-
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
In an election season dominated by fiscal issues, Iowa voters chose to oust three state Supreme Court justices (including the chief justice) who sanctioned same-sex marriage in 2009. It’s another example of social issues — marriage and judicial activism — being winners for Republicans at the ballot box, even in a year where jobs and budget drew most of the attention.
It’s time conservative-ish pundits stopped pooh-poohing non-economic issues as electorally harmful. Clearly, they’re not. Neither should they be seen as secondary or a distraction. Marriage and family are inextricably linked to our economic woes. You can’t deal with entitlements and the welfare state without acknowledging the harm caused by the upheaval of the traditional family during the last four decades. America’s fiscal crisis is a social crisis, too.
View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/04/iowa-shows-social-issues-still
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
Siegfried X| 11.4.10 @ 12:57PM
Yes. Which is why it's ironic that Mitch Daniels, who proposed a "freeze" on discussion of social issues, is on the cover of American Spectator this month, up on the top right corner of this web page!
Derek Leaberry| 11.4.10 @ 1:07PM
David Frum says otherwise. When Frum talks, people listen- hardly.
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 1:39PM
David Frum is a RINo-CINO NeoCon AgendaBoy.
Derek Leaberry| 11.4.10 @ 4:15PM
You have Lil' David pegged right.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 11.4.10 @ 1:16PM
Too bad federal judges don't have to run.
David| 11.4.10 @ 1:52PM
This is utter drivel from wingnuts who just won't accept the fact that history is passing them by. Republicans did well last year and this year by talking about economics, the issue that unites all Republicans. If you think we're going to keep the independents, women, and suburban voters we've won back by harping on gay issues, you're delusional. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with big government or high taxes. The economic meltdown wasn't caused by gay marriage or abortion, for god's sake. Get a life.
Siegfried X| 11.4.10 @ 2:41PM
"We" don't call each other "wingnuts". The quality of the trolling on this site is declining.
ggoblue| 11.5.10 @ 6:47AM
GAY MARRIAGE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH TAXES.
check the tax tables for single and married filing jointly. all i have to do is claim im kissing my buddy on the mouth and i too can save thousands!
if you offered gays the marriage benefits but excluded the tax angle they wouldn't even bother.
David| 11.5.10 @ 2:51PM
So the reason gays want equal rights to the marriage license is for lower taxes? You have to be kidding. How can someone so ignorant about what gays want have such a strong position? I know you would like to hang on to all the special rights you currently have, but the day is coming when you'll have to be treated like everyone else.
Brubaker| 11.6.10 @ 11:01AM
Since when did deviant sexual behavior become a "right"?
If two males or two females have a "right" to marry, what about one male and three females"? How about five males? What about two males and one ewe?
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 2:12PM
Depends on The Congressional District .
Social Conservatives Have Voter Power Too.
The Tea Party Rebellion is now inside Congress & The GOP
Carpe Diem.
anne reiser| 11.4.10 @ 2:32PM
Thank you for this blog. After reading comments from Hillyer and Baker suggesting Rinos and pro aborts for GOP candidates in 2012, I am ready to end my mailings from The American Spectator. I guess they, like other elitists, still do not get it. Americans do not want candidates like Mitch Daniels, Susan Molinari, Mike Castle, or Linda Lingle. We want fiscal AND SOCIAL conservatives.
David| 11.4.10 @ 2:43PM
No we don't. You need to learn to keep your religous views out of the government, just as the government should keep its hands off yours. that's was we call freedom.
Winston| 11.4.10 @ 4:40PM
"Do not let anyone claim to be a true American, don't let them claim the tribute of American Patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics." - George Washington
NotALibertarian| 11.5.10 @ 12:00AM
David, you are putting forth a specious argument here. You are casting Normal as the establishment of religion. It isn't.
Freedom is directly tied to Normal. Normal is enforced through social stigmas; the more pro-socially its citizens behave, and the fewer laws the government has to enforce. People are civilized and restrained on their own.
You are casting a sexual free-for-all -- something that has been pushed (and disasterous) for 40+ years in different forms -- as freedom. The more people like you push, the more laws the state will have to create to make up for the chaos caused by the lack of self-control in the population.
Healthy societies stigmatize destructive behaviors. Miserable societies stigmatize the wrong behaviors, or they stigmatize nothing. Your vote seems to be stigmatizing nothing.
David| 11.5.10 @ 2:56PM
You sound like a puritan preacher from the 18th century. That you write such silliness in the name of freedom and limited government is a crime. The government should stigmatize the initiation of physical force against another human being. That's it. Allowing people to do what they want in the privacy of their homes, whether you like it or not, is what freedom is all about. You are on up-tight, repressed dude, that's for sure.
NotALibertarian| 11.5.10 @ 3:44PM
I have perused through your responses and you clearly have nothing of substance to say, only adolescent insults and emotionally-driven accusations. Your credentials as a textbook liberal are flawless. Congratulations.
Long Ben| 11.4.10 @ 2:57PM
Re : David
Marriage has every thing to do with high taxes and more importantly with the foundation of the good society. It was the unmooring of young men ,
notably young black men from the family , starting with LBJ's great society that has led to so many of the government funded and caused pathologies that exist today . We could buy all of the Fortune 500 multiple times with the money spent separating Fathers from their children, from then till now . Same sex marriage is a non starter for most folks . Because they see it for what it is , which is a pathetic attempt to raise disordered
homosexuality to equal status with the God ordained normal use of the woman and the man , within Holy Matrimony . May it never be .
David| 11.4.10 @ 3:31PM
Long Ben: As you point out, it was the pathologies caused by the Great Society that led to the breakdown of the family, especially black families, but it has nothing to do with high taxes. Stop the government from providing all the incentives to bear children without supporting them, and the problem will go away. Same sex marriage has close to 50 percent support, and it grows every year, so you need a better argument than it's "a nonstarter for most folks." You call it disordered; others would call it a God-given characteristic, but what one's personal view of it is is really irrelevant. Everyone, regardless of whether you like what they do, is entitled to the same legal rights. That's what freedom is all about. If you think it's disordered, fine. Don't associate with them or invite them into your home or church, but you do not have the right to force your religious views on them or anyone else.
Long Ben| 11.4.10 @ 3:58PM
What kind of God would create a homosexual then condemn sodomy , their is no such god.
If fathers loved their children and took care of them as they ought to , the US and the whole world would be a much better place . In fact it would be as the days of Heaven on earth . As an added bonus their would be almost no homosexuality . I can not ever remember being mean to a homosexual , my prayer for all homosexuals is that they may be granted the grace to find repentance .
David| 11.5.10 @ 3:02PM
Maybe the same kind of God that created adulterers, liars, cheats, thieves, gamblers, people who take the Lord's name in vein, people who worship idols, and all the other behaviour you can find some mention of somewhere in the Bible. Why your obsession with homosexuality? Lots of things were called abominations in the bible that christians don't care about or even know about. Again, why your focus on homosexuality? It really says more about you and your fellow homophobes than it does about any special attention given to homosexuality in the Bible.
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 3:59PM
" The Defense of Marriage Act itself upholds the states’ 10th Amendment right to define marriage as they see fit. Section 2 of DOMA — which is titled “Powers Reserved to the States’’ — explicitly affirms that states that do not recognize same-sex marriage need not defer to the “acts, records, and proceedings’’ of those that do. What could be more states’-rights-minded than that? Plainly, Congress was not only aware of the Tenth Amendment when it passed DOMA, but committed to defending that “core area of state sovereignty’’ of which Tauro is so solicitous.
Only when it came to the question of marriage within the context of federal law did Congress set male-plus-female as the national definition. But it could hardly have done otherwise — after all, 45 states use the same definition."
The Tea Party Rebellion is now inside Congress & The GOP.
Carpe Diem.
NotALibertarian| 11.4.10 @ 4:47PM
More conservatives need to challenge homosexual activists on the point of their fraudulent science.
The APA made a destructive decision to remove homosexuality from their list of pathologies based, in part, on research of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey was a monster -- a man so vile, he even studied children's sexual responses to pedophilia -- whose research on homosexuality is a joke. The APA's initial deception was very controversial at the time, but not well-publicized. The effect of that mistake remained latent until the AIDS epidemic struck, when gay activists collaborated with Hollywood to very effectively exploit the disease.
When a liberal turns to you and tries to trap you by asking if you advocate making homosexuality a crime again, the response needs to be, "I don't advocate making it illegal. I advocate returning it to the APA's list of mental disorders. Because even homosexuals in socially liberal countries suffer from elevated rates of depression, suicide, and health problems and have half the average life expectancy of the general population. Research does not support the decision to de-classify it, and until it does, it needs to be returned to that category."
David | 11.5.10 @ 3:06PM
Thank God such nuttiness is mostly a thing of the past. But it is sad that a few are so obsessed with sexual orientation
DRed| 11.4.10 @ 5:24PM
Speaking of fraudulent science, I give you the claim that homosexuals have half the life expectancy of the general population.
NotALibertarian| 11.4.10 @ 6:37PM
"Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men age 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years . . . "
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.full.pdf
DRed| 11.4.10 @ 6:48PM
That's an almost 20 year old study of gay men in one city near the height of the AIDS epidemic.
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 6:54PM
DRed opens the door into his face.
DRed| 11.4.10 @ 7:36PM
Come on, Tim*. Assuming that the life expectancy rates of gay men in one Canadian city were representative of those rates in all other socially liberal countries, can you think of anything in the last 20 years that might have happened to drastically increase the life expectency of gay men?
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 8:03PM
You,shot from the hip and called it " Fraudulent Science " and NotALibertarian Saw your Call & Cited An Accredited Study.
The last thing it was ,was Fraulent Science.
Apparently, you weren't aware of the accredited study.
Now Apologize to NotALibertarian.
David| 11.5.10 @ 3:11PM
He doesn't deserve an apology for speading such crap. Would you extrapolate the life expectancy of all the heterosexual HIV victions in Africa and say all heterosexuals have lower life expectancies since they're straight? Do you have an honest bone in your homophobic body?
DRed| 11.4.10 @ 8:07PM
NAL, I apologize for saying you used fraudulent science. I should have said you fraudulently used science.
How's that, Tim*?
NotALibertarian| 11.4.10 @ 9:03PM
Okay DRed. I amend my original remarks to "and have half the average life expectancy of the general population WHEN THEY LIVE IN CITIES."
Happy?
By the way, there still is an AIDS epidemic going on, amongst the male homosexual population anyway.
Feel free to go back to throwing the word "fraudulent" around now.
DRed| 11.4.10 @ 9:23PM
No, because you're missing the point. People with HIV/AIDS live much much longer now than they did 20 years ago.
NotALibertarian| 11.5.10 @ 1:03AM
I first have to say how interesting it is that, after a decade of activists lecturing everyone that "AIDS is NOT A 'Gay' Disease (How Dare You Say That!) It's EVERYONE'S Disease", a liberal is now arguing that elevated mortality rates in gays in this study were only elevated due to AIDS.
Your point is that -- thanks to the obscenely unjust amount of medical-research resources diverted away from genetic conditions and allocated to curing this completely preventable disease, gay men probably live just as long as everyone else.
Do you have any actual source for this claim? If your source shows that the lifespan of gays is now 52 years instead of 42 years because of AIDS drugs, are you going to claim that that proves there is nothing unhealthy about this?
DRed| 11.5.10 @ 9:10AM
Actually, my point is that the study you cite doesn't say what you seem to think it does, and you should stop using it. That's it.
The study you cite claims the mortality rate in the population they studied was high due to HIV/AIDS. So-that's why I'm arguing that the mortality rate in gays in that study was elevated because of HIV/AIDS.
Oh, and that 42 year number-that's the number of additional years they were expected to live at the age of 20. So that would give an average age of 62. Which shows that even if your outdated study meant what you thought it did, you still would have been badly wrong. Nice work.
NotALibertarian| 11.5.10 @ 2:27PM
I went back and re-read my query about eliminating the life expectancy difference, and see what you mean about my wording. I typed "lifespan" instead of "life expectancy", which wrongly implied total years. Your criticism is valid.
I readily-provide links because I think people ought to check the evidence out for themselves. To this end, I repeat my request that in lecturing others about careful posting, you might display some care of your own: There are many reasons why improvements in AIDS treatment may not translate into significantly longer lifespans overall. Please produce evidence to support your contention that this study is now obsolete.
DRed| 11.5.10 @ 3:32PM
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/...../1499.full
DRed| 11.5.10 @ 3:34PM
Sorry-that link won't work. Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/25ejq2d
NotALibertarian| 11.5.10 @ 4:43PM
Thank you for the link. After reading through David's comments, I also want to thank you for your civility.
This link is to a complaint from Dr. Hogg that people drew politically-incorrect conclusions from his work that he didn't like. I was unable to locate any actual statistics about lifespan in the footnotes.
Dr. Hogg's use of the word "homophobia" is particularly unprofessional. His conclusions about reduced mortality assume that sexual behavior in the gay community will remain static in the face of reported advances in treatments.
In reality, AIDS workers have expressed consternation over the years that news of cures often seems to embolden gays to INCREASE their high-risk sexual practices, because they perceive the risk of death to be smaller. This is just one of a number of potential variables in the equation that Dr. Hogg doesn't account for.
Feel free to post any additional information, but I no longer have the time to continue this discussion.
David| 11.5.10 @ 3:14PM
Have you ever considered turning your hatred toward all the heterosexual AIDs victims in Africa and elsewhere and use it to condemn all heterosexuals and their deviant lifestyles?
NotALibertarian| 11.5.10 @ 3:48PM
Have you ever considered that grownups do not throw around insupportable accusations of hatred in lieu of substantive commentary?
Criticism of gay activists does not amount to an endorsement of hetero promiscuity. Both of those things are liberal causes (disasters, really), not conservative ones.
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 8:14PM
You're Apologizing To The Wrong Person.
I didn't cite The Accredited Study, NotALibertarian Did.
Tim*| 11.4.10 @ 8:18PM
Now,I Gotta Apologize.
I mistook NAL for NOW.
You're A Good Sport.
Tassie| 11.4.10 @ 8:19PM
I love you for this article.
Long Ben| 11.4.10 @ 8:22PM
The rectum was not designed for the penis . So as day follows night , the misuse of the two in concert will necessarily lead to life span issues .
David| 11.5.10 @ 3:16PM
Wow, that's quite a scientific analysis. Does that mean all the straights who have anal sex also die young?
Dale | 11.4.10 @ 10:47PM
Marrage does not come from the laws of man. It is a law of nature, it has been around as long as man has been on the earth. Our laws on marriage exist to define the rights of the two parties involved.
Les Coomer| 11.5.10 @ 2:07PM
Redundant research shows that children fare best in a home with both a mother and a father. Same sex "marriage" eleminates even the possibility of that. No, all children will not have an ideal enviroment any more than smoking will be eleminated, but in both cases we want to promote the ideal and get as close to it as possible. Additionally, homosexual behavior is physically dangerous. It can result in damage that must be medically or surgically corrected-and this does not even consider AIDS. Do we want to institutionalize this behavior and entice chidren to try it? Bad social policy is bad social policy no matter what one's religious views may be.
david hilton| 11.7.10 @ 1:10PM
Really? a 'winner' for Republicans at the ballot box? You ignore the fact that some of the losers here - at least Chief Justice Ternus - are Republicans, voted out of office for supporting same sex marriage. So the issue's not a winner for Republicans per se, but only for opponents of same sex marriage (or of judicial activism and over-reach), whether they be Republicans OR Democrats.
William W. Wexler | 11.7.10 @ 7:25PM
It's quite obvious that David Bass doesn't know shit from Shinola when it comes to Iowans. Most people here don't give a rat's ass about voting for judges because unlike other states, for instance North Carolina where he slimes from where judges can be bought for a carton of cigarettes and a bottle of Jim Beam, people here trust their judges to be fair, educated, and supportive of the US Constitution.
But not any more. Since Iowa legalized LGBT marriage, or rather, declared that it is not legal to ban it because it is a human right to marry whomever you choose, the Mormons and their NOM front money have been here in force. It speaks VOLUMES to the rest of the country that the right wing has spent millions trying to take away other people's rights. The Mormons have worn out their welcome in Iowa; before this last campaign, they were generally tolerated and in fact ignored. Things are different now. Iowans do not like to be fucked with by people with tons of outside money, and the defeat of the "gay marriage" judges was nothing more than a trick pulled off by outside money (Mormons).
The notion that this event signals or should signal a return to culture war issues in political campaigns sounds like something straight from the piehole of Otis the Town Drunk or maybe one of the other Mayberry Machiavellians. You go ahead and play that. Watch your ass though, because if you are still paying attention in a couple of years, Mr. Bass, you will see GOPERs in Iowa getting their asses kicked all over the cornfield on the issue of LGBT marriage.
Put it in the bank.
-Wexler
PS To any Spectator readers who don't know my policy already, I only make one post per thread. Since they allow "posing" I have opted to adopt lecturing rather than conversation, so you only get one post per thread from me.