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 5 6

Excellent post by our own Doctor Zero from 2009:

In Defense of Marriage

Doc Zero left us for bigger and better things. He’s John Hayward who now writes for Human Events.

INC on June 9, 2012 at 10:52 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

LOL– I see you do not see the bigotry, generalization or the irony in your own post. Stereotype much?

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 10:54 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

Negative.. To be against gay marriage is not “anti-gay.” Frankly I don’t care who you love or have sex with mmkay.. Bugger your sister, brother or dog..

And family is a relative term. Heterosexuals can have legal families independent of the state through biological chidren. Homosexuals NEED the state to push their “families.” Even if there are children; the state is required to work out third party donor rights. To be for gay marriage is to be for big progressive government..

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 10:58 PM

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Well said. I’m with you on that while being in favor of allowing people to wed who they choose. Being for or against gay marriage is a personal decision about what kind of society you want to create. Not being for that issue is not being anti-gay. I say, however, that we should not let disagreements over that issue force good people away from our larger cause. There are so many areas of our cause with which gays can support that it is a terrible shame that so many of us push them away when they could be such a strong asset.

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

What’s your opinion of those states where same-sex unions have been approved by the Democratic process?

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 10:50 PM

I agree with your opinion on the supreme court imposing their views. With respect to VT, I don’t live in that state and it doesn’t fit within my concept of limited government. So, I disagree with their outcome, but they have the right to pick their poison.

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM

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.

I strongly object to linking illegal immigration with social issues. There is no logical link between them. It’s just another elitist effort to make people think there is something humane about tolerating illegal immigration. There isn’t. Illegal immigration hurts our nation’s poor, and will decrease American greatness. The last thing any sane person wants is the middle class behind high gates with guards armed with machine guns as in South America. Yet that is where the elite’s open border policies will take us.

thuja on June 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Well said. I’m with you on that while being in favor of allowing people to wed who they choose. Being for or against gay marriage is a personal decision about what kind of society you want to create. Not being for that issue is not being anti-gay. I say, however, that we should not let disagreements over that issue force good people away from our larger cause. There are so many areas of our cause with which gays can support that it is a terrible shame that so many of us push them away when they could be such a strong asset.

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM

I agree there is a lot of common ground there on other conservative principles., but the demonization on both sides probably has to stop first..

My personal opinion is no one should be sued because they don’t want to recognize a gay couple. No church should be sued. Of course, I think this applies to other things as well. Freedom of association is a big deal for me. It also opens up the possibility to protect other sexualities like pedophilia. It is happening in Canada. I just don’t think sexuality is something that should be a protected class. I also think if the state loses the ability to regulate marriage; it opens the book to the bigamists. Gay relationships are actually low on the meter of threat.

I think that we either get out of the marriage business all together or make civil unions a partnership contract. This protects individuals who have a different opinoin on gay relationships. It protects churchs and doesn’t redefine something that is sacred to many people.

melle1228 on June 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM

What’s your opinion of those states where same-sex unions have been approved by the Democratic process?

MJBrutus on June 9, 2012 at 10:50 PM

I agree with your opinion on the supreme court imposing their views. With respect to VT, I don’t live in that state and it doesn’t fit within my concept of limited government. So, I disagree with their outcome, but they have the right to pick their poison.

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Yes, but they don’t have the right to force MY state, who has outlawed same-sex “marriage” in our State Constitution, to recognize it.

cptacek on June 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Yes, but they don’t have the right to force MY state, who has outlawed same-sex “marriage” in our State Constitution, to recognize it.

cptacek on June 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

+1

STL_Vet on June 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

This the final step in a long attempt by Singer to ensure only candidates willing to support the homosexual agenda reach the national level. He has been covertly undermining local politics for quite some time. Those individuals are now ready to jump to the national arena.

Zaire67 on June 9, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Cool good for this guy. All you religious crazies need to shut your hate filled mouths you slimy, insane, bigoted nut jobs.

Your Mamma loves me on June 9, 2012 at 11:48 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

The word used pejoratively is a slur. You know this but seek to excuse an obvious insult by pushing this line of BS.

If you don’t think it’s a slur why is your follow-up defense based on gay-adoption of the word “queer?” You try to mollify one bigoted remark with an example of somebody using a different word in an entirely different context.

You probably think it’s cool to use the n-word too since you heard it in a rap video. Have you ever met a slur you don’t like?

You’re weak and afraid to say what you really mean. It’s that simple.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Your Mamma loves me on June 9, 2012 at 11:48 PM

I do not believe that sanity is an issue. Most people opposing gay-marriage and homosexuality in general do so out of deep conviction. That is a far cry from insanity.

It is possible to be anti-gay but remain respectful. It is possible to be anti-gay marriage while approving of civil-unions. Unfortunately many people still find it acceptable to attack gay-Americans for simply being gay.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Cool good for this guy. All you religious crazies need to shut your hate filled mouths you slimy, insane, bigoted nut jobs.

Your Mamma loves me on June 9, 2012 at 11:48

Yeah because on religious people are against gay marriage//

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Please, Mr. Singer and Your Momma loves me (not my mama), please go to the dimocrat party. Their dwindling numbers would make you more than welcome.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM

All you religious crazies need to shut your hate filled mouths you slimy, insane, bigoted nut jobs.

The irony escapes you, doesn’t it?

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 12:26 AM

And i might add, it was homosexuality that was once classified as a mental disorder, and was only declassified as such because of pressure from the homofacists, not because of scientific breakthrough.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

The word used pejoratively is a slur.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Is it okay to call them “homosexuals”, or do I have to call them a word they appropriated that meant “merry – cheerful – jolly – joyful”?

If you call your group a word that has a lot of positive connotations, then it is pejorative to refer to the group using neutral terminology.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

What is the point of this PAC? The issue will be decided by SCOTUS in December.

Unless gay marriage is only the beginning of the most oppressive “civil rights” movement in the nation’s history…

StubbleSpark on June 10, 2012 at 12:30 AM

StubbleSpark

With the homofacists, it’s their world, and we’re just living in it.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM

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

I’ll make it easy to explain.

If you want to shut up a gay leftist who whines about this, ask them if they think estate taxes are homophobic, and if they say yes, then ask why the Obama Party flatly refuses to repeal them.

Repealing the death tax makes much more sense than redefining marriage, but it doesn’t give the screaming crying lesbian the chance to attack Christians that the lesbian wants.

Why should society redefine marriage to accomodate antireligious bigots like this lesbian? Since the lesbian worships the Obama Party, which screams that people need to pay more taxes, why should the lesbian be allowed to get out of paying them?

northdallasthirty on June 10, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Republicans pushing homosexuality? Why not embrace pedophilia and beastiality too? This is a step backwards but it’s his money. Too bad he’s not putting it to good use.

DaMav on June 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM

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

Which is hilarious, given that the gay and lesbian community is adamantly ANTI-marriage.

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities – do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

· Single parent households

· Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)

· Blended and extended families

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

· Adult children living with and caring for their parents

· Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives

· Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

And look on the signature page — Obama’s own bigot and LGBT puppet Chai Feldblum.

In short, this shows you how much gays and lesbians hate marriage and how they want whatever idiotic relationship that pleasures them sexually — polygamy, sibling, father-son, mother-daughter, etc. — to be accepted and forced onto society.

northdallasthirty on June 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Is it okay to call them “homosexuals”, or do I have to call them a word they appropriated that meant “merry – cheerful – jolly – joyful”?

I’ll give you a do-over. You don’t want to go out like that. Take it from half-court.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM

inthemiddle on June 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

So you’re going to completely ignore my 8:38 PM comment to you – proving that not only are you liar – you’re also a coward.

Flora Duh on June 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Looks like it…

OmahaConservative on June 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

…it’s late…but yep!

KOOLAID2 on June 10, 2012 at 1:19 AM

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.

For every voter attracted by this anti-God agenda to the GOP there will be an emmigrant.The new big-tent is intolerence for the God -fearing. The scorn for “social conservatives” (a euphamism for the faithful flocks) in the GOP, by the “fiscals’ and “libertarians” is transparent.

Society seems to be on the brink of a persecution of believers. The blatant attack on the Catholic Church and individual conscience was merely the first obvious one, and met by the GOP with a ho-hum attitude. Our society has either turned from God, or created a new convenient one–one without rules–each person having their own personal construct.(until the maxi-state steps in)

America is nearing her Thelma and Louise finale -fast.

Don L on June 10, 2012 at 4:53 AM

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

Like most leftists, your words can be summarized as: “Shut Up,” they explained.

It is the homosexual lobby who wishes to make their proclivity considered normal and healthy, ultimately to the detriment of liberty of all kinds. I cannot “keep my mouth shut” because the love that dare not speak its name has become the lust that never stops talking. It is not enough to simply acknowledge homosexuality’s existence and leave everyone be, they demand that we must all alter our values, and reorient society to treat them like a prestige class.

The proper role and definition of marriage has been known intrinsically for generations. The new band of deformers trying to radically redefine marriage cannot even give a basic historical assessment of why it exists and for what purpose, and then why that purpose is obsolete.

They are the deformers G.K. Chesterton spoke of when he noted the difference between a reformer and a deformer is that a reformer finds a fence, realizes it is constructed with a purpose and function, and then asks himself if it still meets that purpose and function before advocating any changes. A deformer sees a fence, makes no effort to understand why it is there, and proceeds to tear it down with nothing to replace it.

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 5:36 AM


Is it okay to call them “homosexuals”, or do I have to call them a word they appropriated that meant “merry – cheerful – jolly – joyful”?

If you call your group a word that has a lot of positive connotations, then it is pejorative to refer to the group using neutral terminology.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 12:29 AM

I’ll give you a do-over. You don’t want to go out like that. Take it from half-court.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Who are you to give anybody “a do-over”? There isn’t any reason why Buddahpundit shouldn’t use the clinical phrase “homosexual” even if you demand to be called “gay” or whatever word of the moment may be.

This is America, home of the First Amendment. If you want to play word policeman, move to Canada, where that kind of politically correct crap is increasingly tolerated.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 6:42 AM

Society seems to be on the brink of a persecution of believers. The blatant attack on the Catholic Church and individual conscience was merely the first obvious one, and met by the GOP with a ho-hum attitude. Our society has either turned from God, or created a new convenient one–one without rules–each person having their own personal construct.(until the maxi-state steps in)

America is nearing her Thelma and Louise finale -fast.

Don L on June 10, 2012 at 4:53 AM

Poor dear! I feel your pain at being persecuted by those evil homosexuals. But surely we aren’t talking about just the end of America. It’s time for the apocalypse!

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM

Are we going to find out there are just as many homosexuals in DC as there are in Hollywood?

Is that what the process is going to reveal?

America 2012…….where the Founders would be called “hatemongering, elitist, super rich, racist slaveowning Neanderthals”

Congrats to the USA, what progress.

PappyD61 on June 10, 2012 at 7:30 AM

And i might add, it was homosexuality that was once classified as a mental disorder, and was only declassified as such because of pressure from the homofacists, not because of scientific breakthrough.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Good point. Another example where the liberals lied to us and told us that “the science is settled.” One hoax after another – global warming, evolution, “they were just born that way”… – it never ends.

imasoulman on June 10, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Who are you to give anybody “a do-over”? There isn’t any reason why Buddahpundit shouldn’t use the clinical phrase “homosexual” even if you demand to be called “gay” or whatever word of the moment may be.

This is America, home of the First Amendment. If you want to play word policeman, move to Canada, where that kind of politically correct crap is increasingly tolerated.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 6:42 AM

I suppose it must be unfortunate to live in a universe where you feel the need to make wild accusations instead of responding to what people say, but I guess it’s all part of being a bigot. It seems to me that Capitalist Hog was responding to Buddhapundit’s argument that the darned homosexuals have appropriated the word “gay”. Hog, like me, probably thought that even the bigots had given up on that silly argument in the nineties. Hence, the need for a do-over for an argument that is out of style. Perhaps I shouldn’t even call it an “argument”. It’s more like semantic quibbling.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM

In short, this shows you how much gays and lesbians hate marriage and how they want whatever idiotic relationship that pleasures them sexually — polygamy, sibling, father-son, mother-daughter, etc. — to be accepted and forced onto society.

northdallasthirty on June 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM

I wouldn’t go as far as to ascribe those motives to everyone who is not heterosexual, but this I know: Nobody who speaks up in favor of same-sex marriage wants to talk about polygamous or incestuous marriage because they know well shattering the one man-one woman standard eviscerates all other restrictions on marriage between legal adults. Rick Santorum masterfully illustrated this in a campaign appearance before some hostile New Hampshire students.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM

You, and many others, seem to be missing the larger point here and that is that these are the kinds of issues a culture in its death throes deals with, not one which is in its ascendancy. At the root of all the principles of a proper social order is morality.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM

And i might add, it was homosexuality that was once classified as a mental disorder, and was only declassified as such because of pressure from the homofacists, not because of scientific breakthrough.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Don’t just whine! Do something about it! Become a psychologist and get on the committee that works on the DSM. I’m sure a person of your insight and thoughtfulness would be welcome.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM

You, and many others, seem to be missing the larger point here and that is that these are the kinds of issues a culture in its death throes deals with, not one which is in its ascendancy. At the root of all the principles of a proper social order is morality.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM

If by cultural issues you are referring to divisive infighting and intolerance of differences, valuing them more than our shared goals, individual wants and needs and forced conformity then indeed, that is the road to a calcified and dead society.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Singer may be willing to bankroll, but what if a politician doesnt want to BE bankrolled?

herm2416 on June 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM

herm2416 on June 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM

He has formed a Super PAC. As such he is a private citizen advocating his right to speak on a political issue and to support the candidate(s) of his choice. Why should you or anyone have a problem with that?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM

If they weren’t so illustrative of my point your comments might be funny but the very fact that you see nothing ironic about redefining the terms of the debate to favor your personal preferences rather than to arrive at a logical conclusion destroys any basis for communication and spells the end of unity.

Without a mutually agreed upon morality no society can hold itself together. Enjoy the future. It’s gonna be short.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Better what he’s doing than pro-abortion.

Ronald Wallenfang on June 10, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I have come in late to this thread and it looks like any other gay themed thread on HotAir. And, it makes it clear how much some people just truly hate people who have same-sex attraction and will never change their position.

I am sixty. I just don’t want young people with same-sex attraction are able to live their lives without all what I have had to go through. I grew up in the era when homosexuality was on the list of mental disorders to be cured or prayed away. I bought into that line of thinking at an early age. I remained silent, celibate ………….. but was also afflicted with anxiety, depression and was a recluse. In 2007 I a major bout of depression and nearly took my own life by playing Russian roulette for around five days. I was put into a mental hospital for 17 days. Today I am out and the anxiety and depression have lifted. Thank God.

SC.Charlie on June 10, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM

The unifying principles of this highly exceptional and successful nation were laid out by our founders. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It’s a pity that you find such ideals to be unserious and a source of ridicule.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM

SC.Charlie on June 10, 2012 at 8:30 AM

That’s a touching account. Please know that not all of us are so callous or dogmatic as to be unable to learn. I’m certainly not proud of my attitudes towards gays when I was a younger man. I hope that in this day and age more of us will grow up and learn that what unites us is so much more important than what divides us.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:42 AM

This the final step in a long attempt by Singer to ensure only candidates willing to support the homosexual agenda reach the national level. He has been covertly undermining local politics for quite some time. Those individuals are now ready to jump to the national arena.

Zaire67 on June 9, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Democracy for sale isn’t as fun when they don’t agree with you is it? Welcome to Citizens United USA. Don’t expect your opinion or votes to count!

libfreeordie on June 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM

It’s more like semantic quibbling.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM

You folks have organized an army of celebrities to champion the cause of keeping the word “gay” completely positively connotated.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 8:51 AM

libfreeordie on June 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM

That’s right. Only labor unions and state-approved news sources may speak freely. Private citizens and all others must be silenced in the name of freedom! /s

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:57 AM

You, and many others, seem to be missing the larger point here and that is that these are the kinds of issues a culture in its death throes deals with, not one which is in its ascendancy. At the root of all the principles of a proper social order is morality.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM

No, we aren’t missing any points here. Linking homosexuality to a culture in decline reflects the deep historical ignorance of the people who make the argument. There isn’t a single example in all of human history of the sudden acceptance of homosexuality linked to country that was in decline. Not a single example!
However, I will guess that you think of Rome when you think of a culture in its death throes and homosexuality having something to do with it. Let’s review the time line:

509 BC–27 BC Roman Republic (one or two laws against some forms of homosexuality, but no real enforcement effort)
54 AD–68 AD Emperor Nero (Nero has public gay marriage)
98 AD-180 AD Emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius (Height of Roman Empire)
313 AD Edict of Milan (starts Rome on path of becoming Christian)
342 AD Theodosian Code (Outlaws gay marriage)
476 AD Fall of Rome

Given this time line, it should surprise no one that the most famous book on the subject “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbons blames Christianity for the fall of Rome.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM

The moral context within which they defined those terms has been replaced with a different context.

But you know that, don’t you?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Better what he’s doing than pro-abortion.
Ronald Wallenfang on June 10, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Wait.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I know no such thing. They defined those terms in plain English and without caveat. Our founders decreed that the purpose of government is to secure the rights of its people to live as they choose. It is you, who are imposing your own conditions on their words. America has been so successful because we are free! Free to define happiness on our terms and free to pursue it in our own ways. Their genius was to declare securing the liberty of the individual as the purpose of the state.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM

You’re mistaking the trees for the forest. The issue isn’t one man having sexual relations with another man. The issue is that we are discussing this seriously at all .

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I see. Thomas Jefferson would have been pleased to be having this discussion?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Without a mutually agreed upon morality no society can hold itself together. Enjoy the future. It’s gonna be short.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Hey, who was Cleombrotus? It turns out he was king of Sparta. Sparta is alleged to be the first Greek city to formalize pederasty as a key component in the education of the youth.

Are you for real, Cleombrotus? If so, you are an idiot.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

The day the GOP embraces the gay agenda, its finished. It will be time for a new political party then.

Darvin Dowdy on June 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Their genius was to declare securing the liberty of the individual as the purpose of the state.
MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM

What you call liberty they called license.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Hey, who was Cleombrotus? It turns out he was king of Sparta. Sparta is alleged to be the first Greek city to formalize pederasty as a key component in the education of the youth.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Appealing to a dead culture to defend against the argument of a dying culture doesn’t seem to me to be a winning strategy, thuja.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Remember when the GOP cared about individual liberty and limited Govt?

Yeah. Me neither.

Spliff Menendez on June 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Remember when the GOP cared about individual liberty and limited Govt?

Yeah. Me neither.

Spliff Menendez on June 10, 2012 at 9:13 AM

A marriage, monogamous or polygamous, isn’t about “individual liberty”.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:09 AM

He would be annoyed that people like you have so misconstrued his intent. I know, full well, the attitudes of our founders towards homosexuality, so don’t bother to bring it up. You see, our founders were wise enough to know that attitudes change. Our Constitution was devised to provide limits on government and not on individuals for precisely this reason. That is why he and our other founders did not make their bible our law. They did not shackle us with their 18th century sense of morality. Instead, they provided us with the tools to govern ourselves subject to the realities of world that they, unlike you, knew undergoes change.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

What you call liberty they called license.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM

I couldn’t give a rat’s petootie if you called it Frankincense.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The day the GOP embraces the gay agenda, its finished. It will be time for a new political party then.

Darvin Dowdy on June 10, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I always thought the GOP was finished when they embraced divorce and infidelity. You sure don’t seem upset about that.

Spliff Menendez on June 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Spliff Menendez on June 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

They’re certainly far, far more damaging to our society than anything one could accuse from the gay.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM

He would be annoyed that people like you have so misconstrued his intent. I know, full well, the attitudes of our founders towards homosexuality, so don’t bother to bring it up.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Do you know full well? Jefferson and Franklin hung out with known homosexuals in Paris.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Instead, they provided us with the tools to govern ourselves subject to the realities of world that they, unlike you, knew undergoes change.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Polygamous marriages would be a “change”, so on what basis would you object to them?

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM

I know that Cleombrotus would consider Franklin an un-American, libertine, irredeemable sinner. I don’t know as much about Jefferson’s personal history.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I am in favor of our marriage laws being decided on the basis of democracy. If the majority of citizens in a state want to permit polygamy, then I say mazel tov. As I said above, it is why applaud VT and condemn MA for the way a similar definition for marriage was brought about in each state.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Gays and gay-supporters on this thread will continue to characterize – incorrectly – much of the opposition to their agenda as the simple hatred of a crude bunch of troglodytes, but as long as they do, they’ll be missing the point, and railing against the wrong thing.

I don’t despise you because you’re gay, precisely for the reason that I don’t care what you do behind closed doors.

The reason I don’t care what you do behind closed doors, is that I value individual liberty, and the protections the Constitution is designed to give them. I am an American in the truest sense, meaning I value individual liberty above all, up to the point where it infringes on the liberty of others.

What I despise is anyone who wants to try and concoct a civil right around one’s sexual activities. This means gay activists, polyamory activists, pedophilia activists, incest activists.. anybody who wants to declare their sexual deviance a basis for a civil right.

Enough already.

greggriffith on June 10, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I always thought the GOP was finished when they embraced divorce and infidelity. You sure don’t seem upset about that.

Spliff Menendez on June 10, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Forcing you to remain in a bad union isn’t a Republican ideal.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM

True enough. But in terms of culture wars, making it easier and more acceptable for couples to split up is a far, far greater moral failing at both the individual and state level in my book than anything the gay community advocates. If you want to protect children and give them the best chance in life and if you want to reduce reliance on government, if you want to improve educational and vocational outcomes, then your time, energy and outrage would be much better spent on making it more consequential for people to take such commitments lightly than to rail against those same sex couples who are sincerely committed to each other.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM

But as time went on it’s become obvious

But as time goes on it’s become obvious

or

But as time went on it became obvious

Don’t you people have an editor?

peacenprosperity on June 10, 2012 at 9:50 AM

Has Dr. Tesla been banned? i would have thought this post was right up his alley.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

If you can’t beat em, join em. Then destroy everything.

peacenprosperity on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 9:51 AM

That’s one and you get one more. Don’t you dare say that name 3 times!

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

I am in favor of our marriage laws being decided on the basis of democracy. If the majority of citizens in a state want to permit polygamy, then I say mazel tov. As I said above, it is why applaud VT and condemn MA for the way a similar definition for marriage was brought about in each state.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:32 AM

If all the pedophiles move to Montana and create a pedophile majority there, would you support any “right” they decide to vote for themselves? Shouldn’t they be able to decide age of consent for themselves and decide for themselves what constitutes “consent”?

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Is “hetero” a slur in your opinion?

Mimzey on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Yes. And neither you nor I have to live there.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

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

Glad I went to bed before reading such an assinine post.. people like you make me want to puke.. and your arguments are equal to the vomit and stink equally..

theblacksheepwasright on June 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Yes. And neither you nor I have to live there.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Before you go jumping on my response and taking it to the absurd extreme, the term “consent” does have its limits. Specifically, one must have the capacity to make informed decisions. So clearly, as a matter of rights, there are limits in terms of age and other factors to what can pass for consent.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The homosexual-industrial-complex is operational.

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 10:37 AM

And at a rock-bottom, bargain price to our society compared to the single-parent industry.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I think that we either get out of the marriage business all together or make civil unions a partnership contract. This protects individuals who have a different opinoin on gay relationships. It protects churchs and doesn’t redefine something that is sacred to many people.

I agree, but there is also a push to block civil unions as well as in North Carolina recently. I think it is time to leave ‘marriage’ to the church and all else is simply contractual. Just my opinion.

tammyloc on June 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

What. Ever.

J.E. Dyer on June 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Glad I went to bed before reading such an assinine post.. people like you make me want to puke.. and your arguments are equal to the vomit and stink equally..

theblacksheepwasright on June 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Spew all the insults you want, I’m waiting for a point-by-point refutation of my argument.

Stoic Patriot on June 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Good point. Another example where the liberals lied to us and told us that “the science is settled.” One hoax after another – global warming, evolution, “they were just born that way”… – it never ends.

imasoulman on June 10, 2012 at 7:45 AM

Do you believe gays make a choice, whether conscious or unconscious, to be attracted to members of their own sexes?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 10, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Are we going to hear from the “stick to the important issues” crowd on this one or do they only care when it’s “social conservatives” pushing this issue?

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

With people so accepting of differences now days, why is bullying considered an epidemic? I’m getting that “Shut Up!” feeling again.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I’m with you. Let’s stick to the important issues. Let’s not chase away valuable votes by alienating people just because they’re gay.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I’m with you. Let’s stick to the important issues. Let’s not chase away valuable votes by alienating people just because they’re gay.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 11:11 AM

So gays are gay first and conservative second?

The Republican party has historically shown enormous preference to gays – you do realize McConnell and Boehner dated each other for 10 years? John still sometimes cries about it, in public.

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Yes, but they don’t have the right to force MY state, who has outlawed same-sex “marriage” in our State Constitution, to recognize it.

cptacek on June 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Do you know what laws, if any, presently exist regarding states’ obligations to recognize other states’ marriages i.e. do states which refuse to marry first cousins have the legal authority to disregard/ignore marriages between first cousins which occur in states which do allow them?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

In other words, bribe pols into supporting a vile lifestyle.

Money talks, and apparently frees people of principles they claim to embody.

madmonkphotog on June 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

So gays are gay first and conservative second?

CorporatePiggy on June 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I don’t care which they put first. I care that they vote for a stronger, more prosperous America.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 9:53 AM

i still want to know if he’s been banned

gerry-mittbot-likes gossip

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Why would he be banned? For being goofy?

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Why would he be banned? For being goofy?

he’s been described many ways.I don’t believe goofy has ever been used.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Paul Singer is nothing more than a plant. A very wealthy plant.

The slow drip, drip, drip of remaking the Republican party into a variation of the Democrat party.
One day you’ll wake up and realize there’s only one party…

katy on June 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM

I can understand not embracing my terminology but why in the world would he get banned? He doesn’t insult anyone, use inappropriate language or threaten anyone and he certainly adds to the comment meter. Even when he isn’t around.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

One day you’ll wake up and realize there’s only one party…

katy on June 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Probably sooner than we expect.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I can understand not embracing my terminology but why in the world would he get banned? He doesn’t insult anyone, use inappropriate language or threaten anyone and he certainly adds to the comment meter. Even when he isn’t around.

cindy the reason i asked the question is because usually on these kind of posts he’s continually on them. I was just curious.

i have no desire to see him banned-i would just like to know if he has been banned because i like gossip.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I don’t care which they put first. I care that they vote for a stronger, more prosperous America.
MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Too funny. Yeah, we’re obviously becoming “stronger and more prosperous”.

MJ, I think the future’s gonna be real painful for those who aren’t preparing for it.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6