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

Buck-buck-buck-BUCKAW!

Another politician too scared of being called names by the buggery brigade.

MelonCollie on March 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Ahh Allah but the lsm makes it newsworthy…. praising dems for evolving and gop for being political hacks

cmsinaz on March 25, 2013 at 2:44 PM

GayGas strikes again!!!!!! Run for your lives!!!!!

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The Gay Lobby is very powerful.

Kind of O/T: NFL Player might come out as Gay in next Month.

portlandon on March 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM

What a horrible woman.

The democrats are going to keep pushing these stupid, irrelevant wedge issues while the dollar burns off value, they spend us into insolvency, and plot to outright steal your retirement a la Cyprus.

Damn these evil f**** to hell.

tom daschle concerned on March 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM

GayGas strikes again!!!!!! Run for your lives!!!!!

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 2:46 PM

If you’d like to run away, be my guest.

MelonCollie on March 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM

McCaShill’s announcement was brought to you today by the Campaign to Elect Todd Achin’ for Senate 2012.

Gee, thanks, you little turd.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 2:49 PM

If you’d like to run away, be my guest.

MelonCollie on March 25, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Heh. “FIRST!” wasn’t an option.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Euphemism alert:

Gay = Homosexual

SIDEBAR: In the acronym, LGBT, other than the “T,” isn’t the rest of it pretty much redundant?

Note – re: the “B” – see relevant commentary by Andrew “Dice” Clay.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality.

I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this extremely unhealthy homosexual lifestyle:

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

itsnotaboutme on March 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM

The 70-year old kwepie doll is the luckiest woman in the world. Both times she should have been soundly defeated.

bw222 on March 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

And lest we think that SCOTUS will be unbiased:

A lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the landmark Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage and says she is confident he will see that gays deserve “dignity, respect, and equality under the law.”

Jean Podrasky told the Los Angeles Times that she will sit in a section of the courtroom reserved for relatives and guests of the chief justice. She said that her partner of four years, Grace Fasano, whom she wants to marry, will attend with her.

It’s a tax I tell you!

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

The Press has failed this Country MISERABLY!
This is the only conclusion you can derive from these things.

Why do we have people with an IQ below a house plant elected (repeatedly) do the Federal level?

Claire McCaskill is in a close race with Slow Joe (Shotgun Sergeant Smartass) Biden to be THE STUPIDEST person on the public payroll.

WFT Missouri? I know you suffer St. Louis voters, but come-ON can’t the rest of you in the State find the intersection of COMMONSENSE and REASON and VOTE accordingly?

Missilengr on March 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

I loathe this woman. Outside of the mega disappointment that was Obama’s reelection this past November, ObamaClaire’s ability to survive against the sniveling Todd Akin is likely a close second on the disappointment scale. She is a snake.

msmveritas on March 25, 2013 at 2:56 PM

The Tyranny of the Minority.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 2:56 PM

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’m more disgusted in these “confessional evolutions” which are clearly no more than partisan politics. I don’t care where McCaskill stood before because I knew how she or any Dem in a safe seat would vote on the issue. That she would insult our intelligence to make the claim that she has had a “road to Damascus conversion” really is offensive.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Many people, some with strong religious faith based on the Bible, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith based on feelings, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some

Fixed.

itsnotaboutme on March 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM

A lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts

All I needed to read. Gee, thanks W… for absolutely nothing.

It’s a tax I tell you!

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

The only question would be, what does he render a tax? My money’s on traditional marriage.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM

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

McCaskill is demonstrating the typical Marxist Democrat’s proclivity for normative moral relativism. She is anticipating the SCOTUS upholding Homosexual Activist Judge Vaughn Walker’s overruling of California’s Proposition 8. The Devil stalks the SCOTUS.

SWalker on March 25, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Yep…she’ll be cheered for her evolution and her previous political cowardice will be ignored, but they’ll continue to criticize Portman for coming to the same conclusion for arguably a “better” reason (or at least one that makes more sense than simply waking up and thinking gee, SSM ain’t that bad).

changer1701 on March 25, 2013 at 3:00 PM

They’re soooooooooooooooooooooooo progressive.

Just like the Bible.

Right?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM

So obama is rallying the Country on guns and gays? Nice way to take eyes off the economy….

sandee on March 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I can’t think of anyone offhand but maybe Bob Casey or one of the other few social cons in the caucus has.

I think the existence of the Casey dynasty has clouded your memory. Casey Sr. was a social conservative. Casey Jr. is not, but masquerades as his father’s second coming. He supports the Mexico City policy and received a 100% rating from NARAL in 2010. Any support from pro-life groups is lingering goodwill from his father’s days as the petitioner in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Junior, on the other hand, actually voted to federally fund Planned Parenthood.

blammm on March 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM

The liberals are so transparently political on this issue. They clearly don’t have a spine as all either have lied in the past, or are lying today.

Tater Salad on March 25, 2013 at 3:01 PM

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.

Yes but that would defeat the entire point of the left’s painfully obvious drip-drip campaign to try and influence SCOTUS.

Kataklysmic on March 25, 2013 at 3:02 PM

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.

Evidently she has no such compunction about lying her fat @zz off during the election though.

De Oppresso Liber on March 25, 2013 at 3:02 PM

What are liberal Catholics going to say when Pope Francis makes a strong statement on gay marriage?

Tater Salad on March 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

You fail to mention that, like Portman, she went out of her way to use religion to justify her decision despite the clear fact the religion she subscribes tom Christianity, unambiguously condemns what is being promoted. And don’t forget, per the children, it’s inevitable.

Rocks on March 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

What are liberal Catholics going to say when Pope Francis makes a strong statement on gay marriage?

Tater Salad on March 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Jetboy will reply on their behalf.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:04 PM

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?

A question in response to your exit question, AP: Would any of us even believe a Democrat who claims to oppose gay marriage(or abortion for that matter) in the months leading up to the 2014 midterms? I hope for our country’s sake, the voters in these states start to wake the F up. How many times are they gonna be suckered into reelecting Dems who pretend to be moderate or conservative yet vote in lockstep with the party once elected? You’d think Obamacare alone would be a sufficient warning, but apparently not given the outcome of 2012.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Acts 4:19 -

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:04 PM

This worthless hunk of tissue is afraid of her own shadow. She has no business being in a position of leadership!

rjoco1 on March 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM

What are liberal Catholics going to say when Pope Francis makes a strong statement on gay marriage?

Tater Salad on March 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Unless any statement comes with a threat of excommunication and expulsion from the Church, the Socialists will simply smirk, nod, and ignore anything he says.

Because, like Pelosi, they follow “the Word.”

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 3:06 PM

surprisingly enough I haven’t evolved and don’t really plan to

DanMan on March 25, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Gay marriage. There’s a topic that hasn’t been broached on this site for, oh, at least, 15 minutes.

Bitter Clinger on March 25, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Oh, by the way my husband stole $40,000,000 of taxpayer moneys and groped up a young subordinate. I had to sell my private jet.

However, there is no truth to the rumor that my husband used my private jet to fly down with Menendez and screw some pre-teen hookers in the Dominican Republic.

However, I’m fine with Gay marriage and saddling my kids with $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and obamacare.

acyl72 on March 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Why do red states keep electing these liars?

jawkneemusic on March 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM

What are liberal Catholics going to say when Pope Francis makes a strong statement on gay marriage?

Tater Salad on March 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Jetboy will reply on their behalf.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Will he try to take communion at the new Pope’s confirmation? Pope Francis has said in the past that politicians who promote gay marriage and abortion should be denied communion. Who wants to bet he tries one-up the Pope and gets in line?

Tater Salad on March 25, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I have no love for dear Claire…or most politicians pandering to gays. But then, in the long run it may be a good thing. The “Stonewall Riots” wouldn’t have garnered my support were I alive then…but I might not have come out even today if not for those who fought.

Every cloud has a silver lining…it’s all part of the process.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM

But she believes that states should “take the lead in determining marriage equality.”

At first, gays and lesbians wanted civil unions to have all the legal benefits of marriage. That was pretty much a done deal, and a civil union is essentially a civil marriage anyway … with the exception of some official saying “you’re married”. However, apparently overnite they changed their minds and wanted the term “marriage” associated with their civil union.

This just reinforces, in my mind at least, that true to form the left is never satisfied and after gay marriage is done they’ll proceed to go after religious marriages … demanding that “equality” will never be attained until religious institutions perform same sex marriages.

What their goal is after that I don’t know. What I do know is the left’s stated goal is never their true goal.

darwin on March 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I wonder if Jim Carrey is hastily making a video mocking McCaskill?

Oh wait – gun owners are the abomination.

I forgot.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:10 PM

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I’ve given up on you…getting you to answer one simple question is like pulling teeth.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM

It’s a virtual tsunami of acceptance of gay love.

/MSM, Senators, Congressman, Governors, and Mayors

Paul-Cincy on March 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM

have no love for dear Claire…or most politicians pandering to gays. But then, in the long run it may be a good thing. The “Stonewall Riots” wouldn’t have garnered my support were I alive then…but I might not have come out even today if not for those who fought.

Every cloud has a silver lining…it’s all part of the process.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM

What do you think about the disparity in the way Portman was treated by the gay community and the way that Hilary and McCaskill have been?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I have no love for dear Claire…or most politicians pandering to gays. But then, in the long run it may be a good thing. The “Stonewall Riots” wouldn’t have garnered my support were I alive then…but I might not have come out even today if not for those who fought.

Every cloud has a silver lining…it’s all part of the process.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:09 PM

You’re a good Catholic, so answer me this:

Should the Catholic Church be forced to perform the Gay marriage ceremonies just like they are trying to be forced to pay for Abortions/contraception?

portlandon on March 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM

I find it easier to simply presume all liberals are pro-SSM. As George Clooney once said in a movie, “I stereotype. It’s faster.”

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Why should I answer questions from you, Skippy? You’re the one who is trying to get the definition of a word that is thousands of years old, changed, so that your lifestiyle will have the conveyance of “normalcy”.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:14 PM

At first, gays and lesbians wanted civil unions to have all the legal benefits of marriage. That was pretty much a done deal…

It was?

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:14 PM

It’s a virtual tsunami of acceptance of gay love.

/MSM, Senators, Congressman, Governors, and Mayors

Paul-Cincy on March 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Hell has plenty of room for all of America’s immoral and unethical politicians.

SWalker on March 25, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Why do red states keep electing these liars?

jawkneemusic on March 25, 2013 at 3:07 PM

In the case of McCasket, she was the beneficiary of a very bad year for the GOP in 2006 and then maybe the worst Republican Senate candidate in recent memory opposing her in 2012. Seriously, if Achin had listened to reason instead of his wife whispering in his ear(which he apparently mistook for the Almighty Himself) and dropped out, anyone else we put up would’ve beaten her.

Now don’t ask me to explain Indiana. I realize Mourdock made a rape remark as well(albeit nowhere near as bad as Achin’s) and his Democrat opponent was pro-life, but c’mon! Romney easily carried that state while Mourdock was trounced. Something’s not adding up here. Is the GOP ground game that p-ss poor?

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

It was?

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I think so. I don’t remember that much opposition to it.

darwin on March 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

That is the great thing about a six year Senate term, you can do anything you want and be as stupid as you want for the first couple years of your term. Few will remember or care four years later when you’re running for reelection and if you are a liberal the press certainly won’t remind anyone of the previous crazy votes.

RJL on March 25, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Yet another blond joke.

ultracon on March 25, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Should the Catholic Church be forced to perform the Gay marriage ceremonies just like they are trying to be forced to pay for Abortions/contraception?

portlandon on March 25, 2013 at 3:13 PM

As I’ve stated time and time and time and time again, no church should ever be forced to perform or recognize gay marriage…or provide access to birth control…or especially provide for abortions…if they so choose according to their doctrine and beliefs.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Is the GOP ground game that p-ss poor?

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

It’s not just their ground game. The GOP as an effective, relevant political party is dead.

We are looking at Zombie GOP right now, and it should scare everyone.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Is the GOP ground game that p-ss poor?

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Yeah I really think it is. Obama never stopped campaigning. And someone was remarking on another thread that they went to volunteer and their state( Texas) and there was no infrastructure during the run up the election. The Dems move like a well oiled machine. We can’t even get a computer program to work.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I think history will agree with my children.

I think History will compare your children to the Visigoths that sacked Rome. And not favorably.

Yes but that would defeat the entire point of the left’s painfully obvious drip-drip campaign to try and influence SCOTUS.

Kataklysmic on March 25, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Yes, so they can point to how “the consensus has changed”.

GWB on March 25, 2013 at 3:21 PM

This is your country, with the wheels coming off, faster every day.

We are looking at Zombie GOP right now, and it should scare everyone.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Yep; dead party walking, they just don’t know it yet.

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s not just their ground game. The GOP as an effective, relevant political party is dead.

We are looking at Zombie GOP right now, and it should scare everyone.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM

That’s a load of crap. Look at how much enthusiasm Ted Cruz was able to inspire. Or Marco Rubio. Look at what Scott Walker was able to endure in Wisconsin which is hardly a bastion of conservatism. Shoot, Scott Brown won a special election Senate race as a Republican in MassachusettEs for God’s sake. If we put forward conservative candidates(Brown notwithstanding, but again we’re talking MassachusettEs here), we win and usually by a very comfortable margin.

Doughboy on March 25, 2013 at 3:22 PM

It’s not just their ground game. The GOP as an effective, relevant political party is dead.

We are looking at Zombie GOP right now, and it should scare everyone.

Myron Falwell on March 25, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I agree. Now is when they should be find a way to rally and excite their loyal base who would be demoralized by another loss. Yet they aren’t. They are changing the whole platform. I mean we aren’t just talking about social issues. Taxes amnesty the whole bit. Reminds me of the old saying “Make new friends but keep the old, one is silver but the other is gold.” It’s a lesson the GOP needs to learn.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I think so. I don’t remember that much opposition to it.

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

And someone was remarking on another thread that they went to volunteer and their state( Texas) and there was no infrastructure during the run up the election. The Dems move like a well oiled machine. We can’t even get a computer program to work.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:20 PM

With all due respect, in Texas it doesn’t matter a damn bit what we do – a handful of other crappy states picks the nominee, and we have f*ck all to say about it. Not much to volunteer *for*.

Remove Iowa, New Hampshire, Deleware, etc from the equation – or minimize their sway over it – and, good heavens – GOP might even start nominating conservatives again. You know, that thing that always seems to actually *work*…

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:24 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

What was missing?

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I want to know why there’s never any recognition that the consummation of a same-sex sexual attraction is not natural. It’s not only about “who you love” or “who you are”. If we’re going to countenance same-sex unions under the exalted rubric of “marriage”, have that discussion … then let’s at least call a spade a spade. Whether you’re for it or against it. Whether you think gay sex is the awesomest awesome thing there is, or whether you think it’s disgusting.

People don’t come out and say it re: traditional marriage, except in euphemisms like “consummation”. There’s a biblical notion of “two flesh becoming one flesh” in marriage.

There’s a difference between straight and gay sex, which is my basis for being against same-sex marriage. I’m not saying anyone else has to believe that. I’m explaining my SSM position.

I understand the SSM proponents focus on “who you love” and “who you are” to support their position. I understand that. That’s fine. I don’t understand how they can gloss over the endpoint of this sexual attraction. To me, that’s key.

Paul-Cincy on March 25, 2013 at 3:27 PM

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

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

The repubic party is in full retreat mode. Slowly but surely the fractures are going to keep getting exposed. There is no issue that they aren’t caving on, none! Stick a fork and a knife in them, soon they’ll be the same as the Whig party.

SSM? Gun Contro? Illegal Immigration? Domestic use of force? Seizure of private property? obozoKare?

De Oppresso Liber on March 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM

With all due respect, in Texas it doesn’t matter a damn bit what we do – a handful of other crappy states picks the nominee, and we have f*ck all to say about it. Not much to volunteer *for*.

Remove Iowa, New Hampshire, Deleware, etc from the equation – or minimize their sway over it – and, good heavens – GOP might even start nominating conservatives again. You know, that thing that always seems to actually *work*…

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:24 PM

I was talking during the general election, but I agree our primary system def. needs to be overhauled. Too many states that wouldn’t go Repub if you paid them decide our nominee.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM

The pinnacle of Utopia is the destruction of everything that I believe in.

Everything is anathema to me, to how I was raised, and to what I believe in.

I’m 54, and when I was a little boy, I had such pride in my country. Now, I’m nauseated by it.

The Communists targeted our public schools – and they had a dead-aim.

They won the war over minds.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Why is Missouri considered a red state? And Todd Akin’s comment pales in comparison to the Colorado legislator’s comments about pissing and vomiting to stop rape. If there is going to be any federal compensation for abortion caused by rape or incest there dang sure better be police reports and paternity tests associated with every one.

DanMan on March 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

It’s a lesson the GOP needs to learn.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:22 PM

They won’t. The trend, which is pretty much worldwide, is to the political left. And it’s going to keep going that way.

I’m sure many will argue that, and I can’t prove it until it happens. I base my view on the one thing that really matters: the Bible. The Book of Revelation gave us the general framework of what is to come. For those prophesies to happen, the details have to be in place. What I’m seeing is that each piece is coming together, with ever-increasing frequency.

Yes, I know: Not everyone here is religious. I’m sure my fellow Christians can debate me, also. I’m simply speaking from what I understand of Scripture and how it applies to modern events.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I was talking during the general election, but I agree our primary system def. needs to be overhauled. Too many states that wouldn’t go Repub if you paid them decide our nominee.

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:28 PM

I stand corrected; thanks for the clarification, good point.

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

It is clear from the origins of the words marry and marriage that the concept was never intended to be applied to same-sex couples. Redefining marriage is tampering with almost 6,000 years of meaning.

marry (v.)

c.1300, “to give (offspring) in marriage,” from Old French marier “to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage,” from Latin maritare “to wed, marry, give in marriage” (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) “married man, husband,” of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from “provided with a *mari,” a young woman, from PIE root *mari- “young wife, young woman,” akin to *meryo- “young man” (cf. Sanskrit marya- “young man, suitor”).

In some Indo-European languages there were distinct “marry” verbs for men and women, though some of these have become generalized. Cf. Latin ducere uxorem (of men), literally “to lead a wife;” nubere (of women), perhaps originally “to veil” [Buck]. Also cf. Old Norse kvangask (of men) from kvan “wife” (cf. quean), so “take a wife;” giptask (of women), from gipta, a specialized use of “to give” (cf. gift (n.)) so “to be given.”

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Yes, I know: Not everyone here is religious. I’m sure my fellow Christians can debate me, also. I’m simply speaking from what I understand of Scripture and how it applies to modern events.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I suspect that folks for a couple thousands years have been seeing things coming together as they expected them to in similar fashion…

That said, I agree with you, lol.

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I’m your age. I miss the America where you and I grew up. Our parents and other family were heroes who lived in the Depression and fought WWII. They were people to admire, and miss when they’re gone.

We gave our children much of what we had, but sadly that’s squandered so our grandchildren will never have such bounty.

So horribly sad.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I always told my Mom – if things were destined to get better, Revelation need never have been written.

I agree with you.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Matrimony is another word with thousands of years of built-in meaning:

matrimony (n.)
c.1300, from Old French matremoine “matrimony, marriage” and directly from Latin matrimonium “wedlock, marriage,” from matrem (nominative mater) “mother” (see mother (n.1)) + -monium, suffix signifying “action, state, condition.”

Marriage: a woman is given to a man to form a family

Matrimony: a woman enters into the state or condition by which she is open to becoming a mother

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

This is such a bogus issue, and primarily in the heterosexual community. I have an old friend, from years back, that I never had a clue about his sexuality….until years later. Other than being a homosexual, alcoholic Irishman, he’s perfectly normal! He is a conservative who is pro-life and against SSM! He is not alone with those sentiments in the homosexual community!

tomshup on March 25, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I always told my Mom – if things were destined to get better, Revelation need never have been written.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

That’s a point I never considered. Kudos to you!

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Why is Missouri considered a red state? And Todd Akin’s comment pales in comparison to the Colorado legislator’s comments about pissing and vomiting to stop rape. If there is going to be any federal compensation for abortion caused by rape or incest there dang sure better be police reports and paternity tests associated with every one.

DanMan on March 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Because it’s been drifting rightward at the presidential level over the last few cycles. Used to be the quintessential bellwether, but it’s went with the loser twice in a row now.

changer1701 on March 25, 2013 at 3:37 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

The only word missing between the two was “marriage“…

… hence exposing the gay agenda.

Seven Percent Solution on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Why is Missouri considered a red state?

DanMan on March 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

We broke for Romney.

Sadly, the lib media and Akin’s scientifically ignorant and politically suicidal commentary did help put more Dems into statewide office.

shinty on March 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

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).

I disagree

That one was totally set up. Joe was tagged to play the clown, oopsie

Next, Obama, in a soft interview set up for the pre planned ‘evolution’ walks through his script of WWJD (what would Jesus do?)

Right after that, Obama goes on his already sceduled cross country GLBT fundraisers, and makes a killing.

IMHO like most of Obama, this was a part of his original Presidential plans, which require a long rope, and slow feeding of the fish to walk them to his goals

This was one of Obama’s most blatant politicaL scams

entagor on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

What was missing?

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Besides a whole lot of states that don’t even provide civil unions…you can peruse just some of the differences HERE and HERE.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

The only word missing between the two was “marriage“…

… hence exposing the gay agenda.

Seven Percent Solution on March 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

See my last comment above to Midas.

Hence you exposing your own stoopitidy.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM

I always told my Mom – if things were destined to get better, Revelation need never have been written.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 25, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Hmmm; too early in the day for tequila, I wonder… ;)

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:43 PM

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:41 PM

You want the conveyance of “normalcy” that the use of the word “marriage” gives.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Wasn’t there a time, 30 years ago, where virtually NO ONE in Congress supported same sex marriage? Certainly, 50 years ago. So now that there’s a crack in that zeitgeist, and there’s a new supposed zeitgeist of the majority in favor of SSM, is it exactly principled or courageous to come out in favor of SSM now?

Paul-Cincy on March 25, 2013 at 3:46 PM

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

This just so strong reinforces that liberals believe rights come from government. I’m sorry, but if you need the government to tell you you’re married . . . or for the government to tell you somebody you know has a “valid” relationship . . . your issues are a lot bigger.

I was married when I said “I do,” not when the courthouse received my signed license.

PastorJon on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Besides a whole lot of states that don’t even provide civil unions…you can peruse just some of the differences HERE and HERE.

JetBoy on March 25, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Thanks, but I’ll stay away from that URL if you don’t mind; my kids occasionally use this computer. :)

Any chance you have something from a more… potentially unbiased source, perhaps? Thanks.

Mine is an honest question; I have understood that at least in some places, the ‘legal benefits’ question had been rendered nonexistent.

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I want to know why there’s never any recognition that the consummation of a same-sex sexual attraction is not natural…There’s a difference between straight and gay sex, which is my basis for being against same-sex marriage.

Paul-Cincy on March 25, 2013 at 3:27 PM

To whom? Maybe not to you, but to gays it is natural and normal. Moreover, many straights engage in the very same acts. Does this make them gay? Your fixation on sex acts rather than relationships borders on the pathological.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Does this make them gay? cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Only if they are the same sex. Duh.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I can’t wait for candidates to start one-upping each other when it comes to “marriage”:

Bob for Senate: “My opponent says he supports gay marriage. What an evil bigot! Why, I support gay marriage, straight marriage, incestuous marriage, bestial marriage, man/boy marriage, man/girl marriage…”

Ward Cleaver on March 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM

This just reinforces, in my mind at least, that true to form the left is never satisfied and after gay marriage is done they’ll proceed to go after religious marriages … demanding that “equality” will never be attained until religious institutions perform same sex marriages.

What Dolan has said is that the Catholic Church is contemplating moving the goalposts by issuing “authentic marriage” or “matrimony” certificates.

monalisa on March 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Moreover, many straights engage in the very same acts. Does this make them gay? Your fixation on sex acts rather than relationships borders on the pathological.

cam2 on March 25, 2013 at 3:48 PM

I just always wanted to know if we are supposed to stay out of people’s bedroom- how we actually know this?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:52 PM

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Cam’s folks gave him a cool new telescope for Chrstmas.

kingsjester on March 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Can gay marriage advocates show that their desired definition of the word marriage has any historical precedent whatsoever? When has the word marriage or one of its etymological antecedents ever been applied to a same-sex couple in any legal or widely-accepted sense, other than jokingly, ironically, derisively?

As it stands, everyone has the right to be married. But marriage means, and always has meant, something specific: one man, one woman. No amount of legislation or judicial fiats can change that. No court, no government has the prerogative to arbitrarily redefine a word with roughly 6,000 years of built-in meaning.

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 3:53 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

Moreover, many straights engage in the very same acts. Does this make them gay?

Um, what? Couple of different ways to interpret what you’re saying there…

Either that ‘straight’ guys are having gay sex with other guys, so… yeah, that’s gay…

… or guys are having non-procreational intercourse with an ‘exit’, shall we say – and there are folks around that will suggest that this, too, ain’t exactly natural, hehe.

In the end (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun), I honestly don’t care what folks are doing with each other – just please, can you stop making it everyone’s business (I was going to say something else, but that would’ve been one pun too far, perhaps)? And it’s simply not ‘marriage’, sorry. You can take a daffodil and call it a rose all day long – it’s never going to be a rose.

Midas on March 25, 2013 at 3:55 PM

I just always wanted to know if we are supposed to stay out of people’s bedroom- how we actually know this?

melle1228 on March 25, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Interesting you mention that. Liberals want us staying out of others’ bedrooms, yet liberal militant gays keep pulling us into them.

Liam on March 25, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3