14 thoughts on “TruthOut?

  1. Having second thought about our ambivalence, are we?

    Better late than never, Mitch. Welcome to the right side of history.

  2. As SITDers know, the liberal/left/SJW love causes. They love the fight. They live to defeat someone and really defeat them. Once they get a victory, they immediately move on to the next cause. Each one slightly more radical than the previous crusade. “Go out and organize.”

  3. The big danger isn’t getting rid of “husband” and “wife”, or what happens if the President has a husband–it’s already illegal to make terroristic threats in all states, by the way. The big danger is when family law is rewritten to suit the desires of the “new additions” to the club and the original reason for family law–protecting mothers and children from the fallout when a relationship ends.

    This is a step towards that. And yes, I know people made the warning, myself included.

  4. Marriage equality is about equality. Love is only a part of it.

    Versions of gay marriage have existed across history and around the globe.

    As to the redefinition of marriage, that would be the redefining it as one man and one woman, since historically and geographically, the dominant form and the Biblical / Abramahic religious form is polygamy, with a side of sex slavery.

    But heck, you don’t expect conservatives to be on the right side of history EVER (except maybe for that one time, when a Republican woman was active in pushing forward the repeal of prohibition). Other than that one time, conservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history.

    And then later they try to wrongfully steal the credit for any move made by liberals, like desegregation and civil rights.

  5. You will understand DG better if you substitute the word “God” for “history” in her comment. For the last century it has been not-infrequently noted that progressives have the covenantish religion of their WASP forebears, with history rather than God being the source of predestination.

  6. Outside of Romeo and Juliet, marriage is not simply a private pledge between two people (or two people and God). If that were true why would we care whether the state approves or not? Why all the ritual and celebration? Marriage is important because it creates a framework for how society interacts with the couple and how the couple interacts with society. Success will be when gay couples are treated by other individuals and groups in the same way straight couples are.

  7. PM: Do you believe the 2016 GOP nominee for president should support a Constitutional amendment allowing states to define marriage on their own? Or from a political perspective (winning the presidency) would be better for conservatives to move along and get past the issue of gay marriage?

  8. Historically, child brides are even more common than gay marriages.

    Do you think the Democrat candidate for President should support a Constitutional amendment to redefine marriage to include plural marriages and child brides?

    .

  9. I’m interested in seeing a pragmatic conservative nominated and then winning the presidential election. What are your goals JD?

  10. I am not a Republican, Emery, I am registered as an independent.
    I would be happy to vote for a presidential candidate who endorses the idea of reducing the requirement for constitutional amendments from 2/3 of congress to 3/5 of congress. The problem isn’t the Kennedy decision, its the lost of small-r republican values. The constitution is being changed by the supreme court, not by the People. The last substantive amendment was passed in 1971, forty-four years ago.
    If it wasn’t the Kennedy decision, it would have been something else.
    Some states are pushing for a constitutional convention. They may even get the required number of states to agree. That would be a mistake. The constitution is fine, its the supreme court that needs to have its sails trimmed. If the threshold for an amendment were to drop to 3/5 of congress, the people who now see the constitution as an obstacle to their plans to enlarge the scope of the federal government will no longer be able to change the constitution by a 5-4 majority in the SC, at least not reliably.
    I’ve asked this question before, and I will again: in 1920 the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. Would a constitutional amendment be neccessarry to do that today? The constitution is the property of the people, not the supreme court.

  11. Homosexuality is sexual perversion. As these perverts gain acceptance, they are much less careful about keeping their devient behavior private…just look at the freak show the SF “pride” parade has become.

    The same thing wil happen in other cities where perverts congregate, and sooner than later, there will be a rethinking of what we have allowed to happen.

    History will correct itself.

  12. Flashing back to the days when you couldn’t wait for Daddy to get home, Emery?

  13. Correction for DogGone; even in Arabia, the dominant form of marriage was NEVER polygamy. As anyone conversant with the books of Moses knows, you have to FEED and CLOTHE those wives, and that ain’t easy in a predominantly agricultural, desert economy. And even in the cases where polygamy was found –among the very rich and powerful–you still have the principle that marriage law is all about protecting weaker vessels. I will add that that is more effectively done in a Jewish or Christian context than in a Muslim one where the husband merely needs to say “I divorce you” a prescribed number of times to kick his wife to the curb with no help.

    Honestly, you would think they never taught history at St. Olaf or wherever. And it is sad to see someone simultaneously arguing for the rights of women while voting for a clown who is making steps to give nukes to the Wahhabis and Iranians. You want to see womens’ rights and gay rights violated in a real way? Book your ticket to Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.