The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : How Can Goldstein Be So Obtuse on DOMA?

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

How Can Goldstein Be So Obtuse on DOMA?

By Quin Hillyer on 2.25.11 @ 10:42AM

Aaron's poor attempt to justify himself is a prime example of changing the subject to avoid admitting that one is factually wrong. Again, I do not fault his opinion (although I disagree with it); I fault his deeply dishonest description of what the Defense of Marriage Act does. Here is the utterly bizarre thing that he wrote in his most recent blog post:

I simply asked why the federal government is in the business of defending marriage when it is a matter best settled at the state level whether through the legislative process (as is currently happening in Maryland) or through referenda (as was the case in Maine in November 2009).

The entire point of DOMA (as pertains to the federalism question) is to make sure that state referenda (as in Maine) or statutes cannot be overriden by the actions of another state. It is specifically to protect state action that DOMA was passed. Without DOMA, Maine's referendum could effectively be overriden by the Supreme Court of Vermont. DOMA says that for purposes of Maine law, or Louisiana law, or whatever, the definition of marriage of Maine or Louisiana cannot be superseded by the definition of marriage in another state. If Vermont wants to "marry" a homosexual couple, Maine would therefore not be forced to provide spousal benefits to that couple if the couple moved to Maine -- specifically because Maine law requires otherwise.

So what if Bob Barr called DOMA "one-way federalism." One-way federalism is better than no federalism. Without DOMA, state and local decision-making would be nil. In fact, the decisions of 49 states could be superseded by the decision of one state to allow such "marriages." Yes, Barr made the assertion that the federal definition of marriage, for federal law, somehow is used as s cudgel against state recognition of homosexual "marriages." It is a strange and baseless assertion. How, pray tell, could it do so? Has any court in the land gone so far as to negate a state's attempt to recognize such unions because state recognition would somehow affect federal Social Security rights? Of course not. It's ludicrous. Barr gives no examples. Earlier in his essay, though, he wrote this:

Contrary to the wishes of a number of my Republican colleagues, I crafted the legislation so it wasn't a hammer the federal government could use to force states to recognize only unions between a man and a woman. Congress deliberately chose not to establish a single, nationwide definition of marriage. [My Italics added.]

By the plain legislative language of DOMA, the federal government is not interfering with the right of states to define marriage however they want to. It is for precisely that reason, in fact, that some social conservatives believe DOMA is too weak: They want a constitutional amendment, not just a statute, that does define marriage nationwide, for all purposes, as being an arrangement only between a man and a woman. If DOMA had attempted such a thing, Goldstein would have a valid argument against it on federalism grounds. But it doesn't, and he doesn't. His argument is intellectually dishonest, or at least awfully close to being so.

.....

Finally, as a side note, Goldstein is stretching a point to say that Obama has "precedent on his side" in choosing not to defend a duly passed law. If his point is that a president is not legally obligated to defend every law, he is technically right. Most conservatives angry with his DOMA decision have acknowledged as much. In unusual circumstances -- especially when a law intereferes with a president's Article 2 powers, especially pertaining to foreign affairs -- a president is not bound to defend a law IN COURT that he finds obviously unconstitutional. But the usual presumption is in favor, strongly in favor, of defending duly passed laws. The exceptions prove the rule. One exception is if the courts themselves already have ruled in the same way that the president sees it. In the example Goldstein cited, the first Bush administration noted that almost identical laws already had been struck down twice by the courts. The courts, in sum, were on Bush's side. Compare that to Obama's DOMA decision, in which his own main constitutional argument has been struck down by 11 separate circuit courts of appeal, while DOMA's underlying constitutional standard of review has been upheld. In other words, Bush had both his own judgment and legal precedent on his side, on a bill never actually signed into law by any president. So it was two branches of government against Congress. Obama, on the other hand, is a sole actor against the courts and against a law not only passed by Congress but signed into law by a president -- and a president of his own party at that. There is no "obvious" example here of a bill's provisions being unconstitutional -- which is what is usually required for a president to abandon its defense. Instead, there is a president asserting a legal position never upheld, as far as I know, by any appellate court in the land, namely that sexual orientation is to be protected under a legal standard of "strict scrutiny."

In short, the Bush example is in no way representative of the situation with Obama and DOMA. As former DoJ Civil Division official, former Cheney counsel Shannen Coffin told The Washington Times the other day, Obama's new position is nothing more than "politics dressed up as constitutional law." (It is an unfortunate state of affairs in this age of political correctness that to say "cross-dressed," which would be more accurate an analogy completely apart from any suggestions of sexual orientation, would be unacceptable among the liberal intelligentsia because they would say it is a slur. Bosh.)

Obama's decision is not just that it puts him on the wrong side of the public, the courts, and millennia of human history. It also puts forth a constitutional argument that would be highly dangerous to textualist/originalist jurisprudence if the Supreme Court actually adopted it. Its ramification could spread well beyond the "marriage" context and be used as, yes, a cudgel not just against any state, such as Maine, that would choose not to recognize same-sex marriages (talk about harming federalism!), but it also could be used as a precedent for courts to further insert themselves into state affairs on any number of other fronts.

I'm not just worried about traditional marriage; I'm worried about our constitutional order. So should every conservative, including homosexual ones.

[Title edited.]

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.25.11 @ 10:50AM

Neither, in this instance he is correct.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 12:52PM

You guys are just insecure. You want to tell others what to do, but you think they can't boss you around. And you want to replace a leftwing welfare state with a rightist one, a guns not butter state.

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 4:50PM

You want to tell people who they can marry; you want to tell others what to do in general, but if they tell you what to do you cry 'statist' or "lib'rall".
In other words you sre saying:
"down with govt (that we don't like); up with govt (that we like)"

Oldefarte| 2.26.11 @ 11:47AM

Do you WANT THE GOVERNMENT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO [ie, to allow homosexuals to marry, to force companies to insure these unions under law, to force taxpayers to pay/fund the cost of lawsuits/insurance benefits regarding same, etc]????????????

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.25.11 @ 1:22PM

Did they change to title of this piece?

Alan Brooks| 2.25.11 @ 4:53PM

Yes, they changed it to:
'Down With Authoritarianism (That We Personally Do Not Like)'

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 11:03AM

Don't worry about different kinds of marriages being accepted into the larger culture, Mr. Hillyer. Multiculturalism has been a sweeping success wherever it has been tried.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 11:07AM

The President of France just declared it was a failure.

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 11:16AM

Bigot.

; )

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:16PM

I think Not a Libertarian was using "irony," which is an unusual tool of humor in American circles, Bob, although not among Pommies, Aussies and Kiwis.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 7:50PM

Sorry,
Missed that subtlety.
Hard to keep track of the trolls here. My apology.

You forgot to mention the Irish and irony by the way. But then there are the upcoming St. Patrick's Day parades. Is this evidence that they have not assimilated?

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 8:02PM

I am not implying here in any way that NotaLibertarian is a troll!

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:27PM

My little town has two Irish pubs across the street from each other, and they advertise "The World's Shortest St Patrick Day's Parade."

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:52PM

Great fish and chips, by the way. Especially the Keg and Cork.

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 11:33AM

I mean, look at all the wonderful results that came out of the Catholic Church's capitulation to gay activists when it came to letting "abstinent" gays into the priesthood. What a noble bunch, those gay activists.

David W| 2.25.11 @ 2:07PM

And we will be able to breathe a sigh of relief when the Boy Scouts finally let in Homosexual Scout Masters....that certainly won't cause trouble.

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:36PM

Don't worry. The way things are trending, soon there will be Allah's Scouts and all the homosexuals will be rounded up. And we will have marriage Muslim style. Lots and lots of concubines.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:17PM

I believe we'll be limited to 4 wives. Good G-d. I can barely deal with the Boss as it is.

Oldefarte| 2.26.11 @ 11:41AM

Ignoring their deplorable religious oriented violence, their idea on this subject ain't half bad!!!!!!!

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 7:56PM

But not if you have daughters and the Girl Scouts let in Heterosexual male scout leaders.

Oldefarte| 2.26.11 @ 11:42AM

The Catholic Church allowed in homosexual scout masters, and LOOK HOW THAT TURNED OUT!!!!

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 11:05AM

Get a life you two or the next thing you know your spat will be a subject on "Hardball!"

Pete| 2.25.11 @ 11:08AM

Take it outside.

Oldefarte| 2.25.11 @ 11:24AM

Again, NATURAL LAW is the basis [and foundation] for MAN'S/WOMAN'S LAW. The former is supreme, while the latter is humanly flawed and politically partisaned. Man/woman was born with FREE WILL, hence homosexuality, flawed law,etc. Man/woman will be judged at death as to their fulfillment of/adherence to the NATURAL LAW!!!!!!!!!

Seek| 2.25.11 @ 11:26AM

Certain issues need to be debated among ourselves. The legal standing of homosexual marriage is one of them. TAS staff has a real row going on -- and it's a good thing in the long run.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:19PM

Personally, I always look at survival issues. Marriage is the best institution Mankind has devised to appropriately raise children, and, in an era of dropping Marriage and birth rates, needs to be defended. Civil Unions allowing full rights for partners is an adequate substitute for homosexuals.

The Law should serve survival, as the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

Bob K.| 2.25.11 @ 7:59PM

Those are good points and come to think of it a marriage between homosexuals is a genetic suicide pact.

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:48PM

Yup. That's why I support Civil Unions, but reserve the title marriage for something else. The Forms Must be Obeyed. There's a marvelous passage from A Man For All Seasons that hits this point, on the importance of the thicket of laws and customs that we have being a bulwark against anarchy.

Capt G| 2.27.11 @ 8:24AM

Even were I too not find arguments for DOMA conservative enough for my liking, I would be greatly persuaded by the death of an institution argument and the ancillary damage associated with that death. Damage we see all about us.

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:50PM

I couldn't agree more.

I shall endeavor, however, to be nasty only to Clint, and urbane to others who disagree with me. I shall explain why---calling me a "Sand Monkey" was way over the line. Calling me a "Tool job," eh, couldn't care. Attacking my ethnicity---that's contemptible and antisemitic. Blatantly and openly.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 2.25.11 @ 11:31AM

If part of the President's job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States, then he made the correct decision here. If part of the President's job is upholding the Constitution, then he has made the correct decision here. There was never any point in defending something as clearly unconstitutional as the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." DOMA sets up differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Iowa or Massachusetts are unrecognized by the federal government for the purposes of tax law and Social Security; obviously this violates the 14th Amendment. Also, unlike married Straight couples, married Gay couples become "UN-married" if they move across state lines, so DOMA violates the "Full Faith & Credit" clause. Face it: There's no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 11:47AM

Public policy should be one of discouraging homosexuality through our educational system (informing the public of the physical and mental conditions that plague this particular subset), not SUBSIDIZING it through tax breaks and legal benefits.

JPM| 2.25.11 @ 1:22PM

Dropping "obviously" in front of a ridiculous assertion doesn't magically transform it into an argument.

There's no equal protection problem when government treats differently situated citizens differently. A marriage license from one of our more degranged states can't make a homosexual couple situated similarly to a married couple. Whatever a state may say, society doesn't approve of homosexual relationships (we tolerate them, which is different) and we have no interest in promoting them. We do approve of marriage and we have a vital interest in promoting it. It is the foundation of the family which is society's basic building block. Different situations, different results, no equal protection problem.

None of this is open to rational dispute. Obama's argument to the contrary, like yours, assumes its conclusion. Nobody ever tries to argue that society has the same stake in homosexual relationships that it has in marriage because any argument to that effect would be laughable. Instead we get unsupported assertions repeated over and over in the hope that most people are stupid enough to be swayed by the repetition of nonsense. Give it a rest.

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:40PM

Errr.... try re-reading the constituion. And when you're done, read the Federalist Papers. The last time I checked it iwas the courts that determine the consitutionality of a law -not the Executive. And while the Supreme Court never ruled on DOMA, 11 District Courts did. They all verified its consitutionality.

Now, you can return to your bong juice and ding dongs.

Oldefarte| 2.26.11 @ 11:38AM

Read the TEN COMMANDMENTS, etc which is the basis/foundation for THE FEDERALISTS PAPERS, moron!!!!!!!!!

Bruce Berger| 2.26.11 @ 9:14AM

Chuck,

DOMA does not violate the 14th amendment IMO. Marriage is an act, albeit an ongoing one, that is encouraged by the state, just as the state encourages home-buying over home-renting, just as it encourages buying hybrids over other cars, just as it encourages going to college, etc.

The government discriminates on all sorts of behaviors, because it has an interest in doing so, whether trying encourage positive behavior or discouraging negative behavior. Marriage, while being a big deal for sure, is just another behavior in which the government has taken an interest.

There is no constitutional right to heterosexual marriage at the federal level, so there can in no way be a right being denied to those who want homosexual marriage.

So you can argue that the government should want to encourage same-sex marriage in the same way it encourages hetero-sexual marriage, but you cannot reasonably argue that lack of same-sex marriage violates the US Constitution.

NotALibertarian| 2.25.11 @ 11:40AM

"law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples"

Chuck, that's actually
"law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples whose relationships contribute nothing to the future workforce population"

Ken (Old Texican)| 2.25.11 @ 12:34PM

Quin, please!
A stupid debate when things are coming to a head, domestically and internationally.

Aaron,
The same words to you! Shut up on this!

You guys quit straining at gnats.

JPM| 2.25.11 @ 1:12PM

Yeah, the world is is in big trouble so let's help the left demolish civilization, that's a good idea. That will work out well.

Back on planet Earth, there's a lot going on, but nothing is more important than preserving the moral infrastructure that makes a free society possible. Do you really think we can totally forget what marriage and sex are for without making society even more dysfunctional than it already is? Do you really think we can have a dysfunctional society with limited government that comes with a price tag we can afford? Do you really think a dysfunctional society can defend its interests around the world.

The idea that "gay marriage" is a distraction from really important issues is a tragic, foolish miscalculation.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:27PM

Actually, Ken, it IS an important issue for reasons that you support---survival of the West, which is also hinging on Demographics. However, neither Quin nor Aaron are focusing on this most important point, thus bringing out the quality of the "straining at gnats," or pilpul, that you have noted.

Gentlemen: there is a tension, deliberately introduced, between Executive and Judiciary that is at play here. But the deciding factor in any discussion of the law is whether it promotes the survival of Western Civilization, or of its greatest proponent in the 21st Century, the USA. DOMA is a pro-survival bill in an era where Demographics are turning against the West.

DOMA does, even if incompletely. The ultimate decision regarding Constitutionality needs to be made by the Supreme Court, and the Obama administration should be defending it strongly at this point, as the unconstitutionality has been ruled on by lower courts and found invalid. Until a higher court decides otherwise, this law is currently deemed constitutional, unlike, say, Obamacare.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:40PM

Sorry. "DOMA does support survival, even if incompletely," instead of "DOMA does, even if."

bfwebster| 2.25.11 @ 12:46PM

I'm still waiting for the classic SNL Dan Ackroyd Point/Counterpoint line: "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

bfwebster| 2.25.11 @ 12:48PM

For those who are too young to remember such things: http://www.hulu.com/watch/2306.....lle-triola

bobmontgomery| 2.25.11 @ 12:50PM

There are a whole lot of libertarians in this country who do not have a clue about the amount of liberty they are going to have left as a result of their going along with the 'liberals' on this issue.

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:42PM

They surely will wake up when the Mullahs drag them kicking and screaming to mosque

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 1:13PM

Ronald Reagan:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:28PM

That was in 1980. What people like you and Ron Paul have done is pervert Libertarianism into an excuse to be Terrorist Catamites, Clint.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 7:21PM

That was Ronald Reagan AgendaBoy.

Fixated Fanatic Israel Firster Troll, Tool Job has it in for Tea Party Patriot Clint, Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul, Tea Party Favorite Dr.Ron Paul & The Tea Party Mission Statement because We don't get on Our American Knees & Crawl to Tool Jobs Personal Fanatic Israel Firster Agenda.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up.

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:45PM

No, Ron was pro-Israel and aid to same, Clint. Sorry. Them's the Facts.

Clint| 2.26.11 @ 9:02PM

Here's The Facts about Ronald Reagan & Dr. Ron Paul Fanatic Israel Firster Troll, Tool Job.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

Larry| 2.25.11 @ 1:35PM

Aside from the usual stupid blog by our beloved but benighted liberal friend, Alan Brooks, I am amused. Go read my posts over in Aaron's post about what the real issue is here. Confront that issue head-on: should there be a Federal constitutional amendment defining marriage? Must a state be required to accept in full faith and credit the decision of another state to allow same-sex marriages? What are the consequences of that resulting de facto reality (face it, if DOMA is unconstitutional, as I believe it may be based upon the 10th Amendment - domestic relations matters have traditionally been left to the states to decide, remember - gay people who marry in Hawaii will be able to move to Texas and have their marriages recognized there; this phenomenon is already starting to happen and if DOMA is struck down we will see the lawsuits coming)?

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 2:09PM

Interesting.
Federal usurpation of States Rights.
Federal subsidies to those It decides are married.
Etc.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:32PM

If you choose to be Childless and in a Gay Marriage, Clint, there's nothing wrong with that. especially the keeping you away from having/raising children part. I'll gladly pay your portion of taxes related to child rearing ($1400 for 2 kids, right?) if you demonstrate that you've had a vascectomy.

Clint| 2.25.11 @ 7:32PM

Uh Oh !

Slandering Liar Fixated Israel Firster Tool Job Is Talkin' His Fruity Stuff Again.

I didn't choose nothin' Slandering Trolling GirlieMan.

I'm sorting through an Interesting Debate.

Obviously, Tool Job had His/Her Nuggets cut off sometime ago.

Handy| 2.25.11 @ 11:21PM

Well, Doc Occ,

I don't agree to pay for your addled kids or Clint's, The Fag, either. You two can dance and kiss as much as you want, but the problem is more basic.

Aaron is a girl or wants to be one. Just like Leslie is a name that can go either way. Quin is a randy bastard who just wants to get into her, or his pants/panties. The difference doesn't seem to matter so much.

I am surprised that a Board Certified Psycho like you hasn't picked up on this.

Oh, and BTW, did you fail anatomy and biology? Why would you care if homos had vasectomies? It's not like they can reproduce, dummy. But, they can pass on fatal diseases. The quicker, the better, I say.

Clint| 2.26.11 @ 12:28AM

Hand Job,The Gender Deprived Eunuch is in the building, talkin' more of his Fruity Talk.

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:38PM

There is always the in-vitro fertilization option, Handy. Has been since Louise Brown. I didn't fail anything. I like to cover all my bases, and possibilities. Check my name. The idea is to take him out of any potential gene pool.

Incidentally, I'm taking care of my two kids just fine. Cute and smart. The antithesis of Clint. And Clint, vocabulary and language skills are not "fruity." Patton was a poet, and a fine writer. The fact that have the vocabulary and language skills of a brain damaged Gulo gulo, whose hygeine and manners you closely approximate, does not make your opposite "fruity," anymore than regular bathing practices would.

Clint, I sense desperation in you. Time to increase the pressure from this "Sand Monkey," Terrorist Catamite.

Can't argue with you on Clint's polarity, though. Too hero-worshippy on old antisemitic men, in my opinion.

Clints| 2.26.11 @ 9:11PM

Fanatic Fixated Israel Firster Troll, Tool Job.I sense Zany Obsession in You.
Take Two Viagra & Call Bibi

JASmius| 2.25.11 @ 2:21PM

Does the headline change mean Goldstein isn't dishonest anymore? If he's still obtuse, doesn't that mean he won't grasp how dishonest you no longer think he is?

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.25.11 @ 3:56PM

Ah! So the headline did change.

Anthony| 2.25.11 @ 3:05PM

All I can hope and pray is that republicans are not stupid enough to let this opportunity slip by. The American people have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of real marriage, in vote after vote. Remember Nixon and the southern strategy, don't let this golden opportunity Obama has laid in our laps pass. McCain blew it with Wright, and with "people clinging to their guns and their religion", saying Obama would make a good president. We've got him beat on this one, don't blow it again. This matters to the American people.

Chuck Anziulewicz| 2.25.11 @ 4:07PM

" The American people have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of real marriage."

And NOTHING is happening to "real" (i.e. heterosexual) marriage. Most people are Straight, always have been, always will be ... and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change after Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

Purple Lips| 2.25.11 @ 4:50PM

Don't worry, after you homos are finished with your victory dance and finished yodeling you will notice that there aren't that many real Chrisitans around. Most hetros are as perverse and immoral as gays thanks to 50 years of "liberation", "education", and "conscious raising". In my neck of the woods, even the Amish are sexting. And it isn't unusual for 50 year old teachers to sleep with 15 year old students. I think most prisons now have a special wing for child rapists. And half of them are female!!!

But, look over the horizon and peek into the landscape of Asia and Europe. Islam is the way of the future. And please, don't say it can't happen here. The Byzantiums believed the same thing. And thier civilization lasted 1400 years before Allah came a knocking.

And if you think Pat Robetson is a cruel theocrat, wait until you meet your local Mullah.

Occam's Tool| 2.25.11 @ 6:30PM

Purple Lips, you speak much sense. Indeed, you speak the sense that I would expect from one who graduated from the school of The Purple and White, my alma mater, TCU. Brilliant comments, sir (or ma'am).

Michael L. Hauschild| 2.25.11 @ 10:07PM

So, you are driving down the road and you come to a Horned Frog standing with his thumb out.
What do you do?
Why, you tell him to hop in.

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:39PM

Why, Thank You. And the same to you, if necessary, Michael ;).

Occam's Tool| 2.26.11 @ 6:42PM

I don't know, Chuck.

Fellatio, according to reports, became much more acceptable to high school girls once a certain President redefined it as "not sex." The actions our leaders take have consequences, moral and otherwise.

I do appreciate your thoughtful tone. (I try to do this too, except when Clint is involved. I take offense to being called a "sand monkey," you see.)

John Carnal| 2.26.11 @ 1:20AM

Is this not just another death-by-a-thousand-cuts nick in the presumption that our governance is bound by our Constitution? If our president wants us to focus on HIM like a laser what better way than by taking step after step to muddle our separation of powers expectations.

Matt X| 2.26.11 @ 7:52PM

It seems like all the younger conservative pundits are obsessed with gay marriage being legalized. I'd be more open to it if a majority of Americans didn't oppose it. A lot of these pundits seem to think that the GOP can scrap the social conservative vote and still win elections when we all know that is not true. Obama won't even come out and state with confidence that he personally supports gay marriage. That wouldn't be the case if a strong majority of Americans were in favor of it. Obama knows it's a poiltical loser, yet you have conservative pundits telling us to embrace it.

<a | 2.28.11 @ 3:12AM

well

Doug Campbell| 3.1.11 @ 7:50AM

Nearly every single comment here is either partially wrong, completely wrong, a logical fallacy or simple bigotry/ignorance and any comment that makes biblical reference is beyond dishonest to the point of sadism and corruption beyond redemption.

The American Spectator

View all comments (71) | Leave a comment