Dozens of prominent Republicans sign Supreme Court brief supporting legalized gay marriage

posted at 10:41 am on February 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

We’re stretching the definition of “prominent” a bit for this one, eh? The closest thing here to a current Republican officeholder with a national profile is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. The only person named whom the average Republican voter might be able to pick out of a line-up is Huntsman, a.k.a. the new co-chairman of No Labels.

Still, noteworthy. Not because it’ll matter to the Supreme Court, despite the hyperventilating in the article, but because it’s a way for pro-SSM Republicans to get publicity for their point of view. If you want to signal to young voters and to like-minded righties (especially in Congress) that there’s a constituency for this position in the GOP, this is one way to do it.

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress…

But the presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

Christie Todd Whitman plus two ex-governors of Massachusetts. Way to win over the conservative base, guys. As for this, c’mon:

[SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein] added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

Even I give Anthony Kennedy a little (emphasis: a little) more credit as a jurist than to believe he might vote no but for some weak political cover from a few dozen not-so-prominent Republicans in the form of an amicus brief. He’s broken with conservatives twice before to write landmark majority opinions in favor of gay rights. The first of those opinions, in 1996, came when national support for gay marriage was polling south of 30 percent. As the closest thing the Court has to a libertarian, clearly he can be persuaded from the perspective of gay rights advocacy. Why he’d need Jon Huntsman or Ken Mehlman in his corner in order to give the thumbs up on this one, I simply don’t understand.

Exit question: If I’m right that this brief is less about persuading Kennedy than about persuading rank-and-file Republicans who are on the fence about gay marriage, why didn’t the signatories simply start a “Republicans for gay marriage” organization instead? I thought Huntsman, in his op-ed last week, was endorsing a federalist approach to SSM, which has the virtue of building democratic legitimacy for the practice. Evidently not. According to the NYT’s piece today, the amicus brief he signed argues “that gay people have a constitutional right to marry.” If that view prevails, the democratic approach is dead; you’ll have gay marriage coast to coast immediately as a matter of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. If your goal is to persuade socially conservative opponents, running to the Supremes to ask them to override state referenda is an odd way to do it. But maybe that’s the point here — that gay-marriage supporters, at least inside the Beltway, have given up on persuasion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 12:16 PM

Even you should know that this is under the Old Testament and applied to the Hebrew people.

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM

If only we could persuade the GOP to adopt a strategy that would net them no new Hispanic, gay, or youth voters, but would in fact cost them many of their socially conservative voters we could nail this coffin shut once and for all!

BWAHAHAHA!!!

-Dems

Kataklysmic on February 26, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Yea, America has become so progressively enlightened that those archaic ancient dusty Christian moral and ethics can finally safely be consigned to the waste heap of history. Man created God, and now we no longer need that crutch to survive… /s

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Eliminate the sarc tag and I couldn’t have said it better myself.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Mainstreaming gross immorality is the only way to secure a prosperous and peaceful future for the USA.

tom daschle concerned on February 26, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Wasn’t it Billy Graham that said God would have to apologize to Sodom & Gomorrah if He didn’t Judge America?

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Meh. None of these signers are current GOP pols. Those in office will not alienate their constituents. If you give voters a choice between Dem and Dem Lite, Dems will always be able to pander to identity groups better. GOP needs to get back to Conservatism and stop pandering.

sauldalinsky on February 26, 2013 at 2:23 PM

I still have to hear from the pro gay crowd how increasing the number of miscreants that have added access to my paycheck creates a freer nation. Why should I have to accept them gaining PRIVILEGE at the cost of my right to the fruits of my labor?

Are there any takers here?

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Eliminate the sarc tag and I couldn’t have said it better myself.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Why don’t we just eliminate you from the site, douchenozzle?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I wonder what number of people who are 100% vehemently against gay right and gay people – have actually ever known a gay person?

Just a thought.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:21 AM

Me for one. I was the only straight male among six homophile males in my department in grad school. It was not fun.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Have you ever heard of the New Covenant?

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Isn’t the New Testament where Jesus told the local elders to stone an adulteress to death?

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Yup. Right after he told her to keep right on sinning because, well, she was just born that way.

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Dozens of prominent Establishment, progressive, faux-’Moderate’ RINO fvcktards, you mean.

rayra on February 26, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Why don’t we just eliminate you from the site, douchenozzle?

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Why don’t you?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Goodbye Establishment, progressive, faux-’Moderate’ RINO fvcktard Stupid Party. You’ll go to the gallows second, when it’s time. Right behind the Marxists.

rayra on February 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I wonder what number of people who are 100% vehemently against gay right and gay people – have actually ever known a gay person?

Just a thought.

jake-the-goose on February 26, 2013 at 11:21 AM

I have known several. Gays have rights. The same rights as everyone else. What they want is SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, and incentive that they want to be there to increase their numbers and a station in life that allows them to attack those they do not agree with. I am not against gay people in the general. I am against giving incentives to people to create same sex households which have 0 opportunity to create and raise the next generation. I want life for the single, the childless and the miscreant to be as harsh as possible and life for those who marry in order to create a full family and live a virtuous life to be as free from burden of supporting those single, childless and miscreants as possible.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Why don’t you?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I second the motion to ban chump. But first: You are sent forward 5000 years into the future. All religion has been outlawed and all records of it destroyed. You now find yourself the subject of fire and brimstone. Is that worth staying?

nobar on February 26, 2013 at 2:34 PM

chumpThreads, can you be counted on to support True Marriage Equality?

blink on February 26, 2013 at 2:33 PM

What do you mean by “True Marriage Equality”?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM
Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

The one who replied not once, but THREE times to a commentator is the one calling the other guy “butt-hurt!” LMAO!

You can’t make this stuff up, folks!

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:36 PM

We’re already seeing religious organizations denied the ability to perform a ministry because they don’t do it equally for homosexual couples. We’re already seeing Christians being told that if you provide a service for weddings, but don’t do the same service for homosexual couples, you’re discriminating. Currently, that force is being applied by individuals suing other individuals. The next step will be for the government to sue those individuals directly, followed by the government being given the power to just levy fines without needing the formality of a lawsuit. Ultimately, we will see people in jail for failing to recognize same sex marriages.

Your attempt to come across as reasonable is a fraud. You want force, you want to set a precedent that the “right” of homosexuals to get approval from society outweighs the right of a religion to teach what it has always taught: that homosexuality is sinful.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Well, let’s see if the Supreme Court will uphold the First Amendment.

Appreciate your various comments.

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM

The one who replied not once, but THREE times to a commentator is the one calling the other guy “butt-hurt!” LMAO!

You can’t make this stuff up, folks!

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Marxist Pig is the end result of a child who’s never had their uppity attitude slapped or spanked out of them.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM

If that view prevails, the democratic approach is dead; you’ll have gay marriage coast to coast immediately as a matter of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, if you’re worried about the slippery slope, what’s more likely to make that slope slippery, getting government out of marriage altogether or protecting it under the 14th? I’d say the latter.

clearbluesky on February 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM

3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman
caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the
midst,
4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in
adultery, in the very act.
5 “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should
be stoned. But what do You say?”
6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have
something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped
down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though
He did not hear.
7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up
and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let
him throw a stone at her first.

8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their
conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the
oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and
the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the
woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers
of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her,
“Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.

What do you think Jesus would have said if they brought out a gay man and asked the same question? I would argue the same things. Jesus is about forgiveness for simple human failures, but that forgiveness is not 100%, it comes with the request that once your sin is brought forward, that you are to abstain from repeating and continuing on. He did not tell her to keep on being a slut.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

I second the motion to ban chump. But first: You are sent forward 5000 years into the future. All religion has been outlawed and all records of it destroyed. You now find yourself the subject of fire and brimstone. Is that worth staying?

nobar on February 26, 2013 at 2:34 PM

What is the purpose of the circular argument?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 2:41 PM

@blink

Maybe eventually the pro same-sex marriage crowd will realize that the same arguments they make in favor of their “cause” can be made in favor of any and all other forms of “marriage.” Until then, those who support traditional marriage will still be getting called anti-gay and homophobes, etc. because we won’t fall in line with changing the definition of something we believe is sacred, to accommodate a small minority who just want to feel good about themselves.

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:43 PM

So, if you’re worried about the slippery slope, what’s more likely to make that slope slippery, getting government out of marriage altogether or protecting it under the 14th? I’d say the latter.

clearbluesky on February 26, 2013 at 2:38 PM

I’m afraid that I’ve never bought the argument that we can “get the government out of marriage altogether,” because we can’t get the government out of divorce.

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

yawn

I lean traditional & go-slow about homosexual marriage. More to the point is that, one way or the other, I’m skeptical about yet another assertion of federal power.

Leave it up to the states. Laboratories of democracy…

gs on February 26, 2013 at 2:47 PM

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Why? The church that marries you is the church that divorces you. The state’s responsibility is to simply record the actions.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Maybe eventually the pro same-sex marriage crowd will realize that the same arguments they make in favor of their “cause” can be made in favor of any and all other forms of “marriage.”

The slippery slope trope.
Takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.

Until then, those who support traditional marriage will still be getting called anti-gay and homophobes, etc. because we won’t fall in line with changing the definition of something we believe is sacred, to accommodate a small minority who just want to feel good about themselves.

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:43 PM

You believe marriage is something sacred. You are entitled to youre belief.

I believe marriage can be a secular ceremony with no impingement on your beliefs.

Can’t we all just get along?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Why? The church that marries you is the church that divorces you. The state’s responsibility is to simply record the actions.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Exactly.

clearbluesky on February 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Can’t we all just get along?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM

feel free to answer…

I still have to hear from the pro gay crowd how increasing the number of miscreants that have added access to my paycheck creates a freer nation. Why should I have to accept them gaining PRIVILEGE at the cost of my right to the fruits of my labor?

Are there any takers here?

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:25 PM

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

yawn

I lean traditional & go-slow about homosexual marriage. More to the point is that, one way or the other, I’m skeptical about yet another assertion of federal power.

Leave it up to the states. Laboratories of democracy…

gs on February 26, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Yeah, and 45 years later maybe Virginia would have gotten around to repealing laws against interracial marriage.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

You believe marriage is something sacred. You are entitled to youre belief.

I believe marriage can be a secular ceremony with no impingement on your beliefs.

Can’t we all just get along?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Not when our brothers and sisters are being coerced. Brainfreeanddie dismisses the mountain of evidence, but it’s already heading toward gay persecution of Christians in Canada. Not some 3rd-world dump, CANADA.

If you can absolutely guarantee that we won’t be…say…sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding or matching gays on their online site (both of which are utterly absurd) then we can talk.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Answer what? Your unsupported assertion?

No thanks.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Get government out of marriage completely. Where is the definition of marriage in the Constitution? That’s right, nowhere. I certainly don’t need the government’s approval on my personal relationships.

Common Sense on February 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

That’s a non sequitur. Marriage is a fact of life. Most people get married. Most marriages produce children. Marriage combines the assets of two individuals into a family. Divorce requires equitable separation of individuals. Marriages produce children, and the wife very often gives up certain career goals in order to better take care of children, such as accepting a part-time position, or taking a job with greater flexibility. Often, a wife will sacrifice to put a husband through school. When that happens, and a marriage ends in divorce 10 or 15 years later, you can hardly claim that the wife doesn’t deserve her fair portion of the assets just because the husband was the primary breadwinner.

Government recognizes marriage because marriage is part of life. Government could, on the other hand, take the position that marriage is not their creation, and that they have no business changing marriage as it has always been defined in order to please an activist group. Declining to do social experimentation would be the actual conservative position, in the original sense of the word.

But calling for government to “get out of the marriage business” is an irrelevant non sequitur. SSM has nothing to do with claiming government benefits, since that can easily be dealt with by other means. In fact, marriage doesn’t really have government benefits to speak of. In tax terms, there is normally a “marriage penalty.”

If you got government “out of the marriage business” completely, it wouldn’t change a thing. SSM advocates want what they want.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Isn’t the New Testament where Jesus told the local elders to stone an adulteress to death?

gwelf on February 26, 2013 at 12:25 PM

No, it is not. You misquoted Scripture. You need to read John 8:3 thru verse 11 to understand that passage. It’s best not to misquote Scripture since what you said is not true.

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I was trying to find support for True Marriage Equality, but you’re obviously too bigoted to provide it.

What’s disappointing is that you’re a hypocrite about it.

blink on February 26, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Why anybody would look to me for support is questionable.

To me it seems that I go out of my way to avoid allegiances with anybody who posts here. I am forthright about agreeing with people and their statements. But that’s about as far as I go.

Long story short, I act like I’m better than most and believe so much of the time. You’re not likely to find agreement with someone like that.

Happiness is determined by how long our expectations remain unblemished. If you know what to expect with me you’ll feel better.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Aren’t you the guy who called me a “douchenozzle”

Retract and apologize, then maybe we can talk.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I’m afraid that I’ve never bought the argument that we can “get the government out of marriage altogether,” because we can’t get the government out of divorce.

JannyMae on February 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I tend to pity the stupid. In your case I pity your husband.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Answer what? Your unsupported assertion?

No thanks.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Trust me, you don’t want to go there. I’ve seen him try to support that assertion and it ain’t pretty.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Aren’t you the guy who called me a “douchenozzle”

Retract and apologize, then maybe we can talk.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM

You were being what I called you.

Get over it, boy, I’ve endured pages worth of far worse than that. Sometimes by so-called conservatives who in another thread were agreeing with me outright.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Astonerii is a clear-thinker and seems to strive for consistency.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Astonerii is a clear-thinker and seems to strive for consistency.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Well we can agree on something for once.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM

That last remark has a half-life of about 12 minutes.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Are you here strictly to Troll and insult or do you have a salient point you can make, pertaining to the subject of the thread?

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM

What do you think Jesus would have said if they brought out a gay man and asked the same question? I would argue the same things. Jesus is about forgiveness for simple human failures, but that forgiveness is not 100%, it comes with the request that once your sin is brought forward, that you are to abstain from repeating and continuing on. He did not tell her to keep on being a slut.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Thanks for posting the Scriptures in that passage. And you are correct in your comment afterwards.

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Aren’t you the guy who called me a “douchenozzle”

Sometimes by so-called conservatives who in another thread were agreeing with me outright.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

[whislting, looking around, pretending to file nails]

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Are you here strictly to Troll and insult or do you have a salient point you can make, pertaining to the subject of the thread?

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Are you a fire-hydrant?

[raises leg]

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Answer what? Your unsupported assertion?

No thanks.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Deflect, Deflect, Deflect.

The gay agenda is not about freedom. Never was and never will be. At least it never will be so long as the virtuous are the ones forced to pay for the failures of the lifestyle.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

[whislting, looking around, pretending to file nails]

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Hey prissy-boy: anyone with a brain agreeing with you is the exception to the rule.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

All you anti-gay nutters are against premarital sex, right?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

What do you think Jesus would have said if they brought out a gay man and asked the same question? I would argue the same things. Jesus is about forgiveness for simple human failures, but that forgiveness is not 100%, it comes with the request that once your sin is brought forward, that you are to abstain from repeating and continuing on. He did not tell her to keep on being a slut.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Thanks for posting the Scriptures in that passage. And you are correct in your comment afterwards.

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Very well stated -

Amjean on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

You were being what I called you.

A circular argument? Reallly?

Get over it, boy, I’ve endured pages worth of far worse than that. Sometimes by so-called conservatives who in another thread were agreeing with me outright.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM

I have no interest in what you think you’ve endured.

I don’t care.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Hey prissy-boy: anyone with a brain agreeing with you is the exception to the rule.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Awww crumbcake. Hey Mikey he likes me.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM

I have no interest in what you think you’ve endured.

I don’t care.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Yeah, because you’re a sissy troll.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Thanks for posting the Scriptures in that passage. And you are correct in your comment afterwards.

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Very well stated -

Amjean on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I agree wholeheartedly.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 3:11 PM

I believe marriage can be a secular ceremony with no impingement on your beliefs.

Can’t we all just get along?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Nope, we can’t.

Because your bigot Obama Party uses the power of government to punish people for their beliefs and speech.

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.

Because your bigot gay and lesbian community uses the power of government to punish people for their beliefs and speech.

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 because your bigot Obama and his bigot appointees have stated that the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty must be abolished.

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.”

So the answer is no. Gay-sex marriage can never be tolerated because the whole point of the bigot Obama Party and its bigot supporters like you is to use it to deny religious liberty, punish religious belief, and eradicate freedom of speech.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM

So it is the Repubic’s position that those members of our society who find the elimination organ of another man a sexually desirable thing are completely sane, yet those who want to live amongst their own kind are evil racists?
That those who use their sexual activity for the procreation of children and the bonding of a family are “homophobic” but those who desire others of the same kind are “normal” and this is not an indication of a mental illness; that the diseases, depression, anxiety and other clusters of problems associated with homosexuality (anal warts, homosexual bowel syndrome and other events too vomit inducing to discuss) are invisible but that the advantages of a loving heterosexual relationship are ignored?

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I want life for the single, the childless and the miscreant to be as harsh as possible and life for those who marry in order to create a full family and live a virtuous life to be as free from burden of supporting those single, childless and miscreants as possible.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Uh, stoner, I’m single and childless and you’ve lumped me in with “miscreants” and who knows what else and you’ve erroneously assumed you pay my way. You don’t. I’m not the only single, childless, self-employed professional out there so knock off the broad brush statement about people of whom you know nothing.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Yeah, because you’re a sissy troll.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Dude called me “prissy” and cT a “sissy.” For his next act he will make a gay man appear in front of his own eyes with a wave of his wand.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Deflect, Deflect, Deflect.

The gay agenda is not about freedom. Never was and never will be. At least it never will be so long as the virtuous are the ones forced to pay for the failures of the lifestyle.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Oh look! You’re doing it again! More unsupported assertions!

And yet I still refuse to legitimize your useless comments.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

All you anti-gay nutters are against premarital sex, right?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I am against it, my wife was a virgin. Me, not so much, but that failure of mine caused any number of future problems for me. My wife was wise, I was ignorant, but eventually learned the lessons my parents failed to ever try to teach me.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM

All you anti-gay nutters are against premarital sex, right?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

All you pro-homosexual nutters are pro-Jerry Sandusky, yes?

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Yeah, because you’re a sissy troll.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM

C’mon, complete the circle!

“…because that’s what you’re being.”

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM

All you anti-gay nutters are against premarital sex, right?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

And all you gay-sex marriage pushers are against STD transmission, right?

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.

Oh, and here’s a thought for you: the instance of STDs among people who abstain from sex until marriage and then stay committed is zero.

How are you and your premarital no-commitment sex pushers doing on that one?

In step with Valentine’s Day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the U.S. has around 110 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs or STIs), amounting to 20 million new infections each year, and it is only getting worse…..

Over half of these infections are in the young adult population, those aged 15 to 24 years.

But hey, it’s only $17 BILLION a year in additional health costs your stupidity is sticking us with. Big deal, right?

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

So it is the Repubic’s position that those members of our society who find the elimination organ of another man a sexually desirable thing are completely sane, yet those who want to live amongst their own kind are evil racists?

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

And we can be sued if we tell them “go find someone else to take photos at your play-pretend ‘wedding’”. Whereas a Christian or Jew told the exact same thing would merely go away. (and a Muslim would beat you into compliance, but that’s another story)

They don’t want ‘equality’, they want superiority.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Bulletchaser proudly cites white-supremacy websites. Enjoy his camaraderie. He’s scum.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Your behavior:

1. Whine like the lace-pantied loser you are, or make an idiotic argument.
2. Complain.
3. Accuse someone of circular logic.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Several pedophile-protectors will be electing the next Pope. Tell me where that appears in any Covenant.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 12:29 PM

Whether what you stated is true or not, I cannot say. However, many people disobey the Word of God but that does not make His Word untrue.

“For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.”

Romans 3:3,4a

bluefox on February 26, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Marxist Pig aptly demonstrates the Inverse Law of Liberal Danger and Accusation: since Bulletchaser is not a white-supremacist – and indeed little piggy has never even SEEN one- he blubbers about it quite loudly.

Whereas if he were in actual danger of meeting a white-supremacist face-to-face, he’d be a quiet little mouse.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM

And the best part of this ridiculously derailed thread: The case before the Court is about whether a Judge can overrule the will of the people of California. Just thought I’d bring that up.

nobar on February 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM

So it is the Repubic’s position that those members of our society who find the elimination organ of another man a sexually desirable thing are completely sane, yet those who want to live amongst their own kind are evil racists?

The Republic doesn’t really have a position on either of those.

That those who use their sexual activity for the procreation of children and the bonding of a family are “homophobic”

No, a homophobe is someone who hates gay people. Lots of people who use sex for procreation and bonding aren’t homophobes. Granted the Venn Diagram of the groups does have some overlap but they’re not the same thing.

but those who desire others of the same kind are “normal” and this is not an indication of a mental illness;

More or less.

that the diseases,

Those are a result of unsafe sexual practices.

depression, anxiety

Those probably result from being told by ignorant homophobes that there’s something wrong with them.

and other clusters of problems associated with homosexuality

This ought to be good.

(anal warts,

Already covered that.

homosexual bowel syndrome

What?

and other events too vomit inducing to discuss)

You seem WAY too interested in other people’s private lives. If I find something to be vomit-inducing then I don’t spend my time thinking about.

are invisible but that the advantages of a loving heterosexual relationship are ignored?

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:13 PM

No one is saying the advantages of a loving heterosexual relationship should be ignored, they’re just saying gay couples can get married if they want to. Don’t confuse the issue.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:23 PM

And we can be sued if we tell them “go find someone else to take photos at your play-pretend ‘wedding’”. Whereas a Christian or Jew told the exact same thing would merely go away. (and a Muslim would beat you into compliance, but that’s another story)

They don’t want ‘equality’, they want superiority.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

And, at the rate this is going, very soon Christians and Jews are going to realize the lesson of the Muslim: those who punch back twice as hard and chop off heads for good measure can kill as many gays as they want, ignore as many hate-crimes laws as they want, and even have people put in prison by Preezy Obama for “slandering the prophet”.

People ask why I, a gay person, am so adamantly against the antics of the gay and lesbian community, and the answer is very simple: the goodwill and civility of others have limits.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

And the best part of this ridiculously derailed thread: The case before the Court is about whether a Judge can overrule the will of the people of California. Just thought I’d bring that up.

nobar on February 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I note that the paid Kos operatives and resident trolls still refuse to address the issue of Christians being overruled in civil court, much less on a state or federal level.

It’s almost like they have no counter-argument…or that they WANT us to be trampled underfoot.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

And the best part of this ridiculously derailed thread: The case before the Court is about whether a Judge can overrule the will of the people of California. Just thought I’d bring that up.

nobar on February 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Sure they can. If the people of California or any other state had passed a ballot measure that said it’s okay to own white people as slaves and a judge overturned the will of the voters because it violated the Thirteenth Amendment then no one would question that.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:25 PM

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Being a practicing gay male in and of itself is THE unsafe sexual practice.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Your comments are nither an answer, an argument nor proof.

Care to try again?

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Uh, stoner, I’m single and childless and you’ve lumped me in with “miscreants” and who knows what else and you’ve erroneously assumed you pay my way. You don’t. I’m not the only single, childless, self-employed professional out there so knock off the broad brush statement about people of whom you know nothing.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM

And, for the record, I’m a straight female.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Being a practicing gay male in and of itself is THE unsafe sexual practice.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Unsupported. Assertion.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Uh, stoner, I’m single and childless and you’ve lumped me in with “miscreants” and who knows what else and you’ve erroneously assumed you pay my way. You don’t. I’m not the only single, childless, self-employed professional out there so knock off the broad brush statement about people of whom you know nothing.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM

And, for the record, I’m a straight female.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

For the record, when you collect social security and medicare it will be on the backs of other people’s children. Not from your own hard work. But from the labors of those who formed families and raised children.

So, feel free to remake your argument again. I have nothing against you not getting married or having children. You over produce enough in your life to pay your own way at the end, and I could care less. Since you will not, and instead will collect Social Security and likely use Medicare, I do care.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM

And, at the rate this is going, very soon Christians and Jews are going to realize the lesson of the Muslim: those who punch back twice as hard and chop off heads for good measure can kill as many gays as they want, ignore as many hate-crimes laws as they want, and even have people put in prison by Preezy Obama for “slandering the prophet”.

People ask why I, a gay person, am so adamantly against the antics of the gay and lesbian community, and the answer is very simple: the goodwill and civility of others have limits.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

+1000.

It’s like the Affirmative Action laws that actually foster racist sentiment because people get put in positions they are not capable of doing for the sake of ‘fairness’. They inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and make people angry about the quota boy/girl forced upon them who is anything from out of their league to utterly incompetent and they can’t even say anything about it.

Sooner or later, someone is going to have a little lightbulb-over-head moment when they’re wondering why it is that they have to have their cherished beliefs treated with less respect than a used Kleenex and the Muslims do not.

I don’t pretend to be a prophet: I honestly do not know when this will come, or how strong it will initially be. But we’ve already been pushed pretty hard, and you are very wise to not blindly join in because you’re gay.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Hey Capitalist Hog!

Minister Louis Farrakhan recently responded to President Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage calling him “the first president that sanctioned what the scriptures forbid,” according to a video posted by the Nation of Islam’s “official” news source, Finalcall.com.

During an address at the California Convention Center on Sunday, the Nation of Islam leader ridiculed the media for its portrayal of Obama after the announcement, and chastised politicians and clergy for hypocritically supporting gay marriage despite the fact that the Bible forbids it.

Throughout his speech, Farrakhan carefully points out that he does not condone homophobia, saying “I’m not your enemy. I’m your brother, and I do love you.” However, he said “sin is sin according to the standard of God.”

Of course I am White. I love my race and all it stands for in the Pantheon of History. What? Are you ashamed of your race? Don’t you think people should be proud of the accomplishments of their race? Hey, here we are in black history month! Ever hear of g.w. carver?

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Unsupported. Assertion.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM

It is plain science. The anal canal is not thick enough to take the repeated rubbing and ruptures, allowing the mixing of bodily fluids which transmits all blood born pathogens. Butt you knew that… troll.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:32 PM

All you anti-gay nutters are against premarital sex, right?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Premarital sex like many other behaviors is something that I don’t want a government stamp of approval on regardless of whether or not people are going to engage in it. Setting morality aside, anyone who fancies himself a fiscal conservative should certainly frown on the practice.

Kataklysmic on February 26, 2013 at 3:35 PM

It is plain science. The anal canal is not thick enough to take the repeated rubbing and ruptures, allowing the mixing of bodily fluids which transmits all blood born pathogens. Butt you knew that… troll.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:32 PM

And would you agree that heterosexual couples can and do partake in the sexual activity you describe?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Homosexual Bowel Syndrome

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Unsupported. Assertion.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Um, no. Don’t be anti-science.

There’s a reason why gay males are more likely to contract HIV, which is transmitted, mostly, by fluid-to-fluid.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

And would you agree that heterosexual couples can and do partake in the sexual activity you describe?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Being physically capable of something is not anything like having a lifestyle focusing on said activity.

But you knew that.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Um, no. Don’t be anti-science.

There’s a reason why gay males are more likely to contract HIV, which is transmitted, mostly, by fluid-to-fluid.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

HIV transmission is primarily heterosexually transmitted in other countries (Africa for example).

Don’t be anti-science.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Um, no. Don’t be anti-science.

There’s a reason why gay males are more likely to contract HIV, which is transmitted, mostly, by fluid-to-fluid.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

And this is why we need sex education in the schools because there are a lot of people out there who don’t know half of what they think they do.

Condoms are a highly effective means to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases both among the heterosexual and homosexual populations. And if your partner is HIV free then the odds of you contracting the disease from them are zero. So the statement

Being a practicing gay male in and of itself is THE unsafe sexual practice.

is not true. Being a promiscuous gay male who doesn’t use condoms is very risky, but that’s a subset of the homosexual population.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:42 PM

HIV transmission is primarily heterosexually transmitted in other countries (Africa for example).

Don’t be anti-science.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Because the hygiene of African heterosexuals is as good as the Western world./s Hint: open sores on the skin.

Stop being anti-science.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM

And would you agree that heterosexual couples can and do partake in the sexual activity you describe?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I am sure some do. It is not the primary mode of their relationship, is it? But, their relationship has the possibility of creating life. The gay relationship only has the possibility to shorten life.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Being physically capable of something is not anything like having a lifestyle focusing on said activity.

But you knew that.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:39 PM

What I know is, you’re good at name calling, but you haven’t the slightest idea how to form a coherent argument.

What you’ve stated above is known as a non-sequitur.

I’ve already pointed out your penchant for dizzyingly circular statements. If you want to know what a non-sequitur is, look it up.

School’s out.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Homosexual Bowel Syndrome

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM

It’s telling when the link you provide as evidence says the term is obsolete. Shooting yourself in the foot on that one.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Unsupported. Assertion.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Settled. Science.

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.

But then again, ChumpThreads, we don’t expect you and your fellow Fluke imbeciles to understand this in the least, given your current track record.

In step with Valentine’s Day, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that the U.S. has around 110 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs or STIs), amounting to 20 million new infections each year, and it is only getting worse…..

Over half of these infections are in the young adult population, those aged 15 to 24 years.

By the way, Chumpy, your Barack Obama Party’s insistence on promiscuous and irresponsible sex costs the country $17 BILLION in health care costs annually, which if you were being consistent with your track record on school lunches and soda, would mean that you would ban it as a public health measure.

But of course you won’t, so it does double duty of proving what a lying hypocrite you are.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Condoms are a highly effective means to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases both among the heterosexual and homosexual populations. And if your partner is HIV free then the odds of you contracting the disease from them are zero. So the statement…

…is incomplete. Abstinence is also an effective means with a lower infection rate.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM

So, feel free to remake your argument again. I have nothing against you not getting married or having children. You over produce enough in your life to pay your own way at the end, and I could care less. Since you will not, and instead will collect Social Security and likely use Medicare, I do care.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Another assumption, azzhole. I would be content to have my portion of social security and medicare taxes refunded to me since they were taken from against my will, rather than collect social security. Since there won’t be any social security or medicare by the time I retire, I hardly think I’ll be hurting you and your vaunted offspring. Moreover, if you haven’t been to a social security office lately, perhaps you should visit. By far the largest number of recipients visiting is comprised of relatively young people getting 1)social security disability and 2) supplemental security income-for those that are disabled but never paid into the system. You want to know who is sucking the system dry? Not my mother, certainly not me, since I work for a living, but the people who have never paid into the system and who are on SSI and SSD (there’s a huge amount of fraud in SSD claims, and I’ve seen it in the records, having viewed thousands of pages of them during my career as an attorney). Get off your high horse and stop impugning groups of people because you fancy yourself some sort of constitutional scholar and defender of freedom. Stop talking here and get off your ass and get involved if you want to change things. Insulting someone you don’t even know isn’t the solution. Especially since I’m the furthest thing from a troll that you’ll find here.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

astonerii: Couple questions. Are gays by definition “miscreants?”
How does legalizing ssm give them access to your paycheck? And you so recognize that, the US, marriage is a right, not a privilege?

urban elitist on February 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Because the hygiene of African heterosexuals is as good as the Western world./s Hint: open sores on the skin.

Stop being anti-science.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Go back, read and understand, then jump in, if you think you have something germane to share.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:46 PM

It’s like the Affirmative Action laws that actually foster racist sentiment because people get put in positions they are not capable of doing for the sake of ‘fairness’.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:31 PM

What? are you suggesting that maybe it’s not the right the way to correct the problem of some people not getting hired because of the color of their skin, by refusing someone that same job because of the color of their skin? Hmmmm….

SWalker on February 26, 2013 at 3:46 PM

…is incomplete. Abstinence is also an effective means with a lower infection rate.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Way to deflect from a failed argument.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:46 PM

…is incomplete. Abstinence is also an effective means with a lower infection rate.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Also, if we can’t reliably get Western teenagers to use condoms reliably (which are so common you can get them at a gas station) expecting African men in the middle of nowhere to use condoms reliably is just laughable.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7