Billionaire to bankroll pro-gay GOP PAC

posted at 8:01 pm on June 9, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

It seems to me that there was once a very basic, black and white picture being painted in the media when it comes to super PACs. Two armies of very wealthy, highly motivated partisans would set up opposing groups of slush funds marching in lockstep. On one side would be Karl Rove with Crossroads and on the other, George Soros with American Bridge or whatever it’s called.

But as time went on it’s become obvious that the picture is a lot more complicated than that. Different groups have their own agendas and aren’t always interested in toeing the line for either party as a whole. That may be the case with this news from Politico about billionaire investment banking mogul Paul Singer, who is setting up a brand new super PAC to support Republicans… with a twist.

Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the GOP’s most sought-after donors, and has also been a driving force in New York State’s push for gay marriage. Along with Michael Bloomberg, Singer has used his financial resources to nudge Republican legislators in the direction of supporting same-sex unions, giving an incentive for them to buck the party line where the political down side might otherwise be too great.

And now, Singer tells the New York Times’s Frank Bruni that he’s going to bankroll a super PAC that could accomplish the same goal on the federal level

It’s apparently called American Unity PAC, and Singer is kicking it off with $1M to primarily support Republican candidates in congressional races. He’s quoted as saying that he feels there are GOP candidates out there who are either “on the fence” about gay marriage or are hiding their support for it, and part of his goal is, “helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.

Here’s another clip from Singer’s interview with the Times which seems to summarize this “third way” approach to opening up the tent a bit.

Our conversation also reflected a growing awareness among prominent Republicans that embracing marriage equality could broaden the party’s base and soften the party’s image in crucial ways. Many swing voters who find elements of Republicans’ limited-government message appealing and have doubts about Obama’s economic stewardship are nonetheless given serious pause by the party’s stances on abortion, birth control, immigration and homosexuality.

This will probably attract at least some attention, primarily in the Northeast where we regularly produce politicians along the lines of Bloomberg. How much appeal will it have in the rest of the country, particularly in the more “traditional” conservative strongholds? I wouldn’t be betting the ranch on it, but there’s no denying that it’s cheaper and easier to impact a congressional race than a national contest. And a few million dollars can go a long way in one campaign season.


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 6

…I am not about to dictate any sense of morality onto others.

…I’m not here to judge. others nor impose my beliefs on them.

Either believe in limited government or don’t .. you can’t pick and choose…

theblacksheepwasright on June 9, 2012 at 9:07 PM

So if we can’t judge others, or impose beliefs on them, we should get the government out of law enforcement too, right? Because after all, if we enforce laws of any kind, we’re imposing our belief that others shouldn’t impose their beliefs on other people, and that’s hypocritical.

My goodness, what a brain-dead philosophy.

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Anyone running for office who takes money from this tird in this political environment will never get enough money to get elected.

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Not sure why there is even a debate about Gay Marriage. The vast majority of gay guys are not interested in getting married. They just want to hook up with a twink for sex. There maybe like 2 or 3 out of 100 that may mildly be interested in getting married. Come on all you gay people, you know this is true.

Kjeil on June 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM

What is wrong with “civil unions”, then? Why not go for the legal protections and ignore the word “marriage” itself?

kim roy on June 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

Careful. Last time I made an argument like that blink came unhinged and accused me of pederasty.

It’ll be nice when our country is back on track and we can actually afford to worry about social issues that only affect a couple percent of the population.

WeekendAtBernankes on June 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I guess these people like Singer embrace the Democrats’ policy of promoting the homosexuality so why don’t they just create a Democrat pac with the twist of being pro free enterprise or whatever it is that they claim to have an issue with on that side?

Buddahpundit on June 9, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Along with Michael Bloomberg, Singer has used his financial resources to nudge Republican legislators

Didn’t need to read any further than that. Anyone who runs in the same circles as Bloomy is not a republican.

Rio Linda Refugee on June 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

But hey, if social conservatives aren’t supposed to fight tooth-and-nail, then I suppose the economic conservatives should find tax hikes, spending increases, and unionization just peachy. After all, they shouldn’t have a monopoly on the GOP platform, right?

Stoic Patriot on June 9, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Absolutely! How else are we supposed to expect anything to get done in the government? You need people with that kind of [lack of] principles to be able to “reach across the aisle” and capitulate compromise to with the democrats. /s

AZfederalist on June 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Is that acceptable at Hot Air? That’s an anti-gay slur. You’re obvious comfortable using that language. What other slurs do you toss around freely? Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

“Homo” is a slur? It’s an abbreviation of homosexual.

They call themselves “queres” you know. There are “quere studies” courses in universities (which is a warning that rational people not send their children there).

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

I pray for this country… If we don’t stop this homosexual agenda, which is evil perverted and wrong, America be heading to hell in a gay handbasket…

CCRWM on June 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Yep- us damn gays are taking America to hell. Its going to hell alright-ignore the real issues. We have differing opinions.
Bless you CC.

I love these threads.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

joana on June 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

When you’re right, you’re right.

————
Unrelated, Military Quote:

“When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional, and now it’s legal.

I’m getting out before Obama makes it mandatory.”

Gunnery Sergeant, USMC

“The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.” Proverbs 22:3

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Jazz,

Before you write one more post on the attempt to redefine marriage, I wish you would read What is Marriage? by Robert George, Sherif Girgis and Ryan T. Anderson, published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

If we bless homosexual marriage we will wind up having to say poop no longer stink. That is a denial of truth.

You may laugh at this simple (even simplistic) statement but one day you’ll choke on this laughter and everything else that will be forced down your throat.

aloysiusmiller on June 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

She’s not right on this.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Jazz Shaw – under the article on the main page you wrote: “Big Tents”.

How Freudian for this subject matter! ;)

honsy on June 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

All the slime coming out the the woodwork tonight. Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Kjeil on June 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Your opinion is based on what? Did research did you?
Come on your straight guy, you know it true that you are pulling opinions out ur arse. pun intended.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I love these threads.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

See joana’s first comment. It covers all. Good that you are bigger than so many and don’t get discouraged. There is way more to save in the land.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

She’s not right on this.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

She is, in the sense that all marriages s/b handled by the churches, not the gov’t.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

The biggest problem with being in the middle on every issue is that it only requires shallow thought ,as proved out on this very thread. Shallow thinking always relies on flawed positions. The in the middle one’s opinions have no standing. You all may try and educate this pathetic shallow thinker if you must. You will not likely succeed as he has no interest in anything more than the shallowest of concepts. He bases all his opinions on emotion, and is not capable of applying logic, or worse yet is uninterested.

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

As far as joana’s first comments goes:

Homosexual activists are the ones making this a political issue, and the government has a vested interest in protecting marriage.

Furthermore, this isn’t a “type” of marriage, it’s a redefinition of marriage.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

She’s not right on this.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Good one, you can disapprove and she can still be right. Lord knows how I fight her when she gets wrong and snotty.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Is that acceptable at Hot Air? That’s an anti-gay slur. You’re obvious comfortable using that language. What other slurs do you toss around freely? Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Lighten up Francine or you might hurt yourself with that feather boa.

Rio Linda Refugee on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

She is, in the sense that all marriages s/b handled by the churches, not the gov’t. Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Marriage predated this govt. Are you saying that from the jump no state govt or the federal govt should have recognized marriage at all? On what basis, that sex perverts would eventually win the day?

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Good one, you can disapprove and she can still be right. Lord knows how I fight her when she gets wrong and snotty.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I don’t disapprove. I disagree.

She’s wrong.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Your opinion is based on what? Did research did you?
Come on your straight guy, you know it true that you are pulling opinions out ur arse. pun intended.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

You’re not denying it.

Kjeil on June 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Furthermore, this isn’t a “type” of marriage, it’s a redefinition of marriage.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Why the states never pass it, except maybe Maine will, and why it ultimately will go to the SC.

The land must first be saved, then this. It will not be a big issue in this Nov’s election.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Gay marriage is an idiotic idea, whether it comes from broke-ass hippies or hedge-fund billionaires. As to its desirability, answer this question for yourself:

When a mother and father are holding their child for the first time, how many of them do you figure are thinking, “Boy, I really hope he grows up to sodomize other men”?

“It’s fine to be gay” is something people tell themselves who either don’t have kids, or know there’s no chance their grown kids will ever be gay. It’s not something normal people say.

greggriffith on June 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Prior to the last few decades, marriage has been defined and recognized across time and across cultures as a relationship between a man and a woman. What we are looking at today is not an inclusion into this institution of those who have been “denied” marriage because of their homosexual activity, but a redefinition of a relationship that is the cornerstone of society, and which societies and countries have protected through legal means because of the understanding and recognition of the importance to society of the mutual and complementary love, enjoyment and support uniquely provided by each sex to the other, and because of the understanding and recognition of the importance of the future of a society through the protection and rearing of children in a family setting in which they learn love, trust, discipline and identity through the unique and different abilities and perspectives of the two sexes.

Tattered as many families and marriages are across this country, our goal as individuals and as a nation should be to support them and assist the strengthening and perpetuity of this institution rather than its destruction. The attempt by those antagonistic to marriage to redefine the institution must, by the very logic of their purpose, also include in the cross hairs, not only the destruction of the definition of the legally recognized marriage relationship, but the destruction of those who defend the marriage relationship.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM

See joana’s first comment. It covers all. Good that you are bigger than so many and don’t get discouraged. There is way more to save in the land.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:19 PM

That is how I see it Schaden and thank you.
Commenters like you keep me from being discouraged.

Joana isn’t someone I generally enjoy but she had a point.

The extreme gay activists have an agenda..so can we correct that?
Not everyone is part of some grand scale agenda.

The right extreme so/cons also have an agenda.

There is both. I have no interest in either.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

We have differing opinions.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Yes we do, just as I have a differing opinion with my gay nephew and my lesbian cousin before she passed way 5 yrs ago from a heart attack.

Doesn’t mean we can’t still care for each other and treat each other with respect.

Good to see you bazil. Kind of early for you to be here, isn’t it?

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Exactly. This debate is not about equal rights, since buggers can marry any women who’ll have them. It’s about the powoer to redefine humanity.

Whoever gains that right will not have equal rights, but a right that makes them superior to you and me.

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

LOL, $1M? Peanuts.

Besides, if my GOP congressman ever voiced support for this gay marriage nonsense, he would be toast in about 2 seconds. Trust me.

Norwegian on June 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:30 PM

So?

Government is organized to protect individuals from each other and from foreign powers. Period. Contractual relationships like marriage and civil unions and corporations and etc. are only a concern of government when it comes to enforcing binding terms. Otherwise, government should pay no heed to personal dealings. Moral, immoral, all immaterial. Unless someone can provide proof that same-sex marriage physically harms a third party, or that it swindles money out of a third party, then people should mind their own business.

So again, So?

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Kjeil on June 9, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Denying what?
I think I made my point clear and you did not.
Where is you research study on 2 or 3 out of 100?

LOL- like straight men aren’t screwing like rabbits -over anything that walks.

I know promiscuous straight and gay people. I know both that have been in long monogamous relationships. Real easy but you stereotype and just throw out made up crap.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

There is both. I have no interest in either.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Ignore both types. We’re a complex world/country.

Right now only one big thing matters. Get the empty suit out of there. Otherwise, there won’t be a land to freely pontificate in.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:32 PM

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Your “So” has been answered above.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Do you consider it necessary to agree with you in order to be “bigger than many”?

What’s the agenda of the right extreme so/cons?

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM

It’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Dear INC, you write to a multi-tasker extraordinaire, not quite like Napoleon, who apparently could do 7 things, concurrently, but I’m pretty good at it.

The left want things left tot he states, unless they don’t want to.

The right wants constitutionalism and liberty for all, unless they don’t want to.

I understand how complex some topics are, to be sure. This doesn’t affect me – I just try to observe, understand and be fair.

Schadenfreude on June 9, 2012 at 9:36 PM

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM

What role of it is the government to support and nurture people’s relationships? None. The government ought to be indifferent to relationships entirely. It is not the purpose of government to act as therapist or social engineer. Just like I disapprove of government limiting access to food or mandating purchase of health insurance. No nanny state.

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Doesn’t mean we can’t still care for each other and treat each other with respect.

Good to see you bazil. Kind of early for you to be here, isn’t it?

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Yes…and I have tried to be respectful on this topic and yes we can still care for each other. I know this brings out a big response. I am not surprised that I am in the minority here. I also never said I support marriage. I myself support a civil type union.

However, being called evil and the destruction of the country isn’t something I am going to hug over. And yes, as I said-we have differing opinions. I really don’t care anymore.

Well, it is early but it is Saturday…I do show up from time to time off qotd.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

No. Homosexuality is not acceptable, and the more acceptable it is made to be in society, the more likely it is that those who uphold traditionally morality will be gulaged for doing do.
Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 8:05 PM

You mean like this:

New Mexico photographer loses third round of gay discrimination case, but attorneys vow fight isn’t over.

TxAnn56 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

So with all his money, he’ll get what? MAYBE 1% of the population behind him?

GarandFan on June 9, 2012 at 9:38 PM

bazil….

The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households.

Funny though

In August 2002*, Gallup asked Americans, in an open-ended format, to estimate the percentage of American men and the percentage of American women who are homosexual. The average estimates were that 21% of men are gay and 22% of women are lesbians

Per this article 4 percent are gay

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/williams-institute-report-reveals-million-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565

So 2-3 ain’t far off of reality.

So where do you fall? The 10 percent Kinsey lie or those that think over 20 percent are gay?

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Well, it is early but it is Saturday…I do show up from time to time off qotd.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Hello my dear, rattling the cage? Or having the cage rattled? Horns? ; )

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 9:41 PM

However, being called evil and the destruction of the country isn’t something I am going to hug over.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Nor should you. Just wanted you to know that not everyone who doesn’t agree with homosexuality is as crass as some of the commenters who have posted in this thread.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

bazil9,QOTD is up, care to dance?

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Do you consider it necessary to agree with you in order to be “bigger than many”?

What’s the agenda of the right extreme so/cons?

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Inc, you know I respect you.

I never said I am bigger then anyone else. Schued made a comment to me. Ask him.
We can agree to disagree. Fine by me. The world will keep spinning.

The agenda..you can see some of it on this thread.

Do you consider me evil? Part of the destruction of the country?

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM

When a mother and father are holding their child for the first time, how many of them do you figure are thinking, “Boy, I really hope he grows up to sodomize other men”?

greggriffith on June 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM

If any parent is thinking in those sexualized terms about their little boy (gay or straight) they should be locked up.

That you do tells us all too much about how you think. Creepy.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Nor should you. Just wanted you to know that not everyone who doesn’t agree with homosexuality is as crass as some of the commenters who have posted in this thread.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Thank you Flora. I know that. Been around a while. People are people-nothing new for me. All good.
Some comments are hurtful though. I usually stay away from these threads but didn’t tonight.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

If any parent is thinking in those sexualized terms about their little boy (gay or straight) they should be locked up.

That you do tells us all too much about how you think. Creepy.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Nah he was just being stupid.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Why must we treat this issue as a binary? In reality, people are gay and straight to varying degrees. For example, why is it that some gays are extremely effeminate while other gays are rugged and manly? Similarly, why are some straights obsessed with getting manicures and manscaping, while other straights wear shaggy beards and torn up shirts?

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Some comments are hurtful though. I usually stay away from these threads but didn’t tonight.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Why are they hurtful? You’d make it about 30 seconds at a Yahoo thread on GOPers or Gays.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:39 PM

The mistake you socons make is that only gay people – regardless of what percentage they make up – care about gay equality.

These millions of gay people have family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and socially liberal allies who are fighting right alongside them. This is why gay people are widely accepted in society.

Try to calm yourself with the “2%” argument all you can.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

The biggest problem with being in the middle on every issue is that it only requires shallow thought ,as proved out on this very thread. Shallow thinking always relies on flawed positions. The in the middle one’s opinions have no standing. You all may try and educate this pathetic shallow thinker if you must. You will not likely succeed as he has no interest in anything more than the shallowest of concepts. He bases all his opinions on emotion, and is not capable of applying logic, or worse yet is uninterested.

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM

You are so right. There are so many people who think that positioning themselves in the center is in itself a solution, when it’s often just slightly mitigating disastrous circumstances of an unwise course of action. My favorite way of illustrating this is something I wrote in 2010 regarding Lindsey Graham:

Graham is one of those guys who treats unbending principles as counterproductive to progress, as if the correct way to proceed is always along the equator between opposite poles. That may move things forward, but the forward direction doesn’t always make sense. The most important thing, it seems, is that it does give the “moderates” like Graham, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, McCain (until recently, sez him), etc. a sense of being above the fray.

My favorite way of illustrating this is a scenario of three young brothers sitting at a kitchen table.

The trio’s mother asks them, “What would you like for breakfast this morning? The oldest brother says, “I want oatmeal.”

The youngest brother pipes up and says, “I want shards of broken glass.”

This sets off a shouting match between the bookend brothers.

Oldest: “Oatmeal!”

Youngest: “Broken glass!”

Oldest: “Oatmeal!”

Youngest: “Broken glass!”

At this point the middle brother calmly raises his hands and says, “Stop! I have a solution … Mother! We’ll all have oatmeal with shards of broken glass mixed in. That way, both of you two will get some of what you want, and we can move forward. No need to thank me.”

It doesn’t occur to sanctimonious middle brother that while not everybody likes oatmeal, shards of broken glass aren’t good for anybody; he just wants the argument to be over, and to get credit as a peace-making negotiator.

Comment by L.N. Smithee — 4/24/2010 @ 10:41 pm

L.N. Smithee on June 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Why must we treat this issue as a binary? In reality, people are gay and straight to varying degrees. For example, why is it that some gays are extremely effeminate while other gays are rugged and manly? Similarly, why are some straights obsessed with getting manicures and manscaping, while other straights wear shaggy beards and torn up shirts?

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

So manscaping has something to do with one’s sexuality?

You win the award for the dumbest post tonight. Congrats.

I suspect you’re bi and I could care less. I just responded to a post about a request for a study on the percent of gays.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

He’s quoted as saying that he feels there are GOP candidates out there who are either “on the fence” about gay marriage or are hiding their support for it, and part of his goal is, “helping them to feel financially shielded from any blowback from well-funded groups that oppose it.”

What’s the point of being “financially shielded” if you’re going to lose a lot of your base votes?

ninjapirate on June 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Also, what about the gays who don’t engage in sodomy? Are they still personae non gratae? Just like intercourse is not the only sexual thing straights can do, why do we think sodomy is the only thing gays do?

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Try to calm yourself with the “2%” argument all you can.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

What does your point even mean? I simply pointed out the studies. Seems they bother you.Reality bites eh?

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I usually stay away from these threads but didn’t tonight.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Ditto. And now that Bmore has informed us the QOTD has been posted I think I’ll head over there. I see it has a picture of Rand Paul. Oh boy, that should be, uh, an interesting thread.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

lol…make assumptions.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

The mistake you socons make is that only gay people –

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Oh and show me where I made that mistake…. I will wait….

Straw men…that is all you got.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

bazil9,QOTD is up, care to dance?

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM

:) Lets Tango.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

lol…make assumptions.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Yahoo threads are 100 times nastier. Go take a look and a Kleenex©.

Lol./ How old are you?

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

All Republicans aren’t in lockstep on this issue. So if some conservatives are in favor of gay marriage does that make them unworthy of being called conservative. I think not.
Barry Goldwater just might be proud.

lynncgb on June 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

:) Lets Tango.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Hellfire, I loaded a waltz for you. ; )

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 9:56 PM

All Republicans aren’t in lockstep on this issue. So if some conservatives are in favor of gay marriage does that make them unworthy of being called conservative. I think not.
Barry Goldwater just might be proud.

lynncgb on June 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Wow that is some big thinking there Lynn.
/

Barry who?

Oh President Goldwater? Errr.

Too much.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Also, what about the gays who don’t engage in sodomy? Are they still personae non gratae? Just like intercourse is not the only sexual thing straights can do, why do we think sodomy is the only thing gays do?

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Because it makes the world easier to understand to small-minded bigots if they can just throw everyone in a box. In their mind, it’s much easier to demonize gays if they they they are all hyper-sexualized, drug-addicting, flaming liberals who want to end Western civilization.

If not, then they could be…wrong…to be so hateful. And being wrong isn’t an option.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012

Yep just what I thought.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:58 PM

I think his PAC should concentrate on BIG SLURPEES. Oh, never mind.

Fuquay Steve on June 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Because it makes the world easier to understand to small-minded bigots if they can just throw everyone in a box. …..
inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The mistake you socons make is that only gay people –

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Huh I seem to get what you mean now.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

What does your point even mean? I simply pointed out the studies. Seems they bother you.Reality bites eh?

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

The President of the United States supports gay marriage. That would be unthinkable 10 years ago. You are on the losing side of history. Now that really must be some biting reality, eh?

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM

And being wrong isn’t an option.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

But as demonstrated earlier in this thread, being a liar and a coward is an option for you, right?

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Kinsey even created a seven-point scale of sexual orientation ranging from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual. Not every straight person was categorized as a six.

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

That you do tells us all too much about how you think. Creepy.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM

What a deeply idiotic reply.

Parents silently hope for sorts of things when they hold their newborn children:

I hope he grows up to be healthy.
I hope he grows up to be smart.
I hope he grows up to be successful.
I hope he grows up to be honest.
I hope he grows to value hard work.

But…

I hope he grows up to be gay.

No. That doesn’t happen.

And that’s my point.

Homosexuality is not something parents hope for, for their children.

It’s something they try their best to come to terms with, if that’s what happens.

It’s never something they wish upon their children, and the fact that they don’t should be one of the main things people consider when they casually announce how little a problem they have with homosexuality, gay marriage, or all the other deviant behavior that comes with homosexuality.

Go be gay in the privacy of your own home, but kindly keep it the hell out of the rest of our faces.

greggriffith on June 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 10:00 PM

More straw.Big surprise.

Oh and please quote my stance on gay marriage….
I post here all the time.Have at it.

I will wait.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Like I said, you’re answered above.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:04 PM

The mistake you socons make is that only gay people –

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Oh and show me where I made that mistake…. I will wait….

Straw men…that is all you got.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Crickets.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Kinsey did a snow job decades ago, but no longer has any credibility whatsoever.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Go be gay in the privacy of your own home, but kindly keep it the hell out of the rest of our faces.

greggriffith on June 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Never.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Someone please explain to me why this poor woman shouldn’t be able to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/nyregion/woman-says-same-sex-marriage-bias-cost-her-over-500000.html?src=rechp

I don’t get it.

pbundy on June 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM

INC on June 9, 2012 at 9:33 PM
What role of it is the government to support and nurture people’s relationships? None. The government ought to be indifferent to relationships entirely. It is not the purpose of government to act as therapist or social engineer. Just like I disapprove of government limiting access to food or mandating purchase of health insurance. No nanny state.
andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Except that new citizens come from the male-female relationships, and therefore there exists every reason to foster that relationship and discourage people from forming alternative relationships.

The other point is, in a world where the left uses tactics to silence the opposition by calling their ideas “hate speech”, what can good Christians, whose beliefs are in conformity with the original settlers of this country, expect when they preach that homosexuality is evil? Sensitivity training? Incitement charges? Internment?

Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

More crickets hmmm

Someone has been shown be the purveyor of lies and deceipt.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Or deceit even.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Too easy. Laters.

CW on June 9, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

There is no such thing as “hate speech” and the left uses that as a bludgeon. No one should be legally condemned for espousing even the most odious beliefs. Again, the government isn’t a therapist. If the new citizen met the qualifications, it is not the governments role to install itself into that person’s relationship.

andy85719 on June 9, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Repeat after me:

Identity politics are for Democrats.
Identity politics are for Democrats.
Identity politics are for Democrats.
Identity politics are for Democrats.
Identity politics are for Democrats.

The entire notion of a GOP PAC for funding candidates that run on the fundamental redefinition of marriage to placate the fickle identity whims of a tiny subset of the population is ludicrous.

BKennedy on June 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Never.

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 10:05 PM

No, obviously not. That was more of a rhetorical thing.

It was meant to explain how you can get conservatives to stop opposing the gay agenda: Put your sexuality back in the bedroom where it belongs, like the rest of us do.

Otherwise, expect to get your face peeled back by the occasional conservative who’s had enough of all-gay, all-the-time nonsense.

Enough already.

greggriffith on June 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Rich progressive using his money to drives wedges into the GOP, trying to split off the 40% of the party who are Socons, in favor of 0.01% who are gay?

Whodathunkit.

Rebar on June 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I don’t get it.

pbundy on June 9, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Marriage has been recognized throughout history, and in all societies of significance, as a relationship between a man and a woman. This is true across religions and across secular societies.

The government does and has always put itself in the position of making moral judgments. What is legal or not requires that judgment. There may come a time when the overwhelming majority of people see gay marriage as sufficiently important to change state constitutions and ensure marriages are transferable across state lines. That is not the case today, however, and because a group desires something, does not make it the responsibility of the government to provide it, no matter how emotionally it may be portrayed.

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I’m glad to hear it! Statistically, gays do well economically in our society and they turn out in numbers to vote. They are a natural fit for the side of economic conservatism but have turned away at the door by the neanderthals who want to control who they choose to be with.

Conservatism is about small government and individual liberty. We don’t need government to pick our pockets, spread our wealth or snoop in our bedrooms. I’m heartened to hear that we have the chance to bring a large group of loyal, hard-working Americans to our side!

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:44 PM

You’re right about what you said on what Schadenfreude said. My bad on my read of the comment.

As far as you personally, I’m a Christian and believe that all have sinned. Sin’s an old-fashioned word that no one wants to use or talk about, but it remains rebellion against God and setting ourselves up over and against God. That’s always destructive, and we’ve all done that. God through His Son Jesus Christ has made forgiveness and reconciliation with God possible for all who turn from their sin.

Paul Singer and those who want to redefine marriage began this and set their agenda in the face of others. I oppose that agenda. It is a very destructive agenda. There are other destructive agendas, but this and abortion strike directly at the heart of who we are as people in relationship to others and to ourselves. They hurt all involved, including those in the homosexual lifestyle.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Your opinion is based on what? Did research did you?
Come on your straight guy, you know it true that you are pulling opinions out ur arse. pun intended.

bazil9 on June 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

In states with legal gay marriage, how many got married?

Mimzey on June 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Conservatism is about small government and individual liberty. We don’t need government to pick our pockets, spread our wealth or snoop in our bedrooms. I’m heartened to hear that we have the chance to bring a large group of loyal, hard-working Americans to our side!

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

My view of limited government not only means we don’t snoop in bedrooms, but we leave marriage alone. So far 31 state constitutions have been changed to ensure marriage is left alone.

This hedge fund manager’s push for gay marriage doesn’t fit into this concept of the government.

“Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer is one of the GOP’s most sought-after donors, and has also been a driving force in New York State’s push for gay marriage.”

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

In May of 2006 Maggie Gallagher wrote the column:

Banned in Boston
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.

“…last December [2005], the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: “All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming.”

“…Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead–perhaps because they tended to find it “inconceivable,” as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that “a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage.”

“…By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.”

Gallagher quoted Chai Feldblum saying (yes, that Chai Feldblum who was first an Obama recess appointment to the EEOC and has now been confirmed by the Senate. She is also pro-abortion, and even before her tenure the EEOC was limiting religious freedom of a Catholic college.):

“And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

I found this last summer. From the Washington Times last Sunday, June 19th, 2011 USDA gay-sensitivity training seeks larger audience

I didn’t follow through with reading it, so I don’t know what’s happened since.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Greek Fire on June 9, 2012 at 10:08 PM

In May of 2006 Maggie Gallagher wrote the column:

Banned in Boston
The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.

“…last December [2005], the Becket Fund brought together ten religious liberty scholars of right and left to look at the question of the impact of gay marriage on the freedom of religion. Picarello summarizes: “All the scholars we got together see a problem; they all see a conflict coming. They differ on how it should be resolved and who should win, but they all see a conflict coming.”

“…Reading through these and the other scholars’ papers, I noticed an odd feature. Generally speaking the scholars most opposed to gay marriage were somewhat less likely than others to foresee large conflicts ahead–perhaps because they tended to find it “inconceivable,” as Doug Kmiec of Pepperdine law school put it, that “a successful analogy will be drawn in the public mind between irrational, and morally repugnant, racial discrimination and the rational, and at least morally debatable, differentiation of traditional and same-sex marriage.”

“…By contrast, the scholars who favor gay marriage found it relatively easy to foresee looming legal pressures on faith-based organizations opposed to gay marriage, perhaps because many of these scholars live in social and intellectual circles where the shift Kmiec regards as inconceivable has already happened. They have less trouble imagining that people and groups who oppose gay marriage will soon be treated by society and the law the way we treat racists because that’s pretty close to the world in which they live now.”

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I’m glad to hear it! Statistically, gays do well economically in our society and they turn out in numbers to vote. They are a natural fit for the side of economic conservatism but have turned away at the door by the neanderthals who want to control who they choose to be with.

Conservatism is about small government and individual liberty. We don’t need government to pick our pockets, spread our wealth or snoop in our bedrooms. I’m heartened to hear that we have the chance to bring a large group of loyal, hard-working Americans to our side!

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 10:31 PM

You forget that conservatives also believe in the family. Marriage for example: relationships that center around trust, fidelity, equality between partners and a promise of a lifetime bond for all of society — that is strong and health relationships for gays and straight. To be anti-gay is anti-family and anti-marriage.

ZachV on June 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

I would be for legalizing polygamy before gay marriage. At least polygamy usually has a religious foundation, which should not have laws written against it.

cptacek on June 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Gallagher quoted Chai Feldblum saying (yes, that Chai Feldblum who was first an Obama recess appointment to the EEOC and was later confirmed by the Senate. She is also pro-abortion, and even before her tenure the EEOC was limiting religious freedom of a Catholic college.):

“And yet when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

I found this last summer. From the Washington Times last Sunday, June 19th, 2011 USDA gay-sensitivity training seeks larger audience

I didn’t follow through with reading it, so I don’t know what’s happened since.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:49 PM

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM

What’s your opinion of those states where same-sex unions have been approved by the Democratic process? For myself, I deplore the MA court imposing it on the state, but I applaud places like VT where it was enacted by the legislature. Part of liberty is the right to vote for the laws that the constituents want, provided those laws do not infringe on our guaranteed rights. Should not the people of a state have the right to enact gay marriage if that is what most of them want?

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 10:50 PM

The entire notion of a GOP PAC for funding candidates that run on the fundamental redefinition of marriage to placate the fickle identity whims of a tiny subset of the population is ludicrous.

If it was ludicrous, you would’ve kept your mouth shut about it since it wouldn’t matter. They’re only “fickle whims” to you because you don’t live with this issue.

kc-anathema on June 9, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6