“That’s certainly a personal issue,” Mr. Walker said at a brief news conference after addressing a gathering of New Hampshire Republicans here. Referring to his wife, he continued, “Tonette and I and our family already had a family member who’s had a reception. I haven’t been to a wedding. That’s true even though my position on marriage is still that’s defined between a man and a woman, and I support the Constitution of the state. But for someone I love, we’ve been at a reception.”...ALSO: "Walker Shines in New Hampshire."
Last June, a cousin of Mrs. Walker, Shelli Marquardt, was married to her partner at Waukesha County Courthouse outside Milwaukee, according to media reports. The Walkers’ then-19-year-old son, Alex, served as a witness and signed his name to the marriage certificate....
१९ एप्रिल, २०१५
"At Candidate Forum, Scott Walker Discusses Same-Sex Marriage of a Relative."
"Asked by a reporter if he would attend a gay wedding...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
It's not marriage. If he says that, he's interesting. If not, not.
@scottwalker will be trashed by NYT now. Fake. @GailCollins who missed her Romney and dog story will now make up something for Walker.
GOP is going to be defeated in all states by HRC. All states. Why?
- GOP has no women in leadership (house/senate).
- GOP has no love for American scientists.
- GOP has no love for role of immigrants in our country's prosperity.
- GOP has no love for the role of minorities in our country's prosperity.
Q.E.D. Your 45POTUS is HRC.
"That's a personal question" should have been his complete answer. There are private things into which the state should not intrude. As a man running for office, he should demonstrate that principle.
'The personal is political' is a Leftist sentiment that should have been resisted more fully when the would-be totalitarians first introduced the phrase into the American lexicon. The proper response is 'It is none of your business.'
Kudos to Scott Walker for starting at the right end point.
45puta, in Hillary's case.
""That's a personal question" should have been his complete answer."
Yeah, he's not going to be able to get away with that feint, which he's been using, if he goes on to answer the question.
Or, maybe he will. It's optional if it's personal.
But then we'll judge him by whether he takes the option.
I support gay marriage and I disagree with the assertion that "it's not a marriage". I've known gay couples who've been together longer than my wife and I have. I've known gay men who tried to live a straight life, married a woman and had children, and are better fathers to those children than a lot of straight men. I've known lesbian couples who are great parents to their children.
To me, it's not an ideological issue, but to a lot of people, on the right and left, it is an ideological issue. A presidential candidate is wise to avoid taking an ideological position (because the courts are going to decide this, whatever the president thinks). Walker's statement seems about right to me.
“That’s certainly a personal issue,”
Definitely. One of personal integrity. Which Walker wants to have in his private life but not publicly.
"I've known lesbian couples who are great parents to their children."
There is a distressing lack of decent research on this topic. Nobody is studying the results of such parenting and your anecdote isn't research. We have one experiment running in inner cities about no fathers.
There are anecdotes, mostly from adult children, that disagree with you.
Walker won the authenticity war. If conservatives hate gay marriage to the bitter end, they are asking to lose the election on principle. What good does that do anybody ?
"If conservatives hate gay marriage to the bitter end, they are asking to lose the election on principle. What good does that do anybody?"
Nice moniker, though.
Marco Rubio hit that one out of the park.
He said that while he doesn't morally approve of same-sex marriage, he would attend the same-sex wedding of a beloved family member because love transcends all.
And that is an answer that even (temporarily) silenced liberal critics. He's a Christian but not a fire-and-brimstone condemner.
BTW: Claiming that same-sex marriage isn't real marriage is like claiming that a license to drive a motorcycle isn't a real driver's license.
The issue--for the umpteenth time--is CIVIL marriage, that marriage certificate issued to you by your state government. And the state can define its requirements for that certificate in accordance with its legislative and judicial processes.
Religious considerations don't enter into it. An atheist couple is just as entitled to a marriage certificate as the most devout Christian couple is.
Ghosthunter Michael K said...
"I've known lesbian couples who are great parents to their children."
There is a distressing lack of decent research on this topic. Nobody is studying the results of such parenting and your anecdote isn't research.
A new study published in the prestigious journal Pediatrics (link is external)followed a group of children born to lesbian mothers for nearly 25 years to chart their psychological health and development. Previous studies have found no significant differences in psychological health between children reared by lesbian or heterosexual parents [1-4]."
Which shouldn't be surprising since parents don't have much effect on how their kids turn out.
We have one experiment running in inner cities about no fathers.
Like most people, you probably have cause and effect reversed on that issue; they're just practicing r-selection, favored in an unstable environment, rather than K-selection.
"we’ve been at a reception"
I didn't inhale.
The proper response is 'It is none of your business.'
That response is no longer allowed. In fact, it is no longer allowed to say, "It is none of my business what you do." Instead, same-sex sexuality is made to be your business and my business and everyone's. We must all know and acknowledge and applaud and publicly approve. They have made it your business and you're going to like it, or else.
In fact, it is not only no longer allowed that you mind your own business in real life. Now you are no longer allowed to mind your own business in hypotheticals. You are now required to participate in someone's fantasy about some event that is itself a fantasy. No one will be allowed to be left alone, no one will be allowed to live in peace.
I'd like to see a politician be more clear about this.
Something along the lives of, "our children are our most important resource. All children deserve a father and a mother. The state sanctioning two men or two women to raise children is child abuse. I oppose child abuse."
Unfortunately politicians are cowards.
"Along the lines of...."
Re: Fernandinande's Pediatrics Journal abstract link:
"Previous studies have found no significant differences in psychological health between children reared by lesbian or heterosexual parents [1-4]"
I'm not persuaded yet.
From the article by an LGBT advocate, looking at his bio: "While this study is impressive in following 93% of the initially recruited families for up to 24 years, there were limitations just like in any study. The participants were not randomly selected and the information on psychological adjustment was only provided by the mothers. A more comprehensive assessment approach would have included reports from the children themselves and possibly another source like teachers."
"154 volunteer mothers" from the abstract. Divide by two.
Let the Ghosthunter reply.
"'The personal is political' is a Leftist sentiment"
But unavoidable for a GOP politician trying to score with women.
traditionalguy said...
Walker won the authenticity war. If conservatives hate gay marriage to the bitter end, they are asking to lose the election on principle. What good does that do anybody ?
On the other hand if voters keep making gay marriage the litmus test, and Democrats don't put forth a better candidate than Hillary, what good will her election do the country?
Goose/gander
It's not about how good same sex is or is not at raising children.
It's about marriage covering the ways male/female unions succeed or fail.
Gays and lesbians can have their own ways and their own word. Probably two words, one each.
I support gay civil unions but not calling them marriage. The word's taken. That's the answer America wants to hear.
You cal watch all of this on the ABC affiliate in Manchester, NH, WMUR. See http://wmur.com. Click on the "politics" tab. I think that of the events this weekend will be posted. They also have a "Candidate Conversation" show that is interesting.
"Let the Ghosthunter reply."
I keep forgetting to tip that Ferdinand guy or girl as the case may be.
There is still distressing lack of "unbiased" research on this topic. I am a fan of Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" so I do agree that a lot of behavior is genetic but there is a grave lack of information on gay parenting.
An example of why so much of this literature is from advocates.
Having begun to respond to heterosexist and homophobic questions posed by psychological theory, judicial opinion, and popular prejudice, child development researchers are now in a position also to explore a broader range of issues raised by the emergence of different kinds of gay and lesbian families.
Why do people need to feel offended if their personal way in which they are raised (or their children are raised) is more statistically likely to be fraught with complications?
My parents are divorced. Did I turn out ok? Yes. Do I wish that I had a mom and a dad at home when I was growing up? Yes. Did I have some issues stemming from not having a father in the home? Yes. Do I feel the need to riot because statistics show that kids do better with two biological parents in the home? No.
We've recognized in the past 30 to 40 years that children do better when they are aware of their adoption--heck they can even have contact with their birth parents. This is seen as a good thing. And yet, there's a whole lot of fertility donations going on and we are not allowed to acknowledge might not be in the best interest of the child. We're supposed to pretend that a child was delivered by a stork and plop two women on a birth certificate because it makes them feel better? Seriously.
We need to realize and admit that families are measured in units of generations, and that therefore tinkering with the family structure won't show the consequences bad or benign, for 50-100 years.
If he does, then he needs to explain his support for selective (i.e. "pro-choice") exclusion in lieu of principled tolerance. That's a Democrat Party moral -- amoral, really -- principle. While progressive morality is an effective (i.e. addictive) religion, it is also a degenerative philosophy seeking the greatest common divisor (e.g. class diversity) that creates moral hazards through unreconciled positions..
Still, the selective normalization of transsexual behaviors is the lesser evil. The normalization or promotion of the selective-child policy by the Democrat Party and abortion industry pose the greater threat to our society and human rights. Also, conflating science, philosophy (e.g. religion), faith (e.g. "viability"), and fantasy (i.e. spontaneous conception) has done greater damage to the separation of the logical domains than any other departure from the scientific domain.
Rhhardin
I say let the word "marriage" go. No fault divorce and common out of wedlock birth rates and the attendant yawn by the populous suggests it's meaning has been hollowed out. I propose a new word, or words, be introduced to describe the act, the sacrament, we once observed. I suggest viretmulier. Reserved, as the name suggests, for men and women.
Seriously, writing Walker offf over a religious issue of accepting Sin in the City makes no sense to me, He will make us proud by doing. His ReaganI II act that he has practiced for so long.
Well, at least now we know the excuse Althouse is going to take for not voting for Walker....because he has the same exact position on gay marriage that everybody did ten years ago. Hell ten years ago, most gay people were opposed to the idea of gay marriage.
I wonder if any reporter will ever ask Hillary if there is any aspect of gay behavior she finds objectionable. "Madame Clinton, if your grandson became gay and decided to attend the Gay Pride Parade dressed in black leather chaps and nothing else, would you still march with him in the parade."
"One of personal integrity. Which Walker wants to have in his private life but not publicly."
Name one Democrat politician in the last 20 years that meets this standard. Obama? HRC? WJC? Reid? Pelosi? Al Gore? John Edwards?
Compared to that crew, Walker is John freakin' Alden.
It's a shame that eric (7:28 pm) prefers to shock people with an outrageous statement, rather than try to deal seriously with the problems of families in the modern world, because there's the germ of truth hidden in his observation that "our children are our most important resource. All children deserve a father and a mother. The state sanctioning two men or two women to raise children is child abuse. I oppose child abuse."
I am sure that an intact family is a better environment for children to grow up in. So, eric, you will ban divorce? Surely there are more children who grow up without a mother or a father because of divorce than because their parents are gay. What about the death of a parent? You can't ban death, eric. Would you be satisfied with a law that required the surviving parent to remarry within 12 months? But then you still wouldn't have "a father and a mother" -- one of them would be a step-parent. How is that better than having two mothers or two fathers?
Yes, eric, marriage is a greatly stressed institution today. Undoubtedly, children face different challenges today than in an earlier era. But is that "abuse"?
If you care about strengthening families for the good of the children, then please tell us how to do this; we'd all like to know. If all you want to do is bash gays and lesbians, well, you have the right to do that -- just be honest about it.
Gahrie said...
Well, at least now we know the excuse Althouse is going to take for not voting for Walker....because he has the same exact position on gay marriage that everybody did ten years ago. Hell ten years ago, most gay people were opposed to the idea of gay marriage.
If Althouse dumps Walker solely over the issue of gay marriage then the frisson (as I called it the other day) is gone and she becomes just another boring and predictable lefty. I don't think Althouse wants to be boring and predictable. But hell, maybe she does.
Why is there this thing, wherein one's principled position on same sex marriage is supposed to change depending on whether one has a gay friend or relative?
Is it always the presumption, that a gay friend son / daughter / cousin / coworker /whatever, is a heroic figure whose personal experience is enough to transform public policy? We'd never countenance the converse; no one would accept someone who said, "My ex-wife divorced me when she got involved in a lesbian affair; she didn't own up to it and she made me out her." Or, "My husband denied he was gay before and after we married. His lies ruined our family, but he never owned up to it."
Those kinds of stories would never, ever be accepted as a means to resolving legal and policy issues against same sex marriage.
Do the "personal accounts" all work in just one direction? Why do personal accounts matter at all? They certainly have nothing to do with the level of rational basis scrutiny to be applied in DeBoer v. Snyder. Nor are personal anecdotes useful as social science in judging the long-term effects of child-rearing in same-sex families.
I have been invited to gay marriages but never attended. I just sent money.
My response would be to say I won't go to any marriages because I don't like being around people.
But, I send a nice check!
tits.
My sense is Scott Walker is like Obama-he supports gay marriage-but will never say it.
He may evolve after his second winning election-sometime around 2023.
"Surely there are more children who grow up without a mother or a father because of divorce than because their parents are gay. "
Oh, I agree and have been divorced twice. I do think that boys, in particular but also girls need to have a father in the picture somewhere. Some of the lesbian situations involve boys growing up with man hating lesbian "parents" which is weird and not good for psychological function. Other stories are girls who are raised by male homosexual couples who cannot bring boys home without having them approached by the "parents."
Too much weirdness.
The "science" that says being raised by gay parents is no different than being raised by normal husband-wive married couples is bogus.
It may turn out not to be bogus - I concede that. But this is a new societal experiment. With anything new, it may turn out good, it may turn out bad.
The two other recent societal experiments of "no-fault" divorce and single-Moms raising children has been disasterous - for the kids. Anybody dispute this?
I've been for gay marriage since 1993. I've never seen an argument against it that impressed me in any way. I don't even think of it as a "liberal" position. It is good social policy in addition to being consistent with the Constitution.
I don't want people who have a religious objection to it to be harassed in any way, and certainly do not agree with attacks on their careers.
However, I have reached the point where I have no patience for opposition to it, largely because there is no intellectually honest position against it. The logic presented against it is entirely circular, every single time. It comes down to "I don't want it because I don't want it." That doesn't pass muster in a pluralistic society.
Nothing makes me happier than hearing a good argument against a position I hold. On gay marriage, no meritorious argument against it has crossed my view, though I read many conservative pubs.
It's time for the right to sue for peace on this issue.
Whatever one thinks of Andrew Sullivan's later blog output, his 1996 book Virtually Normal remains the single best book on the subject. The whole "civil rights issue of our generation" is just political boilerplate. And at this point, it does not really matter what any presidential candidate thinks of the issue. We will have nation-wide gay marriage via the Supreme Court before the year is up. The only obvious recourse after that would be a constitutional amendment, and that already failed once when the opposition to gay marriage was much more heated than it is today.
"But this is a new societal experiment."
No, its not new. I know, in our hubris, we like to think we are wiser than our ancestors, but they already experimented with normalizing gay relationships. And based on that experience, they decided it should be taboo.
But hey, lets make the same set of mistakes all over again.
It's time for the right to sue for peace on this issue.
We tried to. Apparently, that's not good enough for the gay Nazis. We must also participate in it and cheer loudly. Last one to stop clapping gets their life ruined by another online Kristallnacht.
I say let the word "marriage" go. No fault divorce and common out of wedlock birth rates and the attendant yawn by the populous suggests it's meaning has been hollowed out. I propose a new word, or words, be introduced to describe the act, the sacrament, we once observed. I suggest viretmulier. Reserved, as the name suggests, for men and women.
The word marriage covers failures as well as successes. That's how you can have a failed marriage.
The word though means male/female, as evidenced by people who cater weddings who won't do gay weddings. They meant something about male/female when they said it and advertised it.
I'd bet most of those refusers would do civil unions. They just don't want to have it refer to what they know as marriage. A civil union is a different celebration, no more threatening than a birthday party under a different name.
The reason gays want the same word is what?
I think he should have stopped with "it's personal" because that is the correct answer. He could have further explained by saying, "Some people support laws that permit SSM and celebrate SS weddings. For those of us who disagree, it's a personal challenge when people we know and love are involved, and each of us has to exercise our conscience on this issue. It's becoming clear that some people not only expect SSM to be legal, but also demand that everyone who disagrees will be ostracized. Since I find those tactics repulsive and unacceptable, I find it important to maintain privacy to demonstrate the importance of individual conscience."
Michael K said...
"... Other stories are girls who are raised by male homosexual couples who cannot bring boys home without having them approached by the "parents."
Too much weirdness.
4/19/15, 10:30 PM"
Is that really a concern?
How often do parents of girls worry about letting their daughters enter homes where heterosexual fathers might be at home?
"That's a personal question" reminds me of Cuomo on abortion back in the '80s. I'd didn't think much of that answer either.
"Too much weirdness." sums up the whole subject IMO, but then my thoughts are a drop in the Ocean, with no perceptible effect.
"That's a personal question" reminds me of Cuomo on abortion back in the '80s. I'd didn't think much of that answer either.
4/20/15, 6:53 AM
This is why I think that the response needs a little more explanation. In short form it comes across like you are trying to duck the question but the reality is that even if the true answer to the question is one that might put you in a better light to your opponents (in this case, Walker could truthfully answer that he wouldn't refuse to attend), by answering you are giving respectability to the idea that everyone should have to explain their decisions of conscience. I think someone needs to emphatically make the point that this is not acceptable in a free society. We're quickly losing sight of the idea that we often have to agree to disagree.
I'm betting most of these GOP candidates (Bush, Walker, Rubio, Paul and Christie at least) support same sex marriage, and like the Democrats two cycles ago are cautious about saying so out of fear of alienating supporters within their party. Which isn't a profile in courage, but suggests the issue is becoming an irrelevancy--SSM is gradually becoming the norm in more states and it is becoming politically risky to oppose it, even in red states. The main reason the media focuses on it with candidates is as a way of signalling whether someone is a "flyover rube" or "enlightened thinker" (same as they've been doing with "do you believe in evolution" which is even more irrelevant for a presidential candidate).
Much as I don't like Walker's (stated) position on SSM, I also couldn't care less what he thinks of it--our next president will be dealing with (likely) another recession, the need for entitlements reform, fixing Obamacare, and hopefully staying out of foreign messes. If (s)he thinks only certain marriages should be called "marriages" it really has no effect on anyone.
Yes, we call them failed marriages.
And the Bible calls attempts to fornicate with another man's wife... adultery. Even if the state gives you a bubblegum card and society's permission...
Marriage covers that. It's not a matter of what the Bible says but what the word says.
We call polygamist marriage marriage because it's still man/woman. Would the bakery refusers refuse to do a polygamist wedding? Probably they'd do it. It's recognizeable under the word marriage as marriage.
Same sex is not.
Why in the world do gays want the same word? Insist on it, so much that the opposition must be crushed.
Anyway the activists insist on it.
rhhardin,
The activists insist because they cannot or will not face themselves honestly and therefore insist the entire world must approve and help them perpetuate their delusion. A self assured homosexual would not need the validation of the marriage certificate.
I really don't see why this is what we are asking presidential candidates right now. What next? Would you let an intern blow you in the White House pool?
Why in the world can't we focus on important issues?
(and who wouldn't go to the wedding or wedding reception of someone they care about even if the person they are marrying isn't exactly who you would choose for them? )
"A self assured homosexual would not need the validation of the marriage certificate. "
He would need it if:
a) He wants to file a joint tax return
b) He wants his partner to have Social Security survivors' benefits
c) He wants his partner to have hospital visitation rights in case he's critically ill in a hospital.
There are about 1,000 U.S. laws that treat married couples differently from unmarried couples. And there are thousands of state and local laws that do the same.
Think back to how many forms, applications, etc. you have filled out that asked for your marital status and if married, who your spouse was.
sinz52,
True there are benefits to a legal marriage. The benefits of marriage were written into law with the exclusive men and women in mind. Any change, and this is a substantial change, in the law should be run past representative government rather than imposed by judicial fiat. Claiming benefits intended for others may be an authentic motive, but not a virtuous one.
"(and who wouldn't go to the wedding or wedding reception of someone they care about even if the person they are marrying isn't exactly who you would choose for them? )"
That's what's absurd about this "news". You'd have to be a pretty hard core fanatic to refuse to attend a same sex marriage of a loved one simply because you don't think it should be considered a "marriage." It'd be like asking a politician who opposed gay rights "would you still love your son if he came out to you as gay?"
What would be an equivalent question to ask the Democrats? "If your family member publicly protested abortion, would they still be welcome at your Thanksgiving table?"
sparrow said: " The benefits of marriage were written into law with the exclusive men and women in mind."
In America, the benefits of marriage were originally written into law with *racial purity* in mind as well.
Many U.S. states had laws banning interracial marriage. By law, a black person and a white person could not get married.
How did those laws come to be? The rationale was religious. Millions of sincere white American Christians believed that God Himself had ordained separation of the races.
Get it?
What a society thinks of as "marriage" can change over time.
It's changed dramatically over thousands of years. And it can change again.
Learn about marriage in other cultures over the centuries, from the ancient empires to today.
sinz52,
A government that uses the tax code to reward behavior of which it approves... that government already has too much power. A government that forcibly extracts wealth from citizens and puts that money into a general fund is stealing. If that money were put into private accounts, it could be transferred to whomever the owner wished.
The best response is to roll back the government's assumed role. Your objections are noted. But you failed to appreciate the true nature of the problem.
All other alleged problems can be handled through private contracts.
Why in the world do gays want the same word? Insist on it, so much that the opposition must be crushed.
Because they've grown up in the same culture as straight people, where marriage is a beloved and important institution.
Is it so hard to see gay people as just people?
"Why in the world do gays want the same word? Insist on it, so much that the opposition must be crushed.
Because they've grown up in the same culture as straight people, where marriage is a beloved and important institution."
I still just don't see why if gays want to call their unions "marriages" it should matter to the rest of us.
On a cultural level, we have bigger problems (and government can't really solve them)--children growing up without fathers, intergenerational dependency on government, sex without responsibility--the idea that some gay couples calling themselves "married" being a problem just doesn't make much sense. Let them marry and be done with this issue.
I still just don't see why if gays want to call their unions "marriages" it should matter to the rest of us.
Because if you're a baker who wants to do marriages then you have to do gay ceremonies.
Just because of the word. It's not what the baker signed on for. He wants to do marriage marriage.
If we can agree that it changes the meaning of the word, then you see that's a problem.
It's a better fit to say that they want the aura that marriage marriage has.
That's cheating. Show your own good character in your own way, don't steal it.
Government can't really solve problems? WTF are you saying?
Be explicit: government causes problems and pretends at solving them. And the purpose is power.
Because if you're a baker who wants to do marriages then you have to do gay ceremonies.
That's not true. It's not because of the word "marriage". This case could have been brought if it were anything celebrating a gay service. It was because the business was considered to be discriminating against gay people, not because it was for a marriage.
I hate that lawsuit. I hate the ruling on it. But it didn't happen because of the word "marriage".
Exactly, Brando.
Let them marry and be done with this issue.
We can't. They won't let us. The gay marriage crowd are now demanding that we endorse and participate in their marriages.
We can't. They won't let us. The gay marriage crowd are now demanding that we endorse and participate in their marriages.
Two separate things.
Gay people- apolitical gay people- want to be married.
Activists demand we participate.
You can open your mind and laws to one without having to participate in the activism of the other.
Brando:What would be an equivalent question to ask the Democrats? "If your family member publicly protested abortion, would they still be welcome at your Thanksgiving table?"
Would you accompany your friend to a dismemberment abortion?
"Because if you're a baker who wants to do marriages then you have to do gay ceremonies."
As MayBee notes, that's a separate issue. You can support the rights of gays to marry and have their marriages treated under the law as equivalent to straight marriages, while at the same time not require anyone to participate in it.
"Would you accompany your friend to a dismemberment abortion?"
Or "if your severely handicapped friend wanted to burn an American flag at a rally but couldn't get the lighter working, would you help him out?"
No those analogies don't work because you're using examples of things that Democrats typically support (even if you are using extreme examples that might make them uncomfortable.)
The relevant analogy would be more like "Would you go on a hunting trip with a family member? Would you shoot at a deer and field dress the carcass?"
"The relevant analogy would be more like "Would you go on a hunting trip with a family member? Would you shoot at a deer and field dress the carcass?""
I don't know about that--didn't John Kerry shoot a bunch of animals during the 2004 campaign to build up his "just a regular hunter like you folks!" cred?
The key here is whether the candidate would stick to his "ideological" position in a personal matter even when the ideological position would make them look ghoulish to moderates. So helping perform a grisly abortion, or burning a flag to support a friend, still applies. Hunting, while not really an activity Democrats officially oppose (even if some coastal types personally don't approve of it) isn't the sort of thing that would turn off moderates.
@Brando- it has to do with where the base of the party stands on an issue though. You are choosing issues on which the party base is on the moderate end but still on the same side of the issue, and putting the candidate on the spot to identify how extreme he would go.
The gay wedding question forces the candidate to either alienate his own base or give up the idea of courting any moderates who are outside of his own party.
I concede my analogy is imperfect though because the gun issue is less clear cut along party lines, especially when it comes to hunting.
We could keep it simple and stick to the same issue as the post topic: "Do you eat at Chick Fil A?"
Note too that I don't see this relating to "gruesomeness."
The idea is that the question presents a no-win situation: the candidate's answer either paints him as a zealot or a hypocrite, and either of those will turn off a subset of his potential voters.
You sure are a credulous lot. Logically separating aruments while those who deign to control you, exercise dominion over you, plan their next effort to fundamentally transform America.
Re: Sinz52:
Many U.S. states had laws banning interracial marriage. By law, a black person and a white person could not get married.
Yes, it was a criminal offense -- they could be thrown in jail for it. This is not remotely the situation facing gay marriage today.
How did those laws come to be? The rationale was religious.
I am skeptical of this. The rationale behind the actual statute banning interracial marriage in Virginia was scientific not religious -- it was good-old progressive eugenics of the sort supported by Margaret Sanger and others of her ilk.
"We could keep it simple and stick to the same issue as the post topic: "Do you eat at Chick Fil A?""
A fair question--as a gay marriage supporter myself, I would (and occasionally do) eat there, in part because while I don't agree with Dan Cathy's opinions on gay marriage I don't find them offensive (compared to say if he said "no gay customers allowed in my stores!"), in part because I don't believe an owner's opinion on a topic unrelated to his business should be imputed to his business, and in part because I refuse to let my politics affect my diet.
What would Hillary say if asked that question? She might say "yes" to appeal to the working class whites she thinks she needs in this election, she might say "no" to appeal to gay donors, or she might cop out and say she prefers Five Guys, but I am certain her answer would be based entirely on political calculation and nothing more.
Exactly, Brando. Your nuanced answer shows that there are all kinds of responses in between but the nature of the questioning tries to force a yes or no. And the candidates's answers are going to be designed to minimize the damage as much as possible, which has little or nothing to do with their honest personal convictions.
The gay wedding question forces the candidate to either alienate his own base or give up the idea of courting any moderates who are outside of his own party.
I don't believe for a second the republican base would be alienated by someone attending a gay wedding.
Seriously Maybee? Ed Morrissey has a post up where he says he's got people in his Twitter feed saying that Kasich has disqualified himself over this. Maybe they're just a few cranks but EM is a respected conservative blogger and I don't think he would have mentioned it if he thought they were outliers.
Ed Morrissey has a post up where he says he's got people in his Twitter feed saying that Kasich has disqualified himself over this
They are extremists, like the people who sue over cake.
I completely agree with this from Ed Morrisey (thanks for the nudge, Stanley)
What’s not understandable is how this particular question got to be a national test for Republican candidates, and why conservatives are playing along with it.
Let’s stick to the real issues that face the nation — out-of-control spending, declining defense (especially in naval power), a foreign policy that has wrecked the Middle East and amplified direct threats to our security, and an economy that’s barely limping along and that has turned millions of working-age Americans into a class of the chronically unemployed. This is just another media squirrel
The idea behind these questions is to get the extremists squawking, so it seems like they are the base and have lots of control over the candidate.
Gotta agree with Birkel on this one. With all the accelerating dynamics besetting the world political economy today, along with the Left's relentless drive to retribalize our nation, we would do better to focus on why the Left is hellbent on taking no prisoners on the gay marriage matter rather than on the minutiae of the issue itself.
declining defense (especially in naval power),
This coincides with my theme for the week.
Aircraft carriers.
We need more of em.
The Russians are going to build the largest aircraft carrier ever. If it's anything like the other two it' has built, we have nothing to worry about.
"if your severely handicapped friend wanted to burn an American flag at a rally but couldn't get the lighter working, would you help him out?"
I would bet him a car against his pinky that his lighter would not light ten times in a row.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा