Gabriella Hoffman, CNS:
American conservatism has suffered some great losses, but it’s certainly not a lost cause.
ObamaCare will be implemented, more businesses will be forced to close, unemployment is expected to rise, and more debt will pile on. Moreover, the HHS mandate, threats to religious liberty, and the promotion of leftist social policies will also define Obama’s second term.
Although this is cause for alarm, there is no need to panic and abandon conservative values.
Elites and so-called moderates are blaming social conservatives and Tea Partiers alike for being “too extreme” on social and economic issues respectively. They think pandering to groups rather than outreach will benefit our side. How exactly is taking a page from the liberal playbook going to work in our favor? It won’t.
Another troubling instance is whether or not House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and other elected officials will represent conservative interests in the 113th Congress. Support for continuing resolutions (CR) during the debt ceiling debate, and more recently Boehner’s recent remarks on ObamaCare now being the “law of the land” – among many things – should leave conservatives distressed and eager for new leadership.
Instead of displaying weakness by agreeing to “compromise” with leftists, conservatives must be tough in their resolve to fix this nation.
— All true. But let me add that evidently Boehner held a conference call with House members after the election and noted how the GOP, which held the House, lost 2 Senate seats, and lost a very close Presidential election with a flawed candidate against an historic incumbent running on “free shit!” and “soak the rich,” was beaten badly, and that it’s time to begin working out the best terms of our surrender, be it to ObamaCare, or “revenue enhancements,” or “comprehensive immigration reform.”
This is the GOP leadership — and it is anathema to classical liberalism and constitutional conservatism. So why tie yourself to that particular anchor? This country is heading for collapse. And it’s GOP establicans like Boehner who are in part responsible, having been willing to join and even now promote the Big Government status quo, to sequester the ruling class from the rest of us (that is, after all, what his attitude toward the TEA Partiers swept into office in 2010 showed, just as Romney’s treatment of the delegates at the convention, along with the choice of convention speakers, bespoke a similar disdain for the base, who he just assumed would turn out for him), effectively turning DC into a swap meet for statists of various stripes, with no real representation any more for their constituencies.
We know that most Republicans and nearly all conservatives and classical liberals reject ObamaCare; we know they reject amnesty; and we know they reject the idea of punitive taxation the productive — not least because they understand that such a policy will kill jobs, destroy investment, slow the economy, and create more debt and more dependency in the long term. And more dependency equals more Democrat voters.
So in a sense, “our” leadership is affirmatively acting to aid Democrats in nearly every sphere of politics, be it surrendering the message or surrendering principles in order to reach deals where they brag about having stemmed the full-on tide of socialist transformation by slowing it a bit from time to time.
All of which is unacceptable, and none of which is in keeping with the idea of representative government.
Back to Hoffman:
Here is how conservatives can outsmart the Left and win:
Make the moral case for free enterprise
Economic freedom is the cornerstone of our movement. Lower taxes, less spending, and balanced budgets comprise our economic policies. Although some on our side have dabbled in cronyism and big government, there is no need to abandon or diminish free enterprise. Instead, make the moral case for it.
[…]
Sound conservatism, not moderation, fosters unity
Many establishment Republicans are calling for the abandonment of social issues. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize that many social conservatives are also economic conservatives. Renowned scholar and Princeton University professor Robert P. George wrote in “No Mere Marriage of Convenience: Uniting Social Conservatives and Economic Conservatives” that the case for sound conservatism can be made. He wrote, “Sound conservatism, as a matter of principle and not mere pragmatism, will honor limited government, restrain spending, and provide honest money and low taxes—while at the same time upholding the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions; the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and the innocence of children.”
Tap into pop culture, entertainment, and social media
One of the weaknesses in our movement is reluctance to use social media and entertainment to convey our message. Undoubtedly, leftists have mastered pop culture to their advantage. Our side must use pop culture and social media – especially Twitter, Facebook, memes, and videos –to appeal to potential young voters and activists. There are plenty of entertaining conservatives out there. Pop culture will bolster the movement’s message by modernizing it, not moderating it.
Outreach, but don’t pander
Calls for embracing amnesty, abortion, and gay marriage would not bring more supporters to the Conservative Movement. Some are blaming “extremism” from conservatives for Mitt Romney’s loss. Many factors are to blame, but certainly conservatives aren’t at fault.
Instead of pandering to liberal interests, embrace issues like school choice that can sway people to our side.
If we’re to go this route — and I think we must — it is best that we do so having first signaled to the GOP that we are no longer their base. They may wish to join us in promoting liberty, private property rights, free enterprise, and individual sovereignty — unapologetically and with the confidence of our convictions and a track record of creating jobs and economic growth — but that means that they need come to us.
In 2008, Mitch McConnell declared the era of Reagan dead. And he was right. But what he failed to note was that it was the Republican establishment that killed it. 2010 showed that it can return. But the GOP didn’t learn the lessons of 2010. And while Obama didn’t either, it wasn’t Obama who was relying on the votes of those who sent such a strong signal in 2010, only to be mocked, bullied, marginalized, and dismissed as unnuanced Hobbits and fringe Visigoths by the very people swept into power in their wake. Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Steve Schmitt — these people weren’t going to set their hair on fire for you mouthbreathing flyover country hicks. After all, they knew what was best and what “we” needed to win, because they always do.
Even as they lose time after time after time after time. Without ever losing their jobs or their influence.
And that’s because they control the money, the party, and the rules, which in turn buys them a lot of self-forgiveness and funds for them a whole lot of rationalization and scapegoating. It is they who push the Republican message in the mainstream media — when that message isn’t being undermined by the mainstream media itself.
Yet when their messaging fails, it is our fault. Because we ruined their messaging that “we aren’t really all that conservative, so moderates should be unafraid to vote for us,” by speaking in conservative terms and raising conservative issues. Unhelpfully.
Well, guess what, pragmatists? I’m not going to light my hair on fire for you, either. So I guess that makes this a time for choosing.
Get out your white board, Karl, and I think it might begin to dawn on you what happens to that electoral map of yours once a large number of constitutionalists and classical liberals reject the GOP, content instead to move their focus more and more to local elections and to building communities that are in many ways will work to present resistance to the overreach of the federal government.
You’ll have two choices then: either go after Dem votes by becoming once again “compassionate” big spending statists who promise lower taxes; or else get your fat ass in line behind us for a change, and let us proudly preach liberty and free market capitalism and the dignity of the individual — along with the American exceptionalism that, far from being the result of colonialist plunder, is instead a result of the model of constitutional government that for over two-hundred years constrained tyranny and the return by the people to the subjecthood their birthright gave them the opportunity to escape.
They only think they understand is whether someone voted for them or not. How shall we signal to them that we are no longer voting for candidates who do not share our principles?
They ignore the fact that fewer Republicans are voting in each new election, which should be a signal to them, but isn’t. I guess we need a third party.
Not to be an ass, but perhaps by the right-o-sphere not strategically wrecking Palin, Cain, et al as UNVIABLE! to go with the presumptive nominee Romney while admitting he’s largely an unknown centrist. Who lost to McCain last time.
I know we all remember rejecting that plan as recently as a couple of months ago.
I pushed hard against what I thought was the narrative that Obama was anything but incompetent and corrupt when I made noise about Romney’s apparent reactionary grassroots surge. I also concluded that his campaign was bolstered by the libertarian types evidencing themselves in Ryan and in local politics.
Was not the case at all, it seems, and that leaves us, now, finally, in defeat, making a stand for what we should have made a stand for as far back as John Anderson.
Pragmatism took one right in the teeth this cycle and it did for want of sound principle and for caving in to bad principle.
I aim to never again be even close to that strategic failure. If we go down we go down as ourselves. And as ourselves, if we rise we rise for the right reasons.
I agree that the pragmatists, along with the establishment GOP, did a fine job of demonizing those candidates as well as others, most of whom were much more to my liking than Romney (who I never cared for at all). However, they are not us, and will not help us. They have already decided, though they don’t know it, that we should move left.
I assume that your conclusion is vocal opposition towards any other candidate like Romney or McCain. The problem is the blogosphere represents a tiny minority of people, and most of what we throw around does not reach the masses.
Perhaps that will change due to the proliferation of tablets and smartphones, but I wouldn’t count on it. Therefore, we need to do something that even the GOP cannot ignore. I don’t know what that is.
I’d settle for a second one.
Oh, snap!
We’re in a negative feedback loop, the only way out of which may indeed be a third party creditable enough to supplant the GOP as the second party.
I keep saying it and saying it: There is a huge resurgence in independence afoot.
It needs a home.
It’s not that independence doesn’t exist — it is certainly not a tiny minority — it’s that it has been refused refuge and comfort, ironically, in part by that tiny minority of Republicanized talkers.
And a million persons moving to Texas won’t ever happen because?
And a million persons moving to Texas won’t ever happen because?
Humidity and chiggers.
That’s my reason.
Yeah, we need to be willing to kick the establishment to the curb and let them know they can fund and GOTV all on their lonesome.
It’s a cultural battle, and has to be won, starting on a local level and with use of alternate media and methods–e.g., Breitbart’s Bigs, The Blaze. Hell, starting your own book club or educational co-op (if you’re feeling ambitious) works just as well, too. Your local Chambers, fraternal groups and the like are also a good opportunity to get the word out.
But I’m not willing to abandon the GOP in toto–I think we also have to be willing to support good candidates when they accidentally get the nod, and sit on our hands when they cough up a go-along-to-get-along establishment hairball. Which may have been just what happened a week ago, if turnout figures are accurate.
throw some soapy water on the lawn and you won’t have chiggers not sure why
it’s a thing
Poisonous snakes. Unbearable heat.
Soapy water on the outside of bugs dries up and clogs their breathing pores, so they suffocate.
You’re thinking too far south and east, dicentra.
leigh’s got it.
Of course, for my wife it’s not even those so much* as the migrating tarantulas. I try to tell her we can just run over them while tornado-chasing, but she won’t listen.
*She’s lived in the New Orleans area — unbearable heat plus unbearable humidity.
Poisonous snakes were my granny’s excuse for keeping her .22 skills sharp. She fashioned neat rattle necklaces back in the day.
oh. i wish that worked on fireants
Raspberry ants have already thinned out the fire ants in Austin. Their stings hurt less but they come into the house a lot and some people claim that they eat wiring which makes them a bad home damaging pest like carpenter ants or termites.
Fireants are another reason to stay right where I am.
It can work on fire ants, you just have to get them out of their nest first.
Which, I can see why that’s a problem…
Supposedly there are fire ants around here, but the ones here must be too laid back. I’ve been swarmed a time or two but never had many bites that I ever noticed.
What I hate are the ticks.
Put some powdered sulphur in your socks and it usually keeps the chiggers off of you and that’s only if you have to go into tall grass and weeds.
We have water moccasins here. They mainly let you alone unless you wake them up by splashing into their cribs where they were catching some Z’s.
Then, they are on you like white on rice.
Snapping turtles, too. Don’t poke at them with sticks. Fingers and sticks look very much alike to a snapping turtle.
I read up on chiggers. They bite, but then they leave. Ticks move in and stay.
Chiggers are presidential campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire. Ticks are bureaucrats in D.C.
Tuck your jeans in your boots if you’re going to walk around in tall grass.
I’ve only seen one live snapping turtle since I moved to Georgia. Somebody was poking at it with a stick.
And no, that somebody wasn’t me.
Texas has cold desolate semi arid stormy flatland just like Oklahoma does. It’s right on the other side of the red river or in our panhandle. Same type of land. Maybe the people are a little louder.
does soapy water work on
baracky votersticsMr. Turtle snaps that person’s finger and they can spend the rest of their life explaining to drinking buddies that this is what happens when you say “Hold mah beer” and poke a snapping turtle.
Missing fingers are for fools and Shop teachers.
I wish.
Tweezers work on ticks.
snapping turtles terrify me cause of they’re so arbitrary
plus they bite
oh noes
Gov. Perry Opposes Texas Secession
“McGehee says November 13, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I’ve only seen one live snapping turtle since I moved to Georgia. Somebody was poking at it with a stick.”
I saw an alligator snapping turtle in a public aquarium in Corpus Christi and it was a huge and fearsome looking critter. I was wondering just how thick the glass was. I have seen normal smallish soft shell snappers in stock tanks and such. People claim that they eat all the perch. I dunno. But if they get as big as that monster I saw…yeesh.
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/a-list/creature-countdowns/cheats/images/cheats-alligator-snapping-turtle.jpg
From what I’ve read, so do some types of chickens. They’ll keep an acre or two fairly clear of ticks, if left to their own devices.
But you can’t give them bread they didn’t help you make, or they won’t be motivated to eat the ticks.
We have Alligator Gars in our lake. They are also fearsomely ugly looking things. I’ve only seen them dead, so I don’t know if they are bitey to swimmers.
Henny-Penny as a socialist? Say it ain’t so!
It looks like Texas needs a new governor.
Can you give me a city name or two in that area?
I am not a fan of humidity, but I don’t mind being cold.
Utahns don’t need to move to Texas. We’re used to doing things our own damn selves.
Stormy
I.e., keep a root cellar underground. Don’t plan on there being anything standing when you emerge.
You could try Dallas (or the many suburbs of the greater DAFW area) or Amarillo up in the Pan Handle (Major source of helium gas).
I think I have said this before, but maybe not. Conservatism is a way of living, not a political party. Anyone of any party can choose to live a conservative life. If you don’t like being put up wet, don’t accept it.
“Tweezers work on ticks.” No they don’t. The will cause the probiscus to break off under the skin, causing a localized infection. My Grandmother used a darning needle point heated with a match and applied to the posterior of the tick. The tick will pull itself out of the skin. Clean with H2O2 and a little iodine and you are good to go.
Yeah, when someone says ‘wake up and come down to the cellar, we have some weather coming in’, don’t argue. Just get up and go.
They will cause
Tweezers, that is.
cranky, from the USA Today article Tatler was quoting, this has been Perry’s position since 2009:
Perry is on record as favoring more of a nullification approach. That’s why TX said “Hell no, we aren’t joining Obamacare”… and Roberts put in a footnote that prevented Obama from doing anything Medicare funding wise about it.
Gulermo, a blob of Vaseline works pretty well too.
I thought when ticks backed out the head broke off and stayed.
Yeah, the critters and Tornadoes are certainly a turn-off for moving to Texas. I wish my fellow Minnesotans would get a clue and stop the stupidity, but that won’t be happening either.
After this last election, I think I’ve just reached a point where I say – let them wreck it.
Phil Gramm had it right back in 2008 when he said we’ve become a nation of whiners and he was run out of town for it.
No, when they back out voluntarily they let go of their bite area ’cause-a they like to go on living.
In that way they’re better than jihadi splodeydopes, but that’s a low bar.
The tick thing was from my sister. I think that was when you use something hot to make them back out. Then again, she has a lot of very creative “knowledge” floating around her head.
– Petitioning the petition. They’ll get those evil dear leader h8ters!
– Remember. This is coming from the same mental giants who think boycotting a business will increase employment, so you know…..Squirrel!
But remember, the left is in favor of free speech.
Right.
Limbaugh’s Response to Petraeus, Allen Scandal Is Instant Classic: ‘Too Many Generals Taking Orders From Their Privates’
I usually like Charles Cook, but I’m not happy with this article:
My response, in part:
Discuss, or something.
Obama executive order expands Homeland Security reach into local law enforcement
Lawrence O’Donnell calls for secession … in 2004
secession would be cool texas louisiana alabama could become the republic of texloubama and we could all have tasty bbq and gumbo and crawdaddies and atkins shakes together and say fuck you america see ya wouldn’t wanna be ya as we watched anothr perfect sunset over the gulf of mexico
stupid america ur friends talk to my friends talk to my friends talk to friends and your friends talk to ME
but we r never ever ever
getting back together
cause you suck ass and is po like a ho
Now that’s the sensible happyfeet I remember from the old days!
Elites and so-called moderates are blaming social conservatives and Tea Partiers alike for being “too extreme” on social and economic issues respectively.
I think the social conservatives want the Fed to outlaw abortion and gay marriage and the Elites of the GOP want the Fed to make business boom. The falacy of both is the desire for federal fingers in the pie. I would rather both sides of the “conservative” spectrum decide that first and foremost we must have limited federal government across the board. Period. Or no more free enterprise and no more right to argue for or against gay marriage or abortion. You’ll never beat the Dems arguing for more federal intervention. That’s their game. Thay own that. Individual liberty and the constitutional guarantee of that liberty needs to be the uniting principle of the conservatives. Social, economic whatever…. who cares if we are not first safegarding our individual rights from the tyranny of democracy as promulgated by an overarching federal bureaucracy?
I’d settle for seceding from the last 70 years of Commerce clause jurisprudence. Why isn’t that an option?
NJYBHY.
The only reason the stakes are so high in our elections is that the stakes are so fucking high between the elections — and that’s because of the amount of damage unlimited government can do.
I think the social conservatives want the Fed to outlaw abortion and gay marriage
for abortion – overturn roevwade and return the matter to the states. same with gay “marriage”
I like this idea.
34CB5B8D-3D85-47C4-8659-F8E31A53806B-1880-000003CBBFC27333.jpg
Maybe with a different name…
http://i746.photobucket.com/albums/xx109/RexRacer19/34CB5B8D-3D85-47C4-8659-F8E31A53806B-1880-000003CBBFC27333.jpg
Try that.
Ralph Benko, at Forbes…
I canz back away from the ledge now ?
for abortion – overturn roevwade and return the matter to the states. same with gay “marriage”
How is the chief executive going to overturn Roe? Why would I want the feds telling me what is or is not a valid marriage? What I would want is a supreme court that values the constitution adn a chief excutive that values judges that value the constitution. Why won’t the GOP run on the value of limited government period instead of running on specific desired outcomes of cases that are not in front of the 3rd branch of government?
I sure do hope Mr. Benko is right, and not merely indulging in some wishful thinking.
I think he means return that to the states as well.
One of the worst experiences of my childhood was when it suddenly became a mortal threat to just pull a tick off because that squeezed other peoples diseased blood out of the tick and into the current victims body. At least that was the theory that swept my area of rural WV back in the 60s.
The next tick I got, on the back of my neck, my mother, grandmother and aunt attacked with a variety of techniques they had heard of, none of which seemed to work, especially not when applied all the same time.
Tweezers, a red hot needle, and rubbing alcohol, the heat and the alcohol killed the tick, the tweezers left his head in my neck, which was then dug out with the needle and tweezers. I was left with a huge, raw, cauterized crater on my neck by a procedure that seemed like it took a half hour.
Ticks were handled by siblings and cousins after that.
I canz back away from the ledge now ?
I hope so. When I was at the convention in Detroit 1980 one of the few things I took away, beside a bitchin hangover, was that Ron pounded the small gov drum constantly. Ok he didn’t exeactly follow that deal once elected in the 2nd term, but hey he got elected. There were pro life and pro abortion people and gays at that convention. All of them ready to beat the shit out of each other. Except that the message that we were all there to hear was “get the f’ing feds off our backs”. Unity was based on that value.
Unity was based on that value.
So’s our constution btw. Ok you can start arguing now about how limited government only survives if the people are virtuous. Juty’s out on that …
I’ve pulled several ticks out with tweezers, and while the bite site never looked very good afterward I wouldn’t say that they looked like part of another (formerly) living thing was decomposing inside my flesh.
Thing to remember is, a tick’s bite only goes in deep enough to reach the dermal capillaries. Them blood vessels are designed to deal with all kinds of messy stuff.
Main thing I hate about ticks is I don’t like not knowing how long they’ve been there.
“Jury” I meant. fat fingers.
How is the chief executive going to overturn Roe?
he/she’s not but he can pound into the electorate the stupidity of the majority’s opinion in that case.
he/she can start taking the war on language to the proggtards . like penumbras of baracky’s lies.
Main thing I hate about ticks is I don’t like not knowing how long they’ve been there.
how fat is
the obama voterthe tick?you could as president bring up the stupidity of robert’s barackycare opinion
A friend of a friend is near-death from Lyme disease and complications thereof, from a veritable nest of seed ticks that attack-infested him. At a golf course, of all places. Cedar trees must be avoided anywhere in the South. Certainly don’t piss in or under them in mid-summer.
To be a little more clear, my grandmother didn’t kill the tick with the darning needle, she held it to the posterior and the tick pulled it’s head out.
From Wiki:
In general, the best way to remove adult tick is mechanically. To facilitate prompt removal, fine-tipped tweezers can be used to grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible and detach it by applying a steady upward force without crushing, jerking or twisting, in such a way as to avoid leaving behind mouthparts or provoking regurgitation of infective fluids into the wound.[21][22][23] Proprietary tick removal tools are also available.[21][22] It is important to disinfect the bite area thoroughly after removal of the tick.[23] The tick can be stored and, in case of signs or symptoms of a subsequent infection, shown to a clinician for identification purposes together with details of where and when the bite occurred.[21] If the tick’s head and mouthparts are no longer attached its body after removal, a punch biopsy may be may be necessary to remove any parts left inside the patient.[24]
Also from Wiki:
Another natural form of control for ticks is the guineafowl, a bird species which consumes mass quantities of ticks.[26] Just 2 birds can clear 2 acres (8,100 m2) in a single year.
Guineafowl are quite tastey as are their eggs.
My approach as well.
Gold star to Ms. Hoffman!
Let me add one more item to her list:
Remind people that taxation w/o representation is (the main) thing that inspired the declaration of independance. And then ask them if our kids and grandkids had a vote on all of this deficit spendng.
I was going to observe that this very necessary discussion on defining conservatism up had been derailed by suggestions for tick removal, but actually it would seem that the topic hasn’t actually changed at all.
Gulermo, Wiki’s method is the way I learned to remove ticks when my children were small. Also saving the ticks if there is an outbreak of Lyme disease or Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever (Ricketsia) or Typhus in your area. It’s important to mark the date of the bite on the calendar, as well. Symptoms may take many days to occur.
Fortunately, none of mine were ever afflicted by tick-borne illness.
I cannot say the same about our country.
he/she’s not but he can pound into the electorate the stupidity of the majority’s opinion in that case.
I would rather the person running for president take control of the dialoge and remind the tards what is at stake. Here’s my fanicy dialoge that wins elections:
Reporter: Mr. Romney, what is your stance on abortion?
MR: Why do you ask?
Reporter: The people want to know. Have a roight to know where you stand on that pivotal, all imortant issue.
MR: I disagree. I don’t think the people care what my personal view of abortion is. I think what the people want desperately to know is how is this country going to survive a government it can’t pay for? How will the people be able to be taxed enough to pay for a bloated bureaurocracy that will such all the money from every millionaire and yet not be able to pay the interest on its bills? Ho0w will we all live free from tyranny when the government tells us what we will fee our kids in school or what doctor we will have or when we will be allowed to have a transplant. I think that is what the people who own this counrty want to know. Whether I agree or disagree with abortion is of no consequence one way or the other.
I gotta be more careful when I type. You’ll have to read between the typos. I’ll be more careful in the future.
Don’t worry about it, Willatty.
Typos are a sign of a creative mind. Just like spelling. Well, for me at least.
@ Willatty says November 13, 2012 at 6:36 pm
this too
I have always been opposed to abortion on moral grounds. Frankly, however, my opinion isn’t very relevant since the Supreme Court has held that there is a constitutional right to abortion. But there are a few areas that are still open for discussion. One of them is infanticide. It seems to me that no matter how we feel about abortion, we ought to be able to agree that babies that are born alive shouldn’t be killed. And yet the Democrats haven’t been willing to join us in opposing infanticide. President Obama voted against a bill that would have outlawed infanticide when he was a state senator in Illinois, and most Democrats, including my opponent, are in favor of partial-birth abortion, which is nothing but infanticide under a different name. So I suggest you ask my opponent: is he willing to buck his party and come out against infanticide, including partial birth abortion?
link
newrouter: thats’ a fine response to that issue. I like it. Beating the One over the head with his hypocracy and stuppidity is a good thing. My overall point though is to frame the dialoge on what matters in a national election for the chief executive. Pound the media consitantly with the message that liberty is being destroyed by a government that is not by the people nor for the people. Control the narrative. Do not let the idiots your a battling frame the argument.
Abortion is an issue. A social issue. For some it may be THE issue. Public debate and legal cases and potentially legislative action or a constitutional amendement in time will be had to deal with that issue. BUT we don’t live as a free people long enough to get there without deconstruction the leviathon first and foremost.
I gotta log off. Been lurking/readng Geoff’s site for 10 or 11 years now. Just had to pipe up.
Don’t know why I default to the affected spelling. I meant Jeff G of course. Later.
Don’t be a stranger, Willatty.
Okay, y’all. The Won is going to have a news conference tomorrow at 1:30 EST and claims he will take questions.
I, for one, doubt that. He’ll march out and declare the matter(s) aren’t of any great importance giving other pressing issues of the day and that they’ll get back to us.
Eventually.
OT: But I had to say somewhere: Obama 2.0 had me a little bummed, but this “America’s Generals do Benny Hill!!!” sex comedy is killing my blood pressure. That they could act like frat boys while knowing good men are dying really makes me glad that my worldview has a significant place for evil.
Feinstein Will Call Petraeus to Testify on Benghazi
Willatty, my husband is a retired Army officer. Between the Generals and their filly follies and John Kerry’s name being floated as Sec of Defense, I fear for his health.
Argh, that should be William in my last.
Bad link, nr.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/13/feinstein-will-call-petraeus-to-testify-on-benghazi/
Willatty, if you’re still lurking, here’s your mistake:
This just isn’t true. Social conservatives have been playing defense for 50 years. It ain’t us always wanting new laws. We are resisting changing laws in ways we feel are bad for the country; financially, internationally, and divisive. What we protest is government involvement in those issues, because the government is now involved in those issues. I refuse to acknowledge as marriage two dudes that get it on, and I think it a crime to force conscientious objectors of abortion (or condoms) to pay for them with tax dollars.
As for the details, I suspect most socons are more nuanced than you think.
I just pray we already know the worst, Leigh. Please let the worst be the custody battle and stupid diplomatic 911 call. Please.
Well, that’s not really the worst. But you know what I mean. No more mistresses or sex positions to be leaked out over the coming weeks.
Kerry, Kerry, quite contrary.
Saw that too, geoff. What gives here, besides Kerry/Teresa’s money?
William, Broadwell’s dad says it’s big. I hope he doesn’t drop dead before we find out.
Hmm… interesting. Hey, any silver lining that’ll let me sleep tonight.
Newt showed how Republicans can respond to the media obsession with asking Republicans about abortion: http://tinyurl.com/b6sgq6g
the effin’ combine
On other occasions, the motion states, Khawam had sought to take her son to events with “Senator Kerry” and the baptism of “former Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s child” in New Jersey. In fact, the motion states, the invitation to be with Sen. John Kerry was a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee event in Martha’s Vineyard and that he denied her request to take the boy to those events because he did not believe it was in “the child’s best interests.”
link
STEVEN DEN BESTE HAS HAD A STROKE.
Why is someone who is completely broke going to Democrat fundraising events? What does she contribute to the events?
Get well Mr. Den Beste. From his site.
LBascom
I think the social conservatives want the Fed to outlaw abortion and gay marriage
“This just isn’t true.”
You may be right. I think a whole boat load of non-socons believe however that that is the socon agenda and won’t vote GOP because of that perception. My point though is to not allow that to stop the conservatives from framing the debate and winning elections based on the idea of individual liberty and a constitutionally limited federal government.
“I refuse to acknowledge as marriage two dudes that get it on”
I disagree. When I was in the USAF I knew a few who weren’t telling. One worked for me adn was a stand up guy. All I can say is that if you are willing to take a bullet for your country you can marry whomever you want to and I’m ok with it. Do I think it is moral and will enhance the social environment of the nation? No. But hell I think there are a thousands things people find acceptable in this country that add little to our moral fiber as a nation. Nonetheless. I don’t need the state to sanction my marriage. I’d have married my wife with or without the state. As far as I’m concerned the state can kiss my ass when it comes to my relationship with my wife. They should to be out of the marriage sanctioning business. To the extent we have laws that recognise the sactity of marriage for taxing or inheritance purposes, well, maybe we need to review those and ask why the government needs to be involved in that. Don’t get me wrong, the gay “movement” makes me puke. They will never convince me of the moral equivalence or have me accept the validity of the lifestyle or choice or whatever it is. They will have to square that with the guy upstairs at some point. But some gay individuals I’ve known have deserved the same legal rights as I have. The government acknowlegment of marriage will not, in the end, determine what is or is not moral. I just think the government needs to get off the field all together. And as one greivence group or another screems for recognition the cheif executive needs to have the guts to say not on my watch. This is not the government’s business. The people need to work out these issues closer to home. Read the constitution. What is the federal role with respect to marriage?
the collapse of demonrat politics.
On the corner of the street a giant rat squats over the sidewalk
– More twists than a pretzle factory….Broadwells NC drivers license found in DC park.
“The Republican Party is divided, not split, between an establishment that wants to ride the rat and a base that wants the rat gone. The establishment is still trying to figure out how to win over giant rat voters with the promise of a better, slimmer, but more efficient rat. The base wants it to build a rat trap. But in elections the establishment usually gets its way and whatever the election results are, the giant rat stays around for another year, getting bigger and bigger.”
Well done!
Couldn’t agree more. Why would we want the federal government or state government or any branch or agency of government telling us that something that isn’t marriage and has never been marriage is now marriage for the rest of time because Progress. Also History.
Wait, what?
All I can say is that if you are willing to take a bullet for your country you can marry whomever you want to and I’m ok with it.
You ok with polygamy? bigamy? bro/sis marriage?
Honestly, I can acknowledge that two people in love not being able to marry because of “X” isn’t fair to them, while still saying their marriage isn’t in the best interests of society.
So gather ye contracts and call it what you will, but it cannot be “legal marriage.”
And it has nothing to do with being a-scared of teh gheys.
Just look that France has now outlawed the terms “mother” and “father” in all government documents.
THAT is the consequence of the fiction that the sexes are fungible.
Kid Rock – Born Free
I mentioned a while back America has become a reality show, but I was wrong. It’s a fucking soap opera.
I was joking with my wife after work just now, when she told me one of’em had a twin, I asked if it was an evil twin, Dum-De DUMM!
Then I saw geoffb’s Althouse link, and bust up laughing…
You don’t. I don’t. Gays, however do. Why is that? Something to do with the difference between positive and negative rights, and how the natural law pertains to each, perhaps?
Thought expirement: What happens when two purportedly devout believers (the faith doesn’t really matter here) who happen to be homosexual want to be married according to the rites of their faith when that faith doesn’t recognize homosexual unions?
THAT is the consequence of the fiction that the sexes are fungible.
sex is fungible. too bad it has to do with procreation. serious peeps would know dat. stupid peeps be baaling
It’s just a piece of paper. Someone should clue those posers in.
Rats, scurrying, rat fornicating, trash dump diving rats in the alleys of Adams Morgan were a major player in our once innocent pastime, and Crosman was our friend: rat shootin’. Good times. Rodent murderin’ good times.
Well, lets look here in the preamble to the constitution. I’ll bold the relevant bit.
Our posterity is what makes marriage unique. And by “posterity”, I don’t mean butt sex, sorry.
Darleen:
You ok with polygamy? bigamy? bro/sis marriage?
Sounds fine with me if the idiots want to do it. What is not ok with me is the government sanction. It’s not a matter of the fungibility of the sexes. It is a matter of the government sanctioning one or another. I would prefer they sanction none.
Can they be devout believers according to their faith and want something their faith does not allow?
All I can say is that if you are willing to take a bullet for your country you can marry whomever you want to and I’m ok with it.
You seem to be saying that the objection to gender-free marriage is based on an objection to homosexuals, as if “letting them marry” were a prize for being nice people and saying no were a way of telling them how icky they are.
I’m not sure how to disabuse you of that notion. I will, however, observe that the Left regularly employs false dichotomies to demonize their opponents, e.g., “we’re for ‘marriage equality’ (loaded term, natch) because we’re compassionate and not bigots; ergo, those who oppose us are hard-hearted bigots.” They don’t care that there are often several vectors passing through an issue, and the fact that they favor one does not mean that their opponents are merely occupying the opposite end of their favored vector.
The opponents of gender-free marriage object on the grounds that the primary purpose of marriage is to reconcile and unite the sexes (and to produce offspring, secondarily). We observe that no society in the history of the human race has sanctioned gender-free marriage. Most societies never had a Bible telling them that lying with a man as with a woman is abomination, so you can’t merely blame tradition. Maybe we ought to know WHY before we go fiddling around with the foundations of society
After all, the first law of remodeling is that you shouldn’t remove a wall unless you know why its there. Our society has no idea what marriage is for except to have a big old party to “celebrate our love,” get automatic bennies, file taxes jointly, and get hospital visitation rights. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that people were saying, “We don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love,” as if marriage were merely a love pledge.
I don’t need the state to sanction my marriage.
Speaking of…
To the extent we have laws that recognise the sanctity of marriage for taxing or inheritance purposes, well, maybe we need to review those and ask why the government needs to be involved in that.
Government is not recognizing the sanctity of marriage, it’s recognizing its existence. Marriage is NOT an agreement between two people but between the couple on one hand and society on the other. The couple agrees to live as a unit and the society grants them the status of married folks, with whatever rights and responsibilities come with it.
Marriage functions as marriage ONLY as long as society as a whole recognizes the arrangement. If not the gubmint as the sanctioner, what other institution would you propose to keep track of these things? An official church? Underwriters Laboratories? Twitter?
Furthermore, taxation, health-care coverage, visitation rights, and such things are particular to our society’s marriage concept; marriage pre-exists the state, pre-exists taxation and health insurance and hospitals. It’s a mistake to reduce marriage to those things.
Back in medieval Europe, there was this thing called Secret Marriage, where a young couple could pledge their troth to each other in private, without the knowledge or consent of the church or family or government. This was a way to sanction pre-marital sex by enabling them to “marry” prior to consummation. Can you guess the results? When the inevitable fruit of their union is made manifest, she claims that they’re married, and he says she’s lying (if he’s not in the next county by now).
There’s a REASON that an external authority (church, government) sanctions marriages; it’s ancient wisdom, and we’d be fools to toss it aside lightly.
Not that such things ever stopped us before. Which might explain some of why we’re in this basket, on this rocket sled, hurtling over the cliff…
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Exactly. does the constitution that follows that preamble say a word about our limited government’s role in the sanctioning of marriage?
Well, I know the late John Boswell, dedicated his professional life to attempting to reconcile his sexual orientation with his Catholicism, to the benefit of his orientation.
And then there’s these oxymorons.
But as an objective matter, no.
Sadly these are subjective times.
How else are we supposed to get our fifteen minutes of fame?
I think if you break down the word “sanctioning”, you would be on your way, yes.
Actually, I’ve become bored with myself after what dicentra said…you should address her.
Art. IV, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, para. 1. and the rights afforded under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Is how I’d have answerd that in Con Law back in the day.
I may have tried to push for incorporation under the Fourteenth, but since I was poli-sci and not pre-law, I didn’t have to actually argue this shit in class.
So That’s where Peter Abelard went wrong!
dicentra
It wouldn’t take much to disabuse me of my notion. I realy don’t disagree with you. Except that:
“Government is not recognizing the sanctity of marriage, it’s recognizing its existence.”
Well there’s a crap load of social arraingments in this society of ours that exist and that deserve no recognition. How do you choose what should be recoginzed by the govmnt? Success over a millenia? Thats a good start maybe. I don’t deny man-woman marriage is a bedrock of the success western civilization and that the errosion of that institution is a cause for the general pessimistic outlook on our future success.
However, can we have an election and a candidate who favors limited government and individual liberty succeed in being elected on that platform? Shouldn’t that person be able to appeal to socons and libertarian types alike? No matter your stand on the moral or social issue, doesn’t the los of liberty from an all invasive federal sucubus take precedent?
“There’s a REASON that an external authority (church, government) sanctions marriages; it’s ancient wisdom, and we’d be fools to toss it aside lightly.”
Have any age old practices ever been found wanting? Has the institution of marriage evcer been abused to the detriment of society? Just saying. When you believe in the infallibility of a human institution you on your way to hubris. Marriage as recognized by the gov is a human institution. On the other hand isn’t marriage also a divine institution the sanctioning or recognition of whichthe govmnt has no authority?
To go back to this for a moment:
Tell that to all the people who just voted for Obama Claus because he was going to take from the naughty to give to the nice. Or more to the point, what did welfare programs for mothers of children with absent husbands and fathers do to illegitmacy?
Isn’t that what the Defense of Marriage Act was all about? Making sure that one state couldn’t impose it’s will on the other states or an activist judiciary it’s vision on us all?
I should have added earlier, that your overarching point, that the federal government is too damn big (and the taxes too damn high, if I may add) is spot on. But even a less intrusive government is still going to intrude on someone from time to time.
It’s a tragic thing, as Thomas Sowell might say, and no quixotic quest for cosmic justice is ever going to set it right.
Well, we have record numbers of out of wedlock births, millions of abortions a year, and record numbers of people on government assistance. You DON’T think there’s a correlation?
cranky-d:
Lubbock, which is where I live.
– A non-suicidal society will tend to promote those activiyies among its citizenry that perpetuate the species.
– Either way, the problem is self correcting.
Take it for what it’s worth — which isn’t much — but the term marriage was apparently not spoken to be captured in Madison’s Notes to the Continental Congress of 1787. It isn’t there.
We might expect the framers took it as a settled matter dealt with in the several States, where dealt with at all, so left it unattended save as such arrangements fell under a general rubric of full faith and credit to be given by each State to the public acts [public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings] of every other state. Hence the modern perceived need, I assume, for DOMA, which in that respect looks like an end run around a problem not even conceived at the framing (not to say that it couldn’t have been conceived, just that it wasn’t).
This in turn might point back towards the Framers’ view of the separate (and noble) standing of civil society apart from a limited government ringed round with chains, restraints holding that government back from improper meddling in areas in which it did not belong, and should not enter.
Indeed. When the government is the true baby daddy – showering single mothers with all sorts of benefits – what reason is there to get married. America is financing its own societal collapse.
I thought I should actually address your question.
I believe that your point may have been that the only likely way the two people in question could be married is to have the state intervene and force the outcome, which would be quite totalitarian.
So, while one may suggest that the state can sanction such unions, the result could (and most likely would) open the door for the state to dictate the terms of religion.
MacDill, Peyton Place Air Base?
Nothing to offer but a dumb “yeah” which doesn’t nobody do much good.
Several problems here. First, who said anything about the infallibility of human institutions, besides you? Second, government recognition of a divine institution doesn’t make it human, it’s merely Caesar rendering unto God, so to speak. Third, if government has no authority of marriage, how can it expand the definition to include things that clearly aren’t marriage?
– There are 7 billion souls on this orb of tears. Getting any traction toward worry about sustaining the species is rather difficult, so man apparently feels free to ecperiment. When you look at the way we act its a wonder we’ve survived even the short time we have.
– But in spite of our willful, detrmined stupidity, life seems to find a way.
Well, fortunately we all know that government would never dictate to a faith-based organization that it has to act contrary to it’s beliefs. We’re protected by our freedom to worship.
I for one am looking forward to our first gay sex military sex scandal. That’s going to be awesome.
On the other hand isn’t marriage also a divine institution the sanctioning or recognition of which the govmnt has no authority?
No.
My religion (LDS) performs recognizes two “levels” of marriage, if you will. Our clerics are authorized to perform civil marriages, just as any clergy is, with the marriage license and the “until death do you part” stuff and all that. It’s recognized by the State because the State (which is supposed to be a servant of society, maintaining our contracts and weights and measures and currency, which are all legitimate functions of gubmint) is the reigning authority in this country.
On top of that are the “sealings,” which are marriages that stay in force after death, into the eternities. The only one who can sanction such marriages is God, because eternity is his crib, and he gets to say what he will recognize and what he won’t. (You can, of course, argue whether he’s granted the authority to perform such marriages to anyone at all, much less the LDS, but that’s beside the point of this argument.)
It is possible for Mormons to be married by the state but not sealed in the temple, and they’re not considered to be living in sin if they’re living as married couples. It’s also possible for Mormons to be married in the eternities but not in this life, in which case they’re not supposed to be cohabiting or sleeping together.
The state has no say in the sealings, nor does the state recognize them. In the U.S., a sealing between two living people can count as a civil marriage; in other countries, you have to get married civilly separately if the LDS ceremony is not recognized.
To each realm its laws, and you abide by the laws of the realm you’re in. You’re living on this planet in this country, and the reigning authority for such things is the state.
Have any age old practices ever been found wanting? Has the institution of marriage ever been abused to the detriment of society? Just saying.
Your rhetorical questions would have more force if they weren’t fraught with categorical errors. The second statement, for example, deals not with the structural defects of marriage but with the bad implementation thereof. As an analogy, imagine that you got hold of some blueprints for a Boeing 777, but you built the thing out of tin foil and papier-mache. Does it fly? Maybe, the way a kite files, but I’m not climbing aboard and neither are you.
However, the DESIGN is not to blame; the materials are. If you built to spec, you’d have yourself a fine piece of aircraft.
On the other hand, imagine that you build an airplane with the finest materials available, except you put both wings on the left side of the plane.
Does it fly? Nope. You can admire the workmanship of both left wings all you want, but the thing ain’t flying. In this case, the problem is the DESIGN. It won’t matter whether you use carbon nanotubes or newspaper, it will never be airworthy.
By the same token, same-sex marriage is a design problem, not a craftsmanship failure. No amount of libertarian good will can change that. Hence the category error.
As for the first statement, I hope you’re not accusing me of asserting that tradition is its own justification. The other regulars know better than that; I hope you’ll pick up on it right quick.
I’m starting to think the whole gay “marriage” thing is about inheritance law. As in, all inheritance goes to the national treasury instead of the heirs.
“Isn’t that what the Defense of Marriage Act was all about? Making sure that one state couldn’t impose it’s will on the other states or an activist judiciary it’s vision on us all?”
If it was them I’m all for it. To the extent a wedding in MA does not need to be recognized by VA I’m ok with it. It become a federal question when it hits the courts however. Who’s pursute of happiness is being impinged? If I’m a federal judge maybe I decide that since the document is silent as to what constitutes marriage (except for the posterity bit in the preamble) I may tell the parties too bad. Nothing here authorizes marriage between anything but a man and woman. Especially in light of what the founders likely thought marriage meant. Or I could decide the lack of a definition means anyone can marry anyone. Then let the legislature fight it out. Maybe a constitutional amendment be ratified to make it clear.
In any event what laws does the federal government need to be enforcing and promugating to safegard our individual liberty? What should be left to the states to determine? I’m just saying push the social issues as much to the states as possible and leave the fed with its constitutionally limited role. And I want the guy running for president to pound that plank over and over again. ANd since he’s running for the head of the fed I don’t care what he thinks about marriage or abortion. I do care what he thinks about the states rights to determine those issues.
Shee-it, what we got going on here is fifty shades of camo*…
*shamelessly stolen
I do, because I think it points to his character.
If you don’t care, then why do you care about whatever he comments about it?
Happyfeet is right about one thing. These days, you can’t be a conservative and a hipster both. Decide what’s important, and pick.
Here’s a succinct explanation of why the gubmint is involved in marriage.
By the by, hunter-gatherer and nomadic societies with no state at all still insist on a public marriage ceremony, because the marriage still needs to be recognized by the rest of the society.
Keeping track of our contractual arrangements is a legitimate function of gubmint, similar to maintaining weights and measures and other rule-of-law stuff.
Gubmint recognition of marriage means that minors have a legal claim on their parents’ resources, and spouses on their spouses. Getting rid of a common authority for who is married and who is not would be disastrous without providing any benefits to speak of.
Unless not being called a homophobe is really that important.
Other stray reasons for objecting to SSM:
Marriage and family is the primary bulwark against the state, because it’s the primary conduit for passing on values. The Leviathan state will brook no ideological rivals, so it’s in the state’s interest to discourage and dissolve marriage. We’ve already seen the fruits of these efforts: young women get pregnant and the state becomes their husband, while the young men scatter, never growing up and never becoming useful to the society as a whole.
The sexual revolution was fought to bring down bourgeoise institutions such as marriage, monogamy, fidelity, chastity, and heterosexuality, all to clear out space for the Leviathan State to step in. The composition of the electorate confirms the success of this effort.
Having been a missionary in Colombia, I witnessed first-hand the effects of non-state-sanctioned marriage. Men wed one wife by the law, then shack up with another woman without marriage. Some men don’t bother with the legal marriage, having nothing BUT unofficial “marriages” among two or more women.
This is one of the reasons they’re so poor: two households feeding off one salary. Not to mention that kids and wives get abandoned all the time. Many of our sainted illegal immigrants have abandoned partners and children back in the homeland, to whom they do NOT send remittances, because they’ve started another family with someone they met up here.
I understand the urge to cut the Gordian Knot by getting gubmint out of the marriage-recognition business, but in this case, it’s not a knot to be cut but a live baby that you’re proposing to split.
Some compromises leave both parties with nothing but ashes. This would be one of them.
Full faith and credit says a marriage made in MA is legally valid in VA, though, doesn’t it? If and my wife got married in MA and then moved to pohdunk, BibleThumper township, state of redlandia and I dropped dead, intestate, redlandia is going to recognize my wife as my legal heir.
If I and my gay spouse married in MA and moved to pohdunk, BibleThumper township, state of redlandia, and I dropped dead, intestate, can redlandia be compelled to recognize my gay spouse as my legal heir?
Is my happiness is gay wedded bliss worth perpetrating a category error on everyone else?
Is my happiness is gay wedded bliss worth perpetrating a category error on everyone else?
Shut up h8r, is why.
[forlorn, shuffles off to bed]
In all this Petraeus “affair”, though it is fun in a Jerry Springer way, there are serious things going on.
This is an example of the “growing in office” that afflicts those that go to Washington too often. It seems to correlate with the desire to get into the left’s social scene. A perfect example is playing out that should be a warning to those on the conservative side and their spouses of what can go wrong and the price paid unless you are a hero of the left, a Clinton or a Kennedy.
Then we have the real serious business of Benghazi. Sen. Feinstein have said she will have Gen. Petraeus testify to her committee. Perhaps some questions will receive some answers. There are plenty, just to start. People have died, seemingly left behind by those they trusted to have their backs. Answers, real answers, truthful answers are called for, should be demanded.
Sex maybe important on the personal level but is trivial compared to the loss of these four lives. It, the sex, is only important if it can be shown to have had an impact on this loss or be part of the cover-up that is so blatantly being done.
It will be interesting to see the Democrats who pushed the “Its his private sex life and none of our business” in the 90s likely take the opposite tack in this matter. They will be surprised, no doubt, that the blue nosed soc-cons will be pushing for the truth on Benghazi and not going for the trivial pursuit game of sexual gotcha to the detriment of getting to the bottom of the important affair, the deaths of the Benghazi Four.
– Feinstein? More likely than not she’s out there to head off any real disclosures that could be damaging to Jug ears and the Left mantra.
– It will tend to be all closed door sessions under the guise of national security, with even more smoke and mirrors, and if anything serious leaks to the unbiased press a few lower level worker bee’s will be sacrificed, and everyone will call it a day.
Not sure how you make a “moral case” for free enterprise, when almost half this country spits on morality and has not interest in engaging in said free enterprise.
If anything, this election spotlighted how much of the population of this country will vote to take my hard earned money to give to people who don’t give a damn about earning a living themselves. Which I’m sure is just racist code.
“Full faith and credit says a marriage made in MA is legally valid in VA, though, doesn’t it?”
I’ll go along with that when my TX CHL allows me to pack a .45 in NYC and Bloomie can’t say squat.
And would handle the matter according to its own laws, not Massachusetts’.
I would think that if Redlandia didn’t have laws recognizing marriage at all, then full-faith-and-credit doesn’t apply, and its right to deal with matters in such light should be protected. And therefore in the case of a same-sex marriage from Massachusetts, for which Redlandian law makes no provision, Redlandian law ought to prevail, FF&C notwithstanding.
Unfortunately, I have no faith in, and give no credit to judges on such matters. McCain-Feingold, Kelo, and ObamaCare have pretty much settled that.
So when a state (or several states, even) figuratively throws up its hands and says, “jungle up any way you want, it’s all good; and besides, it’s not like you aren’t doing it already,” who gets custody of the kids?
If a state throws up its hands and repeals its child custody laws, we’ll find out.
I’m not advocating that states abolish their marriage laws; as a logical starting point for determining how FF&C ought to work though, it’s a useful hypothetical.
And I think if Redlandian law specifies that marriage under its laws is restricted to one man and one woman, judges should respect that. They won’t (hence DOMA, etc.), but they should.
I wouldn’t think that laws would not recognize marriage, but rather they wouldn’t establish, license or regulate it. It would exist but not be a product of the state.
They choose between their faith and their desire. Both doesn’t work. (See: Sullivan, Andrew)
A judge would ask, “If the state doesn’t establish, regulate or license marriage, why does it bother to recognize it? Ruling: FF&C applies. Nice try, better luck next time.”
Addendum for explanation: States have police powers, which essentially means that anything that is mentioned in state law is potentially regulatable under it. The only way to keep something from becoming potentially regulatable, and therefore potentially subject to FF&C if applicable, is to prevent the state from acknowledging its existence at all. The alternative is the ultimate in regulation, which is outright prohibition.
I still think that gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools, and all the other battles in the culture war will go away about five minutes after the lights go out and the EBT cards show zero balances.
First World Problems, indeed.
– Petraeus to testify. Senate Friday, House TBD.
Ain’t that the truth.
I hope it’s a game changer, but I swear it looks like Lucy holding the football.
The state doesn’t establish, regulate or license (natural) parent-child relationships. Would anyone (sane) suggest that it ought not recognize them?
Everything looks like that these days.
Dear Republican Establishment: a letter from the conservative grassroots
Really?
“They choose between their faith and their desire. Both doesn’t work. (See: Sullivan, Andrew)”
The problem with the leaders of the same-sex marriage movement is that this response is not acceptable. It’s not enough to be married, it must be accepted and supported whether you’re a wedding photographer, church, adoption agency, the Boy Scouts, etc.. Any refusal has been defined as hate and they have no qualms using the power of the state to make them get in line.
We’ve seen how HHS is forcing religious institutions to cover procedures and medications that go against their beliefs (directly or indirectly depending on how they provide health insurance). You’d be a fool to think that the same won’t happen with same-sex marriage.
The love that dare not speak its name, has become the love that won’t STFU.
Generally, no. When there’s a dispute between parents, then hell yes. When there’s a crime of some sort (neglect, abuse, etc..) then yes. But in a typical, uneventful upbringing of the sort most of us have had, no. The government plays no role in establishing, sanctioning or maintaining our relationships with our parents. But it damn sure recognizes them.
I’ll go back to my addendum about police powers here and put it even more plainly: recognition IS regulation.
When the state chooses to recognize something, it has the power and the legal obligation to define what it’s recognizing. That establishes, in law, what the recognized thing is.
And that is regulation.
Don’t confuse regulating with subjecting to regulatory action. As far as the law is concerned, if it can be subjected to regulatory action, it has already been regulated.
Conversely, if it has never been regulated, there is no lawful basis under which it may be subjected to regulatory action.
– McGehee, I would argie that ‘recognizing’ establishes the legal Means to regulate, doesn’t neccessarily insist they do so. I’m still om my first cup of joe for the day, so the brain cells aren’t fully awake, so an example does not jump to mind, but I’m sure there are some, in spite of the general rapaciousness of the state/fed.
scouting is already almost the gayest thing ever
if you don’t count roller boogie
Conversely, if it has never been regulated, there is no lawful basis under which it may be subjected to regulatory action.
– That sounds a bit chicken or the egg-ish. Everything starts ‘unregulated’, and presidence is found to regulate, and then its regulated. Recognition is the first step.
A question for y’all: Why Texas?
Is it not becoming a more Leftist state?
Are not so many illegal Aliens moving in there [and being allowed to] that it will soon become more Statist?
The lower two-thirds is trending quite blue.
I don’t know [and I’ve only been there once] but the immigration demographics and voting trends concern me.
“I’ll go back to my addendum about police powers here and put it even more plainly: recognition IS regulation.”
I think the history of common law vs regulatory or statutory law is where I was going with the whole getting the state out of the marriage business thing. It is a given that we have certain common law recognition state by state and federally for or against certain moral or social contstructs. Our society would cease to function without those. I undersztand dicentra’s point that compromises on certain issues would result in a dead baby, nothing for either side. Maybe marriage is one of those issues.
But aren’t there bigger issues that we want the federal govmnt adn therefore the cheif executive focused on? Don’t we need to first roll back the destructive intrusion into our affairs the govmnt imposes? That is where I think the socons and libertarians need to meet.
What I think I am questioning is the statutory or regulatory or police power intrusion into affairs which might be better left to a commobn law jurisdiction.
– Marriage outside the law as a religious activity existed for a good deal of mans history. Legal recognition/regulation of marriage tp exact taxation/property/estates/wills etc., is relitively recent.
damn positivist thinking
– Work expands to fill the time alotted it.
– Government expands inversely proportional to the attention span of the citizenry.
The heritage of the common law was relied on by the founders of this country thanks to its long history and development in the UK. That is one basis upon which they could envision a limited government. Common law and statutory law are very different animals. We have spent the last 200 years erroding our common law heritage and building a fortress of statutory laws to take its place. Thanks in large part to the desire of the citizens to have the state enforce what the majority believes is right on the rest of the masses.
Start undoing that and devolve back to common law regulation of social and moral matters. Yes its messy and doesn’t alway produce the effect one view or another holds dear. However, at least you haven’t given over to the state police powers the regulatory authority you might find destructive to you individual rights.
As long as there is a legal “profession,” there is a virtually insurmountable obstacle to achieving any such thing. The legal “profession” maintains its revenue prospects by ensuring that the lay citizenry can’t comprehend the law without “professional” assistance. This is why you have so many lawyers in government, elected and otherwise.
Reverting to a common law format would deprive the legal “profession” of its privileged position. It will never let that happen, short of a Shakespearian solution.
Shakspeare understood the roll lawyers play perfectly. That’s why he said if you want to take away a peoples liberty the first thing you do is kill the lawyers. Interestingly no one ever quotes the whole thing.
I agree however that the bar would fight like hell to keep the lawyers in buisness. That is why the bar needs to be challenged. States allow them to monopolise the practice of law. So long as the state regulates attorney’s through the monopoly of the bar this will be the case. I believe in free enterprise. Cut the lawyers loose form the restrictions of the bar and state regulation. Let them compete for their services and fees.
It helps to understand that regulation means “to make regular.” Or, “to make normal.”
When a legislature enacts a law recognizing a thing, what that thing is needs to be defined. Putting that definition into law sets the limits of what the law is and is not recognizing as that thing. As a result, what falls within that definition is legally “normal” for what that thing is.
No insistence is required. It’s already happened. And as the definition is adjusted over time, the detail of the regulation grows.
It wouldn’t be cutting them loose from state regulation — only redefining that regulation and removing the bar as an intercessor. Again, the legal “profession” depends for its privilege on that intercession, and lawyers regard the intercession as a benefit so they’ll support the “profession.”
lawyers regard the intercession as a benefit so they’ll support the “profession.”
I would agree if you use the word “some” in front of that. There are also “some” lawyers who see the intercession of the state as an impediment to free market legal services. Any by virtue of the monopoly a disservice to people who need lawyers.
No no no. It’s the bar that intercedes between them and the state.
State regulation is a given. When you hire someone to represent you in court instead of representing yourself, you give the state an excuse to recognize, define and regulate the practice of law on others’ behalf.
It’s the bar that proposes a licensing system in return for exercising more direct supervision over the activities of licensed lawyers so that the state doesn’t have to maintain a department for the regulation of lawyers’ conduct.