The Politico reports:
…one of the candidates for chairman of the Republican National Committee, Saul Anuzis, had circulated news of gay support for one of his rivals, Michael Steele, to a prominent social conservative.
But soon after Anuzis used a gay Republican group’s praise to tar Steele, an Anuzis aide pitched Anuzis to the group as a tolerant moderate, according to an email exchange I obtained this afternoon.
Last November Anuzis forwarded an email praising Steele from the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay GOP group, to James Bopp, Jr., a prominent social conservative and RNC member, under the heading, “You probably saw this…” Bopp then included the email in a packet of documents apparently intended to cast Steele as too “moderate” for the chairmanship.
A month later, on December 19, an Anuzis backer, Katie Packer, exchanged email with the president of the Log Cabin Republicans, Patrick Sammon.
Sammon sought a meeting with Anuzis, and Packer apologized that he was on vacation.
“I will pass your thoughts on to Saul,” she wrote. “I think you will find him to be a very reasonable individual who does not seek to grow the party by dividing it.”
Which is the sort of inclusive language that social conservatives have been using against Steele.
So not only does he utterly fail as head of the Michigan GOP, but he talks out of both sides of his mouth. And he’s only doing it to be self-serving, anyway: he’ll bash one segment of the party to get himself elected, and then try to make nice as soon as it’s in his best interests. I ask again: why is this guy in contention?
January 29th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Because he blogs!! Isn’t that soooo cool? An old guy that blogs??
He is a total and utter failure at his job, Republicans in Michigan can’t get elected dogcathcer, and the party is in absolute shambles… But Saul blogs!!! YEAAAAHHHH!!!!!
January 29th, 2009 at 1:02 am
This is, for the most part, one sorry group of candidates. The GOP is in trouble whoever wins.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Saul knows how to twitter. And he rides a Harley. I think that’s about it.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:11 am
The real problem here is not that Saul Anuzis is being hypocritical about homosexual support, but rather that he and his people believe (and rightfully so) that showing gay support for a rival might help disqualify him.
That’s why I’m an independent now. Until these bigots no longer run the party, I won’t carry the card.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:19 am
I just watched the Chairman debate for the first time and honestly Anuzis was almost as bad as Duncan with his answers.
The guy who sounded the best was Saltsman, but the CD controversy combined with his bias towards Huckabee disqualify him. Steele and Dawson sounded next best and Dawson would be great except for the country club and the fact that he fits the GOP caricature of a Southern party.
The only guy with a real plan to expand the party is Steele. Let’s hope he really is surging as much as the previous thread indicates.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I still think that Duncan or Dawson are the best suited for the job. The Chairman of the RNC will not be the public face of the GOP. Dean wasn’t for the Dem’s after he was elected in 2005; Congressional, Senatorial, and Gubernatorial Democrats were. Duncan can raise money very well and I like his idea for a Speaker’s Bureau. Dawson has won elections even in tough years. He also has the idea of organizing in the counties, not just in the states.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:37 am
I’m not pushing for Saul (I was kinda hoping for Newt, but alas…) but its a bit of a stretch to use a supporter’s words to cast a candidate as two-faced. Anuzis didn’t say this, a backer did. If Mitt doesn’t run due to his wife’s health and for whatever reason ends up endorsing Palin, will that be a personal flip-flop for him since some of his most fervent backers find her so odious?
January 29th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I don’t think that’s quite the same.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:46 am
NewMajority.com Exclusive — Giuliani, Part 6: The GOP Comeback
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sits down with NewMajority.com’s John Avlon to discuss what needs to change for the Republican Party and how it can prevail in the next election.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:05 am
I don’t agree with using a Log Cabin Republican endorsement as a weapon against a candidate (although if someone imagines that sort of tactic is above the likes of Saltsman, I’m not sure what to say to them), but I also don’t see a backer’s words as evidence of someone’s “disgusting hypocrisy.” This is not out of some loyalty for Saul Anuzis. I think Mitt or Newt would have been better at this job, but neither ran so out of those running I lean slightly towards Steele or Blackwell, but I’m enthusiastic for none of the above.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Until these bigots no longer run the party”
So until the GOP fall in love with the socially destructive policies of the abortionist and Homosexual lobbys, you’re going to vote for the other party?
Be. My. Guest.
January 29th, 2009 at 9:38 am
So until the GOP fall in love with the socially destructive policies of the abortionist and Homosexual lobbys, you’re going to vote for the other party?
Be. My. Guest.
~8*~*~*~*~The HoMoSeCkSUL LoBbEh~*~*~*
And its nefarious AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!
And you want him to vote for the other party.
OK, then…
January 29th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“~8*~*~*~*~The HoMoSeCkSUL LoBbEh~*~*~*
And its nefarious AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!”
Which includes re-defining traditional marraige, putting the government stamp of approval on something most people find objectionable, and sending the message to our future generatiosn that there is no special value in traditional marraige and families. Not to mention brainwashing millions of American children into believing that everything they’ve been taught from parents, priests, and preachers is wrong, and that morality and values don’t matter.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Here’s my question ,would Knepper be calling it disgusting hypocrisy if Anuzis had attacked another candidate for receiving an endorsement from someone like Pat Robertson, and then reached out to Social Conservatives?
My guess is no – because its only when socially liberal causes are attacked that Alex can summon the outrage to post on the front page.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Morality is monogamy and stable relationships, which is why gay marriage should be championed by conservatives. Disallowing gay marriage encourages polygamy and instability.
Since you used the word destructive, what do you say to the fact that gay couples are statistically better educated and wealthier than the average straight couple?
And as for most people thinking it’s wrong…..that number is shrinking by the year, buddy. It’s only a matter of time before popular mandate is, like abortion, not in your favor anymore (and I’m not comfortable with abortion, mostly).
January 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Excuse me, I didn’t mean polygamy, I meant promiscuity, in my first sentence.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Saul rides a harley?
Kewl!
January 29th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Getreal,
If Romney did that, I would not be voting for the GOP nominee. It’s that simple. Not everyone walks lock step into the abyss.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Here’s my question ,would Knepper be calling it disgusting hypocrisy if Anuzis had attacked another candidate for receiving an endorsement from someone like Pat Robertson, and then reached out to Social Conservatives?
Social conservatives are part of the GOP’s base! We don’t need to “REACH OUT” to so-cons. WE ALREADY HAVE THEM. THEY are the ones who need to be doing the reaching out
January 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Which includes re-defining traditional marraige,
No, just altering to keep up with new psychological revelations. It’s not really a radical redefinition.
putting the government stamp of approval on something most people find objectionable,
Most do not.
and sending the message to our future generatiosn that there is no special value in traditional marraige and families.
NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, NO MATTER WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, GAYS WILL NEVER WANT TO MARRY WOMEN, OKAY? YOU CAN STILL GET MARRIED IF YOU WANT. JUST LET ME HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS THAT YOU DO.
Not to mention brainwashing millions of American children into believing that everything they’ve been taught from parents, priests, and preachers is wrong, and that morality and values don’t matter.
Homosexuality is not a choice and is not unnatural or evil. I don’t care how many parents teach that: it’s not true. If half the population taught their kids that Jews were evil and unnatural, you’d not support the government giving way to those parents just because it’s “their right to not have their kids ‘brainwashed’ out of what they’ve been taught” because the parents are being morons. And in the case of homosexuality, they’re being morons, too, if they teach that it’s an unnatural, evil ‘choice.’
January 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“So until the GOP fall in love with the socially destructive policies of the abortionist and Homosexual lobbys, you’re going to vote for the other party?”
Oh, Matthew, hasn’t anyone ever told you that bigotry is always on the wrong side of history? I can’t wait until 20 years from now and my children can’t believe that people like you ever dared speak up in public.
Bigotry and small-mindedness are destructive; members of the same sex loving each other isn’t.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“Not to mention brainwashing millions of American children into believing that everything they’ve been taught from parents, priests, and preachers is wrong, and that morality and values don’t matter.
Homosexuality is not a choice and is not unnatural or evil. I don’t care how many parents teach that: it’s not true. If half the population taught their kids that Jews were evil and unnatural, you’d not support the government giving way to those parents just because it’s “their right to not have their kids ‘brainwashed’ out of what they’ve been taught” because the parents are being morons. And in the case of homosexuality, they’re being morons, too, if they teach that it’s an unnatural, evil ‘choice.’”
If we follow Matthew’s “logic” is a natural conclusion, schools wouldn’t teach ANYTHING because it might contradict what a child has been taught by his/her family.
This is why we have home-schooling; if you’re opposed to the curriculum in public schools, teach your kids yourself. No one is infringing upon your right to impart bigotry; the government just isn’t going to do it for you.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
In 20 years, when Matthew has grown up, he’ll probably be a decent human being. He’ll meet people who are different from himself, and grow to understand that “different” doesn’t mean “bad”. He’ll be embarrassed that he used to spew such hate.
Or at least so I hope.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
“In 20 years, when Matthew has grown up, he’ll probably be a decent human being. He’ll meet people who are different from himself, and grow to understand that “different” doesn’t mean “bad”. He’ll be embarrassed that he used to spew such hate.
Or at least so I hope.”
You hope I abandon any since of moral right and wrong?
I know gay people, I like Gay people – but that doesn’t mean I approve of their lifestyle, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I want the Government forcing people to approve of Gay Marraige – and sending the message that straight marraige has no particular value.
—-
And no, I don’t think that not recognizing Gay Marraige is going to make gay people become straight…
But I DO believe that it will reduce, in the long term, the number of traditional marriages, and do serious damage to the American family. Once we start approving of Gay Marriage, we have to start approving of EVERY kind of union – polygamy, marriage between siblings and other close family members, even marriage to animals or machines. It sounds absurd now, but where do you plan to draw the line – if not at the traditional, natural family?
And if we start approving of every lifestyle under the sun, how are we supposed to send the message to children (not necessarily anyone alive today or tomorrow, but in the future) that we want them to get married (to a member of the opposite sex) and have families? That’s the question I want answered. You want to approve of anything and everything, with no boundaries, limits, or morals? Then how do you encourage people to join the only kind of relationships that actually provide a return benefit to society?
The less value marriage has, the fewer people who are going to get married. That means fewer families, smaller families, and more single parent homes. We’ll become like Europe – where our birth rate can’t sustain the population, and where the kids that are born aren’t in stable families. What did one of the candidates say during the debate? That some Euro countries have out-of-wedlock births that account for 80% of all children? Is that the future you want for our country?
—-
“Bigotry and small-mindedness are destructive; members of the same sex loving each other isn’t.”
No, but damage to the traditional family most certainly is.
—
“Oh, Matthew, hasn’t anyone ever told you that bigotry is always on the wrong side of history?”
And amoralism hasn’t?
—
January 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Look, one of you value-bashers explain to me how we can approve of Gay Marriage while still sending the message to kids that we want them to enter into traditional unions when they get older.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“Once we start approving of Gay Marriage, we have to start approving of EVERY kind of union – polygamy, marriage between siblings and other close family members, even marriage to animals or machines.”
You don’t honestly believe that, right? I mean, we disagree, but you’re not a MORON… right?
There is no comparison between gay marriage and polygamy. We are trying to allow gay people to be married so that homosexuals can participate in the institution of marriage. It is about acknowledging both sexual orientations. It is about being able to marry someone you love. Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. It is a structural situation that is antithetical to marriage. We do not have to allow polygamist marriages to ensure that everyone has the option to marry a consenting adult whom they love. A bisexual person may marry and woman he loves or a man he loves. Homosexuality and polygamy are NOT comparable; one is an orientation, the other is an arrangement.
We don’t allow marriages between siblings or family members for the same reason that we don’t allow sex between them: there are serious genetic ramifications.
And as for animals and machines… you know the answer. They are not consenting adults. They aren’t people. This slippery slope argument that you and others cling to is so easily dismantled that you should be ashamed. Allowing gay people to marry DOES NOT, WILL NOT, NEVER HAS logically extended to allowing polygamists, siblings, minors, horses, robots, etc. marry.
But if we use YOUR logic, Matthew, divorce should be illegal. Having children out of wedlock should be illegal.
LIVING IN A FREE COUNTRY MEANS WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT AREN’T GOOD FOR SOCIETY. THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FREE COUNTRY AND AN AUTHORITARIAN ONE.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“Look, one of you value-bashers explain to me how we can approve of Gay Marriage while still sending the message to kids that we want them to enter into traditional unions when they get older.”
A) I’m not a value-bashers. Well, I take that back. I am always in favor of bashing bigotry and spite. Those are values, too.
B) Matthew, allowing gay and straight people to marry communicates to our children that marriage is so important, so holy that it’s a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT for all Americans. That’s is a bedrock principle of such seismic importance that heterosexuals and homosexuals should be a part of it. It imparts cohesion, inclusion, stability. It encourages monogamy and nuclear structure.
The only people who think the notion of gay marriage pisses all over the institution of straight marriage are homophobes, Matthew. No one else cares. States have voted against gay marriage not because they’re homophobic, but because large numbers of people are ambivalent, and consequently err on the side of the familiar. The polling numbers regarding approval of gay marriage are swinging. Face it – this country is going to have gay marriage sooner rather than later. And we fully invite you to move to Canada when it happens.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“psychological revelations. It’s not really a radical redefinition. ”
Its moral relativism of the most extreme kind – redefining one of the oldest institutions alive to satisfy a small minority with no return benefit to society, and, likely, damage to traditional social institutions that are the foundation of our society…
—-
“Morality is monogamy and stable relationships, which is why gay marriage should be championed by conservatives. Disallowing gay marriage encourages polygamy and instability.”
It may encourage a few gays to get married rather than have multiple partners – though certainly, Gays are just as capable of cheating, and, fair or not, there will likely be fewer things to keep a Gay man or woman in a union than their straight counterpart.
But I think allowing Gay Marriage will do more to damage marriage and families…as I said above, allowing Gay Marraige puts America on an extremely slippery slope to being forced to recognize ANY kind of union. Eventually, that means looking at unmarried couples the same as married couples – which will significantly reduce pressure for people to actually legally join themselves.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
BUT HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT TRADITIONAL UNIONS ARE THE BEST, MOST BENEFICIAL THING?
You, like every other Gay-Marriage advocate, ignores that question. To continue to be a strong country, we need people to get married to members of the opposite sex, and have kids. You may not like that fact, but its the way things work. No families, no kids. No kids, no country.
And that is one of my biggest problems with Gay Marriage…it destroys, in my mind, the message that Society does and should send to children – that traditional marriage is special and important, and should be a goal of all individuals.
We can’t say “We want you to go and get married to a member of the opposite sex and have kids, but, whatever you want is fine.”
PERIOD.
====
“There is no comparison between gay marriage and polygamy.”
Yes there is – they are both lifestyle choices. Participating in Gay Marraige, engaging in a Gay relationship IS A CHOICE – even if the urges that drive someone to do so are not (I personally do not have an opinion on this, nor do I much care.)
====
“We don’t allow marriages between siblings or family members for the same reason that we don’t allow sex between them: there are serious genetic ramifications.”
Only if they have kids, and, apparently, the ability to have families is no longer a consideration in who should be permitted to marry since Gays can’t have kids of any kind, healthy or otherwise.
====
“And as for animals and machines… you know the answer. They are not consenting adults.”
Since when is consent necessary from a machine? And Animals are most certainly capable of consent – ever met a dog that didn’t “consent” to you being on his property?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
MatthewK, you fail to realize that you can’t justly force society what it will teach. Back in the Good Ol’ Days(tm), society was much smaller. Society was much more likely to share your personal values. It was easier just to set your kids free.
Today, society is the Internet, media, celebrities, etc. Instilling your own values in your children is more critical than ever.
-HOWEVER-, you have no right to force gov’t or our society to be a reflection of your own distinct values. Since when have we ever wanted the gov’t to be the source of our morals, anyway?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
HOW DO WE CONTINUE TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT TRADITIONAL UNIONS ARE THE BEST, MOST BENEFICIAL THING?
The exact same way you teach children about faith, honesty, or integrity. YOU PERSONALLY TEACH THEM YOURSELF AND YOU LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Guys, marriage isn’t recognized by the gov’t for the purpose of recognizing love between two people. Marriage is recognized for the purpose of promoting the envisioned ideal situation for the raising of the next generation. The reason that this image is promoted is to encourage it because society needs this in order to continue.
Now, all that said, where does that leave us with same sex marriage (I know it’s easier to say “gay” than “same sex,” but the latter’s more accurate than the former)? I would argue that there is definitely a societal reason to approve of civil unions at this point, as there are inhumane circumstances of denial of hospital visitations and inheritance that likely will not be resolved any other way. I see no reason (yet) to change the definition of marriage, however, so I oppose that step.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“you have no right to force gov’t or our society to be a reflection of your own distinct values”
And Gays and abortionists do? The government is GOING to support a certain set of values – either amoralism and “whatever makes you happy” libertarianism, or social conservatism and traditional families. The question isn’t whether government will endorse a particular value set, but exactly WHICH set it will be.
—-
“Since when have we ever wanted the gov’t to be the source of our morals, anyway?”
Since all of the other things you just mentioned started standing in contrast to the social values that most people supported. Since America started on the self-destructive path of moral decline. Since people like Knepper started insisting that we use Government to push a set of values against what most people believe.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
use Government to push a set of values against what most people believe.
Stop using the gov’t as a teacher. You know very well that some day you’ll be in the minority. If you’ve been relying on the gov’t to teach your children, you’ll be screwed.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“YOU PERSONALLY TEACH THEM YOURSELF AND YOU LEAD BY EXAMPLE.”
Because in the age of mass media, the internet, and celebrities, the 6-7 hours a day that kids see their parents are CERTAINLY the only thing that impacts children…
—
“I would argue that there is definitely a societal reason to approve of civil unions at this point, as there are inhumane circumstances of denial of hospital visitations and inheritance that likely will not be resolved any other way. I see no reason (yet) to change the definition of marriage, however, so I oppose that step.”
And I would agree – provided any new institution is open to Straight couples who don’t want to get married as well. But what you will find is that most Gay-Marriage advocated are unwilling to compromise. They won’t rest until Traditional marriage has been redefined beyond all recognition and we have been stripped of any mechanism by which to encouage traditional families.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“If you’ve been relying on the gov’t to teach your children, you’ll be screwed.”
Yet you are perfectly happy having others use the government as the teacher?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
man, you don’t have any more right to use gov’t to force your values upon others than gays have to use gov’t to force their values upon you. how hard is that to understand?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
You know what’s really funny about you, Matthew? You’re a liberal at heart. You’re for big government in the biggest way possible – you want the government to oversee social engineering. You want the GOVERNMENT, not individual, sovereign citizens, to arbitrate values. You want the government to tell us how to live, how to structure our lives, etc.
You want the biggest, most monstrously intrusive government imaginable.
And, BTW, excellent job assiduously ignoring virtually all of my arguments, including my response to your overarching questions. And ignoring my all-caps summation about the difference between freedom and authoritarianism.
“Since people like Knepper started insisting that we use Government to push a set of values against what most people believe.”
You should read some Madison, Matthew. Especially his writings about tyranny of the majority. I’ll give the you gist: JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE IN THE MAJORITY DOES MAKE YOU MORALLY RIGHT.
This is not about pushing values. It’s about letting consenting adults do as they please. Your ability to get married is unaffected. And, frankly, it isn’t the government’s job to convince people to get married. Those are private decisions.
I’d also really like to see you address my question about outlawing divorce and having children outside of wedlock. If they have such a corrosive affect on society, and if government should be involved in such matters, who do we allow it?
January 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Um,
Some would argue that the benefits of traditional marriage do not need to be Lobbyied for within our own family. Such as I probably will not have to Looby my children to be Christians, or my neighbor will not have to Lobby his children to be Jewish.
Matthew, your line of reasoning and thought are merely away to cover up your bigoted view of anyone differnet than you.
It really is sad when you peice together the string of aruguments you make to “support” your views on marriage.
January 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“And I would agree – provided any new institution is open to Straight couples who don’t want to get married as well. But what you will find is that most Gay-Marriage advocated are unwilling to compromise. They won’t rest until Traditional marriage has been redefined beyond all recognition and we have been stripped of any mechanism by which to encouage traditional families.”
You love straw men, don’t you?
Answer me this, Matthew: if your best friend told you he was certainly, decidedly, incontrovertibly gay, would you keep being friends with him? I’m curious.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“And, frankly, it isn’t the government’s job to convince people to get married.”
The government should encourage that which is good for the country – AND THAT INCLUDES TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES AND STRUCTURE.
—
“I’d also really like to see you address my question about outlawing divorce and having children outside of wedlock.”
You can’t outlaw having children out of wedlock. Its simply not possible. As for divorce, it is too easy to get a divorce in this country. You don’t ban it, but breaking up a family should be harder…
—
“Some would argue that the benefits of traditional marriage do not need to be Lobbyied for within our own family. Such as I probably will not have to Looby my children to be Christians, or my neighbor will not have to Lobby his children to be Jewish.”
You don’t do anything and your kids magically become good Christians? Of course not – you take them to church, you send then to Sunday school, you pray with them, you teach them Christian values. That is lobbying for Christianity.
—
“Answer me this, Matthew: if your best friend told you he was certainly, decidedly, incontrovertibly gay, would you keep being friends with him? I’m curious.”
Of course – but that doesn’t mean that I would support his lifestyle. I have gay family and friends. I have atheist friends. I have liberal friends. I even have friends who supported Huckabee. I’m still friends with all of them.
My opposition to Gay Marriage has nothing to do with a personal hate for homosexuals, and everything to do with my concerns about the Government endorsing a lifestyle I believe to be wrong and damaging to the country.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Government endorsing a lifestyle
it’s not endorsing anything. it’s simply a result of the idea that it’s not the goverment’s job to teach about homosexuality.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
#42 “it’s not endorsing anything.”
Actually, it is. Any time a gov’t gives special perks to people for specific behavior, it’s an endorsement. The gov’t endorses churches and non-profit organization, among many other things. Granting benefits to same sex couples is, in fact, endorsing same sex unions.
I will agree with MatthewK on one item here. It is certainly too easy to get a divorce, and it’s also too easy to get married (and this from a guy who eloped!). You only need to see Brittany Spears to realize the truth of that statement. She, and dozens (or hundreds) of Hollywood actors, are probably the single biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage in this country today.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Can someone please tell me how Larry and Tom getting hitched makes me less likely to marry my wife?
January 29th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
“Of course – but that doesn’t mean that I would support his lifestyle. I have gay family and friends. I have atheist friends. I have liberal friends. I even have friends who supported Huckabee. I’m still friends with all of them.”
Good. I know people who argue against gay marriage who, when you get down to nitty-gritty, wouldn’t want to associate with gay people.
It helps me take your argument seriously to know that it’s not just you having a vendetta against “the gays”. It won’t do one iota to make me agree with you, but you know…
January 29th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“I will agree with MatthewK on one item here. It is certainly too easy to get a divorce, and it’s also too easy to get married (and this from a guy who eloped!). You only need to see Brittany Spears to realize the truth of that statement. She, and dozens (or hundreds) of Hollywood actors, are probably the single biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage in this country today.”
See, here’s my thing. I agree that divorce is a HUGE problem, way, way more of a threat to marriage, stability, values, etc. than gay marriage could EVER be.
However, and this is a HUGE however, it’s an issue of freedom. If people no longer want to be married, it’s their freedom to end it. Creating impediments to divorce, however much we may like the outcome, infringes upon citizens’ freedom to associate and disassociate with one another as they wish. These are small, everyday liberties, but they’re the difference between us and every other country on earth.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“Can someone please tell me how Larry and Tom getting hitched makes me less likely to marry my wife?”
It doesn’t, but it could send the message to the children of the future that alternative lifestyles are completely equal to traditional marriage. That leads, inevitably, to fewer marriages.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
That doesn’t make sense, 47. Those other lifestyles are still monogamous marriages. Kids aren’t going to go gay because others are. It’s an innate trait.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
“Those other lifestyles are still monogamous marriages.”
Its my belief that, as I said, Gay Marriage leads to a slippery slope which will mean forced recognition of all kinds of unions, which eventually means treating unmarried couples living together the same as married couples. In my mind, with all negative feelings towards that removed, more people will be drawn to the “unmarried, living together” option.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
#46 “However, and this is a HUGE however, it’s an issue of freedom.”
Well, I think it’s more an issue of benefits received from the gov’t. If you are to receive a benefit for your action, there should be restrictions placed on it. It’s not an issue of associations, which can be had with or without gov’t recognition.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
That leads, inevitably, to fewer marriages.
Proof?
January 29th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
While you’re talking slippery slope, why don’t we have the gov’t enforce other morals? e.g. adultery should be outlawed, as should fornication, etc etc etc.
Well?
January 29th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“But mommy, the guvverment says it’s okay for gay people to marry, so that means I should be gay…”
“But mommy, the guvverment says it’s okay for people to have premarital sex, so that means I can do it too…”
January 29th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
That’s a good point. Matt, should adultery, or women working outside the home be outlawed since they inevitably lead to more divorces?
Cough…there’s actual evidence for my points…cough.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
““But mommy, the guvverment says it’s okay for gay people to marry, so that means I should be gay…”
“But mommy, the guvverment says it’s okay for people to have premarital sex, so that means I can do it too…””
Replace “government” with “media” and tell me if the statement still sounds as crazy – not on the Gay thing, but the other one…
January 29th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
I think what this post is making clear is that it’s very, very difficult to logically sustain this particular argument against gay marriage without also arguing that the gov’t ban divorce, premarital sex, adultery, illegitimate childbirth, etc…