Senate gay-marriage pool update: Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”

posted at 2:01 pm on March 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

Does this count as a “yes” on SSM for purposes of the pool? Susan Collins’s dodge was transparently an attempt to avoid further irritating conservatives when she’s staring at a Republican primary in Maine next year. Murkowski’s not under quite the same time pressure as she’s not up again until 2016. Could be that her reservations are legit. But maybe we’re looking at this the wrong way: Because Collins comes from a blue state, she has to sound friendly-ish to gay marriage no matter what her true views might be or else she’s potentially in trouble in the general election. Murkowski faces no similar dilemma in a red state like Alaska. She could take an adamantly anti-SSM line and likely benefit from it (or at least suffer no consequences for it) in both the primary and the general. The fact that she’s not taking that line but rather sounds about as friendly-ish as Collins suggests that she too secretly supports gay marriage and is simply hedging to make things a little easier for herself if/when she runs again for Senate. Remember, she’s already been successfully primaried once before; she knows the risk in not taking a hard enough line, and yet she’s refusing to take it anyway. That shows some commitment to the pro-SSM side.

I’m going to count it. Congratulations to cmsinaz, who defied conventional wisdom by picking Murky over the handful of Democratic holdouts as the next SSM domino to fall in our pool!

When asked about same sex marriage — which is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in two separate cases — Murkowski seemed to indicate a softening on her previous stance.

“I’ve got two young sons who, when I ask them and their friends how they feel about gay marriage, kinda give me one of those looks like, ‘Gosh mom, why are you even asking that question?’”…

“We have so many issues in this country to focus on that worry us, that I question why there is such focus on the simple right of people to love whom they will,” she said.

This is the only political issue I can think of where United States Senators routinely cite their children’s opinions as a guiding star for how they should vote. I’m not even thinking of Rob Portman, who cited his son in declaring his support for SSM but not because of his “opinion”; I’m thinking of Claire McCaskill, who felt obliged to note that “my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial.” Plenty of kids also have a hard time understanding why weed is illegal, but apart from Rand Paul, there seems to be zero movement in the Senate towards legalizing marijuana. If you believe Pew, support for making abortion legal in all or most cases runs highest among the 18-29 group at 64 percent. (Fun fact: A majority of the same group doesn’t know which issue Roe v. Wade dealt with.) Why no Senate GOP swing towards pro-choice in the name of letting the children lead us? I support SSM but I do so on the merits, not because my politics is shaped by 15-year-olds. For all his faults, McCain’s quite blunt about why the GOP’s suddenly seen the light on amnesty: “Elections. Elections.” Wish Murky and McCaskill would be that honest about their own demographic motivations vis-a-vis SSM.

In case you disagree that Murkowski’s comments above should count for purposes of the pool, here’s a bit more from another interview she did. Does this sound like someone who’s still “evolving”?

“The term ‘evolving view’ has been perhaps overused, but I think it is an appropriate term for me to use,” she said in an address at the Chugiak-Eagle River Chamber of Commerce, according to the Chugiak-Eagle River Star.

Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. “I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” she said.

That’s not the sort of phrasing you typically see from someone who still has reservations. The word “evolving” is itself a giveaway. Has anyone who’s ever used that term to describe their views on gay marriage eventually reversed course and decided no, turns out they can’t support gay marriage after all? Wouldn’t that, per their own rhetoric, constitute “devolution”? If you’re starting out anti-SSM and inching your way towards being on the fence, chances are you’ve already heard, considered, and dismissed any arguments that might have kept you firmly in the opposition. What’s stopping most of these politicians from “evolving” the rest of the way is, I suspect, pure risk assessment. How far can they go towards supporting gay marriage before this issue starts to hurt them politically? Democrats from blue states can go pretty far, which is why there are only 10 or so left in the caucus who haven’t endorsed the practice yet. (Read Noah Rothman at Mediaite about the Dems who’ve waited until now, at a moment of maximum political safety, to finally declare their support.) Republicans can’t go far at all, so “evolution” is going to take much longer. But maybe, per Murky and Collins, not as long as we think.


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

Senate gay-marriage pool update: Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”

Could’ve fooled me.

Electrongod on March 28, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Dude is one fugly-ass chick in the jpeg.

Jeddite on March 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Sibelius and Murkowsky look gay in those pictures.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

So much evolution going on. Did a meteor strike earth or something? Oh yeah, one did in Russia…

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Graham will wait until after 2014. I could see Collins or Murkowski being one of the next Republicans. Possibly Mark Kirk.

steebo77 on March 25, 2013 at 6:45 PM

What if Collins, Murkowski, or Kirk beat them to it?

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Hmm. Tough call. There’s also McCain to consider.

I’ll go with my gut and say it’s gonna be Leontyna Miklaszewska.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Begich endorsed gay marriage today, didn’t he? More pressure on Leah Moskowitz to declare her support.

steebo77 on March 26, 2013 at 7:48 PM

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I can’t believe Alaska voters re-elected that pea-brain.

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Sibelius and Murkowsky look gay in those pictures.

Schadenfreude on March 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Do I hear wedding bells?

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

“My opinion is evolving”….as she continues to watch the poll numbers in her district & the outside influence that could help decide her ‘fate’….

easyt65 on March 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I was right with Collins and right again with Murkowskowitzkowski. I guess that means there’s a virtual guarantee that Mark Kirk will be next.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:07 PM

But what does her daddy say?

CurtZHP on March 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Progressivism really does make em ugly, don’t it?

catmman on March 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Do another line of Coke Lisa….I’ll bet that’ll help
you evolve further….

ToddPA on March 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Congratulations to cmsinaz

She wins front row tickets to Moaning Joe for a day!

And runner up gets the same for a week.

Marcus on March 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I can’t believe Alaska voters re-elected that pea-brain.

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:05 PM

This is the Alaska where Sarah Palin was an absolute Einstein and one of the best governors for decades. Make of that what you will.

MelonCollie on March 28, 2013 at 2:09 PM

If SCOTUS upholds Prop 8 and leaves SSM a states’ issue, while also knocking down DOMA, it doesn’t matter what these ‘evolving’ senators think. They can’t do anything about it except talk. If it’s that important to them, they cal always resign their seats, go back home, and run for their state’s legislatures where they can have some kind of influence.

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Gay Old Party says land of the free stuff, home of the depraved. Gay people are depraved. Always have, been always will.

Flange on March 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

“I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” she said.

what if an individual wants to be in a lasting, loving, committed relationship with 5 other people????

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. “I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” she said.

And that’s the slippery slope with supporting gay marriage. I’m fine with it, but if we’re gonna redefine marriage for one group of individuals, it won’t be long before other groups come forward demanding “equal rights”.

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Risk assessment is gay…

Seven Percent Solution on March 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM

In that pic, she looks like David Bowie.

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM

SSM? I want to know how they stand on plural marriage.

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:15 PM

As Ben Fergugon said the other day, average Americans are bing bullied with this issue.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Murkowski elaborated on her stance to Alaska Public Radio. “I think you are seeing a change in attitude, change in tolerance, I guess, and an acceptance that what marriage should truly be about is a lasting, loving, committed relationship with respect to the individual,” she said.

And that’s the slippery slope with supporting gay marriage. I’m fine with it, but if we’re gonna redefine marriage for one group of individuals, it won’t be long before other groups come forward demanding “equal rights”.

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM

That’s the problem with these pols. They’re never forward-thinking of the potential ramifications of their positions.

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

And that’s the slippery slope with supporting gay marriage. I’m fine with it, but if we’re gonna redefine marriage for one group of individuals, it won’t be long before other groups come forward demanding “equal rights”.

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Another poster noted that such movements are locked and loaded, and had links as well.

I’m not surprised in the slightest. When you bust open the gate to a fortress, it isn’t just the guys with the ram that come rushing through, it’s every mother’s son following right behind them.

MelonCollie on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Ferguson

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

what if an individual wants to be in a lasting, loving, committed relationship with 5 other people????

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

As long as the six of them all live in a different house, go for it.

RickB on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Does this count as a “yes” on SSM for purposes of the pool?

Allahpundit, the problem with winning the rat race is, you have to be a rat to win.

SWalker on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

And that’s the slippery slope with supporting gay marriage. I’m fine with it, but if we’re gonna redefine marriage for one group of individuals, it won’t be long before other groups come forward demanding “equal rights”.

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM

“Do you take this goat to be your lawfully wedded wife?” It’s your right, you know!!

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I support SSM but I do so on the merits

Your one-sided article selection is a bit closer to proselytizing than consideration on the merits.

wolfsDad on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Political whores every one them. Counting the days to the demise of the GOP.

KickandSwimMom on March 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

“Not that there’s anything b-a-a-a-a-a-d with that”/

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM

“Do you take this goat to be your lawfully wedded wife?” It’s your right, you know!!

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I don’t take the goat/dog stuff seriously, but if gay marriage is legal, so should marriage between all other humans, regardless of the number of persons involved or their relationship (incest).

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I’m waiting for a big ol’heap of women’s genitalia to meet her, face-to-face, and then for her to dive in, with relish.

Of course, it’s apparent that the “normal” and “natural” aspects of homosexuality are lip service only. Inasumuch as the pro-homosexual lobby refuse to expand their horizons into the realm of “normal” and “natural.”

Fraudulent, lying, hypocrites – the political pigs in perpetuity.

C’mon, male members of Congress and Commander Transparent, it’s normal, it’s natural … take a bite out of the apple, … have a taste of the male member, that you embrace so willingly.

Or, shut-up and admit that it ain’t so “normal” and it ain’t so “natural” and that it is abomination.

And that you fully support the abnormal, the un-natural and abomination.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

If you meet some guy named Lot, staying with his family, at the home of one of your neighbors…Run!

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM

LOL.

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Well, we have to keep in mind that Murkowski supports 99% of the democrat party platform, and she has a long history of LYING about where she stands on issues (especially abortion) – she will not “evolve” on SS-marriage – she’s already there.

Pork-Chop on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

So much evolution going on. Did a meteor strike earth or something? Oh yeah, one did in Russia…

The Rogue Tomato on March 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM

X-men!

apparently quite literally.

WryTrvllr on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

“Do you take this goat to be your lawfully wedded wife?” It’s your right, you know!!

Deano1952 on March 28, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I don’t take the goat/dog stuff seriously, but if gay marriage is legal, so should marriage between all other humans, regardless of the number of persons involved or their relationship (incest).

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Goat marriage will be much later and much quieter than the dissolving of number of people required and relationship to each other.

MelonCollie on March 28, 2013 at 2:21 PM

If you meet some guy named Lot, staying with his family, at the home of one of your neighbors…Run!

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Good stuff, you homophobe and Bible reader!

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Well, we have to keep in mind that Murkowski supports 99% of the democrat party platform, and she has a long history of LYING about where she stands on issues (especially abortion) – she will not “evolve” on SS-marriage – she’s already there.

Pork-Chop on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Murkowski is such a good Catholic.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM

We need more gay marriage threads. It’s been three hours since the last one.

bw222 on March 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Thankyaverymuch!

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM

If you meet some guy named Lot, staying with his family, at the home of one of your neighbors…Run!

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

And don’t look back. Or else.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Senate gay-marriage pool update: Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”

She even co-opted Obama’s verbal defense.

Why does anyone consider her a Republican anymore?

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Then, you would be a pillar of the community./

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

That some of these people use their own children as shields, is no surprise, to me. The infuriating thing is that they break their necks to release a statement on something like homosexual marriage, (which cannot even really exist) and don’t say a thing about immigration, the national debt, the complete idiot who is running our country into the ground. This is what makes me want to put an “R” in front of evolution.

MustLoveBlogs on March 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

C’mon, male members of Congress and Commander Transparent, it’s normal, it’s natural … take a bite out of the apple, … have a taste of the male member, that you embrace so willingly.

Or, shut-up and admit that it ain’t so “normal” and it ain’t so “natural” and that it is abomination.

And that you fully support the abnormal, the un-natural and abomination.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

that’s not gonna work on Lindsey Graham.

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

“We have so many issues in this country to focus on that worry us, that I question why there is such focus on the simple right of people to love whom they will,” she said.

Yes, because currently the laws do not grant people the “right” to “love whom they will”

What a buffoon.

I bet if you asked Murkoski or most of these trained circus elephants to explain exactly what rights are being denied to homosexuals and what laws codify such farcical claims they would start humming the Jeopardy theme.

Marcus Traianus on March 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I don’t take the goat/dog stuff seriously, but if gay marriage is legal, so should marriage between all other humans, regardless of the number of persons involved or their relationship (incest).

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I don’t know why you dismiss man-goat love. Keep in mind that the only standard for marriage seems to be love and happiness or something. Who are you to stand in the way of the love that can only be expressed between a man and his goat?

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

To all you party establishment types who went against a good man and the party nominee in Mr Miller to support this traitorous scum, you can go to hell.

njrob on March 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Why does anyone consider her a Republican anymore?

Bitter Clinger on March 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Those who consider her a Republican generally do so out of Palin hatred.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM

And don’t look back. Or else.

steebo77 on March 28, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Again, good stuff.

Of course, the Christians who support homosexual marriage have no idea what you’re talking about, including:

Leviticus 18:22 – Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Genesis 19:5 – And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came unto thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. … [7] And [Lot] said, I pray you, … do not so wickedly. … [8] … only unto these men do nothing; …

Deuteronomy 23:17 – There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Romans 1:26 – For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: [27] And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, … [31] …, without natural affection, …

1 Corinthians 6:9 – …, nor effeminate, …

2 Timothy 3:2 – For men shall be lovers of their own selves, … [3] Without natural affection, …

Jude 7 – Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, … going after strange flesh, …

And, for the record, concerning the matter of homosexual marriage:

Genesis 2:24 – Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: …

Matthew 19:4 – And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, [5] And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: …

See, also, Mark 10:6-7 and Ephesians 5:31.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Goat marriage will be much later and much quieter than the dissolving of number of people required and relationship to each other.

Oh, I dunno, if we get to the point people are openly marrying goats and other creatures, I doubt it’ll be quiet. It’ll probably be celebrated raucously and with gusto.

Soddom and Gommorah Redux on steroids.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:27 PM

GhoulAid on March 28, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I’m just callin’ the frauds out.

I’m so disgusted, I want to vomit.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:28 PM

If you meet some guy named Lot, staying with his family, at the home of one of your neighbors…Run!

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I’ve been saying this for a couple of years. I fear we are there.

MustLoveBlogs on March 28, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I don’t know why you dismiss man-goat love. Keep in mind that the only standard for marriage seems to be love and happiness or something. Who are you to stand in the way of the love that can only be expressed between a man and his goat?

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Consent.

An animal cannot consent to marriage. PETA will fight like hell to keep goats out of those circumstances.

Sure, there will be that one weird story in the UK tabloids about the man and his lovely goat, but that stuff isn’t real.

I’m betting that robot/human marriage will be more likely than animal/human marriage.

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:28 PM

I don’t take the goat/dog stuff seriously, but if gay marriage is legal, so should marriage between all other humans, regardless of the number of persons involved or their relationship (incest).

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I don’t think we’ll reach the point of human/non-human marriages entering the mainstream, but polygamists will have a pretty strong case for themselves. If marriage is no longer defined by opposite genders, why should we limit it to 2 people? Is that not also a form of discrimination?

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Why does anyone consider her a Republican anymore?

Same could be said of dozens of others. The GOP wants them because they are the pathfinders to the glorious future the party elites have in mind for us.

If the GOP leadership truly held to the traditional convictions of the party, Murkowski, et al, would be asked to find a party more to their liking, such as the one across the Senate aisle, instead of insisting we meld both parties into one.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Oh, I dunno, if we get to the point people are openly marrying goats and other creatures, I doubt it’ll be quiet. It’ll probably be celebrated raucously and with gusto.

Soddom and Gommorah Redux on steroids.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I meant legally speaking, you’re right on socially.

MelonCollie on March 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I forgot about NAMBLA. Will NAMBLA be knocking on doors in a dozen years?

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

What an ugly and inappropriate picture of her.

Sincerely,
nonpartisan unprincipled partisan

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Anyone who claims to be a Christian but supports SSM (or abortion) is deceiving themselves with regard to being a Christian.

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

SWalker on March 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM

I meant legally speaking, you’re right on socially.

Yeah, legally, very quietly and oh so matter of factly. No biggie.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:33 PM

What an ugly and inappropriate picture of her.

Sincerely,
nonpartisan unprincipled partisan

What ugly???? That happens to be her best side.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Well, we have to keep in mind that Murkowski supports 99% of the democrat party platform, and she has a long history of LYING about where she stands on issues (especially abortion) – she will not “evolve” on SS-marriage – she’s already there.

Pork-Chop on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Pretty much. She even ran as an write-in ‘independent’ to deny the rightful GOP nominee the seat, and the GOP turned around and welcomed her back in the party. Way to go, GOPe.

As Ben [Ferguson] said the other day, average Americans are bing bullied with this issue.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:16 PM

It’s a bullying that extends deep into all aspects of our day-to-day lives. Even here on GayGas. While it’s nice to know out front who the enemies are – after all, they are flaunting it all over the place – it’s getting real old, real fast.

I even subversively attacked this wave of converts as a “fad” on Facebook, although I should have used the term “cliche”. It’s starting to remind me of how girls just HAD to get a ‘Rachel’ haircut in the late 90s, or how people wore bell-bottom pants in the 70s. Press them as to why they did such awful acts years afterward, and no answer can be given.

Myron Falwell on March 28, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Consent.

An animal cannot consent to marriage. PETA will fight like hell to keep goats out of those circumstances.

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Don’t forget that legitimization of sodomite relationships as marriage re-defines the meaning of that word. Who is to say that marriage has to involve consent? Murkowski talks about marriage as a lasting, loving, committed relationship. Not a peep about mutual consent.

No my friend, PETA will not fight like hell to keep goats out of marriage. They will champion the cause of gay goats, sheep, and assorted farm animals.

Happy Nomad on March 28, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Non issue. Except that I keep feeling like something is being shoved down my throat and I don’t know why.

IlikedAUH2O on March 28, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Doughboy on March 28, 2013 at 2:30 PM

No doubt. It really would be discrimination if we opened up marriage to everyone but polygamists. At least their is a human history of polygamy and not entirely made up.

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:35 PM

If you meet some guy named Lot, staying with his family, at the home of one of your neighbors…Run!

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:20 PM

No, it’s when he gets a visit from two good looking dudes that you have to worry about.

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I forgot about NAMBLA. Will NAMBLA be knocking on doors in a dozen years?

El_Terrible on March 28, 2013 at 2:31 PM

NAMBLA will have their own Dan Savage trying to make it mainstream. It’s a fait accompli.

Myron Falwell on March 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:26 PM

That list should be printed on every Christian website possible.

There are many deniers Christians who falsely believe or have been duped to believe this is a matter of “rights” and a matter best resolved by “the love of Jesus” (implying that hate is what stands in the way of acceptance and therefore a person who disagrees with homosexual marriage is somehow the sinner).

Nothing could be further from the truth.

No Christian who walks in the knowledge of God would ever hate his neighbor or condemn them. But nor should he condone actions, especially in the name of God, which the Bible clearly states are abominations.

What we do as Christians is pray for them, because in the eyes of God we are all sinners. But those who commit sins fully knowing they conflict with God’s will, need the most prayers.

Marcus Traianus on March 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM

By the time you see them, it will be too late. :)

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Evolution this you phony political whores, and shove it where the sun doesn`t shine

HAGGS99 on March 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

What ugly???? That happens to be her best side.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Heh :)

22044 on March 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM

HAGGS99 on March 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I don’t think that you can say that on one of these threads. /

Just sayin’…:)

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Who’s got the over under in the pool for AP to post the pink equals sign…

Skywise on March 28, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Cleombrotus on March 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM

By the time you see them, it will be too late. :)

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Only if you are not bright enough to follow them when they leave town… o_O

SWalker on March 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

And again we see there is little of substantive difference between the GOP establishment and the Democrats.

We deserve a choice, not just an echo.

18-1 on March 28, 2013 at 2:41 PM

SWalker on March 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

You’ve got a point.

kingsjester on March 28, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Marcus Traianus on March 28, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Well said. I fear that these times are upon us, that mankind prefers the desires of men, instead of the will of God.

We are headed into darkness.

John 3:19 – And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM

If marriage is no longer defined by opposite genders, why should we limit it to 2 people? Is that not also a form of discrimination?

And one should also point out that unlike gay marriage this is a history of polygamous, and to a lesser extent polyandrous marriages.

18-1 on March 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM

We deserve a choice, not just an echo.

18-1 on March 28, 2013 at 2:41 PM

If Huckabee and the SoCons abandon the GOP we just might finally get that choice. Since such an abandonment would kill the GOP.

SWalker on March 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Any issues of polygamy will be resolved when Muslims push the Koran tenet that a man can have up to four wives.

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Any issues of polygamy will be resolved when Muslims push the Koran tenet that a man can have up to four wives.

Liam on March 28, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Dingdingding. And I guarantee you they won’t be pestered by the gayfia either.

MelonCollie on March 28, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Anymore evolution of this woman will result in the appearance of wings and horns on her body!

tomshup on March 28, 2013 at 2:50 PM

And one should also point out that unlike gay marriage this is a history of polygamous, and to a lesser extent polyandrous marriages.

You can be sure the advocates working to legalize polygamy will argue those points, and probably win on them, if legal recongnition and national government enforcement of gay marriage succeeds.

Any issues of polygamy will be resolved when Muslims push the Koran tenet that a man can have up to four wives.

Ah yes, they can see the legal door opening on that issue. They have should be entitled to the right to practice the tenets of their culture and religion.

hawkeye54 on March 28, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Senator is a position that requires the candidate be at least 30 to run, meaning it is highly likely they have a child under normal conditions.

Why they would seek the opinions of their childless adult or minor children on the institution designed to protect them from capricious or flighty parents baffles me.

Adults don’t need marriage benefits Allahpundit. Adults are supposed to take care of themselves without aid from the state. In the absense of children that need protection, marriage is meaningless. I don’t know what you feel the “merits” are other than you just want to fold and not have to talk about it again so maybe we can finally start talking about fiscal policy – but you misunderstand.

The left will never stop pushing the envelope on license. Don’t you think even the socons are sick of having gay marriage thrown at us every day? We’re not the ones who started this. We’re not the ones forcing our dysfunctional behaviors down everyone’s throat pretending its a civil right to joint-file a tax return. We’re not the ones who’ve been trying to stack courts with activist judges for decades to fundamentally shift the nation’s mores.

BKennedy on March 28, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Evolving = stick finger in mouth + liberally wet finger + extract finger from mouth + hold finger up to catch politically correct breeze.

SpiderMike on March 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Like I said the other day I am willing to bet 98 percent of politicians agree with gay marriage because they are all about political correctness . But most of the ones that live in conservative areas aren’t going to be bold.

terryannonline on March 28, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Man, I wish I had one of these Senators as a parent growing up. “Hey mom, I don’t get it. Children cleaning their rooms is really old fashioned. Like child labor old fashioned. You need to evolve. And about eating my vegetables…”

Dongemaharu on March 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Man, I wish I had one of these Senators as a parent growing up. “Hey mom, I don’t get it. Children cleaning their rooms is really old fashioned. Like child labor old fashioned. You need to evolve. And about eating my vegetables…”

Dongemaharu on March 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Most Senators are filthy rich……I am sure their children never have to pick up their rooms because they have maids.

terryannonline on March 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Most Senators are filthy rich……I am sure their children never have to pick up their rooms because they have maids.

terryannonline on March 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Hmm. So spoiled children are essentially making policy using their Senator parent as a proxy. Lovely!

Dongemaharu on March 28, 2013 at 3:12 PM

The world changes. samsara

DarkCurrent on March 28, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Look at her face. No wonder.

rickv404 on March 28, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Lisa Murkowski says her views are “evolving”

What does she think she is, pond-scum?

Wait… never mind…

dominigan on March 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Wonder what her boys think about abortion, pot, date rape etc. Isn’t it a parent’s job to instill values in their children and not the other way around?

monalisa on March 28, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Thanks Allah :)

Do I get free toaster?….:)

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 3:34 PM

To hell with principles.

I have seen the writing on the wall – Pink Floyd
-and-
I want to be elected – Alice Cooper

Xavier on March 28, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Thanks marcus!

Steebo I’ll share my morning joe fix with you

cmsinaz on March 28, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2