Claire McCaskill: Oh, by the way, I’m pro-gay marriage now

posted at 2:41 pm on March 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Must we really endure the charade of one congressional Democrat after another grandstanding about their phony “evolutions” on gay marriage? No one on either side honestly believes McCaskill suddenly changed her mind on this issue between election day last year, when she defeated Todd Akin, and today. Like her pal Barack, her stance on SSM shifted at some point in the fairly distant past but she kept her mouth shut about it lest it jeopardize her precious Senate seat. At least The One came clean about his beliefs before he faced the voters a second time (thanks in part to inadvertent pressure from Joe Biden). McCaskill lied and lied all the way through, and only now that she doesn’t have to face her reddish state’s voters again for six years has she summoned the courage to speak up. You’re a real hero, Claire.

Modest proposal: Rather than let these cynical careerists reveal their politically calculated awakenings about gay marriage individually, so that they can enjoy their own special day of bouquets from the left, maybe the DNC could issue a statement declaring that all Democrats in Congress are pro-SSM unless they indicate otherwise. That’ll save political media a lot of time, and it’ll also have the advantage of letting red-state Dems who are up for reelection impress the locals back home by standing up in opposition. Imagine how dazzled, say, Arkansas voters would be if Mark Pryor dissented from the new party line in favor of traditional marriage. And how disappointed they’ll be when he “changes his mind” the day after election day 2014.

The question of marriage equality is a great American debate. Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values.

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.

Good people disagree with me. On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.

Obama announced his own phony “evolution” on SSM just 11 months ago. Here’s what Claire McCaskill, profile in courage, said to one Missouri newspaper at the time:

“Claire recognizes this is a very personal issue for many Missourians,” John LaBombard, her spokesman, said in an email to the News-Leader.

LaBombard said McCaskill is opposed to discriminating against gays and lesbians. But she believes that states should “take the lead in determining marriage equality.”

“The state of Missouri’s position on this issue has been clearly established since 2004 and nothing about today’s announcement changes that,” he said.

You would think she’d at least offer a fig leaf of reasoned deliberation, e.g., that she was wary about how SSM might play out in practice but now that she’s seen no ill effects in states like New York where it’s legal, she’s reassured. But no. Rob Portman, who took a much bigger political risk than McCaskill by endorsing gay marriage last week, drew mostly sneers from the left over the fact that he didn’t switch his position until the issue was brought home to him by his own son’s sexuality. Yet here’s one of their own claiming that the reason she flipped is because she couldn’t look her gay friends in the eye anymore as a purported opponent of SSM, and she’ll skate. There’s your daily reminder that the reason so many Democrats engage in this charade about “evolving views” rather than take a stand and state their beliefs forthrightly is because their pro-gay-rights base happily indulges the lying in the name of winning elections.

Here’s your exit question, and for once it’s not rhetorical: Is there any Democrat in Congress who’s re-affirmed his opposition to gay marriage in, say, the past four months and who’s not up for reelection in 2014? I can’t think of anyone offhand but maybe Bob Casey or one of the other few social cons in the caucus has. There’s no reason to treat pro-gay marriage declarations by prominent liberals as news anymore. It’s party-line orthodoxy; announcing that you subscribe to it means little more than that you don’t want progressives in your state to primary you when your seat comes up again.


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

This is a good summary of why the Supreme Court’s constitutional analysis may favor the pro-SSM argument. It has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with the Court’s prior decisions on the issue.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

No.

It has everything to do with the idiot Kennedy’s sloppy reasoning finally catching up to him, as Scalia made previously clear that it would.

The argument that gay-sex marriage was “taken away” in California is ludicrous. The state voted once already (Proposition 22) to ban it as a voter proposition and, when the antireligious bigotry and hate of the Obama Party became even more obvious, raised Proposition 8 to clearly amend the state constitution and exercise its legitimate check upon the judiciary. The bigots on the California Supreme Court refused to wait for the outcome of the vote and decided to create their own law; this enraged so many people that Proposition 8 passed.

Your support of this logic, cam2, shows what an insane bigot you are. You and your fellow bigots will not follow law, will not respect the voters, will just keep filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and court-shopping until you get the outcome you want.

Why should the US reward this sick and deluded behavior? We know full well that bigots like you will not stop until the government is burning down and destroying our churches.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 5:52 PM

i find it really annoying that lib/left people like McCaskill feel tehy must use scripture to justify themselves. And, while we’re at it, let’s broaden the 1 Corinthians verse to include polyamry…I mean why not…that’s coming up soon

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html

and, obviously, Muslims will be in the courts soon enough. Unlike SSM, their relations are in the Quran….so that is a religious freedom argument. Slam dunk.

r keller on March 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Everyone’s a bigot but you, as you spew your spittle-flecked invective at anyone who disagrees with you. Gotcha.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Everyone’s a bigot but you, as you spew your spittle-flecked invective at anyone who disagrees with you. Gotcha.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM

All you ever do is shout “bigot.” Not a great debate tactic.

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 6:47 PM

All you ever do is shout “bigot.” Not a great debate tactic.

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I don’t recall shouting “bigot” at anyone, just responding to NDT’s use of same.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 7:36 PM

No.

It has everything to do with the idiot Kennedy’s sloppy reasoning finally catching up to him, as Scalia made previously clear that it would.

The argument that gay-sex marriage was “taken away” in California is ludicrous. The state voted once already (Proposition 22) to ban it as a voter proposition and, when the antireligious bigotry and hate of the Obama Party became even more obvious, raised Proposition 8 to clearly amend the state constitution and exercise its legitimate check upon the judiciary. The bigots on the California Supreme Court refused to wait for the outcome of the vote and decided to create their own law; this enraged so many people that Proposition 8 passed.

Your support of this logic, cam2, shows what an insane bigot you are. You and your fellow bigots will not follow law, will not respect the voters, will just keep filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and court-shopping until you get the outcome you want.

Why should the US reward this sick and deluded behavior? We know full well that bigots like you will not stop until the government is burning down and destroying our churches.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 5:52 PM

If the voters of a state vote to do an unconstitutional thing then they should have their will overturned by the courts. You’ve heard of tyranny of the majority, right?

And for as much as you like to call other people bigots, the one person I can recall admitting they are a liberal bigot is you.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

“Voters don’t approve it…..

We don’t care.

Here in DC it’s homo-sexual every-where!

The new chant of the ruling class in the Beltway!

Maybe they all have a vested interest in the issue you might say.

PappyD61 on March 25, 2013 at 8:14 PM

If she would of come out of the closet before the election i think she would of been toast! She knows it! the freaking coward..But anyways..Democrats are all pretty much for gay marriage so again this is no surprise…Republicans who join them should just get rid of the R and join the D’s

sadsushi on March 25, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Must we really endure the charade of one congressional Democrat after another grandstanding about their phony “evolutions” on gay marriage?

Looks that way, yes.

The Rogue Tomato on March 25, 2013 at 8:17 PM

When Marriage falls 7-2 by SCOTUS……….and the civil society defines “marriage” with no definition that would offend…..

Why can’t cousin Nadine marry her pet goat Slugger? She loves that little critter and he makes her happy. She already told us she wanted to leave the farm to him.

If Nadine wants to marry Slugger why can’t she?

Shouldn’t she have that “right”?

PappyD61 on March 25, 2013 at 8:22 PM

If the voters of a state vote to do an unconstitutional thing then they should have their will overturned by the courts. You’ve heard of tyranny of the majority, right?

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

LOL.

Given what you and your fellow gay-sex marriage bigots support, your definition of “unconstitutional” is “not getting your way”.

And for as much as you like to call other people bigots, the one person I can recall admitting they are a liberal bigot is you.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Well, of course. No one ever said you were rational or intelligent.

And finally:

I don’t recall shouting “bigot” at anyone, just responding to NDT’s use of same.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Wrong.

You shriek that anyone who doesn’t support gay-sex marriage is a bigot with “animus” against gays.

And since you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have clear animus toward religious belief and religious freedom, you’re getting called a bigot. Because that is what you are — a filthy bigot who is hiding behind other peoples’ sexual orientation to act out your sick and irrational hatred of religious beliefs.

northdallasthirty on March 25, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Claire McCaskill says, “me love you long time.”

She’s available. She wants you to call her number. Which she’s giving to you and alllll your friends. And written down on the wall in the back room. So call her. Tonight. She’s available.

Lourdes on March 25, 2013 at 9:51 PM

There is no federal law now that prohibits gays and lesbians from “getting married” if that is their fancy. I can already leave my estate to anyone I choose, so the only real obstacle is the tax code. I believe marital status should be taken out, and better yet get rid of the 16th Amendment and replace it with a national sales tax set at 18% of GDP

booger71 on March 25, 2013 at 9:52 PM

All of these “sudden announcements” from the DC vanity crowd suggests they’re prostitutes. Never seen or heard, otherwise, anyone be quite so eager to *be included* in a pay-back grope-fest.

Lourdes on March 25, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Remember how these same (so-called) politicians were so thrilled to one-by-one jump on the Stimulus Spending bill? And the Cash-for-Clunkers rip-off? And the TARP thing?

They show up when they think there is popularity to be had and abandon any principles, if they ever even had any, about the issues.

Popularity is not an indication of intelligence, character or quality. It just means that you’re appealing to the average and below-average and those who think they can use you for ulterior purposes.

Lourdes on March 25, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Scripture is more metaphor than not concerning certain things. Sodomy is not one of them.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Only because you want it to be that way. You find the phrases “against nature” and “abomination” to be ‘metaphorical’, do you?

LOL

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 10:00 PM

darwin on March 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

No civil union contract ever came close to providing the same legal benefits of a marriage contract.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM

AAand another lie from “JetBoy.”

Lourdes on March 25, 2013 at 10:12 PM

The Alliance Defending Freedom has sponsored 9 Weeks of Prayer For Marriage prior to the SCOTUS hearings on March 26 and 27. It’s been posting a one-page PDF list of attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, and SCOTUS justice for whom to pray.

I’ve summarized the prayer requests and linked to the Alliance Defending Freedom’s PDF’s to download if you’d like to give them to any friends or Bible studies or go directly to ADF and get the PDF’s from the ADF left sidebar.


Praying For Marriage: Week 9

or

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/page/why-marriage-matters

INC on March 25, 2013 at 10:19 PM

…she looks like she has something in her mouth

KOOLAID2 on March 25, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Of course, but only if one party objected. If both were happy with the situation, i.e. preferred not to have vaginal intercourse, then there would be no issue.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 4:56 PM

This means every gay marriage can be annulled when one party wants a divorce. Is that ok with you? Legally, the marriage never happened. So, no property rights, no anything.

Maybe the family of a deceased relative could posthumously have a divorce done to cut the other out of the inheritance. Is that ok with you?

cptacek on March 25, 2013 at 10:39 PM

AND YOU’RE STILL A CROOK , CLAIRE !!!!!

Time for an Ethics Review.

FlaMurph on March 25, 2013 at 11:32 PM

I was born gay.

Anyone who says, thinks or claims otherwise is an ignorant fool.

That’s all.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

.
And if you we’re born Bi-Sexual ? That is possible as well , Yes ?

Should the Bi-Sexual then be allowed to marry a man AND a woman.

Pursuit of happiness and all………..

FlaMurph on March 25, 2013 at 11:37 PM

If the voters of a state vote to do an unconstitutional thing then they should have their will overturned by the courts. You’ve heard of tyranny of the majority, right?

And for as much as you like to call other people bigots, the one person I can recall admitting they are a liberal bigot is you.

alchemist19 on March 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Clearly you missed the point.

The voters voted to AMEND the State Constitution.

It is impossible for the Constitution to be Unconstitutional.

And, Oh, By the Way, Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution delegates this issue to the States.

jaydee_007 on March 25, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Of course, but only if one party objected. If both were happy with the situation, i.e. preferred not to have vag1nal 1ntercourse, then there would be no issue.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Hopefully this one will go through.

Because all marriages are for life? By acknowledging this, you know that in the case of a gay divorce, one of the divorcees can claim “no consummation” and the marriage never existed. No legal recourse for half the marital assets.

Also, what if one partner dies and the family sues for a posthumous divorce to strip the other partner of any inheritance? That ok with you?

cptacek on March 25, 2013 at 11:58 PM

March For Marriage
03/26/13
Washington, D.C.

https://www.marriagemarch.org/

…TOMORROW…

Lourdes on March 26, 2013 at 12:21 AM

No civil union contract ever came close to providing the same legal benefits of a marriage contract.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM

You Lie!

The California law is identical in all ways but name. You are a deceitful man who will go to any length to get the government to sanction your sexual deviancy.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:30 AM

Some opponents of SSM have strong religious faith, but many proponents have strong faith. Interesting premise, but not sure the numbers would bear that out…

Sockpuppet Politic on March 25, 2013 at 3:27 PM

They have faith. The question is, what are they worshiping? Is it Gaia? Is it Obama? Is it themselves?

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 AM

Clearly you missed the point.

The voters voted to AMEND the State Constitution.

It is impossible for the Constitution to be Unconstitutional.

And, Oh, By the Way, Amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution delegates this issue to the States.

jaydee_007 on March 25, 2013 at 11:55 PM

Clearly you have no idea how the Constitution works; if you’re going to try to get snippy with me you should at least make sure you’ve got your Civics 101 in order.

Yes, the voters voted to amend the state constitution. The thing is you can’t amend a state constitution to do something that violates the federal Constitution. Supremacy and whatnot. The Tenth Amendment did reserve rights to the states and to the people but then the Fourteenth Amendment cut down on what the states were free to do.

Be glad you made a mistake as big as you did late enough at night that it might go relatively unnoticed. It would be a shame for you to make that big a fool of yourself again when more people are watching.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 3:12 AM

The thing is you can’t amend a state constitution to do something that violates the federal Constitution. Supremacy and whatnot

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 3:12 AM

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”

That is the Tenth Amendment.

I defy you to show me where in any article, or any amendment, the Federal Constitution delegates to the Federal Government, and or Prohibits to the States the Definition of Marriage! I Mean the real constitution, not the one you have it penciled in on.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Okay, since Gay Marriage has Never Been a Privilege until someone deciede they wanted it to be, the Prop 8 Amendment does not Abridge a privelege as it never existed.

Defining Marriage has no bearing on Life, Liberty, or Property requiring Due Process of Law.

Finally, Gays are free to marry anyone of the Opposite Sex they desire who is not already married, too closely related, or underage – meaning the laws as they existed at the time of the fourteenth amendment and today in California are equal to everyone.

Maybe you should read what the constitution Says instead of what you want it to mean.

jaydee_007 on March 26, 2013 at 3:51 AM

jaydee_007 on March 26, 2013 at 3:51 AM

So the problem is you’re completely ignorant of the law! I will admit I smacked you down a little hard but the proper response to that was not to get out your shovel and dig a little deeper.

Just to make sure I’m completely understanding your position, you believe the Supreme Court got it wrong when they said a state could not write laws forbidding interracial marriages (Loving v. Virginia) or couldn’t forbid people sending their children to private schools (Pierce v. Society of Sisters)? Please note that if you say yes in either case you’re disagreeing with a unanimous Supreme Court so really think about it.

Just to hammer home the point about conflicts between the federal Constitution and the state one, the constitution of the state of Alabama used to contain the following provision

“The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a negro, or descendant of a negro.”

When SCOTUS handed down the Loving decision that line did remain on the books in that state but it could no longer be enforced even though it was in the state Constitution until 2000 when the voters finally took the symbolic action of removing it.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 5:05 AM

jaydee_007 on March 26, 2013 at 3:51 AM

So the problem is you’re completely ignorant of the law! I will admit I smacked you down a little hard but the proper response to that was not to get out your shovel and dig a little deeper.

To make sure I’m completely understanding your position, do you believe the Supreme Court got it wrong when they said a state could not write laws forbidding interracial marriages (Loving v. Virginia) or couldn’t forbid people sending their children to private schools (Pierce v. Society of Sisters)? Please note that if you say yes in either case you’re disagreeing with a unanimous Supreme Court, so I would advise you to really think about it. Also is it your position that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided because attending a racially integrated school was never a privilege until the court decided it was and everyone had the same right to attend a school with people of their own race, or that any state could have spared themselves from the effects of the Brown ruling by simply passing a state Constitutional amendment? Do tell!

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 6:35 AM

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

bluesdoc70 on March 26, 2013 at 8:11 AM

AAand another lie from “JetBoy.”

Lourdes on March 25, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Show me where I’m wrong then.

JetBoy on March 26, 2013 at 8:17 AM

You Lie!

The California law is identical in all ways but name. You are a deceitful man who will go to any length to get the government to sanction your sexual deviancy.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:30 AM

If only I could be a self righteous saint like you…and all hetero married couples.

The California civil union is most certainly not identical to marriage no matter what you call it. Check my earlier links for proof of that. Try doing just a little bit of research before you blindly toss out accusations…in other words, stop acting like a liberal dolt.

JetBoy on March 26, 2013 at 8:23 AM

The hilarity of watching alchemist19 bluster and lie when cornered is sweet indeed.

Perhaps alchemist19 is ignorant of the fact that there are not one, not two, but THREE Constitutional amendments, duly passed under the requirements of a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states, that render race in any case unusable as a rational basis for discrimination.

Hence why Brown and Loving were decided as they were — and why the same Supreme Court that decided Loving refused to hear Baker v. Nelson , a challenge to a state law banning gay-sex marriage which directly quoted Loving, for lack of a Federal question.

Now, since alchemist19 wants to play appeal to authority, let it explain why the Court was right and it’s decisions must be absolutely accepted in Loving, but not in Baker.

Meanwhile, jaydee is correct; Loving was decided in perfect accord with duly established Constitutional precedent on race. There is no such precedent for gay-sex marriage, and the power is correctly delegated to the people.

Alchemist19 is an ignorant bigot.

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 9:32 AM

And now for JetBoy; the very argument he and his fellow Obama puppets are pushing is that Proposition 8 should be overturned because California domestic partnerships are identical to marriage in everything but name.

So now we see that JetBoy is not only an ignorant bigot, but a malicious liar who is claiming one thing here and arguing the exact opposite in court.

So JetBoy, why does your sexual orientation make you a malicious liar? Since you scream and cry that it’s normal for gays like you to lie and that your biology forces you to lie, cheat, and steal, why should employers be forced to hire you?

Or how about you be a man and own up to your own bigotry and hate for conservatives and religious freedom instead of hiding behind sexual orientation?

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I was born gay.

Anyone who says, thinks or claims otherwise is an ignorant fool.

That’s all.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

We are all born with fleshly, sinful desires. Why do you think that is special and requires special privilege?

dominigan on March 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM

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

bluesdoc70 on March 26, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Who also said:
“As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.”

The way I see it, if a church decides to marry two men or two women, it has every right to do so, and they should get all the benefits of man-woman marriage. As for the discrimination suits against photographers and cake-makers and so on, legal protection of these people SHOULD go hand-in-hand with legalized same-sex marriage. Social conservatives should really focus their energy on securing these legal protections for business owners, as well as parents of public school students. We can’t reject marriage equality just because some gay militants are beating the drum for their whole agenda. Let’s not have our government be like the mindset of a cruel elementary school teacher, where if one student misbehaves, the entire class doesn’t get recess.

TMOverbeck on March 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Which is why, TMOverbeck, YOU are demanding everyone else be punished because you won’t punish the militant ones.

When do you intend to smack gay bigots down, hm? Are you even mentally or morally capable of that? When do you intend to say that gays who sue businesses and churches are bigots?

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM

This Court decision be another example of judges talking among themselves. One of the arguments, from precedent, coming before the court is that “marriage is the most important relationship in a person’s life”. That suggests an inequality between marriage and other relationships. Thus those people who never get married, will never have this “most important relationship” in their life and will only have inferior relationships, apparently.

While I agree that marriage is the most important relationship, I have to agree that some of my residual opinion on that subject comes from the current state of marriage. While I can agree that to a married gay person who does not yet have the legal recognition their relationship to their “spouse” can be the most important relationship in their life. That’s simply a recognition of a difference of opinion. However, the court arguing this way, does not allow for a difference of opinion under law about the value of marriage. It does not allow for people to be simply married and put marriage wherever in their list of priorities. (Actually, that end will be ignored for praticality of “privacy”.)

It’s often mentioned that childless couples have never been prohibited from being married. Thus, marriage hasn’t been exclusively about child-bearing. But it’s also the case that valuing the marriage relationship has never been a condition for marriage–unless the other person finds that intolerable, or finds out at all. Thus, as for childless couples, marriage has never been exclusively about being the most important relationship in your life.

Thus if the court thinks that equal access to something legally defined as “the most important relationship” is so important as to overrule the referendum of the people (which kinda’ useta’ be an important idea to the concept of “self-governance” and all), but that definition probably won’t be important enough to enforce .

I find this another example of the courts tendancy to tell us what we feel: You feel that marriage is important, and we’ll define the rest, based on that opinion. I don’t see a clear case of a fixed-enough opinion without that opinion being based on the subjective opinions of the people–to override the expressed intent of the people. But no matter the sophistry, the Court decides in conversation among judges.

I think you unmarrieds and divorced people have to understand that you are without that “most important relationship in your life” that even if your spouse beat you–as legal marriage–it was the “most important relationship in your life” and that even if you’ve found somebody who doesn’t beat you, that relationship is less important than the one you had with your former abuser.

Again, it’s pretty stupid to make a legal definition based on a widespread opinion–that disregards the expression of that opinion as referendum. But the Expert Class is just that stupid–or I should say disingenuous.

I think in the final analysis, judge-rule is a matter of a long-term game of Telephone, where various people get to pronounce, with authority, what the original message was, end of story.

Axeman on March 26, 2013 at 10:28 AM

The California civil union is most certainly not identical to marriage no matter what you call it. Check my earlier links for proof of that. Try doing just a little bit of research before you blindly toss out accusations…in other words, stop acting like a liberal dolt.

JetBoy on March 26, 2013 at 8:23 AM

I’ll take the language of the law itself rather thank going to a biased lesbian website thank you very much. You are so ruled by your sexual desire that you don’t care about overturning the law or the norms of society for all of human history. The word marriage by definition means the union of a man and a woman. The word matrimony defines the consummation of that marriage. You are just as destructive as all leftists because you are ruled by base desires rather than the rule of law and the wisdom of logic and reason.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 9:32 AM

I don’t need to spin, and I’ve never lied. All I do is correct errors and misconceptions. Your personal worst offenses are against the dictionary but it varies from person to person.

I’m just trying to get to the core of his judicial philosophy. I picked the cases I picked because they were unanimous; I can go beyond those if he’s able to engage but I’m seeing if he can clear the low hurdles before I get to the higher stuff. And I will notice you didn’t touch the Pierce. Interesting.

Baker v. Nelson was before Romer, Casey and Lawrence. It’s a totally different situation now.

alchemist19 on March 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I hate this woman, so much. Everything about her is phony. She acted like she was afraid of “self-financed millionaire” opponent when she’s the 2nd richest senator worth a whole bunch more?

Argh, Todd Akin, why didn’t you listen to what the lord was trying to tell you? Because I’m pretty sure he was standing in the step-down crowd.

alwaysfiredup on March 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I hate this woman, so much. Everything about her is phony. She acted like she was afraid of “self-financed millionaire” opponent when she’s the 2nd richest senator worth a whole bunch more?

Argh, Todd Akin, why didn’t you listen to what the lord was trying to tell you? Because I’m pretty sure he was standing in the step-down crowd.

alwaysfiredup on March 26, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Because it was Claire who was telling him to stay in. Never forget, all the money that supported Aikin was the same money that went to Claire after the primary. Aikin was the Democrat Cross Over choice – Sarah Steelman was the Conservative Tea Party Choice.

jaydee_007 on March 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Because it was Claire who was telling him to stay in. Never forget, all the money that supported Aikin was the same money that went to Claire after the primary. Aikin was the Democrat Cross Over choice – Sarah Steelman was the Conservative Tea Party Choice.

jaydee_007 on March 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

$1.5 million worth.

cptacek on March 26, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Sarah Steelman was the Conservative Tea Party Choice.

jaydee_007 on March 26, 2013 at 2:42 PM

love ya hon but if that was true she would have won. Missourians love their tea partiers. John Brunner was the local conservative tea party choice. Steelman was a carpetbagger who talked the national tea party into giving her support she didn’t have at home. The split gave Akin the opening he and Claire needed.

…and that’s all I’m going to say about that now. It is indeed over and we are all losers for it.

alwaysfiredup on March 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

When do you intend to smack gay bigots down, hm? Are you even mentally or morally capable of that? When do you intend to say that gays who sue businesses and churches are bigots?

northdallasthirty on March 26, 2013 at 10:07 AM

I don’t think “bigot” would be the right word. I

would

use “hypocrite” and “anti-American”, though. Someone won’t provide you services? Find someone else who will. Don’t like a church’s rules? Don’t join it. Their beautiful sanctuary may become off limits to your wedding, but too bad. That’s where the legal protection fight comes in, and the “gay bigots” may be shocked to find out that the First Amendment is on the churches’ side in this regard.

TMOverbeck on March 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Crap, I hit the “quote” button instead of “emphasis”. :/

TMOverbeck on March 26, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Another whore who was willing to say anything to get elected…

Dopenstrange on March 26, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I can’t stand looking at this fat whore’s face anymore.

tom daschle concerned on March 27, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3