-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 142 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
-
I Was Almost There
April 16, 2013 | 171 comments
Another Perspective
Bachmann and Gay Marriage
Can she have it both ways?
Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann is trying to have her cake and eat it too where it concerns a Federal Marriage Amendment and states’ rights.
During an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Bachmann to clarify her support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting same sex marriage. He played a clip from the GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire earlier this month in which she stated, “I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman, but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.”
Of course, this is the same interview in which Wallace asked Bachmann if she was a flake, a question for which he later apologized. Nevertheless, it is a shame Wallace even entertained the idea to ask Bachmann such a question because in so doing it overshadowed some otherwise reasonable questions he put to her. Wallace’s transgression against Bachmann also has the effect of obscuring her responses from receiving the proper scrutiny they deserve. With this mind, let’s consider this exchange between Wallace and Bachmann after he played the clip from the New Hampshire debate:
WALLACE: That’s why I’m confused. If you support state rights, why you also support a constitutional amendment which would prevent any state from recognizing same-sex marriage?
BACHMANN: Well, because that’s entirely consistent, that states have, under the 10th Amendment, the right to pass any law they like. Also, federal officials at the federal level have the right to also put forth a constitutional amendment.
With all due respect to Bachmann, her answer is unsatisfactory. The 10th amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
There are only two reasons to support a Federal Marriage Amendment. First, a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman would prevent any state that has not already enacted a law recognizing same sex marriage from doing so. Second, said constitutional amendment would declare null and void the same sex marriage laws currently on the books in six states as well as in the District of Columbia. Thus the same sex marriage bill that was passed over the weekend in New York would be deemed unconstitutional. Bachmann’s suggestion that her support for a constitutional amendment wouldn’t involve going into the states and overturning their law is utter nonsense. It is precisely the intent and the effect of a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Let us remember that President George W. Bush’s public support for a Federal Marriage Amendment in February 2004 was due in large part because of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council’s decision to legalize same sex marriage in the Bay State. Yet it is worth noting that Bush was prepared to include language that would not preclude states from enacting civil unions. But President Bush never tried to tell anyone that he supported both a Federal Marriage Amendment while supporting the right of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to legalize same sex marriage. If Bush had been successful in getting Congress and two thirds of the states to agree, then not only would the judicial action in Massachusetts have been declared null and void but New York Governor Andrew Cuomo would not have been able to sign same sex marriage legislation into law either. Thus, contrary to Bachmann’s assertion, the states could not pass any law they like.
Of course, President Bush would not marshal his political capital in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment. He had more pressing priorities at hand, namely in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, none of this would prevent more than two dozen states from passing constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage. The states are more than adequately equipped to determine whether or not they wish to enact same sex marriage. But Bachmann doesn’t see it that way:
WALLACE: My point is this, do you want to say it’s a state issue and that states should be able to decide? Or would like to see a constitutional amendment so that it’s banned everywhere?
BACHMANN: It is — it is both. It is a state issue and it’s a federal issue. It’s important for your viewers to know that federal law will trump state law on this issue.
But in what way would federal law trump state law on the question of marriage? Would her proposed constitutional amendment model DOMA, or would it be guided by a different set of principles or language? Apart from her state during the New Hampshire debate and her response to Wallace, Bachmann hasn’t specified what her version of a federal marriage amendment would look like. Until she elaborates further, there must remain a suspicion that Bachmann is trying to have it both ways, simultaneously supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment while supporting the right of New York to pass a law enacting same sex marriage.
Michele Bachmann can’t have it both ways. She cannot simultaneously support a Federal Marriage Amendment while supporting the right of New York to pass a law enacting same sex marriage.
In the event Bachmann is elected President, it is possible that she will recognize the impracticality of a Federal Marriage Amendment and wisely attend to more urgent matters. But the fact that Bachmann wishes to involve the federal government in a part of our lives where it has no business ought to be cause for concern for those among us who believe in limited government.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (210) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/28/bachmann-and-gay-marriage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 6:25AM
It's amazing how conservatives want to be taken seriously in their attempts to limit government, but whenever conservatives feel they have a moral stake the first group they run to for cover and help is big government. You're either a conservative or a moralist/statist, you can't be both.
Apparently, some conservatives are flakes because they only believe in limited government when it suits their political purpose not their political goals.
Darin| 6.28.11 @ 6:46AM
You are saying that the 13th Amendment (slavery) should never have been passed and indeed should be repealed because the issue should be decided by the states. The same for the 15th (race not to be a bar to voting) and 19th (women's right to vote).
Like slavery and voting rights, the hijacking of the definition of marriage is larger than a state issue. There are basic morals upon which this country was founded. Like slavery, gay marriage is the antithesis of those morals.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 7:08AM
That's not what I'm stating at all. Your example is ridiculous because slavery was not a state endorsed institution in all states. Gay marriage is not a threat to society and it is ridiculous to proclaim that marriage is somehow a sanctified institution at some level. If anything, it has wrecked many a family, leading to divorce at the 40% level in first marriages and the 60% level in second marriages. Perhaps marriage itself should be banned based on success/failure ratios alone.
Based on your example though, you could prohibit or create anything at the federal level based on your religious beliefs. In that sense, you should be a big promoter of Obamacare but I would bet you deny it. However, based on what you wrote, you endorse it.
drudge ette obama| 6.28.11 @ 7:11AM
You state that gay marriage is not a threat to this country. Why do you say this? You must support and explain the basis for this conclusion.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 7:41AM
Cats aren't a threat either. Do you need someone to explain that? If so, it wouldn't do any good.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 8:04AM
All of your above postings are ridiculous and have nothing to do with limited government. Why as a proponent of gay marriage (homosexual monogamous relationships are rare in a culture that promotes the opposite) would you call for the banning of heterosexual or traditional marriages, but then advocate it for homosexuals or aberrant lifestyles? Describing your thought process on this as absurd would be kind.
Being a religious bigot is your privilege, but don't use the 10th Amendment to shield your narrow-minded gay chauvinism. Mitt Romney makes more sense defense Romneycare as a state’s rights issue than you and the homosexual lobby.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 8:51AM
To: Michael Tomlinson
Your post contains nothing factual. It's a rant. Let's see your facts justifying statism. It has nothing to do with religion. Your generalizations are absurdities attempting to masquerade as persuasion.
Obama's defense of Obamacare makes more sense than your response.
Conservatives attempt to instill statism as a solution to social problems is their fatal flaw.
And you suffer from it, badly.
There's little difference from Obama trying to take over health care than conservatives trying to control the marriage industry.
drudge ette obama| 6.28.11 @ 8:31AM
Are you having a problem focusing on a solid response to my question? Answer the question if you are to be considered. And keep the cats out of it. That's not an informative response.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 8:45AM
drudge ette obama: Let's hear your explanation first justifying statism over gay marriage. I can't respond to a negative.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 9:23AM
"Your example is ridiculous because slavery was not a state endorsed institution in all states. Gay marriage is not a threat to society and it is ridiculous to proclaim that marriage is somehow a sanctified institution at some level. If anything, it has wrecked many a family, leading to divorce at the 40% level in first marriages and the 60% level in second marriages. Perhaps marriage itself should be banned based on success/failure ratios alone." Bill Hussein O'Stalin
As often is the case with your posts are irrational and more rants of illogic than solid conservative reasoning. You promote homosexual marriage and then call for the banning of traditional marriage and you think that’s sound thinking. If anything you're a supporter of an oligarchy running the nation in the desire to impose your personal dissolution on the nation regardless of what the American people want – while you may be mesmerized by polling and/or statistics that is not a means of determining the legality or Constitutionality of a position.
Since marriage is an issue that crosses state lines and impacts many aspects of public as well as private life (interstate issues like inheritances, property rights, etc.) it is inevitable that the Federal government will ultimately decide its fate. Rather than having it surreptitiously shoved down the nation’s throat by northeastern and west coast states via the unelected Supreme Court I’d prefer our elected Federal officials make that decision or allow the American people to make it. This seems to Rep. Bachmann’s position.
This is a conservative position versus an attempt by a well funded minority through a judicial oligarchy and opportunistic politicians from declining states to impose their will on the nation (apparently the way you want to impose the homosexual agenda on the majority of Americans).
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 9:55AM
To: Michael Tomlinson: I did not call for a ban of marriage nor am I promoting marriage in any form. I simply pointed out that marriage as an institution can hardly be deemed a resounding success and that supporting the state against homosexual marriage is simply statism.
Since I did not make those numbers about the marriage failure up they are facts. Do you have any facts that prove otherwise? If not, you sound and look rather foolish arguing against something that is an absolute fact.
As far as your justification for statism it's not conservative. It's pseudo-conservatism. Portraying homosexual marriage as a threat to society has about the same ring of truth of claiming giving women the right to vote was a a danger to society.
Seapuss| 6.28.11 @ 11:03AM
Actually, civil marriage is itself statism. It takes the most intimate relationship two people can have and invites the government to poke its nose into that relationship. A true libertarian would support the abolition of civil marriage, not its expansion to gays.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:31AM
That is a logical position for libertarians, but not conservatives.
Seapuss| 6.28.11 @ 12:35PM
Any conservative justification for civil marriage disappeared years ago. Any moral component to marriage has been removed from the law, and legal rules concerning child custody and child support apply independent of marriage. Nowadays, marriage is a one-size-fits-all economic partnership agreement, the terms of which apply only upon divorce.
Because all of the conservative reasons for keeping civil marriage have been lost, I say we apply libertarian principles, and get the government's nose out of the whole thing.
Margie| 6.28.11 @ 1:37PM
Amen, Michael. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:04AM
You don't even know what conservative is. Fundamentally, we believe in the rule of law and respecting the intelligence of the American people not in surrendering our country’s laws to a minority. Allowing a cabal of politicians, homosexual activists and Federal judges to determine what marriage is in the United States is not a conservative position. Why are you so opposed to allowing the American people to decide this issue?
This is not a state’s rights issue, because of the interstate nature of laws surrounding marriage. What you and the homosexual faction advocate is a protected minority who will eventually dictate to the nation their morals or lack of them – the furthest thing from respecting limited government, the rights of the states or individuals.
You said it: “If anything, it (traditional or historic marriage) has wrecked many a family, leading to divorce at the 40% level in first marriages and the 60% level in second marriages. Perhaps marriage itself should be banned based on success/failure ratios alone." Since you now disavow your own hyperbole you prove my point.
If you read I oppose a few states eventually forcing onto the majority their views via the Supreme Court since they cannot impose their will on the majority of Americans any other way (illustrated by Roe v. Wade).
Anyone who calls a Constitutional amendment statism (a stupid and moronic phrase meaningless to the majority of Americans) is unaware of how the United States works and amends the Constitution. It is the epitome of state’s rights and individual liberty to allow the people of the state’s to determine national rights and/or laws and how they affect the corporate body of the nation.
Defending women’s suffrage which was ratified across the nation by the 19th Amendment made my case thank you for unknowingly agreeing with Rep. Bachmann and me. Some issues are to big to be settled by a narrow oligarchy bent upon bending the nation to their will.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:01AM
Actually, Bill, marriage is a resounding success compared to other approaches to raising children (single mothers, for example). See my comments about the national defense issue below.
Practicing Psychiatry in New Zealand for a year, which has a very different culture, made me think long and hard about just this issue. If you want to review some medical literature that illustrates my points, please review some articles on adolescent suicide in New Zealand. I can get you specific references, if interested.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 9:28AM
I do not agree with Bill o' on much, but like other rights considerations, proving a negative is not possible.
On the surface, he is right, marriage as an institution has failed over the last 40 years, but it has stabilized in the last decade with couples: a) getting older and more mature before first marriage and b) women being more financially independent enabling the choice for marriage to be more about relationships than simple practical unions driven by need.
The civil benefits of marriage should be looked as as impartially as possible, and giving consenting adults the opportunity to select a civil beneficiary should be blind to the state.
The prevalence of childless marriages for a variety of reasons including choice or natural causes also dispels the relevance of religious consummation to the civil marriage equation.
This site and many like it follow the Pat Robertson school of the "new Sodom in our midst" ideology when condemning these laws. But, does not bringing relationships out into the open, with civil boundaries and protections not only diminish the likelihood of Sodom emerging , but a more conservative one emerging in its place?
I think that should be the debate.
My father remembers the Loving v. Virginia ruckus and the evangelicals continuing oppostion to it. The evangelicals are kindred with the mormons on that issue, interestingly.
It takes a long time for a bigot to realize they are wrong, and sometimes they just must be left on the curb as society moves forward.
Moral relativism you protest? when it applies to civil benefits and the rights of individuals to be awarded them, absolutely.
Clint| 6.28.11 @ 10:02AM
Can New Yorkers Marry Their Sisters, Dogs, & Have Harems Now ?
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 4:35PM
Possibly.
With Citizens United on the books, maybe dogs will be given personhood as well.
As far as sisters go, the south has a 200 year head start on the yankees, so they should write the book on it first.
If a woman openly consents to being a part of a harem, who are we in civil society to stop her? Let the man deal with the headaches exponentially rather than geometrically.
Think about it, this has zero to do with my marriage, so I do not care about these fantasy iterations.
Clint| 6.28.11 @ 10:41PM
The Answer Is "NO", Negative Attention Craving Pseudo-Intellectual World Class Bore, Faux Canuck.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:37AM
Canuckistani, the only time I have treated a sister-brother romantic pairing claiming to be husband and wife, it was none of the states of the Confederacy.
Butch | 6.29.11 @ 5:06PM
Woooo, "the south." Was this the guy talking about "bigots" a couple of posts upstream?
RCV| 6.29.11 @ 11:04AM
If so, there's a chance for wedded bliss on your part, Clint!
lydia | 6.28.11 @ 9:35AM
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
Let's make it simple, no government should have a say in marriage. Marriage licensing itself arose for the purpose of revenue, and "hey, guess what? To make sure that interracial marriages would not happen.
TrueBlue| 6.29.11 @ 10:39AM
Except that marriage IS a sanctified institution. It is a RELIGIOUS institution. What government gets involved in is civil unions, NOT marriage.
I have no issues with gays wanting to get into civil unions with each other, and only marginally care about them getting the same breaks tax-wise (after all they don't exactly contribue to the continuation of the species); what I care about is this attack on what is actually a religious act. The government, state or federal, should not be getting involved with that at all. Honestly, any straight couple that doesn't intend to actually work through things, good or bad, and actually stick to their oath of "Until death do us part" needs to stop calling it marriage (extenuating circumstances such as a highly abusive spouse notwithstanding). There are enough issues with how people view marriage already.
lydia | 6.28.11 @ 9:33AM
We are in agreement. Now if Bill Hussein O'Stalin could just get off the cats. (The cats would sure be grateful.)
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!
Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 8:17PM
Allowing gays the equality to marry does nothing to affect yours or anyone else's marriage, any more than a gay man having a job affects your job. The real threat to marriage is DIVORCE - ban that if you want to save marriage. Let Americans be who they are and let them enjoy the rights, privileges and responsibilities we all enjoy.
Dai Alanye | 6.28.11 @ 9:39AM
First, let's call it what it is--homosexual union. "Gay" is a euphemism, and "marriage" in this context, is simply a false identification. We all know what marriage is and has been for thousands of years. Two people of the same sex living together aren't spouses but "roomies."
Lincoln supposedly asked a man, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?" The answer, of course, is four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it into one. The same logic applies regarding any kind of union between homosexuals.
A significant Federal interest in this has to do with controlling the relationships between states. What happens when homosexuals from New York move to Utah and claim married status? Are we to demand that North Dakota accept all "marriages" performed in DC?
Another interest has to do with tax benefits and the like. Is Internal Revenue to award spousal benefits to homosexual couples in Massachusetts but deny them in Oklahoma?
It's obvious that commenters like Hussein haven't taken the time to think out these matters.
Nunya| 6.28.11 @ 12:08PM
Dai, well said. I would like to point out one more thing for discussion--"Marriage" was instituted in the Bible (see Gen 2:24). While I have a libertarian streak and feel that people should do whatever they want as long as they harm no other, calling a homosexual union "marriage" only upsets those who see marriage as instituted in the Bible. If two people of the same sex want to live together, give each other legal rights, I don't see it as anyone else's business--whether I think it's wrong or not. Just don't call it "marriage"--call it something else.
TakTak| 7.19.11 @ 3:33PM
Actually it wasnt just the Bible, every society in the past and present has some sort of "marriage" type of set up. Its not only a Christian/Jewish development.
Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 8:19PM
Hmmm, let's see - the US Constitution dictates that all states will recognize the laws of all other states reciprocally. No excuses, no morality test, nothing but do it. So States have no choice, if they care to support the US Constitution.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:43AM
The Amendment process is NOT "big government".
It's extremely difficult to Amend the Constitution, and that's by design.
However, the Constitution itself specifically describes ways in which it can be amended.
So how is the attempt to pass an Amendment that specifically clarifies marriage as between a man and a woman "big government"?
Please explain.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 10:00AM
Here are the divorce statistics I quoted.
They are facts. The government controls marriages, so you could make the argument that marriage is simply another failed government function.
Second marriages have a 60% failure rate, and third marriages a 70% failure rate and for some reason we're worried about gays getting married for the first time? It's almost laughable how so many want big government to do their bidding except of course when they don't want it to do their bidding.
It's mindsets like you see here that ensured Obamacare. Statism in any form is statism in all it's forms.
http://www.divorcestatistics.org/
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:46AM
The stats are irrelevant. Answer the question.
Like Obama you sit up straw men and knock them down and thus prove yourself as ignorant as he is.
Why not come out and say it you're for homosexual marriage and ultimately want to impose your "morality" on the rest of the country that has rejected it. You and Judge Vaughn Walker are hiding in the same closet.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 12:05PM
Miahael Tomlinson: If you're not drunk you're full of hate and animosity. Seriously, have you ever killed someone? You're engaging in ad hominum attacks and go forth with the mind set that you're correct and everyone else is evil, i.e. when I want big government its wonderful and if anyone disagrees with me I get out my hate and put down card and go to town.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:46AM
Nice statistics; WHAT do they have to do with the 10th Amendment, or Michelle Bachman???
Comparing gay marriage to ObamaCare is intellectually and logically incoherent.
For example, if we REALLY wanted ObamaCare, then WHY NOT go through the Amendment process to make it a formal, Constitutional right??
Simple; it would NEVER pass.
Seriously...study the Constitution.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 12:10PM
Have you ever studied the Constitution Dr. Right? If so, you'll find we still have free speech. Like many elites you hide behind the constitution when it's convenient.
Explain to me how you perceive any difference between the government controlling the marriage market, and that's all it is, and the government attempting to control the healthcare market. They are both markets. You're beginning to sound like another secret statist.
You can't make that explanation without splitting hairs and dealing with generalities.
It's mindsets like you see here that made Obamacare possible and not the other way around.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 1:44PM
No one is infringing upon your free speech rights.
Additionally, I don't accept your silly premise that "the government controls the marriage market".
Really?? Oh, so the government is forcing people to marry? Is it forcing them to vacation in the Poconos for their Honeymoon, too?
It's mindsets like yours that make Conservatives look like fools.
And please...explain how my assertion, backed-up by facts, that Bachman is on solid Constitutional ground "made ObamaCare possible"?
This oughta' be good...
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.28.11 @ 1:52PM
Tell us Dr. Right, if the government doesn't control the marriage market, who does control it? Oh wait, that would be the government.
I think like many posters here you need an explanation from a mental health specialist, not me. That's not my bag.
It's not my duty to explain your position. I never said you were incorrect or correct. That's not my call.
But that leads to another question. Why so insecure you have to attack others to prove your point?
Nunya| 6.28.11 @ 2:28PM
Bill, I've been following your posts but can't understand your statement about "the marriage market". What exactly is a "marriage market", and how exactly does the government control it?
You have me confused.
zsa zsa| 6.28.11 @ 4:13PM
Ok. Nice stats. Now the question is why? Well, think it might have anything to do with a lack of a moral culture and breakdown of family? We live in a society which has degraded the whole notion of human sexuality. It has voided it of spirituality or love, and turned it instead into little more than a heartless and even predatory means of self-gratification.
And now the degradation of society we see all around us — the porno-paedophile culture; girls emulating the worst of behaviour in drunkenness, violence and loveless sexual activity; and the disposal of unborn children as if they are of no more value than an unwanted appendix, an attitude which has led directly to the erosion of innate respect for life and the brutalisation of an entire culture.
In my opinion if you break down the family, marriage, your culture breaks down. So we can all live in fantasy land and want everyone to have their way and destroy traditions and any semblance of morality but your fantasy land will rot within.
Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 8:37PM
Passing an Amendment to the Constitution to deny rights to any segment of America is the first time an Amendment would be passed to do so. That's as un-American as you can be - denying equal rights to other Americans that happen to belong to a group you don't like, agree with, think are immoral, or for any other reason.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 3:01PM
Dear Bill:
It depends on whether it is a National Defense issue. My major objection to Gay Marriage (I have no problem with Civil Unions) is that there are no Western Countries that have legalised it that are breeding to replacement. Heterosexual Marriage, as I know very well both from adopting my kids and raising them with my sainted wife as well as my professional work, is, on the whole, the best way to both produce kids and raise them.
We are losing a cultural war with our enemies. They are outbreeding us, and their country age bases are getting younger while ours get older. Look at Western European age ratios compared to Yemen, or Egypt. It is not good. And it WILL eventually effect the ability to project military power. Look at our pathetic NATO allies. There are 4 allies we have that can project military power to some degree---Israel, Germany, France, Britain. By 2030, there will be 1. And, surprise, surprise, although they are gay friendly, they don't have gay marriage. They also have a birthrate of over 2.7 per woman. They are the smallest country of the 4.
Our government does have a vested interest in maintaining its population and seeing that children are raised well. We have laws based on eternal verities---murder is a crime, burglary is a crime, failing to render unto Caesar is a crime.
Maybe I'm a Progressive; I don't know. But it seems odd that defending traditional marriage would be a Progressive position.
Any how, one disagreement a year ain't too bad. You write beautiful stuff. Take care.
Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 8:40PM
Canada is arguably the closest nation to the US in customs, language and lifestyles and they have gay marriage and have no problem with it. No one ever does that actually sees it is not the terrible bogie man that the bigoted scaremongers say it is. Just like open gay servicemen, openly gay couples won't change a thing - except show America to practice what it preaches regarding equal rights and justice for all.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:06AM
Canada does not breed to replacement. That's a problem. Median age is 41 years old. Fertility rate is 1.58 children per woman (replacement is 2.1).
Here's the problem with that---fewer workers than retirees means that it will be impossible to maintain the social welfare state. Bye, bye, Canadian Medicare. (I live about 80 miles from the Border---to get to my place, go NORTH from Fargo.)
Purpleguy| 6.29.11 @ 11:22AM
Most of the Developed countries are in the same situation demographically, with Japan actually having a negative increase in pop. growth in an aging population. So while perhaps true, the numbers you present mean nothing to the overall topic of gay marriage. Populations are not declining because of gay marriage. The premise that gay marriage leads to declining populations is not supported by the actual facts. Declining populations in advanced countries have various underlying causes, but gay marriage is not one of them.
TakTak| 7.19.11 @ 4:07PM
In Russia the population in general is hostile to homosexuals. They have no homosexual rights agenda or at least a large one. They dont "breed" to replacement either. So you would force people to have a minimum number of children? How would you do this? Are you volunteering as the artificial insemination police or something? You want people to have more kids then you have to change the economics of children. Children used to be a source of income and labor, now they are merely a luxury.
TakTak| 7.19.11 @ 3:41PM
Breeding to replacement is the response to economic reality...Kids cost a lot, so people dont have as many especially now that people have control over that. Divorce has gone up due to economic reality as well. Women now can support themselves to a greater degree than before without being married. Lots of people used to live in unhappy marriages, now they have to option to get out of those type of marriages. If you want to lower the divorce rate increase the education level and earning levels that people have available to them. Well educated high middle income people tend to get divorced less. If we look at the states that have gay marriage have we seen all the problems that were promised? No
Winston X | 7.2.11 @ 5:00PM
The greatest knot upon the liberty of all European people is the praeterpolitical power of the churches to institute monogamy as an ecclesiastic rule of law, thereby enabling them to determine the legitimacy of the succession of the pagan kings and abrogate the natural rights to property and self-defense...
The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses...
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., eternal love), but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they will receive condign punishment and are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world for their contumacy of monogamy, as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature, which is inherently pagan.
jppc| 6.28.11 @ 6:42AM
Bachmann should have replied to Wallace:
"Chris, are you just another liberal Jew in the media, pontificating and blessing us with your brilliant IQ"?
drudge ette obama| 6.28.11 @ 7:08AM
Jon Stewart played Chris Wallace beautifully as Wallace was making inroads into exposing Stewart, Stewart flattered Wallace, excepting him from the Fox "wacko" Crowd....You could see actually see Wallace become pleased. His face changed and he basked in the warmth of the Jon Stewart mark of liberal approval. It was nauseating.
And I don't blame Michelle Bachmann in not openly accepting Wallace's so-called apology. She smells a dithering rat. She doesn't want to embrace it. Wallace wouldn't ask Chris Christie if he were a flake - Christie would verbally deck him.
Wallace is the worst of the sexist media. He picks on women like Palin and Bachmann with these absurd questions because he thinks women are weaker and their response will be "news clip" worthy. Bachmann handled Wallace perfectly, as she did with Chris Matthews.
I am going to wait for Wallace to ask Obama whether he is a flake for asserting he awarded the Medal of Honor nonposthumously despite that the honoree had been dead for three years. I will be waiting for a long time.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:07AM
She wouldn't do that---she volunteered on a Kibbutz. No Presidential Candidate understands the Middle East better than Bachmann. No one.
drudge ette obama| 6.28.11 @ 6:56AM
My impression is that Bachmann understands that 10th A states' rights currently permit states to enact laws allowing for gay marriage, so in that respect, she is a Federalist.
Not simultaneously, but consecutively, Bachmann then supports the constitutional amendment route so to bypass the 10th amendment.
I think she is attempting to express her personal and religious beliefs within the confines of the US Constitution. I think she makes sense.
P.Smith| 6.28.11 @ 7:11AM
That is how I interpreted what she said, there is no contradiction. In other words the constitution currently says that states are free to make this decision, and by changing the constitution they will be denied the right. She is attempting to use the law in its proper role rather than the preferred liberal method of judicial fiat.
Tom| 6.28.11 @ 8:17AM
Exactly!
You beat me to it. She's not inconsistent at all, merely upholding valid Constitutional process in proper order.
drudge ette obama| 6.28.11 @ 8:33AM
We are in agreement. Now if Bill Hussein O'Stalin could just get off the cats. (The cats would sure be grateful.)
DRed| 6.28.11 @ 9:02AM
The inconsistency is that Michelle claims to support states rights, but it seems that she also supports removing those rights. As you point out, it is consistent to say that NY can pass a law permitting gay marriage while at the same time advocating a constitutional amendment to override the law that you disagree with. What you can't do it to advocate using the constitution to limit the power of states while calling yourself a believer in states rights.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:45AM
The Amendment process does NOT "remove states rights", since it requires the participation of the states to function.
Please...read the Constitution.
DRed| 6.28.11 @ 10:01AM
That's pure sophistry. Residents of NY who are gay currently have the right to get married to someone of the same sex. If Michele's dream amendment was passed, they would no longer have that right.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:51AM
You're MISSING the point!
In BOTH cases, she is supporting Constitutional principles!
The 10th Amendment (which Liberals usually hate) gives states the right to pass laws distinct from the Federal gov't and from other states.
However, we have a federalist system; the Constitution EXPLICITLY provides a means for the Federal gov't to amend the Constitution, and make those laws applicable across all 50 states.
By your logic, the Constitution contradicts itself; it does not.
Bachman is correct; NOTHING in her position deviates from Constitutional guidelines.
Additionally, the amendment process is very difficult, and that's by design, to ensure that "conventional wisdom" does NOT monkey around with the Constitution.
I expect better from Conservatives on questions of Constitutional application...
DRed| 6.28.11 @ 12:53PM
Yes, her position is constitutionally valid. I'm not disputing that. It's just not consistent with supporting states rights. Amending the constitution to limit the power of a state is inherently anti-states rights. A states rights proponent would want the constitution amended so that Congress could make no law concerning marriage-that would leave the decision in the hands of the states.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 1:50PM
"Yes, her position is constitutionally valid. I'm not disputing that. It's just not consistent with supporting states rights."
You do realize that this statement is contradictory, right??
In other words, if her position is Constitutionally valid (including, presumably, the 10th amendment), then BY DEFINITION it supports states' rights.
Folks on this board who are objecting to Bachman's position are taking a libertarian stance on a Constitutional issue. In other words, they don't think the Government should be involved in marriage, or in who marries who.
In a vacuum, that's just swell. But we don't live in a vacuum. We live in a world where actions (and laws) have consequences. Gay marriage will have far-reaching implications beyond the "right" to marry, and those implications will be destructive from a societal and even a financial POV.
Therefore, your assertion that "A states rights proponent would want the constitution amended so that Congress could make no law concerning marriage" is invalid.
The concept of state's rights is defined by the Constitution. Using the prescribed Constitutional process to amend the Constitution is NOT "big government".
DRed| 6.28.11 @ 2:21PM
You don't seem to understand what "states' rights" means. Do you think the supremacy clause is a states' rights clause? It's in the constitution, just like the 10th Amendment. Significant parts of the constitution limits states' rights.
Lisa| 6.28.11 @ 7:31PM
"If Michele's dream amendment was passed, they would no longer have that right."
Just because the state has the authority to grant marital status to a couple, it is not required to do so. Conversely, the state must grant all eligible citizens the vote because not to do so denies a citizen full participation in society. And the right to fully participate in society is not based on one's race, ethnicity, religion, marital status, or sexual orientation. So, is marriage a right? No.
Butch | 6.29.11 @ 5:17PM
And Texas, for example, and a majority of other states (assuming the amendment passed), would gain the right to reject the legal status of a gay "marriage" sanctioned in New York.
Dan Hirsch| 6.28.11 @ 10:06AM
d.e.o.
Maybe if bill o' stayed on the cats, we might get more done here...sorry for the cats.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 3:02PM
You know, Bill is right 99.9% of the time. That's better than me by a long shot.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 9:39AM
Loving v Virginia is another one of those Judicial Fiats you abhor?
The Marriage Amendment is another dogwhistle issue for evangelicals that enabled Junior to conceal his deceit and ineptitude while our young fighters were dying.
Bachmann et al will do the same thing when trying to conceal their barren platforms against enormous REAL issues for the union.
Her achilles heel is her accepting and PROFITING from federal government handouts over the last ten years - including lobbying senators to spend MORE in her district.
She must and will find wedge issues to get bigots all frothy to provide cover for her preactical hypocrisy.
I often wonder if evangelicals really are patriots at all, or are just in it for themselves and their narrow antiquated interests.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:46AM
You do realize that on this forum, you're basically considered to be an absolute joke, don't you?
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 11:13AM
and you and your cabal of idiots are not?
No matter what stance you take, you are on the wrong side of history and the nation.
How do you sleep at night knowing the exotic in the WH is screwing it up for you?
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:52AM
On a pile of money stolen exploited from 3rd-world cess-pools...
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 3:06PM
Wow, Canukustani, you haven't spent ANY time in the Deep South, have you. Or if you have, you need to take off the Stevie Wonders.
(For the record: Undergrad TCU, Med School UTMB, 7 years practice Alabama (still maintain the license), 5 years practice Kentucky (never going back---total of 15 years spent in the Confederacy, 5 years border states, not counting one year New NM).
Evangelicals are quite patriotic. They have kids, as well.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 4:27PM
I do not doubt the pious aims of evangelicals, but I do doubt the subversion of this goodwill by faux leaders like Bachmann et al.
My problem is that they permit their vote to be co-opted time and again to the detriment of the society. For this reason I condemn their influence on the party and would prefer they vote with their brains seeking incremental changes rather than the revolutions that the fist-pounders promise and NEVER deliver.
The evangelical "vote" is batting a zero to date. Why? That should be the debate.
Lisa| 6.28.11 @ 7:34PM
In Loving v. Virginia, Virginia did not argue that interracial marriage was an attempt to redefine marriage - as same-sex marriage advocates claim, and want to do by making same-sex marriage law - but that a law forbidding interracial marriage, and providing identical penalties to violators, could not be construed as racial discriminaton. Moreover, both Virginia, in its argumentment, and the Supreme Court, in its decision, clearly defined marriage as being between a single man and a single woman.
Butch | 6.29.11 @ 5:23PM
The "young fighters" for whom you express concern are very disproportionately from the deep south. Does that affect your level of concern for them?
Appleby| 6.28.11 @ 7:11AM
Could there be a Federal law that all laws such as abortion and same-sex marriage must be decided by referendum? Everywhere this has been done, the people have voted it down. The only places that have legalized either have sidestepped the people and their wishes.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 11:11AM
anti-miscegenation would be approved by 90% in a referendum when it was being debated. Still want a referendum?
As a Canadian you should know referendums settle nothing.
Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 8:44PM
Let's have a referendum that all voting takes place on Saturday instead of the ridiculous Tuesday in the middle of a work week. How about that?
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:12AM
That makes a hell of a lot of sense, Purpleguy, on the Day of the week for voting. Like JHarp on public financing of football stadiums, you hit it right on. Congrats.
jppc| 6.28.11 @ 8:07AM
Gay-boys want the public at large to acknowledge their perverted "life style". Gay-boys are just emotionally and sexually immature. Period.
Lesbians are another kettle of fish - they tend to be man-haters, sometimes with understandable reasons but usually simply just man-haters. They also tend to be unattractive women and thus never received any interest from boys/men.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 9:43AM
Close the Psych schools, JPPC has settled it.
QED.
scotchieguy| 6.28.11 @ 10:09AM
You sound like a bigot. What does this have to do w/ the topic at hand, which is States rights v. Federal power to limit those rights?
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:54AM
Ignore canuckistani...
He comes from some back-water, 4th-world Craplakistan, completely ignorant of the fact that the culture that spawned him is EXACTLY responsible for his home country's pitiable state, yet he comes here to live and has the audacity to criticize the very system and way of life that enables him.
In short, he's an ingrate and an ignoramus.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 4:17PM
No I come form the USA - but the real USA, not your fantasyland.
Where you fail, comrade, is that our friends to the north live longer, don't kill or maim eachother with the success or voracity as us, spend 40% less on healthcare for better outcomes, marry gays, have no abortion law - yet fewer abortions, and score higher than the US on every single OECD index of education, misery and quality of life for the last 20 odd years.
If that is a pitiable state, notwithstanding the weather, how do you characterize ours?
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:43AM
Yes, and this is my answer, Canuck, from the greatest movie director of all time: (he wrote these lines)
"Harry Lime: Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly."
10 Canadian scientists have won the Nobel prize.
And the cCanucks do not have better outcomes for the things Medicine can actually treat. Subtract the auto accidents that die before reaching the ER and gunshot wounds and the picture changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:44AM
The point being, Canuck, that 13 million Jews win a Nobel Prize every year, mostly for the US, and only 10 Canadian scientists have won. Boredom has its drawbacks.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 2:01AM
canuckistani:
"No I come form the USA "
Notice he didn't say BORN in the USA,
but the sentence appears to leave out a preposition: to, as in:
"I come (to) form the USA, in the image of the backwater from which I came, eh?
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 6:00PM
canuckistani is a man without a penis.
Envy, much?
Purpleguy| 6.28.11 @ 8:46PM
You're a bigot and the more your trash others the more you will pay when the time comes. You should be ashamed of your words. They are hurtful, hateful and have no place in American dialog. Shame that you hate so much. Did a "gay-boy" turn you down? Is that it?
victor| 6.29.11 @ 2:04AM
PurpleHaze:
"They are hurtful, hateful and have no place in American dialog"
You mean all the occasions that demorats refer to conservatives as" right wing fascist jack booted tea baggers?
You mean those words?
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:14AM
Victor, did you mean "demo rats?" I mean, was that intentional? And if it was, can I steal it?
victor| 6.29.11 @ 8:54PM
Occam's Tool:
"Victor, did you mean "demo rats?" I mean, was that intentional?""
Not sure, but it works either way. Sometimes I slip and write "democrates".
" And if it was, can I steal it?"
Feel free, all the more to tick-off the dems.
By the way, the last words in Republican, is:
I Can!
The last word in democrat is always "Rat"!
Purpleguy| 6.29.11 @ 11:26AM
Yep, just like left-wing nambi pambi latte drinking NY times reading marxist socialist nutbags.
The big difference is that gayness is not determined by your intellect or emotional feelings, it is inborn just like heterosexualness, skin color or height.
skip| 6.29.11 @ 12:48PM
Liar.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 8:59PM
PurpleGay:
"just like left-wing nambi pambi latte drinking NY times reading marxist socialist nutbags."
What part is not true?
Left wing?
Namby Pamby?
Latte drinking?
NYTimes reading?Marxist?
Socialist?
Nutbags? Mmm, maybe let Occam diagnose you all for this one, eh?
"The big difference is that gayness is not determined by your intellect or emotional feelings, it is inborn"
Prove it by naming the "GayGene"
Oh, that's right, the Genome Project spent how many billions of $$$ and how many years and for what?
NO Gay Gene!
TakTak| 7.19.11 @ 3:56PM
Actually Victor I have a gay Uncle who truely tried to not be gay. He was married with kids. He tried different thearapies that were in vogue in the 80s to try and change himself...he couldnt. None of his kids turned out gay. They are all successful well adjusted members of society. My Uncle has been in a long term relationship with his partner for over 20 years now. He is still best friends with my Aunt and she has remarried as well. He didnt want to be gay at all, he tried to change but couldnt. He said he knew there was something different about him from his earliest memories and try as he might he cannot change that fact. I dont know if there is a gay gene or not or just what causes it but its not something you choose.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.28.11 @ 8:31AM
What I understand is that Bachmann is a lawyer, and that Bachmann is a politition; that combination is what has got us into the mess we are in. The band is not plying the beltway two-step or the tort tap dance and if she does not get her platform straight there is going to be an awfully pretty lady sitting alone at the big dance.
VRWC| 6.28.11 @ 8:38AM
it's a state's issue in that states currently have the power to define marriage as they want, and it's a federal issue so far as a constitutional amendment (approved by the states -- we're not talking about legislation) would prevent it from being imposed on the whole country by the states that currently allow it.
really though, who gives a shit about "federalism" on this particular issue? the idea that we're going to have a stable equilibrium where people are married in some states and not others is ridiculous. people can make their philosophical arguments on both sides, all this procedural talk means absolutely nothing
Dan Hirsch| 6.28.11 @ 10:15AM
VRWC,
Your disinterest in federalism precludes a solution to the problem as you see it. Amending the Constitution to define marriage across all 50 (or 57) states will solve the problem. Sort of like defining slaves in all states and territories as human beings and thus citizens solved the whole slavery 'thing.'
'Procedural talk' does not mean nothing - it is in essence how we get from where we are to where we want to be. Ignore it and you'll never get ANYwhere. Do you find cooking meaningless when you are hungry?
Len| 6.28.11 @ 8:42AM
Let's make it simple, no government should have a say in marriage. Marriage licensing itself arose for the purpose of revenue, and "hey, guess what? To make sure that interracial marriages would not happen.
On another note, it shows Bachmann's proclivity for the expansion of government to support nationalizing such things as marriage.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 9:44AM
Good points.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 11:09AM
...and they got involved to end polygamy and the ransoming of minor children by religious sects.
Bob K.| 6.28.11 @ 8:44AM
Mr. Goldstein,
This is all nonsense. The Presidential campaign has begun. The only issue that should be addressed is Obama and the economy that his policies created. And every Republican candidate and everybody else, including yourself, should ignore these sideshow issues and get back on point. This is the issue that Bachman should have thrown back into Wallace's face.
And this is the issue that every candidate should keep front and center and every talking head should learn to expect it when he or she tries to change the subject.
If not, the Republican nominee will lose the election
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 9:45AM
Agreed, and my curiosity as to whether evangelicals are really patriotic is piqued even further.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:45AM
I find religious bigots amsuing. When do get off your shift at Obama/Biden 2012?
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 3:08PM
Michael:
Are you a nom de plume for Iowahawk? You do pithy and eviscerating so well. I love your stuff.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 4:11PM
curiosity further piqued.....
Keep it coming!
victor| 6.29.11 @ 2:14AM
canuckistani:
"curiosity further piqued."
Remember what they say about cats, eh canuckistani?
victor| 6.29.11 @ 9:08PM
Michael Tomlinson:
"Obama/Biden 2012"
Or as they are being rebranded by their new PR firm:
Malign, Besmirch and Smear:
Obnoxious / Bigotry 2012
C Smith| 6.28.11 @ 8:46AM
Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; Gen 19:2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. Gen 19:3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Gen 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, Gen 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. Gen 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. Gen 19:10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. Gen 19:11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. Gen 19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: Gen 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. Gen 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law. Gen 19:15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. Gen 19:16 And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city. Gen 19:17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. Gen 19:18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: Gen 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Gen 19:20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. Gen 19:21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. Gen 19:22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar. Gen 19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. Gen 19:26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. Gen 19:27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD: Gen 19:28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 8:51AM
Michelle Bachmann's answer isn’t puzzling her statement, “It is -- it is both. It is a state issue and it's a federal issue. It's important for your viewers to know that federal law will trump state law on this issue” is correct. It is Mr. Goldstein position that is troubling. By touting the typically morally vacuous libertarian position he misses the whole point of Constitutional law, state’s rights and Federal prerogative regarding national issues.
Should we let New York and New England force their moral ambiguity on the majority of states? Keeping in mind Goldstein’s flawed appeal to the 10th Amendment does a homosexual couple “married” in NY have a valid marriage the 30 other states that ban homosexual marriage if they move there? No, but who will ultimately decide the argument – the Supreme Court. Personally, as a conservative I would prefer our elected Federal officials allow the people the right to decide the issue rather than a handful of non-elected judges. I’m tired of living in an oligarchy dominated by an activist Supreme Court.
Like it or not this is a Federal issue and a Constitutional amendment would be a reasonable way to settle it since Barack Obama, Mr. Goldstein and misguided supporters of homosexual “marriage” seek to impose their will on the nation without the consent of the people – national polling is irrelevant, because it is not a Constitutionally recognized way of passing legislation or amending the Constitution. Those who seek to “rape” the nation and force their will on the majority of states are Obama, Goldstein and Queer Nation.
scotchieguy| 6.29.11 @ 1:26AM
Michael, you make some great points. But by uttering "queer nation," are you admitting you are a homophobe, or are you merely turned off by the gay-rights agenda?
victor| 6.29.11 @ 9:12PM
scotchieguy:
"or are you merely turned off by the gay-rights agenda?"
They do a good job of it themselves, don't you think?
http://www.sterneck.net/gender...../index.php
http://www.transqueernation.co.....ation.com/
Clint| 6.28.11 @ 8:51AM
Wallace to Romney," Are Mormons Flakes ?"
Wallace to Hillary Clinton," Are Women Flakes?"
Wallace to Obama, " Are Blacks Flakes?"
Wallace To Barney Frank," Are Queers Flakes?"
P.Smith| 6.28.11 @ 9:01AM
Wallace to his dad*,” Are you a Flake?"
*Mike Wallace of Sixty Minutes
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 9:24AM
Yes he's a flake.
Clint| 6.28.11 @ 10:18AM
Wallace to Michelle Obama, " Do You Wear Boxers Or Briefs? "
Wallace to Barack Obama, "Do You Wear Pantyhose Or Thongs?"
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:08AM
She's Obama's "beard" that's why the homosexual agenda is so near and dear to his heart.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 3:09PM
Oh, dear. Mike Wallace is a flake. But at least he publicized depression treatment nicely. A broken clock, etc.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.28.11 @ 8:58AM
AS,
You know text recognition has made amazing advancements. You could save an incredible amount of bandwitdh by intalling a "scripture filter" keyed on the keystroke series g - a- y.
Margie| 6.28.11 @ 3:49PM
why should they be irreligious like you, Michael?
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.28.11 @ 10:32PM
Just to save space. Those little numbers and colons let you look it up.
JohnC| 6.28.11 @ 9:10AM
Bachman failed to address the morality of the NY law and its impact on our nation.
At times she sounds too much like the lawyer she is and dances around or evades important issues. I thought she was disingenuous on answering Wallace’s assertion (if true) that Ryan’s bill would also cut 500 billion from Medicare for those over 55.
During the debate I was unclear on her answer regarding abortion for the cases of rape or incest and not sure on whether she would reinstate DADT or not.
Also would she leave abortion on demand to the states too, thus allowing Blue states to really murder on demand?
It is healthy that Bachman and the rest of the field get thoroughly vetted for they all sound conservative at election time -- remember the liberal George W. Bush was touted as a conservative too for 8 years by the so-called conservative media.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 9:27AM
Bush was a conservative. On the issue of taxes, free trade and a muscular foreign policy he was part of the Reagan wing of the GOP (on deficits and immigration reform he was definitely following Reagan's example too).
Dan Hirsch| 6.28.11 @ 10:25AM
NOPE! Bush was a self-identified 'compassionate conservative!' He tried to wriggle through the MSM false characterization of conservatives as 'mean' and 'cruel', because we don't give other people's money to liberals' friends and co-conspirators. Conservatives expect people to fend for themselves rather than having the government fend for them.
Sorry President GW, you were somewhat fiscally conservative, but you were lost at sea when it came to social and moral issues. Prescription drugs, and amnesty for illegals are two quick examples.
And letting candidates Obama and McCain into the white house in October 0f 2008 to influence your Administration's response to the "banking crisis" was nothing shy of a dereliction of duty. Pres, you are a good guy, but that was bad, bad policy and precedent.
Think President Obama will have Candidate Bachman or Candidate Palin or Candidate Cain in to review some big October 2012 policy surprise? Don't hold your breath, America.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:36AM
The stats are irrelevant. Answer the question.
Like Obama you sit up straw men and knock them down and thus prove yourself as ignorant as he is.
Why not come out and say it you're for homosexual marriage and ultimately want to impose your "morality" on the rest of the country that has rejected it. You and Judge Vaughn Walker are hiding in the same closet.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:42AM
Somehow the above got posted in the wrong box. Sorry.
On taxes Bush never raised them Reagan did 7 times. Bush was a stronger supporter of free trade even than Bush as witnessed by his free trade agreements. Both believed in muscular foreign policies in the face of agressors (Reagan the Soviets and Bush Muslim jihaidsts).
As for deficits Reagans were high as a percentage of GDP (the highest till Obama) and while Reagan believed in open borders and amnesty & citizenship for illegal aliens Bush modified his position to where he wanted border security and a path to citizenship not immediate citizenship (Reagan's position).
Bush was wrong on TARP, but it is not likely Bachmann, Cain or Palin will be the nominee. Though the first two would be good ones aside from Bachmann's being a bit gaff prone.
scotchieguy| 6.29.11 @ 1:36AM
"A bit gaff prone?" Wow. You must be from another planet. Although I like most of her conservative views, she is coming all too close to the real "gaffe-meister" Biden. The MSM will destroy her. Bring on Christie, or we are done. He is the only one who is serious and can stand up to the BS from the MSM. None of the other candidates are even the least bit credible. This is so embarrassing, and the libs know it. They are licking their chops. It is simply 2012 or bust. It is this serious, and we have some very "un-serious" candidates--Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Palin--hopefully not.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 10:34AM
No, he pandered to the evangelical base that takes it hook line and sinker every time and sets us back as a country. The evangelicals are bigotted fools and are not helping the country to get ahead.
RR never went to church nor had chaplains in the WH to overcome the "nuisance" factor of rolling a motorcade up to the entrance.
RR provided amnesty to immigrants.
RR cut and ran from middle-east boondoggles
RR raised taxes.
RR actually made deals with his enemies.
RR would be the left of BHO today and be slaughtered in the GOP primaries.
I want my country back too, back from the radicals on both sides.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:57AM
You are devoid of facts, logic, and intellectual acumen.
You want your country back? Good. Craplakistan wants you back, too.
Now get yourself a one-way ticket, and take all of your chain-migrated family members, too.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 2:50PM
I thought my list was pretty comprehensive, do you have more evidence that RR is too kool for skool like Bachmann et al?
One thing about RR was that he never purported to be something he was not, a savior. Nor did he conjure up his own facts when real facts eluded his reasoning.
People like Bachmann and Palin and Gingrich and Santorum are dangerous to the republic in that their absence of reason and hysterical dependence on fear and hyperbole actually resonates with people. Much like the devil, he can insuate himself into seemingly mundane situations, only to disrupt the proper course of the day. Accountability is what should define a conservative, not the platform paving the way to the bottom.
You crap on Canada, mon ami. Perhaps you should take another look at their fortunes versus ours right now. You may be surprised that your mushy manifest destinied dream has been perverted by the very people we canonize on here.
You choose to stay fast asleep, I choose to recognize much work needs to be done to purge ourselves of the false-prophet evangelical scum populating the GOP ranks and get us back to nation-building.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:37AM
Canuck:
Let me know when Canada develops their own Centers for Disease Control, or when the Premier of Newfoundland has his heart surgery there. Thanks.
In Minnesota, we know that Canada has NO equivalent to Mayo Clinics. Canada, as it is on defense issues, is a leach on American invention. In fact, I believe Mayo publishes more by its lonesome than Canada does. Certainly the Proceedings of The Mayo Clinic is more prestigious than any journal from Canada in Medicine.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:38AM
Sorry, it is late. "Leech" on American invention. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous was on the Brain.
victor| 6.28.11 @ 8:58PM
crapistani:
"RR actually made deals with his enemies."
He walked away at Reykyavik. Imagine BHO doing the same thing?
"RR would be the left of BHO"
Let's try three, shall we?
Patco:
Dealt with criminal unions thet way they needed to be dealt with and not rewarded as BHO does
Cutting taxes:
Lowering rates from 70% to 50% top 28% resulted in 5 straight 8% growth quarters while BHO stifles the economy with taxes, burdensome regulations and illogical policies.
The Berlin Wall
Reagan told Gorbachev to "tear it down!", while BHO told the Russians that they should put it back up.
"today and be slaughtered in the GOP primaries."
Are you insane or just inebriated?
Reagan would get everyone's vote.
Well, maybe not the Paulettes, only Ronette is pure enough for them.
"I want my country back too,"
What you mean "my country" Kemo-Sabe?
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:46AM
That's right, Victor. Reagan raised taxes only after dramatically slicing them.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 9:14PM
And even then, he didn't do it.
That was done by the 1986 Tax Deform Act brought to you by Dollar Bill Bradley, a stinkin' demo rat.
SOJO| 6.28.11 @ 9:26AM
I'm not sure why her position is considered as "having her cake and eating it to". Right now she supports a state's right to determine their position on gay/traditional marriage because it is not a federal issue. However, she would like to see an amendment to the constitution to recognise only traditional marriages. How is that a conflict?
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:37AM
Michelle Bachman is NOT "trying to have it both ways".
Her answer was 100% correct.
But don't take my word for it; take Mark Levin's:
http://www.marklevinshow.com/s.....p?id=32930
When the page opens-up, click on the audio-recording from 6/27. Levin's description of Bachman's answer vis-a-vis the 10th Amendment is spot-on.
Do your homework, Mr. Goldstein, before you start piling-on with the rest of the GOP-establishment types.
Whatsa' matter? Does her quick rise in the polls threaten one of your beloved establishment candidates? Romney, perhaps?
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 10:44AM
No, her quick rise in the polls shows the GOP is not serious in correcting what really ails us, but actively chooses to cling to clown acts that tickle their self-righteous bones every four years and ignoring the simple facts that their words do not match their actions - and then expecting they will suddenly see the light on inauguration day.
Her giftbag of ambiguous and irrelevant views on pretty much everything will likely bamboozle insular caucus goers, but only amuse the general electorate to no end.
If she gets the nom, blame the evangelicals and pray they get out of civil matters altogether. They are batting a zero to date.
Next, let's blow open the primary system and have one national primary. Enough.
114k peculiar Iowans and 234k NH's are alowed to set the "tone" for an election? C'mon.
We deserve what we get under this system.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:58AM
And who do you support, genius?
This oughta' be good...
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 4:06PM
I did support Pence for a time, then he went Tea Party fishing. I still think he is a viable winner in the future.
I also follow Rubio closely, his strong stance on education and health reform are good starting points. His sycophantic approval of the Libya issue is devoted more to party politics than principled action, but that goes with the territory as a freshman senator.
The commonality of the two: neither is a whack job that jockey for the microphone and the photo-op. Both have practical legislative experience and are willing to jump into the meat-grinder to get things done.
Bachmann throwing bombs and Santorum 'splainin' away his misadventures and Romney running away from his record are unseemly and leave me searching for something else.
What about you?
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:48AM
Neither are running. Pence is quite the social Conservative, by the way.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:47AM
The usefulness of the system is that it forces the candidates to start by retail politicking first, before wholesale marketing later.
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 9:40AM
"But in what way would federal law trump state law on the question of marriage?"
Excuse me, Mr. Goldstein, but what are you smoking??
Abortion was made the law-of-the-land in 1973 by virtue of a Federal Judicial fiat; the 10th Amendment was completely abrogated. State legislatures were NOT given the opportunity to vote on the issue, nor were the citizens of each individual state offered a referendum.
Again, Bachman's response was accurate; your critique is not.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 10:57AM
anti-miscegenation had a 90% approval in 1948.
Loving v Virginia: fiat
Do you want a referendum on that one too?
How about EO 9981? CnC fiat.
Referendum?
Sometimes bigots need to be DRAGGED into the present.
Next will be illegals. How do you intend to word that referendum?
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 11:59AM
Hey, Mowgli...
Hate to tell you, but it's not 1948.
Now make a point, or get lost.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 2:55PM
It's not 1973 either, amigo.
Dan| 6.28.11 @ 10:37AM
The author missed an important point. Yes, the 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." But Bachmann's support of a proposed Federal Marraige Amendment" is entirely consistent with the 10th Amendment and the Constitution because in order for that Federal Amendment to pass and become laws, the states have to approve it - so in essence by approving the change to the Constitution they are waiving their Constitution right under the 10th Amendment to decide the issue.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 11:05AM
The 13th 14th and 15th Amendments had to be shoved down bigots throats in order to finish the war and complete the terms of surrender.
These were not popular in the South, but they were necessary to end an evil by the state on her oppressed citizens.
The CRA and Loving v Virginia also were necessary. Perhaps an update is required to put remaining bigots in their place?
Doctor Right| 6.28.11 @ 1:55PM
Since you're from Craplakistan, you're mostly ignorant of American history and current events.
In that regard, to classify the citizens of the Confederacy as "bigots" is exemplary of your ignorance and stupidity.
If you think the Civil War was about slavery, you're sadly mistaken. The overall reason for the Civil War was an ever-encroaching Federal Gov't in Washington DC that was exercising un-Constitutional authority to impose a federal agenda and deny the 10th amendment.
If you think that 300,000 Northern boys were willing to die simply to free slaves, you're simply clueless.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 3:06PM
This is why I feel sad for you, Calhoun.
The Civil War was about slavery, full stop. This veiled attempt to call it otherwise is a lie and further a feeble attempt at revisionism.
The South did not want to give up its competitve advantage with free labor, so the "nullification" experts ran cover for the slave owners.
Name one Union program that the South refused that did not have a relationship to slaves and/or slavery?
You can't, that means you lose in your fantasy world of absolutes.
If you teach your kids anything other than this, you are part of the problem, not the solution and you are not a patriot.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:51AM
The South did NOT have a competitive advantage of slave labor; it was a dragweight. It did help keep the poor white trash quiet, though. However, there were parts of the South that seceeded from the South because they would not fight for slavery---my wife's family comes from just such an area, Winston County, AL. This County is also famous for another reason...I will permit the ignorant guffaws to subside...Haleyville had the first 911 system in the US. Don't you feel idiotic now, whoever was laughing?
Occam's Tool| 6.28.11 @ 3:14PM
Actually, Dr Right, slavery was the sticking point that caused disunion. But you're right, the Northern Boys died for the Union.
I believe, however, that Lincoln was not interested in destroying slavery directly in the South initially.
The South was also happy to bend the 10th to determine outcomes its way, as well. Interesting stuff.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 3:53PM
Very interesting, and it is disappointing we still have pause to debate this.
Appears we have more work to do.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:17AM
I don't view debates over the seminal event in shaping the modern USA as a problem, usually. I had to write a pro/con article on slavery versus states rights in my high school history class 31 years ago.
scotchieguy| 6.29.11 @ 1:50AM
The civil war was fought over both state's rights AND slavery. This is a fact. Those who deny it have another agenda on their plate.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:52AM
Correct, scotchie.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 1:52AM
Correct, scotchie.
Michael Tomlinson| 6.28.11 @ 11:14AM
Dan exactly. Bigots like O'Stalin and canuckistani are afraid the American people so they prefer to impose their will on the people by unelected Federal judges like Vaughn R. Walker in California or the failed former governor of New York's son.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 3:26PM
Nope, I choose to respect strong leadership and the rule of law.
The Civil War was won by sheer determination by Lincoln and his allies, but it was the law that slayed the slave traders in the end.
Blacks fought and died for us in WW2, but society still considered them a lesser class of soldier and person. It took a leader to give the finger to the brass and move us ahead.
It took a carpet-bagging Kennedy and a Texan to bring blacks into our schools and restaurants - against popular opinion. It was the law not men that won the day.
I am not afraid of the American people. They chose these leaders fair and square, and their inspired choices have made the country stronger, not weaker.
Remember, Ike wrote two letters on D-Day, one if we won, and one if we lost. He was a true leader that took responsibility and did not adopt the childish punchline of "no apologies" that dummies and sycophants on here mistake for courage.
The country did elect BHO fair and square, but you choose to deny him his authority to govern and then be reviewed every four years. Why is that?
Cuomo got 63% of the vote. Mandate or not?
Walker was appointed by St. Ron of Santa Barbara. Mandate or not?
I choose reason, every time.
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 6:22PM
It may seem strange, but I want to like you. Sometimes, but rarely, you stumble upon the truth.
Ike and MacArthur were leaders; FDR was a drooler. If the invasion of Normady had been left up to FDR (delegated), he would have nixed it. But, that particular president was a coward, avoiding all blame and claiming all suscceses.
Funny thing, he never had any successes until he was gone. How about that Great Depression thingy. Obama is just trying to outdo FDR with his Demo Madness.
Let's see how Canada gets along without the USA.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:19AM
Yes, barack won on his terms. Yes, for the 1st two years he had a Congress responsive to his every whim.
And yet, his hatred of America resulted in the mess we are in now. He took W's problems and made them supersonic.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 2:31AM
canyuckistani:
"Cuomo got 63% of the vote. Mandate or not?"
I'm not sure that saying that Cuomo is looking for a Man-Date will get you in good with him, or maybe yes.
"Walker was appointed by St. Ron of Santa Barbara."
Wrong Canuckibreath, Vaughan Walker was appointed by George H. W. Bush.
scotchieguy| 6.29.11 @ 1:46AM
They are not really "waiving" it, but over-riding it. It took me a while, but she does make sense constitutionally, she just has a difficult time explaining herself. This, as has been done by Palin, will be her undoing. She is not a serious candidate, and we cannot afford to waste our time w/ her. You people who are blind to her need to study the same dupes who fell in love w/ Obama. These are serious times!
Gym| 6.28.11 @ 11:02AM
Yes, as a President of the U.S. , the domestic focus can (and should) be on U.S. Federal policies and laws.
As just one of many policies, and laws to champion, yes, defining marriage could occur (It has been tried before, but fell short of votes in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House - at that time in the Bush tenure). That effort had zero affect upon the States - at that time.
It also did not mingle with the 'State' laws - at that time.
Is that, not succeeding, on the Federal level 'having it both ways'?
So, yes, imo, Ms. Bachmann, in the role of a hypothetical President, expressed her 30 second +/- answer quite well.
And no, she did not write a book, or conduct a seminar, during the limited time to answer the question - which if it was available for just one issue, probably would be very well answered.
There are other questions and answers to other topics and issues too.
If one wants to pick on the level of thoroughness that is provided in a short time, then there will certainly be plenty to write about for years. Hopefully the paycheck arrives and it clears...
Thank you for expressing your opinion. This country is great - and hopefully it, with the help of good people, can stay that way.
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 12:04PM
Removing all of the civil benefits of marriage would eliminate this whole nonsensical debate. Most notable is, of course, the internal revenue code's discrimination against single people. Gays wouldn't be agitating for "marriage" if there were no special "bennies."
Take away the joint tax return special rates, personal tax exemptions, child care tax credits, inheritance tax rules, free public schools and poof: Issue disappears. But, that would mean that heterosexual couples would also lose their priveleged status, too. They'd have to stop riding on the backs of single people and pay their way for a change.
It will be interesting to watch how this all works out. Lots of gays will probably get "married," but will likely not live in monogamous harmony. Instead, they will continue their lascivious, perverted lifestyles, spread diseases which should never have existed in the first place, and to die early. But, they will reap the "goodies" of heterosexual marriage. It is unlikely that they will divorce. Why do that when they can still enjoy their "pleasures," unabated?
It's all about the bookkeeping and the bottom line (pun intended).
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:08PM
You have a point here. I would suggest also we do the same with the employer - employee relationships. These are contractual relationships and need not be given and special statuses.
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 4:12PM
Thank you for reading Wayne,
I tend to run on a bit, so I did not include employer-employee relationships. These mostly involve hiring/firing practices. workplace rules and compensation.
Let's talk about affirmative action. If I were a disadvantaged minority (I am, actually. A white, highly educated man, and a veteran.), I would like to know if I was hiring on with a bigot before I accepted the job. Sure, I might get the job over a better qualified applicant, but would be short-shrifted throughout from there after.
Let's take the minimum wage. If I am a 16 year old living at home, shouldn't it be OK for me to negotiate my own wage with a prospective employer? $3.00/hour seems geneous, but I'll take it!!! LOL. I once took a job for $10.00/hour when I was offered one for about $30.00. The higher paid position was 60 miles away. Commuting expenses and the risks of driving in the dark just didn't justify the differential. The lower-paid position was a short walk away.
Women in the workplace? Sure, give them diaper changing stations and child care facilities. Their absenteeism? Ignore that. "She's a valued member of the team, You'll just have to put in some overtime to cover for her. Afterall, she's a single mother."
Union Steward: "That's a union job!!! You can't move that box. We need to call in the forklift guy."
Me: "It only weighs 10 lbs and the FedEx fella had no problem with it."
Steward: "Anything over a half-pound needs to be handled by union-only personnel."
Me: "But, these are the paychecks; I was about to sign them, and need access to my office. The box was blocking my way."
Steward: "If those paychecks don't get issued on time, you will be in big trouble."
Prospective Employer to Me: "This is a great benefits package. It is worth about $30,000 to you."
Me to Prospective Employer: "Thanks, I'll take the cash up front."
Insurance agent to me: "But you need an on-site nurse to qualiy for the lower workers compensation rates."
Me to Insurance Agent: "We have a trauma-center hospital right across the street. Why hire a nurse, when we have a platoon of EMTs, and a battalion of doctors readiy available?"
Insurance agent to me: "Because those are the rules. If you employ more than 200 people, you have to have a nurse on-site."
Me to insurance agent: "Fine, I will fire a few."
"Insurance agent to me: "OK, that should do it."
I hope some of you will contribute more nonsensical anecdotes from the real world.
scotchieguy| 6.29.11 @ 2:02AM
So funny, so true. These are strange times we live in.
Occam's Tool| 6.29.11 @ 2:24AM
This is a true story. The only thing that I may have wrong is whether or not the washer or the dryer was stolen, but that is immaterial, as you will see.
In an LA County hospital, a kindly donor donated a washer and dryer to the Children's unit so the kids would be able to have more access to wash their clothes. However, the county couldn't decide whether or not it should be in the clean linen room (because the clothes were dirty when brought in) or the dirty linen room (because they were clean when taken out). For months they dithered, until the dryer was stolen, solving the dilemma.
(By the way, in the Hospital I Clinically Direct, we just have a laundry room.)
Handy| 6.29.11 @ 3:07AM
And the beat goes on.
Priceless.
TakTak| 7.19.11 @ 4:25PM
What you describe could also be said of heterosexual marriages...
TakTak| 7.19.11 @ 4:29PM
Why do you dislike gay people so much? I just dont get it.
Wayne | 6.28.11 @ 12:05PM
Of course you can have it both ways. We do that all the time. Because marriage exists across state boards, the definition of marriage needs to be consistent in all states. There the constitutional amendment just establishes what the definition of marriage is - for all states. Now each state can establish its own rules and procedures as long as they use the same definition for marriage.
To me the argument the author uses is vacuous, mainly because he uses an oxymoron "same sex marriage". That is not possible. It would be like saying "unisex marriage". It is a meaningless term, and we have let ourselves get bent around the axle over it.
Joe D.| 6.28.11 @ 12:17PM
Aaron Goldstein, does have a right since this is the very structure or building blocks of our society. It would take an constitutional amendment to do it . But it is necessary. I do not have the time to go over all the things that these changes would effect. But you know where to go to read this.
The fact that less than 2% of the population is trying to shove their preverted lifestyle down our throats does not bother you only that Michelle is not clear enough on her views.
Joe D.| 6.28.11 @ 12:18PM
I was in a hurry. I mean the federal government in this instincts has a right and duty to make a constitutional amendment to fix this problem.
Truncheon| 6.28.11 @ 12:22PM
Bachmann's contradiction speaks for itself, and she must clarify her position lest she be found confused on elementary Constitutional matters.
However, the "gay marriage" vs "limited government" dichotomy is laughably false in that amusing libertarian/progressive fashion.
There *are* purposes for government, reasons that we create governments in the first instance, and certain minimal coercions we all agree to as the cost of having a government.
Marriage, in my mind, is a linchpin of civil society and the cornerstone building block of civilization. This 5,000+ year old prescription constitutes the aggregate wisdom of human civilization, developed by experience and sacrifice.
As such, it is not to be destroyed by amoral libertines and progressives thus endangering the very civilization we apply our "limited government" desires upon.
It is among the things we form governments to protect, in the first instance.
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 7:26PM
Marriage is a building block or a linchpin?
How about individuals? Without individual atoms, you can't make a molecule.
Marriage is a false construct. Married people take so much from us single folk, and they preach that we shouldn't be allowed to even enjoy sex, although they cheat on each other all the time. (I am not proud of this, but I have had many wives. None were mine.)
If marriage is such a strong institution, why does it need protection from the state?
Answer, please.
JimmyT| 6.28.11 @ 12:41PM
@canuck--are you a citizen by birth?
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 3:29PM
Yes. First generation on my father's side and possibly fourth or more on my mother's.
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 9:01PM
So, your mother didn't know the great grandfathers?
Just asking.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 9:16PM
Handy:
"So, your mother didn't know the great grandfathers?"
In canyucki's case it was her not so grand fathers.
Smirking Weasel| 6.28.11 @ 1:06PM
Bush's emphasis on 'other priorities'-attempted expansion of empire to distant lands of filth and ignorance-over very real priorities within his-alleged-own nation whose executive branch he theoretically lead provide even more evidence of his depravity and cowardice, as well as being...
worst president EVER!
Mutt Romney fares no better, for he could have slammed judically imposed faggot nuptuals into the dustbin of history by simply telling the 'court' that it had far overstepped its' bounds, that he was shutting state government down until the legislature impeached, and began the trials of, the power mad little Eichmanns' that attempted to impose this depravity, and that he was removing all protections of the executive branch from their persons and inviting the public to express their opinions on such a power grab.
But not Mutt, liar and ypocrite.
JimmyT| 6.28.11 @ 1:06PM
There is no contradiction in Bachmann's position. Her position is, as President, she would not go into states in an effort to overturn their laws. I would say that even an idiot could have discerned that had they watched the response she gave, but obviously not. That does not contradict her position that as President, she would push for a marriage amendment. Her whole point is that the country is supposed to be governed by our constitution. If the constitution does not ban an activity, then the states have the right to do as they see fit. If the constitution says NO, then it's no. Sidebar--Can anyone tell me, of the 6 states that legalized "gay marriage", which state had a majority approval by the people to enact these laws?
JimmyT| 6.28.11 @ 1:13PM
Oh, canuck--you might want to go back and look at divorce rates BEFORE the government stuck their nose in with the "no fault" divorce laws.
canuckistani| 6.28.11 @ 3:47PM
How many of those divorces were prompted by women trying to get away from dud or abusive husbands? A bet a good many of them. You would prefer to go back to having married women not being able to sign contracts or escape a brute without a penny in her pocket?
As far of that being relevant to the gay marriage thing, it's like you want to be a dad and keep your children from the real world, but you know that's impossible.
I agree it is a complex issue. I do not believe gay marriage should be forced onto religious licensed officers.
I am a devout RC, but also recognize that popular opinion about Catholics created serious civil inequities in the past, so I am not going to be hypocritical and suggest I now have preference in this society over law-abiding people seeking relief from government.
If we abhor the loose behavior, we should celebrate the statutory monogamy they have signed on for.
The separation of church and state should be the next amendment on the table, not gay marriage or the state gun naming rights.
It will be complicated, lawyers will make more money, but in the end it is correct to remove civil barriers to consenting adults.
I truly believe the collective rights bound in the constitution are more about "leaving me the hell alone" than intruding in an individual's affairs of the heart.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 9:18PM
canuck o'stani:
"I am a devout RC, but also recognize that popular opinion about Catholics created serious civil inequities in the past,"
Oh, you mean the whole Inquisition thing was what you call, a tempest in a teapot?
Winston X | 7.2.11 @ 4:58PM
When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
Oldefarte| 6.28.11 @ 1:28PM
Wikipedia possibly supports her point that BOTH the federal and the state governments could have partial jurisdiction of this issue ['....In The Federalist Papers, ratification proponent Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force": “ But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such......' ]. Possibly a DOMA national law would be NOT in the pursuit of the federal government's constitutional powers!!!!!!!
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 3:03PM
Hamilton was correct. Thank you for pointing this out. However, you are technically wrong about the legality of a Defense of Marriage Amendment (not merely a legislative act). Once constitutionally amended, marriage would become part of the eumerated powers of the federal government. Although she didn't explain it very clearly, this is what Bachmann was getting at, I think.
For illusrative purposes, I offer the 18th amendment which outlawed alcohol. Clearly this was not within the original powers granted to the feds. (Most of the Founders were imbibers, if not outright moonshiners.) The states nevertheless ratified it, so it became the Law of the Land, until they wisely removed it with the 21st.
Contrast this with most of the laws Congress passes. Largely, they are unconstitutional, and the states would be well within their rights to ignore them. Remember national speed limits? How about the whole Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Agriculture and others? Are these areas really approriate for the national government to oversee?
Worse yet are judicial fiats. Take Roe v. Wade. Penumbras and emanations, my ass. Or, how about school busing? TheKelo decision? McCain-Feingold? On and on. Sheesh.
Agency law is perhaps the most pernicious. The EPA is about to establish Cap and Trade even though it failed the legislative test. The NLRB is trying to bully Boeing. The DEA says that states can't legalize marijuana, and they send their storm troopers in.
I will take no positions on any of the specific issues here. But, the procedures are in place to ensure sound constitutional governance. It is just that our legislators, judges and bureacrats ignore them. They are so inconvenient, you see.
As for gay marriage? I just avoid gays. It's not too hard to ignore 2% of the population, but they can be awfully loud. Their hissy-fits with each other are mostly just annoying. Sometmes they can be amusing, though.
For the record, Olde, I respect you. You make cogent and salient arguments and observations. We may disagree on some things, but let's agree to be agreeably disagreeable.
(You should still work on your paragraphing, though.)
Cheers, and thanks for your thoughtful contribution today,
Handy
Oldefarte| 6.28.11 @ 4:17PM
Please re-read Wikipedia's legal analysis [".... Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force...."] along with my last sentence. My 'paragraphing' has absolutely nothing to do with the/Hamilton's core point; and besides, I DO NOT use 'paragraphing' since this is a blog, an email, etc and NOT a formal letter/document etc [and space limitations of such are warranted]
Handy| 6.28.11 @ 5:00PM
I agree with you on substance, but not on details.
I am an originalist myself. The raitification process was also part of the original Constitution itself, however.
I would hate to see it abolished.
Too many "I's?" Sheesh, I sound like Obama.
There I go again. LOL.
I, Truly,
Handy
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.28.11 @ 3:37PM
Bit off the subject Aaron but:
http://www.foxnews.com/slidesh.....e/#slide=1
Thanks, again.
martin j smith| 6.28.11 @ 3:46PM
Aaron to you support her as a potential noinee ? I would bet oppose. Aaron I think that the first point you should make in any post is your general view of a subject--then go on to smear. But be honest up front please. By the way--if you want a a change in our government--instead to playing along with the MSM agenda on Conservatives why not attack THEM? So Aaron what is the problem and what do you want for this country--more Obama or a real change ?
Kelly Staples| 6.28.11 @ 7:45PM
Bachmann is doing something right. . . the pinko flakes are beginning to take notice.
Mark MacDonald| 6.29.11 @ 1:59AM
Please. Marriage laws have been well within the jurisdiction of the states and should remain there. People who point to the 10th Amendment to support the rights of the states and the people must learn to accept that some states will pass laws with which not everybody can agree. This is as it should be. The duly elected representatives of the State of New York have voted to let gay people join in marriage. If the citizens of New York have a problem with this, they can express their views in the next election. Also, conservatives would do well to recognize that not all gay people are liberals. A substantial portion of gay men and women own small businesses and vote Republican. There primary concerns are taxes, tort reform and government regulation. Here in Oklahoma I have two friends who are gay and vote consistently for the Republican ticket. They both own residential and commercial properties and they both are active in mainstream churches. They are fine gentleman both, intelligent and cultured, and great company. Neither considers gay marriage an issue of great concern, but over the last few years I have sensed in them a weariness with some of the rhetoric of the fundamentalist far right. Neither would ever consider voting for a Democrat, but they would like acceptance in the conservative movement to which they both have contributed both time and money. Is this too much to ask?
scotchieguy| 6.29.11 @ 2:14AM
Wow, possibly the only sensible comment on this thread. I have always believed the "gay" movement has been jammed down our throats by radicals, not by normal gays who just want to be left the hell alone.
victor| 6.29.11 @ 9:31PM
Scotchie:
"I have always believed the "gay" movement has been jammed down our throats by radicals, not by normal gays who just want to be left the hell alone."
Normal Gays?
Zat anything like "Moderate Jihadis"?
If there are any, and I doubt it, why are they not denouncing these guys, eh:
http://www.newsgates.com/wp-co....._angel.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GIch.....e+2010.jpg
Handy| 6.29.11 @ 3:30AM
LOL. Let's see how well NY does while it tries to pry 98% of income taxes from 2% of the people. Gays will be pleased to share, I am sure. Butt banging and licking the poop off aftewrards are fundamental rights, don't you see? Well worth what ever they have to pay.
shoebox57| 6.29.11 @ 12:09PM
The problem is the married folks from NY may travel to Mississippi, where folks may take offense to butt banging. Now then, they throw these sodomists into the caboose. LOL! No pun intended!! I'm legal in NY but, in MS I'm Bubba bait!
weddingdresses | 6.29.11 @ 5:25AM
Wow, possibly the only sensible comment on this thread. I have always believed the "gay" movement has been jammed down our throats by radicals, not by normal gays who just want to be left the hell alone.
shoebox57| 6.29.11 @ 12:02PM
Bogus argument! Bachmann is very consistent in her discussion of how our Republic works. If several of the States recognize poligamy, it would be legal in those States. However, should the feds. pass an Amendment to the Constitution, and the States ratify said amendment, then it becomes the law of the land period, because it is, duh, Constitutional. So.... you sir need to take the politics and dislike for Bachmann out of the equation or risk becoming irrelevant to the people you are trying to make a point with!!
POST American| 6.29.11 @ 10:53PM
----Time flies, but those 'fave' formulas for
social and cultural takedown remain ever the
same.
Fornication, adultery, divorce, 'A-bore-shun'
(ie extermination of the unborn) ---and, of course,
sodomy.
ALLLLL with a big assist from such nifty tech
asides as television and media, and Rockefeller, Cold Springs Harbor, Baxter Labs --VAST hormone and genetic contamination of food,
water, meds and air.
The common denominator of it all ---from
teen sex ---to sodomy ----to violent, highly
addictive PC gaming ------EUGENICS.
Is there still anyone out there who doesn't
see this?
Anyone at all?
Ken Kalis| 6.30.11 @ 1:12AM
It's so good to see a Christian stand up for what the Bible has to say about things! Jesus too has teachings that we need to live by if we expect God's blessings. Those who oppose our Christian heritage are free to do so, of course. But so are those who stand up for Jesus! I'm so glad that Mrs. Bachman has such courage. God will bless her, and Jesus will not be ashamed of her when she stand before Him. Hallelujah for Bachman and everyone who stands up for Jesus!
Ron| 6.30.11 @ 1:03PM
Once again Aaron Goldstein is wrong on marriage. This time he pretends to defend states' rights when in actuality he is opposed to efforts to protect marriage as the union on one man and one woman. He is not really concerned with parents' rights, religious liberty, the need for children to grow up with a father and a mother, or the damage that "marriages" between people with same-sex attraction will have on the nation.
Winston X | 7.2.11 @ 4:51PM
Reynolds v. Unites States in 1878 defined marriage as between one man and one woman...
THE EVOLUTION OF MAMMALS IS ENTIRELY HETEROSEXUAL...
When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
The greatest knot upon the liberty of all European people is the praeterpolitical power of the
churches to institute monogamy as an ecclesiastic rule of law, thereby enabling them to determine the legitimacy of the succession of the pagan kings and abrogate the natural rights to property and self-defense...
The government of men's external actions by religion, pretending the change of nature in their consecrations cannot be esteemed a work extraordinary, it is no other than a conjuration or incantation, whereby they would have men to believe an alteration of nature that is contrary to the testimony of sight and of all the rest of the senses...
The idea "thou shalt marry and be given in marriage" is corrupt and degenerate, which is an impossible immortality of a kind (i.e., eternal love), but not of the persons of men.
Ecclesiastics would have men believe they will receive condign punishment and are not worthy to be counted amongst them that shall obtain the next world for their contumacy of monogamy, as opposed to the freedom of the polygamy found in nature, which is inherently pagan.
Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:23AM
boyfriend wants to have sex with his girlfriend,but ashamed of his small organ...decided to bring girlfriend in dark place,open his ziper and put penis in GF's hand...GF:no thanks ,i don't smoke!
somnolence| 7.13.11 @ 2:01PM
Michele Bachmann is the only one who would be bold enough to make this part of her campaign, and in the end, I fearlessly predict would WIN on it. Bachmann/Cain for 2012.