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 3 4 5 6 7

And you so recognize that, the US, marriage is a right, not a privilege?

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

Please, point that word out to us in The Bill of Rights, or any other Founding Document.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 3:47 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

Liar.

Six common transmission categories are male-to-male sexual contact, injection drug use, male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, heterosexual contact, mother-to-child (perinatal) transmission, and other (includes blood transfusions and unknown cause).

The distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of HIV infection among adults and adolescents in the 46 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category, follows. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.

Homosexuality spreads diseases even to the innocent, damages the body and is frankly a nauseating behavior.

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 3:48 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

Funny you mention Africa, chumpy.

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.

Looks like you’re the anti-science one, and racist to boot.

But of course, that’s because you’re a bigot. You don’t really care about gays or the welfare of gay people; you’re just using us as an excuse to attack religious belief and freedom of speech. You actually would prefer that all gay people were dead; we know your Obama Party tells gays who don’t vote for Obama to kill themselves.

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:49 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

Irrelevant to whom?

Your assertion that sexually active gay males are as safe as heterosexuals is ignorant.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:49 PM

And, stoner, never forget that I, as a working individual, supported your parents and grandparents, or are you suggesting that they didn’t collect social security and go on medicare? You are quick to assail what you think I will be doing when or if I ever retire, without a thought for what I’ve actually paid during my lifetime and who it supported. As I said, give me my contributions in a lump sum to do with what I wish and I’ll be very content. Especially as I pay the full freight of almost 15% myself having no handy dandy employer to take up my slack. Like you. Oh, am I wrong about that? Painted with a broad brush, did I? Oops.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Yay, now maybe NAMBLA will send some bucks toward the GOP.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM

I would not at all be surprised.

The GOP has sunk to a new low with this ridiculous, skewered, weirdly twisted “reasoning”.

It’s the ongoing creep called “Let’s Be Democrats” for the GOP-Lost-Sheep. Maybe they’re Demon(*) afterall…

(*) with reference to the “DEMON SHEEP” ad by Fiorina in her failed CA run for the Senate during Meg Whitman’s failed CA run for Gov.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Way to deflect from a failed argument.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Bringing or adding condoms to this discussion is a fallacy of yours.

For example, Star Trek laser shields would protect me when climbing mountains.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:51 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

Wow! That brush of yours gets bigger all the time. My wife and I fit into the category that your describing and I guarantee we will never recoup the the 15.3% of FICA and Medicare we have paid into the system over the last 20 years of being self employed.

Your sounding like Obama!

CTSherman on February 26, 2013 at 3:52 PM

And you so recognize that, the US, marriage is a right, not a privilege?

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

Then limiting the number of people, age, species, or consaguinity is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, Baker v. Nelson, which was decided by the same court that decided Loving v. Virginia, made it clear that that wasn’t even a Federal question.

But again, urban elitist, who cares what you think, given that you and your fellow bigots don’t recognize the explicit rights granted under the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments?

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:52 PM

What queen’s picture is that?

Akzed on February 26, 2013 at 3:53 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

A refund of money that was never meant to be paid to you? Social Security and medicare are taxes. They are constitutional as such. The payments to individuals though, I doubt they are. Social Security is a pay go system. What comes in, goes out, and does not go into any fund to pay individuals anything at all. Anything left over goes to paying general fund endeavors, like HIV treatments.

There are only 8 million people on social security disability, I think 46 million social security recipients. So, they are the minority, but ever much as despicable as the voters who spent decades voting into power congresses and presidents happy to keep the ponzi scheme a going.

But, as I said, you do have eyes on my and my children’s money, as you state you still want repaid. Where oh where will that money come from? LOL.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM

CTSherman on February 26, 2013 at 3:52 PM

astonerii’s biggest flaw is that when he gets on his breederrific propaganda rants, he won’t stop for some time.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM

If homosexuals were after a permanent resolution to their alleged “long term relationship with a significant other,” they’d be satiated and well serviced with Civil Unions and all that contractual, ceremonial signage that commits them legally to the object of their wants.

But, that isn’t what they’re after. What they’re after is the possession of the concept of “marriage” which is a religious concept and in doing so, the ultimate goal is the imposition of “change” on Christianity. They want to be able to demand that Christianity service that which we are told by God and HIs Word He does not want, admire, nor support.

That’s what the homosexual activism is after, they want to command the Church to either cower to their interpretations of what’s what or else decimate the Church itself, render it mute. Actually, both are the same thing…

The GOP popping up like used daisies with this *sudden notion* that, hey, “homosexual marriage is in the Constitution” is insanity by a party that’s looking more and more like it’s filled with Democrats.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Once polygamy becomes the law of the land, can libfreeordie marry more than one llama?

Akzed on February 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Bringing or adding condoms to this discussion is a fallacy of yours.

For example, Star Trek laser shields would protect me when climbing mountains.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I was responding to someone who said being a gay male was in and of itself an unsafe sexual practice and I corrected the record as to what a safer sexual practice actually was. Then you took it way out to the absurd level. You say abstinance is the only 100% safe thing to do and that much is correct but I don’t think you’re advocating that as a general lifestyle.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Lunch was great. What did I miss?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Once polygamy becomes the law of the land, can libfreeordie marry more than one llama?

Akzed on February 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM

LOL!!

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM

The Supreme Court held, in Loving v. Virginia, tha marriage is “a basic civil right”.

Not having children is not the same as picking your pocket.

Perhaps we should compel everyone to reproduce, though.

urban elitist on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

If the GOP renders amnesty for illegal aliens after this dismal decision, I’m going to change my registration to Independent and be done with even trying to explain and support the GOP. This is madness, what the Progressives in the GOP are doing to principles. There is increasingly little reason to remain a Republican if all the hard work trying to support the candidates and elections reaps junk decisions such as this one.

The lady from South Florida is part of the Party’s problem. I’ve rather sensed that for a while now, despite her good statements on national security along the way, but, unfortunately, she’s just another Leftwinger who happened to win a GOP election because of her support for Israel and dislike of Castro. That no longer satisfies the needs of constituents as to Republicans — part of it, yes but not at all enough when decisions such as this and the amnesty thing are on the horizon.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

I was responding to someone who said being a gay male was in and of itself an unsafe sexual practice and I corrected the record as to what a safer sexual practice actually was. Then you took it way out to the absurd level. You say abstinance is the only 100% safe thing to do and that much is correct but I don’t think you’re advocating that as a general lifestyle.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

I never wrote that abstinence is the only safe method nor that it is 100% effective.

So, excuse yourself.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 3:49 PM

You’re another enthusiastic name-caller whom I largely ignore. But let me help you here:

I wasn’t talking about HIV rates. I was talking about means of transmission. Homosexuality is deeply stigmatized in much of Africa. Promiscuous heterosexual men (in trade with prostitutes) are the problem there. Howevever marriage is no safe haven:

In urban Zambia and Rwanda, heterosexual HIV transmission in both men and women takes place within marriage or cohabitation, according to an Article released on June 26, 2008 in The Lancet.

Yeah, the article is 4 1/2 years old, but it makes my point.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Lunch was great. What did I miss?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Sex in the butt is super, super safe or something.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Eff that. Start here.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Once polygamy becomes the law of the land, can libfreeordie marry more than one llama?

Akzed on February 26, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Those Progressive Germans are way ahead of this GOP crowd but not by much…

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Lunch was great. What did I miss?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Mostly science and medical terms you probably wouldn’t find very interesting. Your attempt at painting me as a racist failed as well. So What did you have for lunch and did you catch it yourself?

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Sex in the butt is super, super safe or something.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

updating…
updating…
Ok.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:05 PM

I wasn’t talking about HIV rates. I was talking about means of transmission. Homosexuality is deeply stigmatized in much of Africa. Promiscuous heterosexual men (in trade with prostitutes) are the problem there. Howevever marriage is no safe haven:

In urban Zambia and Rwanda, heterosexual HIV transmission in both men and women takes place within marriage or cohabitation, according to an Article released on June 26, 2008 in The Lancet.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Let me state the very obvious about that, which you appear to be struggling to avoid mentioning: those “HIV rates” and otherwise, acquired infections CAME FROM homosexual activity.

Men had anal intercourse with other men who had HIV, those men then had intercourse of either kind with women, presto: HIV present in heterosexuals (the women in such cases).

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

But, as I said, you do have eyes on my and my children’s money, as you state you still want repaid. Where oh where will that money come from? LOL.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 3:55 PM

That’s right, idiot. My money. Let’s get that straight-my money was taken from me by threat of force and given to your parents and grandparents. So, perhaps you, as the heir to their estates, should cough it up and reimburse me since you think the system created was never intended to operate as sold. In effect, your progenitors stole from me and I want recompense. See how that works? You say I have my eyes illegitimately on your childrens’ money, when I say your parents and grandparents already stole from me so it’s a payback. Your argument with respect to people like me is baseless and spurious and that is what I’m addressing.

Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat party opened up the “lockbox” almost 50 years ago and put the money into the general fund. Congress has spent it dry ever since. I was a tad too young to vote at the time so had no say in that little scam. I have yet to find one politician who will get rid of social security in its entirety so don’t blame me for not voting someone in to do so.

Your credibility would be better served if you didn’t argue that social security is a constitutional tax, rulings be damned. It may be constitutional from a stare decisis point of view and for purposes of legal argument, but it’s inception was suspect and remains so today. Unfortunately, we won’t get anyone to revisit this issue on any court so we are stuck. Stop attacking people you don’t know for reasons that are baseless and maybe you’ll get someone to agree with you from time to time.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

OK, so what else do you count as safe?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Perhaps we should compel everyone to reproduce, though.

urban elitist on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Any law that compels the likes of you to have children is unwise, unconstitutional, and an offense to nature itself.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Your attempt at painting me as a racist failed as well.

Let me know when I can’t find the aformentioned quote only at white-supremacy sites.

I don’t know what you are. But I know what you copied and pasted that night. Why would even care what I think?

Maybe you were just doing research like Pete Townsend and Jerry Sandusky.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Lunch was great. What did I miss?

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:02 PM

I didn’t read the previous comments, either, up to here but given past posts of a similar theme, I’m sure what we’ve *missed* is the homosexual activity eagerly talking about their specific bodily functions with others like themselves.

They do so enjoy seizing any opportunity *to explain* their acts and behaviors.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

You’re late to the party and you don’t understand the context of the discussion.

…you were saying?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Moreover, stoner, it seems to me that your hatred for childless people stems from the plain fact that we didn’t have enough children to fund you in your old age and your children might have to shoulder “more than their fair share” of that burden. Too bad. Perhaps you should have 20 children to make up for my lack of reproductive duty-filling.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

As much fun as it has been, being vilified for failing to reproduce, I think I’ll leave and go tutor my cousin’s daughter.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

He hates childless people?

I’m childless! At least as far as I know, that is.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM

And you so recognize that, the US, marriage is a right, not a privilege?

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

Please, point that word out to us in The Bill of Rights, or any other Founding Document.

kingsjester on February 26, 2013 at 3:47 PM

These Progressives in the GOP seem to have *magically found such*. Someone has certainly paid them off and I’m thinking George Soros has slipped a great deal of money to these people involved (see AP’s post).

This is just a preposterously bizarre decision by these alleged Republicans, seems to indicate some sort of burst of insanity among them incentivized by some sort of shower of vanity rewards by source as-yet undisclosed.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM

The Supreme Court held, in Loving v. Virginia, tha marriage is “a basic civil right”.

urban elitist on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

And made it clear in their refusal to hear Baker v. Nelson mere years later that gay-sex marriage was not.

I wasn’t talking about HIV rates. I was talking about means of transmission. Homosexuality is deeply stigmatized in much of Africa. Promiscuous heterosexual men (in trade with prostitutes) are the problem there. Howevever marriage is no safe haven:

Did you miss the “marriage OR cohabitation” in your statement?

And did you know what was funny when one actually looked at the results instead of in the Lancet’s summary?

We analysed DHS data from 1739 Zambian women, 540 Zambian men, 1176 Rwandan women, and 606 Rwandan men. Under our base model, we estimated that 55·1% to 92·7% of new heterosexually acquired HIV
infections among adults in urban Zambia and Rwanda occurred within serodiscordant marital or cohabiting relationships, depending on the sex of the index partner and on location.

Do you even know what “serodiscordant” means?

It means one person in the relationship already had HIV.

So what you’re doing is screaming that marriage doesn’t do anything to prevent HIV transmission when one of the other partners involved already has HIV.

What an absolutely idiotic argument on your part. Are you a total imbecile? You are screaming that marriage transmits HIV by using a study of couples made up of people who already had premarital sex and acquired it!

northdallasthirty on February 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM

He hates childless people?

I’m childless! At least as far as I know, that is.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Like the little girl in the nursery rhyme, “when he’s bad, he’s horrid.” We all have our little obsessions on this site, his seems to be playing a Quiverfull holier-than-thou fundie at random times.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

You’re late to the party and you don’t understand the context of the discussion.

…you were saying?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I’m not interested in even trying to have a “discussion” with you about this or anything else.

I’ve commented about the site’s post. Meanwhile, it’s not about you, Princess, even when you assume it is.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Maybe you were just doing research like Pete Townsend and Jerry Sandusky.

Capitalist Hog on February 26, 2013 at 4:09 PM

You don’t understand at all. I love my Race! I am proud of my Races position in the pantheon of Civilization. As to Jerry Sandusky, most Whites don’t molest their children, or get off on child porno, as their rates pale in comparison to others and that is if they even can know who da baby daddy be.

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:07 PM

You’re late to the party and you don’t understand the context of the discussion.

…you were saying?

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:10 PM

And the only “party” occurring is in your head. About yourself.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:18 PM

My last word:

Of course Republicans are finding a way to come to terms with SSM. The smart ones understand they will be left behind as society moves forward.

The Christianist reactionaries will continue to rage, but no one will care.

The End.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

My political registration is hanging on as Republican by an increasingly thinning thread…

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

My last word:

Of course Republicans are finding a way to come to terms with SSM. The smart ones understand they will be left behind as society moves forward.

The Christianist reactionaries will continue to rage, but no one will care.

The End.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Oooh, “Christianist,” and Republicans as “the other”…

I knew who you were by reading just one of your comments and there it all hangs out, you loiter with ugly, vile animosity about Christ, CHristianity, His Body, other human beings and all that because you at some time in your life believed a lie and have committed yourself to it.

I’ll really try and say a prayer for you. Really, I will try.

Lourdes on February 26, 2013 at 4:21 PM

My last word:

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I wonder how many other people reading this had the same thought I did.

Promises, promises.

tom on February 26, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Which quote are you looking for? Is it this one: Whites have let themselves be convinced that it is racist merely to object to dispossession,
much less to work for their own interests.
Never before has a people been fooled into thinking that there was virtue or nobility in surrendering its heritage,
and giving away to others its place in history,
only whites have been tricked into thinking that love for their own people is somehow “hatred” of others.

Or this one:

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government…It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be, pari passu (equally), filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.”

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:21 PM

My last word:

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

What, you’re dying?

(don’t we wish.)

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:23 PM

The smart ones understand they will be left behind as society moves forward.

Liberal and smart are two terms at odds with each other.

They’re like two positively charged ions.

sentinelrules on February 26, 2013 at 4:24 PM

My last word:
….
The End.
chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Can we have mods affirm this?

nobar on February 26, 2013 at 4:24 PM

The Christianist reactionaries will continue to rage, but no one will care.

The End.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM

They said the same thing at the Roman Coliseum…2000 years ago. History turned out different.

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Bulletchaser on February 26, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Words fail me. Wow.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Words fail me. Wow.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM

*plays sad violin*

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM

*plays sad violin*

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I’ve disagreed with you in the past but I had more respect for you than that. I won’t be making that mistake again.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM

That’s right, idiot. My money. Let’s get that straight-my money was taken from me by threat of force and given to your parents and grandparents. So, perhaps you, as the heir to their estates, should cough it up and reimburse me since you think the system created was never intended to operate as sold. In effect, your progenitors stole from me and I want recompense. See how that works? You say I have my eyes illegitimately on your childrens’ money, when I say your parents and grandparents already stole from me so it’s a payback. Your argument with respect to people like me is baseless and spurious and that is what I’m addressing.

Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat party opened up the “lockbox” almost 50 years ago and put the money into the general fund. Congress has spent it dry ever since. I was a tad too young to vote at the time so had no say in that little scam. I have yet to find one politician who will get rid of social security in its entirety so don’t blame me for not voting someone in to do so.

Your credibility would be better served if you didn’t argue that social security is a constitutional tax, rulings be damned. It may be constitutional from a stare decisis point of view and for purposes of legal argument, but it’s inception was suspect and remains so today. Unfortunately, we won’t get anyone to revisit this issue on any court so we are stuck. Stop attacking people you don’t know for reasons that are baseless and maybe you’ll get someone to agree with you from time to time.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM

My credibility remains solid. A tax is a tax is a tax. The idiot Republicans in 1909 or 1910 was it chose to send out the Amendment to make it constitutional. The court found rightly that the government can lay taxes, and for any purpose they chose to say it is for. The reason that Roosevelt went the way he did was to make people feel ENTITLED and thus make the law permanent.

The Supreme Court has never heard and likely never will hear a case to determine if payments of the type from the government to individuals is constitutional. If it did, I think that would be the end of the experiment. Slavery having been made unconstitutional and all.

That is the thing, only the people having children are actually supporting the nation. When your 80 and looking for help, it will be the children of others that will there to help you. You are not actively making the future better, just the current period and for the self.

When Social Security was enacted there were 45 workers per retiree. Today it is less than 1.6 private sector wealth creating worker per retiree, and with jerks like refusing to have children, that number is going to keep getting smaller and smaller.

I argued that society RIGHTLY should shun people like you. It creates ever larger burdens on future generations. Yes, you fit well in with miscreants, because if everyone chose your route, then there would be no future, and there would be no old age, some other country producing children would just come along and kill the lot of you!

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM

And made it clear in their refusal to hear Baker v. Nelson mere years later that gay-sex marriage was not.

I love how they love quoting SCOTUS decisions, but suddenly certain decisions become irrelevant or null just because they don’t like them..

From Baker v. Nelson:

“The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that “abstract symmetry” is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment./4/

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia’s antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/”

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Moreover, stoner, it seems to me that your hatred for childless people stems from the plain fact that we didn’t have enough children to fund you in your old age and your children might have to shoulder “more than their fair share” of that burden. Too bad. Perhaps you should have 20 children to make up for my lack of reproductive duty-filling.

totherightofthem on February 26, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Nope, I work towards the riddance of the welfare state in all its gory.

Only then can you do as you please without interfering with my RIGHTS.

Either we have a welfare state, or people have the right to do aberrant activities. I am not willing to shoulder the cost of having both.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Either we have a welfare state, or people have the right to do aberrant activities. I am not willing to shoulder the cost of having both.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:39 PM

And I’m not willing to shoulder the cost of a self-righteous breeder pr!ck like you, nor I suspect is anyone else here. Too bad Democrats learned how to abuse the hell out of your “pro-family” subsidies…

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM

That is the thing, only the people having children are actually supporting the nation. When your 80 and looking for help, it will be the children of others that will there to help you. You are not actively making the future better, just the current period and for the self.

When Social Security was enacted there were 45 workers per retiree. Today it is less than 1.6 private sector wealth creating worker per retiree, and with jerks like refusing to have children, that number is going to keep getting smaller and smaller.

I argued that society RIGHTLY should shun people like you. It creates ever larger burdens on future generations. Yes, you fit well in with miscreants, because if everyone chose your route, then there would be no future, and there would be no old age, some other country producing children would just come along and kill the lot of you!

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM

F*ck off and don’t come back until you come down from being a self-righteous fundie breeder A$$HOLE!

So you had babies, BIG DEAL, a stray cat can have babies! You are not entitled to anything – least of all our tax dollars – because you demonstrated that your reproductive organs are functioning. Know who ELSE is benefiting from your stupid breeder policies? Democrats who’ve been on the dole for generations and done nothing but make more welfare recepients. Bet you feel smart now, huh?

People are refusing to marry and have families because the Obamaconomy has left them destitute, and men are rightly afraid of being stripped of everything they own in a “no-fault divorce”.

Nobody here from the Chump on up gives a rat’s arse about your Golden Wang Trophies, and we sure as hell will not bow to you. Get over it!

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM

And I’m not willing to shoulder the cost of a self-righteous breeder pr!ck like you, nor I suspect is anyone else here. Too bad Democrats learned how to abuse the hell out of your “pro-family” subsidies…

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM

I want those subsidies gone as well. I want them all gone. I want people to survive on their own merits.

I think I have been clear that I want all of them gone many times. In fact, I call for a flat rate tax, no deductions. Budget/# adults in nation = your tax. Right now, that is a little under $16,000 a year.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM

I do not know why you are always willing to deliberately forget my positions when it suits your need to lash out. I want the government cut down to its constitutional bedrock. No school administration, no EPA, no farm subsidies, no housing subsidies, no unemployment checks, no social security, no medicare, no medicaid.

Military, courts, executive branch and legislative branches are pretty much the entire budget we should pay for.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I want those subsidies gone as well. I want them all gone. I want people to survive on their own merits.

I think I have been clear that I want all of them gone many times. In fact, I call for a flat rate tax, no deductions. Budget/# adults in nation = your tax. Right now, that is a little under $16,000 a year.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:44 PM

That doesn’t excuse your breeder snobbery, but I’m with you 100% on that. If the Fairtax is too much for our nation to swallow then a flat tax is the next best thing. No deductions or breaks for anyone for anything.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I do not know why you are always willing to deliberately forget my positions when it suits your need to lash out.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

When you ACT like a self-righteous breeder – “I have kids! I raise TEH FYOOCHUR! Worship me!” I’m gonna treat you like one.

You don’t do this often, but when you do, you don’t make any allies.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:49 PM

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Hear hear!

What kind of sick, cruel, twisted person would bring an innocent child into this world knowing full well they will be shouldered with Barack Obama’s debt?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:52 PM

What kind of sick, cruel, twisted person would bring an innocent child into this world knowing full well they will be shouldered with Barack Obama’s debt?

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 4:52 PM

The follies of whatever idiot is currently squatting in the White House are not really a consideration in having kids, unless the nation has been reduced to absolute ruin. (and we ain’t there yet)

The ability to vote or no, the hard truth is we can’t really control what happens in DC.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM

It’s ironic that the same gaggle of folks pushing for “marriage equality” are the same cohort who, in the 70s, were claiming they didn’t need a piece of paper to codify their love which of course was their way of rationalizing cohabitation. Then the 80s came along and rampant bed-hopping (public bathroom encounters, public park shenanigans, etc.) brought the AIDS epidemic front and center, but somehow all that was Reagan’s fault… then the cry of “diversity” was the theme du jour of the gay activists, insisting that gays were different but should be accepted. Now suddenly, the cry for marriage equality flies in the face of all that because in the eyes of it proponents, gay marriage should be the SAME as traditional marriage. Gosh, being a victim has been tough!!

So… which is it? I’m confused. (Well no, not really… I know exactly what’s going on.)

I’m a gay man, or rather a conservative guy who happens to be gay. Marriage is not a “right.” It’s an institution defined by centuries of human experience as the joining of one man and one woman. And while I differ from many of my conservative friends when I say that in spite of the true definition of marriage, I think that committed gay couples should be able to legalize their unions in order to build a life together without undue legal obstacles, I stand in staunch defiance of my gay friends when I say that the “marriage” of two men or two women is not and can never be the exact same as the sacred union between a man and a woman. History, anthropology and biology make it so… so get over it.

Dick Cheney supports gay marriage — OK, I get it. He wants the best for Mary and her partner. I don’t think anyone wishes them harm. But that doesn’t mean that conservatives then just drop everything and say “Well Dick Cheney’s for it, so I guess…” So a few more republicans sign on — that’s fine — but even in this instance, they’re not being called out simply because they feel a certain way; they’re being illuminated to create a rift in the “conservative narrative.” Don’t buy it.

What’s somewhat amusing in all of this is that the dopes on the left – especially the gay left – act as if this is some sort of crusade to define a generation and generations to come when all it really is is the latest ploy by the left (esp. Democrats) to exploit a group of unwitting dolts for political advantage while convincing those same dolts that they’re really cared for. Lame…

Lastly, what really annoys me most about all of this are the cries of “hater” and “bigot” anytime someone stands up for traditional marriage by not supporting a gay equivalent. Recall the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote in CA a few years ago — all the “brave” gay marriage proponents “took to the streets” to taunt old women, Mormons and Christian churches, yet somehow they didn’t seem to want to take their accusatory B.S. to the black neighborhoods where they were roundly defeated in the vote count. Cowards.

dpduq on February 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM

That doesn’t excuse your breeder snobbery, but I’m with you 100% on that. If the Fairtax is too much for our nation to swallow then a flat tax is the next best thing. No deductions or breaks for anyone for anything.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

It is not snobbery. It is simply a fact of nature. IF YOU WANT A FUNCTIONING SOCIETY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GROWING POPULATION, this goes DOUBLE when you also have an AGING SOCIETY where the average age of death is increasing, but the average age of departure from production is remaining constant or even going lower.

The culture of old that people like you detest knew this simple fact and enforced it with shame. If you want to empower leftist Marxists and such, keep on keeping on for your hatred of tradition which was created from observation of the human condition over tens of thousands of years.

I mean, talk about SNOBBERY, the argument that what worked in the past can be and SHOULD be changed because you know better, for no other reason than YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEM!

Why was it like that before? Why is our society to f^cked up today? No way it is possible one has anything to do with the other, I KNOW BETTER THAN THAT!

That is certainly hubris of you and very snobbish. It is like the kings and queens in Hollywood who keep arguing the laws of nature do not apply to them. The kings and queens in Washington who keep arguing that we unwashed masses have no say in our government, they will run our lives for us.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 4:56 PM

When you ACT like a self-righteous breeder – “I have kids! I raise TEH FYOOCHUR! Worship me!” I’m gonna treat you like one.

You don’t do this often, but when you do, you don’t make any allies.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:49 PM

You want a functioning society, or are you happy with the direction we are going? One or the other. There are costs associated with prosperity believe it or not. Otherwise, any nation with any group of people would be prosperous. Do you feel we are adequately prosperous today? Our nation did not become prosperous because a bunch of whiny little brats were given free reign to do as they please with no judgement from others. It became the mess it is today because of that attitude. Judgement free lives, do as we please, and I god damned well do demand prosperity from our childish ways!

GROW UP!

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM

GROW UP!

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM

QUIT ACTING LIKE I SHOULD WORSHIP YOU, UPPITY BREEDER!

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM

QUIT ACTING LIKE I SHOULD WORSHIP YOU, UPPITY BREEDER!

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM

How about you just read history with a search for, how did we get from there to here in mind…

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Retract and apologize, then maybe we can talk.

chumpThreads on February 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM

LOL. Is that what you tell your butt-love partners too?

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM

The Supreme Court held, in Loving v. Virginia, tha marriage is “a basic civil right”.

Not having children is not the same as picking your pocket.

Perhaps we should compel everyone to reproduce, though.

urban elitist on February 26, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Naw, some do not partake in that kind of physical activity,

OTOH, perhaps we should compel Urban Elitists such as yourself
to live in the Heartland….

So you can show us Rubes how to be Urbane in Urban areas…

ToddPA on February 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM

How about you just read history with a search for, how did we get from there to here in mind…

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM

By giving cash benefits for spawning, oafamungus. Who took the system that was made with Beaver-Cleaver families in mind and gamed the hell out of it? The Democrats you see flocking to buy lotto tickets and malt liquor every month.

We are now rapidly approaching the 50% tipping point where we are literally outnumbered. And $16 trillion in debt.

You will get nothing from young people but half a peace sign if you don’t make life better for them…instead of scold and demand worship for something a couple middle schoolers can do in the backseat of their parents’ car.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM

You cannot make life better for them by doubling down on the stupid that made things worse for them in the first place.

Count me out.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Is that what you tell your butt-love partners too?

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Ahhh…another classy HA thread.
Coming up on 500 comments.
All Ed or AP need to is throw a little gay topic out as bait…and bam!
Works every time.

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

People from both sides do the same thing and even use the same words. Your point again?

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 5:05 PM

.
Ahhh…another classy HA thread.
Coming up on 500 comments.
All Ed or AP need to is throw a little gay topic out as bait…and bam!
Works every time.

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

.
So it’s “internet sweeps week” … yahoo.

listens2glenn on February 26, 2013 at 6:06 PM

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.

Well, yes, you are stretching the definition of prominent quite a bit. An important question is just exactly why did you use the word prominent in the headline?

My theory is that you’re engaging in some good old-fashioned propaganda, and used the word knowing full well that because of Hot Air’s prominence on the web it would be repeated and reported!

Hot Air meet MSNBC.

INC on February 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM

While the headline engages in Fool’s Gold: Glittering Generalities as Propaganda and Sugar Coating: Testimonial as Propaganda, I think The In Crowd: Band Wagon as Propaganda, the sum total of propaganda hits the nail on the head.

From The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA):

Propaganda Tricks of the Trade #7: Band Wagon

Band Wagon has as its theme, “Everybody-at least all of us-is doing it”; with it, the propagandist attempts to convince us that all members of a group to which we belong are accepting his program and that we must therefore follow our crowd and “jump on the band wagon.”

Charles A. Fleming evaluates Band Wagon:

Band Wagon. This is a “follow the crowd” device that promotes the idea that everyone else is doing what the propagandist wants the audience to do . It is more comfortable to be a member of the crowd than it is to stand out or to be left out. An example would be an appeal to vote for a particular candidate because everyone else like you is voting for that candidate.

Band Wagon is the culmination of the propagandist’s work as he uses it to mold people into a group mentality that rejects any critique of the leader [in this case a policy] and becomes caught up in following him despite warning, despite common sense, and despite destructive consequences.

INC on February 26, 2013 at 6:24 PM

So things that carry a criminal penalty are illegal and things which are not authorized by the state are also illegal.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I don’t know how any statement could possibly be more wrong.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Ahhh…another classy HA thread.
Coming up on 500 comments.
All Ed or AP need to is throw a little gay topic out as bait…and bam!
Works every time.

verbaluce on February 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Oh look an attention seeker who sweeps in to tell us that he is too sophisticated to get caught up in this thread by posting in this little thread…

melle1228 on February 26, 2013 at 6:33 PM

When Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas, he said.

Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our Indepen- dence, and muzzle the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country!

Lincoln went on to say this about Stephen Douglas:

When he invites any people willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he “cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up,”—that it is a sacred right of self government—he is in my judgment penetrating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people.

An amoral attitude toward slavery is not the only thing that can blow out the moral lights. As I thought about Lincoln’s statement I realized how true it is of so many actions and issues. Propaganda blows out the moral lights by teaching people to abandon wisdom and discernment. It dulls the light of reason, and it marches and conforms people into one monolithic group of robotic obedience. Propaganda usually appeals to our weaknesses and worst instincts: our fears, insecurities, avarice and suspicion, and it brutalizes our perception of our fellow human beings.

Propaganda blows out the moral lights by obliterating truth with lies. This is evident in many areas today, but those who would redefine marriage use propaganda all levels to blow out the moral lights.

INC on February 26, 2013 at 6:39 PM

That doesn’t excuse your breeder snobbery, but I’m with you 100% on that. If the Fairtax is too much for our nation to swallow then a flat tax is the next best thing. No deductions or breaks for anyone for anything.

MelonCollie on February 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Breeder snobbery is justified in a country that relies on a ponzi scheme to fund its welfare system.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 6:53 PM

You cannot make life better for them by doubling down on the stupid that made things worse for them in the first place.

Count me out.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM

I really have no idea what you consider the government’s role to be. Sometimes you say that you want to limit government, and other times you say that you want government involved in just about all of our decisions. I really don’t get it.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 6:56 PM

In winter of 2010, Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson published, “What is Marriage?” in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. It’s online at the link. They discuss:

I. …Part I provides the core or essence of our argument, what could reasonably be taken as a stand‐alone defense of our position…

A. Equality, Justice, and the Heart of the Debate
B. Real Marriage Is – And Is Only – The Union of Husband and Wife
1. Comprehensive Union
2. Special Link to Children
3. Marital Norms

C. How Would Gay Civil Marriage Affect You or Your Marriage?
1. Weakening Marriage
2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex Parenting As an Ideal
3. Threatening Moral and Religious Freedom

D. If Not Same‐Sex Couples, Why Infertile Ones?
1. Still Real Marriages
2. Still in the Public Interest

E. Challenges for Revisionists
1. The State Has an Interest in Regulating Some Relationships?
2. Only if They Are Romantic?
3. Only if They Are Monogamous?

F. Isn’t Marriage Just Whatever We Say It Is?

II . …Part II considers all of the serious concerns that are not treated earlier…

A. Why Not Spread Traditional Norms to the Gay Community?
B. What About Partners’ Concrete Needs?
C. Doesn’t the Conjugal Conception of Marriage Sacrifice Some People’s Fulfillment for Others’?
D. Isn’t It Only Natural?
E. Doesn’t Traditional Marriage Law Impose Controversial Moral and Religious Views on Everyone?

Conclusion

I would love to know if any of these “prominent” Republicans have considered anything presented in this article, or if they are merely jumping on a bandwagon because of emotion or ambition.

The article has since been revised, expanded and published as a book in December 2012. What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.

INC on February 26, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I really have no idea what you consider the government’s role to be. Sometimes you say that you want to limit government, and other times you say that you want government involved in just about all of our decisions. I really don’t get it.

besser tot als rot on February 26, 2013 at 6:56 PM

As long as my labor is to be the insurance policy for the immoral, my position will be that the government should sanction as harshly as possible the immoral activities of those whom I am enslaved. It is really a simple position that does not require you to be confused. Get rid of the welfare state, including social security and medicare, and I could care less what the hell other people are doing. Of course, that also requires that payments from the federal government to individuals be made unconstitutional explicitly.

It would be better if we also got rid of all the tax deductions and refundable deductions.

It would be best if we had a single tax on each adult in the nation. Federal Government Budget / # of adults. Right now, about $16,000. Effectively, if you are not paying $16,000 in federal taxes a year, you are being subsidized by someone else. I think that includes me in the subsidized column.

Of course, even with that, I still demand to retain my right to ridicule and shame those who are miscreants and actively participating in immoral behaviors.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Of course, even with that, I still demand to retain my right to ridicule and shame those who are miscreants and actively participating in immoral behaviors.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 7:05 PM

Pure gold. Or is that $16,000 worth of gold?

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Wait, since the Senate has not passed a federal budget for several years, does that mean my taxes = $0 / # of adults?

Nutstuyu on February 26, 2013 at 7:35 PM

blink on February 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Rights do not change over time. The “basic civil right” that they found was the right for a man to marry a woman. Like my right to bear arms should not be changed if they chose to remove weapons from being defined as an arm.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 8:01 PM

Why does this thread have more legs than any other. What are the stakes for conservatives in opposing this?

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 8:06 PM

The closer you move the nation towards Sodom and Gomorrah, the closer it will be to Christ’s Return.

Do it.

The GOP will betray you

True_King on February 26, 2013 at 8:11 PM

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

You also have massive, massive issues and probably could benefit from therapy. You keep dropping the fact that you are gay, but you absolutely refuse to be forthright about your relationships. Is there any doubt that you have either never been in love, or have tried to live an abstinent life? And if those things are true than you are literally a stunted person whose opinion on same sex marriage probably shouldn’t be considered. How can you trust someone on love who has never been in love.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM

How can you trust someone on love who has never been in love.

libfreeordie on February 26, 2013 at 8:13 PM

When you base your argument about love as the determining factor on what constitutes a marriage and not the children, then your opinion on marriage probably should not matter.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 8:18 PM

That’s correct. Everyone should have always had the right to marry as they please.

blink on February 26, 2013 at 8:05 PM

When have they not had that right? Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Its purpose is to create a family unit for the creation and nurturing of the next generation. Everyone has the opportunity to partake in that who is 18 years of age and older even when they do not want to create children. One man and one woman. It is a definition.

People on the progressive left like to change definitions to win arguments, you are not a person of the progressive left are you? If so, why should people on a conservative web page listen to your opinions?

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7