The American Spectator

Whoaback| 9.3.10 @ 8:27AM

"Americans should be protected under the law regardless of sexual orientation. "

And there it is again, the ambiguous and vague "sexual orientation" argument. So you're including pedophiles, rapists, necrophiliacs, and polygamists? When you used the politically correct catch phrase did you intend it as the "anything goes" it implies? Or were you just parroting the current liberal panacea of "whatever"?

gearjammer| 9.3.10 @ 8:43AM

Equating those joyful gays who wanna get hitched with rapist is why the GOP can actually lose seats in November. We need a crazy Uncle attic to house and hide about 2 million nuts like you before we turn off independents and thoughtful, patriotic, pragmatic atheists like me (we hold the key to victory). stash Whoa in the attic fast and give him an absentee ballot.

Purple Lips| 9.3.10 @ 10:02AM

Gearjammer,
You obviously overstate your importance. And I wouldn't be so quick to disregard religious conservatives. After all, even that popular Libertine JFK would be cringe at what our society has evolved to. And I think many voters can connect the dots. What a tiny 2-3% of our population demands is that the other 97% totally redefine something as indispensible as matrimony. Gays already have thier unions recognized by almost all states as far as benefits are concerned. But that's not thier final goal.

The social pathologies associated with single motherhood are a problem not only of the urban underclass. Even those sleepy suburban sub-divisions are becomoing a cesspool of crime. But one cannot demand that male teens and young adults turn down thier hormones, defer gratification and become responsible parents when the institution they are being lectured to join is weakened to a point of meaningless indifference. Matrimony and sodomy are not compatible the last time I looked. And the importance of the effette secular athieist voter is totally dependent upon the turn out of the knuckle dragging Bitter Clingers.

gearjammer| 9.3.10 @ 3:17PM

Purple Lips, besides us atheists you got agnostics and all those people who believe in something they call " my god". Only a minority believe in God as you do. I distinguish between holy matrimony and marriage.

GW| 9.3.10 @ 10:03PM

You are extremely stupid. The largest conservative constituency is made up of Evangelical Christians who are the reason why we haven't turned into Europe.

Patrick| 9.4.10 @ 2:03AM

Gearjammer, as much as you pretend to be clever by proclaiming yourself an atheist, you only prove yourself the fool.

Yes, the first argument for marriage to be between a man and woman is religious, as should be expected. The religion of a society is its foundation and cornerstone, regardless of whether it is as clever as you think you are.

Even so, there is a purpose to marriage that the State cannot deny, even if it presumes to deny God, and it is this:

Marriage is a social contract for SERVICE RENDERED, not a right. A husband and wife are joined together legally, that they will produce and raise offspring. That the State grants benefits for those who enter into matrimony is solely for self preservation.

Of course, common sense is far too mundane for someone as clever as yourself, gearjammer. Clearly you are blinded by your own brilliance.

gearjammer| 9.4.10 @ 9:04AM

Is SERVICE RENDERED two people joined to love honor and cherish each other enough? Now you gotta have kids as a condition to a legit marriage. Look I grew up in the America that was a Christian nation and it was great. That is gone. We need to preserve liberty-whatever people do in the throes of passion(minus felonies) is not your business. Gays want liberty too. And, can be allies as well. don't be so blind to the real enemey.

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 9:47PM

No, you don't have to have children as a condition and it isn't Biblical to say that it is.

As for homosexuals, they already have liberty. They should not be allowed to ruin what God has ordained, and that is Marriage between who He created it to be between, a man and a woman. They are "free" to be perverse, (though they will suffer a great price in their persons to do so, Rms. 1:27), but they are not free to change what God has ordained!

AMENBRO| 9.6.10 @ 10:03AM

Folks been sodomizing each other on both sides of the cheeks since more than one of each originated. . Most HOMO marriages already performed ended in divorce. Face it it is a compulsion more than a viable lifestyle. Exactly why society has forsworn it since folks started doing it.

It isn't a viable addition to societal norms cause IT AIN'T NORMAL. Humanity is just now getting it right after how many ADAMs & EVES? We're so forking sophisticated at this juncture it HISTORY it is socially normed? Only because of the media deluged desensitization & that same ORGAN's ability to cow people like me into shutting the FORK UP. GROW UP WILL Y"A

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 10:04AM

Your righteous indignation indicates you are not processing the reality of the situation. Too many of those "joyful gays" also wanna be boy-scout troop leaders and foster parents. Their demands for "equal protection" amount to making them a privileged, protected group, which always paralyzes common sense when bureaucrats are involved. Protected groups always take advantage of their protection.

I strongly suspect you don't plan on volunteering any of your time to stop the leaders on the other side pushing to teach little kids about homosexual sex in "anti-bullying" programs. How much time have you spent looking at the social science literature -- legit and fraudulent -- on the connection between sex abuse and homosexuality? How much time do you spend lecturing gay radical activists from groups like NAMBLA? If the Republican party doesn't fight this agenda, who will, exactly?

This will never be a perfect world. People who think it is their moral duty to try to make it one for homosexuals need to understand what they are dismantling.

GEARJAMMER| 9.3.10 @ 3:21PM

I ADVOCATE CANCELING YOUR CABLE AND STARVING THE MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. GAYS PLAY A BIG ROLE HERE IN SEXUALIZING OUR SOCIETY AND KIDS.

AMENBRO| 9.6.10 @ 10:08AM

Get whatever outta where-ever & get a clue. Society doesn't want it elevated from its historical perversity to normalcy. Do whatever nobody cares, that is obvious, just quit expecting us to make you feel better about doing it . Most of these services performed have resulted in divorce.

Tim| 9.3.10 @ 11:12AM

Gearjammer,

The fact is that if there were to be a new law inacted by the Supreme Court that allowed anyone to marry anyone else....then by that very ruling anything goes! It must!

No one is equating Homosexuality to Common Child Perverts or anyone else that's completey off the reservation but that is why it makes total sense to keep the "official" standard of marriage between a man and a women and obviousely allow Homsexual couples their right to join in civil unions thereby sharing their property and medical insurance and everything else they so choose.

Seems like a very reasonable compromise to me!

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 12:19PM

Civil unions are not the reasonable compromise they are made out to be. Civil unions will make it illegal for private employers to offer health insurance and other benefits to hetero spouses, while denying such coverage to same-sex couples. Private business owners for whom homosexuality is a moral violation will be forced to stop offering benefits to traditional households.

Who loses out? Traditional families. Because these relationships rarely involve children and come from a culture of promiscuity, they will be entered into even more lightly than hetero marriages -- a study out of Stockholm found insane same-sex divorce rates http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-f.....rsson.pdf. These partners do not warrant benefits. They should simply be left alone to live their lives the way they choose to, without special status or rights.

ROBERT| 9.3.10 @ 12:34PM

Studies suggest a very high incidence of the sexual exploitation of male children by homo sexuals. In England a leading homosexual activist is calling for the lowering of age of sexual consent to 14. Why do you suppose that is? NAMBLA not so loud now but definitely getting louder is demanding a constitutional right to "Intergenerational Marriage." Sounds nice doesn't it, sort of like being "Gay" very possitive. You may be shocked someday to find out your 14 year old child is married to a 40 year old homosexual, most likely because of his passion for anal intercourse, to be thoroughly diseased.

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 8:20PM

Your comment Robert, is akin to the blood libel against Jews. Gay men are actually far less likely to abuse or sexually exploit kids than are straight men. In fact, we're accused of hating kids and staying far away from anything to do with making them or raising them. You have no idea what you're talking about. 98% of all child molesters according to the FBI are straight men. What study do you reference? Where would you get such mush? Not to worry, it's been thrown around for years -- penalize the gays, to protect the children. Yah, sure. Alas, all those molesting Catholic Priests are giving gay men a bad name.

ROBERT| 9.3.10 @ 10:30PM

If there is a blood libel Havlac it is something you drank with your mother's milk. However, I do agree with your condemnation of Catholic priests many of whom recently were discovered at gay bars. They are, of course, homosexuals. Homosexuals will infiltrate any organization wherein they may discover potential victims. The Catholic disease involving the sexual abuse of adolescent children, involves mainly boys not girls and homosexual deviates not deviates who would molest girls. Homosexuals invest churches, the Boy Scouts, and anywhere else where they may exploit male children.

Let me ask you. Why did you not respond to the fact that homosexuals are seeking the dismantlement of the First Amendment? Do you really believe, as most homosexuals believe, that criticism of homosexuals should result in indictment, trial, fine and imprisonment? Is this what the Constitution means to you. The only other group asking for such legislation involve Muslim terrorists. Why is it that such an infectious groups as gays insist on contributing blood to the general blood supply? Why is it that with all the education about AIDS homosexuals are increasingly being infected with AIDS?

Why is it that leading Gay activists in England are demanding that the age of consent for young adolescent males be reduced from 16 to 14? Why?

Like all of these groups the poisonous affect of homosexual preference arises from a contortion of the plain meaning of the English language, narcissist arrogance and of course the invention of yet another word in substitution for honest debate. Homophobe, I believe is the word.

Blood libel against Jews? Really, is this an answer to the statements I made. Your response is as pathetic as it is psychotic. No, this kind of stuff is the last refuge of the ignorant, the hating, and the deviate.

My dear Havlac, there is nothing special about anal intercourse. It no more creates a separate species than does a man who mutilates himself, takes poisonous dosages of estrogen, dresses up like a woman, and insists that he has a constitutional right that everybody refer to him as a girl. Or indeed, are you also one of these?

Alan Brooks| 9.4.10 @ 10:32PM

"Gay men are actually far less likely to abuse or sexually exploit kids than are straight men."

But most people are attracted to children, that is the bottom line of it.
You are saying you know better, so you take it from there-- how do we restrain the most dangerous predators? if some of you have mdegrees in criminology, feel free to answer.
No need to be reticent at AS.

Alan Brooks| 9.5.10 @ 8:55PM

You can be sure Whoopie Goldbeg wont let gays babysit her grandchildren.
"I'm very liberal, but you mess with my family and then all of a sudden I'm a fascist."
If a gay is murdered, then gays who weren't pro-anti-punishment do a 180; "We are no pushovers", a gay man told me the day Matthew Shepard's body was found.

"We are no pushovers": well at least that part is true.

Alan Brooks| 9.5.10 @ 8:59PM

correction: pro-capital punishment. When a gay is murdered gays do not usually turn the other cheek. A gay could have advocated clemency for McVeigh. But Matthew Shephard's murderers? "strap em both to a gurney- stick the needles in," they would say.

Samuel Brier| 9.6.10 @ 12:01PM

Very true, gearjammer. How are we supposed to get the Dems out when the Reps who want in compare homosexuals to rapists? It's a lot like how liberals compare tea partiers to racists- both are ridiculous.

1389AD| 9.3.10 @ 1:53PM

I want even stronger laws that define marriage as between one man and ONE woman. I am referring to the de facto polygamy that is taking place among Muslim immigrants.

On the immigration forms, would-be immigrants are required to deny that they practice, or intend to practice, polygamy. They come here and practice it anyway. The mere fact that they don't necessarily register two (or more) marriages with US authorities does NOT mean that they are not practicing polygamy as recognized by Islam and the countries whence they come.

This has to stop.

Tom near Boston| 9.3.10 @ 2:51PM

Um, Whoaback: rape, pedophilia, etc. are still against the law. We don't need slippery slope arguments in this case. I thought the sentiment was simply that equal protection (not special treatment) works best.

Alan Brooks| 9.4.10 @ 10:39PM

We have to start by explaining the high rates of STDs, unless you can think of a better way to attempt to 'communicate', 'share a dialogue', and all that jazz. No, no, before a pro= gay blogger writes it, I am not saying the gay population has a higher rate of STDs, but if it wasn't for conservatives the rates would be higher. I don't care if gays marry or not-- but they have to be reined it like everyone else.
What conservatism is to me: preventing people from if not destroying themselves then at least not destroying too many others.

Petronius| 9.3.10 @ 9:44AM

Been there done that. The RNC does not want social Conservatives for constituents. They care about money; Their money, holding on to that money, and preventing us Social Conservatives from accumulating money. It's the golden rule. Whoever has the gold, makes the rules, you know.
So long as your checkbook is fat enough, morality and culture don't matter. Ask Pat Buchanan. He'll tell you.

Derek Leaberry| 9.3.10 @ 10:01AM

You are absolutely correct. Social conservatives are the doormats of the Republican Party. It is about time for social conservatives to turn their backs on the Republican Party and let the country collapse into the abyss. National rebirth can only happen when the whole dry-rotted corrupt system self-immolates like the 5th Century Western Roman Empire.

RCV| 9.3.10 @ 2:05PM

Modern American society is the freest, most prosperous and creative society the world has ever seen. We are so fortunate to be living in this place at this time, when more men and women have political freedom, choice in how to fashion their lives, access to education and medical care, the ability to travel anywhere and communicate instantly with virtually anyone in the world. If those of you who feel so miserable in this amazing country don't like - go somewhere else and construct your little theocracy and let the rest of us thank God for the many blessings we do have.

Radegunda| 9.3.10 @ 4:57PM

I think you meant "WAS the freest, most prosperous and creative society the world has ever seen." It isn't any of those things since your Marxist pals got their hands on unrestrained power. (When exactly did you discover that this country WAS amazing?)

Also, nobody wants to establish a theocracy, except for the Muslims. The rest of us just see no good reason to deconstruct the most fundamental social institution since time immemorial. It's a cynical game of the left to say that anyone who wants to maintain a time-tested and very practical tradition is an "extremist" theocrat.

RCV| 9.4.10 @ 1:05PM

Please, Radegunda, enlighten us as to which cherished liberties you've lost since Obama was elected.

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 5:26PM

RCV,

We prefer facts and logic to inflammatory rhetoric and feelings:

"Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused."
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/c.....80/21/1855

John II| 9.3.10 @ 8:05PM

Ricky, how much do your handlers at the DNC pay you? You know, you've paste-posted that exact same comment half a dozen times over the past few months. I simply refuse to respond to it.

After all, I have my career to think of, with far more important things to consider in the little time left to me on this planet, such as my current viewing of "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" (1954), starring Richard Carlson, a rather weak performer who took a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota before he got into films, lecturing the audience on BIG IDEAS while struggling against space invaders and Amazonian gill-men.

In tone and delivery, Dr. Carlson plagiarized himself quite often from B movie to B movie. But, somehow, he was more entertaining than yourself. Perhaps if you got a raise from your handlers you might be inspired to say something new. I pass on.

Petronius| 9.3.10 @ 8:40PM

So long as I must live among predators, perverts, and parasites, all the while being taxed for the results of their behavior, I AM NOT FREE!

RCV| 9.4.10 @ 1:03PM

You are free to leave any time you wish, Petronious. Singapore sounds like your kind of "free" society.

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 9:58PM

No, RCV~ Petronious is correct. And simply stating a fact does not equal desiring to leave the country. It simply says that he is disgusted with those of your ilk, Obama & co., just as I am.

No, we will stay and fight against those on the Left who you love and we hate and see you defeated. November is coming!

And come to think of it RCV~ it's you guys on the Left who are always actually SAYING you're gonna leave, but never do!

RCV| 9.6.10 @ 2:21PM

Hi, Margie, always nice to hear from you. But you do have a tendency to put people in boxes and assume their views on every subject. They're either Left or Right to you. But people's views are more complex and variable than on-off. You should try to get to know people as individuals, not stereotypes.

My basic problem with Petronious is that he seems to think that expanding freedom for others somehow makes him "less free". Less free to do what? There are societies -- Singapore is just an example -- where "freedom" seems to mean that everyone is free to conform to the majority's idea of what is a proper lifestyle. Fortunately, America is not one of those places. We have become the freest nation in the history of mankind. It's one of the many, many things I love about this country. (And I have never, ever said anything about leaving this country, nor would I. I will always stay and fight those who want to make America into an intolerant, "Christian" nation, with no room for people who don't look and think like the majority.)

We're in a severe economic downturn, and have been since the near-collapse of the financial system in fall 2008. In every such period of economic peril, people get scared, and hateful and xenophobic. It's a tailor-made time for the demagogues and hate-mongers like the Tea baggers. And they will indeed have a field day at the polls this November, probably capturing the House. But our Republic will endure, as it always has. And when those who put their hopes in the GOP become even more bitterly disappointed, as they will, when things don't change as they imagine, the pendulum will swing back. I'm very much looking forward to President Obama's reelection in 2012, which I will work for just as hard as I did for his first term.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 3:33PM

"I will always stay and fight those who want to make America into an intolerant, "Christian" nation . . ."

Want to make America into an intolerant, Christian nation?

Whether you realize it or not, this is just dishonest spin, RCV. It pretends that America never was a Christian nation, and that traditionalists are agitating for some great change, when in reality, the people you defend are the radicals.

It is very common for libertarian-leaning conservatives to ignore 1)the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday for a reason, 2)the fact of Sunday Blue Laws prove the historically Christian nature of our republic, and 3)the fact that NONE of the founders -- Christian OR Deist -- wanted to protect sexual preferences in the Bill of Rights.

Stop re-writing history. If you want to drastically re-make this country, make your case. But stop pretending you are protecting our Heritage from Christian "radicals".

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 3:40PM

Thank you, NAL. "Talk about putting people in a box & stereotyping them!" (As RCV claimed) ~The Left has a habit of projecting, don't they? LOL.

RCV| 9.6.10 @ 4:04PM

Fortunately, we had Madison and Jefferson as our two great guiding founders, not you. Yes, the majority of Americans have always professed to be Christians, but we are in no sense of the words "a Christian nation". We even confirmed this fact in our first treaty, with Morocco: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...". Nor does the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday change that fact. The US government every year issues Eid and Hannukah postage stamps.

We are a country where people of all faiths, or no faith at all, are equally Americans in the full sense of the word, not just Christians. I don't want to "drastically re-make this country." I love it just the way it is. I don't think I can say the same for you.

Happy Labor Day, all. Raise a glass to the hard-working people of America!

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 4:52PM

You are in complete denial regarding the origin of America's body of laws. Your attempt to co-opt the founders doesn't pass the test.
Instead of quoting treaties to us, please quote the wording in the Bill of Rights that protects sexual preferences.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 5:32PM

Oh, and for those who might be interested, this is the quotation from the Treaty of Tripoli in its entirety (all-caps, mine):
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity AGAINST THE LAWS, RELIGION, OR TRANQUILITY, OF MUSSELMEN,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from RELIGIOUS OPINIONS SHALL EVER PRODUCE AN INTERRUPTION OF THE HARMONY EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES.

This was NOT some kind of declaration that America's laws would never be based on a Christianized world view. It was a promise that America would not go after non-Christianized nations simply because they were non-Christianized.

RCV| 9.6.10 @ 6:20PM

No, you're choosing to ignore the first of the three clauses because it just doesn't fit with your world view. Jefferson knew exactly how to say what he meant. "as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.". What is there about the phrase, "in any sense" you have trouble understanding?

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 7:49PM

"America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" doesn't mean what you are purporting it to mean. For a man who "knew exactly how to say what he meant," he sure went along with some harsh, intolerant ideas. Jefferson proposed some reforms to Virginia law regarding rapists, polygamists, and homosexuals:

"Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least."

No, I'm not proposing a law like that myself. I'm just sharing it to show you that you're view of the man is pretty off.

RCV| 9.7.10 @ 2:52PM

Jefferson was a remarkable man, but he was a man of the 18th century. He owned slaves. That doesn't retract from my admiration for him as one of the great political intellects of all time. Our debt to him is large enough that we don't have to expect sainthood.

RCV| 9.7.10 @ 2:53PM

Sorry, "retract" should have read "detract".

NotALibertarian| 9.7.10 @ 10:31PM

This law doesn't show that Jefferson was a man of his time. It shows that laws regulating sexual behavior are NOT a violation of the First Amendment. You quote one treaty and posture as though you have proved your point. I have an entire body of laws that proves mine.

Jefferson's proposed law regarding sodomy, and scores of other laws from that time prove that the founders did NOT consider laws regulating sexual behavior to be a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

And, this canard that people who want to preserve EXISTING laws regulating sexual behavior are trying to "CREATE" some kind of (new) theocracy is a self-serving slander. It is the kind of tortured absurdity that the Left is fond of -- completely dependent on their opponents not knowing enough actual history.

If you are really interested in getting back to the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, take a better, more objective look at our nation's history. Please stop making false/mistaken claims that existing laws that THE FOUNDING FATHERS established are unconstitutional.

Disinformation can do a lot of harm.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 3:45PM

" . . . We have become the freest nation in the history of mankind . . . "

As a matter of fact, RCV, thanks to the mainstreaming of the sexual license you seem to defend, we have NOT become the "freest". We are LESS free.

Because of the warped view of sexuality and marriage, the state has had to step in to regulate the uncivilized behavior of generations brought up without important checks on their behavior. Child welfare services have had to become increasingly draconian in their responses to suspected child & or drug abuse. Why? Because the public has been taught to take sex very lightly, to ignore its real consequences.

The parenting structure has collapsed, leaving many children at the mercy of their selfish parents, who bought into the "free love" lie. Your not seeing it doesn't change it: You weaken the family, and you have to strengthen the state to keep order.

RCV| 9.6.10 @ 4:14PM

Social anomie -- the direct and inevitable result of the urbanization and mobility of society after the industrial revolution -- is the cause of relaxed morals and lack of traditional social control, not lack of religion. (Bristol Palin didn't come from a "free love" atmosphere of non-traditional, non-Christian families.)

Allowing two same gender partners who love and care for each other (and who may have adopted children) doesn't weaken my heterosexual marriage of forty years.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 4:47PM

The concept of anomie is a social lib con whose significance has been greatly exaggerated to distract from the fact that city-dwellers behave as badly as they do because of the secular liberalism that dominates cities.

Quartermaster| 9.6.10 @ 4:59PM

Whoever you had as your guiding founders it wasn't either of those great men Madison or Jefferson. Both would be utterly shocked at what this country has become. Your side long ago ceased to be the party of either Jefferson or Jackson. James Madison, the author of the constitution is spinning supersonically in grave at your claims.

The only teabagger here is you, RCV.

RCV| 9.6.10 @ 6:29PM

Sorry, guy. I believe in every one of the Bill of Rights, like they did. Every one. For everyone. Not the First Amendment just for Christians; not the Fourth Amendment unless you're suspected of being a "terrorist"; not the Fifth Amendment unless they think you're "disloyal"; not the Sixth Amendment unless you're poor; and, while we're at, not the Fourteenth Amendment unless you're gay.

What Madison and Jefferson would be appalled at is the narrow-mindedness of those who pretend to admire the freedom they bequeathed to us, but want it only for themselves.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 9:36PM

Madison and Jefferson made it clear that if YOU are appalled by someone else's narrowmindedness, it is your right to speak out. But those of us who are appalled by the lies you and a host of others have been told have the right to speak out.

This should not be about winning or "besting". It should be about facts and truth, carefully considered with sobriety and caution. THAT is what the founders valued. We would do well to continue that tradition.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 11:13PM

NotALibertarian,

You speak the truth so well. Awesome.

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 11:47PM

Thanks for the encouragement, Margie.

RCV| 9.6.10 @ 11:57PM

You do indeed have the right to speak out, and I will always fervently defend your right to do so. And I support and applaud the sentiments in your second paragraph. This dialogue should indeed be about the truth and about what is right and just.

Margie| 9.6.10 @ 11:15PM

Quatermaster,

Well said!

Don L| 9.6.10 @ 5:20PM

Freedom to do evil is not freedom but death. Ask that God you are willing to selectively thank for the good things in life - but don't follow His rules, as if the good things weren't brought about by good people doing exactly that - after all what does God know about right and wrong compared to ...well...you -right?

NotALibertarian| 9.6.10 @ 5:39PM

I appreciate that sentiment, Don. Social libs seem to be in complete denial that the Christian character of our population had something to do with America's prosperity and moral history.

They prefer to cast all our success as a product of our Constitution alone. -- And, of course, the Constitution to which they refer isn't the actual Consitution, but one in which religion is scrubbed free from the public square, and in which any law or policy that is perceived as the product of Christian culture is "unconstitutional".

Shamus| 9.3.10 @ 10:03AM

The money has been borrowed from the Chinese and the gold is heading for the Persian Gulf. No one in the US is accumulating much wealth these days.

Siegfried X| 9.3.10 @ 12:19PM

I agree, but would just add that the Republican establishment ignores almost all conservative issues, not just the social ones. Basically we are paying them to ignore us.

It's because the controlling groups are the Corporate Republicans (children of the Rockefeller Republicans) and the Neo-Cons. Both of those groups agree with every issue besides those two (Corporate perks & War with Islam), so they roll over and let the Democrats win all the other issues.

The result is that we really have a one-party system on most issues. Whatever the Democrats throw out, the Republican politicians tune it 10% to protect their big donors, then rubber stamp it.

Anthony A| 9.3.10 @ 3:24PM

While it's true that there are some establishment Republicans who look back fondly on their "experimentations" at summer camp and college, Republicans know they can't win without social conservatives. That being said, most Republicans do believe in traditional American values and if we social conservatives turn out for them, the rest will get the message. After all, Pat Buchanan is still a Republican.

Houston Rao| 9.3.10 @ 9:54AM

Yes, Section 8 of the constitution clearly provides the federal government to make laws defining marriage. / sarc off

The Constitution allows for individual states to decide on this matter as well as health care, welfare, etc. at the state level. Why not leave it there and let the federal government limit itself to its constitutionally mandated duties?

Siegfried X| 9.3.10 @ 12:26PM

That's exactly what the Defense of Marriage act does, allows each state to make up its own mind. With that DOMA law, the constitution says that actions in one state must be recognized in another, meaning that one state allowing gay marriage would automatically mean gay marriage is legal in all 50 states.

And this _IS_ a constitutionally mandated area. The Constitution specifically says that Congress can decide whether and how the acts of one state must be recognized by other states.

Siegfried X| 9.3.10 @ 12:28PM

US Constitution

Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Siegfried X| 9.3.10 @ 12:31PM

I meant to say "WITHOUT the DOMA law, the constitution says". In other words, if DOMA hadn't been passed, then gay marriage would be legal in all states because a few states authorized it. Gays could be married in one of the states which approved it, and then by the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, the rest would need to recognize the gay marriages.

So the purpose of DOMA was to restore things to their original condition, that each state can decide it's own definition of marriage.

RCV| 9.3.10 @ 2:09PM

DOMA is patently unconstitutional because it flatly contradicts the first sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Only an Amendment, not a statute can do that.

Siegfried X| 9.3.10 @ 3:22PM

Not at all. "Manner" and "effect". The Constitution sets the general rule, and gives Congress the power to legislate the details.

The proof is that it would be totally meaningless to add a sentence which just says that Congress can make amendments. Amendments are in another part of the Constitution, so there's no need for repetition. It's an inconvenient truth, but when the Constitution gives Congress power to legislate, they mean with the regular legislative process spelled out in the constitution.

RCV| 9.4.10 @ 4:26PM

First clause is mandatory ("shall"), so enabling legislation can't negate it. And thus DOMA has been invalidated in court challenges.

Kay| 9.3.10 @ 10:15AM

Mr. Bass has it right. Our economy is a symptom of a greater ill: immorality run amok. Money is a tool in the hands of man no less or different than a gun, but it is the heart of the man at issue. We are using polls as our judge rather than our consciences. We think somehow homosexual marriage, let alone homosexuality, is ok because many people say it's ok. But as the writer points out, it is untenable and condemned by God. A footnote: God is the proprietor of marriage and I don't believe anything we do will change that. At the end of the day, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig!

Derek Leaberry| 9.3.10 @ 10:47AM

An excellent post, Kay.

Tony Raskoon| 9.5.10 @ 3:47PM

True that. A bad marriage will be much worse than a bad civil union. They should be careful what they wish for. Talk about unintended consequences.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.3.10 @ 12:14PM

I don't like anything that hurts...or smells bad.

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 12:36PM

Gay men, married or not, accepted or not, are not the cause or even remotely connected to the decline of traditional family values in this nation. We don't cause even one child to be born to an unwed mother. We don't cause divorce, or spouse abuse. We are not involved in adultery or wife-swapping. Nor with cohabiting coeds at college. We are not responsible for the depiction of women as sex objects to be used to sell a zillion products. You will find no gay song lyrics objectifying woman for only sex. We're not involved in the sex rings, the prostitution, or the porno business that thrives with Hustler and Playboy. We're not involved in any of this. We're so wholly excluded that you can barely find a word about gays unless straights are wondering what to do about "The problem." You straight people have wrought this mess. Blaming the current minimal societal begrudging tolerance of gays for causing all this is laughable. First you say we make up some 1, 2 or 4 percent of the population -- and then you accuse us of being the lynchpin for societal values? You jest, no? And is the straight society, normal people, normalcy itself, and marriage and it's sanctity really predicated on the repression and exclusion, non-acceptance and the vilification of gay people? What a sorry state of any society when attacking a tiny minority makes the majority sing in Glorious chorus with the works of the Lord. What a thin basis on which to set your own house in order, and what a tiny rock you've built the foundations of marriage and family - on the hatred of gays.

Meanwhile, want to get rid of Pelosi? Then go to the gay men in her district there in San Francisco -- show them the horrors of the impending socialist regime, show them how Pelosi's policies are messing with the bottom line of gay businesses and gay employees. Ask for their votes, for their time and money, and vote her out. She's a one woman menace to traditional America bigger than all the gay men now wandering the streets of this nation. Last I saw, she was married with children. She's one of you. But Don't Tread On Us.

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 1:03PM

Gay rights are just further step in all of the hetero disasters you mention above. Prostitution IS related to homosexuality in that is another example of unhealthy sexuality:

--In New Zealand, at the age of 21, homosexuals/bisexuals were a fourfold increased risks of major depression and conduct disorder, fivefold increased risk of nicotine dependence, twofold increased risk of other substance misuse or addiction and six times more likely to have attempted suicide: Fergusson DM et al. Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999; 56: 876-80.

In the NETHERLANDS, high levels of psychiatric illness, including major depression, bipolar disorder ('manic depression'), agoraphobia, obsessive compulsive disorder and drug addition are found: Sandfort TG, et al. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58 :85-91.

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 8:29PM

Gay men are under psychological pressures because of the hate and scorn heaped upon us, not because we're gay. Some call it a psychiatric problem to get their funding, for they're psychiatrists. But mind you, we can't be both a psychiatric problem, and a sin, and a psychological problem too as some say -- that would pretty much be the only such condition which is both brain chemistry caused (psyche) and full will caused by competent adults. Many people in this thread are preaching the gospels and gays are sinners -- and now you go muck things up and tell us it's brain chemistry -- caused by what not one psychiatric manual will ever say, for they have has much proof about gays as anyone else, and oh yah, they all pretty much say we can "cure" ourselves, thereby making it the only self-curing brain chemistry problem. Or are we looking for the correct pill to achieve the right the brain chemical balance for heterosexuality?

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 11:31PM

I never said anything about "brain chemistry". I merely quoted scientific findings on the negative psychological phenomenon associated with homosexuality.

This insistence that the depression, suicide, etc. is the result of persecution is empty nonsense, considering these things were found in the notoriously socially liberal Netherlands. People in the Netherlands are not "heaping scorn" on gay people. If you think they are, you clearly have never been to the Netherlands. Yet, the emotional pain and suffering remains.

I have only mucked things up by sharing scientific findings that contradict your view of things.

Siegfried X| 9.3.10 @ 1:24PM

Homosexuality is purely a choice, like deciding whether to mow the law or read a book. I have absolutely no interest in preventing consenting adults from whatever kind of sexual behavior they want, but I must be allowed to teach my children that behavior is wrong, without being slapped with a harrassment / bigotry / stalking / hate speech charge.

Young people are destroying their bodies with sex change operations based on lies they have been told that they don't have a choice. Common decency says that we should have free speech to tell them the truth, that they are free. They don't have to be homo (or hetero)-sexual, and if they pump their bodies full of drugs to pretend they are the opposite sex, they are doing that purely on a whim, not some uncontrollable genetic trait.

It is the same reason that today's children are the fattest in history, that they are trained to be morally weak. They are lied to, being told that they have no control over their lives, because they are helpless "victims". Instead of being trained in self discipline so they can learn how to stop putting too much food in their faces, they are told that they are totally helpless, with the only salvation being to go on Oprah and into "rehab". Then, society says, they should load themselves full of anti-depressant drugs to try and forget about all the problems they didn't try to solve.

ROBERT | 9.3.10 @ 2:17PM

NOT A CAUSE! REALLY.

The Gay Lobby, with the assistance of President O'Bama, is seeking to pass a bill through the UN which will criminalize any speech critical of homosexuals. While you suggest that Gays are innocent, they are seeking the abolition of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, and allege that under the authority of a civil war amendment to the Constitution they have a right to set aside 4000 years of Western Civilization holding that marriage is between a man and woman.

Oh, and what individual is primarilly responsible for the spread of AIDS. It is the homosexual.

Finally, there is a deeply psychotic element to the homosexual mind. Homosexuals are now lobbying for the right to contribute its blood to the national blood supply. Nothing could be more dangerous, irrational or narcissist. The Military is now treating 19000 homosexual soldiers infected with AIDS during the course of their service. This alone should tell you something about the psychotic nature of the lifestyle. Indeed, with all the education about AIDS it continues to increase among the Gay population.

The AIDS test, has a window of about three months in which an individual actually infected with AIDS will test neutral. Even so homosexuals claim that it is a form of homophobia to object.

By the way, homosexuals are now lobbying to reduce the age of sexual consent to 14, this to facilitate their propensity for child abuse.

ROBERT

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 8:32PM

Sir, I really feel for you -- you have this delusion of paranoia that some extraordinarily small minority of people is trying to take over the country or something. What poppycock. There is no gay lobbying, or gay spokesperson, or gay agenda, what there are is many different gay groups, and pretenders to the throne -- but I can assure you sir, the last thing gay Americans want to do is take away the First Amendment; we rely on it too much ourselves.

ROBERT | 9.3.10 @ 10:43PM

Actually some studies were quoted early on in this debate my dear Hlavac. Where are yours? My reference to the homosexual attempt to criminalize speech critical of homosexuals may be found in the archives of RightBias.com. That Homosexuals are trying to force their contribution to the general blood supply may be found at AIM.org archives.

Homosexual marriage. "The stone of Rome shall rise in mutiny.

Robert| 9.3.10 @ 10:52PM

That you feel for me Havlac adds nothing to the debate whatever. The remark is ad homenum. You say the last thing homosexuals want to do is take away the First Amendment. Two items of evidence impeach this conclusory statement.

1. The homosexuals learning from other minority groups have invented a word to stop debate. For example, those who believe that marriage refers to the joinder of a man and a woman are referred to as bigots.

2. The Gay Lobby working with Pres. O'Bama is seeking to pass a resolution through the U.N. criminalizing free speech. A Mass... statute also criminalized free speech, i.e. the First Amendent by providing for a 1000 fine and up for one year in jail for speech critical of homosexuals. This last was withdrawn when discovered by a blogger.

Havlek. You just can't say things that are not true. The Mass statute and the U.N. resolution are discoverable.

In addition to other destruction therefore, the family, society, they are also dead set on the destruction of the Constition. If you want to argue the point read the cites I've given to you.

By the way do you think homosexuals should be permitted to give blood.

Robert| 9.3.10 @ 10:52PM

That you feel for me Havlac adds nothing to the debate whatever. The remark is ad homenum. You say the last thing homosexuals want to do is take away the First Amendment. Two items of evidence impeach this conclusory statement.

1. The homosexuals learning from other minority groups have invented a word to stop debate. For example, those who believe that marriage refers to the joinder of a man and a woman are referred to as bigots.

2. The Gay Lobby working with Pres. O'Bama is seeking to pass a resolution through the U.N. criminalizing free speech. A Mass... statute also criminalized free speech, i.e. the First Amendent by providing for a 1000 fine and up for one year in jail for speech critical of homosexuals. This last was withdrawn when discovered by a blogger.

Havlek. You just can't say things that are not true. The Mass statute and the U.N. resolution are discoverable.

In addition to other destruction therefore, the family, society, they are also dead set on the destruction of the Constition. If you want to argue the point read the cites I've given to you.

By the way do you think homosexuals should be permitted to give blood.

gearjammer| 9.3.10 @ 3:53PM

No gay porn ? Really ? Just those sweet, perfect, brilliant, good looking gays hollywood serves up ? Like Mrs. Warren Beatty and Juliane Moore. I read the review of their movie depicting gays and their kids as sooooo perfect. On the other hand the low down tabloid press has it that a child of Warren and Annette wants to change her sex. Nonetheless gay people are good people for the most part just like even Rinos are and we can't stop this trend. We can only defend holy matimomy and if a church says man and a women only they can't be targeted by radical goons from the justice department-such as they are doing to Arizona. So if the Catholic Church is besieged by the powers that be to marry gays or else I will help them fight back. Just like I will help Arizona in any little way I can to fight back. But, notice the Catholic Church loves what is happening to Arizona. I'm confused. Hey, I'm gonna go send Bachman a little money/ Don't agree with her on some stuff but will be miserable if the facist dem goon brigades take her out. Does the Catholic Church support her ? Wait till they lean to Boxer over Carly. Maybe you dopes will figure it out then. We are in a big war and we soldiers simply can't be divided by social issues.

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 8:36PM

I have no idea who this married woman, Mrs. Warren Beatty is, or what she's doing or why. But there is no gay porn magazines like Hustler or Playboy, available on the streets for anyone to buy. Even the gay mags I have seen barely had a few thousands of circulation, not the millions, and adult book stores are oh, I'd say about 93% hetero, and 5 or 6 % gay, just like society at large.

gearjammer| 9.4.10 @ 9:19AM

Well got my weekend assignment. Gotta go research Adult book stores. I'll jot down the titles of some of those gay movies.Should be interesting ? Look Hvlac are you a man for liberty or not ? Are you one of those crazed gay activists that wanna rewrite the marriage vows a church must deliver, do you wanna put me in jail if I joke about the titles of gay porn movies ? You seem queasy and in denial about the seamy, perverse, and debased side of the gay scene-yes it is matched by the same garbage from heteros.

ROBERT | 9.3.10 @ 10:36PM

ROBERT| 9.3.10 @ 10:30PM

If there is a blood libel Havlac it is something you drank with your mother's milk. However, I do agree with your condemnation of Catholic priests many of whom recently were discovered at gay bars. They are, of course, homosexuals. Homosexuals will infiltrate any organization wherein they may discover potential victims. The Catholic disease involving the sexual abuse of adolescent children, involves mainly boys not girls and homosexual deviates not deviates who would molest girls. Homosexuals invest churches, the Boy Scouts, and anywhere else where they may exploit male children.

Let me ask you. Why did you not respond to the fact that homosexuals are seeking the dismantlement of the First Amendment? Do you really believe, as most homosexuals believe, that criticism of homosexuals should result in indictment, trial, fine and imprisonment? Is this what the Constitution means to you. The only other group asking for such legislation involve Muslim terrorists. Why is it that such an infectious groups as gays insist on contributing blood to the general blood supply? Why is it that with all the education about AIDS homosexuals are increasingly being infected with AIDS?

Why is it that leading Gay activists in England are demanding that the age of consent for young adolescent males be reduced from 16 to 14? Why?

Like all of these groups the poisonous affect of homosexual preference arises from a contortion of the plain meaning of the English language, narcissist arrogance and of course the invention of yet another word in substitution for honest debate. Homophobe, I believe is the word.

Blood libel against Jews? Really, is this an answer to the statements I made. Your response is as pathetic as it is psychotic. No, this kind of stuff is the last refuge of the ignorant, the hating, and the deviate.

My dear Havlac, there is nothing special about anal intercourse. It no more creates a separate species than does a man who mutilates himself, takes poisonous dosages of estrogen, dresses up like a woman, and insists that he has a constitutional right that everybody refer to him as a girl. Or indeed, are you also one of these?

REPLY TO

David| 9.3.10 @ 2:57PM

The term "sexual orientation" smacked me in the face, too. In the case of men, it is a "preference" for males - an unnatural desire just like men who are attracted to very young girls, or men who can't perform without being physically abusive, even to the point of rape in some cases. The homosexuals and sexual perverts of all types all give in to their unnatural desires. If it were natural, gastroenterologists wouldn't say that our rear-ends aren't made for sex - even for heteros (Ken, that was a great line). If it were natural, I would think that nature would have made it possible for 2 men or 2 women to produce children.

I will accept the word "orientation" if the word means something along the lines of attending orientation at a new school. Many studies have shown that the vast majority of "homosexuals" were introduced to it, exposed to it, and/or had it forced on them at a young age. The introduction to it peaked their interest. They may have liked what they saw and decided to try it. It is not how they were born.

I believe Ted Bundy said that we will never get rid of rapists and sexual perverts until we get rid of pornography. In the same way, we will never stop homosexual behavior until we stop exposing our children to it.

That is why the homosexuals fight so hard have it part of the curricula in public schools. That is why they insist on being scout masters, and little league coaches, and in positions of leadership in churches. Once we stop our children from being exposed to it, the number of male and female homos will be miniscule.

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 8:45PM

Sir, during the most horrendous periods of arresting gays, incarcerating the gay men, of complete and utter scorn, and complete and utter invisibility there were still gay men -- so what curricula did the gay men of the pre-1969 gay riots utilize? And what curricula in the schools of today? -- don't beat up the sissies? The number of "homos" (what a charmer of decency) is already miniscule, some 5% or so -- and it hasn't changed with the times -- not from when we were burned with faggots (hence the name) until today. You're another guy who take lousy logic, current conditions, a few political statements, and make bizarre blanket statements about something which has been present during the entire history of humankind at a surprisingly consistent percentage. And I love all these references to "studies" -- by whom? When? Not by any federal or state authority that's for sure. As a gay man out and about for 35 years I've heard repeated reference to "studies" say, and then find there's no study by the preaching of some fraud who just hates gay people. No gay man alive today was shown, or exposed to, "homosexuality" and then decided to just up and abandon what straight people claim is the inborn natural instinct to reproduce. It's a fantasy to think a teen shown a picture of what, a naked man in the locker room? will be gay, and then all his buddies go to the gym class locker room and come out just as straight as can be. Where do you people come up with this stuff?

NotALibertarian| 9.3.10 @ 11:54PM

"No gay man alive today was shown, or exposed to, "homosexuality" and then decided to just up and abandon what straight people claim is the inborn natural instinct to reproduce . . . "

Studies? Did someone say studies?:
"Abused adolescents, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to self-identify as gay or bisexual than peers who had not been abused."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/21/1855

"JAMA" stands for Journal of the American Medical Association.

Tony in Central PA| 9.3.10 @ 7:46PM

This same - sex marriage debate unearthed something I read a long time ago from a sociologist who was discussing the decline of societies. He mentioned that nearing the collapse, societies frequently experience an " outburst of homosexuality ". Sounds about right for us.

Jim Hlavac| 9.3.10 @ 9:15PM

Astounding mush -- and "outburst of homosexuality"? -- such a fantasy not even you don't separate it out without quotes. And so I would suppose, right up until 1989, as the Soviets were imprisoning gays with the same robustness they always did -- that was the cause of the collapse of that society? Or maybe Louis XVI was beheaded because gay men were now left alone on the left bank? What societies collapsed due to an "outburst"? You couldn't name one if you tried. Egads, where do people get this stuff?

Margie| 9.5.10 @ 10:23PM

Tony,

Luke 17:26-31.

Mundabor| 9.4.10 @ 3:56AM

"Gay men are actually far less likely to abuse or sexually exploit kids than are straight men"

Very, very funny.

Google a bit the reports about child abuse from catholic priests in Ireland and the US and you'll see that in excess of 90% of the priests involved were homos.

The Holy Father has now forbidden homosexuals from entering the seminary.

You see here the difference between mindless PC talking and sound thinking.

Mundabor

Mundabor| 9.4.10 @ 4:02AM

And yes, this issue of so-called gay marriages could become a very powerful weapon in the hands of the Republicans.
In the US as everywhere else in the West most people are rather socially conservative, more or less attached to Christian values and more or less fed up with the re-shaping of the known world through a minority of mostly leftist do-gooders and activist judges. The GOP (as the Conservatives in the UK) cowardly refuse to adopt their grievances for fear that it may cost votes, but in reality it would bring many more votes than those it would cost.

The Tea Party Movement will be a salutary lesson for a party machine more and more detached from the people's values and thinking that whatever they decide will be automatically subscribed to by the voting herd.
I wish there was something like that in Italy or in the UK where I live now.

Mundabor

ROBERT | 9.4.10 @ 11:58AM

Mr. Hlavac what do you have to say about this article excerpt by Hilary White

LONDON, September 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – One of Britain’s leading homosexualist activists has called again for the lowering of the age of sexual consent from 16 to 14, saying that this will reduce incidents of sexual abuse of young people. Peter Tatchell, founder of the group OutRage!, wrote on the website Big Think, “Whether we like it or not, many teenagers have their first sexual experience around the ages of 14 or 15.”

“If we want to protect young people, and I do, the best way to do this is not by threatening them with arrest, but by giving them frank, high quality sex and relationship education from an early age.

....
A higher age of consent actually puts young teens at greater risk of abuse by “reinforcing the idea that young people under 16 have no sexual rights,” Tatchell said. “They signal that a young person is not capable of making a rational, moral choice about when to have sex.”

“Guilt and shame about sex also increase the likelihood of molestation by encouraging the furtiveness and secrecy on which abuse thrives,” he added.

“Despite what the puritans and sex-haters say, underage sex is mostly consenting, safe, and fun,” Tatchell said.

This garbage goes on Mr.Hlavac. However this homosexual's cretin rationalization of the sexual abuse of male children is ultimately revealed. He is not in the least interested in the welfare of children but in sodomizing them.

DESPITE WHAT THE PURITANS AND SEX-HATERS SAY, UNDERAGE SEX IS MOSTY CONSENTING, SAFE AND FUN, THATCHER SAID.

Well do you agree or not? Do you think we ought to lower the "age of consent" Mr. Hlavac. Thatcher suggests age 14. Do you think that, for example, a 40 year old man should be able to convince a 14 year old to experiment with the potentially lethal sexual practices of homosexual deviates. Or perhaps, you are with the folks at NAMBLA who do not want any age impediment to their exploitation of adolescent male children. What is it Mr. Havlac. Answer up. Spit up this blood libel you are talking about.

ROBERT

Spyser308| 9.7.10 @ 12:22PM

The republican party, the champions of the "sanctity of marriage." It is a hard sell with serial polygamist leaders like Rush, O'Riley, McCain, and Gingrich.
The best example of a traditional family man is Obama.

RCV| 9.7.10 @ 2:54PM

Amen.

GavInTucson| 9.8.10 @ 1:31AM

Being a conservative/liberatarian type myself, if I see a GOP member taking a stand on marriage, I'll consider it a red flag. I'll see it as another big-government RINO trying to run rough-shod over the Constitution.

Can anyone point out to me where in the Constitution the federal government has any say in marriage? I thought not, which is why, in my opinion, a potential Representative or Senator's views on the matter should be irrelevant.

If we're talking about a State Rep or Senator, that's another matter.

NotALibertarian| 9.8.10 @ 12:33PM

The reason people are concerned about the views of representatives and senators on this issue is because DC LIBERALS have gotten so fast-and-loose with the Constitution. This is about the radical judges, and the senators that confirm them.

Years ago, the Supreme Court took away the states' historically-held right to maintain anti-sodomy laws. That should be a red flag to you, too.

matt jones| 9.8.10 @ 10:25AM

the thing that those who oppose the conservative party intend to express is that there is a large amount of hypocrisy amoung the conservative ranks. there is a high level of awareness that the conservative party utilizes blame tatics to enforce the need for a pragmatic approach to questions and issues that arew highly complex, thus allowing for less discussion and more power for their party. thus any fears that the democratic party has no hold on marriage is not the cause of fan fare over the coming out of mr. mehlman. the republican and conservative parties are based on an 'us versus them' paradigm. because of this the inability to seperate 'us'- conservatives from 'them', the dangerous party du jor, is cause for commentary. this is the story, less a comment on politics as it is on the integrity of the conservative party. perhaps if conservatives based their case on behavior and the outcomes that same sex marriage would have- behavior of people that would abuse the structure of such a marriage, the feelings of children who would have same sex parents regarding original genetic donors and concurrent teasing, if the issue were discussed as less of a scandal and more in the vein of a public policy dynamic rather than an affront and attack, the coming outy of mr. mehlman would be meaningless. however that is nort the case because even more so than economics, it is hard to avoid sentimental and virolitic feeling asscociated with such topics. so instead the conserevative party choses to cash in. the resulting scandal of mr. mehlman's coming out is not a point on the issue of same sex marriage but rather a commentary on how the conservative party's tatics have backfired and how the American Public is susseptible to alarmism and division amoung their ranks. this is best shown in the tatics and proof of the artyicle in which winning for the gop is defined as establishing a vote in which by a slight lead, a policy was enacted that keys not in to opposition of same sex relations, but of people's tendency to stick to what they know and not take chances. 'protecting marriage' is a euphenism in the same vein as 'peace keepers' for missiles, and getting the public afraid is just one more result of the consevertive party play book. so now that the play has been sidelined, now that the lines have been blurred, those opposed to the conservative party are remarking that voters are hard pressed to see politcal figures as hallmarks of their issues, that such figures have private lives and do not practice what they preach. that the road to equal rights for homosexuals is long and hard and based on configuring circumstanes to create an institution that is viable. in the long run it is not about conservatives- scandal politics are the home of the prideful and alarmists that define the conservative party. so when private issues expose the private lives of the 'glorious' gop, there will be talk.