Huckabee: If the GOP switches on gay marriage, evangelicals walk

posted at 12:41 pm on March 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

A shot across the bow of Beltway Republicans on Gay Marriage Day at the Supreme Court.

Alternate headline: “Huckabee’s running in 2016.”

When asked if he believes the Republican Party will change its position and support gay marriage in a Wednesday Newsmax interview, Huckabee remarked, “They might, and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk.”…

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of,” he continued, “but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.”…

“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”

I’ve read a bunch of pieces lately claiming that SCOTUS striking down gay-marriage laws will actually be a gift to GOP politicians because it’ll take this issue off the table. Rubio and Paul and Jindal et al. won’t have to squirm over whether to endorse SSM, back a federalist approach to the issue, or oppose it on the merits. They can just shrug and say “The Court was wrong but whaddaya gonna do?” and move on to other business. Take it from Huckabee: That won’t happen. Abortion’s technically been “off the table” for 40 years and yet it’s still an absolute litmus test for any potential GOP nominee (and any potential Democratic nominee too). To keep social conservatives onboard, candidates will be asked to promise (a) that they’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who are committed to overturning any gay-marriage rulings and (b) that they’ll endorse some sort of constitutional amendment that would either ban SSM outright or, at a minimum, return the issue to the states. (The amendment will go nowhere but that’s beside the point here.) Think a prospective nominee won’t do some squirming over whether they should sign on to those propositions, especially given the GOP’s panic over losing young voters? Come 2016, this won’t be just about gay marriage anymore; it’ll be a test of whether social conservatives retain the same influence over the party platform that they’ve had for the last few decades. That’s why Huck’s framing this in apocalyptic “stick with us or we walk” terms. It’s their party, at least on social issues.

With respect to what’s best for other GOP pols, the simple explanation is the correct one: They’re better off if the Court surprises everyone and upholds Prop 8. Then the 2016 field can take the position that they’re personally opposed to SSM in order to placate social cons while insisting that, as good federalists, they want local voters to decide this issue for themselves. That sort of squishy middle-way stance won’t dazzle anyone on either side but it might hold the Republican coalition together by reassuring Huck and his supporters that red states will still get to chart their own course. It might also be acceptable to young voters in the sense that the potential GOP nominee won’t be standing in the way of gay marriage in states when the votes are there. But note: The squishy position won’t work if the Court does end up legalizing gay marriage this summer. In that case, taking the federalist position via a constitutional amendment will be seen as an attempt to roll back marriage rights that gays have already won. Young voters likely will find that alienating, and social cons may reason that an amendment to return power to the states on the subject simply doesn’t go far enough as a rebuke to a judiciary that’s out of control. What politicians cherish is room to maneuver, and a pro-SSM ruling leaves the GOP with less of that than an anti-SSM ruling would.

Anyway. Across the aisle, Mark Begich magically decided last night that he too is now pro-gay marriage, which makes three Democratic senators who have “evolved” in just the past 24 hours. I’m starting a pool as of right now: At what time today will the next Democratic holdout formally declare his support for SSM? I’ll take 2 p.m. ET.

Update: Interesting choice of words from Reince Priebus:

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”


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 10

So they would rather vote for REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT just because some chick can’t kill her baby or Joe and Joe can’t marry…

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

It worked last November. Why wouldn’t it work again?

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

I don’t care about ssm. I care about making evangelicals a politically lost entity with no place to call home. So they stop being so terrible. Politically.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Just imagine Democrats losing the lady-parts issue, and actually having to talk about economy before the election. Ah, the sweet horror!

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

You people are delusional. Did you miss the 2012 election ? The one where the deciding issue for a pro-choice candidate was a media manufactured “war on women” ?

The “Conservative Party” focusing on abortion and gay marriage would be lucky to win an election against David Dukes.

deadrody on March 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Seems like you might have missed the 2012 election where conservatives stayed home, which cost the GOP the election. Are you actually interested in getting these voters back, or do you prefer to keep losing to the Democrats? You need to decide quick because 2014 and 2016 will be here before you know it.

They stayed home for lots of reasons besides gay marriage (if that was even much of a factor at all), but feel free to go on characterizing conservative critics of the GOP as a bunch of “socon nutcases.”

I am sick and damn tired of Republicans pandering to big govt socons like Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and whoever the hell else. I’m sick of watching our candidates fielding questions about abortion, sex, and homosexuality at every damn debate, and I’m sick of talking vaginas like Mike Huckabee stomping his feet, pouting, and threatening to take his ball and go home whenever he thinks the GOP might take a position he doesn’t like.

DRayRaven on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

So you’re voting for the Democrats, then?

Doomberg on March 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Gonna agree with Priebus on this, there is a need for respect, and to strike a balance. I don’t want to chase the fundamentalists out of the party, but I don’t want them dictating terms for the rest of the party either.

WolvenOne on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Yeah we dicatate the terms when we nominated that raving fundamentalist McCain and Romney. You people are fools, you really are.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. Social Cons want Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people. How exactly does that make them “deficit hawks?” The real “deficit hawks” would be Libertarians who want Big Brother to have no say in your personal religious choices/views and don’t want Evangelicals anywhere near their money. AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Hey JoePA

Haven’t you heard?

They’re selling Sandusky’s second home he had in DuBois.

ToddPA on March 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Where do they walk to?
Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

To a different state of mind.

Cleombrotus on March 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Bingo. It would be nice if evangelicals could just turn the other cheek and pray for the rapture so the rest of us sinners could go to hell.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Har har har. You can make trite “jokes” about people you don’t even attempt to understand. Har har har.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

So they would rather vote for REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT just because some chick can’t kill her baby or Joe and Joe can’t marry…

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM
It worked last November. Why wouldn’t it work again?

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Yeah because Romney was a raving evangelical prolifer anti-gay marriage guy. BWAAAAHHHAAAa..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Huckabee does not represent the view of most socially conservative evangelicals.
But his point here is a good one, and I see the ignorance of so many folks bashing it here. Socons are not the enemy.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

The churches are emptying out. Christianity is being marginalized at a rate I never thought I would witness in my lifetime. Now I believe I will be jailed, excluded from participating in the marketplace, or beheaded in my lifetime

tom daschle concerned on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Imagine that, Jews have been there for hundreds of years, and still we exist and prosper. Get along with the program – you seriously effed your chance when you stopped at Reconquista.

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I don’t care about ssm. I care about making evangelicals a politically lost entity with no place to call home. So they stop being so terrible. Politically.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

So you don’t want any social conservative votes, got it.

So what was your plan for winning elections, again? Oh, right. Amnesty. The Hispanic vote will save you!

Doomberg on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Socons are not the enemy.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Sure they are.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

The face of a fella on a 3am TV lawyer commercial. Ga-hed, GOP, give him the nod and get the Dukakis you deserve.

Limerick on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

We’ve got tens of trillions in debt, gun rights under assault, Islamic barbarians at the gates, and an out-of-control government giving guns to drug cartels with one hand and implementing socialized medicine with the other…and you’re walking over gay marriage?

Bye.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

I don’t really see the GOP doing much positive about any of those things. Sure a couple of specific congressmen are doing their part and trying to fill the void, but as a whole, not so much.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Sure they are.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Where’s roger when we need him.. Because I am quite certain that the commenter supported Obama. Anyone else remember?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

The face of a fella on a 3am TV lawyer commercial. Ga-hed, GOP, give him the nod and get the Dukakis you deserve.

Limerick on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

The nod? I was thinking along the lines of a double tap.

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

The Hispanic vote will save you!

Doomberg on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Hispanics tend to be poorer and vote for the gibs-me-dats party. I don’t see why there aren’t enough middle income people in this country to win an election without all the socon nonsense.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Everyone including me is starting to figure out that there exists a Ruling Class and then there’s The Rest of Us.

Doesn’t matter their party names, Judean People’s Front or the People’s Front of Judea. They all worship the same god, belong to the same elite secret societies, and laugh it up at the same bars after work. They have one goal and that’s the destruction of the nation state and implementation of a one world socialist government.

And there’s nothing any of us can do to stop it.

SirGawain on March 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM

We don’t have to win. We just need to be able to look in the mirror at the end of the day.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:25 PM

QFT.

So people will rather vote for a party that makes them pay more for healthcare and taxes, increases government, increases unemployment, bans guns and COKE, because a small part of the GOP thinks killing babies and 3% of the population marrying is wrong. BWAAHHAHHHAHAH…..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:23 PM

This is one of the best demonstrations in existence why liberalism is a flat-out, undiluted mental disorder. People afflicted by it will not only suffer a massive IQ drop, they will literally vote away their freedoms for the license to practice every manner of folly under the sun.

In the case of Democrat-voting gays, this is literal to the last detail: in return for getting licenses for their play-pretend relationships they are putting closet-facist liberals in power.

Is freedom that cheap to them? Their deviancy worth that much? Or have they, plain and simple, checked their brains at the door and thrown themselves headlong over the cliff of liberalism?

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If the GOP switches on gay marriage, evangelicals walk

Promise? Oh please, please!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:32 PM

If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, that represents a move towards bigger government. If you keep bashing socons, you’re swinging your fists in the wrong direction. Look forward to winning no more elections, ever.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Can Huckabee point to the Constitution and tell us all where it is required, or even a function of federal government to stick its nose into who marries whom?

What happened to the 10th amendment? I personally don’t give a rat’s behind what two legally-aged law-abiding consenting adults do, and I don’t think government should have the power to stick its nose into a legal contract between two legally-aged law-abiding consenting adults.

What next? Get the House and Senate to outlaw mixed-race couples on the same basis the “anti-gay marriage” folks stand upon? Oh wait…that didn’t work out either did it?

If we’re going to cherry-pick biblical context, then how’s about we cherry pick the legit reasons for divorce, because I’m quite certain the government-allowed “no fault” reason isn’t in there. Government can no more “protect the sanctity of marriage” than it can run a “cash for clunkers” program.

A government with the power to tell you who you can and can’t marry, is a government with the power to tell you what you can and can’t eat. Oh wait…we’re already there too aren’t we?

See what I mean? “Pandora’s box” doesn’t BEGIN to cover this…

Talismen on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I haven’t posted here since 2010 I believe, kindly internet stalker. Got too silly with all the socon nonsense and people always whining about the Bible and other assorted nonsense.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

We’ve got tens of trillions in debt, gun rights under assault, Islamic barbarians at the gates, and an out-of-control government giving guns to drug cartels with one hand and implementing socialized medicine with the other…and you’re walking over gay marriage?

Bye

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Actually Madcon, the GOP has been complicit in all of that. Not only that but they have helped and continue to help.. SSM is kind of just the nail in the coffin for a lot of us. How many times are we supposed to compromise with out own party? Gun control, amnesty and SSM marriage all in one week, C’mon.. too far..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

You deserve to live under mohammedian sharia law.

tom daschle concerned on March 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

It would be same as living under Huckabee Evangelical Law, or Akin Evangelical Law, or Palin Evangelical Law. A bunch of religious zealots using Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

No, it’s a move towards a more equal government. Big or small, I’d rather the government treat all people equally. But, hey, I’m sane.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Socons are not the enemy.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Correct. They’re not the enemy. But they are a HUGE LIABILITY!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

I haven’t posted here since 2010 I believe, kindly internet stalker. Got too silly with all the socon nonsense and people always whining about the Bible and other assorted nonsense.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

If I was an internet stalker, I would have your quotes looked up. I just tend to remember you one of being the raving Obama supporters. Funny how you didn’t deny that..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Hispanics tend to be poorer and vote for the gibs-me-dats party. I don’t see why there aren’t enough middle income people in this country to win an election without all the socon nonsense.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Props for being realistic on Hispanics, but young middle class people have literally grown up under the most insane libtard propaganda from the time they were old enough to go to first grade. It’s not that much of a mystery!

Plus the issue is not really socons. The issue is the GOP throwing everything they supposedly stand for out the window the minute it becomes truly inconvenient.

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Gay marriage is asking the government to limit its roll. Not allowing gay marriage means that the government can tell individuals what they can and can’t do. The state sanctions things I don’t believe in all the time, and I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling free and independent adults what they can and can’t do as long as those adults arent violating someone elses liberties or robbing them of their private property.

I have no problem with gay people, nor do I have any problems with evangelicals. Both groups do and say things I don’t agree with but that is their right to live their lives as they see fit. Who am i to tell them – either group – what they can and can’t do. you appear to be just another big government supporter as long as the government is doing things you support.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

You could not be more wrong if you tried. The government doesn’t decide who can or cannot marry. They do decide who they give a license to in order to recognize that marriage. There is no reason for the state to recognize homosexual marriage. For the purpose of the state, the only reason to recognize marriage is to create a suitable environment for procreation and the development of the next generation. A nuclear family is proven to be the best environment for that development.

To claim otherwise is either to be deliberately disingenuous to to be a bald faced liar.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

So you’re a bad kindly internet stalker. And no, I did not support Obama.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Huckabee does not represent the view of most socially conservative evangelicals.
But his point here is a good one, and I see the ignorance of so many folks bashing it here. Socons are not the enemy.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

They are if you’re trying to co-op an entire party. Libertarians knew they’d never rise to a national majority on their platform as written 10-15 years ago. The GOP was the lessor of two evil and the only thing in their way was morality issues.

I think they underestimate the will of social conservatives in saying we’ve just had enough. The progressives filling the viod where conservatives leave the GOP will be a net loss.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Should a gay couple who adopts a child or has one out of wedlock be allowed to marry?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Gatsu on March 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Prior to the mid 70′s and the Moral Majority movement most Evangelicals didn’t vote. They may very well return to that position.

chemman on March 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Pics at link:

“Once again the mainstream media proves itself to be nothing more than an extension of the DNC.
Major mainstream media outlets totally ignored the massive March for Marriage today in Washington DC.

It’s like it never happened…”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/media-blackout-no-coverage-on-massive-march-for-marriage-in-washington-dc/

workingclass artist on March 26, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Hot Air has also contributed to that media embargo because it doesn’t fit their agenda. But they have no problem putting post after post about people “converting” to support homosexual marriage.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I haven’t posted here since 2010 I believe, kindly internet stalker. Got too silly with all the socon nonsense and people always whining about the Bible and other assorted nonsense.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Glad you used the word kindly instead of “tolerant.” Because when you start calling the Bible nonsense then you come into every issue with a bigoted attitude that others cannot express their faith.

Tell me how that is different than what the left does?

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Then…not that you had one to begin with, but your lack of a principled conservative framework will be noted.

Regarding treating people equally, you’d probably like socons to shut up about abortion. As long as abortion is legal, all of its victims don’t get equal protection.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

We need to concentrate on making sure that the GOP wins elections, then they will work diligently on our behalf.

Hey Mac, how’s the gun control bill coming along, be sure that mandatory registration is included.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

It would be same as living under Huckabee Evangelical Law, or Akin Evangelical Law, or Palin Evangelical Law.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Minus the fact that nobody will be trying to behead you…
Or teach your children to become suicide bombers…
Or dress women in terror sacks…(not even the original Puritans dressed that restrictively, FYI)
Or many other things which a spoiled snot like you has never seen, never experienced, and is in no danger of whatsoever.

Because I guarantee if you WERE in actual danger of it, you wouldn’t be being a snivelling trolltard on a right-wing site. Because you’d be afraid of being backtraced and clobbered by the REAL danger.

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Be that as it may, you can still win an election talking sense to people. You don’t need socons to win an election. Obama’s done it twice without them.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

So you’re a bad kindly internet stalker. And no, I did not support Obama.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Aww is the little bigot trying to make her/himself out to be a victim by calling me a stalker. Remembering a poster from reading Hotair is not stalking. You are really an idiot.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

You could not be more wrong if you tried. The government doesn’t decide who can or cannot marry. They do decide who they give a license to in order to recognize that marriage. There is no reason for the state to recognize homosexual marriage. For the purpose of the state, the only reason to recognize marriage is to create a suitable environment for procreation and the development of the next generation. A nuclear family is proven to be the best environment for that development.

To claim otherwise is either to be deliberately disingenuous to to be a bald faced liar.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

That’s so right. The prime reason the government is involved in marriage is to ensure the next generation. Marriage isn’t just about spousal right, but also parental rights and obligations. We do have an interest in who’s going to take care of the children, because we can get stuck with the bill.

The evangelicals showed for Romney, the libertarians didn’t. So again the Republican elites are going to toss the base to court a fringe. So instead of defending a bedrock principle they’re going to cave. That’s a great winning strategy.

Iblis on March 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Hey Hawkdriver

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

I am very much bigoted against all types of nonsense, the Bible being just one aspect of such. If you tell me nonsense, I don’t see why there should be any burden on me to play along with it.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

They are if you’re trying to co-op an entire party. Libertarians knew they’d never rise to a national majority on their platform as written 10-15 years ago. The GOP was the lessor of two evil and the only thing in their way was morality issues.

I think they underestimate the will of social conservatives in saying we’ve just had enough. The progressives filling the viod where conservatives leave the GOP will be a net loss.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I see what you’re saying, I wouldn’t disagree.
Big government advocates who want to take over the party…they don’t like socons either.
On the flip side, I won’t bash libertarians like some folks here bash socons. At some point libertarians need to build coalitions, they hurt themselves in the end if they keep telling socons to take a flying leap.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Question to the Evangelical Statists. You have been having a ragfest for a while about RINOs McCain and Romney. Do you actually believe that if one of your fellow statists, Palin, Gingrich, Akin, Huckabee, ect. had been the nominee they would have done any better?

Do you think any of those Evangelicals would have been able to unify the GOP, including the non-Evangelical Taliban wings, gained Libertarian support, Independents, and picked off a good chunk of Democrats? Or are you a realist and understand that they wouldn’t have broken the 40% barrier in a National election?

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Iblis on March 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Should a gay couple who adopts a child or has one out of wedlock be allowed to marry?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Be that as it may, you can still win an election talking sense to people. You don’t need socons to win an election. Obama’s done it twice without them.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

No, because Obama has his own sect of social voters. Everyone is a social voter. It just depends on what is important to you. Everyone has “social” issue that they vote on. If you say you don’t, you are lying.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Not at all. Abortion is murder. You don’t have to be a socon to recognize that.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Should a gay couple who adopts a child or has one out of wedlock be allowed to marry?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

First off, a gay couple can’t have a child out of wedlock. A gay couple that adopts already has to go through the court system to naturally pair bond through that child.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

Correct. They’re not the enemy. But they are a HUGE LIABILITY!

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Actually, you hate them and advocated for them being exiled from the party.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

The little bigot was making a joke he found enjoyable. Don’t get tied up in knots about it.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM

The biggest difference between an evangelical and a liberal? The liberal wants to take your money tell you how to live while the evangelical just wants to take your money and tell you how to live.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

We’ve got tens of trillions in debt, gun rights under assault, Islamic barbarians at the gates, and an out-of-control government giving guns to drug cartels with one hand and implementing socialized medicine with the other…and you’re walking over gay marriage?

Bye.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

A long walk off a short pier, I hope, led by Huckabee himself, Santorum, Akin, Mourdock, and the rest of the Christian Taliban. i’m sure Satan himself will haul extra brimstone to their frying pans after they vote for Democrats.

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. Social Cons want Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people. How exactly does that make them “deficit hawks?” The real “deficit hawks” would be Libertarians who want Big Brother to have no say in your personal religious choices/views and don’t want Evangelicals anywhere near their money. AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

LOL…evangelicals are like liberals and socialists. They love big government as long as big powerful government tells others how to live their lives in they ways they agree with. Why don’t you simply just turn the other cheek?

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

So many anti-Christian bigots in such a short period of time. I wonder why they find it so comfortable here to express their anti-Christian views. And it’s clear they are anti-Christian because the only social conservatives that vote republican are the Christians (at least the ones they’re referencing).

You fools don’t get it. But you might just get what you deserve and the world will suffer for it.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Gonna agree with Priebus on this, there is a need for respect, and to strike a balance. I don’t want to chase the fundamentalists out of the party, but I don’t want them dictating terms for the rest of the party either.

WolvenOne on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

So by all means, dictate to US. This is why I am no longer a Republican. The party can crash and burn. I’ll stand for what’s right while you go suck off Democrats to be their friends.

tyketto on March 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

I’m starting to notice a disturbing trend here – that antireligionists want to troll more threads.

Note that they are not thoughtful atheists or agnostics, who are cool people. Instead, they display a pathology similar to racists & sexists (e.g. lfod) in that they drool & vomit any kind of stupidity they can in the name of bashing religion.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Hey Hawkdriver

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Hey young lady. How have you been?

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

And where, exactly, do they go, Mike?

JohnGalt23 on March 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Listen to the luciferians at your own peril. They are substituting a lie for truth.

tom daschle concerned on March 26, 2013 at 1:27 PM

So now if we recognize statism driven by religion, we’re “luciferians”, which I assume to be some sort of “devil’s children”?

Kinda reminds me of how I’m an “extremist” for questioning statism driven by leftist ideology.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Question to the Evangelical Statists. You have been having a ragfest for a while about RINOs McCain and Romney. Do you actually believe that if one of your fellow statists, Palin, Gingrich, Akin, Huckabee, ect. had been the nominee they would have done any better?

Do you think any of those Evangelicals would have been able to unify the GOP, including the non-Evangelical Taliban wings, gained Libertarian support, Independents, and picked off a good chunk of Democrats? Or are you a realist and understand that they wouldn’t have broken the 40% barrier in a National election?

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

First off, go and actually learn the difference between Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, and Akin. Those are four very DIFFERENT politicians with four very different ideas how to govern. The fact that you put them in the same category shows you know nothing about them. When you can actually tell me the difference in their politics; then I will answer your question.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Of course they can have children. Either through natural or artificial insemination. As for “naturally pair bonding” (whatever the hell that means), by your logic the child’s welfare is a state interest and the couple should therefore be allowed to marry. Or does the state only have in interest in the children of heterosexual couples?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

The biggest difference between an evangelical and a liberal? The liberal wants to take your money tell you how to live while the evangelical just wants to take your money and tell you how to live.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

We’ve got tens of trillions in debt, gun rights under assault, Islamic barbarians at the gates, and an out-of-control government giving guns to drug cartels with one hand and implementing socialized medicine with the other…and you’re walking over gay marriage?

Bye.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

A long walk off a short pier, I hope, led by Huckabee himself, Santorum, Akin, Mourdock, and the rest of the Christian Taliban. i’m sure Satan himself will haul extra brimstone to their frying pans after they vote for Democrats.

Archivarix on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. Social Cons want Big Brother to force their personal religious views onto tens of millions of innocent people. How exactly does that make them “deficit hawks?” The real “deficit hawks” would be Libertarians who want Big Brother to have no say in your personal religious choices/views and don’t want Evangelicals anywhere near their money. AND they want government out of marriage, totally that includes straight and gay marriage. Something Evangelical Statists haven’t supported.

TEPJoePa on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

LOL…evangelicals are like liberals and socialists. They love big government as long as big powerful government tells others how to live their lives in they ways they agree with. Why don’t you simply just turn the other cheek?

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

So many anti-Christian bigots in such a short period of time. I wonder why they find it so comfortable here to express their anti-Christian views. And it’s clear they are anti-Christian because the only social conservatives that vote republican are the Christians (at least the ones they’re referencing).

You fools don’t get it. But you might just get what you deserve and the world will suffer for it.

fixed formatting error*

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I’m starting to notice a disturbing trend here – that antireligionists want to troll more threads.

Note that they are not thoughtful atheists or agnostics, who are cool people. Instead, they display a pathology similar to racists & sexists (e.g. lfod) in that they drool & vomit any kind of stupidity they can in the name of bashing religion.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Not true.. I am an agnostic socon. :)

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Yes – because no one gay is associated with the church.
jake-the-goose on March 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Certainly not my church. your milage may vary.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Not at all. Abortion is murder. You don’t have to be a socon to recognize that.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

At least we agree on that.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I hate Huck. This idiot will walk over the evils of gay marriage but doesn’t see a problem with future generations being enslaved by debt. Then again evangelicals like Huckabee don’t have a problem with big intrusive government as long as it’s doing what they think is right. So lets just burn the big tent to the ground we’ll all be better off if Huck takes his army of Akins and goes home.

bannor on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Plus the issue is not really socons. The issue is the GOP throwing everything they supposedly stand for out the window the minute it becomes truly inconvenient.

MelonCollie on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

We have a winner.

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Actually, you hate them and advocated for them being exiled from the party.

hawkdriver on March 26, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Oh have I? Please, show me where I advocated such a thing or admit that you’re just trying to smear me to avoid the point I raised.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM

The reality is that the GOP has played social conservatives (that Nature’s God baggage)exactly as the left has played the black community for votes. They could care about moral issues, family values, God, and I suspect, much of the constitution. They will sell their rotted souls for power. Principle to them,is but a flawed obstacle in their quest for untethered power.

McCain isn’t a maverick but the default spokesman who represents the true heart of the party.

Karl Rove is just their hired deflector, seperte technically just so they don’t get blamed for his doing what they really want.

At one point an inarguable pattern emerges and it became obvious a long while back.

I’m third party–even if I’m the only one.

Spare me the lectures, please, I’ve seen and heard ever one of them fail time after time.

Don L on March 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Not true.. I am an agnostic socon. :)

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Yeah, I didn’t have you in mind.
I’m thinking of Armin, ZachV, and a few others. Looks like Aquateen qualifies as well. :)

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Of course they can have children. Either through natural or artificial insemination. As for “naturally pair bonding” (whatever the hell that means), by your logic the child’s welfare is a state interest and the couple should therefore be allowed to marry. Or does the state only have in interest in the children of heterosexual couples?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Parents “naturally” pairbond through children. Biologcial parents do it legally because they are both legally beholden to that child. The state gets involved because if they didn’t heterosexual couples could go off with out the state. It is the state’s way of keeping an eye on the next generation of taxpayers.

Gay couples cannot do this with children. They have to go through the state anyways for contract. The “donor” must have their rights taken away in order for a the couple to adopt the child. The state doesn’t need marriage to keep track of the gay couple, because they already have the adoption process to do this.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

HEY! I’m an anti-nonsense bigot, my anti-Christian bigotry is simply a very small part of my much larger bigotedness. My bigotry is legion, it contains multitudes.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

YOu think based on the state of the parties that there is really much of a choice between them?

They both spend money like water, they both support amnesty, they both are turning socially liberal, and they voted for tax increases, they are both support gun control..

The only difference these days: One party gives you free stuff..

Hmm free stuff or no free stuff?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

My response again to this post from the other thread:

EXACTLY! I’ve already disembarked from the GOP train because I’m not heading in the direction they are.

KickandSwimMom on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Where do they walk to?

Oil Can on March 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Pretty much, they are in the same boat the unions are in on the left.

Some may sit on their hands, but most will stay right where they are.

Gatsu on March 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Didn’t President Romney ask that same question last election?

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

So many anti-Christian bigots

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I didn’t say a word about Christianity, you hypersensitive liar. I’m talking about a political issue. I’ve taken enough s**t from snotty atheists spitting at me for suggesting that their claim that there is no god is just another religious belief, as well as defending Christianity as a more noble religion than Islam, to let knee-jerk insecure pseudo-Christians peg me as anti-Christian. Faith is not determined by a stupid, insignificant political issue that shouldn’t even be on our radar with all the other crap going on.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM

I’ve trolled you somehow? Does disagreement = trolling at the High Church of Christian Goodness and Correctness Hot Air?

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Oh and unless you know some technological advance that I don’t. A gay couple cannot have an out of wedlock child.

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I hate Huck. This idiot will walk over the evils of gay marriage but doesn’t see a problem with future generations being enslaved by debt. Then again evangelicals like Huckabee don’t have a problem with big intrusive government as long as it’s doing what they think is right. So lets just burn the big tent to the ground we’ll all be better off if Huck takes his army of Akins and goes home.

bannor on March 26, 2013 at 1:49 PM

So, if the GOP and everyone accepts SSM the debt, gun grabbing, ME, unemployment will all suddenly magically disappear?

No, it’s just another erosion of what the GOP **USED** to be before they decided they have to (unsuccessfully) pander to every special interest group.

This appears to be Huck’s line in the sand. He’s allowed to choose what that is as we all are.

For instance, mine is losing with another squishy RINO for a second time. There will not be a third with my support. Does this mean I support big government? No. It means I’ve had enough and if I’m going to lose I’m going to lose with my dignity and principles intact.

kim roy on March 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Then walk. All that matters now are fiscal issues. This continual angst over abortion and gay whatever is just wasted energy. Fix the fiscal house and the rest tends to fall into place.

Borgcube on March 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

I don’t really see the GOP doing much positive about any of those things. Sure a couple of specific congressmen are doing their part and trying to fill the void, but as a whole, not so much.

besser tot als rot on March 26, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Agreed, but then why is the answer to focus on non-issues that we seem to be one of the few countries in the world with the luxury of debating?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Don L on March 26, 2013 at 1:50 PM

Enough of us get together and it becomes a real party.

I’m tired of being sold out too, the silent majority going underground is where I find myself today.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Doing well HD

Busy busy but good

How’s NC?

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Doesn’t anyone understand that they can oppose gay marriage for themselves but realize that they – via the government – can’t/shouldn’t put the gun to individuals heads and tell them what they can and shouldn’t do. I don’t support a lot of things but believe that the government roll in our lives should be drastically reduced at all levels.

If these so called “evangelicals” actually believed in god then they would accept the notion that homosexuals will go to “hell”, and should then “turn the other cheek”.

As far as the question of “where do they walk to” well the answer is simple, they just don’t walk to the polls.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Not smart enough to catch the irony?

I’ll help you out. The people using the government to enforce their opinions are the same sex marriage crowd. Therefore, if you actually believed in more liberty, you would be calling for the government to stay out of redefining marriage.

Of course, I did say IF.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Gay couples can have children and can and should legally be able secure the same rights of parents, just as heterosexual couples may. The state’s interest in the nuclear family is identical whether the parents are of the same sex or not.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

This would be the best thing that could possibly happen to the GOP, though I strongly suspect that Huckabee and most every other social “conservative” who makes this claim is just bluffing anyway.

What are they going to do? Make a third party? I say go for it, and good luck with that.

Armin Tamzarian on March 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:53 PM

You didn’t troll me personally, but you troll this thread when you call Christians nonsensical on every other post, including your last one. Lame & boring.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Enough of us get together and it becomes a real party.

I’m tired of being sold out too, the silent majority going underground is where I find myself today.

Bishop on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I say we all jump the border and take over Mexico. The weather is nicer there anyway. And we have the guns for it. :)

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

So many anti-Christian bigots in such a short period of time. I wonder why they find it so comfortable here to express their anti-Christian views. And it’s clear they are anti-Christian because the only social conservatives that vote republican are the Christians (at least the ones they’re referencing).

You fools don’t get it. But you might just get what you deserve and the world will suffer for it.

fixed formatting error*

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Another example of how you are like a liberal, throwing out some ridiculousness “bigot” card. You see, I am a Christian. I respect people, their beliefs and try not to judge them – that’s not my job – because I’m not god. When I see things I don’t like, I turn the other cheek because I am not without sin.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Where’s KJ?

Where’s Canopfor?

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Actually Madcon, the GOP has been complicit in all of that. Not only that but they have helped and continue to help.. SSM is kind of just the nail in the coffin for a lot of us. How many times are we supposed to compromise with out own party? Gun control, amnesty and SSM marriage all in one week, C’mon.. too far..

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Gun control and amnesty both have tangible, demonstrable historical impacts that can be cited as part of the debate. Gay marriage doesn’t. I’m not saying that means we can’t oppose it…but I am saying gay marriage is a non-issue compared to the rest. It’s like worrying about your car’s window trim while the engine is on fire.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

I am very much bigoted against all types of nonsense, the Bible being just one aspect of such. If you tell me nonsense, I don’t see why there should be any burden on me to play along with it.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Lotsa luck winning elections if you want to demean, attack, and insult others. If you hadn’t noticed there are not a whole lot of broad-minded conservative moderates who know how to win elections 2008 and 2012 proved that the future of the GOP and conservatism does not flow through the ideology of appeasers like McCain and Romney.

Happy Nomad on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Faith is not determined by a stupid, insignificant political issue that shouldn’t even be on our radar with all the other crap going on.
MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Gay marriage is more a religious issue to Christians than a political issue but in today’s reprobate world the two are, unfortunately, very much intertwined.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

GOP spends too much time and money on focus groups that never get out of DC with their polling. There are a lot of us 35 and younger crowd out here who absolutely despise both parties. We despise the Democrats because they are a bunch of lying, cheating bastuds who are robbing us blind. Republicans are despised because they don’t stick to their guns on anything. They are weak! John Boehner makes us want to puke. Republicans still don’t get that politics to us is win or lose, not go along to get along. We don’t care about people playing nice, we want to see that you are trying to win! Think people would watch sports if the two teams were cooperating with each other? Same principle. Bunch of weak kneed sisters.

The Spear on March 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Where’s KJ?

Where’s Canopfor?

cmsinaz on March 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Those guys rock.

22044 on March 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Here’s a conspiracy theory for you: Democrats came up with the gay marriage issue to fracture the conservative movement.

Mission successful.

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Gay marriage is more a religious issue to Christians than a political issue but in today’s reprobate world the two are, unfortunately, very much intertwined.

tommyboy on March 26, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Unless churches, as opposed to government, are talking about redefining marriage, how is it a religious issue?

MadisonConservative on March 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM

I’ll help you out. The people using the government to enforce their opinions are the same sex marriage crowd. Therefore, if you actually believed in more liberty, you would be calling for the government to stay out of redefining marriage.

Of course, I did say IF.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

LOL…ya right right my friend, oh and I guess with you’re thinking, war is peace and freedom is slavery. Like I said before, the government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage, defining marriage or restricting marriage as long as the individuals are adults. I also believe that the government shouldn’t force private companies/individuals to accept various marriages.

MoreLiberty on March 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Dear Evangelicals:

You apparently were important in the late eighties and mid-ninties. You helped W. in 2004 (thanks for that, natch!).

No more. There are less and less of you. You are the small interest group. We are better off without you. Not only the GOP, but America. Go live your quite (and nice!) lives off in your home town. Don’t worry about us, we’ll be fine.

Sincerely,
A person who would like a Republican President instead of Hillary ******* Clinton.

Aquateen Hungerforce on March 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense. Gay couples can have children and can and should legally be able secure the same rights of parents, just as heterosexual couples may. The state’s interest in the nuclear family is identical whether the parents are of the same sex or not.

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Licensing is reserved for the state’s best interest i.e. the best companies etc. Marriage licensing should be restricted to what is in the child’s best interest which is two different gender parents. Obviously there is variations like single parenthood etc., but the state doesn’t license that because it is not the child’s best interest. That’s my take on it. That’s the way I vote on it- Period. You can disagree, but as a voter that is my right.

Answer me this: We know that two parents are better than one. Now the prevailing idea is that it doesn’t matter what gender i.e., moms and dads are disposable. So if gender doesn’t matter and only the number matters. Two is better than one- doesn’t logic than dictate that three would be better than two. Doesn’t this then make a case for polyamory?

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM

I say we all jump the border and take over Mexico. The weather is nicer there anyway. And we have the guns for it. :)

melle1228 on March 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I’d be satisfied with Baja California. Make Cabo San Lucas our capital. The border would be easy to defend; but the coastal defense would be a bit$h.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Should a gay couple who adopts a child or has one out of wedlock be allowed to marry?

MJBrutus on March 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

No. Once again, the reason for any government interest in marriage is because a man and a woman are the ONLY union that can create life and it’s in the government’s interest to encourage that stable union to raise the life once created.

njrob on March 26, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 10