Rob Portman: I’ve changed my mind and support gay marriage now

posted at 11:21 am on March 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

Interesting for many reasons. Timing: He’s dropping this during CPAC, when political media is focused on competing factions within conservative thought, and shortly before the Supreme Court takes up a landmark case on Prop 8 and DOMA. Enthusiasm: He didn’t casually mention this during a standard Q&A with a reporter. He called three Ohio journalists to his office for the announcement, granted CNN an on-camera interview, and published an op-ed in today’s Columbus Dispatch. He’s really throwing some weight behind it. Prominence: Portman was, of course, a shortlister for VP and is the lone GOP senator from America’s ultimate swing state. More than that, he’s the first sitting Republican member of the Senate to endorse legalizing same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court amicus brief filed by pro-gay-marriage Republicans a few weeks ago was conspicuous for its lack of any big-name incumbents as signatories. Portman’s a big name.

Why’d he switch? Like Dick Cheney, whom Portman met with to discuss this, his view changed when he found out someone in his family is gay:

Portman said his own evolution on the issue began in 2011, when [his son] Will, then a freshman at Yale University, made a stunning revelation.

“Will … came to Jane and me and announced that he was gay, that it was not a choice. It was who he is and he had been that way since he could remember,” Portman recalled of the conversation. “Jane and I were both surprised, very surprised, but also very supportive of him. Our reaction was not about policy or positions. It was about him as a son and letting him know we were 110 percent supportive of him.”

His son’s homosexuality “allowed me to think about this issue from a new perspective, and that’s as a dad who loves his son a lot,” Portman said. He said he wants Will to have the same chance at an enduring relationship, “like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.”…

Portman said his previous views on marriage were rooted in his faith.

But “the overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible . . . and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker . . . that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue,” he said.

He says he told the Romney camp about his son last year when he was vetted for VP and that they told him it was no problem. Imagine, though, putting Portman on the ticket and then having news break that the vice presidential nominee, who once voted for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, has a gay son. The media’s coverage of Portman for the rest of the campaign would have been filtered through the issue of SSM and Romney surely knew it. Is that something he would have wanted given his intense messaging emphasis on the economy?

Mollie Hemingway makes a fair point, too:

Leaving apart the question of whether marriage law should be changed, this strikes me as a problematic approach. I mean, marriage law should be changed or it shouldn’t be changed — but it shouldn’t hinge on the sexual attractions of one senator’s son, should it?

What if a conservative senator said, “I’m reversing my views on whether abortion should be legal because my daughter got pregnant and wished she weren’t.”

One of the fascinating things about society today is that personal experience trumps everything else in argumentation. Very few people seem to care about fundamental truths and principles while everyone seems to care about personal experience and emotion. It’s the Oprahfication of political philosophy.

Yeah, I’m loath to scold the guy for his reasoning given that I agree with him and that he’s taking on a bit of political risk in doing this, but why did he need his son to come out to get him to look at this issue from the perspective of someone who’s gay? He’s been a professional legislator for years; he’s supposed to consider all sides of an issue when deciding which policy to support. That’s a surprisingly parochial approach to a national debate that’s been rolling around for a solid decade now. Makes me wonder if his feelings on the subject really did change recently or if he’s always quietly been open to gay marriage but only felt politically safe to announce it once he discovered his son’s orientation. Conservative primary voters may be less likely to hold it against him if they think it’s a decision driven by fatherly love for his son.

Anyway, who’s next? The real significance of Portman endorsing SSM is that it gives political cover to other GOP incumbents who might secretly agree with him to speak up too. Republicans from solidly red states will remain opposed but there are plenty of purple-state possibilities. Susan Collins seems like a given. Murkowski can probably get away with it in Alaska. Mark Kirk would pay no heavy penalty in Illinois. Maybe Kelly Ayotte too, or do her national ambitions prevent that (for now)? There’ll be more.


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 9 10 11

1,001 for the record.

ZachV on March 16, 2013 at 3:35 AM

…so goodnight chem !…you are the one that will put this over the top!
(:->)

KOOLAID2 on March 16, 2013 at 3:35 AM

ZachV on March 16, 2013 at 3:35 AM

(:->)

KOOLAID2 on March 16, 2013 at 3:36 AM

…I was hoping you were here…you wanted a thousand…and I sure wasn’t going to do a Dr Tesla…and start talking to myself!

KOOLAID2 on March 16, 2013 at 3:33 AM

I thought “doing a Dr Tesla” was letting your college roommate tie you up and use you like woman then saying it was all a joke.

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 3:39 AM

Just because his son is gay is no reason for Portman to abandon his principles. He can love his son without the switch to supporting gay marriage.

But what can you expect from the guy who helped Romney….lose?

Sherman1864 on March 16, 2013 at 5:21 AM

When reality (his son) is presented – most people realize that gay people are no threat to their own belief system or the way we manage our own lives and family…

jake-the-goose on March 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Tell that to parents in Massachusetts where their children are indoctrinated with pro gay propaganda and have no option to withdraw them from class.

scotash on March 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM

Tell that to parents in Massachusetts where their children are indoctrinated with pro gay propaganda and have no option to withdraw them from class.

scotash on March 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM

Or the photographer who was sued for refusing to work at a gay ‘wedding’.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 7:32 AM

AWWW, C’MON ….. we’re too close to 1000 to quit now. – listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 12:55 AM

Yep, I opened up this thread and found it still going. I kept reading northdallasthirty and tried to count the number of times he threw out the word bigot. I just gave up counting. The man is obviously off his rocker. And, of course MellonCollie is still upset over that one photographer that was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding.

SC.Charlie on March 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Tell that to parents in Massachusetts where their children are indoctrinated with pro gay propaganda and have no option to withdraw them from class.

scotash on March 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM

Good luck trying to win an election with a pro-bigotry stance.

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Just because his son is gay is no reason for Portman to abandon his principles. He can love his son without the switch to supporting gay marriage.

Sherman1864 on March 16, 2013 at 5:21 AM

Portman did what any loving parent would do. Maybe you don’t know much about this love thing?

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Studies show that children thrive the most when they grow up in intact families with their biological mom and dad.

INC on March 16, 2013 at 2:53 AM

And if you ask the child that is their preferred environment.

monalisa on March 16, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Portman did what any loving parent would do. Maybe you don’t know much about this love thing?

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

There is a difference between love and permissiveness.

I imagine if Portman’s son did a 180 on legalizing recreational drug use because he found out his son was a stoner, you wouldn’t buy the idea Portman changed his position out of love.

You’d buy that he really doesn’t care about his son, he just didn’t want political backlash from leftists weaponizing his son against him.

So once again we have leftists who are on the offensive (it is THEY, not WE who are picking this fight) using Alinsky methods to try and splinter the opposition.

BKennedy on March 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM

So if his gay son married a Palestinian, he’d vote to blow up Tel Aviv?

Beyond stupid..

TexasJew on March 16, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Good luck trying to win an election with a pro-bigotry stance.

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Hey genius how is wanting freedom of choice to participate or not participate in a class suddenly become bigotry?

bgibbs1000 on March 16, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Methodist Pavilion showed us that there is no “live and let live” mentality on the other side — which is a requirement for any conservative support — so there you are.

Personally, I’ll stick with the so-called “bigotry” — a lot more kids will be a lot safer if we do.

I remember my teenage years and what several gays tried to do to me. I also remember a few years back when a bunch of gays rented the house next to mine — we’d see them making out on their front lawn, and spent condoms and needles on the right of way in the morning — including that in front of my house. It took a call to the police to stop it. A few years onward, and we may be the ones put into jail merely for complaining.

unclesmrgol on March 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

This is the “dirty little secret” of the gay rights movement. It represents the final push of the Progressives to turn orthodox Christian teaching about human sexuality into bigotry and thereby strip from it any and all Free Exercise protection. The Massachusetts case is instructive. So is Martinez v. Christian Legal Society, where the Supreme Court upheld blatant viewpoint discrimination against an expressly Christian student organization, leading to the same type of discrimination at Vanderbilt. Justice Kennedy will not be able to withstand the pressure he himself created by authoring Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and the Chief Justice, ever mindful of the Court’s reputation, will join him and the four progressives in holding that the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, when ratified by Americans in states that criminalized sodomy and recognized only marriage between a man and a woman, withdrew from the federal and the state governments the authority to limit marriage to a man and a woman. This is the essence of “living constitutionalism.” Five unelected justices reinterpret the Constitution to reach their preferred policy goal, which then governs America without “the consent of the governed” as set forth in the Declaration. Whatever your thinking on the issue of gay marriage, it should be a matter to be determined “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” not by judicial fiat.

Mongo Mere Pawn on March 16, 2013 at 10:13 AM

The grand experiment with communism has been thoroughly discredited

Not in the United States. The reason the United States’ amazingly successful economic engine of capitalism is seizing-up is that the sugar of statism, collectivism, and Marxism has been poured into the engine over the past two decades. At any given moment, it is the 50, 60 and 70 somethings that occupy most of the most powerful positions in government, business, educational and cultural institutions. A quarter century ago, the self-disciplined and moral GI Generation passed the baton of these positions to the Baby Boom Generation. The nation has since moved dramatically to the left. There are not enough conservatives in this generation to “hold the fort” for the United States when there are so many former 1960′s counter culture radical hippies intent replacing it with Marxist ideas. They embraced and expanded the socialist welfare entitlement state rather than reforming or eliminating it, and seem unwilling and unable to get out of the way and let free market capitalism work its wonders.

Tripwhipper on March 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM

Sorry, posted in wrong article by mistake.

Tripwhipper on March 16, 2013 at 10:22 AM

scotash on March 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM

Good luck trying to win an election with a pro-bigotry stance.

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Wow you really addressed his point.
/

Way to bring people over.

CW on March 16, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Just because his son is gay is no reason for Portman to abandon his principles. He can love his son without the switch to supporting gay marriage.

Sherman1864 on March 16, 2013 at 5:21 AM

Portman did what any loving parent would do. Maybe you don’t know much about this love thing?

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Thuja your responses are so simplistic and without real thought. I have seen your ugliness here in the past. Don’t dare preach about love.

CW on March 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM

1,001 for the record.

ZachV on March 16, 2013 at 3:35 AM

.
Thank you, ZachV !

I don’t have any prize for you, but thanks.

listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Portman did what any loving parent would do. Maybe you don’t know much about this love thing?

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

my parents are not exactly shouting from the rooftops that i am homosexual. they go to mass every sunday and even on holy days of obligation. they are not, have never been, nor will they ever be in favor of same sex marriage. and guess what? they love me VERY much, as i do them. but unlike you and the rest of the gay circus, i don’t make what i do in private, a wedge between me and my folks. nor do i do that with anyone else i come in contact with. you’re a clown.

GhoulAid on March 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Portman did what any loving parent would do. Maybe you don’t know much about this love thing?

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Honestly, I think the son used his situation to tie his parents over a barrel and forced them to come out in favor of gay marriage. A son can know many secrets the parents have as the parents will the son. Typical selfish behavior of those with no self control.

astonerii on March 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I’ll get us to 1,000 if it kills me or anyone else to do it.

INC on March 16, 2013 at 2:53 AM

INC on March 16, 2013 at 3:03 AM

I don’t think anyone doubts the worth and value of a set of loving parents. Are you suggesting we mandate it?

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 3:10 AM

Not changing our 2000 year old definition of marriage is not mandating anything. On the other hand, redefining marriage, in law, in a way that NO SOCIETY EVER HAS and the vast majority of the 7billion on this planet probably never will, feels more like a “mandate”.

BoxHead1 on March 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Not changing our 2000 year old definition of marriage is not mandating anything. On the other hand, redefining marriage, in law, in a way that NO SOCIETY EVER HAS and the vast majority of the 7billion on this planet probably never will, feels more like a “mandate”.

BoxHead1 on March 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I’d suggest you look up as well as read Hammurabi’s Code written around 1772 BC, then come back on the whole 2000 year old bit as if to infer the definition came from Judeo/ Christian doctrine/ teachings.

Now back to the debate… 3-2-1

theblacksheepwasright on March 16, 2013 at 11:17 AM

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM

You are wrong about that on the face of it. I did not say he rejected his son.

The love comment directed at me is just a presumptuous personal attack both baseless and groundless.

And meaningless as well.

Your type of comment is below my standards.

Sherman1864 on March 16, 2013 at 11:33 AM

As an Ohio conservative who has seen this sort of thing again and again, I can say I’m tired of getting butt-raped by the people we trust with our votes. This totally sucks.

Since Senator Portman has decided to represent his family, then they can re-elect him.

You never hear Sherrod Brown say, “Man, I had such a great time at Camp Perry shooting the pop-up targets. I love me some AR-15′s now.” No, it’s always Reagan appointing Sandra Day O’Connor or Bush 41 appointing David Souter or somesuch similar disaster. I give up. I’m closing the hatch of the bunker and cranking the wheel.

Buck Turgidson on March 15, 2013 at 11:48 PM

I will vote for the Dem nominee over Portman in protest if he doesn’t get primaried. I will never ever ever ever ever ever vote for a low-life political opportunist like him again. You cannot change my mind.

This is more a protest over the pathetic state of the Ohio GOP (the only way they’ve held power as long as they have is because the Ohio Dems are just as inept).

Myron Falwell on March 16, 2013 at 11:46 AM

I’d suggest you look up as well as read Hammurabi’s Code written around 1772 BC, then come back on the whole 2000 year old bit as if to infer the definition came from Judeo/ Christian doctrine/ teachings.

Now back to the debate… 3-2-1

theblacksheepwasright on March 16, 2013 at 11:17 AM

OK, 3185 year old definition then.

BoxHead1 on March 16, 2013 at 12:02 PM

3785 I mean

BoxHead1 on March 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Not changing our 2000 year old definition of marriage is not mandating anything. On the other hand, redefining marriage, in law, in a way that NO SOCIETY EVER HAS and the vast majority of the 7billion on this planet probably never will, feels more like a “mandate”.

BoxHead1 on March 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I’d suggest you look up as well as read Hammurabi’s Code written around 1772 BC, then come back on the whole 2000 year old bit as if to infer the definition came from Judeo/ Christian doctrine/ teachings.

Now back to the debate… 3-2-1

theblacksheepwasright on March 16, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Kind of a silly objection, given that the Law of Moses was from about the same time as the code of Hammurabi, and that it would be foolish to claim that morality and the worship of God didn’t exist before then, since Abraham was several hundred years before Moses. Or are we to believe that Abraham had no moral code?

In fact, when God appeared to Moses, He said, “I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” So God was specifically referring Moses to his ancestors and their worship of God.

And in fact, if you were to take the Bible at all literally, you wold completely expect moral laws to be as old as mankind, since we were all created by God.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Methodist Pavilion showed us that there is no “live and let live” mentality on the other side — which is a requirement for any conservative support — so there you are.

Personally, I’ll stick with the so-called “bigotry” — a lot more kids will be a lot safer if we do.

I remember my teenage years and what several gays tried to do to me. I also remember a few years back when a bunch of gays rented the house next to mine — we’d see them making out on their front lawn, and spent condoms and needles on the right of way in the morning — including that in front of my house. It took a call to the police to stop it. A few years onward, and we may be the ones put into jail merely for complaining.

unclesmrgol on March 16, 2013 at 10:09 AM

That last bit doesn’t deal at all with the subject of gay marriage so I won’t address it because it’s irrelevant, however I did warn people not to bring up the Methodist Pavilion but then you went ahead and did it anyway…….

The Methodist Pavilion thing was a case owned a large piece of property along a boardwalk in New Jersey. The local municipality cut them a huge break on their property taxes provided they allow free and open use of the property. Part of the property was a pavilion where people would occasionally get married. A lesbian couple asked for permission to use it and was denied so they protested that the owners were violating their agreement with the city to provide free and open access that they allowed in exchange for a favorable tax treatment. It went to court and a judge agreed the Methodist organization had violated the terms of the agreement and presented them with a choice: allow the wedding to take place in the pavilion or lose the tax break. They chose the latter. They did NOT lose the tax break for the entire boardwalk; they lost it only for the small pavilion, and the wedding did not take place there because of a RELIGIOUS LIBERTY EXEMPTION! So if the First Amendment protects the Methodist church from disallowing gay marriage ceremonies not just in the church itself, but also on a small piece of property the church owns along a boardwalk, then your church won’t be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies either.

NEXT!

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Or the photographer who was sued for refusing to work at a gay ‘wedding’.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 7:32 AM

And we’re back to the red herrings!

As I think I’ve pointed out to you in the past (it runs together because I’ve had to point this out to a lot of people) gay marriage has nothing to do with that. The New Mexico wedding photographer was held in violation of the state’s anti-discrimination law so the legalization of gay marriage is a separate issue. If gay marriage was legal but the anti-discrimination laws weren’t on the books then that lawsuit can’t happen. If you oppose anti-discrimination laws then say so and take up that cause, but don’t confuse the gay marriage issue any further.

NEXT!

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Not changing our 2000 year old definition of marriage is not mandating anything.

Everything INC posted was about the benefits of children being raised by their parents. I said that I didn’t deny there are benefits to that and was asking if it be mandated that all children be raised by them. Should we forbid divorce from conception to the time the kids move out and compel any man who accidentally knocks a girl up to marry her and raise the child? I’m just trying to find out what INC suggests we do.

On the other hand, redefining marriage, in law, in a way that NO SOCIETY EVER HAS and the vast majority of the 7billion on this planet probably never will, feels more like a “mandate”.

BoxHead1 on March 16, 2013 at 10:57 AM

This is an argumentum ad antiquitam logical fallacy. By stating “It’s never been done before,” you’re implicitly suggesting the past is a complete and correct guide for everything. The argument you made here is basically identical to something that could have been used a few thousand years ago when someone suggested that instead of hunting and gathering, which we had done for millions of years, we could try out agriculture.

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:25 PM

The argument you made here is basically identical to something that could have been used a few thousand years ago when someone suggested that instead of hunting and gathering, which we had done for millions of years, we could try out agriculture.

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:25 PM

There were and still are plenty of hunter gatherer tribes in existence today. The farmers prospered and took over the vast majority of the land space proving they were a valid lifestyle.

There were and still are gays in the world. They have had thousands of years to demonstrate their value to society, they have not. They in fact refuse to try to, because they know the results of their lifestyles is only one and can always only be one thing. DEATH, which is not a benefit to society.

astonerii on March 16, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Why aren’t we framing this issue with the simple question of “should it be legal for a heterosexual man to marry another man?” Because that’s what legalizing same sex marriage means for around 97% of the population who aren’t gay.

If someone responds to this question by asking “what heterosexual man in his right mind would want to marry another man?”, the proper response would be “who in their right mind would want to marry their daughter or their dog, so why don’t we make that legal too?”.

For me it’s very simple. As much as I understand gay couples’ desire to marry, gay people aren’t a majority, they’re not 40% of the population, they’re not even 10% of the population.

The overwhelming majority of the population are heterosexuals, and I don’t believe that it should be legal for a heterosexual to marry a member of the same sex. The law should not permit depraved behavior, even if most people aren’t depraved. The law should set an example for civilized behavior.

If people want to legalize same sex marriage, it should only be legal for people who are gay, who would have to provide evidence that they’re gay. And once you marry a member of the same sex, you shouldn’t be allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex.

But the gay extremists would never go for this. They want same sex marriage to be legal for EVERYBODY. That’s their dirty little secret. They want young people to grow up thinking “I might marry a boy, I might marry a girl”. They believe deep down inside, every guy wants a d*** up this a**, they’re just too repressed to admit it.

They want a return to the decadence of Ancient Pagan societies. It amazes how so many people can’t see this, and think that this whole issue is about gays. It’s not about gays, it’s about the rest of us.

ardenenoch on March 16, 2013 at 2:31 PM

NEXT!

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:14 PM

.
I find this whole discussion to be fraught with PERIL …..
.
Does that mean I’m gay ?

listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Why do so many think real Tea Party conservatives are going to get elected to much of anything above mosquito control board?

People don’t want their freebees cut, and they don’t want to be preached to on moral issues. But they will buy into the idea that some kind of Collective will see to their needs while they themselves have to do little and get everything they want.

It’s all a scam.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

ardenenoch on March 16, 2013 at 2:31 PM

It’s okay to discriminate against a minority if said minority is sufficiently small?

Got it.

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:59 PM

I find this whole discussion to be fraught with PERIL …..
.
Does that mean I’m gay ?

listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Not if you don’t find the peril too perilous.

:-)

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I find this whole discussion to be fraught with PERIL …..

Does that mean I’m gay ?

listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM

.
Not if you don’t find the peril too perilous.

:-)

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 3:00 PM

.
OH…NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . . . . . . : O

listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Slippery slope violation!

Five minute major and a game misconduct!

Kiss your axe goodbye, Axeman!

chumpThreads on March 15, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Duh. Who introduced the idea that progress is toward a certain direction? You can’t just introduce a question of momentum, progress or process and then because somebody else makes another claim about momentum–using your freaking vector–throw a slippery slope flag.

Just shows you can’t argue. I flag you for impersonating an official–someone with the capacity to actually make judgments.

Axeman on March 16, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Saturday’s Photo Essay:

A Country Divided: Stunning Photographs Capture the Lives of Ordinary Americans During Segregation in the Jim Crow South

Resist We Much on March 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM

So now there IS no difference to a separate entrance and marriage? A brother and a sister can walk through the same white entrance. A father and a daughter can walk through the same white entrance. Two men and a sheep–if sheep were allowed–could walk through the same white entrance.

You’re the one holding the position that there is some inviolable difference in the issue of child consent–yet your argument advances by ignoring differences, all the same.

So the answer is that it all depends on what differences are annulled. Do gays have to watch fairs from a distance? Do they have to enter by other doors?

Its a sad state of affairs–perhaps we should ban guns because Sandy Hook is sad as well? Just to get with the times, or not offend those who would be offended in light of Sandy Hook with people continuing guns. Do you want to spit in the face of the parents of Sandy Hook?! Do you?!?

Axeman on March 16, 2013 at 4:21 PM

It’s a shame that so many on the right don’t know the difference between Libertarian and libertarian.

…same as the leftards don’t know the meaning of truly liberal…then there’s the D vesud d in democrat/ic a.s.f.

We should create an HA dictionary :)

Schadenfreude on March 15, 2013 at 5:12 PM

It’s also true that a number of people on hot air don’t know exactly what “Big Government” is. It’s not “Big Government” to keep the laws, pretty much as they were when the government was a fraction of its current size.

It’s also not “intrusive” a law that only kicks in when you show up and the county clerk and are shown the door. Whether brother and sister, man and pig, two women or two men.

Another thing is that the country clerks office is not somebody’s bedroom. Also not somebody’s bedroom–so far–is anyplace that they sued a caterer or photographer for not participating in catering or photographing the events.

It would be good that people knew what these words meant as well. I worry for the state of the country when people can abuse terms so easily.

Axeman on March 16, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Duh. Who introduced the idea that progress is toward a certain direction? You can’t just introduce a question of momentum, progress or process and then because somebody else makes another claim about momentum–using your freaking vector–throw a slippery slope flag.

Just shows you can’t argue. I flag you for impersonating an official–someone with the capacity to actually make judgments.

Axeman on March 16, 2013 at 4:13 PM

You can if the claim doesn’t make sense, and this particular slippery slope claim does not. Do I have to break this down again?

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM

You can if the claim doesn’t make sense, and this particular slippery slope claim does not. Do I have to break this down again?

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I’ve seen some of your work here. Don’t kid yourself.

Okay, chumpthreads says:

The arc of justice bends towards equality.

Thus, the implication is that where we stand right now, is not as far toward justice as it could be, because we do not consider the marriages of a gay couple equal under law as the marriage of a straight couple. It is reported since the late 80s that gay people were “marrying”, just not legally-recognized marriage. Thus marriage is not a matter of law, but of an agreement between two people. Equality is recognizing both couplings equally.

I mean chumpthreads comes nowhere near making an argument that laid out, but I took it for meaning something rather than being meaningless.

But given simply an equation between equality and justice, I said that further down that road is treating people who want to get married to two other people–or who consider themselves married as equal to those who want to be married to one.

Okay, break it down. And try not to make too big a mess of yourself. I mean you HAVE to admit that you want to treat somebody who wants to marry 2 people different–and thus not equally. So you’re not being as close to justice as you might otherwise be.

Axeman on March 16, 2013 at 5:51 PM

I’ve seen some of your work here. Don’t kid yourself.

Axeman on March 16, 2013 at 5:51 PM

So it is that you missed me explaining why your argument is nonsensical. Well then I’ll repeat it for you.

The slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to incest, pedophilia, rape, murder or whatever else being legalized is a poorly-thought-out drivel because the prohibition on gay marriage is based strictly on a moral decision and the prohibitions on incest, pedophilia, and the rest of the parade of horribles I’ve seen in the thread so far is that those future consequences all have a reason for being prohibited beyond the moral justification alone. As was stated in the majority opinion in the Lawrence case, a law must serve a secular purpose and not be grounded in “I just feel it’s wrong.” I certainly hope you can come up with reasons to oppose murder beyond a moral objection, at least. With gay marriage there is no objection beyond the moral one, or if there is such an objection then I’ve never thought of it nor has anyone ever been able to tell me what it is.

And that’s why legalizing gay marriage isn’t going to lead to legalized pedophilia.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

I witnessed an incredible moment at a girl’s basketball game earlier this week that I wanted to share with you all now that the story seems to have some legs. I’ve never witnessed anything so humbling and powerful at a sporting event. Even though it’s not political, I bet you’ll want to share this link with as many people as you can. http://www.rightmichigan.com/story/2013/3/15/132023/218

politicaljunkie2008 on March 16, 2013 at 6:33 PM

And that’s why legalizing gay marriage isn’t going to lead to legalized pedophilia.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Actually it is far more likely to than not. Gay males are far more likely to be pedophiles, you can argue all you want that it is a different orientation, but in the end, the guys who like to poke little boys butts also enjoy poking big boy butts. Get married, adopt, poke away in the privacy of your own home. While not specifically legal, there is effectively no difference between legal and illegal when there is next to no chance of being charged and imprisoned.

That is the least damage to our culture that will occur.

astonerii on March 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Good Grief, what is the problem with being gay?? The majority of gays did no choose to be gay they are born that way. If they want to get married, let them! As far as I am concerned, they deserve to be just as miserable as the rest of us!!!!!!!!

Momma on March 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Is this thread still going ?
.
Alright, guess it’s up to me to settle this …………..
.

Everyone who agrees with me is right, correct, and otherwise knows the truth.

Everyone else is WRONG ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

.
His most high Lord, “The Great Arrogant Egocentric” has spoken.

Thank you … you’ve been great audience …… : )

listens2glenn on March 16, 2013 at 10:21 PM

For all those who are in favor of homosexual marriage I would like your opinion. Since we are redefining the definition of marriage shouldn’t we include legal marriages between 3 or more people as well? Shouldn’t multiple people have the same rights to enter into their own marriage contracts as they see fit? Doesn’t failure to include them equate to dictating who free adults can legally love? Can’t consenting adults love more than 1 other person and shouldn’t they be allowed to have their unions recognized by the state as marriage contracts? Why doesn’t every argument used to justify homosexual marriage apply to them?

Dollayo on March 16, 2013 at 10:22 PM

And, of course MellonCollie is still upset over that one photographer that was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding.

SC.Charlie on March 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM

One is one too many, I think. I find it creepy.

Do I only have permission to find the situation creepy if it were 25 photographers involved, or 50, or 100, or 500, or 1 million?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Post Script.

Other than the photographer and homosexual wedding example, I’ve seen other, similar stories, like a few different bakers that refused to bake cakes or cookies for homosexual parties, weddings, a church that refused to rent out their gazebo for a homosexual ceremony, etc., were sued or threatened.

There was a Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast who did not want to accept a homosexual couple in their establishment and were sued or harassed over it.

There was a guy who said he disagreed with the legalization of homosexual marriage on his own time on his home computer on his personal, private facebook account and got fired over it by his employer (someone on his facebook account told his employer).

Christians in Europe who say homosexuality is a sin have been jailed and harassed over it.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2013 at 10:48 PM

And, of course MellonCollie is still upset over that one photographer that was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding.

SC.Charlie on March 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM

That is one example out of dozens of Christians persecuted. But you pretend it’s an isolated incident since you’re a liberal who wants to tear down the Judeo-Christian influence.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM

Good luck trying to win an election with a pro-bigotry stance.

thuja on March 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Forcing people to accept homosexuality, especially threatening to sue them or get them fired if they do not, is a form of bigotry.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2013 at 10:51 PM

Do I only have permission to find the situation creepy if it were 25 photographers involved, or 50, or 100, or 500, or 1 million?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Fun fact: “Charlie” is an old British word meaning “fool”.

For that matter, how Americans have to get droned by Obama the judge-jury-executioner before we have SC’s permission to be worried?

MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 10:51 PM

So it is that you missed me explaining why your argument is nonsensical. Well then I’ll repeat it for you.

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

You didn’t address my argument. You addressed other people’s argument. My argument that you thought you could comment on was addressed to chumpthreads statement that “The arc of justice bends towards equality.”

Again, it already assumes a progression, so simply putting equality in terms of a progression, shouldn’t be a “slippery slope”. If “justice” as chumpthreads put it is a thing to be pursued then we must not resist its progress. Therefore is not saying that the next step is inevitable, which a slippery slope does–it discusses the next step in the progression.

I re-quoted chumpthreads and I gave a little expansion of his argument the way I read it and reprised my counter. That might have been a clue that you should address chumpthreads statement–or my expansion somewhere in your “argument”.

The slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to incest, pedophilia, rape, murder or whatever else being legalized is a poorly-thought-out drivel because the prohibition on gay marriage is based strictly on a moral decision and the prohibitions on incest, pedophilia, and the rest of the parade of horribles I’ve seen in the thread so far is that those future consequences all have a reason for being prohibited beyond the moral justification alone.

No they’re not. If siblings get married and have no kids–perhaps they sign a contract that says that every child they conceive will be aborted–what is left is simply a feeling that brothers and sisters marrying is wrong. After all, the purpose of marriage is not to bear children anymore. It makes the prohibition against siblings even less cogent than before. Besides, like gay couples they can always adopt.

In addition, I can’t see much beyond a cultural or moral judgment that makes us want to prohibit group marriages.

I don’t think you have the first idea on the parameters of a moral behavior. Any abstract concept with a recommendable value is a moral value. Equality, for example, is a moral value. You can’t really see it in the natural world, but it remains an infatuation of men.

As was stated in the majority opinion in the Lawrence case, a law must serve a secular purpose and not be grounded in “I just feel it’s wrong.” I certainly hope you can come up with reasons to oppose murder beyond a moral objection, at least.

Nope. Not a one. And end to life is simply a biological event. Our horror of or loss at that event is what makes us want to regulate it. Even the idea that murder could destabilize our society is only significant in that we want a stable society. A stable society is a good thing. Civil order is a good thing.

With gay marriage there is no objection beyond the moral one, or if there is such an objection then I’ve never thought of it nor has anyone ever been able to tell me what it is.

And that’s why legalizing gay marriage isn’t going to lead to legalized pedophilia.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

When the progress of equality is removing distinctions and stipulations–you can make all the dinstinctions and stipulations that you want. That is no guarantee that somebody won’t make an argument toward equality by removing those stipulations and distinctions.

In addition, the thing that has made “wholly secular in intent” supersede the previous standard of an “excessive entanglement with religion” is based on a type of argument that resembles a slippery slope argument. And neither of those are still “Congress shall make no law,” which was what was ratified.

Axeman on March 17, 2013 at 3:08 AM

And, of course MellonCollie is still upset over that one photographer that was sued for refusing to photograph a gay wedding.

SC.Charlie on March 16, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Yeah, Freedom of Conscience is so 200-years ago!

Axeman on March 17, 2013 at 3:15 AM

For all those who are in favor of homosexual marriage I would like your opinion. Since we are redefining the definition of marriage shouldn’t we include legal marriages between 3 or more people as well? Shouldn’t multiple people have the same rights to enter into their own marriage contracts as they see fit? Doesn’t failure to include them equate to dictating who free adults can legally love? Can’t consenting adults love more than 1 other person and shouldn’t they be allowed to have their unions recognized by the state as marriage contracts? Why doesn’t every argument used to justify homosexual marriage apply to them?

Dollayo on March 16, 2013 at 10:22 PM

You can still keep prohibitions on polygamy in place once gay marriage has been legalized. For starters we’ve got legal precedent in place (Lawrence in particular) that establishes homosexuals are the legal equivalent of heterosexuals. No such current status exists for polygamists and I don’t think it’s very likely for such an equivalence to be established; homosexuals are only attracted to other members of the same sex but it’s harder for someone to make the case they are attracted only to polygamy, or only their close relatives if you want to switch to the incest argument. Ultimately I expect prohibitions against gay marriage will be struck down under the reasoning SCOTUS set down in the Lawrence case, and I think the line holding back whatever other things people have expressed concern over will ultimately be upheld because of the distinction between homosexuality and polygamy/incest/whatever that I laid out.

Also legalizing gay marriage will be relatively painless legally; you stop worrying about the sex of the participants and you’re there. Legalizing polygamy would create some legal hurdles. Just as one example spouses get to make end of life decisions (remember the Terri Schiavo case?). That will remain relatively straightforward once gay marriage is legalized. If polygamy were ever legalized is it a majority vote of the wives or does it have to be unanimous? What if it’s a tie? That’s just one off the top of my head.

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 4:27 AM

One is one too many, I think. I find it creepy.

Do I only have permission to find the situation creepy if it were 25 photographers involved, or 50, or 100, or 500, or 1 million?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2013 at 10:44 PM

One is too many but your issue is with anti-discrimination laws and not gay marriage. I’m for gay marriage but I think any photographer, baker, or whatever other person you care to name shouldn’t fear any legal repercussion from refusing to provide their services to a gay wedding that they object to on religious grounds. That’s why I oppose anti-discrimination laws, but I keep the issues separate. The example you mentioned about the church who wouldn’t rent out their gazebo was the Methodist Pavilion issue in New Jersey that I responded to above. See:

alchemist19 on March 16, 2013 at 2:07 PM

It’s another example of the problem with anti-discrimination laws.

I’m going to disagree with you on the guy who got fired for his Facebook post. Boss can run their business however they see fit.

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 4:35 AM

That is one example out of dozens of Christians persecuted. But you pretend it’s an isolated incident since you’re a liberal who wants to tear down the Judeo-Christian influence.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2013 at 10:50 PM

For violating anti-discrimination laws that are totally separate from the gay marriage debate?

And can you prove the person you were responding to is a liberal who wants to tear down the Judeo-Christian influence or are you just engaging in hyperbolic supposition?

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 4:37 AM

For violating anti-discrimination laws that are totally separate from the gay marriage debate?

And can you prove the person you were responding to is a liberal who wants to tear down the Judeo-Christian influence or are you just engaging in hyperbolic supposition?

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 4:37 AM

How are they separate from gay marriage when it is the ceromonies of gay marriages that will be making the people face the discrimination? Oh yeah, look over there!

astonerii on March 17, 2013 at 9:53 AM

Portman and Romney are like worms in the social fabric destroying it…neither have a single solid principle other than the need to be on the side of the flavor of the day. But then the other possibility is both are perverts as are so many other elite politicians!

el Vaquero on March 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM

I imagine that Portman wants to avoid the hypocricy label. Sigh. When one of your family is gay and wants to live the lifestyle there isn’t a thing that you can do about it especially if it is your child. Are you going to stop loving them? No. That isn’t possible. So the Left puts you in a box, the Alinsky box, and beats you over the head until you submit to them. It’s sick and not necessary, but there it is. All you Republicans had better read up on Alinsky and start figuring out how to deal with the Left and not necessarily your gay children. You accept your children and still love them. That is easy. Learning Alinsky and applying it to the Left seems to be the most difficult thing for Republicans.

BetseyRoss on March 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM

What if he finds out his son is a jihadist? Is Portman going to go pro-IED? What a pile of BS. Please somebody primary this jerk.

DaMav on March 17, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Reporter: Senator, what is your position on bestiality?
Portman: I am dead set ag… wait, let me talk to my son and get back to you on that.

DaMav on March 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM

First off, the plans for the removal of laws barring plural marriage are already loaded up and waiting to pull the trigger.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the gay and lesbian community has already endorsed pedophilia, insists age of consent laws are discriminatory, and is demanding that pedophiles be treated as any other “sexual minority”.

And as we see here, all one needs to do to twist people like alchemist19 and Rob Portman into pretzels to support whatever they want is a good rousing Alinsky chorus of “bigot, bigot”, and they fold like a cheap suit.

Marxists are taught to look for useful idiots. We’re seeing that in spades here.

northdallasthirty on March 17, 2013 at 12:57 PM

northdallasthirty on March 17, 2013 at 12:57 PM

And to think Charlie Horse calls you a troll because he used both his braincells to google your username and found someone else somewhere else with the same moniker. I wonder if he isn’t a sockpuppet for the little f@ggot who googled my name and ‘found’ me on a rather disgusting site.

MelonCollie on March 17, 2013 at 1:01 PM

You can still keep prohibitions on polygamy in place once gay marriage has been legalized. For starters we’ve got legal precedent in place (Lawrence in particular) that establishes homosexuals are the legal equivalent of heterosexuals.

Ah yes, Big Judiciary. Yes, you are a fan of unelected judges handing down the law to us peons, aren’t you?

Here’s an item: Can you make a case that development B is inevitable from development A without it being a slippery slope–mainly because somebody disagrees on the inevitability. If “inevitability” is a meaningful property of a development, does it exist only when two parties agree on inevitability? Or isn’t it possible that Abe sees assess the inevitability one way and Barry another and one of them may be more right than the other.

Thus for inevitability to have any defense against the accusation that it is simply a slippery slope, we must come up with a better distinction between the two. Frankly, I’m stumped. My best guide to how to construe words that refer to unobservable concepts is to refer to my best understanding of common expectation. Otherwise, one persons inevitability is the skeptics slippery slope. And you know how skeptics decide when two people believe two different things about an unobservable event? They discount it.

So perhaps there is no referent to the template statement “X has the property of inevitability”. In that case nothing is inevitable and the lack of inevitability in the case of the legalization of polygamy is simply stipulating a universal.

Of course, with nothing be inevitable, or provably inevitable, from where we stand currently, gay marriage is not an absolute inevitability either. So you’ve said nothing about polygamy that doesn’t also exist in some form for SSM.

As the set of all inevitable developments would arguably be the empty set, it specifies nothing significant of legalizing polygamy. You haven’t really said much about the case for polygamy being advanced or withstood, you’ve simply stated that 1) there is resistance and 2) resistance sometimes prevails. Which again is pretty trivial for discussion of political developments.

Now, one could say that sun’s coming up tomorrow is “inevitable”, and outside of extreme cases that’s an acceptible case for “inevitability”, but as political processes don’t have the verifiable cyclicity of regular natural occurrances, you’ve simply said for the most part that no development in changing the definition of marriage is a regular natural event. So that’s not universally trivial, but trivial for disputes of law or political developments, all the same.

So I’m wondering where we get a special case for inevitability of political development that makes the lack of that inevitability anything significant for legalizing polygamy. And indeed, should everything cited as “inevitable” be vulnerable as a slippery slope argument, how that word could have any import that you don’t busy yourself about throwing the fallacy flag.

Can you say more for the guards against polygamy other than they will not inevitably be overturned or that people hold objections O_1, O_2,… which have the right to be reviewed as relevant–well not by the people–but by the distributors of personal justice in the future?

Again, your schoolmarmish slapping people with rulers on the basis of slippery slope invites a question of how integrated your theory is when you can casually trot out an assumed case for “inevitability” out of which set the legalization of polygamy clearly falls.

And your slavishness to the modern day elite ministers of personal freedoms according to a perfectly flat legal space that the layman cannot see or understand simply recommend you as an authoritarian.

[Sorry for the length, but in my experience, it takes a lot of words to disabuse some people as to the quality of their arguments, especially when they simply debate by stipulation.]

Axeman on March 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM

I imagine that Portman wants to avoid the hypocricy label. Sigh. When one of your family is gay and wants to live the lifestyle there isn’t a thing that you can do about it especially if it is your child. Are you going to stop loving them? No. That isn’t possible. So the Left puts you in a box, the Alinsky box, and beats you over the head until you submit to them.

BetseyRoss on March 17, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Well said. Yes, there would be coverage as the public debated and decided for Portman whether or not he “loved his son” until some new Emmanuel Goldstein came along to fuel another 24-hour hate.

Unfortunately, conservative politicians are hybrids, part popularity-chaser, part representative of conservative voters–if sometimes only to get their vote to be re-elected. They are not creatures of McLuhan’s media the way Dems are. Libs progress by enthusiasm and excitement and intensity of the political experience. Slogans to chant and bad guys (“fatcats”, “The Man”,…) to fight, and the feeling of being “involved” and “momentum”. When we do it, we’re “fascists”, and they see progress and enthusiasm by conservatives as goosestepping or riding out in white hoods.

I think the most effective thing one can say about Alinskyan method is that it is disingenuous. It relies more on the who-wants-to-be-called-a-hypocrite scape-goating and outlet for tribal-esque shaming, then it does an honest, open discussion of the trade-offs in a change of course.

But the text of liberalism is never touched. For example that it is wrong to shame others for values they don’t hold. Calling shame “ridicule” hides the conflict, which never comes into question as people get used to being fed their motivations from the media stream. It’s just something that they don’t do and we do and,…well….shame on us.

Axeman on March 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM

First off, the plans for the removal of laws barring plural marriage are already loaded up and waiting to pull the trigger.

They can bring challenges if they want to, it doesn’t mean they’re going to win them. Like I laid out, with what the courts have ruled so far it’s very easy to draw a line between same-sex marriage and polygamy.

Meanwhile, the leadership of the gay and lesbian community has already endorsed pedophilia, insists age of consent laws are discriminatory, and is demanding that pedophiles be treated as any other “sexual minority”.

Is this a majority position or are you picking up the words of one nut with a microphone and assigning their views to everybody? And what does any of that have to do with gay marriage?

And as we see here, all one needs to do to twist people like alchemist19 and Rob Portman into pretzels to support whatever they want is a good rousing Alinsky chorus of “bigot, bigot”, and they fold like a cheap suit.

Marxists are taught to look for useful idiots. We’re seeing that in spades here.

northdallasthirty on March 17, 2013 at 12:57 PM

I’ve already explained where the legal line is drawn and the logic for drawing it there. If you’re going to try to argue in bad faith then there’s not much I can do with it. I disagree with Axeman but so far he appears to be attempting to argue in good faith, you should try to emulate his example.

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Ah yes, Big Judiciary. Yes, you are a fan of unelected judges handing down the law to us peons, aren’t you?

A brief aside first. When did “Big” become a pejorative, and who is responsible for it?

Anyway, when “Big Judiciary” is doing their jobs and protecting people’s Constitutional rights then, yes, I’m fine with it. I was fine when “Big Judiciary” upheld the Second Amendment in the Heller case, and I was fine when “Big Judiciary” ruling in favor of the freedom of speech in the Citizens United case. If you think I’m wrong for applauding those then we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.

Here’s an item: Can you make a case that development B is inevitable from development A without it being a slippery slope–mainly because somebody disagrees on the inevitability. If “inevitability” is a meaningful property of a development, does it exist only when two parties agree on inevitability? Or isn’t it possible that Abe sees assess the inevitability one way and Barry another and one of them may be more right than the other.

I will concede it’s all but impossible to know with absolute certainty what is and is not inevitable, especially in matters of interpreting the law.

Thus for inevitability to have any defense against the accusation that it is simply a slippery slope, we must come up with a better distinction between the two. Frankly, I’m stumped. My best guide to how to construe words that refer to unobservable concepts is to refer to my best understanding of common expectation. Otherwise, one persons inevitability is the skeptics slippery slope. And you know how skeptics decide when two people believe two different things about an unobservable event? They discount it.

So perhaps there is no referent to the template statement “X has the property of inevitability”. In that case nothing is inevitable and the lack of inevitability in the case of the legalization of polygamy is simply stipulating a universal.

Of course, with nothing be inevitable, or provably inevitable, from where we stand currently, gay marriage is not an absolute inevitability either. So you’ve said nothing about polygamy that doesn’t also exist in some form for SSM.

As the set of all inevitable developments would arguably be the empty set, it specifies nothing significant of legalizing polygamy. You haven’t really said much about the case for polygamy being advanced or withstood, you’ve simply stated that 1) there is resistance and 2) resistance sometimes prevails. Which again is pretty trivial for discussion of political developments.

Now, one could say that sun’s coming up tomorrow is “inevitable”, and outside of extreme cases that’s an acceptible case for “inevitability”, but as political processes don’t have the verifiable cyclicity of regular natural occurrances, you’ve simply said for the most part that no development in changing the definition of marriage is a regular natural event. So that’s not universally trivial, but trivial for disputes of law or political developments, all the same.

So I’m wondering where we get a special case for inevitability of political development that makes the lack of that inevitability anything significant for legalizing polygamy. And indeed, should everything cited as “inevitable” be vulnerable as a slippery slope argument, how that word could have any import that you don’t busy yourself about throwing the fallacy flag.

Can you say more for the guards against polygamy other than they will not inevitably be overturned or that people hold objections O_1, O_2,… which have the right to be reviewed as relevant–well not by the people–but by the distributors of personal justice in the future?

Again, your schoolmarmish slapping people with rulers on the basis of slippery slope invites a question of how integrated your theory is when you can casually trot out an assumed case for “inevitability” out of which set the legalization of polygamy clearly falls.

And your slavishness to the modern day elite ministers of personal freedoms according to a perfectly flat legal space that the layman cannot see or understand simply recommend you as an authoritarian.

[Sorry for the length, but in my experience, it takes a lot of words to disabuse some people as to the quality of their arguments, especially when they simply debate by stipulation.]

Axeman on March 17, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Distilled to its essence, you feel I’m playing too loose with things that I make out to be inevitable, yes? If so then OK, I will concede that neither myself nor anyone else knows for sure how the nine justices on the Supreme Court will rule and ergo I can’t say with 100% absolute certainty that Ruling B will or will not happen because of Ruling A, but that doesn’t mean we can’t take educated guesses. Most of the people on the Court are known quantities; it’s not like I’m flipping a coin nine times and saying “Ok, for Scalia it came up tails so he’ll vote to strike it down, heads for Thomas so he’s vote to uphold…). Given the composition of the Court and their past rulings (Romer and Lawrence in particular come to mind) it strikes me as extremely likely. As likely as the not-inevitable sun coming up tomorrow morning? No. But I still think highly, highly likely.

As to polygamy, I can’t say with absolute certainty that the court couldn’t strike down the prohibition on that today regardless of the gay marriage issue. The real question is whether it will become more likely to strike down the laws against polygamy if the laws against gay marriage are struck down. It will, of course, depend on the ruling (assuming there is one that legalizes gay marriage). My expectation based of my intelligence guided by experience and my understanding of the law is that a ruling in favor of legalizing gay marriage will lean heavily on the Lawrence ruling, which was based on Due Process, and thus leave polygamy laws no more likely to be struck down the day after than they were the day before. If the majority in Lawrence had joined O’Connor’s Equal Protection argument then maybe I could imagine an increased likely but they didn’t. I freely admit there are better lawyers than me out there so it could be my understanding of the relevant case law isn’t as good as some others, and it’s always possible for someone on the Court to do something I don’t expect at all that throws my analysis on the ash heap, so if you think you’ve got a better read on the situation and its likely outcomes then I’m interested in hearing it.

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I respect Cheney but not his wide stance on gay marriage. It does not matter what his family experience is. It does not matter what Portman’s experience is. They are supposed to be working on public/ national policy, not worrying about how they get through next Thanksgiving dinner with the family.

Logically, they are reasoning from the specific to the general, with not very much data.

Clearly Portman can not be trusted to focus on an important national issue. Stopping gays from whining is neither possible nor relevant to the issues facing us.

virgo on March 17, 2013 at 9:33 PM

The slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to incest, pedophilia, rape, murder or whatever else being legalized is a poorly-thought-out drivel

Tell that to the Australian incest lobbyists who are pushing for legalisation of incest between consenting adults using the exact same playbook as has been used by homosexuals over the past 30 years or so (After The Ball by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen – google it).
They pop up on TV every so often with a father and daughter or mother and son with faces pixellated and voices disguised by willing media and they say all the usual stuff like ‘who are we hurting? we love each other. Who are you to condemn our love?’. Then they slip back out of the spotlight for a year or so and pop up again then. It’s water dripping on a rock, two steps forward one step back tactics with the same kind of appeals to emotion over sense that are typical of homosexuals. BTW, homosexuals are 1% of the population but represent 40% of pedophiles.

The Thin Man Returns on March 17, 2013 at 10:59 PM

alchemist19 on March 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM

There is only one line that needs to be debated. What is good for the children. As it is the children for which Marriage exists. Any two consenting adults can do what ever the hell they want behind closed doors for a second or a lifetime. But when you bring children into the world, society has an obligation to work to make people bear the responsibility of raising them.

Gays have nothing to do with the creation of children and thus have no business attempting to subvert the institution of marriage. It is just that simple. It is not a RIGHT for heterosexuals, it is a CONSTRAINT on their lifestyles because the children have rights, and among them is the right to have a stable family to be raised in.

Gay marriage would do nothing to accomplish this and everything to thwart it. First, by moving further from the equation children.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11