Open thread: Lugargeddon; Update: Mourdock wins; Update: Lugar hits Mourdock’s “unrelenting partisan mindset”; Update: NC bans gay marriage and civil unions; Update: Massive GOP turnout for Scott Walker; Update: Obama facing stiff challenge in WV from … federal inmate

posted at 5:21 pm on May 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

The polls in Indiana close promptly at 6 p.m. ET. If you believe the latest numbers, we’ll get a call sooner rather than later. How did it come to this? WaPo:

At the start of 2011, Lugar met with senior party strategists who walked him through the mistakes made by the likes of Murkowski and Bennett — and emphasized how he too was vulnerable unless he took a far more aggressive approach to the possibility of a primary fight. Lugar chose not to heed those warnings.

Instead, the senator seemed to believe — wrongly — that his situation was unique, that his connection to voters in the Hoosier State went deeper and was, therefore, tougher to break than those of his losing colleagues…

“Conventional wisdom is that he should have gone nuclear early, but that would have killed him out of the gate,” said one Republican strategist who has worked in the state and is sympathetic to the incumbent. “Indiana would simply not have accepted that from him.”

The other problem for Lugar, according to the source, was that there was never a clean hit available on Mourdock that matched the incumbent’s support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), his votes on judges, nagging residency questions, and, yes, the friendliness between him and President Obama. (Lugar has been floated as a possible Defense Secretary in the Obama Administration.)

Contrast Lugar’s lackadaisical approach with Orrin Hatch’s aggressive backstage maneuvering to make sure this year’s Utah GOP convention was more favorably disposed to him than the last one was to Bob Bennett. The result: Lugar’s headed for retirement while Hatch came within a whisker of clinching the nomination outright and will probably win the runoff against Dan Liljenquist. Assuming it plays out that way, the conventional wisdom among Republican incumbents will be set in cement. From now on, if you see a tea-party challenge coming, you follow the McCain/Hatch approach and confront it proactively and expeditiously. There’ll be no more Bennetts or Lugars who get caught napping in the primary; from now on, everyone’s awake. I’m not sure how grassroots conservatives will counter that but I’d bet on a bigger role for outfits like FreedomWorks and the rise of tea-party Super PACs which can aggregate funds and launch damaging broadsides against incumbents before they’ve consolidated a lead against their primary opponents.

As for why a nice man like Dick Lugar needs to be retired, James Antle sums it up:

Peggy Noonan also stressed family ties when making the case for sending Lugar back to the Senate: “What Washington needs is sober and responsible adults.” Noonan didn’t disclose who the children were in this relationship.

But it is the sober and responsible adults who have accumulated a national debt larger than the country’s economy. There are two ways to demonstrate one’s sobriety and responsibility in Washington: to be as supportive of druken sailor-style fiscal irresponsibility as possible or to be as timid as possible in opposition to it.

Over in the Greenroom, Karl reminds Noonan that she seemed to have a handle on this logic not so long ago. Simply put, if you’re bracing for a brutal political war over sustainability in the age of entitlements, you’re probably not going to get much from a genial grandfatherly type whose tenure has seen more than $14 trillion added in federal debt. (Same goes for Hatch, do note.) More from Dan McLaughlin:

As I’ve noted before, besides the various ideological and cultural divides within the GOP, a core dividing line is over a sense of urgency to contain the runaway growth of federal spending and the reach of the federal government. It is difficult to picture Lugar and Hatch, as a pair of courtly octogenarians, having the necessary energy not only to seek what is apt to be a difficult partisan confrontation over these issues, but to put pressure on a president from their own party. And while Utah voters will surely be excited to go to the polls for Romney, conservative voters in other states like Indiana will need more encouragement – not yet another message that the establishment has shut them out. That’s good news in Ohio, where a fresh face (State Treasurer Josh Mandel) is on the ballot facing accused wife-beater Sherrod Brown; it may be more difficult to manage in some other races. And building a critical mass of such candidates (Mandel, Liljenquist, Mourdock, Ted Cruz in Texas, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Don Stenberg in Nebraska, Mark Neumann in Wisconsin, possibly a few others who haven’t proven themselves just yet) will make it easier to convince conservatives nationwide that even with Romney at the top, and even with some Senate races where we are resigned to moderates (Dean Heller, Scott Brown, Linda Lingle) or establishment-minded conservatives (George Allen), the party has not completely lost touch with the lessons of its victories in 2010.

Beyond all of this, on a gut level, the careerism evinced by an 80-year-old pleading for one more term in the Senate after serving 36 years is simply grotesque. (Again, same goes for Hatch.) I used to oppose term limits on grounds that the people should be fully free to choose their representatives but over time I’ve come to think the greater danger than slightly limiting their choices is letting a permanent political class calcify. If you want bold solutions to grave national problems, one surefire way to encourage them is to free politicians from reelection considerations. Give ‘em two terms in the Senate and, let’s say, six in the House and you might finally see some movement on entitlements. Might.

Here’s the Google Elections page for tracking results. Two other important races tonight. First, in Wisconsin, Democrats will choose a recall challenger for Scott Walker. Labor’s candidate is Kathleen Falk but Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is favored; the contest is bitter enough that a post-election party unity rally has been canceled, so sit back and enjoy as Trumka and his pals in Wisconsin fume. The other big contest is the North Carolina vote that would ban gay marriage — and civil unions. If the last poll is right, the vote won’t be close: It’s 55/39 in favor of the ban in a state O won in 2008, which helps explain why he’s keeping his head down on this subject this week. Gallup’s out with a new gay-marriage poll today too showing 50 percent support nationally versus 48 percent opposition, but the key is the demographics. Greg Sargent:

It’s been widely reported that Obama fears coming out for marriage equality because it could alienate culturally conservative Dems and independents in swing states. Perhaps, but sizable majorities of moderates and independents support it, making Obama’s stance all the more mystifying (though no one believes he actually opposes it).

That said, there is one other interesting data point: Gallup tells me that non-college voters oppose gay marriage by 56-43. This appears to include African Americans, but it also suggests blue collar whites — a demographic Obama has alienated and needs to win back — risk getting put off over the issue. (Incidentally, as Molly Ball points out, non-whites oppose gay marriage in almost exactly the same proportions as the rest of Americans do.)

That’s why President Gutsy Call makes his flack go out to the podium and give ridiculous non-answers like this. The polls in Carolina close at 7:30 ET. Stand by for updates, needless to say.

Update: Looks like the Google Elections link I gave you is following the by-now-meaningless presidential primary results. For Lugar/Mourdock returns, click here.

Update: That didn’t take long. Lugar’s Senate career is over.

NBC News has declared Richard Mourdock as the projected winner in the Indiana Senate primary. Mourdock defeated Republican foreign policy elder statesman Sen. Richard Lugar…

Looking toward the November election, National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said two weeks ago that “it will probably make it more of a contest if Sen. Lugar is not the nominee, but I’m confident we’ll hold the seat.”

Not such a good night for this guy either, huh?

Update: What now for Lugar, then? He’s eager to work for another six years despite his advanced age, but he hasn’t been a private-sector guy for a long, long time. He’s friends with Obama so presumably The One will appoint him to something. Any ambassadorships open? Forget Pakistan; I mean something less stressful.

Update: Go figure that a careerist would turn bitter when finally forced to answer to his constituents.

Of Mourdock, Lugar says: “His embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance.”

More:

Lugar: “Our political system is losing its ability to explore alternatives. … Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions.”

Jonah Goldberg joked earlier on Twitter that they’ll be wearing funeral attire tomorrow on “Morning Joe.” He’s only half-kidding: Prepare for a solid day’s worth of truly insufferable media navel-gazing about the “loss of moderation” and tea-party “radicalism,” yadda yadda yadda.

Update: Philip Klein sees the value in sending a message to Romney:

Any elected Republican that doesn’t pursue a small government agenda once in office risks suffering the same fate as Lugar. Had Lugar hung on, then a lot of people would have dismissed the Tea Party as a passing fad from 2010. But now it’s clear that the movement has been underestimated once again. Tea Partiers have a lot more staying power than skeptics expected.

With the Republican presidential nomination going to the ideologically malleable Mitt Romney, supporters of limited government have recognized that their best hope for advancing the conservative agenda rests on the ability to elect as many principled conservatives to Congress as possible. That is, lawmakers who will be willing to fight for smaller government even if it means standing up to a president of their own party. The more victories the Tea Party racks up, the greater the chance that Romney will be forced to govern as a limited government conservative if elected, even if his natural inclination is to migrate to the left.

Update: Very curious. Looks like the prepared statement that Lugar released earlier was much more critical of Mourdock than the remarks he ended up delivering. Compare and contrast. Maybe his speechwriters drafted something and he thought it was too bitter? Here’s the relevant passage from the prepared remarks:

He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it…

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that.

Update: As expected, North Carolina’s initiative to ban all forms of same-sex unions wins in a romp. Probably won’t hear too much more about gay marriage from Joe Biden during this campaign.

Update: How’s this for a beautiful result? Count the vote totals — and remember that the Democratic primary was the one being hotly contested while its GOP counterpart was a walkover:

Walker’s banked considerably more votes than Barrett and Falk combined. Message sent.

Update: And at last, we arrive at the most surreal story of the night. I think we can go ahead and put West Virginia in the Romney column for November:

With 60-odd percent of the vote counted in West Virginia’s Democratic primary, a man named Keith Judd can make a unique claim. He has won a greater proportion of the vote — almost 40 percent — than any other primary candidate running against Barack Obama.

Who’s Keith Judd? He’s prisoner #11593-051, currently serving out a sentence for making threats at the University of New Mexico.

With 74 percent reporting in West Virginia, Obama leads Judd 60/40. Inmate #11593-051 may end up winning a delegate.

Update: Jon Gabriel tweets, “It’ll be ironic if Eric Holder ends up being Keith Judd’s cellmate.”

Update: You ready for this? Joe Manchin refuses to say whether he voted for Obama in the Democratic primary in West Virginia.


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 8 9 10 11 12

Didn’t I already deconstruct this legal fallacy for you yesterday?

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

You did not. Your attempt was weak, and didn’t even begin to refute or challenge it.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM

How about staying the hell out of our business?

Love,

That’s what gay people said?

As I’ve said before, I’m generally ambivalent about marriage equality as a cause. But its still heartbreaking to see a state, en masse, endorse the exclusion of a whole class of citizens from legal recognition of their relationship. Especially when the legal recognition of that relationship does nothing to harm anyone else. Its aggressively hateful and just a shame.

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

While I agree in principle, it’s a frickin joke to see a liberal complain about any sort of freedom; while it argues that government can force people to buy products. And whose party thinks government can force people to eat certain foods and force people to exercise.

lorien1973 on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

; )

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Why do gays feel the need to demand that a religious ceremony be forced by the state to recognize a lifestyle which that religion would not condone?

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

That really is the question.

The only answer I’ve been able to come to, is when I started running across articles about the detrimental mental health effect of civil unions on gay couples. Civil Unions made them feel second-class.

Up until that point, I was very lenient about the issue. I then realized that for one segment of the same-sex advocates, it is about equality. But for another, it’s about making religious institutions irrelevant within culture and society.

That’s why the ad hominem attacks against “Christians” are so resentful.

If it was truly about equality in society, you go the separation of church and state route, and this ends within a year.

But that would put the word marriage back in the hands of religious orgs. Even though some already practice same-sex ceremonies, it’s not good enough. All have to do it.

So for hardliners, it’s not about equality; it’s about exclusion and the feelings of inferiority it creates within a segment of the non-Christian, mainly secular, crowd. That leads to resentment and desire to hit out at Christian orgs in any way possible.

Progs are hypocrites. They want the government to decree a sacrament as a license while screaming about the fear of right-wing theocracy.

In other words, without religion, they pray to The State.

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Second, very few conservatives that I’ve talked to or have read on line have issues with civil unions. Why not just let the traditionalists have their word and fight the good fight for the legal issues, which would be no different whether it be “marriage” or “civil unions”.

kim roy on May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

They just voted against it.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

What’s Mr. Burns’ assistant’s name? Lugar’s yelling at that guy.

Maybe Akbar will give him a Coke and a smile.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Smithers. That’s it. Lugar is in his hotel room yelling at Smithers right now.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:13 AM

A power of attorney, whether for financial purposes or for health care, is not a contract. State run hospitals may be required to disregard a health care power of attorney where power is held by a domestic partner. Suppose Wimpy suffers a massive stroke and goes into a coma. Wimpy has told his domestic partner Bluto that he does not wish to be fed through a tube, unable to enjoy hamburgers as a living vegetable. Wimpy has even given Bluto a power of attorney over all health care decisions, so strongly does he feel about this. If Wimpy is hospitalized at the University of North Carolina hospitals (a state facility), Wimpy’s niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto’s decision on the grounds that the law does not “recognize” a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.”

———–

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

You wanted to reform power-of-attorney laws and your strategy was to link it to gay marriage?

Great plan. Especially in North Carolina. Well played.

RINO in Name Only on May 9, 2012 at 12:13 AM

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:41 PM

My sister-in-law is a world class classical musician-obscure instrument-that adopted a child @ 43. When I’m 43 I’m going to have a 19 year old son-born when I was almost 24 and married. Doing well in her chosen profession requires a huge commitment-so she put things like marriage off. Mr. Right never came along and then she decided that she was called to be a mom.
I disagreed from the get go. If she had wanted to be a mom she would have changed her priorities to try to make it happen. When you’re a middle-age woman-adopting a child is a selfish thing to do-because you’re both denying that child your ‘youth’ AND a father.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

; )

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I’m proud of myself. I didn’t have to Google that.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Me and my husband support civil unions. We also don’t live in NC. If we did-we would’ve voted against the amendment on that basis.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM

You did not. Your attempt was weak, and didn’t even begin to refute or challenge it.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Whatever you say boss. If you want to live in denial over the fact that the federal courts have never seen things you’re way concerning the Full Faith and Credit clause, and that no lawyers are stupid enough to challenge the federal DOMA on these grounds that’s your ignorant loving business.

Live the fantasy!

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM

I disagreed from the get go. If she had wanted to be a mom she would have changed her priorities to try to make it happen. When you’re a middle-age woman-adopting a child is a selfish thing to do-because you’re both denying that child your ‘youth’ AND a father.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

How old is the child? And how social is your sister-in-law? You know better than I….it’s a case-by-case thing. If she has a wide, active circle of friends, it might turn out fine. If not, it will be more difficult. But she does have to live her own life, and if she really lets her love rain down on that child, that child could be blessed. Let’s hope so.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:18 AM

1000 or bust

Schadenfreude on May 9, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Congratulations on using a curse word. That really shows your knowledge of the subject matter.

I didn’t say anything about interracial marriage or what courts have or have not ruled or precedents, because all of that is irrelevant. I simply referred to the Constitution. Read the clause yourself.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 11:56 PM

I have, dumbass – there’s another for you – and your constant stream of generalities just goes to prove you’ve got nothing.

It’s really not that clever of a strategy.

You make a general statement with no backing.

You get called out, then claim that’s not what you were referring to, but then provide nothing else.

So as long as you put nothing forward, you can’t be wrong and can just deny everything else.

Like I said, if this helps you sleep, have fun.

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM

A power of attorney, whether for financial purposes or for health care, is not a contract. State run hospitals may be required to disregard a health care power of attorney where power is held by a domestic partner. Suppose Wimpy suffers a massive stroke and goes into a coma. Wimpy has told his domestic partner Bluto that he does not wish to be fed through a tube, unable to enjoy hamburgers as a living vegetable. Wimpy has even given Bluto a power of attorney over all health care decisions, so strongly does he feel about this. If Wimpy is hospitalized at the University of North Carolina hospitals (a state facility), Wimpy’s niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto’s decision on the grounds that the law does not “recognize” a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.”

———–

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

The hospital will respect the Power-of-Attorney and side with Bluto and let Wimpy die, because he has a history of offering to pay Tuesday for the hamburger he ate today…

His credit rating’s shot all to hell so they know they won’t get the $$ back..

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Seven Percent Solution is a single dad and he seems to do a great job.

Cindy Munford on May 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

…agreed!

KOOLAID2 on May 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:18 AM

She’s a classical musician with a ton of friends and a huge support system. My niece is a doll and well loved-but I still think that her actions were selfish.
Not everyone gets to run in her circles. Not everyone gets to be a mom.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I’m proud of myself. I didn’t have to Google that.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I love it when that happens! Rarer and rarer for me. ; )

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Progs are hypocrites. They want the government to decree a sacrament as a license while screaming about the fear of right-wing theocracy.

In other words, without religion, they pray to The State.

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Precisely. It’s not about “equality”. Most every civil union any state passed provides equality. It is about forcing those who they absolutely loathe, those mean nasty Christians, to acknowledge their lifestyle as being acceptable. For people they hate so much, they sure do crave them some approval from them, huh?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Whatever you say boss. If you want to live in denial over the fact that the federal courts have never seen things you’re way concerning the Full Faith and Credit clause, and that no lawyers are stupid enough to challenge the federal DOMA on these grounds that’s your ignorant loving business.

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Even George Bush knew the law was vulnerable along these lines, which is why he wanted a Constitutional amendment. You have no business calling anyone ignorant. The Constitution can only be changed through the amendment process.

Here is the Constitution: “”full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state,”

Here is DOMA: “No state, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

Again, your argument is that because you don’t know of any challenges, or that no challenges may exist, or that courts have upheld unconstitutional laws, it is therefore Constitutional. None of this makes any unconstitutional law less unconstitutional.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM

lorien1973 on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

That’s what polygamists and incest practitioners said too.

But I believe in federalism. If VT wants to legalize incestuous marriage, abolish street lights and speed limits, and lower the age of consent to nine, so be it. I choose not to live there.

mankai on May 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM

No civil unions in NC?

Marriage I understand restricting since its fundamental meaning is a union of complementary genders, but why restrict other basic non-marriage-related rights between two people who live long term committed relationships to equal access to loved ones in hospitals, for insurance purposes, inheritance, etc. through the accommodation of “civil unions”?

What’s the logic in NC for this?

profitsbeard on May 9, 2012 at 12:06 AM

I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but what is the state interest in recognizing long-term committed relationships? I would be very open to reforming power-of-attorney laws, hospital-access, etc., but I don’t see what it should have to do at all with marriage, civil unions, or anything, for that matter. How about an “I’ll give power-of-attorney and hospital access to whomever I damn well please” bill?

As I recall, in the vice-presidential debates in 2008, noted fundamentalist, right-wing, tea-party-terrorist, wolf-hunting extremist Sarah Palin said she believed everyone should be able to grant hospital access to anyone.

RINO in Name Only on May 9, 2012 at 12:26 AM

I have, dumbass – there’s another for you – and your constant stream of generalities just goes to prove you’ve got nothing.

It’s really not that clever of a strategy.

You make a general statement with no backing.

You get called out, then claim that’s not what you were referring to, but then provide nothing else.

So as long as you put nothing forward, you can’t be wrong and can just deny everything else.

Like I said, if this helps you sleep, have fun.

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Surprise. Poster who defaults to profanity uses more profanity and name calling when his straw man is exposed.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM

She’s a classical musician with a ton of friends and a huge support system. My niece is a doll and well loved-but I still think that her actions were selfish.
Not everyone gets to run in her circles. Not everyone gets to be a mom.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I hope it will work out. I’m opinionated like you are, and so I would offer a small piece of advice – try to see the bright side of it and be as supportive as you can, and don’t always say everything you think. I’m guilty of that in my own family. She’s taking on a huge burden at that age, and I think it takes guts on her part, and she’s going need all the wisdom and help she can get. You can be a great resource for her, and also help the child by helping her avoid “rookie” mistakes.

The ton of friends and support system sounds promising. If she was a loner, it would be far tougher on the child.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Take heart liberals; You’ve got him
until November.
ROFLOL

txhsmom on May 9, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Even George Bush knew the law was vulnerable along these lines, which is why he wanted a Constitutional amendment. You have no business calling anyone ignorant. The Constitution can only be changed through the amendment process.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:24 AM

Try and stay focused.

The Full Faith and Credit clause is not interpreted this way. No federal DOMA challenge goes after Section 2 of the DOMA because it is a losing challenge. A constitutional amendment is not required when there is no constitutional violation in play.

Live the fantasy!

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I love it when that happens! Rarer and rarer for me. ; )

Bmore on May 9, 2012 at 12:22 AM

I look forward to the day when I am a grump(ier) old man and have not outsourced my brain to a device, while all the young whippersnappers have done so and actuall have smooth, empty, solely reactive brains.

I’ll run circles around them by quoting my own phone number out loud, and laugh.

I’ll also be able to use my topographical memory and get places without a GPS.

I’ll also be the best 90-year-old mugger you ever saw because everyone will be walking around with their heads jerking left and right in their Google Glasses and clueless to their surroundings.

I guess they won’t be carrying cash, but jewelry will be cool!

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Joel Phelps has won the nomination in Indiana’s 1st district.

Susan Brooks has won the nomination in Indiana’s 5th district.

Carlos May has won the nomination in Indiana’s 7th district.

Tim D’Annunzio has won the nomination in North Carolina’s 4th.

David Rouzer has won the nomination in North Carolina’s 7th.

Richard Hudson and Scott Keadle will have a runoff in North Carolina’s 8th.

Robert Pittenger and Jim Pendergraph will have a runoff in North Carolina’s 9th.

Mark Meadows and Vance Patterson will have a runoff in North Carolina’s 11th.

George Holding has won the nomination in North Carolina’s 13th.

Rick Snuffer has won the primary in West Virginia’s 3rd.

topdawg on May 9, 2012 at 12:32 AM

1) goodbye Lamar. You’re the reason the conservatives no longer want to negotiate across the aisle. You helped sell our kids future. You POS.

2) and to think Oboobi pick NC for a supposed re- coronation. You sure about starting s new “war on gays “?

3) two birds of a feather running neck and neck with an inmate.. I’d support an impeachment of your Highness.

4) Congrats to walker. You’re exactly the kind of Republican that Lamar and hatch despise. We need more with your intestinal fortitude. And to think that a bunch of RINOs are convinced that your type are unelectable. And shame on ‘conservatives ‘ that plan to yield to the lesser of two evils, Mittness, instead of voting their principles.

4) bring on the contested convention, it is the GOP ‘s last chance to reject Mittness and pick a bold conservative.

AH_C on May 9, 2012 at 12:37 AM

When you’re a middle-age woman-adopting a child is a selfish thing to do-because you’re both denying that child your ‘youth’ AND a father.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:14 AM

On the other hand, the adopter is hopefully providing a loving, stable home to child that might otherwise not have one. But, I see your point…

Gohawgs on May 9, 2012 at 12:37 AM

The Full Faith and Credit clause is not interpreted this way. No federal DOMA challenge goes after Section 2 of the DOMA because it is a losing challenge. A constitutional amendment is not required when there is no constitutional violation in play.

Live the fantasy!

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Talk about denial. I just cited the Constitution and DOMA back to back. Any fool can see the DOMA wording takes the FFC clause and tacks on an exception, which in effect amends the clause. That cannot be done except through Constitutional Amendment

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Indiana Hocks a Lugar
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/05/08/indiana-hocks-a-lugar

ITguy on May 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 12:27 AM

She 45 now-and I have 3 other sisters-in-law(Husband is oldest of 5. Adoptive mom is the youngest and only girl) and I’m considered to be nice and quirky and not all there by the ’3′-so I’ve been kept out of the loop. Her daughter is doing well-she’s from Africa-and is a cutie. I do admit that it’s great that my niece is getting to grow-up around orchestras and musicianship. She’s going to be a little Renaissance girl. LoL
Btw: My sister-in-law doesn’t know what I think-and I’m never going to tell her.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:40 AM

And now everybody is celebrating that they don’t have civil unions any more, either.

Gelsomina on May 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

NC didn’t have civil unions prior to this amendment. The amendment pretty much mirrors current NC law.

NotCoach on May 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Yes, I wasn’t very clear. What I meant was that the same people who said that they are for civil unions are now celebrating the fact that not even civil unions are allowed.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Uh-Oh, North Carolina. Barack is “disappointed” in you.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s campaign says he’s “disappointed” with North Carolina’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Obama campaign spokesman Cameron French said in a Tuesday statement that the ban on same-sex unions is “divisive and discriminatory.” French says same-sex couples deserve the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.

Obama officials have been embroiled in a national discussion of same-sex marriage since Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that he is “absolutely comfortable” with gay marriage. Obama himself hasn’t embraced legalizing gay marriage, saying his views on the subject are “evolving.”

North Carolinians overwhelming voted Tuesday to amend their state constitution, strengthening a state law that already outlawed same-sex unions.

SouthernGent on May 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Gays using the term marriage is not about happiness. It is about legal recognition and the ability to force others, both the state and private citizens/business, to recognize the union.

Your claim is laughable.

cptacek on May 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

So basically gay people are such soulless monsters that they don’t have the same motivations and desires as everyone else? They are motivated by a desire to oppress you? Wow, I wonder if some of you think through the full implications of your statements. If gay people are that sociopathic, shouldn’t they all be locked up?

libfreeordie on May 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

How does someone being able to legally call their partnership “marriage” make them happier? Heck, they CAN call their partnerships marriage in everyday life. It is just a collection of letters, right? So, they must need the legal recognition, or else they would just drop it.

I don’t follow how me pointing out that the fight is so that they are legally recognized just as a marriage is recognized implies I think they are soulless monsters?

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Why do gays feel the need to demand that a religious ceremony be forced by the state to recognize a lifestyle which that religion would not condone?

CycloneCDB on May 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

“a religious ceremony”?! What religion (besides Statism) are Justices of the Peace representing when they marry people?

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Nope.

Rio Linda Refugee on May 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Well your answer certainly indicated you did. Now you’ve moved on to name calling, a sign of a weak mind.

Dante on May 8, 2012 at 10:55 PM

You mean like “Mittbot”, “statist” and “enabler”?

*koff*

kim roy on May 9, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Looks like Barry and Jimmah will be building a lot of houses together, huh?

Punchenko on May 9, 2012 at 12:45 AM

How does someone being able to legally call their partnership “marriage” make them happier?

…have you been to a wedding?

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM

You mean like “Mittbot”, “statist” and “enabler”?

*koff*

kim roy on May 9, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I’ve never called anyone Mittbot or any other kind of bot. Pointing out one is a statist and enabler is not name calling.

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Uh-Oh, North Carolina. Barack is “disappointed” in you.

SouthernGent on May 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Yep – this is where the wheels start coming off for Barry. He’s going to spend the next few months telling these people they’re bigots and scum, then come to their state and expect the royal treatment and hope to carry it in November. Reality bites.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

They don’t “need” Marriage because what they really want is for everyone to accept that their Sexual activities are moral, and that is never going to be the case with the entire country. Your not going to get 100% of the country to agree on anything.

They need to accept the fact that they will never be able to complete eliminate “bigotry” no matter how strongly they try to use the arm of the Federal Goverment to make it happen.

Bluray on May 9, 2012 at 12:00 AM

There’s more to homosexuality than just “sexual activities”. I don’t know why so many here think that homosexuals are incapable of love.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

“a religious ceremony”?! What religion (besides Statism) are Justices of the Peace representing when they marry people?

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 12:42 AM

I speak of the origins of state sanctioned marriage, not the current state of it. The states started to recognize/sanction marriage for its own purposes…not the other way around.

Read a book every once in a while. History is your friend.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 12:51 AM

…have you been to a wedding?

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Please reread all of my posts and note where I say LEGAL and where I do not. You are completely missing my point, and I have to believe that you are doing it on purpose.

Let’s say that a man and a woman stand up in front of family and friends and commit themselves to each other for ever. Let’s say that the officiant thought he had gotten the applicable officiant license from the internet, but the web site had been hacked and the license isn’t legal (which means they aren’t legally married.)

Are they less happy? When they find out, do they consider themselves not married?

If this happened to me, I would get the legal documents out of the way when I got back from the honeymoon, but I would consider myself married regardless.

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Talk about denial. I just cited the Constitution and DOMA back to back. Any fool can see the DOMA wording takes the FFC clause and tacks on an exception, which in effect amends the clause. That cannot be done except through Constitutional Amendment

Dante on May 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Obviously this is a difficult concept for you to comprehend. You can continue to insist you have a point if you’d like, but there really isn’t any point in continuing the argument since your position will never be supported legally. I may as well argue with someone who insists we all have a constitutional right to a unicorn.

Live the fantasy!

NotCoach on May 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Nice job Indiana! Thanks for sending another career GOP Senator packing. Maybe we have a shot at turning this country around after all.

Regarding the ban on Gay marriage…

I can’t stand hearing the discussions about “Gay Rights” or “women’s rights” or so on. The fact of the matter is the moment you begin to argue for “x” rights, you create a special class of citizen that isn’t allowed under the constitution.

Technically, homosexual people have the exact same rights as heterosexual people. Both groups of people can legally marry members of the opposite sex.

“Oh but Flash, I should have the the right to marry the person I love!”

Funny, I don’t see that listed as a “right” anywhere. I don’t recall being in love as a requirement for marriage. Just the legal union between two (opposite sex) individuals.

So really, “gay marriage” isn’t what we’re talking about here. We’re simply talking about legalizing (or not) the ability for someone to marry a member of the same sex.

It might seem like semantics but the point is very important when it comes to actual rights. Gay people are not being denied any rights. If heterosexual people were allowed to marry the same sex but homosexual people couldn’t…then you have an example of rights being denied. See the difference?

Otherwise, we are creating special rights and protections for a specific segment of our population which is against the constitution.

Same thing applies to “minority rights” or “women’s rights” or what have you.

Flashwing on May 9, 2012 at 1:01 AM

There’s more to homosexuality than just “sexual activities”. I don’t know why so many here think that homosexuals are incapable of love.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

You mean gays aren’t all about sexual activities? They are the only “minority” group defined by their sexual activities!

Kjeil on May 9, 2012 at 1:02 AM

You mean gays aren’t all about sexual activities? They are the only “minority” group defined by their sexual activities!

Kjeil on May 9, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Don’t you DARE define homoSEXuals by their SEXual activity! Have you no heart?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:05 AM

With 74 percent reporting in West Virginia, Obama leads Judd 60/40. Inmate #11593-051 may end up winning a delegate.

The Democrats will simply take his delegates away, just like they did to Obama’s challengers in Oklahoma. Can’t have anyone causing trouble at the convention.

txhsmom on May 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM

If this happened to me, I would get the legal documents out of the way when I got back from the honeymoon, but I would consider myself married regardless.

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Your own example disproves your point. First its a super rare hypothetical situation. Why? Because most people view the legal component as an essential part of what makes their marriage, a marriage. If the legal recognition were totally unrelated from how people felt about their marriages there would be *many* more people who didn’t pursue that component. And yet the vast majority do. If we can agree that marriages and happiness are related and the legal component is seen by most as an essential part of marriage, then obviously being excluded from the legal component would impact LGBT people’s happiness. I know, I know. Gay people, unlike all other humans and forms of sentient life on this planet, are the exclusive set of folks who can not feel love.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

You mean gays aren’t all about sexual activities? They are the only “minority” group defined by their sexual activities!

Kjeil on May 9, 2012 at 1:02 AM

They are as defined by their sexual activities as heterosexuals. A homosexual can live without sex and still be a homosexual, just like a heterosexual.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM

First, note that Greg Sargent and Phil Klein are not all that bright, mmmkay?

The gay marriage issue “pro” side is made up of soft support among swing voters and strong support from young voters. The former aren’t married to the position and the latter won’t be showing up in the number they did in 2008. Obama is deceptive, but he isn’t stupid to avoid committing on the issue.

The idea that the election of Mourdock somehow “pressures” Romney is as dumb as anything Klein’s written this season, which is saying a lot – the guy must be suffering from some degenerative mental condition, he wasn’t this stupid four years ago. First, Mourdock is likely the only “Tea Party” candidate who will win a primary against an incumbent this year – way to pile on pressure!

Secondly, Romney isn’t the sort to fight his own legislature. As a businessman, he knows the government is bloated and spending and overregulation are the problems. And Congress, not the President, controls spending. It’s inconceivable that Romney would veto a budget passed by a GOP Congress because it spends too little, and only a moron would suppose he might need pressure on the subject.

It’s the Congress itself that will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to fiscal responsibility.

Adjoran on May 9, 2012 at 1:13 AM

How does someone being able to legally call their partnership “marriage” make them happier?

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Simple.

If it’s a “marriage”, you get to sue people, for the double whammy of a jackpot, and sticking it to a despised Christian.

And what self-respecting progressive homosexual couldn’t get their frown turned upside down with that?

Rebar on May 9, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Update: That didn’t take long. Lugar’s Senate career is over.

…TERM LIMITS! This guy was in the senate WAY TOO DAMN LONG. GO GET A JOB! Seriously! I don’t care if you are democrat or republican. Nothing good comes of someone who has been in that position for 35 years. DUMB.

TX-96 on May 9, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Don’t you DARE define homoSEXuals by their SEXual activity! Have you no heart?

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:05 AM

So heteroSEXuals are defined by their SEXual activity as well?

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 1:15 AM

So heteroSEXuals are defined by their SEXual activity as well?

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Um, as soon as heterosexuals start seeking preferential treatment in the eyes of the law based on their sexual preference, yes, they will be defined as such. Until then, no – they are just people that happen to be heterosexual.

(Are libs really this dense? Someone please tell me they just have a twisted sense of humor and that they know how wrong they are, they just like jerking people’s chains…)

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:20 AM

There’s more to homosexuality than just “sexual activities”. I don’t know why so many here think that homosexuals are incapable of love.

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 12:50 AM

.
Love isn’t (and never has been) what marriage is all about.

The Founding Fathers wanted their newly formed government to emulate the God of the Bible as best as they could, and marriage was/is an institution started by God. As such, they wanted the governments (local, state, federal) to formally recognize the institution of marriage, AS IT IS DEFINED BY THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

The fact that today’s American non-Christians feel insulted/offended by this BE DAMNED.

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 1:20 AM

So heteroSEXuals are defined by their SEXual activity as well?

Gelsomina on May 9, 2012 at 1:15 AM

.
Some heterosexuals ARE defined by their sexual activity, such as the extreme athletic, gymnastic positions some of them like “doing it” in. : )

listens2glenn on May 9, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Your own example disproves your point. First its a super rare hypothetical situation. Why? Because most people view the legal component as an essential part of what makes their marriage, a marriage. If the legal recognition were totally unrelated from how people felt about their marriages there would be *many* more people who didn’t pursue that component. And yet the vast majority do. If we can agree that marriages and happiness are related and the legal component is seen by most as an essential part of marriage, then obviously being excluded from the legal component would impact LGBT people’s happiness. I know, I know. Gay people, unlike all other humans and forms of sentient life on this planet, are the exclusive set of folks who can not feel love.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Of course it is a super rare and hypothetical situation. That is why I started my story with “Let’s say”. That is a clue that I am giving you an analogy, a hypothetical situation, one that perhaps you could grasp. Obviously, I was wrong.

My point was that a gay couple could:
1. Invite people to their wedding and have a ceremony
2. Sign papers to have a civil union
3. Call themselves married

A straight couple could:
1. Invite people to their wedding and have a ceremony
2. Sign papers to have a marriage
3. Call themselves married

The gay couple had a wedding and call themselves married. They have legal protections. Yet, you say they are not happy. Why?

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 1:25 AM

Because most people view the legal component as an essential part of what makes their marriage, a marriage.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Precisely, and this was not the case BEFORE government got their nose into the marriage business. Prior to that, it was a religious ceremony that was defined by those who practiced it.

Some would just prefer that government not dictate to people of faith what trheir religious praticees should be. But, then again, you think the 1st Amendment doesn’t preclude Baraka Obama from forcing the Pope to buy condoms, so it’s not surprising that this is lost on you as well.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Just something I came across on Yahoo. I like to point out when the liberal media shows its bias. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v702/Douwd/Picture2.png

You see the headline for the gay marriage ban? Now do you see the three articles they link to the side which they want people to associate with the main article? Now, why would they put in news about Romney and Scott Walker in close association with the main headline?! This is something that happens over and over!
Do you see the next little box over? The one with Sen. Lugar? You would think that the media would put the stories about Romney and Walker in with that article of Lugar losing. They did put the Romney Wins 3 States link on there too(so why did they put it a second time on the marriage article?), then they had a link for Obama unveils jobs Plan and GOP blocks loan debate.
Do you see what they are doing here with this redirection. A decidedly very moderate RINO is trounced, so they associate it with a story about the “evil” republicans “not wanting kids to get a college education”(or whatever other lies they can come up with), and they finish it off with their “savior” and his plan to somehow, miraculously, create jobs for those “poor kids” who want the government to bail them out.
Then on the other side, they try to downplay and divert Obama’s opponent’s wins, as well as the win by Walker, by associating them with those “bad” “intolerant” people of NC.

How many people are sick of this kind of crap?! And I am also talking to the liberals. Do you want to live in a world where this kind of deception is rampant and unopposed, or do you want the media, as well as politicians, to be forthright and tell the honest truth?! No more of this “slanted this way” or “spun the other way BS.”
Let’s keep the politicians held accountable for what they do. Obama is beyond being held accountable because he is part of the problem, so he needs to be out before his ego starts telling him he really is god – if it hasn’t already. Him along with the rest of his “we can do anything and you have to live with it” minions.

Sterling Holobyte on May 9, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Your own example disproves your point. First its a super rare hypothetical situation. Why? Because most people view the legal component as an essential part of what makes their marriage, a marriage. If the legal recognition were totally unrelated from how people felt about their marriages there would be *many* more people who didn’t pursue that component. And yet the vast majority do. If we can agree that marriages and happiness are related and the legal component is seen by most as an essential part of marriage, then obviously being excluded from the legal component would impact LGBT people’s happiness. I know, I know. Gay people, unlike all other humans and forms of sentient life on this planet, are the exclusive set of folks who can not feel love.
libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at

so you’re unfamiliar with common law marriage. Legally recognized simply by the couple’s declaration on their say so after a certain amount of time. No officials required. The ulterior motive of gay marriage is simply a weapon to beat others into condoning your lifestyle. Other than that, gays have the same rights as any other person. As for visitation rights, inheritance, joint coverage, etc those are simple legal issues easily resolved without invoking marriage but that’s not enough for gay activists, they want the “blessings ” of marriage.

AH_C on May 9, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Gay people, unlike all other humans and forms of sentient life on this planet, are the exclusive set of folks who can not feel love.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Marriage has NOTHING to do with love. Absolutely nothing. It is an economic contract that has risen out of a religious tradition. Show me a gay couple that refuse civil unions, and I’ll show you activists whose real intention is to go after the church.

John the Libertarian on May 9, 2012 at 1:29 AM

@Adjoran – on gay marriage, or gay whatever, I tend to think you’re right. It’s not really a core issue, one way or the other, to swing voters.

On Mourdock – you’re right, in terms of numbers, but look at how hard poor Orrin’s had to work to keep his job. He got a jump on the Utah Tea Party crowd this time, all credit to him for recognizing the threat he faced and responding to it proactively. Hatch is better than Lugar and getting Mourdock through the general election would be a bigger win and a bigger shift than replacing Hatch would have been.

On Congressional spending – yeah, there’s a whole lot of the Congressional GOP that lacks the courage of their convictions. I actually think Romney will be stronger and more consistent on fiscal policy than most of the Senate GOP, at least.

JEM on May 9, 2012 at 1:29 AM

For what it’s worth… I’m a conservative guy. I am also gay. I get that folks might not approve or understand. Hey, I don’t understand how libs think that government solves all problems and saves the polar bears. I do not wish to redefine marriage. To me, that’s a religious thing. Our government has afforded that a place above other relationships. All good. Why can’t I enjoy the same legal rights as you? Nothing to do with religion. Just asking, because I am really curious.

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:30 AM

budfox on May 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I know I’m late to the party, but I have to say that budfox’s comment has been one of the best thought out responses I’ve read all week. Very thoughtful analysis of the situation!

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Why can’t I enjoy the same legal rights as you?

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:30 AM

You should. And why should gays be spared the misery of marriage?

John the Libertarian on May 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM

I read that the WH Press issued a statement on the “retirement” of
Lugar. LOL

bluefox on May 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM

For what it’s worth… I’m a conservative guy. I am also gay. I get that folks might not approve or understand. Hey, I don’t understand how libs think that government solves all problems and saves the polar bears. I do not wish to redefine marriage. To me, that’s a religious thing. Our government has afforded that a place above other relationships. All good. Why can’t I enjoy the same legal rights as you? Nothing to do with religion. Just asking, because I am really curious.

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:30 AM

I’m a conservative with a very open mind ad agree with you 100%. However, I think that what we’ve seen in NC tonight is simply an escalation in the fight. The more the LGBT community pushed for “marriage” the more a state like NC pushes back to say “you want marriage, you’ll get nothing…not even civil unions”. Not saying it is right, just saying that’s how I see what has happened. And if one is willing to sit idly by and condone LGBT activists going after the golden ring of “marriage”, then you can’t get uspset when the defenders of “marriage” push back just as hard.

Not calling you to task, per se…just saying this is the arms race we find ourselves in now.

I think it is high time that the pragmatic moderate folks in the LGBT community start taking a more active role in reigning in the extremist activists and introducing some modicum of pragmatism to the discussion. Much like mainstream Muslims are guilty of remaining silent in the face of extremists, moderate LGBTs are guilty of letting their interests get steamrolled by the extremists.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Wimpy’s niece Olive, his only lawful relation, will now have a strong case to challenge Bluto’s decision on the grounds that the law does not “recognize” a power of attorney procured through a domestic partnership, which is unlawful in the State of North Carolina.”

———–

WAY TO GO EVERYBODY GOOD JOB

Dave Rywall on May 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

You wanted to reform power-of-attorney laws and your strategy was to link it to gay marriage?

Great plan. Especially in North Carolina. Well played.

RINO in Name Only on May 9, 2012 at 12:13 AM

HEY LYING MORONS! Power of Attorney is not strictly limited or rated by matrimonial status. A person can designate anyone at all.

rayra on May 9, 2012 at 1:40 AM

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:30 AM

You do have the same legal rights as heterosexuals do. You also have the right to get married, but to qualify, it must be to a single person of the opposite sex. If that’s not what you want, then you’re asking to change the rules. To which we ask… why?

Marriage has everything to do with religion as it is a contract made before God, to bless and oversee the binding together of one man and one woman into a new unit, a family. By making the contract before God, it acknowledges a higher power that will hold the two of them accountable in caring for each other. This is intended to create a strong family unit that will raise strong children. The “state” acknowledges that this is a good thing and provides some legal incentives for choosing this path.

My question is, why do you feel you have to acknowledge your relationship before God when it is clear from the Bible that God will not approve of your union?

If it is just for the legal incentives, then civil unions should suffice. If not, I submit that it is not for “equality” sake, but for some other reason…

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:44 AM

(Are libs really this dense? Someone please tell me they just have a twisted sense of humor and that they know how wrong they are, they just like jerking people’s chains…)

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 1:20 AM

No, they just like jerking people IN chains. In all the meanings of the phrase, degenerates that they are.

rayra on May 9, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Yeah, kicking out the old guard “moderate” Republicans will mean listening to a lot of thin-voiced, whiny rebukes from the media and the other old guard Republicans.

They’re scared, tired, and old. They’ll go away eventually. Keep plugging, voters. This is our future we’re fighting for. It’s the whole ball of wax. The old guard Republicans can’t see it, but changing the guard is their only hope too, if they want some peace in their sunset years.

J.E. Dyer on May 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

CycloneCDB-

Not popular with my thoughts as I left that plantation years ago. Just want to be able to enjoy my life with whomever I want. I’m with a guy from another country who will be leaving presently. I can do nothing about that while you can. That’s what bothers me more than anything else . Also the inheritance thing.

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Because most people view the legal component as an essential part of what makes their marriage, a marriage.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

ROFL!!! I am thanking God right now that I am not married to you. Can you imagine what it would be like to share the bed with such a person! yikes! cold, dry, legal relationship.

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Also the inheritance thing.

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

It’s called a WILL, and it works for non-spouse/children too!

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 2:01 AM

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:44 A

Just where was I asking for special only for me rights? You don’t approve? Cool. Seems that you folks are asking for special only for me rights. Nowhere did I ask for anything other than what you get from your government. Call it what you want.

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 2:01 AM

This is all laughable nonsense from gay activists regarding hospital visits and power of attorney. If you gave them a law that granted every one of their requests, it wouldn’t matter. If every state agreed to set up civil unions granting every legal right married couples have, they would still reject it.

This is about one thing for gay activists : getting to slap organized religion in the face. And that slap only counts when they get to destroy the institutions of traditional marriage and family. It’s certainly not about legal equality, a few notarized documents would solve every one of these so called grievances.

BradTank on May 9, 2012 at 2:01 AM

HennyPenney on May 9, 2012 at 1:53 AM

Agree.
However, let me posit this. Many would point to the statistic that homo relationships are shorter/less durable than hetero. With that in mind, some would push back at homo’s having the right to facilitate citizenship the same way hetero’s do. What’s the solution? Do we limit all people, both homo and hetero to one immigrant marriage?

Just things like that which have to be RATIONALLY discussed (not that you and I can’t have that discussion, but many on both sides can’t ).

And the elephant in the room is the very real COST this will have for the fed/state gov’t. In an age where gov’t debt is maybe the biggest issue in the nation, it is germaine…even if unpleasant to discuss the cost of affording people liberties.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:03 AM

And the elephant in the room is the very real COST this will have for the fed/state gov’t. In an age where gov’t debt is maybe the biggest issue in the nation, it is germaine…even if unpleasant to discuss the cost of affording people liberties.
CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:03 AM

And when people see Baraka dancing around this issue, don’t think for a second that this isn’t top of mind. Every penny that he spends facilitating gay marriage is a penny he isn’t spending on nanny-state entitlements.

Priorities.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:07 AM

ROFL!!! I am thanking God right now that I am not married to you. Can you imagine what it would be like to share the bed with such a person! yikes! cold, dry, legal relationship.

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Something tells me she makes Lilith on Fraser look like a rabid nympho.

arnold ziffel on May 9, 2012 at 2:12 AM

ROFL!!! I am thanking God right now that I am not married to you. Can you imagine what it would be like to share the bed with such a person! yikes! cold, dry, legal relationship.

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:58 AM

Nuts and bolts are an essential part of a car’s construction. And yet no one would argue that nuts and bolts are the most important part of the experience of driving an expensive sports car. You have confused “necessary” with “primary” or “most important.” It is a common mistake.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 2:17 AM

A good day. A very good day, indeed. May this be but the beginning of a long overdue course-correction.

Like it’s 1773…

Freelancer on May 9, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Your own example disproves your point. First its a super rare hypothetical situation. Why? Because most people view the legal component as an essential part of what makes their marriage, a marriage.

Yeah, that’s really plausible. An important part of why most people get married so they can go through the essential, empowering experience of getting the government to say how awesome their union is.

If the legal recognition were totally unrelated from how people felt about their marriages there would be *many* more people who didn’t pursue that component. And yet the vast majority do. If we can agree that marriages and happiness are related and the legal component is seen by most as an essential part of marriage,

Good God, you actually believe this tripe? You can’t think of any infinitely more plausible reason why the vast majority of people would seek legal recognition for their marriage?

Did anyone ever explain the birds and the bees to you? Seriously, did you never have ”the talk”?

then obviously being excluded from the legal component would impact LGBT people’s happiness. I know, I know. Gay people, unlike all other humans and forms of sentient life on this planet, are the exclusive set of folks who can not feel love.

libfreeordie on May 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

You think the state recognition of marriage is, or should be, about love?

I thought religious fundamentalists were supposed to be the ones who believed in wacky silly imaginary stuff. You libs are supposed to be the “reality based community,” right?

Here’s a hint. You did not come from a stork.

RINO in Name Only on May 9, 2012 at 2:22 AM

I speak of the origins of state sanctioned marriage, not the current state of it. The states started to recognize/sanction marriage for its own purposes…not the other way around.

Read a book every once in a while. History is your friend.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 12:51 AM

LOL thanks for the laugh! Why am I laughing? Here‘s why, from your post at 11:45 PM: “Why do gays feel the need to demand that a religious ceremony be forced by the state to recognize a lifestyle which that religion would not condone?”

So, what I highlighted from your previous post was merely an obvious reference to “the origins of state sanctioned marriage, not the current state of it”? What’s your next joke – are you going to share with us your astute observation that atheists who get legally married in 2012 are ironically engaging in religious behavior?

The truth is, you’re being intellectually dishonest about your actual peeve with gay marriage, and the question is, “Why?” [as if the answer to that question is an inscrutable mystery! :)].

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 2:22 AM

I’m too tired to comment back and forth, but I think What Is Marriage? published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, clearly sets forth, among other things, why society and government have a vested interest in the recognition and protection of marriage. Section E., Challenges for Revisionists, is one place you’ll find discussion of civil unions.

If you think that civil unions, if passed, wouldn’t soon be a matter of controversy, as the term would be beaten like a drum as discriminatory with the simultaneous demand to use the word marriage, then please think again. IMO we’re basically talking semantics, and the next step would be to change the semantics.

INC on May 9, 2012 at 2:28 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 2:22 AM

This is annoying. Just FYI.

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 2:31 AM

The truth is, you’re being intellectually dishonest about your actual peeve with gay marriage, and the question is, “Why?” [as if the answer to that question is an inscrutable mystery! :)].
Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 2:22 AM

I’d like to invite you to have homo or heterosexual relations with yourself. Your choice. Whichever you choose will not offend me.

I have ZERO problem with gays committing to a lifelong union with one another. ZERO. The only thing I, like many others, ask is to preserve the institution of “marriage” for heterosexual relationships. They are different and therefore should be classified in a different way. A marriage produces a family and perpetuates civilization. A civil union facilitates two people cohabitating. They may foster a family, but they can’t produce one. There is a distinction and a difference.

In the interest of being considerate of those who practice religions that hold marriage in high regard, its worthwhile to be delicate with their institution. Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that those who disagree with you actually are entitled to their religious liberty and rights as well.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Not too sad to see an 80+ yr old Senator go. Yes, Sen. Lugar did an admirable and under-appreciated job on the issue of Nuclear Arms Control, but one worthy cause isn’t enough at this point when all signs pointed to him becoming out-of-touch with his constituents. The real losers here though are all the establishment politicos who rushed to his defense… they didn’t have to jump in on Lugar’s behalf, but they did.

The NC result is a bit shocking though. Seems like we’re coming to a clear division on gay marriage–definitely legal in some states, definitely illegal in others. Can that kind of division work for the country as a whole?

HayekFriendlyCon on May 9, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Marriage has everything to do with religion as it is a contract made before God, to bless and oversee the binding together of one man and one woman into a new unit, a family. By making the contract before God, it acknowledges a higher power that will hold the two of them accountable in caring for each other. This is intended to create a strong family unit that will raise strong children. The “state” acknowledges that this is a good thing and provides some legal incentives for choosing this path.

dominigan on May 9, 2012 at 1:44 AM

“Marriage has everything to do with religion”? In which country? If that were the whole truth, explain then why atheists are legally allowed to be married in the US by irreligious Justices of the Peace…

Bizarro No. 1 on May 9, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Is the TEA Party finished as a political force in 2012? /S

DannoJyd on May 9, 2012 at 2:37 AM

Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that those who disagree with you actually are entitled to their religious liberty and rights as well.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Yes, it is interesting that in Kansas, the legislature was trying to pass a law at the state level that mirrored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was passed in 1993 unanimously in the House, with 3 dissenting votes in the Senate and signed by President Clinton. It was overturned for the states, but still in effect for federal laws (i.e., Obamacare…but that is another discussion).

Gay activists were vehemently against it. Doesn’t that clearly show that the “rights” that gay activists want go against other people’s religious freedoms?

cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Me and my husband support civil unions. We also don’t live in NC. If we did-we would’ve voted against the amendment on that basis.

annoyinglittletwerp on May 9, 2012 at 12:16 AM

I do too. Thats supposed to cover the legal side like marriage does. They can still have a nice ceromony with family and friends. Nobody is stopping them. They just dont have a “marriage licence” whats the big deal they can still live as partners, hold hands, kiss. No law against that. Its jut called civil union not marriage. I really think they just want to stick thier finger in the churches eye. We got MARRIED na nana na na.

Greed on May 9, 2012 at 2:52 AM

Gay activists were vehemently against it. Doesn’t that clearly show that the “rights” that gay activists want go against other people’s religious freedoms?
cptacek on May 9, 2012 at 2:38 AM

Bingo.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:53 AM

I’d like to invite you to have homo or heterosexual relations with yourself. Your choice. Whichever you choose will not offend me.

I have ZERO problem with gays committing to a lifelong union with one another. ZERO. The only thing I, like many others, ask is to preserve the institution of “marriage” for heterosexual relationships. They are different and therefore should be classified in a different way. A marriage produces a family and perpetuates civilization. A civil union facilitates two people cohabitating. They may foster a family, but they can’t produce one. There is a distinction and a difference.

I have an aunt who due to a childhood illness is unable to ever have children. If we’re restricting marriage to people who can produce a family and perpetuate civilization (I assume you’re referring to children) then should she also be limited to merely entering into a civil union? Or what about people like myself who are fertile but don’t want children? Marriage for thee and a civil union for me?

In the interest of being considerate of those who practice religions that hold marriage in high regard, its worthwhile to be delicate with their institution. Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that those who disagree with you actually are entitled to their religious liberty and rights as well.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 2:33 AM

The fact a group of people holds something in high regard gives them license to set the rules for it for everybody? Ooooookay… You’re fully entitled to your religious liberty but this is not a religious liberty issue. How is your religious liberty being abridged by the state granting someone else a marriage license?

alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 2:54 AM

The fact

I have an aunt who due to a childhood illness is unable to ever have children. If we’re restricting marriage to people who can produce a family and perpetuate civilization (I assume you’re referring to children) then should she also be limited to merely entering into a civil union? Or what about people like myself who are fertile but don’t want children? Marriage for thee and a civil union for me?

I knew the next reply would be juvenile and petty when I wrote it.

No, you are free to do what you please within the bounds of your marriage. If you chose to drive a sports car no more than 35 mph, its still a sports car, even if it is capable of much more. If you chose not to have a family, its still a marriage. The fact that it is an arrangement with the distinct possibility of yielding offspring is what defines it, not the actual result.

The fact a group of people holds something in high regard gives them license to set the rules for it for everybody? Ooooookay… You’re fully entitled to your religious liberty but this is not a religious liberty issue. How is your religious liberty being abridged by the state granting someone else a marriage license?
alchemist19 on May 9, 2012 at 2:54 AM

The fact that it is a religious ceremony that the state co-opted for its own reasons is what gives religious folks the right to set the rules. It is a religious act, not a state invention.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:08 AM

Okay folks, I did my part to get us to the 1k comment mark. I’m off to bed. Someone get us across the finish line.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:14 AM

My sister-in-law doesn’t know what I think-and I’m never going to tell her.

annoyinglittletwerp

Probably a good thing, considering it’s a pretty stupid opinion.

…have you been to a wedding?

libfreeordie

Did you know gays could have a wedding in NC tomorrow if they wanted to?

Why can’t I enjoy the same legal rights as you?

HennyPenney

You do. Congratulations.

xblade on May 9, 2012 at 3:18 AM

The fact that it is a religious ceremony that the state co-opted for its own reasons is what gives religious folks the right to set the rules. It is a religious act, not a state invention.

CycloneCDB on May 9, 2012 at 3:08 AM

NAILED it.

That’s the crux of it all. The state has co-opted the religious institution of marriage, by granting licences and so forth.

And yet there is supposed to be a wall between church and state.

If the state then tries to define a union between gays as marriage, it is CREATING a religious institution.

Congress may make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or preventing the free exercise thereof.

Civil unions, yes, gay marriage, no. The PEOPLE have voted, NOT the Congress.

Sometimes the minority needs to respect the majority’s right to call a lot of shots. Compromising by having civil unions in the legal sense is not giving up much at all, on the minority’s part, and it is allowing the public majority to take a vote on the licenses it will allow the state to issue. The minority has no right to force the majority to issue a license that it has voted not to issue.

If such a tyranny of the minority is allowed to thrive, then no president may be inaugurated until the minority has signed a papper allowing him to be inaugurated.

cane_loader on May 9, 2012 at 3:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11 12