New ad from gay-rights group: Republicans support gay marriage too, you know

posted at 8:01 pm on February 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

Something new from the Respect for Marriage Coalition keyed to their splashy new poll about same-sex marriage. Want evidence of how much the phrasing of poll questions can influence the responses you get? Here you go:

Voters express strong support for the notion that the ability to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and Constitutional right for every American, including gays and lesbians. Three-quarters of voters (75%) believe that it is a Constitutional right, up from 71% in 2011. This sentiment spans across party lines, as 91% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 56% of Republican voters all believe the freedom to marry the person you love is a Constitutional right.

Fifty-six percent of Republicans now support gay marriage? Wow! Wait. No. Well, sort of. Here’s what Quinnipiac found in December when they asked the question more bluntly:

q

That result is more expected. In fact, according to the AP, just 21 of the 47 Republican legislators who’ve voted for gay marriage in the past three years are still in office.

In theory, the RFMC’s result is more germane to the gay-marriage debate than Quinnipiac’s. The Quinnipiac question could be interpreted by a respondent as a question about moral support; the RFMC is asking more specifically about legality. And yet, thus far, the results of state referenda more closely resemble Quinnipiac’s evenly divided topline number than the RFMC’s. There’s a messaging lesson in that for gay-marriage supporters: If you want to win over conservatives, speaking the language of the Constitution helps. Which, I assume, is what Ted Olson and David Boies are banking on if/when the Supreme Court rules in their favor on Prop 8. A constitutional ruling could soften pockets of resistance on the center-right; my hunch is that it’ll do the opposite if it ends up legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states in one fell swoop, but we’ll see. No doubt Anthony Kennedy is wrestling with that as we speak. (Interestingly, 70 percent of Republicans in the RFMC poll thought gay marriage would be legal within “the next couple of years,” whether or not they themselves support it.)

Here’s the ad followed by the longer clip of Cheney addressing gay marriage in 2009. If the RFMC is smart, they’ll do a separate ad devoted just to him; Laura Bush and Colin Powell will help with centrists, but only Cheney stands even the slightest chance of making a dent in opinion on the right. If anything, Powell’s inclusion here will firm up righty opposition. I’ll leave you with this provocative gauntlet-tossing from Ace, addressing the endless recent intraparty skirmishes:

I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

If we’re going to have a war of all against all, let’s have it, honestly.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

with immigration and the sequestration on the horizon, I don’t think anyone cares about the gays at the moment

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Court will decide this social issue…I for one don’t give a damn

Should be state issue…but court will get involved

Redford on February 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

Ah, Ace. You poor mistaken rube. Can’t you appreciate that TruCons not only have the only interpretation of the Bible that is the true one, their views on everything are the only true views?

Really. It’s not narcissism.

John the Libertarian on February 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Oh, please, tons of Democrats, especially the highly valued “minority” members are against it also, they just know what hills are worth dying on. Ace is being a whiny dumbazz, people don’t stay in a party to “judge and scold” but some love and value tradition. Those people have just as much right to exist as all the “with it” folks telling them to shut up.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Sorry, I don’t respect anyone enough to change my opinion. Not Cheney, not Laura Bush, not Ace, not anyone.

Rose on February 20, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Did eff’ng Dick get a gay heart?

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Cheney may be good on foreign policy, but he’s always been a social issues squish. Sorry to see that he can’t comprehend that institutions like marriage have purposes, in marriage’s case, to formalize an arrangement between a prospective mother and father of a lifelong commitment, not only of sexual fidelity, but to be there in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, ’til death do them part, for the sake of establishing a bedrock and stable home environment for the creation and raising of children, so that the parents do not abandon their kids and focus their attention of raising those whom they create.

Allow any 2 parties to marry, and you make a mockery of its purpose, and in so doing, render it meaningless.

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 8:08 PM

John the Libertarian on February 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

We should all bow to your version of Western Civilization and what made it great? How very narrow minded of you!

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:09 PM

In fact, according to the AP, just 21 of the 47 Republican legislators who’ve voted for gay marriage in the past three years are still in office.

In an age where 95% of incumbents are typically re-elected, this says a lot.

There’s hope for our nation.

itsnotaboutme on February 20, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Ace is perfectly giddy at the news.

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Ah, Ace. You poor mistaken rube. Can’t you appreciate that TruCons not only have the only interpretation of the Bible that is the true one, their views on everything are the only true views?

Really. It’s not narcissism.

John the Libertarian on February 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

If you want to bring the Bible specifically into it, it is kind of hard to ignore the repeat passages that instruct God’s followers to put homosexuals to death.

Unless by “put to death” you think there’s an interpretation that means “hold a gay pride parade.”

Stoic Patriot on February 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Don’t forget, the very very blue very very hip California voted against it. I’m Switzerland on the point, but I think you make a huge mistake of lumping those against as scolding, judging Bible thumpers.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

…all believe the freedom to marry the person you love is a Constitutional right.

I’m in love with my mother, is that ok? Somehow I dont think they would approve :(

thebrokenrattle on February 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

I don’t see the issue here. Gays can marry…to the opposite sex. What’s not equal about that???

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Honesty is not what some folks want.

The thread over at Ace’s was extremely honest and open.

That kind of honesty wouldn’t be allowed here.

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

The GOP has been made into money-changer, war-machine party… who cares if they support gay marriage.

No blood, no spirit… just money and war, war and money. Perfect for a nation that is a populous and not a people.

ninjapirate on February 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Oh, please, tons of Democrats, especially the highly valued “minority” members are against it also

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

This.

itsnotaboutme on February 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Gosh.. Favorite thing is that Ace thinks we’ll never have a Republican President again. I guess I’ll never have to actually vote for everything again. Why bother voting as in ever as everyone tells me that the Republican Party is doomed?

Illinidiva on February 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

I’m sick of it. I’m sick to death of it. I’m sick of making excuses for it. I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Is Ace having another of his monthly meltdowns?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

What if someone loves two people, shouldn’t they be allowed to marry both of the people they love? How about bisexuals? Isn’t wrong to make them choose only one person to marry and not fulfill the other half of her sexuality?

Just get used to it because that will be next. Who is to stop 3 madly in love gay guys in San Francisco from marrying one another? Oh, you got some tradition that opposes that, do you?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

with immigration and the sequestration on the horizon, I don’t think anyone cares about the gays at the moment

nonpartisan on February 20, 2013 at 8:02 PM

…except you!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

No. This is a state issue, to be decided by voters at the polls if and when they’re ready to endorse it. Ergo, in Maryland, Washington, and Maine, it’s legitimate. Everywhere else, it’s illegitimate.

And while I’m not rah-rah about same-sex marriage, I figure it’s not my business to oppose the rights of states to adjudicate these things. And DOMA must stay in force until all states have legalized gay marriage.

KingGold on February 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Summary of two of the legal briefs filed with SCOTUS…

“During his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Judge Robert Bork said one of his attractions to the court was that it would be an “intellectual feast.” There is certainly a feast going over the impending Supreme Court consideration of same-sex marriage. A mountain of friend-of-the-court briefs has landed in the hands of the Supreme Court, some of them utterly fascinating.

Two of the briefs are notably interesting, one from Professor Robert George of Princeton and his talented young collaborators Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation and Sherif Girgis who is toiling on a law degree at Yale and a Ph.D in Philosophy at Princeton.

In a Harvard Law Review article, a book and now this brief, George, Ryan, and Girgis answer the question “what is marriage?” They describe two competing views; one they call “conjugal”, and the other “revisionist.” Allowing for the revisionist view “can cause corresponding social harms. It weakens the rational foundation (and hence social practice) of stabilizing marital norms on which social order depends: norms such as permanence, exclusivity, monogamy.”

George and his colleagues argue that marriage can only be “conjugal”, that is, a “comprehensive union joining spouses in body as well as in mind, it is begun by commitment and sealed by sexual intercourse. So completed in the acts by which new life is made, it is especially apt for and deepened by procreation and calls for that broad sharing uniquely fit for family life.” Such a comprehensive view of marriage is still available to sterile couples but not for homosexuals.

The authors explain that what they call the “revisionist” understanding of marriage “is essentially an emotional union, accompanied by any consensual activity. Such romantic unions are seen as valuable while the emotion lasts.” Men and women can have such “unions” just as same-sex couples can, “both involve intense emotional bonding, so both can (on this view) make a marriage. But comprehensive union is something only a man and woman can form.”

George says, “enacting same-sex marriage would not expand the institution of marriage” as proponents claim, but would redefine it. Such a redefinition would permanently harm the notion of marriage and sully the goods that come from marriage properly understood…

The second very interesting brief was submitted by Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins University. Their brief is also about definitions, in this case the definition of homosexuality and sexual orientation.

McHugh is a remarkable man. For 26 years he headed the Johns Hopkins Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. You may recall that this department was the place in America that initiated sex change operations under the notorious and now discredited Dr. John Money. One of McHugh’s first acts was to close down Money’s sex change unit.

Bradley and McHugh want to convince the court that homosexuals do not rise to the level of a “suspect class” deserving of “heighted scrutiny” protection. Those in support of traditional marriage believe the people of California in the Proposition 8 case and that Congress in the Defense of Marriage Act all had “rational” reasons for their claims. It is a lower and much easier claim to defend. Prop 8 and DOMA plaintiffs want to claim “suspect class” which would force the defendants to make the much harder case that the state has a “compelling interest” in maintaining man-woman marriage.

In order to become a suspect class, however, homosexuals have to make the case that there is a history of discrimination against them, that they are politically powerless to fight back, and that theirs is a “discrete group” with “immutable characteristics.” This is not easy.

Bradley and McHugh make the case abundantly and perhaps surprisingly that the plaintiffs fail on the questions of both discreteness and immutability.

The definition of a suspect class requires the group be “discrete” or distinct and definable. Race is an accepted category, for instance, but the Court has rejected age and poverty as suspect classes. Bradley and McHugh assert that sexual orientation fails, too, because it “may characterize points along a continuum of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity where individual categories are anything but distinct. They cite the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, “There is currently no scientific or popular consensus…that definitely ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.” The authors cite more than a dozen such quotations from equally authoritative sources.

In fact, the authors go on for 28 pages showing there is no agreed upon definition of sexual orientation, that sexual orientation—at least among those who claim some sort of same sex attraction—far from being immutable is in fact plastic. Citing a plethora of social science research, they show that degrees of homosexuality change consistently through the life of most who claim same-sex attraction, particularly among women.

The authors also demonstrate that there is not a single repeated scientific study showing that homosexuality is genetic.

Homosexual advocates and at least one homosexual judge have claimed that opposition to same-sex marriage can only be rooted in “animus” toward homosexuals. After the Prop 8 trial in California, homosexual advocates almost successfully captured the false narrative that the pro-marriage side did not even try to make the case for man-woman marriage.

There is an intellectual feast on this topic now on the dining table of Supreme Court Justices. They’ve even received a Scripture-heavy sermon in the guise of a legal brief from the crazies at the Westboro Baptist Church.

No one knows how the Court will go. We know they will not enshrine man-woman marriage in the Constitution. They may simply uphold Prop 8 and DOMA and the battle continues state-by-state. They could strike down Prop 8 and DOMA and stop there, too. But they could declare homosexual marriage the law of the land.

As the George brief makes clear, this would signal the end of any kind of marriage culture in the United States…”

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/on-two-compelling-legal-briefs-that-challenge-same-sex-marriage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrisisMagazine+%28Crisis+Magazine%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The country’s currency could crash causing anarchy in the streets and cities to burn…

I’m so glad this homosexual marriage is being forced up front of every issue to throw us off.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

…but court will get involved

Redford on February 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

…will Roberts find it taxing?

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

That kind of honesty wouldn’t be allowed here.

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Explain, please.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

The only folks who care about gay marriage as an issue are the militants and the Progs who use it as a wedge against the Right.

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

This is the extension of tolerance and gay rights

Parents across Massachusetts are upset over new rules that would not only allow transgender students to use their restrooms of their choice – but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or support their transgender classmates.

FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CULTURE WAR NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!

Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify.

The 11-page directive also urged schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities – like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom.

Schools will now be required to accept a student’s gender identity on face value.

“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate.

According to the Dept. of Education, transgender students are those whose assigned birth sex does not match their “internalized sense of their gender.”

They said gender nonconforming students “range in the ways in which they identify as male, female, some combination of both, or neither.”

“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” the guidelines dictate. “One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four…As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.”

The new rules would also prevent teachers and administrators from telling parents with which gender their child identifies.

“School personnel should speak with the student first before discussing a student’s gender nonconformity or transgender status with the student’s parent or guardian,” the directive states.

The guidelines were issued at the request of the state board of education to help schools follow the 2011 anti-discrimination law protecting transgender students.

“These students, because of widespread misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about their lives, are at a higher risk for peer ostracism, victimization, and bullying, the document read.

The Massachusetts Family Institute denounced the new rules calling them a violation of privacy.

“Fundamentally, boys need to be using the boys’ room and girls need to be using the girls’ rooms, and we base that on their anatomical sex, not some sort of internalized gender identity,” said Andrew Beckwith, the institute’s general counsel.

Beckwith told Fox News the new policy has a “very broad standard that is ripe for abuse.”

“The policy allows students to have one gender identity at home and another at school,” he said. “And it refuses to let teachers and administrators tell parents what gender their child is at school.”

Another part of the directive that troubles parents deals with students who might feel comfortable having someone of the opposite sex in their locker room or bathroom.

The state takes those students to task – noting their discomfort “is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”

And any student who refuses to refer to a transgendered student by the name or sex they identify with could face punishment.

<strong>For example – a fifth grade girl might feel uncomfortable using the restroom if there is an eighth grade transgendered boy in the next stall.

Under the state guidelines, the girl would have no recourse, Beckwith said.

“And if the girl continued to complain she could be subjected to discipline for not affirming that student’s gender identity choice,” he told Fox News.

“It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline,” the directive states.

Gunner Scott, of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, praised the directive – and said punishing students who refuse to acknowledge a student’s gender identity is appropriate because it amounts to bullying.

“The reality is that it’s about creating an inclusive environment for all students to learn,” Scott said.

But many parents disagreed and said the directive actually gives transgendered students more rights and privileges than other students.

“It doesn’t treat all students the same,” said Bill Gillmeister, of Brookfield, Mass. “It has a greater preference to gender-identifying children. That concerns me a great deal.”

Gillmeister told Fox News he has a son and daughter in high school. He also serves as a school committeeman.

He wondered about safety and fairness – especially when it comes to athletics. Under the new rules transgendered students will be allowed to play on either boys or girls teams.

“What about the girl who loses a spot on that basketball team because a boy is able to play as a girl,” Gillmeister wondered.

He worried about boys going into the girls locker rooms and vice versa.

“As a father of a daughter who might be playing sports, that concerns me greatly,” he said. “My daughter would likely not play a sport that she would otherwise play if she knew there was a potential for a boy to walk into the girl’s locker room.”

Gillmeister predicted no matter what happens – there will be lawsuits.

“It will either be the girl who didn’t get a seat on the basketball team because some boy got it or some boy who wanted to use the girls’ room but was denied access,” he said.

Beckwith and others say the education department is using a loophole in the anti-discrimination law to create a “stealth bathroom bill.”

“It’s affecting students as young as kindergarten,” he said.

The directive also calls on schools to implement gender neutral clothing rules.

“For example, some schools require students to wear gender-based garb for graduation or have gender-based dress codes for prom, special events and daily attire,” the directive states. “Schools should eliminate gendered policies and practices such as these.”

They pointed out on school that changed its dress code for the National Honor Society. The new policy does not require girls to wear dresses.

They also instructed schools to stop lining up students based on gender. Instead, they recommended lining up students using their birthdays or alphabetically.

Beckwith said it seems like Massachusetts is trying to create gender-neutral schools.

“They’re encouraging schools to eliminate all gender based distinctions,” he said

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

I’m not buying into this sentimental crapola…

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM

Societal acceptance of sodomy is not at the top of anybody’s list right now. It is even a step too far for the rat-eared bastard who has decided to force through gifting citizenship to illegal criminals and refuses to do anything about stopping sequestration but whine like the lazy commie he is.

The WaPo had a print version of this propaganda (they have propaganda from one group or another most days). My first thought was, really, who in Washington cares about forcing the law to recognize sodomite relationships as “normal” within society. It will change nothing but federal benefits and a few other laws. Stuff that the gay couples I know did years ago through things like power of attorney. This is nothing more than gay activists looking for attention in a world much more concerned with the economy, jobs, and their own lives to man the barricades for sodomy.

The day will come that society views sodomy as “normal” but we are not there yet and these kinds of ads are nothing but annoying. They change nothing in the larger debate.

Happy Nomad on February 20, 2013 at 8:19 PM

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Yikes!

Maybe Scott Brown saw the writing on the wall not only from his election loss to a fake Indian. But sees his state going down(or up?) the crapper and decided to jump ship.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 8:16 PM

I agree, I don’t see it as an issue. If the states decide it’s what they want, so be it. At least it will get a better shake than abortion did by the courts deciding.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM

This is a state issue, to be decided by voters at the polls if and when they’re ready to endorse it.

KingGold on February 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Should the same thing apply to polygamous marriage? What if some state voted to allow polygamous marriage, would all the states need to honor these marriages by full faith and credit?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM

The attention given this issue sometimes becomes a bit much. I’m perfectly comfortable with gay people and to be honest don’t find the subject that exciting, but I really don’t think anyone is being terribly “oppressed” by having the state regard their relationship as a “civil union” rather than “marriage.” The push to force people to accept same-sex marriage is about power more than anything.

Yes, fine, make your case for or against a traditional definition of marriage, but let’s let individual states decide. Cheney is right. FWIW, I would vote for traditional marriage definition, for a number of reasons. Would it hurt or help a Republican candidate politically to be for gay marriage? Maybe some of both. Young voters are thinking of this as one of the most pressing issues for the government to be dealing with. The media has done a number on them. What is outrageous is how anyone for traditional marriage is called a bigot. Sure, there are many anti-gay bigots, and I’ve seen several comment on this site, but being for traditional marriage doesn’t make one a bigot!

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Yikes!

Maybe Scott Brown saw the writing on the wall not only from his election loss to a fake Indian. But sees his state going down(or up?) the crapper and decided to jump ship.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Yeah I mean come on; Mass has gotten ridiculous. They are talking about punishing kids because they feel uncomfortable about being in a restroom or lockerroom with someone who is the opposite geneder, and that the kid should accept that opposite gender kid undressing with them because they think they are the same gender as them. It is just getting scary out there.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM

“Freedom means freedom for everyone.”

But not for unborn babies.

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Might be time to give a clue on all this to those fine folks at Morehouse College. libfreeordie, you available?

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 8:28 PM

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Who’s to say that a trans kid would hit on a little girl, or make advances?” After all it’s all about sexuality in these people’s lives. They are driven by it and basically created a religion out of it.

They don’t see the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, they only see the 14th amendment as “goverment given rights” proclamation.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Respect for Marriage Coalition

A name equally Orwellian as “People for the American Way”

steebo77 on February 20, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Perhaps the proper role for government on this would have been none in the first instance, hence the lack of need for it in the second. Novel idea I know, mainly because it is so seldom tried.

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 8:30 PM

I don’t have a problem with Gay Marriage…but I do have a problem with Gay adoption. Why should kids be subjected to their lifestyle?

In fact maybe that should be the new Conservative mantra..we’re ok with gay marriage but a family needs both a mother and a father in order for a child to correctly develop, maybe some libs would fall in line with that argument also?

The best parts are…

A. We wouldn’t have confused kids becoming brainwashed adults that will invariable be liberals like their two moms or two dads..

B. The kids they don’t adopt will go to traditional homes that hopefully teach more values.

C. Gay couples will end up at the end without kids visiting and taking care of them and may question the decisions they made in life.

celt on February 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Ace is full of crap. He’s another one who smears people who disagrees with him. He started on the goproud junk but had to back off when he was reminded why goproud was excluded from cpac. He then went on twitter and pretended that he didn’t remember the facts though it was a major flame war on his blog two years running. He then went on to insinuate that everyone was still a bigot. I expect to hear a lot more of this shite because the “pundit class” has decided that they can tell everyone else what to do. Guess again…

Blake on February 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Sorry, that’s still a load of bull.

Freedom is NOT where the government grants you its blessing for healthcare, gay marriage or food…

I’m not sure what twisted bizarro world this has become but it’s obviously infected Allah and Ace here…

“I’m not free because you won’t give me license to love the one I approve”.

Ok, really? Because that’s what you’re whining about. Marriage is not, has not and never will be about love, it’s about government control of procreation because (and bear with me here, because I know this is a radical concept) the sexual licentiousness to drive us to procreate leads to an unstable society and the break down of civilization… THAT’S why it was regulated and why you even see teh gehys wanting to enforce monogamy because it’s all so gosh darn emotionally unstable.

We are BECOMING A COMMUNIST COUNTRY complete with a political elite who will tell us what we can do and what we can think and all the trapping that come with it all in the name of making government give us more rights.

Congratulations Allah and Ace… you got your ObamaMarriage.

Skywise on February 20, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Lsm has been playing this ad nauseum

cmsinaz on February 20, 2013 at 8:35 PM

The same would apply to church.

Bmore on February 20, 2013 at 8:35 PM

If you care about gay marriage you are either:

1) a Gay

2 a nosy busybody who wants to tell others how to live their life.

I’m cool w/ the 1s, y’all 2s can go take a long walk off a short pier.

rndmusrnm on February 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Voters express strong support for the notion that the ability to marry the person you love is a fundamental freedom and Constitutional right for every American, including gays and lesbians.

I must have missed it. What article of the Constitution was it that addresses marriage?

Shump on February 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Just get used to it because that will be next. Who is to stop 3 madly in love gay guys in San Francisco from marrying one another? Oh, you got some tradition that opposes that, do you?

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Tax law might have a problem with that. Kill federal income tax, then we talk. :)

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Who’s to say that a trans kid would hit on a little girl, or make advances?” After all it’s all about sexuality in these people’s lives. They are driven by it and basically created a religion out of it.

They don’t see the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, they only see the 14th amendment as “goverment given rights” proclamation.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Well and who’s to say it is even a trans kid? Did you see the part about the fact that the kid can be a “boy” at home, but want to be a girl at school and the school doesn’t have to notify the parents of the child’s decision to be a different gender in school. And the child could be either or depending on their mood. So a 12 year old boy could come to school and feel like being a girl and go into a the girls locker room. Can you imagine the potential for abuse. And the fact that they can compete on the sports team on the gender they identify with. How does that work. Boys on girls teams.. Can you imagine the competitions and the scholarships awarded because obviously boys are going to outperform girls at somethings no matter how much of a girl they think they are. It boggles the mind, and Mass is out of their mind.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Cindy,

Go check out the thread. It’s long, but you should get the gist after reading into the comments a bit.

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I don’t have a problem with Gay Marriage…but I do have a problem with Gay adoption. Why should kids be subjected to their lifestyle?
In fact maybe that should be the new Conservative mantra..we’re ok with gay marriage but a family needs both a mother and a father in order for a child to correctly develop, maybe some libs would fall in line with that argument also?
The best parts are…
A. We wouldn’t have confused kids becoming brainwashed adults that will invariable be liberals like their two moms or two dads..
B. The kids they don’t adopt will go to traditional homes that hopefully teach more values.
C. Gay couples will end up at the end without kids visiting and taking care of them and may question the decisions they made in life.
celt on February 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

But should a child go without any family rather than be adopted by a gay couple? There are more that need adopting than there are capable and willing families to adopt them. I think we need more capable people who will adopt. Being gay shouldn’t be any kind of disqualification for adoption. Maybe, with all else being equal, a heterosexual couple is preferable to gay couple. But things are never like that. Gay couples can be good parents like anyone else. Should be about what’s best for the children. If a child is adopted by a gay couple who provide loving home, then that is a positive thing.

bluegill on February 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

If you care about gay marriage you are either:

1) a Gay

2 a nosy busybody who wants to tell others how to live their life.

I’m cool w/ the 1s, y’all 2s can go take a long walk off a short pier.

rndmusrnm on February 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Or someone who sees what is happening in Massachusetts to the school systems and shudders to think it happening elsewhere. And shudders to think of the court cases making their rounds because of private people being sued because they aren’t being left alone.. Gays are the nosy busybodies getting into people’s lives not the other way around.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:40 PM

don’t have a problem with Gay Marriage…but I do have a problem with Gay adoption. Why should kids be subjected to their lifestyle?

celt on February 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

The important question is: “What does Dick Cheney think of gay adoption?”.

I suspect Dick is sick to death of people saying a child needs a mother and father to be raised properly.

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Yeah I mean come on; Mass has gotten ridiculous. They are talking about punishing kids because they feel uncomfortable about being in a restroom or lockerroom with someone who is the opposite geneder, and that the kid should accept that opposite gender kid undressing with them because they think they are the same gender as them. It is just getting scary out there.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM

…none of the leaders or mentors in that state have any ba11s…there may not BE a gender problem!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 8:41 PM

none of the leaders or mentors in that state have any ba11s…there may not BE a gender problem!

KOOLAID2 on February 20, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I agree… And I think in our endeaver to think about tolerating the rare kid that might be trangender; we are screwing all the rest of the children with this stuff.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Sorry, that’s still a load of bull.

Freedom is NOT where the government grants you its blessing for healthcare, gay marriage or food…

I’m not sure what twisted bizarro world this has become but it’s obviously infected Allah and Ace here…

“I’m not free because you won’t give me license to love the one I approve”.

Ok, really? Because that’s what you’re whining about. Marriage is not, has not and never will be about love, it’s about government control of procreation because (and bear with me here, because I know this is a radical concept) the sexual licentiousness to drive us to procreate leads to an unstable society and the break down of civilization… THAT’S why it was regulated and why you even see teh gehys wanting to enforce monogamy because it’s all so gosh darn emotionally unstable.

We are BECOMING A COMMUNIST COUNTRY complete with a political elite who will tell us what we can do and what we can think and all the trapping that come with it all in the name of making government give us more rights.

Congratulations Allah and Ace… you got your ObamaMarriage.

Skywise on February 20, 2013 at 8:33 PM

OMG THIS +1,000

THis, this, this, this.

When did the small government position become get the government more involved in a private relationship for no rational reason? All same sex marriage is is inviting the government INTO your bedroom which is ironic considering gays keep screaming to get out of their bedroom.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on February 20, 2013 at 8:47 PM

Speaking of Gay Marriage,…Hopey The King wants to….

The Associated Press ‏@AP

Obama considers asking the Supreme Court to overturn California’s gay marriage ban: http://apne.ws/155YEW9 -CC
=============================================

— Feb. 20 6:58 PM EST

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-considers-weighing-gay-marriage-case

canopfor on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

I bet something about gay marriage will be in “comprehensive immigration reform”.

Wigglesworth on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

If you’re really for equality you’d want government out of the mariage business altogether, but neither proponents or opponents of gay marriage actually care about equality, they just want to be the ones who decide which lifestyles are oficially approved and rewarded by nanny gubmint.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

By the logic of gay marriage proponents, the only reason Noah would take an animal of each sex on the boat was because he hated gays and next time would need to require a percentage of same sex pairs in order to be “tolerant”.

MechanicalBill on February 20, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Tax law might have a problem with that. Kill federal income tax, then we talk. :)

Archivarix on February 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Why would tax law be a problem? I’m sure these triangles and larger groups will happily file as individuals if it allows them to live in wedded bliss with the ones they love.

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I will, I am interested in what they can do that you don’t feel we can do there. Still a bit put off by Ace’s histrionics.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

In this country it is unlawful for a man to have more than one wife.

Is it also unlawful for a woman to have more than one husband.

Will it also be unlawful for ‘married’ men couples to have more than one spouse?

Ditto for the women, can a ‘married’ female couple have more than one spouse?

Inquiring minds want to know… :-)

Scrumpy on February 20, 2013 at 8:53 PM

but neither proponents or opponents of gay marriage actually care about equality…

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

They aren’t equal so why should we pretend they are?

Should incest be legal? Is that equal as well?

What about marrying nine-year olds like we find in Sharia law? Is that equal as well?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 8:54 PM

they just want to be the ones who decide which lifestyles are oficially approved and rewarded by nanny gubmint.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 8:48 P

You don’t have a society if you don’t have standards. Surely there are enough of you guys to form your own standard-less society somewhere. We’ll watch and see how that goes.

Buddahpundit on February 20, 2013 at 8:56 PM

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Try reading my entire comment.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

I will, I am interested in what they can do that you don’t feel we can do there. Still a bit put off by Ace’s histrionics.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

I frankly didn’t understand the whole screed about gay marriage from Ace. First off, I am a social con, but my position is the same as the Democratic President- let the states vote on it. And secondly, I don’t remember it being a deal breaker in our primaries.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 9:00 PM

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Yikes!

Maybe Scott Brown saw the writing on the wall not only from his election loss to a fake Indian. But sees his state going down(or up?) the crapper and decided to jump ship.

b1jetmech on February 20, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Are sex change operations for kids covered under Romneycare?

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Try reading my entire comment.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

I did. They aren’t equal. I don’t want equality between them. You want to run away from any moral judgments so you pass it off to the private sector. Well what about divorce, children, child support, incest, nine-year old brides?

You can’t run away from it.

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

So people are sick of me thinking two guys having sex is weird? This is based on the idea that in very limited cases some people’s genes are telling them same sex is an option. Well, my genes, based on, like, the entire scope of human evolution, are telling me it’s weird. So stop discriminating my genes!

Yeesh.

Dongemaharu on February 20, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Did eff’ng Dick get a gay heart?

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Nah, its just the mental contortions he has had to make to convince himself that he didn’t make his daughter gay. “She was born that way” is just a lazy way out.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Can’t we just go back about a decade or so to when “gay marriage” would get you ridiculed and ostracized from the “gay rights movement”? Remember that? Oh how issues magically flip in a short time. They didn’t need or want marriage back then.

Btw, what is the definition of “marriage”? what does it entail? The arguments used seem to allow for anything and everything, like 3 guys marrying 5 women in any/multiple combinations because you know “they love each other”. The bigger issue in my mind becomes: What comes after this is accomplished? There is always more of everything; hasn’t everyone learned this yet.

Also I’d like to know the cause of “attraction”. Is it genetic, conditioned, triggered from an event, chemical, simply being aroused at a time of seeing something and that becomes a snapshot and what one becomes, for lack of a better term, imprinted with? Maybe it’s one of nature’s check on population. I find it amusing people advocate changing an historical societal union on a whim, without understanding why. My biggest issue, if government is involved, is what is the need. What is the purpose of marriage; it’s not just love. There is no substantive difference between wedded and not besides rings and a ceremony. There are purposeful implications.

I’ve just never really gotten good answers on why this is a crusade. Is it just benefits? Envy; we want what you have too just cause? But again, my biggest issue beside way too much government involvement (divorce, alimony, tax code), is what will be the next big push for activists.

John Kettlewell on February 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Are sex change operations for kids covered under Romneycare?

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 9:02 PM

With the way they are heading- may be only a matter of time..

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I did. They aren’t equal.

Then thanks for proving my point.

Well what about divorce, children, child support

What about them? If marriage is removed from the control of government decisions about divorce, custody and child support will be decided just like they are now.

incest, nine-year old brides?

Couldn’t tell you what laws regarding incest are but pedophilia is already illegal.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Sorry, that’s still a load of bull.

Freedom is NOT where the government grants you its blessing for healthcare, gay marriage or food…

I’m not sure what twisted bizarro world this has become but it’s obviously infected Allah and Ace here…

“I’m not free because you won’t give me license to love the one I approve”.

Ok, really? Because that’s what you’re whining about. Marriage is not, has not and never will be about love, it’s about government control of procreation because (and bear with me here, because I know this is a radical concept) the sexual licentiousness to drive us to procreate leads to an unstable society and the break down of civilization… THAT’S why it was regulated and why you even see teh gehys wanting to enforce monogamy because it’s all so gosh darn emotionally unstable.

We are BECOMING A COMMUNIST COUNTRY complete with a political elite who will tell us what we can do and what we can think and all the trapping that come with it all in the name of making government give us more rights.

Congratulations Allah and Ace… you got your ObamaMarriage.

Skywise on February 20, 2013 at 8:33 PM

OMG THIS +1,000

THis, this, this, this.

When did the small government position become get the government more involved in a private relationship for no rational reason? All same sex marriage is is inviting the government INTO your bedroom which is ironic considering gays keep screaming to get out of their bedroom.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Freedom is also not when the government can coerce religions into endorsing this Gay agenda.

This is part of a sustained attack on constitutional protections of Religious Liberty…Gay Marriage is one wedge issue of many used as a tactical device to undermine the constitution.

In Canada and other socialized secular countries pastors are thrown in jail for preaching their liturgy.

The Fascist State Religion being created in the United States will not be tolerant of opposition…

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

John Kettlewell on February 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Humans have a built in desire for sexual gratification, but like all other activities, actually accomplishing that gratification requires one to develop the skill to do it. The various things we call “attraction” are nothing more than the habits and mnemonics that each individual leans on to practice that skill. The only difference between “homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” is what fetishes one has developed. That’s why promoting homosexual behavior is so dangerous — the more it is accepted, the more people will learn it, and, worse, the more people that will learn unproductive heterosexual habits. All together, it acts to weaken existing and future family structures, harming the upbringing of children and society as a whole.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:13 PM

Couldn’t tell you what laws regarding incest are but pedophilia is already illegal.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM

So was homosexual sex, once.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM

And to think, we’re ripping each other apart on this issue while the Progs are working diligently to take away our firearms

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 9:00 PM

I’ll admit to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer but I view it as a non sequitur. I guess there must be someone who believes that’s why Romney lost. It seemed okay when Obama thought it was wrong. I bet gays even voted for him. With all that is going on, I find it hard to believe this makes it into the top ten.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 9:16 PM

What about them? If marriage is removed from the control of government decisions about divorce, custody and child support will be decided just like they are now.

How will anyone decide 2 guys and 3 girls married and who gets the children?

incest, nine-year old brides?

Couldn’t tell you what laws regarding incest are but pedophilia is already illegal.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:11 PM

And the laws are that gay marriage is illegal.

You want that changed and the Muslims want the right to express their religious freedom and marry a nine-year old.

You said you wanted the government out of the marriage business then clearly nine-year old brides are acceptable. Surely you aren’t saying that they aren’t equal?

sharrukin on February 20, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I’m more in line with the thinking of Jeff B in Ace’s thread.

Which is to say, enough with the social conservatives. At this point, a strong argument can be made that they’re just doing more harm than good.

Whether you like it or not, there are certain subjects where conservatives have LOST the “culture war.” Gay marriage is one of them. Even if you don’t get same-sex marriage within the next couple years, it will become a reality within the next generation, as the youth of America, for the most part, doesn’t have any issues with the concept.

Vyce on February 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Homosexual attraction may or may not be genetic (and thus unavoidable). Actual homosexual conduct is avoidable. Its harmful public health consequences are well-documented. Open homosexual conduct’s corrosion of a society founded on the nuclear heterosexual family is also well-documented.

Further, government has a rational basis for encouraging childbirth, as maintaining the population of contributing members of society allows that society to continue (duh). Since it’s well-documented that children raised by married monogamous heterosexuals turn out better/healthier/more productive/more peaceable than children raised in other environments, government has a rational basis for encouraging monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whateversexuals will put their naughty bits where they want to. Government can’t stamp that out, nor should it try (there are too many more important tasks for it to accomplish, tasks which it currently neglects). But at a minimum, government should refrain from subsidizing, celebrating, or normalizing such socially corrosive conduct.

If you choose to warp this argument into “teh creepy Jesus peoplez want to round up teh gayz!!!1!” … well, I can’t stop you. I can sure as hell ridicule your intellectual foolishness, though.

The American electorate appears determined to join the Free Shit Army™ while preening in the mirror over its collective refusal to recognize corrosive conduct for what it is. So be it. Spendthrifts will eventually run out of money, and libertines will eventually reap the whirlwind of chaos. We social conservatives will be here to rebuild once reality’s finished pimp-slapping some basic sense back into y’all.

Let it burn.

OhioCoastie on February 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Did eff’ng Dick get a gay heart?

Mr. Arrogant on February 20, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Nah, its just the mental contortions he has had to make to convince himself that he didn’t make his daughter gay. “She was born that way” is just a lazy way out.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Just because he bought into the sentimental…doesn’t mean any other rational person has to.

And that’s all it is…a sentimental fascist justification for imploding society by denegrating traditional marriage and families as well as marginalizing/silencing the traditional institutions that support these traditional families in order to appease a tiny minority in the larger grievance minorities.

Maybe after this we can abolish property laws so Occupy squatters can seize property because it’s unfair that folks own property?

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM

AP, I would like to know how you feel about the forced endorsement of gays by churches or even private businesses.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM

And to think, we’re ripping each other apart on this issue while the Progs are working diligently to take away our firearms

catmman on February 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM

I dunno about you, I can multi task.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM

If you care about gay marriage you are either:

1) a Gay

2 a nosy busybody who wants to tell others how to live their life.

I’m cool w/ the 1s, y’all 2s can go take a long walk off a short pier.

rndmusrnm on February 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

3) have seen firsthand how gay lifestyles destroy lives, an understand that promoting them bring missery.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM

I forgot to add, how about asking the gays in France that recently protested against marriage and adoption; since the heavy-lean libertarians seem to not understand nuances.

John Kettlewell on February 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Vyce on February 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Then why not let it evolve? You just want to get rid of social conservatives. Are you sure you won’t ever need them? I think you are letting this one issue override logic.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 9:23 PM

I’m more in line with the thinking of Jeff B in Ace’s thread.

Which is to say, enough with the social conservatives. At this point, a strong argument can be made that they’re just doing more harm than good.

Whether you like it or not, there are certain subjects where conservatives have LOST the “culture war.” Gay marriage is one of them. Even if you don’t get same-sex marriage within the next couple years, it will become a reality within the next generation, as the youth of America, for the most part, doesn’t have any issues with the concept.

Vyce on February 20, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Yes because gheys are so much more of a reliable GOP voting base.

melle1228 on February 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM

With the debt out of control, job creation being stomped on by the admin, and our 2A rights being destroyed in several states, I don’t give a flying flipping f*** about what adults are doing with their genitals. And I’m not alone on that.

juliesa on February 20, 2013 at 9:26 PM

It’s impossible to order religious organizations of any description or creed to recognize and/or condone gay marriage without infringing their right to freedom of religion.

If a particular religion, religious group, finds they cannot condone gay marriage, as a matter of tenet or conscience, and they refuse to perform those ceremonies, that has to be respected.

Freedom of religion is one of the basic founding principles of this nation. It is one of our most revered underpinnings and, I might add, one of the reasons that we are a successful nation. Here, religions from all over the world manage to coexist.

As for those religions who could and would embrace gay marriage, fine, but no religion, no religious group, should be forced to comply. When we consider that the legal part of marriage is essentially a civil union, and that the marriage ceremony itself is in the purview of a religious organization, compliance may be ordered by the federal government as far as the civil union is concerned, but the marriage ceremony cannot be, and should not be by its nature, coerced.

thatsafactjack on February 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

RINOs have completely destroyed this Party.

Rove had the House Senate and Presidency he pissed them all away while wasting over a billion in donations to the GOP.

I no longer believe in this Evil Evil Party.

These people have turned all good into evil and all evil into good.

Gay Marriage is straight out of Hell. It will destroy any Country that adopts it. They should be executed for their sin not allowed marriage for their evil.

I do not apologise to those that disagree with me either. Gay is evil pure evil and gays will burn in hell. It is ever bit as bad as murder or rape.

By the same token I will support the law but we really need to start making laws more in accordance with GOD’s law. If we do not we are doomed.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

rndmusrnm on February 20, 2013 at 8:37 PM

I long for the days of someone’s sexual preference being none of my concern. Good thing I don’t own a bakery, take photographs or own banquet property since those people’s right to associate seem to be under attack.

Cindy Munford on February 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

How will anyone decide 2 guys and 3 girls married and who gets the children?

The same way they do now. Government having laws about what happens when a contract is broken doesn’t give government the right to decide who people can enter into a contract with.

You said you wanted the government out of the marriage business then clearly nine-year old brides are acceptable. Surely you aren’t saying that they aren’t equal?

Equality would be treating all pedophiles the same with no exemptions for religion.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:28 PM

I dunno about you, I can multi task.

astonerii on February 20, 2013 at 9:20 PM

You must not be in Congress.

john1schn on February 20, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I think a lot of people are in this party because it provides an intellectual and therefore socially acceptable basis for Judging and Scolding.

Thanks for the straw man Ace. A lot? Name me one person in the GOP proposing a law which does anything but maintain the historical status quo? Unless of course you mean the entire country has been Judging and Scolding gays for 200+ years by not recognizing their unions legally and calling them marriage.

The party of Judging and Scolding are the Democrats. How many laws about restrictions regarding smoking, eating, etc. have Republicans proposed?

I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

You think that’s weird? Good for you. Why is your idea that it is weird any more valid that their idea that homosexuality is weird?
After all, their idea has been around a heck of a lot longer than our idea has.

Rocks on February 20, 2013 at 9:29 PM

I forgot to add, how about asking the gays in France that recently protested against marriage and adoption; since the heavy-lean libertarians seem to not understand nuances.

John Kettlewell on February 20, 2013 at 9:22 PM

True.

They protested under the idea that this is an injustice for children not to have both a mother and father.

It is an injustice to the unborn and is another form of forcing secularist statism as a national enforcement tool to undermine religious freedom.

It is Fascism.

workingclass artist on February 20, 2013 at 9:30 PM

It is ever bit as bad as murder or rape.

Steveangell on February 20, 2013 at 9:27 PMSteveangell on February 20, 2013 at 9:27 PM

That is literally insane.

juliesa on February 20, 2013 at 9:30 PM

So was homosexual sex, once.

Count to 10 on February 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Essentially still is in some states with sodomy laws, pretty ridiculous considering there’s probably as much or more hetero sodomy going on every day.

clearbluesky on February 20, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4