What we can learn from Clint Eastwood

posted at 5:31 pm on March 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

While some people sail off into the sunset when they reach retirement age, Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has gone on something of a roller coaster ride these past few years – at least in terms of his off screen activities. For those with shorter memories, here are a few of the highlights, and we don’t need to peer too deeply into history to find them.

During the Super Bowl, just a little over one year ago, Eastwood appeared in an advertisement at half time talking about Detroit, the auto industry and America. The outcry was instantaneous. Obviously Eastwood – a long time, well known rarity in Hollywood as a successful conservative – was a traitor. He was “endorsing” the bailout of the auto industry or “helping Obama” or something. He was widely pilloried in conservative circles.

Fast forward only a few seasons and he was featured at the RNC in Tampa, speaking to an empty chair and taking Barack Obama to task. All was forgiven and Clint was a hero of the conservative movement once again. Gone were worries about his Republican bona fides and he was featured on virtually every conservative site – including this one – which you’d care to name.

But now the worm seems to be turning again. Eastwood has signed on for a Friend of the Court brief supporting gay marriage.

He’s one of the few big-time celebrities who is also a big-time Republican.

But Clint Eastwood has veered from the viewpoint of many Conservatives in one regard: the actor signed the American Foundation for Equal Rights’s “Friend of the Court” brief this week.

In doing so, the actor became one of over 100 prominent Republicans to support this gay rights organization’s document, which it has filed with the Supreme Court.

I’m already seeing grumbling on Twitter and elsewhere about this “stab in the back” from Dirty Harry. How quickly we forget what a star he was in the weeks and months before the last election. But once the dust from this particular flap settles out, Clint may have something even more valuable to teach us.

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative. But beyond any of that, he is is own man with his own opinions on each and every subject in which he takes an interest and he doesn’t much give a fig if you disapprove of his position. He doesn’t agree with the text book position of the “real conservatives” on every single issue. And I suspect that, like many of us, he doesn’t pay much attention to what anyone else chooses to define as the “texbook conservative” stance on hundreds of different policy points. He goes where his own beliefs lead him.

The story here about Clint Eastwood has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue. There will be disagreements inside the tent on both sides. That’s a sign of a healthy, open minded debate. Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

…he has ba11s!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Go ahead, make my gay.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:35 PM

The good, the bad and the ghey.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM

…in my big tent…you don’t have to be “conservative” on every issue…we be different!

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 5:37 PM

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative.

What makes you think he’s a conservative? Last I heard, he was a libertarian. Do you have a link to a video of his renouncing his libertarian ideals and embracing conservatism?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:37 PM

The good, the bad and the ghey.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:36 PM

…A Fistfull of ???

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 5:38 PM

…A Fistfull of ???

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Heh.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

A fisting full of dollars.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:39 PM

There is that thing called “freedom of association”, which the Obama administration wants to take away, but that’s a different discussion.

Going back to the mentioned freedom, when and on what basis do we build coalitions or insist on a distinct identity?

Some of the stories about CPAC this week dealt with those questions.

22044 on March 2, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Yeah, but because he supports SSM, articles about him will be posted on HotGay every day and twice on Sunday.

Blake on March 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

What I am not going to be is a voter if the GOP ends up supporting gay marriage.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Play Fisty for Me.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:42 PM

It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue.

There exists a definition of conservatism that isn’t a ‘make it up as you go along‘ the same way there is a definition of every other word. No you don’t get to define your own special version of conservatism and not get called on it.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Every which way butt ghey.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

But beyond any of that, he is is own man with his own opinions on each and every subject in which he takes an interest and he doesn’t much give a fig if you disapprove of his position

Exactly why he is the man. Clint, you go , brother.

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM

What I am not going to be is a voter if the GOP ends up supporting gay marriage.

Ed Snyder on March 2, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Okay. And I’m not going to support a party or politicians who think they are some paradigms of morality and can use their power and the federal government to tell people how to live their lives.

If gay people want to get married, that’s fine. States can make whatever laws they want regarding marriage and so can churches (marriage, is after all a religious institution and should not be a state institution, but I digress).

I’m pretty sick of people in one breath claiming they want smaller government then in the next saying we need federal prohibitions on behavior that does not infringe on anyone else’s natural rights.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Midnight in the garden of ghey and evil.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

…ToRino?

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

This issue is killing the GOP..I vote GOP straight line..and I don’t care about this one bit..but if I had to choose a side I’d probably support it.. if a GOP candidate supports gay marriage so be it..he/she has my vote..in truth it’s a state’s rights issue..it shouldn’t be debated on the national stage..and yes I was once a member of the LP..

let the attacks begin…..

galtg on March 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Oh, and sparkplug, you’re on a roll.

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

There exists a definition of conservatism that isn’t a ‘make it up as you go along‘ the same way there is a definition of every other word. No you don’t get to define your own special version of conservatism and not get called on it.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Sure. Well, Bush called himself a conservative. Romney called himself a severe conservative. Our favorite statist, Rick Santorum, also called himself a conservative.

Clearly the term does not have a static meaning.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I’m pretty sick of people in one breath claiming they want smaller government then in the next saying we need federal prohibitions on behavior that does not infringe on anyone else’s natural rights.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Like saying you want a smaller government and then demanding the government intervene to redefine marriage to include gays?

You mean like that?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 5:49 PM

“I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five in the bum?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum schlong, the most powerful schlong in the world, and would blow your bum clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Okay. And I’m not going to support a party or politicians who think they are some paradigms of morality and can use their power and the federal government to tell people how to live their lives.

If gay people want to get married, that’s fine. States can make whatever laws they want regarding marriage and so can churches (marriage, is after all a religious institution and should not be a state institution, but I digress).

I’m pretty sick of people in one breath claiming they want smaller government then in the next saying we need federal prohibitions on behavior that does not infringe on anyone else’s natural rights.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM

The lawsuits were filed to invalidate the states’ rights/laws to determine what marriage is and claim that it’s a constitutional right.

22044 on March 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Sure. Well, Bush called himself a conservative. Romney called himself a severe conservative. Our favorite statist, Rick Santorum, also called himself a conservative.

Clearly the term does not have a static meaning.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:48 PM

My niece called herself a teapot when she was young.

That didn’t make it so.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative.

He’s barely the first, and not at all the second. He’s what we call a RINO.

Fast forward only a few seasons and he was featured at the RNC in Tampa, speaking to an empty chair and taking Barack Obama to task. All was forgiven and Clint was a hero of the conservative movement once again.

Being Romney’s lapdog is not a conservative cause.

There will be disagreements inside the tent on both sides. That’s a sign of a healthy, open minded debate. Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

And how big does a “tent” become before it loses all meaning and definition? The path towards irrelevance and extinction stems from a lack of principles.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Whole new meaning to Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:51 PM

I haven’t had to have a RINO post about Jazz Shaw in a while but here goes.

Jazz, if you want to be tolerant and big tent you have to let other people say Clint betrayed them if that’s how they feel. It isn’t up to a bunch of so called “moderators” to constantly keep people from saying, “I think what you did is wrong”

The friggin lectures from AP and You and others who worry so DNMN much about numbers and really don’t give a fig if someone else gets an important issue for THEM trampled on is friggin TIRING!

If Clint is right on this let HIM defend how he feels to other conservatives. You are not his MOTHER!!

You DMNN pundits are the ones POSTING THIS STUFF to goad others about disagreements over SSM instead of just letting them go!! I blame you for putting THIS POST up and DARING the rest of us NOT to go along on Gay FRIGGIN MARRIAGE.

We know you and AP want to use your pulpits to drive others from their beliefs and your DMNM sympathy play for Clint isn’t fooling ME at ALL!!

Quit lecturing us on social issues that like ever other Northeast RINO you think it is the issue keeping us from victory when every poll shows PEOPLE DON’T VOTE ON IT NO MATTER WHAT THEY TRY AND SAY!! They just like to take their shots at conservatives when asked. Much like you do!

Conan on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Like saying you want a smaller government and then demanding the government intervene to redefine marriage to include gays?

You mean like that?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 5:49 PM

No, like saying you want a smaller government then recognizing the word “marriage” never once appears in the constitution and is a civil / religious institution and is absolutely none of the federal (or, i would argue, state) governments business.

People can define it however the hell they want, I could care less.

Passing a law like the defense of marriage act was a big government statist move and if you don’t see that, I don’t know what else to say.

It is NOT the role of our federal government to define or redefine anything. If you want to know what their role is, google “US constitution” and spend a few minutes reading it. It’s short and mostly made up of small words, I promise. No pictures though, unfortunately.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

So, what are we supposed to do, just say, “OK, my moral convictions don’t matter, just go ahead and include this in positions the RNC supports”?

When all of this nonsense started in the late 70′s/early 80′s, the mantra then was “just wanting to be recognized and accepted as an alternate lifestyle”. Many of us saw through that as an attempt to become the next “minority with special rights” but were silenced by the MSM as bigots and homophobes. Then it moved on to getting recognition of same-sex partners for legal purposes like hospital visits, insurance, etc. … and always the story was, “we aren’t looking to change the definition of marriage. Oh no, not at all, that is not what we are after, we just want to have the benefits of committed partners”. Lots of us saw through that also, but the MSM parroted that theme. They just didn’t add the sotto voce “yet” to the end of that “we aren’t looking to change the definition of marriage” agitprop.

So, the RNC thinks this is how it is going to get a slew of new voters. Good luck with that. Do they think they even will get a one for one replacement of the conservative voters that they run off because of this position to afford a lifestyle choice the same status as ethnicity?

The parallels to the fall of the Roman Empire continue to grow.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Flags of Our Fathers.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Clint opened a big gaping hole in obama. mitt refused to walk through it.

for shame. for shame.

renalin on March 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

let the attacks begin…..

galtg on March 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I am guessing by LP you mean Libertarian Party? I’m registered Indy because the r’s are not R enough for me on fiscal issues. On social issues I am way more in the middle. Live and let live and all that. Don’t mess with me and I won’t mess with you kind of person. SSM is a states right and that is where it should be decieded. If attacks come your way I for one would defend your rights to that opinion.

VegasRick on March 2, 2013 at 5:54 PM

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:51 PM

….new meaning to Rawhide??

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Clint opened a big gaping hole in obama. mitt refused to walk through it.

for shame. for shame.

renalin on March 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

That’s disgusting….

:)

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Yes, and the Bush mafia’s motto has been “Better a Democrat than someone who is not one of us.”

Now that we have agreed with them and refuse to vote for their squish we are purists.

Sorry, they can’t have it both ways. Their candidate continues to lose. It is the conservatives turn if the GOP doesn’t want to be extinct. Cast in concrete.

Jayrae on March 2, 2013 at 5:55 PM

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

This is Jazz Shaw and his “Social issues are killing us” BS.

It ticks me off he writes a line like “What we SHOULD learn from Clint”

What a thin disguise.

Jazz has no respect for others who won’t join his RINO club. I get pi$$ed time to time with this stuff from Jazz and this one REALLY takes the cake.

Watch he will come back with fiscal conservatism the rest of the day so he can try and get his cred back for the next time he wants to pull this.

Conan on March 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM

The lawsuits were filed to invalidate the states’ rights/laws to determine what marriage is and claim that it’s a constitutional right.

22044 on March 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Yeah, well, just like abortion, there is no constitutional right to any kind of marriage. I’m not sure what the argument is there, but how would it affect your life if some activist judge in your state said gays can get married? And how could you stop it? They’ll just declare DOMA unconstitutional (which it is). Two wrongs, after all, don’t make a right.

We’re facing some real problems in this country, this is such a non-issue I can’t believe anyone would argue about it. You and your church can continue to define marriage however you want, if someone else and their church want to define it differently — WHO CARES? Roll your eyes and move on.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

“I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five in the bum?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum schlong, the most powerful schlong in the world, and would blow your bum clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 5:50 PM

:) :) :)

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Two stools for sister Sarah.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Clint opened a big gaping hole in obama. mitt refused to walk through it.

for shame. for shame.

renalin on March 2, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

msupertas on March 2, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I’m already seeing grumbling on Twitter and elsewhere about this “stab in the back” from Dirty Harry.

Meh, the man is an actor, he lives and works in the most perverse, liberal and corrupt industry on earth. He is a human being who puts his pants on one leg at a time, like all of the rest of us, sometimes he get’s it right, sometimes he doesn’t. When he get’s it right, he deserve respect, when he get’s it wrong, he deserves criticism. I’m not about to throw him under the bus just for making a few mistakes. But Clint Eastwood is not a Conservative so much as he is a Libertarian. Still over all I believe he is a god decent and honest man.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

No, like saying you want a smaller government then recognizing the word “marriage” never once appears in the constitution and is a civil / religious institution and is absolutely none of the federal (or, i would argue, state) governments business.

That would have some meaning if there weren’t existing laws on marriage at the time the constitution was written. There were and a great number of other laws as well. The constitution didn’t sweep them all away.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Laws exist to codify morality though you seem too retarded to grasp that simple concept. It is a rare law that doesn’t do that. The constitution and the bill of rights are essentially a moral argument which acts as the foundation of a nation.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

So, what are we supposed to do, just say, “OK, my moral convictions don’t matter, just go ahead and include this in positions the RNC supports”?

Well, yes and no. Yes, keep your religious and moral convictions out of politics (especially federal) because some of us don’t share your religious or moral convictions and don’t care to live a life ruled by them.

And no, don’t feel that your convictions don’t matter — they do. You should advocate for them as much as possible in your family and community and whatnot — just dont use the coercive force of the federal government to make others agree.

And thirdly, the RNC would be wise to not have a position on gay marriage as it is NOT a federal position, and different, diverse people will have different and diverse opinions on it. We don’t need a blanket policy for something like this, it’s a minor issue and it’s a side show.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Two stools for sister Sarah.

SparkPlug on March 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM

…lol

KOOLAID2 on March 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:57 PM

It sounds like you hate religion and social conservatives. Attack us at your own peril.
Social conservatism integrates with economic conservatism. If states pass policies that uphold social conservative values they will prosper.
As others have pointed out, social conservatives are getting ignored by national Republicans and elections get lost.
But you’d want to keep going down that same vain road.

P.S. The right to not be aborted is a natural right that overrides the Constitution.

22044 on March 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

That would have some meaning if there weren’t existing laws on marriage at the time the constitution was written. There were and a great number of other laws as well. The constitution didn’t sweep them all away.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Laws exist to codify morality though you seem too retarded to grasp that simple concept. It is a rare law that doesn’t do that. The constitution and the bill of rights are essentially a moral argument which acts as the foundation of a nation.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Well, when the constitution was written my state had a formalized state religion, used tax money to build and maintain churches, and used said churches as town halls. Not sure what your point is.

And laws do not exist at all to codify morality unless you live under sharia law in the middle east.

Laws exist to protect people’s rights and always have. The law against murder is not written because it’s immoral to kill someone, it is written because by murdering another person you are taking away their most basic right (the right to life).

Laws against theft don’t exist because it’s immoral to steal — they exist because stealing you are depriving someone else of their right to property.

Otherwise we’d have laws against working on Sundays, disobeying parents, and taking gods name in vein — all immoral things in the christian religions.

Do you really not know that?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Well, yes and no. Yes, keep your religious and moral convictions out of politics (especially federal) because some of us don’t share your religious or moral convictions and don’t care to live a life ruled by them.

And no, don’t feel that your convictions don’t matter — they do. You should advocate for them as much as possible in your family and community and whatnot — just dont use the coercive force of the federal government to make others agree.

And thirdly, the RNC would be wise to not have a position on gay marriage as it is NOT a federal position, and different, diverse people will have different and diverse opinions on it. We don’t need a blanket policy for something like this, it’s a minor issue and it’s a side show.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Refuse to have a policy related to the family, and to strive for excellence in both the public and private spheres, and social conservatives like myself leave. Period.

The GOP is free to make that their policy prescription if they wish, but a tent can only grow so big, and people are willing to compromise only so much.

As a social conservative and economic populist, the establishment appears hellbent on becoming social liberals. Since I already disagree with the GOP on economics (from free trade to taxation to regulation and other matters), I’m quite willing to kiss them goodbye.

The problem with what Jazz is demanding is that at some point people no longer have a reason to support or vote for you. He complains about having principles, but without them, there is no motive to vote, or cause for a base of support.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Not so with the Democrats..

They couldn’t agree to add God in their charter..

And they still think they are all relevant..

Electrongod on March 2, 2013 at 6:06 PM

It sounds like you hate religion and social conservatives. Attack us at your own peril.
Social conservatism integrates with economic conservatism. If states pass policies that uphold social conservative values they will prosper.
As others have pointed out, social conservatives are getting ignored by national Republicans and elections get lost.
But you’d want to keep going down that same vain road.

P.S. The right to not be aborted is a natural right that overrides the Constitution.

22044 on March 2, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I don’t hate religion or social conservatives. And I agree with you on abortion — taking someones life, regardless of the circumstances, denies them their right to life.

I just don’t think people’s morality or religious views have any place in politics, especially federally. I may agree with social conservatives on many things, including the best way to live your life. That being said, I don’t think that I’m so much smarter than everyone else that I have all figured out and that if everyone was just forced to live the way I think they should we’d have heaven on earth.

I’m a little bit more humble then that, and if I wasn’t, I’d probably be a big time statist trying to use the power of the federal government and its implied threat of force to reorganize society in the way I think it should work.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:08 PM

And laws do not exist at all to codify morality unless you live under sharia law in the middle east.

Name one significant law that doesn’t have a moral judgment as its basis.

Laws exist to protect people’s rights and always have. The law against murder is not written because it’s immoral to kill someone, it is written because by murdering another person you are taking away their most basic right (the right to life).

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Who cares if you are taking away their rights? Why does that matter if not because doing so is immoral?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I’m already seeing grumbling on Twitter and elsewhere about this “stab in the back” from Dirty Harry.

1. Didn’t he already come out on this a long time ago… these people should not be surprised… it’s no big deal…

The main point of this article is dangrous though.

Look at what happened to the tories this week… they tories went out for gay marriage and now they’re getting beat by the UKIP.

We are heading towards extremely unstable political times… Weimer Republic like times… and it’s hitting the UK, France, US, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece all at the same time.

ninjapirate on March 2, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Well, yes and no. Yes, keep your religious and moral convictions out of politics (especially federal) because some of us don’t share your religious or moral convictions and don’t care to live a life ruled by them.

And no, don’t feel that your convictions don’t matter — they do. You should advocate for them as much as possible in your family and community and whatnot — just dont use the coercive force of the federal government to make others agree.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

So, OK, “Your convictions matter, just shut up about them when in public, vote for our candidate and don’t make waves”. Got it.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 6:09 PM

The problem with what Jazz is demanding is that at some point people no longer have a reason to support or vote for you. He complains about having principles, but without them, there is no motive to vote, or cause for a base of support.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Look, I probably agree with 90% of your social positions. My point is that we are NO DIFFERENT then the progressives if we try to use the federal government to steer society in ways we see fit.

It is not your place or my place to FORCE other people to live how we think they should. We can certainly attempt to persuade them, but when that crosses over into government coercion of any sort, I side with the minorities who are having their rights suppressed by the majority — including the moral busy bodies.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:12 PM

We are heading towards extremely unstable political times… Weimer Republic like times… and it’s hitting the UK, France, US, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece all at the same time.

BTW, I hope the GOP kicks the social conservatives to the curb… because it’s a great time to be a reactionary and the more alienated people from democracy there are the better.

ninjapirate on March 2, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Well, yes and no. Yes, keep your religious and moral convictions out of politics (especially federal) because some of us don’t share your religious or moral convictions and don’t care to live a life ruled by them.

And no, don’t feel that your convictions don’t matter — they do. You should advocate for them as much as possible in your family and community and whatnot — just dont use the coercive force of the federal government to make others agree.

And thirdly, the RNC would be wise to not have a position on gay marriage as it is NOT a federal position, and different, diverse people will have different and diverse opinions on it. We don’t need a blanket policy for something like this, it’s a minor issue and it’s a side show.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Geez. What you said here could be turned against YOU and YOUR argument.

Do you agree or disagree that the dissolution and degeneration of the family unit is responsible for most of society’s economic and social ills? I’m not talking morality, but the loss of a functioning, standard family unit.

That is the basis for these arguments. Anything else is a distraction.

kim roy on March 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Look, I probably agree with 90% of your social positions. My point is that we are NO DIFFERENT then the progressives if we try to use the federal government to steer society in ways we see fit.

Except the difference lies in that we pursue precisely the opposite in terms of public policy. They want abortion everywhere? We want to ban it. They want to spread promiscuity and adultery? We want to mitigate / eliminate them. They are entirely different because, to use the “steering” term that you apply, we are aiming for an entirely different direction.

It is not your place or my place to FORCE other people to live how we think they should. We can certainly attempt to persuade them, but when that crosses over into government coercion of any sort, I side with the minorities who are having their rights suppressed by the majority — including the moral busy bodies.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Actually it is my place to force other people to live how I think they should. It’s my place as a citizen who has a say in public policy, who is capable of analyzing what differentiates good and proper conduct from bad and destructive conduct, and what policy mix produces the best kind of society. Other people can then have their own thoughts, and when we come to disputes, as we so often do, we resolve it not by saying ‘live and let live,’ but by voting, and when we’re disappointed with the result, we continue to argue and persuade until we constitute a majority.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM

So, OK, “Your convictions matter, just shut up about them when in public, vote for our candidate and don’t make waves”. Got it.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 6:09 PM

No, talk as much and as loudly as you want about whatever you want, but don’t attempt to use government to force people to agree with you. Some people won’t. You are not smarter or better or superior or in any way in a position to force anyone to agree with you. (and I mean “you” in a generalized sense, you personally may be an incredibly smart, better, superior person. I have no idea.)

Name one significant law that doesn’t have a moral judgment as its basis.

…..

Who cares if you are taking away their rights? Why does that matter if not because doing so is immoral?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:08 PM

No major common law laws that you or I could think of have “moral judgment” as their basis.

We are all born with natural rights — those inalienable rights mentioned in the declaration that are attributed to “natures god” which I think is a great way of phrasing it. Morality has nothing to do with those rights. No matter how immoral you may act in your life, if you do not infringe on others peoples rights, no one has a right to do anything to you.

In other words, the reason we do not have laws against a clearly immoral behavior like adultery is because, while there is often times a victim (the spouse), there is no infringement on anyones natural rights that takes place. It’s a scummy thing to do to someone you supposedly care about, but it’s not something that will land you in jail.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Strawman and reductio ad absurdum, right up there with “We can’t deport them all”.

VorDaj on March 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

By the way, this is not us imposing our morals on others, this is others attempting undermine the common definition of a millennia old institution — marriage. We (conservatives with moral principles) are not attempting to make others change their moral principles and definition of a fundamental societal institution. Rather it is the gay lobby that is attempting to change the definition of a fundamental societal institution and to do so by federal and/or state coercive methods.

If you think this doesn’t matter, let me remind you of my first posting here — this started out in the late 70′s/early 80′s with the position that all they wanted was to be recognized as an “alternate lifestyle” and “accepted for who they were”. Now they are saying they only want to make sure the definition of marriage includes that alternate lifestyle as well and assure us they have no intention of forcing that definition upon those institutions with strong moral opposition to such a definition. Better add that word “yet” to that statement because I will bet you your next paycheck that once they get the desired court rulings institutionalizing gay marriage, the next step is going to be legal action against churches and religious institutions that won’t recognize gay marriage.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 6:18 PM

No, talk as much and as loudly as you want about whatever you want, but don’t attempt to use government to force people to agree with you. Some people won’t. You are not smarter or better or superior or in any way in a position to force anyone to agree with you. (and I mean “you” in a generalized sense, you personally may be an incredibly smart, better, superior person. I have no idea.)

Except that you (in the general sense to refer to any given person) may very well be. And we try to resolve who is right and who is smartest and who has the best public policy ideas through debates and voting. That’s the hallmark of a civilized society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:19 PM

just dont use the coercive force of the federal government to make others agree.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Wow, the cognitive dissonance of that statement should be making your head explode. Abortion, SSM, Obamacare, it is what the liberals do every single day. They use the coercive force of the federal government to force people to submit to what they consider immoral and unethical behaviors.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Do you agree or disagree that the dissolution and degeneration of the family unit is responsible for most of society’s economic and social ills? I’m not talking morality, but the loss of a functioning, standard family unit.

That is the basis for these arguments. Anything else is a distraction.

kim roy on March 2, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Not most, but yes, it is a problem. And without the government crutch of welfare, I feel that it would be less of a problem as the natural incentive to form families would return. Either way, it’s not the federal governments role dictate such things. Do I think only married women with a husband with a good job should have children? Yeah, probably. But that’s just one mans opinion — it does not mean that my opinion should be enforced with federal law onto a population. That’s called tyranny.

Actually it is my place to force other people to live how I think they should. It’s my place as a citizen who has a say in public policy, who is capable of analyzing what differentiates good and proper conduct from bad and destructive conduct, and what policy mix produces the best kind of society. Other people can then have their own thoughts, and when we come to disputes, as we so often do, we resolve it not by saying ‘live and let live,’ but by voting, and when we’re disappointed with the result, we continue to argue and persuade until we constitute a majority.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to vote on my behavior, you petty tyrant. That’s ridiculous and insults the idea that we live in a free country. I’m glad to be commenting on a site along side someone as enlightened as you, though, because I, personally, have never before met someone who was perfect and knew all of the answers in life and had such a great grasp on running his own affairs that he knows with 100% certainty how hundreds of millions of other people should live.

But I love the idea — as long as 50.1% of the country agrees on something, they can force the other 49.9% to do what they tell them to.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

No major common law laws that you or I could think of have “moral judgment” as their basis.

Right. The law that you shouldn’t steal has no moral basis?

We are all born with natural rights — those inalienable rights mentioned in the declaration that are attributed to “natures god” which I think is a great way of phrasing it. Morality has nothing to do with those rights. No matter how immoral you may act in your life, if you do not infringe on others peoples rights, no one has a right to do anything to you.

So if I rape or kill someone I haven’t done anything immoral, just unconstitutional?

In other words, the reason we do not have laws against a clearly immoral behavior like adultery is because, while there is often times a victim (the spouse), there is no infringement on anyones natural rights that takes place.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

We do have laws against adultery.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm

Adultery, in many states, is still a crime

And adultery is a crime at the federal level in the military.

I would suggest you are the ones who needs to do a little studying.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Clint taught me to squint.

davidk on March 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Wow, the cognitive dissonance of that statement should be making your head explode. Abortion, SSM, Obamacare, it is what the liberals do every single day. They use the coercive force of the federal government to force people to submit to what they consider immoral and unethical behaviors.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Well, whether you view it as immoral or unethical, I agree 100% that the federal government should not be in the business of anything outside its enumerated duties.

I fail to see how gay marriage is forcing you to submit to an immoral or unethical behavior, though. The issue isn’t that the government is going to force you to marry a guy, just that certain states feel that they should extend the same contractual benefits of marriage to gay couples.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Gays produce a lot of movies in Hollywood. Clint would like another Oscar. That’s all that’s going on.

tommyboy on March 2, 2013 at 6:27 PM

I’m sorry, but you don’t get to vote on my behavior, you petty tyrant.

Except that I do, as does everyone else who is legally eligible to vote. Every time we have a proposed law regarding whether smoking should or should not be allowed we vote on your (and my) behavior. Every time we have a proposed law regarding whether or not teen youths should be allowed in shopping malls past 10AM we do this. Or to ban / allow public nudity. Or what kind of light bulbs we use. Or any matter of human conduct.

That’s ridiculous and insults the idea that we live in a free country.

When we talk about America being free, it’s not because you can do anything you want, any time you want, but because you have a say in how you are governed, and that your voice is equal to any one of those of your fellow men.

I’m glad to be commenting on a site along side someone as enlightened as you, though, because I, personally, have never before met someone who was perfect and knew all of the answers in life and had such a great grasp on running his own affairs that he knows with 100% certainty how hundreds of millions of other people should live.

Do I know with 100% certainty and complete knowledge? Nope. But given a set of options, I can reason and anticipate which ones are more likely or less likely to be beneficial or destructive, and given my capacities to reason, I vote according to what I think the best policy is.

But I love the idea — as long as 50.1% of the country agrees on something, they can force the other 49.9% to do what they tell them to.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Provided there’s no constitutional provisions forbidding it, yeah, that’s how voting works.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM

We do have laws against adultery.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm

Adultery, in many states, is still a crime

And adultery is a crime at the federal level in the military.

I would suggest you are the ones who needs to do a little studying.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:23 PM

You’re exhausting. Military sets code of conduct for its soliders, which is a TOTALLY different issue, and that some states still have vestiges of religious morality on the books is not the point. I doubt anyones been charged under those laws in 200 years, and even if they have, that’s an incredibly stupid law that I would take to the supreme court if charged with.

You know some states still have laws on the books dictating the legal way to beat your wife?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Tell that to the democrat party.

Rational Thought on March 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM

No, talk as much and as loudly as you want about whatever you want, but don’t attempt to use government to force people to agree with you. Some people won’t. You are not smarter or better or superior or in any way in a position to force anyone to agree with you. (and I mean “you” in a generalized sense, you personally may be an incredibly smart, better, superior person. I have no idea.)

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:17 PM

But I’m not the one trying to use the government to force people to agree with me. I am not trying to get the government through the courts to change the fundamental definition of a basic foundation of society to mean something that it never has. The other side is attempting to do this.

Two same-sex “partners” want to make a lifelong commitment to one another? Fine. Let them do so, but don’t force me to acknowledge that as marriage. It’s not, never has been, never will be. Let them come up with some other word, but it ain’t marriage and don’t use the force of federal or state law to make the rest of us call it something it is not. Because I guarantee you that once they get that acknowledgement at sufficient state or federal level, their next target is going to be forcing churches to recognize that new definition. … and as I’ve said already in this thread, don’t use the “but they say they don’t intend to do so” argument. They’ve done that in the past and the past has shown that they lie. They cannot be trusted and are not to be trusted on this; you just didn’t hear the “yet” appended to the end of that statement “they don’t intend to force churches to recognize those marriages” YET.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM

You know, this pro-SSM propaganda on HotAir is starting to get tired. I’ve been reading HA for years, and I’m about to pull the plug.

RationalIcthus on March 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM

It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue.

This is absurd. So someone can define conservatism as the belief government can ban all firearms? Someone can define conservatism as the euthanasizing of people who aren’t contributing to society?

What Clint Eastwood teaches us is that there are no permanent allies only interests that may or may not intersect on any given subject. Sometimes Clint holds a conservative position, sometimes he holds a libertarian position. And sometimes he holds a liberal position.

Asserting conservatism is defined by the person’s positions rather than a set of principles, makes a mockery of language.

There’s an additional flaw here in that you are arguing from authority, Jazz, which as you know is a logical fallacy. If I’d have to guess, you do this out of desire to find an all encompassing leader as most people seem to do, rather than to choose your positions and find the leader on that particular subject.

There’s a reason the founders preferred a Republic over a Democracy. Democracies tend towards one leader. Republics tend toward many leaders. Many leaders is better, if for no other reason than decision-making is decentralized.

Dusty on March 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM

I have yet to see a decent explanation on why they can’t be called “civil unions” or some other term that would give all the legal benefits and all other sundries as marriage, but allow marriage to remain traditional with all that goes with it.

Why are we changing this? To what purpose?

There’s more here than “equal rights” as a “civil union” worded appropriately will be equal.

There’s no compromise here. We are to acquiesce.

What is the next special interest group to demand their “equality”?

What if I want to marry my cat? It would be nice if my cat had health care coverage under ObamaCare.

kim roy on March 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM

You know, this pro-SSM propaganda on HotAir is starting to get tired. I’ve been reading HA for years, and I’m about to pull the plug.

RationalIcthus on March 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM

You are going to “pull the plug” while on a gay thread? You should stand back a little.
/

VegasRick on March 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM

You’re exhausting. Military sets code of conduct for its soliders, which is a TOTALLY different issue, and that some states still have vestiges of religious morality on the books is not the point. I doubt anyones been charged under those laws in 200 years, and even if they have, that’s an incredibly stupid law that I would take to the supreme court if charged with.

You know some states still have laws on the books dictating the legal way to beat your wife?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM

There are also adultery laws still on the books in a few states. I saw this posted earlier today by someone else (credit goes to that person, ‘though I forget who: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections)

Given that in marriage we promise to forsake all others, someone who commits adultery clearly violates that provision. I’m willing to have that declared to be a violation of the law, be it civil or criminal. You probably don’t. Then we vote on it, and you (likely given current law) win. Then I continue to try to persuade and reason with others until I can convince them otherwise.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:33 PM

You’re exhausting. Military sets code of conduct for its soliders, which is a TOTALLY different issue, and that some states still have vestiges of religious morality on the books is not the point.

Yes, it is the point.

You have some bizarre idea that the federal government is some morally neutral entity that administers legally but does not impose any moral code.

That is totally at variance with what the founders plainly stated and reality.

I doubt anyones been charged under those laws in 200 years, and even if they have, that’s an incredibly stupid law that I would take to the supreme court if charged with.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM

I see, so now you are fine with imposing your view of morality on everyone, but will wax righteous if anyone should suggest the same apply to you?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Provided there’s no constitutional provisions forbidding it, yeah, that’s how voting works.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:28 PM

So then you see no problem with 51% of the country voting to take everything that the other 49% of the country earns and giving it to themselves?

And you seriously think you can / should VOTE on how late people can be in malls? I don’t even know what to say to you, continue being a good progressive, it’s only a matter of time before you and your busy body friends run the country. We liberty and freedom types are a very small minority in the US.

And

When we talk about America being free, it’s not because you can do anything you want, any time you want, but because you have a say in how you are governed, and that your voice is equal to any one of those of your fellow men.

Is the exact opposite of freedom. Hitler was elected by a majority, did that make it alright for him to send people off to concentration camps? How about Stalin? Mao?

Freedom does mean I am free to do whatever I please — the only limitation placed on that is when my activities infringe on someone else’s freedoms. That’s the definition of freedom.

“Freedom” at the whim of the sensibilities of people such as yourself is not freedom, it’s tyranny. You are not my superior, you have no say in how I live my life and what I do.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:34 PM

This is the type of immoral decadence you see in the waning days of all civilizations. We shouldn’t be surprised.

tommyboy on March 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM

You know, this pro-SSM propaganda on HotAir is starting to get tired. I’ve been reading HA for years, and I’m about to pull the plug.

RationalIcthus on March 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Amen.

Shump on March 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM

It is really a condemnation of those that keep needing to find a hero to worship.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Freedom does mean I am free to do whatever I please — the only limitation placed on that is when my activities infringe on someone else’s freedoms. That’s the definition of freedom.

No, it’s really not.

Living in a free society does not mean a total absence of concern for the society as a whole or any sort of obligation to it. Freedom does not mean “do whatever you want.” There are still boundaries and limitations. And when society begins to forget its moral foundations and deviate from them, you have… well… the crumbling around us we have now.

Shump on March 2, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Two same-sex “partners” want to make a lifelong commitment to one another? Fine. Let them do so, but don’t force me to acknowledge that as marriage. It’s not, never has been, never will be. Let them come up with some other word, but it ain’t marriage and don’t use the force of federal or state law to make the rest of us call it something it is not. Because I guarantee you that once they get that acknowledgement at sufficient state or federal level, their next target is going to be forcing churches to recognize that new definition. … and as I’ve said already in this thread, don’t use the “but they say they don’t intend to do so” argument. They’ve done that in the past and the past has shown that they lie. They cannot be trusted and are not to be trusted on this; you just didn’t hear the “yet” appended to the end of that statement “they don’t intend to force churches to recognize those marriages” YET.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM

If your only argument is that it shouldn’t be called MARRIAGE (so just a verbiage choice) then FINE. Marriage is and should continue to be a religious sacrament, and should not be part of our interaction with the government. I see no reason or justification for the federal or really state government to have any part in who is shacking up with who.

I’m fine with calling EVERY marriage on the books a civil union and letting churches pass out the title of marriage to whoever they see fit — but don’t turn around and try to ban the unitarian church or whoever from calling gay couples “married” if they so chose to use the word.

And no, the government should not force ANYONE to accept anyone else as married. If you chose to not recognize interracial or gay marriage or whatever, that’s fine. But if two guys want to be called married by their friends and families and have a ceremony and go on a honeymoon and get on the same health insurance plan… I mean, come on, what difference does that make to you?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:38 PM

So then you see no problem with 51% of the country voting to take everything that the other 49% of the country earns and giving it to themselves?

Legally, no. Morally, yes. And on that point I think you start striking at an issue of natural rights, and the appropriation of property from the commune through one’s own labors as detailed in Locke’s Two Treatises on Government.

And you seriously think you can / should VOTE on how late people can be in malls? I don’t even know what to say to you, continue being a good progressive, it’s only a matter of time before you and your busy body friends run the country. We liberty and freedom types are a very small minority in the US.

This is already done due to the incidence of gang violence in various urban areas throughout the United States. Although I wouldn’t vote for such a measure here given that we don’t have that problem where I live, in other areas it may be more serious and may need to be quelled. Were I to live in such an area, I’d be more than happy to vote for it.

Is the exact opposite of freedom. Hitler was elected by a majority, did that make it alright for him to send people off to concentration camps? How about Stalin? Mao?

No it didn’t. Again, at that point you’re coming up against a set of natural rights. There’s a whole set of conduct that doesn’t involve murder, rape, theft, or assault out there though. For that sort of conduct, we’re no longer talking about natural rights at all but rather what falls under the umbrella of civic discourse.

Freedom does mean I am free to do whatever I please — the only limitation placed on that is when my activities infringe on someone else’s freedoms. That’s the definition of freedom.

“Freedom” at the whim of the sensibilities of people such as yourself is not freedom, it’s tyranny. You are not my superior, you have no say in how I live my life and what I do.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:34 PM

The only way in which I have absolutely no say in how you live or what you do is if you leave civilized society and join a state of nature, or become a dictator yourself who denies anyone else a say in the governance of society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:39 PM

No, it’s really not.

Living in a free society does not mean a total absence of concern for the society as a whole or any sort of obligation to it. Freedom does not mean “do whatever you want.” There are still boundaries and limitations. And when society begins to forget its moral foundations and deviate from them, you have… well… the crumbling around us we have now.

Shump on March 2, 2013 at 6:37 PM

There is no such thing as society, as Margaret thatcher said. Freedom does mean that we are free to pursue happiness in whatever way we see fit. It also means we have the freedom to make our own choices, no matter how bad you think those choices are.

If you have any faith in capitalism and freedom, you will agree with when everyone does what is in their perceived best interest without thought or concern to how it will “impact society,” we all benefit.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:40 PM

I fail to see how gay marriage is forcing you to submit to an immoral or unethical behavior, though. The issue isn’t that the government is going to force you to marry a guy, just that certain states feel that they should extend the same contractual benefits of marriage to gay couples.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:26 PM

The key operative phrase here is “I fail to see” which you promptly follow up with with a reductio absurdum assertion.

When the federal government redefines my religious moral values and threatens my finances and personal freedom unless I adhere to their “Moral” standards that is the very definition of the application of governmental coercive force.

They do not have to force me to marry someone of the same sex to force me to submit to what I consider immoral behavior. When the Courts force me to do things like rent my rental property to individuals who engage what I consider immoral behavior, when they force me to engage n business with said individuals, or restrict my right to publicly express my religious convictions regarding the chosen lifestyle of said individuals, then yes, they are forcing me to submit to what I consider immoral behavior.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Can’t we all just go back to bashing obambi and his fools for trying to grab our guns! Geez guys!

VegasRick on March 2, 2013 at 6:43 PM

If you have any faith in capitalism and freedom, you will agree with when everyone does what is in their perceived best interest without thought or concern to how it will “impact society,” we all benefit.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Single mothers vote for socialism because that is in their best interest, and NO WE DO NOT ALL BENEFIT FROM THAT. In fact it is the opposite of what you claim.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

There’s a whole set of conduct that doesn’t involve murder, rape, theft, or assault out there though. For that sort of conduct, we’re no longer talking about natural rights at all but rather what falls under the umbrella of civic discourse.

The only way in which I have absolutely no say in how you live or what you do is if you leave civilized society and join a state of nature, or become a dictator yourself who denies anyone else a say in the governance of society.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:39 PM

“civil discourse” is not something that you have any right to legislate on.

And you have no legal say in how I live my life, I’m sorry. You’re not my father, you’re not my boss and you’re not my king.

In other words, what do you like that I disagree with? Say you enjoy hunting or going to church or anything along those lines — If I can get 51% of the people together to say lets ban guns or churches for “civil discourse” reasons, why can’t we do it? If you can vote on when I can or cannot go to the mall or whatever else youre blabbering on about, what’s the difference?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

They do not have to force me to marry someone of the same sex to force me to submit to what I consider immoral behavior. When the Courts force me to do things like rent my rental property to individuals who engage what I consider immoral behavior, when they force me to engage n business with said individuals, or restrict my right to publicly express my religious convictions regarding the chosen lifestyle of said individuals, then yes, they are forcing me to submit to what I consider immoral behavior.

SWalker on March 2, 2013 at 6:42 PM

The only reason government has any say in who you rent your apartment to or who you engage in business with is because busy bodys like your friend stoic have made it that way. I absolutely disagree with that — you have freedom of association and thus freedom of disassociation with people you chose not to associate with.

Single mothers vote for socialism because that is in their best interest, and NO WE DO NOT ALL BENEFIT FROM THAT. In fact it is the opposite of what you claim.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

They have the same right to my hard earned money as Stoic does to tell me how to live a perfectly moral life by his definition of morality.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Freedom does mean I am free to do whatever I please — the only limitation placed on that is when my activities infringe on someone else’s freedoms. That’s the definition of freedom.

No, it’s really not.

Living in a free society does not mean a total absence of concern for the society as a whole or any sort of obligation to it. Freedom does not mean “do whatever you want.” There are still boundaries and limitations. And when society begins to forget its moral foundations and deviate from them, you have… well… the crumbling around us we have now.

Shump on March 2, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Actually he is right. That is freedom. His problem is either an ignorance of our current situation or a hypocrisy about following it.

The right to one’s own labors is paramount to liberty and freedom. Our current situation is that no one has a right to their own property right now. (we are not free right now, a minimum of 25% of my labor goes directly to pay for other peoples lives through the force of government, not my free choice.) The degenerate and unfortunate have direct access to the wallets of anyone who works. When a person lives a risky life style, that life style is SUBSIDIZED by the welfare state which gets those funds from the labors of others.

He is right about the definition.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

“civil discourse” is not something that you have any right to legislate on.

And you have no legal say in how I live my life, I’m sorry. You’re not my father, you’re not my boss and you’re not my king.

Sorry, but in so far as I get to vote on a ballot measure, I do have a legal say. We are a society of laws, and when voter referenda come to the ballot we get to decide whether a law is enacted or not. Likewise, I get to vote for representatives who may support a platform that in turn affects your life. That doesn’t make me your king, granted, because you hold the same ability to vote yourself.

In other words, what do you like that I disagree with? Say you enjoy hunting or going to church or anything along those lines — If I can get 51% of the people together to say lets ban guns or churches for “civil discourse” reasons, why can’t we do it? If you can vote on when I can or cannot go to the mall or whatever else youre blabbering on about, what’s the difference?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

You couldn’t ban the first two with that narrow of a majority because of the 2nd and 1st amendments respectively. You’d need to override it through constitutional amendment. With shopping malls, we don’t have a set of special protections for that. That’s far easier.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

You know, this pro-SSM propaganda on HotAir is starting to get tired. I’ve been reading HA for years, and I’m about to pull the plug.

RationalIcthus on March 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM


Well, bye!

Seriously. Conservatism doesn’t mean we all think alike, Conservatism means we believe in individual responsibility as well as individual liberty.

Libertarians break with conservatives in that regard in many ways.

I’m not opposed to SSM, and I do believe it’s the responsibility of the states to take this up, not the Federal Government. There are clear boundaries as to what the Federal Government is allowed to do, and bruddah, this ain’t one of them.

I’m not scared of what the gays could do to marriage. Us straights are doing a good enough job ruining it with 50% of marriages ending in divorce.

What I want to know is will polygamy come back in style in Utah, and will dingy Harry endorse it?

john1schn on March 2, 2013 at 6:48 PM

I found a way I can start listening to Obama again…..if a little friend assists him.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/heres-a-video-of-obama-warning-about-sequestration-interspersed-with-a-screaming-goat/

Ahhhhhhh, four more years of this…….may require a whole herd!!!!

PappyD61 on March 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Actually he is right. That is freedom. His problem is either an ignorance of our current situation or a hypocrisy about following it.

The right to one’s own labors is paramount to liberty and freedom. Our current situation is that no one has a right to their own property right now. (we are not free right now, a minimum of 25% of my labor goes directly to pay for other peoples lives through the force of government, not my free choice.) The degenerate and unfortunate have direct access to the wallets of anyone who works. When a person lives a risky life style, that life style is SUBSIDIZED by the welfare state which gets those funds from the labors of others.

He is right about the definition.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I’m not ignorant or a hypocrite. I agree with about 90% of what the government does. If people want to make the argument that we should force single mothers to either get married or get an abortion so that they don’t become a burden to the welfare state, that’s a totally different argument.

My counter-argument would be that we could solve a lot of problems by getting the government out of the welfare business, out of the “victim group” business, and that we should put up a firm wall between business and the state.

Justifying the right of the majority to impose their views on the minority by saying, “well we might have to pay for this because the majority also voted to give themselves hand outs” is just further justification for the growth of governmental tyranny and the tyranny of the majority.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM

If you have any faith in capitalism and freedom, you will agree with when everyone does what is in their perceived best interest without thought or concern to how it will “impact society,” we all benefit.

Faith? Capitalism? Freedom?

moldbuggery.blogspot.com
nqualified-reservations.blogspot.com

ninjapirate on March 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM

If your only argument is that it shouldn’t be called MARRIAGE (so just a verbiage choice) then FINE. Marriage is and should continue to be a religious sacrament, and should not be part of our interaction with the government. I see no reason or justification for the federal or really state government to have any part in who is shacking up with who.

No, it is not just a verbiage choice, it is a legal definition. … and don’t think for a second the SSM proponents are not going to use that fact to force their “morality” on those who disagree should they prevail in court. This isn’t some academic exercise, this is an issue that will have ramifications that goes way beyond “who is shacking up with whom”. Marriage has some deep-reaching legal effects that go way beyond some definition of a word. Inheritance, child support, testifying against a spouse in court are all affected by that institution. Like it or not, the definition of marriage is tied up with our interaction with the government up to and including the issuing of marriage licenses. The SSM crowd is now seeking to change the definition of that millenia-old definition. This is no small thing.

I’m fine with calling EVERY marriage on the books a civil union and letting churches pass out the title of marriage to whoever they see fit — but don’t turn around and try to ban the unitarian church or whoever from calling gay couples “married” if they so chose to use the word.

So now you want the state to undefine the institution of marriage because it doesn’t suit the SSM crowd. You are not helping your case here.

And no, the government should not force ANYONE to accept anyone else as married. If you chose to not recognize interracial or gay marriage or whatever, that’s fine. But if two guys want to be called married by their friends and families and have a ceremony and go on a honeymoon and get on the same health insurance plan… I mean, come on, what difference does that make to you?

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:38 PM

They can call themselves ducks for all I care. Doesn’t make them so. … and whether you think the government should not force anyone to accept anyone else as married matters not one bit. I guarantee you that the SSM crowd absolutely expects the government to force everyone to accept their definition of marriage and that is what counts.

You then fall into the SSM propaganda of trying to relate inter-racial marriage (man and woman) with a SSM — equating ethnicity with lifestyle choice. Not at all equivalent, but definitely expected from the lifestyle crowd that is trying to equate lifestyle choice with ethnicity.

AZfederalist on March 2, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Seriously. Conservatism doesn’t mean we all think alike, Conservatism means we believe in individual responsibility as well as individual liberty.

No it does not… you deserve to be drop kicked by Zombie Russell Kirk for this nonsense.

ninjapirate on March 2, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Okay. And I’m not going to support a party or politicians who think they are some paradigms of morality and can use their power and the federal government to tell people how to live their lives.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM

By definition, the government tells you how to live your life. Any argument to the contrary is idiotic.

But, why does the person who sets a standard (a law) have to be perfect with respect to that standard? I accept that my legislators are humans. If you expect a perfect being setting your rules, then you really shouldn’t be on the side of SSM, since the only perfect being I know of does not approve.

GWB on March 2, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I’m not ignorant or a hypocrite. I agree with about 90% of what the government does. If people want to make the argument that we should force single mothers to either get married or get an abortion so that they don’t become a burden to the welfare state, that’s a totally different argument.

My counter-argument would be that we could solve a lot of problems by getting the government out of the welfare business, out of the “victim group” business, and that we should put up a firm wall between business and the state.

Justifying the right of the majority to impose their views on the minority by saying, “well we might have to pay for this because the majority also voted to give themselves hand outs” is just further justification for the growth of governmental tyranny and the tyranny of the majority.

Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 6:51 PM

So which do you do first? Increase the number of welfare and other government addicted people, or get rid of the welfare state.

That pretty much sums it.

astonerii on March 2, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3