-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The biggest Election Day surprise yesterday was that a majority of Maine’s liberal voting pool OK’ed a ballot initiative protecting the traditional definition of marriage. It’s a double bombshell given that several New England states — either by legislative dictate or judicial fiat — have approved same-sex marriage in recent months.
As the New York Times points out, same-sex marriage supporters had everything going for them in Maine — “far more money, volunteers and political support, and geography” — than conservative forces. Yet they got an electoral spanking.
What does it show? That marriage protection is still a winning issue for Republicans, despite clamoring to the contrary by the party’s wishy-washy moderates. I made that argument in an AmSpec column in May, and it still holds true today.
Thirty-one states have now approved amendments or laws defining marriage as a heterosexual institution. On the flip side, about half-a-dozen states have legalized homosexual marriage through the legislature or judiciary, never by a direct vote of the people.
Yes, polls indicate a gradual slide to the left nationally on the issue, but that holds true for many other positions taken by conservatives, too. Marriage and abortion are not costing the GOP elections.
Along those lines, my takeaway from the Maine vote is simple: the various parts that make up the GOP coalition — fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, foreign-policy conservatives, and those in between all three — need to chill. It’s time we focused more on shared ideals and less on areas of disagreement.
I’m tired of hearing fiscal conservatives gripe about those whack-job religious nuts and their abortion and marriage fetishes. Likewise, it’s wearisome to see social conservatives rip the small-government policies vital for the welfare of this country.
The coalition that Ronald Reagan built was both fiscally and socially conservative, and also strong on national defense. All three are critical planks of the movement, and bickering between them doesn’t help.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/04/chill-gop
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- A Nation on the Edge
- The (Real) Great Divide
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
Bruce| 11.4.09 @ 3:20PM
Just fyi - Maine was not a marriage amendment, but a referendum to nullify a legislature-passed bill legalizing same-sex marriage.
Bob| 11.4.09 @ 4:27PM
The vote was 53/47 -- hardly an overwhelming victory, but you don't seem to mention how close it was (not surprising for an AmSpec blog). It is only a matter of time until this changes. You also fail to note that virtually all of the money supporting that "win" came from outside of the state. Hmmm.....
I wonder what would happen if this was a Presidential year and the turnout of liberals/moderates was greater.... Hmmm....
Nick| 11.4.09 @ 6:38PM
Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.
In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.
He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.
He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.
Roy| 11.5.09 @ 11:58AM
Was that before or after he got done translating the Bible from the original Aramaic?
SoCon| 11.5.09 @ 6:18PM
HAHAHA!! Roy, you remember Ran's smackdown on Bob, too? That was great.
Nick| 11.5.09 @ 8:16PM
Oh man!
Somehow I missed that one. Sounds like it was a good one!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.4.09 @ 5:45PM
...As I put it earlier..."don't dig in each other's outhouses."
Question:
We have NAMBLA (did I spell that right?)
...but so far as I know, DO we have a group called "Responsible non-pedophile gay people"?
I think that is the gut fear for every non incestuous, non pedophile hetero parent/grandparent.
Sorry, but there it is.
Pingback| 11.4.09 @ 6:07PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Chill, GOP [spectator.o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lila| 11.5.09 @ 7:16AM
Gays attacked the Boy Scouts of America for being a heterosexual organization. That is when my heart grew cold. People who pick on little boys and young men sicken me.
Galen| 11.5.09 @ 8:04AM
Lila, your comment is 100% pertinent. Apparently, "gays" aren't really gay at all when it comes to any person and/or any group who disagrees with their decidedly queer view of reality. As in the case of the Boy Scouts, you either agree with them or their long, ugly, yellow fangs come out.
JamesD SevernaPark| 11.5.09 @ 8:15AM
It seems to me that the advancement of these homosexual 'rights' is because the radical homosexuals currently own the conversation. They have defined the boundaries, the language and the volume used. It is this use of certain words that corrals those in opposition.
Being in opposition of gay marriage does not necessarily make one a bigot. To discriminate against homosexuals being joined in wedlock does not equate to being a rabid racist. To discriminate is to make a distinction between
two choices.
In my opinion, a proper definition of homosexuality would include a statement that homosexuality is a perversion of nature. Because of this, homosexuals would then, once again, be defined as perverts.
Perverts should not be permitted to marry.
Yes, I am discriminating. I am making a choice. I am taking a stand. You may shout at me and call me names but I do not accept your definition of me as a bigot. I am comfortable with who I am. I do not seek nor require your approval.
Heterosexuals have demonstrated tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals by the revocation of laws against homosexual sex and by the acknowledgment and approval of openly homosexual persons in government and public life.
Radical gays do not seek acceptance and tolerance though, rather they seek approval and advocacy for their perversion and I say to
you, No.
I have drawn a line and beyond this point you may not step. I will push back and work against you. I do not approve of your perversion and will not allow you to foist that perversion onto me or my children.
Pingback| 11.5.09 @ 10:12AM
Assorted links (11/05) links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thomas| 11.5.09 @ 10:31AM
Some people miss the point here. The US has changed in the last 150 years. It has become tolerant of divorce. It has embraced racial and gender equality. It has developed a tolerance for out of wedlock birth and apparently for adultery. And it has developed a tolerance for homosexuality. Most of the states now have domestic partnership laws, that grant unmarried couples many, if not all, of the same rights and privileges granted to married couples. The only thing that the majority of the heterosexual community asks is that the term marriage be reserved for the legal union of a man and a woman. In an age where divorce and adultery seem to be just part of everyday life, the institution of marriage lends some foundation to a partnership. It recognizes tradition. A tradition of a institution that was designed to protect the inheritance of the offspring of a union, as well as give stability to the fabric of a society. That is why the majority votes to maintain the status quo with regards to limiting the application of the title of marriage to the legal union of a man and a woman.
If a minority can demand that every car on the road be called a Ford, then the majority can demand that Ford be reserved for a certain traditional make of car and that Chevrolets, Chryslers, Toyotas, et al be called what they are.