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

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,

As one of the world’s more famous homosexuals says, “Wait for it…”

but I guess it’s all part of being a bigot.

…and there you have it. Without a twinge of irony.

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.

Buddhapundit is correct. The “darned homosexuals” (your words!) have appropriated the word “gay.” Not only that, after giving a common synonym for lightheartedness and joy a sexual connotation, and encouraging children to declare their “sexual orientation” to their peers regardless of whether they had been asked by anyone whose business it is, they (you?) did things like create public service messages instructing children that they were NOT to use the word “gay” to describe common traits of people who actually self-identify using the same word.

Liberal activists of all “orientations” have appropriated the word “bigot” as well, which has come to mean “One that refuses to hew to one-sided, left-leaning characterizations of controversies involving racial, ethnic, or sexual minorities.” Thus, even though I don’t hate homosexuals per se, I am branded a “bigot” by the likes of you because I don’t agree that it is a “natural” condition or that people of the same sex ought to be married.

Perhaps I shouldn’t even call it an “argument”. It’s more like semantic quibbling.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Quibbling that folks like you can’t resist engaging in at every turn.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Oh, I got ya! You are very correct that this is a dream thread for him. Maybe it could be considered the Sodomy Summit he has always longed for, unfortunately without the participation of Sen. Santorum.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I have to ask, of those here who cast their moral aspersions on gays, do you also hold the same opinion of straight couples who have sex and other forms of pleasure (yes, even sodomy) for recreation? What of those who do so outside of marriage? Do you hold the same hostility towards such people, and if so, why do you lambast gays and not speak up against them?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else but I have a problem of another victim class/voting demographic being started based on who people have sex with.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM

You haven’t addressed the questions in the post you responded to.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Okay, no, I don’t care about other peoples sex lives at all and do not hold them in contempt and would appreciate the hell out of them not boring me with it. No fault divorce has done more to diminish marriage. I still don’t think we need a new demographic based on who people have sex with.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM

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

Define the word: “clearly”. You want a state democracy to determine those limits and to make the judgement as to whom has the “capacity to make informed decisions”, don’t you? Or do you have some unclear idea about certain “experts” deciding the matter and putting a limitation on the democracy? Which “experts” would you entrust with this power? Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently spoke about how the age of consent should be 11, so you might want to keep that in mind when you are answering the question.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM

OK. Thanks for responding. Now, would you think it permissible in our society to exclude people from employment or access to housing, stores, restaurants, etc on the basis of who they choose to have sex with? Do you think that in a society which has looked so harshly on gays that such inequities have not and will not happen without government involvement?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution in this country. The meaning of informed consent for a great many purposes is in their hands.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Explain how who someone has sex with would come up in a conversation in order to allow exclusion.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else but I have a problem of another victim class/voting demographic being started based on who people have sex with.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I would hope every conservative agrees with you, and I wish everyone did. But we still are going to have arguments about marriage equality. And you should keep in mind that the day will come when conservative advocates of marriage equality will be your allies on what passes for the gay politics of the future.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Have you ever heard of gaydar? Have you ever met a person who think is gay (rightly or wrongly), based on their mannerisms, speech or some other clue? Would it be permissible to discriminate on that basis? Furthermore, what if a person makes no secret of that fact. Would it then be OK? Are you suggesting that we should live in a “don’t ask, don’t tell” society? For that matter, what if you know that person is “living in sin” with a person of the opposite sex? Do you think it permissible to deny them access to employment, stores, etc?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Explain how who someone has sex with would come up in a conversation in order to allow exclusion.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

In my social circles, many people mention their life partner with the implicit acknowledgement of exclusive sexual access all the time. You must be living in a nunnery, if this isn’t true for you. Even there, I would think you would occasionally run into people using words like husband or wife.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

“Marriage equality” is a misnomer. Two men or two women will never be equal to a man and a woman. It’s impossible. Marriage is unique and two people of the same sex will never be able to have that relationship.

Rose on June 10, 2012 at 12:58 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

Good question. It could also apply to age as I remember reading that some states let them marry quite young. If a state convicts someone of having sex with a 15 year old but lets someone else have a sexual relation with a 15 year old because he has an out-of-state marriage license, then the convict has an equal protection case which would certainly get his conviction overturned. In fact, the convict would even win release based on the hypothetical that someone could bring a 15 year old to the state and have relations because of full faith and credit.

RI recently passed a law to recognize out of state homosexual marriages. I wonder if it makes any age or incest exceptions. I bet their heterosexual marriage statutes have exceptions.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

“Marriage equality” is a misnomer. Two men or two women will never be equal to a man and a woman. It’s impossible. Marriage is unique and two people of the same sex will never be able to have that relationship. Rose on June 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM

It’s a misnomer, Rose, because they don’t want marriage equality, they want the power to redefine marriage and the family.

That wouldn’t give them equal rights, it would give them a right no one else has.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

There is also the full faith and credit clause which could be relevant. In fact, DOMA is an attempt to circumvent that clause without amending the Constitution.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Like it or not, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution in this country. The meaning of informed consent for a great many purposes is in their hands.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Where does the Constitution mention “informed consent”? Why do states have different age of consent if it’s a scotus matter?

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Marriage equality!!!!!!!! (except for polygamists).

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Now, would you think it permissible in our society to exclude people from employment or access to housing, stores, restaurants, etc on the basis of who they choose to have sex with? MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Uh, yes. Because that would be a free society, where people are allowed to choose their associates.

A less free society forces you to do things, like hire a man who thinks he’s a woman and wants everyone to know.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Gay people have the right to get married in every state. They can’t get a marriage license. There’s a big difference. No one is being denied their rights.

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Explain how who someone has sex with would come up in a conversation in order to allow exclusion.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Well, one of the problems is that you’re looking at this as who someone has sex with. It’s not about that, it’s about who someone loves, unless you consider your husband (assuming you have one) to be “that guy you have sex with”.

sobincorporated on June 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

There is also the full faith and credit clause which could be relevant. In fact, DOMA is an attempt to circumvent that clause without amending the Constitution. MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Congress has every right to limit jurisdiction.

“…the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” -Art III Sec 2 Clause 2.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

It’s a gray area. To the best of my knowledge, age of consent is based on contract law which portions of the Constitution (free association) have some bearing on.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I would be against any discrimination based on those type of conversations, still don’t want a voting demographic or victim group status based on sex.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

That’s a very sticky issue with regard to separation of powers. Taken to its limit, Congress could exempt all the laws it passes from judicial review. This is essentially what was attempted and failed in Marbury v Madison.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:51 PM

What if you thought someone might be a terrorist? Can you deny them things? We are really going into the weeds with all these feelings!

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

It’s a gray area. To the best of my knowledge, age of consent is based on contract law which portions of the Constitution (free association) have some bearing on. MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

It’s not a “gray area.”

Amendment X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Age of consent is not mentioned so it’s a state matter.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

It’s a gray area. To the best of my knowledge, age of consent is based on contract law which portions of the Constitution (free association) have some bearing on.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

You went from scotus being the final arbiter on the matter to “it’s a gray area” in a matter of moments. Kinda making it up as you go?

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

That’s a very sticky issue with regard to separation of powers. Taken to its limit, Congress could exempt all the laws it passes from judicial review. This is essentially what was attempted and failed in Marbury v Madison. MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:10 PM

1. No it isn’t.

2. Marbury was used in that way until the 1880′s.

3. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” -Art III Sec 2 Clause 2.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

No, you see, it’s a very sticky issue, a ray area, when the plebes really shouldn’t trouble their little heads with it.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:14 PM

It’s a misnomer, Rose, because they don’t want marriage equality, they want the power to redefine marriage and the family.

That wouldn’t give them equal rights, it would give them a right no one else has.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I live in Pittsburgh. In the social world I inhabit, marriage may refer to different sex couples or same sex couples. This use of marriage seems to be rapidly spreading. It wasn’t a common understanding of marriage as recently as the 1980′s. The idea of marriage has changed greatly over time. It started out as the legal recognition of a man’s ownership of his wife.

As far as your claim that marriage equality means that gays get to be our linguistic dictators like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderful, it’s a silly argument.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:07 PM

You keep referring to victim groups. It’s a great dog whistle, given how the civil rights movement has been abused and made a mockery of by the left. However, I see you using it as an excuse to turn a blind eye to legitimate victimization and discrimination. I am not arguing for any new rights, such as to gay marriage, which I consider a right of the states to decide.

I am making 2 arguments.

1. Discrimination in employment, housing, voting and other access on the basis of sexual preference is not acceptable under our Constitution.

2. The conservative cause would be well served by inviting and welcoming gay people to the side of limited government and individual freedom with personal responsibility.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I live in Pittsburgh. In the social world I inhabit, marriage may refer to different sex couples or same sex couples. This use of marriage seems to be rapidly spreading. It wasn’t a common understanding of marriage as recently as the 1980′s. The idea of marriage has changed greatly over time. It started out as the legal recognition of a man’s ownership of his wife.
As far as your claim that marriage equality means that gays get to be our linguistic dictators like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderful, it’s a silly argument.
thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

So you support state licensed polygamy right?

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM

sobincorporated on June 10, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Now that’s a valid point but I still think the comparison to this as a civil rights issue is incredibly insulting to a group of people who were discriminated against based solely on their appearance. You know, there was a time in our history when it was considered truly bad manners to discuss people’s personal lives, religion and political affiliation unless you were very close to them. Now all of that is not only discussed but openly ridiculed by all who disagree. Are we better for it? I find that the people who are hateful to people who don’t embrace the homosexual lifestyle every bit as rude as those who would mock someone for being homosexual.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Stop playing word games.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM

“Gay marriage” is what is silly, a joke really. People who desire so greatly to be considered mainstream that they pretend to be something they are not.

Rose on June 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

As far as your claim that marriage equality means that gays get to be our linguistic dictators like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderful, it’s a silly argument. thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

We’re not debating semantics but the force of law, genius.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Age of consent is not mentioned so it’s a state matter.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Well, here’s an area of agreement that even suggests a way we could compromise with each other.

I do want to point out that Amendment 10 is useless without us restricting the Commerce Clause back to something closer to its original intent.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

1. Discrimination in employment, housing, voting and other access on the basis of sexual preference is not acceptable under our Constitution.

Please cite he Constitution on this. I have, and you ignore it, so we’ll just suppose that this is a very sticky gray area.

2. The conservative cause would be well served by inviting and welcoming gay people to the side of limited government and individual freedom with personal responsibility. MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Please tells us how allowing the govt to redefine marriage is conservative.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:22 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

I agree with your points in theory and hope that that is how these questions evolve but I admit that I have doubts. Let’s see how the courts treat churches who don’t buy into the acceptance. There are a variety of reasons that people with private business or property might discriminate against all sorts of people, must the accept all?

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

So you support state licensed polygamy right?

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Is this an issue that needs to be addressed anywhere in America? If not, the question is irrelevant.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I do want to point out that Amendment 10 is useless without us restricting the Commerce Clause back to something closer to its original intent. thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:21 PM

The commerce clause has nothing to do with this issue.

“Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.” -James Madison, Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.

The commerce clause does not grant congress powers not enumerated.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Is this an issue that needs to be addressed anywhere in America? If not, the question is irrelevant.

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

LOL! You don’t think it’s going to get batted around this election cycle? And it won’t even be by conservatives. It’s going to be awesome.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So you support state licensed polygamy right?
gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Is this an issue that needs to be addressed anywhere in America? If not, the question is irrelevant.
thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

So we’re not really having a conversation about rights then – otherwise you wouldn’t dodge the question. Or you think certain groups of people don’t deserve the same rights. By the way I live in Utah – so it’s relevant.

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Is this an issue that needs to be addressed anywhere in America? If not, the question is irrelevant. thuja on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

I would bets there are as many Mormons and Muslims who would complain for equal protection under a gay marriage regime as there are gays who would take advantage of a gay marriage regime.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I have to ask, of those here who cast their moral aspersions on gays, do you also hold the same opinion of straight couples who have sex and other forms of pleasure (yes, even sodomy) for recreation? What of those who do so outside of marriage? Do you hold the same hostility towards such people, and if so, why do you lambast gays and not speak up against them?
MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Setting aside your deliberate mischatacterization of the motives of those who are opposed to the idea as “hostility towards”, answer this question:

If we accept the idea that two men engaging in serial sexual behavior with one another constitutes the same moral basis as a man and his wife, then on what basis do we have for “casting moral aspersions”, to use your loaded description, on any other sexual relationships?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Stop playing word games.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Let me help you out here. Your best direction in this debate is to make the other side answer the question I asked you. Ask the 10th Amendment abiders whether a state full of pedophiles should have the right to drop the age of consent to 4 years old, and be allowed to define what constitutes “informed consent”.

Of course the answer is that we need a Constitutional amendment that clarifies who can marry; genders, blood and age. All of these things must be covered in the amendment and it will take some things that have always been traditionally decided at the state level away from the states and prevent several looming constitutional crises, and it would put an end to this homosexual marriage nonsense.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Ok, I’m gonna say it, polygamy effects me or anyone not involved in said polygamy just as much as gay marriage effects everyone but the two people getting married. Not at all. So, no, I don’t care if polygamy becomes legal, which as we all know will happen the second gay marriage becomes legal in every state because, let’s face it, we’re all godless moral degenerates right?

That being said, I don’t support this PAC. Gay marriage should NOT be decided at the federal level. It’s a state issue. Stop trying to give the government more power over our lives.

Cyhort on June 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

If we accept the idea that two men engaging in serial sexual behavior with one another constitutes the same moral basis as a man and his wife, then on what basis do we have for “casting moral aspersions”, to use your loaded description, on any other sexual relationships?

You don’t, and that’s the point I think. As long as sex is consensual what gives anyone the right to say which kind is more or less moral than another kind?

Cyhort on June 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

1. Discrimination in employment, housing, voting and other access on the basis of sexual preference is not acceptable under our Constitution.

Discrimination based on behavior is perfectly legitimate. No one will know your sexual preference unless you point it out to them, and you cannot prove it beyond your own say-so.

2. The conservative cause would be well served by inviting and welcoming gay people to the side of limited government and individual freedom with personal responsibility.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM

We do welcome homosexuals to limited government with individual freedom and personal responsibility.

It’s just in order for them to actually join us they have to oppose enabling assaults on everyone else’s individual liberty by demanding we reorder the social norms than public institutions reinforce. You can’t be a conservative who supports individual liberty while still maintaining protected class status that makes you more equal than another individual in the eyes of the law. The two notions are incompatible.

You can be a conservative with a sexual preference for people of the same gender.

You can’t be a homosexual demanding special recognition and class protections and also be a conservative.

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

As long as sex is consensual what gives anyone the right to say which kind is more or less moral than another kind? Cyhort on June 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Oh I dunno, maybe “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” as enshrined on the wall of the Supreme Court?

And maybe the fact that minors cannot give informed consent to sex with an adult? I’m just fishing around here helplessly, please help me out.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Are people having extra material affairs actually in a quasi form of polygamy?

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I live in a state that has gay marriage by court fiat.(ma.)

If it was on the ballot i would vote against it.

Having said that in the 5 years we have had gay marriage it has not affected me one iota.

Occasionally we have a marriage announcement or a divorce decree but
other than that unless your in the gay communnity it has no effect.

I do work with some gay people and i can honestly say none of this has been an issue in my workplace.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You’re good!

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

You can be a conservative with a sexual preference for people of the same gender.

You can’t be a homosexual demanding special recognition and class protections and also be a conservative.

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Bingo! You win the prize.

VegasRick on June 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I see you are still around. I have a question for you. It seems to me that you have an underpants gnome theory of homosexuality causing civilization decline, but maybe you don’t. Could you explain to me how acceptance of gays leads to the decay of civilization? I have to leave now to go to Pittsburgh’s gay pride event, but will review your answer when I get back. I doubt I will answer your post, because this thread will probably be old news–unless you indicate you plan to come back here.

Anyway, happy gay pride day to you!

thuja on June 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

You don’t, and that’s the point I think. As long as sex is consensual what gives anyone the right to say which kind is more or less moral than another kind?
Cyhort on June 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

This is what we are up against.

The battle for men’s souls begins with a battle for their minds and a mind which cannot recognize the inherent illogic in such a question will be difficult, if not impossible, to regain.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Having said that in the 5 years we have had gay marriage it has not affected me one iota.
gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 1:53 PM

It’s not YOU we’re concerned about, gerry. It’s the next generation comIng up who will be having even more difficulty in forming their sexual identity we’re concerned with.

Or don’t you consider life outside of your own narrow existence?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 1:38 PM
homosexuality causing civilization decline,
thuja on June 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Declining reading comprehension skills are just another indicator.

No, knucklehead. Homosexuality doesn’t cause civilizational decline; it’s an indicator of it.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:20 PM

If we accept the idea that two men engaging in serial sexual behavior with one another constitutes the same moral basis as a man and his wife, then on what basis do we have for “casting moral aspersions”, to use your loaded description, on any other sexual relationships?
You don’t, and that’s the point I think. As long as sex is consensual what gives anyone the right to say which kind is more or less moral than another kind?
Cyhort on June 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM

A marriage license isn’t a statement of morality. Or even legality (it doesn’t make gay marriage illegal it just doesn’t recognize it). It’s simply recognized by the state because the union has an excellent chance of producing offspring and raising the next generation.

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

1. Discrimination in employment, housing, voting and other access on the basis of sexual preference is not acceptable under our Constitution.
Discrimination based on behavior is perfectly legitimate. No one will know your sexual preference unless you point it out to them, and you cannot prove it beyond your own say-so.
2. The conservative cause would be well served by inviting and welcoming gay people to the side of limited government and individual freedom with personal responsibility.
MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 1:16 PM
We do welcome homosexuals to limited government with individual freedom and personal responsibility.
It’s just in order for them to actually join us they have to oppose enabling assaults on everyone else’s individual liberty by demanding we reorder the social norms than public institutions reinforce. You can’t be a conservative who supports individual liberty while still maintaining protected class status that makes you more equal than another individual in the eyes of the law. The two notions are incompatible.
You can be a conservative with a sexual preference for people of the same gender.
You can’t be a homosexual demanding special recognition and class protections and also be a conservative.
BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Bravo. Well said.

gwelf on June 10, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Cleombrotus 2:16

That’s the problem with much of ‘conservatism’ today. Many espousing it cannot see beyond their own narrow existence.

And the left’s capitalizing big on that.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Nicely done. You made Brutus vanish.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:16 PM

In all honesty i believe gay people are born that way. I don’t think its a choice.

Just my opinion.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

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, 7:55 a.m.

first off, I really don’t care much one way or the other what you say. After all, I still remember you’re the fool who ‘demands’ (your word) that religious people change their beliefs to suit your proclivities, er, ‘lifestyle’.

Second, thanks for illustrating, yet again, the tired and typical homofascist tactic of resorting to (frankly, ill-formed) insults when there is no substantive response.

The fact stands. No scientific insight or breakthrough led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was the same tired terroristic tactics of the militant ‘gay’ activists. The same ones they use to try to ram ‘gay’ marriage through, the same ones they use to try to silence opposition, blah, blah, blah. When they can’t convince the people (what, 38, 39 states and counting?), they try to use the courts and un-representative government to force their agenda through. Their behavior, and that of many who post on blogs like this, really give an intuitive sense that those old shrinks and psychologists may have been right, and that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

That’s the problem with much of ‘conservatism’ today. Many espousing it cannot see beyond their own narrow existence.
And the left’s capitalizing big on that.
avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

And that’s the reason I’m personally suspicious of any narrow special interest groups’ PACs. Particular one which is defined by an issue that is inherently self-concerned.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I don’t think that makes any difference. Do you think they would want extra protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act?

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

In all honesty i believe gay people are born that way. I don’t think its a choice.
Just my opinion.
gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Undoubtedly there are genetic abnormalities but to ascribe all of them to that condition is to ignore the increase of its incidence since the moral guidelines the used to undergird our laws, customs, and mores were replaced with Humanism.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM

No one has found the “gay gene”. Is it so unbelievable to suggest that this behavior could be caused by other factors besides biological (genetic predisposition)ones?

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

And what all the people who give lip service to the Founders forget is how many of them KNEW from their reading of history, that a society cannot exist without homonoia on core issues, including morality.

It is frightening to me that so many on ‘our side’ think that America’s greatness came from property rights and economic liberty. The Founders, who actually knew philosophy and history, and didn’t just have a glib understanding of it, understood that America’s greatness would come from acknowledging the Law of the Creator, or ‘Natural Law’ as many of them knew it. His law includes property rights and so on, but it also includes what we now conveniently segregate into the category ‘morality’.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Human nature being what it is does mean that we need to be careful. The history of this nation contains its sad chapters that, if not corrected, would have hindered us from becoming the great nation we are today.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Ask the 10th Amendment abiders whether a state full of pedophiles should have the right to drop the age of consent to 4 years old, and be allowed to define what constitutes “informed consent”.

And I have maintained that where the line is, is gray. That the Constitution is a terse document that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Consider the recent cases of how old must one be to be held fully culpable for crimes such as murder. The court ruled that lacking the maturity to fully understand the implications of one’s actions, one can not be given the death penalty.

To answer you directly, no, no reasonable person could suggest that a 4yo possesses the capacity to provide informed consent.

Of course the answer is that we need a Constitutional amendment that clarifies who can marry; genders, blood and age. All of these things must be covered in the amendment and it will take some things that have always been traditionally decided at the state level away from the states and prevent several looming constitutional crises, and it would put an end to this homosexual marriage nonsense.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I disagree strongly with the need for one. However, I agree that such an amendment would be the only Constitutional remedy to obtain the end that you desire.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

All nations have sad chapters in their histories, we are not alone nor are we always wrong.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Of course! My point was that we have learned and must continue to learn from our mistakes. Are we better than most? Absolutely! Are we exceptional in the measures we took to correct and reform? Positively! Are we exceptional in our promotion and defense of such great ideals as freedom throughout the world? Unquestionably!

There is no doubt that America is and has been the most exceptional nation on earth in terms of promoting the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the world has ever known. That is a history and a tradition that we should be proud to both preserve and carry on. We still have some room to improve, and I say, let’s improve!

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I again have to disagree. People are more open about this nowadays.

more hidden in the past.

probably the incidence is the same

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM

you know this issue is about how your affected by it.

the big name republican who’s for it is Dick Cheney because one of his daughters is gay.

If your a conservative and you have no gay children your against it.

If your a conservative and you have gay children your for it.

you need conservatives who have gay children to be against it.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

The lesson? It’s easier to be callous about strangers.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM

This is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of civil-rights.

You can’t be a homosexual demanding special recognition and class protections and also be a conservative.

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM

You’re good!

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

You are good.

If you stand opposed to full civil-recognition for gay men and women then BKennedy is on the money. His argument and reasoning should resonate with you.

I happen to believe that gay-Americans are equal citizens and are thereby deserving of full integration into the fold of American society. That includes marriage and adoption — the right to start a family. I do not believe the “right” to visit a partner on their deathbed is enough. Would that be enough for any of you?

No. It wouldn’t.

BKennedy is your guy if you disapprove of full-integration by gay-Americans into American society. I do not believe that being gay and asking for equal rights amounts to “special recognitiion.” The only thing special about the recognition gays tend to receive is the amount of hatred, mistrust and vitriol that comes with it.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:19 PM

gerrym51

I have a cousin I’ve known my whole life who’s homosexual.

I love him and I hope he changes. That said, I don’t like being around him (he has to rub it in everyone’s face) and I hate his sin.

It boils down to a sense of right and wrong. Read the story of Lucius Junius Brutus.

Too many Americans feel their way through everything, and don’t fall back on law and reason.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM
I again have to disagree. People are more open about this nowadays.
more hidden in the past.
probably the incidence is the same
gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Back to sleep, ger. We’ll wake you when your son comes home one day with his husband.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I support it. I frequently watch Redeye on Fox late at night, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_R._Barron is a frequent guest.

Seems like a pretty cool guy, and has alot of interesting stuff to say. There’s no doubting the guy is a conservative too, as he’s always bashing Obambi. The GOP could go a long way in acquiring future voters if they opened up on social issues like gay marriage. At least take the Dick Cheney position and leave it up to the States.

1984 in real life on June 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

To answer you directly, no, no reasonable person could suggest that a 4yo possesses the capacity to provide informed consent.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

That’s the opposite of “answering directly”. Do you want democracies to determine what is reasonable or not?

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Civil Rights?

Homesexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

you obviously don’t read my posts. I said if it was on a ballot i would vote against it.

however it is also true it has not affected me.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I love him and I hope he changes. That said, I don’t like being around him (he has to rub it in everyone’s face) and I hate his sin.

rubbing it in your face is tactless on his part.but if you see it as a sin-thats tactless on your part.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Possessions and contractions are just something that you used to know.
Mac Lethal

you know this issue is about how your affected by it.

the big name republican who’s for it is Dick Cheney because one of his daughters is gay.

If your a conservative and you have no gay children your against it.

If your a conservative and you have gay children your for it.

you need conservatives who have gay children to be against it.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I don’t know how old you are. But it is not excusable to constantly misspell the word “you’re.” Serously, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you REFUSE to correct yourself in a matter that should have been resolved in elementary-school?

We all make typos. We all type too fast at times runningourwordstogether or missspellling them. This is not that.

People may find my remarks here distasteful. But to quote The Man, “SO?”

Grow up.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Prediction: When Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington all vote for gay marriage at the state level this November, conservatives will instantly drop the “state’s right” argument and demand a constitutional amendment.

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Believing homosexuality is a sin is not tactless. It’s a belief.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM
We still have some room to improve, and I say, let’s improve!
MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I witnessed a good example of what that “improvement” is gonna look like last evening in lower Manhattan. A coterie of about 20 bicyclists, both male and female, rode up the street carrying a rainbow banner. The majority of the men were clothed only in athletic supporters and a few were totally naked. The women wore various forms of undergarments only.

I kid you not.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

That would be “possessives.”

SeewhatImeanweallmakemistakes.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Prediction: When Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington all vote for gay marriage at the state level this November, conservatives will instantly drop the “state’s right” argument and demand a constitutional amendment.

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Prediction: When monkeys fly out of your backside.

It has been defeated in every state where the citizens have been provided the opportunity to vote on it.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I love him and I hope he changes. That said, I don’t like being around him (he has to rub it in everyone’s face) and I hate his sin.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

“Rubbing it in everyone’s face” means he acknowledges he has a partner? Oh, the horror!

I’m sure your bigotry disgusts him and he hates being around you as well, love.

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM

It has been defeated in every state where the citizens have been provided the opportunity to vote on it.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Yet. That will change. Conservatives fear that day happening because they will have fully lost the argument. Can’t wait to see the spin coming!

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Yet. That will change. Conservatives fear that day happening because they will have fully lost the argument. Can’t wait to see the spin coming!

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Time to go feed the unicorn in your backyard.

What part of the fact that, per Gallup, Conservatism remains the largest political ideology in American confuses you so much?

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Yet. That will change. Conservatives fear that day happening because they will have fully lost the argument. Can’t wait to see the spin coming!
inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I’ve watched for the last 40 years as those who engage in homosexual behavior have steadily gained everything they have ever asked for from a tolerant society and it’s never enough.

What are you gonna do when you gain state recognition of your relationships and you still can’t find the peace which eludes you?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:23 PM

If it’s innocuous, why vote against it?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Prediction: When Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington all vote for gay marriage at the state level this November, conservatives will instantly drop the “state’s right” argument and demand a constitutional amendment.

my prediction is that they will all vote against it. I would vote against it if it was on the ballot in ma.

but having said that it still doesn’t affect me.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM

What are you gonna do when you gain state recognition of your relationships and you still can’t find the peace which eludes you?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Very presumptuous of you to assume that gay people don’t have peace because they are fighting for equal rights. My bet is that most gay people will try working on finding that “peace” after becoming equal citizens.

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

If it’s innocuous, why vote against it?

it’s abnormal and should not be allowed. Marriage is between one man and one woman as Romney says.

but again having been in ma. for 5 years with it unless your deep into the gay community it has no effect.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6