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

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

C’mon Jet is poking fun at the gay/straight man stereotypes. It is all in good fun. No one thinks that all gay men dress up in boas and have fashion sense( Elton John) and no one thinks that all straight men are Nascar flannel wearing toe nail clipping he men. :)

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 4:27 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

They gave up without a fight in Massachusetts.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/03/10/catholic_charities_pulls_out_of_adoption_business/

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 4:29 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

I don’t “prohibit others from fulfilling their dreams”. If someone in the “gay marriage” camp offered an argument that I could sink my teeth into, no, that was even HONEST, I’d fall out of my chair.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 4:30 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

Of course there is a difference: the difference between running a church and running a business like an adoption agency that is subject to State regulation.

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Ryan Anderson reports that briefs filed on behalf of marriage offer a Broad, Diverse Defense of Marriage at Supreme Court.

Scholars have filed more than 50 amicus briefs with the Supreme Court urging it to uphold California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While the media seems intent on ignoring these briefs and hyping the briefs on the other side, the sheer number and quality of the briefs in defense of laws recognizing marriage as the union of a man and a woman is impressive.

Anderson quotes Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom:

During the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term, an average of only 10 amicus briefs per case were filed. And in the historic landmark case of Roe v. Wade, only 26 total amicus briefs were filed.

By comparison a combined total of 58 amicus briefs were filed in support of Prop 8 and DOMA. The pro-marriage arguments are deep, rich, well-reasoned, common sense- and common good-based, and worthy of serious reflection by the Court and any other American interested in the future of our most important social institution.

He quotes several of the briefs, and links to a 3-page PDF list from the Alliance Defending Freedom of 31 of the briefs: Selected friend-of-the-court briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The table includes links to the briefs and a description of the arguments in each brief. They run the gamut.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Of course there is a difference: the difference between running a church and running a business like an adoption agency that is subject to State regulation.

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 4:32 PM

So you think the 1st amendment only applies to churches, correct? How long until the 1st amendment runs in contrast to the 14th amendment and the 5th. Which one wins?

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 4:37 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

That’s very interesting. Is this a Roman Catholic parish, or an SSPX one? I ask, because I am a Catholic woman, married to a man who is not only non-Catholic, but non-Christian, and we were still married in a Catholic church, by a Catholic priest. It is not considered a sacramental marriage, because of his non-Catholicity, but it is a valid marriage, recognized in the eyes of the Church.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I don’t “prohibit others from fulfilling their dreams”. If someone in the “gay marriage” camp offered an argument that I could sink my teeth into, no, that was even HONEST, I’d fall out of my chair.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 4:30 PM

You big meanie.. That piece of paper from the state means the dreams of some poor minority. If they don’t get it their life is over.. OVER I tell you. They can’t survive and thrive without state recognition. They need daddy state to recognize and say they are good enough, strong enough, and gosh darn it people like them.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Why are people so willing to canonize high-risk sexual conduct in public policy? And for a group that largely has little regard for families and children? Sexuality is a delicate and private matter. But gays insist that the subject be out front in every facet in society, even when young children will be around. I’m not suggesting gays stay out of the op-ed pages, the courts, the seats of government, and more. But do they have to be included with they’re huge LGBT sign in any parade that’s not specifically for a protest.

For crying out loud, there’s a time and place for everything. And you’ll never convince me their “cause” even approaches the civil rights matters of the 1960s. Protest unfair treatment in an appropriate venue. But elbowing their way into non-political and non-protest events. Clean it up for the kids.

And in 10 years, where will weasels like Portman be when religious denominations are being bled dry from litigation about wedding ceremonies and hiring and retaining practicing homosexuals and revocation of their federal, state, and local exemptions from various taxes (income, sales, property, excise, and the like)? Oh, and where will they be when the Left’s federalization of education through Obama’s creepy Common Core requires indoctrination in the awesomely awesome awesomeness of homosexuality from national pre-school on up?

BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2013 at 4:40 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 what can happen over time can be beyond belief – which was the point of my post.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Here we go again… I guess the 1,000+ response Portman thread wasn’t enough. No, we need to hash this out again in an argument that will change no one’s mind on either side… le sigh.

gravityman on March 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

gravityman on March 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Much of that was alchemist being a denialist simpleton to the utter extreme.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM

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

The acceptance and promotion of homosexuality was one of the things that led to the downfall of the Roman and Greek empires. Marriage between a man and a woman and their ability to procreate IS the major building block of any society. When you diminish that, any society will whither and die. We have already destroyed the idea that a child needs both a mother and father so I guess this is the next logical step toward totally destroying the family unit as the foundation of society. God help us.

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 4:50 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

Tenets of faith are so 16th century! Who would have thought that Catholic and Baptist hospitals and colleges are going to be be forced to fund free contraception against the tenets of their faith.

Why homosexuals are going to push this issue is because it isn’t about marriage it is about vengence. They will attack churches that don’t agree to performing sodomite rites. Practicing sodomites are far more of a protected class than practicing Catholics. The homosexual avengers will try to take away the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform sodomite rites. They will make claims of hate crime when (as in my denomination) practicing homosexuals can not be ordained.

I’m telling you that this is not hysteria. Sodimite advocacy goes beyond equality to revenge for perceived victimhood. I’m an ordained officer of my church but I’m out of there the minute they decide to ignore the parts of scripture that speaks specifically about sodomy and allows our sanctuary to be used for sodomite rites.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 4:50 PM

I’m more than fed up with how HotGas has become a de facto propaganda arm promoting gay marriage. It makes me not want to come here anymore.

If that was AP and Jazz’s intent, they pretty much succeeded.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Neww CNN/ORC poll shows same-sex marriage support nationwide actually a point lower than a year ago

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/18/rel3a.pdf

Jon0815 on March 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

We have already destroyed the idea that a child needs both a mother and father so I guess this is the next logical step toward totally destroying the family unit as the foundation of society. God help us.

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Yeah but when that child has two mommies it is somehow described as being far better for the child than when there is a smelly man in the picture. When two daddies are involved, it is described as part of some sort of “new norm” that includes blended families, single-parent families, and grandparents raising their irresponsible kids kids.

The bottom line is that it isn’t just biological why there is a mother and a father. Each have a role to play. The mother is the nuturer and most important in the first two years. The father (especially for boys) shows the child how a man takes on the world. Small wonder we have the societal problems we do with the way we’ve been raising our kids.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 4:57 PM

I’m more than fed up with how HotGas has become a de facto propaganda arm promoting gay marriage. It makes me not want to come here anymore.

If that was AP and Jazz’s intent, they pretty much succeeded.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

I’m guessing that the HA position vis-a-vis SSM is the same as it is toward amnesty for illegals. Cave as quickly as possible since any objection is just angry right wingers who don’t understand that legitimization of SSM is inevitable so why fight it? My problem with that strategy is that it fails to recognize that my objections are based in Scripture and my faith, not some ambiguous reason or bigotry.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Neww CNN/ORC poll shows same-sex marriage support nationwide actually a point lower than a year ago
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/18/rel3a.pdf

Jon0815 on March 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

What amazes me in this poll is it shows the democrat party as having 47% approval and republicans 35% approval. Republicans have to learn to change their message or at least figure out a way to buck the media because the media is winning and there will not be a republican president until the republicans as a whole are better viewed.

mrscullen on March 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

The closer we get to the Supreme Court’s involvement, the worse the pro-sanctification of deviant behavior propaganda is going to get.

kingsjester on March 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

….and little Chelsea just got herself ( ? ) a 10.5m $ NY condo .
I don’t care about the bucks it’s the hipocracy I despise .
Lets all be politically correct because it’s just cool and doesn’t
have anything to with morals or virtue .

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 5:04 PM

What amazes me in this poll is it shows the democrat party as having 47% approval and republicans 35% approval.

mrscullen on March 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

I think part of that difference is that libs have a more favorable view of the Dem party than conservatives have of the GOP.

Jon0815 on March 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

So you think the 1st amendment only applies to churches, correct? How long until the 1st amendment runs in contrast to the 14th amendment and the 5th. Which one wins?

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 4:37 PM

The 1st Amendment clearly prohibits the government to dictate church teachings. When the church goes beyond being simply a church and starts running schools, hospitals and other businesses in competition with the private sector, particularly when the busines is state licensed or funded, the church should abide by the same rules as its competitors. I see no 5th/14th Amendment conflict.

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I’m more than fed up with how HotGas has become a de facto propaganda arm promoting gay marriage. It makes me not want to come here anymore.

If that was AP and Jazz’s intent, they pretty much succeeded.

Myron Falwell on March 18, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Actually, after the re-election of the Communist, I bailed HotAir for about 2 months. I figured, what’s the point? America is lost.

But, I came back and, if nothing else, it’s good for others to hear your points of view, and it’s therapeutic for you to express them.

At least, it is for me.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM

We have already destroyed the idea that a child needs both a mother and father so I guess this is the next logical step toward totally destroying the family unit as the foundation of society. God help us.

fight like a girl on March 18, 2013 at 4:50 PM

All according to the Marxist/Leninist plan:

Destroy the family, and the society will collapse.

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

And when the family collapses, the people will look to the State and will become wards of the State.

And when they become wards of the State, they will also be required to obey the State.

It’s all according to Leftist plan.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM

And when they become wards of the State, they will also be required to obey the State.

It’s all according to Leftist plan.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM

.
and momma Hillary is itchin in the wings, ready to take care of everyone.

FlaMurph on March 18, 2013 at 5:14 PM

All according to the Marxist/Leninist plan:

Destroy the family, and the society will collapse.

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

And when the family collapses, the people will look to the State and will become wards of the State.

And when they become wards of the State, they will also be required to obey the State.

It’s all according to Leftist plan.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Your family is going to be destroyed if two lesbians get married and the state recognizes it?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 5:15 PM

That’s very interesting. Is this a Roman Catholic parish, or an SSPX one? I ask, because I am a Catholic woman, married to a man who is not only non-Catholic, but non-Christian, and we were still married in a Catholic church, by a Catholic priest. It is not considered a sacramental marriage, because of his non-Catholicity, but it is a valid marriage, recognized in the eyes of the Church.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I honestly don’t know. I’ll have to ask her mother.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I guess if 58% of the people support communism we should do that too… Is that the point of the poll?

Skywise on March 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Much of that was alchemist being a denialist simpleton to the utter extreme.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM

All you ever did in that thread was engage in supposition. You made bold statements about forthcoming doom but never cited any real hard evidence to back up your rhetoric. Even the global warmists at least try to present some evidence when they screech about how it’s all over. It’s weak evidence but it’s more than I ever remember getting out of you.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM

The 1st Amendment clearly prohibits the government to dictate church teachings. When the church goes beyond being simply a church and starts running schools, hospitals and other businesses in competition with the private sector, particularly when the busines is state licensed or funded, the church should abide by the same rules as its competitors. I see no 5th/14th Amendment conflict.

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM

What about when it isn’t state licensed say like hobby lobby? Or what about say a cake baker mmm? Again, there is totally going to be a reckoning of the 1st amendment and the 5th and the 14th. We are seeing it in Massachusetts and in places where Obamacare and the healthcare mandate. It is naive to think that this won’t eventually carry over into the church.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Why are people so willing to canonize high-risk sexual conduct in public policy? And for a group that largely has little regard for families and children?

BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2013 at 4:40 PM

What is high risk about lesbian sexual conduct? Or are you thinkng only of men, as gay marriage opponents tend to do, for some inexplicable reason. And why do you think gay and lesbian couples don’t care about families and children? Are you aware that about 25% of gay couples are actually raising children?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-couples-census-data-trickles-quarter-raising-children/story?id=13850332

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM

The Supreme Court arguments next week are going to be interesting. Will the Supreme Court really tell Congress that it cannot decide where federal funds and federal recognition go? Will the court uphold the Ninth Circuit or will it do what the Ninth Circuit did not do: constitutionalize ssm in all 50 states? A rational look at this (and granted, after last year’s Obamacare hearing, it’s clear that at least one justice is not rational) should make you realize that the court is almost certain not to uphold the ninth circuit, which is why Boise and Olsen are not bothering to even ask for that. Prop 8 qualified for the ballot in California before the state supreme court ruled. the court was asked to delay its ruling pending the outcome of the vote. It refused and 18,000 Californians got “married” before the vote. To uphold the ninth circuit would mean that a state court anywhere in the nation could pre-empt a voter-led state constitutional amendment drive merely by ruling first, effectively disenfranchising the voters. On the other hand, the court is unlikely, I think, to create a protected class , membership in which is determinative by behavior, or at best “urges” of some sort. The court is also unlikely to dismiss the case on standing because that would mean all a governor has to do is not defend a law and then get somebody to challenge it in court. That means the court is likely to uphold Prop 8 and leave the issue to the states.

senor on March 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM

….and little Chelsea just got herself ( ? ) a 10.5m $ NY condo .
I don’t care about the bucks it’s the hipocracy I despise .
Lets all be politically correct because it’s just cool and doesn’t
have anything to with morals or virtue .

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 5:04 PM

What is hypocritical about Chelsea buying a condo, for goodness sake?

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Careful. You’re blowing up way too many preconceived notions and stock arguments. This might not end well.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 5:31 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

Hi , I hope you’re still here .
I have 2 sisters married to non Catholics .
Both were married in Catholic Churches .
Is there another impediment involved in
your situation ?

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 5:34 PM

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM

You have no clue about the Constitution, do you? What do you not understand about Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

It does not say prohibiting the free exercise thereof but only within the confines of church facilities.

The Bill of Rights are rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States of America, each and every one as individuals and as peaceably assembled groups who choose to freely associate. And I’m sorry, but there isn’t one that says you have the right to marry a member of the same sex and force me to bake you a cake to celebrate it, even if I own a bakery that sells things to the general public. It doesn’t allow some Wiccan to force me to bake a cake in the shape of a pentagram for their Beltane fest either. FREE EXERCISE THEREOF!!!!

So just admit that you hate the Constitution and want to destroy it and be done with it. Stop lying.

I honestly don’t know. I’ll have to ask her mother.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You are marrying her and you don’t even know what religion she is? You sure sounded certain when you made that post.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Bill wanted a hummer.

Hillary wants a Huma.

Those whacky Clintons!

profitsbeard on March 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Careful. You’re blowing up way too many preconceived notions and stock arguments. This might not end well.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM

How did his post at 5:07 about the Constitution blow up my “preconceived” notion. As I demonstrated in my response, leftist tend to abuse Constitutional principles and are doing it right now with the HHS mandate. ANd the fact that both of you think that the 1st amendment only applies to churches and doesn’t apply to businesses even if they are state licenses means that YOU don’t understand Constitutional principles any better.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Yeah but when that child has two mommies it is somehow described as being far better for the child than when there is a smelly man in the picture. When two daddies are involved, it is described as part of some sort of “new norm” that includes blended families, single-parent families, and grandparents raising their irresponsible kids kids.

Give it a few years and it’ll be that children with two mommies and and a daddy, or two daddies and a mommie, or three mommies, or three daddies should be included as the “new norm”….if two parents of any combination of gender are better, three have to be the best! Just think two parents off to work, and one can always be home to supervise the kid(s)in eight hour shifts. win-win-win!!

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 5:41 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 you’re not a discriminated class.

This has never been and never was about gay “marriage”. This is all about normalizing homosexuality in every day life.
Just look what happened in Canada or the UK… It’s hateful because the churches there don’t approve of homosexuality and their evil behavior must be corrected.

Obamacare…
Obamamarriage.

Skywise on March 18, 2013 at 5:45 PM

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Cam can’t even see the illogic of their own post. Here they are arguing that the state can’t deny license CONSTITUTIONALLY TO HOMOSEXUAL couples because they aren’t heterosexual, but yet he/she is saying it is okay to deny religious people state licenses because the state says so.. SO which is it? Can the state take away Constitutional rights for a license or can’t it?

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:46 PM

How did his post at 5:07 about the Constitution blow up my “preconceived” notion. As I demonstrated in my response, leftist tend to abuse Constitutional principles and are doing it right now with the HHS mandate. ANd the fact that both of you think that the 1st amendment only applies to churches and doesn’t apply to businesses even if they are state licenses means that YOU don’t understand Constitutional principles any better.
melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Careful… You’re making the trolls revert to adhominem attacks because they’re outside their talking points an propaganda.

Skywise on March 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Give it a few years and it’ll be that children with two mommies and and a daddy, or two daddies and a mommie, or three mommies, or three daddies should be included as the “new norm”…

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM

What could be better than an inter-racial marriage between two lesbians who become joint Presidents of the U.S. after Hillary and Moochelle divorce their beards and wed for power?

Win-win!

profitsbeard on March 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Whatever your thoughts on whether “marriage equality” is good public policy, there should not be any debate concerning whether the ratification of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment withdrew from Congress and state legislatures the authority to recognize marriage exclusively as the legal joining of one man and one woman. As Justice White observed in Bowers v. Hardwick in rejecting a privacy right challenge to the Georgia sodomy statute, every state to ratify the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment treated homosexual intimacy as criminal conduct punishable as a crime. Similarly, every state to ratify the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment treated marriage as exlusively between one man and one woman. Accordingly, it cannot be legitimately argued that the states that ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment intended to withdraw from themselves and the federal government the authority to maintain the criminal and marriage laws already on their books. And since the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment were intended to circumscribe the authority of Congress and state legislatures from the date of the ratification, that is the test; not whether, if ratified today, they can be interpreted to so circumscribe their authority. If a majority of the United States Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act and the marriage laws of the vast majority of the states, there will be real damage done to what little remains of our constitutional order. We will truly no longer be a nation governed by the “consent of the governed” as foreseen by the Declaration. We will be a nation governed by five lawyers who view themselves as having the authority to amend the Constition by deliberate misinterpretation without obtaining first the consent of the people over whom they sit in judgment.

Final thought. The only authority that the United States Supreme Court has to strike down any action of an executive or enactment of a legislative body is the authority granted by the Constitution to hold that the people, through their representatives, withdrew from their govenment the authority to act or enact in a particular area. That withdrawal is not a moving target. The ratifiers either circumscribed governmental authority at the time of ratification or they did not. Again, there is simply no textual or historical authority for the Supreme Court to hold that the ratification of the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment withdrew from Congress or state legislatures the authority to treat marriage as exclusively the union between one man and one woman. It also did not withdraw from Congress or state legislatures to expand the legal institution of marriage to same sex couples. It is a matter left to Congress and the states.

Mongo Mere Pawn on March 18, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Had this discussion over the weekend. “Why are you against gay marriage it doesn’t effect you?” Because they won’t stop there. They won’t be happy until the Catholic Church is forced to marry them.

ctmom on March 18, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Give it a few years and it’ll be that children with two mommies and and a daddy, or two daddies and a mommie, or three mommies, or three daddies should be included as the “new norm”….if two parents of any combination of gender are better, three have to be the best! Just think two parents off to work, and one can always be home to supervise the kid(s)in eight hour shifts. win-win-win!!

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM

You do realize that a large chuck of the non-Western world, plus most of our progenitors, have never organized themselves into nuclear family units? Also that most of the cultures Happy Nomad takes as a namesake (‘nomads’) usually lived and mated communally?

ZachV on March 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM

What could be better than an inter-racial marriage between two lesbians who become joint Presidents of the U.S. after Hillary and Moochelle divorce their beards and wed for power?

Win-win!

profitsbeard on March 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM

What could be more awesome than that! I tingle with excitement at the possibility.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 5:55 PM

You do realize that a large chuck of the non-Western world, plus most of our progenitors, have never organized themselves into nuclear family units? Also that most of the cultures Happy Nomad takes as a namesake (‘nomads’) usually lived and mated communally?

ZachV on March 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM

You do realize that a large chunk of the non-Western world is a third world country for that very reason.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM

What is hypocritical about Chelsea buying a condo, for goodness sake?

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I’m wouldn’t call it hypocrisy but just what has Chelsea done in her life to have the ability to afford a $10.5M condo? Just asking. That’s a lot of money even by NYC standards and I know of nothing she’s done that merits the kind of life she is leading.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Happy Nomad takes as a namesake (‘nomads’) usually lived and mated communally?

ZachV on March 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Leave me out of this. Yes, there were tribes that lived and mated communally but how many children were the result of two dudes mating?

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM

You do realize that a large chuck of the non-Western world, plus most of our progenitors, have never organized themselves into nuclear family units? Also that most of the cultures Happy Nomad takes as a namesake (‘nomads’) usually lived and mated communally?

Yes, I do recall reading about such advanced cultures and civilizations in National Geographic, and related magazines in my youth. Even today, I catch programs occasionally featuring such on cable channels.

I’m sure they are all happier and more content in that way of life than we who are stuck preferring outdated nuclear family units.

Perhaps we should return to that way of life for the betterment of all mankind.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM

You do realize that a large chunk of the non-Western world is a third world country for that very reason.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Guns, Germs, and Steel. You’ll learn something.

ZachV on March 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Here we go again. New poll proves that everyone wants SSM, even though actual elections prove precisely the opposite.

Oh, and it’s not gay marriage. It’s same sex marriage. Even that is inaccurate, since it’s not really a marriage if it’s not between a man and a woman.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Guns, Germs, and Steel. You’ll learn something.

ZachV on March 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Sure I’ll learn something. Call me in 10 years… Life experience and you will learn something like basic biology… Mommies and Daddies are not expendable. And the whole community raising a child is leftist propaganda.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I know. *sigh* Why do we even bother? If immoral leftists were logical, they wouldn’t be immoral leftists, would they? But they just feeeel it’s only faaiiirrr, so it must be so!

It really is a disease of the mind.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

ZachV on March 18, 2013 at 6:03 PM

/facepalm

Only one problem with your theory zachy is that those populations are dieing out because they stopped being traditional families. China is dieing out because of its abortion and one child policy. It is overwhelmingly male. And Europe is going to he!! because it can’t reproduce itself. You know who is growing. Traditional societies like Muslims.

And good luck taking over the world as homosexuals.. Biology 101..

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM

dying *

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 6:10 PM

It really is a disease of the mind soul.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

FIFM

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 6:10 PM

What is high risk about lesbian sexual conduct? Or are you thinkng only of men, as gay marriage opponents tend to do, for some inexplicable reason. And why do you think gay and lesbian couples don’t care about families and children? Are you aware that about 25% of gay couples are actually raising children?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/sex-couples-census-data-trickles-quarter-raising-children/story?id=13850332

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Foreign objects don’t sound all that safe to me, though it beats the brown road.

Read my post about being family and children unfriendly. In short, they demand that their behavior be a topic of conversation anywhere anytime. They’re encroaching on the innocence of children, and I don’t mean in a pedophilic sense. Instead, their insistence, for example, that their anti-bullying group be included in an innocuous St. Patty’s Day parade here in Cincinnati was patently absurd. Set up a booth outside local courthouses and on college campus. Let parents raise their kids free from the onslaught of all-gay, all the time.

Gay couples raising kids, that’s a shame. But the law demands it. Have at it. The MSM has muffled a recent extensive study showing those kids are having considerable problems.

BuckeyeSam on March 18, 2013 at 6:12 PM

See what happens when God’s law is forgotten and ripped to shreds.

avagreen on March 18, 2013 at 6:14 PM

And Europe is going to he!! because it can’t reproduce itself.

Thanks, in part, to heeding overpopulation zealots scaring them from even reproducing in simple replacement numbers, along with government providing all the support and care in elder life one might have expected from one’s offspring making them in that regard unnecessary, along with high taxation making people believe children were unaffordable, not to mention the perceived interference with a care-free self-indulgent lifestyle which having and raising children hinders.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

What if one is Bi-sexual?
Do they get to have a spouse from both sexes? pursuit of happiness stuff?
Should they be discriminated against and be forced to choose one team over the other?

I need more details.

FlaMurph on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

“WaPo/ABC is out with a new poll finding record support for gay marriage…”

Interesting, this morning this topic was reported in the exact same way on one radio station, and on my drive to work, the exact same wording during the “news” on an other radio station…

… What you are seeing is how the Left coordinates and pushes an issue upon the American sheeple.

“It’s only fair that two people who love each other should be able to get “married”!”

And the sheeple suck it up…

Seven Percent Solution on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

“It’s only fair that two any number of people who love each other should be able to get “married”!”

That would only be even fairer.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM

What is hypocritical about Chelsea buying a condo, for goodness sake?

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I’m wouldn’t call it hypocrisy but just what has Chelsea done in her life to have the ability to afford a $10.5M condo? Just asking. That’s a lot of money even by NYC standards and I know of nothing she’s done that merits the kind of life she is leading.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM

I should have said ” another item in the news….”
However I do remember the Clinton’s being all
for the ” little ” guy while they lined their own pockets
with vast amounts of wealth . That’s hypocritical .
Now they change their minds on gay marriage .
Look , make all the money you can ( honestly ) and
spend it however you choose just don’t lecture me
( the Clinton’s ) on how I should think .

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130647539/What-You-Need-to-Know-about-Marriage

This is an excellent booklet on marriage in format of Q’s and A’s. It clears the propaganda smoke and mirrors and gives solid answers.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Well I suppose when you have a marriage like the Clintons; you really can’t say you support traditional marriage.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Can’t argue that….

If you want to win a national Democratic primary, you’re pro-gay marriage, period.

This is what really pisses me off about this issue. The number of gays who really don’t give a damn about anything but this issue. The Democrat can be for radical socialism, nationalizing the entire private sector, ignoring national security, etc. But so long as the Democrat gets up there and says that they have a “right” to marry- well gays are Democrats for life. Greedy stupid parasites all.

Same goes to the other single issue voters including stupid greedy women who only care about free stuff for their women parts and boundry jumpers seeking to be rewarded for their crimes.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM

It’s the same Democratic dynamic we’ve had for years. The party of special interests, and the special interests are always defined by the activists and radicals. Most conservatives are for protecting the environment within reason, but for Democrats environmental issues are defined by the most radical. And even though abortion is not especially more popular among women than among men, it is to them a woman’s issue by definition. In fact, ALL women’s issues to Democrats are defined by whatever the most radical feminists think.

So it’s hardly surprising that they want to let the homosexual activists define SSM as “gay rights,” even though it’s doubtful that a majority of homosexuals are even interested in the issue.

But the GOP is the majority, non-radical party. If we try to do the Democrat embrace of radicalism, it will gain us nothing and lose us quite possibly everything.

As Liam said,

WashingtonPost/ABC Poll?

58%?

Where was the sample taken?

kingsjester on March 18, 2013 at 2:20 PM

A gay bar.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I have a sneaking suspicion that if you polled people in a gay bar, that would be about the right number of them who actually support SSM.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 18, 2013 at 6:40 PM

This is what really pisses me off about this issue. The number of gays who really don’t give a damn about anything but this issue.

Really? Because it shouldn’t. The right doesn’t quite understand what it has on its hands with gay marriage coming so close to being legalized nationally. Happy Nomad is quite right, the gay rights movement has become singularly focused on marriage. There was a time when gay rights was part of a broad leftist, Marxist struggle. It used to critique marriage as a institution of capitalist patriarchy, which appropriated women’s labor and which organized people’s unwillingness to support income redistribution to the poor. As a result most ‘gay rights’ movements have abandoned their support for issues like HIV AIDS funding for the poor, their opposition to police abuse of the homeless (a population which includes a lots of LGBT youth kicked out of their homes). Its marriage, marriage, marriage. 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

I find it hard to believe that you’re really gullible enough to believe this. Of course, that implies that you think the rest of us really are that gullible.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM

…And once again, LFOD slinks out after a few posts, like a dying rat.

Reminds me of Shakespere:

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

itsspideyman on March 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Personally, I’m with Rand Paul on this one. The Feds have no place in marriage.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM

My impression of Rand Paul’s position is that he thinks if all financial benefit to marriage were stripped out of tax law and other laws, homosexual activists would stop pushing for SSM.

If true, it’s delusional. SSM is not being driven by hopes of getting a little extra cash. If that were the case, civil unions would be a perfectly acceptable alternative. But they want to be able to appropriate the term “marriage.” It should be obvious by now that they’re not settling for any less.

On the contrary, “getting the government out of marriage” would just be a show of weakness and lead to them pushing even harder for SSM.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You are marrying her and you don’t even know what religion she is? You sure sounded certain when you made that post.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

She’s Catholic. We were discussing venues, her mother said we couldn’t get married in a Catholic church because I’m not Catholic and that was the last thing that was said about it. That’s all I know.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Where there is a conflict the Fourteenth Amendment should already trump the First. Any existing amendment should itself be amended by later changes, no? Is there any doubt that the Twenty-first Amendment trumps the Eighteenth?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Where there is a conflict the Fourteenth Amendment should already trump the First. Any existing amendment should itself be amended by later changes, no? Is there any doubt that the Twenty-first Amendment trumps the Eighteenth?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 7:01 PM

No, the 14th amendment does not trump the first. /facepalm

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Personally, I’m with Rand Paul on this one. The Feds have no place in marriage.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I’m about 90% with you and Rand .
I thought ( God only knows I try ) that
the tax structure was designed to promote
children . Grow the population etc .
One of my favorite books is ” America Alone ”
by Mark Steyn . In the book he describes the
depopulation of Europe . How some towns have to
reduce the size of their sewer systems to accommodate
smaller populations . Oh boy …. How things have changed !
My point is children , sustainability of America staying America .

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 7:14 PM

This is all a coordinated effort by the Left to lobby Justice Roberts against Proposition 8 in California and the Defense of Marriage Act, just as it worked for Obowmacare…

… Sit back and watch it unfold in front of you.

Seven Percent Solution on March 18, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Hillary Clinton:

“Marriage after all is a fundamental building block of our society [...] To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons, solely on the basis of who they are, and who they love, is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given potential”.

Hillary is taking the “sex” out of homosexual marriage. It’s not about “who they are, and who they love”. That is a lie, and a shell game. Sexual orientation and attraction is about sex.

The question is, do we normalize and sanction homosexual sex in the same way we do heterosexual sex in marriage. Not whether we deny people opportunities on the basis of who they are, and who they love.

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Seven Percent Solution on March 18, 2013 at 7:15 PM

I agree.

INC on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM

When the church goes beyond being simply a church and starts running schools, hospitals and other businesses in competition with the private sector, particularly when the busines is state licensed or funded, the church should abide by the same rules as its competitors. I see no 5th/14th Amendment conflict.

cam2 on March 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM

So churches have no business running schools or hospitals? Bringing up children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” is not a legitimate ministry for a church? Taking care of the sick is not a legitimate church ministry?

Next you’ll be telling us that churches have no business with charity, since that’s a government function.

I’m sorry, but you need a lecture on religious freedom. If the government gets to define what a church is and is not allowed to do, then there is no such thing as religious freedom.

You’ll fit right in with the Obama administration, though, so I guess there’s that.

Harvard University was founded by churches to train preachers, as was Yale and Princeton. It would be more accurate to say that it is the government that is meddling in the church’s realm by creating secular schools. And no, I’m not of the opinion that education is somehow exclusively owned by the church. But it is as much a ministry of a church as it is a public service provided by the government or a business provided by a corporation. The state has no right or business to declare that a church-run school is a secular business.

And the Supreme Court recently backed that up by a unanimous vote when the Obama administration tried to rule that a church school was not entitled to religious protection because it wasn’t really a religious ministry.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Where there is a conflict the Fourteenth Amendment shoauld already trump the First. Any existing amendment should itself be amended by later changes, no? Is there any doubt that the Twenty-first Amendment trumps the Eighteenth?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Please tell me you weren’t serious. There was no “trumping” of the 18th amendment. It was Constitutionally repealed the way it was supposed to be. And if for some reason gay marriage leads to the religious freedom clause being Constitutionally repealed then I fear for this country. We will have gone down a dark path that we will not be able to come back from.

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Boy…that took courage…as Dan rather would say “courage ….courage”

jaywemm on March 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Paul-Cincy on March 18, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Bingo !
We all , including myself , get too involved in other bull .
Now get back to your crystal ball of clarity !

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 7:34 PM

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 7:18 PM

You don’t actually believe any part of the First Amendment is going to be repealed, do you?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 7:35 PM

You don’t actually believe any part of the First Amendment is going to be repealed, do you?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Not at all. I was just kind of flabbergasted at the absurdity of your argument that because the 21st repealed the 18th that that means that the 14 would trump the 1st. Same/same they are not..

melle1228 on March 18, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Boy…that took courage…as Dan rather would say “courage ….courage”

jaywemm on March 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM

What’s the frequency Kenneth?

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 7:42 PM

One of my favorite books is ” America Alone ”
by Mark Steyn . In the book he describes the
depopulation of Europe . How some towns have to
reduce the size of their sewer systems to accommodate
smaller populations . Oh boy …. How things have changed !
My point is children , sustainability of America staying America .

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 7:14 PM

I really like Mark Steyn but may I remind you of Detroit? A city so destroyed by the left that they no longer keep the street lights on in certain areas, they’ve bulldozed whole blocks, and the 84 labor unions (not a misprint) are upset that the city is getting a state-appointed financial manager? We don’t need a passport to find socialism run amok.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Another brilliant point in tonight’s discussion !

Lucano on March 18, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Sodomerica!!

It’s like the original Sodom and Gomorrah, but in HD and LTE.

PappyD61 on March 18, 2013 at 8:07 PM

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.

This is just agenda driven polling but SCOTUS will fold like a house of cards.

7-2

And get ready, Churches that won’t go along and have ordained homosexual or other sexualities will lose their tax exempt status and will find the beginnings of persecution.


“Fundamentally transformed”

PappyD61 on March 18, 2013 at 8:10 PM

No what you are is intellectually dishonest. You never had a thought that the feds should be out of marriage until the prospect of gay marriage was raised. Be real. No one is fooled.

libfreeordie on March 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM

I’ve been advocating that exact stance for over five years.

It’s taken some time for it too seep in around here, but it finally has.

The Santorum position cannot hold in court. I warned everyone of that.

Now, here we are.

We either debate this on their grounds or totally new territory. But the reliance on stale-ass 90′s conservativism is over.

budfox on March 18, 2013 at 8:17 PM

So churches have no business running schools or hospitals? Bringing up children “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” is not a legitimate ministry for a church? Taking care of the sick is not a legitimate church ministry?

Next you’ll be telling us that churches have no business with charity, since that’s a government function.

You would be right, if the “charities” weren’t charities just to game the system

Look, a lot of us on the right have been lied to for quite some time.

Do some indpendent research into what qualifies as a charity hospital and how much tax exemption they get for it.

We’re all being gamed by two competing sides. The govt wants the authority church has in society to reside with them, and religious affiliated orgs want the benefits of being associated with religions, but not actually hold to the spirit of the idea behind it.

Church. State. Total. Separation.

budfox on March 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM

We’re all being gamed by two competing sides. The govt wants the authority church has in society to reside with them, and religious affiliated orgs want the benefits of being associated with religions, but not actually hold to the spirit of the idea behind it.

Church. State. Total. Separation.

budfox on March 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM

If I read your post correctly, you advocate doing away with “charity” as it exists and returning to the old system. Catholics or Baptists can run hospitals, orphanages, whatever so long as they don’t accept federal funds and requirements to do so.

I think that is a great idea. I also think that the commies that advocate the opposite posiiton would be shocked at how successful they would be.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 8:29 PM

budfox on March 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM

.
If I read your post correctly, you advocate doing away with “charity” as it exists and returning to the old system. Catholics or Baptists can run hospitals, orphanages, whatever so long as they don’t accept federal funds and requirements to do so.

I think that is a great idea. I also think that the commies that advocate the opposite posiiton would be shocked at how successful they would be.

Happy Nomad on March 18, 2013 at 8:29 PM

.
. Y . E . S . ! ! !
.
.
.
But once the “shock” wears off, they’d be in denial.

listens2glenn on March 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Plus, Rob Reiner is one of her biggest donors/promoters and, well…

Lourdes on March 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM

….once a meathead always a meathead!

cableguy615 on March 18, 2013 at 8:48 PM

You don’t actually believe any part of the First Amendment is going to be repealed, do you?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Of course.

You need only look at this direct quote from Chai Feldblum, who represents the Obama Party, Barack Obama himself, and the gay and lesbian community:

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

But it gets even better.

Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the “zero sum” nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.

Moreover, this is current public policy. This lesbian bigot is an EEOC commissioner, charged with enforcing and writing “equal opportunity” laws and regulations for the country.

Now, alchemist19, point blank: since you have seen that it is official government policy, endorsed and supported by Barack Obama, pushed and enforced by the EEOC and the Federal government, that gay-sex marriage trumps religious liberty in every situation, will you now recognize the problem?

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Moreover, alchemist19, perhaps you aren’t aware of what the gay-sex marriage movement is actually doing.

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

This is directly linked to gay-sex marriage. This is a direct attack on a person and a business for opposing gay-sex marriage, by an elected official who is using her position to attack and punish someone for exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief because she doesn’t like it.

And:

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

These are here-and-now activities. They are overwhelmingly endorsed by the Obama Party, by the official Obama Party platform, by the gay-sex marriage movement, and by the gay and lesbian community.

And they are happening right now.

This is how gay-sex marriage harms homes, families, and businesses. This is how gay-sex marriage is ALREADY harming homes, families, and businesses. This is how gay-sex marriage supporters act, behave, and use gay-sex marriage laws to violently and hatefully attack those with whom they disagree.

Do you understand that?

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Now, alchemist19, point blank: since you have seen that it is official government policy, endorsed and supported by Barack Obama, pushed and enforced by the EEOC and the Federal government, that gay-sex marriage trumps religious liberty in every situation, will you now recognize the problem?

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Or husband.

Or whatever.

Loaded question aside, yeah, if Obama puts a loon on the EEOC they get to be the final word on the Constitution and how the law will be applied and the balance between religious liberties and discrimination laws. Right? Is that right? Is that how it’s going to happen?

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

9-0.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 9:08 PM

LOL.

Why did you quote a court case that had nothing to do with gay-sex marriage whatsoever?

Did you not read what was provided to you?

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

And:

Thus, for all my sympathy for the evangelical Christian couple who may wish to run a bed and breakfast from which they can exclude unmarried straight couples and all gay couples, this is a point where I believe the “zero sum” nature of the game inevitably comes into play. And, in making the decision in this zero sum game, I am convinced society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.

Moreover, this is current public policy. This lesbian bigot is an EEOC commissioner, charged with enforcing and writing “equal opportunity” laws and regulations for the country.

I will also add that this lesbian bigot Chai Feldblum is one of the EEOC commissioners that ordered that the church in your example be sued, and the Obama administration’s own solicitor general asserted that Federal law trumped the right of churches to exercise religious liberty.

Furthermore, the church was forced to pay for litigation to defend itself against this patent abuse of government power. Barack Obama and Chai Feldblum deliberately ordered that this church be sued and brought the full power of the Federal government on it to punish it and financially ruin it.

Now, alchemist19, point blank: since you have seen that it is official government policy, endorsed and supported by Barack Obama, pushed and enforced by the EEOC and the Federal government, that gay-sex marriage trumps religious liberty in every situation, AND that Barack Obama, as shown by your own example, will deliberately force churches to go through punitive litigation costing millions of dollars in order to exercise their religious freedom….will you now recognize the problem?

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4