Inevitable: Lisa Murkowski declares support for gay marriage

posted at 2:41 pm on June 19, 2013 by Allahpundit

Normally this is where I ask who had her as the next domino to tumble in the big Senate gay-marriage pool. No need this time. Everyone did, right? Back in March, during the Democrats’ panderpalooza, Murkowski used the telltale E-word to hedge on her position. Three months later, with the country distracted by various scandals, a new war in Syria, and the joys of amnesty, it’s safe-ish for a centrist Republican from a reddish state to admit what the whole world already knew. It was either going to be her or the similarly opaque Susan Collins who’d become the third Republican to back gay marriage publicly. Collins will almost certainly be the fourth, although she may take a while longer to speak up.

Most of the statements issued by Senators to announce their switches boil down to “it’s a matter of love” or right-side-of-history stuff like “my kids don’t understand what the big deal is about SSM.” Murkowski herself made the latter point back in March when she started talking about “evolving,” but the official switch requires something more thoughtful when you’re a Republican from a Republican state. Her shrewd solution: Pitch it as a move towards smaller, less intrusive government and family formation. In fact, to my surprise, her statement explaining her reversal is probably the strongest issued by a senator so far:

The Supreme Court is set to make a pair of decisions on the topic of marriage equality shortly, and the national conversation on this issue is picking back up. This is a significant moment for our nation when it comes to rethinking our society’s priorities and the role of government in Americans’ private lives and decisions, so I want to be absolutely clear with Alaskans. I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government. When government does act, I believe it should encourage family values. I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because I believe doing so promotes both values: it keeps politicians out of the most private and personal aspects of peoples’ lives – while also encouraging more families to form and more adults to make a lifetime commitment to one another. While my support for same sex civil marriage is something I believe in, I am equally committed to guaranteeing that religious freedoms remain inviolate, so that churches and other religious institutions can continue to determine and practice their own definition of marriage.

With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay? I believe when there are so many forces pulling our society apart, we need more commitment to marriage, not less.

This thinking is consistent with what I hear from more and more Alaskans especially our younger generations. Like the majority of Alaskans, I supported a constitutional amendment in 1998 defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, but my thinking has evolved as America has witnessed a clear cultural shift. Fifteen years after that vote, I find that when one looks closer at the issue, you quickly realize that same sex unions or civil marriages are consistent with the independent mindset of our state – and they deserve a hands-off approach from our federal policies.

She’s not going to change any socially conservative minds on SSM with that, but she doesn’t have to. All she needs to do is convince them that supporting gay marriage isn’t incompatible with being a small-government Republican in good standing. If she does that, it’ll take the steam out of any effort to primary her over this. Although, given how Murkowski got elected in 2010, how much does she really care about primaries at this point?

Back in April, New York mag predicted that Murky would be the next Republican to turn followed by Collins, Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, and McCain. I’m not so sure. If Collins had been safely reelected three years ago like Murkowski, I think she’d have switched ages ago — maybe even before Rob Portman. But her seat is up next year and tea partiers in Maine have proved they’re capable of flexing some muscle when they want to. She’ll have a hard enough time fending them off without antagonizing social conservatives too. Then again, literally no one believes that Collins is some kind of fortress against gay marriage’s advance. Her switch is a fait accompli, whether before the primary or after. Who’s going to be shocked/disappointed in Maine to find that a Republican who votes with the center on most issues is also a centrist on this one? She’ll switch before the primary, I bet. Or, at the very latest, the day after.


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

Now we have gay squirrels?

Let’s stick to IRS/Benghazi

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Finally, this country can get back to real business. /s

trs on June 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM

She looks the part to perfection.

The whole world is now gay, in all ways.

Cheer up and join the trend.

Schadenfreude on June 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM

There were jokes months ago about when Murk would “evolve”. And I thought, come on … you don’t know. How can you say that with such certainty. And, now? Why now? I thought the HotGas conservatives were piling on. Pushing the “evolve” meme beyond its reality. Being absurd, really. Well. I was wrong.

/I’m not a smart man

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Come on blink, you start the comments thread. I’ve had my say. I will stay completely silent.

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Why is it that 1% – 2% of the population of The United States garner 90% of the attention? Why is it that people don’t understand that politicians pander to whoever walks in the door with a donation?

Old Country Boy on June 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM

If gay marriage becomes law, the objectivum sexual and polyamorous mvmts will come calling. I’m serious. I wish I were kidding, but a large percentage of people who were born gay unfortunately are being led by liberals. “All love is relative.” We can’t judge love.

I used to not believe that marriage would be redefined to even more ridiculous terms, but I’ve been doing research. The Universalist Unitarian church has a “caucus” (for lack of a better term) for polygamists . The “church” is recewiving directions from DC to tone down their rhetoric until after gay marriage is final.

Lothar on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Hey the dude has to do what the dude has to do.

If she really was for smaller government, she’d advocate getting federal government out of the marriage business altogether.

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

OT bombshell: Obama made what is described as “an alarming call for an end to Catholic education,

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

David Bowie is a Senator? Since when?

Liam on June 19, 2013 at 2:50 PM

If Murkowski stands on the side of sodmite relationships being co-equal to traditional marriage then she should also stand with those who love their goats. Not a difference at all than the path she takes to defend legitimizing sodomy as a normal lifestyle and other kinds of “love” that do not have as vocal a base of activists as the gays.

Happy Nomad on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I’d hit it!

lorien1973

pain train on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

David Bowie? I thought it was Buffalo Bill.

tom daschle concerned on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Murky can be all for sodomite marriages all she wants. The Federal government has no say in marriage law at all.

Liam on June 19, 2013 at 2:54 PM

All she needs to do is convince them that supporting gay marriage isn’t incompatible with being a small-government Republican in good standing.

Since when has she cared about small government?

She can’t be bothered to even think through what marriage is. All she does is spew boilerplate gay propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that redefining marriage will only make government bigger and more intrusive.

INC on June 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM

She looks the part to perfection.

The whole world is now gay, in all ways.

Cheer up and join the trend.

Yup….pretty soon being straight will generally be considered abnormal, as it is already in some social circles, evidently.

hawkeye54 on June 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM

If gay marriage becomes law, the objectivum sexual and polyamorous mvmts will come calling. I’m serious.

Lothar on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Isn’t it bad enough that we’re going to put the imprimatur of “marriage” on an orientation whose typical sexual practice of male on male sex is wholly responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the US?

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Lisa Murkowski – another Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden type make-believe Catholic.

bw222 on June 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Not just Catholics.

“If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” Obama said.

This is another attack on religious liberty, and a push to force children to go to public schools. It also seems to have some implications that Catholics and Protestants cannot worship according to their beliefs.

INC on June 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Another Senator devolves to endorsing a more regressive, neo-pagan version of marriage, to the surprise of no one.

Why do these people preen about “equality” without ever explaining it in the context of the penalties and burdens of the civil statute they want to radically redefine?

BKennedy on June 19, 2013 at 2:58 PM

OT bombshell: Obama made what is described as “an alarming call for an end to Catholic education,

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

An odd statement indeed coming from President Madrassa.

Then again, the Obama Administration has made its hatred of all religion and morality clear through the HHS Mandate and various other usurpations.

BKennedy on June 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I thought I read, “my kids don’t understand what the big deal is about S & M.” and it didn’t seem out of place. Welcome to the New Normal?

PoliTech on June 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM

David Bowie? I thought it was Buffalo Bill.

tom daschle concerned on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

From Silence of the Lambs?

“It takes the gay agenda and rubs it on the body politic. It does this whenever it’s told”.
“Yes it does, Precious! Yes it does!”

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM

The only thing remotely interesting about Murkowski’s comments is what she did NOT say. She did not say she was for a federal constitutional right to ssm, and I think it’s pretty clear that, if pressed, she will follow Rob Portman and make it clear she is talking about the political right to ssm, not a court-mandated 50-state solution. Her statement about safeguarding churches and other religious institutions makes that pretty clear, because as Matthew Franck and other legal scholars have pointed out, a federal constitutional right to ssm automatically makes Christian orthodoxy in most churches (sorry, Episcopalians) bigotry that must be suppressed from both the public dialogue and in any public venue, such as a business which doesn’t want to cater gay weddings. That’s why the Supreme Court decision next week is so important, much more important than Obamacare. Obamacare was about whether the federal government can make you buy something; Hollingsworth and Windsor and about what you can believe and state publicly without being prosecuted and suppressed.

senor on June 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM

A couple of centuries ago, the people who whine about gay marriage today would have walked into a Native American village in which prisoners of war were being tortured with utmost in cruelty and started whining about the immorality of a gay couple having sex in the village. This moral insanity was the norm among the Christian missionaries of the time.

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I support the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and choose because

Including incestuous marriages?

rbj on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

OT bombshell: Obama made what is described as “an alarming call for an end to Catholic education,

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

An odd statement indeed coming from President Madrassa.

Then again, the Obama Administration has made its hatred of all religion and morality clear through the HHS Mandate and various other usurpations.

BKennedy on June 19, 2013 at 3:00 PM

link
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/06/19/obama-offends-catholics-in-the-uk-says-religious-schools-are-divisive-78053

MontanaMmmm on June 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Dang, I forgot about the pool. I assumed between SCOTUS and Republicans traditional marriage was destined for the ash heap of history. We’re all cool now.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 3:05 PM

It was either going to be her or the similarly opaque Susan Collins

I presume AP meant transparent and not opaque.

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM

With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay?

We ought to stand opposed to a gay couple’s “exclusive, emotional, binding ’til death do you part‘” wish and continue on a righteous path to destroy every last remnant of a gay person’s wish to be monogamous in American society. Let’s go a step farther and have the government require gay people to use the words ‘I want to sleep around’ instead of ‘I want to be faithfully married’. That ought to teach them from wanting to be responsible!

ZachV on June 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

MontanaMmmm on June 19, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I’m not Catholic but Obama is evil.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

so tiresome.

So I’ll repeat my observation again…LGBT…”but it’s monogamous love”! Hmmm, the B must not be what I think it is…

kirkill on June 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I’m not Catholic but Obama is evil.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

I went to a Protestant school for eight years.

EVIL- SOB

MontanaMmmm on June 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM

We ought to stand opposed to a gay couple’s “exclusive, emotional, binding ’til death do you part‘” wish and continue on a righteous path to destroy every last remnant of a gay person’s wish to be monogamous in American society. Let’s go a step farther and have the government require gay people to use the words ‘I want to sleep around’ instead of ‘I want to be faithfully married’. That ought to teach them from wanting to be responsible!

ZachV on June 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

You laugh, but that’s what the militants in your crowd want. Don’t be surprised to find out you were used and abused.

nobar on June 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Including incestuous marriages?

rbj on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Nothin’ says lovin’ like marryin’ your cousin.

Liam on June 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I think AP is suggesting that their “approval” is not full throated, so to speak, and allows them to play both ends against the middle. Very politician of both ladies.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I am a life-long Republican because I believe in promoting freedom and limiting the reach of government.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Yeah, sure there, Lisa!!

Bitter Clinger on June 19, 2013 at 3:10 PM

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

*yawn*

Valkyriepundit on June 19, 2013 at 3:10 PM

This topic has already been discussed on HotAir today. He is a link to the previous discussion:

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/06/19/lisa-murkowski-endorses-legalizing-gay-marriage/#comments

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM

kirkill on June 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Maybe it means they will go with the first gender that will take them. Then be monogamous. Just widening their pool of prospectives. /

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM

OT bombshell: Obama made what is described as “an alarming call for an end to Catholic education,

faraway on June 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM

An odd statement indeed coming from President Madrassa.

Then again, the Obama Administration has made its hatred of all religion and morality clear through the HHS Mandate and various other usurpations.

Right, not so surprising nor odd. The Left prefers education to be public, but will allow for private education, for those who can afford it, that toes the Leftist line, and all else should be ended, either voluntarily or eventually by government edict.

hawkeye54 on June 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM

A couple of centuries ago, the people who whine about gay marriage today would have walked into a Native American village in which prisoners of war were being tortured with utmost in cruelty and started whining about the immorality of a gay couple having sex in the village. This moral insanity was the norm among the Christian missionaries of the time.

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I’m sure the Native American Villagers would have dealt with a gay couple having sex in the middle of the village long before the white man ever got there.

BoxHead1 on June 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 3:12 PM

You can bring your ramblings about Uganda onto this thread, pinky swear.

sentinelrules on June 19, 2013 at 3:15 PM

obama;

THE GREAT DIVIDER

THE GREAT SOCIALIST

THE GREAT LIAR

THE GREAT PRETENDER

THE GREAT NARCISSIST

THE LOUSIEST pResident EVER!

Scrumpy on June 19, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Joe Miller is such a creep, being a traditionalist Christian and also following that Constitution, as it was written.

/s

williampeck1958 on June 19, 2013 at 3:17 PM

David Bowie is a Senator? Since when?

Liam on June 19, 2013 at 2:50 PM

David Bowie? I thought it was Buffalo Bill.

tom daschle concerned on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I thought was Boo Radley.

M240H on June 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Pitch it as a move towards smaller, less intrusive government and family formation.

bwahahahahahahaha

so I take it she is gonna get da gubRmint outta the business of deciding who can marry who….. and all them marriage license offices will be shut’n down…

yeah… I’ll hold my breath

roflmmfao

donabernathy on June 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You can bring your ramblings about Uganda onto this thread, pinky swear. – sentinelrules on June 19, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Pinky swear? …………… The real question is why is HotAir bringing this entire issue up again. I guess it wants more rants and more hits, which means more money.

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

My prediction:

This week she announces her support of gay marriage.

Next week she switches to Democrat.

The following week she admits she’s a dude.

8starsnorth on June 19, 2013 at 3:24 PM

fact is anybody that thinks have’n Mr. Johnson around another persons poop chute is OK…. really shouldn’t be making any decisions for themselves much less make’n decisions for other people.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on June 19, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’d hit it!

lorien1973

pain train on June 19, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Looks like some one already did…a whole bunch of times.

BigWyo on June 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM

The real question is why is HotAir bringing this entire issue up again. I guess it wants more rants and more hits, which means more money.

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Threads go from headlines to the front page all the time.

Congratulations on cracking such a huge conspiracy.

sentinelrules on June 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If Native Americans (or native peoples around the world) were so open to homosexuality then why didn’t they have gay marriage? They had separate the teepees for unmarried men as unmarried adult men were considered lower status and “weird”. Homosexuality was tolerated by a very few tribes but it was absolutely not equal or equivalent to heterosexual unions. A Native American in 1600, like everyone else, would have been dumbfounded by the modern gay/thuja push for marriage. It would have made NO sense.

BoxHead1 on June 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM

BoxHead1 on June 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Too quick. Allah, please grammar check my last post and fix the errors. Thanks.

BoxHead1 on June 19, 2013 at 3:35 PM

That cow should resign from the R party and claim her D mantle. Why do the Rs put up with this sh1t??

garnkikaloid on June 19, 2013 at 3:36 PM

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I’m going for what is comment count for my answer, Alex.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Looks like some one already did…a whole bunch of times.

BigWyo on June 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM

With an ugly stick.

antipc on June 19, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Meanwhile, polygamists can still be imprisoned for marrying who they love and gay marriage supporters like Murkowski want to keep it that way, yay equality.

clearbluesky on June 19, 2013 at 3:51 PM

With the notion of marriage – an exclusive, emotional, binding ‘til death do you part’ tie – becoming more and more an exception to the rule given a rise in cohabitation and high rates of divorce, why should the federal government be telling adults who love one another that they cannot get married, simply because they happen to be gay?

We ought to stand opposed to a gay couple’s “exclusive, emotional, binding ’til death do you part‘” wish and continue on a righteous path to destroy every last remnant of a gay person’s wish to be monogamous in American society. Let’s go a step farther and have the government require gay people to use the words ‘I want to sleep around’ instead of ‘I want to be faithfully married’. That ought to teach them from wanting to be responsible!

ZachV on June 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

That’s right folks, the government is stopping gay couples from being together. In fact the government prevents gay people from exercising their freedom of association and free speech – they can’t meet on private property and say “We’re married”. That’s the America we live in. The state is imposing a fascistic ban on the gay couples and the gay lifestyle.

gwelf on June 19, 2013 at 3:56 PM

I’d hit it!

lorien1973

pain train

Yikes! I wouldn’t hit it with someone else’s, er, implement.

Mason on June 19, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Liking conservatives at home does mean wanting conservatives in DC.

Lisa knows if she get campaign money from the libs, keeps the pork coming at home, the Alaskans will allow her to keep her job and stay warm in DC…

of course that works because every dollar of pork to Alaska is a dollar not spent in Juneau, becoming a dollar of surplus refunded back to the citizens at the end of the year

phreshone on June 19, 2013 at 3:58 PM

barf bag special

DaMav on June 19, 2013 at 4:19 PM

BigWyo on June 19, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Branches, ugly tree…

pain train on June 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Her shrewd solution: Pitch it as a move towards smaller, less intrusive government and family formation.

Nothing new. There have been all kinds of people even on Hot Air claiming that for the government to redefine the meaning of marriage over the objections of the majority of the people is somehow “small government.”

For the record: it’s a stupid argument whether made by a weaselly Senator or a weaselly troll.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM

That’s right folks, the government is stopping gay couples from being together. In fact the government prevents gay people from exercising their freedom of association and free speech – they can’t meet on private property and say “We’re married”. That’s the America we live in. The state is imposing a fascistic ban on the gay couples and the gay lifestyle.

gwelf on June 19, 2013 at 3:56 PM

You left out the part about how the nasty Jesus freaks want them lined up and shot because….well….because they won’t put their stamp of approval on gay weddings by having them in their churches, the big old meanies.

And no one will let them be Boy Scouts either.

/

Somebody really needs to tell these pervs where they can stick it, but on second thought…..

CurtZHP on June 19, 2013 at 4:33 PM

thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If Native Americans (or native peoples around the world) were so open to homosexuality then why didn’t they have gay marriage? They had separate the teepees for unmarried men as unmarried adult men were considered lower status and “weird”. Homosexuality was tolerated by a very few tribes but it was absolutely not equal or equivalent to heterosexual unions. A Native American in 1600, like everyone else, would have been dumbfounded by the modern gay/thuja push for marriage. It would have made NO sense.

BoxHead1 on June 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM

thuja seems to believe that Christians are the only reason homosexuality is not broadly accepted. It’s a popular delusion among some homosexuals, but that probably says more about an animus to Christianity than anything. It’s probably more the other way around: most people instinctively are repelled by homosexuality, and tolerance of homosexuality is more of a learned behavior.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2013 at 4:45 PM

She looks like a Democrat woman.

huckleberryfriend on June 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM

She’s not going to change any socially conservative minds on SSM with that, but she doesn’t have to. All she needs to do is convince them that supporting gay marriage isn’t incompatible with being a small-government Republican in good standing. If she does that, it’ll take the steam out of any effort to primary her over this

And given how many HA posters complain about social cons who won’t just STFU about all that social stuff and only worry about the financial stuff she has an easy task.

katiejane on June 19, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Why doesn’t this RINO C Word just go ahead and declare as a demoncrap?

Doomsday on June 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Isn’t she an Independent now?

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Yup….pretty soon being straight will generally be considered abnormal, as it is already in some social circles, evidently.

hawkeye54 on June 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I find this difficult to believe.

alchemist19 on June 19, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Isn’t it bad enough that we’re going to put the imprimatur of “marriage” on an orientation whose typical sexual practice of male on male sex is wholly responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the US?

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Ignoring for a moment the fact that what you say is not true why are you punishing lesbians for the sins of gay men?

alchemist19 on June 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Isn’t it bad enough that we’re going to put the imprimatur of “marriage” on an orientation whose typical sexual practice of male on male sex is wholly responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the US?

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Ignoring for a moment the fact that what you say is not true why are you punishing lesbians for the sins of gay men?

alchemist19 on June 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM

But it is true. Male-on-male sex is wholly responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the US. It’s also the predominant sexual practive of homosexuality, therefore can certainly be described as “typical.”

Are you so reflexively defensive of homosexuality that you can’t admit the truth of it? Or are facts false once they contradict a treasured belief?

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Is Magic Johnson gay?

And if you would like to step up and answer the question I raised about why we should punish lesbians for the sins of gay men then I’ll listen.

alchemist19 on June 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Of course we in the know, know that AIDS was developed by the government of the United States to decimate the African-American community./Sarc ………….. eye roll …………… faceplam.

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Meanwhile, while all you are fussing about AIDS, the number of vaccinations for the HPV virus are declining. I guess that young women who end up getting it, deserve it?

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 6:18 PM

A couple of centuries ago, the people who whine about gay marriage today would have walked into a Native American village in which prisoners of war were being tortured with utmost in cruelty and started whining about the immorality of a gay couple having sex in the village. This moral insanity was the norm among the Christian missionaries of the time.
thuja on June 19, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Is that an argument for the government endorsing the notion that men and women are interchangeable?

anuts on June 19, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Is Magic Johnson gay?

alchemist19 on June 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM

He wasn’t the cause of the AIDS epidemic, so your question is completely unsupportive of your point and unresponsive to my point. You thinking is so sloppy that I hesitate to try to discuss anything with you. Gay men in bathhouses in San Francisco were the cause, and it was spread largely through more such gay sex. No gay sex, no US AIDS epidemic. Just in case you didn’t get it the first time — No gay sex, no US AIDS epidemic.

And if you would like to step up and answer the question I raised about why we should punish lesbians for the sins of gay men then I’ll listen.

alchemist19 on June 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM

I consider male and female homosexuality separately. They have very little in common. If people consider them together, that’s not my problem.

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 7:54 PM

But it is true. Male-on-male sex is wholly responsible for the AIDS epidemic in the US. It’s also the predominant sexual practive of homosexuality, therefore can certainly be described as “typical.”

Are you so reflexively defensive of homosexuality that you can’t admit the truth of it? Or are facts false once they contradict a treasured belief?

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Yes, of course. This is the point, and this is the question it begs. At least accept reality as a starting point.

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 7:56 PM

So demanding GOVERNMENT licensing for every sexual partnership is now considered small government?

Hint Murky: If you don’t want government intrusion; don’t ask for government sanction of a private relationship. State marriage and expansion of state marriage is NOT small government. Go to ANY family court in the nation and you will see how much government is WRAPPED up in the family especially those that have asked the government to license their relationship.

melle1228 on June 19, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Meanwhile, polygamists can still be imprisoned for marrying who they love and gay marriage supporters like Murkowski want to keep it that way, yay equality.

clearbluesky on June 19, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Not even that. Utah doesn’t even recognize Lawrence v. Texas for people LIVING together. If a married couple wants to have another live with them in a “spiritual” marriage (not state sanctioned); they can be prosecuted under Utah’s bigamy act for just living with the third person in an intimate relationship. So there really isn’t such a thing as EQUALITY. Private, sexual relationships are still very much criminalized in many parts of this country but as longs as the gheys are happy then equality exists or something…

melle1228 on June 19, 2013 at 8:47 PM

We ought to stand opposed to a gay couple’s “exclusive, emotional, binding ’til death do you part‘” wish and continue on a righteous path to destroy every last remnant of a gay person’s wish to be monogamous in American society. Let’s go a step farther and have the government require gay people to use the words ‘I want to sleep around’ instead of ‘I want to be faithfully married’. That ought to teach them from wanting to be responsible!
ZachV on June 19, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Unfortunately, your bigot leader Dan Savage has already declared monogamy “hurtful” and brags about how people should sleep around like he and his sex partners do.

Which then this rather entertaining.

Got any more lies, bigot ZachV?

northdallasthirty on June 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Unfortunately, your bigot leader Dan Savage has already declared monogamy “hurtful” and brags about how people should sleep around like he and his sex partners do. – northdallasthirty on June 19, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Since you are a gay man who is against gay marriage, I suppose you feel a lot like Dan Savage, right.

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 9:50 PM

The Gays, all 1.5% of our population has managed to strong arm another flimsy RINO into submission.

RdLake on June 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM

The Gays, all 1.5% of our population has managed to strong arm another flimsy RINO into submission. – RdLake on June 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM

Have you ever thought that they might be right?

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Have you ever thought that they might be right?

SC.Charlie on June 19, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Let’s see: gay-sex marriage is overwhelmingly supported by the party of Lois Lerner, unlimited wiretapping, antireligious bigotry, teaching sex to children in kindergarten, making people dependent on the welfare state, spitting on our troops, and using the Federal government as its own personal Sturmabteilung to destroy political opposition.

Ever think that you’re being played, SC.Charlie?

northdallasthirty on June 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM

He wasn’t the cause of the AIDS epidemic, so your question is completely unsupportive of your point and unresponsive to my point. You thinking is so sloppy that I hesitate to try to discuss anything with you. Gay men in bathhouses in San Francisco were the cause, and it was spread largely through more such gay sex. No gay sex, no US AIDS epidemic. Just in case you didn’t get it the first time — No gay sex, no US AIDS epidemic.

I was objecting to your use of the term “wholly” which was wholly incorrect and still is. But that’s a relatively minor point compared to….

I consider male and female homosexuality separately. They have very little in common. If people consider them together, that’s not my problem.

Paul-Cincy on June 19, 2013 at 7:54 PM

….this interesting philosophy. I’m really interested to flesh out what you think here. Do you favor a different set of laws for lesbians than you do for gay men?

alchemist19 on June 20, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Murkowsky is a potted plant, further underlining her futile status by pretending to support the issue of the day … the tedious diatribe of gays not getting enough attention.

Can we just agree that they are special, and should have every accommodation that society can give them? Perhaps they would like a Gay tax credit? Sure, why not?

virgo on June 20, 2013 at 1:45 AM

Let’s see: gay-sex marriage is overwhelmingly supported by the party of Lois Lerner, unlimited wiretapping, antireligious bigotry, teaching sex to children in kindergarten, making people dependent on the welfare state, spitting on our troops, and using the Federal government as its own personal Sturmabteilung to destroy political opposition.

Ever think that you’re being played, SC.Charlie? – northdallasthirty on June 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM

If your only objection to gay marriage is that looks like it is being promoted by Obama, then you are the fool. I don’t like Obama, or the Democrat Party either. They are the party of bigger government, but then the Republicans don’t seem to be to damn far behind. As for the NSA mess nearly everyone in Washington is supporting Big Brother spying, but at least most on both sides of the aisle want to go after the IRS for its targeting of Tea Party groups before the 2012 election. If you don’t like some things about the Gay Rights Movement point them out. I will do the same. But at the same time remember that some people on the far right would just like us all to go back into the closet and have us declared mentally ill as per first edition of the DSM.

SC.Charlie on June 20, 2013 at 7:41 AM

By the way, NDT, yesterday Alan Chambers of Exodus officially announced the closure of Exodus International, saying that over 99% of the people who came to his organization did not respond to conversion therapy. We both know that these people that came to him were desperate to change their sexual orientation, because they just wanted to be “normal” people. They just wanted to like the vast majority of people. The fact is, is they are normal.

SC.Charlie on June 20, 2013 at 12:06 PM