Report: Prop 8 opponents lobbying DOJ to side with them in Supreme Court gay marriage case

posted at 7:41 pm on December 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

Nothing surprising about this, but in case there was doubt, here’s Greg Sargent to dispel it:

The Obama Justice Department is not saying whether it will address this question. But sources tell me the legal team representing the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case — Ted Olson, David Boise, and Ted Boutrous — plan to lobby the administration to publicly declare that the right to gay marriage is protected by the constitution, and to file a legal brief supporting their argument to that effect.

This would be a big, big move on the administration’s part. And Obama must do it, for two reasons. First, because it could help influence the Supreme Court to reach a broad conclusion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Second, weighing in could help prepare public opinion to accept this right, too.

One of the overlooked footnotes to O’s cynical “evolution” on gay marriage back in May was that he supported legalization at the state level but not as a matter of one-size-fits-all national policy. He was explicit about it too, purely as a way to reassure religious Democrats opposed to SSM that he wouldn’t try to impose his policy preferences in this area. The One hates federalism, but if he has to nod at it in order to cover his ass with his base before an election, he’ll do that. Remember?

At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that– for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that– I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now– I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue. There’s a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.

And what you’re seeing is, I think, states working through this issue– in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that’s a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.

I told you on the day he said that that it was another politically calculated charade and that if/when SCOTUS came down from the mountain with the tablets proclaiming gay marriage a matter of equal protection, the White House would celebrate it euphorically even though constitutionalizing this issue directly contradicts Obama’s argument in the excerpt above. And that’s precisely what’ll happen. Sargent, in fact, barely nods at O’s stated federalist position, and why should he? It’s a joke, designed at the time simply to temper the backlash among potential Obama voters to his endorsement of SSM. Now that he’s safely reelected, though, the charade can drop and O can order the DOJ to argue that, yes indeed, gay marriage should be legal from coast to coast as a matter of inviolable constitutional principle. I think that’d be incredibly stupid, as it’ll only compound the outrage among social conservatives and federalists once the Court short-circuits the democratic process and imposes SSM by Obama-endorsed judicial fiat. The pro-gay-marriage side is winning the culture war on this and will eventually win the war at the polls as older voters die off, but evidently the left cares less about building abiding respect for the legitimacy of SSM than in seizing its chance in court no matter what that means for embittering the opposition. The Court’s legitimacy will be damaged too, which is probably the main counterweight in Kennedy’s mind to the temptation of writing yet another watershed opinion on gay rights. If O really does care about broad acceptance of SSM, he’ll back off on the Prop 8 case and give SCOTUS a wide berth to rule narrowly. But Obama being Obama, it’ll be awfully hard to resist a chance to impose a new rule nationally with one fell swoop.

Just one question: Hasn’t he already argued, essentially, that gay marriage should be legal under the Equal Protection Clause? When the DOJ decided last year that it would no longer defend DOMA, it gave this reasoning:

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the appropriate level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation. It has, however, rendered a number of decisions that set forth the criteria that should inform this and any other judgment as to whether heightened scrutiny applies: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s “ability to perform or contribute to society.” See Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985).

Each of these factors counsels in favor of being suspicious of classifications based on sexual orientation.

Read this post for a fuller explanation of why this language is significant, but the nutshell version is that Obama’s DOJ is arguing here that laws that discriminate against gays should be given special scrutiny by courts under the Equal Protection Clause because gays are a historically persecuted group. Traditionally, once the Supreme Court finds that special, or “heightened,” scrutiny is warranted, the law being challenged is almost always struck down as unconstitutional. Granted, the DOJ’s argument above is aimed at DOMA, which doesn’t deal squarely with gay marriage the way Prop 8 does, but its constitutional reasoning applies just as well to the latter law — and since SCOTUS has decided to review DOMA together with Prop 8 this term, it’s bound to apply the Justice Department’s anti-DOMA argument to Prop 8 as well. In other words, Obama’s legal team doesn’t necessarily have to weigh in on Prop 8. By weighing in against DOMA, it essentially already has.


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

You must be thrilled, AP.

Mr. Prodigy on December 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM

laws that discriminate against gays should be given special scrutiny by courts under the Equal Protection Clause because gays engage are a historically persecuted activity group.

FIFY.

Once certain activities are given “rights”, there’s no end to the activities that will demand the same special treatment.

Rebar on December 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on December 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

…so that’s the DOJ’s fuction now?

KOOLAID2 on December 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

The pro-gay-marriage side is winning the culture war on this and will eventually win the war at the polls as older voters die off

I don’t buy George Will’s analysis. For one thing, conservatives and home school families are the ones with lots of children. Many of them have guts as well because homeschooling is not for wimps. This ‘inevitability’ meme is a form of propaganda.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The FARCE of allahpundit in EVERY one of the pro-gay marriage screeds is the insistance of something that is NOT being challenged!

Either allahpundit is COMPLETELY IGNORANT of the position of the Olsen/Boise legal team, that there is no actual DESCRIMINATION involved in California prop 8, or he is simply pounding the drum for what he WISHES this lawsuit was about.

Freddy on December 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Excellent article at Public Discourse. They have some good things over there.

The Future of Marriage: “Why The Inevitable” Is Not Inevitable

As we continue to debate this issue, three important forces can shift the outcome in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Consider first, public opinion; second, the methods and the message of LGBT activists; and third, reality.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:02 PM

Excerpt from #1: Public Opinion

The American public offers differing levels of assent to same-sex marriage, depending on how the survey questions are worded. Psychologically, it matters how questions are asked….

Despite large sums spent—as happened this November when gay activists spent a whopping $33 million—the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman continues to hold sway; and, no matter how hard activists try, it seems impossible to strip it away from the human heart of a very substantial portion of people. It is the reality of common sense deeply embedded in the human heart.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Excerpt from #2: Methods & Message

Efforts by the LGBT movement to make school curricula more sympathetic to the gay agenda continue to raise concerns among parents….

LGBT activists have had to go out of their way to reassure parents they are in charge of teaching values to their children, given the powerful evidence provided by Schubert, and experienced by many parents….

But this is misleading. As Jane Robbins and Emmett McGroarty show in their Public Discourse article “Mandating Our Religious Freedom,” the current Progressive movement, of which LGBT activists are a core constituency, is clearly moving in the opposite direction. And in a more recent Public Discourse article “A War on Religion?” Bruce Hausknecht provides examples contrary to the message LGBT leaders are now using to win.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Excerpt from #3: Reality

This section is the longest.

The Left now has the White House (for four more years), in addition to the universities, Hollywood, large portions of the media, and high-tech industry.

But can this reliance on the power of the elite institutions be sustained in the long run? Perhaps, if the majority of the people come to accept that to flourish one is to be allowed to do whatever one wants regarding sexual practices. I submit that the majority of people do not grasp that this is the message of the LGBT movement, and as they do grasp it, they will shift to the view that our sexuality has boundaries and is ordained toward something greater than whatever we want….

Human suffering will periodically remind us that losing a healthy marriage culture produces all kinds of practical costs and penalties. These are measured by those social pathologies that impose a great weight on our society, such as depression, addiction, violence, and illness, as well as missed educational and economic opportunities. However you slice it, the intact biological family continues to be the best “Department of Health, Education and Welfare” when it comes to raising the next generation. Marriage is worth fighting for, even if we lose. Because remember, LGBT activists will lose too as they bring us all down. And that is a sobering thought.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Ann Althouse made the good point recently that for a long time most gay activists were vehemently against gay marriage. Andrew Sullivan used to get savaged for his support for it.

Marriage was seen as a patriarchal and oppressive institution that gay liberationist-types wanted nothing to do with. Embourgeoisment and all that.

If you do look at it like Jonathan Rauch has, it is a conservative act in that gay men and women are taking part in what is considered a sort of civilizing institution. E.g., channelling the sex drive et cetera.

SteveMG on December 10, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Reposting my comment from the other “SCOTUS/gay marriage” thread.
.

Same-sex “marriages” can’t reproduce. By definition, that by itself makes same-sex “marriage” axiomatically unequal to heterosexual marriage.

Marriage isn’t about sexual pleasure, and gratification. Nor is it about sharing a medical plan.

It’s about recognizing and promoting the “nuclear-family” as the ideal for having a strong society.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” There never has been and never will be.

warhawk81 on December 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

This would be an awful way to redefine thousands of years of marriage. If gay people want to go to a church that’s willing and get married and have their family and friends consider them married, that’s fine by me. It also has nothing to do with the federal government. I also think that states should get out of the marriage game altogether as well.

So if your church doesn’t consider two men living together married, that’s fine. If another does, just live with it.

Why do we have to make a federal issue out of THIS?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Same-sex “marriages” can’t reproduce. By definition, that by itself makes same-sex “marriage” axiomatically unequal to heterosexual marriage.

Marriage isn’t about sexual pleasure, and gratification. Nor is it about sharing a medical plan.

It’s about recognizing and promoting the “nuclear-family” as the ideal for having a strong society.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 3:51 PM

So it’s the job of government to promote certain things the government happens to think are “ideal for having a strong society”?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on December 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

.
Have you decided to support True Marriage Equality yet?

blink on December 10, 2012 at 8:01 PM

.
I reject and defy your definition of “equality”.

See preceding post.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM

.
Oh, wait … you saw that one already, didn’t you?

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:11 PM

it is a conservative act in that gay men and women are taking part in what is considered a sort of civilizing institution.

SteveMG on December 10, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Nope.

It’s just the first step to put people and institution of Faith in legal jeopardy if they object to the progressive homosexual agenda in any way.

It is profoundly anti-conservative, which is why you see 0bama and the democrat party embrace the movement.

Rebar on December 10, 2012 at 8:11 PM

So it’s the job of government to promote certain things the government happens to think are “ideal for having a strong society”?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

The government doesn’t ‘happen to think that.’ Strong marriages do make a better society. Kids always do best with a mom and dad married to each other.

The government does incentivize behavior you know.

Take welfare for example.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM

So it’s the job of government to promote certain things the government happens to think are “ideal for having a strong society”?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Yes. Next!

Stoic Patriot on December 10, 2012 at 8:14 PM

So it’s the job of government to promote certain things the government happens to think are “ideal for having a strong society”?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Yes. Next question.

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

In & Out

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 10, 2012 at 8:15 PM

In May of 2006 Maggie Gallagher wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Have you decided to support True Marriage Equality yet?

blink on December 10, 2012 at 8:01 PM

There is no inequality at present. Homosexuals enjoy the right to marry the same as any other person does. They simply do not have the power to redefine the word “marriage” to mean whatever they want it to mean.

This is not a debate about rights. It is a debate about the definition of marriage.

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

i think this is something we can all get behind
-1ibfreeordie, UE et al

renalin on December 10, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on December 10, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Freedom isn’t ringing-b8tch. Buy a clue.
I watch our freedoms stomped on and lost over time..trickle
trickle..but WHO cares! Until it knocks on your door.

I am quite free as my sexual O goes.
Marriage has nothing to do with my freedom.
I will always hate the militants for the tactics and stain they have caused all of us who have nothing to do with them and their antics.

You want Big Govt control and DOJ interference. Sur-effing prize.
Leave it to the states to decide.
Move your happy azz to NY then. Lunatic Cali voters surprisingly said no.

bazil9 on December 10, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Yes. Next!

Stoic Patriot on December 10, 2012 at 8:14 PM

So if government thinks alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, trans fats, sugar are bad should they promote stopping their usage with laws?

And if the government thinks childhood poverty, elderly medical expenses, poor peoples housing, food, and cell phone bills are not ideal for having a strong society, should they promote using tax dollars to try to fix those problems?

If not, why not? Because you disagree with those specific conclusions? Or because these issues are somehow not federal issues, but who marries whom is?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:18 PM

I gotta walk the pup…but I’ll say this until I get back:

It does bother me that Olson et al are declaring that marriage is a “right”…it’s not, but equal access to legally recognized marriage, and access to state benefits, for gay couples is a right under the equal protection clause of the constitution. There is a difference, and it should be made clear.

And I really can’t see where Obama, or anyone else, making statements for or against the prop 8/gay marriage cases before the SCOTUS would help at all. If anything, it’s a hindrance… and will only serve to make the gay marriage debate even more ridiculously partisan than it already has become. This isn’t a liberal issue, or an attack on religion, or a “slippery slope” to marrying your cat.

At this point, let the Supremes hear the arguments and come up with a verdict. Chances are, either way this goes, it’ll be another famous 5-4 split. I have no idea which way the gavel will fall. If prop 8 is upheld, the only real course of action for gay marriage proponents is to take it to the individual states. If prop 8 is struck down, it’s a major victory for gay marriage proponents, and hopefully would serve to dispel the notion that gay marriage advocates really want to tear down religious faith and force anything on anyone.

That, truly, is the saddest part of this…that it’s some attack on faith, morals, and values of anyone. There are more conservative minded, deeply religious gays out there than you realize. Don’t forget, neither straight nor gay couples enter into a marriage union so they can go out a-fornicating and carousing. For both gays and straights…marriage means the same thing…love, honor, and dedication.

And to me, that’s what counts.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

The government doesn’t ‘happen to think that.’ Strong marriages do make a better society. Kids always do best with a mom and dad married to each other.

The government does incentivize behavior you know.

Take welfare for example.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Fine, so it’s governments job to “make a better society…” Certainly a mom and a dad are better then single moms, no? Why not force people to stay married? Or why not at least accept that two upper middle class gay guys who chose to have a kid (no unwanted pregnancies there) will probably be better parents than a 15 year old single mother on welfare?

But no, you know best, and you should definitely use the power of government to enforce your ideal worldview on to the rest of us.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:23 PM

But no, you know best, and you should definitely use the power of government to enforce your ideal worldview on to the rest of us.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:23 PM

good grief…

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:10 PM

.
It’s the job of Christian believers to use their capacities (including government office) to promote Christian ideals.

Two hundred plus years ago, most all authorities (with exception) were Christian believers. And even those who were not, had no qualms about the idea of using the Holy Bible as the standard of defining normal societal behavior.

As long as Christians weren’t conducting a “Spanish Inquisition”, or trying to turn the government into a “theocracy”, why should the unbelievers care? The non-Christians of that time wouldn’t accept most behavior that the Christians didn’t accept.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

It’s the job of Christian believers to use their capacities (including government office) to promote Christian ideals.

Two hundred plus years ago, most all authorities (with exception) were Christian believers. And even those who were not, had no qualms about the idea of using the Holy Bible as the standard of defining normal societal behavior.

As long as Christians weren’t conducting a “Spanish Inquisition”, or trying to turn the government into a “theocracy”, why should the unbelievers care? The non-Christians of that time wouldn’t accept most behavior that the Christians didn’t accept.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Then you believe in doing EXACTLY what the progressives are doing, just using your better ideas for a perfect world.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Stop insulting us with “small government” and “limited government” talk if all you want is the us federal government to act as morality police using laws regulations and tax code to change behaviors and tweak lifestyles to fit in to how YOU see people should organize and run their own lives.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:28 PM

good grief…

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:25 PM

What? You disagree? Big government is terrible except when it’s enforcing Christian values that you support?

Big government is fine as long as it is shutting down gay marriages and outlawing abortion clinics? And probably outlawing drugs, too, right?

But when big government comes after whatever is most important to you, then you get annoyed?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Stop insulting us with “small government” and “limited government” talk if all you want is the us federal government to act as morality police using laws regulations and tax code to change behaviors and tweak lifestyles to fit in to how YOU see people should organize and run their own lives.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Conserving current definitions and law are “big government” and “overreaching government”?

Drama QUEEN.

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM

There are more conservative minded, deeply religious gays out there than you realize. Don’t forget, neither straight nor gay couples enter into a marriage union so they can go out a-fornicating and carousing. For both gays and straights…marriage means the same thing…love, honor, and dedication.

And to me, that’s what counts.

JetBoy
on December 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

.
I’m pretty sure I understand full well that there are “There are more conservative minded, deeply religious gays out there.”
Those individuals aren’t trying to push the same-sex-marriage agenda.

love, honor, and dedication.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM

(continuing . . . .) aren’t the basis for marriage.

It sounds more like the Marine Corps pledge.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:33 PM

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
Abraham Lincoln

njrob on December 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Conserving current definitions and law are “big government” and “overreaching government”?

Drama QUEEN.

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Yes, absolutely.

Marriage began as a religious sacrament, got elevated to state laws, and you hope to turn it in to a federal issue?

Why not let churches and individuals decide what they want to call marriage, and leave the state and DEFINITELY federal government out of it. Blanket definitions coming from central planning governments don’t work for everyone.

Stop trying to use government to change human behavior, it is unjust and immoral to let the majority decide how the minority lives

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Stop insulting us with “small government” and “limited government” talk if all you want is the us federal government to act as morality police using laws regulations and tax code to change behaviors and tweak lifestyles to fit in to how YOU see people should organize and run their own lives.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:28 PM

.
You’re not going to stop being defiant about “recognition of God”, and we aren’t stop being “pushy” about recognizing God.

Where does that leave us?

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

You’re not going to stop being defiant about “recognition of God”, and we aren’t stop being “pushy” about recognizing God.

Where does that leave us?

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

It leaves us living in a secular society where you keep your god out of politics. How many times was god mentioned in the constitution?

We don’t live in a theocracy. You can believe in your god, and live your life however you see fit, but don’t turn around and use the implicit force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Stop trying to use government to change human behavior, it is unjust and immoral to let the majority decide how the minority lives

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Oh dear…listening to a deviant lecture about morality…

What is a girl to do?

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM

It seems as if you support True Marriage Equality as long as a group can find a church to support each group’s rights. Yes?

blink on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I don’t know what you mean by true marriage equality, but I support all levels of government getting the hell out of my life and the lives of everyone else.

I don’t care if two guys have a ceremony, call themselves married, and get whatever benefits or recognition that goes along with that.

To True Believers, they’ll never be married, and I think that’s fine too.

I just don’t care what people do in their private lives, and it annoys me when people who claim to support smaller government suddenly change their tune when it comes to their precious religious views that they seem to think are universally shared.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Why not let churches and individuals decide what they want to call marriage, and leave the state and DEFINITELY federal government out of it. Blanket definitions coming from central planning governments don’t work for everyone.

Stop trying to use government to change human behavior, it is unjust and immoral to let the majority decide how the minority lives

Timin203
on December 10, 2012 at 8:35 PM

.
Because the Founding Fathers believe that their new government should officially, and formally recognize God. That would include the institutions that God ordained.

A society that allows individuals to each set his/her own standards of morality, is in anarchy.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Oh dear…listening to a deviant lecture about morality…

What is a girl to do?

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Sorry… you’re calling me a deviant? Why? Because I don’t go to your church, pray to your god, and support your beliefs about selectively using big government in your favor?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Because the Founding Fathers believe that their new government should officially, and formally recognize God. That would include the institutions that God ordained.

A society that allows individuals to each set his/her own standards of morality, is in anarchy.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Who the hell are you to set my standards of morality for me?

God was mentioned once in the Constitution — that was in the date (“in the year of the lord…”). The founding fathers did not officially, formally, recognize god.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM

.
It leaves us living in a secular society where you keep your god out of politics. How many times was god mentioned in the constitution?

We don’t live in a theocracy. You can believe in your god, and live your life however you see fit, but don’t turn around and use the implicit force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

Timin203
on December 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

.
No, we will . . . . . period.

The “recognition of God” will never be out of politics.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM

No, we will . . . . . period.

The “recognition of God” will never be out of politics.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Good luck. In the battle of big government progressivism verse big government theocracy, i don’t think you have much of a chance in this country in this year.

In the meantime, please don’t vote in any primaries.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:50 PM

…so that’s the DOJ’s fuction now?

KOOLAID2 on December 10, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Well, that…and arming drug cartels.

And the occasional 150-agent raid on a prepper who doesn’t like lil barry.

Solaratov on December 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

.
Who the hell are you to set my standards of morality for me?

God was mentioned once in the Constitution — that was in the date (“in the year of the lord…”). The founding fathers did not officially, formally, recognize god.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM

.
I’m an American citizen who believes that “A society that allows individuals to each set his/her own standards of morality, is in anarchy.”
I absolutely believe the Biblical definitions of “morality” are the superior ideals.
.
You’re just not going to get away with those last ten words . . . . .

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

.

“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, . . . . . “

.
It’s not a “typo”/accident, that the words “God” and “Creator” are capitalized.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Another good article from Public Discourse:

Should Libertarians Be Conservatives?: The Tough Cases of Abortion and Marriage

Ironically, redefining marriage would strike at the foundation of individual rights. A limited government doesn’t try to redefine reality as the Orwellian governments of the twentieth century did. A limited government recognizes and defends certain realities outside its jurisdiction. Our government doesn’t bestow rights on us as individuals. We get our rights from God. A just and limited state simply acknowledges and protects the rights that already exist.

The individual is one pre-political reality; marriage is another. It transcends every political system. Even cultures that have taken homosexual acts in stride, such as the ancient Greeks, still knew that marriage was for a man and a woman. The question is not what people would like to do, but what marriage is. Since only a man and a woman can mate, marriage always has a special relationship to bearing and raising children.

Since so many different cultures and religions have recognized and protected marriage, we should conclude that it’s based on human nature and is not merely a social convention that we’re free to change once progressives capture the Supreme Court or the state legislature. Our very biology testifies to this. Every healthy individual has biological systems that are complete in themselves. Only our individual sexual organs are intrinsically incomplete. They can only achieve their primary purpose when joined with another human being of the opposite sex. No doubt this is why few cultures until recently ever had a widespread debate about the nature of marriage. It was obvious.

In fact, marriage is far more universally recognized than are our ideals concerning individual rights and equality.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:03 PM

It’s not a “typo”/accident, that the words “God” and “Creator” are capitalized.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:01 PM

No, it’s a proper noun. Also, look throughout the document you cited — the declaration, not the constitution — as well as other historic documents and you’ll see a lot of words capitalized, many in ways we’d find strange today.

Minor point, I know.

I’m an American citizen who believes that “A society that allows individuals to each set his/her own standards of morality, is in anarchy.”

Then you’re an American citizen who believes the government grants rights and rules over us — for own good — and not that government exists to protect natural rights (gods rights, if you prefer) and to protect law, not to rule over anyone.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:05 PM

(gods rights, if you prefer)

I should probably not have left it at that, I already know where you’re going to go with it. I meant the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence… “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” (or life, liberty, and property if you’re a Lockean)

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:08 PM

It leaves us living in a secular society where you keep your god out of politics. How many times was god mentioned in the constitution?

We don’t live in a theocracy. You can believe in your god, and live your life however you see fit, but don’t turn around and use the implicit force of government to enforce your beliefs on others.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Exactly. Religious tyranny is what drove the first waves of Europeans to these shores in the first place, and that notion wasn’t lost upon our forefathers when our constitution was drafted.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:09 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 8:47 PM

.
Good luck. In the battle of big government progressivism verse big government theocracy, i don’t think you have much of a chance in this country in this year.

In the meantime, please don’t vote in any primaries.

Timin203
on December 10, 2012 at 8:50 PM

.
The primaries are where the real fight for the soul of the Republican Party lies. Like hell I’m going to stay out of them.

I voted For Rick “the Sweater Vest” this last time, and I’ll vote for the closest thing to him next time. Also could’ve gone with Bachmann.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:11 PM

My opposition to prop 8 had nothing to do with marriage. I don’t want the constitution (state or federal) corrupted with an amendment that restricts MY actions – legal, moral or ethical. That is NOT the point of a constitution. It is OUR protection, our shield, against what a government can do to us.

When we turn our shield against ourselves, you don’t gain anything, you just lose a weapon.

kurtzz3 on December 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM

But no, you know best, and you should definitely use the power of government to enforce your ideal worldview on to the rest of us.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Get a grip.

Solaratov on December 10, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Oh dear…listening to a deviant lecture about morality…

What is a girl to do?

tom daschle concerned on December 10, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Sorry… you’re calling me a deviant? Why? Because I don’t go to your church, pray to your god, and support your beliefs about selectively using big government in your favor?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM

That’s OK…I do go to mass…pray to God…and because I’m gay I’m a “deviant” too…even worse than you, I’d gather.

You just can’t win.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM

God has never been kept out of politics. That’s a blatantly false claim. There’s a difference between claiming religious authority and using the power of the State and Church as one and using religious belief to guide your life and state. We have always been a Christian nation and that some of you want to destroy that, whatever the reason, disturbs me. You are not a friend of conservatives or those who believe in the United States and her Constitution.

njrob on December 10, 2012 at 9:15 PM

I voted For Rick “the Sweater Vest” this last time, and I’ll vote for the closest thing to him next time. Also could’ve gone with Bachmann.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Nice. The same guy who passionately came out against online gambling? The guy who enthusiastically supported and lobbied for bush’s big government programs?

I don’t understand why the republican coalition forces us to vote in the same primaries. I couldn’t disagree with you more on just about everything… probably part of the reason we get candidates like mitt romney.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:16 PM

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I agree with all of that.

But you know like I do, this is a fight on the margins, propelled by hetero progs.

It comes down to one ideological principle.

The right believes in the individual. The left believes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

So we speak out against one of our own, and harbor an entire class of Benedict Arnold’s, allowing them to make a living at being traitors.

Not the left. Everyone must tow the line or be cast out.

So the gay community who believes marriage should be an option will sit quietly aside while the Freedom From Religion crowd hijacks the issue. Until that changes, #war.

budfox on December 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Let me try that again…

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM

I agree with all of that.

But you know like I do, this is a fight on the margins, propelled by hetero progs.

It comes down to one ideological principle.

The right believes in the individual. The left believes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

So we speak out against one of our own, and harbor an entire class of Benedict Arnold’s, allowing them to make a living at being traitors.

Not the left. Everyone must tow the line or be cast out.

So the gay community who believes marriage should be an option will sit quietly aside while the Freedom From Religion crowd hijacks the issue. Until that changes, #war.

budfox on December 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM

My opposition to prop 8 had nothing to do with marriage. I don’t want the constitution (state or federal) corrupted with an amendment that restricts MY actions – legal, moral or ethical. That is NOT the point of a constitution. It is OUR protection, our shield, against what a government can do to us.

When we turn our shield against ourselves, you don’t gain anything, you just lose a weapon.

kurtzz3 on December 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Just about to bolt but I have to say…Cheers. Can’t be said any better than that.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 8:40 PM

.
Exactly. Religious tyranny is what drove the first waves of Europeans to these shores in the first place, and that notion wasn’t lost upon our forefathers when our constitution was drafted.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:09 PM

.
( E X P L E T I V E ) . . . . . they here seeking freedom to practice Christianity their own way, not freedom from religion.

The Founding Fathers were not “seculararists”, but they did oppose a Theocracy.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:20 PM

That’s OK…I do go to mass…pray to God…and because I’m gay I’m a “deviant” too…even worse than you, I’d gather.

You just can’t win.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Well, I’m probably more of a deviant because I don’t go to mass, don’t pray, and while I’m not gay, I do live in sin with my girlfriend.

But I go to work every day and pay my taxes and pay for everything I have, which is more then I can say for a lot of other people who seem to have a whole lot of free time to hang out on blogs 24 x 7.

My argument is that it’s not their place to use government to impose their beliefs on others. Government is supposed to protect everyone’s rights, not infringe on rights in order to create a more perfect society.

If religious people want to go door to door evangelizing, or buy a cable tv channel they can. But they cannot use government to enforce their beliefs on others.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I did not know there was a “right” to marry. Funny, in my reading of the constitution, I find no reference to marriage of any kind. That and the FACT marriage is licensed by the various states precludes it being a “right”. I just want to ask what biological purpose is there to sodomy?

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

When we turn our shield against ourselves, you don’t gain anything, you just lose a weapon.

kurtzz3
on December 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM

.
Just about to bolt but I have to say…Cheers. Can’t be said any better than that.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:18 PM

.
Allowing each individual to set his/her own standard of morality is turning anarchy against ourselves.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I did not know there was a “right” to marry. Funny, in my reading of the constitution, I find no reference to marriage of any kind. That and the FACT marriage is licensed by the various states precludes it being a “right”. I just want to ask what biological purpose is there to sodomy?

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

.
Hedonistic pleasure … period.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I don’t understand why the republican coalition forces us to vote in the same primaries. I couldn’t disagree with you more on just about everything…

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Don’t worry. The democRATS will have a primary in ’16.

Solaratov on December 10, 2012 at 9:25 PM

This is from the Department of State’s website:

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they “should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears.” Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM

This is slightly O/T, but the Dept. of State goes on to say:

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the “public prosperity” of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a “spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens,” Congress declared to the American people, would “make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.”

Interesting, isn’t it? And the evidence is all around you.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:28 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:11 PM

.
Nice. The same guy who passionately came out against online gambling? The guy who enthusiastically supported and lobbied for bush’s big government programs?

I don’t understand why the republican coalition forces us to vote in the same primaries. I couldn’t disagree with you more on just about everything… probably part of the reason we get candidates like mitt romney.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:16 PM

.
You don’t disagree with me on taxes, and Government monetary waste, do you?

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I just want to ask what biological purpose is there to sodomy?

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

No biological purpose. Why does that matter?

Allowing each individual to set his/her own standard of morality is turning anarchy against ourselves.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

You really want me to address that, don’t you? Fine, it’s a total non sequitor, and not something I really agree with anyways. I’m saying that beyond natural rights — a right to your life, your liberty, and to pursuit happiness / own property, government does not have a role in protecting, advocating, or influencing “morality.” That’s something parents, communities, churches (in your case), can handle. Morality is NOT universal, nor is it something easily resolved in the Bible (where slavery, stonings, etc., were condoned)… We all like to consider ourselves moral people, but we all have slight deviations in what we think the moral answer is to many questions.

Let people explore that on their own, with their families, friends, etc., Don’t think that morality in big west coast cities is going to be identical to what is considered “moral” behavior in the south or midwest… and don’t be so conceded to think that you know what is best for everyone else. If they’re happy living their lives, and you are happy with yours, why would you feel the need to interfere with theirs?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:30 PM

. . . . . probably part of the reason we get candidates like mitt romney.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:16 PM

.
I am convinced we got Mitt Romney because of open primary “cross-over” votes in states that allow it.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM

You don’t disagree with me on taxes, and Government monetary waste, do you?

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I don’t think anyone is FOR government waste and not many (though some) are FOR higher taxes (on themselves).

I believe in a radically limited federal government, constrained by the constitution to its enumerated powers. If we must continue collecting federal income tax, I’d make it a flat pay roll deduction tax no higher than, say 10%.

I think that’s very different then what you believe. No federal government constrained by it’s constitution could pass a federal law defining an issue like marriage.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I am convinced we got Mitt Romney because of open primary “cross-over” votes in states that allow it.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:32 PM

No, because a lot of people were more scared of another big government republican like santorum, and were willing to suck it up and get behind a technocratic, but safe, romney. Santorum would have been absolutely unacceptable to me, I definitely would have voted third party.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Allowing each individual to set his/her own standard of morality is turning anarchy against ourselves.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Marriage is immoral? I would think you would cheer gay marriage…again, gays marry for the same exact reasons heterosexuals do. Gays raise families, work, pay taxes, laugh, cry, etc etc etc…and isn’t the “stability” of family an important contribution to society?

What you and some others need to do is stop immediately plastering the “liberal progressive” and/or “anti-religion” tag on gay marriage. Or are you also against heterosexual liberal atheists marrying each other as well?

Some things declared “moral” know no boundaries…”don’t kill”, “don’t steal”…Ten Commandments stuff for example. Those things go for all of us, gay or straight, black or white, Republican or Democrat, whatever. But I can’t say “I think liberals are immoral, so they shouldn’t be able to marry” and then claim the morality card as it is with other, more general notions.

Do you see what I’m getting at?

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM

George Washington, Farewell Address:

BTW, did you know that Washington’s Farewell Address is read annually in the Senate? It’s to the detriment of the country that most Senators don’t pay attention and heed the words and warning.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Christian dogma is predicated upon the concept of man’s free will resulting from The Fall of Man. Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins, right? Or was that just for gay people?

Christian-extremists demand subservience to God’s word. Yet, God gives every person the right to sin. If you’re Christian all you are is a person who sins and prays for forgiveness. I challenge any believer to prove to me that their sins are better than mine or another person’s.

By forcing your own choices of sin onto others you pretty much mimic Islamofascists.

Capitalist Hog on December 10, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Mmmm Hmmm

Watch as the HotAir Bigot Brigade circles the wagons and a feeding frenzy ensues.

Let the homosexuals get married — and get divorced. What harm does it do any single one of you at all?

Love is Love. Let the people decide which person they want to marry and keep your Bible off their privates. Sex has nothing to do with marriage — strictly speaking.

Unload the blackness in your hearts and the hate coursing through your veins, HotAirians!

And revel in the joy of sanctified love for the unloved. It is a beautiful thing!

FlatFoot on December 10, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Allowing each individual to set his/her own standard of morality is turning anarchy against ourselves.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:23 PM

True. I wholeheartedly agree.

But I must ask…what is it that’s immoral, to you, about gay marriage? And don’t bring up religion…not everyone shares your faith, nor should be forced to. That would be tyranny. Or worse…you’d be no better than the radical Islamist governments using their faith to legislate their brand of morals on everyone else.

And you can see how that works out…and yet, to them, it’s moral.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I just want to ask what biological purpose is there to sodomy?

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Ask some of the Christian “virgins” who practice it. Feel free to replace “sodomy” with “oral.”

Capitalist Hog on December 10, 2012 at 9:48 PM

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Of course marriage isn’t immoral. What is immoral is the way people are attempting to redefine it.

I think I’ve mentioned this article to you before. It answers many questions.

Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 34 (Winter, 2010): 245-287.

They’ve expanded it into a book, and it’s publication date is tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM

I just want to ask what biological purpose is there to sodomy?

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on December 10, 2012 at 9:22 PM

So you’re a “sex for procreation only” person? A Hasid maybe?

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

FlatFoot on December 10, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I see you’re using Propaganda Technique #1: Name Calling

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Marriage is immoral? I would think you would cheer gay marriage…again, gays marry for the same exact reasons heterosexuals do.

JetBoy on December 10, 2012 at 9:39 PM

.
Homosexuality is immoral, and should be driven back “into the closet”, like pre-1960.

Christians weren’t sneaking to and fro, trying to catch “practicing homosexuals” in those days. Consensual activity behind closed doors wasn’t worried about.

But accepting the practice of homosexuality as a “legitimate alternate normality”, to be practiced in the open will turn the whole country into San Francisco.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Of course marriage isn’t immoral. What is immoral is the way people are attempting to redefine it.

I think I’ve mentioned this article to you before. It answers many questions.

Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson. “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy vol. 34 (Winter, 2010): 245-287.

They’ve expanded it into a book, and it’s publication date is tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM

It would be immoral if the federal government forced your church to change its definition of marriage as a sacrament. For the federal government to tell gay people they are not allowed to be married in a secular sense is… well, one of the problems you run in to having government control every aspect of our lives. Who the hell are you to tell someone else what they have is or isnt a marriage (in the secular sense)?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Homosexuality is immoral, and should be driven back “into the closet”, like pre-1960.

Christians weren’t sneaking to and fro, trying to catch “practicing homosexuals” in those days. Consensual activity behind closed doors wasn’t worried about.

But accepting the practice of homosexuality as a “legitimate alternate normality”, to be practiced in the open will turn the whole country into San Francisco.

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Well, how enlightened of you. Unfortunately, that shipped has sailed, “practicing homosexuals” feel that they can live their lives as they see fit without having to pretend to be something they weren’t.

So the pre-1960 thing isn’t happening… and again, why do you and your god get to define morality for everyone else?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:56 PM

listens2glenn on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Yeah but overtly sexual quotes about women you’re not married to are OK.

If you’re not a unmarried non-virgin who rails against “immoral” homosexuals you’re a hypocrite.

Where does hypocrisy rate the sin-scale?

Capitalist Hog on December 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Did you read any of the quotes I had above? Because they answer your questions.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

… And what ever happened to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I see you’re using Propaganda Technique #1: Name Calling

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Ha. Propaganda — yeah. That’s what you call it when the truth hurts?

Okay. Call it propaganda then.

It still stands no less TRUE.

FlatFoot on December 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Did you read any of the quotes I had above? Because they answer your questions.

INC on December 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I’m pretty sure I understand your argument, I just disagree with your premise and your conclusion.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:59 PM

… And what ever happened to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”?

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM

They ran out of stones. They’re all perfect.

Capitalist Hog on December 10, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Whatever, I’m going to sleep. I don’t think this rift in the party is fixable, I think we will eventually need a realignment of coalitions.

Timin203 on December 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Jeez — look at all the HotAirian homophobes.

I guess they’re not very comfortable with their own sexuality — so bigots they must become in their desperation to hide their uncertainty.

How sad.

Not nearly as sad as their blackened hearts and the hate coursing through their veins — but still quite sad.

FlatFoot on December 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Comment pages: 1 2