 |
| LOVE IS IN THE AIR |
SAUNDERS: Obama's honesty on same-sex marriage long overdue
President Barack Obama emerged from his ideological closet last week when he said, "Same-sex couples should be able to get married."
Obama supported same-sex marriage in 1996. He opposed same-sex marriage, however, in 2004 and 2008 and right up until Vice President Joe Biden announced that he is "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex nuptials on "Meet the Press" May 6. Thus, I would categorize the president's position on same-sex marriage not as having evolved, as he claims, but as a long overdue moment of honesty.
For bonus points: This moment has spared White House press secretary Jay Carney from the contortions he had been forced to perform as he explained why the president opposed same-sex marriage but also opposed state measures to ban same-sex marriage because they "deny rights to LGBT Americans."
Mitt Romney's position on same-sex couples has evolved, as well. In 1994, when he was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, Romney told the gay Log Cabin Republicans that he supported "full equality" for homosexuals. Last week, he sang a different tune when he voiced his opposition to "civil unions" that have "identical" rights as traditional marriage.
Thus, both Obama and Romney have taken positions that appeal more to their respective parties' bases than to moderate voters.
The latest Gallup poll reports that 50 percent of Americans think same-sex marriage should be legal, while 48 percent do not. But there is reason to believe that polls are not an accurate barometer, at least among voters.
Last week, North Carolina became the 30th state to ban gay marriage in its state constitution. In six states and the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is recognized, courts or legislators changed the law. But every time a state's voters have had an opportunity to vote on same-sex marriage, they have voted to ban it, not legalize it. Voters in my very blue state of California passed a law restricting marriage to one man and one woman, with 52 percent of the vote, in 2008.
Jonathan Rauch, a gay man who is a guest scholar at The Brookings Institution, estimated that, because people lie, polls are off by a 5-point margin. Rauch sees the Obama decision as courageous but against the president's re-election interest, as it threatens to cost Obama precious votes in key swing states.
Policywise, the Obama about-face does not change much. Obama's Department of Justice already announced that it will not defend legal challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton.
Carney would not say whether the president will go to states to campaign against same-sex marriage bans. It doesn't seem likely, however, as the president told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he thinks the fact that "different communities are arriving at different conclusions at different times" is "a healthy process."
GOP political strategist Rob Stutzman doesn't think the Obama statement is "that big a deal politically," especially because the president "obviously was pushed into it."
Forget the politics, Rauch argued; the Obama announcement is huge culturally. Also, it contrasts well against Romney's journey from one-time courtier of gay votes to tepid supporter of civil unions. (It's not as if Romney looks highly principled on this issue.)
I wonder whether Obama will be able to maintain the tolerant attitude he displayed Wednesday as the presidential campaign heats up. The president told ABC that he supports same-sex marriage laws that are "respectful of religious liberty" and allow churches and faith institutions to determine their sacraments for themselves. Those were reasonable, moderate points ---- which fly in the face of his administration's decision to force church-based institutions with deeply held religious objections to provide contraception as part of their employee health care plans.
If church groups can't say no to subsidizing contraception, why would they be able to say no to same-sex couples?
Already, activists are calling for the Democratic Party to move its national convention out of Charlotte to punish North Carolina for its vote against same-sex marriage. Some 26,000 people have signed a "say no to discrimination" petition that calls for Democrats to move the confab to a "state that upholds values of equality and liberty."
Much has been written of Romney's sojourn from gay-friendly Republican to pared-down civil-union supporter in an often craven pursuit of voters in the GOP base. The less Romney says about civil unions, the better.
Obama has the opposite problem.
In coming home to his support of same-sex marriage, Obama has unleashed his like-minded base. This is the base that has tried to use the courts to force the Boy Scouts to admit gay Scout leaders and its political muscle to coerce church-based charities to provide benefits for domestic partners. Obama's base has a name for people who (like Obama last month) believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman only. That word is "bigot."
And those who hurl it do so in the name of tolerance.
There is no way that 50% of the American people believe that Josh and Bruce playing house is the same as mom and dad, grandma and grandpa and every other married man and woman who shared a life and built a family. There is no equivalency. Marriage is not a Christian issue, it is far older and, far wiser and more fundamental to a sane, rational and lasting society. Those using political opportunism seaking political office will never convince the real majority that a Vegas style absurdity of two men, in a legitimate civil union can proclaim to be the same as mom and dad.
ReplyDeleteSo called gay marriage is the bizzare conclusion of the sixties anything goes generation. Human being get caught up in some pretty awful crowd mentalities. This one is more stupid than awful. Sanity will return and Romney has been handed the keys to Mordor on the Potomac. Jack and Jill made it up the hill but Josh and Bruce will not.
When we get our first openly gay president will Josh be the First Lady or will we have to cahnge that word as well? The First Guy?
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much agree with everything Saunders has to say.
'Marriage' pre-dates the state. It encompasses the prime directive, continuation of the species. It is independant of religion or morality. It's based on necessity. In fact, the Catholic Church indicates that although a priest might be there to solemnize the ceremony the marriage actually takes place and becomes legitimate at the point where the man and women agree to become man and wife. I would assume most religions feel the same way.
The word 'marriage' has conveyed a historical, social, cultural, and religious meaning for thousands of years. While details may vary by culture, for the vast majority of the world's population it meant a heterosexual union of man and women. If you look up the definition in the more prestigious dictionaries (Merriam Webster, the various Oxford additions) you will see it is pretty much defined as the formal union of a man and women as husband and wife.
Despite this, those who are unwilling to accept the concept that 'gay marriage' is equivalant to our historical concept of 'marriage' and that the gay arrangements should not be sanctioned by the state, are called uneducated 'bigots' and 'gay bashers', this despite the fact that most willingly accept giving gays equal rights under civil unions.
This is the typical ploy of the race-baiters of the left. When they fail to move the dial fast enough in their direction, they devolve to the use of Newspeak, oxymorons (like gay marriage), and the usual ad homenem attacks, rascist, bigot, anti-semitic, anti-gay.
I also agree with Saunders point about the leftist agenda. We have seen it too often as in the Obama teams assualt on religion under Obamacare. There is a statist agenda being pushed by the government to make it the sole arbiter of what is morally acceptable in this country. The gay community has their own agenda. Their aim is not only to achieve equal rights but to legitimize their relationships by convincing society that those relationships are equivalent to historical marriage. It is a thinly veiled agenda but sadly it seems to be working.
.
I totally gave up on Obama the minute I watched him say a child that survives an abortion should be given 'comfort care'.
ReplyDeletePardon me, but at that point the mother has no say as to what should happen, the two now being separate beings, and the child should be cared for like any other sick infant.
Obama is a perverse shit.
b
All hail to to the vice chief Joe effin Biden.
ReplyDeleteHe will have done the country a favor.
b
In March, Premier Wen lowered the country's growth target to 7.5% from the 8% goal it had since 2005. Though the new objective wasn't intended literally—China's economy regularly grows far faster than its stated target.
ReplyDeleteInstead, say China experts, the goal is meant as a signal to provincial and local leaders that the central government wanted to shift economic strategy, even if that meant a reduction in the pace of growth. Consumption is seen as a firmer foundation for growth over the long term.
Now, though, China is in danger of slipping closer to the stated target, prompting the government to search for alternatives to speed up growth.
Photo Diary
ReplyDeleteThe Catholics should marry whosodamnedever they want, and let the rest of humanity marry whosodamnedever they want.
ReplyDeleteAnd, the government should stay the hell out of it. If they're going to issue marriage licenses (and, who in the hell ever thought That was a good idea?) for "straight" people, then how can they get off not issuing the same license to left-fielders?
I voted for gay marriage in Idaho when it was once on the ballot. I did know it was going to fail, and it did. If it comes up again, I honestly don't know how I'd vote. I only hope it cuts into O's votes big time. Cause he's worthless.
Deleteb
If her ethnic origins are proven to be valid, I believe the probability is quite high that Elizabeth Warren is the distant cousin of a sock puppet.
ReplyDeleteHowever it seems there is a fly in her annointment. I saw somewhere today that a not so distant relative has been linked to some atrocities committed against her tribe of choice...found it...
"Granny Warren's Ancestral Atrocities Against Native Americans Disclosed ... Elizabeth Warren Ancestor Rounded Up Cherokees For Trail of Tears ... Granny Warren was for killing indians before she was for being an indian.
Surely Rufus II can shed some light on this controversy?
.
DeleteGood heavens, LT, should we hold you responsible for something your crazy uncle Tim did while he was cub scout leader?
.
The Cherokee have always been Pragmatic folks. :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf a sock-puppet is one who doesn't want the government telling him what he can smoke, who he can poke, and wasting his money on foreign adventures, then I most definitely am sock-puppety.
ReplyDeleteI listened to an hour long report about Afghanistan tonight. To say the least, our strategy, whatever it is, is not working. A lot of our money ends up in Taliban hands, for instance. And O has somehow committed us to the same slow bleed for another many years. Our bases get mortared, Bagram (?) air base gets mortared, and we don't have enough troops to do much about it. The 'police' are all illiterate, and the Afghan 'security forces' totally inept and infiltrated by the Taliban. On the other side, half the country hates the Taliban, but doesn't seem to have the will to put much of an effort into it.
ReplyDeleteb
We are probably going to give up on the idea of training the Afghan police -
Deletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/us_could_drop_program_to_train_iraqi_police.html
They are about the level of the Mexican police.
b
The problem is, the "other half" are the Taliban; and they're better armed.
ReplyDeleteAt least in Vietnam the girls were cute.
And, they had strong-assed beer.
One of the motifs that runs throughout the book is Barack Obama's sheer level of incompetency. He has the fatal conceit of many politicians: an overweening ego. That may be a prerequisite for politicians and leaders, but when it is unleavened by a willingness to consider the views of others, it becomes a fatal conceit. And Obama has that trait in abundance.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_amateur_barack_obama_in_the_white_house.html
b
There is a difference between accepting diversity and turning deviance on its head. Moral judgements change with time and aberrant behavior has existed in varying levels of acceptance and repression throughout human history. With the cajoling of a media elite and the technological assistance of modern mass media, in a very short period of time, we are going to experiment with the basic economic and social model of humankind. This has never been technologically possible. Every country on the planet is susceptible to this radical change. The is a systemic assault on normally accepted practice and standards. We have seen it before.
ReplyDeleteWe only need to look at the American black family unit to see the results of family breakdown: poverty, crime, and dependence on the state. The very breakdown is subsidized by the wealth and stability which is the creation of the family unit. Families produce wealth, safety and social security.
Some seize on the prevalence of divorce and make a superficial observation that a broken marraige is the same as a strange marriage. It is not because divorce is the chapter 11 of love. It provides the means to make a correction.
The world is divided into two camps, the opinion makers and the herd. The opinion makers are only accountable to time and outcome. Today there is a persistent assault on the right by the left. The right has been in a reaction and defensive mode since the 1960’s.
If the right and middle folds on this one, nothing is defendable.
.
ReplyDeleteAll correct. All political and societal. All extremely important to us as a society. But all irrelevant to the basic issue which is biological.
Sex and resulting procreation is the prime directive for any species. It drives an inborn need to preserve that species. It was there before clans or tribes or any kind of societal construct. And in the case of humans, at least, that union consisted of a man and a woman.
Marriage is a societal convention that was designed to formalize that existing union of man and woman, first in the family group, then clans, tribes, city-states, etc, setting rules to govern that union. The reason for the societal intervention were perhaps many, some implied (to quell conflict, protect the mother and the child, to achieve the stability and cooperation of the family unit) and some obvious such as the prohibition on incest; but in the end, it all centered on the basic unit of man and woman. [Perhaps, there were exceptions somewhere along the way but these were mere abherrations and short lived.]
When the shamans and priests got involved it was to promote the sanctity of the union. They may have done it for various reasons, societal and religious as well as an extension of their own power; however, it likewise centered on the basic unit of man and women.
The designation of marriage as the formalized union of a man and a women has existed since the first societies. The recognition has its historical, cultural, societal, political, and religious aspects. The union it formalizes has existed since day one. Now that tradition is being assaulted by those who would attempt to change the meaning of 'marriage' to accomodate their personal agenda.
You are probably right in how you view the struggle as a fight between the right and middle and the left, but the emphasis probably should be on the middle. Polls currently show about a 50/50 split in the country (although as you pointed out, the states seem much more conservative on the issue). However, the center may sway the debate.
Unfortunately, the center is made up in a good part by young people who like those in the sixties without thinking of the implications chant "Hey man, do your own thing" and people who could give a shit about the societal coursening you describe and are more concerned about illegal immigration or what fuel we use to get from point a to point b.
The good thing is that societal mores shift over time and, unless constrained by state edict, can shift conservative the same as they have shifted liberal.
.
While many Republicans consider the sudden emergence of gay marriage as an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign an unhelpful distraction, social conservatives Sunday insisted the Obama administration has given presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney an opportunity.
ReplyDelete“I think the president this past week took six or seven states he carried in 2008 and put them in play with this one ill-conceived position that he’s taken,” American Values President Gary Bauer said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“I think that Barack Obama has helped fit that missing piece of intensity that Mitt Romney is going to need,” Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian organization Family Research Council, said on CBS‘ “Face the Nation.”
Gay marriage is suddenly the country’s hottest political talking point after Mr. Obama last week said he now personally supports same-sex marriages — though he said the legality of such unions should be decided by individual states.
Slavery was the prevailing social "more" at one time. as was "Jim Crow." Until recently, you could go to prison in Tx. for getting a blow-job from your wife. The Christians thought all of this was just jim-dandy.
ReplyDeleteIf I want religion I'll go to church on Sunday. But, I don't want any of you assholes, or anyone else, telling me who I can diddle on Monday, or what pill I can take on Tuesday.
If you want to live your life in obeisance to John Hagee, or whoever happens at the time to be wearing the pointy-hat in a small gated community in Rome, that's your business. But, keep your business out of mine.
About all I'm actually hearing, here, is "wah, wah, they stole our "word."
ReplyDeleteA "word" so magical that 50% of owners give it up in divorce court. Another popular act not sanctioned by the power-masters at the Vatican.
How would you like the "Good Religious Man," Romney if it had been your child that he forcibly attacked with scissors?
ReplyDeleteNow, you want to bully Me around, and tell me I can marry Betsy, but not Bruce.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you Champion is a man that would hold my son down, and forcibly cut his hair if it was a bit too long by "His/Your" standards.
ReplyDeleteThat would prevent my daughter from planning her family.
Would send my son off to fight for whatever hare-brained, middle-eastern scheme General Dynamics can dream up.
That would tax the richest men in the land at a higher rate than me.
Bah, and Bullshit.
"That would tax the richest men in the land at a Lower rate than me."
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteSince the bulk of your previous six posts involved the 'gay marriage' issue, that's what I will address first.
Straw Men and Red herrings all. Hysterical and illiogical attacks.
Attacks on specific groups or people because you don't favor their position on the issue are an easy cop out. Like LT insinuating that Elizabeth Warren is somehow responsible for what 'Granny Warren' did. The reasons you give are specious and are at most peripheral to the subject. You offer up negative views of the opposition but no positive arguments.
Slavery? Blow jobs? What has that got to do with 'gay marriage'? Religion isn't the only reason people oppose the concept of trying to equate gay unions with marriage. You've seen plenty of the reasons people oppose it listed here over the past few days. The 'religion' meme is a cop out similar to your recent 'racist' meme. Throw enough of them out there and one of them might stick?
"You stole our word?" Now, that sounds like the vapid pap we get out of Ash when he is on one of his PC kicks. Another red herring. It's not the word, it's what the word represents. I have to assume your simplistic approach to the subject is calculated. You can't be that obtuse.
Romney and scissors? I assume this is merely a matter of changing the subject for expediancy. The only reason to bring Romney (or Obama) into the argument over 'gay marriage' is to what effect they could bring on the subject of the state sanctioning 'gay marriage'.
Ad homenem attacks on Romney are just that. He happens to represent a group opposed to 'gay marriage'. We can argue about their reasons for opposing state
sponsored sanctioning but that doesn't change the basic question all of us have to answer individually on how we fell about the subject.
Bully you around? What pure unadulterated bullshit. Nobody is bullying you or the gays. On there own, they can 'marry' anyone they want. Legally, they have the option of civil unions which would grant them most of the rights they want. If anyone is bullying anyone it is you and them. Demanding not just equal rights but equivalancy where it doesn't exist.
.
If you haven't noticed the "Post" was about Gay Rights (marriage,) and Barack Obama.
ReplyDeleteAnd, you can spin all you want, but you are attempting to deny to gays a right enjoyed by yourself, and the rest of Americans - the right to marry whomever you/they choose.
That is discriminatory, and it puts the government in the position of "disfavoring" an entire group of law-abiding, American citizens.
In short, your position is discriminatory, and UnAmerican.
.
DeleteAnd, you can spin all you want, but you are attempting to deny to gays a right enjoyed by yourself, and the rest of Americans - the right to marry whomever you/they choose.
Nonsense.
Please explain to me those 'rights' that gays are being denied.
You've bought into the PC bullshit pushed by the left. Instead of pushing for full and equal rights under civil unions the gay community and you evidently are pushing for equivalency between gay unions and marriage. That equivalency doesn't exist and it never will despite what the state may dictate.
Your comments about 'the word' and Ash's regarding a 'quibble' show the shallowness of your thinking on this subject.
Discriminatory and UnAmerican? The other day the word was 'rascist'. You really have bought into the leftist kool-aid.
.
I think it is you lacking the logical argument Quirk.
DeleteIf Civil Unions were equal to Marriage (which they are not) then it indeed would be a 'quibble' because the only difference would be how the two terms are spelled.
Since a Civil Union is not equal to marriage then you are denying rights to gay people.
The main thrust of your argument is that historically a church would only sanction a marriage between a man and a woman. Well, historically, many things have been but that doesn't mean we should keep doing them.
How about this for the Civil Union line:
DeleteSince a Civil Union is not equal to marriage you are discriminating against gay people by not allowing them to marry.
.
DeleteDamn, Ash, it's impossible to argue with you. You can't seem to grasp simple definitions. It must be that 'men are from Mars, women are from Venus' shit.
If Civil Unions were equal to Marriage (which they are not) then it indeed would be a 'quibble' because the only difference would be how the two terms are spelled.
No one said civil unions were 'equal' or 'equivalent' to marriage. Just as 'gay marriage' is neither equal nor equivalant to 'marriage'. They can't be. They are two separate things. It is you who is arguing that they should be. What has been argued by me and by others is that civil unions can provide basic legal rights equivalent to those enjoyed by married people thus eliminating any discrimination against gays.
What you are arguing for is the promation of a social agenda to make 'gay marriage' equivalant to heterosexual marriage. That's PC bullshit. Leaving out any subjective evaluation on which is the 'better' or 'best' lifestyle, the two can never be equivalant because they are they are different and have been since day one.
Since a Civil Union is not equal to marriage you are discriminating against gay people by not allowing them to marry.
Lord, Ash, I am trying to keep it civil but at times you sound like a nitwit. I'll ask you the same question I asked Rufus. How is it discrimination? And rather than going around in circles, please be specific. Are you arguing politically, socially, historically, religiously, or just more of your PC bullshit?
Start by defining what it is you mean by equal before you start throwing around words like discrimination.
.
It is you getting upset and hurling ad hominem attacks here quirk.
DeleteQuirk wrote
"What has been argued by me and by others is that civil unions can provide basic legal rights equivalent to those enjoyed by married people thus eliminating any discrimination against gays."
IF this were to become the case then it is just a quibble since you are making the two equivalent and simply ducking the issue by calling them different names. Fine by me.
You ask "How is it discrimination?" It is discriminating based on sexual orientation. It is discrimination to allow folk who are not gay to do something you don't allow folk who are gay to do. Gay people can't, straight people can. It is a simple case of discrimination. You may feel free to argue it is ok to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Have at it if you like but you are fooling yourself if you think you are not discriminating.
.
DeleteI would say it is you who are fooling youself. You take a word that describes a concept that has been around for millenia, try to co-opt that word, and change its basic meaning all in the name of diversity.
Its the PC mindset and your definition of discrimination.
Gay people can't, straight people can.
What? Call themselves married? Gays can. They are just not legally sanctioned to do so. But is that it? What advantage would they gain from it? What they are seeking is not marriage, its not rights which they can get under civil unions, it is forcing social acceptance of their alternate lifestyle.
You say that those who object to the vitiation of an institution that has been around for thousands of years all in the name of some alternate lifestyle is discrimination and I have to ask if in your PC world there is anything that is not discriminatory.
.
Now you are attaching various motives to their quest for equal treatment under the law. The issue at its most elemental is simply a desire to be treated equally under the law. Blacks wanted that, Women wanted that, and now The Gay want it.
Delete.
ReplyDeleteThat would prevent my daughter from planning her family.
More bullshit.
There is nothing preventing your daughter from doing whatever it takes to plan for a family.
The rest of your arguments regarding Romney are legitimate. The questions you have to ask are one, will things be any different on these issues under Obama and two, if they are, do these offset those actions on Obama's part that many people find egregious?
.
Romney has stated his support for the "Blount Amendment."
ReplyDeleteThat amendment would allow employers to direct their insurance carriers Not to cover birth control, or to pay for Doctor visits to obtain birth control.
Common sense demands that their would be many unwanted, and unafforded pregnancies under that regime. More impoverished children, and more ultra-cheap labor for the Romneyites.
DeleteA perfect world. More weaklings to bully.
.
DeleteMore weaklings to bully.,
Another red herring.
As I understanded it, until Obamacare, companies had the right to offer what levels of insurance they wanted if it was a non-union company and to negotiate those levels if it was a union company. Now, we are going to have the government telling private companies (and worse, religious institutions and their affiliates) what level of insurance they must provide?
Some companies offer vision coverage. Others offer dental. Does everyone have a 'right' to those coverages?
You can say that it will stop with birth control but you know that is bullshit. Prior to Obamacare, this administration promised that the new law would in no way compromise religious principles. We saw how long that lasted once Obamacare was passed.
.
"There" would be . . . . .
ReplyDeleteREF what I think was my last post on earlier gay marriage thread
ReplyDeleteThe ERA is an instructive comparison. ERA is very clearly a "different but equal" piece of legislation. No woman is demanding to be called a "man." Yet Congress cannot pass even that innocuous piece of legislation. Ref the Wiki entry and some of the (now ancient) history starring Catholics, Phyllis Schafely (sp?) and a host of only-in-America characters.
The gay marriage question is very clearly in the "equal and the same" category.
Suggestion to opponents : think of an analogy which I lack the imagination to do, beyond citing the ERA.
And then truly, fuhgeddaboutit. The LGBT political activists are very much of the in-your-face mold. Their nyah-nyah approach found traction. As Rufus says, you want marriage? Here. Have fun with the Divorce. And don't come crying to me.
I guess in your world it is ok to pay a woman less for the same job that a man does because a woman is not a man.
DeleteIn short, a woman is not a man but she should be able to do what men do, like vote - no?
What the fuck is the matter with you?
DeleteNowhere did I say any of that.
Think it through.
ERA is "equal but different": no government pass
Gay Marriage is "equal and the same": Pass!!!!
Pass? No Pass? Please explain.
DeleteTo Help you understand my post:
A woman is not a man, they are different but to be treated equally under the law.
Similarly, a Gay is not hetrosexual but is to be treated equally under the law.
Oi.
DeleteCongress refuses to "pass" ERA but looks poised to "pass" DOMA, the former being a rather innocuous piece of legislation with the latter being more intellectually aggressive.
It has been my impression that congresscritters are nutz and rarely intellectually consistent.
DeleteSure and pigs are discriminated against flying because they don’t have wings. Let me make it simple. If you are not born with a vagina, you can never be a mother and a wife. Too bad, better luck next time. We live in an age where do to some misfire of a DNA neuron, nothing is self-evident.
ReplyDeleteLoads of folk get married without ever considering procreating. Heck, if you were sterile should you be prevented from getting married?
DeleteWe need a governmental agency for the vaginally challenged and SCD (systemic cock deprivation).
ReplyDeleteShould infertile women be allowed to marry? Should infertile men? Should "birth control" be illegal?
ReplyDeleteWas "separate, but equal" acceptable?
Was "Women's Suffrage" unnecessary?
Was "Slavery" a matter of local mores?
Or, should all Americans have Equal Rights Under the Law?
.
DeletePure PC bullshit.
All red herrings as was the argument on the ERA. Everyone of these issues should be determined on its own merit. Those with no logical argument offer up obfuscation and diversion.
Or, should all Americans have Equal Rights Under the Law?
I've asked you (and Ash) this question before. What "right" is being denied them?
That they should be able to call themselves married? They can do that right now if they want only without the legal sanction of the state. That they get legal rights similar to those of married couples? They can get that through sanctioned civil unions. Or is that not sufficient for the PC'ers out there? Is it really that you want the totality of society to accept a state dictate that 'gay marriage' is identical to heterosexual marriage.
That won't happen because they are not identical. They never will be.
You are not providing a 'right'. You are imposing a belief system. It is you who are the bullies.
.
Quirk wrote:
Delete"I've asked you (and Ash) this question before. What "right" is being denied them?"
The right being denied them is "Equal treatment under the law"
.
DeleteRead the rest of the post (above) that you quoted me from , Ash. It tries to get to the specifics of your meek, non-specific rebuttal.
.
I did read the rest of the post and you are dancing about the issue giving them "legal rights similar" to marriage,"without the legal sanction of the state", which is NOT eqaul treatment under the law.
DeleteWhy not just come out and say that Gays are not entitled to equal treatment under the law?
.
DeleteWhat 'equal treatment'?
You want the state to say a homosexual union is identical to a heterosexual union. It is not. It has never been. It's that basic.
It's like demanding that the state declare a tomcat is the same as a tiger. There are some similarities but you would have to be pretty mixed up to confuse the two.
.
No, the State does not need to say the union is identical but if it allows two people to marry it should allow all two people to marry.
Deleteand to head off the brother sister, brother brother, father daughter would then qualify, they wouldn't - that is covered under incest laws.
Delete.
DeleteNo, the State does not need to say the union is identical but if it allows two people to marry it should allow all two people to marry.
That's illogical. You have a word, 'marriage', that has had a generally accepted meaning for thousands of years, the union of a man and woman. Then you have another situation where that criteria is not met at the most basic level, and while admitting that this is the case, you merely say 'well then, change the criteria'.
If gays want to call their ceremony a 'joining' or a 'consumation' or a 'hootinanny' it's all right with me; but don't try to change or blur the accepted meaning of the word 'marriage' that has been around for thousands of years and meant one thing, the formal and recognized union of a man and a women to form a family.
If you continue to say "that is merely a word, a quibble", there is no point in arguing futher. To me, that indicates you have no appreciation for the significance of words and their meaning. Major lessons 1984 are lost on you. The difference between 'war' and a 'time-limited kinetic engagement' are merely a quibble. Euphemisms and dysphemisms are just cute ways of saying something. D.C.-speak is just fine.
If you are unwilling or unable to recognize the power of words and how they are used, it explains to me some of the PC positions you come up with.
There is no point arguing the question further. There is no way you and I can come to agreement. We are starting off from two entirely different base lines.
.
Call it what you as long as it has all the legal rights and protections as a marriage.
Deletethe meaning of words are not static though and over time I think you will find that the meaning of marriage will change. Didn't folk present a similar argument resisting allowing for divorce?
.
DeleteExactly the point.
It's easy for you to say 'call it what you want' but that sentiment is unacceptable to the activists in the gay community. That's why it is not a quibble. It's not the legal rights associated with marriage since they can get those in a civil union, it's not the word itself, it's the concept and the legitimacy associciated with the word they seek. They want their union to be considered equivalent to heterosexual marriage in hopes that it will grant more acceptance to their alternative lifestyle.
I do not doubt you are right regarding meanings changing over time though this one has had a good long run. If you think that is a good thing, well... I personally think it is reflective of an overall coursening of our society, but that's just me.
Divorce? Not sure what what you're talking about. Sounds vaguely religious.
You know or should know, I'm not religious. If you follow the blog closely, you know I am big on individual rights and worry about those we lost or are rapidly losing under the last two presidents. I would say I am not anti-gay or that I don't discriminate but that sounds vaguely like an apology and I frankly don't give a shit if people think I am a bigot, racist, anti-semite, or gay-basher. The only thing I ask is if they accuse me of it they offer concrete examples backing up those comments.
What does bother me is bullshit, propaganda, euphemisms, and lies regardless of the justification that is offered for them.
.
Imagine Leo the lion claiming there has been a big mistake and he wants to get shagged up the ass and be called Lois.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou said it, yourself, Q, at 01:37:
ReplyDeleteCivil Union would give them Most of the Rights of Marriage.
.
DeleteI qualified it as 'most' because I don't know the details on all the legalized civil unions and it may vary by state.
It doesn't change the argument. Wherever a legal right was not there, they could easily lobby be for it and get it given that over 80% of the US population supports civil unions. But they won't. Some time ago, the focus for the most vocal of the gay community changed from gaining rights to gaining acceptance. They see state sanction of that lifestyle through the oxymoron of 'gay marriage' as a way to force that acceptance.
.
How do you know what "they" want? You been hanging out that their meetings?
Delete:)
.
DeleteI qualified the statement as the 'most vocal of the gay community'. If you watch the news, that should be obvious.
That does not mean all gays feel that way. Many are satisfied with civil unions. Others feel that the activist pushing stridently for 'gay marriage' are actully a negative in their push for acceptance and are creating a backlash that can hurt or at least delay progress.
You asked if I have been hanging out at their meetings. The answer is no. I used to know quite a few gays before I retired, co-workers and acquaintances. Now, not so much. I suspect they would find me a bit dull these days.
However, I've mentioned before I come from a huge extended family. It includes at least a couple of gays I know of, nice guys. In fact, when I took that three week vacation to the UK last year one of the guys came along. I never met so many gays in my life. It got to the point where I asked him if gays really do have gaydar. At any rate, we discussed some of these issues. I don't think I'm pulling my opinions out of my ass (poor choice of words?) any more than anyone else here.
.
I really don't know what "they" want and I don't really know many gays personally (that I know of). I've met them, worked with them, and just yesterday I had to pick up a steak in 'Rainbow Village' here in Toronto and I was struck by some of the gay sex shops. Mind you porn shops can be striking in their own right but the flamboyant gays can be somewhat...ummm, colorful.
DeleteAnyway, I can't come up with a reason why they shouldn't get married if they want to. I can see it causing the Catholic church some discomfort but they give me some discomfort in the way they treat women and, uh oh, the way some of the priests treat little boys. It is, as I've been saying, a simple case of equal treatment under the law. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
What the fuck is the matter with you?
ReplyDeleteWhy, Maxine, I am shocked to hear such language!
But, it is a good question.
b
Ash, we all want to know, what the fuck is the matter with you?
Deleteb
I'm sitting here watching the 5 month old play with his toes. I truly love that boy, and I want to be sure that he's never discriminated against by a government, pandering for votes from a bunch of religious zealots. How can I guarantee that?
ReplyDeleteThe best way is to fight ALL Government-mandated Discrimination, in ALL instances, as regards to ALL Americans.
.
DeleteIt all depends on whose ox is being gored doesn't it, Ruf.
Obamacare has discrimination built into it against religious organizations
It must be nice to be able to sit there and determine which discrimination is 'bad' discrimination and which is 'good'.
.
No it doesn't.
DeleteIt states that if you Employ people, and provide Healthcare, the policy must be adequate for all needs. One very important need is contraception.
All the Catholic Church has to do is, either quit "employing" people, or quit providing healthcare.
.
DeleteReligious institutions provide one six of all the health care in this country. If they were forced to withdraw all at once, the country would go to hell in a hand basket. You are rather cavalier about it but as I recall when faced with the same situation in D.C. Catholic Charities shut down facilities.
But the issue is bigger than Catholics, one of the more liberal congregations in the U.S., even on birth controls. The real issue is the government camel's nose under the tent. That's why most religions here in the US are concerned about the ruling many of them much more so than the Catholics. It goes to the First Amendment guarantees to freedom of religion. And at the point where the courts rule the churches have standing, it will end up in the Supreme Court and I'm pretty sure the churches will win.
.
Actually, The First Amendment is more a protection "from" religion." "The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion,"
Delete.
DeleteYeh, well, tell it to SCOTUS.
.
Do you really truly want that little boy to be able to buy heroin when he is 18 down at the pharmacy?
ReplyDeleteThink!
b
Damned right.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, 21 might be a more realistic age.
DeleteThat is crazy.
Deleteb
I sure as hell don't want him thrown in jail for smoking a little pot with his friends.
ReplyDeleteThat is not crazy.
Deleteb
Drug Use, and Addiction FELL in Portugal after they legalized All Drugs.
ReplyDeleteAlso, all Crime Statistics, violent, and non-violent fell.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/110709
ReplyDeleteAre you so certain?
Anyway, my question was, do you want your grandchild to be able to buy heroin at the pharmacy?
If you do, you're nuts.
b
I want my grandsons to grow up "free men," in a "free" country.
ReplyDeleteFreedom has risks, but the rewards are more than worth it.
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half,
ReplyDeleteThe League of Women Voters, formerly the National American Woman Suffrage Association, opposed the Equal Rights Amendment until 1972, fearing the loss of protective labor legislation.
ReplyDeleteBe careful what you wish for. There is a downside to not being "special" anymore.
Krauthammer is opposed to drones in law enforcement.
ReplyDelete"Bane of our existence. Stop it here. Stop it Now."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment
ReplyDeleteb
Someone is pulling people over on I-69, and shooting them. Five Dead in the last two weeks.
ReplyDeleteAsk the people around here if they'd like to see some drones overhead.
Krauthammer is a dick, and a faux-intellectual.
In Rememberance...
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest a moment of silence to honor our old friend...
Rufus, The Sage of Peak Oil
My head is bowed.
ReplyDeleteMay 14, 2012
Prince Philip's savage green dream
Thomas Lifson
There is a deep sickness in parts of the green movement, an utter hatred of humanity as despoilers of a natural order. Usually, this is somewhat hidden, though obvious if one goes looking. Sometimes, however, a prominent greenie will let something slip out that gives away the game.
So it is with Prince Philip of the UK, aka The Duke of Edinburgh, the Queen's royal consort. His Royal Highness is The President Emeritus of WWF and past President from 1981-1996, sterling credentials in the green universe. Philip recently said something truly appalling:
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
At least we know who is an enemy of humanity.
Hat tip: F. Swemson
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/prince_philips_savage_green_dream.html#ixzz1utCzKVj0
b
Consequences of inbreeding?
DeleteAccording to some of the comments, alcohol pickled brain syndrome. But inbreeding is surely another possible factor.
Deleteb
Those guys always assume that it won't be them.
ReplyDeleteIn the long and winding American quest to curb Iran's nuclear program, the next month is the most critical period yet. And there are three men to keep an eye on as it unfolds: President Barack Obama, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
ReplyDeleteU.S. officials and their partners from other big world powers meet Iranian negotiators in Baghdad on May 23. That meeting will show whether the oft-discussed, never quite real, diplomatic track for stopping Iran from developing the ability to make nuclear weapons actually exists.
Still, Republicans got nowhere—until a section was added to make it easier for technology companies to raise capital. With the tech lobby applying pressure, the White House produced a letter of support.
ReplyDelete...
The situation with Obama and Republicans is pretty clear. His idea of compromise is when Republicans collapse and fall in line behind his agenda.
He wants to be bipartisan, but only if that means getting his way.
Lightbringer
ReplyDeleteHe's just a stupid old man who has pickled his brain in alcohol over the years. Why pay him any attention?
Like
Reply
Today 06:18 PM
2 Likes
Fredx
As pickled as I've been over the years, I have never conceived of anything so disgusting. Off with his head!
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/prince_philips_savage_green_dream_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1utK3RvPw
Marriage is:
ReplyDelete(1) a legal concept (government)
(2 )a religious concept (church)
(3 )and a cultural concept (society).
Three definitions with three institutional structures that have "standing." The civil union idea, being a legal concept pertaining strictly to rights granted by the government, was an appropriate response from the government.
Quirk got himself in trouble by invoking the idea of "most." I submit that the proper descriptor is "all" rights, in the legal sense, exclusive of religious or cultural "rights," neither of which fall under State purview.
Quirk is also correct in suggesting that the LGBT political activists are ... out there. They lend an unattractive face to the more moderate within the LGBT community. Their insistence of gay "marriage," with *full* awareness of the multiple connotations of the word (full awareness), was a nasty (and immature) little episode of petulant foot-stomping; one they are likely to get away with because changing social mores disguised the - dare I say, nuanced - shiv in the religious construct of "marriage" as a sacred bond between man and woman.
I am rather astonished that this has been missed by so many.
It's been a big deal in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. So big it was, is, threatening to split the congregation. Don't know what the current status of the discussions are, but with the faithful becoming fewer each year, it's not exactly a great way to grow the church.
DeleteI think if I recall correctly, it was Dominic Crossan, who has a high opinion of himself, who made a passable argument that St. Paul was a queer.
Jesus never touched the subject.
b
Let's ramp it up a notch.
DeleteIf one were to speculate about the heat generated by the gay marriage debate, one might suggest that the real target behind the rhetorical bombast is "sex for pleasure" which is all that gays do. It also explains a lot of the opposition to birth control. Birth control neatly sliced off pleasure from procreation. Slut! (Always the Temptress.) God's Plan is being violated by grandiloquent visions of man as a Decider, in control of his Fate.
The ultimate in decadence.
.
DeleteIf I might offer an observation, you fixate way too much on religion.
There are few religious oriented people on this blog and the most religiously oriented of them here haven't actually taken part in this debate.
In this country, the religious right like the gay-activists of the left drive the headlines, but in the end, it will likely be the center that decides this debate.
.
I am tired of this subject but christ almighty ...
Deleteyou fixate way too much on religion
the religious right like the gay-activists of the left drive the headlines
I am "fixating" on the groups that "drive the headlines" whom I have already described as "out there." "I" am hardly the center of this universe in addressing their noise.
I noted that marriage is a multifaceted concept that includes religion as one facet.
I offered a thesis that the rhetorical "heat" is driven more by religious considerations than State considerations, the truth of which appears to be strongly correlated with age, as previously noted.
You're the one who can't drop it.
Which makes one wonder.
The so-called 'religious right' or 'evangelical conservatives' gaining too much traction within the Republican Party.
but in the end, it will likely be the center that decides this debate.
Bull. The "center" doesn't give a rat's ass about "this debate" - as I have noted by addressing the points of the extremists who "are" driving "this debate."
.
DeleteIn the absence of a Supreme Court decision, it will be the center that decides this issue. It may be true the center doesn't give a 'rat's ass' about this debate but only until such time as they are asked to vote on it.
The extremes are basically pissing in the wind without that vote. So far, 37 states have come out against with 30 some passing amendments to that effect. That trend can change over time but only if there is a shift in the center.
.
But some analysts warned that eurozone policymakers were being dangerously complacent. "Whoever tells you a Greek exit would be no big deal is an idiot, lying or disingenuous," said Sony Kapoor of the European think-tank Re-Define.
ReplyDeleteEconomists fear that a disorderly exit would prompt a huge run by investors on Spanish and Italian debt, forcing those countries to seek support from an EU bailout fund, which, with a capacity of just €500bn, is widely regarded as too small to cope with those pressures.
Official figures show that the collective factory output of the single currency area shrank by 0.3 per cent in March. And data released today is expected to confirm that the currency bloc is officially back in recession, with a contraction of 0.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2012, following a 0.3 per cent shrinkage in the final three months of 2011.
Exit 132 off Interstate 29 in Brookings, South Dakota, offers two possibilities. A right turn will take drivers through miles of farms, flatland that stretches to the horizon, cut up into grids by country roads and picturesque barns—a scenic route to nowhere in heartland America. But take a left at the light, and you wind up coasting through a college town of 19,000 that’s more than 95 percent white.
ReplyDelete...
Food is a natural conduit of change, evolution, and innovation. Wishing for a foodstuff to remain static, uncorrupted by outside influence—especially in these United States—is as ludicrous an idea as barring new immigrants from entering the country.
...
As long as Mexican food has existed in this country, government has tried to legislate it out of existence. This is partly because of stereotypes but mostly because government is government.
Taco USA
On this day in 1804, the Lewis and Clark expedition started their journey from a camp near present-day Hartford, Ill., crossing 8,000 miles of newly purchased U.S. territory, to the mouth of the Columbia River.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think form has not overtaken function take a gander of BC's latest.
ReplyDeleteIt's the esthetics, stupid.
The Left has it.
The Right doesn't.
Cry me a River.
The Whine Factor in this election is already intolerable.
Max, you're just too cerebral fer me.
ReplyDeleteWhere'd the rat go?
Say, talkin' about days gone by, has anybody heard from my old gal pal Stella lately? There's a woman I'd like to take fishin'.
.
DeleteEvidently, love at first sight LT.
The lady just wasn't here for very long. I don't think you can necessariily go by that picture she used as an avatar. Maybe you were smitten by the fact she was a professional.
By professional, I meant lawyer, of course.
.
.
"...crossing 8,000 miles of newly purchased U.S. territory, to the mouth of the Columbia River.
ReplyDeleteDamn! Missouri is one helluva wide state! It's only bout 1600 hunert mi from home in CA to mom's house in NW Arkansas. That makes Missouri easily over 5,000 mi wide!
LT: constant whining about how put-upon they feel because the "image" of the Left (Obama) is so hip/cool while the Right can't seem to crawl out of its cave network, from a marketing perspective. On a too frequent schedule, the BC crowd goes into this teenage girl angst "will I ever be loved" by the one that matters?
ReplyDeleteReally, with that kind of attitude. Probably not.
(I suspect secret frustration that Obama so effortlessly plays the Cult of Personality to his advantage, which he does. The Republicans have some work to do. Unfortunately they've decided to just buy their way back in - witness the remarkably one-sided money flows being funneled through the Koch organizations - hundreds of millions compared to tens of millions. Questions of policy - aside from "Less Government Now" don't seem to interest them in the slightest, which explains, imo, why the electorate is conflicted. One reason.)
BC is best when they stay out of the social stuff and stick with history, foreign policy, and energy. They don't have the psychological reach to stray too far.
Which is maybe what they're moaning about. I really don't know. Anyway enough of that.
I'm going to watch a movie.
stick with history, foreign policy, and energy
DeleteAnd nary a "faux intellectual" within spitting distance of that crowd.
Movie time.
Idaho itself is 8,000 miles across, and they came right through here, down the Clearwater and Snake; the total river miles of those two is over 20,000 miles. And that still left the Columbia to navigate.
ReplyDeleteb
And on their way back, they stopped to pick up some supplies they had left at Asotin, and bumped into a peaceful Nez Perce named Humpsillitswooskooki or whatever his name was, just back from a war party to the south against the Shoshone, with a big necklace of human scalps about his neck. Part of the year was set aside for trading with the Shoshone, and a part for mutual killing of one another. This had been going on I think since the time they mastered the ponies. Like the Aryans, and the Sioux, when they got the horse, they got fierce. And besides, catching salmon does get boring when you do too much of it. After the ponies, they were into it with the Blackfeet in Montana as well.
Deleteb
Go Deb!
ReplyDeleteDeb Fischer, 61, a rancher and state senator who is seeking statewide office for the first time, appears to be gaining ground on Mr. Bruning, 43. Her momentum has not gone unnoticed at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, where aides have quietly started to argue that she would be a strong challenger to Mr. Kerrey in a presidential election year in which Republican turnout is likely to be strong in this deeply conservative state.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/insurgent-threatens-republican-plans-in-nebraska-senate-primary/
b
Well, ok, it's closer to 7,700 miles.
ReplyDeleteJust for Sam -
ReplyDeletehttp://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/14/11694275-poo-machine-attracts-crowds-at-australias-subversive-adult-disneyland?chromedomain=photoblog
b
This article agrees with Duece -
ReplyDeleteIt’s mushroom cloud after mushroom cloud for President Obama.
We’ll never see the internal polls, but the externals are awful: Down 8 percent to challenger Mitt Romney in the latest poll, with fewer than 180 days; disillusioned college kids, independents and the white working-class fleeing in droves. Even the barber-shops boys are mocking their Man. Makes sense that in Chicagoland, Obama Central, the internals they’re seeing are even worse.
Except that the writer thinks the whole Biden thing was a set-up. Nevertheless, it's a disaster.
It’s mushroom cloud after mushroom cloud for President Obama.
Desperation days for Obama -
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/13/curl-team-obama-panics-and-its-only-may/
b
Buy Romney on Intrade now.
ReplyDeleteb
Like the poo machine, Bob. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteFacebook still hasn't proven that its $3.7 billion in revenue and $1 billion in profits last year deserve such a lofty valuation. Last month, the company disclosed that its first-quarter profit and revenue declined from the fourth quarter of 2011, which it attributed to seasonal trends in advertising.
ReplyDelete...
Michael Belanger, a lawyer from Oklahoma City, invests his personal money in the stock market. But he will be skipping Facebook's IPO because he thinks its valuation is totally "out of whack."
Scott Schermerhorn, chief investment officer of investment-management firm Granite Investment Advisors, says the hype around Facebook's IPO is going to keep his firm away. "It's a cult stock," he says.
Maybe that’s why, instead of highlighting the stimulus (or Obamacare or much of anything else in his tenure as president), Obama told his supporters in the partially filled basketball arena in Columbus, “If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them it’s still about hope. You tell them it’s still about change.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s probably also why he added, “I’m asking you to keep believing in me. I told you in 2008 that I wasn’t a perfect man, and I would never be a perfect president.”
...
That may be why Obama is running again. But that’s no reason for us to be foolish enough to elect him again.