McCain-backers argue for GOP gay marriage support

First it was the inept Meghan McCain last week calling for a “gayer GOP” and now it’s former McCain adviser Steve Schmidt. Both Meghan McCain and Schmidt were avid supporters of John McCain’s moderate wishy-washy Republicanism during the campaign so this sort of makes sense.

First the report on Schmidt from CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Steve Schmidt, a key architect of John McCain’s presidential campaign, is making his first public return to Washington a bold one.

Schmidt will use a speech Friday to Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to urge conservative Republicans to drop their opposition to same-sex marriage, CNN has learned.

“There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same-sex marriage,” Schmidt will say, according to speech excerpts obtained by CNN. “I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage.”

Schmidt makes both policy and political arguments for a Republican embrace of same-sex marriage.

On the policy front, Schmidt likens the fight for gay rights to civil rights and women’s rights, and he admonishes conservatives who argue for the protection of the unborn as a God-given right, but against protections for same-sex couples.

“It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un American or threatens the rights of others,” he says in the speech. “On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence — liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force,” Schmidt will say.

Next the inept Meghan McCain makes a juvenile argument titled “Memo to the GOP: Go Gay”:

This week, I will be speaking at the Log Cabin Republicans’ national convention in support of the gay community and its role in the future of the Republican Party. Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this is one of the ones closest to my heart.

The Log Cabin Republicans’ mission “is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians.” The group is centered on core Republican values, such as limited government, individual liberty and responsibility, an economy based in free markets, and a strong national defense. And in the spirit of the GOP’s founding beliefs—personal freedom and liberty—they are dedicated to securing full equality for gays and lesbians in America to create a stronger, larger, and more-unified GOP.

So why are gay issues so important to me? At the most basic level, sexual orientation should not be a factor in how you are treated. If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric. As you can imagine, the road for gay Republicans hasn’t been an easy one. Most seem to find the words “homosexual” and “conservative” inherent contradictions, much the same way so many people can’t seem to reconcile fiscal conservatism and the big-tent philosophy of freedom and justice for all. A dear friend of mine who’s both gay and Republican told me, “I find myself constantly being asked how I can reconcile who I am as a person with a party that lately has had such a gay-unfriendly message. Where I stand politically doesn’t begin and end with my sexuality. Unfortunately, there is a perception that gays with moderate to conservative views are self-loathing.” He often jokes that when he goes out, he wonders how his dates will react when they find out about his political beliefs. Then again, we have talked about if it has affected his work or career in any way and his answer is no—people are always respectful.

This dichotomy has been addressed on shows like The West Wing and in many other political commentaries in the past. Sometimes, gay Republicans are regarded in the same vein as “Jews for Hitler,” but my father garnered nearly 28 percent of the gay vote in the last election—up from the 20 percent President George W. Bush received in 2004—and there are nearly 20,000 declared members of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Note that Meghan McCain’s article was formerly titled “A Gayer GOP,” which was bad enough.

Where do I begin?

First of all, let me just shoot down the incorrect notion that dropping principles, flipping 18-0 degrees and embracing gay marriage will help conservatives win elections. It won’t, it will have the opposite affect. I don’t know if either Meghan McCain or Schmidt have noticed but in every state where gay marriage is on the ballot, it has been voted down by the people in that state. Even liberal California and Oregon are among those states where citizens voted “No” on redefining marriage as anything but one man and one woman.

Therefore, to change our views would mean we’re going against all of these voters and we’re no different than the liberals.

Meghan McCain is, frankly, annoying. I’ve seen her appear on television as a “pundit” and I gag every time. She can’t answer anything of substance, she’s like an uninformed high school student who somehow got some overnight fame. She’s using the emotional “two people love each other defense” which is pathetic, to say the least.

Here’s a memo to Meghan McCain: Why don’t you learn about conservative principles first before you unknowingly throw them all under your bus? Get a clue! Socially conservative Americans, which includes evangelicals, African-Americans and many others are not in favor of gay marriage. If we abandon this morally right position of defending the institution marriage we might as well kiss future elections goodbye. Social conservatives will vote third-party or sit out, guaranteed.

Marriage is a holy union set forth by God. To destroy that notion for some political gain is disgraceful, at the very least.

To submit on gay marriage would guarantee losses for the next 10 years, just like John McCain lost running as a Democrat-light. Do Schmidt and Meghan McCain not see that? Of course not because they ran such a brilliant presidential campaign, right?

Another memo to Meghan McCain: Re-register as a Democrat already and leave the GOP alone!

  • Meghan McCain: “If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric.”

    Dear Meghan,

    Meghan I am one of those younger people you speak of and am embarrassed that you call yourself a “republican”. Your attempts recently to throw conservatives under the bus is shameful, have you no class? Yet you questioned during the election why conservatives were weary of your fathers campaign. The McCain campaign including yourself marketed toward the wrong people. You continually reached out to the independents and moderates, how’s that working for you? Lets review, there’s a socialist in the White House and the McCain campaign lost yet another election. It seems to me like your attempt to “win” over young people and moderates failed, did it not?

    You will never understand the conservative mind because you will always be on the outside looking in. Frankly after your recent performances in the media and on your blog, I quickly realized that you stand for nothing. You’re unsure of yourself and its just awkward to watch. Just like your father you have no foundation. I suspect that you’re bashing of conservatism and gay marriage comes from a lack of Biblical understanding. It’s sad really, you seem to quickly dismiss someones moral principals so you can market your name and land high six figure book deals.

    Stay classy!,

    Conservative Gal

  • D.D.Mao

    It’s difficult for Ms.McCain to learn conservative principles when there is no one in her family who either believes in them nor practices them.Using the LIBERAL television show West Wing (who’s cast is campaigning for liberal causes even today)as an example of conservatives beliefs is not only delusionary but incomprehensible.Her and other so called conservative mercenaries of liberal policy who believe governing by bad means to achieve bad ends is the answer are using subjectivism about values and being puppets not prophets.

    Principle doesn’t follow the election returns;neither does the need to uphold it.

  • Babs

    You know, CG, I’m beginning to wonder if Megan and Schimdt aren’t the “insiders” who trashed Sarah Palin, and are now trying to trash the whole GOP. They both know that the GOP is never going to embrace “gayism”, so one has to wonder if they’re just trying to make the party look bad.

    I’m a McCain supporter – always was. And while his daughter has a right to any opinion she wants, she is definitely not the face of the new GOP. She would be more comfortable, and fit in better, on Obama’s team.

  • bones

    Mark my words, the GOP will embrace gay marriage. It may not happen soon, but it will happen. Why? Because for one thing, they have nothing to lose. Not unless a viable 3rd party emerges, or the Dems starts openly denouncing it. What’s going to happen if they become more gay-friendly? Are they going to lose votes to the DNC?

    I don’t think so. It’s the tyranny of a two-party system. Sorry folks.

    The GOP will shift that way because younger voters lean markedly in that direction, and they won’t be young forever. And it will swing that way because arguments against gay marriage are generally self-contradictory.

    If anyone was really against marriage because “marriage” is God’s word, than they’d respect the right of churches to conduct the marriage of anyone they choose to recognize as being married. Freedom of religion is a hallmark of this country, and I know my own pastor (who married my Aunt to my Uncle) would gladly perform homosexual marriages too.

  • Babs

    Is the Democratic Party for gay marriage? I was thinking they weren’t. But they’ll be the first to go that way.

    My Dad was a minister – and he would never have performed homosexual marriages. They can go to the courthouse and that’s fine with me, but not the church.

  • bones

    Not openly their not, bad for politics. I think many people view gay marriage as part of the ‘liberal agenda’ though, and you won’t find many self-professed liberals voting republican.

    I think the courthouse is a perfectly acceptable place for a homosexual union to take place, or a heterosexual union for that matter. It is, after all, partly an issue of Government recognition. But if the church is willing to marry them, and that’s where they want to go, it’s hard for me not to view it as religious oppression to deny the church that right. It’d be one thing to disagree with it, but something very different to send the message that the church doesn’t have the right to interpret God’s will for themselves.

    My pastor is both a recognized woman of God in her community and a lesbian. Who has the right to tell my church that that’s an incorrect interpretation of God’s will and our beliefs shall not be recognized?

    The Catholics still won’t allow women to become priests, and I disagree with that, but I’m certainly not in favor of pursuing the matter through the legal system. It’s just one reason I’m not Catholic.

  • Bones, by any chance is your church into new age religion? It sounds as though it might be.

    I ask you to respect the fact that churches and religions choose to uphold the word as it is written. I grew up Catholic and now attend a southern baptist church and can tell you first hand that both religions denounce gay marriage. Also there are several Christian religions that do not allow women to Preach at the pulpit for the same reasons they reject gay marriage, they uphold the word and do not pick and choose what is comfortable and what is not.

    As for gay marriage in society, Babs I have to tell you, Nates Dad just retired as a NYS judge and we’re thankful he did. Gov Patterson wants to introduce gay marriage legislation, although NYS Constitution defines marriage between a man and a woman, he would have never agreed to marry a homosexual couple. I haven’t spoken to him yet on about this but I’m interested to hear what he has to say.

  • bones

    What you mean, CG, is that YOUR churches and YOUR religion choose to uphold the word as YOU interpret it. I belong to an episcopalian church, and you can marginalize Episcopalians as as some “new age religion” if you want. That’s really no problem for me. Just let us practice our religion freely here in the land of the free. Religious suppression is flatly unamerican.

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    “Mark my words, the GOP will embrace gay marriage. It may not happen soon, but it will happen. Why? Because for one thing, they have nothing to lose.”

    You seem to think “win election” at all cost. As a LIBERAL, you do think that way. Certainly looks like it.. Look how Democrats won. obama promised anything to get elected. Then does as he pleases. You two has gotten off the “YELLOW BRICK ROAD”.
    …..

    “Not openly their not, bad for politics. I think many people view gay marriage as part of the ‘liberal agenda’ though, and you won’t find many self-professed liberals voting republican.”

    If one must hide his views in the shallows of dark backrooms, he stands for “NOTHING”.

    I vote a split ticket, voting for best man.
    …..

    “My pastor is both a recognized woman of God in her community and a lesbian. Who has the right to tell my church that that’s an incorrect interpretation of God’s will and our beliefs shall not be recognized?”

    “The Catholics still won’t allow women to become priests, and I disagree with that, but I’m certainly not in favor of pursuing the matter through the legal system. It’s just one reason I’m not Catholic.”

    How pompous these two contradicting statements make you. Is rightest for your church to have their view but so wrong for Catholic church to have their view in your view.

    Appears you ,as a liberal, is as “self centered” as you paint us Conservatives.
    …..

    “What you mean, CG, is that YOUR churches and YOUR religion choose to uphold the word as YOU interpret it. I belong to an episcopalian church, and you can marginalize Episcopalians as as some “new age religion” if you want. That’s really no problem for me. Just let us practice our religion freely here in the land of the free. Religious suppression is flatly unamerican.”

    I read Conservative Gal’s words. Did not see any that denounced your religion. “Marginalize” is in the view from which you sit.
    …..

    “[The last straw for Thompson and other conservative Episcopalians was the vote August 5, 2003, affirming the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a homosexual bishop who lives with a partner.] We saw this as a denial of the authority of scripture, rather than an anti-gay issue, … This is the first time a general convention of the church took a vote that officially endorsed something we felt was overtly forbidden in scripture.”
    Bill Thompson

  • bones

    Quick to label me, aren’t you? I’m not a liberal, just an independent jaded to politics. Obama wasn’t the first to promise far more than he could deliver. Politicians on both sides of the isle and in countries across the world have been doing that since long before 2008. It’s not a democrat thing, it’s what politicians do best.

    ““My pastor is both a recognized woman of God in her community and a lesbian. Who has the right to tell my church that that’s an incorrect interpretation of God’s will and our beliefs shall not be recognized?”

    “The Catholics still won’t allow women to become priests, and I disagree with that, but I’m certainly not in favor of pursuing the matter through the legal system. It’s just one reason I’m not Catholic.”

    How pompous these two contradicting statements make you. Is rightest for your church to have their view but so wrong for Catholic church to have their view in your view.”

    I don’t see how it’s pompous at all. I think women can serve as heads of church, the Catholics don’t, and I’m fine with that disagreement. I don’t need to go through the legal system to change their church, their beliefs are their right to hold and practice. Some of the finest people I know are Catholics, I don’t have much interest in trying to shoot down their faith, so long as I don’t have to adhere to it. Religious freedom makes America great.

    But when my pastor wants to marry two people of the same sex, freedom of religion doesn’t apply?

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    I shall call you LIBERAL if I wish.

    I don’t condone one wrong to justify another

    “I don’t see how it’s pompous at all. I think women can serve as heads of church, the Catholics don’t, and I’m fine with that disagreement. I don’t need to go through the legal system to change their church, their beliefs are their right to hold and practice.”

    For your convience you now add ” I think women can serve as heads of church, the Catholics don’t, and I’m fine with that disagreement. I don’t need to go through the legal system to change their church, their beliefs are their right to hold and practice. Some of the finest people I know are Catholics”
    __Changing your statement. How convient to switch and bait

    “The Catholics still won’t allow women to become priests, and I disagree with that, but I’m certainly not in favor of pursuing the matter through the legal system. It’s just one reason I’m not Catholic.”

    Certainly is pompous…Is clear what you wrote. Your chuch has female priest and Catholics do not, but would not pursue in court.

    Your rephasing now is too late. I warned you before, words written come back to haunt you.
    …..

    “But when my pastor wants to marry two people of the same sex, freedom of religion doesn’t apply? ”

    Besides you, who said that ?

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    Same sex marriage (legal) falls under government regulation. A religion or “cult” can do a marriage (legal or non-recognized marriage by government) if it so desires. Thus religious freedom.

  • bones

    Call me a liberal, call me pompous, call me whatever you want Bill. I think you’ve misunderstood my words. In any case, when you’re ready for discussion, I’m willing to have one. In the mean time, I think you should find a way to relieve your anger. It hurts no one more than yourself.

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    Discussion, use of reasoning, is not anger. Your use of word is to ignore you losing battle.

  • Bill Hedges

    bones
    “call me pompous”

    No. I did not call you pompous. I will prove quoting you…”I don’t see how it’s pompous at all.” Unless you are an “it’s”
    …..

    I did not misundertand at all. I have shown with your words.
    Unless you are admitting to having problems expressing yourself

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    Please use my words in context. You don’t want to draw different meaning of my words to slant against me ? Do you ?

    “How pompous these two contradicting statements make you. Is rightest for your church to have their view but so wrong for Catholic church to have their view in your view.”

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    I called you pompous concerning your 2 statements. Not in general. As when you said “Call me a liberal, call me pompous, call me whatever you want Bill.”

    Context bones. Context. Words have meaning

  • Babs

    “But if the church is willing to marry them, and that’s where they want to go, it’s hard for me not to view it as religious oppression to deny the church that right.”

    bones, this is a pretty big can of worms to open. What religon and the church is all about is the separation of what is right and wrong in their beliefs, so of course the church can stand against gay marriage if it is against their beliefs. It’s what they’re all about to begin with.

  • bones

    Well of course they can Babs, I think that’s completely valid. If we force churches to conduct marriages that the priest conducting it doesn’t believe can be sanctified by God, well that would sort of make the whole ceremony a sham.

    But it seems to me that by limiting the marriages she can conduct, the government is pretty much directly questioning my Pastor’s judgement, her connection to God, and her status as a religious leader. It’s hard not to take offense when the government is condemning aspects of your faith. I really don’t see how that’s their place

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    The government allows your priest to marry anyone she wants. as I have stated earlier. In the eyes of the Lord. What He thinks of it…?

    However legality is in realm of government not her or God as far as legal recognition. Spiritually is different.
    Something in Bible about “Give unto Caesar…”. Perhaps you remember that verse ?

  • Bill Hedges

    bone

    If you are not familiar with the verse or confused on what I mean, take a copy of my comment to your Priest, I am certain she can give you spiritual guidance about verse I referred to.

    Basically it means give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Give to God what is God’s.

  • Bill Hedges

    Luke 20:25

    International Standard Version (©2008)

    So he said to them, “Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
    …..
    New American Standard Bible (©1995)

    And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

  • bones

    I always interpreted that verse as pertaining primarily to taxes, so it’s not easy for me to understand how it applies here, but maybe it does in a way I’m failing to see.

    But in any case, it seems obvious to me that this is primarily a religious issue. Why else does the government see the need to differentiate civil unions and marriage? Marriage IS a civil union. Without religion, I don’t see the rational basis for amending the constitution to protect a word.

  • Bill Hedges

    Taxes is another earthly concern.

    Of course you don’t see it. That’s fine. Others will

  • bones

    Well hopefully Others can explain it to me and alleviate my confusion 🙂

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    Benefit of legal marriage is monetary. religious marriage is not affected by earthly concerns. Sooooo__

    Give to governmet (no monetary saving),get from God His marriage blessing (if blessed by God)

  • bones

    Ah I see your point now. But isn’t that roughly the same financial benefit you get from a Civil Union? Making two legal terms for the same basic benefits would seem to overcomplicate matters unnecessarily. This is why I believe religion is at the heart of the issue – because if it’s not religion, it’s some very bad policy-making. And why would the legal language of policy terms need to be voted on, or amend constitutions?

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    Civil marriage occurs say at court house. In State where only a man ad woman is recognized. A man-man would not be allowed for example.

    However, a man-man could have ceramony in church that does perform. Although the State does not recognzed and civil benefits would not exist. God’s blessing occurs if that is His will.

  • bones

    But civil benefits do exist if two men enter into a civil union. I just don’t get why there’s a need for this second term

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    The civil laws are of earth. Loss of benefits because of your choice of marriage patner is no concern of God.

    Religion is separate from government. Not joined at the hip. That appears to be your mistake, as the bible verse I quoted eariler explains.

  • bones

    I don’t think that’s a mistake I’m making. If we’re just talking policy, it makes no sense to have two legal terms for the same concept, let alone to amend the constitution for the sake of keeping the two terms separate. It sure makes no sense to ask people to vote on that. What is the advantage of setting things up that way? It would be vastly simpler to call all marriages ‘Civil Unions’, or all civil unions ‘Marriage’. But two separate terms for the same basic concept and benefits? It’s not sensible at all.

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    “But civil benefits do exist if two men enter into a civil union. I just don’t get why there’s a need for this second term”

    In States that do not recongized same sex marrage, no marriage lincese will be given.

    This can affect insuance of spouse on your plan. As a expample. Is one reason gays are fightng for this.

    I repeat, go back to Bible verse I gave. Civil law has its right, seperate from God.

  • Bill Hedges

    bone

    You want to pick and choice which part of the Bible you wish to believe, do so. That’s between you and Him. Not me.

  • bones

    I understand what you’re saying. But in many states Civil Unions confer the same basic benefits as marriage does, right?

  • Bill Hedges

    Bones

    This will end this for me on this subject.

    I believe there are four States that have voted to recognize same sex marriage. In those States anyone legally married have same legal rights

    You know there are two terms for marriage as we have discussed, not one.

    1. legal marriage as defined by State
    2. Marriage as defined by God

    In some cases they are one in the same. Other times, they are not

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    In a civil or religious marriage, if the two getting married are legal to do so, they sign a marriage certificate provided by State.. That marriage certificate gives them the benefits.

    If outside legal ability to marry, no certicate is issued, thus no benefit

  • Babs

    bones, I understand what you’re saying. I think this is where separation of church and state come in. If – in a religous sect – they believe in gay marriage, they can say their vows in front of the minister without obtaining a state marriage license. But if the state backs the gay marriage, and the church doesn’t, the church shouldn’t be forced into performing the ceremonies. Just my opinion.

  • bones

    I agree with you 100% babs. I just think the legal involvement of the government in marriage makes things terrible mucked up. It blurs a whole lot of lines

  • Bill Hedges

    bones

    It is not “terrible mucked up”. It is biblical upheld as well as by the courts.

    Marriage has been clear to everyone. Modern agenda groups/ special interest know what marriage is,don’t like, and why they fought so hatefully recently in California. Same sex can marry___ it’s monetary benefits they want___ Well Luke 20:25, as discussed earlier settles that matter. Government has the right. Citizens have the right to try and change the law. I have right to try and stop that change.

    I give you credit to know what marriage is. Your purpose for this drawn out discussion is not know ? Don’t care.

    “terrible mucked up”.. No way. You just don’t like the way it is.

    If I wasn’t trying to be logical and leaving my personal view out, I would say__ I believe 4 States are terrible mucked up allowing same sex marriage to be given a marriage certificate. They knew the rules so live with it unless you can get law changed.

  • Babs

    Yes, it does, bones. I’ve always thought the government should stay out of the business of the church – they answer to a higher calling than the president.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bill Hedges Apr 22nd, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    Luke 20:25

    International Standard Version (©2008)

    So he said to them, “Then give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
    …..
    New American Standard Bible (©1995)

    And He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
    ……………………………………………….

    The “God part” government stays out of concerning spiritual marriage. “Marriage or spiritual unions” can occur within the church (that choices to recognize) as dictated by the church’s own beliefs. Same sex marriage, etc..

    Government establishes taxes and other regulations as clearly allowed by Luke 20:25

    God clearly controls Marriage. Bible clearly in verse cited and perhaps other areas, leaves earthy matters such as momentary rewards to government regulation. God’s rewards will be determined on judgment day.

    Maybe example can be given where two people of same sex are not allowed to have spiritual marriage in church that performs such unions. To my knowledge, government does not stop.

    Separation of Church and State thrives in America concerning marriage. As well as supports Luck 20:25. I contacted my Pastor and emailed him this article and comments. He is in
    agreement.

    Although we can not change “Gods Will” except through false interpretation, there are ways to legally change man’s regulations.

  • Jersey

    Personally, as a lesbian, I believe this fact does not hinder my ability to love in the least bit… God accepts me as I am. No one can tell me different. If anyone chooses to attempt and take away my basic human right because they read a book not even written by God, with parts specifically left out before publication, and is nothing more than a huge game of “telephone” then so be it. However, when it comes time for me to decide who I will be spending the rest of my life with, why should that matter to anyone else? Who are any of you to tell me that God’s Will is to punish me for being happy? It is ashame that McCain’s daughter is more educated than the lot of you opposing gay marriage and I do pray that you see your own faults before you get so wrapped up trying to make gays unhappy in a country that is supposed to be a land of opportunity with (obviously) more “freedoms” than we can handle… Although a basic US value is written as “racism and group superiority themes” which is a sad concept to think about… Anyone who interprets God’s Word to oppress another human being has this entire idea of faith backwards… I pray that your inabilty to accept a large portion of God’s chilren who have committed no crimes against humanity outside of expressing love and compassion to whomeever they so choose does not become your own downfall leaving you out of salvation.

    “Who can make a law for lovers? Love is unto itself a higher law.”
    -Boethius (A.D. 534 – The Consolation of Philosophy)

    Peace and Blessings,
    A Lesbian Daughter of God

  • Jersey,

    I don’t care who you choose to spend the rest of your life with, that’s not my business. However, what is my business is watching homosexual relationships begin being recognized as a “marriage” which is a dichotomy.

    You have to realize that you are asking society to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuality as a recognized form of marriage. Holding that opinion is fine, but don’t expect me or anyone else who holds marriage as a sacred institution to trash our principles because you chose to engage in a relationship which is not included in the definition of marriage which is one man and one woman.

    I think it’s a little arrogant of you to tell those of us who want to preserve marriage between one man and one woman that we are uneducated and are in danger of losing salvation. Have you not ever questioned that homosexual activities may cause you to lose yours? I’m just asking since you seem to think the sword only cuts to your opinion, not ours.

    Tell me, why are you unhappy that you can’t alter something which has been defined as one man and one woman for thousands of years? Why do you define yourself like that?

    You choose to discount the Bible to make your points. That is very convenient for you, I’m sure. You claim to be a “lesbian daughter of God” yet you seem to rebuke the very book your faith is supposedly based on. I’m wondering what you read and where you learn about your faith and what God expects of you? Have you just created a faith in God which ignores biblical teachings? Just curious.

    If you want a civil contract between you and another person, that’s fine, we recognize contracts. Please though, don’t ask people to alter an institution with divine inspiration just because you feel left out.

  • Jersey,

    Why does marriage mean so much to you. If you don’t believe a word of what those “men” who wrote the Bible have to say, which the whole premise of marriage came from, marriage being a spiritual binding of two souls in the eyes of God, then you shouldn’t care that you as a homosexual cannot get married. You can’t have it both ways, not believe in the scripture which clearly states the premise of marriage, but you want to enjoy the privileges in which Christians who do believe in the scripture and live by the word enjoy, marriage. I will restate, you can’t have it both ways.

    I respect your right to practice homosexuality, however, what I don’t respect and I’m down right sick of is people like yourself who thinks your entitled to cram your lifestyle down my throat. There’s no “parade” for heterosexuals, but homosexuals feel the need to publicize your sexuality. Why is that? Your gay, so what. That doesn’t make you any better then me, and I’m certainly no better of a person then you. I would respect your opinion a lot more if you had the decency to argue your point on merit rather then feel the need to publicize that your gay, Big deal!

    Signing off,

    One Hot Conservative Gal Who Loves Her Husband and What He As A Man Can Offer, and What a Woman Cannot!

  • Path

    Hey I came a little late to the party but I wanted to add my 2 cents in quick.

    I live in Iowa so I’ve been hearing a lot about this lately. And I think its great what my supreme court did. They upheld the rights of a minority that were being denied by the majority. These were not activist judges (whatever that means anyways). They did not create any new laws. They just ruled in favor of my states constitution.

    The bible is not considered law in this country. The founding fathers wanted it that way. Marriage is no longer just a religious ceremony. Or do you think heterosexual atheist should be banned from getting married too? There are plenty of reasons outside of religion to get married. The most important is the legal binding the states give to them. For example tax benefits and employee provided healthcare. There’s more i just don’t want to go looking for them. The same benefits you and your husband get from the state/federal.

    “she’s using the emotional “two people love each other defense” which is pathetic, to say the least.”

    How is that pathetic? What if I started making fun of you and your husband and called your love a sham and not worthy. But I don’t think that, I bet you love him very dearly. It would not be my place to judge. And it’s not your place to judge other people either. If there is a god, and if he does think two adults loving each other is a bad thing, than he can be the judge when they die. Remember no church is being forced to marry people they don’t agree with. This purely a state legal matter.

  • Path, you really need to stop being so emotional and take a look a the constitution which points to such things as gay marriage as a “states rights issue”. So that being the case, and I point to the Supreme Ct ruling of Pennsylvania vs. New Jersey which is a states rights case, although it deals with garbage its a fundamentally sound case, your state of Iowa should have followed the law and put this up for a vote for the people of Iowa to decide. Then this would be constitutionally correct. We’re a country of laws (although Obama is do everything in his power to stem roll the constitution) and those laws should be followed. Philosopher Aristotle said “law is reason free from passion” and he was 100% correct. You may not like the law, but laws in this country have worked to govern since the Bill of Rights was drafted.

    I fully support a states right to vote on gay marriage, if those people in the state feel the same way you do then gay marriage will be legal. Those who don’t agree with gay marriage can then choose to live in other state. What I’m sick of is people under the persuasion of homosexuality thinking they have the right to exploit there actions and that everyone who is not gay needs to just swallow it. I mentioned a “gay pride parade”, what entitles these people to a parade? I don’t see one for heterosexuals. However when weird things are happening in the public restroom between two women, which I have encountered a few times, boy/girl girl/girl, that’s just plan rude and I don’t appreciate it and wow in the hell are you to subject me to it. My brother is gay, he flaunts his boyfriends around my mom and subjects her to his sexual behavior, I still feel weird kissing my husband in front of my mother. What did she do to deserve this, nothing, she loves him unconditionally. She had excepted him and never given him a hard time when it comes to his sexuality, she doesn’t deserve this.

    What if has humans we try and respect everyone instead of throwing your homosexuality in heterosexuals faces. Why the need for attention, I think its b/c some gay people such as my brother feel the need to flaunt it b/c there so self absorb. If your happy with your “choices” why do you feel the need to inflict your behavior on people who could care less that your gay. Is it to rub it in our faces and judge us for not being gay? Wheres the civility?

    Oh and Path, I will judge someone’s actions when I’m in a public restroom and subjected to it, or when my brother thinks its wise to discuss his latest sexual encounter with the family as where eating Thanksgiving dinner. How about when he makes a pass at my boyfriend, am i just suppose to except that? Please.

  • Path

    Your right this is a states issue. I’m not asking the federal government to support this.

    In My state the state supreme court up held our state constitution. We are a nation of laws and i’m glad our court system held up those laws. If the people want to change it they can amend the state constitution. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

    “I don’t see one (parade) for heterosexuals.”
    Whats stopping you from having one?

    Is seeing two pople loving each other really torture to you? Why doesn’t your mom deserve to see her son in love with someone else?

  • Bill Hedges

    When I go to a friend’s house, I go outside to smoke. He does not ask, I do it out of respect.

  • Path

    If you see two gays kissing does that make you gay?

  • Path are you serious, you call Barney Frank a “FAG” yet you think my mother at Thanksgiving or any other time should put up with my brothers homosexual stories and groping of men ? It’s classless and you Sir, if you believe this, you have NO class. You are such a typical hypocrite. My brother is not in love with these men, he currently has a 60 something year old sugar daddy and 20 year old boy toy.

    “If you see two gays kissing does that make you gay?”- STUPID

    I hope one day a man comes on to you, and you feel so incredibly uncomfortable that you forget that “two people loving each other” crap. Who knows, you may like it, you maybe gay. In that case, gay it up!

  • You calling Barney Frank a “fag” is so disrespectful, your an absolute hypocrite. I cannot stress that enough. You champion gay rights, but you turn and bash them.

  • Path

    Your brother does represent the entire gay community anymore than paris hilton represents heterosexuals. I see people of both genders do the same thing you described gay or straight.

    I have had men come on to me before. I live pretty close to iowa city which I’ve heard has more gays per capita than san francisco. I don’t know if its true but its pretty close either way. I just tell them I don’t swing that way. I’m comfortable with my sexuality and I know what I’m looking for. It can be kinda flattering to. Its still nice getting complements. Same when a girl starts hitting on me but if I’m not interested in her I just say thanks but no thanks.

    Barney Frank is a fag
    Barney Frank is a gay
    Barney Frank is a homosexual

    What’s the difference? Fag is only insulting depending on the context. If anything what I said was insulting the Republicans because they apparently can’t stand up him when they have control of two branches of government. According to Bill anyways.

  • Bill Hedges

    fag Offensive Slang
    Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fag

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    With your mis-quote of Churchill and twisting the meanng, quote me, ” “, exactly

  • Path

    haha how many times do you want me to explain that quote? I took a familiar saying and modified with my own words while still giving credit to churchill for the original saying. Thats not plagerism.

    Apr 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
    “Bush and McCain called it in 2005.”

    Republicans had control in 2005. Frank couldn’t stop them even if he wanted to.

  • Bill Hedges

    Are you talking about first or second time ?

    Really ?

  • Bill Hedges

    New Documents Uncovered by Judicial Watch Show Congress Ignored Corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for Years

    Washington, DC — April 2, 2009
    “Congress Warned on Fannie and Freddie Misdeeds, yet Liberals in Congress Blocked Attempts to Rein in the Government Sponsored Enterprises”

    “Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that as part of its ongoing investigation of the government’s role in the financial crisis it has uncovered new documents. The documents show that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even while liberals in Congress continued to block attempts to regulate the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs).”

    “Judicial Watch obtained the documents from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated December 4, 2008. Judicial Watch requested records related to members of Congress activity regarding the policy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase lending to individuals with poor credit risk, as well as correspondence and records about contacts between FHFA and Fannie and Freddie. Among the important documents:

    “FHFA letter, dated March 26, 2007, from the director of the Office of Housing Enterprise Oversight (OHFEO), James B. Lockhart, to U.S. Senators Elizabeth Dole, Chuck Hagel, Mel Martinez and John Sununu: “This is a very serious issue. Freddie Mac’s inadequate systems and controls make it a significant supervisory concern. Furthermore, its lack of timely public disclosures deny market participants the essential financial information made available by all other publicly traded companies so that investors may make informed judgments.” The letter also mentions, “…Fannie Mae still has not filed financial statements for 2005 and 2006 and thus, they are not timely filers either.”
    FHFA letter, dated December 3, 2004, to Congressman Barney Frank: “On November 15, 2004 Fannie Mae filed a Form 12b-25 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Fannie Mae indicated that its external auditors could not complete their reviews of its financial statements and noted the possibility of up to a $9 billion loss dating back to 2001. As a result, OHFEO has determined it will not provide a monthly capital classification at this time.”
    Letter dated June 16, 2006, from OHFEO Director Lockhart to Senator Chuck Hagel: “…In January 1999, Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines approved a recommendation made by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) (Tom Howard) and the Controller (Leanne Spencer) to defer recognition of $200 million in amortization expense. This deferral, along with other accounting decisions made at that time relating to provisions for loan losses and the recognition of low-income housing tax credits, allowed management to meet the EPS threshold for maximum bonuses.”
    Overall, these documents show that Congress was made aware of the massive problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last six years. Yet liberals, led by Congressman Barney Frank, repeatedly blocked attempts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

    “For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: “I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”

    “These new documents show that liberals in Congress were reckless when it came to the massive taxpayer liabilities related to Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Government officials at FHFA repeatedly sounded the alarm regarding fraud, abuse and corruption at these two GSEs while liberals in Congress, led by Barney Frank, blocked attempts to address the situation in a meaningful way.”

    link to follow

  • Bill Hedges
  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    You skipped the homosexual remark comment ?

  • Path

    Can you show me specifics on how the dirty liberals in congress blocked legislation? Frank can say he’s against legislation all he wants but he alone does not have the votes to block it. A significant chunck of republicans would have to side with him if its true. And I don’t see anything in there about how Mccain or Bush trying to stop fannie or Freddie. People in both parties dropped the ball. But the party in control usually takes blames for things that go wrong under their watch. Or should we just keep on passing the buck?

  • Bill Hedges

    You want me to explain committees to you as well.

    You news media is sady lacking. Fox will educate. I can lead you to water, but can’t make you drink.

    2-4-2 day

    You skipped the homosexual remark comment

  • Path

    I know how committees work. But the majority party still leads comittees. What was Mike Oxley doing?

    I do watch fox. Shep Smith is one of their better reporters. But again its 10% news and 90% crap commentary by people with no education. You need to get information from a wide selection. Each one has its faults

    I thought I posted a responce to the fag comment but then I can’t find them so I’ll say it again.

    Words evolve. The dictionary is usually the last place to update. I have had many gays friends. We all use it. They have never gotten upset with me. Because I never use it in a negative way. Its all about contex. That might go over your head.

  • “I have had many gays friends. We all use it. They have never gotten upset with me. Because I never use it in a negative way. Its all about contex. That might go over your head.”

    Why the need to call people names, “fag” is a derogatory word. Here’s a thought, try using language that will elevate the conversation instead of berating a person or group of persons. I really hate when people use crass language, it’s classless. You can prove your point without labeling.

  • Bill Hedges

    Path

    Always insulting..”That might go over your head”

    “I have had many gays friends. We all use it”

    I did not know you were friends with Frank !

  • “We all use it. They have never gotten upset with me. Because I never use it in a negative way. Its all about contex. That might go over your head.”

    Here’s context that I know will go over your head. You use the term “fag” and you sound like an intolerant neanderthal because:

    A) We’re not your “friends”

    and

    B) Other people reading this forum will know you are an intolerant, derogatory person who uses terms like that.

    Talk about going over someone’s head. It’s all about context, right? Well we’re in a different context right now than you and your friends.

    Either way, it’s the same old liberal hypocrisy. You can use terms like “fag” because you use it in “context,” however, if someone else uses it then they are being discriminative and closed-minded.

    Maybe you need to evolve your vocabulary and refer to people as people, not derogatory terms.

  • Path

    Ok you all can focus on that while ingnoring all my other points

  • Bill Hedges

    path

    “Less known are the reasons al-Mansour, an activist African-American Muslim, would be a key backer for a young man from Hawaii seeking to attend the most Ivy of the Ivy League law schools.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4821

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4821

    I have provided my link. Now anser:

    Bill Hedges May 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 am
    Bill Hedges May 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
    Path

    You wish to be insulting, Insensitive in language(I will use term gay), and all round heal.

    I am to ignore and answer you.

    No. An out right apology and change in behavior might get results you are asking for.

    You seem to play games. personal am not playing. You can’t force another to argue, I wish to discuss

    path says”. I was up for a challenge and I guess I needed to blow off some steam too. ”

    Sounds like games I was referring to
    ….

    Bill Hedges May 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
    You conviently forgot reason for my saying that. That was stated before I said ” f*** myself “

    Obvious reason is ” ” would tell my reason. You did not wish to make me look reasonable.
    …..

    You do not want to ” ” but imply__Use your interpretation of my comments.

    It that what “twisting” is

  • Path

    You obiousely don’t know what the word Imply means. Or how to reply to the right conversations. At lest you were able to finally provide a link. Wasn’t that hard was it? Too bad Khalid Al Mansour isn’t part of the Saudi Family. Or that any of it is true.

    “The information Mr. Percy Sutton imparted on March 25 in a NY1 News interview regarding his connection to Barack Obama is inaccurate. As best as our family and the Chairman’s closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_camp_denies_Sutton_story.html?showall

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Sutton_family_retracts_Obama_story.html

  • Bill Hedges

    You wish to be insulting, Insensitive in language(I will use term gay), and today you add senile old man.

    Gee, why would I respond to you ?

  • Path

    because you can’t prove me wrong

  • Hi there, I do think your blog might be having browser compatibility problems. Whenever I look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however, if opening in I.E., it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to provide you with a quick heads up! Besides that, fantastic site!

  • Can I just say what a relief to find somebody who truly knows what they’re talking about on the net. You definitely know how to bring a problem to light and make it important. More people should check this out and understand this side of the story. I was surprised that you aren’t more popular given that you surely possess the gift.

  • I want to to thank you for this wonderful read!! I definitely enjoyed every little bit of it. I have you saved as a favorite to look at new stuff you post…

  • Good day! I simply wish to give you a big thumbs up for your excellent information you have here on this post. I will be returning to your blog for more soon.

  • After I initially commented I appear to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now whenever a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment. There has to be a way you can remove me from that service? Appreciate it!

  • Good web site you have got here.. It’s hard to find excellent writing like yours nowadays. I truly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!

  • Pretty! This has been an incredibly wonderful article. Thanks for providing these details.

  • I blog frequently and I really thank you for your information. This article has really peaked my interest. I’m going to bookmark your blog and keep checking for new details about once per week. I opted in for your RSS feed as well.

  • A fascinating discussion is worth comment. I do believe that you should publish more on this issue, it might not be a taboo matter but usually people don’t discuss these topics. To the next! All the best!!

  • It’s hard to come by well-informed people in this particular subject, however, you seem like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks

  • Aw, this was an incredibly nice post. Taking a few minutes and actual effort to make a top notch article… but what can I say… I hesitate a lot and never seem to get anything done.

  • Greetings! Very useful advice in this particular post! It’s the little changes that produce the biggest changes. Many thanks for sharing!