The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Will Democrats Move the Charlotte Convention?

By on 5.10.12 @ 6:09AM

A White House/gay boycott and the abolition of marriage: Will Jill Biden go out with me?

(Page 3 of 6)

Which is to say, marriage between one man and one woman.

Thereby opening the legal floodgates to legalizing polygamy, polyamory (group marriage) and any and all other combinations that cross the human imagination. Or, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his Lawrence v. Texas sexual liberty case dissent: “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

And in the unlikely combination of current political figures Obama, Biden and North Carolina’s now infamous ex-Senator John Edwards lie stark, sharply personal reminders of the perils political and cultural for both candidates and American society itself.

Let’s start first with the issue that so infuriates same-sex marriage advocates. That would be the “slippery slope” idea that recognition of anything other than one-man, one-woman marriage, heretofore the gold standard of Western Civilization’s stability, inevitably will open the door legally to all manner of other marital combos.

All the way back in August of 2003, Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, did an extensive examination of what was ahead if what is now the Obama-Biden position in fact became the law of the land. The proximate cause of Kurtz’s piece was the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, a case revolving around sexual liberty. Wrote Kurtz in the Weekly Standard (bold emphasis mine):

Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and “polyamory” (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage. The ideas behind this movement have already achieved surprising influence with a prominent American politician.

(Note: The “American politician” in question was former Vice President Al Gore, who with wife Tipper had written a 2002 book called Joined at the Heart, which redefined a “family” as not one of blood or law but just “joined at the heart.” Mr. Gore and Mrs. Gore, it should be noted, announced in June 2010 that their 40-year marriage was ending in divorce, their hearts apparently un-joined.)

Just as Kurtz predicted, with same-sex marriage making rapid progress (legalized already in some states, under consideration in others), the push for legalizing polygamy has gained speed, both legally and culturally. 

On the legal front, here is George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley making the case for legalizing polygamy in the pages of — where else? — the same-sex marriage supporting pages of the New York Times. Turley is not writing here in some abstruse academic sense. He is in fact the lawyer representing a polygamist man named Kody Brown — and Brown’s four wives and sixteen children. The objective is to overturn Utah’s laws making polygamy illegal.

The Browns may be familiar to you as they are the stars of a TLC cable channel show called Sister Wives. You can see them in this clip at YouTube that was uploaded by — drum roll please — the Ellen show. Yes, that would be Ellen DeGeneres, the famously gay comedienne who is herself married to her lesbian lover in precisely the kind of relationship President Obama and Vice President Biden are lionizing. If there is any doubt of the cultural campaign now underway to make polygamy acceptable and of the implicit connection between the same-sex marriage movement and the ultimate abolition of marriage itself, this one clip should erase those doubts. That’s before, of course, one even gets to the HBO show Big Love that starred Bill Paxton as a polygamist with a collection of wives.

Turley’s article, “One Big, Happy Polygamous Family,” describes the Brown marriages in question this way:

One of the marriages is legal and the others are what the family calls “spiritual.” They are not asking for the state to recognize their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone.

He goes on to say (with bold print for emphasis mine):

While widely disliked, if not despised, polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.

We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.

Page:   1 23 4 5   Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (314) |

Jack in Wi.| 5.10.12 @ 6:16AM

I don't understand why the convention would be moved at this late date. The people in North Carlolina will not treat the Democrats any worse then anywhere else. If they move out of NorthCarolina they will forfeit the whole south. Maybe they lost the South anyhow. I don't think gay marriage will fly down their.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:59AM

Are you kidding? the South knows how to party. You have to go there and examine it.

JJ in Miamay| 5.10.12 @ 2:22PM

Jeffrey Lord is full of balogna. Bologna, I say!

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:06PM

Colorado WAS the hate state, but no longer, JJ.
Jeffrey Lord is hopelessly behind-- which is a compliment to an old fogey.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:19PM

Ah! Alan Brooks spouts off benighted and ignorant opinions again in this journal! I wouldn't worry about Colorado if I were you, Alan, because there are 32 other states that have taken similar stands to the one that Colorado took, and their laws still stand. Colorado was only thwarted by the black robes in their state who appeared to believe that they knew better than the average citizen concerning this subject. I expect SCOTUS to swat them, and their brethren in California, real soon, faster in fact than the voters in Iowa swatted down their three judges who thought the same way as their brethren in Colorado.

YOU are the "old fogey."

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 5:25PM

Brooksie:
You guys are getting me confused. If adhering to a moral standard is Hate, then espousing any moral standard becomes the same. Does that leave only moral ambivilence as the sole acceptable astandard? If so does that not leave us in a state of nature where only power is the determinant? What becomes of any society in which the only acceptable standard is to have no standard?

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:16PM

Don't know.
Do know men are too rebellious to control, Adab, you'd possibly do as well with reverse psychology: tell your teenagers for instance they can sin all they want however they can't live decent lives- and perhaps your teens will rebel against YOU by reading the Bible.
Do what you think is right, we who are opposed to you will do the same.

Patrick J Burwell | 5.10.12 @ 8:16PM

Well said "Brooksie".

Wyndale| 5.11.12 @ 6:28PM

Al Adab: You have it right. Utter chaos will result if what is happening is actually turned into law. What happens to inheritance law? Will property become held in common? Will it be divided equally upon the death of "a spouse"? Will the word spouse go out of fashion, like chastity belts? What happens to children? Will each child be DNA identified at birth in case this menage ad nauseum breaks apart? Does each adult in this wierd world have rights to dictate the educational upbringing of some other adult's child? Good God Almighty, I'm getting a headache and I haven't even unloaded all the things that can go wrong.

sinanju| 5.10.12 @ 6:09PM

"We're here! We're queer! We're not going skiing!"

Those were the days...

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:29AM

"we thought they'd never end, we'd sing and dance, forever and a day..."

TLP| 5.10.12 @ 10:20AM

They should move it to someplace where they're welcome.

Any Minority/Majority City, with a Black Mayor, and a City Council comprised of only Minorities and Gays and Lesbians, where the Unemployment Rate is at least 9%, the number of Blacks in Jail, is Ten Times the number of Blacks Graduating High School.

A place like that, shouldn't be too hard to find.

Daveevad| 5.10.12 @ 12:54PM

This would be Charlotte.

Joseph| 5.11.12 @ 3:08AM

No. Jackson, MS.

Joseph| 5.11.12 @ 3:10AM

Oh, and a New Convention Center that has never had a convention or will.

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:30AM

Detroit; although the graduation rate is likely lower than that

BF| 5.13.12 @ 2:07PM

My first thought was Detroit. Maybe San Francisco? Well no, California prohibited same-sex marriage.

What are democrats to do? I know, move their convention outside the USA where they won't be bothered by that pesky "will of the people" thing.

Bob K.| 5.10.12 @ 10:33AM

It is time to read, once again, Kipling's great poem, written in 1919: "The Gods of the Copybook Headings." It is applicable to a number of articles in today's A. S.!

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 11:16AM

Your mistake, Jack, is taking anything Jeffrey Lord says seriously. The man's grasp on reality is tenuous. He writes these silly columns in his own fantasy world. Why TAS continues to tolerate his nonsensical musings is beyond me.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 12:20PM

But you, of course, are the Sage of Wisdom...

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 12:36PM

I don't pretend to be, Dr. R. Mr. Lord does.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 1:24PM

Your description of Mr. Lord's "grasp on reality" is absurd, especially coming from a Leftist such as yourself.

Being a Leftist means abandoning rationality, reason, and reality, and embracing emotionalism as a philosophy unto itself.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 3:30PM

Sorry I got so emotional about this, Dr. R.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:16PM

You ARE sorry, you silly troll. By the way, is Joe Biden Catholic? And he doesn't understand that there would be any other reason for treating same-sex relationships differently from marriage? He hasn't been to Mass lately, apparently.

I should give Jill Biden a call. . .

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 4:45PM

Most American Catholics have come to realize that they're allowed to use their own brain.

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 10:45PM

Do you even think about what you write before you hit the "submit" button?

Catholicism, like any religion or faith, consists of a series of tenets or fundamental beliefs. You are Catholic because you subscribe to those beliefs. If the day comes that you no longer subscribe to those beliefs then simple honesty demands that you cease your claim to be Catholic. It is the height of hypocrisy to disregard those tenets in your daily walk while pretending still to adhere to them.

This "debate" reveals many things but one thing that keeps emerging is that the "gay marriage" advocates put their particular agenda point above all else, including the majority ethos of society and the core demands of one's religion. Pathetic.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 4:56PM

I didn't say you "got emotional."

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

The essence of left-wing philosophy - liberalism - is emotion. Everything Liberals want and believe in is based on a feeling, not a cold, hard fact.

You "feel" that men should be able to marry men...or women to marry women...ignorant of the intentions and consequences of such a position for society.

Liberals feel.

Conservatives think.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 5:37PM

No, I don't believe that's accurate. I support marriage equality because I believe the consequences will be positive, and not only for those directly affected. It is a plus for society to promote stable, long-term relationships among gay couples just as it is for heterosexual couples. Short-term promiscuous relationships are bad for any person, whether gay or straight, and certainly bad for society. Encouraging and strengthening long term relationship also encourages individuals to care for and take care of each other, rather than the state having to do that. In addition, because many states already allow gays to adopt children, promoting long-term stable relationships and giving those families societal recognition will benefit the children involved in those families. There are additional positives that I could list, but those are just a few of the reasons that have led me to change my views on this issue.

On the flip side, much of the opposition I see is not rationally based. It is emotional and visceral, a personal antipathy to gay sex.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 8:28PM

"because many states allow gays to adopt children, promoting long term stable relationships.....".
This is the Ted Kennedy anchor baby argument applied to gays. You leftists are a devious bunch. However, I would rather have a child in a loving, nurturing relationship with two adults, regardless of gender, as opposed to being aborted by an 18 yr old girl.
Life trumps sexual orientation, ( I hope!!)

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 10:49PM

I'm all for encouraging long-term, stable relationships. That's why I believe in maintaining marriage as the institution we know it to be.

The inherent quality in a heterosexual marriage is the union of man and woman to create and develop their family. Homosexuals cannot procreate with each other; at best they can adopt (no objection), at worst one of them gives birth to someone else's baby. None of that is stable by its nature; it is all situational.

It is true that modern marriages are too often impermanent; that is no reason to say "well then, there is nothing to protect." There is much to reassert, much to protect, much to rebuild. Gay marriage helps with none of that.

TLP| 5.10.12 @ 2:01PM

Don't take RCV seriously. The man's grasp on reality is tenuous. He writes these silly comments in his own fantasy world. Why TAS continues to tolerate his nonsensical musings is beyond me.

mzk1| 5.10.12 @ 3:03PM

We just laught at him.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 4:46PM

Please don't laugh. We liberals are very sensitive about what conservatives think of us.

randyinrocklin| 5.10.12 @ 2:42PM

fu ahole

StanO| 5.10.12 @ 5:06PM

And your dispute is what? I see nothing but ad hominem and no actual rebuttal.

There is no question about it, homesexuality is being used as a wedge to break down traditional families, faith and values. Soon it we be used as a legal cudgel to silence opponents. Once one is accepted there is NO legal argument against the other.

Voter2012| 5.11.12 @ 2:24AM

I don't think anyone can really blame homosexuality for the break down of the traditional family. Divorce rates since the 1960s have done much more direct harm than men sleeping with other men, especially the millions who never attempt "traditional" marriage. The issue that is often glossed over in these arguments over "gay marriage" is that the country was founded on the idea that all citizens are free to pursue personal happiness, as long as they are not harming others in the process. I do not believe that gay couples living together and receiving legal protections/acknowledgement harms a single living being. However, I have long held the belief that Civil Unions would be more appropriate as a way to end the friction over this subject. Marriage as a religious institution should be allowed to stand, since most churches are not bound to the government (unless they receive federal funding, which poses a problem). The church should, in its capacity as a private institution, be allowed to set its own rules regarding acceptance of gay couples. Still, as a matter of law and the federal government, no two consenting adults should be told they cannot enter into a legal bond with legal priviledges. The whole argument that this leads to polygamy and incest and bestiality, is a scare tactic. Of course there need to be boundaries. Polygamy, bestiality and incest all pose serious threats to peoples' freedoms. Many polygamous relationships are forceful and harmful. It goes without saying that bestiality and incest, and molestation for that matter, are directly harmful to other beings. Two consenting adults entering into a legal relationship does not pose the same threat. Some take issue with the idea of gays adopting children, although there is no evidence that there is any danger to the children that are adopted, unless you assume that all gay people are child molesters. The "brainwashing" idea is ludicrous and has no basis in reality, either. As if all children exposed to gay relationships will become gay themselves. This doesn't happen. Gay people come from straight families, and there is no evidence to suggest that any girl or boy raised by gay parents wouldn't grow up to be straight themselves. But adoption is a separate subject from the relationship of the two consenting adults in the first place. There is simply no legal basis to block people from having legal protections like hospital visits, being buried next to each other, and other such benefits that straight couples enjoy.

Mac Jehoff| 5.10.12 @ 12:38PM

A question for the sage of cheesehead land: You don't think gay marriage will fly down their what? Pants, shirt, throat, hollers, sand hills ??????????

Vern Crisler | 5.10.12 @ 12:56PM

And Jeffrey didn't even go into marriages between men and boys or men and girls, the ultimate reductio of the idea of marriage separated from moral considerations.

Amused.| 5.10.12 @ 1:16PM

Hey! You're right, Vern. And men marrying their sisters or their moms....

Jack Walsh| 5.10.12 @ 2:26PM

Joe Biden is a hunk, although an old one. If he were about twenty years younger, I'd go out with him. Twenty years ago he was hot, hot, hot.

Moe Blotz| 5.10.12 @ 8:42PM

That was about the time Good Old Joe got his first hair plugs and I dung think he would have aksed you out. You must be an old fart as well, Jack.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:11PM

"down there." Oy.

Jill Biden is a good looking 61 year old. Much better looking than Mooch, for sure.

I'm sorry, but Elizabeth Edwards was an attorney who married a sleazebag attorney who earned his money by shafting MDs in highly questionable cases. I'm sorry she died of cancer, but her agony over her marriage is KARMA BITING BACK. The thought of her writhing in agony in a parking lot over marital infidelity after trying to foist a criminal scumbag on her fellow Americans as POTUS fills me with mirth.

I am not a nice man when pissed off. Elizabeth Edwards was an asshole.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 4:02PM

And that my friends is what we call the clarity of intellect. Many could learn much from OT's wisdom.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 4:48PM

Elizabeth was wholly complicit in her vile husband's attempt to capture the presidency while defrauding the American people. I always knew he was a scumbag, being the personal injury vulture that he was, but I hadn't appreciated how aware his seemingly angelic wife was of his duplicity.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 8:36PM

There's a lot about human nature and basic logic that manages to skirt your awareness, RCV.
It's one of the reasons your posts are so pathetic.

beebop2| 5.10.12 @ 5:52PM

Blacks in North Carolina voted 2 to 1 to ban gay relationships in North Carolina. Maybe they should stay and do some fence mending? Not that I give a good dam where their convention is since I won't watch a minute. It was bad enough in 2008. Are there Greek columns in NC? Maybe that's the real issue?

loupgarous| 5.18.12 @ 6:35PM

You've hit on the Dirty Secret of Obama's Support - politically, he comes from one of the places in the North where liberals can be raging homophobes - Chicago. North Carolina is apparently another such place, where Obama supporters aren't so much liberal as delighted that a black man is President. Obama can keep being a shill for liberal corporate America, keep sending hundreds of billions in Federal loan guarantees to General Electric Capital (helping his buddy and 'jobs czar' Jeffrey Imhelt), keep his mitts off banks and influential Obama supporters that unaccountably lose billions off their depositors' money (like his good buddy Jon Corzine), and sell off half the taxpayers' moribund GM stock at a multi-billion dollar loss - but they'll vote for him because he's the right color.

You can't educate people who vote like that. They're not available to reason. They have to be hurt themselves to see the problem with Obama and that means we will ALL have to be hurt.

loupgarous| 5.18.12 @ 6:26PM

Ever visit New Orleans during Mardi Gras? The Gulf Coast is a whole separate territory from the rest of the South; it's also more populous. Everyone there probably (whether they know it or not) is related to a male gay or a lesbian.

Many, if not most of those gays and lesbians are actually pretty conservative in their outlook - obviously not "social conservatives," but social conservatives are closeted socialists who are pushing a state religion down the throats of the rest of us. If the Republican Party had the courage of its convictions, it'd go back to the One Big Tent days of Reagan's 1980 campaign, sigh, let the gays, libertarians and the blue dog Democrats in, and win some elections.

oldfart| 5.10.12 @ 6:31AM

Has the Democratic Party become the modern incarnation of the Keystone Cops?
Now all we need is for North Carolina to further flame the fires and tell the Democrats to take their convention elsewhere.
Or perhaps there is something more complicated here - The Democrats will keep the Convention in NC in the hopes there will be violent protests that the Capone/Alinsky mob can use to their advantage.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 7:03AM

Now you are getting somewhere, whatever the future may be it wont be a Romney future. It wont be an Obama future either, because I know how this country works.. you will tear him down eventually- as you did with Clinton.
But whatever happens, your Romney fantasy WILL be done away with-- it has no traction and it appears most of you know that.

Your days are now numbered.

oldfart| 5.10.12 @ 7:11AM

My days are numbered? I know that already - my handle of oldfart is therefor a reason.
Now do you have anything else to contribute other than to state the obvious?
HIllary would have made a much better president than Obama who, frankly is not very intelligent. He is just a Chicago bully. The Clinton team knows how to get things done.
Obama will self-destruct on the way to the election.

Vox Pop| 5.10.12 @ 7:37AM

Whjat do you mean, Hillary would make a much better president than Obama? Anders Breivik would make a much better president than Obama!

oldfart| 5.10.12 @ 7:43AM

The choice for the Democrats at the time was between Obama and Hillary. Between those two, Hillary was the one with the background and intelligence of the two. That is all.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 8:04AM

now look who is stating the obvious- if you with your 'Father Time' wisdom can't say more than that, how can us youngins?
Whatever you say in the next 6 months, I wont vote for your piece of tinsel candidate.

oldfart| 5.10.12 @ 8:33AM

I wait on your suggestion for whom I should vote!

TLP| 5.10.12 @ 10:11AM

You realize, don't you, that Alan is more than likely, still tied up, with his Ass in the air, at some Bar with a name like -RAMROD - and typing his little inanities with something other than his "finger" if you get my drift.

You want Alan to tell you who to Vote For?

That's easy. Just Vote who he votes for, every Election.

The entire cast of Le Cage Aux Folles.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:12PM

Tim: answer not the inanities of fuckwits, but focus thine gaze upon the higher issues, as you have reminded me, Oh great and fine polemicist.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 10:39AM

"I wait on your suggestion for whom I should vote!"

Vote for obama and if you don't like a policy-- or something-- tell him:
"I voted for you,
so you do what I say. You are a public servant and if you don't do what I want you to do, I'll get out a can of WHUP ASS and knock the black off you!"

TLP| 5.10.12 @ 8:45PM

I wasn't trying to refute, oldfart.

I was trying to grant his wish.

There's a difference.

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 10:52PM

Oh, yeah. That will no doubt impress him to the very tips of his toes. To say nothing of what the Secret Service will think of someone making physical threats against the President. To which you may well respond "no real threats, just running my mouth." But we knew that already.

Dustoff| 5.10.12 @ 10:05AM

Hillary was the one with the background and intelligence of the two.
*****************************

Really... so how is Syria working out. Remember her words on Assad. He was a reformer, we can work with him. RIGHT!!!

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 4:58PM

An orange juice can would be a better President than Obama.

Teaghan| 5.10.12 @ 8:18AM

obama is destroying himself pushing his regressive leftist idiology. America does NOT want his paternal cradle to grave hand holding.
He is leading himself out the door.

Crawler| 5.10.12 @ 11:37AM

Could an incumbent president's re-election campaign be ran any worse?

This recent pro-gay rights flip-flop stance by Obama is obvious to me: he wants their support, and more importantly, their dollars. He would have gotten both anyway, but now he's alienated a huge number of moderate, independent and apolitical voters even more. And they elect presidents.

Alpha Bravo Oscar...

Ed Norris| 5.10.12 @ 12:25PM

The real point here, is that Obama's string's are easily pulled. If something someone from his cabinet or the Vice President says can pretty much guarantee whatever it is he will say, how does that sound? Sound like he's the one in charge at the White House? The problem here is that this isn't the first time, someone else pulled his strings on the matter! Issues like foreign policy have been pulling him in various directions ever since he took office. Chances are, he was always pretty much for it, as a 1996 Chicago Paper points out his pro-gay stance. But he simply since then has stated whatever gets him the votes.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 4:54PM

Ed, the Muslim Marxist Liar-in-Chief was always for gay marriage. However, as a scheming, conniving pol, he was against gay marriage before he was for it, then against it, and now TA DA, FOR IT!! (only if adopted by the various states)
Wow, what a remarkable evolutionary process this wonderkind dazzled the whores in the MSM with.
Let's see, he sits down for dinner (no dog tacos tonight) with Moochele and the girls. It's the girls observations about their friends with gay parents that enlightens our Ivy League genius,Columbia/ Harvard Law.
So we are led to believe by "The One" that the musings of 12 years old girls set this man's intellect on fire!!!
Yikes, and what do the dear daughters have to say about supply side economics? Do tell daddy, he needs to know!!

RCV| 5.11.12 @ 5:14PM

Very impressive post, Anthony.

Amused.| 5.10.12 @ 12:33PM

This never was a flip flop.

It wasn't too long ago that interracial marriage was an abomination to many Americans, and illegal in many states. Now 10% of US marriages are interracial. Miscegenation, ironically a made-up word (like polyamory), was certainly opposed by the Founding Fathers (perhaps not Jefferson, though) and was illegal in Virginia until Loving v Virginia in 1967. In Alabama, anti-miscegenation legislation was on the books though unenforceable until 2000. Alabama now has one of the highest rates of black-white marriage in the country. Alabama--and the rest of the country--has moved forward (interesting word....)

I think Obama leaned towards this all along. He's a very talented politician, and, in his calculus, the damage he might have done to his re-election campaign is likely mitigated by the over-reaction that his opposition will provide.

Jeffrey Lord's logic skips a few steps in its rigor, and, in doing so, proves that Obama's calculations are correct--the Right WILL step into his trap (again...just like Issa's war on women and Ann Romney, Truly Typical Stay At Home Mom with $250,000,000 In The Bank).

Lord's logic goes like this:
Same-sex marriage
=end of marriage as we know it
=all marriages now are open to "redefinition"
=all marriages are now open to "redefinition" by ONE of the participants. .

This last step is where is logic falls apart. He asks why Elizabeth Edwards doesn't see Rielle Hunter as a sister wife. Answer: Elizabeth Edwards didn't marry Rielle Hunter, and John Edwards didn't have the right to redefine his marriage without Elizabeth's consent. Nobody said that Elizabeth Edwards or Maria Shriver or Hilary Clinton or anybody else HAS to enter into a relationship or marriage with anyone they don't want to, except Jeffrey Lord in his logic.

Don't want your own gay marriage? Don't marry someone whose gender is the same as yours.

Don't think two people should get married? Try to talk them out of it, or keep your moth shut. It's not your business. Nor your churches. Nor your government's.

It's between the people* who want to be married. Duh.

* Note that I said people. In Jeffrey Lord's twisted logic in reacting to the President's cool calculation, soon Canine Americans will be able to marry Feline Americans, bringing about the end of days and events of Biblical Proportions!!!!

c matt| 5.10.12 @ 1:11PM

True, the difference is consent. But no fault divorce has taken care of that anyway. Marriage pretty much died with that. The rest is kickiing a corpse.

If one spouse doesn't consent to adding a new partner, there is nothing to stop the first spouse from "moving on." Serial polygamy is a long and treasured practice of Americans.

c matt| 5.10.12 @ 1:19PM

Except that it DOES become our business when we are required to extend insurance coverage benefits to wife No.4; or have to kick in social security benefits, etc. for same.

Frankly, if all they wanted to do was marry the same sex, marry more than one partner, etc. in their own little worlds, I would not give a hoot. Play house however you want. It's one thing if the government decides to decriminalize it. I can see that. But when they want to force the rest of us to recognize it through the power of the state, well then they DAMN sure make it everybody's business.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:12PM

c matt, you have something there- you're not overwrought as so many of these sob brothers are.
I know what it is like, I'm old fashioned too- but living in the past means you get left behind; only nursing home residents don't mind being left behind. As for kicking a corpse, you are correct.. no matter how many times you kick a corpse it wont change color-- or at least that's how the old saying goes.
Funny thing is, they don't realize what a compliment it is to be called liberal:
didn't realize I could be so retro and be a liberal! Flattery will get them nowhere.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:16PM

... didn't mean to infer you are backward, c matt; but many of the guys here are-- and of course that is what being conservative is, to THEM.
Old fashioned has a comforting routine to it-- yet naturally, this is off-topic.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:16PM

Spain has granted Apes recognition as humans, Amused: http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir.....s-to-apes.

That's from the Christian Science Monitor. Whatever it is in the ability of Conservatives to imagine as a bestial perversion, it is in the capability of Liberals to not only imagine, but create.

When is the wedding between Spot and Buffy going to take place?

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 5:00PM

Oh, yeah...Obama is sooooooo "talented."

It takes REAL talent and political savvy to be "For" something less than 24-hours after losing BIG on that same issue (again!) and having your big-bucks supporters in Hollywood tell you to drop dead if you don't make a statement.

That's not "talent." That's cowardice.

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 10:53PM

I don't know that Obama has expanded his base any, but what he has done is re-energize that very vocal "anything goes" crowd that loves to rant and rage and hit conservatives with glitter bombs. Boy are we in for a trip to the zoo.

Dustoff| 5.10.12 @ 10:03AM

because I know how this country works
**************************

Talk about a run-away ego. Sure you do Alan.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 12:18PM

"Talk about a run-away ego. Sure you do Alan."

Praise from Caesar, all of you. Go ahead, run another one of your candidates who loses or wins and doesn't deliver what you want.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 5:08PM

And if that is the case, it is because of knuckleheads like you who continue to distort the truth and use blogs like this to spew forth your particular brand of sophistry.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:20PM

It's that delicate?

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 10:09AM

I guess the fantasy world you inhabit came with the red pumps?

I also guess that you didn't REALLY look at the voting results yesterday?

Let me summarize for you:

1. 40% of registered Democrats in West Virginia voted their preference for a convicted felon over your Boy-President. 40%!!! Please explain how that will translate to an Obama victory in November.

No? OK. I guess we can put WVa in the Romney column.

2. 20% of registered Democrats in North Carolina, a critical swing-state, voted their preference for "OTHER" over Obama. 20%!!!

3. Marriage was affirmed in a referendum in North Carolina as being between a MAN and a WOMAN. Oh, dear...another loss for the gays!

And let's be honest...North Carolina is far more metrosexual than it used to be. If North Carolina is leaning right, then Obama has no chance anywhere below the Mason-Dixon line.

...And if Obama and the Dems bend over for gay pressure groups (sorry, couldn't resist!) and move the convention out of North Carolina, then we can put the Tarheel State into the Romney column, too!

4. Scott Walker won 98% of the vote yesterday, more than all of the Dem "challengers" combined!

Walker will keep his job; Wisconsin will vote for Romney.

5. Dick Lugar...'Nuff said. And Indiana will NOT send a Democrat to the Senate in November.

So here's what we learned yesterday...

1. The TEA PARTY is just as strong as ever.
2. The Reagan Democrats are BACK!
3. Obama is an ass, and looks like an ass...

Looks like your Obama man-crush is about to crash.

I predict that Romney will win in a landslide.

Michael Z. Williamson | 5.10.12 @ 10:54AM

I'm not clear on how anti-gay bigots are Reagan democrats.

Reagan didn't leave the Dems. They left him.

Looking at the "Republicans" today, they've left him, too.

It's truly sad to see how little faith most self-professed "Christians" actually have.

No wonder your god killed himself.

Bubba| 5.10.12 @ 11:04AM

Michael, It's hard to take seriously someone whose thoughts per paragraph are 1:1. Yours is not food for thought, it's not even a snack for thought. Go back to the pantry and whip up something smart and tasty instead of flame-baiting haiku.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:18PM

If that is actually Michael, he is a fantastic author.

But, if you don't believe in G-d, it is difficult to maintain a coherent Conservatism. I don't hate gays; I just think that marriage is an institution for men and women to raise kids. It has been that way for millenia.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 11:31AM

Your entire argument is built on a fallacy.

The mere idea that those who do not support so-called "gay marriage" are bigots is an infantile assertion.

I have LOTS of Faith. That's why I'm against "gay marriage."

You want to live with your boyfriend? Swell, go ahead...who cares?

Want to legally divide your assets? You can do that if you want.

Want to get "married" in a "church"? By a "Reverend". Again...go ahead. That's YOUR choice. I'm sure there are places and people willing to do that, and I frankly don't care.

Want to consider yourself "Husband & Husband"? Yawn...once again...who cares? That's your business.

But let's leave Faith, and your miniscule understanding of Christianity out of the equation.

The push for "Gay marriage" (and yes, I use quotes on purpose; in reality, there is no such thing as "gay marriage") is a politically-driven agenda that has at it's core the objective of weakening the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion, and forcing indoctrination upon those who disagree, and especially their children.

Sorry...ain't gonna' happen. If you think we bitter-clingers are just going to sit back and let it happen, you've got a rude awakening.

And no, that's not a threat. That's a promise to politically mobilize and use the political process to defeat the "Gay marriage" supporters at every instance...Just like the Left does for things they want (or don't want).

And FYI...God lives. Learn about Him.

Amused.| 5.10.12 @ 1:37PM

1. 41% was a ABO vote in a state that's firmly in the GOP column. (See last 3 pres elections...)

2. Interesting: Obama gets 80%, yet Romney only got 69% of W Va. Seems that nobody's happy.

3. I suspect that the Dems won't move the convention. The Tarheels might vote GOP on this issue but not a shoe-in.

4. Scott Walker got 98% of the GOP voters in a primary. We'll know in a month if ALL Cheeseheads will renew their vows with him, or divorce him! He won in 2010--a banner GOP year-- with 52%-46% margin on a jobs campaign.
Wisconsin is a divided state. Toss up in the general election.

5. Lugar lost. Indiana might send a Dem to the Senate; it's the GOP's to lose.

So here's an alternate explanation to yesterday:

1. The Tea Party might be back, or it might be that Hoosiers think that at 80 and with a crappy campaign, it's time to look at somebody other than Lugar.

2. The Reagan Dems ARE back. Where did the Reagan GOP go? Hint: Look right. Farther. Farther. Farther.

3. That's our President. And the Unemployed Etch-a-Sketch Former Governor Vulture Capitalist who "made a little money last year giving speeches ($374,000)" and whose wife "drives two Cadillacs, so he's saving the auto industry" isn't looking better.

Bottom line: Obama doesn't have to "outrun the bear." He only has to outrun Romney.

So bring your vote. See you in Nov.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:19PM

Obama got 60% in WVa. There was a felon who gave him a run for money.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 2:24PM

Wrong again...

1. 40% was the proportion of DEMOCRAT voters who voted in a DEMOCRAT Primary in West Virginia, a state with a DEMOCRAT Senator (Joe Manchin) who won't admit who he voted for...Obama, or the convict!

West Virginia goes to Romney.

But, oh! What about Ohio, and Pennsylvania? They're also BIG coal states threatened by Obama's idiotic environmental policies.

Nice try, but EPIC FAIL.

2. You're comparing apples to oranges, and getting lemons.

The current President is a Democrat. No one has challenged him, so it's a forgone conclusion that he will be his Party's nominee.

Despite all that, he still LOSES 20% of the DEMOCRAT VOTE in a crucial swing state to a candidate named "OTHER."

Just in case you didn't understand that...20% of North Carolina's Democrats don't want Obama re-elected. So please explain, with logic, how that 20% combined with all the Republicans and Independents (with whom Romney has a double-digit lead) in North Carolina will somehow lose to Obama in November?

Hmmmm?????

You failed again.

3. Move the convention, and lose North Carolina. Keep the convention, and North Carolinians will be reminded of your stupid, last-minute embrace of gay marriage, and lose North Carolina.

Good strategy, Barry!

4. If Wisconsin is a toss-up (and it's not), then you can kiss Ohio and Michigan goodbye.

5. Lugar didn't just lose, he got crushed by almost 20%. But hey, why bother with the facts?

And Obama is already behind Romney; he's not going to catch-up, either.

Better make an appointment with a shrink; come November, you're going to be depressed...

Mike Stein| 5.10.12 @ 1:59PM

@Doctor Right writes:

"Want to legally divide your assets? You can do that if you want."

Yes, but not on the same basis as married couples. A spouse can inherit unlimited amounts not subject to the federal death tax. A same-sex partner, even one in a civil union recognized by a state, does not have that same right.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 2:27PM

Nor should they.

That doesn't stop you from having a Will (or a Trust) that legally divides your assets if/when you die.

And if you don't like the Federal Death-Tax, then either stop voting for Democrats, or stop your whining!

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 5:11PM

"Indeed Mike, go to Legal Zoom and do yours TODAY!!!...... Hi, I'm Robert Shapiro, you may remember me, I got O.J off using my remarkable 1o step plan of jury nullification.
First, start with a L.A. cop and use the "N" word over and over and over again.
Then, take the shrunken glove and have O.J. pretend to be spastic.
Of course, my real secret was to pick a jury with a collective I.Q. of a nat.
So, for $49.95 + shipping and handling, you too can spread your assets any way you want!!

W| 5.10.12 @ 2:36PM

The answer is simple. Eliminate the federal estate tax also known as the death tax. Children have to pay the tax. Only the spouse has the unlimited.

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 10:56PM

Your last sentence makes it obvious how little respect the ones that precede it deserve. One like you who has no faith is in no position to judge the faith that others may have, any more than a vegan is in a position to judge a chili con carne cookoff.

Always remember the old adage: better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Take 3 times a day, and repeat.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 12:20PM

Alrighty! run your Romney, maybe he'll win; perhaps you'll dig up some dirt on Obama and beat his keister to a pulp in the election. Good for you.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 1:26PM

He's not "my" Romney.

And he doesn't need dirt to defeat Obama. All you need to defeat Obama is...Obama, himself.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:25PM

Alan: what country are you from? "You" lost in Vietnam implies lack of American citizenship.

W| 5.10.12 @ 2:41PM

The war was lost because the Democrat Congress, elected in 1974, voted to cut off all aid to South Vietnam effective Jan 1,1975. North Vietnam invaded in January 1975 and all was lost in three months. We then had the boat people, and re-education camps. Cutting off the aid was the idea and bill of Teddy Kennedy.
President Ford begged the Congress of aid, but the Dems said no.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:22PM

Yeah, Vietnam, oh that was a big success, uh?
Okay, blame Ted Kennedy,
we still lost, not you, we-- alright?

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 5:15PM

Nope.

JmsA| 5.10.12 @ 6:06PM

No, blame JFK and LBJ.

TLP| 5.10.12 @ 2:06PM

My, what a BLOWHARD you have become.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Poppakap| 5.10.12 @ 3:49PM

...and this from the troll who tried to convince us he was a conservative a few years ago.

When the lie was exposed, the truest colors were shown.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:22PM

How droll of you, Alan! To be predicting the future! What crystal ball have you been reading lately? If I were you, I'd be avoiding placing wagers on your predictions, for they are steadily coming to naught. And we don't need any more welfare queens right now.

JimH| 5.10.12 @ 8:56AM

Flame the fires or fire the flamers?

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 6:48AM

What I want to know is this: why can't a man marry his sister? In my state, a man can marry a woman or he can marry another man. But he can't marry his sister, his daughter, or his mother.

If, as Joe Biden said the other day, "all that matters is that two people love each other," I'm sure lots of men love their sisters, daughters, and mothers. So doesn't this mean that we must now allow incestuous marriages?

For years and years the urbane Left condescendingly mocked white Appalachian hillbillies as inbred hicks sleeping with their daughters in the trailer park. Now, the "sophisticated" ones who promote gay marriage fail to understand that, according to their logic, outlawing incestuous marriages is -- say it with me, now --- "disss-criminaaay-tion."

oldfart| 5.10.12 @ 6:50AM

Dr. X - that was only two-thirds of a pun - PU.

LOL

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:56AM

You would get your points across if you had good spokesmen-- NOT Romneys. All the hype in the world can't sell a bad product-- and I personally will not vote for your ersatz-Reagan this November.

Tom Osterman| 5.10.12 @ 8:21AM

I'm not wild about Romney, but what does he have to do with this article?

The Big E| 5.10.12 @ 8:31AM

He has nothing to do with this article. Alan lacks the intellect to cotribute anything of value to, well, any discussion of issues, so he always resorts to the only thing his atrophied mind is capable of doing - trying to change the subject to someone he hates so he can insult them.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 10:12AM

Alan wanted to find a way to bring Barbra Streisand into the discussion, but couldn't...so he went after Romney.

(He gets bitchy when he can't gab about Babs!)

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 12:33PM

"I'm not wild about Romney, but what does he have to do with this article?"

The piece is about the Charlotte convention; Romney is the Other Guy, it is a related topic. what does this penultimate paragraph say, guys?:
"Will the New York Times demand the Democrats boycott North Carolina -- a state on the Obama campaign's 'must carry' list in the November race against Governor Mitt Romney?"

Alice Moore| 5.10.12 @ 9:47AM

Better the "ersatz Reagan" than the Marxist tyrant.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:26PM

"Better the 'ersatz Reagan' than the Marxist tyrant."

Obama IS a crypt- social democrat, but Marxist is a stretch; that's like saying David Duke is a fascist, he isn't, he is a white nationalist.

Poppakap| 5.10.12 @ 3:57PM

Given that his political career was started in the living room of Marxists (Ayers & Dorn & who knows who else was there), it's not a stretch at all to suggest BHO is a Marxist. Just because he hasn't admitted it, doesn't mean he doesn't harbor Marxist ideology. The hair you're splitting is getting too thin to identify practical differences in US realpolitik.

Dustoff| 5.10.12 @ 10:06AM

Spokes person???

How many times has O-dumber (flip-floped)

Charie| 5.10.12 @ 12:24PM

Just as if you'd vote for anything other than a hard-core socialist, anyway.

Instead of throwing out poisonous tentacles at anything Republican and all of its subsets, why don't you stick to the subject? Or is that not possible?

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:30PM

Okay, you are correct, and I'll stick to the subject:

I don't care if someone marries a snake or a porcupine. It is none of my business what someone does behind closed doors. If the entire staff of AS cheats on their spouses, I don't want to know about it because I think it is petty .
So who-- or what-- you marry is of no interest to me. Marry a big hairy tarantula if you want.

Poppakap| 5.10.12 @ 3:59PM

...and the rest of western tradition and civilization be damned.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:23PM

Civilization?? there is no civilization- it's barbaric.

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 10:59PM

Ah. So it always seems to come down to this: this "civilization" is already on the trash heap, so debasing it further won't matter much. What a great perspective for our future.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:23PM

Don't worry, Alan! There will be plenty of us to cancel your vote.

Again - don't make any wagers. You'll be in serious trouble, just like Greece and the rest of Europe.

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:36AM

"and I personally will not vote for your ersatz-Reagan this November."
---------------------------------------
sez the committed Obamarrhoid troll...yawn

Jack in Wi.| 5.10.12 @ 6:56AM

Very good point. Why can't a mother marry her sons or sons or daughter and sons to get their benefits. I know a father and sonwho are gay and came out of the closet at about the same time. I said when I heard about it why doesn't he marry his son? A guy that did a lot of business with decied that after 30 years of marriage and 3 kids that he was gay. a little later he decided he wanted a sex change operation. now he on hormones and running around in a dress. His wife is divorcing him, of course. Who will he marry next? This country and Europe is finished.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:57AM

That's right! Asia is on the rise, our star is on the way down.
DUH!

Clint| 5.10.12 @ 7:08AM

As Soon As Obama Gets A Law Passed That Allows Ego Maniacs To Marry Themselves, He Can Legally Screw Himself.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 8:07AM

If only Ron Paul HAD an ego and was not so honest, he might have a shot. Virtue is its own reward.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 8:12AM

Clint,
I know you mean well-
Jack, too, but when one thinks of America, freedom does come to mind-- but not honesty.
That's why I now see Nixon was a victim, he played the game as all the rest-- but got CAUGHT.

DTOM!| 5.10.12 @ 8:54AM

Clinton got caught, Obama is getting caught.

Nixon had sufficient respect for this country and its institutions that his personal embarrassment at his having been caught at overseeing a miniscule misdemeanor caused him to resign.

Clinton and Obama folow the same script - they do whatever they wish to, rule of law be damned, will of the people be damned, and when confronted they lawyer up and wonder, under oath, what the meaning of "is" is.

Individuals without respect for the rule of law have no business being elected to high office. First time, their fault - second time? OUR FAULT.

Not again, please..

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 12:29PM

Nixon isn't the one I dislike, it is Rove, the Rove administration.... plus the prospect of a Romney administration or whomever his Svengali is-- his ventriloquist.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:24PM

When it comes to the likes of you, Alan, I'm with Clint all the way.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:25PM

Then vote for Clint- he is preferable to Romney.
Jack as well.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 10:16AM

Blah, blah, blah...

Yeah, heard that before, too!

30 years ago, the big bogey-man was Japan. They were going to steal all our jobs, wreck our economy, yadda-yadda-yadda...

Didn't happen. A Republican President came along and cleaned-up the mess made by previous Democrats, our economy skyrocketed, and Japan went into a 10-year economic tail-spin.

As much as we depend on China, they depend on us even more. If we incentivized our manufacturers to bring business home from China, they'd be in serious trouble.

And they will be soon, anyway. The capitalist genie is out of the bottle in China, and the Commies won't last much longer.

Never bet against the USA...unless you're a loser, too.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 12:25PM

"Never bet against the USA...unless you're a loser, too."

You lost in 'Nam, you'll lose again. What is a game if you win every time?; every nation loses sometime-- including yours.

Doctor Right| 5.10.12 @ 1:28PM

We didn't "lose" in Vietnam; we gave up, because the public didn't have the will to do what was necessary to win the war, and because the political leadership (Democrats) lacked the competence to get it done correctly.

We were never defeated on the battlefield in Vietnam.

And I guess you're NOT American?

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:32PM

the main point is this, Doc:

"What is a game if you win every time?; every nation loses sometime-- including yours [ours]."

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:27PM

Well! Thanks for playing, Alan, but the only thing that is a loser in life, and in history, are the people like you who give up. Unlike you, I play for keeps - you are the only loser I know on this blog. Lol!

I keep saying, don't put any money on those predictions. History is also littered with the bleached bones of folks who tried to do that, and got it seriously wrong.

Occam's Tool| 5.10.12 @ 2:24PM

You can bet against the US, if: 1) you celebrate Western ideals of Freedom and Capitalism and Individualism more intensely than the USA does, AND 2) You have a population of more than 100 million.

See any countries that meet that criterion? Me neither. The Brits had us and were tired to death; we only have pretenders to the throne.

China will grow old before it truly rich.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 3:35PM

"China will grow old before it truly rich."

You might be right about this, however Asia as a whole is moving up v. fast relative to us. For now, anyway: I go by now, fellas, I'm not an all-seeing all-knowing Maha-Gingrich who can peer into the future.

Poppakap| 5.10.12 @ 4:01PM

...nor into the past with much perspective.

Alan Brooks| 5.10.12 @ 6:26PM

"I have seen the past- and it works!"

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:38AM

that sounds like the Left re: Socialism...did you copy that from an OWS poster, or an Obama campaign sign?

AVCurmudgeon| 5.10.12 @ 11:01PM

"relative to 'us'"? Not too far back you referred to Americans as "you." Nice to know you consider yourself part of this country.

Teaghan| 5.10.12 @ 8:20AM

And what if I want to marry my pony? My pony loves me and i love him, sooooooo?
Biden is a flipping fool. i hope Jill leaves him for another woman.

Herb| 5.10.12 @ 10:54AM

Loping your pony has nothing to do with marriage.

TLP| 5.10.12 @ 2:13PM

If Marriage should be allowed for ANY two Consenting Adults?

Why can't Brother marry Sister?

Father marry Daughter?

Mother marry Son?

The Answer?

They can.

Welcome to SODDOM and GAMMORAH.

Obama style.

RCV| 5.13.12 @ 3:46PM

There are valid genetic reasons and societal interests in protecting children against sexual exploitation that would easily uphold the existing bans on incestuous marriage. But nice try, anyway.

Dick Nome| 5.10.12 @ 8:27AM

I love my dog. Why can't I marry the b!tch??

Amused.| 5.10.12 @ 1:10PM

Because she won't consent to marrying you. You poop in the house.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 9:44AM

Dr. X, when one applies logic to the aposteriori consequences of the perversity that leftist progressionism leads to, you get questions such as yours that leave the left mute.
Oh yes, the glib response will be about the gene pool, but the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their argument becomes oh so clear.
Why not polygamy? After all, not only does it have deep roots in major world religions, but the distinction between polygamous families and the communes of the '60s, hailed by the hippies as the future, is a distinction without a difference.
Leftism is nothing more than children playing with matches, the consequences of their actions lead to destruction.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 11:04AM

Of course polygamy is next. The acceptance of gay marriage leaves no other alternative. (Don't think for a moment that Obama opposes polygamy, either... his father was a polygamist).

Now, polygamy would of course contradict the views of the shrill, man-hating bitch feminists on the Left, just as an incestuous marriage between a father and a daughter would outrage the Left. But this does not matter. The Left does not, strictly speaking, "think;" it does not follow the course of it's own "logic." The Left does not reason from first premises to conclusions; rather, it shrieks out what it desires at the moment, demands that the world stop spinning on its axis and cater to its every whim, the unforeseen consequences be damned. The Left is purely infantile and narcissistic in its behavior; it has yet to be toilet trained.

The lisping homosexuals and deviants put their hands on their hips, tilt their heads, stomp their feet and indignantly cluck that they MUSSST be allowed to marry other men with whom they engage in rectal and oral sodomy. If you disagree, they'll clap and shout "Racist, sexist, anti-gay! You bigot, go AWAY!!!"

And the President of the United States, like the indulgent parent of a spoiled brat, acquiesces.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 11:15AM

Actually, I suspect our president not only secretly endorses polygamy, as practiced by dear ole dad, he may also be a practitioner in the deviant behavior you have just described.
Whatever happened to that tall, thin black Illinois state senator who used to frequent the gay bath houses? Perhaps Dan Rather will take up the challenge, as soon as his computer gets its font right.

Richard| 5.10.12 @ 11:08AM

Good comment, Anthony. Leftists are driven by emotion and so consequences of their policies are always unforeseen and usually disastrous. The Gay Marriage position is ALL EMOTING. As Plato demonstrated long ago, Emotion is a poor driver.

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 11:58AM

I guess the only true "sister wife" would be the woman who marries her brother.

Amused.| 5.10.12 @ 1:48PM

Dr. X,

You are absolutely correct, and you are ahead of your time. As we all like to say, "FORWARD!"

I'll pass on the whole inbreeding part of why marrying your sister could be a bad idea. Natural selection and that whole DNA science thing usually doesn't play well on this board.

I'd guess there would be limited damage to the gene pool should you marry your sister or your mother. If you're daughter is over 21, whom she marries is her business.

If your sister, mom or daughter think that you're the best catch they can hope for, far be it from your government to tell you two love birds that you shouldn't get married.

You SHOULD get married! Make your mom, sis, or daughter an honest woman, and keep that commitment. I can't judge you, lest I be judged.

DaveS| 5.10.12 @ 6:57AM

The NC vote, like every one before it, has resulted in an affirmation of one man-one woman marriage. Sadly, it's like putting the question of 2+2=4 to the electorate; the correct answer is obvious. What is obvious is obvious, and what is obvious here is additional evidence of unscrupulous and unabshed pandering by politicians to the deviant Left.

drudge ette obama| 5.10.12 @ 7:36AM

Opposing gay marriage is not the same as opposing homosexuality. One is a cultural and religious system upon which much of our society is structured. The other is a personal biological perspective. Society has every right to demand its institutions be preserved, despite complaints from the minority. Concessions have been made for gays and there is little that gays can't accomplish through civil unions and contract law. Celebrate the differences rather than blur the distinctions.

How do gay marriage supporters handle the effect of gay marriage on intestate laws?

I agree that the dissolution of marriage period is the opening of the door where all arrangements must then be allowed. Gays should create and enjoy their own individual ceremonies, leaving the institution of marriage for heterosexuals to enjoy and destroy themselves.

Personally, I am sick and tired of some gay men dressing up like hyper female caricatures and adopting fay voices. As a woman, I am offended by this and I think it should be criticized as sexually insensitive and prejudiced.Is this behaviour really gay behaviour?

Finally, we have a federal law on the Protection of Marriage which was signed into law by Clinton, who wouldn't recognize fidelity if it bit him. Obama stating that this was a states right issue was a thumb in the eye to the federal law. States aren't passing these laws because they want to create controversy, they are trying to protect themselves against conflict of law fiascos because the current law protecting marriage is being ignored. Obama's mentioning of his daughters speaks more to their brainwashing then to the larger issue of the societal benefit of marriage between a man and a woman.

Teaghan| 5.10.12 @ 8:22AM

obama is a political whore.

Richard Ryan| 5.10.12 @ 8:27AM

Well said

chuck| 5.10.12 @ 7:37AM

This is the damned stupidest issue there is.

NO ONE GIVES A DAMN, ITS ABOUT JOBS, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!

DON'T LET OBAMA CHANGE THE FOCUS!

Dick Nome| 5.10.12 @ 8:28AM

No it's not. It's about contraceptives.

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:39AM

or broccoli...or high school pranks...or dogs on the car

Von Mises Jr| 5.10.12 @ 8:36AM

Obama just codified his comment in San Francisco about those of us that are not big city liberals.
He just went on record that he thinks we are "Bitter Clingers" clinging to our guns and Bibles. We don't accept him since he doesn't look like us! Don't you get it? It is the race card. It is that we are bigots and stupid.
Now it is on the record as he stated it purposely. The mask is off.

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 12:01PM

And the value of the dollar. Quit printing us into the poorhouse!

Ed Norris| 5.10.12 @ 12:26PM

Exactly, it is about jobs, unemployment, and the economy, and the good news is: at least the GOP opposition has some people that are still focused on those three subjects.

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.10.12 @ 7:45AM

"If I called Jill Biden and asked her for a date, would Joe Biden care?"

It didn't bother then Senator Biden that Jill was married to Bill Stevenson when he started dating her in 1975. Perhaps he was just ahead of everyone else.

Another way to view it might be it is not a new arrangement at all. If I recall the Biblical tale of King David , he dispatched one of his military leaders to be killed in battle because he desired the man’s wife. Bill Stevenson merely lost his business and did short state and federal prison terms, and that was nearly a decade after the divorce became final (which was over a year after Biden started dating his wife).

The Bishop| 5.10.12 @ 8:24AM

When one is a major repository of testosterone like Joe Biden is, it is no wonder he was a heat-seeking missile for Jill before she was legally available. What a guy!

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.10.12 @ 8:52AM

Your Excellency;

I concur that Biden is a major repository of something related to fertility, but I think it is more of a bovine byproduct.

Herb| 5.10.12 @ 8:06AM

"As it was in the days of Noah....."

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 12:04PM

Indeed.

R Martin| 5.10.12 @ 8:14AM

Polyamory is not a term I had heard before, but the practice is certainly not new. Isn’t that what the flower children and hippies of the 1960s living in wildly painted VW Microbuses and wearing psychedelic clothing advocated? Perhaps its best known practitioners at the time were Charles Manson and his merry little band.

Given that Mr. Lord’s thin end of the wedge argument is probably valid, new light is shed on the meaning of Mr. Obama’s campaign catch word, “Forward”.

SC Mike| 5.10.12 @ 8:18AM

Durn you, Lord, the polygamy and other human entanglements were bad enough, but why’d you have to bring up bestiality? You’ve just ruined Paul Anka’s “Puppy Love” for me.

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:46AM

Obama's favorite dinner music

SC Mike| 5.10.12 @ 8:22AM

BTW, the most outrageous part of that interview was the narcissist-in-chief’s statement: “When I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf . . . .”

The man’s ego is bigger than Alaska.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 12:39PM

The comment merely reflects the reality that the soldiers are there fighting on his behalf as an American citizen. (As opposed to a Swiss citizen, like Ms. Bachman.)

Butch| 5.10.12 @ 1:52PM

Then why didn't he say "on behalf of all American citizens," as every president before him would have?

Crawler| 5.10.12 @ 2:43PM

Because narcissists wielding power and ill-mentored with collectivism ideology never think of their citizens. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et cetera...come to mind.

Obama should have said what forty-three of his predecessors would have said: "on our behalf".

Alpha Bravo Oscar...

Luis Stecca| 5.10.12 @ 3:24PM

Obama is an American citizen ? I believe that issue is still open for debate...

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 4:51PM

...only in the locked wards.

spike59| 5.11.12 @ 6:48AM

RCV, tell me...just HOW MUCH Dramamine do you have to put in your Kool-Aid to take care of spinning-enduced nausea? just askin'...

Von Mises Jr| 5.10.12 @ 8:28AM

This is all about socialism. During the Age of Reason, Rousseau's "Noble Savage" was a concept that man is inherently perfectible. Society had evolved men to be combative, violent, greedy and selfish. But if people such as Rousseau, Hegel and Nietzsche could reform society with their superior intelligence and reason, we could have Utopia.
So the first tenet of Utopian socialism is to break down all traditions, customs and morals. Then they could create their Orwellian Big Brother and Brave new World where the collective is not only preferable, but the only way. This is why liberal love big government whether they know it or not. They are being pasteurized.

Now on a less serious note: Was Obama's college conversations with a composite of all the boys he slept with in college dorms? Perhaps he can name this composite Julio?

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 11:25AM

Jr:
Well put but sadly way to intellectual to convince the "true believers" on The Left. Those who seek heaven on earth are doomed to create a hell.

That said, Charlotte is the banking capital of the south as well, Since the DEM party eschews Capitalism it may well be that they move the convention. It simply means they have written off NC electoral votes and might go elsewhere seeking those of another state.

Occupy will be unhappy since I'm certain they are looking forward to creating as much havoc in Charlotte (and Tampa) as possible.

Charie| 5.10.12 @ 12:35PM

I can't believe they'd be able to move their convention even if they wanted to. These conventions are booked years in advance and hotels that have room for this amount of people simply aren't abundant! Plus having to pay a huge fee to move out. Ain't gonna happen!

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 1:08PM

Charie:
In all liklihood you are correct. The logistics would prevent it. Interesting to note that NC black voters went 2 to 1 on this issue but of course are unlikely to split that way in November. One wonders if the DEMs have given up on NC electoral votes although I certainly hope the GOP can count on them.

Von Mises Jr| 5.10.12 @ 1:04PM

The explanation was not for Brooksie, Perp, Dredful or Twitwin

The Big E| 5.10.12 @ 8:44AM

Next time I handle a divorce case where my client is accused of fooling around on his spouse, I think I'm going to present a copy of this article to the Court and argue that my client has done nothing that merits all the outrage, his position on marriage has just evolved such that he has now accepted that polyamory is the way of the future, and his spouse is just an ignorant, bigoted, hater for not recognizing his constitutional right to sleep around . . . er . . . "marry" whomever he pleases.

Instead of getting all worked up, and wanting the kids, the house, and alimony, his spouse should just enlighten herself, maybe "marry" a few other people herself, etc.

Gay marriage, polygamy, polyamory, whatever. It all boils down to people wanting to do whatever feels selfishly good for them a the moment without ever having to suffer any consequences for their actions. People wanting some form of justification for doing what they know in their hearts to be wrong. Something, ANYTHING, to allow them to continue to get in the moring, lie to themselves about their life, and then have an excuse for continuing a lifestyle that is, in reality, cutting a path of destruction through the lives of the people who love them.

"Dub" Holston| 5.10.12 @ 11:16AM

What crackpot logic you employ. Why on earth would someone whose only goal is to do what feels good at the moment enter into a marriage contract that makes him (or her) legally responsible for his (or her) partner?

The Big E| 5.10.12 @ 12:32PM

Because they want justification for their actions. They cannot find that justification morally, so they seek it legally. Legal justification does not equate to moral justification, but once they have legal justification, then their hope is to use the power of the law to silence those whose mere existence reminds every day that there is no moral justification for their action.

It's not crackpot logic, it's recognizing the very nature of man. Everyday I deal with people whose decisions are destroying their lives and their relationships with the people they love. Invariably, these folks, whether drug addicts, alcoholics, theives, adulters, or violent offenders, know that what they are doing is wrong. But to acknowledge that to themselves would mean taking the step of giving up the behavior they otherwise enjoy at the moment they are engaging in it, so they seek ways to justify their actions to themselves. They lie to themselves (and their lawyer) about what they did, what others did to them, or about the legal and moral ramifications of their actions. Cheating spouses of both sexes invariably blame their adultery their spouse, and perpetrators of domestic violence almost always claim they were driven to it. I've known sexual predators who claimed their predations of pre-pubescent children were OK because they were "in love," and the child "loved them, too," And don't even get me started on lies I hear from drug addicts and alcoholics in their desperate attempts to justify their addictive behaviors.

Those people all live lies, and they all seek justification in one form or another for what they do. They want someone, the court, their family, sometimes their lawyer, to tell them that what they're doing is not wrong.

And they're not alone. Doing what is wrong, whether it rises to the criminal or not, is not "OK because everybody's doing it," or "A normal part of life that should be recognized as such." It is destructive, however, and no amount of false justification will change that.

Charie| 5.10.12 @ 12:41PM

Great comment and you said it much better than practically anyone in a multitude of really good comments in this thread.

I've believed for a long time that homosexuals and lesbians are only looking for an imprimatur on their actions.

FWIW - I've always believed that homosexuals and lesbians are born that way but they get very riled up if you say it's an aberrant gene because they want all to believe that this is a very natural form of human behavior and even a cursory look into it shows that it is not.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:34PM

As a recovering lawyer myself, I have to heartily concur with my brother The Big E. My own experiences with clients (although not in family law) showed me the exact same thing - people are looking mightily for some kind of justification for their actions, especially doing a thing that they know is wrong. They twist logic and reason and torture it to its limits. Rationalization is the order of the day.

Our legal system was NOT originally designed to permit this result. Only with the progressive's faulty notions of what "individual rights" meant, along with the progressive's scorn of religious values, did our legal system go wrong and become used as a tool for rationalization and justification.

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 11:27AM

Enterprise:
That is where no fault divorce came from. Of course it has destroyed family continuity and the lives of thousands of children, but what is that compared to proper moral relativism.

The Big E| 5.10.12 @ 12:37PM

Agreed, but The Big E is not for the USS Enterprise (nor is it for Elvin Hayes). It's just a knickname I acquired in my youth due to my size and the fact that both my first and last names begin with the letter E, and which seems to have stuck with me throughout my adult life as well.

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 1:10PM

E:
Thanks. I thought perhaps you served on Enterprise. I remember Elvin Hayes, BIG guy.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 8:46AM

Frankly who gives a damn where the Ds hold their three ring circus? The D party is nothing more than a morally and intellectually bankrupt shell of an organization.
It really stands for nothing more than "how can we fool them today". Obozo's phony "evolution" on gay marriage was not even a clever dodge, its infantile transparancy a joke for all to see, even Ds.
No wonder Obozo almost lost the West Virginia primary to a convict, which by the way, they should trade places, as Obozo has more guilt due to Fast & Furious than this inmate.
Actions do indeed have consequences. Gay marriage will indeed lead to polygamy again, as polygamy at least has roots in major religions, whereas gay marriage, like all of leftism, is contrived.
The recklessness and self serving obsession of the left always has dire consequences.

kwan| 5.10.12 @ 3:09PM

In the Democrat Party's never ending quest to offer the American voter the most incompetent, deluded, befuddled, and maladjusted moron it can dig-up to run as it's Presidential candidate concerned citizens want to know: Will VP Joe Biden go under the knife in order to run as the nation's first "transgender Presidential candidate" in 2016?

kwan| 5.10.12 @ 8:46AM

These two doofuses Obama and Biden would support any and every abnormality under the sun if it would garner them two votes.

Bobloblaw| 5.10.12 @ 8:47AM

Hollywood will never stop filming around Wilmington and other cities, just like they film in Georgia despite a 2004 vote to ban same sex marriage that passed with 76% of the vote. Hollywood like gay marriage but LOVES tax credits that NC and GA give away like crack cocaine

Bobloblaw| 5.10.12 @ 8:49AM

What Biden and Obama have done is toss Red State Dems like Claire McCaskill under the bus. Will McCaskill, Tester and Kaine now have to affirm or reject same sex marriage. Either position dooms their Senate races.

DTOM!| 5.10.12 @ 9:01AM

And that's why we're talking about this after Joe Biden opened the door just in time for Obama to walk smack into it.

These two are dolts and it will not take Al Einstein to defeat them this November.

We should start talking about potential contrived October surprises from Obama this fall. I bet he'll cook up a couple of doosies - but if we poison the well on October surprises, we can blunt their effect. 'October surprises?' you ask.

Look at the whole banking crisis of October 2008! McCain and Bush fell for that one hook, line, and sinker! Heads up, Mr. Romney!

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:36PM

I consider that to be a good thing. Three less dumb Democrats in the Senate, right off the bat. Wait until November. More will go down. Hopefully all 22 who are up for re-election.

Indy| 5.10.12 @ 8:59AM

You know, it might be fun for all of us to sign the petition to move the convention from Charlotte, I'm sure the Charlotte police department would be happy. They should hold it in Chicago, after all Obama could not deliver the Olympics so why not the convention? It would please the unions, the Left is home there and they are used to riots, its the Chicago way. Sure, NC would lose money but the city would not suffer damage from violent groups.

DTOM!| 5.10.12 @ 9:06AM

They could reprise 1968's days of rage - surely the Occupy people would oblige.

In Chicago the Occupy people have issued a press release asking residents to provide housing for visiting demonstrators in town for next week's G-8 summit riots.

That sounds like a great idea...they promised they won't drink or use illegal drugs IN your home. Really, honest!

Question is, will they use soap and deodorant? Mouthwash?

Your WiFi?

Sheesh!

Don't Tread On Me...

Indy| 5.10.12 @ 10:07AM

The G-8 was moved to Camp David, the press has been silence, why the move? I'm sure it had to do with OWS likely to get out of hand, let's not embarrass POTUS on home turf.

The NATO Summit is still being held in Chicago, 1968 repeat? surely not, after all the new slogan is Forward, right? Ok, enough of my morning snark.

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 12:10PM

Putin just announced he is not coming. Obviously Russia, remember their preemptive strike threat against missle defense, no longer considers the U S to be a significant player on the international scene. What a wonderful brave new world of peace and understanding the administration has created. We are emasculated and irrelevant now.

Daveevad| 5.10.12 @ 1:05PM

The dry run was yesterday at the Bank of America shareholders meeting. Watch for LOTS of action.

Alex Bruce Savant-Drewell| 5.10.12 @ 9:03AM

The DNC had better move that convention if they know what's good for them!

Otherwise, there will be H-E-double hockey sticks to pay, and that's a PROMISE!

You may be cool, Mr. President, and you may look damned handsome (if I do say so myself!) in your custom-made Hartmarx suits - isn't cashmere fantastic? - but don't think you can pull the wool over our eyes, Sir!

We in the LGBTAYHRSD community are tired of being jerked off by men like you! You come into our neighborhoods, you ask for our money, you drink our Argentinian Malbec, eat our grass-fed Brie, and the you leave just when the party's getting started and don't even comment on our new window treatments!

Rude, rude, rude!

And let me remind you, Sir, that Mitt Romney is quite the hunky specimen, especially for a man in his 60's. We could overlook the whole Mormon thing to, if we had to...not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. I mean, my friend Chad is a Mormon, he's from Salt Lake City, went to BYU, the whole package (oops! Freudian slip!), but I mean, REALLY?? Look, I liked "The Book of Mormon" as much as the next girl, but have you ever been to Salt Lake City? It's where boredom went to die! And polygamy??? I could not stand living with 1 woman - guh-rossss! - let alone 3 or 4, but Che Sera, Sera!

Anyway, I digress.

The point is, Barry-O, our votes are not for sale! And we will not be fooled again!

OBAMA 2012

Old Soldier| 5.10.12 @ 9:11AM

I hope the DNC moves out of Charlotte. We really need NC (which Obama won 4 years ago) in November.

North Carolina voters seem to be taking on that very ugly combination of social conservatism / fiscal liberalism.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 5.10.12 @ 9:12AM

once again, an overlong dog's breakfast of a completely unreadable piece. As a North Carolinean (who voted against the amendment), the breakdown of the vote involving Amendment 1, was pretty much as expected: An alliance of Baptist Mullahs (black and white), rural conservatives voting for, and the university communities of UNC, Duke, NC State ( but not Wake Forest- home of many hardshell Baptists) and Mecklenburg county, home of many Yankee transplants voting against. Not an unexpected outcome in a conservative state that BHO needs to carry . The Democrat convention, poorly attended if the "crowds" that BHO draws of late are at all telling, stays in Charlotte

Tim the Enchanter| 5.10.12 @ 11:28AM

My dogs had Science Diet for breakfast. What of it?

Daveevad| 5.10.12 @ 1:03PM

Wake Forest is hardly home to "hardshell Baptists" - but is a tiny institution in a relatively large city which gave the amendment less support than more conservative rural areas.

Interestingly as to Charlotte, the suburban counties (Iredell, Cabarrus, Union, Gaston) supported the amendment.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 5.10.12 @ 2:27PM

What's so interesting about that? Plenty of rednecks and bible thumpers in suburban Charlotte. And I was referring to Forsyth county the home of WFU, with Winston-Salem the only major college town not to oppose the amendment, as opposed to tiny Wake Forest in Wake County, the county casting the most ballots against the amendment.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:39PM

To paraphrase Bill Buckley, I would rather be governed by the "rednecks" and "bible thumpers" of North Carolina than someone with a PhD nicknamed "lizardo." The former have a lot more sense and know bullsh when they see it.

emilio lizardo, PhD| 5.10.12 @ 8:21PM

Dude, WTF?

Louis Jenkins| 5.10.12 @ 9:31AM

Well, the tobacco chewing spitting hillbillies emerged from the North Carolina hills, and fields, and voted for the change to its constitution. I guess they haven't heard of marrying your sister, or whom ever. Right or wrong it's now history. Now my good friend calls NC a conservative state, but let's look at UNC, Duke, and NC State, and don't forget dear old Charlotte. ( I'll not even bother with Asheville.)

These places are hot beds of liberalism. Heck, that's the only places you could go to find them Go Obama election signs in '08. I'd be slow anymore to call NC a bastion of conservatism. (Look at the Charlotte city council if you have any doubts.) Too late to change the location of the convention. Maybe the state is at last remembering its motto: To Be Rather Than Seem.

EinTX| 5.10.12 @ 9:35AM

This is a distraction. It distracts the US from poll numbers, primary results, the ongoings in Wisconsin, Keystone, the ECONOMY. It is a distraction to play hide the true ball with the American people. The Republican Party needs to put the focus squarely back on the primary results, the ECONOMY, Keystone, the latest bombing attempt, etc. Joe Biden did exactly what he was told to do, bring up gay marriage so that Obama could make a "huge" announcement and get the focus back onto him.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:41PM

Yes, it is. Now you know why Barack the Usurper brought up the contraceptive thing a couple of months ago. He has no record, so he HAS to distract. And some dare criticize conservatives for saying there can be no "truce" on social issues.

Gerry| 5.10.12 @ 9:53AM

Good intentions, but one fatal flaw. Like so many defenders of marriage, you have surrendered half the territory without realizing it. Do not call the monstrosity "gay marriage" There is no such thing. When you fight same-sex pseudo-marriage, call it what it is.

Michael Z. Williamson | 5.10.12 @ 11:02AM

I support Biblical marriage, between a man, a woman, her sister, three other women, one of the slaves, a thousand visiting daughters of kings and chiefs, a rape victim, some woman whose husband I just killed in battle, and 13 year olds.

But not between two men or two women. That would be a sin.

Tim the Enchanter| 5.10.12 @ 11:32AM

The Bible has both spiritual teachings and historical records. Just because the Bible records historical events, doesn't mean that God approved of those events. Putz.

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 12:12PM

Thank you Tim. Too many don't read it enough to understand it is full of examples of what NOT to do.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:48PM

This comment reminds me of something. No ancient or modern society before this century that I am aware of would ever have given legal or social sanction to polyamory or same-sex marriage. There is, however, considerable historical evidence of polygamy, especially in the Arab world. And polygamy was not friendly to those who want "equal rights" for women. It was a system that often treated women as virtual slaves or property. The Biblical references, of course, are set in this milieu. But again, the Old Testament is a history of salvation told from the perspective of the Hebrew, divinely-inspired, prophets and scholars of that time. That it is history does not, as Tim the Enchanter says, mean it is God-approved.

Son Of Sam| 5.10.12 @ 11:06AM

Spot on, my friend! Two dudes do NOTmake a "marriage", just like Brass is NOT gold. Or as a good friend of mine put it the other day:

"My cat might crap in a wrapper, but that doesn't make it a Tootsie roll"

Btw, a note to Alan and all the other libTroll morons on here: Romney is not my preferred candidate, but he will win because Obama is dumb as a bag of hammers. Coming out for gay "marriage" a day after a key swing state votes 2 to 1 in favor of real marriage? Really now, that's the work of a political genius? Way to toss North Carolina into the Romney column...expect Virginia and Florida to follow suit. Good luck winning the election with those states!

Charie| 5.10.12 @ 1:38PM

I have to believe the big O would never have had this "evolution of thought" if that seismic brain and ultimate sage also known as the "gaffe machine, Joe Biden, hadn't spilled the beans on the Sunday shows. Have a hunch that this was the quickest evolution on record.

k962| 5.10.12 @ 10:19AM

No they won't, but counted chickens before they hatched and now kiss North Carolina bye bye in the election!

Rich Fisher| 5.10.12 @ 10:24AM

Jeffrey, are you serious? Jill Biden? Have you seen that washed up, dried out anorexic woman on TV with Michelle "my belle"? I hate to ask what your frame of reference is but Jill Biden being "hot" is so yesterday-maybe so 40 years ago. I'm 64 so older women look a lot better than they used to but JILL BIDEN? Say it ain't so, Jeffrey.

Kenny| 5.10.12 @ 10:26AM

'Gay marriage.'

' Gay rights.'

What's wrong with you people? Stop perverting the language.

It's homosexual marriage. It's homosexual rights.

Tim the Enchanter| 5.10.12 @ 11:34AM

Hear, Hear! Shame that the Left was able to hijack that word. Makes it difficult in this day and age to read Chesterton in the right context.

JmsA| 5.10.12 @ 6:42PM

Semantics, damn semantics! No better way to hide.

Alice Moore| 5.10.12 @ 10:30AM

Just my .02.... There are 2 reasons for the sudden evolution. There is the obvious reason of creating the distraction from attending the ongoing bad news for the Democrats. If Scott Walker defeats the recall in Wisconsin; there will be an even bigger diversion. This may only be a dry run.

The support for Gay Marriage may be seen as a low cost Win/Win maneuver as well. Why? Those who vote to affirm The Defense of Marriage Act by state referendum may still vote for Obama in 2012. In 2006 George Allen narrowly lost to Jim Webb despite the success of the Defense of Marriage referendum on the same ballot. In 2008 California voted for the Defense of Marriage in overwhelming numbers. They voted for Obama with numbers that overwhelmed as well. I think it proves that voting for this referendum does not equal a Conservative/Republican vote on the rest of the ballot. The social conservatism of the Black, Asian, and Hispanic communities will probably not make that much difference. They will probably still vote for Obama.

Obama is also throwing a low cost piece of red meat to his political base. They must vote in November for him to win reelection.

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 12:19PM

Alice, I agree, and I think the fact that Elizabeth Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and other liberal women don't like that kind of thing in their homes proves it.

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 12:20PM

Next he'll offer to legalize all drugs if re elected.

Harrison | 5.10.12 @ 10:35AM

It will be too difficult to change at this late date.

It will be funny to see the counter protests which might tilt NC to the GOP this year.

Michael Z. Williamson | 5.10.12 @ 10:44AM

Using the Federal or State Constitution to restrict citizens rather than the government is exactly what Prohibition was, with its resultant plethora of agencies--ATF, DEA, etc.

It also continues a terrible precedent. It is only a matter of time before liberals vote to amend a constitution declaring property to belong to the "common good," and with a precedent of using it to control personal actions, there will be no legal grounds to argue.

As for a bunch of bigots voting to stop others from not discriminating, I'd have boycotted the state myself.

Add in revisionist BS about how pious and Christian the founders were, with zero evidence to support it and their own statements (real ones , not ones put on the internet by Abraham Lincoln in 1932) making it quite clear they wanted religion a long way from governance, and you have the reason real conservatives, who respect what Goldwater stood for, are fleeing the Christofascist Party.

I'm sure Zer0's supporters appreciate it, though. It's certainly making his campaign easier.

If my words offend you, then you are exactly what is wrong with this country.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 11:14AM

Since you hate Christianity and Christian values so much, perhaps you'd like to live in a non-Christian country -- like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe or Pakistan. Or, perhaps, under the rule of the most famous political Darwinist of all time, Herr Hitler. Even better would be a place where Christianity is totally outlawed -- like Stalin's USSR or Mao's China or Saudi Arabia. Yea! What a great improvement that would be! You'd love it! Move to Saudi Arabia and you'll never have to worry about "bigots" and "Christofascists" again, you sodomite pervert sicko!

DRed| 5.10.12 @ 12:10PM

"While it it true that Hitler did commit evil, according to what standard did he do so? Most contemporary observers of fail to understand that, evil as he was, Hitler was extremely perceptive and correct more often than we give him credit for. Hitler's country lost 1/3 of its territory and was divided in half. Two Soviet-inspired Communist revolutions occurred in Germany and one in Hungary following WWI, all led by Jews, abetted by Trotsky, a Jew, citing Marx, also a Jew. German social democrats relied on the League of Nations happy-talk to defend them. The Conservative monarch abdicated. In sum, German culture WAS under attack by Communists, and social democrats and conservatives were worthless in solving the problem."

I thought you kinda liked Hitler? He just went a little too far with the whole child killing. The jews and the leftists, well they had it coming. Now I realize I was mistaken-you're really a believer in Christian values, like paramilitary revolution and murdering your political opponents. Fuck off, you fascist moron.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 12:55PM

Hmmmm. I see that you're a deviant homosexual too, DRed. I fell sorry for your mental illness.

Don't be so hard on the Nazis (no pun intended) though. You would have gotten along swell with Ernst Rohm.

Charie| 5.10.12 @ 1:55PM

DemocratRed - we certainly are lucky to have you on this thread to keep us straightened out. Elevating the tenor of this thread by your elegant choice of words can only serve to add to our knowledge.

Somehow you have the cart before the horse, though. Jews in this country have traditionally been far left as they have been for over a hundred years in Europe. Check out the Democrat party and who are big donors and voters. You're throwing those who believe the way you do under the buckboard?

The Israelis are quite another story.I'm sure you know it.

You've forgotten the fact that Hitler founded a socialist party. He and his party factually took over every facet of German life, including telling their women that they must bear children, especially if blonde, for the glory of the Third Reich. There were even camps to enable this. So knock off the revisionist history about Germany.

WWI was also started by the Germans if you read anything but your hateful, misleading revisionist history.

DRed| 5.10.12 @ 3:03PM

That's a quote from Dr. X. You can ask him how Hitler was really right to fear the Jews but he just went a little too far. You'll have to forgive my impoliteness, but I have no patience for crypto-fascist bullshit.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 5:13PM

DRed, there is a clinical diagnosis for your condition. It's called "projection." You know that your perverse thoughts and behaviors are abnormal and deviant. Every time you look in the mirror, you subconsciously hate yourself because you know you are abnormal. You hate your fantasies of other men and little boys. You know these thoughts are sick.

As a psychological defense mechanism, you lash out at others who are normal. Psychologists call this "projection." You project your own fears, hatreds and insecurities on happy, well-adjusted people.

Before our next online session, I want you to go to a happy place in your mind and let your self-hatred go. It's unhealthy. I want you to think happy thoughts about normal, well-adjusted people, and how you can be more like them. Think of being with a beautiful, fecund woman like Sarah Palin, rather than thinking deviant thoughts about other men. Start appreciating healthy, progenitive relationships with women, and don't be resentful of well-adjusted men who have such relationships.

DRed| 5.10.12 @ 6:02PM

What does any of that have to do with you being a fascist? I'm not sure why you think I'm a homosexual. Then again, I'm not sure why you think it's relevant that Trotsky (or Marx, for that matter) was ethnically Jewish since they were both athiests, but I'd be willing to bet that in addition to being a deeply ignorant homophobe that you're also an anti-semite.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 7:08PM

Hmmmm. I see. You're a gay Jewish communist, is that it?

Well, I've nothing against Jews -- so long as they're not subversive Leftists, communists, or unnatural sodomites. I sincerely hope Netanyahu takes out Iran -- and soon. THAT'S the kind of Jew I like.

DRed| 5.10.12 @ 7:24PM

Why was it relevant at all that Trotsky was Jewish?

I would have though Avigdor Lieberman would be more your type of man.

Son Of Sam| 5.10.12 @ 11:16AM

Wow, I disagree with you, so I'm "whats wrong with this country"? Hmmmm..maybe what's REALLY wrong with this country is self righteous ObamaNazis who want to tell the overwhelming majority of "we the people" that since we don't agree with THEM, the "enlightened ones" that we should stop speaking our minds, voting or assembling peacefully. Us simple hillbillies should just pay our taxes and do what we're told, is that it?

your president is a tax fattened parasite Mikey, and he's going down in flamers. But by all means, keep lashing out at church going computer programmers like myself... maybe you'll find someday that I and people like me are equally handy with Java on one hand and an SKS on the other

Tim the Enchanter| 5.10.12 @ 11:38AM

MZW: are you in any way associated with Alan B.? Two peas in a pod, so to speak.

Elron H.| 5.10.12 @ 11:56AM

So if someone called you a Frootie-Tootie Homo Queer, and YOU got offended, would YOUR reaction say something negative about the country???

Explain your logic, please.

Dick Nome| 5.10.12 @ 12:10PM

Last time I read writings of the founders, I found they were largly pious men of faith and advocated the practice of religion and not the establishment of a state religion. Many of them were Masons and thus believers in one God. Michael, you don't know what you are talking about.

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 12:25PM

What the founders wanted to keep out of governance was denominationism. They came from varying Christian traditions that put them at odds in practice of their religion, but not in their basic beliefs. They agreed there is a Creator and on a basic moral code of respect for life and property.

antodav | 5.10.12 @ 10:49AM

While this article does make a valid point about the logical progression from the legalization of "gay marriage" to the legalization of polygamy and other plural "marriage" situations, its characterization of polygamy as it actually exists in the United States today is grossly ignorant. John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and the other examples cited were not polygamists. They were adulterers. There is a significant difference between the two. In the case of polygamy, the other wife (or wives) usually consent to having another partner brought into the relationship. There is no deception or infidelity going on.

Now, we may not be willing to accept that as moral or socially acceptable, because of our commitment to a traditional, monogamous definition of marriage…but to call adulterers "polygamists" is to give them far more legitimacy and respect than they deserve. In the Bible, Abraham, Jacob, David and others all practiced polygamy, and God did not frown upon them or curse them for it. When it has served his purpose, he has allowed it, and because he allowed it, it was perfectly moral and justified. Such is not the case today, however, so therefore it is neither moral nor justifiable, until he says otherwise.

Frank Drackman| 5.10.12 @ 10:50AM

Wow, so the Mo's can marry in the 6 States and Canada that allow it...
It's like that Award I got in College for having a 14 inch Penis, a piece of paper doesn't make it so(Sorry Jack in Wi!)
But if Barry and Retard Boy Biden were wounded on the frontlines, would either take a blood transfusion from Barney Fag, I mean Frank??

Frank

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 11:42AM

Come now Dr. Frank, be honest, the award you got was for being president of the Harvard Law Review in abstensia.
And perhaps, whose to say, that you beat out your competition by a head. Oh you big beasts, as Obozo would say!!!

James Sutherland-Smith| 5.10.12 @ 10:58AM

This is a very silly article. The sexual orientation of President Reagan's children was? Of course, you don't remember.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 11:04AM

It wasn't all that long ago that the left and gay marriage advocates insisted, with heels dug firmly into the ground, that gay marriage would NOT lead to polygamy and other variations of standard marriage.
While they advocated for the "basic dignity" of gay marriage, they impuned polygamy with the same hatred applied to conservatives in general.
This of course was the fantastical intellectual dodge the left and gay marriage proponents had to come up with in order to try and keep the lid on Pandora's box.
The left use this same perversity of logic when it comes to voter I.D. with their laughable insistence that voter I.D. is synonymous with racism and voter surpression.
Only Chief Sitting Bull Elizabeth Warren could approach an airport security checkpoint and insist that showing her I.D. constitutes racism, to which I would respond, tazer the bitch.
Leftism is imploding all around them. I only hope enough Americans have not totally lost their minds such that we cannot save our great country.

"Dub" Holston| 5.10.12 @ 11:09AM

The logic of Mr. Lord's essay is ridiculous. There is no war on marriage. If there's a war on anything, it's on fear and ignorance. I have been in a traditional, "opposite sex" marriage for more than 40 years. There are same-sex couples in my family and my wife's family, and there are same-sex couples among our neighbors. If they could be legally married in the state we live in, it would not threaten my marriage or anybody else's. Denying them the civil right to marry should not be constitutional. It's forming a legal partnernship. As for the relgious or church-sanctioned aspect, finding a minister willing to perform the ceremony is easy. There are many, many ministers -- Christian ministers included --who don't see the world as, say, Pat Robertson does. And all this talk about opening the door to people marrying cows or armadillos, it's just silly, unfounded blather, a hysterical scare tactic. We're talking about consenting human beings of legal age asking for the right to make a legally recognized commitment to each other.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 11:19AM

You cannot be a "consenting human being of legal age" if you are mentally ill. Homosexuality is a mental illness. You are mentally ill. Allowing homosexuals the right to marry each other is like allowing paranoid, delusional schizophrenics the right to own knives and guns. It is a danger to a sane, normal, mentally-healthy society.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 12:44PM

This is such a woefully ignorant statement. The thousands of gay men and women serving our country in uniform are not mentally ill, Dr. X, and perfectly capable of deciding whom they love and want to commit to. Your hatred of them, however, is a mental illness and I'd be much more concerned about knives and guns in your hands than theirs.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 12:59PM

ALL homosexuals are mentally ill.

DRed| 5.10.12 @ 1:03PM

See, he proved it by writing all in caps. That's the kind of brilliant deductive reasoning one can expect from a fascist.

Butch| 5.10.12 @ 2:16PM

Right you are again, Sir! The ignorant, bigoted American Psychiatriac Association (or whatever their name is) routinely classified homosexuality as a mental illness until the early 70s. Then, by a vote (don't know the totals, 51-49 maybe?) homosexuality and its attendant activities: fisting, gerbiling, golden showers, golden enemas, etc., etc., etc., they declared it not to be after all.

It's the American way, deciding reality by a popular vote, no? Until the next election, of course.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 3:36PM

It was made an illness by vote of the group too, Butch. The change reflected the change in understanding by the scientific community. Science does that. As we learn more, conclusions change. Only in the willfully ignorant they don't.

Dr. X| 5.10.12 @ 5:19PM

And what "science" is that, pray tell? The science of evolutionary biology, which says that mammals evolved sexual organs for the purpose of transmitting their DNA to future generations? The science of biology, which classifies the rectum as an excretory organ rather than a sexual organ? Explain to me how anal sodomy fits into Darwin's theory, please.

Perhaps you're studying the "science" of some fisting and bondage club in San Francisco? Whatever it is, it's sure as hell not the science I studied in biology class.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 4:21PM

Quite right, I remember the discussions in my psch. classes when this "declassification" occured.
Hey folks, guess what, it was the APA who first determined "science" by consensus. They beat the AGW crowd by decades.

RCV| 5.11.12 @ 5:17PM

That's right, decisions about psychiatric illness shouldn't be made by psychiatrists, but by Southern Baptist congregations, or by sophisticated intelligent know-it-alls like Anthony.

"Dub" Holston| 5.11.12 @ 12:24PM

What an astoundingly ignorant and vicious comment. But thanks for making me even more certain that I am on the right side of this issue.

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 12:02PM

Oh contraire "Dumb", the ruse used by the gay community for "legal recognition" was called civil unions.
Once that ploy was "swallowed", in fact, while that ploy was being foisted upon the larger community, gay marriage was already in their sights.
So "Dumb", using your "consenting human beings" logic, you obviously concur that polygamy and other forms of non- traditional marriage, are also permitted as making" legally recognized commitments, right?
If that's true, ibso facto, you have a war on traditional marriage, duh!!!!!

Albert Constantine Jr.| 5.10.12 @ 1:14PM

That is correct. If the only qualification is consent (or that you "love" someone"), those related by blood (and currently prohibited by law from marrying or even having sex together), or those already legally married to others cannot be denied "the civil right to marry " (as Mr. or Mrs. Holston has labeled it).

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 4:28PM

Hello "Dumb", are you still with us?? What no answers.
Maybe you read many of the posts here at TAS and determined that there is intelligent life beyond your comprehension.
Get thee back to the HuffPo where things are much simpler.

Rich Fisher| 5.10.12 @ 12:30PM

Dub, you make the common mistake among non believers of attributing ideas and attitudes to someone like Pat Robertson. What Pat Robertson thinks is irrelevant in the long run. What God thinks is what counts and he gave us a pretty good book with what he thinks in it. The fact that you don't want to believe what God says about homosexuality is also irrelevant. He's not going to ask your opinion when you stand before the Judgement Seat. Your arrogance of thinking that just because you think it's so makes it so is astounding. And, yes, homosexual marriage does tear at the fabric of society and leads to the eventual destruction of said society. Just for instance, where do you get children from? Yeah, you still have to depend on the straights in the world to supply you with them. If homosexuality were so right you wouldn't have to depend on others to keep you afloat.

"Dub" Holston| 5.11.12 @ 1:33PM

And you make the mistake of labeling me a non-believer just because I don't agree with you. Forget Pat Robertson. He's just a name I picked because he's well known. I couldn't care less what he thinks. I don't believe God wants me to treat homosexual humans that He created as though they were trash. And I can find plenty of church-going Christians and ministers who share my belief. It's rooted in the kindness and compassion our Lord and Savior taught. Have a blessed day.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 4:58PM

Dub, I hate to say it, but you are wrong. The truth is that there are those, such as the Man/Boy Love Society and the folks Lord describes in his article who would do exactly what you would deny is happening.

This is NOT just about "consenting human beings." Any of us can sign a contract. How is it that someone who makes a commitment to a lifelong, bodily, sacramental union that recognizes the need to procreate children as an act of love and of preservation of the human species makes merely a "legal" commitment? I would suggest you read the articles of Professor Robert P. George in Public Discourse for an explication of what I am saying.

The institution of marriage is nothing like a law firm. If you cannot see that, then I fear for my country. Marriage between persons of the same sex, while it may not feel harmful to you, is ultimately destructive of the institution - because it is neither natural nor moral, is not one of those "inalienable" rights our Founding Fathers talked about, nor beneficial to a free society that bases itself on originally religious values that promote an ordered liberty.

paul whitfield | 5.10.12 @ 11:12AM

just curiouos. if this unnatural notion obtains and broadens, why could there not be a marriage with the family pet, livestock or a potted plant. Help me understand

Grandpa| 5.10.12 @ 11:24AM

1st Timothy 4:1-3
"Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 12:30PM

The term "marry" in this context refers to a man and a woman. The passage is talking about legalism: requiring a community to adhere to stricter codes than God does.

Dave Williams| 5.10.12 @ 11:27AM

Polyamory is completely wrong...mixing Greek and Latin roots like that is utterly promiscuous. Polyphilia or multiamory are the ways to go.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 5:00PM

I'm with you, pal. I've had enough trouble living with one woman. Why would one man want to live with or commit to two or more women? Or one woman want to live with or commit to more than one man?

Goldenthroat| 5.10.12 @ 11:27AM

Typical liberal "I am going to pick up my toys and go home!" attitude. If they do move this would only solidify the conservative vote in North Carolina in November. Go ahead. Move the convention!

Bill| 5.10.12 @ 11:29AM

DNC can move the convention to the Hell, yet Obama pledges support for gay marriage and has committed a "political suicide."
Those gays are insane!

JP| 5.10.12 @ 11:32AM

There is no way the DNC can back out now. Where would they go? And what city would take them at such short notice? Besides, current polling (if you believe it) has the Bambster pegged with a double digit lead over Mitt.

Bassboat| 5.10.12 @ 11:55AM

Two things:
1) The dems will not leave NC, too late.
2) Another reason for states rights being the law and not the federal government. The fed should have the armed forces to protect us and the courts to decide disputes, little more. Pie in the sky thinking to be sure but it is the answer that will be recognized one day as you can't make people do things that they do not want to do.

John Q. Public| 5.10.12 @ 12:02PM

Ah, liberals. They are so -----

“The only justification for the analogy between parent and child, and government and people, is the childishness of the people who entertain the analogy.” Herbert Spencer

How’s that for an attempt at cleverness by the guy who gave us “survival of the fittest” and “social Darwinism” as memorable phrases?

Politics is always about power, and it seems to me to stem from the basic self-other split, to wit that I am me and you are you, and never the twain shell meet---BUT!!!

Some people aim to BE other people, in effect, which is what their attempts to control them amount to. “I may be me, but by God, I am you, as well!”---that’s what they come to believe, and act upon.

Rights and responsibility---it always comes down to that dichotomy. Or, actually, it’s more like a coin, in its wholeness, since they each resemble one side of a single flattened piece of metal, which is one.

Who’s in charge? I AM!!!

Listen to ME! Do as I say! I am right!

Got responsibility?

Wipe that all-knowing grin off your face. You are never in danger of knowing a single thing.

Besides, friends are not (even!) friends (basically). Friendship means connection, unity, oneness. But what happens when “you” encounter a “friend”? Separation!

You individuate them, indeed, you act as a mirror-in-action, reflecting and validating them, second by second. Such is public life, for humans these confused days.

Thus surrounded by flashing mirrors, like flashing perverts, does every assumed chip off the old Being block—humans—bounce around, like atoms continually bombarded by myriad subatomic particles. I’m a this! No, NOW I’m a that!

I’m for gay marriage! I’m against gay marriage!

I’m young, I’m old, I’m, I’m, I’m------

Realist| 5.10.12 @ 12:11PM

He left out the part about how the North American Man-Boy Love Association has been working toward normalizing sexual relationships between adults and children. That's off in the future, but it's headed in that direction as well. This nation will get what it deserves, which is the total decline of this society. Hope you enjoy it, fools.

RCV| 5.10.12 @ 12:46PM

No it's not "headed in that direction as well". This is a shiboleth that folks like you raise to avoid rational discussion of the merits of the issue at hand.

Daveevad| 5.10.12 @ 12:58PM

Then where does it end?

Dixon| 5.10.12 @ 1:14PM

And why would you oppose a man marrying a child?

Your standards for a man marrying a man would be the same...they all love each other! Who are we to judge?

We already allow the killing of children before birth, lib/progs even support children being allowed to kill their unborn children before birth, without parental involvement....seems to me marrying them is the far less dangerous action.

When you start the slide down the slope, soon you no longer control the journey nor the destination.

Even "folks like you" slide, albeit a bit more arrogantly.

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 5:02PM

And you are the arbiter of "rational discussion." Your idea of rational discussion is leftist sophistry. Open your eyes. It IS headed in that direction, you love it, and you are engaging in your own form of non-Muslim "taqqiya."

Anthony| 5.10.12 @ 8:59PM

Ohhhh, shiboleth, one of Barney Franks favorite words.
And speaking of profiles in courage, Barney got engaged today to his boyfriend. Gee, and right after his announced his retirement from congress, hmmm no coincidence there, eh?
Well, if it takes a homosexual love affair that needs to culminate in marriage to finally get a lefty out of congress, I'm willing to make an exception to the gay marriage ban.
But Barney has to agree to wear a white dress and ruby red lip stick, and garter belts made with bungee cords.

RCV| 5.11.12 @ 5:19PM

We all care whether you'll "make an exception to the gay marriage ban." After all, it is YOUR call about what other people do with their lives.

"Dub" Holston| 5.11.12 @ 12:50PM

Anthony, I'm not afraid discuss this or any other topic with you. I just don't have time to sit around waiting for replies to pop up. I get back to the comments when I can. I like civil discussion, which is why I'm not addressing you with a insult pun on your name. Your concerns seem unfounded to me. I'm not in favor of people marrying their cousins or their cows. If that's what gay rights proponents are lobbying for, I'll oppose it when the time comes. Thing is, though, no gay man or lesbian that I know or am related to is arguing for that. You appear to be worrying about something virtually no one advocates. In all honesty, though, I will confide that my views of polygomy are evolving. I'm definitely against that model associated with rural Utah in which underaged girls are forced into marriages with old men. But I'm not sure why a man shouldn't be able to enter into open, legal marital contracts with more than one woman, or why a woman can't do the same with more than one husband. Or variations thereof that don't include children or animals. It's not for me. One spouse is plenty. But if there's a threat to me in this, I don't quite see it. No doubt you will be happy to illuminate me.

Tim| 5.10.12 @ 12:22PM

The shame of all of this is that we had the once in a lifetime chance to have someone in the White House in January 2013 that was a hard core social conservative that would try to restore the ethical and moral fiber of this Nation as well as help fix the economy.

But......the Rinos and the rest of the Super Rich movers and shakers also knew this........

So Romney will have to do.

The Biden/Obama fiasco on Gay Marriage just guaranteed Romney the White House and by a landslide....We are looking at a 61-39 per cent crushing of the Obama socialist machine.
They just lost Ohio and North Carolina and Indiana.

The bottom line is that the very wealthy....the real 0.5 per cent that run the show don't want anything to do with old fashion social conservatives....that is a given.

The other fact is that that real 0.5 per cent is made up of left, right, middle, and they swing in all drections and support all sorts of people because their God is Money and the ends justify the means.

That said,

Romney is small fry.....sure hes got a few bucks but the real folks in charge feel more comfortable with him in the White House as apposed to some guy who spends loads of time on his knees praying to his God.

That's way too radical for these Lovers of money.

That also said, Romney is a good family man
he does seem to truly love America and is a Capitalist....not a socialist...
He is not my first choice....not even my fourth choice.......but

He's got my vote!

Tim| 5.10.12 @ 12:36PM

Obama is flying to Hollywood for a $40,000 a plate fundraiser.....

Excuse me but if you dump $40 grand for a seat at a dinner table the last thing on your mind is what to wear at church on Sunday......

and that goes for the folks that call themselves Republicans as well.

Tim| 5.10.12 @ 12:36PM

Obama is flying to Hollywood for a $40,000 a plate fundraiser.....

Excuse me but if you dump $40 grand for a seat at a dinner table the last thing on your mind is what to wear at church on Sunday......

and that goes for the folks that call themselves Republicans as well.

Farley| 5.10.12 @ 12:38PM

While you must read the entire article to appreciate the comments, and I truthfully cannot say my attention is held by every article I start to read, I find I enjoy the comments so much more. Thank you, Mr. Lord for providing this subject!

Daveevad| 5.10.12 @ 12:57PM

Economic benefit of this convention to North Carolinians is dubious at best.

The DNC's organizing committee is going out of its way to do business with unionized suppliers - substantially all from out of town, given North Carolina's status as the least unionized state in the country. At least one hotel issued a layoff notice to its own employees telling them they would be replaced by union crews imported for the convention - then had to quickly back off when it became news.

Kingofthenet| 5.10.12 @ 1:01PM

When Marriage is NOTHING other than a religious ceremony, with no effect on secular institutions do as you please. Truth is the Govt. getting involved and creating a legal/Benefit framework did FAR MORE to destroy traditional marriage than anything else. As we stand now we can either change this Govt. legal framework called marriage, into something more equable, like 'Civil Unions' for everyone and leave 'Marriages' to the Religious institutions, or we are going to have to redefine this on a Federal Level as a Civil Right. Majorities should NEVER get a vote on the Rights of a Minority. Peoples Rights aren't a popularity contest.

Dixon| 5.10.12 @ 1:03PM

I do not think obamanation is a very talented politician. His mind has been narrowly and weakly developed. He has few, if any core beliefs and principles that guide him except for the communist & socialist dogma he was spoon fed by his mother, father, step father, high school mentors, college profs, 20 year pastor, terrorist friends and left wing political network.

He has talents, but he wastes them to focus on feeding his narscissitic hunger.

He seems to hate what has made America great but he loves the power that gives him the elitist lifestyle to fertilize his narscissim.

But rest assured, if there were votes available to save his failing presidency, he would declare himself a bisexual.

It is all ends justifying the means with him. And it makes him an awful and dangerous president when teamed with his narscissism.

At least Jimmy Carter can now smile and breath a sigh of relief.

mattmalta| 5.10.12 @ 2:06PM

Changing the definition to suit the needs of 1 to 1.5% of the population should not be left to select people. All should get the chance to have their voices heard. Such a minority of the general population is considered “freakish” i.e. left-handedness is ~10% and is also considered a freak of nature. Changing a cultural norm for freaks is not the in the best interest of a democracy where majority rules. Our founders built into the constitution a method to “adjust” or amend the document.
However, Libs hate the US constitution. Ask yourself this question – when was the last time we had a vote on an amendment to the constitution? Long time ago – 1970’s; it was called the ERA amendment and lost badly. It was a big liberal amendment. Libs hated to see that happen and probably will never allow another vote like that to happen. Abortion rights? We should have had a nation-wide discussion and then a vote on the “abortion” amendment. Libs must think people cannot be trusted with such votes – better for the co-opted courts and or money influenced legislatures.
Fast forward to marriage definition. Following the Constitution there should be a nation-wide debate and then a vote. Libs see the handwriting on the wall and see the results of the 32 states so far (37 states would be needed for the passage of an amendment). Thus they know their only chance is through the courts and corrupt politicians with much help from the fifth column – the ultra-liberal press and Hollywood. Bottom line is Americans have voted on this issue and have so far wanted the definition of marriage to remain the same it has for the last eons of time.

Pat| 5.10.12 @ 2:38PM

Good news for a change. Another beautiful state beckons vacationers and with the added bonus of not running into roving packs of Liberals wearing faux khakis from J. Crew and ruining your idyllic terrace lunch under sunny skies with their inane pretensions to a higher morality. The list is slowly growing, visit a gay marriage free state and spend your dough among other Conservatives who survived Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton, “Babs” and Rosanne - and who my soon lay claim to having survived an Obama. And these snippy Liberal statements urging Americans to avoid certain states who won’t readily agree that gay marriage is perfectly natural and as God intended should be a lesson to all Conservatives.

Boycott isn’t a swear word and Conservatives should get into the habit of boycotting known Liberal hangouts on a daily basis. Sure, at the present you stay far away from the New York Times and the Washington Post – who doesn’t, right? Even a catchy headline intended to draw you in like “Republicans Declare War on Transvestite Bikers” fails to entice you. But what about famous Liberal shopping venues? Do you really need an outrageously expensive shirt with a polo player sewn into the fabric instead of a pocket? So, cross the Ralph Lauren store off your list when visiting the Big Apple – and why the heck are you visiting the Big Apple anyway?

You’re a Conservative, not a New York City metrosexual, so what would be the point of subsidizing retail outlets within the capitol city of Liberal Land? Try visiting Texas instead, you’ll meet a better class of people and Texas Liberals tend to maintain a very low profile – they’re even known to mount a Daisy air rifle in the rear window of their Prius as protective camouflage.

Melvin| 5.10.12 @ 3:13PM

I sincerely hope with ever beat of my Southern heart that the Democrats move their convention out of Charlotte.
Yes, the State will lose allot of revenue, but at least it won't be stiffed by unpaid DNC bills from the last DNC convention.
The taxpayers of Colorado had to pay millions more than what was taken in by the hospitality industry, which was also stiffed by unpaid bills from the DNC.
Whathername Shultz can take her stinking convention and take it somewhere where the sun doesn't shine.

Bill| 5.10.12 @ 3:21PM

We ain't got no fags, no liberal in the South. It don't matter if the Obama machine floods Charlotte with his LGBT pals, but NC will remain RED, as it did in 2010.

Mike Hawk| 5.10.12 @ 3:21PM

Well, well. Looks like the Dems may actually be serious about moving their Occupy Charlotte Event. What a bunch of numbskulls. Have at it Debbie Wasserwomyn Ditz. You will look like bigger fools than you already are.

Independent Texan| 5.10.12 @ 3:24PM

It's one thing to be libertarian enough to say, "if it floats your boat, whatever ....." and to think that government should not be barging into your bedroom because some prosecutor thinks you might be fornicating improperly. I surely do not want to see government (federal, state or local) imposing morality on two (or three, or twelve) consenting adults.

However, it certainly does raise the conundrum of how government recognizes the associations from the point of view of entitlement benefits. And government's view of entitlement benefits tends to flow downward to employee benefits, health insurance benefits, beneficiaries, etc.

Wouldn't it be better to just say marriage is whatever a religious institution deems it to be? And civil unions are for the government to recognize in a simple box-checking exercise, whereby any person can be in a civil union with any other person provided that he/she also becomes implicitly liable financially for that other person's tortious or criminal behavior?

Why don't we stop involving government at any level in the definition of marriage, and leave the sacrament of marriage to the faith community?

Larry| 5.10.12 @ 5:05PM

It would be nice, but even in a very basic, minimal government society, it would be important to sanction relationships from the standpoint of protecting people from the bad actors that would still be out there. Like bigamists and sexual offenders. Marriage is not only sacramentally important; it is essential to a sound, functioning, free state. If you read the articles of Robert P. George in Public Discourse, you will see what I mean.

Kingofthenet| 5.10.12 @ 4:32PM

The rationalization of Apartheid is SO easy to do, so many 'Good' reasons, but it comes down to this. NOTHING has changed for you personally, but some other person:
A. Can't make decisions for or even have a right to see their sick loved one.
B. Does not have an automatic right to their loved ones property in the event of death.
C. They can't be covered under a 'Family' insurance policy.
D. They can't file as a 'married' couple saving on taxes.
and so on, but even if you COULD(Which you can't) make a 'Civil Union' arrangement, here in the USA, that is absolutely equal to traditional marriage, it would not carry ANY weight overseas, whereas if it WAS marriage, ALL the Countries of the World who have respect agreements with the USA , would have to treat these people the same.

Al Adab| 5.10.12 @ 5:40PM

So King:
In re: b,c,d, it really is just about the money. At least be honest in that.

Oldefarte| 5.10.12 @ 4:54PM

This editorial neglected some other instances of spousal outrage, ie Hillary's heaving an oval office ash-tray at Will Bill's head upon learning about Monica and Teddy's first wife EVOLVING into alcoholism over his numerous waitress-sandwiching, and kanaveling off of island bridges with underaged campaign workers in tow. For the thousandth time, IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS! If they had existed at the time, JC would have chased the DEMOCRATS [instead of the MONEY-CHANGERS] out of the temple, no doubt. Au vey! Me thinks the OLD CRAZED SEX POODLE and his former boss in upstate NY are perhaps licking their lips at the thoughts of the fulfillment of Jeffrey's editorial, since it will therefore become the land of pizzas and cigars forever. You all must remember that it was the late POTUS of Camelot who fashioned FIDDLE & FADDLE running through the WH when his first lady was absent, and was perhaps the first such to grease the wheels for the scenerio which Jeffrey's envisions. The only difference is that the current POTUS and his bozo sidekick VP are the first ones stupid enough to come out of the political closet with neon signs ablazed proclaiming their support for sexual debauchery-depravity; and same will get them simply defeated in November. As Rush proclaimed recently, surveyed individual citizens profess their agreement to things like homosexual marriage in public, but when they reach the privacy of the voting booth, they express their vile disagreement with such immorality. My guess is that November 6, 2012 will witness a mini-landslide for Romney and the Republicans over this issue and many many others as well that have EVOLVED over the last three years!!!!!!!

Pat| 5.10.12 @ 5:46PM

It may be tempting but states should avoid endorsing gay marriage in order to attract Liberal tourists. Seriously, would Barbara Streisand ever consider forsaking Aspen for Bottineau Winter Park, Huff Hills or Deadwood ski resort? The good folks of North and South Dakota mustn’t be led astray by the likes of “Babs” - Liberals won’t give up the eye bulging restaurant tabs at Masa’s or the Carlyle for the reasonably priced and equally satisfying eats at Famous Dave’s BBQ.

Really and truly, attracting a wrinkled old Liberal like “Babs” and her retinue of used to be somebodies isn’t worth the effort. For an off chance of getting rid of “Babs” and her ilk for good, Colorado is somewhat tempted to ban all forms of marriage and declare homosexuality to be a Class A felony. But that probably wouldn’t work except in their wildest fantasies – “Babs” prefers Aspen, so they’re stuck with her.

Liberals, in a delirious state of moral superiority, always give out with the bold talk about taking their business elsewhere as an object lesson to us Conservatives, but they tend to remain where fellow Liberals hang out. Conservatives scare Liberals, even the muggers in Central Park are less frightening to Liberals than us law abiding Conservatives. Here in California, Liberals love San Francisco - even the frequent sight of a homeless man urinating on their tires doesn’t dim their ardor. Liberal etiquette simply requires that you apologize to the homeless man for the way society forces him to pee and then bustle over to an enchanting bistro near the Embarcadero to regale fellow Liberals with the plight of the homeless. Believe me, attracting Liberals to your state isn’t worth the effort. New York City and San Francisco still have plenty of vacant 1,100 square foot apartments renting for $4,000 month to meet the Liberal demand for overpriced cliff dwellings.

Carolyn | 5.10.12 @ 8:43PM

It would be good to get Dick Cheney's written comments on this.

Oldefarte| 5.10.12 @ 9:22PM

If the Democrats decide to move the location of their convention, Greece and Italy have numerous cities which would offer politically favorable venues no doubt!!!!

Purp| 5.10.12 @ 9:46PM

Since when do you promote a country that doesn't support the civil and equal rights of all it's citizens. I don't care who marries whom, or who loves who. I do care that my government protect everyone's rights. Other than defense of the country, that is what our country is founded on as Americans.

Kingofthenet| 5.10.12 @ 10:44PM

The REAL issue that EVERY Conservative dances around, is the question of is it 'Alright' to be gay, or is it a perversion or sickness like Alzheimer's or being Mentally Retarded. We 'Tolerate' those poor unfortunate people, but NO ONE is going to say it's 'ALRIGHT' to be Retarded, if they COULD be fixed we would help them.So where does being gay REALLY stand?

POST American| 5.10.12 @ 10:50PM

---Great piece!

Speaking of things 'moving'
---WHY NO mention of that latest,
and all but FINAL 'moving' of GM operations
to RED China ---at US taxpayer expense?

And BTW --everyone catch the latest
remarks by rabid Globalist EUGENIST
David Suzuki's on the takedown of his
very own Japan?

"Understand, PSYCHOPATHS have
NO loyalty, conscience or morality
-----------WHATSOEVER-----------.

Absolutely ----NONE..."
-Informed Radio

CON---sider the figure of the
'brought in' and endlessly promoted,
probably TAX FREE ---Suzuki.

David Suzuki --------PSYCHOPATH!

"Learn to recognize PSYCHOPATHS.
Because you're LIFE now depends on it ----"

terrymac| 5.11.12 @ 7:36AM

Nice take on the boycott of Charlotte . . . probably not going to happen, but one can dream.

I can tell you, however, that gay partners get just as jealous as straight partners do. The last 2/3 of your article was simply nonsense ad nauseum.

I think you'll agree that a great number of "traditional" marriages - including famous celebrities - are in deep trouble - you can't disagree, since you yourself spent pages describing a fair number of examples. In very few cases, however, can you point to the availability of same-sex partners as the cause of this trouble. In all such cases, until quite recently, legal marriage was between one man and one woman.

Hence, an unbiased observer might suggest that the trouble with one-man one-woman marriages is not the law, but the particular man and woman in the particular marriage. Bill Clinton, for example, doesn't think it is "sex" until one particular organ penetrates another particular organ, and don't forget the definition of "is." As a Yankee, I can't confirm this, but I am told that many Southern boys share Clinton's very organ-specific definition of "sex."

I have to ask, considering how useless marriage law has been in bringing about sound marriages, why it is regulated by the state at all? In America, the big push for regulation of marriage came from "progressives" about a century ago, in their fight to avoid "miscegenation." Until then, marriage was largely regulated not by legislators, but by churches and common law. There are no sound theoretical reasons for moving such a personal and intimate matter into the realm of legislators, who are statistically far less likely to have sound, traditional marriages than the rest of us.

As one wag put it, the reason we can't put the ten commandments on the courthouse walls is that "thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" would create a hostile working environment for the lawyers and politicians who work there.

Given all that, why in Heaven's name are you putting your trust in legislators? What's up with that?

Jack| 5.11.12 @ 5:15PM

and there was/is Jennifer Sullivan Sanford, of Gov Sanford S.C. fame

POST American| 5.12.12 @ 12:15AM

----------------------FINAL WORD-------------------------

---There's Jo! ---Bidin' us on ---bidin' us
through ---the BILL Gates as the 'BAR--Rockefeller'
BARS come down across our land.

Some PRO-active suggeestions?

----Hurl your 'TELL---A---Visions'

-------Hurl your 'Ray---DIOS'

----------Get the PCs --OUT-- of your private space

------------STOP using your data collection,
debt serf generating, Pavlovian training op credit cards

AND!

-----OCCUPY the Westfield Marriot, near
the Washngton DC Dulles airport where
----------------BILDERBERG-----------------
is about to CON---vene.

That's what YOU CAN DO -------NOW!

SPREAD THE WORD ----EVERYWHERE!

-------------------HUAC is NOW Nuremberg 2012----

This ---IS ---the 11th hour.

PEWestlake| 5.12.12 @ 10:10AM

I've lost track of the number of Spectator "articles" that include the phrase "The New York Times was furious!" The Spectator can only dream of the kind of journalistic credibility the NY Times has. You're a joke on your best day. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Cal| 5.15.12 @ 9:19PM

North Carolina isn't even close to being a must-win state for Obama. It's a must-win state for ROMNEY, not Obama.

loupgarous| 5.18.12 @ 6:21PM

"Ending the institution of marriage as we know it?" Even an old Reaganaut should know better. Perhaps especially an old Reaganaut, who can remember the One Big Tent which included gays, libertarians, (gasp) Democrats, lots of people whose only real point in common was disgust with Jimmy Carter and knee-jerk progressivism.
Allowing gays to marry does NOTHING to the institution of marriage. People who view marriage as a Sacrament can still celebrate it as such, and their churches can still decline to marry gays. This is all about social justice. You don't have to be a raving leftist or a Hollyweird resident to see that; just someone who doesn't have a lot of ego and fear invested in denying the many rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples who marry to that portion of the citizenry which chooses to love its own gender.

As a Libertarian who votes conservative on military and fiscal matters and a heterosexual, I just don't feel threatened by gays who marry. I do feel threatened by the loss of a viable alternative to Democratic Party corruption which beckons if the Republican Party doesn't divorce itself from so-called "social conservatism."

If you're going to be a "strict constructionist," then BE one - go to the Constitution and find ONE word against gay marriage. Just one. I've tried and can't find one. As a Coloradan, I've witnessed the shameful spectacle of a civil unions bill drafted to avoid almost every possible objection from the religious right bottled up in committee by the Republicans controlling our General Assembly because they know they'd lose a straight up-or-down vote on civil unions.

The Democratic Party couldn't hope for a better proof of what they're saying about Republicans in office. You people are doing Obama's work for him. You yourselves will be responsible for another Republican defeat this November. Have fun while you can.

More Articles by Jeffrey Lord

More Articles From Another Perspective

Not Super, But Pretty Good

June 18, 2013 | Aaron Goldstein

Sober-Minded

June 10, 2013 | Bill Croke

We Used to Call Him Baghdad Jim

June 7, 2013 | Paul Kengor

Christie and a Little History

June 5, 2013 | Kevin Mooney

The Forgotten Scandal

June 4, 2013 | Arnold S. Trebach

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/10/will-democrats-move-charlotte

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|96 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|98 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.