David Harsanyi, Denver Post:
Winning elections is one thing; governing is quite another. It is impossible to deny that Obama ran one of sharpest, most diligent and exhilarating campaigns in modern American history or, for that matter, that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has won a resounding mandate to run the country.
That only means we need a robust and principled opposition.
My children are continually lectured by well-meaning adults about the mystifying power culled from our differences, the strength we derive from our disparate upbringing and the power of diversity.
So why, one wonders, does this belief not extend to our politics and ideology? Why do we strive to shed individuality and become herds of devotees and shills?
America should be a place that features spirited debate, a place where partisanship is reignited in a fury of righteous opposition, a place where Republicans find a spine and oppose harmony whenever appropriate.
And I don’t mean a mindlessly cantankerous opposition. Nor do I mean resistance to all Democratic policy prescriptions. No, I’m only talking about judges, energy policy, taxes, foreign policy, health care, the budget, education policy, international trade, free trade, gun control, Social Security and around 30 to 40 other policy questions.
In this regard, Obama is faced with a similar predicament George Bush wrestled during his own presidency: too much unity in Washington.
Under Bush, the fissures between factions in the Republican Party  fiscal, social, moderate  began appearing in subtle ways early and eventually undermined the right’s consensus and destroyed the party.
Obama will enter the White House claiming the mantle of unity. Yet, on a practical level, it’s impossible to please everyone. Moreover, despite the momentous candidacy (the country’s first African-American president), he still has around 48 percent of the nation opposing his agenda  some bitterly.
For many conservatives, Obama  who has displayed a thoughtful curiosity of his opponents’ ideological argument more than most politicians  is less frightening than the coupling of Obama with the shrill, knee-jerk partisanship of majority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They don’t believe in unity; they believe in victory.
When Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was recently asked about his party’s plans, two of the top issues he offered would destabilize harmony. One is card check legislation, a Soviet-style measure for unions, and the other was the Fairness Doctrine, which is aimed at shutting down the voice of political conservative opposition.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,” Schumer said. “I am for that . . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
So you see, conservative opinion is the moral equivalent of pornography. Doesn’t sound like unity to me.
So Republicans shouldn’t be fooled. They should be ready to fight. They clearly weren’t this election.
To all of which I’ll just add this: today you are outlaws — fighting the Man.
They are the Establishment. They reek of populism. They claim a mandate.
Fine. But you ain’t Democrats, so you neither have to fall in love nor fall in line. Schumer, et al., are certainly going to try to force you to — and you must be prepared to answer with principle and not pragmatism.
We aren’t system gamers. Leave that to those whose contrivances will eventually be laid bare. Instead, we need to do what we haven’t been doing: articulating classical liberal principles, and voting only for those men and women who refuse to sacrifice those principles for a chance at power — with the implied explanation that, once in power, they’ll be able to get things done.
Better we let voters see the vast distinctions between the progressive ideology, with its totalitarian undergirding, and the ideology of classical liberalism, with its focus on individualism, freedom, a less obtrusive government, self-reliance, and equality of opportunity forged in a free market system.
Everything else is just playing politics — and you may as well just drop trou, learn to call Schumer a “good man,” and be done with it.
amen.
Schumer looks like a guy who pits out through his suit before 9:00 a.m.
e ideology of classical liberalism, with its focus on individualism, freedom, a less obtrusive government, self-reliance, and equality of opportunity forged in a free market system.
When need to tatoo that on our arms. Or, perhaps one of those “Tramp Stamp” thingies. I would, but my husband hates tats.
Besides, Obama may say unity, but it’s unity under his plan, thankyouverymuch. Line up bitches.
One is card check legislation, a Soviet-style measure for unions, and the other was the Fairness Doctrine, which is aimed at shutting down the voice of political conservative opposition.
Schumer is such as ass. Unions and democrats have destroyed Michigan. We’ve got even more Democrats after last night, and now they want to spread unions into what is LEFT of michigan’s businesses.
Unity is always overrated for the losing party – unity is designed to bolster the winner. I won’t even bother calling for it as my scornful disdain at Republican calls for unity is too fresh in my mind. I respectfully accept your ‘fuck you’ Perf. Back atcha and all that – I mean that in the warmest possible way.
As I said in the pub.
Two words: Linguistic Integrity
I figure there are plenty of battles to fight, and plenty of web sites to take up this torch or that. Ace can vet the vetters. LGF can continue monitoring the jihad. PW is uniquely positioned to champion Linguistic Integrity in both the abstract and the concrete.
OK, fine, most people don’t understand Jeff’s posts. More poorer they. But people do get this:
(1) Political correctness is a blight on civic conversation. Time for it to die a horrible death through righteous mockery.
(2) Lack of linguistic integrity is at the root of judicial activism. Nobody likes it when judges usurp the authority of the people, and insisting on the plain meaning of language is the only way to preserve the social contract that rule of law provides.
(3) It is imperative that nobody be able to reinterpret what you said to use it against you. You said what you meant, and anyone who says otherwise is a filthy liar.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, I would rather we prime radio station managers to engage in some civil disobedience should it pass. Because it is such a blatantly unconstitutional measure, it would be justified to refuse utterly to follow it. The government should never ever be in the business of evaluating political speech in any way.
What can the government do? Fine them? They can’t throw them all in jail for refusal to pay.
If enough station owners and managers and their sponsors were on board, resistance would be anything but futile.
Oh, and hey, Lisa! How you feeling this fine day? We got our first snowstorm today!
Schumer is such as ass. Unions and democrats have destroyed Michigan. We’ve got even more Democrats after last night, and now they want to spread unions into what is LEFT of michigan’s businesses.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – Mencken
Where is the outlaw line where we sign up and get those tats?
“Unity” now seems to mean getting along and never questioning…and that’s not peace, that’s complacency.
I sent an email to El Rushbo suggesting that he (and Clear Channel and Premiere) should pre-empt the Fairness Doctrine by offering a twofer package: Anyone who wants 3 hours of Rush also gets 3 hours of Randi Rhodes; let America hear the Leftist Looniverse with their own ears, and you’ll see a swing-back to the Right that will defy the laws of gravity….
Hi Dicentra! It is unseasonably warm here in the Baltimore/Washington area (I think due to the heat generated from us drunken liberals hooting and hollering all night).
how to say… dirty socialists are the suck. Baracky is a dirty socialist. Hint: it’s a syllogism.
I can sell you some carbon offsets to help with the heat. But it will have to be under the table. Low economic footprint to go with your reduced carbon footprint.
And to think, I was in Baltimore just last week. Got out just in time, apparently.
Lisa has been very gracious I think. Lisa, I think you have been very gracious.
Reinterpret? You’re so fuckin’ clueless of what you speak that your gibberish isn’t worth interpreting.
Please interpret my laughter toward you as an affront to you and an assault on that God-thing you worship.
Schumer is such a sniveling asshole who should be tarred and feathered and firmly shoved full-body up the ass of man-pussy thor. An asshole in an asshole. What a sight.
p.s. yes thor you still are a dickless sack of shit who should walk in front of an Amtrak train.
They only need Democrat unity. This is all on Baracky, San Fran Nan, and Harry now.
You ought to be put on a leash and trained to heel.
Lisa’s a treasure. Better, she’s an honorable opponent, with whom the fight is less important than the humanity of the fighters. We could all learn a thing there.
And Jeff is right. When the New Order makes our dissent illegitimate, civil disobedience will be the answer. We will have to learn to be willing to accept what the left does: to be fined and jailed for our beliefs. To be humiliated.
Hopefully, of course, what thor and the gang tell us is true, and that Obama is more moderate than his upbringing, and that such will not be necessary.
But if it is necessary, then
weI must be willing to pay that price.You should be turned into what creatures trained to heel eat you pretentious load.
SOYLENT GREEEEEEN!!!!!
““The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,†Schumer said. “I am for that . . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.—
Fuck you, Chuck, you fascist thug.
Soylent Green will require some very nice branding and package design, but I think I’m up to it. Just imagine the line extensions….Soylent Green Lite…Soylent Green with Mushrooms…Soylent Salsa Style!! Soylent will have to be in a nice scripty font, something classy…then make the “Green” pop in a big sans-serif bold font with some ornamentation.
it’s kinda funny
cuz the name of my unicorn is unity!
And in the name of linguistic integrity, I say that every time thor’s name get mentioned, we all use the modifier ‘fascist thug’, also.
Since it’s true and all.
sorry-Miz Unity
“My children are continually lectured by well-meaning adults about the mystifying power culled from our differences, the strength we derive from our disparate upbringing and the power of diversity.
So why, one wonders, does this belief not extend to our politics and ideology? Why do we strive to shed individuality and become herds of devotees and shills?”
Because diversity is only good with respect to aggrieved status (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), not thought or principles. A ‘diverse’ group to these light-minded crayon-eaters is kind of like a big cocktail party where everyone looks different but thinks the same.
Explain what’s “gibberish” thor, or retract. You’re in power now. Put up or shut up. Oblique attacks won’t be countenanced here.
You haven’t a fucking clue what you’re talking about, and I’ll mop the fucking world with you. Bring it on. Give us your linguistic seminar. I’ll listen respectfully then respond.
Because it’s imperative, and I’m good to my word.
Of course, it’s imperative for YOU to use words like gibberish and try to mock without specifying what it is you’re mocking, or without ever trying to articulate a counter argument.
Thersites tried that once and I left him a quivering heap of community college annex instructor, hoping to god none of his students ever learned what I can teach them.
Andrew Northrup and many on the left take glee in repeating the lie that I’m a “failed academic.” But there’s a reason I haven’t backed down from any debate on these topics from anyone. Just as there’s a reason you talk around things rather than put yourself on the line in public.
Either man up or be a coward somewhere else.
DING DING DING
In this corner, Jeff “The Classical Liberal” G, and in the other corner, thor “The Reactionary Fascist Thug”.
I want a clean fight, gentleman.
And from you too, thor.
Schumer: Fuck! It’s Hamas! Don’t shoot me! Don’t shoot me I’m important to your cause! I’m a good Jew…oh, and by the way, Anne Frank and her family are right up there in the attic.
put up or shut up!
don’t crawl away-renee
cali dreaming
all the leaves are brown…
““The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,†Schumer said. “I am for that . . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.â€Ââ€Â
Now the Dems value consistency? Holy crap on a cracker, I cannot stand Sen. Schumer. Where’s the camera?
This
shit is maddening.
Making the “I’m thoughtfully curious” face while picking out keywords to repeat back at your opponent to wrongfoot his “ideological argument” by invoking the counter-instinct to fight-or-flight is a con.
Pick-up artists call their version of it “mirroring.” Salesmen and hypnotists and cult leaders and child molesters and “most politicians” do it, too. It’s not “curiosity.” It’s predation.
Jesus H., he doesn’t even have “thoughtful curiosity” about his own positions. He doesn’t know where they come from, what they signify, why anyone objects to them — because in person, almost no one ever does (because, among other reasons, see above).
And when they do, as in the last Hillary debate — last, note — or in Joe the P’s case, he shows physical signs of rage, runs off, and sics a fucking goon squad on them.
He’s too insecure to be “curious.” And he’s the damn President.
Not the first such, but…Jesus.
and what foreign object in his trunks is thor already making a reach for?
Thor fancies himself a liberal Gordon Gekko.
A veritable retard of the market renaissance.
Bwahahahahaha.
Try stupid, incestuous, bastard child of Randolph and Mortimer Duke.
oily
Schumer only comes out to touchdown dance
like rahm the Manuel
time to lead mo-fo’s
i’m not following-just criticing/laughing
crying-
checking PW
Thor, put on a gorilla suit and go butt-fuck Beeks for a Crop Report.
Asshole.
#33-sweet!
i think about curious george
but i am a racist
i am curious-yellow
i denounce you
articulating classical liberal principles, and voting only for those men and women who refuse to sacrifice those principles for a chance at power  with the implied explanation that, once in power, they’ll be able to get things done.
Regardless of party designation. (Although it’s not damn likely that a (D) will exhibit much contra-party principle nowadays.) Too many on the right have the football team mentality — give me an R! — no matter if the R means something just slightly center of D.
I read this morning that the numbers on this election won’t be “historic,” and the final tally will be less than 2004. The war was raging, and new, then, and judges were also key to getting out the vote. Then along came McCain and the gang of 14, and bipartisanship, while the RNC continued to back potential (R) “winners” in congressional races, regardless of principles. That brought us to 2006, when those on the right gave up in disgust at the choices, and opted out of “voting against.” If it weren’t for Palin, the 2008 results would have been an overwhelming mandate for the O — because conservatives and classical liberals are sick of voting “against,” while despising the the “fors.”
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 11/5 @ 2:23 pm #
Thor, put on a gorilla suit and go butt-fuck Beeks for a Crop Report.
Asshole.
Bravo!!!
“And when they do, as in the last Hillary debate  last, note  or in Joe the P’s case, he shows physical signs of rage, runs off, and sics a fucking goon squad on them.”
Or, wehn obligated to appear generous, can only call up Saul Alinsky’s rationalization for resistance.
“Because diversity is only good with respect to aggrieved status (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), not thought or principles…”
So true Ronnie. Because the whole diversity/identity politics sham has always been just another excuse to divide and conquer; instead of truly being about interchange, amalgamation, synergy, and divergent thought processes…
It has simply been a cover for pandering to the victimhood group-du-jour; a way to destroy “E Pluribus Unum” by appealing to the ingrained selfishness of the “me” generation…
It used to be about, “Ask not, what your country can do for you…”, but now has become more like, “Ask not what you should do for yourself, but what your government should be giving to you…”
Disgusting…
And I am soooooooo going to be working to defeat Schumer and Hillz when they come up for election next here in NY…
Gibberish is dicentra speaking in tongues.
I’ll mow your tulips! I’ll bring disorder to your house! I’ll wail in semantic ambiguity until ontological uncertainty blurs your vision!
Put ’em up, buster!
god you are such an insufferable loser – just fucking die and rot.
I never liked tulips. They’re colorful, but always seemed kind of plastic.
Jeff tells thor to man up.
Thor responds with a hard flung turd.
It seems to be a plumbing problem.
FLUSH HIM!!!
If thor commented but no one responded, would he keep coming here? You know, that whole “if a tree falls in the woods” thing…
p.s. yes thor you still are a dickless sack of shit who should walk in front of an Amtrak train.
Finally, a reason for me to support Amtrak subsidies.
Sheesh…hard to believe thor had a problem with comprehension.
“Me, I’m gonna get me a bottle of good Tequila, one of these Keno girls that could suck the chrome off a trailer hitch, and kick back.”
— Willie Nelson
ahhh, Lindsey, there’s the rub. There are actually a few (not nearly enough mind you) threads that are beautiful in their sheer absurdity. 40 and 50 comments go by without anyone acknowledging thor all the while he becomes more and more desperate for the attention.
I used the troll hammer script, so I never see anything he’s written. I’m with you. Starve him of the attention he craves and he’ll find another pastime.
I submit the first priority of the Outlaw Agenda should focus it’s efforts on the leadership positions.
Mitch McConnell should be removed from any and all leadership post, forcibly if necessary. This postmodern middleman doesn’t speak for me or to any of my concerns, he is Obama’s enabling bleach! Everyday that he (McConnell) mutters into a microphone on behalf of the party is a day the party takes two steps backward.
Also I have decided to draw a circle around Lamar Alexander R-TN. Despite the Volunteer State’s commanding performance on election day, politicians like Alexandar, capitulating compromisers and language relativist, must be excised.
Seeing to it that Lamar and his language of lies are replaced by true outlaws of the establishment will be my personal project.
Sounds like the core of a good new federal entitlement, Mojo #50, like Mencken’s observation that if a politican had a large enough consituency of cannibals, he’d be promising them fattened missionaries on the public dime.
Political correctness is a blight on civic conversation.
Amen!!! And unless we now live in The United States of Africa America, I’m going to wish our new negro president well.
I’ve been hungover all day. But last night I remember tipping my bartender $60. I remember Jeff insulted Celine! I remember buying 24 shots of, by request, the cheapest vodka my bartendress stocked.
Alcohol was my soft-soap, and my brain soaked and lavishly bathed in it last night.
No seminar shall be forthcoming. I’m only capable of short bursts of cryptic and/or comical metaphors. I must go now because I feel the 14th shit of the day brewing.
Die, you warpigs!
How are those equity markets you love so liking the ascension of O! in the heavens, Thor?
Don’t forget to take your commemorative “Negro President” plate from the Franklin Mint before you leave thor.
Volatility breeds opportunity.
At 3:58, my first coffee of the day is testing my stomach’s options.
“Thor responds with a hard flung turd.”
How does Jeff pick up thor/turd by the clean end?
Not enough tissue in the house.
Call the “Orkin Man.”
“comical metaphors”
Comical implies funny whereas you’re about as humorous as scabies, you wart.
“At 3:58, my first coffee of the day is testing my stomach’s options.”
That’s because your stomach is weak.
Like your soul.
Volatility breeds opportunity.
Indeed it does, but you know that wasn’t my point.
You ever try to find Africa America on a map?
Anybody watched the non-Fox MSM recently? Fellatio not quite the right word, worship maybe.
You ever try to find Africa America on a map?
Doesn’t it share a border with Domestic Terroristan?
You know it’s just north of God Damn America
#57 alppuccino: Heh!
That’s “God Damn Amerikkka,” al. No slip ups.
No seminar shall be forthcoming. I’m only capable of short bursts of cryptic
and/or comicalmetaphors.Fixed that. But,it does sorta explain a lot. thor must be hung over rather often.
I saw a comment from Jeff that he’s not a “failed academic.” Of course, it’s not like he’s a “successful academic” either.
But bigotry did win in California. At least Jeff has that consolation.
That’s “God Damn Amerikkka,†al. No slip ups.
Spelling counts? You’re taking off for spelling?
Shit.
California is a passing strange state, methinks. Let us not travel there.
The press begins lowering expectations for The One
Sorry, my link is getting stuck in the spam filters. Trust me on this one.
Prof. Caric of McUniversity’s blog’s entire front page — 11 comments and counting!!!!
Well The Narrative™ won this round. What are we going to counter with?
No, JD, not The 9 Mil™
Thankfully, many of us already have quite low expectations for him.
But bigotry did win in California. At least Jeff has that consolation.
Ha! So true. And the bigotry took the form of the black voters who voted 99% for Obama too. Good one Caric, you simp.
The stock market, too, Mr. Jeffersonian.
But bigotry did win in California. At least Jeff has that consolation.
Maybe they could put it to a vote in the legislature. Unless, you know, you’re against the democratic process.
[…] Protein Wisdom, JeffG points out that we are now outlaws and that Democrats are now the Establishment. That’s amazing. And it changes my entire self […]
And Obama is another negro who is adamantly against gay marriage rights. Get him Caric!
But bigotry did win in California.
Cheer up Caric, at least 12 year old girls can still get an abortion on the sly.
SOFT BIGOTS!
Caric is sort of charmless I think. You know who’s charming is that Vanessa Hudgens. Just darling really.
The stock market, too, Mr. Jeffersonian.
Just go to the Yahoo! homepage. Everyone over there is typing with one hand.
Lack of opines on the good peRfessor’s parchment reflect a passing fancy of agreement, methinks. Ere one wouldst levy digit to keyboard one must have conflict of view. Genius is served, M’Lord. Unless … perchance it is foul ennui! FORSOOTH!
You know who’s charming is that Vanessa Hudgens. Just darling really.
I’m sick of that smirk. She needs a new look.
“Anybody watched the non-Fox MSM recently? Fellatio not quite the right word, worship maybe.”
Cocaine is a helluva drug.
Jim Jones in the house?
Yes he is.
Suck Obama’s dick media folk…right up til you get laid off…for the greater good you understand.
Don’t you dare cross him.
One bedroom NY apartment to card board box [snap] like that!
Don’t you dare question him.
It’s just that President Negro and his negro minions voted overwhelmingly to squash the dreams of those squishy-bunned gaylords who desired only sweet matrimony. Will those poor oppressed man-brides and she-husbands treat President Negro with the same rage as they did Bush?
I hope so. Pissed-off gay people are very entertaining.
Caric —
If being a successful academic is wearing bad buttondowns and a combover while trying to indoctrinate bored undergrads with antiquated 80s “intellectual” tropes at a third-rate U, you’re the fucking Dean of the Universe.
I left academia on my own. Made a decision that I wanted a family first and foremost.
I suppose I could have gone down the road that leaves one a quivering, ill-kempt laughingstock in a useless discipline, but I had too much self respect.
You might show some by brushing your hair, changing your shirt, losing 30 pounds, and keeping your mouth shut when you’re outclassed.
Now, given that my new policy is to do away with ridiculous distractions, you are free to find another place to park your commentary. Like on your highly successful blog.
“Comment by Ric Caric on 11/5 @ 3:15 pm #
I saw a comment from Jeff that he’s not a “failed academic.†Of course, it’s not like he’s a “successful academic†either.
But bigotry did win in California. At least Jeff has that consolation.”
Another fascist opens it’s piehole.
How DO you attract them so, Jeff?
“California is a passing strange state, methinks. Let us not travel there.”
Here Be Hippies!
I saw a comment from Jeff that he’s not a “failed academic.†Of course, it’s not like he’s a “successful academic†either.
But bigotry did win in California. At least Jeff has that consolation.
Fuck off you fat assed greasy turdlet. Go back to teaching identity politics in your backwoods school.
Blacks in CA, one of the most liberal states in the country, voted 70%-30% against same sex marriage. When identity groups collide, who wins?
“You know who’s charming is that Vanessa Hudgens.”
From the pics I saw, she apparently fired the gardener.
But ok. I can roll with that.
Jeff: elitists calling you a “failed academic” could be:
1) a compliment
2) an insult to losers
3) an impossibility
4) an oxymoron
5) a typo (either a hyphen or slash is missing between those two words)
Wow Caric is one ugly mo-fo. This white male goober teaches classes in African American and feminist thought and politics?
Oh, my. If money’s the issue, I’ll volunteer for that job.
I don’t want to talk about the gay marriage today. Blah blah blah if my partner is dying in the hospital blah blah blah I should have the right. Oh. You really should wish that would ever be your problem I think. You’ve never had a relationship last longer than 18 months and the last one you hit him in the face and then stalked him for a week. That was creepy.
He doesn’t teach anything. He’s got a bunch of bullshit memorized, and he grades students on how much of it they’re willing to parrot back at him.
He’s a fucking joke. And embodies everything wrong with the Humanities and Social Sciences. Not to mention an overdetermination of corn dogs in one’s diet.
Extra large shears and straw hat a must.
academic repartee
A’did u read my paper?’
B’brilliant-did you read mine?’
A”oh-of course!-you made some outstanding points”
B”like the points of that undergrad” chortle
A points to dick “the tipping point”
B”tip of the spear!” chortle- runny snot laugh
will one of you please sacrifice yourself and keep that nitwit entertained at his own blog? The stench of desperation lately is making my eyes water.
or maybe it’s the new contacts.
nope, nope, it’s the “LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!!!! DADDY!!!” desperation.
Because he’s unwilling to learn anything, which for my part is solely a way of expanding “He’s got a bunch of bullshit memorized…”.
Caric is another tool of the establishment and I refuse to let this war-mongering racist pig of imperial bent intimidate me into silence!
You racist cur! Your political base is made of equal parts devotees of witchcraft and the wonders of wizardry, the alien abducted and UFO Chasers, an electorate that looks for causation in the streaking stars across the night sky. You are the bloated established policies of government and everything anti-intellectual. You are a regressive base of primordial ooze and bug worshipers.
Unlock your grasp and reveal an empty hand, I am beyond your reach! I am Outlaw!
NYSE down 486.
King Canute: Major Fail.
but of course, the chimp is still in office.
Higher taxes, more regulation, stricter import tariff and non-tariff barriers…what’s not to like?
> Blacks in CA, one of the most liberal states in the country, voted 70%-30% against same sex marriage. When identity groups collide, who wins?
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
You know who’s charming is that Vanessa Hudgens. Just darling really.
She makes High School Musical 3 far less painful than I had expected.
“Oh, my. If money’s the issue, I’ll volunteer for that job.
Outta my way – I have a pith helmet, I’m going in…
And with that… I finally crack a smile for the first time in 24 hours. Thank you, my fellow horndogs.
As far as the stock market goes, spinning for the new overlords has already begun:
Actual Yahoo Finance headline from Reuters: US STOCKS – Markets Lose 5 Pct as Economic Woes Confront Obama
Really … it’s the economic woes not the hopey shiny. BUSHITLER MCSPENDTHRIFT!
But bigotry did win in California.
What about democracy, Carrie? How many people voted for Prop 8 to demand that activist judges respect the sovereign will of the people?
feh, they’re still homophobes, dicentra.
I remember commenting right here on PW about libs lowering expectations for The One a few months back after talking to my cousin (God love him). When O was up in the polls I said, “Hey, looks like your guy is in. Why so glum?” His response was “Bush has fucked things up so bad I doubt anyone can clean this mess up.”
As of 9 JAN 09, this is all on Baracky. He stopped the oceans from rising, everything else should be a piece of cake, or some of my part of the pie, as it was.
He did say we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for. We could look back on this as the moment the oceans stopped rising. A few Russian missiles and the DOW would be a piece of cake for this guy………….
“But bigotry did win in California. At least Jeff has that consolation.”
“Ha! So true. And the bigotry took the form of the black voters who voted 99% for Obama too.”
Andrew Sullivan could not be reached for comment.
To be fair to thor, to man up, he’d have to be a man.
Goddamn! That psycho is sharp. My read on it was/is that he is awfully immature to running a country.
“Of course, it’s not like he’s a “successful academic†either.”
Ah…Caric, you sniveling prick, that’s why we admire him. Because to be a “successful academic” obviously means you have to be a mendacious twatwaffle.
Give us your linguistic seminar. I’ll listen respectfully then respond.
Thought so, sac-o.
Give us your linguistic seminar. I’ll listen respectfully then respond.
You’re no Bob Probert, lillehammer.
Jeff G.: Demosthenes
thor: Mushmouth from Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids
Caric: once lost a debate with a candy wrapper
“So you see, conservative opinion is the moral equivalent of pornography. Doesn’t sound like unity to me.”
More like the first amendment equivalent. If you can fine someone for saying ‘fuck’ or showing a tit, you can fine them for not balancing out political opinions. That’s the first amendment for broadcast.
But this post could have been written much shorter. “Barack Hussein Obama: Uniter, not a Divider.”
Give us your linguistic seminar. I’ll listen respectfully then respond.
The “Victor Victoria” gambit.
We’ll see how long the unity lasts, even among those on the left. Imagine their disappointment when Teh One doesn’t pay their mortgage and put gas in their car. I mean! They believed! They believed that their messiah would make everything all right. What will they do when they discover he’s a mere mortal? There’s no one so likely to go for the pitchforks and torches as true believers disillusioned, and they will be disillusioned.
I’m predicting that the Kossacks will be screaming for his head by the end of next year.
Give us your linguistic seminar. I’ll listen respectfully then respond.
Because of the Truth to Power !
I just got home, and guess what WASN’T in my mailbox?
WHERE’S MY WELFARE CHECK, YOU LYING FUCK!?!?!
Yo, meya: I expect my car to be full of free gas tomorrow morning, bitch.
Get on it, will ya?
Thanks.
It is impossible to deny that Obama ran one of sharpest, most diligent and exhilarating campaigns in modern American history or, for that matter, that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has won a resounding mandate to run the country.
Actually, it is quite possible to deny that the liberal wing of the Democratic Pasrty has won a resounding mandate to run the country. Unless the words “into the ground” were inadvertently left off.
Early on, I thought.
But now.
Too stupid to be ‘zono.
My Grandfather was a union organizer back in the day. One of the things they fought for the hardest was secret ballots to avoid intimidation by company goons. Looks like we have now come full circle.
A mule lives a long time.
That nutty professor, Caric, and his 10-mile-deep home page. I felt I was in “Journey to the Center of the Earth”. Without the other people.
It is impossible to deny that Obama ran one of sharpest, most diligent and exhilarating campaigns in modern American history or, for that matter, that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has won a resounding mandate to run the country.
I need to know who paid for it, until then Barrack is just another crooked fucking liar it appears to me.
There’s no glory to be had playing defense.
What about democracy, Carrie? How many people voted for Prop 8 to demand that activist judges respect the sovereign will of the people?
I respectfully disagree with you dicentra. Ayn Rand once said:
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.
Certain things are not up for public vote. You can’t just decide that someone should have separate privleges for no good reason other than the majority feels icky about them. If they are law abiding, tax-paying, consenting (no, two consenting adults marrying is not the same as marrying your dog or infant neice) adults – who are we to deny them the privleges that we have?
There is still the matter of putting up the good fight. Some on the other side now want to ban fighting to achieve their “one vote, one time” goal. Others think fighting means you are a racist, a reactionary, or somehting worse. They are wrong. There are still principles and ideals worth fighting for and until I hear that President-Elect Obama has decided to start valuing individualism and liberty more than specious and ephemeral equality, I am going to keep fighting.
More like the first amendment equivalent. If you can fine someone for saying ‘fuck’ or showing a tit, you can fine them for not balancing out political opinions. That’s the first amendment for broadcast.
Hmmmmm, fuck and titties are a bit less ambiguous than the idea of “balance”. We all know that folks have wildly varied views on what “balanced” is.
And what if the person deciding what is balanced is himself unbalanced? That would suck ass, n’est pas?
— Comrade S.T.
Anyone else having a Venezuela Premonition?
tony
south haven,mi
Yo, meya: I expect my car to be full of free gas tomorrow morning, bitch.
Get on it, will ya?
Thanks.
Party officials and apparatchiks will get the gas. You will get one mule, a wagon, and two goats.
— Comrade S.T.
okay, did anyone else catch Juan Williams on Special Report tonight saying that Obama’s bringing Rahm Emanuel on board because he’s the kind of guy that can “make the trains run on time”? I couldn’t decide whether to LOL or bang my head on the floor. went with eyebrow raise and head shake.
Shay over at Booker Rising has a great roundup of moderate & conservative Black reations. Start here and scroll down.
I will accord your guy the same respect your side has shown my guy over the past seven years, Lisa.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,†Schumer said. “I am for that . . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.â€Â
So, what Chuck Schumer is saying is that if government does anything it must do everything. Never before has such a small-minded hobgoblin been so troubled by consistency.
[…] Schadenfreude. It’s what’s for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For the next four years. Posted by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates @ 1:01 am | Trackback Share This […]
>>You can’t just decide that someone should have separate privleges for no good reason other than the majority feels icky about them.
What about religious liberty, Lisa?
I’m emphatically not religious, but I have to consider that my fellow citizens have the previously-recognised right to religious self-determination. Among the many stated objections to SSM was the religious argument, though it of course was not the only one made.
I’d considered it b/c those citizens who are religious were concerned that their own churches – frequently ones they’d built themselves over generations – would become null and void as expressions of faith if SSMs were performed within any constituent body of their churches.
Regardless of my ‘feelings’ on the matter, my own ethics will not bring me to trample on them for such a shallow reason. Take civil unions or nothing at all.
Lisa:
Your concept of the role of marriage and sexuality with relation to the public weal is different from mine, so we will naturally come to different conclusions. But please do not assume that my position is based on my feeling “icky” about something.
My ancestors were polygamists. Their concept of marriage was way out of the mainstream, and because of the public’s revulsion at our marriage arrangements, half of the standing army of the U.S. was sent out to put us down. (We were saved only by the start of the Civil War; bitter irony that.) They had the vote taken from them. They were jailed, chased into Mexico and Canada. Only the threat of the government seizing all our assets, including the temples we had sacrificed so much to build, forced us to conform.
So don’t assume that I am unable to wrap my head around alternate marriage arrangements or that I don’t have any sympathy for those who find themselves unable to bond with the opposite sex. My beliefs about same-sex marriage have nothing to do with revulsion.
On the other hand, the judges were wrong. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, and therefore the judges should have declined to rule, instead passing the decision to the legislatures, where it belongs.
Not too long ago it was popular to say, “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love.” Now the same people who couldn’t understand why marriage is not just a legal contract have changed their minds and decided that the piece of paper is of supreme importance.
You’ll pardon me if I don’t trust their judgment on this issue.
I will accord your guy the same respect your side has shown my guy over the past seven years, Lisa.
I would expect no more and no less, guins. Let the snarkus maximus begin! I said to Perf Goldstein earlier that I couldn’t “call for unity” with a straight face. Being that I laughed mirthlessly and spat on the ground when the Republicans “called for unity” after handing us our asses.
People believe in what they believe in. I never changed my core values just because there was a bunch of Republicans running around town in cowboy hats. I would not expect you to change your core values just because there are a bunch of liberal nerds running around this town with iPhones and Priuses.
You can’t just decide that someone should have separate privleges for no good reason other than the majority feels icky about them.
If you argue it down, Lisa, you will find it really isn’t about the privilege, it is mostly about terminology. You could get a domestic partner bill passed, but the gay community won’t accept it, they want it to be called a marriage. Many traditionalists don’t want to change the definition of marriage, so they are opposed to that, and that seems to me to be the swing vote- neither side will compromise on the language.
We need to tattoo this to everyone’s forehead:
The government should NEVER evaluate the content of political speech.
THAT’s the problem with the doctrine whose name sends Orwell spinning like a lathe.
But if they pass, do we get to use the term “shred the Constitution,” or do we just get to put up and shut up?
It’s not the corn dog… it’s the mayonaise… and the ranch dressing… and the cheese whiz.
It’s why the office chair belches out a reeking counter fart every time it is assaulted by two 80lbs hams crushing the gas out of it.
But nice to see that the same class that is brought to the gustatory realm is also brought to bear in the role of gracious winner.
This brings up one of life’s big questions: Do I tell this guy that he has a tablespoon of mayonaise on his chin and what looks like a Tyson’s chicken tender in his hair?
Or do I let it go?
Then I think; Tenure
I have to say that pulling in plus or minus 70K per year of public dollars for alternating between endless drone and shrill scold on a subject devoid of meaning is a pretty good gig…
Here’s my question:
If the proposition banning gay marriage passed, and the proposition requiring parental notification for minor abortions failed, that means many, many people in California said to themselves: “Gays getting married = threat to the culture. twelve year olds having abortions without even telling their folks = perfectly normal.”
I know it’s california, but who the fuck thinks like that? To paraphrase P.J., methinks it takes years of therapy to arrive at that point of view.
LIsa, homosexuals aren’t excluded from the marriage state by law.
It’s just that they want to redefine marriage to unions that can never naturally produce children.
The creation and maintenance of family, the odd quirk of nature that opposite sexes produce children naturally, and the need to constrain this behaviour for the benefit of civilization because of the results of not doing so, it the reason there is a marriage.
It has an exalted status among other family relationships because of that fact. No other relationship assures the continuance of family lines. No other relationship is its equivalent.
Marriage is a right, and one that all adults have. But it is a union of man and woman. Marrying anyone you want is not and has never been what marriage is.
Srsly, if the gay marriage activists hadn’t had the judges start this mess, there’s no doubt in my mind that gays would’ve had every privilege they claim to want right now. The activists actually set back gay rights by at least 10 years.
On the other hand, the judges were wrong. The Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, and therefore the judges should have declined to rule, instead passing the decision to the legislatures, where it belongs.
Again, I am not saying that marraige is a right. It is indeed a privlege. I am saying that our reasons for denying consenting adults these privleges does not hold up. And it should not be subject to the whims of the majority. There was a time when a majority of Americans thought that people from different races should not marry. That was the will of the people. The courts did not agree that such whimsy should be left to the people to decide – the majority can not determine who receives certain privleges according to popular sentiment. I happen to think that this is will end similarly.
“Yo, meya: I expect my car to be full of free gas tomorrow morning, bitch.
Get on it, will ya?
Thanks.”
You’re not understanding this “liberal fascism” thing. Hang out on this blog for a bit more and you’ll learn the party line.
“I’m emphatically not religious, but I have to consider that my fellow citizens have the previously-recognised right to religious self-determination.”
I think people can still self-determine who’s going to hell and who’s going to get raptured. And hopefully for this country, they get raptured away soon.
Yeah Andrew, they are strange. I was born and raised there and it didn’t surprise me in the least. Crazy fuckers.
Oh, I know I’m not getting anything from Barky, Lisa. The thing is, it’s not me that Barky has to worry about. He knows that people like me will never vote for him. We’re a non-issue at this point.
It’s all those other people.
You know, the envirowhacko hippies who thinks we’ll be living in a windmill-powered Rivendell set by government decree, the miner’s unions who think we’re going to be burning megatons of coal, the liberal Jews who are going to be mighty pissed off if Tel Aviv becomes a smoldering crater, the Muslims and “anti-War” whackos who are going to feel the same way if Tehran goes the same way, the people who believed his lies about middle class tax cuts, the people who believ that they’re going to get free gas, houses, hookers, and blow under Obama, the people who think he’ll have our troops out of Iraq by midnight on January 21, the people who believe that invading “Pock-ee-stahn” is a great idea, the gays who think he’s going legalize gay marriage (despite his stated opposition to same)…and every other fringe group he’s managed to leash together into that traveling freak show you call a party. “Big tent”, indeed.
He won by 7%. 7%. By blowing smoke up all those people’s asses (the fraud helped too, of course).
He’s not going to get to vote present any more, though. He’s going to have to make actual decisions and carry them out.
The entire House and one third of the Senate comes up for election in two years, counting from yesterday.
Good luck with that.
Me, I’ll be off to the side here, pickin’ and grinnin’, and being schooled by Prof. Goldstein in the Way of the Outlaw.
Any bets on how long it’s going to take before I hear some leftoid academic grousing about “that fucking Obama”?
You’re not understanding this “liberal fascism†thing.
I understand it very well, meya, and I’ve been here a lot longer than you.
Now, about that free gas, bitch…
I think the Fairness Doctrine is a dog that won’t hunt.
They passed that crap when it could be controlled, the public spoonfed info/propaganda, but now? You couldn’t do it completely in any way except through onerous, very noticeable activity.
I know that the target is talk radio, but that will survive, too, I think. So let them waste their political capital on things that will just piss everybody off and achieve little.
Sarah you are being cute (okay I know you are cute, but you are also using cute verbage). We all know they want the right to marry each other. And since marraige is a social contract that includes but is not exclusive to child bearing couples, that does not exactly hold up either.
On the gay marriage thing, my position remains the same as it was the last n times this came up:
The government has no business regulating marriage. It should be a matter of contract wrt property division, child custody, and the like, and a matter of religion wrt the spiritual aspects.
Government’s sole responsibility should be to record the contract and provide a court system in the event the contract is breached or mutually abandoned.
And yeah, that includes polygamy.
@156
“I am not saying that marraige is a right. It is indeed a privlege…And it should not be subject to the whims of the majority.”
Whoa put the bong down NOW.
If you argue it down, Lisa, you will find it really isn’t about the privilege, it is mostly about terminology. You could get a domestic partner bill passed, but the gay community won’t accept it, they want it to be called a marriage. Many traditionalists don’t want to change the definition of marriage, so they are opposed to that, and that seems to me to be the swing vote- neither side will compromise on the language.
You are damned right about that. I remember ten years ago, they WANTED a domestic partnership bill. My what a difference a decade (and a lot of angry blogging) makes.
Ignores dre. Not a good person.
I am with you Spies. If you are a consenting adult, have at it fools.
>>I think people can still self-determine who’s going to hell and who’s going to get raptured. And hopefully for this country, they get raptured away soon.
Obviously, meya, you’re a shallow thinker. Imposing SSM on the churches negates that person’s faith. Like I said, I’m not religious but at least I understand the argument and can respect the rights of people I disagree with. You know, that whole Liberal thing you still don’t understand even though thats practically all thats talked about here.
It’s always fun when the compromise is no longer good enough. ‘Course, if gay marriage can’t win in California, where can it win? In a few years that compromise might start looking better. But probably not.
I just want a link to a picture of sugartits ;-)
“I understand it very well, meya, and I’ve been here a lot longer than you.”
See Lisa above, 7:05. She understands who’s the bitch in the “liberal fascism” fantasy world.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, if the left had any sense they’d ignore it. Move past it. Want to hit talk radio? Make it irrelevant by finding more voices and more spectrum and increasing broadband access. Print media is hurting from the Internet, broadcast will too.
@166
“Ignores dre. Not a good person.”
Me? You’re the one whose brain farted.
Marriage is a right, not a privilege. Individuals who are gay can still marry, but they cannot, anymore than a heterosexual person, marry any person of any sex.
You didn’t throw out the miscegenation argument so commonly employed by those who would redefine marriage. Those prohibitions had nothing to do with expanding the definition of marriage, but of preventing the natural results of sex between men and women of different races. It was based on unsound science and ridiculous notions of racial “purity”. Refusing to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions has nothing to do with keeping bloodlines racially pure or any kind of pure. There are no bloodlines to protect and that’s really the point. THere is no compelling state interest for the government to get involved inchanging the definition of marriage to include such unions, to subsidize, protect, or support them.
Domestic partners / civil unions, with all of the trapping that go along with marriage should be enough. Baracky thinks so too. I am with that dirty Socialist on this one. But, it is not enough for some, they want the word and the insitution of marriage as well. I stand tall with my nubian brother Barcky, in opposition to same sex marriage.
meya – You need to get to work filling our cars with gas, and more importantly, taking care of our mortgage payments. Now. Beeyotch.
Let us not only march through the institutions. Let us destroy the institution of marriage.
meya – When I introduced that particular argument, I stated clearly that it was an objection from the religious quarter. That is, in itself, an individual rights objection, and yes, it would be an imposition.
And, again, that is only one of many possible objections we could discuss. This has merit b/c it involves conflicting individual rights, one existing and one proposed. The existing takes precedence.
But again, even religious folks may countenance civil unions.
I am with you Spies. If you are a consenting adult, have at it fools.
I am absolutely agree with you Lisa.
My goat, she is 3 now(over 18 in goat years!), and loves me greatly. Often in my courtyard, Sashal (this is my goats name, pretty yes?)backs eagerly into my sword of Alla. It it a beautiful thing.
I demand right of consenting adult!
Obama’s said he doesn’t want the fairness doctrine, instead he’d rather break up the “media conglomerates” and sell off the pieces to minorities and women to spread the view point around. At least, the accepted viewpoints.
“They are the Establishment. They reek of populism. They claim a mandate.”
At least they didn’t nominate a Neiman-Marxist piece of trailer-trash for VP. “Reek of populism” my ass.
My goat
Animals can’t agree to contracts.
Marriage is a contract.
Try harder.
>>instead he’d rather break up the “media conglomerates†and sell off the pieces to minorities and women to spread the view point around.
Start with Hollywood.
Baracky I hear has a little side business. Maybe 2 wives for The One™?
Oh, and one other thing I think bears discussing.
Michelle Obama, at the acceptance speach, wore the ugliest black and red dress in the history of black and red dresses.
Can I get an “amen” on that?
“meya – When I introduced that particular argument, I stated clearly that it was an objection from the religious quarter. That is, in itself, an individual rights objection, and yes, it would be an imposition.”
So lets have it without imposing on the churches and hopefully bringing the rapture sooner.
DICKIE BENNETT is back.
lee – Better Half cringes in abject terror every time Michelle is shown on television wearing a 1970’s sofa. She says with all of their millions, plus all that coin his campaign raised, can’t they find her a stylist?
Goat is have Papers! Is good, really.
Uncle Aheeb, he has power of attorney, he raise since little kid.
Honest, it is consensual, Sashal is very aggressive lover!
Oh look, it is everyone’s favorite misogynistic libertarian. The circus is heading to Washington, Richard, don’t miss your ride. Joe Biden needs plenty more clowns for his troupe.
RB: TrollHammered.
How’s come the coalition of sexual outliers get to determine what “marriage” is? How’s come the economic outliers get to determine what “social justice”. Why do the losers in this Darwin struggle get to determine the outcome. Are proggs anti Darwin?
“So lets have it without imposing on the churches”
So we’ve reached agreement. Good.
“and hopefully bringing the rapture sooner.”
Gotta work on the tolerance part, though. And, if they’re right in the rapture stuff, I for one wouldn’t really want to be part of ‘yay they’re gone’ crowd. Don’t really like the idea of pissing off Dieties that suddenly take an active interest in human affairs myself….
Bah. Meya, I’ll be reasonably cheerful as long as you believe the lies you’ve been told. The MSM isn’t dying from Internet competition. The reason it is dying, and it is, is quite different, and the longer you (and the media moguls) take figuring it out the happier I’ll be, because the faster they’ll die. Good riddance.
There won’t be a Fairness Doctrine.
What there will be, as mentioned above, is media divestiture as part of a bailout of the MSM. As for the structure thereof, think “Mugabe and the white farmers.”
In parallel with that will be what I am tentatively calling The Fair and Principled Media Act (of 2010, I reckon). That will do two things. First, there will be Fair Media Boards charged with detecting and punishing “hate speech” and “false and inflammatory reporting.” For how that works, graze over to Small Dead Animals for an analysis of the Canadian version. Second, there will be “certification” (or, more probably, “accreditation”), again with Boards of Examiners composed of responsible media figures and their advisors who will vet and certify news media people as Fair and Responsible. There will be an ID card, with a picture and a number on it.
Jeff won’t get one. Neither will you.
The existing news media will go along with happy cheers, publicly because they’ll be glad to be cleansed of racism, sexism, ismism, etc., and privately because it makes the news business into a guild with “professional standards” and restricted entry, and they’ll think (wrongly) that it insures their future profits. Limbaugh and Hannity will be fined, perhaps jailed, for egregious offenses against the Act.
Regards,
Ric
>>Why do the losers in this Darwin struggle get to determine the outcome.
LOL look at the way and direction they’ve expanded the franchise for your answer.
“I’d say its up to you and your spouse. And up to just you, to the extent that want or don’t want to marry a “sexual outlier.—
Jeffrey Dahmer
my one regret is that my gerbil [gerby]
couldn’t vote 4 times
cuz he’s fast!
4 paws fast
get him off the treadmill[o shit-the power went out]
i’m sure he’d beat ur retarded baby in a crawl off
YES WE might
“Certain things are not up for public vote. You can’t just decide that someone should have separate privleges for no good reason other than the majority feels icky about them. If they are law abiding, tax-paying, consenting (no, two consenting adults marrying is not the same as marrying your dog or infant neice) adults – who are we to deny them the privleges that we have?”
Wow Lisa too bad you couldn’t confer this same status on people who make more money than you. Fuck them though they deserve all the taxing and shit you can get outa them. Fuck those rich assholes they stole their money from YOU!!!11!!! Also if you apply WTF you just said to Affirmative Action you would probably agree with most posters on here but instead you are ideologically pure to the point you can hold two contrary opinions in your head at the same time and it will not explode.
Hey Spies, pay attention to Ric Locke. He also knows what the “liberal fascism” fantasy land looks like.
Oh, and one other thing I think bears discussing.
Michelle Obama, at the acceptance speach, wore the ugliest black and red dress in the history of black and red dresses.
Can I get an “amen†on that?
Yeah she seems to have a prediliction for ugly dresses. She is a nice-looking woman. I have no idea why she insists on assaulting random sofa covers and stealing the bedding from 1 hour motels and draping them on her body before taking the stage beside her husband.
Who wants me to find Dick Bennett and kick the living shit out of him? Just give the word. Hehehehehe…or maybe not.
emergency session of congress..
got a love van /shag carpets
any high priced hookers need a ride?
“Jeffrey Dahmer”
He’s gonna eat you!
double-wide
Mr Obama,
Congratulations on being elected President.
My condolences about the passing of your
grandmother.
tony,
south haven,mi
Congratulations
Michelle looks like Aunt Esther to me.
“You mean old heathens!“
twoter turtle
ignore the 2nd congrats,im an idiot.
tony
south haven,mi
is obam bams familia off limits?
his cousins and run ins and such?
we will put them in a “chelsea lockbox”
“How’s come the coalition of sexual outliers get to determine what “marriage†is?
I’d say its up to you and your spouse.
Well then, there is no problem, is there? There are no laws against anyone and their spouse declaring themselves married anywhere in the country right now. It is when you try to force other folks to recognize it and accept your definition that the problems arise.
The whole problem is who gets to force who to accept a definition they don’t agree with. Sorry, but there is no “fair for everybody” solution.
tutor turtle
B Moe is approaching the Commerce argument now, I think.
You didn’t throw out the miscegenation argument so commonly employed by those who would redefine marriage. Those prohibitions had nothing to do with expanding the definition of marriage, but of preventing the natural results of sex between men and women of different races. It was based on unsound science and ridiculous notions of racial “purityâ€Â. Refusing to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions has nothing to do with keeping bloodlines racially pure or any kind of pure. There are no bloodlines to protect and that’s really the point. THere is no compelling state interest for the government to get involved inchanging the definition of marriage to include such unions, to subsidize, protect, or support them.
I did, actually. Heh, you got here after I tossed that one out. Though marraige can include and does indeed facilitate a stable unit in which to breed and raise munchkins, that is not its sole purpose. Not all heterosexual couples produce children, nor are they compelled or even encouraged to do so by the state. Should they choose to produce a child by birth, adoption, or by fostering a child for a time, the state has a tax credit or two set aside for the benefit of the frazzled new parents.
But the state is not in the business of determining who should get hitched based on their ability to pop one out. So I still am not buying that argument either.
mock turtle
is obam bams familia off limits?
I think so. Unless one of his daughters gets knocked up on a tanning bed by a Eskimo with Down’s Syndrome, or something like that.
Don’t we all have enough gifts what we have to buy already?
mr. wizard
get out ur magic half blackboard and tell me
/’splain to me
one train says “think i can/think i can/think i can
and they go uphill
Right?
the other train goes ding ding-my ding a ling
down the hill
fast!
rice?
or roni?
But we for real love each other a whole whole lot like forever and ever. Oh. Ok. Here’s a Home Depot gift card.
OI – Word.
Lisa – You and Better Half agree on Michelle. Horrific. Don’t forget the floral shower curtains she wears.
Lisa – Do you believe that sexual preference is an immutable characteristic?
The San Fracisco Twit.
Look, people don’t have to accept any damn thing. You can “not accept” all you want – that is different than passing constitutional amendments banning someone from doing something.
I do not accept that people who are not some kind of contractor or transporter of large, antlered animals would want to drive an F-250 around town. However, I am not going to pass a constitutional amendment banning huge pickup trucks from being bought by people who just really like big trucks.
oh. Hey gimme my gift card back.
stealing the bedding from 1 hour motels and draping them on her body before taking the stage beside her husband.
Now that’s juxtaposition!
But the state is not in the business of determining who should get hitched based on their ability to pop one out. So I still am not buying that argument either.
That isn’t an argument, Lisa, it is a historical fact. That is the origin of marriage in a nutshell right there. You are on the edge of making some persuasive arguments, in my opinion, by pointing out the definition of a family has changed a great deal in the past few generations. That is the path your side needs to work to find a resolution here, rather than just accusing the other side of religious bigotry and homophobia. It is more complicated than that.
Whoa, return of Caric and a mention of Bob Probert, in the same comment thread.
Fat times for us will-be proles, my friends.
tobogan[[sp][a big sled u can’t steer]
i find that when i go tobog-a-nin
it’s best to not have trees[or obstacles]
in ur way
and then the whole toe goes
whee-whee- whee
hot cocao at ur house
“Not all heterosexual couples produce children, ”
The probability of 2 men producing children- 0. The probability of 2 women producing children-0. The probability of Hussein and his 2 wives producing children- 100.
by a Eskimo
San Fracisco
This is why we lose, people.
Look, people don’t have to accept any damn thing.
Bullshit. Some of your fellow travelers cannot accept that I posses firearms. Even though my firearms have never harmed a single person. They wish to deny me a right, on that actually appears in the Bill of Rights Unlike gay marriage, which is an oxymoron and not a right at all.
The State is very good at paying out what amount to bounties for unwed births.
Lisa – Do you believe that sexual preference is an immutable characteristic?
I do JD. I never had a moment where I thought “Weiners or clams? hmmmmmm, I thiiiiink….I will go with the weiners for $400, Alex.” I am attracted to who I am attracted to. I think that there are some people who, for whatever reason, are hardwired a different way than I am – I don’t believe they had a weiner or clam moment either.
Though marraige can include and does indeed facilitate a stable unit in which to breed and raise munchkins, that is not its sole purpose.
I disagree. Marriage is all about that, and recognized and given special consideration from government solely because it is the literal future of the country and civilization.
I think the consequences of losing sight of that and allowing it to be cheapened to purely a business contract is a dangerous social experiment at best.
Marriage must have much more consideration for stability and success than a mere licensing process.
B Moe, you find me a job in Athens and I’ll build you a new workbench for your basement and/or garage. I’m sure you could, too. But, I’m a fucking infidel, so there’s that.
JD – Before I leave this dreaded hell hole known as Cleveland, we (meaning you and alpuccino) need to get together and drink some beers (you some cokes) and kick it. Any ohter midwesterners in the house are more than welcomed, too.
“However, I am not going to pass a constitutional amendment banning huge pickup trucks from being bought by people who just really like big trucks.”
Your ilk just passed a law in PA banning smoking in a restaurant/”work place”. You idiots like banning or affirming what ever floats your loopy ideas.
“He’s not going to get to vote present any more, though. ”
The man is an absolute ace at Kick The Can.
Look, people don’t have to accept any damn thing. You can “not accept†all you want – that is different than passing constitutional amendments banning someone from doing something.
But a partnership being recognized and accepted by society is the very essence of traditional marriage. Why do many gays refuse to accept civil unions, which would grant all the same government recognition and the legal benefits and insist that it be called marriage? Because that would signify an acceptance by society that they desperately crave. I feel for them and am sympathetic to their feelings, but that isn’t going to change how others feel. You can’t legislate peoples opinions.
>>They wish to deny me a right, on that actually appears in the Bill of Rights
Stronger than that, it is actually considered a God-given, inalienable Right, in that it is in the first 10.
ThomasD, I agree with you on guns. I don’t see why my people are so quacky about that. I have never been a fan of gun control, but the last eight years made me embrace my right to bear arms with vigor.
But though marraige is a privlege, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why one subset of consenting adults should be denied such a privlege.
Oh, it just hasn’t been tried hard enough!
“I am attracted to who I am attracted to”
Yes the State must indulge your passions. Folks that is why we have government.
You a carpenter, OI? There is still a bit of commercial/industrial construction going on down here, but my buds in the residential business are hurting right now. Shoot me an email if you are serious
gibson330 @ gmail.com
Because it pisses people off.
“why one subset of consenting adults should be denied such a privlege.”
You want Mormon and Islamic polygamy?
Urthshu I agree, I only note the BoR as confirming that which already exists.
I’d also note that, even if one was to argue for the existence of any other unspecified right the Constitution clearly states those are the express purview of the States, or the People. So California citizens telling their judges just what their State Constitution means is all well and good.
Jeff — If you’re around; I’m a fairly new reader, I discovered your very awesome blog sometime late in the summer, and have been hooked ever since. I just wanted to throw out a suggestion – Now that you’ve had your big fundraiser, did you make enough money to maybe start doing podcasts? I would very much love it if you did, just because I’m a dumb hick who’s trying to edu-macate herself. :)
Yes, dre. They get to leave me alone to be a happy heterosexual. I think they should leave gay people alone to be happily married or unmarried gay people too. Dummy.
It is when you try to force other folks to recognize it
How are you “forced” to “recognize” it?
What duty or action would you have to carry out?
Sorry, not buying the “sanctity of marriage” argument, not when a drunken marriage to a Vegas stripper performed by an Elvis impersonator has the same legal status as one performed by Pope Benedict.
You want Mormon and Islamic polygamy?
As long as it is between consenting adults, I don’t really give a crap what people get up to. The problem with polygamists is they always end up trying to force some 12 year old to join the party.
>>How are you “forced†to “recognize†it?
Interstate commerce
“However, I am not going to pass a constitutional amendment banning huge pickup trucks from being bought by people who just really like big trucks.”
You got fascist government beureucrats doing that. No Amendment needed.
Ric, if they do try to set up those boards, Area 51 is gonna have to expand, because that’s where they will have to move the members of these boards, and all of their friends, family, and associates. Permanently.
Lisa, please stop avoiding the obvious – it’s embarrassing you.
Marriage is a defined term, it means one man and one woman. Like our host I’m not opposed to civil unions. Why the insistence on the term marriage?
Interstate commerce
Could you elaborate on that one?
But though marraige is a privlege, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why one subset of consenting adults should be denied such a privlege.
For the same reason I can’t call myself a high school girl and go in their locker room.
Two guys fucking doesn’t a marriage make, and classifying it such by necessity will reduce the considerations that families raising children should receive.
Fags should just sacrifice their desire for street cred for the greater good of the country, IMO.
Interstate commerce
You didn’t answer the rest of the question.
What duty or action would you have to carry out that showed that you accepted it as a valid marriage?
Man, B Moe, I wish that were true. I’m a very novice carpenter. Basically an amateur. I was just bullshitting mostly. I just want to relocate to Athens. The wife’s family is in Greensboro (Reynolds plantation, yeah they’re racists). I’ll fucking do about anything at this point to move down your way. But thank you so very much for the offer. I’ll send you an email anyhow, because MAYBE you know somebody that knows somebody. I was in commercial real estate until the market absolutely died in Cleveland. The last 6 years? I worked for Cuyahoga County as an assistant program administrator for a social service program. Yes, although thor and other assorted douchebag lefties talk a good game, I was actually helping the moronic less fortunate find money, money, money. And that’s not saying that all less fortunate are moronic, because they aren’t. But that ubiquitous entitlement mentality is strong. So very, very strong.
“#
Comment by Lisa on 11/5 @ 9:02 pm #
Yes, dre. They get to leave me alone to be a happy heterosexual. I think they should leave gay people alone to be happily married or unmarried gay people too. Dummy.”
Do you always do brain farts in public? No your transnaziprogg volk will never leave you alone.
You just answered your own question, SPB- a legal marriage has legal status, it is recognized by the government, which is understood to be of the people, as a legitimate union.
Understand that I don’t hold this view, but I can see the points of both sides. I advocate a civil unions for any and all by the government and leaving marriage to the church as a compromise, but it doesn’t seem to get much political traction among either extreme.
BTW, I think you mean “full faith and credit”, not “interstate commerce”. Commercial arrangements are a different matter. :-)
You just answered your own question
But you didn’t.
What would you, personally, B Moe, be forced to do by law to show that you recognized it as a valid marriage?
Lisa, please stop avoiding the obvious – it’s embarrassing you.
Don’t be silly. If marraige was already defined as between one man and one woman, why the need for a constitutional amendment? You can’t say it is between one man and one woman because you said so. Marraige has been between a man and more than one woman for centuries. Crack open a history book. Hell, crack open the bible. Marraige has been many things over the years.
Why would you deny one set of consenting adults the privlege of being MARRIED? Why should they have something different than what we heterosexual couples have available?
“Just because” is not an answer either.
Marraige has been between a man and more than one woman for centuries.
Occasionally one woman and more than one man, too, although that’s not nearly as common.
Generally you find that in cultures where resources are extremely scarce. Usually implies a lot of female infanticide.
>>BTW, I think you mean “full faith and creditâ€Â, not “interstate commerceâ€Â. Commercial arrangements are a different matter. :-)
Probably right. ;^D I’m being distracted over here, sorry.
What duty or action would you have to carry out that showed that you accepted it as a valid marriage?
Whatever duties or actions you are legally obligated to carry out by the terms and conditions attached to a legal marriage.
why the need for a constitutional amendment?
A law was passed then the State Supreme Court overstepped their bounds and needed to be slapped down by the people, that’s why.
Two guys fucking doesn’t a marriage make, and classifying it such by necessity will reduce the considerations that families raising children should receive.
But exactly how will it reduce the considerations that families raising children should receive (newsflash: gay families raise children too)? What considerations will be diluted or removed from heterosexual couples raising children?
I’m wondering how many of you “recognize” the marriage performed by an Elvis impersonator.
As I more or less said above, the problem lies in the conflation of the contractual aspects of marriage with the religious aspects.
So, why not “civil unions” for everybody, and leave “marriage” up to the church?
Whatever duties or actions you are legally obligated to carry out by the terms and conditions attached to a legal marriage.
Which are?
I don’t mean to be a pest on this point, but I have a strong aversion to solving differences of opinion by law in the absence of demonstrated harm.
What would you, personally, B Moe, be forced to do by law to show that you recognized it as a valid marriage?
It would depend on my occupation and circumstances, SPB, I am too tired to try to come up with a list of hypotheticals.
Overstepped their bounds and did exactly what? Oh that’s right, it slapped down an amendment banning gay marraige.
I am waiting to hear exactly why one set of consenting adults should be denied the right or privlege of marrying. I find it rather odd.
A couple of thoughts.
As I see it, the only legitimate reason for having government at all is to protect individual rights. Saying marriage is a right is saying that you have some sort of claim on someone else’s life, which you do not.
Even though man/women marriage produces the next generation of people, it is not the place of the government to ensure that society is perpetuated. Sounds harsh, I know. So it seems to me that the government should have nothing really to say at all about marriage one way or the other. Also, the government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. So tax breaks, welfare, etc should not be decided upon based upon personal choices (i.e. marriage and children) that people make.
It doesn’t seem like the draw of marriage is some government sanction anyway. I mean, for most people, having the bureaucrats sign off on it is just sort of a hassle.
Anyway, good discussion in any case. As usual.
We really need to all bookmark this thread, so we can post a link whenever some troll accuses us of all thinking alike.
>>So, why not “civil unions†for everybody, and leave “marriage†up to the church?
Cool with that.
This is one of those majority rules issues like the death penalty I think. People need a sense of justice served and people need to feel that their marriage is a Big Deal and we want people to feel a sense of justice served and we want people to feel that their marriage is a Big Deal.
So, why not “civil unions†for everybody, and leave “marriage†up to the church?
Good idea.
Lisa @ 231. First, that made me laugh. Second, explain Anne Heche.
OI – I am interviewing in Cleveland next week.
Sugartits – I thought in the spirit of unity, compromise was once a good thing. Civil unions, will all of the attached legal muckety muck provides the same results as marriage, but is called civil unions. That should cover it. But, they want the name too. They are trying to jam it down the people’s throats that do not agree with them.
BTW, I do agree that the California Supreme Court overstepped its bounds here.
That’s a job for the legislature, not the court.
This is also one of those issues what high school kids pick for their First Research Paper where they learn endnotes and MLA and stuff. Ten pages, double-spaced.
Good idea.
Of course it is. Heh.
I’m really bothered by the “sanctity” argument. Even setting aside the Church of the Holy Elvis scenario, do we really want the government in the business of “sanctifying” anything?
I don’t think so.
But though marraige is a privlege, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why one subset of consenting adults should be denied such a privlege.
For the same reason I can’t call myself a high school girl and go in their locker room.
This one made me laugh.
So, why not “civil unions†for everybody, and leave “marriage†up to the church?
No argument here. The whole GLBT lobby wants marriage though.
>>What would you, personally, B Moe, be forced to do by law to show that you recognized it as a valid marriage?
I’m not B Moe but I personally wouldn’t wish to either celebrate a gay marriage in any way, nor address persons married as a wife or whatever. I personally would likely run across a number of these [and already have in fact] in the course of my job, which is social work-y, and would have to run that obstacle course nearly all the time. I, personally, would likely have to socially accept something I find repulsive at the risk of my job.
Well, JD, they can have marriage. They just need to find a church to call it that, and there are plenty that will.
We really need to all bookmark this thread, so we can post a link whenever some troll accuses us of all thinking alike.
Yeah the whole thing just gave me chills. Like a broken clock being right twice a day, sometimes I actually find myself being in perfect alighnment with a classical liberal/libertarian every once in a while. Creepy!!
I fucking love you guys. A sign of my devotion is that on the first day of the New Era of the Glorious and Wonderous Regime and I am spending time arguing with you delightful wingnuts. I can’t quit you.
Hmm… urthshu, if you’re a social worker, you doubtless find yourself dealing with less-than-savory types all the time. Do you address them as “Mr.”?
I think the word partner is safe in all these situations.
272- I wish I had bookmarked a really good thread on this subject I was in on over at Feministe back when that was a still a good blog. Zu Zu made a really good case that the definition of marriage had already been changed and corrupted to the point it was beyond preserving. Kind of what Lisa hinted at above, but an expanded and pretty tight argument. I was impressed.
@271
“Even though man/women marriage produces the next generation of people, it is not the place of the government to ensure that society is perpetuated.”
Mark Steyn death wish: see TransNaziEurope for details.
>>the only legitimate reason for having government at all is to protect individual rights.
See, thats the problem right there.
A government should respect and refrain from interfering with individual rights. The way you’ve got it leads to creation of new rights, willy-nilly
Lisa @ 231. First, that made me laugh. Second, explain Anne Heche.
Well, I think there are some people who are naturally hardwired to go for the weiner and the clam. Anne Heche is batshit crazy though. Didn’t she say she is the reincarnation of an alien or something? She needs a lot of Thorazine.
I’m pretty sure the U.S. Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage.
The California one, who knows? Wouldn’t surprise me to learn that there’s an enumerated right to soy milk or Birkenstocks.
Sexuality is pretty clearly a spectrum.
Or, to put it more bluntly, humans will fuck damned near anything that’s socially acceptable.
over at Feministe back when that was a still a good blog.
The words. They do not compute.
If sexual preference is immutable, why can there be an Anne Heche?
Bah. The whole “gay marriage” discussion always descends into trivialities and personalities without addressing the point. It’s a matter near and dear to the heart of Our Host: language, the use, misuse, and fiat-declarations thereof.
There is and has been, in every language of every tribe that exists or has existed on the planet, a word (sometimes more than one) that can be translated as “marriage”. In every case, without exception, it means and has meant at least one man and one woman.
Neither Andrew Sullivan nor Twuman Capote invented homosexual behavior. It hasn’t been all that long, as societal changes are measured, since rich and/or powerful men were expected to keep catamites as well as mistresses — and to be married, to a woman, as well if they intended social acceptance. But in no language, anywhere at any time, have homosexual relationships, permanent or otherwise, been described as “marriage”. Even the Sacred Band, who are always brought up eventually in arguments about homosexual behavior, did not use the word “marriage” to describe their relationships; they did argue that they were the equivalent, as have many other commentators, but the word wasn’t used, and the one or two who left the Band to take up relations with a woman (in order to have progeny) did describe the resulting relationship as “marriage”.
Now the homosexual lobby in the United States demands that their relationships be so characterized. It can’t be done, therefore it won’t. Laws are irrelevant. I have no idea if the story is true, but it’s said that a Mississippi legislator became offended by the value of pi. It sez rat thar in thah Bible that the “sea” in the forecourt of the Temple was ten cubits across and thirty cubits around; God therefore says that pi is exactly three, and the Legislature duly so enacted. It didn’t work, because some things are beyond the reach of legislation. Pi stubbornly remains an irrational number approximated by 3.141592646, the Law of Gravity remains unamended, and “marriage” continues to describe a relationship between male and female human beings.
Prior to the San Francisco and Massachusetts nonsense, the homosexual community could have had civil unions — the legal equivalent of marriage, including inheritance, hospital visitations, and the rest of it — essentially free. Oh, there would have been a lot of grumbling, and there really are people who are offended by homosexuality, but even out here in rural Texas, among the white-painted Pentecostal and Baptist churches dotted around the landscape, practical opposition would have been minimal to nonexistent. Sin is not Caesar’s, and trying to make it so is futile, and most of us realize that — and the ones who don’t have been rebuffed often enough to realize that it won’t fly, anyway.
But that wasn’t good enough. Homosexuals aren’t trying to change their legal status; they’re trying to change the dictionary, and that won’t work. A rose is a rose is a rose, and nothing else is, and having a Legislature or a judge declare it a pineapple doesn’t install four ounces of C4 in it or give it a removable pin. Marriage is a heterosexual relationship. If you want to compel different definitions, move to Mississippi and run for the Legislature.
Regards,
Ric
I think the word partner is safe in all these situations.
When you are talking to a Northern Californian, you never know who is gay or straight (or perhaps referring to their companion at Salsa lessons), because everyone uses the word “partner”.
@289
Where is your tolerance to people who don’t agree with you?
Ron Coleman talked a little about this today. He is smart and nice.
Overstepped their bounds and did exactly what? Oh that’s right, it slapped down an amendment banning gay marraige.
Wrong.
What part about the Tenth Amendment don’t you get?
I have never understood those that equate the choice of a sexual partner with race. I can wake up like Dice Clay, flip a coin. Heads – hairpie. Tails – balls across the nose. I cannot wake up and decide to be black. Or Hispanic. Or Asian. So, when Anne Heche decides she is going to marry fellow labia lover Ellen Degeneres, we are to accept that her lesbianism is genetic, and she is hard wired for same. Then, when Anne come down off of whatever mind altering drugs she was one that led her to share a bed with Ellen, and decides that dingleberries sound good to her now, we are now supposed to accept that her choice of pole is genetic.
oh. That’s a good point about Berkeley. I’ve experienced that a couple times.
In principle, I agree with Lisa. In practice (not being familiar with the state), I suppose I would have to leave particular definitions and boundaries to individual states. They are ultimately the entities granting special status and resulting privileges. You know, in our new big brother cosmology, dance with the one you leave with, or however that goes.
JD I still think that even if you are bisexual as Heche clearly is, I don’t believe she had any moment where she said “eeenie meenie miney moe”…I think she is just…well, bisexual. She is also clearly a crank, bi or not.
>urthshu, if you’re a social worker, you doubtless find yourself dealing with less-than-savory types all the time.
This is why I’ve an acquired, distrustful and cynical, approach to nearly all social experimentation at the hands of do-gooders, esp. governmental. I see the results, even of my own co-workers. I know what I’m constrained by, too.
My last dealio was sexually transmitted disease prevention. I found it more rewarding, ironically.
@287
I totally see your point. I guess I just get a little worried when the government has some end it wants to achieve (even the noble sounding ones). It seems that they always end up using unsavory means.
@288
I think it just requires us (THE OUTLAW CLASSICAL LIBERALS!!) to be firm in what exactly qualifies as a right. And if the government is just to respect and refrain, then I guess I just don’t see why there is government at all. Why would we as people come together and form institutions that merely respect and refrain from interfering. It just seems pointless to me. It makes more sense that we come together and form an agreement by which we will all respect each other’s rights, and the government is the entity to enforce that pact. But I do see the danger with an ever increasing list of “rights.”
That reminds me…my tank is half empty…
After 293, I have nothing more to add. Next time this topic comes up, I will say, “See coment #293”.
Thank you, Ric.
Anne struggles a lot I think with lots and lots of things. Ellen seems like she takes a lot in stride. She’s funny too.
I like that Ellen is making Rosie’s monies.
You know why people choose to be bisexual? It doubles their chances of getting laid.
JD I think her yammering about being gay and then turning straight is bullshit. People don’t customarily turn gay or turn straight – nor do they turn bisexual.
I, even if I really really tried, could not decide to go for the coochie. Thus, I don’t have a “choice” sexually – just like I can’t decide to be white. No, that is not the same as race. Even if I were a lesbian, I could decide whether to be in our out of the closet. I can’t decide to be a closet negro. The difference is in how easy it is to hide your “otherness”.
Ellen is funny. I dig her.
P.J. – We have a very well defined list of Rights. Baracky has added healthcare to that list, free and unfettered ability to kill babies that survive abortions, and will likely limit the actual enumerated 2nd Amendment Rights. All in all, those old dudes with powder in their hair had pretty good ideas on what constituted a Right.
JD – If you get a chance please e-mail me at nabakowski@sbclobal.net. I’ll buy you lunch or let you buy me lunch. I’m not wedded to me buying you lunch. Maybe we can have alpuccino drive the hour up I-71 and meet us. But this is the first community that I have felt a kinship to. Anyhow, what kind of job?
The gay marriage/polygamy dance has gone through a few moves. When the issue began getting wide note, It went like this:
Con: “Gay Marriage will lead to Polygamy! Slippery Slope!”
Lib: “Will not! Ridiculous! Slippery Slopes are Teh Lame! Dur!”
And now I see a lot more:
Con: “Gay Marriage will lead to Polygamy! Slippery Slope!”
Lib: “So? Consenting Adults! It’s not Bestiality!”
The problem is that once you have replaced the definition of marriage from “monogamous, heterosexual union afforded certain privileges by the state due to its importance in child-rearing” to “Whatever makes people happy,” the ability to amend that to add “provided what makes you happy isn’t something we currently consider icky.” finds itself falling short. Now, I know the left is quite adamant that they aren’t going to go on and change their minds about bestiality, incest, and pederasty. When they really get into it, I find myself convinced that they won’t. And then I remember that they said the same thing about polygamy.
Incidentally, I’d love to see Der Professor tackle this on a “linguistic security” angle, if he hasn’t already.
>>I can’t decide to be a closet negro
You’re the one what told us you were teh blackness. LOL
G’night PWers!
— Comrade S.T.
#293 Ric
But that wasn’t good enough
Because for all the “equality before the law” perfidy, same-sex marriage is not an end, but a means to gay advocates.
JD – I agree with you. But maybe I should make a distinction between natural rights and government rights. Many, but not all, contained in the Bill of Rights are logical extensions of the basics (life, liberty, etc). Some (like say the right to a court appointed attorney) are purely political. I guess we could just keep on adding political rights forever by amending the Constitution. But I would never ever concede that healthcare is a right…even if it should up on the Constitution one day.
should = showed..duh
rabbit ears?
judge-[fill in the blanks]
i likes me tv
in front of me
‘tween my massive thighs
in case the ‘college girls go wild’
burp-fart-zzzz
>>Con: “Gay Marriage will lead to Polygamy! Slippery Slope!â€Â
Lib: “Will not! Ridiculous! Slippery Slopes are Teh Lame! Dur!â€Â
Compare with:
Con: “Welfare will increase the number of unwed mothers and destroy the family! Slippery Slope!â€Â
Lib: “Will not! Ridiculous! Slippery Slopes are Teh Lame! Dur!â€Â
‘cuz, you know, that was exactly the argument back then.
The sugartits thing has died. Even Darwin had his limits. If you have sugartits, put them on persiankitty.com.
As a Catholic, the “marriage license” from the county meant squat until that sacrament in church in front of a priest was over and done. So, let’s say that everybody – gay or straight – gets a civil union (as opposed to a marriage) license from the govt, and marriage happens in the chapel/temple/etc of your own personal religion. What’s the downside (and I’m not being snarky here)?
O!, but instead we got the guy who wrote VAWA, to the cheers of the “father’s rights” guy, Dickie Bennett. Fuck you, Dickie. You’re a fraud.
On the bright side, my oldest daughter, who I haven’t spoken to in 5 years thanks to 17 years of PAS, and who has now reached the age of majority, found the trail of bread crumbs I left for her and reached out to me yesterday. I am really fucking happy about that.
But then I recall that it was Joe Biden and the likes of Joe Biden that allowed what was done to us to be done to us. I will remain angry about that and I will continue to fight that filthy piece of socialist shit to the end of days. I tried to warn you not to fuck with my family.
teh tits of sugar
a halloween tradition
officer
Let’s back up to the one man, more than one woman thing. Do I get to set ALL the rules?
I may like this Baracky thing yet…
Many people in Northern California also engage in incest. I suppose their rights were torn asunder by the passage of prop 8 as well.
outlets?
can i get a “plug-in”
Crikey. I take a little long to write me post and you people throw up 50 in the meantime. It’s like the Major Leagues of commenting.
>>#
What’s the downside (and I’m not being snarky here)?
#
Religious types would/do/may consider SSMs in a church to be a]defilement, b]an abomination, c]a sin before God, d]a cause for schism, etc etc
baby-baby-baby-baby-
i Will not bury you from the neck down..
titties down–maybe
[i’ll talk to the iman]
honey-
honey?
no high and tight fastballs
or intentional walks
aero-dynamiclly
these rocks…?
i’m so honored to say i’m sorry
bestiality, incest, and pederasty
Marriage is a contract.
Animals and minors cannot agree to contracts.
Adult incest and polygamy, I don’t care about.
And it’s time for me to go to bed, too. I was up way too late last night.
Good night, SBP. Going myself, too.
lettuce bed u
nite!
u funyums!
#333
a third world of the halfway
dreems i gots 4 the route 666
sequel
#334
the door
the booze
it’s not a heart attackit’s a stroke!
hits u on the way out
“someone call a waitress-
uh-waitstaff
busboy
the dishwasher
parking dude?!”
“If you have sugartits, put them on persiankitty.com.”
Awesome.
BTW OI, thor wanted me to ask you which is the best site for him to upload sexy pics of his moobs.
I am waiting to hear exactly why one set of consenting adults should be denied the right or privlege of marrying. I find it rather odd.
Whether you see it or not Lisa, society, structured by our government, is built to give maximum consideration to pro-creating couples. If you change the structure of government to include other than pro-creating couples in that consideration, then pro-creating couples are no longer of primary concern in that society, which is suicide.
“I am waiting to hear exactly why one set of consenting adults should be denied the right or privlege of marrying. I find it rather odd.”
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/japanese-cartoon-lovers-petition-right-marry-their-favourite-characters
Plus…what lee said.
Leopards and spots, people. Leopards and spots. Ideologues are irrational by definition.*
An aside: I can respect Lisa’s opinions. At least, she can articulate something that is almost semi-rational about why she believes what she does. I respect Senator Lieberman and Zell Miller and even Rudy Giuliani for the same reasons.
That said, wrt to the whole marriage thingy as well as other issues…Personally, I don’t care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home as long they aren’t actively and physically harming anyone else. The Castle Doctrine, however, works both ways. Over the last several decades, Republican and Democrat judicial and legislative interference in the private affairs of American citizens has become more than slightly problematic. Ideologues are irrational by self-determination and by definition…and at the moment, this nation needs ‘rational’ like a drowning man needs a life preserver.
* http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=JAA.001.0381A
  http://www.sunysb.edu/polsci/mlodge/lodgemotivated.pdf
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideologue
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
see also:
The Asch Conformity Experiment.
The Milgram Experiment.
The Stanford Prison Experiment.
The Good Samaritan Experiment.
‘Bystander Apathy’ Experiment.
I, even if I really really tried, could not decide to go for the coochie. Thus, I don’t have a “choice†sexually
Sure you could, if you really tried.
I’ve heard it described like smoking. The first couple of times it may seem nasty and make your eyes water, but in no time at all it becomes kinda nice.
Not that I think it’s something you should do…
This just needs some Extascy. Trust me.
“I am waiting to hear exactly why one set of consenting adults should be denied the right or privlege of marrying.
Michael Moore and Rosie O’Lard should be denied the right to marry each other, or anyone else for that matter.
I, even if I really really tried, could not decide to go for the coochie.
Oh, come on. Don’t tell me that you have never looked at Angelina Jolie, and wondered …
With all due respect to Lisa, the idea that our rights are indeed subject to the whims of the majority. The system we have is designed that way. First citizens could drink alcohol, then they couldn’t, and then they could again. If a large enough majority was put together that thought the right to assemble should be curtailed, it could be. We have minority protection in that the minority gets a say, and the majority must be two-thirds.
I disagree with a constitutional ban on gay marriage, because I think it is a question better suited for the states, but the minority doesn’t just get to dictate what’s going to be because they feel left out. Life is tough, they should buy helmets or develop more convincing arguments.
Probably late on this as usual…
Here is my try at that.
One of the biggest problems for any civilized society is how to civilize young men. Monogamous marriage between a man and a woman has been shown over the past 10,000 years to be the one way that works best. To encourage this particular arrangement there have developed societal incentives for it.
When it, monogamous marriage, is broken and young males either opt out or are kept out of it they become a very destabilizing force.
The only other way of dealing with the “uncivilized” young male problem is to push them out onto other societies where they either die fighting or win mates and settle down.
Societies with policies or doctrines which result in an excess of young males with no reason to marry a woman or hope to do so are the cause of much of the turmoil in the world.
That is my non-religious point in favor of monogamous marriage.
THREE-WAY!!!
</thor>
I should have added.
Making “marriage”, the union of one man and one woman and only that arrangement, is to set it apart as special. It is an encouragement to young men and young women to enter into to it for their own reasons.
Society’s reason is not that of the individuals but an over arching one in that societies that don’t, don’t survive long.
Marriage, defined as between one man and one woman, set aside as special and encouraged through societal pressure, is one of the things that makes civilization possible. There are others but this is a biggie.
Civil unions for some, tiny American flags for others!
When you are talking to a Northern Californian, you never know who is gay or straight (or perhaps referring to their companion at Salsa lessons), because everyone uses the word “partnerâ€Â.
Oh no, you mean they are all really Cowboys!
Play that funky wordgame morons
Ah wants to eat y’all right now….Um Um.
Teeth grindingly grim WSJ headline: “Sen. Collins May Find Power in Middle”. Couldn’t bring myself to read the fracking article beneath.
“Sen. Collins May Find Power in Middleâ€Â
Ummmmmmmm……
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 11/5 @ 10:26 pm #
BTW OI, thor wanted me to ask you which is the best site for him to upload sexy pics of his moobs.
You’ve dude poo on your moobs.
What gets me about the gay marriage debate is that as a society we’ve already had it with “miscogenation” laws, or marrying between the races. ALL the same arguments were used, and in the end, reason and freedom won out.
There is a very big difference between an ordinance limiting women’s public restrooms to women and laws which limit contracts between parties based on certain characteristics other than being of age and of generally sound mind.
The state banning someone based on their genitalia or sexual preference is no morally different than doing the same thing based on race. Two mentally competent consenting adults should be able enter into the household forming contract of state marriage. The party of the first part and the party of the second part, period. Just like every other legal contract between persons.
Too many conservatives think “holy matrimony” when they hear the word “marriage.” It goes without saying that the state has no business determining any aspect of “holy matrimony.” That’s something that should be “holy” determined (aheh) by the religious institutions in our society that recognize such unions. Meanwhile, in the eyes of the state, all marriages should be “civil unions.”
Come on, social conservatives. What’s so wrong with this civic arrangement?
Marriage evolved the way it has — one man and one woman — because we have two sexes. You take away the simple “one of each” logic and you annihilate the institution.
And I’d be really interested to see how that could have been used against “miscegenation.”
Sure that argument was made: “t’was always thus.” I think it’s even got some of those fancy latin fallacy names, argumentum ad verecundiam, in particular an appeal to authority, in particular an appeal to the authority of history.
Battery’s dead. Bye!
Give us your linguistic seminar. I’ll listen respectfully then respond.
…
i know it’s moors
but my trivial pursuit card says moops
Makewi: “With all due respect to Lisa, the idea that our rights are indeed subject to the whims of the majority. The system we have is designed that way. First citizens could drink alcohol, then they couldn’t, and then they could again.”
Here, you are both right and wrong. Under the American system, generally speaking, the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the mob. Your example of Prohibition involved an Amendment to the Constitution — hardly the normal course of affairs.
Makewi: “I disagree with a constitutional ban on gay marriage, because I think it is a question better suited for the states, but the minority doesn’t just get to dictate what’s going to be because they feel left out.”
The specific problem that gay marriage suffers is that it has made its best progress through judicial, rather than legislative, chambers. Like abortion, when you take any shred of democracy out of the decision, you offend not only the devoted partisans of one side of the equation, but you mobilize individuals in unrelated but similar areas, along with those old stick who dislike the notion of unelected judges usurping the power of the other branches of government. When legislators make bad decisions, you can replace them. When judges overstep, stronger measures are necessary.
“Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 11/5 @ 9:33 pm #
Sexuality is pretty clearly a spectrum.
Or, to put it more bluntly, humans will fuck damned near anything that’s socially acceptable.”
So we’re fighting over the “acceptability” part.
Or, as was famously said, defining deviancy down.
The main problem with the “Gay Marriage” debate is its roots. The movement is driven by leftist agitators in select “blue” cities, not by gay people.
This is not news. A friend who teaches the Gender-Studies curricula at a local state university admitted as much to me the other day. The reason Gay Marriage is even a political issue is because of its potent threat to America’s traditional Judeo-Christian order, and this threat’s utility to the Left’s message-makers.
In this, Gay Marriage, the issue, is on a par with child-molesting priests. Both issues are amplified and animated in order to drive a wedge between middle-America and the religious fundamentals that underpinned our nation’s first two hundred years of success.
The “Gay Marriage movement” is not a “grass-roots” movement by any means. It is wholly contrived by big city politico’s. Consider this the next time the issue is brought up at a party.
[…] (edited version of a comment on this post) […]
Right. Like “individual liberty”. That doesn’t need to mean what it has always meant, and suggesting otherwise or referring to those musty, flawed old founding documents and suggesting that “twas always thus” is a logical fallacy.
Excuse me while I offer my throat to the wolf.
JD, it has always been one of my dearest hopes that they do identify a genetic basis. Ten minutes later, there will be an over the counter blood test. (I actually saw an “In Home Paternity Test Kit” in Walgreen’s last week!!!!)
At that point, I’ll get to watch the Looney Left and the Rabid Right paint the walls with the blood pressure spewing out their ears as they try to reconcile the conflicts between their stances on abortion and the prospect of avoiding / facilitating the abortion of every “genetically gay infant” detected.
I know, I’m evil… but I’ve been attending Neal Boortz’s School for Vicious SOBs for a while.
SDN – You are evil.
And prolly racist too.
Dread Cthulhu,
FTFY. Seriously, one of the most disturbing things about this election is that things may have reached the tipping point where that is no longer true. Up until now, most of the really Left programs haven’t had enough popular support to make the ballot box a more reliable approach than the judge’s courtroom. That may have changed; the best reason for thinking otherwise is that it took a media so in the tank for O! they needed scuba gear to obscure his real goals and means.
San Fran Nan had the stones to say she would govern from the fucking middle. She could not find the middle with a tomtom in one hand, a Magellen in the other, and a map jammed in her mouth.
Up until now, most of the really Left programs haven’t had enough popular support to make the ballot box a more reliable approach than the judge’s courtroom
And they still don’t, even after this “historic” election of the first dirty socialist to the Presidency.
Nice. And hearty congratulations. This brings a tear — you know some of my story.
Uncle Joe Biden has a gender/familial dysfunction of frequent public note that in his progressive mind makes the fraud of VAWA a truly lovely thing. Likewise, Obamites either love government as parent or refuse to believe what Joe actually did to make it one. It’s an underachieving issue but along with universal healthcare, universal mental “healthcare”, and universal preschool combined with the lovely state school system, it’ll figure heavily soon enough. Language they already own.
You know all this stuff is either in place or about to be
peter jackson:
There will be no establishment of religion. The idea of marriage derives not from the state, but from religion. The definition belongs to the people rather than the state.
You can argue your point and win it from the pulpit of public address, but the high priesthood of the courts cannot hand it down with the arrogance that they have shown and expect those inconvenient citizens not to push back.
I don’t think that many of us care much about the issue. It is the means that bother us. Look at what happened in Massachusetts, and how the legislature decided that the constitution of the commonwealth didn’t really apply to them. Nauseating.
JD: “San Fran Nan had the stones to say she would govern from the fucking middle. She could not find the middle with a tomtom in one hand, a Magellen in the other, and a map jammed in her mouth.”
I don’t want to ask where she has the compass and the team of Belgian spelunkers tucked away…
Oh absolutely, JD. Just ask one of our local trolls; the other day he was certain I’d want a copy of the Turner Diaries.
I didn’t have the heart to tell him that my all-time favorite dream is Al Sharpton and David Duke locked in a small room with a spiked club apiece…. and I’m manning the sniper rifle waiting for whoever walks out.
I second JHowards congrats.
And, I was laughing at the Pelosi governing from the middle as well. That lady’s got a sense of humor!
You think this shit helps matters, Peter? Oh, but you see we have to tolerate it. Street sex is a sacrament.
Thanks, JHoward. It is nice, awfully nice, though there’s still a long way to go. I know you get it.
And thanks to you, Carin.
The “issue” I have with gay marriage is that marriage alone doesn’t seem to be the total agenda. I don’t trust ’em, so I stand athwart the movement.
Perhaps I’d be a tad more open if it weren’t for the shit like Dan just linked.
And, FTR, every gay person I’ve known personally, I’ve liked **. They haven’t been freaks (call me judgmental, but those are FREAKS at that Street Fair), an dI would have been more than happy to attend any civil union ceremony they invited me to.
**Oh, except for a bitch lesbian lawyer I worked for once. My dislike had nothing to do with her sexual preference. She was just a bitch.
OMG, Carin! I can’t believe you’re such a BITCHIST!
No, it most certainly isn’t. A couple of years ago, I listened to citizen testimony at our statehouse. There were several bills on offer. One would have authorized gay marriage. Another would have created civil unions with all the legal trappings of marriage, but not the terminology. the gays testifying were overwhelmingly against the civil unions bill. They want to be married, which is to say that they want to be just the same as married people. (It turns out that they got neither, where a CU bill is doable, I think, but for the fact that they don’t want it.) That is dressed up in terms of equality in order to make anyone who disagrees a bigot, but that is rank foolishness. An orange is not equal to a potato. That doesn’t make one higher or lower in value than the other, it only observes that they are not the same thing and cannot be the same thing. If you think differently, try making orange fries or potato sherbet.
Dread – That was a moment of great self restraint on my part.
PABLO – THAT IS AWESOME NEWS ! I cannot imagine what you have gone through in that, and am so happy for you now. Excuse me while I go give my little one a hug and a kiss ;-)
SDN – Remington M700 5R Milspec ?
SDN – Remington M700 APR or AWR with 375 Ultra Mag loads would be good too …
Stupidest thing ever written by a not stupid person. Marriage is a human institution which existed before religion and after it. The Chinese and the Indians, roughly one third of the world’s people, don’t need a church to marry them, either 2500 years ago at the birth of civilization or since the establishment of Dan’s religion.
Tribes of people from the Amazon or New Guinea who had never had contact with outsiders, still pair bonded and married.
Formal marriage is condoned by the state and the privileges entailed to marriage come from statutue. No one needs a church to marry, but you can ask the poor wayward souls Gavin Newsome married in 2004, if the State doesn’t recognize it, it don’t count.
PS This is not to deny the factor religion plays in all our lives, but the institution did NOT begin in the Church
The “issue†I have with gay marriage is that marriage alone doesn’t seem to be the total agenda
It isn’t, Carin. The photographer that was sued because she said she didn’t do gay weddings, the lawsuit against eHarmony because they deal only with heterosexual couples, the church that owned a small beachside pavellion that was sued because they wouldn’t allow a gay wedding, the statements from advocates that any teacher that would NOT treat gay marriage positively in schools should lose their teaching license, the fertility clinic sued because one of the doctors in it didn’t want to do invitro for a lesbian couple (being referred to another doctor in the practice wasn’t good enough) …
it isn’t about tolerance and being civil, it is about indoctrination and harassing people who are not 100% enthusiastic cheerleaders.
Choward
depends on how you define religion … in history you’d be hard pressed to find where marriage did NOT envolve some tradition dependent upon spiritual beliefs.
Marriage is a human institution which existed before religion and after it.
Umm… care to fill us in on the portion of human history that was “before religion”?
The Chinese and the Indians
Yes, you’re quite right. There’s absolutely no religion in China or India.
You’re not very smart, are you, Choward?
OI:
Maybe we can have alpuccino drive the hour up I-71 and meet us. But this is the first community that I have felt a kinship to.
I’d crash that party if there’s room for me! I live just a little north and east of JD.
Hindu wedding customs
Approximately 15 days prior to the actual wedding, on an auspicious day, the pandit will perform a puja to Lord Ganesh (the remover of obstacles)
The father pours out libation of sacred water symbolizing the giving away of the daughter to the bride groom. The groom recites Vedic hymns to Kama, the god of love, for pure love and blessings.
After being led to the wedding mandup, the bride and groom have their hands tied together. The Panditji does a puja to Lord Ganesh and then puts a coin & mehendi on the groom’s right hand where the round empty spot is (where no mehendi was put) and ties his hand with the brides.
The bridegroom gets up from his seat holding his bride’s right hand. He then goes around the Holy Fire (Agni) from the right side, by lifting his bride’s right foot at each step.
The idea behind this is to pray to Lord Vishnu, the protector of life, for his blessings in marital life.
Nope, no religion there. Not a bit.
How many people in here actually care about gay marriage? Other than the judicial activism, the undemocratic means by which the gay-rights crowd wants to enact their agenda, and the underlying ideology of the people advocating it, I would put money on the fact that most people in here do not give a shit what two consenting adults do. I came late to this thread but who jumped the conversation over to here anyway?
Seconded. Choward simply moved the goalpost to universally redefine religion as a church, leaving the salient thought untouched: The idea of marriage derives not from the state, but from religion. The definition belongs to the people rather than the state.
Sadly, today “religion”, being tacitly practiced by the state by oppressing the individual’s free practice of nearly everything, has its functional definition tied up in the State’s whim. Although it’s redefining it daily — Choward says it’s not marriage unless the State says its marriage — the State did not invent marriage.
Given that that’s the case, Choward, how do you reconcile your two assertions?
SBP, it’s an open question as to whether the institution of monogamous marriage came before the religious justifications or after. Evidence suggests before, as there are numerous cultures that have moved from polygamous to monogamous and seen their religious tenets adapt accordingly.
Even discarding the religious basis, it’s a cultural fact, and should not be thrown out lightly or at the whim of a handful of unanswerable judges. If the argument were to be made in the public sphere in a manner intended to persuade, rather than browbeat, and if compromise (civil unions) were acceptable, then I think the argument would quickly disappear and, eventually, the cultural would change to adapt.
Cowboy – I just sent you an email …
Well speaking as someone who is a conservative Christian and related to a lesbian Pablo’s comment at #377 hits the nail on the head. Let me take it one step further. I have talked to several gays who want nothing to do with “marriage” as a a moniker for their publicly proclaimed relationships. In fact, one young lady told me, with a smile, that she’d rather not be lumped in with “breeders.”
I fully support legal protections for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships or whatever. I think that it reflects the substance and the tone of “equal protection under the law.” What I don’t support is creating a faux civil rights argument for the purpose of mainstreaming something resembling a lifestyle choice by redefining an institution both civil and religious!
I’m of the opinion that gays who are beating the civil rights drum are doing a disservice to their constituents. While they try to press against the tide many partnerships in the gay community are at legal risk. Civil unions could be achieved with much less fanfare and opposition than fundamentally redefining marriage to spike a contrived “moral” outcome.
SBP, it’s an open question as to whether the institution of monogamous marriage came before the religious justifications or after.
Animals have mates, but that’s not “marriage”.
How many people in here actually care about gay marriage? Other than the judicial activism, the undemocratic means by which the gay-rights crowd wants to enact their agenda, and the underlying ideology of the people advocating i
Most of us, I dare say, care more about those three things than gay marriage. But, those are precisely why we care about it. The crux, if you will.
I would refer everyone back to comment #293
I’m not so sure it’s not superior to marriage…
In many ways it is superior to marriage, in that once its done, its done (this depends on the species of course). Human marriage requires commitment and discipline and all the things that human beings must perpetually strive to attain. If it didn’t require these things, it wouldn’t be worth a fuck.
If California can adopt a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “one of each,” I’m pretty confident the problem for SSM proponents isn’t “social conservatives.”
Oh, Barrett .50 cal. Also known as “teleport into fine red mist.”
I’ve some thoughts concerning gay marriage. First of all there is no litmus test for being gay, and that’s gotta change. What if two drunk chicks French-kiss at the encouragement of even drunker males at a frat party? Are they fuckin’ gay for life? Gay for a moment? Kinda gay, kinda Bi, kinda what?
You want to get married, homos? OK. All the guy-fag couples have to designate a donor, that’s right, one dude in the gay couple has to give up their weenier. Dyke-bitch couples have to designate a shaftee. That’s right, for every gay dude who gets his weenier lopped off a dyke has to have a weenier sewn on, after she gets her plumbing plugged, of course. Medically this keeps everything on the up and up. No changing your mind about your faggedness. Submit to the knife!
I see thor is hungover again.
I see Carin is still stupid.
Really, try some asprin. Or drink a ton of water before you go to bed.
I’m too lazy to stay drunk. I’m white.
I would go one step further and describe the marriage problem as being a symptom of something even more fundamental. I think people like the idea of marriage as we have it now, because like it’s been said several comments, it seems to work for not destroying human civilization.
The problem is that people tend to feel safer when what they consider ‘lets not destroy civilization’ type ideas are enshrined in big important documents. However everyone to some degree or another in this country has seen things that make them want to keep cultural things out of the governmental process.
#344 is all about the ‘doing something else could destabilize our society’. The civil union that Spies talks about is about keeping the cultural out of the governmental process. People, though, are always going to want to take societal changes slowly, and are going to use everything possible to ensure that.
My idle though is that if people that are sheltered are exposed to different people the cultural adhesion will be sufficient to keep things good. Unfortunately, the multicult group has done the exact opposite of this. Also when I say sheltered, I mean people sheltered in many different ways.
I’ve some thoughts concerning gay marriage. First of all there is no litmus test for being gay, and that’s gotta change
If gay marriage is to work, thor might end up being right.
College room mates, purely heterosexual, decide they could use the benefits of a married couple, sign a contract and get the benefits designed for the couple raising their prodigy. There are only two ways to deal with that. Gay litmus test or devalue the benefits married couples get.
As said upthread, marriage, a religious tenet, would be destroyed. A crucial defeat for Christianity, and and the death knell of western culture.
Treacher:
NUMB: National Unity My Butt
Or, to put it another way. My religion tells me homosexual activity is sin. By definition, homosexual activity cannot be approved. The SF mayor seems to think he can force me to approve it, but no matter what he says, I won’t regard Bob and Bills “marriage” the same as I do my parents.
I also don’t treat Bobs or Bills any different than my Dad or brothers, who also sin regularly. As does everyone, else there would be no need for Christ. But I will never stop calling wrong “wrong”.
Oh, and anyone that tries to equate gay rights with the civil rights movement is an idiot. Ask your new President if you don’t believe me.
Free men do not need or require the approval of governments and institutions in order to live.
If you require the government’s stamp of approval on your own relationships, you are no longer free. You are a slave. If you desire for the government to place it’s stamp of approval on the relationships of other free men, you only seek to enslave others to your own will.
End of discussion.
End of discussion.
Not so fast there sparky. Pretty broad premise there:
Free men do not need or require the approval of governments and institutions in order to live.
Capitol punishment is practiced in this free society.
If you require the government’s stamp of approval on your own relationships, you are no longer free.
Are laws against conspiracy inhibiting your freedom?
Is the prohibition on testifying against a spouse enslaving?
There are all kinds of laws restricting association.
SDN – I cannot talk my Better Half into letting me add the Barrett .50 cal to my collection. For some reason, she thinks I do not need one.
Dan, you’re changing the subject. I could argue against interracial marriage by posting pictures of the Rodney King riots, but that would be beside the point too.
If all marriages were civil unions in the eyes of the state, then social conservatives would get to keep their precious, precious word marriage, and protect it in the bosom of their churches, synagogues, etc.
[…] Locke’s insightful comment about how they’ll muzzle opposition views anyway, echoes much of what Quint Hillyer over at […]
-Marriage is a formal agreement between a male and female.
-So far,it is the best system we’ve come up with, for species survival
– Without a male and a female creating more humans, the race dies.
-This is Basic Human 101
ITS NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT!!!
tony
south haven,mi
JD, just tell her it’s like all the clothes she brings home: she’s got a closet full of things and all they do is make her look fat*KLONG*
Why is there this word “Revereware” stamped on my skull?
Lee, by the statements you’ve offered in – ahem- refutation of my premise, you’ve acknowledged the validity of Rule by Law. That is a very broad premise. it accepts as valid any and all laws, including the literally tons and tons of laws that are now on the books at the township, county, state and federal level. Your statements says that if there is a law, any law, you must abide by it. Thus, any past or future statement that you make against any law in the land is invalidated.
You’re a Tory. The King’s Law or none at all!
Myself, I said exactly what I meant and meant exactly what I said.
see:
‘Online Library of Liberty.’
‘Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics’
See:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Thomas Hobbes
John Locke
Alexis de Tocqueville
Letters of Delegates to Congress
We are not living in the Republic as it was founded. We live in a democracy. Mob rule.
By your own words, Lee, whatever the mob decides is the law that you approve of.
The mob, of course, has ruled that bread and circuses are the order of the day…at my expense…and at your own.
By mob rule, and according to your own approval, you cannot honestly doubt of malign your tax burden, or any other burden, placed upon you the government. Whatever the government says, you must do and do it happily…according to your own approval of the Rule of Law. A Rule of Law that is blessed by the mob and enforced at the point of a gun…a gun held by the government.
Dread
Here, you are both right and wrong. Under the American system, generally speaking, the rights of the minority are protected from the whims of the mob. Your example of Prohibition involved an Amendment to the Constitution  hardly the normal course of affairs.
Point taken regarding my example, my example would better be described as the “whims of the supermajority”. That said, it isn’t hard to find instances when a mere majority has affected the population at large, such as changes to the tax code, or “forcing” states to abide by speed limits, drug policy, doctor assisted suicide, etc.
The specific problem that gay marriage suffers is that it has made its best progress through judicial, rather than legislative, chambers. Like abortion, when you take any shred of democracy out of the decision, you offend not only the devoted partisans of one side of the equation, but you mobilize individuals in unrelated but similar areas, along with those old stick who dislike the notion of unelected judges usurping the power of the other branches of government. When legislators make bad decisions, you can replace them. When judges overstep, stronger measures are necessary.
I agree. In my mind our system works best when the decision making that affects individuals is occurs at the smallest level possible, which in our case is likely to be either the states or even localities. This allows us each to find the location that best matches our idea of individual liberty, and as such allows us each to have the opportunity to be as free as we wish, within reason.
When you advocate placing limits upon the freedoms of others, you abandon any moral and ethical authority to complain when they place limits upon your freedom.
By your own words, Lee, whatever the mob decides is the law that you approve of.
Absurd. I never said any such thing.
I was merely pointing out reality to you. By your assertion, none of us are free.
Ah. Now ya got it, Lee.
Examine yer own premises, Lee. You’re saying one thing while trying mean the exact opposite. Words matter.
Big Government and the Rule of Law, vis a vis the Rule of the Mob, in exact opposition to the tenets and ideals of the Founding Fathers, means that you are free…’cause that’s what yer sayin’. At present, you can do no business of any kind without a government ‘permission slip.’ You can’t buy a home, a car or groceries without acknowledging the interference of government in your life. Oh…and you have to pay the government for the privilege of its interference in your life. You like that. You support that. You encourage that. ‘Cause that’s what yer sayin’. …and sophistry don’t werk with me. You gotta bring yer “A” game, there, Lee. Critical thinking. First causes and such.
well/ if the half black dude had won the popular vote
and the old crippled white guy had won the electoral college
the msm would be 24/7
bitch-i-fied clam oxygen deprave mode
1
we still got the electoral college[i’m thinky good]
NOW- let’s not let some half-conservative a roon get our nominayion!
jindal/pal;in
. You like that. You support that. You encourage that.
Show me where you get this idea.
Lee, you’ve challenged my premise. Your own is implied in the first post that got my attention, here.
I’ve offered references and resources showing that my own premise is founded in Thoreau, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and the Founding Fathers, as well as many, many others. Based upon my premise, which is well founded, referenced and sourced, your own stated position is either invalid or needs to be clarified. If more laws are good, then Thoreau et al are wrong and so am I, or else your position need to be clarified. ‘Cause what you’ve been sayin’ is in total opposition to the ideals this nation was founded upon.
I’ll clarify. I don’t want more laws. Putting a clear definition of marriage in the State Constitution is not making more laws. Opposing the changing of the word and the concept to include something it is not and never has been in all of human history is not liking, supporting or encouraging more laws.
I was challenging your contention that man is not free unless 100% unfettered by law.
I’m with Warren and Peter.
If the government got out of the business of sanctioning relationships altogether it’d be a boon for individual freedoms.
Right now, the marriage-sanction represents a dangerous precedent – one that the progressive movement has decided is a useful tool in undermining the “patriarchic hegemony.” Remove the sanction – and along with it the precedent, and the Left will stop pretending to pine for it the very next day.
They’ll have to move on and chew on some other bone for awhile.
I may be the only one here, but I’m appreciating Thor’s retreat to sarcasm.
As soon as his guy won the CiC’s office, he pulled in his rhetorical daggers and unsheathed his sarcasm ray-gun.
That means there’s a lot less blood, And, because I believe that sarcasm is the first refuge of the conflicted and the ambivalent, Thor’s decision to emigrate to her high walls represents progress in the right direction.
Actually, steaveaz, it’s that and having no platform.
So, Lee, Thoreau and Locke and Hobbes and Rousseau and Paine and Madison and Adams and all of the rest were wrong? ‘Cause that’s what yer sayin’, here.
What yer sayin’ is that you need and approve of more government interference in the lives of its citizens/subjects. Paine and all the rest thought that was a very bad idea. If you dismiss the statement I made with which you seem to disagree, you dismiss not only Paine, Thoreau, Jefferson, Franklin, et al, you dismiss the Founding Fathers and the ideals of a constrainted government as expressed in The Constitution.
And, because I believe that sarcasm is the first refuge of the conflicted and the ambivalent, Thor’s decision to emigrate to her high walls represents progress in the right direction.
Predictably, progressivism’s progress done took a regress.