Look at what he's comparing. Las Vegas is a place where couples who have a right to get married anywhere go to get married because it's quick and easy. Massachusetts was to become a place where couples who are unable to marry elsewhere would go in order to have the right to marry. It disrespects marriage and it disrespects gay people and it disrespects the nature of rights to make a joke out of this comparison.
It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry. But if you want to take that position, you should still be decent and respectful about it. It's not funny to say to people who have sincere and important personal relationships that they cannot acquire the same stamp of honor that other people can get. It is another matter to treat gay couples who want to marry as if they are like the couples who just don't want to have to put up with the waiting period and red tape that blocks the path to marriage in their home state.
And I say that as someone in an opposite-sex marriage who traveled to another state in order to avoid the waiting period and red tape that blocks the path to marriage in my home state.
Mitt Romney, trying to look grounded in traditional moral values, comes across as flimsy and clownish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
330 comments:
1 – 200 of 330 Newer› Newest»I think Romney may have been referring not to quickie Vegas marriage, but to Nevada's prominent position as the place to get divorced. Not much of a distinction, and perhaps not a defense of any sort, but this interpretation is consistent with Romney's citation of the 1913 law.
Does Meade have the power to take down the original post?
Wrong Ann. "Same sex marriage" disrespects marriage.
But you and same sex advocates are just too smart to get things like basic common sense.
"I think Romney may have been referring not to quickie Vegas marriage, but to Nevada's prominent position as the place to get divorced."
That would only make it worse.
As my significant other would say - "Correct-a-mundo" Ms. Althouse. Lovely skewering that...
If the internet is any indication, the people who oppose gay marriage do find much humor in belittling the love and pain of gay couples, who they don't respect.
In fact, among the homophobes, all the passion of teh gay is funny.
that kept Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.
Was it a joke?
Was there laughter?
The article you linked to didn't say or infer it was a "joke" at all.
You say, "That would only make it worse." But you said earlier, "Mitt Romney, trying to look grounded in traditional moral values, comes across as flimsy and clownish."
My interpretation: he's sending signals (it's code! code!) that he thinks married people should stay together and government should make easy divorce and what he regards as flimsy marriage difficult and/or illegal.
In other words, to a certain kind of social conservative, it makes it better, not worse.
Again, where is there any indication that this was a joke. He didn't want his state to be the place where gay couples travelled to to get married.
"Wrong Ann. "Same sex marriage" disrespects marriage."
Reread the post. I allow that you are welcome to think that. You can think that this isn't something that should be permitted, but in doing that you don't have to be disrespectful to gay people. You don't have to treat them as if what they want is a joke. The inappropriateness of same-sex marriage may seem obvious to you, but you still need to explain why it is obvious that the people who want it are so off-base that it's funny to joke about what they think is profound.
When you do that, you remind me of the sort of atheist who mocks people who are sincere about their religion. Those atheists think it's obvious that there is no God, but that doesn't justify disrespecting religious people. There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treat religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
Those of you who question whether it's a "joke": it's clearly phrased as a witticism. It's a snappy line that tries to entertain us.
The amount of anti-gay bigotry that is necessary and appropriate in a Republican primary is almost certainly in conflict with the amount of anti-gay bigotry that would be unnecessary and inappropriate in a general election campaign.
And my point is that in taking that attitude, he pushes away people like me who perceive him as being an asshole.
"The amount of anti-gay bigotry that is necessary and appropriate in a Republican primary is almost certainly in conflict with the amount of anti-gay bigotry that would be unnecessary and inappropriate in a general election campaign."
Yeah, so win now, lose later.
And... Mitch Daniels was right.
it's clearly phrased as a witticism. It's a snappy line that tries to entertain us.
Alternatively,
It is phrased as fact.
I've searched google, google news, and can find no reference to this as a "joke"
Odd.
@ AAMitt Romney,trying to look [fill in the blank] comes across as flimsy and clownish.
You mean like BHO does regularly?
Get a grip. Even those of us who have no problem with it don't have to share your emotional needs for outrage. Getting animated about this shows a lack of seriousness and tolerance. We don't all have to talk the way you want with your pet peeves in mind.
@Ms. Althouse - Hahaha - My Significant Other just reminded me that she is your dopleganger: looks like you, takes the same type of pictures you take, etc., etc., etc. She's just to the left of center as you are to the right.
Andy R. said...
The amount of anti-gay bigotry that is necessary and appropriate
And of course "anti-gay bigotry" is nebulus and especially apparent to gays and parents of gays.
Yawn.
When you do that, you remind me of the sort of atheist who mocks people who are sincere about their religion. Those atheists think it's obvious that there is no God, but that doesn't justify disrespecting religious people.
Ann, you're really harshing the buzz I'm getting seeing you call out the anti-gay folks for their mendacity and stupidity and bigotry.
There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treats religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
You might keep that one under your hat.
Also, I agree with others here. Where's the humor in what Romney said?
The polemicists are the ones out in full force making this election about matters other than the economy.
If he'd said "Indiana" instead of "Las Vegas," you might have a point. But he didn't.
It seems obvious to me that Romney was alluding to the uniquely Vegas style of wedding.
Given the strong association of camp with gay culture, his remark is embedded in a context that's clear to those of us with no particular axe to grind.
There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treat religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
Huh?
Obama is an athesist? Or are you saying he treats athesists with respect?
"It's not funny to say to people who have sincere and important personal relationships that they cannot acquire the same stamp of honor that other people can get."
This is the core reasonableness of gay marriage and why it's likely to succeed. Even though I disagree with same sex marriage for religious reasons and practical reasons, it's obvious there is an authentic case to be made. The contrary case for the sacredness of marriage is already immeasurably damaged by the lack of respect heterosexuals have for marriage. Given the erosion of marriage in general, gay marriage cannot be readily distinguished from a typical straight marriage. Now I'm a devout Catholic and I understand why the Church takes the view that is does. It's just a an extremely hard sell to those outside the faith given no fault divorce etc.
The Mittster is working on how to to tack right of Santorum, hoping to make Santorum look Liberal, Remember he made Perry look pro-Mexican and Gingrich look pro spending.
But Mitt needs to get his temporary debate coach back to explain the conservative issues to him again. Then he can go out and say them as if he means them.
Money Power can be very Conservative or it can be very Liberal. Money power is like that honey badger that just don't care. Romney must add to his message more than "I am the Money Power Superman."
Santorum's attraction to conservatives is that he does seem to care. When he holds a pro-life position, there is no doubt that he means it. When he sees the hoax of cap and tax based on CO2 as pollution, he says so and makes it clear he knows the truth.
But Obamas and the Romneys both send out messages with a wink that says, "... don't worry, I don't mean what I am saying."
You ever see the Simpson's episode where Homer is hired to design a car? The result is what some people think they should get to vote for. It has everything a person could want and is consequently in totality useless for it's purpose.
Ann Althouse said...
And my point is that in taking that attitude, he pushes away people like me who perceive him as being an asshole.
If you already perceive him as being an asshole, were you really 'pushed away' by his taking that attitude? Are you sometimes drawn to assholes?
BTW, 'asshole politician' is a redundancy.
The contrary case for the sacredness of marriage is already immeasurably damaged by the lack of respect heterosexuals have for marriage.
Yes, and Las Vegas is the epicenter of ridiculousness in marriage. I don't think more of the same should be encouraged, either among gay or straight people.
Ann,
I do not disrespect the feelings of gay people, though I know many who oppose same sex marriage do and they are wrong to disrespect the feelings of gay people and same sex advocates. Neither do I apologize to those who want to make the issue only about their feelings and sensitivities and ignore the larger societal benefit/harm part of the conversation.
You want me to explain - I will after I return from an appointment in San Diego I am leaving for now.
Muy question: will it really matter? My explanation? I don't mean agreement, I mean will there be an actual respectful on both sides conversation or will it devolve immediately into the hatred and closed minds so prevalent on the pro same sex side and also to a lesser degree on the opposite side about this issue?
Real conversation or waste of time?
If it's the latter, then you can take back you're characterization of me and others in opposition right now, because you're slandering me and judging my motives.
Law Professor? I'll read your response after 2 pm Pacific.
It means attracting out of state people to take advantage of something that other states don't allow, and we want it for our own people.
It's sort of respecting other states, and sort of respecting our state.
Anti gay-marriage isn't based on anti gay sentiment but respect of marriage. Whatever same sex marriage is, is isn't marriage.
It's a hangup on the word, but a hangup that seeks to preserve the word and thus the ability to talk about what would otherwise be forgotten.
"How Romney lost me".
Are we doing this?
Arguing semantics?
When we're baptizing our future heirs in mountains of debt?
When we're suffocating our economy with nebulous and intrusive rules and regulations?
When we are abdicating our responsibility to freedom and liberty to and endless line of bureaucrats and faceless government entities?
Seriously?
Now compare what Romney said to what has been said about him and those who don't see a problem here. Where is the hatred and bigotry again? Bigot is serious thing too call someone. It shouldn't be just someone who disagrees with you, or says things in a way unapproved by your enlightened lexicon.
That is a two-way street, Ms. Althouse.
It's not funny to say to people who have sincere and important personal relationships that they cannot acquire the same stamp of honor that other people can get."
And when polygamists start suing states that have enacted gay marriage laws because they can't get a marriage license, I look forward to your avid defense of polygamy.
Chase said: "Same sex marriage" disrespects marriage.
On that premise, who is making the joke, Ann? You've taken "attitude" and "bigotry" and obscured any discussion of the morality and religious faith convictions.
The latter prevail in many of our minds, Romney's included, I suspect.
Las Vegas has long been a joke for marriage for many people.
Most people do find same sex marriage a risible subject - Adam and Steve, etc.
If not on its face, than when Hatman ("harshing the buzz" ?) shows up and starts pontificating.
Ann Althouse said...
"I think Romney may have been referring not to quickie Vegas marriage, but to Nevada's prominent position as the place to get divorced."
That would only make it worse.
But homosexual relationships are notoriously unstable. The happiest people in the Empire State, when Andy Cuomo rammed this through, were the divorce lawyers.
Yeah, so win now, lose later.
And... Mitch Daniels was right.
Tell that to the Catholics.
The current occupant of the White House is opposed to gay marriage and the Republican running against him will be too.
So much bigotry, so many decisions!
No "Emotional Althouse" tag?
Not.
Las Vegas has for a near-eternity been a stand-in for "anything goes, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas".
You want respect for same-sex marriage? See Prop 8 in Calif. and the tsunami of disrespect by leftists and gay activists against those who support straight marriage.
Gays have it coming and they have not yet even begun to pay for their disrespect.
MayBee said...
How Romney lost me
1. Romney is a bad choice for President.
2. Obama isn't Romney.
3. Therefore, Obama isn't a bad choice for President.
Alternatively, we could weigh other factors besides pet ones.
This is what Willard said:
"We were able to enforce, I think it was a 1913 law, that kept Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."
Isn't it true that the 1913 state law that Willard brags about enforcing was an anti-miscegenation law?
@Dave and @Maybee,
Rather disingenuous to claim that the "damage" that "heterosexuals" have done to marriage in any away mitigates the potential harm of homosexual marriage.
It isn't as if there is a clear dichotomy on the issue where only homosexuals want homosexual marriage and all heterosexuals want to restrict marriage to heterosexuals only.
If you take just a moment to look deeper, you'll see that it is the exact same people who damaged heterosexual marriage that are pushing the hardest for homosexual marriage: liberals.
Ending the shaming of out-of-wedlock pregnancy was a liberal idea.
No-fault divorce was a liberal idea.
Govt subsidizing of single motherhood is a liberal idea.
"Free" contraception and "free" abortion is a liberal idea.
"Free" sexual activity (i.e. no consequences for the behavior) is a liberal ideal.
"If it feels good/self-actualization no matter who it hurts" is a liberal ideal.
The misandry tendencies of the US legal-judicial system is a liberal ideal.
Undermining the family unit and replacing it with govt is a liberal idea.
These are the things that damaged marriage in the US.
Adding SSM to the mix is just the next step in the progression.
You can think that this isn't something that should be permitted, but in doing that you don't have to be disrespectful to gay people. You don't have to treat them as if what they want is a joke.
Yes, you can. If you hold that gay rights advocates are only pushing for same-sex marriage (and gay service in military) to "normalize" society's view of gays, then yes. In this, you are being no more cynical than (you beleive) gay rights are being.
I don't hold to that belief, but its a bit much to lecture one side of being "disrespectful".
Rather disingenuous to claim that the "damage" that "heterosexuals" have done to marriage in any away mitigates the potential harm of homosexual marriage.
"The foundation is already damaged, so its cool if we damage it further"
Does anyone actually believe Romney is opposed to gay marriage? I mean really, he only became a social conservative when he suddenly needed to win their votes.
Now I don't like such "transformations" and am not defending it (I don't like being lied to) but I bring this up because this is the exact same approach I seem to recall Althouse and other pro gay marriage folks taking with Obama (who has the same stance as Romney by the way).
It was always about "Oh he doesn't really believe that, he just needs votes" but suddenly with Romney engaging in the exact same rhetoric with the exact same assumptions it's "How dare he!!!".
Seems kind of hypocritical, but I suppose we all have our own preferences about who lies to us.
And it was always my assumption that the Vegas marriage stereotype was about quickie marriages that nobody put any thought into rather than the issue of red-tape avoidance. I suppose in this instance the point is that such a law would cut down on marriage tourists.
Whether you consider that better or worse is up to you.
still treat religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama)
That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. Let's assume he is an atheist (I think he is), and look at how he behaves:
-he's spent his entire adult life claiming, falsely, to be a Christian to ingratiate himself with religious people;
-he falsely claims his religious beliefs are the basis for major pieces of legislation to fool religious people into supporting them;
-he repeatedly replaces the phrase "freedom of religion" with the much more constrained "freedom of worship" in speeches;
-he "compromises" with religious figures without talking to them, instead offering something equivalent to if not worse than his original demand which struck at the deepest beliefs of many religious people.
Romney isn't nearly as hostile or disrespectful to gay people as Obama is to religious people.
Alternatively, we could weigh other factors besides pet ones.
But gay marriage is the single most important issue of our time.
And when Obama opposes it, he does it respectfully. So there's your moral imperative for voting.
Forget about all that economic policy-disaster stuff. No biggie.
Alternatively, we could weigh other factors besides pet ones.
The trick is to not believe Obama when he promises or says things we don't like.
Remember he killed Bin Laden, he is providing everyone access to zero copay birth control (and breast pumps), and he really supports gay marriage even though he says he is evolving. Most of all, Obama doesn't even pretend to respect the Constitution.
He is no clown. We can't have a clown for POTUS.
Who expects a Mormon elder to understand there is anything wrong with gay bigotry.
But Mitt also has a way of dismissing legitimate needs of whomever he defines as outsider, with no empathy for them be they the poor, the workers he enjoys firing, or even the family dog outside on the roof.
Bain Capital used that Romney skill of non-empathy to get rid of many struggling businesses that stood in the way of his profiting.
And we have watched as that skill of non-empathy was serially aimed at Perry, Cain, Gingrich and next up the poor Pennsylvania Catholic kid.
The mystery is how Professor Althouse ever came to like Romney in the first place.
What makes Althouse say Romney was joking?
Las Vagas is a vacation destination built on tourist dollars, where those interests predominate in the making of social policy.
Romney was describing the position he took at the time on whether Massachusetts should becoming a same sex marriage vacation destination for the sake of tourist dollars.
Doubtful? Let's look at the context of the debate at the time and how same sex advocates sold the eventual repeal of the 1913 law Romney was talking about. It's not about human rights.
From the NYT, 2008.
State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate.
Rather than joking, Romney was describing his advocacy against marriage -- any marriage, as gay marriage was then legal in Massachusetts -- being "whored-out" Vegas-style by same sex marriage advocates.
I think Romney should instead be pointing out -- correctly -- just how much money Santorum wants to spend.
But hey, if the Republicans want to spend this coming election talking about Gays and Marriage, and thereby lose the election, go for it.
Just what America is looking for (NOT): Another Senator running for President.
In other words: Romney is not going to out-social-conservative Santorum. Why should he even try?
Play to your strengths, and highlight the weaknesses (and Santorum has those) of your opponent.
@Maybee,
Disregard last post as directed at you. I must have mis-read something.
Madison Man,
I believe he is in the ads in Michigan.
And when polygamists start suing states that have enacted gay marriage laws because they can't get a marriage license, I look forward to your avid defense of polygamy.
Jay sound a lot like Ricky:
"[I]f the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
Hatman: The amount of anti-gay bigotry -
Riiiight. Just because someone doesn't agree with your values means they must hate you.
And Ann wants to talk about being "disrespectful"...
But hey, if the Republicans want to spend this coming election talking about Gays and Marriage, and thereby lose the election, go for it.
You realize an overwhelming majority of voters who have voted on gay marriage have voted against it, right?
Oh, and prepare for the social issues to disappear with the coming explosion in gas prices.
Right now the whole social issues debate is purely a sideshow attraction in an otherwise boring primary season.
To me this seems to be another clumsy attempt to bond with conservative that are skeptical of him. In 2004, he felt the need to bond with gun advocates and puffed his chest about how he hunts small vermin. Then he tries to impress CPAC with his "severe conservatism".
Romney would be better off being himself and explaining why the real Romney should be president.
Jay sound a lot like Ricky:
I'm waiting for you or anyone else to explain why marriage is limted to two people if it is not limited to opposite sex couples.
Thanks in advance.
he really supports gay marriage even though he says he is evolving
Is it more respectful of him to tell religious people the lie that he shares their beliefs when he clearly doesn't, or to tell gay marriage supporters the lie that he doesn't share their beliefs when he clearly does?
How Romney lost me
I haven't been so surprised since Obama's first budget didn't include a net spending cut.
traditionalguy said...
And we have watched as that skill of non-empathy was serially aimed at Perry, Cain, Gingrich and next up the poor Pennsylvania Catholic kid.
Please tell me this is heavy irony.
Does anyone actually believe Romney is opposed to gay marriage? I mean really, he only became a social conservative when he suddenly needed to win their votes.
The important thing to take away from this is that Willard is very flexible.
It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry.
___________
Of course, that is a blatently disingenuous and purposeful totally dishonest distortion of the objections to so-called same-sex "marriage."
How about being "decent and respectful" enough to approach the issue truthfully?
In 2004, he felt the need to bond with gun advocates and puffed his chest about how he hunts small vermin.
Actually, small varmints, if you will.
There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treat religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
Just what is in those cookies you have been baking?
And you do need a tag for "emotional Althouse."
I'm waiting for you or anyone else to explain why marriage is limted to two people if it is not limited to opposite sex couples.
Or even why it's limited to people, right Ricky? ;)
Does anyone actually believe Romney is opposed to gay marriage?
Mormons are some of the most hateful anti-gay bigots around. Why wouldn't Romney oppose gay marriage?
Under the Catholic theology marriage is a sacrament meant primarily for procreation. It has a secondary unitive purpose, as well but that unity that is understood to be supportive of the family. Given that understanding same sex marriage is simply not possible. Now it's not hard to find plenty of heterosexual examples that don't abide by these ideals, especially outside the Church. So it's not surprising that this position isn't terribly compelling.
The erosion of marriage is so commonplace and the negative effects of the weakened family so typical that it's hard to see what was lost. Gay marriage is just the next step is diluted the sacred even further. Easy divorce put marriage on life support, gay marriage will try to pull the plug.
However that sacred ideal still has a place and will survive.
What remains to be seen is whether religious liberty will still exist in the US once the battle is in full swing. I have every reason to believe there will be attempts to abridge it significantly and that gay marriage will be the club used to do so. Just look to the UK for the future.
It's a terrible shame. Reasoned respectful discussions on this volatile subject are exceedingly rare. Gays and Christians are on a collision course. I'm really saddened by the divide and I'm afraid Christians will fail to be charitable and that gays will be lost.
And my point is that in taking that attitude, he pushes away people like me who perceive him as being an asshole.
Where is your cruel neutrality? I thought you were only a jaded onlooker!
wv: noutor
MadisonMan said...
I think Romney should instead be pointing out -- correctly -- just how much money Santorum wants to spend.
The nail on the head.
As I said yesterday, don't forget what why came here.
Gays and Christians are on a collision course. I'm really saddened by the divide and I'm afraid Christians will fail to be charitable
Yes, Christians have failed to be charitable (past tense) and are losing.
Whether Christianity can stop it's anti-gay bigotry quick enough to prevent the sort of large-scale damage they are facing is still up in the air.
It is fun watching Christianity grovel about their love of gays in their desire to wish away their long-standing and institutional anti-gay bigotry, though.
Sometimes people get offended because they want to be offended. Althouse's response to my saying I don't see any evidence that this was a joke on Romney's part was simply an assertion. "Those of you who question whether it's a "joke": it's clearly phrased as a witticism. It's a snappy line that tries to entertain us." If it's so clear that it's a joke or a witticism, then there shouldn't be disagreement about whether it is or not. But again, I don't see any argument from Althouse on why I should interpret this as flippant or cute or a joke. Just an assertion that it's obvious. It's not obvious at all, or to me, even likely. He said he didn't want his state to be the state that gays from all of the country travel to to get married.
It's one thing to believe there should be no right for gay people to marry.
Once again, just so that there are misunderstandings --
Gay people DO have the right to marry.
A man joining with another man, be they gay or straight, is not and cannot be "marriage."
Mormons are some of the most hateful anti-gay bigots around. Why wouldn't Romney oppose gay marriage?
Why wouldn't Obama oppose gay marriage?
"mittens's bad joke" is a tad redundant! :D
Too bad w/all his $$$ he can't find a funny comedian to write and tell jokes for him lol.
10,000 out of work comedians in the world ...
>
And also too bad Walker got the koch boys flu today. :-P
"It seems obvious to me that Romney was alluding to the uniquely Vegas style of wedding. Given the strong association of camp with gay culture, his remark is embedded in a context that's clear to those of us with no particular axe to grind."
That only make it worse.
Amexpat said...
To me this seems to be another clumsy attempt to bond with conservative that are skeptical of him.
Note from the 2008 NYT article.
The law, believed to have been designed to uphold other states’ bans on interracial marriage, was invoked in 2004 by Gov. Mitt Romney, a same-sex marriage opponent who said he did not want to make Massachusetts “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”
It seems so many people are so caught up in the narrative that Romney can't be who he says he is, they really do seem to overlook who he actually was and is.
Andy R. said...
Yes, Christians have failed to be charitable (past tense) and are losing
Hysterical.
Catholic's have done more to treat those afflicted with AIDS than any government program.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it is tragic.
Mormons are some of the most hateful anti-gay bigots around.
Y'know, Andy, you don't really have to bother typing this out. Its been posted so many times the afterimage is strong.
Thanks, Nathan.
bgates- I know, right?
And again, it's kinda endearing Althouse is defending her boy, mittens, to the bitter end. :)
This is the most divisive issue in America, and there's no way to find common ground. It all hinges on the word "love," and how it's defined. Can you joke about other people's love life? Love after all is the most serious thing in the world to those who are involved in it, but to those who aren't, it always seems quite funny. Happy Valentine's Day, everybody, belatedly.
I'm not claiming the damage heterosexuals did to "mitigates" the effect of same sex marriage. I am recognizing the reality that what heterosexuals did to marriage undermines the arguments for marriage especially in the popular secular culture which dominates. It's a large part of the reason this battle even exists. I'm not approving, merely relating why not optimistic.
That would only make it worse.
That only make it worse.
Keep trying, folks!
If it's so clear that it's a joke or a witticism, then there shouldn't be disagreement about whether it is or not.
Exactly.
The headline refutes the post.
That only make it worse.
No. That makes it a legitimate concern, for reasons EDH has documented.
Why wouldn't Obama oppose gay marriage?
AndyR cannot answer this question, unless he believe Obama is a hate-filled bigot.
Dave asks a good question. Will the child of religious parents, or someone who holds the classic natural law teaching to be correct, be allowed to criticize what his or her sex-ed teacher teaches in class? Or will they be as closed-minded about it as schools used to be in the other direction?
Liberty implies open argument. I hope both sides will retain their liberty to defend their views here. To do otherwise would entail an establishment of religion.
"It is fun watching Christianity grovel about their love of gays in their desire to wish away their long-standing and institutional anti-gay bigotry, though."
It's not groveling it's a serious attempt to love thy neighbor.
What makes this "bad joke" "worse" is not addressing the actual contours of the debate over repeal of the 1913 law and the context of the "Las Vegas" comment first made by Romney in 2004.
I think Obama will support gay marriage in his second term and also that he has and will continue to fight for the rights of gay people in other ways where the Republicans are fighting against gay people.
For instance, DADT.
Andy
You must know the Church teaches that hating anyone is a mortal sin, thus anti-gay bigotry is deadly. The road through this is "hate the sin not the sinner". So I can learn to love you but not your actions if they are sinful. It's ever so easy however to let hatred of sin slip into hatred of people. No one serious ever said Christianity was easy.
"In other words: Romney is not going to out-social-conservative Santorum. Why should he even try?"
Because, apparently, that's the kind of guy he is, which, ironically, is the opposite of a real social conservative. That's why I called him flimsy.
"How Romney Lost Me"... is something I thought of myself, but unfortunately, they have all lost me. I don't like anyone who's currently in the running, so that means no one has lost me yet.
I think Ann is delusional if she doesn't think Massachusetts is to gay couples what Vegas is to straight couples. Massachusetts is to gay couples in the eastern US what Vancouver, B.C., is to gay couples in the western US: a place to have a shotgun wedding with a neat certificate as a souvenir--but don't worry about filing for divorce if things hit the rocks. That is, I think, the prime difference between this two: at least straight couples bother to file for divorce.
Anecdotally, I know several couples that are no longer together but are still "married" in either Vancouver or Massachusetts, because getting married seemed like a fun, impulsive thing to do.
Also, this trend has confounded researchers trying to tease out divorce rates for gay couples because so many of Massachussetts's public records for gay couples are for out-of-staters that have divorced but never went back to file as such.
I think Obama will support gay marriage in his second term...
I, too, think that Obama is a chronic liar.
Common ground!
But my take is many of the gay activits really don't care about marriage. They do this as a big FUCK YOU to conservative Christians who oppose changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex.
Andy R. said...
I think Obama will support gay marriage in his second term
Again, the lies you need to tell yourself in order to be a leftist are endless.
What have we learned in this thread today?
1) You're an asshole if you oppose SSM and someone thinks you've made a joke about it.
2) You're not necessarily an asshole if you lie about opposing SSM (which would seem to make you an asshole per (1) above, but this is a special exemption).
3) "Christianity" is anti-gay.
4) Anything you or anyone else says to try to clarify your comments makes it worse (exception for the exempted ones noted in (2) above).
I also think that this absurd post, coupled with yesterday's "well-played, Obama!" cheerleading post concerning Walker's meeting with Obama is evidence of Ann beginning to posture for the general election. I thought we had at least a few more months before that happened.
I think Obama will support gay marriage in his second term and also that he has and will continue to fight for the rights of gay people in other ways where the Republicans are fighting against gay people.
He may 'move' that way, but it's probably plain political expediency on his part NOT to support gay marriage now.
That strikes me as a bit disingenuous. Of course, he's a politician.
I think you are too quick to assume that opposition to a formal policy is borne of hatred or bigotry.
I support gay marriage, but I would wish that the federal government get out of the marriage recognition business altogether.
Dave:I'm not claiming the damage heterosexuals did to "mitigates" the effect of same sex marriage. I am recognizing the reality that what heterosexuals did to marriage undermines the arguments for marriage
I see a lot of pro-gay marriage people make the argument (usually when something like the Kardashian wedding/divorce happens) that these people are making a mockery of marriage, so why can't gay people get married.
Which is, I think, a terrible argument. Marriage has become so ridiculous and meaningless, we insist on the right to partake!
I think the better argument is that both gay and straight people should take marriage very seriously. "Las Vegas" is the symbol for not taking marriage seriously.
evidence of Ann beginning to posture for the general election. I thought we had at least a few more months before that happened.
Considering how bad the Republicans candidates are, I think she just decided there was no harm in starting early.
Coketown, you said kind of what I was trying to say.
In the modern 21st century where marriage as a whole is slowely on the way out, why would homosexual couples care about changing all the laws so they can get "married", when you already have (or have proposals to have) legal methods to take care of things like what happens when one dies.
Saying because marriage has become so meaningless in the hetrosexual world, so we should have gay marriage, is as bad as the drug crowd saying booze causes so much trouble, so we should legalize drugs.
Italics are not working
"I'll have to start using quotes"
"How Romney Lost Me"... is something I thought of myself, but unfortunately, they have all lost me. I don't like anyone who's currently in the running, so that means no one has lost me yet.
Which, I suspect, means you are heading toward Obama. You should poll us on whether your readers are beginning to see that. Perhaps we know you better than you know yourself!
"Which, I suspect, means you are heading toward Obama. "
What do you expect? ... She's blonde.
Because, apparently, that's the kind of guy he is, which, ironically, is the opposite of a real social conservative.
If he can use that You Can't Beat me mindset in the White House, I think the Country would benefit.
What do you expect? ... She's blonde.
So am I. I got over Obama in the late spring of 2008 and have never looked back. It's not a blonde thing.
In a time when unemployment is 9%,.deficit is 1.3 trillion, debt is $15 trillion and soaring, its a sad state of affairs when gay marriage is even an issue in this campaign.
AndyR: You do realize that African Americans are strongly opposed to same sex marriage. Strongly opposed to gays. Most, nearly all, African Americans vote Democratic. How do you reconcile your broad calumny against Republicans with this fact? Is there a definable group as large as the African American cohort in the Republican party that you would like to point out as being anti-gay? Please provide the support.
"I don't like anyone who's currently in the running, "
You don't have to like. You have think they will make decisions that push the right direction on the most important issues, period.
If this crap is your criteria, please don't cancel out serious voters.
As far as outrageous outrage posts go this just seems rather silly.
".... As far as outrageous outrage posts go this just seems rather silly..."
Unless of course one needs some moral outrage to justify a vote for Obama this year.
Which, I suspect, means you are heading toward Obama.
Ann is a smart person that doesn't hate gay people. Why would she support a party that prides itself on it's ignorance and anti-gay bigotry.
I think many of you are in so much of a cocoon that you don't understand how damaging the Republican primary has been. The idea that there is a plurality of voting Republicans in some states supporting Santorum demonstrates to America that Republicans are not fit to govern.
We have real issues and problems to deal with and Republicans are throwing their support behind Santorum. Be serious.
Perhaps we know you better than you know yourself!
You're assuming she lacks the self-awareness to know that she's set on voting for Obama. She could just be telling us a ludicrously transparent lie. Remember, she claims that's a respectful thing to do.
I don't like anyone who's currently in the running, so that means no one has lost me yet.
One more vote for Obama and the Althouse crew is going to take their ball and go home.
@Andy R: Make your case for Obama on economic grounds then, instead of playing fluorine in a field of neutrality.
And... Mitch Daniels was right.
Damn straight! He was.
There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treats religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
Ann, your political analysis of AWESOME has a quaint, cute-- almost virginal--quality about it. 'Respect' being a necessary political expedient for a Marksist.
Garage makes his economic case for Obama on a daily basis here. Look what a joke he is.
"Is there a definable group as large as the African American cohort in the Republican party that you would like to point out as being anti-gay? Please provide the support."
According to a Pew Research poll (2010), 30% of African Americans support same sex marriage. The same poll finds that only 24% of Republicans support same sex marriage.
"... I think Obama will support gay marriage in his second term.."
It must really suck knowing the guy you support so much has to wait until his term limit kicks in to finally throw in his support since there is no political downside.
A tip though, you might garner more popular support if you didn't act like petulant children.
'Respect' being a necessary political expedient for a Marksist.
I laughed. :)
I think many of you are in so much of a cocoon that you don't understand how damaging the Republican primary has been.
No, I'm out of the cocoon, so I clearly see the Republican primary is just another political contest. Obama's vapid policies are causing real damage.
I think Romney may have been referring not to quickie Vegas marriage, but to Nevada's prominent position as the place to get divorced.
How can voters who are listening to Romney's statement be expected to draw that inference?
Anyway, as my mom said, that's an even worse comparison. That would be equating a same-sex couple's desire to form a marriage with an opposite-sex couple's desire to get out of their marriage. If that isn't invidious discrimination, I don't know what is.
By the way, it's shocking to me that the Republican party is dumb enough to keep getting into fights over gay marriage. It is so completely obvious to me that gay marriage is coming to America that I don't know why they are so intent on making themselves the party of anti-gay bigotry. Can't think they more than one election into the future?
In a time when unemployment is 9%,.deficit is 1.3 trillion, debt is $15 trillion and soaring, its a sad state of affairs when gay marriage is even an issue in this campaign.
Nail on the head. Maybe one day Republicans will wise up and concede this issue. A few points:
(1) A healthy majority of the younger generation support same-sex marriage. So the issue will age out eventually anyway.
(2) It follows from that, I think, that history will view those who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage disdainfully. Think about Strom Thurmond -- a great politician whose legacy will forever be tainted by the fact that he was a racist. (And a hyprocrite to boot, covering up the fact that he had a child out-of-wedlock with an African American woman. Calls to mind all of those foot-tapping, page-chasing Republicans who give speeches railing against same-sex marriage and then return to their hotel rooms for some private time with a 20 year old gay escort.) Or think about George Wallace, whose legacy, deservedly, is in a nutshell "famous racist governor." Everything else the man ever did is meaningless.
(3) Pundits often say that a Republican candidate's failure to take a hard line on social issues will lead to scores of Evangelical voters staying home on election day. But so what? Where do their votes even matter? Does anyone really think that Obama would win, say, South Carolina or Alabama if Evangelicals stay home?
(4) In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gay. I and a lot of other gay people I know would consider voting for a Republican candidate if they would just drop the social issue bullshit and focus on real problems. Maybe one day they will.
Look what a joke he is.
Awww! You poor fucking baby!
My position on the election is, as it was last time: cruel neutrality.
I'm not protecting anybody. I'm not protecting or boosting anybody.
(4) In the interest of full disclosure, I'm gay. I and a lot of other gay people I know would consider voting for a Republican candidate if they would just drop the social issue bullshit and focus on real problems. Maybe one day they will.
If you realize the social issues aren't the real problems, why do you let yourself be persuaded to vote based on them?
I'm a pro-choice woman, and I have enough fortitude to vote on the real issues, rather than choice and free birth control. I have little patience for members of society who practically beg to be marginalized as minorities by voting on marginal issues.
Buck up, buckaroos. We've all worked too hard to be seen as equals to be voting as "special interests".
There are a lot of other atheists who feel sure there is no God but still treat religious people with respect. (For example, I think that would describe President Obama.)
Do you consider this respect?
"And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said.
Seems to me it lumps religion in with racism.
I'm not protecting anybody. I'm not protecting or boosting anybody.
You are protecting yourself.
I think you are great, but you aren't neutral. You're protecting yourself from seeing that.
I and a lot of other gay people I know would consider voting for a Republican candidate if they would just drop the social issue bullshit and focus on real problems.
IOW, you and your friends place your desire for an immediate and fundamental change in a social institution that spans millennia above your concern about "real problems".
That's quite an admission.
Awww! You poor fucking baby!
I'm going to invite you to a beer summit when I hit Madison this summer.
____________
wv = pooner [lol]
Andy R.: I agree the Republican field isn't very inspiring. But compared to Obama, they are great.
If a disagreement over social issues is the sole reason that people don't vote Republican (suggesting that they agree on economic issues) then wouldn't the logical course be to support Libertarians?
I think Obama will make people wish they were gay when he declares himself President For Life, like his pal Zelaya in Honduras. Expect the Occupy folks to stage the street riots to change the Constitution. For nostalgia, of course, he is a Constitutional "professor" after all.
I'm with Althouse here: "They've all lost me."
I won't be voting for Obama, for sure, regardless (as I didn't last time--the plan was to do a write-in but instead, upon reflection on the importance of the election, I filled in the dot next to McCain). As for what comes next, it's a long way until November.
My position on the election is, as it was last time: cruel neutrality.
Are you saying that you could really vote for Romney, even though he's an asshole? At first I was doubtful but now I think it is possible. After all, you voted for Obama and HE is an asshole of the first order.
I'm going to invite you to a beer summit when I hit Madison this summer.
Awesome. You need a bit of straightening out.
I'm another vote that this is one big nothing.
Justin
Maybe you can tell me why gay marriage has to be an issue anyway? Maybe your side should concede the point and work on the more pressing national issues rather than fundamentally changing a couple thousand year tradition.
Personally I could care less if ssm was legal but the incessant whining over it is tiresome.
First of all, it's an elitist attitude to believe marriage should have something to do with honor. Sexual relationships can be depraved or wrong inside as well as outside of marriage. True, it is more critical for a female to be respectable if she is so likely sacrificial as to have children outside marriage, but that's another matter. Marriage has nothing to do with whether a sexual relationship is respectable.
What makes a sexual relationship not worthy of respect is mainly whether it is an addictive or abusive relationship. The way I define respectable, a relationship can be based on selfishness yet still be respectable. To me "respectable" is not a synonym for "good", "right", or "licit" but is more the antonym of "shameful". What makes something shameworthy is not how bad it is. If it is a person's nature to be bad, shaming him for his badness really won't have any effect on his behavior, because it is his nature to be bad. And if his bad behavior arises from an intellectual mistake, shaming is unnecessary since one may merely point out the mistake and explain one's reasons for believing it to be such. Mostly it is only when a person is behaving unnaturally as a result of addictions or terror chemicals having warped his natural tendencies from what they otherwise would be that shaming is appropriate. People naturally don't like being unnatural, so convincing people that their tendencies are unnatural may induce a willpower that leads to the change that benevolently people should wish upon the addicted; otherwise people aren't likely to change their tendencies as a result of people trying to shame them. True, if a naturally good person is behaving immorally, this strongly suggests something shameful as a cause, but again, that is a different matter.
Perhaps some people define respectable more as deserving public beneficial acclaim and rewards, say like a soldier deserves honor for being brave. Anyway, I don't.
At any rate, I can't see how it could in any way be construed as wrong to shame people for behavior that is viewed as addictive, that being the whole purpose of shame as an emotion. (It's often very inexpedient and dangerous to shame people this way, but again, that's another matter.) But I wouldn't try to shame gays by suggesting gay marriage is like marriages in Las Vegas, because I have no problem with easily obtained marriages, and do have a problem with suggesting lack of the right marriage has something to do with shame.
Why are black people the most reliable Democratic voters and the single cohort united against gay equality? And why would this glaring fact be ignored by Andy R? Surely he is not a racist and yet he favors gay rights in every way and is still a liberal and presumably a Democrat. How do you reconcile these two opposing points of view unless ther is hypocricy, ! , involved?
MayBee wrote: Yes, and Las Vegas is the epicenter of ridiculousness in marriage.
The epicenter of ridiculousness in marriage is Newt Gingrich.
Calls to mind all of those foot-tapping, page-chasing Republicans who give speeches railing against same-sex marriage and then return to their hotel rooms for some private time with a 20 year old gay escort.
It's less likely that a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage has ever had "private time with a 20 year old gay escort" than it is that a gay man is a promiscuous hedonist who blithely infects people with life-threatening diseases in the selfish pursuit of his own pleasure. So you might want to avoid painting with such a broad brush, kid.
I and a lot of other gay people I know would consider voting for a Republican candidate if they would just drop the social issue bullshit
What gay marriage supporter did you vote for in 2008?
No-fault divorce was a liberal idea.
Name the popular liberal who signed the nation's first no-fault law.
I'm a family law attorney. I have never had a divorce driven by parties stating they can't possibly stay together because gay people want to get married. There is no threat to straight marriage by gay folks. To those who constantly challenge why we want to get married, the answer is simple: for the same reason you do. Love, commitment, children for some (not so for others, just like you), protection. You allege that gay relationships are "frivolous" and ignore the fact that straight people date, break up, get married, get divorced all the time. I've been with my partner for more than 17 years. Our daughter turns 16 next month. She is the product of very abusive straight married parents and no one else would adopt her, including thhe married Christian couple who literally dropped her off at social services door after having her for 18 months. She was 5 years old. So pardon me for wanting to get married. My daughter is determined to be the flower girl at our wedding, no matter how old she is.
Justin said...
(1) A healthy majority of the younger generation support same-sex marriage. So the issue will age out eventually anyway.
Except for the fact that a) once people get married they oppose SSM in greater numbers, and b) as people age they oppose SSM in greater numbers.
(2) It follows from that, I think, that history will view those who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage disdainfully. Think about Strom Thurmond -- a great politician whose legacy will forever be tainted by the fact that he was a racist
Since your first premise is false, um no.
But by the way, how did being a grand kleagle in the KKK harm Robert Byrd nationallly or within the Democratic party?
You do realize the last 2 term Democratic President gave J. William Fulbright, noted segregationist, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, right?
OH, and being gay is not like being black.
"I think Romney may have been referring not to quickie Vegas marriage, but to Nevada's prominent position as the place to get divorced."
Note that you said "Nevada" not Las Vegas, but he said Las Vegas. I think when people -- mostly years ago -- referred to the quickie divorce they'd cite the city of Reno.
IOW, you and your friends place your desire for an immediate and fundamental change in a social institution that spans millennia above your concern about "real problems".
I don't place that desire above all other concerns. But I'm not going to vote for someone whose goals, in part, are to make me a second class citizen.
As for the "fundamental change" point, people (now we call them bigots) said the same thing about iterracial marriage. But like opponents of same-sex marriage now, those people could not point to any particular ill that would befall society as a result of the "fundamental change"? (Please don't respond by talking about procreation. That is not an intellectually honest response.)
Also, I think if you examine the subject, you'll find that our current understanding of "traditional marraige" does not span millenia. Think about arranged marriages (still happening in this country not so long ago). Or all of the various forms of Biblical marriage that we now eschew. (Polygamy, Leverite marriages, forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist.)
@PeterHoh--I'm disappointed to see you among those who use "epicenter" instead of "epitome".
[/grammarnazi]
Andy R. said...
By the way, it's shocking to me that the Republican party is dumb enough to keep getting into fights over gay marriage.
It is shocking to me that Democrats keep getting in fights over the Bush tax cuts.
Why is it so easy to point out how silly & illogical you are?
The epicenter of ridiculousness in marriage is Newt Gingrich.
Ha!
Seriously though, I don't know if he's more ridiculous than say, J Lo. And I have no idea if J Lo is pro-SSM. She has a lot of ties to Scientology, which isn't pro-gay at all.
As for the "fundamental change" point, people (now we call them bigots) said the same thing about iterracial marriage
Except being gay isn't like being black.
At all.
(Please don't respond by talking about procreation. That is not an intellectually honest response.)
You mean except for the fact that throughout recorded human history marriage was primarily for pro-creation, right?
Fail.
Epic fail.
Fen: "The foundation is already damaged, so its cool if we damage it further"
I don't see how it is possible to damage the institution any more, now that divorce-your-spouse-and-marry-your-affair-partner marriage is fully recognized across all 50 states. Furthermore, such a marriage poses no bar to someone who would seek the nomination of the conservative party.
Here is the second unpleasant truth: homosexuals did not destroy marriage, heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of the deterioration of marriage. By far the most direct threat to the family is heterosexual divorce. “Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage,” writes family scholar Bryce Christensen. “It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it.”
Link
I'm gay, and advocate for SSM, and I don't find anything bothersome about the comment.
That said, discussing the subject of same sex marriage with a "True Conservative" can get very frustrating. It's very much like having a dissagrement with my very liberal little brother.... Kind of pointless and a waste of time.
I don't see how it is possible to damage the institution any more,
Which of course is silly & ridiculous.
Of course you can't "see" it.
You don't want to.
It's less likely that a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage has ever had "private time with a 20 year old gay escort" than it is that a gay man is a promiscuous hedonist who blithely infects people with life-threatening diseases in the selfish pursuit of his own pleasure. So you might want to avoid painting with such a broad brush, kid.
That's offensive. The point is only that there are more than a few self-loathing homosexuals in the Republican party. It's hypocritical. I wasn't suggesting that all who oppose same-sex marriage are secretly gay in their private lives.
What gay marriage supporter did you vote for in 2008?
Andrew Cuomo.
But I'm not going to vote for someone whose goals, in part, are to make me a second class citizen.
Hysterical.
Really, I think more hyperbole is needed.
PS, you're out fighting for the rights of polygamist to marry, correct?
"Do you consider this respect? "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said. Seems to me it lumps religion in with racism."
That's not Obama at his best, and he's sucking up to liberals, just as Romney was sucking up to conservatives, but the nut of the idea is there. He is displaying some (patronizing) empathy for people, and he sees religion as something that people go to when they're feeling beleaguered and afraid. It's a refuge that means a lot to them. That's what religion is... part of the deep culture of America, and he's trying to handle the economic side of things to support people so maybe they won't have to "cling" -- i.e., feel desperate.
Calls to mind all of those foot-tapping, page-chasing Republicans who give speeches railing against same-sex marriage and then return to their hotel rooms for some private time with a 20 year old gay escort.)
Really?
"All these"
Name 3.
By the way, you do realize not all homosexuals support gay marriage, right?
And, even if a Republican opposed to gay marriage were gay or secretly with 20 year old boys, that isn't hypocrisy. The fact you can't grasp that is rather telling.
Except being gay isn't like being black.
At all.
Never said it was. In fact, I personally don't believe that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny.
It is still, however, a relevant comparison. Responding by saying "being gay isn't like being black" doesn't make that any less true.
You mean except for the fact that throughout recorded human history marriage was primarily for pro-creation, right?
Fail.
Epic fail.
Again, it's only recent history that's relevant. Throughout most of recorded history I'll grant you that marriage was primarily for procreation. The only other purposes, by-and-large, being to secure property rights.
That's not true anymore and hasn't been for a while. But in any event, the idea that permitting gay people to marry is going to lead to a decrease in heterosexual procreation is ludicrous.
Hoosier Daddy said...
Maybe you can tell me why gay marriage has to be an issue anyway? Maybe your side should concede the point and work on the more pressing national issues rather than fundamentally changing a couple thousand year tradition.
No, see, we can't do that.
They don't have to prove that gay marriage won't have an adverse impacts on society, they merely have to assert it.
Oh, given that Obama scolded Las Vegas for, I don't know, being Las Vegas, why do politicians love to pick on Las Vegas so much? I think I'm more pissed about that, and I don't even live there! :-)
Actually, it is a fair analogy. Both homosexual behavior and a Las Vegas marriage serve to satisfy instant gratification.
Since it is clear that evolutionary fitness is no longer the priority, it seems capricious to maintain that an arbitrary physical intercourse requirement remain a prerequisite for marriage, especially when that behavior has a predictably unproductive outcome.
The reasonable conclusion we can then draw is that all couplings, bilateral and multilateral, should have the right to marry. There remains no objective cause for continued discrimination.
But in any event, the idea that permitting gay people to marry is going to lead to a decrease in heterosexual procreation is ludicrous.
Um, I didn't say that.
This was funny:
Never said it was (like being black)
Then:
It is still, however, a relevant comparison.
No, it isn't a relevant comparison.
At all. And no matter how many times you type it, it isn't true.
Since it is clear that evolutionary fitness is no longer the priority,
I do find it funny leftists believe in "evolution" and that you're borne gay.
He is displaying some (patronizing) empathy
Pretty sure that if it's patronizing it isn't empathy.
The Professor has defined the 2012 election battle.
Romney represents Cruel Neutrality walking. Take this medicine and live says Romney with a cruel smirk.
With friends like Romney, we don't need any cruel people say the Tea Party folks.
In the other corner the media presents the ever smiling and loving Barry and Michelle who are in need of their friends to save them from Romney like they have saved the country.
Life imitates WWF.
Name 3.
Easy. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Glenn Murphy. Just happened again with some local politician in New Jersey...I forget his name.
By the way, you do realize not all homosexuals support gay marriage, right? Yes, I do. I disagree with them.
And, even if a Republican opposed to gay marriage were gay or secretly with 20 year old boys, that isn't hypocrisy. The fact you can't grasp that is rather telling.
Why? Because that person can represent the views of his or her constituency even though in their private life they do not practice what they preach? I'm sorry, but to stand up in public and proclaim to have a sincere conviction about an issue while engaging in private conduct completely antithetical to that view is hypocritical. At the very least, it destroys the person's credibility (as it should).
Why? Because that person can represent the views of his or her constituency even though in their private life they do not practice what they preach?
Um, no because gay sex isn't gay marriage.
I know to the simple minded this is some sort of "gotcha" but
marriage is more than sex.
Why? Because that person can represent the views of his or her constituency even though in their private life they do not practice what they preach?
Damn. I missed the stories about those guys getting married to other guys.
No, it isn't a relevant comparison.
Why not? Give a reason. I'm not saying the two struggles are equal. They aren't. Not even remotely so.
The relevance is that the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on nothing other than a (shrinking) majority's personal dislike of gay people. That's the similarity.
"By the way, you do realize not all homosexuals support gay marriage, right? Yes, I do. I disagree with them."
I am a queer and I don't support State-sanctioned gay marriage, because I don't support State-sanctioned marriage of any sort. It's none of the State's business. The State should not be in the business of licensing romantic/personal/religious ceremonies and unions, and should not be in the business of social engineering.
But then, I'm for liberty and more of a true conservative than all the social-con socialists who for some bizarre reason think that the secular government needs to define and ennoble marriage in order to keep it alive. Seems like a big government, socialist sort of idea to me...
Easy. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Glenn Murphy.
Never heard of Glenn Murphy.
Mark Foley was sending instant messages, that's hardly an example.
You need to get better at this.
Justin said...
The relevance is that the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on nothing other than a (shrinking) majority's personal dislike of gay people.
Um no, and what's even funnier about that is when people explictly state their reasons for being opposed to this you casually wave them away.
Also, being black isn't like being gay in that you're born black.
the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on nothing other than a (shrinking) majority's personal dislike of gay people.
This is true only in your feeble mind.
Having failed at logical argument, you've now moved on to just making up "facts."
the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on nothing other than a (shrinking) majority's personal dislike of gay people.
This is true only in your feeble mind.
You should have told the people who supported Prop 8 before they went to court so they could have actually had some arguments to use.
"The relevance is that the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on nothing other than a (shrinking) majority's personal dislike of gay people."
For some of us, opposition to State-sanctioned marriage, gay or otherwise, is based on the desire for limited government. Which at one time was associated with conservatism.
I know to the simple minded this is some sort of "gotcha" but
marriage is more than sex.
Except when the procreation justification is needed as a pretext for legislation against gay people.
What is marriage about? After you answer that question, explain why your answers do not apply to a committed same-sex relationship.
Chip S. yes, taking my lashes. I was trying to keep to the original line as much as possible, even though the "epicenter" no longer fit.
To me, anti- and pro-gay marriage people are on the same side: the side of big government and social engineering. Statists, both.
For a thread supposedly about what Romney said, it seems to have nothing to do with what he said, when he first said it, and the context in which he said it.
Palladian,
I agree with you. A lot of so-called conservative positions these days got their start as progressive ideas, that were so successful that they became part of the fabric of the country they hate and thus they abandoned support for...things like the Pledge of Allegiance, Captain America, state sanction and tax benefits under the (progressive) income tax. All were progressive ideas.
But unfortunately, the position you support isn't going to make a comeback. I don't even think the language of rights we use in this country today would even allow it.
It's the second class citizen crap that diminishes the SSM argument in my eyes. People who really believe that bullshit need to grow up.
Justin said...
The relevance is that the opposition to same-sex marriage is based on nothing other than a (shrinking) majority's personal dislike of gay people.
So let me be clear.
The state encourages marriage because 2 parent (opposite sex) families are the best scenario for raising the next generation of productive citizens.
Since homosexuals can't reproduce, there really is no reason for the state to encourage them to be married. On top of the fact we really have no idea what inserting children into gay parent homes is going to do to them.
Further, the state shouldn't be trying to encourage gay behavior because being gay is abnormal and hazardous to your health. After all, gays have higher incidences of HIV, STD's, drug & alcohol abused, and eating disorders than the general population.
The state should no more be encouraging gay behavior (which has cost government budgets billions due to the above named afflcitions) than it should be encouraging obesity, smoking, and drunk driving.
Now if you want to take those facts and pretend I typed them because I don't "like" gay people, knock yourself out.
But that won't change the facts.
For some of us, opposition to State-sanctioned marriage, gay or otherwise, is based on the desire for limited government.
I accept that view, but if that is your view, then you should be opposed to efforts to ban same-sex marriage in the same way that you are opposed to efforts to allow for it.
"What is marriage about?'
That's not a question for the State to answer. That's why this problem is intractable and stupid. It's like trying to use a Philips-head screwdriver to do riveting.
Inter-racial marriage prohibition:
Not allowing marriage on the basis of how someone looks, in complete disregard of how they act.
SSM prohibition: not allowing marriage on the basis of how someone acts, in complete disregard of how they look.
Polar opposites.
Jay, explain to me what is special about Newt and Callista's marriage, or Woody and Soon-Yi's.
When these marriages are afforded state recognition, I fail to see how it can be any worse to extend state recognition of marriage to the lesbian couple a block over.
"I accept that view, but if that is your view, then you should be opposed to efforts to ban same-sex marriage in the same way that you are opposed to efforts to allow for it."
I am.
I have quite a history here of deriding right-wing statists.
That's different than mocking people's moral and religious beliefs, by the way.
"But unfortunately, the position you support isn't going to make a comeback. I don't even think the language of rights we use in this country today would even allow it."
That's why I drink a lot.
Palladian: I don't know why you're so intent on labeling yourself as someone that is opposed to same-sex marriage when you're really opposed to all marriage.
The bottom line here is that I'm right about this and most of you are wrong. As usual.
Post a Comment