The American Spectator

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.13.09 @ 7:41AM

I disagree. Calling me names (liberal) is not going to change my mind. The people currently in power are bringing and end to free speech, taxing our children into poverty, and restricting our freedoms on a daily basis. Those things, not gay marriage, will bring an end to all we hold dear. Very few gay people are the ilk of O’Donnell or Hilton. Those that I know are no more comparable to the Hollywood stereotype than those of you who blog here are to the MSM. I see it as two simple choices; get on with the business of preserving democracy or you can continue to be taunted as bigots by the likes of the insufferable Wanda Sykes. One of those choices can be ignored by the simple manipulation of an off switch but the tax burden currently being imposed through the democrats socialization policies will haunt us day and night for the rest of our lives. Call yourselves (or me) whatever you want but if we do not focus on that which is imperative you will continue to lose elections and frankly I do not think we, as a nation, will survive.

Macdaddy| 5.13.09 @ 8:26AM

Why is it a choice? Why can't Republicans do both? Of course, I would be happier if they did either, but it is way, way, way easier for the Democrats to push their socialist agenda if marriage is destroyed. Who supports social programs more than anyone else? That's right, people who are not married. Divorced Moms. Men who have no desire to take responsibility for their actions. The whole point of gay marriage is to destroy marriage. That's why Ms. Sykes and her ilk are being bigots and hypocrites. They want to get the nose of the camel in the tent. That's gay marriage. Soon after that will come the rest of the camel: polygamy, marriages of convenience between coworkers, marriage between parents and children, because why should those people be discriminated against? Eventually, marriage will mean nothing and the family unit will disintegrate. And for what? So gay people can continue to live in denial about themselves?

Son Of Sam| 5.13.09 @ 8:33AM

Dear Mike,
The ObamaNazis are violating our rights in a hundred different ways, and you're fool enough to think that if we let them win the battle over marriage by default, they'll play nice on the others, and somehow, magically, THAT will help us win elections again. Keep dreaming!
"Gay marriage" IS an abridgement of our freedom, precisely because its being imposed by unelected judges and out of touch arrogant politicians. You REALLY want to put the issue to rest? Have a referendum on it in EVERY state that hasn't had one yet, including Iowa, Maine, and the rest. Traditional marriage will win in every single one of them, because this is not a Democrat/Republican issue. The people have a right to be heard from on this issue, just as they have the right to listen to what they want to on talk radio, just as they have the right not to be taxed to death to pay for insane schemes to "remake" America.

stay strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos

SLG| 5.13.09 @ 9:12AM

It's all this extraneous stuff that chases we Independents and Libertarians away, screaming in frustration about the goofy, misplaced priorities and the "social conservatism" which is dang-near as restrictive as the Liberals' agenda of Big Government (it takes bodies to police all those causes like gays, stemcells and abortion), and regulations that appear NOWHERE in our Constitution.
Should be a "state" thing -- Sam's right. But those on the Social-Right who would presume to tell the rest of us how to think/live?
Please, go away.

Big J| 5.13.09 @ 9:15AM

The slow but sure compromise on principles have sent this country into devastating moral decline. By definition, principle(s) cannot be compromised.

The notion that a conservative only cares about one issue is silly. "You only care about the second amendment", or "All you care about is abortion", or "Quite hammering gay marriage". All ridiculous statements. As a conservative, I believe in many principles, none of which are open to compromise.

It's time for the liberals to compromise on some of their principles, like higher taxes, bloated government and killing babies with my tax dollars.

And that's just a start.

Nate| 5.13.09 @ 9:26AM

What in the world happened to Christine Whitman? She is such a disappointment. As soon as she started trying to defend killing late term children, her mind went. There is no reason for people to vote for a warmed over pretend Democrat wannabe when they can just vote for the real thing. The main driving force behind the 'Republicans are too right wing' nonsense is the left leaning media. Having the same cast of characters rambling on about it for the past three years is enough. The last election settled the RINO business and its time to get back to what wins for Republicans. The quicker Republicans finally stand up for core values of the party, the sooner the rebuilding can begin. If not, we'll be at this same spot in 2012.

SLG| 5.13.09 @ 10:23AM

Thanks, "BigJ" for proving my point -- you may have your conservative "principle(s)" and any number of priorities (again, not cited in the aforementioned Constitution) - - but please do NOT expect too many Libertarians or Independents to join you - - the James Dobsons and Michael Wildmons of this world are as sickening as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, always peeking thru bedroom windows or trying to intimidate others into following their dogmatic "ideals," such as they may be.
And, Nate? I'll agree that the left-leaning media are awful, miserable and terrible - - but that doesn't ease the queasiness that some of us feel when confronted by you self-proclaimed authors of "rightfulness" - - those sanctimonious airs that stifle - - and chase us awaaaaay.

Big J| 5.13.09 @ 11:41AM

slg,

I don't recall claiming authorship of "rightfulness".

You completely miss the point. If you call the right of an innocent, unborn child to life (fortunately for you and me, our Mothers made the appropriate "choice") "trying to intimidate others into following dogmatic ideals", so be it. If it chases you awaaaaay, then apparently, there is not enough room under our tiny little "tent" for you to fit in. I say good riddance.

The authorship for "rightfulness" was and remains my Creator's job, just as judging it remains His job.

The line between right and wrong has become so blurred, it's no wonder America has lost her way. It only gets worse with each passing compromise.

Your welcome. Anytime I can prove someone's point, I get all giddy inside.

SLG| 5.13.09 @ 12:32PM

By innuendo if nothing else, those who presume to speak for God.... or interpret His (or Her, if, indeed, God has a gender) words? It's pretty presumptuous to assume that you're the supreme arbitor of what's right and wrong....
Kinda reminds me of those with the audacity to threaten me with a total descention into hell UNLESS I were to "accept Jesus as my Personal Savior." On multiple occasions. Really.
Which is why I hereby shrug and walk away....
and want'a puke.
Adios.

1Freeman| 5.13.09 @ 1:31PM

Dear SLG,

yours is the common fleeing rebuke when confronted by a moral stance based on Christian faith. "How dare you speak for God?" you scream! Dude, when repeating the biblical text it is nether presumptuous or God-like. Sorry you had to read the "Thou shalt not kill" part of the commandments but Big J didn't make them up. I know, you want to rewrite the Bible to fit your do-anything morality. Not gonna happen dude. Please, PLEASE, remember this day as the one where you publically "walked away". You still have a chance to re-think it. The faith of Christ is, and has always been, one of Loving your neighbor BUT following God's law so we can live in love and peace, trying to sin as little as possible. Are we Christians perfect? Absolutely not. But we are doing what we can to live as good a life as we can according to the faith of the very Jesus Christ you mention. Sometimes we mess up. Fortunately forgiveness and God's grace is always ready and free. If you are turned off by that lifestyle, it's on you.
Adios to you too.

Big J| 5.13.09 @ 1:37PM

"By innuendo if nothing else, those who presume to speak for God.... or interpret His (or Her, if, indeed, God has a gender) words? It's pretty presumptuous to assume that you're the supreme arbitor of what's right and wrong...."

arbitor=arbiter

There, I fixed it for ya!

Don't have a response for that one other than...ignorance must be bliss. There, how's that? Now will you come back and spout off a bunch of ridiculous points, not listening to anyone else's point of view? I pinky-promise not to try and interpret God's words anymore.

/sarc

Sure am gonna miss ya, SLG.

As we say in Texas: "Don't let the door hit ya...."

macdaddy| 5.13.09 @ 1:58PM

SLG,

I can see your viewpoint and I will go ahead and tell you, "You're welcome." You think that your viewpoint is even possible? Libertarianism cannot exist without a critical mass of people with a strong moral base because once you say "anything goes just leave me alone," someone will take you seriously and see if anything really goes. They tend to forget the last half of the sentence. The problem is that "anything goes" has negative consequences which libertarians are not inclined to acknowledge. So you feel that James Dobson peeks through your windows? Try getting divorced. The government will not just peek through your bedroom windows but will actually sit in the bedroom wondering what you're doing and with whom and how often. What you're smoking. What you're drinking. How much you make. What you spend it on. But feel free to kick out the social conservatives anyway. I'm sure you'll get a much better deal from the Left.

Old Texican| 5.13.09 @ 2:09PM

SLG
I appreciate your thoughts.
I am a Christian, but I am also a Constitutionalist. I may die for your right to puke on us.
Fair enough?
Would you please puke on us with sorrow and agape' ?
If we pray as we fight from your own foxhole ,will you forgive us?
For two thousand years, no phiosopher has found fault with Jesus' words. Psychiatry itself is based upon his words: " Love your neighbor as you love yourself. " (Of course, if you cannot love yourself, then know that we are trying to love you.)
Sometimes you make that sorta' difficult. (smile)
The Tyrants will end you and we both given the opportunity. Please...grumble if you must, but we are on the same side. I think we ALL just want to be the arbiters of our own lives.
Thank goodness I am attracted to women, especially my boss. (smile)

Michael Tomlinson| 5.13.09 @ 2:48PM

In history even cultures amenable to homosexuality like ancient Greece did not equate homosexual relations with traditional marriage between a man and a woman. If the Spartans got it why can't America's minority that advocates homosexual marriage get it?

The real issue isn't about marriage it's about bucks and self-doubt. The gay community wants you and me through insurance and government bucks to pay for all their hedonistic lifestyle's medical consequences. And self-doubt in the gay community about the normalcy of their lifestyle.. Thus, to assuage their own misgivings they demand the vast majority of Americans expunge their doubt by approving of their lifestyle and telling everything is OK.

Maybe before we approve of gay marriage we should seriously consider protecting the 1st Amendment rights of polygamists. At least in the vast majority of these cases their religious beliefs however repugnant are in theory protected by the 1st Amendment.

How much further down the morass of moral confusion must we crawl to heal the homosexual group angst?

Duff OMelia| 5.13.09 @ 2:54PM

> A better option is to remain true to the
> foundational principles of conservatism,
> of which traditional marriage and family are a
> critical plank.

I'd prefer to remain true to the foundational principles of liberty rather than conservatism. How about the state not having anything to do with marriage? How about allowing individuals to have whatever voluntary associations they'd like without having to get the permission of some bureaucrat?

Duff OMelia| 5.13.09 @ 3:01PM

And how about those in government no longer forcing non-Christians to act like Christians? Conservatives seem to forget that allowing the government to act coercively in any way eventually hurts conservatives too.

Billy Madison| 5.13.09 @ 3:37PM

Duff OMelia: your last comment made absolutely no sense. You can accuse the government of a lot of things, but forcing people to act like Christians is the least of them. Perhaps you are confusing Christian behavior with general Western culture, which, of course, arose from Judeo-Christian ethics. But, you know, if you want to gut how we currently act towards one another, good luck getting the votes for that.

PolishKnight| 5.13.09 @ 3:38PM

I have a friend who lives in Christine Todd Whitman's state (New Jersey) and told me it is the most anti-father divorce court state he knows of (although Ohio, Massachusettes are close behind).

The divorce courts lavish mothers who initiate divorce with default custody, "child" support, and marital assets and encourage them to make false claims of abuse to help facilitate restraining orders to get the man evicted from his own home literally overnight.

What do "marriage saving" conservatives have to say about that? SQUAT! What did McCain say to a father's rights activist who asked him: "Get over it!" (He was on his way to a LaRaza meeting to meet with his new loyal friends that voted 90% for Obama!)

Honestly, this is the kind of example of dinosaur politics where the left has a point (and Sun Tzu). Rather than choose their battles, they "react" and waste their energy on Stalingrad issues while the left flanks with new fantasy agendas to capture the greed, and fear, of the populace. Always a step behind, the right winds up outmaneuvered everytime!

Want to have fun? Have a conservative in a swing state suggest that gay marriage should apply AND all those great DV laws that allow one spouse to put the other into jail on a simple allegation. Gotta have that! Also, let the poorer lesbian in a lesbian couple get the house and savings and kick the other one out. I'm sure they'll just love that!

Think this through, people.

Pat| 5.13.09 @ 4:13PM

So if we understand this brilliant logic, the GOP thinks by moderating their stance on social issues they will gain voters among the young. Should work as well as their idea that Hispanic and black Americans will vote for them if they support no questions asked immigration and find some black faces to put on their recruiting posters.

If folks wanted to vote for Progressive pols, why not vote Democrat and get the full calories instead of consuming Democrat-Lite? Republicans, they're the other white meat in their dreams, liberal on social issues but fiscally conservative, right? Except folks on both the right and left haven't forgotten about the current financial mess the GOP fathered after a night of hard drinking and an unwise pick-up at the local bar. So, Repubs now aspire to be both socially and fiscally irresponsible - that should appeal to the voters.

And what does voting have to do with same-sex marriage anyway? Aren't the courts deciding the issue? Remember abortion - it's a personal decision like same sex marriage and not something we vote on if we're not sitting on the judicial bench. The social costs of abortion relative to reduced Social Security taxes in the future are a different matter altogether - the issues are unrelated right? Sure we'll have far less working Americans to support our senior citizens in the future but what does that matter when a decision is personal and not something we vote on?

ds80| 5.13.09 @ 5:17PM

SLG, based on your post one is led to charitably believe that you are "invincibly ignorant". I suspect the truth lies much closer to "militantly anti-religious". No matter: there IS a God, and he's not you. Have fun at your Particular Judgment. Whether you like it or not, we'll pray for your soul. And BONUS: no puke involved their, either.

Oh, btw, God revealed himself as male: God the Father.

Alan Brooks| 5.13.09 @ 7:06PM

But keep gay marriage in Mass and CT, where it belongs.

Old Texican| 5.13.09 @ 8:42PM

An old friend reminded me today that same-sex marriage is a biological self correcting problem over time.
If homosexuality is genetic...same sex kills those two lines.
OK

Philip Rodgers| 5.13.09 @ 9:44PM

Please explain why this is such and issue. I have never understood why Marriage is something governed by the government. The government didn't marry my wife and I. A Southern Baptist minister did, in of all places THE CHURCH we were members of. Marriage is a religious idea and it should stay a religious idea. No one should be paying money for a Marriage License to anyone. Now if the government and citizenry find it necessary for 2 people to enter a government support contract to be provided benefits then sure I would register and pay for my cohabitation tax. I just cannot separate myself from this need of conservatives, which I consider myself one, to legislate those things that should be taught by churches and left out of government.

shanshan| 5.13.09 @ 10:23PM

(CNN) All apologies,wow gold but here we are now, 17 years afterwow gold Nirvana's breakthroughwow gold album irreversibly changed music, and the naked baby picturedwow gold on its cover is still wow goldchasing dollars.wow goldSpencer Elden, 17,wow gold recreates his pose from 1991'swow gold Nirvana "Nevermind" album.Spencer Elden,wow gold 17, recreates his pose from 1991's Nirvana "Nevermind" album.Click to view previous imagewow gold
1 of 4Click to view next imageSpencer Elden, wow goldthe underwater infant pursuing a dollar bill on the cover of 1991's "Nevermind."

runescape accounts| 5.14.09 @ 4:27AM

Just dropping by to say Hi!
Great site!

Ed Brownlee| 5.14.09 @ 11:32AM

I've read a gay man's summation of the gay lifestyle as having a significant other and an obligatory 'nother. If this is so then gay marriage is impossible since marriage is hard work requiring commitment. You can't have an escape to another sex partner if a marriage is to work.
Since marriage laws are a states rights issue (it's the tenth amendment,stupid) then states should get rid of quicky marriage and quicky divorce. If you break a marriage contract you loose everything, pal. Secondly, states must protect the conscious of people with the license to marry and bury. You shouldn't be able to hold a lawsuit over a ministers head because he won't marry two gays. We used to protect hospitals and doctors similarly.
By making marriage mean something important legally you reduce the stupid romantic notions of wedded bliss and soapoperaesque ceremonies and leave marraige for the serious minded hetero and homo sexuals.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 5.16.09 @ 8:46AM

Whitman is the ultimate RINO. I mean, why doesn't she just come out and suggest a Constitutional Amendment do declare anyone who doesn't belong to a country club to be a serf?

Of course she supports gay marriage. Like half the women in her set, she's probably married to a gay man herself!

John King| 5.17.09 @ 5:25PM

First, autonomy of the individual is not the cornerstone of American values, nor that of any other society. Indeed, society scarcely exists if such an extreme libertarian view is prevalent. Shared values ought not to be disdained, all the hooey about the marvels of diversity notwithstanding. As others have already alluded to, why not legalize bigamy or trigamy or incest ("But, my mother and I love one another!") or yet more fanciful unions.
But, my bottom line for wanting to discriminate against homosexuals is my belief that homosexuality is a mental disease. Oh yes, the gasps of horror at this point are predictable but wholly irrelevant. Would anyone really deny that it is biologically abnormal?
Nature almost surely does cause sexual predilections, but what of it? Nature also causes diabetes and schizophrenia and alcoholism and congenital heart disease, but no sane person has trouble calling them diseases. The state should not adopt policies that encourage by validation practices that are abnormal, no matter what virtues their practitioners possess otherwise.

FB| 6.11.09 @ 8:42PM

@ Michael Tomlinson - Admittedly, the cultures you mentioned did favor homosexuality for specific reasons (i.e. the Spartans and their "a man will fight harder if his lover is in battle with him because he would not want to look like a coward"), but they also decided that homosexuality was the only way that a man was going to have a truly equal relationship... since, y'know, women were inferior and all.

I think that it should be said: homosexuality is a pervasive and subtle form of misogyny (and/or misandry, nowadays).

Duff OMelia| 9.2.09 @ 10:24AM

Billy Madison: You don't think that when conservatives try to regulate morality that they're attempting to coerce non-Christians to act like they're Bible believing Christians?

Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:07PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie

qaqaqa| 10.30.09 @ 7:58AM

www.tbcgold.frwww.tbcgold.frww.....tbcgold.fr

tibia-ad| 1.14.10 @ 12:46AM

ffxiv money,
ffxiv gold,