-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 134 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 69 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Political Hay
GOP Elites and the Abolition of Marriage
Republicans join push for gay Roe v. Wade.
Well, this is helpful.
A clutch of Republican elites have run to the Supreme Court demanding the judiciary shut off debate on gay marriage.
The story has predictably been front page news at the New York Times and in the world of the liberal media, the Times leading with this:
More than two dozen Republicans — including a top adviser to Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, and a former congresswoman who made banning same-sex marriage her signature issue — have added their names to a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to declare that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed.
The brief comes as the White House is considering whether to weigh in on the same-sex marriage case; at this point, the Republicans who signed the document are taking a more expansive stance than President Obama, who favors same-sex marriage but has said he would leave it to the states, as opposed to making it a constitutional right.
The list of Republicans on the brief now tallies more 100, organizers say. It now includes Beth Myers, who ran Mr. Romney’s 2008 campaign and was a senior adviser to him in 2012, and Marilyn Musgrave, a retired Colorado congresswoman who was once rated the most conservative member of the House by the American Conservative Union.
Ms. Musgrave, who lost her bid for a fourth term in 2008, was an unsuccessful sponsor of a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex couples from marrying; she once warned that if gay couples were allowed to wed, “the next step is polygamy or group marriage.”
The brief, organized by Ken Mehlman, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who is gay, will be filed on Thursday as a friend-of-the-court, or amicus, brief to a lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative that bars same-sex marriage, and all similar bans.
Some of the signatories’ names are published here at the Blaze. The group — including names such as Ted Olson (the Bush 43 Solicitor General), Meg Whitman (the last GOP nominee for Governor of California), Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, ex-Bush-appointed RNC chairman (and 2004 Bush campaign manager) Ken Mehlman, Bush national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Bush commerce secretary Carlos Guitierrez, Bush deputy attorney general James B. Comey and Reagan budget director David Stockman — has decided to force gay marriage on the American people without their consent.
Effectively making of this case a gay Roe v. Wade.
They are asking the Court to force an elitist world view on a nation in which thirty states have chosen by state constitutional amendment, referendum or legislation — this is called “consent of the governed” — to support marriage between a man and a woman.
Doing so in exactly the same fashion that the infamous Roe v. Wade abortion decision was designed to make abortion the law of the land without the consent of the governed. Thus launching 50 years of violence — abortion providers have been variously murdered, targeted for murder, assaulted, kidnapped and stalked — not to mention all those marches and angry protests. Let’s not forget the sheer vitriol directed at pro-lifers and, for that matter, the venomous tone of any debate on the topic.
Not to mention that this move to have the Court stop debate by overruling state legislative action on the issue is exactly the sentiment that was behind the infamous Dred Scott slavery decision. That would be Dred Scott v. Sandford, which the late Judge Robert Bork once described as “the worst constitutional decision of the nineteenth century” until, yes, Roe v. Wade. Dred Scott was designed to write slavery into the Constitution — without the consent of the governed — and thus helped launch the Civil War.
Gee. What a nice thing for Republicans to wish on the gay community. Decades of violence and vitriol.
But they’re so cool, yes? So with it. So sensitive.
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 (207) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/28/gop-elites-and-the-abolition-o
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 2.28.13 @ 7:13AM
Jeff: Your words are all true. The elites of the party hate us little people and out religious beliefs. It is either them or us. We can no longer survive in a house divided. I am off to southern climes for several weeks to work on a long delayed family history. If I don't make it back I wish to thank the editors and publishers here for providing a very free forum for dicussion. I also wish a Happy Easter and peace to the Christians. Pace. A happy and peaceful Passover to the Jews. Shalom. Peace and brotherhood to the Muslims. Saalem.
Moe Blotz| 2.28.13 @ 8:15AM
Did you discover a Ubangi in the fuel supply, Jack?
Edna Ruth Ford-Smith| 2.28.13 @ 9:53AM
Jeffrey, honey, I know this is off the topic, but can you tell me how you get that shine, that gorgeous gleam in your hair?
My sister-in-law works at Sally's Beauty Supply here in Beaufort, SC, and she has a lot of elderly women who want their white hair to shine. My sister-in-law wants to stock the product that you are using, that is if you are using something to give your hair that dazzling brilliance.
You can email her at
sallysbeauty&sickroomsupplies;@email.com
anna k from emory u| 2.28.13 @ 10:12AM
I used to bring my students to this site to try to show festering right wing HATE. Soon, it became apparent that I was a provocateur; that I was bringing my intolerant views uninvited, and trying through obnoxious behavior to inspire negative responses that would prove my point.
I realize now that I have turned a beast loose on this country that cannot be controlled. Clearly, it is those on the left who are destroying the country, and even the progressive ideals that I champion will collapse as these forces I helped unleash wreak their havoc.
Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.
It is sunny and expected to be warm in Savannah today. Kevin Barry’s was so much fun last night, with that fun-loving pro-military crowd.
I look forward to being back in Atlanta tomorrow. Perhaps this will be the week I will see Mr. Drackman at “Down the Hatch”.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 11:44AM
I have a feeling there's been some identity theft here.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 1:52PM
Yeah.
All of these dweeb posts are from Anna Cntt from Flucke U.
Walt Sr.| 2.28.13 @ 3:52PM
Crisler, there's some identity theft all right; TLP is obsessed with anna k, whoever she is. He's also obsessed with A.S., and he posts all day long.
I imagine TLP's dying words will be "anna, anna, anna."
The man is obsessed. I mean clinically obsessed. And there are meds for this, but like so many other victims of mental illness, TLP seems to be the type to refuse medication.
anna k from emory u| 2.28.13 @ 6:24PM
I think that you are the one who is obsessed, and your projection is quite comical.
Apparently, you fear cancer, and wish it on everyone who might disagree with you.
You are the mentally ill one with the multiple personalities and followers, who has posted here as Walt, Sr.; Edna Ruth Ford-Smith, Innocuous, Darwinian, Chicken Little, Whoa!, NeHi and that is today. On other days, it is Trish Trotter, op top, Sandra in Greenville and so many other of your transparent phony attempts to provoke HATE.
You are also obsessed with this TLP guy, when you're not obsessing about Mr. Drackman, or anyone else who recognizes your phony attempts to distract.
It is crisp at the airport here in Atlanta. Tomorrow will be a new month, with the promise of Spring.
Bart simpson| 2.28.13 @ 8:02PM
Man, just cool it. Don't have a cow.
And all the work you go to, TLP, just to try to make a little point. My, my, my. Seems like your mental problems are more serious than Walt Sr. suspected.
Toby| 2.28.13 @ 8:10PM
" . . . multiple personalities and followers, who has posted here as Walt, Sr.; Edna Ruth Ford-Smith, Innocuous, Darwinian, Chicken Little, Whoa!, NeHi and that is today. . ."
If all these people are indeed the same person, then this person, whoever it is, is clever and amusing.
Your attempts at humor, TLP, are always tinged with an adolescent bathroom rowdiness. You have a 13-year-old mentality and you never rise above it.
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 11:50AM
Your leftist ideology is cast in stone since you mistakenly think that you are the center of everything.
Stephie| 2.28.13 @ 12:04PM
could it be moochelle my belle obama? She seems to want to insert her mug into everything these days.
Whoa!| 2.28.13 @ 12:07PM
Her beautiful mug. Those bangs! Wow!
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 1:54PM
Yeah.
Nice Wig.
Even her Hair is FOS.
TLP,| 2.28.13 @ 8:14PM
anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna,
anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna,
anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna,anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, anna, I can't get you out of my MIND!
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 4:22PM
Check out Michelle Malkin's dancing parody, wig and all, of Michelle Obama on You Tube, hilarious...
Bob K| 2.28.13 @ 12:23PM
It's called shellac. The same hair tonic Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys used to use. His players called him "Helmet Hair" then. He is not to be confused with Helmut Kohl, former conservative Chancellor of Germany, who was half bald!
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:47PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi.
Alan| 3.2.13 @ 11:12AM
Good riddence.
Appleby| 2.28.13 @ 7:20AM
Why anyone would be surprised that a Mitt Romney campaign adviser would be advocating setting us on the road to polygamy is a mystery to me.
I bin tellin' ya. Ain't I bin tellin' ya? I bin tellin' ya. (Randy Quaid in Independence Day).
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 7:42AM
Isn't he a neighbor of yours' these days?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 8:44AM
I think he actually requested asylum in Canada, because of the well known US celebrity murdering cult (which I suppose was government sponsored during the GWB administration), and nothing to do with the fraud and bad check charges he was fleeing.
By the way, like Guy Ritchie and The Edge for you, back in 1991, several of the Marines in my unit used to say they thought I resembled Randy Quaid (primarily due to the cleft in my chin, and not because of any anal probes he may have experienced in the 1994 film which Appleby quotes).
Innocuous| 2.28.13 @ 9:24AM
M'Lord,
Why all the melodrama over same-sex marriage? You are hyperventilating, you poor man.
Take a paper bag, and hold it over your head. This will help regulate your breathing and bring composure.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 9:41AM
Are you sure your name shouldn't be "Insipid?"
"Inconsequential," perhaps?
"Imbecilic?"
"Impotent?"
I know:
"Insufferable."
Innocuous| 2.28.13 @ 9:45AM
M'Lord,
Have you considered anti-anxiety meds? I hear that Valium can help prevent panic attacks.
And you strike me as being a likely candidate for a panic attack in the grand mal manner.
Please take my advice, and ask your doctor for a prescription.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 9:53AM
Question: Who writes your material, and when did he die?
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 10:14AM
It's Anna K from Flucke U, and her children.
She likes to come here to pass the time away, until the Sun goes down, and she can resume her position next to the 711 Dumpster, giving Skin Flute Recitals at $20 a pop.
Gary B| 2.28.13 @ 11:16AM
Crack me up...
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:48PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 9:51AM
See, it's "melodrama" not because the word "melodrama" is even remotely accurate; that word is just a left-wing smear that's a "dog whistle" for liberals meaning "dissent will not be tolerated."
Now the REAL melodrama is the sturm and drang, the gnashing of teeth, the rending of garments, the wringing of hands over what will work out to a less-than 2% decrease in the rate at which government GROWS.
Oh, my god, the horror! The horror! The sky will fall, the earth will be cleft in twain, the gravy train might actually slow down by 1 mph if, instead of increasing government's pay by $100 billion, we only increase it by $99 billion. Gaia forbid!!!!!!! Help!!!! We're all going to die!!!!!!!
THAT actually passes melodrama and goes straight through farce to bathos (yes, that is a word; look it up. Barack Obama's picture is next to the definition).
Innocuous| 2.28.13 @ 10:00AM
Thank you, Grzmlyk.
I hesitate to say this, but you too seem a little excitable. Could it be that you had too much caffeine in your coffee this morning?
May I be so bold as to suggest you cut down on the caffeine a bit. Caffeine not only excites your nerves, but also can cause heart arrythmia.
anna k from emory u| 2.28.13 @ 10:13AM
Of course, I suppose it is innocuous to butt into a discussion about celebrity look-alikes with commentary about gay marriage and medical advice. Of course, “Obnoxious” might be a better description.
You know, giving out medical advice while not being a licensed physician can be illegal, and will likely give you cancer. Knock it off before it is too late.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 10:16AM
And, there she is.
Edna Ruth Ford-Smith| 2.28.13 @ 10:16AM
Jeffrey,
Thank you for emailing my sister-in-law and telling her the name of the product that gives your hair that shimmering brilliance.
Here it is, folks: 99 Point Nine Shine
It's an ethnic product, and it will be in my sister-in-law's shop sometime next week.
If any of y'all are ever in the Beaufort, SC area, pop into Sally's Beauty and Sick Room Supplies. There's something for everybody. Guaranteed!
Thanks again, Jeffrey. You're a sweetheart.
Tom Kyba| 2.28.13 @ 11:26AM
Good morning George.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 1:22PM
Zing!
Boy you got me! Whoa. Devastating. Not quite a rapier wit - more like a paper clip wit.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:49PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi.
You won't be disappointed.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 10:10AM
So, your saying that the Anal Probes were in a different year than 1994?
Is that what you're saying?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 10:16AM
I'm the wrong guy to ask, though, at a 7:46am post below, an expert on receiving has made himself available.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 10:35AM
Independence Day came out in 1996, actually, but I suppose they started making it in 1994. What do I know?
And where is this week's Contest going to be?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 10:57AM
I expect that it will be Bowman, as there's usually a lot of room and little activity there.
I am sure Tim will be announcing soon.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 11:14AM
Bend over!
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 11:19AM
That was actually for Twinkle Toes. And, give "Dimple Chin" a Nat Sherman Cigar for hitting it on the head.
Let's keep a low pro on all of this, or we'll have Anna's Anal Syphilis Lips all over us.
I'll email you, Albert, with the Plan.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:05AM
Semper Fi AC, Jr.... 7th Comm. Bn., Okinawa, Japan, 1981-85.
If the Supremes determine that the people have no right to stop "gay marriage" that leaves only one branch of gubermint to follow suit as President Panic himself has already approved of this abomination. So the official stance of our once God-fearing nation will be sodomy for all with a bit of infanticide on the side.
God's hand of judgment on this nation will not be far behind. You cannot murder more than 50 million babies and destroy the institution of marriage without suffering the consequences.
God have mercy on us all.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 11:10AM
Camp Hansen?
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 1:58PM
You're thinking of "Slapshot" with Paul Newman.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 3:08PM
Hai... that's the place, domo arigato.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 3:45PM
Kin ville was pretty colorful in that era. I was at Foster with 12th Marines 1984-1985 (with all of the additional deployment that entailed).
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 4:35PM
10-4, I spent a lot of time traveling the globe during my 3-year deployment in Japan.... S. Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, Sudan, and a short stint in Lebanon before the bombing. I wonder if my dollar bill is still hanging on that bar wall in Kin Ville after 30 years? I'd sure like to get together with the guys I served with in the Communications Electronics Maintenance (CEM) Platoon. Good to hear from a fellow jarhead.
Chicken Little| 2.28.13 @ 12:18PM
HellllllP! For God's sake, we need the U.S. Army to take control of the Obomaramadama government.
The gays are going to marry each other. Horrors! I am bending over with the dry heaves.
If not the army, maybe the KKK can do something! Somebody call Jonesboro Baptist Church and get them invovled. Call now! There's no time to waste.
HeLLLLLLLP!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 1:09PM
Actually, Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is a well known registered Democrat (along with the founders and members of the Ku Klux Klan) in Kansas, and has run for office as same.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 1:59PM
He's always Bending Over.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 2:52PM
Hey Chicken:
As long as you're bending over, why don't you do hold that pose for a minute? I'm sure someone will come along whose lifestyle you idealize.
Then you can embrace an alternate lifestyle in a, uh, "hands on" kind of way.
Chicken Little really ought to be properly filleted. And marinated.
I am rather amused that you're taking valuable panicking time to lament the destruction of the institution of marriage.
Shouldn't you be devoting all of your shouts of "the sky is falling!" to the $0.01 for every $1.00 that the sequester will take from the INCREASE in the federal budget? Now THAT'S something to panic over!
Surely you can't be so exhausted by the "sky is falling" faint you went into over the made-up "war on women" that you can't muster EVEN MORE hand-wringing over the latest Obama-manufactured crisis. Come on! Crisis is the Alinsky way!
Now that one penny off of every dollar of INCREASE is worthy of hysteria, is it not? Please don't waste valuable agitation on something as inconsequential as the destruction of the one institution most responsible for Western Civilization.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:49PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi.
SUBVET| 2.28.13 @ 11:12AM
anna K/TLP.........no contest ?
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 11:20AM
I'll give ya a holler.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 1:55PM
Didn't Obama kill Bin tellin ya!
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 7:46AM
Divorce is what threatens marriage - not another marriage. You wanna scream about something, scream about that ... not your own bigotry.
Good Grief ... tell me how a gay marriage threatens your own marriage Jeffrey? Or how any marriage threatens your own? That has always been the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
America is waking up to the unfairness, the bigotry and the stupidity of your argument.
And, you will be wiped away by history just like what you flush to remove dirt and filth from your body.
Stephie| 2.28.13 @ 7:53AM
Because Purp, it opens the door to other forms of perversion. Again, keep an eye on NAMBLA and their request to normalize their rape of young boys.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 8:07AM
Maybe he can bring it up at their next meeting?
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:37PM
You remember where the meeting was? After you left my bed, I couldn't recall.
pogybait| 2.28.13 @ 8:21AM
So….why should we limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five or for that matter why limit it to humans. Why not to species or various ages as this seems to fall under the assumption of equal rights.... after all we are allowing government to believe it has an obligation to give its approval.
tjcoop3| 2.28.13 @ 6:03PM
"after all we are allowing government to believe it has an obligation to give its approval."
This, of course. is the crux of the matter. Why are we as believers concerned with what the government thinks or allows?
We are not of this world! We belong to a different Kingdom. Do some research into the government institutionalization of marriage folks. It is not pretty.
They began to track marriages first to protect racial purity, later to track families and to allow women to more easily disolve their marriages and finally in order to be able to use it for tax purposes .
The Church was always the place where marriages were recorded until the late 19th century. If one was not a believer there was common law marriage which was recognized.
I thought Republicans and Christians were about freedom from government...Oh, I forgot we have become just like the liberals. We just want big government to control the things we agree with.
It's all smoke and mirrors people. They want us fighting so we don't see they are out to destroy us.
Sure we win, as believers, in the end. In the meantime let's focus on the gospel and quit trying to destroy people. Sinners sin. Only the Father can change hearts and name calling is not going to win them. His love is!
"If My people, who are called by My name, will turn from their sin...".
Let us quit worrying about what the world is doing and look to whether our own hearts are pure.
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:36PM
Yeps, you are correct... Republicans LOVE Big Government and don't care how much it spends, as long as they get what they want from it.
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:35PM
Because 2 people are 2 people, period.
Not 3, not 5, not gorillas ... you don't get that?
That's a stupid argument and it makes no sense. Why are you limited to marrying only 1 woman? Why not 3, 5, 10? Because it's one on one, right?
Don't be so dense.
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:33PM
Naw, only a sick mind thinks that's true. You really know nothing about gay people, do you? They are family loving, hard-working, caring people that I've had the honor of living next to a while back.
NAMBLA isn't gay... it's pedophiles... guys who like children... which have far more heterosexuals than homosexuals in their ranks. Little girls have far more to worry about than little boys from pedophiles - you just don't care as much about little girls, huh? THAT is a sickness.
Being gay is not.
Or do you know more than the Association of American Psychologists?
You really need to read more and learn something before using your emotions to speak.
Sixgun| 3.1.13 @ 1:37AM
Yeah right! Purp, you must be a practicing sodomite. The AAP listed sodomy as a mental illness until all the homosexuals in the organization had the listing removed. Soon they will have Pedophilia removed as a mental illness and 10 years from now we will be having this discussion on marriage between adults and children.
drudge ette obama| 2.28.13 @ 8:02AM
It's not about a "threat to my marriage" - it is a slippery slope issue. Frankly, why have any societal rules at all? Are you proposing to ban divorce? Explain how the societal definition of marriage amounts to bigotry? Why is it wrong to have multiple wives/husbands? Why is it wrong to forbid consenting 10 year old girls from having sex with mature men? Or with animals? Why can't I raise pigs in my apartment next to yours?
Arnie| 2.28.13 @ 8:24AM
Yes, but Drudge, this is all about figuring out was is right and wrong. And to deny 2 consenting adults, even of the same sex, the rights of marriage is wrong.
I agree society does need rules. But you have to admit, it once had rules that slavery was ok, that women shouldn't work or be able to get a divorce, or that a husband could beat his wife etc.. Sometimes the rules aren't exactly fair or right, and they have to be change and corrected.
If this process scares you because you are afraid of what might follow, I would only advise you to have more faith in your fellow man to know what is right and good.
francisdesales| 2.28.13 @ 9:12AM
Denying two consenting adults to the rights of marriage is not wrong. By definition, marriage is between a man and woman. And sociologist will vouch for the idea, as the article also points out.
You state society needs rules. Yea, like kill all Jews and confiscate all their property??? As to your "rules", more false arguments. There were no constitutionally protected "rules" on slavery, women not working/getting a divorce or a husband beating a wife. They were and are sinful behavior in any case where the government turned a blind eye to. The gays want a constitutionally protected RIGHT where one does not exist.
Faith in your fellow man? Read the Bible and see where that gets you. Those who have faith in man and ignore God and His Law are fools.
Arnie| 2.28.13 @ 9:23AM
Actually the Bible has been used to justify slavery, torture, murders, wars, rapes, multiple wives, kidnappings, dismemberment..etc, you name a horrific act, it probably exists in the Bible, and has been used to by Christians to justify heinous behavior and attitudes.
Maybe it would be a good idea for you to quit reading it.
Arnie| 2.28.13 @ 9:28AM
I have more faith in the man that uses his head and heart to make decisions, than some man that uses a backward text of rewritten stories from 2000 years ago when people had no idea about science or how the world worked and were simply superstitious.
acix| 2.28.13 @ 10:18AM
Your kidding right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....nd_science
http://www.christiananswers.ne.....lileo.html
Darwinian| 2.28.13 @ 10:26AM
Ditto, Arnie:
The Bible contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.
Crude, uncultured human animals, many of which abound on this site. They wallow in crudity, in dirty sexual jokes, in profanity.
And guess what? They call themselves Christians.
Some of the responders to AmSpec are too insane to analyse.
acix| 2.28.13 @ 10:29AM
You see you atheists keep saying these things ad hominem. Evidence please.
acix| 2.28.13 @ 10:30AM
Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. Examples please.
anna k from emory u| 2.28.13 @ 10:48AM
Of course, "Darwinian", since the topic of the day involves "gay marriage", which is the state sanctioning of a sexual act almost universally regarded in surviving civilizations as crude, profane and dirty, it shouldn't surprise if the discussion turns that way.
What is more ironic is when those who christen themselves in a manner to suggest they believe in the propagation of the species and the survival of the fittest would support behavior, or ask others to do so through state sanctioned marriage, that obviously is counter to this.
Did I say ironic? Perhaps I should say moronic.
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 11:57AM
Aha - your true self appears.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 11:50AM
Darwinian, you make it sound as though you have moral qualms about trafficking in humans, ethnic cleansing, slavery, bride-price, indiscriminate massacre. Where are you getting your morality? If Darwinism is true, morality is nothing more than superstition. So why should you, on your Darwinists assumptions, get upset about the practices you claim are taught in the Bible?
Stephie| 2.28.13 @ 12:10PM
And those that promote and sanctify the murder of the unborn, what do you classify them as?
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:50PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 10:48AM
Yeah, one person's "head and heart" should be the arbiter of all morality. There's a swell idea.
Your arguments have to get much, much smarter even to rise to the level of puerile sophistry.
Right now, they're the intellectual equivalent of onanism, if you get my drift.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 2:02PM
I don't think she's able to have an Onanism.
And, who'd wanna giver her one, anyway?
Stephie| 2.28.13 @ 12:08PM
"Feelings, nothing more than FEELINGS........"
acix| 2.28.13 @ 9:57AM
Many faiths (and non-faiths such as atheistic communism) have been used to justify and carry out slavery, torture, murder, wars, rapes, multiple wives, kidnappings, dismemberment...etc, you name a horrific act, it probably exists in any of those beliefs writings (Quran, Communist Manifesto, etc) and has been used by those groups to justify heinous behavior and attitudes
http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=1191
Aware that 95% of Muslims mean no harm but..
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Christian evangelicals led the fight against slavery in the North and civil rights legislation in the South. Just because wrong headed people try to use whatever manual to justify their beliefs/teachings doesn't mean that the vast majority of that faith don't practice it in love.
Maybe it would be a good idea for you to start reading in general.
Arnie| 2.28.13 @ 10:42AM
acix, if people of faith committed crimes based on the Bible....AND people fought for justice based on the Bible, the only conclusion that you can make about it, is that it is irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter. These are simply the acts of men, some wicked, some not.
But to say Bible is necessary and the truth is simply ridiculous.
Evidence, are you serious? Virtually every war across the Middle East and Europe for 1500 years was usually based on some religious grounds. Just pick a random one. There is always a religious element or basis. Not to mention the Crusades.
Plus all the torture carried out by the Spaniards, and other Christians in the New World. Plus the KKK were explicitly Christian.
The evidence is everywhere.
And I'm not just picking on Christianity. All religions justify heinous crimes. I am simply no fan of any collective mass insanity. That would include cult like Stalinism.
acix| 2.28.13 @ 10:56AM
That is not what your original point was. YOUR words again:
"Actually the Bible has been used to justify slavery, torture, murders, wars, rapes, multiple wives, kidnappings, dismemberment..etc, you name a horrific act, it probably exists in the Bible, and has been used to by Christians to justify heinous behavior and attitudes.
Maybe it would be a good idea for you to quit reading it."
Now you're saying your post was just a general statement against "collective mass insanity" and not picking on Christianity.
If that's what you meant then fine but that's not what the original post came close to inferring.
Arnie| 2.28.13 @ 11:03AM
Well, ok, most of the people here are Christians, and were using the Bible to justify their opinions. That's why I brought Christians up.
I still think everybody should use reason, and empathy when making decisions. Throw all the religious texts out. Use your brain and heart.
acix| 2.28.13 @ 11:16AM
Fair enough. Believe me I work so hard to be a good disciple of Jesus Christ and all I do is try to use empathy and reason when making decisions. My proudest moments as a parent are when I find out from my children's teacher (not my child) about how they stood up for a special needs child or someone who was being bullied just like they were taught by us.
We really do teach them the story of when the person who rejected all forms of rescue during a flood (boat, helicopter, etc) asked St. Peter in Heaven why didn't God rescue them St. Peter told them God sent you a boat, etc. We try to use our brain, heart and reason with God's guidance every day.
I pray that you may one day see the value of using the Bible as a guide for your life but in the meantime we can be of goodwill.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:19AM
So Arnie... is it reasonable and empathetic to murder an innocent child in the womb?
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:52PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi, from yesterday.
anna k from emory u| 2.28.13 @ 10:14AM
The true St. Francis de Sales was known as the gentleman saint, and inspired an order of priests to follow in his vocation. He would never use phrases like “two consenting adults”, but would instead counsel all to avoid the near occasion of sin.
I am quite sure that he would object to your appropriation of his name to try to advance your political agenda. I know that I HATE that.
francisdesales| 2.28.13 @ 11:27AM
Anna,
Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, you did not understand my post, which is AGAINST the idea of "two consenting adults" and so forth. I am defending traditional marriage...
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 10:07AM
Wait a minute - a left wing whack job discerning between right and wrong?
HA!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Stop it! You're killing me!!!!
Seek| 2.28.13 @ 6:43PM
I just love your Bloomsbury wit, Mr. Gremlin.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:13AM
Arnie... therein lies the problem with progressives and socialists. They replace the God of creation with themselves. People like you and President Panic make yourselves into god. So now it is you who decides what is moral and what is not... what is right and what is wrong. You replace God's morals with your own, which are ever-changing as you so aptly demonstrate. God's morals never change, sodomy was wrong 6,000 years ago at a place called Sodom and it's still wrong today. Unchanging morals is what society should be based on, not the whims of you or anybody else. One day when you kneel before Jehovah God you will discover the truth in that, but by then it will be too late.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:52PM
Sixgun!
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi, from yesterday.
You won't be disappointed.
Join Us.
Be one of us.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 4:46PM
TLP... I apologize as I am a long-time reader of R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. and his mag, but have only recently started reading the web version. I have heard your mention of this "contest" on many occasions, but am unsure of the rules, could you be so kind as to enlighten me somewhat?
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 8:16PM
Don't bother.
Jeff| 2.28.13 @ 9:13AM
Purp...
Obviously you don't get it. Gay marriage begets legalized polygamy which begets legalized polyamory which begets...which begets...and soon enough there is no such thing as marriage anymore.
I am inclined to civil unions. And as to bigotry...it seems you have a problem with polygamists. Which makes you, by your definition, a bigot.
Ahhh well.
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:40PM
No, it doesn't - you've been indoctrinated to think that way.
Marriage begets polygamy - oh, wait, no it doesn't, does it - because you've been taught NOT to think that way.
You people are really very simple-minded, aren't you?
Polygamists can fight their own fight. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. That's a stupid argument as I have just demonstrated.
Maybe you need to get laid to be more accepting of others.
Jeff| 3.1.13 @ 10:48AM
In other words, bigotry is OK if directed at polygamists, polyamorists etc.
As to Harry Hay and NAMBLA.....it was San Francisco that quite purposefully went out of their way to honor him.
It seems, Purp, that you are a closet bigot.....all we're doing here is getting you to come out.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 10:20AM
Hey, everybody, Purp regurgitated left-wing whack job boilerplate statement # 141-C.
Wow, What a thinker.
I'll bet he has a tattoo, too, to glorify his "individuality." You know, one that's just exactly like the one all of this fellow freeloading friends got!
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:41PM
Can't counter my argument can you? I've been saying the divorce thing for years - and no one has a better argument.
You married? Her divorce will destroy your marriage nothing else, save death. It really is easy to run circles around you.
canuckistani| 2.28.13 @ 10:35AM
Exactly. The real solution is to end civil marriage completely and keep it within the domain of the religious that still cling to the impression that women are chattel and need specific encumberances to the the malfeasance of men sharing their beds.
All marriages should be deemed civil unions prescribing division of property and survivor rights. That's all.
Children are and always have been a separate legal consideration to marriage, and a further separation from marriage is needed in that context.
Until there is data that expressly shows the behavior of a class of citizens is detrimental to society or to the rights of certain groups, freedom should be the default position.
It is same bogus arguments that's justified Jim Crow and miscegenation laws until the '70's - and the Mormon's until nearly the 80's, and the failure of rednecks in Miss to enact the 13th until this year.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 11:05AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I'm sorry, but droning platitudes from a risibly tendentious view of reality put me right to sleep.
I'll stay awake now. DO go on. And on. And on . . . .
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:42PM
Obfuscation with a cornucopia of blather and multi-syllabic words doesn't make you intelligent - just the opposite dudette.
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 7:48AM
An excellent example that government of, by, and for the people has become government against the people. The division between the haves (government officials, union bosses, academia, media, and their cronies) and the have nots (private sector citizens without government connections) has become extreme. The conversion of the federal republic to the more normal human condition of feudalism is nearly complete.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 9:39AM
You are correct fmm that this is not about gay sex or group marriage. It is about destroying marriage bonds and civil society as we know it replacing it with more government drones that obey their rulers for a piece of bread and some mutton. Look at the POS Perp who will sell out his country for $10 per hour.
It is not simply a conflict between heterosexuals, religious and conservatives against queer, secular liberal pigs feeding at the trough. The real battle is between the Democrat Socialist and the GOP liberal Establishment making government the husband and daddy in America versus traditional family bonds.
It is not simply a matter of socialism destroying our great nation by financial means that is an issue, but destroying real men and replacing them with government handouts.
George S| 2.28.13 @ 10:24AM
Oh, it goes deeper than that... it is about destroying Judeo-Christian values, eliminating the oldest rite by trivializing it with gays, small boys and then (maybe) horses and, finally, Democrat women (maybe that's the secret plan -- a way for them to marry).
Remove the religious aspect and you remove God. Remove God and you remove the driving force of individualism to prevail in times of hardship. That, in the end, is what makes the fat, dumb, and lazy run to Papa Barry for trinkets and cabbage.
Von Mises Jr| 2.28.13 @ 10:47AM
Very well said my friend. It is the replacement with Almighty God with corrupt socialist "supermen."
I hear more people at AT and TAS starting to understand that socialism is a religion. It is founded on faith but unlike the Bible that has been proven invaluable, socialism everywhere and at all times is a disaster.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:28AM
George and VM, Jr... excellent analysis by both of you... that's hitting the nail on the head. Amen, and again I say Amen! Without God in the picture any discussion of morality is a non sequitur. God bless you both.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:54PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi, from yesterday.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 8:03AM
So , it would seem that we've come full circle. From 40 Years in the Wilderness, to two Reagan Landslides, to Both Houses of Congress, to Eight Years of "Compassionate Conservatism", to No Houses of Congress, to this Scared of their own Shadow group of Spineless Weasels with a Crybaby at the Helm, soon to be The End of the Republican Party.
Those who Can? Do. Those who Can't? Teach. Those who can't walk past a Mirror without feeling a stirring in their Pants? Consult.
The 911 Commission came to the conclusion that "They were at War with us, but we weren't at War with them." It's the same thing now.
The Democrats do EVERYTHING in Lockstep. They never need to Re-Form their Lines. Their Lines never break. Even after they got Chris Christie's Ass handed to them, in 2010, they did not take One Step Backwards. They didn't make one Compromise. They still aren't. They are more than willing to let this Country Collapse, if it means holding the Ranks, together.
The Republicans can't agree on "Paper or Plastic".
Where the Left is a Monolithic. The Republicans are more like the 50 Contestants at The Miss America Pageant, as they jockey for position in The Question and Answer Portion, that is this Story.
Whoa!| 2.28.13 @ 10:32AM
Warning:
TLP is carcinogenic. Reading his posts may cause cancer.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 11:24AM
Then, by all means, keep reading.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:30AM
LOL... you crack me up TLP!
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 2:03PM
Contest, tomorrow.
NeHi| 2.28.13 @ 2:23PM
Don't you mean Cancer Test tomorrow, TLP.
TLP translation: Too Large Prostate
Too large and cancerous to boot.
Drunken Sailor| 2.28.13 @ 3:45PM
Now just why are you fixated on his prostate?
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:54PM
He wants to lick it.
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 12:02PM
More correctly his posts act as radiation against the cancer of the left.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 2:04PM
Contest, tomorrow.
NeHi| 2.28.13 @ 2:23PM
Don't you mean Cancer Test tomorrow, TLP.
TLP translation: Too Large Prostate
Too large and cancerous to boot.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:56PM
I think you're confusing this with your Aids Test.
Al Adab| 2.28.13 @ 8:35AM
Clearly, after us comes the deluge. Been great knowing all of you.
canuckistani| 2.28.13 @ 10:38AM
Perfect, I'll pay 10 cents on the dollar for your house and make money doing it as you prep for armageddon.
Adios.
Al Adab| 2.28.13 @ 12:48PM
So sorry Canuckipoo, it burned down sometime next year, just before I left for Madeira.
Shery| 2.28.13 @ 8:49AM
I was so shocked when I read that in the news the other day that it took my breath away! The only thing I can figure is this: Most of these GOPe realize that Rove stirred up a hornet's nest and many of them are probably looking at being primaried out, so they thought they'd do the dirty deed now and get it over with. Once the SC makes a decision, it is essentially over and they don't have to deal with it in the primaries. No questions about do they support same sex marriage. I realize America is really over and almost wish to change our name so that in the future we might be able to redeem it again. It was a blessed name, it meant something...something that was unique in the world. However, the elites of our nation have decided that we MUST lead in all that is abhorrent to the sensibilities and so we will continue our slide into the abyss. Although it won't just be financial, but moral and physical. Tocqueville would shocked that we allowed our leaders to plunder the wealth (spiritually, et al) we once enjoyed, especially for the death that it is bringing on our society.
Grzmlyk| 2.28.13 @ 8:53AM
Hey, turn that frown upside down!
This is just another proof point that Emmett Tyrrell's assertion that liberalism is dead was right on the money!
The GOP moves ever leftward for what reason? Because the culture moves ever leftward. End of story.
Does anybody - besides pundits who make money telling the dwindling community of conservatives what they want to hear in contravention of reality - have any doubt as to where this country will be in 10 years with respect not just to "gay marriage," but with all gender-related issues?
Come on. Picture the USSA in 2023 - or what will be left of it. This debate will be ancient history and "LGBT" people will be considered the gender elite.
Heterosexual marriage will be considered the refuge of Neanderthals and bitter clingers - those tragically unhip "breeders" will be society's oarsmen, relegated to the ship of state's galley, their uncool sexual preferences harnessed so as to produce new serfs that will keep the ship moving - while the untethered "beautiful people" lounge atop the sun-dappled, squash court-festooned lido deck that socialism's aristocracy always builds for itself, enjoying the fruits of somebody else's labor, which is the only thing socialism is good for.
And everybody will be required to have at least one same-sex sexual relationship lasting not less than three years.
After all, that's fair.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:37AM
I am in the company of brilliance... I always enjoy the intellectual analysis of the bloggers on this site (TLP, Von Mises Jr., Grzmlyk, Al Adab, Albert Constitine Jr., et. al.) Please, keep it up.
Al Adab| 2.28.13 @ 12:49PM
Grz:
You seem to be having a great deal of fun today.
Sixgun:
Welcome aboard. Will be glad to read your insights.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 2:06PM
Contest, tomorrow at Bowman's House.
Figure it out.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 2:07PM
That's for Al and Sixgun.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:56PM
Life of Pi.
C'mon Sixgun.
Join us.
Walt Sr.| 2.28.13 @ 4:14PM
Here's to Hillary in 2016!
The Progressives march on! Onward and upward!
Hillary and Bill's brains working together to lead this country and its struggle for freedom and equality for all. Just think of it! They will create brilliant strategies to usher in a new world of opportunity for all of us, not just the white heterosexual male, but for people of color, for women, and gays, etc.
IQs in the stratosphere! Their brains are TNT!
Hillary and Bill for eight years.
So many of you Tea Party posters will be dead before their glorious reign ends in 2024!
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 8:20PM
The air is too thin for life in the stratosphere and the TNT exploded.
Derek Leaberry| 2.28.13 @ 9:06AM
The President has done the political spectacular. Going into the 2014 mid-terms with an economy stuck in the briar patch, Barack Obama has split the Republicans on a great number of issues- homosexual marriage, immigration, spending, taxing and foreign policy. Civil war looms in the Republican Party. And Speaker Pelosi seems in reach for 2015.
fmm| 2.28.13 @ 9:25AM
It almost seems that the GOP wants to be second fiddle. That way, they get to enjoy the perks of elitism without any of the responsibility. Seems to be the guiding principle of most of our New America.
Peppermint Tea | 2.28.13 @ 9:21AM
Can we in Utah excommunicate Jon-Jon Huntsman?
His grandfather a hardworking rural patriarch. His father an successful industrialist. Now the pretty boy Obama sycophant wants to show how beautifully "gay" he is. His daughters probably aspire to be Ellen. Hopefully he will never have grandchildren--I say hopefully because they would certainly be confused.
George S| 2.28.13 @ 10:17AM
No, you cannot ex-communicate him... Huntsman ran for president and lost. That gives him the moral authority to enact policy that we disagree with.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:58PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi.
Peppermint Tea | 2.28.13 @ 9:34AM
Now a word about Mormons and polygamy.
It is very very very very very very doubtful that the LDS Church would reinstate the practice before the Savior comes back.
The church always required fidelity within polygamous marriages. There was no group marriage, nor orgies within marriage. Yeah, I know, to some of you this would take all the fun out of it. It was really all about raising more children and thus a greater movement in the 18th century and kingdom in the future.
And Jeff Lord, I think the Brown lawyer has a point that libertarians should consider: if the state is not prohibiting sexual relations among consenting adults, isn't the prosecution of polygamy the act of prosecuting a THOUGHT CRIME? That is, it is okay to impregnate and have children with multiple women at the same time (see Tom Brady, Steve Garvey, or other sports examples), but if you consider yourself married then it is punishable by fine and incarceration?
The difference? A THOUGHT CRIME.
Yet I'm sure Appleby (happy belated birthday!) would shutter at the thought.
canuckistani| 2.28.13 @ 10:41AM
Like the 9th and 10th commandments, thought crimes.
You can't have it both ways.
Job| 2.28.13 @ 5:39PM
serial polygamy vs. parallel polygamy??
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.28.13 @ 9:52AM
I fear Jeffrey that you are merely chronicling our cultural decline. . . .
Jim Adcox| 2.28.13 @ 10:02AM
To paraphrase the late Joseph Sobran: "When a man can conceive a child through anal intercourse, then I may believe there is such a thing as gay marriage."
George S| 2.28.13 @ 10:07AM
Why do you find it necessary to insert the disclaimer that you have gay acquaintances? What are you afraid of or defensive about?
The answer is the same reason why the Republicans are doing what they are doing.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 10:50AM
Spot on. Actually, I have many homosexual acquaintances because I work in academia. And I don't personally like any of them. Not specifically because of their sexual inversion, but generally because of their remarkably persistent infantilism.
Perhaps that makes me an idiotophobe.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 2.28.13 @ 11:19AM
As you are aware, prior to its use in this compound word, a phobia once meant an irrational fear. It seems not to occur to those who toss aroung the term homophobia that fear is not an accurate description, and that there might be a rational basis to any thoughts on the topic.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 2:40PM
There is, and it's still being articulated--as for example in a recent lengthy essay by Gilles Bernheim, the Chief Rabbi of France. Or a recent book-length argument by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson: "What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: a Defense."
Actually, despite my personal dislike for the homosexuals of my acquaintance at work (about 20 percent of the faculty, apparently--compared with less than 2 percent of the general population: ah, let me count the ways in which the atmosphere of academe is truly rarefied), I have mixed feelings about the current homosexualist assault on common sense.
Like St. Paul in 1st Corinthians and St. Augustine in passing remarks occurring in several of his treatises regarding the topic of heresy, I see the heresy of homosexualism as an opportunity for normal human beings to think more deeply about what it means to be normal--and many of the arguments against the homosexualist agenda are first-rate, and extremely thought-provoking.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 2:41PM
The homosexualist wham-wham is just one feature of a general Western assault on first principles--I mean, on the very foundations of rational reflection itself. The assault started in earnest more or less in the 18th century, when rationalism began elbowing out rationality.
By the middle of the 20th century, the rationalist project had bottomed out (mostly under the strain of historical witness to the limits of reason--I mean, the discovery that, left to its own limited devices, reason itself creates real-life horrors on a scale previously unimagined: the violent death-toll of Marxism, for example, is still being tallied, but is already documented at well over 100 million).
So the rationalism of early modernity gave way to today's post-modern nihilism. No doubt the situation is truly baleful and promises to be concretely painful for my own children and grandchildren, who will probably experience overt persecution against their Catholic Christian faith--but the same situation, in the manner of all heresy with respect to orthodox faith, is also stimulating deep reflection and a quality of discourse that I have not witnessed very often in my lifetime.
So where's the Contest this week?
DRed| 2.28.13 @ 3:02PM
You think your own children are going to suffer persecution for being Catholics? In America?
John II| 2.28.13 @ 3:16PM
I shouldn't be surprised. Where I teach, I'm already not permitted to speak my mind publicly on several issues, DReddie, and I don't teach in a public school.
What an odd passing remark for you to pick out from the rest of what I said. I guess you're just not interested in the rest.
You wouldn't know where the Contest is going to be this week, would you?
DRed| 2.28.13 @ 3:41PM
Of course I do. It's at the Mark Bowman article "All That Trash". Enjoy.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 3:57PM
Oh. You mean James Bowman? I should have guessed. Thanks.
DRed| 2.28.13 @ 7:06PM
Forgive me-I had Mark Bowden on the brain.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 3:59PM
That was very nice of you, DRed.
Thank You.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 11:31AM
That would explain all of the Show Tunes.
We need a new policy, along the lines of the New NFL Policy toward new players: "Do you like Girls?"
"It says here on your Application that you've worked in Assademia. Is that a Porn Movie?"
"We're waiting, John II."
John II| 2.28.13 @ 2:44PM
Waiting for what, Timmy? Where's the Contest going to be this week?
"Sometimes I think I will just go mad." (Groucho Marx quoting Greta Garbo, 1929)
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 4:01PM
Bowman.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:40AM
Spot On!!!
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 10:24AM
So, you want to make it seem that you are friendly to gays but think they are second class citizens in their legal ability to marry?
Gay marriage is not the problem. It is certainly not the problem in black communities. The problem is committed relationships. Don't you think that MORE committed relationships are better for our society than less? A legal two person family also takes some of the burden off of society in terms of financial support and child support.
The political issue here, and Lord, you are a prime example, is that Republicans refuse to "evolve" (not surprising) to a developing culture. Societies do evolve as does technology and civil structure. You can't go back to the 50's, Lord, and certainly can't go back to your heyday when you were in the Reagan administration.
Get over it. Blacks were slaves, now they are not. Women couldn't vote, now they can. Races couldn't intermarry, now they can. Evolution, my friend.
And why should this be a SCOTUS issue? Because it interacts with interstate commerce. If gays can marry in one state and want to move to improve their lot in life, they must get divorced. Federal benefits are another issue like Social Security. It only remains a state issue of these things don't exist.
George S| 2.28.13 @ 10:42AM
But it's okay for a gay couple from Texas, each with a full-carry gun permit, to be denied the privileges and immunities of that gun permit in New York City without an NYPD permit? Of which can land him them prison if he brings that gun to New York while seeking to improve their lot on life by moving there.
You see why you liberals are intellectually vapid?
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 10:48AM
Your statement is intellectually vapid. When you visit NYC, you have exactly the same gun rights as any other person there. The same is not true for gay marriage. But then again, it takes some intelligence to understand the difference.
acix| 2.28.13 @ 10:51AM
Your statement is vapid. You proved George's point. So in the case of gay marriage the "couple" would have the same marriage rights as any other person there. (Though I'm not sure if NYC has any gun "rights).
John II| 2.28.13 @ 10:55AM
Actually, your language indicates that you yourself are intellectually vapid. The term "gay" in the political sense of homosexual, for one example, marks you as a child of your times. You don't KNOW how much you don't know, Fiscie.
But does anybody else know where this week's Contest is going to be?
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 10:56AM
I try to use terms you might understand...
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 11:45AM
I am personally not an intellectually vapid liberal, not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that they are concurrently intolerant of those with opposing views.
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 1:08PM
True of people on both the right and left...
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 1:54PM
Not true... go sodomize all you want in the privacy of your own home, that is between God and you. Just don't force me to accept it as normal behavior and codify this abomination in law.
Al Adab| 2.28.13 @ 2:01PM
Sixgun:
Good and on point. It is one thing to tolerate but quite another to sanction, through the power of the state, any particular perversion. This is one result of our long history of creating favored classes.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 4:00PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi, from yesterday.
John II| 2.28.13 @ 4:34PM
Oh. Now I owe DReddie an apology for saying he lied. He just got the name wrong and the post wrong. I just got back from the earlier Bowman piece on "Trash."
acix| 2.28.13 @ 10:48AM
Funny it's always the Republicans/conservatives who have to "evolve". Evolve on spending, DADT, gay marriage, socialized healthcare, abortion, "global warming".
Remember Democrats fought against civil rights legislation and Republicans fought for women's right to vote.
But Democrats/Liberals are never asked to "evolve". NO one wanted Obamacare but they jammed it down everyone's throats with no concern to interstate commerce. It's obvious no one wants gun control legislation but I don't see the Democrats "evolve" on that or interfering with states' rights. Do you have concern about states passing legal marijuana laws that so obviously conflict with federal law?
No it only seems that concern for federalism and its' efficiency is only brought up when leftist issues need to be advanced.
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 11:08AM
To a degree, you are right on some issues... Not the ones you mentioned because national healthcare is an evolved issue and so are things like background checks that take advantage of increased technological innovation. But troglodytes would not understand that, would they?
I don't think Obamacare goes far enough because it is not economically efficient. And the Republicans are stuck in a voucher mentality which goes back to the 1800's. Before you call me a liberal, just know that I support governmental actions that have analytical economic advantages and are NOT ideological. That's why beliefs like tax cuts stimulate the economy (which they don't) or we can balance the budget and still keep all of Medicare and Social Security (not possible) ruin our country.
francisdesales| 2.28.13 @ 11:53AM
national healthcare is de-evolution, my friend.
The idea of healthcare is a worthy thought, but it is not the responsibility of the state to provide it. If the state were TRULY interested in people (rather than monopolizing it for the "winners" in healthcare), they should consider giving better breaks to people and organizations that provide care to the sick.
Go ahead, read about England and the NHS and tell me how "evolved" they are...
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 12:57PM
I'm trained in economics and have studied the healthcare issue in depth -- mathematically. Generally, I don't support the growth of government. But from an economics point of view, and that of global economic competition, the numbers are pretty clear that national healthcare, done properly (and that is a big issue), would help our country compete dramatically. Again, my position is not ideological. I don't believe that healthcare is a right. But at 18-20% of GDP vs. countries with 10-12% of GDP, our businesses lose. National healthcare means that you do have rationing of care based on economic cost. I would not keep Grandma alive for months or years on a machine. If you want your Grandma to be on a machine of in intensive care for a length period of time, then buy insurance, i.e., take personal responsibility for your actions. National healthcare did not make sense 40 years ago when technology and pharmaceuticals were not that prevalent. However, today, those technolgies and costs have evolved, and so should healthcare. That's why your position shows absolutely no evolved perspective.
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 12:58PM
Insurance is also not a solution as healthcare is incongruous with insurance structure. Emergency rooms are the most inefficient form of healthcare and yet at least 1/3 of our population uses that form. Payment based on procedures encourages gouging and payment should be based on results -- just like a good business.
I would propose a hybrid system where emergency and preventative care is provided by the state. Elective procedures would be the reponsibility of the individual either through payment or insurance. Capish?
I'm afraid you are stuck with dated concepts. I encourage you to forego the rhetoric and actually push the numbers as I've done. Study more recent healthcare systems like Taiwan rather than the older and outdated Great Britain.
Not enough people do their homework and want to take the easy route to solutions -- like you, my friend.
francisdesales| 2.28.13 @ 6:25PM
Evolved perspective.
Interpretation...
Unless you agree with Fiscal, you are a troglodyte and some person who is "de-volving". Can you present an argument without calling names?
And drop the "i am trained in economics" bit. That is worthless banter here. Especially given "national health care done properly" bit.
Where exactly is it being done "properly" No doubt in the house of Fiscal, the evolved bright trained by the brightest of the bright, no doubt.
Obamacare is another scheme to enrich Obama bundlers, just like the solar energy business. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies have spent billions to lobby to enable their product to have a monopoly.
You are clueless how the medical field works, and this "national healthcare" scheme is a farce.
Go ahead and read about England and the NHS. Since you won't respond to that joke, I can only imagine that the brights will continue to ignore it, thinking "IF ONLY THEY DO IT MY WAY"....
Your position is de-evolution. It does not provide an answer to the health care problem in this nation.
francisdesales| 2.28.13 @ 12:02PM
How exactly is gay sex "evolutionary" in any aspect? Darwin would laugh at such lunacy.
This is all about the selfish desires of people who are sexually confused and need psychological counseling and prayers of love. We don't need to act on all of our demented desires, nor should we reward them, just because there is a powerful and militant minority demanding that the majority accept their deviant behavior.
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 1:01PM
And most of your ultra religious friends laughed at Darwin -- and many still do.
Your believe that homosexual behavior is demented, is your problem, not theirs. Evolve...
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 2:00PM
Fiscal... and your belief that religious people are troglodytes and demented is your problem, not ours. You need to evolve as well.
TLP| 2.28.13 @ 4:02PM
Contest at Bowman's Life of Pi, from yesterday.
francisdesales| 2.28.13 @ 6:19PM
Grow up, "fiscal".
Homosexual behavior was and is considered demented by psychiatry not under PC attacks from the likes of you. What is at issue is that the majority of people disagree with your "model". Calling people to evolve is an ad hominem attack. Not a defense. Back to the drawing board.
Job| 2.28.13 @ 6:49PM
pick one of these fiscal cos i wanna be fair and judicious about the use of something that evolves (see Moores law) and also revolves; its the scroll wheel on the mouse pad.
a) i held my nose and voted republican
b) i am a troll
acix| 2.28.13 @ 11:18AM
"But troglodytes would not understand that, would they?"
And who would be the troglodytes may I ask?
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 1:01PM
If you have to ask.....
Seek| 2.28.13 @ 12:33PM
Why are conservatives, including Ted Olson of all people, getting on board in support of state recognition of buttstabbing marriage? I don't get it. I thought conservatives were supposed to be against this sort of thing.
Fiscal| 2.28.13 @ 1:07PM
True conservatives value individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Religious extremists who call themselves conservatives, do not. Very few so-called conservatives are really fiscal conservatives today. They promote governmental involvement and expense on personal issues (i.e., growth of government), complain about Obama reducing the cost of Medicare (killing Grandma), and support huge expenses in defense.
The party has devolved into one of religious extremists rather than true, intellectual conservatives. There is no place in either party for a true fiscal conservative who values individual liberties today.
Sixgun| 2.28.13 @ 2:10PM
Oh good grief! I am a religious "extremists" conservative and I believe the Federal gubermint has only two Constitutional functions; (1) national defense, and (2) collect enough taxes to pay for the common defense... that is it. Eliminate everything else the Federal gubermint does today and our Federal budget could be reduced by 70% and our taxes reduced substantially.
How is that for working through the numbers? We are not promoting gubermint involvement, you are. You are the one that wants the gubermint to pass a law and force everybody else to accept your sexually deviant lifestyle.
True liberty is not void of responsibility. True liberty comes from God and a few rules are attached as exhibits. All we want is a few moral absolutes as explained by God. No murder, no stealing, no avarice, no adultery, no fornication, no sodomy, obey your parents, no idolatry. That's about it, other than these few rules have at it, do as you please as long as you harm nobody else in the process.
Is there a problem with that? I guess that makes me an extremists!
Seek| 2.28.13 @ 6:48PM
A lot of your no-nos are in fact recipes for despotism. I'm fine with bans against murder and theft (who isn't?), although the Old testament wasn't first place where they were laid down. But prohibiting "sodomy," "idolatry" or "adultery," with death being the punishment (Book of Leviticus), is a mark of a fanatic society. Adhering to it would render us no different than the worst Muslims.
Yes, I do have a problem with that. A major one.
Sixgun| 3.1.13 @ 2:00AM
who said anything about death being the penalty? Everybody is a despot... it's just a matter of degrees and where you get your moral compass from? New York won't let you use salt, drink a beverage larger than 12 oz., own a mag that holds more than 7 rounds, you have to wear a seat belt when driving, you can't fill a mud puddle in your back yard, you are required to get vaccines to attend public school, you have to get radiated to get on a plane, you can't use the "N" word, you can't pray at a high school graduation, and on and on and on... What I am suggesting is we follow the rules doled out by the big man upstairs, you know, the guy who started this whole thing in the first place as opposed to following the rules of nanny-state, left-wing, wacko, socialists, progressives.
francisdesales| 3.1.13 @ 6:08AM
Funny how people "cite" the book of Leviticus, being clueless that Sacred Scriptures relates a GRADUAL process of God's relationship with man. It all leads to the Christ - and He did not require that His followers continue the Mosaic Laws (only those written by the "Finger of God", the Decalouge - and adding one - Love others)
Sixgun| 3.1.13 @ 11:42AM
Exactly... it is amusing to me how amoral and/or non-believing people often quote the Bible (a book they despise and believe is full of fairy tales) to prove their point. They have no understanding of the subject matter, but pull random scripture out of the Bible and apply it out of context to supposedly support their belief system. Using a book they don't believe in to support their belief... funny stuff.
God's dealings with man throughout history and his methods were modified in phases or periods of time known as dispensations. During the Dispensation of Law, mankind was required to strictly obey the laws of God or suffer the appropriate punishment. Today, we live in the Dispensation of Grace, we are no longer bound by the laws of God. God now offers grace for our failures.
Sixgun| 3.1.13 @ 11:43AM
Does that mean God's laws are void? No, it does not. God never changes, his laws are still valid, we just don't get stoned to death whenever we fail to keep them. The Dispensation of Law acted as a school teacher to each of us whereas the in the Dispensation of Grace, God treats us as adults. In this Dispensation we don't HAVE to follow God's laws, but its a good idea to. Like when you were in school and learning the laws of math. You don't have to use those laws (i.e., 2 + 2 = 4), but it makes your life much easier if you do. You can make your own rules (i.e., 2 + 2 = 5) and call the rest of us bigots because we don't want this equation to equal 5, but that still doesn't change the fact that it equals 4, no matter how many presidents or supreme courts declare it to be so.
Tanguera| 2.28.13 @ 2:25PM
I suggest readers consider what other group -- of increasing...ahem...influence -- would clearly benefit from an expansion of the definition of marriage, first to homosexuals quickly after which a challenge would be made to include polygamists. That would be members of the Religion of Peace. The fact that a number of Bush-related individuals are involved in the 100 supports this notion for me.
If you doubt the power of "influence", look at the speed at which McCain's mind was set right regarding the MB in Egypt.
Put me in the "We're irreversibly scroomed" column.
cicero| 2.28.13 @ 4:26PM
As is always the case, just follow the money. Once all these various "marriage" definitions are in place, I can see the polygamists starting a new industry - kids. As if it is not bad enough now with single women having multiple children with men that cannot support them, and going on the dole, won't it be interesting when an islamic family, or a Mormon family with several wives, and dozens of kids start getting checks based on the number of children in the household? Why work, when you can just have kids?
This culture is in the process of collapse. All of its institutions have been successfully challenged since the sixties. Once the presidency was taken by the children of the sixties, the destruction was complete. Obama is a logical extention of Clinton.
Seek| 2.28.13 @ 6:54PM
Oh, please, already with "the Sixties." Every time I go to Bed Bath & Beyond I see a full bridal registry. And there are more genuine family values in the movies of Judd Apatow than in all the Family Research Council-sponsored "Values Voter" conventions put together.
America isn't about to collapse. We're doing fine. As for extracurricular sex, nobody today has anything on those naughty Victorians. They may not have talked about sex, but their actions spoke far louder than their words. Lucky for us.
Purp| 2.28.13 @ 9:45PM
Gay marriage is coming soon... may as well get used to it... you won't even know it's happened because it will not affect your own marriage.
Why do you want to put your prejudices and morals onto everyone else? Who are you?
Don't bring in the Bible unless you can explain why eating shellfish is an abomination unto the Lord- Leviticus, and yet we all happily eat shrimp, lobster and crabs, even crayfish
Sixgun| 3.1.13 @ 2:04AM
They happily eat shrimp, lobster, crabs, and even crayfish because they are Gentiles. The Laws of the Old Testament were written for the Jews and are not enforceable upon the Gentiles.
francisdesales| 3.1.13 @ 6:03AM
Don't bring the Bible...
If you are going to bring the Bible up, don't cherry pick. Mark's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles both tell us that the dietary requirements were no longer in force. Being a Jew (to include all of their works of cult) is not necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.
As to your question on "putting your morals..", kettle, meet pot... It seems that the entire gist of this article is that people like YOU are forcing your ideals on people like ME... People like me are still a majority here in this country.
gazinya | 2.28.13 @ 10:31PM
If the Supremes do decide that 'sex is our new god' then I propose to file a suit to change our national motto from "IN GOD WE TRUST" to "W. T. F. WHO CARES" It would be befitting to the 'Left Behind' nation.
spectatorofthespectator| 3.1.13 @ 8:50AM
Dear Jeffrey, a majority of the American public now supports same-sex marriage. An 'elite' forcing the concept down everyone's throat? That's on the verge of becoming a canard. You are right that the Right rushed through a bunch of changes to state constitutions in the late 90's and early 2000's when the issue was still new to many Americans and had not been widely discussed or thought out. Now that discussion HAS taken place and people, better informed and (like you, having friends and family locked out of the benefits and obligations of marriage), want the issue re-examined. And that's all. The debate is ongoing, and that's what these 100 people (politicos and thinkers and members of families and friends) have done. You impute to them all kinds of dark motives when all they are doing is exercising their political right to express an opinion and do so collectively for the sake of persuasion. -- Finally, and by the way: look north to Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for years. The sky is still above Canadians and their society, far from falling apart, is a happier and more satisfying place to live than this one, if only because more of the citizenry feels it is part of something great and magnificent and fully equal.
Sixgun| 3.1.13 @ 11:24AM
It matters not what the "majority" think or believe is right or wrong at this point in time and history. As I stated above, a civilized society cannot function if there are no moral absolutes. Replacing God's unchanging morals with man's changing (evolving, progressing, or whatever word you want to use here) morals is the issue. Proud men have been doing this for thousands of years, denying the existence of the one true God and making themselves gods, declaring that they know better what is right and what is wrong.
Will the acceptance of sodomy by our leaders and the codification of sodomy in the laws of the land cause the sky to fall today? No it will not. God is merciful and will give us a chance to correct our error, but make no mistake about it, God's judgment will come eventually if we don't stop ignoring his clear moral precepts.
I wonder, if Canada is so wonderful and such a utopia, why don't you live there?
Creator Endowed| 3.3.13 @ 12:00AM
I see many parallels in the "gay marriage" argument with the logical fallacies the Enemy uses in its other attmepts to undermine our freedom. That is confusion of a priori conditions and the limits on federal power.
Marriage is an institution understood to be a societally recognized union between a man and a woman whose purpose is the establishment and nurturing of family and to protect the transmission of societal values intergenerationally. Virtually all cultures in recorded human history, even those with no contact with each other, developed remarkably similar rituals and recognition of the institution. It is so universally recognized and so universally recognizable as to be part of the Natural Law rights granted to us by our Creator.
As such, marriage predates government, and exists outside of government (note that invocation of religion is not and should not be part of the justification of this viewpoint). It is so central to the well-being of society that governments were forced to acknowledge its primacy by developing laws regarding its rights, procedures and dissolution. Marriage between a man and a woman was IMPOSED ON government because of the fundamental nature of its relationship to societal structure and permanence.
Creator Endowed| 3.3.13 @ 12:04AM
Now, government and the enslavers/progressives want to turn this arrangement on its head. Government will now IMPOSE ON SOCIETY the "appropriate nature" of any relationships that the government will recognize. This reversal - happening in the last 20 or so years after 5000 years of world-wide consensus, will bring with it a reversal of relationship rights previously acknowledged to exist within society and not "government". That is, all previous human history recognized that parents have special rights and responsibilties vis a vis their children that cannot lightly be tread upon by government. All societies recognize that married men and women have great latitude in their beliefs and methods of raising and educating their children. These rights and relationships will all be lost with the new definitions and new ENFORCEMENTS of government policies regarding substitution of governmental relationships for ancestral ones. E. g., lost rights of parents through animositiy to home schooling, "universal pre-school/HeadStart" as advocated by the President, gay "adoption" etc. The goal of the progressives is not equal rights (gays can no more be married to each other than a zebra can be a cow) but the destruction of the basic unit of society - the family of a man and woman in marriage- to allow the substitution of progressive values for our ancestral ones, and to interrupt the intergenerational transfer of our cultural values founded on the Natural Law.