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 3 4 5 6

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM

You have equal rights, Skippy. You just don’t have the use of the word marriage.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

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

believing pedophile priests is not a sin is tactless

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

You have equal rights, Skippy. You just don’t have the use of the word marriage.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Well I’m not gay, Skippy, but thanks for the compliment. They are an amazing group of people.

And they very much do have use of the word “marriage” in several states and several countries worldwide. So your argument is flawed fundamentally.

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I kid you not.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 3:29 PM

SO?

If any one of the cyclists committed crimes why didn’t you report them?

How long did you watch to do your assessment of their decency? And what does gay-marriage have to do with obnoxious people? I have more than one straight friend who has removed various parts of their clothing in public. Women at the beaches I enjoy wear next to nothing. Did I say beach? I meant everywhere.

Here’s the thing. Even if every gay person was some type of socio-sexual deviant as you seem to imply they would still be entitled to the same civil-rights as you or me. If you want to change their status then criminalize their behavior.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

inthemiddle on June 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Not by national fiat. They cannot walk into a church and get married in Mississippi.

The conveyance of normalcy that the word “marriage” entails has not been granted by the American people to gay relationships.

kingsjester on June 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

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

Not true gerry.

Catholic Adoption Services was effectively shut down because of the kind of legal extortion the MA Supreme Court’s ruling brought. MA Resistance has a ton of stuff on the kind of alternative family/lifestyle garbage the homosexual lobby foists onto the minds of children in Massachusetts.

They always go after the children first, gerry. That they also hate Catholics is not news, but the Catholic Church can fight her own battles. These kids who are taught that a mother and father are either unnecessary, interchangeable, or replaceable in the name of diversity don’t have that capacity. Little persons who are still in the “girls / boys have cooties” stage of life should not be introduced to subjects completely beyond their comprehension. These activists want validation from the defenseless and impressionable because they can’t get it from properly informed adults.

It is sickening.

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Re-defining the definition of marriage, which has been around for thousands of years, is NOT a conservative principle. Once we abandon, or quit CONSERVING our Judeo-Christian values, we will forever be lost as a nation.

PaddyORyan on June 10, 2012 at 4:02 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

If it’s abnormal, how can it have “no effect”?

What makes it abnormal then?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

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

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM

you said it not me.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Miss points much, do you?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 4:04 PM

They always go after the children first, gerry. That they also hate Catholics is not news, but the Catholic Church can fight her own battles. These kids who are taught that a mother and father are either unnecessary, interchangeable, or replaceable in the name of diversity don’t have that capacity. Little persons who are still in the “girls / boys have cooties” stage of life should not be introduced to subjects completely beyond their comprehension. These activists want validation from the defenseless and impressionable because they can’t get it from properly informed adults.

MIB paranoia

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM

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

Do the bigamy laws apply to them? What would the purpose be in having bigamy laws apply to homosexual couples?

I ask so that you might understand how certain aspects of society will become subverted without you actually feeling it directly right away.

Traditional marriage will need to follow the precedents that will be coming. It starts with the banning of bride/groom weddings and forcing everyone to have applicant A/applicant B weddings. It ruins the whole homosexual wedding mood if normal people are allowed to have a different kind of wedding.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

No affect on my community circle. Obviously on yours.

can’t produce children-unless with scientific help

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM

inthemiddle

No, actually I was referring to his constant harping on about liking to do his female friends’ hair, his lilting intonation, his lisp, all the stereotypical ‘gay’ behavior.

And yeah, talking about a boyfriend (when you’re a boy) is rubbing it in. Perhaps if homosexuals would try a more courteous (read: sensitive to the sensibilities of the majority that don’t approve of their lifestyle) approach, they’d get further.

But with most of the homosexuals I’ve been acquainted with, it’s their world and the rest of us are just living in it. Therefore, we have to not only tolerate, but affirm their lifestyle. And they don’t have to be sensitive to anyone else’s sensibilities, it is we who have to adapt to their sensitivities. All because of mere sexual proclivities. Narcissism, n’est-ce pas?

Why all the demands for affirmation, anyway?

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Here’s the thing. Even if every gay person was some type of socio-sexual deviant as you seem to imply they would still be entitled to the same civil-rights as you or me. If you want to change their status then criminalize their behavior.
Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I fear this will go over your head, CH, but, as an American citizen what rights do I enjoy that some man who engages in sexual behavior with another man does not?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 4:06 PM

i have stated several times that if it was on the ballot i would vote against it.

I live in ma. and court ordered.

my opinion is that if it was put on ballot it would be voted down even here in blue MA.

I have no gay friends in my circle but I do work with some gay people and that has not been a problem. they do not make me nervous.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:12 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:08 PM

That’s it? Can’t produce children? That’s it?

Nothing about putting sexual organs in places they were not designed for?

gerry, seriously, you’d better re-examine your perspective.

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 4:13 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

I want there to bounds in which democracy may decide. That is to say that I want rights to be inviolable by legislatures but freedom within the bounds of permissibility. IOW, I want the system that our founders bequeathed us.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 4:14 PM

MJBrutus

Didn’t the Founders bequeath us a system that allowed states to make sodomy a criminal offense (until very recently, a very widespread phenomenon in this country)? Didn’t the Founders bequeath us a system that allowed states to have religious requirements for office? Didn’t the Founders bequeath us a system that allowed states to engage in censorship (again, until the 20th century, a widespreac phenomenon)?

I don’t think those things are bad, but I’m just wondering if you’d assent to that?

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

That’s it? Can’t produce children? That’s it?

Yep. thats it. you did not ask my definition of ABNORMAL. yours is obvious religious based.

Mine is science based.

I would vote against it.since i’m not gay i do think it is icky.
I also think being a woman would be icky. i think most normal women would think its icky being a man.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Not everyone will agree on what is an improvement and I don’t believe either side needs to be vilified. If we can tackle this rationally and respect each others views we will be well ahead. Sorry for disappearing and will probably have to do it again. We are having some huge thunder and lightening storms. Our retention ponds are filling up.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 4:30 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I imagine the only people who don’t believe that’s a sin are members of NAMBLA.

Cindy Munford on June 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Didn’t the Founders bequeath us a system that allowed states to make sodomy a criminal offense (until very recently, a very widespread phenomenon in this country)?

Not according to the branch of government who our founders made arbiters of their intent.

Didn’t the Founders bequeath us a system that allowed states to have religious requirements for office?

Why yes they did. Can you name any that the court should hear about?

Didn’t the Founders bequeath us a system that allowed states to engage in censorship (again, until the 20th century, a widespreac phenomenon)?

They did not bequeath us such a system. Have you actually read the 1st Amendment? Are you aware of the way their implicit prohibition of censorship by the states was later made explicit by the principle of incorporation?

I don’t think those things are bad, but I’m just wondering if you’d assent to that?

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I think that censorship, religious tests for office and criminalizing private sexual conduct are deplorable.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM
MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Sorry for the formatting error in my previous post. Let me know if you need me to help untangle it.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Oh, and I meant to say that our founders did allow (but perhaps not intentionally) religious tests for state office, but like many other limits on state power, became unconstitutional as well with the doctrine of incorporation which bound the states to the same prohibitions as the feds with regards to our BoR.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM


I fear this will go over your head, CH, but, as an American citizen what rights do I enjoy that some man who engages in sexual behavior with another man does not?

Cleombrotus on June 10, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The right to marry their lover or with whom they want to raise a family.

Your retort is obvious and expected. But a gay man can marry – a woman. And vice-versa. so I will respond to that silly point in advance.

Do you consider the marriage and family to be integral to one’s pursuit of happiness? If so how does one pursue happiness in a marriage that could not be consummated and was not based on romantic love?

If you don’t believe marriage or building a family to be important to one’s pursuit of happiness that’s another story. But you can’t go around defending the sanctity of marriage then discounting its importance to all citizens.

You don’t like homosexuality. You don’t think homosexuals are equal to you. I disagree.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 4:44 PM

where’s Tesla to bring this thread some sanity.

lol

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM

MIB paranoia

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Oh I wish it were true gerry, I really do.

Ever had the chance to read Michelle Malkin’s page about Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings?


MA resistance
always does a good job on this stuff.

It’s not paranoia at all, and the only reason to think otherwise is because admitting it publicly will single you out for the most vile character assassination you’ll ever be met with. Homosexual activists are not about understanding, peace, love, or celebrating differences. They are about bullying people into submission with character assassination – you can either expose them to the light of day or give into their shell game of feigned outrage and self-righteous indignation.

I don’t care about what they do in their own lives – the bullying, deceit, character assassination, pathological dishonesty, overt intolerance, and direct subversion of reality to validate their adult behavior in the minds of the impressionable is what we need to keep away from children.

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 5:06 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

What’d I tell ya? The pro-SSM people don’t wanna talk about polygamy. Why not? Because they know the natural progression of their stance is to either hypocritically suggest there ought to be restrictions on marriage, or admit that they have no problem with “marriage” becoming anything and everything one wants to make it.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Well that and red herrings aren’t very interesting.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM

BKennedy on June 10, 2012 at 5:06 PM

sorry still MIB paranoia.

I am against and would vote against gay marriage.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 5:59 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

It will be like when we lost all those other “arguments” to Progressive. It will be pushed through in the dead of night or by judicial fiat. And it will go the way welfare, no-fault divorce, etc. Tragic for fiscal security, freedom and America.

Well I’m not gay, Skippy, but thanks for the compliment. They are an amazing group of people.

Really gays as a whole are lovely, amazing people. I gotta say, I find the fact that you group people and don’t judge on individual merits of said person a little suspect. What makes EVERY gay person amazing? The person they sleep with.?

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The right to marry their lover or with whom they want to raise a family.

Your retort is obvious and expected. But a gay man can marry – a woman. And vice-versa. so I will respond to that silly point in advance

It isn’t silly. It is frickin conservative. The constitution guarantees equal OPPORTUNITY not equal OUTCOME. That line of thinking is progressive.

If marriage is no longer about biological children but about whom you love(btw, the state doesn’t care if you love your partner)-then I want to marry my aging grandma. This way I can take care of her fiscally. I mean I love her. She is part of my family.. I mean if we are changing marriage- why does it only have to include people you are sexual active with?

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 5:59 PM

No worries there. Are you against and would you push away voters who would support our candidate if they disagreed with you on the issue?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM

So then I guess infertile couples need not apply. Nor those who use birth control and perform sex purely for recreation.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM

MJBrutus

No, no help needed.

Thanks for your answer.

I was just curious about your take on that. Although I’m not sure that the sodomy laws were handled in quite the way the Founders intended the court to function. Aside from the court quite blatantly ignoring the historical context of the constitution in that case (given the Founders’ views on homosexuality, and the laws against it both before and after the Revolution), they really did asserted something unconstitutional themselves, by implicitly asserting federal jurisdiction (in this case, their own)over what is clearly a states’ rights issue.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

And that incorporation of the BOR came in the progressive 20s, so I’m not too sure about that, either.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I do not have one issue litmus tests.

However i want to be precise.

abortion is by court decree. being for or against it is a moot point so i would not use that as an issue.

gay marriage is either going to be forced on us by courts.

my opinion is it will never be forced on us by referendum.

it is NOT an issue i would vote for or against candidate on.

I do vote for candidates based on fiscal issues.

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Indeed, the whole thing seems to stem from a case of willful reading incomprehension (CONGRESS shall make no law) and from the desire to take power from the states and put it into the federal gov’t.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:20 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I’m not sure which issue you’re talking about in that concluding sentence. IMHO, marriage is a state’s prerogative, where sodomy when practiced among consenting partners is a civil right.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:21 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I was pretty sure it came in the 1890′s during the era of reconstruction.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Ahh, depends on who you ask. I had Gitlow v New York (1925) in mind. But I think I know what you’re referring to: Chicago, Burlington v. City of Chicago (1897).

Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer or a legal scholar, and my knowledge of this is very superficial. Please feel free (anyone who knows) to educate me on the matter.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:25 PM

AS for that last sentence…

What I mean is that the historical context of the sodomy laws (the fact that from the Founders’ time on, they existed and were dealt with at the state level) and the fact that the Constitution nowhere deals with sodomy, even tangentially, means that, to my understanding, the issue by the 10th amendment reverts automatically to the state. The Supreme Court seems to have, by striking down laws like Texas’s, put a states’ right issue under federal jurisdiction.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM

The dismantling of Christian morality is a foundation strategy of marxist and nihilist philosophers. Their latest useful idiots are the Gay Marriage proponents; an immoral conglomeration of narcissistic rich white liberals. Many are trust fund babies or daddies, like Mr. Singer, to some rich young queer. So Pops tosses out his religion and ethics to help the poor baby avoid discomfort from the mean ol’ world.

This has nothing to do with civil rights. In California the legalizing of marriage for gays will add not ONE single right other than a piece of paper. Defining this perversion as a “Civil Right” allows an assault on the real goal, the stripping of all rights in public life to be an orthodox Christian, Jew or Muslim; to break the foundations of traditional morality so the STATE can redefine what is right. Defense of Marriage is actually more important to the survival of liberty than our tax policy. Religious liberty wasn’t made the very FIRST RIGHT in the Constitution out of random chance.

Since the GOP are 99% phonies they of course will compromise God for Mammon. The rest of us should stand up to this bullshit and tell them to stick it up their ass.

rcl on June 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Thanks for the clarification. Don’t you think that the BoR provides a guarantee for individuals to be free from government intrusion in to their conduct in their own homes?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:31 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 6:19 PM

I just looked it up and bow to your historical knowledge :-) The doctrine of incorporation began to appear in case law in the 1920′s as you said.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM

they of course will compromise God for Mammon.

rcl on June 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Oh dear. That sounds dreadful. Is it is as bad as it sounds?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:35 PM

So then I guess infertile couples need not apply. Nor those who use birth control and perform sex purely for recreation.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM

First off, fertility diagnoses are notoriously inaccurate. Choice childless couples sometimes change their mind, so the state has a vested interest in supporting those unions IN CASE they have biological children.

If you are having recreational sex, that does not rise to the level of “state recognition. Why the hell do you need the state to sanction your sex life. That is inviting the state in. I mean what is next? State recognition of master/slave relationships for those into BDSM?

Without biological chidren, marriage is nothing but a partnership. Those kind of contracts are easily done in PRIVATE and does not need the state pushing them.

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Any GOPer who signs up to get on their knees or bend over for nanny stater Paul Singer, will not get my vote. I’m sick of the RNC con men and women who demand that the rights and freedoms of the majority be trampled on for what actually are leftist demands, for those who constitute 2% of the population. This is an election loser, and I’m not kidding. If the GOP sell out to the gay marriage and legalize pedophilia brigade, then they can go to hell.

Ceolas on June 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

It isn’t silly. It is frickin conservative. The constitution guarantees equal OPPORTUNITY not equal OUTCOME. That line of thinking is progressive.

I find it amazing that you toss out invented BS not appearing in our founding documents to ignore rights that are obvious in scope.

For those keeping track, that’s not conservative.

Do ignore the “pursuit of happiness” as one of our founding principles. from Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. …

Equal Protection clause – US Constitution
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Why the hell do you need the state to sanction your sex life. That is inviting the state in. I mean what is next? State recognition of master/slave relationships for those into BDSM?

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Perhaps because the parties involved are in love. Perhaps because even though they will never have children they want the permanent contractual relationship and sharing of property. Perhaps because if one gets ill they want the other to have full and first rights to making health choices and access to them. Perhaps because they want to know that their property will be inherited by the person they love.

Now you can tell me that with sufficient legal help and effort such arrangements are possible most places without a marriage contract. However, those arrangements are not automatic, require legal help and knowledge and are far more difficult to arrange. And oh, BTW, that applies equally to same sex couples.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

If the GOP sell out to the gay marriage and legalize pedophilia brigade, then they can go to hell.

Ceolas on June 10, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Are you a practicing Christian? If so you do not represent Jesus Christ very well. Christianity is not hateful. You are.

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Perhaps because the parties involved are in love. Perhaps because even though they will never have children they want the permanent contractual relationship and sharing of property

Again I love my grandma and want to share property with her… Get it? The state doesn’t require love and property sharing can be done with a PRIVATE contract…

Perhaps because if one gets ill they want the other to have full and first rights to making health choices and access to them. Perhaps because they want to know that their property will be inherited by the person they love.

Again doesn’t require state recognition.

Now you can tell me that with sufficient legal help and effort such arrangements are possible most places without a marriage contract. However, those arrangements are not automatic, require legal help and knowledge and are far more difficult to arrange. And oh, BTW, that applies equally to same sex couples.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Again why do you need the government to get involved when it does not need to?

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Of course state recognition is required to grant medical decision-making to a person who is not a blood relative or spouse. You and I may deplore Michael Schiavo’s decisions, for example, but he obtained the legal right to make them when he married Terry. Why should a couple who choose not to have children be denied the ability to place that kind of trust in the hands of the person of their choosing?

And instead of saying “again” try telling me why a couple who choose not to have children should be denied the legal benefits I described with a simple marriage contract, rather than an army of lawyers and the fear of a single technicality leaving even that in doubt?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

in the Northeast where we regularly produce politicians along the lines of Bloomberg

“we”? Bloombergasaurus made himself.

John Kettlewell on June 10, 2012 at 7:28 PM

So then I guess infertile couples need not apply. Nor those who use birth control and perform sex purely for recreation. MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 6:14 PM

That’s right genius, and if a couple’s child dies they must divorce. Perfectly logical.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Why should a couple who choose not to have children be denied the ability to place that kind of trust in the hands of the person of their choosing?

When did a childless married couple not have that right?

And instead of saying “again” try telling me why a couple who choose not to have children should be denied the legal benefits I described with a simple marriage contract, rather than an army of lawyers and the fear of a single technicality leaving even that in doubt? MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

When did a childless married couple not have that right?

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Oh I get it. You’re being snarky and sarcastic. Of course the ridiculous nature of the position you described is no less ridiculous when talking about a couple who are of the same sex.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:36 PM

When that childless couple is of the same sex.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM

And instead of saying “again” try telling me why a couple who choose not to have children should be denied the legal benefits I described with a simple marriage contract, rather than an army of lawyers and the fear of a single technicality leaving even that in doubt?

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM

There shouldn’t be any legal benefits to being married especially if marriage is just based on “love and sex.” The state’s interest is in future generations-future taxpayers.. Any other reason for state recognition is just big government.

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:37 PM

You habitually use the straw man of a childless couple having no right to be married, as if that’s the traditional argument. In fact, that’s only part of the traditional argument.

There are implications of your idiotic position you haven’t explored, obviously. I just took it to its illogical conclusion.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Do ignore the “pursuit of happiness” as one of our founding principles. from Declaration of Independence:

Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Again, is it ignoring the Declaration of Independence to have laws against polygamous marriages?

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Any other reason for state recognition is just big government. melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

So when you die and ten twentysomethings appear out of nowhere to claim parts of your estate, what recourse will you have if there are no records of marriage and childbirth?

Do you assert that allowing govt to redefine marriage and the family is proof of a limited govt philosophy?

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Oh, I see. So then you are in favor, no doubt, of reversing most of our probate law, medical law, family law, tax law and most other rights/obligations that are attached to a marriage contract. Good luck with that.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Do ignore the “pursuit of happiness” as one of our founding principles. from Declaration of Independence: Capitalist Hog on June 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Are you saying that George Washington saw the “pursuit of happiness” as including the right to bugger?

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM

No. You joined this thread late, with snark ablazing without reading what I’ve said in a series of earlier posts. I have no time for you.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM

If this election is all about the economy, and no one cares about social issues, WHY ARE WE ALWAYS HEARING ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE??!!

I feel better now…

tom on June 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

If this election is all about the economy, and no one cares about social issues, WHY ARE WE ALWAYS HEARING ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE??!!

I feel better now…

tom on June 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

Easy. The Bugger Bunch and the SoCons are very vocal, and make noise all out of proportion to their size. Not unlike a couple Chihuahuas, really.

There’s also the emotional trigger factor. A lot of people, when you mention this issue, will either go “Yay! Gay rights!” or “OMG! Gaypocolypse!!!”

MelonCollie on June 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM

If this election is all about the economy, and no one cares about social issues, WHY ARE WE ALWAYS HEARING ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE??!!

I feel better now…

tom on June 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

‘Cause we’re hitting the tipping point. Six states have legalized same-sex marriage with a potential of four more legalizing it by year’s end. DOMA’s sitting before the Supreme Court, and both the UK and Australia are in the process (literally right now) of legalizing it.

ZachV on June 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM

I want there to bounds in which democracy may decide. .

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 4:14 PM

On some things you do and on other things you don’t. You already admitted that state democracies should decide whether or not to allow polygamous marriage. And I think you decided that other states should have to recognize the polygamous marriage due to full faith and credit.

Buddahpundit on June 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM

its more fun goading MJBrutus on

gerrym51 on June 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

No. You joined this thread late, with snark ablazing without reading what I’ve said in a series of earlier posts. I have no time for you. MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Akzed on June 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 12:59 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

Still awaiting your answer for that last one, when I wasn’t a late arrival.

You answered this one,
Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:34 PM
then suddenly your excuse is that I’m a late arrival and don’t deserve to play.

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 7:57 PM

In your eyes “homosexuality is not acceptable.” Luckily our Constitution protects Americans from your acceptable bigotry. It’s too bad that more Republicans are afraid to stand up to you anti-gay bigots.

Capitalist Hog on June 9, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Homosexuality is wrong.
Homosexuality is unhealthy psychologically, emotionally, and physically.

The first statement may be an opinion, but it is a very well-founded one. The second statement is pretty much fact.

Neither statement constitutes bigotry. You just want to use the word as a club against those who don’t accept homosexuality.

But aside from all that, marriage is and always has been a relationship between men and women that encompasses reproduction, children, family, and the raising of the next generation. It also has a lot to do with raising children who are able to relate to the opposite sex and reproduce.

No one is arguing that homosexuality should not be tolerated. But give up on pretending that it is on the same level as normal relationships. Sexual perversion is not a good foundation to build families.

tom on June 10, 2012 at 8:01 PM

No one is arguing that homosexuality should not be tolerated… tom on June 10, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I dunno. Why do vice cops troll in airport mens rooms?

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 8:04 PM

If this election is all about the economy, and no one cares about social issues, WHY ARE WE ALWAYS HEARING ABOUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE??!!

I feel better now…

tom on June 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM

‘Cause we’re hitting the tipping point. Six states have legalized same-sex marriage with a potential of four more legalizing it by year’s end. DOMA’s sitting before the Supreme Court, and both the UK and Australia are in the process (literally right now) of legalizing it.

ZachV on June 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM

All of which of course is a sign of great and unstoppable social progress, while the 30 states in direct referendums that rejected same-sex marriage — including the 12 that banned it in the legislature — is a sign of nothing at all.

tom on June 10, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Easy. The Bugger Bunch and the SoCons [?] are very vocal, and make noise all out of proportion to their size. Not unlike a couple Chihuahuas, really.

There’s also the emotional trigger factor. A lot of people, when you mention this issue, will either go “Yay! Gay rights!” or “OMG! Gaypocolypse!!!”

MelonCollie on June 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM

I don’t think it’s the SoCons that keep bringing the issue up. Or are we okay with blaming them now for not simply conceding on an issue they care about?

tom on June 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Enough of this homosexual nonsense. Nobody cares. Go screw who you want. Just quit demanding that other people praise or accept you for it. For once in your lives be about yourselves, instead of what other people think of you. Nobody cares and quit trying to force other people to like you.

‘Marriage’ is a religious sacrament. The state recognizes it because the state itself arose from those same religious mores. Homosexuals’ demand the change the definition of marriage is a continuation of their more strident members’ perpetual attack on religion. Their attempts to force the far larger majority to alter their behaviour. How is THAT any different from the abuses gay grievance-activists peddle? They pretend to moral higher ground they do not hold. And that’s besides the point of the morality issues at the center of the whole thing.

There ALREADY exists all the necessary legal protections for ‘gay partners’ to have all the estate and medical emergency “rights” they claim they want ‘marriage’ for. They just have to get off their asses and do the paperwork.

Gay activists need to quit this alinsky BS of targeting marriage. It isn’t about that and their ringleaders know it. It is only about forcing the broader society to accept their dead-end homosexuality.

rayra on June 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

MJBrutus

As a rule, i don’t like the gov’t (of any level) going into houses and dictating private behavior.

And I’d be surprised, frankly, to find out that many cases were prosecuted when couples were discreet.

My problem with the whole ‘gay rights’ thing boils down to:

(1) The ‘gay’ activists are taking a private activity, making it public and trying to force all of us to condone it.

(2) The same people saying that sodomy laws, anti-gay marriage laws, etc. are big government, are perfectly willing to use big government (such as activist judges and legislators acting in the face of referenda by their own constituents) to achieve their ends. They also many other of the left’s tactics, such as intimidation, vandalism, assault and pseudo science (q.v. the ‘gay gene’, cf. ‘global warming’). Many of these demand to be accepted in the conservative movement, all the while perfectly content with acting like good leftists.

If I saw the ‘gays’ acting more discreet and less like leftists, and if I were sure that there was not a relationship between homosexuality and higher rates of pedophilia, I would be a lot less concerned about this issue. Sadly, neither is the case.

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

MelonCollie on June 10, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Your blatant mis-characterization of the current debate as it plays out in the real world betrays your lack of attention.

Are conservatives constantly militating against sex perverts in an unprovoked fashion, or are we reacting to their constant agitation for the right to redefine the family and marriage?

Christians are under attack for not renting rooms to them, not photographing their “weddings,” not printing their same-sex invitations to mock marriages, not wanting to rent church facilities to them, and more.

If they just wanted to be left alone, why don’t they leave us alone so we could return the favor?

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Huh.

Where’d MJBrutus go?!

Akzed on June 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I don’t think it’s the SoCons that keep bringing the issue up. Or are we okay with blaming them now for not simply conceding on an issue they care about?

tom on June 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Nice try, but no.

The SoCons don’t usually bring the issue up in the first place, they’re just as loud if not more about it.

MelonCollie on June 10, 2012 at 8:29 PM

rayra on June 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

avgjo on June 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

+100

melle1228 on June 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I just saw this via The Federalist Papers. It’s certainly applicable.

The enemies of liberty are artful and insidious. A counterfeit steals her dress, imitates her manner, forges her signature, assumes her name. But the real name of the deceiver is Licentiousness. Such is her effrontery, that she will charge liberty to her face with imposture; and she will, with shameless front, insist that herself alone is the genuine character, and that herself alone is entitled to the respect, which the genuine character deserves. With the giddy and undiscerning, on whom a deeper impression is made by dauntless impudence than by modest merit, her pretensions are often successful. She receives the honors of liberty, and liberty herself is treated as a traitor and an usurper.

James Wilson, Delivered on the Fourth of July, 1788, at the procession formed at Philadelphia to celebrate the adoption of the Constitution of the United States

INC on June 10, 2012 at 10:50 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

______

What’d I tell ya? The pro-SSM people don’t wanna talk about polygamy. Why not? Because they know the natural progression of their stance is to either hypocritically suggest there ought to be restrictions on marriage, or admit that they have no problem with “marriage” becoming anything and everything one wants to make it.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 5:25 PM

______

Well that and red herrings aren’t very interesting.

MJBrutus on June 10, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Disingenuousness is ALWAYS interesting — that is, unless one is practicing it.

You same-sex marriage advocates dodge the question of other currently illegal forms of marriage as if you were dodging bullets in The Matrix. You vilified Rick Santorum by plucking an unwise choice of words (“man on dog”) out of an off-the-cuff but nonetheless legally sound analysis of what would occur if the Supreme Court affirmed Lawrence v. Texas, and indeed, he was 100% right: Lawrence has become an integral part of advocacy of same-sex marriage, despite gay activists pooh-poohing that notion as “a red herring” and a flawed “slippery slope argument.” Currently, to the annoyance of SSM boosters, high-profile law professor Jonathan Turley is using Lawrence as a weapon on behalf of the fundamentalist Mormon polygamist protagonist of the reality show Sister Wives.

As I said previously: If the SCOTUS says there is a Constitutional right to marriage that cannot be infringed upon by states, it utterly eviscerates any possible reason for restrictions on marriage between adults. If you think that’s a “red herring,” tell me the reasons why in an America in which people of the same gender could marry, a challenge to laws preventing one from marrying a third person or an immediate adult relative would fail.

I dare you.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I don’t think it’s the SoCons that keep bringing the issue up. Or are we okay with blaming them now for not simply conceding on an issue they care about?

tom on June 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Exactly! Here’s a hedge fund dude — one of the people who you would think would care the most about putting the all-important economy (“Stupid!”) back on track, and instead of staying focused like “SoCons” are supposed to be, he’s promised to pour his resources into the issue that’s supposed to wait until we save ourselves from economic doom.

When it comes to “working together to solve our problems,” it’s always, always, always the right that’s expected to stand down first.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Bring it, dude. All are welcome. Just don’t expect a redefinition of the term “marriage” in return. The RINOs could go for that. But they’re no longer in control.

minnesoter on June 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM

How can the Republican Party ensure the Democrats control Congress and win the Presidency for the foreseeable future? Embrace gay marriage. This is just a mandate from a different angle. Better get ready to welcome boys into the Girls Scouts and girls into the Boy Scouts. Better get ready for men competing female beauty pageants. Better get ready for Christian business owners being forced to do business with gay couples. Better get ready for Christian college students being forced to be re-educated if they think homosexuality is a sin or abnormal. And if you are not ready for these things, too bad, they are all already here. Embracing gay marriage will just make it worse and impossible to resist the forced acceptance and promotion of homosexuality.

Blue Collar Todd on June 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Another gay thread comes to an end and it comes clear that no poster’s position is changed on the issue of homosexuality. I am gay and on every other issue that confronts this country I am conservative. And, I know that we have found allies in such staunch conservatives as Barry Goldwater and Dick Cheney. When a proposition was being voted on in the late 1980s that would make it almost mandatory to fire public school employees who were gay or those who supported gays rights even Ronald Reagan rose to the defense gays, opposing the proposition writing, “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.”. Those who wish to go back to the good old days when the gay minority had to live in fear of discrimination, persecution and ridicule for their sexual orientation, for whatever variety of reasons anti-gay forces currently give or used to give, are just plain wrong.

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 5:52 AM

As I said previously: If the SCOTUS says there is a Constitutional right to marriage that cannot be infringed upon by states, it utterly eviscerates any possible reason for restrictions on marriage between adults. If you think that’s a “red herring,” tell me the reasons why in an America in which people of the same gender could marry, a challenge to laws preventing one from marrying a third person or an immediate adult relative would fail.

I dare you.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I can see how debate on those two issues would continue. When you get right down to it, marriage is, in the legal sense, a contract. And only two adults of legal age can lawfully enter into a contract. So we have every right to not take seriously someone wanting to marry a 5-year-old boy, a cat or a television. Good luck trying to change contract law for that.

TMOverbeck on June 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM

“Big Tents” heehee.

I assume that is a joke about “pitching a tent”. Otherwise I just have a dirty mind.

jeffn21 on June 11, 2012 at 8:52 AM

My problem with Gay Marriage is that it seems that homosexuals everywhere cannot be happy unless the government says it is okay to be married. This is an issue. NO ONE should rely on the government to be happy! I still believe that the government should butt out of marriage entirely! Marriage is a religious institution. The only reason the govt needs to be involved is for tax purposes and if we can fix the tax code, then it is a moot point.

jeffn21 on June 11, 2012 at 8:56 AM

As I said previously: If the SCOTUS says there is a Constitutional right to marriage that cannot be infringed upon by states, it utterly eviscerates any possible reason for restrictions on marriage between adults. If you think that’s a “red herring,” tell me the reasons why in an America in which people of the same gender could marry, a challenge to laws preventing one from marrying a third person or an immediate adult relative would fail.

I dare you.

L.N. Smithee on June 10, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I can see how debate on those two issues would continue. When you get right down to it, marriage is, in the legal sense, a contract. And only two adults of legal age can lawfully enter into a contract. So we have every right to not take seriously someone wanting to marry a 5-year-old boy, a cat or a television. Good luck trying to change contract law for that.

TMOverbeck on June 11, 2012 at 8:40 AM

I think it is worth pointing out that it was at Woodstock (The great liberal concert/protest) where a man married a sheep. Crap like that would never occur at a Tea Party Event.

jeffn21 on June 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I often wonder what it might have been like to have a Hotair blog & commenters during Loving v. VA –
Threads like this give one a sense.
Ultimately wouldn’t have stopped progress then..and won’t now.
I suppose though we would have had to suffer silly arguments.
I imagine something like:

“If they let a white guy marry a black girl, then that will obviously lead to a black guy marrying one white girl and 2 Asian girls!”
circa 1967 L.N. Smithee

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 9:48 AM

I think it is worth pointing out that it was at Woodstock (The great liberal concert/protest) where a man married a sheep. Crap like that would never occur at a Tea Party Event.

jeffn21 on June 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM

True, but they are much too angry at Tea Party events to allow for any irreverent silliness.
More likely to burn an effigy of a sheep (to protest the wolf).

verbaluce on June 11, 2012 at 9:52 AM

I think it is worth pointing out that it was at Woodstock (The great liberal concert/protest) where a man married a sheep. Crap like that would never occur at a Tea Party Event. – jeffn21 on June 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I would think that a number of Tea Party people were perhaps at Woodstock and are of the Woodstock generation. Woodstock was about getting the government out of our lives, not embracing ever more government. And, of course 1969 Woodstock was a generation that was revolting against the disaster of the Vietnam War. I was 18 at the time. There was no gay theme at Woodstock. unless you want to say peace and harmony are gay themes. The Vietnam War had been, up to that time, been part of the Democrat Liberal establishment. Nixon only came into office in January of 1969. Johnson retired, grew his hair long and died of a heart attack in January of 1973, a few weeks after the Paris Peace accords had been signed and the draft ended.

Anyone who has experienced war or who is a soldier is not for war, he or she is for peace. That is what for which they are fighting.

SC.Charlie on June 11, 2012 at 9:52 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

Thanks for replying.

From RI’s law, it looks like states do have the legal/federal right to ignore marriages which were legally performed in other states, which is the expected position imo. I definitely wonder how often the refusal to recognize legitimate marriages from other states occurs.

I guess I’ll have to go investigate this further online!

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Re-defining the definition of marriage, which has been around for thousands of years, is NOT a conservative principle. Once we abandon, or quit CONSERVING our Judeo-Christian values, we will forever be lost as a nation.

PaddyORyan on June 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Where is this “Christian” definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman written in stone? Surely, it is not in the NT…

Since this is the case, why do people like you insist that God only approves of your definition of “Christian” marriage?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Where is this “Christian” definition of marriage as being only between one man and one woman written in stone? Surely, it is not in the NT…

Since this is the case, why do people like you insist that God only approves of your definition of “Christian” marriage?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 10:27 AM

The “be fruitful and multiply” command was given pretty early in biblical history. The subtext there is not very subtle – it means “have children.”

There’s a whole realm of Christian and expecially Catholic theology. Someone how I don’t think you’re about to crack open Humanae Vitae anytime soon.

You know, because Catholics especially write everything down – if you actually cared to know, you could do the research yourself.

BKennedy on June 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM

You know, because Catholics especially write everything down – if you actually cared to know, you could do the research yourself.

BKennedy on June 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM

You arrogantly act like I haven’t done my research, which doesn’t work well in your favor.

Most specifically, I was getting at the idea of polygamy vs. monogamy by my comment – since the NT does not ever condemn polygamy, either in the time in which it was written or in the past when many godly Jewish men had multiple wives, how can any Christian say with credibility that, according to the NT, marriage is only reserved for one man and one woman in God‘s yes?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I Timothy 3:12 makes one wife a requirement for men who are leaders in the church.

Rose on June 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6