Video: Hillary stops pretending that she’s against gay marriage; Update: 58% support gay marriage in new poll

posted at 2:01 pm on March 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Wait, Hillary wasn’t already on record in favor of gay marriage?” Evidently not. Five years ago, top-tier Democratic candidates concluded that they couldn’t safely support SSM publicly; five years and a double-digit swing in public opinion later, they’ve concluded that they can’t safely oppose it. The GOP will wrestle with this issue for awhile but, as of now, I think supporting gay marriage has reached the same stature among Democrats as supporting abortion rights. Namely, while occasional disagreement from backbenchers will be grudgingly tolerated in the name of winning purple states, no party nominee will ever, ever again end up on the other side of this issue. If you want to win a national Democratic primary, you’re pro-gay marriage, period. Hillary’s just checking the box.

In fact, it’s revealing that this is the first move she’s made politically since retiring from diplomacy. So orthodox has the party become on this subject that it might have been a liability for her if she had waited any longer before issuing her inevitable endorsement. (Bill “evolved” on the issue more than three years ago and published an op-ed just last week denouncing the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course he signed into law.) And don’t think she and her camp don’t know it. This announcement has been in the works for months, per this Politico report from November.

But according to two sources, Clinton’s aides have privately indicated to people that she will end up where her husband and daughter, Chelsea, have emerged on the issue – in favor of same-sex nuptials.

Her circle has “indicated privately that she feels like … because of her role as the country’s chief diplomat that it was appropriate for her to stay out of this” over the last two years, said one source, who added that the message was also that as soon as she’s left Foggy Bottom “and she’s given the right opportunity, that she will end up with the rest of her clan.”

Watch and you’ll see her explain that her perspective changed in part because of her friendships with gays. That’s basically the same rationale Rob Portman gave to support his own switch on this issue, and the left spent the entire weekend sneering at him for it. They won’t sneer at Hillary, but there’s some consistency in that: After happily tolerating Obama lying to their faces about his stance on gay marriage in the interest of getting elected, they’re not about to hassle Hillary. As long as you get to the right outcome, you’ve got carte blanche on how you get there. If you’re a Democrat.

Exit question via DrewM: Which position on this subject will the next GOP nominee take? Under normal circumstances, I’d bet the farm that he/she would punt by backing a federalist approach. But that’s not on the menu if, as expected, the Supreme Court strikes down gay-marriage bans as a violation of equal protection. Social cons will want the nominee to back a Federal Marriage Amendment overturning the decision even though it has zero change of passing. The party leadership will want the nominee to stay far, far away from that for fear of alienating young voters. What’s the solution?

Update: WaPo/ABC is out with a new poll finding record support for gay marriage at 58 percent. Here are the numbers among religious groups. The first column is the number in favor today, the second is the number in favor in 2004.

ssm

Another interesting result: “This poll suggests that the high court is the right place for it: Americans by nearly 2-1, 64-33 percent, say the legality of gay marriage ‘should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution’ rather than by each state making its own law on the issue.” I’m skeptical of that, but if it’s true then there’ll be less of a popular backlash after the Supreme Court rules than I thought.


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 4

Who is more obsessed with race:

Poster 1, because Poster 2 was simply pointing out Poster 1′s constant obsession. No other point made by Poster 1 needed to be addressed by Poster 2 or anyone else, because Poster 1 is a known ghoul and a lot of other unpleasant things.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Rand Paul is right. Take the marriage advantage out of income taxes and there will be no reason for gays to be married. BTW, the reason it is a federal issue is because of federal tax law.

BTW I have a gay relative who does not believe in gay marriage. He thinks that marriage is a man and a woman. He has legally made his partner his legal guardian and benefactor and his partner has done the same with him. He says that if gays and lesbians really just cared about being “married” they would not care if it was seen as a legal partnership by the government because they can now get married without that legal validation.

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Who is more obsessed with race:

Poster 1 writes a paragraph about the political motivations of gay men and makes one parenthetical reference to racism.

Poster 2 takes the one parenthetical reference to race from Poster 1, forgets or ignores everything else Poster 1 said and makes a response which does nothing but repeat the word “race” and accuses others of being obsessed with race.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM

So if I make it short, that means it’s not important? Okay. (You’re a hypocrite)

You confuse my online “libfreeordie” persona with my actual personality. A lot of this is just a game for me. …

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:57 PM

So you admit to being a troll. Okay.

Fenris on March 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Update: WaPo/ABC is out with a new poll finding record support for gay marriage at 58 percent.

oh yeaeth! HotAir writers driving news with polls by our traitorous media. And calling for a favorable (ha!) SC ruling. blech

DanMan on March 18, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I blame the concussion.

Besides, What difference does it make now ?

FlaMurph on March 18, 2013 at 3:03 PM

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM

My cousin is like that. He took advantage of Illinois’ civil unions but will not get married. He agrees that heterosexual unions are different than homosexual unions. That historically in the state’s eyes hetero unions were for the creation of children. That any other type of union is essentially a partnership created to leave property etc. The two are different and are treated different. He is quite alright with that, but then he grew up with a mom and a dad and think that denying a child that is akin to child abuse.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:05 PM

What’s also amazing is how often public policy is driven by polls and not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Homosexuals want to marry? Amend your state or the federal constitution. But you won’t, like the petty little tyrants you leftists are you’ll leave it to leftist judges appointed by fellow leftists to impose it on the ret of us. FU you petty tyrants.

jawkneemusic on March 18, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I, personally, don’t care of homosexual couples get married. Civil unions provide the same benefits, however, if a wedding ceremony is what homosexual couples need to feel equal, as long as the church or minister is willing to perform the ceremony, I have no problem with it.

However, I do care about whether or not churches are forced, by law, to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples if the church, or its minister or officient, in question has any tenet or matter of conscience that would prohibit their participation in, or sanctioning of, the marriage. Freedom of religion must be maintained and protected.

I also care about a group of militant ‘gay rights’ attorneys in California and New York City who have drafted a new set of terminology they want to see applied to ALL federal, state, and local documentation in regard to familial relationships.

These proposed terminology changes, promoted under the guise of contract law, are: Changing ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on all documentation to ‘Parent 1′ and ‘Parent 2′. Changing ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to read ‘Partner of a Marriage’.

Mother has a specific definition and a deep cultural personal meaning.

Father has a specific definition and a deep cultural and personal meaning.

Husband has a specific definition and a deep cultural and personal meaning.

Wife has a specific definition and a deep cultural and personal meaning.

Mother, father, husband, and wife are all honorable states of being.

Seeking to replace the most intimate terms used in our familial relationships is nothing less than cultural warfare. This is being promulgated by the militant gay community and is an indicator that there are those in the gay community who will never be satisfied simply with equality.

I believe that the truly militant gays make up only a tiny percentage of the gay community at large. However, some policing of the movement needs to be done by the gay community at large before the debate over gay marriage can be resolved.

I can and will vote for equality under the law. I will not vote to undermine the most intimate familial relationships,to allow cultural warfare, or for preferential treatment under the law.

thatsafactjack on March 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Sorry … of should be ‘if’. First line of last post.

thatsafactjack on March 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM

The Unmade Bed just wants fewer dna sprayed, blue dresses in America’s closets. With homosexual marriage, it’ll happen.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM

The GI Generation earned a place in history for their moral and social discipline. They passed on to their heirs the greatest nation on earth. Their heirs the Baby Boom Generation are a mirror image in that respect, having been shaped by the radicalism of the 1960′s, and will earn a place in history for their moral inversion of social and political norms. They think they are righting the backwardness of humanity, and liberating everyone from its dark ages, but in reality, they are just creating new rules for themselves that don’t apply to anyone else. There are many millions of responsible Baby Boomers that do not fit this description, but not enough to offset the radical leftists that define their generation.

Tripwhipper on March 18, 2013 at 3:08 PM

You confuse my online “libfreeordie” persona with my actual personality. A lot of this is just a game for me. I am super progressive, but I’m also quite delightful to hang out with :) My partner is a midwestern country boy and has more than a few gay friends who are basically economic conservatives/libertarians who are highly skeptical of anti-poverty policy or progressivism in general. But they are big Ron Paul fans (and there are lots of other gay men like them). I have also hung out with their friends, which includes Republicans. This is online, not real life.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Well then I might just like to meet you offline sometime. I don’t care for your online persona, although I do enjoy sparring with you occasionally.

I know some of your personal history since you were “outted” here and badly done so. And I don’t know how you are not very progressive when you teach what you teach, but that is another topic. YOu are probably really fun to have a beer with.

I don’t know how the switch on gay marriage will change droves of gay men to the Republican platform. If they vote Democrat just because of the marriage issue, then in this economy I don’t think they are very bright, but that is just me. Most change in political parties comes from within, so what good they think they are doing outside in the Dem party is beyond me, but you know them better than me.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Americans by nearly 2-1, 64-33 percent, say the legality of gay marriage ‘should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution’

That 63% sample clearly doesn’t understand the Constitution, at all. No big surprise, there.

It’s time for a national divorce. There is nothing American left in the American Socialist Superstate, save the meaningless label.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Rand Paul is right. Take the marriage advantage out of income taxes and there will be no reason for gays to be married.

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Do you really think that is why they want same sex ‘marriage’? Seriously?

It has zero to do with taxes and everything to do with forcing Christians to sit down and shut up. Oh, and bake them a cake, take pictures of the ceremony, let them have ‘wedding night’ in the Christian’s bed and breakfast, etc…. If this passes the Supreme Court, kiss your freedom of religion good bye.

And that is what this is all about.

Anyway, if this poll is true, a significant majority have now jumped to the wrong side of the line in the sand. It can’t be much longer now. Romans 1

God have mercy.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM

However, I do care about whether or not churches are forced, by law, to perform a marriage ceremony for homosexual couples if the church, or its minister or officient, in question has any tenet or matter of conscience that would prohibit their participation in, or sanctioning of, the marriage. Freedom of religion must be maintained and protected.

thatsafactjack on March 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM

It goes even deeper than than though. Gays in Canada have sued the Catholic church under Canada’s hate law for preaching against homosexuality. That is where the gays are going in this country. So, even if a church will be allowed to refuse to marry gays, the gays would like to get to a point where the clergy will not be able to preach against homosexuality under hate speech laws. The goal being if the gays can’t gain acceptance, they’ll settle for silencing the opposition.

KickandSwimMom on March 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

You confuse my online “libfreeordie” persona with my actual personality. A lot of this is just a game for me. I am super progressive, but I’m also quite delightful to hang out with :) My partner is a midwestern country boy and has more than a few gay friends who are basically economic conservatives/libertarians who are highly skeptical of anti-poverty policy or progressivism in general. But they are big Ron Paul fans (and there are lots of other gay men like them). I have also hung out with their friends, which includes Republicans. This is online, not real life.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Then why do you argue on here as if you’ve never interacted with anybody to the right of Bernie Sanders?

Don’t use the “Oh, it’s just the internet” excuse, that’s a lame sop.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM

My cousin is like that. He took advantage of Illinois’ civil unions but will not get married.

My boyfriend is from Decatur….still think I don’t know any Republicans?

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:24 PM

This issue is taking our culture back to the cave. It definitely is not taking us forward. We are becoming more and more uncivilized.

Rose on March 18, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I know lots of middle class white gay men who will probably start voting Republican once this issue is out the way because they are essentially economically conservative (and kind of racist). I just don’t know why the GOP has not embraced this sooner, you have kicked yourselves in the foot in terms of the gay dollar. Once DOMA is done with and gay marriage is legal everywhere lots of that gay campaign money is up for grabs. Will the right see the writing on the wall and seize it. Probably not.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Not even touching the “kind of racist’ rhetoric which is such an obviously inflammatory red herring that it’s impossible to even parry.

Anyway, we’re not going to fall for this one again, libfree. “If Reagan signs this amnesty bill, Hispanics (who are super duper conservative Catholics or something) will start voting for the GOP in droves!”

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM

My boyfriend is from Decatur….still think I don’t know any Republicans?

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:24 PM

You could be from Barry Goldwater’s crawl space and I still wouldn’t believe you’ve ever had an honest conservation with an actual conservative given the way you debate online.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Then why do you argue on here as if you’ve never interacted with anybody to the right of Bernie Sanders?

Don’t use the “Oh, it’s just the internet” excuse, that’s a lame sop.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:23 PM

First of all. I don’t think I’m measureably nastier than the average tone around here. But I guess tone is in the eye of the beholder. But second of all, anonymous (though the stalkers do try and screw with that) boards are an ideal place to air out things you’d like to say to your friends who politically disagree with you, but it would produce social awkward-ness. And when one has friends via partnership/marriage one can’t just call people out all the time. I suspect that quite a few posters enjoy HotAir because it allows you to anonymously express what might not be ideal for your personal life. Why are you acting friend and brand new about the relationship between anonymity and freedom of expression?

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

KickandSwimMom on March 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Someone, I think Workingclass Artist, posted a link in a thread a week or so ago about the Brits sending a message to the Catholic bishops of the UK saying that they would not be able to opt out and be forced to teach the pro-homosexual agenda in Catholic schools. Between this and things like the HHS mandate, it is hard to believe anyone can’t see the full frontal assault on the Church is happening. Persecution is coming and it will be interesting to see how many cheer with Nero, and how many are horrified of what they’ve wrought, especially self identified Catholic pro-homosexual agenda types.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Update: 58% support gay marriage in new poll

I’m still all gayed out, but I gotta do what I gotta do.

This is the triumph of feelings over reality. We all have our dreams that, when the rubber hits the road, don’t get there. It’s sad but true. A “this isn’t what I thought it would be”. With male-male sexual desire, which is quite real, when you get to the goal, of the actual sexual act, and realize, hey … this is bogus. A simulacrum of sexual love.

Does anyone truly believe male homosexual sex is a legitimate expression of love? Really? It’s like a contingent that believes the Emperor’s New Clothes are “the bomb”. You can believe whatever you’d like. Just don’t make me sanction it under the auspices of “marriage”. That’s asking too much.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Poster 2 takes the one parenthetical reference to race from Poster 1, forgets or ignores everything else Poster 1 said and makes a response which does nothing but repeat the word “race” and accuses others of being obsessed with race.

Hmmmmmmmmmm

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Let’s tally what percentage of your posts deal with racial issues and compare it with John’s posts, eh?

This topic had literally nothing to do with race, but you couldn’t resist a bit of bomb-throwing by suggesting that the reason your hypothetical friends would switch to the GOP is because of racism.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM

And, no doubt, in a few more years, homosexuals will be getting married in every church, Catholic or Protestant, BY ORDER OF THE STATE.

I can only shake my head, and watch America rot.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 2:20 PM

It goes even deeper than than though. Gays in Canada have sued the Catholic church under Canada’s hate law for preaching against homosexuality. That is where the gays are going in this country. So, even if a church will be allowed to refuse to marry gays, the gays would like to get to a point where the clergy will not be able to preach against homosexuality under hate speech laws. The goal being if the gays can’t gain acceptance, they’ll settle for silencing the opposition.

KickandSwimMom on March 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

They won’t force Catholic Churches to comply (not including heretics that will blatantly defy the Vatican). They’ll deem them Enemies of The State and condemn them to death in the public square. Or take a page out of the Chinese and “assign” heretic bishops and archbishops as a Vichy Church.

In any event, society in general will just collapse and be overrun by Islamofacists. That includes the US. Give it about ten years. Then everything will be ruined, destroyed… gone. Maybe that’s what was meant to happen.

And yet, the Catholic Church has managed to survive 2,000 plus years of Romans, tyranny, anarchy, greed, corruption, internal conflict and scandals, schisms, and flat-out heresy… it will survive persecution by the Socialists.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM

I still wouldn’t believe you’ve ever had an honest conservation with an actual conservative given the way you debate online.
Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Jesus, I had kind of pegged you as a sort of smart person before. But this particular inability to understand the difference between online and interpersonal interaction is positively gobsmacking. Do you honestly think that someone like northdallasthirty, for example, spends his days screaming at “liberal bigots” all day? Or, just per chance, is it possible that he keeps it cute in his everyday life. I’m starting to wonder if YOU’VE ever interacted with humans outside of online forums.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Is it this time of day again already?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM

It goes even deeper than than though. Gays in Canada have sued the Catholic church under Canada’s hate law for preaching against homosexuality. That is where the gays are going in this country. So, even if a church will be allowed to refuse to marry gays, the gays would like to get to a point where the clergy will not be able to preach against homosexuality under hate speech laws. The goal being if the gays can’t gain acceptance, they’ll settle for silencing the opposition.

KickandSwimMom on March 18, 2013 at 3:20 PM

The First Amendment protected the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to say what they say about gay people, didn’t it?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Is it this time of day again already?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM

GayGas

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM

My boyfriend is from Decatur….still think I don’t know any Republicans?

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Okay I’ll concede “that some of your best friends” might be Republicans” although I was thinking of your limited work enviroment when I thought of who you might hang around with.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Some excellent resources from MN on what marriage is, why it matters, consequences of redefining it, and perpetrated propaganda myths.

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/why/

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/threat/

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/myths-facts/

INC on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

This topic had literally nothing to do with race, but you couldn’t resist a bit of bomb-throwing by suggesting that the reason your hypothetical friends would switch to the GOP is because of racism.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Only you interpret that as bomb throwing. The right is fascinating on race. They claim to not care, but they also act as if any suggestion that race may play some part of a persons political subjectivity IS THROWING A BOMB ON THE DISCUSSION, KABOOOOOOM! Well actually its not. Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion. Ah well. Carry on.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

First of all. I don’t think I’m measureably nastier than the average tone around here. But I guess tone is in the eye of the beholder. But second of all, anonymous (though the stalkers do try and screw with that) boards are an ideal place to air out things you’d like to say to your friends who politically disagree with you, but it would produce social awkward-ness. And when one has friends via partnership/marriage one can’t just call people out all the time. I suspect that quite a few posters enjoy HotAir because it allows you to anonymously express what might not be ideal for your personal life. Why are you acting friend and brand new about the relationship between anonymity and freedom of expression?

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I don’t use my internet anonymity to bully people or express shocking opinions or avoid social awkwardness, I do it because being an outspoken conservative in real life means fewer job opportunities.

And no, you’re not particularly nasty; far less so than people like lester, sesqui and chumpthreads. But you do a lot of troll-ish things. You present caricatures of conservative beliefs, you often argue in bad faith, you condescend to people when you feel you’re in a position to do so, you impugn the other side’s motives and assume bad intentions.

The racial stuff is a good example. Internet forums are great for these types of discussions because our culture is so PC that an “honest” discussion about race is likely to get you fired from your job, but it’s not helping the conversation when you assume racist beliefs/motivations in most of your adversaries.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Persecution is coming and it will be interesting to see how many cheer with Nero, and how many are horrified of what they’ve wrought, especially self identified Catholic pro-homosexual agenda types.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 3:29 PM

No one on that side will ever be horrified, because they cannot comprehend right from wrong and never will.

God only has so much tolerance for people who only defy him and punish the good. He’ll exact punishment on this godless nation when the time is right, this I am sure. And that time is coming.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/threat/

Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.

Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies.

Nonprofit groups are faced with abandoning their historic mission principles in order to maintain governmental contracts (for things like low-income housing, health clinics, etc.)

Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction.

Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony.

Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. She’d put her licensure at risk.

Those people – a strong majority of Minnesotans – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs. Refusal to accommodate and recognize same-sex “marriages” would be the equivalent of racial discrimination. Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I’m still all gayed out, but I gotta do what I gotta do.

This is the triumph of feelings over reality. We all have our dreams that, when the rubber hits the road, don’t get there. It’s sad but true. A “this isn’t what I thought it would be”. With male-male sexual desire, which is quite real, when you get to the goal, of the actual sexual act, and realize, hey … this is bogus. A simulacrum of sexual love.

Does anyone truly believe male homosexual sex is a legitimate expression of love? Really? It’s like a contingent that believes the Emperor’s New Clothes are “the bomb”. You can believe whatever you’d like. Just don’t make me sanction it under the auspices of “marriage”. That’s asking too much.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I am thinking in celebration of this 1,000,000 Gay Hot Air post, I am coming out of the closet… Hot Air et. al. I like Men. There I said it..

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:39 PM

And, no doubt, in a few more years, homosexuals will be getting married in every church, Catholic or Protestant, BY ORDER OF THE STATE.

I can only shake my head, and watch America rot.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I’m a non-Catholic heterosexual man engaged to a Catholic woman. We are not allowed to get married in a Catholic church because the church doesn’t want to marry a non-Catholic. I can’t sue them, or better put, I can but I won’t win. Why is it going to be any different when gay people try to sue for the church engaging in the same type of discrimination based on their own religious teachings?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Well stated.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM

The First Amendment protected the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to say what they say about gay people, didn’t it?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Only because they were protesting against dead soldiers, which had the left salivating. When it comes to providing services for people, photographers and others will be forced to take gay weddings, adoption services will be forced to accept gay pretend marriages as “real” or go out of business, immigration will be redefined for “gay families” … and there is no question that churches will be required to halt any talk that might imply that homosexuality is anything less than perfectly normal and a wonderful way of life that has been accepted by every society through all of history with the pretend marriage included.

Gay “marriage” is a total joke and forcing that joke on society will prevert everything that touches it, by force or by influence – though mostly force, as that is what leftists love to use more than anything.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on March 18, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Is it this time of day again already?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM

GayGas

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM

When Sarah Palin announces she’s in favor of gay marriage it’s 10,000 comments or bust!

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:42 PM

I’m a non-Catholic heterosexual man engaged to a Catholic woman. We are not allowed to get married in a Catholic church because the church doesn’t want to marry a non-Catholic. I can’t sue them, or better put, I can but I won’t win. Why is it going to be any different when gay people try to sue for the church engaging in the same type of discrimination based on their own religious teachings?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Catholics also didn’t let single people and unmarried couples adopt children in the state of Illinois. And yet, when unmarried gay couples came to adopt in Catholic Charities under the banner of anti-discrimination laws they had to adopt to gay couples. Catholic charieites had to shut down. There is a difference and there will be a difference.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM

…IS THROWING A BOMB ON THE DISCUSSION, KABOOOOOOM!

Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion.
 
libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

 
Nicely done.

rogerb on March 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM

I’m a non-Catholic heterosexual man engaged to a Catholic woman. We are not allowed to get married in a Catholic church because the church doesn’t want to marry a non-Catholic. I can’t sue them, or better put, I can but I won’t win. Why is it going to be any different when gay people try to sue for the church engaging in the same type of discrimination based on their own religious teachings?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Because the feds are working to force the Catholic Church to marry gays. You, they don’t so much care about, see?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Only you interpret that as bomb throwing. The right is fascinating on race. They claim to not care, but they also act as if any suggestion that race may play some part of a persons political subjectivity IS THROWING A BOMB ON THE DISCUSSION, KABOOOOOOM! Well actually its not. Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion. Ah well. Carry on.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

No, it’s the opposite, you’re the only one who doesn’t see it as bomb throwing. It’s a complete non-sequitur that assumes the worst, most base motivations in your political adversaries.

Here, let’s re-work it for another minority group:

“You know, if the GOP stopped being such a front group for Evangelical Christians, you’d see a lot more Middle Class Jews (who are also pedophiles) voting for GOP candidates.”

And if you object to that, well then you’re just an oversensitive baby who can’t talk about sexual abuse in an adult fashion.

You want to have an adult discussion about race? Stop condescending to everybody who disagrees with you. Stop assuming racist motivations in all of your political opponents. Those are childish tactics that completely prevent an honest, free-ranging, mature transmission of ideas.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM

I’m still all gayed out, but I gotta do what I gotta do.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 3:31 PM

You’re gayed out? I’m gay and I’m gayed out :P

I’d love to correct the rest of your post…and a few from others…but yeah, even I need a break. I find myself in the mood for a sloppy joe and a night of NASCAR watching while belching from cheap canned beer and then start trimming my toenails on the living room couch :)

JetBoy on March 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Take the marriage advantage out of income taxes and there will be no reason for gays to be married.

Custody. Next-of-kin rights. Immigration. Health insurance. Legal equality. It’s about a lot more than just taxes.

Mark Jaquith on March 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Why is it going to be any different when gay people try to sue for the church engaging in the same type of discrimination based on their own religious teachings?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Because of the 14th Amendment. And precedent set forth by the Obamacare mandate forcing churches to pay for contraception regardless of their personal conscience.

The federal government no longer cares about religious liberty; rather, it is openly hostile to such a concept and wishing to eradicate it.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Homosexuality IS abnormal, and will NEVER be accepted as a legitimate, alternate state of “normal”.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

You’re gayed out? I’m gay and I’m gayed out :P

I’d love to correct the rest of your post…and a few from others…but yeah, even I need a break. I find myself in the mood for a sloppy joe and a night of NASCAR watching while belching from cheap canned beer and then start trimming my toenails on the living room couch :)

JetBoy on March 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM

He he.. Now don’t go all hetero on us honey. ;)

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Because the feds are working to force the Catholic Church to marry gays. You, they don’t so much care about, see?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Where and how are the feds doing that?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Custody. Next-of-kin rights. Immigration. Health insurance. Legal equality. It’s about a lot more than just taxes.

Mark Jaquith on March 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Which makes the concept of “live and let live” utterly impossible.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Well actually its not. Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion. Ah well. Carry on.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Oh this is rich…define adult in your world of academia? I have always wondered. Why was it individuals from the continent of Africa who were slaves and not say China or Turkey?

ClassicCon on March 18, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Well actually its not. Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion. Ah well. Carry on.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

What would you like to talk about?

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:40 PM

See my comment above.

Did you know there’s already an organization known as the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance?

http://marriageada.org/

Watch some of these.

http://marriageada.org/video-stories/

INC on March 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion. Ah well. Carry on.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Says the guy from the team that wouldn’t know an adult conversation about race if it slapped them in the face.

You and yours are incapable of a discussion about race that *doesn’t* include name-calling and bomb-throwing; you know ‘race’ only as a club to use against people to get your way on a topic, nothing more, as exhibited time and time again by your behavior (you and people like you).

If anyone disagress with you, they are a racist, a homophobe, or both – same with leftists in general. Tell me you haven’t seen this done routinely by people on your side against anyone who dares disagree with Obama; it can’t be because they principally or fundamentally disagree on the facts, it’s always and only because we must be racists, right?

Go to hell, I’m sick of it.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Its a shame the right can’t talk about race in an adult fashion.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

.
Re-posting again ……………..
.

In 1950s America, a long-needed political movement began to gain momentum. This movement had for it’s leaders, Godly men. Many of them were clergy.
These leaders based their movement on their knowledge of the Christian Bible, and God’s will for man. They realized the state of condition they lived in had been imposed upon them by others, contrary to the will of God, and that it was past time to put an end to it. They actively, prayerfully sought God’s devine intervention, and leading in conducting this movement. They had to withstand insults, physical assault and related injury, and murder at the hands of some other of their fellow citizens and neighbors, who did not wish to see the changes that were the goals of this Godly Movement.
Another movement began shortly after the start of the Godly movement. This movement had for it’s leaders atheists and agnostics. This other movement had difficulty gaining momentum at first, while the Godly movement continued to gain favorability. The leaders of this “unGodly” movement saw an opportunity, and began to “merge” their movement with the Godly movement. When the top leader of the Godly movement was assassinated in 1968, the leaders of the unGodly movement then coopted and hijacked the Godly movement, for their own benefit.
The benefit that the leaders of the unGodly movement gained from this false-merger, was a FALSE VALIDATION of the changes and ideals that they sought to accomplish and achieve, but were NOT RELATED to the goals of the Godly movement. Anyone who stands against the changes and ideals of the unGodly movement, is immediately stigmatized as wanting to overturn the changes brought about by the Godly movement.
That’s where we stand today. Opposition in any way to liberal, Socialized Government constitutes a desire to impose “white cracker, Caucasion (Aryan?) MALE dominion”, of “everybody else.”
.
Does that pass for “adult discussion”?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Libfree, take a look at JetBoy. He disagrees with many of us on the issue of gay marriage. We once forced him to eat his own hat because he supported Agent Orange aka Charlie Crist.

He doesn’t assume we’re all homophobes, though. He doesn’t condescend to us and argue in bad faith.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Does that pass for “adult discussion”?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Apparently, an adult discussion means “agree with me or I’ll call you names.”

Doesn’t seem very adult to me, but what would I know? I don’t have a double PhD in Wymynnnzz Studies and Yoruba Mythology.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Because the feds are working to force the Catholic Church to marry gays. You, they don’t so much care about, see?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Where and how are the feds doing that?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Already doing/done it with regard to adoption; um, look around, bub.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

These headlines demagogue be reversed and simplified:


Issue polls well.

Demagogue politicians support issue.

Droopy on March 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Danged “cut-n-paste”!

Droopy on March 18, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Does that pass for “adult discussion”?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

It’s pointless to argue with a fool so dense and unable to grasp the possibility that she could be completely wrong.

Just let her live her hedonistic life, and suffer the consequences of her actions when the time comes. I hold no pity for fools like her.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 3:56 PM

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

.
Apparently, an adult discussion means “agree with me or I’ll call you names.”

Doesn’t seem very adult to me, but what would I know? I don’t have a double PhD in Wymynnnzz Studies and Yoruba Mythology.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

.
You’re probably also “aryan” aren’t you?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Analpundit, always the shill for “Queer Marriage”.

The fact is that Queer Marriage was put to popular vote as recently as 2010 in California, and in this deep Blue state, Queer Marriage was rejected by a clear majority of voters. This after decades of relentless propaganda from State Media, advertising, movies and television and our education system.

The fact is our nation opposes Queer Marriage and the Queer Agenda overall. That’s why they need to pay Analpundit and others like him to attempt to convince us that we don’t see what we really see.

sartana on March 18, 2013 at 3:58 PM

You’re probably also “aryan” aren’t you?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Not according to a bunch of people with funny hats and riding crops in the late 30′s and early 40′s.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Fascinating things are happening in France.

English Manif:

A Franco-American flashpoint for the latest debates on gay marriage

If you speak French, here is The March For All website:

http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/

They’ve had two massive demonstrations, last November and this past January. They’re marching again this coming Sunday.

Here is my recap with quotes from their January march:

Manif Pour Tous: Don’t Lie To Children

The French protests were quite different from what has happened in the U.S. because there was a clear recognition by those with different political philosophies and beliefs, including homosexuals, that marriage is conjugal and that it is vital for the well-being of children to have a mom and dad

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:00 PM

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

.

C’mon, libfree’ ! ….. Everyone else here thinks you can’t handle an adult discussion ….. Show ‘em how wrong they are.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:52 PM

He insulted me the other day. I was surprised, but unfortunately it’s becoming par for the course.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:03 PM

You’re probably also “aryan” aren’t you?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

.
Not according to a bunch of people with funny hats and riding crops in the late 30′s and early 40′s.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:59 PM

.
I stand CORRECTED ….. please accept my apology for invalid “stereotyping”.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:03 PM

If you want to win a national Democratic primary, you’re pro-gay marriage, period. Hillary’s just checking the box.

I bet most supporters for so called “gay marriage” just support it for mostly PC reasons. I can’t help but think the bastardization of the language plays a huge role in this, for whatever reason.

If you are pro-traditional marriage prepare yourself. Put on the Armor of Christ. The writing is on the wall. God help us if the supremes vote in favor of gay marriage.

Gatekeeper on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Already doing/done it with regard to adoption; um, look around, bub.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

They weren’t compelled. They could have given up state funding and continued to not offer their services to gay people.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM
.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

.

C’mon, libfree’ ! ….. Everyone else here thinks you can’t handle an adult discussion ….. Show ‘em how wrong they are.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM

.
I guess that’s another apology I owe people here. You were right.

It appears libfree’ has “run away”, like Brave Sir Robin>

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Gatekeeper on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Among other things, this continual drive to redefine marriage is about gaining approval for a lifestyle that has been considered immoral, and making it illegal for those who believe that it is immoral not only to voice their beliefs, but also to live according to their beliefs.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM

If you are pro-traditional marriage prepare yourself. Put on the Armor of Christ. The writing is on the wall. God help us if the supremes vote in favor of gay marriage.

Gatekeeper on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

It’s inevitable. This country wants to openly commit moral suicide.

Let the US openly get torn asunder by this. I hold no allegiance to it, and will renounce my citizenship when the Supremes rule gay marriage as a tax.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I am saying that is WHY gays and lesbians say they want to be married. I know it is not the real reason. Gays can go and get married right now. There are churches who will provide a ceremony. They just can’t have it backed up with a legal document recognized by the Federal government.

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM

INC on March 18, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I asked what the government was doing and you linked to some interest group.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM

You’re probably also “aryan” aren’t you?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Skip the Godwin-breaking, Captain America, and come up with an actual argument.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM

John C. Eastman has written a legal memorandum for The Heritage Foundation on the two SCOTUS cases in The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage. Here is his abstract and key points:

In United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of government policies that reflect traditional marriage—that is, marriage as a union between one man and one woman. If the Court does not dismiss these cases on jurisdictional grounds, it should act to uphold traditional marriage. Nothing in the Court’s jurisprudence suggests that the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages is so fundamental as to be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Nor does the Equal Protection Clause require that result, given the societal purpose and value of marriage as furthering procreation and child-rearing. Because the Constitution does not speak to this question, it is one that is left to ordinary political processes, not to judicial fiat.

Key points:

In Windsor and Hollingsworth, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as one man and one woman Hollingsworth challenges for purposes of federal law; and California’s Proposition 8, which reaffirmed traditional marriage in that state.

Because the Obama Administration and the State of California declined to defend these laws, the Court first has to consider whether it has jurisdiction to decide these appeals.

The Court has held that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. Were the Court to hold otherwise, it would face impossible line-drawing problems in future cases.

The Equal Protection Clause does not compel recognition of same-sex marriages because same-sex couples are not situated similarly, in relevant respects, to opposite-sex couples. Moreover, policies recognizing only traditional marriage further society’s compelling interests in procreation and child-rearing, among other things.

It’s worth reading.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:13 PM

You must not have looked at the videos.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Isn’t it amazing how leftist policies that no one but hardcore leftist support or care about suddenly, after only a few months, become the majority opinion in certain polls?

I’m not buying it.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:50 PM

.

C’mon, libfree’ ! ….. Everyone else here thinks you can’t handle an adult discussion ….. Show ‘em how wrong they are.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM

.
I guess that’s another apology I owe people here. You were right.

It appears libfree’ has “run away”, like Brave Sir Robin>

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:10 PM

.
Oh … libfree’, where art thou ? !

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

They weren’t compelled. They could have given up state funding and continued to not offer their services to gay people.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Not much for that whole ‘freedom of religion’ thing, I see. Noted!

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

You’re probably also “aryan” aren’t you?

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Not according to a bunch of people with funny hats and riding crops in the late 30′s and early 40′s.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 18, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Shriners? :D

He he.. Now don’t go all hetero on us honey. ;)

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I also changed my nice oxford shirt for an old wrinkly flannel one with a couple buttons missing, and I can’t seem to remember who the heck Cher is anymore. And I just bought tickets to a monster truck rally show! What’s happening to me?!?

;)

JetBoy on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Oh … libfree’, where art thou ? !

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Soiled his armor.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:17 PM

You must not have looked at the videos.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Alchemist is such a denialist he could give rabid libertarians lessons. There could be a gay mob protesting at a church in his city and he’d still deny that they wanted to shred religious freedom.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

The new poll doesn’t surprise me, though it probably exaggerates the support a little, seeing as WaPo polls tend to over sample certain groups slightly.

Not really surprised with the trend either. Social conservatives are idiots when it comes to the marketing of their positions. It’s like they have no concept of how the human psyche actually works, and therefore constantly say the exact wrong thing.

Fact of the matter is, the activists framed gay marriage as a civil rights issue, and once something is framed like a civil rights issue its very difficult to stop. Arguing against it makes it appear to many people as if you’re simply acting hypocritically, particularly if you’re arguing against it badly.

The fact of the matter is, as the end of the day, the entire debate is over semantics, if we had treated it as such it wouldn’t have been an issue. Instead we dug in, when we could have easily diffused the issue by either making marriage a private contract, or by re-titling all legal marriages as civil unions regardless of the gender.

Fact of the matter is, in the privacy of the home, people can call each other whatever they want. I could call my brother a turnip for example, that doesn’t make it true or at all significant.

Basically, it is and was a social issue, and therefore should be left up to society to decide. If society makes the wrong decisions regarding the acceptability of certain behavior, then it simply doesn’t matter how many laws you put in place to prevent or discourage something.

Which is why you should keep these issues out of the political domain. Society is typically pretty slow to change, until people think they’re witnessing some sort of injustice.

WolvenOne on March 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

I also changed my nice oxford shirt for an old wrinkly flannel one with a couple buttons missing, and I can’t seem to remember who the heck Cher is anymore. And I just bought tickets to a monster truck rally show! What’s happening to me?!?

;)

JetBoy on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Dunno, but maybe you’ll start making hilarious stereotype comments about black people soon – won’t that be entertaining?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Not much for that whole ‘freedom of religion’ thing, I see. Noted!

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I’m starting to wonder if he’s actually a denialist troll or he’s waiting for the chance join in on tearing it down.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Is this country really going to elect that drunken old commie hag, worst secretary of state evah, as its next president? If the answer is yes, then gay marriage is the least of our problems.

Rational Thought on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

We all have our dreams that, when the rubber hits the road, don’t get there. It’s sad but true. A “this isn’t what I thought it would be”. With male-male sexual desire, which is quite real, when you get to the goal, of the actual sexual act, and realize, hey … this is bogus. A simulacrum of sexual love.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Look, I’m sorry it wasn’t good for you, but that doesn’t mean you should prohibit others from fulfilling their dreams.

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Dunno, but maybe you’ll start making hilarious stereotype comments about black people soon – won’t that be entertaining?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

What stereotypes, bucko? Their Democrat loyalty is a fact…unfortunately, because it hurts them more than us, and it hurts us a lot.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM

They weren’t compelled. They could have given up state funding and continued to not offer their services to gay people.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

That was the narrative, but in Massachusetts they even requested that they give up their state funding and still the state refused to relent. The big thing in Illinois is that they couldn’t even practive privately without at STATE LICENSE which was being withheld.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Is this country really going to elect that drunken old commie hag, worst secretary of state evah, as its next president? If the answer is yes, then gay marriage is the least of our problems.

Rational Thought on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

If those are our choices, we’ll soon get gay ‘marriage’ and then everything else on the Regressive wishlist.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM

You must not have looked at the videos.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM

You linked to about 20 and I don’t have time to watch them all but based on the short descriptions I see people who were fired from their jobs (I’m of the school of thought the boss can fire their employees), people talking about the good of marriage to society (no one is trying to stop heterosexual marraige), people who quit their jobs because they don’t like gay marriage (did that to themselves). What do you want me to look at there?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:21 PM

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:18 PM

You’re right.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Eastman’s memorandum includes the history and rationale of DOMA, the history and details of the two cases, and a summary of the jurisdictional issues and constitutional challenges, as well as legal precedent. (The bracketed numerals refer to his references in the memorandum).

Because the institution of marriage is the principal manner in which society structures the critically important functions of procreation and the rearing of children, it has long been recognized as “one of the cornerstones of our civilized society.”[36] The Supreme Court itself noted more than a century ago that “the union for life of one man and one woman” is “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”[37] This purpose has been recognized throughout our nation’s history.

In California, the situs of the Hollingsworth case, the procreative purpose of marriage has been recognized since the very beginning of the state’s existence as a state…. on the eve of the Proposition 8 political fight, the California Court of Appeal recognized that “the sexual, procreative, [and] child-rearing aspects of marriage” go “to the very essence of the marriage relation.”[40]

These cases are not anomalies; rather, they carry forward a long and rich historical and philosophical tradition….

…Historian G. Robina Quale’s comprehensive sociological survey of the development of marriage from pre-historic times to the present, also part of the trial record, reveals that “Marriage, as the socially recognized linking of a specific man to a specific woman and her offspring, can be found in all societies.”[47]

Murphy v. Ramsey described marriage, “the union for life of one man and one woman,” as “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”[61] In 1952, the California Supreme Court recognized that “the institution of marriage” serves “the public interest” because it “channels biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive” and “ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment.”[62] Justice Hugo Black referred to marriage as a bedrock institution that has long been recognized as “one of the cornerstones of our civilized society.”[63] And the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving described marriage as “fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Dunno, but maybe you’ll start making hilarious stereotype comments about black people soon – won’t that be entertaining?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:19 PM

What stereotypes, bucko? Their Democrat loyalty is a fact…unfortunately, because it hurts them more than us, and it hurts us a lot.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Given the stereotypes being delivered, I expect them to be more along the similarly hilarious (/) ‘watermelon and fried chicken’ kind, rather than the fact-based ‘overwhelmingly vote Democrat no matter what’ kind.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 4:23 PM

I also changed my nice oxford shirt for an old wrinkly flannel one with a couple buttons missing, and I can’t seem to remember who the heck Cher is anymore. And I just bought tickets to a monster truck rally show! What’s happening to me?!?

;)

JetBoy on March 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

LOL– Funny thing about Cher. I knew my fourteen year old son would be straight when he was four. He brought a picture of Cher out and said she is really ugly mom. :)

Jet.. You can put as much flannel on as you want. You will still be FAB U LOUS!

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Eastman treats a serious subject seriously. This PC overturning of the major building block of society is insane. The consequential issues involved are simply hand-waved away.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4