Ensign continues to drag GOP down
I called him a wretched dog last month, and he continues to live up (er, down) to the label.
We now know that Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign enlisted his parents to pay off his mistress/former campaign staffer and her husband/former intimate family friend/Senate employee to the tune of $96,000. Yeah, he bollixed up his own mom and dad in the scandal. Loser.
Gift. Severance. Whatever you call it, it was hush money. It didn’t work. And Ensign’s former lover’s husband is enjoying the fruits of blabbing publicly about the lurid affair and the attempted cover-up.
Ensign’s adultery hurt his wife and kids, his mistress and her husband’s kids, his state, his party, and the Senate GOP leadership.
Now, one of the Senate’s best and most upstanding members, Tom Coburn, is getting dragged through the mud:
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Thursday issued a blistering attack on Doug Hampton, the husband of Sen. John Ensign’s (R-Nev.) mistress, saying that he had provided false information about paying off Hampton after Ensign revealed he was having an affair with his wife.
“John Ensign hasn’t put me in a tough position at all,” said Coburn, a housemate of Ensign’s at a Capitol Hill home owned by a Christian fellowship. “The person that’s deceiving now is Doug. And you all need to go do the investigation now on that side of it and quit asking us and ask what’s the motivation here.”
Coburn was responding to a televised interview Doug Hampton gave to a Nevada television station in which he went into detail about the Ensign’s affair with his wife, which reportedly started in December 2007 and ended in August 2008. Hampton, a former close friend of Ensign’s and chief of staff to the senator, said that Coburn and other peers were involved in talks to urge Ensign to pay Hampton for the damage he caused his family — including potentially giving him “millions” of dollars.
…But on Thursday, Coburn said: “He is in error, and he’s manipulating the situation and you are all buying it.”
“I was never present when a letter was written, never made any assessment of paying anybody anything. Those are untruths. Those are absolute untruths.”
…“Dr. Coburn did everything he could to encourage Sen. Ensign to end his affair and to persuade Sen. Ensign to repair the damage he had caused to his own marriage and the Hampton’s marriage,” Coburn’s office said in a remarkable public rebuke of his friend and fellow Christian conservative. “Had Sen. Ensign followed Dr. Coburn’s advice, this episode would have ended, and been made public, long ago.”
Once again, Ensign shows his lack of forthrightness with his constituents and party. Why did he wait to disclose the payments? Is he going to leave Sen. Coburn twisting in the wind? Now, Ensign faces a possible ethics probe.
What more will seep out?
Who else will be dragged down in the process?
How long will he subject the GOP to humiliation?
Republicans can’t combat their political foes’ culture of corruption unless and until they clean up their own.
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.
Trackbacks
- John Ensign’s PARENTS pay off $96,000 to mistress/her husband | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- You Stay Classy « Law Of Increasing Conservatism
- Chuck Muth urges GOP to beat Senator Reid | Nye - Gateway to Nevada's Rurals
- The Ensign Affair « Around The Sphere
- Michelle Malkin » Republicans: Clean your own house
- When Republicans Don’t Take the High Road (updated) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Republicans: Clean your own house « POLITISITE: Politics from the RIGHT Side of the WEB
- Republicans: Clean your own house « Iron Mill News Service
- Republicans: Clean your own house « Iron Mill News Service – Columbia, SC
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Corruption, GOP
Power Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
Pundit & Pundette
» Various and sundryStop The ACLU
» Obama To Hold Another Prime Timer To Explain Our Afghanistan Strategy To Islamic ExtremistsAmSpecBlog
» Lieberman Says He's "Stubborn" on Gov't PlanWeekly Standard
» Dowd on PalinTigerHawk
» Negative equity
Let’s face it, the Republicans are as dirty as the Democrats.
Conservatives? Decent people?
I think not!
We desperately need a new party without all this baggage.
I know this will be controversial, but I say throw the scum overboard. Including those who claim conservative attitudes in “religuous right” clothing.
These are desparate times. If not now, when?
It is such a relief to be an unaffiliated independent conservative. This must be what it was life when Rome was ruled by Caligula. It is certainly not going to get better until we get rid of the one-party system.
No incumbents after 2010.
Go Sarah!
The clock is ticking, the 2010 election is just around the corner, and the GOP is in complete disarray. The tax and spend democraps are handing them the election on a silver platter but the GOP is too busy breaking the Seventh Commandment. What a crying shame.
When an organization has hit bottom, how can you drag it down? Just sayin.
The kind of people who are attracted to politics are largely the same, regardless of the party affiliation.
They also share similar psychological traits with serial killers, according to FBI profilers. See http://tinyurl.com/m5l683
Coburn is a good man. I’d love to see him join the new party that replaces the Republican Party.
Perhaps we can call it the New Bullmoose Party.
.
Sheesh! If its impossible to sweep out these Demo wannabe elites out of party leadership while they continue to snub and abandon its founding ideology and grassroots supporters – its time for another party. My reluctance to leave the GOP, despite the idiots that lead it, is gradually softening.
The Whigs outlived their relevincy in the 1850’s and the GOP stepped into the vacuum. I’d guess the GOP is the 21st Century Whigs. Where is the 21st Centry equivilent of the 1850’s
GOP?
I’m sorry. I voted for him. Time for him to go. We’ll get Harry too. My absentee ballot works all the way from Guatemala.
I kind of like “The Spirit of 1776 Liberal Party”. After all, “liberal” used to be a good word when this country was founded. It meant freedom. Conservative was always inappropriate but that’s all we had.
I like Conservative Progressive Party
We need to take the word back. There is nothing progressive about socialism. Also, It’ll fry their circuits.
How about the “Leave me the ____ Alone” Party?
Amen to that.
*This is exactly why Sarah Palin is a plus for the GOP; She is not hampered by moral shortcomings as it relates to infidelity as are rat bastards like Ensign and Sanford.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that one is embarrassed to have their pants down.
I have to admit that if I still had my property in Nevada, this would be one of mine. I hope he has the decency to resign but so far, no signs of that happening.
But hey, I am sure LGM will be defending him soon as after all, it was only sex right?
Dear john (ensign), we already did a dear john in 08 for pres.and we do not need another one. I voted against bho for the john. Well, I hope next time my vote will save our Republic.
L
Palin/JTP 2012
Woe is me. Reid is one of my senators, Ensign the other.
Our only hope to dump Reid next time around is Sharron Angle.
She lost by only 400 votes to conservative Dean Heller in the 2006 GOP primary. Dean is also super against illegal immigration and voted against all the TARP madness.
Congressman Heller and Senator Angle would make a great team in DC.
Anywhere you live in the
5750 states, you can contribute to oust Harry.That depends on who is counting it. If Acorn is counting it, you can be assured that your little Chad will end up getting pregnant.
Would that imply that neither of them really need to drop their pants in order to show the world an arse?
And the GOP stiffs in DC are about as conservative as Democrats.
Not excusing totally shabby behavior all around, but maybe Ensign needs Gavin Newsom’s PR agent.
Mayor Newsom screwed his assistant/friend’s wife, and now he is running for GOVERNOR!!
Oh, forgot. Ensign will have to change his R to a D to run for NV governor.
Tom Coburn – please run for president, we need you desperately!
PS – we are so proud of you here in Oklahoma!
I’d sooner vote for a Sooner!
I don’t think it’s controversal at all, Pessi. It has nothing to with religion, though. It has to do with following the rules you espouse and expound on.
This isn’t a problem for Democrats since their values, such as they are, include embracing the diversity of Barney Frank running a “gay” brothel from his home.
Not complaining that “they do it all the time”, just saying that if the bar you have to jump over is the stick du jour laying on the ground, it’s not a problem. I expect conservatives to have a much higher bar – if not for reasons of decency or morality, then because we we should commit ourselves to the highest standards in every area as a personal challenge.
folks, it’s in the water of the city of washington d.c. the partying, the alcohol, the women which outnumber the men by nearly 2 to 1, the schemeing and wheeling and dealing makes people believe they are special. they can do anything. pretty soon they have a hooker falling out of their limo into the reflecting pool. all of them are guilty of something, which is why they never press too hard on ethics charges. they need to have an independent counselor review each one each year to see who is being naughty or nice.
I am uncomfortable suggesting that the individual failings of one person can be cast on an entire group of people.
That being said, Mr Ensign, in light of the revelation of the money should seriously consider stepping down. This matter will no doubt be investigated by the Senate ethics committee, and could prove to be embarrassing, not only to Mr. Ensign, but to his wife and family, and to the mistress and her family.
The entire episode deomonstrates that Mr. Ensign is subject to being blackmailed, and will succumb. What other price would he be willing to pay, to buy silence? His position in the Senate is untenable.
On the lighter side -
This happened because Gays want to get married. And, everyone knows Gays getting married destroys marriage. Certainly there had to be an element of gayness involved, or these marriages would not have been destroyed.
Is there something in the DC water that renders our elected officials unable to keep their members under wraps?
The sooner, the better!
*My gaydar goes off the scale when it comes to zyzzyg!
I didn’t realize bopping someone else’s spouse was a gay thing. Thought it was adultery. This dirtbag should resign. RNC–where are you?????????????
I’m sure that will get fast-tracked ahead of the dozens of Democrats lined up waiting to be investigated. How’s that ethics probe of Rangel coming along? How about Dodd?
yeah it will destroy marriage by making it meaningless…glad you pointed this out. it’ll also leave children more vulnerable…but thats just a side benefit for gays…the real goal is using gay marriage to destroy freedom of religion…especially christianity….
of course you and I both know that dutch researchers pointed out the mere campaign for gay marriage damaged traditional marriage.
link
but then people like you don’t care about marriage, or children, or society, its all about the gays shoving their lifestyle down everyone else’s throat and forcing them to approve of it……bunch of nazis…
ROFLMAO
You neglected to cut and paste the following from my post #26, but I will do it for you, “On the lighter side -”.
Lighten up. Please.
You have said a great deal and responding to it all will take a tangent that will take us off topic of MM’s post. Yes, I added the twist at the end of my post, . . . just to ‘tweak’ the situation.
Please do not assign any beliefs to me without knowing what I believe. Ask me first. We are all well served when we avoid assumption and assigning motive.
I really don’t care one way, or the other, about Gays, just as long as they pay their taxes and live by the Constitution, as I do.
Though, if you have the courage, answer the following questions. OK, yes it is a bit of a tangent. Though it relates to my tongue in cheek ‘tweak’.
What has destroyed more marriages, infidelity, or Gays getting married?
As for ‘meaningless’, your word, what has made more marriages ‘meaningless’, infidelity, or gays getting marriage?
jangar said:
Actually, apart from hyperbole, are you familiar with:
The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party
Just think of the peer congratulations and public accolades he’d receive if he were a Democrat? This is almost as heartwarming as being on the House Banking Committee and having a homosexual affair with a board member of Fannie Mae
ROFLMAO…thanks for playing…I knew my post would irritate the hell out of you..and you confirmed that by responding.
as far as your question, given the disapproval that infidelity brings, while it hurts an individual marriage, infidelity does not hurt the concept of marriage like homosexual marriage does. because it makes marriage a meaningless joke. if gays can get married, then why not 3,4 20, whatever, and whoever?
of course people like you don’t care about what the gays do, like how they want to silence any who dare disagree with their ideology, and any disaproval of the gay lifestyle becomes a crime.
oh and your arguments are meaningless
Both of Oklahoma’s Senators, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, are terrific.
SINator Ensign is scum for what he did. But, Doug Hampton is no better for trying to make a name, and money, for himself rather than trying to repair his marriage.
Yes it does…we are to be salt and light in a dark world, and doing a poor job lately, allowing the world to poison our marriage relationships.
Gotta understand the ultimate agenda to their movement and what truly propels them – to criminalize all biblical references and to ultimately disprove the existence of God. The gay agenda is no friend of Christ, especially when standing in the pulpit of the Episcopal Church.
Exactly. We’ve been lulled into complacency for years on this issue, but the rest of the world has been accepting it as natural and now we are the enemy.
Yes it does…we are to be salt and light in a dark world, and doing a poor job lately, allowing the world to poison our marriage relationships.
Gotta understand the ultimate agenda to their movement and what truly propels them – to criminalize all biblical references and to ultimately disprove the existence of God. The gay agenda is no friend of Christ, especially when standing in the pulpit of the Episcopal Church.
Exactly. We’ve been lulled into complacency for years on this issue, but the rest of the world has been accepting it as natural and now we are the enemy.
Oops…computer flatulation…sorry
How about a new “Federalist Party?”
The only problem I see is … I can’t think of more than maybe a half dozen politicians I’d vote for. Newt screwed us – so he’s out, Coburn is good to go (and happens to despise Newt. Read “Breach of Trust”), as is Inhofe. But how many others? There is nothing to suggest this new party would have to limit itself to ex=Repubs, either – but who from the other side? I’m sure there has to be a few Dems who see the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a guide for our future, but who are they?
Really – politicians as a group are bottom-feeding slugs concerned with nothing but their own percs and lifestyles. I would expect nothing less from Lawyers when it gets down to it. I have little hope for the future of our Republic with the current crop of cretins in all levels of government – from local on up to national. Scum – 90% of them.
I doubt either of us are irritating the other because each of us is ‘ROFLMAO-ing’.
OK, now it is the ‘concept of marriage’ that is destroyed, or becomes meaningless. But, marriage (marriages) will still exist, correct? Men and women will still be able to get married, correct?
You did not answer the question, but I did not expect you to do so.
What has destroyed more marriages, infidelity, or Gays getting married?
How and what people do in their marriage, their practices, and how they conduct themselves in that marriage, is their ‘concept of marriage’. What if a couple chose not to be intimate in their marriage? Would that be a ‘meaningless’ marriage, or impact the ‘concept of marriage’? And, does their ‘concept of marriage’ impact other marriages?
When there is a great enough demand to seek your suggestion it should, and will, be discussed at that time.
I am unaware of your assertions. Legislators from many States stand up and speak their minds on the issue, pro and con. No one is silenced. And, having an opinion, ‘expressing your disapproval’, will never become a crime because it would violate the right of free speach in the Constitution.
Yep, I like taxpaying believers of the Constitution. Do you?
ROFLMAO, not irritated, just laughing, because you are responding to my ‘meaningless’ arguements.
With the Democrats in the majority, no scandals are happening on that side of the aisle. Only the minority Republicans are getting the tabloid press repeatedly.
Carrie Prejean may beg to differ with you on that.
Have you never heard of a “hate crime”?
actually I did…I repeat…
I don’t see how you missed this.
the ‘concept’ of marriage is simple…a man and a woman joined together…the two become one…mostly for procreating the species. you miss my point, no surprise, that the main concept of marriage is a MAN and a WOMAN…that is why gay marriage destroys the very concept of marriage…it redefines it to mean a man and a man, or a woman and a woman…and once that line is crossed then marriage means anything…any grouping of individuals could be called a ‘marriage’…making ‘marriage’ a sham.
and then since ‘marriage’ is just a convenient grouping of people…why bother with it at all?? as we have seen in the netherlands…and of course the children suffer the most…and they are left more vulnerable…what a surprise the gay movement is for that…
its already being ‘discussed’ now, and it has been for a long time…please.
you really are clueless.
link
Same-Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
oh and ROFLMAO at your laughable attempt to justify gay marriage…
did you hear the latest from the epicopals??? this is a good one…
oh yes…we are part of the COLLECTIVE…like borgs….
link
she will lead us into the NEW AGE OF ENLIGHTMENT!!!
of course with her being the new-age messiah!!
can ya dig it???
That’s what happens when you don’t read the Bible.
She is not silenced, and has given speeches and interveiws where she has repeated her position. What has happened, is that others have responded with their opinions. No one is being silenced. She and everyone else are still expressing their opinions.
Not sure of the connection between ‘hate crime’ and stating your opinion. My understanding, and am willing to be corrected, is that there must be an underlying crime for a ‘hate crime’ charge to be added. Since speech (stating an opinion) can not be a crime then there can be no added ‘hate crime’ charge.
Please refresh yourself on what started the “firestorm” around her. The fact that she has stood her ground and refused to be bullied into silence reflects her strength of character. And why must she lose her title duly awarded by Miss USA merely because she agrees with the majority of the state she represents (and the majority of Americans)?
Remember that the same crowd that wishes to silence her expression of a harmless opinion, relayed in an almost obsequious way, are the same who are using the legal system to make murder, for example, more than mere killing solely because of what they presume the murderer was thinking.
Coming soon.
Nope.
Two different questions -
1. What has destroyed more marriages, infidelity, or Gays getting married?
2. What has destroyed more the ‘concept of marriage’, infidelity, or Gays getting married?
I was careful to use qoutes around ‘concept of marriage’ to address the subtle semantic redirection you used.
You answered question number 2, not question number 1.
You talk about the definition of marriage, and I am talking about marriage itself. Obviously, we are talking past one another.
No worries, more marriages are destroyed by divorce. And divorces occur for many reason, the most prominent of which is infidelity, and not because Gays are getting married. True, or not?
Yep, and children suffer in this situation, too.
People getting arrested, based on your linked article, is wrong.
Very well, I accept that ‘multiple marriage’ is being discussed, but I have not seen any proposed legislation from any legislative body on the that subject. Whereas, there has been legislation discussed for Gay marriage. I have heard ‘multiple marriage’ raised as a rhetorical question in discussing Gay marriage.
Calling me clueless without an arguement or deconstruction of what I said, is useless. People (elected officials) speak their minds on the subject of Gay marriage. People (citizens) have spoken their minds via referendums on the subject of Gay marriage.
Ummmm, OK
nope you miss the point entirely. indiviual marriages can come and go, the important thing is the institution..but no surprise that you have to focus on this in your effort to destroy marriage.
and do you really think gays being married with be a paragon of fidelity???
I have already answered your absurd questions..you just don’t like the answers.
but accurate.
you refuse to see the threat gay marriage poses to marriage or to freedom…typical gay apologist.
no surprise though.
OK, good for her. And, since she refused to be bullied into silence, she was not silenced. Correct?
My original statement stands and you agree that Carrie Prejean was not silenced.
No one is silenced, . . . no one was silenced, and . . . there will be no silencing of opinions.
That was not the reason she lost her crown. Donald Trump clearly stated as much at the time. Remember there was a news conference?
Later, much later, not in a news conference, but in a press release, Donald Trump said she had to go because she was not living up to her contractual responsibilities. She wasn’t doing her job, and therefor was let go.
yeah they can still speak when they’re in jail!!!
this is just idiotic. she was fired…the message is clear…speak out against the gays and pay a big price…just like their fascist tactics in CA after prop 8…thats what their movement is all about…but keep posting the propoganda…its all ya got…
As for your link, it is primarily about Canada and Europe. The author even quotes an American Judge’s opinion, which makes it a precedent, that would make it a high hurdle to jump for Canadian and European practices to be adopted in the US.
Ummmm, so as of this moment (in the USA) there is no connection between ‘hate crime’ and speech, correct?
WOW. Are you being willfully blind to the facts here?
This woman stated an opinion on national television that didn’t jive with what the PC crowd wanted. She was then cursed and pilloried by same crowd, spearheaded by the oxymoronic homosexual “judge” of women’s beauty. When she continued to firmly and graciously hold to her opinion, new “charges” were drummed up against her, including supposedly risque photos. Funny how these issues weren’t newsworthy until she expressed an opinion.
Her “not living up to her contract” is the latest window dressing on the campaign to destroy her.
The “obligations” she didn’t “fulfill” included making a public apology to a homosexual group, and appearing in Playboy, the latter of which would have been then used to say she “violated the Miss USA contest rules”.
I’ll grant you that the US goverment didn’t silence her, and she wasn’t jailed for speaking her mind. But who is responsible for lobbying for and enacting our “hate crimes” laws, and why do you suppose they exist in the first place?
I’m fully aware of that. That was my point – COMING SOON.
The judge is restating the reason for the underlying contempt our founders had for harnessing free speech. This principle is already stated clearly and specifically in the US Constitution, and yet, hate crimes laws have been enacted.
Exactly. And that is why I said we are talking past one another. I am talking about individual marriage being destroyed, and you are talking about the definition of marriage, the ‘concept of marriage’ being destroyed.
I am not missing any point, but you are not answering the question originally asked. Or, the two distinct questions raised in post #52.
And when these individual marriages ‘come and go’ is it because of infidelity, or because gays are getting married?
Now I am destroying marriage? LOL. Mr Ensign is destroying marriages, not me. BTW, isn’t he heterosexual?
I suspect they will be just like heterosexual couples, and have their problems.
Because there is no threat. And, freedom? Where is that coming from? Freedom to do what? To marry who you want?
On that we can agree. He’s destroyed at least 2.
dumb question. and means nothing in the context of the gay marriage debate….its just a dodge from the gay movement to avoid the real issue.
he’s destroying his marriage…not destroying the institution itself which is what gay marriage is all about.
so your focus on individual infidelity is meaningless.
I’ve already posted the links, your ignoring it shows that you are fine with ending religious liberty in the name of ‘tolerance’
again, your fascism is no surprise.
aside from giving the gays everything they want…what social good will come from gay marriage?
it won’t strengthen troubled marriages, nor will it will provide a stable family environment for children..in fact it will harm children…children need a REAL mother and father…
so why bother to satisfy the greed of gays at the expense of religious liberty??
Huh? Religious liberty? Fascism? What the Fox?
For the third and final time, we are talking past one another.
Yes, you are talking about the definition of marriage.
Yes, I am talking about an individual marriage.
Yes, Mr Ensign is destroying his marriage, and potentially the marriage of his mistress. Heterosexuals both I imagine.
Nope. Infidelity is important and it will cause more divorce for any married couple, heterosexual or homosexual.
zyzzyg re #65, I agree with you that infidelity destroys marriages. But using one sinful behavior (infidelity) to justify another (homosexuality) doesn’t compute.
That’s kind of like saying we have a grease fire in the kitchen, so let’s fight it with gasoline.
no, you just refuse to acknowledge the threat that gay marriage poses to religious liberty.
I’ve already posted the links..but the only freedom you are concerned with is the gays…some pigs are more equal than others in your world apparently.
OK, thank you for agreeing that infidelity destroys marriage.
However, I am not using one behaviour to justify another.
I am asking if infidelity destroys marriage. We agree it does, well at least it has the potential so.
I am aslo asking if homosexuality (Gay Marriage) destroys marriage. I do not know if we agree that it does or doesn’t.
Yes, I used the two terms in one sentence, when I originally asked the question, but in no way was it my intention to suggest that one justifies the other, or that the terms are somehow equal.
I could have asked, ‘what destroys more marriages, money woes, or gay marriage?’ Or, ‘what destroys more marriages, too many hours spent at work, or gay marriage?’
it does. it will render it meaningless.
OK, I had to find this link you were talking about. It was in a post that was not addressed to me.
My take away from your posted link is that the Episcopal Church was discussing some sort of resolution on civil marriage and it has caused some members to want to separate themselves from those who would support the resolution. The term used in the article was ‘breakaway.’
I found nothing that threatened your, or anyone elses, religiuos liberty. You, and everyone else, still get to practice religion the way you want. There have been splits in the Christian faith in the past, and no doubt there might be more in the future.
Your religious liberty remains whole. Especially, here in the US. It is Fredom of Religion, not freedom from religion.
Should the Episcopal church split, so what? One half will recognize and perform gay marriages and/or civil unions. The other half won’t. How does each half impinge on the others religious liberty, that is, to practice religion the way each wants?
Within the singular masthead of Christianity do Catholics infringe on the religious liberty of Protestants? And, vice versa? And, within the Protestant community do Baptists, Episcopaleans, Apostolics, Anglicans, Methodists, etc. impinge on the others religious liberty? No.
Your religious liberty is fine, find a place of worship that does not subscribe to, or accepts, same sex unions and/or marriages.
Correct, I refuse to accept, or acknowledge, the threat that gay marriage poses to religious liberty. Because, I would be willing to find a place of worship that shared my veiws, and will not allow what others do, in another church, to impact me.
Your religious liberty is not threatened by anyone, or anything. Relax.
it was addressed to you…
that had NOTHING to do with gay marriage…sigh…
I also posted this part of an article…
the links following that were the relevent ones.
this shows you have a very shallow understanding of the issue…from the link titled…
Same-Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
from stanley kurtz…
link
the article concludes…
For religious folks, the lesson in all this is clear. There’s a lot more at stake in the battle over same-sex marriage than the marriage issue itself, important as that is. The very ability of religiously affiliated organizations to exist and operate is under threat. Same-sex marriage will be used as a tool, not only to silence opposition, but to unstring religion itself as a force in American life.
link
I’m going to go out on a limb here to say we probably don’t agree on the answer to this question.
My point in linking the two was to draw what I perceive as an obvious conclusion that opponents of maintaining God’s view of marriage like to bring up, as you did, that infidelity in heterosexual marriages undermines marriage, and no more so than would a new definition of marriage proposed by homosexual advocates.
Your response is what I perceive to be a rather laissez-faire approach, e.g., “it doesn’t affect me (you), so why should you (I) prevent it?” At this time, you still have the liberty to speak philosophically about the concept of homosexual marriage. But just like the “right” to an abortion was manufactured and now imposed on America…flying in the face of the Founders’ plain words that all men have the right to life…so shall the “choice” of homosexual “marriage” one day be imposed on churches and landlords and others, regardless of their religious convictions. It is as inevitable as night following day that this “right” to marriage (again, not found in the Constitution) will undermine all of our religious liberty, as r4l has also stated, whether you are a Christian or not.
No, post #48 was not addressed to me. Up until that point each post meant for me began with you cutting and pasting, as I have, the other’s time stamp with our screen names, or have quoted my previously used text. Therefore, I did not know that post #48 was meant for me.
In your post #48 you provided a link to an article from the Associated Baptist Church. And, the following is excerpted from that article, and does speak to gay marriage -
One resolution being considered calls for “generous discretion” to be extended to clergy in exercising pastoral ministry in six states — Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont — where the civil marriage of same-gender couples has been legalized as well as other states that may follow suit in the next three years.
The 2.1-million-member denomination has argued vociferously about homosexuality since 2003, when the group approved the election of its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Many more conservative Episcopalians and a handful of congregations have begun breaking away from the church in the years since.
Besides, I said it was my take away.
NO. that is from your post #46 and not from your post #48.
I responded to your post #46 in my post #52, and I even responded to your post #47 with my post#53. And, if you read my response in my post #52 you will notice that I addressed people getting arrested by saying, “People getting arrested, based on your linked article, is wrong.”
Admittedly, I did not address the link to the Heritage Foundation article. I missed it. But, it is not the first time either of us has missed what the other has written, or not answered a question.
I will address it now.
There is no loss of religious liberty, just a loss of benefits. To wit, because the Boy Scouts is a private organization that discriminates against gays, they are denied the free use of public spaces. They are not told to change their policies and can continue to practice as they wish. Their liberty to practice their beliefs are not denied. And, the same applies to you and your religious liberties, they are not denied.
OK, a new link.
It is the same theme. Connecting religious liberty to Government benefits. If your religious liberty is dependent on Government funding, then exactly how much religious liberty do you have? Try practicing your religious liberty without support from the Government. Have all the religious liberty you want, but leave the Government, and its’ money, out of it.
BTW, you do recall this all began because of Mr Ensign’s indiscretion. And, very little has changed, his infidelity destroyed his mariage, nothing else.
Not Miss America, not Mr. America, not the tide, not the Moon, nor the Sun, not the trees in the forest, not a single pebble of sand on any beach in the world detroyed Mr Ensigns marriage. Not your relationships, not my relationships, not the relationships of your neighbors, and not the relationships of my neighbors caused the detruction of Mr Ensigns marriage.
It was Mr Ensigns infidelity that destroyed his marriage, and as too often is the case, detroys many more marriages.
WOW. That was one of the best responses I have ever recieved on this BLOG. Thank you.
Fair enough. We can disagree, without being disagreeable.
I believe you understand my explanation from my post #68.
OK. I will go this far and say, that yes infidelity destroys marriages, and that allowing Gays to marry changes the traditionally accepted definition of marriage.
There is no connection, or equality, between infidelity and homosexuality (Gay marriage). We agree.
What I still fail to understand, and have yet to have it explained to me, is if and when the definition of marriage is altered, how that impacts another’s marriage?
Is it because with the new definition, when someone says that they are married, there is a follow-up question of, ‘heterosexual or homosexual’? Will the altered definition require a person to voluntarily say they are in a heterosexual or homosexual marriage?
Because the ‘right’ to an abortion was manufactured, does not mean you (anyone)have to have one, or that you (anyone)have to perform them.
I think it comes down to a battle of Constitutional clauses, Freedon of Religion versus Equal Treatment under the law. Ammd 1 vs Ammd 14.
I get that your religion may have certain convictions, yet I fail to understand how that impacts commerce, as between that of a tenant and lanlord. Do these religious convictions require that you know the sexual orientation of a person before you do business with them?
I disagree that gay marriage will be imposed on any faith, because of the First Amendment, “. . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” Your religious convictions will remain untouched, in that regard.
We agree that no definition of marriage, of any type, is in the Constitution. It was one of those things regulated to the States.
Take a look at my post #76 where I address Religious liberty. Bottomline, you maintain your Religious liberty, you just loose the pork provided by the Government that used to support your Religious liberties. If your organization provides a service, you have to provide it to everyone, to get Government money. Don’t change your convictions, just don’t take the money.
I suppose it is easy to perceive that I have a laissez-faire veiw of the world. But, that is not the case. I am not interested in what you do privately as long as it does not hurt or does not diminish anyone else. I am not interested in changing your Religious convictions and liberties. I am interested that you pay your taxes and follow the Constitution. OK, a fairly narrow veiw, but hardly laissez-faire.
Thanks again for truly great response and a good cogent conversation. I really have appreciated it.
no surprise you would say something like this…they are discriminated against because of their beliefs…and do not have the FREEDOM to use facilities that other groups have…its not even SEPERATE but equal…just SEPARATE…consigned to their own (shrinking) space…as the state controls more and more of our lives…but hey whats a freedom, or 2 or 3 or 4…nobody will notice they’re gone!!
you make the foolish assumption that all the money is the government’s and by not taking some of it, its a BENEFIT…right…its the church’s money…and TAX EXEMPTION IS NOT A BENEFIT.
the catholic charity in MA cannot participate in adoptions anymore because they won’t place children with homosexuals…so they have LOST the FREEDOM they once had…freedom isn’t that important to you obviously…only the freedom of the gays to oppress others apparently.
you truly are a fascist.
here’s another freedom someone lost, that you won’t care about…
so they cannot practice medicine as they see fit…no they are FORCED BY THE STATE to provide non-essential medical services to people they disagree with.
but hey whats one more freedom gone?? no one will notice….
but they didn’t need that land anyway, right?? they probably stole it from the native americans!! serves em right!!
right?
so much for freedom…
I actually posted the answer to that in #32…here it is again, since you missed it….
and of course you convenient ignore what Kurtz concludes with…
On July 10th, 2009 at 7:14 pm, right4life said: #78
Yep, the Boy Scout discriminate and now you suggest that they are being discriminated against. LOL.
There is the Free Exercise clause in the Constitution, the Government is not telling them who they can discriminate against, they can keep their beliefs. No freedoms have been lost or abridged. The Government is saying that it will not participate in their discrimination.
I made no such assumption. When you don’t take Government money, you still maintain your religious liberties. True, or not true?
No one, but you, is talking about tax exemptions. Government funding. Government funding that is given to any organization must be accessible to all. If an organization discriminates, it will no longer recieve Government funding.
Nope. Catholic charities can still do adoptions, they just no longer receive Government funding. True, or not true?
The Catholic Church has not lost their tax exempt status. True, or not true?
Name calling does not help. Reading and writing comprehension does.
I am unfamiliar with the case and have one question, do the Doctors accept State funds?
When you accept State funds, you have to do what the State says. When you don’t accept State funds, then you don’t have to do what the State says. True, or not true?
And, please do not tell me what I care about, or don’t care about. You don’t know, unless you ask.
Nope. Such a tangent. LOL.
I am vaguely familiar with this case and believe it was wrongly decided. No one should be forced to enter into a contract with another person. I’ve mentioned the Free Exercise clause from the Constitution and it applies. There is no Government involvement (funding), and therefore is a private matter between two parties.
From your cut and pasted post -
“. . . the legalization of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends.”
And,
“. . . we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns . . .”
What are those “trends”, they were unfortunately never specifically mentioned, hence your answer is wanting. Tell me about the trends, tell me how one couple conducts their marriage impacts another couple’s marriage?
Nope. I addressed the Kurtz article as a continuation of a theme.
I am not prepared to address every paragraph written by both you and Kurtz. Besides the quote you pulled from Kurtz is an opinion. And were I to address Kurtz, I would ask him to prove it. But, since that statement is not a fact and only an opinion, it can not be proven. Supporting evidence may be provided, but as of yet, you have not provided any supporting evidence, or trends.
And, your religious liberties, and convictions, remain whole. You just don’t get Government funding. Catholic Charities still do adoptions, but with out Government funding. Boy scouts still meet, but not for free in publicly own space. Doctors who receive Goverment money will have to continue to do what they are told.
And, infidelity still destroys marriage. True, or not true?
In answer to your question, no. I would not refuse to do business with or work with someone because they practice a lifestyle that I disagree with. However, I would not want to rent my property to anyone (homosexual or heterosexual) whose living arrangements are not consistent with a biblical worldview. That would be, in effect, forcing me to trade my convictions in favor of some ephemeral “right” that these people have to rent my property. As you stated, if I am not taking money from the Government, the Government should not be able to dictate how I run my business. The problem is that there are many groups and individuals that seek to equate a lifestyle choice with, for example, race or disability, factors that are outside a person’s control and which should not be subject to discrimination. That is when the Government’s heavy hand begins to impose on my religious freedom by attempting to undermine my convictions.
What would you say to a pastor who is sued to perform a homosexual “marriage” against his will?
Perhaps for the first 150 years of this country, I would agree with you. However in the last 40+ years, religious convictions have been subjugated to some societal “greater good” that has yet to be defined. Meanwhile, as religious expression is erased from the public square, and eroded from society, our schools and places of business have become less civil and even violent. In the ideal society envisioned by our Founders, I could agree with you, but
I no longer trust the Goverment to uphold even this basic freedom of religion, speech, and assembly established first by our Founders.
I agree with you that those who dip at the public trough are necessarily beholden to that from which they receive sustenance. However, this brings to mind two questions: The “Government’s money” is actually my money, and yours if you are a US taxpayer. And the definition of “taking benefits from the Government” can include virtually anything, including, of course, tax exempt status, but it could also mean basic legal protection from harassment, for example.
P.S. Thanks.
I respect someone who responds to a direct question with a direct answer. Good on you.
OK, a bit of a qualification to your first statement about being willing to do business with someone because of their lifestyle choices. Though you do realize that the landlord-tenant relationship is primarily a business relationship.
It is not an ephemeral right, it is about the equal protection clause, Amd 14, of the Constitution. As I suggested before, this issue comes down to two distinct Constitutional clauses. Which one will prevail, I do not know.
Absolutely, I just wish other people would understand that.
Geez, that is whole ‘nother kettle of fish. I am not prepared to take the discussion in a direction as to whether homosexuality is nuture, nature, or choice.
OK.
Go to court, you will win.
You can not legally force someone into a contract. Performance of a marriage ceremony is a contract action between the Pastor and the couple.
My sense from this statement is that you have conflated quite a few things. Maybe you are presenting examples of how the Government is attacking religion.
Yes, Government has forced the removal of religion from the public square, but I fail to see how that undermines or impacts anyone’s convictions. In history Christian have survived worse and maintained their faith. Even upon the threat of, and actual, death.
I question the assertion that the removal of religion from places of business and schools has resulted in us becoming less civil and even violent.
A case can be made that we have become more of a meritocracy with the loss of privelege to segments of our society. It could be that we have allowed more people the opportunity to succeed, when at the time the Founders they were the only ones that could.
Suffrage was a pretty good idea in my opinion. Women should have equal rights. So there are just most people competeing, and everyone is a little more scared. And it is really not about the absence of religion, but about the human conditon and self preservation. Just a thought.
As for the ideal society envisioned by the Founders, it was not all that ideal for everyone, including women, tenant farmers, non-land owning men, etc.
When you no longer believe in the Government, which is We The People, and when you are joined by a greater number of people, only then will our freedoms be truly lost.
Do not despair, avoid speculation, have faith, yes have faith, and always speak the truth.
Good advice. I must say, though, that some speculation, based on experience and the facts at hand, is not only a good idea, but vital to the preservation of this great nation.
no surprise that you would say this…are there any MALE girl scout troop leaders?? oh then they discriminate…but since they’re OK with lesbians they don’t discriminate…some pigs are more equal than others…
so to you the government can decide who ‘discriminates’ and who is punished for that ‘discrimination’
you have bought the gay line hook line and sinker…
you don’t care about freedom obviously, all you care about is advancing the gay agenda.
the boy scouts HAVE lost freedom…the freedom to meet where other groups that the government approves of meet. so you have no problem with the government deciding upon the right type of association or beleifs for groups.
again you are a fascist…ie a nazi.
not true.
again we see your fascist nature…do what the government tells you or suffer the consequences…why should the govenment be in any position to tell any group what to believe or not believe???
not true, the catholic charities NO longer operate in MA.
calling you a fascist is accurate…and talk about reading comprehension…laughable.
I don’t know, I assume they have a few medicare patients…but what does that have to do with anything?? I doubt medicare or medicaid pays for fertility services…
so you’re saying that as long as you get a direct, or indirect, government payment at any time, the government OWNS you…so if they give you a tax break, they OWN you.
this case is very clear, but not to someone like you who cannot stand anyone who dares go against the gay lobby.
again you are a fascist.
pretty much everything you have written is NOT TRUE.
you are unfamiliar with this whole debate, but follow the gay agenda very closely.
thats mighty white of ya…but whether the government funds someone or some organization should have nothing to do with the freedom that organization exercises…
you say you are so much for freedom..but apparently you have no problem with the government using its funding mechanism to control every aspect of our lives…and apparently to you whatever money the government lets us keep from our taxes is government funding…so the government controls all of us in every aspect of our lives…according to you.
you get to keep some of your money from taxes…and you will have to do what the government tells you.
you also get government benefits in roads, schools, libraries, etc…therefore you will have to do what the government tells you.
you are a nazi. as most of the supporters of the gay agenda are.
wiki tidbit re 14th amendment…
bet they wouldn’t pull ‘city support’ from a large conference of homosexuals!!
oh yeah some pigs ARE more equal and FREE than others….