As President Bush again panders to the religious right on the Federal Marriage Amendment, in the conservative Washington Times Bruce Fein chides his fellow conservatives for supporting an amendment that nationalizes marriage regulation in order to ban not only state courts, but democratically elected state legislatures, from favoring same-sex marriage. It's a viewpoint that honest federalist conservatives should take seriously, but many won't.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops again endorsed the amendment, while a coalition of liberal religious leaders weighed in against it.
John McCain, who has called the amendment un-Republican, was very impressive-and sharp as a whip- Wednesday on Larry King. He spoke movingly about why he gave the same speech about reconciliation at both Liberty U. and the New School, and on the need to restore civility among those with whom we disagree politically (as he does with the religious right). McCain also said, sadly, that when he spoke about the death of an old friend with whom he had reconciled, some of the protesting students at the New School laughed. He lamented how they would be the poorer for refusing to listen to those with whom they disagree.
When Larry asked if he "supported gay rights," McCain answered "Yes, sir" but not gay marriage (no, he's not going to go to the left of Clinton and Kerry). But he affirmed he will vote against the FMA because "I believe the people of Massachusetts should make their decision, and others. I think it's up to the states to make those decisions. And by the way, that's the federalist approach." To which I can only reply, "Yes, sir."
More. Conservative pundit Maggie Gallagher, a vocal opponent of marriage equality, takes aim at McCain, writing, "McCain leaves himself with a position on gay marriage that is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's."
That's close to the mark, but judging from some of the McCain-bashing comments to this item, don't expect gay "progressives" to give the senator any credit. Sadly, a gay-welcoming GOP appears to be the worst nightmare of some gay Democrats.
38 Comments for “Darkness and Light on the Federal Marriage Amendment.”
posted by Fr. Anonymous on
“the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops again endorsed the amendment”
This past weekend, all the parishes of the 5 RC dioceses and all the eastern rite dioceses in NJ had a post card campaign asking our Senators to vote in favor of such a ban. As a priest in NJ, I can tell you that a significant number of pastors throughout the state found the whole thing obnoxious and a waste of energy. And this is true also of straight priests, not just homosexual ones. I have encountered the following reasons for this:
1. There is the feeling that American Church authorities are, in effect, attempting to impose our theology of marriage onto the rest of society, which is inappropriate.
2. Such a campaign is nothing more than a a tactic of diversion and distraction from the more critical issues of affective and sexual maturity of priests, and the demoralizing failure of bishops to handle clergy sexual misconduct in an appropriate way.
3. That higher church authorities (bishops and their committees) are attempting to restore “La bella figura” — a lovely image of the church as a caring, loving defender of all that is good. It’s a vain attempt to reinforce and restore the RC’s moral authority and credibility.
Many priests in NJ DO support this ban (including some homosexual priests) because they are trying to be faithful and loyal to the Church. But as I wrote above, this support is far from universal, with even some conservative priests feeling that it’s improper to impose our theology on society, and that gay marriage is totally non-threatening to society.
The endorsement of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops does not reflect the moral convictions of many priests and other Church personnel.
posted by Avee on
McCain’s position is the same as Kerry/Edwards, who encouraged voters to support state amendments. Kerry back the Mass. amendment and others.
McCain would move the GOP light years ahead. But people like Randy R. would rather have a virulently anti-gay, GOP, I suppose.
posted by Randy R. on
No I would not. Where ever did you get that? I stated clearly that McCain is against allowing gays to get married. Mr. Miller clearly stated that he supports this position. I clearly stated that I think that is bizarre for a gay man to argue.
I agree that Kerry was no better, and in fact, held the exact same position. Let me be clear: This position, that a pol would support banning gay marriage at the state level but no the federal level, is wrong and damages gay rights. Okay? Any one who supports that sucks. Got that? And anyone who supports such a pol sucks, too.
Agreed?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree with Senator McCain’s federalist approach to marriage. Marriage has historically been a “reserved power” and the FMA, recast as the PMA, which would introduce federal regulation of marriage into the Constitution, is wrongheaded, to be polite about it. Our constitutional system was designed to distribute power between the federal government and the governments of the several states, and we erode that balance at our peril.
But Senator McCain’s actions belie his bright “Yes, Sir!” when asked “Do you support gay rights?”
Senator McCain is, as noted in the comments, a co-sponsor of the “Protect Marriage Arizona Amendment”, which reads: “To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.”
The PMA bans same-sex marriage, as well as civil unions, domestic partnerships and other “legal status for unmarried persons … similar to that of marriage”.
The PMA, like the proposed amendment in my state, Wisconsin, is a “nuclear option” amendment that is intended to remove the possibility of state legislatures and state courts from granting any legal protection of a type akin to marrige to GLBT couples and their children, and to remove the question from the political arena, permanently.
If the PMA passes in Arizona, the people of Arizona will have no further say in the matter, either through their legislature or their courts. If the PMA passes, the only forum in which the struggle to protect GLBT couples will be fought is the federal courts.
The effect of the PMA — sold as a “let the people decide” amendment — is not to empower the people of Arizona to find a reasonable, practical and sensible way to protect traditional marriage while protecting GBLT couples and families, but to disenfranchise the people of Arizona and prevent them from doing so.
To which I can only reply, “No, sir!”
I don’t want to enter into the question of McCain’s support of the the PMA versus Kerry and Edwards’ support of the Massachusetts and Missouri amendments.
I do want to note, however, that we are now four years down the road and things have changed in those four years, at least in Wisconsin, where I live.
In Wisconsin, the Democrat Party is strongly opposing Wisconsin’s version of the amendment, in an election year, without the waffling and hedging that we saw among Democrats in other states in 2004. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is playing the usual “faggot, faggot” game. The question is whether the voters will fall for it again this time.
McCain would, I agree, move the Republican Party light years ahead on the issue, but that isn’t saying all that much, to be blunt. If the McCain course is followed, federalism will be respected in the marriage arena, but the several states will pass amendments banning same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar marriage-like protections. That isn’t a return to the days of sodomy prosecutions and “no contact” laws, to be sure, but it doesn’t advance the ball, to say the least.
I am, as most regular readers of this blog know, an unreconstructed Goldwater conservative.
I can’t say for certain where Barry would be on this issue, but given the statements he made when he was alive, I can be damn sure that he would not support a “nuclear option” amendment in Arizona. Both the blatant discrimination inherent in such and amendment and the raw attempt to remove the issue from the political process would, I believe, deeply offend Goldwater’s commitment to core conservative principles.
If the Repubican Party wants to make progress on this issue, the way to do it is simple — to return to core conservative principles. That would be light years ahead, in the case of GLBT equality and in the case of small government, fiscal responsibility and other forms of governmental sanity.
And that, I think, is what all of us who believe in those principles should insist upon …
posted by Scott on
I’m startled at how knee-jerk a lot of you guys are on this site. I’ve posted other places and found that people are generally more likely to be realistic and prudent about their beliefs and what they expect from politics and government. This Randy character needs to get some therapy for his anger. He’s the reason so many straight people look at gay men with contempt. Grow up.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Randy, support for a federalist approach (letting individual states decide) does not equal support for the decision a particular state makes.
As has been noted, McCain’s opposition to the federal constitutional amendment (which, by the way, is now called the Marriage Protection Amendment, so its initials are MPA) at the same time he supports an equivalent amendment at the state level, is precisely the same position that John Kerry took in 2004.
I agree with Tom Scharbach that proposed amendments such as Arizona’s are designed to PREVENT the people from deciding. That is, they are being used to stampede voters into a single vote which then prevents any subsequent legislative action on behalf of gay couples. If the anti-gay forces are so confident in their position and in the wisdom of the voters, they should be satisfied with the DOMA-type laws that are already in place in most states. The fact that they are not satisfied with those laws, but are insistent upon amending their state constitutions, shows that they do not trust the voters, because they are aware that opinion is shifting in our favor, and that in another generation they would not be able to pass such amendments. They see a more gay-accepting time coming, and are trying to lock in the discrimination now. McCain is bright enough to see this, the same as Kerry and other Democrats who take a similar position. But McCain’s position is clearly better than that of most in his party’s caucus, and he deserves due credit for it. For us to indulge the partisan impulse to apply double standards on this matter amounts to self-sabotage, so we need to police it within our community and slam those who engage in it.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
thickslab wrote, “How nice of him to say that it should be state legislatures that oppress us, not the constitution.”
I don’t like state-level oppression any better than you do, but a state-by-state approach at this point is better than a one-size-fits-all approach in which we lose nationwide. A federalist approach at least allows legal protections to be enacted for same-sex couples where there is sufficient support for them. That gives us a foothold where we otherwise would have none. The federalist approach is better than Bush’s. Some day we will be ready for our Loving v. Virginia, but that day is far off.
posted by Todd on
I agree with Tom: no one who supports such a far-reaching and extreme ban as that in Arizona can legitimately call himself a proponent of gay rights.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The PMA, like the proposed amendment in my state, Wisconsin, is a “nuclear option” amendment that is intended to remove the possibility of state legislatures and state courts from granting any legal protection of a type akin to marrige to GLBT couples and their children, and to remove the question from the political arena, permanently.
Just as the Eighteenth Amendment “permanently” removed the question of whether or not Americans could produce, import, sell, or consume alcoholic beverages.
Tell that to the Twenty-First Amendment.
If the anti-gay forces are so confident in their position and in the wisdom of the voters, they should be satisfied with the DOMA-type laws that are already in place in most states.
And one would think that if gay activists are so confident in their position and the wisdom of voters, they would be going to voters and the legislatures arguing for gay marriage.
Instead, these hate-flinging activists are going to the courts to try to force their will on voters who have already made it clear through the Legislatures and existing voter initiative propositions that they don’t want gay marriage.
The voters are merely exercising their guaranteed Constitutional right to check and throw back the judiciary. They also know that this isn’t about “finding a reasonable, practical and sensible way to protect traditional marriage while protecting GBLT couples and families”; as Tom’s own website makes clear, this is about imposing gay marriage, whether they want it or not.
What it all boils down to is that the bill is finally coming due for years of hate-filled leftists hijacking “gay rights” and using it to defend their personal jihad against religion, Republicans, capitalism, and god knows what else. Voters don’t trust us, and we have given them ENORMOUS reason not to do so. Once we come to grips with that fact and act accordingly, THEN progress will resume.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
North Dallas Thirty: [Quote from my comment: “The PMA, like the proposed amendment in my state, Wisconsin, is a “nuclear option” amendment that is intended to remove the possibility of state legislatures and state courts from granting any legal protection of a type akin to marrige to GLBT couples and their children, and to remove the question from the political arena, permanently.]
North Dallas Thirty comments: “Just as the Eighteenth Amendment “permanently” removed the question of whether or not Americans could produce, import, sell, or consume alcoholic beverages. Tell that to the Twenty-First Amendment.
Two thoughts:
(1) Please note that I used the word “intended” in the sentence. It is an important word. I firmly believe that the religious right “intends” the ban to be permanent, and I see no evidence at all to the contrary. Do you think that the social conservatives are going to all this effort with their fingers crossed behind their backs?
(2) It is not impossible to repeal amendments. Of course. It has been done at both the federal and state level. It is, however, difficult to do — time consuming, expensive and uncertain. And while we wait for people to become disgusted with the amendment, political solutions are beyond the reach of the political process. It seems to me that it is the wiser course to defeat the amendment before it is put into the state constitution, with the certainty that in many states a solution will be found, rather than to sit back in hope that someday we might be able to repeal it.
North Dallas Thirty: “The voters are merely exercising their guaranteed Constitutional right to check and throw back the judiciary. They also know that this isn’t about “finding a reasonable, practical and sensible way to protect traditional marriage while protecting GBLT couples and families”; as Tom’s own website [link to http://www.blockoutwisconsin.com/mission/marriage_matters.asp ] makes clear, this is about imposing gay marriage, whether they want it or not.”
I have three comments:
(1) You’ve linked to the statewide BlockOut Wisconsin website as “Tom’s own website” twice now. The statewide site is not mine, nor do I have any input on what is posted on that website. I DO, on the other hand, maintain and have input into the BlockOut Wisconsin – Sauk County website [ http://blockout-sauk.blogspot.com/ ] and I stand by what is written about the issue on that site, since I am one of the two coordinators for the BlockOut effort in Sauk County, and nothing goes up without our collective approval. But if you are seeking to imply that I am planning to impose same-sex marriage on folk, you would do better if you at least attempted to be accurate about your linking and explain how you came to that conclusion.
(2) The statewide BlockOut Wisconsin page you link to in your diatribe doesn’t, by any reasonable standard, speak to “imposing marriage, whether they want it or not”. The page makes the case for marriage, to be sure, but goes no further.
(3) I think, along with quite a number of other constitutional and other traditional conservatives, that GLBT’s should push for marriage rather than civil unions. My views are set out in a post on my personal blog [ http://purplescarf.blogspot.com/2005/02/straighty-cats.html ] for anyone who wants to look at them. I might be right, or I might be wrong, but that is what I think.
North Dallas Thirty: “What it all boils down to is that the bill is finally coming due for years of hate-filled leftists hijacking “gay rights” and using it to defend their personal jihad against religion, Republicans, capitalism, and god knows what else. Voters don’t trust us, and we have given them ENORMOUS reason not to do so. Once we come to grips with that fact and act accordingly, THEN progress will resume.”
And how would you have us act?
posted by Avee on
Picking up on the “more” addition to the blog item, I concur. If gay activits had any political sense, they’d all be working to get John McCain the GOP nomination. But you know what, they’d rather that the GOP nominate an anti-gay candidate like George Allen, who will then go on to beat Hillary (or whoever), giving the activists another 4-8 years to whine about how victimized they are by the GOP.
posted by JimG on
This is a comment in reponse to one by North Dallas Thirty where you say “this is about imposing Gay Marriage whether they want it or not”. Tell me, what exactly is being IMPOSED on anyone? Allowance (in this case “letting” gay people get married”) is not the same as “imposing” anything on anyone. It sounds like you have bought into the argument that we (gay People) are somehow trying the “change” marriage for the rest of the country and therefore “something” needs to be protected (what that is I have yet to hear clearly stated).
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“When Larry asked if he “supported gay rights,” McCain answered “Yes, sir” but not gay marriage”
Typical old-party bullshit doublespeak. I don’t understand why Demopublicans swoon over people like McCain, Kerry, and Dean. Would the NAACP be swooning over someone who said he “support black civil rights” EXCEPT “black marriage” or “black suffrage” or participation in any other civil institution? Of course not.
Many gay political players need an infusion of self-esteem and a spine implant, I’m afraid.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“their personal jihad against religion”
Oh, I am sure that purveyors of religious superstition are horrendously victimized. In fact, the news is full of anti-religious constitutional amendments, atheist organizations raping their volunteer kids for 50 years (and covering it up), atheist organizations bamboozling little old ladies out of their contributions and building big homes with them, atheists calling for all-out war against religious societies which differ from them, etc.
We all know that religious organizations are all peace and light and would NEVER do ANY of those things. 🙂
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen H. Miller: “Conservative pundit Maggie Gallagher, a vocal opponent of marriage equality, takes aim at McCain, writing, “McCain leaves himself with a position on gay marriage that is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s.”
Steve, I think that you do Maggie Gallagher a disservice. Maggie’s entire sentence is: “By opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment, McCain leaves himself with a position on gay marriage that is virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s.”
Maggie Gallaher is careful in her choice of words, however much she may be out to lunch on GLBT issues. You should be careful in yours, too.
Half-quotes are often misleading, and the half-quote you used in this case implies that Gallagher said something she didn’t — that Senator McCain’s and Senator Clinton’s positions on GLBT issues, in general and not just in the specific case of the MPA, are similar. I doubt that even Maggie Gallaher is so far gone that she believes that.
You seem to think that Seantor McCain is going to turn the GOP into a “gay welcoming” political party.
I don’t get it.
I don’t understand what is “gay welcoming” about the PMA, which seeks to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar legal protections for GBLT couples and families in Arizona.
And I really don’t understand why I should be turning cartwheels over the possibility that Senator McCain might get the Republican nomination.
It seems to me, first of all, that Senator McCain has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as Senator Feingold has of getting the Democrat nomination.
But more to the point, why should I, having to waste my hard-earned retirement fighting a “nuclear option” amendment in Wisconsin, support Senator McCain, who is co-sponsoring a “nuclear option” amendment in his state of Arizona?
I live in a rural township that has less people in it, probably, than the block on which most of you live, so maybe the fresh air is clouding my brain to the nuances of realpolitik. But the idea that I should support a politican who opposes GLBT equality in order to further the cause of GLBT equality sounds a bit Orwellian to me.
posted by Ed Brown on
HA!
posted by Another Jim on
Tom, what’s happened? You used to once post comments that were rational and sometime insightful, but now you’re just venting GOP-hating anger. You’ve joined the ranks of tantrum throwers like Northeast Liberatiran and Ed Brown. Is that really the company you want to keep?
Your dig and Steve for "partial quoting" was ridiculous. In fact, the lead-in changed nothing, and (as Rick R. has detailed, but you all have your hands over your eyes and ears), there is NO DIFFERENCE in the McCain position and that of Kerry/Edwards and (from all evidence to date) the Clintons.
You tantrum throwers who hate Steve, hate this site, hate all things GOP, and hate McCain — get a life. Or go spend your days with your friends on the hot-house left. We are really, truly sick of you over here.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Anyone who criticizes efforts to paint McCain as some gay messiah is a “tantrum thrower?”
Gosh, conservatives, just like their liberal bretheren, cannot handle any criticism at all. Whenever you point out that their chocolate eclair is filled with turd, they accuse you of ignoring the sugary icing on top. Meanwhile, there are other options which are a lot more wholesome which they’ll condemn because they were baked, not fried.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“there is NO DIFFERENCE in the McCain position and that of John Edwards and (from all evidence to date) the Clintons.”
Exactly my point!
They all suck. And the fact that there’s no difference between McCain and Edwards/Kerry/the Clintons hasn’t stopped your Republican team-sport self and colleagues from blasting them endlessly while giving McCain everything but public fellatio, has it?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(1) Please note that I used the word “intended” in the sentence. It is an important word. I firmly believe that the religious right “intends” the ban to be permanent, and I see no evidence at all to the contrary. Do you think that the social conservatives are going to all this effort with their fingers crossed behind their backs?
I don’t think it’s the “religious right” that will make this ban.
I think it’s all the people in Wisconsin who will see gays as duplicitous leftists, telling them amendments are “permanent”, demanding that they “accept” gay marriage or have it forced on them, and whining/crying about how evil the voters are for being Republicans and/or religious.
What would I do? Be honest.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Tell me, what exactly is being IMPOSED on anyone? Allowance (in this case “letting” gay people get married”) is not the same as “imposing” anything on anyone. It sounds like you have bought into the argument that we (gay People) are somehow trying the “change” marriage for the rest of the country and therefore “something” needs to be protected (what that is I have yet to hear clearly stated).
I don’t have to “buy” into it. All I have to do is pick up the paper and read about lawsuit after lawsuit being brought against voter-passed and -approved amendments or legislative measures, trying to force states to approve, using their antireligious and anti-conservative hate language and statements.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“lawsuit after lawsuit being brought against voter-passed and -approved amendments or legislative measures, trying to force states to approve, using their antireligious and anti-conservative hate language”
But enough about “Loving vs. Virginia” (which you would have characterized exactly the same way in the 1960s like a good little conservabot).
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“whining/crying about how evil the voters are for being Republicans”
The voters aren’t Republicans. A plurality of Americans don’t identify with either major party, and a supermajority aren’t Republicans.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Let me emphasize a point in your argument, NL:
But enough about “Loving vs. Virginia” (which you would have characterized exactly the same way in the 1960s like a good little conservabot).
If your idea of a factual argument is conjecture about what I “would have” done, then I think it should be obvious to anyone that your interest is not in what I say, but in smearing me based on your perceptions about me.
posted by raj on
Aside from the fact that Maggie Gallegher is a paid shill for the Bush malAdministration, and, by extension, their religious right supporters, I note that North Dallas Thirty has still not provided a rational basis for the state’s refusal to recognize relationships between same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships between opposite sex-couples. Neither here, nor at “GayPatriot.net.”
No surprise.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“mmearing me based on your perceptions about me.”
Oh, I am so sorry.
In the future, I will be certain to apply the same careful, thoughtful, balanced and fair approach to you that you apply to people with whom you disagree.
Sorry, I had to pause for a long laughter break there. 🙂
“North Dallas Thirty has still not provided a rational basis for the state’s refusal to recognize relationships between same-sex couple”
Of course not. He’s just an apologist for Dubya — team sport politics. If Dubya was for gay marriage he’d be defending gay marriage just as hard. If Howard Dean switched to the GOP and articulated every single one of his positions exactly the same, except as a Republican, NDT would be valiantly defending Dean from “liberal hatred” and complaining about how oppressed he is.
It’s a classic example of moronic “politics as team sport” which the old-party system has created. People don’t support a position out of logic or principle, they support whatever “their guy” is doing. NDT is a particularly pathetic example of this.
posted by Randy R. on
This “Randy character” needs to respond to a few points made here.
But actually one point need only be made: McCain is against gay marriage, but he is in favor of other general ‘gay rights’. Which ones? If he is willing to state on the record that he favors ENDA (the employment non-discrimination act) and overturning DADT in the military, then I could understand his garnering support from gay people.
However, in the absence of any such stated support, coupled with his stated rejection of any sort of gay marriage, to me at least, means he is unworthy of any gay support.
There are other potential candidates, such as Russ Feingold, who clearly support gay rights and gay marriage, which deserve gay support.
Notice I say ‘gay support.’ For those of whom gay rights are the most critical in selecting a president, then his or her stance on gay rights is paramount. For those of whom gay rights are merely one of many issues, then perhaps they will vote according to those other issues. that is their right, and I respect it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If Dubya was for gay marriage he’d be defending gay marriage just as hard. If Howard Dean switched to the GOP and articulated every single one of his positions exactly the same, except as a Republican, NDT would be valiantly defending Dean from “liberal hatred” and complaining about how oppressed he is.
Thank you for so wonderfully demonstrating my point.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I note that North Dallas Thirty has still not provided a rational basis for the state’s refusal to recognize relationships between same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships between opposite sex-couples.
First off, I have; you simply refused to read it.
Second off, the answer is in your own statement, bolded; you just choose not to acknowledge it.
Reread Lawrence v. Texas; the justices make it quite clear that marriage is a “public act” which states can regulate.
If marriage is a “basic civil right”, as you claim, then be honest and admit you support the right to marry anyone with whom you want to have sex — which would include children, animals, blood relatives, and multiple individuals. You insist that you should have NO barriers whatsoever to having marriage with the person with whom you want to have sex, regardless of family, procreative, or social impact; apply it evenly.
As I have repeatedly said, marriage is not an enumerated Constitutional right. As a result, the Constitution does not require it or require that it be universally granted; however, that also means that the Constitution does not prevent it from being granted legislatively via the power of the electorate.
The reason, Raj, that you and yours are trying to get the courts to do it is because your hate, arrogance, condescending attitudes, and constant insulting of voters virtually ensures that gays will NEVER be granted rights. Ironically, what your pandering to the courts has done is reaffirmed and put into practice what Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers — that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches and always subject to the check of the voters. While you and your fellow leftist friends may believe that voters have no right to amend the Constitution, the fact remains that they can, they have, and they will — if it puts hatemongers like you in your place.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Thank you for so wonderfully demonstrating my point.”
Actually, you have demonstrated *my* point. One needs a sample of about 30+ posts to see a trend — in your case, it’s quite obvious what the trend is.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“hate, arrogance, condescending attitudes, and constant insulting of voters”
Good thing we’ve got the Republicans with their love towards gays, humility, and enshrining of the will of voters (especially in 2000) to counter all this hatred, eh?
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | May 30, 2006, 2:41pm | #
Oh, I read it. And I still found no “rational basis.”
You must be one of the fastest typists on earth, to spout the silliness that you do, without responding to the question. I would refer to your responses as “diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of the brain.” You completely fail to address the issue that has been raised, but instead set up issues that you want to respond to, and respond to them as you would like. That is known both as “straw man” (you set up the straw man that you want to respond to) and changing the subject (the straw man that you want to respond to) is the changed subject.
Almost everything that you responded with was irrelevant to the question that wqas asked: I note that North Dallas Thirty has still not provided a rational basis for the state’s refusal to recognize relationships between same-sex couples (so-called “gay marriage”) on the same basis that it recognizes relationships between opposite sex-couples.
The only thing that might have been relevant was your issue of procreation. But, as was pointed out to you, opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they intend to have children (within the marriage) or whether or not they even can have children. Moreover, opposite-sex couples can have children whether or not they are married. So, the fact that same-sex couples won’t (for now) be able to have children within their marriages is irrational.
I’ll make only one comment regarding your reference to Lawrence vs. Texas. The comment in the majority opinion regarding the issue at hand was dictum, pure and simple. Nothing more than dictum. The marriage issue was not presented to the court in LvT.
As I said over at GayPatriot.net, try again. And don’t bore us with bloviating that ignores and obfuscates the question that was presented to you.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Well raj, you have more patience than I do. Give him some time, he’ll look up more Republican talking points, and then he’ll be back to rah-rah-rah for his team one more time.
What I find hysterically funny is that he’s ranting about how gays who want legal equality are “hateful” and he’s yammering on about hate and enshrining the will of the voters — as a Republican! I guess the extreme irony escapes him.
posted by Scott on
Gees, I read the posts and a lot of them are full of anger and bitterness. That’s the ticket for me. The guy who calls himself a northeastern libertarian comes across as the very kind of fanatic and non-mainstream zealot that keeps me and millions of others from even considering voting Libertarian. If he represents that party’s way of thinking it’s no wonder they’re wandering aimlessly and will continue to. Say what you want but there is a far better chance of seeing certain issues addressed by the two major parties than the also-rans. Sorry but that’s the way I see it. Besides, why we have to vote for or against someone solely on the basis on their stance on gay marriage? I don’t and recommend that others follow suit. The libertarian apologist goes on and on and on about how most people diss his party because they’re clinging to the GOP or the Democrats, yet he’s just as wed to his party. Think about it – he’s the very partisan hack he claims to hate and despise when it’s in the form of a Republican or Democrat. Sounds like a hypocrite to me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Poor Raj; you still don’t get it, do you?
If marriage is a “basic civil right”, as you claim, then be honest and admit you support the right to marry anyone with whom you want to have sex — which would include children, animals, blood relatives, and multiple individuals. You insist that you should have NO barriers whatsoever to having marriage with the person with whom you want to have sex, regardless of family, procreative, or social impact; apply it equally to everyone.
If you in the least recognize family, social, or procreative impact, there is a rational basis for confining marriage to opposite-sex individuals.
posted by raj on
Scott | June 1, 2006, 6:33am | #
I’ll ignore your “anger” comment (it’s rather silly, by the way, but apparently typical of the way that Republicans/conservatives seem to want to comment nowadays), but just to point out that the political religious right (pRR) consider the “gay marriage” issue, the issue on which they will push back on the few equal rights issues that gay people have won. That, in addition to the fact that their anti-gay activity is instrumental to their fund-raising, is one reason that they are bloviating on the issue. (I’ll have more to comment on that in the comments section in the Rauch post in a little while.) If you want the few equal rights issues that gay people have won to be withdrawn, then, feel free to consider equal marriage rights to be a non-issue. You can, however, rest well assured that it won’t be.
BTW, the only thing that the Bush malAdministration has done that might tangentially benefit gay people is their proposed elimination of the estate tax. Is that all that you, and your fellow Republican Dale “What Is A Gay Republican To Do? Vote Republican of course!” Carpenter, really want? If all that you want is your tax cuts, the Republican party is for you.
Note to the Dallas fellow: still no “rational basis.”
posted by Scott on
I’m yawning – does that tell you anything raj? Have your pity party alone.
posted by raj on
Scott | June 2, 2006, 12:48pm | #
I’m yawning – does that tell you anything raj?
Just to let you know, Scott, your sleep deprivation is of no consequence to me.