A Houston Republican on marriage, fundamentalism and the culture wars

Here’s a little quiz. Which raving lefty in the Democratic Party penned this:

We do not live in a theocracy. Our country is not a church. And that is by design. The Founders of this country insisted upon religious freedom. Obviously, the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of every voter inform our laws through the people they elect to represent them. But the Constitution guarantees that the majority of voters in any state cannot override the basic protections outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment for any minority group – to do that would require another amendment to the Constitution.

It is time to recognize that homosexuals have the same rights as any other citizen. I suppose that states could simply stop recognizing all marriages, like a state representative in Oklahoma is attempting but that seems to be rather extreme. Short of that, all citizens should be treated equally under the law.

The answer, of course is: none of them. That quote comes from Houston’s Republican blogger David Jennings. Hearing this kind of rational, thoughtful, consistently conservative argument for same sex marriage coming from a Texas Republican grassroots activist is a very encouraging development.

I have no idea why Republicans keep talking about homosexuality in any context. Gay baiting was a briefly successful strategy during the Bush Era, but we have worn it out completely. Now it backfires, further feeding the perception of Republicans as bigoted curmudgeons out of touch with American values.

Perhaps the end of gay baiting in the Republican Party could mark the beginning of a shift toward a more sane agenda. That isn’t happening yet, but as more Republicans like David Jennings recognize the conservative case for same sex marriage, the closer the party will get to that critical mass.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Civil Rights, Uncategorized
156 comments on “A Houston Republican on marriage, fundamentalism and the culture wars
  1. Patrick Letellier says:

    I just read this post and was intrigued, so I clicked and read more of David Jennings’ writings. Sorry to see that the man you describe as a “thoughtful, rational” Republican sang the praises of one Jared Woodfill for Mr. Woodfill’s “success” at preventing the City of Houston from offering benefits to the partners of its gay and lesbian employees. [Nov 5: City of Houston restrained from offering same sex benefits.]

    “He will do well as the next state GOP Party Chairman,” Mr. Jennings concludes.

    Wow. Mr. Woodfill’s action, and Mr. Jennings’ praise of it, does not just further paint Republicans as bigoted curmudgeons out of touch with American values. That’s too polite. As a gay man, these men look to me like classic gay-haters, determined to go to any lengths to deny gays and lesbians our seat at the table of full civil rights. In other words, they look like classic Republicans. And that’s a sorry state of affairs.

    I’m looking for “thoughtful, rational” Republican writers to help me understand the Republican values that look, to me, like they are driving the country into the ground: anti-gay and anti-choice policies at every level; a determination NOT to raise the minimum wage, despite a 47% poverty-rate in the U.S.; anti-immigration policies infused with racism and race-baiting; a denial of the reality of climate change (even writing this seems laughable); and an insistence on inserting Christianity into every aspect of life, including this most recent debacle with school textbooks.

    I want some insight beyond the right-wing/left-wing sound bites. Your most recent piece on the 2014 mid-term elections is insightful–and a very good read. But I won’t read Mr. Jennings again. And I think your praise for him was premature.

    • goplifer says:

      Needless to say, there is much that David and I disagree on. For better or worse, David is the most reasonable, balanced voice in the Republican blogosphere in Texas. If you find that horrifying, well…the news gets worse from there. And if you think that’s bad, best stay clear of Arizona.

      • Patrick Letellier says:

        Ha! I appreciate your frankness. I’m impressed with your writing and really pleased to have found your blog. Who do you read for a national perspective? In other words, what Republican bloggers do you read who are thoughtful, balanced, etc., regardless of where they are in the country?
        I guess I’m looking for a Republican version of Andrew Sullivan–who used to be a Republican, actually. Very smart and thoughtful, a big-picture national thinker, and a skilled writer. His political views occasionally repulse me, but he’s smart and a good writer–so I go back for more.
        And yes, I don’t look to Arizona for anything other than trips to the Grand Canyon.The anti-gay and anti-immigrant craziness coming out of that state’s politics are just plain toxic.

      • goplifer says:

        David Frum

        Occasionally James Pethokoukis at AEI

        Sometimes David Brooks, thought the elitism can be tough to choke down.

        Used to read Kathleen Parker, but she’s just trying to hard to stay lined up with the team. Starting to sound ridiculous.

        Josh Barro

  2. Anse says:

    I’m late to the discussion, so pardon me if this point has already been made, but it’s important to understand why gay marriage could be a watershed moment of change in this country and why it could have the most profound impact on conservatives. The whole basis of the social conservative opposition to gay marriage, and gay rights in general, is a hysteria based on a nonsensical association between the private behavior of consenting adults and what they see as the larger climate of the country. These people think that letting gay people marry will destroy the nation. They cannot draw any logical connections that would lead a person to make that conclusion rationally; all they can do, ultimately, is point to the Bible and make some broad assumptions about hetero-families and tradition. What support for gay marriage does is make a big dent in the penchant for “magical thinking” that is so common in this country, but especially common among religious conservatives.

    • John Galt says:

      I agree up until your last sentence. I doubt this will be a turning point in much of anything beyond gay rights. Dragging social conservatives into the 21st century will have to be done issue by issue. Even then, I am concerned that their conviction that we’re on the road to hell, and that the rapture is near will lead (is leading) to a lack of motivation to solve real problems in this country. Why do hard work when the end is nigh?

      • flypusher says:

        The old social conservatives will contribute to the change by dying off. The younger people are more willing to acknowledge that if Adam married Steve, the sun still rises the next morning, and life and business carry on as usual,

        I’ve heard analysis that all these discriminatory amendments and laws are the last gasp of old school social cons who saw the demographic writing on the wall and figured this was their last chance to stymie the change by getting those laws in place while they still could. I’m surprised they are falling and failing so quickly now, but it’s a good surprise. We don’t need Bronze Age social standards dictating our lives.

      • Anse says:

        The only thing about the road to hell is that we’ve been on it for 2,000 years. Every generation of Christians thinks they’re the last one. I should state that I don’t think Christianity is going anywhere; it will be with us for generations to come. But it will be very different.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        I like to think that the Rapture already happened, and all of us are what is left to deal with the aftermath.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Anse, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried harder. You do not understand scripture, faith and believers. That is clear.

      Christians believe in God, His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. We believe the scriptures is our guide to improve ourselves and become more Christlike while we still walking the planet. If you know your scripture the two greatest commandments are “Love your God with your whole heart and soul and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

      For Christians who do love God with our whole heart, we want to obey God. God Himself said homosexuality is abhorrent so I cannot support homosexuality anything. Do I hate homosexual’s? No. I love them like all others and pray for them but as a Christian I can’t tell God he is wrong on the homosexual issue. Even though my head can’t get around it, my heart has to stay with faith.

      You can deride it or make fun of it and there is even a scripture for that. “Be ye not deceived, God is not mocked.”

      The only people that have a hard time understanding faith are those that don’t walk it faith.

      • flypusher says:

        ” God Himself said homosexuality is abhorrent so I cannot support homosexuality anything.”

        Actually it was men claiming to speak for God who said that, and their knowledge of biology was lacking.

  3. flypusher says:

    A cease fire in the culture wars would be fine with me. But then the politicos would have to start thinking (and maybe even doing things!) about real issues that actually affect people. Can they handle that?

  4. geoff1968 says:

    Excuse me while I kiss this guy, and other moments of moral ambivalence. People will do stuff that I don’t like, and I suppose I will do things that others do not. As long as they conform to the basic and necessarily secular laws I don’t have a problem.

    That being said I would hope that the US remains a Christian nation, not by force but by moral suasion.

  5. MD says:

    There was an article back around 2010 in TIME I believe in which a gay conservative pointed out the conservative case for gay marriage. The conservative case for gay marriage is that the government, state or federal, has no right to intrude on a couple’s union or define marriage to just one man and one woman. Religious institutions don’t have to marry them but the government can. We were not founded as a Christian nation, the Founding Fathers

    If a same-sex couple works, pay taxes and contributes to society, like Pope Francis said recently, who are we to judge? The gay marriage ban laws 10 years ago is an intrusion on liberty.

    The problem with conservatives in America is the Religious Right hijacked the conservative movement in the 80’s and turned it into a litmus test saying if you don’t believe in Jesus, are pro-choice, etc… you are not a “true conservative” (what does that mean anyway? code word for white Christians only?)

    My advice to Republicans: Leave same sex marriage alone and leave it to the states, you already have a bad image in the LGBT community and do you really want to tarnish it further just to please a shrinking base?

    Do what the Conservatives in Canada did. Do not touch it or reopen the debate, do not open old wounds.

    • CaptSternn says:

      Maybe you should read the comments here. we conservatives, tea party movement members, have either said we don;t care about it or that the states should recognize it. The blocks that vote democrats in the 90% plus range are the ones strongly opposed to same sex marriage, unless they are conservitive leaning.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      Yep Stern, it is the Democrats that are holding back gay marriage:

      Support for same-sex marriage in the U.S.
      Democrat: 64%
      Independent: 58%
      Republican: 34%
      All Adults: 56

      Support for same-sex marriage in the U.S.
      Jewish: 83%
      Unaffiliated: 73%
      Catholic: 57%
      Protestant: 37%
      All Adults: 56%

      Support for same-sex marriage in the U.S.
      Northeast: 60%
      West: 58%
      Midwest: 51%
      South: 48%
      All Adults: 56%

      Support for same-sex marriage in the U.S.
      18-34 years old: 65%
      35-49 years old: 54%
      50-64 years old: 45%
      Over 65 years old: 39%
      All Adults: 56%

      So, let’s summarize. The groups with the lowest support for same sex marriage are older Protestant Republicans from the South and Midwest. Nope, that doesn’t sound like the Tea Party at all.

      Wait, there is some data for that too.

      Tea party “members” tend to skew older:
      75% are 45 years old or older, including 29% who are 65 plus.
      Hmmm…which age groups are least likely to support gay marriage?

      They are also more likely to be men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).
      Incidentally, women are about 8% more likely to support same sex marriage.

      More than one in three (36 percent) hails from the South, far more than any other region.
      Let’s look above, and yep, the south is least likely to support gay marriage.

      54% identify as Republicans, and another 41% say they are independents.
      Yep, Republicans are less likely to support gay marriage.

      Sixty-one percent are Protestant, and another 22 percent are Catholic.
      Fortunately, the wildly liberal Catholics are pulling up the Protestant numbers.

      Stern, maybe this is one of those “no true Scotsman” issues that you seem to bring up.

      None of these folks are really tea party members, and it is the dastardly Democrats with their highfalutin’ math and stuff that are making the polling numbers look bad for you.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Very nice try Homer. Doh! Captain and I are TEA Party people and we know many TEA Party people and we could care less about social issues. The only people I know that focus on social issues and color is liberals. I don’t know what your smoking but you look silly.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Buzz…to suggest you and Stern don’t care about social issues kinda flies in the face of a few hundred comments on this blog alone.

        It is always those darn liberals who just keep proposing anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion legislation. Heck, if the liberals would just quit introducing those bills, we would never hear about abortion or gay marriage again.

        Aside from that, I think it is almost always a good idea to let your personal anecdotes outweigh a boat load of consistent and repeatable data.

        Heck, most of the folks you know were going to vote for Romney, so obviously, the polling data were wrong.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Silly Homer. We are talking about TEA Party people not generic conservatives or GOPers. My comment still stands. You and your ilk always count color and go about legislating social engineering.

  6. GG says:

    Where is he lashing out?

    • GG says:

      Crap should have been way at the bottom under Dan’s comment.

      • DanMan says:

        You lost again GG? Calling the guy he agreed with fat when he found out he didn’t agree with him. Seems kind of tacky but that’s how hypocritical liberals roll.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Well Danny IS the Grandmaster (Flash) of hypocrites so I will defer to his expertise…

      • GG says:

        Where did I say someone was fat? Maybe I need more coffee.

      • DanMan says:

        man you have a hard time keeping up GG

      • GG says:

        Nope, Dan, read the comments at the bottom. I never said anyone was fat. As usual you are just speaking out of your ass and flinging poo and trying to get it to stick.

  7. Tuttabella says:

    Putting aside the question of whether marriage is a privilege, a right, or an entitlement — I would say that however it is defined — whether at the federal, state, county, or municipal level — the law, in general, should be more inclusive, versus exclusive, and in this case, extend the “rite” of marriage to any consenting adults who choose to enter into this contract and want the “blessing” of the courts.

    • DanMan says:

      Any consenting adults? Suppose a widower with a 30 year career in the US house of representatives is diagnosed as terminally ill. Should he be allowed to marry his grandson to pass on the ‘plus 1’ retirement bennies he has?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Dan, a little common sense can go a long ways. Then again, what harm would be done to you even in your example?

      • DanMan says:

        me personally Capt none but I look at a bigger picture. I have a neighbor who has her grandmother’s retirement bennies for life. Her grandmother and mother got together and decided that would be the better option for the family. Her benefits are paid by CalPers, which went with the ‘plus 1’ bennie concept years ago to take the impact to the budget issue away from gay marriage opponents.

        It never worked as far as the voters went so ultimately the courts were called to the rescue it but I find it odd that a 50 yo Texan gets her grandmother’s pension bennies via her 9 year job as a cafeteria worker. No biggie to me there but CalPers ain’t exactly rolling in dough from what I hear..

        Did you know that congress just changed the benefits packages at the federal level to ‘plus 1’? It is the ongoing push to get as many people subsidized in as many ways as possible that gets under my skin. I have always said my issue is fiscal policy and the ramifications of unbridled debt. This is just another push in that direction.

        And what was the point of providing some kind of recognition of the financial impacts of raising a family on a married couples income? I would assume it came from the old model of a typical single earner household. Then the tax code was jiggered to address the two income household and during the Carter years it was considered a marriage penalty.

        Now we are extending the benefits of public employees to the demographic with the highest incomes and lowest need for the concept of subsidizing a family through the tax code.

        And note, my argument is not against private companies extending as many benefits to as many people in whatever kind of arrangement they feel like paying for. No worries for me. If that company’s fiscal model allows them to compete in the market, profit and provide those benefits that is just fabu. But I can’t stand having the government pick who gets benefits with no regard for the impacts to our fiscal outlook and use that carrot to buy votes.

        I’m pretty sure this ride won’t last much longer but at some point the house of cards has to fall and the reason will be because more people are taking than giving.

        btw, my stance on illegal immigration falls along the exact same line. Like Dan Patrick, I have spent time and money trying to get people I know who are not legal legal. I know them and I like them and appreciate their circumstance. However, opening up the borders to all comers is national suicide in my opinion.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Dan…all of your arguments apply to heterosexual unions, why save special condemnation and way-over-the-top snarkiness for gay folks?

        I get that it is fun to troll, but I don’t get the appeal beyond that.

      • DanMan says:

        homebody, how in heck do you equate a grandmother choosing to give her grand daughter her lifetime retirement bennies as heterosexual? I was arguing the point as being unsupportable financially and questioning the motives for such a system, which is vote buying. If that gives you shudders that’s your problem.

    • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

      yet, you would be OK with this House member marrying a dancer at Rick’s so that she could get his benefits.

    • John Galt says:

      Marriage is none of these things (on a legal level). It is a series of laws that codify the rights and responsibilities of one person to another. It is a legal contract that requires the parties be competent (from a legal sense) adults or, in some mystifying places, consent from a legal guardian.

      It is not marriage that is the right, it is the principle that all citizens must be treated equally under the law. We have laws governing marriage. They should be applied equally. Why would the gender of the two parties be germane to this set of laws?

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Unless your a minority or woman. They have special rights.

      • Tuttabella says:

        “Marriage” would still have to be defined, in order to distinguish it from other types of contracts. A marriage may not necessarily involve love, consummation, or procreation, but it is more than a business arrangement and accords special benefits and privileges that business partners do not have. We can’t ignore that. You can’t have equal protection without having definition first.

      • Tuttabella says:

        True, we have special rights now, to make up for the centuries that only White men had all the special rights, in the hope of leveling the playing field, and I look forward to the day that my special rights will no longer be necessary, and that the idea of special rights for anyone — because of gender, race, or creed — or for any reason — will be an alien concept. It won’t happen in my lifetime, but anything and everything is possible.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Hey, wait a second. As a white male over the age of 40, I’m kinda curious about all these special rights women and minorities get.

        Could someone please enlighten me?

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, affirmative action, set asides, lowering standards. Have you not been paying attention?

      • Tuttabella says:

        HT – First, you have to list all of your own special rights and privileges. I know you enjoy that.

        “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful,” said HT, guilt-ridden.

      • Houston-Stay-at-Homer says:

        Stern, didn’t you have a whole big diatribe below about rights versus other privileges and other things?

        It is fun to have white dudes complaining about all the advantages minorities and women have.

        If you are concerned about affirmative action, set asides, and lowered standards, you either don’t really understand those things or you are worried about some pretty small issues or “rights”.

        Tutt, you are hitting the parlay with a minority female, so you should have a pretty long list of advantages.

      • Tuttabella says:

        My apologies to Kabuzz and HT — both “nefarious” White men — I can’t assume that either of you has had any special rights in particular, or that if you have, that you should feel guilty. We’ve all been blessed in different ways, through no “fault” of our own.. I’m sure I’ve benefitted from being a Hispanic woman, through affirmative action in college, and with respect to things like being able to take time off from work to care for my elderly mom, something which in the case of an unemployed man might be seen in a less favorable light. We are products of our times and circumstances, and we work with what we have, and all we can do is make the most of it, and if we can help each other out when we’re down, even better. Life is not a contest. We can all thrive.

      • desperado says:

        “I look forward to the day that my special rights will no longer be necessary, and that the idea of special rights for anyone — because of gender, race, or creed — or for any reason — will be an alien concept.”

        First of all, there are no “special rights.” Things like affirmative action and minority set asides are not special rights. As you noted, they are an attempt to balance the scales from a time when one side had all the rights and the other had none. That effort is still ongoing and still needed.. Anyone who has the notion that everything is hunky dory, even Steven, isn’t living in the real world.

        The day when these programs are no longer needed might come quicker if it wasn’t for constant Republican efforts to roll back the progress that has been made. In areas like women’s rights, voting rights, and equal protection for gays, Republican legislatures in states all across the country as well as Republicans on the national level are hell bent on denying rights, taking away rights already won, and re-fighting the battles of 50 years ago.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Desp., your comment is totally contradictory but what else can we expect from you.

        Tutt, I have to say I enjoy the liberals assuming I am a white male do to my conservative beliefs. But you??? I never think in color or position.

        That being said, the playing field is never even and never will be. No one can pay for someone else’s past sins. It can’t work that way. People won’t stand for it.

        10% of all major city, state and federal contracts have to go to minorities or women. After that, they can also go after the 90%.

        Women have a much easier time getting leave from employment to take care of the children or parent. I know we have FMLA but the position you come back to for a man might not be recognizable to that when he left.

        So the liberals harp about equal protection and equal rights, but it’s a smoke screen. They believe in neither.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Tutt…I am a very good looking dude (at least my momma always told me so), but you shouldn’t hate me for that.

      • John Galt says:

        So you’re worked up about reserving a whole 10% of government contracts for 68% of the population?

  8. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    Just because they cannot help themselves…we have lovely Steve King (R, of course) Iowa talking about his disappointment that Arizona didn’t carry out its “Lets discriminate against gay folks” law.

    “When you’re in the private sector and you’re an individual entrepreneur with God-given rights that our founding fathers defined in the Declaration, you should be able to make your own decisions on what you do in that private business. And I’m always uneasy about the idea of the philosophy that you’re a private-slash-public business, because you have a door that’s open that anybody can walk in. That doesn’t mean that you have to perform any kind of service that they demand.”

    Now, that sounds a whole lot like our friend Stern.

    But hey, Kind catches himself, and realizes we do have some laws about those kinds of things, and by golly, he kinda has to at least sound like he likes those laws. So, he says,

    “Although we have—it’s clear that in the civil rights part of the code that you can’t discriminate against anybody based upon—not sure I’ve got the list right, but—race, creed, religion, color of skin, those kind of things.”

    Whew, unlike Stern, King is a politician, so he has to say, “ hey, we like folks of different races, religions and stuff”. So, onward he goes,

    “And there’s nothing mentioned in [civil rights laws] about self-professed behavior, and that’s what they’re trying to protect is special rights for self-professed behavior and I think it’s difficult for us to define a law that would protect behavior.”

    Hmm, self-professed behavior…I wonder what that would be? So, he goes on.

    “If it’s not specifically protected in the Constitution, then it’s got to be an immutable characteristic, that being a characteristic that can be independently verified and can’t be willfully changed.”

    So our Mr. King is OK if we deny service or otherwise discriminate based on self-professed behaviors, things that can be willfully changed, or things that are otherwise not immutable characteristics.

    Now, the irony that no way does Mr. King see (‘cause he’s an idiot) is that most of the “religious freedom” he is trying to protect from the gays are pretty self-professed behaviors that are willfully changed, and are far from immutable characteristics of a person. Contrary to what my momma might have wanted to think, folks aren’t generally born Baptists.

    So, the gays’ self-professed behavior is bad, and we must protect the straights’s constitutional and god-given self-professed religious behavior from them.

    See, this is why we can’t have nice things.

    • GG says:

      And, of course, it HAD to be Texas. Sigh……people already think we are all idiots.

      • texan5142 says:

        I know right. What concerns me is that these guys are making YOUR laws and they fall for crap like this. Does not instill much confidence does it when people that stupid are making the laws that govern the state. Sad!

      • DanMan says:

        what a bunch of rubes! like all those idiots that believed a community organizer when he made a bunch of promises to get elected and they all turned out to be lies. Unbelievable people fall for this stuff in this day and age.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Good point Dan. They really swallowed everything the empty suit said.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        If you folks believe what politicians say, I’m kind worried about you.

        One promise that Obama did deliver on was pretty important. If he was elected, he promised not to have McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan running the country.

        He delivered on that promise, and really, we are all better for it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “He delivered on that promise, and really, we are all better for it.”

        No, we aren’t.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Sucks to lose your special privileges huh Cappy?

    • Crogged says:

      They weren’t stupid, they were victims of someone who went out of their way to prove he was one of ‘them’ and built up their trust. It happens all the time and to all of us. Here’s a pun, they were prayed on by a predator.

      • DanMan says:

        oh man, somebody left the irony on!

      • Crogged says:

        I wouldn’t vote for a candidate who believed in ‘literal’ versions of Old Testament stories, but it doesn’t mean an accountant can’t balance a ledger if he believes in Daniel and the lion’s den and it doesn’t mean he is stupid.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Texan, I read that and saw classic “karma’s a female dog”, “whatever goes around, comes around”, and all the usual karmic irony clichés.

      These weren’t benign religious nuts. They pushed for discrimination against gays in the public school system and for the ultimate in karmic irony payback, they were opposed to the right of the general public to sue for redress and donated to groups that lobbied against the ability to sue and now they could only recover “pennies on the dollar” from the swindle.

      In the their own language, I see this as God’s punishment for promulgating their hate and incontrovertible proof that God loves gays and is not a gay hater.

  9. desperado says:

    As long as Dan, Kabuzz, and Stern are the voice of the GOP there will be a Democrat in the White House. The Repubs will most likely hold onto the House until the next redistricting in 2020, and they may make some gains in the Senate if they stop running wacko TP candidates, but there will be a Democratic in the Oval Office to veto whatever crazy stuff they pass. Proceed.

    • Texan5142 says:

      You mean Stern the constitutional scholar who ignores the Equal Protection Clause when talking about gay rights. You can not have it both ways Stern, you seem to pick and choose what parts of the constitution you like when it comes to your beliefs.The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      “States should recognize contracts between consenting adults, same sex, opposite sex, polygamous or even group marriages. But that has little to nothing to do with rights.”

      Tell that to the dying long term partner of a same sex relationship when they are not allowed to be by their bedside or to make medical decisions. You are a fascist Stern, wrapped in a rebel flag.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They do have equal protections, Texan. Free speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, trial by jury, privacy. etc., etc., etc..

        BTW, any person can set up another as power of attorney, they can will property to another, and they don;t even have to be married to those people in order to do so.

      • texan5142 says:

        Nice tap dance Sternn.

      • John Galt says:

        Equal protection under the law means ALL the laws, Sternn.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John. And the states can’t fine, arrest, imprison or strip the citizenship from people that claim to be in a same sex marriage. They can’t do any of that if a person is a homosexual. They must respect the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, privacy and so on.

      • John Galt says:

        They also have a right to equal protection under the laws, all of them all the time. It’s right there in the Constitution.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, John. Again, they do have equal protection under the law. The laws apply to them just as they apply to the rest of us.

  10. DanMan says:

    The whole gay marriage deal is a bennie grab with the added liberal bonus of marginalizing Christianity and its influence. Any back sliding straight guy can see that.

    • Turtles Run says:

      “Any back sliding straight guy can see that.”

      That just sounds gay.

      • DanMan says:

        you hear what you listen for turtlehead

      • Turtles Run says:

        and I read what you wrote and that was REALLY gay. Something you want to come out and tell us?

      • vivalagalgo says:

        Oh yeah, marginalizing Christianity. I forgot to do that today. I hope I don’t get reported for not following the leftist, liberal agenda.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Don’t worry about Viva. I did a little extra marginalizing so you can have that bit of overtime I put in.

      • GG says:

        Do liberals have an agenda. I know there is supposed to be a gay agenda and it includes brunch and bellinis, which I guess means I’m gay, since I did just that yesterday. The man I’m fornicating with might be surprised.

    • goplifer says:

      OMG. “back sliding straight guy.” Interesting.

      • DanMan says:

        chris and turtle sittin’ in a tree…let’s see how many more go for it

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Danny Boy, quite a few of us see you for the flamer (in a multitude of ways) you really are. You just don’t see it yourself and it only slips out via Freudian leaks.

        Embrace your true “nancy boy”, Danny. You’ll be a much happier “man” for it and possibly even a nicer one. Or at the very least a little less of a richard.

      • DanMan says:

        I admit its tough being me bubba. I am a sexual magnet. I am constantly having to rebuff the advances from all sides. Beating off the chicks that are constantly coming for me is one thing but beating off the gays, lesbians and other assorted deviants is really taxing at times.

        I do the best I can though.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So you admit to beating off a lot Danny Boy?

        That’s progress for your “issues” I guess.

        Baby steps.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Chris, I can take the name calling but when it starts getting foul, to me it gets out of hand. Again, Bubba is out of control.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Buzzy, wearing your one way blinders glasses again? Oh,that’s right, you never take them off.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So “nancy boy” is acceptable civil dialogue for you buzzy?

        Hypocrisy seems to be your only value of choice buzzy.

    • Crogged says:

      Yeah, and insurance makes us dependent on ‘bennies’ so to hell with all that too………

  11. kabuzz61 says:

    Of course RightonR is wrong. I know conservatives and most don’t care. The people of faith care but only to the obedience of God. Up until a couple of years ago both parties were against gay marriage. Chris Ladd is trying to put this issue in one corner. It has many.

    Marriage is a state issue and should be handled by each state. Just as elections being handled by each state and not the federal government.

    Now I would like Chris to acknowledge that some dem’s don’t support gay marriage, most African Americans, and most Hispanics.

    When you see everything through the prism of a liberal lens, you miss the picture. Shame Chris.

    • Turtles Run says:

      It does not matter who supports SSM or not. The whole issue is based on equal treatment under the law and states that do not allow SSM are in violation of this constitutional amendment. No religious freedoms are being denied and if states want to deny homosexuals the same rights enjoyed by other citizens then they need a compelling reason to do so. The fact that they have not been able to do so in any court case just underscores the weakness or the far right wing’s claims.

      • DanMan says:

        bake me a cake nancyboy!

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’,
        Keep them comments trollin’
        Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’,
        idiot-hide

        He, trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
        Pile ’em on, rile ’em up,
        Rile ’em up, pile ’em on
        Pile ’em on, rile ’em up,
        Idiot-hide

      • texan5142 says:

        Yep! Best not to reply to the Richard.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So, Danny BOY, what is it with your fixation with dominating other men? Dominating perceived/projecting effeminate other men at that.

        I’m guessing Danny/Rayon was watching the Oscars last night and mimicking Jared Leto’s character as he was rooting for him to (deservedly) win the Supporting Actor Oscar.

        Danny, you really should embrace the Liberals as we openly accept your differences only if you would yourself. Isn’t that more freeing and satisfying rather than have us note your salient hypocrisies in your tortured self loathing cry for attention/acceptance hate rants?

      • GG says:

        Speaking of the Oscars, I watched for the first time in years. The only movie I’ve seen is American Hustle but after seeing clips of Twelve Years a Slave and Dallas Buyers Club I think the actors that won truly deserved the awards. Unfortunately, I didn’t know who a lot of the entertainers or many actors were. Channing Tatum???

      • DanMan says:

        bubba, I’m not sure who you are referring to but if my lucid comments running circles around your cumbersome takes is me dominating an effeminate man I surely apologize to you if you were offended. And only if you were offended. If you just want to appear to be a victim as so many libs do, well then just toss off* bub.

        * not sure exactly what that means but I heard one of GG’s British ancestors say it and the context sounds correct.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Danny Denial is still stubbornly in control. Danny, Danny Danny. Let your true Rayon self out. She has been yearning to be free for so long. This is the opportunity now Danny.

    • rightonrush says:

      Wrong on what? Wrong that David Jennings was gotten to and endorsed someone he professed to have no use for? It’s business as usual in the Harris Co. Republican Party.

  12. CaptSternn says:

    States should recognize contracts between consenting adults, same sex, opposite sex, polygamous or even group marriages. But that has little to nothing to do with rights.

    • GG says:

      As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
      “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men …”

      I’m going to go with this.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Yes, once people, natural born citizens, would be stripped of their citizenship and imprisoned for marrying someone of another race, even imprisoned simply for cohabitating. That was a violation of their rights. We have nothing like that going on today.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        So you’re not for the happiness of free women???

      • GG says:

        No it isn’t and isn’t it great too? Gays should have the same federally protected rights that were granted for different races to marry. They aren’t imprisoned but they are denied spousal rights. Do you know how many long time gay partners are denied being at their partner’s side in hospitals or while they are dying, then having that person’s family bar them from the funeral and any end of life decisions? It’s terrible.

      • CaptSternn says:

        They do have the same rights. But they don’t have all the privileges. There is a major difference between rights and privileges.

      • GG says:

        Cap why don’t come out and say you are against gay marriage personally because of religious bias? It is not a “privilege” to marry. It’s part of that whole “pursuit of happiness” thing. Remember that? It is a privilege to drive a car.

      • CaptSternn says:

        I am against same sex marriage, and it is because of my religious views. But I still think states should recognize the contracts between consenting adults anyway. It does me no harm. Being issued a license and having the state recognize it is a privilege. They have the right to marry anyway even if the state doesn’t recognize it. They wont be fined, jailed or stripped of citizenship.

        FYI, owning and driving a car is a right, as long as you keep it on the ranch, farm or whatever private property you have. It is a privilege to drive on public roads.

      • Turtles Run says:

        Being issued a marriage licence is a necessity to be able to legally claim the status of marriage. By denying same sex couples this licence then the state is forbidding these people from obtaining the legal benefits of this right that enjoyed by other citizens.

        Marriage in this country requires legal documentation and the simple claim of marriage does not afford people with the rights and benefits afforded marriage.

        Much like calling oneself a conservative does not make you and the rest of the tea party actual conservatives, saying you are married does not make it an actual marriage.

      • GG says:

        See how easy that was cappy?

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…your very narrow view of Loving is interesting (and probably not all that accurate of an interpretation of the ruling). You will note that Warren did not state the “right to not be imprisoned or stripped of citizenship”, and the precise wording of these statements is a painstaking process. I don’t think that was a typo.

        Would it be correct to infer that you would have ruled against Loving if it did not involve prison or citizenship?

        Is your libertarian/state’s rights view OK with Virginia having the ability to say, “hey, you white folks can’t legally marry black folks”?

      • CaptSternn says:

        HT, it is not illegal for two people of the same sex to get married in any state. They have the right to get married. If they were fined or otherwise punished, then it would be a crime and infringe on/deny their rights. That is why the anti-sodomy laws of Texas were thrown out, they actually infringed on/denied rights of people.

      • Turtles Run says:

        They are punished by being denied the same benefits and rights that a legal marriage comes with. It affects their lives in many profound ways that is unneccessary. Marriage by its definition in this country is based on a legal contract by denying that contract you have made it illegal for them to get married.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        GG is such a liar. Going by talking points. Anyone can visit and know their medical condition in a hospital if you have been given the okay for the code almost always the patient. Gosh! Learn something. You are the weakest link, bye-bye.

      • Turtles Run says:

        If anyone knows liars it is the King of Liars the ole’ hooded kitty himself.

      • GG says:

        No, buzzy. This is a common occurrence in the gay community. Maybe you should talk to some, you little liar.

      • GG says:

        Well, well, buzzy, the grumpy cat did find out something. Obama did take care of gay and lesbians to some degree. Of course it only covers some hospitals who take Medicare and Medicaid, not all, but this is good news. Still tragic that some are being kept apart because of bigoted, homophobic families and still worse that places like AZ would like to keep it up.

        http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hospital-visitation-rights-gay-lesbian-partners-effect/story?id=12642543

        Good, kitty, good, kitty.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…I think you might have missed my questions in there. Look again.

        I think I know the answer, so I don’t mind you samba-ing away from the question. I just really, really, really disagree with your view of the way the country should be. The “principled” stand of states’ rights just does not hold against the material harm of others.

        “Because freedom” isn’t really a good enough reason to have Virginia not legally recognize marriage a between white and blacks, thus affecting a whole host of tax-related and other issues, which would put an unnecessary burden on interracial (same sex) couples not faced by other groups, which would then be found unconstitutional since no one could show material harm in getting rid of that unnecessary burden.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Um, what, HT? It was unconstitutional to be required to use the long form 1040 when I had my own business since I generally would use the 1040EZ when I worked for somebody else? Really? Oh, the horror. I should have taken it to the Supreme Court.

        Well, all this will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. But I really don’t think the argument is going to be over which tax form a person has to use.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        I don’t know Stern…we just had a SC ruling about the estate tax as it relates to gay folks.

        There will be dozens of nails in the anti-gay marriage coffin, and more than a few of them will be tax-related issues.

        Live in a state with different income tax rates for marrieds versus singles, have different estate laws for marrieds versus singles, any state service or fee that is cheaper for a married couple or “family” that does not include gay folks?

        All of those are nails that are going to be hammered into that coffin.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Still doesn’t fly, HT. It won’t fly because now you are suggesting that states discriminate against people that are not married, suggesting that doing so is unconstitutional. By your argument, it is unconstitutional to allow parents to get tax deductions for their kids because people without children get no such tax deductions.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Are you apologizing for lying GG? I hope so. Either that or tell us you commented out of ignorance. Either way.

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Stern…we just had a SC ruling about estate taxes for a gay couple. Not legally recognized where they lived. I know you know about it. You commented on it.

        I don’t remember the SC kicking it out because people without kids did not get tax breaks when people with kids get tax breaks. They do not get tax breaks because they are married, they get tax breaks because they have kids.

        State with income tax rates that affect officially recognized “married” folks differently than non-officially recognized married folks will lose those cases. States being squirrelly with divorce laws for people legally married in other states will find themselves losing those cases.

        Heck, the moral argument won’t be what brings this down. It is going to be differential treatment when it comes to taxes and finances.

    • desperado says:

      Civil rights are not a state by state issue. The Constitution says equal protection, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That’s it.

      • CaptSternn says:

        This has nothing to do with civil rights, nor does it come even close to comparing with the civil rights movement.

      • GG says:

        Actually they view it very like the civil rights movement. Their civil rights.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Let us know when they get sprayed by authorities with firehoses, jailed and beaten by the police, etc..

        Oh, right, their civil rights are not being violated.

      • Turtles Run says:

        So just because the police are not beating them down at court houses means their civil rights are not being denied. Well fortunately, the courts do not seem to agree with you and since it is their opinion (based on reality) that matter then you can make up all the excuses you want.

      • GG says:

        At least not yet. Wouldn’t put it past some bigot, homophobic right wingers though. Fighting gay marriage is a losing battle.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        I am sure GG have some bigoted, GOP, gay, N word spewing friend that she ‘knows’ that has enlightened her on this issue. I mean she understand the military because her uncle served. BWAAHHHH!

      • GG says:

        Buzz, you are really being an idiot today. My step-father, not uncle, served in Vietnam. My uncle and aunts chose Navy and did not see combat. My grandfather served in the Navy in WWII.

      • GG says:

        Anything else in my family tree you’d like to know Buzzy? I’m mainly English, Irish, Scot with some Dutch, German and Swedish thrown in as well as some Osage and Cherokee. Earliest came over in 1629??? from Norwich, UK. One of the great grandmothers came out West in a covered wagon and there are still stories in the family of her being visited by Indians and feeding them biscuits and apple butter because they wouldn’t leave. I’m also related to John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

        Anything else?

      • DanMan says:

        The interesting thing about the American experience in this country is that we are sort of a mongrel people. I mean, we’re all kind of mixed up like GG is.

      • GG says:

        Mongrels, yes, subhuman no.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Mongrels, yes, subhuman no.”

        Unless they aren’t quite born yet.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Cappy, are you claiming President Obama has not been born yet? Please expound how that is acceptable to describe your President? I’m sure you will prattle on at length. Don’t forget to toss in defense of the Confederate flag in there too.

  13. GG says:

    They are alienating a whole lot of gays who would otherwise vote Republican if not for the ridiculous bias against gay marriage.

    • DanMan says:

      Gays are welcome to vote republican any time they want.

    • GG says:

      But they don’t because of homophobia from the party.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      • Turtles Run says:

        GG is using the word in perfect context and meaning. Your lack of comprehension is what is once again on display.

      • DanMan says:

        hmmm, GG speaks for all gays now. So how far is the GOP from getting the votes of a black gay guy? or a black Hispanic gay guy? oh my, what ever could they do to get the vote of a transgendered black Hispanic female?

        According to your logic they would have to abandon whatever values you perceive they have that shows they are biased and adopt the ‘anything goes damn the debt’ attitude you libs have.

      • GG says:

        Hardly, Dan, but I do know some and some don’t care for Obama and would have voted for a sane GOP candidate like Huntsmann, hell, some would have voted McCain but he had to go and pick that “family values” hypocrite Palin.

      • John Galt says:

        How far is the GOP from being appealing to voters who are homosexual? Not that far, probably. Just stop calling them sodomites bent on corrupting the youth would be a start. A lot of gays are fiscally conservative, but when confronted with a party that disrespects their wallet or one that disrespects them as people, it’s not really a hard choice.

      • DanMan says:

        that’s rich GG, Palin’s a hypocrite eh? Obama had the same view I did right up until August 5th 2012. That’s the date he signed a debt ceiling extension and ran off to Hollywood for a huge fund raiser for all the gay libs in Hollywood. And then we got a week of his hilarious evolving BS after raking in millions of their dollars to back their gay marriage agenda.

        Guess the illegal immigrant lobby didn’t pay him enough.

      • GG says:

        Dan, most politicians are hypocrites. Some are smarter though. Frankly, in an IQ test I’ll go with Obama over Palin.

      • DanMan says:

        and some are better liars, we know which ones you appreciate in that regard as well because you bought the lies

      • GG says:

        Because I’m not on here daily spewing venom against Obama does not make me believe every word out of his mouth. I don’t believe everything any of them say. You guys are the ones who call him “messiah” not us. I am cautious about ALL politicians but especially the ones who are conservative because they seem the most hypocritical in their personal lives.

    • GG says:

      Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

      : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

      — ho·mo·pho·bic adjective

      • CaptSternn says:

        Discrimination has nothing to do with a phobia, an extreme fear. But it is nothing new for the left to make up definitions as they go. I doubt people that do not want state recognition of same sex marriages have any fear of homosexuals.

      • vivalagalgo says:

        I like this definition:
        Homophobia? You’re not phobic, you’re not scared, you’re an ***hole.
        -Samuel L. Jackson

      • Turtles Run says:

        GG

        Maybe a picture of a homophobe would help.

        [IMG]http://i59.tinypic.com/2labskx.jpg[/IMG]

      • Turtles Run says:

      • GG says:

        Generally, it does Cap. Maybe not a realized fear but it is rooted in fear.

        “Some studies have shown that people who are homophobic are more likely to have repressed homosexual desires.[61] In 1996, a controlled study of 64 heterosexual men (half said they were homophobic by experience, with self-reported orientation) at the University of Georgia found that men who were found to be homophobic (as measured by the Index of Homophobia)[62] were considerably more likely to experience more erectile responses when exposed to homoerotic images than non-homophobic men.[63] Another study in 2012 arrived at similar results when researchers found that students who came from “the most rigid anti-gay homes” were most likely to reveal repressed homosexual attraction.[64] The researchers noted that this explained why some religious leaders who denounce homosexuality are later revealed to have secret homosexual relations.[64] The researchers noted that “these people are at war with themselves and are turning this internal conflict outward.”[64]

  14. rightonrush says:

    The TeaP’s will accuse Big Jolly of being a RINO. Jennings and I share a couple of things, one is a total dislike of Jared Woodfill.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: