Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire
The GOP governor of California is encouraging church-bashing protesters to continue to defy the will of the people and wreak havoc until Proposition 8, the traditional marriage ballot measure, is overturned.
Yep, Arnold Schwarzenegger — who wants to “rebrand” the Republican Party in his image — apparently applauds the mob taking to the streets and targeting people of faith:
Reporting from Sacramento and Pasadena — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.
“It’s unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end,” Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. “I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.”
With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor’s thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.
In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.
Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. “I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”
An anti-Prop. 8 rally in Palm Springs turned violent over the weekend. Mormon churches, evangelical churchs, and Catholics continue to be threatened.
To the Left and to “rebranding” advocate Arnold Schwarzenegger, tolerance is a one-way street.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsSchwarzenegger Returns to Entertainment, Starring As…
March 31, 2011 10:45 AM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsHelp Arnold Schwarzenegger Pick a Movie Role
February 10, 2011 11:23 PM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 Comments
Arnold Schwarzenegger For Climate Change Czar?
December 21, 2010 03:35 PM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
California Paints Over Popular 9/11 Memorial, Schwarzenegger Apologizes
July 3, 2010 08:49 AM by Doug Powers
85 Comments
California lawmakers pass single-payer…as state heads towards bankruptcy again
January 29, 2010 12:34 PM by Michelle Malkin
67 Comments
Categories: Arnold Schwarzenegger,Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
Your worst nightmare.
McClintock is my congressman here in my district. Last I looked, he was barely ahead of Charlie Brown (yeah, what a name). My county went blue for the first time in its history, in a sea of red counties in this state. This is what’s happening. All the loons from the SF area are moving here and changing the landscape, literally.
Arnold only has a little while to go, and then he’s gone. Hopefully, we won’t get someone like Gavin Newsome who has his eyes on the governor’s mansion.
We need a REAL Republican to keep the runaway looney state legislature in check. I’m hoping Meg Whitman runs.
Flyoverman (#98). (your PS) And to you as well, from the other groundpounding service.
From your blog, Trop. So I guess that means you agree with us pro-lifers, huh?
Off topic, but I was just thinking about Presidential Pardons…has anyone heard that mentioned? Bush has the opportunity to pardon Ramos and Compean…will he do it? If not, THAT would be a good reason to take to the streets and try a little mob rule.
I am pro-life. COMPLETELY. That goes for capital punishment too.
There will be no surprises when Bush starts handing out pardons. Like his father, H.W., who preemptively pardoned Iran-Contra figures, W. will pardon key people in his administration (so they may not be tried for their war crimes): Cheney, Rumsfeld… It’s likely to be a long list.
flyoverman
Thank you, sir I don’t feel a year over 200….lol
Did you notice, along with the mentioned Krystal Nacht… that Jaimie Gorelick is being considered for AG….. can you say pre 9/11 thought processes coming soon? Obama is a puppet, an empty suit, an unknown … shall I continue?
More protests in Oakland, CA, with this choice quote from a San. Fran. politician:
“said San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty. “The Mormon church has had to rely on our tolerance in the past, to be able to express their beliefs…This is a huge mistake for them. It looks like they’ve forgotten some lessons.”
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/ci_10943059
Anti-Prop 8 demonstrators protest near Oakland Mormon temple
Sean Maher
Oakland Tribune
Article Last Updated: 11/10/2008 06:27:36 AM PST
Wonder if Sup. Dufty used any city resources in this very targeted protest?
No, I did not. I cannot wait for the next person to tell me how Obama is going to govern from the center….. YA RIGHT!
May advice to gays and lesbians? Do what I did. Get married. I didn’t wait for the government (Virginia) to recognize my marriage. I’m married, and that’ all there is to it.
FWIW, my my wife and I were joined in Holy matrimony by an ordained CHRISTIAN minister.
America is the greatest nation on Earth, and religious freedom is a hallmark of our greatness.
While my marriage may not be legal, it isn’t criminal. Thank goodness for that.
Arnold took office after a recall vote because Davis was sooooo…. He took the oath of office to defend the Calif. Consitution from ALL enemies. By his support of the overturning the will of the People he has been what may very well become violent. He would there fore be guilty of inciting and should then be recalled himself. He swore to uphold our laws and how is he doing that be telling protests to never give up AS THE TOP EX. IN THE STATE.
I hope that is the case, but I’m not optimistic that the left-leaners who currently rule will one day even allow the people’s voice to be heard, much less implemented locally or nationally. Ahhnold’s comments bear this out, stiffening my resolve to FIGHT!
BTW, although I live on the opposite coast, I financially supported McClintock’s run for Gov against Ahhnold a few years back. Very disappointed in the outcome.
Get used to it. Arizona, too, is turning blue thanks to the baby boomer libs from California retiring there for the cheaper, for now, homes and costs of living. Add the midwestern libs for the relatively milder and drier weather and increasing latino population(traditionally Democratic)and McCain can count on being replaced by a Dem when his term ends.
The Democratic plan for the entire nation is to change the demographics of red states to blue, whether by migration of liberal retirees or by influx of third world immigrants accustomed to a nanny-state tossing crumbs their way planted diliberately by a left-leaning state department.
All for a lock on future elections and complete control of government at all levels.
Lieberman would make an awful Republican, but at this point we may need him to help fillibuster because he is probably more likely to buck extreme legislation than Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe.
Lieberman has been an Independent caucusing with the Dems, he could just as easily remain an Independent, but one that caucuses with the Republicans.
if this minister married two men, or two women (haven’t been following this thread) then the minister isn’t christian…no matter how loudly he/she proclaims it.
Funny, though, that those of us who disagree with the politically correct mantra of the day aren’t allowed that same freedom.
I notice no one here who opposes gay marriage is going after the clergy member or the church that married you, calling for a loss of tax-exempt status.
Freedom is a two-way street.
Probably that liberal defintion of “Christian” is whatever fits my template and worldview, and the rest – even those rooted in Christian history with a deep theological understanding of the same – aren’t Christian. ‘Cause they’re all mean and stuff and offend me.
Yeah it’s disgusting, isn’t it? All they want is the power to control our lives at every step of the way. From cradle to grave, they know what’s best for us.
I need another country to move to, if there are any sane ones left.
Good grief, you are going to question the Christianity bona fides of an ordained minister?
Read the whole thing:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YTdmNDczMTI5ZmRlMjBiNDllZjQ3NWViNzFjNjA2MTA=
There’s nothing like Thomas Sowell for an intelligent, correct, and dispassionate analysis of an issue.
Whether or not they marry in churches, with or without Christian ministers, the best thing gay and lesbian couples can do to advance their cause is stop protesting and GET MARRIED. It’s just good, old-fashioned family values to do so. And it’s the right thing to do.
I’d risk jail to be married. So even if y’all make it criminal for me to be married to my wife, I will NOT divorce her.
Matt. 7:21: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
englishqueen01
Trop’s Christian minister probably got the ordination from a website. It’s done by gays here in MN a lot. Once you register the “ordination” certificate with the County you can marry people. No study, no knowledge of the faith , it’s history, just 25 bucks. Original, it isn’t… but manipulative you bet. Anyway, I’m Roman Catholic, I’m a hater, dontcha know. Oh and worse… I practice the Tridantine rite…oooooohhhhh scary!
No, I’ve concluded it’s not that they know what’s best for us, but what is best for them. They control the power then they control the treasury. Diveide the peeople into controllable political blocs, keep ‘em ignorant and indoctrinated, give ‘em just enough “goodies” to keep ‘em as dependant classes and you get their votes for a lifetime.
That is the great Democratic plan. It appears to be working.
absolutely. the devil himself comes as a minister of light. this minister looks like a lamb, but speaks like a dragon.
so how did you decide who is the ‘wife’ and who is the ‘husband’?
this isn’t about family values, its about silencing, and criminalizing christianity, and forcing society to approve of homosexuality.
Thomas Sowell said it best…. you do not have a right to people’s approval. But do you just live your lives in peace and quiet?… no…. you have to broadcast it all over for shock value and focus your blog on only that. Family values? Not in the remotest sense of the term.
so how did you decide who is the ‘wife’ and who is the ‘husband’?
We didn’t. We are wives. There is no husband. In our marriage, no one has to be the husband, or wants to be the husband, or needs to be the husband.
NEXT…
No, not really, although I’m willing to debate theology with you if you wish. But I am marveling at the hypocrisy.
Read through some of the other threads – or pretty much any theological discussion involving politically correct topics – and the left has no problem questioning the Christian bona fides of, say, the Catholic Church.
Liberals have no problem deciding the government, or “human rights commissions” or hate crimes legislation needs to “correct” the Christian doctrines of churches that don’t agree with or approve of homosexual behavior or abortion.
If you got married by someone identifying with the Christian tradition – that’s fine. You’re choice. The great thing about America, as you say, is that you have the religious freedom to have a church that interprets doctrine differently.
But that doesn’t mean
1) Others won’t disagree with it or approve of it
2) Others don’t have the freedom to disagree with it or approve of it
3) Others are not free to have their own interpretation of Christian doctrine and worship accordingly – even if that means not performing or acknowledging same sex marriage
And that’s my problem with same-sex marriage. I believe Omu, on the other thread, asked if I would have as big an opposition to same-sex marriage if the religious rights and freedoms of churches, organizations and individuals were respected.
Answer is: no, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t vote in favor of such a measure, but I wouldn’t oppose it.
But I don’t see that happening. I don’t see average same-sex marriage supporters or high-profile ones making respect for others’ beliefs a part of their argument. And these riots in CA aren’t convincing me that will ever happen. I look at the hate-crimes laws in Canada (where’s it’s illegal to object to content about homosexuality being taught in classes and a crime to withdraw your child from such a lesson), where ministers are ordered never to worship freely again, and where the same HRC officer turns around and says Christians cannot be offended, threatened, or harmed by a song containing the lyrics “Kill the Christians” (in other words, that Christians have no protections or human rights).
Or here in America, where a photographer (an art form) is fined for not shooting a same-sex ceremony, or where a church loses status for not holding a ceremony on its property, or where adoption agencies close doors rather than violate their beliefs.
And until there is clear language in laws protecting such rights, until the gay rights movement acknowledges such rights, and until they (even the small minority who acts violently) stops, I’m not going to shut up, sit down, and let my First Amendment rights be washed away by people who scream for “tolerance” and “diversity” and “respect” while they harass, threaten, intimidate, and persecute people for daring to have a diversity of opinion, thought, and religious conviction.
Oh, give me a break. Who’s calling for your arrest and prosecution here?
NO ONE.
Your friends, on the other hand, are looking to string up Mormons and Catholics by their endtrails.
I accept that the majority rules and the majority decided to make my religious wedding unconstitutional in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I think the protests in CA are foolish. Too little and WAY too late. And just stupid, if you ask me.
I married my wife knowing the law (we married before the constitutional amendment passed). I respect the law. I campaigned against our constitutional amendment, and my side lost. I’m still married, no matter how the state chooses to view it.
I do not seek your approval. Your approval doesn’t matter. If it did matter, I’d still be WAITING to get married, because I’d still be waiting for marriage to be legal.
I chose to do right by my wife. I chose to marry in spite of the law.
End of story.
And that’s fine. Were that it the minority out there with violence, protests, and force acceptance felt the same way.
They don’t want our approval, but they’re sure hell bent on making sure we have theirs.
And that’s what I oppose.
“Or here in America, where a photographer (an art form) is fined for not shooting a same-sex ceremony, or where a church loses status for not holding a ceremony on its property, or where adoption agencies close doors rather than violate their beliefs.”
My view then was that it was wrongly decided. And I still feel that way. I hate, hate, HATE heavy-handed government. HATE it.
I just don’t get where the government, in a FREE country, has the constitutional authority to take away a private business owner’s right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Trop:
You literally have no idea how happy that makes me when I read that.
I just wish the minority who thinks that (and Canada’s HRCs) was a good idea would see things the same way.
The GOP is no longer the Grand Ol’ Party…It has become the Gay Opportunity Panderers Party. Forget the elephant! The new symbol of the party has become a Rhinoceros, or Albatross…take your pick.
For the Terminator to express hope that the state court re-rules again on the marriage/partnership issue underscores the point that he really doesn’t know what a court’s purpose is.
It’s purpose is NOT to circumvent the will of the people. If he, and other liberals believe this, and some have even suggested that the people “didn’t really understand what they were voting for,” then perhaps they will be okay with having the Supreme Court of the United States overturn the most recent national elections, and put people into office whom they feel are more in line with the majority of conservative-leaning America?
Wouldn’t that be nice…no ACORN fraud, nor voting from inelligible residents, nor issues of illegal foreign contributions. Just a panel of highly intelligent jurists determining our leadership. Sweet!
We see eye-to-eye politically a lot more than you might think.
I’m socially and fiscally conservative. I’m pro gun. I loathe quotas and my opposition to Palin’s candidacy is that I thought she was a quota appointment.
I also prefer smarter, better educated and less combative candidates. As in hockey, I want the GREAT ONE, not MARTY McSORLEY.
I see being pro-marriage as being pro-conservative. I agree that family and marriage are the cornerstone of society. Sex is sacred and that we should mate for life. Promiscuity brings peril. And that’s why my marriage is so important to me.
I’ve never been to a pride event. And I was only ever in a gay bar once, and by accident, when I needed a bathroom quick and it was the closest one.
Welcome to the world of the Christian Protest – ants and all of their ‘denominations’. And even before those means, the fracturing of the entire Judeo religeous structure.
As a young person, I remember being taught not to become wordly. Why? Just as the government wants the electorate to be ignorant/stupid, the religeous structure prefers that their congregations to be ignorant of what is in the world.
Once someone becomes worldly, then that person has to decide for themselves as to where they themselves draw the ‘line-in-the-sand’ as to what is sinful. The argument that the Bible is the law doesnt work for me, because I will go old-school Old Testament on everything.
————–
On Topic – I lived in Cali when Davis was recalled. I still remember the exact broadcast that Melanie Morgan was on when she had a random thought that ended up in Davis’s eventual recall.
Since I dont live in Cali anymore, I dont have a direct say, but I would agree that perhaps Arnold has outlived his stay.
Perhaps we do. And that’s not a bad thing. It’s a really, really, really good thing as a matter of fact.
For me, my faith is so deeply important to me, so personal and so emotional that to see it attack so violently in the way it is in CA is just…it’s beyond pain.
The though of losing my church makes me cry. Literally. It is my second family, my second home. They have helped and befriended us in so many ways, and the Eucharist is an endless source of comfort.
And I’m not letting that go. Ever.
s/religeous/religious/g
To those who read this the other day…sorry
Trop,
A few years ago, a friend of the family stopped at the family business and was telling us about an adventure he had.
This guy was a rough and tumble “man’s man,” who looked like an old alley cat who had suurvived a hundred fights. He even wore a black eye patch.
He recounted, “The other night I felt like a beer so I stopped in at the Acme Tap. I had never been there before. Did you know it was a gay bar? I had never been in a gay bar before. I said to the guy I ended up dancing with, ‘This is the strangest bar I have ever been in.‘”
Sometimes on serious topics humor is needed.
Funny, Trop…..I thought the same thing about Obama.
God just isn’t on your side dude…
It wasn’t white people CHOOSING to vote black.. No, God made those racist white folk vote black. They are still racists, it was GAWWWWD!
But I assume it will be shorter than Clintons which was 140 pardons on his last day. They included his brother, and several of his long time staff Including CIA director John Deutch, and HUD director Henry Cisneros. These people had been ACTUALLY CONVICTED of crimes ranging from improperly handing out national security secrets to improperly spying on political enemies, to Susan McDonald who was convicted in the Whitewater affair in lieu of Hillary Clinton, who was actually the guilty party.
And as far as I’m aware of, Cheney and Rumsfeld have not been charged with any war crimes. Unless you count the one’s in the fevered imaginations of the liberal left.
Stop trying to convince us you are somehow conservative, and I will not try to convince you I am liberal.
@englishqueen01
I totally understand. Church has been central in my life, both growing up in a United Methodist church (my mother taught Sunday School 50years, my dad @79 is still teaching).
I left the Methodist church, because I am not welcome. I am a Unitarian nowadays. I’d be lost without my church family… They are safe haven for my family to BE the family we are [without stares and sneers].
I don’t know what a conservative is, so how can I claim to be one? Under our current administration we’ve grown government, exploded the debt, expanded entitlements, socialized our markets and banks, and interfered in personal liberty. That’s not my idea of conservatism.
Most people here would, I think, agree that that is not conservatism. Repub does not equal conservative. If you read this blog regularly, that point has been made many times.
Someone please tell me exactly what the objections to gay marriage are.
Methodist…really. That surprises me, given I know Methodists who are pretty open about that thing. But they run the gamut, I suppose.
To be fair, there are a few gay people at my parish. They are welcome with open arms so long as they respect the teachings of the Church, which I think is a reasonable expectation of *any* denomination.
I wouldn’t expect my former WELS church to start Eucharistic adoration because they just don’t do that. Which is why I left them. Religious freedom is a great thing.
Looking at Canada, I thank my lucky stars for the First Amendment.
Oh, good gracious. Read the other threads on this and get caught up. Too much to rehash here.
Yes, that’s correct. I’m not trying to convince anyone of conservative bona fides. I just agree with y’all a lot more than you may realize.
Exactly right. How do you identify conservatism when you’ve had ersatz conservatism for all these years?
The country has become a tinder box filled with hate, biases and total lack of communicating in a civil manner…blame lays mostly with the dems and their anarchist followers. Burning of churches and or someone being killed is going to be the match that ignites the box.
It’s going to get ugly folks, keep your powder dry.
No need for mob violence as the next step. Wealthy gays are forming PACs and helping 527s that target legislators and court members who oppose gay marriage.In Michigan we have an openly gay member of “the Cabinet” –a group of multi-millionaires (and billionaires) who support gay issues and have studied George Soros’ methods. Poor conservatives who are serious about the culture wars better get rich quick and start pouring money into a push-back. With conservatives like Margaret Hoover it’ll take double the money.
“They are welcome with open arms so long as they respect the teachings of the Church, which I think is a reasonable expectation of *any* denomination.”
Fair enough.
It is on that point I can’t abide, because to do that is to think myself an abomination.
I made peace with my Christian past after reading Letter to Louise.
We tried a UM church here in Central VA, but is was a really bad experience. I ended up weeping audibly, because the minister went on and on about what is and isn’t a family, and that gay families are NOT families. My family had just been through a terrible ordeal (our daughter had been hospitalized) and his words were just too painful to bear.
We were looking for a church because of our unhappinees with our Unitarian minister (he frequently trash-talked Christians). That’s how we ended up being married by a Christian minister, BTW.
Our church has a new minister, thankfully, and Christian bashing from the pulpit has stopped.
Not helpful. I’ve skimmed through this thread and found a lot of people opposed to it, without a clear statement of why.
I don’t think you can expect to promote a political agenda without some explication of why others should support your position. And I can guarantee you that telling those who ask for explanations of your position to basically hack off is not going to advance your position at all.
Let me be a bit more specific: what is it about gay marriage that is wrong enough to require government intervention to forbid it? Along the way, perhaps someone could also explain how such a position fits in with Conservative political thinking.
@SixDegrees
Currently, anyone who wants to is still free get married anywhere in the USA. The marriage will not be legal everywhere, but it isn’t criminal (yet) to be married to a person of the same sex. You might have to register as a sex offender (for having marital relations in the privacy of your own home), but you are free to marry a person of the same sex.
ever hear of stanley kurtz? google his name and gay marriage, read his articles and educate yourself.
if you can’t see how it fits in with conservative political thinking, you’re not conservative, and no explanation would ever make sense.
Why don’t you give me a quick summary?
Then I don’t understand why Prop 8 would be necessary to begin with.
I find this interesting. what about gay marriage is good enough to require the government to recognize it, since it never has before???
aside from the religious reasons, it further breaks down traditional marriage, which has the result of more fatherless children…and we all know what that brings about, more crime, violence, etc.
How does it do that?
and yes we have proof of it from the netherlands…
But the deeper point is that the meaning of traditional marriage was transformed every bit as much by the decade-long national movement for gay marriage in Holland as by eventual legal success. That’s why the impact of gay marriage on declining Dutch marriage rates and rising out-of-wedlock birthrates begins well before the actual legal changes were instituted. The recent statement by five Dutch scholars takes exactly that position.
link
I have no idea whether there’s anything good about it. I asked what was so bad about it that it required government intervention to prevent it.
What, exactly, is the objection to it? And specifically, how does that objection fit into Conservative political philosophy?
I don’t think anyone here wants to criminalize it. Nor do we want to have people register as sex offenders for same sex relationships – unless, of course, the law was violated in regards to sexual relations with minors.
government intervention is not needed, since gay marriage is already illegal in almost every state. and it took judicial tyranny to ‘legalize’ it in MA and connecticut.
I just posted the article. let see, since in the thousands of years of civilization we’ve NEVER had gay marriage….now all of a sudden its a ‘right’ and ‘necessary’???
conservatism doesn’t invent ‘rights’ and new legal constructs, we’re fairly happy with what has worked for MILLENIA.
Prop 8 matters because it provides that same-sex marriages will have LEGAL recognition and with it all all the rights and privileges of opposite-sex marriages. For instance, in a legal marriage, one spouse cannot be compelled in court to testify against the other (like attorney-client privilege). Assuming there will be any to give her, my wife has no claim to Social Security survivor benefits as my spouse (we aren’t counting on it anyway). There are more than a thousand additional advantages of legal marriage over extra-legal marriage.
If sodomy laws are still on the books in your state, you could be subject to arrest for “crimes against nature.”
Slavery was once legal in every state, too. The question is, what justification can be provided for continuing to keep gay marriage illegal? “Because that’s the way it’s always been” isn’t much of an answer.
So, it should be illegal because…it’s illegal?
This is hardly an argument that is going to win over any followers from the middle. And certainly not from the opposition.
I already answered you troll. having a little trouble with reading comprehension?
Same sex conduct (for want of a better term) *is* criminalized in this country (as is a good bit of opposite-sex conduct), even among CONSENTING ADULTS.
you know its really incumbent upon you to answer why we should have something we NEVER have had before. but you can’t.
and I’ve already PROVEN the deleterious effects of gay marriage. you have proven….nothing.
given lawrence v. texas? please.
You know what? I’d be perfectly happy with civil unions. Why do we have to keep arguing for something that’s such a powderkeg? Why can’t we just leave it the hell alone? I might agree that the argument that “this is the way it’s always been done” is a bit silly, but do we really have to keep rehashing this thing?
Let it go. Let marriage stay traditional. Give me a civil union and leave me at peace. I still say they should toss all these violent bigots in the clink for the crap they’re pulling at these protests.
who? what university??? huh???
anyone can say anything, obviously
Indeed. That’s one of the things that has always appealed to me about Conservatism – the core belief that government should be non-intrusive, particularly when it comes to what people choose to believe, how they conduct their private lives and what they do in the privacy of their own home.
Reading over the comments here, along with the links offered, it seems to me that the objection to gay marriage is fundamentally a religious argument. Or maybe a moral one, apart from religion. Either way, I’m having a lot of difficulty seeing how a ban on gay marriage is anything but an intrusion of government into people’s private lives.
It’s very difficult to reconcile this with a Conservative outlook. Aren’t we the ones who are supposed to be in favor of downsizing government, hauling back on excessive regulations, keeping one ideology from being promoted in favor of any other, and generally advising the government to back off and butt out?
A gay marriage law – either for or against – doesn’t affect me in any way, at least not directly. But without some overwhelming reason to forbid it, which I’m not really hearing here, I can’t see why it shouldn’t be allowed.
For what it’s worth, I don’t buy the declining birthrate theory; it isn’t at all compelling. Birth rates fall as societies advance economically, and we here in the West have the most advanced economies on the planet. If you exclude immigration, the US has had a negative population growth rate for several decades. So has most of Europe. India and China are both rapidly leveling off, and world population is expected to peak and then begin declining within roughly 50 years. This is simply because having lots of kids in an advanced economy doesn’t make sense, while putting all your limited resources into fewer offspring’s upbringing does. I don’t think it’s because of a rising tide of gaiety worldwide.
so taking drugs, or committing pedophilia is OK in the home huh?? right…
translation: I can’t deal with Kurtz so I’ll ignore it…
this is just amazing. since government has not done it before, staying out of it would leave the status quo. pathetic.
why not polygamy and pedophilia too??
why not slavery too? after all government should butt out of people’s lives…if they want to live under sharia, why not?
I’m asking for rational support for the position that gay marriage should be banned.
I have to say, I’m not getting much.
Well, you’ve offered your opinion, and the opinion of others. I’m not really seeing anything that would be called “proof” anywhere it would matter, such as in a courtroom, or a debate.
I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m trying to understand how a ban on gay marriage can be rationalized by Conservatism, a political movement which strongly espouses the least intrusive government possible.
why don’t you try disputing this with Kurtz, along with the decline of traditional marriage…which of course leads to more fatherless children…
just more things you don’t want to deal with…
you just choose to ignore it. because you can’t deal with the the truth.
and your proof of anything is???
you have a mistaken view of conservatism. what you are espousing is libertarianism, not conservatism.
lets see, you’re advocating gay marriage be allowed, when it never has been before…but you don’t want the government to get involved, and it has not been…but to allow gay marriage government has to be involved in an area that it never was before…
let me guess you’re not a computer programmer…logic isn’t your strong point.
Pedophilia, obviously, involves minors. I’m more concerned about laws banning behavior and legal arrangements between consenting adults.
As for polygamy, I would ask the same question – why is it bad to the point where you think the government should be involved in banning it?
“I’ve already PROVEN the deleterious effects of gay marriage.”
No, you’ve PREDICTED those effects. It can’t be proven, at least not yet. Since legalized same-sex marriage has only been legal on a very limited basis for only a few years, it is far too early to measure any impact at all on the larger institution of marriage.
The social institution we call marriage has been in trouble for a very long time, and through no fault of gays.
No, I am doing no such thing.
I’m asking for a rational explanation of why it should not be allowed.
Failing that, I’m forced to conclude that Conservatism, given it’s central theme of limiting intrusions of government into private life, would either actively support a right to gay marriage or, at least, have no opinion on it.
and who decides the age of consent? the same arguments for gay marriage, for homosexuality itself, can be applied to pedophilia.
yes the slippery slope is appropriate.
so you’re for polygamy too. is there any perversion you’re NOT for?? beastiality?? anything??? how about using drugs?
obviously your definition of conservatism isn’t what the rest of conservatism thinks it is.
obviously you are.
There is Biblical precedent for polygamy, and for extra-marital intercourse (with slaves and concubines) as a legitimate way to build a family.
I’m still not seeing an answer to what I thought was a simple question.
I’m seeing a lot of personal attacks, though. Why? As someone who is presumably deeply committed to Conservative ideology, shouldn’t it be simple to explain your position in rational form?
do you have any research to contradict Kurtz? you can try arguing with him, but I doubt you would be successful.
your inability to comprehend what I said is not my fault.
your irrationality prevents you from seeing rationality.
I’ve elucidated what I believe to be one of the core values of Conservatism: limited, non-intrusive government.
Do Conservatives NOT believe in this?
Six degrees:
You are confusing conservatism (in it’s present Christian manifestation), with libertarianism, which honors religious freedom and argues that the government should not have a stake in ANY marriage.
There is no Federal “ban” on gay marriage. Rather, the people of individual states have spoken @ the polls in favor of NOT creating a new special “right.” Whether it’s for religious or secular reasons, the people have spoken on this issue. MA has ignored the will of the people, finding a ban on gay marriage “unconstitutional” (does this State’s constitution create a right to marriage that is not present in the U.S. Constitution?). The governor of CA apparently is hoping to do the same. That is NOT conservatism.
but you want government to INTRUDE and allow gay marriage.
limited non-intrusive government does NOT mean anything goes. conservatives are all about preseving traditional values and society. gay marriage destroys this. and of course the whole reason for gay marriage is to silence and destroy christianity.
conservatism isn’t a cliche. its a rather complex philosphy, you should check into it sometimes…try Burnham, chambers, Orwell, Buckley, etc.
Even Jerry Brown, our AG, understands it’s his job to defend the California Constitution and this recent amendment. Ahnold…buh-bye.