"[A] short video composed of the floor speeches some top Democrats made about SSM. At the time, Republicans wanted to block gay marriage in Massachusetts by amending the constitution with an official marriage definition. Democrats argued against that, but they didn't argue in favor of gay marriage. They argued that DOMA made such an amendment unneccessary. They assured people like Rick Santorum that the slippery slope case for gay marriage was bogus."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
They've evolved.
How "indecent" of them.
I now know how people who had little to no interest in theACA felt about this blog last year.
Everyone knows slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies. Duh.
All the oldsters, trying to throw mud on each other. Not realizing how that makes them all look to the younger generations.
Good luck with that.
Democrats have no principles. Rick Santorum was right and the dems played everyone.
Even worse than dems are those that vote for dems. People like Inga are all about describing opposition to. Gay marriage as some republican affliction, but will vote for the very people that put DOMA Ito place, who are dems, and not hold them to account for their anti gay views.
Remember how Mr. DOMA himself was THE speaker at the democratic convention. Back then Obama was not for gay marriage publicly, but Mr. DOMA was the rock star who brought the star power and got all the standing O's the very guy who passed DOMA.
Just like A. Lincoln. In politics you have to survive the moment while not losing sight of where you are trying to go.
Democrats as a whole were on the right side of history. Republicans are now scrambling to catch up.
Democrats just doing what Democrats do. Charlie Brown, Lucy, football. It's Charlie Brown who is the stupid one.See, McCain, John and the entire Republican establishment.
Hillary, as usually has a very lawyerly parsing.
All she says is,
I have umbrage if you say I'm not as committed to the principle that marriage EXISTS as a bond between a man and a woman going back from long ages past.
Saying it "exists" isn't saying it can't be changed or expanded. It can exist as different thing in the future.
"IS" there a sexual relationship, Bill? no there IS not, because that was before.
No idea of "unchangeable" principles, and that's the progressive creed.
Oh C'mon..
That's ancient history... before we knew the earth was round.
They didn't have enough information.
People who are not going to change their minds on agreeing to SSM have principles. You may not like those principles, but I admire people who have them.
The rest? People who will tell you whatever they think that you want to hear, solely to get your vote. They play you for suckers, and that's exactly what you are for trusting them again.
Who said it: Hillary Clinton or Karl Marx?
Can't we just keep asking "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Too funny. Naturally it won't happen again, will it?
I love the concept of declaring yourself to be on the right side of history.
It's like all of the people over the millennia who have considered themselves to be living in modern times
When quoting Bill or Hillary Clinton talk about marriage, you need to understand that they have a very different meaning of the word.
talk = talking
They're flexible. You've got to give them that. They'll be the first to evolve back if politically expedient. Morals are merely relative.
Next stop, polyamory!
I take umbrage to this... flashback... nonsense.
The foundational foundation can be expanded in the backyard... to make a bigger kitchen... the family is growing... people cant move out... not in this economy.
You know damned well that when the aliens come down to enslave us that the Democrats will switch sides before lunchtime. They will be helping with anal probes even sooner.
I WANNA MARRY MY CREEPY UNCLE, YOU BIGOTS!!1!!1!!!!!!
They assured people like Rick Santorum that the slippery slope case for gay marriage was bogus
Of course they did.
They will say anything to be in power. They have no principles.
The slippery slope has only begun . . .
What strikes me as sad is that none of the people in the video will likely see heaven.
Cutting the cloth of their consciences to fit the fashion of the times.
Please let us retire the "slippery slope."
We slid off that slope into the abyss ages ago.
Continued usage of the phrase only serves to validate all of the evils that have already occurred, thereby forever moving the standard for what is bad and evil further and further down the road, never really reaching it because you forever remain at the top of that damned slope.
We don't need to argue that we should not do X or else we will get the evil of Y. X is, in and of itself, an evil. Focus on that, not on whatever future additional evils might also occur.
Feingold was one of only a few senators back in 2006 to openly support SSM. That seat is now occupied by a certifiable moron.
"Democrats have no principles."
Oh no. They have them big time. Just listen to how forcefully they tell you what they are, how long they have held them, and how strongly they believe in them. They have fought for these principles for years, and they will berate you for disagreeing.
They can then change their mind overnight and still get the same people to vote for them the next morning. So who's fault is that?
Too funny!
Now, it's a fundamental human right, and you're a bigot!
And people believed a politician back in 1996 why, precisely?
Dems and libs are equally malleable on all other issues as well, when it comes to the debt or the Iraq war, or preemptive wars, or what have you. You can't have a legitimate conversation with them since the points they hold, which you presume are held on principle, change with the circumstance. And libs and dems will vote for these frauds gladly and without reservation.nor will they hold their leaders to account for their actions or views.
And Democrats use to be pro-life.
Money changes points of view.
This is why the Constitution is a Living Document.
Michelle wrote:
I WANNA MARRY MY CREEPY UNCLE, YOU BIGOTS!!1!!1!!!!!!
the state shouldn't be in the marriage business so you should marry your creep uncle, your aunt, your brother, your sister your dad. Who cares? And why is your uncle creepy? It sounds like he really loves you. It's only creepy to the bigots who are trying to tell people who they can or can't marry, like Anne Althouse, and Inga.
But, how would you being able to marry your uncle hurt their relationships or marriage in general? Why do they care? And how presumptuous of them to assume that an uncle who wants to marry into the family must be creepy and should be denied a fundamental right.
Renee said...
And Democrats use to be pro-life.
Money changes points of view.
Not money, votes - POWER.
It's never a slippery slope with liberals, for liberals, it's a foot in the door.
How can you tell when a politician is lying?
His (or her) lips are moving.
The Hildebeast defending traditional marriage; comedy gold.
So, what's the next currently unknown fundamental human right to which we must genuflect in order to escape being called bigots?
He kept us out of war - Woody Wilson 1916
I promise you again and again and again, I will never send American boys to fight in a European war - FDR 1940
Ah will not shend Murrican boys tuh faht in Veetnam - LBJ 1964
Ah did nawt have sex with that woman, Mizzzzzz Lewinsky - Willie 1997
Is there a fundamental right to claim marital status merely (or primarily) to avoid the payment of taxes?
Bender makes a good conceptual point that I, frankly, hadn't thought of before. But perhaps one of the reasons I didn't is that I always envision multiple slopes, one for each new subject at hand, so the fact that the Republic is now stepping on a new one doesn't necessarily validate the evils of the previous one as a Republic is the sort of creature that can be on multiple slopes simultaneously.
And, lol, dreams incapsulates the whole process best! (The Camels nose under the tent works too--take your pick--their both TOTALLY valid as illustrative of the left.)
Does the government of one state (and the people therein) have the right impose its laws on another state?
Were the citizens of the free state of Wisconsin obligated to recognize the property right of a man from South Carolina who brought his slave into the state?
Then: "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia"
Now: "Oceania has always been at war with EURasia"
Tomorrow: "Oceania has always been at war with EASTasia"
There can be no contradiction. The past may constantly change but the citizen's duty is to believe that today's truth is the only true truth.
Until it changes.
Hypocrisy aside, Hillary Clinton is a terrible speaker. Her timing and phrasing are clunky, and her word choices are uninspired and redundant, especially in a prepared speech ("a fundamental founding foundation" "a primary principal institution" "socializing for society"). Also, her over-enunciation is like fingernails on a chalkboard. I think this will be a real handicap for her in 2016.
Shouting Thomas said...
So, what's the next currently unknown fundamental human right to which we must genuflect in order to escape being called bigots?
Remember when Hillary! was in her "It Takes A Village" phase?
Didn't she think the right for kids to divorce their parents was a swell idea?
And, in such a case, who would take care of the kids?
It depends on what the meaning of "was" is.
"Democrats as a whole were on the right side of history."
They always are no matter where it goes or where they were before. Remember slavery, Jim Crow, socialism, communism, killing Arabs, national debt, executive power, well everything really. All you have to do is look at what they were saying under George W. Bush and compare it to under a Democrat President. Opposite stands that will revert back instantly if a Republican gets in.
They were on the right side of history when they supported evils like the Soviet system, and Mao too. When they are wrong, they just pretend it never happened, and call you crazy for remembering it wrong.
If you're going to rob a bank you should probably marry your accomplice first. Don't have to bear witness against your spouse.
I really don't think these politicians were trying to pull a fast one on this particular issue.
At the time I also thought that gay marriage was never going to happen and I am neutral on the issue.
It is extremely surprising to pretty much everyone how quickly public opinion has changed on this issue. Democrat and Republican politicians are definitely leading from behind, largely just reflecting the will of the people. I think the AIDs crisis shifted public perception, as did gay friendly television shows like Will and Grace.
Bender wrote:
Does the government of one state (and the people therein) have the right impose its laws on another state?
Were the citizens of the free state of Wisconsin obligated to recognize the property right of a man from South Carolina who brought his slave into the state?
this is illustrated well by thinking about whether you can carry your gun across state lines.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
I really don't think these politicians were trying to pull a fast one on this particular issue.
At the time I also thought that gay marriage was never going to happen and I am neutral on the issue.
It is extremely surprising to pretty much everyone how quickly public opinion has changed on this issue. Democrat and Republican politicians are definitely leading from behind, largely just reflecting the will of the people. I think the AIDs crisis shifted public perception, as did gay friendly television shows like Will and Grace.
So surprising one has to wonder if it's real.
If it's changed so quickly, then why are we getting the whole, "Resistance Is Futile. The science is settled", nonsense?
Sounds more like, "Let's make everybody think it's the cool thing to be and ram it through before anybody wises up".
...and "conservatives" invented the individual mandate....
There were some politicians who were trying to pull a fast one. Obama himself was publicly in favor of gay marriage before he ran for president and opposed it, only to evolve again.
And yet. We are supposed to be ashamed for not taking him at his word on other things.
Also, we are supposed to believe that everyone whose opinion didn't change in 20 years is a hateful bigot.
So let this be a lesson to us.
One, let's feel free to doubt politicians at their word.
Two, when opinions are rapidly changing, lets not be so quick to accuse them of bigotry and hate for simply agreeing with our previous opinion.
The "changing of attitudes," I think, is mostly due to the ferocity of the indoctrination in the school systems.
In other words, it's mindless obedience to authority.
And fear of the consequences of offending authority.
machine said...
...and "conservatives" invented the individual mandate....
And were smart enough to walk away from it.
BTW, how 'bout those ObamaTax premium costs?
More than doubling.
Which brings us to another Democrat promise:
If you like your plan, you can keep it. Your premiums will not go up - Choom Ozero 2009
Shouting Thomas said...
The "changing of attitudes," I think, is mostly due to the ferocity of the indoctrination in the school systems.
And the cacophony from the one-party, one-ideology mass media.
I promise you again and again and again, I will never send American boys to fight in a European war - FDR 1940
IMO This promise was kept -- no troops sent until the USA was actually attacked, at which point it wasn't a European War anymore.
Ever hear of the USS Reuben James?
If an inherently male-female relationship can be twisted into also meaning a male-male relationship or female-female, then of course a politician's "no" can be twisted into also meaning "yes" and vice-versa.
The only thing you need to know is that whatever most politicans say, whatever words they might use, almost invariably what they are saying in every case is "F*** you, I'm going to do whatever the hell I want."
Shouting Thomas said...
The "changing of attitudes," I think, is mostly due to the ferocity of the indoctrination in the school systems.
There is no ferocious indoctrination. I have had kids in school for most of the last twenty years in a pretty liberal area and this is BS. There has been some attempt to limit the bullying of 'girly' boys, which is appropriate, and probably largely unsuccessful. Once upon a time this bullying might have been viewed as useful socialization. It is not unreasonable to view this as a modest advance.
The biggest most well documented lie in history is on the way to you right now. Obamacare will deliver virtually nothing good that was promised and everything bad warned about by conservatives, plus a lot more never even imagined. For those who are already dealing with it, and actively trying to negotiate it's bizarre law, it is quickly turning out to be a complete clusterfuck.
We will all hate it. Even those without insurance will find out they were better of at the emergency room and just ignoring the bills. Those of us who paid for that will long for the opportunity to pay for only that again. Those of us who have had our life saved by the old system will consider ourselves lucky to have gotten through before the ACA, and will hope we never need it again.
Every day now the enormous idiocy and dishonesty of it are coming to light with enormous costs and ridiculous paperwork and compliance hurdles.
I wonder how long before we hear the Democrats tell us they have always been against Obama-care. They will assure us that they never wanted it like this. "Ours had unicorns. Where are the unicorns." We need to fund unicorn research. This is the future. It's the right side of history."
...and "conservatives" invented the individual mandate....
I'll hazard a guess that a politician came up with the individual mandate. And as dishonest politicians do, he/she flip-flopped. Obama himself was against the mandate before he was for it.
All politicians are full of shit. The decent people know that.
I don't blame the schools, it is the amount of media that is allowed in the homes. My kids are noticing how they are different. But they are not too shared. Kids who visit might think it is odd with limited media, but there is enough to do.
Oops "not too shamed"
Actually it's irrelevant. The American people are evolving all the time to more liberal on social issues.
"The only thing you need to know is that whatever most politicans say, whatever words they might use, almost invariably what they are saying in every case is "F*** you, I'm going to do whatever the hell I want."
Which is why our political process is designed for and effective at persuading fools. The last two Presidential elections and especially the last one are proof of that. All the coverage of what candidates say and their positions is complete bullshit. Look at who they are, who they have always been, and what they have done in their life. That's the only thing that should matter. That's who you are electing. The person's history is who they are, not their words or their campaign bullshit.
Obama should have been rejected outright for lack of a resume', if not for the damaging bit that was available. You can't be conned if you look at who people actually have been, and reject all rhetoric not in line with it. We don't change that much or that quickly.
Jay Retread said...
"Democrats as a whole were on the right side of history. Republicans are now scrambling to catch up."
Yep. The Republicans have to brush up on their bullshit and outright lying if they want to stay in the race.
That "evolution" shit is really something, Alex.
I'm "evolving" in the other direction. I'm in favor of restoring the reign of the patriarchy.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
The "changing of attitudes," I think, is mostly due to the ferocity of the indoctrination in the school systems.
There is no ferocious indoctrination. I have had kids in school for most of the last twenty years in a pretty liberal area and this is BS. There has been some attempt to limit the bullying of 'girly' boys, which is appropriate, and probably largely unsuccessful. Once upon a time this bullying might have been viewed as useful socialization. It is not unreasonable to view this as a modest advance.
Sure, that's why domestic terrorist and guy from the neighborhood, William Ayers, spent the last 40 years or so as a "distinguished educator". Why all you have the PC and multiculti in the textbooks.
Why the AL teachers union wants to abolish the word, Easter.
Why some putz wanted students to "stomp on Jesus".
Why textbooks are dumbed down to the level of comic books.
No, of course not. No indoctrination whatsoever.
it all depends on what the meaning of was is.
ST... keep trying to shoo everyone off your lawn.
Sorry, Paul Z. You were way ahead of me but I did not read all the comments before I posted.
The Roosevelt thing...yes, he lied in 1940. FDR had already meet with Churchill and they made plans to how the US forces would proceed once we got involved in the European war.
And the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor if it wasn't for FDRs oil boycott.
Now, I support Roosevelt's actions in 1940. But I wish people would admit that he lied to get re-elected in a very pacifist country. Look what Phil LaFollette said about FDR in the fall of 1941.
ST... keep trying to shoo everyone off your lawn.
I'm currently writing a song entitled "Get Offa My Lawn!"
Great hook. You can dance to it.
I can see how certain groups have withdrawn from society. Think Amish. If you are against gay sex, you cannot shelter your children from it unless you home school them, don't allow TV. Mainstream magazines and newspapers.
ST.... the most liberating thing for you to do is go view some gay porn. Go watch a gay pride festival and watch gay men frenching.
Gay sex is something to celebrate!
Ours had unicorns. Where are the unicorns
Of course there are unicorns in there. Haven't you read the thing? It's in the fine print on p. 1433, paragraph 3 -- the footnote in line 3 that directs you to subsection 7.1.4G in Appendix A.3?
Seven lines after that.
Alex said...
Gay sex is something to celebrate!
Obviously Alex gets off on those Gay Pride parades.
ST.... the most liberating thing for you to do is go view some gay porn. Go watch a gay pride festival and watch gay men frenching.
I've been "liberated" half a dozen times in this Old Dawg life of mine, Alex.
My mind is so open, as the old saying goes, that I can barely keep anything inside it.
And they say slippery slopes are fake.
Enjoy the decline, shitheads!
The path of history and especially within nations has not been one of ever increasing liberality. There have been periods of increasing conformity as well, and I think we are currently in one. The conformity is this whole right side of history idea where you call people who disagree indecent or bigots.
As a kid, members of my community and even in my family were much more open to doing the un-PC things of the time, and to buck the accepted values than people are today, and today, unlike then there are legal and financial penalties for lack of conformity. SSM is part of the current accepted values, not the subversive in our culture. Hell, just watch TV. Gays rule, live together, and mock those not accepting it. Which is fine. I think anti-gay sentiment is stupid too, but lets not pretend accepting SSM is some liberating, forward thinking idea. It's submission. The legal penalties are already starting for failure to submit.
Take for example the hypothetical of a 7th grade boy coming to school dressed as a girl, and another dressed as a soldier. One is much more likely to get sent home or even suspended. Which one?
Democrats/liberals/progressives/"whatever term they currently think they have worn out" are the party of No Consequences.
They never envision any consequences. Consequences never exist for them.
They have successfully convinced a plurality of voters that consequences only happen due to Evil Rich People Who Don't Buy Absolution by Contributing to Democrat Politicians.
And people the self-styled A Reasonable Man talk openly about how susceptible they are to puerile propaganda. Like it is something to be proud of.
Brainfertilizer's Postulate will be about Progressive rejection of consequences, as soon as I can come up with a pithy formulation.
"They never envision any consequences. Consequences never exist for them"
Oh there are plenty of consequences installed by the left, but they are not for failure, theft or harming, but for disagreement or financial success.
The consequences will be for the GOP which will find itself a shrunken regional party.
Alex, C,mon. We hear that every time they don't win. When the Dems lose, it's never the end of them.
Nathan Alexander said...
And people the self-styled A Reasonable Man talk openly about how susceptible they are to puerile propaganda. Like it is something to be proud of.
If you want to attack me at least make an effort to read what I posted.
As I said, on this particular issue I started out neutral and remain there. Hardly the weather vane you portrayed, dumbass.
I don't think government should play much role here. Marriage as an institution has been so damaged by the broad acceptance of serial polygamy that it is now up to individual couples to reconstruct it a way that works for them. Most richer and better educated people have chosen something very close to traditional marriage, to the great benefit of themselves and their children. The marriage divide now crosses ideological lines between left and right and now largely distinguishes between richer and poorer. Probably it was always like this, and the relatively egalitarian times of the 1950s and accompanying stability of marriage were an aberration.
The consequences will be for the GOP which will find itself a shrunken regional party.
You're suggesting erectile dysfunction?
I need my fellow gay-marriage supporters to tighten up thei arguments. We've got
1- gay people getting married wont change your marriage. How could it? What other people do with marriage has no bearing on you or marriage as an institution
2- besides, straight people have already ruined marriage with their divorce and cohabitation
3- yes, easier divorce and cohabitation were liberal ideas, but that was to protect women for having to stay with men who beat them, and also because people who aren't into cohabitation are uptight frigid family values righties
4- sure, I'm divorced but I'm not part of the problem here. I'm here to tell you what you are doing wrong
5- if you actually tried to change the divorce laws now, it would be more evidence of the right's war on women. Now pony up more tax dollars to help support the single moms and their kids
6-if you aren't sure it's all going to be ok this time, you are a bigotry hater.
Come on, folks. We can do better
They always lie.
People's perceptions of justice evolve - mine too. Don't judge them too harshly.
Since the Blog MIstress dragged Massachusetts into this, I remember watching local news on TV when the Constitutional Convention that killed the proposed amendment to the State Constitution ended (the Speaker fast gaveled it into recess) and State Senator Dianne Wilkerson came out and told us, "The Ends Justify the Means". (As an aside, I think she is still serving time for a photo of her stuffing bribes into her bra.)
I tend to not watch local TV news anymore.
I am, however, for getting the Government out of marriage and limiting it to registering contracts between adults entering into long term relationships.
Regards — Cliff
What I find more surprising that the relatively quick acceptance of SSM is the speed with which people accepted that it's A-OK for a woman to start a family all by herself with anonymous sperm donations.
How in hell did we ever get to that point, where we doom a child to never having a father?
If nothing else, the sheer cruelty of it.
@Lydia: I'm not so sure people are as OK with it as much they feel it's impolitic to say anything about it.
Obama should have been rejected outright for lack of a resume', if not for the damaging bit that was available. You can't be conned if you look at who people actually have been, and reject all rhetoric not in line with it. We don't change that much or that quickly.
bagoh20: Amen to that. I was astonished in 2008 and 2012 how all my smart liberal friends went for Obama and insisted that he was not what he obviously was: a hard leftist from a hard left enclaves and Chicago machine politics with the most liberal voting record in the Senate and no significant achievements aside from writing two books about himself.
No, to my friends, he was a noble, pragmatic centrist with the wonderful vision that heal the nation and bring us to a far better place.
What I find more surprising that the relatively quick acceptance of SSM is the speed with which people accepted that it's A-OK for a woman to start a family all by herself with anonymous sperm donations.
How in hell did we ever get to that point, where we doom a child to never having a father?
After no-fault divorce and the explosion of single-parent families, it was pretty easy.
However, only now are we beginning to understand the substantial price children pay when raised by a single parent.
I predict we are going to discover children pay a real price for being raised by same-sex parents. Those storm clouds are already on the horizon with the Regnerus study, which showed that the impact was similar to that of being raised in a broken home.
Will that matter to gay marriage advocates? Of course not.
You know, I'm getting really sick of the pro-SSM argument: "heterosexuals have destroyed marriage already, so accepting gay marriage won't make any difference." It is true that no-fault divorce and the notion that divorce itself and the consequent growing up without both parents (and the further notion that intentional single parenting is just fine, too) have harmed kids in ways that their advocates didn't imagine or wouldn't acknowledge. And it's also true that only because marriage is in shambles (at least for significant segements of the population) and has been disconnected from parenting have the numbers in support of gay marriage increased.
But even so -- gay marriage is just another nail in the coffin of the notion of marriage as an institution to provide each child with a mother and a father. There's then no going back.
And tell me -- if not for the notion of a mother (or parent, generally) being financially dependent due to staying at home taking care of the children -- what is the reason for any of the supposed 1,000 benefits for married couples? Why do two people who share a household together and call themselves "married" get a break on estate taxes, or does one get survivor's benefit when the other dies?
Sorry, very tired of this all. Very worried about the next generation of fatherless kids.
You know, I'm getting really sick of the pro-SSM argument: "heterosexuals have destroyed marriage already, so accepting gay marriage won't make any difference."
Jane: Likewise.
Marriage in America is certainly wounded and limping along, but that's no excuse to damage it further.
And it wasn't heterosexuals so much as liberals who created that damage.
Jane said...
what is the reason for any of the supposed 1,000 benefits for married couples? Why do two people who share a household together and call themselves "married" get a break on estate taxes, or does one get survivor's benefit when the other dies?
If there are to be tax breaks for couples, they should be directed only at the huge cost imposed on parents by child rearing. Childless couples of any stripe are essentially free-riders on child-bearers, who arguably are performing the single most important function of the state. It seems fair that estate taxes for couples of any stripe should be delayed until the death of second member of the couple.
While discussing past positions and Hilary, how popular do you think her push on universal health care will be after ACA kicks in in 2014?
This could go both ways and one is very bad. But the best way to fix a government failure is more government...
Post a Comment