The Saturday “GOP is the Gay (marriage) Old Party” thread

posted at 8:31 am on March 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Sadly for all of us, the world failed to be utterly destroyed by either Sequestration Freaky Friday or any additional visits of world shattering comets. (At least on the first pass, that is.) So we may as well tempt fate and toss another stick of dynamite on the fire.

For a long time now, opposition to gay marriage has been one of the cornerstones of the conservative platform, libertarian circles aside. But with the sudden splash of cold water to the face that came with the last election, the drums in the deepest recesses of Moria have been growing louder. And some of the drumming is coming from Cato.

With the case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cato Institute has joined the Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) on an amicus brief that focuses on supporting marriage equality under the Equal Protection Clause. Our brief explains that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not exclusively to address the disparaged rights of former slaves but, as the historical record shows, was intended to be universal in its protection of “any person” within U.S. jurisdiction.

Bilbo’s old sword began to glow a bit more when George Scoville sat down at his keyboard.

Republican lawmakers stand athwart marriage equality at their peril

Craig Stowell always suspected his brother might be gay, and he made sure to let his brother know he would love him no matter what if his brother ever came out to the family. It was the right thing to do. But Stowell didn’t become involved in political fights for marriage equality until Republicans in the New Hampshire legislature introduced HB 437 in 2011 to repeal the Granite State’s 2010 law conferring the same state protections on same-sex marriages that traditional marriages enjoy. (The legislature had tried previously — and failed — to repeal New Hampshire’s 2006 law protecting civil unions between gay couples.) Gay marriage proponents defeated HB 437 in 2012.

“When I look at my brother,” the New Hampshire Republican politico and Iraq War veteran told me over the phone, “I can’t help but want him to have the same rights I have.” As support for marriage equality continues to grow across the country, Republican lawmakers should embrace the opportunity to become leaders on the issue.

Long time Hot Air favorite Liz Mair has weighed in as well.

There are plenty of bad reasons to support gay marriage running around today, depending on where your priorities settle out. Yes, I could point out the increasing demographic shift which shows that younger voters support the idea across party lines more than they oppose it. But if the only reason you have to support gay marriage is a fear of losing yet another election or five, that doesn’t come across as a very sincere, heartfelt position.

The “big tent” argument carries considerably more appeal, since there’s obviously nothing wrong with a party serving as a forum for diverse opinions to be vigorously debated. But again… when brought up as the only positive factor in favor of the idea, it still seems to carry with it a bit of hypocritical seasoning. Welcoming people you clearly oppose on one of their fundamental issues simply for the purpose of trying to talk them out of it is small “d” democratic in nature, but lacks a certain esprit de corps.

In the end, the only pitch I would make on this subject is the same one I’ve had for years. It’s not that I particularly give a hoot who gets married to whom, nor the spiritual implications of any given union. Those are matters for the individuals to wrestle to the ground between themselves and their higher power. No, in the end the only thing which moves the needle on this for me is the conviction that the government – pretty much at any level – has no license to be involved in the business of marriage. And yes, that includes the oft foisted compromise we hear of it being “a state level issue.” (This, in my opinion, is the last refuge of people who don’t want to oppose or support gay marriage openly for fear of electoral retribution, but want to hang on to credentials with the conservative base.)

If we don’t want the government expanding its reach into every aspect of our lives and restricting itself to its proper and necessary functions, leaving the private matters of the individual up to them, there seems to be little else to say. If Uncle Sam came to your door trying to tell you who you must marry, I’d be right there defending you against them. But they’re not in this case. And why is marriage locked into the tax code and so many other aspects of law to begin with, making it all the harder to extract? I can understand credits for raising the next generation of children – yes, even adopted ones – but why for a spouse? Why should I get some benefit on my taxes for having married my wife and sharing a house that two sisters who share a house to cut expenses can’t get?

It’s not an even deal for the citizens in the end. And if it turns out that accepting such a concept winds up stopping another drubbing at the polls, well that’s just a bonus. You may now commence breaking out the flamethrowers


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 8

…I’m gay!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

…ok…no I’m not

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

…but it seems to be the “IN” thing now days

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:34 AM

…and I want to be accepted!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:34 AM

…don’t want to be a ‘phob’!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:35 AM

…so, let’s all join in!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:35 AM

…you really should have saved this for tonight!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:36 AM

…then…a thousand comment thread!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Goodbye gop….I will not participate……

crosshugger on March 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

…JugEars is pleading to the Supremes!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Goodbye gop….I will not participate……

crosshugger on March 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

…goodbye 30 comment Bishop!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Sure–let’s get government completely out of it. How about no more testing for sexually transmitted diseases and all? How about with government totally out of it, what certainty is there to affirm the legal status of marriage?

Let’s get government totally out of it–no one after a ‘divorce’ is ever again held responsible for alimony or child support. A guy can easily walk away and not pay a dime unless he wants to. In fact, a smart guy would keep the house in his name only, so when the divorce happens he has total claim to it and can kick the wife and kids to the street.

Yes–let’s get government totally out of the ‘marriage business’!

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 8:40 AM

turdfreeorpee will be her momentarily to give us all his wisdom…of course there will have to be a racial slant involved…

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM

All the answers to your questions can be answered simply: it’s healthy for society to promote real marriage. If a child grows up with an available mother and father, he/she has a much greater chance of becoming a well-rounded, decent person and a positive contributor to society.

crrr6 on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM

“Equality” is a bogus term here. I have exactly the same “right” Inre marriage as a gay man.

Buying into the phony “marriage equality” phrasing is to advance a fraud.

And Inre a “right” to marry, I can think of no such broad right, since if it were a right I could force someone to marry me against her will. So since the gay marriage arguments seem to be based on rhetorical bait and switch, I refuse to redefine an institution that has stood for many years on the strength of them.

JohnTant on March 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Oh goody, way to go. Keep pi**ing off the SoCons. That’ll give you victory, big time. As evidenced by the last 2 Presidential elections. You anger the foot soldiers of the GOP, and they’ll just not vote. Really brilliant idea!

tommy71 on March 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Hot Gay! Hot Gay every day! Gay! Gay! Gay!

We will bombard you with our Gayness! until you agree to submit. It doesn’t matter that when given the choice people reject gay marriage. Our self appointed betters have decided Gay! Fall in line or you will be subjected to another million articles on Gay! on Hot Gay!

Blake on March 2, 2013 at 8:47 AM

If Uncle Sam came to your door trying to tell you who you must marry

…No problem!…Uncle Joe told me to shoot the shotgun through the door!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM

As America’s overall morality declines so too does our strength, our overall happiness and our blessings. We have gone from the shining city on a hill to a shantytown in a cesspool in just a couple of generations. It will only get worse from here on out.

HotAirian on March 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Gay marriage is so yesterday. It’s transexuals, baby…the younger the better. But what about us oldies? Why exclude us?

I’m a grandma (http://www.grannyjanandjihadkitty.com/) but I’ve always wanted to peek into the men’s room. Yes, there are dirty old, woman. From on now I’m a grandpa and will use the men’s room.

It’s the least my home state of Massachusetts can do for my mental well-being. I’m already excited about this. Try and stop me….Lawsuit

No Niks on March 2, 2013 at 8:51 AM

The entire push has more to do with bush whacking the term “marriage” for social purposes. I, for one, will continue to be a hold out. Has anyone looked at the demographic data lately? The disappearance of the traditional family is shocking. By giving gays the pretend titles of husband and wife will not fix what ails us.

kpguru on March 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Tax credits for a spouse exist because of single income households, in which the spouse is as financially dependent as progeny. These should be eliminated only for dual income households.

exdeadhead on March 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM

tommy71 on March 2, 2013 at 8:46 AM

I see geezers get up early on weekends huh!

In more important news:

John C. Pechette @heatpacker

Teamobama dumped heavily redacted #Benghazi documents late on a Friday afternoon, which can only mean they’re hiding something BIG. #tcot

can_con on March 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM

That people choose homosexual lifestyles really on disheartens me in a way similar to the fact that people choose a life of prostitution.
That the devotees to the homosexual lifestyle are almost always evangelical about it annoys me.
That they are trying to muscle in on government set-asides intended to encourage proper parenting irritates me.
That they are really going after “same sex marriage” as a foot-in-the-door way to use the power of the government to silence and punish those who criticize their lifestyle and gay-evangelism gets pretty close to infuriating me.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 8:55 AM

If Uncle Sam came to your door trying to tell you who you must marry

…No problem!…Uncle Joe told me to shoot the shotgun through the door!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Well played.

Lost in Jersey on March 2, 2013 at 8:58 AM

For a long time now, opposition to gay marriage has been one of the cornerstones of the conservative platform, libertarian circles aside… And some of the drumming is coming from Cato.

So, some libertarian circles have supported gay marriage… and the news is that a libertarian outlet supports it. News at 11!

In the end, the only pitch I would make on this subject is the same one I’ve had for years. It’s not that I particularly give a hoot who gets married to whom, nor the spiritual implications of any given union… the only thing which moves the needle on this for me is the conviction that the government – pretty much at any level – has no license to be involved in the business of marriage.

Except for that entire creation of a pact of devotion and commitment ’til death do you part so that children who may result from the marriage have a stable household and not end up abandoned. Y’know, those pesky cultural things like personal responsibility and moral duty. Those aspects of virtue that a society should be striving in seeking national greatness, rather than neglecting or being indifferent towards as they slouch towards mediocrity, indolence, hedonism, and depravity.

I condemn the 70+ GOPers who signed onto the pro-gay marriage amicus brief, as well as their supporters in the business community, and I praise CPAC for their decision to exclude GOProud. Fox News, NRO, HotAir, and other “conservative” outlets may be outraged by that. Tough. Because I’m not gonna budge, and I’m not gonna support or vote for this garbage that makes a mockery of marriage and renders it an institution without a purpose by putting the final nail in the coffin of an already-fragile and beaten-up cornerstone of civil society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 9:00 AM

I’m absolutely positive that homosexuals have been marrying for a very long time, when the governing means didn’t govern human lives in personal ways, which is the actual issue because its not the marrying that’s at greatest issue, its the government homosexual indoctrination that all of us should be abhorrent of.

Its not heterosexuals that practice so much intolerance, its the creeping, insidious, authoritarian intolerance of government, for a very long time.

Speakup on March 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM

I will continue to stand against “gay marriage” because it’s not marriage. No one is stopping them from living together, loving each other, or whatever. If they want to share benefits, that should be up to thier employer of the insurance company to offer it. If they want to get each other’s crap when one of them dies, wills can easily handle that. Hospital visits? Same thing, it’s an administrative matter. We should not be so quick to dismantle one of the bedrocks of human civilization because it’s what young people trend towards. I was young once, and I didn’t know sh*t.

Living4Him5534 on March 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM

“When I look at my brother,” the New Hampshire Republican politico and Iraq War veteran told me over the phone, “I can’t help but want him to have the same rights I have.”

Yes, and for every sad story like this there will be equally more from the 35 year old men who are deeply in love with their 12 year old partner. But the law won’t allow them to be in love. The law won’t allow them equal rights.

Then we’ll hear the stories of the sad sad 45 year old mother of 2 who has fallen in love with 5 other mothers and fathers and the courts refuse to allow them to marry. 3 couples, deeply in love with children from 16 other parents.. who the evil courts in the nation refuse to give equal treatment to under the law.

Then.. oh, it’s so heartbreaking, the 28 year old farmer who was a war Vet, came home back to the farm, and all he wanted to do was marry his horse and settle down. But our evil courts refuse to give him equal treatment under the law. Why destroy this good farmer’s life further? Ravaged by war and now he’s ravaged by the American court system. Just let them love and marry like anyone else can. But no. We deny him and his horse equal treatment under the law.

See.. here is the problem. Our foundation is “equal protection under the law,” man’s law.. not God’s law! Our foundation is whatever our feelings are at the moment. We feel sad for that man, we feel bad for that couple.. and we think in our own minds and justify our sin by telling ourselves our rights come from “equal protection under man’s law.” And tomorrow, if our feelings tell us something else, we’ll redefine that law to mean what our feelings tell us then. Because we have no other foundation in our lives but “man’s law.” Twisting this way and that, being blown in this direction and that by the winds of the earth. Which ever way the winds blow, we go. This way today. That way tomorrow.

But there is this little flaw in this… a people who have no foundations and are ruled by feelings today will be ruled by tyrants tomorrow. Because tomorrow.. it’ll be the tyrant who will decide and redefine what “equal protection under the law means” and the people will have no choice but to bow or be destroyed because they long ago rejected God’s law for man’s law.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 9:09 AM

The GOP is *really* begging me to never vote for them again, I see.

And Jazz, go join the Democrats.

Czar of Defenestration on March 2, 2013 at 9:10 AM

The problem has always been in a country where the mantra of separation of Church and State has become a mantra, there is no separation of Church and State in marriage — it is both a religious institution and, as noted above, one of the State, for tax and other legal reasons.

So who ‘owns’ the word marriage? And what would be coming down the pike if Obama’s not-very-subtile hints that he’d like to push a federal gay marriage law on the country (or, more likely, have the Supreme Court do it in ‘Roe v. Wade’ fashion) were to become reality.

That, to me, is the main fear — Not so much that the State will grab the term marriage simply because gay rights supporters aren’t satisfied with the term ‘civil unions’, but that you will begin to see civil actions against churches to remove their tax-exempt status and penalize their institutions like schools and hospitals, because they refuse to comply with the new federal law in sanctioning same-sex unions.

Like the battle with ObamaCare and birth control/abortion mandates right now, and what Church groups have to provide under the new federal mandates, you’re looking down the line at a government ideologically in line with the current administration supporting efforts to litigate religious institutions into supporting their view on marriage, under the threat of harsh legal or financial penalties.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Liberals would scream if the concept of equal protection under the law included the graduated income tax. Why is it right to tax one family at 40% and another at 10% or less because of income levels? That’s not equal at all, is it?

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM

New Steyn…

Sequestageddon

Resist We Much on March 2, 2013 at 9:20 AM

All the answers to your questions can be answered simply: it’s healthy for society to promote real marriage. If a child grows up with an available mother and father, he/she has a much greater chance of becoming a well-rounded, decent person and a positive contributor to society.

crrr6 on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Agreed.

This redefinition of marriages is also a redefinition of families and undermines religious liberty.

Demographic data show a rapid decline in traditional marriages in those European countries that have redefined marriage.

Any earlier protections promised for traditional religions who refuse to marry Homosexuals in those countries in the EU is also false.

“David Cameron will not be able to exempt the Churches from a duty to offer marriages to gay couples, a senior Catholic barrister has warned.

Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said that the Prime Minister’s assurances to the Church that they would not be compelled to perform religious marriage for gay couples are worthless.

He said two judgments by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg combined with a Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 clearly showed that the Government would be acting illegally if it legalised civil gay marriages without permitting them on religious premises too.

It means that if the Coalition Government presses ahead with its plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples the Catholic Church could face prosecution under equality legislation for acting according with its teachings.

“The Government will be obliged to permit same-sex marriage on religious premises on exactly the same basis as it permits heterosexual marriage,” said Mr Addison, a specialist in religious discrimination law…”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/04/20/new-law-will-compel-churches-to-offer-same-sex-marriages/

In the UK Catholic Schools have been notified by the government that they must teach that Gay Marriage is equal to Heterosexual Marriage in their curriculum. This violates Catholic teaching that is fundamental to the Catholic Liturgy and is coercion by the State to undermine the teaching authority of the Church within it’s own missionary system of education.

In Canada Christian pastors and priests are subject to state prosecution for preaching and teaching traditional liturgy as these apply to moral values.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM

I had an old acquaintance with someone who was gay in DC in the 1950s. His take was, the upside of being gay was that you couldn’t get married.

rbj on March 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Get back to me when a private business can’t be sued for turning down business on a equal basis. I’m sick of the favored minority status given to all these folks wanting to be equal.

Cindy Munford on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Deut. 11:26-28 “26Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; 27A blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: 28And a curse, if you will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which you have not known.”

Deuteronomy 30:15
See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil;

Jeremiah 42:21
“And now I have this day declared it to you; but you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD your God, nor any thing for the which he has sent me to you.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

We have chosen our own laws over God’s We began rejecting Him and His Word nearly 50 years ago or more. And we are reaping what we have sown. Today we are in perpetual crisis. A wrecked economy and ruled over by a man who would deny a baby born alive from an abortion medical care. It is no wonder we are where we are.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Our brief explains that the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was not exclusively to address the disparaged rights of former slaves but, as the historical record shows, was intended to be universal in its protection of “any person” within U.S. jurisdiction.

Protect people, sure. But to protect behavior?

Fine, gays are gay. That doesn’t mean we have to celebrate their aberrant, high-risk behavior.

They can behave however they want in private. But to require society to celebrate their conduct in elementary education and all throughout society is nothing short of bizarre. Creating a virtue and bestowing absolute moral authority to people to people who stick their thingies into those thangies makes no sense whatsoever.

BuckeyeSam on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM

…I’m gay!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

…ok…no I’m not

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Not in those shoes and that shirt yer not :P

*******

You’re a brave man, Jazz…starting off the day with a teh ghey marriage thread. I’m hung over to the point of possibly seeking medical attention and/or divine intervention and declaring that I will never drink again…or at least never mix cheap cruddy scotch with the good scotch. They don’t quite get along…like matter and anti-matter coming in contact with each other.

That being said, this isn’t about empty promises or party platforms…it’s about equal protection. If heterosexual married couples receive state benefits and perks, then so should same-sex married couples.

Get the govt. out of the marriage business? Sure…that’s fine with me. But like many entitlements, taking away those govt. sponsored benefits to married couples won’t go over real easy. Once the govt. gives the people something, it’s hard as heck to take it back. In socialist Europe they riot in the streets over it.

Bottom line on my thinking with gay marriage:

1) It takes nothing away from any straight marriage. Marriage is about love, commitment, stability, etc. You can argue that ’til the cows come home, but no straight marriage loses one danged thing.

2) It has nothing to do with religion/religious faith. Strawman all you want about slippery slopes and some dark “gay agenda”…it won’t change the fact that this has not one thing to do with anyone’s faith.

3) It’s stigmatized by the far-Left liberal hijacking of this issue. Gay marriage is not a strictly left wing issue…sure, the militant gay groups and such ramble on about it, and as conservatives we should be leary of what the liberals push for.

But not all gays are libs…just like we’re not all Folsom freaks or queen mary’s droning on about how Republicans want gays dead or whatever. They’re partisan idiots, just like the militant left heteros…yet I wouldn’t judge all straights by the actions of a few loud morons…and neither should gays be judged by the same.

Cheers. Mega coffee time.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Give them gay marriage and surely they will shut up about gayness,right?

docflash on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Liberals would scream if the concept of equal protection under the law included the graduated income tax. Why is it right to tax one family at 40% and another at 10% or less because of income levels? That’s not equal at all, is it?

Liam on March 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. Income, or money earned through investments, interest, should only be taxed a point of consumption.

In a sane world.

can_con on March 2, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Tax credits for a spouse exist because of single income households, in which the spouse is as financially dependent as progeny. These should be eliminated only for dual income households.

exdeadhead on March 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Strictly speaking, what are these “tax credits” of which you speak? Don’t talk tax if you don’t understand the system and its terms.

BuckeyeSam on March 2, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Give them gay marriage and surely they will shut up about gayness,right?

docflash on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Not until criticizing anything gay is a felony.
Then they will move on to “transsexuals”.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 9:32 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

All of this promotion of homosexuality by the state is a big government thing, JetBoy. If you were an honest libertarian, you would stop at repealing laws against homosexual acts, but you are stuck on winning just one more for your team.
Frankly, this whole thing has made me re-think all of the things I have supported that I now can see were demanding state promotion of atheism.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM

That, to me, is the main fear — Not so much that the State will grab the term marriage simply because gay rights supporters aren’t satisfied with the term ‘civil unions’, but that you will begin to see civil actions against churches to remove their tax-exempt status and penalize their institutions like schools and hospitals, because they refuse to comply with the new federal law in sanctioning same-sex unions.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I never considered that outcome— If the GOP loses the House in 2014, then that’s a good guess of what will happen. It’ll be an Obamacare redux with SSM. It’ll be bookends of Obama’s reign with two pieces of awful legislation forced on the public. The repercussions, as you state, will be severe.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Bottom line on my thinking with gay marriage:

1) It takes nothing away from any straight marriage. Marriage is about love, commitment, stability, etc. You can argue that ’til the cows come home, but no straight marriage loses one danged thing.JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

The demographic data does not support your claim. There has been a rapid decline of the marriage culture in those European countries that redefined marriage.

“So Scandinavia leads the world in parental cohabitation and the legal equalization of cohabitation and marriage. Amazingly, even as he claims to defend marriage, Eskridge actually endorses this system. Meanwhile, Sweden has seen the birth of a political drive to abolish marriage and recognize polyamory. That doesn’t look like “nordic bliss” to me. Also, Eskridge has absolutely nothing to say about the continued decline of marriage in Norway, the actual center of my Scandinavian case. And today we’ve learned that the effect of introducing same-sex partnerships to Sweden in 1987 unravels Eskridge’s already weak statistical case there. Combine these Scandinavian examples with the Dutch experience, and it’s clear that gay marriage weakens marriage itself…”

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Do you think eventually — in states that have legalized gay marriage or at the federal level, if the Supreme Court hands down a Roe-like decision legalizing it nationally — we will see legal action taken by either individuals or the government, mandating that religious institutions perform same-sex marriages or face the loss of their tax-exempt status or accreditation for their medical or educational institutions?

Based on past history, and the efforts via ObamaCare to get churches to confirm to the government’s rules on birth control and abortions, that’s pretty much the way I see this headed, in that the militant types don’t simply wish to allow same-sex couples to wed, they want to punish those who continue to prohibit in their name under religious objections.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 AM

I never considered that outcome— If the GOP loses the House in 2014, then that’s a good guess of what will happen. It’ll be an Obamacare redux with SSM. It’ll be bookends of Obama’s reign with two pieces of awful legislation forced on the public. The repercussions, as you state, will be severe.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM

They won’t need a gay-friendly congress — they will push through the laws suits based solely on the court ruling.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I’ve been a Conservative without a Party, ever since Ronnie was term-limited.

They might as well put that final nail in the coffin.

Conservative Party Or Bust!

OhEssYouCowboys on March 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM

The Saturday “GOP is the Gay (marriage) Old Party” thread

Hate to say it, but I think the Westboro Baptist Church’s design for a cake topper for that pic would be much more accurate.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I’m with Kinky Friedman:

I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

tru2tx on March 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Why should I get some benefit on my taxes for having married my wife and sharing a house that two sisters who share a house to cut expenses can’t get?

Congress made a reasonable policy decision to promote heterosexual marriage because it’s the backbone of an ordered society.

And what are we to make of the so-called marriage penalty?

Seriously, I’m beginning to wonder whether HotAir needs to get some better additional contributors.

BuckeyeSam on March 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Not until criticizing anything gay is a felony.
Then they will move on to “transsexuals”.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 9:32 AM

They already have. And then it will be polyamorous pedophiles. The issue isn’t equality. It never has been. Just like it isn’t with blacks or women. It is about consolidation of government power and you do that by segmenting people into groups and giving them and enemy and grievances.

The thing about progressive and is they never stop “progressing.” Someone somewhere has to draw a line and fight.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Hate to say it, but I think the Westboro Baptist Church’s design for a cake topper for that pic would be much more accurate.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 2, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Why would we put a registered Democrat’s cake topper on Hot Air?

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I never considered that outcome— If the GOP loses the House in 2014, then that’s a good guess of what will happen. It’ll be an Obamacare redux with SSM. It’ll be bookends of Obama’s reign with two pieces of awful legislation forced on the public. The repercussions, as you state, will be severe.

conservative pilgrim on March 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I’ve been arguing for a decade the end game of the militant activists isn’t just State-sanctioned same-sex marriages, it’s eventual State-sanctioned punitive action against any religious group that refuses to perform same-sex marriages. The actions taken by the Obama Administration against churches over mandates in the health care law in the past three years has only bolstered that argument.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM

That, to me, is the main fear — Not so much that the State will grab the term marriage simply because gay rights supporters aren’t satisfied with the term ‘civil unions’, but that you will begin to see civil actions against churches to remove their tax-exempt status and penalize their institutions like schools and hospitals, because they refuse to comply with the new federal law in sanctioning same-sex unions.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Gay coupling is a side note.

The points you make here are the heart of the matter. Gays are demanding legitimacy for illegitimate conduct so that they can then persecute those who will tolerate, but not condone or promote or celebrate, that conduct.

BuckeyeSam on March 2, 2013 at 9:49 AM

First off, gay marriage is not illegal. Two men or women can hold a ceremony and live together as a married couple.

Second, all marriage should simply be a private contract that is enforced by the government.

The state has effectively killed marriage by penalizing people for getting married and creating divorce laws that screw men. In our current welfare state, people realize that they could loose food stamps or housing assistance if they get married so they don’t. The government should have nothing to do with marriage.

jhffmn on March 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Boggles the mind how our forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, could have forgotten to address gay rights back in the day. I guess they had more important matters that needed attention.

So sorry libtards, you can’t try and squeeze it into the Constitution by conveniently interpreting the 14th amendment to suit your needs.

fogw on March 2, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Obama is pushing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the redefinition of a centuries-old word, which is defined as a sacred bond, established by God, between a man and a woman.”Gay marriage”, a contradiction in terms, would begin a descent down a slippery slope, regardless of the current national meme, offered by “the smartest people in the room”. Caligula’s Horse approves.

kingsjester on March 2, 2013 at 9:53 AM

All of this promotion of homosexuality by the state is a big government thing, JetBoy. If you were an honest libertarian, you would stop at repealing laws against homosexual acts, but you are stuck on winning just one more for your team.
Frankly, this whole thing has made me re-think all of the things I have supported that I now can see were demanding state promotion of atheism.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 9:36 AM

This whole gay marriage issue is not any “promotion of homosexuality”…it’s about equal protection under law. Did the Civil Rights Act get passed because of “promotion of Blacks”?

Do you think eventually — in states that have legalized gay marriage or at the federal level, if the Supreme Court hands down a Roe-like decision legalizing it nationally — we will see legal action taken by either individuals or the government, mandating that religious institutions perform same-sex marriages or face the loss of their tax-exempt status or accreditation for their medical or educational institutions?

Based on past history, and the efforts via ObamaCare to get churches to confirm to the government’s rules on birth control and abortions, that’s pretty much the way I see this headed, in that the militant types don’t simply wish to allow same-sex couples to wed, they want to punish those who continue to prohibit in their name under religious objections.

jon1979 on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Strawman.

And I understand your concern based on certain Obamacare mandates like those that would force the Catholic Church (or any other Christian services) to provide access to birth control. It’s unacceptable. And it’s being fought…successfully. Judge gay marriage for what it is…not based on speculation and crystal ball-gazing.

The demographic data does not support your claim. There has been a rapid decline of the marriage culture in those European countries that redefined marriage.

“So Scandinavia leads the world in parental cohabitation and the legal equalization of cohabitation and marriage. Amazingly, even as he claims to defend marriage, Eskridge actually endorses this system. Meanwhile, Sweden has seen the birth of a political drive to abolish marriage and recognize polyamory. That doesn’t look like “nordic bliss” to me. Also, Eskridge has absolutely nothing to say about the continued decline of marriage in Norway, the actual center of my Scandinavian case. And today we’ve learned that the effect of introducing same-sex partnerships to Sweden in 1987 unravels Eskridge’s already weak statistical case there. Combine these Scandinavian examples with the Dutch experience, and it’s clear that gay marriage weakens marriage itself…”

http://old.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 AM

This is the USA…not Scandinavia. Just like the doomsday seers predicted the fall of the US military after DADT repeal…it’s a total non-issue lacking true facts.

Nowhere in that NR article can I find a direct relationship between gay marriage and total marriage “decline”. Honestly, it’s ridiculous.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

This is the USA…not Scandinavia. Just like the doomsday seers predicted the fall of the US military after DADT repeal…it’s a total non-issue lacking true facts.

Nowhere in that NR article can I find a direct relationship between gay marriage and total marriage “decline”. Honestly, it’s ridiculous.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

What other countries do are relevant Jetboy especially when we have Supremes saying they look to other countries for their rulings. Futhermore, DADT has caused problems and I have posted the problems on other forums about UNEQUAL TREATMENT of heterosexuals now that DADT has taken effect. One right of the top of my head is the fact that Panetta signed benefits for UNMARRIED homosexual couples without extending the same bennies for unmarried heterosexual couples. Already in an attempt to be equal, gays are already getting better or special treatment.

Nowhere in that NR article can I find a direct relationship between gay marriage and total marriage “decline”. Honestly, it’s ridiculous.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

See Massachusetts where children are being told that they have to change clothes in a locker room with other children of the opposite gender all under the name of tolerance and sensitivity- and can be punished if they feel uncomfortable. One example of a decline– Want more?

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:00 AM

CATO is libertarian, not conservative nor Republican. Libertarians are liberals who don’t like to pay taxes.

It’s amazing how 3% of the population is dominating the news. But, what the media and the left (but I am repeating myself) want to dominate the news does dominate the news.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:00 AM

But with the sudden splash of cold water to the face that came with the last election …

Yeah, because, Romney failed to build enthusiasm and failed to convince registered Republicans to the vote for him because he wasn’t PROGRESSIVE enough. P-lease.

The GOP is failing because it has become too progressive, and now, the party believes that becoming even more progressive is the way to win?

If the Republican Party continues to push liberal agenda items like the Rubiobama ‘instant amnesty’ plan, and SS “marriage”, they will continue to lose support. It’s bad enough that Republicans are unofficially pushing these destructive issues, but, ultimately, to prove that the party is ‘NEW and IMPROVED’, they will have to officially alter the party platform, and that will be the END.

Yes, the 2012 election was (another) wake-up call for the GOP, but, the party appears to be getting up on the wrong side of the bed (again) – It’s not going to work.

Pork-Chop on March 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM

”…it’s about equal protection under law. Did the Civil Rights Act get passed because of “promotion of Blacks”?

Umm yeah! Have you seen the crazy lawsuits based on discrimination? Have you heard of affirmative action? Yeah Civil Rights was the gateway to the promotion of blacks as a special rights groups and a victims groups. It has kept them segmented and has kept them in their perception that there is “hidden’ racism everywhere ESPECIALLY the Republican party.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Not until criticizing anything gay is a felony.
Then they will move on to “transsexuals”.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 9:32 AM

They already have. And then it will be polyamorous pedophiles. The issue isn’t equality. It never has been. Just like it isn’t with blacks or women. It is about consolidation of government power and you do that by segmenting people into groups and giving them and enemy and grievances.

The thing about progressive and is they never stop “progressing.” Someone somewhere has to draw a line and fight.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Agreed.

This is the cultural coercion of Fascism.

Politicians will cease to fight it or any legislation made on the same argument because of political pressure to hold onto their jobs…Because they become social pariahs in the amoral group think popular culture.

As seen in other countries that redefined marriage to be basically meaningless…There is a Fascist Puscht to sanction Polyamory unions which undermines monogamy.

As seen in other countries Traditional Religions are compelled by the State to comply with secular laws that conflict with their liturgy.

As seen in other countries the State increases it’s powerful oversight of Families to the extent of seizing children of traditional Christian Families who try to home school because they want to protect their children from state curriculum that conflicts with their religious moral principles.

Why have Americans relinquished our Constitutional Protections in favor of an Imitation of deeply Flawed European secular fascism that is rapidly eroding families and cultural stability?

We have seen this time and again with the lie of Global Warming…The assault on the 2nd Amendment so that we become more like Europe…etc.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Jetboy – What do you think of the Jets inviting the female placekicker to training camp? It’s appropriate because if there’s an NFL team that’s a bunch of pu$$ies, it’s the Jets. Wrecks Ryan lives!

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:04 AM

What other countries do are relevant Jetboy especially when we have Supremes saying they look to other countries for their rulings.

This isn’t aimed at you specifically…but I do find it interesting that some people say other countries are relevant in the gay marriage issue here, but when I bring up other countries that suffered no decline in military preparedness and effectiveness by allowing gays to serve openly, I’d hear how they aren’t relevant. Something like having your cake and eating it too.

See Massachusetts where children are being told that they have to change clothes in a locker room with other children of the opposite gender all under the name of tolerance and sensitivity- and can be punished if they feel uncomfortable. One example of a decline– Want more?

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:00 AM

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I can’t help you if you refuse to see what is right in front of your face. This whole thing is about promoting destructive behavior (of which homosexuality is just and example) with the power of the government. It’s about forcing people to call the immoral moral.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Yeah, because, Romney failed to build enthusiasm and failed to convince registered Republicans to the vote for him because he wasn’t PROGRESSIVE enough. P-lease.

The GOP is failing because it has become too progressive, and now, the party believes that becoming even more progressive is the way to win?

If the Republican Party continues to push liberal agenda items like the Rubiobama ‘instant amnesty’ plan, and SS “marriage”, they will continue to lose support. It’s bad enough that Republicans are unofficially pushing these destructive issues, but, ultimately, to prove that the party is ‘NEW and IMPROVED’, they will have to officially alter the party platform, and that will be the END.

Yes, the 2012 election was (another) wake-up call for the GOP, but, the party appears to be getting up on the wrong side of the bed (again) – It’s not going to work.

Pork-Chop on March 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Bingo! I was trying to find out where we had this big anti-gay agenda last election. In fact as a socon until this week, I was closely align with Barack Obama’s current position- let the voters in the states decide.

I think it is the height of delusional to think if we change out stance on this and lose all of our socon vote that we will suddenly pick up the youth and moderate vote. Remember these are the idiots that were convinced that the Republican party was going to take away their tampons. Furthermore, we are the anti-slavery, Civil Rights party and Dems have somehow convinced black voters that we are the racists. Same thing would happen with gay marriage even if we changed our stance.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Jetboy – What do you think of the Jets inviting the female placekicker to training camp? It’s appropriate because if there’s an NFL team that’s a bunch of pu$$ies, it’s the Jets. Wrecks Ryan lives!

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:04 AM

ಠ_ಠ

Please…when I first heard about that chick my head hit the table.

But hey, if an ostrich can kick a 40+ yarder through the uprights…so be it.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM

This isn’t aimed at you specifically…but I do find it interesting that some people say other countries are relevant in the gay marriage issue here, but when I bring up other countries that suffered no decline in military preparedness and effectiveness by allowing gays to serve openly, I’d hear how they aren’t relevant. Something like having your cake and eating it too.

I can answer that. Our military is inherently different than other militaries. We are deployed a lot more which means we leave home bases and have to deal with no fraternization policy. Other militaries are a little looser about those policies. We also have the most effective and ready military anything that detracts from that is bad. Fraternization was a huge headache when it was just girls/boys now it is a nightmare for commanders in the field.

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

The progression to transgender rights in Massachusetts if an offset of the gay marriage debate. It is all being fought under the equal protection clause. The transgender tolerance was passed by the school system due to a law that was passed because of gay marriage legalization. It is the progression that we have been trying to tell you will happen. In eight years since gay marriage was legalize it has happened in Massachusetts. It is an example at work.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I have had this discussion with gay neighbors who have admitted they don’t really want the marriage “equality” until the one partner’s child gets through college. As of right now that child goes to college with financial aid because the other partner’s income is not required to be disclosed on FAFSA forms. The child’s father’s income is not disclosed because they’ve worked out an arrangement where he has never claimed the child as a dependent. He pays $10,000 a year toward her college which is just under the minimum he can pay to the mother without her having to declare the income on her tax forms.

When the child went off to college they had a huge “wedding” in another state and went on a honeymoon for 2 weeks in Hawaii while the government was kicking in the rest of money to cover tuition at a private college. I have been looking for a job to help pay tuition because my husband’s income puts us out of the category to get any aid but we can’t really afford the tuition FAFSA blindly tells us we can “afford.” If ever a system was broken, this is it.
Don’t tell me to cry the blues for their unequal treatment, I am all cried out.

msmveritas on March 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I can understand credits for raising the next generation of children – yes, even adopted ones – but why for a spouse? Why should I get some benefit on my taxes for having married my wife and sharing a house that two sisters who share a house to cut expenses can’t get?

Like all libertarians, your a blind fool who makes the case for the opposite of what you argue.

Yes, you can see the purpose of raising children, but no purpose for bringing the two individuals together who will procreate those children. The single best environment to raise those children as well.

You know raising the next generation is something worthy of promoting. Yet you cannot see the purpose of promoting the relationships which result in the next generation being born.

It would be nice if the government was out of marriage, I agree. Government has been destroying marriage, with easy divorce, the judicial activism of giving wives half regardless of their actual contribution to the marriage success, and the handing out of welfare benefits for women who have children and no job. But instead of pursuing policies that extricate the government from marriage, you pursue policies that would in fact lock it into the government even more so, as you will have a larger population involved in it.

It would be nice to cut entitlements, actually completely get rid of them in total, but the libertarians pursue policies that will add to the rolls of welfare and “free” healthcare moochers. Thereby adding to the number of voters who will vote for politicians that will increase those programs, rather than politicians that might reign them in or get rid of them. We know which party and which philosophy of government benefits from those particular votes.

Liberties and freedoms can only be enjoyed in a society where there is personal responsibility. When a gay gets aids and goes on welfare and medicaid he does not exhibit personal responsibility, instead that responsibility falls onto my labor through force of government confiscation. When a drug addled idiot remains unemployable and lives on food stamps and the rest of the welfare state he does not exhibit personal responsibility, instead that responsibility is forced upon me. In fact, at a minimum, depending on the state I live in, 25% of my labor is filling in for the personal responsibility of others.

When two same sex people, gay or not, decide to live together and abstain from the creation and raising the next generation, they are burdening me and my children. Every penny that Social Security and Medicare pay out is money confiscated by other people’s children. It damages their ability to perform their personal responsibilities to support their own family in infirmity. Right now each person getting old age survivor benefits is supported by 1.6 private sector employees. That means that if you do not have 3 children earning average wages as a couple in old age, you have burdened society as a whole.

Libertarians, for being about maximum freedom certainly seem giddy and excited about adding more and more burdens onto the virtuous while at the same time forcing us to SUBSIDIZE degenerate behaviors. Some freedom that creates. In fact, it is what creates the freedom we certainly all feel day in and day out under the Obama regime!

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Meanwhile, in Red China.

DarkCurrent on March 2, 2013 at 10:13 AM

The majority of Republican want to perserve traditional marigae. Why should their wishes be cast aside?

We got 47% of the vote in the 2012. What “grand strategy” includes throwing out the people that DO support the conservative principles?

Foolish.

Tom C on March 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I can’t help you if you refuse to see what is right in front of your face. This whole thing is about promoting destructive behavior (of which homosexuality is just and example) with the power of the government. It’s about forcing people to call the immoral moral.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

So…homosexuality is destructive behavior?

That’s another problem you don’t seem to see. Homosexuality is not a “behavior” at all…it’s an innate part of a person. Just because I’m gay, doesn’t mean I’m participating in any “destructive behavior”. Not to mention, heteros…many of my friends for example…have participated in some pretty questionable and possibly destructive sexual behavior…you seem to have blinders on when it comes to your accusations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

See Massachusetts where children are being told that they have to change clothes in a locker room with other children of the opposite gender all under the name of tolerance and sensitivity- and can be punished if they feel uncomfortable. One example of a decline– Want more?

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:00 AM

You’ve probably seen the 6 year old Colorado boy who wants to be a girl and whose parents are suing so that he can use the girls’ rest room. Do the rights of less than one percent of people who are transgendered trump 97% of women who are heterosexual? In the Peoples Republik of Massachusetts they do.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Gays already have the same marriage rights as everyone else. Straight people can’t marry a same-sex partner, either. That’s not just semantics or rhetoric, it’s literally true. The reason why that matters (religious considerations aside) is that our entire House of Cards, taxpayer-funded, government-run social contract is based on marriage being defined as a mixed-sex couple. On the bright side, I guess some entrepreneur can make a fortune with an on-line matchmaking service for bed-bound octogenarian widows in nursing homes.

Knott Buyinit on March 2, 2013 at 10:16 AM

You’ve probably seen the 6 year old Colorado boy who wants to be a girl and whose parents are suing so that he can use the girls’ rest room. Do the rights of less than one percent of people who are transgendered trump 97% of women who are heterosexual? In the Peoples Republik of Massachusetts they do.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Yeah I did see that. I feel like I am in bizarro world. A child that young being pushed to make an opposite decision on their genetic gender is being pushed by their parents. Furthermore, how in the heck can the parents let the child make that decision at six enough that they would force a school to let the child go the bathroom in the girls bathroom. When my six year old daughter was four, she swore she was going to be a submarine when she grew up.

I didn’t use this example for Jetboy, because that was an instance of the school system fighting back. Massachusetts actually instituted the policy statewide in their schools.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM

But hey, if an ostrich can kick a 40+ yarder through the uprights…so be it.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Making 40 yarders isn’t that uncommon in larger high schools any more. The Lions and Browns 2013 advertising slogan: “At least we’re not the Jets.”

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM

The progression to transgender rights in Massachusetts if an offset of the gay marriage debate.

No…it isn’t.

Transgender isn’t any part of gay. I’ve always hated how they’re grouped in with gays, as in LGBT. They shouldn’t be.

I’m not familiar with your Mass. case, so I can’t really comment fully until I read more about it.

Anyways, as always it’s been a trip discussing these things. Gotta make myself pretty (and this morning that’s an uphill chore) for a lunch date :P

Cheers

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

See Massachusetts where children are being told that they have to change clothes in a locker room with other children of the opposite gender all under the name of tolerance and sensitivity- and can be punished if they feel uncomfortable. One example of a decline– Want more?

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:00 AM
What does that have to do with gay marriage?

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Everything. We already have gay marriage in Massachusetts. They’ve become bored with it and have moved on to transexual rights.

However, we do have have our first same sex, lesbian murder trial going on.

No Niks on March 2, 2013 at 10:22 AM

So…homosexuality is destructive behavior?

That’s another problem you don’t seem to see. Homosexuality is not a “behavior” at all…it’s an innate part of a person. Just because I’m gay, doesn’t mean I’m participating in any “destructive behavior”. Not to mention, heteros…many of my friends for example…have participated in some pretty questionable and possibly destructive sexual behavior…you seem to have blinders on when it comes to your accusations.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Incorrect. The only thing “innate” about sexuality is the drive for some kind of satisfaction. How you achieve that satisfaction is learned. Furthermore, having learned a particular path to satisfaction does not mean that you are forced to fully embrace it or even continue with it, or that you need to let it dictate your choices in life. This is by no means limited to homosexual behavior, but that happens to be a convenient hook for all other devotees to destructive sexual behaviors to hang there argument on at the moment.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Regarding the GOP: if we’re going to vote for Democrats, why not vote for real Democrats?

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Gays already have the same marriage rights as everyone else. Straight people can’t marry a same-sex partner, either.

Knott Buyinit on March 2, 2013 at 10:16 AM

I believe similar arguments were made against legalizing interracial marriage back in the last century.

DarkCurrent on March 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM

2) It has nothing to do with religion/religious faith. Strawman all you want about slippery slopes and some dark “gay agenda”…it won’t change the fact that this has not one thing to do with anyone’s faith.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:23 AM

You sir are a liar and you know it. Tell every person of faith (and no, that would not be a reprobate like you) who has been sued into violating their religious beliefs and their consciences because they refused to perform some service to the homosexual community, that it has nothing to do with religious freedom or a persons faith. You can start with Dr. Neal Clark Warren, whose Christian online Dating service eHarmony was sued over and over and over and over again until the constant legal fee’s threatened t put eHarmony out of business.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM

No…it isn’t.

Transgender isn’t any part of gay. I’ve always hated how they’re grouped in with gays, as in LGBT. They shouldn’t be.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

It’s all part of the same fetish worship — along with trophy wives.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM

If we’re gonna gonna blow up all our laws, customs and mores, then let’s really blow ‘em up. I wanna marry my AR-15!!!!

rotorjoe on March 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Making 40 yarders isn’t that uncommon in larger high schools any more. The Lions and Browns 2013 advertising slogan: “At least we’re not the Jets.”

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:19 AM

I really wish I could argue against that.

:/

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Goodbye gop….I will not participate……

crosshugger on March 2, 2013 at 8:37 AM

.
…goodbye 30 comment Bishop!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM

.
Show-off ! (scowling in sheer jealousy).

Oh, and “dittos” to crosshugger.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

No…it isn’t.

Transgender isn’t any part of gay. I’ve always hated how they’re grouped in with gays, as in LGBT. They shouldn’t be.

I’m not familiar with your Mass. case, so I can’t really comment fully until I read more about it.

Anyways, as always it’s been a trip discussing these things. Gotta make myself pretty (and this morning that’s an uphill chore) for a lunch date :P

Cheers

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I love how it isn’t related because you say it isn’t related. The transgender tolerance is a direct result of an anti-discrimination law. One of the many being passed across the land to help GLBT. It came after gay marriage and the adoption agency closed- and the parents sued so that their children wouldn’t have to learn about homosexuality. It encompasses HOMESEXUALS ET. AL.

And I find it quite funny that you are being judgemental about transexuals. You do realize that in about 10 years(maybe sooner) you will be the bigot, because they will be the next leftist victim du jour…

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

This is the USA…not Scandinavia. Just like the doomsday seers predicted the fall of the US military after DADT repeal…it’s a total non-issue lacking true facts.

Nowhere in that NR article can I find a direct relationship between gay marriage and total marriage “decline”. Honestly, it’s ridiculous.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Wrong!

The US is part of Western Civilization.

You advocate Certain Rights for some preferred groups at the expense of other Rights protected under our Constitution. Rights like Religions protected from State Coercion and Protected Freedom of Speech in moral criticism at the pulpit, in schools and in the press.

Your denial of the evidence in other western countries that have forced this insanity on their citizens contradicts a secular insistence of scientific fact prevailing over historic cultural moral teaching in the West.

That the facts of the data from Europe and Canada support the warnings of conservatives who reject the fallacious civil rights claims of Homosexual Activists doesn’t change those facts.

You are a Fascist who supports a Fascist agenda to attack Traditional Religions and conservative opponents seeking to protect traditional families and you dress up your Fascist agenda of social engineering in nonsensical sentiment.

This is your objective and why Homosexual Activists advocating redefining Marriage cling to the word Marriage.

“The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages…
Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 AM

We got 47% of the vote in the 2012. What “grand strategy” includes throwing out the people that DO support the conservative principles?

Tom C on March 2, 2013 at 10:14 AM

We ran a milquetoast candidate whose campaign that challenged McCain’s for incompetence plus the ORCA fiasco. The GOP is not only pushing the panic button but doing everything possible to alienate its base.

bw222 on March 2, 2013 at 10:28 AM

You sir are a liar and you know it. Tell every person of faith (and no, that would not be a reprobate like you) who has been sued into violating their religious beliefs and their consciences because they refused to perform some service to the homosexual community, that it has nothing to do with religious freedom or a persons faith. You can start with Dr. Neal Clark Warren, whose Christian online Dating service eHarmony was sued over and over and over and over again until the constant legal fee’s threatened t put eHarmony out of business.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM

It doesn’t even have to be a religious belief, just a principled conviction. I’m atheist.
The flack I got for not attending my mother’s gay wedding was mitigated only by the fact that moved across the country shortly there after, and didn’t see my relatives for over a year.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Hey Jazz, I have two points.

(1) Marriage serves a purpose of social stability. It furthers the goal of fostering stable environments for children. I know you’ve heard it before but you ignore it. In the absence of church and the absence of the law, marriage means less, eventually nothing. Maybe not to you and your partner, but to society and inevitably to numerous other couples. The legal status of marriage is used for legal determinations of the need for child support and for property division. Marriage means alot for good reason. It’s a step above ‘we’re really committed to each other! In the eyes of God even!’ Without the legal backing there’s not much of a functional backstop.

(2) For many of us, saying it’s a “state level issue” is a genuine respect for federalism. I sincerely believe the federal government has no authority to make marriage law. I don’t think I’m obligated to seek a federal solution to issues. As a New Yorker, if I oppose gay marriage, I need not make it be an impossibility in California. Believing in federalism is not a “compromise” of moral belief nor about fear of electoral consequences. While I don’t think there should be a federal solution, I respect those who believe marriage so fundamental to the order of society it should be implemented at the top. For me it’s sufficient to say that marriage serves purposes of social/family stability and that’s good enough to legislate. The 1st Amendment did not apply to the states until well into the 20th century, and that was okay too. I know we’ve moved from there, but I still think federalism is relevant. And if a state truly believes gay marriage furthers some policy goals, they should be able to go that route too. And I am free to oppose.

Crispian on March 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Hey Jazz, I have two points.

(1) Marriage serves a purpose of social stability. It furthers the goal of fostering stable environments for children. I know you’ve heard it before but you ignore it. In the absence of church and the absence of the law, marriage means less, eventually nothing. Maybe not to you and your partner, but to society and inevitably to numerous other couples. The legal status of marriage is used for legal determinations of the need for child support and for property division. Marriage means alot for good reason. It’s a step above ‘we’re really committed to each other! In the eyes of God even!’ Without the legal backing there’s not much of a functional backstop.

(2) For many of us, saying it’s a “state level issue” is a genuine respect for federalism. I sincerely believe the federal government has no authority to make marriage law. I don’t think I’m obligated to seek a federal solution to issues. As a New Yorker, if I oppose gay marriage, I need not make it be an impossibility in California. Believing in federalism is not a “compromise” of moral belief nor about fear of electoral consequences. While I don’t think there should be a federal solution, I respect those who believe marriage so fundamental to the order of society it should be implemented at the top. For me it’s sufficient to say that marriage serves purposes of social/family stability and that’s good enough to legislate. The 1st Amendment did not apply to the states until well into the 20th century, and that was okay too. I know we’ve moved from there, but I still think federalism is relevant. And if a state truly believes gay marriage furthers some policy goals, they should be able to go that route too. And I am free to oppose.

Crispian on March 2, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Well put.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 9:54 AM

I can’t help you if you refuse to see what is right in front of your face. This whole thing is about promoting destructive behavior (of which homosexuality is just and example) with the power of the government. It’s about forcing people to call the immoral moral.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

And teach Moral Relativism in schools…both secular schools and parochial schools.

Social Engineering is a Fascist Mechanism.

workingclass artist on March 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM

Before I go, I want to quickly address this big chunk of ridiculousness:

You sir are a liar and you know it. Tell every person of faith (and no, that would not be a reprobate like you) who has been sued into violating their religious beliefs and their consciences because they refused to perform some service to the homosexual community, that it has nothing to do with religious freedom or a persons faith. You can start with Dr. Neal Clark Warren, whose Christian online Dating service eHarmony was sued over and over and over and over again until the constant legal fee’s threatened t put eHarmony out of business.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM

You can call ma a lot of things…but not a liar.

“religious conscience”? wtf is that? If you don’t approve of gay marriage….don’t get one!

As for eHarmony, when that story broke, even here at HotAir, I voiced my opinions against them having been forced to provide gay dating as part of it. Go look up that thread here if you don’t believe me. So don’t put words in my mouth or infer I approve of something that I do not.

But continue with your bs’ing about me, and the sophomoric name-calling. Crud like that is an embarrassment to conservatives.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:34 AM

If we’re gonna gonna blow up all our laws, customs and mores, then let’s really blow ‘em up. I wanna marry my AR-15!!!!

rotorjoe on March 2, 2013 at 10:26 AM

.
First of all, are you “gay” or “straight”?

Does the AR-15 know? You need to be up-front about these sort of things.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:34 AM

It’s about forcing people to call the immoral moral.

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Jeebus!

Not you or anyone else has to approve of anything gay whatsoever, including gay marriage, much less call it “moral” or anything else. Go burn rainbow flags for all I give a rat’s *ss. But don’t go forcing your own morals, based on religion or whatever, on others. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

That makes you a hypocrite.

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 8