McConnell: Congress can't roll back gay marriage decision
Mitch McConnell: This SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is the law of the land and there’s not much we can do
They also risk criminal official misconduct charges, said Warren County Attorney Ann Milliken, president of the Kentucky County Attorneys Association. The misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, is committed when a public servant “refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”
Other definition: I'm a spineless wimp and have no taste for a battle. 888what
The misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail, is committed when a public servant “refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”
McConnell added, "What I worry about at this point is the potential problems with regard to religious liberty. … There's a possibility of legislation, but I think most of this is going to be in the courts."
McConnell's right: gay marriage is the law of the land and is supported by the majority of the country and it would be foolhardy to spend any time at all trying to overturn the SC.
BS! How the hell do you know that gay marriage is supported by the majority of the country? Because some POLL says so???
Not just some poll, almost every poll:
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)
Having a strong opinion on an issue is one thing; refusing to believe any evidence to the contrary is yet another.
"Ted Cruz says Supreme Court on same-sex marriage is out of step with public, but polls don’t agree":
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/01/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-out-/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/01/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-out-/)
My brother, I am willing to bet the majority of Americans simply don't care either way any more.
That skews the numbers - if you really don't give a toss either way and you are surveyed, you'll give the answer that makes you look like you belong to the herd. You know well that people are timid about standing for anything, never mind standing against what they see as the current.
:shrug:
Yep! Polls constructed to DRIVE opinions on the subject rather than measure them! I do not believe for one second that the majority of Americans support gay marriage!
People don't care because they see that it's not going to affect them personally. They looked around at states that had approved gay marriage and saw that nothing had changed. Most people have a live-and-let-live attitude, so that's why there's no massive outcry after last Friday.
Forcing churches and religious institutions to PERFORM gay weddings is something else and there will be major pushback to that. But that's where Big Gay will be going next.
Did you ever look at any of the questions on any of those polls?
No I haven't because I know what they are doing and don't see the need.
I have however noticed that some people around here seem really intent on helping them.
Helping what or who?
So let me know if I understand. You don't pay any attention to any poll because they are all phony and the questions designed to elicit a particular answer. But you've never looked at any of the questions. And you know what most Americans want. Johnny Carson...eat your heart out! :smokin:
NO! You don't understand or are being purposefully obtuse. I've been in the game long enough to know how polling is used to push an issue like this but if you want to believe that the majority of the American people are in favor of Gay marriage help yourself. I don't care.
Helping what or who?
So let me know if I understand. You don't pay any attention to any poll because they are all phony and the questions designed to elicit a particular answer. But you've never looked at any of the questions. And you know what most Americans want. Johnny Carson...eat your heart out! :smokin:
And I'm the obtuse one here? :shrug:
Yes! And helping to push the agenda as well!
:silly: So from your "intellectual" viewpoint, there is only one side of any issue...yours? I guess reality doesn't trump the 'castle in the air'. Please oh swami, help me to know what to believe...:nometalk:
I'm not the one pushing an agenda here! That would be YOU Mac!
:facepalm2: IOW anyone who disagrees with you is pushing an agenda. I thought the thread was about whether McConnell can or should try to roll back gay marriage? Is not the opinion of Americans part of that discussion? Or have I stepped over the line...your line? Please LMK if when we are talking about the left's gun control initiatives it will be okay to mention what Americans want? What agenda would I be pushing then?
I have repeatedly said that I don't believe, even for a second, that the Majority of Americans are in favor of Gay marriage. Instead of accepting that and moving on YOU sir have repeatedly tried to convince me that I am wrong. If that isn't pushing an agenda I don't know what is!
What's your opinion on the Earth?
Round of flat?
I have repeatedly said that I don't believe, even for a second, that the Majority of Americans are in favor of Gay marriage. Instead of accepting that and moving on YOU sir have repeatedly tried to convince me that I am wrong. If that isn't pushing an agenda I don't know what is!
What's your opinion on the Earth?
Round of flat?
You don't like debating because that requires something more than simply insulting
So from your "intellectual" viewpoint, there is only one side of any issue...yours? I guess reality doesn't trump the 'castle in the air'. Please oh swami, help me to know what to believe
You mean like this?:
And you should probably learn this about me. I don't cotton much to hypocrites. If you are going to make an issue of what you perceive as BigUn's ad hominem arguments you ought not engage in them yourself.
I've not tried to convince you of anything. I have stated that you are wrong and provided the evidence to support that. You don't like debating because that requires something more than simply insulting. You're far more comfortable in a "ditto" thread, and I can understand that.
The agenda I push is to try making a thread a little more than an echo chamber. And if you're still a mod, you should understand that. Then again.... :whocares:
Well I guess that someone who considers truth an insult will ALWAYS be insulted so, it would seem to follow, there can be no honest debate. Not a mod and have no interest in being one!
And I will once again repeat that MY only agenda is the TRUTH!
So you're the source and vessel of all truth, and any evidence to the contrary is heresy.
Truth is only truth of you say that it is.
Doesn't make you God?
Never said I was God! Well aware of the fact that I am not and neither am I the keeper of all truth but I DO have the ability to discern when an agenda is being pushed and by whom! And that goes far beyond THIS single thread.
Heresy... agenda... same thing to you.
So you have no agenda, you are the source of all truth and you can gleam who had hidden agendas?
You're sort of Mother Theresa, God and Kreskin all rolled into one.
Nothing 'hidden" about what's gone on on this thread and many others preceding it Luis! Readers can and will decide for themselves. Have a GREAT day!
Well I guess that someone who considers truth an insult will ALWAYS be insulted so, it would seem to follow, there can be no honest debate with that person. The agenda you have pushed here on THIS thread is for Gay marriage whether or not YOU ever realize that!
Not a mod and have no interest in being one!
And I will once again repeat that MY only agenda is the TRUTH! YOU are free to believe or not any poll you wish and I have exactly that same right.
I've not tried to convince you of anything. I have stated that you are wrong and provided the evidence to support that. You don't like debating because that requires something more than simply insulting. You're far more comfortable in a "ditto" thread, and I can understand that.
The agenda I push is to try making a thread a little more than an echo chamber. And if you're still a mod, you should understand that. Then again.... :whocares:
Anyone who thinks this forum is ever an 'echo chamber' can't read very well...........
You're a decent guy Bigun, but I know you don't enjoy debating. For the record, I would hope anyone here would understand the difference between the "truth" and an "insult". I'll leave it at that.
Disagreeing with you about what Americans believe concerning gay marriage is a far cry from pushing gay marriage. I don't really care what you believe about me, but I care that the nominee for my Party understand the reality of the issues he or she will take on. Anti-Gay marriage is a losing issue. SSM is now the law of the land whether I like it or not. And apparently most Americans agree with it, so that makes it even more imperative that the GOP candidates leave their rhetoric on this issue at home and address issues Americans really want dealt with.
It's the conservative thing to do... :pondering:
My perception is that you HAVE pushed the gay marriage agenda here on this thread and several others preceding this one and you can take all the umbrage at that you like. It remains my perception.
I vehemently disagree with you that anti-gay marriage is a loosing issue and STRONGLY suspect that we will find out for sure about that very soon. I also disagree with your assertion that giving in to public opinion that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is the conservative thing to do in ANY case.
I also disagree with you when you say that 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 unelected people in black robes get to pronounce what the law is in this country and they sure as hell don't get to make it up out of whole cloth as they did in this case! We have debated that in the past as well.
I disagree with you when you say that the child of any illegal who manages to get onto U.S soil in time to drop her progeny here can legally become president of our country someday and we have debated that at length.
The fact is that you and I have debated several issues here over the past several months (you and I don't seem to agree on much) but we have been civil to each other and I intend to keep it that way for my part.
So then, Hobby Lobby, in your opinion, must provide contraceptives to their employees. That after all, like it or not, is the law of the land, or rather was the law until those "9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 unelected people in black robes" said that it wasn't.
This idea that others are pushing agendas but you're not is absurd and hypocritical to boot.
You have a distinct agenda, and are only critical of those "9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 unelected people in black robes" when their rulings do not run in concert with your agenda.
So quit being a hypocrite accusing others of having hidden agendas when yours is so open.
Disagreeing with you about what Americans believe concerning gay marriage is a far cry from pushing gay marriage. I don't really care what you believe about me, but I care that the nominee for my Party understand the reality of the issues he or she will take on. Anti-Gay marriage is a losing issue. SSM is now the law of the land whether I like it or not. And apparently most Americans agree with it, so that makes it even more imperative that the GOP candidates leave their rhetoric on this issue at home and address issues Americans really want dealt with.Good post!
It's the conservative thing to do... :pondering:
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1982087_694001510659981_1242062632_n.jpg?oh=70e8c341f7ce88730a4a873e62f2acb4&oe=56224823)
Good post!
I am not happy about the direction society has chosen, but it does me no good to deny it and blame McConnell, or Republicans, or posters at the BR.
Patently false Luis. I have been completely consistent on that and you know it.
My perception is that you HAVE pushed the gay marriage agenda here on this thread and several others preceding this one and you can take all the umbrage at that you like. It remains my perception.
I vehemently disagree with you that anti-gay marriage is a loosing issue and STRONGLY suspect that we will find out for sure about that very soon. I also disagree with your assertion that giving in to public opinion that conflicts with the U.S. Constitution is the conservative thing to do in ANY case.
I also disagree with you when you say that 9, 8, 7, 6, or 5 unelected people in black robes get to pronounce what the law is in this country and they sure as hell don't get to make it up out of whole cloth as they did in this case! We have debated that in the past as well.
I disagree with you when you say that the child of any illegal who manages to get onto U.S soil in time to drop her progeny here can legally become president of our country someday and we have debated that at length.
The fact is that you and I have debated several issues here over the past several months (you and I don't seem to agree on much) but we have been civil to each other and I intend to keep it that way for my part.
Lost in this debate is a simple question.
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to say anything at all about marriage?
There is a difference between an echo chamber and some posters who wish it so. Truth be told though, there are very few threads here with any degree of debate. Those are the ones I'm drawn to. While most of us here are after the same political goals, we don't always agree on how best to achieve them.
I would suggest that there are people on both sides of issues that are trying to force an echo chamber based on their own views.
As for the 'same political goals,' I would also suggest that there are differences of some significance on moral issues on this forum.
Some of us believe that morality is best for society, as the Founders did, and some believe that the Constitution doesn't allow for enforcing morality on society (though never bother to say that laws against theft and murder, and other laws they agree with are indeed forcing morality on us).
I've actually seen some very healthy and rational debate on these issues on this forum.
From both sides.
Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.
As for the moral issues, with a combination of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pushing many moral issues is a lost cause. It's going to have to take families and faiths to take the lead, not our political leaders.
Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.
Apparently that was meant to at least admit that a majority of Americans agree with the 9-8-7-6-5 on this issue.
Then Bigun, you also need to say that conservatives need to stop trying to get Obamacare overtoned by the SCOTUS because the SCOTUS lacks the power to overturn laws.
While you're at it, you can also explain why you were so update when SCOTUS DIDN'T overturn it.
Lost in this debate is a simple question.
Where does the Constitution give Congress the power to say anything at all about marriage?
Perhaps, but when one is losing an argument and takes it personally to the poster, and others saying there's no room for such viewpoints (words to that effect), I'd have to lean heavily toward one side as wanting an echo chamber.
As for the moral issues, with a combination of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, pushing many moral issues is a lost cause. It's going to have to take families and faiths to take the lead, not our political leaders.
I completely agree that it's going to take families and faith to lead, but our Founders acknowledged that without morality, the country could not survive, and many of us agree with them.
Watching our once great nation go down the tubes into complete amorality can make people react pretty emotionally.
One can cerebrally call it 'libertarian,' but if one sees the end of the country we once lived in (and not that long ago), it's pretty hard to take.
No matter what the polls say......
Paladin called you out for doing exactly that and now you're pretending to take the high-road?
Please...
I agree that there are numerous moral issues facing us a Nation, not the least of which is the continuing decline of marriage and the increase in divorce. Add to that increasing use of drugs, more and more violent games, movies, music videos, increases in STDs, single parent homes all attacking the moral fiber of our Country, and I'm sorry, but two gays wanting to spend their lives with each other, while not something I can begin to understand or relate to, isn't all that high on my list of political goals for the next election.
"Given that the gay marriage agenda will be increasingly pressed upon Catholics by the state, we should be much more aware of what history has to teach us about gay marriage—given that we don’t want to be among those who, ignorant of history, blithely condemned themselves to repeat it."
"Contrary to the popular view—both among proponents and opponents—gay marriage is not a new issue. It cannot be couched (by proponents) as a seamless advance on the civil rights movement, nor should it be understood (by opponents) as something that’s evil merely because it appears to them to be morally unprecedented."
"Gay marriage was—surprise!—alive and well in Rome, celebrated even and especially by select emperors, a spin-off of the general cultural affirmation of Roman homosexuality. Gay marriage was, along with homosexuality, something the first Christians faced as part of the pagan moral darkness of their time."
"What Christians are fighting against today, then, is not yet another sexual innovation peculiar to our “enlightened age,” but the return to pre-Christian, pagan sexual morality."
While I love to watch a mutual admiration society in action, do you actually have a point about the issues under discussion?
It doesn't! Just like it nowhere grants the power of judicial review to SCOTUS! Marriage is one of those things covered in the ninth and tenth amendments!
I agree so why not stop doing that?
I would suggest that there are people on both sides of issues that are trying to force an echo chamber based on their own views.
As for the 'same political goals,' I would also suggest that there are differences of some significance on moral issues on this forum.
Some of us believe that morality is best for society, as the Founders did, and some believe that the Constitution doesn't allow for enforcing morality on society (though never bother to say that laws against theft and murder, and other laws they agree with are indeed forcing morality on us)
I've actually seen some very healthy and rational debate on these issues on this forum.
From both sides.
Perception I can accept. Perception pronounced as truth is quite another matter. That I don't accept.
I guess public opinion is no longer part of the debate. Good. Now, if public opinion favors gay marriage, and it's simply not an issue most Americans would want to deal with during the elections, why should the GOP candidates push it? Aren't issues like public debt, spending, jobs, national security, the future of energy, the real elephants in the room? Just as you think I'm trying to change your opinion on SSM (which I'm not), wouldn't Republicans be trying to change most Americans' opinions on the same issue? Why is one bad, the other good?
I'm not sure what you think we should do other than push for a constitutional amendment...which was tried ten years ago. As a conservative that supports tradition and institutions, I don't have to agree with every SCOTUS decision, but I do have to respect its position as an equal branch of government.There is a reason why every person in government is required by the constitution to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution before they assume office after EVERY election!
The burden is on you to substantiate that the 14th Amendment has some hidden third category of citizenship in it. But you have no problem with Cruz being president. I'm not sure why a "Cruz" would be acceptable but a "Martinez" wouldn't even though Martinez was born here "naturally" and Cruz was born in Canada.
As I said Bigun, you are a decent guy even though, just as you charge me, you too have an agenda.
Ya, don't pay any attention to what happened to the Romans for exactly the same thing...
Good, now if we can only get the candidates to get off the issue and get on with solutions to real problems.
The Romans eventually lost their empire after splitting it up and losing the West to the barbarian hordes. I doubt it was due to homosexuals.
The Romans eventually lost their empire after splitting it up and losing the West to the barbarian hordes. I doubt it was due to homosexuals.
Like you and Once-Ler?
Hypocrite...
We were in agreement on the issue under discussion, not playing pack-dog.
It doesn't! Just like it nowhere grants the power of judicial review to SCOTUS! Marriage is one of those things covered in the ninth and tenth amendments!
That isn't going to happen because there is tremendous public pressure building for them to do just the opposite despite ALL those polls you continually cite!
I agree that there are numerous moral issues facing us a Nation, not the least of which is the continuing decline of marriage and the increase in divorce. Add to that increasing use of drugs, more and more violent games, movies, music videos, increases in STDs, single parent homes all attacking the moral fiber of our Country, and I'm sorry, but two gays wanting to spend their lives with each other, while not something I can begin to understand or relate to, isn't all that high on my list of political goals for the next election.
We have been over this many times before Mac and my opinions are at least as valid as yours.
When it comes to the Constitution public opinion doesn't matter a whit until and unless the public decides to us their power and change it! I predict that will soon happen! What you consider to be elephants in the room others don't find nearly as compelling as a runaway court that assumes powers it is nowhere granted!
There is a reason why every person in government is required by the constitution to swear an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend, the constitution before they assume office after EVERY election!
And I have done so MANY times before today! If article III of the Constitution had been modified in ANY way by the 14th amendment it would say so somewhere. Perhaps I missed that notation and you will point it out to me but the last time we talked about this YOU agreed that there was no such modification of Article III to be found.
Yes indeed I do! I happen to love this country and our constitution as the founders created it and would like to preserve at least a little bit of that for my posterity!
(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jbjslwzc8eatod6wmovh_a.png)
Here's what you fail to understand.
The majority of the opposition to SSM is embedded in people 65 years and older.
The battle is lost.(http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2014/03/FT_14.03.10_GayMarriageRepublican1.png)
I understand that homosexual marriage is no big deal to you, MAC, but as a reflection of the complete disintegration of the fabric of American values, it IS a big deal to a lot of us.
As far as relating it to your 'list of political goals,' I'm not sure that your individual laissez faire opinion is what should be driving the debate. I think, rather, that the moral destruction of America is something that needs to be part of the debate, and I, for one, am thankful that there are at least some of our Republican candidates who have the courage to go against the bullying of the left and talk about the subject like adults.
I think, at least somewhere deep down, you understand that leftist bullying is a problem in this country.
I just don't think you recognize that that's what they've done to get their way on this particular subject.
I couldn't agree more. You have a right to your own opinion, but as they say, not to your own facts
Well maybe Marshall can be impeached posthumously. Until then I think we're stuck with SCOTUS and judicial review.
Agreed.
Did you mean Article II? If not, I'm missing the context.
As do I, as I presume everyone else here does.
Yes! I meant article II and I apologize for my error.
So then, once again, you then agree that the SCOTUS decision on Hobby Lobby was incorrect, since they lack the power of judicial review, and Hobby Lobby should pay for contraceptives.
Should Shelby County v. Holder be reversed and the full scope of the Voting Rights Act be re-instated?
Should University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar be reversed and the scope of the criteria that employees can sue for racial discrimination be expanded?
Should NLRB v. Noel Canning be reversed and Obama's appointees made via recess power while Congress was in session be confirmed?
Obama has the worst win/loss SCOTUS record of any President since Truman.
Now, once and for all, should all those rulings be reversed?
Yes or no?
So you say!
I happen to not believe that! Not even for a second!
No problem. Just wanted to be sure. Yes, we disagree on a particular meaning in Article II, though I suspect we are getting a tad off topic.
Truth doesn't require your support.
NO Luis! I have asked you before not to attempt to put words in my mouth but you never-the-less continue to do that!
What I have said is that the Constitution nowhere grants the right of judicial review to SCOTUS and that is correct! It doesn't! The power is one that the court under John Marshal assigned to itself. That wasn't challenged at the time because the players on the field at the time all understood that SCOTUS has no power to enforce ANYTHING it says. You should also know that the man who brought the suit to the court in that case NEVER got the commission Mr. Marshal and his court said he was entitled to.
That isn't going to happen because there is tremendous public pressure building for them to do just the opposite despite ALL those polls you continually cite!
Do you have any evidence for all that public pressure?
American values or religious values?
American values have as a cornerstone individual liberty where your ability to believe as you see fit is not constrained by others via force of government. So you can be a practicing Jew without Christians using their majority status to deny you that right, just as you have the right to believe in nothing at all, and live your life accordingly without that right being infringed upon by believers via force of government.
The people who just gained the right to marry don't believe as you do, but that fact does not take from them the right to live their lives as they believe they want to live their lives. You have that right and so do they.
Quite the intellectually dishonest bit of logic.
Judicial review is OK so long as the rulings fall in line with your political agenda.
Moral values ARE American values.
There is no true liberty without a moral construct, and if you carry libertarianism to its logical conclusion, you have anarchy.
Take away the structure, and you're left with chaos.
Moral values ARE American values.All based on the opinion of a "literalist" interpretation to the Bible, a position held by ONLY about 30% of Christians.
There is no true liberty without a moral construct, and if you carry libertarianism to its logical conclusion, you have anarchy.
Take away the structure, and you're left with chaos.
I understand that homosexual marriage is no big deal to you, MAC, but as a reflection of the complete disintegration of the fabric of American values, it IS a big deal to a lot of us.
As far as relating it to your 'list of political goals,' I'm not sure that your individual laissez faire opinion is what should be driving the debate. I think, rather, that the moral destruction of America is something that needs to be part of the debate, and I, for one, am thankful that there are at least some of our Republican candidates who have the courage to go against the bullying of the left and talk about the subject like adults.
I think, at least somewhere deep down, you understand that leftist bullying is a problem in this country.
I just don't think you recognize that that's what they've done to get their way on this particular subject.
All based on the opinion of a "literalist" interpretation to the Bible, a position held by ONLY about 30% of Christians.
Essentially what we are being told is that the nation's civil laws MUST reflect the religious beliefs of evangelical fundamentalist Christians, but may not reflect the position of more moderate Christians.
(I already know the first rejoinder is "then they aren't true Christians")
The problem I see is that as I've mentioned up-thread, there are far more moral issues that are bringing down our Nation than two people of the same sex who happen to love each other. I voted for a ban on same-sex marriage in my state, but since that time, both the public and the courts have seen it differently. And I also know that even if by some strange set of circumstances, the SCOTUS decision were to be reversed, that the moral decline of our Country would not be turned around. Nor do I think issues like the economy, jobs, spending, debt, energy and national security are just "my list".
But yes, I despise the left and its bullying tactics. Some on the right do the same thing though.
The problem is that the bullies on the left are in charge, and they're winning.
The polls you so revere are proof of that.
Musiclady, can't you say anything without sarcasm? I don't revere polls, but I don't deny them either. I wouldn't vote for someone who didn't support my positions. Why shouldn't the politicians at least pay some attention to what people want? Isn't that what representative government is all about? Shouldn't government be responsible and accountable to the people?
You're making the bizarre assumption that the only people who are moral are Christians.
Bizarre.
Oh, for heaven's sake. Be tough enough to handle a little mild sarcasm, will you?
You talk about the polls incessantly and use them to defend the positions that you argue. All the time.
Stop being so stinking sensitive that you can't handle the word 'revere' without whining.
(I HATE whining. **nononono*)
Moral values ARE American values.
There is no true liberty without a moral construct, and if you carry libertarianism to its logical conclusion, you have anarchy.
Take away the structure, and you're left with chaos.
Welcome to John Roberts’ America, Where Words Mean Nothing
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s lament last week that “words no longer have meaning” got me to thinking. I don’t claim to know Chief Justice John Roberts’ motivations in deciding in favor of Obamacare, but I do know that his deconstruction of the meaning of language is increasingly commonplace in our culture. Could his willingness to bend the meaning of the word “states” indicate something larger than what’s happening to the law? Could it actually be a sign of a major cultural shift in the country?
Welcome to postmodern America. For decades now, we have been living in a culture where the meaning of words is stretched almost beyond recognition. “Metanarratives” ring truer than actual facts. Self-prescribed identities trump everything, including nature. A white woman can blithely claim she is black, but when challenged, the only thing she can muster in her defense is irritable confusion and a declaration of how she “identifies.” A man announces he’s a woman and is celebrated as a hero.
Chief Justice Roberts may have had legal and political reasons for ignoring the common usage of words, but it is hard to escape the conclusion that, like so many others in our culture, he felt that being a stickler for a word’s actual meaning was just pedantic, a trivial matter when compared to the importance of some larger cause—in his case, delivering what he thought Congress really intended.
And why should we blame him? After all, if the prevailing wisdom says that a person’s gender or race is what he or she says it is, then why fuss over the meaning of the word “states”? Words mean what we say they mean, right?
For quite some time our intellectual classes have told us that truth lies only in the interpretation of language. Under the spell of postmodernist philosophers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, our scholars have been deconstructing language and society for decades. The result is that today many people don’t care what others think a given word means.
But there is a problem. If white literally means black, which used to be dismissed as a kind of joke, then who’s to say that anything, including what Rachel Dolezal or Bruce Jenner believe, is true? What and who is to separate reality from delusion? If reality is truly relative, then Dolezal’s parents’ word about her white identity is just as good as Rachel’s. The whole debate is nonsensical, and yet our media took it quite seriously.
All of which explains the current obsession with political symbolism. No matter what you may think of the Confederate battle flag, there is something weird about our fixation on it. You’d almost think that the flag itself marched into that Charleston church and killed those innocent worshippers. Yes, it’s a symbol of racial hatred, and for that reason alone it should not be displayed in ways that give offense. But surely we would be deluding ourselves if we were to think that banning every Confederate flag would somehow eliminate racial hatred in America.
The same is true for same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court may believe that all states must recognize it as a constitutional right, but that will not change how a majority of Americans involved in traditional marriages will see the “truth” of their own unions. An enduring reality will survive no matter how much courts or intellectuals try to change it.
Reality is not a Rorschach test. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. We may think that we can change the meaning of words and institutions at will, but in the long run an undertow of reality brings us back to earth.
Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher of the “will to power,” once said, “All things are subject to interpretation [and] whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
So true. Last week the Supreme Court chose power over truth—and the meaning of words—twice.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/05/welcome-to-john-roberts-america-where-words-mean-nothing/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook (http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/05/welcome-to-john-roberts-america-where-words-mean-nothing/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook)
Why John Roberts' ObamaCare decision is a conservative one
By Noah Millman
Yesterday, for the second time, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the health care law that was the signature legislative achievement of President Obama's first term. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court determined that, notwithstanding the wording of the law, Congress plainly did not intend to exclude those enrolled in federal health insurance exchanges from federal subsidies. It said the law should be interpreted in light of Congress' intent rather than according to the strict letter of the statute.
Conservative activists will undoubtedly be surprised and outraged — surprised that Roberts proved "unreliable" once again, and outraged at his decision to go against the plain meaning of the statute. But inasmuch as they are surprised and outraged, this reflects a basic misunderstanding of what the court is, and does.
The popular image of the court's function is to limit the power of government, with conservatives and liberals taking different views on where those limits should be drawn strictly and where loosely (and libertarians saying they should be drawn strictly everywhere). But this is obviously impossible, because the court is itself a part of our system of government. According to the court a unique charism to discern the true meaning of the Constitution, and a unique appreciation for the limits it imposes, is to treat the justices as precisely the philosopher kings that conservatives in other contexts purport to abhor.
The difficulty with having the Supreme Court strike down legislation produced by a democratically elected majority cannot be answered by reference to the sanctity of the Constitution. (After all, all branches of government are guided by this document, which, by the way, does not enumerate among the court's powers the right to strike down legislation.) Nor can it be answered by reference to some hermeneutical rule (originalism, or strict construction, or anything else) that places the court above suspicion — because suspicion is, itself, a social and political matter, not a matter of objective fact.
Rather, the counter-majoritarian difficulty can only be answered pragmatically, by reference to the proper functioning of the government. There are a variety of possible such defenses, some more conservative (e.g., Madison's defense of the separation of powers) and some more liberal (such as John Hart Ely's hermeneutic of democratic inclusion). But they all boil down to this: We want the government to work this way and that requires that we have a court that plays this role.
So: How should we look at King v. Burwell from that perspective?
Critics say that if Congress wanted to amend the law to cure this apparent error in the text, it has the power to do so — so there's no reason for the court to step in. In fact, by doing so, the court is usurping legislative prerogative. But, by the same token, if Congress is unhappy with how the court has interpreted its intent, and truly wished there to be no federal subsidies, it has the power to write an explicit exclusion into the law, which the court would unquestionably honor. If we presume that Congress is functioning normally, then the stakes for this case are exceptionally low, and it hardly matters how the court decides.
The stakes are significant only because Congress is not functioning normally. Nobody believes that, if the court ruled that the subsidies were illegal, Congress would quickly set to work remedying its error. The practical consequence of the court ruling for the plaintiffs would have been to create chaos, and what legislation might emerge from that chaos is anybody's guess.
What might be the justification for ushering in that chaos? The only justification advanced is a rigid rule: Words mean what they mean, and the court's job is simply to enforce that fact. But there is ample evidence that this is not the case — prima facie, that the people who voted for the law in question don't think their words meant what the plaintiffs say they mean. And to say that the court should simply ignore these considerations is to treat a particular hermeneutic as more fundamental than the court's functional purpose under the Constitution.
All of the foregoing is reflected in Justice Roberts' ruling. That ruling is liberal in its construction of the law precisely because it is cognizant of the court's proper role in the Constitutional design — and hence is conservative about exercising the powers at the court's disposal.
Noah Millman is a senior editor and featured blogger at The American Conservative. His work has appeared in First Things, Commentary, The New York Times Book Review, and on The Economist's online blogs. He is also a screenwriter and filmmaker. Before embarking on a second career as a writer, Millman worked for 16 years in finance. He lives in Brooklyn with his wife and son.
Jus as if you carry religious morality to its logical conclusion you have tyranny.That brings to mind the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, puritan, after which the English people wanted the King and royalty back after all.
We are a country that was built on individualism and individual liberty. Society has no rights, only individuals have rights. Your rights under the First Amwndment are all individual rights.
That brings to mind the tyranny of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector, puritan, after which the English people wanted the King and royalty back after all.
My guess is that English experience played a role in our founders, some deists, who wanted religion held separate from the state. And for very good reason.
An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
Enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
January 16, 1786
Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of wor[l]dly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgement; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation such act will be an infringement of natural right.
Did you know that just 3 American States voted in favour of Gay Marriage (Maine , Maryland and Washington) while 31 States voted against it ..
In 31 States , the American People went to the polls and voted against gay marriage by way of Referendum
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
But in the future take a swing at me and I'll swing right back.(page 2)
You HATE a lot. But that's okay. Incessant condescension isn't a family value.
When someone points out what they believe Americans want, I do go to the polling to see if they're right. If it bothers you so much, as it seems to bother many here, don't respond to me. I know gay marriage is being blamed by some as the focal point of every evil in America today, but that's simply nonsense. We had a plethora of moral issues before the same-sex marriage issue really took root, and we'll continue well after this brouhaha is over. And they are doing a lot more damage to this Country than SSM.
And for heaven's sake, quit whining about my use of the polls. Nighty-nite.
Jus as if you carry religious morality to its logical conclusion you have tyranny.
We are a country that was built on individualism and individual liberty. Society has no rights, only individuals have rights. Your rights under the First Amwndment are all individual rights.
(1) Polls, is it? Then why don't these polls matter to the proSSM advocates?
.
http://www.freebiesireland.com/Articles/183/politics/USA-31-States-voted-against-gay-marriage-3-voted-in-favour-1-in-4-Americans-want-to-leave-Union./l4458593/
That's a pretty clear indication of how the people feel about the issue. Not that it matters. 6 black robed political appointees know better in this land where government is "of the people, by the people, for the people.".
(2) Recommended reading: An opinion piece by one of my favorite bloggers regarding the decline of (oh, the horror!) moral standards here in the good ole USA. Incorporates more than just SSM and recalls to mind John Adam's wise dictum
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/no-america-is-not-a-great-nation/
(3) MACVSOG68, knock off the ad hominem arguments and the school yard threats:QuoteBut in the future take a swing at me and I'll swing right back.
(page 2)
:silly: It is what it is. Take it for what you think it's worth Paladin.
What a funny thing to wake up to, MAC. There is no hatred in anything I say (other than for the radical left, of course, and I even try to guard that), but your defense of your own hyper-sensitivity is once again, notable.
You love polls. You depend on polls.
And you're hyper-sensitive about any comments that point out your dependence on other people's opinions for your own.
It doesn't bother me that much that you need polls to defend yourself. It more amuses me.
I thought we were having an adult conversation, until you started your silly whining, which, once again, amused me.
And I did have a good night. Hope you did too! :patriot:
I had a great night after the US women trounced Japan! Go USA :patriot:
If anyone is obsessed with polls ML, it seems to be you. We have been discussing what America believes about gay marriage. Do you not think the polls should be a consideration absent any other evidence? When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary? There was none offered. There are a number of posters here who truly fear seeing a change in attitudes among the voting population. So when they see it, they just deny it. It's fine, but it doesn't add a lot to their argument.
Allow me to clarify something for you. Instead of turning a debate from the subject to me, why not for once argue the issue. If you think a poll is wrong, point out why. Get away from such stupid charges about the strengths and weaknesses of my opinions. They matter not a whit in debates like this. Only the evidence and conclusions I present.
Try it. It will be different. And you may grow to like that debate style.
Later.
No, what's bizarre was your equating consensual sex between adults to murder and theft.
Are you serious?
Joh Roberts has twice made the argument that if people want laws changed they need to vote people that will change those laws into Congress.
You want a SCOTUS that both lacks judicial review powers AND has them when it suits your purposes.
NOT true Luis! But if they are going to engage in Judicial review regardless of the fact that they are nowhere granted that power then they ought to do it correctly instead of making it up as they go like they are currently doing!
GREAT game. I love it when the team I'm rooting for takes control and never loses it. They did America PROUD!
For the record.....I'm not going to go point by point to refute the points you've tried to make here because you are clearly very sensitive and the only one on this forum for whom I feel I need to walk on eggshells because you will be offended, and it takes too much work to try to avoid the things that set you off.
I have been debating this issue rationally, as I always do, and if you can't take a little gentle sarcasm about your need to defend yourself with polls, then it's just not worth the bother to engage with you. There are plenty of people on this forum who can deal with a little razzing, and there's plenty of hardcore slugging that goes on that I'm not ever involved in which people seem to survive.
I think it's best for me not to try to engage with you in debate of this issue because I pretty much know where you stand (with the polls), and you pretty much know where I stand on moral issues and their importance to the survival of this once great Republic, and it's just not worth it for me to be worrying every time we discuss something that I'll say something that will offend your singularly tender sensibilities.
I also see a tremendous decline in the moral substance of this Country. Fewer and fewer marriages, children engaging in sex at earlier ages, married couples stepping out on each other, more out-of-wedlock births, divorces, child abuse, increases in drugs, increases in sexually transmitted diseases, more and more violent games, more and more sexually and violence oriented movies and music. So when it comes to two same-sex people who want to spend their lives together, I realize we have far greater moral problems to deal with.
Also......I don't need to defend your strange personal attacks here (hatred?? c'mon, man!) because everyone on this forum knows they're not accurate, so....
Peace.
That has nothing to do with my response to truth_seeker, who has a problem with equating any form of morality with evangelical Christian tyranny......... which actually IS bizarre.Your system elevated Josh Duggar to an authority level, to speak on behalf of evangelical Christianity's "popes and potentates," about morality, family values, marriage and homosexuality.
Your system elevated Josh Duggar to an authority level, to speak on behalf of evangelical Christianity's "popes and potentates," about morality, family values, marriage and homosexuality.
I find that bizarre. Plenty of others do, too.
In the olde world people fought wars lasting decades, over religion. When they got to America, they got off on almost the same foot.
However by the time the founding documents were written, religion was taken away from absolute power alongside the state.
Neither Benny Hinn or Michelle Bachmann's husband can "heal" the gays. Most people now days believe they were made that way by God.
If one reads the Bible literally, the earth is 6,000 years old and in early days people lived for hundreds of years. Fortunately a majority of Christians do NOT read the Bible literally.
The Bible was used to justify slavery in America. Therefore the Bible is not infallible, as a source for morality.
The only thing that sets me off Musiclady, is turning the debate from the issue to me. My motives, intelligence or dependencies are irrelevant. If I bring up a poll, show me were its weaknesses are; leave me out of it. We'll get along fine.
Well that's where you err here. Looking at polls and having concerns about the moral decline of our Nation are not mutually exclusive. If you think I don't have concerns about the decline in morality, you haven't been reading my posts. Here's one from this thread:
With all of that going on, why would I want our GOP candidates to focus on a gay-marriage decision by the Court that is now the law of the land, especially when most Americans agree with it?
That's my motivation, and the argument should be against the points I made, not me. I do sense that some here are afraid that their maybe these polls are reflecting that Americans are no longer interested in going after their favorite whipping boy, SSM. After all no one here has condemned the polls showing most Americans favor the right to guns, or favor limited abortions, or feel most of Obama's policies have failed. It's just this one. Hmmm. :pondering:
LOL. You said it; I just agreed with you. As you said to me, don't be so sensitive.
Have a good day.
As I said previously, my grandparents came to America to escape the very kinds of things you accuse me of supporting. The idea that I am asking for some sort of religious tyranny is just weird.
And dead wrong.
In addition, you have brought into the discussion a number of completely irrelevant personal feelings of yours (many of which are not based in fact, btw) that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
But to my original point to you. You insinuated that the only people in the world who try to live moral lives are Evangelical Christians, and that everyone calling for moral constructs for society is some kind of wacko. My point is that there are moral laws which our Founding Fathers recognized (and, in case you don't know it, Ben Franklin wasn't much of a fundamentalist), and which, if lived by, will allow for a stronger, and more just America. There are many people outside conservative Christianity who recognize the need to live by a moral code outside of one's own desires.
That's what I've been talking about here.
In addition, you have brought into the discussion a number of completely irrelevant personal feelings of yours (many of which are not based in fact, btw) that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.I brought them up in order that they be discussed, as they are completely relevant.
I brought them up in order that they be discussed, as they are completely relevant.
--Most citizen/voters do NOT believe in literal interpretation of the bible (e.g. evangelical position), which is the basis for maltreatment of homosexuals
--Most citizen voters do NOT believe homosexuals can change (evangelical position)
You wonder where does truth_seeker get these ideas? Try from the Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater:
"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
There is a greater point that baffles me here. That's this idea that homosexuals wanting to marry one another is both inherently immoral and at fault for the moral decline in our country by the mere fact of their wanting to enter into a legal (and moral) union that heterosexuals, both believers and non-believers, have all but abandoned.
Two things that I keep thinking about when I read these "death of the Republic because homosexuals will be allowed to get married" threads.
Shouldn't we be looking to fix the harm that we have done to marriage ourselves before assigning blame to others (Matthew 7:3), and when refusing to violate our Chritian values by baking pastries, arranging flowers or taking photographs should we not apply those values equally and refuse to bake cakes for second, third, and fourth marriages (Matthew 19:9) instead of trying to make political statements with our Christianity?
You really are a fascinating person, MAC. All this angst from you just because I used one word gently teasing you about polls, and all this preaching and condescension from someone who claims not to like preaching and condescension from others. All these personal attacks coming from one who repeatedly accuses others of being too personal.
I wonder if you're this thin skinned and dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it in real life....
Must be a tough life if you are.
Next time, stop preaching, stick to the issues, and we can have a real discussion, OK? :patriot:
You got me ML. I'm just a weakling in real life. I guess that's why my momma made me go airborne, wind up in the 82d Airborne, OCS, SF training, 8th Special Forces, Jungle Warfare School, 5th Special Forces VN, and MACVSOG, among other assignments. But as you noted, it didn't take... :shrug:
Now ML, if you can just move on from worrying about my "preaching" and "condescension" and "all these personal attacks" and "angst" and "thin-skinned", etc etc. and possibly talk about what some of us are trying to do...the impact of gay-marriage on our Country's moral fabric and what the candidates should be going after in the coming election, we can finally get off of me and all my failings.
So would you like to get back to the topic of the thread?
Barry Goldwater was a libertarian.Since Goldwater the definition of "conservatism" has morphed away from "libertarianism" and into the present "religious" construct, with the Falwell and Huckabee types running for office.
Morality is not the possession of Christians only, and there are many who practice morality outside of the Christian faith.
THAT is my point.
Bravery and whining are not mutually exclusive. ^-^ )
Since Goldwater the definition of "conservatism" has morphed away from "libertarianism" and into the present "religious" construct, with the Falwell and Huckabee types running for office.
Reagan:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
― Ronald Reagan
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/83332-if-you-analyze-it-i-believe-the-very-heart-and
If Republicans expect to win in the future, they need to drift back to the libertarian roots, for no better reasons than--
--Independents lean that way on social issues,
--It is consistent with the founders intent regarding personal freedom
--It is consistent with what at least many feel is the separation of church and state
Regarding the non-Christians to which you refer, I make note that they re not in the public square continually pushing for greater religious influence with our civil laws. That distinction goes to evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.
And when they are pushed to provide the bases for their positions, they often DO refer to literal Bible quotes.
I understand the idea that most/all people want to have their communities consist of other good and moral people, regardless of faith or no faith.
Yet that also happens to be a component part of the homosexual community's position, too. The idea they too want to work, pay taxes, live normal law abiding lives, without being set apart into an outcast "caste," subject to maltreatment, discrimination, etc.
True, and neither are teachers and prejudgment. :whistle:
I tire of it, though, and this will be my last post to you on this thread.
Your system elevated Josh Duggar to an authority level, to speak on behalf of evangelical Christianity's "popes and potentates," about morality, family values, marriage and homosexuality.
When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary? There was none offered.
I also recognize that since those votes, the people in general have come to accept SSMand how does he know this? By people actually voting again? Not necessary, thank you. Rely on "polls"
Do you not think the polls should be a consideration absent any other evidence?
This is an equally absurd statement from MACVSOG68:
Quote
When told the polls were wrong I asked for any evidence to the contrary? There was none offered.
In point of fact I pointed out that only THREE states approved SSM when the people were allowed to directly vote on the issue. So how does MACVSOG68 deal with this fact? Simply dismiss it: and how does he know this? By people actually voting again? Not necessary, thank you. Rely on "polls"
Polls which may be skewed, biased, loaded, invalid? Great way to run things. Simply great. Why should we even vote? Just inquire of the pollsters. After all they have never been shown to be wrong.
Barry Goldwater was a libertarian.
That said, I'll try to clarify my point (though I'm quite sure you're not interested). We have Hindu friends who are moral and believe in family (mother, father, children). I know moderate Muslims who are moral and believe in family (mother, father, children). If you look at Asian culture (massive numbers of people in America) and they also believe in family (mother, father, children).
Valuing the nuclear family is not some sort of evangelical Christians only position. It is the position of many who value structure in society and understand that the family is at the core of that structure.
Every other point you bring up in your desire to belittle Christians, and what you call a "literal" interpretation of the Scriptures is completely irrelevant to the point I have been making.
Morality is not the possession of Christians only, and there are many who practice morality outside of the Christian faith.
THAT is my point.
The problem with your position, Luis, is that you are looking at homosexual marriage as a micro-issue and not seeing it as part of the macro-problem. I didn't even come close to implying that homosexual marriage alone would be the 'death of the Republic" (and again, you know it because you are intelligent, and read well).
There are a whole host of other moral issues involved, in addition to a greater host of political and economic issues involved, that are included in the long, long list of things that the radical left is doing to destroy this nation. Your attempt to belittle our argument by over-simplifying it and reducing it to the point where we are all pretty much nutcases if we hold the position you claim we do, misses the entire point......which is that the radical left is destroying America.
The fact that homosexual marriage is currently the focus of discussion is because the radical left has made it so, and we are reacting to it. It is not because it is the only thing going wrong in America, it is because it is part of a large number of things going wrong in America. Those of us who seek a moral construct for society aren't goofy, Luis. We're reflecting the understanding of the great intellects and character of those who founded this nation. And we are not calling for this particular moral issue to be the focus of anyone's political campaign. That argument, used repeatedly, is another straw dog of those who attempt to berate the valid arguments presented on this subject.
I hope that clears up some of your confusion....
The macro-problem is the moral decadence of heterosexuals, and that's what you want to ignore in order to point at the micro-problem and blame it for the decades-long decay of society.
Matthew 7:3 - And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
The radical left has settled the issue of SSM, and while you think it objectionable and an affront to God and morality in general, you'll get over it and come to accept it just as you've come to accept all other affronts to God and morality, such as no-fault divorce and multiple marriages (Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery), cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock children.
Playing God and passing judgement on others for their sins is a far easier thing to do than parenting, and we, as a primarily heterosexual society have failed miserably at parenting our children.
First rule of conservatism is to accept personal responsibility.
I'm not confused at all. I see you for exactly who and what you are.
I'm sorry, Luis, but now you're just being contrarian. You SAID you were "baffled," so I used the word 'confused' in response. Don't be silly.
Now if you can continue to be serious, I'll continue the discussion....
The macro problem I was referring to was the radical left's attempt to take control of the country and destroy it.
The heterosexual issue is only a part of the overall issue, and I agree with you that we have a serious problem all around. But it was the leftists' 'free love' movement that destroyed that aspect of morality as well as 'normalizing' abnormal sexual behavior.
IOW, we're in a big leftist mess, but sexuality is only a part of it, and homosexuality only a part of that part.
I repeat......... it is the LEFT who is focusing our attention on aberration from morality (quite successfully I might add). We, on the right, are just responding to what the left is doing to destroy us.
Are you serious?
Now you're rewriting history to accommodate your position and justify the SoCon take over of Conservatism?
Barry Goldwater is one of the founders of Modern Conservatism, along with Phyllis Schlafly, and William F. Buckley Jr.
Ronald Reagan was a conservative neophyte under Goldwater.
The fact that you see Goldwater as a libertarian says more about your own thepolitical positions than anything at all about Goldwater.
After he retired from the Senate, Goldwater often took “libertarian” positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, causing some conservatives to criticize and even ostracize him. In fact, however, there had always been two Goldwaters: the Russell Kirk–Edmund Burke conservative and the F. A. Hayek–Milton Friedman libertarian.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, these two sides of Goldwater were generally in balance, but when the social issues of the 1970s and 1980s came to the fore, Goldwater often assumed a libertarian stance, extolling individual rights above almost all else. When the question of gays in the military came up, he wrote that “You don’t need to be ‘straight’ to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”[23]
Of his libertarian comments about abortion, gay rights, the Religious Right, and similar issues, Phyllis Schlafly, the renowned First Lady of the Right, said: “Let him enjoy his retirement…. [His] legacy is the way the 27 million who braved the vitriol of Big Media in 1964, lived to grow into the 54 million that validated the Reagan Revolution.”[24]
I am not confused about the issue.
I am baffled at the depth of the hypocrisy by those who happen to make up the majority of the "problem" then blame the problem on others.
Personally, I find that an impossible thing to do.
Whew....that was close! :laugh:
Seems like, as the sun rises in the East, homosexual/gay agenda threads tend to raise blood pressures.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....how'd you like the play?
Great thread! :beer:
Great thread! :beer:
Join the brouhaha... :beer:
No, MAC. Nothing I can add to the quality of discussion here. I've read it all, but truth be told it hurts my head. LOL!
But I'm proud to think of you all, as 'family'. MusicLady is a treasure. And, so are you! And Bigun too! LOL!
:beer:
I think this thread should get an award.
If so, what would it be?
Is the thread dead, Ned?
What do you say, Jay?
Can we bring the thread back, Jack?
Or just leave it lay, Gay?