Flashback: Remember when Democrats swore they opposed same-sex marriage?

posted at 10:41 am on March 28, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Re-mem-mem, re-mem-e-mem-berrrrr … Dave Weigel takes us down Memory Lane with this video clip from a time long past when Democrats insisted that they opposed same-sex marriage, and Republicans were just big ol’ worry warts for attempting to amend the US Constitution to prevent judicial activism on its behalf. When did this take place? Was it the 1950s, with Adlai Stevenson insisting that their party would hold the line? The 1960s, with Henry “Scoop” Jackson in the lead? The 1970s and Sam Nunn?

Actually, it was just nine years ago, with now-”evolved” Hillary Clinton lecturing Republicans on just how much she’d suffered for defending traditional marriage:

Above, you’ll find a short video composed of the floor speeches some top Democrats made about SSM. At the time, Republicans wanted to block gay marriage in Massachusetts by amending the constitution with an official marriage definition. Democrats argued against that, but they didn’t argue in favor of gay marriage. They argued that DOMA made such an amendment unneccessary. They assured people like Rick Santorum that the slippery slope case for gay marriage was bogus.

The new Democratic advocates for SSM fall into two camps. The first consists of people who always liked the idea of this but worried about losing national elections. In his memoir, Democratic consultant Bob Shrum remembers John Kerry fretting that the Massachusetts Supreme Court had forced Democrats to talk about gay marriage before they were ready to. “Why couldn’t they just wait a year?” he asked Shrum, mournfully. The second camp consists of people who really do oppose the idea of gay people getting married. Republicans argued that this second camp was tiny, and that liberals were hiding behind it. They were right!

Of all the sanctimony and fauxffense expressed in this short video, this run-on statement from Hillary has to be the crowning moment.  After alluding to her public humiliation over the serial adultery of her husband, Hillary turns around and scolds Republicans for daring to suggest that she doesn’t take the traditional definition of marriage seriously:

“So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.”

Now, one can believe in traditional marriage and also believe that it should be a state-level issue, which was the position taken by Harry Reid in 2004 — in large part by relying on DOMA, which he now opposes.  Even some conservatives at the time questioned the wisdom of pushing a constitutional amendment on this issue, and it had no chance of passing at that time.  But the scoffing at Republican concerns over slippery slopes and the real commitment of Democrats to traditional marriage is certainly instructive to see once again at this point in time, less than a decade after having been assured that they couldn’t possibly support same-sex marriage.

These Democrats obviously didn’t put that much stock in the sanctity of marriage, but they had plenty of sanctimony to offer.


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

And people didn’t want to vote for Mitt Romney because he changed his mind on issues over time.

You guys voted for all this.

Neo on March 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM

They argued that DOMA made such an amendment unneccessary. They assured people like Rick Santorum that the slippery slope case for gay marriage was bogus.

Let this be a lesson for the GOP when the Dems promise border enforcement for amnesty in the upcoming immigration reform clusterfark.

rcpjr on March 28, 2013 at 10:46 AM

meh, people evolve.

nonpartisan on March 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

And people didn’t want to vote for Mitt Romney because he changed his mind on issues over time.

You guys voted for all this.

Neo on March 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Conservative voters actually turned out in greater numbers in 2012 than in 2008. And they upped the share of the vote they awarded to the GOP candidate. The problem was that “moderate” voters didn’t show up. And the ones who did barely changed the breakdown of their vote.

Mitt’s problem wasn’t conservatives staying home. It was his utter failure to make any significant inroads into the larger electorate.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I don’t mind people “evolving” on the issue, although I don’t buy for a second that that’s what happened with 90% of these politicians. What offends me to no end is that suddenly if you oppose same sex marriage, you’re a bigot or a homophobe who’s denying basic civil rights.

I personally have no problem with gay marriage(provided it’s passed by the people at the state level and not forced upon us by judges), but I would never accuse someone who’s hesitant to redefine marriage as something other than the union of a man and a woman after thousands of years as simply hating on gay people.

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Dems are ruled by current public opinion, not principles.

LincolntheHun on March 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM

It takes a Village Idiot.

KS Rex on March 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM

meh.

If your principles change, they never were principles

socalcon on March 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM

She’ll be a fine president. I like how she is willing to admit she made a mistake. I wonder how her 12 step thing is going.

a capella on March 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How many of these principled people will be asked by the MSM how and why they changed their minds on this issue? I expect it will be approximately the same number as were asked how come they voted to invade Iraq and then later claimed they really didn’t… in other words, zero.

The only real mystery here: by what contrivance will they blame their previous stance against gay marriage on Bush?

drunyan8315 on March 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM

meh, people evolve Democrats lie.

nonpartisan on March 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Fixed

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM

And people didn’t want to vote for Mitt Romney because he changed his mind on issues over time.

You guys voted for all this.

Neo on March 28, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I can’t see much difference had there been a President Romney. SCOTUS would still be hearing the cases, while the politicians who ‘evolved’ would still have done so. If anything, more Democrats would be pronouncing themselves in favor to score political points, with Mitt the personalized focal point needing to be opposed.

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM

It takes a Village Idiot.

KS Rex on March 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM

“What difference does it make…”

workingclass artist on March 28, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Incrementalism is the liberal weapon of choice.

antipc on March 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM

meh, people evolve.

nonpartisan on March 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Meh, people lie…or, in the case of Barack Obama, REVOLVE

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

- Barack Obama, 1996

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Remember when Democrats swore they weren’t socialists?

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Sanctity vs sanctimony

Sanctimonious V righteous indignation

Speakup on March 28, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Remember this, if a liberals lips are moving then it’s a lie.

Tater Salad on March 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM

What moral compass? Hah!

jake49 on March 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM

You just got to love C-SPAN! Hey Ed, can you find some video of Hillary clinging to her Bible and Guns too???

Rovin on March 28, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Remember when Democrats swore they weren’t socialists?

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Remember when Democrats were liberals and not “progressives?”

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM

meh, people evolve Democrats lie.

nonprincipled on March 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Fixed

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Heh, fixed some more!

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Look, every liberal voter in the country knows (not ‘thinks,’ knows) that every liberal politician will lie through their teeth to get elected, and then move over.

They all just take it as an article of faith that no liberal can ever be elected by being honest.

That’s how we get to this place over and over again. (‘This place,’ of course, being ‘it’ll never happen until it does, then it’s the arc of history.’)

Washington Nearsider on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Wait a second. Did Harry “the Searchlight Molester” Reid just argue for State’s Rights?

What sort of bizzaro world are we in?

LoganSix on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Liberals don’t “evolve”. They are like gelatinous blobs that change and reform according to the stimuli they are receiving. Whatever the flow of public opinion and political expediency is, they mold to it. They never change positions, they just spout whatever position sounds best on the MSM that week.

PastorJon on March 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Let this be a lesson for the GOP when the Dems promise border enforcement for amnesty in the upcoming immigration reform clusterfark.

Didn’t learn a thing after the ’86 amnesty, and every dem promise broken before and since. so I don’t expect the GOP to learn anything about the value of dem promises now or evermore.

So, either they are naive boobs, conspiring with the dems all along, or both. It should be the lesson of GOP voters not to trust the word of suddenly conservative RINO candidates during election season.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Flashback: Remember when Democrats swore they opposed same-sex marriage?

Remember when Republicans did?

Kataklysmic on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Liberals don’t “evolve”. They are like gelatinous blobs that change and reform according to the stimuli they are receiving. Whatever the flow of public opinion and political expediency is, they mold to it. They never change positions, they just spout whatever position sounds best on the MSM that week.

PastorJon on March 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Kind of like the Darwinian theory of evolution – no macroevolution, just slight changes within a species that reverse.

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

The real problem?

W never meant a word of it.

He was never going to amend for marriage.

Just another Rove agitate tactic.

budfox on March 28, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Conservatives should take advantage of the “do-what-feels -right” mantra of the left and discriminate against the gay community. I don’t think they are covered in any way as a protected class, therefore I would not hire them. Why should I have to pay gay spousal benefits if it offends my religious beliefs?

Tater Salad on March 28, 2013 at 11:07 AM

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Don’t say the “E” word. Good Lt. and libfree will show up…and there goes the thread. :)

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Remember when democrats excoriated the GOP for resorting to God, guns and gays to stir up their base? They wanted to talk about their core issues of education (they own it and it sucks), the economy (they own it and it sucks), creating jobs for the middle class (they are destroying them by the tens of thousands) and healthcare (they own it and they broke it).

Now they won’t talk about anything but God, guns and gays. Funny how that works isn’t it? Let’s get back on message. Whenever a liberal wants to talk about anything turn it back to the economy, education, jobs and healthcare. You will find peace at once.

DanMan on March 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Didn’t learn a thing after the ’86 amnesty, and every dem promise broken before and since. so I don’t expect the GOP to learn anything about the value of dem promises now or evermore.

So, either they are naive boobs, conspiring with the dems all along, or both. It should be the lesson of GOP voters not to trust the word of suddenly conservative RINO candidates during election season.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

It’s also humorous that rinos think they’ll peel young voters away from the dems if they cave on SSM. Dick Cheney came out for gay marriage 8 years ago and he’s still regarded as an evil curmudgeon somewhere between Hitler and Satan on the bad guy scale.

Kataklysmic on March 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Liberals don’t “evolve”. They are like gelatinous blobs that change and reform according to the stimuli they are receiving. Whatever the flow of public opinion and political expediency is, they mold to it. They never change positions, they just spout whatever position sounds best on the MSM that week.

PastorJon on March 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM

I couldn’t agree more.

Democrats are nothing more than a large group of Zelig’s.

JetBoy on March 28, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Yeah, I like how Reid lists all the state that have amended their constitutions to ban same sex marriage. Every state where the people voted to uphold traditional marriage it passed. Then it was struck down by some judge or a panel of judges.

And then I read today transcripts from SCOTUS testimony where Roberts asks about this great “sea change” towards supporting same sex marriage.

No.. there has been no sea change. There has simply been judges who have struck down the overwhelming will of the people.

Everything is a lie built on a myth.

Activist judges and courts struck down the tidal wave that stood up to ban homosexual marriage. Not a “sea change” but a flood wave rolled across this nation defending traditional marriage and the courts stopped it. And now the people are demoralized just like they are demoralized about everything else.

We will be told repeatedly about the “sea change” in our culture.
If there has been such a sea change.. then why are we having to decide this on the courts? Why not put it to a national vote and let the people deiced.

Oh wait… they already did.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I need spell check imprinted on my brain.

JellyToast on March 28, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Don’t say the “E” word. Good Lt. and libfree will show up…and there goes the thread. :)

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Heh – my first comment on Hot Gas ever about Darwinian evolution (it might be my last one too)…and I thought of Good Lt!

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 11:15 AM

meh, people evolve.

nonpartisan on March 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

.
what you mean is SOME people are ALLOWED to EVOLVE-
While OTHERS AREN’T.

I’ve evolved from thinking SSM is no big deal to the reality that it is being rammed through mainly for the purpose of religious and natural family dissolution – with the intent on acheiving more mainstream acceptance or normalcy. – NOT Equality.

Anyone who has a non-married family member who has cohabitated in a common law arrangement for 20+ years and still chooses not to get married- understands that Marriage in this day and age is TOTALLY OPTIONAL and no longer required to fit a social norm anymore of acceptance.

In fact I would say more couples are unmarried than married anymore. Certainly almost half the kids born today are born to unmarried couples. So the gay folk are trying to revive a minority shifting trend from an un-married world ?
They’re dishonest about this marriage thing- and are using it for acceptance of their deviant lifestyle.

FlaMurph on March 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Hillary’s “her-story” has been one of re-invention to suit the political winds. What is appalling about her behavior is that she blusters outrage whenever questioned.

onlineanalyst on March 28, 2013 at 11:20 AM

meh, Democrats believe one thing one year, then suddenly do a 180 solely for political gain.

partisan on March 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Edited for reality.

You’re right, though. In 1998, Bill Clinton’s Justice Dept. formally charged bin Laden with being in cahoots with Iraq, and all of the leading Democrats that year also said Saddam had WMDs.

But they all “evolved” from that position solely to try and win the 2004 election, and suddenly bin Laden’s connection with Iraq never existed, and neither did those same WMDs they claimed existed.

F-

Del Dolemonte on March 28, 2013 at 11:22 AM

When I see headlines that proclaim Hillary as an admired woman, I just smh.

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 11:22 AM

PastorJon on March 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM

In chemistry they would be called fluids. They take the shape of whatever container they are put in. The one difference is that fluids in general have a purpose dems not so much other that to steal, kill and destroy.

chemman on March 28, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Democrats “evolve” so much that they head to the
Deep South, and say things like

“I’m no waaays taaaard”

ToddPA on March 28, 2013 at 11:24 AM

I support those who say what they fundamentally believe -and trust it gets them elected, not those who say what they merely believe will get them elected.

profitsbeard on March 28, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Conservatives should take advantage of the “do-what-feels -right” mantra of the left and discriminate against the gay community. I don’t think they are covered in any way as a protected class, therefore I would not hire them. Why should I have to pay gay spousal benefits if it offends my religious beliefs?

Tater Salad on March 28, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Nah, just put a sexual orientation box on government documents…starting with birth certificates. Straight, gay, bi, poly etc. We need to know when the discrimination starts.

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 11:27 AM

We should be honest that the Democrats were grappling with a difficult from their perspective in 2004. They did believe that putting anti-gay marriage amendment into the Constitution would be a bigoted stain on the Constitution. I would guess some knew in their minds that they supported gay marriage, and just wanted to make politically prudent arguments. From their own perspective, they made what we all have to consider the morally right decision to make their arguments as they did, since protecting others from bigotry trumps honesty in arguments. I would also guess that some were uncertain what to do think marriage, but didn’t want what they thought was a bigoted amendment. They also can’t be blamed for not making a rambling political speech detailing their uncertainties and doubts, which no one would have wanted to hear anyway.

thuja on March 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Cheney came out for gay marriage 8 years ago and he’s still regarded as an evil curmudgeon somewhere between Hitler and Satan on the bad guy scale.

Kataklysmic on March 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM

That puts him squarely between GW Bush and the rat-eared devil.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Next up, Republican version

Foxhound on March 28, 2013 at 11:33 AM

You do realize that we’re about 12 months from a similar reel being used against GOP senators….

libfreeordie on March 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Democrats “evolve” so much that they head to the
Deep South, and say things like

“I’m no waaays taaaard”

ToddPA on March 28, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Or head to Ohio and say stuff like “Can I get me a huntin’ license heyah?”

Or become President and, despite having graduated from both Columbia and Harvard Law, drop the g in words when speaking to crowds (talking becomes talkin’, for example).

Or spend years in the Senate you reportedly break down in tears when someone finally explains to you that “Jewish Lobby” is a perjorative.

Or go on five Sunday talk shows and lie your ass off about the role a YouTube video had in middle east rioting.

Face it, liberals don’t evolve so much as the mold themselves to fit their current environment. There is no underlying principle beyond doing whatever it takes to get re-elected.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I don’t think they are covered in any way as a protected class, therefore I would not hire them. Why should I have to pay gay spousal benefits if it offends my religious beliefs?

If it means eradicating traditional Christian beliefs, and punishing people for denying others of their civil rights in practicing outdated religious judgemental beliefs, while also garnering more votes for leftists, you can bet you’ll be forced to pay gay spousal benefits especially since it offends your religious beliefs. However if you are a muslim, you will be exempt, so never mind.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 11:41 AM

libfreeordie on March 28, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Well so much for the hope of a troll-free discussion.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM

I hate politicians. I love how now no one is even talking about protecting religious objectors to this. Christians, Muslims, and orthodox Jews are going to get crushed by this. They are not going to change their views on this. The average person doesn’t understand this, and the lib politician is counting on this. They want to drive the church out of the public square. They want to demonize tradition, because it’ll make it that much easier to trash the constitution when the time comes. We’re in trouble. Hell we’ve been in trouble for a long time.
The left is winning the propaganda war. The average guy thinks gay marriage is two hot chicks in bikinis and veils, and fantasizes that they’ll let him join in. The left will not allow any negative image of gays out there. You’ll never see what goes on at “Gay pride” events. You’ll never see the effects of gay sex on the body, and the damage done is quite extensive.
Maybe now that Ed’s back from Rome, he can think about taking his cameras to gay pride events and expose them. We’ve seen how the powerful image of a fetus grasping a doctor’s finger has helped shift the pro-life argument. We need that kind of image to expose the gay lifestyle. We’re losing, but we can stem the tide.

Iblis on March 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Why doesn’t HA have any threads on same-sex marriage? lol!

bw222 on March 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Flashback: Remember when Democrats swore they opposed same-sex marriage?

Remember when Republicans did?

Kataklysmic on March 28, 2013 at 11:06 AM

I bet that there are a lot of elected Republicans – even conservative Republicans – that either support SSM or are agnostic about it and have been so for a while. Of course, there are many here that will tell you that a “gay conservative” or a “conservative that supports SSM” is a unicorn and/or oxymoron right before calling you a “moron” or worse.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Why doesn’t HA have any threads on same-sex marriage? lol!

bw222 on March 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Because same-sex marriage is so uncool these days.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 11:55 AM

So, as a Libertarian, you don’t believe in the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism? Do you believe that one should be called a “Conservative”, if the only Conservative belief one has is “fiscal restraint”?

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I wish someone would have the guts to call out all these liberal flip-floppers for their blatant kowtowing to their wealthy gay Hollywood donors and desperate wedge-issue messaging to young voters.

This is the most cynical political development of my adult life (I was only a kid when the democrats all flip-flopped on civil rights). It makes me sick that they are getting away with this sanctimonius BS about “evolving” views and just knowing more gay people and suddenly finding their consciences. If this didn’t mean money and votes for them they would not care about “marriage equality” at all.

rockmom on March 28, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Why in the world is anybody even slightly surprised that these charlatan dirtbags constantly lie?

rplat on March 28, 2013 at 12:12 PM

America-Home of the free phone, land of the deprave.

Flange on March 28, 2013 at 12:13 PM

You know its sad how Republicans won’t argue that freedom requires responsibility. I know its not popular, but its honest. If someone would say, “Look you want to play Adam & Steve, fine. But you can’t make religious accept it, demonize or criminalize them for it.” And 90% of people will be happy. I’m totally disgusted by the thought of the gay sex act, but as long as no one is going to force me to pay for it, participate in it, force my children into it, or storm into my Church and piss on the Eucharist (again) I don’t care what they do. They’ll have to answer to God.
But we’re not even having that conversation. Because the libs don’t want it. They want total control over everything, and they offer the illusory freedom of sexual license to say they’re for freedom. We need to fight back. We need to expose the gay lifestyle, and all of its health costs (’cause if you think soda is bad, check out Gay Bowel Syndrome).

Iblis on March 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM

You might notice that neither of these senators actually says anything that contradicts their position today that SSM should be legal. They simply state that they believe in the institution of marriage, recognize the “bedrock principle” that marriage has been between man and woman for thousands of years, and understand its primary purpose is for rearing children, etc. Anyone listening then should have known that is polito-speak for, “When the time is right, I can say I support SSM and not contradict myself.”

kclibby on March 28, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Video of donks doing what donks do best, what they do because it’s hard-wired into their DNA, what they do because they can’t help themselves: lying their asses off.

Next…

Spurius Ligustinus on March 28, 2013 at 12:26 PM

So, as a Libertarian, you don’t believe in the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism? Do you believe that one should be called a “Conservative”, if the only Conservative belief one has is “fiscal restraint”?

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I am not a “Libertarian.” I am a “libertarian.” I consider there to be a considerable difference. One is a party; the other is a philosophy. While there was/is much to admire about Ronald Reagan, he is not my favourite President. Calvin Coolidge is.

I take the position that FA Hayek did on Conservatism. “Why I Am Not A Conservative”

I oppose the selective embrace of Big Government and use of its power to enforce or endorse. You see, like most of the Founding Fathers, I look at government as a necessary evil. I believe that government should have the very least intrusive role in the lives of individuals, business, and society, as a whole, as is possible without creating anarchy. Unlike politicians like Rick Santorum, who believe that they can use government to advance the tenets of their faith (read his book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, Preface, p. IX – he talks about using government to help the poor based on the Catholic tenet of charity, but GOVERNMENT IS NOT CHARITY), I believe that government’s role is and should be severely limited, as enumerated in the Constitution. I do not, as Santorum does, buy into the notion of “general welfare” being something other than what the Founders intended it to be, which was anything but welfare as it is known today.

On the left, they say, “Hey, look, we aren’t taking away your Second Amendment rights. You can’t have this A gun, but you can have this B gun. So, how can you say we have infringed upon or limited any right of yours?’

Some on the right say, “Hey, look, we aren’t prohibiting homosexuals from getting married. XY can’t marry XY, but XY can marry XX. So, how can you say we have prohibited XY from getting married?”

Before you say it, yes, I know that marriage is a Tenth Amendment issue(Baker v Nelson) – although it can be argued that it is also a Ninth and Fourteenth issue, too – and the right to bear arms is, specifically, guaranteed in the Second Amendment, my point is that each side doesn’t mind limiting the rights of others when it feels like it.

Now, despite what many here believe, I am not a fervent, radical, militant proponent of SSM. If it were the only issue on the ballot, I can’t honestly say that I would be motivated enough to go to the poll. I am not much of a cultural warrior although I am a radical when it comes to constitutional law. If there was a proposed amendment mandating that churches be required to perform SSM or employers provide abortifacients or a repeal of the 2nd amendment, I’d be the first in line to cast a vote. I do, honestly, believe that SSM is inevitable, as does Justice Scalia, and I don’t think the world will end.

I will say this and I sincerely mean it: I LOATHE with every fibre of my being the bigots on the left that beat up people of faith for their sincerely-held beliefs. At the same time, I cringe when I read some of the posts here with “conservatives” calling homosexuals, especially conservative homosexuals, who work with them on so many causes, “mental or biological defects” or “deviants” or “Marxists” or whatever. Even if you believe it and even if it is true, would you tell Sarah Palin that her son, Trig, is a “mental or biological defect”? Can you, good people, not see how hurtful that it is to a gay man or woman to be called “defective”? If all people are “God’s children,” does God want you to call His children “defects”? Must some of you lower yourselves to the Dan Savage gutter? It does nothing to advance your cause to become hateful – I am using “your” generically, kj – and only repels those that are relatively ambivalent.

When I was a child, my lapsed, Anglican mum and agnostic, Jewish father used to send me to Sunday School on occasion. I remember being struck between the angry, hateful, vengeful god of the OT and the warm, inviting, kind, gentle, and teaching Jesus of the NT. Don’t be the god of the OT.

I know, I know. I’m an atheist or, I should say, I’ve never had that spiritual epiphany or connection that you have so I will be told that I have no right to speak on the subject and am only using religion as a cudgel to beat the religious. I promise you. This is most untrue. Do with my suggestions what you will. It is only my opinion and you know what they say about opinions…

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 1:12 PM

About Conservatives “embracing big Government”…

Man is not free unless government is limited.

– Ronald Reagan

I am sorry you had a bad experience in church. People are flawed.

Reagan warned us,

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

If you wish to know more about Christ, may I suggest reading the Book of John, in the NT.

I believe thatif socially/culturally, a person beleves as the Liberals do then, they cannot call themselves “Conservative”. It ill conected, as Reagan said,like a 3-legged stool.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM

You know that was my big problem with Santorum too. He thought you could use the Ring of Power for good. I understand where he’s coming from. Many of the issues we’re facing with in out of control government stem from people making poor moral choices. Promiscuity, drug abuse etc and government stepping in “to solve them”. Virtue is a necessity for a free society. But to paraphrase the old saying we’ve privatized freedom and socialized responsibility. We’re going to have to figure out a way to make virtue cool, and right now I only see that happening in a total economic collapse. You can’t be a hedonist f you’re trying to survive. Well you can’t but you won’t last too long.

Iblis on March 28, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Now, one can believe in traditional marriage and also believe that it should be a state-level issue, which was the position taken by Harry Reid in 2004 — in large part by relying on DOMA, which he now opposes. Even some conservatives at the time questioned the wisdom of pushing a constitutional amendment on this issue, and it had no chance of passing at that time. But the scoffing at Republican concerns over slippery slopes and the real commitment of Democrats to traditional marriage is certainly instructive to see once again at this point in time, less than a decade after having been assured that they couldn’t possibly support same-sex marriage.

When the constitutional amendment for marriage was proposed, it was widely ridiculed as being unnecessary, because no one was going to pass same sex marriage.

Looks like the amendment advocates were right, and the DOMA advocates were wrong. Strange how no one wants to admit it now, though.

The very possibility they mocked has come to pass, and SCOTUS is considering whether to rule DOMA is unconstitutional.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Look, every liberal voter in the country knows (not ‘thinks,’ knows) that every liberal politician will lie through their teeth to get elected, and then move over.

They all just take it as an article of faith that no liberal can ever be elected by being honest.

That’s how we get to this place over and over again. (‘This place,’ of course, being ‘it’ll never happen until it does, then it’s the arc of history.’)

Washington Nearsider on March 28, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I keep hearing people wonder how Democrats keep winning elections. This is it: they lie. They lie about everything. They know being honest would cost them elections, so they say what you want to hear, then do what they want to do.

By the way, that’s also why all the former mainstream Protestant denominations are now controlled by people who don’t believe their own religious doctrines. The liberals took over the institutions from within, lying as necessary to keep from being challenged or displaced. Virtually every church now controlled by liberals was started by conservatives.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM

RWM: You assert (without even a citation) that homosexuality is genetic or otherwise immutable when you imply that calling homosexuals ‘defective’ is calling God’s creation ‘defective’.

And, yeah, full disclosure: I’m gay. Do I _like_ being called ‘defective’? No. Do I see it as more truthful than not? Yes. I’m ‘intrinsically disordered’, as the saying goes. I don’t want to be ostracized for being that way, and I don’t think very well of those who do it, but I will never deny that disordering.

Again, don’t try to tell people that part of ‘having to accept homosexuals and their homosexuality’ (which is more or less true) is ‘having to accept their lifestyle’. We can (and certainly do) make decisions about other people based on their decisions. To live the homosexual lifestyle is such a decision.

(I also make decisions about other people based on things like, oh, living the current promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle in the US. Again, it’s behavior.)

Scott H on March 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM

We should be honest that the Democrats were grappling with a difficult from their perspective in 2004. They did believe that putting anti-gay marriage amendment into the Constitution would be a bigoted stain on the Constitution. I would guess some knew in their minds that they supported gay marriage, and just wanted to make politically prudent arguments. From their own perspective, they made what we all have to consider the morally right decision to make their arguments as they did, since protecting others from bigotry trumps honesty in arguments. I would also guess that some were uncertain what to do think marriage, but didn’t want what they thought was a bigoted amendment. They also can’t be blamed for not making a rambling political speech detailing their uncertainties and doubts, which no one would have wanted to hear anyway.

thuja on March 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Rationalization in support of SSM. Shocker.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 28, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Scott H on March 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I did not mean to imply that homosexuality is genetic. Honestly, I have no idea. I have a cousin who is gay and I have always known that she was since we were children. She wasn’t just a “tomboy.” Does this mean that her homosexuality is genetic? Hell if I know. Frankly, I don’t care. She is who she is and I love her for exactly who she is.

The point of my post, however, was not whether homosexuality is genetic; rather, I was imploring people to think about refraining from calling people “defects.”

Whether your sexual orientation is genetic or a lifestyle choice is of absolutely no import to me. What does concern me is people calling you “defective.” The Left routinely relies on insults and intends to be as hurtful as possible. I would hope that we are better than that. We can disagree without being Dan Savage.

I sincerely apologise if you were offended by the misunderstanding. Again, my intent had nothing whatsoever to do with genetics. The only reason that I brought it up is because many people here believe homosexuality is a genetic defect and hurl invectives regarding their belief. They wouldn’t do so about Trig Palin. So, even if they believe homosexuality is genetic, they shouldn’t do to gays what they would not do to Sarah Palin’s son.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 3:37 PM

One article on HOtAir quotes 110 million people in the US have STIs. Another article discusses the elite’s push for SSM.

A few years ago my daughter’s High School was pushing normalization of homosexuality & bisexuality. I went to the teacher responsible for teaching this “health” syllabus. On the way in I noticed posters up actively discouraging smoking – quite rightly as surveys at the time showed smoking takes 12 years of a person’s life.

So I asked the teacher why the school also had posters up encouraging the embrace of the homosexual/bi lifestyle when gay men die an average 20 years earlier than straight men. How is the apparent hypocrisy justified please? Much splutterring ensued & the answer went along the lines “I just work here”.

What I wanted was the young people to be given the facts, it is not necessary to “impose” a bigotted hateful worldview that is going to maybe kill them 2 decades before their time. Just explain to them the facts, as informed adults who are responsible for their young charges should do. But no, he said there was no chance of that happening. Why not? Are facts hate speech? Don’t we respect teenagers enough to tell them the truth?

And why aren’t we hearing things like a survey of gay married men in Holland, where they’ve had SSM for over a decade, found that the AVERAGE gay marriage lasts just 18 MONTHS and in that time each man has had an AVERAGE of 12 sexual partners? This is the reality of SSM. Women in Same Sex relationships also suffer higher levels of domestic abuse than straight women. Gays in general have much higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse & suicide – according to their own figures.

I don’t believe its loving to encourage people to live this way. Does that make me a hate-filled homophobe? It seems it does.

Liam1304 on March 28, 2013 at 3:57 PM

I am sorry you had a bad experience in church. People are flawed.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I didn’t say that I had a bad experience in church. I just said that I’ve never experienced that “spiritual connection or epiphany or whatever” that people of faith have. If you promise not to tell anyone, I’ll let you in on a secret.

Two things happened the other day:

First, I was at the market and the girl at the register was in an absolute fit. She was absolutely distressed and looked both angry and ill. I said that I hoped that she would be better and able to rest as soon as her shift ended. She said that she had just started her shift. Trying again, I noticed her name-tag. I told her that “Audrey” was one of my favourite names and reminded me of Audrey Hepburn. She kind of muttered under her breath ‘Thanks.’ Trying one last time, I told her that I hoped the Easter Bunny would bring her something special. She said “I don’t believe in any of that stuff.” I said, “Oh, come on. Everybody believes in the Easter Bunny! lol!” “Not me. I never have,” she replied. I asked her, “Not even when you were a child? You didn’t even pretend when you found out who the Easter Bunny really was?” She said, “Nope.” I asked, “No Santa Claus or Tooth Faerie either. Who did you think left the money under your pillow when you lost a tooth?” She said, “No one ever left anything under my pillow when I lost a tooth. I never had a birthday present or a Christmas present or an Easter basket.” It took everything in me not to start bawling in the store.

I cried all the way home. How could a parent or grandparent or aunt or family friend or anyone treat a child as if they were completely invisible?

Second: So, I get home and a few hours later, the phone rings. The caller ID says that it’s an 800 number. I.NEVER.ANSWER.800.NUMBERS. NEVER. Yet, I did on Monday. Anyhoo, it was a guy from the Police Benevolence Fund. I told him that I’d send him a cheque and was about to ring off when he just started talking. He was telling me about several policemen, who had just died and had small children. I told him about my daughter. We spoke for probably 15 or 20 minutes. It was very weird for me. Anyway, he said, “I’m going to make a deal with you: If you light a candle and say a prayer every day for 30 days for the children of those fallen policemen, I will do the same for you and I promise you that you will notice a big change in your life.” Ordinarily, I would have rolled my eyes, but I said, “OK, you’ve got a deal.” And, everyday, I’ve lit a candle and said “Please grant peace, comfort and strength to the wives and children of the fallen.” I don’t know to whom I’ve asked, but I made a deal and I’m sticking to it.

So, for those like astoneri or whatever her/his name is, who have called me “a heartless atheist,” bite me!

As for Reagan, like I said, there was much to admire of him, but my favourite POTUS is Coolidge.

I would remind some Republicans/Conservatives, however, of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, which seems to have been thrown on the ash-heap of history in the last few years, especially when it comes to issues like SSM. Some say that there is no such thing as a ‘gay conservative.’ Bruce Carroll a/k/a @GayPatriot is a strong conservative and, as his twitter handle implies, a homosexual. He was seriously considering challenging Lindsay Graham next year. If there was a two-man primary for the Republican Senate seat in South Carolina, who would the “true cons” of Hot Air rather: John McShame’s mini-me, Senator Scarlett, or a real conservative, who just happens to be gay, Bruce Carroll? COME ON! That’s a no-brainer.

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Liam1304 on March 28, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Not in response to SSM…

South African Girls: HIV-Positively Stunning & Tragic

Resist We Much on March 28, 2013 at 4:09 PM

with now-”evolved” Hillary Clinton

It’s a minor hassle, but in order to get the right quotation-marks you have to leave a space, and then backspace.

Tzetzes on March 28, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Hil{l}ary Clinton defended traditional marriage (or rather, hers and her husband’s careers) by standing by her man when his method of supposedly keeping the 7th commandment was shoving cigars into an intern in the Oval Office, in an oval orifice where cigars aren’t usually supposed to be.

Tzetzes on March 28, 2013 at 6:13 PM

So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.

ROFL…and they sneer at Palin’s “word salads”?

ddrintn on March 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM