Tea Party is still effective

[Guest bkelm18]

Joe Conservative: "Down with Big Government! Less Gov't intrusion on our lives!!!.... Gay marriage???? Hell no, lets regulate the #### outta that and pass as many laws as we can to make it illegal."

Hypocrites down to the core. Gay agenda? Give me a ####ing break. I guess equality has become an agenda.

Edited May 10, 2012 by bkelm18

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I thought you were more logical than that, Spock. You say they are treated unequally. Hell, they have more rights than you

or I. If they want to get married, they can say their make believe "I do's" in their own privacy. I really don't care what they do.

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything that gives them the right to something that has traditionally never been

there. Marriage, in general, is not in there, either. If people in the states choose not to condone something, you want to call

them hypocrites? I think they have every right to oppose something as much as a gay has to challenge it. This is between the

churches and the people, maybe the states, but not the federal government.

Yes, it is an agenda, but not by the gays. This wasn't an issue until fairly recently. It is an agenda by some to destroy the

family unit. Obama even brought it back in the foray today, by stating he was for it.

You are calling some hypocrites when you are being hypocritical yourself by wishing they have no say in the matter being the

hypocrites they must be. If it were so hypocritical, why don't those opposing see it, too?

"You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you." Wilkow is dead right with his statement.

[Oh Shoot]

...This is between the churches and the people, maybe the states, but not the federal government....

Problem is, gay "married" couples have more or lesser rights depending on state they reside. And NONE have same federal rights awarded to hetero married couples. The federal government WILL eventually have to make a constitutional ruling on this, on discrimination basis.

I think it will come down to more controversial issue than 2A, which of course is actually quite clear cut, just not adjudicated that way.

At any rate, I can't see any way it can stay a states' right issue forever, with some allowing it and most not; it's too basic an issue.

- OS

Edited May 10, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest bkelm18]

I thought you were more logical than that, Spock. You say they are treated unequally. Hell, they have more rights than you

or I. If they want to get married, they can say their make believe "I do's" in their own privacy. I really don't care what they do.

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything that gives them the right to something that has traditionally never been

there. Marriage, in general, is not in there, either. If people in the states choose not to condone something, you want to call

them hypocrites? I think they have every right to oppose something as much as a gay has to challenge it. This is between the

churches and the people, maybe the states, but not the federal government.

Yes, it is an agenda, but not by the gays. This wasn't an issue until fairly recently. It is an agenda by some to destroy the

family unit. Obama even brought it back in the foray today, by stating he was for it.

You are calling some hypocrites when you are being hypocritical yourself by wishing they have no say in the matter being the

hypocrites they must be. If it were so hypocritical, why don't those opposing see it, too?

"You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you." Wilkow is dead right with his statement.

The logical thing would be affording all people equal rights. The hypocrisy is the very people who want more freedom and less government are the first ones to come out and say it should be illegal. I was not being hypocrital at all. I was simply stating a fact. Conservatives are the major driving force to make homosexuality illegal. And if you honestly believe homosexuals have more rights than you or I, you've been smokin' something. If you don't want gays to marry, that's fine, then remove all social and economic benefts that lawful marriage affords. Make marriage "just a union".

Edited May 10, 2012 by bkelm18

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hate crimes legislation applies to gays as well as blacks in opposition to whites, which is the most blatant example I can think of.

i haven't been smoking anything. You have taken the argument that has been intended all along. I said earlier, this was not an

issue until recently, and so let's take an institution that some consider sacred and water it down to include a group that has not

traditionally had any interest in it. That sounds to me like another version of distributive tactics.

I just heard an interesting discussion about this on Hannity(it happened to be on, okay?) between Michelle Malkin and Juan Williams.

Juan was arguing that polls cite this to be a huge issue in favor. Michelle stated that 32 states have voted against it. If you wish poll

mentality in your argument, then what about the 64% who disagree with you? Those who actually voted on it, even Cali went against.

There are people desperately trying to make this an issue when it shouldn't be, for political gain.

I agree. All people have the same rights as you or I. Marriage is not a right afforded by the constitution and shouldn't be placed in

that category. This issue doesn't just break down political lines. Blacks in California(overwhelmingly Democrat) overwhelmingly voted

against this. I think Hispanics were in the same category. I don't see that as an hypocrisy. Pretty liberal state to me.

Why should I be the one to remove something because someone else wants something from me? They can have their civil unions.

I don't care, but there are those that don't wish marriage to change. Why do you want to diminish an institution for a group, for the sake

of others when they can get the same benefit without that? My marriage is based on my belief in God, my wife and myself. You don't

have the right to interfere in that, and I don't really think the government does, either. I don't remember what your beliefs are, but in

a civil society, religion notwithstanding, people respect each other. I respect your opinion, but I disagree. and I don't consider myself

a hypocrite. If the government wishes to take away from me to benefit a gay marriage, they're going to have to have a majority voting

for it.

OS, I understand that to be a problem, too. Remember when Reagan said that tidbit about being able to move to another state if you

don't like the way the state you're in does things? It may not be perfect, but it may have to be a solution until society changes dramatically.

and I don't mean the internet society, because the people I see and talk to shed a different light on things than when they may be behind

the guise of the internet. not you or I because we are actually discussing this, and I think rationally. A lot of this can easily be perpetuated

on the internet.

i really do think this issue is a detractor and not as serious as it is sometimes posed. the racism, the gays, the 99%'ers, the 1%'ers, Occupy

this, Occupy that, unions fighting to throw out a successful governor, the SOS crap from Soros, and on and on. All this stuff is a form of

"useful idiots" and is throwing our people against each other. Nothing good can come out of it.

[diablo982]

The solution to this problem isn't banning gay marriage, the solution is getting the Government out of marriage licenses altogether. Why exactly does the Federal, State or Local government need to be involved in marriage to begin with? If we completely do away with government involvement in marriage, then government looses the power to regulate which marriages you will or will not recognize, giving you your freedom back, at the same time allowing whom ever wants to get married to call themselves married.

Good idea. Then I could go ahead and marry my eleven year-old niece.

[mav]

I don't remember what your beliefs are,,,

Whatever OhShoot's beliefs are at the time.

Damn, there I go opening my big mouth. Sorry.

[Guest bkelm18]

The problem is that social conservatives (mostly Christians) want to control people's lives just as much as socially liberal progressives... It's because we've lost sight of the ROOT cause of the problem...

The problem that you run into is a fairly simple one... people are scared of having gay marriage forced on them... run a business, have a religious issue with gay marriage... doesn't matter if they have a valid state marriage license you must provide health insurance to the spouse... So while the gay marriage license gives freedom to one group, in our current situation it takes freedom away from another.

The solution to this problem isn't banning gay marriage, the solution is getting the Government out of marriage licenses altogether. Why exactly does the Federal, State or Local government need to be involved in marriage to begin with? If we completely do away with government involvement in marriage, then government looses the power to regulate which marriages you will or will not recognize, giving you your freedom back, at the same time allowing whom ever wants to get married to call themselves married.

Force people to focus on the root cause... get rid of it, and freedom will be restored.

Ah some common sense.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, I agree the federal government shouldn't have their paws in my marriage or anyone else's, but I don't accept this

as an issue except for divisive politics and letting other, more important issues be resolved. I detect a kind of "touchy-feely"

attitude from some that's not necessary. What ever happened to rugged individualism? I'll use that in lieu of religion so

as not to incense those with other beliefs.

Look, I'm sure we will disagree on this "issue" that some claim it is and I don't, until pigs fly, but what is it going to do good

to argue something into hypocrisy, an "issue" like this, when there are serious problems facing this country? I have some

gay friends, my wife does, also. Neither of us have heard this "issue" with any great roar from any of those gay friends.

As far as I'm concerned, the American people have spoken, and they disagree. Call them all hypocrites, if you wish.Damned

near a 2/3 majority disagrees.

Somehow or another this topic got screwed into the Tea Party being successful. I really wish that wasn't the case. It's the attitude

that somehow gay marriage is so damned important that because of these types of disagreements, we are willing to let our country

fall. It may become a serious enough of a distraction that some might be sorry they allowed it to overcome their sensibilities.

[Oh Shoot]

...OS, I understand that to be a problem, too. Remember when Reagan said that tidbit about being able to move to another state if you

don't like the way the state you're in does things? It may not be perfect, but it may have to be a solution until society changes dramatically...

Prob is, a "gay marriage" state can legislate things like inheritance, child custody, maybe even credit and insurance rules for firms operating within it's borders, but residing in such state, one still can't get the same federal benefits from a gay marriage as from a hetero one.

i really do think this issue is a detractor and not as serious as it is sometimes posed.

Well, seems that the US is 8-10% gay. That's not only a significant percentage, but an absolute pile of folks in actual numbers.

I'd say the first Supreme Court case would simply be legally married couple in NYS, the surviving spouse doesn't get SSI benefits, or military bennies, whatever. Could be something really esoteric like spouse compelled to testify against spouse in federal case, etc.

If O gets to load the SCOTUS I think it's safe to say which way they'll rule -- all those state amendments proclaiming no same sex marriage become toilet paper.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

Whatever OhShoot's beliefs are at the time.

Damn, there I go opening my big mouth. Sorry.

Really not accurate assessment at all, methinks ... Bkelm has long history of consistent POV on a variety of subjects on TGO, been here longer than moi matter of fact.

I'll admit he and I are probably more similar than not as being generally federally conservative yet socially liberal and religiously skeptical, but don't think either has ever convinced the other of anything at all.

- OS

[Guest ThePunisher]

Proof that evolution is not just a theory. Obama has evolved into believing and supporting " same sex marriage ". Hell, even the communist today are accepting homosexuals into the party. Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin are rolling over in their graves.

[Mark@Sea]

Say, guys, while you're busy picking out tunes for the band, I've kind of noticed the water is rising.

Demographicly, the number one group standing against homosexual marriage are blacks. Not noted as a terribly conservative group. The state that just passed a 'defense of marriage' amendment? North Carolina. Not usually seen as a hotbed of republicans. Neither is California... let us ignore these insignificant facts and pin the blame on conservative Christians.

But really, this is important? I mean, compared to the economy, unemployment, imploding state budgets, impending hyperinflation and the death of the dollar, a DOJ that is selectively enforcing, ignoring or making up laws as it sees fit, the TSA/DHS morphing into something that in a bad light is beginning to look like the east german stasi, a president determined to destroy capitalism, a democratic caucus that is openly communist, a drive to subjugate US sovereignity to the UN...

Edited May 10, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[Guest bkelm18]

Really not accurate assessment at all, methinks ... Bkelm has long history of consistent POV on a variety of subjects on TGO, been here longer than moi matter of fact.

I'll admit he and I are probably more similar than not as being generally federally conservative yet socially liberal and religiously skeptical, but don't think either has ever convinced the other of anything at all.

- OS

Yeah... what he said.

[Guest bkelm18]

Say, guys, while you're busy picking out tunes for the band, I've kind of noticed the water is rising.

Demographicly, the number one group standing against homosexual marriage are blacks. Not noted as a terribly conservative group. The state that just passed a 'defense of marriage' amendment? North Carolina. Not usually seen as a hotbed of republicans. Neither is California... let us ignore these insignificant facts and pin the blame on conservative Christians.

But really, this is important? I mean, compared to the economy, unemployment, imploding state budgets, impending hyperinflation and the death of the dollar, a DOJ that is selectively enforcing, ignoring or making up laws as it sees fit, the TSA/DHS morphing into something that in a bad light is beginning to look like the east german stasi, a president determined to destroy capitalism, a democratic caucus that is openly communist, a drive to subjugate US sovereignity to the UN...

Oh ignorance and homophobia run rampant on both sides, don't get me wrong. It doesn't all have to do with political affiliations, but historically speaking, one side does have a larger slice of pie than the other.

[Guest bkelm18]

As far as I'm concerned, the American people have spoken, and they disagree. Call them all hypocrites, if you wish.Damned

near a 2/3 majority disagrees.

I guess that's the crux of the issue. Some people find it okay to deny people various rights just because the majority say so. Hows the old saying go? The needs of the many shall not outweigh the needs of the few?

[Worriedman]

The gay marriage thing is the most giant of all straw men. It reeks of furthering government control of every facet of life. Concerns about "benefits" simply buys into the Nanny State mentality. If one is concerned about gifting on personal property in a manner consistent with one's wishes, perfect a will.

This whole discussion is achieving the aim of the administration, obfuscation of issues of merit. As long as we are focused on such topics, we are NOT paying attention to the man behind the curtain...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's what I've been trying to say, Worriedman. Some people use that homophobe crap to instill guilt.

Spock , "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs" is the correct communist

attitude. Hollywood's version, which you may have sarcastically stated incorrectly, when it was used in the film,

was Hollywood's version of altruism. Some higher order rewarded him in a later film, touching. Entertainment's

ability to mock the real world.

I don't think it is denying anyone anything, but if they really wanted marriage for the same reasons, they should

not play the "victims" and let liberals take advantage of them like they do, because communism will be much

worse for them in the end than "white religious conservatives" and "black religious liberals". It's amazing how

such different groups can agree something is wrong with something. Our country was not founded on us as a

group of people felling sorry for others, it was rather of escaping a King's tyranny and taxation.

If you take from one to give to another, all you are is a bastardized version of Robin Hood, otherwise known as

a socialist, which is what the liberals have been making him out to be for years. What happened to earning your

own way?

OS, I've heard the percentage of gays being around that figure and other ones higher and lower. I doubt anyone

really knows. This issue will probably never go away until Ron Paul is reincarnated after the space accident and

is made president of Libertopia when he grows up and makes everything legal. I doubt you and I will be around to

enjoy this great level of enlightenment, will we?

I still say this is politics only.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess that's the crux of the issue. Some people find it okay to deny people various rights just because the majority say so. Hows the old saying go? The needs of the many shall not outweigh the needs of the few?

Yep, mob rule at it's finest. At least it wasn't a phony NYT/CNN poll trying to make you and I believe something, when, in fact,

it's something else entirely. A majority believe differently than you, so they are denying because you think a certain way? What

if it's you that is wrong? Speech is a strange thing, I guess.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Robin Roberts said she gets chills up her side when Obama spoke out in favor of same sex marriage. I guess Chris Matthews got another thrill up his leg. Anybody else get chills and thrills?

[Oh Shoot]

Robin Roberts said she gets chills up her side when Obama spoke out in favor of same sex marriage. I guess Chris Matthews got another thrill up his leg. Anybody else get chills and thrills?

I've been getting a throbbing every time I see or hear him for a long time now.

As in migraine.

- OS

[MacGyver]

Well...Obama has finally done the GOP a favor. With one statement he's done more for "getting conservatives behind Romney" than the whole GOP establishment has been able to muster combined.

It's a gutsy, kind of expected move on Obama's part that I expect will have little affect come November. Despite maybe getting a portion of his base fired up, he's failing to realize that for the American public, this election is about the economy. Period.

Hopefully Romney is smarter than to swing at this pitch. While I won't believe that until I see it, this is one way that we're better off with Romney than Santorum. Santorum couldn't have resisted this one, and it wouldn't have worked out well for him.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Well...Obama has finally done the GOP a favor. With one statement he's done more for "getting conservatives behind Romney" than the whole GOP establishment has been able to muster combined.

It's a gutsy, kind of expected move on Obama's part that I expect will have little affect come November. Despite maybe getting a portion of his base fired up, he's failing to realize that for the American public, this election is about the economy. Period.

Hopefully Romney is smarter than to swing at this pitch. While I won't believe that until I see it, this is one way that we're better off with Romney than Santorum. Santorum couldn't have resisted this one, and it wouldn't have worked out well for him.

Romney's opposition to same sex marriage will unite the GOP base, and especially in the swing states that Romney needs to win the election.

[Oh Shoot]

Romney's opposition to same sex marriage will unite the GOP base, and especially in the swing states that Romney needs to win the election.

Not necessarily. Gay marriage/legal union is basically a 50/50 opinion now nationwide. And that doesn't split right down GOP/Dem party line by a long shot.

Blacks and Hispanics, for example, poll strongly against it as a group, yet are 90% Dem voters too, and they'll probably continue to be. Who knows how many who are going to vote GOP really give a crap one way or the other about gay marriage. I don't, for example. I'd say it's inevitable that it will come to fruition eventually, but certainly not an issue to vote on alone.

Though O may have seen it as re-cementing his base, all in all I don't expect it to have all that much affect on the election, probably changed about equal numbers of minds on each side and not that great of numbers at that.

Actually, the whole thing is rather odd the way the week played out, hard to tell how much was planned vs spontaneity re Biden and O either one, lots of usually adamant commentators sorta scratching their heads over this one. I agree, difficult to ascribe exact tactics here if all was choreographed according to plan.

- OS

Edited May 11, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest ThePunisher]

Not necessarily. Gay marriage/legal union is basically a 50/50 opinion now nationwide. And that doesn't split right down GOP/Dem party line by a long shot.

Blacks and Hispanics, for example, poll strongly against it as a group, yet are 90% Dem voters too, and they'll probably continue to be. Who knows how many who are going to vote GOP really give a crap one way or the other about gay marriage. I don't, for example. I'd say it's inevitable that it will come to fruition eventually, but certainly not an issue to vote on alone.

Though O may have seen it as re-cementing his base, all in all I don't expect it to have all that much affect on the election, probably changed about equal numbers of minds on each side and not that great of numbers at that.

- OS

The North Carolina results of the same sex marriage vote might be a preview for winning some of the swing states. Obama barely won in NC in 2008 and NC is considered one of the swing states that is important for Romney to defeat Obama. The Dems are crying about the NC result, and are threatening to move the convention out of Charlotte. But the election will ultimately be decided by" It's about the economy and we're not stupid ".