned off by anti-gay rhetoric.

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that Chris Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” never ceases to amaze.

Well, EJ, Tingles might have used to play Hardball, but then he “evolved.” And his world will never be the same.

rwenger43 on May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM

oh haha i thought this was about creation vs evolution…

anyway i voted to protect traditional marriage today. pray that NC amendment passes.

Why are so many conservatives against gay marriage? It really has no effect on your life.

It’s supposed to be about individual liberty, so what people do of their own free will should not concern anyone else.

I think it’s more about opponents of gay marriage imposing their moral views on the rest of us.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

first of all- i’m against it because it’s not God’s design for marriage. who are you to question how God designed us? do you know more than He does? i’ll stick to the intelligent design of male and female as compliments to one another, thank you.

second, it DOES affect us. ever heard all the stories of churches, wedding photogs, caterers, etc being sued because they have a different view on marriage? (in states where same-sex marriage is allowed) and other similar problems. you don’t hear about those stories from the msm. so, many people aren’t aware.

lastly i hate the phrase “imposing your moral values on me.” everyone imposes their values on others. gay-marriage supporters impose their moral views on traditional marriage supporters, and yet no one complains. it’s only traditional marriage supporters who are accused of “imposing values on others.”

Sachiko on May 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Of course, Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews has made no secret of his infatuation with the man, the myth, the legend that is Barack Obama, but at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek

Really?

I didn’t.

In fact, the thought never even occured to me.

Hope you work in a cubicle.

Tim_CA on May 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Evolution depends upon viability.

apostic on May 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I’m a social moderate. While I’m anti-abortion etc…I really don’t give a DAMN who consenting ADULTS bang or don’t bang(as long as they’re other consenting adults ‘course). MY problems start when what is supposed to be private gets shoved in my face and I’m then told that if I don’t think that it’s all great and beautiful that I’m a bigot!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Wait, so are the (D)s raping the gays or just watching?

rogerb on May 8, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Since Donks believe in science, someone should ask Mathews to explain the biologicaL purpose of homosexual union. I think C. Mathews is born of a result of male homosexual coitus.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Legalizing gay marriage will radically change the culture. Gay marriage is not about what people do of their own free will, or individual liberty. You get all the benefits of marriage with civil unions. It’s about redefining the word “marriage”, which, again, will radically change the culture. It’s about the gay lobby imposing THEIR moral views on everyone else. If it was just about freedom and liberty, civil unions would be sufficient. No, they want to impose their values onto the culture. Why do they want to change the definition of “marriage”? Why won’t they leave everyone else alone?

Paul-Cincy on May 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I see the opposite. You’re imposing your views by telling gays that they’re not good enough to get married. That it should only be between a man and a woman. Really who cares??

Do you not think there are plenty of happy and long lasting gay couples? Why shouldn’t they be able to get married and how does it cheapen your marriage or affect it in any way?

Do you think homosexualty is a sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

With all due respect to Mr. DeMint, there is nothing illogical or unworkable about the libertarian position. It may not be the most popular, but that is a different issue from what he suggested with his comments.

McDuck on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

first of all- i’m against it because it’s not God’s design for marriage. who are you to question how God designed us? do you know more than He does?

No, and you don’t either. Please don’t speak for Him.

Besides, I find it hard to believe that He would create a gay being and then turn His back on them.

BacaDog on May 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM

“…at least Democrats believe in evolution.”

Ironic, given that this was stated sideshow style by a highly trained, yet drunk and drooling chimp.

GrassMudHorsey on May 8, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Do you think homosexualty is a sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Do you think Elaine Huguenin and the others deserved to get sued?

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM

“As we cover this story, the president is thinking.“

I see no evidence in support of this assertion.

talkingpoints on May 8, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Sure, he’s thinking: “my Bulls are down 3-1 to the *&^%$#@! Sixers! How could this happen? Maybe I can lean on Stern to find a way to suspend the playoffs until DRose recovers from his knee injury. But it has to look fair. Better get Axelrod on this one. Hmmm….”

Oh, you meant thinking about the issues facing the country? Oh, well, uhm, gay what? uh, well, what percentage of gays vote? where do they live? how many are in swing states? and d*mn! 3-1!

rwenger43 on May 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

guess what? some of the “vote against” people in NC (against traditional marriage amendment) rarely seem to actually talk about or show pics of same-sex couples when they are trying to get people to vote against the amendment. they only talk about things like the amendment taking health care away from little kids, or increasing domestic violence rates. both of these are scare tactics and not really true. but the question is why are they talking about those other issues instead of talking about/ showing pics of same-sex couples? because they know that many people will lose interest if they do that.

contrary to popular belief, a lot of people do believe in traditional marriage. but people who believe in traditional marriage are bullied, intimidated and name-called into silence, while same-sex marriage supporters are very loud and vocal. so it seems like there are more of them than there actually is…

Sachiko on May 8, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Do you not think there are plenty of happy and long lasting gay couples? Why shouldn’t they be able to get married and how does it cheapen your marriage or affect it in any way?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. If gays want to hang together, that’s fine, but it is not a marriage. Why do you insist on calling it a marriage? Is any group of people living together a “marriage”? It must be, by your idiotic idea that marriage means any damn thing YOU want it to mean. Why don’t you just call yourself “smart”, too. Don’t let your low IQ get in the way. If you want to be called “smart”, then you must be “smart”.

I miss the days when gays used to call us “breeders” and laughed at “the idiocy of marriage”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM

“…at least Democrats believe in evolution.”

Ironic, given that this was stated sideshow style by a highly trained, yet drunk and drooling chimp.

GrassMudHorsey on May 8, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Highly trained??

Tim_CA on May 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM

first of all- i’m against it because it’s not God’s design for marriage. who are you to question how God designed us? do you know more than He does? i’ll stick to the intelligent design of male and female as compliments to one another, thank you.

second, it DOES affect us. ever heard all the stories of churches, wedding photogs, caterers, etc being sued because they have a different view on marriage? (in states where same-sex marriage is allowed) and other similar problems. you don’t hear about those stories from the msm. so, many people aren’t aware.

lastly i hate the phrase “imposing your moral values on me.” everyone imposes their values on others. gay-marriage supporters impose their moral views on traditional marriage supporters, and yet no one complains. it’s only traditional marriage supporters who are accused of “imposing values on others.”

Sachiko on May 8, 2012 at 1:16 PM

You voted against the gay marriage ban in NC today? Doesn’t that ban also prohibit civil unions?

So you’re imposing your values saying that gays don’t deserve to get married or have any type of union at all.

Again, it doesn’t affect your life if you stopped worrying about it so much. It’s like you can’t handle people having different beliefs.

What if you had a gay couple who lived right next door and did a great job of raising a kid? Would that by such a horrible thing or would it be a sin b/c God is against it?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Like it or not, moderates, independents, youth, and, as polls have shown, roughly 50% of the country is turned off by anti-gay rhetoric.

theoddmanout on May 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM

If those numbers were correct, the democrat party would have already come out to support it, and not this stupid dance on the fringe of it as 0bama is doing.

That “concern trolls” are out in force to try and browbeat the GOP into supporting same sex “marriage”, tells the tale that it is not nearly as popular as the MSM makes it out to be.

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I’m a social moderate. While I’m anti-abortion etc…I really don’t give a DAMN who consenting ADULTS bang or don’t bang(as long as they’re other consenting adults ‘course). MY problems start when what is supposed to be private gets shoved in my face and I’m then told that if I don’t think that it’s all great and beautiful that I’m a bigot!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Sounds like we may agree.

Now do you really care if gays get married?

We are about to collapse as a country yet we need to waste time on this??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

hey believe in evolution, but apparently not natural selection.

SouthernGent on May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

+1.

This means their core belief is in whatever they want without regard to intellectual or moral consistency.

rwenger43 on May 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Pro-family is inherent anti-government. Strong families don’t need governments. “Pragmatism” is all about leaving your values at the door.

Tell me, have you ever analyzed the Democrats core constituencies, really analyzed them? Democrats show stronger support among basically every group outside married heterosexual couples, with that strength increasing the more dependent on government the person in question is.

The GOP does the best among taxpayers independent of government assistance, so our coalition is basically married couples with children, singles with business interests, and religious voters who don’t think of government as a charity equivalent.

In short the GOP survives best in a culture that makes dependency on the state something to be ashamed of, something that an ordinary, decent person avoids until their most desperate moment. This is a moral argument, not a fiscal one.

Those who ignore the cultural dimension of society are cutting off their noses to spite their face. Strong families are the single greatest bulwark in helping a country economically and keeping a financial house in order.

Why do you think the left spends every waking moment of every waking day trying to undermine them? Why do they promote endless assistance to single mothers and layabouts, and promise to redifine marriage to include people who have no real use for it? Why do they constantly rail against masculinity and men who protect their families while advancing an intensely paternalistic, almighty State (ala Julia)?

Leftists know the game in a way “pragmatic” fiscal cons do not. Would that the latter pay attention before their entire community votes for the former on the basis of their dependency.

BKennedy

If pro-family is anti-government, then why do so many social conservatives want legislation drafted for this, and why do they want more of the government telling us how to life?

I do not believe in having the goverment do what we can do for ourselves. That goes for welfare, and also living our own lives.

I still do not get how gay marriage is going to bring about the downfall of society, yet the rampant divorce rate is just fine?

Seriously, I want to know how gay marriage is worse for the sanctity of marriage than the high divorce rates and broken families?

Considering how gays can not reproduce, there is less society upheaval if they divorce anyways. There are far more social consequences for heterosexual divorce.

So where are the demands for legislation to prevent heterosexual divorce, especially when there are families involved?

This seems less about supposedly protecting marriage, and more about treating gays like they are some boogeyman out to destroy the country.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:29 PM

“At least Democrats believe in evolution”

The kind of “evolution” that creates subspecies incapable of reproduction?

Liberals know as much about science as they know about economics.

logis on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Again, it doesn’t affect your life if you stopped worrying about it so much.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Why are you failing to acknowledge that same sex marriage can and will effect straight people?

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I want to hear Chrissie explain the evolution of the Jugeared Jesus’ Taliban blarney that came out of the super-duper secret Afghan hit-and-run.

Even CNN admitted that The Big Zero was full of it when claiming progress concerning talks with the Taliban, and in fact the opposite was true.

hillbillyjim on May 8, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Do you think Elaine Huguenin and the others deserved to get sued?

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:23 PM

No. I’m all about free will and individual choice.

If a restaurant wanted to deny service to blacks I’d be ok with that too. That’d be a horrible policy, but it’s not the job of the gov’t to tell anyone what to do. The free market would fix it by people not eating at the racist restaurant.

So no, no one shoud be sued for refusing to take pictures of gay couples or refusing to perform civil unions.

My main argument is that I don’t see how gay marriage negatively impacts any of our lives. Too many Christians are imposing their moral views and many view homosexuality as a sin (and don’t think they deserve the same rights).

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Tingles is shopping for a wedding dress as we read.

Joe Mama on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I support civil unions for same-sexers. I don’t approve of same-sex marriage.
That said-it’s not my biggest issue right now.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I see the opposite. You’re imposing your views by telling gays pedophiles, incest practitioners, polygamists, and bestialists that they’re not good enough to get married. That it should only be between a man and a woman. Really who cares??

Do you not think there are plenty of happy and long lasting gay pedophiles, incest practitioners, polygamists, and bestialist relationships? Why shouldn’t they be able to get married and how does it cheapen your marriage or affect it in any way?

Do you think homosexualty pedophilia, incest, polygamy, and bestiality are sins?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Now argue your logic.

Because the problem you have created is that you demand that marriage be granted on the basis of sexual attraction rather than on any other consideration.

If you create as a right marriage to whatever you’re sexually attracted, this is what you produce.

And if you insist on banning marriage to any of these other groups mentioned, you are being an inconsistent hypocrite.

northdallasthirty on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I see the opposite. You’re imposing your views by telling gays that they’re not good enough to get married. That it should only be between a man and a woman. Really who cares??

Do you not think there are plenty of happy and long lasting gay couples? Why shouldn’t they be able to get married and how does it cheapen your marriage or affect it in any way?

Do you think homosexualty is a sin?

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Gays can marry anyone of the opposite gender who is not an immediate blood relative. They abide by the same rules as everyone else. What you are essentially arguing is that the government benefits associted with marriage are supposed to be given out on the basis of an abstraction like love rather than as a series of protections primarily designed to benefit any children of a resulting union.

Moreover your assertion that “no one really cares” is demonstrably not true given gay marriage’s performance at the ballot box. No one really cares if anyone is gay, what they care about is the redefinition of something they not only consider sacred but which, if altered, permanently changes the relationship between the State and Religious liberty. It is never long before homosexual activists use the fig leaf of legal approval to litigate against religiously based outreach, claiming that churches whose services do not cater to homosexuals are engaging in illegal discrimination.

This, like gay marriage at the ballot box, also has a 100% correlation rate.

Homosexuality is a sin in every religion that recognizes such a concept as sin. It is an improper relationship that shows a failure to connect in the proper complementary way with the opposite gender and an inordinately inappropriate way of connecting with people of the same gender.

All the vast majority of Christians want is to draw the line in the sand at public endorsement of the intrinsically disordered act. They don’y want an expansive virtue police like in Saudi Arabia, they just don’t want the disorder elevated to equality with actual natural, healthy (read: complementary and theoretically fertile and procreative) relationships of the kind in which society has a vested interest.

BKennedy on May 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. If gays want to hang together, that’s fine, but it is not a marriage. Why do you insist on calling it a marriage? Is any group of people living together a “marriage”? It must be, by your idiotic idea that marriage means any damn thing YOU want it to mean. Why don’t you just call yourself “smart”, too. Don’t let your low IQ get in the way. If you want to be called “smart”, then you must be “smart”.

I miss the days when gays used to call us “breeders” and laughed at “the idiocy of marriage”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Way to win the argument. Throwing out insults just shows you’ve let your emotions get in the way and have nothing of value to say.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM

This is weird obsession that Chris Matthews always brings up. I remember at a debate he demanded all the Republican candidates raise their hand if they believe in evolution.

I don’t judge a person’s intelligence on how they side with this issue, and I certainly don’t care one way or another about a politicians’ belief on the matter.

BradTank on May 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM

“At least Democrats believe in evolution”

…and Tingles is still a brainless baboon!

KOOLAID2 on May 8, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. If gays want to hang together, that’s fine, but it is not a marriage. Why do you insist on calling it a marriage? Is any group of people living together a “marriage”? It must be, by your idiotic idea that marriage means any damn thing YOU want it to mean. Why don’t you just call yourself “smart”, too. Don’t let your low IQ get in the way. If you want to be called “smart”, then you must be “smart”.

I miss the days when gays used to call us “breeders” and laughed at “the idiocy of marriage”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM

No, you’re being disingenuous. You’re equating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality.

They are not even close to being the same. Raping little boys and animals does not equal two men having sex.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I see the opposite. You’re imposing your views by telling gays that they’re not good enough to get married. That it should only be between a man and a woman. Really who cares??

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Much as your side doesn’t want to admit it, there is a biological reason for the sexual intercourse between men and women- the procreation of the species. It is from that standpoint that the sanctity of marriage is important as a societal norm. When two guys want to get together and have sex, I see no reason to honor that with the term marriage. It isn’t that sodomites are second-class citizens, it is that there is no point in making homosexuality an honored lifestyle choice. And make no mistake, sexual orientation may or may not be innate behavior but that doesn’t mean we need to elevate the status of homosexuality any more than we honor and support the rights of drunks.

And it is the pro-gay side that is imposing their views when they demand normalization of abnormal (from a biological standpoint) behavior.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I assume you pasted the wrong comment in your response.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:36 PM

My main argument is that I don’t see how gay marriage negatively impacts any of our lives.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:31 PM

How can you not see, what I posted a bunch of time, and that you read? Are you saying that getting sued for thousands of dollars is not a negative impact, or being forced to provide services under threat of lawsuit is not a negative impact?

Rebar on May 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on May 8, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Hear, hear! Exactly my feelings. Besides, why would gays want to join the rest of the population in terms of statistics on failed marriages? I have my own thoughts about the issue as I believe that we have discounted the role fathers play in the raising of children. That is to say, the role that fathers and mothers play together. We seem to be ready to accept that children are just as well off (and I don’t mean financially) with no father, two mothers, two fathers, or some other permutation of the notion of family. I could go on, but no one would really want to listen. ;-)

I believe the question of marriage should be decided by populations of the individual states, not the Federal Government, so the issue shouldn’t even be part of the presidential scene. I know, I know, I’m wishing here.

totherightofthem on May 8, 2012 at 1:37 PM

So, then, according to Mr. Matthews, the Democrats officially are FOOLS, right? As it is written, “The FOOL hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Psalm 14: 1 and 53:1)

And he ties evolution to sodomite marriages? This man is a FOOL twice! Good job, Mr. Matthews.

Gordy on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. If gays want to hang together, that’s fine, but it is not a marriage. Why do you insist on calling it a marriage? Is any group of people living together a “marriage”? It must be, by your idiotic idea that marriage means any damn thing YOU want it to mean. Why don’t you just call yourself “smart”, too. Don’t let your low IQ get in the way. If you want to be called “smart”, then you must be “smart”.

I miss the days when gays used to call us “breeders” and laughed at “the idiocy of marriage”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 8, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Hate to break it to you: homosexuality is genetic. Gays can’t help it. They can’t marry someone of the opposite sex b/c they aren’t attracted to them and never will be.

Ever seen obviously gay men? The ones that sound like girls and are very feminine? Or butch type women…. you know like Elena Kagan? Pretty obvious that it’s genetic.

To tell them they can’t get married is ridiculous, it’s bigotry.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM

You’re equating homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality.

They are not even close to being the same. Raping little boys and animals does not equal two men having sex.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

See this circular argument of yours is what makes the whole issue so absurd. You whine about pro-traditional marriage imposing their views yet who are you to say that pedophilia or beastiality is wrong. Are these not natural urges just as homosexuality? Why do we carve out a special place in society for sodomy but not beastiality? Who are those demanding same-sex marriage to deny others the love they might have for their goat?

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Much as your side doesn’t want to admit it, there is a biological reason for the sexual intercourse between men and women- the procreation of the species. It is from that standpoint that the sanctity of marriage is important as a societal norm. When two guys want to get together and have sex, I see no reason to honor that with the term marriage. It isn’t that sodomites are second-class citizens, it is that there is no point in making homosexuality an honored lifestyle choice. And make no mistake, sexual orientation may or may not be innate behavior but that doesn’t mean we need to elevate the status of homosexuality any more than we honor and support the rights of drunks.

And it is the pro-gay side that is imposing their views when they demand normalization of abnormal (from a biological standpoint) behavior.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM

That’s the recurring theme I keep seeing. The anti gay marriage crowd doesn’t view gays as equals. You look at them as inferior, as sinners. You just compared them to drunks, another compared them to pedophiles and beastiliaty.

So we should only be allowed to get married for procreation? That’s the basis of your argument? What about straight couples who marry but never have kids? Should they then not be allowed to get married?

What about straight couples having sex for fun, not for procreation? Isn’t that by definition against God’s will and should be forbidden? My point is many people are hypocrites. They point to God saying homosexuality is a sin, but I’m many of them have sex with their wives for fun, not just to procreate.

LevinFan on May 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Homosexuality is a sin in every religion that recognizes such a concept as sin. It is an improper relationship that shows a failure to connect in the proper complementary way with the opposite gender and an inordinately inappropriate way of connecting with people of the same gender.

All the vast majority of Christians want is to draw the line in the sand at public endorsement of the intrinsically disordered act. They don’y want an expansive virtue police like in Saudi Arabia, they just don’t want the disorder elevated to equality with actual natural, healthy (read: complementary and theoretically fertile and procreative) relationships of the kind in which society has a vested interest.

BKennedy

Then how about this compromise.

Anyone who has sinned, can not get married. That sounds like a logical compromise, since if homosexuality is a sin, and therefore “sin” should prevent them from getting married. Then lets make sure that if anyone has sinned, they can not get married.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4