Jon Huntsman: Second look at making gay marriage a conservative cause?

posted at 10:41 am on February 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

Huntsman endorsing gay marriage is like Karl Rove’s new group endorsing a candidate in a GOP primary. Given the suspicion and disdain with which most grassroots conservatives regard them, it’s practically an anti-endorsement. It’s like a neon sign flashing “HERE THERE BE RINOS.”

I do agree with him on the merits about legalizing SSM but I don’t see how you hold the conservative coalition, or what’s left of it, together if the GOP leadership (or what’s left of it) were suddenly to support this view.

[I]t’s difficult to get people even to consider your reform ideas if they think, with good reason, you don’t like or respect them. Building a winning coalition to tackle the looming fiscal and trust deficits will be impossible if we continue to alienate broad segments of the population. We must be happy warriors who refuse to tolerate those who want Hispanic votes but not Hispanic neighbors. We should applaud states that lead on reforming drug policy. And, consistent with the Republican Party’s origins, we must demand equality under the law for all Americans…

[C]onservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love…

This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests…

We are at a crossroads. I believe the American people will vote for free markets under equal rules of the game—because there is no opportunity or job growth any other way. But the American people will not hear us out if we stand against their friends, family, and individual liberty.

Two things here. One: You’ll note that the word “Constitution” is never mentioned. That’s wise. One of the surest ways to stoke populist rage at ruling-class imperiousness would be to summarily impose gay marriage on red states via judicial fiat. If you want to build grudging respect for the legitimacy of SSM among opponents, democracy and federalism are the way to go. I think that’s what Huntsman’s advocating here, which puts him squarely in line with Obama — but maybe only for another week.

Two: I’ve heard the argument a lot lately in the immigration context that GOP policies can’t and won’t get a fair hearing from an alienated demographic until they move towards the center on a key issue. We need a path to citizenship ASAP not because that’ll instantly win us 50 percent of the Latino vote but because it’ll thaw Republican relations with Latinos and leave them more apt to consider conservative ideas on things like spending. Here’s Huntsman making that argument not only on immigration but on gay marriage — and drug policy. In which case, a question: How much of the current Democratic social agenda should the GOP adopt in order to earn a fair hearing with otherwise reliably Democratic constituencies? Shouldn’t we think about moderating on abortion too to gain a “fair hearing” from younger single women? He’s basically nudging conservatives to go full libertarian in the interest of advancing their fiscal program, which would work great if not for the fact that there are lots and lots and lots and lots of conservatives who aren’t libertarian and will surely only stand for so much deviation from their social beliefs. There may be more room to maneuver here in a few years — polls show that young evangelicals are more open to gay marriage than their elders — but in the meantime, how do you get Republicans elected if social cons see the party drifting away?

Via Dave Weigel, here’s the man himself two years ago in presidential-candidate mode. Interesting how electoral realities weighed more heavily on him then than they do now that he’s Mr. No Labels.

Update: An interesting take from Rod Dreher (and one of his commenters) on why the generational divide on gay marriage is so pronounced. Quote: “You’re trying to conserve something that existed in your lifetime and has since been destroyed. For a young person, there’s nothing to conserve.”


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

I am of the “get the government out of marriage” camp myself, and let religions handle marriages, and protect their right to do so.

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM

So get the government out of divorces and custody battles too…cause Sharia courts are adept at those cases?

workingclass artist on February 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Governments that are not totalitarian have a huge stake in protecting marriage.

The Marriage and Religion Research Institute released statistics the other week on the benefits of an intact married family in which children grow up with both birth parents. From Influence on Public Policy Metrics:

Benefits of family intactness compared with benefits of education

Public policy assumes, and needs no persuasion, that education attainment is a good to be promoted. The same assumption does not hold for family intactness. However:

-Family intactness always has a beneficial influence on the outcomes measured.

-Family intactness is roughly as important as high school education and more important than college education in influencing outcomes of public policy interest.

Influence of family intactness on need & dependency

-Family intactness is the most important factor (or shares the place of greatest importance) in determining an area’s dependence on welfare programs that target organic poverty:
— Receipt of food stamps,
— Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and state welfare transfers,
— Supplemental Security Income transfers, and
— Prime-age adult public healthcare recipiency.

-Family intactness has the second-largest influence on overall diminishment of prime-age female, and child, poverty.

-Family intactness has the strongest attenuating influence on teenage out-of-wedlock birth, itself a source of economic hardship.

Now considering that family intactness is as beneficial as education, if not more so, in influencing outcomes of public policy interest, don’t you think supporting and defending marriage and family structure should be a higher priority for government than, say, new educational spending and regulations?

And don’t you think discussing the importance of a mom and dad who love each other and are committed to each other in marriage should take center stage in a State of the Union message?

And don’t you think logical public policy would entail doing everything possible to support marriage and parents?

What better way to actually uphold that phrase in the Constitution’s Preamble—promote the general welfare?

INC on February 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM

All of the so-called conservatives who want to take the U.S. down this path are aiding and abetting the Left.

Why in the world do you think Obama is doing everything he can to destroy the family?

INC on February 22, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Two words I never thought I would see in one sentence Conservative and Huntsman. This is a weapons grade Oxymoron.

stormridercx4 on February 22, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Those are legitimate questions. Tone has nothing to do with it. How are you going to argue that pedophiles can’t marry when science is showing that pedophilia is at least partially biologically-based, and you insist that people be allowed to marry to whatever they are sexually attracted due to their biology?

Answer the questions. What you’ll immediately find is that it IS an all-or nothing proposition. The reason the power of the people, via the state to limit marriage is so important is exactly these points. It’s also why that power should not be arbitrarily abrogated.

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

BINGO! And try actually having this conversation with most SSM proponents and instead of having a rationalize conversation it becomes emotional irrational drivel that usually ends up you being a hater or a homophobe, because generally they can’t win on intellectual points only bias or emotionally led arguments.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 8:40 PM

So get the government out of divorces and custody battles too…cause Sharia courts are adept at those cases?

workingclass artist on February 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM

It is not only that. I hate that government is in marriage and love to spout off about how I want government out of marriage, but I have a working knowledge of the legal system. Nullification of marriage laws at this point would be staggering especially for those already married with children.

Men who are married are afforded rights to their children automatically because they are assumed the father of their children in a marriage. That would not be the case. And if the mother got pissed a them; there is no marriage so they would have to go to court like every single father to prove paternity etc. Our family courts systems would be an even bigger disaster than they are now.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Those are legitimate questions. Tone has nothing to do with it. How are you going to argue that pedophiles can’t marry when science is showing that pedophilia is at least partially biologically-based, and you insist that people be allowed to marry to whatever they are sexually attracted due to their biology?
Answer the questions. What you’ll immediately find is that it IS an all-or nothing proposition. The reason the power of the people, via the state to limit marriage is so important is exactly these points. It’s also why that power should not be arbitrarily abrogated.
northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Look, I favor a traditional definition of marriage, but your comment is really idiotic. The second you start bringing bestiality and pedophilia into the conversation, as so many of you often do, you have lost and look like idiots. There is a big difference between consenting adults and arrangements where one party is not able to grant consent. If bringing up sex with animals and pedophilia is the best you can do, you have lost.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 8:51 PM

I agree that a lot of opposition to the idea of “same-sex marriage” is based on ugly bigotry. Then the bigots work backwards from their prejudice to try to find ways of legitimizing their irrational anti-gay issues. Of course, not everyone favoring traditional marriage is a bigot. But the bigots, many of whom spout off on this very website in the comments, give traditional marriage proponents a bad name.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I am so through with this issue. Tired of it getting all this attention, and I really don’t think legalized same-sex marriage is going to have any kind of catastrophic effects. I can see where this is going. Same-sex marriage is going to be legalized everywhere eventually. What it be my vote, but I am ready to focus attention on other things.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 9:03 PM

*wouldnt be my vote, that is.

Anyone else feel almost indifferent about this?

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Look, I favor a traditional definition of marriage, but your comment is really idiotic. The second you start bringing bestiality and pedophilia into the conversation, as so many of you often do, you have lost and look like idiots. There is a big difference between consenting adults and arrangements where one party is not able to grant consent. If bringing up sex with animals and pedophilia is the best you can do, you have lost.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Spoken like someone who has not read the literature coming out of law reviews and the psych community. Just like in the 1970′s there is a huge movement who thinks that child/adult sex is not detrimental to the child. They want pedophilia taken off the DSM. And if it is not a mental condition then it becomes and orientation. If orientation are genetic like glbt say.. then so is pedophilia. Age of consent is just law. Law just like marriage law can be changed. How frickin naive are you people?

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I really don’t think legalized same-sex marriage is going to have any kind of catastrophic effects

You mean like 16 year old girls being forced to change in locker rooms with boys or they are punished?

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:06 PM

workingclass artist on February 22, 2013 at 8:14 PM

INC on February 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM

I thought my comment was pretty clear, but I will state it another way:

A marriage is a sacramental union administered by a religion.

Government performs Civil Union, a contract between two people.

I am OK with governments choosing to allow SSCU and providing said participants with equal legal protections.

Governments do not/should not authorize, promote or stand over Marriages.

Marriage does not equal Civil Union. Civil Union is not a marriage.

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 9:07 PM

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I don’t care if someone is born gay, chooses to be gay, is just kind of gay, only has gay relations on Thursdays, et cetera; If consenting adults want to engage in homosexual relations, then that is their business. It is very common and just another part of adult human sexuality. I do not see anything inherently wrong with it.

As for the pedophilia thing, I don’t see that as being related to homosexuality. That is an issue of abuse and age of consent, and it is totally separate.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 9:11 PM

don’t care if someone is born gay, chooses to be gay, is just kind of gay, only has gay relations on Thursdays, et cetera; If consenting adults want to engage in homosexual relations, then that is their business. It is very common and just another part of adult human sexuality. I do not see anything inherently wrong with it.

You are assuming I do..I could care less if the guy down the street is doing is dog or his sister..Doesn’t mean I want the state to license it.

As for the pedophilia thing, I don’t see that as being related to homosexuality. That is an issue of abuse and age of consent, and it is totally separate.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Age of consent is a LAW bluegill. Just like Same sex marriage is a law. If society has decided to change marriage law- what makes you think that eventually with enough pressure or normalization they won’t change the law on consent? 30 years ago if you would have told anyone on the street we would be arguing about gay marriage they would have told you you were crazy- never gonna ever happen.

melle1228 on February 22, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I favor a traditional definition of marriage because I think it is important for children to be raised by a mother and a father. That isn’t to say that children raised in other situations will not get loving upbringings. But I think all children deserve to have a mom and a dad. Changing the definition of marriage, I think, further dilutes the importance of what it means to be married. I don’t think a traditional definition of marriage oppresses homosexuals, the way many in the media suggest. I think the supposed harm from so-called “marriage inequality” is overblown, and the focus on it is used as a way to increase the power of certain groups and to silence opposition. It’s sad to me that this debate has become a symbolic one about whether one hates or doesn’t hate gays. Many opponents of same-sex marriage have made it too easy to paint traditional marriage supporters as ugly and hateful… because many routinely display hatefulness and ugliness! Yes, the hate is on both sides, make no mistake. Public opinion is changing. What can I say… I’m left feeling indifferent.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Marriage does not equal Civil Union. Civil Union is not a marriage.

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 9:07 PM

I disagree. Civil union is playing semantics. You’ll find the gay mafia viewing it as marriage second class.

It’s merely the camel’s nose under the tent.

INC on February 22, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Look, I favor a traditional definition of marriage, but your comment is really idiotic. The second you start bringing bestiality and pedophilia into the conversation, as so many of you often do, you have lost and look like idiots. There is a big difference between consenting adults and arrangements where one party is not able to grant consent. If bringing up sex with animals and pedophilia is the best you can do, you have lost.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 8:51 PM

LOL.

“Consent” is a legal construct, not a physical absolute.

You have made love and sexual attraction the primary determinants for whether or not one should be allowed to be married, and whined that any restriction whatsoever on either of those is a violation of “equal protection”.

Therefore you have no grounds whatsoever to oppose either bestiality or pedophilia. Furthermore, since sexual attraction to animals is probably biological and sexual attraction to children has been shown to have biological markers/causes, your actions are outright discrimination based on your own moral beliefs.

The fact that you find pedophilia and bestiality disgusting or a violation of your own moral code is irrelevant. You yourself have stated that finding something disgusting or that it violates your own moral code is only a bigot’s excuse.

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Anyone else feel almost indifferent about this?

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 9:04 PM

No.

That’s because bigot gay-sex marriage supporters want to use the power of government to force people and churches to do their bidding, and insist that religious liberty should be sued and legislated out of existence.

You think I should be forced to give up my religious beliefs, my right to express them, and my right to live them because you hate social conservatives.

And you then have the balls to pretend that my sexual orientation justifies your abusing it to do so.

You are not helping gay people. You are exploiting us to push your antireligious bigotry and hate, and in the process you are destroying our Constitutional rights and enabling fascist bigots like Chai Feldblum and Barack Obama.

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 9:44 PM

It’s merely the camel’s nose under the tent.

INC on February 22, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Maybe semantics to you, but not to me. I don’t believe people who get a “marriage license” issued by the government are married. Government is not my religion and I know of no government sacrament other than taxes. Sorry if my semantics causes trouble with those “married” by the government.

Ask a priest/pastor if a government marriage license is recognized by the church as a sacrament.

If the “gay mafia” (Is that a double slur?) has a problem with civil unions being second class, let them take it up with the Pope.

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 9:46 PM

I do not have the answers to your slippery slope scenarios other than to look back on how legal rights have evolved. At some point, you rectify what are generally perceived as injustices (Like voting rights), and then you will run up to scenarios that are beyond the pale when you start pushing to the outer edges of the spectrum.

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 7:06 PM

LOL.

Oh, I can tell you EXACTLY where this is going.

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

And here:

Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991: (Current Policy)

The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

And here:

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

· Single parent households

· Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents

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

· Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

So there’s your answer. The Obama Bigot Party intends to use gay marriage as a means to attack and destroy religious liberty and marriage, and they are actively publicizing the fact.

Why? Because they know you don’t have the balls to push back. All they have to do is to call you a bigot and a hater, and you fold like a cheap fan.

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 9:52 PM

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 9:37 PM

I see what you’re saying, but I think the evidence against pedophilia is overwhelming, and the evidence that homosexuality is bad is very weak. Seems that more harm is caused by punishing consenting adults for engaging in homosexual behavior.

In the past, maybe homosexuality was hidden and the practitioners imprisoned or castrated or whatever. That was wrong, obviously, and had to change. I think people need to accept the reality that gays are always going to be here and are not going to change.

People who argue that homosexuality is a dangerous dysfunction bear the burden of proving it, and I think so far they’re failing to do so. Saying “the Bible is against it” is not enough when you are trying to prevent society from accepting or even acknowledging, at times, the existence of homosexuality. When you start seeing the “gays are molesters” lines of argument, then you know we are in “Jews will eat your babies” territory.

I don’t think a particularly strong desire to get married is what is driving a lot of homosexuals to push this issue; I think it is a way to stick it to the people that they see as having treated them very badly for a long time. This whole thing is kind of screwed up.

However, I don’t see why any of this should prevent people from continuing to advocate for the importance of getting married before having children.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I see what you’re saying, but I think the evidence against pedophilia is overwhelming, and the evidence that homosexuality is bad is very weak.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Not really.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay
Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

But it gets much better.

ILGA’s current positions on man/boy love and pedophilia are
explicit:

– In 1985, ILGA adopted a position on “Age of Consent/Paedophilia/Children’s Rights” that urged member organizations to “lobby their governments to abolish the age of consent law” so long as there is “adequate protection for youth from being sexually abused without the age of consent law.”

– In 1986, ILGA adopted a position that says the group “supports
the right of young people to sexual and social self-determination.”

– In 1988, ILGA declared “this conference recognizes that existing
same-sex age-of-consent laws often operate to oppress and not to
protect; that in many countries, existing laws on sexual coercion
and rules of evidence also often operate to oppress and not to protect; that therefore member organizations are urged to consider
how best children, adolescents, and people of all ages can be
empowered and supported against both sexual coercion and sexual oppression and to work towards that end.”

– In 1990, ILGA “calls on all members to treat all sexual minorities with respect and to engage in constructive dialogue
with them. In another position adopted that year, ILGA declared
that it “supports the right of every individual, regardless of age, to explore and develop her or his sexuality.”

So there you have the International Lesbian and Gay Association stating OUTRIGHT that pedophilia is a natural part of homosexuality – which only got dropped when Jesse Helms made the fact publicly known, much to the shrieking chagrin of Pelosi and the Obama Party.

Meanwhile:

HIV prevalence stood at 10.5% among 1889 young men who have sex with men (MSM) studied by the CDC in 21 US cities — a rate twice higher than that among adults across sub-Saharan Africa.

And:

The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), presented at the 2010 National STD Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

In addition, the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.

Does this look like the actions of a community that encourages fidelity and responsibility in relationships?

The push for gay marriage is nothing more than a smokescreen for antireligious bigotry and a desperate attempt to dodge responsibility by a bunch of immature, stupid adults with the mentality of teenagers.

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 10:29 PM

“Get govt out of marriage” gibberish is just another mask worn by SOCIALISTS, who set up GOVT as having ALMIGHTY DOMINION over all, especially religion. Marriage is not within the dominion of the state (at any level) to abolish.

I’m appalled to know that many of you have not taken the time to really examine this issue outside of current politics. There are plenty of papal statements freely available to read online that address this topic, since it is a core tenet of Socialism. (It doesn’t matter if you’re Catholic because the dissertations given by the great men of the world over the past 100 or so years is a part of Western Civilization, our shared heritage.)

Socialists want to weaken society (e.g., attacking the family unit), coalesce power over the people, and then strip natural property rights. Their aim is the complete overthrow of the natural order, and if you support them even in this one thing, then you share in their culpability.

I know the lure to libertarian thought, but this is yet another trap, just like their anti-war stance, that is opposed to truth and justice and is rotten to the core. Avoid it at your and your countrymen’s peril. “Gay marriage” is not a state issue, or even a federal issue; it is a natural right that belongs to one man & one woman only. To violate that natural right is EVIL as well as unAmerican.

TXJenny on February 22, 2013 at 10:43 PM

That should have read:

Marriage is not a state issue, or even a federal issue…etc.

“Gay marriage” cannot be instituted by govt, which has no dominion to change the natural order and destroy the family unit.

TXJenny on February 22, 2013 at 10:45 PM

I don’t care about gay marriage and it is just another trivial issue discussed when much greater things are at stake.

I wonder how many gays out there actually want to get married anyway.

Sherman1864 on February 22, 2013 at 11:20 PM

Rather than throwing yourself in with the morally revolting bigotry against gays, it would make sense to pursue tort reform.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Calling it bigotry doesn’t make it bigotry, just like calling it a marriage doesn’t make it one.

There are rational reasons to oppose same sex marriage, and the reasons to favor it are almost entirely irrational. You’re not fooling anyone with the ad hominem tactic of labeling all opponents of same sex marriage “bigots.”

tom on February 22, 2013 at 11:54 PM

I agree that a lot of opposition to the idea of “same-sex marriage” is based on ugly bigotry. Then the bigots work backwards from their prejudice to try to find ways of legitimizing their irrational anti-gay issues. Of course, not everyone favoring traditional marriage is a bigot. But the bigots, many of whom spout off on this very website in the comments, give traditional marriage proponents a bad name.

bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Speaking of worthless ad hominem

The essence of “political correctness” is this attempt to get people worried that someone might think they’re bigots if they don’t have the politically approved opinions.

tom on February 22, 2013 at 11:57 PM

northdallasthirty on February 22, 2013 at 9:37 PM

Touche’

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 12:07 AM

It’s merely the camel’s nose under the tent.

INC on February 22, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Maybe semantics to you, but not to me. I don’t believe people who get a “marriage license” issued by the government are married. Government is not my religion and I know of no government sacrament other than taxes. Sorry if my semantics causes trouble with those “married” by the government.

Ask a priest/pastor if a government marriage license is recognized by the church as a sacrament.

If the “gay mafia” (Is that a double slur?) has a problem with civil unions being second class, let them take it up with the Pope.

can_con on February 22, 2013 at 9:46 PM

But therein lies the problem…

The Obama administration has taken upon themselves the task of redefining religious practice and constitutional protections of those practices.

Il’ Duce Obama assumes a “Contemporary Liberal European” attitude toward constitutional protections as these apply towards states rights…religious liberty…and a host of other issues.

He and his ilk are doing everything they can to dismantle the constitution and are using congressional legislation,the courts as well as regulatory over reach using departments in the Executive.

They have two main objectives

Attack the economies of Red States (regional strategy)

Attack large institutions of organizational opposition to a Fascism/Socialist Puscht…mainly churches.

The largest single denominational organizational religious institution is mainly Roman Catholic, with a large charity hospital network,parochial schools & colleges and Catholic Charities.

They are attacking using legal suits, union suits and legislation at the federal and local level to bankrupt the parishes.

Gay Marriage is one of the mechanisms, a wedge issue used in this Puscht.

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 12:23 AM

In the past, maybe homosexuality was hidden and the practitioners imprisoned or castrated or whatever. That was wrong, obviously, and had to change. I think people need to accept the reality that gays are always going to be here and are not going to change…
bluegill on February 22, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Acceptance of Homosexuality in terms of the larger culture is not the issue as that achievement has largely been attained.

Most Americans would have been content to leave it at that using the american tendency to expect social discretion and allow for privacy of individuals.

When Gay activists were surprised by the increasing acceptance of the compromise of civil unions is when the real agenda emerged which was to deconstruct traditional marriage,family and attack the established religions.

These activists write multiple treatise on the Sexuality of Jesus, claiming Jesus as a Homosexual to confuse the young and offend the religious.

These activists attack traditional families as oppressors and seek to silence medical professionals who disagree with their pet theories.

These activists engage in economic and social blackmail of businesses and outspoken opponents.

These activists combine political and monetary power to undermine the constitution as much as modern day Unions do when they engage in ruthless tactics to combat right to work legislation.

They are Statists and use the Machiavellian tactics of Statists.

Classic mechanisms of Fascism.

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 12:44 AM

Not all homosexuals are activists. I know quite a few who just want to raise families and live civil, peaceful lives.

We can allow for marriage equality and keep the ridiculous demands of the radicals at bay. Just like we racially integrated and didn’t kowtow to the Black Panthers’ wish list.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM

There are rational reasons to oppose same sex marriage, and the reasons to favor it are almost entirely irrational. You’re not fooling anyone with the ad hominem tactic of labeling all opponents of same sex marriage “bigots.”

tom on February 22, 2013 at 11:54 PM

I fail to see the rationality of the anti-SSM arguments.

“It’ll destroy our society”? That’s vague.

“It’ll make a mockery of marriage”? Straight people have been doing that to marriage already. For a long time.

“Same sex couples cannot procreate”? There’s ways around that, just like for infertile man-woman couples.

And there’s nothing irrational about supporting something that truly reflects the supposed Republican value of “individual liberty”.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM

That’s because bigot gay-sex marriage supporters want to use the power of government to force people and churches to do their bidding, and insist that religious liberty should be sued and legislated out of existence.

You think I should be forced to give up my religious beliefs, my right to express them, and my right to live them because you hate social conservatives.

And I would tell those people: You don’t like our churches, start your own. Just like you tell us, you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. The First Amendment can’t be selectively enforced.

There’s quite a few religious denominations that welcome gays and even perform same-sex marriages. They’re even in Texas… Cathedral of Hope, anyone?

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM

“WaPo Ombudsman: Yep, Bigots, We’re Pro-Gay Marriage…

Well, I guess if you can redefine the definition of marriage, you can also redefine the definition of “objective newspaper.” This hilariously obtuse piece of reasoning comes from the Washington Post’s soon-to-be “inefficiencied” ombudsman, Patrick Pexton, and a Post reporter, who, for some odd reason, doesn’t wish to be named.

This so-called reporter, Pexton, and a reader entered into a three-way email debate over the issue of how the Post reports on the issue of same-sex marriage. The reader, a social conservative, is tired of seeing his beliefs described (in an “objective” newspaper, mind you) as bigoted and hateful. He is also of the opinion that the religious side of the debate deserves to be taken as seriously as the side in favor of same-sex marriage.

Here’s the reporter’s reply:

As for accuracy, should the media make room for racists, i.e. those people who believe that black people shouldn’t marry white people? Any story on African-Americans wouldn’t be wholly accurate without the opinion of a racist, right?

Yes, that’s right, a Post is reporter comparing those of us opposed to same-sex marriage to racists.

Nice.

Worse, though, is the Post ombudsman defending his reporter with shockingly stupid reasoning:

Alongside that do-gooder instinct is a strong desire for fairness because, being out in the world, reporters encounter a great deal of unfairness. We want to expose that and even rub your noses in it. In a way, we’re shouting, through our stories: “This is unfair! Somebody do something!” Conservative and liberal journalists alike feel this way.

First off, to compare same-sex marriage to the Civil Rights Movement is profane. No one is attempting to stop gays from marrying. All we’re saying is that in order to get married, gays and straights alike, must follow the same rules everyone else does: You can only marry one person of the opposite sex to whom you are not related. Those rules exclude no one.

What’s next? We redefine the definition of driving in a way that allows toddlers to do it? We redefine the definition of “ombudsmen” so any marginally intelligent, out of touch leftist with an ax to grind against conservatives can do– oh, wait.

Nothing, though, is funnier than this part of Pexton’s excusing of his reporter, “because, being out in the world, reporters encounter a great deal of unfairness.”

And what part of the world is that exactly?

The most provincial, narrow-minded, bubbled population in the country resides in the media corridor of New York, DC, and Los Angeles.

How much time has this reporter or ombudsman spent in a part of a Dakota or Carolina that didn’t have an Applebee’s or a campaign event going on? How many Southern Christian churches, Boy Scout meetings, and gun shows have the Post’s penny loafered do-gooders attended — not as reporters but as Americans? How many hunting trips have these do-gooders gone on? How many of these justice-seekers have worked on a farm, a construction site, or tended bar in a one stoplight town?

These cloistered bigots know nothing of faith or what 98% of America is all about. All they know is caving to left-wing peer pressure and the hurling of words like “racist” and “justice” in order to feel superior.

This whole push to redefine marriage isn’t about “justice,” it’s about crafting a weapon in the ongoing culture war against the right, and the end game is the Christian Church. As we’ve already seen this year, when it comes to sexuality, preaching what the Bible says is now de facto bigotry; which means the Bible itself (the most civilizing force for justice in the history of mankind) is being declared bigoted.

With his birth control/abortion pill mandate, Obama’s already put the camel nose of destruction into the tent of the Christian Church. Within five years, churches that refuse to allow same-sex marriages to be performed on their premises will be vilified in the media and threatened in unimagined ways by our government.

There are many ways to ensure devoted same-sex couples enjoy the same legal rights as married couples without obliterating the sacrament of marriage and opening a Pandora’s box that can only lead to the Church’s destruction. As someone who immediately supported the idea of civil unions the moment they were proposed some twenty years ago, I am all in favor of this.

But I know a left-wing weapon when I see one, and that’s exactly what this push for same-sex marriage is.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/23/WaPo-Ombudsman-Yep-Bigots-Were-Pro-Gay-Marriage?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigJournalism+%28Big+Journalism%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Kudos to John Nolte at Big Journalism.

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM

And I would tell those people: You don’t like our churches, start your own. Just like you tell us, you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. The First Amendment can’t be selectively enforced.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM

No, you won’t.

Because you haven’t called these people bigots.

And you haven’t called these people bigots.

This is the Obama Party. This is the gay-sex marriage movement. They are disgusting, repulsive bigots who deliberately abuse governmental power to punish those with beliefs they don’t like.

And you squeal and cry and demand we capitulate to them.

I fail to see the rationality of the anti-SSM arguments…..

And there’s nothing irrational about supporting something that truly reflects the supposed Republican value of “individual liberty”.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM

As I have pointed out, this has nothing to do with “individual liberty”. Indeed, gay-sex marriage supporters like you openly OPPOSE individual liberties in speech and religious belief, and demand that the government punish those who speak and believe with what you disagree.

northdallasthirty on February 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I fail to see the rationality of the anti-SSM arguments.

“It’ll destroy our society”? That’s vague.

“It’ll make a mockery of marriage”? Straight people have been doing that to marriage already. For a long time.

“Same sex couples cannot procreate”? There’s ways around that, just like for infertile man-woman couples.

And there’s nothing irrational about supporting something that truly reflects the supposed Republican value of “individual liberty”.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 9:52 AM

If you redefine marriage on the basis of sexuality not gender, you have to be willing to accept all kinds of sexualities. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, why shouldn’t bisexuals be allowed one of each? Is homosexuality greater than bisexuality? Should homosexuals be granted more benefits than bisexuals? What about bisexuals’ individual liberty? Don’t you care about them? Bigot.

The thing about marriage is that it is defined by gender: man and woman. Everybody is born to a gender so there is no discrimination. The nanosecond you change that to sexuality you are inherently discriminating against some group.

monalisa on February 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Not all homosexuals are activists. I know quite a few who just want to raise families and live civil, peaceful lives.

We can allow for marriage equality and keep the ridiculous demands of the radicals at bay. Just like we racially integrated and didn’t kowtow to the Black Panthers’ wish list.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM

All the homosexuals I know that are “raising families” left their heterosexual spouses to become homosexuals. I don’t think the women who bore those children are all in for marriage equality.

monalisa on February 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

If you redefine marriage on the basis of sexuality not gender, you have to be willing to accept all kinds of sexualities. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, why shouldn’t bisexuals be allowed one of each? Is homosexuality greater than bisexuality? Should homosexuals be granted more benefits than bisexuals? What about bisexuals’ individual liberty? Don’t you care about them? Bigot.

The thing about marriage is that it is defined by gender: man and woman. Everybody is born to a gender so there is no discrimination. The nanosecond you change that to sexuality you are inherently discriminating against some group.

monalisa on February 23, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Agreed.

Unfortunately gender isn’t based on nature anymore in the legal world…Now Gender is based on interpretation of the prevailing cultural libertines who are trying to dismantle natural law in order to prop up questionable social engineering policies.

If the public continues to balk at the new policies…why these folks will push to eliminate gender distinction altogether…very statist.

Scientism in Service to the State…Is what’s for breakfast

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Not all homosexuals are activists. I know quite a few who just want to raise families and live civil, peaceful lives.

We can allow for marriage equality and keep the ridiculous demands of the radicals at bay. Just like we racially integrated and didn’t kowtow to the Black Panthers’ wish list.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM

No we frickin can’t. Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004. Less than nine years later, their school system has implemented a system that kids will be punished if they refuse to change in front of opposite gender children because those children “feel” they are the same gender as them. Ugh– the world has turned upside down and there is no stopping it in the name of tolerance, because it was never about tolerance. It was about government controlling people via thought and other means. You people need to grow up and open your eyes.

melle1228 on February 23, 2013 at 1:53 PM

All the homosexuals I know that are “raising families” left their heterosexual spouses to become homosexuals. I don’t think the women who bore those children are all in for marriage equality.

monalisa on February 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Yeah…The press doesn’t like to dwell on that aspect do they?

Can’t really blame that trend on a cultural fear of coming out either…not after 30+ years.

So the liberal Gay activists introduce the concept of a fluid sexuality to justify the behaviorial trend of family abandonment…until conservatives use this scientific idea to treat homosexuals who aren’t happy and want to be happy heterosexuals who marry and procreate…

Remember Pray away the Gay?

Then the liberal activists pushing the scientific theory of fluid sexuality flip again and persecute medical professionals and moralists (pastoral counseling) insisting on legislation to prevent this practice of “Praying away the Gay”

Where have we seen this before…

workingclass artist on February 23, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Just as long as we’re not forcing churches to marry gay and lesbian couples and churches can still receive government grants, I quite frankly can’t think of any reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

There’s no evidence out there that says gay people can’t raise children. There’s no law which states a married couple must raise children or procreate.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I know that plural marriage advocates may start clamoring for their rights… but since it’s only consenting adults getting involved, that’s where the slope gains perfectly sound traction. There’s a lot of people that have no opposition to same-sex marriage, but think man-boy, woman-cat or man-microwave oven marriage is ridiculous. As long as our contract laws and age-of-consent laws are sound, there’s nothing to worry about.

As for the schools, the school boards and education execs are just gonna have to grow a set and stand up to these fringe groups and teacher unions, not to mention us parents are all gonna have to get more involved to make sure school rules don’t get too ridiculous.

TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Frank T.J Mackey on February 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM
TMOverbeck on February 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM

You two don’t get it and frankly it has been spelled out for you ad nauseum for you which means you choose to not get it. Your choice to be a bunch of ostriches. ‘

TM the ridiculous is ALREADY HERE. It isn’t a frickin school board. The WHOLE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUED a program for transexual childen. I have explained it several times where children will be punished if they don’t change with opposite gender children in a locker room. PUNISHED BECAUSE THEY AREN’T BEING TOLERANT OF THE TRANSGENDER KIDS FEELINGS. It has already been passed into law under the GLBT anti-discrimination laws which were passed as a result of gay marriage. A court had already told a parent he could not opt out of his six year old learning about gay marriage in school.

There are many instances of religious people and businesses being sued by GLBT people because of gay marriage. Like I said, though keep your head in the hole.

melle1228 on February 23, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Students Who Refuse to Affirm Transgender Classmates Face Punishment

Feb 20, 2013

By Todd Starnes

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.

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.”

Todd is the author of Dispatches From Bitter America – endorsed by Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Click here to get your copy!

“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.

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 23, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Jon Huntsman was the Republican’s best chance at defeating President Obama. And the Obama team understood that.

But nooooooo! You yobbos had to have your Mitt Romney.

Well, Huntsman has figured out what blockhead Republican reactionaries simply can’t fathom. The nation has changed and SSM will soon be the nationwide reality.

But please, don’t listen to me. Remain the obstinately narrow-minded jerkwads you are, and always will be.

Wrong side of history? Yeah, that’s Republican territory.

chumpThreads on February 23, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Jon Huntsman was the Republican’s best chance at defeating President Obama. And the Obama team understood that.

But nooooooo! You yobbos had to have your Mitt Romney.

chumpThreads on February 23, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Yup.

Because no one is stupid enough to believe that mindless Obama bigots like yourself would ever have voted for a Republican anyway.

We know you’re an insane bigot, chumpThreads. And you would have accused Huntsman of murder and cheating on his taxes, just like you did Romney.

Perhaps if you and your insane Obama cult want credibility in picking Republican candidates, you should actually tell us what Huntsman does better than your Obamamessiah who you worship as Lord and God.

Because the reality is that Huntsman is nothing more than a less intelligent, less competent, less honest Obama — which means he’s even less fit for office than Biden.

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM

melle1228 on February 23, 2013 at 6:23 PM

So what if you implement a religious exemption and told parents that they could opt out of gay education. Would you be in favor of gay marriage then?

My point above is that there’s no legitimate argument against gay marriage, if you implement rules which doesn’t conflict with religious institutions right to favor traditional relationships and doesn’t force kids to attend classes about how gay marriage is cool. You can’t argue that gays can’t raise children. You can’t argue that marriage is about procreation, because lots of married couples in our society have no desire to produce children and many more, can’t reproduce.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 12:27 AM

And yes, I can argue that legally state marriage was only brought about because of procreation and property transfer. That was why the state had a compelling reason to recognize marriage. Heterosexuals would pair naturally through CHILDREN. If they didn’t the state has no compelling reason to recognize ANY private sexual relationship.

It wasn’t until the 20th century where the state decided that they could have more power where they were the daddy and set out to destroy the family through statutes and rulings. Gay marriage is just one more nail in that coffin where the state makes mommy or daddy expendable and then they can swoop in and become the savior. It’s long term implications are more power for the state.

The exemptions you talk about will never happen. They didn’t in Massachusetts and they aren’t happening elsewhere, because the end game is was never gay marriage. I love how you people think that Progressives will get gay marriage and then just stop. Progressives don’t stop. You people are talking about changing thousands of years cultural, tradional and legal precedent and then you scoff at us when we see the jump to pedophilia and incest as not far behind. Like I said gay marriage may be coming down the pike, but you keep that Ostrich head in the hole and when they go after churches, parents and private businesses LIKE THEY ALREADY ARE- don’t look to me.. because “us bigots” warned you..

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 10:33 AM

The exemptions you talk about will never happen.

It did in NY. I live in NY state, and religious institutions are protected against lawsuits against gays and lesbians, and no NY school teaches that gay marriage is cool.

You people are talking about changing thousands of years cultural, tradional and legal precedent and then you scoff at us when we see the jump to pedophilia and incest as not far behind.

The funny thing about “tradition” is that it constantly changes. Polygamy used to be socially acceptable in the Mormon faith and in Asian religions (Ex: Taoism). Tradition use to say Christians couldn’t eat fish on Fridays, but could eat Chicken. Now it is the direct opposite. For the majority of U.S culture, it said that women couldn’t vote and blacks shouldn’t be mixed with whites. Throughout most of human history women were seen as inferior to men. Simply because something is a culture precedent does not make it right.

Marriage is not the same as someone wanting to bang their sister or bang little boys. We’re talking about allowing someone to “marry” a person of the same gender and give them the same legal and financial protections as straights. Going into incest and pedophiles is essentially going into different waters.

The sad part of it all is that the Republican Party seems to shun at any Republican who dares to argue for civil unions. Simply arguing for gay equality is seen as poison. See Giuliani, Huntsman, and Christie. There’s a reason why young people hate the GOP. They see us as dinosaurs, warmongers, and intolerable of other people.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 12:12 PM

The funny thing about “tradition” is that it constantly changes. Polygamy used to be socially acceptable in the Mormon faith and in Asian religions (Ex: Taoism). Tradition use to say Christians couldn’t eat fish on Fridays, but could eat Chicken. Now it is the direct opposite. For the majority of U.S culture, it said that women couldn’t vote and blacks shouldn’t be mixed with whites. Throughout most of human history women were seen as inferior to men. Simply because something is a culture precedent does not make it right.

You are talking about inter cultural differences. NAME ONE culture that has ever legally recognize same gender marriage? Name one culture that has ever seen the actual compelling reason to recognize them?

Funny how you go right back to the stand by emotional argument of dinosaur bigotry bs(and you have no idea how old I am) instead of actually trying to deal with the points of the fact that progressive never stop.. gay marriage won’t be the end even if you cow to them and that lawsuits are already happening for every New york there is a New Mexico and a Illinois and a Massachusetts. If we aren’t talking about children, there is NO REASON for the state to be involved in ANY sexual reason for ANY reason.

Marriage is not the same as someone wanting to bang their sister or bang little boys

You don’t even see the irony of your frickin post.. LOL– YOu are defining marriage BY YOUR DEFINITION. The same as every socon is doing. Socons are saying that marriage is not some chick banging some other chick. Do you not see your own “bias” and “bigotry?”

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 12:25 PM

It did in NY.

Oh yes, let’s show what is going on in NY.

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

And what goes next?

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

So bluntly put, gay-sex marriage and the application of gay-sex marriage are completely incompatible with the First Amendment.

As has been made clear by the Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community.

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

You can spin and babble all you want. What the facts clearly show is that gay-sex marriage is incompatible with the First Amendment and that you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters intend to destroy peoples’ lives, businesses, and churches unless they support and never criticize gay-sex marriage.

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 12:47 PM

The sad part of it all is that the Republican Party seems to shun at any Republican who dares to argue for civil unions. Simply arguing for gay equality is seen as poison. See Giuliani, Huntsman, and Christie. There’s a reason why young people hate the GOP. They see us as dinosaurs, warmongers, and intolerable of other people.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 12:12 PM

As I just showed:

Young people support and endorse punishing businesses and denying them the ability to operate because they don’t like their owner’s religious beliefs and public statements.

Young people believe that churches should be forced to marry gay people against their will or be punished because “sexual liberty” is more important than religious liberty.

Young people are antireligious bigots who want to ignore the First Amendment and use governmental power to punish people for speech and beliefs.

Young people are intolerant, hatemongering bigots who have no respect for other people and who spit on the Constitution.

Why should the GOP bother appealing to them? They are little better than pigs.

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 12:52 PM

You can’t argue that gays can’t raise children. You can’t argue that marriage is about procreation, because lots of married couples in our society have no desire to produce children and many more, can’t reproduce.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 12:27 AM

You are desperately trying to spin and cry and whine to explain why children and parenting aren’t important.

That is what is really sick about bigots like yourself. You hate families. You do not believe marriage has any value. You don’t see the importance of a mother and father in raising children. All you see is a trophy and a ticket to free welfare benefits.

And what we see are the devastating effects that your liberalism has created on our communities, our homes, and our schools with your reduction of marriage to just that.

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Marriage does not automatically mean one man, one woman. It is used in a wide variety of contexts. Marriage could mean two or more businesses wanting to come together. It could mean song and dance coming together. Marriage essentially means close union or things bonding together. When you put straight/tradition next to marriage, it means a union between one man and one woman. When you put gay next to marriage, it means two of the same sex coming together. In other words, it describes the type of marriage.

If you truly believe marriage has no other contexts, then there’s no point in putting “tradition” or “gay” next to it. Marriage = marriage.

Legality wise, gay marriage has been recognized. Just look at New York culture or many countries within the European Union. Their culture says gay marriage is legal. Zero (Roman empire) married a person of the same gender. Cultures have in the past recognized same sex couples.

No where did I resort to calling you a bigot or intolerant. I was pointing out that the GOP is perceived as being dinosaurs and not willing to accept other types of lifestyles. If this perception doesn’t change, I don’t think you’re going to see the GOP being a majority party anymore.

Let me ask you a couple of questions here:

1. Are you in support of civil unions? In other words, do you support giving gays and lesbians the same government benefits as straights?

2. Do you think gay people should be allowed to adopt children?

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:07 PM

1. Are you in support of civil unions? In other words, do you support giving gays and lesbians the same government benefits as straights?

So that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? Government benefits and welfare.

No, I do not, for a very simple reason; the government benefits that accrue with marriage are for the purpose of encouraging and simplifying childrearing for the couples that produce them from a legal and financial standpoint, and therefore gay and lesbian couples, who will never under any circumstances produce children, do not need “the same government benefits”.

If you wish to create “civil unions” that are not the same as marriage and exist solely for making convenient the relationship of two adults, be my guest. If you want to change tax, inheritance, and other laws to facilitate transfer of property and whatnot, that would be even better, and I will be happy to help.

2. Do you think gay people should be allowed to adopt children?

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Under what circumstances?

If there is no other choice other than institutionalization of the child, certainly.

But why would you not prefer a child be raised by their biological parents? Indeed, why would you not align government strictures to encourage parents to raise the children they produce and do so well, rather than dumping them onto the state/foster/adoption system?

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM

. Are you in support of civil unions? In other words, do you support giving gays and lesbians the same government benefits as straights

?

No, I think any partnership benefits can be done in an attorney’s office. I don’t believe a sexual relationship deserves anymore government recognition than say a child taking care of an elderly parent. The only distinguishing marker of a “sexual relationship” that a government should recognize is if that relationship could result in biological children. The government HAD a compelling reason to make sure children became productive adults i.e. future taxpayers.

2. Do you think gay people should be allowed to adopt children?

No.. Because adoptive children already start out at a disadvantage and we should therefore give them every advantage. And before you go into “wah, wah, wah- there is some many unadopted kids etc. That is another progressive problem. Because kids are languishing in foster homes because we give parents entirely too much time to get their crap together. Take parental rights away sooner say two years and more people would be willing to adopt the children and less children would be in foster care. And furthermore, in many states gays are getting the same consideration as hetero couples and in some instances better considerations and to me that is upside down world.

.

Just look at New York culture or many countries within the European Union. Their culture says gay marriage is legal. Zero (Roman empire) married a person of the same gender. Cultures have in the past recognized same sex couples.

Rome NEVER legally recognized same gender couples. Barring the last ten to fifteen years there has NEVER been a culture that has recognized it legally. There was no reason to.

Marriage does not automatically mean one man, one woman. It is used in a wide variety of contexts

.

Yeppers and within one to two decades thanks to progressive people like you it will include multiple people, adult/child and incestuous marriage.

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:30 PM

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Nothing you said could be further from the truth. I am seriously, you really think I hate families and think marriage doesn’t have any value? Really? All what I pointed out was that many couples can’t procreate and there’s no proof that gay parenting automatically means that those kids will grow up to be crooks or pedophiles. You care to present any evidence to the counter?

I suppose as an alternative, you would rather see kids being raised by the state than in a loving gay household. Let me tell you something I know gay people. I have seen them raise children, and I have seen zero evidence that these kids will grow up to be bad people.

How exactly does Joe and Lance living together and having the ability to share insurance benefits and social security, a threat to your safety? Please tell me.

For the record, I am against gay marriage, if it means that churches are constantly getting sued for not accepting gay couples or that liberal professors are required to teach kids about how gay marriage is morally right.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Marriage does not automatically mean one man, one woman. It is used in a wide variety of contexts
.

Yeppers and within one to two decades thanks to progressive people like you it will include multiple people, adult/child and incestuous marriage.

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Oh and BTW, before you go on and on about how this will never happen. It has to. When you say that marriage is an equal protection issue and that the state cannot regulate it then you open it up to this. Equal protection means just this. The state has not compelling interest NOT to give licenses to those couples and since people like you maintain that marriage is not about procreation then incestuous couple have no reason not to get marriage since the restriction against them was societal taboo and gasp PROCREATION..

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Government benefits and welfare.

Where did I mention “welfare?”

Government benefits = tax benefits, property/financial sharing, hospital visitation rights, and social security benefits sharing.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Let me tell you something I know gay people. I have seen them raise children, and I have seen zero evidence that these kids will grow up to be bad people.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:33 PM

You do know that Dallas is gay right.? And that I attended my cousin’s civil ceremony in Illinois. And that another one of my best friends have been a couple for 21 years. Just because people share these views does not mean we suddenly are dinosaurs. We see the bigger issues in play. I have no problem having these talks with my cousin or my friends. They know how I feel. They know I love them immensely.

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Please don’t call me a liberal. Simply because I don’t agree with you guys on this issue, doesn’t mean I am a Democrat.

I do not support gay marriage, if it means that churches are constantly being sued or that kids are forced to listen to about how gay marriage is right. If that is impossible to achieve, then I will not support gay marriage. But I just believe, that gays and lesbians should have the same access to government benefits (tax, property/financial sharing) as straight couples and should be permitted to raise children. Why is that so offensive to you guys? Why should they bring in the charges of liberal, anti-family? I just simply don’t get it. Tradition in society can get changed if the public feels if it doesn’t suit their needs.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I don’t think you are a Dem. I called you progressive which is what gay marriage is. I think that your intentions are good. I truly do. I just don’t think you realize pandora’s box that your are opening. Tell me one thing that has been changed in the last century that started with good intentions that didn’t snowball into something bigger. Name one thing that we were able to put back in the box.. Welfare, Medicare, income tax.. Democrats have used them all as a way to control people. They have used them all as a way to grow government. Gay marriage will be used the same way.

I personally don’t want the government in any private relationship, but I see the wisdom in the government encouraging a mom and a dad raising a bio child together. The marriage license for me isn’t for the couple but for the child and the future that they are producing. Every society in the world has seen the wisdom in this.

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:55 PM

You want tax benefits? Change the tax law.

Same with property-sharing, insurance and whatnot. Indeed, you need only insert “or designated beneficiary” into the Social Security wording, and you’re fine.

And you would likely have overwhelming GOP support.

And it would not affect churches or school curriculums one jot.

Now ask yourself: why have gay-sex marriage supporters ignored that route and instead engaged in an all-out attack on freedom of speech, religion, association and conscience instead?

In short: is gay-sex marriage the goal — or the excuse?

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 2:06 PM

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I am not a progressive either. I consider myself a moderate conservative, with some libertarianism in me. I am probably more pro-life than any other Republican president we have ever had. I am against raising the minimum wage, support a flat tax, oppose drug legalization, support capital punishment, and support the Patriot Act and enhanced interrogation techniques. But I do however oppose the Iraq War and think we need to adopt a less aggressive foreign policy.

I pretty much line-up with the conservative side at least 60% of the time. It’s very insulting for you guys to call me a liberal/progressive, when I don’t support most liberal causes.

Gay marriage would be fine in my book, if it doesn’t conflict with religious liberty.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You want tax benefits? Change the tax law.

Same with property-sharing, insurance and whatnot. Indeed, you need only insert “or designated beneficiary” into the Social Security wording, and you’re fine.

And you would likely have overwhelming GOP support.

And it would not affect churches or school curriculums one jot.

Now ask yourself: why have gay-sex marriage supporters ignored that route and instead engaged in an all-out attack on freedom of speech, religion, association and conscience instead?

In short: is gay-sex marriage the goal — or the excuse?

BINGO! There is sooo much more important things that could be done in this country that would solve the problem of ‘inequality’ for all. And yet, progressive are using gay marriage as a way to keep Repubs in fighting… Why are we concentrating on this issue when our country is going down the tubes?

melle1228 on February 24, 2013 at 2:19 PM

You want tax benefits? Change the tax law.

Same with property-sharing, insurance and whatnot. Indeed, you need only insert “or designated beneficiary” into the Social Security wording, and you’re fine.

Yes, change the law. That’s what I want to see happening.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 2:38 PM

But why would you not prefer a child be raised by their biological parents? Indeed, why would you not align government strictures to encourage parents to raise the children they produce and do so well, rather than dumping them onto the state/foster/adoption system?

northdallasthirty on February 24, 2013 at 1:25 PM

If you force parents to raise a child against their will, rather than giving it up for adoption, you increase the likelihood of abuse. And if society goes back to shaming people because they didn’t want to keep their kids, you only drive them to hide their abuse even more. Plus, why dry up the well that much more for infertile couples who so desperately want a child of their own?

Another bad side effect of the old shame system is the cruel bullying by the kids. Hey, society says anything but biological families is bad, that kid’s adopted or raised by two mommies, let’s pick on him/her! We’ll feel better about ourselves, and the grown-ups will look the other way, because they’re not in a GOOD home and our community says so!

That is something I do NOT want to go back to. All the schools have to say is no matter how someone is raised, they deserve respect, not ridicule. If the gay militants can’t accept that after we give them their marriage equality, tell them to pound sand.

TMOverbeck on February 26, 2013 at 9:12 AM

Gay marriage would be fine in my book, if it doesn’t conflict with religious liberty.

Frank T.J Mackey on February 24, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Exactly. Tell the gay militants that we’re tolerating your beliefs now, don’t go trampling on what we believe. The First Amendment goes both ways, no pun intended. Don’t like our churches? Start your own! Find a gay-friendly church, they DO exist, you know.

TMOverbeck on February 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3