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 4 5 6 7 8

Dear GOP-Kiss the south goodbye!

redware on March 2, 2013 at 7:25 PM

I thought I would share a story of the dirty perverse nature of homosexuals. I was collecting signatures for a petition to get a Republican mayoral candidate in my city, when I went to the door of a 21 year old gay boy I know. I am middle aged. We ended up on his bed. We talked about politics and our cooking plans for our juggling/slackline/acrobatics club party, and nothing in the least happened that the holders of ancient stereotypes would guess. Let me reveal to you the great secret that homosexuality is as boring as heterosexuality.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 7:28 PM

I will suggest if you worry about how the Left will use gays, perhaps it is time to also articulate that anti-racism threatens freedom and dignity more than racism does in America in 2013.

thuja on March 2, 2013 at 7:19 PM

I agree with exactly what you are saying. I think Jetboy asked me if I felt the same way about the Civil Rights, and I told him that while the Civil Rights Act had good intentions just like gay marriage does; it led to special interest and special rights programs like affirmative action.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Marriage Decisions and the Importance of Judicial Reason
by Adam MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law at Faulkner University, Jones School of Law

One of the primary functions of a judicial opinion is to explain how the court reached its holding. It is, in other words, to demonstrate that the court’s holding is not arbitrary but rather grounded in reason. The legitimacy of the judiciary rests entirely upon the authority of judicial reasoning. Courts have no armies or police forces. They command obedience only insofar as they provide reasons to obey. If judges command what they happen to prefer, rather than what in reason the law requires, then their decisions are merely personal opinions. In our democratic republic no mere opinion is vested with any more authority than any other.

Consider in this light the fact that the five prominent appellate courts listed above followed four different lines of reasoning; only the Iowa court followed a previous court’s rationale. The lack of consistency is striking. That the courts took such radically different routes to the same result suggests that it was the result that drove the reasoning. And this should concern not only proponents of conjugal marriage but also everyone who cares about the rule of law.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I’m just looking forward to Polygamy. I wish the electorate supported my desire to marry multiple women as much as they support two dudes marrying.

Rusty Allen on March 2, 2013 at 7:42 PM

MacLeod maps out the “reasoning” path each court takes, and the clincher is at the end.

As one supporter of same-sex marriage has observed, Reinhardt’s [9th Circuit] argument is dishonest. Indeed, Judge Reinhardt’s decision has earned criticism even from those who support the result he reached. It is not difficult to see why. Supporters of same-sex marriage are not content with mere rulings in their favor. They understandably want to see courts make principled rulings in their favor. (It is interesting to note in passing that scholars who hope for legal recognition of same-sex marriage also cannot agree on any principled ground for that position. If the case for same-sex marriage is inexorably entailed in some provision of law, then one would expect it to appear obvious to those who are most inclined to find it persuasive.)

No one should want to see the judicial branch sacrifice its legitimacy for any cause, let alone in an attack upon a foundational institution of public life. The rule of law is the first casualty in the judicial assault on marriage.

Well, that part in bold seems sort of important to me. They’re grappling to find consistent means to justify their desired result. This is truly legislating from the bench. Those Republicans who sign off on this agree with the Left that the law should be circumvented when you don’t like it.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 7:48 PM

I agree. When one is a Christian then God’s Word rules their life.
Our laws were always based on God’s Laws. Now, more and more our laws are being made by Anti-Christians and this is what we are seeing in the Country.

The target is Christians and these Anti-Christians are making the laws and using those laws against us.

God Himself doesn’t force anyone to believe HIM, and Christians don’t. However, the Anti-Christians want to FORCE by law for us to not only approve of these laws, but use them to discriminate against us. Persecution by fiat in other words.

To condense this, these people hate God!! What is new? Nothing, just more of it.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Exactly true.

It was a Christian people who formed the freest nation on earth. Western Civilization itself is a direct result of the Bible and the church. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, the right of self government, property rights, the right of due process, of being innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury, the right to keep and bare arms… all of these rights and so many more from a Christian people.

And we want to reject the God and His Word that was the inspiration of the people who laid the groundwork for this nation. And we think we will just continue to survive as a nation if we reject our foundation.

Rush is right. Freedom to people today means freedom to have sex with anyone and at anytime you want it with as many people as you want and with zero consequences. That is what freedom means to a lot of people today. That is all it means.

God is the airplane. A lot of people today think that freedom lies in climbing out the window and jumping off the wing. That jump feels real good for awhile and all the way down you’re shouting “I’m free! I’m free!” until you slam into reality.

JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 7:48 PM

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Some may disagree with you, but I must say you make your points and make them very well. The government is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in today. Redistribution of wealth didn’t start with Obama but it is increasing at an alarming rate.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Biggest reason I opposed Romney was his certainty to lock in the welfare state for another 30 years like Reagan did. If given the choice between having the nation fail under the weight of socialism today and having it fail under the weight of socialism when I am too old to help, I say let the pain happen now. There was no reason for the founding fathers to declare independence on July 4th, 1776. They could have passed off the burden until say, 1830 when most of them were dead and then let their children either fight or be slaves.

Well, I am a slave today, my children will be even worse off with respect to how much of their money will be confiscated to fund the degenerates and have more of them to deal with. 25% of my labor is automatically confiscated by the government to pay for the welfare state. My daughter’s share might be pushing 35 to 40%.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 8:33 PM

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

I attended a large Church (around 1200 members) when I first became a Christian, some 35 years ago, it was very exciting at first, then slowly I became aware that a great deal of that energy was bandwagon showmanship, as I got older I began seeking out smaller churches. I find them more suited to personal spirituality.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:10 PM

I’ve never attended that large of a church other than a visitor. I was more intent in listening to what the Pastor said and whether he followed the Scriptures. Were they feeding the Flock or not was what I wanted to know. I found many times they were not.

One of the best Teachers in my many years is Dr. J. Vernon McGee.
He passed away in 1988, but taped his programs and you can learn about him here. He’s teaching in 1st Corinthians now.
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-with-j-vernon-mcgee/listen/

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM

The second you cross the line into using the Federal Government to force individuals to abandon or change their religious moral convictions you cease to be a “Conservative”. It really is that simple. Forced tolerance is not tolerance, it’s tyranny. There is nothing more intolerant than those who refuse to tolerate intolerance.

That I am tolerant of homosexuality does not mean that I accept it, or acquiesce to it. That I do not accept it, or acquiesce to it does not make me intolerant.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Excellent reasoning. One perfect example is that HHS Mandate regarding Abortion and the morning after pill, etc. That is not Conservative, it’s tyranny, plain and simple. Since the Supreme Court is so eager to consider Male to Male/Female to Female “Marriage” the same as Marriage between a Man and a Woman I’m interested in if they support the First Amendment. That should have been heard first, since it affects every American, not just a select few!!

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 8:51 PM

That the courts took such radically different routes to the same result suggests that it was the result that drove the reasoning. And this should concern not only proponents of conjugal marriage but also everyone who cares about the rule of law.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Interesting. Sounds like Roberts ruling when he found Obamacare to be a tax. (Which in reality the money to be paid if you don’t comply is a Penalty)

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 8:57 PM

And we want to reject the God and His Word that was the inspiration of the people who laid the groundwork for this nation. And we think we will just continue to survive as a nation if we reject our foundation.JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 7:48 PM

To expand on what you say here is to consider if one wants to demolish a house or a building. You don’t start on the roof, you demolish the foundation and it will all come down.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7:24-27

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 PM

There was no reason for the founding fathers to declare independence on July 4th, 1776. They could have passed off the burden until say, 1830 when most of them were dead and then let their children either fight or be slaves.

Well, I am a slave today, my children will be even worse off with respect to how much of their money will be confiscated to fund the degenerates and have more of them to deal with. 25% of my labor is automatically confiscated by the government to pay for the welfare state. My daughter’s share might be pushing 35 to 40%.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Oh, I agree with the second paragraph. I tend to think that all families fear this for their children and family members. Taxes and mandated policies are a burden now and are dictated upon us not
by our approval, but those that are in truth Anti-Americans. I heard a Pastor/Teacher that passed away in 1988 say on one of his taped messages that America needs a revival and that might save us; but not a balanced budget!!!! That message played from tape today!! How prophetic.

Oh, on your first paragraph, sorry but I don’t understand what you mean.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Oh, on your first paragraph, sorry but I don’t understand what you mean.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Romney was willing to push off the day of reckoning on our entitlements and welfare state for another generation to deal with.

It is a simple KNOWN that we are bankrupt and that the entitlements will devour our prosperity ever more from this point forward.

That was the big reason I detested him. Instead of being honest, he chose to argue we could keep the welfare and entitlement states and still thrive. We cannot. We can put off the day of reckoning for a future more destructive date, but you cannot keep them and avoid that day forever.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM

The author’s position is the most reasonable approach to the issue. Government need not be involved in endorsing romantic or sacred social arrangements among people. It also shouldn’t grant special tax breaks to people simply because they have found that special life partner. Single people shouldn’t be penalized because they can’t or don’t want to get married.

I’ve seen comments about the necessity for government involvement in marriage because of property and custody concerns should the marriage go south. This is a non-starter. How exactly does government deal with such concerns when you have two people who have lived together for many years, sharing property and children, who have never bothered to get married. The court has somehow managed to conceive of an approach to this. They can do the same thing for marriages, which while completely valid and genuine, simply lack a stamp of approval from the state.

Finally, this makes the most political sense for conservatives. They can take consolation in the fact that the government would not be deeming the union of two people of the same sex to be a marriage. They also would continue to reserve the right to speak out against gay marriage as vociferously as ever.

If conservatives do not embrace the “hands off marriage” approach, you will eventually have legally endorsed gay marriage over a vast portion of the country. Getting government out of the marriage business is the way to go.
.

Reggie1971 on March 2, 2013 at 9:47 PM

I’ve seen comments about the necessity for government involvement in marriage because of property and custody concerns should the marriage go south. This is a non-starter. How exactly does government deal with such concerns when you have two people who have lived together for many years, sharing property and children, who have never bothered to get married. The court has somehow managed to conceive of an approach to this.

The difference is that if the house is in your name you keep it. The husband can then boot the wife and kids to the curb and you think that will be accepted? If they pass a slew of laws preventing that then how exactly is the government no longer part of marriage?

If conservatives do not embrace the “hands off marriage” approach, you will eventually have legally endorsed gay marriage over a vast portion of the country.

Reggie1971 on March 2, 2013 at 9:47 PM

And this government withdrawal from marriage, alimony, child support, women’s advocacy, and the gay rights agenda is going to be made to happen in what miraculous way?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 9:57 PM

That was the big reason I detested him. Instead of being honest, he chose to argue we could keep the welfare and entitlement states and still thrive. We cannot. We can put off the day of reckoning for a future more destructive date, but you cannot keep them and avoid that day forever.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Oh, ok. Thanks. I was against him for the fact he wasn’t Conservative for one thing. But I voted for him anyway and would have voted for an orange can as Mark Levin said:-)

The Entitlements and Medicare have to be dealt with, but any plans that have been proposed have went nowhere.

I don’t know what the answer is, especially when the right people don’t have the power.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The difference is that if the house is in your name you keep it. The husband can then boot the wife and kids to the curb and you think that will be accepted? If they pass a slew of laws preventing that then how exactly is the government no longer part of marriage?

I didn’t say the government would have no effect on a marriage, or more to the point, the break-up of one. I said that it shouldn’t LICENSE marriage. With respect to a broken household where children reside, the state can approach the matter as a breach of a social contract. It need not employ use of the word “marriage” for any of that.

And this government withdrawal from marriage, alimony, child support, women’s advocacy, and the gay rights agenda is going to be made to happen in what miraculous way?

The same as any other comprehensive reform of the government. With time, diligence, and enough people who can effectively make the case for it.

Reggie1971 on March 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM

And we want to reject the God and His Word that was the inspiration of the people who laid the groundwork for this nation. And we think we will just continue to survive as a nation if we reject our foundation.JellyToast on March 2, 2013 at 7:48 PM

To expand on what you say here is to consider if one wants to demolish a house or a building. You don’t start on the roof, you demolish the foundation and it will all come down.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7:24-27

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 PM

This is a very interesting exchange. I’m coming to this thread very late (obviously)… I’m new here and I happen to be a single conservative guy who happens to be gay. To many of my peers in Boston, I’m a bit of an aberration, but for different reasons than, say, some here might think. LOL

I went to Mass this evening and the priest gave an excellent sermon about the path away from goodness and how that often stems from “forgetting who you are.” I immediately saw parallels in the posts above talking about the importance of a solid foundation – as illustrated in various biblical references. I sometimes fear America has forgotten itself which has allowed for the tidal wave of crap to inundate our country, our culture and present us with the sh*t sandwich we’re currently being served as citizens.

I chuckle when I see words like “equality under the law” in the context of gays and gay marriage. I’ve been gay my whole life and “out” for more than half of my life — and I can say that I have an amazing life due, in large part, to the great country I call home. I have every basic right that anyone else has — I received a top-notch education from kindergarten right through graduate school; I can get a job (I have had a terrific career), buy a home, travel anywhere I like, associate with whomever I like, say whatever I like, etc. Marriage isn’t a right — it’s a social construct predicated on the nurturing of families which is essential to sustaining a good and productive and civil society. When that family unit breaks down – like when the government encourages it by promoting single mothers NOT to marry so they can receive freebies – you end up with “Detroit.” Gay people can fall in love and enjoy a love that’s just as strong as a heterosexual couple, but simple biology dictates that two men together (or two women together) cannot produce offspring; therefore, their unions are inherently DIFFERENT than the potential that is represented in the coupling of a man and a woman.

Personally, I am fine with some legal accommodation of same sex relationships. Where I veer off from my gay pals is in my insistence that it’s not the same as marriage between a man and a woman — THAT is one inextricable reality located squarely at the intersection of God and science.

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

I didn’t say the government would have no effect on a marriage, or more to the point, the break-up of one. I said that it shouldn’t LICENSE marriage.

Why? So we can kowtow to the gay lobby?

With respect to a broken household where children reside, the state can approach the matter as a breach of a social contract. It need not employ use of the word “marriage” for any of that.

Would that be an enforced contract on those who marry? That would be the same as marriage without the guts to call it that.

And this government withdrawal from marriage, alimony, child support, women’s advocacy, and the gay rights agenda is going to be made to happen in what miraculous way?

The same as any other comprehensive reform of the government. With time, diligence, and enough people who can effectively make the case for it.

Reggie1971 on March 2, 2013 at 10:06 PM

And people should expend this effort for what constructive purpose? Leave aside that the left will NEVER agree to it, and instead use it as a weapon to call the right hateful towards children, and engaging in a war on women wanting to leave them to starve in the streets.

What does this get us? Do you think that the kewl liberal kids will ever like conservatives, or whatever their political opponents call themselves? It won’t make the slightest difference to the campaign to delegitimize their opponents.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 PM

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

News flash: THEY’RE NOT THE SAME! When a black baby is born, you can tell IMMEDIATELY that it is black. It doesn’t suddenly become black at puberty. Until you can show a case where doctors are able to instantly identify a ghey baby, you’ve got nothin’.

Nutstuyu on March 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 9:22 PM

.
This is a very interesting exchange. I’m coming to this thread very late (obviously)… I’m new here and I happen to be a single conservative guy who happens to be gay. To many of my peers in Boston, I’m a bit of an aberration, but for different reasons than, say, some here might think. LOL

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

.
Welcome to Hotair. But since you’ve admitted to being gay, us “intolerant hate-mongers” are gonna have to ask you to turn right around, and leave.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Personally, I am fine with some legal accommodation of same sex relationships. Where I veer off from my gay pals is in my insistence that it’s not the same as marriage between a man and a woman — THAT is one inextricable reality located squarely at the intersection of God and science.

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

You should post more often:-) I know a lot of HA Commenters read and don’t post & that’s ok too. You sound like you have both feet on the ground and can see the “other side” without cursing, LOL
I just usually ignore that kind of thing anyway.

From what you say, I think you see our “Foundation” being slowly chipped away by laws that will harm everyone. It’s not just one issue, it’s many and we all will suffer. Hopefully that is a greater point. Just like Scripture says..”a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump”

I think we should take care that we don’t cut off our nose to spite our face; or be careful what we ask for.

Nice to read your comments. I’m going back to the QOTD thread:-)

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Gay people can fall in love and enjoy a love that’s just as strong as a heterosexual couple, but simple biology dictates that two men together (or two women together) cannot produce offspring; therefore, their unions are inherently DIFFERENT than the potential that is represented in the coupling of a man and a woman.

Personally, I am fine with some legal accommodation of same sex relationships. Where I veer off from my gay pals is in my insistence that it’s not the same as marriage between a man and a woman — THAT is one inextricable reality located squarely at the intersection of God and science.

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

This is truly and honest and practical take on this. I wish more homosexuals were this honest. It is different. I think somehow being different has translated into some people’s mind as being LESS. I have seen this happen with the genders as well. Women feel they have to be the SAME as a man. We aren’t and we never will be. This does not make us less. It just means our strengths, weakness, life experiences, and opportunities are different. We should embrace those differences. I think we all spend far too much time trying to tell each other how much we are just like each other that if we actually accepted OUR OWN differences then other people could as well. Seems like you have done a great job of it.

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:37 PM

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

.
Welcome to Hotair. But since you’ve admitted to being gay, us “intolerant hate-mongers” are gonna have to ask you to turn right around, and leave.

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:31 PM

listens2glenn, you should have used at least a smiley face!!
A new person may not know you or that you were joking!!

Now you interrupted me as I was headed back to the QOTD:-)

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 10:37 PM

If conservatives do not embrace the “hands off marriage” approach, you will eventually have legally endorsed gay marriage over a vast portion of the country. Getting government out of the marriage business is the way to go.
.

Reggie1971 on March 2, 2013 at 9:47 PM

The true “hands off marriage” approach would say, “The government is not getting involved in this.” Which would leave marriage as it always has been, the union of the two sexes.

It’s amazing how many times someone will claim that same sex marriage is the small government approach. Maybe they’re just not thinking straight, or maybe they’re being intentionally dishonest. But the only way we get same sex marriage is if the government intervenes and says, “You must allow this.” So SSM without question is a big government approach.

SSM is not conservative:
1) It demands government overreach where the government has no role
2) It calls for the rejection of social mores in favor of radical sexual and social experimentation
3) It’s a utopian vision of the world as some want it to be, rather than dealing with the realities of the world as it is
4) It calls for government to take a far bigger role than was ever given to it in the Constitution
5) There is nothing in the Constitution to authorize it. Someone has to reinterpret what the Constitution actually says to make it say what it doesn’t

Of all the arguments made by those lobbying for SSM, the notion that SSM is somehow a conservative position is the most fraudulent.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 2, 2013 at 10:59 PM

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Thank you… that was hilarious… :-)
I appreciate the welcome!

melle1228 on March 2, 2013 at 10:37 PM

The ironic part of the whole “difference” equation is that for years, gay activists reveled in being different — that’s when the big battle cry was about “diversity.” I actually thought that was nonsene, too — and really telling about people for whom their sex life was what defined them. Kind of pathetic.

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Thanks for the heads-up… I’m delighted to be posting here. I’ve always loved this blog… although the likes of Bishop, Lorien and, of course, Allahpundit have caused me, on more than one occasion, to spit my water or Diet Coke all over the desk!!

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 10:35 PM

Thanks for the heads-up… I’m delighted to be posting here. I’ve always loved this blog… although the likes of Bishop, Lorien and, of course, Allahpundit have caused me, on more than one occasion, to spit my water or Diet Coke all over the desk!!

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM

You’re welcome. They all cause one to be careful to not be drinking at times, LOL

You should head over to the QOTD. Some funny comments. We talk about anything on that which you may know. Some witty posters:-)

Well, back over I go. I’ve not accomplished much today:-)

bluefox on March 2, 2013 at 11:11 PM

“Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.” John Adams.

bluesdoc70 on March 2, 2013 at 11:20 PM

The GOP can kiss my vote good-bye as well. I will never embrace or acknowledge that lifestyle choice. Ever. They can go to hell.

pdigaudio on March 2, 2013 at 11:30 PM

The article seems to be about “gay marriage” but then ends in a rant about the INCOME TAX code. Abolish the income tax and there won’t be any federal meddling in marriage.

However, no government has the right to redefine marriage, unless the government now has a power to redefine Natural Law.

TXJenny on March 2, 2013 at 11:43 PM

I chuckle when I see words like “equality under the law” in the context of gays and gay marriage. I’ve been gay my whole life and “out” for more than half of my life — and I can say that I have an amazing life due, in large part, to the great country I call home. I have every basic right that anyone else has — I received a top-notch education from kindergarten right through graduate school; I can get a job (I have had a terrific career), buy a home, travel anywhere I like, associate with whomever I like, say whatever I like, etc. Marriage isn’t a right — it’s a social construct predicated on the nurturing of families which is essential to sustaining a good and productive and civil society. When that family unit breaks down – like when the government encourages it by promoting single mothers NOT to marry so they can receive freebies – you end up with “Detroit.” Gay people can fall in love and enjoy a love that’s just as strong as a heterosexual couple, but simple biology dictates that two men together (or two women together) cannot produce offspring; therefore, their unions are inherently DIFFERENT than the potential that is represented in the coupling of a man and a woman.

Personally, I am fine with some legal accommodation of same sex relationships. Where I veer off from my gay pals is in my insistence that it’s not the same as marriage between a man and a woman — THAT is one inextricable reality located squarely at the intersection of God and science.

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Perfectly put, sir.

And as another conservative gay person, I agree with every bit of it in full.

northdallasthirty on March 2, 2013 at 11:49 PM

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM

.
You’re welcome.
.
I have no way of knowing whether you read previous comments from earlier in this thread, so I’m re-posting my response to JetBoy this morning:

JetBoy on March 2, 2013 at 10:15 AM

.
For the (I’ve lost count) time . . . . . . . .

Homo-sexuality will … N E V E R … be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of ‘normality’.

It is TEMPORARILY being used by the ‘political left/progressives’, as a tool to help take-over the U.S.
Once that is accomplished, their usefulness will be fulfilled, and the same ‘progressive leftists’ will TURN against homosexuals faster than light. They’ll be treated like Hitler treated the Jews (or worse?).

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM

.
That REALLY is my ‘take’ on the support the militant homo-sexuals are receiving from the ‘progressive left.’

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 11:54 PM

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 11:00 PM

…WELCOME!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM

That REALLY is my ‘take’ on the support the militant homo-sexuals are receiving from the ‘progressive left.’

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Pretty much.

It’s really nothing more than a proxy method of pushing antireligious bigotry and hate.

The words of the Barack Obama Party and the gay and lesbian community leader Chai Feldblum make the point perfectly:

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

In short, there is no such thing as “religious liberty”; bigots like Feldblum and her supporters like JetBoy, ZachV, SC.Charlie, and others will simply scream that any public statement or affirmation of religious beliefs denigrates the “dignity of gay people”, and thus must be suppressed and punished.

As I’ve pointed out, we’ve already seen Obama Party leaders and gays and lesbians use governmental power in the name of gay-sex marriage to punish and harass religious beliefs, freedom of expression, and freedom of association.

northdallasthirty on March 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM

northdallasthirty on March 2, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Thank you, brother…

listens2glenn on March 2, 2013 at 11:54 PM

And that’s what happen when you’re constantly seeking personal validation from anyone who will give it to you… you end being used, and used items eventually get tossed.

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Thanks, man!

dpduq on March 3, 2013 at 12:05 AM

“Our constitution was written for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the governing of any other.” John Adams.

bluesdoc70 on March 2, 2013 at 11:20 PM

True, but we have to work with the way things are now. We can’t give up!!

The question I have is where are the Churches?????? I know the Catholic Churches are speaking out, but what about the other ones?

bluefox on March 3, 2013 at 12:09 AM

Marriage is a 3-Ring Circus:
Engagement Ring
Wedding Ring
Suffering

Spread the pain and…
More Gaybies!

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM

What do you expect for people who honestly think God is telling them something? They honestly believe they’ll end up in hell if they don’t stand against gay marriage. lol, tyrants can’t have empty threats.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 3, 2013 at 1:48 AM

What do you expect for people who honestly think God is telling them something? They honestly believe they’ll end up in hell if they don’t stand against gay marriage.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 3, 2013 at 1:48 AM

Ignorant as usual. Sorry to inform you but your ill informed view of the world doesn’t even begin to address the reality.

From an atheist’s point of view…

Count to 10 on March 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

And I am an agnostic. Our opinions are not part of any religious system of beliefs.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 2:14 AM

dpduq on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Good job.That was a good read.

BoxHead1 on March 3, 2013 at 2:26 AM

If you think the GOP and the DNC is walking in lockstep, there is only one option for you today.

Join your local TEA Party and prepare to make some NOISE!

DannoJyd on March 3, 2013 at 3:24 AM

What do you expect for people who honestly think God is telling them something? They honestly believe they’ll end up in hell if they don’t stand against gay marriage. lol, tyrants can’t have empty threats.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 3, 2013 at 1:48 AM

do you have anything else to add dummy?

tom daschle concerned on March 3, 2013 at 3:53 AM

It is possible to be pro gay marriage, but at the same time, understand that homosexuality is a mental illness/disorder. Who gives a crap if they get “married”? If by some slim chance “God” is real, he/she/it will “get them” when they die.

hatecraft on March 3, 2013 at 5:23 AM

News flash: THEY’RE NOT THE SAME! When a black baby is born, you can tell IMMEDIATELY that it is black. It doesn’t suddenly become black at puberty. Until you can show a case where doctors are able to instantly identify a ghey baby, you’ve got nothin’. – Nutstuyu on March 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM

It is possible to be pro gay marriage, but at the same time, understand that homosexuality is a mental illness/disorder. Who gives a crap if they get “married”? If by some slim chance “God” is real, he/she/it will “get them” when they die. – hatecraft on March 3, 2013 at 5:23 AM

Discussing gay issues with people such as the two of you utterly is pointless.

SC.Charlie on March 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Discussing gay issues with people such as the two of you utterly is pointless.

SC.Charlie on March 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM

I’ve finally reached the point where I realize I can’t fix stupid.

You’re right, it is pointless to discuss this topic with some people…and it’s rather evident who they are. From now on, I’ll only engage those who conduct a discussion with intellectual honesty, at an adult level (or at least close to one) and with those who don’t come across as self-righteous saints pointing their pudgy fingers of judgement at anyone and everyone but themselves.

You can’t argue with a dense brick wall…it’s best to simply go over it and continue onward.

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 9:10 AM

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 2:14 AM

Thank you for pointing that out. I have repeatedly pointed out that I am not in the least religious. My objections to gay marriage do not come from a religious place yet the “enlightened tolerant ones” on these boards think that if they keep putting us in that boat they can disregard everything we say.

You can’t argue with a dense brick wall…it’s best to simply go over it and continue onward.

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 9:10 AM

Or just put your fingers in your ears and say “nah, nah, nah, the legal reality and the predictable future is never going to happen,because I want what I want and I don’t care what happens after.” But hey, the brick wall exists on both sides.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM

News flash: THEY’RE NOT THE SAME! When a black baby is born, you can tell IMMEDIATELY that it is black. It doesn’t suddenly become black at puberty. Until you can show a case where doctors are able to instantly identify a ghey baby, you’ve got nothin’.

Nutstuyu on March 2, 2013 at 10:25 PM

You’re not addressing my point. Perhaps you didn’t get it?

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 9:59 AM

You’re not addressing my point. Perhaps you didn’t get it?

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I’ll address the stupid point. Anti-miscegenetion laws were not universal as were marriage laws making marriage between a man and women prior to legalization in Massachusetts in 2004. Not all states had them. They were for the SOLE purpose of keeping couples from PROCREATING. You know what you same sex marriage advocates maintain marriage is not about. And furthermore the arguments were not the same thing right now EVERYONE is excluded from marrying the same sex. In virginia only white were excluded from marrying minorities. Blacks could marry hispanic etc. There was a specific exclusion. For further information on this topic, I will let the current case precedent speak for me.. <em>Baker v. Nelson: </em>

These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court

The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives * * * is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” 381 U.S. 485, 85 S.Ct.1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of “the traditional relation of the family–a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.” 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688,14 L.Ed.2d 522./3/

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 March 3, 2013 at 10:16 AM

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 10:16 AM

All that and you still failed to miss the point.

“And furthermore the arguments were not the same thing right now EVERYONE is excluded from marrying the same sex.”

Yes, just as anti-miscegenetion laws prevented people from marrying someone of a different race. Yet people made the argument that it wasn’t discrimination because it applied to EVERYONE. Knott Buyinit was employing an argument based on the very same template to the issue of same-sex marriage.

That was my point. Get it now?

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Yes, just as anti-miscegenetion laws prevented people from marrying someone of a different race. Yet people made the argument that it wasn’t discrimination because it applied to EVERYONE. Knott Buyinit was employing an argument based on the very same template to the issue of same-sex marriage.

That was my point. Get it now?

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 10:39

A

I get your point, but it was not the same argument. I showed you where it was difference capice. The exclusion was ONLY for whites. Futhermore anti-miscegnetion was a made up concept much like same sex marriage. THe laws did not exist before the 1600′s. Inter-racial marriages did happen before them. And I made the point the same point that Knott did, race and sexual orientation or gender are NOT the same thing. They are different no matter which way you spin it.

I mean “if you say that incestuous couples have the right to get married” and I say no they don’t because of XYZ.. And you say that is discrimination. I say “but no one has the right to get an incestuous marriage.. You could use the same line. “Well that was used to keep blacks down. ” It is a leftist tactic to shut people up by passively agressively comparing them to racists. It is a dumb argument. Interracial relationship are completely different from incestuous ones. The government has reasons for recognizing or not recognizing it.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM

You’re not addressing my point. Perhaps you didn’t get it?

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 9:59 AM

I’m sure they get it. They probably just think the notion is absurd.

I’ve known your comments a long time. I’ve respected most of them. You’re wrong here. It’s not the same and it’s a dodge to shut down the discussion by trying to force people into this notion that their arguing against the civil rights gained for minority Americans because they hold the notion of marriage as a religious sacrament.

Not the same. Patently unfair for you to debate in that manner.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 11:23 AM

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Exactly! It is a passive agressive way to compare people who object to SSM to racists. It doesn’t advance discussion; it is meant to shut it up.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Or just put your fingers in your ears and say “nah, nah, nah, the legal reality and the predictable future is never going to happen,because I want what I want and I don’t care what happens after.” But hey, the brick wall exists on both sides.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM

If the finger in the ear fits…

Still waiting on that “predictable” mass exodus from the US military over DADT repeal…how long do we have to wait for that?

I’d love to borrow that crystal ball you seem to have…I’d love to take it with me to Mohegan Sun next weekend.

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

I hope you and your hubby are well. I am seeing flying hours cut here at Ft. lewis like I believed would never happen again after the disasterous Clinton military budget cuts. If he still had decided to retire, it would have been a great time to do it. If he has, was he able to find a flying position?

The 90s were bad with no flying hour funds. No funds for training and programs and new equipment fielding slowed or canceled. Not the best time to be an Army Aviator. Same now.

Difficult times.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM

If the finger in the ear fits…

Still waiting on that “predictable” mass exodus from the US military over DADT repeal…how long do we have to wait for that?

I’d love to borrow that crystal ball you seem to have…I’d love to take it with me to Mohegan Sun next weekend.

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 11:52 AM

LOL– First off Jet, you weren’t in the packed retirement briefing the last few months with my husband. Conveniently the military is drawing down at the same time, so any exodus will be attributed to that. This adminstration lied about the military survey before it was even given to the military personnel. The whole thing was made up for a political agenda. What makes you think that you would actually get the real scoop on whether or not DADT has had a negative impact on the military?

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM

LOL– First off Jet, you weren’t in the packed retirement briefing the last few months with my husband. Conveniently the military is drawing down at the same time, so any exodus will be attributed to that. This adminstration lied about the military survey before it was even given to the military personnel. The whole thing was made up for a political agenda. What makes you think that you would actually get the real scoop on whether or not DADT has had a negative impact on the military?

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Show me anything that shows the oft predicted mass exodus of military personnel due to DADT repeal…anything. The usual response to that is, it’ll take some time. How much time?

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I hope you and your hubby are well. I am seeing flying hours cut here at Ft. lewis like I believed would never happen again after the disasterous Clinton military budget cuts. If he still had decided to retire, it would have been a great time to do it. If he has, was he able to find a flying position?

The 90s were bad with no flying hour funds. No funds for training and programs and new equipment fielding slowed or canceled. Not the best time to be an Army Aviator. Same now.

Difficult times.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Thanks for asking. Hope this finds you well. I know drawdowns are hitting everyone hard including contractors etc. and sequestration is devastating. Hubby retired Feb 1. Like I mentioned to Jetboy, retirement briefs were packed standing room only. He got a job with a medavac company, so we are out of government totally. We kind of saw the writing on the wall with all the drawdowns. And we had a friend that worked for Dynacorp. We just kind of felt it was smart even at a paycut to get away from the government and military for a while.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

But hey, the Rebublicans even though they’ve sold out to every other liberal progressive issue, they’re still strong on national defense and taking care of their military, right?

There are so many here that are obvious liberals in the ranks with no clearer intent than destroying the party and quite frankly, organized religion too.

Hush about abortion while we fight to keep the military strong.
(Translated, we’re actually pretty tight with our money and wouldn’t mind the military being taken down a notch and actually … all those unwanted babies)

Hush about defending traditional marraiage while we fight for important things like your gun rights.

(Well … we really would love that one percent of that two percent voting block. Heck, maybe we can win all gays over from being leftists and make them conservatives if we support throwing traditional marriage under the bus. RIGHT!)

Hush about all social issues while we fight for lower taxes. Keep your eye on the ball.
(Tranlated, we actually want the same things as liberal democrats and we’ve caved on higher taxes too)

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 12:05 PM

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Good for you.

Rendezvous with destiny

On pegasus wings

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Show me anything that shows the oft predicted mass exodus of military personnel due to DADT repeal…anything. The usual response to that is, it’ll take some time. How much time?

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Actually I have played this game with you before. I gave you several ways the military is being negatively impacted by DADT a while ago (media examples) and then never heard from you again. Generally when a bunch of people leave the military, they don’t tell you they leave because of the gheys. You just see a lot of people leaving over a period of time which is what is happening. The military is drawing down at the same time, but a lot the retirements are by choice.

And it certainly isn’t as simple as someone leaving because they don’t like gheys. My husband retired for a variety of reasons; one which was the repeal of DADT. It was not that he doesn’t like gheys. Two of our best friends are a long term gay male couple. My cousin is also gay and has a male partner and we recently attended his Civil Union ceremony in Illinois. As I have explained before the military goes overboard. Gay suddenly becomes special interest and a special group which is not conducive to the military. This happened under Clinton’s watch with women and minorities, and having to deal with the crap that went on then my husband wasn’t going to do it again with Obama especially when two wars were going on. That is the simple version but there it is.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

And people should expend this effort for what constructive purpose?

The purpose of being right about the role of government in people’s lives, i.e. that it should not be involving itself in deeming what is a romantic/sacred relationship.

Leave aside that the left will NEVER agree to it, and instead use it as a weapon to call the right hateful towards children, and engaging in a war on women wanting to leave them to starve in the streets.

Then the onus will be on the left as not really being concerned with equal rights, but government imposed social engineering. The “left” are a minority in this country anyway. Put conservatives and moderates together, and that they represent a sizable majority. The government not licensing marriage being portrayed by liberals as a “war on women” is a bit of a stretch. I think they would end up looking foolish to the majority of the electorate if they made such an absurd claim.

What does this get us? Do you think that the kewl liberal kids will ever like conservatives, or whatever their political opponents call themselves? It won’t make the slightest difference to the campaign to delegitimize their opponents.

Again, I’m not concerned about the cool liberal kids. This is about people who value limited government.

Reggie1971 on March 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I just see this gay “rights” push as a way for liberals to criminalize Christianity. They need to force Christianity out of the public square, as its one of the foundational blocks of our society. Liberals want to remake society in their own utopian vision. To do that they have to clear away the current society so it will not taint their “perfect” society.
So gay “rights” is a twofer. They get to attack Christianity, and they get to attack the nuclear family, one of the other building blocks of society.
Thus its also no surprise at the liberal contempt shown to our constitution, which is our social contract, and the codification of our society.
For 100 hundred years the “progressive left” has been manipulating our educational system to get to this very point. Our children have no clue as to why deviant behavior like homosexuality is condemned. They have no clue that its a mental illness, that its not biological, or evolutionary. Its actually a throw back to primitive male dominance rituals. That homosexuality, and all licentious behavior are actually just forms of primitive hedonism. What we now call traditional values are actually the answer society evolved in order to move the majority of people out of barbarism into civilization.
They have no clue as to our founding documents, the principles of the religions and philosophies that informed those documents. No they’re just taught that evil white guys from europe invaded the paradise of America, wiped out the natives (who weren’t really the first natives ironically enough) and immediately started polluting and oppressing every non-white-male in sight.
The days of Christian persecution in America are upon us. The left has been doing it in Hollywood and the schools for decades now,paving the way, and making it socially acceptable, and they’re finally have their disciples in all aspects of governance. its pathetic that the RINOs are now all in favor of ditching time tested values, instead of defending them and showing their worth.

Iblis on March 3, 2013 at 1:22 PM

I get your point, but it was not the same argument. I showed you where it was difference capice.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM

No, in fact you did not. It’s remains an argument with exactly the same logical structure as it had when used against interracial marriage.

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM

No, in fact you did not. It’s remains an argument with exactly the same logical structure as it had when used against interracial marriage.

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM

So when they use it against polygamy, child adult marriage and incestuous marriage it will have the same logical structure?

Again all it is is a passive agressive way to call the person you are arguing against racist. It is not the same thing. As the court defined in Baker v. Nelson sex and gender are inherently different than race. And only certain people were excluded from interracial marriage. Before Massachusetts EVERYONE was excluded from same sex marriage. Even by your “logic” it is not the same.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM

As the court defined in Baker v. Nelson sex and gender are inherently different than race. And only certain people were excluded from interracial marriage. Before Massachusetts EVERYONE was excluded from same sex marriage. Even by your “logic” it is not the same.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM

This is incorrect. The Supreme Court made no such definitions in Baker v. Nelson as you claim. Instead, it issued an unusual one sentence ruling:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Given how the appeal was made this short ruling became binding precedent in 1972. Yet since that time there have been subsequent SCOTUS rulings, such as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, that have some bearing in this. How SCOTUS will rule this year on the cases before it, I haven’t the foggiest. At most I guess they’ll strike down Section 3 of DOMA, while leaving the rest of the law intact, and maybe punt on Prop 8 (probably over standing).

JohnAGJ on March 3, 2013 at 2:14 PM

So when they use it against polygamy, child adult marriage and incestuous marriage it will have the same logical structure?

Again all it is is a passive agressive way to call the person you are arguing against racist. It is not the same thing. As the court defined in Baker v. Nelson sex and gender are inherently different than race. And only certain people were excluded from interracial marriage. Before Massachusetts EVERYONE was excluded from same sex marriage. Even by your “logic” it is not the same.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Yes, an argument with the same logical structure would indeed have the same logical structure, even in those cases. That isn’t to say reasonable arguments against those can’t be made.

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Then the onus will be on the left as not really being concerned with equal rights, but government imposed social engineering.

Ya think?

Could that really be true? /sarc

The government not licensing marriage being portrayed by liberals as a “war on women” is a bit of a stretch. I think they would end up looking foolish to the majority of the electorate if they made such an absurd claim.

If a woman signs a marriage contract and then gets booted to the street without a penny to her name, how will it be an absurd claim?

I notice you avoided answering whether or not these will be ENFORCED CONTRACTS or not. If they are optional then you would have plenty of stories for the media to make political hay from. If they are enforced you haven’t gotten government out of the marriage business at all.

Again, I’m not concerned about the cool liberal kids. This is about people who value limited government.

Reggie1971 on March 3, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Limited government existed alongside marriage laws since the constitution was written. Trying to claim there is any link between marriage and limited government is absurd.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM

This is incorrect. The Supreme Court made no such definitions in Baker v. Nelson as you claim. Instead, it issued an unusual one sentence ruling:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Given how the appeal was made this short ruling became binding precedent in 1972. Yet since that time there have been subsequent SCOTUS rulings, such as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, that have some bearing in this. How SCOTUS will rule this year on the cases before it, I haven’t the foggiest. At most I guess they’ll strike down Section 3 of DOMA, while leaving the rest of the law intact, and maybe punt on Prop 8 (probably over standing).

JohnAGJ on March 3, 2013 at 2:14 PM

The appeal was taken in through mandatory appellate review. Pretty much SCOTUS wanted it to come across their desk which mean the SAME SCOTUS that ruled on Loving wanted to make a statement. By dismissing the case, they were perfectly fine with what Minnesota said which listed several cases putting sex inherently different than race. I agree DOMA will probably be overturned. Prop8 not so much..

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 2:25 PM

This is incorrect. The Supreme Court made no such definitions in Baker v. Nelson as you claim. Instead, it issued an unusual one sentence ruling:

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Given how the appeal was made this short ruling became binding precedent in 1972. Yet since that time there have been subsequent SCOTUS rulings, such as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, that have some bearing in this. How SCOTUS will rule this year on the cases before it, I haven’t the foggiest. At most I guess they’ll strike down Section 3 of DOMA, while leaving the rest of the law intact, and maybe punt on Prop 8 (probably over standing).

JohnAGJ on March 3, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Oh and BTW, In Baker v. Nelson the court did say that sex is inherently different than race. Please read the case. I didn’t say the Supreme Court. I said the court. SCOTUS when the dismissed the appeal apparently had no problem with Minnesota’s use of case law or the Constitution as they didn’t intercede federally. If they didn’t intercede federally it means that Minnesota did not violate equal protection which Loving did i.e. SCOTUS agreed with the fact that sex is inherently different than race. For you reading pleasure- Baker v. Nelson..

Baker v. Nelson

Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1971

191 N.W.2d 185

OPINION

PETERSON, Justice.

The questions for decision are whether a marriage of two persons of the same sex is authorized by state statutes and, if not, whether state authorization is constitutionally compelled.

Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.

The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This appeal is from those orders. We affirm.

[1] 1. Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. We think, however, that a sensible reading of the statute discloses a contrary intent.

Minn.St. c. 517, which governs “marriage,” employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as “husband and wife” and “bride and groom” (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3).

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.

[2] 2. Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment./2/

These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court

The iinstitution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives * * * is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” 381 U.S. 485, 85 S.Ct.1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of “the traditional relation of the family–a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.” 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688,14 L.Ed.2d 522./3/

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.

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Affirmed.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 2:43 PM

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM

No, in fact you did not. It’s remains an argument with exactly the same logical structure as it had when used against interracial marriage.

DarkCurrent on March 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM

It’s not the same logical structure. One is ethnic makeup and the other is behavioral. By your logical structure, the argument could and will be made for any push to normalize some other behavior which now resides outside what is considered normal. People on this site already argue to lower the age of consent.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Actually I have played this game with you before. I gave you several ways the military is being negatively impacted by DADT a while ago (media examples) and then never heard from you again. Generally when a bunch of people leave the military, they don’t tell you they leave because of the gheys. You just see a lot of people leaving over a period of time which is what is happening. The military is drawing down at the same time, but a lot the retirements are by choice.

And it certainly isn’t as simple as someone leaving because they don’t like gheys. My husband retired for a variety of reasons; one which was the repeal of DADT. It was not that he doesn’t like gheys. Two of our best friends are a long term gay male couple. My cousin is also gay and has a male partner and we recently attended his Civil Union ceremony in Illinois. As I have explained before the military goes overboard. Gay suddenly becomes special interest and a special group which is not conducive to the military. This happened under Clinton’s watch with women and minorities, and having to deal with the crap that went on then my husband wasn’t going to do it again with Obama especially when two wars were going on. That is the simple version but there it is.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Trust me…this is no “game”. And if I missed any of your examples, I just didn’t see them. I certainly didn’t see them and ignore them.

Again, I’m not singling you out…just so you know…but I remember all the doomsday predictions about, quote, “mass exodus” over DADT specifically, and not just one reason together with others. No matter what glasses you see the world through, you’d see there has been no “mass exodus” over DADT repeal.

It doesn’t matter how many teh gheys you know as friends or relatives. You still treat and seem to see gays as Leftist liberals bent on the destruction of Christianity and Western Civ. as an absolutely predictable underlying cause for proposing same-sex marriage. You claimed ulterior motives were “predictable”.

As I’ve said many times, I can’t stand the left wing loons and militant gay groups. As far as I’m concerned, they’re generally morons. Thing is, you and others do the exact same things…only on the other side. When that happens, nothing gets solved.

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM

nothing gets solved.

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Nothing to SOLVE on this issue. Two same sex partners a marriage does not make. Simple as that. They can do their dirty in the privacy of their home just like everyone else.

astonerii on March 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM

People on this site already argue to lower the age of consent.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Some do I know (Kalkes? IIRC), but I think most wouldn’t support that. I do know that polygamy and children will be the next target for the leftist ‘fairness’ campaign.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Some do I know (Kalkes? IIRC), but I think most wouldn’t support that. I do know that polygamy and children will be the next target for the leftist ‘fairness’ campaign.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM

More than a few and one big troll. Libfreeordeathtomediahacks. Bridgetown. One said puberty shouldn’t even matter.

That any number of them feel comfortable at this point talking about relations with younger members of society on this site is telling.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Nothing to SOLVE on this issue. Two same sex partners a marriage does not make. Simple as that. They can do their dirty in the privacy of their home just like everyone else.

astonerii on March 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Strange how the only people not harping on “gay sex” all the time around here…aren’t the gays…

JetBoy on March 3, 2013 at 3:16 PM

More than a few and one big troll. Libfreeordeathtomediahacks. Bridgetown. One said puberty shouldn’t even matter.

That any number of them feel comfortable at this point talking about relations with younger members of society on this site is telling.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Well, we are getting a good idea what it was like for the last of the Romans as they watched their own society crumble. As the family disintegrates so does the moral framework of society.
I can’t identify with a society or a nation that would do such things to children.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Well, we are getting a good idea what it was like for the last of the Romans as they watched their own society crumble. As the family disintegrates so does the moral framework of society.
I can’t identify with a society or a nation that would do such things to children.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Well, they have their canned message. “Why do you worry what gays are doing yadda yadda.” I frankly couldn’t give a f@ck (although I will say with full disclosure I’ve lost what empathy I had for their situation).

I’m worried about things like this. Do you need to see more of them? They’re from right here on Hot Air with not one gay member saying how horrid the comments or concepts are.

Libfreeordie commenting about the voice artist for Elmo.

But I have a hard time getting too upset about a 45 year old guy and a 16 year old guy having sex. Maybe its because when I was under 18 (17 to be exact) I had a bit of an affair with an older man (early 30s)…and it was AWESOME. Its exactly what I wanted, I pursued it, he was smoking hot, I was 17 and (as most of the male posters will attest to) extremely interested in having sex. I wasn’t abused or exploited. And there’s no question that a year earlier I would have been just fine as well. Because by 16 I was, at least in terms of my sexual desires, really, really clear what I wanted. I think most 16 year old boys are. Like…how does a “vulnerable” 16 year old find their way onto a gay sex chat-line anyway?
libfreeordie on November 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Zekecorlain in one breath is saying that gays don’t support (as a whole) the lowering of the age of consent. But does consider the concept of age guidance strange.

@PrezHussein pedophiles are neither gay nor straight but rather people who abuse children for one of two major reasons. Gays on the whole do not advocate for lowering the age of consent, which is in it’s own right a strange and uneven concept even in our country, and has no biblical or religious constraint or guide.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I’m worried about things like this. Do you need to see more of them? They’re from right here on Hot Air with not one gay member saying how horrid the comments or concepts are.

Libfreeordie commenting about the voice artist for Elmo.

But I have a hard time getting too upset about a 45 year old guy and a 16 year old guy having sex. Maybe its because when I was under 18 (17 to be exact) I had a bit of an affair with an older man (early 30s)…and it was AWESOME. Its exactly what I wanted, I pursued it, he was smoking hot, I was 17 and (as most of the male posters will attest to) extremely interested in having sex. I wasn’t abused or exploited. And there’s no question that a year earlier I would have been just fine as well. Because by 16 I was, at least in terms of my sexual desires, really, really clear what I wanted. I think most 16 year old boys are. Like…how does a “vulnerable” 16 year old find their way onto a gay sex chat-line anyway?
libfreeordie on November 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM

The truth is that gays frequently go after younger boys. They try to redefine what is going on out of existence by claiming that most of the sexual abuse of younger boys is carried out by heterosexuals.

the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

It’s a politically correct shell game so they don’t have to face the truth about what is happening and what they are supporting.

Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 percent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men. (15) What’s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7.(16)

Welcome to the brave new world.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Welcome to the brave new world.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Or, this brave new world.

Laws of mankind are always screwed up. E.g. a seventeen year old boy goes to prison for the Statutory Rape of his sixteen year old girlfriend.

Sex laws need to be corrected to reflect Natural Law, and puberty should be a major consideration in determining an age for natural sex, e.g. Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child’s body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction.
Or, we could make it a law that girls can’t have sex until they are 65, and must wear burkas (full body type) before and after…though some males may require them to wear the burkas during sex (they are 65 year old girls after all).

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 7:37 PM

As young as puberty? Like parents would have no say about an adult coming to their home and going to their childs room to have sex with them. Awkward? Okay, let then go with them in their car to lookout point.

Comments like this on Hot Air.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM

SWalker

No, I’m not. I’m saying people, typically supporters of SSM, like to say there are no good rational reasons to oppose SSM. Opponents can talk till they’re blue in the face about complimentarity of the sexes, the “church and state” philosophical separation, procreation, and socializing people to marry all they want, but supporters don’t care anything about that.

jas88 on March 3, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Maybe we misunderstood Karmis intent.

It does appear though that Karmi is arguing for lower ages of consent and more understanding

CW on August 24, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Yes. Puberty should be a key in deciding. Maybe puberty is why Muslims keep girls in burkas – grin. Anyway, the world is sane so I am clearly insane…

Karmi on August 24, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Nope, I guess we took him meaning correctly.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:02 PM

“his” meaning …

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:03 PM

As young as puberty? Like parents would have no say about an adult coming to their home and going to their childs room to have sex with them. Awkward? Okay, let then go with them in their car to lookout point.

Comments like this on Hot Air.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I am the other way. I think a lot more people, adults and children, should stop having sex and start having an actual relationship that means something. Our society values the things that don’t matter much and ignores those things that truly do.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Of course, there was Kaltes, (as you mentioned) and his manifesto. Not even sure what to say except key in on the things that just make you go speechless.

Just to let people know some basic facts here, pedophilia means an adult is attracted to PRE-PUBESCENTS. Since the age of puberty is generally 10-13 years, and trending younger over time (the age of puberty has dropped every decade going back to the 1800s), there is a tremendous distinction between teens and actual children.

Currently, the arbitrary age cutoff to be a pedophile is set at 14 years. This is because, by age 14, generally everyone has hit puberty and shows physical signs of sexual maturity, so they don’t look like undeveloped children anymore. It is not psychologically deviant for an adult to be attracted to a 14-17 year old, even though it is nonetheless illegal to have physical contact with people in that age range in some states. (most states “legal” is 16, but some, like California, are 18)
Pedophiles are consistently and uncontrollably attracted to pre-pubescent children. They are compelled in their attraction just like gay men are compelled to be attracted to other men. They can’t help it. Re-education camps wouldn’t be any more effective than “pray away the gay” camps would. The purpose of treatment is to get the adult to control these desires such that they do not act out of compulsion and victimize anyone. The vast majority of men who are in this position are good men who do not want to hurt anyone, and who never, in fact, do. Many of these men end up getting caught with child porn and sent to federal prison for years because of the public perception that they are molesters just waiting to happen, even though actual SCIENCE shows that they aren’t.
We spend a ton of money, police, and prosecutor resources going after these people and trying to eliminate them from society with extreme punishments, lifetime sex offender registration, and social marginalization, so it is only natural for psychologists, who want to TREAT these people, to try to confront the extreme demagoguery and try to focus society on a treatment-centered approach instead of a “lock them up forever” approach.

Considering the absurdly high costs of incarceration to taxpayers, as well as the absurdly high costs to actually arrest, investigate, and prosecute the many, many thousands of people caught with child porn each year, which has been rising sharply for over a decade now with no end in sight, it would save the taxpayers a lot of money and benefit everyone to have low-risk individuals in treatment to ensure that they do not break the law, instead of incarcerated where we have to pay to house, feed, clothe, guard, and pay their medical bills for years.

Of course, this would mean listening to the experts in the field and taking a science-based approach, instead of listening to people who react emotionally and who are ignorant of the facts about these people, thinking they are all dangerous boogeymen who must be kept away from children at all costs.

Locking up people for child porn is the #3 burden on the federal prison system (behind immigration and drugs), and unlike immigration and drugs, has been rising rapidly every year for the past decade.

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM

I am the other way. I think a lot more people, adults and children, should stop having sex and start having an actual relationship that means something. Our society values the things that don’t matter much and ignores those things that truly do.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:05 PM

No argument there.

The point is that commenters here call the entire argument of being concerned about the next push to bend social normalcy being that concerted effort to lower the age of consent; unfounded or trivial. It already exist. It’s never addressed though it seems once credible comments as proof of the concerns are posted. It’s hard to explain away the intend. I can only surmise they agree with what these people are commenting but not ready to admit it.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:17 PM

kaltes on August 24, 2011 at 8:54 PM

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM

This is something that has always struck me as odd. The idea that a seventeen year old girl might be pretty is obvious, but how they go from that to the idea that the worst behavior should be accepted is what I don’t understand. I can say that someone else’s wife is attractive, but that doesn’t make any relationship acceptable in any way.

It seems that they believe they have the right to do anything they want regardless of the cost to others, or to society in general. Their every whim should be satisfied, or it’s a constitutional issue.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:21 PM

I can only surmise they agree with what these people are commenting but not ready to admit it.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Essentially they do agree with them. I think a lot of people are caught up in the leftist mantra of not judging others, and not forcing others to follow anything but where their own heart takes them. A society cannot operate on any such basis. Our society is coming apart at the seams because we don’t know who we are, or what we believe. Too many are afraid to even say what they actually think and go along to get along.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Oh boy, you again! I had hoped after the beating you took a couple months back when you came down on the journal Nature just after you yourself had cited it as a valid source that you would have learned your lesson about citing studies that you hadn’t actually read and understood yourself.

But alas….

The truth is that gays frequently go after younger boys. They try to redefine what is going on out of existence by claiming that most of the sexual abuse of younger boys is carried out by heterosexuals.

the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

It’s a politically correct shell game so they don’t have to face the truth about what is happening and what they are supporting.

So he you accuse Groth and Gary of playing a shell game (your questionable assertion that gay men “frequently” go after younger boys aside) then you cite a paper by Tomeo et. al. saying that a large proportion of gay men had been sexually abused.

Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 percent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men. (15)

It doesn’t say who abused them like Groth and Gary were saying, merely that they had been abused. Those are different points.

And you didn’t actually read that Tomeo paper, did you? I did. If you had you would have seen the authors you’re citing as good evidence also make the claim that most sexual abuse of children, both of young boys and of young girls, is done by heterosexual men.

Based off the fact you’ve done it before I’m going to assume that what you blindly copied and pasted your earlier comment where you mentioned Toreo’s paper. The question you should really be asking is whether the author(s) you’re copying were intentionally misleading you or do they not know what they’re talking about either.
And you didn’t actually read that Tomeo paper, did you? I did. If you had you would have seen the authors you’re citing as good evidence also make the claim that most sexual abuse of children, both of young boys and of young girls, is done by heterosexual men.

Based off the fact you’ve done it before I’m going to assume that what you blindly copied and pasted your earlier comment where you mentioned Toreo’s paper. The question you should really be asking is whether the author(s) you’re copying were intentionally misleading you or do they not know what they’re talking about either.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Doesn’t matter. They assume you feel the same way as them. For those that think our fears are stupid I’d just pose this hypothetical to them. Think in terms of having libfreeordie as a person in your life that would have some exposure to your teenage boys. Are you okay with that? To me … If after reading his comments you wouldn’t be horrified in that regard, then I’m sorry but you’re not a very good parent.

To be around a person your age whom you’ve noticed, as you said your wife or your teenage daughter, or my God your son, how can you not feel repulsed and want to tell them they aren’t welcome near your family.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:33 PM

It doesn’t say who abused them like Groth and Gary were saying, merely that they had been abused. Those are different points.

And you didn’t actually read that Tomeo paper, did you? I did. If you had you would have seen the authors you’re citing as good evidence also make the claim that most sexual abuse of children, both of young boys and of young girls, is done by heterosexual men.

Yeah, I know and its total crap.

Homosexuals are those who have sex with males.

To claim that sexual contact between an older male and a young boy is not homosexual in nature is insane.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I am not interested in playing along with the politically correct mantra that homosexual child abuse is in some mysterious way actual heterosexual in nature.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:33 PM

alchemist19 on March 3, 2013 at 4:28 PM

I’ve read your lenghty comments before and get the impression your aim is to assert child abuse is “never” committed by homosexuals.

Is one extreme argument of half-truths not as bad as the other?

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM

To be around a person your age whom you’ve noticed, as you said your wife or your teenage daughter, or my God your son, how can you not feel repulsed and want to tell them they aren’t welcome near your family.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Well, unfortunately it’s not a hypothetical for me. I raised my niece because she was being abused, and I made it very clear that the SOB wasn’t welcome anywhere near our home. She turned out fine and I have a grand daughter, so it’s got a happy ending.

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Always remember that it is never about equality. It is ALWAYS about power. Special interest groups have always sought power under the cover of equality. Now certain special interest groups have power and others are following suit. You can all see what this fight for equality has done to the country over the last 50+ years. It has for the most part destroyed it, and continues on the path of destruction. It would be amazing to have the ability to see how history records what happened to the once great hope of the world.

Rockshine on March 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM

I’ve read your lenghty comments before and get the impression your aim is to assert child abuse is “never” committed by homosexuals.

Is one extreme argument of half-truths not as bad as the other?

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I’ve never tried to create that impression and if something I’ve ever said could lead someone to think that then I’m happy to set the record straight. Of course some child abuse is committed by homosexuals. Not most but certainly some.

alchemist19 on March 3, 2013 at 4:47 PM

sharrukin on March 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Good for you.

hawkdriver on March 3, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8