Posts
I used to be like you -- which is to say, I was once an angry Democrat, too.
"Born that way," you might say. Well, I wasn't born angry, but I was born a Democrat. Hard-core yellow-dog Democrat, too. I voted for Mondale, for crying out loud.
The Democrats paid me back the same way they always pay back their most loyal constituents: Those two-faced weasels stabbed me in the back. (I mean, really, what part of "From My Cold Dead Hands" is so hard to understand?)
OK, so now you've been ripped off, sold out, and stabbed in the back by the Democrats. Join the club.
Did you know Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat? By his own admission, the Gipper was once such a "bleeding heart" liberal that he unwittingly joined two Communist Party front groups in the 1940s.
So if this latest knife in the back from your Democratic "friends" is one betrayal too many, maybe you should consider becoming an ex-Democrat, too. I mean, if you want to raise millions of dollars for untrustworthy politicians who oppose gay marriage, the Republican Party would certainly welcome your support.
I'm just sayin' . . .
UPDATE: Some of you angry gay Democrats are probably asking, "But what's in it for me?" Just because Republicans are never going to support your identity-politics agenda doesn't mean they don't have anything to offer you.
For example, think of the delicious fun of payback politics, evening the score with those Democrat bastards who sold you out. How do you think Cynthia Yockey became Ann Coulter's favorite lesbian?
UPDATE II: Welcome once more, Instapundit readers! Just to clarify: I'm a married father of six with 20 years of monogamy to my credit, so the only person feeling my pain for the past two decades is Mrs. Other McCain. And despite the Speedo-filling studliness, don't believe those porn-star rumors . . . LIES! ALL LIES!
On the other hand, some traits are hereditary and who knows what Other McCain Jr. has been up to . . .
UPDATE III: Little Miss Attila's right: The GOP's "incompetent half the time, but not truly evil." Hmmm. Exactly what Mrs. Other McCain says about me . . .
Get Yourself to Mass
-
It’s Christmas Eve and with one son sick the schedule we had for today was
disrupted but there is one thing that’s going to happen no matter what. I’m
gett...
5 hours ago
I'm a gay independent who voted for Obama and is open to voting Republican next time around, depending on who it is. It'd help if Republicans stopped being so condescending towards gay people and hostile towards the idea that we want to form families and have them protected just like straight people.
ReplyDeleteGay Dems are incredibly pissed right now. I think plenty would be willing to defect if a moderate Republican who supported civil unions came though. Of course you wouldn't have any of that would you?
Gays can have families and have them protected just like straight people. What gays are asking for is special recognition beyond what rights they have now.
ReplyDeleteDems in general should be pissed if they are waking up and smelling the scam that is Barack. Join the club. We have jackets.
"Republican who supported civil unions came though"
ReplyDeleteDick Cheney supports his daughter, although I guess you couldn't call him moderate.
Be a gay and get a family like everyone else. Adopt or have a child by a woman and promise to support both till death parts you. Otherwise a gay lifestyle precludes a family since you chose to have as a life partner a person of the same sex. Of course if you are a lesbian it is a lot easier to have a child. Either artificial or natural insemination. Since a lot of men do not want the responsibility or acknowledge their children that is not hard to so.
ReplyDeleteMankind has been on his planet for many years and the primary family group is man, woman and children.
As a conservative I agree in individual choice, what you have as your romantic partner is your choice. I do not care what you do in your home. If you manage to have children great, be a good father.
Just do not try to push or promote to be gay on children in the schools, which is the agenda that has ticked me off. Also the shock displays of gays pride in SF and other places are meant to shock and be vulgar. That type of behavior also ticks people off.
I had to be careful when I took children to DC never to schedule during a gay march because I really did not want to explain to young kids why men were wearing such exposing clothing.
I support a gay person as a human and believe they are more likely to be attacked and should be armed. Get medical power of attorney and have your partner sign it so you have control of medical care if your partner gets incapacitated. There are legal remedies for most what gays want. If the states want to approve gay marriage by the legislature, I accept that. Don’t have judge decide for us though, that marriage is to be redefined.
I am ok with civil unions but that does not appear enough to gay folk. They had that law in CA and still they pushed to appropriate the label of marriage. So a push back was natural.
If your political goal is gay marriage, Obama will not help you. He is against that. Republicans won’t either. Your best bet is to push in the states to get the reps and senators there to get a bill that sets it up like NH did.
Didn't Dick Cheney come out in support of gay marriage?
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of Republicans would be fine with civil unions, maybe even gay marriage. A lot of us don't really care either way, we're much more concerned with taxes, corruption, government spending, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's when the gay community and gay advocates try to force these down our throats, by circumventing the law through the courts, or attacking us and calling us bigots when we exercise our right to vote for what we want to, that's when we are going to resist and push back.
At this point in our country, for anyone who is interested in true freedom and individualism and self-determination, the Republican party is really your only choice, as sad as that is.
What Anonymous said at 7:30 is the way most conservatives, Dem and Rep, feel. Do what you want but don't shove it in our faces. Institute civil unions. Just don't try to re-define the word "marriage." It is a sacred institution. Get your own word (concept). Maybe "Gayrriage." Society doesn't have to conform to the wishes of those on the fringes.
ReplyDeleteNeshobanakni
"Dick Cheney supports his daughter, although I guess you couldn't call him moderate."
ReplyDeleteCheney goes a lot farther than that: he's publicly called for gay marriage: "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
But you are right on one thing: that is not a moderate position.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_us/us_cheney
As John Lydon once said: "Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?"
ReplyDeleteDitto anonymous - I don't give a damn what one does with his personal life. I just don't want to have marriage be defined as anything but that between one man and one woman. Anything else is poison to a society. Children should come to understand that homosexuality is an aberration, not the norm, but that those who are homosexual are no less deserving the dignity due to the rest of humanity. Reserving marriage to heterosexuals in no way compromises that dignity.
ReplyDelete"...I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."
ReplyDeleteSo I can marry a goat, and anticipate that the goat gets my SS benefits when I die?
Just where is the line to be drawn?
Get the government out of the marriage business. Only one's family and one's spiritual advisor (in my case, a priest) have the right to pronounce it a "marriage." Not the state.
ReplyDeleteAnd that institution has changed plenty. Certainly its functions remain 1) protecting the partners involved, and 2) protecting any children that result.
However, the meta issue is that this should not be a Federal concern in the first place: let the states work it out, since there are complicated legal issues that are better determined from 50 different research laboratories than one big incompetent (Federal) government.
"It'd help if Republicans stopped being so condescending towards gay people and hostile towards the idea that we want to form families and have them protected just like straight people. "
ReplyDeleteYou wanna form a family, you marry a person of the opposite sex. Nature made the rules, not us.
"Gay Dems are incredibly pissed right now. I think plenty would be willing to defect if a moderate Republican who supported civil unions came though. Of course you wouldn't have any of that would you?"
ReplyDeleteSee, if you stopped being so hostile and condescending, we could discuss that idea like grownups. But you seem a bit too wrapped up in your own feelings for that.
George Bush said if states wanted to have civil unions it was great.
ReplyDeleteThe gay that wanted to have protection for her family is woman, if her name is an indication. If she has a child, a mother primary rights are generally the ruling in case of breakups. It is the other woman, like many fathers in hetero marriage, that loses rights to the child in a breakup.
ReplyDeleteSo in thoses cases the family courts rule in favor of the biological mother is the same as non gays.
So what does Elizabeth really want society to protect? Does the biological mother or father get primary custody of the children? If one partner had the child that woman is the biological mother and has primary rights.
It gets more confusing for males, unless on he convinces a woman to have his child and give it up to him. The only solution is adoption or a male gets cutody of cousin, neice or nephew. That may not be so uncommon with family breakups and another member of the family takes in a relative's children.
My neighbor is taking care of an unrelated child because the father is in jail and the mother is drug addicted. I have taken in another child since the family and and he could not manage to get along. None of these are legal adoptions, just helping out another child due to feeling a duty and wish to help. But like kittens, once you seem to be open to helping kids they end up in your home.
I really do not need any further protection vy statute so why does she? AI can't tell since she has not explained her desire in detail.
Any yes I am the poster at 7:30pm
RAH
Oh, my brothers! Viddy well, yes, viddy well.
ReplyDeleteThere's an uphill way to get there and a downhill way. And the uphill way frequently leaves you farther than before from where you want to be.
If you go uphill, you will insist that churches read their scripture to say you are good -- and you will insist that schools teach your practices as good -- and you will look to government to quash any that say bad things about you.
If you go downhill, you will be good in your community so that churches ask themselves, "and why is that not holy?" And you will be good in your homes so that schools ask, "what sense is there in condemnation?" And you will seek to banish the government from personal relationships, because allowing it a place in your heart makes you subject to the dictates of the mob.
When you make common cause with people, they say: "Why not have your dearest companion at your sickbed?" "Why not support your partner in adversity?" "Love is rare enough, why not let it flower?"
When you bring in big brother, they say: "Who is your ally?" "How much is your allegiance worth?" "What can I say to which group, and what will it cost me?"
Considering what states have done to gays and lesbians over the last few millenia, you would think that they'd seek to join with libertarians and small-government conservatives. Many choose another path.
But when they choose that other path and find that their loves are subject to unwanted state control, let me give them a preview of what they'll find:
HA!
I am conservative and I support civil unions because I believe adults should be able to enter into legal contracts to protect their assests and obtain health benefits etc. I am opposed to same sex marriage because I think it will lead to polygomy, tri-ads, and all sorts of other "marriages" which will be terrible for our society. If gays can marry then it would be discrimminatory if polygomists were denied the same right.
ReplyDeleteI know the media likes to portray conservatives as "hating" gay people but that isn't the case at all. Many of us have real concerns about destroying traditional marriage since this is the foundation that humanity has built civilization upon. Look at the damage the high divorce rate has done to our society in the last 30 years? Divorce was supposed to "liberate" people and instead it has trapped alot of women in proverty and deprived children the benefit of having both parents to raise them.
The issue isn't about being "hateful" to gays, but about be protective of an institution that has served humanity very well for thousands of years.
I think gay people would do their cause a world of good if they could explain how being married would be good for society as a whole instead of just focusing on how "unfair" it is that they can't get what they want. That and stop calling people who voice a concern a homophobe or a bigot. You might be surprised how many of us would be willing to listen to and work on a compromise.
To me, Conservatives really want two things: to be allowed to live as individuals, doing their thing (even if it's considered odd by the mainstream, and as long as it's not hurting others), and treated with respect.
ReplyDeleteIn return, Conservatives are willing to treat those they consider "oddball" with respect, and allow them to live however they want (as long as nobody else is getting hurt).
From what I've seen, I've seen a whole lot more Gays talk down to and pillory Conservatives, than the other way around (I'm leaving out the various religious groups, because that's a religious, not a political, thing - there are religious liberals as well as conservatives, which makes this whole thing so interesting).
Anyway: I don't see Conservatives saying "no" to gays. What I see are Conservatives saying "if you want to be treated with respect, and want my support, why are you treating me with disrespect and attacking me as soon as I say anything? That's no way to treat someone if you want to work with them".
So, if you're Gay,
try listening.
try being "able to agree to disagree".
try looking at all the issues on the table.
Being Gay is like being Heterosexual - it's only one aspect of who you are. If your whole self is defined just by your sexual orientation, you need to get out more...
But don't try lecturing Conservatives on what's wrong with them, or you'll get the same response you give when someone lectures you about what's wrong with being Gay.
Personally, as a Conservative, I'm for Gay marriage, for the same reasons as Otto Bismark was for having everyone owning their own home: the more personal support/network one has, the more robust/resilient the society will be. Notice that this is a purely economic argument.
For the same reasons, I want a balanced budget and low inflation - high inflation is very disruptive to a society. I want to see less regulations - established rich people can afford to buy lawyers and connections to get through the red tape. The young, poor and uneducated can't, and so they are denied any chance to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder.
Elizabeth said...
ReplyDelete"Gay Dems are incredibly pissed right now. I think plenty would be willing to defect if a moderate Republican who supported civil unions came though. Of course you wouldn't have any of that would you?"
Who's condecending? Anyway, check out some polls. I think a majority of republicans support civil unions but expect it to be handed at the state level (re: not a federal issue). I also thought that president Bush supported them. From our POV, the democrats are using it as a wedge issue over the word marriage... which to many republicans is a religious sacrament that the state shouldn't be involved in [re]defining because it gets away with taxing it.
Gay Democrats must never have the hand of friendship extended to them. Not because they are gay, but because they are Democrats.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth exposes for all to see what others commenters have perceived but not named: she doesn't want tolerance, acceptance, or respect, she wants us all to drop to our knees whilst wailing, "Oh Goddess! we can never be as good, as pure, as hip, as edgy as you! Please, take everything we own whilst you kick us in the face so that we can pretend to not be total scum!"
Elizabeth - I am a Republican who thinks gay people should have all the rights of a married person. My idea is this - every person should have the right to confer their ss benefits and other benefits on one other person no matter what. I think 'marriage' is a matter of symantics. If rigourous religious protection is bulit in - I have no problem with gay unions, whatever. It is a wave that is coming. Repubicans are stupid to miss this opportunity - they need to ride this wave - Please join us all gay people!!!
ReplyDeleteIf marriage is a sacred institution (and I believe it is) then the State has no business in it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that there are two definitions of marriage: The sacred institution, and the legally-binding contract. If two consenting adults want to enter into a contract, be they straight, gay, whatever, they should be allowed to. But it should not be called marriage. The State should *only* recognize civil unions, period.
You want to get married? Talk to a priest.
So where do fiscally conservative ex-Democrats go now? I've wasted my support, financial and otherwise, on Republicans for 16 years. Clinton turned me into an ex-Democrat, and Bush has turned me into an ex-Republican.
ReplyDeleteMaybe fiscally conservative ex_republicans and pro-gay rights ex-Democrats can do something together; combined, we have to be at least 5% of the population.... nevermind.
Anon 3:18A said...
ReplyDeleteWho's condescending? Anyway, check out some polls.
Um, who's "polls" are considered valuable as
a reasonable reference on um...ANYTHING? Last week? Next week?
Tell me what you want to "prove". I'll find a "recent survey conducted by (college/lobbying group/cosmetics company) to "support" anything you like, after "editing" of course. If not, "a recent insider who, because of confidentiality, shall remain nameless said..." will have to do.
Why the sudden (last 4 years or so) dependence on "a recent(nondescript)poll" by MSM "news" and flash in the pan ilk of pundits? Prudence? Expediency?
Like so many others here, I'm a Republican who wants government out of marriage altogether; I'd rather go the Italian route and have a civil union for EVERYbody, with religious ceremony for those who choose. I object to the terminology "gay/same-sex marriage" because, as a (more or less) conservative, I've concluded over my forty-two years that there IS benefit to that which has stood the test of time, and we should hesitate before making large changes to such things.
ReplyDeleteWhich is not very coincident with my view on getting government out of marriage, replacing what is called a "marriage license" with a similar doc formalizing a civil union, I know. Which is why I'm also a Federalist - we have fifty States; why not let them loose on the problem? (Indeed, the big danger from hardline social conservatives is not, I think, "outlawing" "same-sex marriage" but rather undermining the structure of the nation by arrogating a power to the Federal government that's CLEARLY not Constitutional.) I'd like those experiments to happen legislatively, though, not from the bench in response to protest ranging from measured debate and appeal to temper tantrum. Convince the VOTERS, not the judges.